Opportunity Youth: Disenfranchised Young People
Opportunity Youth: Disenfranchised Young People
Opportunity Youth: Disenfranchised Young People
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Turning the Improbable<br />
Into the Exceptional!<br />
Page 2 of 72
The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
Achieve Their Full Potential<br />
Since its founding in 2003, The Advocacy Foundation has become recognized as an effective<br />
provider of support to those who receive our services, having real impact within the communities<br />
we serve. We are currently engaged in community and faith-based collaborative initiatives,<br />
having the overall objective of eradicating all forms of youth violence and correcting injustices<br />
everywhere. In carrying-out these initiatives, we have adopted the evidence-based strategic<br />
framework developed and implemented by the Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency<br />
Prevention (OJJDP).<br />
The stated objectives are:<br />
1. Community Mobilization;<br />
2. Social Intervention;<br />
3. Provision of Opportunities;<br />
4. Organizational Change and Development;<br />
5. Suppression [of illegal activities].<br />
Moreover, it is our most fundamental belief that in order to be effective, prevention and<br />
intervention strategies must be Community Specific, Culturally Relevant, Evidence-Based, and<br />
Collaborative. The Violence Prevention and Intervention programming we employ in<br />
implementing this community-enhancing framework include the programs further described<br />
throughout our publications, programs and special projects both domestically and<br />
internationally.<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
ISBN: ......... ../2017<br />
......... Printed in the USA<br />
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
Philadlephia, PA<br />
(878) 222-0450 | Voice | Data | SMS<br />
Page 3 of 72
Page 4 of 72
Dedication<br />
______<br />
Every publication in our many series’ is dedicated to everyone, absolutely everyone, who by<br />
virtue of their calling and by Divine inspiration, direction and guidance, is on the battlefield dayafter-day<br />
striving to follow God’s will and purpose for their lives. And this is with particular affinity<br />
for those Spiritual warriors who are being transformed into excellence through daily academic,<br />
professional, familial, and other challenges.<br />
We pray that you will bear in mind:<br />
Matthew 19:26 (NIV)<br />
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible,<br />
but with God all things are possible." (Emphasis added)<br />
To all of us who daily look past our circumstances, and naysayers, to what the Lord says we will<br />
accomplish:<br />
Blessings!!<br />
- The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Page 5 of 72
Page 6 of 72
The Transformative Justice Project<br />
Eradicating Juvenile Delinquency Requires a Multi-Disciplinary Approach<br />
The way we accomplish all this is a follows:<br />
The Juvenile Justice system is incredibly overloaded, and<br />
Solutions-Based programs are woefully underfunded. Our<br />
precious children, therefore, particularly young people of<br />
color, often get the “swift” version of justice whenever they<br />
come into contact with the law.<br />
Decisions to build prison facilities are often based on<br />
elementary school test results, and our country incarcerates<br />
more of its young than any other nation on earth. So we at<br />
The Foundation labor to pull our young people out of the<br />
“school to prison” pipeline, and we then coordinate the efforts<br />
of the legal, psychological, governmental and educational<br />
professionals needed to bring an end to delinquency.<br />
We also educate families, police, local businesses, elected<br />
officials, clergy, and schools and other stakeholders about<br />
transforming whole communities, and we labor to change<br />
their thinking about the causes of delinquency with the goal<br />
of helping them embrace the idea of restoration for the young<br />
people in our care who demonstrate repentance for their<br />
mistakes.<br />
1. We vigorously advocate for charges reductions, wherever possible, in the adjudicatory (court)<br />
process, with the ultimate goal of expungement or pardon, in order to maximize the chances for<br />
our clients to graduate high school and progress into college, military service or the workforce<br />
without the stigma of a criminal record;<br />
2. We then enroll each young person into an Evidence-Based, Data-Driven Restorative Justice<br />
program designed to facilitate their rehabilitation and subsequent reintegration back into the<br />
community;<br />
3. While those projects are operating, we conduct a wide variety of ComeUnity-ReEngineering<br />
seminars and workshops on topics ranging from Juvenile Justice to Parental Rights, to Domestic<br />
issues to Police friendly contacts, to CBO and FBO accountability and compliance;<br />
4. Throughout the process, we encourage and maintain frequent personal contact between all<br />
parties;<br />
5 Throughout the process we conduct a continuum of events and fundraisers designed to facilitate<br />
collaboration among professionals and community stakeholders; and finally<br />
Page 7 of 72
6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publications, like our e-Advocate series Newsletter and our e-Advocate<br />
Quarterly electronic Magazine to all regular donors in order to facilitate a lifelong learning process<br />
on the ever-evolving developments in the Justice system.<br />
And in addition to the help we provide for our young clients and their families, we also facilitate<br />
Community Engagement through the Restorative Justice process, thereby balancing the interesrs<br />
of local businesses, schools, clergy, elected officials, police, and all interested stakeholders. Through<br />
these efforts, relationships are rebuilt & strengthened, local businesses and communities are enhanced &<br />
protected from victimization, young careers are developed, and our precious young people are kept out<br />
of the prison pipeline.<br />
This is a massive undertaking, and we need all the help and financial support you can give! We plan to<br />
help 75 young persons per quarter-year (aggregating to a total of 250 per year) in each jurisdiction we<br />
serve) at an average cost of under $2,500 per client, per year.*<br />
Thank you in advance for your support!<br />
* FYI:<br />
1. The national average cost to taxpayers for minimum-security youth incarceration, is around<br />
$43,000.00 per child, per year.<br />
2. The average annual cost to taxpayers for maximun-security youth incarceration is well over<br />
$148,000.00 per child, per year.<br />
- (US News and World Report, December 9, 2014);<br />
3. In every jurisdiction in the nation, the Plea Bargain rate is above 99%.<br />
The Judicial system engages in a tri-partite balancing task in every single one of these matters, seeking<br />
to balance Rehabilitative Justice with Community Protection and Judicial Economy, and, although<br />
the practitioners work very hard to achieve positive outcomes, the scales are nowhere near balanced<br />
where people of color are involved.<br />
We must reverse this trend, which is right now working very much against the best interests of our young.<br />
Our young people do not belong behind bars.<br />
- Jack Johnson<br />
1<br />
In addition to supporting our world-class programming and support services, all regular donors receive our Quarterly e-Newsletter<br />
(The e-Advocate), as well as The e-Advocate Quarterly Magazine.<br />
Page 8 of 72
The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.<br />
Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities<br />
Achieve Their Full Potential<br />
…a collection of works on<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong><br />
<strong>Disenfranchised</strong> <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong><br />
“Turning the Improbable Into the Exceptional”<br />
Atlanta<br />
Philadelphia<br />
______<br />
John C Johnson III<br />
Founder & CEO<br />
(878) 222-0450<br />
Voice | Data | SMS<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Page 9 of 72
Page 10 of 72
Biblical Authority<br />
______<br />
Philippians 4:6-7 (NASB)<br />
6<br />
Be anxious for nothing, but in everything<br />
by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving<br />
let your requests be made known to<br />
God. 7 And the peace of God, which<br />
surpasses all comprehension, will guard<br />
your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.<br />
Proverbs 3:5-6<br />
5<br />
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,<br />
And do not lean on your own understanding.<br />
6<br />
In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He<br />
will make your paths straight.<br />
Deuteronomy 31:6<br />
6<br />
Be strong and courageous, do not be<br />
afraid or tremble at them, for the Lord your<br />
God is the one who goes with you. He will<br />
not fail you or forsake you.”<br />
Ephesians 4:29<br />
29<br />
Let no unwholesome word proceed from<br />
your mouth, but only such a word as is good<br />
for edification according to the need of the<br />
moment, so that it will give grace to those<br />
who hear.<br />
Exodus 20:12<br />
12<br />
“Honor your father and your mother, that<br />
your days may be prolonged in the land<br />
which the Lord your God gives you.<br />
Isaiah 40:29-31<br />
29<br />
He gives strength to the weary, and to him<br />
who lacks might He increases power.<br />
30<br />
Though youths grow weary and tired, and<br />
vigorous young men stumble badly, 31 Yet<br />
those who wait for the Lord Will gain new<br />
strength; They will mount up with wings like<br />
eagles, they will run and not get tired, they<br />
will walk and not become weary.<br />
1 Corinthians 10:13<br />
13<br />
No temptation has overtaken you but such<br />
as is common to man; and God is faithful,<br />
who will not allow you to be tempted beyond<br />
what you are able, but with the temptation<br />
will provide the way of escape also, so that<br />
you will be able to endure it.<br />
1 Timothy 4:12<br />
12<br />
Let no one look down on your<br />
youthfulness, but rather in speech,<br />
conduct, love, faith and purity, show<br />
yourself an example [a] of those who believe.<br />
Page 11 of 72
Page 12 of 72
Table of Contents<br />
…a collection of works on<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong><br />
<strong>Disenfranchised</strong> <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong><br />
______<br />
Biblical Authority<br />
I. Introduction: Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>……………………………………… 15<br />
II. <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment……………………………………………………. 21<br />
III. Positive <strong>Youth</strong> Development…..……………………………………….. 29<br />
IV. <strong>Youth</strong> Participation………….……………………………………………. 35<br />
V. Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong>: Program Profile…………………………………. 41<br />
VI. References……………………………………………………………….. 43<br />
Attachments<br />
A. What Works for Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong>: A Scan of the Evidence<br />
B. Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds<br />
Who are Not Working or In School<br />
C. Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> - Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
Copyright © 2018 The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.<br />
Page 13 of 72
Page 14 of 72
I. Introduction<br />
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> are young people aged 16 to 24 who are neither<br />
working nor in school. According to the most recent Measure of America report, there<br />
are 4.9 million, or one in every eight, American young people in this age group who<br />
are not connected to either of these anchor institutions. Disconnected youth are<br />
sometimes referred to as <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>.<br />
Emphasis is placed upon this group because the years between the late teens and the<br />
mid-twenties are believed to be a critical period during which young people form adult<br />
identities and move toward independence. The effects of youth disconnection—limited<br />
education, social exclusion, lack of work experience, and fewer opportunities to develop<br />
mentors and valuable work connections—can have long-term consequences that<br />
snowball across the life course, eventually influencing everything from earnings and<br />
self-sufficiency to physical and mental health and marital prospects. Much discussion<br />
has been focused on how to reach these young people and connect them with broader<br />
social institutions in order to prevent these negative consequences.<br />
Page 15 of 72
Analysis has also examined the economic impact of youth disconnection. According to<br />
the Measure of America report, the average disconnected youth costs $37,450 a year in<br />
government services.<br />
Definition<br />
The term has gained increased usage in recent years among policy advocates and<br />
social science researchers, particularly after the Great Recession. After a decade of<br />
relatively stable rates, the rolls of the disconnected surged by over 800,000 young<br />
people between 2007 and 2010. The latest data indicates that the rate of youth<br />
disconnection has fallen to 12.3 percent, a significant drop from the 2010 post-recession<br />
high of 14.7 percent, or 5.8 million young people.<br />
A 2012 study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation found that "the data show that the<br />
populations struggling the most to enter the workforce and stay in school today are<br />
youth who are less educated, come from low-income families and belong to a racial or<br />
ethnic minority."<br />
The United States Department of Education defines disconnected youth as those aged<br />
14 to 24 years old, but relies on calculations done for the 16-24 group by Measure of<br />
America. Some researchers have narrowed the definition of youth disconnection to<br />
exclude those above an income and education threshold, and those parenting with a<br />
connected spouse.<br />
The two surveys commonly used to calculate youth disconnection are the American<br />
Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS). Each survey has<br />
its advantages; the ACS surveys people in "group quarters" and has a larger sample<br />
size, which allows demographic and geographic disaggregation of data, while the CPS<br />
is an older survey, including data from 1940 on.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Disconnection in the 25 Largest US Metro Areas<br />
Below is a list of United States metropolitan areas sorted by their rates of disconnected<br />
youth, as well as youth disconnection rates by race and ethnicity in metro areas where<br />
the population of that racial or ethnic group is sufficiently large for robust estimates. The<br />
data were taken from Measure of America's 2017 report, "Promising Gains, Persistent<br />
Gaps: <strong>Youth</strong> Disconnection in America."<br />
Rank<br />
Metro Area<br />
All<br />
(percent)<br />
African<br />
American<br />
(percent)<br />
Latino<br />
(percent)<br />
United States 12.3 18.9 14.3 10.1<br />
1 Boston 7.3 10.8 9.6 6.5<br />
2 Minneapolis 7.9 - - 5.8<br />
White<br />
(percent)<br />
Page 16 of 72
Rank<br />
Metro Area<br />
All<br />
(percent)<br />
African<br />
American<br />
(percent)<br />
Latino<br />
(percent)<br />
3 San Francisco 9.2 21.8 9.6 6.9<br />
4 San Diego 9.7 - 11.3 8.6<br />
5 Washington 10.3 14.6 11.9 7.3<br />
6 Denver 10.3 - 14.6 7.7<br />
7 Seattle 10.9 - 15.7 10.2<br />
8 Los Angeles 11.1 21.2 12.0 8.4<br />
9 Portland 11.2 - 13.0 11.6<br />
10 Baltimore 11.3 20.5 - 7.0<br />
11 St. Louis 11.5 19.4 - 8.5<br />
12 Chicago 12.1 22.9 12.2 8.2<br />
13 New York City 12.2 18.2 15.6 8.7<br />
14 Orlando 12.2 17.4 14.1 8.8<br />
15 Miami 12.2 17.0 11.9 8.8<br />
16 Dallas-Fort Worth 12.4 15.2 14.6 10.4<br />
17 Philadelphia 12.9 22.2 18.0 8.5<br />
18<br />
Tampa-St.<br />
Petersburg<br />
12.9 21.8 12.1 11.1<br />
19 Phoenix 13.2 21.0 15.2 10.6<br />
20 San Antonio 13.4 - 15.6 11.2<br />
21 Atlanta 13.6 17.8 13.1 10.9<br />
22 Houston 13.7 15.3 15.8 10.8<br />
23 Charlotte 14.7 17.4 17.3 13.3<br />
24 Detroit 15.0 25.6 - 10.5<br />
25<br />
Riverside-San<br />
Bernardino<br />
Organizations working to reconnect youth:<br />
16.1 21.1 16.5 14.8<br />
White<br />
(percent)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
America's Promise<br />
Annie E. Casey Foundation<br />
College Track<br />
Forum for <strong>Youth</strong> Investment<br />
Job Corps<br />
Latin American <strong>Youth</strong> Center (DC)<br />
Page 17 of 72
Larkin Street<br />
Lyric<br />
National Fund for Workforce Solutions<br />
National League of Cities Institute for <strong>Youth</strong>, Education and Families<br />
Native American <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Public Allies<br />
ROCHA<br />
The Aspen Forum for Community Solutions<br />
The Door<br />
Tulane University's Cowen Institute<br />
Year Up<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>Build USA<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Cares<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group<br />
______<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Disconnection<br />
by <strong>Opportunity</strong> Nation<br />
Disconnected youth are white and black, Hispanic and Asian. They are middle-class<br />
and poor, native born and immigrants. They live in rural, suburban and urban areas.<br />
Some struggled in school and lacked adequate supports to make it to graduation day.<br />
They include in their number the estimated one million students who drop out of high<br />
school each year, and fall through the cracks. Others are youth involved in the justice<br />
system, teen parents or foster care children who “aged out” of the system without a<br />
clear plan for adulthood.<br />
Many are looking for work that they can’t find, often because they lack the technical,<br />
communication and problem-solving skills required by today’s job market. And too many<br />
young people can’t come up with the money to pay for increasingly expensive postsecondary<br />
job training or college they need to get ahead. In fact, some of them enrolled<br />
in college, only to drop out because of financial constraints.<br />
Yet we know that young people are key to vibrant neighborhoods, communities and<br />
economies. The <strong>Opportunity</strong> Index clearly shows that one of the indicators most<br />
correlated with a region’s <strong>Opportunity</strong> Score is the percentage of young people<br />
ages 16-24 who are not in school or not working. If we can reconnect more youth to<br />
meaningful educational and career pathways, we will all benefit.<br />
The personal and collective costs of youth disconnection are steep. <strong>Young</strong> adults who<br />
are not in school or working cost taxpayers $93 billion annually and $1.6<br />
trillion over their lifetimes in lost revenues and increased social services.<br />
Page 18 of 72
There are plenty of reasons for youth disconnection – societal, familial, financial,<br />
educational, personal. But other countries have figured out ways to support families,<br />
children and students that produce more equitable societies, adaptable economies and<br />
richer environments for opportunity. We can, too.<br />
The fact is the U.S. must do more to retool our educational supports, economic systems<br />
and federal policies so that our young people can meet the challenges of the 21st<br />
century global economy.<br />
Whether liberal or conservative; working in government, business or the nonprofit<br />
sector; leaders or everyday Americans; we all have a role to play. Fortunately, there are<br />
Page 19 of 72
success stories all around the country we can learn from and emulate, many from<br />
the <strong>Opportunity</strong> Nation Coalition.<br />
These young adults are our future and deserve our urgent attention and investment. We<br />
all have a stake in helping the next generation meaningfully connect to education, the<br />
economy and civic life and restoring our promise as a land of opportunity.<br />
Page 20 of 72
II. <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment is a process where children and young people are<br />
encouraged to take charge of their lives. They do this by addressing their situation and<br />
then take action in order to<br />
improve their access to resources<br />
and transform their<br />
consciousness through their<br />
beliefs, values, and<br />
attitudes. <strong>Youth</strong> empowerment<br />
aims to improve quality of life.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment is achieved<br />
through participation in youth<br />
empowerment programs.<br />
However scholars argue that<br />
children’s rights implementation<br />
should go beyond learning about<br />
formal rights and procedures to<br />
give birth to a concrete<br />
experience of rights. There are<br />
numerous models that youth<br />
empowerment programs use that<br />
help youth achieve<br />
empowerment. A variety of youth<br />
empowerment initiatives are underway around the world. These programs can be<br />
through non-profit organizations, government organizations, schools or private<br />
organizations.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment is different than youth development because development is<br />
centered on developing individuals, while empowerment is focused on creating greater<br />
community change relies on the development of individual capacity.<br />
Empowerment movements, including youth empowerment, originate, gain momentum,<br />
become viable, and become institutionalized. <strong>Youth</strong> empowerment is often addressed<br />
as a gateway to intergenerational equity, civic engagement and democracy building.<br />
Activities may focus on youth-led media, youth rights, youth councils, youth activism,<br />
youth involvement in community decision-making, and other methods.<br />
Empowerment Theory<br />
Elements of Empowerment<br />
Empowerment theory focuses on processes that enable participation; enhance control<br />
through shared decision making; and create opportunities to learn, practice, and<br />
increase skills. Empowerment theory suggests that engaging youth in pro-social,<br />
Page 21 of 72
meaningful, and community-enhancing activities that the youth themselves define and<br />
control, helps youth gain vital skills, responsibilities, and confidence necessary to<br />
become productive and healthy adults.<br />
Types of Empowerment<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment examines six interdependent dimensions: psychological,<br />
community, organizational, economic, social and cultural. Psychological empowerment<br />
enhances individual's consciousness, belief in self-efficacy, awareness and knowledge<br />
of problems and solutions and of how individuals can address problems that harm their<br />
quality of life. This dimension aims to create self-confidence and give youth the skills to<br />
acquire knowledge. Community empowerment focuses on enhancing the community<br />
through leadership development, improving communication, and creating a network of<br />
support to mobilize the community to address concerns. Organizational empowerment<br />
aims to create a base of resources for a community, including voluntary organizations,<br />
unions and associations that aim to protect, promote and advocate for the<br />
powerless. Economic empowerment teaches entrepreneurial skills, how to take<br />
ownership of their assets and how to have income security. Social empowerment<br />
teaches youth about social inclusion and literacy as well as helping kids find the<br />
resources to be proactive in their communities. Cultural empowerment aims to recreate<br />
cultural practices and redefine cultural rules and norms for youth. Through these<br />
dimensions of empowerment, programs can work on empowering youth in one or more<br />
aspects of their lives.<br />
Goals of Empowerment<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment programs are aimed at creating healthier and higher qualities of<br />
life for underprivileged or at-risk youth. The five competencies of a healthy youth are: (1)<br />
positive sense of self, (2) self- control, (3) decision-making skills, (4) a moral system of<br />
belief, and (5) pro-social connectedness. Developmental interventions and programs<br />
have to be anchored on these competencies that define positive outcomes of healthy<br />
youth.<br />
Measurable Empowerment<br />
Over the last two decades, quality of life (QOL) has emerged as an important unit of<br />
measurement to evaluate the success of empowerment programs. It is used as a goal<br />
of programs and as well as an indicator of effectiveness. However, there is no standard<br />
definition of QOL. A person's QOL is dependent upon subjective evaluation of the<br />
individual aspects of that individual's life.<br />
Positive Development Settings<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment programs thrive in positive developmental settings. Positive<br />
developmental settings promote youth competence, confidence and connections. Two<br />
features of the positive developmental youth settings are supportive relationships and<br />
Page 22 of 72
support for efficacy and mattering. Supportive relationships are those that are between<br />
youth and non-familial adults that foster trust and respect. Support for efficacy and<br />
mattering specifically focuses on youth being active, instrumental agents of change in<br />
their communities, collective decision-making and adults listen to and respect their<br />
voice.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment Programs<br />
There are various types of empowerment programs across the globe that empower<br />
youth through many different tactics and programs. Programs can operate in a variety of<br />
settings. The majority of programs operate in more than one setting, which may be a<br />
key factor in their success. The beneficial outcomes to youth empowerment programs<br />
are improved social skills, improved behavior, increased academic achievement,<br />
increased self-esteem and increased self-efficacy.<br />
There are programs are aimed at just empowering women and young girls. Regardless<br />
of specific goals or methods, empowering effects include improving women’s wellbeing,<br />
self-esteem, and self-efficacy, and enhancing social status by teaching technical and<br />
organizational skills.<br />
Other youth empowerment programs are focused on poverty alleviation. Living<br />
standards are for those living in poverty are declining causing forms of deprivation as it<br />
relates to food, resources and education. Programs aimed at empowering poor youth,<br />
work toward livelihood protection or livelihood promotion.<br />
Page 23 of 72
There are also empowerment movements that use the social action model, aiming for<br />
disadvantaged people to become empowered, organized, and educated so that they<br />
may create change. These programs advocate for constructive confrontations to<br />
enhance the social power of people who are considered disadvantaged. Another model<br />
is the 5C's model that focuses on emphasizing competence, confidence, connection,<br />
character and caring. A sixth C of contribution to society was later added. This model<br />
focuses primarily on engagement as a key marker of positive youth development,<br />
emphasizing the need to foster initiative. <strong>Youth</strong>-adult partnerships are another type of<br />
empowerment method used around the world. This method has been defined as a<br />
developmental process and a community practice. The partnership involves people of<br />
different ages working together on community issues over a period of time. The method<br />
emphasizes reciprocity among adults and youth with a focus on shared decision making<br />
and reflective learning. The concept of shared control is key for empowering youth.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment has also been used as a framework to prevent and reduce youth<br />
violence. Research shows that these youth empowerment programs can improve<br />
conflict avoidance and resolution skills, increase group leadership skills, and civic<br />
efficacy and improve ethnic identity and reduce racial conflict.<br />
Examples of <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment Programs<br />
Around the globe there are various empowerment programs focused on a wide variety<br />
of things and this is not a comprehensive list. Unsuccessful youth empowerment<br />
programs have not been carefully documented or published in case studies.<br />
In Namibia, one popular empowerment program is Pots of Hope. Pots of Hope's main<br />
goal is to reduce the vulnerability youth to HIV and Aids through education, information<br />
and awareness, as well as income security projects. Pots of Hope works by educating,<br />
and providing counseling to those in rural settings who do not have access to those<br />
resources. This program focuses on organizational empowerment within the community.<br />
Within the United States there are countless empowerment programs for youth.<br />
Urban 4-H is a culturally responsive, community-based practice that authentically<br />
engages families, youth and the community in the development of youth. Urban 4-H is<br />
an example of community empowerment that focuses on the economic and social<br />
dimensions of empowerment. The program helps youth build skills to enable them to<br />
overcome economic and social barriers while recognizing the importance of selfdirected<br />
learning for youth. Urban 4-H focuses on empowering youth to think critically,<br />
communicate across cultural boundaries and lead others.<br />
The United Nations has numerous development programs, one of them being youth<br />
empowerment programs. The United Nations provides support to national policy<br />
development surrounding empowerment within the five regions. They do this by<br />
providing evidence-based policy guidance and programmatic support by promoting the<br />
active participation of youth in society. The UNDP promotes inclusive youth participation<br />
Page 24 of 72
in effective and democratic governance, economic empowerment of youth,<br />
strengthened youth engagement in building resilience in their communities, inclusion of<br />
youth in the future development agenda, including through consultations and<br />
discussions. The United Nations youth empowerment programs examine all four<br />
dimensions of youth empowerment and seeks to improve all of them.<br />
USAID has youth empowerment programs set up around the world that are aimed at<br />
civic engagement, access to resources and opportunities for education and<br />
employment.<br />
Government Involvement In Empowerment<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment is often addressed as a gateway to intergenerational equity, civic<br />
engagement and democracy building. Local, state, provincial, regional, national, and<br />
international government agencies and nonprofit community-based organizations<br />
provide programs centered on youth empowerment. Activities involved therein may<br />
focus on youth-led media, youth rights, youth councils, youth activism, youth<br />
involvement in community decision-making, and other methods.<br />
Each major political party in the United States, including the Republicans,<br />
the Democrats, and the Green Party, as well as several major European, African, South<br />
American (Peru), and Australian political parties have statements supporting youth<br />
empowerment. <strong>Youth</strong> empowerment is also a central tenet of the United<br />
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world (minus<br />
the United States and South Sudan) has signed into law.<br />
United States<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> empowerment occurs in homes, at schools, through youth organizations,<br />
government policy-making and community organizing campaigns. Major structural<br />
activities where youth empowerment happens throughout society include<br />
community decision-making, organizational planning, and education reform.<br />
Page 25 of 72
Educational activities that cite youth empowerment as an aim include student-centered<br />
learning, popular education, and service learning. Free schools and youth-led<br />
mediaorganizations often state their intention to empower youth, as well as youth<br />
voice, community youth development, and youth leadership programs. <strong>Youth</strong><br />
empowerment is studied by a variety of scholars including Shawn Ginwright, Henry<br />
Giroux, Barry Checkoway, Mike Males and Marc A. Zimmerman. Their research is<br />
highlighted by advocacy from notable activists such as William Upski Wimsatt, Alex<br />
Koroknay-Palicz, Salome Chasnoff and Adam Fletcher.<br />
Republic of Ireland<br />
In 2002 Comhairle na nÓg was established in each local authority area as part of the<br />
National Children's strategy. Comhairle na nÓg is Irish for <strong>Youth</strong> Council. These<br />
councils are encouraged to include the participation of young people from all walks of<br />
life and to tackle local issues affecting young people. It is run by the local county or city<br />
councils under the Office of the Minister for Children and <strong>Youth</strong> Affairs. It is a<br />
recognized political organisation by the Irish Government. An extension of Comhairle na<br />
nÓg is the Comhairle na nÓg National Executive. The National Executive has one<br />
"youth councillor" from every Comhairle na nÓg and deal with issues important to young<br />
people. These issues are nominated by young people themselves at an AGM every two<br />
years. The Comhairle na nÓg National Executive has the opportunity to express there<br />
views in a form of a researched report, ad-campaign, conferences, seminars and to put<br />
those views to policy makers.<br />
Commonwealth<br />
The 53 member countries of the Commonwealth of Nations have all signed up to the<br />
Commonwealth Plan of Action for <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment (2007–2015). The Plan of<br />
Action underpins the work of the Commonwealth <strong>Youth</strong> Programme (CYP). On the<br />
Commonwealth definition, "<strong>Young</strong> people are empowered when they acknowledge that<br />
they have or can create choices in life, are aware of the implications of those choices,<br />
make an informed decision freely, take action based on that decision and accept<br />
responsibility for the consequences of those actions. Empowering young people means<br />
creating and supporting the enabling conditions under which young people can act on<br />
their own behalf, and on their own terms, rather than at the direction of others."<br />
The Plan of Action for <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment was developed by the Commonwealth<br />
Secretariat, working closely with Ministers of <strong>Youth</strong> and young people themselves. It<br />
encourages youth mainstreaming and contains thirteen action points for governments.<br />
The first of these is: “Develop and implement measures to promote the economic<br />
enfranchisement of young people” through a range of measures ranging from microcredit<br />
and entrepreneurship education through to reviewing macro-economic planning<br />
and trade regimes and how they affect young people. Other action points address<br />
gender equality, HIV/AIDS, education, the environment, youth participation in decisionmaking,<br />
and democracy and human rights.<br />
Page 26 of 72
Benefits of Empowerment<br />
When youth participate in established empowerment programs they see a variety of<br />
benefits. The practices of youth involvement and empowerment become embedded<br />
within the organizational culture and the community culture. Adults and organizations<br />
also benefit from empowerment programs. The both become more communicable and<br />
responsive to youth in the community, which leads to program improvements as well as<br />
increased participation from youth.<br />
Critiques of <strong>Youth</strong> Empowerment<br />
One major critique of youth empowerment is that most programs take a risk-focused<br />
approach. There has been a major emphasis on what is going wrong for youth in their<br />
lives rather than what goes right.<br />
This portrays young people as a problem that need to be fixed, and displays the<br />
process of development as a process of overcoming risk. This may deter youth from<br />
joining youth development programs.<br />
The risked-based model can obscure the fact that adolescence is a time when young<br />
people master skills and concepts.<br />
Page 27 of 72
Page 28 of 72
III. Positive <strong>Youth</strong> Development<br />
Positive <strong>Youth</strong> Development (PYD) refers to intentional efforts of<br />
other youth, adults, communities, government agencies and schools to provide<br />
opportunities for youth to enhance their interests, skills, and abilities. PYD is used in<br />
scientific literature and by practitioners who work with youth to refer to programs<br />
designed to optimize developmental progress.<br />
PYD differs from other approaches to youth in that it rejects an emphasis on trying to<br />
correct what is "wrong" with children's behavior or development. Programs and<br />
practitioners seek to empathize with, educate, and engage children in productive<br />
activities. While not particularly common in use yet, PYD has been used across the<br />
world to address social divisions, such as gender and ethnic differences.<br />
Background<br />
Positive youth development originated from ecological systems theory to focus on the<br />
strengths of adolescence. It is also similar conceptually with the principles of positive<br />
psychology. Central to its philosophy, the theory of PYD suggests that "if young people<br />
have mutually beneficial relations with the people and institutions of their social world,<br />
Page 29 of 72
they will be on the way to a hopeful future marked by positive contributions to self,<br />
family, community, and civil society."<br />
The major catalyst for the development of positive youth development came as a<br />
response to the negative and punitive methods of the "traditional youth development"<br />
approach. The traditional approach makes a connection between the changes occurring<br />
during adolescent years and either the beginning or peaking of several important public<br />
health and social problems, including homicide, suicide, substance use and<br />
abuse, sexually transmitted infections and teen and unplanned pregnancies. Another<br />
aspect of the traditional approach lies in that many professionals and mass<br />
media contribute to it through the portrayal of adolescents as "inevitable problems" that<br />
simply need to be fixed. Specific evidence of this "problem-centered" model is present<br />
across professional fields that deal with young people. Many connections can also be<br />
made to the current U.S. criminal justice model that favors punishment as opposed to<br />
prevention.<br />
The concept and practice of positive youth development "grew from the dissatisfaction<br />
with a predominant view that underestimated the true capacities of young people by<br />
focusing on their deficits rather than their development potential". Encouraging the<br />
positive development of adolescents can help to lessen the likelihood of such problems<br />
arising by easing a healthy transition into adulthood.<br />
Goals<br />
PYD focuses on the active promotion of optimal human development, rather than on the<br />
scientific study of age related change, distinguishing it from the study of child<br />
development or adolescent development. or as solely a means of avoiding risky<br />
behaviors. Rather than grounding its developmental approach in the presence of<br />
adversity, risk or challenge, a PYD approach considers the potential and capacity of<br />
each individual young person. A hallmark of these programs is that they are based on<br />
the concept that children and adolescents have strengths and abilities unique to<br />
their developmental stage and that they are not merely "inadequate" or "undeveloped"<br />
adults. Lerner and colleagues write: "The goal of the positive youth development<br />
perspective is to promote positive outcomes. This idea is in contrast to a perspective<br />
that focuses on punishment and the idea that adolescents are broken".<br />
Positive youth development is both a vision, an ideology and a new vocabulary for<br />
engaging with youth development. Its tenets can be organized into the 5 C's which<br />
are: competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring. When these 5 C's are<br />
present, the 6th C of "contribution" is realized.<br />
Key Features<br />
Positive youth development programs typically recognize contextual variability in youths'<br />
experience and in what is considered "healthy" or "optimal" development for youth in<br />
different settings or cultures. This cultural sensitivity reflects the influence of<br />
Page 30 of 72
Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory. The influence of ecological systems theory<br />
is also seen on the emphasis many youth development programs place on the<br />
interrelationship of different social contexts through which the development person<br />
moves (e.g. family, peers, school, work, and leisure).<br />
The University of Minnesota's Keys to Quality <strong>Youth</strong> Development summarizes eight<br />
key elements of programs that successfully promote youth development. Such<br />
programs are physically and emotionally safe, give youth a sense of belonging and<br />
ownership and foster their self-worth, allow them to discover their "selves" (identities,<br />
interests, strengths), foster high quality and supportive relations with peers and adults,<br />
help youth recognize conflicting values and develop their own, foster the development<br />
of new skills, have fun, and have hope for the future.<br />
In<br />
addition, programs that employ PYD principles generally have one or more of the<br />
following features:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
promote bonding<br />
foster resilience<br />
promote social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and moral competence<br />
foster self-determination<br />
foster spirituality<br />
foster self-efficacy<br />
foster clear and positive identity<br />
foster belief in the future<br />
Page 31 of 72
provide recognition for positive behavior and opportunities for pro-social<br />
involvement<br />
promote empowerment<br />
foster pro-social norms<br />
Using PYD to address stereotypes and inequality<br />
Gender<br />
Positive youth development principles can be used to address gender inequities through<br />
the promotion of programs such as "Girls on the Run." Physical activity-based programs<br />
like "Girls on the Run" are being increasingly utilized around the world for their ability to<br />
encourage psychological, emotional, and social development for youth. "Girls on the<br />
Run" enhances this type of physical activity program by specifically targeting female<br />
youth in an effort to reduce the gendered view of a male-dominated sports arena. "Girls<br />
on the Run" is a non-profit organization begun in 1996 that distributes a 12-week<br />
training program to help girls prepare for a 5k running competition. This particular<br />
program is made available to 3rd through 5th grade female students throughout the<br />
United States and Canada to be implemented in either school or community-based<br />
settings.<br />
Another example of positive youth development principles being utilized to target<br />
youth gender inequities can be seen in that of a participatory diagramming approach in<br />
Kibera, Kenya. This community development effort enabled participants to feel safe<br />
discussing their concerns regarding gender inequities in the community with the<br />
dominant male group. This approach also enabled youth to voice their needs and<br />
identify potential solutions related to topics like HIV/AIDS and family violence.<br />
Ethnic minorities in the United States<br />
Positive youth development can be used to combat negative stereotypes surrounding<br />
youth of minority ethnic groups in the U.S. After-school programs have been directly<br />
geared to generate increased participation for African American and Latino youth with a<br />
focus on academic achievement and increasing high school graduation rates. Studies<br />
have found programs targeting African American youth are more effective when they<br />
work to bolster a sense of their cultural identity. PYD has even been used to help<br />
develop and strengthen the cultural identities of American Indian and Alaskan<br />
Native youth. PYD methods have been used to provide a supportive setting in which to<br />
engage youth in traditional activities.<br />
Various programs have been implemented related to sports, language, and arts and<br />
crafts. Sports programs that use positive youth development principles are commonly<br />
referred to as "sports-based youth development" (SBYD) programs. SBYD incorporates<br />
positive youth development principles into program and curricula design and coach<br />
training.<br />
Page 32 of 72
Models of implementation<br />
Asia<br />
The key constructs of PYD listed above have been generally accepted throughout the<br />
world with some regional distinctions. For example, a Chinese Positive <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Development Scale has been developed to conceptualize how these features are<br />
applicable to Chinese youth. The Chinese Positive <strong>Youth</strong> Development Scale was used<br />
as a measure in a study of Chinese youth in secondary schools in Hong Kong that<br />
indicated positive youth development has a direct impact on life satisfaction and<br />
reducing problem behavior for Chinese youth. One specific example of PYD<br />
implementation is seen in the project "P.A.T.H.S.<br />
(Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic<br />
Social Programs) to Adulthood: A Jockey<br />
Club <strong>Youth</strong> Enhancement Scheme." This<br />
program targets junior secondary school<br />
students in Hong Kong (Grades 7<br />
through 9 in the North American<br />
System). The program is composed of<br />
two terms, the first of which is a<br />
structured curriculum focusing on the<br />
15 PYD constructs and designed for<br />
all students as a "universal<br />
prevention initiative." The Tier 2<br />
Program is a more selective<br />
prevention model directly targeting<br />
students<br />
with<br />
greater psychosocial needs identified<br />
by<br />
the school social work service providers.<br />
The<br />
label "at-risk" is intentionally avoided because<br />
the term denotes a very negative stigma in Chinese culture, and therefore discourages<br />
participation in the program. Although Chinese social workagencies commonly target<br />
students with greater psychosocial needs, these PYD programs have rarely undergone<br />
thorough systemic evaluation and documentation.<br />
Europe<br />
In Portugal, the utility of positive youth development principles in sporting contexts is<br />
beginning to be recognized. Several athletic-based programs have been implemented in<br />
the country, but more research is necessary to determine their effectiveness at this<br />
point.<br />
Latin America and the Caribbean<br />
Positive youth development has also been seen in the form of youth volunteer<br />
service throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. From Mexico and<br />
Page 33 of 72
the Caribbean to Central and South America, this form of implementation has been<br />
acknowledged for encouraging both personal and community development, while<br />
oftentimes contributing to poverty reduction. It has furthermore been seen as a way of<br />
promoting civil engagement through various service opportunities in communities.<br />
Positive youth development efforts can be seen in the work of the United States Agency<br />
for International Development (USAID) in collaboration with various regional<br />
governments and the private sector across Latin America and the Caribbean. This work<br />
has focused on providing broader educational options, skills training, and opportunities<br />
for economically disadvantaged youth to obtain apprenticeships.<br />
The ¡Supérate! Centers across El Salvador are one example, as they are supported by<br />
USAID in combination with private companies and foundations, and offer expanded<br />
education for high-performing students from poorer economic backgrounds. As of 2011,<br />
there were 7 centers in El Salvador and USAID expressed plans to expand this model<br />
across Central America. In Brazil, the Jovem Plus program offers high-demand skills<br />
training for youth in disadvantaged communities in Rio de Janeiro and the northeastern<br />
area of the nation. Other programs include the "<strong>Youth</strong> Movement against Violence"<br />
in Guatemala and "<strong>Youth</strong> Upliftment through Employment" in Jamaica.<br />
Page 34 of 72
IV. <strong>Youth</strong> Participation<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Participation is the active engagement of young people throughout their<br />
own communities. It is often used as a shorthand for youth participation in any many<br />
forms, including decision-making, sports, schools and any activity where young people<br />
are not historically engaged.<br />
Coinage<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> participation, also called youth involvement, has been used by government<br />
agencies, researchers, educators, and others to define and examine the active<br />
engagement of young people in schools, sports, government, community<br />
development and economic activity.<br />
In 1975, the National Commission on Resources for <strong>Youth</strong> in the United States defined<br />
youth participation as:<br />
...<strong>Youth</strong> participation is the involving of youth in responsible, challenging action that<br />
meets genuine needs, with opportunities for planning and/or decision-makingaffecting<br />
others in an activity whose impact or consequence is extended to others— i.e., outside or<br />
beyond the youth participants themselves. Other desirable features of youth participation<br />
are provision for critical reflection on the participatory activity and the opportunity for<br />
group effort toward a common goal.<br />
In 1995, the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) established a definition<br />
of meaningful youth participation as:<br />
Meaningful youth participation involves recognizing and nurturing the strengths, interests,<br />
and abilities of young people through the provision of real opportunities for youth to<br />
become involved in decisions that affect them at individual and systemic levels.<br />
Page 35 of 72
In 2006 the Commonwealth <strong>Youth</strong> Programme and UNICEF remarked: "As there are<br />
many types of developmental processes, cultures and unique individuals in the world,<br />
participation is not any one phenomenon. There are various definitions of participation.<br />
A basic concept of participation however, is that people are free to involve themselves<br />
in social and developmental processes and that self-involvement is active, voluntary<br />
and informed."<br />
The platform for youth to get involved has continued to increase in contemporary<br />
society, however these opportunities cannot be seen to be amplifying the voice of youth<br />
in society.<br />
Models<br />
There are various models of youth participation which can be followed when attempting<br />
to get young people involved with decision making or acting for change.<br />
Marc Jans and Kurt De Backer present the Triangle of <strong>Youth</strong> Participation. This<br />
suggests that young people will actively engage with society when presented with three<br />
specific dimensions; firstly they must have something to challenge. Following this, they<br />
must feel they have the capacity to make a difference and finally must be able to<br />
connect with others in order to tackle the issue effectively.<br />
Hart’s Ladder of Participation is a model that can be used when developing and working<br />
on youth participation projects. It aims to enable young people to take an active part in<br />
decision making, and give them the opportunity to have a 'voice' in society.<br />
Hart states there are 8 steps on the 'Ladder of Participation" The first three steps,<br />
manipulation, decoration and tokenism, are considered not be engaging young people<br />
in active youth participation, but instead provide a pathway to move up onto the other<br />
stages of youth participation. The following five steps after this look at how to fully<br />
integrate young people into the decision making process and how to get them actively<br />
involved. These steps evolve in that the next step the adult organize an event for young<br />
people to volunteer in (young people assigned but not informed). Following this the<br />
young people's opinions will have some influence on decisions made and they will<br />
receive feedback on these opinions (<strong>Young</strong> people are consulted and informed). Next<br />
step involves adults coming up with the initial idea, and young people taking the<br />
necessary steps to implement it with their own ideas and organization (Adult-initiated,<br />
shared power with young people). The penultimate step look at young people having full<br />
power and creative license over their ideas and projects (<strong>Young</strong> people lead and<br />
initiated action). The final step looks at the amalgamation of some of the final few steps,<br />
in that the young people initiate the idea and invite adults to join in, thus leading to an<br />
equal partnership. (<strong>Young</strong> people and adult share decision making.)<br />
Examples<br />
In these forms, youth participation activities may include:<br />
Page 36 of 72
<strong>Youth</strong> councils<br />
Participatory action research<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>-led media<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>-targeted political organizations<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> participation often requires some measure of student voice or youth voice, as well<br />
as youth/adult partnerships. Results are often measured by youth<br />
development goals, academic outcomes or returns on social capital. They may take the<br />
form of civic engagement, youth rights or intergenerational equity.<br />
A 2013 study concluded that 90% of parents regularly consult their children when<br />
making decisions. Of surveyed parents, only 35% were consulted when they were kids.<br />
Spectra of Activities<br />
Working on behalf of UNICEF, in 1992 sociologist Roger Hart created a model for<br />
thinking about youth participation as a continuum of activities. Entitled the "Ladder of<br />
Page 37 of 72
Participation," this spectrum identifies eight types of youth participation ranging<br />
from tokenism and manipulation to engaging youth as partners. Adam Fletcher of<br />
the Freechild Project has identified a range of youth participation in social change<br />
through his "Cycle of Engagement". David Driskell, another UN-affiliated researcher,<br />
has identified several "steps" towards youth participation, while Daniel Ho-Sang has<br />
analyzed models according to a horizontal continuum.<br />
Indigenous American Communities' Way of Learning<br />
In some Indigenous communities of the Americas, children are seen as legitimate<br />
participants and have access to learn in order to make an important impact in<br />
their community. Their high involvement in family endeavors allow them to observe and<br />
experience skills they will need as community members. Children are able to learn<br />
because they have the chance to collaborate with everyone in the community. They<br />
also are eager to participate and take initiative to engage in family and community<br />
events<br />
At different ages, children are performing a variety of tasks in their community. In<br />
the Yucatec Mayan community of Mexico, regardless of age, every member can be<br />
seen participating in the daily endeavors of their family in some form. At the age of 18<br />
months, Mari is the youngest child in her family. Mari imitates her mother by using a leaf<br />
to scrub the stool like her mother. Mari’s mother pleasantly watcher her while she<br />
continues to clean the furniture. Although she is very young, her mother welcomes her<br />
eagerness to participate in the family’s daily endeavors.<br />
Indigenous children of San Pedro engage in activities like play, lessons, work and freestanding<br />
conversation, with family and community members of different ages. Children<br />
from the age of two to three year olds are integrated in activities with their elders. For<br />
example, Many two to three year olds do errands around the community and sell fruit or<br />
other goods. This gives children greater accessibility to the endeavors of their elders<br />
and greater chances to learn useful skills.<br />
Around three years old, Indigenous Mayan children from San Pedro, Guatemala are<br />
involved in mature-work such as farming, cooking, and caregiving. At this age they are<br />
observing what others are doing around them, but around five-years old they begin to<br />
directly help out such as running errands on their own. The Mayan children are able to<br />
learn by being highly involved in the adults’ work.<br />
In the community of Chillihuani in the high Peruvian Andes, at an early age, children<br />
around the age of four years old contribute to their family by running errands and<br />
helping take care of younger siblings. Four year old Victor contributes to his family by<br />
running errands and helping take care of his two younger sisters by bringing his<br />
mother's diapers, going outside to dust small blankets, and holding their bottles while<br />
his sisters are drinking milk. This allows children to observe, listen and learn so that<br />
they can be able to meaningfully contribute to these endeavors as they get older.<br />
Page 38 of 72
As the children become older, they are able to take on more responsibilities. Also, as<br />
their skills become more advanced, children are able to take initiative in different tasks.<br />
In Guadalajara, Mexico, children around nine to ten-years old were reported regularly to<br />
take the initiative and contribute to family household works and activities like cleaning<br />
the house. This initiation allows children to be more involved in their community. For<br />
example, In Yucatan, Mexico, children as young as fifteen-year-old will take over his<br />
father’s field to cultivate which helps out their family immensely. Children take initiative<br />
out of interest and participate as much as they can.<br />
In an experiment, siblings of Mexican- heritage with Indigenous history were<br />
invited to build a toy together. They were able to learn how to build the<br />
toy by working together, considering<br />
others ideas, and combining their<br />
methods. This study shows that being part of the community at an early age<br />
allows them to learn important values such as involvement and<br />
contribution which they carry out in<br />
their own activities.<br />
In<br />
many<br />
Indigenous<br />
American<br />
communities, children are considered as legitimate contributing<br />
participants. Children are integrated in the daily endeavors of<br />
the family and community. They have greater access to various<br />
opportunities to observe and learn so that they can make a meaningful<br />
impact in their family and community.<br />
Page 39 of 72
Page 40 of 72
V. Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong><br />
by The National Institute of Justice<br />
Program Profile<br />
A school-based prevention program that targets underachieving students at risk of dropping out.<br />
The program is rated No Effects. The program had a significant negative effect on conventional<br />
peer bonding at the immediate post-intervention follow-up and significant negative effects on<br />
conventional peer bonding and peer high-risk behavior at the 6-month follow-up.<br />
Program Goals/Target Population<br />
Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> is a school-based prevention program that targets underachieving students<br />
at risk of dropping out. The three primary program goals are to:<br />
1. increase school performance (reflected by decreases in truancy and increases in grade<br />
point averages [GPA])<br />
2. decrease drug involvement<br />
3. improve mood management (reflected by decreases in depression, anger, and anxiety)<br />
The class concentrates on skills training within the context of adult and peer support. The class<br />
aims to help at-risk youth strengthen protective factors while reducing suicide and other related<br />
risk factors in four primary areas: school, peers, family, and self.<br />
The program targets students in grades 9 through 12 who show signs of poor school<br />
achievement and potential for dropping out of high school (low grades and absenteeism) and<br />
Page 41 of 72
who exhibit other problem behaviors such as substance abuse, depression, and suicidal<br />
ideation. Students who are eligible to participate in Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> are identified from<br />
among set criteria:<br />
1. The student is behind in credits for a grade level, is in the highest 25th percentile for<br />
absences, and has a GPA below 2.3.<br />
2. The student has a prior dropout status.<br />
3. The student is referred by school personnel and meets one or more of the criteria in<br />
point 1.<br />
Program Components<br />
The Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> class consists of 10 to 12 students and incorporates social support<br />
and life-skills training into a daily, semester-long class using a 75-lesson curriculum. The class<br />
is part of the high school curriculum, and students are usually invited (but are not required) to<br />
participate in the class. Students who do take part in Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> receive course credit<br />
for<br />
participating.<br />
Program Theory<br />
The Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> class is a theory-based intervention that incorporates components of<br />
strain, social learning, and social control theories into an integrated model. The class<br />
concentrates on two essential components: social support and life-skills training. The social<br />
support elements framing the program are 1) a network component built on prosocial<br />
relationship bonds emerging between the teacher and students and within the intervention peer<br />
group, and 2) a social support process derived from the group interaction processes and lifeskills<br />
training. The life-skills training consists of four elements: self-esteem enhancement,<br />
decision-making, personal control, and interpersonal communication. Each unit’s presentation is<br />
sequenced, beginning with skill introduction, skill development, application, and finally skill<br />
transfer and relapse prevention. Problem-related skills are also included in each unit and are<br />
applied to the central program goals, such as increasing mood management to decrease<br />
depression, suicide risk behavior, and anger control problems.<br />
Key Personnel<br />
The Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> Leader who runs the class (usually a school staff member who excels<br />
at working with high-risk youth and has completed the Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> training module)<br />
monitors class attendance, school achievement, moods, drug involvement, and social<br />
interactions. The Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> Leader also helps establish drug-free social activities and<br />
friendships.<br />
Additional Information: Negative Program Effects<br />
A randomized controlled trial (described below in Evaluation Methodology and Outcomes)<br />
compared high-risk youth in high school who participated in the Reconnecting <strong>Youth</strong> program to<br />
high-risk youth who did not participate in the program. At the 6-month follow-up, the program<br />
was found to have had significant negative effects on measures of conventional peer bonding<br />
and peer high-risk behavior, and had no significant effects on measures of delinquency, alcohol<br />
use, smoking, GPA, anger, and school connectedness.<br />
…<br />
Page 42 of 72
X. References<br />
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disconnected_youth<br />
2. https://opportunitynation.org/disconnected-youth/<br />
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Youth</strong>_empowerment<br />
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_youth_development<br />
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Youth</strong>_participation<br />
6. https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=345<br />
7. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED564456.pdf<br />
8. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40535.pdf<br />
9. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-andout-of-work-in-rural-america<br />
Page 43 of 72
Notes<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 44 of 72
Notes<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
_____________________________________________________________________________________<br />
Page 45 of 72
Page 46 of 72
Attachment A<br />
What Works for Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong>:<br />
A Scan of the Evidence<br />
Page 47 of 72
MDRC Working Paper<br />
What Works for Disconnected <strong>Young</strong><br />
<strong>People</strong><br />
A Scan of the Evidence<br />
Louisa Treskon<br />
February 2016
This work was supported by the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group.<br />
Dissemination of MDRC publications is supported by the following funders that help finance<br />
MDRC’s public policy outreach and expanding efforts to communicate the results and implications<br />
of our work to policymakers, practitioners, and others: The Annie E. Casey Foundation,<br />
Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation, The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, Ford<br />
Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, Daniel and Corinne Goldman, The Harry and Jeanette<br />
Weinberg Foundation, Inc., The JBP Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, The Kresge Foundation,<br />
Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Sandler Foundation, and The Starr Foundation.<br />
In addition, earnings from the MDRC Endowment help sustain our dissemination efforts. Contributors<br />
to the MDRC Endowment include Alcoa Foundation, The Ambrose Monell Foundation,<br />
Anheuser-Busch Foundation, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation,<br />
Ford Foundation, The George Gund Foundation, The Grable Foundation, The Lizabeth and<br />
Frank Newman Charitable Foundation, The New York Times Company Foundation, Jan Nicholson,<br />
Paul H. O’Neill Charitable Foundation, John S. Reed, Sandler Foundation, and The Stupski<br />
Family Fund, as well as other individual contributors.<br />
The findings and conclusions in this report do not necessarily represent the official positions or<br />
policies of the funders.<br />
For information about MDRC and copies of our publications, see our website: www.mdrc.org.<br />
Copyright © 2016 by MDRC ® . All rights reserved.
Overview<br />
This paper was commissioned by the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group in 2015. The purpose<br />
was to conduct a scan of the current state of the evidence regarding what works in helping disconnected<br />
young people, defined as the population of young people ages 16 to 24 who are not<br />
connected to work or school. To prepare the paper, MDRC conducted a literature review of relevant<br />
policies and programs. The literature reviewed included writing on impact, quasiexperimental,<br />
and implementation studies. MDRC also conducted reviews of numerous websites<br />
to learn about current policy trends and evaluations in process. To supplement what was<br />
learned from written materials, MDRC interviewed a number of practitioners in the field, including<br />
representatives from foundations, coalitions, and research organizations.<br />
The main findings of this scan are:<br />
• Policies affecting disconnected young people span a range of systems, including public<br />
schools; adult basic and secondary education; and the juvenile justice, foster care, and mental<br />
health systems. As a result services, funding, and research are often uncoordinated and<br />
fragmented, though collective impact or system-level approaches are attempting to combat<br />
these challenges.<br />
• Though program impacts may be modest or short-lived, successful programs share some<br />
common features. These include: opportunities for paid work and the use of financial incentives;<br />
strong links among education, training, and the job market; the use of youth development<br />
approaches; comprehensive support services; and support after programs end.<br />
• Programs share some common implementation challenges, including: outreach and enrollment<br />
practices that may limit the populations they serve; difficulties keeping young people<br />
engaged in a program long enough to benefit from it; staff turnover; and difficulties addressing<br />
young people’s barriers to participation, particularly their lack of transportation<br />
and child care.<br />
• The field’s understanding of what works in serving disconnected young people could advance<br />
significantly in the coming years, as more than a dozen evaluations of programs are<br />
currently under way, including evaluations of collective impact approaches.<br />
• There are gaps in the existing services available: There are not enough programs for young<br />
people who are not motivated to reconnect to education or the job market on their own, nor<br />
for young people who have weak basic skills, especially those who have aged out of the<br />
public school system. The areas where there are gaps in services also tend to be areas where<br />
there is little evidence regarding what works.<br />
iii
Contents<br />
Overview<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
iii<br />
vii<br />
Chapter<br />
I Introduction 1<br />
II Dimensions of the Issue 2<br />
Policies Affecting Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> 3<br />
Public Schools 4<br />
High School Equivalency Credentials 5<br />
Employment and Career Pathways 6<br />
Special Populations 8<br />
Adolescent Development and Mental Health 9<br />
Collaboration and Collective Impact 9<br />
III The Evidence Base on Programs and Practices for Disconnected<br />
<strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> 10<br />
Types of Evaluations 10<br />
Evidence on Programs 11<br />
Employment-Focused Programs 12<br />
Education-Focused Programs 13<br />
Basic Skills Programs 19<br />
Outreach and Case Management Models 20<br />
Behavioral Interventions 22<br />
Synthesis of “What Works” 23<br />
Findings from Implementation Studies 24<br />
Evidence from Evaluations of Collective Impact Approaches 26<br />
Past Efforts 26<br />
Current Efforts 27<br />
IV Opportunities for Expanding Services and Learning What Works 29<br />
Opportunities and Recommendations 31<br />
All Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> 31<br />
<strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> Who Are Persistently Disconnected 31<br />
<strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> with Low Basic Skills 32<br />
Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> with Stronger Skills 32<br />
Appendix: Selected Evaluations of Programs for Disconnected <strong>Young</strong><br />
<strong>People</strong> 35<br />
References 43<br />
v
Acknowledgments<br />
We are grateful to the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group (YTFG) Multiple Pathways to Graduation<br />
Work Group for supporting this effort. In particular, we thank the following YTFG members<br />
for their guidance and feedback: Nancy Martin, Jerry Bexten, Patrice Cromwell, and Barbara<br />
Langford. YTFG members Kim Knous Dolan, Carmelita Galicia-Muñoz, Regina Salliey,<br />
Elisha Smith Arrillaga, and Nahir Torres also contributed comments on previous drafts of this<br />
scan. We also thank Abigail Carlton, Karen Gardiner, Andrew Moore, Justin Piff, and Don<br />
Spangler for participating in interviews. In addition, we are grateful to Gordon Berlin, Rob Ivry,<br />
Dan Bloom, John Martinez, and Farhana Hossain at MDRC for their input throughout this project.<br />
Hannah Wagner formatted the many footnotes and references, Joshua Malbin was the editor,<br />
and Stephanie Cowell prepared the manuscript to be posted online.<br />
vii
I. Introduction<br />
The paper was commissioned by the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group (YTFG) in 2015. The<br />
purpose was to conduct a scan of the current state of the evidence regarding what works in<br />
helping disconnected young people, defined as the population of young people ages 16 to 24<br />
who are not connected to work or school. YTFG asked MDRC to cover four main research<br />
questions:<br />
• What local, state, and federal policies have an impact on disconnected young<br />
people? What policies are helping improve services for this population? What<br />
policies are barriers to creating effective programs?<br />
• What programs have been shown to be effective in serving disconnected<br />
young people? What evaluations in process have the potential to contribute to<br />
the evidence base?<br />
• What is known about the effectiveness of system-level approaches, also called<br />
“collective impact approaches?”<br />
• Where are there gaps in services or knowledge? What programs or practices<br />
should be targeted for further research or expansion?<br />
To prepare this paper, MDRC conducted a literature review of relevant policies and<br />
programs. The literature reviewed included writing on impact, quasi-experimental, and implementation<br />
studies. MDRC also conducted reviews of numerous websites to learn about current<br />
policy trends and evaluations in process. To supplement what was learned from written materials,<br />
MDRC interviewed a number of practitioners in the field, including representatives from<br />
foundations, coalitions, and research organizations.<br />
The main findings of this scan are:<br />
• Policies affecting disconnected young people span a range of systems, including<br />
public schools; adult basic and secondary education; and the juvenile justice,<br />
foster care, and mental health systems. As a result services, funding, and<br />
research are often uncoordinated and fragmented, though collective impact or<br />
system-level approaches are attempting to combat these challenges.<br />
• Though program impacts may be modest or short-lived, successful programs<br />
share some common features. These include: opportunities for paid work and<br />
the use of financial incentives; strong links among education, training, and the<br />
job market; the use of youth development approaches; comprehensive support<br />
services; and support after programs end.<br />
1
• Programs share some common implementation challenges, including: outreach<br />
and enrollment practices that may limit the populations they serve; difficulties<br />
keeping young people engaged in a program long enough to benefit<br />
from it; staff turnover; and difficulties addressing young people’s barriers to<br />
participation, particularly their lack of transportation and child care.<br />
• The field’s understanding of what works in serving disconnected young people<br />
could advance significantly in the coming years, as more than a dozen<br />
evaluations of programs are currently under way, including evaluations of collective<br />
impact approaches.<br />
• There are gaps in the existing services available: There are not enough programs<br />
for young people who are not motivated to reconnect to education or<br />
the job market on their own, nor for young people who have low basic skills,<br />
especially those who have aged out of the public school system. The areas<br />
where there are gaps in services also tend to be areas where there is little evidence<br />
regarding what works.<br />
II.<br />
Dimensions of the Issue<br />
This section summarizes some of the major recent trends and policy developments affecting<br />
disconnected young people. This group is also referred to as “opportunity youth,” a term intended<br />
to capture the untapped potential of these young people. In 2014, the population of disconnected<br />
young people in the United States was estimated at 5.6 million, or just over 14 percent of<br />
the total population of 16- to 24-year-olds. 1 As many as 1.6 million of these young people have<br />
reached age 18 yet lack either a high school or high school equivalency diploma. 2 Though the<br />
percentage of young people who are disconnected from education and the job market has fallen<br />
slightly in recent years, the economic and social costs of disconnection are still significant — by<br />
one estimate disconnected young people cost taxpayers $93 billion in 2011. 3<br />
There have been positive signs in recent years that young people are staying in school<br />
and entering postsecondary education at higher rates. In 2013, the national dropout rate (the<br />
share of 18- to 24-year-olds who were not in school and had not completed high school)<br />
reached a record low of 7 percent. 4 College enrollment rates have increased in recent years, and<br />
now about 40 percent of the 18- to 24-year-old population is enrolled in college. 5 Though en-<br />
1 Measure of America (2015).<br />
2 U.S. Census Bureau (2012).<br />
3 Bridgeland and Milano (2012).<br />
4 Fry (2014).<br />
5 National Center for Education Statistics (2013b).<br />
2
ollment is up, data on college graduation rates show that the majority of students who enter<br />
community college or nonselective four-year public institutions do not receive degrees within<br />
six years. 6<br />
While the rises in high school completion and college enrollment rates paint a positive<br />
picture on the academic front, youth unemployment rates tell a different story. In the aftermath<br />
of the Great Recession, youth unemployment rates in the United States dramatically increased;<br />
only about half of young people ages 16 to 24 held jobs in 2013. Among 16- to 19-year-olds,<br />
labor-force participation dropped from 54 percent in 2000 to 34 percent in 2013. 7 There are a<br />
number of reasons for the rise of youth unemployment. A share of this drop may be the result of<br />
young people pursuing education at higher levels. Indeed, the share of young people who are<br />
enrolled in school (high school or college) and who are also employed has dropped. Structural<br />
changes in the labor market are also driving this trend, as job opportunities for high-skilled<br />
workers have expanded while demand for less-skilled, blue-collar workers has shrunk. Some<br />
segments of the young population are faring worse than others in employment. Black young<br />
people are unemployed at almost twice the rate of white young people. 8<br />
Though young people in general face a challenging labor market, disconnected young<br />
people face particular challenges. Many come from disadvantaged families and communities<br />
and have experienced a number of challenges and impediments to success in school and work<br />
that their more affluent peers have not. Still, analyses of longitudinal data on young people<br />
have shown that the majority of disconnected young people attempt to reconnect to education<br />
and the labor market at some point. According to one study, two-thirds of disconnected young<br />
people ultimately reconnected with education or the labor market, with the majority reconnecting<br />
first through work. 9 This study used data collected before the Great Recession, so it is not<br />
known how recent changes in the youth labor market have affected young people’s attempts to<br />
reconnect.<br />
Policies Affecting Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong><br />
Disconnected young people are a heterogeneous population with a range of experiences and risk<br />
factors. This section provides a high-level summary of the federal, state, and local policies that<br />
have an impact on them. As this paper focuses on programs for young people who are already<br />
disconnected from education and the labor market, this section does not cover the numerous<br />
programs and policies that focus on dropout prevention.<br />
6 Community College Research Center (2015).<br />
7 Hossain and Bloom (2015).<br />
8 NPR (2014).<br />
9 Hair et al. (2009).<br />
3
Public Schools<br />
The public school system is often the last point of “connection” for many disconnected<br />
young people, and some of these young people will eventually attempt to reconnect to public<br />
schools. Though data are not available at the national level on the precise number of dropouts<br />
who return to school, local estimates from some cities and districts have found that between<br />
one-third and one-half of dropouts attempt to reengage with the public school system at least<br />
once. 10 However, there are limits on who is eligible to reconnect to the public school system.<br />
Many states have age limits on who is eligible for public school education, leaving many young<br />
people without this option. Still, for young people who have not “aged out,” the public schools<br />
are a vital part of the system to reconnect disconnected young people.<br />
Researchers and advocacy groups have described a number of ways that federal, state,<br />
and local policies serve as obstacles to reconnecting young people to public school. Though<br />
many educational policies are set at the state and district level, federal policy also plays a role.<br />
The federal No Child Left Behind legislation requires schools to measure and report on Adequate<br />
Yearly Progress, and schools face consequences if they fail to meet their targets. One<br />
measure of Adequate Yearly Progress for a high school is its graduation rate, which is typically<br />
measured over four years. Schools face a disincentive to reenrolling students who have dropped<br />
out, because they are unlikely to graduate within that four-year time frame. However, states can<br />
apply for permission to use an extended time frame of five to six years for the purposes of calculating<br />
graduation rates. A 2012 report found that only 10 states had applied for and received<br />
approval to use extended-year graduation rates in their Adequate Yearly Progress calculations. 11<br />
Policies on how school funds are allocated to individual schools, which are often made<br />
at the state or local level, also affect the opportunities for young people who want to reconnect<br />
to public school. Advocates for disconnected young people have called for weighted-student<br />
funding approaches as opposed to unweighted methods that use Average Daily Attendance. In<br />
weighted-student funding, schools receive more funds per pupil for children with special needs<br />
— such as low-income students, English-language learners, and those with learning disabilities.<br />
In this way, schools receive a financial incentive to work with struggling students. California is<br />
in the middle of implementing such a weighted approach to its school funding system. 12<br />
Outside of funding, school district policies that offer increased flexibility can improve<br />
opportunities for disconnected young people by lowering common barriers they face to reconnecting<br />
with public schools. Many school districts have alternative schools that target the needs<br />
of young people at risk of dropping out or those who are looking to reconnect. Though exact<br />
numbers are not tracked at the national level, one estimate found that close to 40 percent of<br />
10 Sparks (2015).<br />
11 National Association of Secondary School Principals (2015).<br />
12 WestEd and California State Board of Education (2015).<br />
4
school districts offered an alternative option. 13 These programs may be competency-based (that<br />
is, focused on helping students master subjects) rather than focused on keeping them in the<br />
classroom for a certain amount of time, as a way to help them finish their degrees faster. Alternative<br />
schools may offer flexibility in schedule, providing evening or online programs. As mentioned<br />
above, age limits on eligibility may exclude older disconnected young people from these<br />
services. Most states set their age limits at 21, but some states have elected to set higher or lower<br />
age limits. Texas has the highest upper age limit at 26, while young people in Montana age<br />
out of public school at 19. 14<br />
School financing policies can also support disconnected young people by allowing public<br />
school dollars to flow to non-public school providers that may be better positioned to meet<br />
their needs, including public charter schools. Though such programs may be a better fit for<br />
some young people, school districts have disincentives to referring students to those programs,<br />
because they will then lose the funding associated with those students. Though more public<br />
charter schools to serve out-of-school young people seem to have formed recently, it is hard to<br />
pin down precise information on the number of these schools and the number of young people<br />
they serve. These schools often serve as both dropout-prevention and dropout-recovery programs<br />
— that is, they serve both students who were struggling in their district schools and are at<br />
risk of dropping out, and those who have already dropped out and are reconnecting with school.<br />
High School Equivalency Credentials<br />
For many disconnected young people, reconnecting with education involves a high<br />
school equivalency test, not a high school diploma. According to one study, young people who<br />
were disconnected from education and the labor market at some point between the ages of 16<br />
and 24 were more than twice as likely to have a high school equivalency by age 28 than young<br />
people who had not experienced disconnection. 15 A high school equivalency may be more attainable<br />
than a high school diploma, either because the young people have aged out of the public<br />
school system or because they believe that they can finish a high school equivalency faster<br />
than they could a high school diploma. 16 Many programs aimed at reconnecting disconnected<br />
young people only offer high school equivalencies. However, studies have shown that high<br />
school equivalencies do not have the same value as high school diplomas in the labor market. In<br />
an attempt to address this discrepancy, 12 states currently offer high school equivalency recipients<br />
high school diplomas, and such a policy is currently under consideration in the District of<br />
Columbia.<br />
13 Culbertson, d’Entremont, and Poulos (2014).<br />
14 National Center for Education Statistics (2013a).<br />
15 Belfield, Levin, and Rosen (2012).<br />
16 Alternative schools and charter schools operating in the public school system may also offer a high<br />
school equivalency option.<br />
5
In 2014, the company offering the General Educational Development (GED) exam —<br />
the most common high school equivalency test — changed the test to align it better with Common<br />
Core standards. At the same time, test administration became completely computer-based<br />
and fees rose. Since these changes, the number of people taking and passing the GED has<br />
dropped significantly. 17 Some states are no longer using the GED test, and are instead using alternative<br />
high school equivalency tests such as the TASC or the HiSET.<br />
High school equivalency programs are housed in a number of types of institutions, including<br />
school districts, community-based nonprofit organizations, and community colleges.<br />
Recognizing that a high school equivalency should be a stepping stone to broader career goals,<br />
some programs go beyond just preparing students for those exams and promote connections to<br />
college or careers. Some programs, discussed later in this memo, integrate high school equivalency<br />
and career pathways approaches, allowing students to both prepare for the equivalency<br />
test and begin training for a career. Students usually do not have access to financial aid while<br />
pursuing their high school equivalencies, but Congress recently restored Pell Grant eligibility<br />
for students without educational credentials who enroll in career pathway programs that integrate<br />
adult basic education with college-level course work. 18<br />
Employment and Career Pathways<br />
Past research has shown that disconnected young people tend to reconnect first with<br />
employment, as opposed to education. Since this research took place before the Great Recession<br />
and the structural changes in the labor market described earlier, it is hard to tell whether this<br />
pattern still holds true. Still, experts agree that young people need the opportunity to connect to<br />
employment, and a number of initiatives targeting disconnected young people focus on employment<br />
and career pathways. The largest of these initiatives are federally funded programs<br />
that combine academic and vocational training with paid work experience, for example <strong>Youth</strong>-<br />
Build and Job Corps. Funding for these two programs, which together are estimated to serve<br />
more than 70,000 young people annually, totaled nearly $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2015, a slight<br />
increase over recent years. Studies of these programs will be discussed later in this paper.<br />
Summer employment programs provide the first work experience of many young people.<br />
Federal funding for summer jobs was cut in 1998, yet some cities continue to fund their<br />
own summer jobs programs and have had to initiate lotteries to allocate the limited number of<br />
slots available. But most young people who participate in summer employment programs are in<br />
17 Turner and Kamenetz (2015).<br />
18 McCarthy (2014).<br />
6
school. Some summer jobs programs specifically target disconnected young people, but they<br />
serve a very low percentage of the population of disconnected young people. 19<br />
The revised Workforce Innovation and <strong>Opportunity</strong> Act of 2014 (WIOA), which replaces<br />
the Workforce Innovation Act (WIA) of 1998, will affect employment and training services<br />
for disconnected young people. Changes took effect July 1, 2015. WIOA focuses more<br />
sharply on young people who are out of school: It requires that a higher percentage of youth<br />
funds go to programs serving “out-of-school youth” (75 percent, compared with 30 percent under<br />
WIA). WIOA also raises the age of eligibility to 24 for out-of-school young people, and<br />
relaxes some requirements on eligibility that will make it easier for disadvantaged young people<br />
to benefit from WIOA funding. 20 For example, young people can meet the low-income eligibility<br />
criteria by living in a high-poverty area; they do not need to prove that they themselves come<br />
from low-income families. WIOA also adds some required program elements, like financial<br />
literacy training and preparation for postsecondary education. Finally, WIOA changes the<br />
standards used to measure program performance, adding “measurable skills gains” as a new<br />
measure of progress, a change intended to encourage programs to serve populations with low<br />
skill levels. 21<br />
While WIOA could increase funding for services for disconnected young people, how<br />
individual states implement it will determine the magnitude of its impact. For example, WIOA<br />
requires that more funds go toward “out-of-school youth,” but leaves it to states to define that<br />
population. Depending on how each state does define the population, young people who have<br />
dropped out of school but have subsequently reenrolled in an alternative school may not be eligible<br />
for WIOA funds. While WIOA stipulates that young people enrolled in <strong>Youth</strong>Build or Job<br />
Corps may be counted as “out-of-school,” young people in similar programs may not be eligible<br />
under the WIOA definition. 22<br />
Career pathways approaches also received increased emphasis in WIOA. Career<br />
pathways approaches identify occupations where the supply of qualified applicants does not<br />
meet labor-market demand, and tailor education and training programs for low-income, lowskill<br />
populations to fill those gaps. Though career pathways approaches do not specifically<br />
target disconnected young people, youth programs have been adopting these approaches.<br />
Each pathway has multiple points of entry, so that workers of varying skill levels can join the<br />
career path. For example, one program may target participants who do not yet have their high<br />
school equivalency credentials, and a separate program will target participants with some college.<br />
Career pathway approaches also offer multiple opportunities for workers to advance<br />
19 González-Rivera (2014).<br />
20 Bird, Foster, and Ganzglass (2014).<br />
21 Interview with Don Spangler, Executive Director, National <strong>Youth</strong> Employment Center, 3/18/15.<br />
22 Strumpf Associates: Center for Strategic Change and the Center for <strong>Youth</strong> and Communities (2015).<br />
7
their education and move up the career ladder. Other elements of career pathway approaches<br />
include assessments and services to guide participants and connect them with the support they<br />
need to be successful, including help addressing nonacademic barriers to employment like a<br />
lack of child care. 23<br />
Special Populations<br />
Some young people may be disconnected from school and work, but connected to other<br />
institutions such as the foster care system or the juvenile and criminal justice systems. These<br />
populations have particular risk factors that make their return to school or work especially difficult.<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people leaving the foster care system are vulnerable, for example, because they<br />
typically have not progressed far in school, have histories of mental health problems and substance<br />
abuse, and lack family support. A number of legislative changes in the last few decades<br />
have benefited young people in the foster care system. Since 1999, federal legislation has provided<br />
states with more funding and greater flexibility to support young people as they left foster<br />
care. This legislation includes the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions<br />
Act of 2008, which allows states to keep young people in the foster care system until they are<br />
21 and gives them access to funding for independent living programs. States also have access to<br />
the Chafee Educational and Training Voucher Program to provide education and training<br />
vouchers for young people up to 23 years old.<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people leaving the juvenile and criminal justice systems also face significant<br />
challenges. Research has shown that being in residential confinement (the juvenile equivalent of<br />
prison) has a negative impact on young people’s education and employment outcomes. Since its<br />
peak in 1995, the rate at which the United States confines young people in residential facilities<br />
has dropped considerably. 24 Still, the United States confines young people at a higher rate than<br />
other industrialized countries. <strong>Young</strong> people over 18 are likely to be in the adult criminal justice<br />
system. Although imprisonment rates for 18- to 24-year-olds have dropped over the last decade,<br />
huge disparities still exist between the United States and other industrialized countries. Black<br />
males of this age group are imprisoned at rates six times higher than white males. 25<br />
Disconnected young people who are parents are also a population of special concern. In<br />
addition to the challenges that their nonparent peers face in reconnecting to work and school,<br />
they have the added stress that comes with parenting and caring for young children. The lack of<br />
resources these parents have to meet their own needs and those of their children places both<br />
23 Center for Law and Social Policy (2014).<br />
24 Annie E. Casey Foundation (2013).<br />
25 Cook et al. (2014).<br />
8
generations at risk and contributes to intergenerational cycles of poverty. Programs for disconnected<br />
young parents typically take three forms: interventions targeting the parents, interventions<br />
targeting their children, and two-generation programs that seek to serve both parents and<br />
children. Coordinating services for both generations is challenging because the funding sources<br />
for programs targeting each population are often administered separately. 26<br />
Adolescent Development and Mental Health<br />
New science is shedding light on how the brain continues to develop into adolescence,<br />
with implications for programs aimed at disconnected young people. Research has shown that<br />
adolescents must undergo a series of developmental tasks, including developing identity and<br />
autonomy, identifying career goals, and gaining impulse control. At the same time as their<br />
brains are working on these tasks, chemical changes to the brain encourage them to take risks.<br />
Adult support can help adolescents navigate these challenges, but disconnected young people<br />
often lack such adult support. 27 As will be discussed later, many programs attempt to provide<br />
young people with the support they may lack from their families.<br />
Recent efforts in the mental health field are raising awareness of the impact of trauma<br />
on a young person’s life trajectory. Studies have demonstrated that exposure to traumatic events<br />
has many adverse short- and long-term effects for children and adolescents. These studies have<br />
led to federal efforts to increase trauma-focused care, including the National Child Traumatic<br />
Stress Network. Programs are increasingly incorporating a trauma-informed approach into their<br />
models.<br />
Collaboration and Collective Impact<br />
Recognizing that the policies affecting disconnected young people involve a broad<br />
range of agencies and actors, states and communities across the country are implementing efforts<br />
to foster collaboration across these systems. Collaboration is challenging; each stakeholder<br />
brings to the table its own set of priorities, sources of funding, and definitions of success. Each<br />
organization, agency, or school typically collects separate performance measures. It takes significant<br />
effort for these actors to settle on common indicators to track progress and for them to<br />
reach agreements to share data.<br />
Recent initiatives indicate that collaborative approaches to meeting the needs of disconnected<br />
young people are of increasing interest to the field. At the federal level, the White House<br />
Council for Community Services focused on issues related to disconnected young people, and<br />
the recommendations it released in 2012 stressed issues of collaboration and coordination. In-<br />
26 Katz et al. (2013).<br />
27 Jim Casey <strong>Youth</strong> Opportunities Initiative (2011).<br />
9
terest in city-level Reengagement Centers is on the rise, and the Aspen Group’s <strong>Opportunity</strong><br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Incentive Fund is funding collective impact efforts in 21 cities.<br />
III.<br />
The Evidence Base on Programs and Practices for<br />
Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong><br />
The preceding section described the range of policies that touch the lives of disconnected young<br />
people. This section provides an overview of the evidence base on effective programs and practices<br />
targeting these young people. First, the types of evaluations that are included in the scan<br />
are described, including how each type of evaluation contributes to the evidence base. The review<br />
of the evidence is then broken into two sections. The first section covers evidence relating<br />
to specific programs or interventions, including evaluation efforts that are under way. The second<br />
section discusses evidence related to system-level or collective impact approaches.<br />
Types of Evaluations<br />
The evidence on “what works” has mostly come from evaluations of publicly funded programs<br />
that have the scale to undergo randomized controlled trials. Though smaller programs within<br />
school districts, community-based organizations, and community colleges serve many disconnected<br />
young people, few of these programs have been formally evaluated. This section gives a<br />
brief overview of the common types of evaluations and the research questions they answer.<br />
Considered the “gold standard” of evaluation, randomized controlled trials can demonstrate<br />
a program’s impact on a certain population. In a randomized controlled trial, study participants<br />
are randomly assigned either to a program group that is eligible to participate in the intervention,<br />
or to a control group that is not eligible to participate in the intervention. Since the program<br />
and control groups are formed at random, any differences in outcomes between the two<br />
groups can reasonably be attributed to the effect of the program and not to some underlying variable.<br />
This type of evaluation requires sample sizes that may be prohibitive for smaller organizations.<br />
A quasi-experimental evaluation does not require randomization. Instead it creates a<br />
comparison group in some other way, for example by examining the administrative records of<br />
populations with characteristics similar to the population targeted by the intervention. This<br />
comparison group is then compared with the program group to estimate program effects.<br />
Though quasi-experimental evaluations avoid some of the challenges of randomized controlled<br />
trials, without randomization it is difficult to form a comparison group that is not biased in some<br />
10
way. Results from quasi-experimental evaluations should be interpreted with some caution.<br />
Such evaluations may be more or less rigorous depending on the study design used.<br />
An implementation or process study is an evaluation that focuses on a program’s implementation,<br />
examining whom it serves, how it operates, and how well it achieves its intended<br />
goals. Implementation studies may include data on participant outcomes. They may stand alone,<br />
or may be combined with impact studies. Though an implementation study does not assess an<br />
intervention’s impact, it can offer a valuable opportunity to learn about best practices and about<br />
what factors facilitate or impede successful program implementation. An implementation study<br />
that includes in-depth interviews or focus groups with disconnected young people also reveals<br />
the needs and experiences of the population served by the program.<br />
The evaluations discussed next include randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental<br />
studies, and implementation evaluations. Only evaluations conducted by third-party evaluators<br />
are included. While many programs report their outcomes on websites or other forums, such<br />
self-reported data were not included in this evidence scan.<br />
Evidence on Programs<br />
This section focuses on evidence concerning specific programs that serve disconnected young<br />
people, specifically on findings from evaluations of programs that are currently operating. 28 The<br />
discussion is divided into four main sections, organized by the program or intervention’s primary<br />
target outcome. Employment-focused programs are discussed first, followed by educationfocused<br />
programs. A third section focuses on outreach and case management models, which<br />
often serve the most disconnected segment of the population. A fourth section focuses on behavioral<br />
and therapeutic interventions. A summary of this information is provided in Appendix<br />
A. It should be noted that these categories are arbitrary in some ways — programs often target<br />
multiple outcomes. A synthesis of “what works” is provided at the end of the section.<br />
The studies covered here largely focus on education- or employment-related outcomes.<br />
These outcomes are often the easiest to measure because programs generally already collect<br />
data on them. There are also state and federal sources of data on these outcomes; using data that<br />
are already collected as standard practice lowers the cost of evaluations and can allow easier<br />
comparisons across programs. However, a program may produce outcomes in other aspects of a<br />
young person’s life that are harder to measure, but that are linked to a person’s well-being. The<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funder’s Group Well-Being Framework outlines these areas, which include<br />
28 Evaluations of programs that are no longer operating were mostly excluded from the scan, though some<br />
evaluations of discontinued programs found impacts on employment and education outcomes. These discontinued<br />
programs include the National Supported Work Demonstration, JOBSTART, and the <strong>Youth</strong> Incentive<br />
Entitlement Pilot Project.<br />
11
social development, mental health, physical health, and safety. 29 A limited number of studies<br />
have measured outcomes in these areas and they are mentioned when applicable.<br />
Employment-Focused Programs<br />
As mentioned above, youth employment rates are at historic lows. Though some stereotypes<br />
portray disconnected young people as being uniformly high school dropouts, according to<br />
a recent study, 40 percent of the disconnected young people surveyed already had secondary<br />
credentials (high school diplomas or high school equivalency credentials). 30 Though they had<br />
completed their secondary education, they were not connected to work or postsecondary education.<br />
The same survey found that, regardless of their education levels, more than half of disconnected<br />
young people were looking for full-time jobs. 31<br />
This section focuses on evidence regarding programs that specifically target employment.<br />
While many programs combine education and career training (and these are discussed in<br />
later sections of this paper) there are few programs that have employment as their primary focus.<br />
The populations served by these programs tend to fall at the “least disconnected” end of the<br />
disconnection spectrum, as many of them require participants to have a secondary credential to<br />
enroll.<br />
Year Up, which operates in 14 cities, provides participants ages 18 to 24 with six<br />
months of training in information technology and finance, followed by a six-month internship.<br />
Participants need to have secondary credentials to qualify for the program. Each participant receives<br />
a stipend tied to a performance contract during both the training and internship phases.<br />
Staff advisers help young people with both personal and professional issues, and each participant<br />
is also paired with a mentor. A small random assignment evaluation found that Year Up<br />
participants had higher earnings and were more likely to be working full time a year after program<br />
participation than members of a control group. 32 At the three-year mark, the program<br />
group had higher earnings, mostly as the result of higher wages. However, the program group<br />
was less likely to be attending college than the control group. The three-year follow-up findings<br />
should be interpreted with some caution, as the study had a short embargo period (the period<br />
during which control group members were prevented from joining the program); nearly a third<br />
of control group members ultimately ended up participating in Year Up. 33 Efforts to learn more<br />
about the effectiveness of Year Up are under way. Year Up has eight locations participating in<br />
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education<br />
study (formerly the Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency study), a ran-<br />
29 Langford, Badeau, and Legters (2015).<br />
30 Bridgeland and Milano (2012).<br />
31 Bridgeland and Milano (2012).<br />
32 Roder and Elliott (2011).<br />
33 Roder and Elliott (2014).<br />
12
dom assignment evaluation of nine career pathways programs. The evaluation will follow the<br />
study sample for 30 months, and early impact results are expected in 2016. 34<br />
A randomized controlled trial of three sector-based training and employment programs<br />
found impacts on employment and earnings gains for young adults (ages 18 to 26) in two of the<br />
three programs evaluated: Jewish Vocational Service in Boston and Per Scholas in New York<br />
City. 35 These programs offered a combination of sector-specific training (health care in the case<br />
of Jewish Vocational Service and information technology in the case of Per Scholas), internships,<br />
job placement, and postplacement support. The interventions did not specifically target<br />
young people and, like Year Up, they required participants to enter the program with secondary<br />
credentials.<br />
Other evaluations of employment programs for young people are under way. Two programs<br />
in the Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED) evaluation<br />
(which MDRC is leading and which includes a random assignment design) focus on young<br />
people. The <strong>Young</strong> Adult Internship Program serves young adults in New York City who are<br />
disconnected from school and work, many of whom have high school diplomas or high school<br />
equivalency credentials. The nine-month program uses a cohort structure (that is, it starts groups<br />
of young people at the same time so they progress together) and starts with an assessment of<br />
employability skills and social-support needs. Work-readiness training and supportive counseling<br />
are provided for the duration of the program. Participants engage in a 10- to 14-week paid<br />
internship, after which they receive placement support from the program to connect with education,<br />
advanced training, or employment. Impact results are expected in 2017. Chicago’s Bridges<br />
to Pathways program, also in the STED evaluation, is a six-month transitional jobs program for<br />
young men who have recently been incarcerated. The program includes online educational support,<br />
subsidized jobs, mentoring, and social-emotional/cognitive behavioral programs. Impact<br />
results are also expected in 2017.<br />
Education-Focused Programs<br />
Most disconnected young people lack secondary credentials, which greatly impedes<br />
their ability to connect to work or college. Employers may require a high school diploma or<br />
high school equivalency credential, putting young people without one at a disadvantage when<br />
applying for jobs. Not having a secondary credential can also prevent them from entering postsecondary<br />
education and receiving financial aid.<br />
A longitudinal study of disconnected young people found that by age 28, nearly threequarters<br />
had received high school diplomas and 10 percent had high school equivalency creden-<br />
34 Interview with Karen Gardiner, Abt Associates, 3/20/2015.<br />
35 Maguire et al. (2010).<br />
13
tials. 36 These numbers indicate that a strong majority of young people who disconnect from<br />
school eventually achieve secondary credentials.<br />
There are multiple ways young people can achieve secondary credentials. <strong>Young</strong> people<br />
who have not aged out have the option of returning to public school, and many are served<br />
through alternative schools, which are either operated by the district or by charter organizations.<br />
The number of alternative schools that target at-risk and disconnected young people has increased<br />
in recent years. But for some young people, returning to school is not an option, either<br />
because they have aged out or because they are reluctant to return to institutions that were not<br />
able to meet their needs the first time around. For these young people, a number of program options<br />
can lead to a secondary credential. These programs vary in their structure and approach,<br />
but roughly fall into two categories: comprehensive programs that specifically target young<br />
people, and programs that target postsecondary education and serve a range of ages. Some of<br />
these programs incorporate career pathway approaches.<br />
Comprehensive <strong>Youth</strong> Programs<br />
Programs in this category specifically target young people and have age limits on eligibility.<br />
They tend to combine support services to address participants’ academic, employment,<br />
and life goals. Many of these programs are federally funded and operate at the national scale,<br />
and evaluation data from studies of these programs offer lessons on promising strategies to help<br />
disconnected young people.<br />
Two comprehensive youth programs are residential: Job Corps and National Guard<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> ChalleNGe. Job Corps is the largest federal program for disconnected young people,<br />
serving more than 60,000 each year across 125 centers. Participants can earn high school diplomas<br />
or equivalency credentials and receive career training in one of many fields, such as<br />
business, health, or construction. Participants also get health care, stipends, career counseling,<br />
and transitional support for a year following graduation. A four-year random assignment study<br />
found that the program increased the amount of education and training participants received,<br />
and increased literacy rates. The program generated employment and earning gains through a<br />
four-year follow-up period, but these effects were not sustained after the end of that follow-up<br />
period, except for young people who entered the program when they were 20 to 24 years old. 37<br />
In ChalleNGe, participants engage in a five-month, intensive residential program that<br />
includes eight core components: education, life-skills training, leadership-skills development,<br />
community service, citizenship building, physical fitness, health and hygiene, and job-skills<br />
training and career exploration. The program also helps participants set up structured mentoring<br />
36 Belfield, Levin, and Rosen (2012).<br />
37 Schochet, Burghardt, and McConnell (2006).<br />
14
for at least a year with mentors of their choice in their own communities so they have some<br />
support after they leave. A three-year random assignment study found that participants were<br />
more likely than their control group counterparts to have obtained high school credentials, to<br />
have earned college credits, and to be working. Their earnings were also 20 percent higher than<br />
control group members. 38 The U.S. Department of Labor will soon be testing Job ChalleNGe,<br />
an adaptation of the National Guard <strong>Youth</strong> ChalleNGe program that will add five months of<br />
occupational training to the core ChalleNGe program. An evaluation of the demonstration is<br />
planned, with results expected in 2020.<br />
Conservation Corps targets out-of-school young people, offering participants temporary,<br />
full-time subsidized work in community service projects, along with basic adult education<br />
and opportunities to earn college credits, case management, and job-readiness training. An impact<br />
evaluation in the late 1990s found that more than a year after entering the study, Corps participants<br />
were 26 percent more likely than control group members to be employed and were<br />
also working more hours. The program produced the largest impact on young black males and<br />
was found to be cost-effective by producing a net benefit to society. 39 However, the positive<br />
results were called into question by a 2011 evaluation of Conservation Corps that found the<br />
program had no significant impacts on the probability of its participants being employed or in<br />
school roughly 30 months after they entered the study. 40<br />
Civic Justice Corps was a variant of the Conservation Corps model directed at formerly<br />
incarcerated young people and those involved in the court system. It offered a combination of<br />
job-readiness activities, community service, and internships. Participants were supported by a<br />
stipend while in the program. A study of the program in New York City found that while the<br />
program had some modest positive effects on employment, it did not have any effect on education<br />
or criminal justice outcomes. 41 Civic Justice Corps programs are not currently active.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>Build is a privately and federally funded program that combines construction and<br />
vocational training with academic services, counseling and supportive services, youth development<br />
activities (that is, activities that foster leadership or that give young people the chance to<br />
form strong relationships with adults), stipends, and support during transition. An impact evaluation<br />
is under way of the federal <strong>Youth</strong>Build program in 75 locations. The evaluation includes<br />
an extensive implementation study, which was published in March 2015. The implementation<br />
study does not include information on participant outcomes, but offers a detailed description of<br />
the diversity of academic and training activities offered and the program model’s focus on youth<br />
development. The implementation study also described how <strong>Youth</strong>Build programs typically<br />
38 Millenky, Bloom, Muller-Ravett, and Broadus (2011).<br />
39 Jastrzab, Masker, Blomquist, and Orr (1996).<br />
40 Jastrzab, Masker, Blomquist, and Orr (1996).<br />
41 Bauer et al. (2014).<br />
15
focus on recruiting young people who are “ready for change.” 42 An interim impact report is expected<br />
in 2017 and the final report is expected in 2018.<br />
Project Rise combines education, work-readiness training, and paid internships. The<br />
yearlong program targets 16- to 24-year-olds who do not have high school diplomas or high<br />
school equivalency credentials. Participants start with career-readiness and educational programs<br />
before they are placed in paid internships; continued participation in the internship is<br />
contingent on a young person’s consistent engagement in education. The program started in<br />
New York City and is being replicated in Newark, New Jersey, and Kansas City, Missouri, in<br />
connection with funding from the Social Innovation Fund. An implementation study of the<br />
program released in fall 2015 found that it was challenging to implement the internship component<br />
as intended. The report also describes difficulties the programs had sustaining the engagement<br />
of participants, including the finding that participants with child care needs faced<br />
particular challenges. 43<br />
Two comprehensive youth programs in California are also undergoing evaluations. The<br />
Los Angeles Reconnections Career Academy targets high school dropouts ages 16 to 24, reconnecting<br />
them to school and subsidizing vocational training in the health care field. Implementation,<br />
impact, and cost-effectiveness studies of the effort are under way, funded by a Workforce<br />
Innovation Fund grant. Linking Innovation and Knowledge (@LIKE), is a program in three California<br />
counties for 18- to 24-year-olds who have been out of school and work for more than 90<br />
days. It includes a mix of educational and employment services. Each participant works with a<br />
life coach. A quasi-experimental study and cost-benefit study are planned for 2016. 44<br />
As mentioned earlier, many alternative schools target disconnected young people, offering<br />
them the chance to earn high school diplomas or high school equivalency credentials. Some<br />
school districts have developed “GED Plus” programs, which offer students a way to earn their<br />
high school equivalency credentials and include other forms of support to connect them to the<br />
next step on a college or career pathway. GED Plus programs also often include partnerships<br />
with community-based organizations serving young people. Examples of this type of initiative<br />
include the Pathways to Graduation programs (formerly GED Plus) in New York City. Though<br />
public school systems provide data on outcomes of individual schools, there are few independent<br />
evaluations of programs for disconnected young people in public schools.<br />
One evaluation of a network of alternative schools in Florida is under way and will be<br />
publishing results in coming years. The PACE Center for Girls is a statewide program that provides<br />
academic services, counseling, and transition support in a gender-responsive environment<br />
42 Wiegand et al. (2015).<br />
43 Manno, Yang, and Bangser (2015).<br />
44 Workforce Innovation Fund (n.d.).<br />
16
to girls ages 14 to 18 who are at risk of dropping out of high school or who have already<br />
dropped out. It is currently undergoing a random assignment study in connection with a grant<br />
from the Social Innovation Fund. The evaluation includes an implementation study, impact<br />
study, and cost-effectiveness analysis. An interim report that includes early impacts and implementation<br />
findings is due in 2017.<br />
Postsecondary Pathways<br />
Postsecondary education has a high value in today’s labor market, where nearly 60 percent<br />
of all job openings require some postsecondary training. 45 Most disconnected young people<br />
lack experience with college, 46 and researchers have shown using longitudinal data that by age<br />
28, only 1 percent of them have obtained associate’s or bachelor’s degrees, compared with 36<br />
percent of other young people. 47 Disconnected young people can face a long road to obtaining a<br />
postsecondary credential. <strong>Young</strong> people who already have secondary credentials may find that<br />
they need developmental education before they can enroll in degree programs, while those who<br />
lack secondary credentials often must first obtain them before they can qualify for postsecondary<br />
education. However, new innovations in adult education are seeking to remove some of<br />
these obstacles and improve the transition to postsecondary education. Unlike the comprehensive<br />
youth programs described above, most of these programs do not specifically target disconnected<br />
young people, but serve a range of adult learners.<br />
One set of programs targets students who are seeking high school equivalency credentials.<br />
Equivalency-to-college bridge programs have shown promise in both increasing equivalency<br />
exam pass rates and persistence into postsecondary education. Bridge programs take place<br />
on college campuses and include college preparatory components, typically in a cohort-based<br />
approach. 48 Programs usually offer students additional forms of support, such as career and college<br />
counseling. Recent evaluations have shown that bridge programs are promising models for<br />
reconnecting high school dropouts to education. A random assignment evaluation of the GED<br />
Bridge to Health and Business program at LaGuardia Community College found higher rates of<br />
GED completion and college entry for participants compared with students in LaGuardia’s traditional<br />
GED course. The bridge program included full-time instructors (compared with adjuncts<br />
in the traditional GED course) and individual career and transition counseling. As opposed<br />
to the generic worksheets used in many high school equivalency programs, students in<br />
the GED Bridge program learned by using materials specific to the health care or business track<br />
45 Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010).<br />
46 Bridgeland and Milano (2012).<br />
47 Belfield, Levin, and Rosen (2012).<br />
48 Students in high school equivalency bridge programs do not quality for Pell grants since those programs<br />
do not lead directly to postsecondary credentials.<br />
17
they were considering pursuing. 49 The program did not specifically target young people; the<br />
average study participant was 27 years old. A replication of the program is currently being tested<br />
in Wisconsin, and early results will be available in 2018.<br />
Concurrent-enrollment programs take bridge programs a step further, allowing students<br />
to enroll in college classes while they take classes to obtain their high school equivalency credentials.<br />
50 These models allow participants to earn postsecondary credentials more quickly by<br />
permitting them to engage in postsecondary education while they work toward secondary credentials.<br />
Students can enroll in different types of college classes in different programs; some<br />
programs limit college classes to noncredit “student success” courses designed to build the skills<br />
students will need to be successful in college. 51<br />
Though many concurrent-enrollment programs exist, there is little evidence on their effectiveness.<br />
I-BEST, a concurrent-enrollment program that incorporates a career pathways approach,<br />
has shown promise. First developed in Washington State, I-BEST integrates basic skills<br />
instruction with career and technical education. Students also receive other forms of support,<br />
including transition support. Students receive college credit for the portion of their time that is<br />
spent in career and technical training. A quasi-experimental study found that program participants<br />
were more likely to make learning gains and earn college credits than those in a comparison<br />
group. I-BEST does not specifically target young people. The mean age of participants in<br />
the I-BEST study was 32. 52 The I-BEST model is currently being tested as part of the U.S. Department<br />
of Health and Human Services’ Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education<br />
study, and is also being expanded and tested in a number of locations outside of Washington<br />
State.<br />
Unlike GED Bridge and I-BEST, programs that serve a range of ages, a couple of<br />
programs specifically focus on connecting disconnected young people to postsecondary education.<br />
Gateway to College is a national program where students without high school credentials<br />
have the opportunity to earn high school diplomas and college credits simultaneously.<br />
Students attend classes on the college campus and also receive comprehensive support services.<br />
An implementation study of the program, conducted in connection with a Social Innovation<br />
Fund grant, was published in late 2015. 53 The study provides lessons on student engagement<br />
and replication.<br />
49 Martin and Broadus (2013).<br />
50 Students in concurrent enrollment programs that use a career pathways approach qualify for Pell grants<br />
because the programs do lead to postsecondary credentials.<br />
51 Rutschow and Crary-Ross (2014).<br />
52 Jenkins, Zeidenberg, and Kienzl (2009); Rutschow and Crary-Ross (2014).<br />
53 Willard, Bayes, and Martinez (2015).<br />
18
Several of the comprehensive youth programs mentioned in the previous section include<br />
pathways to postsecondary education as part of their models. The Gates Foundation’s<br />
Postsecondary Success Initiative provided funding to 15 community-based organizations that<br />
were already operating youth programs (including seven <strong>Youth</strong>Build programs), to strengthen<br />
the pathway for their participants into postsecondary education. Grantees were to implement a<br />
Back on Track model, which includes enriched academic preparation to prepare students for<br />
college success, bridge programs to support their transition into college, and follow-up support<br />
during the first year of college. An analysis of short-term outcome data found that nearly 75<br />
percent of participants received a secondary credential, and nearly half enrolled in postsecondary<br />
programs. 54<br />
Basic Skills Programs<br />
The programs described above target young people who either have secondary credentials<br />
or have academic skill levels that would allow them to obtain secondary credentials within<br />
a year. Many disconnected young people do not have the literacy or numeracy required to be<br />
eligible for or successful in these programs. <strong>Young</strong> people who have not aged out of the school<br />
system have the option of returning to school to improve their basic skills, and may be served<br />
through alternative schools operated by their districts or by charter organizations. As mentioned<br />
earlier, there are limited evaluation data on the effectiveness of these schools for disconnected<br />
young people. Meanwhile, a few programs target young people with low skills outside of the<br />
school system.<br />
One such program is New York City’s <strong>Young</strong> Adult Literacy (YAL) program. The<br />
YAL program targets 16- to 24-year-old young adults who read at the fourth- through eighthgrade<br />
levels, and serves them until they are academically ready to enter a program that prepares<br />
them for a high school equivalency test. The year-round program offers up to 15 hours of literacy<br />
and numeracy instruction each week, along with social support services, life-skills and workreadiness<br />
training, a paid internship, and some modest incentives. A correlational analysis of<br />
program data in 2012 found that YAL program participants had increased 1.41 grade levels in<br />
literacy and over one grade level in numeracy. MDRC conducted an implementation study of<br />
the program in 2014 and found that most program locations did not find it challenging to recruit<br />
participants. This finding reinforces the notion that demand exists for programs to serve lowliteracy<br />
young people. The study examined the program in five locations, finding that program<br />
locations with stronger outcomes shared some features, including strong leaders, being able to<br />
draw on additional support from sponsor organizations to benefit the program and participants,<br />
strong academic staffs, and transition services. YAL was based on a now discontinued New<br />
York City program called the Community Education Pathways to Success (CEPS). An outcome<br />
54 Center for <strong>Youth</strong> and Community (2013).<br />
19
evaluation of CEPS also found that the program improved participants’ literacy and math scores<br />
and was successful in moving a subset of participants into high school equivalency programs. 55<br />
Outreach and Case Management Models<br />
The programs described in the previous sections generally serve young people who are<br />
actively seeking opportunities to reconnect to school or work. As longitudinal studies have<br />
shown, the majority of young people who are disconnected from education and the labor market<br />
at some point eventually reconnect with one or the other. However, a portion of the population<br />
— which one study estimated at 10 percent — is chronically disconnected. 56 There are very few<br />
programs targeting these young people and even less evidence of what works for engaging<br />
them. The few programs targeting very disconnected young people take an intervention or case<br />
management approach. Rather than providing employment training or academic services, these<br />
programs focus on providing young people with case managers who work with them intensively<br />
to address the barriers they face to achieving their goals.<br />
Roca in Boston is one organization that takes a proactive approach to connecting with<br />
young people. Its Intervention Model is designed to reach those young people who are the most<br />
persistently disconnected. At the heart of the model are the youth workers who conduct “relentless<br />
outreach” to at-risk young people, in an effort to form transformational relationships with<br />
them. 57 Roca has been through an implementation study that documented the intervention’s logic<br />
model and the resources needed to provide its services. Roca’s effectiveness will be evaluated<br />
through a new Pay for Success initiative that started in 2014. As part of the initiative, Roca will<br />
provide its Intervention Model to young men involved in the adult probation system or leaving<br />
the juvenile justice system. The initiative includes a random assignment design where eligible<br />
participants will be assigned to either the program or control group, and the program will be<br />
paid based on Roca’s ability to achieve impacts on employment and recidivism (that is, the rate<br />
at which participants commit new crimes or are reincarcerated). Data on educational outcomes<br />
will also be gathered. 58<br />
The Safe and Successful <strong>Youth</strong> Initiative is another outreach program in Massachusetts.<br />
It targets young people in 11 communities who are identified as being at high risk of involvement<br />
in gun violence. Street outreach workers find the targeted young people and connect them<br />
with a host of support services, including trauma counseling, intensive supervision, employment<br />
and education services, and support for their families. 59 A quasi-experimental evaluation found<br />
that young people with similar risk profiles were 42 percent more likely to be incarcerated than<br />
55 Campbell, Kibler, and Weisman (2009).<br />
56 Belfield, Levin, and Rosen (2012).<br />
57 Parker (2015).<br />
58 Patrick (2014).<br />
59 Campie et al. (2013).<br />
20
those who were involved with the initiative. The evaluation also found that communities in the<br />
program experienced a reduction in the number of victims of violent crimes. 60<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Villages provides a number of programs for emotionally and behaviorally troubled<br />
children in 13 states. MDRC is conducting a random assignment evaluation of its transitional<br />
living program, a case management program for young people aging out of foster care or<br />
exiting the juvenile justice system. The program provides intensive case management that begins<br />
with a comprehensive assessment and the development of an individual treatment plan,<br />
weekly sessions with a case manager that may include counseling, and connection to other<br />
forms of support. The impact study, which measured a range of outcomes associated with wellbeing,<br />
found that the program boosted earnings, increased housing stability and economic wellbeing,<br />
and improved some outcomes related to health and safety. 61 A final report that includes a<br />
second year of follow-up and a cost-benefit analysis will be available in 2016.<br />
The Latin American <strong>Youth</strong> Center in Washington, DC, is conducting a random assignment<br />
evaluation of its Promotor Pathway program in connection with a Social Innovation Fund<br />
grant. The Promotor Pathway program is a long-term case management program, where “Promotores”<br />
(staff members) work one-on-one with young people to address their barriers to education<br />
and employment and connect them to services. Promotores are meant to work with<br />
young people for a long time — four to six years. An impact evaluation of the program is due to<br />
publish results in early 2016.<br />
Home visiting programs also take a case management approach to working with lowincome<br />
women who are pregnant or have young children. Though models vary, the general approach<br />
is that a trained home visitor develops a long-term relationship with a mother and offers<br />
support in a variety of forms, possibly including guidance on prenatal care, education about<br />
child development, and connections to other services to help the mother reach her educational<br />
and career goals. Numerous home visiting models have demonstrated their effectiveness. 62<br />
Though these programs do not specifically target disconnected young people, there is considerable<br />
overlap between the populations of disconnected young people and young mothers. Some<br />
organizations have designed home visiting programs specifically to target young populations.<br />
For example, Roca operates two home visiting programs for young mothers. 63 Through there is<br />
a strong evidence base for home visiting programs, evaluations of home visiting programs specifically<br />
targeting disconnected young people are not available.<br />
60 American Institutes for Research (2015).<br />
61 Jacobs, Skemer, and Courtney (2015).<br />
62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015).<br />
63 Roca Inc. (2015).<br />
21
Behavioral Interventions<br />
Many mental health and behavioral interventions are considered to be “evidencebased,”<br />
and these are increasingly making their way into programs for young people. Programs<br />
targeting disconnected young people, including those mentioned above, may incorporate these<br />
evidence-based models into their services. While the evidence on many of these interventions<br />
includes random assignment evaluations, the interventions may not have been tested on young<br />
people who were very disconnected from education and the labor market. Rarely are these evidence-based<br />
programs the sole service that a young person will receive — they are often combined<br />
with other forms of support.<br />
One example of an evidence-based behavioral intervention is Becoming a Man, an inschool<br />
life-skills program that was shown in a randomized controlled trial to reduce violent<br />
crime and weapons arrests and increase school achievement. 64 Because Becoming a Man was<br />
tested on an in-school population, it is unclear whether the intervention would have a similar<br />
effect on out-of-school young people. Some programs for at-risk girls implement a curriculum<br />
called Girls Circle that has shown improvements in outcomes related to drug use and selfconfidence.<br />
65<br />
Cognitive behavioral therapy is an umbrella term for a therapeutic approach that targets<br />
the client’s thinking approach and behavior. It has been adapted into a variety of specified<br />
treatment models, many of which are considered evidence-based. Meta-analyses of cognitive<br />
behavioral programs have found them to be effective in reducing recidivism, particularly when<br />
they were implemented with quality and fidelity. 66 Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral<br />
Therapy, for example, has been shown to be effective in reducing the mental health effects of<br />
exposure to trauma, something many disconnected young people suffer from.<br />
Motivational interviewing is another approach that youth programs have incorporated<br />
into their models. Motivational interviewing aims to help clients identify and change behaviors<br />
that make it harder for them to achieve their personal goals. It has been implemented around the<br />
world for more than 30 years, and has been found effective in numerous experimental studies.<br />
Like cognitive behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing has been adapted into a range of<br />
specified treatment models.<br />
Multisystemic Therapy is an intervention for teens involved in the juvenile justice system.<br />
It combines cognitive behavioral therapy, behavior management training, and family therapy<br />
to address the many issues in a young person’s life that may have an impact on his or her<br />
64 Center for Law and Social Policy (2014).<br />
65 Logue (2002).<br />
66 Landenberger and Lipsey (2005).<br />
22
ehavior. Multisystemic Therapy has been subject to many random assignment studies and has<br />
been found to be effective in reducing arrest rates and out-of-home placements. 67<br />
The nation’s first social impact bond program, the Adolescent Behavioral Learning Experience<br />
in New York City’s Riker’s Island jail, tested a cognitive behavioral intervention to<br />
reduce recidivism. Program implementation was led by MDRC; the Vera Institute of Justice<br />
conducted an evaluation using a quasi-experimental design. Results released in 2015 found that<br />
the program did not have an impact on recidivism. 68<br />
Some parenting programs have also shown promise in improving outcomes for both<br />
parents and children, and these programs may help young parents. Triple P is an evidence-based<br />
parenting program that can be tailored to populations in a variety of circumstances. The program<br />
trains parents in skills they can use to manage their children’s behaviors using a positive<br />
approach grounded in developmental theory. 69<br />
Synthesis of “What Works”<br />
A synthesis of the studies discussed above reveals that a number of evaluations have found impacts<br />
on participant outcomes, though these impacts may have been modest, short-lived, or<br />
both. As others have pointed out, it may be unrealistic to believe that a program of relatively<br />
short duration will have an impact that lasts throughout a four-year follow up period. Because<br />
these programs have multiple components and the evaluations were not set up to test each component<br />
separately, it is difficult to disentangle which aspects of the program were most critical<br />
to success. Despite these limitations, and even though the programs targeted different segments<br />
of the population, it is possible to identify some broad features successful programs shared:<br />
• Opportunities for paid work and the use of financial incentives. Many youth<br />
programs — including <strong>Youth</strong> Corps, Job Corps, and Year Up — offer a stipend<br />
or other paid work experience. The paid work in one of these programs<br />
may be young people’s first exposure to work, giving them experience that<br />
they can use to advance themselves when they leave the program. Additionally,<br />
financial incentives may boost engagement in the program by meeting<br />
some of a young person’s financial needs so he or she can focus on the program.<br />
They may also serve as an incentive to boost attendance and the completion<br />
of program milestones.<br />
67 MST (2015). “Out-of-home placements” is a broad term that encompasses foster care, group homes, and<br />
shelters — situations in which a child is removed from the home.<br />
68 Vera Institute of Justice (2015).<br />
69 Triple P (2015).<br />
23
• Strong links among education, training, and the job market. Evidence suggests<br />
that programs that connect training to identifiable opportunities in the<br />
local labor market — career pathways approaches — are more likely to<br />
achieve strong employment outcomes. Year Up designs its training curricula<br />
with input from corporate partners and gets employer commitments to sponsor<br />
and provide on-the-job training. Successful high school equivalency or<br />
developmental education programs have incorporated career pathway approaches.<br />
• <strong>Youth</strong> development approaches. Successful programs address the developmental<br />
needs of young people, many of whom are facing difficult family and<br />
life circumstances. <strong>Youth</strong> development approaches include offering young<br />
people leadership opportunities within the program and the opportunity to develop<br />
trusted relationships with adults through mentoring. Features like these<br />
are included in the programs of Year Up and ChalleNGe.<br />
• Comprehensive support services. Successful programs also address young<br />
people’s barriers to participation. These barriers may include a young person’s<br />
difficulties in meeting basic needs such as transportation, child care, and<br />
food. Other forms of support may include connecting young people to physical<br />
or mental health care. For example, Year Up has social workers on staff to<br />
provide counseling and connect young people to the resources they need.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Villages’ Transitional Living program provides intensive case management<br />
in weekly sessions.<br />
• Support after placement. Support after participants are placed in either employment<br />
or education has been another feature of successful programs including<br />
Job Corps, GED Bridge to Health and Business, ChalleNGe, and<br />
Year Up.<br />
Findings from Implementation Studies<br />
While the impact components of these evaluations help reveal the programs’ potential<br />
to improve outcomes in education, employment, or other areas, implementation studies can<br />
shed light on aspects of program delivery that facilitate success or impede program implementation.<br />
These findings can be useful to programs and funders seeking to understand how best to<br />
support effective program implementation or expand a program to a larger scale. A review of<br />
the implementation studies cited above yielded some common themes:<br />
• Outreach and enrollment practices can limit the populations that programs<br />
serve. Implementation studies can provide considerable information on the<br />
24
populations that programs serve. Limited resources for outreach can mean<br />
that programs serve people who are motivated to apply on their own. Many of<br />
the programs described also have multistep admissions processes requiring<br />
young people to return multiple times and demonstrate their “readiness for<br />
change.” As a result, young people who are not sufficiently motivated often<br />
drop out during the application process. Few of the programs described above<br />
serve young people who fall on the “very disconnected” end of the spectrum.<br />
• Keeping young people engaged in a program long enough to benefit is a central<br />
challenge. Disconnected young people, even the most motivated, experience<br />
a host of barriers to engagement. Financial incentives are one way that<br />
programs encourage engagement. Cohort approaches, where young people<br />
start and go through a program together, may help keep participants involved<br />
by building a sense of community among them. Having staff members who<br />
reflect participants’ experiences and play the role of stable, caring adults in<br />
their lives can also promote engagement.<br />
• Staffing is a persistent challenge. The implementation studies describe how<br />
staff members often serve as mentors and proxy parents for participants.<br />
However, the studies also describe the challenges presented by staff turnover.<br />
The <strong>Youth</strong>Build implementation study found that half of programs had issues<br />
with staff turnover. Similarly, an evaluation of Our Piece of the Pie in Hartford<br />
found that turnover among youth development specialists was very disruptive<br />
to the young people in the program. 70 Staff turnover also affects transition<br />
support. Studies have described how, if a young person is connected to a<br />
staff member and that staff member leaves the program, the young person is<br />
less likely to seek support from the program after he or she is no longer actively<br />
engaged with it.<br />
• Programs need to address young people’s barriers to participation, particularly<br />
their lack of transportation and child care. Interviews with program staff<br />
members and participants reveal the many barriers to participation that young<br />
people face. A lack of transportation is one of the ones most often mentioned.<br />
Though programs may provide bus passes to help young people pay for public<br />
transportation, in areas underserved by public transit the lack of affordable<br />
transit options can severely limit their participation in school and work. For<br />
young parents, child care is also a common impediment to sustained program<br />
70 Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention (2009).<br />
25
participation, and many communities lack quality and affordable child care<br />
options.<br />
• Partnerships in the community can help meet young people’s varied needs.<br />
Disconnected young people need many forms of support, many more than can<br />
be provided directly by one program. Implementation studies found that partnerships<br />
with other agencies and programs can make it possible for youth<br />
programs to meet young people’s needs — but some partnerships are more effective<br />
than others. A recent process study of Job Corps found that higherperforming<br />
centers had partners that shared space with them. Partnerships also<br />
come with challenges. The <strong>Youth</strong>Build implementation study found that programs<br />
that relied on partners to furnish work sites had a more difficult time<br />
customizing training to the needs of participants.<br />
Evidence from Evaluations of Collective Impact Approaches<br />
Those trying to meet the needs of disconnected young people increasingly recognize the importance<br />
of improving connections among the community systems that serve them. This section<br />
describes community-wide efforts, also called collective impact approaches, and evaluation lessons<br />
from those efforts. System-level or collective impact approaches do not lend themselves<br />
easily to impact evaluations. Since these efforts target the entire population of a city or neighborhood,<br />
random assignment of individuals is not possible. Instead, quasi-experimental studies<br />
may be used, relying on comparison groups in localities with similar characteristics. Good comparison<br />
groups can be challenging to identify and the results of such studies should therefore be<br />
interpreted with caution. Additionally, since these efforts involve multiple stakeholders and<br />
programs, it is difficult to determine which aspects of a collective impact effort are more effective<br />
than others.<br />
Past Efforts<br />
The <strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Opportunity</strong> Initiative (YO Initiative) offers some insight into the impact of<br />
community-level efforts targeting disconnected young people. In 2000, the U.S. Department of<br />
Labor funded community-wide efforts to provide comprehensive services to at-risk young<br />
people in 36 communities across the country. The YO Initiative was designed to give a “saturation<br />
effect” to the communities (meaning that services would be concentrated within a geographical<br />
area), so that the initiative would have an impact not only on people who received<br />
services directly but also on the people connected with them (so called “peer effects”). Efforts<br />
were to be coordinated across systems, and were to involve public, private, and nonprofit organizations.<br />
Each community had to create a center for young people that served as a meeting<br />
place and a place to deliver services. Grantees were to include supportive services such as case<br />
26
management and mentoring in their delivery models. The initiative ended in 2005 and has not<br />
been funded since. 71<br />
The YO Initiative grants were subject to an extensive evaluation funded by the Department<br />
of Labor that included ethnography, a process study, and a quasi-experimental impact<br />
study using comparison communities. The evaluation found that the participating communities<br />
reached 52 percent of their out-of-school young people. Due to the recession that occurred during<br />
the study period, most employment outcomes changed negatively during the study period.<br />
But relative to comparison communities, young people in YO Initiative communities fared better<br />
— or at least less badly. <strong>Young</strong> people in the YO Initiative communities also fared better on<br />
some measures related to education. However, there seemed to be some negative effects in YO<br />
Initiative communities, including decreases in full-time employment rates for some groups of<br />
young people.<br />
The Center for Law and Social Policy surveyed the communities toward the end of the<br />
grant period. Communities reported several positive results of their participation in the program,<br />
including mobilizing stakeholders, blending resources and staffing to support the delivery of<br />
youth services, and connecting young people to alternative education programs and work experiences.<br />
Challenges reported included finding mentors to work with young people, managing<br />
employer expectations of young people’s skills, and creating and funding interventions for the<br />
hardest-to-serve young people. 72<br />
Current Efforts<br />
There are several efforts under way that use many of the same principles as the YO Initiative.<br />
One example is Reengagement Centers, which are city-level efforts to put out-of-school<br />
young people on multiple pathways to continue their education. Comprehensive in their approach,<br />
Reengagement Centers reach out to disconnected young people, assess their needs, and<br />
connect them with appropriate services, including various opportunities to continue their education,<br />
mentoring programs, employment and internship programs, and other services. These centers<br />
are tailored to the circumstances of individual communities, but include the involvement of<br />
multiple agencies and community organizations. The formation of successful initiatives starts<br />
with the planning process. It requires engagement from a wide net of stakeholders; partnerships<br />
with school districts, community colleges, and other service providers; adequate funding; and<br />
the right staff and location. The National League of Cities gathers data from the Reengagement<br />
Centers in its network, and according to 2013-2014 school year data, 15 centers reported reaching<br />
more than 20,000 young people, placing more than 10,000 in education or training programs.<br />
Seventy percent of those young people were still enrolled or had completed a credential<br />
71 Jackson et al. (2007).<br />
72 Harris (2006).<br />
27
y the end of the reporting period. 73 Though these outcomes are positive, since Reengagement<br />
Centers touch multiple institutions it is difficult to determine which outcomes the Reengagement<br />
Centers are directly responsible for. 74<br />
Project U-Turn in Philadelphia has received a lot of attention as a role-model program<br />
for a collective impact approach to raising the city’s graduation rates. Its successes — a 6 percent<br />
rise in the graduation rate between 2006 and 2011 — have been attributed to several main<br />
features: cross-sector collaboration involving the school district, other city agencies, and nongovernmental<br />
organizations; authentic youth participation; dedicated staffing; and common data<br />
and metrics used to track progress across the collaboration. One component of Project U-Turn is<br />
a Reengagement Center. 75<br />
The Aspen Institute recently launched the <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong> Incentive Fund with support<br />
from many other funders. The Fund is engaging in a multifaceted approach to serve disconnected<br />
young people through the collective impact model, funding initiatives in 21 communities.<br />
Participating communities are required to collect and report on a set of common indicators<br />
that include system-level change indicators (for example, instances of policy changes) and<br />
youth-level outcomes in the areas of education and employment. Equal Measure will be conducting<br />
an initiative-wide evaluation that will examine the Fund’s collective impact approach. It<br />
will explore how communities in the initiative developed their collaborations and acted collectively,<br />
including what factors hindered systems change and what factors facilitated it. The evaluation<br />
will also analyze the data from the common indicators to assess the initiative’s effect. 76<br />
In connection with the Social Innovation Fund, 8 of the 21 communities will receive additional<br />
funding to implement the Back on Track model, which includes enriched college preparation in<br />
high school equivalency and high school completion programs and enhanced connections to<br />
postsecondary education. The Social Innovation Fund initiative will also include a quasiexperimental<br />
evaluation measuring postsecondary outcomes. This evaluation will be conducted<br />
by the Urban Institute. It is now in the early design stage. 77<br />
Performance Partnership Pilots are a recent effort to increase collaboration across institutions<br />
that provide services to disconnected young people. These pilot projects allow up to 10<br />
awardees increased flexibility to blend some of the funds they receive from multiple federal<br />
programs (including funds from the U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and<br />
Human Services) in order to improve outcomes for disconnected young people. The idea is that<br />
by blending funds, they can remove some of the barriers to effective partnerships across com-<br />
73 Cook et al. (2014).<br />
74 Interview with Andrew Moore, Senior Fellow, National League of Cities, 3/17/2015.<br />
75 Bridgespan Group (2012).<br />
76 Interview with Justin Piff, Senior Director, Equal Measure, 9/21/2015.<br />
77 Interview with Monique Miles, Deputy Director, Aspen Forum for Community Solutions, 3/20/2015.<br />
28
munities. Applications were due in March 2015. The initiative includes a national evaluation<br />
and awardees may also elect to conduct their own evaluations. 78<br />
Another systems-change initiative targets adult education programs. The Accelerating<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> initiative combines best practices in career pathway models into state-level initiatives<br />
in five states. It has the potential to clarify the effect of career pathways approaches on student<br />
college and career outcomes. A report on program impacts (from a study using a quasiexperimental<br />
design) is due in 2016.<br />
Other system-level efforts are focused on generating employer demand for disconnected<br />
young people. <strong>Opportunity</strong> Nation has launched several initiatives targeting potential employers<br />
of disconnected young people. One product of the effort is the Grads of Life public service<br />
campaign, which seeks to change employers’ perceptions of these young people. The<br />
Rockefeller Foundation is investigating demand-driven strategies to address the youth employment<br />
issue and is seeking to develop and pilot test its own intervention. Since the evidence base<br />
for demand-driven strategies is so small, evaluations of these efforts may provide important information<br />
on what works in this emerging field.<br />
IV.<br />
Opportunities for Expanding Services and<br />
Learning What Works<br />
The evidence cited above demonstrates that the services available to disconnected young people<br />
target the segment of the population most ready to reconnect to education or employment —<br />
and most of the related evidence about what works concerns services targeting this segment of<br />
the population. Many of the traditional youth programs that have been studied serve the most<br />
motivated segment of the population, as evidenced by the screening done by these programs.<br />
While this screening is used to assess readiness for the program, it is also one way to allocate<br />
limited slots to those young people whom staff members believe will benefit the most. Adult<br />
education programs at community colleges, while showing promising results, for the most part<br />
do not specifically target disconnected young people but rather serve a range of adult learners<br />
seeking opportunities to advance their education.<br />
Even when young people are motivated to reconnect with education or employment,<br />
there are few programs that can serve them if they have very weak basic skills. For young people<br />
who have not yet aged out of the public school system, remedial education may be most easily<br />
obtained from the local school district, yet many districts face disincentives to reaching out<br />
to and reengaging young people, for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this paper. Despite<br />
78 Uvin and Stack (2015).<br />
29
these disincentives, however, a number of school districts are playing a role in reengaging dropouts<br />
through initiatives that include district-led programs at alternative schools and public charter<br />
schools that are forming to specifically serve this population. Examples of public charter<br />
schools that have designed programs to meet the needs of out-of-school young people include<br />
the nationwide SIATech program, Maya Angelou Schools in Washington, DC, and Our Piece<br />
of the Pie schools in Connecticut. While these schools report promising outcomes, no thirdparty<br />
evaluations of them have been conducted and none are in progress. 79<br />
Programs for young people who are not actively seeking opportunities to reconnect<br />
with school or work are lacking; there are few programs like Roca or Larkin Street that pursue<br />
“relentless engagement.” While some research supports the theory of change behind these interventions,<br />
no evidence yet exists to demonstrate their effectiveness. The Reengagement Centers<br />
that have been established in several cities are examples of efforts to reach persistently disconnected<br />
young people, but the data on these efforts do not shed light on their effectiveness in engaging<br />
those most difficult to serve.<br />
Many disconnected young people face circumstances that are huge barriers to their regular<br />
participation in programs, such as unmet housing, child care, and transportation needs. Programs<br />
have difficulty helping young people to meet these needs, either directly or through referrals,<br />
because of a lack of services in their communities. The challenge of transportation and how<br />
it limits regular program participation comes up time and time again in interviews with program<br />
staff members and participants.<br />
Recently, many discussions of policymakers and practitioners regarding how best to<br />
address the issues of disconnected young people have focused on the need for system-level<br />
change and collective impact approaches. While there are now a number of initiatives under<br />
way, evaluating the impact of these initiatives comes with steep challenges. For one thing, it is<br />
challenging to obtain the necessary data: While all stakeholders may agree that system-level<br />
approaches may help them overcome the fragmentation of services that now make it difficult to<br />
meet the needs of disconnected young people effectively, the reality is that each involved stakeholder<br />
has its own system for tracking data and outcomes of interest. A common approach to<br />
tracking outcomes of interest is essential to evaluating success.<br />
A rising number of evidence-based programs, including behavioral and mental health<br />
interventions, target many of the risk factors that lead to disconnection from education and the<br />
labor market. Some programs are incorporating these practices into their services to better address<br />
the needs of participants, but doing so comes with a number of challenges. Usually evidence-based<br />
programs have highly specific criteria defining their target populations, and more<br />
79 Rock, Rath, Dawson, and Silva (2014).<br />
30
needs to be understood about how well these programs might be applied to somewhat differently<br />
defined populations.<br />
As shown in the previous section, there are more than a dozen studies under way that<br />
have the potential to significantly contribute to the evidence base concerning “what works.”<br />
There are also a number of evaluations of programs for at-risk young people that have found<br />
positive results but that were not included in this evidence scan because they targeted an inschool<br />
population. One example is the One Summer Plus program in Chicago, which combined<br />
a summer jobs program with mentoring and, for a subset of participants, a social-emotional<br />
learning component. A random assignment study found that the program reduced violent crime<br />
rates among the program group by 43 percent. 80 One option to expand the programs available<br />
for disconnected young people could be to look for successful models in programs for in-school<br />
young people.<br />
Opportunities and Recommendations<br />
As this evidence scan lays out, there is a solid foundation of knowledge about “what works” in<br />
serving disconnected young people. There are also more than a dozen evaluations under way<br />
that have the potential to contribute to the knowledge base in the next few years. Still, this scan<br />
has identified several areas where there are significant gaps in knowledge or services. The recommendations<br />
that follow are organized by the target population of the intervention.<br />
All Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong><br />
Many of the statistics cited in this paper about the paths young people take to reconnecting<br />
with education and the labor market use data collected before the Great Recession. Structural<br />
changes to the labor market, which were accelerated by the Great Recession, have dramatically<br />
affected youth employment rates. Updated research is needed to clarify how labor-market<br />
changes have changed patterns of reconnection for young people, as the traditional path to employment<br />
has shifted and more young people are instead pursuing education. In a similar vein,<br />
little is known about persistently disconnected young people and what can successfully reconnect<br />
them to school and work. A longitudinal study that gathers data about young people who<br />
are currently disconnected from education and the labor market would provide knowledge in<br />
these areas where it is currently limited.<br />
<strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> Who Are Persistently Disconnected<br />
Evaluations of major youth programs have shown that most of these programs, while<br />
they do serve a disadvantaged population, tend to target the most motivated young people. Few<br />
80 Heller (2014).<br />
31
programs specifically target the most disconnected segment of the population. However, outreach<br />
and intensive case management approaches like those taken by Roca and <strong>Youth</strong> Villages<br />
have shown promise in helping the most disadvantaged young people get back on track. These<br />
programs exist in only a few communities currently, providing many opportunities to bring them<br />
to other areas. Investing in research while expanding these programs to a larger scale would increase<br />
the field’s knowledge regarding the effectiveness of these interventions. Additionally, as<br />
many of the existing programs were born in a particular community, studying expansion would<br />
shed light on how to incubate these approaches successfully in new communities.<br />
<strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> with Low Basic Skills<br />
As discussed in this paper, many disconnected young people have low academic skills<br />
and lack work experience, huge barriers to reconnection through school or work. Most programs<br />
in this scan targeted young people with the academic skills needed to achieve at least a<br />
secondary credential. Few programs exist for young people with the lowest skill levels, especially<br />
if reconnecting to the local school system is not an option for them, and little is known<br />
about how to improve outcomes for this group.<br />
A lack of work experience presents a significant barrier to employment for these young<br />
people, yet few programs aim to provide them with work experience. Efforts should focus on<br />
how to create job opportunities for these young people. Investing in demand-side strategies —<br />
for example, supporting summer jobs and internship programs that engage employers — could<br />
provide valuable work experience to young people with limited skills and limited opportunities.<br />
A growing number of alternative schools (including district schools, charter schools,<br />
and schools run by community-based organizations) serve young people with weak basic skills.<br />
While these programs are probably serving an increasing number of disconnected young people,<br />
little is known about their effectiveness. A number of adult education programs, including<br />
those using high school equivalency bridge approaches and career pathway approaches, have<br />
shown promise in moving participants with low basic skills toward secondary credentials and<br />
into postsecondary education. However, since these programs are not specifically designed for<br />
young people, it is difficult to know how they compare with comprehensive youth programs in<br />
achieving outcomes for young people. For example, youth development approaches — a hallmark<br />
of comprehensive youth programs — are rarely a component of adult education programs.<br />
More research is needed to understand how effective these programs are for young people.<br />
Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> with Stronger Skills<br />
Disconnected young people are a not a static population. <strong>Young</strong> people with stronger<br />
skills, which may include some work experience and a secondary credential (or close to it), can<br />
experience periods of engagement and then disengagement. They may work in a series of low-<br />
32
wage jobs with gaps in between, or start classes at a community college but then drop out, or a<br />
combination of the two. A number of interventions may help this population advance along a<br />
career path.<br />
Evidence suggests that programs that take career pathways approaches and connect<br />
training to identifiable opportunities in the local labor market are more likely to achieve strong<br />
employment outcomes. As the success of Year Up shows, connecting with local employers to<br />
understand their needs and interests can also greatly improve opportunities for young people to<br />
obtain meaningful internships and employment. <strong>Youth</strong> programs should adopt strategies that<br />
incorporate career pathway approaches and cultivate employers. Such strategies could include<br />
engaging employers to shape services, so that young people leaving programs have the skills<br />
that companies seek, or educating employers about supervision strategies to help improve performance<br />
and retention.<br />
Community college is another place where big impacts are possible. According to one<br />
study, only 40 percent of community college students complete a degree within six years. 81<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people who connect to community college need support to ensure that they stay engaged.<br />
MDRC’s study of the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs at the City University of<br />
New York found one promising model to improve graduation rates. 82 However, few interventions<br />
or efforts target people who enrolled in community college but who later dropped out<br />
without finishing their degrees. Most community colleges do not attempt to reconnect with students<br />
who have dropped out. One opportunity to make a difference could be to work with<br />
community colleges to design efforts similar to Reengagement Centers that would conduct active<br />
outreach to college dropouts and offer one-on-one counseling to help address their barriers<br />
to completing their education.<br />
81 Shapiro et al. (2014).<br />
82 Scrivener et al. (2015).<br />
33
Appendix<br />
Selected Evaluations of Programs<br />
for Disconnected <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong>
37<br />
Program 2007-2011<br />
Evaluation Type Target Group Program Model Summary of Findings Evaluation Dates<br />
Employment-focused programs: completed evaluations<br />
Year Up Impact 18- to 24-year-olds<br />
with secondary<br />
credentials<br />
P/PV Sectoral Study of<br />
Jewish Vocational<br />
Service and Per Scholas<br />
Impact <strong>Young</strong> people and<br />
adults over age 18 with<br />
secondary credentials<br />
Employment-focused programs: evaluations in process<br />
Year Up Impact 18- to 24-year-olds<br />
with secondary<br />
credentials<br />
<strong>Young</strong> Adult Internship<br />
Program<br />
Impact 16- to 24-year-olds not<br />
working and not in<br />
school<br />
Bridges to Pathways Impact <strong>Young</strong> men ages 16 to<br />
20 who are leaving<br />
juvenile detention<br />
Comprehensive youth programs: completed evaluations<br />
Job Corps Impact,<br />
implementation Disadvantaged young<br />
people ages 16 to 24<br />
Technical skills training in<br />
information technology or<br />
investment operations for 6<br />
months, followed by 6 months of<br />
internship; stipend for both<br />
components<br />
Training tied to a specific sector<br />
(health care, information<br />
technology); other forms of<br />
support including job placement,<br />
child care and transportation<br />
assistance, and postprogram<br />
follow-up<br />
Technical skills training in<br />
information technology or<br />
investment operations for 6<br />
months, followed by 6 months of<br />
internship; stipend for both<br />
components<br />
Work-readiness training, 10-week<br />
paid internship, transition support<br />
Transitional jobs program that<br />
includes online educational<br />
support, mentoring, and socialemotional/cognitive<br />
behavioral<br />
programs<br />
Employment, education, and<br />
training in a (mostly) residential<br />
setting<br />
Earnings impacts in Years<br />
2 and 3, driven by higher<br />
hourly wages for program<br />
participants<br />
Employment and earnings<br />
impacts for young people<br />
Earnings and employment<br />
impacts in Years 3 to 4 of<br />
the study period, impacts<br />
faded after Year 4; results<br />
stronger for older young<br />
adults<br />
2003-2006<br />
Early impact<br />
results expected in<br />
2016<br />
Impact results<br />
expected in 2017<br />
Impact results<br />
expected in 2017<br />
1994-2003
Findings expected<br />
in 2016<br />
Findings expected<br />
in 2016<br />
Interim impacts<br />
and<br />
implementation<br />
study in 2017;<br />
cost study, final<br />
impacts in 2018<br />
38<br />
Program Evaluation Type Target Group Program Model Summary of Findings Evaluation Dates<br />
Comprehensive youth programs: completed evaluations (continued)<br />
ChalleNGe Impact,<br />
2005-2008<br />
implementation<br />
High school dropouts,<br />
ages 16 to 18, who are<br />
drug free and not<br />
heavily involved with<br />
the justice system<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Corps Impact 18- to 25-year-old, outof-school<br />
young<br />
people, mostly dropouts<br />
Project Rise Implementation 16- to 24-year-olds<br />
without secondary<br />
credentials<br />
Comprehensive youth programs: evaluations in process<br />
<strong>Youth</strong>Build Impact,<br />
implementation Disadvantaged young<br />
people ages 16 to 24<br />
Education, service to the<br />
community, and other forms of<br />
support in a quasi-military<br />
residential setting; 12-month<br />
postresidential mentoring program<br />
Paid work experience in<br />
community service projects,<br />
education and training, support<br />
services through case<br />
management; typical participation<br />
full time and intended to last from<br />
6 to 12 months<br />
Career-readiness and educational<br />
programs combined with a<br />
conditional internship<br />
Education and job training,<br />
combined with community<br />
service and additional support;<br />
stipend for most participants<br />
Increases in high school<br />
equivalency credentials;<br />
earning and employment<br />
impacts in Year 3<br />
First evaluation: increases<br />
in employment and<br />
decreases in arrests,<br />
particularly for black<br />
males; second evaluation:<br />
no impacts on<br />
employment<br />
Implementation findings<br />
discuss challenges<br />
implementing internship<br />
and engagement<br />
Implementation findings:<br />
program largely<br />
implemented with fidelity<br />
1993-1996<br />
2006-2009<br />
2011- 2015<br />
2010-2018; early<br />
impact findings<br />
expected in 2017<br />
Los Angeles<br />
Reconnections Career<br />
Academy<br />
Linking Innovation and<br />
Knowledge (@LIKE)<br />
Impact,<br />
implementation,<br />
and costeffectiveness<br />
Impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
and<br />
cost study<br />
PACE Center for Girls Impact,<br />
implementation,<br />
and costeffectiveness<br />
High school dropouts<br />
ages 16 to 24<br />
18- to 24-year-olds who<br />
have been out of work<br />
and school for more<br />
than 90 days<br />
Girls ages 12 to 17 who<br />
have dropped out or<br />
who are at risk of<br />
dropping out<br />
Connection to secondary<br />
education and subsidized<br />
vocational training in health care<br />
Connection to secondary<br />
education and vocational training,<br />
life coaches, and transition<br />
support<br />
Academic services to support<br />
attainment of secondary<br />
credentials, life- and career-skills<br />
education, counseling, and<br />
connection to support services
Results expected<br />
in 2018<br />
Results expected<br />
in 2017<br />
2013-2015<br />
39<br />
Program Evaluation Type Target Group Program Model Summary of Findings Evaluation Dates<br />
Postsecondary pathways: completed evaluations<br />
GED Bridge to Health<br />
2010-2013<br />
and Business<br />
I-BEST Impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
Impact Adult learners seeking<br />
their General<br />
Educational<br />
Development<br />
credentials (GEDs)<br />
Adult learners who<br />
have basic skills needs<br />
or who are English as a<br />
Second Language<br />
learners<br />
Gateway to College Implementation 16- to 20-year-olds who<br />
have dropped out or<br />
who are close to<br />
dropping out<br />
GED instruction on a college<br />
campus, curriculum geared to<br />
health or business track, career<br />
and college counseling, transition<br />
support, cohort enrollment<br />
Basic skills instruction and career<br />
and technical education delivered<br />
through co-teaching (basic skills<br />
and content teachers teach the<br />
classes together); supportive<br />
services including transition<br />
support<br />
Students simultaneously earn high<br />
school and college credits while<br />
taking classes at a community<br />
college; additional support<br />
services<br />
Higher attendance and<br />
persistence in a GED<br />
program, higher rates of<br />
GED completion, higher<br />
rates of college entry<br />
Higher learning gains,<br />
higher enrollment in<br />
college-credit-bearing<br />
courses, greater<br />
persistence in college,<br />
more earned credits<br />
toward a credential, and<br />
more earned occupational<br />
credits<br />
Implementation study<br />
offers lessons in<br />
replication and the<br />
engagement of young<br />
people<br />
2006-2009<br />
2010-2015<br />
Postsecondary pathways: evaluations in process<br />
GED Bridge -<br />
Wisconsin<br />
Impact Adult learners seeking<br />
their GEDs<br />
I-BEST Impact Adult learners who<br />
have basic skills needs<br />
or who are English as a<br />
Second Language<br />
learners<br />
Basic skills programs: completed evaluations<br />
<strong>Young</strong> Adult Literacy<br />
Program<br />
Implementation 16- to 24-year-olds<br />
with 4th- through 8thgrade<br />
reading levels<br />
GED instruction on a college<br />
campus, curriculum geared to a<br />
career track, career and college<br />
counseling, transition support<br />
Basic skills instruction and career<br />
and technical education delivered<br />
through concurrent enrollment;<br />
supportive services including<br />
transition support<br />
Literacy and numeracy<br />
instruction, social support<br />
services, life-skills and workreadiness<br />
training, a paid<br />
internship<br />
Increases in literacy and<br />
numeracy levels
2009-2012<br />
Varies<br />
Program 2012-2014<br />
Evaluation Type Target Group Program Model Summary of Findings Evaluation Dates<br />
Outreach and case management models: completed evaluations<br />
Safe and Successful <strong>Youth</strong> Initiative<br />
Impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
risk of gun<br />
14- to 24-year-olds at<br />
violence<br />
Outreach and case management models: evaluations in process<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Villages Impact,<br />
implementation, cost<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people ages 18<br />
to 24 aging out of foster<br />
care or exiting the<br />
juvenile justice system<br />
Street outreach to connect young<br />
people to customized support<br />
services<br />
Clinically focused case<br />
management, including<br />
counseling and connection to<br />
other services<br />
Reduced risk of<br />
incarceration, reduction in<br />
number of violent crimes<br />
in target communities<br />
Impacts on employment<br />
and earnings, housing<br />
stability, mental health<br />
issues and involvement in<br />
violent relationships<br />
2010-2016; final<br />
impacts and cost<br />
study expected in<br />
2016<br />
40<br />
Roca Impact <strong>Young</strong> men ages 17 to<br />
24 in adult probation or<br />
exiting the juvenile<br />
justice system<br />
Latin American <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Center<br />
Impact <strong>Young</strong> people ages 14<br />
to 24<br />
“Relentless” outreach to at-risk<br />
young people, youth workers who<br />
employ motivational interviewing<br />
and cognitive behavioral<br />
programs to build<br />
transformational relationships,<br />
additional programs that include<br />
academic, vocational, and lifeskills<br />
education<br />
Unknown<br />
Long-term case management Results expected<br />
Behavioral interventions: completed evaluations<br />
Becoming a Man Impact In-school, at-risk boys<br />
in the 7th to 10th<br />
grades<br />
Social and cognitive skills<br />
development<br />
Increased school<br />
engagement, reduced<br />
violent crime arrests<br />
Multisystemic Therapy Impact (multiple<br />
studies)<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people ages 12<br />
to 17<br />
Systems approach combining<br />
cognitive behavioral therapy,<br />
behavior management training,<br />
and family therapy<br />
Reduced recidivism,<br />
reduction in out-of-home<br />
placements, decreased<br />
substance use, reduction<br />
in mental health problems
unknown<br />
Unknown<br />
Report expected<br />
in 2016<br />
41<br />
Program 2012-2015<br />
Evaluation Type Target Group Program Model Summary of Findings Evaluation Dates<br />
Behavioral interventions: completed evaluations (continued)<br />
Adolescent Behavioral Learning Experience<br />
Impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
Collective impact approaches: completed evaluations<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Opportunity</strong><br />
Initiative<br />
Impact (quasiexperimental),<br />
implementation<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people 16 to 18<br />
years old detained in<br />
jail at Riker’s Island<br />
<strong>Young</strong> people in 36<br />
communities<br />
Cognitive behavioral program<br />
focused on personal<br />
responsibility, training, and<br />
counseling<br />
Coordinated efforts across<br />
systems touching young people,<br />
formation of community centers<br />
Reengagement Centers Outcome analysis 15 communities Outreach to disconnected young<br />
people, connections back to<br />
school via multiple pathways,<br />
connection to other supportive<br />
services<br />
Collective impact approaches: evaluations in process<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Incentive Fund<br />
Implementation,<br />
impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
Disconnected young<br />
people in 21<br />
communities<br />
Collective impact model; 8 of the<br />
communities will implement the<br />
Back on Track model<br />
Better employment<br />
outcomes than non-YO<br />
communities, better<br />
educational outcomes in<br />
some YO communities<br />
70 percent of young<br />
people remained in school<br />
or achieved secondary<br />
credentials<br />
2000-2005<br />
2013-2014<br />
Equal Measure<br />
report expected<br />
2018; Urban<br />
Institute report<br />
Performance<br />
Partnership Pilots<br />
Accelerating<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong><br />
Unknown at this<br />
time<br />
Impact (quasiexperimental)<br />
Disconnected young<br />
people in 10<br />
communities<br />
Coordination across agencies;<br />
greater flexibility to blend funds,<br />
streamline performance measures<br />
5 states State-level efforts to implement<br />
career pathways approaches
References<br />
American Institutes for Research. 2015. “Safe and Successful <strong>Youth</strong> Initiative in Massachusetts<br />
(SSYI).” Website: www.air.org/project/safe-and-successful-youth-initiative-massachusettsssyi.<br />
Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2013. Reducing <strong>Youth</strong> Incarceration in the United States. Baltimore,<br />
MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.<br />
Bauer, Erin L., Scott Crosse, Karla McPherson, Janet Friedman, Joy Zacharia, Donna Tapper, and<br />
Ryan Clarke. 2014. Evaluation of the New York City Justice Corps: Final Outcome Report.<br />
Rockville, MD: Westat, Metis Associates.<br />
Belfield, Clive R, Henry M Levin, and Rachel Rosen. 2012. The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong><br />
<strong>Youth</strong>. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.<br />
Bird, Kisha, Marcie Foster, and Evelyn Ganzglass. 2014. New Opportunities to Improve Economic<br />
and Career Success for Low-Income <strong>Youth</strong> and Adults: Key Provisions of the Workforce<br />
Innovation and <strong>Opportunity</strong> Act (WIOA). Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.<br />
Bridgeland, John M., and Jessica A. Milano. 2012. “<strong>Opportunity</strong> Road: The Promise and Challenge<br />
of America's Forgotten <strong>Youth</strong>.” Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.<br />
Bridgespan Group. 2012. Needle-Moving Community Collaboratives, Case Study: Philadelphia.<br />
Boston: The Bridgespan Group.<br />
Campbell, Patricia B., Tom R. Kibler, and Jennifer L. Weisman. 2009. <strong>Youth</strong> Development Institute:<br />
Community Education Pathways to Success (CEPS): Final Evaluation Report. Groton, MA:<br />
Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.<br />
Campie, Patricia E., Anthony Petrosino, James Pace, Trevor Fronius, Sarah Guckenburg, Michael<br />
Wiatrowski, and Stephanie Ward. 2013. What Works to Prevent Urban Violence Among<br />
Proven Risk <strong>Young</strong> Men? Boston, MA: WestEd, American Institutes for Research, Justice<br />
Resource Institute.<br />
Carnevale, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl. 2010. Help Wanted: Projections of Job and<br />
Education Requirements Through 2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on<br />
Education and the Workforce.<br />
Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention. 2009. <strong>Youth</strong> Work and Learn at Our Piece of the<br />
Pie (OPP): Findings of the Formative Evaluation of Connecticut’s <strong>Youth</strong> Development Model.<br />
Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.<br />
Center for Law and Social Policy. 2014. “Career Pathways Explained: A Multimedia Overview.”<br />
Website: www.clasp.org/issues/postsecondary/pages/career-pathways-explained.<br />
43
Center for <strong>Youth</strong> and Community. 2013. Creating New Pathways to Postsecondary: Evaluation of<br />
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Postsecondary Success (PSS) Initiative. Waltham, MA:<br />
Brandeis University Heller School for Social Policy and Management.<br />
Community College Research Center. 2015. “Community College FAQs.” Website:<br />
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html.<br />
Cook, Traci, Evelyn Kappeler, Renee Ellis, Robert Kominski, Alexia Cooper, Erica Smith, Brecht<br />
Donoghue, Yuko Whitestone, Tom Snyder, and Susan Aud. 2014. “America’s <strong>Young</strong> Adults:<br />
Special Issue, 2014.” Washington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family<br />
Statistics.<br />
Culbertson, Nina, Chad d’Entremont, and Jennifer Poulos. 2014. Alternative Education: Exploring<br />
Innovations in Learning. Boston: Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy.<br />
Fry, Richard. 2014. U.S. High School Dropout Rate Reaches Record Low, Driven By Improvements<br />
Among Hispanics, Blacks. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.<br />
González-Rivera, Christian. 2014. Bridging the Disconnect. New York: Center for an Urban Future.<br />
Hair, Elizabeth C., Kristin A. Moore, Thomson J. Ling, Cameron McPhee-Baker, and B.V. Brown.<br />
“<strong>Youth</strong> Who Are ‘Disconnected’ and Those Who Then Reconnect: Assessing the Influence of<br />
Family, Programs, Peers and Communities.” Washington, DC: Child Trends.<br />
Harris, Linda. 2006. Learning from the <strong>Youth</strong> <strong>Opportunity</strong> Experience. Washington, DC: Center for<br />
Law and Social Policy.<br />
Heller, Sara B. 2014. “Summer Jobs Reduce Violence Among Disadvantaged <strong>Youth</strong>.” Science 346,<br />
6,214: 1,219-1,223.<br />
Hossain, Farhana, and Dan Bloom. 2015. Toward a Better Future. New York: MDRC.<br />
Jackson, Russell H., R. Malené Dixon, Ann McCoy, Carol Pistorino, Paul Zador, Cynthia Thomas,<br />
John Lopdell, Juanita Lucas-McLean, Frank Bennici, and Andrew Sum. 2007. <strong>Youth</strong><br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> Grant Initiative: Impact and Synthesis Report. Houston: Decision Information<br />
Resources, Inc.<br />
Jacobs, Erin, Melanie Skemer, and Mark Courtney. 2015. Becoming Adults: One-Year Impact<br />
Findings from the <strong>Youth</strong> Villages Transitional Living Evaluation. New York: MDRC.<br />
Jastrzab, JoAnn, Julie Masker, John Blomquist, and Larry Orr. 1996. Impacts of Service: Final<br />
Report on the Evaluation of American Conservation and <strong>Youth</strong> Service Corps. Cambridge,<br />
MA: Abt Associates Inc.<br />
Jenkins, Davis, Matthew Zeidenberg, and Gregory Kienzl. 2009. “Educational Outcomes of I-<br />
BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College System’s Integrated Basic<br />
Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis.” Unpublished<br />
paper. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University.<br />
44
Jim Casey <strong>Youth</strong> Opportunities Initiative. 2011. The Adolescent Brain: New Research and its<br />
Implications for <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong> Transitioning from Foster Care. St. Louis, MO: Jim Casey<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Opportunities Initiative.<br />
Katz, Irv, Karen Key, Tara James, Molly French, and Alexander Heit. 2013. Breaking the Cycle of<br />
Poverty in <strong>Young</strong> Families: Two-Generation Strategies for Working with Disconnected <strong>Young</strong><br />
Parents and Their Children. Washington, DC: National Human Services Assembly.<br />
Landenberger, Nana A., and Mark W. Lipsey. 2005. “The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral<br />
Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment.”<br />
Journal of Experimental Criminology 1, 4: 451-476.<br />
Langford, Barbara Hanson , Sue Hoag Badeau, and Lyman Legters. 2015. Investing to Improve the<br />
Well-Being of Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong> and <strong>Young</strong> Adults: Recommendations for Policy and Practice.<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group.<br />
Logue, William DeVane. 2002. Residential Charter Schools: The Road Behind, the Path Ahead.<br />
Washington, DC: The Seed Foundation.<br />
Maguire, Shiela, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, and Deena Schwartz. 2010.<br />
Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact Study. New<br />
York: Public/ Private Ventures.<br />
Manno, Michelle S., Edith Yang, and Michael Bangser. 2015. Engaging Disconnected <strong>Young</strong><br />
<strong>People</strong> in Education and Work: Findings from the Project Rise Implementation Evaluation.<br />
New York: MDRC.<br />
Martin, Vanessa, and Joseph Broadus. 2013. Enhancing GED Instruction to Prepare Students for<br />
College and Careers: Early Success in LaGuardia Community College’s Bridge to Health and<br />
Business Program. New York: MDRC.<br />
McCarthy, Mary Alice. 2014. The Year of Career Pathways: Congress Restores the Ability to<br />
Benefit. Washington, DC: New America EdCentral.<br />
Measure of America. 2015. <strong>Opportunity</strong> Index 2014: Where Is <strong>Opportunity</strong> in America? New York:<br />
Social Science Research Council.<br />
Millenky, Megan, Dan Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus. 2011. Staying on Course:<br />
Three-Year Results of the National Guard <strong>Youth</strong> ChalleNGe Evaluation. New York: MDRC.<br />
MST. 2015. “MST Treatment Model.” Website: http://mstservices.com/what-is-mst/treatmentmodel.<br />
National Association of Secondary School Principals. 2015. “Making Every Diploma Count: Using<br />
Extended-Year Graduation Rates to Measure Student Success.” Website:<br />
www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?topic=Making_Every_Diploma_Count_Using_Extended_Year_<br />
Graduation_Rates_to_Measure_Student_Success.<br />
45
National Center for Education Statistics. 2013a. “Table 5.1. Compulsory School Attendance Laws,<br />
Minimum and Maximum Age Limits for Required Free Education, by State: 2013.” Website:<br />
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1.asp.<br />
National Center for Education Statistics. 2013b. “Table 302.60. Percentage of 18- to 24-Year-Olds<br />
Enrolled in Degree-Granting Institutions, by Level of Institution and Sex and Race/Ethnicity of<br />
Student: 1967 Through 2012.” Website: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/<br />
dt13_302.60.asp.<br />
National Public Radio. 2014. “The <strong>Youth</strong> Unemployment Crisis Hits African-Americans Hardest.”<br />
Website: www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/07/21/329864863/the-youth-unemploymentcrisis-hits-african-americans-hardest.<br />
Office of Data and Strategy, District of Columbia Public Schools. 2014. DC CAS 2014 Results.<br />
Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools.<br />
Parker, Barbara Pierce. 2015. From Good Intentions to Strategic Interventions. Boston: Crime and<br />
Justice Institute.<br />
Patrick, Deval. 2014. Pay for Success Contract Among the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Roca,<br />
Inc., and <strong>Youth</strong> Services Inc. Available online at: www.thirdsectorcap.org/wp-content/uploads/<br />
2015/03/final-pay-for-success-contract-executed-1-7-2013.pdf.<br />
Roca, Inc. 2015. “<strong>Young</strong> Mothers.” Website: http://rocainc.org/what-we-do/roca-works/youngmothers.<br />
Rock, Kathryn, Bob Rath, Linda Dawson, and Ernie Silva. 2014. Over-Age, Under-Credited<br />
Students and Public Charter Schools: An Exploration of Successes, Strategies, and<br />
Opportunities for Expansion. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.<br />
Roder, Anne, and Mark Elliott. 2011. A Promising Start: Year Up’s Initial Impacts on Low-Income<br />
<strong>Young</strong> Adults’ Careers. New York: Economic Mobility Corporation.<br />
Roder, Anne, and Mark Elliott. 2014. Sustained Gains: Year Up’s Continued Impact on <strong>Young</strong><br />
Adults’ Earnings. New York: Economic Mobility Corporation.<br />
Rutschow, Elizabeth Zachry, and Shane Crary-Ross. 2014. Beyond the GED: Promising Models for<br />
Moving High School Dropouts to College. New York: MDRC.<br />
Schochet, Peter Z., John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell. 2006. National Job Corps Study and<br />
Longer-Term Follow-Up Study: Impact and Benefit-Cost Findings Using Survey and Summary<br />
Earnings Records Data. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.<br />
Scrivener, Susan, Michael J Weiss, Alyssa Ratledge, Timothy Rudd, Colleen Sommo, and Hannah<br />
Fresques. 2015. Doubling Graduation Rates: Three-Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study<br />
in Associate Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education Students. New York: MDRC.<br />
Shapiro, Doug, Afet Dundar, Xin Yuan, Autumn T. Harrell, and Phoebe Khasiala Wakhungu. 2014.<br />
Completing College: A National View of Student Attainment Rates — Fall 2008 Cohort.<br />
Herndon, VA: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.<br />
46
Sparks, Sarah D. 2015. “Many Dropouts Try — and Fail — to Return to School: Many Dropouts<br />
Try at Least Once to Return.” Website: www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/06/06/<br />
34sticky.h32.html.<br />
Strumpf Associates: Center for Strategic Change and the Center for <strong>Youth</strong> and Communities,<br />
Brandeis University. 2015. Comments on the Workforce Innovation and <strong>Opportunity</strong> Act<br />
(WIOA) Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs). Available online at:<br />
http://cyc.brandeis.edu/pdfs/BrandeisandStrumpfNPRMcommentsfn_6.15.pdf.<br />
Strumpf, Lori. 2015. “Got Jobs? Some Positive News on Helping <strong>Young</strong> Adults Get Good Jobs —<br />
Part II.” Website: www.aypf.org/college-and-career-readiness/got-jobs-some-positive-newson-helping-young-adults-get-good-jobs-part-i-2.<br />
Triple P. 2015. “Triple P in a Nutshell.” Website: www.triplep.net/glo-en/find-out-about-triplep/triple-p-in-a-nutshell.<br />
Turner, Cory, and Anya Kamenetz. 2015. “A ‘Sizable Decrease’ in Those Passing the GED.”<br />
Website: www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/01/09/375440666/a-sizable-decrease-in-thosepassing-the-ged.<br />
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. “2011 American Community Survey Public Use Microdata.” Website:<br />
http://factfinder2.census.gov.<br />
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2015. “Home Visiting Evidence of Effectiveness.”<br />
Website: http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov.<br />
Uvin, John, and Kathy Stack. 2015. “Performance Partnership Pilots: An <strong>Opportunity</strong> to Improve<br />
Outcomes for Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>.” Website: http://blog.ed.gov/2014/03/performancepartnership-pilots-an-opportunity-to-improve-outcomes-for-disconnected-youth.<br />
Vera Institute of Justice. 2015. “Impact Evaluation of the Adolescent Behavioral Learning<br />
Experience (ABLE) Program at Rikers Island: Summary of Findings.” New York: Vera<br />
Institute of Justice.<br />
WestEd and California State Board of Education. 2015. “Local Control Funding Formula.” Website:<br />
http://lcff.wested.org.<br />
Wiegand, Andrew, Michelle Manno, Sengsouvanh (Sukey) Leshnick, Louisa Treskon, Christian<br />
Geckeler, Heather Lewis-Charp, Castle Sinicrope, Mika Clark, and Brandon Nicholson. 2015.<br />
Adapting to Local Context: Findings from the <strong>Youth</strong>Build Evaluation Implementation Study.<br />
New York: MDRC.<br />
Willard, Jacklyn, Brian Bayes, and John Martinez. 2015. Gateway to College: Lessons from<br />
Implementing a Rigorous Academic Program for At-Risk <strong>Young</strong> <strong>People</strong>. New York: MDRC.<br />
WIF. Los Angeles Reconnections Career Academy (LARCA). Los Angeles, CA: City of Los Angeles<br />
Workforce Investment Board with the County of Los Angeles Workforce Investment Board.<br />
Available online at: http://innovation.workforce3one.org/resources_uploads/onepagers/OnePager_-_Los_Angeles__20130312_final.pdf.<br />
47
About the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group<br />
The <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group (YTFG) is a national network of funders that work together<br />
to support the well-being and economic success of vulnerable young people ages 14 to 25. YTFG<br />
members seek to ensure that all young people have lifelong family, personal, and community connections<br />
and the opportunities and tools to succeed throughout adulthood. YTFG provides a vibrant<br />
and active community for national, regional, and community funders to learn from each other<br />
and other experts in the field, stay abreast of new research and key policy developments, inform<br />
and influence policy and practice, and foster collaborative approaches to grantmaking. YTFG<br />
supports peer networking and sharing, creates key partnership with leaders in the field, and provides<br />
strategic opportunities to leverage and extend the efforts of individual members.<br />
Our network provides a unique space for diverse funders to come together to explore crosscutting<br />
issues affecting all vulnerable youth. Our members’ interests and expertise span a<br />
wide range of content areas, including education, workforce development, child welfare,<br />
youth justice, housing, health, and mental health. We seek to expand beyond narrow and often<br />
siloed dialogue to build a collective understanding of how a multi-systems approach can produce<br />
improved youth outcomes. YTFG works to highlight critical overlaps and intersections<br />
of youth-serving systems and identify creative approaches to design cross-system strategies<br />
and solutions.<br />
In addition to our cross-systems efforts, YTFG operates three dedicated workgroups for members<br />
desiring to connect with colleagues to address the unique needs of particularly vulnerable<br />
youth populations: those disconnected from work or school and those currently experiencing the<br />
child welfare or youth justice systems.<br />
Learn more about the <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Funders Group online at www.ytfg.org.
About MDRC<br />
MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social and education policy research organization dedicated<br />
to learning what works to improve the well-being of low-income people. Through its research<br />
and the active communication of its findings, MDRC seeks to enhance the effectiveness of social<br />
and education policies and programs.<br />
Founded in 1974 and located in New York City and Oakland, California, MDRC is best known<br />
for mounting rigorous, large-scale, real-world tests of new and existing policies and programs.<br />
Its projects are a mix of demonstrations (field tests of promising new program approaches) and<br />
evaluations of ongoing government and community initiatives. MDRC’s staff bring an unusual<br />
combination of research and organizational experience to their work, providing expertise on the<br />
latest in qualitative and quantitative methods and on program design, development, implementation,<br />
and management. MDRC seeks to learn not just whether a program is effective but also<br />
how and why the program’s effects occur. In addition, it tries to place each project’s findings in<br />
the broader context of related research — in order to build knowledge about what works across<br />
the social and education policy fields. MDRC’s findings, lessons, and best practices are proactively<br />
shared with a broad audience in the policy and practitioner community as well as with the<br />
general public and the media.<br />
Over the years, MDRC has brought its unique approach to an ever-growing range of policy areas<br />
and target populations. Once known primarily for evaluations of state welfare-to-work programs,<br />
today MDRC is also studying public school reforms, employment programs for exoffenders<br />
and people with disabilities, and programs to help low-income students succeed in<br />
college. MDRC’s projects are organized into five areas:<br />
• Promoting Family Well-Being and Children’s Development<br />
• Improving Public Education<br />
• Raising Academic Achievement and Persistence in College<br />
• Supporting Low-Wage Workers and Communities<br />
• Overcoming Barriers to Employment<br />
Working in almost every state, all of the nation’s largest cities, and Canada and the United<br />
Kingdom, MDRC conducts its projects in partnership with national, state, and local governments,<br />
public school systems, community organizations, and numerous private philanthropies.
Page 48 of 72
Attachment B<br />
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>:<br />
A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds<br />
Who are Not Working or In School<br />
Page 49 of 72
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year<br />
Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara<br />
Specialist in Social Policy<br />
October 1, 2015<br />
Congressional Research Service<br />
7-5700<br />
www.crs.gov<br />
R40535
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Summary<br />
In recent years, policymakers and youth advocates have focused greater attention on young<br />
people who are neither working nor in school. Generally characterized as “disconnected,” these<br />
youth may also lack strong social networks that provide assistance in the form of employment<br />
connections and other supports such as housing and financial assistance. Without attachment to<br />
work or school, disconnected youth may be vulnerable to experiencing negative outcomes as they<br />
transition to adulthood. The purpose of the report is to provide context for Congress about the<br />
characteristics of disconnected youth, and the circumstances in which they live. These data may<br />
be useful as Congress considers policies to retain students in high school and to provide<br />
opportunities for youth to obtain job training and employment.<br />
Since the late 1990s, social science research has introduced different definitions of the term<br />
“disconnected.” Across multiple studies of disconnected youth, the ages of the youth and the<br />
length of time they are out of school or work for purposes of being considered disconnected<br />
differ. In addition, a smaller number of studies have also incorporated incarcerated youth into<br />
estimates of the population. Due to these methodological differences, the number of youth who<br />
are considered disconnected varies. According to the research, the factors that are associated with<br />
disconnection are not entirely clear, though some studies have shown that parental education and<br />
receipt of public assistance are influential.<br />
This Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis expands the existing research on<br />
disconnected youth. The analysis uses Current Population Survey (CPS) data to construct a<br />
definition of “disconnected.” This definition includes noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through<br />
24 who were not working or in school at the time of the survey (February through April) and did<br />
not work or attend school any time during the previous year. The definition is narrower than those<br />
used by other studies because it captures youth who are unemployed and not in school for a<br />
longer period of time. This is intended to exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or<br />
most of a year. <strong>Youth</strong> who are both married to a connected spouse and are parenting are also<br />
excluded from the definition. For these reasons, the number and share of youth in the analysis<br />
who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, 2.4 million youth<br />
ages 16 through 24—or 6.1% of this population—met the definition of disconnected in 2014,<br />
meaning that they were not in school or working for all of 2013 and at some point between<br />
February and April of 2014. Between 1988 and 2014, the rate of disconnection fluctuated<br />
between 3.9% (1999 and 2000) and 7.5% (2010). As expected, rates of disconnection have varied<br />
over time depending on economic cycles.<br />
Like the existing research, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of minority youth,<br />
particularly black males, are disconnected, and that their rates of disconnection have been higher<br />
over time. The analysis evaluates some other characteristics that have not been widely studied in<br />
the existing research. For instance, compared to their peers in the general population,<br />
disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of education, and are more likely to live apart from<br />
their parents and (if they married to a disconnected spouse or are not married) to have children.<br />
Disconnected youth are also twice as likely to be poor than their connected peers. The analysis<br />
further finds that the parents of disconnected youth are more likely than their counterparts to be<br />
unemployed and to have lower educational attainment.<br />
Given the state of the current economy, rates of disconnection may remain stable or decrease.<br />
Policymakers may consider interventions to reconnect youth to work and/or school. Interventions<br />
can target children and youth at a particular stage of their early lives. Interventions can also focus<br />
on particular institutions or systems, such as the family, community, and schools.<br />
Congressional Research Service
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Contents<br />
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1<br />
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3<br />
Overview of Research on Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> ............................................................................... 5<br />
Methodology and Number of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> ................................................................... 5<br />
Other Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 7<br />
Reasons Associated with Disconnection ................................................................................... 7<br />
CRS Analysis of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> ............................................................................................. 8<br />
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 8<br />
Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 9<br />
Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................... 9<br />
Poverty, Family Living Arrangements, and Parental Characteristics ...................................... 10<br />
Detailed Findings .......................................................................................................................... 12<br />
Reasons Reported For <strong>Youth</strong> Not Being in School or Working ........................................ 12<br />
Characteristics of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> ............................................................................. 14<br />
Characteristics of Parents Living with Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> ............................................. 26<br />
Trends Over Time ............................................................................................................. 28<br />
Implications for Policy ............................................................................................................ 34<br />
Figures<br />
Figure 1. Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children, and<br />
Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2014 .................................................................................... 13<br />
Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Sex, and<br />
Parental Status, 2014 .................................................................................................................. 18<br />
Figure 3. Disconnected Rates Among <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Sex, and<br />
Parental Status, 2014 .................................................................................................................. 19<br />
Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 19-24, by<br />
Age Group, 2014 ........................................................................................................................ 20<br />
Figure 5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Age<br />
Group 2014 ................................................................................................................................. 22<br />
Figure 6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 19-24, by Level of<br />
Educational Attainment, 2014 .................................................................................................... 23<br />
Figure 7. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by<br />
Age Group, 2014 ........................................................................................................................ 25<br />
Figure 8. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16 to 24, by Living<br />
Arrangement, 2014 ..................................................................................................................... 26<br />
Figure 9. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong>s’ Parents, for<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2014 ........................................................ 27<br />
Figure 10. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong>s’ Parents, for <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2014 .................................................................. 28<br />
Figure 11. Rates of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages16-24, by Sex, 1988-2014 .................................... 30<br />
Figure 12. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2014 ........................ 31<br />
Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2014 .............................. 32<br />
Congressional Research Service
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 14. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2014 ........... 33<br />
Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-<br />
2014 ............................................................................................................................................ 34<br />
Tables<br />
Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24,<br />
2014 ............................................................................................................................................ 14<br />
Contacts<br />
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 37<br />
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 37<br />
Congressional Research Service
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Introduction<br />
A young person’s detachment from both the labor market and school is an indicator that he or she<br />
may not be adequately making the transition to adulthood. Referred to as “disconnected” in the<br />
social science literature, youth who are neither working nor in school may have difficulty gaining<br />
the skills and knowledge needed to attain self-sufficiency. Without adequate employment, these<br />
youth may also lack access to health insurance and disability benefits, and forego the opportunity<br />
to build a work history that will contribute to future higher wages and employability.<br />
Disconnected youth may also lack strong social networks that provide assistance in the form of<br />
employment connections and other supports such as housing and financial assistance. The federal<br />
government may have a vested interest in connecting youth to school and work because of the<br />
potential costs incurred in their adulthood in the form of higher transfer payments and social<br />
support expenses, as well as lost tax revenue. 1<br />
The purpose of the report is to provide context for Congress about the characteristics of youth<br />
who are neither working nor in school, and the circumstances in which they live. A demographic<br />
profile of disconnected youth may be useful for discussions of efforts to improve the outcomes of<br />
at-risk high school students, such as through programs authorized by the Elementary and<br />
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965. 2<br />
Research since the late 1990s has sought to identify and characterize disconnected youth. Based<br />
on varying definitions of the term “disconnected” and the methodology used among multiple<br />
studies, estimates of the disconnected youth population range. The Congressional Research<br />
Service (CRS) conducted an analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Social and Economic<br />
Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS) to more fully understand the<br />
characteristics of disconnected youth, and to provide recent data on the population. Based on<br />
select questions in the CPS, the analysis constructs a definition of disconnection that includes<br />
noninstitutionalized youth ages 16 through 24 who were not working or in school at the time of<br />
the survey (February through April 2014) and did not work or attend school any time during the<br />
previous year (2013). 3 The CPS surveys individuals in households, and not those in institutional<br />
settings, such as college dorms, military quarters, and mental health institutions. (The number and<br />
share of disconnected individuals would likely increase significantly if the CRS analysis<br />
incorporated data from surveys of prisons and jails. 4 On the other hand, figures of disconnected<br />
youth would likely be offset to some degree if youth in colleges and the military were counted.)<br />
1 A study from 2012 examined the taxpayer and societal costs of lost earnings, lower economic growth, lower tax<br />
revenues, and higher government spending associated with youth who are not working or in school (or are otherwise<br />
not fully connected to either work or school). Collectively, these youth are described as “opportunity youth.” The study<br />
attributed the immediate taxpayer costs for an “opportunity youth” at $13,900 and societal costs at $37,450; and the<br />
future lifetime costs for opportunity youth at age 25 and older at $170,740 in taxpayer costs and $529,030 in societal<br />
costs. These estimates are in 2011 dollars. Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value<br />
of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>, Queens College, City University of New York and Teachers College, Columbia University in<br />
association with Civic Enterprises, January 2012, http://www.serve.gov/sites/default/files/ctools/<br />
econ_value_opportunity_youth.pdf. (Hereinafter Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic<br />
Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>.)<br />
2 For additional information about ESEA, see CRS Report RL33960, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as<br />
Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer. For additional information about HEA, see CRS Report<br />
RL34654, The Higher Education <strong>Opportunity</strong> Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.<br />
3 The CPS/ASEC is administered in February through April, though the majority of respondents are surveyed in March.<br />
4 In 2010, the most recent year for which data are available, 79,165 youth (including those over age 18) were placed in<br />
residential juvenile justice facilities. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and<br />
(continued...)<br />
Congressional Research Service 1
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
The CRS definition is narrower than those used by other studies because it captures youth who<br />
are unemployed and not in school for a longer period of time. The definition is intended to<br />
exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or most of a year, and may be between jobs<br />
or taking an extended break after school. <strong>Youth</strong> who are married to a connected spouse and are<br />
parenting 5 are also excluded from the definition, because they are working in the home and can<br />
presumably rely on the income of their spouses. For these reasons, the number and share of youth<br />
in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies. Still, 2.4<br />
million youth ages 16 through 24—or 6.1% of this population—met the definition of<br />
disconnected in 2014 (disconnected for all of 2013 and between February and April of 2014).<br />
Like many other studies, the CRS analysis finds that a greater share of female and minority youth<br />
tend to be disconnected, although in some recent years rates of disconnection among females and<br />
males have been similar or converged. The CRS analysis also evaluates other characteristics that<br />
have not been widely studied in the existing research. For instance, compared to their peers in the<br />
general population, disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of education, and are more likely<br />
to live apart from their parents (except for youth ages 22-24) and be poor. Further, the CRS<br />
analysis expands upon the existing research by exploring the characteristics of the parents of<br />
disconnected and connected youth who reside with their parents. The analysis finds that the<br />
parents of disconnected youth are more likely than their counterparts to be unemployed and to<br />
have a lower level of educational attainment. Finally, the analysis also examines trends in<br />
disconnectedness over time, from 1988 through 2014.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Rates of disconnection have ranged from about 3.9% (in 1999 and 2000) to just<br />
over 7.5% (in 2010).<br />
Trends in disconnection rates for males and females for the most part run parallel<br />
to each other, with disconnection rates for females being consistently higher than<br />
those for males over the period, except in 2010, when these rates converged.<br />
Disconnected rates were also highest over the period for black (non-Hispanic)<br />
males in the study. In most years, rates of disconnection were highest among 19<br />
to 21 year olds or 22 to 24 year olds.<br />
The first section of this report discusses Congress’ growing interest in issues around youth who<br />
are not working or in school. The second section presents a brief overview of research on the<br />
population, including the number of disconnected youth, characteristics of the population, as well<br />
as the factors that have been associated with disconnection. The purpose of this section is to show<br />
the variation in the research on the population and to suggest that the definition of “disconnected”<br />
is fluid. (The report does not evaluate the methodology or validity of these studies, or discuss in<br />
great detail the federal programs or policies that may be available to assist disconnected youth.) 6<br />
The third section presents the CRS analysis of disconnected youth ages 16 through 24. The final<br />
section discusses implications for future research and federal policy.<br />
(...continued)<br />
Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2010, National Report Series. On one day in<br />
2009, the most recent year for which data are available, 747,800 youth ages 18 through 24 were held in state or federal<br />
prisons or local jails. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison Inmates at Midyear 2009, Table 17.<br />
5 On the other hand, youth who are married to a disconnected spouse and have children or are unmarried with children<br />
are included in the definition.<br />
6 For information about existing federal policies and programs targeting vulnerable youth, see CRS Report RL33975,<br />
Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong>: Background and Policies. For background on youth unemployment and educational attainment, and<br />
factors contributing to youth joblessness, see CRS Report R42519, <strong>Youth</strong> and the Labor Force: Background and<br />
Trends.<br />
Congressional Research Service 2
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Background<br />
Congress has taken interest in, and enacted, policies that can assist youth who are not working or<br />
in school. Legislation was first introduced in the 110 th Congress that specifically mentioned<br />
disconnected youth. 7 Since that time, notable legislation in this area has included the following:<br />
Performance Partnership Pilots (P3): The FY2014 appropriations law (P.L. 113-<br />
76) and FY2015 appropriations law (P.L. 113-235) 8 provided authority for the<br />
Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services (along with<br />
the Corporation for National and Community Service and related agencies) to<br />
carry out up to 10 Performance Partnership Pilot projects. Such projects must<br />
include services to assist youth ages 14 to 24 (who are homeless, in foster care,<br />
involved in the juvenile justice system, or are neither employed nor enrolled in an<br />
educational institution) in achieving educational, employment, and other goals.<br />
Federal agencies may use discretionary funding to carry out pilots that involve<br />
federal education, training, employment, or related social services programs<br />
targeted to disconnected youth, or are designed to prevent youth from becoming<br />
disconnected.<br />
The law enables the applicable federal agencies to enter into agreements with<br />
states, regions, localities, or tribal communities that give them flexibility in using<br />
discretionary funds across these programs. The pilots must identify the<br />
populations to be served, outcomes to be achieved, and methodology for<br />
measuring outcomes, among other items. Federal agencies that participate must<br />
ensure that their participation does not result in restricting eligibility of any<br />
individual for any of the services funded by the agency or will not otherwise<br />
adversely affect vulnerable populations that receive such services under the pilot.<br />
The law also specifies that federal agencies that use discretionary funds may seek<br />
to waive certain program requirements necessary for achieving the outcomes of<br />
the pilots, provided that the agencies provide written notice to Congress (and<br />
with limitations on waivers related to non-discrimination, wage and labor<br />
standards, and allocation of funds to states or other jurisdictions). 9<br />
7 In addition to enacting legislation, Congress has taken other steps to learn about disconnected youth. The 110 th<br />
Congress conducted a hearing on disconnected youth and considered legislation that was intended to assist this<br />
population. The hearing was conducted by the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family<br />
Support, U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee,<br />
“Hearing on Disconnected and Disadvantaged <strong>Youth</strong>,” June 19, 2007, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/<br />
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=569. Also in the 110 th Congress, the House Education and Labor Committee<br />
examined how the federal government can help to re-engage disconnected youth. At the request of the committee, the<br />
Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in February 2008 that reviewed the characteristics and<br />
elements that make local programs funded with federal dollars successful in re-engaging youth, as well as the<br />
challenges in operating such programs. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Federal Action<br />
Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect <strong>Youth</strong> Education and Employment,<br />
GAO-08-313, February 2008.<br />
8 House of Representatives, Congressional Record. “Explanatory Statement on Appropriations Regarding the House<br />
Amendment to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 83,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 160, part I (December<br />
11, 2014), p. H9187. Section 4 of H.R. 83 provides that the Explanatory statement, when published in the<br />
Congressional Record, is to have the same effect as a conference agreement.<br />
9 In November 2014, the Department of Education invited eligible entities to apply for FY2014 P3 funding. U.S.<br />
Department of Education, “Applications for New Awards; Performance Partnership Pilots,” 79 Federal Register<br />
70033-70051, November 24, 2014. Eligible applicants can include partnerships that involve public and private (non-<br />
(continued...)<br />
Congressional Research Service 3
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Workforce Innovation and <strong>Opportunity</strong> Act (WIOA, P.L. 113-128) was<br />
enacted in July 2014, and superseded the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in<br />
July 2015 as the primary federal workforce law. WIOA enables the Secretary of<br />
Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Education, to conduct a study<br />
examining the characteristics of eligible youth that result in such youth being<br />
significantly disconnected from education and workforce participation; the ways<br />
in which such youth could have greater opportunities for education attainment<br />
and obtaining employment; and the resources available to assist such youth in<br />
obtaining the skills, credentials, and work experience needed to become<br />
economically self-sufficient.<br />
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), the omnibus<br />
law that provided federal funding for programs to encourage economic recovery,<br />
included provisions that pertained to disconnected youth. 10 Of the $1.2 billion<br />
appropriated for programs in the Workforce Investment Act, Congress extended<br />
the age through which youth were eligible for year-round activities (from age 21<br />
to age 24) so that job training programs would be available for “young adults<br />
who have become disconnected from both education and the labor market.” In<br />
addition, the law made businesses that employ youth defined as “disconnected”<br />
eligible for the Work <strong>Opportunity</strong> Tax Credit (WOTC). 11<br />
The College <strong>Opportunity</strong> and Affordability Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-315), which<br />
reauthorized multiple programs under the Higher Education Act, did not include<br />
a definition of disconnected youth, but identified “disconnected students” as<br />
those who are limited English proficient, from groups that are traditionally<br />
underrepresented in postsecondary education, students with disabilities, students<br />
who are homeless children and youths, and students who are in or aging out of<br />
foster care. The law made these students and “other disconnected students” (also<br />
not defined) eligible for programs authorized by HEA, including the TRIO<br />
programs, which provide college preparation and other services for low-income<br />
high school students who are the first in their families to attend college. 12<br />
The next section provides an overview of the existing research of disconnected youth, and it is<br />
followed by the CRS analysis. Research on disconnected youth can provide context for Congress<br />
regarding the magnitude of the population and the challenges they face.<br />
(...continued)<br />
profit, business, industry, and labor organizations organizations), with a lead entity being a state, local, or tribal<br />
government entity. Per the FY2014 authorizing law, each pilot may not extend beyond September 30, 2018. The<br />
FY2015 authorizing law enables the P3 pilots to extend through September 30, 2019, and for agencies to use FY2015<br />
funds for pilots that are funded with FY2014 appropriations.<br />
10 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1 - The American Recovery and<br />
Reinvestment Act of 2009, 110 th Cong., 1 st sess., February 8, 2009, Joint Explanatory Statement Division A and<br />
Division B.<br />
11 According to the law, a disconnected youth, for purposes of WOTC, is an individual certified as being between the<br />
ages 16 and 25 on the hiring date; not regularly attending any secondary, technical, or post-secondary school during the<br />
six-month period preceding the hiring date; not regularly employed during the six-month period preceding the hiring<br />
date; and not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of skills. <strong>Youth</strong> with low levels of formal<br />
education “may satisfy the requirement that an individual is not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient<br />
number of skills.”<br />
12 For further information about the TRIO programs, see CRS Report R42724, The TRIO Programs: A Primer.<br />
Congressional Research Service 4
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Overview of Research on Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
CRS surveyed the social science literature from 1999 through 2014 on disconnected youth, and<br />
found 10 relevant studies. These studies were identified by searching social science periodicals,<br />
consulting the GAO team involved in the disconnected youth study, and reviewing works’ cited<br />
pages in a few of the studies. The ten studies were carried out by federal agencies or nongovernmental<br />
organizations. Below is a brief overview of the studies’ methodologies, definitions<br />
of the population, as well as findings. 13 This review does not evaluate the methodology or validity<br />
of studies on disconnected youth.<br />
Methodology and Number of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Across the studies, estimates of the number of disconnected youth vary because of their<br />
methodology, the age range of youth, and the period of time examined. 14 Most of the studies were<br />
cross-sectional, meaning that they considered youth to be disconnected at a particular point in<br />
time—usually on a given day survey data were collected—or over a period of time, such as<br />
anytime during a previous year or the entire previous year. Some, however, were longitudinal,<br />
and tracked a youth’s connection to work and school over multiple years. The studies also used<br />
varying data sets, including the Current Population Survey, Decennial Census, National<br />
Longitudinal Survey of <strong>Youth</strong> (NLSY, which includes a 1979 cohort and a 1997 cohort),<br />
American Community Survey (ACS), and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to<br />
Adult Health (Add Health), among others. Most of the studies did not provide actual numbers of<br />
disconnected youth, and instead reported percentages. Percentages ranged from 7% to 20% of the<br />
youth population, depending on the ages of the youth and methodology. Among the few studies<br />
that provided estimates of the actual number, they found that about 1.4 million to nearly 7 million<br />
youth were disconnected. One oft-cited study found that on average, 5.2 million youth ages 16 to<br />
24, or 16.4% of that age group, were not working or in school at a given point in time. 15<br />
The studies counted youth as young as age 16 and as old as age 24, with ages in between (e.g., 16<br />
to 19, 18 to 24). 16 <strong>Youth</strong> were considered disconnected for most of the studies if they met the<br />
13 The studies are as follows: (1) Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count, 2013; (2) Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin,<br />
and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>, Corporation for National and Community Service and<br />
White House Council for Community Solutions, 2012; (3) U.S. Department of Education, National Center for<br />
Education Statistics, Condition of Education, 2007; (4) Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha<br />
Nagavarapu; Profiling the Plight of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> in America Stanford University, for the William and Flora<br />
Hewlett Foundation, March 2006; (5) Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner; Reconnecting Disadvantaged<br />
<strong>Young</strong> Men (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2006); (6) Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Employment Rates?, 2004; (7) Susan Jekielek and Brett Brown, The Transition to Adulthood: Characteristics of <strong>Young</strong><br />
Adults Ages 18 to 24 in America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Population Reference Bureau, and Child Trends, 2003;<br />
(8) Andrew Sum et al., Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, <strong>Young</strong><br />
Adult Populations, Northeastern University, Center for Labor Market Studies, 2003; (9) Michael Wald and Tia<br />
Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14-24 Year Olds, Stanford<br />
University, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2003; and (10) Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig,<br />
““Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes,” in America’s Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>, Toward a Preventative Strategy, ed.<br />
Douglas J. Beharov (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1999.<br />
14 Some of the studies do not provide detailed information about the methodology used.<br />
15 Andrew Sum et al., Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, <strong>Young</strong><br />
Adult Populations, Northeastern University, Center for Labor Market Studies, 2003. (Hereinafter, Andrew Sum et al.,<br />
Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, <strong>Young</strong> Adult Populations.)<br />
16 A few studies, such as The Condition of Education (2007), by the Department of Education, and What is Happening<br />
to <strong>Youth</strong> Employment Rates? (2004), by the Congressional Budget Office, do not use the term “disconnected” but<br />
(continued...)<br />
Congressional Research Service 5
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
definition at a particular point in time, though for one study, youth were considered disconnected<br />
if they met the criteria in the first month they were surveyed and in at least eight of the eleven<br />
following months. 17 Another used a definition of disconnected to include youth who were not<br />
working or in school for at least the previous year before the youth were surveyed, in 1999. 18<br />
Some of the studies’ definitions incorporated other characteristics, such as marital status and<br />
educational attainment. For example, an analysis of NLSY97 data used a definition of<br />
disconnected youth that counts only those youth who were not in school or working, and not<br />
married. 19 Two other studies used a definition for 18 to 24 year olds who were not enrolled in<br />
school, not working, and who had obtained, at most, a high school diploma. 20 Another study used<br />
several datasets and derived varying estimates (based on length of disconnection) that accounted<br />
for youth who also may be (at most) partially attached to school and/or the labor force. 21 Further,<br />
nearly all of the studies used definitions that included only non-institutionalized youth. This<br />
means that the studies did not count youth in prisons, juvenile justice facilities, mental health<br />
facilities, college dorms, military facilities, and other institutions. However, two studies<br />
incorporated incarcerated youth and/or youth in the armed forces. 22 Inclusion of youth living in<br />
institutional settings could affect the number and share of youth considered as disconnected.<br />
Adding youth who are in prison or juvenile justice facilities would increase the number of<br />
disconnected youth, whereas adding youth who are living in school dorms or in the armed forces<br />
would increase the number of connected youth.<br />
As mentioned previously, the College Cost Reduction Act (P.L. 110-315) did not define<br />
“disconnected youth” but identified certain vulnerable youth—such as runaway and homeless<br />
youth and English language learners—as being “disconnected students,” and therefore eligible for<br />
certain educational support services. One of the studies classified disconnected youth in the same<br />
vein. The study defined groups of disadvantaged youth ages 14 to 17, including those involved<br />
with the juvenile justice system and youth in foster care, as vulnerable to becoming disconnected<br />
(or having long-term spells of unemployment) because of the negative outcomes these groups<br />
tend to face as a whole. 23<br />
(...continued)<br />
evaluate the number and characteristics of youth who are not working or in school.<br />
17 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> in America,<br />
Stanford University, for the William and Hewlett Foundation, March 2006. (Hereinafter Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan<br />
Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> in America.)<br />
18 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged <strong>Young</strong> Men (Washington, DC: Urban<br />
Institute, 2006). (Hereinafter, Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged <strong>Young</strong><br />
Men.)<br />
19 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> in America.<br />
20 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count, 2013; and Susan Jekielek and Brett Brown, The Transition to Adulthood:<br />
Characteristics of <strong>Young</strong> Adults Ages 18 to 24 in America, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Population Reference Bureau,<br />
and Child Trends, November 2005.<br />
21 Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>, Corporation for<br />
National and Community Service and White House Council for Community Solutions, 2012. (Hereinafter Clive R.<br />
Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>.)<br />
22 Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting Disadvantaged <strong>Young</strong> Men; and Congressional<br />
Budget Office, What is Happening to <strong>Youth</strong> Employment Rates?, November 2004 (hereinafter Congressional Budget<br />
Office, What is Happening to <strong>Youth</strong> Employment Rates?.)<br />
23 Michael Wald and Tia Martinez, Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable<br />
14-24 Year Olds, Stanford University, for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, November 2003.<br />
Congressional Research Service 6
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Other Characteristics<br />
In all studies that examined sex, an equal or greater share of females were disconnected.<br />
According to one analysis of CPS data, disconnected youth included individuals age 16 through<br />
19, and not in school or working (at what appears to be a particular point in time). 24 The study<br />
found that during select years from 1986 through 2006, approximately 7% to 10% of youth met<br />
this definition annually. Females were slightly more likely to be disconnected than males in<br />
2006—8.1% compared to 7.1%. Another analysis of CPS data calculated the number and share of<br />
disconnected youth based on data collected from monthly CPS surveys for 2001. 25 The study<br />
found that 18% of females and 11% of males were disconnected. About 44% of youth defined as<br />
disconnected had dropped out of high school.<br />
Of the studies that examined race and ethnicity, white and Asian youth were less likely to be<br />
disconnected than their counterparts of other racial and ethnic groups. According to an analysis of<br />
2011 CPS data, the rates of disconnection among youth ages 16 to 19 by racial category were as<br />
follows: 5% of non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islanders; 7% of non-Hispanic whites; 12% of<br />
Hispanics; and 13% of non-Hispanic blacks. 26 Further, in a 2012 study using NLSY97 data, black<br />
and Hispanic youth were overrepresented among the disconnected (or “opportunity”) youth<br />
population.” 27<br />
Reasons Associated with Disconnection<br />
The factors that contribute to disconnection are not entirely clear, though some research has<br />
shown that parental education and receipt of public assistance, as well as race and ethnicity, play<br />
a role. An analysis of NLSY97 data found that disconnection was associated with being black and<br />
parental receipt of government aid from the time the parent was 18 (or their first child was<br />
born). 28 A separate analysis of NLSY79 data found that long-term disconnected youth—who were<br />
not working or in school for at least 26 weeks in three or more years, and not married—tended to<br />
have certain personal and family background factors, including family poverty, family welfare<br />
receipt, and low parent education. 29 For example, among young men who met the long-term<br />
definition of disconnected, 35% were from poor families, compared to 10% of connected men;<br />
26% were from families receiving welfare (versus 6% of connected men); 28% were from singleparent<br />
families (versus 13%); and 45% had a parent who lacked a high school degree (versus<br />
16%). (Corresponding data for females are not available.) The study also found that nearly 90%<br />
of those who were disconnected at age 20 to 23 were first disconnected as teenagers. Finally,<br />
another study found that teens from low-income families were more likely to be neither enrolled<br />
in school nor employed than those from higher-income families, and that teens whose parents did<br />
24 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 2007.<br />
25 Andrew Sum et al., Left Behind in the Labor Market: Labor Market Problems of the Nation’s Out-of-School, <strong>Young</strong><br />
Adult Populations.<br />
26 Annie E. Casey Foundation, <strong>Youth</strong> and Work: Restoring Teen and <strong>Young</strong> Adult Connections to <strong>Opportunity</strong>, March<br />
1, 2012.<br />
27 Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>.<br />
28 Thomas MaCurdy, Bryan Keating, and Sriniketh Suryasesha, Profiling the Plight of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> in America.<br />
29 Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes,” in America’s Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Toward<br />
a Preventative Strategy, ed. Douglas J. Besharov (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1999). (Hereinafter, Brett V. Brown<br />
and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes”).<br />
Congressional Research Service 7
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
not finish high school were twice as likely to be disengaged than those whose parents have at<br />
least some education (actual figures were not provided). 30<br />
CRS Analysis of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Overview<br />
The CRS analysis expands upon the existing research of disconnected youth. As discussed further<br />
below, the CRS definition of disconnected youth is more narrow than most definitions employed<br />
by other studies because it captures those who are not working and not in school for a longer<br />
period of time (versus at a point in time, or for instance, over a six-month period). This definition<br />
is intended to exclude youth who may, in fact, be connected for part or most of a year, and may be<br />
between jobs or taking an extended break after school. Unlike all of the other studies, youth who<br />
are married to a connected spouse and are parenting are also excluded from the definition, based<br />
on the assumption that these young people work in the home by caring for their children and rely<br />
on financial and social support from their spouses. 31 For these reasons, the number and share of<br />
youth in the analysis who are considered disconnected are smaller than in some other studies.<br />
Still, as discussed below, 2.4 million youth ages 16 through 24—or 6.1% of this population—<br />
meet the definition of disconnected. Further, in contrast to most other studies, the CRS analysis<br />
examines the characteristics of the parents of disconnected youth. The analysis finds that they are<br />
more likely than the parents of connected youth to be unemployed and have a lower level of<br />
educational attainment.<br />
The CRS analysis constructs a definition of disconnected youth based on questions asked in the<br />
U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey about workforce participation, school<br />
attendance, marital, and parental status. The definition includes young people ages 16 through 24<br />
who did not work anytime during a previous year (2013) due primarily to a reason other than<br />
school and who also were neither working nor in school at the time of the survey (February<br />
through April of 2014). (Reasons given as to why youth were not working could include that they<br />
were either out of the workforce because they were ill or disabled, taking care of home or family,<br />
could not find work, or some other unspecified reason.) This means that youth would be<br />
disconnected for a minimum of 12 months (all of 2013), and some or all of a possible additional<br />
three months (February through April of 2014).<br />
The analysis includes youth as young as 16 because at this age they may begin working and<br />
starting to prepare for post-secondary education. The study also includes older youth, up to age<br />
24, since they are in the process of transitioning to adulthood. Many young people in their mid-<br />
20s attend school or begin to work, and some live with their parents or other relatives. According<br />
to social science research, multiple factors—including delayed age of first marriage, the high cost<br />
of living independently, and additional educational opportunities—have extended the period of<br />
transition from adolescence to adulthood. 32<br />
30 Congressional Budget Office, What is Happening to <strong>Youth</strong> Employment Rates?<br />
31 On the other hand, youth who are married to a disconnected spouse and have children or are unmarried with children<br />
are included in the definition.<br />
32 For additional information about the transition to adulthood, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong>:<br />
Background and Policies.<br />
Congressional Research Service 8
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Limitations<br />
One limitation of this analysis is that the CPS surveys individuals in households, and not those in<br />
institutional settings, such as prisons, jails, college dorms, military quarters, and mental health<br />
institutions. Based on incarceration data from other studies, the number and share of disconnected<br />
individuals would likely increase significantly if the study incorporated data from surveys of<br />
prisons and jails. Further, the CPS does not count persons who are homeless. While the precise<br />
number of homeless youth ages 16 through 24 is unknown, a significant share of these youth may<br />
meet the definition of disconnected. 33 On the other hand, the share of disconnected youth in the<br />
population might be offset by including members of the armed forces and college students in<br />
dorms who are ages 18 through 24, and are by definition, working or going to school.<br />
Another limitation of the analysis is that it does not account for the strong possibility that while<br />
some disconnected youth are not formally employed, they are likely finding ways to make ends<br />
meet through informal markets and social networks. These networks can provide cash assistance,<br />
temporary housing and employment, and child care, among other supports. Nonetheless, informal<br />
networks are likely unstable, and may not necessarily lead to longer-term employment or<br />
attachment to school. 34 As discussed in the section below, nearly half of all disconnected youth<br />
live in poverty. Finally, the CRS definition of disconnected youth does not identify those youth<br />
who are disconnected for periods that exceed 16 months. As a longitudinal study of disconnected<br />
youth shows, youth who are disconnected for three years or more are more likely to face negative<br />
outcomes than their counterparts who are disconnected for part of one to two years. 35<br />
Summary of Findings<br />
This section provides a summary of the CRS analysis, which is followed by detailed discussion of<br />
each of the themes raised. The discussion is accompanied by relevant figures and table.<br />
The CRS analysis shows that disconnected youth are more likely to be female, black or Hispanic,<br />
and in their early- to mid-twenties. It also demonstrates that disconnected youth are a diverse<br />
group. Disability appears to be at least part of the reason some youth are not working or in school<br />
(Figure 1). About one-third (34%) of all youth reported they were not working because they were<br />
disabled, of whom over two-fifths (44%) had a disability severe enough that they received<br />
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Medicare (federal programs that support this population).<br />
About another 26% reported having childrearing and homemaking responsibilities that kept them<br />
from work, while the remaining youth did not have disabilities or child and home-related<br />
responsibilities. These home-related responsibilities could include caring for siblings or managing<br />
a household because their parents have a disability or some other reason. Among females, those<br />
who were parenting were well represented among the disconnected youth population, although<br />
rates of disconnected female parents has declined over time.<br />
33 The limited research on runaway and homeless youth has found that these youth face challenges remaining in school<br />
and working. See Paul A. Toro, Amy Dworsky, and Patrick J. Fowler, Homeless <strong>Youth</strong> in the United States: Recent<br />
Research Findings and Intervention Approaches, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the<br />
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, The National Symposium on Homeless Research, 2007.<br />
34 For a discussion of social networks in low-income communities, see Katherine S. Newman, No Shame In My Game:<br />
The Working Poor in the Inner City, (New York: Vintage Books and Russell Sage Foundation, 1999), pp. 72-84.<br />
35 Brett V. Brown and Carol Emig, “Prevalence, Patterns, and Outcomes,” See also, Douglas J. Besharov and Karen N<br />
Gardiner, “Introduction” in Douglas J. Besharov, ed. America’s Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Toward a Preventative Strategy.<br />
Congressional Research Service 9
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
It is unclear to what extent having a disability, caring for a child, or having responsibilities in the<br />
home actually keeps youth from engaging in school or work. Some may respond to CPS<br />
questions in what they believe to be a socially appropriate manner, and they may recognize that<br />
being idle is not widely acceptable. Still, over one-third of youth (or their parents) reported that<br />
they (the youth) did not have any limitations that would keep them from work. These youth could<br />
be considered the “hard core” of the disconnected. Yet even they may have “legitimate”<br />
limitations that are keeping them idle, such as an undiagnosed disability. Future research is<br />
needed to better understand the reasons youth are disconnected, and whether these reasons are<br />
legitimately keeping youth from attending school or working.<br />
Disconnected youth will likely face numerous challenges as they transition to adulthood. In terms<br />
of education, these youth are foregoing an opportunity to attain a high school diploma or GED, or<br />
additional years of schooling that can assist them in securing employment and gaining experience<br />
that will contribute to future employability. About 3 out of 10 disconnected youth ages 19 through<br />
24 lack a high school diploma or its equivalent (Figure 4). For these youth in particular, securing<br />
stable, well-paying employment may be unlikely.<br />
Being out of the labor force—especially for an extended period—can mean forfeiting current<br />
wages and future higher wages that are commensurate with work experience. Somewhat less than<br />
half of all disconnected youth were poor (Figure 5, and discussed in further detail below), and<br />
even having additional education beyond high school did not mitigate their relatively high levels<br />
of poverty when compared to their connected peers (Figure 6).<br />
Additional research is needed to better understand how poor disconnected youth are making ends<br />
meet. Surely some of them receive assistance through informal networks in the form of providing<br />
child care, work in the informal economy, and temporary housing. And many are likely eligible<br />
for federal cash and non-cash assistance programs, including public housing. Yet because the CPS<br />
is limited to surveying individuals in households, the analysis in this report does not capture those<br />
who are homeless or are in jails, prisons, or residential treatment facilities. If these groups were<br />
surveyed, rates of disconnection would likely be higher. The CPS similarly does not include<br />
youth who might offset rates of disconnection, such as those youth residing in college dorms and<br />
on military bases. At least a few studies have attempted to factor in imprisoned and active<br />
military populations, but additional work would be needed to incorporate other groups of youth.<br />
The CRS analysis expands the current research by examining the characteristics of disconnected<br />
youths’ parents. Because the CPS is a cross-sectional data set, CRS could not evaluate antecedent<br />
conditions or events affecting youth or their parents that may contribute to later youth<br />
disconnection. However, the analysis in this report hints that disconnection may be<br />
intergenerational, meaning that the parents of youth who are currently disconnected could have<br />
experienced periods in which they were not working or in school. In fact, a significant share of<br />
parents of disconnected youth were not working at the time of the 2014 survey (Figure 10).<br />
Among disconnected youth living in single-parent households, over 40% had parents who were<br />
not employed. Additionally, disconnected youths’ co-residing parents were more likely to lack a<br />
high school diploma or its equivalent compared to connected youths’ co-residing parents (Figure<br />
9). The next section further examines the role of family characteristics and other related factors<br />
that likely influence disconnectedness.<br />
Poverty, Family Living Arrangements, and Parental Characteristics<br />
Given CRS’s findings and the discussion that follows, the connections between poverty, family<br />
background, living arrangements and youth disconnectedness are interrelated. In some cases,<br />
disconnectedness may be a cause for high poverty rates among such youth, especially among<br />
Congressional Research Service 10
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
those who are living apart from family or other relatives. Among youth living apart from parents,<br />
the poverty rate of disconnected youth (65.3%) was twice that of connected youth (29%) (Figure<br />
8). In other cases, poverty may contribute to youth becoming disconnected. Here the connection<br />
is more complex. CRS found that disconnected youth, even when living with both parents, were<br />
almost three times more likely to be poor than connected youth, 15.7% compared to 5.8%, and<br />
when living with only one parent, twice as likely to be poor than their connected counterparts,<br />
46.6% compared to 22.8%. When living with a parent, disconnected youth were slightly more<br />
likely to live with only one parent (33.7%) than with both parents (30.1%), whereas connected<br />
youth were more likely to live with both parents (46.6%) than just one (22.8%) (Figure 7).<br />
When parents’ characteristics are examined, disconnected youth were about twice as likely to<br />
have parents who had not completed high school (Figure 9); for disconnected youth in singleparent<br />
families, 25.6% had a parent who had not completed high school, compared to 13.7% of<br />
connected youth; for disconnected youth living in families with both parents, 25.4% had either<br />
one or both parents not having attained a high school diploma or its equivalent, compared to<br />
16.9% of connected youth. Furthermore, disconnected youth were more likely to have a parent<br />
who was not working at the time of the survey (Figure 10). Among disconnected youth living<br />
with only one parent, the share with a nonworking parent (49.7%) was greater than that of<br />
connected youth (25.6%); among disconnected youth living with both parents, the share with<br />
neither parent working (16.1%) was almost three times that of connected youth (5.3%).<br />
Research evidence indicates that living in poverty has negative effects on children’s life outcomes<br />
that may range well into adulthood. By almost any indicator, poor children fare worse than their<br />
non-poor counterparts. Poor children tend to score lower on standardized tests of IQ, verbal<br />
ability, and achievement, and are less likely to advance in grade and complete high school. Poor<br />
teen adolescent girls are more likely to become teenage mothers than their non-poor counterparts,<br />
contributing to a cycle of poverty from one generation to the next. While income poverty is<br />
associated with poor child outcomes, lack of income in itself may account for only part of the<br />
reason why poor children face poor future prospects. Other factors, such as a safe and nurturing<br />
home environment, and parental characteristics associated with their income, are arguably as<br />
important, if not more so, than income, per se, in affecting children’s life chances. 36 The research<br />
evidence indicates that poverty’s lasting effects are most dramatic for children who experience<br />
persistent and/or deep poverty when they are younger. Among adolescents, the evidence of<br />
poverty’s negative effects on outcomes is much less clear. For example, poverty among<br />
adolescents is negatively related to high school graduation, college attendance, and years of<br />
schooling. The U.S. Department of Education reports the high school dropout rate in 2009 for<br />
students living in low-income families (7.4%) was more than double that of middle income<br />
students (3.4%) and five times greater than their peers from high-income families (1.4%). 37 Other<br />
researchers using NLSY79 data found that children who spent one to three years of their<br />
adolescence in poverty were 60% less likely to graduate from high school than those who were<br />
not poor, and those who spent four years of adolescence in poverty were 75% less likely.<br />
Respectively, children who spent part or all of their adolescence in poverty were 40% and 60%<br />
36 See, for example: Susan E. Mayer, What Money Can’t Buy: Family Income and Children’s Life Chances<br />
(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997) and Greg J. Duncan and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds.),<br />
Consequences of Growing Up Poor (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997).<br />
37 Chris Chapman et al., Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972-2009,<br />
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, October 2011, Table 1, p. 28.<br />
Congressional Research Service 11
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
less likely to attend college than other children, and on average attained between 1.0 and 1.75<br />
fewer years of education. 38<br />
While the evidence presented above suggests a strong relationship between adolescent poverty<br />
and educational attainment, the NLSY researchers most importantly found that the relationship<br />
withers when other control variables, such as parental education, family structure, and IQ are<br />
taken into account. The researchers found that “after the control variables were taken into<br />
account, the number of years spent below the poverty line during adolescence were not related to<br />
any of the educational outcomes considered” (emphasis added). 39<br />
Yet when viewed over a longer period of time than just adolescence, growing up in poverty does<br />
appear to affect educational attainment, even after controlling for other background factors.<br />
Researchers using 21 years of Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) data found that all other<br />
things being equal, the number of years that children spend in poverty while growing up is an<br />
important factor in predicting whether they will graduate from high school. 40 These researchers<br />
found that growing up with a single parent further reduces the probability of high school<br />
completion.<br />
Detailed Findings<br />
This section begins with an overview of the reasons disconnected youth said they were not<br />
working or in school at any time in 2014. Following this discussion is an overview of the basic<br />
demographics of disconnected youth and their characteristics across several domains—<br />
educational attainment, living arrangements, parenting status, and poverty status. These data,<br />
drawn from the 2014 CPS, are compared to data for connected youth. The section ends with a<br />
presentation of trend data on disconnection from 1988 through 2014, with a focus on sex, age,<br />
and race and ethnicity.<br />
Reasons Reported For <strong>Youth</strong> Not Being in School or Working<br />
Figure 1 displays the reasons given for out-of-school youth not working in the first quarter of<br />
2014. Major reasons include taking care of family or home, illness or disability, or they could not<br />
find work. About one-quarter of disconnected youth (26.4%, 623,000) were reported to be taking<br />
care of home or family and were not disabled. Of those, over half (319,000) were reported as<br />
having a child. The CPS does not prompt respondents to elaborate on the type of care provided in<br />
the home or to family, and therefore, it is unclear the extent to which this care would interfere<br />
with their ability to work or attend school.<br />
Illness or disability was reported as the major reason why about 34% (about 811,000) of<br />
disconnected youth did not work in 2014, with most designated as having a severe disability. 41<br />
38 See, Jay D. Teachman et al., “Poverty During Adolescence and Subsequent Educational Attainment,” in<br />
Consequences of Growing Up Poor, ibid, pp. 382-418.<br />
39 Jay D. Teachman et al., “Poverty During Adolescence and Subsequent Educational Attainment,” in Consequences of<br />
Growing Up Poor., p. 413.<br />
40 Robert Haveman and Barbara Wolfe, “Schooling and Fertility Outcomes: Reduced-Form and Structural Estimates,”<br />
in Childhood Poverty and Adolescent Consequences of Growing Up Poor, op cit., p. 442.<br />
41 The CPS asks several questions to determine whether individuals are considered to have a work disability. Persons<br />
are identified as having a work disability if they: (1) reported having a health problem or disability which prevents<br />
them from working or which limits the kind or amount of work they can do; or (2) ever retired or left a job for health<br />
reasons; or (3) did not work in the survey week because of long-term physical or mental illness or disability which<br />
prevents the performance of any kind of work; or (4) did not work at all in the previous year because they were ill or<br />
(continued...)<br />
Congressional Research Service 12
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
One indication that a person is severely disabled is their receipt of Supplemental Security Income<br />
(SSI) or Medicare. 42 Over two-fifths of disconnected individuals with disabilities (359,000)<br />
received one of these two benefits, accounting for about one in seven (15.2%) of all disconnected<br />
youth.<br />
An estimated 36.0% of disconnected youth (852,000) could not find work and did not have a<br />
disability or responsibilities in the home of caring for a child or other family member.<br />
Figure 1. Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Disability Status, Presence of Children,<br />
and Family Caretaking Responsibility, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
(...continued)<br />
disabled; or (5) are under 65 years of age and covered by Medicare; or (6) are under age 65 years of age and a recipient<br />
of Supplemental Security Income (SSI); or (7) received veteran’s disability compensation. Persons are considered to<br />
have a severe work disability if they meet any of the criteria in 3 through 6, above. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/<br />
www/disability/disabcps.html.<br />
42 Individuals who receive Social Security disability are eligible to receive Medicare two years after entitlement to<br />
SSDI, and in some cases earlier. Disabled children may receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits<br />
indefinitely as long as the disability was incurred before reaching age 22. For information about SSDI, see CRS Report<br />
RL32279, Primer on Disability Benefits: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security<br />
Income (SSI).<br />
Congressional Research Service 13
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Characteristics of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of disconnected and connected peers ages 16<br />
through 24 in 2014 (which meant that youth were disconnected in all of 2013 and at the time of<br />
the survey in 2014). The table shows that 2.4 million of these youth, or 6.1% of the population,<br />
met the definition of disconnected. Further, females were slightly more likely than their<br />
counterparts to be disconnected. The likelihood of minority youth being disconnected ranged<br />
from slightly to much more likely than white youth. The rate of disconnection among black (non-<br />
Hispanic) youth was highest—at 10.8%. This is compared to 5.0% to 6.1% of their white and<br />
Hispanic peers, and peers who identified with other racial categories. Among youth ages 16<br />
through 18, 19 through 21, and 22 through 24, the younger youth were more likely than their<br />
older peers to be connected. Finally, relative to connected youth, disconnected youth were more<br />
likely to have lower education attainment, live apart from their parents, and be poor. These<br />
findings are discussed in greater detail below.<br />
Table 1. Summary Characteristics of Connected and Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
Ages 16-24, 2014<br />
(Numbers in 1,000s)<br />
Disconnected<br />
Total<br />
Number Number Percentage<br />
Connected<br />
Share<br />
of<br />
Total<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Number Percentage<br />
AGE AND SEX<br />
Age<br />
Total 38,950 2,366 100.0% 6.1% 36,585 100.0%<br />
Age 16 – 18 13,012 326 13.8% 2.5% 12,686 34.7%<br />
Age 19 – 21 12,221 896 37.9% 7.3% 11,325 31.0%<br />
Age 22 – 24 13,717 1,143 48.3% 8.3% 12,574 34.4%<br />
Males<br />
Total 19,719 1,150 100.0% 5.8% 18,569 100.0%<br />
Age 16 – 18 6,543 190 16.5% 2.9% 6,353 34.2%<br />
Age 19 – 21 6,231 449 39.1% 7.2% 5,782 31.1%<br />
Age 22 – 24 6,945 510 44.4% 7.4% 6,435 34.7%<br />
Females<br />
Total 19,231 1,216 100.0% 6.3% 18,015 100.0%<br />
Age 16 – 18 6,469 136 11.2% 2.1% 6,333 35.2%<br />
Age 19 – 21 5,990 447 36.8% 7.5% 5,543 30.8%<br />
Age 22 – 24 6,772 633 52.0% 9.3% 6,139 34.1%<br />
RACE AND ETHNICITY BY SEX<br />
Males and Females<br />
Total 38,950 2,366 100.0% 6.1% 36,585 100.0%<br />
White non-Hispanic 21,642 1,087 46.0% 5.0% 20,554 56.2%<br />
Congressional Research Service 14
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Disconnected<br />
Total<br />
Number Number Percentage<br />
Connected<br />
Share<br />
of<br />
Total<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Number Percentage<br />
Black non-Hispanic 5,507 595 25.1% 10.8% 4,913 13.4%<br />
Hispanic 8,309 506 21.4% 6.1% 7,803 21.3%<br />
Other, non-Hispanic 3,492 178 7.5% 5.1% 3,315 9.1%<br />
Males<br />
Total 19,719 1,150 100.0% 5.8% 18,569 100.0%<br />
White non-Hispanic 11,002 509 44.2% 4.6% 10,494 56.5%<br />
Black non-Hispanic 2,683 350 30.5% 13.1% 2,333 12.6%<br />
Hispanic 4,283 226 19.6% 5.3% 4,058 21.9%<br />
Other, non-Hispanic 1,751 65 5.7% 3.7% 1,686 9.1%<br />
Females<br />
Total 19,231 1,216 100.0% 6.3% 18,015 100.0%<br />
White non-Hispanic 10,639 579 47.6% 5.4% 10,061 55.8%<br />
Black non-Hispanic 2,824 244 20.1% 8.6% 2,580 14.3%<br />
Hispanic 4,025 280 23.1% 7.0% 3,745 20.8%<br />
Other, non-Hispanic 1,742 113 9.3% 6.5% 1,629 9.0%<br />
EDUCATION AMONG YOUTH OVER AGE 18<br />
All Levels of Education<br />
Total 25,938 2,040 100.0% 7.9% 23,899 100.0%<br />
Age 19 – 21 12,221 896 100.0% 7.3% 11,325 100.0%<br />
Age 22 – 24 13,717 1,143 100.0% 8.3% 12,574 100.0%<br />
Lacks High School Diploma or GED<br />
Total 2,489 526 25.8% 21.1% 1,964 8.2%<br />
Age 19 – 21 1,455 245 27.3% 16.8% 1,210 10.7%<br />
Age 22 – 24 1,035 281 24.5% 27.1% 754 6.0%<br />
High School Diploma or GED Only<br />
Total 7,857 1,121 55.0% 14.3% 6,735 28.2%<br />
Age 19 – 21 3,841 503 56.1% 13.1% 3,338 29.5%<br />
Age 22 – 24 4,015 618 54.1% 15.4% 3,397 27.0%<br />
High School Diploma or GED and Additional Schooling<br />
Total 15,593 393 19.2% 2.5% 15,200 63.6%<br />
Age 19 – 21 6,925 148 16.5% 2.1% 6,777 59.8%<br />
Age 22 – 24 8,667 244 21.4% 2.8% 8,423 67.0%<br />
Congressional Research Service 15
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Disconnected<br />
Total<br />
Number Number Percentage<br />
Connected<br />
Share<br />
of<br />
Total<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Number Percentage<br />
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS BY AGE<br />
All Arrangements<br />
Total 38,950 2,366 100.0% 6.1% 36,585 100.0%<br />
16 – 18 13,012 326 100.0% 2.5% 12,686 100.0%<br />
19 – 21 12,221 896 100.0% 7.3% 11,325 100.0%<br />
22 – 24 13,717 1,143 100.0% 8.3% 12,574 100.0%<br />
Lives with one or both parents<br />
Total 26,880 1,510 63.8% 5.6% 25,370 69.3%<br />
16 – 18 12,103 269 82.5% 2.2% 11,834 93.3%<br />
19 – 21 8,732 647 72.1% 7.4% 8,085 71.4%<br />
22 – 24 6,045 595 52.0% 9.8% 5,451 43.3%<br />
Lives apart from parents<br />
Total 12,070 855 36.2% 7.1% 11,215 30.7%<br />
16 –18 909 57 17.5% 6.3% 852 6.7%<br />
19 – 21 3,489 250 27.9% 7.2% 3,240 28.6%<br />
22 – 24 7,672 548 48.0% 7.1% 7,124 56.7%<br />
POVERTY STATUS<br />
Total 38,950 2,366 100.0% 6.1% 36,585 100.0%<br />
Poor 7,170 1,042 44.0% 14.5% 6,128 16.8%<br />
Nonpoor<br />
31,780 1,324 56.0% 4.2% 30,456 83.2%<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Sex and Age<br />
It might be expected that a higher percentage of males than females are disconnected, given that a<br />
greater share of males ages 16 through 24 have dropped out of high school 43 and that males<br />
appear to be more vulnerable to losing jobs. 44 However, consistent with other studies of<br />
43 This is based on the status dropout rate, or the dropout rate regardless of when an individual dropped out. Separately,<br />
the event dropout rate refers to the share of youth who dropped out within a given school year. The event dropout rate<br />
for males and females is similar. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, “Percentage<br />
of high school dropouts among persons 16 through 24 years old (status dropout rate), by sex and race/ethnicity:<br />
Selected years, 1960 through 2012,” May 2013.<br />
44 The social science literature has discussed the challenges that males, particularly men of color in urban communities,<br />
face in staying connected to work. See for example, Peter Edelman, Harry J. Holzer, and Paul Offner, Reconnecting<br />
(continued...)<br />
Congressional Research Service 16
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
disconnected youth, the CRS analysis shows that females are more likely than males to be<br />
disconnected. The difference in the rates between males and females ages 16 through 24 is<br />
relatively small—6.3% of females and 5.8% of males, as depicted in Figure 2.<br />
The higher rates for females appears to be explained by the fact they were more likely to be<br />
parenting. 45 Overall, 2.2% of females and 0.3% of males were disconnected and parenting. It is<br />
possible that their parenting responsibilities kept them from working or attending school. (As<br />
shown in Figure 1, an estimated 13.5% of youth reported they were not connected in 2014<br />
because they were taking care of home or family, and had children.) If the share of females with<br />
children is removed from each of the age categories, females are less likely to be disconnected as<br />
their male counterparts without children (which is nearly all the males). For example, among 19<br />
to 21 year olds, 5.5% of females were disconnected and without a child, compared to 7.1% of<br />
males; among 22 to 24 year olds, 5.1% of females were disconnected and without children,<br />
compared to 6.9% of males.<br />
(...continued)<br />
Disadvantaged <strong>Young</strong> Men (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2006) and William Julius Wilson, When Work<br />
Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor (New York: Vintage Books, 1996). See also, CRS Report R41431,<br />
Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers.<br />
45 In this analysis, disconnected youth with children are unmarried or are married to a disconnected partner. Children<br />
include biological children, adoptive children, or step-children who live in the same home as the disconnected<br />
individual.<br />
Congressional Research Service 17
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 2. Disconnected Rates Among <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Age Group, Sex, and<br />
Parental Status, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not<br />
sum to totals due to rounding.<br />
Race and Ethnicity<br />
Minority youth are generally more likely than their white peers to not be working or in school. 46<br />
Figure 3 shows rates of disconnection by race and ethnicity, sex, and parental status for 2014.<br />
Black males had a substantially higher rate of disconnection than their white non-Hispanic or<br />
Hispanic male counterparts. The black male disconnection rate (13.1%) was nearly three times<br />
that of their white non-Hispanic counterparts (4.6%), and more than twice that of Hispanic males<br />
(5.3%). Similarly, black females also had a higher rate of disconnection than their white and<br />
Hispanic counterparts (8.6% compared to 5.4% and 7.0%).<br />
Being a parent is associated with disconnectedness among females, relative to males. Overall 2%<br />
of disconnected females and 0.3% of disconnected males were parenting in 2014. A greater share<br />
of disconnected black females and Hispanic females (3.6% and 3.2%, respectively) were parents,<br />
compared to 1.6% of white females. Females in general would have a lower rate of disconnection<br />
(4.1%) than males (5.6%) if parenting status did not play a role. By racial and ethnic group, this<br />
46 Asian or Pacific Islander and Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are not included in this analysis; however, these<br />
groups are included in the “other” category of Table 1.<br />
Congressional Research Service 18
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
holds true for white females (3.8% compared to 4.5% of white males) and Hispanic females<br />
(3.8% compared to 4.9% of Hispanic males); however, even if parenting status is ignored, black<br />
disconnected black males were more likely to be disconnected than black females (11.9% versus<br />
5.0%).<br />
Figure 3. Disconnected Rates Among <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Race, Ethnicity, Sex, and<br />
Parental Status, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school. Details may not<br />
sum to totals due to rounding.<br />
Educational Attainment<br />
CRS evaluated the educational attainment of disconnected youth who were old enough to have<br />
completed high school relative to their connected peers, based on questions in the CPS about<br />
highest level of education completed. <strong>Youth</strong> ages 19 through 24 were grouped according to<br />
whether they (1) lacked a high school diploma or general education development (GED)<br />
certificate; (2) had a high school diploma or GED; or (3) graduated from high school and had<br />
additional schooling beyond high school. Higher educational attainment is associated with higher<br />
earnings, and earnings differences have grown over time among workers with different levels of<br />
Congressional Research Service 19
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
educational attainment. In 2013, higher earnings and lower unemployment rates were associated<br />
with higher educational attainment among persons 25 and older. 47 For example, the median<br />
weekly earnings for those with less than a high school diploma were $488 and their<br />
unemployment rate was 9.0%. The corresponding figures for high school graduates was $668 and<br />
6.0%, respectively. Among those with a bachelor’s degree, the corresponding figures were $1,101<br />
and 3.5%, respectively. 48<br />
As a group, disconnected youth appear to be at a disadvantage in competing for jobs that pay<br />
higher wages because of their comparatively low levels of education. Figure 4 displays the share<br />
of disconnected and connected youth by age (19-24, 19-21, and 22-24) within the three categories<br />
of educational attainment. Disconnected youth tend to have fewer years of schooling than their<br />
connected counterparts. In 2014, among 19 through 21year olds, over one-quarter (27.3%) of<br />
disconnected youth lacked a diploma or GED, compared to about one out of ten (10.7%)<br />
connected youth. Among older youth, this difference persisted, with 24.5% of disconnected youth<br />
and 6.0% of connected youth lacking a diploma or GED.<br />
Figure 4. Educational Attainment of Connected and Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 19-24,<br />
by Age Group, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
47 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Earnings and unemployment rates by educational<br />
attainment,” April 2, 2015, http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm.<br />
48 Data are 2013 annual averages for persons age 25 and over. Earnings are for full-time wage and salary workers.<br />
Congressional Research Service 20
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Poverty<br />
Poverty may be both a cause and consequence of youth disconnectedness. Growing up poor may<br />
contribute to the likelihood that a child will be disconnected in making the transition from<br />
adolescence to adulthood. In turn, being disconnected may contribute to youth being poor,<br />
especially among youth who are no longer living at home with parents or other family members<br />
to contribute to their support.<br />
The analysis of poverty in this section is based on 2013 income of related family members in a<br />
household as reported as part of the CPS for 2013. Income includes pre-tax money income from<br />
all sources, including wages, salaries, and benefits, such as unemployment compensation and<br />
Supplemental Security Income (SSI). <strong>Youth</strong> were considered poor if their annual family pre-tax<br />
money income in 2013 fell below Census Bureau poverty income thresholds. Poverty thresholds<br />
vary by family size and composition. A youth living alone, with no other family members, would<br />
be considered poor in the previous year if his/her pre-tax money income was under $12,119; for a<br />
youth under age 18 living with a single parent and no other related family members, the youth<br />
and his/her parent would be considered poor if their family income was below $15,679; and, for a<br />
youth over age 18 living with both parents and a younger sibling (under age 18), and no other<br />
related family members, they would be considered poor if their family income was below<br />
$23,624. 49 Figure 5 shows that in 2013, 44.0% of all disconnected youth were poor, compared to<br />
16.8% of their connected peers. While rates of poverty for connected youth were stable across age<br />
groups, poverty increased with age for disconnected youth. Just over half (51.3%) of youth age 22<br />
through 24 were in poor households, compared to 37.4% of youth ages 16 through 18 and 37.3%<br />
of youth ages 19 through 21. The rates of household poverty among connected youth ranged from<br />
15.5% for youth ages 16 through 18 and 18.0% for those ages 19 through 21.<br />
Poverty status appears to be strongly correlated with educational attainment. This is not<br />
surprising, given that higher rates of educational attainment are associated with greater job<br />
attachment and higher wages. By the definition of disconnected youth used in this analysis, none<br />
were working in 2013, so none had earnings (though some were living with family members with<br />
earnings). Connected youth were working or in school, and presumably drawing income from<br />
their jobs, or financial aid. Parental or other income may also contribute to their support, even<br />
when youth are no longer living at home. Figure 6 shows the percentage of poor disconnected<br />
and connected youth ages 19 through 24 by educational attainment. Disconnected youth in each<br />
grouping of educational attainment—lacks high school diploma, high school diploma or GED, or<br />
some schooling beyond high school—were about two to three times more likely to be poor than<br />
connected youth.<br />
Still, higher educational attainment appears to have provided disconnected youth with more of a<br />
buffer from poverty. Figure 6 shows that the rate of poverty was higher among disconnected<br />
youth without a high school diploma (56.7%) than among their disconnected counterparts with<br />
more education (37.0% to 42.5%). Yet even disconnected youth with some schooling beyond high<br />
school were more likely than connected youth lacking a high school diploma to live in poor<br />
households, 37.0% and 29.6% respectively.<br />
49 Census Bureau, “Poverty Thresholds,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/.<br />
Congressional Research Service 21
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 5. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24,<br />
by Age Group 2014<br />
(Povery Status Based on Family Income in 2013)<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Congressional Research Service 22
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 6. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 19-24,<br />
by Level of Educational Attainment, 2014<br />
(Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2013)<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Living Arrangements<br />
A growing body of social science research suggests that the transition to adulthood for young<br />
people today is becoming longer and more complex. 50 During this period, youth rely heavily on<br />
their families for financial support, and many continue to live with their parents beyond the<br />
traditional age of high school. Disconnected youth, however, may be less likely than their peers to<br />
rely on supports from their parents. A 2008 study by the Government Accountability Office<br />
would suggest this. GAO included in its definition of the disconnected population those youth<br />
“who lack family or other social supports.” 51<br />
The CRS analysis evaluated whether disconnected youth were more or less likely to live with one<br />
or both parents. This analysis is based on responses to CPS questions about living alone or with<br />
parent(s), another family member, spouse, and/or non-relative. The family structure of<br />
50 CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong>: Background and Policies.<br />
51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges<br />
Faced by Local Programs That Reconnect <strong>Youth</strong> Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008, p. 1.<br />
Congressional Research Service 23
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
disconnected youth tends to differ from that of their peers. 52 Figure 7 shows that disconnected<br />
youth, overall, were more likely to live with only one parent or no parent at all, than connected<br />
youth, who were more likely than their disconnected counterparts to live with both parents.<br />
Among youth ages 16 through 18, disconnected youth are about equally likely to be living with<br />
one parent (40.7%) than with two parents (41.8%), whereas connected youth are twice as likely to<br />
be living with both parents (62.5%) than with just one (30.8%). Social science research indicates<br />
that children who grow up in mother-only families (or with their mother and step-father) are more<br />
likely than children raised with both biological parents to have certain negative outcomes,<br />
including poverty-level incomes. 53 Moreover, within the 16-to-18 age group, nearly one in five<br />
disconnected youth (17.5%) were living apart from parents all together, compared to about one in<br />
fifteen connected youth (6.7%), reflecting a home environment absent direct parental support and<br />
supervision.<br />
Among the oldest youth, ages 22 through 24, a larger share of connected youth (56.7%) lived<br />
apart from their parents in 2014 than disconnected youth (48.0%). Given that many disconnected<br />
youth are not earning income and may not have strong social networks, they may have no other<br />
choice but to live at home. Reciprocally, it appears that their connected, older peers are<br />
“fledging,” and beginning to become financially independent from their families.<br />
Figure 8 depicts youth poverty status by living arrangement. The figure shows that disconnected<br />
youth are more likely to be poor than are their connected counterparts, even when accounting for<br />
living arrangement. Among youth living with both parents, disconnected youth were almost three<br />
times more likely than connected youth to be poor (15.7% versus 5.8%, respectively). Poverty<br />
rates were higher for youth living in single-parent families than in dual-parent families, but the<br />
poverty rate of disconnected youth in single-parent families (46.6%) was twice that of connected<br />
youth living in such families (22.8%). Poverty rates were highest among youth living apart from<br />
their parents; among disconnected youth 65.3% were poor, a rate over twice that of connected<br />
youth (29.0%).<br />
52 For further discussion of the influence of family structure on socioeconomic outcomes and financial well-being in<br />
adulthood, see CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions.<br />
53 For further information, see CRS Report R41431, Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers.<br />
Congressional Research Service 24
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 7. Living Arrangements of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24,<br />
by Age Group, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Congressional Research Service 25
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 8. Poverty Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16 to 24,<br />
by Living Arrangement, 2014<br />
(Poverty Status Based on Family Income in 2013)<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Characteristics of Parents Living with Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong><br />
The CPS asks only about those individuals who reside in the same household. Therefore, the CRS<br />
analysis was able to evaluate only the characteristics of the parents of connected and disconnected<br />
youth if they resided together. Approximately 1.5 million disconnected youth, or 58.4% of the<br />
disconnected population, lived with their parents (compared to 69.0% of connected youth).<br />
The CRS analysis evaluated the education and employment status of parents at a point in time in<br />
2014. The analysis examined this status among parents of youth in single-parent and dual-parent<br />
households. Figure 9 presents information about the educational attainment of parents of<br />
disconnected and connected youth. Parents were categorized based on whether they (1) lacked a<br />
high school diploma or its equivalent; (2) had a high school diploma or its equivalent; or (3)<br />
graduated high school and had additional schooling. Among both youth living with one parent<br />
only and youth living with both parents, the parents of disconnected youth were much more likely<br />
than parents of connected youth to lack a high school diploma or its equivalent.<br />
Further, among single-parent households, 39.3% of disconnected youth had parents who had<br />
some schooling beyond high school, compared to more than half (54.6%) of the parents of their<br />
connected counterparts. Among dual-parent households, about 30% of disconnected youth had<br />
Congressional Research Service 26
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
both parents with some education beyond high school, compared to about 48% of their connected<br />
counterparts.<br />
Figure 9. Educational Attainment of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong>s’ Parents,<br />
for <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
The employment status of parents was also evaluated. Figure 10 shows employment status<br />
among parents of disconnected and connected youth by household type. Among youth living in<br />
single-parent households, disconnected youth were more likely to have parents who were not<br />
employed (49.7%) at the time of the survey than connected youth (25.6%). Among youth living in<br />
dual-parent households, the divide was even greater: for 16.1% of disconnected youth, both<br />
parents were not employed at the time of the survey, compared to 5.3% of connected youth.<br />
Congressional Research Service 27
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 10. Employment Status of Disconnected and Connected <strong>Youth</strong>s’ Parents, for<br />
<strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24 Living with One or Both Parents, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current<br />
Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Differences in parents’ characteristics may account in part for disconnected youths’ higher<br />
poverty rates when compared to their connected counterparts, as seen earlier in Figure 5. As<br />
mentioned, disconnected youth are more likely than their connected peers to live in single-parent<br />
families, who tend to have higher poverty rates than dual-parent families. Further, in each family<br />
type their parents are less likely to have completed high school, or to have continued their<br />
education beyond high school (Figure 9), and their parents are less likely to be employed (Figure<br />
10). <strong>Youth</strong>s’ family living arrangements, parental characteristics, and poverty status may all<br />
contribute to whether a youth becomes disconnected, or stays connected, in making the transition<br />
from adolescence to adulthood. These issues in the context of other research are discussed further<br />
in this report’s conclusion.<br />
Trends Over Time<br />
Trends over time are seen in rates of disconnection among youth ages 16 through 24 over the past<br />
27 years (1988 through 2014). The overall rate of disconnection, 6.1% in 2014, was higher than<br />
the 4.1% rate of 1988, the first year depicted in Figure 11, below. In the intervening years there<br />
was considerable variation in the overall rate, ranging from a high of 7.5% in 2010 to a low of<br />
3.9% in both 1999 and 2000.<br />
The figure shows that trends in rates of disconnection follow economic cycles, which should be<br />
expected, as disconnection is tied, by definition, to not being employed. Unemployment tends to<br />
Congressional Research Service 28
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
be a lagging economic indicator, usually peaking for the population as a whole well past the end<br />
of economic recessions. Three economic recessions occurred over the 27-year period depicted in<br />
Figure 11 and subsequent figures (marked as red-shaded bars: July 1990 to March 1991, March<br />
2001 to November 2001, and December 2007 to March 2009). In each case, disconnection rates<br />
rose with the onset of economic recession, and continued to rise beyond the recession’s end,<br />
before falling. Most recently, the overall disconnection rate for 16 to 24 year olds rose from 4.9%<br />
in 2007, just prior to recession, to 7.5% in 2010, and fell in each subsequent year, to 6.1% in<br />
2014.<br />
Sex<br />
Figure 11 shows that disconnection rates for females are consistently higher than those for males<br />
over the period. The differences are larger in earlier years (as much as 3.5 percentage points in<br />
1989) than in later years (as little as 0.1 percentage points in 2010). Disconnection rates for<br />
females peaked in 1994, at 8.2%, and for males, at 7.4% in 2010. As noted earlier, single<br />
parenthood is a contributing factor to higher rates of disconnection among females than males.<br />
The presence of a child could make connections to work or school for these young women<br />
tenuous.<br />
Figure 11 shows that the trends in disconnection rates for males and females have for the most<br />
part paralleled each other over the 1988 to 2014 period. An apparent exception shows a<br />
divergence in male and female disconnection rates over the 2005 to 2008 period, during which<br />
the male disconnection rate dropped and the female rate rose. CRS does not have an explanation<br />
for this divergence in rates by sex over this period, but reductions in childbearing may play a role.<br />
Congressional Research Service 29
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 11. Rates of Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> Ages 16-24, by Sex, 1988-2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through<br />
2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Age and Sex<br />
CRS examined disconnection over time by sex across age groups—16 through 18, 19 through 21,<br />
and 22 through 24. Figure 12 and Figure 13 display these data for males and females,<br />
respectively. The figures show that disconnection rates were consistently lower for male and<br />
female youth ages 16 through 18 than among their older counterparts. For males (Figure 12)<br />
disconnection rates for 19 to 21 year olds tended to be slightly above those of 22 to 24 year olds<br />
in each year since 1998, though rates of disconnection were nearly identical in some recent years<br />
(2011, 2013, and 2014). For females (Figure 13), there was no distinct difference between the<br />
two oldest age groups from 1998 through 2002; however, beginning with 2003, rates of<br />
disconnection trended somewhat above their slightly younger counterparts. Disconnection rates<br />
for both males and females in each age group depict some of the cyclical patterns that were<br />
associated in the earlier discussion with general economic conditions. The trend in the youngest<br />
age group shows less cyclical variation than the older groups, as school tends to harbor the<br />
youngest group even in hard economic times, whereas older youth are subject more to labor<br />
market conditions. Females in the oldest group, ages 22 through 24, showed marked increases in<br />
their disconnection rates from 1999 to 2011, with disconnection rates more than doubling over the<br />
period, from 4.6% to 10.1% , respectively (Figure 13). Females ages 19 through 21 saw their<br />
disconnection rate increase by almost four full percentage points from a historic low of 5.7% in<br />
2004, to 9.7% in 2010 (Figure 13). Rates of disconnectedness among all three age groups<br />
Congressional Research Service 30
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
fluctuated from 2011 through 2014, ranging from 2.1% to 3.5% for 16 through 19 year olds; 7.5%<br />
to 8.6% for 19 through 21 year olds; and 8.9% to 10.1% for 22 through 24 year olds.<br />
Figure 12. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 1988-2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through<br />
2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Congressional Research Service 31
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 13. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Age Group, 2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through<br />
2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Race, Ethnicity, and Sex<br />
As shown in Table 1, earlier, minorities are overrepresented among the disconnected youth<br />
population. Perhaps most striking is the percentage of black (non-Hispanic) males who are<br />
disconnected relative to their white (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic counterparts (see Figure 14).<br />
Over the period depicted, the disconnected rate for black males averaged 6.6 percentage points<br />
above that of their white non-Hispanic counterparts, and 4.7 percentage points above that of<br />
Hispanic males. The gap was largest in 2003 when the disconnection rate of black males reached<br />
a historic high of 12.4%, which was 9.8 percentage points above their white counterparts (2.6%),<br />
and 8.9 percentage points above that of male Hispanic youth (3.5%). In that year, black males<br />
were nearly five times more likely to be disconnected than white males, and three and one-half<br />
times more likely than Hispanic males. Black male youth experienced a drop in their<br />
disconnection rate, with the rate being nearly cut in half, from 12.4% in 2003 to 6.8% in 2008.<br />
The rate of disconnection increased again in 2009 and 2010—and then generally increased over<br />
the period from 2011 through 2014, when the rate of disconnection for black males was 13.1%.<br />
This is in contrast to Hispanic and white males whose rates of disconnection decreased in most<br />
years over the 2010 through 2014 period. Notably, Hispanic and white males had nearly identical<br />
rates of disconnection at about 5.0% in both 2013 and 2014.<br />
Congressional Research Service 32
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Figure 14. Rates of Disconnected Males Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity, 1998-2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through<br />
2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Turning to females, Figure 15 shows marked differences in the level and trend in disconnection<br />
rates among white (non-Hispanic), black (non-Hispanic), and Hispanic females over the 1988<br />
through 2014 period. Disconnection rates for black (non-Hispanic) and Hispanic females were<br />
consistently higher than those of their white (non-Hispanic) counterparts. However, while black<br />
and Hispanic females experienced substantial reductions in their rates of disconnection from their<br />
peak rates, the rate of disconnection among white females steadily increased since 2000. Figure<br />
15 shows that among black females, their disconnection rate fell from a high of 15.1% in 1993 to<br />
a low of 6.3% in 1999—a near 60% reduction. The rates increased in subsequent years, ranging<br />
from 6.7% (in 2001) to 12.2% (in 2010). The 2014 rate of disconnection for black females of<br />
8.6% was the lowest in the period since 2005. For Hispanic females, their rate fell from a high of<br />
15.7% in 1994 to a low of 7% in 2014—a 55% reduction. The rate for Hispanic females reached a<br />
record low in 2014. The white females’ disconnection rate fell from a high of 5.6% in 1994 to a<br />
low of 2.7% in 2000, but increased in each succeeding year through 2011. That year, the rate of<br />
disconnection among white females was at its highest point—5.9%. The rate for white females<br />
declined in each subsequent year through 2014.<br />
Black female youth in particular experienced remarkable reductions in disconnection, due likely<br />
to reductions in childbearing. For example, in 1993, the peak year of black female disconnection,<br />
a total of 15.1% were disconnected; having a child appears to have contributed to attaining that<br />
status for 11.3% of the population, and other factors contributed for the remaining 3.8%. By<br />
1999, the year with the lowest proportion of disconnected black female youth, 6.3% were<br />
Congressional Research Service 33
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
disconnected. The rate for those having a child was just 2.9%, or about one-quarter of what it was<br />
in 1993.<br />
Figure 15. Rates of Disconnected Females Ages 16-24, by Race and Ethnicity,<br />
1998-2014<br />
Source: Congressional Research Service based on analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau 1988 through<br />
2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).<br />
Notes: Disconnected youth are youth who were not working or in school at the time of the survey and were<br />
reported as having not worked during the previous year for reasons other than going to school.<br />
Implications for Policy<br />
The time trend data presented show an increase in the overall rate of disconnection among youth<br />
in 2014 compared to 27 years earlier, in 1988. However, there was considerable variation in the<br />
overall rate and in disconnection rates among and between racial and ethnic groups, by sex.<br />
Notably disconnection among all single parenting females declined since the mid-1990s,<br />
particularly for young black women. The trend data show that youth disconnection follows<br />
economic cycles, as expected. During recessions, when jobs in the economy become scarce, rates<br />
of youth disconnection increase; during periods of economic expansion, rates of youth<br />
disconnection decrease. The data presented in this report end during 2013 and the first part of<br />
2014 (i.e., February through April), four years after the end of the most recent recession.<br />
In addition to overall economic conditions, a number of other factors may contribute to changes<br />
in the rates of disconnection. For example, the following factors may have lent to the decreasing<br />
rates of disconnection, particularly among black single mothers, since the mid-1990s: an<br />
expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), phased in between 1994 and 1996; welfare<br />
reform in 1996, which introduced time limits and work requirements for families receiving<br />
Congressional Research Service 34
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
benefits and services under the newly enacted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)<br />
block grant; and declining teen birth rates, beginning in approximately 1992.<br />
Given the state of the current economy, youth disconnection rates would be expected to stabilize.<br />
For females, their overall disconnection rate will depend not only on the base rate, depicted as the<br />
rate of disconnection among females without children as a percent of all females, and the<br />
additional rate of disconnection tied to having a child and not being married to a connected<br />
husband. The rate of disconnection among females who are not parents has been on the rise in<br />
recent years. Given the large declines in the rate of disconnection among females since the early<br />
1990s relating to childbearing, their overall rate of disconnection in near-future years may not<br />
reach the levels seen in the early 1990s and preceding years. Overall, young single mothers are<br />
more likely to be connected to school or work than to be disconnected from both. Moreover, from<br />
the early- to mid-1990s to around 2000, the likelihood of younger single mothers being connected<br />
to work or school increased, and their rate of disconnection decreased. Since then their rate of<br />
disconnection has increased, but not yet to the levels seen in the late 1980s and early 1990s.<br />
Being connected to work or school is widely seen as important for both youth and greater society.<br />
As discussed above, the individual costs of disconnection are great. While out of school or work,<br />
youth forego gaining experience that can lead to better employment opportunities. They are also<br />
more likely to live in poverty. Further, the young children of disconnected youth are at risk of<br />
growing up in poverty, which as discussed above, can have far reaching consequences in<br />
adulthood. The costs to society may also be great, though little research has been done in this<br />
area. 54 <strong>Youth</strong> who are disconnected may pose a financial burden if they rely on cash and non-cash<br />
assistance programs, or if they become homeless. In an increasingly global economy and with<br />
retirement underway for Baby Boomers, society is seen as having a strong interest in ensuring<br />
that all young people have the educational attainment and employment experience to become<br />
skilled workers, contributing taxpayers, and participants in civic life.<br />
Interventions to connect youth to school and work depend on a number of factors. The research<br />
literature has devoted attention to the timing of interventions. The timing can target early<br />
childhood, the elementary and middle school years, or the high school years and just beyond.<br />
During each of these phases, developmental outcomes are influenced by numerous environmental<br />
and social factors, including family structure, stability, and functioning; economic circumstances;<br />
education; health care; and schooling. 55 They are also influenced by innate and inherited<br />
characteristics. These factors can influence how well youth ultimately make the transition to<br />
adulthood. The research literature has identified certain markers of risk and problem behaviors in<br />
the middle and older youth years that are associated with later negative outcomes. 56 Markers of<br />
risk suggest that youth will likely experience poor outcomes in adolescence and beyond. These<br />
markers are tangible indicators that can be measured or documented, and include low school<br />
performance and involvement in the child welfare system. Problem behaviors are activities that<br />
have the potential to hurt youth, the community, or both. Behaviors include early sexual<br />
experimentation; truancy; use of tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs; running away from home or<br />
foster care; and association with delinquent peers.<br />
54 See, Clive R. Belfield, Henry M. Levin, and Rachel Rosen, The Economic Value of <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>.<br />
55 For further information about the role of these factors in childhood development, see CRS Report RL33975,<br />
Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong>: Background and Policies.<br />
56 Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk <strong>Youth</strong>, Mathematica Policy Research,<br />
Inc., ACF <strong>Youth</strong> Demonstration Development Project, June 21, 2011. (Hereinafter, Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of<br />
Research and Resources to Support at-Risk <strong>Youth</strong>.)<br />
Congressional Research Service 35
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
James Heckman and others assert that investments in early childhood can, in part, serve as a<br />
protective factor against poor outcomes, especially when coupled with investments during the<br />
elementary school years. 57 Other research has focused on the benefits of intervening at an older<br />
age when young people are at risk of or are already experiencing negative outcomes. 58 And still<br />
other research has begun to examine the effects of a system of interventions that targets youth<br />
throughout their early life, from the infant years to young adulthood. 59 <strong>Youth</strong> might benefit from<br />
interventions during all stages of their early life, particularly if they begin to exhibit markers of<br />
risk such as low school performance.<br />
Interventions can also focus on particular institutions or systems, such as the family, community,<br />
schools, and job training programs. These interventions may help to address some of the reasons<br />
why youth are not working or in school. First, interventions in the family at all stages could<br />
benefit disconnected youth. 60 Many of the disconnected youth in the analysis are parenting.<br />
Adequate child care may be one way in which to assist these youth in becoming connected to<br />
school or work and remain connected. Further, given the possibility that disconnection is<br />
intergenerational, early parenting classes or home-based interventions could provide a buffer for<br />
the children of disconnected youth from experiencing negative outcomes later in their lives. In the<br />
community, interventions could focus on assisting youth with disabilities since they make up a<br />
large share of the disconnected youth population. Such supportive services might include mental<br />
health care. <strong>Young</strong> disconnected single mothers could benefit from the involvement of their<br />
children’s fathers. Responsible fatherhood programs seek to engage fathers in assisting with<br />
childrearing and child support, which may in turn enable mothers to secure child care and other<br />
assistance so they can work or attend school. Other community interventions could involve<br />
programs that encourage young women to delay childbearing, as parenting appears to be strongly<br />
associated with disconnection among females.<br />
Finally, school and job training programs that provide wraparound services—counseling, child<br />
care, transportation, assistance with attaining a high school diploma, and preparation for the<br />
workforce—may help to reengage youth. A number of interventions have been designed in recent<br />
years that seek to address multiple aspects of a youth’s circumstances. 61 In addition, sexual<br />
education in schools may help to encourage sexual avoidance and teen pregnancy. 62 However, as<br />
shown in this report, disconnected youth make up a diverse group and no one intervention is<br />
likely to be a panacea.<br />
57 James J. Heckman and Dimitriy V. Masterov, The Productivity of Investing in <strong>Young</strong> Children, 2007.<br />
58 See, Rhonda Tsoi-A-Fatt, A Collective Responsibility, A Collective Work: Supporting the Path to Positive Life<br />
Outcomes for <strong>Youth</strong> in Economically Distressed Communities, Center for Law and Social Policy, May 2008; and<br />
Heather Koball et al., Synthesis of Research and Resources to Support at-Risk <strong>Youth</strong>.<br />
59 The Harlem Children’s Zone in New York is one such model that provides wrap-around services for children of all<br />
ages. Services include parenting courses, community services, educational programs at HCZ charters schools, and<br />
foster care prevention services, among other services.<br />
60 For an overview of federal programs and policies to assist vulnerable youth across several domains, including<br />
workforce development, education, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, social services, public health, and<br />
national and community service, see CRS Report RL33975, Vulnerable <strong>Youth</strong>: Background and Policies.<br />
61 See for example, John Bridgeland and Tess Mason-Elder, National Roadmap for <strong>Opportunity</strong> <strong>Youth</strong>, Civic<br />
Enterprises, September 2012; Nancy Martin and Samuel Halperin, “Whatever It Takes: How Twelve Communities Are<br />
Reconnecting Out-of-School <strong>Youth</strong>,” American <strong>Youth</strong> Policy Forum, 2006; National League of Cities, “Beyond City<br />
Limits: Cross-System Collaboration to Reengage Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>,” 2007; and U.S. Government Accountability<br />
Office, Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local Programs That<br />
Reconnect <strong>Youth</strong> Education and Employment, GAO-08-313, February 2008.<br />
62 For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy<br />
Interventions, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.<br />
Congressional Research Service 36
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: A Look at 16 to 24 Year Olds Who Are Not Working or In School<br />
Author Contact Information<br />
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara<br />
Specialist in Social Policy<br />
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005<br />
Acknowledgments<br />
Thomas Gabe, former CRS Specialist in Social Policy, was the original co-author of this report. Gene Falk,<br />
Carmen Solomon-Fears, Melinda Gish, Karen Spar, Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and Rebecca R. Skinner provided<br />
helpful comments and insights.<br />
Congressional Research Service 37
Page 50 of 72
Attachment C<br />
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong> - Out of School<br />
and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
Page 51 of 72
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and<br />
Out of Work in Rural America<br />
April 27, 2017 By Tim Henderson<br />
Pocomoke High School teacher Brooke Gillespie and senior Rebeka Kline, who plans to study<br />
art at a local community college, decorate vacant storefronts in rural Pocomoke City,<br />
Maryland, as part of an after-school program to teach job skills. “After they graduate, there<br />
isn’t much here” for young people looking for jobs, Gillespie said.<br />
© The Pew Charitable Trusts<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 1/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
POCOMOKE CITY, Md. — Large numbers of young people who aren’t in school and don’t have a<br />
job used to be a problem that mostly afflicted America’s cities. But the share of “disconnected<br />
youth” in rural areas has soared over the past five years, overtaking the rate in urban areas and<br />
forcing state and local officials to look for new ways to help young people stay in school and get<br />
jobs.<br />
Here in rural Worcester County, Maryland, a popular summer destination that includes Ocean<br />
City and other beach resorts, almost 25 percent of people 16 to 24 are unemployed and out of<br />
school, according to a recent state report.<br />
That’s the highest rate in the state, higher even than in Baltimore, where about 20 percent of<br />
young people are disconnected. And it’s being felt hard in this quaint small town, where good<br />
seasonal jobs are 40 miles away and the nearest job-training program is about 25 miles away.<br />
“Traditionally the perception has been that this is happening in urban areas and that’s where the<br />
funding and the research has taken place,” said Christina Church, a policy analyst in the Maryland<br />
Governor’s Office for Children. Areas like Worcester and nearby Caroline counties “have in some<br />
ways fallen through the cracks,” she said.<br />
Nationwide, 4.9 million youth in all kinds of communities are disconnected, according to Measure<br />
of America, part of the nonprofit Social Science Research Council. Disconnected youth cost<br />
taxpayers as much as $93 billion a year in lost revenue and increased social service spending,<br />
according to <strong>Opportunity</strong> Nation, a coalition of nonprofits.<br />
About 20 percent of young people in extremely rural areas — those like Worcester County with no<br />
cities larger than 10,000 people — were jobless and not in school, on average, over a five-year<br />
period, from 2010 to 2014, Measure of America said in a March report. That’s much higher than<br />
the rate for counties in urban centers (about 14 percent) or for suburban counties (12 percent).<br />
“These vulnerable young people are cut off from the people, institutions, and experiences that<br />
would otherwise help them develop the knowledge, skills, maturity, and sense of purpose<br />
required to live rewarding lives as adults,” the Measure of America report concluded. “And the<br />
negative effects of youth disconnection ricochet across the economy, the social sector, the<br />
criminal justice system, and the political landscape, affecting us all.”<br />
The election of President Donald Trump has drawn fresh attention to the plight of rural America.<br />
On Wednesday, the National Governors Association called on Congress to restore funding to a<br />
federal program that provides funding to rural communities and school districts to help offset lost<br />
tax revenue from timber harvests on federal lands. Congress let the Secure Rural Schools program<br />
expire last year, and the governors said rural communities have struggled to absorb the<br />
unplanned cuts.<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 2/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
“We’re living now with some of the consequences of a bifurcated country,” said Patrick Carr, a<br />
Rutgers University sociologist who studies rural America. “It’s not good for America to have so<br />
many people disconnected.”<br />
In some places, officials are taking steps to address the problem.<br />
In California’s Silicon Valley, a partnership between Santa Clara County, the city of San Jose, and<br />
local schools and employers opened a “re-engagement center” about 18 months ago to help youth<br />
find jobs or enroll in college or high school in rural Gilroy. The distance between Gilroy and urban<br />
San Jose, about 30 miles, was an obvious problem for youth, said Nicky Ramos-Beban, interim<br />
principal for the centers.<br />
A similar partnership called the Maine <strong>Youth</strong> Transition Collaborative is working with schools and<br />
employers to help people in foster care in rural areas stay in school or find jobs. The Connecticut<br />
<strong>Opportunity</strong> Project, in a September 2016 report, found “acute need in rural areas” of the state as<br />
well as struggling cities to help young people finish school, get jobs or both. Disconnected young<br />
people cost the state an estimated $900 million a year in uncollected taxes and spending on<br />
services and public safety, the report said.<br />
In Maryland, Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, made lowering the disconnected rate a priority for<br />
the Office for Children in next year’s budget, mostly because it could save money in the long run,<br />
Church said.<br />
“When youth reconnect with work and school, not only does spending on social services<br />
decrease, but also tax revenue and economic participation increase, which is good for the state’s<br />
bottom line,” Church said.<br />
The Office for Children has asked counties, including Worcester, to propose plans to help solve the<br />
problem, such as dropout recovery programs, college prep courses, apprenticeships and job<br />
training. Proposals are due by the end of April to be considered for inclusion in the next state<br />
budget.<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 3/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
Behind the Numbers<br />
The disconnected rate reflects both education and employment, and the two factors have evolved<br />
differently in rural and urban areas. In 2000, disconnected rates were lower in rural areas than in<br />
urban areas. But since then, fortunes have reversed, according to a separate Stateline analysis of<br />
data from the U.S. Census Bureau provided by ipums.org at the University of Minnesota.<br />
(The definition of rural areas in this data — counties that are not in areas near sizeable cities — is<br />
broader than that used by Measure of America, and includes about 13 percent of the nation’s<br />
population, compared to 6 percent under the Measure of America definition.)<br />
In 2000, 11 percent of young people in rural areas were disconnected, compared to 15 percent in<br />
urban areas, according to the Stateline analysis. But since 2013, the rural rate has been at least 3<br />
percentage points higher than the urban rate. In 2016, 17 percent of young people in rural areas<br />
were disconnected, compared to 13 percent in urban areas.<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 4/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
The shift is due mostly to a decline in high school enrollment in rural areas after 2011, and an<br />
increase in college enrollment in urban areas over the same period. Rural employment also is a<br />
large part of the issue, as jobs in many parts of the country have failed to recover from the<br />
recession while urban jobs have bounced back and climbed from pre-recession peaks.<br />
Schools all over rural America are contemplating changes to get some students more job skills<br />
while still in high school and to ensure that others go to college and graduate.<br />
“It is no longer enough for schools to simply teach reading, math and science,” said Randy<br />
Watson, the Kansas education commissioner. Some students may need to spend most of their<br />
time building skills rather than on academic courses, he said.<br />
And rural isolation can lead to limited horizons. “For many students, the only career opportunities<br />
they know are those they are exposed to within their own hometowns,” Watson said. “In smaller,<br />
rural areas these may be limited.”<br />
For rural youth, a deep attachment to home can also make it difficult to leave to pursue<br />
opportunities elsewhere, said Richard Settersten, a professor of family science at Oregon State<br />
University.<br />
“It has to do with their often deep connections to place, and the challenges associated with<br />
leaving those communities and navigating worlds that are sometimes so foreign from what<br />
they’ve known,” Settersten said.<br />
‘Not Much Here for Them’<br />
The tourist trade swells the population in the northern part of Worcester County to hundreds of<br />
thousands in the summer, as families from nearby Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., flock to the<br />
gleaming white hotels and pristine summer houses of Ocean City and nearby beach towns.<br />
But in the south end of the county, there are many vacant, peeling storefronts and some<br />
abandoned and overgrown houses in downtown Pocomoke City. And year-round job prospects for<br />
local youth are dismal.<br />
Jennifer Lamade, program director for the county health department, said the growing stress on<br />
the local population can be seen in the increasing number of drug- and alcohol-related deaths,<br />
which she said jumped from six in 2013 to 16 in 2015, because of increases in heroin and fentanyl<br />
overdoses. The rate of anxiety and other mental health issues has tripled since 2008, according<br />
the county’s annual health indicators report.<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 5/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
Lamade said the county health department is now looking for input on how to reduce the youth<br />
disconnection rate and will apply for state funds. The most likely use, she said, would be to help<br />
young people in remote areas of the county get transportation to job skills training in Salisbury,<br />
about 25 miles from Pocomoke City.<br />
Even in summer, when Ocean City’s tourist trade is in high gear, Worcester County’s<br />
unemployment rate is higher than the state average: 5.7 to 4.4 percent last July. And the<br />
unemployment rate more than doubles in the winter months — it was 13.5 percent in January.<br />
That’s particularly tough for young people graduating from high school without college plans.<br />
“After they graduate, there isn’t much here for them if they stay. They can work in Ocean City but<br />
that’s a long way away and only for a few months,” said Brooke Gillespie, a Pocomoke High School<br />
teacher who volunteers after school to help students learn job skills so they can be competitive<br />
for a shrinking number of good jobs in the area.<br />
The county’s population has grown slightly in the last 10 years, by about 800 people between<br />
2006 and 2016, about 2 percent, which is good by rural standards. The rural population of the U.S.<br />
dropped by about 33,000 a year since 2010, though the decrease lessened to about 4,000 in 2015,<br />
the latest year available, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.<br />
But Worcester County also lost almost 1,200 jobs in construction and manufacturing in that time.<br />
Shore areas like Worcester once had thriving tomato canneries and seafood processing plants<br />
that provided work in the offseason and drew immigrants to small towns like Pocomoke, said<br />
Andrew Lazur, director of the University of Maryland’s Sea Grant program, which works with local<br />
governments on shore issues.<br />
But it was hard, low-paid work even in its heyday in the 1970s, and much of the industry has moved<br />
overseas, Lazur said.<br />
“The world is changing. Twenty years ago, kids liked to work part time in the summer in these<br />
oyster and crab industries,” Lazur said. “Now nobody wants that type of job anymore.”<br />
Pocomoke City Manager Ernie Crofoot said there’s a problem with both job availability and worker<br />
availability in the southern part of the county. <strong>Young</strong> people need more and better jobs than they<br />
can get at places like the Wal-Mart on Ocean Highway, but employers often don’t see a large<br />
enough pool of potential workers.<br />
“It’s a chicken and egg thing,” Crofoot said. The city is trying to help attract manufacturing jobs to<br />
a local industrial park, but sometimes has a hard time making a case despite high unemployment.<br />
“They ask me, ‘Where are the workers going to come from?’ ”<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 6/7
2/9/2018 Disconnected <strong>Youth</strong>: Out of School and Out of Work in Rural America<br />
NEWER ❯<br />
What We're Reading: Top State Stories 4/27<br />
❮ OLDER<br />
Florida Congressman Wants Seat Belts on all School Buses<br />
PLACES<br />
Maryland, Kansas, Arizona<br />
TAGS<br />
Demographics, Education, Labor, Economy<br />
ABOUT STATELINE<br />
Stateline provides daily<br />
reporting and analysis on<br />
trends in state policy.<br />
About ›<br />
MEDIA CONTACT<br />
Jeremy Ratner<br />
Director, Communications,<br />
202.540.6507<br />
jratner@pewtrusts.org<br />
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/04/27/disconnected-youth-out-of-school-and-out-of-work-in-rural-america 7/7
Page 52 of 72
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
Page 53 of 72
Advocacy Foundation Publishers<br />
The e-Advocate Quarterly<br />
Page 54 of 72
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. I 2015 The Fundamentals<br />
I<br />
The ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />
Project Initiative<br />
Q-1 2015<br />
II The Adolescent Law Group Q-2 2015<br />
III<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (PA)<br />
Q-3 2015<br />
IV The First Amendment Project Q-4 2015<br />
Vol. II 2016 Strategic Development<br />
V The Fourth Amendment Project Q-1 2016<br />
VI<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (NJ)<br />
Q-2 2016<br />
VII <strong>Youth</strong> Court Q-3 2016<br />
VIII<br />
The Economic Consequences of Legal<br />
Decision-Making<br />
Q-4 2016<br />
Vol. III 2017 Sustainability<br />
IX The Sixth Amendment Project Q-1 2017<br />
X<br />
The Theological Foundations of<br />
US Law & Government<br />
Q-2 2017<br />
XI The Eighth Amendment Project Q-3 2017<br />
XII<br />
The EB-5 Investor<br />
Immigration Project*<br />
Q-4 2017<br />
Vol. IV 2018 Collaboration<br />
XIII Strategic Planning Q-1 2018<br />
XIV<br />
The Juvenile Justice<br />
Legislative Reform Initiative<br />
Q-2 2018<br />
XV The Advocacy Foundation Coalition Q-3 2018<br />
Page 55 of 72
XVI<br />
for Drug-Free Communities<br />
Landmark Cases in US<br />
Juvenile Justice (GA)<br />
Q-4 2018<br />
Page 56 of 72
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. V 2019 Organizational Development<br />
XVII The Board of Directors Q-1 2019<br />
XVIII The Inner Circle Q-2 2019<br />
XIX Staff & Management Q-3 2019<br />
XX Succession Planning Q-4 2019<br />
XXI The Budget* Bonus #1<br />
XXII Data-Driven Resource Allocation* Bonus #2<br />
Vol. VI 2020 Missions<br />
XXIII Critical Thinking Q-1 2020<br />
XXIV<br />
The Advocacy Foundation<br />
Endowments Initiative Project<br />
Q-2 2020<br />
XXV International Labor Relations Q-3 2020<br />
XXVI Immigration Q-4 2020<br />
Vol. VII 2021 Community Engagement<br />
XXVII<br />
The 21 st Century Charter Schools<br />
Initiative<br />
Q-1 2021<br />
XXVIII The All-Sports Ministry @ ... Q-2 2021<br />
XXIX Lobbying for Nonprofits Q-3 2021<br />
XXX<br />
XXXI<br />
Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />
Domestic<br />
Advocacy Foundation Missions -<br />
International<br />
Q-4 2021<br />
Bonus<br />
Page 57 of 72
Vol. VIII<br />
2022 ComeUnity ReEngineering<br />
XXXII<br />
The Creative & Fine Arts Ministry<br />
@ The Foundation<br />
Q-1 2022<br />
XXXIII The Advisory Council & Committees Q-2 2022<br />
XXXIV<br />
The Theological Origins<br />
of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />
Q-3 2022<br />
XXXV The Second Chance Ministry @ ... Q-4 2022<br />
Vol. IX 2023 Legal Reformation<br />
XXXVI The Fifth Amendment Project Q-1 2023<br />
XXXVII The Judicial Re-Engineering Initiative Q-2 2023<br />
XXXVIII<br />
The Inner-Cities Strategic<br />
Revitalization Initiative<br />
Q-3 2023<br />
XXXVIX Habeas Corpus Q-4 2023<br />
Vol. X 2024 ComeUnity Development<br />
XXXVX<br />
The Inner-City Strategic<br />
Revitalization Plan<br />
Q-1 2024<br />
XXXVXI The Mentoring Initiative Q-2 2024<br />
XXXVXII The Violence Prevention Framework Q-3 2024<br />
XXXVXIII The Fatherhood Initiative Q-4 2024<br />
Vol. XI 2025 Public Interest<br />
XXXVXIV Public Interest Law Q-1 2025<br />
L (50) Spiritual Resource Development Q-2 2025<br />
Page 58 of 72
LI<br />
Nonprofit Confidentiality<br />
In The Age of Big Data<br />
Q-3 2025<br />
LII Interpreting The Facts Q-4 2025<br />
Vol. XII 2026 Poverty In America<br />
LIII<br />
American Poverty<br />
In The New Millennium<br />
Q-1 2026<br />
LIV Outcome-Based Thinking Q-2 2026<br />
LV Transformational Social Leadership Q-3 2026<br />
LVI The Cycle of Poverty Q-4 2026<br />
Vol. XIII 2027 Raising Awareness<br />
LVII ReEngineering Juvenile Justice Q-1 2027<br />
LVIII Corporations Q-2 2027<br />
LVIX The Prison Industrial Complex Q-3 2027<br />
LX Restoration of Rights Q-4 2027<br />
Vol. XIV 2028 Culturally Relevant Programming<br />
LXI Community Culture Q-1 2028<br />
LXII Corporate Culture Q-2 2028<br />
LXIII Strategic Cultural Planning Q-3 2028<br />
LXIV<br />
The Cross-Sector/ Coordinated<br />
Service Approach to Delinquency<br />
Prevention<br />
Q-4 2028<br />
Page 59 of 72
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitalization<br />
LXIV<br />
LXV<br />
LXVI<br />
Part I – Strategic Housing<br />
Revitalization<br />
(The Twenty Percent Profit Margin)<br />
Part II – Jobs Training, Educational<br />
Redevelopment<br />
and Economic Empowerment<br />
Part III - Financial Literacy<br />
and Sustainability<br />
Q-1 2029<br />
Q-2 2029<br />
Q-3 2029<br />
LXVII Part IV – Solutions for Homelessness Q-4 2029<br />
LXVIII<br />
The Strategic Home Mortgage<br />
Initiative<br />
Bonus<br />
Vol. XVI 2030 Sustainability<br />
LXVIII Social Program Sustainability Q-1 2030<br />
LXIX<br />
The Advocacy Foundation<br />
Endowments Initiative<br />
Q-2 2030<br />
LXX Capital Gains Q-3 2030<br />
LXXI Sustainability Investments Q-4 2030<br />
Vol. XVII 2031 The Justice Series<br />
LXXII Distributive Justice Q-1 2031<br />
LXXIII Retributive Justice Q-2 2031<br />
LXXIV Procedural Justice Q-3 2031<br />
LXXV (75) Restorative Justice Q-4 2031<br />
LXXVI Unjust Legal Reasoning Bonus<br />
Page 60 of 72
Vol. XVIII 2032 Public Policy<br />
LXXVII Public Interest Law Q-1 2032<br />
LXXVIII Reforming Public Policy Q-2 2032<br />
LXXVIX ... Q-3 2032<br />
LXXVX ... Q-4 2032<br />
Page 61 of 72
The e-Advocate Journal<br />
of Theological Jurisprudence<br />
Vol. I - 2017<br />
The Theological Origins of Contemporary Judicial Process<br />
Scriptural Application to The Model Criminal Code<br />
Scriptural Application for Tort Reform<br />
Scriptural Application to Juvenile Justice Reformation<br />
Vol. II - 2018<br />
Scriptural Application for The Canons of Ethics<br />
Scriptural Application to Contracts Reform<br />
& The Uniform Commercial Code<br />
Scriptural Application to The Law of Property<br />
Scriptural Application to The Law of Evidence<br />
Page 62 of 72
Legal Missions International<br />
Page 63 of 72
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. I 2015<br />
I<br />
II<br />
God’s Will and The 21 st Century<br />
Democratic Process<br />
The Community<br />
Engagement Strategy<br />
Q-1 2015<br />
Q-2 2015<br />
III Foreign Policy Q-3 2015<br />
IV<br />
Public Interest Law<br />
in The New Millennium<br />
Q-4 2015<br />
Vol. II 2016<br />
V Ethiopia Q-1 2016<br />
VI Zimbabwe Q-2 2016<br />
VII Jamaica Q-3 2016<br />
VIII Brazil Q-4 2016<br />
Vol. III 2017<br />
IX India Q-1 2017<br />
X Suriname Q-2 2017<br />
XI The Caribbean Q-3 2017<br />
XII United States/ Estados Unidos Q-4 2017<br />
Vol. IV 2018<br />
XIII Cuba Q-1 2018<br />
XIV Guinea Q-2 2018<br />
XV Indonesia Q-3 2018<br />
XVI Sri Lanka Q-4 2018<br />
Vol. V 2019<br />
Page 64 of 72
XVII Russia Q-1 2019<br />
XVIII Australia Q-2 2019<br />
XIV South Korea Q-3 2019<br />
XV Puerto Rico Q-4 2019<br />
Issue Title Quarterly<br />
Vol. VI 2020<br />
XVI Trinidad & Tobago Q-1 2020<br />
XVII Egypt Q-2 2020<br />
XVIII Sierra Leone Q-3 2020<br />
XIX South Africa Q-4 2020<br />
XX Israel Bonus<br />
Vol. VII 2021<br />
XXI Haiti Q-1 2021<br />
XXII Peru Q-2 2021<br />
XXIII Costa Rica Q-3 2021<br />
XXIV China Q-4 2021<br />
XXV Japan Bonus<br />
Vol VIII 2022<br />
XXVI Chile Q-1 2022<br />
Page 65 of 72
The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Report<br />
______<br />
Vol. I – Juvenile Delinquency in The US<br />
Vol. II. – The Prison Industrial Complex<br />
Vol. III – Restorative/ Transformative Justice<br />
Vol. IV – The Sixth Amendment Right to The Effective Assistance of Counsel<br />
Vol. V – The Theological Foundations of Juvenile Justice<br />
Vol. VI – Collaborating to Eradicate Juvenile Delinquency<br />
Page 66 of 72
The e-Advocate Newsletter<br />
Genesis of The Problem<br />
Family Structure<br />
Societal Influences<br />
Evidence-Based Programming<br />
Strengthening Assets v. Eliminating Deficits<br />
2012 - Juvenile Delinquency in The US<br />
Introduction/Ideology/Key Values<br />
Philosophy/Application & Practice<br />
Expungement & Pardons<br />
Pardons & Clemency<br />
Examples/Best Practices<br />
2013 - Restorative Justice in The US<br />
2014 - The Prison Industrial Complex<br />
25% of the World's Inmates Are In the US<br />
The Economics of Prison Enterprise<br />
The Federal Bureau of Prisons<br />
The After-Effects of Incarceration/Individual/Societal<br />
The Fourth Amendment Project<br />
The Sixth Amendment Project<br />
The Eighth Amendment Project<br />
The Adolescent Law Group<br />
2015 - US Constitutional Issues In The New Millennium<br />
Page 67 of 72
2018 - The Theological Law Firm Academy<br />
The Theological Foundations of US Law & Government<br />
The Economic Consequences of Legal Decision-Making<br />
The Juvenile Justice Legislative Reform Initiative<br />
The EB-5 International Investors Initiative<br />
2017 - Organizational Development<br />
The Board of Directors<br />
The Inner Circle<br />
Staff & Management<br />
Succession Planning<br />
Bonus #1 The Budget<br />
Bonus #2 Data-Driven Resource Allocation<br />
2018 - Sustainability<br />
The Data-Driven Resource Allocation Process<br />
The Quality Assurance Initiative<br />
The Advocacy Foundation Endowments Initiative<br />
The Community Engagement Strategy<br />
2019 - Collaboration<br />
Critical Thinking for Transformative Justice<br />
International Labor Relations<br />
Immigration<br />
God's Will & The 21st Century Democratic Process<br />
The Community Engagement Strategy<br />
The 21st Century Charter Schools Initiative<br />
2020 - Community Engagement<br />
Page 68 of 72
Extras<br />
The Nonprofit Advisors Group Newsletters<br />
The 501(c)(3) Acquisition Process<br />
The Board of Directors<br />
The Gladiator Mentality<br />
Strategic Planning<br />
Fundraising<br />
501(c)(3) Reinstatements<br />
The Collaborative US/ International Newsletters<br />
How You Think Is Everything<br />
The Reciprocal Nature of Business Relationships<br />
Accelerate Your Professional Development<br />
The Competitive Nature of Grant Writing<br />
Assessing The Risks<br />
Page 69 of 72
About The Author<br />
John C (Jack) Johnson III<br />
Founder & CEO<br />
Jack was educated at Temple University, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Rutgers<br />
Law School, in Camden, New Jersey. In 1999, he moved to Atlanta, Georgia to pursue<br />
greater opportunities to provide Advocacy and Preventive Programmatic services for atrisk/<br />
at-promise young persons, their families, and Justice Professionals embedded in the<br />
Juvenile Justice process in order to help facilitate its transcendence into the 21 st Century.<br />
There, along with a small group of community and faith-based professionals, “The Advocacy Foundation, Inc." was conceived<br />
and developed over roughly a thirteen year period, originally chartered as a Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Educational<br />
Support Services organization consisting of Mentoring, Tutoring, Counseling, Character Development, Community Change<br />
Management, Practitioner Re-Education & Training, and a host of related components.<br />
The Foundation’s Overarching Mission is “To help Individuals, Organizations, & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential”, by<br />
implementing a wide array of evidence-based proactive multi-disciplinary "Restorative & Transformative Justice" programs &<br />
projects currently throughout the northeast, southeast, and western international-waters regions, providing prevention and support<br />
services to at-risk/ at-promise youth, to young adults, to their families, and to Social Service, Justice and Mental<br />
Health professionals” everywhere. The Foundation has since relocated its headquarters to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and been<br />
expanded to include a three-tier mission.<br />
In addition to his work with the Foundation, Jack also served as an Adjunct Professor of Law & Business at National-Louis<br />
University of Atlanta (where he taught Political Science, Business & Legal Ethics, Labor & Employment Relations, and Critical<br />
Thinking courses to undergraduate and graduate level students). Jack has also served as Board President for a host of wellestablished<br />
and up & coming nonprofit organizations throughout the region, including “Visions Unlimited Community<br />
Development Systems, Inc.”, a multi-million dollar, award-winning, Violence Prevention and Gang Intervention Social Service<br />
organization in Atlanta, as well as Vice-Chair of the Georgia/ Metropolitan Atlanta Violence Prevention Partnership, a state-wide<br />
300 organizational member, violence prevention group led by the Morehouse School of Medicine, Emory University and The<br />
Original, Atlanta-Based, Martin Luther King Center.<br />
Attorney Johnson’s prior accomplishments include a wide-array of Professional Legal practice areas, including Private Firm,<br />
Corporate and Government postings, just about all of which yielded significant professional awards & accolades, the history and<br />
chronology of which are available for review online. Throughout his career, Jack has served a wide variety of for-profit<br />
corporations, law firms, and nonprofit organizations as Board Chairman, Secretary, Associate, and General Counsel since 1990.<br />
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Clayton County <strong>Youth</strong> Services Partnership, Inc. – Chair; Georgia Violence Prevention Partnership, Inc – Vice Chair; Fayette<br />
County NAACP - Legal Redress Committee Chairman; Clayton County Fatherhood Initiative Partnership – Principal<br />
Investigator; Morehouse School of Medicine School of Community Health Feasibility Study - Steering Committee; Atlanta<br />
Violence Prevention Capacity Building Project – Project Partner; Clayton County Minister’s Conference, President 2006-2007;<br />
Liberty In Life Ministries, Inc. – Board Secretary; <strong>Young</strong> Adults Talk, Inc. – Board of Directors; ROYAL, Inc - Board of<br />
Directors; Temple University Alumni Association; Rutgers Law School Alumni Association; Sertoma International; Our<br />
Common Welfare Board of Directors – President)2003-2005; River’s Edge Elementary School PTA (Co-President); Summerhill<br />
Community Ministries; Outstanding <strong>Young</strong> Men of America; Employee of the Year; Academic All-American - Basketball;<br />
Church Trustee.<br />
Page 70 of 72
www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org<br />
Page 71 of 72
Page 72 of 72