Miller, Cynthia; Millenky, Megan; Schwartz, Lisa; Goble, Lisbeth; Stein, Jillian (2016). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED571142
Reviewed: September 2023
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
1.70 |
0.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a certificate |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
1.20 |
0.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a Bachelor’s degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received an Associate's degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a Master's degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Received a degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.01 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received certificate |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
1.10 |
0.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a Bachelor's degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received an Associate's degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Received a Master's degree |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Enrolled in a 2-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
15.10 |
8.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in any college |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
21.30 |
12.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Enrolled in a 4-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
3.00 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in a less-than-2-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attended college part time |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
10.10 |
3.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attended college part time |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
17.10 |
8.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attended public college |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
15.50 |
8.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in a 2-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
17.70 |
9.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attended college full time |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
7.60 |
4.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attended college full time |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
9.50 |
6.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in a 4-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
4.50 |
3.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in private college |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
2.70 |
2.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in a less-than-2-year institution |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
0.20 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
6980.00 |
6729.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earnings in Year 2 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample whose data were available in UI database;
|
3735.20 |
3936.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earning in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample whose data were available in UI database;
|
1280.80 |
1277.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earning in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Female;
|
1100.00 |
1026.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earning in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Male;
|
1383.00 |
1418.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earnings in Year 3 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
5442.00 |
5331.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earning in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Less than 11th grade;
|
1190.00 |
1094.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Earning in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
11th grade or higher;
|
1399.00 |
1494.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earnings in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Less than 11th grade;
|
6364.00 |
6239.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earnings in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
11th grade or higher;
|
7752.00 |
7386.00 |
-- |
-- | ||
|
Earnings in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male;
|
7544.00 |
7091.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earnings in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female;
|
6029.00 |
6004.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earnings in Year 1 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample whose data were available in UI database;
|
2093.40 |
2407.70 |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
71.60 |
73.30 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Employed in Year 2 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample whose data were available in UI database;
|
62.90 |
59.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Employed in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Less than 11th grade;
|
43.30 |
40.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in Year 3 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Full sample;
|
68.40 |
66.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Currently employed |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Female;
|
45.20 |
43.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Full sample;
|
44.40 |
44.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Currently employed |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
Male;
|
44.10 |
45.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
11th grade or higher;
|
74.00 |
75.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male;
|
71.20 |
72.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female;
|
72.70 |
74.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in Year 4 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
48 Months |
Less than 11th grade;
|
69.60 |
71.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed in quarter 10 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
30 Months |
11th grade or higher;
|
45.70 |
50.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed in Year 1 |
YouthBuild vs. Business as usual |
12 Months |
Full sample whose data were available in UI database;
|
48.90 |
51.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 63% | |
| Other or unknown | 22% | |
| White | 15% |
| Hispanic | 15% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 85% |
The study took place in 75 YouthBuild programs across the country. Programs were located in 29 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington DC, and were found both in both densely populated urban centers and rural areas.
The initial sample consisted of 3,929 learners. These learners generally had to be between the ages of 16 and 24, have withdrawn from secondary education without a credential, have a referral from a high school, or have a deficiency in basic skills. Eligibility criteria varied depending on the YouthBuild program site. Sixty-three percent of learners were Black, and 64 percent were male. Ninety percent had not graduated from high school or passed a high school equivalency exam, and 79 percent were under the age of 22. The authors reported on outcome measures for the full sample as well as by gender and educational attainment subgroups, which met standards.
The YouthBuild program includes instruction in basic skills, remedial education, and alternative education that is designed to lead to a high school diploma or equivalent credential. It also offers vocational training, which is typically training in construction, as well as youth development services including leadership training and community service. Supportive wraparound services could include counseling, case management, life-skills training, workforce preparation, follow-up services, stipends, and help with child care, transportation or housing.
For two years, members of the comparison group were prohibited from enrolling in YouthBuild programs that were participating in the study and given information about other appropriate services in the community. About 1 percent of learners in the comparison group enrolled in local YouthBuild programs that were not participating in the study.
The study does not provide specific information about support for implementation.
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.
Miller, Cynthia; Cummings, Danielle; Millenky, Megan; Wiegand, Andrew; Long, David. (2018). Laying a Foundation: Four-Year Results from the National YouthBuild Evaluation. MDRC.
Wiegand, Andrew; Manno, Michelle; Leshnick, Sengsouvanh; Treskon, Louisa; Geckeler, Christian; Lewis-Charp, Heather; Sinicrope, Castle; Clark, Mika; Nicholson, Brandon. (2015). Adapting to Local Context: Findings from the Youthbuild Evaluation Implementation Study. MDRC.
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.
Evidence Tier
The Department of Education’s evidence tiers. For more information, please see the WWC Glossary entry for evidence tiers.
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube