BUILDING 

A FUTURE

Interim Impact Findings 

from the YouthBuild 

Evaluation

Cynthia Miller 

Megan Millenky

Lisa Schwartz

Lisbeth Goble

Jillian Stein

November 2016

Educational Service District 101

WA App ID_17AC188910

Sub App ID_17AC188921

Building a Future

Interim Impact Findings from the YouthBuild Evaluation

Cynthia Miller 

Megan Millenky

(MDRC)

Lisa Schwartz

Lisbeth Goble

Jillian Stein

(Mathematica Policy Research)

November 2016 
This project has been funded, either wholly or in part, with federal funds from the Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration under contract number DOLJ101A21513. The 

contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of 

Labor, nor does mention of trade names, commercial projects, or organizations imply endorsement of same by the U.S. government.
iii

Overview 

Young people have been hit especially hard by changes in the labor market over the past decades. 

Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds increased the most of any age group during the recent 

recession, and remains more than double that among older adults. The unemployment rate is 

especially high for young people without high school diplomas. YouthBuild is one program that 

attempts to help this group, serving over 10,000 of them each year at over 250 organizations 

nationwide. Each organization provides construction-related or other vocational training, educational 

services, counseling, and leadership-development opportunities to low-income young people ages 16 

to 24 who did not complete high school.

YouthBuild is being evaluated using a randomized controlled trial, in which eligible young people at 

participating programs were assigned either to a program group, invited to enroll in YouthBuild, or 

to a control group, referred to other services in the community. The evaluation includes 75 programs 

across the country funded by the U.S. Department of Labor or the Corporation for National and 

Community Service and nearly 4,000 young people who enrolled in the study between 2011 and 

2013. This report, the second in the evaluation, presents the program’s effects on young people

through two and a half years.

Main Findings

About 75 percent of the young people assigned to the program group participated in YouthBuild, 

and about half of these participants reported that they graduated from the program within 12 months. 

YouthBuild led to a number of positive effects on young people, most consistently in the area of 

education and training.

•

•

•

•

•

•

YouthBuild increased participation in education and training, even though a high percentage of 

the young people in the control group also sought out and participated in education and training.

Overall, participants rated their experiences in YouthBuild favorably, although some program 

components were rated more highly than others.

YouthBuild increased the rate at which participants earned high school equivalency credentials, 

enrolled in college, and participated in vocational training.

YouthBuild led to a small increase in wages and earnings at 30 months. 

YouthBuild increased civic engagement, particularly volunteering, but had few effects on other 

measures of youth development or attitudes.

YouthBuild had few effects on involvement in the criminal justice system. 

The program’s interim effects on education and training are encouraging. A later report, measuring 

effects through four years, will examine whether these interim effects lead to longer-term gains in 

work and earnings.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v 

Contents

Overview iii

List of Exhibits vii

Acknowledgments ix

Executive Summary ES-1

Chapter

1 Introduction 1

YouthBuild 2 

Characteristics of Participating Programs and Young People 16 

Findings from Other Youth Programs 22 

Organization of This Report 24 

2 Implementation and Participation 25

Implementation Findings 25 

Participation in YouthBuild 26 

Impacts on Service Receipt 31 

3 Impacts Through 30 Months 37

Impacts on Education 37 

Impacts on Employment and Earnings 42 

Impacts on Youth Development 44 

Impacts on Other Outcomes 47 

4 Impacts on Subgroups 51

Selection of Subgroups 51 

Subgroup Impacts 53 

5 Conclusion 63

Appendix

A Site Selection, Random Assignment, the Analysis Model, and Previous 

Evaluations 67 

B Response Analyses for the 12- and 30-Month Surveys 79 

C Survey Responses About YouthBuild Experiences and Service Receipt at 30 

Months 97 

D Survey-Based Impacts and Subgroup Impacts at 12 Months and Selected 

Impacts Per Participant 103 

References 119
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
vii

List of Exhibits

Table

ES.1 Impacts on Key Outcomes at 30 Months ES-7 

1.1 Summary of Program Characteristics 17

1.2 Baseline Characteristics of the YouthBuild Sample 20

2.1 YouthBuild Program Experience, Program Group Only, at 12 Months 28

2.2 YouthBuild Program Experience, Program Group Only, at 30 Months 30

2.3 Impacts on Service Receipt at 12 Months 32

3.1 Impacts on Education and Training at 30 Months 39 

3.2 Impacts on Employment and Earnings at 30 Months 43 

3.3 Impacts on Youth Development at 30 Months 46 

3.4 Impacts on Living Arrangements and Household Information at 30 Months 48

3.5 Impacts on Delinquency and Risky Behavior at 30 Months 49

4.1 Impacts by Age at 30 Months 55

4.2 Impacts by Gender at 30 Months 57

4.3 Impacts by Highest Grade Previously Completed, at 30 Months 59

4.4 Impacts by Program Fidelity, at 30 Months 61

A.1 Representativeness of Study Programs 70

A.2 Baseline Characteristics by Research Group 75

A.3 Selected Evaluations of Programs for Young People Without High School 

Diplomas 77

B.1 Selected Baseline Characteristics of the Fielded and Nonfielded Samples 83

B.2 Selected Baseline Characteristics of Respondents and Nonrespondents to the 

12-Month Survey 86

B.3 Selected Baseline Characteristics of Respondents and Nonrespondents to the 

30-Month Survey 88

B.4 Selected Baseline Characteristics of Program and Control Group Respondents 

to the 12-Month Survey 90 
viii

Table

B.5 Selected Baseline Characteristics of Program and Control Group Respondents 

to the 30-Month Survey 92 

B.6 Impacts on Education Based on Records Data at 12 Months 95 

B.7 Impacts on Education Based on Records Data at 30 Months 96 

C.1 YouthBuild Experience, Program Group Only, at 30 Months 99

C.2 Impacts on Service Receipt at 30 Months 100 

D.1 Impacts on Education and Training at 12 Months 105 

D.2 Impacts on Youth Development at 12 Months 106 

D.3 Impacts on Employment and Earnings at 12 Months 107 

D.4 Impacts on Living Arrangements and Household Information at 12 Months 108

D.5 Impacts on Delinquency and Risky Behavior at 12 Months 109

D.6 Impacts by Age at 12 Months 110 

D.7 Impacts by Gender at 12 Months 112 

D.8 Impacts by Highest Grade Previously Completed, at 12 Months 114 

D.9 Impacts by Program Fidelity, at 12 Months 116 

D.10 Impacts Per Participant for Selected Outcomes 118

Figure

1.1 Participant-Level YouthBuild Conceptual Framework 6 

1.2 Unemployment Rates by Age 8 

1.3 Typical YouthBuild Selection Process 12

1.4 Locations of Participating YouthBuild Programs 18

2.1 Services Received According to the 12-Month and 30-Month Surveys 35

3.1 Earnings by Quarter 45 

Box

B.1 Sample Definitions 82
ix

Acknowledgments

The YouthBuild Evaluation is made possible through the support of many individuals and 

organizations. It is funded by the Department of Labor (DOL) with initial support from the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. At DOL, we are grateful to the leadership of 

Amanda Ahlstrand, Jennifer Troke, and Sanzanna Dean, as well as Gregg Weltz and Anne 

Stom, who were instrumental in establishing the evaluation. Thanks also to our project officer 

Eileen Pederson for her guidance throughout the process. Jenn Smith, current director of 

YouthBuild at DOL, provided valuable input throughout the evaluation and on the report drafts.

We are grateful to the staff members at the 75 YouthBuild programs that participated in 

the evaluation. They worked tirelessly to provide services to young people in their communities 

and played a critical role in helping to recruit and enroll participants into the evaluation.

We also relied on the assistance of staff members at YouthBuild USA, who spoke with 

us about the history and structure of YouthBuild and provided us with essential data about 

programs. In particular, we are grateful to Dorothy Stoneman, Sangeeta Tyagi, Erin Rodriguez, 

Helen Whitcher, Paul Gauthier, and Joel Miranda.

The report benefited from the feedback from the Technical Working Group, which includes David Clauss, Rob Hollister, Cliff Johnson, Larry Katz, Simran Sidhu, Jason Snipes, 

Dorothy Stoneman, and Sangeeta Tyagi.

We also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Mathematica’s team of interviewers, 

locaters, survey operations supervisors, and monitors, who collected the high-quality data on 

which this report is based. Ellen Siegel, Beverly Kelly, and Alison Ashenfelter oversaw this 

team at the Survey Operations Center. Scott Reid oversaw the information technology work. 

We thank him and his team of programmers. The survey research team included Erin Boyle, 

Sean Harrington, Felicia Hurwitz, Shawn Marsh, Kim Mook, Bevin Mory, Sandra Mukasa, 

Lisa Quan, Amanda Skaff, and Lindsay Wood.

At SPR, Andrew Wiegand provided helpful comments on earlier report drafts. At 

MDRC, Gordon Berlin, Rob Ivry, Dan Bloom, Carolyn Hill, Sharon Rowser, Louisa Treskon, 

Michelle Manno, and Dina Israel provided valuable feedback on report drafts. Danielle Cummings, Emily Terwelp, Adrienne Yao, and Sally Dai processed the quantitative data. Galina 

Farberova managed the random assignment system. Gary Reynolds created the map of YouthBuild programs. Emily Brennan coordinated the production of the report, and Beata Luczywek 

and Danielle Craig assisted with fact-checking. Joshua Malbin provided feedback on report 

drafts and edited the report. Ann Kottner prepared the report for publication.
x

Finally, we are deeply appreciative of the young people who agreed to participate in the 

study. Without them, this research would not have been possible.

The Authors
ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Making the successful transition to adulthood has become more and more difficult for many 

American young people. Unemployment rates among young people are more than double those 

among older adults, and young people were hit especially hard by the recent recession of 2007-

2009.

1 Finding well-paying work has become particularly challenging for young people without 

high school diplomas or equivalents. Their unemployment rate peaked at over 35 percent during 

the recession and remains high today, at over 20 percent in the second quarter of 2016.

2 Finding 

ways to reengage these young people in education and work is one of our nation’s central social 

policy challenges.

YouthBuild is one program that attempts to help this group. YouthBuild is a federally 

and privately funded program operated at over 250 organizations nationwide, serving over 

10,000 young people each year. Each organization provides construction-related training and 

may also provide training in other in-demand industries, along with educational services, 

counseling, and leadership-development opportunities, to low-income, out-of-school young 

people ages 16 to 24.

In 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL), with initial support from the Corporation for 

National and Community Service (CNCS), awarded a contract to MDRC and its partners Social 

Policy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy Research to conduct an impact evaluation 

of YouthBuild. The evaluation includes 75 programs across the country receiving funding from 

either DOL or CNCS, and nearly 4,000 young people who enrolled in the study between 2011 

and 2013. The evaluation will examine YouthBuild’s effects on the young people it serves for 

up to four years after they enter the study, assessing effects on a wide range of outcomes 

including education and training, work and earnings, youth development, and involvement in 

the criminal justice system.

This report presents the interim effects of the program two and a half years after 

young people applied to YouthBuild, examining participation in the program, effects on 

education and training, and early effects on work and earnings. The findings show that 

YouthBuild led to a number of positive effects on this group of young people, including a 

 1

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “BLS Data Viewer: (Seas) Unemployment Rate 

— 16-24 Yrs.,” 2016, website: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNS14024887; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “BLS Data Viewer: (Seas) Unemployment Rate — 25 Yrs. and 

Over,” 2016, website: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNS14000048. 2

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “BLS Data Viewer: (Unadj) Unemployment Rate 

— Not Enrolled in School, Less Than a High School Diploma 16-24 Yrs.,” 2016, website: http://beta.bls.gov/

dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNU04023019Q. 
ES-2 

notable increase in the rate at which they earned General Educational Development (GED) 

credentials and a small, positive effect on college enrollment.3 YouthBuild also led to a small, 

positive effect on wages and earnings. A later report will examine the program’s effects on 

education and work after four years.

The YouthBuild Model

All YouthBuild programs in operation are modeled to some degree on the original YouthBuild 

program: the East Harlem Youth Action Program founded in the late 1970s in New York City. 

That original program was designed to address the complex needs of participants and their 

community with a culture of respect for young people that is still emphasized today.

The YouthBuild model includes a mix of education, vocational training (usually training in construction), counseling, leadership development, and community service. Eligibility is 

typically limited to out-of-school young people ages 16 to 24 who have dropped out before 

completing high school and who meet one of the following criteria: They are from low-income 

or migrant families, are in foster care or are aging out of it, are ex-offenders, have disabilities, or 

are children of incarcerated parents.

Programs recruit or rely on word of mouth to identify interested applicants, who then go 

through assessments before enrolling such as tests of basic skills and one-on-one interviews. 

Most frequently, programs then implement a rigorous Mental Toughness Orientation, which can 

last from a single day to several weeks. Mental Toughness Orientation is designed to facilitate 

group bonding and ready recruits for the program’s activities. It also serves as a period when 

many young people are screened out because they stop attending or otherwise fail to follow 

established rules.

Most young people who make it through Mental Toughness Orientation enroll in 

YouthBuild, are offered the program’s services, and participate for 6 to 12 months. New 

participants typically begin the program in a group with other enrollees, and that group

alternates weekly or every few weeks between a focus on education and a focus on vocational 

training. The components of the model are intended to be integrated and designed to be 

offered together. 

 3

The term “GED” is used throughout this report to indicate a high school equivalency credential, even 

though many states no longer use the official GED test to grant those credentials. Given the timing of the 

YouthBuild evaluation, most study participants would still have taken the GED exam to earn their high school 

equivalency credentials.
ES-3 

YouthBuild’s services consist of: 

• Educational services such as instruction in basic skills, remedial education, 

and alternative education leading to a high school diploma or GED. A growing number of programs also offer services to prepare young people for postsecondary education.

• Vocational training, typically construction training in which participants rehabilitate or build housing for low-income people. Beginning in 2012, certain 

DOL-funded programs were authorized to provide a “construction plus” 

model, in which funding could be used to offer training for in-demand occupations outside construction. Before that date, some programs were already

providing training for other vocations such as Certified Nursing Assistant, 

commercial driver, or information technology professional.

• Youth-development services, including leadership training and community 

service. These services are defining features of YouthBuild that are addressed in multiple ways and serve multiple purposes. Leadership training is 

approached through structured curricula or formal and informal roles for participants within the YouthBuild program on committees, in the classroom, on 

work sites, or in community activities and meetings. Young people participate in community service by constructing affordable housing and through 

other activities; this community service attends to the community’s needs 

and gives young people opportunities to practice leadership and other skills.

• Supportive services and transition services include counseling, case management, life-skills training, workforce preparation, follow-up services for 

one year, stipends for participation, and other forms of support, such as help 

with transportation, child care, or housing. All of these services are designed 

to help young people address challenges that may prevent them from achieving success in the program or beyond.

The Evaluation

YouthBuild is being evaluated using a random assignment design, in which eligible young 

people at participating programs around the country were assigned either to a program group, 

invited to enroll in YouthBuild, or to a control group, provided information on other services in 

the community. Programs selected for the evaluation include a mix of those receiving funding 

from DOL and from CNCS in 2011. From the 74 programs that received grants from DOL in 

2011, 60 were randomly selected to participate in the study, and 58 were ultimately able to 
ES-4

participate. From the 24 programs that received CNCS grants above a certain amount but not 

DOL grants in 2011, 17 were selected as suitable to participate in the study.

These 75 programs enrolled a total of 3,929 young people into the study between August 2011 and January 2013. For each enrollment cycle, every program used its typical selection 

process to create a pool of applicants deemed eligible and appropriate for YouthBuild. These 

applicants were then assigned at random to fill the available program slots or to a control group.

The evaluation consists of three components. First, a process study examined the operations of the YouthBuild programs in the evaluation and the perceptions and experiences of the 

participating young people. The findings from the process study, presented in an earlier report, 

indicate that there was variation in how programs implemented the components of the model, in 

response to their local contexts. Overall, however, the participating programs implemented the 

YouthBuild model well and faithfully. Fidelity to the YouthBuild model was most consistent 

and highest in vocational services and varied more among programs in leadership development 

and preparation for postsecondary education.

Second, an impact study is tracking the program and the control groups for four years 

using survey data and administrative records. The impact analysis will examine the program’s 

effects on a wide range of outcomes, including enrollment in education and educational attainment, work and earnings, involvement in the criminal justice system, family structure, and 

social and emotional development. This report presents interim findings, and longer-term 

findings will be presented in the final report. Finally, a cost-effectiveness study will estimate the 

costs of operating and running YouthBuild and compare these costs with any positive gains that 

are achieved. The results from this analysis will be included in the final report.

The analysis presented in this report is based on several data sources. First, surveys 

were administered to a random subset of study participants 12 and 30 months after they entered 

the study. These surveys collected information on education and training, work and earnings,

use of services, family formation, involvement in the criminal justice system, youth development, and health and well-being. Second, administrative records were obtained for the full study 

sample on employment and earnings (from the National Directory of New Hires) and postsecondary enrollment (from the National Student Clearinghouse). Third, a survey of YouthBuild 

programs provided information on program characteristics. Finally, program data on enrollment 

reported to the DOL management information system are used to corroborate YouthBuild 

participation as reported by young people on the surveys.4

 4

A management information system is a database that holds information on program operations and that 

can produce reports on every level of a program’s management.
ES-5 

The young people enrolled in the study generally fit the profile of typical YouthBuild 

participants. The majority of study participants are male (64 percent) and most are either black 

(63 percent) or Latino (15 percent). On average, study participants were nearly 20 years old 

when they entered the study, with about 70 percent older than age 18. Over 90 percent did not 

have high school diplomas or GEDs when they entered the study, and about 60 percent of them 

had left school after completing the tenth or eleventh grade.

Findings

• About 75 percent of the young people assigned to the program group 

participated in YouthBuild, and about half of these participants reported that they graduated from the program within 12 months.

At 12 months, 74 percent of the program group reported ever receiving YouthBuild 

services or participating in YouthBuild activities. Those who reported participating said that

they remained in YouthBuild for an average of 8 months, and about 50 percent of them reported 

completing the program, or graduating. About a quarter of the participants (22 percent) reported 

still being involved in YouthBuild at 12 months, and 28 percent had left the program without 

completing it. 

• Overall, participants rated their experiences in YouthBuild favorably, 

although some program components were rated more highly than 

others.

Eighty-seven percent of participants rated their overall YouthBuild experiences favorably, meaning “very good” or “good.” They were also asked about each of the program services: The most highly rated services were construction or job training, counseling, and leadership training. Participants gave the YouthBuild staff favorable ratings related to understanding 

their needs and helping them to learn. They reported being slightly less satisfied with the 

services they received after leaving the program, such as assistance finding a job.

• YouthBuild increased participation in education and training, even 

though a high percentage of young people in the control group sought 

out and participated in education and training activities.

The program’s rigorous screening processes are designed to ensure that the only young 

people who enter the program are those who have a good chance of completing it. As a result, 

young people in both the program and control groups who made it through the screening 

process and into the study are probably more motivated and persistent than the typical young 

person who has not completed high school. By 30 months after enrollment, for example, 70

percent of the control group had participated in education-related services.
ES-6 

Despite this high rate of control group participation, however, young people in the 

program group were more likely than their control group counterparts to have participated in 

education and training, especially GED preparation, vocational training, and a variety of 

youth-development activities. For example, 75 percent of the program group reported participating in an education-related activity during the first 12 months, compared with 57 percent 

of the control group.

• YouthBuild increased GED receipt and enrollment in two-year colleges.

Most young people who entered the program had not completed high school, and a central goal of the program is to help these young people earn GEDs. The program did have a 

sizable effect on GED receipt. By 30 months, about 18 percent of the young people in the 

control group reported earning GEDs, compared with 31 percent of the program group, an 

increase of 14 percentage points (see Table ES.1). This estimated effect includes all young 

people in the program group, not accounting for the fact that 25 percent of them never participated in YouthBuild. The effect on young people who did participate in YouthBuild is 19 

percentage points.

Getting a GED by itself may increase college attendance, but many YouthBuild programs explicitly focus on helping young people make the transition to postsecondary education. 

By 30 months, 22 percent of the young people in the program group reported enrolling in a twoyear community college at some point since they entered the study, compared with 17 percent 

of the control group, an impact of 5 percentage points. This increase in survey-reported college 

attendance is corroborated by administrative records from the National Student Clearinghouse.

• YouthBuild increased participation in vocational training and led to a 

small increase in the receipt of training certificates.

Vocational training, primarily in construction, is another central part of the YouthBuild 

model. YouthBuild seems to have increased participation in vocational training both during the 

program period and afterward. In the first year, the program group was more likely than the 

control group to have participated in a job-skills training program. Many members of the 

program group did so at a YouthBuild location. When survey respondents were asked at 30 

months about formal enrollment in vocational training at a technical, business, or trade school, 

YouthBuild still had an impact: 31 percent of the program group reported having enrolled in 

such training since entering the study, compared with 20 percent of the control group. Very few 

young people reported obtaining vocational certificates by Month 30: 4 percent of the program 

group and 2 percent of the control group.
ES-7 

Table ES.1

Impacts on Key Outcomes at 30 Months

YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact)

Education and training (%)

Earned a GED 31.2 17.5 13.7 ***

Enrolled in vocational school since random assignment 30.8 20.4 10.3 ***

Received a trade license/training certificate 4.1 2.1 2.0 **

Enrolled in postsecondary courses since random assignment 23.6 18.1 5.6 ***

Work and earnings

Employed at Month 30 (%) 44.4 44.8 -0.4

Average weekly earnings ($) 150.2 134.5 15.7 *

Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 92.2 88.6 3.6 ***

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.3 0.0

Criminal justice involvement (%)

Arrested since random assignment 27.6 26.4 1.3

Convicted since random assignment 15.7 14.1 1.6

Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978 

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30-month survey.

NOTES: Statistical signficance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, 

and being involved in politics or local community activities.

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range 

from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of selfesteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

• YouthBuild led to a small increase in employment rates during Year 2, 

and a small increase in survey-reported wages and earnings at 30

months. 

The opportunities for education and training in YouthBuild and the impact the program had on 

GED receipt should help participating young people to find jobs after completing the program. 

At the time of the 30-month survey, just over 40 percent of respondents in the program group 
ES-8

and the control group were employed; the program had no effect on employment reported on 

the survey. However, young people in the program group reported earning higher wages. The 

program led to an increase of 3 percentage points in the proportion of young people who

reported earning at least $10 per hour at their current jobs (not shown in the table). These higher 

hourly wages also translated into higher weekly earnings.

Data from the unemployment insurance system (not shown in the table) present a fuller 

picture over time. During the first year, while young people were participating in YouthBuild, 

the program led to a reduction in employment and earnings relative to the control group (whose 

members were less likely to be enrolled in a program and thus were more available to work). 

However, by Year 2, there was no difference in earnings between the two groups, and the 

program group had somewhat higher employment rates. Longer-term follow-up presented in the 

final report will assess whether the program group pulls farther ahead over time.

• YouthBuild increased civic engagement, particularly volunteering, but 

had few effects on other measures of youth development or attitudes.

YouthBuild has been a leader in integrating youth development into its programs by 

promoting leadership and community service. In addition, the programs receiving CNCS 

funding strongly emphasize community service. At 30 months, members of the YouthBuild 

group were more likely than members of the control group to report that they had volunteered 

or been involved in politics or local community activities. The largest impact occurred on

volunteering: 54 percent of the program group reported volunteering, compared with only 31 

percent of the control group (not shown).

A number of questions were included in the surveys to capture other aspects of youth 

development, such as self-esteem, self-confidence, feelings about the future, and feelings of 

social support. YouthBuild had no effect on responses to these questions. Other research on 

youth programs suggests that it is difficult to create lasting changes in many of these measures.5

• YouthBuild had few effects on involvement in the criminal justice 

system.

Participation in YouthBuild may lead to a number of positive changes for participants 

through effects on education, work, and youth development. For example, program participation should reduce the amount of time that young people spend hanging out idle, and thus 

reduce their opportunities to engage in risky and unhealthy activities. Yet at 30 months, the 

program had no effect on arrest or conviction rates. About 25 percent of the young people in the 

 5

Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer Appleton Gootman, eds., Community Programs to Promote Youth

Development (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002).
ES-9 

study (in the program and control groups) reported that they had been arrested since they 

entered the study. Moreover, the program did lead to increases of about 5 percentage points in 

rates of self-reported alcohol and drug use (not shown in the table). It will be important to track 

whether these effects persist.

Conclusion

The findings presented here show that YouthBuild led to a number of positive effects, most 

consistently in the area of education and training. The program led to notable increases in GED 

receipt and participation in vocational training, and positive but small effects on college enrollment. A later report will examine whether these early increases in education and training lead to 

longer-term gains in work and earnings.

The research to date on youth programs has provided mixed results. Among the numerous programs studied, most increased the rate at which participants earned GEDs or other 

credentials, and had mixed effects on work and earnings.6 The effects found here follow suit. 

They are similar to or more positive than findings from other nonresidential programs, but 

somewhat smaller than the interim effects found for more intensive, residential programs, such 

as Job Corps and National Guard Youth ChalleNGe.

Although it is too early to make judgements about YouthBuild’s effects overall, the 

findings here suggest that there may be room for improvement in at least a few areas: helping 

participants find jobs, preparing them for the transition to postsecondary education, and maintaining contact with them after they leave the program. In some cases, many programs are 

already beginning to make changes that are likely to strengthen their impact — for example, 

many are beginning to emphasize more heavily their efforts to create connections with colleges. 

Similarly, many programs are beginning to offer vocational training not only in construction but 

in other areas as well, for example in information technology and health care.

 6

See George Cave, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint, JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts (New York: MDRC, 1993); JoAnn Jastrzab, Julie Masker, John Blomquist, and 

Larry Orr, Evaluation of National and Community Service Programs. Impacts of Service: Final Report on the 

Evaluation of American Conservation and Youth Service Corps (Washington, DC: Corporation for National 

Service, 1996); Cynthia Miller, Johannes M. Bos, Kristin E. Porter, Fannie M. Tseng, and Yasuyo Abe, The 

Challenge of Repeating Success in a Changing World: Final Report on the Center for Employment Training 

Replication Sites (New York: MDRC, 2005); Cristofer Price, Julie Williams, Laura Simpson, JoAnn Jastrzab, 

and Carrie Markovitz, National Evaluation of Youth Corps: Findings at Follow-Up (Washington, DC:

Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Strategy and Special Initiatives, 2011); Peter Z. 

Schochet, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell, “Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings from the 

National Job Corps Study,” American Economic Review 98, 5 (2008): 1,864-1,886; Megan Millenky, Dan 

Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus, Staying on Course: Three-Year Results of the National 

Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation (New York: MDRC, 2011).
ES-10

Finally, when interpreting the program’s effects, it is important to keep in mind two 

facts about the context. First, the effects presented here are estimated by comparing YouthBuild 

participants with similarly motivated young people who sought out other services in their 

communities. They are not estimated by comparing YouthBuild participants with a group who 

received no services. For this reason, the effects presented here are not of YouthBuild compared 

with no services, but of YouthBuild compared with other services for young people. Second, 

the follow-up period for this report was a time when many areas were still recovering slowly

from the national recession that began in 2007, and when the national unemployment rate was

still high for less-educated young people. One of YouthBuild’s goals is to help these young 

people get an early advantage in the labor market. A later report will assess whether the program achieves that goal.
1 

Chapter 1 

Introduction

Changes in the labor market over the past several decades have made it tougher for many 

American workers to find and maintain well-paying jobs. Wages for those with less education 

have fallen over time, for example, contributing to an increase in inequality that has been well 

documented.1 The recent recession worsened these trends. The unemployment rate was 15 

percent at the end of 2009 for those without a high school diploma, compared with less than 5 

percent for those with a college degree.2

Young people have been hit especially hard by these changes. Unemployment for individuals ages 16 to 24 increased the most during the recent recession, peaking at just over 19 

percent in late 2009.3 Although the rate has fallen since then, the youth unemployment rate 

remains more than double that for adults.4 The unemployment rate for young people without 

high school diplomas is especially high, at over 20 percent in the second quarter of 2016.

5 Rates 

of unemployment are even higher for black and Latino young men.6

As a result, it has become more and more difficult for many young people to make the 

transition to adulthood successfully. Those without high school diplomas — and there are 

nearly three million of them today — face particular challenges. Nearly 40 percent of them 

never earn high school credentials and even fewer pursue further education, even though 

postsecondary training is increasingly viewed as a necessary step on the path to a good job.7

Finding ways to reengage these young people in education and work and help them become 

thriving adults is one of our nation’s central social policy challenges.

YouthBuild is one program that attempts to help this group. YouthBuild is a federally 

and privately funded program operated by over 250 organizations nationwide, serving over 

10,000 young people each year. Each organization provides construction-related training and 

may also provide training in other in-demand industries, along with educational services, 

counseling, and leadership-development opportunities, to low-income, out-of-school young 

people ages 16 to 24. The vast majority of programs provide construction training as their 

 1

Piketty and Saez (2003), with updated tables at http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez. 2

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015).

3

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016b).

4

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016b, 2016c). 5

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016a).

6

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016d). 7

Hurst, Kelly, and Princiotta (2004).
2 

vocational instruction; in these programs participants work on renovating or constructing 

housing for low-income or homeless people. YouthBuild distinguishes itself from other programs serving young people without high school diplomas through a program environment that 

emphasizes youth development and leadership, capitalizing on participants’ strengths, and 

empowering participants to take responsibility for their lives.

In 2010, the Department of Labor (DOL), with initial support from the Corporation for 

National and Community Service (CNCS), awarded a contract to MDRC and its partners, 

Social Policy Research Associates and Mathematica Policy Research, to conduct an impact 

evaluation of YouthBuild programs funded by DOL or CNCS in 2011. The evaluation includes 

75 programs across the country and nearly 4,000 young people who enrolled in the study 

between 2011 and 2013.

This report is the second in the evaluation.

8 It presents the program’s interim effects on 

young people two and a half years after they entered the study. The report examines effects on a 

range of outcomes, including participation in education and training, educational attainment, 

work and earnings, involvement in the criminal justice system, and civic engagement. 

In sum, the findings presented here show that YouthBuild led to a number of positive 

effects, most consistently in the area of education and training. The program led to notable 

increases in the rate at which young people earned General Educational Development (GED) 

credentials and in their participation in vocational training, and positive but small effects on 

postsecondary enrollment.9 A later report will examine whether these early increases in education and training lead to longer-term gains in work and earnings. By Month 30, the program had 

a small positive effect on earnings and mixed effects on employment rates. The program also 

increased civic engagement, particularly volunteering, but had no effects on other measures of 

youth development.

YouthBuild

YouthBuild started in the late 1970s with one program in East Harlem, called the Youth Action 

Program (YAP). YAP allowed young people to improve their community by renovating and 

building housing while at the same time giving them the education and job training they needed. 

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other programs modeled on YAP were developed under the 

 8

The first report documented implementation at the 75 programs in the study (Wiegand et al., 2015). 9

The term “GED” is used throughout this report to indicate a high school equivalency credential, even 

though many states no longer use the official GED test to grant those credentials. Given the timing of the 

YouthBuild evaluation, most study participants would still have taken the official GED exam to earn their high 

school equivalency credentials.
3 

name “YouthBuild.” To support these replication efforts, staff members from YAP founded 

YouthBuild USA in 1990 to provide technical assistance and training to new YouthBuild 

programs. In 1992, under the umbrella of YouthBuild USA, a number of local YouthBuild 

programs came together to form the YouthBuild Affiliated Network made up of programs that 

agreed to uphold certain standards for performance and program design and to support advocacy efforts on behalf of the program and low-income young people. 

The expansion of the program was initially supported by private grants and then later by 

the federal government. In the early 1990s, federal legislation allocated funds to be granted to 

YouthBuild programs through an annual, competitive process under the auspices of the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 2007, responsibility for YouthBuild was 

transferred to DOL’s Employment and Training Administration. Each year, DOL awards grants 

based on a competitive review process that assesses past performance and community needs. 

The grants typically range in size from $700,000 to $1,100,000 and are intended to cover two 

years of program services for one or more cohorts of young people and 9 to 12 months of 

follow-up services.10 Grantees are also required to raise nonfederal funds to match 25 percent of

the DOL grants they receive.

The YouthBuild network also receives funding from a variety of other public and private sources through grants to YouthBuild USA. For example, about 70 YouthBuild programs 

nationwide receive annual funding from CNCS through its grant to YouthBuild USA. These 

programs, called YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs, strongly emphasize community service 

and postsecondary enrollment.11 Other sources of funding include state appropriations, education funding (based on average daily attendance), and foundation grants, among others.

The programs across the country are quite diverse in structure and size. Some programs 

are community-based organizations or faith-based organizations, while others are run by local 

government agencies or educational institutions. In addition, at least 40 YouthBuild programs 

are now diploma-granting schools. While the average program serves between 30 and 40 young 

people per year, some are quite small, serving 8 to 10 young people, while others serve 75 or 

more per year.

12

 10A “cohort” is a group of participants who join a program at the same time and move through it together.

11A distinguishing feature of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs is that participants are eligible for education awards when they complete YouthBuild. These awards range from about $1,175 to $5,500 depending on 

participants’ hours of service and other activities. 12One program in the evaluation served more than 200 young people each year.
4 

The Model

The YouthBuild model includes a mix of education, vocational training (typically in 

construction), counseling, leadership development, and community service. Eligibility is usually 

limited to out-of-school young people ages 16 to 24 who have dropped out before completing 

high school and who meet one of the following criteria: They are from low-income or migrant

families, are in foster care or are aging out of it, are ex-offenders, have disabilities, or are 

children of incarcerated parents.13

Programs recruit or rely on word of mouth to identify interested applicants, who then go 

through assessments before enrollment such as tests of basic skills and one-on-one interviews. 

Most programs then implement a rigorous Mental Toughness Orientation (MTO), which can 

last from a single day to several weeks. MTO is designed to facilitate group bonding and ready 

recruits for the program’s activities. According to YouthBuild staff members, the top four 

activities conducted during MTO were team-building exercises, life-skills training, leadership 

development and community service, and academic work, all of which are also activities that 

young people participated in after officially enrolling in YouthBuild.14 It also serves as a period 

when young people are screened out because they stop attending or otherwise fail to follow 

established rules.

Most young people who make it through MTO enroll in YouthBuild, are offered the 

program’s services, and participate for 6 to 12 months. New participants typically begin the 

program with a cohort of other new young people, and the cohort alternates between education 

and vocational training. For example, many programs use a weekly rotation in which young 

people participate in education one week and vocational training the next. The components of 

the model are intended to be integrated and are designed to be offered together, which distinguishes YouthBuild from other youth programs that may offer some of the same services.

YouthBuild’s services consist of: 

● Educational services such as instruction in basic skills, remedial education, 

and alternative education leading to a high school diploma or GED. A growing number of programs also offer services to prepare young people for postsecondary education.

15

 13A low-income family is defined as one whose income falls below 80 percent of median family income in 

the local area. 14See Wiegand et al. (2015) for more details on the content and structure of MTO. 15Efforts to promote college enrollment have been supported by several grants to YouthBuild USA and are 

also authorized and encouraged by DOL.
5

● Vocational training, typically training in construction in which participants 

rehabilitate or build housing for low-income people. Beginning in 2012, certain DOL-funded programs were authorized to provide a “construction plus” 

model, in which funding could be used to offer training for in-demand occupations outside construction. Before that date, some programs were already

providing training for other vocations such as Certified Nursing Assistant, 

commercial driver, or information technology professional.

● Youth-development services, including leadership training and community 

service. These services are defining features of YouthBuild that are addressed in multiple ways and serve multiple purposes. Leadership training is 

approached through structured curricula or formal and informal roles for participants within the YouthBuild program on committees, in the classroom, on 

work sites, or in community activities and meetings. Young people participate in community service by constructing affordable housing and through 

other activities; this community service attends to the community’s needs, 

teaches the value of helping others, and provides opportunities for young 

people to practice leadership and other skills.

● Supportive services and transition services include counseling, case management, life-skills training, workforce preparation, follow-up services for 

one year, stipends for participation, and other forms of support, such as help 

with transportation, child care, or housing. All of these services are designed 

to help young people address challenges that may prevent them from achieving success in the program or beyond.

Its focus on youth development distinguishes YouthBuild from more traditional employment programs for young people. YouthBuild reflects a movement to empower young 

people, advocate for them, foster their civic engagement and activism, and encourage them to 

take on roles of responsibility and leadership in their personal lives and broader communities.

Together, the combination of services is hypothesized to create a number of positive 

changes for participants, which are shown in in the rightmost boxes in Figure 1.1. In the short

term, YouthBuild aims to increase participants’ basic skills and help them earn a GED or high 

school diploma. Young people in the program can also accumulate work experience at the work 

sites, earn training credentials, and find jobs. Less tangibly, YouthBuild aims to stimulate 

lasting changes in attitudes that will keep young people on a positive trajectory and increase 

their civic engagement. In the longer term, YouthBuild aims to see its participants enroll in and 

complete college, maintain stable employment, earn more money, and have less involvement 

than their peers in the criminal justice system.
Figure 1.1

Participant-Level YouthBuild Conceptual Framework

Recruitment

Assessment

Mental 

Toughness 

Orientation

Program

entry

YouthBuild services

Vocational training 

• Construction training

• Vocational classes

• Work-site training

Youth development 

• Leadership

curriculum

• Youth Policy Council

• Roles in program 

administration

• Community-service 

activities

Supportive and

transitional services 

• Counseling

• Case management

• Life-skills training

• Support services

• Workforce preparation

• Follow-up services

• Stipend

Long-term

outcomes

Postsecondary 

enrollment and 

completion

Work experience

Stable employment

Increased earnings

Reduced 

involvement in the 

criminal justice 

system

Stable living 

arrangements

Improved health

and well-being

Short-term

outcomes

Organizational characteristics

Participant characteristics

Community context

Education

• High school 

equivalency 

preparation

• High school diploma 

classes

• Postsecondaryeducation preparation

Literacy or numeracy 

gains

High school diploma or 

equivalent

Training certificate

Work experience

Employment

Improved outlook

on the future

Increased

aspirations

Civic

engagement 

6
7 

The bottom of Figure 1.1 shows that a variety of contextual factors can influence a participant’s experience in YouthBuild and subsequent outcomes. A number of program features 

could also affect outcomes and impacts — chiefly the program’s fidelity to the YouthBuild 

model. This report examines whether programs of varying fidelity have different effects, and 

whether YouthBuild has different effects on participants with different characteristics. For 

example, in visits to the programs conducted for the implementation study, staff members often

mentioned that older participants seemed more ready to benefit from YouthBuild’s services 

than their younger counterparts. This report therefore compares YouthBuild’s effects on 

participants who were older when they entered the study (those 20 and older) with its effects on 

those who were younger (those under age 20).

Apart from fidelity to the YouthBuild model, a range of other factors might also affect 

outcomes, such as the intensity of Mental Toughness Orientation, the strength of a program’s 

postsecondary preparation, or the strength and tenure of its leaders. A formal analysis of how 

such program features influence programs’ impacts will appear in the final report. 

The local context might also affect program impacts. For example, a program may 

have a smaller measurable effect in areas where there are a range of other options for educational and vocational services, since young people in the control group would have access to 

these services. In addition, the local economy might have important effects. As documented 

in the earlier implementation report, the programs participating in the evaluation are generally 

located in higher-poverty areas facing myriad challenges. Staff members described their 

neighborhoods as having dilapidated housing, little public transportation or other infrastructure, few job opportunities, and poor schools.16 In interviews for the implementation study (in 

2012 and 2013), they also described the effects of the Great Recession — a halt in construction, business closures, and layoffs — and how these conditions hit hardest the young people 

they serve. Conditions had improved by the time they were interviewed, although not by 

much. Unemployment rates have fallen somewhat since 2009, but they still remain quite high 

for young people (see Figure 1.2).

The local economy can affect program impacts in two important ways. First, it affects 

what the program can offer young people. For example, the downturn in the housing market 

made it more difficult for programs to find new construction projects and thus good training 

opportunities for participating young people. Second, the economy, locally and more broadly, 

affects how participants fare after the program. Young people enrolled in the study between late 

2011 and early 2013, so the follow-up period covered in this report ranges from 2012 through 

mid-2015. Unemployment rates were still quite high during this time, particularly for young 

 16Wiegand et al. (2015). 
8 

 

Figure 1.2

Unemployment Rates by Age

0

5

10

15

20

25

2000 2005 2010 2015

Percentage unemployed

Year 

16 to 24 years old 25 years old or older

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016a).

people. It is not clear how the effects of an education and training program might vary with the 

economy. Recent research suggests that labor-market programs can have bigger effects in 

slower economic times, although the depth and longevity of the Great Recession was unlike any 

previous downturn over the last 75 years, and this research did not examine the question for 

young people specifically.17 Beyond unemployment rates, however, structural changes in the 

economy over the past several decades have led to reduced earnings opportunities for many 

workers. People with less education are more and more likely to work in low-paying servicesector jobs, and wages have even fallen in the higher-paying jobs traditionally available to less17Card et al. (2015). 
9 

educated workers.18 It will be important to keep this economic context in mind when interpreting the findings.

There have been a number of studies of YouthBuild over the past 20 years, although 

none were conducted as randomized controlled trials.19 Most studies have either documented 

program implementation or tracked YouthBuild graduates to assess how they fare after leaving 

the program. Ferguson and Snipes, for example, conducted a formative evaluation from 1991 to 

1994 of the first five YouthBuild replication programs, documenting the challenges programs 

faced in achieving high fidelity to the model, and the essential features of the model that help

young people succeed. Another study of YouthBuild graduates selected primarily from a subset 

of established YouthBuild programs found that YouthBuild graduates fared relatively well after 

leaving the program, with a majority either enrolled in school or training, or working and 

earning above a certain wage per hour.20

The Evaluation

YouthBuild is now being evaluated using a random assignment design, in which eligible young people at participating programs around the country were assigned either to a 

program group, invited to enroll in YouthBuild, or to a control group, provided information on 

other services in the community. Young people assigned to the control group could not enroll in 

YouthBuild at the participating program for two years. The next chapter examines how many 

young people in the program group actually participated in YouthBuild services, and also the 

types of services in which the control group participated.

The evaluation consists of three components:

●

●

Process study. This study examined the operations of the YouthBuild programs in the evaluation and the perceptions and experiences of the participating young people. The study assessed each program’s fidelity to the YouthBuild model. Findings from the process study were presented in an earlier 

report.21

Impact study. This study will track both the program and the control groups 

for four years using survey data and administrative records.22 The impact 

analysis will examine the program’s effects on a wide range of outcomes, in-

 18Kearney, Hershbein, and Boddy (2015). 19See, for example, Ferguson and Snipes (1994); Hahn, Leavitt, Horvat, and Davis (2004); Mitchell et al.

(2003); Hahn and Leavitt (2007); and Cohen and Piquero (2009). 20Hahn, Leavitt, Horvat, and Davis (2004). 21Wiegand et al. (2015). 22Administrative records are data collected primarily for the management of programs and public services.
10

cluding enrollment in education and educational attainment, work and earnings, involvement in the criminal justice system, family structure, and social

and emotional development. This report presents interim findings, and 

longer-term findings will be presented in the final report.

● Cost-effectiveness study. This analysis will estimate the costs of operating 

and running YouthBuild and compare these costs with any positive gains that 

are achieved. The results from this analysis will be included in the final 

report.

Program Selection

The programs selected for the evaluation include a mix of those receiving funding from 

DOL in 2011 and those receiving funding from CNCS. The first selection pool included the 

group of 74 programs that received grants from DOL (and in some cases CNCS as well, 

although this report refers to them as “DOL-funded programs”). Three of these programs were 

deemed unsuitable for the study and were dropped from the pool.23 From the remaining 71 

programs, 60 programs were randomly selected to participate in the study.24 After discussions 

with program staff members and DOL, 2 of the 60 selected programs were subsequently 

dropped from the evaluation.25 See Appendix A for more information about program selection.

The remaining programs were selected from a group of programs that did not receive 

DOL funding in 2011 but received relatively large grants from CNCS, through its National 

Direct Grant to YouthBuild USA.26 DOL and CNCS chose to include the CNCS-funded 

programs in the evaluation in order to examine whether DOL-funded programs have different

 23Interviews with staff members at these three programs indicated that young people assigned to a control 

group would be likely to receive services that were very similar to YouthBuild services, which would provide a 

poor test of YouthBuild’s effects. These programs accounted for only 4 percent of the expected YouthBuild 

enrollment among all grantees. 24Budget considerations prohibited selecting all 71 programs for the study. Programs were selected using 

probability-proportional-to-size sampling, in which larger programs representing more young people had a 

greater probability of selection. Selecting programs in this way meant that each program slot, or young person, 

had an equal chance of selection. 25Several discussions with program and DOL staff members revealed that random assignment was not 

feasible at these two programs because they would not be able to enroll study participants during the evaluation’s intake period. 26Discussions with DOL and YouthBuild USA staff members suggested that the study should draw from 

those programs that received grants of $95,000 or more from CNCS. Of the 40 programs that received CNCS 

funding but not DOL funding in 2011, 24 programs received grants of $95,000 or more. 
11

impacts than CNCS-funded programs.

27 Of the 24 programs that received relatively large 

CNCS grants, 7 were deemed not suitable for the evaluation, leaving 17 CNCS-funded programs in the study.28

In total, 75 programs were selected for the study: 58 DOL-funded programs and 17 

CNCS-funded programs. Although effects are examined across all programs combined, it is 

important to remember that the group of CNCS-funded programs is not a random sample of 

such programs. However, as mentioned later, the programs in the evaluation look very similar 

to the broader population from which they were selected.

Program and Study Intake

The participating programs enrolled 3,929 young people into the study between August 

2011 and January 2013.29 The study team worked with each program to implement random 

assignment during one or more of its enrollment cycles during this period. The general procedure was to determine the number of suitable applicants for the program and offer available 

program slots to these young people through a lottery-like process. The programs used their 

normal selection processes as much as possible to create the eligible pool of applicants. Figure

1.3 illustrates a typical YouthBuild selection process, though the details varied slightly from 

program to program. Random assignment would then occur among that smaller, eligible pool of 

applicants.

As shown in the figure, the first step in intake was recruitment, which is typically a major activity for most programs. It involved considerable staff effort, in part because YouthBuild 

programs usually recruited many more applicants than they needed to fill their open slots. 

Excess applicants were needed because some applicants were determined to be ineligible or 

unsuitable for the program during screening, and others dropped out during screening. See 

Chapter 4 of the earlier implementation report for more detail on recruitment and screening.30

Once recruited, the next step was to determine whether a young person met additional 

eligibility requirements beyond those listed above. Staff members reviewed young people’s 

 27The funding-source distinction is not very clear-cut, however, since many of the DOL-funded programs 

also received CNCS grants. Similarly, several of the 17 CNCS-funded programs in the study received DOL 

grants in the subsequent year. 28Four of the programs planned to shut down in the coming year, and three indicated that young people in 

the control group would be likely to receive services similar to YouthBuild services. 29Three programs were unable to conduct random assignment during the intake period because their enrollment numbers were too low. These programs were included in the process study but are not included in the 

impact study. 30Wiegand et al. (2015).
12

Figure 1.3

Typical YouthBuild Selection Process

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Labor (2014a), YouthBuild USA (2014), and YouthBuild site-visit interview data. 

NOTES: a

These are the eligibility criteria required by the funders. Programs may use additional criteria.

 b

Although YouthBuild is a program aimed at high school dropouts, 25 percent of participants in programs funded by DOL can be young 

people who are not high school dropouts, who have high school diplomas, or who are not in one of the target populations, as long as they are 

deficient in basic skills or are referred to a high school diploma-granting YouthBuild program by another high school.

Application and Eligibility 

Determinationa

Recruitment

• Word-of-mouth referrals

• Leafleting and publicity 

campaigns

• Working with referral 

partners 

• Street outreach 

Recruits must: 

• Be age 16 to 24 

• Have dropped out of high schoolb

• Fall into at least one of the 

following target categories:b

§ Current or former foster child 

§ Youth offender

§ Adult offender

§ Young person with a 

disability

§ Migrant farm worker

§ Child of an incarcerated 

parent 

§ Low-income young person

Screening and Assessment

Orientation, 

testing, interview

Mental 

Toughness 

Orientation

Enrollment

Young people funded by CNCS 

must not:

• Have been convicted of murder

• Be registered sex offenders 
13

application forms and conducted various assessments and interviews to determine whether 

applicants met these additional requirements. Most commonly, applicants had to live within 

certain geographical boundaries and have minimum math and reading scores on assessments of 

basic skills. At some point during the screening process, the majority of study programs 

administered an academic skills test, usually the Test of Adult Basic Education or the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems. Programs were divided in how they used these 

tests: Roughly half used them to screen out applicants who did not meet minimum test-score 

requirements, and the rest used them for diagnostic purposes, to establish a baseline for each 

applicant’s skills and to determine what academic services that applicant needed.31 Some 

programs used additional criteria, such as not having a substance abuse problem, to determine 

whether a young person was appropriate for the program. Applicants who met these criteria 

were often described as having demonstrated “readiness,” or a motivation to make positive 

changes in their lives.

After the initial screening process, young people were invited to MTO. As a result of 

the intensive application and screening, nearly half of the young people who turned in 

applications to the study programs did not receive invitations to MTO, either because they 

dropped out during the screening process or because the program decided they were not 

suitable for YouthBuild.32

MTO is designed to determine young people’s willingness to change, to gauge their interest and motivation, to build teamwork while they get to know one another, and to introduce 

them to the specifics of the YouthBuild program. The duration and intensity of MTO varied 

quite a bit; on average it lasted for 10 days and for seven hours per day. According to staff 

members at the study programs, the top four activities conducted during MTO were teambuilding exercises, life-skills training, leadership development and community service, and 

academic work, all of which are also activities that young people participated in after officially 

enrolling in YouthBuild.33 Although it is an important step in the process, DOL does not count 

young people who do not complete MTO, and thus do not go on to receive core services, as 

program participants.

MTO also served as an additional form of screening. During MTO, staff members 

might determine that a young person was not ready for YouthBuild or not a good fit for the 

program and ask that person to stop attending, or a young person might stop attending and 

 31Programs that required a minimum score set that minimum at a sixth-grade reading level, on average. 

See Wiegand et al. (2015) 32For example, a young person may not have fully participated in preprogram activities, or may have 

caused a disturbance while attending. 33Wiegand et al. (2015). 
14

therefore select him- or herself out of participation. An average of one in four recruits who were 

invited to MTO did not complete it.34

An important issue for the study team was the timing of random assignment at each 

program. Would young people deemed eligible and appropriate for YouthBuild be randomly 

assigned to the program or the control group before MTO, sometime during MTO, or after they

had completed MTO? One argument for conducting random assignment before MTO was that 

many staff members considered that orientation to be an important part of YouthBuild. Conducting random assignment before the orientation would ensure that young people assigned to 

the control group did not receive any of the YouthBuild program. However, an argument for 

conducting random assignment after MTO was that many young people drop out of this 

orientation before going on to receive YouthBuild’s core services. Conducting random assignment before the orientation would therefore also mean that many young people assigned to the 

program group would never receive YouthBuild services, which would hinder the study’s 

ability to detect program impacts. Ultimately, the decision about when to conduct random 

assignment was made by each program, with input from the study team. Most programs (81 

percent of programs, representing 75 percent of study participants) opted to conduct random 

assignment before MTO or during its first few days.35

In order to ensure an adequate number of young people for available slots, the study 

team aimed for a random assignment ratio in which 60 percent of eligible young people would 

be assigned to the program group and 40 percent to the control group. In practice, some programs had difficulty securing enough excess applicants to meet this 60:40 ratio and were 

allowed to deviate from it if necessary. On average, 69 percent of eligible young people were 

randomly assigned to the YouthBuild group and 31 percent were assigned to the control group. 

Only about 12 percent of programs (representing 16 percent of study participants) used a ratio 

above 80:20.

Data and Methods

The analysis presented in this report is based on several data sources. First, surveys 

were administered to a random subset of study participants 12 and 30 months after they entered 

the study. The surveys obtained information on participation in education and training, educational attainment, work, family formation, and involvement in the criminal justice system. Both 

surveys achieved 80 percent response rates with very small differences in response rates 

 34Wiegand et al. (2015). 35The timing of random assignment was found to have no effect on the percentage of young people in the 

program group who ultimately went on to receive the core YouthBuild services. Similarly, program impacts for 

those programs that conducted random assignment before MTO or within its first few days were similar to the 

impacts for programs that conducted random assignment later (not shown). 
15

between the program and control groups.36 A total of 2,845 participants provided responses to 

the 12-month survey, and 2,808 participants provided responses to the 30-month survey.

Administrative records on employment and earnings were obtained for the full sample 

from the National Directory of New Hires, which provides quarterly wage data for existing 

workers in employment covered by the unemployment insurance system. These data will miss 

employment that is not covered by unemployment insurance, including informal work and selfemployment. Data on postsecondary enrollment were obtained for the full sample from the 

National Student Clearinghouse, which tracks enrollment and degree receipt nationally. Although it captures over 90 percent of postsecondary enrollment in the United States, its coverage varies for different types of institutions. Its coverage is highest for public institutions and 

lowest for for-profit institutions.37 Thus, both types of records are important complements to the 

surveys, but they may miss some types of employment and postsecondary enrollment.

A grantee survey was administered in fall 2012 to all 110 YouthBuild programs funded 

by DOL, CNCS, or both during the evaluation period, including those programs selected for the 

study. The survey asked administrators to provide information about programs’ years in 

operation, funders, operating budgets, staff structures and staff experience levels, constructionwork-site characteristics, recent recruitment and enrollment experiences, stipends, and programcomponent characteristics. These data are used to compare the study programs with the larger 

population of programs from which they were drawn.

Finally, all programs receiving DOL funding are required to enter data on participant 

characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes into the DOL YouthBuild management information system.38 The study used these data to assess the reliability of the findings on YouthBuild participation shown in the surveys. All programs receiving CNCS funding entered 

quarterly data into a separate management information system. While these data do not provide 

detailed information on participation, they do indicate formal enrollment status.

Because young people were randomly assigned either to the program group or to the 

control group, the effects of the program can be estimated as the differences between the two 

groups’ outcomes. (Appendix Table A.2 presents a comparison of the characteristics of the 

program and control groups, showing that the two groups were similar on average when they 

enrolled in the study.) These differences between the full program and control groups (often 

referred to as “intent-to-treat” effects) are the main focus of this report and represent the effect 

of the program on the average outcomes of young people assigned to the program group, 

 36Appendix B includes a detailed analysis of survey response rates. 37Dynarski, Hemelt, and Hyman (2015). 38A management information system is a database that holds information on program operations and that 

can produce reports on every level of a program’s management.
16

whether or not they participated in YouthBuild. Occasionally the text will mention “impacts per 

participant” (sometimes referred to in other research as “treatment-on-the-treated” effects), 

which represent the effects of the program on those young people in the program group who 

actually participated in YouthBuild. Effects per participant are estimated by dividing the effects 

on the full program group by the fraction of the program group who participated in YouthBuild.

Impacts are estimated for each outcome using regression models in which the outcome 

of interest is regressed on an indicator for program status and several variables measured at or 

before the time of random assignment. These additional variables improve the precision of the 

impact estimates; they include the participant’s age, sex, education level, parent status, and 

race/ethnicity. Variables are also included for each individual program in order to account for 

variation in the random assignment ratio among participating programs. See Appendix A for 

more detail.

Finally, as the number of outcomes that are examined increases, the probability of obtaining impacts that are statistically significant simply by chance also increases. Although the 

estimates in this report are not formally adjusted to account for multiple hypothesis testing, the 

analysis does attempt to address this risk by limiting the number of outcomes examined. In 

addition, effects that do not appear to be part of a larger pattern are given less emphasis in the 

discussion.

Characteristics of Participating Programs and Young People

Study Programs

Table 1.1 presents selected characteristics of the 75 programs in the study. (See the process report for more detail.) Most programs were operated by nonprofit organizations, most of 

which were local or regional nonprofits, including community development corporations, 

community action agencies, and local American Job Centers.39

The study programs were spread across 29 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC, and along a continuum from densely populated urban centers to rural areas (see Figure

1.4). Roughly 50 percent of YouthBuild programs were concentrated in or near major metropolitan areas with populations of a million or more (for example, New York City and Los Angeles) 

while about 20 percent were located in rural areas with populations of less than 50,000 (for 

example, Bemidji, Minnesota, and Hammond, Louisiana). These differing geographies have 

implications for recruitment, service delivery, and the availability of jobs.

 39American Job Centers are the one-stop centers authorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 

Act of 2014 to provide employment and training services to job seekers and workers.
17

Table 1.1 

Summary of Program Characteristics 

 

 Percentage Percentage

Program Response of Programs of Participants

 

Nonprofit

 

82.7 87.9

National nonprofit 12.0 9.2

Local/regional nonprofit 70.7 78.7

 

 

Community college 4.0 3.3

 a

Type of organization

Other 17.3 12.1

Public agency 10.7 7.4

School district 2.7 1.5

Geography

Large metro, central 34.7 44.2

Large metro, fringe 17.3 12.0

Medium metro 18.7 24.2

Small metro

 

8.0 2.3

Rural 21.3 17.4

Years in community

Less than 20 28.0 35.8

Between 20 and 50 56.0 53.5

More than 50 16.0 10.8

 Years operating YouthBuild

Less than 6 24.0 29.3

Between 6 and 10 36.0 32.1

More than 10 40.0 38.7

 YouthBuild USA affiliation status

No affiliation status 16.0 15.5

Provisional affiliate 20.0 24.1

Full affiliate 50.7 43.8

Accredited affiliate 13.3 16.7

 

Sample size 

 

75

 

3,929 

SOURCES: Calculations based on YouthBuild site-visit interview data, National Center for Health 

Statistics data, and affiliation information from YouthBuild USA.

NOTE: aGeography is based on the National Center for Health Statistics scheme. For this table, 

micropolitan and noncore were combined to create the rural category listed here. The U.S. Virgin 

Islands were assigned a code based on total population and population density information from the 

2010 U.S. Census. Examples: Large metro, central: Atlanta, GA, and New York, NY; large metro, 

fringe: Gary, IN, and Tacoma, WA; medium metro: Spokane, WA, and Springfield, MA; small 

metro: Columbia, MO, and Jackson, MI; rural: Hammond, LA, and Traverse City, MI. 
18
19

The ages of organizations operating YouthBuild also varied. They were generally well

established, with a large majority having been in their communities for at least 20 years. The 

YouthBuild programs themselves ranged in age from 3 to 33 years, with an average of 10 years.

Finally, some YouthBuild programs were affiliates of the YouthBuild USA Affiliated 

Network while others were not. Affiliate programs have access to additional funding and other 

types of program support, including AmeriCorps funding from CNCS and technical assistance. 

Three levels of affiliation — provisional, full, and accredited — are intended to describe a range 

of YouthBuild programs, from “provisional” status for programs in the planning and development phase to “accredited” status for well-established programs that meet YouthBuild USA 

performance standards and have demonstrated fidelity to the YouthBuild model. Nearly 85 

percent of programs in the evaluation were part of the YouthBuild USA network, and almost 65 

percent were full or accredited affiliates.

Overall, the programs in the evaluation represent a wide variety of types. Some are in 

small towns and serve only a handful of young people each year, while others are in very large 

cities and enroll several cohorts per year. Some are just one program run by much larger 

umbrella organizations, while others are the main programs in their organizations, or even stand

alone. This variety is also evident in the larger population of programs from which the evaluation programs were drawn. As shown in Appendix Table A.1, the programs participating in the 

study look very similar to this broader population of all programs that received funding from 

DOL or CNCS in 2011.40

Study Participants

Table 1.2 presents selected characteristics of participating young people when they enrolled in the study. The majority of participants are male (64 percent) and most are either black 

(63 percent) or Latino (15 percent). On average, study participants were nearly 20 years old 

when they entered the study, with about 70 percent older than age 18.

About 10 percent of young people had a high school diploma or GED when they entered the study. Although the program targets young people who have dropped out of high 

 40A formal test of external validity was conducted for the DOL-funded programs, comparing the 60 programs selected for the study with the broader sample of 74 DOL grantees. That test suggested that results from 

the DOL-funded program sample can be taken to represent (generalize to) the broader sample of grantees. 

However, a test was not conducted for the full sample of programs, since the group of CNCS-funded programs 

was not a random sample of programs receiving funding from CNCS. Nonetheless, as noted in the text, the 

study programs generally look similar to the broader population from which they were drawn.
20

Table 1.2 

Baseline Characteristics of the YouthBuild Sample 

 Percentage

Characteristic of Participants

 Age

16-18 years old 33.0

19-21 years old 46.3

22 years old or older 20.7

Male (%) 64.1

 Race/ethnicitya

Hispanic or Latino 14.6

White, non-Hispanic 15.3

Black, non-Hispanic 62.9

Otherb 6.0

Not specified 1.1

Has a child 30.0

Highest grade completedc 

7th

 

 

 

 

1.0

8th 7.5

9th 18.6

10th 26.2

11th 34.9

12th 10.0

Has a high school diploma or equivalent 9.2

Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.6

Housing status 

Lives with family 61.0

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.2

Is staying at someone’s apartment, room, or house 15.7

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.6

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.2

Is homeless 3.0

 (continued)
21

Table 1.2 (continued) 

 Percentage

Characteristic of Participants

Who suggested you apply to YouthBuild? 

Family member or relative 29.8

No one 32.5

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.3

Friend 20.7

Other 9.7

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild

GED 87.7

College 63.1

To get life on track 88.2

Job 84.6

Training 67.2

Friends 7.0

Because of children or the need to support family 1.5

Other 4.4

Sample size 3,929 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or 

Alaskan, and responses of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.

school, funding guidelines allow programs to enroll some high school graduates.41 Most of 

those who dropped out of high school did so after completing either tenth or eleventh grade, 

although about a third of them had completed ninth grade or less. As noted in the process study, 

many program staff members reported that participants typically had reading and math levels 

equivalent to middle school, even if they had completed some high school.

 41Specifically, 25 percent of participants in programs funded by DOL can be young people who are not 

high school dropouts, who have high school diplomas, or who are not in one of the target groups, as long as 

they are deficient in basic skills or “have been referred by a local secondary school for participation ... leading 

to attainment of a secondary school diploma.”
22

Most young people reported that they decided on their own to enroll in YouthBuild or 

that they were referred to the program by family or friends. The most common reasons for 

applying to the program were to “get their life on track,” to obtain a GED, and to get a job. 

Fewer participants — though still more than half — listed “college” (63 percent) or “training” 

(67 percent) as reasons for applying. 

Findings from Other Youth Programs 

There have been a number of rigorous evaluations of programs for young people who have not 

completed high school. Overall, the programs tended to increase the rates at which participants 

received GEDs or other credentials, but they had less consistent effects on employment and 

earnings. To help place the YouthBuild evaluation and findings in this larger context, this 

section briefly discusses findings from several of these programs. The evaluation of YouthBuild, which also provides education and training services and which targets a similar population of young people as the programs discussed below, will add to the evidence base regarding 

what works to help disadvantaged young people. As did the evaluations listed below, because it 

is a randomized controlled trial the YouthBuild evaluation will provide the most rigorous level 

of evidence regarding the program’s effects.

The JOBSTART Demonstration was an early attempt to test what might work for disadvantaged young people. The programs in the demonstration were modeled on Job Corps 

(discussed below) but unlike Job Corps they offered their services in a nonresidential setting, as 

a way to test a less intensive and expensive model and one that might be available to a wider 

range of young people who might not be willing or able to live away from home while participating. Programs in the demonstration operated at 13 sites in the mid-1980s, serving young 

people who had not completed high school and had low reading levels. The evaluation found 

that the program led to sizable increases in GED receipt (of 13 percentage points), but had few 

effects on work or earnings through four years.42 The exception was that one program, the 

Center for Employment and Training (CET) in San Jose, California, produced relatively large 

increases in earnings. However, when the CET model was later replicated in 12 other locations, 

an evaluation found no increases in earnings through four and a half years.43

The American Conservation and Youth Service Corps (which, like YouthBuild, emphasizes community service) offers participants temporary, full-time subsidized work in community service projects, along with case management, basic adult education and opportunities to earn 

college credits, and training in job-readiness skills. An impact evaluation in the late 1990s found 

 42Cave, Bos, Doolittle, and Toussaint (1993). 43Miller et al. (2005). 
23

that more than a year after entering the study, Corps participants were more likely to have 

worked than control group members, and had also worked more hours.44 However, a more 

recent and more comprehensive study of 21 Corps programs found no significant effects on 

educational attainment or work after 30 months.45

Both of these evaluations studied nonresidential programs, but some other, more intensive programs for disadvantaged young people — Job Corps and National Guard Youth 

ChalleNGe, for example — ask participants to leave their homes and live at the program site for 

a number of months. Job Corps, funded by DOL, is a national program serving disadvantaged 

young people ages 16 to 24. Young people participate in three phases of the program, first 

getting acclimated to the program’s culture and expectations, next participating in education and 

career-skills training (during which they receive modest stipends), and finally transitioning into 

employment and follow-up services after they go home. 

An evaluation of the program, launched in 1994, found that the average young person

participated in the program for about eight months, and that it led to large increases in GED 

receipt and in the receipt of vocational certificates. For example, 42 percent of the program 

group earned a GED within four years after entering the study, compared with 27 percent of the 

control group. The program had no effects on college attendance. Job Corps is one of the few 

youth programs that led to positive effects on employment and earnings, although those effects 

faded after the fourth year of study follow-up. However, earnings gains did persist for older 

study participants (those who were ages 20 to 24 when they enrolled).46

National Guard Youth ChalleNGe serves a slightly younger population: 16- to 18-yearolds who have dropped out of high school. Participants engage in a five-month intensive 

residential program that includes eight core components: education, life skills, leadership skills, 

community service, citizenship building, physical fitness, health and hygiene, and job-skills 

training and career exploration. The program also helps participants set up structured mentoring 

for at least a year with mentors of their choice in their own communities, so that they have some 

support after they leave the program. A three-year study found that participants were more 

likely than their control group counterparts to have obtained high school credentials and to have 

earned college credits.47 By Year 3, for example, 57 percent of the program group had received 

a GED, compared with 35 percent of the control group. The program also led to an increase in 

employment and earnings in Year 3. Longer-term follow-up is not available. See Appendix 

Table A.3 for more information on several evaluations of programs for young people. 

 44Jastrzab, Masker, Blomquist, and Orr (1996). 45Price et al. (2011). 46Schochet, Burghardt, and McConnell (2008). 47Millenky, Bloom, Muller-Ravett, and Broadus (2011). 
24

Organization of This Report

The remainder of the report presents findings on participation in YouthBuild (among young 

people assigned to the program group) and program effects. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings 

from the process study on program implementation, presents data on participation in YouthBuild, and describes impacts on participation in education and training. Chapter 3 presents the 

program’s effects on a range of outcomes, including educational attainment, work and earnings, 

measures of youth development, and involvement in the criminal justice system. Chapter 4 

presents effects on important outcomes for selected subgroups, and Chapter 5 concludes.
25

Chapter 2 

Implementation and Participation

This chapter discusses the program implementation findings, participating young people’s 

experiences with the YouthBuild program, and young people’s participation in YouthBuild and 

other services. The first section reviews findings from the earlier implementation report. The 

next section presents follow-up survey responses on young people’s participation in YouthBuild 

and level of satisfaction with the program. The third section presents impacts on participation in 

education, training, and other services.

Implementation Findings

In 2015, the first report of this evaluation was released, Adapting to Local Context, presenting

implementation findings for the 75 participating YouthBuild programs.1 Extensive implementation data were collected and analyzed for that report, including multiday visits to each participating program and an online survey of programs.2

 The participating programs were very 

diverse and were representative of the YouthBuild programs operating nationwide at the time. 

They varied in their geographic locations, the lengths of time they had been in their communities, their organizational structures, and their funding and staffing arrangements. Overall, the 

evaluation found that programs were implementing the YouthBuild model faithfully.

It is worth noting, however, that the YouthBuild program model described in Chapter 1 

is not highly prescriptive. Instead, it is designed to allow variation based on program and 

community contexts. For example, there was considerable variation in the format of the educational services offered by different YouthBuild programs. Yet even though the content and 

format of classes varied from program to program, most shared the goal of providing participants individually tailored instruction and academic support. Small class sizes helped to 

promote positive relationships between instructors and participants. For vocational training, 

about a fifth of programs in the evaluation offered training in fields other than construction, 

such as health care, culinary arts, and computer technology. Training staff members reported 

often being stretched thin, and staff members overall reported that the economic downturn had 

significantly affected programs’ ability to implement construction-related vocational training. 

Specifically, it limited programs’ ability to provide quality construction experiences to participants and limited the marketability of the job skills programs taught. Programs grappled with 

 1

Wiegand et al. (2015). 2

Details of this “grantee survey” are discussed in Chapter 1.
26

ways to diversify their operations through new partnerships and to provide new training 

opportunities for participants.

Programs embraced the “culture” and value system of YouthBuild to varying degrees. 

This variation appeared most often in the leadership development component, a defining feature 

of YouthBuild, as noted in Chapter 1. While fidelity to the YouthBuild program model was 

high overall, not all programs were equally faithful in implementing the leadership development 

component. For example, a quarter of the participating programs did not have a functioning 

Youth Policy Council, a committee of students that plays an active role in setting decisions and 

policies that affect the program.3 Programs that did not implement the leadership development 

component as faithfully as others often had fewer resources and less ability to dedicate staff 

time to these activities. 

Many programs adopt flexible staffing arrangements to deliver supportive, transition, 

and follow-up services. Programs often needed to distribute the delivery of these services across 

multiple staff members. For example, fewer than half of the programs had a designated job 

developer to give participants assistance with job searches and job placement. Programs also 

often combined life-skills and work-readiness training into one class, diluting their intensity but 

meeting the requirement to offer these services.

YouthBuild programs typically were not alone in providing services to young adults in 

the communities where they operated. Although all the communities in this evaluation had other 

organizations offering some of the same services as YouthBuild, these alternative services 

rarely matched the breadth and scope of those provided by YouthBuild. The services were 

usually not all available through the same provider. Therefore, it was possible for a young 

person to gain access to the same service components as provided by YouthBuild, but he or she 

would need to visit multiple providers to do so, and it seems unlikely that those providers would 

have coordinated their services. Similarly, few alternative programs in these communities 

seemed to create empowering environments among their participants that could rival the 

environments developed by most of the YouthBuild programs in this study.

Participation in YouthBuild

Young people were asked about their participation in YouthBuild in the two follow-up surveys. 

Most participants had left the program before the 12-month survey. Because the 12-month 

survey took place closest to the time when young people would have received services, its data 

 3

Programs must have an active Youth Policy Council in order to become members of YouthBuild USA’s 

Affiliated Network. However, it is not an element that the U.S. Department of Labor requires of its grantees.
27

are presented in Table 2.1. (Appendix Table C.1 reports the corresponding data from the survey 

conducted at 30 months.) 

At 12 months, 74 percent of the program group reported that they had received

YouthBuild services or participated in YouthBuild activities at some point in the past. This 

definition is broad, and does not necessarily indicate that a young person formally enrolled in 

YouthBuild.4 As discussed in Chapter 1, in many cases random assignment occurred after 

Mental Toughness Orientation (MTO), so a survey respondent’s report of “participating” in 

YouthBuild might only mean that he or she had attended some part of MTO. However, these 

survey responses can be compared in some locations with the programs’ administrative data

on participation. Among the 69 programs with available enrollment data (representing 87 

percent of the young people in the research sample), 73 percent of the program group formally enrolled in YouthBuild (not shown in the table).

5 The fact that the participation rates shown 

in these two data sources are so similar suggests that a significant portion of the program 

group did participate in YouthBuild beyond MTO. It also means that a quarter of the program 

group participated in the YouthBuild application process and MTO at the most. As noted 

earlier, this report will present selected “impacts per participant” to adjust for this less-than100-percent participation rate.

Among those who reported receiving services, young people remained in YouthBuild 

for an average of eight months, and 50 percent reported completing the program. Once involved 

in program activities, most young people (87 percent) participated for more than three months. 

Again, these findings indicate that young people participated in YouthBuild beyond MTO and 

that the program staff members were able to engage them in the program model. In addition, 22 

percent of survey respondents said they were still enrolled in the program at the time of the 12-

month survey. 

These participation levels are similar to those found in other evaluations of youth programs. Job Corps’ program participation rate was also 73 percent, and young people reported 

staying in the program for an average of eight months.6 In the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe evaluation, 83 percent of the program group “registered” and began the residential preChalleNGe orientation phase. Within that group, 64 percent completed the program.7

 4

The timing of “enrollment” — and the definition of the term — varied among the 75 participating programs, so it was not possible to ask in the survey interviews about formal enrollment into core YouthBuild 

services. 5

Three programs did not enter the majority of their participants into either management information system available for this analysis. Due to their funding sources, these programs used their own management 

information systems. 6

Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2001). 7

Bloom, Gardenhire-Crooks, and Mandsager (2009).
28

Table 2.1 

 YouthBuild Program Experience, Program Group Only, at 12 Months 

 

Survey Response

YouthBuild 

Group

 Ever received YouthBuild services (%) 73.6

 

Current status, among those who ever received YouthBuild services

Currently enrolled 22.4

Graduated from the program 49.6

No longer enrolled and did not graduate 28.0

Reasons for not participating in or not completing the program (%)

 

Transportation 32.0

Incarceration 10.2

Program schedule 20.0

Another job 23.3

Moved 19.7

Birth of a child or child care problems 16.3

Health issue or family pressure 19.1

Conflict with the program, staff members, or other participants 21.7

Expulsion or being asked to leave 19.4

Another reason 27.2

Among those who participated

Months spent in YouthBuild 7.7

In YouthBuild for more than 1 month (%) 95.6

In YouthBuild for more than 3 months (%) 87.0

Received a stipend from YouthBuild (%) 84.2

Feel close to a YouthBuild staff person (%) 83.8

 Rated program, program component, or staff favorablya (%)

Overall YouthBuild experience 87.4

Construction or other job training 88.8

Counseling 81.9

Leadership training 86.8

Help finding a job 68.7

 

Help applying to college 77.7

 

Understanding your needs 80.0

Helping you solve problems 78.9

Helping you learn 86.5

Helping after you left YouthBuild 64.4

Staying in contact after you graduated 75.5

Sample size 1,830 

 

(continued)
29

Table 2.1 (continued) 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12-month survey.

NOTE: aIndicates a response of "very good" or "good." The other response options were "okay," 

"poor," and "does not apply to me." 

Young people in the program group described a variety of reasons for either never attending the program or not completing it. Table 2.1 presents the reasons they provided at 12

months. Thirty-two percent reported transportation issues and 23 percent had found another job. 

In the earlier implementation report, staff members also reported transportation as a major 

impediment to attendance. Other common reasons for not attending included family or health 

issues and a dislike of the program (the schedule, staff, or other participants). Notably, 10 

percent reported being incarcerated, and a slightly smaller percentage said that they stopped 

attending because the program closed (not shown).

8

Overall, those who attended YouthBuild rated the services they received and the program’s staff favorably. Highly rated program services included the general program experience, 

the construction or job-training component, the counseling, and the leadership training. Similarly, 84 percent of participating young people reported feeling close to a YouthBuild staff person 

and rated the staff favorably on understanding participants’ needs and helping them learn.

Although the ratings they gave in these areas were still fairly high, young people

seemed slightly less satisfied with the services they received after they left the program — such 

as assistance finding a job or other forms of help — and with the staff members who delivered 

them. Some young people were in contact with the program relatively frequently after they left, 

while others were in contact relatively infrequently. Specifically, at 30 months young people

were asked how frequently they were in contact with staff members from the program after they 

left. As shown in Table 2.2, 25 percent said they were in contact at least once a month and 

another 26 percent reported contact several times per year. The remaining half of the program 

group reported they were in contact once per year or not at all. Note that when young people

were asked this question at 30 months, most had been out of YouthBuild for almost two years, 

which is well beyond the 12-month period for which programs receive funding to provide 

postprogram follow-up services.

 8

Program data from YouthBuild USA indicate that 13 programs closed after serving the cohorts that participated in the evaluation. Young people who said on the 12-month survey that their programs closed are 

probably not referring to those 13 programs, since those programs closed after serving the cohorts in the 

YouthBuild evaluation.
30

Table 2.2 

YouthBuild Program Experience, Program Group Only, at 30 Months 

 

 YouthBuild

Survey Response (%) 

 

Group

Rated program favorablya

 

Caring staff 90.5

Safe and positive environment 90.0

Community service 92.6

Frequency of contact with YouthBuild staff members after leaving the program 

 

 

More than once a month 9.7

About once a month 15.0

A few times per year 25.6

Once per year 13.6

Not at all 36.2

Sample size 1,811 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30 -month survey.

NOTE: aIndicates a response of "very good" or "good." The other response options were "okay," 

"poor," and "does not apply to me." 

These participant ratings echo the findings about transition and postprogram services 

presented in the implementation report. They also echo an earlier study that surveyed YouthBuild graduates and found that many of them wanted more contact with the program after 

graduation.9 Most programs did not have staff members dedicated to cultivating employers, 

identifying job openings, and placing people in jobs. Smaller programs especially felt constrained by funding and were unable to devote enough staff time to support young people with 

job searches and job placement. Staff members said it was sometimes challenging to follow up 

with participants after they left the program because their living situations and contact information changed frequently. Other challenges to follow-up included a lack of staff time and 

difficulty getting alumni to come to YouthBuild offices. 

 9

Levine (2012). 
31

Young people enrolled in the study and assigned to the control group were prohibited 

from enrolling in the participating YouthBuild program for two years. As noted earlier, these 

sample members were given information about other appropriate services in the community. An 

analysis of administrative program data shows that fewer than 1 percent of control group 

members formally enrolled in participating YouthBuild programs following random assignment

(not shown). Note that this program information was only available for 69 programs, representing 87 percent of the young people in the study sample. In addition, at the time of the evaluation 

there were 12 cities that were home to multiple YouthBuild programs, including programs not 

participating in the evaluation. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure control group 

participation at YouthBuild programs not involved in the evaluation. About 18 percent of the 

young people in the control group did report on the 12-month survey that they had participated 

in YouthBuild. However, the question was asked in a very general way and could include a 

young person’s participation in the application process and Mental Toughness Orientation, in 

some cases. The fact that YouthBuild’s administrative data list fewer than 1 percent of control 

group members as enrolled in YouthBuild suggests that these control group members did not 

formally participate in the program.

Impacts on Service Receipt

The integration of education, vocational, and support services in the YouthBuild model suggests 

that young people in the program group should receive more and a wider range of services than 

their control group counterparts. As discussed in Chapter 1, these services, combined with the 

contextual factors of the program, the participants, and the community, can lead to positive 

outcomes for participating young people. However, young people who made it through the 

lengthy screening process were a motivated group at the time they applied. Therefore, the 

young people assigned to the control group are likely to have sought out alternative services on 

their own. This section examines the differences between the two groups in participation in 

educational, vocational, and other services.

One year after random assignment, both research groups had participated in many services, but the program group had participated at statistically significantly higher rates in all 

types of services.10 As shown in Table 2.3, services were divided into three domains that reflect 

the YouthBuild program model: education, job training, and personal development. Young 

 10As noted in Chapter 1, impacts are estimated using a regression framework in which the outcome of 

interest is regressed on an indicator variable for program status, plus additional variables measured at or before 

participants entered the study. Unless otherwise noted, all impacts discussed in the text are statistically 

significant at the 10 percent level or lower (see Appendix A for more detail).
32

Table 2.3 

Impacts on Service Receipt at 12 Months

 YouthBuild Control Difference 

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Education-related services

Ever participated (%) 75.0 57.4 17.5 *** 0.000

 

GED preparation 55.6 37.9 17.7 *** 0.000

Academic tutoring (not related to GED preparation) 18.1 7.6 10.5 *** 0.000

High school diploma prep courses 25.5 21.0 4.5 *** 0.007

Standardized Achievement Test preparation 25.0 13.3 11.8 *** 0.000

College-preparation activitiesa 31.0 11.6 19.4 *** 0.000

Getting help finding financial aid 30.9 14.1 16.7 *** 0.000

Otherb 11.0 7.0 4.0 *** 0.001

Months participated 4.6 2.2 2.4 *** 0.000

 Job or training-related services

Ever participated (%) 70.8 39.4 31.4 *** 0.000

 

Job-skills training program 43.2 17.4 25.8 *** 0.000

On-the-job training in construction or another field 54.6 13.3 41.3 *** 0.000

Job certification program 31.1 8.2 22.9 *** 0.000

Job-search assistancec 54.2 29.3 24.9 *** 0.000

Help applying to a vocational training programd 35.1 13.0 22.1 *** 0.000

Months participated 4.4 1.4 2.9 *** 0.000

 Personal-development services

Ever participated (%) 59.3 31.3 28.0 *** 0.000

 

Help or advice from a mentor 38.5 17.1 21.5 *** 0.000

Life-skills traininge 33.2 10.1 23.2 *** 0.000

Communication or public-speaking training 31.0 6.4 24.6 *** 0.000

Leadership-development training 41.4 8.7 32.6 *** 0.000

Health services 27.9 8.4 19.6 *** 0.000

Mental health services 18.5 6.0 12.5 *** 0.000

Working with a case manager 31.6 12.9 18.7 *** 0.000

Months participated 4.0 1.7 2.3 *** 0.000

 Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 (continued)
33

Table 2.3 (continued) 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aIncludes college-awareness or college-guidance activities, college-preparation or -transition programs, 

and preparation for college entrance exams.

 bIncludes attending adult education classes, various certification courses, and college attendance.

 cIncludes activities such as help filling out an application, writing a résumé, and going for an interview.

 dIncludes help with a program application or interview. 

 eIncludes activities such as parenting-skills classes and learning how to balance a checkbook.

people in the program and control group both reported receiving education-related services 

more often than services in the other two domains (75 percent of the program group and 57 

percent of the control group reported receiving education-related services). The one-year period 

following study enrollment roughly reflects the time when many young people in the program 

group were enrolled in YouthBuild and receiving its services.

Within the education domain, General Educational Development (GED) test preparation was the most common activity (reported by 56 percent of the program group and 38 percent 

of the control group). These GED preparation participation rates are strikingly similar to those 

for a similar period in the ChalleNGe evaluation.11 The program group reported participating in 

a wide range of activities, while the control group members’ participation was less varied. Many 

young people did continue to work toward a high school diploma as well. On average, the 

program group reportedly spent more than four and a half months participating in educationrelated activities, while the control group spent about two months.12

The vast majority of the program group (76 percent of those who received services, not 

shown in the table) said that they participated in these services at YouthBuild. This finding is 

not surprising, since working toward a GED or a high school diploma is a central feature of the 

program. The YouthBuild model requires that academic services account for 50 to 60 percent of 

a YouthBuild participant’s time. For the control group, the most common setting was a school

(32 percent). 

 11In the ChalleNGe evaluation, 9 months after study enrollment (a span that covers the 5.5-month ChalleNGe program period), 54 percent of the program group and 39 percent of the control group reported 

participating in GED preparation courses. See Bloom, Gardenhire-Crooks, and Mandsager (2009). 12For all the measures related to time spent on services in the three domains (discussed in this section and 

presented in Table 2.3), survey respondents were asked to report how much time they spent doing each 

individual activity within the domain. Since someone may have participated in many activities concurrently, 

Table 2.3 shows the averages of the longest times individuals reported for any activity within each domain.
34

Vocational training is another central component of the YouthBuild model. It is therefore unsurprising that members of the program group were significantly more likely to participate in job or training-related services than the control group (71 percent versus 39 percent). 

Again, the program group participated at high rates in a wide array of activities such as jobskills training and on-the-job training. The program group reported participating in these 

services for an average of three months longer than the control group. Seventy-eight percent of 

the program group members who received services reported receiving them at YouthBuild. The 

control group reported finding these services at community-based organizations, schools, 

employers, or elsewhere. 

In both groups, respondents reported participating in the personal-development services

domain the least frequently of the three. However, nearly 60 percent of the program group 

participated in these types of services, compared with only 31 percent of the control group. 

Unsurprisingly, given YouthBuild’s focus on leadership, the largest difference between the 

program and control groups (33 percentage points) is in participation in leadership-development 

training. The program group also reported participating in each of the other activities more 

frequently than the control group. Seventy-eight percent of the program group members who 

received these services received them at a YouthBuild program. Most of those in the control 

group who participated in these services found them at community-based organizations and 

other types of organizations.

At 30 months, the pattern of differences between the program group and the control 

group is similar to the pattern at 12 months, although higher percentages of both the program 

group and the control group reported receiving services in each domain than was the case at 12 

months, and the gaps between the program and control groups had narrowed. Figure 2.1 

presents a comparison between the 12- and 30-month surveys among young people who were 

interviewed at both times. See Appendix Table C.2 for a fuller accounting of the 30-month 

survey results. At 30 months, around 84 percent of the program group reported having participated in education-related services (compared with 72 percent of the control group) and 81 

percent had participated in job or training-related services (compared with 59 percent of the 

control group). As a comparison, in the Job Corps evaluation, 30 months after study enrollment 

90 percent of program group members reported that they had enrolled in an education or 

training program at some time since random assignment, as did 64 percent of the control 

group.13

Overall, these results indicate that the YouthBuild group participated in services at 

higher rates than the control group, and participated in a wider variety of services. In addition, 

 13Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2000). 
35

the control group participated in services in multiple locations. This finding reinforces those of

the process study: Alternative service providers in these communities rarely offered the same 

breadth and depth of services as a YouthBuild program. However, the screening done by 

YouthBuild programs led to a highly motivated sample, so it is not surprising that participation 

rates for the control group were high and increased over time.

Figure 2.1

Services Received According to the 12-Month and 30-Month Surveys

76.1

83.6

72.4

81.0

60.2

68.4

57.6

71.9

38.8

59.0

31.0

45.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

12-Month 30-Month 12-Month 30-Month 12-Month 30-Month

Percentage who participated in services 

Program group Control group

Educational Job-related Personal

development-related

SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12- month and 30-month surveys. 

NOTE: Among those who responded to both surveys (sample size = 2,511).
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
37

Chapter 3 

Impacts Through 30 Months

As described in Chapter 2, young people in both the program group and the control group 

reported receiving a variety of services. However, young people in the program group participated in services at significantly higher rates in all three domains measured: education, training, 

and personal development. Receiving these services is hypothesized to lead to better outcomes 

related to each of these domains. This chapter presents YouthBuild’s effects on education, 

employment, and youth development, as well as its effects in other areas, such as housing and 

involvement in the criminal justice system.

As discussed in Chapter 1, data sources for these analyses include administrative records and the two follow-up surveys. Tables presented in this chapter reflect responses to the 30-

month survey, when participating young people were 22 years old on average. See Appendix D 

for results from the 12-month survey. As also mentioned in Chapter 1, effects are occasionally 

discussed in terms of “impacts per participant” to account for the fact that not all young people

assigned to the program group went on to participate in YouthBuild. Impacts per participant for 

selected outcomes are presented in Appendix Table D.10.

In sum, the program led to positive impacts on young people’s educational outcomes, 

particularly the rates at which they earned General Educational Development (GED) credentials 

and enrolled in vocational training and postsecondary education, as well as on some measures 

of employment and earnings.1 There are few significant impacts on measures related to youth 

development and other outcome areas.

Impacts on Education

Educational services are essential components of the YouthBuild model: classes to help 

students complete their high school diplomas or GEDs; vocational services to prepare young 

people for careers; and services that help put students on a path to postsecondary education. As 

noted in Chapter 2, unless otherwise specified, only effects that are statistically significant at the 

10 percent level or lower are discussed as program impacts. See Appendix A for more detail on 

the methods used to estimate program impacts.

 1

The term “GED” is used throughout the report to indicate a high school equivalency credential, even 

though many states no longer use the official GED test to grant those credentials. The official GED test was

still the predominant test used, however, in the locations where sample members resided during the follow-up 

period.
38

Table 3.1 presents impacts on education and vocational training. Participants’ responses 

to the 30-month survey show that the program group was more likely than the control group to 

obtain a GED and receive vocational training or a trade license or certificate. Survey responses 

and enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse indicate that the program group 

was also more likely to enroll in postsecondary courses. At 30 months, 31 percent of the 

YouthBuild group had obtained a GED compared with only 18 percent of the control group, an 

impact of 14 percentage points.

2 The effect per participant is somewhat larger, at 19 percentage 

points. These findings are consistent with those reported in Chapter 2, showing that young 

people in the YouthBuild group were significantly more likely to receive GED preparation 

services than those in the control group.3 Although a number of programs did offer services to 

help young people earn high school diplomas, there was no significant difference between the 

program and control groups in the percentages who earned high school diplomas. 

To provide two points of comparison, the impacts on GED receipt found here are similar in size to those found in Job Corps but smaller than those in National Guard Youth ChalleNGe. After 30 months, 34 percent of the program group in the Job Corps evaluation and 17 

percent of the control group had earned GEDs, rates similar to those presented here for YouthBuild.4

 After nearly two years, almost half of the program group in the ChalleNGe evaluation 

had earned a GED, compared with only 22 percent of the control group.5

The next two rows of Table 3.1 present data on enrollment in vocational training and 

the rate at which survey respondents earned trade licenses or certificates. Thirty-one percent of 

the YouthBuild group reported having enrolled in vocational training since they entered the 

study, compared with 20 percent of the control group, a statistically significant increase of 10

percentage points.6 Most of the increase in vocational training occurred during the program, 

although members of the YouthBuild group were also more likely to pursue training after they 

 2

Data from the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) indicate that about 21 percent of adults ages 20 

and older who dropped out of high school have GEDs. See Fry (2010). 3

In early 2014, the official GED test was modified to make it better reflect the skills young people need to 

be successful in college and the workplace. In addition, several states stopped using the GED and chose to use 

different tests to assess high school equivalency. Many have argued that the new official GED test is more 

difficult to pass, and test-taking rates fell dramatically between 2013 and 2014 (see Mulhere, 2015). As noted 

in Chapter 1, however, given the timing of the evaluation, most study participants would have taken the official 

GED test to earn their high school equivalency credentials. Nonetheless, the change to the test may have 

affected a small number of YouthBuild participants who took equivalency tests after they left the program. 4

These numbers are among those who did not have the credential when they enrolled in the Job Corps 

evaluation. See Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2000). 5

Millenky, Bloom, and Dillon (2010). 6

Due to rounding there may appear to be a slight discrepancy in the figures shown here.
39

Table 3.1 

Impacts on Education and Training at 30 Months 

 YouthBuild Control Difference 

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Outcomes based on survey responses 

Earned a high school diploma or GED 49.3 36.7 12.6*** 0.000

 

High school diploma 18.1 19.2 -1.1 0.413

GED 31.2 17.5 13.7*** 0.000

Enrolled in high school or GED classes 65.3 59.3 6.0*** 0.002

 Enrolled in vocational schoola 30.8 20.4 10.3*** 0.000

Received a trade license/training certificateb 4.1 2.1 2.0** 0.019

 Enrolled in postsecondary courses 23.6 18.1 5.6*** 0.001

4-year college or university 4.5 2.2 2.3*** 0.005

2-year or community college 22.0 17.1 4.8*** 0.004

 Received a postsecondary degree 1.1 1.0 0.2 0.680

 

Associate's degree 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.300

Bachelor's degree 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.533

Other degree 0.3 0.5 -0.3 0.254

Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978

 Outcomes based on enrollment data 

Attended college 

 

Enrolled in a 4-year institution 3.0 2.4 0.6 0.304

Enrolled in a 2-year institution 15.1 8.0 7.1*** 0.000

Enrolled in a less-than-2-year institution 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.302

 

Public 15.5 8.0 7.5*** 0.000

Private 2.7 2.4 0.3 0.572

 

Full time 7.6 4.9 2.7*** 0.001

Part time 10.1 3.9 6.2*** 0.000

Received a degree 1.4 0.6 0.8** 0.032

 

Certificate 1.1 0.4 0.7** 0.031

Associate's 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.117

Bachelor's 0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.457

Master's 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.600

Sample size (total = 3,929) 2,700 1,229 

 

(continued)
40

Table 3.1 (continued) 

SOURCES: MDRC calculations using enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse and 

responses to the 30-month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 All outcomes reflect activity since random assignment unless otherwise noted.

 a"Vocational school" includes technical, business, and trade schools.

 b"Trade license/training certificate" includes technical, business, and trade certificates.

left the program (based on analyses not shown). National data suggest that about 9 percent of 

GED recipients between the ages of 16 and 24 enroll in vocational or technical programs.7

Both 

study groups are enrolling in these kinds of programs at a high rate, reinforcing the idea that the

evaluation sample is a motivated group of young people. While few young people received 

trade licenses or training certificates (fewer than 5 percent of both groups), there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with the program group about 2 percentage 

points more likely to complete a license or trade certificate. Note that the percentage of young 

people participating in vocational training reported here is somewhat lower than the reports of 

service receipt in general, presented through Month 12 in Chapter 2 and through Month 30 in 

Appendix Table C.2. This discrepancy most likely reflects the fact that the survey question used 

for the analysis in this chapter asked respondents about formal enrollment in vocational, 

technical, business, or trade school, not about participation in vocational training in general, 

which could include the training provided by YouthBuild itself. 

The next set of rows in the table presents effects on postsecondary enrollment. Given 

the positive effects on GED completion and many YouthBuild programs’ growing emphasis on 

postsecondary preparation, it is reasonable to expect effects on postsecondary enrollment. 

About 24 percent of young people in the program group reported having enrolled in postsecondary classes since random assignment, nearly 6 percentage points more than the control 

group. The effect per participant is somewhat larger, at 8 percentage points (see Appendix Table 

D.10). The survey data show that the YouthBuild group was more likely to report having 

enrolled in courses at both four-year and two-year colleges, although few members of either the 

program or the control group reported enrolling at four-year institutions. About 5 percent of the 

program group enrolled in a four-year college, compared with 2 percent of the control group. 

Enrollment rates for both groups are much higher at two-year colleges, and are 5 percentage 

points higher for the program group than they are for the control group. 

 7

Zhang (2010). 
41

Education outcomes are also reported using data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), which captures students’ enrollment at most postsecondary institutions in the 

United States, although its coverage is notably lower for for-profit institutions such as many 

technical schools.8 Like the survey data, NSC data also show an increase in postsecondary

enrollment, but the impact is only statistically significant for enrollment at two-year institutions. 

Fifteen percent of the YouthBuild group was enrolled at some point in a two-year program 

compared with 8 percent of the control group, an increase of 7 percentage points. The NSC data 

match the survey data in showing no effect on the rate at which young people earned associate’s 

degrees or higher degrees, but a small increase in the rate at which they earned certificates. The 

low rate of degree receipt is not surprising, since few young people would have had time to earn 

degrees during the 30-month follow-up period.

To provide a point of comparison for these effects on postsecondary education, the effect on certificate receipt is small compared with the effect found in the Job Corps evaluation. 

That program led to an increase in the receipt of vocational, technical, or trade certificates of 20

percentage points, although it had no effect on the receipt of college degrees.9 ChalleNGe, on 

the other hand, had no effect on certificate receipt (although vocational training was not part of 

its core services), but did lead to small increases in postsecondary enrollment.10

Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth indicate that by the age of 22, 

about 8 percent of GED recipients have enrolled in two-year colleges and 2 percent have 

enrolled in four-year colleges.11 These figures are comparable to the control group’s enrollment 

rates in this evaluation as measured using NSC data. The survey data show a somewhat higher 

rate of enrollment in two-year colleges, at 17 percent.

These findings are encouraging given that YouthBuild has only recently begun to focus 

on postsecondary preparation. They are also encouraging given that the young people in this 

study (in both the program and control groups) appear to have been highly motivated to seek 

out and participate in services on their own. Although by the time of the 30-month survey few 

participants would have had time to complete a degree (and few of them did earn degrees), there 

is evidence to suggest that people who enroll in community college see higher earnings over 

 8

GED recipients are more likely to enroll at for-profit colleges than students with traditional high school 

diplomas. Because so many members of the study sample are GED recipients, the NSC data may underrepresent the rates at which the program and control groups enrolled in college. See Dynarski, Hemelt, and Hyman 

(2015). 9

Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2000).

10Millenky, Bloom, and Dillon (2010).

11Calculations are based on the cross-sectional subsample of the survey, which is drawn to be representative of the full population. See Heckman, Humphries, and Mader (2010).
42

time whether or not they ever earn degrees.

12 Further, some research suggests that additional 

years of schooling can improve health outcomes and reduce the rate at which people receive

welfare benefits.13 The final report from this evaluation will explore student persistence over a 

longer period.

Impacts on Employment and Earnings

The opportunities for education and training in YouthBuild should help participating young 

people to find jobs after completing the program. While few young people in the program group 

reported receiving trade licenses or certificates, Chapter 2 showed that their participation in 

training programs was relatively high. Table 3.2 presents YouthBuild’s effects on employment 

and earnings 30 months after study enrollment. (See Appendix D for 12-month impacts.) As 

Chapter 1 noted, this follow-up period ranges from 2012 through mid-2015, when youth 

unemployment rates were still quite high. As one recent paper notes, youth unemployment is 

more sensitive to the economic context than adult employment.14

While sample members were still quite young at the time of the survey (age 22, on average) and some had enrolled in college, nearly 80 percent of the study sample reported having 

been employed at some point over the 30-month follow-up period, and just over 40 percent 

were employed at the time of the survey. Nearly a quarter reported full-time employment of 35 

hours or more a week, across one or more jobs. Although the program did not increase employment rates, the program group was significantly more likely than the control group to be 

earning $10 or more per hour (18 percent of the program group reported earnings at that level 

compared with 14 percent of the control group, for an impact of 3 percentage points).

15 Consistent with this difference, the program also led to an increase in weekly earnings of $15.70. 

This difference in earnings is similar to the impact found in the Job Corps evaluation at the 

same 30-month follow-up point. Rates of employment for both the program and control groups

were higher in Job Corps by about 10 percentage points.16 The lower employment rates for the

YouthBuild sample may be due in part to the weak youth labor market in the years following 

the Great Recession, as discussed in Chapter 1. 

 12Marcotte, Bailey, Borkoski, and Kienzl (2005). 13Belfield and Bailey (2011). 14Hossain and Bloom (2015). 15All wage and earnings averages include zeros for sample members who were not employed at the time 

of the survey. 16Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2000).
43

Table 3.2 

Impacts on Employment and Earnings at 30 Months 

 

 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Outcomes based on survey responses 

Ever employed since random assignment (%) 80.2 77.8 2.4

 

0.145

Currently employed (%) 44.3 41.9 2.4 0.245

 

 

Working full time (35+ hours/week) 25.1 24.7 0.4 0.820

Self-employed 11.1 9.4 1.7 0.188

Working through a temp agency 7.1 6.0 1.1 0.308

Earning $10/hour or more 17.5 14.2 3.3** 0.030

Average weekly earnings ($) 150.2 134.5 15.7* 0.081

Current job industry (%)

 

Construction 4.2 2.8 1.4* 0.075

Retail trade 6.3 6.0 0.3 0.741

Admin./support/waste mgmt./remediation 5.6 6.3 -0.7 0.484

Health care and social assistance 4.6 4.0 0.6 0.474

Accommodation and food service 10.5 10.9 -0.3 0.803

Other 12.3 11.2 1.1 0.422

Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978

 Outcomes based on unemployment insurance data 

Ever employed (%) 

 

Employed in Year 1 48.9 51.3 -2.4 0.120

Employed in Year 2 62.9 59.7 3.2** 0.049

Employed in Quarter 10 44.4 44.8 -0.4 0.816

Total earnings ($)

 

Earnings in Year 1 2,093.4 2,407.7 -314.3** 0.016

Earnings in Year 2 3,735.2 3,936.7 -201.5 0.293

Earnings in Quarter 10 1,280.8 1,277.0 3.9 0.962

Sample size (total = 3,877) 2,662 1,215 

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations using data from the National Directory of New Hires and responses to the 30 -

month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 Social Security numbers were not available for some sample members, who therefore could not be matched 

to the unemployment insurance database.
44

About 10 percent of the sample reported being self-employed (or just over 20 percent of 

those currently working). A separate analysis (not shown) indicates that the main difference in 

job types between the self-employed and other workers was that those reporting selfemployment were more likely to work in construction-related jobs.

The next set of rows in Table 3.2 presents the industry reported by sample members for 

their current jobs. Young people were most commonly employed in the accommodation and 

food service industry, a sector of the U.S. economy that employs many low-skilled workers. 

Rates of employment in the construction industry were quite low, especially when one considers YouthBuild’s focus on construction. As discussed earlier, these low employment rates in 

construction could be linked to the fact that many of these young people lived in communities 

where construction had not rebounded from the recession. However, the program group was 

still more likely to be working in that field than the control group. 

Combining the survey responses with the administrative data, shown on the bottom of Table 3.2

and in Figure 3.1, a pattern emerges related to program involvement: During the first year after 

study enrollment, when the program group was engaged in YouthBuild, the control group was 

more likely to be employed and earned more than the program group. After the program group 

left YouthBuild and perhaps obtained a GED or received other forms of training, the program 

group’s employment increased and they were more likely to be employed than the control 

group. The administrative data show that the program group was more likely than the control 

group to be employed (63 percent versus 60 percent) in the second year of the follow-up period. 

Figure 3.1 illustrates the trend in earnings, with the control group earning significantly more in 

the first year, but the difference decreasing in the second follow-up year and the program group 

starting to earn more toward the end of the follow-up period (Quarter 9). This trend matches 

well with the survey data discussed above regarding current earnings and wages at the two-anda-half-year mark.

Impacts on Youth Development

YouthBuild has been a leader in integrating youth development into its programs by promoting 

leadership and community service. These kinds of activities are intended to keep young people

on a positive trajectory and increase their civic engagement. Several measures of youth development and civic engagement were obtained from the surveys.

Table 3.3 presents the results. At 30 months, the program group was significantly more 

likely than the control group to report that they had volunteered or been involved in politics or 

local community activities. Fifty-four percent of the program group reported volunteering, 
45

 

Figure 3.1

Earnings by Quarter

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Earnings ($)

Quarter 

Program group

Control group

SOURCE: MDRC calculations using data from the National Database of New Hires.

NOTES: The earnings impacts are statistically significant at the 5 percent level in Quarters 2 and 4. The 

earnings impacts are statistically significant at the 1 percent level in Quarter 3 and at the 10 percent level in 

Quarter 7.

Quarter 1 refers to the quarter of random assignment. This figure includes only employment and earnings 

in jobs covered by the unemployment insurance system. It does not include jobs not covered by the 

unemployment insurance system (for example, "off-the-books" jobs).

compared with only 31 percent of the control group. Fifteen percent of the program group was 

involved in politics or local community activities, compared with 12 percent of the control

group. Notably, both the program group and the control group volunteered at higher rates than

the national average. Current Population Survey data from September 2012 indicate that only 

23 percent of those between the ages of 16 and 24 volunteer.17

17U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013). 
46

Table 3.3 

Impacts on Youth Development at 30 Months 

 

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Civic engagement since random assignment (%) 92.2 88.6 3.6*** 0.002

 

Volunteered 54.4 30.9 23.6*** 0.000

Registered to votea 84.8 84.7 0.1 0.965

Voted 46.4 43.9 2.4 0.205

Involved in politics or local community activities 15.3 12.0 3.3** 0.026

Currently happy (%) 80.2 79.9 0.4

 

0.832

What the future holds (%)

 d 

Willing to wait for bigger financial rewardsb 32.8 36.8 -4.0** 0.047

Will probably attend collegec 74.3 72.4 1.9

Expects to live at least 70 years 82.0 79.9 2.1 0.222

Exhibits signs of major depression (%) 16.7 18.3 -1.6

 

0.325

Overall good health (%) 82.5 82.7 -0.3

 

0.872

Believes most people can be trusted (%) 22.5 20.9 1.6

 

0.364

Social support scoree 3.1 3.1 0.0 0.421

 Self-esteem scoref 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.545

 Self-confidence scoreg 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.954

 

Sample size (total = 2,808)

 

1,830 978

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30 -month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 aCurrently registered to vote at the time of the survey. 

 bBased on responses to the question, "Would you rather get $80 tomorrow or get $100 three months from 

now?"

 cAmong those who have not attended and are not currently attending college. This measure is

nonexperimental, so significance level and P-Value are not included.

 dDepression is measured using the PHQ-9, a nine-item scale used to diagnose depression in clinical settings. 

Response categories range from 0 = "not at all" to 3 = "nearly every day," where higher scores indicate more 

frequent occurrence of depression symptoms. If the item score sum is greater than or equal to 10, the respondent

is considered to exhibit signs of major depression.

 eSocial support is measured using a six-item scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 

= "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate stronger social support. The six items are averaged.

 fSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenbserg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from

1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. The 10 

items are averaged.

 gSelf-confidence is measured using a six-item scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 

4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-confidence. The six items are averaged.
47

The program had few other significant impacts related to youth development. The follow-up surveys asked a number of questions designed to capture aspects of development such 

as self-esteem, self-confidence, depression and happiness, and orientation toward the future. 

The program had no consistent or lasting effects on these measures. ChalleNGe, another 

program focused on promoting youth development, similarly had no effect on these types of 

outcome measures.18 Other research suggests that it is difficult to create lasting changes in many 

of these attitudinal measures.19

Impacts on Other Outcomes

The YouthBuild program model is designed to foster young people’s successful transition into 

adulthood, above and beyond their education and employment outcomes. To assess program 

impacts on outcomes in other important areas, the surveys asked respondents about their current 

living situations, family structures, substance use, and delinquency. Unless otherwise noted, the 

measures reported here are taken from the 30-month follow-up survey and either represent the 

status of respondents at that time or since the time of random assignment. (Data from the 12-

month survey are presented in Appendix D.)

Tables 3.4 and 3.5 present the results. Among the most notable outcomes in these tables, young people in the program group were significantly more likely than control group 

members to report living on their own at the time of the survey, more likely to report living with 

their children (among those who had children), and less likely to report living in households that 

received government benefits.

At the time of the 30-month survey, about half of the young people in both the program 

and control groups were living with their parents, and about 25 percent reported having been 

homeless at some point since random assignment. Young people in the program group were 

more likely to report that they lived on their own (30 percent compared with 26 percent of the 

control group), which seems to be mostly due to a reduction in living with parents. Perhaps as a 

result of this move, fewer young people in the program group were living in households whose

members received government benefits (roughly 63 percent of the program group compared 

with 67 percent of the control group).

The next several rows of Table 3.4 present data on parenthood status. Half of the study 

participants reported having children, up from 30 percent when they entered the study. Although the program did not affect the number of participants who had children, young people in 

 18Millenky, Bloom, and Dillon (2010).

19Eccles and Gootman (2002).
48

Table 3.4 

 Impacts on Living Arrangements and Household Information at 30 Months 

 YouthBuild Control Difference 

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Current living arrangement

 

Parent's home 45.8 48.7 -2.8 0.152

Another person's homea 18.8 18.3 0.5 0.779

One's own place 29.6 26.2 3.4* 0.062

Incarceration facility 1.9 1.6 0.4 0.519

Other arrangementb 3.9 5.2 -1.3 0.115

Ever homeless since random assignment 23.9 25.9 -2.0

 

0.252

Married or living with spouse/partner 26.1 26.7 -0.6

 

0.737

Receiving government benefitsc 62.6 66.6 -4.0** 0.041

 Has childrend 51.3 49.1 2.2 0.187

 

Young parente 1.7 2.3 -0.6 0.266

Lives with all or some of one's children 37.4 33.8 3.6** 0.033

Has children but not custody 18.2 18.5 -0.3 0.828

Paid child support in the last 30 days 3.7 2.9 0.8 0.268

Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 aIncludes living with family other than parents.

 bIncludes living in a group home or halfway house, a long-term homeless shelter, or an emergency 

housing shelter (including for domestic violence); living on the street; situations such as college or 

residential training programs; and other situations. 

 cGovernment benefits include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (food stamps); unemployment insurance; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants, and Children; Supplemental Security Income; foster care payments; and utilitypayment assistance.

 dIncludes a person's biological, adopted, foster, and stepchildren, plus any other children he or she is 

responsible for. 

 e"Young parent" is defined here as a person under the age of 20 who is pregnant or who has a child. 
49

Table 3.5 

Impacts on Delinquency and Risky Behavior at 30 Months 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Arrested 27.6 26.4 1.3 0.482

 Charged 24.8 23.7 1.1 0.526

 Convicted or found delinquenta 15.7 14.1 1.6 0.278

Drug offense 4.8 4.3 0.5 0.543

Driving under the influence 1.3 1.2 0.1 0.897

Failure to pay child support 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.568

Property offenseb 5.2 4.7 0.4 0.656

Violent offensec 3.7 2.7 1.0 0.186

Other 2.5 1.3 1.3 ** 0.037

 

 

Locked up due to a sentence 8.9 7.3 1.6 0.176

 Involved in a gang fight in the past 12 months 5.6 6.7 -1.0 0.297

 Substance abuse 

 

Has 5+ drinks once or more in a typical week 31.7 26.1 5.6 *** 0.004

Has used marijuana since random assignment 45.8 48.2 -2.5 0.229

Has used another drug since random assignment 13.4 9.7 3.6 *** 0.009

Drove a car while drinking or doing drugs 

 in the last 30 days 6.0 4.5 1.5 0.118

Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30-month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 All outcomes reflect activity since random assignment unless otherwise noted.

 aIn the juvenile justice system, the term "adjudicated delinquent" is used rather than "convicted."

 bProperty offenses include shoplifting, burglary, larceny, theft, auto theft, writing bad checks, fraud, forgery, 

arson, vandalism, and possession of stolen goods.

 cViolent offenses include physical or sexual assault, rape, robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder, and 

murder.
50

the program group were somewhat more likely than those in the control group to report that 

they lived with all or some of their children (37 percent compared with 34 percent). This 

difference does not appear to be caused by a reduction in the number of noncustodial parents, 

since there is no effect on that outcome. 

The survey also asked questions about delinquency and about risky behaviors such as 

substance use. The first few rows of Table 3.5 present effects on involvement in the criminal 

justice system. About 27 percent of the young people in the study reported having been arrested 

since random assignment, and 15 percent had been convicted. Most of these convictions were 

for drug or property offenses, which is in line with national data on common offense types for 

young adults.20 The program had no effect on these outcomes. Rates of arrests reported by the 

YouthBuild sample are similar to those found in the Job Corps evaluation. In that study, 27 

percent of young people in the control group reported having been arrested in the 30 months 

after they entered the study. Job Corps led to a reduction in that rate of 4 percentage points.21

The bottom panel of Table 3.5 shows rates of substance use. At the time of the 30-

month survey, young people in the program group were more likely than those in the control 

group to report periods of heavy alcohol use (32 percent versus 26 percent, for an impact of 6 

percentage points). Although it is not clear what led to this finding, it is cause for concern, and a 

future report will assess whether it persists over time. (There was no effect on this outcome at 

12 months.) In contrast, there was no significant difference between the program and control 

groups in the use of marijuana (roughly 47 percent of respondents had used marijuana at least 

once). As a point of comparison, in a national survey about 20 percent of young adults reported 

using marijuana in the previous month.22 The rate reported by the study sample is expected to be

higher because it covers a 30-month period. Finally, program group members were significantly 

more likely than control group members to report having used drugs other than marijuana (13 

percent compared with 10 percent).

 20Sickmund and Puzzanchera (2014).

21Schochet, Burghardt, and Glazerman (2000). 22U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). 
51

Chapter 4 

Impacts on Subgroups

Although the young people who enrolled in the study are all disadvantaged and share many 

common challenges, they do differ in many ways. Some study participants were in their 20s 

when they entered the study, while others were still teenagers. Some nearly finished high school 

before dropping out, while others left school in the ninth or tenth grade. Still others are parents 

of young children. YouthBuild might have different effects on the different types of young 

people it serves. As the process study noted, for example, many staff members believe that older 

participants were more ready to take advantage of the program. This chapter presents effects for 

a limited number of preselected subgroups of young people. 

The process study also found that although most programs had high fidelity to the 

YouthBuild model, there was some variation among them, particularly in the youthdevelopment component. This chapter assesses how program impacts vary based on overall 

program fidelity. (The programs in the study also vary in many other ways, such as the length of 

Mental Toughness Orientation, the strength of their connections to colleges, and their emphasis 

on youth leadership. A formal analysis of how YouthBuild’s effects vary across some of these

program dimensions will be presented in the final report.) 

Selection of Subgroups

The subgroups based on young people’s characteristics were defined by age, sex, and 

education level. The selection of subgroups was informed by underlying theory or previous 

evidence about how certain characteristics might affect how young people interact with or 

benefit from the program. Age, for example, was an important dimension because staff members observed that older participants tend to be more ready for the program. In addition, the Job 

Corps evaluation found that the program’s effects on earnings persisted longer for those who 

were older when they entered the study.1 On the other hand, older participants would have been 

out of school longer and may have found it more challenging to engage in an education program. “Younger” participants were defined as those who were under age 20 when they entered 

the study, while “older” participants were defined as those 20 and older.

 1

Schochet, Burghardt, and McConnell (2008).
52

The program might also have different effects on men and women. The challenges facing young black and Latino men have been well documented and are evidenced by their high 

dropout rates and unemployment rates.2 In this sense, young men stand to benefit the most from 

a program like YouthBuild and might see bigger effects than young women. On the other hand, 

the challenges they face may limit their ability to take advantage of the program. Other evaluations of youth programs have found that they have different effects on young men and women.3

The final subgroup is defined by education level, or the highest grade a young person 

completed before leaving high school. As discussed in the process report, staff members noted 

that many young people entered the study with middle school reading and math levels, and a 

number of programs use assessments of basic skills to screen out very low-skilled candidates. 

On the one hand, young people with more education may be in a better position to take advantage of YouthBuild’s services, passing the General Educational Development (GED) exam

and benefiting from vocational training.4 On the other hand, young people with more education 

might have done fairly well even in the absence of YouthBuild (especially since this appears to 

have been a motivated sample of young people), so there might not be much difference between 

the program and control groups’ outcomes. The “less educated” subgroup of participants are 

those who left school before completing the tenth grade, while the “more educated” subgroup 

are those who completed the tenth grade or more. Note that the “more educated” subgroup 

includes the 9 percent of sample members who had high school diplomas or GEDs when they 

entered the study.

The final subgroup is based on a program characteristic: fidelity to the YouthBuild 

model. The process study documented that most programs had high fidelity to the model. The 

average fidelity score was 79 out of 100. Overall fidelity was based on scores for each of the 

following components: educational services, vocational training, supportive services, program 

operations, youth leadership, and postsecondary preparation. Average fidelity scores were 

highest for education and vocational training and somewhat lower for youth leadership and 

postsecondary preparation. The general score is used here to provide an initial look at how 

impacts vary with the overall strength of the program. Since the average fidelity score was 79 

for study programs, high-fidelity programs were defined here as those achieving overall scores 

of 80 or higher. About half of the programs are above this cutoff.

The analysis is conducted by estimating impacts separately for each of the two subgroups in a pair and then assessing the differences in effects. In general, impacts are expected to 

 2

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2014); U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016d). 3

See, for example, Miller et al. (2005).

4

As noted earlier, the term “GED” is used throughout this report to indicate a high school equivalency 

credential, even though many states no longer use the official GED test to grant those credentials.
53

vary to some extent between subgroups, simply as a result of natural variation around the 

average impact for the full sample. The analysis assesses whether that variation in impacts 

across subgroups is statistically significant, or beyond what would be expected to occur by 

chance alone. For that reason, the important question is not whether a given impact for, say, the 

younger subgroup is statistically different from zero, but whether that impact is statistically 

different from the impact for the older subgroup (indicated by daggers in the rightmost column 

of the tables). If the difference between these two subgroup impacts is not statistically significant, the results suggest that the effects observed for the full sample generally hold across both 

groups being compared.

Subgroup Impacts

Table 4.1 presents YouthBuild’s effects on the younger and older subgroups of participants. 

Both groups have similar rates of participation in YouthBuild, although the older group is 

somewhat more likely to have graduated from the program. The only difference in impacts 

between the groups is a large increase in GED receipt for the older group. The program increased GED receipt by 17 percentage points for the older group, compared with 11 percentage 

points for the younger group. The relatively large increase in GED receipt for the older group is 

encouraging. Older participants may find it more difficult to reengage in education, since they 

have been out of school for a longer time — as reflected in the responses of the control group, 

which show lower rates of participation in education and GED receipt for the older subgroup.

Table 4.2 presents the program’s effects on women and men. Women and men were 

equally likely to graduate from YouthBuild. In fact, overall, the program had similar effects on 

men and women. One important difference between women and men does not relate to program 

effects, but to the general outcomes of both groups: Women had much lower rates of involvement with the criminal justice system. About 15 percent of women in the control group reported 

having been arrested since they entered the study, compared with 34 percent of men. 

Table 4.3 presents YouthBuild’s effects on the more and less educated subgroups. The 

more educated group is more likely to have graduated from the program, although YouthBuild’s impacts on service receipt and GED receipt are very similar for both groups. The more 

educated control group was less likely to have earned a GED in the time since they entered the 

study (probably because more of them already had GEDs or diplomas when they entered), but 

much more likely to have enrolled in postsecondary education. 

The only difference in effects across the two groups is for work. The program led to an 

increase of 6 percentage points in work as reported on the survey for the less educated subgroup, an effect that is significantly different from the effect on the more educated subgroup. 

The effects on work found using unemployment insurance data are also significantly different 
54

between the two subgroups, although that difference is due in part to a negative effect on 

employment for the more educated group. It will be important to track longer-term effects for 

both of these groups.

Table 4.4 presents the effects of higher-fidelity and lower-fidelity programs. Effects on 

service receipt are larger for young people in the higher-fidelity programs. For example, the 

higher-fidelity programs increased participation in job- or training-related services by 26 

percentage points, compared with 14 percentage points for the lower-fidelity programs. These 

impacts on service receipt seem to have arisen in part because program group members at 

higher-fidelity programs engaged in services at higher rates, but also because the control groups

at these programs engaged in services at lower rates. Other differences between the control 

groups similarly suggest that the higher-fidelity programs may have served more highly 

disadvantaged young people. For example, the control group for the higher-fidelity programs is 

less likely than the other control group to have earned GEDs, and less likely to have attended 

college. In the final report, the analysis of how effects vary among programs will account for 

differences in the types of young people they serve. In any case, the results shown here indicate 

that the programs that had higher fidelity to the YouthBuild model did not have larger effects. 
Table 4.1 

 Impacts by Age at 30 Months 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Members Under 20 Sample Members 20 and Older

 

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 80.0 NA NA 79.9 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 65.6 NA NA 70.5 NA NA

Service receipt (%)

Education-related 82.4 72.1 10.3*** 0.000 79.9 67.4 12.5*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 78.3 59.2 19.1*** 0.000 78.3 56.2 22.1*** 0.000

Personal development 65.0 44.5 20.5*** 0.000 66.2 44.2 22.0*** 0.000

Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 30.5 19.8 10.7*** 0.000 32.2 15.2 17.0*** 0.000 †

Enrolled in college since random

assignment (2- or 4-year) 22.7 18.4 4.3* 0.081 24.6 17.8 6.8*** 0.005

Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 90.9 87.4 3.5** 0.050 93.5 89.7 3.8** 0.012

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.2 0.1* 0.071 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.704

 Work 

Currently employed (%) 43.2 40.6 2.6 0.384 45.1 43.5 1.6 0.584

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 16.5 12.5 4.0* 0.064 18.7 15.5 3.2 0.153

Ever employed in Quarter 10c (%) 44.0 42.0 2.0 0.411 44.9 47.6 -2.7 0.249

(continued)

55
Table 4.1 (continued) 

 Sample Members Under 20 Sample Members 20 and Older 

 

Difference

 

Between 

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Work 

 

 

 

 

Average earnings in Quarter 10c ($) 1,266 1,197 68.3 0.537 1,301 1,343 -41.7 0.700

 Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assigment (%) 28.9 28.9 0.0 0.994 26.0 24.5 1.5 0.555

 Sample size 950 467 879 510

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations using data from the National Directory of New Hires and responses to the 30-month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences between 

subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, and being involved in politics or local community 

services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," 

where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

 cThese outcomes are based on unemployment insurance data, not survey responses. The sample sizes for the younger program and control subgroups are 1,414 

and 583 respectively. The sample sizes for the older program and control subgroups are 1,248 and 633 respectively.

56
Table 4.2 

 Impacts by Gender at 30 Months 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Women Men

 

Difference

 

Between 

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 78.9 NA NA 80.6 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 67.6 NA NA 68.2 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

Education-related 82.3 74.1 8.2*** 0.003 80.6 67.0 13.6*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 76.5 56.5 19.9*** 0.000 79.5 58.4 21.1*** 0.000

Personal development 67.6 47.1 20.5*** 0.000 64.5 42.3 22.2*** 0.000

 Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 26.6 16.4 10.2*** 0.000 33.9 18.4 15.5*** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

 

 

assignment (2- or 4- year) 24.3 20.6 3.7 0.215 22.7 17.4 5.4** 0.012

 Youth development 

Civic engagementa (%) 93.2 88.4 4.8*** 0.010 91.6 88.7 2.8* 0.062

Self-esteem scaleb 3.2 3.3 0.0 0.763 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.201

 Work 

 

Currently employed (%) 39.8 38.3 1.4 0.675 47.4 43.7 3.6 0.168

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 12.0 7.7 4.4** 0.044 21.5 17.4 4.1* 0.060

Ever employed in Quarter 10c (%) 45.2 43.9 1.3 0.660 44.1 45.4 -1.3 0.551

 

(continued)

57
Table 4.2 (continued) 

 Women Men 

 

Difference

 

Between

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Work 

 

Average earnings in Quarter 10c ($) 1,100 1,026 73.4 0.483 1,383 1,418 -35.2 0.756

 Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 16.5 14.8 1.7 0.509 34.2 34.5 -0.3522 0.89

 Sample size 697 366 1,127 608

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations using data from the National Directory of New Hires and responses to the 30 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences between 

subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, and being involved in politics or local community 

services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," 

where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

 cThese outcomes are based on unemployment insurance data, not survey responses. The sample sizes for the female program and control subgroups are 955 

and 424 respectively. The sample sizes for the male program and control subgroups are 1,703 and 789 respectively.

58
Table 4.3 

 Impacts by Highest Grade Previously Completed, at 30 Months 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Members Who Had Completed Sample Members Who Had Completed

Less Than Tenth Grade Tenth Grade or Higher

 

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 80.7 NA NA 79.1 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 65.0 NA NA 71.5 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

Education-related 83.4 71.0 12.4*** 0.000 79.7 68.7 11.0*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 79.5 56.9 22.6*** 0.000 76.8 58.5 18.3*** 0.000

Personal development 68.0 45.0 23.0*** 0.000 62.9 43.6 19.3*** 0.000

 Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 32.3 18.2 14.1*** 0.000 29.8 15.1 14.7*** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

 assignment (2- or 4- year) 20.8 13.9 6.9*** 0.002 27.0 22.6 4.4 0.106

 Youth development 

Civic engagementa (%) 91.1 86.9 4.2** 0.012 93.4 90.7 2.7* 0.096

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.634 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.436

 Work 

Currently employed (%) 44.2 37.9 6.3** 0.028 44.0 46.7 -2.7 0.380 ††

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 16.6 12.2 4.4** 0.032 18.3 16.9 1.3 0.583

 (continued)

Ever employed in Quarter 10c (%) 43.3 40.3 3.0 0.190 45.7 50.2 -4.6* 0.071 ††

59
Table 4.3 (continued) 

 Sample Members Who Had Completed Sample Members Who Had Completed 

Less Than Tenth Grade Tenth Grade or Higher

 

Difference

 

Between

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Work 

Average earnings in Quarter 10c ($) 1,190 1,094 96.1 0.295 1,399 1,494 -95.7 0.493

 Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 29.5 27.4 2.1 0.412 25.1 26.0 -0.9 0.738

 Sample size 1,004 515 797 450

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations using data from the National Directory of New Hires and responses to the 30 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences between 

subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, and being involved in politics or local community 

services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," 

where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

 cThese outcomes are based on unemployment insurance data, not survey responses. The sample sizes for program and control subgroup members who had 

completed less than tenth grade are 1,445 and 631 respectively. The sample sizes for program and control subgroup members who had completed tenth grade or 

higher are 1,177 and 571 respectively.

60
Table 4.4 

Impacts by Program Fidelity, at 30 M onths 

 Sample Members from Programs with Sample Members from Programs with

Low Fidelity High Fidelity 

 Difference

 

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 75.7 NA NA 82.7 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 69.0 NA NA 67.3 NA NA

Service receipt (%)

Education-related 80.2 72.3 7.9 *** 0.003 81.9 67.7 14.2 *** 0.000 †

Job- or training-related 75.9 62.4 13.5 *** 0.000 79.8 54.1 25.8 *** 0.000 †††

Personal development 63.0 46.0 17.0 *** 0.000 67.3 42.9 24.4 *** 0.000 †

Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 33.8 19.1 14.7 *** 0.000 29.4 16.8 12.6 *** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

assignment (2- or 4- year) 27.4 21.0 6.3 ** 0.022 21.1 16.3 4.8 ** 0.026

Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 93.2 90.3 2.8 * 0.095 91.5 87.3 4.3 *** 0.006

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.855 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.590

Work

Currently employed (%) 44.0 43.6 0.5 0.881 44.5 40.4 4.1 0.132

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 18.1 16.6 1.6 0.522 17.1 12.5 4.6 ** 0.021

(continued)

Ever employed in Quarter 10c (%) 42.5 46.0 -3.5 0.166 45.8 43.8 2.0 0.373

61
Table 4.4 (continued) 

 Sample Members from Programs with Sample Members from Programs with 

 

Low Fidelity High Fidelity 

 

Difference

 

Between

 

Program Control Difference

 

Program Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Work 

Average earnings in Quarter 10c ($) 1,232 1,257 -25.3 0.824 1,315 1,290 25.7 0.804

 Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 26.3 24.5 1.8 0.520 28.6 27.6 1.0 0.692

 Sample size 703 425 1,127 553

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations using data from the National Directory of New Hires and responses to the 30 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences between 

subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, and being involved in politics or local community 

services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," 

where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

 cThese outcomes are based on unemployment insurance data, not survey responses. The sample sizes for the low-fidelity program and control subgroups are 

1,076 and 540 respectively. The sample sizes for the high-fidelity program and control subgroups are 1,586 and 676 respectively.

 

62
63

Chapter 5 

Conclusion

YouthBuild attempts to engage disadvantaged young people who have not completed high 

school and help them make a successful transition to adulthood. It does so by offering education, job training, and other services in a program environment that emphasizes youth development and leadership. This report has presented the interim effects of the program, tracking 

young people for 30 months after they entered the study, or about 18 to 20 months after most 

participants left the program.

The results show a number of positive effects, most consistently on education and training. YouthBuild increased the rate at which young people earned their General Educational 

Development (GED) credentials and participated in vocational training, and led to an increase in 

postsecondary enrollment. Effects on work and earnings were less robust, although the program 

group did report somewhat higher wages and earnings. The program also led to an increase in 

young people’s civic engagement, but had few effects on other youth-development outcome

measures or on involvement in the criminal justice system. 

The effects on education do suggest that the program may lead to longer-term effects on 

work and earnings. The next report will assess whether the increases in GED receipt and 

postsecondary enrollment are maintained 48 months after study enrollment. It is possible that 

these effects could increase in size, and that boosted postsecondary enrollment could translate 

into earning more degrees and improved job prospects.

The effects found here fall within the range of effects found for other programs. They 

are similar to or more positive than findings from other nonresidential programs, but somewhat 

smaller than the effects found for Job Corps and National Guard Youth ChalleNGe after a 

similar amount of time. ChalleNGe, for example, led to much larger increases in GED receipt 

and college enrollment, although that program served a younger population that had probably

been engaged in school more recently. Job Corps, on the other hand, did not increase college 

enrollment but led to somewhat larger increases in GED receipt and a much larger increase in 

vocational certificate receipt. However, both of these programs are residential: Nearly all young 

people in those programs lived at the centers while they were participating. Residential programs have a number of advantages. They are more intensive, they pull young people away 

from sometimes disruptive home and community environments, and they can take advantage of 

positive group dynamics. But they are also not an option for young people who are not willing 

or able to live away from home, such as those with children (like 30 percent of the young 

people in the YouthBuild study when they enrolled). Residential programs are also more 
64

expensive, so YouthBuild is likely to cost less than these other two programs. (A formal cost 

analysis of YouthBuild will be presented in the final impact report.) 

The goal of the evaluation is to assess YouthBuild’s effects on the young people it 

serves. In interpreting the program’s effects, it is important to keep in mind the group of young 

people the program served and the actual comparison being made between the YouthBuild 

program group and the control group. YouthBuild served a group of young people who were 

disadvantaged, but highly motivated. The program’s screening processes are designed to ensure 

that young people who enter the program have a good chance of completing it. As a result, 

young people who made it through the screening process and into the study (in both the program and control groups) were probably more motivated and persistent at the time they applied 

than the typical young person who has not completed high school. This level of motivation can 

be seen in the control group’s high rate of participation in services during the follow-up period. 

By 30 months, for example, 72 percent of the control group had participated in education. Thus, 

this evaluation is estimating the effects of YouthBuild by comparing YouthBuild participants 

with similarly motivated young people who sought out other services in their communities. It is

not estimating YouthBuild’s effects relative to a group who received no services. This comparison is still a fair test, since the hypothesis is that YouthBuild should lead to better outcomes 

because it provides all of these services in one model and in the context of a strong focus on 

youth empowerment and development.

The evaluation is also a fair test in the sense that most programs in the study were found 

to have implemented the program with high overall fidelity, as documented in the earlier report. 

In other words, the effects presented here are a good assessment of YouthBuild as it was 

intended to operate. Nonetheless, that earlier report found that certain program components, 

particularly postsecondary preparation and youth-leadership services, were implemented less 

consistently than the other components, such as education and vocational training. In addition, 

even programs that achieved high fidelity in a certain program component often implemented it 

in different ways, adapting to their local circumstances. The final report will examine how 

certain variations in program features might affect YouthBuild’s impacts. 

Although it is too early to make judgments about YouthBuild’s effects overall or the effects of certain types of programs, the findings here suggest that there may be room for improvement in at least a few areas: cultivating and identifying job openings for participants, 

preparing them for college, and maintaining contact with them after they leave the program. 

These components were rated the lowest by program participants. The lack of strong effects on 

employment suggests that the program could do a better job of helping participants move into 

work. More broadly, the services provided to young people after they leave the program could 

be strengthened or broadened. More efforts could be made to engage young people soon after 

they leave the program, and to keep them in in contact with staff members. 
65

In some cases, programs are already beginning to make changes that are likely to 

strengthen their impact, for example by putting increasing emphasis on creating connections 

with colleges. In an era when higher education or training is required to land a decent-paying 

job, this shift in emphasis seems like a move in the right direction. Similarly, many programs 

are beginning to offer vocational training not only in construction but in other areas as well. 

While construction training is integral to YouthBuild’s identity and helps it to achieve its 

community service goal by building housing for low-income communities, it is possible that 

exclusively focusing on construction could limit YouthBuild’s effects. The recent downturn in 

the housing market made it very difficult for many programs to provide adequate training 

opportunities for young people and also probably limited programs’ ability to place young 

people in related jobs. Very few (about 10 percent) of the young people in the YouthBuild 

group who were working at 30 months reported working in construction. In recent years, many 

programs have started offering training in other areas in addition to construction, such as in 

information technology or health care. As noted earlier, in 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOL) began allowing selected grantees (those who had received prior grants) the option of 

offering a “construction plus” model, in which training is offered for construction but also for 

other high-demand jobs.

For some programs, one key to improving services is related to funding. In general, the 

implementation report documented that funding stability was an important issue for programs. 

Most programs did not have funding to sustain operations for several years. Instead, they were 

heavily reliant on receiving DOL grants every few years that require them to match 25 percent 

of the grant with nonfederal resources. As noted in Chapter 2, 13 programs in the evaluation 

shut down after serving the cohort of young people enrolled in the study. Unstable funding 

inevitably affects staff stability. Inconsistent or uncertain program funding means that staff 

positions may have to be eliminated or that staff members may seek other opportunities. As 

discussed in the earlier implementation report, many programs said that they did not have the 

staff time to devote to cultivating and identifying jobs for participants or to other transition 

services, and those with larger budgets generally did better in these areas. Similarly, staff 

turnover affected young people’s engagement in follow-up services, since new staff members 

would not have relationships with program graduates built while they were attending the 

program.

Finally, another important part of the context for the evaluation is the economy. Although the Great Recession had officially ended by the time these young people entered the 

study and participated in YouthBuild, employment and wages had not yet recovered. Unemployment rates remained high for young people during the follow-up period for this report, and 

they were especially high for young people without high school diplomas and for black and 

Latino young people. One of YouthBuild’s goals is to help these young people get an early 
66

advantage in the labor market. A later report from the evaluation will assess whether the 

increases in education and training observed so far will have longer-term effects.
Appendix A 

Site Selection, Random Assignment, 

the Analysis Model, and Previous Evaluations
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
69

This appendix describes the processes used to select YouthBuild programs to participate in the 

evaluation, and describes how random assignment procedures were implemented at each 

program. It also includes a discussion of the effect of random assignment on recruitment, 

eligibility, and enrollment. The final section discusses the impact analysis model’s specifications, including weighting and the handling of missing data.

Site Selection

Not all programs receiving U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) or Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS) funding at the start of the evaluation could be included in the 

evaluation, either because they were unable to continue providing services during the period in 

which study participants were to be enrolled, or because of other concerns about their suitability. Thus the first step in the evaluation was to select programs for inclusion. Deciding on the 

total number of programs to include in the impact component of the evaluation required a 

balance of three objectives: (1) maximizing the representativeness of the sample and the 

statistical power of the impact analysis, (2) ensuring high-quality implementation of program 

enrollment and random assignment procedures, and (3) evaluation budget considerations. 

Ultimately, 75 programs were included in the evaluation. Fifty-eight of these were selected 

from the programs awarded grants by DOL in 2011, and 17 were selected from programs that 

did not receive DOL funding in 2011 but did receive funding from CNCS.1 The latter programs 

are referred to here as CNCS-funded programs, although they might have received funding 

from other, non-DOL sources.2

As shown in Appendix Table A.1, the programs participating in the study look very 

similar to all programs funded by DOL and CNCS in 2011.

Selecting DOL-Funded Programs

DOL awarded grants to 74 YouthBuild programs in May 2011.3 Of these 74, 3 programs were deemed to be a poor fit for the evaluation because young people assigned to the 

control group were likely to receive substantially the same services as those in the program 

group. Among these programs were ones that operated in conjunction with the Conservation 

Corps, and ones embedded in charter schools where control group members could remain in the 

 1

DOL and CNCS chose to include the CNCS-funded programs in the evaluation in order to examine 

whether DOL-funded programs have different impacts than CNCS-funded programs. 2

A number of these programs subsequently received funding from DOL as part of the 2012 funding cycle.

3

An additional two programs received funding to supplement their March 2011 grants. These two programs were not considered part of the May grantee class.
70

Appendix Table A.1

Representativeness of Study Programs 

 Percentage of Percentage of

Program Response Study Programs All Programsa

 Years operating YouthBuild

1-3

 

 

 

0.0 4.5

4-6 32.0 33.6

7-10 25.3 22.7

More than 10 42.7 39.1

 Yearly operating budgetb

Missing

 

8.0 9.1

Less than $500,000 29.3 30.0

Between $500,000 and $1 million 38.7 38.2

$1 million and above 24.0 22.7

 Fundersc

 DOL

 

 

93.3 90.0

CNCS 45.3 52.7

Private foundation 52.0 47.3

State or locality 57.3 54.5

Some other entity 14.7 13.6

 Predominant funder

DOL

 

 

0.0 0.0

CNCS 0.0 0.0

Private foundation 1.3 0.9

State or locality 5.3 6.4

Some other entity 0.0 0.0

 Number of years program director has worked at YouthBuild

Less than 1 8.0 9.1

1-3 

 

 

 

25.3 26.4

4-6 26.7 27.3

7-10 16.0 15.5

More than 10 24.0 21.8

 Sample size 75 110

 

(continued)
71

Appendix Table A.1

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild grantee survey.

NOTES: Due to rounding, the percentages in some categories may not sum to 100 percent. 

 aAll programs that received funding from the DOL or CNCS in 2011. 

 bThis amount represents the YouthBuild program's operating budget for the fiscal year when the 2011 

YouthBuild grants were awarded. The awards were announced May 2011 and were received in the months 

that followed.

 cCategories are not mutually exclusive, as some programs reported having multiple funders.

school and also receive some type of vocational training. Including these programs in the 

evaluation would not have provided a true test of YouthBuild’s effects, since the program and 

control groups would have received nearly identical services. The final sample frame for 

selection of DOL-funded programs thus included 71 programs.4

Given budget constraints, 60 of these programs were selected to participate in the evaluation using probability-proportional-to-size sampling. Each program had a probability of 

selection that was proportional to its expected enrollment in a given program year. This method 

gave each YouthBuild slot (or young person served) an equal chance of being selected for the 

evaluation, meaning that the resulting sample of young people who enrolled in the study should 

be representative of the young people served by these programs. All of the 60 selected programs 

were required by DOL to participate in the evaluation. Of these, however, the study team 

determined during initial discussions with program staff members that 2 programs would be 

unable to enroll any study-group participants during the intake period. The final sample of DOL 

programs was thus 58.

Selecting CNCS-Funded Programs

CNCS funds programs through its National Direct grant to YouthBuild USA. Forty 

YouthBuild programs received CNCS grants but not DOL funding in 2011. After reviewing the 

available information and conducting phone calls with each of the 40 programs, the evaluation 

team determined that many of these programs, particularly those receiving small CNCS grants, 

were likely to shut down in 2012 or not enroll young people during the study enrollment period. 

For this reason the study team, along with DOL’s Employment and Training Administration 

 4

According to their grant proposals, the 3 excluded programs planned to serve a total of 133 young people 

in a given program year. The other 71 programs planned to serve a total of 3,171 in a given program year. 

Since the excluded programs accounted for only 4.1 percent of the expected enrollment among DOL-funded 

programs, the study team’s ability to extrapolate the study findings to all DOL-funded programs is not 

compromised.
72

and CNCS staff members, opted to select the 24 programs that received CNCS grants of at least 

$95,000 in 2010. Of these 24, 4 programs subsequently determined that they would shut down 

or otherwise be unable to enroll new participants during the intake period. An additional 3 

programs were deemed to be unsuitable for the evaluation because they operated in areas where 

control group members would be very likely to receive services similar or identical to those 

received by the program group. The resulting sample of CNCS programs was thus 17.

Developing and Implementing Random Assignment Procedures

Once YouthBuild programs were selected for participation in the random assignment study, the 

study team visited each of them to meet with its leaders and program staff members to further 

explain the study, answer questions, and begin developing plans for the random assignment of 

young people. 

The study team was flexible about when random assignment was conducted, relative to 

programs’ recruitment activities. Random assignment could be conducted before, during, or 

after Mental Toughness Orientation. Decisions about the timing of random assignment were 

made in partnership with the program, with the goal of conducting random assignment after the 

point in the recruitment process when a program experienced the largest drop-off, so as to 

maximize the possibility that young people in the program group would ultimately enroll in 

YouthBuild. It was also important, however, to ensure that random assignment was not placed 

so late in the process that the control group would have experienced a significant portion of the 

program. For example, the team avoided placing random assignment toward the end of a 

lengthy Mental Toughness Orientation.

Once the study team and a program developed a random assignment plan together, the

study team customized a research procedures manual for that program’s staff. This manual

detailed the research design and the steps required of program staff members at each step from 

outreach through enrollment. Members of the study team usually conducted another site visit to 

train all staff members in these procedures, including the procedures for entering data into the 

MDRC random assignment system; these data included basic identifying information about 

study participants such as their names and Social Security numbers.5

 5

Each local program was given a number of “wild cards” that it could use to allow certain applicants it 

selected to bypass random assignment and be allowed to participate. This option was used, for example, when 

a young person’s situation was particularly compelling or when a family member was already a YouthBuild 

participant. Each program was allowed to use 5 percent of its program slots for wild cards. The minimum each 

program received was one wild card.
73

The study team was in communication with programs regularly to monitor their progress toward their outreach and recruitment goals, and to monitor the drop-off from application 

to enrollment. If a program was having challenges with recruitment, the study team worked 

with that program to brainstorm ways to improve its numbers. For example, a program might do 

more outreach, delay the start of certain processes (like Mental Toughness Orientation), or 

engage in multiple rounds of recruitment. The study team offered advice and support throughout; YouthBuild USA coaches and others were also helpful advisers when programs were 

experiencing challenges.

Seventy-two programs successfully completed random assignment at least once during 

the evaluation enrollment period of August 2011 to January 2013. The study team allowed 37 

programs that had difficulty reaching their recruitment targets to enroll young people without 

going through random assignment for at least one enrollment cycle, sometimes several. Programs might request to bypass random assignment when not enough applicants were present on 

the day of random assignment, when they felt they needed to focus on meeting their DOL or 

CNCS grant recruitment benchmarks, or when they were experiencing significant delays in 

starting their program cycles because they could not recruit enough young people. Three 

programs were never able to conduct random assignment due to low recruitment numbers.

Appendix Table A.2 presents the baseline characteristics for the full sample and then 

the program and control groups created through the random assignment process. As would be 

expected with random assignment, there are few differences between the two groups with 

respect to these baseline characteristics.

The Analysis Model

The basic estimation strategy is to compare average outcomes for the program and control 

groups. Regression adjustment in a linear regression model increases the power of the statistical 

tests.

Outcome data were processed according to standard procedures to check for outliers or 

other irregularities. Outlier values on employment-related outcome variables (such as earnings, 

hourly wages, and weekly hours worked) were set to missing. These outlier values affected less 

than 1 percent of the sample for any given outcome.

The impact analysis used the following model:

Yij = α + βPij + δXij + γj + εij, 

Where Yij is the outcome of interest (such as “earned a high school equivalency credential,” “employed,” or “involved in civic activities”) for sample member i in site j, 
74

α is the intercept of the regression,

Pij is an indicator for membership in the program group, 

Xij is the series of binary variables that represents the baseline covariates for a sample 

member, including age, gender, whether the person applied to YouthBuild at a CNCS-funded 

program, highest grade completed, race/ethnicity, whether or not a young person was a parent, 

and high school diploma or equivalency completion, for sample member i in site j, 

δ is the set of regression coefficients for Xij, 

γ represents program fixed effects to account for varying random assignment ratios by 

site, 

and εij is the random error term for sample member i in site j. 

For the analysis of survey outcomes, weights were added to the model to account for 

varying selection probabilities by cohort and research group.

For an observation with a missing baseline covariate (see the list for Xij above), that covariate was assigned the average sample value and a dummy variable indicating “missing” for 

that covariate was set to 1 and thus included in the analysis model with Xij. Fewer than 2 

percent of observations had missing values for any given covariate except parent status. Parent 

status was missing for 11 percent of the sample. Observations with missing values for an 

outcome variable were dropped from the impact analysis for that outcome. Missing values for 

outcome variables were not imputed.

Previous Evaluations

Appendix Table A.3 summarizes some previous evaluations of programs for young people 

without high school diplomas.
75

Appendix Table A.2

Baseline Characteristics by Research Group

 Full YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Sample Group Group

 Age 

 

 

*

16-18 years old 33.0 34.2 30.3

19-21 years old 46.3 45.5 48.0

22 years old or older 20.7 20.3 21.6

Male 64.1 63.9 64.7

 Race/ethnicitya *

Hispanic or Latino 14.6 14.6 14.4

White, non-Hispanic 15.3 15.6 14.6

Black, non-Hispanic 62.9 62.9 63.1

Otherb 6.0 6.0 5.9

Not specified 1.1 0.8 1.8

Has a child 30.0 29.0 32.1 **

Highest grade completed c 

6th or lower

 

 

 

 

 

0.4 0.4 0.4

7th 1.0 1.0 0.9

8th 7.5 7.7 6.8

9th 18.6 18.9 18.0

10th 26.2 26.4 25.6

11th 34.9 34.2 36.5

12th 10.0 9.8 10.4

Has a high school diploma or equivalent 9.2 8.8 10.0

Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.6 11.1 9.5

Housing status 

Lives with family 61.0 61.7 59.5

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.2 15.2 15.2

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 15.7 15.2 16.8

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.6 0.7 0.4

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.2 1.0 1.5

Is in residential treatment 0.3 0.3 0.2

Is homeless

 (continued)

3.0 2.7 3.5
76

Appendix Table A.2 (continued)

 Full YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Sample Group Group 

Who suggested you apply to YouthBuild? 

Family member or relative 29.8 29.0 31.3

No one 32.5 32.9 31.6

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.3 4.3 4.1

Friend

 

20.7 20.6 20.7

Other 9.7 9.9 9.2

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild

GED credential 87.7 88.0 87.0

College

 

63.1 62.6 64.4

To get life on track 88.2 88.5 87.6

Job 84.6 85.1 83.5

Training 67.2 66.7 68.2

Friends 7.0 7.4 6.2

Because of children or the need to support family 1.5 1.5 1.6

Other 4.4 4.6 4.0

 Sample size 3,929 2,700 1,229 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as follows: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; 

* = 10 percent.

 GED = General Educational Development. 

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, and 

responses of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.
Appendix Table A.3

Selected Evaluations of Programs for Young People Without High School Diplomas

Evaluation (Dates) Target Group Program Model Sample Size (Number of 

Sites)

Summary of Results

Nonresidential

American Conservation and Youth 

Service Corps 

(1993-1996)

Mostly 18- to 25-yearold out-of-school 

young people

Paid work experience in 

community service projects, 

education and training, support 

services

1,009 young people (4 sites) Increases in employment and 

decreases in arrests, particularly for 

African-American men 

Conservation Corps 

Evaluation (2011)

Mostly 18- to 25-yearold out-of-school 

young people, mostly 

students of color

Temporary, full-time, subsidized work in community 

service projects; basic adult 

education; opportunities to earn 

college credit; case management; job-readiness skills 

2,043 young people 

(21 sites)

No significant impacts on 

employment or being in school 

JOBSTART 

(1985-1993)

17- to 21-year-old high 

school dropouts with 

low reading levels

Education, training, support 

services, job-placement 

assistance

1,914 young people

(13 sites)

Increases in GED receipt; few 

impacts on labor-market outcomes 

(except at one site)

National Job Training 

Partnership Act (outof-school young 

people analysis) 

(1987-1994)

Disadvantaged 16- to 

21-year-old out-ofschool young people

Education, job-skills training, 

job placement, on-the-job 

training, and support services

5,690 young people

(16 sites)

No earnings impacts for women or 

for men who had not been arrested;

possibly negative impacts for men 

who had been arrested 

Center for 

Employment Training 

Replication 

(1995-1999)

Disadvantaged, out-ofschool young people

ages 16 to 21

Education and vocational 

training

1,485 young people

(12 sites)

Few impacts on employment and 

earnings overall; some impacts for 

younger participants

(continued)

77
Appendix Table A.3 (continued)

Evaluation (Dates) Target Group Program Model Sample Size (Number of 

Sites)

Summary of Results

Residential

Job Corps 

(1994-2003)

Disadvantaged young 

people ages 16 to 24

Employment, education, and 

training in a (mostly) 

residential setting 

15,386 young people

(nationwide) 

Earnings and employment impacts in 

Years 3 and 4 of the study period; 

impacts faded after Year 4, according 

to administrative data; results appear 

stronger for older participants (those 

20 to 24 years old)

National Guard Youth 

ChalleNGe 

(2005-2011)

High school dropouts 

ages 16 to 18 who are 

drug free and not 

heavily involved with 

the justice system

Education, service to community, and other components in a 

quasi-military residential 

setting; 12-month 

postresidential mentoring 

program 

1,173 young people

(10 sites nationwide) 

Impacts on GED receipt, 

postsecondary enrollment, and 

employment and earnings at the 

three-year follow-up point

SOURCES: Maynard (1980); Gueron (1984); Jastrzab, Masker, Blomquist, and Orr (1996); Cave, Bos, Doolittle, and Toussaint (1993); Orr et al. 

(1997); Quint, Bos, and Polit (1997); Miller et al. (2005); Schochet, Burghardt, and McConnell (2008); Millenky, Bloom, Muller-Ravett, and 

Broadus (2011); Price et al. (2011).

78
Appendix B 

Response Analyses for the 12- and 30-Month Surveys
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
81

The YouthBuild 12- and 30- month surveys provide information about the YouthBuild sample 

members on topics such as participation in training and education, employment and job characteristics, youth development, and other outcome measures. As the survey was administered to a 

subset of the YouthBuild sample, it is necessary to assess the reliability of impact results for the 

survey sample in two ways. First, the results for the survey sample may or may not generalize to 

(or be representative of) the full sample because (1) only a subset of the YouthBuild sample was 

selected to be interviewed and (2) individuals who responded to the surveys may be different 

from those who were selected for the survey but did not respond. Second, the failure of some 

sample members to respond to the surveys may compromise the validity of the impact estimates, particularly if the program and control groups responded to the survey at different rates.

This appendix presents a description of the survey fielding efforts, assesses whether the 

survey can be generalized to the research sample, and assesses its validity for estimating 

program impacts. Overall, the results suggest that the survey samples provide valid estimates of 

the program’s effects that can be generalized to the research sample.

Sample Selection and Survey Administration

The research sample includes 3,929 sample members. Due to budget constraints, only 3,436 

people in the full sample could be selected to be interviewed for the survey (that is, to be in the 

fielded sample), as described in Appendix Box B.1. This fielded sample is used for all surveys 

in this evaluation.

All research sample members who were randomly assigned between August 2011 and 

February 2012 were included in the fielded sample. It was necessary to include all research 

sample members enrolled during those months in the fielded sample because the 12-month 

survey began before the total research sample size was known. When study enrollment ended in 

February 2013, the total research sample was large enough that it was necessary to select a

subsample of those randomly assigned from March 2012 through January 2013. Specifically, all 

control group members were included and 76 percent of program group members were randomly selected from each program. This sampling plan ensured that each program was represented

in the survey analysis and helped achieve a more balanced sample of program and control group 

members. 

Appendix Table B.1 shows baseline characteristics for the research sample (3,929), the 

fielded sample (3,436), and the nonfielded sample (493). Overall, there are very few statistically 

significant differences between the fielded and nonfielded samples. Fielded sample members 

were more likely than nonfielded sample members to have had children when they enrolled in 

the study, but less likely to have had a diagnosed disability.
82

Appendix Box B.1

Sample Definitions

Research sample: All 3,929 sample members who were randomly assigned during the 

sample intake period, which extended from August 2011 through January 2013. 

Fielded sample: The total of 3,436 research sample members who were selected for the 

surveys. 

Nonfielded sample: The 493 research sample members who were not selected for the 

surveys. 

Respondent sample: Fielded sample members who completed a given follow-up survey. 

Nonrespondent sample: Fielded sample members who did not complete a given followup survey for various reasons, for example, because they could not be located or because 

they refused to be interviewed.*

__________________________ 

*

The nonrespondent sample at 12 months includes 9 deceased sample members, 63 incarcerated 

sample members, and 3 sample members in active military service. At 30 months, the nonrespondent

sample includes 15 deceased sample members, 76 incarcerated sample members, and 2 sample members 

in active military service.

The 12-month survey was fielded (administered to survey recipients) between December 2012 and May 2014. The 30-month survey was fielded between January 2014 and December 2015. In both, sample members were asked to complete the survey online; sample members 

who did not do so were then called on the phone and asked to complete the survey that way. If a 

sample member still could not be reached, a field representative of the survey firm followed up 

in person. It took slightly different amounts of time to complete the survey online, by phone, or 

in person, but on average sample members completed the survey in less than 43 minutes.

Characteristics of Respondents and Nonrespondents

in the Fielded Sample

Of the 3,436 young people who were chosen to be surveyed, 2,784 completed the 12-month 

follow-up survey and 2,756 completed the 30-month follow-up survey, response rates of 81 
83

Appendix Table B.1

Selected Baseline Characteristics of the Fielded and Nonfielded Samples

 Full Fielded Nonfielded

Characteristic (%) Sample Sample Sample

Age 

16-18 years old 33.0 32.9 33.7

19-21 years old 46.3 46.0 48.1

22 years old or older 20.7 21.0 18.3

Male 64.3 64.2 64.7

 Race/ethnicitya 

Hispanic or Latino 14.6 14.3 16.5

White, non-Hispanic 15.3 15.4 14.8

Black, non-Hispanic 63.0 63.0 63.0

Otherb 6.0 6.0 5.5

Not specified 1.1 1.2 0.2

Has a child 33.7 34.2 29.6*

 Highest grade completedc 

6th or below 0.4 0.4 0.6

7th 1.0 1.0 1.2

8th 7.6 7.9 5.6

9th 18.9 19.2 16.7

10th 26.6 26.2 29.1

11th 35.5 35.5 35.1

12th 10.1 9.9 11.8

Has a high school diploma or equivalent 9.3 9.0 10.9

Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 11.1 10.7 13.8*

Housing status 

Lives with family 63.0 62.8 64.1

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.7 15.7 15.6

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 16.2 16.3 15.4

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.6 0.6 0.6

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.2 1.2 1.1

Is in residential treatment 0.3 0.2 0.4

Is homeless 3.0 3.1 2.7

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0

 (continued)
84

Appendix Table B.1 (continued)

 Full Fielded Nonfielded 

Characteristic (%) Sample Sample Sample 

Who suggested applying to YouthBuild 

Family member or relative 30.7 30.7 30.7

No one 33.6 34.1 30.1

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.4 4.4 4.6

Friend 21.3 21.1 23.0

Judge or someone from the justice system 3.3 3.3 3.5

Someone else 4.3 4.3 4.2

Case manager, counselor, mentor, or program staff member 2.4 2.2 4.0

Reasons for applying to YouthBuild 

GED credential 90.9 91.3 88.8

College 66.0 66.1 65.0

To get life on track 92.1 92.2 91.2

Job 88.7 89.0 86.9

Training 71.4 71.6 70.4

Friends 7.7 7.8 7.2

 Sample size 3,929 3,436 493 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 GED = General Educational Development.

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, and 

responses of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.
85

percent and 80 percent, respectively; 2,511 completed both the 12- and 30-month surveys.

1 For 

both surveys, the program group had slightly higher response rates than the control group (for 

example, for the 30-month survey the response rate was 81 percent for the program group and 

78 percent for the control group). The differential was not greater than 3 percentage points and 

the differences between response rates were not statistically significant in either survey. 

Appendix Tables B.2 and B.3 present selected baseline characteristics of survey respondents and nonrespondents for the two surveys. Some differences are to be expected, since

individuals who respond to surveys tend to be different from those who do not. Nonrespondents 

are often people in harder-to-reach groups, such as those with lower incomes and greater 

mobility. The table illustrates these types of differences. In both surveys, for example, the 

respondent sample has a higher percentage of women than the nonrespondent sample. This 

finding is not surprising, as women often respond to surveys at higher rates than men.

2 The

respondent and nonrespondent samples for both surveys also had different racial and ethnic

makeups and different housing statuses. Respondents to the 30-month survey were less likely 

than nonrespondents to have reported a disability when they enrolled in the study.

These differences were also tested in a logistic model, in which the probability of response was regressed on the baseline covariates shown in Table B.2. A test of joint significance 

is statistically significant for each survey. The differences between the respondent and nonrespondent samples suggest that some caution should be exercised when generalizing the survey 

findings to the research sample. However, because the response rate was fairly high (nonrespondents represent less than 20 percent of the fielded sample), the respondent sample still 

looks similar to the fielded sample. 

Comparisons Between the Research Groups in the Survey 

Respondent Sample

Although random assignment research designs minimize potential bias, there is a possibility that 

the selective nature of the survey-response process could result in differences between the 

characteristics of the program group and the control group. If such differences arise, they could 

make the impact estimates derived from the respondent sample less reliable. 

 1

The main text of the report and the impact analysis use a broader measure of survey response than the 

analysis presented in this appendix. (For example, 2,845 sample members answered at least some questions on 

the 12-month follow-up survey and 2,808 sample members did so for the 30-month follow-up survey.) This 

appendix and supporting analyses use survey completion to define “respondents.” Results using the broader 

measure are similar to those shown here. 2

Groves (2006).
86

Appendix Table B.2

Selected Baseline Characteristics of Respondents and 

Nonrespondents to the 12-Month Survey

Characteristic (%) Respondents Nonrespondents Full Sample 

 Age 

16-18 years old 32.8 33.3 33.0

19-21 years old 46.4 44.3 46.3

22 years old or older 20.7 22.4 20.7

 Male 62.2 72.5 64.3***

 Race/ethnicitya ***

Hispanic or Latino 13.9 16.0 14.6

White, non-Hispanic 15.5 15.0 15.3

Black, non-Hispanic 64.1 58.6 63.0

Otherb

 

5.4 8.6 6.0

Not specified 1.1 1.8 1.1

Has a child 33.3 38.5 33.7**

 Highest grade completedc

6th or below 0.3 0.6 0.4

7th 1.0 0.8 1.0

8th 8.2 6.6 7.6

9th 19.3 18.4 18.9

10th 25.6 28.8 26.6

11th 35.3 36.4 35.5

12th 10.2 8.4 10.1

 Has a high school diploma or equivalent 9.4 7.5 9.3

 Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.6 11.5 11.1

 Housing status ***

Lives with family 64.1 57.4 63.0

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.8 15.3 15.7

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 15.0 21.7 16.2

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.6 0.6 0.6

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.1 1.6 1.2

Is in residential treatment 0.1 1.0 0.3

Is homeless

 (continued)

3.3 2.2 3.0
87

Appendix Table B.2 (continued)

 Characteristic (%) Respondents Nonrespondents Full Sample 

 Who suggested applying to YouthBuild 

Family member or relative 31.3 28.4 30.7

No one 34.6 31.9 33.6

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.1 5.6 4.4

Friend 20.7 22.8 21.3

Judge or someone from the justice system 3.1 4.1 3.3

Someone else 4.1 5.3 4.3

Case manager, counselor, mentor, or program staff member 2.2 1.9 2.4

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild 

GED 91.2 91.4 90.9

College 65.9 66.9 66.0

To get life on track 92.2 92.3 92.1

Job 88.9 89.4 88.7

Training 70.9 74.5 71.4*

Friends 7.5 9.1 7.7

 

Sample size 2,784 

 

652 3,929 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, and responses 

of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.
88

Appendix Table B.3

Selected Baseline Characteristics of 

Respondents and Nonrespondents to the 30-Month Survey

 

 

Characteristic (%) Respondents Nonrespondents Full Sample

 Age 

 16-18 years old 32.7 34.0 33.0

19-21 years old 46.2 45.3 46.3

22 years old or older 21.1 20.7 20.7

 Male 61.8 74.0 64.3***

 Race/ethnicitya ***

Hispanic or Latino 13.7 16.8 14.6

White, non-Hispanic 14.7 18.1 15.3

Black, non-Hispanic 64.8 56.0 63.0

Otherb

 

 

5.7 7.5 6.0

Not specified 1.1 1.6 1.1

Has a child 34.2 34.2 33.7

 Highest grade completedc

6th or below 0.3 0.7 0.4

7th 1.0 0.7 1.0

8th 7.8 8.0 7.6

9th 19.4 18.2 18.9

10th 26.4 25.6 26.6

11th 35.0 37.7 35.5

12th 10.1 8.9 10.1

 Has a high school diploma or equivalent 9.2 8.4 9.3

 Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.2 13.1 11.1***

 Housing status ***

Lives with family 64.5 56.0 63.0

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.4 17.1 15.7

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 15.4 19.8 16.2

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.6 0.6 0.6

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.0 2.0 1.2

Is in residential treatment 0.1 0.9 0.3

Is homeless 3.0 3.6 3.0

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0

(continued)
89

Appendix Table B.3 (continued)

 Characteristic (%) Respondents Nonrespondents Full Sample 

 Who suggested applying to YouthBuild 

Family member or relative 31.3 28.4 30.7

No one 34.5 32.1 33.6

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.2 5.3 4.4

Friend 20.8 22.2 21.3

Judge or someone from the justice system 3.0 4.2 3.3

Someone else 4.1 5.0 4.3

Case manager, counselor, mentor, or program staff member 2.0 2.7 2.4

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild 

GED 90.9 92.6 90.9

College 66.3 65.4 66.0

To get life on track 92.3 92.0 92.1

Job 89.0 88.7 88.7

Training 71.7 71.2 71.4

Friends 7.6 8.4 7.7

 

Sample size

 

2,756 680 3,929 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, and responses 

of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.

It does not appear that these differences did arise. Selected baseline characteristics for 

program and control group survey respondents are shown in Appendix Tables B.4 and B.5 for 

the 12- and 30-month surveys, respectively. Overall, the two groups look nearly identical. The 

only statistically significant difference that emerged was that control group respondents to the 

12-month survey reported more frequently than the program group that they had applied to 

YouthBuild to earn a high school equivalency credential. Comparisons between the program 

and control groups for those that completed both survey waves also found no significant 

differences. 
90

Appendix Table B.4

Selected Baseline Characteristics of Program and Control Group 

Respondents to the 12-Month Survey

 YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Group Group

 Age 

16-18 years old 34.0 30.7

19-21 years old 45.3 48.6

22 years old or older 20.7 20.7

 Male 61.9 62.9

 Race/ethnicitya 

Hispanic or Latino 13.7 14.4

White, non-Hispanic 15.7 15.0

Black, non-Hispanic 64.0 64.3

Otherb 5.8 4.8

Not specified 0.8 1.6

 Has a child 32.7 34.3

 Highest grade completedc

6th or below 0.3 0.3

7th 1.1 0.9

8th 8.5 7.5

9th 19.8 18.5

10th 25.2 26.4

11th 35.4 35.1

12th 9.7 11.2

 Has a high school diploma or equivalent 8.8 10.6

 Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.8 10.1

 Housing status 

Lives with family 64.8 62.7

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.8 15.7

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 14.6 15.9

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.7 0.4

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 0.8 1.7

Is in residential treatment 0.1 0.1

Is homeless 3.2 3.5

(continued)
91

Appendix Table B.4 (continued)

 YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Group Group 

 Who suggested applying to YouthBuild 

Family member or relative 30.0 33.6

No one 35.6 32.5

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.0 4.3

Friend 20.7 20.7

Judge or someone from the justice system 3.2 2.8

Someone else 4.0 4.1

Case manager, counselor, mentor, or program staff member 2.3 2.0

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild

GED 92.0 89.7**

College 65.8 66.1

To get life on track 92.7 91.2

Job 89.2 88.3

Training 70.1 72.5

Friends 7.8 6.9

 Sample size 1,815 969

 

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, 

and responses of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.
92

Appendix Table B.5

Selected Baseline Characteristics of Program and Control Group 

Respondents to the 30-Month Survey

 YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Group Group

 Age 

16-18 years old 33.7 30.7

19-21 years old 45.0 48.6

22 years old or older 21.3 20.7

Male 61.7 61.8

 Race/ethnicitya 

Hispanic or Latino 13.4 14.2

White, non-Hispanic 14.8 14.5

Black, non-Hispanic 64.8 64.8

Otherb 6.0 5.0

Not specified 0.9 1.6

 Has a child 33.8 35.0

Highest grade completedc

6th or below 0.2 0.3

7th 1.1 0.8

8th 8.2 7.2

9th 19.8 18.7

10th 26.4 26.4

11th 34.4 36.0

12th 9.9 10.7

Has a high school diploma or equivalent 8.8 10.1

 Has a diagnosed disability (learning or physical) 10.5 9.6

Housing status 

Lives with family 64.9 63.8

Owns/rents apartment, room, or house 15.7 14.7

Is staying at someone's apartment, room, or house 14.7 16.7

Is staying with foster guardian/in foster system 0.7 0.4

Lives in a halfway house/transitional house 1.0 1.2

Is in residential treatment 0.1 0.0

Is homeless 2.9 3.0

Other 0.0 0.1

(continued)
93

Appendix Table B.5 (continued)

 YouthBuild Control 

Characteristic (%) Group Group 

Who suggested applying to YouthBuild 

Family member or relative 30.1 33.4

No one 35.6 32.7

School counselor, truant officer, teacher, or principal 4.2 4.1

Friend 20.6 21.3

Judge or someone from the justice system 3.1 2.9

Someone else 4.2 4.0

Case manager, counselor, mentor, or program staff member 2.2 1.7

 Reasons for applying to YouthBuild

GED 91.5 89.9

College 66.1 66.5

To get life on track 92.8 91.2

Job 89.4 88.4

Training 71.3 72.4

Friends 8.2 6.5

 Sample size 1,795 961

SOURCE: Calculations based on the YouthBuild baseline data form. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aCategories are mutually exclusive. 

 b"Other" includes Hawaiian Native or other Pacific Islander, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan, and 

responses of multiple races/ethnicities.

 cThis information is missing for some sample members.
94

Consistency of Impacts

A previous section suggested some caution in interpreting the results of the surveys. Specifically, as discussed above, there are some differences in baseline characteristics between the sample 

members who responded to the survey and those who did not. This section helps to put the 

survey results in context by comparing the impacts estimated based on administrative records

for respondents with the impacts for nonrespondents. These comparisons were carried out for 

both surveys. Comparisons using administrative records provide the best estimate of the 

program’s effects because they use the full program group and control group, not a potentially 

nonrandom subset of survey respondents. If the respondent and nonrespondent survey samples 

have similar impacts estimated using administrative data, it would give more credibility to the 

survey analysis.

Appendix Tables B.6 and B.7 present the results, showing impacts for college outcomes 

using National Student Clearinghouse enrollment records. (It was not possible to conduct a 

similar test using data from the National Database of New Hires data due to federal restrictions 

on researchers’ access to these data.) Overall, the impacts are nearly identical for each sample at 

each survey. A test of joint statistical significance across all educational outcomes further 

confirmed that survey respondents and nonrespondents did not differ across these outcomes.
95

Appendix Table B.6

Impacts on Education Based on Records Data at 12 Months 

 

 Respondent Nonrespondent

Impact (Percentage Points) Sample Sample

 Attended college since random assignment 

Enrolled in a 4-year institution 0.88 0.33

Enrolled in a 2-year institution 7.75 7.14

Enrolled in a less-than-2-year institution 0.05 0.36

Public 8.25 7.43

Private 0.55 0.05

Full time 2.89 3.54

Received a degree 0.89 0.82

Certificate 0.68 1.00

Associate's 0.19 0.12

Bachelor's 0.00 -0.40*

Master's 0.04 0.00

 

Sample size

 

2,784 

 

1,145 

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on National Student Clearinghouse data.

NOTE: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 
96

Appendix Table B.7

 Impacts on Education Based on Records Data at 30 Months 

 

 

 Respondent Nonrespondent

Impact (Percentage Points) Sample Sample

Attended college since random assignment

Enrolled in a 4-year institution 0.42 1.45

Enrolled in a 2-year institution 7.63 7.45

Enrolled in a less-than-2-year institution 0.23 -0.15

Public 8.01 7.95

Private 0.28 0.79

Full time 2.62 4.23

Received a degree 0.45 1.67

Certificate 0.47 1.40

Associate's 0.19 0.13

Bachelor's -0.11 0.00

Master's 0.00 0.00

 Sample size 2,756 1,173 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on National Student Clearinghouse data. 

NOTE: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 
Appendix C 

Survey Responses About YouthBuild Experiences and 

Service Receipt at 30 Months
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
99

Appendix Table C.1

YouthBuild Experience, Program Group Only, at 30 Months 

 

 YouthBuild

Outcome (%) Group

 Ever received YouthBuild services 80.0

Current status, among those who ever received YouthBuild services

Currently enrolled 2.3

Graduated from the program 68.1

No longer enrolled and did not graduate 29.6

Reason for not participating in or not completing the program 

Transportation 26.5

Incarceration 10.1

Program schedule 17.5

Another job 27.0

Moved 21.7

Birth of a child or child care problems 18.1

Health issue or family pressure 17.6

Conflict with the program, staff members, or other participants 15.8

Expulsion or being asked to leave 12.9

Another reason 32.5

Among those who participated

Received a stipend from YouthBuild 86.3

Feel close to a YouthBuild staff person 84.0

 Rated program, program component, or staff favorablya

Overall YouthBuild experience 90.6

Construction or other job training 91.4

Counseling 86.4

Leadership training 88.0

Help finding a job 74.7

Help applying to college 81.3

Understanding your needs 81.4

Helping you solve problems 79.8

Helping you learn 86.7

Helping after you left YouthBuild 64.0

Staying in contact after you graduated 67.4

Sample size 1,811 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30-month survey. 

NOTE: aIndicates a response of "very good" or "good." The other response options were "okay," "poor," 

and "does not apply to me." 
100

Appendix Table C.2

Impacts on Service Receipt at 30 Months 

 

 Program Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Education-related services

Ever participated (%) 81.2 69.8 11.4 *** 0.000

GED preparation 60.5 49.6 11.0 *** 0.000

Academic tutoring (not related to GED preparation) 22.7 13.0 9.6 *** 0.000

High school diploma prep courses 31.8 28.3 3.4 * 0.056

Standardized Achievement Test preparation 28.8 19.7 9.1 *** 0.000

College-preparation activitiesa 36.6 19.3 17.3 *** 0.000

Getting help finding financial aid 37.7 22.6 15.1 *** 0.000

Otherb 15.2 13.5 1.8 0.233

 Months participated 6.0 4.1 1.9 *** 0.000

 Job or training-related services

Ever participated (%) 78.2 57.8 20.4 *** 0.000

Job-skills training program 50.2 28.7 21.5 *** 0.000

On-the-job training in construction or 

another field 58.4 24.7 33.7 *** 0.000

Job certification program 37.4 17.3 20.1 *** 0.000

Job-search assistancec 63.2 44.7 18.5 *** 0.000

Help applying to a vocational training programd 40.4 22.3 18.1 *** 0.000

 Months participated 6.2 3.1 3.1 *** 0.000

 Personal-development services

Ever participated (%) 65.6 44.4 21.1 *** 0.000

Help or advice from a mentor 44.0 26.1 17.9 *** 0.000

Life-skills traininge 38.0 17.1 21.0 *** 0.000

Communication or public-speaking training 34.4 11.6 22.8 *** 0.000

Leadership-development training 43.4 14.9 28.4 *** 0.000

Health services 32.1 14.9 17.2 *** 0.000

Mental health services 23.0 11.7 11.3 *** 0.000

Working with a case manager 35.8 20.0 15.8 *** 0.000

 Months participated 5.6 3.3 2.3 *** 0.000

 

Sample size (total = 2,808)

 

1,830 978

(continued)
101

Appendix Table C.2 (continued)

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aIncludes college-awareness or college-guidance activities, college-preparation or -transition programs, or 

preparation for college entrance exams.

 bIncludes attending adult education classes, various certification courses, and college attendance.

 c Includes activities such as help filling out an application, writing a résumé, and going for an interview.

 dIncludes help with a program application or interview. 

 eIncludes activities such as parenting-skills classes or learning how to balance a checkbook.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix D 

Survey-Based Impacts and Subgroup Impacts at

12 Months and Selected Impacts Per Participant
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
105

Appendix Table D.1

Impacts on Education and Training at 12 Months 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Earned a high school diploma or GED credential 37.8 23.3 14.5*** 0.000

 

High school diploma 11.7 12.1 -0.4 0.718

GED 26.1 11.3 14.9*** 0.000

 Enrolled in high school or GED

classes since random assignment 64.3 54.9 9.4*** 0.000

 Enrolled in vocational school since random assignmenta 25.9 14.9 11.0*** 0.000

Received trade license/training certificateb 3.3 1.0 2.3*** 0.002

 Enrolled in postsecondary courses since random assignment 15.9 11.1 4.8*** 0.001

 

2-year or community college 14.3 10.6 3.7*** 0.007

4-year college or university 2.9 1.1 1.8*** 0.004

Received a postsecondary degree 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.223

 

Associate's degree 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.548

Bachelor's degree 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.562

Other degree 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.454

 Currently enrolled in school 24.4 20.9 3.4** 0.043

 

GED prep or high school classes 14.2 14.6 -0.5 0.741

College courses 6.8 4.0 2.8*** 0.004

Vocational or technical 6.4 4.6 1.9* 0.054

Otherc 6.2 3.1 3.2*** 0.000

Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 GED = General Educational Development.

 a"Vocational school" includes technical, business, and trade schools.

 b"Trade license/training certificate" includes technical, business, and trade certificates.

 c"Other" category includes enrollment in a regular or special education high school or a charter school. 
106

Appendix Table D.2

Impacts on Youth Development at 12 Months 

 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Civic engagement since random assignment (%) 86.4 75.7 10.6*** 0.000

Volunteered 47.8 20.4 27.4*** 0.000

Registered to votea 76.3 71.5 4.8*** 0.006

Voted 35.2 31.3 3.9** 0.038

Involved in politics or local community activities 10.9 7.2 3.7*** 0.003

 Currently happy (%) 76.6 75.2 1.4 0.418

 What the future holds (%) 

 

Willing to wait for bigger financial rewardsb 30.8 28.3 2.5 0.191

Will probably attend collegec 83.4 81.7 1.7

Expects to live at least 70 years 78.5 78.0 0.5 0.787

Exhibits signs of major depressiond (%) 18.0 17.3 0.7 0.644

 Overall good health (%) 84.5 82.8 1.7 0.267

 Believes most people can be trusted (%) 23.2 21.5 1.7 0.328

 Social support scalee 3.1 3.1 0.0

 

0.160

Self-esteem scalef 3.3 3.2 0.0* 0.097

 Self-confidence scaleg 3.0 2.9 0.0 0.180

 Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aCurrently registered to vote at the time of the survey.

 bBased on responses to the question, "Would you rather get $80 tomorrow or get $100 three months from 

now?"

 cAmong those who have not attended and are not currently attending college. 

 dDepression is measured using the PHQ-9, a nine-item scale used to diagnose depression in clinical settings. 

Response categories range from 0 = "not at all" to 3 = "nearly every day," where higher scores indicate more 

frequent occurrence of depression symptoms. If the item score sum is greater than or equal to 10, the respondent is 

considered to exhibit signs of major depression.

 eSocial support is measured using a six-item scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 

4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate stronger social support. The six items are averaged.

 fSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 

1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. The 10 

items are averaged.

 gSelf-confidence is measured using a six-item scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 

4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-confidence. The six items are averaged.
107

Appendix Table D.3

Impacts on Employment and Earnings at 12 Months 

 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Ever employed since random assignment (%) 54.5 55.9 -1.4 0.497

 Currently employed (%) 33.2 31.7 1.4 0.455

 

Working full time (35+ hours/week) 15.2 15.4 -0.2 0.916

Self-employed 7.9 8.7 -0.8 0.475

Working through a temp agency 5.6 5.2 0.4 0.657

Earning $10/hour or more 8.3 8.0 0.3 0.783

Average weekly earnings ($) 92.3 90.2 2.1 0.777

 Current job industry (%)

Construction 2.2 2.8 -0.6 0.327

Retail trade 4.4 6.0 -1.7* 0.069

Admin./support/waste mgmt./remediation 3.9 3.7 0.2 0.807

Health care and social assistance 5.0 3.5 1.5* 0.088

Accommodation and food service 7.9 8.4 -0.5 0.647

Other 9.1 6.4 2.7** 0.018

 Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTE: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 
108

Appendix Table D.4

Impacts on Living Arrangements and Household Information at 12 Months

 

 YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Current living arrangement

 

Parent's home 52.6 56.1 -3.5* 0.072

Another person's homea 22.8 20.6 2.2 0.196

One's own place 19.7 17.0 2.7* 0.077

Incarceration facility 1.5 1.5 -0.1 0.876

Other arrangementb 3.4 4.8 -1.3* 0.097

Ever homeless since random assignment 16.4 16.5 -0.1

 

0.946

Married or living with spouse/partner 22.7 21.7 1.0 0.569

 Receiving government benefits 72.0 70.3 1.7 0.361

 Has childrenc 40.6 41.8 -1.3 0.375

Young parentd 7.3 7.5 -0.2 0.829

Lives with all or some of one's children 29.8 28.9 0.9 0.525

Has children but not custody 13.2 15.0 -1.8 0.167

Paid child support in the last 30 days 2.0 2.1 -0.1 0.810

 Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 aIncludes living with family other than parents. 

 bIncludes living in a group home or halfway house, a long-term homeless shelter, or an emergency 

housing shelter (including for domestic violence); living on the street; situations such as college or residential training programs; and other situations.

 cIncludes a person's biological, adopted, foster, and stepchildren, plus any other children he or she is 

responsible for.

 d"Young parent" is defined here as a person under the age of 20 who is pregnant or who has a child.
109

Appendix Table D.5

Impacts on Delinquency and Risky Behavior at 12 Months 

 

  YouthBuild Control Difference

Outcome (%) Group Group (Impact) P-Value

 Arrested 18.4 16.9 1.5

 

0.341

Charged 16.2 15.3 0.8 0.576

 a Convicted or found delinquent 9.8 8.4 1.4 0.230

Drug offense 2.7 2.5 0.2 0.775

Driving under the influence 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.713

Failure to pay child support 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.241

Property offenseb 3.3 2.5 0.8 0.280

Violent offensec 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.357

Other 1.8 1.3 0.5 0.386

 Ever locked up due to a sentence 5.1 3.9 1.2 0.167

 Involved in a gang fight in the past 12 months 3.8 5.0 -1.2 0.161

 Substance abuse 

 

Has 5+ drinks once or more in a typical week 30.0 29.0 1.0 0.606

Has used marijuana since random assignment 35.2 36.8 -1.5 0.429

Has used another drug since random assignment 8.6 6.5 2.0* 0.067

Drove a car while drinking or doing drugs 5.7 5.2 0.6 0.558

in the last 30 days

Sample size (total = 2,845) 1,852 993

 SOURCES: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12-month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 All outcomes reflect activity since random assignment unless otherwise noted.

 aIn the juvenile justice system, the term "adjudicated delinquent" is used rather than "convicted."

 bProperty offenses include shoplifting, burglary, larceny, theft, auto theft, writing bad checks, fraud, forgery, arson, 

vandalism, and possession of stolen goods.

 cViolent offenses include physical or sexual assault, rape, robbery, manslaughter, attempted murder, and murder.
 

Appendix Table D.6

Impacts by Age at 12 Months 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Members Under 20 Sample Members 20 and Older

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 73.1 NA NA 74.1 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 47.5 NA NA 52.0 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

Education-related 76.2 62.1 14.1*** 0.000 73.9 52.4 21.4*** 0.000 †

Job- or training-related 69.2 39.4 29.9*** 0.000 72.6 39.4 33.2*** 0.000

Personal development 58.9 33.6 25.3*** 0.000 60.0 29.0 31.0*** 0.000

 Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 25.3 12.0 13.2*** 0.000 27.1 10.6 16.5*** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

 assignment (2- or 4-year) 14.0 9.6 4.5** 0.023 17.7 12.8 5.0** 0.020

 Youth development

 

Civic engagementa (%) 83.5 70.5 13.0*** 0.000 89.5 80.6 8.9*** 0.000

Self-esteem scaleb 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.389 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.136

Work (%)

Currently employed 33.4 29.7 3.7 0.186 32.6 33.9 -1.3 0.622

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 7.2 7.8 -0.7 0.673 9.3 8.4 0.9 0.580

(continued)

110
Appendix Table D.6 (continued)

 Sample Members Under 20 Sample Members 20 and Older 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference

 

Between

 

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 20.3 17.2 3.1 0.180 16.1 16.7 -0.6 0.781

 Sample size 980 475 872 518

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the supgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences 

between subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, or being involved in politics or local 

community services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly 

agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

111
Appendix Table D.7

 Impacts by Gender at 12 Months 

 

 

 

 

Women Men

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 72.9 NA NA 74.1 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 44.3 NA NA 52.8 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

Education-related 75.4 60.4 15.0*** 0.000 74.6 55.7 18.9*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 68.0 36.7 31.3*** 0.000 72.9 40.3 32.6*** 0.000

Personal development 61.8 31.1 30.7*** 0.000 58.3 30.9 27.4*** 0.000

 Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 21.8 10.6 11.1*** 0.000 28.8 11.8 16.9*** 0.000 †

Enrolled in college since random

 assignment (2 or 4-year) 16.8 12.0 4.9* 0.052 15.1 11.1 4.0** 0.024

Youth development 

Civic engagementa (%) 88.5 75.6 12.9*** 0.000 84.9 76.0 8.9*** 0.000

Self-esteem scaleb 3.2 3.3 0.0 0.860 3.3 3.2 0.1* 0.055

Work (%) 

 

 

Currently employed 30.6 28.7 1.9 0.560 34.8 33.6 1.3 0.611

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 5.9 5.2 0.7 0.668 9.7 9.7 0.0 0.984

(continued)

112
Appendix Table D.7 (continued)

 Women Men 

 

Difference

 

Between

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Involvement in the criminal justice system

 

Arrested since random assignment (%) 11.8 9.2 2.6 0.241 22.1 22.2 0.0 0.988

Sample size 697 366 1,152 627

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey. 

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences 

between subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, or being involved in politics or local 

community services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly 

agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

113
Appendix Table D.8

 Impacts by Highest Grade Previously Completed, at 12 Months 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Members Who Had Completed Sample Members Who Had Completed

Less Than Tenth Grade

 

 

 

 

 

Tenth Grade or Higher

 

 

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 74.7 NA NA 72.6 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 51.0 NA NA 47.6 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

 

Education-related 77.5 60.0 17.5*** 0.000 72.7 54.9 17.8*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 72.1 37.3 34.8*** 0.000 69.6 41.6 27.9*** 0.000 †

Personal development 60.9 32.0 28.9*** 0.000 57.9 30.1 27.7*** 0.000

Education (%)

Earned a GED since random assignment 27.5 10.4 17.1*** 0.000 24.2 10.2 14.0*** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

 assignment (2- or 4-year) 14.0 8.1 5.9*** 0.001 17.8 13.8 3.9* 0.084

Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 84.0 71.5 12.5*** 0.000 88.9 80.8 8.0*** 0.000

Self-esteem scaleb 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.938 3.3 3.2 0.1** 0.013 †

Work 

Currently employed (%) 31.6 28.4 3.2 0.223 34.7 36.0 -1.3 0.668

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 7.0 7.9 -0.8 0.587 9.7 8.4 1.3 0.475

 (continued)

114
Appendix Table D.8 (continued)

 Sample Members Who Had Completed Sample Members Who Had Completed 

 

Less Than Tenth Grade Tenth Grade or Higher

 

Difference

 

Between

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

YouthBuild Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 18.7 18.5 0.1 0.960 17.6 15.8 1.8 0.437

 Sample size 1,005 525 821 456

 

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences between 

subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, or being involved in politics or local community 

services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," where 

higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

115
Appendix Table D.9

Impacts by Program Fidelity, at 12 M onths 

 

 

 

 

 

Sample Members from Programs with Sample Members from Programs with

Low Fidelity

 

High Fidelity 

Difference

Between

YouthBuild Control Difference YouthBuild Control Difference Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

 Ever participated in YouthBuild (%) 68.7 NA NA 76.7 NA NA

Graduated from YouthBuild (%) 55.8 NA NA 46.0 NA NA

 Service receipt (%)

Education-related 75.6 59.7 16.0*** 0.000 74.8 55.7 19.1*** 0.000

Job- or training-related 69.1 44.0 25.1*** 0.000 72.0 35.7 36.3*** 0.000 †††

Personal development 57.1 33.0 24.0*** 0.000 61.1 29.7 31.3*** 0.000 †

 Education (%)

 

 

Earned a GED since random assignment 28.5 12.3 16.2*** 0.000 24.2 11.2 13.0*** 0.000

Enrolled in college since random

 assignment (2- or 4-year) 19.5 13.1 6.5*** 0.007 13.6 9.7 3.9** 0.028

Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 87.2 76.5 10.7*** 0.000 86.0 75.4 10.6*** 0.000

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.2 0.1* 0.082 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.488

 Work 

 

 

Currently employed (%) 31.6 32.5 -0.9 0.757 33.9 31.1 2.8 0.271

Earnings greater than $10 per hour (%) 10.4 8.0 2.4 0.207 7.2 7.3 -0.1 0.971

(continued)

116
Appendix Table D.9 (continued)

 Sample Members from Programs with Sample Members from Programs with 

 

Low Fidelity High Fidelity 

 

Difference

 

Between

 

Program Control Difference

 

Program Control Difference

 

Subgroup

Outcome Group Group (Impact) P-Value Group Group (Impact) P-Value Impacts

Involvement in the criminal justice system

Arrested since random assignment (%) 18.0 14.7 3.2 0.177 18.5 18.5 0.0 0.989

 Sample size 723 428 1,129 565

 SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 12 -month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent. 

 The H-statistic is used to assess whether the difference between the subgroup impacts is statistically significant. Statistically significant differences 

between subgroups are indicated as: ††† = 1 percent; †† = 5 percent; † = 10 percent. 

 NA = not applicable.

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, or being involved in politics or local

community services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly 

agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Responses to the 10 items are averaged.

117
118

Appendix Table D.10

Impacts Per Participant for Selected Outcomes

 r YouthBuild Control Difference Impact Pe

Outcome Group Group (Impact) Participant

 Education and training (%)

Earned a GED 31.2 17.5 13.7 18.5 ***

Enrolled in vocational school 30.8 20.4 10.3 14.0 ***

Received a trade license/training certificate 4.1 2.1 2.0 2.7 **

Enrolled in postsecondary courses 23.6 18.1 5.6 7.5 ***

Work and earnings 

Employed at Month 30 (%) 44.4 44.8 -0.4 -0.5

Average weekly earnings ($) 150.2 134.5 15.7 21.2 *

 Youth development

Civic engagementa (%) 92.2 88.6 3.6 4.8 ***

Self-esteem scaleb 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0

 Criminal justice involvement

Arrested since random assignment 27.6 26.4 1.3 1.7

Convicted since random assignment 15.7 14.1 1.6 2.2

 Sample size (total = 2,808) 1,830 978 

SOURCE: MDRC calculations based on responses to the 30 - month survey.

NOTES: Statistical significance levels are indicated as: *** = 1 percent; ** = 5 percent; * = 10 percent.

 "Impact per participant" refers to the difference between the program and control group means divided by the 

participation rate (0.74).

 a"Civic engagement" covers volunteering, being registered to vote at the time of the survey, having voted, and 

being involved in politics or local community services. 

 bSelf-esteem is measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Response categories range from 

1 = "strongly disagree" to 4 = "strongly agree," where higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. 

Responses to the 10 items are averaged.
119

References

Belfield, Clive, and Thomas Bailey. 2011. “The Benefits of Attending Community College: A 

Review of the Evidence.” Community College Review 39, 1: 46-68. 

Bloom, Dan, Alissa Gardenhire-Crooks, and Conrad L. Mandsager. 2009. Reengaging High 

School Dropouts: Early Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program 

Evaluation. New York: MDRC.

Card, David, Andrew Johnston, Pauline Leung, Alexandre Mas, and Zhuan Pei. 2015. “The 

Effect of Unemployment Benefits on the Duration of Unemployment Insurance Receipt: 

New Evidence from a Regression Kink Design in Missouri, 2003-2013.” American 

Economic Review 105, 5: 126-130. 

Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. JOBSTART: Final Report 

on a Program for School Dropouts. New York: MDRC.

Cohen, Mark A., and Alex R. Piquero. 2009. “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving 

a High Risk Youth.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25, 1: 25-49. 

Dynarski, Susan M., Steven W. Hemelt, and Joshua M. Hyman. 2015. “The Missing Manual: 

Using National Student Clearinghouse Data to Track Postsecondary Outcomes.” 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37, 1 suppl.: 53S-79S. 

Eccles, Jacquelynne, and Jennifer Appleton Gootman, eds. 2002. Community Programs to 

Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ferguson, Ronald F., and Jason Snipes. 1994. “Outcomes of Mentoring: Healthy Identities for 

Youth.” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems 3, 2: 19-22. 

Fry, Richard Allan. 2010. “Hispanics, High School Dropouts and the GED.” Washington, DC:

Pew Hispanic Center. 

Groves, Robert M. 2006. “Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys.” 

Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 5: 646-675. 

Gueron, Judith. 1984. Lessons from a Job Guarantee: The Youth Incentive Entitlement Pilot 

Projects. New York: MDRC.

Hahn, Andrew, Thomas D. Leavitt, Erin M. Horvat, and James E. Davis. 2004. Life After 

YouthBuild: 900 YouthBuild Graduates Reflect on Their Lives, Dreams, and Experiences. 

Somerville, MA: YouthBuild USA. 

Hahn, Andrew, and Tom Leavitt. 2007. The Efficacy of Education Awards in YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps Programs. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller School for Social 

Policy and Management, Center for Youth and Communities. 

Heckman, James, John Humphries, and Nicholas Mader. 2010. “The GED.” Working Paper No. 

16064. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. 
120

Hossain, Farhana, and Dan Bloom. 2015. Toward a Better Future: Evidence on Improving 

Employment Outcomes for Disadvantaged Youth in the United States. New York: MDRC.

Hurst, David, Dana Kelly, and Daniel Princiotta. 2004. “Educational Attainment of High School 

Dropouts 8 Years Later.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Educational Statistics.

Jastrzab, JoAnn, Julie Masker, John Blomquist, and Larry Orr. 1996. Evaluation of National 

and Community Service Programs. Impacts of Service: Final Report on the Evaluation of 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps. Washington, DC: Corporation for 

National Service.

Kearney, Melissa S., Brad Hershbein, and David Boddy. 2015. “The Future of Work in the Age 

of the Machine.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, The Hamilton Project.

Levine, Peter. 2012. Pathways into Leadership: A Study of YouthBuild Graduates. Medford, 

MA: Tufts University, Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and 

Engagement.

Marcotte, Dave E., Thomas Bailey, Carey Borkoski, and Greg S. Kienzl. 2005. “The Returns of 

a Community College Education: Evidence from the National Education Longitudinal 

Survey.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 27, 2: 157-175.

Maynard, Rebecca. 1980. The Impact of Supported Work on Young School Dropouts. New 

York: MDRC. 

Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, and Colleen Dillon. 2010. Making the Transition: Interim 

Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation. New York: MDRC.

Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus. 2011. Staying on 

Course: Three-Year Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation. New 

York: MDRC.

Miller, Cynthia, Johannes M. Bos, Kristin E. Porter, Fannie M. Tseng, and Yasuyo Abe. 2005. 

The Challenge of Repeating Success in a Changing World: Final Report on the Center for 

Employment Training Replication Sites. New York: MDRC.

Mitchell, Maxine V., Davis Jenkins, Dao Nguyen, Alona Lerman, and Marian DeBerry. 2003. 

Evaluation of the YouthBuild Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.

Mulhere, Kaitlin. 2015. “GED Drop.” Inside Higher Ed (January 20). Website: 

www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/20/ged-numbers-down-amid-time-transition-highschool-equivalency-exams.

Orr, Larry L., Howard S. Bloom, Stephen H. Bell, Fred Doolittle, Winston Lin, and George 

Cave. 1997. Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work? Evidence from the National 

JTPA Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
121

Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2003. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913-

1998.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 1: 1-41. 

Price, Cristofer, Julie Williams, Laura Simpson, JoAnn Jastrzab, Carrie Markovitz. 2011. 

National Evaluation of Youth Corps: Findings at Follow-Up. Washington, DC:

Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Strategy and Special 

Initiatives. 

Quint, Janet, Johannes Bos, and Denise Polit. 1997. New Chance: Final Report on a 

Comprehensive Program for Young Mothers in Poverty and Their Children. New York: 

MDRC. 

Schochet, Peter Z., John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman. 2000. National Job Corps Study: 

The Short-Term Impacts of Job Corps on Participants’ Employment and Related 

Outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Schochet, Peter Z., John Burghardt, and Steven Glazerman. 2001. National Job Corps Study: 

The Impacts of Job Corps on Participants’ Employment and Related Outcomes [and] 

Methodological Appendixes on the Impact Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research. 

Schochet, Peter Z., John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell. 2008. “Does Job Corps Work? 

Impact Findings from the National Job Corps Study.” American Economic Review 98, 5: 

1,864-1,886. 

Sickmund, Melissa, and Charles Puzzanchera, eds. 2014. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 

National Report. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. “Percentage of 

High School Dropouts Among Persons 16 Through 24 Years Old (Status Dropout Rate), 

by Sex and Race/Ethnicity: Selected Years, 1960 Through 2013.” Website: 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.70.asp. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. 2014. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: 

Summary of National Findings. NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-

4863. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. “Volunteering in the United States 

— 2012.” News release USDL 13-0285. Website: www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/

volun_02222013.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. “Data Retrieval: Labor Force 

Statistics (CPS). Table A-4. Employment Status of the Civilian Population 25 Years and 

Over by Educational Attainment.” Website: www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab4.htm. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016a. “BLS Data Viewer. (Unadj) 

Unemployment Rate — Not Enrolled in School, Less Than a High School Diploma 16-24 

Yrs.” Website: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/LNU04023019Q. 
122

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016b. “BLS Data Viewer: 

Unemployment Rate 16-24 Yrs.” Website: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/

LNS14024887. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016c. “BLS Data Viewer: 

Unemployment Rate 25 Yrs and Over.” Website: http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/

timeseries/LNS14000048. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016d. “Labor Force Statistics from the 

Current Population Survey. Household Data Not Seasonally Adjusted Quarterly Averages. 

E-16. Unemployment Rates by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity.” 

Website: www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm. 

Wiegand, Andrew, Michelle S. Manno, Sengsouvanh (Sukey) Leshnick, Louisa Treskon, 

Christian Geckeler, Heather Lewis-Charp, Castle Sinicrope, Mika Clark, and Brandon 

Nicholson. 2015. Adapting to Local Context: Findings from the Youthbuild Evaluation 

Implementation Study. New York: MDRC.

Zhang, Jizhi. 2010. “From GED Credential to College: Patterns of Participation in 

Postsecondary Education Programs.” Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 

GED Testing Service.