Fein, David; Hamadyk, Jill (2018). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED615553
Reviewed: May 2022
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 Year Up.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working in a job paying $15 an hour or more |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
46.46 |
14.26 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 54% | |
| Other or unknown | 41% | |
| White | 6% |
| Hispanic | 31% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 69% |
The Year Up program was delivered in eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York, Providence, the San Francisco-San Jose Bay area, Seattle, and Washington, DC). The program was delivered from a single central location in each city except for the two Bay Area offices.
Over half of participants were male (59%) and 21 to 24 years old (57%); the remaining were female (41%) and 18 to 20 years old (43%). Over half of the participants (54%) were Black, non-Hispanic, 6% were White, non-Hispanic, and 9% were another race, non-Hispanic. About one-third (31%) were Hispanic. Additionally, 99% had a high school diploma and 3% had an Associate’s degree or higher. The mean family income was $27,021.
Year Up participants receive six months of technical skills training geared at meeting the needs of the corporate partners of the program. All participants receive training in operating systems and software for word processing and learn how to use spreadsheets and create presentations. There are separate tracks for information technology, business communications, and financial operations with relevant specialized skills. The program also has college partners so participants can earn college credits for satisfactory completion of the classes they take. Following the six months of training, participants have six-month internships with corporate partners that are major corporations in the region. Throughout the experience, general professionalism is emphasized, including regular attendance, professional demeanor, timeliness, diligence (completion of work), appropriate attire, networking, and conflict management. Participants also receive a stipend (per a performance contract) and have staff advisors, social workers, peer support opportunities, and are paired with a mentor from outside the program. There is also some flexibility for sites to customize their curriculum based on local considerations.
Comparison group members were subject to a three-year embargo on Year Up participation but could receive other training and supports in the community. Each of the metropolitan areas offered alternative employment and training services that the comparison group could access. These included training at community and technical colleges, for-profit postsecondary institutions, and non-profit training providers. Examples include Job Corps, Per Scholas, Jewish Vocational Services, Center on Employment and Training, and Goodwill Industries. The study notes that many training providers offer job readiness and job placement services in conjunction with technical skills training. Others offer mentoring in the business community.
Year Up receives funding from employer payments for interns; foundation grants; donations from companies and individuals; and, to a small degree, government agencies. Further, a national team supports local offices with operations, sharing information across offices, and overall implementation.
Reviewed: March 2021
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 |
|---|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Working and $15/hour or more |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
18 Months |
Full sample;
|
46.50 |
14.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 54% | |
| Other or unknown | 41% | |
| White | 6% |
| Hispanic | 31% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 69% |
The Year Up program was delivered in eight metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York, Providence, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Washington, DC). The program was delivered from a single central location in each city except for the two Bay Area offices.
The program sample of 2,544 young urban adults was recruited from a target population residing in eight metropolitan areas in the United States. A majority of sample members were African-American (54 percent) or Hispanic (31 percent). There were more men (59 percent) than women (41 percent). A majority of sample members (68 percent) were living with their parents, and a small fraction (nine percent) had children. Many reported they struggled in high school with 40 percent reported typical grades of C or below, and only 10 percent reported typically receiving A’s. Approximately half had attended some college. Close to two thirds (63 percent) were in families with annual incomes below $30,000.
Participants enrolled in the program in small cohorts of about 40 students, called “learning communities,” in March and September of each year. Young adults participated in the Year Up program's learning communities in two phases: 1) Learning and Development, and 2) Internship. In the Learning and Development (L&D) Phase, young adults attended day-long training classes from 8:30 AM until 3:30 PM four days a week, and for a half-day on Wednesdays, to learn occupation-specific and general skills in various (quality assurance, financial operations, project management, customer service, and business communications) with IT being most common. During the Internship Phase, students worked in entry-level professional roles at local employers, often major corporations, and worked at internship sites four and a half days a week. On Wednesday afternoons, they returned to Year Up to share their internship experiences, attend workshops, and plan post-program career transitions. Employers were heavily involved and provided support to the program.
Control group members were subject to a three-year embargo on Year Up participation but could receive other training and supports in the community. Each of the metropolitan areas offered alternative employment and training services that the control group could access. These included training at community and technical colleges, for-profit post secondary institutions, and non-profit training providers. Examples include Job Corps, Per Scolas, Jewish Vocational Services, Center on Employment and Training, and Goodwill Industries. The study notes that many training providers offer job readiness and job placement services in conjunction with technical skills training. Other offer mentoring in the business community.
Year Up receives funding from employer payments for interns; foundation grants; donations from companies and individuals; and, to a small degree, government agencies.
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