This topic area focuses on youth aged 14-24 who have not recently been in school or the labor force. In particular, CLEAR identified research that examined interventions to provide opportunities for youth to improve their labor market outcomes. This includes research describing these interventions and their implementation, along with studies of the interventions’ effectiveness.
Opportunities for Youth
Status: Literature reviewed in this topic area currently covers 1992 - 2015.
Synthesis Reports
Synthesis reports look at the research evidence across studies within a topic area. They also highlight gaps in the literature, and suggest areas in which further research is needed.
201
Findings:
View full synthesis report: Evidence on the Effectiveness of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program
Recently Added
CLEAR searches the existing literature for research relevant to this topic area's focus. Browse the most recently reviewed research below.
Displaying 61 - 70 of 102
Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The objective of this report was to assess how the implementation of the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP) at seven demonstration sites compared with the program model. QOP provided case management…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The report’s objective was to evaluate the impact of the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP)—which includes case management and mentoring, education, developmental activities, community service,…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
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…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of Job Corps on the employment and earnings of participants who obtained a general education development (GED) certificate or vocational training…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: Causal Impact Analysis
The National Job Corps Study included several reports, including this final impact report. The report’s objective was to examine the impact of the Job Corps program on participants’ long-term…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report presents an implementation analysis of 12 Center for Employment Training (CET) replication sites. The Center for Employment Training (CET) model targets economically disadvantaged youth…Study Type: Descriptive Analysis
This report built on the process and descriptive analyses of the National Job Corps Study to understand which Job Corps program features led to positive results for applicants and participants. Job…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report describes the implementation of and lessons learned from the National Job Corps Study, a random assignment impact evaluation of Job Corps. Job Corps provides comprehensive job training…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
This report presents a process study of the national Job Corps program. Initiated in 1964, Job Corps provides comprehensive education and employment skills training to disadvantaged youth ages 16 to…
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.