Roder, A., & Elliott, M. (2014). New York: Economic Mobility Corporation.
Reviewed: March 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a vocational certificate |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
27.00 |
25.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average annual earnings |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
19191.00 |
17257.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed after program completion |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
82.00 |
80.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Average number of hours worked |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
1373.00 |
1469.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average annual earnings |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
16590.00 |
10086.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average annual earnings |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
19955.00 |
14922.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Average annual earnings |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3883.00 |
11715.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employed after program completion |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
75.00 |
68.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of hours worked |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
1202.00 |
1096.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Employed after program completion |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
73.00 |
68.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of hours worked |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
1494.00 |
1361.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Employed after program completion |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
83.00 |
85.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Average number of hours worked |
Year Up vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
395.00 |
1251.00 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 4% | |
| Black | 52% | |
| Other or unknown | 42% | |
| White | 2% |
| Hispanic | 34% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 66% |
The study was conducted in three northeastern cities: Boston, New York, and Providence, Rhode Island. The first six months of the program consisted of technical training in classroom settings, while the second six months were on-the-job training in employer partner internship sites.
Over half (52%) of the participants were Black, 2% were White, 4% were Asian, 8% were "other," and 34% were unknown/unreported. Over one-third (34%) were Hispanic/Latino and 66% were non-Hispanic/non-Latino. Additionally, 89% had a high school diploma (11% had earned a GED) and 90% had worked for pay prior to participating in Year Up. Just over half (56%) had held their longest job for less than one year. Over half (54%) were male (46% female), and over three-fourths (76%) were between ages 18 and 21. Nearly one-fifth (17%) lived in public housing, and the primary language of 16 percent of participants was not English. Only 10% of participants were not U.S. citizens.
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 that 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.
Members of the comparison group could engage in other job training programs or postsecondary education opportunities. Individuals randomly assigned to the comparison group were told that they were on a waiting list and could reapply after 10 months. A total of 29 percent of the comparison group members applied to participate in the Year Up intervention during the second and third years following randomization.
Additional information is not available about the implementation of the Year Up intervention.
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.
Roder, A., & Elliot, M. (2011). A promising start. Year Up’s initial impacts on low-income young adults’ careers. New York: Economic Mobility Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.buildingbetterprograms.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Year-Up-EMC-Study.pdf
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