Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs

Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs

NDPC/N National Dropout Prevention Center/Network

Dropout decisions may involve up to 25 significant factors, ranging from parenthood to learning disabilities. The nearly effective interventions address the various factors and employ multiple strategies, including personal asset edifice, academic support, and family outreach. A list of fifty exemplary programs is included.

Purpose

Communities In Schools (CIS) is the nation's 5th-largest youth-serving organization and the leading dropout prevention system, delivering resources to nearly 1 million students in 3,250 schools across the land. To further their network-wide commitment to bear witness-based practice, CIS collaborated with the National Dropout Prevention Center/Network at Clemson University (NDPC/N) to conduct a comprehensive written report of the dropout crisis in the United States. Specifically, the intent of the report was to:

1. Identify the hazard factors or conditions that significantly increment the likelihood of students dropping out of school; and
2. Identify exemplary, evidence-based programs that address the identified risk factors and conditions.

Risk gene literature search

The identification of significant risk factors was accomplished in several steps. The kickoff step included a thorough review of the literature to make up one's mind the hazard factors and conditions that increase the likelihood of students dropping out of school. Xx-five years of ERIC literature from 1980 up to December 31, 2005, were reviewed to obtain an historic view of the consequence. Materials from the National Dropout Prevention Eye/Network Library were included in the review. Other electronic databases such equally PsychInfo and Medline were too explored for pertinent materials. An Internet search was conducted for ephemeral and unpublished items. Search terms included gamble factors, risk indicators, at-chance youth, dropout indicators, and dropout identification. Bibliographies and reference lists from some central documents on dropout were besides scanned for relevant items.

The commencement search resulted in around 3,400 potential citations for review, which was eventually narrowed, based on relevance, research base, and source, to approximately 75 articles that were judged worthy of further analysis. To best assess available inquiry upwards to Dec 2005 on risk factors, NDPC/N staff decided to review just the major articles in this group that specifically focused on high school graduation or schoolhouse dropout every bit the primary goal of assay. Forty-four of the citations met this criterion.

Overall findings and trends

The following overall trends emerged from the literature:

• Dropping out of school is related to a diversity of factors that can be classified in four areas or domains: individual, family, school, and community factors. (Please annotation: given the express telescopic of this initial enquiry, CIS fabricated the decision to focus on ii domains, private and family factors).
• There is no single risk factor that can be used to accurately predict who is at chance of dropping out.
• The accuracy of dropout predictions increases when combinations of multiple chance factors are considered.
• Dropouts are not a homogeneous group. Many subgroups of students tin be identified based on when risk factors emerge, the combinations of risk factors experienced, and how the factors influence them.
• Students who drib out oft cite factors across multiple domains and there are complex interactions among hazard factors.
• Dropping out of school is often the outcome of a long process of detachment that may begin before a child enters schoolhouse.
• Dropping out is often described as a procedure, not an effect, with factors building and compounding over time.

Identifying specific take a chance factors

The 44 studies used to examine major trends in dropout research were further analyzed to identify significant risk factors. This analysis was limited to only those studies that:

• Straight analyzed the data source
• Examined school dropout and/or high schoolhouse graduation as the dependent variable for analysis
• Nerveless longitudinal information over a period of at least two years
• Examined a diverseness of types of predictors in several domains (individual, family, school, and/or community), including educatee demographic data
• Used multivariate statistical techniques or models to simultaneously control for independent relationships between student demographic and other private factors, factors in at to the lowest degree one other domain, and the dependent variable
• Included a sample of 30 or more students classified as dropouts

Based on the above criteria, 21 studies that included analyses from 12 different information sources were identified for review. The full study provides a list of the 21 studies by information source and timeframe for information collection. As illustrated in the nautical chart, studies were published between 1974 and 2002, with data collection carried out in varying fourth dimension periods, from the mid-1960s until the mid-1990s. Although a few studies included national samples of students (High Schoolhouse and Beyond, NELS and NLTS), most were based in specific communities or schoolhouse districts. The studies not only span different time periods but besides various communities (rural, suburban, and urban) every bit well as demographically diverse groups of students (SES, race/ethnicity, and gender).

Within these studies, there were many differences in factors examined, measures, populations sampled, sample sizes, time frames for information drove, and statistical methods for information assay. To innovate some measure of control for this variation, factors were pared down to only those found to exist significantly (p ≤ 0.ten) related to school dropout in multivariate analysis and significant in at least 2 data sources.

The resulting 25 significant hazard factors beyond viii factor categories appear on the following page. Approximately 60% of the factors were private factors and the remaining 40% were family factors. Complete descriptions of the factors may exist found in the full report.

Significant hazard factors for school dropout

Private domain

Individual Background Characteristics

• Has a learning disability or emotional disturbance

Early on Adult Responsibilities

• High number of work hours
• Parenthood

Social Attitudes, Values, & Behavior

• High-hazard peer group
• High-take chances social behavior
• Highly socially active outside of school

Schoolhouse Performance

• Low achievement
• Retention/over-age for grade

Schoolhouse Engagement

• Poor attendance
• Depression educational expectations
• Lack of attempt
• Low commitment to school
• No extracurricular participation

School Behavior

• Misbehavior
• Early assailment

Family unit domain

Family Background Characteristics

• Low socioeconomic status
• High family mobility
• Depression pedagogy level of parents
• Large number of siblings
• Not living with both natural parents
• Family disruption

Family Appointment/Commitment to Pedagogy

• Low educational expectations
• Sibling has dropped out
• Low contact with school
• Lack of conversations almost schoolhouse

Identifying risk factors by school level

Another goal of the study was to examine the identified risk factors past schoolhouse level. This data will help CIS Affiliates and Sites to ameliorate target their efforts and make a direct connection between the services they provide or broker and dropout prevention.

To reach this goal, NDPC/N adult matrices by school level for individual and family unit gamble factors relying on data available from the selected studies. Ii groups of matrices were adult. The kickoff ready independent information by level from one data source and to be included the gene had to be:

1. Measured at a specified grade or schoolhouse level for the analysis
2. Plant at that level to exist significantly (p ≤ 0.10) related to school dropout through multivariate analysis

All risk factors were identified in at least one schoolhouse level past a single data source. All merely 1 of the risk factors were identified at either the middle or high school levels. Eighteen of the 25 hazard factors were identified in at to the lowest degree two information sources at either the middle or high school level. Fewer factors were identified at the elementary level.

4 factors were found in at least two information sources to significantly touch dropout at all three school levels. Iii of these four factors are individual ones and include low achievement, memory/over-age for grade, and poor attendance. The fourth gene found to exist significant across all school levels was the family factor of low socioeconomic status (SES). Family SES level has been tied in numerous studies to other educational outcomes at all stages of a pupil'south school career and its advent at all levels in predicting dropout is consequent with this pattern.

On a cautionary note, only tentative conclusions can be fatigued nearly factors by schoolhouse level. Inquiry needed to meet the criteria for this report, analysis of gamble factors beyond several domains using multivariate statistics, is sparse. The fact that a specific factor is not mentioned in the nautical chart at a specific level does non necessarily mean that it is not significant at that level. It may indicate that quality information was just not bachelor for that gene. Given this lack of consistent quality data on hazard factors past school level, there is a higher level of conviction in conclusions about impact at a particular level when the gene is found to exist significant at that level in 2 studies rather than in a unmarried report.

Significant Risk Factor by School LevelClick to view total tabular array

Exemplary programs to address identified risk factors

In one case risk factors are identified, practitioners face the decision of which program or programs to implement to address these factors. The success of prevention efforts depends greatly on the types of programs used, making it crucial to select programs that take been proven effective for identified risk factors. Many programs, however, are being used around the country with little or no cognition near their evolution or actual plan effects. Thus, a key goal of this report was to place quality evidence-based programs already proven to address detail risk factors. This work is but a first. CIS plans to continue this attempt over fourth dimension to provide local affiliates with every bit many options as possible.

The full study provides a detailed clarification of the methodology used to identify exemplary programs. The procedure proved to exist a considerable challenge given that many sources have identified "effective" or "model" programs or "best practices," oftentimes using ill-defined criteria. In addition, rigorous data on the effectiveness of dropout prevention programs is specially lacking.

Given the scope of this study, NDPC/N began the search for exemplary programs with an existing matrix of evidence-based programs compiled by Sharon F. Mihalic (2005) at the Eye for the Report and Prevention of Violence, Constitute of Behavioral Science, Academy of Colorado at Bedrock. Later in the search, additional sources were reviewed to ensure adequate coverage of the identified risk factors. To control for inconsistencies in rating criteria across sources it was decided to include only those programs that:

• Were ranked in the top tier or level by at least 2 sources;
• Were currently in functioning;
• Had no major revisions since the ranking of the program;
• Had consistent, positive evaluation outcomes; and
• Targeted K-12 school populations (not children nether five or college-age students).

Fifty programs (see the following folio) were identified based on these criteria. The full report provides a description of each programme including the:

1. Program proper name and spider web site, if applicable;
2. Programme overview;
3. Primary program strategies;
4. Primary programme components;
5. Targeted run a risk factors/groups;
6. Relevant impacted risk factors;
7. Inquiry show; and
8. Program contact data.

Lessons from inquiry on plan implementation

A number of lessons can be gleaned from the research on risk factors and evidence-based programs for practitioners implementing either existing programs or developing new ones. Outset, multiple risk factors across several domains should be addressed wherever possible to increase the likelihood that the programme will produce positive results. 2d, multiple strategies should be used to assist clinch programme bear on. Effective programs often used some combination of personal assets and skill building, academic back up, family outreach, and ecology/organizational change (Catalano et al., 1999; Gottfredson, 1998; Lehr et al., 2004). Third, when adopting an existing exemplary plan, inquiry points to the need for these programs to be fully implemented and to be implemented as they were designed (Midwest Regional Center for Drug-Gratuitous Schools and Communities [MRC], 1994A; National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2004). Fourth, program planners who develop their ain strategies need to use bear witness-based strategies proven to touch the adventure factors they are addressing and develop strategies based on best exercise. Finally, whether adopting an existing program or developing a new one, practitioners need to apply bear witness-based strategies to evaluate programs to clinch effectiveness.

Exemplary programs

• Beyond Ages
• Adolescent Sexuality & Pregnancy Prevention Plan
• Adolescent Transitions Programme
• Advocacy Via Individual Determination (AVID)
• Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS)
• Big Brothers Big Sisters
• Brief Strategic Family Therapy
• Career Academy
• CASASTART
• Bank check & Connect
• Children of Divorce Intervention Program
• Coca-Cola Valued Youth Programme
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Child Sexual Abuse
• Coping Power
• Families & Schools Together (FAST)
• Family Matters
• Fast Track
• Functional Family Therapy
• Practiced Behavior Game
• Guiding Skilful Choices (formerly Preparing for the Drug-Free Years)
• Helping the Noncompliant Child
• Keepin' it Existent
• LifeSkills Training
• Linking Interests of Families & Teachers
• Los Angeles' Better Educated Student for Tomorrow (LA's Best)
• Midwestern Prevention Project (Project STAR)
• Multidimensional Family Therapy
• Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care
• Multisystemic Therapy
• Nurse-Family Partnership
• Parenting Wisely
• Preventive Treatment Plan
• Project Graduation Really Achieves Dreams (Project GRAD)
• Project Toward No Drug Abuse
• Projection Towards No Tobacco Utilise
• Prolonged Exposure Therapy for PTSD
• Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
• Breakthrough Opportunities
• Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways
• Prophylactic Dates
• Schools & Families Educating Children (SAFE Children)
• Skills, Opportunities, and Recognition (SOAR)
• School Transitional Environs Program (STEP)
• Strengthening Families Plan
• Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14
• Success for All
• Teen Outreach Plan
• The Incredible Years
• Also Good for Violence
• Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center and Communities In Schools, Inc.

Source

http://world wide web.dropoutprevention.org/resource/major_reports/communities_in_schools/Dropout%20Risk%20Factors%20and%20Exemplary%20Programs%20Executive%20Summary%205-16-07.pdf

beordayinceds.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.adlit.org/topics/dropout-prevention/dropout-risk-factors-and-exemplary-programs

Share this post