# Year Up

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

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?