YouthBuild

Submitted by Gail Cope on Sat, 03/14/2015 - 13:42
  • 2009 Views
  • 2 Comments

Good afternoon,

A new publication has been released by MDRC, Adapting to Local Context: Findings from the YouthBuild  Evaluation Implementation Study.  This report presents program implementation findings from the national evaluation of YouthBuild, which is one such “second-chance” program providing a mix of academics, vocational training, leadership development, community service, and other activities to high school dropouts facing an array of challenges to educational and employment success. Over 6 to 12 months, young people participate in youth-driven education and vocational training, community service and leadership development, case management and counseling, work-readiness training, and preparation for postsecondary education. Follow-up services are also available for at least nine months following graduation to support future success. An overview of the study's findings as well as the link to the full publication may be found here:

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/adapting-local-context?utm_source=MDRC+Updates&utm_campaign=e46e9bb9d3-March_12_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_504d5ac165-e46e9bb9d3-34954317

Has your program been involved with similar activities and/or components (education and vocational training, community service and leadership development, case management and counseling, work-readiness training, and preparation for postsecondary education) for youth?  What types of activities/program components did you offer?  What were the outcomes?

Gail Cope, LINCS Program Management Group

 

 

Comments

Thanks Gail for calling our attention to this MDRC evaluation of YouthBuild programs. This finding, in particular, caught my attention: "The YouthBuild programs in the evaluation extensively screened applicants prior to enrollment yet programs still enrolled a disadvantaged and at-risk population. Because of the screening, young people who did enroll were more likely to be highly motivated to succeed than the general population eligible for YouthBuild." This finding fits with my own direct observations of YouthBuild programs in the U.S. Screening is rigorous, often time-consuming, and -- as the MDRC evaluation says -- still results in an (often severely) disadvantaged  and at-risk population of school drop-outs (in many cases, court-involved, homeless, and from low-income families and communities). Screening sometimes gets a bad rap because it is said to "cream," participants, that is, to get those who will produce the best results. In the case of YouthBuild programs -- from this research and from my own experience -- it is used to match up the applicants with what is required to succeed in the program.

I would add to Gail's questions, how does your program screen participants, and do you think that your process is effective for your programs and your students? If so why? If not, what are the challenges you face?

David J. Rosen

djrosen123@gmail.com

 

Hi, Gail -

Thanks for posting the link to the YouthBuild evaluation.  I haven't worked with YouthBuild, although I have heard about their work from others in the education field.  I have had experience with students attending Job Corps and YearUp, both similar programs to YouthBuild.

Job Corps is a federally funded program under WIOA 2014, whose mission is to support low-income learners, ages 16-24, in earning a high school or GED, and completing some form of career and technical education.  Eligibility requirements are available online:  http://www.jobcorps.gov/Libraries/pdf/eligibility_factsheet.sflb

YearUp is a non-profit organization, largely funded from partners and corporate sponsorshp.  YearUp's mission is to serve low and moderate income learners, ages 18-24, who particpate in a mentorship program, complete an IT-related internship and earn up to 23 college credits.  Their application and eligibiltiy requirements are also available online:  http://www.yearup.org/for-students/#form

In my experience working with students who have attended these two programs, I have found that both programs have very clear policies that learners are expected to comply with over the course of their enrollment.  Job Corps, which is a residential program, has a zero tolerance policy around violence, stealing and sexual relations between students.  If a student is found to be guilty of any of these offenses, they are immediately exited from the program, but may re-apply after a wait period.  YearUp, which is non-residential, and requires a high school diploma, or GED, uses a point system, where each new learner is given 100 points, and is tasked with not losing points, which may result in being exited from the program if enough points are lost.  Reasons for losing points include being late to class or internship sites, unprofessional attire, disrespectful comments to any member of the YearUp community.

I'm curious how YouthBuild compares with Job Corps, which has more in common than it does with YearUp, in their retention and graduation rates.  Does anyone know if there are side-by-side comparisons of these similar programs?

Thanks,

Mike