On December 19, 2011, Nadia Anggraini issued a report on Year Up with a "BUY" rating. This research report has been peer reviewed by Michael Kim and Kent Chao. Nonprofit Investor ("NPI") is a platform for the creation and distribution of free, in-depth research on charity organizations by volunteers. If you believe there are any inaccuracies or errors in any report, please contact us.

1. NONPROFIT INVESTOR
I N D E P E N D E N T R E S E A R C H F O R P H I L A N T H R O P Y
Year Up SUMMARY
Year Up is a one‐year, intensive training program that provides urban
Nonprofit Investor Rating: young adults, aged 18‐24, with a unique combination of technical
BUY and professional skills, college credits, an educational stipend and
corporate internship.
Mission Statement STRENGTHS
Year Up's mission is to close the opportunity ▲ Strong record of impact. Research by Economic Mobility
divide by providing urban young adults with Corporation indicated that Year Up graduates earned up to 30%
the skills, experience, and support that will more relative to their peer group, strong results relative to other job
empower them to reach their potential training programs, many of which have been shown to lead to only
through professional careers and higher
modest gains in earning power among its participants.
education.
▲ Significant and growing portion of revenue generated from
Financial Overview programs rather than through donations. Year Up requires
$ in 000, Fiscal Year Ended December 31 corporate partners to pay $875 per week, or $22,750 for a six‐month
internship period, to receive interns. Not only does this provide a
2007 2008 2009
significant source of revenue to Year Up (~38% of 2009 revenue), it
Revenue and Support $24,502 $18,674 $24,407
also increases commitment on the part of these corporations.
Operating Expenses $12,664 $18,194 $23,393
▲ Scalable model. Year Up can replicate and introduce the same
% of Total: operating model to various urban centers across the US.
Program Expenses 79% 82% 82% CAUTIONS
G&A 14% 11% 11%
Fundraising 7% 7% 7% ● Overdependence on corporate partners in economic downturn.
With corporations reducing hiring, potential partners may be
Year Founded: 2000 reluctant to sign up for programs requiring them to commit to a 6‐
mo. internship. While Year Up is moving towards diversifying its
Contact Details partnership base, e.g. by partnering with the US Dept. of Agriculture
in Nov 2010, majority of its partnerships remain corporations.
Year Up
93 Summer Street ● Potentially volatile revenue stream from donations. Revenue
Boston, MA 02110 declined 25% in 2008, primarily due to a drop in public, corporate
617‐542‐1539
and foundation support. While revenue returned to 2007 levels in
www.yearup.org 2009, Year Up may benefit from continuing to reduce reliance on
EIN: 04‐3534407 grants and contributions in favor of program service revenue.
RECOMMENDATION: BUY
Year Up is a high‐impact, scalable organization moving towards becoming
Analyst: Nadia Anggraini
more financially sustainable. If it can continue on its current trajectory
Peer Review: M. Kim, K. Chao
while placing additional focus on providing more transparency and visibility
Publication Date into its financials, it will be well on its way to achieving its goal of closing the
December 19, 2011 opportunity gap among urban youths.
Nonprofit Investor Research | nonprofitinvestor.org

2. OVERVIEW OF YEAR UP
Year Up was founded in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, inspired by his experience as a Big Brother to a 10‐year old boy living
in New York. Chertavian realized that many bright and motivated youths were not able to reach their potential and
achieve success due to lack of access to basic resources. With that in mind, Gerald started Year Up to close the
"opportunity divide" faced by urban young adults by providing them with the skills, experience and support that will
empower them to reach their potential through professional careers and higher education.
Year Up's selection process is a selective one, with fewer than one in three applicants eventually chosen to be part of its
program. Its rigorous screening process is "not intended to eliminate applicants with significant risk factors, but to
identify students with strong motivation to succeed despite their significant risk factors1". Applicants come from urban
public high schools, are aged 18‐24, and are required to have a high school diploma or GED. Applicants undergo a
screening process that includes a written application, interviews, and an academic test.
Successful applicants then undergo a year‐long program that consists of a six‐month training component, with technical,
professional and communication skills training, and a six‐month internship program with one of Year Up's ~200
corporate partners. Upon completion of the program (which ~80% of participants do2), Year Up also provides graduates
with assistance with the job search process and/or college enrollment.
Several areas distinguish Year Up from other job training programs. First, it involves employers in the design of its
programs to ensure that its trainings are tailored to suit market demands. Second, it provides its participants with a
strong network consisting of counselors, mentors, and even social workers to ensure participants have the support they
need to succeed. Finally, it provides a ~$200 weekly stipend to participants to encourage them to stay in the program
and not drop out due to financial reasons.
Today, Year Up serves approximately 1,400 students annually, and counts over 4,400 youths as its alumni. It counts
approximately 200 corporations as its partners.
FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
Year Up's revenue base primarily comes from direct and indirect support from private foundations, corporations,
individuals and public funds. Additionally, a significant amount of revenue (~38% in 2009) comes from its corporate
partners, which are required to make a contribution of $875 per week to Year Up to participate in its internship program.
Year Up's revenue has fluctuated significantly over the past three years, with revenue in 2008 falling 25% before
returning to the same level in 2009. With only three years' worth of data, it is difficult to extrapolate and make an
assessment on whether the organization's revenue levels will continue to fluctuate highly in the coming years. However,
the organization has been in the black for the past three years, adjusting expenses downwards in 2008 to match the fall
in revenue, which is a good sign. In 2009, however, Year Up's expenses increased by ~ 25% and this may be an area of
caution in the coming years. While a portion of the increase in expenses came from a higher amount of grant funding
being distributed to Year Up's beneficiaries, a significant portion of the increase in expense was also due to increases in
the amount of salaries and wages in the organization.
Year Up | Nonprofit Investor Research 2

3.
Revenue Mix Over Time
$ in '000
$30,000
$24,502 $24,407
$25,000
$18,674
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
2007 2008 2009
-$5,000
Program Service Revenue Contributions and Grants
Other Revenue Investment Income
Expense Breakdown
$ in '000
$25,000 $23,393 83%
Program Expense % of Total
82%
$20,000 $18,194
81%
$15,000 80%
Expenses
$12,664
$10,000 79%
78%
$5,000
77%
$0 76%
2007 2008 2009
Program Expenses Fund-Raising
Management and General Program Expense % of Total
Year Up appears to be an efficient organization, with a large proportion of its expenses (~80%) allocated to program
services, and a low proportion (~7%) to fundraising. With approximately 1,400 youths served in 2009 at a cost of ~$24M,
Year Up's cost per beneficiary stands at ~$16,700, a moderate sum, though higher than peer organizations such as
Delancey Street Foundation.
Figures reported below are from Year Up's Forms 990, filed on a tax accounting basis.
Year Up | Nonprofit Investor Research 3

4. Fiscal year ended Dec 31 2007 2008 2009
Revenue and support
Contributions and grants $ 19,429 $ 12,428 $ 14,889
Fundraising events $ ‐ $ 578 $ 379
Government grants $ 900 $ 609 $ 724
All other $ 18,529 $ 11,241 $ 13,786
Program service revenue $ 5,100 $ 6,343 $ 9,436
Investment income $
‐ $ 204 $ 193
Other revenue $
(27) $ (301) $ (112)
Total revenue and support $ 24,502 $ 18,674 $ 24,407
Expenses
Program services $ 9,953 $ 14,972 $ 19,149
Grants $ ‐ $ 4,053 $ 5,299
Key employee compensation $ 383 $ 188 $ 474
Other salaries and wages $ 2,774 $ 5,064 $ 6,369
Other employee benefits $ 559 $ 754 $ 1,068
Occupancy $ 1,098 $ 1,313 $ 1,617
Student stipends $ 3,096 $ ‐ $ ‐
Other $ 2,043 $ 3,602 $ 4,322
Management and general $ 1,783 $ 2,020 $ 2,513
Key employee compensation $ 253 $ 407 $ 208
Other salaries and wages $ 528 $ 756 $ 1,092
Student stipends $ 13 $ ‐ $ ‐
Other $ 990 $ 857 $ 1,213
Fundraising expenses $ 928 $ 1,202 $ 1,732
Key employee compensation $ 139 $ 367 $ 446
Other salaries and wages $ 220 $ 260 $ 552
Other $ 569 $ 575 $ 734
Total expenses $ 12,664 $ 18,194 $ 23,393
Revenue less expenses $ 11,838 $ 480 $ 1,013
Educational stipends
Total stipend amount ($000) $ 3,627 $ 4,829
# of recipients 622 792
Average stipend size ($000) $ 5.83 $ 6.10
Student transportation
Total stipend amount ($000) $ 117 $ 143
# of recipients 138 144
Average stipend size ($000) $ 0.85 $ 0.99
College tuition and related fees
Total stipend amount ($000) $ 308 $ 326
# of recipients 493 718
Average stipend size ($000) $ 0.62 $ 0.45
Program expenses as % of total expenses 79% 82% 82%
Fundraising expenses as % of total expenses 7% 7% 7%
Contributions and grants as % of total revenue 79% 67% 61%
Program service revenue as % of total revenue 21% 34% 39%
Year Up | Nonprofit Investor Research 4

5. RESULTS AND TRANSPARENCY
While Year Up's results and impact appear to be strongly positive, they are not very well‐documented on its website.
In terms of impact, a recent study independently conducted – though commissioned by Year Up – by program
evaluation and research company the Economic Mobility Corporation3 showed that youths who participated in the Year
Up program were able to access higher quality jobs, and as a result earned an average of 30% more, compared with
their peers in a control group of a randomized trial. With studies of other job training programs often only showing
modest results, this 30% increase in earning power among Year Up's graduates is a testament of the program's success.
According to David Bornstein's blog on the New York Times earlier this year, what drove this higher income were the
types of jobs Year Up graduates were landing, with 40% landing positions in information technology or investment
operations.
In response to an evaluation of the organization by GiveWell in 20071, Year Up stated that 407 of the 462 alumni that
maintained contact with Year Up in 2007 were still working, representing a ~90% post‐graduation retention rate.
However, this base number of 462 alumni that maintained contact with Year Up is a very low one, given that the
organization counts ~4,400 youth as alumni today. The organization acknowledged that it was difficult to track long term
retention data, as its alumni move frequently, often changing contact information without updating the staff at Year Up
or maintaining regular correspondence.
Regardless, with the strong apparent results that it already has, Year Up can do well by better documenting its impact –
for example, by aggregating these results on a consolidated, easily accessible page on its website. Additionally, Year Up's
financial results were also not made available on its website, and as of time of this report's publication in December
2011, only financial results up till 2009 were obtainable.
GROWTH
Year Up has goals to virtually double the number of youths served from ~1,400 today to ~2,500 by 2016. While the
numbers appear to be ambitious, it does not seem unlikely given the organization's past growth trajectory, expanding
from serving 22 students in its starting class in 2001 to ~1,400 today. Its model is also a replicable and scalable one, and
we can easily see Year Up continuing to grow rapidly as it opens new locations in other urban centers in the US.
In order to meet these ambitious growth targets, Year Up is also planning to expand its footprint through new
partnership models, most recently committing to create a nationwide community‐college based program designed to
serve 100,000 young adults each year. This program, called the Professional Training Corps (PTC), "will reside within a
community college and help students both earn an associate's degree and gain significant, relevant work experience"
over a period of five years.
NPI RECOMMENDATION VS. OTHER THIRD PARTIES' RECOMMENDATION
Year Up is positively accredited by third party organizations Charity Navigator and GiveWell.
Charity Navigator gave Year Up its highest four‐star rating for strong financial performance and high levels of
accountability and transparency. It determined Year Up to be a strong financial performer due to a combination of a
high percentage of program expenses relative to other overhead, positive revenue growth, as well as several other
factors. It determined Year Up to be a an organization with high levels of accountability and transparency as it provided
the appropriate and necessary information in its filings, while recognizing that it did not made audited financials and
forms 990 available on its website.
Year Up | Nonprofit Investor Research 5

6. While Year Up did not qualify for GiveWell's highest ratings, GiveWell recommended Year Up as "the top organization
for helping people to obtain relatively high‐skill jobs"1. Its conclusion is based on the facts that Year Up graduates were
able to obtain relatively high‐paying jobs, and that the organizational model was solid and scalable.
GET INVOLVED
You can support Year Up by either volunteering (as a mentor, job coach, college application advisor, curriculum coach, or
instructor) or donating to its cause.
DISCLOSURES
Nadia does not have any affiliation with Year Up and has never made a donation to the organization. NPI analysts and
NPI as an organization do not receive any form of compensation from reviewed charities.
SOURCES
1. http://givewell.org/united‐states/charities/Year‐Up
2. http://www.fastcompany.com/social/2008/profiles/year‐up.html
3. http://www.economicmobilitycorp.org/uploads/A%20Promising%20Start.pdf
Year Up | Nonprofit Investor Research 6