Positive Disruption: The Promise of the Opportunity Reboot Model

Opportunity youth often face a large range of complex issues, such as homelessness, chemical dependency, mental health issues, learning disabilities, and health disparities perpetrated by a range of systemic issues. To address these issues in Minnesota, Youthprise partnered with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) Office of Youth Development, Search Institute, and MENTOR Minnesota to develop a technical assistance and program enhancement model, Opportunity Reboot. Six partner organizations were matched to implement the Opportunity Reboot model, which was designed to support youth ages 14 to 24 who were either in foster care, the juvenile justice system, homeless, or disconnected from school and education.

Study Goals:

The goal of this study is to assess the fidelity of the Opportunity Reboot model’s implementation by subgrantees, as well as preliminary outcomes and impact on opportunity youth. An additional outcome study was aimed at showing preliminary evidence of effectiveness by collecting pre-post data from participants and assessing short-term outcomes, including building youth’s positive identity and social-emotional competencies as well as their ability to navigate complex systems.

Research Questions:

The evaluation includes both implementation and preliminary impact questions. The research questions include:

• Implementation:
  1. Was the Opportunity Reboot model implemented with fidelity?
  2. What does participation and engagement in the Opportunity Reboot model look like for opportunity youth?
  3. Did Opportunity Reboot program partners achieve output targets (named in the Opportunity Reboot logic model)?
  4. How satisfied were Opportunity Reboot participants with their experiences and the overall quality of their programs?
• Preliminary Impact:
  5. Did youth who participated in programs using the Opportunity Reboot model experience measurable and significant gains in short-term outcomes over the program year? Did all youth experience the benefits of program participation equally, or were program impacts experienced differentially by diverse demographic groups of youth?
  6. Controlling for demographic, background, and implementation factors, what are the predictive associations between the youths’ experiences of the Opportunity Reboot model features and their short-term outcomes?
  7. In their own words, how did participants describe experiencing the features of the Opportunity Reboot model at their program sites?
  8. In their own words, how did youth describe the impact of Opportunity Reboot on their lives?
  9. What percent of youth in the Opportunity Reboot group were able to secure employment?
  10. How is this similar or different from the comparison group? What percent of youth in the Opportunity Reboot group were able to secure living wage employment? How is this similar or different from the comparison group?

Findings:

The implementation evaluation found the following:

• All subgrantees implemented the Opportunity Reboot model with increasing fidelity over time.
• Youth reported experiencing the Opportunity Reboot model features and were generally satisfied with the program.

The preliminary impact evaluation found the following:

• Youth participants experienced significant gains across a number of short-term outcomes, including positivity in the face of challenge, goal-setting skills, self-awareness, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, financial literacy, job-seeking skills, and resource identification skills.
• Strong relationships with program staff and new mentoring relationships with adults outside of the program were core to the improved positive values, self-perceptions, and skills youth experienced, and had a transformative impact on the lives of opportunity youth.

The QED impact evaluation with propensity score matching found the following:

• Opportunity Reboot participants were more likely than similar peers not participating in these programs to secure full-time employment over the period of a year (showing moderate evidence), and to avoid the seasonal dip in employment often seen during Minnesota’s winter months. This was particularly true for youth of color.
• Very few opportunity youth (whether in the Opportunity Reboot or comparison groups) secured living wage employment and — although their wages did increase over time — they still fell below the state-defined threshold to support the costs of stable housing, food, and other basic necessities in the state of Minnesota.

For more information, download the full report and report brief.