A r c h i v e d I n f o r m a t i o n

Biennial Evaluation Report - FY 93-94

Chapter 134

School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program

(CFDA No. 84.201)

I. Program Profile

Legislation: The Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, as amended, Title VI, Parts A and C (20 U.S.C. 3241 et seq.)(expires September 30, 1999).

Purpose: To reduce the number of children who do not complete their elementary and secondary education by providing Federal assistance to local education agencies (LEAs), community-based organizations, and education partnerships.

Funding History

Fiscal Year	Appropriation
1988	$23,935,000
1989	21,736,000
1990	19,945,000
1991	34,064,000
1992	40,000,000
1993	37,530,000
1994	37,730,000

II. Program Information and Analysis

The projects are designed to establish and demonstrate (1) effective programs to identify potential student dropouts and prevent them from dropping out; (2) effective programs to identify and encourage children who have already dropped out to reenter school and complete their elementary and secondary education; (3) effective programs for early intervention designed to identify at-risk students at the elementary and early secondary school levels; and (4) model systems for collecting and reporting information to local school officials on the number, ages, and grade levels of children not completing their elementary and secondary education and reasons why they have dropped out of school.

Services

Most of the dropout prevention projects awarded in FY 1991 for up to a 4-period fall into one of two models: (1) restructuring and reform projects that affect a cluster of schools (a high school and its feeder middle and elementary schools); or (2) targeted programs for at-risk youth, which include such approaches as special programs for at-risk youth in regular schools, "schools within schools," and alternative schools. Grantees in each of these two categories are demonstrating programs that include a set of components specified by the Department of Education and are widely believed to be central to effective interventions.

The Planning and Evaluation Service conducted a survey of project directors of the grants awarded in FY 1991. The survey collected information on the context of the demonstration project, program services during the 1991-92 school year, project resources and staffing (III.1).

As Table 1 based on survey findings shows, counseling and parent involvement activities were reported to be the most frequently implemented elements for both targeted and field-initiated projects.

Table 1.
Elements Implemented by Dropout Demonstration Projects,
by Project Type¹

	Targeted (N=48)		Restructuring (N=7)		Field-Initiated (N=8)
Element	Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
Parent involvement	28	58	6	86	7	88
Counseling	32	67	--	--	8	100
Social services	27	56	3	43	3	38
Challenging curriculum	26	54	7	100	0	0
Attendance monitoring	25	52	4	57	1	13
Community partnerships	23	48	--	--	4	50
Career awareness	23	48	--	--	3	38
Linkages among schools	12	25	6	86	2	25
School climate	--	--	7	100	4	50
Staff development	--	--	7	100	2	25
School automomy	--	--	4	57	1	13
Alternative to retention	--	--	3	43	1	13

¹ Shaded areas indicate required components

--Generally, projects hired one or more counselors to work with students who face personal, social, or emotional problems that interfere with schooling. The most common type of counseling is individual counseling, offered by 23 projects, followed by group counseling in 15 projects, and family counseling in 9 projects. Six projects offer counseling specifically for drug and alcohol abusers, and counselors in two projects specialized in tracking down dropouts and encouraging them to return to school.

All of the restructuring projects reported developing of new curricula, train staff, and conduct activities intended to improve school climate.
--Most restructuring projects supported regular in-service training during the first grant year revolving around the implementation of a specific practice or component. One restructuring project created six full-time staff development positions (one for each school) to help teachers make the transition from traditional methods of instruction to thematic instruction and interdisciplinary teaming.

Program Administration

In FY 1993, the Department made 86 continuation awards under this program. Of these, 21 were for field-initiated grants in FY 1992 and 65 were for projects initially funded in FY 1991. By statute, funding was limited to applicants (1) proposing to replicate successful programs conducted in other local education agencies or to expand successful programs within a local education agency, and (2) having a very high number or high percentage of school dropouts. The Federal share of grants under this program was a maximum of 90 percent of a project's cost in the first year and 75 percent in following years.

Among the 65 grants awarded in FY 1991 for up to a 4-year period:

Sixty-one percent were awarded to local education agencies; 11 percent to community-based organizations; and 28 percent to partnerships between a school district and community-based organizations, institutions of higher education, or local education agencies.
The demonstration projects are widely distributed across the U.S.. Thirty States and the District of Columbia have at least one grantee. The only large, contiguous part of the country that did not receive grants is the North Central region, which has the lowest dropout rates.
Areas with the most serious dropout problem have tended to be large urban districts and isolated rural areas. Nearly two-thirds of the project are located in or near cities with a population of more than 150,000, while almost one-third are located in isolated rural areas.
On average, the cities and counties served by the demonstration projects have higher dropout rates than either the national average or the States where they are located.

Outcomes

In September 1988, under a separate competition, 89 projects across the U.S. were awarded 2-year grants, which were later extended to a third year, under the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. To assess the effectiveness of the dropout prevention strategies that these projects used, the Department of Education funded an evaluation that began in the second year of the program. The evaluation included an in-depth study of activities and outcomes at 15 sites. The major criteria for selection were the intensity of services provided and the availability of a large enough student sample for analysis. The in-depth evaluation included site observations and collection of background information and outcomes from samples of program participants and a comparison group. Copies of the final report may be obtained from the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education. The major findings of the evaluation are (III.2):

Organizational Characteristics

The more complex the organizational structure of a dropout prevention initiative (i.e., the greater the tendency toward restructuring or non-school-based coordination of services), the longer the time period likely to be required for start-up and the less likely there will be evidence of gains for students in the short-term.
Coordination of services has the potential to increase the services that are available, but such efforts require joint planning and review sessions to be successful, and they may require increased funding to maintain project efforts.
Providing an array of complementary services (i.e., comprehensive services) may be the most effective way of meeting the needs of students at risk of school failure.

Effective Dropout Prevention Strategies

Counseling services and adult advocacy for students are key elements of any particular dropout prevention initiative.
At the elementary level, providing after-school tutoring and enrichment and having in-class adult friends (e.g., trained volunteers or helpers) appear to be effective approaches.
At the middle level, team teaching strategies, flexible scheduling, and provision of as-needed counseling assistance are especially useful strategies.
At the secondary level, paid work, embedded in activities that prepare and monitor students' on-the-job experiences, appears to be a critical component to keeping students in school.
In programs where dropout recovery is an emphasis, flexible class schedules assist students who need to work or meet personal commitments during regular school hours.

III. Sources of Information

Program files.
Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Report for 1989-90 In-Depth Evaluation of 15 Projects (Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, forthcoming).
The National Evaluation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program: 1991 Grantees Descriptive Report (Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc., unpublished report).

IV. Planned Studies

The Planning and Evaluation Service, in cooperation with the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, is conducting an assessment of the projects funded under this program in FY 1991 and FY 1992 in order to evaluate their effectiveness in high school dropout prevention and reentry. A descriptive survey of project directors of the grants awarded in FY 1991 collected information on the context of the demonstration project, program services during the 1991-92 school year, project resources, and staffing. A report on the findings of that survey is scheduled to be released in 1994 (III.3). Projects awarded in FY 1992 will complete the survey based on operations during the 1992-93 school year.

An in-depth evaluation is being conducted in 23 of the 65 projects funded in FY 1991. Five school-wide restructuring projects and 18 targeted projects at the middle and high school level were chosen during the 1991-92 school year based on site visits to the projects. These site visits were conducted to confirm program implementation and feasibility of conducting a random assignment evaluation in targeted projects or a matched comparison evaluation in restructuring projects.

Site visits were conducted in the fall and spring of the 1992-93 school year and the fall of 1993 to observe program characteristics and practices as actually implemented, including problems that were encountered, solutions that were attempted, successes with program implementation, and factors that facilitated those successes. A report on the implementation of the demonstration projects is scheduled to be released in 1994. A series of topical reports on factors affecting design and implementation of dropout prevention interventions will be available in the spring of 1995 and 1996.
Surveys of teachers and parents are being conducted in school-wide restructuring projects in the spring of 1993 and 1994. The teacher surveys collect information on school governance and teacher training which is a major activity in restructuring efforts. The parent survey will collect iformation on parents' educational background, attitudes toward school in general, attitudes toward the school their children attend, involvement in school activities, participation in program services, and expectations for children's academic performance and high school graduation.
Beginning in the 1992-93 school year, samples of students enrolled in school-wide restructuring projects and samples of students enrolled in comparison schools were selected. Applicants to targeted projects were randomly assigned to either participate in the program or to serve as a control group. Information on program students and control/comparison groups is being collected through surveys and from school records. A final report on program impacts on student outcomes including cost effectiveness is scheduled for February 1996.

V. Contacts for Further Information

Program Operations:: John Fiegel, (202) 260-2671
Program Studies:: Audrey Pendleton, (202) 401-3630

-###-

[Education for Homeless Children and Youth]

[Foreign Languages Assistance]