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 96
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 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…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 to…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 that…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: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to estimate the impact of Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs on the long-term earnings and employment of male and female out-of-school youth and adults. This…Study Type: Implementation Analysis
The Center for Employment Training (CET) was shown by rigorous research conducted in the 1980s to increase the earnings and employment prospects of disadvantaged youth. The U.S. Department of Labor (…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of the Becoming a Man (BAM) program on youths’ academic outcomes, including grade point averages (GPAs), course failures, and achievement test scores.…Study Type: Causal Impact Analysis
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of One Summer Plus, a summer jobs program for high school-age students, on educational and criminal justice outcomes. Students from 13 high schools…
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.