Final Evaluation Report 

of Year Up’s 

Professional Training Corps

in Philadelphia

October 2018

Prepared by:

Rebecca Maynard

Rebecca Baelen

Phomdaen Souvanna

David Fein

Azim Shivji

Prepared for:

GreenLight Fund

200 Clarendon Street, 44th Floor

Boston, MA 02116

Submitted by:

Abt Associates 

6130 Executive Blvd.

Rockville, MD 20852

(301) 347-5000

In Partnership with:

Year Up

45 Milk Street, 9th Floor

Boston, MA 02109
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

About Abt Associates

Founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1965, Abt provides applied research and consulting services to 

government agencies and philanthropic, nonprofit, and commercial organizations around the world. Abt’s 

mission is to improve the quality of life and economic well-being of people worldwide. It applies its 

exceptional subject matter expertise, outstanding technical capabilities in applied research, and strategic 

planning to help local, national, and international clients make better decisions and deliver better services.

About the Social Innovation Fund

This report is based upon work supported by the Social Innovation Fund (SIF). SIF was a program of the 

Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) that received funding from 2010 to 2016. 

Using public and private resources to find and grow community-based nonprofits with evidence of 

results, SIF intermediaries received funding to award subgrants that focus on overcoming challenges in 

economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. Although CNCS made its last SIF 

intermediary awards in fiscal year 2016, SIF intermediaries will continue to administer their subgrant 

programs until their federal funding is exhausted. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Contents ▌ pg. i

Contents

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Development of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps (PTC) ........................................... 2

1.1.1 Theory of Change...................................................................................................... 3

1.1.2 Operational Experience at a Glance.......................................................................... 5

1.2 Context for the Evaluation of the Philadelphia PTC Program............................................... 7

1.3 Structure of the PTC Program................................................................................................ 8

1.3.1 Organizational Structure, Staffing, and Financing.................................................... 8

1.3.2 Program Components................................................................................................ 9

1.3.3 Year Up’s Financial Model for PTC....................................................................... 13

1.4 Evaluation Components and Findings in Brief .................................................................... 15

1.4.1 Evaluation Components.......................................................................................... 15

1.4.2 Findings in Brief ..................................................................................................... 16

1.5 Overview of the Report........................................................................................................ 18

2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia (PTC-P) ............. 19

2.1 Data for the Implementation Study ...................................................................................... 19

2.2 PTC-P Organization and Management ................................................................................ 20

2.2.1 Changes in Program Staffing .................................................................................. 20

2.2.2 Response to Staff Changes...................................................................................... 23

2.2.3 Integrating PTC-P with Peirce College................................................................... 25

2.3 PTC-P Recruitment and Admissions ................................................................................... 27

2.3.1 Recruitment Experience and Challenges ................................................................ 29

2.3.2 Coordination between PTC-P and Peirce College .................................................. 30

2.3.3 Efforts to Improve Recruitment .............................................................................. 32

2.4 PTC-P Learning and Development Phase............................................................................ 33

2.4.1 Curriculum Alignment and Customization ............................................................. 33

2.4.2 Promoting Academic Success through L&D .......................................................... 34

2.5 PTC-P Internship Phase ....................................................................................................... 38

2.5.1 Internship Development, Placement, and Retention ............................................... 38

2.5.2 Managing the Internship Experience ...................................................................... 39

2.5.3 Challenges and Opportunities to Expand Internship Positions............................... 40

2.6 After PTC-P Completion...................................................................................................... 42

2.6.1 Employment vs. Continuing Post-secondary Education Goals............................... 42

2.6.2 Transition Supports for Program Completers ......................................................... 43
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Contents ▌ pg. ii

2.7 Financing PTC-P .................................................................................................................. 44

2.7.1 PTC-P Program Operating Costs............................................................................ 45

2.7.2 PTC-P Internship Revenue...................................................................................... 47

2.7.3 Reaching Break-Even Revenue............................................................................... 48

2.8 PTC-P Scalability................................................................................................................. 49

2.9 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 51

3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics...................... 53

3.1 Motivation for and Approach to the Impact Study .............................................................. 54

3.2 Study Design........................................................................................................................ 58

3.2.1 Planned Sample Size and Allocation ...................................................................... 58

3.3 Study Sample ....................................................................................................................... 59

3.3.1 Characteristics of the Study Sample ....................................................................... 60

3.3.2 Comparability of the Usual and Alternative Strategies Groups and Those 

Enrolled in Cycles 1 and 2 ...................................................................................... 60

3.4 Methods for Estimating Impacts of the Alternative Strategies ............................................ 61

3.4.1 Missing Data ........................................................................................................... 61

3.4.2 Nonresponse Weights for Analysis of Participant Survey Data ............................. 61

3.5 Implementation of Tested Strategies.................................................................................... 62

3.5.1 Strategies Tested in Cycle 1.................................................................................... 62

3.5.2 Adjustments to Strategies Tested in Cycle 2........................................................... 62

3.6 Study Findings ..................................................................................................................... 63

3.6.1 Primary Outcomes................................................................................................... 64

3.6.2 Exploring Mechanisms through which Impacts Occurred...................................... 67

3.7 Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 70

3.7.1 Increased Access to Participants’ Grades and Other Performance Indicators ........ 71

3.7.2 Organizing for Quicker, Better Response to Signs of Academic Challenges......... 71

3.7.3 Improving Academic Supports from Peirce College .............................................. 72

3.8 Study Limitations................................................................................................................. 72

4. Summary and Recommendations............................................................................................... 74

5. References..................................................................................................................................... 77

List of Appendices (See Volume II)......................................................................................................... 82
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Contents ▌ pg. iii

List of Figures

Figure ES.1. Retention of Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group vs. the Usual Strategies 

Group through the End of the Learning and Development Phase of the Program, by Enrollment 

Cycle and Total....................................................................................................................................... ES-7

Figure ES.2. College Enrollment in the Month Following Scheduled Completion of the Learning 

and Development (L&D) Phase of the Program for Participants in the Alternative Strategies 

Group and in the Usual Strategies Group, by Enrollment Cycle and Total............................................ES-8

Figure 1. Theory of Change for Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Program ...................................... 3

Figure 2. Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Organizational Chart, July 2018 ............................... 22

Figure 3. Tenure of Staff at the Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Program in July 2018............. 23

Figure 4. Impact Study Timeline ................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 5. The Improvement Cycles............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 6. Strategies Prioritized for Testing and Tactics Used .................................................................... 57

Figure 7. Enrollment and Randomization of Participants........................................................................... 60

List of Tables

Table 1. Target and Actual Enrollment for Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Programs, All 

Programs and Philadelphia ........................................................................................................................... 5

Table 2. Enrollment and Retention in Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Programs, All 

Programs and the Philadelphia Program ....................................................................................................... 6

Table 3. Illustrative Learning & Development Course Schedule for the Philadelphia Professional 

Training Corps Program ............................................................................................................................. 10

Table 4. Admissions Pipeline, All Professional Training Corps Programs and Philadelphia 

Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 27

Table 5. Characteristics of Enrollees in All Professional Training Corps Programs and in 

Philadelphia Program (July 2014–January 2019 Cohorts).......................................................................... 28

Table 6. Outcomes Four Months after Program Completion, All PTC Programs and Philadelphia 

Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 7. Average Cost and Revenue per Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Participant, 

2014-2017 ................................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 8. Operating Costs per Participant for Year Up Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by Program 

(2017).......................................................................................................................................................... 45

Table 9. PTC Standard Program Model Cost per Participant and Average PTC-P Cost per 

Participant, by Component (2017).............................................................................................................. 46

Table 10. College Tuition and Fees Paid per Participant for Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by 

Program (2017)........................................................................................................................................... 47

Table 11. Internship Revenue per Participant for Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by Program (2017) ......... 47
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Contents ▌ pg. iv

Table 12. Simulated Changes in Revenue under Different Assumptions about Retention through 

L&D and Actual Internship Revenue as a Percentage of Revenue If All Internships Were Fully 

Sponsored.................................................................................................................................................... 48

Table 13. Simulated Changes in Revenue and Costs for the PTC-P Program under Different 

Assumptions about Retention through L&D and Internship Revenue........................................................ 49

Table 14. Planned Sample Size and Minimum Detectable Impacts ........................................................... 58

Table 15. Sample Size, by Treatment Condition, Program, and Enrollment Cycle.................................... 59

Table 16. Characteristics of the Study Sample at Enrollment, Total and by Program................................ 61

Table 17. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports 

on L&D Completion Rates ......................................................................................................................... 64

Table 18. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports 

on College Enrollment in the Month following the Scheduled Completion of L&D................................. 65

Table 19. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports 

on the Months of College Enrollment during the Seven Months following Enrollment in the PTC 

Program ....................................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 20. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports 

on Behavioral Outcomes............................................................................................................................. 67

Table 21. Participants’ Reported Views of Their Learning Experiences during L&D............................... 68

Table 22. Perceptions and Actions of Coaches Working with Participants in the Alternative and 

Usual Strategies Treatment Groups (Percentage of Coaching Sessions Where Coach Reported 

Indicated Response).................................................................................................................................... 70
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Acknowledgements ▌pg. v 

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the many people who have made valuable contributions to this report. This report 

would not have been possible without the support and dedication of Year Up’s evaluation staff—Garrett 

Warfield and Jessica Britt—who helped implement and monitor study procedures, coordinate site visits, 

provide program data and documents, and offer thoughtful feedback on drafts of this report and other 

study materials. We thank all of the Year Up Professional Training Corps staff in Philadelphia, as well as 

those staff in New York and Jacksonville, Florida, who provided invaluable support for the impact study. 

We also would like to thank all of the young adults who agreed to participate in the study, responded to 

the survey, and participated in focus groups. Additionally, we are grateful to many members of Year Up’s 

National Team, to employers, and to Peirce College staff who spent time with the evaluation team 

supporting the evaluation in a variety of ways.

We are grateful to the Corporation for National and Community Service’s Social Innovation Fund and the 

GreenLight Fund for core funding to support the study and to the Institute of Education Sciences, which 

provided some support for the impact study. Finally, we extend our sincere thanks to Larry Bailis and the 

team from the Center for Youth and Communities at Brandeis University for helpful feedback on our 

initial work plan for the study, interim reports during the study period, and a draft of this final report. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-1

Executive Summary

Year Up’s Professional Training Corps program in Philadelphia is one of 15 Professional Training Corps 

(PTC) programs currently operating in the United States. Year Up modeled PTC on its “core” program—

a stand-alone, one-year program that provides intensive full-time training and work experience for lowincome young adults aged 18-24 in nine cities throughout the United States. Both the core and the PTC 

versions of Year Up provide training in professional skills, arrange and monitor internships, support 

participants through a learning community environment and ancillary supports, and monitor behavior in 

relation to Year Up’s code of conduct (the “participant contract”). 

Unlike Year Up’s core program, its PTC programs are located on the campuses of college partners, rather 

than in stand-alone offices. An important goal of this partnership is to leverage college resources in order 

to lower costs. Although there is strong evidence that Year Up’s core program improves employment and 

earnings of participants (Roder & Elliott, 2014; Fein & Hamadyk, 2018), its high cost makes it infeasible 

to operate at the scale required to meet the high need for services of this type. Thus, Year Up’s primary 

goal in creating the PTC program is to develop a financially sustainable and scalable version of its core 

program. 

In 2013, Year Up received a Social Innovation Fund (SIF) grant from the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS). Administered by the GreenLight Fund, the grant covered the launching and 

support of a new PTC program in Philadelphia (PTC-P). Both Year Up and the GreenLight Fund saw 

Philadelphia as a promising location for testing the PTC Standard Program Model because the city had a 

large population of disconnected youth and a large public community college system. Additionally, Year 

Up had well-established relationships with several national information technology (IT) firms with 

operations in Philadelphia. 

Year Up selected Peirce College as a partner based on the college’s facilities and specialization in careerbased degrees, as well as the energy and flexibility its administrators displayed when deciding on 

strategies to accommodate a rapid start-up. Within a few short months, the program was in place, and the 

first cohort of 21 participants began classes in September 2013 (referred to as the July 2014 cohort, which 

connotes the expected month and year of program completion). 

As required by the SIF grant, Year Up contracted with Abt Associates for an evaluation of the program, 

which was to include both an implementation and a random assignment impact study. An interim report 

provided early implementation findings covering the first 18 months of program operations (Fein & 

Maynard, 2015). This final report updates the findings from the interim report and adds findings from an 

impact study of staff-designed strategies for improving academic performance and persistence in the 

program.

Program Overview

Year Up targets economically disadvantaged urban young adults aged 18-24. The program recruits young 

adults (termed “opportunity youth”) who are partially or completely disconnected from school and work 

or judged to be at risk of such, but who show evidence of readiness to take advantage of the skill-building 

opportunities offered by its PTC or core model. Specifically, Year Up’s PTC programs target young 

adults with a high school degree or equivalent, who can be accepted and enrolled at the college partner, 

and whose personal challenges are judged to be manageable with the level of assistance the PTC 

programs provide. 

PTC programs have two enrollment cycles a year, aligned with the college partner’s academic schedule. 

As a cohort, participants enrolled each cycle concurrently enroll in the PTC program and as students at 

the college partner. During the first six months of the program—the Learning and Development (L&D) 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-2

phase—participants take customized courses to build professional and technical skills amounting to a fulltime college course load. The technical skills classes are designed to prepare participants for jobs in highdemand occupations (e.g., IT, business operations, financial operations, and cyber security). 

During the second six months of the program—the Internship phase—participants work full-time fourand-a-half days a week at an internship site and spend the other half-day in an Internship Seminar at the 

PTC program site. Internship placements are typically at major area firms that allow participants to apply 

and expand their technical and professional skills while also forging connections with prospective 

employers. Some participants elect to take additional courses during their internship in subjects that 

reinforce their job skills and/or support progress towards academic credentials. Emphasis on postprogram employment and education transition planning intensifies towards the end of the Internship 

phase. 

Like the Year Up core program, PTC programs promote a philosophy of “high expectations and high 

support.” The model includes policies and practices specifically aimed at fostering professional behavior, 

addressing academic and non-academic support needs, and cultivating a supportive social environment, 

including: 

• Stipends. Participants receive weekly stipends of up to $50 during L&D and up to $150 during 

their internships.

• The “participant contract.” Upon enrolling in the PTC program, participants sign a formal 

contract that specifies the behaviors they are expected to exhibit at all times during the program. 

Contract infractions lead to reductions in stipends. Participants whose Year Up contract points 

drop below zero are considered to have “fired” themselves and must leave the program.

• Learning communities. Each cohort of participants is grouped into learning communities (LCs) 

of approximately 40 participants each, although LC configurations and sizes vary across PTC 

programs due to variations in enrollment and judgments of local staff about optimal 

configurations. The LCs are intended to help foster a supportive social environment.

• Coaching. Participants receive advising and mentoring from Year Up staff members. Regardless 

of their formal role, all PTC staff members are expected to serve as a coach, with the 

responsibility of monitoring participant experiences and helping to address issues that arise.

• Social and academic supports. PTC programs provide varying types and levels of tutoring and 

other forms of assistance to participants who need additional academic support beyond what is 

provided by their local college partner. In addition, they offer varying types and levels of social 

support services, commonly involving referrals to local service providers. 

PTC programs continue to work with graduates after they complete the program. Staff maintain contact 

with alumni to track their employment and educational status and, as they can, to assist with career 

guidance and placement support. Additionally, all PTC graduates are eligible for free ongoing support in 

perpetuity from Year Up’s affiliated job placement and staffing agency, YUPRO, which serves Year Up 

alumni nationwide.

Evaluation Design

This report on the PTC-P program includes findings from an implementation study and an impact study. 

Although the primary focus of the evaluation was on the Philadelphia PTC program, both study 

components draw on experience at other PTC programs for added perspective. 

The implementation study focused on how program staff implemented the program, their experiences 

operating it, and outcomes. The four key research questions were: 

1. How is the PTC-P program organized and staffed? 

2. How does the program recruit participants, and what were the results? 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-3

3. How do the services received by program participants align with plans? 

4. How did the program change over time in terms of inputs and/or outputs, and why?

The impact study used an experimental design to test the effectiveness of alternative strategies for 

monitoring and supporting participants during the L&D phase of the program. The strategies tested were 

identified and implemented with the aim of boosting program persistence during the L&D phase, as well 

as fostering continued enrollment in college after participants’ transition to the Internship phase. This 

focus of the impact study reflects a shift away from the initial plan to study the PTC-P program’s overall 

impacts and towards a focus on strategies for improving intermediate outcomes judged to be critical for 

full implementation of the program model. Recognizing that an overall impact study would have less 

relevance if implementation was incomplete, CNCS and the GreenLight Fund supported this shift in focus 

of the impact study. 

Year Up and GreenLight originally conceived the Philadelphia pilot as a test of the PTC model’s 

scalability. Accordingly, the pilot’s initial goals included expanding to serve at least 320 young adults per 

year over the five-year grant (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Greater than anticipated challenges—documented 

in this and our earlier report—prompted a decision to focus on strengthening implementation while 

continuing to operate on a small scale. This change reflects a key Year Up planning principle—that 

critical program components must operate as intended at each level of scale before expanding to the next 

level. 

With support from the evaluation team, Year Up National staff and local PTC program staff developed 

the enhanced academic monitoring and support strategies that were implemented and tested with a sample 

of 317 participants in three PTC programs—Philadelphia, in partnership with Peirce College (PTC-P); 

New York City, in partnership with Borough of Manhattan Community College (PTC-BMCC); and 

Jacksonville, Florida, in partnership with Florida State College at Jacksonville (PTC-JAX). 

The impact study addresses two primary research questions: 

1. What is the difference in the proportion of participants completing the PTC program’s six-month 

L&D phase for those randomly assigned to the Alternative Strategies Group as compared with 

those assigned to the Usual Strategies Group? 

2. What is the difference in the likelihood participants will continue enrollment in college in the first 

month following completion of L&D?

Secondary questions pertain to impacts of the alternative strategies on months of college enrollment 

during the L&D phase of the program and participants’ compliance with the participant contract. 

Implementation Study Findings

As it enters its fifth year of operations, the PTC-P program is generally operating well from the 

perspective of the academic and work-based skills training opportunities it offers participants. However, 

the program is struggling to expand enrollment, improve alignment of participants’ vocational interests 

with training tracks offered, and achieve internship sales compatible with becoming financially selfsustaining. The following are highlights from the implementation study.

• The program has experienced ongoing struggles with staffing.

Since its inception, the PTC-P program has experienced substantial staffing changes stemming from staff 

turnover, expansion, and role restructuring. For example, the PTC-P program staff grew from six full-time 

members in 2015 to 21 in 2018 while enrollment grew from about 20 to 50 participants. Over this same 

period, there also was substantial staff turnover, much of it due to poor fit or performance. This turnover 

negatively affected staff and participant morale, placed strain on the relationship with Peirce College, and 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-4

hampered efforts to build lasting and consistent partnerships with community-based organizations and 

corporate partners. 

Year Up National has been nimble in shoring up the PTC-P staffing through a combination of embedding 

Year Up National staff members on-site, aiding with recruitment, and retraining and supporting staff. The 

most recent changes included naming a member of Year Up National who had been temporarily detailed 

to the site in 2016 as a permanent member of the PTC-P staff, sizeable staff expansions, and role redefinitions. They seem to have created a sense of cooperation and optimism among staff, as well as 

strengthened relationships and communication with Peirce College. However, as of this writing, there is 

no hard evidence that the staffing challenges have been resolved. 

• Communication and relations between PTC-P and Peirce College are good.

Staff report generally strong (and strengthened) collaboration between the PTC-P program and Peirce 

College admissions teams. There are shared systems for tracking applicants and clear processes for 

ensuring participants receive support throughout the financial aid process. The PTC-P program has 

assumed responsibility for scheduling placement tests, and Peirce College has recently begun 

administering to PTC-P participants a pre-enrollment survey that it uses with its traditional students to 

assess their support needs. There is frequent and constructive communication between the PTC-P 

program and the Dean of Academic Operations and Faculty Support. Within the past year, PTC-P and 

Peirce College staff have established systems for scheduling courses and ensuring participants have 

textbook access—systems that were not in place at the time of the interim report. 

The two notable areas of opportunity in the partnership with Peirce College relate to information flows on 

participant performance and some instructional formats being used by the college. Communication with 

instructors continues to be infrequent and inconsistent, as was the case in 2015. This hinders the transfer 

of participants’ academic performance information to PTC-P program staff and inhibits consistent 

enforcement of the Year Up participant contract during participants’ time on campus. However, as 

discussed below, PTC programs have identified some promising workarounds to address this challenge.

Some PTC-P staff members raised concerns about the use of non-traditional instructional approaches 

(e.g., reliance on online learning course modules) in Peirce College courses, as they found them to be 

challenging for the PTC-P participant demographic. However, for the most part, complaints from PTC-P 

participants about instructional methods and formats used by college instructors were less common in the 

most recent round of interviews than they were in the interviews and focus groups conducted for the 

interim report in 2015. 

• PTC-P is broadening its recruitment strategies in efforts to increase enrollments and improve 

the “fit” of participants. 

Recruitment has been an ongoing challenge for the PTC-P program, as in most other PTC programs. 

Despite strong efforts by program staff to meet targets, enrollments have averaged about seven percent 

below target levels in Philadelphia, even after targets for the site were adjusted downward. Across all 

PTC programs, enrollments have averaged 10 percent below target. The PTC-P program has varied its 

recruitment strategies over time as it has struggled to both meet targets and enroll youth judged to be 

ready for the program. Initial cohorts were recruited primarily through referrals from Peirce College and 

community groups serving disadvantaged young adults (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Now the program is 

more proactively seeking to boost referrals of eligible and interested youth from non-traditional high 

schools, including technical and trade schools that have multiple graduation dates per year, and from a 

broader array of community-based organizations, including churches and community centers. However, 

this has also increased the burden of screening to identify youth who meet Year Up’s age, education, and 

other requirements judged as key to success.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-5

• Securing enough paid internship seats remains a challenge for PTC-P.

A major challenge the PTC-P program still needs to overcome in order to achieve financial selfsufficiency is securing more and more paid internship seats. Achieving this goal has been complicated by 

the fact that many of the area’s IT-intensive firms are in parts of the city that are not easily accessible for 

program participants. Staff described the root of the problem as “the insular nature of the labor market,” 

by which they mean a market that is not especially welcoming to new organizations such as PTC-P as 

community partners. A major priority for Year Up National in its recent decisions about staffing roles, 

size, and hiring was enlarging and strengthening the PTC-P corporate engagement team, which is 

responsible for expanding the corporate partnership base and securing more paid internships.

• The PTC-P program has improved support for interns and the Internship Managers.

With support from Year Up National and building on feedback from participants and employers, the 

PTC-P program has instituted bootcamps (e.g., further Excel training) to improve participant readiness for 

internships, strengthened monitoring of performance during internships through weekly calls with 

internship managers, and intensified follow-up with interns and the internship managers in response to 

concerns that arise. Like other PTC programs, the PTC-P program has instituted a formal orientation for 

managers, providing them with greater familiarity of Year Up and expectations for internships, as well as 

a support network. 

• The program has substantially strengthened its approach to participant services. 

The program built on its early experiences to strengthen supports for participants encountering challenges 

ranging from acute medical concerns to major issues such as homelessness or major traumatic events. 

Most recently, it created a Student Services Team to aid in early identification of issues and, more 

importantly, to respond more quickly and effectively to them. The impact study (see further discussion 

below) focused specifically on the development and testing of strategies to support early identification 

and quicker and better responses to academic challenges participants encounter during the program. One 

of the highly valued products of that study is a compendium of support resources developed by the staff 

testing the alternative strategies. 

• The program is developing a more robust alumni support system. 

As the program has matured and the number of alumni increased, PTC programs, including PTC-P, have 

intentionally started to pay greater attention to the quality of job placements and to the creation of an 

alumni support network. Towards this end, roughly two years ago the PTC-P program created a new 

position of Employment Placement Manager, and more recently, the program designated a staff person to 

serve as Alumni Engagement Steward (in addition to current responsibilities) to promote professional 

networking and support among alumni. 

• PTC-P program costs are well above the financial break-even threshold.

Year Up’s goal for new PTC programs is for them to reach break-even—fully covering costs with 

internship revenue—within three years of program launch. Year Up developed a PTC Standard Program 

Model illustrating one set of targets for cost and revenue drivers. Under this model, programs can achieve 

financial break-even by meeting four conditions: (1) enrolling at least 160 full-time equivalent (FTE) 

participants a year; (2) retaining 83 percent of participants through L&D and transitioning them to 

internships; (3) having 90 percent of participants enter internships remain in the program through 

graduation; and (4) limiting discounts for employer-sponsored internships to no more than two percent of 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-6

aggregate internship seat pricing.1 At these levels, corporate partner operating costs will average just 

under $20,000, and internship revenues will be $20,233 per participant. 

In 2017, the PTC-P program’s costs were more than 50 percent higher than break-even, largely because 

the program was staffed at a level slightly above that projected for a program serving 160 participants 

while serving 30 percent fewer participants than the 160 assumed in the break-even model. Perparticipant costs for college tuition and transportation were well above the model targets. However, 

because they are a relatively small share of total costs, this is a relatively modest factor in the total gap 

between actual costs and those projected under the PTC Standard Program Model. 

The PTC-P’s program revenues were just over 50 percent of the target level for the number of participants 

it served—a shortfall attributable to the fact the program collected full fee for less than half of its 

internship positions. The combined effect of the higher per-participant costs and lower per-participant 

revenues is that revenue covered only about one third of program costs. In order to reach financial breakeven at its current staff size, the PTC-P program needs to increase participant enrollments by about 25 

percent while nearly tripling the number of sponsored internships.

Four PTC programs have average operating costs that are near the PTC Model average of about $20,000 

and participant enrollments that are at or above the FTE participant level in Philadelphia. Year Up’s PTC 

Model assumptions suggest that if the PTC-P program could increase its enrollment by about 25 percent 

with its larger and newly configured staff, its costs should fall into line. Addressing the revenue gap, 

which appears to be an issue for most PTC programs, likely will require a combination of hard evidence 

for employers about the value proposition of investing in internships for the opportunity youth targeted by 

the PTC (e.g., through evidence of long-term pay-off such as is now available for the core program) and a 

much more aggressive outreach strategy. 

• Recent program changes may improve prospects for reaching break-even. 

In August 2018, Year Up decided to downsize PTC-P program from two LCs to one and to reduce its 

staff count accordingly. The program’s improvement strategies include strengthening relationships with 

community-based organizations, enhancing academic monitoring and supports during the L&D phase of 

the program (see further discussion below), and increasing the number of conveniently located paid 

internship seats. The success of these efforts remains to be seen. 

Impact Study Findings

The goal of the impact study was to develop and rigorously test promising strategies for addressing 

challenges the program was experiencing early on in meeting goals for retaining participants through the 

L&D phase of the program. Acknowledging concerns about academic performance and persistence 

during L&D, Year Up National and the evaluation team proposed to change the design and goals of the 

impact study. Essentially, based on program performance metrics, it was evident that the program needed 

to improve its retention in L&D in order to achieve its overall goals. Thus, rather than conduct a 

summative impact study to assess impacts of the program on employment and earnings (the ultimate 

goals of the program), it seemed more valuable to focus the impact study on assessing efforts to improve 

a key link in the program’s logic—getting participants from L&D to the Internship phase of the program. 

The proposed shift in focus was agreed to by the SIF/GreenLight sponsors of the study. 

 

1

 An employer-sponsored “internship seat” is an internship position for which an employer is paying Year Up an 

agreed upon amount. During the study period, the full suggested amount was $23,920 when PTC-P launched, 

increasing to $24,700 with the January 2016 cohort. The full suggested amount has since increased to $26,000. 

Depending on the case, Year Up may discount this amount. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-7

In order to strengthen the rigor and relevance of the impact study to test the program improvements, we 

included two additional PTC programs in this portion of the study. This increased the size and 

representativeness of the sample. The other programs are PTC-BMCC and PTC-JAX. 

The study tested the impacts of three alternative strategies for monitoring academics and supporting 

participants who were identified as experiencing difficulties in their college courses. The strategies are (1) 

site-tailored methods for systematically gathering information on how participants are doing in their 

college courses; (2) systematic sharing and use of this information to inform the coaching of participants 

by staff; and (3) greater access to and better use of resources to assist participants who are struggling with 

their courses.

Over two enrollment cycles, a total of 317 participants enrolled in the three PTC programs and were 

randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups—the Alternative Strategies Group or the Usual 

Strategies Group. Outcomes for all 317 participants were then tracked using program administrative data 

and National Student Clearinghouse data through the first month following the end of L&D. Impacts of 

the Alternative Strategies are estimated by comparing outcomes for the participants who were randomly 

assigned to the Alternative Strategies Group with those for participants assigned to the Usual Strategies 

groups. 

• Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group were more likely than their counterparts in the 

Usual Strategies Group to complete L&D. 

On average, participants in the Alternative Strategies Group had 9.6 percentage point higher rates of 

retention through the end of L&D than did their counterparts in the Usual Strategies Group (78.9 percent 

versus 69.3 percent; Figure ES.1). Differences in completion rates between participants in the Alternative 

and Usual Strategies Groups favored those in the Alternative Strategies Group across both enrollment 

cohorts and across all three program sites. However, for sample subgroups defined by enrollment cycle 

and site, only the differences in completion rates between the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups for 

the sample enrolled in Cycle 2 (pooled across all three sites) and for the PTC-JAX sample enrolled in 

Cycle 2 (not shown) were statistically significant. 

Figure ES.1. Retention of Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group vs. the Usual Strategies Group through the 

End of the Learning and Development Phase of the Program, by Enrollment Cycle and Total 

Source: Data on retention are from the Year Up program data system. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for sample characteristics at the time of enrollment. 

Means for the Usual Strategies Group are unadjusted.

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-8

• Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group were more likely than those in the Usual 

Strategies Group to be enrolled in college when internships began. 

Across the three programs, 67.2 percent of those in the Alternative Strategies Group versus 54.0 percent 

of participants in the Usual Strategies Group were enrolled in college during the first month following the 

end of their L&D phase (i.e., month seven following enrollment)—a difference that is statistically 

significant (Figure ES.2). As with the estimated impacts of the alternative strategies on L&D retention, 

the estimated impacts on continued college enrollment are much larger (and only statistically significant) 

for Cycle 2. Furthermore, the estimated impacts were especially large and statistically significant for 

those in the PTC-P (15.7 percentage points) and PTC-JAX (15.3 percentage points) programs (not 

shown). 

Figure ES.2. College Enrollment in the Month Following Scheduled Completion of the Learning and Development (L&D) 

Phase of the Program for Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group and in the Usual Strategies Group, by 

Enrollment Cycle and Total 

Source: Data on college enrollment are from the National Student Clearinghouse. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for sample characteristics at the time of enrollment. 

Means for the Usual Strategies Group are unadjusted.

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests. 

• Coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group reported quite different 

use of their time than did their counterparts working with participants in the Usual Strategies 

Group. 

On surveys administered near the end of the study period, coaches working with participants in the 

Alternative Strategies Group reported much greater awareness of academic challenges among their 

coachees than did their counterparts working with the Usual Strategies Group. They also reported 

spending more of their coaching time (one-on-one and in group settings) discussing academic 

performance and support needs. Notably, the coaches working with the Alternative Strategies Group were 

less likely to have reported using coaching time on generic Year Up topics commonly addressed during 

group coaching.

• There were few measured differences in the ways participants in the Alternative and Usual 

Strategies Groups experienced the program. 

Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group rated the quality of the support from Year Up staff 

significantly higher than did participants in the Usual Strategies Group. However, participants in both 

groups reported taking a similar number of courses and working a similar number of hours per week. 

They also had similar views about the level of difficulty of the classes and the adverse effects of work on 

academic performance. Likewise, the two groups reported experiencing similar levels of challenge in 

their most difficult courses. With a few exceptions, participants in both groups also reported having 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates Executive Summary ▌pg. ES-9

received similar types, intensities, and qualities of supports to address challenges and similar overall 

levels of satisfaction with the program. 

• Year Up National and the participating PTC programs are using evidence from the evaluation 

to improve practice. 

Year Up National and the three PTC programs in the impact study were critical partners in the evaluation 

and are reportedly acting on the findings, which may have far-reaching implications for practices used in 

PTC programming. The improvement strategies tested were designed by the PTC program staff in the 

three study sites, with guidance from Year Up National. Then implementation of the strategies tended to 

be locally managed, with a moderate level of monitoring by Year Up National and the evaluation team. 

At the initiative of program staff, there was a round of mid-course adjustments to the tested strategies—

most notably, the sharing and more consistent adoption of a variety of coaching tools that were created 

(often by adapting other Year Up program tools) to better detect and address academic challenges that 

participants encountered during L&D. 

Improving outcomes is anchored in finding ways to routinize access to information about participants’ 

engagement and performance in their college courses, using that information to engage with participants 

experiencing difficulties, and eventually, identifying contributing factors and promising remedial 

strategies. The evaluation team conducted staff briefings on the study findings to share findings on the 

benefits of the alternative strategies that were tested. Now Year Up National is working on plans for how 

to use the study findings to improve performance across its PTC programs. 

Looking Ahead

Given the PTC-P program’s current state and recent decision to downsize, it is difficult to predict the 

likelihood that it will achieve financial break-even in the near term. However, given the size of the 

opportunity youth population in Philadelphia, it seems possible and desirable to institutionalize changes 

such as those tested in the impact study to ensure high retention rates through L&D while continuing to 

work on developing strategies to grow the referral pipeline, boost enrollments, and develop a larger pool 

of employers willing to fully support internships. Judging by the study findings, it appears that the major - 

L&D program components and services, as well as the internship experiences and supports, appear to be 

functioning quite well. 

In contrast, the PTC-P program is struggling with both enrollment and internship development, including 

securing enough fully sponsored internships and internships conveniently located for participants. 

Towards these ends, we offer three suggestions for Year Up and PTC-P:

1. Engage in more aggressive and broad-based strategies to strengthen the participant recruitment 

pipeline. 

2. Expand the employer network to include more firms that are located on accessible public transit 

routes and firms that are willing to sponsor internships. 

3. Consider the potential benefits to initiating a partnership with a public college situated in another

part of the city and serving a demographic population more similar to that targeted by PTC-P, 

especially the benefits for growing the recruitment pipeline. 

We also recommend continued use of mini-studies and embedded experiments to accelerate program 

improvement.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 1

1. Introduction

The Year Up Professional Training Corps program in Philadelphia is one of 15 Year Up Professional 

Training Corps (PTC) programs currently operating in the United States. The programs are designed to 

prepare low-income young adults aged 18-24 for career pathways by linking college experiences with 

internship opportunities in local labor markets. In close partnership with local colleges, the PTC programs 

provide six months of professional and technical skills training in high-demand occupations, followed by 

six-month internships. Program participants receive extensive supports directly from the PTC programs, 

as well as through college partners.

The PTC program in Philadelphia (PTC-P) was one of three pilot programs Year Up launched between 

2010 and 2013 in order to determine whether the PTC model offered an effective, financially sustainable, 

and scalable version of Year Up’s “core” program, which is stand-alone and thus much costlier than PTC 

programs, which rely on college partners for the academic and technical skills training. The PTC-P 

program was supported in part through funding from the Corporation for National and Community 

Service’s (CNCS) Social Innovation Fund (SIF) to the GreenLight Fund for local investments to 

“accelerate the spread of proven programs that make lasting change for children, youth and families” 

(GreenLight Fund Mission Statement, n.d.). Year Up’s PTC-P program “targets the area’s approximately 

111,000 opportunity youth (18-24-year olds out of work and school), seeking to empower their success 

through meaningful workforce training and college completion” (Year Up, n.d.). 

Year Up and GreenLight originally conceived the Philadelphia pilot as a test of the PTC model’s 

scalability. Accordingly, the pilot’s initial goals included expanding to serve at least 320 young adults per 

year over the five-year grant (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Greater than anticipated challenges—documented 

in this and our earlier report—prompted a decision to focus on strengthening implementation while 

continuing to operate on a small scale. This change reflects a key Year Up planning principle—that 

critical program components must operate as intended at each level of scale before expanding to the next 

level. 

As a condition of the SIF grant, Year Up agreed to arrange for a third-party evaluation of PTC-P and, 

subsequently, commissioned Abt Associates to conduct it. Consistent with SIF guidelines, the evaluation 

was to include an implementation study to inform operational policies and practices and an impact study 

to examine questions about the program’s effects on key intermediate and primary outcomes identified in 

the theory of change (Abt Associates, 2014). 

This report is the second of two reports completed under the SIF/GreenLight Fund evaluation. The prior 

report focused on an interim implementation study, designed primarily to provide constructive feedback 

to Year Up and the PTC-P program (Fein & Maynard, 2015). The evaluation team for this project also has 

conducted several mini-studies, supported under an Institute of Education Sciences research grant 

(#R305A150214), which provide additional grounding for this report and its findings. These mini-studies 

include a report on recruitment and retention (Maynard & Fein, 2015), a second on promoting educational 

persistence after completion of the PTC program (Fein & Shivji, 2017), and a third on setting up 

successful internships (Baelen et al., 2018). This final report updates and integrates the findings from the 

2015 interim implementation study report and presents findings from the impact study. This document 

(Volume I) presents the main findings and a companion document (Volume II) includes supplemental 

material: Appendix A, Volume II, presents supplemental data tables and Appendices B through Q, 

Volume II, contain various supporting documents, including Year Up guidance documents and data 

collection protocols. 

The impact study uses an experimental design to test the effectiveness of alternative strategies for 

monitoring and supporting participants during the Learning and Development (L&D) phase of the 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 2

program. The strategies were selected and implemented with the aim of boosting program persistence, as 

well as fostering continued enrollment in college after transitioning to the Internship phase of the 

program. The decision to test program improvement strategies reflects a shift in focus of the impact study,

from measuring impacts on post-program outcomes to improving intermediate outcomes judged to be 

critical for achieving the ultimate goals of PTC programs—a shift supported by CNCS and the 

GreenLight Fund.

2

 

The remainder of this chapter describes the development of the program model and its theory of change, 

its program organization and services, and the context in which it operates. It also provides a brief 

overview of the evaluation design and its findings. 

1.1 Development of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps (PTC)

The PTC program was modeled on Year Up’s core program, which is a stand-alone one-year program 

that provides an intensive full-time training and work experience for low-income young adults aged 18-24

in eight cities throughout the United States. During the first six months, Year Up provides participants 

with training in professional and technical skills required for specific high-demand occupations (e.g., 

information technology, financial services, cyber security), intensive help with academic and personal 

challenges, and close monitoring and feedback on behavior in the context of a supportive learning 

community of peers and staff. During the second six months, Year Up places participants in full-time 

internships, often with Fortune 500 companies, where they gain entry-level experience in the focal 

occupations. 

At the time the PTC program was launched, there had been only a small randomized controlled trial 

showing evidence of Year Up’s effectiveness (Roder & Elliott, 2012; 2014). However, a recently 

completed large randomized controlled trial of Year Up’s core program reported evidence of very large 

earnings increases (Fein & Hamadyk, 2018). Young adults in Year Up’s core program earned 53 percent 

more than did their control group counterparts immediately after the one-year program, and they earned 

40 percent more in the third year after enrollment—an increase equivalent to about $7,011 a year for the 

average participant. Notably, the study, which included a full year’s worth of program participants, 

showed evidence of substantial earnings gains for participants at all eight program offices. However, the 

study also reported that the core program’s cost per participant was high. Though Year Up had 

successfully grown and sustained the program (to reach about 2,000 participants a year), it realized that 

the $28,200 per-participant cost made dramatic upscaling infeasible. About 60 percent of the program’s

costs are covered by employer-sponsored internships, while the remainder is covered by philanthropic 

support (Fein & Hamadyk, 2018). 

In response to the high costs of the core program, Year Up developed its PTC program—a lower-cost 

version of the core program designed to operate in partnership with and to leverage the resources of local 

college partners. Like the core program, the PTC program delivers training in professional skills, arranges 

and monitors internships, provides support in a cohort environment, and monitors behaviors in relation to 

Year Up’s code of conduct (the “participant contract”). The PTC programs are located on the campuses of 

college partners rather than in stand-alone offices, participants enroll in the partner college for their 

academic and technical courses, and participants can tap into various support services offered by the 

college. Consequently, local PTC programs are expected to operate with a leaner staff and, at break-even, 

a per-participant cost that is about 60 percent of that for the core program (Warfield, 2018). 

 

2

 Year Up and the Abt evaluation team recently launched an impact study to estimate post-program impacts of the 

PTC programs under a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (#R305A150214). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 3

1.1.1 Theory of Change

The theory of change underlying Year Up’s PTC program model at the outset of this evaluation paralleled 

that undergirding Year Up’s core program (Chertavian, 2012; Appendix B, Volume II). The theory 

encompasses multiple factors critical to success in college and careers. It also acknowledges the role of 

institutional and broader social and economic environments—factors that affect the nature and severity of 

challenges faced by highly motivated young adults lacking opportunities to enter the mainstream 

economy. Year Up refers to them as “opportunity youth.” Both models have three pillars: (1) personal and 

professional skill-building through formal coursework; (2) work-based learning experiences through 

internships; and (3) a high-expectation, high-support learning environment (Figure 1).3

Figure 1. Theory of Change for Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Program

 

3

 This theory of change was developed by Abt Associates staff during the planning for the SIF/GreenLight 

evaluation of the PTC-P program. Year Up’s most recent depiction of it is included in Appendix B, Volume II.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 4

The PTC Standard Program Model includes adaptations of the basic elements from the core program. The 

program is designed for young adults aged 18-24 with a high school degree or equivalent, who exhibit 

motivation to pursue college and a professional career, and who need, at most, a moderate level of 

remediation to succeed in college courses (Figure 1, Oval A). 

Participants enrolled in the PTC program receive three types of services (Column B): (1) general 

competencies (Box B1); (2) occupational competencies (Box B2); and (3) supports and feedback (Box 

B3). By teaching general competencies through instruction and work-based learning (Box C1), the 

program aims to affect intermediate outcomes such as cognitive competencies (e.g., literacy, numeracy, 

critical thinking, creativity); intra-personal competencies (e.g., self-evaluation, work 

ethic/conscientiousness, self-regulation/meta-cognition, intellectual openness); and inter-personal 

competencies (e.g., teamwork, collaboration, leadership) (National Research Council, 2012). By teaching 

occupational competencies through classes and internships (Box C2), the program aims to build 

occupational skills as well as career orientation and knowledge. Supports and feedback mechanisms, 

including stipends, the learning communities, and advising and mentoring, aim to alleviate material 

resource constraints and personal and family challenges that interfere with education and employment

(Boxes C4 and C5). The mechanisms for alleviating these challenges entail improving intra- and interpersonal competencies, fostering social integration and belonging, and increasing access to community 

services and financial supports. 

Importantly, the programs are tailored to local contexts (Box E), such as employers’ abilities to offer 

well-paying jobs, capacities of local partner colleges to provide occupationally focused instruction, and 

employers’ demands for customized training. The ultimate goals of the services are to foster college 

persistence and performance, credential attainment, work-based learning, and success in career-track 

employment (Boxes D1-D3).

The PTC theory of change is supported by a rich body of research, including the previously cited 

randomized controlled trials of Year Up’s core program model. There now is very strong evidence that 

the core model has consistently met high standards for recruitment, retention, graduation, and subsequent 

employment across eight sites. There also is a sizeable body of correlational evidence linking 

intermediate outcomes (Column C) to college persistence and completion (Column D, Boxes 1 and 2)

(Adelman, 1999; 2004; Fein & Beecroft, 2006; Goldrick-Rab & Sorensen, 2010; Horn & Kojaku, 2001; 

Matus-Grossman & Gooden, 2002; Tinto, 1993; Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010; Robbins et al., 

2004; 2006; National Research Council, 2012). 

There is evidence from both randomized controlled trials and well-designed non-experimental studies of 

potentially effective strategies for improving outcomes of postsecondary education and training programs

(Column C to Boxes D1 and D2). These include studies of accelerated courses and bridge programs 

(Wathington et al., 2011), learning communities (Bloom & Sommo, 2005; Scrivener et al., 2008; Weiss et 

al., 2010), integrated basic and occupational skills instruction (Prince & Jenkins, 2005), college success 

classes (Bailey & Karp, 2003), psycho-social interventions (Aronson et al., 2002; Carey et al., 2007), 

intensive personal guidance and coaching (Levin & Calcagno, 2008; Patel, Richburg-Hayes, de la Campa, 

& Rudd, 2013), and financial assistance (Bettinger, Long, Oreopoulos, & Sanbonmatsu, 2012; GoldrickRab, Harris, Benson, & Kelchen, 2011; Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, 2013; Castleman & Page, 2014). 

There also is a growing body of evidence supporting the expectation of positive returns to subbaccalaureate credentials (Boxes D2 and D3), particularly in technical fields (Belfield & Bailey, 2011; 

Dadgar & Weiss, 2012; Kane & Rouse, 1995; Jacobson, LaLonde, & Sullivan, 2005a; 2005b; Jacobson & 

Mokher, 2009; Jepsen, Troske, & Coomes, 2009; Marcotte, 2010). There also is a body of research 

showing evidence of promising strategies for strengthening particular links within the theory of change. 

For example, there is evidence of benefits from various types of assistance in completing financial aid 

applications (Bettinger et al., 2012; Bettinger & Baker, 2011) and brief interventions for mitigating 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 5

aspects of personal and family challenge (Yeager & Walton, 2011). However, often the estimated impacts 

are typically small and short-lived (e.g., see Patel et al., 2013; Rutschow, Cullinan, & Welback, 2012; 

Valentine et al., 2015). The evidence on the effectiveness of other types of interventions, such as learning 

communities, is mixed (Sommo, Mayer, Rudd, & Cullinan, 2012; Vischer & Stern, 2015). There has been 

relatively little rigorous evaluation of innovative approaches to improve career preparedness and 

outcomes specifically for disadvantaged populations through variations in learning strategies and 

internships (Fein, 2014; Jaggars, 2011; Perin, 2011).

1.1.2 Operational Experience at a Glance

The first three pilot PTC programs were launched in Baltimore (January 2011), Philadelphia (July 2013),

and Miami (July 2014), with the first graduations scheduled for January 2012, July 2014, and July 2015, 

respectively. Since then, these programs have achieved successes and faced challenges. Interest in the 

PTC program has been brisk, as evidenced by the rapid expansion to 15 locations and college partners—

and the nearly 4,000 young adults who have participated nationwide (Table 1, upper panel). The 392 who 

have participated in the PTC-P program (Table 1, lower panel) are the primary focus of this report. For 

the financial break-even analysis (discussed in Chapter 2), we also draw on the experiences of seven other 

the PTC programs that, like PTC-P, operate in a market that does not have a Year Up core program. 

Table 1. Target and Actual Enrollment for Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Programs, All Programs and 

Philadelphia 

Enrollment Cohort

(Projected Graduation)

Target 

Enrollment

Number 

Enrolled

Number Enrolled as a 

Percent of Target

All Professional Training Corps (PTC) Programs

January 2013 n.a. 24 n.a.

July 2013 n.a. 56 n.a.

January 2014 n.a. 66 n.a.

July 2014 n.a. 100 n.a.

January 2015 n.a. 95 n.a.

July 2015 140 142 101.4

January 2016 220 194 88.2

July 2016 320 305 95.3

January 2017 372 332 89.2

July 2017 570 534 93.7

January 2018 772 665 86.1

July 2018 932 836 89.7

January 2019 994 823 82.8

Total (July 2015 – January 2019 Cohorts) 4,370 3,950 90.4

Philadelphia PTC Program

July 2014 n.a. 21 n.a.

January 2015 n.a. 23 n.a.

July 2015 50 52 104.0

January 2016 50 50 100.0

July 2016 40 39 97.5

January 2017 40 38 95.0

July 2017 60 40 66.7

January 2018 60 55 91.7

July 2018 60 57 95.0

January 2019 60 50 83.3

Total (July 2015 – January 2019 Cohorts) 420 392 93.3

Source: Data from Year Up’s Salesforce management information system received from program staff on 7/13/18.

n.a. means that the target enrollment information was not available. Boxed rows are time periods corresponding to the primary period covered 

by this report.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 6

All of the PTC programs have encountered notable challenges as they have worked to expand, with most 

struggling to meet enrollment targets, especially early on. Across all programs, enrollments over the most 

recent eight enrollment cohorts averaged at 90 percent of targets, and they averaged only slightly higher 

(93 percent) for the Philadelphia program (Table 1, column 4). 

Across all of the PTC programs, many of which are still relatively young, only 75 percent of participants 

were retained through the L&D phase, and about two thirds were retained through the end of the program 

year (see Table 2, upper panel). Retention in the Philadelphia program was even lower, with retention 

through L&D averaging around 70 percent and retention through the Internship phase averaging around 

56 percent (Table 2, lower panel). Moreover, retention in the PTC-P program has not improved over time, 

and in many ways, the site is an outlier among Year Up’s PTC programs. The Philadelphia program also 

is among the PTC programs that has experienced substantial challenges acquiring enough internship 

placements within easy commuting radius for participants and with full-paying sponsors (discussed 

further in Chapter 2). 

Table 2. Enrollment and Retention in Year Up’s Professional Training Corps Programs, All Programs and the 

Philadelphia Program

Enrollment Cohort 

(Projected Graduation)

Number of 

Enrollees

Percentage Retained thru 

Learning & Development

Percentage Retained 

thru Internship

All Professional Training Corps Programs

January 2013 24 66.7 54.2

July 2013 56 87.5 67.9

January 2014 66 78.8 68.2

July 2014 100 80.0 70.0

January 2015 95 70.5 64.2

July 2015 142 78.9 70.4

January 2016 194 68 59.8

July 2016 305 76.4 63.6

January 2017 332 76.8 67.8

July 2017 534 80 65.9

January 2018 665 72 61.8

July 2018 836 78.5 67.6

January 2019 823 74.4 n.a.

Total – All Cohorts 4,172 76.0 65.4

July 2015 – January 2018 Cohorts 2,172 75.4 64.4

Philadelphia PTC Program

July 2014 21 66.7 61.9

January 2015 23 60.9 56.5

July 2015 52 63.5 55.8

January 2016 50 54.0 46.0

July 2016 39 84.6 61.5

January 2017 38 73.7 68.4

July 2017 40 82.5 50.0

January 2018 55 80.0 60.0

July 2018 57 61.4 50.9

January 2019 50 64 n.a.

Total – All Cohorts 425 69.1 55.6

July 2015 – January 2018 Cohorts 274 72.3 56.6

Source: Year Up management reports generated from Year Up’s management information system. 

n.a. means numbers for the reference period were not available or not applicable. Boxed rows are time periods corresponding to the primary 

period covered by this report.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 7

1.2 Context for the Evaluation of the Philadelphia PTC Program 

Year Up and the GreenLight Fund saw Philadelphia as a promising area in which to test the PTC 

Standard Program Model. In its SIF grant application, Year Up cited several main draws for testing the 

PTC program in Philadelphia. These include the city’s large population of disconnected youth, large 

public community college system (with low completion rates), strong base of national information 

technology (IT) firms with existing relationships with Year Up, its affordable public transportation 

system, vibrant philanthropic community, and proximity to other Year Up offices. The GreenLight Fund 

staff noted that Philadelphia had a gap in available services for young adults in Year Up’s target age 

range. 

In its application to the GreenLight Fund, Year Up identified the Community College of Philadelphia 

(CCP) as a promising partner. However, shortly after the grant was awarded, the President of CCP 

stepped down, leaving a leadership vacuum that led Year Up to search for an alternative partner. The 

search led Year Up to Peirce College, a private nonprofit college with a primary focus on working adult 

learners who generally take evening or online classes. Leadership at Peirce College were enthusiastic 

about a partnership with Year Up, because it offered them an opportunity to reach participants who would 

attend classes during the day. This allowed the college to tap into underused daytime capacity and to 

develop closer ties to area employers that might be a source for referrals to the college. Year Up selected 

Peirce as a partner based on the college’s facilities and its specialization in career-based degrees, as well 

as the energy and flexibility of its staff, when deciding upon program details, to accommodate a rapid 

start-up. Within a few short months, the program was in place, and the first cohort of 21 PTC-P 

participants began classes in September 2013 (referred to as the July 2014 cohort, which is the month and 

year when participants in the cohort were expected to graduate from the program). 

A unique aspect of the Philadelphia PTC program is its partnership with a private college. All but one 

other PTC program operate in partnership with and on the campuses of public colleges—primarily 

community colleges. An obvious concern is whether the PTC-P program can be financially self-sustaining

given the considerably higher tuition (more than $13,000 per year for full-time study) at Peirce College 

compared to public colleges.

4 Whereas revenues from student financial aid grants through state and 

federal programs cover most or all tuition costs for the public colleges, they fall short of doing so for 

Peirce College. Thus, an important question is whether and how Peirce College and Year Up can support 

PTC-P participants in continuing their education at Peirce. (This is a topic that will be discussed further in 

Chapter 2.) 

In 2016 (after the release of the interim implementation report), Year Up National decided to open a PTC 

site in Wilmington, Delaware, which has a labor market that overlaps with the Philadelphia market. 

Wilmington was viewed as an attractive market because of its position as a major financial center, home 

to a number of major corporate sponsors of Year Up that had been reliable sponsors of internships for 

PTC-P participants. Upon opening the Wilmington site, Year Up attempted to form partnerships with 

local universities and community colleges. However, these efforts failed; instead, Year Up reached out 

and secured support from Peirce College to serve the new Wilmington site in addition to the original 

Philadelphia program.

Initially, the Wilmington site was viewed as a second site for the PTC-P program—that is, two sites, one 

market. As such, the Philadelphia and Wilmington sites shared resources, including some internship 

partners, an Executive Director, a Site Director (who oversaw the relationship with Peirce College for 

 

4

 In comparison, tuition and fees at Miami Dade College, Community College of Baltimore County, and Northern 

Virginia Community College are in the range of $3,500 to $4,000 a year. Due to the recent leadership change at 

Peirce College, staff were not able to provide updates on projected tuition costs during our recent site visits. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 8

both sites), an Admissions Director, some Peirce College instructors, and the college’s Academic 

Advisor. 

However, in February 2018, Year Up moved away from this model, and Wilmington became a totally 

separate PTC program. The Wilmington program only recently hired its own Site Director and Director of 

Admissions. As of summer 2018, the Wilmington program had reached an agreement to partner with 

Wilmington University going forward. 

1.3 Structure of the PTC Program 

The basic structure of Year Up’s PTC program is similar across sites. All are integrated into college 

settings with academic and support services provided by both Year Up and college staff. All sites also 

target urban young adults who meet the Year Up demographic and economic profile. When they enroll, 

nearly all participants are partly or completely disconnected from school and/or work or at risk of such. 

They also generally come from low-income backgrounds and face risks commonly associated with 

poverty, such as homelessness, financial hardships, domestic/family violence, health problems, and/or

early parenting. Participants also have been screened by PTC program staff for interest and motivation, 

basic academic skills, criminal background, and substance abuse in an effort to ensure their challenges are 

manageable with the available level of program assistance. 

As with Year Up’s core program, PTC program participants engage in six months of customized 

professional skills training—the L&D phase—followed by six months of a sponsored internship. The 

program sites enroll a new cohort of participants roughly every six months on schedules that align with 

the academic schedules of the partner college. One cohort begins the L&D phase at the start of the fall 

college term and completes their internships the following July, and the next starts the L&D phase at the 

beginning of the spring college term and concludes their internships in December of that year or early 

January of the next. 

1.3.1 Organizational Structure, Staffing, and Financing

Day-to-day management and operation of PTC programs is the responsibility of local program staff. In 

general, PTC programs have four categories of staff: (1) recruitment and admissions; (2) direct-service 

program delivery, including student services, internship support, and post-program employment 

placement teams; (3) corporate engagement and community relations; and (4) operational and 

administrative support. Local program leadership consists of an Executive Director and a Site Director. 

The Executive Director at each program provides overall leadership; the Site Director is responsible for 

the day-to-day management of the program. Other staff assume various combinations of responsibilities 

related to delivering training in professional skills, arranging and monitoring internships, providing

supports in a cohort environment, and monitoring behaviors in relation to Year Up’s participant contract. 

All staff serve as coaches for up to eight participants (“coachees”). Year Up National provides central 

support to and monitoring of the programs, including maintaining Year Up’s information management 

system, aiding in the onboarding of staff, and troubleshooting. 

PTC programs need to be well coordinated with the local college partner. For example, recruitment and 

admissions are tightly integrated with the college admissions and financial aid processes, and the college 

coursework is both aligned with programs of study or degree majors at the colleges and tailored, as 

necessary, to align with the career training goals of the PTC programs. PTC programs rely heavily on the 

college partners for arranging space and for delivering the academic programming. 

Employers sponsoring internships are critical partners in the PTC programs. First and foremost, across the 

full network of core and PTC programs, employer-sponsored internships provide revenue that supports a 

major share of Year Up’s overall operating costs—roughly 60 percent of costs for the core programs and, 

ideally, the full cost of the PTC programs. The operating assumption is that achieving break-even will 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 9

take two to three years of program operation and enrollments of about 160 participants per year (see 

Chapter 2, Table 9). In addition to providing internship placements and revenue, employers also provide 

critical guidance in program design, often teach workshops, and help PTC staff and participants to stay 

abreast of the changing opportunities and skill needs in the focal occupations.

1.3.2 Program Components 

The PTC program has four main components: (1) applicant recruitment and screening, (2) education and 

training, (3) support services, and (4) connecting participants to employment and education opportunities 

post program. Below we describe key processes involved within each of these components. 

Recruitment and Screening 

There are four steps in the PTC recruitment and screening process: (1) program staff conduct outreach to 

inform potentially eligible youth of the PTC program and encourage them to apply; (2) applicants submit 

separate applications to the college and to the PTC program; (3) PTC program staff screen and 

conditionally accept interested and qualified applicants (see Appendix C, Volume II, for the PTC 

Admissions Readiness Rubric); and (4) accepted applicants enroll in both the PTC program and the 

college partner, participating in orientations for both. Step 2 in the process requires especially close 

coordination between PTC programs and their college partners. This is the point at which the PTC 

program admissions team works closely with applicants to arrange for any required placement tests and 

interviews. Inefficiencies in coordination between the PTC programs and their college partners can delay 

the admissions processes, which, in turn, may prevent accepted applicants from securing the necessary 

financial aid and completing college enrollment in time for the start of the academic semester.

Education and Training: Learning and Development

The Year Up PTC program is a full-time commitment of on-site programming (i.e., full-day, five days a 

week). The primary activity during L&D is structured college courses that take place over a roughly 20-

week semester. These courses are geared towards training for occupations such as IT, business operations, 

financial operations, and cyber security. The PTC-P program, for example, currently offers two 

occupational tracks: Information Technology and Business Operations. 

Structured PTC activities. The cornerstone for the commitment is on-site, structured activities five days 

each week. Typically, the activities on three of the days focus on academic and professional skills classes; 

one day is usually reserved for tutoring, counseling, and homework; and Fridays are spent on Year Up–

designed activities intended to foster personal growth and professional behavior. On Fridays, all PTC 

programs follow three practices, usually conducted as a series of structured activities: (1) “Friday Forum,” 

when participants receive structured feedback from staff and peers; (2) guest speakers; and (3) group 

meetings between coaches and coachees to review the latter’s progress and points earned under the 

participant contract.

Academic and professional skills instruction. During L&D, participants are enrolled in a combination of 

professional and technical skills classes that equate to a full-time college course load. Typically, 

participants earn up to 15 college credits during L&D. However, the number of degree-applicable credits 

earned varies depending on whether participants are required to take developmental or college-level 

English and math and their success in the courses. 

All PTC program participants are required to take a professional skills course, which is intended to 

provide them with the soft skills needed in a professional environment. In 2017, the original Year Up ProSkills course was replaced by the Career Development and Interpersonal Relationships (CDIR) course 

developed by Year Up National and credentialed by the American Council on Education. That credit 

recommendation allows participants to transfer course credits earned for CDIR to other colleges. The 19-

week course curriculum covers conflict management, resume writing, and communication (see 

Appendix D, Volume II). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 10

As an example from the PTC-P context, during the first seven weeks of L&D, a PTC-P program 

participant in the IT track would take one college occupational skills course, an English course 

(developmental or college-level), CDIR, and an Excel course (Table 3). In the second seven weeks of 

L&D, the participant would complete two more occupational skills courses and would continue with 

CDIR, Excel, and another English course (if he/she took developmental English in the first session). After 

completing L&D and upon beginning the Internship phase, the participant would complete an Internship 

Seminar course. 

Table 3. Illustrative Learning & Development Course Schedule for the Philadelphia Professional Training Corps 

Program

Session, Course Length & Instructor

Occupational Track

Information Technology Business Operations

L&D Session 1

Total Course (7-weeks)

College Instructor

1. PC Fundamentals

(3 credits)

1. Introduction to Business

(3 credits)

Total Course (7-weeks)

College Instructor

2. Developmental English or College-Level English

(3 credits)

First Half (19-weeks total)

PTC-P & College Instructor

3a. Career Development and Interpersonal Relationship (CDIR)

(3 credits for completing both sessions)

First Half (19-weeks total)

PTC-P Instructor

4a. Excel

(non-credit)

L&D Session 2

Total Course (7-weeks) 

College Instructor

5. Networking Fundamentals

(3 credits)

5. Business Communications

(3 credits)

Total Course (7-weeks)

College Instructor

6. Applications Software Fundamentals

(3 credits)

6. Applications Software Fundamentals

(3 credits)

Total Course, (7-weeks)

College Instructora

7. College-Level English

(3 credits)

Second Half (19-weeks total) 

PTC-P Instructor

3b. Career Development and Interpersonal Relationship (CDIR)

(3 credits for completing both sessions)

Second Half (19-weeks total) 

PTC-P Instructor

4b. Excel

(non-credit)

Internship

Full-semester

PTC-P Instructor

8. Internship Seminar

(6 credits) a Applies only to participants who took developmental English during the first session. 

PTC-P participants may earn up to 24 credits during their time in the program. In most instances, program

participants take classes with only other PTC-P participants. However, electives and more advanced 

courses may include other Peirce College students. 

Bootcamps. Since the college terms are shorter than six months, PTC-specific programming fills the gaps 

in the six-month schedule prior to and following the college term. The most common such offering is 

week-long bootcamps between the end of the college semester and the start of internships. The bootcamps 

are designed to round out the curriculum and provide needed instruction and services that do not fit into 

the busy college course schedule. Most often, they are designed to bolster skills identified by veteran 

employer partners as areas where interns commonly need more training than they get through the college 

courses (e.g., in Excel and/or anti-money laundering). 

Education and Training: Internships 

In the second phase of the program—the Internship phase—participants engage full-time in six-month 

internships with area firms. In Philadelphia, the employers include major firms such as Bank of America, 

JP Morgan Chase, the University of Pennsylvania, and Comcast, as well as smaller, local companies and 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 11

nonprofits. The internships play a central role in Year Up’s theory of change by providing opportunities 

for the participants to apply and expand their technical and professional skills in high-demand

occupations, while also forging connections with prospective employers. During their internships, 

participants maintain a full-time work schedule for four-and-a-half days a week and spend the other halfday in professional development at the PTC program. 

College coursework. PTC participants receive college credit for their internship, if they successfully 

complete its capstone project. PTC programs also support participants who elect to take additional 

courses during their internships that reinforce skills needed by their employers and/or support their 

progress towards academic credentials. For example, participants who take remedial English during the 

L&D phase may take college-level English during the Internship phase or they may opt to take a math

course, a higher-level IT course, or an entry-level course in a new field of interest. In addition to 

contributing to progress towards degree attainment, the PTC program’s emphasis on college credits helps 

to maintain participants’ eligibility for student financial aid—funds that are key to covering college 

partners’ program-related costs. 

Internship on-site professional development. Interns return to the PTC site each week for a half-day

professional development workshop, commonly referred to as the Internship Seminar, which is run by the 

Employment Placement Managers (EPMs). The seminar aims to keep interns connected with the PTC 

program and with one another, support them in processing their work experiences, and help them prepare 

and plan for their post-program career transitions. 

Career support. Throughout the Internship phase, PTC program staff members provide career support 

services aimed at fostering positive career outcomes. The weekly seminars conducted throughout the 

Internship phase focus on preparing participants for post-internship transitions. The workshops include 

career planning and development of a “portfolio” to support job applications (e.g., resume, cover letter, 

LinkedIn profile, reference list). Participants receive ongoing guidance from EPMs, coaches, and outside 

mentors in planning for their post-program employment and education. For example, the program’s 

Associate Director of Partner Relations works with internship supervisors and other employer partners to 

identify prospective job placements for interns. 

Mentoring. During their internships, participants have an additional mentor from either the community or 

internship site. The mentor periodically meets with the interns to provide guidance and support and 

provides feedback to PTC program staff on the interns’ accomplishments and identified support needs. 

But most often, another designated person functions as the job supervisor. In the case of PTC-P program, 

the internship mentors are typically identified, trained, and designated by the PTC-P program 

development staff. 

Participant Services and Supports

Like the Year Up core program, the PTC programs promote a philosophy of high expectations and high 

support. The model includes practices specifically aimed at fostering professional behavior, addressing 

academic and non-academic support needs, and cultivating a supportive social environment. Participants 

have access to a wide range of supports offered by the programs and their partner colleges, including the 

participant contract, coaching, learning communities, academic supports, and supervision and mentoring 

during internships. 

The participant contract. The Year Up participant contract, which each participant signs upon entry to 

the program, specifies behaviors participants are expected to exhibit during all program activities. These 

behaviors include attendance at specified meetings/classes, timely arrival for activities, professional dress, 

timely completion of course assignments, and respectful behaviors. Contract requirements apply not only 

to activities at the PTC program site, but also during time in their college courses and otherwise spent on 

campus or at their internship site. PTC staff and both faculty and staff at the partner colleges share 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 12

responsibility for monitoring participants’ behavior and for reporting and following up on contract 

infractions. 

At enrollment, participants are awarded 150 contract points. They lose points for contract infractions and 

gain five points for each week with no infractions. Each point lost translates into a $1 reduction in the 

weekly stipend. Participants whose points drop below zero are considered to have “fired” themselves and 

must leave the program. 

Stipends. Participants earn a weekly stipend throughout the year, conditional on meeting Year Up’s 

behavior code outlined in the Year Up participant contract. During the L&D phase, participants receive a 

stipend of up to $50/week; during the Internship phase, it may be up to $150 a week, depending on 

contract performance.

Coaching. Every PTC participant is assigned a PTC staff coach at the start of the program. Coaches are 

responsible for monitoring participant experiences in the program and helping them address any academic 

or non-academic issues that arise. All PTC staff, regardless of their formal role in the organization, serve 

as a coach for four to eight coachees. Generally, coaches and coachees meet weekly to discuss the latter’s 

progress and complete activities aligned with the professional skills curriculum. In PTC-P, coaching takes 

place in both one-on-one and group settings. Group coaching sessions are typically 40 to 60 minutes in 

duration and include some time dedicated to the Year Up “topic of the week” (e.g., practicing elevator 

pitches). Then, after the group coaching session, coaches and coachees meet individually to check in and 

address any issues either identifies. 

Learning communities. At the start of the program, participants are grouped into learning communities 

(LCs). The ideal size for each LC is about 40 participants, but configurations and sizes vary across and 

within sites based on enrollment levels and deliberate decisions about the structuring of the LCs. In the 

case of the PTC-P program, for example, LC numbers have ranged between 21 and 40 participants, 

depending on recruitment outcomes.5 Each LC has a Program Manager who oversees six to 10 additional 

staff who serve as coaches and facilitate program sessions. Starting with orientation week, LC members 

engage in activities designed to establish shared norms, trust, cohesion, and a common PTC program 

identity. LC members continue to learn together and support one another throughout their time in the 

program. 

Academic supports. PTC programs and their college partners provide tutoring and other assistance to 

participants who need academic help. The format of the academic support services varies by site. In 

PTC-P, for example, all participants currently are required to attend a scheduled study hall three times per 

week and they may elect to attend study hall on other days. During the study halls, participants may 

receive assistance with homework and course materials. Additionally, PTC-P participants can use the 

tutoring services offered through Peirce College. 

Connecting Participants to Employment and Education 

Year Up continues to work with its graduates after they transition out of the program. For example, 

PTC-P program staff (mainly the EPMs) maintain contact with former participants and help with job 

placements and other challenges that may arise. All PTC program graduates are eligible for free support 

in perpetuity from Year Up’s affiliated job placement and staffing agency, YUPRO , which serves Year 

Up alumni nationwide.

 

5

 Due to recent issues with reaching recruiting targets, PTC-P will be downsizing from two LCs to one for the 

upcoming enrollment cycle. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 13

Year Up tracks employment and educational outcomes for graduates at four months and 12 months after 

graduation. Longer-term outcomes are captured through Year Up’s internal alumni surveys and external 

rigorous longitudinal impact studies. To help capture information on long-term outcomes, Year Up is 

negotiating access to state wage databases and is currently using the National Student Clearinghouse to 

measure employment and education outcomes, respectively.

6

 

National Year Up performance standards set an expectation that all programs (PTC and core) achieve 85 

percent “positive outcomes” for program graduates—defined as placement in school or work—by the 

fourth month following program completion. For programs following the PTC Standard Program Model, 

the expectation is that at least 70 percent of graduates will be placed in full-time employment that relates 

to the training received at Year Up and at least 75 percent of graduates will have re-enrolled in 

postsecondary education (see Appendix E, Volume II).7

Both the local PTC programs and Year Up’s National Alumni Team staff provide services intended to 

maintain ties with and among alumni. These services often are provided in the form of social and career 

development events. Until recently at PTC-P, this was a shared responsibility of staff. This past year, one 

staff person, designated the Alumni Engagement Steward, assumed the added responsibility of fostering 

connections with alumni and sharing information about both alumni events and job and education-related 

opportunities for alumni.

1.3.3 Year Up’s Financial Model for PTC

As discussed earlier, an important goal of the PTC programs is to develop a financially self-sustaining 

version of Year Up’s core program. To this end, the PTC Standard Program Model is intended to operate 

at per-participant costs at or below the per-participant revenues generated through internship sales. The 

financial model for the PTC program has three components: (1) projections of operating costs; (2) secured 

internships and their payment rates; and (3) some underwriting of program costs by the college partner 

(e.g., through donating facilities, instruction, and other college services).

Projecting Operating Costs

Year Up uses its model to generate PTC program cost projections for various levels of participant 

enrollment and under varying assumptions about costs for staff, stipends, college tuition and fees, and 

other direct program expenses, as well as an allocation for costs of support from Year Up’s national 

office. The projections explicitly factor in differences in the numbers of participants entering L&D over 

successive cohorts during program start-up. Programs are generally not expected to reach the financial 

break-even point during the early years, in part due to scale, but mostly because the number of 

participants generating costs in the L&D phase is greater than the number of participants in the revenuegenerating Internship phase. 

In 2014, Year Up estimated that for the typical PTC program, the average cost per participant in a steadystate program averaged $14,882, which was 48 percent lower than in the core program ($28,655).8 As of 

 

6

 National Student Clearinghouse data are the source of standard metrics used by colleges and universities to judge 

their performance and the performance of individual participants and have been used in many past community 

college evaluations (see, for example, publications at: http://www.mdrc.org/issue/higher-education). 7

 Year Up’s core program model also sets an 85 percent “positive outcomes” standard requiring at least 70 percent 

of the graduating class be placed in full-time jobs related to their training at Year Up, but it does not have an 

explicit higher education persistence target. 8

 This estimate is based on calculations from a Year Up spreadsheet showing total costs of serving 160 participants 

under the PTC and core models.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 14

2018, Year Up has adjusted the PTC program’s targeted average cost per participant to $19,944,

9 which is 

34 percent lower than the average cost per participant in the core program. 

In general, it is easier to manage program costs than to ensure meeting revenue. Major inputs such as staff 

salaries and participant stipends are predictable and controllable. Revenue, on the other hand, depends on 

a complex series of factors related to participant recruitment and enrollment, retention through L&D, 

success in securing internship seats, employers’ willingness to pay full fee for the internships, and 

participants completing their internships. 

Generating Revenue through Internships 

The business model for the PTC program, as in the Year Up core program, depends heavily on revenue 

from employers. Towards this end, Year Up requests a fixed contribution of $24,700 per internship from 

employers for each intern position, which is expected to cover program costs once programs are in 

steady-state.10 However, the fee to employers may vary depending on local market factors and the 

employer’s ability and willingness to pay the full fee. Year Up may offer an employer a discount or 

provide an intern to the employer at no charge. Thus, internships play important roles, not only in 

advancing skills and employment connections for participants, but also in the financial status and selfsufficiency of the program.

Under Year Up’s financial model, new programs could be financially self-sustaining in three years under 

the following assumptions: (1) enrollments grow to four LCs of 40 participants each (a total of 160 

participants across LCs and 80 participants in each of the two cohorts) in a given calendar year; (2) 83

percent of participants complete L&D and transition to internships; (3) 90 percent of participants 

matriculating to internships remain in the program though graduation; (4) discounts amount to no more 

than two percent of aggregate internship seat pricing.11 At enrollment levels of 160 participants per year 

or higher, revenue is projected to exceed costs. For example, at enrollments of 160 per year (80 per 

cohort), revenue would be projected to exceed expenses by about six percent.12 

Shared Resources with College Partner

Year Up anticipates that the leaner staffing structure for the PTC Standard Program Model will be 

compensated for by shifting much of the academic instruction and some the costs of inputs such as 

facilities and support services to the college partner. In Philadelphia, for example, the college partner has 

been quite generous in providing office space and instructional support. Year Up also recognizes that the 

college partner’s willingness to underwrite these costs depends on the value proposition for the college 

(e.g., increased revenue from tuition and fees, opening a new pipeline of students, etc.). 

Since PTC participants enroll as participants and receive credits at the partner colleges, the PTC programs 

pay the associated college tuition and fees that are not covered through Pell Grants and other federal and 

state grant programs for low-income participants or through tuition discounting by the college. Year Up

attempts to limit expenses incurred for college tuition and fees to $500 per participant. As a result, this 

 

9

 Year Up National changed its PTC program staffing model to include higher staff-to-participant ratios and it 

altered the way that it allocates expenses incurred by Year Up National to support local programs. Changes in 

target staff numbers reflect additional needs for resources identified during the early piloting of the PTC 

programs. 10 Year Up has since increased the suggested internship fee to $26,000. 11 Since the 2015 interim report, Year Up increased the price charged per internship seat. Based on the assumptions 

in 2015, employer payments needed to average approximately $763 per week to cover program costs. 12 This is lower than the estimate reported in the 2015 interim report, which estimated that, at these higher 

enrollment levels, revenue would exceed expenses by about 20 percent. The difference may be due to changes in 

the employer payments and increases in the standard staffing model in the PTC sites.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 15

creates a natural incentive for the PTC programs to limit the number of participants whose tuition and 

fees cannot be fully covered by financial aid. 

The cost-revenue balance is quite different for public versus private colleges. For public colleges, 

especially community colleges, tuition typically is quite low ($3,500 to $4,000 a year) due to public 

subsidies. Becoming financially self-sustaining is made more challenging for PTC programs when 

working with tuition-dependent private colleges such as Peirce College in Philadelphia. That said, 

financial self-sufficiency for a private college does not necessarily entail recouping full tuition. For 

example, Peirce administrators reported that, on average, the college discounts tuition and fees for 

participants receiving both federal (i.e., Pell Grants) and state aid by 34 percent; for those receiving no 

grants by 40 percent; and for those receiving only federal aid by 58 percent.13 

1.4 Evaluation Components and Findings in Brief

There are two main components of the evaluation of the PTC-P program: (1) an implementation study

with strong formative aspects and (2) an impact study. While the primary focus of the evaluation is on 

the Philadelphia PTC program, both the implementation and impact studies also draw on experiences in 

and data on other PTC programs. 

1.4.1 Evaluation Components

Implementation Study

The summative portion of the implementation study, which is the portion that is central to this report, 

addresses four key questions: 

1. How is the PTC-P program organized and staffed? 

2. How does the program recruit participants, and what were the results? 

3. How do the services received by program participants align with plans? 

4. How did the program change over time in terms of inputs and/or outputs, and why?

In addition to drawing on continuous monitoring of administrative data, the evaluation draws on a recent 

round of site visits, information from the interim implementation evaluation, and various mini-studies that 

were conducted as part of another evaluation of the PTC program, funded by the Institute of Education 

Sciences. By design, these mini-studies were short-term, deep-dive studies intended to provide quick 

feedback to program staff on areas perceived as warranting improvement. One of the mini-studies focused 

on recruitment and retention strategies and challenges, a second focused on promoting educational 

persistence following program completion, and a third focused on setting up successful internships.

Impact Study

The impact study was designed to produce unbiased estimates of the effectiveness of alternative strategies 

for monitoring and supporting academic performance of participants during L&D who were identified as 

experiencing difficulties in their college courses. The aim of the strategies was improving L&D 

completion and increasing rates of college enrollment post L&D. With support from the evaluation team, 

Year Up National and PTC program staff developed strategies three strategies: (1) site-tailored methods 

for systematically gathering information on how participants are doing in their college courses; 

(2) systematic sharing and use of this information to inform staff coaching of participants; and (3) greater 

access to and better use of resources to assist participants who are struggling with their courses. 

 

13 Peirce College may be more willing than other private colleges to discount tuition for PTC-P participants given its 

somewhat atypical situation. Because its traditional focus is on night classes and online instruction, the school has 

substantial unused capacity during the daytime hours when PTC-P operates, and thus, its marginal cost of hosting 

the PTC-P program is mainly instructor compensation costs. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 16

The enhanced academic monitoring and supports were implemented and tested in three PTC programs—

Philadelphia in partnership with Peirce College (PTC-P); New York City in partnership with Borough of 

Manhattan Community College (PTC-BMCC); and Jacksonville, Florida, in partnership with Florida 

State College at Jacksonville (PTC-JAX). The enhanced services were tested with the 317 participants 

who enrolled in the January 2018 and July 2018 cohorts across the three programs. These participants 

were randomly assigned to either a Usual Strategies Group or to an Alternative Strategies Group who 

received the enhanced services.

14 

The evaluation team reported back early findings from this evaluation to the sites in the form of a 

structured conversation with program staff and a “post-read” document, which detailed the design, 

methods, and products of the impact study in non-technical language (Maynard et al., 2018).

1.4.2 Findings in Brief 

As it enters its fifth year of operations, the PTC-P program is generally operating fairly well from the 

perspective of the academic and work-based skills training opportunities it offers to participants. 

However, both the PTC-P program staff and Year Up National are still working to expand enrollment, 

improve alignment of the vocational interests of participants with focal vocational tracks, and achieve 

retention and internship sales compatible with financial sustainability. 

Implementation Study Findings

Implementing the PTC-P program has been challenging but, with recent programmatic changes, the 

program seems well positioned to achieve sustainability. This section discusses key findings from the 

implementation evaluation as they pertain to (1) organization and structure, (2) recruitment and 

admissions, (3) improving academic success during and successful completion of the L&D phase of the 

program, (4) strengthening internships, (5) post-program outcomes and alumni engagement, and (6) 

scalability and financial sustainability. 

• Organization and structure. Year Up’s PTC programs generally operate with between seven and 

eight participants per full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. Among the specialized staff roles are 

recruitment and admissions, programming (which includes academic and professional skills 

training as well as employment placement), participant services, internship development and 

services, and alumni services. Recruitment and admissions and program services are closely 

connected to and depend on the college partner, whereas internship services are closely connected 

with the employer partners and support of Year Up National. 

The PTC-P program has struggled to achieve a well-functioning organizational structure and 

complement of staff. Currently, it is operating with a considerably lower participant-to-staff ratio 

than average. However, as of this report release, there are some indications that a recent 

restructuring of staff roles and resizing to a level commensurate with a single LC will position the 

program for stronger performance, particularly with regards to recruitment and retention and the 

number and quality of paid internships. Notably, staff additions have been in the areas of 

participant services, internship services, and employment placement services.

• Recruitment and admissions. Recruitment and admissions continue to be a pain point for the 

PTC-P program. Staff reported sometimes struggling between meeting admissions targets and 

adhering to the readiness assessment guidelines. More generally, the program has not yet created 

a robust pipeline for referrals. Following recent leadership changes and staff reorganization, the 

Philadelphia site has been working to incorporate feedback and recommendations from the mini-

 

14 This study design meets the moderate evidence standards specified for evaluations supported by SIF (Social 

Innovation Fund, n.d.). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 17

study on recruitment and retention (Maynard & Fein, 2015), as well as to refine its practices to 

purposefully target a broader set of youth-serving organizations and to be more intentional in 

building a strong alumni network that can generate referrals and increase the yield of accepted 

applicants. An expanded pipeline of referrals would make it more feasible to be vigilant in 

screening for program readiness, which has been historically challenging at PTC-P. 

• Improving academic success and completion through L&D. Throughout most of the study 

period, the PTC-P program experienced higher attrition than anticipated during L&D, related in 

part to participants’ poor performance in college courses. The redesigned impact study focused 

specifically on testing ways to identify academic challenges early and intervene to address them. 

Program staff reported that many times they were unaware of participants who were struggling in 

their courses until very late in the semester, giving staff little to no time or opportunity to explore 

the source of the difficulties and to provide assistance. Year Up National used the mini-study 

findings on recruitment and retention (Maynard & Fein, 2015) to inform their work with three of 

the PTC programs, including that in Philadelphia, to develop the interventions with promise to 

improve academic success and persistence through L&D that were tested in the impact study (see 

further below). 

• Strengthening internships. Participants typically reported quite positive views of their 

internships. However, some programs, including the PTC-P program, are encountering two 

noteworthy challenges: (1) ensuring that participants are adequately prepared for and supported 

during their internships, and (2) securing and retaining the needed number of paid internship

seats. With regard to the former, the mini-study on setting up successful internship (Baelen et al., 

2018) identified several factors that limit success, including late matching of interns with 

employers, which inhibits strong onboarding and adequate skills preparation, and lapses in 

preparing participants for inevitable “down-time” during their internships. To address these 

concerns, Year Up National has made a number of changes in the program, including running 

pre-internship bootcamps to address employer-specific training needs and arming participants 

with strategies for productive use of downtime, surveying internship managers more routinely to 

solicit feedback on the preparation and performance of interns, and instituting structured 

onboarding of internship managers. 

In response to the latter challenge, Year Up National recently re-sized and restructured its staffing 

guidelines. Very recent changes in the organizational structure and staffing have been specifically 

aimed at improving sales, support, and retention of paid internship sponsors. For example, at the 

PTC-P program, there are now two full-time internship services staff focused solely on 

supporting interns throughout their experience and a full-time Director of Partner Relations who 

talks weekly with managers and key contacts at the corporate partner sites. These PTC-P staff 

meet weekly to discuss feedback from interns and managers, troubleshoot issues, and identify 

strategies for preventing similar problems in the future. 

• Post-program outcomes and alumni engagement. Ultimately, the program’s success depends on 

increasing the employment, earnings, and career advancement potential of participants. Based on 

internal monitoring of program graduates, the PTC-P program is doing reasonably well in terms 

of employment and hourly earnings of graduates. For example, although only 35 percent of 

graduates are employed full-time in Year Up–related jobs four months after graduation, two 

thirds of them are in school and 87 percent are in school or working. The average wage of those 

who are working is $17.61 an hour. However, at present, the program does not track education 

and employment outcomes for all participants, only graduates. (A separate ongoing study funded 

by the Institute of Education Sciences will examine these outcomes.) 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 1. Introduction ▌pg. 18

In addition to the many ongoing program improvement efforts (i.e., strengthening the selection of 

program-ready participants, promoting academic success and retention during L&D, and 

strengthening the quality of internships), the PTC-P program has ramped up its efforts to support 

internship services, strengthen employment placement support, and improve guidance on 

continued education opportunities. As part of this effort, the PTC-P program has designated a 

staff member to oversee alumni engagement efforts and expansion of the network of professional 

contacts available to graduates—a role that this staff member has taken on in addition to regular 

job-related responsibilities.

• Financial sustainability. Year Up National recognized that maintaining the PTC-P program at its 

previous size of two LCs was not financially sustainable for the foreseeable future. Thus, it very 

recently scaled back the program to one LC. If the PTC-P program can meet performance goals 

of being financially self-sustaining at this smaller scale, Year Up National will have a stronger 

basis for judging whether, how, and at what rate to expand the program (e.g., growing the focal 

career track or expanding to include other high-demand career tracks). 

Impact Study Findings

Through two cycles of testing in three programs that included Philadelphia, the study found the following 

benefits for participants in the Alternative Strategies Group as compared with their counterparts in the 

Usual Strategies Group: 

• 9.6 percentage point greater likelihood of completing L&D (78.9% versus 69.3%; p-value = 

.052). 

• 13.2 percentage point greater likelihood of being enrolled in college during the month following 

the end of the program (67.2% versus 54.0%, p-value = .003). 

Although the point estimates of impacts varied across the three programs that participated in the study, 

the differences among the sites were not statistically significant. Impacts were systematically larger for 

participants in the July 2018 cohort than for the January 2018 cohort across the three sites, suggesting 

substantial benefits from midcourse adjustments to the alternative strategies employed for the January 

2018 cohort. A key adjustment was the development of an Academic Coaching Binder comprising tools 

and guidance for coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group (Year Up, 2018). 

The Binder was created by program staff to help coaches to meet the expectations for better monitoring of 

participants’ academic performance and to efficiently support those participants found to be encountering 

difficulties. 

1.5 Overview of the Report

This report has four chapters. Chapter 2 describes the implementation of the PTC-P program, focusing 

on program enrollment patterns and outcomes, operational experiences, and costs and revenue. Chapter 3

provides a detailed description of the impact study design, the study sample and data, the methods of 

analysis, the estimated impacts of the alternative academic monitoring and support strategies tested, and 

insights from coaches and participants to help unpack the mechanisms through which impacts were 

generated. Chapter 4 discusses the implications of the study findings for practice, for policy, and for 

future program evaluation efforts. Volume 2 of this report includes appendices containing supplemental 

data and background documents.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 19

2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in 

Philadelphia (PTC-P)

This chapter updates findings of an interim implementation evaluation of the Philadelphia PTC program

(PTC-P). At the time that report was published, the PTC-P was one of five PTC pilot programs enrolling 

relatively small numbers of youth (20 to 50) each cycle (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Over the first 18 months 

of pilot operations, the PTC-P program established a close working relationship with Peirce College, 

enabling rapid start-up and sustained program development and refinement. It enrolled just under 150 

young adults and successfully implemented all major program components. 

The interim implementation evaluation study uncovered four growth areas or needs in order for the 

PTC-P program to become a viable, financially sustainable venture (Maynard & Fein, 2015). The first 

was for Year Up and Peirce College to work more closely together on efforts such as staff recruitment, 

participant enrollment, and the curriculum. The second need was to show that the program model could 

be financially viable with a private college partner with tuition well above the level of financial aid 

typically available to Year Up participants ($550 per credit hour in 2014-15). The third need was to meet 

Year Up’s retention targets for the Learning and Development (L&D) phase. The fourth was to generate 

enough fully sponsored internship seats to meet projected enrollment growth. The current report assesses 

PTC-P’s overall implementation, with special attention to these four challenges and the extent to which 

they were addressed. 

The chapter begins with a description of the data sources used for the evaluation. It then proceeds to 

present study findings related to various aspects of the program, beginning with its overall organization 

and management. It then discusses experiences with and lessons learned with regards to recruitment and 

admissions, developing and guiding participants through the L&D phase, developing and supporting 

participants through internships, and alumni tracking and support. Finally, it discusses the financial selfsufficiency and scalability of the PTC-P program. 

2.1 Data for the Implementation Study

The implementation study relies heavily on Year Up’s administrative data. However, it also draws upon 

data from the National Student Clearinghouse and multiple rounds of site visits, most with the 

Philadelphia program and its employment partners, but some extending to other PTC programs. On-site 

data collection included observations, semi-structured interviews with PTC program staff, college partner 

staff, employers, and participants.15 The first round of site visits was conducted in late 2014 and focused 

on implementation experiences in the first year and a half of program operations (see Fein & Maynard, 

2015). The most recent round of site visits, conducted in mid-2018, focused on current program 

operations and major changes since 2014.

The study also draws on data gathered by the evaluation team in conjunction with three mini-studies 

funded by the Institute of Education Sciences that include the PTC-P program. One mini-study examined 

strategies for setting up successful internships in New York City, Northern Virginia, and Miami PTC 

programs and included staff interviews, focus groups with participants, interviews with employers, and 

reviews of program documents (Baelen et al., 2018). A second study on recruitment and retention through 

L&D included site interviews with staff and participants at the PTC programs in Baltimore (PTC-BAL) 

and Philadelphia (PTC-P) (Fein & Maynard, 2015). A third mini-study that focused on issues related to

persistence in college after participants leave the PTC programs relied on Year Up and National Student 

 

15 Interviews were transcribed and coded to identify emerging themes.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 20

Clearinghouse data for all PTC programs and data from interviews with Year Up National staff (Fein & 

Shivji, 2017). 

2.2 PTC-P Organization and Management

The organization and management of the PTC-P program mirrors that of other PTC programs. The dayto-day management and operation of the program is the responsibility of local program staff in four 

general categories: (1) recruitment and admissions; (2) direct-service program delivery, including student

services, internship support, and post-program employment placement teams; (3) corporate engagement 

and community relations (i.e., management of external partnerships); and (4) operational and 

administrative support. In addition, some of the PTC programs have grown out of sites where Year Up 

had already been operating its core program model. All of the PTC programs have worked hard to build 

strong partnerships with local youth-serving organizations as a means of creating a pipeline for referrals 

and with local employers as a means of creating pipelines for internships and post-program job 

placements.

The PTC-P program differs from other PTC programs in three notable ways. First, along with six other 

PTC programs, it began and remains a single-channel Year Up program rather than one of two Year Up 

program models operating in a single market. Second, for much of the time, the PTC-P program operated 

out of its Philadelphia office, but relied heavily on employers in the Wilmington, Delaware, area 

(especially, JP Morgan Chase) for many of its internship placements. Third, its college partner is a private 

higher education institution that serves primarily older, working adults, whereas all but one other PTC 

program have partnered with public colleges or universities. Like all PTC programs, the PTC-P program 

receives substantial support from Year Up National. 

Since the publication of the interim implementation study report, there have been significant changes in 

PTC-P program staffing and important changes in its organizational structure. The changes and turnover 

in staffing have negatively affected the morale of PTC-P staff and participants, contributed to 

inconsistencies in program execution, and periodically, strained the relationship with Peirce College. 

Most recently, the program management also underwent significant changes with the opening of a new 

PTC program site in Wilmington, disrupting operations in Philadelphia. 

2.2.1 Changes in Program Staffing

The PTC-P program has experienced fluctuations in staffing over the course of its implementation. Many 

of the staffing changes resulted from turnover and role re-clarification efforts initiated by Year Up 

National. As of now, it appears that the rate of turnover may be slowing, but changes in staff organization 

and role clarification are ongoing.

Year Up National worked with PTC-P to address implementation challenges.

Up until early 2015, a separate National PTC Team was the primary resource for local PTC programs, 

calling upon other staff responsible for Year Up’s core program as necessary. The National PTC Team 

was responsible for forging the college partnerships, designing the programs, hiring staff, and ensuring 

that essential elements were in place prior to program launch. After programs launched, Year Up National 

monitored progress and helped to solve problems. Year Up National oversaw internship sales and 

employer relationships for all PTC and core programs and managed local program staff with these 

responsibilities. The designated National Team member assigned to the PTC-P program provided

specialized expertise and connections to help develop and sustain relationships with employers.

Starting in early 2016 and continuing into summer 2018, two staff members from Year Up National 

provided localized support to PTC-P. These embedded staff helped to train new staff, retrain tenured staff, 

and support program execution. Efforts to focus National Team resources on the PTC-P program came 

about because the site was short staffed and falling short of admissions and retention targets. One staff 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 21

member from Year Up National started out by conducting observations and creating a road map of 

initiatives for the site to improve its program execution, recruitment, and retention. In March 2018, a third 

staff member from Year Up National assumed formal management responsibilities of the admissions and 

recruitment function. 

Support from Year Up National has included training and retraining in aspects of the program, such as 

L&D instruction, administering the Year Up participant contract, and evaluating applicants’ readiness for

program admissions and participants’ readiness to enter internships. Important foci of the support from 

Year Up National were the “whys” underlying aspects of the PTC Standard Program Model, methods to 

create and monitor participant support plans, and alignment on Year Up participant contract criteria and 

enforcement policies. Some PTC-P staff interviewed described this retraining as prompting improved 

communication among staff at the local program, as well as improved practices for monitoring 

participants, particularly in terms of their academic performance and conditions that would support 

academic success (e.g., improved coordination with Peirce College on logistical issues related to 

textbooks, classes, and scheduling).

In May 2017, the Year Up National staff member who had focused most closely on program execution 

during both the L&D and Internship phases was hired as a full-time staff member at the PTC-P program. 

By early 2018, the second Year Up National staff member who started with PTC-P in 2016 shifted focus 

solely to the Wilmington site. 

Staffing is now closely aligned with Year Up’s vision of ideal staffing for the PTC programs with 

steady-state enrollment of 160 young adults. 

As of 2015, the PTC-P program operated with staffing levels below the now recommended Year Up 

National standard. The optimal participant-to-staff ratio recommended by Year Up National is 8.4 

participants to one staff member. At this ratio, the 90 participants enrolled in PTC-P in 2015 should have 

been supported by approximately 10 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members (according to the current 

Year Up National standard). However, in 2015, PTC-P had only six full-time staff members: (1) an 

Executive Director, (2) an Associate Director of Employer Engagement responsible for sales and 

retention of internship seats; (3) an Admissions Manager responsible for recruitment; (4) two Program 

Managers; and (5) an Operations Manager responsible for general operations support, special events, and 

the mentoring program. While there were staff assigned to cover all major program operational 

responsibilities, the number of staff was less than 60 percent of the number Year Up now recommends for 

a program serving 90 participants. 

Until recently, PTC-P underwent generally modest expansion in terms of program staff, while also 

experiencing continually high rates of staffing changes (role re-classification initiated by Year Up 

National) and churn (stemming from a lack of program fit and/or poor staff quality). However, by mid2018, the number of staff had expanded to 21 permanent paid members with more nuanced job titles and 

descriptions than in the past (Figure 2).16 In addition to the Executive Director who oversees the 

Philadelphia and Wilmington PTC programs, PTC-P has its own Site Director to manage the relationship 

with Peirce College, oversee the Student Services Team (supported by two Student Services Managers), 

and orchestrate program execution with the support of two Associate Directors—one for Programming 

and one for Admissions and College Enrollment. The Site Director also oversees the Internship Services 

Team (comprising an Internship Services Manager and an Internship Services Coordinator). The 

Associate Director for Programs oversees and is supported by two Program Managers who are 

 

16 The staff changes described here and outlined in Figure 3 are currently in flux, as PTC-P is transitioning from two 

to one learning communities (LCs). The staff of 21 members is only slightly larger than projected for the Year Up 

Standard Program Model of serving 160 participants annually (see further discussion of financial self-sufficiency 

and scalability in Sections 2.7 and 2.8 below). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 22

responsible for executing the curriculum during L&D and internships; two Employment Placement 

Managers (a new role at PTC-P as of summer 2016); and two instructors (one full-time Information 

Technology Instructor and the other a temporary instructor). The Development Team who are responsible 

for fundraising (comprising a Director of Development and an External Relations Manager) and the 

Special Projects Coordinator report to the Executive Director. In addition, there is an Associate Director 

of Business Development and a Director of Corporate Engagement who report into a regionalized 

corporate engagement structure and have an informal reporting relationship with the Executive Director 

and are responsible for corporate partner relations in the Philadelphia market (see also Appendix F, 

Volume II).17

Figure 2. Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Organizational Chart, July 2018

Source: Year Up National staff.

Note: A dotted line denotes a staff member reporting to the Year Up Regional Director. 

 

17 After our most recent site visit (August 2018), there was a substantial reorganization and restructuring of the staff 

in Philadelphia (see Appendix G, Volume II). For example, the site now has five staff who report to the Year Up 

Regional Director of Corporate Engagement. They are two Associate Directors of Business Development (one for 

Philadelphia and one for the Greater Philadelphia area), a Director of Corporate Engagement, an Associate 

Director of Partner Relations, and an Account Director. In part, this reorganization is intended to flatten the 

organizational structure and facilitate operational changes to improve outreach and recruitment, coordination with 

Peirce College, and engagement with the employer community. Year Up also has decided that the site will 

downsize from two LCs s to one, which has affected the number of program staff (e.g., one Program Manager 

instead of two). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 23

Stability in Staff: “I think ... there's been stability now 

built into the program, ... Most of the staff here [are] 

very young [and haven’t] been here a long time. But at 

least, we've been around the block once.” (PTC-P Staff) 

Sentiment is that staff turnover may be on the decline. 

Judging by interviews with PTC-P staff and Year Up 

administrative data, staff turnover was more common 

in some roles than others and may be slowing down. 

For example, the current Site Director has been with 

PTC-P for two and a half years, the Operations and 

Events Manager has been with the site for five years, and one of the Program Managers has been with the 

site for three years. As of July 2018, however, 56 percent of staff have been with PTC-P for less than 18 

months and only five percent (one staff member) had been with the program for three years or longer 

(Figure 3). 

Figure 3. Tenure of Staff at the Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Program in July 2018

Source: Year Up personnel data, January 2015–July 2018.

The slowdown in turnover means that there is beginning to be a more seasoned group of Year Up staff 

executing the program. A staff member from Year Up National who has supported the PTC-P site closely 

noted that there has been greater accountability for program execution and participant behavior recently, 

attributing this, in part, to the Program Managers’ longer tenure. Although staff were hopeful about 

increases in tenure, more time is needed to see whether staffing will in fact stabilize. 

2.2.2 Response to Staff Changes

Historically, both high levels of staff turnover and several rounds of role changes have negatively affected 

morale of PTC-P staff and participants, caused inconsistencies in program execution, and contributed to a 

strained relationship between PTC-P and Peirce College. However, at the time of the most recent round of 

site visits, staff morale seemed to be good and relations with the college still strong. Additionally, staff 

members also appear energized to revisit the program’s approaches to recruiting, retaining and supporting 

participants through their internships, and strengthening corporate engagement. 

Adverse effects of staff churn on morale and performance appear to be moderating. 

In fall 2013, at the height of the recruitment season, the Director of Admissions left the program, which

necessitated a rebuilding of referral networks. More recently, PTC-P lost its second Executive Director.

Although Year Up National quickly designated a highly experienced PTC leadership staff member as 

Interim Executive Director, that individual was covering three Year Up sites and lacked familiarity with 

the Philadelphia market. 

 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 24

The Staff Turnover Affected Participant 

Morale: “[Participants] took staff changes very 

personally. There were meetings about 

[participants] not wanting to attend graduation, 

[participants] wanting to quit, [participants] 

making comments—we're supposed to be a 

family.” (PTC-P Staff) 

Made Alumni Engagement Difficult: “So, you 

increase alumni engagement by familiar faces. When 

I come back to the campus I want to see someone 

who was yelling at me the first two weeks, and then 

that just wasn't the case.” (PTC-P Staff) 

The environment. High turnover reportedly contributed to 

an environment of fear and anxiety among staff. Most 

terminations reportedly were for reasons related to program 

fit or performance. More recently, a number of staff 

transitioned to different or new roles within the PTC-P 

program in efforts to align staff responsibilities with a Year 

Up National initiative for restructuring some of its 

participant-facing roles (Year Up, 2017).18 Reflecting on 

these experiences, one PTC-P staff member noted: “So, that was the trend for a while. You see a meeting 

pop up... someone else has been let go. So you can imagine...the fear and anxiety around what that looks 

like.”

One staff member from Year Up National contended that many of the hiring decisions were coming from 

the top down, contributing to a “vicious cycle of hiring people who were not the best fit.” 

The high staff turnover also affected participant morale and alumni engagement. For instance, staff 

terminations often resulted in participants losing key 

sources of support, mentorship, and/or connection to 

the program. As a result, participants reported often 

feeling frustrated and discouraged. In addition, as more 

staff members left, alumni started to lose a sense of 

connection to the PTC-P program.

Program execution and relationships. High turnover has adversely affected program execution. The 

PTC-P program staff and Peirce College administrators identified numerous consequences of high staff 

turnover. For example, they reported that the high turnover in program leadership positions at the PTC-P 

program contributed to lack of follow-through on important initiatives and inconsistencies in strategy and 

program direction. The many changes at all levels meant that the program had to do multiple rounds of 

staff training, which was a drain on staff time and Year Up National resources. 

Peirce College administrators reported that the high levels of staff turnover made it difficult to manage the 

relationship with PTC-P and, at times, weakened the sense of community between the organizations. One 

Peirce College administrator commented that “there's been so much change within the partnership...on 

the Year Up side.” Another administrator mentioned that turnover had led to inconsistencies in program 

execution: “Every person comes in with great new ideas on how to make it work.” 

These types of issues related to staff turnover and role clarity were not limited to the PTC-P program; 

they were common concerns across PTC programs. To address these issues, in 2017, Year Up National 

undertook an initiative—referred to as “Alphabet Soup”—to create job titles and descriptions that were 

compatible with a more resilient staffing model, especially in the face of staff turnover (Year Up, 2017). 

This initiative resulted in linking specified program activities with each job title and position and 

establishing expectations that staff members be sufficiently familiar with other roles so as to easily pitch 

in during busy times and/or emergencies. 

In addition to changes prompted by Year Up National, the PTC-P program staff are trying to be more 

intentional with program execution. This has been challenging, though, in the absence of a permanent 

Executive Director.

 

18 The change in staffing structures was affectionately called Alphabet Soup by Year Up because of the acronyms 

labeling all the roles involved (e.g., PM, ISM, EPM); see further below. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 25

2.2.3 Integrating PTC-P with Peirce College

From its inception, the partnership between PTC-P and Peirce College has had strong support from the 

President on down, most notably through senior administrative staff responsible for finance, admissions, 

academics, and support services. The college has provided ample office space to support the PTC-P 

program’s needs, adequate instructional spaces, and even places where participants can study or socialize 

with peers. It has been somewhat more challenging to meet space needs for large group events. While 

physical space needs are being met, there is room to improve communication and collaboration on issues 

such as participant recruitment and tailoring course content and instructional strategies to meet the needs 

of the PTC-P program participants. 

Communication and coordination with Peirce College has been generally good.

From early on, the PTC-P program has benefited from a strong relationship with senior administrators at 

Peirce College. For example, the two organizations have effectively coordinated admissions requirements 

and processes, aligned their curriculum requirements and options, and developed effective processes for 

supporting participants in navigating various avenues for financial support of their college coursework.

Senior leadership, including the Peirce College President, was actively involved in developing and 

implementing the PTC-P program, and the college’s Vice Presidents for Academics and Student Services 

were actively involved in the program’s design and start-up—overseeing day-to-day management and 

troubleshooting issues (Fein & Maynard, 2015). 

Key administrators at the college have continued to work cooperatively with PTC-P program staff on 

issues such as course scheduling and identification of new program tracks. They also worked closely with 

Year Up National to facilitate its decision to open a PTC program in Wilmington—offering Peirce 

instructors to teach college courses there. 

Day-to-day operations of Peirce College’s services for the PTC-P participants, such as the college 

courses, participant monitoring, and student support services, generally fall under the jurisdiction of midlevel administrators. Judging by reports from staff at both the college and PTC-P, building strong 

relationships between these mid-level line staff and PTC-P staff has been slower to evolve and more 

difficult to maintain. Despite this, there was agreement that these relationships, too, were generally good. 

At the time of the most recent site visits, the current President at Peirce College had only been onboard a 

few months and there had been no noticeable impacts for the relationship with or operation of the PTC-P 

program. Staff at both the PTC-P program and the college were operating under the assumption that their 

strong partnership would persist—an assumption that was supported by the very recent signing of the 

first-ever multi-year memorandum of understanding between Year Up and Peirce College. On the PTC-P 

side, the hiring of an Associate Director of Programs reportedly has improved communication between 

PTC-P and the college, especially in terms of scheduling courses, ordering and securing participant

textbooks, and troubleshooting issues related to resources and instructors. 

PTC-P increased communication and collaboration with the Peirce College Academic Advisor. 

Peirce College’s Academic Advisor not only regularly attends weekly LC meetings (as was the case in 

2015), but also meets bi-weekly with PTC-P’s Associate Director of Programs and the Program Managers 

to discuss participant academic issues and share feedback from college instructors on participant

performance concerns. In addition, the college has implemented a new learning management system 

(Canvas) and is proactively trying to improve access to and use of it by the PTC-P program staff (e.g., 

sending out academic reports and providing trainings on the use of the system). As a result, PTC-P 

program staff report that they are now more frequently using the college’s learning management system 

to inform their coaching and support of PTC-P participants. However, the nature and usefulness of the 

information in the system remain highly variable across instructors. (As noted in Chapter 3, Canvas is not 

a reliable source of information for timely identification of participants experiencing academic 

challenges.) 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 26

The IT department has tried to better align coursework with employers’ skills requirements. 

As was the case in 2014, some members of Peirce College’s IT department make periodic visits to 

employers to solicit input on curriculum development—a common practice at Peirce College. Most 

recently, the Business and Institutional Advancement departments at Peirce College solicited feedback 

from local employers to inform the development of a Customer Service Training Track, which potentially 

could open up training in another high-need area for PTC-P participants. Some PTC-P staff have 

suggested that it might be promising to encourage similar outreach of college instructors to PTC-P 

employer partners as a means of refining curricula to better meet the skill needs of employers—something 

some instructors interviewed for the interim implementation study report were doing on their own. 

PTC-P participants feel supported both by the PTC program and by Peirce College instructors. 

Both the earlier and recent site visits explored participants’ sense of belonging as members of the PTC-P 

program and the Peirce College community. In both our 2014 and 2018 site visits, PTC-P program 

participants reported strong feelings of affiliation with both. They felt supported by Peirce College 

instructors, but also clarified that their interactions with the college were focused solely on academic 

coursework, whereas their affiliations with PTC-P program staff were much broader. One participant

shared, “With Year Up staff, it’s a little more mentor-mentee...closer, just a little bit closer.... But with 

college, it’s more like student-teacher.... So for the interaction, it was more so about homework and...this 

deadline has to be met.”

That said, participant access to and communication with instructors is a challenge across all of the PTC 

programs. This appears to be in large part because high proportions of instructors in the partner colleges 

are part-time employees who spend only a few hours a week on campus. Staff and participants in the 

PTC-P program have also reported the perception that communication with instructors is inhibited by the 

age gap between the PTC-P participants and the adult learners Peirce College traditionally serves; 

instructors at Peirce College typically work with older adults, who often are employed full-time and 

preparing to advance in their careers. 

Opening a Wilmington program location was a source of strain for the PTC-P program and Peirce 

College. 

The interim implementation study identified expansion to the Wilmington, Delaware, area as a possible 

way for the PTC-P program to meet growth targets (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Wilmington was an 

attractive site because many of the PTC-P program’s corporate partners were headquartered there. 

Initially, the PTC dual locations in Philadelphia and Wilmington were conceived as “two sites, one 

market” that could share resources. 

In 2017, Year Up decided to officially open a program office in Wilmington. However, it was not able to 

quickly find a college partner in that vicinity. When plans to partner with a local college fell through at 

the last minute, Year Up approached Peirce College, which agreed to step in and provide the needed 

academic instruction to Wilmington-based participants. Given the distance, Peirce College did so through 

a combination of on-site and online courses. 

Setting up the Wilmington office required considerable involvement from the PTC-P staff headquartered 

in Philadelphia, as well as from some of the Peirce College staff. For example, several PTC-P program 

staff members began splitting their time between the Philadelphia and Wilmington sites, which increased 

commuting time, contributed to stress, and reduced their time available for attending to needs of the 

Philadelphia office. The Peirce College Academic Advisor and instructors also split their time between 

the two locations, adding commuting time and forcing staff to navigate the demands of two different 

locations.

Although, Year Up National had devoted considerable time and energy to planning the opening of the 

Wilmington office, Peirce College described the decision as one appearing to be made in haste. The 

resulting organizational shifts that occurred adversely disrupted work schedules of staff and also posed 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 27

communication and coordination challenges between the PTC-P program and Peirce College. Most 

notably, managing two sites complicated course scheduling and compromised the time and attention 

PTC-P senior staff could devote to working with Peirce staff on program planning and execution of the 

PTC-P program. 

PTC-P staff turnover strained relationships between PTC-P and Peirce College.

Some senior Peirce College administrators with a history of working with the PTC-P program reported 

that, as compared with the early years of the program, Peirce College staff are less involved with the 

program and less engaged with PTC-P participants (e.g., less frequently attending Friday Forums or 

running into participants at the college). One senior Peirce College administrator noted, “I told [the Site 

Director]...I used to go to the orientation...mentor a few students, and...help out..... [The Site Director]

said, ‘Really?...We gotta get back to that.’ .... I think it was because of the turn-over.”

2.3 PTC-P Recruitment and Admissions

Through January 2018, when the January 2019 cohort was enrolled, the PTC-P program had enrolled 392 

young adults. It accomplished this through a combination of proactive outreach to area youth-serving 

organizations, referrals from Peirce College, and word of mouth. Since the PTC-P program launched, 

participant enrollments have fluctuated in absolute numbers and relative to targets, which were 

temporarily lowered from 50 to 40 participants per cycle for the July 2016 and January 2017 cohorts 

before being raised to 60 per cohort more recently (Table 4). 

Table 4. Admissions Pipeline, All Professional Training Corps Programs and Philadelphia Program

Enrollment Cohort 

(Projected Graduation)

Enrollment 

Target

Number of

Applications 

Completed

Number of 

Conditionally 

Accepted 

Applicants

Number of 

Applicants 

Enrolled

Percent of 

Enrollment 

Target 

Achieved

Percent of 

Conditionally 

Accepted 

Applicants 

Enrolled

All PTC Programs

July 2015 140 296 164 142 101.4 86.6

January 2016 220 337 209 194 88.2 92.8

July 2016 320 607 324 305 95.3 94.1

January 2017 372 57 356 332 89.2 93.3

July 2017 570 947 590 534 93.7 90.5

January 2018 772 968 789 665 86.1 84.3

July 2018 932 1,615 1,087 836 89.7 76.9

January 2019 994 1,775 1,142 823 82.8 72.1

Total 4,370 7,183 4,669 3,950 90.4 84.6

Philadelphia PTC Program

July 2015 50 117 72 21 42.0 29.2

January 2016 50 83 50 23 46.0 46.0

July 2016 40 96 n.a. 52 130.0 n.a.

January 2017 40 83 n.a. 50 125.0 n.a.

July 2017 60 59 45 39 65.0 86.7

January 2018 60 81 80 38 63.3 47.5

July 2018 60 112 91 40 66.7 44.0

January 2019 60 127 77 55 91.7 71.4

Total 420 758 494 392 93.3 79.4

Source: Year Up Program staff.

Note: Administrative data on the admissions pipeline were not reported in a systematic fashion prior to enrollment of the July 2015 cohort.

n.a mean not available.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 28

There are multiple factors contributing to enrollment fluctuations, including variability in the number of 

applications completed (a range of 59 to 127 per enrollment cycle), the percentage of applicants accepted, 

and the enrollment rate among those accepted (a range of 29 percent to 86 percent). In turn, the size of the 

pipeline at various points is affected by the admissions team’s approach to recruitment, how strictly they 

apply the admissions criteria, and how aggressively they pursue accepted applicants. One of the more 

recent policy changes has been to rely more heavily on pre-orientation (the first two days of orientation) 

as a final screening of applicants who have been conditionally accepted to the program. This was a 

deliberate move to improve screening on “readiness” for the program. A series of efforts, including 

information systems improvements, standardized new-hiring onboarding resources, a centralized contact 

center for prospective participants, an alumni referral incentive program, and regionalization of 

Admissions and Recruitment leadership for the most recent cohort, all appear to be supporting efforts to 

improve screening. In fact, nationwide, PTC programs moved from reaching 82.3 percent of the 

enrollment goal for the January 2019 cohort to 95.3 percent for the most recently enrolled July 2019 

cohort. 

Participants in the PTC-P program have characteristics that reflect Year Up’s intent to focus on young 

adults who exhibit a strong interest in and readiness for the program. Moreover, their backgrounds are 

broadly similar, on average, to those typically served in PTC programs (Table 5). Their average age is 

20.5 which is the same as that for all PTC programs, and roughly 40 percent are female in PTC-P and 

overall. 

Table 5. Characteristics of Enrollees in All Professional Training Corps Programs and in Philadelphia Program (July 

2014–January 2019 Cohorts)

Characteristic All PTC Programs Philadelphia PTC Program

Average Age 20.5 20.5 

Gender-Female (%) 39.0 40.5

Have Child (%)

Yes 7.1 11.8

No 82.2 72.0

No Data 10.7 16.2

Receives Government Assistance (%)

Yes 15.1 21.2

No 70.1 56.7

No Data 14.8 22.1

Sum of Readiness Value (%)

0-1 26.49 37.65

2-5 38.51 33.41

6+ 27.81 16.94

No Data 7.20 12.0

Criminal Record (%)

Yes 5.0 4.9

No 86.2 83.1

No Data 8.8 12.0

Has Taken College Classes (%)

Yes 47.6 37.2

No 44.3 52.5

No Data 8.1 10.4

Number of Enrollees 4,028 425

Source: Program administrative data collected during the application process.

Note: See Appendix Tables A.1 and A.2, Volume II, for characteristics of enrollees by enrollment cohort for all PTC sites and for PTC-P only. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 29

Philadelphia Works: “We're still 

struggling with admissions, but there's a 

big reason... Philadelphia Works is a 

major player ... giving money to all the 

work force development programs ... we 

[can’t] accept funding from them, 

because of their funding structure. 

Because they're a federal type of 

funding...it would put us in that workforce 

development arena ... we would have a 

continual pipeline.” (PTC-P Staff)

Although all the PTC programs screen for program readiness, sizeable proportions of participants face 

personal challenges (e.g., unstable housing, responsibilities for care of family members, mental health 

issues, criminal records) of some sort. Significant proportions of participants are known to have had a 

child at the time they enrolled (12 percent of the PTC-P participants, and 7 percent for all PTC 

participants) or reported living in a household that received government food, housing, or cash assistance

(21 percent of the PTC-P participants, and 15 percent of all PTC participants). However, it is notable that 

37 percent of the participants in the PTC-P program and 48 percent of participants in all PTC programs 

reported at application having previously taken one or more college courses. 

One staff member from Year Up National who has worked closely with the PTC-P program’s admissions 

team was especially concerned about the incidence of mental health issues among participants and the 

implications for program success. However, mental health concerns are not systematically noted in Year 

Up’s administrative data and, according to that same staff member, are infrequently noted formally during 

the admissions process. The addition of the Student Services Team has been helpful in improving early 

identification of and follow-up with participants who exhibit mental health issues. 

The following sub-sections discuss the PTC-P program’s approach to recruitment, experiences 

coordinating recruitment and admissions with Peirce College, and challenges related to recruitment, 

respectively.

2.3.1 Recruitment Experience and Challenges 

The PTC-P program, like others, has continually found recruitment challenging. Also, like other PTC 

programs, the Philadelphia program reportedly has varied its approach in how to prioritize efforts and 

strategies at various stages of the recruitment-to-enrollment process (e.g., generating inquiries, generating

applications, being selective in admissions, and meeting enrollment targets). Both the PTC program as a 

whole and the PTC-P program typically have fallen short of their enrollment targets (by an average of 10 

and 7 percent, respectively; see Table 4 above). As discussed above, PTC-P program has found this 

challenging, in part, due to the high levels of staff turnover, which adversely affect the program’s ability 

to develop a robust referral pipeline. In this section, we discuss factors related to the PTC-P program’s 

recruitment challenges. 

PTC-P staff oversee the recruitment processes and receive few referrals from Peirce College.

Early in the program, Peirce staff facilitated introductions of PTC-P program staff to a number of 

potential “pipeline” institutions for participant referrals and Peirce staff themselves recruited some PTCeligible youth for the program after enrolling them in the college. For all subsequent cohorts, PTC-P 

program staff have been responsible for outreach and initial identification of applicants. Recruitment for 

the PTC program is not a formal responsibility of Peirce College staff and they receive no added 

recognition for dually enrolled participants. Thus, not surprisingly, the Peirce recruiters mainly focused 

on their traditional target population of older nontraditional students. 

Staff turnover and difficulty forging strong community-based partnerships contribute to PTC-P’s 

recruitment challenges.

The PTC-P program has only met its enrollment targets in two 

enrollment cycles, when the enrollment targets had been scaled 

back to address expected shortfalls. There are varied views of why 

participant recruitment has been so challenging and what the most 

promising strategies for boosting enrollment are. Undoubtedly, 

staffing changes and shortfalls were likely important factors. 

Additional likely reasons for this continued challenge include

features of the Philadelphia geography (i.e., a large, sprawling 

city) and its diffuse system of community-based organizations. 

For example, one PTC-P staff member we interviewed expressed 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 30

Fostering Strong Relationships with 

Peirce College Staff: “Right now, I 

have a great relationship with the two 

point persons—one in admissions and 

one in financial aid for Peirce. We're 

moving these things much better, more 

efficiently.” (PTC-P Staff) 

pessimism, citing persistent challenges breaking into the “insular Philadelphia market,” which has many 

“shallow” community partnerships, “none of which is deep enough to be [a] strong source of recruits.”

Persistent struggles to meet enrollment targets may have been exacerbated recently by the new Associate 

Director of Admissions splitting time between the Wilmington and Philadelphia program locations. 

However, this split assignment recently ended. This change consequently coincided with the program 

coming much closer to meeting its enrollment target in the most recent recruitment cycle (91 percent). 

Philadelphia city schools have been a major source of referrals. However, due to the timing of graduation, 

staff noted that the schools were generally most helpful in recruiting for the July cohorts. Staff turnover at 

the schools also hampered efforts to build strong, enduring pipelines for referrals. 

We also heard from multiple staff that a Year Up National policy against accepting government funds 

limited their access to many area community-based organizations such as Philly Works as referral 

sources. However, our communications with members of Year Up National staff suggest that there may 

have been a miscommunication about this policy. 

Finally, several staff pointed to the relatively weak alumni network as an impediment to recruitment 

success in the past. Staff highlighted recent successful efforts to grow the alumni network and strengthen 

alumni engagement on many fronts, from recruitment to job search and post-program support. Staff 

members attribute these improvements to the purposeful efforts supported by the Year Up National 

Alumni Team. A stronger alumni network could help to improve participant recruitment through word-ofmouth referrals from alumni.

2.3.2 Coordination between PTC-P and Peirce College

Over the course of PTC-P’s implementation, PTC-P and Peirce College staff have been able to streamline 

recruitment and enrollment—a collaborative process is now in place to ensure that PTC-P participants are 

supported through their admissions into the PTC program and 

Peirce College. Likewise, PTC-P and Peirce College now have 

increased data sharing, and there is a growing interest from the new 

Peirce Director of Admissions to support PTC-P recruitment 

efforts. While coordination has improved on those fronts, 

orientation for new participants has yet to be fully integrated 

between PTC-P and Peirce College, which may influence outcomes 

for youth enrolled in the program. 

The PTC-P program and Peirce College coordinated application and admission processes.

Early on, there were major challenges sharing data on participants prior to and during the program. In 

contrast, in the most recent round of site visits, Peirce College admissions staff reported that, for two 

reasons, communication has improved significantly over the past two years. First, the new Associate 

Director of Admissions at the PTC-P program had worked with the Peirce College Dean of Admissions 

prior to joining PTC-P in early 2017. Building on this existing relationship, the two have set up quarterly 

team meetings and a collaborative spreadsheet for tracking admissions data. Second, beginning in mid2017, the PTC-P and Peirce Admissions and Financial Aid staff were co-located, allowing for both formal 

and informal contact. This co-location made it easier for prospective participants to meet with admissions 

staff at PTC-P and Peirce College in a single visit.

In addition, in the recent round of interviews, staff at Peirce College reported that since hiring a new 

Director of Admissions, senior administrators at the college have expressed renewed interest in and 

willingness to play a more active role in the recruitment of youth who will dually enroll in Peirce College 

and the PTC-P program. Examples of joint marketing efforts include the production and use of cobranded recruitment materials and some increased participation by Peirce College staff and instructors at 

PTC-P recruitment events.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 31

The process of screening and enrolling new participants at Peirce College is well coordinated. 

As of mid-2018, a collaborative system was in place to ensure that PTC-P participants receive support 

throughout the admissions process. This begins with PTC-P staff inputting information about 

conditionally accepted PTC-P applicants into a spreadsheet that is shared with the Peirce College 

Admissions staff. Thereafter, PTC-P and Peirce College staff share responsibility for ensuring that 

applicants complete enrollment at the college, which mainly entails filling out paperwork, since Peirce 

College has “open admission.” PTC-P program staff shoulder responsibility for scheduling placement 

tests for accepted applicants and referring them to the Peirce College financial aid services. Peirce 

College staff assume primary responsibility for following up with PTC-P applicants to ensure they 

complete their financial aid application, enrollment form, and a survey to assess resource needs—this last, 

a recent addition. 

The first three cohorts of youth enrolled in the PTC-P program were not required to take placement tests 

prior to the admission decision—a practice that was consistent with Peirce College’s open admission

policy. However, because many early participants were not well prepared for the demands of college 

coursework, participants are now required to take the tests as a means of improving academic advising on 

course selection and planning of support services. That said, placement tests pose an additional hurdle for 

prospective PTC-P applicants and likely contributes to challenges meeting recruitment targets. 

Another recent change is the requirement introduced by the new Dean of Admissions at Peirce College to 

have incoming PTC-P participants complete the survey to assess their need for and access to resources to 

help them thrive academically at Peirce College. The survey is administered by the Peirce College 

Academic Advisor, who, as needed, also works with participants to develop support and resource plans in 

advance of the start of courses. This process has the added benefit of ensuring that participants meet their 

Academic Advisor early on and learn about supports the Advisor can provide.

PTC-P and Peirce College have not yet found a way to coordinate their orientations.

Since the beginning, staff at the PTC-P program and at Peirce College have looked for opportunities to 

coordinate their orientations as a means of building a stronger sense of community and shared culture. 

However, the PTC-P program does not officially admit applicants to the program until they successfully 

complete the first two days of its orientation (commonly referred to as “pre-orientation”),19 which 

sometimes is after the Peirce College orientation. The rationale for the PTC-P program’s conditional 

acceptance policy is to signal to prospective participants the importance of the Year Up participant 

contract and allow program staff to see how participants react during orientation to complying with the 

program’s academic and behavioral expectations. 

Some staff continue to view the separate orientations as a lost opportunity to help the PTC-P participants 

feel more a part of the college community; other staff have noted that more fundamental barriers to 

creating this sense of community are the age gap between the PTC-P participants and the traditional 

Peirce College student and that there is little to no overlap in the time when the two groups of students are 

at the college. 

A more consequential concern is that the PTC-P program tends to run its recruitment right up to the start 

of orientation and then does not make final admissions decisions until the end of orientation. As a result, 

Peirce College does not have final class enrollment figures until very close to the first day of classes or, in 

some cases, after classes begin. This, in turn, affects planning for the number of instructors needed, 

classroom space, and textbook orders. Peirce College is left balancing concerns about optimal staffing of 

courses and space allocation with cost considerations. 

 

19 In the last two years, the PTC-P program relied more heavily than it had in the past on pre-orientation as a way to 

identify conditionally accepted applicants who exhibit signs that they may not be well-prepared for the program. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 32

2.3.3 Efforts to Improve Recruitment 

Results from the mini-study conducted in 2015 to inform possible strategies for improving PTC-P’s 

recruitment and retention offered two major recommendations (Maynard & Fein, 2015). One focused on 

expansion and diversification of the applicant pool to facilitate meeting enrollment targets and to improve 

fit. In particular, it noted the desirability of being able to accept more participants with the following 

characteristics: (1) their interests were well aligned with the vocational offerings of the PTC-P; (2) they 

had manageable need for social supports; (3) they were adequately prepared academically; and (4) they 

had the psycho-social skills and maturity required to succeed. The second recommendation was to 

consider strategies for remediation prior to enrollment; for example, through bootcamps or combinations 

of face-to-face, synchronous online, and non-interactive online classes. 

In our recent site visit, PTC-P program staff reported pursuing three approaches to improving recruitment. 

First, they reported making more deliberate efforts to prioritize recruiting youth who are a “better fit” for 

the program, and thus are more likely to persist, over simply meeting enrollment targets. Second, staff 

reported working to expand the referral pipeline to other community organizations serving PTC-P’s target 

population and to rely more on referrals through word-of-mouth approaches. Third, with the help of a new 

Regional Director of Recruitment and Admissions, the staff are working to tighten up the recruitment and 

admissions processes. 

The PTC-P program participants are broadly like those served by other PTC programs.

Despite concerted efforts by program staff over several years, enrollment numbers are still hovering 

around 50 participants per cohort. Although the characteristics of participants in Philadelphia generally 

reflect the profile of youth the PTC programs target and the characteristics of participants across all PTC 

programs (see Table 5 above), they differ in important respects. For example, fewer than five percent of 

the Philadelphia sample, as compared with 15 percent of the participants in all PTC programs had a 

criminal record, and a smaller share of the Philadelphia participants than overall reported having attended 

college prior to enrolling in the PTC program (37 percent versus 48 percent, respectively). What is 

especially interesting is that the characteristics of participants in the Philadelphia program and of 

participants in PTC programs overall vary considerably across enrollment cohorts (Appendix Tables A.1 

and A.2, respectively, Volume II). Moreover, there is no obvious pattern to the variability. 

Efforts to diversify the referral network. At the time the interim implementation study report was 

released (Fein & Maynard, 2015), the PTC-P program outreach had focused most intensively on 

prospective or recent graduates from traditional city high schools serving predominantly disadvantaged 

youth (including alternative and vocational schools) and on some prominent community groups serving 

opportunity youth. However, one Year Up National staff member who examined a list of partnerships 

characterized it as small for a city as large as Philadelphia: “There were roughly two to three referral 

organizations, when there should have been close to 15.” 

As of mid-2018, the PTC-P program has begun to broaden its outreach. More specifically, the admissions 

team is proactively connecting with an array of non-traditional high schools, including technical and trade 

schools that have multiple graduation dates per year, and is tapping interested opportunity youth served 

by community-based organizations (e.g., churches and community centers). 

Increasing referrals via word of mouth. Word of mouth has always been an important source of referrals 

for PTC-P. However, a member of the Year Up National staff who is familiar with the Philadelphia 

market reported that unlike other PTC programs, the PTC-P program tends to receive many referrals 

through digital advertising and is much less reliant on referrals through community organizations and 

word of mouth than are other PTC programs in other markets. Only in the most recent site visits did we 

hear that the Philadelphia program was intentionally shifting its recruitment efforts to increase referrals 

from word of mouth (e.g., former participants, friends and families of former participants, current or 

former teachers). Staff also reported that they had begun more proactively following up with youth who 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 33

previously applied for the program and seemed like strong prospects but possibly were not ready at the 

time of their initial application. 

Involvement of a Regional Director of Recruitment and Admissions and an expanded admissions team.

As of March 2018, Year Up reorganized recruitment and admissions responsibilities for all PTC programs 

under a regionalized staff structure. Under the new structure, a Regional Director of Recruitment and 

Admissions (often a veteran Year Up admissions and recruitment staff member) now manages the local 

admissions team and is co-accountable for recruitment and admissions performance metrics. A stated goal 

of this restructuring is to ensure that PTC programs across the country have the benefit of a seasoned and 

experienced leader while also providing relief to local Program Directors, who already have heavy 

responsibilities (e.g., significant managerial responsibilities of a highly specialized business function).

Since March 2018, the Regional Director of Recruitment and Admissions working with the Philadelphia 

program has been spending time in admissions decisions meetings and examining current processes to 

identify pain points and strategies for improvement. Among the changes that have been instituted are 

tightening up the admissions assessment process and establishing clearer criteria for academic and 

program readiness. To these ends, the PTC-P program recently added an additional Admissions 

Coordinator to support these efforts and renewed efforts to strengthen the participation of Peirce College 

administrators in outreach efforts. Notably, the admissions team recently dismissed the Admissions 

Manager (August 2018), which reduced the size of the team, but according to one staff member of Year 

Up National, it may also have helped “flatten out the organizational hierarchy.” 

2.4 PTC-P Learning and Development Phase

PTC-P’s six-month L&D phase focuses on academic and occupational skills development, professional 

behavior and other non-academic skills, and negotiating life challenges outside of the program. This next 

section provides insights from PTC-P program and Peirce College administrative staff on the extent to 

which services received by program participants align with plans and on how program execution has 

changed over time. It also highlights aspects of the program in need of improvement. 

2.4.1 Curriculum Alignment and Customization 

In the early cycles of the program, PTC-P and Peirce College staff hammered out the basic L&D 

curriculum. Since then, they have continued to collaborate effectively on refining and strengthening the 

academic program. A recent example was a joint effort of the PTC-P program’s previous Executive 

Director and Peirce College administrators to monitor and harmonize learning objectives and assignments 

between Year Up’s signature Career Development and Interpersonal Relationships (CDIR) course and 

Peirce College’s orientation course (Student Success Seminar/PRC 100). They have now successfully 

integrated critical components of PRC 100 into the three-credit CDIR course developed by Year Up and 

taught primarily by PTC-P staff as a Peirce College course. CDIR now has units such as navigating 

college and effective use of library resources, which are taught by Peirce College instructors. PTC-P 

participants must pass CDIR in order to move on to an internship. 

Some Peirce College staff have argued for better screening of participants in the IT track. 

At the time of the interim implementation study, Peirce College instructors had expressed some 

uncertainty about how best to respond to poor academic performance of some participants (Fein & 

Maynard, 2015). Some instructors believed that the root of the problem was a lack of interest in 

information technology, which resulted in lack of effort in the courses. Their suggestion was to weight 

interest in IT more heavily when deciding whether to admit applicants. Other instructors offered different 

diagnoses and proposed solutions, including (1) reducing the rigor of courses; (2) altering instructional 

approaches; (3) increasing academic supports; and/or (4) raising skills requirements for enrolling in 

courses. Then and now, the PTC-P program staff reported being averse to reducing the rigor of courses, 

which they feared would undermine the value of credits earned. Rather they favored working to 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 34

Customer Service Track: “We are 

currently...developing a Customer Service 

proposal for frontline employees.... We would 

introduce that curriculum to Year Up.... It’s so 

easy that it would make sense, especially for the 

Business Ops folks.” (Peirce College Staff)

Peirce Tries to Respond to the Market: 

“Anytime we have a concept, [we study] what the 

industry needs are, what competitors are 

doing.... [W]ill we be able to compete? How long 

is the ROI...[and the] outcome for the students?”

(Peirce College Staff)

strengthen instructional approaches and supports. However, judging from focus groups with participants 

and reports from staff at the program and the college, not much has changed to strengthen instructional 

approaches and supports. 

There was general agreement that more careful assessment and screening for interest would be helpful. 

Recognizing that the PTC-P admissions team is balancing 

concerns over meeting enrollment targets with closeness of 

match on vocational interests, the main response by the 

PTC-P program and Peirce College staff has been to adjust 

the IT curriculum in ways intended to make it a better 

springboard for training and jobs in other fields that may 

be of greater interest to otherwise well-qualified 

applicants. As an example, PTC-P curriculum has been 

adjusted to include a stronger focus on Excel training 

during L&D and in bootcamps offered between the L&D 

and Internship phases. The PTC-P program also now 

employs a full-time IT instructor who provides ongoing 

support to participants in this field of study. 

Finally, staff reported that in response to market signals that many of the Help Desk positions for which 

participants currently are being prepared either no longer exist or are being outsourced, Peirce College is 

currently working on developing a new Customer Service career track that potentially could be added to 

the curriculum. 

Communication on course scheduling, ordering textbooks, and troubleshooting has improved. 

After filling the position of Associate Director of Program in 2017, PTC-P’s communication with Peirce 

College on academic issues reportedly improved considerably. Notably, PTC-P and Peirce College staff 

began timely communications on important issues such as the optimal number and qualifications of 

instructors, course sections, and classrooms assignments. Mindful of the importance of minimizing costs, 

staff in the two organizations also worked together to create an inventory of used books for PTC-P 

participants to draw from, reducing the number that the Dean of Academic Operations and Faculty 

Support at Peirce College needs to purchase. 

2.4.2 Promoting Academic Success through L&D

Both PTC-P and Year Up National staff raised concerns during our 2014 site visits about academic 

performance and failure of many participants to successfully complete L&D, which led to a companion 

mini-study focused on exploring causes and potential remedies of the high attrition from L&D (Maynard 

& Fein, 2015). According to Peirce College instructors interviewed for that mini-study, notable numbers 

of participants were struggling with both technical and academic classes and there were likely myriad 

factors in their struggles. Among the factors cited included the following: lack of critical foundational 

skills; failure to meet behavioral expectations of the PTC program (e.g., tardiness, improper dress) and/or 

of the instructor (e.g., failure to complete assignments, attend classes regularly, remain attentive in class); 

and personal challenges (e.g., social-emotional issues, childcare or eldercare responsibilities, 

homelessness, breakdown in transportation). 

Both PTC-P and college staff reported that few participants were taking advantage of instructors’ office 

hours and other academic supports offered by the college. Notably, the Peirce College instructors and 

staff, who are used to working with older adult learners, reported that they did not view it as their 

responsibility to proactively attempt to address performance concerns of individual PTC-P program 

participants. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 35

Another major concern raised by the PTC-P staff early on was that substantial numbers of participants 

were approaching the end of L&D before their coaches became aware that they were at risk of “firing 

themselves” from the program due to poor performance. By that point in L&D, there was little the PTC-P 

program staff or the college instructors could do to help participants recover. 

More recently, there has been a concerted effort to identify academic performance and other support 

issues early in the program. There remain challenges related to communication with instructors and 

ensuring that academic problems are flagged in a timely manner. However, as discussed further below, 

there have been some marked improvements in early identification of and response to academic 

challenges. 

Routinely reviewing academic performance is key to timely response to challenges. 

Building on the results of the mini-study (Maynard & Fein, 2015), by late 2016 the PTC-P program staff 

began working on finding ways to identify participants experiencing academic difficulty at the earliest 

possible point and to provide instrumental supports to help get them back on track. The earliest efforts 

were aimed at improving communication between college instructors and PTC-P program staff and

coaches on issues related to participants’ engagement with and performance in their college courses. For 

example, PTC-P program staff redoubled their efforts to make more and better use of Peirce College’s 

learning management system (LMS) and to have more regular contact with the college’s Academic 

Advisor. 

However, finding that these types of efforts had serious limitations, the PTC-P staff agreed to engage in a 

more ambitious effort to work with other PTC programs and Year Up National to develop and rigorously 

test alternatives to its usual strategies for monitoring and supporting academics during L&D. The 

alternative strategies that ended up being tested and their effectiveness are discussed in Chapter 3. 

The Student Services team helps with early identification of and response to issues.

In May 2016, the PTC-P program created a Student Services 

Team (comprising two Managers and one Intern) in line 

with a Year Up National standard change in policy for PTC 

staffing. The goal for the Student Services Managers—both 

with master’s degrees in social work—is to identify 

participants’ support needs as early as possible and connect 

those in need with appropriate services and resources. The 

Student Services Team (and more recently, their 

counterparts at Peirce College) begin by looking for and 

tracking participants identified during the initial application 

interviews, adding to their list of participants in need over 

time. They “red flag” issues in the PTC-P program 

management information system. Then, as circumstances 

change for participants, the team develops and/or revises 

their plans, as appropriate. 

The Student Services Team has compiled a compendium of resources and services that may be helpful for 

participants. One Student Services Manager claimed, “I literally did a search in Center City...and 

then...all around Philly...and then I looked at other nonprofit organizations.... I gathered [a list of] about 

15 different community resources.” Not only does the compendium of resources help the Student Services 

Team, but it also is available for other staff to access as warranted. The Student Services Team also has 

set up some in-house services, such as a substance abuse counseling group, testing for sexually 

transmitted infections, and clothing donation drives, none of which was available on-site two years ago. 

Develop Plans during Admissions Process:

“If childcare is not in place, [participants] 

are...unlikely to be successful.... We work with 

admissions [and the], Student Services Team... 

to create a plan.” (PTC-P Staff) 

Positive Response to the Student Services 

Team: “The one...working really well is our 

Student Services Team.... They've been able to 

do [a lot] in terms of career wardrobe, pop-up 

shop, resource fair.... We start supporting even 

before they come into orientation. So, if...they 

need childcare, we help ... get [it]; if they [need] 

a record...expunged....” (PTC-P Staff) 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 36

Less Behavioral Accountability in Peirce College 

Classes: “The .... behavior standard that Peirce upholds 

is way less than the YU [standard]. .... Students 

[Participants] are pretty much running crazy in Peirce 

classes. No one is saying no .... Students [Participants] 

are not being held accountable.” (PTC-P Staff) 

More New Faculty: “We have more new faculty 

teaching in Year Up programs than we do in other 

classes.” (Peirce College Staff)

Adjuncts Unfamiliar with the Target 

Demographic Group for the PTC Program: “The 

full-timers [who have been with the program for a 

while] get it.... I sense the adjuncts get more 

frustrated cause they’re not used to dealing with 

that.” (Peirce College Staff)

Uninspiring Teaching Styles: “I observe some 

classes, and the teachers literally stand still, have 

one way of teaching. They tell the [participants], 

‘Hey, read this.’... There's no breaking the 

[participants] up in, like, projects.” (PTC-P Staff) 

In the most recent round of site visits, several staff noted that the new Student Services Team has been 

crucial to running an effective program. They reported that this team has been able to connect participants 

with the right kinds of supports and troubleshoot a range of issues that, in prior L&D cycles, the program 

had been unable to deal with effectively. Staff described this team as critical for improving retention 

during L&D. 

Enforcement of behavioral expectations in college courses remains a challenge. 

Two basic aspects of the PTC program design make enforcement of the Year Up participant contract 

more challenging than in Year Up’s core program. 

First, PTC staff members spend much less time with 

participants than do core program staff, since most 

of the participants’ classes are taught by college 

instructors. Second, PTC staff have limited ability to 

monitor attendance and behavior in college classes, 

as well as compliance with course requirements. 

In principle, it would be possible to institute a practice whereby instructors proactively share information 

on participant attendance, behavior, and performance with PTC-P program staff. However, from the 

beginning, Peirce College administrators have held firm in their preference that PTC-P program staff 

should be responsible for enforcement of the Year Up participant contract, which requires gathering their 

own information about participant compliance with behavioral expectations. PTC-P program staff 

continue to be frustrated by their inability to access even class attendance information easily (e.g., by 

sitting in on or visiting classes while in session). However, they have come up with some promising 

workarounds, which are discussed further in Chapter 3.

Commonly used instructional strategies and course formats are suboptimal for some youth. 

PTC-P program staff report having generally favorable views about the quality of the full-time instructors 

who teach courses for PTC-P participants. However, both 

staff and participants have suggested that participants 

would benefit from more frequent, timely, and better 

feedback on their work; shorter instructional time blocks 

(i.e., two hours or less); more engaging instructional 

methods; and more and better access to instructors 

outside of class time (Fein & Maynard, 2015). Staff and 

participants also have expressed concerns about lack of 

interest, attention, and instructional quality of some of the 

instructors—particularly some of the newer and/or 

adjunct instructors who lack experience working with the 

demographic population that Year Up targets. Adjuncts 

tend to come to campus only to teach their courses, 

making it difficult for participants to get to know them 

and to receive face-to-face help when needed. 

Peirce College administrators acknowledge this concern and attempt to assign full-time instructors to 

PTC-P classes when they can. However, the reality is that the majority of Peirce College instructors are 

adjuncts; as a result, PTC-P program staff are working to compensate by improving participant access to 

and use of on-campus study halls and tutoring resources. 

Another important change being implemented in the 2018-19 academic year is the coordination of 

schedule planning for PTC-P and Peirce College courses. As a result, Peirce instructors will be informed 

about PTC-P courses at the same time they are informed about other course offerings. This will provide 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 37

Recommend More Joint Programming: 

“I think it’s joint programming outside of the 

classroom. It’s us showing up at...Friday 

Forum.... And not showing up as a 

stranger.... That is something we did...a 

better job with many years ago.” (Peirce 

College Staff) 

greater flexibility for instructors to self-select into teaching the PTC-P courses; in the past, Year Up 

courses were often the last to be staffed. 

The jury is out on the use of online courses. 

Peirce College uses a model of instruction—Peirce “Fit”—that blends face-to-face and online instruction 

and coursework. The online instruction and coursework are offered as modules that students can work 

through to complete the course requirements and demonstrate their understanding of the subject matter 

through an on-line test. The online (out-of-class) component of these courses is a way for Peirce College 

to meet federal requirements for instructional time in courses, while also addressing schedule flexibility 

needs of working adult learners. 

PTC-P program staff raised concerns that the online modules may not work well for many PTC-P 

participants for two reasons. First, many PTC-P participants are able to work on the modules, including 

the tests, in groups. As a result, some staff raised concerns that some participants may be exiting the 

course with a passing grade but without having mastered important content. Another more practical 

concern is that many PTC-P participants lack reliable access to the internet. One PTC-P staff member 

interviewed said: “[Most of our participants] don’t have access to computers at home, or the willpower to 

sit down and do it.... You get a code, and you essentially move through the material on your own.... And 

that doesn’t work with our young adults.” 

Communication with instructors and joint programming efforts with the college are rare.

Early in the program, there were conscious efforts by both the 

PTC-P program and Peirce College staff to improve 

coordination of activities such as orientation and Friday Forums. 

Initially, efforts at coordination helped build familiarity with the 

Year Up participant contract among Peirce College faculty, with 

the hope that they would assume a role in monitoring 

participants’ behaviors. However, over time, coordination of 

activities with Peirce College staff and their participation in 

PTC-P events have waned. For example, one PTC-P staff member noted: “I reached out to all the 

instructors to invite them to a meet-and-greet or chat-and-chill. I think we got like two people that 

responded.” 

Recently, PTC-P made study hall and tutoring mandatory for participants three days a week, up from one 

day a week (previously noted in the interim implementation study report). This seemingly small change 

has increased participant access to Peirce College staff and use of college resources. Additionally, the 

PTC-P and Peirce College staff now have more opportunities to observe participants and, therefore, to 

reinforce their institution’s behavioral and performance expectations, as well as to encourage participants 

to take advantage of academic resources and supports at the college. Staff reportedly have been discussing 

ways to create even more touchpoints with participants; for example, they discussed dividing some 

courses into more, shorter class periods (most classes are two to four hours long). 

Efforts to create a cohesive learning community have proved fruitful. 

Early on, the PTC-P program staff struggled to find ways to create cohesive learning communities—a 

struggle they attributed to the limited time participants were spending in structured activities with other 

participants and with PTC-P program staff. Judging by feedback from participants interviewed in 2014 

and those interviewed in 2018, it appears that the mid-course changes mandating thrice weekly 

participation in study hall and proactively encouraging participants to use on-site tutoring and on-campus 

study spaces have fostered a stronger sense of community among participants and stronger ties between 

participants and PTC-P program staff. For example, in the latest round of interviews, participants reported 

frequently studying together in the college library. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 38

2.5 PTC-P Internship Phase

Every PTC-P participant who successfully completes the L&D phase is guaranteed a six-month internship 

with a weekly stipend of up to $150. Thus, each PTC program is expected to secure enough employersponsored, quality internship seats to serve all program participants who successfully complete L&D. 

Additionally, Year Up expects that mature PTC programs will be able to fully support their costs through 

“internship sales” (see further discussion of the financial model for PTC programs in Section 2.6 below). 

As of July 2018, the Philadelphia program was still struggling to obtain enough fully sponsored 

internships to meet its need. The reasons appear to be complex. Two factors commonly cited by staff are 

(1) recent trends towards the outsourcing of many IT jobs by some of Philadelphia’s large IT employers; 

and (2) the sprawling nature of the city and a mismatch between the location of target employers and 

homes of participants. 

From early on, the PTC-P program began relying on multiple corporate partners in Wilmington, 

Delaware, for many of its sponsored internships. However, with the recent opening of the PTC program 

in Wilmington, reliance on Wilmington-based internship spots is even less practical for Philadelphia than 

it was when commuting time and costs were the primary disadvantages. Now there is the additional issue 

of a preference that internships with Wilmington employers be prioritized for participants in the 

Wilmington PTC program. 

Despite continued challenges securing internships seats, the PTC-P program has implemented some 

promising changes in the past three years. The PTC-P Corporate Engagement Team was expanded 

increasing capacity to scour the local market for new employer partners and work on corporate partner 

retention. An orientation was implemented to train and support new internship managers and the PTC-P 

program team has strengthened its commitment to introducing participants to corporate partners prior to 

entering their internships. These and other initiatives help promote greater employer awareness about the 

PTC program and prepare those who sponsor internships for the arrival of new interns. Additionally, there 

have been improvements in participant tracking and communication during internships, with the goal of 

improving support for interns and internship managers/corporate partners and increasing retention of both 

interns and corporate sponsors. 

The following subsections discuss experiences with internship development, placement, participant 

retention in internships, retention of corporate partners, managing the internship experience, and the 

challenges in and opportunities for expanding internship positions. 

2.5.1 Internship Development, Placement, and Retention 

To date, the PTC-P program has placed nearly 72 percent of participants (about 300) in internships; of 

those placed in internships, about 80 percent complete them (57 percent of all participants; see Table 2 

above). National firms in the financial services and IT sectors (e.g., Comcast, Bank of New York Mellon, 

Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and US Liability Insurance) sponsor most of the internship 

positions. A few local employer sponsors provide the balance of internship positions. Interns work in 

varied types of jobs, including, for example, helpdesk support for desktop and network issues, software 

quality assurance/testing, website support/development, information security, project coordination, and 

accounting.

As noted previously, securing enough internship seats has been a persistent challenge for PTC-P. 

Although Year Up National’s employer sponsors generated sufficient numbers of positions for the first

two cohorts, it was necessary beginning with the third cycle of enrollees to expand the pool of employer 

partners. However, to achieve the number of internships guaranteed to participants who completed L&D, 

the PTC-P staff needed to rely on a sizeable number of “investment seats” (i.e., internships not paid for by 

employers), and a high fraction of the internships (sponsored and investment seats) were with firms that 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 39

were distant from participants’ homes. For example, a disproportionate share of PTC-P program 

participants reside in the far northeast, west, and southwest areas of Philadelphia, but most of the 

internship positions to date have been in Center City, southern New Jersey, and Wilmington. 

2.5.2 Managing the Internship Experience 

Employers interviewed for this study uniformly praised the PTC-P program’s emphasis on professional 

skills and behavior. That said, both employers and PTC-P program staff reported that interns often need 

more time than is typical for new hires to acclimate to work sites and proficiently apply the skills taught 

in their college courses. The additional time needed to acclimate suggests that a high retention rate and 

minimal recorded participant contract violations during internships may be useful but imperfect signals of 

participants’ readiness for the workforce. Recognizing the imperfection of these metrics, program staff 

have drawn on employer recommendations for improving the internship experience and fostering more 

constructive feedback during the internship. 

A new internship manager orientation helps prepare managers to better support interns. 

Early on, the PTC-P program did not provide formal orientation for internship managers. Instead, there 

was a meeting at the corporate site where managers received a brief introduction to Year Up. Recently, 

PTC programs have instituted “new manager orientations,” which has internship managers coming to the 

PTC program site to learn about the Year Up culture and to meet staff and participants. The orientations 

cover the logistics of the internship, but also engage the managers in interactive experiences to prepare 

them for common “situations” that might arise while hosting an intern. Results from the mini-study on 

setting up successful internships indicated that new manager orientations have been a useful means for 

engaging managers early on in the process and are now becoming common practice at many PTC sites 

(Baelen et al., 2018). In addition, the Associate Director of Partner Relations now works closely with the 

internship managers to make sure they are ready to onboard their interns and provides ongoing support to 

the managers throughout the internship experience. 

PTC-P staff have increased their efforts to engage corporate partners beyond the internship.

During L&D, program participants and PTC-P program staff now take participants to visit facilities of 

corporate partners currently hosting interns and/or that have former interns on their staffs. Afterwards, 

participants make presentations about their experiences to PTC-P staff and peers. One PTC-P staff 

member shared, “The idea is we don’t want participants to feel like they are being dropped in a foreign 

planet when they arrive at internship.” The PTC-P program also has increased the frequency of corporate 

partner visits to the program. For example, employers are routinely invited to judge elevator pitch 

contests, spend time with participants on corporate partner days, and join Monday Morning Kickoffs or 

Friday Forums. Staff noted: “[These things] help create a bond with the participants from the 

beginning.” 

New PTC-P staff roles have increased focus on fostering relationships with corporate partners.

As early as the third year of the program, there was a plan to hire a Sales Manager and shift the Associate 

Program Director’s focus to ongoing corporate relationship management. This was expected to facilitate 

early identification and troubleshooting of challenges for interns, as well as to strengthen preparation of 

and processes at work sites. As noted above, there is now a much larger team to support PTC-P internship 

sales and relationships with corporate partners, including a Director of Corporate Engagement who 

oversees corporate partnerships and helps to secure internship seats; an Internship Services Manager; an 

Internship Services Coordinator (one of three people in the position across the national network of PTC 

programs) who oversee the internship experience from the participant-facing side; and an Associate 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 40

Tracking & Collaboration Between Internship 

Services & Corporate Engagement Teams: “None 

of that tracking was in place when I got here .... [W]e 

came up with the tracking report. I have weekly 

meeting with internship services .... to review all 

check-ins and intern concerns.” (PTC-P Staff)

Lack of Selectivity in Internship 

Seats: “The internship seats ... 

sometimes ... we just take what we 

can get [but] ....” (PTC-P Staff) 

Director of Partner Relations who manages the relationships with mid-level staff at the corporate partner 

sites.20 

The aim is to improve not only the quantity of paid internships, but 

also their quality. With a larger team focused on corporate 

partnerships, the internship services staff also have begun helping to 

teach the newly developed CDIR course. This allows this team to 

connect with participants while they are still in L&D. Reported one 

member of the Internship Services team: “When we actually had a chance to teach, the participants saw 

us in a different capacity versus just an LC member or a staff that leisurely walks the hallways.”

Increased tracking of internship experiences benefits participants and corporate partners. 

In an effort to improve internship experiences and outcomes, the Internship Services Team reported 

having recently begun tracking the experiences of interns through weekly status reports and check-in calls 

with managers. By collecting weekly time sheets from 

interns and recording notes from check-in calls with 

managers, the Internship Services Manager and 

Coordinator now have a better sense of interns’ 

experiences and can more readily identify issues 

warranting their attention.21 

The Internship Services Team also works closely with other teams to promote effective use of 

information on prior internship experiences. For example, this team works closely with Employment 

Placement Managers (EPMs) to share information that will prepare intern supervisors to help program 

participants as they start their job search. Likewise, they can share information with coaches to inform 

conversations the coaches have with participants and, as warranted, guide support service referrals. 

The Associate Director of Partner Relations also uses the information and insights collected from 

managers during weekly check-in calls to guide follow-up with higher-level executives at the corporate 

partner sites. For example, having learned that an intern was struggling with Excel projects, the Associate 

Director of Partner Relations might arrange Excel tutoring for the intern. Although Year Up National 

works with PTC-P staff to administer a manager survey twice during each Internship phase, PTC-P 

program staff did not mention this as a source of information they used to guide their work.

2.5.3 Challenges and Opportunities to Expand Internship Positions

The PTC-P program continues to struggle with securing enough sponsored internship seats for reasons 

noted previously. To address challenges associated with securing internship seats, PTC-P and Peirce 

College have begun discussing the prospect of developing new training tracks or broadening the L&D 

curriculum to prepare participants for other career opportunities that could potentially open doors to a 

new set of corporate partners. 

Securing internship seats for this Central City–based program remains a challenge. 

In the early years of the program, the PTC-P program staff significantly misjudged the lead-time required 

to build strong buy-in at multiple levels from target companies to become corporate partners sponsoring 

 

20 See Appendix G, Volume II, for the most recent organizational chart of the PTC-P program, which incorporates 

changes that have occurred since the data collection for this evaluation concluded. 21 The Internship Services Team keeps a record of all weekly calls with managers in a spreadsheet that is eventually 

shared with coaches and discussed each Friday by the Internship Services Team and the Associate Director of 

Partner Relations. This spreadsheet also includes an “interns of concern tracker”; the frequency of follow-up with 

the intern and/or manager is determined by the level of concern.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 41

Refocus on New Internship Providers: “IT 

is awesome, financial operations is 

awesome, but in Philadelphia we have major 

hospitals. We are a leader in that type of 

stuff and our college is.” (PTC-P Staff) 

internships. Staff assumed that with additional time they would meet their targets, which proved overly 

optimistic. The program continues to rely on substantial numbers of unpaid, investment seats. In addition 

to the financial implications for Year Up, these investment seats reportedly lack the same quality of 

commitment by the employer that is typical for sponsored seats. Staff reported that they commonly place 

the less well prepared interns in these seats. 

Finding workable transportation solutions continues to be a challenge. 

For most of the program’s life, a majority of the PTC-P participants have been placed in internships with 

firms located in the Wilmington area. However, now that Wilmington has its own PTC site, the intent is 

to shift internship positions for the PTC-P program to Philadelphia. The “solution” for Philadelphia youth 

placed at firms in Wilmington has been, reported one staff member, “[for them to] take a shuttle, cause 

they’re really far out. And then...[we] give them a stipend [for] a $205 trans pass.” This is a financial 

burden for the program and a big time commitment for interns. Some of the most promising alternatives 

to the Wilmington corporate partners are located in the near suburban regions of Philadelphia, which also 

can be a long commute for many participants. 

The PTC-P team is exploring the possibility of moving into other training tracks. 

Complicating the work of the Internship Services Team in Philadelphia is the shifting local labor market. 

As noted before, staff are finding it increasingly difficult to place participants in IT-related positions—a 

situation they attribute, in part, to an increase in the outsourcing of helpdesk positions by area employers. 

This has raised questions about whether PTC-P should adopt an approach to the selection of career tracks 

and curriculum planning that is more flexible and customersolutions focused. In addition to simply making the case for 

more effective placement and oversight of interns, a focus on 

customer solutions potentially would allow for more timely 

adjustments in the emphasis the program places on particular 

training tracks. 

Strategies for shifting emphasis to include additional or different career tracks could range from 

supplementing existing courses with short workshop series and bootcamps in specific software 

applications, to revising the L&D curriculum to include different courses and pathways to credentials 

currently offered by Peirce College. Another strategy that reportedly has been discussed is creating a new 

Customer Service track. However, there also have been discussions of working harder to secure IT 

placements in hospitals, which is Philadelphia’s largest employer group. 

The PTC-P program has undertaken a short-term step towards expanding its prospective employer 

sponsor network by supplementing its current IT training with an additional Excel course. While there 

was no mention in the most recent interviews about creating additional bootcamps or workshops focused 

on specific software applications, in previous site visits staff had expressed interest in teaching HTML 

and other coding techniques. 

Staff are pondering the benefits of adding other career tracks or switching from IT altogether.

Both Peirce College administrators and the PTC-P staff have reported questioning whether, given that 

many participants are expressing interests in fields other than IT, they should adjust the nature of both the 

L&D curriculum and the target internship experiences to include earlier exposure to and opportunities for 

entering different occupational tracks. With respect to academic requirements, administrators also have 

expressed support for offering internships structured so that the college credits for the internship course 

could be counted towards requirements across a range of the college’s IT and non-IT degree and 

certificate programs. At the same time, given the PTC-P program’s current emphasis, both PTC-P and 

Peirce College staff have stressed the importance of continuing to prioritize recruiting youth who are 

genuinely interested in IT, while recognizing that skills in IT also may prepare them for careers in related 

fields. PTC-P program staff, like staff at other PTC programs, are consciously considering the benefits 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 42

and downsides of more rigorous selection criteria as they relate to alignment of career interests of 

prospective participants, program retention, and meeting recruitment targets. 

2.6 After PTC-P Completion

Year Up monitors outcomes for its graduates through surveys and administrative data, using three 

metrics—full-time employment in a Year Up–related job, average hourly wage for those employed, and 

any placement in work or school. Based on those metrics, outcomes for participants in PTC-P are less 

favorable than for PTC program participants overall (Table 6). Most importantly, while 57 percent of all 

PTC program graduates are employed full-time four months after graduation, only 35 percent of the 

Philadelphia program’s graduates are. The average wage for all PTC graduates, as well as for PTC-P 

graduates specifically, exceeded Year Up’s target of $16 an hour by roughly $1.50. And 92 percent of all 

PTC graduates and 87 percent of PTC-P graduates were working (part- or full-time), going to school 

(part- or full-time), or both four months after graduation.

Table 6. Outcomes Four Months after Program Completion, All PTC Programs and Philadelphia Program

Cohort

Number of

Graduates

Percentage Employed in a FullTime, YU-Related Job Average 

Hourly Wage

Any Placement 

(Work or School)

Year Up Target -- 70% $16.00 85%

All PTC Programs

July 2014 70 24 $13.31 94

January 2015 61 44 $14.85 90

July 2015 100 46 $15.70 90

January 2016 116 60 $16.57 93

July 2016 194 64 $17.71 94

January 2017 225 61 $18.10 93

July 2017 352 59 $18.35 94

January 2018 411 60 $18.33 90

Total 1,529 57 $17.55 92

Philadelphia PTC Program

July 2014 13 39 $16.58 100

January 2015 13 39 $16.45 100

July 2015 29 17 $19.26 76

January 2016 23 30 $18.45 87

July 2016 24 38 $18.72 96

January 2017 26 54 $18.21 77

July 2017 20 45 $16.27 95

January 2018 33 30 $15.99 85

Total 181 35 $17.61 87

Source: Program administrative reports. 

Note: Data on employment and schooling pertain to only those participants who completed the program.

In interviews, employers emphasized offering internships more out of interest in helping young adults and 

meeting short-term labor needs than from interest in hiring PTC completers after the program. They did 

see interns as potential hires in the longer term, but believed it was important for them to acquire further 

skills and school credentials first. 

2.6.1 Employment vs. Continuing Post-secondary Education Goals

A central question raised by this study is whether and how potential tensions between employment and 

college enrollment can be reconciled, inasmuch as Year Up and its partners see both goals as desirable. 

Early findings for PTC-P, as well as indications from other PTC sites, hint at a variety of possible 

resolutions. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 43

Lack of College Persistence at Peirce: “So 

many...just don’t come back after the Year 

Up year.... That was part of the reason we 

got into this...to get more students.” (Peirce 

College Staff)

Partnership Falling Short: “I think it’s just 

we want students to complete their degrees, 

and that’s a place...the partnership has 

fallen short.” (Peirce College Staff) 

As noted previously, an important motive for Peirce College of hosting Year Up was to expand the 

population of students the college serves. Peirce College has 

traditionally served older, working adults. It expected its 

partnership with the PTC-P program to bring in younger 

students. However, while the PTC-P program has brought in 

more young adults, Peirce College staff are concerned that 

PTC-P participants are not continuing their education at Peirce 

College after leaving the program. To further explore this, 

there may be a need for PTC-P and Peirce College staff to 

develop systems for tracking who continues at Peirce College, 

who does not, and the reasons why. 

Staff at both the college and the PTC-P program suggested three main reasons participants (graduates or 

not) might not be continuing their education at Peirce College at a resounding rate. PTC-P program staff 

pointed to both the price differential with Community College of Philadelphia (CCP) and “fit” with the 

typical Peirce college student demographic. One PTC-P staff member explained: “[Peirce is] all adults; 

[PTC-P participants would] rather go somewhere like CCP or a four-year university where they can be 

around young people and take classes that are hands-on and not just test-out.” 

Another rationale for not continuing suggested by a Peirce College staff member was that participants 

lose important supports when they graduate the PTC program: “It can’t be just the price point, as data 

show that these participants are not enrolling in other low-cost schools” (e.g., community colleges).22

The staff member’s view was that these participants are job focused and not interested in continuing their 

education anywhere. 

Peirce and PTC-P staff reported that both Year Up National and the employers hosting internships had 

exhibited increasing support for college persistence over time. If these efforts continue in the future, they 

might well raise retention rates. 

2.6.2 Transition Supports for Program Completers

Over time, efforts to support participants during their transition to post-program employment and 

education have strengthened. Early on, PTC-P program staff did not maintain a strong connection with 

participants after graduation from the program. However, as the number of alumni has increased, the 

program has improved the types of supports available to them. There has been a recent push for greater 

alumni support that appears to be connected to some of the changes in staff roles and priorities (e.g., the 

designation of an Alumni Engagement Steward on the PTC-P program staff).

PTC-P created a new staff position to help support and improve alumni outcomes post-program. 

With the creation of the EPM role in 2016, the PTC-P program has been able to significantly strengthen 

the post-program supports it provides.23 Early on, the EPM was part of the Corporate Engagement team 

and focused solely on participant placement. In the past year, the EPMs have become a part of the 

program team. They work with participants during L&D, internship, and most intentionally, during the 

transition into post-program education, employment, or both. Also, as of this past year, the EPMs (instead 

 

22 A future Institute of Education Sciences–funded impact study will provide evidence based on National Student 

Clearinghouse data of the extent to which PTC-P participants continue to enroll in college after leaving the 

program and what schools they attend. 23 As noted above in the discussion of program organization and staffing, there are now two Employment Placement 

Managers (EPMs) at the PTC-P program. These functions existed prior to the creation of this position. However, 

they were dispersed among multiple staff. For example, some of the functions were formerly the responsibility of 

the Executive Director and others were the responsibility of the Employment Placement Manager (or equivalent). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 44

Partnership Development Process: “[We] 

are...working on [partnership development] 

pretty much from scratch .... [T]here were no 

relationships with organizations or 

companies or staffing agencies .... I live on 

LinkedIn now.” (PTC-P Staff) 

of the Program Managers) teach both the CDIR course and the Internship Seminar, providing them with 

more and earlier opportunities to get to know participants prior to helping to place them in jobs. One 

PTC-P program staff member described this new involvement: “Because you work with the participants 

from the very beginning,....that level of trust and commitment...you really know who you’re working 

with,...who’s gonna need additional support, who was just looking for school and [so I’m] not even going 

to work on getting em a job.”

The EPMs at the PTC-P program also have been actively engaged in an initiative to build relationships 

with new employers and staffing organizations in Philadelphia 

to complement the existing relationships with internship 

providers. Although the EPMs have had some success in 

securing placements through these new relationships, those 

secured to date reportedly pay less than placements that come 

from converting internship seats to full-time positions. 

PTC-P and Peirce College are collaborating to help participants develop transition plans.

The Peirce College Academic Advisor now comes in near the end of the program and talks with 

participants about the benefits of and options for continuing their education at the college. The Advisor 

talks about the number of credits participants have earned already and the number needed to earn an 

associate or bachelor’s degree. Then the EPMs work with participants to brainstorm options for work and 

school and come up with viable plans for their post-program priorities. 

During site visits for the interim implementation study, staff from both the PTC-P program and Peirce 

College raised the idea of extending the PTC-P program to include a “second-year program” to help 

participants continue their education while working (Fein & Maynard, 2015). One suggestion was to offer 

supplemental supports and to identify sources of funding to defray some of the tuition costs. These ideas 

do not appear to have gained traction. The exception is a small foundation-supported scholarship program 

available to support the cost of up to one course per semester for PTC-P program graduates at Peirce 

College. Both PTC-P program staff and Peirce College administrators expressed hope that this will 

encourage more participants to continue their education at Peirce. 

PTC-P has become more active and deliberate in engaging with program alumni. 

PTC programs are expected to maintain ties with and among alumni; for example, through social and 

career development events. Early on, PTC-P program staff shared responsibilities for this function. 

However, now a designated staff member serves as the Alumni Engagement Steward. Staff reported that 

since this position was established, they have been seeing more concerted efforts to host events for alumni 

and to keep them engaged by means such as sharing job opportunities and developing an Ambassadors 

program that, among other things, gives alumni awards and invites alumni to serve on the Alumni Board. 

Additionally, Year Up’s National PTC Team has developed an Alumni Relations department that 

coordinates alumni outreach and engagement efforts across the country. Alumni now have access to a 

suite of employment and education supports, including access to earn an associate degree for free online 

through Eastern Gateway Community College, as well as financial literacy and financial aid trainings to 

budget for ongoing education.

2.7 Financing PTC-P 

As discussed in Chapter 1, Year Up designed the PTC program as a financially self-sustaining version of 

its stand-alone core program. As such, Year Up intends for PTC to operate at per-participant costs equal 

to or below the per-participant revenues generated from employer-sponsored internship. For this to 

happen, based on Year Up’s financial model, the program needs to grow to 160 FTE participants a year, 

maintain a staff of 19 FTEs, retain 83 percent to the Internship phase, secure average employer payments 

of $20,233 per participant, and retain 90 percent of interns to program graduation.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 45

PTC-P has not yet achieved financial break-even. With 51 participants enrolled during the 2014 calendar 

year, the average cost per FTE participant was $18,214, whereas internship revenues averaged $11,051 

per participant, or 60.7 percent of costs.24 By 2017, with 112 participants, Year Up’s total expenses for 

the PTC-P program were $31,097 per participant, whereas internship revenues averaged $10,560 per 

participant, or only 33.9 percent of costs—a large gap that has been covered primarily by philanthropic 

funding. 

Table 7. Average Cost and Revenue per Philadelphia Professional Training Corps Participant, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

Revenue: Expenses (%) 60.7 73.3 43.7 33.4

Cost per Participant $18,214 $16,961 $33,013 $31,097

Internship Revenue per Participant $11,051 $12,439 $14,443 $10,560

College Tuition and Fees per Participant n.a. $522 $1,908 $824

Number of Participants Served (FTE) 51 89 78 112

Source: Year Up National cost data.

n.a. means not available.

The following sections discuss the PTC-P program’s operating costs and internship revenue. 

2.7.1 PTC-P Program Operating Costs

In 2017, PTC-P’s operating cost per participant was the highest among the eight PTC sites for which PTC 

costs can be clearly ascertained (see Table 8).25 The average operating cost per participant in 2017 across 

all stand-alone PTC programs was $22,792 per participant. Average costs by site ranged from $18,747 in 

Wilmington to $31,097 in Philadelphia. It should be noted that some of the costs of starting up the 

Wilmington program have been allocated to the Philadelphia program as a result of some sharing of staff 

time. However, the average cost per participant over the two programs in 2017 is $26,562, which is 

higher than for any other stand-alone program. 

Table 8. Operating Costs per Participant for Year Up Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by Program (2017)

Operating Cost per Participant Number of Participants

Philadelphia $31,097 112

Dallas $25,388 114

Los Angeles $24,976 96

Miami $21,811 112

Baltimore $21,065 157

Arizona $20,438 196

Jacksonville $20,230 129

Wilmington $18,747 65

All Stand-Alone PTC Programs $22,792 981

Source: Year Up National cost data.

 

24 This cost per FTE participant was roughly the same as the average for all PTC programs at that time. The 

operating expenses are dictated by base program structures (e.g., staff salaries, stipends, etc.) established by Year 

Up National. The 2014 cost estimate is based on an estimate of 51 FTE participants—23 participants in L&D and 

13 in internships in the spring term of 2014 and 52 participants in L&D and 13 in internships in the fall term of 

2014. Each participant was assigned a weight of 0.5 FTEs per term in either L&D or internship. The current 

estimated cost for all PTC programs is based on calculations by Year Up National (Warfield, 2018). 25 We do not include PTC programs located in the same market as or co-located with a Year Up core program, 

because it is not possible to identify the portion of the costs attributed to the PTC program. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 46

In general, average per-participant costs are higher at smaller than at larger sites, due to some of the fixed 

operating costs. For example, while the PTC program in Arizona had the most participants (196), its 

operating cost per participant was among the lowest at $20,438. The low estimated average cost per 

participant in Wilmington likely is attributable, in part, to some misallocation of staff costs to the 

Philadelphia program (see above). 

These differences in average per-participant costs are driven largely by differences in the per-participant 

cost for staffing, due to under-enrollment and low retention rates, and to a lesser extent differences in 

tuition costs at the partner colleges, student support costs, and transportation costs. 

Table 9. PTC Standard Program Model Cost per Participant and Average PTC-P Cost per Participant, by Component

(2017)

PTC Standard Program Model PTC-P Program Percent Difference 

Average Total Cost per Participant $19,944 $31,097 56

Number of Participants Served 160 112 -30

Staffing (FTE) 19 21 11

Components of Total Cost (per participant)

Staffing $10,091 $17,512 74

Shared Services26 $3,944 $4,877 24

Participant Stipends $3,627 $2,823 -22

General Operating Expense $1,432 $2,639 84

Participant Transportation $250 $2,410 864

College Tuition and Fees $500 $824 65

Other Participant Direct Costs $100 $11 -89

Source: Year Up National financial model estimates and cost data for the PTC-P program.

The high per-participant cost for the PTC-P program is due to the program not being able to meet target 

enrollment numbers that were aligned with its staff size for 2017. At $17,512 per participant, the staff 

costs for PTC-P (including employee benefits) are about 75 percent higher than the PTC Standard 

Program Model target of $10,091 (Table 9). Indeed, the 2017 participant-to-staff ratio in Philadelphia was 

6.6, compared with the Standard Program Model assumption of about 8. The Model staff size for a 

program with 112 participants a year would be about 13, rather than the 21 staff members the PTC-P 

program had in 2017—a discrepancy that is partially accounted for by anticipated growth in enrollment 

and, in part, to provide assistance in setting up the Wilmington program. However, the PTC-P program 

failed to meet its enrollment targets for 2018 and 2019, even though Year Up National held its enrollment 

targets to 120 through the January 2019 cohort.

In addition to the staffing costs, the cost per participant is also dependent on the tuition costs at the partner 

colleges, participant support costs, and transportation costs. While participant support costs were in line 

with the Model estimates, per-participant transportation costs and college fees are both well above 

average and the Model estimates (see Table 9). 

At $2,410 per participant, PTC-P spending on transportation also was the highest of all of the stand-alone 

PTC programs and nearly 10 times the per-participant cost assumed in the PTC Standard Program Model 

of $250 per participant. The high transportation costs are due mainly to long distances between 

participants’ homes and both Peirce College and the internship sites (many of which are in Wilmington). 

At an average of $824 per participant, PTC-P college tuition and fees were 65 percent above the $500 

per-participant cost assumed under the PTC Standard Program Model. However, they are lower than 

average for three of the eight stand-alone PTC programs (Table 10). Peirce College has tuition rates that 

 

26 Shared services consist of expenses incurred from services and support provided by Year Up National.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 47

are substantially higher than the public institutions partnering with other PTC programs. Yet, to date, 

federal and state participant financial aid has covered roughly 66 percent of tuition and fees, and the

college has provided tuition discounts that largely cover the remainder of the price difference. Peirce 

College administrators reported that this tuition discounting has “worked” for them due to the college’s 

excess capacity for daytime programs and the “promise” of the partnership with Year Up to help the 

college diversify its student population to include younger adults. 

Table 10. College Tuition and Fees Paid per Participant for Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by Program (2017)

College Tuition/Fees per Participant Number of Participants Served

Philadelphia $824 112

Baltimore $1,894 157

Dallas $1,144 114

Jacksonville $921 129

Wilmington $824 65

Arizona $610 196

Miami $331 112

Los Angeles $115 96

All Stand-Alone PTC Programs $877 981

Source: Year Up National data.

2.7.2 PTC-P Internship Revenue 

PTC-P’s internship revenue consistently has fallen below target levels. As noted earlier, the PTC Standard 

Program Model target is $20,233 in internship revenue per participant. As was shown in Table 7 above, 

PTC-P’s average internship revenues grew from $11,051 in 2014 to $14,443 per participant in 2016 and 

then fell to $10,560 per participant in 2017. Of the eight stand-alone PTC programs, average perparticipant internship revenue has been lowest in Philadelphia and Wilmington; the Dallas program came 

closest to meeting the target at $14,771 per participant, which is only 73 percent of target (Table 11). 

Table 11. Internship Revenue per Participant for Stand-Alone PTC Programs, by Program (2017)

Internship Revenue per Participant Number of Participants Served

Philadelphia $10,560 112

Dallas $14,771 96

Los Angeles $13,888 157

Miami $12,711 114

Baltimore $12,276 112

Arizona $11,771 129

Jacksonville $11,395 196

Wilmington $6,215 65

All Stand-Alone PTC Programs $11,989 981

Source: Year Up National cost data.

Two factors contribute to the revenue shortfalls. One is lower-than-projected retention through L&D, 

which reduces the total number of interns needing placements; the other is failure to secure full fees from 

employers to support the internships. For example, PTC-P fell 17 percent below its target for placements

into internships (68 percent placement versus a target of 83 percent), and it fell 27 percent below target 

(57 of 77 internships) in the proportion of internships that were employer sponsored. Moreover, not all 

employers paid the “full fee.” 

The following illustrates how missing retention or internship sponsorships targets affects overall perparticipant revenues. The PTC Standard Program Model’s target average revenue is calculated over all 

youth who participate in the program at any time during the calendar year in question. It reflects targets 

for both retention to the Internship phase and average sponsored payments for interns. Table 12 illustrates 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 48

the sensitivity of average per-participant internship revenues to a program’s success meeting its retention 

and internship sponsorship targets, holding program enrollment and FTE staff levels constant. Meeting all 

targets generates estimated revenue of $20,233 per participant under the Standard Program Model 

assumptions. This revenue figure falls to $18,451 if retention through L&D falls to 75 percent from the 

target 83 percent (Alternative A) and to $16,401 if the percentage of full internship fees received falls to 

80 percent from the target 98 percent (Alternative B). 

Table 12. Simulated Changes in Revenue under Different Assumptions about Retention through L&D and Actual 

Internship Revenue as a Percentage of Revenue If All Internships Were Fully Sponsored

 

PTC Standard 

Program Model 

Alternative A:

75% Retention 

Through L&D

Alternative B: 

80% of Full 

Internship Fees

Assumptions 

Enrollment Target 160 160 160

% of Enrollment Target Achieved 100 100 100

% of Participants Retained through L&D 83 75 83

% of Full Internship Fees Received 98 98 80

Revenue per Fully Sponsored Internship $24,700 $24,700 $24,700

Operating Costs 

Total Number of Participants Served 160 160 160

Number of Staff (Enrollment Target × 0.11875) 19 19 19

Total Operating Costs per Participant Served $19,944 $19,944 $19,944

Revenue 

Number of Participants Retained through L&D 133 120 133

Total Internship Fees Received $3,237,202 $2,925,183 $2,952,144

Average Internship Revenue per Participant Served $20,233 $18,451 $16,401

Revenue as a Percentage of Operating Costs 106 92 82 

Source: Year Up National cost data.

2.7.3 Reaching Break-Even Revenue 

It is extremely challenging to assess the feasibility of achieving break-even revenue for the PTC-P 

program due to two factors: (1) that the program is currently overstaffed for its size; and (2) the 

challenges of properly allocating program staff costs between the Wilmington and Philadelphia programs. 

Under the Year Up Standard Program Model, virtually all program revenues derive from employer fees of 

$24,700 per six-month internship. The Model also implicitly assumes that the college partners shoulder a 

share of the costs, including facilities costs and instructional and staff labor, that never make it to the 

budget line. 

In order to convince major area employers of the value proposition of investing in many more internship 

seats, the Corporate Engagement team is going to need to find ways to align its outreach along three 

dimensions: (1) employers experiencing a shortage of skilled entry-level workers; (2) employers with

capacity to fund skill training on the front end; and (3) employers located within reasonable commuting 

patterns relative to where typical PTC-P participants reside. At $48,400 per full-time equivalent intern

($24,700/six months × 2), it potentially would be more viable to expand sales if the program had greater 

flexibility to tailor aspects of the curriculum to align more closely with employers’ needs.

Below are two examples of the implications of meeting (or not) various program performance targets that 

are central to the PTC Standard Program Model. The first simulation illustrates that, under the 

assumptions of the Model, raising enrollments alone would not go a long way towards closing the 

revenue-costs gap. For example, if the PTC-P program was able to scale its per-participant costs to the 

Model’s per-participant average cost targets, but was not able to improve internship sales, its revenue 

would cover only a slightly higher fraction of costs (41 percent versus 34 percent) (Table 13, Alternative 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 49

A). In contrast, if it maintained its current staff and was able to increase enrollments to 160 FTEs at the 

same time it met retention and internship sponsorship targets, the estimated revenues would cover 71 

percent of costs (Table 13, Alternative B). 

Table 13. Simulated Changes in Revenue and Costs for the PTC-P Program under Different Assumptions about 

Retention through L&D and Internship Revenue

PTC Standard 

Program 

Model 

Assumptions

PTC-P 2017 

Actuals for 

Enrollment, 

Cost, & Revenue 

Alternative A:

Scales 

Program Costs 

to Enrollment

Alternative B: Maintains 

Staff & Unit Costs; Meets 

Enrollment, Retention, & 

Internship Targets

Operating Cost Per Participant 

Number of Participants Served 160 112 112 160

Number of Staff 19 21 21 21

Operating Cost per Participant 

Served $19,944 $31,097 $25,786 $25,844

College Tuition and Fees $500 $824 $500 $824

Participant Stipends $3,627 $2,823 $3,627 $2,823

Other Direct Costs $100 $11 $100 $11

Participant Transportation $250 $2,410 $250 $2,410

Staffing $10,091 $17,512 $15,933 $12,258

General Operating Expenses $1,432 $2,639 $1,432 $2,639

Shared Services $3,944 $4,877 $3,944 $4,877

Revenue 

Number of Participants in Internship 133 77 77 133

Total Internship Fees Received $3,237,202 $1,182,702 $1,187,003 $3,237,202

Average Internship Revenue:

Per Internship Participant $24,376 $15,360 $15,360 $24,376

Per Participant Served $20,233 $10,560 $10,599 $20,233

% of Costs Covered by Internship 

Revenue 101 34 41 78

Source: Year Up National cost data.

2.8 PTC-P Scalability

Year Up and the GreenLight Fund conceived PTC-P as an explicit test of the PTC Standard Program 

Model’s scalability. Their joint vision—expressed in the SIF grant application and agreement—was to 

demonstrate that Year Up’s adaptation of its stand-alone program for college settings was both feasible 

and scalable. The original agreement identified three potential growth scenarios for the program over the 

five years spanned by the grant. The most conservative scenario projected enrollment of 320 participants 

by the fifth year, and the most optimistic scenario projected enrollment of 520 participants. 

In light of ongoing challenges for the Philadelphia site to date, Year Up has postponed this planned 

growth. Since the 2015 interim report, difficulties in meeting two especially critical targets—targets for

L&D retention and internship revenue—have continued. 

The two targets are inter-related in several ways. Higher retention translates into higher numbers entering 

internships, which contributes to higher program revenues per FTE participant and to greater potential for 

positive outcomes for more participants. Higher retention also requires developing more and more paid 

internship seats. PTC-P has struggled to meet both these benchmarks. In its first year, the program met 

the lower end of its SIF targets. However, Year Up National revised the program’s growth targets for the 

next two years downwards (below actual enrollments for year one); yet the program has persistently 

failed to meet any of them over the last seven enrollment cycles by an average of about seven percent. 

The shortfalls have ranged from 33 to two percent (see Chapter 1, Table 1). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 50

It remains to be determined whether the PTC model can reach financial break-even in 

Philadelphia. 

As of mid-2018, the PTC-P program had increased L&D retention (see Chapter 3), but was continuing to 

struggle to meet enrollment targets and to secure enough fully sponsored internship seats. Both the data 

and the judgments of PTC-P program staff suggest that it will be difficult to scale the program in the near 

term and it may or may not be possible to achieve financial break-even. The Philadelphia program 

continues to struggle with enrollment and securing paid internship seats. New staffing changes have been 

implemented to address some of these challenges, but outcomes of these efforts remain to be seen. 

In 2015, Year Up National and local PTC-P staff expressed confidence that with expected staffing 

additions and adoption of best practices being used in other PTC programs, the PTC-P program would 

increase enrollment, increase retention through refining its admissions screening and strengthening other 

aspects of its services, and in the process, bring costs into alignment with revenues. The program has 

recently improved its retention rate during L&D (see further in Chapter 3) and appears to have 

strengthened the internship experience. However, it has not been able to achieve significant, sustained 

increases in enrollments nor has it been able to expand significantly the number of paid internships. 

Although the recent round of staffing changes, expansions, and role redefinitions are all geared towards 

addressing these performance shortfalls, they also exacerbated the revenue gap. Moreover, there has been 

no opportunity to judge their effectiveness in expanding program size and the base of employer partners 

willing to sponsor internships. Efforts to secure enough sponsored internship seats have also yet to bear 

fruit. 

Peirce College administrators see scaling PTC as feasible and desirable. 

Our 2015 report found Peirce administrators were optimistic that college facilities could support a 

considerable expansion, and that serving a few thousand PTC-P participants per year was “doable.” The

College had underutilized daytime capacity, little trouble expanding instructional staff, and an 

underutilized tutoring center; and much of the tuition costs for participants could be covered through state 

and federal financial aid grants. Expanding its outreach to include more students meeting the 

demographic profile Year Up targets also was consistent with the college’s plans for expanding and 

diversifying its student population. The issues at that time seemed relatively modest and solvable (e.g., 

meeting space needs to accommodate large events, secure spaces for PTC-P participants to store their 

belongings while at the college to facilitate easy switching between school and work settings, and its 

distance from many of the internship sites). In our July 2018 interviews, college administrators’ 

assessment had remained largely the same. The college remains committed to the partnership and to 

growing the participant population. It is not clear, however, how large the prospective pool is of 

participants for the PTC-P program at Peirce, given the Center City location. 

Improved academic monitoring and supports are needed to support future expansion. 

It will be critical for the PTC-P program to meet or come close to the L&D retention targets if it is to 

achieve financial break-even. The reason is that only participants completing L&D progress to 

internships, which are the main source of program revenue. Internships also are where participants are 

expected to learn critical skills required for entry-level professional positions with career advancement 

potential. Importantly, the impact study tested and identified promising low-cost strategies for doing 

improving retention through L&D (see Chapter 3).

Expanding to another college partner could help in increasing enrollment. 

Roughly tripling enrollment at Peirce (to the 300-500 participants originally envisioned in the SIF grant) 

is not feasible in the near term. PTC-P staff have struggled with recruitment, and Peirce does not have a 

natural pipeline of the demographic group Year Up targets. The college’s commuting distance is also not 

convenient for young adults in the communities from which PTC typically draws. In addition, it is unclear 

whether the college could find enough space to operate the program.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 51

For these reasons, expansion in the Central City area is likely to require an additional college partner. In 

the 2015 report, we recommended exploring options for expanding to other area colleges, and this topic 

was raised by PTC-P staff again during the most recent round of interviews. Some staff noted that having 

partner like Community College of Philadelphia could help with recruitment efforts, because it has a

reputation for serving recent high school graduates from the neighborhoods where the PTC-P program 

participants live. Given the financial challenges discussed above and the strains placed on both the PTC-P 

and Peirce College staff as they supported the opening of the Wilmington program, it seems prudent to 

defer serious consideration of a new college partner until there is a path for achieving financial selfsufficiency at a modest scale (e.g., 120 participants) at the current location. 

2.9 Summary

Participants, staff, and community partners are highly praising of the PTC-P program itself (i.e., the 

services it provides to participants). However, the program has made no measured progress in closing its

revenue gap. While it has identified effective strategies to improve retention through L&D, it is not close 

to meeting critical internship sales goals and has not made much, if any, progress in lowering 

transportation costs. Based on Year Up’s follow-up data, the program is coming close to meeting 

employment goals and exceeding the wage goal for graduates, but these outcomes are no substitute for 

closing the revenue gap. 

Organization and structure. Both Year Up National and PTC-P staff are reasonably optimistic that the 

recent staff additions and role changes will facilitate making needed improvements, especially with 

regards to recruitment and admissions and securing fully sponsored securing internship seats—the areas 

of greatest need. Currently, the program has a staff that, under Year Up’s PTC Standard Program Model,

should be adequate to serve about 175 participants, rather than the 112 it serves now. The changes in staff 

roles also are intended to facilitate improvements in recruitment and internship development and support. 

However, it is too early to know whether resulting improvements will substantially address gaps in 

enrollments and internship sales needed to achieve financial sustainability. 

Relationships between PTC-P and Peirce College. Since the interim report, there has been improved 

communication between PTC-P and Peirce College regarding admissions and recruitment, as well as 

academic support. There has been objective evidence of improvements, such as smoother pacing through 

the application and enrollment process, more and more regular use of the college’s tutoring center, and 

greater levels of information sharing on academic issues participants encounter. The opening of the 

Wilmington program strained both the relationship and the resources available to support the instructional 

needs of the PTC-P program. However, by mid-July 2018, it appeared that most of those challenges had 

been resolved as the Wilmington program transitioned to working with a local college partner. 

There remains opportunity to improve communication between PTC-P and Peirce College instructors, as 

well as room to modify instructional approaches used by many Peirce instructors to better serve young 

adult learners and corporate partner needs. However, overall, relationships appear to be quite good and 

both parties appear invested in continuing and strengthening them. 

Meeting enrollment targets and securing internship seats. PTC-P program staff continue to struggle to 

build a strong referral pipeline—a challenge that has been exacerbated by the high level of staff turnover. 

Stepped up support from a Year Up National staff member over the last year, coupled with new support 

from the Regional Director of Admissions and Recruitment, has been helpful in instituting outreach to 

new community organizations, tightening the admissions processes, improving readiness screening, and 

strengthening community and employer partnerships. Site staff expressed hope that the redoubling of 

efforts with the renewed attention on the Philadelphia market (as opposed to staff continuing to split time 

with the Wilmington market) under the guidance of a new Executive Director may help to improve these 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 2. Implementing the Professional Training Corps Program in Philadelphia ▌pg. 52

outcomes, as well. There was also talk about expanding into other career tracks (e.g., hospital IT or 

customer service), which could open doors into other internship opportunities. 

Program execution during L&D and internship. Year Up National efforts to retrain staff from 2016-17 

laid the foundation for improved program execution. Site staff were trained on best practices during the 

L&D and Internship phases; and in 2018, a Year Up National staff member was transitioned to a full-time 

role at PTC-P, working to foster stronger communication with Peirce College, especially related to 

academic monitoring and supports. There now is an improved system for tracking and monitoring 

participant issues, as well as more and better communication with Peirce College administrators and the 

Academic Advisor. In addition, there are now improved practices for tracking participant experiences 

during internship and enhanced supports for both managers and interns prior to and during the 

internships. Lastly, the hiring of a Student Services Team (two licensed social workers) about two years 

ago has improved capacity for early identification of participant issues during the admissions process and 

enhanced efforts to address those issues during L&D and internship. The Student Services Team also has 

compiled a compendium of support resources related to issues such as childcare, substance abuse, and 

homelessness. Several PTC-P staff whom we interviewed in mid-2018 noted that the Student Services 

Team has been integral to improving participant success and retention during both L&D and internship. 

Post-program. The addition of two EPMs has led to more deliberate efforts to place and support 

participants in jobs after they complete internships. Focused primarily on placing participants in jobs 

and/or educational opportunities post-program, EPMs aim to build a network of employment partners and 

work closely with PTC-P participants to develop their post-program education and/or job-based plans. 

Additionally, in the past year, the program has increased efforts to support alumni post-program. There is 

now a designated PTC-P staff member, known as the Alumni Engagement Steward, who supports and 

connects regularly with program alumni. Also, Peirce College has received a generous donation to 

provide scholarships to PTC-P graduates to defray some of the costs of continuing their education at 

Peirce after the program. 

Financial self-sufficiency and scalability. Currently, the biggest challenge for the PTC-P program is 

achieving financial sustainability. The program has struggled to recruit and retain target levels of 

participants and secure enough fully sponsored internship seats to reach financial break-even. It also has 

been operating with more staff than is financially viable at the current scale of operations. As of July 

2018, staff interviewed for this study reported that efforts to scale-up the program should be put on hold 

until the program achieves enrollment levels, retention rates, and internship sponsorship levels 

commensurate with financial self-sufficiency at the current or near-current staffing level. They seem 

poised to achieve these goals but are also mindful that these are not new challenges. If the program is 

successful in achieving these high-order goals, it will still need to address more mundane (but more 

achievable) needs that accompany success on these fronts, such as larger spaces for group events, 

expanded office space, and reliable access to quality tutoring services. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 53

3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting

Academics

A necessary condition for the success of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps (PTC) is that participants 

successfully complete the Learning and Development (L&D) phase of the program with the skills 

required to succeed in internships. Important markers of a participants’ success during L&D are 

persistence and performance in their college courses (during L&D and beyond). It also is important for 

the financial self-sufficiency of the PTC program. Sponsored internship payments from employers are 

intended to be the sole source of revenue to support the program. However, if participants do not first 

successfully complete L&D, they cannot advance to internships. This, in turn, limits the program’s ability 

to receive revenue (as was discussed in Chapter 2).

The earlier interim report flagged low (65 percent) rates of PTC-P L&D completion at a time when Year 

Up National estimated that a retention rate of 75 percent was needed for the program to achieve financial 

self-sufficiency (Fein & Maynard, 2015, p. 20). The challenges PTC-P participants faced during L&D 

resembled those encountered by other participants in programs serving predominantly college participants 

from disadvantaged backgrounds. These challenges include economic needs, housing issues, and care 

requirements of other family members; deficits in foundational academic skills; and gaps in skills needed 

for social and emotional functioning in school and work settings (Rosenbaum et al., 2015; Bailey et al., 

2015; Frazier et al., 2015; Wibrowski et al., 2016; Fein, 2016). 

An important theme in the literature is that this population needs close monitoring and support (Bailey, 

Jaggars, & Jenkins, 2015; Frazier et al., 2015; Wibrowski, Matthews, & Kitsantas, 2016; Hagedorn & 

Kuznetsova, 2016; Weiss, Visher, Weissman, & Wathington, 2015; Weissman, Cullinan, Cerna, Safran, 

& Richman, 2012; Casazza & Silverman, 2013).

Given clear indications in 2014 that the PTC program in Philadelphia (PTC-P) was not yet meeting its 

L&D completion targets, Year Up and GreenLight recommended to SIF a shift in the focus of the impact 

study component of the SIF/GreenLight evaluation. This proposed shift was a movement away from 

estimating impacts of the PTC-P program on post-program earnings and academic achievement, and 

instead towards focusing on improving participants’ academic success and retention during the 

program. SIF agreed with GreenLight that this was a better use of resources, in light of the higher-thanexpected attrition during the L&D phase. Rather than continue with the planned randomized controlled 

trial to estimate the overall effectiveness of this PTC program model, Year Up and Abt proposed that the 

impact study test strategies for improving academic success during and after completion of L&D. 

Since other PTC programs were also experiencing similar challenges during L&D, Year Up agreed to 

expand the PTC-P impact study to include two additional sites—New York City and Jacksonville, 

Florida.27 

The design of the refocused impact study entailed randomly assigning one group of participants to 

receive alternative academic monitoring and support strategies (the Alternative Strategies Group) 

during L&D and another group to receive the “usual” strategies (the Usual Strategies Group). The study 

design called for testing a set of improvement strategies over two cycles of L&D—the January 2018 and 

July 2018 cohorts, which entered the PTC programs in January 2017 and July 2017, respectively. 

 

27 Impacts of the PTC-P program on post-program earnings and academic achievement will still be estimated, by 

Year Up and the Abt evaluation team under a Development and Innovation grant from the Institute of Education 

Sciences.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 54

Working together, the PTC program staff and evaluation team identified three modifications to practices 

for the Alternative Strategies Group: 

1. Staff would develop a prescriptive protocol for monitoring participant attendance at all L&Drelated activities (including college classes) and completion of course assignments (e.g., 

homework), as well as for how information on interim performance indicators (e.g., quiz and test 

grades, check-ins with instructors) would be shared with coaches and other staff working with 

participants in the Alternative Strategies Group;

2. Coaches working with the participants in the Alternative Strategies Group would develop and 

follow practices that enabled quick response to both academic and non-academic sources of 

difficulties those participants encountered (e.g., tutoring, emergency housing, childcare); and

3. Coaches and Program Managers working with members of the Alternative Strategies Group 

would conduct ongoing case reviews for all participants who required corrective actions and/or 

were receiving remedial supports aimed at improving class attendance, assignment completion, 

and/or academic performance. 

The specific enhancements were developed by program staff at each of the three study sites in 

consultation with their college partners, Year Up National, and the evaluation team. As a result, within the 

broad parameters outlined above, the alternative strategies adopted could and did vary across the three 

programs, in large part due to differences in perceived needs and opportunities for improvement. 

An important part of the development process was to set broad parameters for the improvements, as 

described above, and then to work with local offices to develop strategies tailored to their needs and 

circumstances. 

The modified evaluation was designed to addresses the following primary research questions: 

1. What is the difference in the proportion of participants completing the PTC program’s six-month 

L&D phase for those randomly assigned to the Alternative Strategies Group as compared with 

those assigned to the Usual Strategies Group? 

2. What is the difference in the likelihood participants will continue enrollment in college in the first 

month following completion of L&D?28

The remainder of this chapter discusses our motivation for and approach to the impact study, the study 

design, the study sample, the methods for estimating impacts, the implementation of the tested strategies, 

and the study findings. 

3.1 Motivation for and Approach to the Impact Study 

The primary goal of the impact study was to develop and rigorously test, over a relatively short time

period, promising strategies for addressing the retention challenges in PTC programs. Recognizing that 

concerns about academic performance and persistence during L&D are issues for most, if not all, PTC 

programs, Year Up National and the evaluation team decided early on to include two additional PTC 

programs in this portion of the evaluation—one at the Borough of Manhattan Community College in New 

York City (PTC-BMCC) and another at Florida State College at Jacksonville in Jacksonville, Florida 

(PTC-JAX).29 The evaluation team established a working group across the sites to coordinate planning of 

 

28 The modified Subgrantee Evaluation Plan also included plans to measure impacts on grades, but the team was 

unable to obtain data on grades.

29 Adding the additional sites to the evaluation was possible as the result of blending work on this project with 

ongoing, related work on an Institute of Education Sciences Development and Innovation grant (#R305A150214). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 55

the improvement strategies to be tested. Having three PTC programs participate provided both a larger 

sample and more diversity in contexts for testing the strategies. 

At the outset, we knew through conversations with program staff that much of the attrition was occurring 

near the end of the L&D phase and that often it was directly tied to participants’ failing their college 

courses. For Year Up to stay on track with its overall plan for scaling up the PTC program, it was 

important to identify and implement modest-to-no-cost strategies to increase academic success and 

program persistence in relatively short order. Thus, the evaluation team sought improvement strategies 

with five qualities: 

1. Were minimally burdensome for sites to implement; 

2. Required little additional cost to implement; 

3. Required limited time to implement and test (one or two cycles of operation); 

4. Held high promise for improving academic performance and persistence through L&D; and

5. Lent themselves to rigorous evaluation of their effectiveness. 

The evaluation team worked with Year Up National staff and staff at the three PTC programs to develop 

and test staff-driven strategies for early identification of participants facing academic challenges and for 

quick responses to those challenges. We drew on principles and practices of improvement science for 

identifying and implementing the strategies to be tested (Bryk et al., 2011; 2015; Means & Penuel, 2005; 

Proger et al., 2017) and on principles and practices of rigorous intervention research methods for testing 

the effectiveness of those strategies (Orr, 1999). 

In keeping with the principle of conducting an impact study of relatively low-burden, quick-to-implement 

improvement strategies, Year Up National and the evaluation team adopted the following three-phase 

timeline: (1) roughly six months for planning the improvement strategies to be tested; (2) a year to 

implement and test the strategies over two cycles of L&D, with opportunities for modification based on 

early implementation experiences; and (3) roughly six months for rigorously assessing the effectiveness 

of the strategies for improving L&D retention (Figure 4). 

Figure 4. Impact Study Timeline 

Stage 1: 

Plan

Stage 2: 

Roll Out Strategies in Testable Ways

Stage 3: 

Evaluate & Communicate

Identify Sites & Strategies Improvement Cycle 1 Improvement Cycle 2 Conduct the Evaluation

(Jul–Dec 2016) (Jan–Jun 2017) (Jul–Dec 2017) (Jan–Jun 2018)

1.Brainstorm strategies

2.Plan roll-out

3.Train staff in design of

strategies

4.Prepare for intake & 

random assignment

1.Enroll Jan 2018 cohort

2.Randomly assign 

participants to treatment 

condition

3.Deliver L&D based on 

assigned group

4.Conduct regular check-ins

5. Review & refine alternative 

strategies

1. Enroll Jul 2018 cohort

2. Randomly assign 

participants to (refined)

treatment condition

3. Deliver L&D based on 

assigned group

4. Conduct regular check-ins

1. Estimate impacts

2. Document strategies 

used

3. Interview site staff & 

participants

4. Collect artifacts used for

alternative strategies

5. Share findings

This study followed a “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) model over two participant cohorts (Bryk et al., 

2015; Tichnor-Wagner, Wachen, Cannata, & Cohen-Vogel, 2017). The approach involved taking stock of 

experiences in step four of Cycle 1 and then adjusting the alternative strategies to be implemented and 

tested in Cycle 2 (Figure 5). After completing two cycles of testing, the evaluation team reported the 

findings back to the three participating PTC programs and Year Up National (stage three in Figure 4). 

With these findings from stage three, Year Up National, in consultation with leadership at its PTC 

programs, is now in a fourth stage on the timeline (not shown in Figure 4). This corresponds to the fourth 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 56

step in the PDSA model for Cycle 2, which requires a higher level of decision-making than what occurred 

after Cycle 1.

Figure 5. The Improvement Cycles

Developing the Improvement Strategies

In developing the enhanced academic monitoring and support strategies, we aimed to address four

weaknesses in the programs’ usual approaches to monitoring and supporting participants in college 

coursework: 

1. Gaps and lags in communication with college partners and instructors;

2. Lack of focused attention on academics during coaching time;

3. Absence of systems and routines for managing academic information on participants throughout 

their time in PTC; and

4. Lack of systems to support participants in addressing their academic challenges and holding them 

accountable for using supports.

Development Process

The first six months of the study effort focused on identifying promising strategies to test, through 

collaborative reflection and brainstorming with site staff. PTC programs offered a variety of “business as 

usual” supports, including weekly stipends, advising/coaching by college and PTC program staff, and 

general support services provided by the PTC program and/or through referrals, as well as usual student

support services provided by partner colleges. However, these three PTC programs had neither strong nor 

uniform approaches to monitoring and supporting participants facing academic difficulties. As noted 

earlier, all Year Up programs impose a code of conduct—in the form of the Year Up participant 

contract—as a means of communicating and monitoring participants’ behavior. However, under the PTC

program’s usual practices, there is no clear protocol for monitoring academic engagement and academic 

performance of participants to ensure timely identification of and response to lapses in these areas. As a 

result, the PTC program staff and college partners’ responses to participant needs vary in timeliness, 

substance, and quality.

Staff at the three study sites worked closely with Year Up National and the evaluation team over several 

months to identify and prepare to implement specific alternatives to usual strategies for monitoring and 

supporting participants during L&D that would be tested. The process entailed three steps: 

1. Reflecting on current practices in and outcomes of L&D, with a focus on academic challenges 

and current responses to them. 

2. Brainstorming strategies for addressing shortfalls and building on untapped resources (e.g., 

including a more deliberate focus on academics during coaching by providing a one-page 

academic coaching guide designed to normalize the focus on academics). 

3. Selecting concrete, modest-to-no-cost alternatives to current practices that seemed most 

promising for improving outcomes. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 57

The strategies tested aimed to improve academic success and through three means: (1) improve access to 

participant performance data (e.g., through reaching out to instructors and obtaining access to grades and 

attendance information); (2) surface and make better use of information on academic performance during 

coaching; and (3) improve access to resources and supports to assist participants experiencing academic 

challenges. 

Some strategies tested in Cycle 1 were common across the three programs and others were tailored to 

local circumstances and priorities (Figure 6). All three programs sought to tailor outreach to instructors 

during orientation, identify a mechanism for accessing participants’ grades, develop a spreadsheet for 

collecting feedback from instructors, deliberately focus on academics during coaching using a one-page 

academic coaching guide, and more actively refer students to existing college resources and tutoring.

Figure 6. Strategies Prioritized for Testing and Tactics Used

Cycle 1: Alternative Strategies to Be Tested Cycle 2: Modifications to Alternative Strategies

Improved access to & tracking of performance data 

 Tailored outreach to instructors during orientation, 

including an instructor luncheon (1 program) 

 Established mechanism for accessing participants’ grades 

(designated person to gather & distribute info)

 Shared spreadsheet containing feedback from instructors

& information from coaching sessions

Systematic use of information on academic performance 

to inform coaching

 Focused more deliberately on academics during coaching

 Created one-page coaching guide to flag academic issues 

(2 programs) 

Additional resources & supports

 Expanded portfolio assignment to include academic focus 

(1 program) 

 Hired Academic Coordinator (1 program) 

 Created a textbook library (1 program) 

 Ordered and distributed Wi-Fi hotspots (1 program) 

 Increased referrals to existing college tutoring & support 

services

Additions and enhancements

 Increased coach access to information on participants’

academic histories and grades

 Updated one-page coaching guide to a Weekly 

Academic Coaching Notes Sheet 

 Created Academic Coaching Binder (Year Up, 2018) 

 Conducted formal coach training on the Academic 

Coaching Binder

 Routinely focused on academic issues in LC meetings

 Increased centralization of information on support 

resources

Strategies abandoned or de-emphasized

 Abandoned efforts to provide shared access to Wi-Fi 

hotspots (abandoned scheduled roll-out in Cycle 1) 

 Lowered expectations that instructors would serve as 

primary source of information on participants’ academic 

performance

Programs could use modest discretionary funds to support their academic monitoring and support efforts, 

but in different ways. One program leveraged these funds to create a textbook library for participants in 

the Alternative Strategies Group, as some participants lacked funds to purchase textbooks at the start of 

the semester. Another program tapped the discretionary funds for mobile Wi-Fi hotspots to improve 

participants’ internet access at home. The third program hired an Academic Coordinator to monitor 

academic performance of participants in their college courses and share the information collected from 

instructors with coaches working with the Alternative Strategies Group. 

Once strategies for testing were agreed upon, staff at each of the study sites planned their implementation 

to accommodate the evaluation—the implementation plan needed to allow for roughly half of the PTC 

program participants to continue receiving the usual strategies while the other participants would receive 

the alternative strategies for academic monitoring and supports. In most cases, this was accomplished by 

reframing the role of the coaches who served the Alternative Strategies Group members while 

maintaining the usual role of the coaches who served the Usual Strategies Group members.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 58

3.2 Study Design 

It was important to design a study that allowed for the observation of participants with similar 

backgrounds, but whose experiences during L&D differed only in the academic monitoring and support 

strategies the PTC program used with them. Hence, the study randomly assigned accepted applicants who 

attended orientation either to a “control group” or to a “treatment group:”

• Control group. The Usual Strategies Group of participants received the “business as usual” 

approach to academic monitoring and support. 

• Treatment group. The Alternative Strategies Group of participants received the academic 

monitoring and support strategies that were being tested.

As noted above, the primary research questions relate to the impacts of the alternative strategies on: (1) 

the probability of completing the L&D phase of the program and (2) continued enrollment in college 

during the month following completion of L&D. Secondary questions pertain to impacts of the alternative 

strategies on the total months of college enrollment over the seven months following entrance into the 

PTC program and behavioral outcomes measured by the number of contract infractions received by 

participants during L&D and their contract point balances at the end of L&D. 

In addition, the study descriptively examined survey responses from participants in the Alternative and 

Usual Strategies Groups on their experiences in their college courses and the supports they received from 

college instructors, their coaches and others. In the second cycle of testing the alternative strategies, the 

evaluation team surveyed coaches to learn about the nature and extent of differences in the coaching 

(individual and group) practices used with participants in the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups. 

3.2.1 Planned Sample Size and Allocation

In addition to having comparable groups of participants channeled into the two treatment conditions, it 

was important to have a study sample large enough to support the detection of impacts of the alternative 

strategies that would be of practical importance for Year Up. In this case, we targeted enrolling a sample 

of 300 participants across the three PTC programs that were selected to test the alternative strategies over 

two enrollment cycles each. With half of the participants randomly assigned to the treatment group, a 

sample of 300 participants has estimated minimum detectable effect sizes of .21 standard deviations or 

larger (Table 14). For binary outcomes with a control group mean of .7, this corresponds to a 12.6 

percentage point difference and for outcomes with a control group mean of .9, a minimum detectable 

impact of 7.2 percentage points. For the PTC-P program alone, which had a target sample size of 100 

participants, the estimated minimum detectable effect size estimates were considerably larger—19.2 and 

11.0 percentage points for binary outcomes with control group means of .7 and .9, respectively. 

Data for the study came from multiple sources including program data, the National Student 

Clearinghouse, participant surveys, coach surveys, interviews with staff and group interviews with 

participants, observations of coaching sessions, and bi-weekly monitoring calls with site staff. 

Information on the backgrounds of participants in the study sample and interim performance indicators 

were obtained from Year Up’s administrative data system. 

Table 14. Planned Sample Size and Minimum Detectable Impacts

Minimum Detectable Impact

(90% Confidence Interval; 80% Power)

Comparison Sample Size

Standard 

Deviations

%-point Change- 

.7 Base

%-point Change- 

.9 Base

3 PTC Programs 300 0.241 12.6 7.2

Philadelphia PTC Program 100 0.420 19.2 11.0

Note: Power calculations were estimated using PowerUp! (Dong & Maynard, 2013). They assume blocking at the site level; equal size 

treatment and control groups; and 30 percent of the variance in the outcome measure explained by covariates in the analytic models.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 59

The primary outcome measures of L&D retention and completion, and college enrollment—during and 

following L&D—are based on Year Up’s administrative data and data from the National Student

Clearinghouse, respectively. Notably, the outcome data from both sources are available for the full study 

sample and are considered quite reliable. Similarly, data on basic demographic and background 

characteristics of the sample from Year Up’s administrative data are generally complete and reliable. 

The evaluation team gathered participant data from a modified version of the Pre-Internship Survey

routinely administered by Year Up to participants as they complete L&D and prepare for internships. The 

evaluation team worked with Year Up to modify its usual survey in two ways: (1) administering it to all 

participants leaving the program before completing L&D as well as to those completing L&D; and (2)

adding questions about academic preparedness, academic challenges during L&D, and academic supports 

received during L&D (see Appendix H, Volume II). 

Overall, 78 percent of participants in the sample completed the survey. The response rate was higher for 

the Alternative Strategies Group than for the Usual Strategies Group (82 and 74 percent, respectively). 

Much of this difference is related to the lower response rate among those not completing L&D and the 

fact that the non-completion rate was higher among the Usual Strategies Group than the Alternative 

Strategies Group. To reduce associated non-response bias, we calculated and applied survey non-response 

weights to adjust for the under-representation of non-completers in the Usual Strategies Group. 

As part of the study, the evaluation team conducted bi-weekly monitoring calls with Program Managers 

and Site Directors at each program to gather information on the experiences of participants and coaches in 

the two groups, as well as to document notable events that were affecting participants, and/or the program 

related to the academic performance of participants and the academic monitoring and support strategies 

being offered by the programs (see Appendix I, Volume II). 

Near the end of the study, coaches in Cycle 2 were asked to complete a survey about their approaches to 

and experiences coaching participants (see Appendix J, Volume II). This survey was completed by at 

least one coach from 27 of the 32 coaching groups (some coaching groups had one coach, others had 

two). The evaluation team also periodically visited sites to observe coaching sessions and team meetings, 

to conduct group interviews with participants, and to interview staff (See Appendices K, L and M, 

respectively, Volume II). 

3.3 Study Sample

A total of 317 participants were enrolled in the study sample over two enrollment cycles across the three 

programs. Of the 317 participants, 35 percent enrolled in the Philadelphia program at Peirce College

(PTC-P); 25 percent enrolled in the Borough of Manhattan Community College program (PTC-BMCC) 

and 40 percent enrolled in the Florida State College at Jacksonville program (PTC-JAX) (Table 15). 

Table 15. Sample Size, by Treatment Condition, Program, and Enrollment Cycle

Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Total Enrolled 

Program

Usual 

Strategies 

Group

Alternative 

Strategies 

Group Total 

Usual 

Strategies 

Group

Alternative 

Strategies 

Group Total 

Usual 

Strategies 

Group

Alternative 

Strategies 

Group Total

PTC-P 27 27 54 30 26 56 57 53 110

PTC-BMCC 20 19 39 22 18 40 42 37 79

PTC-JAX 28 30 58 36 34 70 64 64 128

Total 75 76 151 88 78 166 163 154 317

Source: Year Up Salesforce data.

NOTE: Accepted applicants who attended orientation were randomized to the Alternative Strategies Group or to the Usual Strategies Group.

No participants switched condition during the study. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 60

Participants were recruited following Year Up’s usual procedures, with the exception that all applicants 

were informed about the study and required to agree to participate should they enroll in Year Up. Within 

each program, those who consented to participate in the study were randomized to receive either the usual 

or alternative strategies for academic monitoring and supports (Figure 7). 

Figure 7. Enrollment and Randomization of Participants

3.3.1 Characteristics of the Study Sample

Participants in the study sample were broadly like those served across all PTC programs. There was some 

program-level variation on a few characteristics, attributable in part to socio-demographic differences

across the sites (Table 16). Roughly half of the participants in the sample were female. About 70 percent 

self-identified as black or African American; about 15 percent self-identified as Hispanic or Latino; and 

about 13 percent self-identified as White or other race/ethnic groups. At enrollment, about 45 percent of 

participants in the sample were under age 20; 40 percent were aged 20-22, and about 15 percent were

aged 23 or older. 

Participants in the sample exhibited a range of readiness for the program. Year Up measures readiness by 

the number of “risk factors,” such as having unstable housing, primary responsibility for a child, and

exposure to violence and/or trauma (see Appendix C, Volume II, for a description of Year Up’s 

admissions readiness rubric). About 25 percent exhibited no risk/readiness concerns, whereas about 20 

percent had 6 or more. About 40 percent of the participants in the sample had no prior college experience, 

while more than 30 percent had a year or more of college. 

3.3.2 Comparability of the Usual and Alternative Strategies Groups and Those Enrolled in 

Cycles 1 and 2 

Because of the random assignment of participants to the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups, there 

were only small–to-modest differences in the profiles of those assigned to the Alternative and Usual 

Strategies Groups (see Appendix Table A.3, Volume II). None of the differences was sufficiently large to 

be statistically significant at the .10 level on a two-tailed test. 

In contrast, there were statistically significant differences in the characteristics of participants who 

enrolled in the first and second intake cycle of the study (see Appendix Table A.4, Volume II). A higher 

proportion of the participants enrolled in the second cycle were under age 20 (57 versus 31 percent) and 

significantly fewer had prior college experience (34 versus 41 percent). These differences are likely due 

to the timing of recruitment for the two groups of participants. The former group was enrolled at the end 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 61

of 2016, whereas the latter group was recruited over the summer of 2017, close to the time when many 

eligible individuals had just completed high school. 

Table 16. Characteristics of the Study Sample at Enrollment, Total and by Program

Total 

Program

PTC-P PTC-BMCC PTC-JAX p-Value

Gender = Female (%) 49.5 41.8 55.7 52.3 0.1210

Race-ethnicity (%) <.0001***

Black or African American 71.6 85.5 48.1 74.2

Hispanic or Latino 14.8 10.0 36.7 5.5

White or Another Race 13.5 4.5 15.2 20.3

Age (%) 0.0429**

Under 20 44.1 34.5 46.8 50.8

20-22 40.4 45.5 44.3 33.6

23 or older 15.5 20.0 8.9 15.6

Number of Risk/Readiness Concerns (%) <.0001***

0-1 26.5 28.0 13.9 33.1

2-3 35.7 32.9 50.6 28.8

4-5 16.6 15.9 26.6 11.0

6+ 21.2 23.2 8.9 27.1

Prior College (Any) (%) 0.0013***

0 years 41.4 55.5 26.6 38.3

<1 year 26.8 17.3 36.7 28.9

1+ years 31.9 27.3 36.7 32.8

Prior College (FTE) (%) 0.0018***

0 years 41.4 55.5 26.6 38.3

<1 year 37.2 28.2 44.3 40.6

1+ years 21.5 16.4 29.1 21.1

Sample Size 317 110 79 128 

Source: Year Up program data. 

Notes: The study sample consists of youth who were first enrolled in Year Up with the January 2018 or July 2018 cohort at the three programs 

participating in the study. Data on the number of risk factors is missing for 12 percent of the study sample. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests.

3.4 Methods for Estimating Impacts of the Alternative Strategies 

All estimates were generated using STATA 15.0. Because individuals in the study sample were randomly 

assigned to the Alternative or Usual Strategies Groups, we can obtain unbiased estimates of the impacts 

of the alternative strategies for academic monitoring and supports using simple difference in means tests. 

However, most analyses were conducted using multivariate regression models to improve the precision of 

estimates and to control for random differences between the two treatment groups (Orr, 1999; 

Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Bloom, 2005). In addition, the models included indicators of blocking factors 

used in the randomization (e.g., program, learning community, and sibling status). 

3.4.1 Missing Data

There is essentially no missing data for the analyses of the primary research questions. However, there

was a moderate level of non-response on the supplemental survey (Modified Pre-Internship Survey) and, 

more concerning, a sizeable difference in the response rate for the Usual and Alternative Strategies 

Groups (see above). 

3.4.2 Nonresponse Weights for Analysis of Participant Survey Data

All outcomes measured with program data were complete. However, there was both a 21 percent nonresponse rate on the participant survey and a differential response rate between those in the Alternative 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 62

and Usual Strategies Group (see Appendix Table A.5, Volume II). Moreover, survey response was highly 

correlated with completion of L&D. To mitigate response bias in the descriptive analysis of those data, 

we created and applied non-response weights when analyzing these data. This was a multi-step process 

that began with estimating a multivariate linear regression for the full study sample, using baseline 

characteristics as well as an indicator for L&D completion. Then, predictors with statistically significant 

regression coefficients (in this case, only L&D completion) were included in a logistic regression 

predicting survey response in a model that controlled for treatment group assignment and L&D 

completion. The resulting coefficients were then used to generate response weights, which are the inverse 

of the model-predicted propensity scores, multiplied by the overall survey response rate for the individual 

sample member’s assigned treatment condition (i.e., the Alternative or Usual Strategies Group). 

3.5 Implementation of Tested Strategies 

Throughout the study period, the evaluation team carried out low-stakes, low burden routine monitoring 

of the usual and alternative strategies being implemented. This allowed for documentation of the 

treatment contrast, ensured the integrity of the evaluation, and supported program decisions on midcourse corrections between the first and second testing cycles (see column 2 of Figure 6 above). This 

information, along with feedback from focus groups conducted with coaches in the Alternative Strategies 

Group and structured conversations with site leadership led to decisions about modifications in the 

alternative strategies to be implemented for Cycle 2. It also led to Year Up National working with the 

local program staff to pull together and organize an “Academic Coaching Binder” that included a variety 

of materials. Some of the materials were newly developed by coaches using the alternative strategies and 

others already existed but were used in new ways (Year Up, 2018). 

3.5.1 Strategies Tested in Cycle 1 

The increased focus on academics in coaching sessions with participants in the Alternative Strategies 

Group meant that PTC program staff increased monitoring of participant grades. The original plans for 

the experiment called for implementing centralized processes for routinely collecting information from 

instructors on participants’ academic engagement and performance (i.e., class attendance, homework 

completion, quiz grades, and test grades) using procedures tailored to the local environment. Strategies 

included gaining direct access to college learning management systems (LMS), having a staff person 

responsible for liaising with college faculty and the registrar to capture information on a regular basis, and 

blended strategies. Mid-way through Cycle 1, the three programs converged on a common strategy that 

prioritized having participants routinely pull up their course information on the college LMS and share 

assignments and progress documents with their coaches during weekly one-on-one coaching sessions. 

3.5.2 Adjustments to Strategies Tested in Cycle 2 

Prior to Cycle 2, coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group at the Philadelphia 

PTC program participated in a focus group, where they provided feedback on their experience using the 

one-page coaching guide to flag academic issues. Coaches shared that their ability to take actionable steps 

based on the guide was limited by the lack of awareness coaches felt they had about resources and/or 

tools for supporting participants once challenges were identified. In addition, coaches noted that aspects 

of the guide felt formulaic and that it did not provide the space for tracking key information (e.g., whether 

or not the participant accessed tutoring). 

This focus group, along with feedback from coaches at the other two programs, sparked the creation of 

the Academic Coaching Binder (henceforth referred to as the Binder) by the evaluation team. All coaches 

in the Alternative Strategies Group were trained on this compendium of resources and had access to the 

Binder during Cycle 2. Examples of the resources in the binder are tips for engaging with instructors, tips 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 63

for troubleshooting academic challenges, and academically-focused warm-up questions for coaching 

sessions (See Appendices N, O, and P, respectively, Volume II).30 

In Cycle 2, a key tool for collecting participant academic information was the Weekly Academic 

Coaching Notes Sheet (henceforth referred to as the Notes Sheet), which was an updated version of the

one-page coaching guide used in Cycle 1. The Notes Sheet provided a tool for coaches to record critical 

academic performance and related information during their weekly one-on-one sessions (see Appendix Q, 

Volume II), most often, as a result of coaches asking their coachees to pull up their grades in the college 

LMS during one-on-one coaching sessions. 

In Cycle 2, coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group also routinely shared 

their completed Notes Sheets for each coachee with their Program Manager and their peer coaches (also 

working with other participants in the Alternative Strategies Group) during weekly learning community 

(LC) meetings. This information collection and sharing led to more frequent discussion of grades during 

one-on-one and group coaching sessions, as well as enhanced communication among PTC-P program 

staff during LC meetings about participants’ academic performance and support needs. The Program 

Manager in the Alternative Strategies Group informally recorded participants’ academic issues, taking 

notes during LC meetings. There also was informal tracking through a shared spreadsheet, Chatter (an 

online communication platform), and case notes. 

Specific to the PTC-P program, staff reported more consistent communication and information sharing 

with the Peirce College Academic Advisor (i.e., during bi-weekly meetings). This information was then 

shared with coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group. While this process 

helped to increase overall awareness of academic issues, there were still moments when PTC-P program 

staff were made aware of academic issues too late into L&D to respond effectively. 

Communication between the PTC-P program staff and instructors remained infrequent and for the most 

part was non-existent, regardless of whether staff were coaching participants in the Alternative or Usual 

Strategies Group. As a result, PTC-P staff and coaches often were unaware of participants’ behavioral 

issues in Peirce classes, making it difficult to anticipate academic challenges. 

Lastly, coaches working with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group more often referred 

participants to academic supports at Peirce College than did their counterparts working with participants 

in the Usual Strategies Group (see further discussion below). However, participant feedback on these 

resources were mixed. 

3.6 Study Findings

The impact study tested the impacts of three purposeful change strategies used for monitoring academics 

and supporting participants identified as experiencing difficulties in their college courses: (1) site-tailored 

strategies for ensuring that coaches have access (at least weekly) to information on how participants are 

doing in their college courses; (2) systematic and planful use of academic performance data by coaches to 

inform their coaching; and (3) coach access to and use of knowledge about participants’ academic 

difficulties, thus allowing more and better use of available resources to assist participants to overcome 

those challenges. 

Below, we present impact estimates for the primary outcomes (i.e., completion of L&D and continued 

enrollment in college beyond L&D) and secondary outcomes of interest (i.e., months of college 

 

30 Year Up National reported that they are in the process of developing resources and protocols to support rolling out 

key tools and practices demonstrated to be efficacious through this impact study. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 64

enrollment during the 7-month period beginning with entrance into the program, contract infractions and 

contract points remaining at the end of the L&D phase).

3.6.1 Primary Outcomes

The key goals of the tested interventions were to create conditions leading to more participants 

completing L&D, so that they could transition to internships and continue to pursue college coursework. 

The findings from the study indicate that the alternative strategies achieved these goals. 

Completion of Learning and Development Phase 

Participants in the Alternative Strategies Group were 9.6 percentage points more likely than their 

counterparts in the Usual Strategies Group to complete L&D (79 versus 69 percent)—a difference that is 

both large and statistically significant ( significant at the .10 level. ). Moreover, the estimated differences 

are positive, though not statistically significant, for each of the three programs. Estimates range from a 6.7 

percentage point gain for the Jacksonville program over the two cycles of testing to over 11 percentage 

point gains for both the Philadelphia (PTC-P) and the New York City (PTC-BMCC) programs. 

Table 17. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports on L&D Completion 

Rates

Sample Group Means (%) Difference in Means 5% Confidence Interval (%)

Alternative 

Strategies

Usual 

Strategies %-Point p-Valuea

Lower 

Bound

Upper 

Bound

Total Sample 78.9 69.3 9.6 * 0.052 1.5 17.6

Cohort/Cycle 0.289

1 January 2018 77.6 73.3 4.3 0.540 -7.2 15.7

2 July 2018 80.2 65.9 14.3 ** 0.036 3.2 25.4

Site 0.894

PTC-P 77.9 66.7 11.2 0.182 -2.6 25.1

PTC-BMCC 83.1 71.4 11.7 0.204 -3.4 26.8

PTC-JAX 77.0 70.3 6.7 0.397 -6.3 19.8

Office & Cycle 0.760

Cycle 1

PTC-P 87.1 77.8 9.4 0.361 -7.5 26.2

PTC-BMCC 78.2 65.0 13.2 0.356 -10.3 36.6

PTC-JAX 68.1 75.0 -6.9 0.577 -27.3 13.5

Cycle 2

PTC-P 68.6 56.7 11.9 0.369 -9.9 33.7

PTC-BMCC 87.8 77.3 10.5 0.356 -8.2 29.2

PTC-JAX 84.5 66.7 17.8 * 0.081 1.1 34.5

Sample Size 154 163 317 

Source: Data are from the Year Up program data system. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for participant characteristics at the time of program 

enrollment. Means for the Usual Strategies Group are unadjusted means. Full regression estimates are available from the first author upon 

request. 

ap-values for tests of differences in impacts by enrollment cohort/cycle and by office are listed above those for the individual impact estimates. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests. 

The estimated impact for Cycle 2 is considerably larger than that for Cycle 1 (14.3 versus 4.3 percentage 

points, respectively) and highly statistically significant for Cycle 2, but not Cycle 1 (p-values = .036 and 

.540 for Cycles 2 and 1, respectively). Notably, the estimated impact for the Jacksonville program (PTCJAX) is especially large and statistically significant in Cycle 2, whereas, the Alternative Strategies Group 

in Cycle 1 had a 6.9 percentage point lower completion rate than its Usual Strategies Group counterpart. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 65

The estimated impacts in Cycle 2 for both the Philadelphia (PTC-P) and the New York City (PTCBMCC) programs are large (11.2 and 11.7 percentage points, respectively), though neither difference is 

statistically significant at the .10 level. 

Continued Enrollment in College beyond Learning and Development Phase 

Overall, participants in the Alternative Strategies Group were more likely than their Usual Strategies

Group counterparts to continue with college coursework after exiting L&D. Data from the National 

Student Clearinghouse indicate that, across the three programs, 67 percent of those in the Alternative 

Strategies Group compared with 54 percent of their counterparts in the Usual Strategies Group were 

enrolled in college during the first month following the end of their L&D cycle (Table 18). The 13-

percentage point difference is statistically significant at the .003 level, with a lower bound on the 95 

percent confidence interval of 6 percentage points and an upper bound of 20 percentage points. 

Table 18. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports on College Enrollment 

in the Month following the Scheduled Completion of L&D

Group Means (%) Difference in Means 95% Confidence Interval (%)

Alternative 

Strategies

Usual 

Strategies %-Point p-Valuea

Lower 

Bound

Upper 

Bound

Total Sample 67.24 53.99 13.25 ** 0.003 6.00 20.50

Cohort/Cycle 0.089

1 January 2018 47.20 41.33 5.87 0.334 -4.10 15.84

2 July 2018 84.76 64.77 19.99 ** 0.002 9.51 30.47

Site 0.515

PTC-P 42.02 26.32 15.70 ** 0.031 3.77 27.63

PTC-BMCC 99.61 92.86 6.75 0.196 -1.82 15.32

PTC-JAX 68.40 53.13 15.27 * 0.076 1.17 29.37

Sample Size 154 163 317 

Source: Data on college enrollment are from the National Student Clearinghouse. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for participant characteristics at the time of program 

enrollment. Means for the Usual Strategies Group are unadjusted means. Full regression estimates are available from the first author upon

request. ap-values for tests of differences in impacts by enrollment cohort/cycle and by office are listed above those for the individual impact estimates. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests. 

Secondary Outcomes

As with impacts on L&D retention rates, the estimated impacts on college enrollment in the month 

following the scheduled end of L&D were especially large (20 percentage points) and statistically 

significant at the .005 level for participants in the Alternative Strategies Group who enrolled in Cycle 2. 

There was a non-statistically significant difference of just under 6 percentage points for those enrolled in 

Cycle 1. 

The estimated impacts of having been in the Alternative Strategies Group are much larger for participants 

in the Philadelphia (PTC-P) and Jacksonville (PTC-JAX) programs (in both cases, a differential of more 

than 15 percentage points) than they are for participants in the New York City (PTC-BMCC) program, 

where the point estimate of the difference is just under 7 percentage points and not statistically significant 

(p-value = .20). Potentially, this is due, in part, to the fact that college enrollment rates were unusually 

high among participants in the PTC-BMCC program (e.g., 92 percent for the Usual Strategies Group 

compared with rates of only 26 and 53 percent among those in the Usual Strategies Groups in the PTC-P 

and PTC-JAX programs, respectively). 

The study examined three secondary outcomes. One is the number of months participants were enrolled in 

college during the seven months following enrollment in the program—a time period that takes them into 

their first month of internship. The other two measures relate to participants’ behaviors, specifically the 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 66

number of contract infractions during L&D and the number of contracts points they have remaining at the 

end of L&D. 

Months of College Enrollment 

Over the seven-month period following enrollment in one of the three PTC programs participating in the 

study, participants in the Alternative Strategies Group at all three study sites were enrolled in college an 

average of 5.6 months compared with only 5.1 months for their counterparts in the Usual Strategies 

Group—a half-month difference that is statistically significant at the .004 level (Table 19). Notably, this 

difference is attributable almost entirely to the quite sizeable .77 month gain for the Alternative Strategies 

Group enrolled in the PTC program during Cycle 2. The size of the estimated impact on months of 

enrollment is roughly similar across all three sites (ranging from .43 to .53 months), with the estimates for 

PTC-BMCC and PTC-JAX programs being statistically significant at the .072 and .028 levels, 

respectively. 

Table 19. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports on the Months of 

College Enrollment during the Seven Months following Enrollment in the PTC Program

Group Means (%) Difference in Means 95% Confidence Interval (%)

Alternative 

Strategies

Usual 

Strategies Months p-Valuea

Lower 

Bound

Upper 

Bound

Overall 5.59 5.10 0.49 *** 0.004 0.21 0.77

Cohort/Cycle 0.089

1 January 2018 5.00 4.80 0.20 0.439 -0.21 0.61

2 July 2018 6.12 5.35 0.77 ** 0.001 0.39 1.15

Office 0.953

PTC-P 4.74 4.24 0.50 0.177 -0.11 1.11

PTC-BMCC 6.95 6.52 0.43 * 0.072 0.04 0.82

PTC-JAX 5.46 4.93 0.53 ** 0.028 0.14 0.92

Sample Size 154 163 317 

Source: Data on college enrollment are from the National Student Clearinghouse. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for participant characteristics at the time of enrollment.

Means for the Usual Strategies group are unadjusted means. ap-values for tests of differences in impacts by enrollment cohort/cycle and by office are listed above those for the individual impact estimates. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests. 

Contract Infractions and Points Remaining 

Year Up’s participant contract, which sets expectations for behavior and provides a code of conduct, is an 

important strategy for reinforcing Year Up’s high expectations. Closer monitoring of academic 

performance by coaches potentially could result in higher rates of recorded contract infractions, but also 

could lead to greater conformance with expectations and, thus, lower rates of participant firings. 

The alternative strategies tested did not alter significantly the number of recorded infractions for 

participants during L&D (Table 20). Those in the Alternative Strategies Group had an average of 7.0 

infractions and those in the Usual Strategies Group had an average of 6.6 infractions. The only notable 

subgroup difference was for the PTC-JAX program, where those in the Alternative Strategies Group had 

an average of 1.5 more recorded contract infractions than did their counterparts in the Usual Strategies 

Group—a difference that is statistically significant at the .09 level. 

In contrast to findings for contract infractions, participants in the Alternative Strategies Group had an 

average of 29 more contract points at the end of L&D than did their counterparts in the Usual Strategies 

Group—a difference that is statistically significant at the .07 level. However, this difference is entirely 

concentrated among participants who enrolled in Cycle 2, where those in the Alternative Strategies Group 

had an average of 63 more points than their counterparts in the Usual Strategies group at the end of 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 67

L&D—a difference that is statistically significant at the .003 level. Moreover, the impacts are generated 

from positive impacts on contract point balances for the Alternative Strategies Groups in the Philadelphia 

(PTC-P) and New York City (PTC-BMCC) programs. Participants in both the Alternative and Usual 

Strategies Groups in the PTC-JAX program had similar, relatively high contract point balances at the end 

of L&D (about 209 out of 360 possible points—150 initial points, plus up to 10 points per week over 21 

weeks of L&D with no infractions).

Table 20. Estimated Impacts of the Alternative Strategies for Academic Monitoring and Supports on Behavioral 

Outcomes

Group Means Difference in Means 95% Confidence Interval

Alternative 

Strategies

Usual 

Strategies Difference p-Valuea

Lower 

Bound

Upper 

Bound

Number of Contract Infractions 

During L&D

Overall 7.03 6.56 0.47 0.414 -0.47 1.41

Cohort/Cycle 0.256

1 January 2018 7.42 6.27 1.15 0.204 -0.35 2.65

2 July 2018 6.64 6.81 -0.17 0.816 -1.37 1.03

Office 0.203

PTC-P 4.78 5.37 -0.59 0.450 -1.87 0.69

PTC-BMCC 8.52 8.26 0.26 0.834 -1.80 2.32

PTC-JAX 8.05 6.50 1.55 * 0.087 0.07 3.03

Number of Contract Points 

Remaining at the end of L&D

Overall 195.64 166.9 28.74 * 0.070 2.80 54.68

Cohort/Cycle 0.023

1 January 2018 178.24 187.47 -9.23 0.696 -48.00 29.54

2 July 2018 212.76 149.38 63.38 *** 0.003 28.51 98.25

Office 0.355

PTC-P 179.55 137.37 42.18 * 0.085 1.99 82.37

PTC-BMCC 198.39 143.45 54.94 * 0.051 8.83 101.05

PTC-JAX 209.51 208.59 0.92 0.974 -45.22 47.06

Sample Size 154 163 317 

Source: Data are from the Year Up program data system. 

Notes: These data were weighted to account for the blocking of participants prior to randomization. The estimates of the mean difference 

between the treatment groups are based on regression models that included covariates for participant characteristics at the time of program 

enrollment. Means for the Usual Strategies Group are unadjusted means. Full regression estimates are available from the first author upon

request. The maximum contract points participants could have at the end of L&D is 360 (150 initial points, plus up to 10 points per week over 

21 weeks of L&D with no infractions). ap-values for tests of differences in impacts by enrollment cohort/cycle and by office are listed above those for the individual impact estimates. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests. 

3.6.2 Exploring Mechanisms through which Impacts Occurred

The study included two sub-analyses designed to help understand factors that may explain the observed 

impacts. One is an examination of how participants report having experienced the program, particularly as 

it relates to their engagement in their courses and experiences with their instructors, their coaches, and 

their peers. The other is an examination of similarities and differences in the actions of coaches during 

group and one-on-one coaching with an eye towards identifying possible patterns that may shed light on 

the alternative strategies that may have contributed to the observed impacts. 

Participants’ in both treatment groups reported generally similar program experiences. 

Based on data from the supplement to the web-based Pre-Internship survey (see Appendix H, Volume II) 

administered to participants by Year Up near the end of L&D (or, for participants who terminated early, 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 68

administered within days of their departure), there were no notable differences in how participants in the 

Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups viewed their program experiences. 

Participants the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups reported generally similar levels of school and 

work-related activities (Table 21). Participants in the two groups reported taking similar numbers of 

courses (an average of about 4.5), and experiencing similar levels of course difficulty (on average, 

moderate). Those in the Alternative Strategies Group reported spending slightly more time, on average, 

on homework (11 versus 9.7 hours a week) and completing an average of .34 more courses (4.2 versus 

3.9). However, none of these differences is statistically significant at conventional levels. Both groups 

reported working about 12 hours a week, on average, and had similar views on the extent to which work 

adversely affected their academics (on average, moderate). 

Table 21. Participants’ Reported Views of Their Learning Experiences during L&D

Group Means Difference in Means Confidence Interval

Measure

Alternative 

Strategies

Usual 

Strategies Difference p-Value

Lower 

Bound

Upper 

Bound

Academics

Courses during L&D 4.61 4.51 0.10 0.6790 -0.37 0.57

Difficulty of courses 

(1 = very difficult - 3 = not difficult) 2.23 2.16 0.07 0.3657 -0.08 0.22

Hours per week on homework 11.05 9.71 1.34 0.3033 -1.22 3.90

Number of courses completed 4.24 3.90 0.34 0.2587 -0.26 0.95

Employment

Hours per week worked for pay 12.10 12.86 -0.76 0.7391 -5.25 3.73

Degree work adversely affected 

academics (1 = not at all - 3 = a 

great deal) 2.20 2.16 0.04 0.7523 -0.21 0.30

Sample Size 134 114 248 

Source: These data are from an online survey administered to participants. Participants who completed the Learning and Development (L&D) 

phase of the program received the survey very near the completion of L&D. Those who left the program before completing L&D were asked to 

complete the survey shortly after they left the program. It was an augmented version of the Pre-Internship Survey Year Up has participants 

complete prior to entering their internship positions.

Notes: Overall, 78% of participant in the study sample completed the survey—84% of those in the Alternative Strategies group and 72% of 

those in the Usual Strategies Group. 

* = statistically significant at the .10 level, ** =.05 level, and *** =.001 level on two-tailed tests.

When asked whether they had encountered various challenges in their most difficult course (i.e., attending 

class regularly, keeping up with assignments, doing well on tests and assignments, understanding the 

course), the responses for the two groups were generally quite similar. Both groups reported having had 

moderate success getting timely feedback and having received moderate levels of support when they did 

encounter difficulties. This support most often came from PTC program staff, other participants in the 

class, or college instructors. Neither group reported using tutors frequently. 

Despite quite distinct differences in the tactics used by coaches working with participants in the 

Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups (see further discussion below), participants in both groups 

reported having high levels of communication with their coaches. This suggests that a high level of 

communication with one’s coach does not necessarily translate into meaningful coaching. 

Overall, participants in both the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups reported having had good 

experiences in the program and reported being very likely to recommend the program to others (average 

scores of 8.38 and 8.52 on a scale of 0 to 10 for the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups, respectively)

(see Appendix Table A.6, Volume II). Even though the academic coaching differed substantially between 

the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups, participants in the two groups generally reported similar 

assessments of the feedback and support they received on their coursework from college staff and peers. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 69

Alternative Strategies Participant: “With me, she 

[coach] would get with my professors or I would tell 

her myself. And sometimes I would pull up my 

grades to her .... And she would give me the 

support if I needed it” (PTC-JAX). 

Usual Strategies Participant: “As far as my 

(college) classes, [my coach] would ask me about 

them but it was up to me to disclose, so I guess if 

somebody said they were doing fine, and they 

weren't, the coach wouldn't find out ....” (PTC-P). 

Alternative Strategies Student: “ .... My 

coach recommended [that I] go to the lab . . . 

. and ask .... [T]here's people that work there 

. . . . and to ask my professor, and I did and 

got my grades up ..... ” (Site 2)

Usual Strategies Student: “The staff will tell 

you to access the [college tutoring center] if 

you needed it. One of the things here is [to] 

use the resources .....” (PTC-P)

However, participants in the Alternative Strategies Group rated the quality of the support from Year Up 

staff significantly higher than did those in the Usual Strategies Group. 

With a few exceptions, participants in both groups reported having received similar types, intensities, and 

qualities of supports to address challenges and similar overall levels of satisfaction with the program. This 

suggests that participants were not aware that there was something quite different going on during 

coaching (both one-on-one and individual) for those in the Alternative and Usual Strategies Groups. 

Coaches in the two treatment groups reported different approaches to working with participants. 

Coaches were envisioned as the primary agents for

fostering improvements in participant outcomes and, 

based on their responses to the Coach Survey, it appears 

that they modified their behavior in the intended ways. 

For example, higher percentages of those working with 

participants in the Alternative Strategies Group, as 

compared with their counterparts who worked with 

participants in the Usual Strategies Group, reported using 

coaching time to address academic, social, personal, and 

work issues, while only slightly lower percentages 

reported using coaching time to address Year Up-related

issues (see Table 22). 

Coaches implementing the alternative strategies for monitoring and supporting participants in Cycle 2

reported having substantially greater awareness of the academic challenges that participants were facing 

during L&D compared to coaches working with participants in the Usual Strategies Group. For example, 

even though participants were randomly assigned to the Alternative or Usual Strategies Groups and, thus, 

statistically identical in their readiness for the program, coaches using the alternative strategies were more 

likely than those using the usual strategies to report academics as a major challenge for their coachees 

based on recent coaching sessions (15 versus 3 percent). Conversely, coaches using usual strategies were 

more likely to report that academics were “not at all” an issue for their coachees (37 versus 23 percent). 

The most notable difference in reported behavior by coaches was the amount of time coaches spent 

discussing academic activities, performance and support needs of participants. In approximately 43 

percent of coaching sessions with participants in the Alternative Strategies Group, coaches reported 

discussing academics for “most of the time,” compared to coaching sessions with participants in the Usual 

Strategies Group (only 11 percent). As mentioned above, this focus on academic issues during coaching 

did not appear to come at the expense of discussing other issues (e.g., personal, social, work). 

Specifically, coaches in the Alternative Strategies Group were 

more likely to discuss personal issues (41 percent of coaching 

sessions) compared to coaches in the Usual Strategies Group 

(22 percent of coaching sessions). The same was true for 

discussing social issues in coaching (41 percent versus 22. 

percent of coaching sessions with the Alternative and Usual 

Strategies Groups, respectively) and work-related issues (35 

percent versus 25 percent of coaching sessions with 

Alternative Strategies and Usual Strategies Group, 

respectively). 

Notably, coaches in the Alternative Strategies Group also were three times more likely than their 

counterparts in the Usual Strategies Group to report having referred participants to tutoring (43 versus 14 

percent). However, both coaches and participants reported that tutoring was not always well aligned with 

participants’ needs and not always easily accessible. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 70

Interestingly, participants in both treatment groups reported regular communication with their coaches (an 

average of 3.7 – 3.8 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = never and 5 = daily). Furthermore, participants in both 

treatment groups reported frequently receiving feedback and support from college instructors, PTC

program staff, and others in the class (average score of 2.2 to 2.6 on a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 = never and

3 = frequently). Moreover, they generally rated the quality of feedback from college instructors, PTC

program staff, and other participants in their classes to be good to excellent and timely. Participants in 

both groups reported relatively low frequencies of receiving feedback and support from tutors at the 

college or online (average score of 1.3 to 1.6). 

Table 22. Perceptions and Actions of Coaches Working with Participants in the Alternative and Usual Strategies 

Treatment Groups (Percentage of Coaching Sessions Where Coach Reported Indicated Response)

Coaching Behaviors 

Group Means 

Alternative Strategies Usual Strategies 

Perceptions 

Coach reported that academics are: 

Not at all an issue 23.3 36.9

Not much of an issue 13.3 27.7

Somewhat of an issue 25.0 20.3

Small issue 23.3 12.3

Major issue 15.0 3.1

Use of Coaching Time

Coach reported discussing the following topics during coaching: 

Academics 50.8 23.9

Personal 41.3 22.5

Social 41.3 23.9

Work 34.9 25.4

Year Up topics 38.1 42.3

Other topics 20.6 16.9

Coach reported spending indicated amounts of time on academics: 

None 2.0 25.0

Small amount 9.8 23.2

Moderate amount 13.7 19.6

Quite a bit 31.4 21.4

Most of the time 43.1 10.7

Referrals

Coach reported referring participants to tutoring

Yes 46.0 14.1

No 54.0 85.9

Sample Size (Coaching Groups)

Total Study Sample 15 17

Survey Respondents 12 15

Survey Response Rate (%) 80 88

Source: Survey administered to coaches near the end of Cycle 2.

Note: The study sample consists of coaches who were employed in Year Up with the July 2018 cohort at the three study sites. These are 

unadjusted sample means.

3.7 Discussion 

Local and National Program staff uniformly judged the impact study to be a success. Year Up National 

and the evaluation team guided the local program staff to come up with and test promising ways of 

increasing their awareness of academic challenges participants were facing and intervening to address 

them. Some of the initial approaches considered by program staff proved impractical or infeasible and 

others were modified and improved over the course of the study. However, the bundle changes that 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 71

Academic Coaching Binder: “The coaching 

binder [ .... ] was so awesome ... because 

[instead of asking] ‘Okay so how was your 

weekend’ .... [we focus on] how can we [help 

you] academically?” (PTC-P Staff) 

programs implemented for the Alternative Strategies Group over the two cycles of testing resulted in 

sizeable improvements in the academic persistence of participants, especially in the second cycle of 

testing. Moreover, these changes are ones that would be relatively easy for other programs to adopt at 

low-to-no cost. The improved outcomes appear to be anchored in finding ways to routinize access to 

information about participant engagement and performance in their college courses, using that 

information to engage with participants who are experiencing difficulties, and eventually identifying

contributing factors and promising remedial strategies. 

3.7.1 Increased Access to Participants’ Grades and Other Performance Indicators

At the beginning of the study period, PTC program and college staff used different LMSs without shared 

access. In the interest of more timely identification and response to academic issues and other difficulties, 

Philadelphia PTC program staff (but not staff in the other programs in the study) obtained access during 

coaching sessions to the college’s LMS. This system tracked completion of assignments, as well as 

interim and final course grades and credit accumulation. Initial experience suggested that information 

captured in the college LMS was less timely and detailed than needed for reliable early identification of 

problems. 

Following the impact study, PTC-P program staff appear to be logging onto the system more regularly 

than previously. There are two potential explanations for the increased usage. First, PTC-P staff learned 

about the utility of the LMS through the findings of the impact study. Second, all PTC-P staff have access 

to the new LMS, Canvas, adopted by Peirce College in 2017, and they are finding it easier to navigate 

than the previous LMS. However, the utility of Canvas is limited by the information instructors choose to 

upload to their course site, and how often they do so. 

Following completion of the study, coaches at the PTC-P program (and possibly other study sites) have 

begun to have participants routinely pull up grades during coaching sessions as a means of staying on top 

of their progress, as well as routinizing and facilitating conversations about academic progress. Accessing 

the college LMS during coaching sessions seems to change the coaching conversation and bring

academics to the foreground. There is greater accountability and follow-through by participants and 

coaches on what takes place during coaching, as coaches are filling out weekly logs of participants’

grades and assignments. 

In addition to PTC staff accessing the college LMS, further efforts on the part of colleges may also help to 

improve PTC staff’s access and awareness of participants’ academic performance. For instance, Peirce 

College administrators noted that academic reports are now sent out to PTC-P staff with information

about participant academic performance; however, they also shared that more could be done to walk PTCP staff through these reports. One Peirce College Administrator noted: 

“I think on the Peirce side, we have to do a better job with, when reports come out, not just sending 

them and ... sitting down and walking Year Up through the reports is important. It's a lot better. It's a 

lot better, but I think we can still strengthen the communication between those reports.”

3.7.2 Organizing for Quicker, Better Response to Signs of Academic Challenges

In Cycle 2 of the impact study, coaches in the Alternative Strategies Group were trained on the use of an 

Academic Coaching Binder (Year Up, 2018), which provides resources and suggestions for coaches when 

they find a coachee encountering issues related to academics. 

The Binder and the Notes Sheet (see Appendix Q, Volume II) 

helped Alternative Strategies Coaches establish routines in 

coaching around academics and equipped them with tools for 

asking questions related to academics and providing supports 

to participants who were facing academic difficulties (see, for 

example, Appendices N, O, and P, Volume II). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 72

Improved Tracking of Issues: “I've seen 

[tracking] grow in the last cohort. Nothing 

was recorded before I came here so now 

we're recording conversations, I don't even 

think they were using EPIC [support] 

plans. I don't think they were using 

anything.” (PTC-P Staff) 

There has also been improved information tracking and increased communication about participant issues 

within and across learning communities (LCs). More often now, 

when issues are surfaced in coaching sessions, coaches share the 

information with other LC staff during LC meetings. This allows 

for group troubleshooting of academic issues. Additionally, there 

is increased communication across LCs using “Chatter”—an 

online component of Salesforce. Chatter also provides spaces for 

staff to log notes after talking with a participant and to track red 

flags in a collaborative manner. 

3.7.3 Improving Academic Supports from Peirce College

Troubleshooting participant academic issues has reportedly become a more collaborative effort between 

Peirce College’s Academic Advisor and PTC-P program staff. There now are multiple avenues through 

which participant academic challenges are shared. First, bi-weekly meetings have been established with 

the Peirce College Academic Advisor and the Associate Director of Programs and Program Managers at 

PTC-P. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss various participants’ academic challenges. Second, the 

Academic Advisor now contacts Program Managers (generally by e-mail), as needed, to share 

information obtained through college instructors. Often times, this is followed up with a conversation 

between the Academic Advisor and Program Managers, and it may lead to meetings with particular 

program participants. 

Although there now are more systems for communication and collaboration in place than prior to the 

study, several PTC-P program staff mentioned that, still, too often academic issues are not communicated

to PTC-P staff until it is too late for intervention. In addition, PTC-P program staff noted that the 

academic resources available at Peirce College are limited and participants frequently say they have 

difficulty accessing them. For example, Peirce College staff described its tutoring center (the Walker 

Center) as open throughout the day and evening and highly accessible to participants. However, the center 

generally has only one or a handful of tutors available at any time. Moreover, in focus groups, students 

have reported that the tutoring services provided were not particularly helpful. However, it is not clear 

whether the tutors are ineffective or PTC-P participants lack the initiative and/or requisite skills to engage 

with them productively. 

In addition to tutoring, Peirce College has recently undertaken efforts to provide low-cost internet and to

subsidize computer purchases by participants. Initially, few PTC-P participants reportedly availed 

themselves of these supports. However, both PTC-P program and Peirce College staff indicated in the 

most recent round of interviews that use of them has begun to increase following efforts to promote 

awareness of their availability. 

PTC-P program staff and Peirce College administrators continue to work to create convenient spaces that 

encourage participants to spend time studying at the college where they can also access these academic 

support services. For example, PTC-P participants who fail to participate in mandatory study halls or 

tutoring may lose contract points. Furthermore, with the increased focus on academics during coaching 

and in LC meetings, participants are more frequently receiving encouragement to take advantage of 

tutoring services at Peirce College. 

3.8 Study Limitations

This was a relatively short-term, low-budget evaluation that had a narrow focus; it focused exclusively on 

the impacts of the tested improvement strategies, not on overall impacts of the program. In addition to its 

narrow focus on the specific improvement strategies, the study has several other notable limitations. First, 

it does not provide evidence on the value-added of providing guaranteed textbook access as, in the end, 

this was not included in the test. Second, it does not provide any evidence on the value of the Wi-Fi 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 3. Impacts of Alternative Strategies for Monitoring and Supporting Academics ▌pg. 73

hotspots, which were viewed by the PTC-P program staff as an important resource for many participants. 

In the end, the program encountered legal and procedural issues in procuring the hotspots for sharing 

among participants. Third, the study does not provide good information on the consistency and reliability 

with which coaches in the Alternative Strategies Group used the Weekly Academic Coaching Notes Sheet 

and the Academic Coaching Binder. This was deliberate in so far as the evaluation team judged that it 

was more important to invest time and resources in shared learning and mid-course corrections driven by 

professional judgments of Year Up staff than to do close monitoring of daily operations. Finally, the 

study did not collect detailed data on the incidences and nature of the academic challenges faced by 

participants. This too was a deliberate choice by the evaluation team to not disrupt normal operations by 

burdening staff with additional tracking requirements.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 4. Summary and Recommendations ▌pg. 74

4. Summary and Recommendations

This report provides the first in-depth assessment of the implementation of Year Up’s next-generation 

Professional Training Corps (PTC) program. The study fulfills a requirement of a SIF grant for the PTC 

site in Philadelphia (PTC-P). Although primarily focused on PTC-P, the report also provides information 

on a number of other PTC sites as context. In addition to analytic methods typical in implementation 

studies, the evaluation also included an impact study (a small randomized controlled trial) to test 

strategies for improving academic success and program retention. 

The implementation study documented many challenges encountered by Year Up National and the local 

program staff at the Philadelphia PTC program during their efforts to establish, strengthen, and grow the 

program. For example, PTC-P program staff struggled to secure an adequate number of internship seats 

within a reasonable commuting distance for participants. Philadelphia is among the most economically 

and racially segregated cities in the nation. It spans 134 square miles and has a diverse population of 

about 1.5 million (44 percent black, 36 percent white, 14 percent Latino, and seven percent Asian). These 

characteristics, along with its transportation infrastructure, complicate the process of finding accessible 

employer worksites for internships and post-program employment placements. 

Notable, but lesser challenges stem from the decision by Year Up to partner with a private college rather 

than the Community College of Philadelphia (e.g., higher college tuition costs than at public colleges, 

differences between the Year Up target population and the older working adult population traditionally 

served by Peirce College). The evaluation revealed the potential for Year Up to build productive 

partnerships with private colleges to ensure the delivery of essential academic coursework and 

credentials. Originally, higher tuition was thought to be a serious limitation of partnering with a private 

college. However, this has been at most a minor drawback for two reasons: (1) Peirce College discounted 

its tuition and provided the PTC-P program with office space and a host of other in-kind supports; and (2) 

college costs are less than five percent of total per-participant costs of Year Up’s PTC program. 

As it enters its fifth year of operations, the Philadelphia PTC program has its basic services, such as its 

academic courses, occupational skills training courses, support services, and internships, in place and 

operating reasonably well. However, the program has lower enrollments, a larger staff, and less buy-in 

from employers than is required for financial self-sufficiency. Currently, the program’s revenue from 

employer-sponsored internships, which is envisioned as the principal source of revenue, covers just over 

one third of the program’s operating costs. 

In order to achieve its goal of financial self-sufficiency, Year Up needs to increase enrollment, the 

number of internships, and the fraction of internships that are fully sponsored quite substantially. Based 

on Year Up’s Standard Program Model, at its current staffing level, the PTC-P program would need to 

recruit and serve approximately one third more participants and more than triple its number of fully 

sponsored internships seats. The implementation evaluation provides some insights regarding 

opportunities and challenges to achieving these targets.

The impact study focused more narrowly on developing and testing ways the PTC program could 

improve its services to and outcomes for youth it recruited. Specifically, the evaluation team worked with 

program staff in Philadelphia and two other PTC offices to develop and test a set of alternative strategies 

to improve participants’ success in their college coursework and their retention in the program. The 

evaluation team devised a relatively low-burden, low-cost, and quick-turnaround study for this purpose. 

The findings help to illuminate both causes and productive responses to academic difficulties. For 

example, compared with the existing, business-as-usual approach, a more routinized process and 

standardized tools for monitoring participants’ academic progress enabled staff to identify and quickly 

address problems earlier on in the Learning and Development (L&D) phase. These and other 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 4. Summary and Recommendations ▌pg. 75

improvements led to a nearly 10-percentage-point improvement in completing that initial six-month 

training phase.

The study strengthened understanding of the breadth and depth of challenges these youth face and the 

ways these challenges affect their readiness for pursuing serious career preparation that entails both 

college coursework and workplace training. For example, seemingly simple issues such as the inability to 

access the college’s learning management system from home can make it difficult for participants to 

complete homework assignments on time. The same was true for textbook access. 

In general, the PTC-P’s L&D and internship services appear to conform with goals and expectations for a 

well-functioning PTC program. Staff, participants, college partners, and employers all have reported 

generally favorable reactions to the program structure and services, from orientation through graduation. 

There appear to be strong systems in place for continuous performance monitoring and a practice of 

strategic intervention when weaknesses or trouble spots are identified. At this point, the priority concerns 

pertain to the recruitment pipeline and internship sponsorship. The following are three suggestions that 

could be helpful in addressing them: 

1. Engage in more aggressive and broad-based strategies to strengthen the participant 

recruitment pipeline. 

Recruitment has been a persistent challenge for the program. In a city that is estimated to have more than 

100,000 opportunity youth, it seems both important and feasible to identify ways to attract youth who are 

ready and eager to take advantage of the opportunities the program offers. It would seem prudent to more 

aggressively engage with high school counselors, heads of the myriad youth-serving organizations in the 

city, religious organizations, and employment training providers (particularly those operating state and 

federally sponsored employment programs). The success of such efforts hinges on achieving stability of 

the admissions staff to allow for the creation and sustainability of lasting partnerships. Year Up National 

and the local PTC program team also might want to consider convening and actively engaging an 

advisory board comprising leaders from five to 10 prominent youth-serving organizations to aid in the 

construction and maintenance of a robust referral pipeline. 

2. Expand the employer network to include more firms that are located on accessible public 

transit routes within the city limits and firms that are willing to sponsor internships. 

This would be helpful in addressing the shortfall in sponsored internships and reducing transportation 

costs, which are many times higher than at other PTC programs. The recent restructuring of the Corporate 

Engagement team creates a promising opportunity to knock on new doors and revisit existing employers 

in efforts to strengthen and expand existing partnerships. It also may be helpful to engage a handful of 

leading corporate partners in an intensive program improvement initiative aimed at creating a sustainable 

pipeline of sponsored internship opportunities in high-demand occupations throughout the city. A more 

committed and enduring pipeline could be very helpful in informing the selection of future career tracks 

offered. As a means of identifying promising new target employers, it could be useful to conduct a 

mapping exercise to identify employers in neighborhoods easily accessible for the participants. 

3. Consider initiating a partnership with an area public college.

There are many reasons to continue working with Peirce College. However, having this as the only 

college partner may constrain the recruitment pipeline as it is less well known by and less accessible 

among Year Up’s target population. Community College of Philadelphia, for example, is more familiar to 

area residents and has stronger ties to area high schools than does Peirce College. Community colleges, 

in particular, also tend to have an array of support services commonly needed by young adult students 

available on campus (e.g., tutoring, health care, and counseling).
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 4. Summary and Recommendations ▌pg. 76

In addition to the three recommendations for improving the PTC-P program, we also encourage the 

continued use of mini-studies and embedded experiments to accelerate improvement throughout its many 

programs. The impact study component of this evaluation is one of four mini-studies of Year Up’s PTC 

programs (including PTC-P) we conducted during the period of the Social Innovation Fund/GreenLight 

grant.31 These highly focused, quick-turnaround, low-cost studies provided Year Up National and the 

individual programs evaluated with valued feedback on issues relevant to achieving the program goals. 

For example, one of the studies dug into issues that surfaced in the interim implementation study about 

academic challenges and low retention during L&D—issues that, if not solved, would prevent programs 

from meeting overall performance goals (Maynard & Fein, 2015). This mini-study laid the groundwork 

for a second study, which was the impact study highlighted in this report—testing strategies for 

improving academic monitoring and supports, and thereby, raising retention through L&D. 

Year Up National and the PTC-P program staff reported valuing the findings from these mini-studies. For 

example, the Philadelphia program has distributed to all staff the Academic Coaching Binder (Year Up,

2018) developed by staff who coached participants in the Alternative Strategies Group for the impact 

study. Staff also reported that they are continuing efforts to build on coaching routines tested as 

improvement strategies in the impact study. In addition, they are using communication channels 

established between the Student Support Services staff and the college partners during the study period. 

All in all, the mini-studies appear to have been a highly efficient and effective way for Year Up National 

as well as the local PTC programs to improve their understanding of the challenges they encounter, and to 

identify and share information about promising approaches to addressing those challenges across sites. In 

the case of the impact study, Year Up had the opportunity to design and formally test new practices on a 

small scale before investing in wholesale adoption—an approach that may facilitate enhanced program 

improvement efforts in the future. 

 

31 As noted above, these studies were funded by Social Innovation Fund/GreenLight, the Institute of Education 

Sciences, or both. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 5. References ▌pg. 77

5. References

Abt Associates (2016, July). Prioritizing mini-study topics for study in the IES PTC evaluation. Bethesda, 

MD: Abt Associates.

Abt Associates (2014, June 4). Sub-grantee evaluation plan for Year Up’s Professional Training Corps. 

Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor's 

degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education, 

1972-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African 

American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social 

Psychology, 38(2), 113-125. Accessed 8-11-18 at:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76a7/6b126d006a6a03b1547b0160dd8485bcf679.pdf. 

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T. & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. Journal of 

Higher Education, 77(5): 886-924. 

Baelen, R. N., Maynard, R. A., Fein, D. J., & Souvanna, P. (2018, March 7). Setting up successful 

internships: Findings from a mini-study. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates. 

Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental 

education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2009(145), 11-30. 

Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America's community colleges.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bailey, T., & Karp, M. M. (2003). Promoting college access and success: A review of credit-based 

transition programs. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College. 

Accessed 8-11-18 at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482497.pdf. 

Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2011). The benefits of attending community college: A review of the 

evidence. Community College Review, 39(1), 46-68.

Bettinger, E. P., Long, B. T., Oreopoulos, P., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2012). The role of application 

assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA 

experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1205-1242.

Bettinger, E.P. & Baker, R. (2011). The effects of student coaching: An evaluation of a randomized 

experiment in student advising. NBER Working Paper No. 16881.

Bloom, D., & Sommo, C. (2005). Building learning communities early results from the Opening Doors 

Demonstration at Kingsborough Community College. New York, NY: MDRC. 

Bloom, H. S. (Ed.). (2005). Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage Foundation. 

Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. (2010). Increasing time to baccalaureate degree in the United

States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Population Studies. 

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked 

improvement communities in education. In Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127-162). 

Springer, Dordrecht.

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How 

America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Carey, K. B., Henson, J. M., Carey, M. P., & Maisto, S. A. (2007). Which heavy drinking college 

students benefit from a brief motivational intervention? Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology, 75(4), 663.

Casazza, M. E., & Silverman, S. L. (2013). Meaningful access and support. Council of Learning 

Assistance and Developmental Associations (CLADEA). Accessed 9-7-18 at:

http://aladenet.org/uploads/3/2/3/8/3238519/cladea_white_paper_final.pdf
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 5. References ▌pg. 78

Castleman, B. L., & Page, L. C. (2014). A trickle or a torrent? Understanding the extent of summer 

“melt” among college‐intending high school graduates. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 202-220.

Dadgar, M. & Weiss, M.J. (2012). Labor market returns to sub-baccalaureate credentials: How much 

does a community college degree or certificate pay? CCRC Working Paper No. 45, New York, 

NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.

Dong, N. and Maynard, R. A. (2013). PowerUp!: A tool for calculating minimum detectable effect sizes 

and sample size requirements for experimental and quasi-experimental designs. Journal of 

Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(1), 24-67. 

Dynarski, S. M., Hemelt, S. W., & Hyman, J. M. (2015). The missing manual: Using National Student 

Clearinghouse data to track postsecondary outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, 37(1_suppl), 53S-79S.

Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013, spring). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. The Future 

of Children, Vol. 23, no. 1 (67-91). Accessed 8-11-18 at:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015227.pdf 

Fein, D. J. & Hamadyk, J. (2018). Bridging the opportunity divide for low-income youth: Implementation 

and early impacts of the Year Up Program, OPRE Report #2018-65, Washington, DC: Office of 

Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services. Accessed 8/11/18 at:

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/pace_8_year_up_appendices_6_1_18_508.pdf 

Fein, D. J. & Shivji, A. (2017, October 19). Promoting educational persistence in Year Up’s Professional 

Training Corps. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.

Fein, D. J. (2016). Scaling up to close the opportunity divide for low-income youth: A Case Study of the 

Year Up Program. OPRE Report #2016-55, Washington, D.C.: Office of Planning, Research and 

Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services.

Fein, D. J., & Beecroft, E. (2006). College as a job advancement strategy: Final report on the New

Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc.

Fein, D. J. (2013). The struggle for coherence in emerging U.S. career pathways initiatives. Working 

Paper, University of Maryland School of Public Policy-Atlantic Council, Washington, D.C.

Fein, D.J., & Maynard, R. A. (2015). Implementing Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in 

Philadelphia: Experience in the first year and a half. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates Inc. 

Frazier, P., Meredith, L., Greer, C., Paulsen, J. A., Howard, K., Dietz, L. R., & Qin, K. (2015). 

Randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a web-based stress management 

program among community college students. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(5), 576-586. 

Goldrick-Rab, S., & Sorensen, K. (2010). Unmarried parents in college. The Future of Children, 20(2), 

179-203.

Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D. N., Benson, J., & Kelchen, R. (2011). Conditional cash transfers and college 

persistence: Evidence from a randomized need‐based grant program. Institute for Research on 

Poverty Discussion Paper, 1393-11.

GreenLight Fund (no date). GreenLight Fund Mission. Accessed 9-3-18 at: 

https://greenlightfund.org/about/our-mission/. 

Hagedorn, L. S., & Kuznetsova, I. (2016). Developmental, remedial, and basic skills: Diverse programs

and approaches at community colleges. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2015(168), 49-

64. 

Horn, L., & Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the persistence path through 

college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics.

Jacobson, L., & Mokher, C. (2009). Pathways to boosting the earnings of low-income students by 

increasing their educational attainment. New York, NY: Hudson Institute Center for 

Employment. 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 5. References ▌pg. 79

Jacobson, L., LaLonde, R. J., & Sullivan, D. G. (2005a). Estimating the returns to community college 

schooling for displaced workers. Journal of Econometrics, 125(1-2), 271-304. 

Jacobson, L., Lalonde, R. J., & Sullivan, D. G. (2005b). The impact of community college retraining on 

older displaced workers: Should we teach old dogs new tricks? Industrial & Labor Relations 

Review, 58(3), 398-415.

Jaggars, S. S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students? (CCRC 

Working Paper No. 26). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community 

College Research Center.

Jepsen, C., Troske, K., & Coomes, P. (2009). The labor-market returns for community college degrees, 

diplomas, and certificates. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky and University of Louisville.

Kane, T., & Rouse, C. (1995). Labor market returns to two and four-year college. American Economic 

Review, 85, 600-614.

Levin, H. M., & Calcagno, J. C. (2008). Remediation in the community college: An evaluator's 

perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181-207.

Marcotte, D. E. (2010). The earnings effect of education at community colleges. Contemporary Economic 

Policy, 28(1), 36-51. Accessed 8-11-18 at:

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/33710/1/532001214.pdf

Matus-Grossman, L., & Gooden, S. (2002). Opening Doors: Students' perspectives on juggling work, 

family, and college. New York, NY: MDRC.

Means, B., & Penuel, W. R. (2005). Research to support scaling up technology-based educational 

innovations. In C. Dede, J. P. Honan, & L. C. Peters (Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned 

from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 176-197). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Maynard, R. & Baelen, R. (2018, June 6). Reflections from a mini-experiment to test alternative strategies 

for academic monitoring and support of students in Year Up’s Professional Training Corps 

Programs. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

Maynard, R. & Fein, D. (2015, July 29). Recruitment and retention in PTC-Philadelphia. Bethesda, MD:

Abt Associates.

Maynard, R.A., Baelen, R.N., Fein, D.J, Shivji, A., & Souvanna, P. (2018, June 12). Improving Learning 

& Development completion: Experimenting with alternative strategies for monitoring & 

supporting academics in the PTC. Conversations with Year Up Staff. Bethesda, MD: Abt 

Associates. 

Maynard, R.A., Baelen, R.N., Fein, D.J, Shivji, A., & Souvanna, P. (2018, June 18). Improving Learning 

& Development completion: Experimenting with alternative strategies for monitoring & 

supporting academics in the PTC. Post-read for Year Up Staff Conversation. Bethesda, MD: Abt 

Associates. 

National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and 

skills in the 21st Century. Washington DC: The National Academy Press.

Orr, L. L. (1999). Social experiments: Evaluating public programs with experimental methods. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patel, R., Richburg-Hayes, L., de la Campa, E., & Rudd, T. (2013). Performance-based scholarships: 

What have we learned? Interim findings from the PBS Demonstration. New York, NY: MDRC.

Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence. 

Community College Review, 39(3), 268-295.

Proger, A. R., Bhatt, M. P., Cirks, V., & Gurke, D. (2017). Establishing and sustaining networked 

improvement communities: Lessons from Michigan and Minnesota (REL 2017–264). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center 

for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. 

Accessed 10-8-18 at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. 

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis 

methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 5. References ▌pg. 80

Robbins, S. B., Allen, J., Casillas, A., Peterson, C. H., & Huy, L. (2006). Unraveling the differential 

effects of motivational and skills, social, and self-management measures from traditional 

predictors of college outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 598-616.

Robbins, S. B., Huy, L., Davis, D., Carlstrom, A., Lauver, K., & Langley, R. (2004). Do psychosocial and 

study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 

261-288.

Roder, A., & Elliot, M. (2014). Sustained gains: Year Up’s continued impacts on young adults’ earnings. 

New York, NY: Economic Mobility Corporation. 

Roder, A., & Elliott, M. (2012). A promising start: Year Up's initial impacts on low-income young adults' 

careers. New York, NY: Economic Mobility Corporation.

Rosenbaum, J., Ahearn, C., Becker, K., & Rosenbaum, J. (2015). The new forgotten half and research 

directions to support them. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. 

Rubin, D. B. (1986). Statistical matching using file concatenation with adjusted weights and multiple 

imputations. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 4(1), 87-94.

Rubin, D. B. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys (Vol. 81). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley 

& Sons.

Rutschow, E. Z., Cullinan, D., & Welbeck, R. (2012). Keeping students on course: An impact study of a 

student success course at Guilford Technical Community College. New York, NY: MDRC. 

Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research, 8(1), 3-15.

Scrivener, S., Bloom, D., LeBlanc, A., Paxson, C., Rouse, C. E., & Sommo, C. (2008). A good start: 

Two-year effects of a freshman learning community program at Kingsborough Community 

College. New York, NY: MDRC.

Social Innovation Fund (no date). Evaluation planning guidance: A step by step guide to planning a 

rigorous evaluation. Social Innovation Fund. Accessed 10-17-18 at: 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/SIF%20Evaluation%20guidance%

208%205%202014.pdf

Sommo, C., Mayer, A. K., Rudd, T., & Cullinan, D. (2012). Commencement day: Six-year effects of a 

freshman learning community program at Kingsborough Community College. New York, NY: 

MDRC. 

Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2017). Continuous improvement in 

the public-school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan–do–study–act 

cycles. Journal of Educational Change, 18(4), 465-494.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures for student attrition (2nd ed.). 

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Valentine, J. C., Hirschy, A. S., Bremer, C. D., Novillo, W., Castellano, M., & Banister, A. (2009). 

Systematic reviews of research: Postsecondary transitions. Identifying effective models and 

practices. National Research Center for Career and Technical Education. 

Visher, M. G., & Stern, D. (2015). New pathways to careers and college: Examples, evidence, and 

prospects. New York, NY: MDRC. 

Wathington, H. D., Barnett, E. A., Weissman, E., Teres, J., Pretlow, J., & Nakanishi, A. (2011). Getting 

ready for college: An implementation and early impacts study of eight Texas developmental 

summer bridge programs. National Center for Postsecondary Research. 

Weiss, M. J., Visher, M. G., & Wathington, H. (2010). Learning communities for students in 

developmental reading: An impact study at Hillsborough Community College. National Center 

for Postsecondary Research. 

Weiss, M. J., Visher, M. G., Weissman, E., & Wathington, H. (2015). The impact of Learning 

Communities for students in developmental education A synthesis of findings from randomized 

trials at six community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 520-541.
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates 5. References ▌pg. 81

Weissman, E., Cullinan, D., Cerna, O., Safran, S., & Richman, P. (2012). Learning communities for 

participants in developmental English: Impact studies at Merced College and the Community 

College of Baltimore County. NCPR Paper. 

Warfield, G. (2018). A brief note on why Year Up agreed to be part of a second research partnership. 

Presented at the Spring SREE Conference, March 2, 2018, Washington, DC. 

Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2016). The role of a skills learning support program 

on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement a 

longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(3), 

317-332. 

Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They’re not 

magic. Review of educational Research, 81(2), 267-301.

Year Up (2017, April). Resolving the “Alphabet Soup”: Lasting role clarity for PM/IS/EP/BD/PRM. 

Year Up (2018, July). Mini-experiment: Alternative coaching resources. Boston, MA: Year Up. 

Year Up (no date). GreenLight Fund, Philadelphia. Accessed 9-6-18-15 at 

(https://greenlightfund.org/organization/year-up/). 
Final Evaluation Report of Year Up’s Professional Training Corps in Philadelphia

Abt Associates List of Appendices ▌pg. 82

List of Appendices (See Volume II) 

• Appendix A: Supplemental Tables

• Appendix B: Updated Year Up Theory of Change-2017

• Appendix C: Admissions Readiness Rubric

• Appendix D: Career Development and Interpersonal Relations Course Curriculum—2017

• Appendix E: Year Up’s Post Program Outcome Targets

• Appendix F: Program Staffing and Staff Tenure July 2018

• Appendix G: Organizational Chart for the Philadelphia Professional Training Corps (PTC) 

Program, August 2018

• Appendix H: Participant Survey Questions (Supplements to the Pre-internship Survey) 

• Appendix I: Bi-weekly Monitoring Guide

• Appendix J: Coach Survey (Cycle 2 Coaches)

• Appendix K: Site Observation Protocol 

• Appendix L: Participant Focus Group Guide

• Appendix M: Staff Interview Guide

• Appendix N: Tips for Engaging with Instructors (from Academic Coaching Binder) 

• Appendix O: Troubleshooting Academic Challenges (from Academic Coaching Binder)

• Appendix P: Warm-Up Questions Suggestions (from Academic Coaching Binder) 

• Appendix Q: Weekly Academic Notes Sheet Used for Coaching Participants in the 

Alternative Strategies Group