Study Details | Pathways to Work

24989.07-Study of Year Up

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Year Up

Population and employment barriers:

Age (Young adults (age 16-24))

Services provided:

Case management, Employment coaching, Job development, Job readiness, Job search assistance, Occupational or sectoral training, Paid work experience/internships, Peer mentoring, Performance- or behavior-based financial incentives, Soft skills training, Stipends

Setting: Tested in multiple settings

Study design

Design:

Randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Youth who attended an information session and completed an application, a drug screening, and a series of interviews were randomly assigned to the intervention or comparison groups. Applicants were eligible for the study if they were ages 18 to 24, had a high school credential, and were not employed or in school full time. Each of the eight Year Up sites enrolled two cohorts of participants from January 2013 to August 2014. For every two applicants assigned to Year Up at each site, one was assigned to the comparison group; a total of 2,544 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (1,669) or the comparison group (875).

Time period of study:

Evaluators randomly assigned people into groups for the study from January 2013 to August 2014. The study reports impacts up to six years after random assignment.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase very long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment, Increase very long-term employment, Decrease very long-term benefit receipt, Increase education and training

Other outcome domains examined:

Psychosocial skills; family formation; health; health insurance; life challenges; stress; career progress; housing situation; financial health

Study funded by:

The Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education evaluation was funded by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation in the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

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

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	9,742.00	3,964.00	-5,778.00	2014 dollars	2,495
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	23,243.00	31,032.00	7,789.00	2018 dollars	2,495
Increase very long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 7	High	27,338.00	35,589.00	8,251.00	2020 dollars	2,495
Increase short-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 6	High	80.10	83.50	3.40	Percentage points	2,495
Increase long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 20	High	82.10	82.40	0.30	Percentage points	2,495
Increase very long-term employment	Ever employed, quarterly	Quarter 26	High	72.80	73.80	1.00	Percentage points	2,495
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	Average quarterly UI benefit	Quarter 24	High	435.00	430.00	-5.00	2019 dollars	2,495
Decrease very long-term benefit receipt	UI receipt, quarterly	Quarter 24	High	10.50	10.40	-0.10	Percentage points	2,495
Increase education and training	Earned any college credential from a college	Quarter 24	High	13.50	17.50	4.00	Percentage points	2,539

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.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. 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 intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention 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 study included youth with low incomes who lived in metropolitan areas. The majority were male (59 percent), Black (54 percent), and ages 20 to 24 (56 percent). About half only had a high school diploma or equivalent (52 percent), and the other half had some college experience (48 percent). Only 3 percent had an associate’s or more advanced degree. The average family income was $27,021. In the 12 months leading up to the study, one-third received benefits from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. About half (48 percent) were not working at baseline, and most of the remainder (37 percent) worked fewer than 35 hours per week. Sixteen percent had experienced an arrest.

Age

Young adults

99%

Sex

Female	41%
Male	59%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	54%
White, not Hispanic	9%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	31%
Unknown, not reported, or other	11%

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.

Participant employment and public benefit status

Were employed	52%
Were unemployed	48%

Participant education

Had some postsecondary education	48%
Did not have a high school diploma or GED	1%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Year Up and local colleges

Program history:

Year Up was founded in 2000, and the eight offices began implementing Year Up from 2001 to 2012.

Intervention services:

The Year Up program included two phases: a 21-week learning and development phase and a 6-month internship phase. During the first phase, participants received occupational training in information technology, quality assurance, financial operations, project management, or customer service, as well as courses in professional and business communications. Classes were held six hours per day for four days of the week, and three hours per day for one day of the week. During the second phase, participants worked in internships for four and a half days per week and received training for a half day each week. During both phases, participants received weekly stipends. They could also receive employment assistance for four months after their internship, such as career counseling, job search assistance, and assistance developing a résumé. The program used a "high support, high expectations" philosophy, with frequent feedback during both phases, connections to other community supports, advising, and mentoring. Poor behavior could also result in reductions in stipends.

Mandatory services:

None

Comparison services:

Those in the comparison group could not participate in Year Up for three years after random assignment, but they received a list of other available services in the community.

Service receipt duration:

Participants enrolled in 21 weeks of training and were placed in a 6-month, full-time internship. Participants continued to receive employment assistance for up to 4 months after graduating.

Intervention funding:

About 60 percent of Year Up's costs were covered by employers who paid the program in return for hosting program participants as interns. Twenty-two percent of program costs were supported by foundation grants, and 17 percent were funded through charitable contributions.

Cost information:

The average cost of providing the intervention was $29,717 per participant. The average cost of providing comparison group services was $9,440 per person. The net intervention cost, or difference between the two, was $20,277 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 Clearinghouse 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

Fein, David, and Jill Hamadyk (2018). Bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Implementation and early impacts of the Year Up program, OPRE Report #2018-65, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/bridging-opportunity-divide-low-income-youth-implementation-and-early-impacts-year.

Fein, David, and Samuel Dastrup (2022).Benefits that last: Long-term impact and cost-benefit findings for Year Up, OPRE Report #2022-77, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/year%20up%20long-term%20impact%20report_apr2022.pdf

Gardiner, Karen, and Randall Juras (2019). Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education (PACE): Cross-program implementation and impact study findings, OPRE Report #2019-32, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/pathways-advancing-careers-and-education-pace-cross-program-implementation-and-impact.

Judkins, David, Douglas Walton, Gabriel Durham, Daniel Litwok, and Samuel Dastrup (2021). Still bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Year Up’s longer-term impacts, technical appendices, OPRE Report #2021-56, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/year-up-appendices-april-2021.pdf

Judkins, David, Emily Roessel, and Gabriel Durham (2022). Appendices for PACE six-year impact reports, OPRE Report #2022-69, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/pace%20six-year%20impact%20report%20technical%20appendix%2003-2022.pdf

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

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.