- Manchin Is Staying in the Senate
- Congressional Hits and Misses: Week of April 13, 2015
- Wham! Bam! Comic Book Ads Target SEC Chairwoman
- Democrat Announces Senate Bid in Pennsylvania
- Context for Facebook Chatter About Presidential Candidates
Even with the short-term budget deal reached last month, domestic discretionary spending will be billions of dollars below its level of just a year ago. For some of us, thatís a triumph; for others, itís a tragedy. But we all can agree on the urgent need to spend as wisely as possible.
No field cries out for reinvention more than federal investment in youths who are out of school and out of work. These efforts on behalf of 7 million ďdisconnected youthĒ between the ages of 16 and 24 havenít yet demonstrated great results. While that doesnít mean we can give up on these young people, it does mean we need to rededicate ourselves to figuring out how better to serve them.
Here thereís an instructive comparison with early childhood programs. President Barack Obama and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce donít agree on much, but they do agree on the value of preschool. The reason is high-quality research going back decades. Adults who participated in the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian Project initiatives in the 1960s and 1970s finished more school, worked more, earned more and committed fewer crimes than adults who didnít. Economists such as Nobel Laureate James Heckman cite these studies to find that effective preschool programs can save more than $7 for every $1 spent. Critics point out that Perry and Abecedarian were small in scale, but bigger programs have also shown striking results.
Programs serving disconnected youth, however, have demonstrated less success. As MDRCís Dan Bloom notes, many initiatives have increased immediate earnings or GED certificate attainment for young people, but these results fade over time. Heckman argues that the return on investment in teens seems lower because it is lower ó teenagers have entrenched habits that are difficult and costly to change. This is a plausible theory, but itís only one take. After all, some programs serving teens still in school do get results. For example, ďcareer academiesĒ ó smaller schools inside schools that teach distinct skills and partner with employers ó achieve impacts on earnings that are substantial (more than 10 percent) and sustained (persisting after eight years).
The problem may be that we havenít yet tested the right approaches to helping disconnected youth.
One of the most promising programs serving out-of-school teens is called National Guard Youth ChalleNGe. It is centered on a five-month, quasi-military boarding school experience. Research shows that three years after finishing the program, graduates have earned more than they would have otherwise. Thatís great, but we donít know if those results persist or fade away. A study that answers the question of persistence wouldnít cost much and it could tell us a lot about whether ChalleNGe is worth a new investment.
Letís take another famous program: Job Corps. The most rigorous study of its effects, by Mathematica Policy Research, found that the $1.5 billion program fails a cost-benefit test. Yet Job Corps remains mostly unchanged, operating under a 1,362-page rulebook. Why not try some new approaches? Some Job Corps sites could incorporate elements from ChalleNGe. Others could replace the pursuit of the GED diploma, which has not been linked to higher earnings, with a full-blown residential high school. We could learn what works best and copy it.