Profile Updated:
Summary: This is a community- and school-based program designed to increase academic skills and job placement in disadvantaged youth. The program is rated Effective for increasing receipt of education or training and increasing receipt of a GED. The program is rated Ineffective for increasing total earnings and employment, reducing receipt of food stamps, and reducing arrests and drug use. (Review the full program description).
| Title | Rating | Details | Outcome Category | Study(ies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ever received any education or training (multisite) |
Effective | One Study |
The percentage of participants who reported receiving any education or training over the 4-year follow-up was higher for members of the treatment group compared with control group members. Approximately 94 percent of the treatment group received any education or training over the 4-year follow-up, compared with 56 percent of the control group. This difference was statistically significant. |
Education; Enrollment in school | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Received GED by end of year 4 (multisite) |
Effective | One Study |
The percentage of participants who reported receiving a GED by the end of the 4-year follow-up was higher for members of the treatment group compared with control group members. Approximately 37 percent of the treatment group received a GED by the end of the 4-year follow-up, compared with 21 percent of the control group. This difference was statistically significant. |
Education; Degree completion/attainment | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Total earnings (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There was no statistically significant difference in total earnings over the 4-year follow-up between the treatment group members and control group members. |
Employment/Socioeconomic Status; Employment ; Monthly/yearly earnings | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Ever employed (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage who reported ever being employed over the 4-year follow-up between treatment group members and control group members. |
Employment/Socioeconomic Status; Employment ; Job placement | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Receipt of food stamps (years 1-4) (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage who reported ever receiving food stamps over the 4-year follow-up between treatment group members and control group members. |
Employment/Socioeconomic Status; Receipt of financial assistance | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Ever arrested (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage who reported ever being arrested over the 4-year follow-up between treatment group members and control group members who did not participate in the program. |
Crime and Delinquency; Multiple crime/offense types/recidivism; Arrest/rearrest | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
| Ever used any drug (multisite) |
Ineffective | One Study |
There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage who reported ever using any drug at the 4-year follow-up between treatment group members and control group members who did not participate in the program. |
Drugs and Substance Abuse; Use of illegal substances | Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC. See evaluation methods. |
Program Goals
JOBSTART was created by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) and its partner organizations and funded by the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982. The goal was to address the high numbers of high school dropouts and provide them with an alternative source of education and vocational training in hopes of leading them to better and higher paying jobs. JOBSTART concentrates on four core components:
- Education
- Occupational training
- Support services
- Job placement assistance
Target Population/Eligibility
JOBSTART targets high school dropouts and economically disadvantaged youths. Because of the intertwining of socioeconomic status and race, many participants were minority youths with poor reading skills who were receiving some form of public assistance.
Program Activities
JOBSTART was modeled after the residential Job Corps program but was designed to be more cost effective. Instead of the intensive comprehensive support services and financial compensation offered at Job Corps residential centers, JOBSTART would provide the same basic components of the program but in a nonresidential setting. The JOBSTART program instructed youths in basic academic skills, concentrating on increasing communication, literacy levels, and math skills. In addition, youths received vocational/occupational skills training. Instructors in a classroom setting combined theory and hands-on practice to prepare participants for jobs in growing sectors and high-demand occupations. Support services in the form of transportation assistance, childcare, counseling, and work readiness and life skills training were also provided. Lastly, JOBSTART personnel also helped youths find jobs related to the training they had received, matching trainees with positions available in the local community.
Program Theory
The underlying theory behind JOBSTART is that a reinvestment and emphasis on educational attainment will result in better employment and long-term gains in earnings. Essentially, the program attempted to give youths a second chance and tried to improve their lives and earning potential by combining education classes with vocational training, making them better potential candidates and employees entering the workforce.
Study Title: JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts (which is associated with outcomes Ever received any education or training , Received GED by end of year 4, Total earnings , Ever employed , Receipt of food stamps (years 1-4), Ever arrested , and Ever used any drug )
Cave and colleagues (1993) evaluated JOBSTART using an experimental design with random assignment to treatment and control groups across 13 sites from 1985 to 1988. The 13 sites ranged from community-based organizations to schools to Job Corp Centers. The six community based sites were Buffalo, N.Y.; New York, N.Y.; Hartford, Conn.; San Jose, Calif.; Chicago, Ill.; and Corpus Christi, Texas. The three vocational school sites were Pittsburgh, Pa.; Monterey Park, Calif.; and Denver, Colo. The three Job Corps Center sites were located in Atlanta, Ga.; Los Angeles, Calif.; and Phoenix, Ariz. The last site was in Dallas, Texas.
Youths who applied for the program were randomly assigned to receive JOBSTART services or a control condition. The evaluation sample across all sites was 2,312 youths who received follow-up surveys at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after random assignment. The final analyses were conducted on 1,941 youth (84 percent of the initial sample) for whom there was complete follow-up data at all four assessments over the 4-year study. The treatment and control groups consisted of 988 and 953 youths, respectively. The treatment group participated in the JOBSTART program, while the control condition left youth free to access other services in the community without receiving anything from the JOBSTART program. There were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in any background or demographic variables such as gender, ethnicity, or parental status.
The outcomes of interest included education, employment, earnings, receipt of public assistance, and drug use. These outcomes were measured by a self-reported survey at the 4-year follow up. The researchers also conducted a cost–benefit analysis to determine whether the investment in JOBSTART yielded subsequent returns to taxpayers. The study authors conducted subgroup analyses to determine the potential effects of gender on program outcomes.
Citation: Cave, George, Hans Bos, Fred Doolittle, and Cyril Toussaint. 1993. “JOBSTART: Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts.” New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation MDRC.
Subgroup Analysis
Cave and colleagues (1993) conducted subgroup analyses to determine the potential effects of sex on program outcomes. There were no statistically significant differences found between men and women in the treatment group in GED attainment, employment, earnings, receipt of public assistance, or drug use.
Inconclusive Evidence
The following outcomes were considered in the scored study, but CrimeSolutions Study Reviewers determined the evidence was insufficient for a rating to be assigned:
- Total Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) income (years 1–4); and
- Total general assistance income (years 1–4).
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Burghardt, John and Peter Z. Schochet. 2001. “National Job Corps Study: Impacts by Center Characteristics.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Gritz, Mark R., and Terry Johnston. 2001. “National Job Corps Study: Assessing Program Effects on Earnings for Students Achieving Key Program Milestones.” Seattle, Wash.: Battelle Memorial Institute.
McConnell, Sheena, and Steven Glazerman. 2001. “National Job Corps Study: The Benefits and Costs of Job Corps.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
School- or community-based programs targeting frequently absent students or students at risk of dropping out of school. These programs are aimed at increasing school engagement, school attachment, and the academic performance of students, with the main objective of increasing graduation rates. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rates of school dropouts, and rated Promising for improving test scores/grades, graduation rates, and attendance.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Education - Dropout |
|
Education - Academic achievement/school performance |
|
|
Education - Graduation |
|
|
Education - Attendance/truancy |
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this program:
This is an educational and job training program for economically disadvantaged youth. The program is rated Promising. Youth in Job Corps demonstrated a lower rate of future arrest, conviction, and incarceration, as well as a higher rate of employment, higher earnings, and longer time spent employed, compared with control group youth. These findings were statistically significant. However, there were no statistically significant differences in alcohol or illegal drug use.
This program was originally rated Ineffective. It has been re-reviewed based on the change in the program rating instrument. Under the new instrument, CrimeSolutions ow now rates individual program outcomes and no longer assigns an overall rating.
Rating Process
Program Status
This program is Not Active.