ADOLESCENTS AND YOUTH 

FINAL REPORT 

SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 

AN EVALUATION OF THE LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER’S 

PROMOTOR PATHWAY PROGRAM 

Brett Theodos Michael R. Pergamit Alexandra Derian Sara Edelstein Allison Stolte 

January 2016 
j

ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE 

The nonprofit Urban In stitute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five 

decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based sol utions that improve lives and 

strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunitiesfor 

all, reduce hardship am ong the most v ulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. 

ABOUT THE SOCIAL INNOVATION FUND 

This report is based upon work supported by the Soc ial Innovation Fund (SIF), a program of the Corporation for 

National and Communi ty Service (CNCS). The Social Innovation Fund combines public and private resources to 

grow the impact of innovative, community-based solutions that have compelling evidence of improving the lives of 

people in low-income communities throughout the United States. 

Copyright © January 2016. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the 

Urban Institute. Cover i mage courtesyof Elvert Barnes (CC BY-SA 2.0). 
Contents 

Acknowledgments iv
 

Executive Summary v
 

LAYC and the Promotor Pathway Program v
 

Evaluation Implementation vi
 

Service Use vii
 

Other LAYC Services Received viii
 

Program Impacts viii
 

Implications for Practice and Policy ix
 

Introduction 1
 

Literature on Programming for At-Risk Youth 2
 

LAYC and the Promotor Pathway Program 6
 

Promotor Pathway Intervention and Logic 7
 

Target Population, Recruitment, and Screening 10
 

Program Components 10
 

Evaluation Implementation 13
 

Sample Enrollment and Baseline Survey 13
 

Baseline Sample Characteristics 13
 

Assessing Randomization 17
 

Outcome Surveys and Attrition 17
 

Service Use 19
 

Engagement with Promotores 19
 

Correlates of Engagement 24
 

Other LAYC Services Received 25
 

Use of Services and Program Participation 27
 

Program Impacts 30
 

Education 31
 

Employment 32
 

Births 33
 

Housing Stability 33
 

Substance Use 34
 

Delinquency and Violence 35
 

Relationships and Self-Efficacy 36
 
Implications for Practice and Policy 39 

Appendix A Survey Attrition 42
 

Appendix B Program Impacts Supporting Tables 46
 

Apxpendix C Information on Scales 55
 

Mastery 55
 

Peers Scales 56
 

Delinquency 57
 

Appendix D 18-Month Survey Instrument 60
 

Notes 75
 

References 76
 

About the Authors 78
 

Statement of Independence 79
 

 

Acknowledgments 

This report was funded by the Social Innovation Fund, Venture Philanthropy Partners, and the World 

Bank Group Community Outreach Program. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it 

possible for Urban to advance its mission. 

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, 

its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine our research findings or the insights and 

recommendations of our experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is 

available at www.urban.org/support. 

The authors thank Tony Fujs and Susana Martinez of the Latin American Youth Center, who 

contributed mightily to this report by providing data, feedback, and expertise, and we thank the broader 

Promotor Pathway and Learning and Evaluation teams at the Latin American Youth Center. We are also 

especially grateful to the funders of this evaluation: the Social Innovation Fund, Venture Philanthropy 

Partners, and the World Bank Group Community Outreach Program. Funders and partners to Latin 

American Youth Center in the design and implementation of the Promotor Pathway program include 

Bridgespan Group, Carter and Melissa Cafritz Charitable Trust, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, HillSnowdon Foundation, Jerry Taylor and Nancy Bryant Foundation, Meyer Foundation, Paul M. Angell 

Family Foundation, Open Society Institute, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Susan and Gary 

Rosenbaum Family Fund, and Thrive Foundation for Youth. In support of this study, Chris Healey and 

Elizabeth Davies provided research assistance. Finally, thanks to Wendy McClanahan and the staff of 

Public/Private Ventures who initially designed this evaluation. 

IV S OLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Executive Summary 

This report describes an evaluation of the Latin American Youth Center’s (LAYC) 

Promotor Pathway program, which provides youth with a “promotor” who provides 

intensive case management, mentorship, and advocacy to youth who have multiple 

risk factors. Through these services, the Promotor Pathway program aims to improve 

education and employment outcomes, boost life skills, and prevent delinquency or 

reduce unhealthy behaviors for youth transitioning into adulthood. 

Youth participating in the program were randomly assigned to either a promotor or to LAYC 

services as usual. This evaluation tests a “top up” model, where we compared those with access to all 

other LAYC services with those who also have access to a promotor. The randomized controlled trial 

(RCT) design assesses whether the Promotor Pathway program improved 18-month outcomes for 

youth in the areas of education attainment, employment, reduced births, residential stability, and 

reduced risk-taking behaviors. 

LAYC and the Promotor Pathway Program 

LAYC was founded in 1968 to address the absence of services for the emerging Latino community in the 

District of Columbia. Today, LAYC provides of youth development programs that seek to improve the 

lives of low-income immigrant youth and youth of color and their families. LAYC serves about 4,000 atrisk youth from diverse communities each year in four sites within DC and Maryland. 

In 2008, LAYC launched the Promotor Pathway program. Promotor Pathway is an intensive client 

management program aimed at helping the highest-risk and most-disconnected youth overcome 

significant life obstacles such as lack of education, homelessness, trauma, substance abuse, and court 

involvement. The program rests on the theory that a positive relationship with a “caring adult” is the 

most important factor in helping youth reach their goals, and that this relationship must be long term. 

LAYC defined intended outcomes in three categories: academic success, employment success, and 

healthy behaviors. It grouped these outcomes into short-term, intermediate, and long-term time 

horizons. 

LAYC’s Promotor Pathway program targets a subset of disconnected youth who have the highest 

risk, and specifically targets immigrant youth and youth of color from low-income households living in 

areas with high proportions of populations of color. The program serves youth between the ages of 16 

and 24 years old,1

 and requires that youth be no more than 22 years old upon entry into the program so 

that they could be served for at least two years. 

LAYC recruited participants to the Promotor Pathway program from all four LAYC sites: 

Washington, DC, and Langley Park, Riverdale, and Silver Spring, Maryland. Potentially eligible youth 

were also referred to the program through word of mouth from within LAYC and from external sources 
 

such as government agencies, schools, and other nonprofits. Once recruited or referred, youth were 

required to complete a risk screening assessment with the help of a LAYC staff person to determine 

eligibility. The screening assessment asked youth about whether they were enrolled in school, their 

housing situation, any substance abuse and mental health issues, and criminal justice involvement; 

youth with risk in these primary areas automatically are eligible for the program. Youth with risk in 

other areas, such as involvement in special education, previous failure of a class or grade, a recent 

suspension, or having a child or expecting a child, were likely to be deemed eligible. Youth with multiple 

risk factors are eligible for the program. 

Evaluation Implementation 

The primary method of data collection was a series of questionnaires designed by Public/Private 

Ventures and LAYC.2

 Once LAYC staff deemed youth eligible for the study, but before random 

assignment, each young person completed a self-administered baseline paper survey. 

Between April 2010 and February 2013, youth determined eligible for the Promotor Pathway 

program were invited to participate in the program and then randomly assigned to either the treatment 

group or the control group. Typically within one week of completing the baseline survey, Ewald & 

Wasserman Research Consultants (E&W), the contracted survey research firm, randomly assigned 

youth to the treatment or control group using a pseudo-random number algorithm. Once assigned, 

E&W transferred this information to LAYC. If assigned to the treatment group, youth would be given a 

promotor and could begin meeting with them within one week of assignment. Those assigned to the 

control group were not permitted to participate, but could still access other LAYC services on their own. 

The study sample comprised 476 youth randomly assigned to the treatment or the control group. 

Baseline characteristics and risk factors were as follows: 

 The sample was split almost evenly in terms of gender. Nearly all study youth (99 percent) were 

people of color and about half of youth spoke at least some Spanish at home. Their average age 

was 18.3

 About a third of youth were parents. 

 Eighty-four percent were connected to some education (in school or general equivalency 

diploma [GED] classes). Seventy-four percent had not yet attained a high school diploma or 

GED. Twenty-four percent had a high school diploma or GED as their highest degree. Twentytwo percent were employed at baseline. 

 Forty percent were receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP). Twenty-one percent reported not getting enough to eat. Twenty-two percent did not 

regularly sleep in the same home. Fourteen percent had slept in a homeless shelter in the past 

six months. Fourteen percent had previous or current involvement in the foster care system. 

 About 25 percent reported a learning disability. Twenty-one percent reported a mental health 

diagnosis. Fifteen percent reported engaging in self-injurious behavior requiring medical 

attention. 

VI SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 Twenty-three percent reported a recent arrest. Twenty percent reported receiving a warning 

by the police at some time in the past. Sixteen percent had carried a weapon in the past four 

weeks. Six percent reported that they had sold marijuana in the past 12 months. 

Randomization was successful as we saw few significant differences between the treatment and 

control groups at baseline. There were no significant differences in gender, age, SNAP receipt, whether 

or not youth had slept in a shelter in the past six months, and employment, measures of relationships 

and self-efficacy, most risk factors, and all neighborhood characteristics. Relative to the control group, a 

slightly higher percentage of the treatment group identified as mixed race, was in 11th grade, and sold 

marijuana. 

There was only one significant difference in risk factors between treatment and control group at 

baseline. The only significant difference found was related to whether or not a youth had sold marijuana 

in the last 12 months. A higher percentage of the treatment group, about 10 percent versus 4 percent, 

reported that they had sold marijuana in the past 12 months. As when examining the baseline 

demographic, education, and employment characteristics, the lack of significant difference in risk 

factors and behaviors between the two groups indicates that the randomization process was successful. 

The characteristics of the neighborhoods youth resided at baseline were relatively consistent 

across treatment and control youth, and no significant differences were found. The lack of significant 

difference in these characteristics further demonstrates the success of the randomization process. 

Three follow-up surveys were conducted after the baseline survey—at 6, 12, and 18 months. The 

survey instruments for treatment and control group youth were identical, with the exception that 

treatment group youth were asked additional questions about their promotor. Topics covered in the 

surveys included housing and food security, education, employment, attitudes toward education and 

employment, relationships with peers and adults, risky behaviors, and access to community and public 

services. 

Service Use 

Engagement with promotores was remarkably high, especially when considering that this was an 

optional service delivered to a high-need population of young people. Fully, 94 percent of youth 

engaged at least once with their promotor—either by making contact or responding to contact. On 

average, the time between a youth’s first and last contacts with his/her promotor during the 18-month 

study period was 15 months. (A youth could remain engaged with his/her promotor beyond the 18­

month study period.) Using LAYC’s contact data, we find that half of all youth had 45 or more total 

contacts with their promotores during the 18-month study period. 

Youth initiated a considerable number of contacts with their promotores. Looking over the entire 

tenure of engagement within the study period, we see that, on average, youth initiated 23 contacts and 

promotores initiated 18 contacts. Promotores initiated a higher share of contacts for youth with fewer 

total contacts; the share of youth contacts was higher for those youth with higher total contacts. Based 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VII 
 

on survey data, treatment youth were very positive about their relationships with their promotores and 

these feelings remained consistent across all three survey waves. 

Examining the Promotor Pathyway program, we find few baseline characteristics predicted the 

amount of contact a youth will have with their promotor. We ran a logistic regression on those youth 

who had 45 or more contacts, relative to those who had less than 45 contacts. Only one characteristic— 

having a child at baseline—was statistically significantly correlated with engaging in 45 or more 

contacts. Youth with a child at baseline were over four times more likely to have 45 or more contacts 

with their promotores. 

Other LAYC Services Received 

Using administrative data on the use of other LAYC services, we can compare the treatment and control 

groups’ participation in LAYC programs. Before random assignment, 83 percent of youth were involved 

in some LAYC program (excluding Promoter Pathway): 85 percent of treatment group and 82 percent 

of control group. After randomization occurred, treatment youth were significantly more likely to enroll 

in certain types of LAYC programs during the 18-month study period: 71 percent of treatment youth 

compared with 49 percent of control youth. 

Overall, treatment youth were also more likely than control group youth to use any service 

(whether a LAYC service or outside service or program) by the end of the study period. In the outcome 

survey, youth were asked whether they needed a series of services and, if so, if they received them. 

Among treatment and control youth reporting they needed a given service, treatment youth were 15 to 

nearly 30 percentage points more likely to receive services from any provider related to mental health 

counseling, substance use, public assistance, housing, and legal problems. 

Program Impacts 

Our analytical strategy employs an intent-to-treat (ITT) and treatment-on-the-treated (TOT) strategies 

to estimate the difference between the treatment and control groups for each outcome measure. The 

regression-adjusted ITT models take into account any variation between the groups and improve the 

precision of the ITT estimates. Using results of the regression-adjusted estimate at 18-month follow-up, 

and we found the following: 

 Looking at education outcomes, in-school rates for treatment youth were 14 percentage points 

higher than their peers in the control group. “In school” status was captured on the follow-up 

surveys when youth reported if they were currently in school. Interestingly, this result was 

largely driven by Latinos and males. However, we saw no gains for the treatment group overall 

relative to the control group in high school degree attainment or college attendance during the 

18-month tracking period. 

 We examined four employment outcomes for youth and found no overall impacts. Females in 

the treatment group fared no better than females in the control group along any of the 

VIII SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

employment dimensions. However, males in the treatment group were less likely to have 

worked recently, worked fewer hours per week, and lower weekly wages. Given that males 

were more likely to persist in school than females, the worsened employment outcomes may be 

interpreted as a trade-off between school and work. 

 Our analysis found that the program reduced births during the 18-month study period for the 

treatment group. Overall, treatment youth were 7 percentage points less likely to have a child 

during the last year of the study period than control youth. This outcome was evident among 

some subgroups and not others. Latino treatment youth and male treatment youth were less 

likely to have had a child in the last year of the study period than their counterparts in the 

control group. 

 When examining housing stability, treatment group youth were about 6 percentage points less 

likely to have slept in a shelter during the past six months than control group youth. Female 

treatment group members were 12 percentage points less likely than control group females to 

have slept in a shelter in the past six months and non-Latino treatment group youth, who were 

primarily African American, were 11 percentage points less likely to have slept in a shelter than 

non-Latino control group youth. The program demonstrated no effects on the likelihood of 

moving more than three times in the past six months. 

 We found no positive effects on substance use measures. The treatment group was no less or 

more likely to use marijuana or to use other drugs. However, when compared with control 

youth, treatment youth were about 12 percentage points more likely to report they engaged in 

binge drinking in the past four weeks. 

 As with substance use, none of the nine violence and delinquency outcomes we investigated 

evidenced a positive impact. Rather, treatment group youth were more likely to have reported 

that they got in a fight that required them to seek medical attention, to have sold marijuana, 

and to have sold other hard drugs (all controlling for higher rates at baseline). 

 To examine a youth’s relationships and perceptions of self-efficacy, we looked at four 

outcomes: whether or not a youth had a special adult in his/her life, if his/her friends were a 

positive influence, if his/her friends were a negative influence, and his/her perceived 

mastery/control. Treatment youth were 9 percentage points more likely to say that they had a 

special adult in their life. Treatment youth were not more or less likely than control youth to 

have friends that were either a positive or negative influence or to have a higher or lower score 

on perceived master/control. 

Implications for Practice and Policy 

LAYC’s Promotor Pathway program serves an important role by filling a void in the lives of high-needs 

at-risk youth. Promotores are paid full-time positions, which has implications for how these individuals 

interact with youth over time. Unlike other case managers these youth might have in their lives, 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IX 
 

promotores are expected to be available to youth at all times and for several years. These are important 

principles for developing the rapport and trust required for such a position to have long-term impact. 

About half of treatment youth had 45 or more contacts with their promotor and remained engaged with 

the promotores for an average of 15 months by the point of each youth ending the 18-month study. 

Prior research indicates that such long-term relationships are more likely to yield positive social 

outcomes for the youth than shorter relationships. 

The evaluation found that youth did not see increases in their perception of self-efficacy as 

measured through mastery, the belief that you have control over what happens in your life. One 

possibility is that it may take more time to change this sort of intrinsic attitude. But one caution to 

consider is the extent to which promotores guide and counsel youth versus make things happen for the 

youth. Even if promotores are not enabling youth to sit back and be “served,” the youth may still feel 

that they could not have accomplished things on their own. 

The evaluation revealed positive impacts in several key domains, but it revealed negative or no 

impacts in other areas. Additionally, many of the impacts were found only for subgroups, either by 

gender or race or ethnicity. Further understanding how the program is operating could provide some 

insight into why certain subgroups benefit more than others, though not consistently across outcomes. 

The evaluation also found the treatment group to have engaged in certain negative behaviors, such 

as binge drinking, selling drugs, and getting into a fight, at greater rates than youth in the control group, 

even when controlling for differences that may already have been present at entry into the program. 

Though it seems unlikely that the program caused increases in these behaviors, or prevented them from 

diminishing, we do not have sufficient information to understand why these differences are observed. 

Given the level of needs for the youth eligible for the program, the 18-month period observed in the 

evaluation may not be sufficient to achieve significant impacts. The finding that treatment youth were 

more likely than control group youth to be enrolled in school at 18 months, yet not have attained any 

higher degrees implies that it took some time for the promotores to get the youth to return to school or 

to fully engage. We recommend consideration of another follow-up interview to observe a longer time 

period. 

LAYC is a service-rich organization, offering numerous programs to at-risk youth. Youth referred to 

the Promotor Pathway program are mostly already involved in LAYC programs. In the evaluation, 

control youth were seen to engage in numerous LAYC programs. The Promotor Pathway program, thus, 

is an add-on to the slate of LAYC programs, and its potential impact is only the marginal impact it can 

have above participation in these other programs. It is difficult to assess the value the program would 

have in another organization that might not have as large and diverse a set of services. If an 

organization had only a limited set of services, it is possible that a promotor could have a significant 

impact in connecting youth to other services. On the other hand, having a large array of services on site 

may be critical if youth do not follow through well on referrals to external service. Thus other 

demonstrations will be needed to address the replicability of the program in a different environment as 

we cannot assess the importance of having the other services on site, or at least easily accessible. We 

X SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
expect, however, this evaluation will add to the literature by describing the outcomes of a program 

that focuses on disconnected youth of these ages who receive a combination of mentoring, case 

management, and advocacy. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XI 

Introduction 

This report describes an evaluation of the Latin American Youth Center’s (LAYC) Promotor Pathway 

program, which provides youth with a “promotor” who provides intensive case management, 

mentorship, and advocacy to youth presenting multiple risk factors. As at-risk youth struggle to make 

important transitions to employment or education, caring adults like the promotor can be a source of 

support. A caring adult is defined by a sustained relationship between a young person (the mentee) and 

an adult in which the adult provides the youth with support, guidance, and assistance (Jekielek et al. 

2002). Such adults are expected to have a positive influence only if they develop a strong, trusting, 

empathetic connection with youth that likely lasts a significant amount of time (Rhodes and Dubois 

2008). Through case management, mentoring, and advocacy, the Promotor Pathway program aims to 

improve education and employment outcomes, boost life skills, and prevent delinquency or unhealthy 

behaviors for youth transitioning into adulthood. 

Youth participating in LAYC programs were assessed on a set of risk factors. For this study, 483 

high-risk youth were randomly assigned to either a promotor or to services as usual; the latter including 

a large number of programs available at LAYC as well as any other service available outside of LAYC. 

This evaluation tests a “top up” model, where those with access to all other LAYC services are compared 

with those who also have access to a promotor. These youth completed a survey before randomization, 

and then were contacted for follow-up surveys at 6, 12, and 18 months after randomization. Using this 

randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, the evaluation set out to answer three research questions: 

1.	 Does the Promotor Pathway program lead to improved outcomes for participants in the areas 

of academics, employment, and healthy behaviors when compared with LAYC participants not 

matched with a promotor? 

2.	 Are there differences in the outcomes achieved among subgroups of participants (e.g., Latinos 

versus non-Latinos, males versus females)? 

3.	 Through what methods, with what frequency, and on what topics did youth engage with 

promotores? 

More specifically, this evaluation assesses whether the Promotor Pathway program increased 

educational attainment; increased employment, hours, and wages; reduced births; improved residential 

stability; and reduced risk-taking behaviors, such as alcohol and drug use and delinquency. We further 

examine the degree to which program youth engaged with their promotor as well as the variation of 

promotor involvement with the youth on their caseloads. 
Literature on Programming for AtRisk Youth 

Youth who are not in school and are not working are considered disconnected from society, or 

disconnected youth. They are often vulnerable to experience negative outcomes as they transition to 

adulthood and may lack social networks that provide or connect them to support and community 

resources (Fernandes and Gabe 2009). Youth may also be considered at risk if they have a high risk of 

disconnecting from work or school. Youth who are in the foster care system, in the juvenile justice 

system, or have a child have been shown to have greater difficulty successfully completing school and 

sustaining work (Wald and Martinez 2003). 

Many studies have described the effects of interventions designed to improve the education, 

employment, and behavioral outcomes of at-risk youth. There is robust literature looking at mentoring 

programs and moderate literature looking at hybrid approaches that include mentoring and case 

management. Though there are evaluations that study the effects of programs that provide case 

management in combination with other services, we are not aware of rigorous studies of interventions 

targeting youth that solely provide case management services. 

Most studies on programs evaluating the effects of case management and advocacy incorporate 

those services with mentoring or other supports. These programs typically focus on youth who are age 

18 and younger. Few studies have focused on programs working with disconnected youth who span the 

ages this program targets: 14 to 24. As a result, we expect this evaluation will add to the literature by 

describing the outcomes of a program that focuses on disconnected youth of these ages who receive a 

combination of mentoring, case management, and advocacy. 

Programs that include mentoring, case management, or advocacy as one program component 

among several, like the Promotor Pathway program, demonstrate varying impacts on youth 

participants. The random assignment evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Project, which operated 

in five sites across the country and offered case management, academic support, developmental 

activities, and community service, found no positive impacts, though this was attributed to poor 

implementation of the program model and low participation (Schirm and McKie 2006). LAYC looked at 

this program during the development of the Promotor Pathway program. 

In an evaluation of high-risk sixth graders participating in Across Ages, a substance-abuse 

prevention program that includes mentoring, LoSciuto and colleagues (1996) found that the mentored 

youth had increased positive attitudes and community service as well as improved reactions to 

situations involving drug use and school attendance compared with the control group. A later study of 

the program found lower levels of problem behaviors and higher levels of self-control and school 

bonding for program participants compared with controls. However, most of the effects disappeared 

after six months (Aseltine, Dupre, and Lamlein 2000). 
Upward Bound, a federally funded program for high school students lasting up to four years and 

offering instruction, tutoring, and counseling was found to have no overall impact on high school 

graduation or college enrollment. However, the program was found to improve education outcomes for 

students with initially low educational expectations. These students were more than twice as likely to 

enroll at four-year colleges (38 versus 18 percent) as similar control group members (Myers et al. 2004). 

A quasi-experimental study of Sponsor-A-Scholar, a program offering mentoring, academic support, 

and financial assistance to Philadelphia public high school youth from ninth grade to college enrollment, 

found that in the first two years after high school graduation, participants had college attendance rates 

that were 20 percentage points higher than those of their peers. It also found that the most 

disadvantaged youth benefited the most from the program. Youth who had the least familial support, 

attended the poorest-performing schools, and had the lowest GPA or motivations at program 

enrollment had statistically significant improvements in GPA and were more likely to attend college 

than the comparison group (Johnson 1999). However, those enrolling in the program with good grades 

and attendance demonstrated no significant improvements. The RCT evaluation of a shorter-term 

program, the Summer Career Exploration Program in Philadelphia, which provides high school students 

with a summer job in the private sector, preemployment training, and a college-student mentor, found 

no effects on students’ high school graduation, college enrollment, attitudes toward work or school, or 

sense of self-efficacy (McClanahan, Sipe, and Smith 2004). 

Lastly, a randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring found that 

supplementing school-based services with mentoring has small, positive effects on social behaviors of 

high school females. Compared with high school females who received just school-based services, those 

who also received mentoring reported greater connectedness to culturally different peers, self-esteem, 

and support from friends; such effects were not found for males (Karcher 2008). 

Of the studies of programs providing mainly mentoring, with few or no adjunct services, some 

positive results have been found in the near and medium-term. A number of impact studies have 

examined the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America mentoring program; findings have been mixed. One 

RCT found that youth ages 10–16 who enrolled in the program skipped half as many days of school, had 

slightly better GPAs, and had an improved concept of their scholastic competence compared with a 

control group (Tierney, Grossman, and Resch 1995). Another study of youth ages 9–16 also found 

improved academic confidence and performance compared with control youth—but effects 

disappeared by 15 months (Herrera et al. 2011). The length of time a youth is involved in Big Brothers 

Big Sisters has been found to be important. One study found that youth enrolled in Big Brothers Big 

Sisters for more than 12 months had significant gains at 18 months in self-worth, perceived scholastic 

competence, relationships with parents, and other positive social outcomes compared with a control 

group; meanwhile, those enrolled less than three months demonstrated a decrease in schoolwork 

confidence and a lower sense of self-worth (Grossman and Rhodes 2002). A specialized Big Brothers Big 

Sisters program for children of incarcerated parents found treatment group youth had higher selfesteem and felt more connected to school, community, and family at 18 months, but they did not differ 

in their academic competence or attitudes compared with youth in a control group (US Department of 

Justice 2011). Grossman and Rhodes (2002) found that mentoring relationships terminating within six 

LITERATURE ON PROGRAMMING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 3 
months demonstrated no significant positive effects and even lead to significant increases in alcohol use 

relative to control groups. 

Additional research on Big Brother Big Sisters programs indicates that youth-driven relationships 

are more likely to yield significant, positive outcomes. A qualitative relationship study of 82 mentoring 

matches found that mentoring relationships based on the mentors goals’ created tension and 

abandonment of the relationship (Morrow and Styles 1995). Langhout, Rhodes, and Osborne (2004) 

find that, when categorizing relationships according to their level of structure and supportiveness, 

relationships with moderate levels of structure and conditional support lead to more positive outcomes 

relative to control participants.4 

Studies of programs besides Big Brothers Big Sisters have also found some positive results. A 2011 

random assignment study investigated impacts of the Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for 

Youths in Intensive Foster Care, a relationship-based program in which youth in intensive foster care 

receive mentoring support. Researchers found that 56 percent of participating youth reported enrolling 

in college, compared with 38 percent of the control participants (Courtney et al. 2011). In addition, 

program youth were more likely to persist in college (that is, reenroll for a second year) and were more 

likely to choose to remain in foster care after turning 18. Participating youth were also more likely to 

have a driver’s license and birth certificates than youth in the control group, but they did not report 

better outcomes for employment, economic well-being, housing, delinquency, pregnancy, or 

preparedness for independence. A random assignment evaluation of InsideTrack, a student coaching 

service providing mentoring to nontraditional college students through their first year of a degree 

program, found that participants were 5.0 percentage points more likely to remain enrolled in college 

than a control group after six months of program participation and 3.4 percentage points more likely to 

remain enrolled at a 24-month follow-up (Bettinger and Baker 2013). 

A long-term RCT of the Buddy System, a one-on-one youth mentoring program in Hawaii designed 

to prevent juvenile delinquency, found that, among study participants who were arrested before 

referral to the program, 55 percent of the treatment group were arrested in the next 35 years 

compared with 75 percent of the control group. However, among females with no prior arrests, 

program participants had a higher arrest rate at follow-up than control group members (O’Donnell and 

Williams 2013). Similar adverse effects on lower-risk youth were found in programs that encourage the 

interaction of higher- and lower-risk youth (Arnold and Hughes 1999; Boxer et al. 2005; Valente et al. 

2007). 

Studying seven mentoring programs in Washington state, Herrera, DuBois, and Grossman (2013) 

found that, compared with a control group, youth receiving mentoring experienced fewer depressive 

symptoms and a greater likelihood of positive change at a 13-month follow-up in at least one of the 

study outcomes, including depressive symptoms, parent trust, social acceptance, self-perceptions of 

academic abilities, grades, skipping school, misconduct, and prosocial behavior. Positive outcomes were 

stronger and more consistent for youth with relatively high individual risk categories than for those 

with environmental risk. 

4 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Meta-analyses of mentoring programs have concluded that mentoring programs can positively 

affect youth development. A meta-analysis of 73 previous studies finds that, on average, mentored 

youth, score about 9 percentile points higher than nonmentored youth on behavioral, social, emotional, 

and academic measures (DuBois et al. 2011). A review of 39 RCT and quasi-experimental studies found 

that mentoring had modest, positive effects on delinquency, aggression, drug use, and achievement in 

high-risk youth, with larger effect sizes on delinquency and aggression (Tolan et al. 2008). Though 

limited in the analysis of mentoring components, the study also found stronger effects when mentoring 

interventions emphasized emotional support for the mentee and when professional advancement was a 

motivator for the mentor’s participation in the program. 

Programs that offer youth job training or placement along with case management have 

documented some success. Participation in Job Corps, a federally funded program providing vocational 

training, academic support, counseling, and often residential living, was found to have short-term 

impacts on earnings, employment, education, and crime. However, after 5 to 10 years, these impacts 

disappeared for the sample as a whole, made up of youth ages 16–24 at the time of application, with the 

impact on earnings remaining significant only for the subgroup of youth ages 20–24 (Schochet, 

Burghardt, and McConnell 2006). This random assignment evaluation is one of the few studies made up 

of youth in the same age range as the Promotor Pathways program. 

Perhaps the most promising recent job training program evaluation is that of the National Guard 

Youth ChalleNGe program. This program, which provides short-term job and life-skills training in a 

quasi-military environment, followed by one year of mentoring, demonstrated long-term positive 

impacts on employment. After three years, the program group had an employment rate 7 percentage 

points higher and earnings 20 percent higher than a control group and was more likely to obtain college 

credits or a high school diploma or GED (Millenky et al. 2011). 

LITERATURE ON PROGRAMMING FOR AT-RISK YOUTH 5 
LAYC and the Promotor Pathway 

Program 

LAYC was founded in 1968 to address the absence of services for the emerging Latino community in the 

District of Columbia. Today, LAYC provides youth development programs that seek to improve the lives 

of low-income immigrant youth and youth of color and their families. LAYC offers multiservice, bilingual 

programs in the areas of prevention and intervention, education, workforce readiness, housing, 

community building, mental health services, arts, and healthy recreation. LAYC specializes in working 

with high-risk, underserved youth, low-income teen parents, homeless youth, youth in foster care and 

juvenile justice systems, and youth facing mental health, substance abuse, or complicated family issues. 

In 2005, LAYC expanded to serve Maryland’s Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, establishing 

youth centers at three sites: Langley Park, Riverdale, and Silver Spring. LAYC serves about 4,000 youth 

from diverse communities each year in DC and Maryland. The characteristics of the communities and 

youth are described in a later chapter. 

In 1998, LAYC established the Next Step Public Charter School to meet the needs of recently 

arrived immigrant students, teen parents, and other youth whose needs could not be met by the regular 

public schools in DC. Following the success of Next Step, LAYC founded two other charter schools: the 

Latin American Montessori Bilingual (LAMB) Public Charter School in 2001 and the YouthBuild Public 

Charter School in 2005. LAMB Public Charter School was the second public bilingual Spanish-English 

Montessori school in the country and the first in DC. YouthBuild Public Charter School, also located in 

DC, offers classes in English and Spanish and serves youth ages 16 to 24 who have dropped out of 

traditional high schools by offering academic, vocational, and workforce development programs in a 

nontraditional environment. In 2012, the LAYC opened the LAYC Career Academy, a charter school 

that provides youth ages 16–24 with college credits and AP-style classes, a general equivalency diploma 

(GED) and college preparatory curriculum, and career preparation in the health care and information 

technology fields. 

LAYC devotes significant resources to evaluating the outcomes and effectiveness of its programs. 

In 2005, LAYC created a Learning and Evaluation Department to oversee all work on outcome 

measurement and performance management. To measure effectiveness, LAYC collects and analyzes 

demographic, output, and outcome information on participants in each of its programs. 

As part of a strategic planning process facilitated by the Bridgespan Group in 2007, LAYC 

embarked on a planning process to clarify the organization’s theory of change. This process, with the 

input of leadership and staff, resulted in the creation of the Promotor Pathway program in 2008. The 

term “promotor” is commonly used in Latino cultures to describe an individual in the community who 

works to raise awareness of health and education issues. The Promotor Pathway is an intensive client 

management program aimed at helping the most high-risk and disconnected youth overcome significant 

life obstacles, such as lack of education, homelessness, trauma, substance abuse, and court involvement. 
The goal of the program is to help youth make successful transitions to adulthood and (re)connect with 

their families and communities. It rests on the theory that a positive relationship with a caring adult is 

the most important factor in helping youth reach their goals and that this relationship must be long 

term. The program is holistic, providing youth not only with a caring adult, known as a promotor, but 

also with an array of services and referrals to outside resources. 

Promotor Pathway Intervention and Logic 

LAYC created an intervention model and a logic model to guide the development of the Promotor 

Pathway program and describe the relationships between the services offered and the expected 

outcomes. 

LAYC’s intervention model, shown in figure 1, emphasizes the program’s intention to work with the 

highest-risk youth. The model is based on the idea that these youth need the most help and will benefit 

most from working with a promotor. Youth with lower risks and needs are more likely to successfully 

navigate LAYC’s network of services than youth with the highest risk and needs. Both groups are 

capable of achieving positive outcomes with help, but the most-at-risk youth may need more guidance 

and support when accessing LAYC’s network of services. This conclusion was based on the experience 

of former LAYC participants who cite their long-term success as the result of forming a multiyear, crossprogrammatic relationship with a caring adult at LAYC. Through the Promotor Pathway program, LAYC 

aims to formalize this process and determine if the relationship with a promotor will lead to better 

outcomes for the involved youth. 

The outcomes that LAYC aims to achieve with the program are outlined in the logic model (figure 2). 

LAYC defines intended outcomes in three categories: academic success, employment success, and 

healthy behaviors. It groups these outcomes into short-term, intermediate, and long-term time 

horizons. LAYC aims to measure the level of intervention by tracking such outputs as number of 

disconnected youth served, number of services provided by type, and number of referrals provided. In 

the short term, LAYC hopes participants will attend school or transition back to school, build job skills, 

and access health care, legal, or government services and benefits as needed. During the intermediate 

period, LAYC’s goals are for participants to complete their secondary schooling, obtain a job, and 

increase their knowledge of healthy behaviors. For the long term, LAYC wants participants to enroll in 

and complete at least two years of postsecondary schooling, retain a job for at least 12 months, secure 

stable housing, and obtain the skills to lead a healthy life. 

LAYC AND THE PROMOTOR PATHWAY PROGRAM 7 
FIGURE 1 

LAYC Intervention Model 

Source: LAYC. 

8 SOLUTIONS 
FIGURE 2 

Activities Outputs Short-term outcomes Intermediate outcomes 

Youth will successfully transition 

back to school or enroll in charter/alternative school or GED 

Number of 

disconnected 

youth served 

preparation program Students will attend school at least 90 

percent of the time (achieve or maintain a 90 

percent attendance rate at school) 

Students will graduate from high school or gain a high scredential Youth will complete charter/alternative school Youth will receive a GED 

Students will be promoted to the next grade level in school 

Provide mix of client management, 

mentoring, and 

referral services to high-risk/ 

disconnected 

youth 

Number of hours 

of service provided (by category of service) 

Youth will demonstrate improvements in employment readiness skills in the following areas: Career planning Job application skills Math and reading remediation Financial literacy 

Youth will obtain a job (at least a part-time job ≥ 20 hours per week)

Youth will access stable housing 

Number of 

referrals provided 

Youth will have ‘adequate’ knowledge and skills to be able to access community resources pertaining to health care, legal 

services, and government benefits as needed 

Increased knowledge of safe sexual practices and the effects of teen pregnancy 

Youth identified as substance users will reduce use, eliminate abuse, and/or prevent relapse 

Promotor Pathway Program Logic Model Source: LAYC. 

LAYC AND THE PROMOTOR PATHWAY PROGRAM 
 

 

Target Population, Recruitment, and Screening 

LAYC’s Promotor Pathway program targets a subset of youth who are at the highest risk and in the greatest 

need of services. It serves youth between the ages of 14 and 24 and requires that youth be no more than 22 

years old upon entry into the program so that they could be served for at least two years. The program 

specifically targets immigrant youth and youth of color from low-income households living in areas with high 

proportions of populations of color. 

LAYC recruited participants to the Promotor Pathway program from all four LAYC sites: Washington, 

DC, and Langley Park, Riverdale, and Silver Spring, Maryland. Potentially eligible youth were also referred 

to the program through word of mouth from within LAYC and from external sources, such as government 

agencies, schools, and other nonprofits. Once recruited or referred, youth were required to complete a risk 

screening assessment with the help of a LAYC staff person to determine eligibility. Youth enrolled in school 

were given an “in school” version of the risk assessment, and youth not currently enrolled in school were 

given an “out of school” version. Both risk screening assessments consist of 30 yes/no questions meant to 

determine a youth’s level of risk and need for services. LAYC weighted each question on the assessment and 

scored answers to determine which young people had the highest levels of risk and the greatest need. The 

screening assessment asked youth about their level of education, housing situation, substance abuse and 

mental health issues, and criminal justice involvement; youth with risk in these primary areas were 

automatically eligible for the program. Youth with risks in other areas, such as involvement in special 

education, previous failure of a class or grade, a recent suspension, or having or expecting a child, were likely 

to be deemed eligible. Youth with multiple risk factors are eligible for the program. 

Program Components 

The central component of LAYC’s Promotor Pathway program is the relationship of the youth with their 

promotores. Promotores act as mentors, case managers, community health workers, and advocates 

connecting youth to the resources and services that will make the greatest difference in their lives. They 

must carefully balance their roles, acting in one capacity or the other depending on the situation a particular 

youth is facing. Promotores are paid staff members who are not affiliated with any other LAYC programs. 

They are required to have at least four years of experience in youth development and extensive knowledge 

of community resources, but their level of formal education is highly variable, ranging from some college to a 

master’s degree. Promotores receive an average of 30 hours of training per year. LAYC currently employs 

15 promotores. 

Upon hiring, promotores are trained across a variety of program areas to meet a youth’s potential 

needs. Training topics include 

 background on LAYC and surrounding communities; 

 the Promotor Pathway model and the program’s theory of change; 

 overviews on the research and theory on positive youth development; 

 roles and responsibilities; 

10 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 mentoring teens and young adults and techniques for communicating with each group; 

 building healthy relationships and trust over time; 

 identifying self-destructive behaviors, partner violence, and potential mental health issues; 

 providing crisis services and methods to refer youth to a specialist after a crisis is dealt with; 

 referring for other services at LAYC or with external providers; and 

 LAYC’s internal evaluation and performance management efforts; 

In addition to the initial training sessions, promotores also receive monthly trainings that target more 

specific subject areas. Monthly training topics include advice for working with specific subgroups, such as 

gang members, pregnant youth, victims of domestic or partner violence, homeless youth, and LGBTQ youth; 

communications strategies for dealing with difficult groups, such as youth with anger issues or histories of 

violence; working with youth involved in the juvenile justice, foster care, and other systems; and helping 

youth obtain specific services, such as Medicaid or official governments documents. In all, promotores 

receive about 30 hours of additional training per year. 

Youth eligible for the program are matched to promotores based on their preferences in terms of 

gender, languages spoken, and other characteristics, as well as the caseload size and area of expertise. After 

youth are assigned to promotores, they complete a needs assessment, with the help of their promotores, to 

determine their unique needs and the highest risk factors in their lives. In most cases, the needs assessment 

takes more than one meeting to complete. It includes detailed questions on housing situation, mental health 

issues, issues with substance abuse, educational and employment status, and whether or not youth have a 

criminal record. Promotores use the needs assessment to develop a case plan for youth. 

Promotores are expected to create and maintain relationships with each youth they work with for an 

extended period of time, usually between two and six years. It is common for promotores to stay in touch 

with old clients—evidence of the strength of the relationships that are built. Promotores are expected to 

meet regularly with youth, at least twice a month, to continually assess their needs and encourage accessing 

any needed services. The first 90 days of the program are more intensive and usually involve more frequent 

meetings. Promotores are expected to use all forms of social media to maintain contact with the youth and 

must be available for the youth at all times, including 24/7 cell phone access. Contact can range from an inperson meeting to a phone call to a simple text message. Youth and their promotores often meet outside of 

the LAYC offices, and LAYC estimates that promotores spend a little over half of their time outside of the 

office. Promotores record all of their contacts with youth in a structured case note system that is part of 

LAYC’s case management system. This system captures the topics discussed and the promotor’s rating of 

the youth’s ability in the topic area. 

It is the goal of the promotor to eliminate as many barriers in a youth’s life as possible, work alongside 

him/her through every program or service he/she receives, and act as a resource when the youth is dealing 

with a problem. Based on a youth’s needs, promotores provide referrals to both internal and external 

services. Services used include those in the areas of education, employment, arts, mental health, substance 

abuse, housing, community resources, and parental involvement. When a youth receives a particular 

service, promotores record the information in the case management system and are expected to follow up 

LAYC AND THE PROMOTOR PATHWAY PROGRAM 11 
both with the youth and with any individual involved in providing the service to see how the youth is 

progressing. In addition to providing referrals, promotores help youth work toward their goals and address 

challenges in their lives. For example, they may help youth create a résumé, complete job applications, 

practice interview skills, select schools to attend, or show up for court dates. 

In addition to meeting with the youth, promotores also meet with any other individuals who play a large 

role in youth’s lives. Promotores may meet with the youth’s parents, teachers, counselors, probation officer, 

significant others/partners, other providers and LAYC staff, or anyone else involved. 

12 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Evaluation Implementation 

In this section, we describe the process used to enroll youth eligible for the Promotor Pathway program in 

the research study. We also present information about the baseline characteristics of enrolled youth and, 

finally, about the outcome surveys and attrition. 

Sample Enrollment and Baseline Survey 

The primary method of data collection was a series of questionnaires designed by Public/Private Ventures 

and LAYC.5

 Once LAYC staff deemed youth eligible for the program and youth expressed interest in the 

study, but before random assignment, each young person completed a self-administered baseline paper 

survey. Both treatment and control group youth completed the baseline survey with the help of the director 

of the program and the promotores. Promotores were aware of the random assignment process but were 

not motivated to influence youth answers in any way, as it would not have any effect on a youth’s 

assignment. 

Between April 2010 and February 2013, youth determined eligible for the Promotor Pathway program 

and willing to participate in the program were randomly assigned to either the treatment group or the 

control group. Typically within one week of completing the baseline survey, Ewald & Wasserman Research 

Consultants (E&W), the contracted survey research firm, randomly assigned youth to the treatment or 

control group using a pseudorandom number algorithm. Once assigned, E&W transferred this information 

to LAYC. If assigned to the treatment group, each youth would be given a promotor and could begin meeting 

with him/her within one week of assignment. Those assigned to the treatment group were invited to 

participate in the program while those assigned to the control group were not permitted to participate but 

could still access other LAYC services on their own. 

Baseline Sample Characteristics 

The study sample comprises 476 youth randomly assigned to the treatment or the control group. Baseline 

characteristics are summarized in table 1. The sample was nearly evenly split in terms of gender. Nearly all 

study youth (99 percent) are people of color, primarily Latino (56 percent) or black (38 percent).6

 Their 

average age was 18, with 24 percent of youth under 18, 56 percent ages 18 to 21, and 20 percent age 22 or 

older.7

 About half (47 percent) of youth spoke at least some Spanish at home. (Twenty-six percent spoke 

only Spanish at home.) This is compared with the 2009 national average where about 12 percent of all 

people five and older spoke Spanish at home, and 20 percent spoke any language other than English at 

home.8

 Rates of parenting were also quite high among study youth. Thirty-one percent were parents, with 

42 percent of young women and 20 percent of young men having a child. 

The sample had low educational attainment and employment at baseline. Forty-seven percent were 

enrolled in school and another 37 percent were taking GED classes; 84 percent were enrolled in some form 

of education. Though most youth (76 percent) were 18 or older at baseline, 74 percent of youth had not yet 

attained a high school diploma or GED; these youth were about evenly split between 9th, 10th, and 11th 

grades as their highest grade completed. Twenty-four percent of youth had a high school diploma or GED as 
their highest degree. Just 2 percent had attained a two-year college degree or technical or vocational 

certification. No youth in the sample had a four-year college degree at baseline and only 7 percent had ever 

attended college. 

Besides educational attainment, employment rates were also low among sample youth. About 22 

percent were employed at baseline, although 70 percent had previously held a job. Of those with a current 

job, their average weekly wage was $266.87and they worked about 26 hours per week on average. Two 

scales, the positive peers scale and negative peers scale, examined the positive or negative influences of a 

youth’s friends. The positive peers scale includes six items with a maximum score of 18 and the negative 

peers scale includes eight items with a maximum score of 24. Youth averaged 11.4 out of 24 on negative 

peers scale and 12.1 out of 18 on the positive peers scale. Pearlin’s Mastery Scale (Pearlin et al. 1981) 

measures the degree to which youth feel in control of their lives and able to solve problems. At baseline, 

youth had an average score 17.3 out of 24. 

The characteristics above suggest that youth enrolled in the Promotor Pathway program were a highneed, at-risk population. Additional data related to risk factors and risky behaviors, shown in table 2, 

confirm this characterization. Forty percent of the sample was receiving SNAP benefits at baseline, and 21 

percent reported not getting enough to eat. A similar portion of youth (22 percent) did not regularly sleep in 

the same home, with a notable share of all youth (14 percent) reporting that they had slept in a homeless 

shelter in the past six months. About 14 percent of youth had previous or current involvement in the foster 

care system. Youth were also prone to health or learning challenges, with nearly one-quarter reporting a 

learning disability, 21 percent a mental health diagnosis, and 15 percent having engaged in self-injurious 

behavior requiring medical attention. Delinquent behavior was common as well. Twenty-three percent of 

youth reported a recent arrest, and 20 percent reported receiving a warning by the police at some time in 

the past. Moreover, 16 percent of youth had carried a weapon in the past four weeks. A smaller percentage, 

about 6 percent, reported that they had been a member of crew or gang in the past 12 months. Nearly 8 

percent of youth reported stealing or trying to steal something worth more than $50 in the past 12 months 

and about 6 and 3 percent, respectively, reported that they had sold marijuana or hard drugs in the past 12 

months. Risky behaviors were also relatively common. Twenty-five percent of youth had used marijuana, 

and 24 percent had binge drank in the past four weeks. 

14 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

 

 

 

TABLE 1 

LAYC Youth Baseline Demographic, Education, and Employment Characteristics 

All Treatment Control 

(N=476) (N=165) (N=311) 

Demographics 

Male 51% 49% 52% 

Race and ethnicity 

Latino 56% 55% 57% 

Non-Latino blacka

 38% 36% 39% 

Mixed race** 3% 5% 2% 

Non-Latino othera

 2% 2% 2% 

Non-Latino whitea 1% 1% 1% 

Age 

Under 18 24% 27% 23% 

18 to 21 56% 53% 58% 

22 and older 20% 21% 19% 

Spanish spoken at home 47% 47% 47% 

Parent 31% 30% 31% 

Parent, male 20% 15% 22% 

Parent, female 42% 45% 40% 

Education 

Enrolled in school 47% 48% 46% 

Enrolled in GED classes 37% 38% 36% 

Highest grade completed 

9th grade and below 36% 35% 36% 

10th grade 23% 22% 24% 

11th grade* 21% 25% 18% 

HS diploma or GED 22% 24% 21% 

Two-year college degree or certification 2% 3% 2% 

Attended college ever 7% 6% 7% 

Employment 

Currently employed 22% 24% 21% 

Previously employed 70% 72% 69% 

Average weekly wage (if employed) $267 $277 $261 

Hours worked per week 25.9 25.6 26.1 

Relationships and self-efficacy 

Negative friends score (max=24) 11.4 11.2 11.5 

Positive friends score (max=18) 12.1 12.0 12.2 

Perceived mastery score (max=24) 17.3 17.5 17.1 

Source: LAYC baseline survey. 

Note: HS = high school. a

 In the following sections, we do not include the term “Non-Hispanic” when referring to this group. 

**p < 0.05, * p < 0.1 

EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION 15 
TABLE 2 

LAYC Youth Baseline Risk Factors and Behaviors 

All Treatment Control 

Risk Factor or Behavior (N=476) (N=165) (N=311) 

Receives SNAP benefitsa 40% 44% 38%

Doesn't get enough to eat 21% 18% 24% 

Doesn't regularly sleep in the same home 22% 25% 22% 

a Slept in shelter in last 6 months 14% 15% 14%

Has been in the foster care system 14% 14% 13% 

Has a learning disability 24% 23% 24% 

Has received a mental health diagnosis 21% 22% 21% 

Has self-injured and required medical attention 15% 14% 15% 

Arrested, evera 23% 23% 24%

Been stopped or picked up by the police but just gotten a warning, past 12 

monthsa 20% 16% 21%

In a physical fight that led to injury or medical attention, past 12 monthsa

 16% 15% 17%

a Carried a weapon, past 4 weeks 14% 14% 14%

a** Sold marijuana, past 12 months 6% 10% 4%

a Sold hard drugs, past 12 months 3% 4% 2%

Sprayed graffiti/damaged propertya 4% 5% 4%

Stole/attempted to steal item >$50a

 8% 7% 8%

Broke into building (or attempted to)a

 3% 3% 3%

a Member of a crew or gang 6% 6% 5%

Binge drank, past 4 weeksa

 24% 29% 22%

Used marijuana, past 4 weeksa

 25% 30% 23%

a Used other drugs, past 4 weeks 4% 4% 5%

Source: All others from LAYC risk assessment. a These risk factors and behaviors are from the LAYC baseline survey. 

We also examined the characteristics of the neighborhoods where study youth lived. Table 3 presents 

select neighborhood characteristics. At baseline, study youth lived in neighborhoods that were largely (80 

percent) made up of people of color. Study youth lived in neighborhoods where the average child poverty 

rate was 25 percent and where 37 percent of individuals earned less than 200 percent of the federal 

poverty level. In the neighborhoods of study youth, 12 percent of all 16‐ to 19-year-olds were neither in 

school nor employed, and 9 percent of them were not in school and had not graduated. 

16 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE 3 

Neighborhood Composition Characteristics 

All Treatment Control 

Characteristic (N=452) (N=154) (N=298) 

Percent nonwhite in total population 80% 78% 81% 

Child poverty rate 25% 23% 26% 

Percent total people 200% below poverty level 37% 35% 37% 

Percent people age 16–19 not in school and not graduated 9% 9% 9%

Percent people age 16–19 not in school and not employed 12% 10% 13% 

Source: 2008-2012 American Community Survey and LAYC baseline survey. 

Notes: Neighborhoods were defined based on census tract boundaries. All averages are weighted based on the number of youth living 

in a particular census tract. Twenty-three study participants did not have complete addresses entered in their baseline survey data and 

could not be matched to a census tract; 1 participant had an address at baseline that was not within the service area, and was not 

included in this table. 

Assessing Randomization 

Randomization was successful as we saw few significant differences between the treatment and control 

groups at baseline. There were no significant differences in gender, age, food stamp receipt, whether or not 

youth had slept in a shelter in the past six months, employment, and measures of relationships and selfefficacy. A slightly higher percentage of the treatment group, about 5 percent versus 2 percent, identified as 

mixed race and a slightly higher share of the treatment group was in 11th grade, 25 versus 18 percent. 

Also, the only one significant difference in risk factors between treatment and control group at baseline 

was related to whether or not a youth had sold marijuana in the last 12 months. A higher percentage of the 

treatment group, about 10 percent versus 4 percent, reported that they had sold marijuana in the past 12 

months. As when examining the baseline demographic, education, and employment characteristics, the lack 

of significant difference in risk factors and behaviors between the two groups indicates that the 

randomization process was successful. 

The characteristics of the neighborhoods youth resided at baseline were relatively consistent across 

treatment and control youth, and no significant differences were found. In full, the lack of significant 

difference in baseline characteristics demonstrates the success of the randomization process. 

Outcome Surveys and Attrition 

Three follow-up surveys were conducted after the baseline survey—at 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months. 

The survey instruments for treatment and control group youth were identical, with the exception that 

treatment group youth were asked additional questions about their promotor. Youth in the treatment group 

who remained enrolled in the program completed these surveys at their promotores’ offices. During this 

process, interactions with the promotor were kept to a minimum; youth would complete the survey 

independently and place it in a sealed envelope to be sent on to E&W. Respondents who were part of the 

treatment group but no longer enrolled in the program and still affiliated with LAYC, as well as control youth 

who remained affiliated with LAYC, completed the surveys with the help of LAYC’s Learning and Evaluation 

EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION 17 
staff. In the cases where respondents in either the treatment or control groups were no longer affiliated 

with LAYC, staff from E&W conducted the surveys by phone using contact information obtained from LAYC. 

Topics covered in the surveys include housing and food security, education, employment, attitudes 

toward education and employment, relationships with peers and adults, risky behaviors, and access to 

community and public services. Information on scales created from multiple survey questions can be found 

in appendix C, and the full survey can be found in appendix D. Only a small handful of responses were 

missing in the surveys, so we did not use imputation methods for missing data. Rather, the few observations 

with missing data for a particular analysis were omitted from that analysis. 

Table 4 shows the retention rates for each survey wave for the sample as a whole and separately for 

treatment and control groups. Youth were only included in this impact evaluation if they completed a survey 

at baseline. We did not, however, exclude youth from the study who failed to take part in all subsequent 

survey waves. 

TABLE 4 

Retention Rates by Survey Wave 

All Treatment Control 

Wave N % N % N % 

Baseline 476 100 165 100 311 100 

6 month 388 82 144 87 244 78 

12 month 371 78 137 83 234 75 

18 month 363 76 132 80 231 74 

Source: LAYC survey data. 

Notes: Only applicants who completed the baseline survey were included in the analysis. Seven applicants were missing a baseline 

survey. 

To ensure that the characteristics of youth participating in each survey wave were not significantly 

different from other survey waves, we examined attrition by comparing the baseline characteristics of those 

who completed baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month surveys. A full table of baseline characteristics for and any 

significant differences between waves is available in appendix A. 

Overall, there was little differential attrition between survey waves. We found no significant 

differences between waves for race and ethnicity, age, language spoken at home, receipt of SNAP, and 

whether or not youth had slept in a shelter in the past six months. Though there were small differences in 

the gender of study youth, the breakdown between male and female remained nearly equally split. We also 

found small differences when looking at study youth who were parents at baseline. For female parents, the 

share increased by about 5 percentage points and for male parents the share decreased by about 8 

percentage points. There were small differences with regard to some education and employment and 

delinquency measures, but these differences were not strongly significant. Furthermore, there was not a 

problem with differential attrition between the treatment and control groups. There were no significant 

differences between the two groups in later survey waves that were not already present as of the baseline 

survey. 

18 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Service Use 

This section describes the share of treatment group youth who engaged with their promotor and the 

frequency and duration of that engagement. We also present information on the baseline correlates of 

engagement with promotores. Additionally, we describe the use of other (i.e., nonpromotor) supportive 

services by both the treatment and control groups from LAYC and non-LAYC sources. 

Engagement with Promotores 

For treatment group members, LAYC collected data on contacts that occurred between each youth and 

their promotor, defined as either when a promotor reached out to a youth or the youth reached out to the 

promotor. These data include details on contact method, who initiated the contact, the duration of each 

interaction, and topics addressed during the interaction. 

Engagement with promotores was remarkably high, especially when considering that this is an optional 

service delivered to a high-need population of young people (table 5). Fully 94 percent of youth engaged at 

least once with his/her promotor, either by contacting or responding to contact from his/her promotor. 

Beyond the initial contact, youth engaged with their promotores to varying degrees. Using LAYC’s contact 

data, we found that just under half of all youth had 46 or more total contacts with their promotores during 

the 18-month study period. About 18 percent of youth had over 76 total contacts with their promotores, 

and 13 percent had only 1 to 15 total contacts with their promotores. 

TABLE 5 

Youth Contact with Promotores 

% of youth 

Number of contacts (N=165) 

No contacts 6% 

1–15 contacts 13% 

16–30 contacts 18% 

31–45 contacts 17% 

46–60 contacts 15% 

61–75 contacts 13% 

Over 76 contacts 18% 

Total 100%

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Female and male participants engaged with their promotores at similar levels. Female participants had 

an average of 50 contacts with their promotores (43 median contacts), and males had an average of 48 

contacts (median 47) over the 18-month study period. However, female youths who engaged, tended to 

engage a lot more; 42 percent of female had 60 contacts compared with 25 percent of males. Only very 

small differences were seen by race and ethnicity. Non-Latino youth had on average 46 contacts with their 
TABLE 6 

Average Contacts with Promotores per Month 

Average # of 

contacts per % of youth 

month (N=165) 

No contacts 6% 

1 contact or less 3% 

1 to <2 contacts 18% 

2 to <3 contacts 22% 

3 to <4 contacts 18% 

4 to <5 contacts 17% 

5 or more contacts 16% 

Total 100%

 

promotores (median of 43), and Latino youth had an average of 51 contacts over the study period (median of 

47). 

On average, youth had 3.5 contacts per month with their promotores. Average contacts per month 

varied little by ethnicity and gender. Non-Latino youth averaged 3.7 contacts per month and Latino youth 

averaged 3.3, and males averaged 3.4 and females averaged 3.5. Most youth, 73 percent, averaged two or 

more contacts with promotores per month (table 6). Sixteen percent of youth averaged five or more 

contacts per month. 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Notes: Average number of contacts per month is calculated by dividing the total number of contacts recorded for each youth by the 

number of months that each youth was engaged with a promotor. The 10 treatment youth who did not have any contacts with a 

promotor are included in the “No contacts” row. 

We find that youth initiate a considerable number of contacts with their promotores. Youth have the 

option to initiate contact with their promotor or wait for their promotor to contact them. As mentioned 

previously, promotores are expected to contact their assigned youth at least twice a month. 

Looking over the entire tenure of engagement within the study period, we see that, on average, youth 

initiated 23 contacts and promotores initiated 18 contacts. Youth initiated about 45 percent of their 

contacts with their promotores at the mean. Of course the proportions of youth versus promotoresinitiated contacts varied by youth. As shown in table 7, 41 percent of youth initiated more contacts than did 

their promotores (i.e., youth-initiated contacts represented more than half of all contacts). For 52 percent of 

youth, their promotores initiated more contacts than did the youth. 

As expected, promotores initiated a higher share of contacts for youth with fewer total contacts. There 

was a clear association between the share of contacts initiated by youth and the number of total contacts. 

The share of youth contacts was higher for those youth with higher total contacts. For example, as shown in 

table 8, a youth who had over 76 contacts with a promotor initiated 57percent of those contacts on average. 

However, a youth with 1 to 15 contacts initiated just 29 percent of those contacts on average. Put together, 

20 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
these findings present a picture of a treatment group that is highly engaged with their promotores, though, 

of course, the depth of that engagement varied across individuals. 

TABLE 7 

Youth-Initiated Contact with Promotores 

Share of total contacts youth 

initiated % of youth (N=165) 

No contacts 6 

0% 4 

1%–10% 5 

11%–20% 12 

21%–30% 5 

31%–40% 10 

41%–50% 16 

51%–60% 12 

61%–70% 10 

71%–80% 13 

81%–90% 4 

91%–100% 2 

Total 100 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Notes: Ten youth who were assigned to the treatment group (6 percent) did not have any contacts with a promotor. Seventeen youth 

(4 percent) did not initiate any of the contacts they had with a promotor. 

TABLE 8 

Average Percent of Contacts Youth Initiated, by Total Number of Contacts 

Number of total Average of total contacts 

contacts youth initiated in range 

No contacts n/a 

1–15 contacts 29% 

16–30 contacts 34% 

31–45 contacts 51% 

46–60 contacts 44% 

61–75 contacts 57% 

Over 76 contacts 57% 

Total 46% 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Note: Ten participants did not have any contacts, so the average percent of contacts that are initiated by youth is not application for 

those participants. 

A youth’s engagement likely reflects how close he/she feels to his/her promotor, how helpful he/she 

finds the promotor to be, and the type of interactions he/she has with the promotor. Based on survey data, 

treatment youth were very positive about their relationships with their promotores and these feelings 

SERVICE USE 21 
Topic 

Percent of youth 

working on topic at 

least once 

(N=165) 

Percent of all 

contacts 

working on topic 

(N=7,559) 

Average 

number of 

contacts youth 

worked on topic 

Education 84% 32% 15

Behavior 93% 82% 38

Housing 70% 12% 5

Workforce 77% 15% 7

Community resources 77% 21% 10 

remained consistent across all three survey waves. Approximately 60 percent of youth felt very close to 

their promotores and about 30 percent felt somewhat close. Across all waves, only about 9 to 15 percent 

said that they did not feel close to their promotores. Nearly 90 percent of treatment youth felt that they 

could talk to their promotores when they had a personal problem, said that their promotores helped them 

set and reach goals, noted that their promotores talked about how to solve problems, and felt that their 

promotores helped them grow and improve as a person. Treatment youth did not feel unfairly judged by 

their promotores. Most youth did not believe that their promotores tried to control their lives (85 percent) 

or did not approve of their actions (60 percent). This is important, because the research suggests that youth 

were less likely to abandon relationships that focused on the youth’s, not the mentor’s, goals (Morrow and 

Styles 1995). 

Youth spent a majority of contacts with promotores discussing and working on ways to address 

behavioral issues. Each session could cover one or a range of topics (table 9). As classified by promotores, 82 

percent of all contacts (N=7,559) involved some discussion of behavioral issues, and 93 percent of all 

treatment youth (N=165) discussed the topic at least once. On average, promotores worked with youth on 

this topic 38 times (this average includes those participants who had no contacts). Education was discussed 

during 32 percent of contacts, or an average of 15 contacts per youth. This topic was addressed at least once 

with 84 percent of youth. 

Housing and workforce issues were discussed less frequently, an average of 5 and 7 times per youth, 

respectively (representing 12 and 15 percent of contacts); but large majorities of youth discussed both of 

these topics at least once. Community resources, which refer to any type of service youth receive outside of 

LAYC, were also discussed at least once by a large majority of youth. Youth discussed issues relating to 

community resources during about 21 percent of their contacts, or during 10 sessions on average. 

TABLE 9 

Topics Covered during Contacts with Promotores 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Notes: Youth could work on more than one topic during each contact. Overall, youth had 7,559 contacts with their promotores during 

the 18-month study. The percentage of youth working on each topic and the average number of contacts youth worked on a topic 

include all treatment youth, including those 10 participants who did not have any contacts with promotores. 

Overall, treatment group youth remained engaged in services for a fairly lengthy amount of time. On 

average, the time between a youth’s first and last contacts with his/her promotor was 15 months at the 

conclusion of the 18-month study period. For nearly two-thirds of treatment youth (64 percent), the time 

22 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE 10 

Duration of Promotor Contacts from First to Last Contact 

between first and last contact with the promotores was between 16 to 18 months (table 10). When looking 

at the youth by ethnic and gender subgroups, over half of the youth in each subgroup remained engaged for 

16 months or longer. (This evaluation stopped observing youth after 18 months, but youth could continue to 

engage with their promotores beyond that point.) As shown in other research, long-lasting relationships are 

more likely to yield positive social outcomes for the youth (Grossman and Rhodes 2002; US Department of 

Justice 2011). 

Few youth disengaged from their promotores. As described above, 6 percent of youth had no contact 

with their promotor. Another 1 percent had only one contact. In addition, approximately 11 percent of 

treatment group youth had two or more contacts with their promotores for only one to six months. 

Duration from first % youth in 

to last contact category 

No contacts 6% 

Only 1 contact 1% 

1–6 months 11% 

7–12 months 10% 

13–15 months 8% 

16–18+ months 64% 

Total 100% 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Notes: Ten participants (6 percent) had no contacts and one participant (1 percent) had only one contact with a promotor. The duration 

data are time censored; the study observation period lasted 18 months, though youth could continue to receive services beyond the 

research study. 

As displayed in table 11, 63 percent of contacts between youth and their promotores were in-person. 

In-person contacts include a meeting at LAYC, a youth’s home, school, or other location, such as a 

restaurant. Most in-person contacts, (52 percent of all contacts) occurred at LAYC. Four percent of contacts 

occurred at the youth’s school and 2 percent occurred at a youth’s home. Five percent of contacts were at 

another location, for example, a meeting at a local restaurant or coffee shop. The 37 percent of contacts that 

were not in-person ranged from a simple text message or social media message to an email or phone call. 

Phone contacts made up 23 percent of all contacts, with text message or email contacts comprising 11 and 2 

percent of all contacts, respectively. 

The contact data include attempts, successful or not, to reach the youth. For example, a phone contact 

can refer to just leaving a voicemail with no indication that a return contact was made. The same is true for 

text, email, and social media contacts. Conversely, if a promotor exchanges multiple text messages with a 

youth, one contact might be listed covering the entire exchange. As a result, a contact does not necessarily 

convey the full sense of youth-promotor interaction. 

Data on method of contact is only available until January 2014, when LAYC decided to no longer track 

this information. Looking at data through that time, we see that in-person contacts lasted about three times 

longer than remote contacts. Contacts at home or in some other location lasted the longest with a median of 

SERVICE USE 23 
60 minutes while contacts at LAYC or at school lasted 30 and 20 minutes, respectively. Understandably, 

text message contacts took the least amount of time, with a median of 5 minutes. Contact made over social 

media lasted a median of 10 minutes and email contacts took about 8 minutes. Telephone contacts, which 

made up the largest percentage of not-in-person contacts, lasted a median length of 10 minutes. 

TABLE 11 

Promotor Contacts: Minutes Spent by Method 

Minutes 

Method % of Contacts (median) 

In person 63% 30 

At LAYC 52% 30 

At school 4% 20 

At home 2% 60 

Other location 5% 60 

Not in person 37% 10 

Phone 23% 10 

Text 11% 5 

Email 2% 8 

Social media 1% 10 

All 100% 20 

Total contacts 5,108 

Source: LAYC administrative data. 

Correlates of Engagement 

Understanding patterns of service use based on the characteristics of youth at baseline can help inform 

where to best target scarce resources and what programmatic changes might be necessary to successfully 

engage those populations with lower levels of service use. This information can be useful for practice, policy, 

and research purposes. Looking at this study, did young men or young women engage in services at higher 

rates? Were parents more likely to engage than nonparents? Several subgroups warrant investigation. 

In examining the Promotor Pathway program, however, we find very few baseline characteristics 

predict the amount of contact a youth had with his/her promotor. We explored multiple specifications of 

regressions to examine which baseline factors were more highly correlated with service use, including both 

continuous and dichotomous measures of service use. In all cases, there were not clear or robust predictors 

of service receipt. 

Table 12 shows our preferred specification of selected baseline characteristics and whether or not they 

are correlated with a youth’s level of engagement with his/her promotor. We define this engagement as a 

dichotomous measure—youth who had 45 or more contacts, relative to those who had fewer than 45 

contacts. The median number of contacts youth had with promotores was about 45. 

24 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE 12 

Correlates of Contact with Promotores 

 Odds ratio

 Baseline measure 45+ contacts (vs. <45) 

Female 0.61

Latino 1.56

Age 19 or older 1.70 

Has a child 4.57*** 

Pregnanta

 0.43

Perceived control/mastery score (max=24) 1.02 

Adult support score (max=24) 0.98 

Ever expelled from school 1.81 

Slept outside or in shelter (past 2 weeks) 0.95 

Has a learning disability 0.77 

Constant 0.47

Observations 116

Source: LAYC survey and administrative data. 

Notes: Female, Latino, age, has a child, pregnant, perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, and ever expelled are measures 

in the baseline survey of youth; slept outside or in shelter and has a learning disability are measures in the LAYC risk assessment used 

to determine youths' eligibility for the program. Eighty-two percent of the treatment group had at least 15 contacts, and 65 percent 

had at least 30 contacts. 

a

 Pregnant is not a question on the survey, but rather is inferred based on whether youth reported having a child in the 6-month survey. 

*** p < 0.01 

As shown in table 12, the only baseline characteristic that showed statistically significant correlations 

with receiving 45 or more engagements was having a child. Youth with a child were over four times more 

likely to have over 45 contacts with their promotores. The result could indicate that youth with children 

required additional support and advocacy as they were caring for themselves and at least one other life. 

Other LAYC Services Received 

LAYC offers numerous services for youth. Treatment youth may be referred to these services by their 

promotor or they may be referred by individuals or programs outside the organization. Notably, control 

group youth can also access all LAYC services, raising the question of whether promotores induce youth to 

engage in more LAYC programs than they otherwise would. Using administrative data on the use of other 

LAYC services, we compare the treatment and control groups’ participation in LAYC programs separately 

for major program categories: advocacy, case management (excluding promotores), education, healthy 

behaviors, housing, recreation, and workforce. We examine participation in LAYC programs before and 

after enrollment into the study (i.e., before and after the date of random assignment) to illustrate how 

participation differed between those who were assigned a promotor and those who were not. 

As shown in table 13, over four in five youth (83 percent) enrolled in our study were involved in some 

LAYC program (excluding promotores) before randomization. As expected, given that the selection into the 

treatment was random, there was little difference in program participation between the treatment and 

control groups: 85 percent of treatment and 82 percent of control were involved in some LAYC program 

SERVICE USE 25 
previously. The most frequently used category of LAYC service for both the treatment and the control 

groups was education. Approximately 59 percent of youth previously participated in an LAYC education 

program. Thirty-three percent of youth were involved with a healthy behaviors program addressing 

reproductive health, substance abuse, or some other health and behavior issue at baseline. Eleven percent 

of youth at baseline were involved in a reproductive health program. LAYC also offers programs focusing on 

workforce development, and about 32 percent of study youth were involved in these programs at baseline. 

After randomization, treatment youth were significantly more likely to enroll in certain categories of 

LAYC programs (apart from the Promotor Pathway program). Overall, 71 percent of treatment youth 

enrolled in another LAYC program during the 18-month study period (apart from their promotor), and 49 

percent of control youth enrolled in another LAYC program. Similarly, treatment youth were enrolled in a 

larger variety of programs than control youth. Of the seven program categories (advocacy, case 

management [excluding promotores], education, healthy behaviors, housing, recreation, and workforce), 

treatment youth participated in 1.1 categories of other LAYC programs as compared with an average of 0.8 

types of other LAYC programs for controls. It is worth reemphasizing at this point that the assignment of a 

promotor is associated with higher use of LAYC services. However, the control group also had fairly high 

engagement with LAYC services. This counterfactual is important to keep in mind when exploring effects of 

the promotor intervention. In this way the promotor acted as a “top up” service, added to the existing suite 

of LAYC programs, which roughly half of the control group engaged in. 

Treatment group youth were not more likely to engage in all types of LAYC services including advocacy, 

health behaviors, reproductive health, GED, housing, recreation, or other services. Looking at specific types 

of programs, we see that there were significant differences in uptake of education services (33 percent for 

treatment versus 25 percent for control), workforce services (22 percent for treatment versus 14 percent 

for control), and other (nonpromotor) case management services (13 percent for treatment versus 6 

percent for control). 

26 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

 

TABLE 13 

Participation in Other LAYC Programs 

Participated in Program Started Program after 

Before Random Assignment Random Assignment 

All Treatment Control All Treatment Control 

Advocacy 3% 1% 4% 0% 1% 0% 

Case managementa 23% 23% 23% 8% 13% 6%*** 

Education 59% 61% 57% 28% 33% 25%* 

GED 28% 30% 26% 22% 24% 20% 

Other education 34% 32% 34% 20% 22% 19% 

Healthy behaviors 33% 32% 33% 26% 30% 24% 

Reproductive health 11% 10% 12% 18% 20% 17% 

Other healthy behaviors 15% 15% 15% 10% 12% 9% 

Housing 11% 8% 12% 6% 7% 6% 

Recreation 17% 15% 18% 6% 7% 5% 

Workforce 32% 35% 30% 17% 22% 14%** 

Any LAYC programa 83% 85% 82% 57% 71% 49%*** 

Number (types of 

programs) 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.9 1.1 0.8*** 

Observations 471 165 311 471 165 311 

Sources: LAYC survey and administrative data. 

Note: There are no significant differences in these measures between the treatment and control groups before random assignment. a

 Excluding the Promotor Pathway program. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 

Use of Services and Program Participation 

One of the main goals of the Promotor Pathway program is to encourage youth to take advantage of not 

only other LAYC services, but also those offered through other providers. Each follow-up survey asked 

youth if they had received services they needed—regardless of whether the service was provided by LAYC 

or not—such as medical care, reproductive health services, mental health counseling, help finding housing, 

or legal advice. The survey also asked youth about all programs they participated in, such as workforce or 

education programs, and whether the service was provided by LAYC or not. This information complemented 

the LAYC service use data presented above, in that it captures services received from other providers as 

well. 

Table 14 shows this overall picture of service usage for study youth at the end of the 18-month study 

period. The first columns in table 14 explore mean rates of service receipt for the treatment and control 

groups, the differences in these means, and regression-adjusted differences in means. The columns on the 

far right show service receipt separately for those with zero or very few contacts (15 or less) and for those 

with more than 15 contacts (for the treatment group). 

SERVICE USE 27 
Overall, treatment youth were more likely than control group youth to use services. If services were 

needed, treatment youth were 15 to nearly 30 percentage points more likely, in the regression-adjusted 

models, to receive services from any provider related to mental health counseling, substance use, public 

assistance, housing, and legal problems. Though not significant for the whole treatment group, treatment 

youth with more than 15 contacts were about 9 percentage points more likely to receive reproductive 

health services if they were needed. Youth with 15 or more contacts were also more likely to receive 

substance use counseling, get help with public assistance, and receive help finding housing. As these results 

were also significant when the full treatment group was compared with the control group, these differences 

demonstrate that it was the more highly engaged treatment youth who were more likely to use these 

programs. Additionally, the results may indicate that youth who were more engaged were more likely to use 

different services than those youth who were less engaged. 

 Looking at services that only LAYC offered, treatment youth were 18 percentage points more likely to 

participate in any type of service or program in the regression-adjusted model (table 14). Treatment youth 

also participated in a larger variety of LAYC programs, about 1.2 versus 0.9 types. Additionally, youth who 

were more engaged (i.e., those with 15 or more contacts) were 25 percentage points more likely than those 

with fewer contacts to participate in any program. Significant differences in LAYC service usage were seen 

for workforce related programs, with treatment youth about 9 percentage points more likely to receive 

them in the regression-adjusted model. Similarly, treatment youth were over 7 percentage points more 

likely to receive case management programs. 

We also examined use of services offered by any provider including LAYC. Similar to the service usage 

results for LAYC-only programs, treatment youth, especially those who were more engaged, were more 

likely to participate in any type of program and participated in a larger variety of programs. In addition to 

higher levels of participation in workforce programs, treatment youth were also about 20 percentage points 

more likely to participate in programs related to healthy behaviors, which includes reproductive health, 

substance use, and mental health counseling programs, and education. 

28 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE 14 

Services Received in 18 Months 

 

Differences in Means 

 Control Treatment Difference 

Regressionadjusted 

differences 

Difference 

Regression-adjusted 

differences, by number 

of promotor contacts 

initiated by youth 

15+ <15 

contacts contacts 

Received services, if needed 

Medical check-up 

Medical care for illness 

Reproductive health services 

Dental care 

Mental health counseling 

Help getting health insurance 

Substance use counseling 

Help getting public assistance 

Got driver's license or other ID 

Help finding housing 

Help with legal problem 

84.6% 

78.1% 

80.0% 

75.8% 

46.7% 

71.0% 

48.8% 

64.1% 

62.8% 

38.5% 

38.0% 

85.2% 

79.5% 

86.2% 

73.9% 

68.4% 

78.0% 

74.4% 

79.6% 

63.3% 

56.8% 

70.4% 

0.6% 

1.3% 

6.2% 

-1.9% 

21.8%*** 

6.9% 

25.6%*** 

15.5%** 

0.5% 

18.2%*** 

32.4%*** 

1.0% 

1.9% 

6.9% 

-3.5% 

22.7%*** 

6.1% 

24.4%** 

15.1%** 

0.8% 

17.9%** 

29.1%*** 

-3.1% 

5.5% 

8.7%* 

-2.4% 

25.2%*** 

2.9% 

28.2%** 

15.2%** 

0.5% 

17.9%** 

24.9%** 

8.7% 

-5.7% 

3.2% 

-5.5%

17.4%* 

13.0%

17.1% 

14.8% 

1.5%

17.8% 

37.0%***

Other program participation (any provider)a 

Healthy behaviors 55.8% 

Education 48.9% 

Workforce 58.0% 

Recreation 71.9% 

Any 89.2% 

Number of program types 2.3 

75.8% 

68.2% 

70.5% 

68.9% 

94.7% 

2.8 

19.9%*** 

19.3%*** 

12.4%** 

-2.9% 

5.5%* 

0.5*** 

19.9%*** 

19.3%*** 

13.3%** 

-1.4% 

7.7%** 

0.5*** 

23.4%*** 

20.7%***

12.8%**

2.5%

9.2%**

0.6*** 

13.2%* 

16.5%**

14.4%*

-8.8%

4.9%

0.4* 

Other program participation (at LAYC)b 

Healthy behaviors 24.7% 

Education 27.7% 

Workforce 14.3% 

Recreation 6.5% 

Case managementc

 5.6% 

Anyc

 52.4% 

Number of program types 0.9 

32.6% 

34.9% 

25.8% 

6.1% 

12.9% 

72.0% 

1.2 

7.9% 

7.1% 

11.5%*** 

-0.4% 

7.3%** 

19.6%*** 

0.4*** 

9.5%* 

5.9% 

9.0%** 

0.2% 

7.4%** 

18.4%*** 

0.4*** 

19.0%*** 

12.1%**

13.4%***

0.4%

3.0% 

25.1%***

0.5*** 

-8.9% 

-6.0%

0.4%

-0.2%

15.7%***

5.6%

0.0 

Observations 231 132 363 363 363 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: LAYC survey and administrative data.
 

Notes: Intent-to-treat compares outcomes of a treatment group of youth who were admitted to the Promotor Pathway program and 

may or may not have been treated (i.e., had contact with a promotor), with a control group of youth who were not admitted to the 

program. The following youth characteristics were controlled for in the regression-adjusted intent-to-treat models: gender, age, 

whether Latino, whether a parent, perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, score on a delinquency scale based on eight 

behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed graffiti/damaged property, got in a fight and
 

required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break into building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, 

and member of a crew or gang), whether used marijuana ever, and whether drank ever. In most cases, the youth's baseline level of the 

outcome of interest was also used as a control.
 a Any participation during 18-month study period (based on survey data).
 b Participation that began after random assignment (based on LAYC administrative data).
 c

 Excluding the Promotor Pathway program.
 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 

SERVICE USE 29 
 

 

Program Impacts 

As described above, the Promotor Pathway program is targeted to the most high-risk and disconnected 

youth that LAYC serves, with the broad goal of helping youth make successful transitions to adulthood and 

reconnect with their families and communities. LAYC intends that youth participating in the program make 

gains in several areas. This section presents findings of the impacts of the Promotor Pathway program for 

youth, organized into the following domains: education, employment, births, housing stability, substance 

use, delinquency, and relationships and self-efficacy. 

Our analytical strategy employs an intent-to-treat (ITT) framework. That is, we compare outcomes for 

the youth in each group, treatment and control, regardless of whether or how much the youth participated. 

This provides the overall impact of the program, as implemented, on the youth the program intended to 

treat. 

Because randomization does not always succeed in generating groups that are balanced on every 

baseline measure, we also estimate regression-adjusted ITT estimates of the difference between the 

treatment and control groups for each outcome measure. These regressions take into account any variation 

between the groups and improve the precision of the ITT estimates. The best control measure for a given 

outcome is the baseline measure of that same variable. Where available (i.e., where an outcome measure 

was captured consistently in the baseline survey) we included the baseline measure as a control. We 

included a set of other baseline controls, which were gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, 

perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, score on a delinquency scale based on eight behaviors 

in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed graffiti/damaged property, got in a 

fight and required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item worth more than $50, broke or tried to 

break into building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, and member of a crew or gang), whether used marijuana 

ever, and whether drank ever. 

It is plausible that the intervention had different effects for different subgroups—that the program 

worked differently for different populations. We explore this possibility by conducting separate analyses to 

examine differences by ethnicity (Latino/non-Latino), gender, and level of youth engagement with their 

promotores (45 or more contacts versus fewer than 45 contacts, including those with zero contacts). The 

first two subgroups—ethnicity and gender—are conventional subgroups, in that these characteristics are 

defined by the point of the baseline survey and are not changed by the treatment. The third, engagement, is 

different. Engagement is endogenous in that it is affected by the efforts of the promotores, and, as such, 

these results should not be viewed in the same manner as the other ITT results. Nevertheless, we find these 

estimates instructive, informing what impacts are associated with different engagement levels. Tables 

showing all three subgroup estimates can be found in appendix B. 

Our next analytical strategy, because not all youth choose to participate in programs offered to them, is 

to investigate the impact on those who were actually treated. To account for this, we include an adjustment 

suggested by Bloom (1984), known as the treatment-on-the-treated. 

Table 15 below presents mean values for over two-dozen outcomes from the 18-month survey for both 

the control and treatment group. Following an ITT framework, the table shows the simple differences in 
 

means between these two groups for each outcome as well as the regression-adjusted differences. In all 

cases, the regression-adjusted estimate is within 2 percentage points of the difference in means, which 

reflects successful randomization for youth in the study. In the discussion text below, we report the 

regression-adjusted estimate unless otherwise noted. In addition to mean differences and regressionadjusted differences, we show standardized effect sizes to provide a unit-free measure of impact. Also 

included in table 15 is the treatment-on-the-treated estimate of the treatment effect for each outcome 

measure (on treated youth). As most of the treatment group was in fact treated (only 6 percent of treatment 

youth were not in contact with their promotores), the treatment-on-the-treated estimates are similar to the 

ITT estimates. 

We conducted adjustments for multiple tests using a procedure developed by Benjamini and Hochberg 

(1995), which reduces the chance of finding false positives. We do not adjust the significance levels in the 

table, but we note in the text where and how the results differ from the unadjusted results. We do not make 

adjustments for multiple tests in our subgroup analyses, as these are exploratory in nature and thus do not 

require such adjustments (Schochet 2008). 

Education 

Educational attainment was a primary goal of the Promotor Pathway program. To see the effects of the 

program on education, we reviewed the following indicators: high school degree attainment, college 

attendance, and persistence in school (i.e., enrolled in school at 18-month follow-up). 

At the 18-month follow-up, in-school rates for treatment youth were 14 percentage points higher than 

their peers in the control group. Looking at unadjusted means, 52 percent of the treatment group was in 

school at 18 months, compared with 39 percent of the control group. (At baseline, 48 percent of the 

treatment group and 46 percent of the control group were enrolled in school.) This means that the 

magnitude of this impact was such that the treatment group was in school at rates roughly one-third higher 

at 18 months than the control group, a sizable difference. The higher levels of treatment youth in school at 

the end of the study period may indicate that the treatment youth were more aware of services and 

programs that provide resources to help the youth stay in school and were more likely to understand the 

importance of their education. 

Interestingly, this result was largely driven by Latinos and males. Looking first by race/ethnicity, we see 

that Latino treatment group youth were 24 percentage points more likely to be in school than were Latino 

youth in the control group. Similarly, treatment males were 19 percentage points more likely to be in school 

than males in the control group, an effect that was not evident for treatment group females. Highly engaged 

treatment youth (initiated 45 or more contacts) were 16 percentage points more likely to be in school at the 

end of the study period than those in the control group. Those youth who initiated fewer than 45 contacts 

were not statistically different from the control group. 

Overall, treatment youth were no more likely than control youth to have attended any college at the 

end of the study period. However, males in the treatment group were about 11 percentage points more 

likely be have attended any college than males in the control group. This may indicate that the males in the 

treatment group were more likely to be connected to institutions providing higher education than the 

PROGRAM IMPACTS 31 
 

 

control males. There were no differences in college attendance for females, and there were no differences 

when examining treatment youth separately by race and ethnicity or engagement levels. 

Treatment youth were no more likely to have a high school degree or higher at the end of the 18-month 

study period. It is possible that these outcomes could have been limited by the 18-month follow-up period. 

There were also no differences when outcomes were examined by ethnicity, gender, or engagement level. 

In sum, the education advancement picture is mixed. The program succeeded in helping males remain in 

school and enroll in college; however females did not benefit similarly. Latinos benefited, showing higher 

rates of remaining in school, but non-Latinos did not. There is nothing in the design or implementation of the 

study, or average baseline characteristics of each gender or race and ethnicity, that provides sound 

evidence as to why this would be the case. 

Employment 

We examined four employment outcomes for youth: employment status at 18 months, whether or not 

youth had been employed at any point during the past six months (recent employment), hours worked per 

week in the past six months, and weekly wages in the last six months. 

As described above, 24 percent of treatment and 21 percent of control group youth were employed as 

of the baseline survey. Employment levels more than doubled for both groups, and, as of the 18-month 

follow-up survey, their employment rates were still quite similar (54 percent for the treatment group, 52 

percent for the control group). Similarly, we saw no impact of the program on recent employment, hours 

worked per week, or weekly wages. 

We again saw differences in how males and females fared under the program in terms of employment 

outcomes. Females in the treatment group fared no better than females in the control group along any of 

the employment dimensions. However, males in the treatment group were less likely to have worked 

recently, and they reported fewer hours worked per week, and lower weekly wages. Given that males were 

more likely to persist in school than females, the worse employment outcomes may be interpreted as a 

trade-off between school and work. (We also directly test the combination measure of ‘in school or working’ 

by gender and find that neither gender was more likely to be better or worse off on this indicator than the 

control group.) 

We again saw differences in some employment indicators when examining different racial and ethnic 

subgroups and also by engagement level. Latino treatment youth did not differ from Latino control youth on 

any employment outcomes. However, non-Latino treatment youth were about 14 percentage points less 

likely to have recently worked compared with non-Latino control youth; they also worked fewer hours per 

week. 

More-engaged youth worked six fewer hours per week than the control group youth while less-engaged 

youth worked neither more nor fewer hours than the control group. This finding may reflect a trade-off 

between work and school. 

32 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Births 

Thirty-one percent of study participants at baseline were already parents; this figure was comparable for 

both the treatment and control groups. However, parenting rates were quite different for female and male 

applicants: 42 percent of female youth were parents at baseline compared with 20 percent of males. Our 

analysis finds that the program had an effect on births during the 18-month study period for the treatment 

group. Treatment youth were 7 percentage points less likely to have a child during the last year of the study 

period than control youth. The magnitude of this effect is sizable. The treatment group was roughly onethird less likely to have a child than the control group (21 percent of the control group did versus 14 percent 

of the treatment group). 

The lower levels of treatment youth having a child may indicate that the contacts with the promotores 

helped youth understand how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. As cited above, we do not see that treatment 

group youth had higher uptake of reproductive health services within or outside LAYC, which may indicate 

it was something about the promotores—possibly the direct services they provided or that their relationship 

with the youth instilled a belief in greater future opportunities—that resulted in reduced births. 

This outcome was evident among some subgroups and not others. Latino treatment youth were 16 

percentage points less likely to have had a child in the last year of the study period than Latino control 

youth. Treatment males (of any race) were 15 percentage points less likely to have a child than control 

males. 

When examining treatment youth by engagement level, we found that the more-engaged youth were 

11 percentage points less likely to have a child than the control group, but that youth with limited 

engagement were no less likely to have a child than the control group. This may indicate that the youth who 

were more engaged were more likely to discuss reproductive health with their promotores. Also, as shown 

in table 14, youth who were at least moderately engaged (45 or more contacts with their promotores) 

reported higher levels of receiving reproductive health services than youth in the treatment group who 

were less engaged. 

Housing Stability 

We examined two measures of housing stability: whether youth had slept in a shelter in the past six months 

and whether youth had moved more than three times during the past six months. 

At the end of the 18-month study period, treatment group youth were about 6 percentage points less 

likely to have slept in a shelter during the past six months than control group youth. Roughly 14 percent of 

program applicants reported sleeping in a shelter at some point during the six months before the baseline 

survey. At the 18-month follow-up survey, the share of control group youth reporting this stood at 10 

percent, but, for treatment group youth, only 4 percent reported sleeping in a shelter during the previous six 

months. This means that in terms of effect size, treatment group youth were roughly 60 percent less likely 

than control group youth to have slept in a shelter at some point during the six months before the 18-month 

survey. 9

 Adjusting for multiple comparisons reduces the significance level for this outcome. When 

comparing means, the difference was still significant at the 0.10 level, but the regression-adjusted 

difference did not achieve this level of significance. However, in this domain, the Benjamini and Hochberg 

PROGRAM IMPACTS 33 
 

 

 

(1995) adjustment may be too strong as there were only two variables; the chances of finding a false 

positive were small. 

Female treatment group members were 12 percentage points less likely than control group females to 

have slept in a shelter in the past six months, and non-Latino treatment group youth were 11 percentage 

points less likely to have slept in a shelter than non-Latino control group youth. There was no difference 

between more-engaged youth and those youth who were less engaged. 

Looking at whether or not youth had moved more than three times in the past six months, youth in the 

treatment group did not move less often than control youth. This was also true when examining other 

thresholds for defining “churning movers,” those exhibiting residential instability (Coulton, Theodos, and 

Turner 2012). There were no differences in frequent moving for subgroups defined by ethnicity, gender, or 

engagement level. 

Substance Use 

To see the effects of the Promotor Pathway program on a youth’s substance use habits, we examined three 

outcomes: whether a youth had a binge drinking episode, used marijuana, or other drugs in the past four 

weeks. Interpretation of these results is somewhat perplexing. 

Overall, we found no positive impacts associated with the program on substance use measures. The 

treatment group was no less or more likely to use marijuana or to use other drugs. However, when 

compared with control youth, treatment youth were about 12 percentage points more likely to report they 

engaged in binge drinking in the past four weeks. This result remains, even after correcting for multiple 

comparisons, though the significance level drops from 0.01 to 0.05. Socially undesirable items are generally 

underreported in surveys. This finding could have emerged for a number of reasons. It may simply be a 

statistical anomaly. Or, it may reflect the fact that treatment group members felt more liberty or 

accountability to be honest in their reporting of drinking; this could be a by-product of their relationship 

with their promotores or because the treatment youth were more likely to have received substance abuse 

counseling during the 18-month study period than control youth and had already disclosed that they had a 

substance abuse problem. Another possibility is that, since fewer treatment youth were having children, 

they may have perceived more freedom to drink. 

Both males and females in the treatment group were more likely to report binge drinking than their 

control group counterparts, but females in the treatment group were also more likely to report using 

marijuana. There were also differences across racial and ethnic groups. Latino treatment youth reported 

binge drinking at a rate 17 percentage points above Latino control youth. Non-Latino treatment youth 

reported using marijuana at a rate 14 percentage points higher and drugs at a rate 5 percentage points 

higher, than non-Latino control youth. When examining engagement level, treatment youth were more 

likely to have binge drank if they were more engaged but no more or less likely to have had a binge-drinking 

episode if they were less engaged. 

34 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

Delinquency and Violence 

As with substance use, the program evidence a positive impact in any of the nine delinquency and violence 

outcomes we investigated. The nine outcomes were as follows: carried a weapon in the past four weeks, got 

in a fight requiring medical attention, stole or attempted to steal something with more than $50, broke into 

or attempted to break into a building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, member of a crew or gang, and 

incarcerated in the past six months. For the youth who reported getting in a fight, the data does not 

distinguish between perpetrators and victims. 

Though none of the nine outcomes showed improvements for the treatment group relative to the 

control group, for three measures, the treatment group actually did worse relative to the control group. As 

shown in table 15, treatment group youth were about 6 percentage points more likely to have reported that 

they got in a fight (perpetrator or victim) that required them to seek medical attention, nearly 5 percentage 

points more likely to have sold marijuana, and 2 percentage points more likely to have sold other hard drugs 

(all controlling for higher rates at baseline). As with substance use, the explanation for these findings is not 

known. When adjustments were made for multiple comparisons, the negative impacts on the treatment 

group disappeared from both the ITT and the regression-adjusted ITT. Thus, the findings may be spurious. 

To the extent they may be real, a potential explanation is that, as a by-product of working with their 

promotores, treatment youth became more willing to divulge their experiences with delinquency. Other 

possible explanations may be that the treatment youth, who were more likely to stay in school, had more 

contact with others to sell marijuana or to get in a fight with, or the control youth, who were more likely to 

become parents, may have perceived less freedom to partake in activities that led them to these delinquent 

behaviors. Of these three indicators, it was those with 45 or more contacts who reported higher rates of 

getting in fights that required medical attention and also higher rates of selling drugs than the control group, 

while treatment youth with fewer than 45 contacts were not different from the control group. For carrying a 

weapon, spraying graffiti, and selling marijuana, however, the reverse scenario was evident, with lowcontact youth reporting higher rates. 

We observed additional differences across both ethnicity and gender (see tables B.2 and B.3). 

Compared with the non-Latinos in the control group, non-Latino treatment youth were about 10 percentage 

points more likely to have gotten into a fight and required medical attention, 6 percentage points more 

likely to steal something, 8 percentage points more likely to have sold marijuana, and 4 percentage points 

more likely to have sold hard drugs. Conversely, Latinos in the treatment group did not report higher 

delinquency rates for any of the measures than Latinos in the control group. This may indicate that the 

program has different outcomes for Latino and non-Latino youth or that reporting is different for these 

groups. The patterns are less stark when looking by gender. Treatment females reported higher rates of 

getting in fights (8 percentage points) compared with females in the control group. Treatment males 

reported higher rates of having sold marijuana (8 percentage points) and having sold hard drugs (5 

percentage points) compared with males in the control group. 

PROGRAM IMPACTS 35 
Relationships and Self-Efficacy 

To examine a youth’s relationships and perceptions of self-efficacy, we looked at four outcomes: whether a 

youth had a special adult in their life, if their friends were a positive influence, if their friends were a negative 

influence, and score on a scale that measures perceived mastery/control. 

Treatment youth were 9 percentage points more likely to say that they had a special adult in their life. 

This special adult could be a family member, friend, counselor, promotor, or other person. However, after 

adjusting for multiple comparisons, the difference between treatment and control group youth was no 

longer significant in the ITT or in the regression-adjusted ITT. 

Reflecting, likely, the influence of the promotores, youth with higher levels of engagement were over 15 

percentage points more likely to have a special adult in their life than the control group—but there was no 

difference between those with fewer than 45 contacts and the control group. No differences were observed 

by ethnicity. When looking by gender, however, we do see that the share of females reporting having a 

special adult in their lives was 13 percentage points higher for those in the treatment group compared 

against those the control group whereas males did not show a difference between groups. 

To capture the positive or negative influences of a youth’s friends, we created two scales. The positive 

peers scale includes six items with a maximum score of 18 and the negative peers scale includes eight items 

with a maximum score of 24. Treatment youth were not more or less likely than control youth to have 

friends who were either a positive or negative influence. Additionally, there were no differences by ethnicity 

and engagement level. 

Pearlin’s Mastery Scale (Pearlin et al. 1981) measures the degree to which youth feel in control of their 

lives and able to solve problems. Treatment youth were neither more nor less likely to have a higher or 

lower score on the scale, and there were no differences observed by ethnicity or engagement level. 

Although not shown, we also examined mastery by age and observed no significant differences. 

36 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE 15 

Program Impacts at 18 Months 

Education 

Intent-to-Treat (ITT) 

Treatment-onthe-Treated

a Difference

 Regr

 Diffe

Control a Treatment Difference Effect sizea

HS diploma/GED or higher 60.2% 54.6% -5.6 -11.4 -6.0 -5

Attended college (past 6 months) 20.4% 21.2% 0.9 2.1 0.9 3

In school (at 18 months) 38.6% 52.0% 13.4** 27.0 14.3 14

Employment 

Currently employed 52.4% 53.5% 1.1 2.1 1.1 1

Employed (past 6 months) 75.4% 72.1% -3.4 -7.6 -3.6 -4

Hours worked per weekb 23.0 19.8 -3.1 -0.2 -3.3 -2

Weekly wages (log)c 4.0 3.8 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0

Births (past 12 months) 

Had a child 20.8% 13.6% -7.1* -18.5 -7.6 -7

Had a child - females 19.7% 18.1% -1.6 -4.1 -1.7 -0

Had a child - males 21.9% 8.3% -13.6** -35.9 -14.5 -16

Housing stability (past 6 months) 

Slept in a shelter 9.7% 3.8% -5.8** -22.1 -6.2 -53+ moves 3.5% 3.8% 0.3 1.6 0.3 0

Substance use (past 4 weeks) 

Binge drank 16.4% 28.2% 11.8*** 29.0 12.6 13

Used marijuana 16.4% 20.0% 3.6 9.3 3.8 4

Used other drugs 1.8% 3.8% 2.0 12.7 2.1 2

Delinquencyd 

Carried a weapon 8.0% 10.8% 2.8 9.7 2.9 4

Sprayed graffiti/damaged property 2.3% 1.0 7.4 1.0 1

Got in fight, required medical attention 4.9% 11.4% 6.5** 24.9 6.9 6Stole/attempted to steal item >$50 3.6% 4.6% 1.0 5.1 1.1 1

Broke into building (or attempted to) 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% -0.9 -11.9 -1.0 -0

PROGRAM IMPACTS 
Treatment-onIntent-to-Treat (ITT) the-Treated Regr

Diffe

Control a Treatment Difference Effect sizea a Difference

Sold marijuana 3.1% 7.2% 4.1* 19.5 4.3 4

Sold hard drugs 0.4% 2.3% 1.9 17.5 2.0 2

Member of a crew or gang 3.1% 3.1% -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0

Incarcerated 11.4% 13.9% 2.5 7.6 2.7 1Relationships and self-efficacy Special adult in life 79.7% 88.4% 8.6** 22.9 9.2 9Negative friends score (max=24) 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Positive friends score (max=18) 13.0 12.8 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0

Perceived mastery score (max=24) 17.5 17.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0

Observations 231 132 363 363 363 

TABLE 15 CONTINUED 

Source: LAYC survey and administrative data. Notes: Significance levels are not adjusted for multiple tests, but differences in significance resulting from such adjustments are reported in the text. Intent-ta treatment group of youth who were admitted to the Promotor Pathway program and may or may not have been treated (i.e., had contact with a promotor), 

who were not admitted to the program. Treatment-on-the-treated compares outcomes of treatment group youth who were treated with a control group. The 

characteristics were controlled for in the regression-adjusted ITT models: gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, perceived control/mastery score, a

delinquency scale based on eight behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed graffiti/damaged property, got in a fight a

attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break into building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, and member of a crew or gang), whether whether drank ever. In most cases, the youth's baseline level of the outcome of interest was also used as a control. This table is included in appendix B, table B

a All differences and effect sizes are displayed in percentage points except for the hours worked per week, weekly wages, negative friends score, positive frie

mastery score. 

b Includes 0 hours for youth who were not employed. c Includes $0 for youth who were not employed. d All items are for the past six months except for carried a weapon, which covers the past four weeks. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 

38 SOLUTIONS 
Implications for Practice and Policy 

LAYC’s Promotor Pathway program plays an important role by filling a void in the lives of high-needs at-risk 

youth. These youth are at risk of long-term disconnection from school and work and may lack the life skills 

to set goals, make plans, and navigate systems. To be effective, we expect promotores must, among other 

things, be knowledgeable of youth development, skilled in working with and counseling youth, and informed 

about age-appropriate services with which to connect youth. In this sense, the promotor offers a 

combination of specialized case management, mentoring, and coaching. 

Youth referred to the Promotor Pathway program had multiple risk factors, making them vulnerable. 

Like any social service program, with the exception of court-mandated participation, participation is 

voluntary. About half of treatment youth had 45 or more contacts with their promotores over the 18 

months studied. The only baseline factor that helped predict who was likely to highly engage with their 

promotores was having children. It is possible that through engaging youth who have children, the program 

was able to have a double impact, to the extent that supporting these young parents also benefits their 

children. 

Promotores are a paid full-time position, which has implications for how these individuals interact with 

youth over time. Unlike other case managers these youth might have in their lives, promotores are expected 

to be available to youth at all times. This provides a mentoring role for youth, in addition to the role of 

intensive case manager and resource specialist. Furthermore, promotores are expected to work with their 

youth for several years, an important principle for developing the rapport and trust required for such a 

position to have long-term impact. 

Most control group youth in the evaluation noted they had a special adult in their lives that they looked 

up to as a role model, could spend time with, or talk to about personal problems. This raises the question of 

whether the promotor really adds an important person to the youth’s life. However, as noted earlier (table 

12), having a caring adult in their lives did not predict take-up of the promotor’s services, and we can infer 

that promotores are not fully overlapping with other caring adults already involved with the youth but serve 

an additional role. 

One important risk is that promotores may leave these positions, to seek other employment or for other 

reasons. This jeopardizes the relationship that may have been developed with individual youth, adding a 

new separation for youth who have likely dealt with much adult abandonment in their lives. To date, 

promotor attrition has been small. Based on caseload data, only three promotores have left the program 

since its inception in 2008. 

Treatment youth remained engaged with the promotores over the long term. On average, treatment 

youth engage with the promotores for 15 months and nearly two-thirds of treatment youth remain engaged 

for 16 to 18 months by the conclusion of the study’s 18-month observation period. Prior research indicates 

that such long-term relationships are more likely to yield positive, social outcomes for the youth than 

shorter relationships. 
The evaluation found that youth did not see increases in their perception of self-efficacy as measured 

through mastery, the belief that you have control over what happens in your life. One possibility is that it 

may take more time to change this sort of intrinsic attitude. But one caution to consider is the extent to 

which promotores guide and counsel youth versus make things happen for the youth. Even if promotores 

are not enabling youth to sit back and be “served,” the youth may still feel that they could not have 

accomplished things on their own. 

The evaluation revealed positive impacts in several key domains, but it also revealed negative or no 

impacts in other areas. Many of the impacts were found only for specific subgroups, either by gender or race 

and ethnicity. Further understanding of how the program is operating could provide some insight into why 

certain subgroups benefit more than others for specific outcomes. Some impacts in particular are worth 

learning more about. For example, how did the program reduce the likelihood that young men became 

parents and why did it not have this effect on young women? This requires greater understanding of what 

promotores are saying to youth about reproductive health and with which services they are connecting 

these youth, as well as the broader resources available in youths’ communities. In other words, getting 

inside the black box of the youth-promotor relationship would be helpful in fleshing out how to replicate the 

success for males and improve upon the impact for females. 

The evaluation also found the treatment group to have engaged in certain negative behaviors, such as 

binge drinking, selling drugs, and getting into a fight, at greater rates than youth in the control group, even 

when controlling for differences that may already have been present at entry into the program. Although it 

may be a reporting phenomenon, that is, treatment youth develop a trust that makes them more willing to 

report more socially undesirable behaviors, further investigation is warranted so as not to raise doubt about 

the validity of the positive impacts found for the program. 

Most importantly, given the level of needs for the youth eligible for the program, the 18-month period 

observed in the evaluation may not be sufficient to achieve certain types of impacts. The finding that 

treatment youth were more likely than control group youth to be enrolled in school at 18 months yet not 

have attained any higher degrees implies that it took some time for the promotores to get the youth to 

return to school or to fully engage. Improved educational attainment may occur beyond 18 months. 

Literature suggests that mentoring—whether as a stand-alone service or in conjunction with case 

management and other support services—must last for a while, at least one year, to allow the youth and 

mentor to develop a rapport and gain trust. This literature supports the notion that program impacts may 

mostly occur beyond the 18 months observed. Outcomes like reduced male parenthood and reduced 

sleeping in a shelter may be obtainable sooner because these may be more concrete to youth than what it 

takes to further their education or gain employment. Reducing male parenthood may be as simple as making 

condoms easily available. Reduced shelter usage may not require a long-term trust; youth may easily 

respond to a housing support over staying in a shelter. 

Although the findings appear limited, we do find positive impacts on a few important outcomes. We 

recommend consideration of another follow-up interview to observe a longer time period. The sizable 

reduction in parenthood for males and the significant reduction in homelessness may justify the cost of the 

program, but seeing long-term improvements in a wider array of outcomes would provide more support for 

choosing the Promotor Pathway program strategy over other options. To support further learning, LAYC 

40 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
will continue to monitor college enrollment through the National Student Clearinghouse, which will be 

useful in assessing longer-term education outcomes. 

LAYC is a service-rich organization, offering numerous programs to at-risk youth. Youth referred to the 

Promotor Pathway program are mostly already involved in LAYC programs. In the evaluation, control youth 

were seen to engage in numerous LAYC programs. The Promotor Pathway program thus is an add-on to the 

slate of LAYC programs and its potential impact is only the marginal impact it can have above participation 

in these other programs. It is difficult to assess the value the program would have in another organization 

that might not have as large and diverse set of services. If an organization had only a limited set of services, 

it is possible that the promotor could have larger impacts (i.e., where the treatment group getting a 

promotor is tested against the control group getting little or no services). On the other hand, having a large 

array of services on site may be critical for the success of the model (if youth do not follow through well on 

referrals to external service). Thus, it is difficult to address the replicability of the program in a different 

environment as we cannot assess the importance of having the other services on site, or at least easily 

accessible. 

Additionally, LAYC has developed internal evaluation capacity. Its full-time director of learning and 

evaluation leads the organization’s tracking of program demographics and outcomes in education, 

employment, and service use. Ongoing evaluation is important for an organization to support continuous 

quality improvement. Willingness to devote resources to evaluation capacity, if used effectively, will pay off 

in program improvements, which will lead to further program growth in the future. 

Vulnerable youth are at greater risk of experiencing negative outcomes as they transition to adulthood 

and may lack social networks that provide or connect them to support and community resources. Though 

many initiatives are attempting to serve these youth, the evidence base about what works remains 

relatively small. This study contributes to what is known about the effects of a high-touch caring adult model 

for a range of outcomes relating to education, employment, and healthy behaviors. 

IMPLICATIONS 41 
Baseline characteristics 

Baseline (N=476) 6 month (N=392) 12 month (N=371) 18 month (N=364) 

# % # % # % # % 

Demographics Male 243 51% 192 49% 182 49% 174 48% 

Race Latino 266 56% 218 56% 212 57% 208 57% 

Black 182 38% 147 38% 137 37% 134 37% 

Mixed race 14 3% 13 3% 12 3% 11 3% Other 12 2% 10 2% 11 2% 11 2% 

White 4 1% 4 1% 3 1% 2 1% 

Age Under 18 115 24% 93 24% 88 24% 92 25% 

18 to 21 267 56% 217 56% 204 55% 200 55% 

22 and older 94 20% 78 20% 79 21% 71 20% 

Spanish spoken at home 225 47% 188 48% 177 48% 176 48% 

Parent 145 31% 123 32% 119 32% 112 31% 

Education Enrolled in "regular" school 203 47% 169 48% 160 47% 159 47% 

Enrolled in GED classes 160 37% 130 37% 121 36% 119 35% 

HS diploma or GED 

Two-year college degree or certification 

98 

9 

22% 

2% 

85 

7 

23% 

2% 

80 

8 

23% 

2% 

80 

9 

24% 

3% 

Appendix A Survey Attrition TABLE A.1 Attrition across Survey Waves 
TABLE A.1 CONTINUED 

APPENDIX A 

Baseline characteristics 

Baseline (N=476) 6 month (N=392) 12 month (N=371) 18 month (N=364) 

# % # % # % # % 

Employment 

Currently employed 96 22% 84 24% 81 24% 72 22% 

Previously employed 331 70% 273 71% 260 71% 256 72% 

Average weekly wage (if employed) 261 $266.87 217 $296.04 206 $267.54 207 $422.38 

Risk factors 

Food stamps 188 40% 154 40% 148 40% 146 41% 

Slept in shelter in last 6 months? 68 14% 51 13% 53 14% 49 14% 

Arrested, ever 109 23% 87 23% 85 23% 74 21% 

Been stopped or picked up by the police but just gotten a warning, past 12 months 93 20% 75 19% 72 19% 70 19% 

In a physical fight --> injury or medical attention, past 12 months 77 16% 64 17% 61 16% 59 16% 

Carried a weapon, past 12 month 65 14% 49 13% 48 13% 45 13% 

Sold marijuana, past 12 months 28 6% 20 5% 20 5% 21 6% 

Source: LAYC survey data. 

Note: HS = high school. 
TABLE A.2 

Treatment and Control Groups’ Baseline Characteristics at 18 months 

Baseline 

characteristics 

Total (N=363) Treatment (N=132) Control (N=231) 

# % # % # % Significance 

Demographics 

Male 174 48% 60 45% 114 49% 0.48 

Race 

Latino 208 57% 78 59% 130 56% 0.60 

Black 134 37% 43 33% 91 39% 0.20

Mixed race 11 3% 6 5% 5 2% 0.20 

Other 5 1% 2 2% 3 1% 0.87

White 2 1% 2 2% 0 0% 0.06

Age 

Under 18 

 

92 

 

25% 

 

35 

 

27% 

 

57 

 

25% 

 

0.70 

18 to 21 200 55% 73 55% 127 55% 0.95 

22 and older 71 20% 24 18% 47 20% 0.62 

Spanish spoken at 

home 176 48% 65 49% 111 48% 0.74 

Parent 112 31% 39 30% 73 32% 0.66 

Education 

Enrolled in school 

Enrolled in GED 

class

159 

 119 

47% 

35% 

63 

44 

43% 

36% 

96 

75 

41% 

35% 

0.83 

0.85

HS diploma or GED 

Two year college 

degree or 

certification 

80 

9 

24% 

3% 

28 

4 

23% 

3% 

52 

5 

24% 

2% 

0.79 

0.61

Employment 

Currently 

employed 

Previously 

employed 

Average weekly 

wage (if employed) 

 

72 

256 

207 

 

22% 

72% 

$422.38 

 

29 

97 

82 

 

24% 

73% 

$617.81 

 

43 

159 

125 

 

20% 

70% 

$316.14 

 

0.45

0.53

0.33 

44 S OLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Baseline 

characteristics 

Total (N=363) Treatment (N=132) Control (N=231) 

# % # % # % Significance 

Risk factors 

Food stamps 146 41% 59 45% 87 39% 0.23 

Slept in shelter in 

last 6 months? 49 14% 20 15% 29 13% 0.46 

Arrested, ever 74 21% 24 18% 50 22% 0.44 

Been stopped or 

picked up by the 

police but just 

gotten a warning, 

past 12 months 70 19% 20 15% 50 22% 0.14 

In a physical fight -­

> injury or medical 

attention, past 12 

months 59 16% 19 15% 40 17% 0.48

Carried a weapon, 

past 12 months 45 13% 16 12% 29 13% 0.93 

Sold marijuana 

(pot), past 12 

months 21 6% 11 9% 10 4% 0.11

TABLE A.2 CONTINUED 

Source: LAYC survey data. 

APPENDIX A 45 
Appendix B 

Program Impacts Supporting Tables TABLE B.1 Program Impacts at 18 months 

Treatment-onIntent-to-Treat (ITT) the-Treated Regression-adjust

Control Treatment Differencea Effect sizea Differencea Differencea (SE) Ef

Education HS diploma/GED or higher 60.2% 54.6% -5.6 -11.4 -6.0 -5.0 (5.0) -

Attended college in past 6 months 20.4% 21.2% 0.9 2.1 0.9 3.0 (4.0) In school at 18 months 38.6% 52.0% 13.4** 27.0 14.3 14.0** (6.0) 

Employment Currently employed 52.4% 53.5% 1.1 2.1 1.1 1.1 (6.0) 

Employed in past 6 months 75.4% 72.1% -3.4 -7.6 -3.6 -4.9 (5.0) -

Hours worked per weekb 23.0 19.8 -3.1 -0.2 -3.3 -2.8 (2.1) 

Weekly wages (log)c 4.0 3.8 -0.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.1 (0.3) 

Births (past 12 months) Had a child 20.8% 13.6% -7.1* -18.5 -7.6 -7.2* (4.0) -

Had a child, females 19.7% 18.1% -1.6 -4.1 -1.7 -0.7 (6.0) Had a child, males 21.9% 8.3% -13.6** -35.9 -14.5 -16.8** (6.0) -

Housing stability (past 6 months) Slept in a shelter 9.7% 3.8% -5.8** -22.1 -6.2 -5.7* (3.0) -

3+ moves 3.5% 3.8% 0.3 1.6 0.3 0.3 (2.0) 
TABLE B.1 CONTINUED 

Treatment-onIntent-to-Treat (ITT) the-Treated Regression-adjust

Control Treatment Differencea Effect sizea Differencea Differencea (SE) Ef

Substance use (past 4 weeks) Binge drank 16.4% 28.2% 11.8*** 29.0 12.6 13.4*** (4.0) Used marijuana 16.4% 20.0% 3.6 9.3 3.8 4.2 (4.0) 

Used other drugs 1.8% 3.8% 2.0 12.7 2.1 2.3 (2.0) Delinquencyd 

Carried a weapon 8.0% 10.8% 2.8 9.7 2.9 4.8 (3.0) 

Sprayed graffiti/damaged property 1.3% 2.3% 1.0 7.4 1.0 1.2 (1.0) Got in fight, required medical attention 4.9% 11.4% 6.5** 24.9 6.9 6.3** (3.0) 

Stole/attempted to steal item >$50 3.6% 4.6% 1.0 5.1 1.1 1.9 (2.0) 

Broke into building (or attempted to) 0.9% 0.0% -0.9 -11.9 -1.0 -0.9 (1.0) -

Sold marijuana 3.1% 7.2% 4.1* 19.5 4.3 4.7* (2.0) 

Sold hard drugs 0.4% 2.3% 1.9 17.5 2.0 2.1* (1.0) 

Member of a crew or gang 3.1% 3.1% -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 (2.0) 

Incarcerated 11.4% 13.9% 2.5 7.6 2.7 1.4 (3.0) 

APPENDIX B 
Treatment-onControl Intent-to-Treat (ITT) the-Treated Regression-adjust

a Treatment Difference Effect sizea a Difference Differencea (SE) Ef

Relationships and selfefficacy 

Special adult in life 79.7% 88.4% 8.6** 22.9 9.2 9.4** (4.0) 

Negative friends score (max = 24) 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 (3.5) 

Positive friends score (max = 18) 13.0 12.8 -0.3 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1 (2.5) 

Perceived mastery score (max = 24) 17.5 17.7 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 (3.4) 

Observations 231 132 363 363 363 

TABLE B.1 CONTINUED 

Source: LAYC administrative data and survey data. 

Notes: Intent-to-treat compares outcomes of a treatment group of youth who were admitted to the Promotor Pathway program and may or may not have be

with a promotor), with a control group of youth who were not admitted to the program. Treatment-on-the-treated compares outcomes of treatment group ycontrol group. The following youth characteristics were controlled for in the regression-adjusted ITT models: gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, 

score, adult support score, score on a delinquency scale based on eight behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed gra

a fight and required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break into building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, and member used marijuana ever, and whether drank ever. In most cases, the youth's baseline level of the outcome of interest was also used as a control. 

a All differences and effect sizes are displayed in percentage points except for the hours worked per week, weekly wages, negative friends score, positive frie

mastery score. 

b Includes 0 hours for youth who were not employed. c Includes $0 for youth who were not employed. d All items are for the past six months except for carried a weapon, which covers the past four weeks. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01 

48 SOLUTIONS 
TABLE B.2 

Impacts at 18 Months by Ethnicity 

Non-Latino 

treatment relative Latino treatment 

to non-Latino relative to Latino 

controla

 SE controla SE

Education 

HS diploma/GED or higher -5.3 8.5 -4.8 7.3 

Attended college (past 6 months) -4.1 6.6 8.1 5.6 

In school (at 18 months) 0.6 8.9 23.8*** 7.6 

In school (at 18 months) - females 1.2 12.2 14.1 10.9 

In school (at 18 months) - males -4.1 13.5 29.8*** 10.9 

Employment 

Currently employed -1.4 9.1 2.7 7.4 

Recently employed (past 6 months) -14.3* 7.6 2.0 6.5 

Hours worked per weekb

 -5.7* 3.4 -1.0 2.7

Weekly wages (log)c -0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4

Births (past 12 months) 

Had a child 5.1 6.6 -16.2*** 5.7 

Had a child (females) 9.3 8.9 -8.7 8.0 

Had a child (males) -3.6 10.4 -25.0*** 8.2 

Housing stability (past 6 months) 

Slept in a shelter -10.9** 4.5 -2.0 3.9 

Slept in a shelter (females) -18.6*** 5.8 -5.9 5.2 

Slept in a shelter (males) -0.1 7.4 3.3 5.8 

3+ moves -1.7 3.3 1.7 2.8 

Substance use (past 4 weeks) 

Drank 9.5 6.9 16.1*** 5.9

Used marijuana 14.1** 6.5 -3.1 5.6 

Used drugs 4.7* 2.8 0.6 2.4 

Delinquencyd 

Carried a weapon 7.0 4.8 3.2 4.1 

Sprayed graffiti/damaged property 3.1 2.3 -0.2 1.9 

Got in fight, required medical attention 10.2** 4.4 3.4 3.8 

Stole/attempted to steal item >$50 6.1* 3.3 -1.3 2.8 

Broke into building (or attempted to) -1.1 1.3 -0.8 1.1 

Sold marijuana 7.9** 3.7 2.2 3.2 

Sold hard drugs 4.4** 1.9 0.4 1.6 

Member of a crew or gang 1.4 3.0 -0.6 2.6 

Incarcerated 4.4 5.4 -0.7 4.5

APPENDIX B 49 
 

TABLE B.2 CONTINUED 

Non-Latino 

treatment relative Latino treatment 

to non-Latino relative to Latino 

controla SE controla SE 

Relationships and self-efficacy 

Special adult in life 10.5 6.5 8.5 5.6 

Negative friends score (max = 24) 0.8 0.5 -0.3 0.5 

Positive friends score (max = 18) -0.4 0.4 0.1 0.3 

Perceived mastery score (max = 24) 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.4 

Observations 363 

Source: LAYC administrative data and survey data. 

Notes: This table demonstrates the program’s impact on Non-Latino and Latino youth, by comparing: the outcomes of Non-Latino 

youth in the treatment group to the outcomes of Non-Latino youth in the control group; and the outcomes of Latino youth in the 

treatment group to the outcomes of Latino youth in the control group. . Outcomes were not presented for male and female subsamples, as the sample groups were too small. The following youth characteristics were controlled for in the regression-adjusted ITT 

models: gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, score on a delinquency 

scale based on eight behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed graffiti/damaged property, got 

in a fight and required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break into building, sold marijuana, sold 

hard drugs, and member of a crew or gang), whether used marijuana ever, and whether drank ever. In most cases, the youth's baseline 

level of the outcome of interest was also used as a control. 

a

 All differences are displayed in percentage points except for the hours worked per week, weekly wages, negative friends score, 

positive friends score, and perceived mastery score. 

b

 Includes 0 hours for youth who were not employed. 

c

 Includes $0 for youth who were not employed. 

d

 All items are for the past six months except for carried a weapon, which covers the past four weeks. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, 

50 S O LUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE B.3 

Impacts at 18 Months by Gender 

Female treatment Male treatment 

relative to female relative to male 

controla SE controla SE 

Education 

HS diploma/GED or higher -3.3 7.4 -7.1 8.2 

Attended college (past 6 months) -3.0 5.7 10.5* 6.4 

In school (at 18 months) 9.6 8.0 19.1** 8.5 

Employment 

Currently employed 10.2 7.6 -10.8 8.7 

Recently employed (past 6 months) 3.9 6.7 -15.6** 7.4 

Hours worked per weekb

 0.7 2.7 -7.8** 3.3

Weekly wages (log)c 0.4 0.4 -0.9* 0.5

Births (past 12 months) 

Had a child -0.6 5.8 -15.3** 6.5 

Housing stability (past 6 months) 

Slept in a shelter -12.2*** 3.9 2.2 4.4 

3+ moves -1.8 2.9 2.8 3.2 

Substance use (past 4 weeks) 

Drank 14.7** 6.0 11.6* 6.8

Used marijuana 10.8* 5.7 -4.3 6.4 

Used drugs 3.5 2.4 0.9 2.7 

Delinquencyd 

Carried a weapon 5.5 4.1 3.9 4.7 

Sprayed graffiti/damaged property 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.2 

Got in fight, required medical attention 8.3** 3.9 3.9 4.3 

Stole/attempted to steal item >$50 0.9 2.9 3.0 3.2 

Broke into building (or attempted to) -0.3 1.1 -1.6 1.3 

Sold marijuana 2.2 3.3 7.8** 3.6 

Sold hard drugs -0.3 1.6 5.1*** 1.8 

Member of a crew or gang -0.7 2.6 1.5 3.0 

Incarcerated 0.1 4.7 3.1 5.2

APPENDIX B 51 
Female treatment Male treatment 

relative to female relative to male 

controla SE controla SE 

Relationships and self-efficacy 

Special adult in life 13.1** 5.7 4.7 6.3 

Negative friends score (max = 24) 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.5 

Positive friends score (max = 18) -0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 

Perceived mastery score (max = 24) 0.4 0.5 -0.1 0.5 

Observations 363 

 

TABLE B.3 CONTINUED 

Source: LAYC administrative data and survey data. 

Notes: SE = standard error. This table demonstrates the program’s impact on female and male youth, by comparing: the outcomes of 

female youth in the treatment group to the outcomes of female youth in the control group; and the outcomes of male youth in the
 

treatment group to the outcomes of male youth in the control group. The following youth characteristics were controlled for in the 

regression-adjusted ITT models: gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, 

score on a delinquency scale based on eight behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed 

graffiti/damaged property, got in a fight and required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break 

into building, sold marijuana, sold hard drugs, and member of a crew or gang), whether used marijuana ever, and whether drank ever. In 

most cases, the youth's baseline level of the outcome of interest was also used as a control. 

a

 All differences are displayed in percentage points except for the hours worked per week, weekly wages, negative friends score,
 

positive friends score, and perceived mastery score. 

b

 Includes 0 hours for youth who were not employed. 

c

 Includes $0 for youth who were not employed. 

d

 All items are for the past six months except for carried a weapon, which covers the past four weeks. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, 

52 S OLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
TABLE B.4 

Impacts at 18 months by Level of Engagement 

Regression-adjusted ITT, by number of promotor contacts initiated by youth 

 45+ contactsa SE <45 contactsa SE 

Education 

HS diploma/GED or higher -11.4 7.0 1.7 7.2

Attended college (past 6 months) 5.0 5.5 1.0 5.5

In school (at 18 months) 16.2** 7.4 11.7 7.7 

Employment 

Currently employed -1.9 7.4 4.0 7.4

Recently employed (past 6 months) 

Hours worked per weekb

-7.3 

 -6.1** 

6.4 

2.7 

-2.4 

0.4

6.5

2.7

Weekly wages (log)c -0.5 0.4 0.2 0.4

Births (past 12 months) 

Had a child -11.0** 5.6 -3.2 5.7 

Housing stability (past 6 months) 

Slept in a shelter -4.5 3.8 -7.0* 3.8

3+ moves 1.0 2.8 -0.4 2.8

Substance use (past 4 weeks) 

Drank 19.2*** 5.7 7.3 5.8

Used marijuana 6.0 5.5 2.2 5.6

Used drugs 1.5 2.3 3.2 2.4

d Delinquency and violence

Carried a weapon 3.11 4.0 6.6 4.1

Sprayed graffiti/damaged property 

Got in fight, required medical 

attention 

-0.8 

11.9*** 

1.9 

3.7

3.4* 

0.6

1.9

3.7

Stole/attempted to steal item >$50 2.2 2.8 1.5 2.8

Broke into building (or attempted to) -1.0 1.1 -0.8 1.1

Sold marijuana 4.0 3.1 5.6* 3.3

Sold hard drugs 4.4*** 1.5 -0.4 1.6 

Member of a crew or gang 1.0 2.5 -0.5 2.6

Incarcerated 3.6 4.5 -0.8 4.5

 

APPENDIX B 53 
TABLE B.4 CONTINUED 

45+ contactsa SE <45 contactsa SE 

Relationships and self-efficacy 

Special adult in life 15.1*** 5.5 3.7 5.4 

Negative friends score (max = 24) 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.5

Positive friends score (max = 18) -0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3

Perceived mastery score (max = 24) 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4

Observations 363 

Source: LAYC administrative data and survey data. 

Notes: This table compares the program impacts of both youth who initiated 15 or more contacts with a promotor and youth who 

initiated less than 15 contacts with a promotor to all youth in the control group. Outcomes are not presented for male and female 

subsamples, as the sample groups were too small. The following youth characteristics were controlled for in the regression-adjusted 

ITT models: gender, age, whether Latino, whether a parent, perceived control/mastery score, adult support score, score on a 

delinquency scale based on eight behaviors in the past 12 months (carried a weapon [past four weeks only], sprayed graffiti/damaged
 

property, got in a fight and required medical attention, stole/attempted to steal item >$50, broke or tried to break into building, sold
 

marijuana, sold hard drugs, and member of a crew or gang), whether used marijuana ever, and whether drank ever. In most cases, the 

youth's baseline level of the outcome of interest was also used as a control. a

 All point estimates are displayed in percentage points except for the hours worked per week, weekly wages, negative friends score, 

positive friends score, and perceived mastery score. 

b

 Includes 0 hours for youth who were not employed. 

c

 Includes $0 for youth who were not employed. 

d

 All items are for the past six months except for carried a weapon, which covers the past four weeks. 

* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01, 

54 S OLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Appendix C 

Information on Scales 

The survey questionnaire for this evaluation was created using questions and items from a variety of 

measures created by credible sources, including the following: 

 The CDC‘s Youth Behavior Risk Surveillance System (YRBSS) questionnaire (2007 version) 

 Ansell-Casey Life Skills Assessments (in English and Spanish), as well as the following supplements: 

pregnancy, homeless, youth values, and education 

 The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2004 version) 

 The Problem Behavior Inventory (Elliott, Ageton, Huizinga, Knowles, and Canter 1983) 

 Individual Protective Factors Index (Phillips and Springer 1992) 

For most of the scales used in the questionnaire, Cronbach alpha values reported from previous studies 

are equal to or greater than 0.8, which constitutes strong evidence of the internal consistency of the scales 

used. 

This appendix lists the scales used, their origin, and the correlation between the elements in each scale. 

Mastery 

Pearlin’s Mastery Scale (Pearlin et al. 1981) measures the degree to which youth feel in control of their lives 

and able to solve problems. It demonstrated alpha reliability of 0.64 in the original study; higher reliability 

has been reported in other studies (e.g., Scheier, Carver, and Bridges 1994). In this study the alpha was 0.76. 

It has been used extensively in research studies, including in every wave of the National Longitudinal Study 

of Youth from 1994 through 2004. 

 

22. Think about how you feel day to day. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements? 

 

Check one box for each statement 

Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree Agree Disagree 

a. There is really no way I can solve some of the 

problems I have. 1 2 3 4 
 

 

b. Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in 

life. 

1 2 3 4 

c. I have little control over the things that happen 

to me. 

1 2 3 4 

d. I can do just about anything I really set my mind 

to. 

1 2 3 4 

e. I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems 

of life. 

1 2 3 4 

f. What happens to me in the future mostly 

depends on me. 

1 2 3 4 

Peers Scales 

The positive peers and negative peers scales were developed by Connell, Grossman, and Resch (1995). 

Items highlighted in green reflect the “positive peers scale” The original scale was modified for this study, by 

removing items irrelevant for this age group/population and adding relevant items (e.g., jobs, sports). Items 

created for this study are italicized. Alpha for the original scale in Connell, Grossman, and Resch was 0.83. 

Alpha for other prior studies completed by Public/Private ventures has ranged from 0.70 to 0.80. In this 

study the alpha was 0.58. 

Items highlighted in blue reflect the “negative peers scale.” Again, the original scale was modified for this 

study, and new items are italicized. Alpha for original scale in Connell, Grossman, and Resch was 0.90. Alpha 

for other prior studies completed by Public/Private ventures has ranged from 0.74 to 0.82. In this study the 

alpha was 0.86. 

26. Think about your close friends who you spend the most time with. 

56 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 

Check one box for each question 

 

 

 

 

About how many of the friends you spend the most 

time with..... 

All or most of 

my friends 

Some of my 

friends 

None of my 

friends 

a. Make you feel good about yourself? 1 2 3 

b. Think that having expensive clothes and other things is 

very important? 1 

2 3 

c. Put pressure on you to drink alcohol? 1 

2 3 

d. Are involved in sports? 1 

2 3 

e. Plan to go to college? 1 2 3 

f. Have broken into a car or building to steal something? 1 2 3 
Check one box for each question 

About how many of the friends you spend the most 

time with..... 

All or most of 

my friends 

Some of my 

friends 

None of my 

friends 

g. Have a regular job? 1 2 3 

h. Put pressure on you to use drugs? 1 2 3 

i. Are crew or gang members? 1 2 3 

j. Go to church or religious services regularly? 1 2 3 

k. Have stolen something worth more than $50? 1 2 3 

l. Have destroyed property? 1 2 3 

m. Have sold drugs or stolen property to make money? 1 2 3 

n. Have participated in LAYC/MMYC programs or services? 1 2 3 

o. Often don’t have a place to sleep? 1 2 3 

p. Think that staying in school is important? 1 2 3 

Delinquency 

The highlighted items below were used to form a scale of misconduct/delinquency, which was used as a 

control variable in the impact analyses. We indicate the sources for individual items that have been adapted 

from other sources: 2009 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent 

Health Delinquency Scale (ADHEALTH), National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY – Cohort 97), and 

Public/Private Ventures (P/PV). Alpha for the scale in this study alpha was 0.61. 

27. During the past 4 weeks, about how many times have you... 

Check one box for each question 

During the past 4 weeks, 

about how many times have 

you... 

I’ve 

never 

done this 

0 times in 

the past 4 

weeks 

1–2 

times in 

the past 4 

weeks 

about once 

a week in 

the past 4 

weeks 

2–3 times 

every 

week in the 

past 4 

weeks 

every day or 

almost every 

day in the past 

4 weeks 

a. Carried a weapon, such as 

a gun, knife, or club? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

APPENDIX C 57 
Check one box for each question 

During the past 4 weeks, 

about how many times have 

you... 

I’ve 

never 

done this 

0 times in 

the past 4 

weeks 

1–2 

times in 

the past 4 

weeks 

about once 

a week in 

the past 4 

weeks 

2–3 times 

every 

week in the 

past 4 

weeks 

every day or 

almost every 

day in the past 

4 weeks 

b. Had 5 or more drinks of 

alcohol in a row, within a 

couple of hours? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

c. Used marijuana (pot)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Used any other drugs 

(other than alcohol or 

marijuana) without a 

prescription? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

28. During the past 12 months, about how many times have you... 

Check one box for each question 

I’ve never 

done this 

0 times in 

the last 

12 

months 

1–2 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

3–4 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

5–10 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

More 

than 10 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

a. Been in a physical 

fight in which you 

were injured and 

had to be treated by 0 1 2 3 4 5 

a doctor or nurse? 

YRBS 

b. Stolen or tried to 

steal something 

worth more than 

$50? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

NLSY 

58 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Check one box for each question 

I’ve never 

done this 

0 times in 

the last 

12 

months 

1–2 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

3–4 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

5–10 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

More 

than 10 

times in 

the last 

12 

months 

c. Broken or tried to 

break into a 

building? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

NLSY (MODIFIED) 

d. Sold marijuana 

(pot)? 

ADHEALTH 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Sold hard drugs 

(such as heroin, 

cocaine, crack)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

ADHEALTH (MODIFIED) 

f. Been stopped or 

picked up by the 

police but just 0 1 2 3 4 5 

gotten a warning? 

P/PV 

g. Sprayed graffiti or 

purposely damaged 

public or private 0 1 2 3 4 5 

property? 

ADHEALTH 

h. Been a member of a 

crew or a gang? 

NLSY 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

APPENDIX C 59 
Appendix D 

18-Month Survey Instrument 

Designed by Public/Private Ventures 

EDUCATION INFORMATION 

The first set questions ask about your schooling. 

1.	 What kind of school or classes are you currently enrolled in? (Check only one) 

0 I am not currently in school 

1 A “regular” school or a charter school 

2 A school that you were sent to by a judge, probation officer or school principal 

3 A night or twilight school 

4 A vocational or technical school 

5 College 

6 A GED class 

7 A job training class 

8 Other____________________________________ 

2.	 What grade or year are you currently in at school? (If you are on summer break, check the last grade or year 

that you were in at school). 

(Check only one) 

0 I am not currently in school 

1 I am in a GED class 

2 I am in a job training class 

3 8th grade or under 

4 9th grade 

5 10th grade 
 th

6 11 grade 

7 12th grade 

8 1st year of college 

9 2nd year of college 

10 3rd or 4th year of college 

3. What is the highest grade in school that you passed (finished successfully)? (Check only one) 

 th

1 8 grade or under 

2 9th grade 

 th

3 10 grade 

4 11th grade 

 th 

5 12 grade 

 1st

6 year of college 

 nd

7 2 year of college 

 rd

8 3 or 4th year of college 

4. Are you a student at YouthBuild or The Next Step? 0 No 1 Yes 

5. In the last six months, how many sections of the GED exam did you take (not just for practice)? 

0 0 (zero) 

1 1 

2 2 

3 3 

4 4 

5 5 (all) 

6. In the last six months, how many sections of the GED exam did you pass (not just for practice)? 

APPENDIX D 61 
0 0 (zero) 

1 1 

2 2 

3 3 

4 4 

5 5 (all) 

7.	 In the last six months, were you expelled from school?0 No 1 Yes 

8.	 In the last six months, were you ordered to attend an alternative school by a judge, probation officer or 

school principal? 0 No 1 Yes 

9.	 In the last six months, did you attend a 2-year or 4-year college? 0 No 1 Yes 

9a. If yes, in the last six months, how many college courses did you enroll in?___________ 

9b. If yes, in the last six months, how many college courses did you complete successfully (that is, received a 

grade or earned credits)?_____ 

10. What is the highest degree or diploma you earned? (Check only one) 

0 I have not completed a degree 

1 GED 

2 High school diploma 

3 Technical/Vocational College Degree or certification (specify____________) 

4 Two year college degree 

5 Four year college degree or higher 

11. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 

62 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Check one box for each statement 

a. 

b. 

c. 

School is useful in helping me to make good 

decisions in my life. 

Getting a good education is important to me. 

My education will be valuable in getting the job I 

want. 

Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 

1 2 3 

1 2 3 

1 2 3 

Strongly 

Disagree 

4 

4 

4 

d. What I learn in school is useful for the job I want to 

have as an adult. 

1 2 3 4 

e. 

f. 

I am interested in the things I’ve learned in school. 

I would be upset if I got a low grade on school 

work. 

1 2 3 

1 2 3 

4 

4 

12. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 

Check one box for each statement 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

a. I get mostly bad breaks when it comes to education 1 2 3 4 

b. To get the education I need, I have to be lucky. 1 2 3 4 

c. I can work really hard when it comes to getting the 

education I need. 

1 2 3 4 

d. I am smart enough to finish my education. 1 2 3 4 

e. If I don’t finish my education, it’s because I didn’t 

have the chances others had. 

1 2 3 4 

f. When I have trouble with schoolwork, it’s because 

teachers or education staff don’t like me. 1 2 3 4 

g. I can’t figure out what it takes to finish my education. 1 2 3 4 

h. I will be able to get the kind of education I need. 1 2 3 4 

APPENDIX D 63 
64 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 

i. To get the education I need, all I have to do is try 

hard. 

1 2 3 4 

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION 

In these next questions, think about your current job and your past job experience. 

13. In the last six months, how many jobs for pay have you had? (Check only one) 

0 none IF NONE, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 18 

1 one 

2 two 

3 three 

4 more than three 

14. Are you working at a job for pay now? 

 0 No 1 Yes 

Think about your most recent job. If you are working now, think about the job you have now. 

15. What month and year did you start this job? (Please fill in, for example, March 2010) 

 __________month _________year 

16. How many hours per week do (did) you usually work at this job? ______ hours per week 

16a. How much do (did) you earn per hour at this job? $______per hour 

17. What month did you end this job? 
 1 I am still working at this job 

 2 I left this job __________month ______year (Please fill in, for example, May 2010). 

Please answer these questions whether or not you have ever had a job or worked for pay 

18. Thinking of work in general, how much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? 

 

Check one box for each question 

Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

a. A job is just a way of earning money. 1 2 3 4 

b. I would enjoy having a paying job even if I did not 

need that money. 

1 2 3 4 

CHANGES IN YOUR LIVING SITUATION 

The next few questions ask about changes in your living situation over the last six months. 

19. In the last six months, did you or your partner give birth to a child? 

0 No 1 Yes 

20. In the last six months, how many times have you moved? 

1 0 times 

2 1 time 

3 2 times 

4 3 times 

5 4 or more times 

APPENDIX D 65 
21. In the last six months, did you sleep outside or in a shelter on any night because you did not have a place 

to live? 

0 No 1 Yes 

22. Think about how you feel day to day. How strongly do you agree or disagree with each of the following 

statements? 

Check one box for each statement 

Strongly Agree Disagree Agree 

Strongly 

Disagree 

g. There is really no way I can solve some of the 

problems I have. 

1 2 3 4 

h. Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in 

life. 

1 2 3 4 

i. I have little control over the things that happen to 

me. 

1 2 3 4 

j. I can do just about anything I really set my mind to. 1 2 3 4 

k. I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of 

life. 

1 2 3 4 

l. What happens to me in the future mostly depends 

on me. 

1 2 3 4 

ADULTS AND FRIENDS 

These questions ask about people who you know including LAYC/MMYC staff, family and friends. 

23. Here is a list of things people can do. Think about the staff at LAYC/MMYC. 

66 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 

(Check One Response Per Question) 
 

 

 

About how many of the adult staff at 

LAYC/MMYC... None One Adult Two 

Adults 

Three 

Adults 

Four or 

More 

Adults 

a. Pay attention to what’s going on in 

your life? 

0 1 2 3 4 

b. Get on your case if you screw up? 0 1 2 3 4 

c. Say something nice to you when you do 

something good? 

0 1 2 3 4 

d. Would help you in an emergency? 0 1 2 3 4 

e. Would give you advice about personal 

problems? 

0 1 2 3 4 

f. Would listen to you if you were really 

upset or mad about something? 

0 1 2 3 4 

24. Now think about the adults you know outside of LAYC/MMYC, such as your family (parents, 

grandparents, aunts, uncles, or cousins), partner, teachers, neighbors, ministers, or counselors. 

APPENDIX D 67 

About how many adults outside of 

LAYC/MMYC... (Check One Response Per Question) 

None One Adult Two 

Adults 

Three 

Adults 

Four or 

More 

Adults 

a. Pay attention to what’s going on in 

your life? 

0 1 2 3 4 

b. Get on your case if you screw up? 0 1 2 3 4 

c. Say something nice to you when you 

do something good? 

0 1 2 3 4 

d. Would help you in an emergency? 0 1 2 3 4 

e. Would give you advice about personal 

problems? 

0 1 2 3 4 

f. Would listen to you if you were really 

upset or mad about something? 

0 1 2 3 4 
25. Is there a special adult in your life who you spend time with or talk to? A special adult is someone... 

 who really cares about what happens to you and encourages you to do your best, 

 who you look up to as a role model, and 

 who you can talk to about personal problems? 

 

0 No, I don’t have a special adult in my life right now. 

1 Yes, I do have a special adult in my life. My special adult is (Please check a box for every adult you would 

consider a “special adult” in your life right now.) 

1 A relative (for example, your grandparent, aunt or uncle) 

2 A teacher 

3 A Promotor who I meet with at LAYC 

4 A Pastor or Imam 

5 A neighbor 

6 Someone at LAYC, but not my Promotor 

7 A counselor 

8 A coach 

9 A person from another organization, not LAYC 

 10 Other___________________________ 

26. Think about your close friends who you spend the most time with. 

68 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 

Check one box for each question 

About how many of the friends you spend the most time All or most of Some of my None of my 

with..... my friends friends friends 

q. Make you feel good about yourself? 1 2 3 

r. Think that having expensive clothes and other things 1 2 3 
Check one box for each question 

About how many of the friends you spend the most time All or most of Some of my None of my 

with..... my friends friends friends 

is very important? 

s. Put pressure on you to drink alcohol? 1 2 3 

t. Are involved in sports? 1 2 3 

u. Plan to go to college? 1 2 3 

v. Have broken into a car or building to steal something? 1 2 3 

w. Have a regular job? 1 2 3 

x. Put pressure on you to use drugs? 1 2 3 

y. Are crew or gang members? 1 2 3 

z. Go to church or religious services regularly? 1 2 3 

aa. Have stolen something worth more than $50? 1 2 3 

bb. Have destroyed property? 1 2 3 

cc. Have sold drugs or stolen property to make money? 1 2 3 

dd. Have participated in LAYC/MMYC programs or 

services? 

1 2 3 

ee. Often don’t have a place to sleep? 1 2 3 

ff. Think that staying in school is important? 1 2 3 

ILLEGAL OR HARMFUL ACTIVITIES 

In answering these questions, think about your experience with illegal or harmful activities. Please remember this 

survey is confidential, your answers to the following questions will be kept completely private. 

28. During the past 4 weeks, about how many times have you... 

APPENDIX D 69 

Check one box for each question 
During the past 4 weeks, 

about how many times have 

you... 

I’ve 

never 

done this 

0 times in 

the past 4 

weeks 

1-2 times 

in the 

past 4 

weeks 

about once 

a week in 

the past 4 

weeks 

2-3 times 

every 

week in the 

past 4 

weeks 

every day or 

almost every 

day in the past 

4 weeks 

e. Carried a weapon, such as 

a gun, knife, or club? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Had 5 or more drinks of 

alcohol in a row, within a 0 1 2 3 4 5 

couple of hours? 

g. Used marijuana (pot)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

h. Used any other drugs 

(other than alcohol or 

marijuana) without a 0 1 2 3 4 5 

prescription? 

29. During the last 6 months, about how many times have you... 

Check one box for each question 

During the last 6 months, 

about how many times have 

you... 

I’ve never 

done this 

0 times in 

the last 6 

months 

1-2 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

3-4 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

5-10 times 

in the last 

6 months 

More than 10 

times in the 

last 6 months 

a. Been in a physical fight in 

which you were injured 

and had to be treated by a 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

doctor or nurse? 

b. Stolen or tried to steal 

something worth more 0 1 2 3 4 5 

than $50? 

c. Broken or tried to break 

into a building? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Sold marijuana (pot)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Sold hard drugs (such as 0 1 2 3 4 5 

70 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Check one box for each question 

During the last 6 months, 

about how many times have 

you... 

I’ve never 

done this 

0 times in 

the last 6 

months 

1-2 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

3-4 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

5-10 times 

in the last 

6 months 

More than 10 

times in the 

last 6 months 

heroin, cocaine, crack)? 

f. Been stopped or picked 

up by the police but just 0 1 2 3 4 5 

gotten a warning? 

g. Sprayed graffiti or 

purposely damaged public 0 1 2 3 4 5 

or private property? 

h. Been a member of a crew 

or a gang? 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

i. Been arrested? 0 1 2 3 4 5 

30. In the last six months, did you serve time in a detention center, juvenile home, jail or prison? 

0 No 1 Yes 

USE OF SERVICES AND PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES 

Think about if you visited a health clinic, doctor’s office, agency or some other place to get help in the last 6 

months. 

31. Please check the box that describes if you got the following services or help. 

Check one box for each question 

In the last 6 months, did you go to a clinic, a doctor’s office, or an 

agency to get... 

No, I didn’t 

need this 

service 

I needed this 

service, but I 

did not get it 

Yes, I got 

this 

service 

a. A regular medical check-up? 0 1 2 

b. Medical care because you were sick? 0 1 2 

c. Help with reproductive health or family planning issues like 0 1 2 

APPENDIX D 71 
 

 

Check one box for each question 

In the last 6 months, did you go to a clinic, a doctor’s office, or an 

agency to get... 

No, I didn’t 

need this 

service 

I needed this 

service, but I 

did not get it 

Yes, I got 

this 

service 

birth control, condoms or pregnancy tests or STD tests? 

d. Dental care? 0 1 2 

e. Counseling to help with problems like stress, depression or 

family problems? 

0 1 2 

f. Help getting health insurance, such as Medicaid? 0 1 2 

g. Counseling or treatment for an alcohol or drug problem? 0 1 2 

h. Help getting public assistance benefits, such as food stamps, 

WIC or welfare? 

0 1 2 

i. A driver’s license, social security card or other identification? 0 1 2 

j. Help finding housing or a place to live? 0 1 2 

k. Help with a legal problem? 0 1 2 

32. During the last 6 months, about how many times have you done any of the following... 

Check one box for each question 

During the last 6 months, 

about how many times 

have you... 

I’ve 

never 

done 

this 

0 times in 

the last 6 

months 

1-2 

times in the 

last 6 months 

3-4 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

5-10 times 

in the last 6 

months 

11-20 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

More 

than 20 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

a. Gone to a health 

education class OR a class 

about preventing 

pregnancy, HIV and STDs 

0 1 2 3 4 5 

6 

b. Gone to a class in music, 

art, dance or drama 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Gone to a computer class 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

72 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

 

 

 

Check one box for each question 

During the last 6 months, 

about how many times 

have you... 

I’ve 

never 

done 

this 

0 times in 

the last 6 

months 

1-2 

times in the 

last 6 months 

3-4 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

5-10 times 

in the last 6 

months 

11-20 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

More 

than 20 

times in 

the last 6 

months 

d. Played sports on a team 

or league (like basketball, 

or soccer) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Gone to a job readiness 

or job training program 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Gone to a class about 

substance abuse 

prevention 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Gone to a place like a 

Teen Center, recreation 

center, YMCA, Boys & Girls 

Club, or community center 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Gone to parent 

education class 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Gone to an adult 

education class 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

j. Gone to a GED class 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

YOUR PROMOTOR 

A Promotor is an adult from the LAYC program who works to support young adults. About six months ago, 

you were given a Promotor through LAYC’s Promotor Pathway Model program. 

33. How close do you feel to your Promotor? [Please check only one box.] 

1 Not close at all 

2 Not very close 

3 Somewhat close 

4 Very close 

APPENDIX D 73 
34. Thinking about your Promotor, how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? 

Check one box for each question 

Strongly 

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly 

Disagree 

a. My Promotor is there for me when I need someone 

to talk to about a personal problem. 

1 2 3 4 

b. My Promotor helps me to set and reach goals. 1 2 3 4 

c. My Promotor does not often approve of the things I 

do. 

1 2 3 4 

d. My Promotor and I talk together about how to 

solve problems. 

1 2 3 4 

e. My Promotor sometimes criticizes me or puts me 

down. 

1 2 3 4 

f. My Promotor tries to control my life and tell me 

what to do. 

1 2 3 4 

g. My Promotor and I spend time working on how I 

can grow and improve as a person. 

1 2 3 4 

h. My Promotor treats me with respect. 

YOU HAVE FINISHED THE SURVEY. THANK YOU
 

74 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
Notes 

1.	 LAYC subsequently extended the age range to 14 to 24. One youth under age 16 was admitted by LAYC to the 

study (age 14 at entry). 

2.	 Public/Private Ventures was the original evaluator; its involvement ended with that organization’s closure in May 

2012. 

3.	 For simplicity we refer to all of these individuals as “youth,” rather than “youth and young adults” (Castillo, 

McLendon, and Del Pinal 2007). 

4.	 Conditional support is defined as mentoring relationships with structure, activity, and expectations (Langhout, 

Rhodes, and Osborne, 2004). 

5.	 Public/Private Ventures was the original evaluator; its involvement ended with that organization’s closure in May 

2012. 

6.	 Looking at the intersection of gender and race and ethnicity, we see that 56 percent of Latinos were female but just 

40 percent of blacks were female. 

7.	 See note 3. 

8.	 Percentages are calculated using information from the US Census Bureau and Ortman and Shin (2011). 

9.	 One should be cautious, though, when comparing percentage change for items with low prevalence. 

NOTES 75 
References 

Arnold, M. E., and J. N. Hughes. 1999. “First Do No Harm: Adverse Effects of Grouping Deviant Youth for Skills Training.” 

Journal of School Psychology 37 (1): 99–115. 

Aseltine, R., M, Dupre, and P. Lamlein. 2000. “Mentoring as a Drug Prevention Strategy: An Evaluation of Across Ages.” 

Adolescent and Family Health 1: 11–20. 

Benjamini, Y. and Y. Hochberg. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to 

Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57 (1): 289–300. 

Bettinger, E. P. and R. B. Baker. 2013. “The Effects of Student Coaching: An Evaluation of a Randomized Experiment n 

Student Advising.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 36 (3): 3–19. 

Bloom, H. 1984. “Accounting for No-Shows in Experimental Evaluation Design.” Evaluation Review 8 (2): 225–46. 

Boxer, P., N. G. Guerra, L. R. Huesmann, and J. Morales. 2005. “Proximal Peer-Level Effects of a Small-Group Selected 

Prevention on Aggression in Elementary School Children: An Investigation of the Peer Contagion Hypothesis.” 

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 33 (3): 325–38. 

Castillo, I. D., H. McLendon, and A. D. Pinal. 2007. “Promotores: LAYC’s New Approach to Youth Development.” 

Washington, DC: Latin American Youth Center Learning and Evaluation Division. 

Connell, J., Grossman, J. B., and Resch, N. 1995. Urban Corps Assessment Package (URCAP) Manual. Philadelphia, PA: 

Public/Private Ventures. 

Coulton, C. J., B. Theodos, and M. A. Turner. 2012. “Residential Mobility and Neighborhood Change: Real 

Neighborhoods Under the Microscope.” Cityscape, 14 (3): 55–89. 

Courtney, M. E., A. Zinn, H. Johnson, K. E. Malm, M. Stagner, M. Pergamit, and M. McDaniel. 2011. Evaluation of 

Massachusetts Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care: Final Report. OPRE Report No. 2011­

14. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US 

Department of Health and Human Services. 

DuBois, D. L., N. Portillo, J. E. Rhodes, N. Silverthorn, J. C. Valentine. 2011. “How Effective Are Mentoring Programs for 

Youth? A Systematic Assessment of the Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 12 (2): 57–91. 

Elliott, D. S., S. S. Ageton, D. Huizinga, B. A. Knowles, and R. J. Cantor. 1983. The Prevalence and Incidence of Delinquent 

Behavior: 1976–1980. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute. 

Fernandes, A. L., and T. Gabe. 2009. Disconnected Youth: A Look at 16- to 24- Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. 

Grossman, J. B, and J. E. Rhodes. 2002. “The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects of Duration in Youth Mentoring 

Relationships.” American Journal of Community Psychology 30 (2): 199–219. 

Herrera, C., J. B. Grossman, T. J. Kauh, and J. McMaken. 2011. “Mentoring in Schools: An Impact Study of Big Brothers 

Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring.” Child Development 82 (1): 346–61. 

Herrera, C., D. L. DuBois and J. B. Grossman. 2013. The Role of Risk: Mentoring Experiences and Outcomes for Youth with 

Varying Risk Profiles. New York: Public/Private Ventures and MDRC. 

Jekielek, S. M., K. A. Moore, E. C. Hair, and H. J. Scarupa. 2002. “Mentoring: A Promising Strategy for Youth 

Development.” Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

Johnson, A. W. 1999. Sponsor-A-Scholar: Long-Term Impacts of a Youth Mentoring Program on Student Performance. 

Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. 

Karcher, M. J. 2008. “The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A Randomized Evaluation of the 

Effectiveness of School-based Mentoring.” Prevention Science. 9 (2): 99–113. 

Langhout, R. D., J. E. Rhodes, L. N. Osborne. 2004. “An Exploratory Study of Youth Mentoring in an Urban Context: 

Adolescents' Perceptions of Relationship Styles.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33 (4): 293–306. 

LoSciuto, L., A. Rajala., T. N. Townsend, and A. S. Taylor. 1996. “An outcome evaluation of Across Ages: An 

intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention.” Journal of Adolescent Research 11 (1): 116–29. 

76 SOLUTIONS FOR YOUTH 
 

McClanahan, W. S., C. L. Sipe, and T. J. Smith. 2004. Enriching Summer Work: An Evaluation of the Summer Career 

Exploration Program. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Millenky, M., D. Bloom, S. Muller-Ravett, and J. Broadus. 2011. Staying on Course: Three-Year Results of the National Guard 

Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation. New York: MDRC. 

Morrow, K. V., and M. B. Styles. 1995. Building Relationships with Youth in Program Setting: A Study of Big Brothers/Big 

Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Myers, D., R. Olsen, N. Seftor, J. Young, and C. Tuttle. 2004. The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third 

Follow-Up Data Collection. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. 

O’Donnell, C. R. and I. L. Williams. 2013. “The Buddy System: A 35-Year Follow-Up of Criminal Offenses.” Clinical 

Psychological Science 1(1): 54–66. 

Ortman, J. M., and H. B. Shin. 2011. Language Projections: 2010 to 2020. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. 

Pearlin, L. I, Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., and J. T. Mullan. 1981. “The Stress Process.” Journal of Health and Social 

Behavior 22 (4): 337–56. 

Phillips, J., and F. Springer. 1992. Extended National Youth Sports Program 1991–1992 Evaluation Highlights, Part Two: 

Individual Protective Factors Index (IPFI) and Risk Assessment Study. Sacramento, CA: EMT Associates. 

Rhodes, J. E. and D. L. DuBois. 2008. “Mentoring Relationships and Program for Youth.” Current Directions in 

Psychological Science 17 (4): 254–58. 

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., and Bridges, M. W. 1994. “Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, selfmastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 

67 (6): 1063–78. 

Schirm, A., E. Stuart, and A. McKie. 2006. The Quantum Opportunity Program Demonstration: Final Impacts. Washington, 

DC: Mathematica Policy Research. 

Schochet, P. 2008. Technical Methods Report: Guidelines for Multiple Testing in Impact Evaluations (NCEE 2008-4018). 

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 

Sciences, US Department of Education. 

Schochet, P. Z., J. Burghardt, and S. McConnell. 2006. National Job Corps Study and Longer-Term Follow-Up Study: Impact 

and Benefit-Cost Findings Using Survey and Summary Earnings Records Data - Final Report. Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research. 

Tierney, J. P., J. B .Grossman, and N. L. Resch. 1995. Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. 

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Tolan P., D. Henry, M. Schoeny, and A. Bass. 2008. Mentoring interventions to affect juvenile delinquency and associated 

problems. Campbell Systematic Reviews 2008:16. Oslo, Norway: Campbell Collaboration. 

US Department of Justice. 2011. Mentoring Children Affected by Incarceration: An Evaluation of the Amachi Texas Program. 

Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. 

Valente, T. W., A. Ritt-Olsen, A. Stacey, J. B. Unger, J. Okamoto, and S. Sussman. 2007. “Peer Acceleration: Effects of a 

Social Network Tailored Substance Abuse Prevention Program among High-Risk Adolescents.” Addiction 102: 

1804–15. 

Wald, M. and Martinez, T. 2003. Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country's Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year 

Olds. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper, Youth Transition Funders Group 

REFERENCES 77 
About the Authors 

Brett Theodos is a senior research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at 

the Urban Institute. His expertise is in program evaluation and performance measurement of interventions 

supporting vulnerable communities and families, focusing on economic/community development, 

neighborhood change, affordable housing, financial services, and youth support programs. Examples of his 

economic and community development research include evaluations of the New Markets Tax Credit 

program, four Small Business Administration loan and investment programs, HUD’s Section 108 program, 

and HUD’s Strong Cities, Strong Communities National Resource Network. 

Michael R. Pergamit is a senior fellow in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population at the Urban 

Institute, is a labor economist whose research is focused on vulnerable youth. He codirects an evaluation of 

a paid internship program for youth in Washington, DC, and Baltimore public schools; an evaluation of a 

mentoring/case management program in Washington, DC, and Maryland; and a demonstration involving 

pilot testing employment and training programs to aid disconnected youth. 

Alexandra Derian is a research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at 

the Urban Institute, where her research focuses primarily on housing and land-use policy. Her additional 

research interests include performance measurement and neighborhood change. 

Sara Edelstein is a research associate in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population at the Urban 

Institute, where her work focuses on vulnerable children, youth, and families as well as the programs that 

serve them. She has experience analyzing quantitative and qualitative data in order to asses programs, 

policies, and trends in areas including public benefits and tax credits (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medicaid, the earned income tax credit) and their 

impacts on well-being; asset building (individual development accounts, prepaid cards); government 

spending on children; and programs for at-risk youth and youth in foster care. 

Allison Stolte was a research associate in the Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population at the 

Urban Institute, where her research focuses primarily on policies and service designs relating to the 

workforce development of low-income individuals and young parents, youth development programs, and 

child food security. 
STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENCE 

The Urban Institute strives to meet the highest standards of integrity and quality in its research and analyses and in the 

evidence-based policy recommendations offered by its researchers and experts. We believe that operating consistent 

with the values of independence, rigor, and transparency is essential to maintaining those standards. As an organization, 

the Urban Institute does not take positions on issues, but it does empower and support its experts in sharing their own 

evidence-based views and policy recommendations that have been shaped by scholarship. Funders do not determine 

our research findings or the insights and recommendations of our experts. Urban scholars and experts are expected to 

be objective and follow the evidence wherever it may lead. 
2100 

Wash 

www.u 

M Street NW 

ington, DC 20 

urban.org 

0037