The National Job Corps Study produced several reports, including a main impact report (see CLEAR profile of Schochet et al. 2001 ) that found positive impacts of Job Corps—a national vocationally…
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 41 - 50 of 76
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study’s objective was to determine whether the benefits of Job Corps exceeded its costs. The authors used data on impacts from the National Job Corps Study to estimate the program’s benefits and…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The authors’ objective was to propose a plausible explanation for the Center for Employment Training-San Jose’s (CET) success in placing disadvantaged people into jobs. CET is a national program…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
One of a series of reports emanating from the National Job Corps Study, a random assignment evaluation of the Job Corps program, this report describes the characteristics of eligible Job Corps…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The report sought to provide guidance on best practices for operating programs for at-risk youth. The authors based their conclusions on best practices from evaluations they conducted of three…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study examined Youth Initiated Mentoring (YIM) within the context of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program (NGYCP). Unlike a traditional mentoring program in which mentors are assigned to…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report explored and described in detail the experiences of youth in a mentoring program known as Youth Initiated Mentoring. The youth were 16- to 18-year-old school dropouts who were a part of…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This study examined emerging practices used by Youth Corps sites to enhance their participants’ educational and employment opportunities. Youth Corps is a program that engages youth ages 16 to 25 in…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
Using personal stories of youth who participated in the Area IV Kansas Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP), the author sought to describe the ecosystems of urban youth, their relationships with…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
The study aimed to understand the characteristics of communities participating in the Youth Opportunity (YO) grant initiative. It also sought to examine perceptions of whether the YO program had…
CLEAR Icon Key
Below is a key for icons used to indicate important details about a study, such as its type, evidence rating, and outcome findings.
High Causal Evidence
Strong evidence the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Moderate Causal Evidence
Evidence that the effects are caused to some degree by the examined intervention.
Low Causal Evidence
Little evidence that the effects are caused by the examined intervention.
Causal Impact Analysis
Uses quantitative methods to assess the effectiveness of a program, policy, or intervention.
Descriptive Analysis
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.
Implementation Analysis
Examines the implementation of a program, policy, or intervention.
Favorable
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts.
Mixed
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain.
None
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain.
Unfavorable
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts.
Not applicable
Not applicable because no outcomes were examined in the outcome domain.
Favorable - low evidence
The study found at least one favorable impact in the outcome domain, and no unfavorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Mixed - low evidence
The study found some favorable and some unfavorable impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
None - low evidence
The study found no statistically significant impacts in the outcome domain. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Unfavorable - low evidence
The study found at least one unfavorable impact in the outcome domain, and no favorable impacts. The study received a low causal evidence ratings so these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Describes a program, policy, or intervention using qualitative or quantitative methods.