Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.

PROGRAMS FOR OUT-OF-SCHOOL YOUTH

Numerous programs have attempted to improve the job prospects of young people who are not in school and are looking for work. Evaluations of these efforts have concluded that the resources and structures of these programs are largely unable to overcome problems related to family structure, neighborhood structure, education, and health (U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 1992). Furthermore, the developmental stage of youth in these programs is not fully taken into account in the present employment and training system (Gambone, 1993).

The results of studies that have used either a strong quasi-experimental design or a random-assignment experiment are shown in Table 29. These measure the earning-enhancing effects of programs for out-of-school youth-young people who have not completed high school and whose employment prospects are therefore poorest. Other studies and programs have been described in Betsey, Hollister, and Papageorgiou (1985); Hahn and Lerman (1985); and Taggart (1981).

A random-assignment evaluation has been conducted of participants in JTPA programs. Early results of that evaluation have been reported by Bloom, Orr, Cave, Bell, and Doolittle (1992). Table 29 contains some of those results. They indicate negative or null effects for youth.

The program with the best record for improving the earnings of disadvantaged, out-of-school youth is the Job Corps. Originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, it was incorporated into CETA in 1973, then JTPA in 1982, and has since been expanded further. Table 29 shows some of the results from an evaluation by Mathematica, Inc., as summarized in Betsey et al. (1985). Although participants were not randomly assigned to the program and comparison group, the comparison group was matched on various characteristics and was taken from geographic areas where participation in Job Corps was low. Gains in earnings for Job Corps participants were more than $600 in the second year after they finished or left the program, and remained just under $400 two years after that. These amounts are in 1977 dollars; in early-1990s dollars, they would be worth about twice as much. Another late-1970s program for out-of-school youth, also described by Betsey et al. and summarized in Table 29, produced a gain of $1,288, but the quasi-experimental evaluation was not as rigorous as the evaluation of Job Corps.

A less expensive, nonresidential version of Job Corps training called Jobstart was conducted in the late 1980s and evaluated using random assignment. Table 29 gives interim results as reported by Cave and Doolittle (1991). In the second year after assignment, young men in the program earned $667 less than the control group. Effects for women were positive but small. Since some of the participants were still in training during the second year, effects may be more positive in the fourth year, when the evaluation is scheduled to end.

An earlier program, the Supported Work Demonstration of the late 1970s, also was evaluated using random assignment and also failed to find any substantial positive effect for young high school dropouts. Some results from Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1980) are shown in Table 29. So far, there does not appear to have been any federally supported program for out-of-school youth that has been found by random-assignment evaluation to produce significant gains in earnings.

From Betsey, Hollister, and Papageorgiou, 1985. Review of evidence on youth employment and training programs.

Job Corps residential traning for disadvantaged youth study. Effects on weekly earnings x 50, in 1977 dollars:

Ventures in Community Improvement (VICI) temporary employment in construction work for disadvantaged youth (evaulation by the Corporation for Public/Private Ventures used non-randomly assigned comparison group):

From Bloom, Orr, Cave, Bell, and Doolittle, 1992. Random-assignment evaluations of JTPA.

Sum of earnings in third through sixth quarters after assignment to program (assignment occurred 11/87 through 9/89). Average difference between assignees and control group, age 16-21:

From Cave and Doolittle, 1991. Random-assignment evaluation.

Jobstart non-residential training program for disadvantaged out-of-school youth. Effects on earnings in 1987-88, two years after assignment:

From Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1980.
Random-assignment evaluation of National Supported Work Demonstration.

These findings have generated multiple recommendations for improved programs for youth. Gambone (1993) proposes systemwide attention to specific components of youth education and training programs. These features are

• Comprehensive assessments;

• Regular monitoring of the developmental status and needs of youth as they move through programs;

• High-quality work experience and educational components that engage youth and hold them in programs for a period sufficient to allow them to derive developmental benefits;

• Opportunities to participate in teams, discuss important life issues, and participate in the governance of programs;

• One-to-one relationships with adults trained in understanding and facilitating the developmental process;

• Support services aimed at those problems that typically prevent disadvantaged youth from maintaining their participation in program interventions such as lack of shelter;

• Program structures and activities that promote and implement principles of fairness; and

• Organizations that operate with a clear mission, leadership culture and climate oriented toward providing a supportive environment for youth. (p. 68)

Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., III, Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (1994). Research on School-to-Work Programs in the United States (MDS-771). Berkeley: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California.