Program Profile: One Summer Plus–Jobs Only (Chicago, Ill.)

This is a summer jobs program in Chicago, Ill., which seeks to reduce youth violence by providing high-risk students (grades 8–12) with part-time summer employment and access to an adult job mentor. The program is rated Ineffective. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the control group in violent crime arrests, property crime arrests, drug arrests, or other arrests.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

One Summer Plus seeks to reduce violence perpetrated by disadvantaged youth in Chicago, Ill., by providing them with summer employment opportunities. The program targets youth who are at high risk of violence involvement. The program is run by Chicago’s Department of Family and Support Services, and youth are served by community-based nonprofits on Chicago’s South and West Sides.

Program Components

Youth are offered 5 hours of minimum-wage employment, 5 days per week throughout 8 weeks of the summer, in nonprofit and government positions. Examples have included administrative positions in aldermen’s offices, summer camp counselors, community garden workers, and as YMCA office and activity staff. Youth earn the minimum wage established by the State of Illinois ($8.25/hour) and receive one meal per day, plus bus passes when needed. The community-based nonprofits attempt to locate jobs for youth, to aid them in exploring career interests and aptitudes, building vocational knowledge, developing team and leadership skills, and practicing creative thinking and problem solving (Heller et al. 2014b).

Each youth is also assigned to an adult job mentor who makes regular visits to their workplaces, helping them navigate conflicts on the job and teaching them basic job skills. Mentors are assigned to youth at a ratio of 10:1 and help them successfully complete their job placements.

Additional Information

Another version of the One Summer Plus program combines summer employment with Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) sessions. In this version of the program, youths participate in the SEL program 2 days a week, in addition to their summer jobs. Youths are paid for their time spent participating in the SEL program. A CrimeSolutions review of the evaluation (by Heller 2014a) of the One Summer Plus—Jobs Plus SEL Sessions resulted in a rating of Inconclusive Evidence.

Study

Heller (2014a) examined the effects of One Summer Plus–Jobs Only on a cohort of 1,634 students (grades 8–12) enrolled in Chicago, Ill. schools. Youth were identified as being at high risk for violence involvement through data from multiple city agencies on factors such as gang involvement and truancy. Thirteen schools with the highest number of high-risk youth were identified for the study. All enrolled students and rising ninth graders at these 13 schools were invited to enroll, and 75 percent of those agreed to participate.

Randomization occurred within school and gender blocks to account for different numbers of applications within schools and higher application rates of females, compared with males. Youth were randomly assigned to a treatment group (n = 730) or a control group (n = 904). Within the treatment group, youth were further randomly assigned to receive either 1) One Summer Plus–Jobs Only (n = 350), a condition in which they were provided 25 hours of minimum-wage employment per week for 7 weeks (with the option for an additional 8th week) plus a job mentor; or 2) One Summer Plus–Jobs + Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) (n = 350), in which youth were provided with 15 hours of minimum wage employment each week for 7 to 8 weeks, plus a job mentor, and spent 10 hours each week completing an SEL course. Thirty youth who were randomized into the treatment group declined to participate. Youth in the control group were free to pursue outside services as they wished. The CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the comparison between the One Summer Plus–Jobs Only treatment group and the control group.

In the control group, 96 percent of the youth were Black, and 2.9 percent were Hispanic. Ninety-two percent received free/reduced priced lunch. Of this group, the average age was 16.2 years, and they had missed 18 percent (roughly 6 weeks) of the pre-program school year. Nineteen percent had been arrested at baseline. The number of arrests on average was 0.13 for violent crimes, 0.09 for property crime arrests, 0.05 for drug arrests, and 0.15 for other arrests. Twenty-one percent of youth had been victimized, and the average number of victimizations was 0.29.

The treatment group (Jobs Only and Jobs + SEL) also consisted of mostly Black youth (94 percent) with a small proportion of Hispanic youth (3.8 percent). Ninety-two percent received free or reduced priced lunch. Of this group, the average age was 16.8 years, and they had missed 18 percent (roughly 6 weeks) of the pre-program school year. Twenty-two percent had been arrested at baseline. The number of previous arrests on average was 0.18 for violent crimes, 0.09 for property crime arrests, 0.08 for drug arrests, and 0.19 for other arrests. Twenty-four percent of the youth had been victimized. The average number of victimizations was 0.33.

There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in baseline characteristics, including age, grade, job, race, receipt of free/reduced lunch; number of grades (A–F); percent of days absent; school attendance for fall 2011; number of disciplinary incidents; in- and out-of-school suspensions; neighborhood characteristics such as median income and unemployment; number of each arrest type; and prior victimizations. Between each separate treatment arm (Jobs Only or Jobs + SEL) and the control group, the only statistically significant difference was that youth in the Jobs Only group received more Cs on their report cards for the fall semester prior to the program.

Violent crime arrests (assault, homicide, sexual offenses, robbery, threats, kidnapping, and aggravated arson), property crime arrests (larceny, burglary, non-aggravated arson, and motor vehicle theft), drug arrests (possession and dealing), and other arrests (e.g., trespassing, violence against animals, and parole violations) were measured using juvenile and adult Chicago Police Department arrest records covering dates up to September 15, 2013 (13 months after the end of the program). Demographic information was obtained from Chicago Public Schools records, and neighborhood demographics were obtained by matching youth address data to the 2010 American Community Survey. Program effects were assessed using regression analyses that controlled for baseline characteristics and blocking variables. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Data on program participation were obtained from provider-tracked attendance records (Heller 2014b). Three quarters of the youth who were offered a job participated in the program. Employment records were missing for 28 youth who received job placement, which was likely due to errors in record keeping. Ninety percent of youth completed 7 weeks of the program.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Heller, Sara B. 2014b. “Supplemental Material for Summer Jobs Reduce Violence Among Disadvantaged Youth.” Science 346(6214):1219–23.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and Ineffective in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?