INTEGRATING SERVICE INTO YOUTHBUILD AMERICORPS 

HSE AND DIPLOMA GRANTING PROGRAMS 

Final Report

Prepared by: 

The Center for Youth and Communities 

Heller School for Social Policy and Management 

Brandeis University 

Prepared for: 

YouthBuild USA and the Corporation for National and Community Service 

January 2019 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

Chapter I: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Research Questions .................................................................................................................................. 2

Study Design and Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 3

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................12

Chapter II: Program Survey Findings ...........................................................................................................17

Organizational Context for YouthBuild AmeriCorps Programs ...............................................................17

Structure and Organization of Educational Programming ......................................................................20

Primary Service/Occupational Training ..................................................................................................24

Summary .................................................................................................................................................30

Program Characteristics of Study Sites ...................................................................................................31

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Participants in Study Sites ................................................................................33

Chapter III: Differences in the Service Experience among Program Types .................................................36

Types of Service Experiences ..................................................................................................................36

Service Hours ..........................................................................................................................................38

Service Experiences ................................................................................................................................. 39

Training and Support ..............................................................................................................................40

Impact of the Service Experience............................................................................................................41

Chapter IV: Participant Outcomes ..............................................................................................................44

Program Outcomes ................................................................................................................................. 44

Educational Attitudes and Goals .............................................................................................................45

Civic Attitudes .........................................................................................................................................50

Civic and Workplace-Related Skills .........................................................................................................53

Summary of Participant Outcomes .........................................................................................................54

Chapter V: Voices from the Field – Perspectives on the YouthBuild AmeriCorps Service Experience .......57

Perspectives from the Program Surveys ................................................................................................. 57

Common Themes across Program Types ................................................................................................58

Effective Service-Related Practices .........................................................................................................59

Challenges ...............................................................................................................................................65

What the Service Experiences Meant to Members ................................................................................67

Summary .................................................................................................................................................68

Chapter VI: Conclusions and Reflections ....................................................................................................69

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................69

Considerations for the Future .................................................................................................................73

Appendix 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 

Executive Summary 

In late 2016, YouthBuild USA and the Center for Youth and Communities at Brandeis University’s Heller 

School for Social Policy and Management began a two and a half-year study of the differences in service 

experiences and impacts between YouthBuild’s traditional high school equivalency (HSE)-focused 

programs and the growing number of YouthBuild programs offering a high school diploma either as the 

program’s main secondary education credential or as an alternative to the GED or other high school 

equivalency credential. The study, designed to meet the evaluation requirements of YouthBuild’s

national direct AmeriCorps grant, grew out of an interest in understanding the different ways in which 

HSE and diploma-granting programs integrate service into the YouthBuild model. Specifically, YouthBuild 

USA was interested in knowing: Are the diploma-granting programs serving the same mix of members 

as more traditional, HSE-focused YouthBuild programs? How do the more structured charter and 

alternative school programs allocate time between education, service, and leadership development 

and/or balance time between classroom work and service? What kinds of AmeriCorps service 

experiences do the more “school-like” diploma-granting programs provide for their participants, and do 

those experiences differ substantially from those offered by the more traditional HSE-focused 

YouthBuild programs? Are members in these often longer-duration education programs more or less 

likely to complete their AmeriCorps service and earn their award as members in the short-term HSE 

programs? Finally, are there differences in outcomes, including educational attainment, job or 

postsecondary placement, AmeriCorps Education Award attainment, and attitudes towards civic 

engagement and the community, between the diploma-granting and non-diploma programs? How, in 

short, do the different educational models support YouthBuild’s career and educational goals and its 

mission of helping young people become civically engaged leaders in their communities? 

This study was designed to address these questions through a comparative assessment of the service 

experiences and participant outcomes of AmeriCorps members among three groups of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs: HSE-focused YouthBuild programs, those providing a high school diploma, and 

those providing a combination of diploma and HSE credentials. The study collected data at several 

levels. First, the study collected detailed program description data through a survey of a representative 

sample of 40 YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs (approximately half of the programs receiving 

AmeriCorps grants). That data sets the context for the study, providing basic descriptive data on the 

three groups of programs and how their services are organized. Second, from among those programs, a 

sample of 20 sites was selected for participant-level analysis through the administration of surveys to 

their AmeriCorps participants as they completed their time in YouthBuild and analysis of YouthBuild DYB 

(Data YouthBuild) reporting system data. The surveys, which used a retrospective pre/post design, 

included questions on participants’ service experiences as well as items assessing attitudes related to 

education, college and career knowledge, civic engagement, and community leadership before joining 

YouthBuild and at program exit. The YouthBuild reporting system data included information on 

participant characteristics, service activities, and program outcomes. The combined survey and 

reporting system data were used in the analysis of participant-level service experiences and outcomes 

among the HSE, diploma-granting, and combined HSE/Diploma programs. Finally, in order to gain a 

more in-depth understanding of program structures and participant experiences, the study conducted 

hour-long telephone interviews with leadership and staff at ten of the programs in the study and site 

visits, including participant interviews, at two participating YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 

Based on the program and participant surveys, reporting system data, and interviews with YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps program staff and participants, three major findings stand out: 

First, the program survey data show YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs represent a diverse array of 

programs in terms of organizational context, how education programs are organized and structured, the 

range of service experiences, and who the programs serve. All three maintain the core elements of the 

YouthBuild model placing substantial emphasis on service, integrating service throughout the program 

experience, and providing service experiences that participants find engaging and enriching. All three 

emphasize the core YouthBuild values of building strong relationships and promoting youth 

development, service and leadership. However, while there are common characteristics based in the 

core elements of the YouthBuild program model, there are also substantial differences among the three 

major program types in terms of structure, program size and duration, and populations served that may 

ultimately be related to differences in program experience and outcomes. 

Second, while the data indicate that all three program models produced a positive service experience 

and positive outcomes for YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants, there were consistent, statistically 

significant differences among the three major program types. In terms of the service experience, while 

the Diploma-only programs provided more service hours and participants in all three program types 

reported positive service experiences, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to show better 

results on the measure of service quality and impact. Similarly, while all three program types showed 

positive outcomes on multiple measures, the DYB and survey data show that participants in the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs, and to a slightly lesser degree, the Diploma-only programs 

consistently showed stronger results for most educational and civic outcomes than the HSE-only 

programs, and the differences between the program types were statistically significant. While the 

actual differences in outcomes are not large, the consistent pattern of differences suggests that there is 

a real difference in the program experience. 

Finally, while the survey data highlight the program differences, the telephone interviews and site visits 

suggest that some core elements and lessons are common across program types. One important 

observation from the field is that, in many cases, it is the secondary service experience – volunteering at 

community events, food pantries, clothing drives, and the like, that provide the most memorable service 

experiences for AmeriCorps participants. Two key messages emerged from the discussions. The first 

was the importance of integrating service fully into the overall program experience; the second was the 

importance of face-to-face service experiences as having the greatest impact on participants, whether in 

the course of the primary service activities (meeting the residents of the buildings being rehabbed) or 

the secondary service projects that take place on a regular basis. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 1 

Chapter I 

Introduction 

Background 

YouthBuild USA is a national youth leadership development program aimed at developing education, 

occupational, and civic leadership skills through service in low income communities. The goal of the 

program is to help low income youth, aged 16-24, attain a high school diploma or high school 

equivalency (HSE) credential and occupational skills and experience while developing leadership skills 

and deepening their commitment to service and engagement in their community. The mission of the 

organization is to “unleash the intelligence and positive energy of low-income youth to rebuild their 

communities and their lives.” 1

 Over 260 YouthBuild programs operate nationally. 

As one of the largest national direct grantees in the country, YouthBuild has been an AmeriCorps 

grantee since the AmeriCorps program formed in 1994. As of 2016, 79 YouthBuild programs serving 

over 3,000 young people per year, received AmeriCorps grants through YouthBuild’s National Direct 

AmeriCorps program. 

YouthBuild participants earn AmeriCorps education awards through the service activities associated with 

their education and training. YouthBuild USA’s primary service activity is the construction of low-income 

housing. Traditionally, AmeriCorps members learn construction skills through building and rehabilitating

affordable housing in low income communities. Construction training is designed to provide YouthBuild 

participants with hands-on experience while engaging them in the process of contributing to their 

communities. More recently, YouthBuild has expanded its service streams to include health care, 

computer technology, and environmental services. As with the construction program, each of these 

service streams is designed to provide participants with a mix of occupational training and hands-on 

service to the community. 

One of the major changes in the YouthBuild AmeriCorps model over the past decade has been the 

growth in the number of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs that grant high school diplomas. While the 

traditional YouthBuild model emphasized “a GED and a job,” a growing number of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs now offer a diploma either as the program’s main secondary education credential 

or as an optional alternative to the GED or other HSE credentials. According to the YouthBuild website 

at the time this study began, more than 50 YouthBuild programs nationally offered a high school 

diploma, though recent data suggest that the figure may be higher. Among the sites in the recently 

completed US Department of Labor (DOL) random assignment evaluation of YouthBuild, 40% offered 

some type of high school diploma, either exclusively or as an alternative to the GED program.2 Among 

 

1

 See the YouthBuild USA mission statement at their website: http://www.youthbuild.org. 

2

 The data on the prevalence of diploma programs is from the implementation report for the DOL study: Andrew 

Wiegand et al (2015). Adapting to Local Context: Findings from the YouthBuild Evaluation Implementation Study. 

New York: MDRC. Available at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Adapting_to_Local_Context.pdf. See also 

the final impact report for the study: Cynthia Miller et al (2018). Laying a Foundation: Four-Year Results from the 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 2 

the 2016 YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs, according to data from the YouthBuild reporting system 

(DYB), 44 of the 81 sites offered a high school diploma as one of their educational options. 

As the random assignment study’s implementation report makes clear, the diploma-granting YouthBuild 

programs take many forms. In many cases, a relatively small number of students in a program pursue a 

high school diploma, with educational services provided through partnerships with other educational 

programs and/or through independent study or computer-based learning models. In a growing number 

of cases, however, YouthBuild programs have established full-fledged charter and alternative school 

programs serving most, if not all, of their participants. Those programs often differ significantly from 

the traditional GED programs, with a school-like, structured curriculum and organized classes in English, 

math, history, science, and social studies. Many involve project-based learning, and most reflect the 

YouthBuild principles of small classes and individualized learning and support. Diploma-granting 

programs are often longer in duration, with participants taking up to two years to acquire the needed 

class credits or complete a competency-based curriculum. Programs range in size from relatively small, 

stand-alone YouthBuild programs to some of the largest YouthBuild programs in the country. 

As the diploma-granting programs become more common among the YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites, they 

raise the question of how AmeriCorps service is being integrated into an increasingly education-focused 

YouthBuild model. Are the diploma-granting programs serving the same mix of members as more 

traditional, HSE-focused YouthBuild programs, in terms of entry reading and math levels, age, and prior 

experience, including court involvement, homelessness, or parenting? How do the more structured 

charter and alternative school programs allocate time between education, service, and leadership 

development and/or balance time between classroom work and service? What kinds of service 

experiences do the more “school-like” diploma-granting programs provide for their participants, and do 

those experiences differ substantially from those offered by the more traditional HSE-focused 

YouthBuild programs who may have more flexible classroom structures? Are members in these often 

longer-duration education programs more or less likely to complete their AmeriCorps service and earn 

their award as members in the short-term HSE programs? Finally, are there differences in outcomes, 

including educational attainment, job or postsecondary placement, and attitudes towards civic 

engagement and the community, between the various forms of diploma and non-diploma programs? In

sum, YouthBuild USA is interested in understanding how the different educational models support 

YouthBuild’s career and educational goals and its mission of helping young people become civically 

engaged leaders in their communities. 

Research Questions 

This study is designed to address these questions by examining the differences in program structures, 

service experiences, and program and outcomes among three groups of YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs: those providing an HSE-focused educational program; those providing a high school diploma 

program; and those providing some combination of HSE and diploma educational options. Three 

questions guide the study: 

 

National YouthBuild Evaluation. New York: MDRC. Available at: https://www.mdrc.org/publication/layingfoundation. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 3 

1. How are AmeriCorps service experiences similar and/or different among the three types of 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs? What kinds of service activities take place within each 

type of program and how are those experiences organized and structured? Are there 

differences in terms of the intensity of service (duration and total hours), the degree of 

hands-on service provided, and/or in the extent of direct engagement with community 

members and local partner organizations? Is there a difference in program culture towards 

service, in terms of the emphasis on service in the overall program design? 

2. Among the three program types, based on the telephone interviews and site visits, are there 

major differences in the ways in which service is integrated into the overall program? Are 

there unique benefits or challenges to integrating AmeriCorps service into each of the 

different settings? Are there differences in program culture and staff attitudes towards 

service that impact the service experience? What “promising practices” lessons have the 

various programs learned about how best to integrate service into their programs and 

curriculum? 

3. Are there significant differences in outcomes among the three types of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs in terms of core program measures (program completion, credential 

attainment, education award attainment, employment and/or postsecondary placement) 

and in terms of personal and civic development (e.g., educational aspirations, sense of 

educational competence, leadership, civic engagement and commitment to future service)? 

Is there a relationship between key program elements (most notably structure and type of 

service) and member outcomes? 

Study Design and Data Sources 

To address these questions, Brandeis University’s Center for Youth and Communities, working with 

YouthBuild USA, conducted an implementation and outcome study of the differences between diploma 

and non-diploma granting YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs. The study drew on program and 

reporting system data to select a representative 

sample of approximately 40 YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs for an initial survey on 

program structure and organization. A subset of 

20 sites, including both HSE and diploma-granting 

programs were then selected for more intensive 

study, including participant surveys, analysis of 

YouthBuild reporting system data, and telephone 

interviews and site visits in selected sites. Overall, 

the study included reporting system data on 950 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants and survey 

data on 582 YouthBuild AmeriCorps members 

Overview of Study Sites and Data Sources 

Study Sites Data Sources 

Phase 1: Representative 

Sample -- 40 YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps Sites 

Program-level survey data on 

program structures and 

operations. 

Phase 2: Intensive 

Study Sites – 20 Sites 

(selected from 40 sites 

in Phase 1) 

YouthBuild Participant 

Reporting System (DYB) and 

participant survey data to 

assess participant-level 

experiences and outcomes. 

Phase 3: Interviews/Site 

Visit Sites – 10 sites 

(selected from 20 in 

Phase 2) 

Telephone interviews with staff 

at 10 sites, site visits to 2 sites 

for additional interviews and 

participant focus groups. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 4 

from the sample sites. Each element is described in more detail below.3

Initial Site Selection and Program Survey. The site selection process was designed to provide a 

representative mix of both HSE and diploma-granting programs for the study. To accomplish that, the 

evaluation used YouthBuild AmeriCorps reporting data to conduct a stratified random sampling process 

to select a group of 40 sites for the study. The sampling process took into account the type of credential 

offered by the program (HSE or diploma), the experience level of the YouthBuild program (newer/less 

experienced and older/more experienced programs), and the program size (larger and smaller 

programs, based on the number of AmeriCorps slots).4 The initial sampling pool included 73 AmeriCorps 

programs: 40 programs were selected for the study, including 20 from the HSE-only group and 20 from 

the diploma granting group.5

Once selected, study sites were invited to participate in a series of webinar presentations orienting them 

to the study and the data collection process. The program survey was then distributed to the 40 study 

sites in early April 2017 with multiple follow-ups through the end of May 2017. As noted above, the 

program survey was designed to gather detailed program information on the study sites including 

credential offered; how education, training and service activities were organized; who provided 

educational services; and the kinds of primary and secondary service activities taking place through the 

program. Ultimately 38 of the 40 programs in the sample completed the survey. The results are 

discussed in Chapter II of this report and a copy of the survey is included in the Appendix. 

Site Selection and Data Collection at Intensive Study Sites. After the initial program surveys were 

completed, the results were used to guide selection of 20 sites from the 38 program survey responders 

for more intensive study. A variety of program characteristics were reviewed, including program type 

(HSE, Diploma, Combined HSE/Diploma), program size (above/below 20 AmeriCorps members), 

organizational context (standalone/part of a larger organization); program schedule (alternating days, 

weeks, etc.); program duration (below/above 9 months), etc. Ultimately, it was decided to use program 

size (above/below 20 members) as an initial screen in order to ensure that there were sufficient 

AmeriCorps members in the study sites to provide an adequate analysis sample. The result was the 

identification of 22 programs that met the size criteria, 20 of which were included in the final intensive 

study sample. 6 Despite the use of size as the primary selection criteria, the resulting sample included 

programs that reflected the mix of characteristics found in the larger 38-site sample. Table I-1 provides a 

summary of the program characteristics for both the larger and smaller sample groups. 

 

3

 The study was reviewed and approved by the Brandeis University Institutional Review Board (IRB) on June 29, 

2017 (Protocol #17128). The retrospective pre/post survey design is discussed in more detail later in this section. 

4

For sampling purposes, “HSE” programs included those offering only an HSE credential; “diploma” programs 

included any program that offered a diploma option, including those that offered both diploma and HSE 

credentials. 

5

 Six YouthBuild programs were dropped from the overall sampling pool for a variety of reasons, including a history 

of data collection issues and/or concerns about continued participation in the AmeriCorps program. 

6

 Two of the 22 potential study sites, Shreveport YouthBuild and YouthBuild McLean County, were eliminated from 

the sample because of issues with the timing of their AmeriCorps enrollment. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 5 

Table I-1: Site Characteristics – Program Survey Sites (38) and Intensive Sample Sites (22) 

Characteristic Program Survey Sites Intensive Study Sites 

N Percent N Percent 

All Sites 38 20

Program Type (Credential Provided) 

HSE 17 45% 8 40% 

Diploma 10 26% 6 30% 

Both 11 29% 6 30% 

Program Sites (Reported AmeriCorps Members) 

Fewer than 20 members 16 42% 0 0%

20 or more members 22 58% 20 100%

Organization Context 

Part of larger organization 25 66% 13 65% 

Standalone YouthBuild program 13 34% 7 35% 

Program Structure/Schedule (for Education & 

Training) 

Same or alternating days 18 47% 9 45% 

Alternating weeks 15 40% 7 35% 

Other (alternating months, semesters, etc.) 5 13% 3 15% 

Required Minimum Reading/Math Levels for Entry 

No required minimums 23 61% 10 50%

Required minimum for at least 1 program 15 40% 10 50%

Program Duration (HSE programs) 

Below average duration (< 7 months) 11 44% 4 31% 

Average duration or more (7 mos. or more) 14 56% 9 69% 

Program Duration (Diploma programs) 

Below average duration (< 9 months) 9 45% 6 46% 

Average duration or more (9 mos. or more) 11 55% 7 54% 

Numbers of AmeriCorps Enrollees 

HSE Sites 17 367 9 234

Diploma Sites 10 370 6 305

Sites offering both credentials 11 237 6 252

Total 38 974 20 791

Source: Based on responses to the study’s program survey, N=38. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 6 

The intensive study sites included a wide array of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs, including a mix of 

HSE-only, Diploma-only, and combined HSE/Diploma programs, urban and rural sites, as well as older 

and newer, larger and smaller programs. The largest intensive study site was the Guadalupe Alternative 

Program (GAP) in St. Paul, MN, which projected more than 100 AmeriCorps members per year. The 

smallest were YouthBuild of Jefferson and Marion Counties (Illinois), Pathways YouthBuild (Virginia), and 

SER YouthBuild Construction Institute (Michigan), each of which projected 20 AmeriCorps members for 

the year. Table I-2 shows the selected intensive study sites and the projected number of participants 

per site (based on the program survey data). 

Once the intensive study sites were selected, participant data collection began. As noted above, there 

were two major sources of participant data for the study: data from the YouthBuild DYB reporting 

system and a post-program survey administered to YouthBuild participants as they left the program. 

The DYB data included information on participant characteristics (age, gender, race, homeless and 

offender status at entry, baseline reading and math scores, etc.), enrollment information (when 

enrolled, time in program, completion status), service data (hours of service and primary service field) 

and program outcomes (credential earned, placement in jobs or postsecondary education, hours and 

types of service and whether an AmeriCorps education award was received). 

Initially, the DYB data was used to identify YouthBuild participants for inclusion in the survey process. 

The initial survey sample was defined as all enrollees in the study sites who had enrolled after August 1, 

2016 and were still active in the program in June 2017 when the survey process began. Later, enrollees 

who joined YouthBuild between July and October, 2017 were added to the study to increase the total 

survey pool. Altogether, 1064 participants were identified as enrollees in the study sites during the data 

collection period. Ultimately, 950 of those participants enrolled as AmeriCorps members and formed 

the basis for this report’s analyses of YouthBuild participant characteristics, service activities, and 

program outcomes. 

Once the YouthBuild enrollees were identified, participant surveys were distributed to the study sites 

with instructions to administer the surveys to participants as they completed or exited the YouthBuild 

program. Programs were provided with lists of participants who were included in the survey sample and 

with pre-addressed, postage-paid envelopes so the surveys could be returned directly to Brandeis by 

program participants to protect the confidentiality of their responses. The surveys also included each 

participant’s YouthBuild ID so the survey data could later be linked to the DYB reporting system data (for 

example, to incorporate participant characteristics into the survey analysis) without violating 

confidentiality. An online version of the survey was also made available, though most participants used 

the paper version. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 7 

Table I-2: Intensive Study Sites 

Program Name City State 

Projected 

AmeriCorps 

Enrollees 

(2016-2017)* 

1. Capital City YouthBuild Hartford CT 21

2. Crispus Attucks YouthBuild York PA 80

3. CTI YouthBuild of Greater Lowell Lowell MA 26

4. D.R.E.A.M.S Youthbuild and Young Adult 

Training Program Brooklyn NY 31

5. Guadalupe Alternative Programs - St. Paul St. Paul MN 110

6. Los Angeles Conservation Corps Los Angeles CA 13

7. Mile High Youth Corps YouthBuild Denver CO 22

8. Pathways YouthBuild Petersburg VA 20

9. Portland YouthBuilders Portland OR 75

10. PPEP YouthBuild Tucson/San Luis AZ 81

11. Project YES YouthBuild Philadelphia PA 33

12. ReSOURCE YouthBuild Burlington VT 30

13. SER YouthBuild Construction Institute Detroit MI 20

14. South Los Angeles YouthBuild Los Angeles CA 50

15. Youth Action YouthBuild New York NY 38

16. YouthBuild Dayton CountyCorp Dayton OH 32

17. YouthBuild Louisville Louisville KY 23

18. YouthBuild New Bedford New Bedford MA 32

19. YouthBuild of Jefferson and Marion Counties Mount Vernon IL 20

20. YouthBuild Schenectady @ SEAT Schenectady NY 34

Total Reported Participants 791

* Projected AmeriCorps enrollees numbers are based on estimates of new enrollees reported by the sites in the 

program survey and formed the basis for site selection. Actual enrollments during the study period differed 

depending, in part, on the timing of the enrollment process. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 8 

The surveys were designed using a “retrospective pre/post” format. In part this reflected the practical 

decision that collection of separate baseline and post-program surveys was not feasible given the timing 

and resources available for the study.7 At the same time, there is a strong case to be made for the use 

of a retrospective pre/post design. The retrospective pre/post design asks respondents to respond to 

items twice – first, based on their attitudes at the time of program enrollment and a second time, based 

on attitudes “now,” at the time of survey administration. While this makes for a longer survey (since 

every question is asked twice), the retrospective pre/post design has been found to be effective in 

addressing the problem of “response shift bias” in which participants’ understanding of the question 

(and potentially their responses) changes as they gain new insights into themselves and/or the topic 

being addressed.8 In this case, it was anticipated that YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants 

understanding of some of the questions about their attitudes towards civic engagement, leadership, or 

their educational options might change as a result of program participation. By using a retrospective 

pre/post design, the surveys enable participants to assess their attitudes “then” and “now” using a 

single frame of reference. 

The surveys used in the study were based on surveys used in a prior (2013-2016) study of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs and included attitudinal scales aimed at addressing educational aspirations and 

attitudes towards learning, college and career awareness and readiness, civic engagement, leadership, 

civic skills, and interest in future service. The surveys also collected information on members’ service 

experience, including the mix of service activities, the quality of their service activities, program support, 

and the impact of their service on their attitudes and beliefs. A copy of the survey is included in the 

Appendix. 

The participant survey process began in June 2017 and continued through September 2018 with regular 

reminders and updates to the sites over the course of the data collection period. In some cases, surveys 

arrived after participants had left the program (one site had its graduation the week before the surveys 

arrived), limiting the overall response rate. However, in general, sites were responsive and able to 

administer the surveys to a high percentage of their participants. Overall, 637 of the 1064 enrollees in 

 

7

 Because of the time needed to conduct the program survey and select sites, participant data collection did not 

begin until late in the 2016-2017 program cycle. If a traditional pre/post design had been used, baseline surveys 

could not have been collected until Fall 2017 and many new enrollees at that point would not have completed 

their YouthBuild programs until after the end of data collection for the study in Fall 2018. Using a post-program 

survey allowed the study to focus on 2016-17 enrollees and follow them for up to two years after entry into the 

program. Also, prior studies indicate that collecting pre/post data can be challenging at YouthBuild programs, 

resulting in relatively low response rates (below 50%) for matched pre- and post-program surveys. The use of a 

single, post-program survey was expected to produce a higher response rate. 

8

 For early statements on the challenge of changing perspectives (“response-shift bias”) and the use of a 

retrospective pre/post survey design, see G.S. Howard, R.R. Schmeck and J.H. Bray, “Internal Invalidity in Studies 

Employing Self-Report Instruments: A Suggested Remedy,” Journal of Educational Measurement, Vol. 16, No. 2 

(Summer, 1979), pp. 129-135; and G.S. Howard, “Response-shift bias: A problem in evaluating interventions with 

pre/post self-reports,” Evaluation Review, 4 (1980), pp. 93-106. For a more recent discussion, see D. Moore and C. 

A. Tananis, “Measuring Change in a Short-Term Educational Program Using a Retrospective Pretest Design,” 

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 30 No. 2 (June 2009), pp. 189-202. It is important to recognize that the 

retrospective pre/post reflects the participants’ self-assessment of change rather than an objective, outside 

measurement. Traditional pre/post surveys also reflect participants’ subjective self-assessment, though at two 

different points in time. Neither provides a perfect measure. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 9 

the sample returned a survey, a response rate of 60%. When non-AmeriCorps members were dropped 

from the enrollment and survey samples the final figures were 950 AmeriCorps enrollees, of whom 582 

provided surveys, a response rate of 61%. Table 3 provides a summary of the response rates by site.9

Interviews and Site Visits. Finally, in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the AmeriCorps 

experience among the different types of programs (HSE-only, Diploma-only, and Combined 

HSE/Diploma), the evaluation team conducted hour-long telephone interviews with staff at ten of the 

intensive study sites and one- to two-day site visits, including focus group interviews with participants, 

at two of the sites. The telephone interviews and site visits were designed to learn more about how the 

different types of YouthBuild programs organized their educational and service activities and to gain 

staff and participant perspectives on the quality of the service experience, what aspects of service most 

influenced participant attitudes, the challenges programs experienced, and the lessons they had 

learned. 

A Note on Weighting Adjustments for Demographic Differences. As Table I-3 indicates, there are 

substantial differences in program size and response rates among the programs in the study sample, 

with programs ranging from 4 enrollees to over 180 in the DYB data system and from 1 to 99 in the 

survey responses. In order to balance the program differences so that one or two programs do not 

inordinately influence the analysis results, the decision was made to weight both the DYB and the survey 

data so that each program is represented equally in the sample. While this approach has its own 

drawbacks (smaller programs have a larger influence in the analysis than might be warranted), it helps 

to ensure that no one program overly influences the analysis as a whole. 

 

9

 Note that two sites, Resource YouthBuild and SER YouthBuild Construction Institute, were unable to return any 

surveys. Because they were part of the intensive study sample, data from both sites is included in the analysis of 

DYB reporting system data, but the sites are not included in the survey analysis. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 10

Table I-3: Survey Returns by Site 

AmeriCorps 

Members 

(DYB Data) 

Percent of 

AmeriCorps 

Members 

Completed 

Surveys 

Percent of 

Completed 

Surveys 

Response 

Rate 

Capital City YouthBuild 31 3.3% 15 2.6% 48.4% 

Crispus Attucks YouthBuild 100 10.5% 97 16.7% 97.0% 

CTI YouthBuild of Greater Lowell 41 4.3% 31 5.3% 75.6% 

D.R.E.A.M.S Youthbuild and Young 

Adult Training Program 36 3.8% 36 6.2% 100.0% 

Guadalupe Alternative Programs - St. 

Paul 184 19.4% 99 17.0% 53.8% 

Los Angeles Conservation Corps 15 1.6% 15 2.6% 100.0% 

Mile High Youth Corps YouthBuild 28 2.9% 17 2.9% 60.7% 

Pathways YouthBuild 4 0.4% 1 0.2% 25.0% 

Portland YouthBuilders 113 11.9% 71 12.2% 62.8% 

PPEP YouthBuild 47 4.9% 18 3.1% 38.3% 

Project YES YouthBuild 30 3.2% 28 4.8% 93.3% 

ReSOURCE YouthBuild 21 2.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% 

SER YouthBuild Construction Institute 61 6.4% 0 0.0% 0.0% 

South Los Angeles YouthBuild 34 3.6% 7 1.2% 20.6% 

Youth Action YouthBuild 37 3.9% 37 6.4% 100.0% 

YouthBuild Dayton CountyCorp 32 3.4% 19 3.3% 59.4% 

YouthBuild Louisville 33 3.5% 27 4.6% 81.8% 

YouthBuild New Bedford 41 4.3% 16 2.7% 39.0% 

YouthBuild of Jefferson and Marion 

Counties 28 2.9% 27 4.6% 96.4% 

YouthBuild Schenectady @ SEAT 34 3.6% 21 3.6% 61.8% 

Total 950 100 582 100.0% 61.3%

As Table I-4 shows, there were also several significant, though not large, differences in baseline 

characteristics between the sample of survey responders and the overall population of AmeriCorps 

enrollees. Responders were more likely to have a diploma or HSE credential at entry, less likely to be 

currently or recently homeless or an ex-offender, more likely to read above the 8th grade level, and to be 

slightly younger than the average AmeriCorps member at the participating sites. As is discussed later 

(Chapter II), there were also significant differences in baseline characteristics among participants in the 

three program types examined in the study (HSE, Diploma, and Combined HSE/Diploma). In both cases, 

to address these differences, the analyses of service experience and outcomes include a number of 

demographic characteristics as control variables, including credential at entry, gender, race, housing and 

offender status at entry, entry reading level, and age. 
Table I-4: Characteristics of Survey Responders and Non-Responders 

Non-Responders Survey Responders Total

N Pct N Pct N Pct

Has Credential at Entry** None 354 96.2% 534 91.8% 888 93.5%

Diploma/HSE 14 3.8% 48 8.2% 62 6.5%

Gender Male 221 60.4% 360 61.9% 581 61.3%

Female 145 39.6% 222 38.1% 367 38.7%

Race/Ethnicity White 64 17.4% 94 16.2% 158 16.6%

Asian 81 22.0% 96 16.5% 177 18.6%

Black 110 29.9% 210 36.1% 320 33.7%

Hispanic 103 28.0% 174 29.9% 277 29.2%

Other 10 2.7% 8 1.4% 18 1.9%

Parent or Guardian Neither 313 85.1% 481 82.6% 794 83.6%

Parent or Primary Caregiver 55 14.9% 101 17.4% 156 16.4%

Housing Status*** Neither 299 86.2% 540 94.4% 839 91.3%

Current/Recent Homeless 48 13.8% 32 5.6% 80 8.7%

Offender Status*** None 277 77.6% 488 87.3% 765 83.5%

Adult/Youth Offender 80 22.4% 71 12.7% 151 16.5%

Math Below 8th/ 8th and 

Above

Below 8th Grade 209 79.2% 364 75.8% 573 77.0%

8th Grade and Above 55 20.8% 116 24.2% 171 23.0%

Reading Below 8th/ 8th 

and Above**

Below 8th Grade 241 69.1% 342 59.1% 583 62.8%

8th Grade and Above 108 30.9% 237 40.9% 345 37.2%

Economically 

Disadvantaged

Non-Disadvantaged 13 3.5% 89 15.3% 102 10.7%

Disadvantaged 355 96.5% 493 84.7% 848 89.3%

English Language Learner Non-ELL 247 67.1% 421 72.3% 668 70.3%

English Language Learner 121 32.9% 161 27.7% 282 29.7%

Age** Average Age 368 19.8 582 19.33 950 19.51

Source: DYB Reporting Data, N=950 and YouthBuild participant survey (N=582). Unweighted. Asterisks indicates statistically significant differences: * p≤.05, 

**p≤ .01 ***p≤.001.
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 12

Key Findings 

The balance of this report reviews the DYB, survey, and interview data in detail. Chapter II summarizes 

the program descriptive data from the survey of 40 YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. Chapter III 

provides information on the AmeriCorps service experience – who participates, what kinds of services 

they participated in, the quality of those service experiences, and the differences among the three 

program types (HSE-only, diploma-only, and combined HSE/Diploma). Chapter IV examines the relative 

outcomes for participants involved in the three program types. Chapter V examines the cross-cutting 

lessons on effective practices and challenges based on YouthBuild AmeriCorps staff and participant 

interviews and focus groups. Chapter VI summarizes the conclusions of the study and presents 

considerations for the future. 

Overall, several major findings stand out: 

First, the program survey data show YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs represent a diverse array of 

programs in terms of organizational context, how education programs are organized and structured, the 

range of service experiences, and who the programs serve. All three maintain the core elements of the 

YouthBuild model placing substantial emphasis on service, integrating service throughout the program 

experience, and providing service experiences that participants find engaging and enriching. All three 

emphasize the core YouthBuild values of building strong relationships and promoting youth 

development, service and leadership. However, there are also substantial differences among the three 

program types in terms of structure, program size and duration, and populations served that may 

ultimately be related to differences in program experience and outcomes. 

Second, while the data indicate that all three program types produced a positive service experience and 

positive outcomes for AmeriCorps participants, there were consistent, statistically significant differences 

among the three program types. In terms of the service experience, while the Diploma-only programs 

provided more service hours and participants in all three program types reported positive service 

experiences, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to show better results on the measure of 

service quality and impact. Similarly, while all three program types showed positive outcomes, the DYB 

and survey data show that participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs, and to a slightly lesser 

degree, the Diploma-only programs consistently showed stronger results for most educational and civic 

outcomes than the HSE-only programs, and the differences between the program types were 

statistically significant. While the differences are not large, the consistent pattern of differences 

suggests that there is a real difference in the program experience. 

Finally, while the survey data highlight the program differences, the telephone interviews and site visits 

suggest that some core elements and lessons are common across program types. One important 

observation from the field is that, in many cases, it is the secondary service experience – volunteering at 

community events, food pantries, clothing drives, and the like – that provide the most memorable 

service experiences for AmeriCorps participants. Two key messages emerged from the discussions. The 

first was the importance of integrating service fully into the overall program experience; the second was 

the importance of face-to-face service experiences as having the greatest impact on participants, 

whether in the course of the primary service activities (e.g., meeting the residents of the buildings being 

rehabbed) or the secondary service projects that take place on a regular basis. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 13

Specific findings from the study include the following: 

 Based on the program survey data from the sample of 38 YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites, the 

YouthBuild programs reflect a remarkable diversity in their organizational settings, the ways 

they structure their educational programs, the types of occupational training and service they 

provide, and the mix of leadership, life skills, and postsecondary preparation services offered. 

Ultimately, all three program types offered a mix of educational and occupational training, 

combined with service, leadership, life skills development, and postsecondary preparation, and 

on many measures there were few consistent differences among the program types in how 

those services were organized and delivered. 

 

At the same time, there were some important distinctions among the three program types that 

are the focus of the study. HSE-only programs were generally smaller; based in larger nonprofit 

organizations; shorter in duration with fewer hours of education and service; and more focused 

on construction-based training and service than the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs. Diploma-only programs tended to be larger; based in a variety of institution types; 

including schools; be longer in duration with a greater number of hours of instruction and 

service; and have a somewhat greater focus on postsecondary preparation. The Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs, not surprisingly, had elements of both the HSE and diploma world. 

More than the other types, they were based in standalone YouthBuild sites, and fell in the 

middle in terms of size and duration and hours, but provided a somewhat broader array of 

service and supports than the other two program types. While it is difficult to draw a simple 

line from these characteristics to differences in service experiences and outcomes, it is likely 

that the differences in program structure and operations did have some impact on the nature of 

the experience across the three types of programs. 

 As much as the study sites varied by size, organization, and programming, there were also 

substantial variations in the characteristics of program participants among the three groups of 

programs, based on the data from the 20 intensive study sites. Overall, the programs in the 

sample reflected YouthBuild’s focus on serving low-income, out-of-school youth: over 90% of 

participants entered without a high school credential and 89% qualified as economically 

disadvantaged. Roughly 83% of YouthBuild AmeriCorps members in the sample were young 

people of color; 16% were parents; and a similar percentage were recently or currently 

homeless at entry. Nearly 80% entered YouthBuild scoring below 8th grade on their math 

assessments (63% scored below 8th grade in reading), and 30% qualified as English Language 

Learners. 

Within that context, however, there were significant differences between participants in the 

three program types on a number of measures, in most cases with the Diploma-only programs 

standing out as different from both the HSE-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma sites: 

- Participants in Diploma-only programs were older on average than enrollees in HSE or 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs and more likely to enter YouthBuild without a high 

school credential. They were also more likely to be female and Asian (largely through 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 14

the influence of one program serving large numbers of Southeast Asian participants), 

and less likely to be Black or Hispanic. 

- Diploma-only participants were also less likely to be homeless or an ex-offender: HSE 

programs had the highest percentage of homeless participants and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs had a substantially higher percentage of youth who were exoffenders at entry. 

- Diploma-only programs accepted a substantially higher percentage of participants with 

entry-level reading and math scores that were below the 8th grade level, but they were 

also substantially more likely to include students who were not classified as 

economically disadvantaged. 

- Finally, Diploma students were substantially more likely to include English Language 

Learners, again largely through the influence of one of the larger programs in the 

sample. 

The one measure in which programs showed no significant difference was the proportion of 

participants who were parents at entry, with all three programs showing 15%-17% of their 

participants as parents or guardians at program entry. 

While many of these differences are statistically significant, they need to be interpreted with 

caution as they may reflect the influence of the individual programs in a particular category 

(such as the large number of Southeast Asian participants served in the GAP program) rather 

than a characteristic of the program type as a whole. At the same time, the differences in 

characteristics like gender, entry level math and reading scores, and support for homeless or exoffenders may result in real differences in the nature of the program experience among the 

different types of programs. In order to minimize the influence of these population differences 

and keep the focus of the analysis on the programmatic differences among the three program 

types, we control for a number of demographic characteristics in the analyses of service 

experiences and program outcomes. 

 The DYB data and participant surveys collected for the study show that while all three program 

types provide a positive, high quality service experience, there are significant differences among 

the three program types in the nature and extent of service and in the service experience itself. 

While the Diploma-only programs provided the most hours of service among the different 

program types, participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs generally reported higher 

quality, more engaging service experiences than either of the other two program types. These 

results may reflect the strengths of the specific programs in the sample (a caution that will be 

repeated throughout the report), but taken together they suggest that the more comprehensive 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs may be able to deliver a stronger, more comprehensive 

service experience than the HSE or Diploma-only programs. 

 As was the case for the service experience data from the survey, the DYB and survey data on 

participant outcomes points to two broad conclusions. First, all three program types are 

generally producing positive outcomes. On most of the attitudinal measures there were 

significant pre/post gains for all three program types, suggesting that all three are carrying out 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 15

YouthBuild’s broad goals of education, civic engagement, and leadership development. 

However, there are also consistent differences across the programs, and in most cases, the 

Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma programs produced results that were significantly 

stronger than those for the HSE-only programs. In terms of YouthBuild’s core program 

outcomes, HSE-only participants had higher program completion and job placement rates than 

the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs, but participants in the Diploma-only 

programs were significantly more likely to earn their credential and their AmeriCorps education 

award and to enroll in postsecondary education. On the other hand, on most of the measures 

of educational goals, civic and educational attitudes, and workplace-related skills, participants in 

the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/GED programs were significantly more likely to show 

gains than participants in HSE-only programs. As noted earlier, while statistically significant (i.e., 

unlikely to have occurred by chance), the differences between programs are not generally large. 

But, they do tend to suggest that the Combined HSE/Diploma programs and the Diploma-only 

programs generally produced better outcomes in both educational terms and in terms of civic 

and educational attitudes than the HSE-only programs in the study. 

 While the survey and DYB reporting data highlight the differences in service experiences and 

outcomes among the different program types, the observations made by YouthBuild staff and 

participants in open-ended responses to the program surveys and through the telephone 

interviews and site visit discussions emphasize the features of effective service experiences that 

run across program types. Overall, those observations suggested that there were more 

similarities than differences in the service experience among the HSE-only, Diploma-only, and 

Combined HSE/diploma programs. Staff and participants describe a wide range of practices that 

they identify as effective in enhancing members’ service experiences and outcomes, including: 

explicitly integrating service with other program components; attending to organizational/staff 

issues; instilling a program-wide culture of service; and supporting and motivating youth to 

create a commitment to service and yield better outcomes – all elements that could be, and are, 

implemented regardless of program type. Finally, across the discussions ran the theme that 

interaction with beneficiaries is often at the heart of effective service experiences, and that 

programs need to make an effort, regardless of setting, to create those face-to-face experiences 

for their participants. 

In the end, the findings suggest that there may be some real differences among program types, and the 

advantage, though often small, lies with the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma programs. 

At this point, there is no simple explanation for the difference. While Diploma-only programs are 

substantially longer in duration and provide more service hours, when those variables are included in 

the analysis, they show only a minor influence on the results. At the same time, the interviews with the 

program sites suggest that all three types of programs are committed to the basic YouthBuild model and 

work to ensure that the connections are made between education, training, service and leadership. 

One possible explanation for the differences in outcomes comes down to a question of organizational 

capacity. While all three program types share a commitment to the YouthBuild model and goals, the 

larger Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs may have a greater capacity to carry that 

commitment into daily operation. As larger programs, both the Diploma and Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs may have more staff capacity, better management, and/or access to more stable funding 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 16

(through local education funds), or a combination of all three. That organizational capacity, in turn, may 

support a more consistent delivery of programs and services, both within and across program years. 

Whatever the explanation, as noted throughout, all three program models are generating broadly 

positive results on a wide variety of outcomes. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 17

Chapter II 

Program Survey Findings 

In the first step of the data collection process for this evaluation, the Brandeis University research team 

conducted a survey of a representative sample of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs (approximately half 

of the programs receiving AmeriCorps grants); 38 of the 40 programs surveyed responded with detailed 

information on their program structure and operation.10 The sample included programs offering only a 

high school equivalency credential (HSE-only), only a high school diploma (Diploma-only) or a 

combination of HSE and diploma options (Combined HSE/Diploma). The survey gathered program 

structure and organization data, asking about such characteristics as type of organizational setting; size; 

and how programs organize and carry out educational, occupational training, service, and leadership 

development activities. In addition, the survey included open-ended questions that sought 

respondents’ reflections on offering education, service, and training (to be discussed in Chapter V). 

The survey data highlights the diversity of settings and approaches used by YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs, including those in this study. While the central observation is that YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs vary widely in their setting, their size, and how they organize and carry out their education, 

occupational training, and leadership programming, there are some important differences in structure 

and organization among the three major program types in the study. Both the diversity of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs generally, and the differences among the three program types help to set the 

context for the study’s focus on differences in the service experience and outcomes among the three 

program types while also providing a broader picture of how YouthBuild’s AmeriCorps programs 

organize their services. 

Organizational Context for YouthBuild AmeriCorps Programs 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs in the sample were based in a variety of organizational settings, 

including a mix of standalone and school-based programs and programs integrated into larger nonprofit 

social service agencies (Table II-1): 

 

 One-third (34%) of programs were standalone programs – i.e., independent nonprofit 

organizations. 

 19 programs (50%), were part of some other type of nonprofit agency – human services/social 

services programs (24%), CAP agencies (13%), government agencies (7.9%), or conservation 

corps programs (5.3%). 

 Six of the 38 (16%) were part of charter or alternative schools. 

 

10 As described in Chapter 1, the evaluation team used program and reporting system data to select a 

representative sample of approximately half of the 73 YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. The sampling process 

took into account the type of credential offered by the program, the program’s experience level, and program size. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 18

Table II-1: Organization and Enrollment of YouthBuild Programs in Sample 

Organization Type

Program Characteristics 

N of 

Sites 

Percent of 

All Sites 

NonYouthBuild 

Youth 

(Mean) 

YouthBuild 

Members 

(Mean) 

YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps 

Members 

(Mean) 

Charter school/Part of charter school 2 5.3% 36 95.0 55.5 

Alternative school/Part of alternative 

school 

4 10.5% 31.25 48.8 44.8 

Part of a Conservation Corps program 2 5.3% 110 14.0 17.5 

Part of a CAP agency 5 13.2% 38.5 10.2 15.8 

Part of a government agency 3 7.9% 29 32.7 13.7 

Part of another type of human 

services/social services program - 

please explain: 

9 23.7% 23.5 21.3 21.3 

A separate, standalone YouthBuild 

program 

13 34.2% 212.8 28.8 25.9 

All Sites 38 100.0% 97.1 29.7 25.6 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

The typical program was relatively small: 

 Among those that were part of a larger agency (i.e., all but the standalone YouthBuild 

programs), the average number of youth served per year outside of the YouthBuild program was 

just under 37 participants. The largest organization in that group reported 220 non-YouthBuild 

participants. Two of the standalone YouthBuild programs also reported running programs for 

non-YouthBuild members, including a 2200-student summer program. When those are added 

into the mix, the average number of non-YouthBuild participants served across all sites was 

about 97 per organization. 

 The average number of YouthBuild participants per site, however, was generally much smaller. 

The average across all 38 sites was 30 members; the median was 24.5. 

 The number of YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants was also relatively small: an average of 26 

per site, with a median of 21.5. (Note: while all AmeriCorps members in the study were also 

YouthBuild members, not all participants in YouthBuild are enrolled as AmeriCorps members. 

Hence, the smaller number of YouthBuild AmeriCorps members.) 

There is considerable variation in program size among types of organizations in the sample: 

 The charter schools and alternative schools in the sample were relatively large. Charter schools 

had an average of 95 YouthBuild participants and 56 YouthBuild AmeriCorps members; the 

alternative schools averaged 49 YouthBuild members and 45 YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

participants. 

 Those that were part of another nonprofit were generally smaller: Conservation Corps and CAP 

agencies averaged 16 and 18 YouthBuild AmeriCorps members respectively, and programs 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 19

located in larger human service agencies (one of the most common settings) averaged 21 

YouthBuild members and 21 AmeriCorps participants per program. 

 Standalone YouthBuild programs fell in-between, averaging 29 YouthBuild members and 26 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants (medians were 28 and 21 respectively). 

While the overall organizational context highlights the variety of organizations hosting YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs, the major focus of this study is the difference between programs based on the 

types of educational programs they offer. As Table II-2 shows, just under half (17 or 45%) of the 38 

YouthBuild programs in the program sample operated HSE-only programs; 10 programs (26%) were 

Diploma-only; and 11 (29%) were Combined HSE/Diploma programs. 

Table II-2: YouthBuild Education Programs by Organization Type 

 

Organization Type

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Charter school/Part of charter 

school 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 1 9.1% 2 5.3% 

Alternative school/Part of 

alternative school 2 11.8% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 4 10.5% 

Part of a Conservation Corps 

program 

0 0.0% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.3% 

Part of a CAP agency 4 23.5% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 5 13.2% 

Part of a government agency 2 11.8% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 3 7.9% 

Part of another type of human 

services/social services 

program - please explain: 

6 35.3% 3 30.0% 0 0.0% 9 23.7% 

A separate, standalone 

YouthBuild program 3 17.6% 2 20.0% 8 72.7% 13 34.2% 

All Sites 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 38 100.0% 

Average Number of 

YouthBuild Members 17 22.9 10 40.3 11 30.5 38 29.7 

Average Number of 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

Members 

17 21.6 10 37.0 11 21.5 38 25.6 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

While all three types of education programs appear among the different organization types, there are 

some differences worth noting: 

 The HSE-only programs are largely located within other, larger nonprofit organizations: 35% are 

based in a human service agency, and 71% are based within the broader group of government 

and nonprofit organizations (CAP agencies, Conservation Corps, etc.). Conversely, the HSE-only 

programs are the most common program type among the nonprofit organizations: 12 of the 19 

nonprofit organizations (63%) offer an HSE credential only. 

 Interestingly, the Diploma-only programs are spread across a variety of organizations, with only 

three of the 10 Diploma-only programs in charter or alternative Schools; the other 7 are located 

in human service agencies, Conservation Corps, and standalone YouthBuild programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 20

 The Combined HSE/Diploma programs, on the other hand, are largely concentrated among the 

standalone YouthBuild programs, with 73% (8 of 11) of the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

based in those independent nonprofit organizations. The other three are spread among a 

charter school, CAP agency, and government agency. 

Despite the variety of organizational settings (or in some cases, because of it), there are some clear 

differences in terms of the numbers of participants that each type of program tends to serve. 

 The Diploma-only programs are the largest in the sample, averaging 40 YouthBuild participants 

and 37 YouthBuild AmeriCorps members. This likely reflects the fact that at least one of the 

larger charter schools falls into this group. 

 The Combined HSE/Diploma sites fall in the middle, with an average of 30 YouthBuild 

participants, but only 22 YouthBuild AmeriCorps members. 

 The HSE-only programs are the smallest, averaging 23 YouthBuild participants and 22 YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps members.11 

Structure and Organization of Educational Programming 

While there were some distinctions in the organizational structure of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs, 

there were no consistent differences in how the three program types organized the delivery of 

educational services. As Table II-3 shows, the large majority of programs (87%) used one of three ways 

of alternating the delivery of education and training services: within the day (half day academic, half day 

occupational), on alternating days, and on alternating weeks. 

 Most (82%) of the HSE programs organized academic education and occupational training to 

take place on alternate days (41%) or alternate weeks (41%). 

 Most (60%) high school diploma programs had academic and occupational training/service take 

place on alternate weeks, though a substantial minority (30%) alternated within the same day. 

 Combined HSE/Diploma programs used all three models: 36% alternated classes within the day, 

27% on alternating days, and 18% on alternating weeks. 

Annual Program Cycles. The programs in the sample also varied widely in how they organized their 

time across the year (by semesters, trimesters, etc.), with differences by program type. There is no clear 

“standard” model, except to note that nearly half of the programs across all three major program types 

(HSE-only, Diploma-only, and Combined HSE/Diploma) counted themselves in the “other” category in 

describing their yearly program cycle. Overall, 56% of HSE programs, 40% of diploma-granting 

programs, and 40% of the Combined HSE/Diploma programs indicated that the timing of their programs 

does not fit any of the outlined options (i.e., they are “other”). Their open-ended responses indicate 

that they worked on quarters, open-entry, rotating 7-8-month cycles, etc. The other options, including 

two semesters per year (with and without a summer program), and three trimesters (with or without 

summer program) were relatively evenly distributed across the different types of programs. 

 

11 The smaller size of the HSE-only programs may involve some possible trade-offs, which will become evident as 

we examine program outcomes in later chapters. Their small size allows for the strong staff/participant 

relationships that are at the heart of the YouthBuild program. However, the smaller programs may have more 

limited access to resources and be more vulnerable to year-by-year variations in funding, making it harder to 

achieve the same level of performance as larger, better-funded programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 21

Table II-3: Organization/Scheduling of Educational Programming

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

Academic Education and Occupational 

Training on: N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Same Day 1 5.9% 3 30.0% 4 36.4% 8 21.1% 

Alternating Days 7 41.2% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 10 26.3% 

Alternating Weeks 7 41.2% 6 60.0% 2 18.2% 15 39.5% 

Other alternating periods (month, 

trimester, semester, etc.) 

1 5.9% 1 10.0% 1 9.1% 3 7.9% 

Other 1 5.9% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 2 5.3% 

Total 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 38 100.0% 

Two Semesters, Plus Summer Program 2 12.5% 1 10.0% 2 20.0% 5 13.9% 

Two Semesters, no Summer Program 2 12.5% 1 10.0% 3 30.0% 6 16.7% 

Three Trimesters, plus Summer Program 2 12.5% 3 30.0% 1 10.0% 6 16.7% 

Three Trimesters, no Summer program 1 6.3% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 2 5.6% 

Other 9 56.3% 4 40.0% 4 40.0% 17 47.2% 

Total 16 100.0% 10 100.0% 10 100.0% 36 100.0% 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Educational Staffing. There were also relatively few differences in how the three program types staffed 

their educational programs. Overall, slightly more than half of the programs in the sample used 

YouthBuild staff as teachers; another 31% used outside instructors, generally from community colleges 

or the local school district. A relatively small number (16%) drew on other sources, including online 

teaching programs. 

As Table II-4 shows, there were some variations among the different types of educational programs, 

through no clear pattern of difference. (In this table and several that follow, the data for the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs are broken out to show any differences between the delivery of HSE vs. diploma 

services in those programs.) 

 In 71% of the 17 HSE-only programs, YouthBuild staff provide HSE instruction; in 35%, outside 

teachers do so (some programs use both types, so the percentages add up to more than 100%). 

 In 55% of the ten diploma-only programs, YouthBuild staff provide instruction; in the remaining 

45%, outside teachers or a combination of YouthBuild staff and outside teachers provide 

instruction. 

 Among the HSE programs within Combined HSE/Diploma programs, YouthBuild staff provide 

55% of the HSE instruction, with a mix of teachers from another organization or under individual 

contracts providing the balance. Among the diploma programs in Combined HSE/Diploma sites, 

64% of the teaching is done by YouthBuild staff and 36% by outside teachers. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 22

Table II-4: Staffing by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only Combined HSE 

Combined 

Diploma 

Educational Staffing N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

YouthBuild Staff 12 70.6% 6 54.5% 6 54.5% 7 63.6% 

Teachers from Outside 

YouthBuild (another 

organization or individual 

contracts) 

6 35.3% 3 27.3% 6 54.5% 3 27.3% 

Other (online, etc.) 2 11.8% 2 18.2% 4 36.4% 1 9.1% 

Total 17 11 11 11

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Instruction. Across all three program types, the majority of instruction took place in a classroom setting 

and computer-aided instruction was used less than half the time (Table II-5). But the data suggests 

some important differences among the different types of programs. 

 Within HSE-only programs and HSE within Combined HSE/Diploma programs, a substantially 

higher percentage of instruction took place in a classroom setting: 88% of the HSE-only 

programs and 82% of the HSE programs in a Combined HSE/Diploma setting report that 76% or 

more of instruction was classroom based. Among diploma programs (both Diploma-only and 

diploma in a Combined HSE/Diploma setting), only 50% report that the bulk of instruction takes 

place in the classroom. The survey did not ask for more detail at this point, but it seems likely 

that the “out of class” instruction may be taking place at the worksite or through project-based 

learning in a community setting.12

 On the other hand, the HSE-only and Diploma-only sites appear substantially less likely to use 

computer-aided instruction than either the HSE or diploma programs in the Combined 

HSE/Diploma sites. Among the HSE programs in the Combined HSE/Diploma sites, 36% report 

that more than half of their instruction is computer-based vs. 6% in the HSE-only sites and 30% 

in the Diploma-only sites. Among diploma programs in the Combined HSE/Diploma sites, 64% 

report that more than half of their instruction is computer-based, a far higher percentage than 

any of the other programs. In this instance, the use of computer-aided instruction may also be 

part of the explanation for the lower reported levels of classroom instruction in those settings. 

Class size is small across the sites, with an average of 11 per class for HSE instruction and 12 per class for 

diploma instruction (Table II-5). Among the three educational program types, the Diploma-only 

programs tend to have the largest classes (18 students), possibly reflecting the larger overall programs. 

The HSE-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs show somewhat smaller class sizes, ranging from an 

average class size of 7 (diploma programs in the Combined HSE/Diploma sites) to 13 (HSE-only). 

 

12 In the YouthBuild Charter School network programs, for example, community-based projects represent an 

important element in every semester’s instruction.
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 23

Table II-5: Instruction by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only Combined HSE 

Combined 

Diploma 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Computer Aided Instruction 

0%-25% 9 52.9% 4 40.0% 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 

26%-50% 7 41.2% 3 30.0% 4 36.4% 3 27.3% 

51%-75% 1 5.9% 2 20.0% 4 36.4% 1 9.1% 

76%-100% 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 6 54.5% 

Total 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 11 100.0% 

Instruction in Classroom 

Setting 

0%-25% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 

26%-50% 2 11.8% 3 30.0% 1 9.1% 1 9.1% 

51%-75% 0 0.0% 2 20.0% 1 9.1% 3 27.3% 

76%-100% 15 88.2% 5 50.0% 9 81.8% 6 54.5% 

Total 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 11 100.0% 

Average Class Size 17 12.9 10 18.1 10 8.3 11 7 

Median Class Size 17 10 10 17 10 8 11 5 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

It is important to recognize that some of these figures represent averages across multiple programs, and 

given the variation among sites, the averages might mask important exceptions to the rule. As one 

example, within the Combined HSE/Diploma sites, 45% teach their HSE and diploma students together; 

36% teach the two groups separately; and 18% teach them sometimes separately, sometimes together. 

In that regard, splitting the data out separately for the two tracks in those sites obscures the fact that in 

some sites, the program experience for the two tracks is basically identical. 

Enrollment Requirements and Duration. YouthBuild programs also differed in the degree to which 

they had required minimum reading/math levels at admission (Table II-6): 

 

 90% of the 10 Diploma-only programs had no minimum reading and math levels for admission; 

only 1 of the programs set a minimum for entry.13 

 82% of the HSE programs in Combined HSE/Diploma sites had no required minimum; 64% of the 

diploma programs at those sites had no minimum requirement. 

 41% of the 17 HSE-only programs had no minimum; the remainder required a minimum level. 

In those cases where a minimum was required, the average required reading and math levels for all 

three types of programs generally ranged from 5th- 7th grade for the HSE programs, and as low as 2nd

grade in the diploma-based programs. 

Given the differences in entry requirements, it is not surprising to see a substantial variation in the 

average hours of classroom time among the three program types or in the average time to completion 

 

13 While most of the diploma programs did not set a minimum reading and math level, some did screen potential 

students in terms of course credits and the likelihood of completing required credits in a reasonable time. Several 

of the sites interviewed for the study reported that when diploma applicants had too many credits to make up, 

they would refer them to the HSE program (in-house or externally) as a more realistic alternative. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 24

(duration) for the different types of programs. In terms of hours of classroom/educational instruction, 

HSE-only programs report an average of 59 hours per month of instruction (about 3 hours per day, 5 

days a week); both the HSE and diploma programs in the Combined HSE/Diploma sites report similar 

numbers. Diploma-only programs report a substantially higher figure, averaging a reported 75 hours per 

month (a little less than 4 hours per day). 

The average time to earn a credential also varies between programs. On average, YouthBuild members 

who earn their HSE in an HSE-only program do so in about 8 months; the HSE programs in Combined 

HSE/Diploma settings report a slightly shorter duration/time to completion (7 months) for their 

participants. The diploma-based programs tend to take longer: YouthBuild AmeriCorps members in 

Diploma-only programs took an average of 11 months to earn their credential; diploma students in the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs averaged 8 months. In all cases, however, there were substantial 

variations, since most of the programs were in some degree individualized and self-paced. The HSE 

programs and the diploma programs in Combined HSE/Diploma settings reported a minimum time to 

completion of 3 months and a maximum of 14 months; the Diploma-only programs were generally 

longer, with an average minimum time to completion of 6 months and a maximum of 17. 

Table II-6: Enrollment Requirements and Duration by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only Combined HSE 

Combined 

Diploma 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Required Reading/Math Levels 

No Minimum 7 41.2% 9 90.0% 9 81.8% 7 63.6% 

Required Minimum 10 58.8% 1 10.0% 2 18.2% 4 36.4% 

Average required reading level 6.7 2 6 2.25 

Average required math level 5.59 2 5.5 7.25 

Hours of Classroom Instruction 

(Average) 

16 59.4 10 75.2 10 51.2 11 55.3 

Reported Duration (Months) 

Maximum 16 14 10 17.3 9 13.4 10 12.5 

Minimum 16 3.1 10 5.6 9 3.44 10 3 

Average 16 7.9 10 10.7 9 7 10 8.4 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Primary Service/Occupational Training 

At the core of the YouthBuild model is the combination of education with occupational training and 

service. All YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs offer a primary service/occupational track in which 

students learn occupational skills while providing service to the community (most programs also provide 

opportunities for secondary service, discussed below). Accepted primary service tracks include 

construction, health care, conservation/recycling, and digital divide/tech. 

Table II-7 shows the distribution of primary service tracks among the three major educational program 

types. Given its role at the heart of the YouthBuild model, it is not surprising that construction was the 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 25

most common service track: all of the programs in the sample offer construction as a primary 

occupational training/service track. The other tracks were significantly less common: nine programs 

(24%) offered a health care track; five (13%) offered a digital divide/tech track; and two (5%) offered a 

recycling/conservation service track. Six programs (16%) reported offering other primary 

service/occupational tracks, including customer service, introduction to renewables, agriculture training, 

first aid/CPR training, and digital media training. 

There were some differences among the three program types. The Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

were most likely to offer non-construction primary service options; the HSE-only programs were least 

likely to include service other than construction. 

Reported instructional time and service hours within each of the primary service tracks also varied 

widely, with the Diploma-only programs generally reporting the highest average hours of instruction, 

and the HSE-only programs the least. It is important to treat these estimates with caution: in some 

cases they represent reports from a single program; in others, they likely represent rough estimates by 

program staff. However, they do suggest that the Diploma-only programs, which tend to be longer, also 

may tend to provide more instruction and primary service time. 

Table II-7: Primary Service/Occupational Training Tracks by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

Service Track N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Construction 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 38 100.0% 

Health Care 1 5.9% 2 20.0% 6 54.5% 9 23.7% 

Digital Divide 1 5.9% 1 10.0% 3 27.3% 5 13.2% 

Conservation/Recycling 1 5.9% 0 0.0% 1 9.1% 2 5.3% 

Other 3 17.6% 2 20.0% 1 9.1% 6 15.8% 

Average Hours 

Instruction/Service 

Construction 17 236 10 445 11 330 38 323

Health Care 1 155 2 550 5 294 8 341 

Digital Divide 1 200 1 450 3 243 5 276

Conservation/Recycling 250 1 20 1 20

Other 2 43 2 250 1 40 5 125

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Secondary/community service activities. YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs also coordinate secondary 

service activities (sometimes, but not necessarily, associated with the primary service track) to allow 

members to earn more service hours and to accomplish other goals, such as team building and 

enhancing members’ commitment to service. Survey respondents reported a number of secondary 

service activities in which their members participate, with similar proportions among the three major 

program types. Following are the most commonly reported activities, with a breakdown for the three 

types (Table II-8): 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 26

 All 38 programs organized park clean-ups and/or help with community gardens. 

 84% of programs engaged in food/nutrition-related service activities (82% of HSE-only 

programs, 90% of Diploma-only, and 82% of Combined HSE/Diploma programs). 

 68% provided planning and support for neighborhood/community events such as fairs, festivals, 

and children’s activities.

 37% engaged in health/wellness service activities. 

 26% provided some type of educational service activities. 

Roughly 40% of programs reported “other” activities: the most common were construction-related 

projects, including assisting Habitat for Humanity and building garden boxes and wheelchair ramps. 

Table II-8: Secondary Service Activities by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

Secondary Service Activities 

N Percent N Percent N 

Percen

t N Percent 

Park clean-up or help with 

community gardens 

17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 38 100.0% 

Planning/support for 

community fairs, festivals, 

children’s activities, or other 

events 

12 70.6% 5 50.0% 9 81.8% 26 68.4% 

Food/nutrition 14 82.4% 9 90.0% 9 81.8% 32 84.2% 

Health/wellness 5 29.4% 4 40.0% 5 45.5% 14 36.8% 

Education 6 35.3% 1 10.0% 3 27.3% 10 26.3% 

Other 8 47.1% 3 30.0% 4 36.4% 15 39.5% 

Frequency of Secondary Service 

At least once per week 5 29.4% 1 10.0% 4 36.4% 10 26.3% 

At least once per month 11 64.7% 9 90.0% 4 36.4% 25 65.8% 

At least once per quarter or 

trimester 

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 36.4% 2 5.3% 

Only a couple of times per year 

(less than once per 

quarter/trimester)

1 5.9% 0 0.0% 4 36.4% 1 2.6% 

Total 17 100.0% 10 100.0% 4 36.4% 38 100.0% 

Secondary Service Hours/Month 

(Average) 

15 9.2 9 13.4 11 10.0 35 10.5 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Virtually all programs reported that YouthBuild AmeriCorps members engaged in secondary service 

activities at least once per month and averaged a little over 10 hours a month of secondary service. 

While the Diploma-only programs averaged a slightly higher number of hours than the other two 

program types, the differences were not substantial. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 27

Leadership training and activities. Leadership development is another important component of 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. Respondents reported a number of leadership development 

activities. Following are the most commonly reported activities, with a breakdown for the three 

program types (Table II-9): 

 87% reported youth participation in a Youth Policy Committee or similar activities. 

 76% had youth in leadership roles in program implementation. 

 74% placed an explicit emphasis on members being positive role models. 

 63% offered peer mentoring/advising opportunities. 

 58% helped members create individual leadership development plans. 

While the proportions reporting each type of leadership activity were similar across program types for 

most items, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs were more likely to report several of the activities 

than the other two program models, notably youth leadership roles in program implementation (91% vs. 

77% and 60% for HSE-only and Diploma-only, respectively); peer mentoring/advising (82% vs. 53% and 

60% for HSE-only and Diploma-only); and individual leadership development plans (73% vs. 53% and 

50% for HSE-only and Diploma-only). 

Table II-9: Leadership Training Activities by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Youth participation in policy 

committee or similar 

opportunities 

15 88.2% 9 90.0% 9 81.8% 33 86.8% 

Youth leadership roles in 

program implementation 

13 76.5% 6 60.0% 10 90.9% 29 76.3% 

Explicit emphasis on being a 

positive role model 

11 64.7% 8 80.0% 9 81.8% 28 73.7% 

Peer mentoring/advising 

opportunities 

9 52.9% 6 60.0% 9 81.8% 24 63.2% 

Individual leadership 

development plans 

9 52.9% 5 50.0% 8 72.7% 22 57.9% 

Curricular concentration on 

and evaluation of leadership 

competencies 

5 29.4% 3 30.0% 4 36.4% 12 31.6% 

Other 2 11.8% 2 20.0% 0 0.0% 4 10.5% 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Life skills training and activities. Still another component of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs is helping 

members to develop and enhance their life skills. Respondents reported a number of life skills training 

activities, again with similar proportions of the three credential-related program types reporting similar 

types of activities (Table II-10). Following are the most commonly reported activities, with a breakdown 

for the three program types: 

 All programs provided career planning and preparation activities. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 28

 97% provided financial literacy training. 

 92% provided conflict management training. 

 90% provided problem-solving training. 

 79% provided public speaking training. 

 76% provided time management training. 

As noted above, there were few differences among the three major program types. 

Table II-10: Life Skills Training/Activities by Program Type 

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Career planning and 

preparation activities 

17 100.0% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 38 100.0% 

Financial literacy 16 94.1% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 37 97.4% 

Conflict management 16 94.1% 9 90.0% 10 90.9% 35 92.1% 

Problem solving 15 88.2% 8 80.0% 11 100.0% 34 89.5% 

Public speaking 14 82.4% 8 80.0% 8 72.7% 30 78.9% 

Time management 13 76.5% 6 60.0% 10 90.9% 29 76.3% 

Other 1 5.9% 1 10.0% 3 27.3% 5 13.2% 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Postsecondary education preparation and support. Finally, an increasing number of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs provide postsecondary education preparation and support. Again, survey 

respondents reported a number of postsecondary preparation and support activities, with similar 

proportions of the three credential-related program types reporting similar types of activities (Table II11). Following are the most commonly reported activities: 

 97% offered college visits and tours. 

 97% assisted members with admission and financial aid applications. 

 84% assisted members with study skills. 

 66% assisted members with note-taking skills. 

 63% offered placement test preparation. 

 61% provided college prep advising by staff. 

 58% helped members with analytical writing skills. 

 53% provided postsecondary education prep courses. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 29

Table II-11: Postsecondary Preparation Activities by Program Type

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

College visits or tours 17 100.0% 9 90.0% 11 100.0% 37 97.4% 

Assistance with admission and 

financial aid applications 

16 94.1% 10 100.0% 11 100.0% 37 97.4% 

Study skills 15 88.2% 7 70.0% 10 90.9% 32 84.2% 

Note-taking 11 64.7% 6 60.0% 8 72.7% 25 65.8% 

Placement test prep 13 76.5% 2 20.0% 9 81.8% 24 63.2% 

Advising by PSE staff 8 47.1% 8 80.0% 7 63.6% 23 60.5% 

Analytical writing 9 52.9% 6 60.0% 7 63.6% 22 57.9% 

PSE prep courses 7 41.2% 7 70.0% 6 54.5% 20 52.6% 

After school tutoring 8 47.1% 5 50.0% 6 54.5% 19 50.0% 

Bridge Program (to support 

transition to postsecondary) 

9 52.9% 5 50.0% 4 36.4% 18 47.4% 

Dual enrollment 7 41.2% 4 40.0% 5 45.5% 16 42.1% 

Other 0 0.0% 1 10.0% 1 9.1% 2 5.3% 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

A few differences can be seen in the proportions of the three program types offering these services: 

 HSE-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs were substantially more likely than Diplomaonly programs to provide placement test preparation (82% for Combined, 77% for HSE vs. 20% 

for Diploma-only programs). 

 Diploma-only programs were substantially more likely to provide advising by PSE staff than 

either Combined or HSE-only programs (80% vs. 64% for Combined and 47% for HSE-only 

programs. 

 Diploma-only programs were also substantially more like to provide PSE preparation courses as 

part of their curriculum than either HSE or Combined HSE/Diploma programs (70% vs. 55% for 

Combined and 41% for HSE-only programs). 

Leadership, Life Skills and PSE Instructional Hours. Lastly, as Table II-12 shows, there were also few 

differences among the three program types in the average hours devoted to leadership, life skills, and 

postsecondary preparation instruction and activities. Compared to time spent for academic education 

and occupational training, programs provided relatively few hours to work in these three areas. That 

said, these activities clearly were a consistent element in the program design across all of the YouthBuild 

programs and an essential aspect of the YouthBuild AmeriCorps program design. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 30

Table II-12: Average Hours for Leadership, Life Skills and PSE Activities, by Program Type

HSE-Only Diploma-Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Average N Average N Average N Average 

In-Class Hours-Average 12 16.25 10 13.45 11 10.36 33 13.44 

Outside Class Hours - Average 15 10.67 10 10.9 11 4.91 36 8.97 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Summary 

In examining the data across the sample of 38 YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites in the program survey, two 

broad conclusions stand out. First, the YouthBuild programs reveal a remarkable diversity in their 

organizational settings, the ways they structure their educational programs, the types of occupational 

training and service they provide, and the mix of leadership, life skills, and postsecondary preparation 

services offered. The diversity is remarkable in both the breadth of services offered by what are 

generally small programs with limited staff and resources and in the multiplicity of ways in which these 

programs put the core elements of the YouthBuild model into operation. 

At the same time, there are some, though only a few, consistent differences among the three major 

program types that need to be kept in mind as this study examines differences in service experiences 

and program outcomes. Some of the differences include: 

 YouthBuild’s HSE-only programs tended to be smaller and most commonly located within a 

larger nonprofit organization, while the Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to be 

somewhat larger in terms of enrollments and most likely to be based in a separate, standalone 

YouthBuild program. Diploma-only programs tended to be the largest in terms of average 

YouthBuild and AmeriCorps enrollments and were based in the broadest range of organizational 

settings, including charter schools, nonprofits, and standalone programs.14

 All three program types relied heavily on internal YouthBuild staff for academic instruction, with 

HSE-only programs most likely to use internal staff for teaching. Instruction in all three program 

types was heavily classroom based, with less than half of the sites taking place through 

computer-aided instruction. Within that context, however, diploma programs were 

substantially more likely to move instruction outside of the classroom (possibly through 

community-based, project-based learning); diploma programs within the Combined 

HSE/Diploma sites were also substantially more likely to use computer-aided instruction than 

the other sites in the study. 

 The Diploma-only programs stood out in terms of average class size, entry requirements, and 

average time to completion, with generally larger classes (18 students on average compared to 

13 for the HSE-only programs and 7-8 in the Combined HSE/Diploma sites), low or no entry math 

and reading requirements, and a relatively long duration, with an average of 11 months 

compared to 7-8 for the other types of programs. 

 All of the programs in the sample included construction as a primary service track, with 

substantially fewer programs offering health care, digital, or conservation/recycling options. 

 

14 On the other hand, there were few clear differences in the ways in which sites organized their educational 

services, with all three program types reporting a mix of weekly schedules (alternating days, weeks, etc.) and 

annual program cycles (semesters, trimesters, open-enrollment sessions, etc.). The variety of approaches suggests 

that each program, regardless of “type,” has looked for what best fits its local circumstances and population.
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 31

The Combined HSE/Diploma sites were substantially more likely to offer multiple primary 

service tracks that the HSE or Diploma-only programs. Diploma-only programs, on the other 

hand, reported substantially more hours of training/service in construction (and the other types 

of service as well) than the other types of programs. 

 While there were few major differences among programs in the types of secondary service 

provided, Diploma-only programs again tended to report greater numbers of hours. 

 There were also few consistent differences in the extent of leadership, life skills, and PSE 

preparation activities among programs, though there were scattered variations. However, 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs provided a somewhat broader range of leadership 

development activities; Diploma-only programs were somewhat more likely to provide a range 

of PSE advising and support. 

Taken together, the data point to a broad array of programs with relatively subtle distinctions: HSE-only 

programs were generally small, shorter, more focused on construction-based training and service; 

Diploma-only programs tended to be larger, longer, and perhaps more PSE-focused; Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs, not surprisingly, had elements of both the HSE and diploma world, standing in 

the middle in terms of size, but providing a somewhat broader array of service and supports than the 

other two program types. While it is difficult to draw a line from these characteristics to differences in 

service experiences and outcomes, differences in program structure and operations may have some 

impact on the nature of the experience across the three types of programs. 

Program Characteristics of Intensive Study Sites 

As the preceding data shows, the 38 YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs in the initial program survey vary 

substantially in terms of size, organization, and structure, as well as education, training, and service 

experiences. The 20 sites selected for the intensive study sample reflect that diversity. As in the larger 

sample, the sites in the study sample vary widely in size from fewer than 20 participants to over 100. 

They also vary in organizational structure (standalone program vs. part of a larger organization), in the 

ways in which they organize their education, training and service activities (daily, weekly, etc.), in their 

entry requirements, and in the duration of the program (Table II-13). 

However, there are some important differences among the three program types that are the focus of 

the study. As in the larger sample, Diploma-only programs in the study sample, for example, tend to be 

larger and longer in duration than both the HSE-only and Combined/HSE programs. The enrollment data 

from the DYB reporting system show a similar pattern – an average of 64 enrollees in the Diploma-only 

programs in the study sample vs. 44 in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs and 39 in the HSE-only 

programs. The Diploma-only programs also report a longer average duration – just under 12 months 

compared to an average of 8 months for the HSE-only programs and 8-10 months for the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs. Diploma-only programs were also less likely than either HSE-only or Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs to report a minimum reading or math requirement for entry. As noted below, 

one result is that the average entry level reading and math scores for Diploma-only participants were 

significantly lower than those in the other two types of programs. Finally, while the Diploma-only 

programs were larger, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs were much more likely to operate as 

standalone programs; the HSE and Diploma-only programs tended to be part of larger organizations. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 32

Table II-13: Program Characteristics by Site, Intensive Study Sites 

Projected 

N of 

YouthBuil

d AmeriCorps 

Slots 

Actual N 

YB AmeriCorps 

Enrollees 

in Sample 

Standlone 

Program 

(S) or 

Part of 

Larger 

Org. (L)* 

Alternating Days 

(D), 

Weeks 

(W) or 

Other (O) 

Required 

Minimum 

Reading/

Math 

HSE 

Program 

Duration 

(Months) 

Diploma 

Program 

Duration 

(Months) 

HSE-Only 

CTI YouthBuild of Greater Lowell 26 41 L W N 6.0 

D.R.E.A.M.S Youthbuild and 

Young Adult Training Program 31 36 L W Y 7.0 

Project YES YouthBuild 33 30 L D Y 15.0 

SER YouthBuild Construction 

Institute 20 61 L D N 6.5 

Youth Action YouthBuild 38 37 L W Y 7.0 

YouthBuild New Bedford 32 41 L W N 10.0 

YouthBuild of Jefferson and 

Marion Counties 20 28 L D Y 5.0 

YouthBuild Schenectady @ SEAT 34 34 L D Y 9.0 

Average HSE-only 29.3 38.5 8.2 

Diploma-Only 

 

Crispus Attucks YouthBuild 80 100 L W N 9.0 

Guadalupe Alternative Programs 

- St. Paul 110 184 L D Y 12.0 

LA Conservation Corps 13 15 L O N 12.0 

Mile High Youth Corps 

YouthBuild 22 27 L D N 18.0 

ReSOURCE YouthBuild 30 21 L W N 12.0 

South Los Angeles YouthBuild 50 34 L D N 8.0 

Average Diploma-Only 50.8 63.5 11.8 

Combined HSE/Diploma 

 

Capital City YouthBuild 21 31 S W Y 6.0 6.0

Pathways YouthBuild 20 4 S O N 10.0 

Portland YouthBuilders 75 113 S O Y 7.0 7.0 

PPEP YouthBuild AmeriCorps 81 47 S O Y 7.0 8.0 

YouthBuild Dayton CountyCorp 32 33 S D N 9.0 15.0 

YouthBuild Louisville 23 33 S D Y 7.0 5.0 

Average Combined HSE/Diploma 42.0 43.5 7.2 8.5 

All Sites 791 950 7.8 10.2 

* Includes programs that were part of a charter or alternative school. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 33

While it is not immediately clear how these differences impact the nature and quality of the service 

experience among the three program types, it is important to recognize that these differences exist and 

represent part of the context for the study. As we examine the data on the service experience and 

outcomes from the three types of programs, it will be helpful to keep those characteristics in mind. 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Participants in Intensive Study Sites 

As much as the study sites varied in their size, organization and programming, there were also 

substantial variations in the characteristics of program participants among the three program types. in 

most cases, the Diploma-only programs stood out as different from both the HSE-only and the 

Combined HSE/Diploma sites. 

Overall, the programs reflected YouthBuild’s focus on serving low-income, out-of-school youth: over 

90% of participants entered without a high school credential and 89% qualified as economically 

disadvantaged. Roughly 83% of YouthBuild AmeriCorps members were young people of color; 16% 

were parents and a similar percentage were recently or currently homeless at entry. Nearly 80% 

entered YouthBuild scoring below 8th grade on their math assessments (63% scored below 8th grade in 

reading), and 30% qualified as English Language Learners (Table II-14). 

Within that context, as Table II-14 shows, there were significant differences between participants in the 

three program types on a number of measures: 

 YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants in Diploma-only programs were likely to be older than 

enrollees in HSE or Combined HSE/Diploma programs and more likely to enter YouthBuild 

without some form of high school credential. 

 Diploma-only participants were more likely to be female (45.4%) than participants in the other 

program types (HSE-32%, Combined-37%). 

 Diploma-only programs had a much higher proportion of Asian participants (42%), while HSE 

and Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to serve higher percentages of Black and Hispanic 

students. 

 Diploma-only participants were less likely to be currently or recently homeless or ex-offender 

than the other types of programs: HSE-only programs had the highest percentage of homeless 

participants (12%) and Combined HSE/Diploma programs had a substantially higher percentage 

of youth who were ex-offenders at entry (29%). 

 Diploma-only programs accepted a substantially higher percentage of participants with entrylevel reading and math scores that were below the 8th grade level: 91% of Diploma-only 

participants scored below 8th grade in Math compared to 65% in HSE-only programs and 81% in 

Combined HSE/Diploma; 78% scored below 8th grade in reading compared to 52% and 54% in 

the HSE-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs. 

 On the other hand, Diploma-only programs were substantially more likely to include students 

who were not officially economically disadvantaged – nearly 20% of diploma students fell into 

that category compared to 3% among HSE students and 6% in the Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 34

 Finally, Diploma-only students were substantially more likely to include English Language 

Learners, with 58% of diploma participants falling into that category. In large part, that figure 

reflects the inclusion of the GAP program in St. Paul, MN, one of the larger diploma programs in 

the sample whose participants are primarily from the Southeast Asian refugee community. 

The one measure in which programs showed no significant difference was the proportion of participants 

who were parents at entry, with all three programs showing 15%-17% of their participants as parents or 

guardians at program entry. 

While many of these differences are statistically significant (i.e., not likely to have occurred purely by 

chance), they need to be interpreted with some caution. In a number of cases, they likely reflect some 

of the characteristics of the individual programs in a particular category, rather than a characteristic of 

the program type as a whole. As noted above, for example, the GAP program is relatively large and 

services a high percentage of Southeast Asian participants. The high percentage of Asian and English 

Language Learners served by diploma programs likely reflects the inclusion of GAP in that category. At 

the same time, the differences in characteristics like gender, entry level math and reading scores, and 

support for homeless or ex-offenders may reflect real differences in the nature of the program 

experience among the different types of programs. In order to minimize the influence of these 

population differences and keep the focus of the analysis on the programmatic differences among the 

three program types, we control for a number of demographic characteristics in the analyses of service 

experiences and program outcomes. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 35

Table II-14: Participant Characteristics by Program Type 

Program type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Has Credential at Entry*** None 286 92.9% 369 96.9% 233 89.3% 888 93.5% 

 Diploma/HSE 22 7.1% 12 3.1% 28 10.7% 62 6.5% 

Gender*** Male 208 67.8% 208 54.6% 165 63.5% 581 61.3% 

Female 99 32.2% 173 45.4% 95 36.5% 367 38.7% 

Race/Ethnicity*** White 61 19.8% 30 7.9% 67 25.7% 158 16.6% 

 Asian 11 3.6% 161 42.3% 5 1.9% 177 18.6% 

 Black 160 51.9% 72 18.9% 88 33.7% 320 33.7% 

 Hispanic 73 23.7% 113 29.7% 91 34.9% 277 29.2% 

 Other 3 1.0% 5 1.3% 10 3.8% 18 1.9% 

Parent or Guardian Neither 255 82.8% 316 82.9% 223 85.4% 794 83.6% 

Parent or Primary 

Caregiver 

53 17.2% 65 17.1% 38 14.6% 156 16.4% 

Housing Status** Neither 249 88.0% 357 94.9% 233 89.6% 839 91.3% 

 Current/Recent 

Homeless 

34 12.0% 19 5.1% 27 10.4% 80 8.7% 

Offender Status*** None 223 80.5% 356 94.2% 186 71.3% 765 83.5% 

Adult/Youth Offender 54 19.5% 22 5.8% 75 28.7% 151 16.5% 

Math Level at Entry*** Below 8th Grade 194 64.7% 170 91.4% 209 81.0% 573 77.0% 

 8th Grade and Above 106 35.3% 16 8.6% 49 19.0% 171 23.0% 

Reading Level at Entry*** Below 8th Grade 158 52.3% 287 78.0% 138 53.5% 583 62.8% 

8th Grade and Above 144 47.7% 81 22.0% 120 46.5% 345 37.2% 

Economically Disadvantaged*** Non-Disadvantaged 10 3.2% 76 19.9% 16 6.1% 102 10.7% 

 Disadvantaged 298 96.8% 305 80.1% 245 93.9% 848 89.3% 

English Language Learner*** Non-ELL 295 95.8% 162 42.5% 211 80.8% 668 70.3% 

ELL 13 4.2% 219 57.5% 50 19.2% 282 29.7% 

Age** Average Age 308 19.41 381 19.78 261 19.25 950 19.51 

Source: DYB reporting data for AmeriCorps participants in study sites (unweighted), N=950. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical significance: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, 

***p≤.001.
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 36

Chapter III 

Differences in the Service Experience among Program Types 

One of the key questions for the study is whether there are substantial differences in the nature and 

quality of the service experience among the three types of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. What 

kinds of service activities take place within each type of program? Are there differences in the intensity 

of service (duration and total hours), the degree of hands-on service provided, and/or the extent of 

direct engagement with community members and local partner organizations? Do the programs differ 

in the degree of staff support they provide YouthBuild AmeriCorps members in their education and 

training activities? And are there differences in what YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants perceive as 

the benefits of their service experience and the degree to which they were able to see themselves 

growing and contributing through their service experience? 

The DYB data and participants surveys collected for the study suggest that while all three program types 

provide a positive, high quality service experience, there are some significant differences among the 

three program types in the nature and extent of service and in the service experience itself. While the 

Diploma-only programs tended to provide the most hours of service among the three program types, 

participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs generally reported higher quality, more engaging 

service experiences than either of the other two program types. Though the results may reflect the 

strengths of the specific programs in the sample (a caution that will be repeated throughout the report), 

they suggest that the more comprehensive Combined HSE/Diploma programs may be able to deliver a 

somewhat stronger service experience than the HSE or Diploma-only programs.15

Types of Service Experiences 

One of the more challenging elements of the service experience to track and assess is the type of service 

experienced by AmeriCorps members. While most programs focused on a primary service –

construction in most cases, health care, digital technology, recycling and conservation in others –

participants frequently engage in multiple forms of service, and most YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs 

include a substantial amount of secondary service as part of their program model. That mix of service 

experiences often makes it difficult to establish an accurate record of participants’ service experience.16

The DYB data provides a rough indication of the differences in service types among the three program 

types. Table III-1 shows the primary service reported for AmeriCorps participants in the intensive study 

sites. Based on that data, the HSE-only programs were significantly more focused on construction 

service than the other program types, though construction was by far the most common form of service 

in all three types of programs. The Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs reported a 

more diverse mix of service experience among their participants, with at least a modest percentage 

 

15 Unless otherwise indicated, all analyses in this and following chapters are based on DYB and survey data that is 

weighted so that all sites in the sample are equally represented. All analyses also include controls for participant 

characteristics at baseline, including: credential at entry, gender, race (Asian, Black/Hispanic), housing status, 

offender status, entry reading level, economically disadvantaged, and age at entry. 

16 The DYB reporting system, for example, now generally only lists the primary service. Previous versions of the 

reporting system reported service in more detail, including multiple types of service activities. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 37

reporting involvement in healthcare and digital service than in the HSE-only sites. This parallels the 

program level data in Chapter II, in which Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs were 

more likely to report providing non-construction service opportunities. 

Table III-1: Primary Service Activities by Program Type, DYB Data

Service Types

Program Type*** 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Construction 353 92.9% 235 82.7% 227 79.1% 815 85.7% 

Healthcare 2 0.5% 30 10.6% 36 12.5% 68 7.2% 

Digital 1 0.3% 18 6.3% 24 8.4% 43 4.5% 

Community, Other 24 6.3% 1 0.4% 0 0.0% 25 2.6% 

Total 380 100.0% 284 100.0% 287 100.0% 951 100.0% 

Source: DYB reporting data for AmeriCorps participants in study sites (weighted), N=950. Asterisks (*) indicates 

statistical significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. 

The participant survey data presents a somewhat different picture. The surveys asked AmeriCorps 

participants to report the proportion of time they spent in each of the different types of service, with 

responses including: “Did not do this type of service,” “Less than half of my service time,” “About half of 

my service time,” “More than half of my service time,” and “All of my service time.” Table III-2 shows 

the percentage of respondents who reported spending either “More than half” or “All” of their service 

time in each type of service. (It must be noted that a number of survey respondents reported more 

than a full-time equivalent of service.) These responses indicate a more even distribution of service 

experiences among the three types of programs. The survey data still shows a significant difference 

among the three program types in the percentage of participants reporting construction as the main 

service experience, but in contrast to the DYB data, participants in the Diploma-only and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs were more likely to report spending most or all of their time on construction. At 

the same time, the levels of involvement in Healthcare, Digital, and Recycling were much more evenly 

distributed among program types. Combined HSE/Diploma participants were significantly less likely to 

report “Other” service activities, though the differences are not large.

The simplest conclusion may be that construction continues to be the predominant service experience 

among YouthBuild’s AmeriCorps members, but that a substantial proportion of members across all three 

program types have opportunities to experience other types of service as well. This is consistent with 

the telephone interviews and site visits conducted as part of the study. A key finding from those 

interviews and visits was that all programs placed a high degree of emphasis on engaging YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps participants in service, through both primary service and regularly organized secondary 

service activities. It seems likely that the mix of data available on the types of service reflects that mix of 

on-the-ground experiences where participants across the board often have an opportunity to engage in 

multiple kinds of service activities during their time in YouthBuild, though many of those experiences are 

in fact secondary service. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 38

Table III-2: Primary Service Activity by Program Type, Participant Survey Data 

Please indicate how much 

of your service time you 

spent doing each type of 

service (Percent “More 

than half” or “All”) 

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Construction*** 201 49.3% 146 61.0% 180 67.8% 527 58.8% 

Healthcare 188 16.5% 137 24.8% 176 19.3% 501 19.8% 

Digital 193 16.6% 145 20.0% 176 21.0% 514 19.1% 

Recycle/Conservation 190 24.2% 132 24.2% 175 23.4% 497 23.9% 

Community, Other* 198 30.8% 145 31.0% 174 22.4% 517 28.0% 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted percentages. Significant 

differences for individual items assess using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Asterisks (*) 

indicates statistical significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001.

Service Hours 

The differences among programs in the hours of service performed are more distinct, with participants 

in Diploma-Only programs providing significantly more hours of service than participants in either the 

Combined HSE/Diploma or the HSE-only programs (Table III-3). Among all enrollees (including those still 

active in the YouthBuild program), participants in Diploma-only programs averaged more than 25% 

more hours of service than participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs (474 hours vs. 375) and 

roughly 40% more hours than participants in HSE-only programs (474 vs. 336). Among program 

completers – those that had successfully exited their YouthBuild programs – the differences are 

comparable: Diploma-only participants performed more than 30% more hours than participants in the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs (568 vs. 430) and nearly 50% more hours than those in the HSE-only 

programs (568 vs. 383). 

Table III-3: Service Hours by Type of Program

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Average 

Hours 

N Average 

Hours 

N Average 

Hours 

N Average 

Hours 

All YB AmeriCorps 

Enrollees*** 

307 336.12 151 473.72 199 375.09 657 394.98 

Program 

Completers*** 

212 382.95 106 567.640 137 429.91 455 460.167 

Source: DYB reporting data for AmeriCorps participants in study sites (weighted). Averages are estimated means 

based on GLM Univariate analysis controlling for participant characteristics at baseline. Asterisks (*) indicates 

statistical significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program 

type is significantly different from at least one other program type at p≤ .05.

This difference likely reflects the longer duration of the Diploma-only programs in the sample. As noted 

earlier, the duration of the average Diploma-only program in the sample was nearly 12 months, 

compared to 8 months for the average HSE-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs. On average, 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 39

participants in Diploma-only programs also spent significantly more days enrolled in YouthBuild than 

participants in either HSE-only or Combined HSE/Diploma programs (362 days vs. 325 days in HSE-only 

programs and 275 in Combined HSE/Diploma programs). Given the longer duration of the programs 

and the longer time in YouthBuild, it is also not surprising that participants in Diploma-only programs 

were also more likely to enroll in AmeriCorps more than once. Roughly 11% of Diploma-only 

participants enrolled in AmeriCorps for a second year, compared to 5% of HSE-only participants and 

2.4% of those in Combined HSE/Diploma programs.17 

Service Experiences 

While the Diploma-only programs provided more hours of service, the Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs appeared to provide a significantly more engaging service experience, based on the 

participant survey data. At the end of their program experience, participant survey respondents were 

asked how frequently they experienced a number of key elements associated with a high-quality service 

experience. As Table III-4 shows, on a number of these items, participants in Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs were significantly more likely to report that these experiences took place “Very Often” or 

“Always.” 

Overall, there were statistically significant differences among the three program types on four of the six 

survey items: serving with other AmeriCorps members at the same location; serving in the community 

where you live; serving people who come from different backgrounds than you; and getting involved in 

planning the service. There was no overall difference among the three program types in the proportion 

of participants who reported direct contact with service beneficiaries or working as part of a team. On 

most of the items, even when there was not a significant difference overall among the three program 

types, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs showed significantly stronger results than at least one of 

the other program categories (generally the HSE-only programs). 

 Combined HSE/Diploma participants were significantly more likely to report serving with other 

AmeriCorps members at the same location (74% vs. 51% and 50% for Diploma and HSE 

programs respectively). 

 Combined HSE/Diploma programs were significantly more likely than Diploma-only programs to 

report serving in direct contact with service beneficiaries (65% vs. 49% and 54% for Diploma and 

HSE programs respectively). (Note that the overall difference among all three program types 

was not significant). 

 Combined HSE/Diploma participants were significantly more likely than participants in HSE-only 

programs to serve in the community where they lived (60% vs. 49%) and significantly more likely 

than HSE-only participants to report serving people who come from different backgrounds than 

themselves (73% vs. 56%). 

 Interestingly, participants in Combined HSE/Diploma programs were significantly less likely than 

participants in Diploma-only programs to report being involved in planning their service 

activities (40% vs. 51%). 

 

17 Figures are based on data from the DYB reporting system. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 40

Table III-4: Characteristics of Service Experiences by Type of Program 

How often do you do each of the 

following in the time you spent in 

AmeriCorps? (Percent “Very Often” 

or “Always”)

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Serve with other AmeriCorps 

members at the same location*** 

203 49.9% 146 50.6% 182 74.0% 532 58.3% 

Serve in direct contact with people 

who benefit from your service 

196 53.5% 140 49.0% 182 65.3% 518 56.5%

Serve in the community where you 

live* 

199 49.2% 141 55.4% 182 60.3% 522 54.8% 

Get involved in planning your 

service* 

194 45.9% 141 50.8% 183 39.8% 517 45.1% 

Serve people who come from 

different backgrounds than you** 

199 55.6% 144 58.4% 182 72.6% 524 62.3% 

Work as part of a team 195 77.4% 141 82.7% 181 84.0% 518 81.1% 

Service Experience Scale Score*** 169 3.577 87 3.679 150 3.947 406 3.734 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted percentages. Significant 

differences for individual items assess using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Service scale 

assessed using GLM Univariate analysis controlling for baseline characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical 

significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is 

significantly different from at least one other program type at p≤ .05.

When the responses to the question in Table III-4 are combined into a single overall scale (running from 

1 to 5), the Combined HSE/Diploma program results are, again, significantly higher than those for both 

the HSE and Diploma-only programs. 

It is important to recognize that, while statistically significant, the differences among the three program 

types on a number of items are not large. But they do suggest that, on these measures, the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs may be providing key elements of high quality service experiences more 

regularly than the other two program models. 

Training and Support 

While there are differences on measures associated with the quality of the service experience provided 

by the three different program types, the opposite is true for participant ratings of the quality of training 

and support provided by YouthBuild program staff. At Table III-5 shows, on all of the items, the large 

majority of survey respondents rated their YouthBuild experience highly: over 88% of program 

participants rated the teaching and support, education and career advising, and personal support from 

counselors as “Good” or “Excellent.” Similarly, 86% or more of participants rated the support from 

other YouthBuild staff and training and support from worksite supervisors highly. Over 90% indicated 

that they had “Good” or “Excellent” opportunities to learn and practice leadership.

On most of these items, the results were comparable across the three program models – only one item, 

personal support from counselors, showed a significant difference among the three programs, with the 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 41

Combined HSE/Diploma programs showing a significantly higher rating than the HSE-only programs. 

While the differences among the three programs as a whole were not significant, Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs were rated significantly higher than HSE-only programs on the rating of training 

and support for worksite supervisors. When all of the items were combined into a single scale (from 1 

through 4), these differences added up to an average rating that was significantly higher for the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs than either of the other two program types. In sum, while the ratings 

of staff support were consistently high across all three programs, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

tended to be rated higher than the other two program models. 

Table III-5: Quality of Training and Staff Support by Program Type 

How would you rate the quality of 

your experience and the support 

you received in your YouthBuild 

program? (Percent “Good” or 

“Excellent”)

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Both 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Teaching and support in the 

educational program 

145 91.5% 208 88.8% 181 84.7% 534 88.1% 

Education and career advising 143 88.2% 195 88.6% 183 90.3% 521 89.1% 

Personal support from 

counselors* 

148 85.2% 205 88.8% 182 92.7% 535 89.2% 

Support from other YouthBuild 

staff 

142 83.2% 195 87.6% 183 86.4% 520 86.0% 

Training and support from 

worksite supervisors 

142 86.9% 207 86.5% 182 90.5% 531 88.0% 

Opportunities to learn and 

practice leadership 

141 90.6% 196 93.4% 182 91.8% 519 92.1% 

Support Scale*** 173 3.328 87 3.195 150 3.537 410 3.353

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted percentages. Significant 

differences for individual items assess using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Service scale 

assessed using GLM Univariate analysis controlling for baseline characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical 

significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is 

significantly different from at least one other program type at p≤ .05.l

Impact of the Service Experience 

The participant responses to questions about the impact or benefits of their service experience showed 

a similar pattern. Participants were asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements about the 

impact of their service experience. As with the questions about YouthBuild training and support, a high 

percentage of AmeriCorps survey respondents across all three programs responded positively. As Table 

III-6 shows, over 85% of participants “Agreed” or “Strongly Agreed” on each of the thirteen items in this 

set of questions: 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 42

Table III-6: Impact of the Service Experience

Thinking about your YouthBuild 

experience, how strongly do you 

agree or disagree with each of the 

following statements? (Percent 

“Agree” or “Strongly Agree”)

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Both 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Pct N Pct N Pct N Pct 

I made a contribution to the 

community 

148 86.5% 197 80.6% 184 88.5% 531 85.0% 

I was exposed to new ideas and 

ways of seeing the world 

143 90.0% 196 87.0% 184 93.8% 524 90.3% 

I re-examined my beliefs and 

attitudes about myself 

141 88.7% 199 84.6% 182 91.5% 523 88.1% 

I changed some of my beliefs and 

attitudes 

140 86.3% 194 83.5% 184 87.9% 520 85.8% 

I felt like part of a community* 144 89.8% 199 81.3% 183 90.8% 525 86.9% 

I learned more about the 'real' 

world 

139 90.5% 194 83.2% 184 87.6% 518 86.7% 

I made a difference in the life of at 

least one person* 

141 90.3% 197 80.8% 184 92.9% 523 87.6% 

I did things I never thought I could 

do

140 89.2% 196 81.8% 183 92.5% 520 87.6% 

I had a chance to take on a 

leadership role*** 

143 86.5% 201 79.8% 185 93.2% 529 86.3% 

I now make healthier decisions 

than I did before YB 

141 87.3% 193 85.9% 184 90.9% 518 88.1% 

My training helped me learn the 

skills I need to get a job in that 

field*** 

141 96.1% 206 82.9%† 184 91.8% 532 89.5% 

I learned something that will help 

me succeed in postsecondary 

education or training 

141 93.0% 195 86.1% 184 90.9% 520 89.7% 

I learned something that will help 

me succeed in my career 

141 94.6% 197 89.5% 184 92.7% 522 92.0% 

Service Impact Scale*** 166 3.294 87 3.318 150 3.606 403 3.406 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted percentages. Significant 

differences for individual items assess using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Service scale 

assessed using GLM Univariate analysis controlling for baseline characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical 

significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is 

significantly different from at least one other program type at p≤ .05.

†Despite lower raw percentages, adjusted data shows Diploma sites more likely to agree/strongly agree compared 

to HSE-only sites. 

 More than 85% of respondents agreed that, as a result of their service experience, they had 

made a contribution to the community; felt like part of a community; and made a difference in 

the life of at least one person. 

 A similar percentage (86-90%) agreed that they were exposed to new ideas, re-examined and 

changed some of their beliefs and attitudes; learned more about the “real” world; and did things 

that they never thought they could do. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 43

 86% agreed that they had a chance to take on a leadership role; 88% reported they now made 

healthier decisions than before joining YouthBuild, and 90-92% reported gaining new skills and 

knowledge that would help them in their career and postsecondary education and training. 

Only a few of the items (those with asterisks) showed significant differences overall among the three 

program types. However, on a number of those items, participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs were significantly more likely to agree or strongly agree than those from HSE-only or Diplomaonly programs: Combined HSE/Diploma participants were significantly more likely to report feeling like 

part of a community, that they made a difference in the life of at least one person, and that they did 

things they thought they were never be able to do. They were also significantly more likely to agree that 

their training helped them learn skills needed to get a job. As with both of the prior sets of questions, 

when the items are combined into a single scale, the average responses from the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs were significantly higher than those of either of the other two program models. 

Again, it is important to recognize that these differences, while statistically significant, are taking place 

within a generally strong set of positive responses. On each of the items in this group, 80% or more of 

the participants responded positively from each of the three program groups. In that regard, the 

conclusion from these analyses is not that any program type does poorly, but rather that among a 

relatively strong group of responses, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs appear to consistently 

provide a somewhat stronger, more effective service experience than the other two programs. As 

Chapter IV discusses, the strength of the Combined HSE/Diploma service experience is further reflected 

in a number of service-related program outcomes. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 44

Chapter IV 

Participant Outcomes 

The analysis from the preceding chapter shows that while all three types of YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs provide a strong, positive service experience, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

consistently score higher on measures of the quality of the service experience. Though Diploma-only 

programs generally provide more service hours than the other program types, the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs tend to provide more direct engagement of service participants with service 

beneficiaries and a stronger sense of connection to the community. 

The question remains whether those differences in the service experience translate into differences in 

program outcomes. Are there significant differences in outcomes among the three types of YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs in terms of core program measures, including program completion, credential 

attainment, AmeriCorps Education Award attainment, employment and/or postsecondary placement? 

Are there differences in measures of personal and civic development (e.g., educational aspirations, 

sense of educational competence, leadership, civic engagement, civic and workplace skills, and 

commitment to future service)? To what extent can we link differences in the service experience and 

variations in program outcomes? 

The DYB reporting system and survey data examined in this chapter suggest that there are significant 

differences for a number of outcomes among the three types of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs. In 

terms of YouthBuild’s core program outcomes, HSE-only participants had higher program completion 

and job placement rates than the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs, but participants 

in the Diploma-only programs were significantly more likely to earn their credential and their 

AmeriCorps Education Award and to enroll in postsecondary education. On the other hand, on most 

measures of educational goals, civic and educational attitudes, and workplace-related skills, participants 

in the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/GED programs were more likely to show gains than 

participants in the HSE-only programs. As noted earlier, while statistically significant (i.e., unlikely to 

have occurred by chance), the differences among programs are not generally large. But, they do suggest 

that the Combined HSE/Diploma programs and the Diploma-only programs generally produce better 

outcomes in education and civic and educational attitudes than the HSE-only programs in the study. 

Program Outcomes 

Not surprisingly, there are significant differences in the core YouthBuild AmeriCorps program outcomes 

among the three program types, reflecting, in part, the different focus and emphases of the different 

types of programs. Table IV-1 presents the results for the three program types for five key outcomes: 

YouthBuild program completion, attainment of a secondary credential (HSE or Diploma), placement in 

employment or postsecondary education, and completion of at least one AmeriCorps education 

award.18 As the table shows, there are statistically significant differences between the programs on all 

 

18 The analysis of program completion is based on those AmeriCorps participants who were reported as completing 

YouthBuild successfully or who dropped out or were terminated for disciplinary reasons. Active participants and 

those who left for reasons out of their control (illness, family moves, etc.) were excluded. Analysis of credential 

earned includes program completers who entered YouthBuild without a credential. Analysis of placements and 

education award includes all program completers. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 45

five outcome measures. HSE-only programs showed the strongest program completion results, with an 

89.5% completion rate, compared to 84% for Diploma-only programs and 80% for the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs. HSE-only programs also showed the strongest results in terms of placement in 

employment, with an 81% placement rate compared to 72.5% for the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

and 60% for the Diploma-only programs. In this instance, both the HSE-only and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs showed significantly stronger results than the Diploma-only programs. 

Table IV-1: Program Outcomes by Program Type 

Program Outcome 

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined 

HSE/Diploma Total 

N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Program Completion** 304 89.5% 241 84.2% 265 80.4% 810 84.9% 

Earned Diploma/GED*** 245 56.3% 179 82.1% 182 69.2% 606 67.8% 

Placed in Job*** 271 81.2% 203 60.1% 213 73.2% 687 72.5% 

PSE Placement*** 272 11.4% 203 19.7% 213 8.0% 688 12.8% 

Earned Ed Award*** 272 57.4% 203 73.4% 213 50.2% 688 59.9% 

Source: DYB reporting data for AmeriCorps participants in study sites (weighted), N=950. Percentages are 

unadjusted percentages. Significant differences for individual items assess using LOGIT controlling for baseline 

participant characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, 

***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is significantly different from at least one other program type at 

p≤ .05. Analysis of program completion excludes active participants and “other exits” who left the program for 

reasons beyond their control (moving, illness, etc.). Analysis of credential earned includes program completers who 

entered YouthBuild without a credential. Analysis of placements and education award includes all program 

completers. 

On the other hand, Diploma-only programs showed significantly stronger results on the other three 

program measures. Diploma-only participants were significantly more likely to complete a secondary 

credential than those in either of the other two programs (82% vs. 68% Combined HSE/Diploma and 

56% HSE-only). In this case, the HSE-only results were significantly lower than those of either of the 

other two program types. Diploma-only programs were also significantly more successful in enrolling 

graduates in postsecondary education, and Diploma-only program completers were significantly more 

likely to earn an AmeriCorps Education Award than those in either of the other two types of programs. 

As noted in Chapters II and III, Diploma-only programs provided a significantly longer program 

experience than the other two program types, and their participants tended to perform significantly 

more hours of service. That said, when variables for hours of service or days enrolled in YouthBuild are 

entered into the analyses, they show only a minor influence on the results. It seems more likely that the 

Diploma-only programs include a stronger orientation to educational outcomes and may place more 

emphasis on the AmeriCorps Education Award as part of an overall focus on postsecondary education. 

Educational Attitudes and Goals 

While the Diploma-only programs showed the strongest results on several of the YouthBuild educationrelated program outcomes, there were fewer differences among the program types on measures of 

educational goals and attitudes. When there were significant differences, the Diploma-only and 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to show the stronger results. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 46

Table IV-2 shows one analysis of changes in educational goals among the different groups of program 

participants. In this instance, participants were asked to indicate the importance of achieving several 

key education and career goals before joining YouthBuild and “now” (i.e., at program exit). Goals 

included completing a GED or diploma, going on to trade or technical school, and enrolling in 2- or 4-

year college or graduate school. The table shows the percentage of participants who rated each goal as 

“Very Important” (a 3 or 4 on a 4-point scale). On almost every measure, participants in all three 

program types showed positive, significant gains in how much importance they placed on each 

educational goal: that is, significantly more participants rated each goal as “very important” at the end 

of their time in YouthBuild than before they joined the program. The two exceptions were in the 

Diploma-only programs, whose participants were most likely to indicate a high importance of attending 

4-year college and graduate school at baseline and consequently showed little change on those 

measures from pre to post. While this analysis helps to show the overall changes in attitudes among 

YouthBuild participants, it does not allow for the analysis of differences between program types or 

control for the demographic characteristics of participants in the different programs. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 47

Table IV-2: Educational Goals by Program Type, Pre/Post Change 

How important is each of the following goals for you? 

(Percent “Very Important” – 3 or 4 on 4 point scale) N Baseline Post Difference 

Completing your GED or high school diploma? 

HSE-only 197 72.1% 90.9% 18.8% 

Diploma-only 143 80.4% 89.5% 9.1% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 180 75.0% 88.9% 13.9% 

Total 520 75.6% 90.0% 14.4% 

Getting a job as soon as possible? 

HSE-only 201 71.1% 89.6% 18.5% 

Diploma-only 142 81.0% 92.3% 11.3% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 185 78.9% 94.6% 15.7% 

Total 528 76.7% 91.9% 15.2% 

Getting training or an apprenticeship that would help 

you earn a living over the long term? 

HSE-only 196 64.3% 82.7% 18.4% 

Diploma-only 141 64.5% 88.7% 24.2% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 184 68.5% 91.8% 23.3% 

Total 520 65.8% 87.7% 21.9% 

Going to a trade or technical school? 

HSE-only 196 48.5% 63.8% 15.3% 

Diploma-only 141 55.3% 72.3% 17.0% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 181 54.1% 76.2% 22.1% 

Total 517 52.2% 70.6% 18.4% 

Going to a two-year college? 

HSE-only 192 52.1% 74.0% 21.9% 

Diploma-only 141 67.4% 78.0% 10.6% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 184 55.4% 77.2% 21.8% 

Total 516 57.4% 76.4% 19.0% 

Going to a four-year college? 

HSE-only 198 47.0% 67.7% 20.7% 

Diploma-only† 143 55.9% 62.9% 7.0% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 184 51.1% 72.8% 21.7% 

Total 523 50.9% 68.3% 17.4% 

Going to graduate school (master's degree, Ph.D., 

medical or law degree)? 

HSE-only 196 45.9% 59.7% 13.8% 

Diploma-only† 137 60.6% 63.5% 2.9% 

Combined HSE/Diploma 182 47.8% 70.9% 23.1% 

Total 516 50.6% 64.7% 14.1% 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted for baseline 

characteristics. Percentages indicate the percentage of participants reporting that each education goal is “Very 

Important” (a 3 or 4 on a 4-point scale) at baseline and post-program and the pre/post difference. All of the 

pre/post differences were statistically significant except those marked with a cross (†). Significance was assessed 

using the Chi Square McNemar analysis, which does not include controls for demographic characteristics. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 48

Table IV-3 looks at the data from a slightly different perspective, examining the percentage of 

participants who showed an increase in the reported importance of each education goal from pre to 

post, again broken down among the three program types. In this case, the analysis includes the various 

adjustments for participant characteristics and allows a comparison among the three program types. 

The data in the table show that there were statistically significant differences between the three 

program types on only two of the seven education goals: going to a technical or trade school and going 

to a two-year college. On both of those measures, participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

were more likely to show a gain in interest in those educational outcomes than either of the other 

program types; on both measures the difference between the Combined HSE/Diploma programs and 

the HSE-only programs was statistically significant. 

Table IV-3: Educational Goals by Program Type, Percent Reporting Increase in Importance of Goals 

How important is each of the 

following goals for you? (Percent 

that increased from Pre- to Post) 

Program Type 

HSE Only Diploma Only 

Combined HSE/ 

Diploma Total 

N 

Percent 

w/Gain N 

Percent 

w/Gain N 

Percent 

w/Gain N 

Percent 

w/Gain 

Completing your GED or high school 

diploma? 

197 33.5% 143 23.1% 180 26.1% 520 28.1% 

Getting a job as soon as possible? 200 39.5% 142 29.6% 185 28.1% 527 32.8% 

Getting training or an 

apprenticeship that would help you 

earn a living over the long term? 

196 38.3% 142 35.9% 185 37.3% 523 37.3% 

Going to a trade or technical 

school?*** 

196 38.8% 141 41.1% 181 56.4% 518 45.6% 

Going to a two-year college?** 192 41.7% 141 34.8% 184 53.8% 517 44.1% 

Going to a four-year college? 198 40.4% 142 31.0% 184 38.0% 524 37.0% 

Going to graduate school (master's 

degree, Ph.D., medical or law 

degree)? 

196 33.7% 138 26.8% 183 37.7% 517 33.3% 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted and show percentages of 

participants reporting an increase in importance of the education/career goals from pre- to post. Significance 

assessed using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical 

significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is 

significantly different from others at p≤ .05.

Table IV-4 shows the analysis of several other education-related attitudinal measures. The Educational 

Competence scale assesses participants’ sense of educational self-efficacy, or the sense that they can 

influence or control their own educational success; the second group of scales assess the degree to 

which participants have gained an understanding of what they need to do to get into and succeed in 

postsecondary education, vocational training, and a job. The boxes on the next page list the items 

included in each scale. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 49

Educational Competence Scale 

For each of the following statements, please 

indicate how strongly you agree or disagree: 

It is very important to me to do the best that I 

can as a student 

If I decide to get good grades, I can do it 

I try hard in my classes 

When studying, I keep working even if the 

material is difficult 

If I need help in class, I ask for it 

If I want to learn something well, I can 

I will use what I learn in school after I graduate 

Cronbach's alpha pre = .943, post = .925 

College/Career Knowledge Scale 

How much you feel you know about each of the following: 

College 

Why I should get training or education beyond HS or a GED 

What I need to do to get into college 

How to pay for college 

What going to college might be like 

The attitudes and skills I need in order to succeed in college 

Career 

What I need to do to get into a vocational 

training/certificate program 

How to pay for a vocational training/certificate program 

The attitudes and skills I need to be successful in a 

vocational training/certificate program 

Careers or jobs I might be interested in 

How to apply for a job 

The attitudes and skills I need to be successful in a job 

Cronbach's alpha pre =.941, post = .939 (All items), 

 Pre=.900, post=.884 (College items) 

 Pre=.895, post=.910 (Career items)

The table provides several pieces of information for each of the scales. The numbers on the right show 

the pre- and post-program scale scores (the average of the responses to the items in the scale) and the 

pre/post difference for each of the three program types and the sample as a whole. On the left, the plus 

signs indicate whether the pre/post difference for the group as a whole is statistically significant, and 

the asterisks (*) indicate whether there are statistically significant differences in the result between the 

three groups. 

Table IV-4: Educational Attitudes/College and Career Knowledge by Program Type 

Outcome Program Type Pre Post Difference 

Educational Competence** HSE Only 3.076 3.410 0.334 

Diploma Only 2.837 3.365 0.528 

Combined HSE/Diploma 3.146 3.724 0.578 

Total 3.020 3.500 0.480 

College/Career Knowledge++*** HSE Only 2.898 3.293 0.395 

Diploma Only 2.517 3.128 0.611 

Combined HSE/Diploma 2.752 3.575 0.823 

Total 2.722 3.332 0.610 

College Knowledge Subscale++*** HSE Only 2.915 3.315 0.400 

Diploma Only 2.615 3.182 0.567 

Combined HSE/Diploma 2.807 3.549 0.742 

Total 2.779 3.349 0.570 

Career Knowledge Subscale++*** HSE Only 2.872 3.238 0.366 

Diploma Only 2.375 3.004 0.629 

Combined HSE/Diploma 2.709 3.605 0.896 

Total 2.652 3.282 0.630 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Pre/post differences assessed using GLM Repeated 

Measures analysis controlling for baseline characteristics. Plus sign (+) indicates positive, statistically significant 

pre/post gain for the population as a whole: +p≤.05, ++p≤.01, +++p≤.001. Asterisks (*) indicates statistically 

significant difference between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 50

As the table shows, there were substantial differences in the results among the three program types. 

For the measure of educational competence, while the scale scores went up from pre- to post for all the 

groups, the gains were not large enough for the sample as a whole to be statistically significant. 

However, there were statistically significant differences in the results among the three program types, 

with both the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs showing substantially larger gains 

than the HSE-only programs.19

For the college and career-related scales, the pre/post gain for the sample as a whole was statistically 

significant and there also were significant differences in the results among the three program types. The 

College/Career scale includes all 11 of the scale items; the College and the Career subscales each include 

a subset of the items. In this case, all three versions of the scale show significant gains and significant 

difference among the groups, and in all three scales, the Combined HSE/Diploma and the Diploma-only 

participants show substantially greater gains than HSE-only participants. 

Taken together, the data on the various education-related outcomes suggest that, not surprisingly, the 

Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs were substantially more education-focused than 

the HSE-only programs and in a number of instances produced more positive results. Participants in the 

Diploma-only programs were significantly more likely to gain their secondary credential while in 

YouthBuild, to complete their AmeriCorps education award, and to enroll in postsecondary education. 

While there were fewer differences in the measures of gains in educational goals and attitudes, when 

there were differences, participants in the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

generally showed larger gains than those in the HSE-only programs. 

Civic Attitudes 

Another key goal of the study was to examine differences in impacts on civic attitudes among the three 

programs. Are there differences among the three in terms of service-related civic outcomes? Does the 

greater emphasis on academic achievement in Diploma-only programs translate into less emphasis on 

service and civic engagement? Or conversely, does the longer program cycle in the Diploma-only 

programs result in longer-term service that translates to increased civic engagement? 

The participant survey data suggests that the Combined HSE/Diploma and the Diploma-only programs 

tend to produce greater gains on measures of civic attitudes and leadership than the HSE-only 

programs. Table IV-5 presents the results for two measures of civic attitudes: a civic engagement scale, 

which assesses the degree to which AmeriCorps participants feel connected to the community and 

capable and committed to making a difference; and a leadership scale, in which participants self-assess 

their leadership skills. The specific items for each scale are listed in the boxes on the following page. 

 

19 Note that this particular analysis method does not test the significance of the gains within the subgroups or 

whether the gains of each group are larger than another. As a result, all we can say is that the results among the 

three program types are significantly different from one another. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 51

Community Engagement Scale 

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree: 

I feel very connected to my community 

I often talk with people I know about how larger 

political and social issues affect my neighborhood 

I know what steps I can take to solve problems in my 

community 

It is important to me that my community sees me 

doing good work 

Helping my community is important to me 

I try to help other people in my neighborhood 

I believe I can make a difference in my community 

I think it is important to volunteer in my community 

It is important to vote 

Cronbach's alpha pre = .945, post = .933

Leadership Scale 

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree: 

I am good at working on a team 

When working on a team, I am willing to be a leader 

People in my life rely on me 

If I need help, I know people I can go to 

I am comfortable speaking in front of a large group 

I respect people's ideas that are different from mine 

I am a self-confident person 

I can motivate people to work together 

I have a positive future ahead of me 

In my community, there is an adult who believes I will 

be a success 

Cronbach's alpha pre = .932, post = .922

As Table IV-5 shows, while there were pre/post gains for both scales for the participants as a whole, 

those average gains were not large enough to be statistically significant. At the same time, both scales 

showed statistically significant differences among the three program types. In both cases, the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs showed the greatest gains, and both the Combined HSE/Diploma and Diplomaonly programs showed substantially greater average gains than the HSE-only programs. 

Table IV-5: Civic Attitudes by Program Type 

Outcome Program Type Pre Post Difference 

Community Engagement Scale** HSE Only 2.550 3.007 0.457 

Diploma Only 2.190 2.822 0.632 

Combined HSE/Diploma 2.565 3.386 0.821 

Total 2.435 3.072 0.637 

Leadership Scale*** HSE Only 2.949 3.299 0.350 

Diploma Only 2.625 3.170 0.545 

Combined HSE/Diploma 2.886 3.617 0.731 

Total 2.820 3.362 0.542 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Pre/post differences assessed using GLM Repeated 

Measures analysis controlling for baseline characteristics. Plus sign (+) indicates positive, statistically significant 

pre/post gain for the population as a whole: +p≤.05, ++p≤.01, +++p≤.001. Asterisks (*) indicates statistically 

significant difference between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. 

Two additional civic measures show a similar pattern of differences among the three program types. 

Both measures asked questions aimed at directly assessing interest in community engagement 

(volunteer service) and leadership activity. The first was, “How important is it for you to be involved in 

volunteer activities/community service to help your community?” The second defined leadership as 

“taking positive steps to make things go right for yourself, your family, your program, and your 

community” (a definition adapted from YouthBuild materials) and asked, “During the past 6 months, 

how often did you act as a leader in those ways?” Table IV-6 presents the percentages of participants 

who responded that volunteering/community service was “Moderately” or “Very” important at pre- and 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 52

post-program, and the percentage who indicated that they acted as leaders “Sometimes” or “Often” at 

the two points in time. 

Table IV-6: Volunteering and Leadership by Program Type 

How important is it to you to be involved in 

volunteer activities/community service? (Percent 

“Moderately/Very Important”)* N Baseline Post Difference 

Percent 

Showing 

Pre/Post 

Gain 

HSE-Only 198 37.4% 74.2% 36.8% 51.3% 

Diploma-Only 137 43.1% 75.2% 32.1% 54.1%

Combined HSE/Diploma 182 44.0% 86.8% 42.8% 57.7% 

Total 517 41.2% 78.9% 37.7% 54.3% 

In the past 6 months, how often did you act as a 

leader? (Percent Sometimes/Often)*** N Baseline Post Difference 

HSE-Only 199 60.8% 80.4% 19.6% 35.4% 

Diploma-Only 135 53.3% 82.2% 28.9% 43.3%

Combined HSE/Diploma 183 42.6% 90.2% 47.6% 63.4%

Total 517 52.4% 84.3% 31.9% 47.4% 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted for baseline 

characteristics. All of the pre/post differences were statistically significant. Significance assessed using the Chi 

Square McNemar analysis, which does not include controls for demographic characteristics. Significant differences 

between programs assessed using LOGIT controlling for baseline characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistically 

significant difference between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type 

is significantly different from at least one other program type at p≤ .05.

On both questions, the pre/post gains were statistically significant for the participants as a whole and 

for those in each of the three program types: for the volunteering question, the percentage of 

participants reporting that volunteering/community service was “Moderately” or “Very” important 

increased significantly from pre- to post; for the leadership question, the percentage of participants 

reporting that they had acted as a leader “Sometimes” or “Often” also increased significantly from preto post. It is important to note that these results are based on changes in the raw, weighted 

percentages, without any adjustments for baseline demographic characteristics. However, they indicate 

that there were positive, significant gains across the different programs. 

The column to the far right of Table IV-6 shows the percentage of participants in each program time that 

showed a gain. A LOGIT analysis of those differences, which controls for baseline demographic 

characteristics, found significant differences in the proportion of participants with gains among the 

three programs. For the volunteering question, the Diploma-only programs showed gains that were 

significantly greater than those for HSE-only programs (though not reflected in the raw percentages in 

the table); for the leadership question, both the Combined HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs 

showed significantly greater gains than HSE-only programs. On this question, the gains for the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs were also greater than those for Diploma-only programs as well. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 53

As with the findings on the education-related outcomes and attitudes, the data on civic and leadership 

measures suggests that, while all three program types are producing positive results, the Combined 

HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs are providing significantly stronger results than the HSE-only 

programs. 

Civic and Workplace-Related Skills 

Finally, the participant surveys included a set of questions addressing “21st Century” civic and workplace 

skills: solving problems, finding information, working with others, managing time, and communicating at 

work and in the community. Participants were asked to rate their skills (“How well can you do each of 

the following”) before they joined YouthBuild and “now,” with ratings ranging from “Not at All” to “Very 

Well.” Table IV-7 shows the pre/post results for the sample as a whole. There were substantial gains for 

each item in the percentage of participants reporting that they could do each task “pretty well” or “very 

well,” and all of those gains were statistically significant, using an analysis that does not adjust for 

baseline characteristics. However, the overall scale score also shows statistically significant gains in an 

analysis that does take baseline characteristics into account. 

Table IV-7: Civic/Workplace Skills, All Participants 

How well can you do the following?

Percent “Pretty Well” or “Very Well”

N Pre Post Difference 

Solve unexpected problems 485 31.8% 93.4% 61.6% 

Find and use the resources that I need to complete a 

project or task 484 36.4% 93.2% 56.8% 

Listen and respond to other people's suggestions or 

concerns 483 50.7% 94.6% 43.9% 

Resolve conflicts between people 482 37.3% 90.7% 53.4% 

Find the right person or organization to talk with to 

address an issue in my community 484 32.9% 86.6% 53.7% 

Negotiate, compromise, and get along with coworkers and supervisors 483 45.8% 93.2% 47.4% 

Manage my time when I am under pressure 485 29.9% 90.1% 60.2% 

Deal with uncomfortable or difficult working 

conditions 485 33.2% 92.4% 59.2% 

Talk to someone I don't know about something I 

think is important 477 30.2% 88.5% 58.3% 

Make a presentation 478 31.4% 85.6% 54.2% 

Write a letter or email to someone I don't know 484 27.7% 76.9% 49.2% 

Work with neighbors to make a difference in my 

community 483 23.2% 82.0% 58.8% 

Skills Scale (average of responses on all items)*** 2.193 3.374 1.181 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted and show percentages of 

participants responding “Pretty Well” or “Very Well” at pre- and post-program. All of the pre/post differences were 

statistically significant based on a Chi Square McNemar analysis, which does not include controls for demographic 

characteristics. Work-Related Skills scale score was assessed using GLM Repeated Measures analysis controlling 

for baseline characteristics. The overall pre/post gain for the scale score was significant at p≤.001. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 54

Table IV-8 shows the data for the same items broken out by program type. As with the participant 

group as a whole, the basic pre/post analysis found positive statistically significant gains for participants 

in all three programs. However, the analysis also found significant differences among the three program 

types on all but one of the measures (ability to write a letter to a stranger). On all of the items where 

there was an overall difference between the three programs, either the Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs or the Diploma-only programs (in some cases both) had significantly greater gains than the 

HSE-only programs. On 8 of the 11 items with significant differences, the Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs showed the greatest gains; the Diploma-only programs had the largest gains on the other 

three items. The summary Skills Scale also showed a significant difference between the three programs, 

with both the Combined HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs showing higher scale scores than the 

HSE-only programs. 

Summary of Participant Outcomes 

One of the core questions for this study is whether there are significant differences in outcomes among 

the three types of YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs under consideration (HSE-only, Diploma-only, and 

Combined HSE/Diploma). Is one or another of the program types consistently more effective in meeting 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps’ goals, and/or does each model have its own strengths and/or challenges? 

The DYB and participant survey data reviewed in this chapter show consistent differences among the 

three program models across a wide array of outcomes. In most of those cases, the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs, and to a slightly lesser degree Diploma-only programs, show the strongest 

results. On most of the measures, the HSE-only programs, while providing positive results, show 

significantly smaller gains than the other two types of programs. 

 In terms of the core YouthBuild program outcomes, HSE-only participants were significantly 

more likely to complete their YouthBuild program and to be placed in employment; however, 

Diploma-only participants were significantly more likely to leave YouthBuild with a secondary 

credential, to enroll in postsecondary education and training, and to successfully earn an 

AmeriCorps education award. On these measures, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

produced mixed results relative to the other two types of programs: their program completion, 

postsecondary enrollment, and education award attainment rates were the lowest of the three 

program types; however, they were in the middle of the three in terms of completion of a 

secondary credential and job placement. In that regard, the results for the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs appeared to reflect their mixed structure, showing a moderate level of 

success on both education and career outcomes, but not as strong as either their HSE or 

Diploma-only counterparts. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 55

Table IV-8: Civic/Workplace Skills by Program Type 

How well can you do the following? 

(Percent “Pretty Well” or “Very Well”.

HSE Only Diploma Only Combined HSE/Diploma 

Pre Post Differenc

e 

Pre Post Differenc

e 

Pre Post 

N Pct. Pct. N Pct. Pct. N Pct Pct Difference 

Solve unexpected problems* 179 38.5% 93.3% 54.8% 131 30.5% 93.1% 62.6% 175 25.7% 93.7% 68.0%

Find and use the resources that I need to 

complete a project or task** 

180 40.6% 93.3% 52.7% 130 39.2% 93.8% 54.6% 173 29.5% 93.6% 64.1%

Listen and respond to other people's 

suggestions or concerns** 

179 52.0% 93.9% 41.9% 131 45.0% 91.6% 46.6% 175 53.1% 97.1% 44.0%

Resolve conflicts between people*** 179 46.9% 89.4% 42.5% 129 32.6% 87.6% 55.0% 174 31.6% 93.7% 62.1%

Find the right person or organization to 

talk with to address an issue in my 

community* 

181 28.2% 78.5% 50.3% 130 32.3% 90.0% 57.7% 173 38.2% 92.5% 54.3% 

Negotiate, compromise, and get along 

with co-workers and supervisors*** 

179 45.3% 93.9% 48.6% 131 32.8% 92.4% 59.6% 175 56.0% 92.6% 36.6% 

Manage my time when I am under 

pressure*** 

180 38.3% 92.2% 53.9% 130 32.3% 82.3% 50.0% 175 19.4% 94.3% 74.9%

Deal with uncomfortable or difficult 

working conditions*** 

180 39.4% 91.7% 52.3% 130 32.3% 90.8% 58.5% 174 27.6% 94.3% 66.7%

Talk to someone I don't know about 

something I think is important** 

180 32.8% 85.0% 52.2% 128 33.6% 88.3% 54.7% 169 24.9% 92.3% 67.4%

Make a presentation*** 178 35.4% 82.0% 46.6% 130 35.4% 88.5% 53.1% 171 24.6% 87.1% 62.5%

Write a letter or email to someone I 

don't know 

180 27.8% 83.3% 55.5% 129 34.9% 84.5% 49.6% 174 22.4% 64.9% 42.5% 

Work with neighbors to make a 

difference in my community*** 

180 28.3% 77.8% 49.5% 130 22.3% 78.5% 56.2% 170 18.2% 89.4% 71.2%

Work-Related Skills Scale*** 158 2.367 3.325 0.958 84 2.120 3.386 1.266 154 2.091 3.411 1.320 

Source: Participant surveys in study sites (weighted), N=582. Percentages are unadjusted and show percentages of participants responding “Pretty Well” or 

“Very Well”. Significance for individual items assessed using LOGIT controlling for baseline participant characteristics. Asterisks (*) indicates statistical 

significance between program types: *p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001. Bold italics indicate that program type is significantly different from others at p≤ .05. Scale 

score was assessed using GLM Repeated measures, controlling for baseline characteristics. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 56

 There were fewer differences on the measures of educational goals and attitudes, but where 

there were significant differences, the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs 

tended to show stronger results. Participants in all three types of programs reported an 

increased interest in achieving a variety of educational goals, including completing their high 

school credential, getting a job, and going on to further training or two- and four-year colleges. 

Only two of those measures showed significant differences between the program types, with 

Combined HSE/Diploma participants showing greater gains in interest in postsecondary training 

and enrollment in a two-year college. On the other hand, there were significant differences 

between program types on the scale score measures of Educational Competence and College 

and Career knowledge, in each case with the Combined HSE/Diploma and the Diploma-only 

programs scoring substantially higher than the HSE-only programs. 

 There were also significant differences among the programs in the measures of civic attitudes. 

On the measure of community engagement, while the pre/post change was not statistically 

significant, there was a significant difference between the programs, with the Combined 

HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs showing greater gains than the HSE-only programs. 

The same pattern was found for the questions related to leadership-related attitudes and skills: 

there was no significant pre/post gain for participants as a whole, but there were significant 

differences between the three program types, with the Combined HSE/Diploma and Diplomaonly programs showing the larger gains. On questions asking about the importance of 

volunteering and leadership experience, there were significant pre/post gains for the participant 

group as a whole and significant differences among the three program types. For the 

volunteering question, the Diploma-only participants were the most likely to show gains, while 

the largest gains on the leadership question were among Combined HSE/Diploma participants. 

 Finally, on questions about 21st Century civic and workplace-related skills, gains were again 

evident across all three program types, but with significantly greater gains for the Combined 

HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs on all but one of the measures. 

Looking across the mix of outcomes assessed in this chapter, several broad conclusions seem clear. 

First, all three program types are generally producing positive outcomes. On most of the attitudinal 

measures there were significant pre/post gains for all three program types, suggesting that all three are 

carrying out YouthBuild’s broad goals of education, civic, and leadership development. At the same 

time, there are consistent differences across the programs, and in most cases, the Diploma-only and the 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs produced results that were significantly stronger than those for the 

HSE-only programs. As discussed further in the concluding chapter, while there are some clear 

structural differences between the three program types, there is no simple explanation (for example, in 

terms of program duration or service hours) for the difference in results. Rather, it seems likely that the 

differences reflect a combination of time, program capacity, and program culture. That said, the overall 

conclusion is that the Combined HSE/Diploma and Diploma-only programs appear to be providing a 

more effective program experience, even after taking into account differences in the populations that 

they serve. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 57

Chapter V 

Voices from the Field: 

Perspectives on the YouthBuild AmeriCorps Service Experience 

While the survey and other data highlight program differences, the telephone interviews and site visits 

conducted for the study suggest that many core elements and lessons are common across program 

types and can be (and are) implemented regardless of setting. This chapter reviews the qualitative data 

about the YouthBuild AmeriCorps service experience obtained from three sources: the open-ended 

questions on the program survey, telephone interviews with staff from ten YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

programs in the intensive study sample, and site visits to two of those programs to talk further with staff 

and to gain the perspectives of program participants.20 Both the survey questions and the interviews 

ask respondents about the nature and quality of the service experiences: how to balance and integrate 

service with a program’s educational and training components, what kinds of challenges programs faced 

in creating effective service experiences, and what aspects of service had the greatest impacts on 

program participants. In each case, the emphasis was on identifying best practices and exploring lessons 

learned. 

Overall, the responses to the survey, interviews, and site visits suggested more similarities than 

differences in the service experience among the HSE-only, Diploma-only, and Combined HSE/diploma 

programs. They described a wide range of practices that programs identified as effective in enhancing 

members’ service experiences and outcomes, as well as a number of challenges they faced in 

implementing their service programs. All of these took place in different programs across the three 

program types. Respondents also discussed their sense of what members’ service experiences meant to 

the members. Two major themes flowed through the discussions. The first was the importance of 

integrating service fully in the overall program experience (along with strategies for accomplishing that); 

the second was the importance of face-to-face service experiences as having the greatest impact on 

program participants. The following sections present the responses from practitioners and young 

people on effective program strategies, challenges, and how service is made meaningful, with 

supporting quotations from the surveys, telephone interviews, and site visits. 

Perspectives from the Program Surveys 

The initial program surveys (discussed in Chapter II) included open-ended survey questions that asked 

respondents about four aspects of offering education, service, and training in their YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs. The items asked respondents to briefly describe how their academic education 

and service components were integrated; what challenges they faced in balancing education with 

occupational training and service; what strategies they used to create a culture of service; and what 

experiences most contributed to creating a commitment to service among their participants. 

Table V-1 presents the questions and summarizes the responses from the 38 program surveys that were 

completed and provides a preview of the themes and responses that run through the rest of the 

chapter. 

 

20 The quantitative data from the program survey is presented in Chapter II. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 58

Table V-1: Responses to Open-ended Questions from the YouthBuild AmeriCorps Program Description 

Survey 

Question Responses (number of programs) 

To what degree and how are 

your program’s academic/ 

education and service 

components integrated or 

connected? 

All 38 described key strategies to explicitly link education with primary and 

secondary service as well as leadership/life skills development: 

 Applying classroom instruction to all service activities and to 

researching/planning secondary service (n = 30) 

 Centering lessons on service projects (n = 15) 

 Applying leadership/life skills training to service experiences (n = 5) 

 Staff strategies, such as regular team meetings (n = 4) 

 Requiring projects that link research and service. (n = 4) 

What are your program’s 

biggest challenges in balancing 

educational with service 

activities, occupational training, 

leadership activities, and life 

skills training? 

 Scheduling/logistics (n = 10) 

 Attendance (n = 8) 

 Achieving balance while also trying to meet individual students’ needs 

and build on their strengths (n = 7) 

 Time constraints (n = 7) 

 Other challenges (n = 6) 

What key strategies does your 

program use to create a culture 

of service? 

 Emphasizing service early and often (n = 15) 

 Encouraging/motivating students to commit to service (n = 11) 

 Promoting student buy-in and ownership of service (n = 9) 

 Building service into program operations (n = 8) 

 Understanding why we do service (n = 6) 

Which experiences do you think 

contribute most to creating a 

commitment to service among 

AmeriCorps participants? 

 Being supported in doing, and motivated to do, service (n = 16)

 Broadly recognizing one’s impact (n = 14)

 Seeing one’s impact directly (n = 12)

 Participating in service with staff and other adults (n = 6) 

Source: YouthBuild Program Survey, N=38. 

Common Themes across Program Types 

In addition to the surveys, as described in Chapter I, Brandeis staff conducted telephone interviews with 

staff at 10 of the 20 sites in the intensive study sample, with interviews lasting 60-90 minutes. Staff then 

conducted site visits to two of the programs – a Combined HSE/Diploma site and an HSE-only program –

to talk further with staff and to interview program participants to gain their perspective. In both the 

interviews and site visits, the researchers asked about integrating service with education and training, 

challenges, and factors influencing a commitment to service and a culture of service. They also explored 

members’ community interactions through service; how programs prepared participants for and 

reflected on service experiences; youth involvement in planning and implementing service projects; and 

programs’ messages about education, work, and service. Additional questions concerned lessons about 

which practices, structures, and/or types of services were most closely related to positive member 

outcomes and a culture of service, and how the interviewees would advise a new YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps program about creating an effective service experience. Finally, the site visits enabled the 

research team to explore these issues more deeply and from more perspectives (the youth themselves, 

occupational training instructors, and others). In the analysis that follows, the responses from the 

interviews and focus groups are combined with responses to the open-ended questions on the program 

survey. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 59

One theme that emerged from the interviews, surveys, and site visits was that there were more 

similarities than differences in practices across the three program types. Representatives from all three 

types of programs identified very similar effective service-related practices, challenges, and service 

impacts on members. The responses suggested that effective practices, which closely mirrored those of 

the YouthBuild approach generally, influenced the quality of the service experience and member 

outcomes more than which credential a site offered. The challenges and member reactions to service 

were also similar to those the research team has observed or heard about in its previous work with 

YouthBuild sites. . 

The similarities in experiences were highlighted in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs. Most of those 

programs reported similar service experiences for diploma and HSE students: diploma/HSE students 

were in the same academic classes and mixed together in career pathways and secondary services in 

order to ensure similar service experiences, more opportunities for teamwork with a greater variety of 

people, successful program-wide secondary service experiences (since more students would know each 

other), and smoother transitions for students who might want to switch to the other credential. 

Similarly, none of the practices identified in the interviews as effective were associated more with one 

type of program than another. Instead, more often than not, as the discussions below illustrate, staff at 

multiple programs emphasized similar themes. While some programs may have had greater or lesser 

capacity to implement the effective practices identified here, the practices themselves were largely 

independent of program type and could be readily recommended across all types of YouthBuild 

programs. 

The rest of this chapter focuses on the effective service-related practices, challenges, and impacts of 

service on members, as identified by the sites. 

Effective Service-Related Practices 

This section discusses the practices most frequently identified as effective in the surveys, interviews, and 

site visits: explicitly integrating service throughout the program; building practices that reinforce service; 

instilling a program-wide culture of service; and supporting and motivating youth to create a 

commitment to service and yield better outcomes. 

Integrating Service Throughout the Program. A consistent theme from the interviews and surveys was 

the importance of integrating service across YouthBuild program components to reinforce the 

importance of service and to provide multiple opportunities to make connections. Strategies included 

applying classroom instruction to service activities and to researching/planning secondary service; 

centering lessons on service projects; and applying leadership/life skills training to service experiences. 

One staff person noted, “The impact of linking courses and service is often transformative: participants 

connect their intellect with the world outside the school.” Another said, “Putting classroom math to 

practical use in construction helps members really understand what they’re learning.” While some 

representatives thought they could do a better job of integrating service with other program 

components, respondents consistently mentioned integration as an effective practice and a goal that 

they saw as important. Strategies reported in the surveys and interviews included the following: 

 

- Our math teacher goes to the job site; our construction instructor teaches math in the classroom. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 60

- We have students prepare/present service proposals to reinforce writing, public speaking, and 

advocacy. 

- English classes require written reflections on service. 

- We link secondary service with primary service and lessons whenever we can. 

- We have students provide services that help them hone academic skills – such as helping young 

children with reading or mentoring younger youth in community programs. 

- During a garden project, our science teacher taught about photosynthesis, the water cycle, the 

role of bees in pollination, and the cell wall of plants. 

- Students explored South American geography when they participated in a project benefiting a 

South American immigrant family. 

- Civil rights lessons coincide with MLK Day of Service. 

- For the hunger campaign, they learned how hunger affects the body and researched local hunger 

problems. 

- After learning about the Little Free Library movement and its benefits, a math class used math 

skills to design and build these libraries. 

- Young people researched community and social problems in class, selected activities to address 

them, and use math and writing to plan activities and chart successes. 

- In our work with a food pantry, some clients appeared rude, but through developing life skills, 

our members can handle these situations. In construction, we divided into small crews, giving 

more youth leadership experience as they oversee their crew. 

- We always try to dig deeper – like looking at our neighborhood’s history as well as policies that 

are associated with community problems or solutions. 

- We look for teachable moments in service. Sometimes students will ask why service beneficiaries 

seem so angry. This gives us a chance to talk about mental health issues and empathy. 

Building Practices that Reinforce Service. Respondents also pointed to the importance of creating 

practices that enhance service experiences and/or reinforce a culture of service. Examples included: 

 

 Making service an explicit part of daily, weekly, and monthly schedules and activities – requiring 

service and talking about service. 

- We continually recognize service - we have a symbol, call-back, and even a hand gesture –

and its meaningfulness. 

- Never underestimate recognition. People want to know their work matters. A ‘thank you’ is 

even more motivating than an incentive. 

 Requiring projects that link research and service. 

- Students complete a capstone research/service project that encompasses all aspects of 

YouthBuild. 

 Quick response to community requests for help. 

- When a community partner needs volunteers on short notice, we encourage individual 

members to help, or take everyone to work on the project together. 

 Having staff participate in service to reinforce it as an important aspect of the culture.
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 61

 Ensuring that staff attitudes and beliefs align with YouthBuild’s philosophy. 

- Being qualified to teach or be a counselor isn’t enough. You have to buy into our service 

culture and into holding our young people accountable, while approaching them based on 

their strengths. This job isn’t for everyone. But if you have the right team, you’ll have the 

right outcomes. 

- If your staff doesn’t buy into YouthBuild from the very beginning, the youth will pick up on it. 

- You need staff who want to learn and are willing to keep learning. This helps them help the 

youth, but it also helps the youth to take steps toward becoming lifelong learners. 

- We have ongoing training for the entire staff. 

- As an organization you have to keep learning from experience and be continually evolving. 

- The staff makes our members feel cared about and supported, which makes all the 

difference. 

 Ensuring that the staff act as a team. With a team, young people are more likely to find the 

adult with whom they connect the best, and staff members know they have backup when their 

approach to a young person isn’t working. 

- It takes a lot of time to ensure that staff are aligned. No shortcuts – this just takes time. 

- Avoid silos at all costs. 

 Maintaining a small staff-student ratio – “Students need so much support.”

 Using team meetings and other ways to unite different parts of the team and keep lines of 

communication open. 

- The same team runs academic and service components. 

- Weekly staff meetings help staff link curricular objectives with their responsibilities. It is not 

unusual to have a counselor integrate fractions into a life skills discussion. 

- If students are working on fractions in class, we integrate fractions-related ‘words of the day’ 

into morning meeting and do demonstrations– usually a fun team project. 

- We meet weekly without the students to do a deeper dive into what’s going on and to 

manage and solve problems. 

- It’s important to be able to work in each other’s place.

- Strong and transparent case management is effective. Everyone, including the student, 

knows everything about the plan, so the entire program supports the student in the same 

goals.

- We work together to meet students’ basic needs. They can’t learn in class if they’re 

homeless or hungry. 

- You need a partner that provides the ‘wraparound’ services the youth – and often their 

families – need. 

Instilling a Program-wide Culture of Service. Programs reported on the importance of incorporating 

practices aimed at setting clear expectations for, doing, reflecting on, and celebrating service early and 

often – from recruitment to Mental Toughness and throughout the program. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 62

- We stress service during recruitment and candidate interviews. During Mental Toughness we 

discuss and do service. If this is not done right in the beginning you will not get buy-in, and the 

“culture" of service will not be deemed important.

- Mental Toughness sets the stage of a culture of service. Morning meetings and close outs 

along with staff consistency in language maintain it. 

- We connect youth to the state and national movement. We recite the AmeriCorps pledge each 

morning and at community events. 

- We lead sessions on power and privilege, civic reflection, and "what is service." Members take 

leadership roles in school-wide service projects. 

Supporting and Motivating Members. A focus on support and motivation also was identified as critical 

to creating a commitment to service and yielding other positive outcomes. Key aspects were programwide affirmation practices (for which YouthBuild is known); helping members to change thought 

patterns; providing incentives for service; making service easy, meaningful, and fun; promoting buy-in 

and ownership; and helping members to recognize their impact. 

Overall, programs reported the following steps, which are often cited as core elements of effective 

service-learning, as critical to service-related motivation and support: 

 Framing, even “selling,” the experience: Why are we doing this? What social problems does it 

address? How does it help our community? 

 Helping members prepare, through discussion and research: What impact will it/ does it have 

on the individuals who benefit and on the community as a whole? On us? 

 Helping them persevere, through debriefing, acknowledging efforts, and celebrating: How are 

things going (good and bad)? What have we accomplished? 

 Helping them to reflect: What have we learned from this experience? 

Program-wide affirmation, staff members noted, enhances members’ personal development, 

strengthens their ability to work as a team, and builds them up so they can see themselves helping their 

community. Many YouthBuild members have had little affirmation in their lives before YouthBuild, and 

as one respondent said, “It’s amazing what a difference it makes.” A number of programs find that 

morning or other meetings are ideal for structured, fun, and effective affirmation activities. Staff 

members’ use of a strengths-based approach reinforces these efforts (as one interviewee said, “We 

don’t ask ‘what’s wrong with you?’ That’s what these kids have heard all their lives”). Teamwork is 

another key to affirmation as youth learn to trust and be trusted and to feel “we’re all in this together.” 

Finally, several programs mentioned that the “once in YouthBuild, always in YouthBuild” philosophy 

matters a lot to students. 

Part of the practice of motivating YouthBuild AmeriCorps members is understanding that, given their 

backgrounds, many need to make changes in their thought patterns and expectations: 

- Educating youth about the right to serve and their ability to change lives. 

- It’s important to help students understand why you give of yourself and how it impacts others. 

This idea is new to many participants. 

- Letting every student know that they are needed and wanted in their community and that there 

are opportunities for them to impact their community. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 63

- Having our Mayor look them in the eye on their first day and tell them she needs their help. 

- Even if students have negative thoughts about an experience, we as a staff help them see what 

they can learn and gain by engaging in their community and helping meet present needs. 

- An important message is ‘you CAN take on issues that you see.’

- It’s all about mindset. My program changes the way I view the world. 

- When I heard we were going to meditate in a park, I said, “we’re gonna listen to birds?” But I 

liked being outside and quiet. And it helped me see why improving parks is such a good thing for 

our neighborhood. 

Several programs reported that incentives for service are motivating for many participants: 

- Members set annual service completion goals. When they reach the goal, they earn their 

"prom," a Service Ball held in the spring. 

- Using social media to highlight projects; giving bonuses and high fives for going above and 

beyond. 

- Tracking - monthly updates of service hours, quarterly assessment of which ‘phase’ they’re in –

helps keeps members on course. As they do everything they’re supposed to do, they move to the 

next phase, which is very rewarding. With each phase comes more freedom and independence. 

- We’ve made a direct connection between service and the stipend, which has been a good 

incentive. 

- At first incentives helped get me to do service. Now I do it whether I get credit or not, and I feel 

rewarded for everything I do. 

Staff also said that they promote student buy-in and ownership, which they consider critical, by 

involving youth in selecting, planning, and leading secondary service and program activities. Some 

programs list “service” under “leadership development” on their websites and in program materials. 

One program had posters on the walls with questions designed to stimulate discussion about service, 

such as “How might we make vacant or blighted properties useful and desirable?” and “How might we 

improve neighborhood safety?”

- We get them to take ownership of their learning and achievements and involve them in decisions 

that affect them and the program. 

- The Policy Committee meets weekly with peers and the program director to discuss events, 

service projects, and youth-led endeavors. 

- Youth participate in staff leadership meetings, public hearings, hiring interviews, and youth 

feedback platforms. 

- Encouraging members to consider which secondary service opportunities they think will benefit 

their community leads to buy in. 

- A critical factor in the service experience is connecting the service to the members’ interests.

- We joined a service coalition that enables more students to connect to a broader service 

community. 

- You have to find and speak to their individual motivation to get the “service light” to go on.

- We ask youth for feedback – pros, cons, and suggestions – about service experiences. 

- We take cues from students as well as lead them. 

Staff and students both pointed out that making service easy, meaningful, and fun motivates and 

supports members and encourages youth to sign on. Offering as many service opportunities as possible 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 64

maximizes good matches and helps to ensure that the projects are varied and interesting. Ensuring that 

these opportunities are meaningful – members should be able to understand their impact – makes them 

more appealing. Staff and student observations include: 

- Providing service opportunities that youth can relate to makes it easier for them to engage. 

- Have information about community needs available. 

- The shared language provided by AmeriCorps is very valuable. Continually referring to the Segal 

Award and PSE helps to show we value students’ service and career goals. 

- Secondary service allows members to work in a variety of settings, which they enjoy. 

- We schedule projects where staff, mentors, and volunteers work alongside our youth. Students 

like having adults around: they provide support and role models. 

- Doing service as a team reinforces it and makes it fun, which is important. 

- We cultivate a lot of partners so we can offer a lot of different service opportunities. We look for 

partners who can teach our members something and be good role models for them. 

- A big lesson is to avoid random activities just to help the students gain service hours. Service has 

to have a purpose, and students need to understand the purpose. 

Finally, helping youth recognize their impact motivates and supports them, and helps them to commit to 

service. Seeing the broader impact provides youth with perspective on giving back to their 

communities. Seeing direct impact, however, is often key to “feeling” the impact. This is why so many 

staff and youth say that secondary service, in which youth are more likely to interact with service 

beneficiaries, is the most meaningful to them. Such personal interaction is not easy to arrange in 

primary service tracks. For example, in construction projects, members often don’t get to meet the new 

owners; if they are working on housing for homeless people, there are confidentiality issues. That said, 

many programs reported finding ways to make service more immediate and meaningful to participants: 

- Staff reinforce how the AmeriCorps Pledge relates to making the community better, and how 

student efforts help this cause. 

- We have alumni come back and talk to students about service. 

- We work on getting them to embrace what it means to be part of the big picture to better our 

community. 

- Those who travel to D.C. understand the larger network and national activities such as MLK Day. 

- Discussing AmeriCorps Service history and its influence on self-confidence, self-worth, and youth 

leadership, and the fulfillment of making a difference in their communities. 

- You have to provide education about the service site and the importance of the service. 

- We talk about how construction-related secondary service helps us fulfill our commitment to 

affordable housing. 

- In the Customer Service track, we talk about indirect impacts and apply customer service to 

secondary service projects, like saying “thank you” to families who come to the food distribution 

or serving hot drinks. 

- There’s a big difference between just cleaning off a lot and seeing vegetables grow as a result of 

planting, watering, and nurturing garden beds. They are so proud to take vegetables home and 

share the process it took to get the results. 

- When we complete a house with Habitat, there is a ceremony recognizing our youth and giving 

keys to the new homeowners. What makes this even more emotional is that our youth know and 

have worked with the new owners, who must take part in the work to receive the home. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 65

- When they see themselves making a difference in someone's life, they commit to service. 

- In healthcare, it’s hands-on interaction with patients and families and appreciation from hospital 

staff. In construction, it’s hearing from grateful people who live in houses built by previous 

YouthBuild cohorts and hearing how having a place to live alleviated their hardships. 

- If we fix a mobile home in a park where some of students live and they see how big a difference 

it makes in the lives of the often elderly/disabled people who live there, it is really powerful. 

- We’ve worked hard in health and wellness to emphasize service impact and meaning – we’re 

limited in interacting with patients and families due to privacy concerns. 

- Any organization we provide service for has to agree to have their staff talk to students about 

their jobs and organizational mission and activities. 

Taken together, the comments, strategies and observations from staff and participants highlight the 

importance of integrating service across the program experience – making sure that it is reinforced in 

multiple ways on a daily basis from the beginning of the program through to graduation. While different 

program types offer different opportunities to accomplish this, the goal of integrating service is relevant 

and do-able across all program types. 

Challenges 

Program staff reported several challenges to their ability to integrate and balance education, service, 

and other activities. These include scheduling conflicts; attendance; achieving balance while meeting 

members where they are; and time constraints. 

Scheduling. Practitioners noted that when scheduling conflicts arise, plans that were intended to keep 

activities balanced go amiss. Such conflicts can arise from community partners’ or outside educational 

providers’ inflexible schedules, requirements related to the primary service track, trying to meet student 

needs, or trying to fit all the required activities into the time available. 

- Having to reschedule activities while maximizing opportunities, as when valuable one-time 

service projects land on academic days. 

- Being less flexible in nonacademic components due to our education provider’s rigid schedule.

- Getting healthcare students through the two-step TB Test and accessing immunization records 

before they start primary service. 

Attendance. Attendance issues were regularly reported as a challenge: low attendance negatively 

affects a program’s ability to integrate and balance activities.21 

- Getting students to come every day and to see the importance of taking advantage of all 

activities available is a constant challenge. 

- Lack of consistency in attendance causes us to have to change plans on the fly. 

Meeting Members Where They Are. Meeting members where they are is part of the YouthBuild 

philosophy. However, it can be difficult as students are at different places in their educational and 

 

21 Some programs reported that going to a model of rotating primary service/training and academics every other 

day helped them increase attendance as well as balance the different program components. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 66

personal development, while facing their own personal needs and obligations. Finding ways to meet 

those individual needs with limited time and resources is an ongoing challenge. 

- Finding the right balance for each student is challenging, especially in such a short program.

- Keeping a predictable schedule, while offering a lot of options to meet each student's needs, is 

challenging. 

- Some students need more or less time than others to embrace a stage of change and 

transformational development. This can adversely affect group dynamics. 

- Many students need to work – jobs can pull them from program offerings. 

- We had one youth who had trouble academically due to learning disabilities, but he totally 

grasped the idea of service, so we started with that. Eventually he did better with academics as 

long as he had support. 

- We have many more young people with disabilities than we used to. We could use some special 

education expertise to help us help them. 

Time. Time constraints affect staff’s ability to plan and students’ ability to obtain their credential and 

required service hours in multiple ways: 

- We have no time for integration and planning. We have only a 2-week turnaround between 

cycles. 

- We plan to move from a 6-month to a 9-month core program to have time for all components. 

- Many students need more time than we can offer to recover credits and earn their diploma. 

- We offer extra time and opportunities after they complete the program for them to complete 

their service hours. 

Other challenges. Some programs noted the difficulty of integrating different parts of the program. As 

one example, some respondents reported that having outside instructors for the education program 

was a challenge, that it was difficult to bring the staff together. Others similarly noted that having 

teachers and other staff under the same organizational umbrella promotes teamwork and sharing of the 

YouthBuild culture, especially with respect to service. However, many programs with outside instructors 

reported no challenges. In most cases, they had been working with the same instructors over time. 

They communicated frequently, the instructors seemed to be part of the team, and they and the 

instructors had worked hard “to get on the same page” about service and other aspects of YouthBuild 

culture. 

Rural sites face distinctive challenges in terms of service experiences. Transportation challenges in 

particular affect all program components, including service. One program addressed this in part by 

offering “independent” service opportunities and providing shuttle transportation to different sites. 

However, since so many programs highlight the benefits of working with other members (e.g., 

teamwork, camaraderie, and reflection), the lack of group service experiences may affect service-related 

outcomes. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 67

What the Service Experiences Meant to Members 

During the telephone interviews and site visits, staff and youth 

reflected on youth service experiences with substantial 

enthusiasm and commonly reported the following reactions to 

service experiences (see the quotations in the box for example): 

 Both staff and youth put feelings of pride and 

accomplishment at or near the top of their lists of the 

meaning of service experiences. Many of the youth were 

not accustomed to such feelings. 

 An important benefit of service – both primary and 

secondary – was learning new skills. 

 Many young people had received – or were still receiving –

community supports similar to those they were helping to 

provide through their service. Service helped them feel that 

they were giving back. 

 Service helped youth to have more empathy for others. 

 Youth experienced improvements in self-confidence and 

attitude from meeting new people, being exposed to new 

settings and places, and learning about community 

resources that could help them, their families, or the people 

they were helping through service. 

 Service experiences helped youth expand their horizons and 

see their future differently. 

 Service projects helped youth understand teamwork. 

Working as a team on service projects helped them to get to 

know, trust, and understand their fellow YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps members and to feel a part of something bigger than themselves. A staff member said, 

“The more they experience being interdependent on a team, the more they realize how important 

they are to the collective whole.” 

 Service – especially, but not only, secondary service – was fun and meaningful. 

Youth Voices 

“Before YouthBuild, the only community 

service I knew about was ordered by a 

judge. This is SO different. Nothing 

compares to seeing how what YOU do 

helps your community.”

“My service is important to me because 

I’m leaving something behind that will be 

here after I’m gone.” 

“I’ll always be able to bring my kids here 

and say, ‘I built this.’”

“I’ve learned that people with needs are 

three-dimensional. Homeless people 

have names, histories, and stories – they 

are not defined only by their 

homelessness.” 

“I learned to be less selfish. I’m not the 

only one going through things. I need to 

be more giving, more open. You can be 

the one that makes a difference.”

“What’s the best thing about YouthBuild

and service? It changed my entire life.”

“We were all individuals, but that 

experience made us a group.” 

We were all damaged, but now we’re 

together and we can encourage each 

other.” 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 68

Summary 

Overall, the responses to the survey, interviews, and site visits suggested more similarities than 

differences in the service experience among the three program types. They also describe a wide range 

of practices that programs identify as effective in enhancing members’ service experiences and 

outcomes; a number of challenges they face; and a sense of what members’ service experiences mean 

to the members. Practices identified as effective in the surveys, interviews, and site visits included 

consistently integrating service with other program components; building staff and organizational 

practices that support service; instilling a program-wide culture of service; and supporting and 

motivating youth to create a commitment to service. Running through all of the interviews was the 

importance of face-to-face service experiences as a powerful and highly impactful aspect of the service 

experience. Whether through primary or secondary service, that face-to-face interaction with the 

beneficiaries of service creates a lasting commitment to service in the community. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 69

Chapter VI 

Conclusions and Reflections 

This study of YouthBuild’s AmeriCorps programs was designed to examine whether there are significant 

differences in the service experience and program outcomes for AmeriCorps members between 

YouthBuild’s traditional high school equivalency (HSE)-focused programs and the growing number of 

YouthBuild programs offering a high school diploma either as the program’s main secondary education 

credential or as an alternative to the GED or other high school equivalency credentials. The goal of the 

study was to better understand the different ways in which HSE and diploma-granting programs 

integrate service into YouthBuild by examining the differences among three program types: those 

offering an HSE; those offering a high school diploma; and those providing some combination of HSE and 

diploma options. Key questions for the study included: Are the diploma-granting programs serving the 

same mix of members as more traditional, HSE-focused YouthBuild programs? How do the more 

structured charter and alternative school programs allocate time between education, service, and 

leadership development and/or balance time between classroom work and service? What kinds of 

AmeriCorps service experiences do diploma-granting programs provide for their participants, and do 

those experiences differ substantially from those offered by the more traditional HSE-focused 

YouthBuild programs? Are members in the often longer-duration diploma-based education programs 

more or less likely to complete their AmeriCorps service and earn their award as members in the shortterm HSE programs? Finally, are there differences in outcomes, including educational attainment, job or 

postsecondary placement, and attitudes towards civic engagement and the community, between the 

diploma-granting and non-diploma programs? 

Key Findings 

Several major conclusions emerge from the analysis of the DYB data, participant surveys, and interviews 

with YouthBuild staff members and participants in the study. As outlined in the opening chapter, they 

include the following: 

First, the program survey data show YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs represent a diverse array of 

programs in terms of organizational context, how education programs are organized and structured, the 

range of service experiences, and who the programs serve. All three maintain the core elements of the 

YouthBuild model placing substantial emphasis on service, integrating service throughout the program 

experience, and providing service experiences that participants find engaging and enriching. All three 

emphasize the core YouthBuild values of building strong relationships and promoting youth 

development, service and leadership. However, there are also substantial differences among the three 

program types in terms of structure, program size and duration, and populations served that may 

ultimately be related to differences in program experience and outcomes. 

Second, while the data indicate that all three program types produced a positive service experience and 

positive outcomes for AmeriCorps participants, there were consistent, statistically significant differences 

among the three program types. In terms of the service experience, while the Diploma-only programs 

provided more service hours and participants in all three programs reported positive service 

experiences, the Combined HSE/Diploma programs tended to show better results on the measure of 

service quality and impact. Similarly, while all three program types showed positive outcomes, the DYB 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 70

and survey data show that participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs, and to a slightly lesser 

degree, the Diploma-only programs consistently showed stronger results for most educational and civic 

outcomes than the HSE-only programs, and the differences between the program types were 

statistically significant. While the differences are not large, the consistent pattern of differences 

suggests that there is a real difference in the program experience. 

Finally, while the survey data highlight the program differences, the telephone interviews and site visits 

suggest that some core elements and lessons are common across program types. One important 

observation from the field is that, in many cases, it is the secondary service experience – volunteering at 

community events, food pantries, clothing drives, and the like – that provide the most memorable 

service experiences for AmeriCorps participants. Two key messages emerged from the discussions. The 

first was the importance of integrating service fully into the overall program experience; the second was 

the importance of face-to-face service experiences as having the greatest impact on participants, 

whether in the course of the primary service activities (e.g., meeting the residents of the buildings being 

rehabbed) or the secondary service projects that take place on a regular basis. 

Specific findings from the study include the following: 

 Based on the program survey data from the sample of 38 YouthBuild AmeriCorps sites, the 

YouthBuild programs reflect a remarkable diversity in their organizational settings, the ways 

they structure their educational programs, the types of occupational training and service they 

provide, and the mix of leadership, life skills, and postsecondary preparation services offered. 

Ultimately, all three program types offered a mix of educational and occupational training, 

combined with service, leadership, life skills development, and postsecondary preparation, and 

on many measures there were few consistent differences among the program types in how 

those services were organized and delivered. 

 

At the same time, there were some important distinctions among the three program types that 

are the focus of the study. HSE-only programs were generally smaller; based in larger nonprofit 

organizations; shorter in duration with fewer hours of education and service; and more focused 

on construction-based training and service than the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma 

programs. Diploma-only programs tended to be larger; based in a variety of institution-types, 

including schools; be longer in duration with a greater number of hours of instruction and 

service; and have a somewhat greater focus on postsecondary preparation. The Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs, not surprisingly, had elements of both the HSE and diploma world. 

More than the other types, they were based in standalone YouthBuild sites, and fell in the 

middle in terms of size and duration and hours, but provided a somewhat broader array of 

service and supports than the other two program types. While it is difficult to draw a simple 

line from these characteristics to differences in service experiences and outcomes, it is likely 

that the differences in program structure and operations did have some impact on the nature of 

the experience across the three types of programs. 

 As much as the study sites varied by size, organization, and programming, there were also 

substantial variations in the characteristics of program participants among the three groups of 

programs, based on the data from the 20 intensive study sites. Overall, the programs in the 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 71

sample reflected YouthBuild’s focus on serving low-income, out-of-school youth: over 90% of 

participants entered without a high school credential and 89% qualified as economically 

disadvantaged. Roughly 83% of YouthBuild AmeriCorps members in the sample were young 

people of color; 16% were parents and a similar percentage were recently or currently homeless 

at entry. Nearly 80% entered YouthBuild scoring below 8th grade on their math assessments 

(63% scored below 8th grade in reading), and 30% qualified as English Language Learners. 

Within that context, however, there were significant differences between participants in the 

three program types on a number of measures, in most cases with the Diploma-only programs 

standing out as different from both the HSE-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma sites: 

- Participants in Diploma-only programs were older on average than enrollees in HSE or 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs and more likely to enter YouthBuild without a high 

school credential. They were also more likely to be female and Asian (largely through 

the influence of one program serving large numbers of Southeast Asian participants), 

and less likely to be Black or Hispanic. 

- Diploma-only participants were also less likely to be homeless or an ex-offender: HSE 

programs had the highest percentage of homeless participants and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs had a substantially higher percentage of youth who were exoffenders at entry. 

- Diploma-only programs accepted a substantially higher percentage of participants with 

entry-level reading and math scores that were below the 8th grade level, but they were 

also substantially more likely to include students who were not classified as 

economically disadvantaged. 

- Finally, Diploma students were substantially more likely to include English Language 

Learners, again largely through the influence of one of the larger programs in the 

sample. 

The one measure in which programs showed no significant difference was the proportion of 

participants who were parents at entry, with all three programs showing 15%-17% of their 

participants as parents or guardians at program entry. 

While many of these differences are statistically significant, they need to be interpreted with 

caution as they may reflect the influence of the individual programs in a particular category 

(such as the large number of Southeast Asian participants served in the GAP program) rather 

than a characteristic of the program type as a whole. At the same time, the differences in 

characteristics like gender, entry level math and reading scores, and support for homeless or exoffenders may result in real differences in the nature of the program experience among the 

different types of programs. In order to minimize the influence of these population differences 

and keep the focus of the analysis on the programmatic differences among the three program 

types, we control for a number of demographic characteristics in the analyses of service 

experiences and program outcomes. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 72

 The DYB data and participant surveys collected for the study show that while all three program 

types provide a positive, high quality service experience, there are significant differences among 

the three program types in the nature and extent of service and in the service experience itself. 

While the Diploma-only programs provided the most hours of service among the different 

program types, participants in the Combined HSE/Diploma programs generally reported higher 

quality, more engaging service experiences than either of the other two program types. These 

results may reflect the strengths of the specific programs in the sample (a caution that will be 

repeated throughout the report), but taken together they suggest that the more comprehensive 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs may be able to deliver a stronger, more comprehensive 

service experience than the HSE or Diploma-only programs. 

 As was the case for the service experience data from the survey, the DYB and survey data on 

participant outcomes points to two broad conclusions. First, all three program types are 

generally producing positive outcomes. On most of the attitudinal measures there were 

significant pre/post gains for all three program types, suggesting that all three are carrying out 

YouthBuild’s broad goals of education, civic engagement, and leadership development. 

However, there are also consistent differences across the programs, and in most cases, the 

Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs produced results that were significantly 

stronger than those for the HSE-only programs. In terms of YouthBuild’s core program 

outcomes, HSE-only participants had higher program completion and job placement rates than 

the Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs, but participants in the Diploma-only 

programs were significantly more likely to earn their credential and their AmeriCorps education 

award and to enroll in postsecondary education. On the other hand, on most of the measures 

of educational goals, civic and educational attitudes, and workplace-related skills, participants in 

the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/GED programs were significantly more likely to show 

gains than participants in HSE-only programs. As noted earlier, while statistically significant (i.e., 

unlikely to have occurred by chance), the differences between programs are not generally large. 

But, they do tend to suggest that the Combined HSE/Diploma programs and the Diploma-only 

programs generally produced better outcomes in both educational terms and in terms of civic 

and educational attitudes than the HSE-only programs in the study. 

 While the survey and DYB reporting data highlight the differences in service experiences and 

outcomes among the different program types, the observations made by YouthBuild staff and 

participants in open-ended responses to the program surveys and through the telephone 

interviews and site visit discussions emphasize the features of effective service experiences that 

run across program types. Overall, those observations suggested that there were more 

similarities than differences in the service experience among the HSE-only, Diploma-only, and 

Combined HSE/diploma programs. Staff and participants describe a wide range of practices that 

they identify as effective in enhancing members’ service experiences and outcomes, including: 

explicitly integrating service with other program components; attending to organizational/staff 

issues; instilling a program-wide culture of service; and supporting and motivating youth to 

create a commitment to service and yield better outcomes – all elements that could be, and are, 

implemented regardless of program type. Finally, across the discussions ran the theme that 

interaction with beneficiaries is often at the heart of effective service experiences, and that 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 73

programs need to make an effort, regardless of setting, to create those face-to-face experiences 

for their participants. 

In the end, the findings suggest that there may be some real differences among program types, and the 

advantage, though often small, lies with the Diploma-only and the Combined HSE/Diploma programs. 

At this point, there is no simple explanation for the difference. While Diploma-only programs are 

substantially longer in duration and provide more service hours, when those variables are included in 

the analysis, they show only a minor influence on the results. At the same time, the interviews with the 

program sites suggest that all three types of programs are committed to the basic YouthBuild model and 

work to ensure that the connections are made between education, training, service, and leadership. 

One possible explanation for the differences in outcomes comes down to a question of organizational 

capacity. While all three program types share a commitment to the YouthBuild model and goals, the 

larger Diploma-only and Combined HSE/Diploma programs may have a somewhat greater capacity to 

carry that commitment into daily operation. As somewhat larger programs, both the Diploma and 

Combined HSE/Diploma programs may have more staff capacity, better management, and/or access to 

more stable funding (through local education funds), or a combination of all three. That organizational 

capacity, in turn, may support a somewhat more consistent delivery of programs and services, both 

within and across program years. Whatever the explanation, as noted throughout, all three program 

models are generating broadly positive results on a wide variety of outcomes. But there are differences 

and they suggest that the Diploma and Combined HSE/Diploma programs are delivering a somewhat 

stronger service experience and better program outcomes for AmeriCorps participants. 

Considerations for the Future 

The findings from the study have implications for YouthBuild to consider as it continues to support and 

strengthen its programs: 

1. One of the origins of this study was a concern that the more “school-like” diploma-based 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs might not emphasize building an ethic of service and civic 

engagement among participants as strongly as the more traditional HSE-focused YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps programs. The study results suggest that, in fact, the Diploma-only and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs have been as or more successful than the HSE-only programs in that 

area and in carrying out YouthBuild’s mission of youth leadership development. In that context, 

YouthBuild can safely continue its emphasis on the development of a diploma-granting capacity 

without concern that it is compromising a core mission. 

2. The study also suggests that the quality of the service experience is vital to positive outcomes, 

regardless of the program type. (This echoes a finding from the recent study of YouthBuild’s 

construction and non-construction programs.) Thus, YouthBuild USA may want to further 

emphasize the importance of building context and opportunities for face-to-face contact with 

community members and beneficiaries into both primary and secondary services. This may 

mean providing more examples of how to integrate community context into the service 

activities and/or how to build a service-learning/civic engagement element into academic 

programs. Finally, it also suggests that the importance of continuing to emphasize regular 

secondary service experiences, already a part of many programs, as one of the elements of a 

quality YouthBuild experience. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 74

3. Given the differences in experiences and outcomes between the Diploma and Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs and the HSE-only programs, YouthBuild may want to further examine 

both the education and the service programming at the HSE-only sites. As noted in the report, 

while program completion and job placement rates for the HSE-only sites were high, HSE 

attainment rates were relatively low. A key question for YouthBuild is how to strengthen the 

HSE programs’ educational components without eliminating the option of a shorter route to a 

high school credential that is needed by many students. Similarly, the results suggest that 

YouthBuild USA look at how to increase the capacity of the HSE programs to deliver a strong, 

consistent set of service experiences. 

4. Finally, the relative success of the Combined HSE/Diploma programs suggests that there is some 

value in providing a well-integrated, but distinct, set of education options as part of the 

YouthBuild program. As highlighted in the interviews with several of the Combined 

HSE/Diploma programs, the presence of both the HSE and diploma options allowed the 

programs greater flexibility in placing members where they were most likely to achieve success 

while building the educational capacity of the program as a whole. While these programs are 

likely more difficult to design and manage, their relatively stronger results suggests that an 

investment in program capacity can pay dividends for YouthBuild AmeriCorps members. 
Center for Youth and Communities, Brandeis University January 2019 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps Evaluation (2016-19) Final Report 

Appendix 
Page 1 of 16

Program Survey

AmeriCorps Evaluation – Impact of Diploma Granting Programs 

 As part of a study of the differences in impacts of diploma granting and non-diploma granting 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps programs, Brandeis University and YouthBuild USA are surveying both kinds of 

programs . Each YouthBuild AmeriCorps program should complete one survey. The staff member(s) 

most familiar with YouthBuild and AmeriCorps should complete this survey. 

 

 Unless otherwise specified, questions about students refer to your YouthBuild AmeriCorps members 

and questions about enrollment refer to the 2016-2017 AmeriCorps grant year (i.e., the cohort enrolled 

between 8/15/16 and 8/14/17). 

 

 We want to assure you that, even though we ask for your name, your survey will be confidential. Only 

the Brandeis University researchers will see your completed survey. No one at YouthBuild USA will see 

your individual responses. 

 

Since no two YouthBuild programs are alike, we’ve included several places where you can clarify or 

comment on your responses about your program. Our goal with this survey is to get as accurate and 

complete an understanding of your program as possible. 

 

Identifying Information

 

 The following information is what we have on file. 

 

 If the field is blank or in error, please provide the information: 

oProgram name ________________________________________________ 

oLocation city: ________________________________________________ 

oLocation State: ________________________________________________ 

o Name of the primary person completing the survey: 

________________________________________________ 

oTitle: ________________________________________________ 

o How long have you been with the organization?: (# of years, entered as a whole number) 

________________________________________________ 

oEmail: ________________________________________________ 

oPhone number: ________________________________________________ 
Page 2 of 16

Please select the best description of your YouthBuild program: 

oCharter school/Part of charter school 

oAlternative school/Part of alternative school 

oPart of a Conservation Corps program 

oPart of a CAP agency 

oPart of a government agency 

oPart of another type of human services/social services program - please explain: 

________________________________________________ 

oA separate, standalone YouthBuild program 

If you need more space to clarify your overall YouthBuild program structure, please do so here: 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Please fill in the numbers in the following table: 

 

 _______ Total number of young people enrolled (through age 26) in the larger organization or program 

this current year, if applicable (If your program is a standalone program, please write “0”)

 _______ Number of YouthBuild participants enrolled for the 2016-2017 AmeriCorps grant year (i.e., the 

cohort enrolled between 8/15/16 and 8/14/17) 

 _______ Number of AmeriCorps participants enrolled for the 2016-2017 AmeriCorps grant year (i.e., 

the cohort enrolled between 8/15/16 and 8/14/17) 

Comments/clarifications about your enrollment numbers: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 
Page 3 of 16

How does your program organize its academic education and occupational training schedule? Please 

check the answer that applies to the majority of your YouthBuild AmeriCorps members (you can clarify 

below if needed): 

 

oAcademic education and occupational training take place during the same day 

oAcademic education and occupational training take place on alternating days 

oAcademic education and occupational training take place on alternating weeks 

oAcademic education and occupational training take place on different alternating periods 

(month, trimester, semester, etc.) – please explain: 

________________________________________________ 

o Other – please explain: ________________________________________________ 

How is your overall program organized annually? 

 

oTwo semesters during the academic year, plus a summer program 

oTwo semesters during the academic year, without a summer program 

oThree trimesters during the academic year, plus a summer program 

oThree trimesters during the academic year, without a summer program 

o Other – please explain: ________________________________________________ 
Page 4 of 16

To help us understand your schedule, please complete the following charts for a typical 2-week 

period. If your schedule is about the same from one week to the next, please leave the second chart 

blank and check “Generally the same as Week 1”. Types of activities might include academic and 

occupational training (construction, healthcare, technology/ recycling), leadership development, 

secondary/ community service, postsecondary preparation, and career supports. 

 Week 1: 

Monday Tues Wed Thurs Friday Sat Sun

Morning 

Activities 

Afternoon 

Activities 

Other 

Activities 

Is week 2 generally the same as week 1? 

oYes 

o No 

Week 2: (leave blank if "yes" above) 

Monday Tues Wed Thurs Friday Sat Sun

Morning 

Activities 

Afternoon 

Activities 

Other 

Activities 
Page 5 of 16

If you need to clarify information about your schedule, please do so here: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Educational Program 

 Does your 2016-2017 YouthBuild educational program offer YouthBuild AmeriCorps members the 

opportunity to earn a high school equivalency credential, a high school diploma, or both? 

 

o High School Equivalency credential (GED, HiSet, TASC, etc.) 

o High School Diploma 

oBoth High School Equivalency and High School Diploma 

High School Equivalency (HSE) Program 

 

How many of your 2016-2017 YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants are enrolled in the high school 

equivalency (HSE) program? 

 Number: ________________________________________________ 

Which HSE credential does your program offer? Check all that apply. 

 

▢GED 

▢HiSET 

▢TASC 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 

Who provides your program’s HSE instruction? Please check all that apply. 

 

▢YouthBuild staff 

▢Parent organization staff 

▢Teachers from outside YouthBuild (from another organization or under individual contracts) 
Page 6 of 16

You checked that staff from more than one organization provides your program's HSE 

instruction. Approximately what percentage of instruction is provided by each? 

% of HSE instruction provided by YouthBuild staff : _______ 

% of HSE instruction by provided by YouthBuild parent organization staff: : _______ 

% of HSE instruction provided by other staff: : _______ 

Total : ________ 

If outside staff provide HSE instruction, what type of organizations are they affiliated with? (please 

select all that apply) 

▢Community college 

▢Public school district 

▢Workforce Investment Board (WIB) 

▢Adult education program 

▢Other, please explain: ________________________________________________ 

Comments/ clarifications about your HSE instruction: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

How many academic instructors (Full Time Equivalents) teach in your HSE program and how many assist 

them? 

o# of Academic Instructors: ________________________________________________ 

o# of other staff assisting the academic instructors (Full Time Equivalents): 

________________________________________________ 

How much of your HSE instruction is computer-aided? 

 

o0% to 25% 

o26% to 50% 

o51% to 75% 

o76% or more 
Page 7 of 16

How much of your HSE instruction takes place in a classroom setting? 

 

o0% to 25% 

o26% to 50% 

o51% to 75% 

o76% or more 

On average, how many students (YouthBuild AmeriCorps members and others) are in an HSE class? 

o# of students ________________________________________________ 

Do you have a minimum required reading/math grade levels for entry into the HSE program? 

 

oYes we have required minimum reading/math grade levels for entry. 

o No, we do not have a minimum requirement for reading or math. 

What are the required minimum reading/math grade levels? 

oRequired grade level in reading: ________________________________________________ 

oRequired grade level in math: ________________________________________________ 

On average, how many hours of classroom/educational instruction do HSE-seeking YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps members receive in a typical month? 

o Hours: ________________________________________________ 

For those earning a HSE during the program or within one month of completion, how many months does 

it take to earn their HSE? Please fill in your best estimates of the maximum, minimum, and average 

amount of time it takes a YouthBuild AmeriCorps member to earn an HSE credential in your program: 

 

o Maximum amount of time to earn HSE credential (in months): _________________________ 

o Minimum amount of time to earn HSE credential (in months): _________________________ 

oAverage amount of time to earn HSE credential (in months): __________________________ 

Comments/clarifications about your HSE program: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 
Page 8 of 16

High School Diploma Program

How many of your 2016-2017 YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants are enrolled in the high school 

diploma program? 

 

o Number: ________________________________________________ 

Through what mechanism do your YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants earn a diploma? 

 

Traditional public high school or partnership with public high school 

oCharter school 

o District-affiliated alternative school 

oIndependent school 

o Other – please explain: ________________________________________________ 

Who provides the educational component for the diploma program? Please check all that apply. 

 

▢YouthBuild staff 

▢Parent organization staff 

▢Teachers from outside YouthBuild/ Parent organization 

▢Other – please explain: ________________________________________________ 

You checked that both YouthBuild/parent organization staff and others provide your program's diploma 

instruction. Please estimate the approximate percentage of effort in diploma instruction (sum must = 

100). 

% of diploma instruction provided by YouthBuild staff : _______ 

% of diploma instruction provided by YouthBuild parent organization staff: : _______ 

% of diploma instruction provided by other staff: : _______ 

Total : ________ 

If outside partners provide instruction, what type of organization are they affiliated with? 

oCommunity college 

oPublic school district 

o Other, please explain: ________________________________________________ 
Page 9 of 16

Comments/ clarifications about your diploma instruction: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

How much of your diploma instruction takes place in a classroom setting? 

 

o 0% to 25% 

o26% to 50% 

o51% to 75% 

o76% or more 

How much of your diploma instruction is computer-aided? 

 

o 0% to 25% 

o26% to 50% 

o51% to 75% 

o76% or more 

On average, how many diploma-seeking students (YouthBuild AmeriCorps members and others) are in a 

class? 

o# of students ________________________________________________ 

Do you have minimum required reading/math grade levels for entry into the diploma program? 

 

oYes, we have required minimum reading/math grade levels for entry 

o No, we do not have a minimum requirement for reading or math. 

What are the required minimum reading/math grade levels? 

 

oRequired grade level in reading: ________________________________________________ 

oRequired grade level in math: ________________________________________________ 
Page 10 of 16

On average, how many hours of classroom/educational instruction do diploma-seeking YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps members receive in a typical month? 

o Hours: ________________________________________________ 

For those earning a diploma during the program or within one month of completion, how many months 

does it take to earn a diploma? Please fill in your best estimates of the maximum, minimum, and 

average amount of time it takes a YouthBuild AmeriCorps member to earn a diploma in your program: 

 

o Maximum amount of time to earn diploma (in months): 

________________________________________________ 

o Minimum amount of time to earn diploma (in months): 

________________________________________________ 

oAverage amount of time to earn diploma (in months): 

________________________________________________ 

Comments/clarifications about your diploma program: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Both HSE and Diploma Programs

 

 If you offer both HSEs and diplomas to YouthBuild AmeriCorps members, are those seeking an HSE and 

those seeking a diploma taught separately or together? 

 

oSeparately 

oTogether 

oSometimes separately, sometimes together 

Comments/clarifications on your HSE and diploma programs overall: 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 
Page 11 of 16

Service and Occupational Training Activities

Please fill in the chart below to explain your program’s career pathways (primary service 

tracks/occupational training areas) for YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants. 

 

Describe 

training/service 

track briefly (e.g., 

“CNA prep, 

training, and 

clinical 

experience” for 

health care track) 

Average # of 

hours in track for 

completion 

(estimate) 

Type of 

certificate(s) 

awarded: 

Not applicable/ 

Nor offered 

Training/ Service 

Track Hours: Certificates: NA/Not offered 

Construction o

Health Care o

Conservation/ 

Recycling o

Digital Divide/ 

technology o

Other (Describe) o
Page 12 of 16

How many hours of primary service track/occupational training do YouthBuild AmeriCorps members 

participate in per month? Please fill in your best estimates of the maximum, minimum, and average 

number of hours per participant: 

 

o Maximum number of hours of primary service track/occupational training per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________ 

o Minimum number of hours of primary service track/occupational training per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________

oAverage number of hours of primary service track/occupational training per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________ 

What secondary/community service activities do YouthBuild AmeriCorps members participate in? Check 

all that apply 

 

▢Park clean-ups or help with community gardens 

▢Planning/support for neighborhood/ community fairs, festivals, children’s activities, or other 

events 

▢Food/nutrition (soup kitchen, food bank, meals on wheels/ distribution, etc.) 

▢Health/wellness (nursing home or hospital volunteering, etc.) 

▢Education (homework help, reading programs, etc.) 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 

In general, how often do YouthBuild AmeriCorps members participate in secondary/community service 

activities organized through the program? 

 

oAt least once per week 

oAt least once per month 

oAt least once per quarter or trimester 

o Only a couple of times per year (less than once per quarter/trimester) 
Page 13 of 16

How many hours of secondary/community service activities do members participate in per 

month? Please fill in your best estimates of the maximum, minimum, and average number of hours per 

participant: 

 

o Maximum number of hours of secondary service activities per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________ 

o Minimum number of hours of secondary service activities per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________ 

oAverage number of hours of secondary service activities per month: (in hours) 

________________________________________________ 

Comments/clarifications about your program’s occupational training and service activities:

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Other Kinds of Training and Activities

This section focuses on training and activities that don’t fit in other educational or career/service 

categories. 

Leadership Training and Activities

 What kinds of leadership development training and activities does your program offer? Please check all 

that apply. 

 

▢Youth participation in policy committee or similar opportunities 

▢Youth leadership roles in program implementation 

▢Curricular concentration on and evaluation of leadership competencies 

▢Explicit emphasis on being a positive role model 

▢Peer mentoring/advising opportunities 

▢Individual leadership development plans 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 
Page 14 of 16

Life Skills Training and Activities

 What kinds of life skills training and activities does your program offer? Please check all that apply: 

 

▢Career planning and preparation activities (e.g., matching strengths/interests with potential 

careers, preparing resumes, developing portfolios) 

▢Financial literacy 

▢Time management 

▢Problem solving 

▢Conflict management 

▢Public Speaking 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________ 

Postsecondary Education Activities 

 What kinds of postsecondary education preparation and support activities does your program 

offer? Please check all that apply. 

 

▢Bridge Program (to support transition to postsecondary) 

▢Dual Enrollment 

▢College Visits or Tours 

▢PSE Preparation Courses 

▢Advising by PSE staff 

▢After School Tutoring 

▢Placement test prep 

▢Assistance with admission and financial aid applications 

▢Study skills 

▢Analytical writing 

▢Note-taking 

▢Other – please describe: ________________________________________________
Page 15 of 16

How many hours of these leadership, life skills, and PSE training and activities do YouthBuild AmeriCorps 

members participate in per month? Please fill in your best estimates of the maximum, minimum, and 

average number of hours per participant focused on these issues, both in regular academic classes and 

outside of, regular academic classes: 

 

Hours of leadership, life skills, 

and PSE training and activities: 

Hours of leadership, life skills, 

and PSE training and activities: 

In regular academic classes Outside of regular academic 

classes 

Maximum number of hours per 

month: (in hours) 

Minimum number of hours per 

month: (in hours) 

Average number of hours per 

month: (in hours) 

Comments/clarifications about your leadership, life skills, and PSE training and activities: 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

Reflections on Offering Education, Service, and Training

Finally, we’d like to know your thoughts on the following open-ended questions. 

 

To what degree and how are your program’s academic/education and service components integrated 

or connected? Please give an example or two. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 
Page 16 of 16

What are your program’s biggest challenges in balancing educational with service activities, 

occupational training, leadership activities, and life skills training? 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

What key strategies does your program use to create a “culture” of service?

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Which experiences do you think contribute most to creating a commitment to service among 

AmeriCorps participants? 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

Congratulations! You have finished the survey. Please click "Submit" below to record your responses. 

Thank you! 
YouthBuild

Member 

Survey

If you have questions about your rights as a research subject please contact the Brandeis Institutional 

Review Board at irb@brandeis.edu or 781-736-8133. 

As part of a study of the YouthBuild AmeriCorps program, Brandeis University and YouthBuild USA are surveying 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants to learn more about your education goals, your involvement in the community, 

and your experiences in the program. The survey asks how far you hope to go with your education, how you think 

about yourself as a student, your attitudes towards community involvement, and skills that you have learned 

through YouthBuild. The survey also asks about the kinds of service you were engaged in through your YouthBuild 

program. YouthBuild will use the information from the survey as part of its effort to improve the effectiveness of its 

AmeriCorps programs for its members. Please complete the survey as honestly and completely as you can so we 

have the best possible information to work with. 

We promise that all of your survey responses will be kept strictly confidential and only used for the purposes of this 

study. Please note: 

 The survey is anonymous. The survey does include your YouthBuild ID number, which will let us link your 

survey information to other YouthBuild program data (such as your age or gender) without including your 

name. Before you complete the survey, we will instruct you (below) to remove this cover page, so your 

name is not connected to the survey data. 

 The survey is also confidential: the only people who will see your actual survey responses are the 

researchers at Brandeis University. When you complete your survey, you will seal it in an envelope that 

will be mailed directly to Brandeis University. We will keep all information collected as part of this study 

private and secure. No one at your local YouthBuild program or at YouthBuild USA will see your answers. 

 Participation in this study is voluntary. If you do not want to complete the survey, or if there are questions 

you do not want to answer, you do not have to. But we strongly encourage you to participate. Your 

answers will make a difference! The study will provide valuable information for YouthBuild and help 

YouthBuild better serve young people like you in the future. We hope you will agree to be in the study. 

If you agree to participate in the study, please complete the survey. Tear off this cover page (so your name is 

not on the survey) and seal the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope that has been provided. 

Return the survey to your YouthBuild staff person. He or she will mail the survey back to Brandeis. 

If you do not agree to participate in the study, you can simply return a blank survey. Please tear off the cover page 

(so your name is not on the survey) and seal the blank survey in the postage-paid envelope that has been 

provided. Return the survey to your YouthBuild staff person. He or she will mail the survey back to Brandeis. If 

you prefer, you can simply place the blank survey in your recycling bin or return it to your YouthBuild staff person. 

If you have any questions about the study, please contact us by email at Youthbuildstudy@brandeis.edu or call us

at Brandeis University, toll-free at (800) 343-4705 extension 63813. 

THANK YOU! We hope you will help us with this important study. 

An online version of this survey is available at: http://cyc.brandeis.edu/YBAmericorps.html. Be sure to 

have your YouthBuild ID number (on the next page of this survey) to include in the online survey. 

PLEASE BE SURE TO REMOVE THIS COVER PAGE BEFORE YOU RETURN YOUR SURVEY 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

Place Name 

Label here 
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK 
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -1 1 

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! 

Please answer each question as honestly and completely as you 

can. 

I. Before Joining YouthBuild

First, we want to learn about some of your goals, community connections, 

and leadership experiences before you joined YouthBuild. 

Your goals 

1. Think back to just before you joined YouthBuild. How important were each of the following goals for you at 

that time? Please mark one response for each goal that indicates how important that goal was for you before 

you joined YouthBuild. 

How important was each of the following 

goals for you before you joined the 

YouthBuild program?

Not 

Important at 

All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very 

Important 

(4) 

a. Completing your GED or high school 

diploma.    

b. Getting a job as soon as possible.    

c. Getting training or an apprenticeship in 

construction or another trade that would help 

you earn a living over the long term. 

   

d. Going to a trade or technical school.    

e. Going to a two-year college.    

f. Going to a four-year college.    

g. Going to graduate school (master’s degree, 

Ph.D., medical or law degree, etc.)    

2. Before you joined YouthBuild, how did you think about yourself as a student? Please mark how strongly you 

would have agreed or disagreed with each of the following statements, just before you joined YouthBuild. 

Strongly 

Disagree 

(1) (2) (3) 

Strongly 

Agree 

(4) 

It was very important to me to do the best I could 

as a student.    

If I decided to get good grades, I could do it.    

I tried hard in my classes.    

When studying, I kept working even if the 

material was difficult.    

If I needed help in class, I asked for it.    

If I wanted to learn something well, I could.    

I expected to use what I learned in school after I 

graduated.    

Instructions: 

For each question, make a solid mark that 

fills the oval completely. 

ID LABEL PLACED HERE 
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -2 2 

3. How much did you know about each of the following, just before you joined YouthBuild?

 

Nothing at 

All Very Little Some A Lot 

Why I should get training or education beyond 

high school or a GED    

What I needed to do to get into college    

How to pay for college    

What going to college might be like    

The attitudes and skills I needed in order to 

succeed in college    

What I needed to do to get into a vocational 

training/certificate program    

How to pay for a vocational training/certificate 

program    

The attitudes and skills I needed to be successful 

in a vocational training/certificate program    

Careers or jobs I might be interested in    

How to apply for a job    

The attitudes and skills I needed to be successful 

in a job    

You and your community 

4. How true were each of the following statements about your connections to your community just before you 

joined YouthBuild? 

Not True 

at All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very True 

(4) 

I felt very connected to my community.    

I often talked with people I knew about how 

larger political and social issues affected my 

neighborhood. 

   

I knew what steps I could take to solve problems 

in my community.    

It was important to me that my community saw 

me doing good work.    

Helping my community was important to me.    

I tried to help other people in my neighborhood.    

I believed I could make a difference in my 

community.    

I thought it was important to vote.    
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -3 3 

Leadership 

5. For each of the following statements, please mark how true each statement was for you before you joined 

YouthBuild. 

Not True 

at All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very True 

 (4) 

I was good at working on a team.    

When working on a team, I was willing to be a 

leader.    

People in my life relied on me.    

If I needed help, I knew people I could go to.    

I was comfortable speaking in front of a large 

group.    

I respected people’s ideas that were different 

from mine.    

I was self-confident.    

I could motivate people to work together.    

I believed I had a positive future ahead of me.    

I knew an adult in my community who believed I 

would be a success.    

6. Before you joined YouthBuild, how important was it to you to be involved in volunteer activities/community 

service to help your community? 

O It was not important at all 

O It was only a little important 

O It was moderately important 

O It was very important 

7. YouthBuild defines good leadership as taking positive steps to make things go right for yourself, your family, 

your program, and your community. During the 6 months before you joined YouthBuild, how often did you 

act as a leader in those ways?

O Never 

O Rarely 

O Sometimes 

O Often

 
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -4 4 

II. About You Today 

Now, we want to learn about some of your goals, community connections, and leadership experiences today. 

Your education and career goals 

8. Think about your education and career goals today. How important are each of the following goals for you

now? Please mark one response for each goal that indicates how important that goal is for you today. 

How important is each of the following goals 

for you today?

Not 

Important at 

All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very 

Important 

(4) 

a. Completing your GED or high school 

diploma.    

b. Getting a job as soon as possible.    

c. Getting training or an apprenticeship in 

construction or another trade that would help 

you earn a living over the long term. 

   

d. Going to a trade or technical school.    

e. Going to a two-year college.    

f. Going to a four-year college.    

g. Going to graduate school (master’s degree, 

Ph.D., medical or law degree, etc.)    

9. How do you think about yourself as a student today? Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with 

each of the following statements. 

Strongly 

Disagree 

(1) (2) (3) 

Strongly 

Agree 

(4) 

It is very important to me to do the best I can as 

a student.    

If I decide to get good grades, I can do it.    

I try hard in my classes.    

When studying, I keep working even if the 

material is difficult.    

If I need help in class, I ask for it.    

If I want to learn something well, I can.    

I expect to use what I learn in school after I 

graduate.    
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -5 5 

10. Please indicate how much you know today about each of the following. 

 

Nothing at 

All Very Little Some A Lot 

Why I should get training or education beyond 

high school or a GED    

What I need to do to get into college    

How to pay for college    

What going to college might be like    

The attitudes and skills I need in order to 

succeed in college    

What I need to do to get into a vocational 

training/certificate program    

How to pay for a vocational training/certificate 

program    

The attitudes and skills I need to be successful in 

a vocational training/certificate program    

Careers or jobs I might be interested in    

How to apply for a job    

The attitudes and skills I need to be successful in 

a job    

You and your community 

11. How true are each of the following statements about your connections to the community today? 

Not True 

at All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very True 

(4) 

I feel very connected to my community.    

I often talk with people I know about how larger 

political and social issues affect my 

neighborhood. 

   

I know what steps I can take to solve problems 

in my community.    

It is important to me that my community sees me 

doing good work.    

Helping my community is important to me.    

I try to help other people in my neighborhood.    

I believe I can make a difference in my 

community.    

I think it is important to vote.    
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -6 6 

Leadership 

12. For each of the following statements, please mark how true each statement is for you today. 

 

Not True 

at All 

(1) (2) (3) 

Very True 

 (4) 

I am good at working on a team.    

When working on a team, I am willing to be a 

leader.    

People in my life rely on me.    

If I need help, I know people I can go to.    

I am comfortable speaking in front of a large 

group.    

I respect people’s ideas that are different from 

mine.    

I am self-confident.    

I can motivate people to work together.    

I have a positive future ahead of me.    

I know an adult in my community who believes I 

will be a success.    

13. How important is it to you to be involved in volunteer activities/community service to help your community? 

O It is not important at all 

O It is only a little important 

O It is moderately important 

O It is very important

14. YouthBuild defines good leadership as taking positive steps to make things go right for yourself, your family, 

your program, and your community. During the past 6 months, how often did you act as a leader in those 

ways?

O Never 

O Rarely 

O Sometimes 

O Often
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -7 7 

Skills 

15. We would also like to know more about the skills you learned during YouthBuild. Please tell us how well 

you could do each of the following tasks before you joined YouthBuild and how well you can do them now. 

For example, the sample question below asks how well you could plan your travel to get to school or work on 

time. To answer, first fill in a circle on the left side of the page to tell us how well you could plan your travel 

before you joined YouthBuild. Then, fill in a circle on the right side of the page to tell us how well you can 

plan your travel now. In the sample question, we filled in the circle indicating that you could plan your travel so 

you got to work on time “a little” before joining YouthBuild, and can plan it “very well” now.

Before You Joined 

YouthBuild How well could you do each of the following? Now 

Not at 

All 

A 

Little 

Pretty 

Well 

Very 

Well 

Not at 

All 

A 

Little 

Pretty 

Well 

Very 

Well 

    a. Plan my travel so I get to school or work on time. 

(sample question)    

    b. Solve unexpected problems.    

    c. Find and use the resources that I need to complete a 

project or a task.    

    d. Listen and respond to other people’s suggestions or 

concerns.    

    e. Resolve conflicts between people.    

    f. Find the right person or organization to talk with to 

address an issue in my community.    

    g. Negotiate, compromise, and get along with co-workers 

and supervisors.    

    h. Manage my time when I am under pressure.    

    i. Deal with uncomfortable or difficult working conditions.    

    j. Talk to someone I don’t know about something I think is 

important.    

    k. Make a presentation.    

    l. Write a letter or email to someone I don’t know.    

    m. Work with neighbors to make a difference in my 

community.    
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -8 8 

Program Experience 

16. What types of service activities did you perform as part of your YouthBuild AmeriCorps program? Please 

indicate about how much of your service time you spent doing each type of service listed below. Please 

choose one answer for each type of service. 

Type of Service 

Did not do this 

type of service 

Less than half 

of my service 

time 

About half of my 

service time 

More than half 

of my service 

time 

All of my service 

time 

Construction     

Health Care     

IT/Digital Divide/ Computer     

Recycling/Conservation     

Other Service (for example, 

special service days, 

Saturday projects, etc.) 

    

17. During your time in YouthBuild AmeriCorps, how often did you do each of the following: 

Never 

Not Very 

Often Sometimes Very Often Always 

Serve with other AmeriCorps members at 

the same location.     

Serve in direct contact with people who 

benefit from your service.     

Serve in the community where you live.     

Get involved in planning your service.     

Serve people who come from different 

backgrounds than you.     

Work as part of a team.     

18. Please rate each of the following elements of your YouthBuild experience from Poor to Excellent, based on 

your experience in the program. 

 

Poor Fair Good Excellent 

Teaching and support in the educational 

program (GED or diploma)    

Education and career advising from 

counselors, teachers, and other YouthBuild 

staff 

   

Personal support from counselors, 

teachers, and other YouthBuild staff    

Support from other YouthBuild participants    

Training and support from the worksite 

supervisors/vocational instructors    

Opportunities to learn and practice 

leadership    
Brandeis University - YouthBuild AmeriCorps Member Survey- Post Only -9 9 

19. Thinking about your YouthBuild AmeriCorps experience, mark how strongly you agree or disagree with each of 

the following statements: 

Strongly 

Disagree 

(1) (2) (3) 

Strongly 

Agree 

 (4) 

I made a contribution to the community.    

I was exposed to new ideas and ways of 

seeing the world.    

I re-examined my beliefs and attitudes about 

myself.    

I changed some of my beliefs and attitudes.    

I felt like part of a community.    

I learned more about the “real” world.    

I made a difference in the life of at least one 

person.    

I did things I never thought I could do.    

I had a chance to take on a leadership role (for 

example, on a team, a project, on an advisory 

or policy council). 

   

I now make healthier decisions than I did 

before YouthBuild.    

My training (for example in construction or 

health care) helped me learn the skills I need to 

get a job in that field. 

   

I learned something that will help me succeed 

in postsecondary education or training.    

I learned something that will help me succeed 

in my career.    

Thank you for completing the survey! 

Please check that you tore off the cover sheet with your name on it. 

Then, please seal your completed survey in the envelope 

and return it to your YouthBuild/AmeriCorps staff person.