A note on this page's publication date
The last time we examined the charities working primarily in the U.S. was in 2010. As of 2011, we have de-prioritized further work on this cause.
The content we created in 2007 appears below. This content is likely to be no longer fully accurate, both with respect to what it says about the organization and with respect to what it implies about our own views and positions.
Published: 2007
We reviewed Year Up in 2007 as part of our process to award a grant to a job training charity. The following are our conclusions after reviewing Year Up's application materials.
In a nutshell
What they do: Year Up finds low-income but motivated people (using a selection process that accepts fewer than 1 in 3), and puts them through a 12-month program aiming to place them in relatively well-paying corporate jobs (around $20/hr in NYC, with a possible path to more).
Does it work? We do not have clear data on how often graduates keep their jobs, and we don't have a very clear sense of what options these graduates would have without Year Up's help, but we would bet that they are getting access to careers that they wouldn't have otherwise.
What do you get for your dollar? We estimate that Year Up spends about $20,000 per person served and $40,000 per person sustainably placed.
Where they rank: Year Up is a standout in this cause for two reasons: (a) its clients obtain relatively high-paying jobs; (b) we have an easy time seeing both how its model adds value and how it can expand to serve more people. We recommend Year Up as the top organization for helping people to obtain relatively high-skill jobs.
The Details
Whom do they serve?
Year Up's clients are young and low-income, but well-educated compared to our other applicants' (they must have an HS/GED degree) and put through a very selective process (choosing fewer than 1 in 3). Details follow.
Selection: Year Up "recruits applicants from urban public high schools and community-based programs using both word-of-mouth and targeted advertising" (Attachment A-2 Pg 2). They serve ages 18-24 (Attachment A-2 Pg 1). The requirements are a high school diploma or GED (Attachment A-2 Pg 2) and income at or below 150% of the federal poverty line (Attachment A-2 Pg 2). Applicants then go through a screening process that includes an application, interviews, and tests of academic ability (Attachment A-2 Pg 2). Eventually, Year Up aims to accept one out of every three applicants into the program (Attachment A-2 Pg 2), and in reality has accepted even fewer. In its last two classes, across all four locations, the average interested-to-accepted ratio was close to 4.5:1 (Attachment B-1 Pg 5), and between 2001 and 2005 in Boston, Year Up accepted students at an average ratio of 3.8 to 1 (Attachment A-4 Pg 6).
Characteristics. Data on actual characteristics of enrollees is thin. We know that in Year Up's current New York class 10% are homeless and 13% have been involved with the court system (see Year Up's Charity Response on the right side of this page). Other data we have is based on requirements (described above): all enrollees are 18-24, must have an HS/GED degree and must have income at or below 150% of the federal poverty line (Attachment A-2 Pg 1-2).
Year Up also specified that 95% of enrollees at its New York location are either African-American or Latino (Attachment A-4 Pg 1).
What do they do?
Year Up offers a full-year program consisting of a 6-month training course followed by a 6-month internship with one of its corporate partners. It also helps its students meet other needs by helping them find housing, healthcare, and childcare; access public benefits; and set up a bank account (see Charity Response on the right side of this page). Enrollees are trained for computer support and, in some cases, investment operations (i.e., booking and reconciling trades). Details follow.
Training course: in addition to "basic workplace skills" (Attachment A-2 Pg 1) and the history of the investment industry (Attachment A-2 Pg 1), Year Up trains students to serve technology or investment functions at a variety of companies – largely hospitals and financial institutions. All students complete training in Microsoft Office and computer networks (Attachment A-4 Pg 4). Students eventually execute a variety of technical tasks, including setting up new employees with workstations and telephones, answering calls to the support desk, activating and syncing blackberries, and other similar tasks. Those students with an "interest and aptitude" receive training in investment operations and eventually work booking and allocating trades, calculating P&L for traders, and identifying trade discrepancies (Attachment A-4 Pg 4). As a minor side note, we wonder what is gained by teaching students about the history of the investment industry.
While students are in the 6-month training course, they earn a stipend to support themselves (Attachment A-2 Pg 1).
Internship. Year Up partners with a series of local hospitals and financial institutions who agree to give clients 6-month IT internships (as a form of extended job interview), pay Year Up the market rate for the apprentices' labor, and then potentially employ them full time at the end of the 6-month period (Attachment A-2 Pg 1). We don't know how many Year Up graduates end up at the same employer who gave them an internship; in an extremely limited sample from Year Up's first class in New York City, 8 out of 17 graduates are employed with the organization for which they interned (see Year Up's Charity Response on the right side of this page).
What are the results?
Year Up serves people across many sites nationwide, for a cost of roughly $20,000 per enrollee (though we don't have much confidence in this number due to the lack of budget breakdowns). Somewhere in the neighborhood of half its clients end up sustainably employed, in what are likely much better jobs than those of our other applicants – i.e., jobs paying around $20/hr on average in New York, with a possible path to more earnings. Details follow.
Placements
Year Up places 60% of its enrollees (very roughly) in full-time jobs, but we have very little sense of whether or how long they retain these jobs. Details follow.
The following data is taken from multiple documents in Year Up's application. Note that the non-Boston data comes from a slideshow presentation (Attachment B-1) that does not specify how many enrollees were served at each site; it also does not specify whether "employment" is full-time employment, but we've used its numbers here anyway, because recent years don't seem to have large numbers of part-time placements (Attachment A-4 Pg 7). Enrollee data for many classes comes from Year Up's Charity Response on the right of this page.
Site | Class start date | Number enrolled | Graduates | Placed in full-time employment within 4 mo | Graduates to enrollees | Full-time placements to graduates | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boston | Jul-01 | 22 | 20 | 8 | 91% | 40% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Jul-02 | 30 | 26 | 4 | 87% | 15% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Feb-03 | 45 | 37 | 29 | 82% | 78% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Jul-03 | 48 | 40 | 33 | 83% | 83% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Feb-04 | 55 | 44 | 40 | 80% | 91% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Jul-04 | 60 | 47 | 46 | 78% | 98% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Feb-05 | 74 | 50 | 41 | 68% | 82% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Jul-05 | 80 | 63 | 40 | 79% | 63% | A-4 Pg 6 |
Boston | Mar-06 | 100 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
Boston | Sep-06 | 101 | ? | ? | 67% | 87% | B-1 Pg 6,9/Charity Response |
Boston | Mar-07 | 105 | ? | ? | 77% | 88% | B-1 Pg 6,9/Charity Response |
Boston | Sep-07 | 101 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Mar-05 | 22 | ? | ? | ? | 64% | Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Sep-05 | 32 | ? | ? | ? | 64% | B-1 Pg 9/Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Mar-06 | 34 | ? | ? | ? | 95% | B-1 Pg 9/Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Sep-06 | 35 | ? | ? | 59% | 85% | B-1 Pg 6,9/Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Mar-07 | 36 | ? | ? | 74% | ? | B-1 Pg 6/Charity Response |
Rhode Island | Sep-07 | 36 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
Washington D.C. | Mar-06 | 22 | ? | ? | 55% | 75% | Charity Response |
Washington D.C. | Sep-06 | 34 | ? | ? | 59% | ? | B-1 Pg 6,9/Charity Response |
Washington D.C. | Mar-07 | 42 | ? | ? | ? | ? | B-1 Pg 6/Charity Response |
Washington D.C. | Sep-07 | 72 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
New York | Sep-06 | 24 | 17 | At least 10 | 71% | At least 59% | A-4 Pg 6 |
New York | Mar-07 | 38 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
New York | Sep-07 | 61 | ? | ? | ? | ? | Charity Response |
In its earlier years, Year Up placed more students in part-time employment, but it doesn't appear to have done so for many students recently (see Attachment A-4 Pg 6), so we assume that numbers from attachment B-1 represent full-time figures as well. Year Up also notes that 25-50% of its graduates have enrolled in college, but here we focus on those gaining full-time employment, largely because this measure seems to have the most direct connection to Year Up's value-added (based on the curriculum, described above).
It seems that the non-Boston sites have generally had slightly worse numbers, not surprising since the model was developed in Boston.
Eyeballing the above info, we think a reasonable forward-looking estimate is that around 70% of enrollees can be expected to graduate, and around 85% of these graduates (so 60% of enrollees) can be expected to end up in full-time employment.
Retention is extremely unclear. Unlike our other finalists, Year Up did not provide us with clear retention data (data on whether and for how long its graduates keep their jobs). An email from Year Up (Attachment B-3) states that ”since Year Up began enrolling students in 2002, we have 462 alumni in our database, of whom we have records showing 407 are currently working." The above table makes it clear that 462 can't refer to all alumni since 2002, and we aren't sure which ones it does refer to - in particular, we aren't sure whether there is some bias involved (i.e., students who keep their jobs are more likely to be in the database). We also don't know whether the 407 students referred to are working part-time, working full-time, working the same jobs they were placed in, etc.
One other data point relevant to retention is in Attachment B-1 Pg 7, showing employers' survey assessments of whether their apprentices met/exceeded expectations for professional skills, technical skills, and communication skills. Satisfaction ranges from 80-100% and is most commonly around 90%, though meeting/exceeding expectations for one of these three qualities is not the same as staying employed
If we were to take the 407/462 number at face value, it would imply that 90% of those placed in jobs retain them for a meaningful period of time. If we assume that employer satisfaction can be equated with retention, we get the same number. But we believe retention could easily be much lower, and need clearer data to feel confident.
For now, we assume around 80% retention (lower than what a generous interpretation of the 407/462 number implies). Combining this with the estimate that about 60% of enrollees are placed in jobs (from above), this implies that about half of enrollees are placed sustainably.
Incomes and career paths
Those placed in New York can be expected to earn around $20/hr on average, though we have no sense of the distribution (how many earn much less, how many earn much more). Details follow.
Year Up grads in Boston earned, on average, close to $15/hr in 2004 and 2005 (see Attachment A-4 pg 6). Adjusting for 2 years of 5% annual wage inflation (since 2005) and a 25% New York premium (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2002 average annual earnings in Boston were $45,685 and in New York City were $57,708), $15/hr in Boston in 2005 would equate to $21/hr (or, $43,000/year) in New York in 2007. Although it is an extremely limited sample, the 10 Year Up graduates who graduated in July 2007 and have already found work are earning an average of $20/hr (Attachment A-4 Pg 6).
Attachment A-4 Pg 5 provides Year Up's overview of the career paths, which is based on very general numbers from the New York State Department of Labor. They paint an optimistic picture: computer support specialists earn a median of around $50,000, from $35,000 for low-skill jobs to $80,000 for high-skill jobs, while those in the "Business and Financial Operations" area earn a median wage around $65,000. We don't have a very good sense of where the jobs Year Up's graduates are being placed in fall in these classifications.
Does it work?
Intuitively, we have a relatively easy time seeing the value-added of the Year Up model. Although it selects its applicants very carefully - raising the question of whether they could succeed without its help - the jobs it places them in (mostly Computer Support Specialist roles) presumably require relatively specialized knowledge, and it's unclear how else very low-income people could get the necessary training. It's also possible that Year Up's relationships with corporations are helpful to clients; Attachment B-2 implies that they aim for relatively strong and lasting relationships with particular partners.
Getting a data-driven check on this logic is difficult; like our other clients, Year Up has not yet analyzed comparison groups (i.e., looking at whether people similar to its clients - but not in its program - achieve similar outcomes). Year Up's Charity Response (see the right hand side of the page) indicates a plan to conduct a study that will get at this question, by looking at outcomes for its August 2007 New York class relative to those randomly lotteried out of the program.
We look forward to the results of this study; in the meantime, we have constructed a very rough "comparison group" from the 2000 census, looking at the the NYC population that matches Year Up's applicants on age, ethnicity, and educational status. Of this group, approximately 6% have earnings comparable to those of Year Up graduates (see the analysis for details). By contrast, 10% of a similar population served by Year Up achieves this level of income, if you believe that Year Up picks out about the top 20% of the population (see our analysis of selectivity, above) and places about half sustainably in jobs.
The preceding paragraph has many weak links in it:
- We have estimated that about 80% of those Year Up places in jobs hold those jobs sustainably – this is slightly lower than the "maximally optimistic estimate" of 90% discussed above – but without clear retention data (see above), we do not feel confident in this.
- We have estimated the average wages for Year Up grads at around $40,000/yr, but have no sense of how many actually make $40,000/yr or more. For reference, see HOPE, whose graduates average about $10/hr of income – but around half of them make less than $8/hr. If only half of Year Up graduates make $40,000/yr or more, this would imply that they don't outperform our rough "comparison group" at all.
- On the other hand, as we state in our census analysis, there are clear ways in which Year Up's participants might face more obstacles than our "comparison group" does - their low incomes, along with the mere fact that they come to Year Up for help, distinguishes them from the general population.
We feel that the numbers are consistent with, though not implying, a "Year Up" effect; considering both these and the intuitive argument at the top of this section, we feel moderately confident that Year Up systematically makes its clients better off than they would be without its help.
What does it cost?
We estimate that Year Up spends about $20,000 per enrollee; if half of these end up in sustainable employment, that's $40,000 per person placed sustainably. Details follow.
The following table is assembled from a mix of sources. For 2003, Year Up operated only in Boston (2004 IRS Form 990, Statement 2). We take enrollee numbers from Attachment A-4 Pg 6, and financial data from the IRS Form 990s available on GuideStar (since Year Up did not directly provide us this data). For 2004-2006, Year Up spanned multiple sites, and we take enrollee information from Year Up's Charity Response (on the right of this page). We use the financial data provided (Attachment D-1) for these years.
Year Up earns revenue from its clients' internships, and we find it appropriate to net this revenue with its costs; we don't know how much revenue was earned in this way for any year but 2006 (Attachment D-2 Pg 1). Assuming that we have the number of people served correct for 2006, this implies about $10,000 per person of apprenticeship revenue, reducing our estimate of the cost per enrollee from $30,000 to $20,000.
Year | Costs ($ thousands) | Number enrolled (all locations) | Cost per enrollee |
---|---|---|---|
2003 | $2,191 | 93 | $23,559 |
2004 | $3,710 | 115 | $32,261 |
2005 | $5,477 | 208 | $26,332 |
2006 | $8,368 | 350 | $23,909 |
2007 (est) | $12,984 | 491 | $26,444 |
Year Up has been expanding relatively rapidly, and its overall costs per client have fallen if anything. For this reason, we are optimistic about its ability to serve more people with more funds.
The organization
Year Up is a focused organization, and we have reviewed its full set of activities. It appears organizationally/structurally sound, though we are somewhat low on details regarding its financials.
Size and scope. Year Up NYC is a branch of a national Year Up organization with headquarters in Boston (Attachment C-1 pg 1). We focused on NYC for purposes of understanding wages, budget, etc., but we used data from the non-NYC sites (DC, Providence, and especially Boston) as much as we could to get a sense of the general costs and effectiveness of the Year Up model. Year Up plans to open a San Francisco program in 2008 (see Year Up's Charity Response on the right side of this page).
Year Up has a much longer and more documented track record in Boston than at other sites, and our confidence in its results' being replicated across sites is only moderate.
Personnel. Year Up's 11-member Board appears to be mostly from the corporate for-profit world (Attachment C-2). The Executive Director, Lisette Nieves, is a Truman and Rhodes scholar with an extensive history of involvement with major nonprofits including The After-School Corporation and Jumpstart, and the instructors (presumably the people working directly with clients to teach job skills) are highly experienced (Attachment C-5).
Financials (see all attachments under heading D for sources).
Year | Revenues (thouands) | Expenses (thousands) |
---|---|---|
2003 | $3,353 | $2,191 |
2004 | $7,412 | $3,710 |
2005 | $6,007 | $5,477 |
2006 | $12,054 | $8,368 |
2007 (est) | $20,429 | $12,984 |
Year Up had a significant surplus last year, and expects another this coming year. Its fiscal position is strong, but this doesn't mean there's no use for more money: its expenses have grown rapidly, in line with (though lagging) revenues.
As of the 2006 audit, Year Up held around $12.4M in assets (Attachment D-1 Pg 4), equal to the 2006 expenses given in Attachment D-2 - this implies that they have about one year's worth of cash on hand.
Year Up's main source of revenue is foundations and corporations: as Attachment D-2 shows, about half its projected revenue comes from direct foundation and corporation grants, and another ~25% comes from apprenticeship fees.
Student stipends are a major expense, which makes sense to us: Year Up is putting low-income people through a 12-month full-time program, and students need to sustain themselves in the meantime. Beyond that, we have trouble understanding the expenses, which aren't broken out in much detail. Attachment D-1 Pg 5 lists a large "Training and Other" line item, while Attachment D-2 Pg 1 lists a similarly large "Program, Fundraising & Administration" line item. We don't know what to make of either of these.
Site visit. Holden Karnofsky (GiveWell's Executive Director) conducted a site visit to Year Up on 11/26/2007. His personal impressions are informally written up on The GiveWell Blog, here.
Conclusion
Year Up appeals to us because of its focus on carefully targeting people who are well-positioned to benefit, then getting them into relatively well-paying jobs. We also like the fact that it is a relatively focused organization that already operates several sites and could likely scale with more funding. Our extremely limited and potentially problematic analysis implies that Year Up graduates do better than they would without its help, though we hope to obtain better and clearer data on retention than what we have now.
We'd like to know more about:
- Retention data. Do clients stay in the jobs they're placed in? How long and how often?
- Situations of entering clients. Do they have issues with housing, substance abuse, etc.? What is their employment situation prior to coming to Year Up?
- Training curriculum. We have a general overview, but we'd like to see the syllabus, formal layout, etc. to get a better sense of what clients are being trained to do and how they're being trained to do it. Note that Year Up answered this in their Charity Response.
- Wage distribution. What portion of Year Up graduates earn more than $20/hr? $15/hr? Without this, we have trouble estimating Year Up's impact relative to what it's population would have otherwise achieved.
- Definition of placement. Within what time frame must graduates find jobs? Must the jobs be full-time, or can they be part-time?
Attachments
A. Application and response
- Attachment A-1: Application - Round 1
- Attachment A-2: Response - Round 1
- Attachment A-3: Application - Round 2
- Attachment A-4: Response - Round 2
B. Program related attachments
- Attachment B-1: Dashboard assessment
- Attachment B-2: Prospectus for potential partners
- Attachment B-3: Email I
C. Organization related attachments
- Attachment C-1: Annual Report
- Attachment C-2: Board of Directors
- Attachment C-3: Letter of Determination
- Attachment C-4: Sources of income
- Attachment C-5: Staff Biographies
D. Financials
- Attachment D-1: Budget 2005-2006
- Attachment D-2: Budget 2007-2008