The evidence base for the program is a single RCT of 3,074 randomly assigned youth, with 1,196 in the follow-up analysis sample, and the WWC rates the extent of evidence as small¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? One randomized controlled trial met WWC evidence standards, randomly assigning 3,074 youth in 10 sites located in 10 states. → National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program 2010

Evidence¶

National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program 2010¶

National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. (2010). WWC Intervention Report: National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/InterventionReport/329

q3 · i? · causal · r2

The Millenky, Bloom, and Dillon (2010) randomized controlled trial is the only one of 14 reviewed studies meeting WWC evidence standards. A subset of 1,508 youth were randomly selected for the 21-month follow-up survey, and the analysis sample included 1,196 youths.

"The study included 3,074 youth who were randomly assigned to participate in the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program or to a control group that was not eligible to receive services."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The supporting evidence for Bottom Line comes from a randomized controlled trial that meets WWC group design standards without reservations — related
• The evidence base for New Chance is a single randomized controlled trial of 2,322 women across 16 sites, rated small in extent — related
• The evidence base for Read, Write & Type!™ is a single small-extent randomized trial, limiting confidence in the effectiveness ratings — related
• The evidence base for Corrective Reading in grades K–3 is small: one of 25 reviewed studies met WWC standards, and no studies addressed general reading achievement — related
• The evidence base for PALS in the Adolescent Literacy review rests on a single randomized trial of 120 students across 12 schools, rated as meeting standards with reservations — related
• The evidence base for Career Academies in dropout prevention rests on a single randomized controlled trial in which students were randomly assigned to academy enrollment, a waitlist, or a comparison group across nine sites. — related
• No studies meeting WWC standards addressed SSL effects on fluency, comprehension, or general reading achievement, and the extent of alphabetics evidence is small — related
• The evidence base for SMART® is a single small-extent RCT, capping the intervention rating at potentially positive effects — related
• The evidence base for Fluency Formula™ consists of a single small randomized controlled trial, with no studies addressing alphabetics or general reading achievement — related
• The WWC rated JOBSTART as having potentially positive effects on completing school, based on a small extent of evidence from a single study — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)