MENU TITLE: Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Mainstream.
Series: OJJDP
Published: February 1997
32 pages
67,654 bytes

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

February 1997

------------------------------

From the Administrator

In our technologically sophisticated world,
education is now, more than ever, the essential
ingredient for producing self-sufficient citizens.
Unfortunately, the truth of this statement is lost
on millions of students who drop out of school or
who are chronic truants. However, there is no
avoiding this real life lesson, which too many
dropouts learn too late. Without basic education
skills, individuals are severely handicapped in
their search for decent jobs and a fulfilling life.

This Nation cannot afford to lose the potential of
any of its people, and no community can be sanguine
about the long-term financial and social costs that
are associated with school failure. This Bulletin
describes a new effort to reduce the number of
juveniles who leave school prematurely and who are
at risk of delinquency because they are truants or
dropouts, afraid to attend school, suspended or
expelled, or in need of help to be reintegrated
into their mainstream school from the juvenile
justice system. Sponsored by the U.S. Departments
of Education and Justice, the Youth Out of the
Education Mainstream initiative also seeks to raise
public awareness of this problem and the need for
programs to help at-risk youth continue their
education and become contributing members of
society.

Shay Bilchik
Administrator

------------------------------

Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education
Mainstream

Sarah Ingersoll and Donni LeBoeuf

This Bulletin introduces a series of OJJDP
Bulletins focusing on both promising and effective
programs and innovative strategies to reach Youth
Out of the Education Mainstream (YOEM). YOEM is a
joint program initiative of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program, U.S. Department of Education, to address
the needs of youth who do not attend school
regularly because they are truants or dropouts,
afraid to attend school, suspended or expelled, or
in need of help to be reintegrated into mainstream
schools from juvenile detention and correctional
settings. Additional Bulletins will focus on each
of these five separate but often related categories
of problems that put youth at risk of falling out
of the education mainstream.

Ensuring that children attend school, are safe, and
receive a sound education has become a challenging
task for parents and society in general. With some
students, the challenge is simply to get them to
come to school and stay in school. In 1994 courts
formally processed approximately 36,400 truancy
cases, a 35-percent increase since 1990 and a
67-percent increase since 1985.(1) In 1993, among
16- to 24-year-olds, approximately 3.4 million (11
percent of all persons in this age group) had not
completed high school and were not currently
enrolled in school.(2) 

In many schools, crime and fear of crime are
interfering with the education process. Students
are concerned about crime in their neighborhoods
and schools -- with one in five African American 
and Hispanic teens indicating that crime or the
threat of crime has caused him or her to stay
home from school or cut class.(3) The increase
in disruptive and violent behaviors and weapons
possession in schools has been accompanied
by a proportionate increase in suspensions and
expulsions.(4)

The costs of these problems, both for children and
for society, are prohibitively high. Children who
are not educated will more than likely lack
adequate skills to secure employment and become
self-sufficient adults. In 1993 approximately 63
percent of high school dropouts were unemployed.(5)
When they are employed, high school dropouts are
often on the low end of the pay scale without
employee benefits or job security. Over their
lifetimes, high school dropouts will earn
significantly less than high school graduates and
less than half of what college graduates are likely
to make in their lifetimes.(6) Similarly, dropouts
experience more unemployment during their work
careers and are more likely to end up on
welfare.(7) Many dropouts struggle to maintain a
minimum standard of living, often requiring welfare
system support. Indeed, individuals who do not
receive a basic education must overcome tremendous
barriers to achieve financial success in life or
even meet their basic needs.

In addition to harming their chances of
future success, children who arenot attending
school regularly or who drop out can pose
significant problems for school administrators,
police officers, juvenile court judges, probation
officers, and the public. Many youth who are
habitually truant and experience school failure
are the same youth who bring weapons to
school, bully or threaten their classmates, or
regularly disrupt the school's learning
environment. When they are not in school, truants
and dropouts may be engaging in delinquent
behavior. Research has demonstrated that youth who
are not in school and not in the labor force are at
high risk of delinquency and crime.(8) In
Milwaukee, for example, prior to the introduction
of the Truancy Abatement/Burglary Suppression
Program (TABS), truants were responsible for a
significant number of daytime violent crimes. With
the inception of TABS, significant reductions
occurred in the area of violent crime. In 1993-94,
during scheduled school days, homicides were down
43 percent, sexual assaults were down 24 percent,
aggravated assaults were down 24 percent, and
robberies were down 16 percent. In 1994-95 daytime
crime declined even further in all areas except
homicide.(9) 

Society pays a high price for children's school
failure. An estimated 34 percent of inmates in 1991
and 29 percent in 1986 had completed high
school.(10) In 1993, 17 percent of youth under age
18 entering adult prisons had not completed grade
school (eighth grade or less). One-fourth had
completed 10th grade, and 2 percent had completed
high school or had a general equivalency
diploma.(11) Each year's class of dropouts costs
the Nation more than $240 billion in lost earnings
and foregone taxes over their lifetimes. Billions
more will be spent on crime control (including law
enforcement and prison programs), welfare,
healthcare, and other social services.(12) The
staggering economic and social costs of providing
for the increasing population of youth who are at
risk of leaving or who have left the education
mainstream are an intolerable drain on the
resources of Federal, State, and local governments
and the private sector.

Youth Out of the Education Mainstream Initiative

Educators, government officials, youth-serving
professionals, law enforcement officials, and
parents are calling for policies and program
interventions that will effectively manage and
serve youth who have fallen -- or are in danger of
falling -- out of the education mainstream. States
are enacting legislation to deal with school
dropouts and with issues of suspension, school
safety, and truancy.(13) 

The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Education have developed a joint
initiative, Youth Out of the Education Mainstream
(YOEM). This initiative, funded through Pepperdine
University's National School Safety Center (NSSC)
at Westlake Village, California, is designed to
address the needs of youth who are truant, who have
dropped out, who have been suspended or expelled
from school, who are afraid to go to school because
of violence or fear of violence, or who need to be
reintegrated into school from a juvenile justice
system setting. The YOEM initiative consists of
sharing information through regional meetings,
providing intensive training and technical
assistance to 10 demonstration sites, and
disseminating resource documents to support
communities working to help young people avoid the
school-related risks that can seriously damage
their life chances and lead to delinquent behavior.

The three goals of the YOEM initiative are: 

o To reduce the number of youth who are in danger
of leaving or who have left the education
mainstream.

o To reduce the number of youth at risk of
delinquency because of truancy, dropping out of
school, suspension or expulsion, lack of a safe
school environment, or lack of reintegration
services from juvenile justice system settings into
the mainstream school.

o To heighten awareness of the growing problem of
youth out of the education mainstream and of the
need for prevention and intervention programs that
address risk and protective factors (that is,
negative and positive influences) in the lives of
these youth, so they can continue their education
and work to achieve their full potential as
contributing members of society.YOEM fosters a new
way of doing business -- the business of educating,
enforcing the law, ensuring justice, providing
social services and supports, and even of being a
parent. The present system often fragments services
to children and families or burdens schools with
the task of remedying societal ills. YOEM will help
communities work together more effectively and more
efficiently to address these issues. It is designed
to empower local community partnerships with ideas
and strategies that have shown promise. Working
within these partnerships, individuals and
organizations must make a commitment to achieving a
long-term reduction in the number of youth who
leave the education mainstream.

Causes and Solutions

Two broad, common influences -- school and
community/home, each with its own risk factors --
underlie the reasons that youth end up outside the
education mainstream:(14)

o Factors related to school. These include lack of
motivation that results from poor academic
performance, such as low reading and math scores
and failure to keep pace with other students in
lessons or promotions; low self-esteem resulting
from classification as one who is verbally
deficient or a slow learner; lack of personal and
educational goals due to absence of stimulating
academic challenges; and teacher neglect and lack
of respect for students.

o Factors related to the community and home. These
risk factors include negative role models
exemplified by friends who are chronically truant
or absent from school; pressures related to family
health or financial concerns; difficulty coping
with teen pregnancy, marriage, or parenthood; lack
of family support and motivation for education in
general; and violence in or near youth's homes or
schools.
The YOEM initiative assists communities to
formulate collaborative prevention and intervention
programs and services for these young people that
will help to keep them in school.

o Prevention programs. These help mainstream
schools create a peaceful learning environment
where youth feel welcome and attend classes knowing
that their academic, social, and physical and
mental health needs will be met in a safe, secure,
and nurturing environment. Prevention strategies
may include in-school suspensions, school safety
plans, school resource officers, mentoring,
school-to-work support, peer mediation and conflict
resolution, peer tutoring, professional and career
academies, and afterschool activities. When at-risk
youth have these kinds of support, the educational
quality and school climate improve for all children
and the professionals who serve them. 

o Intervention activities and programs. These focus
on responding effectively to school violence,
truancy, student suspensions and expulsions, and
juvenile justice system involvement. Intervention
strategies may include school peace officers;
reintegration approaches; alternative schools;
individual and family counseling; teen courts;
in-school suspension; school-based probation
officers; and gang prevention and intervention
programs.Both prevention and intervention
strategies recognize that the vast majority of
children have the ability to achieve and learn
academic, personal, and social skills that will
help them become self-sufficient and productive
adults. Young people can succeed when they are
provided with needed academic skills, attention,
supervision, encouragement, and support. The
following sections present brief synopses of the
problems confronting each of the five categories of
youth addressed by the YOEM initiative. After each
problem summary, promising prevention and
intervention approaches are presented.

------------------------------

"Both school performance, whether measured by
reading achievement or teacher-rated reading
performance, and retention in grade relate to
delinquency. . . . The relationship between reading
performance and delinquency appears even for first
graders. Likewise, retention in grade associates
with delinquency even for first graders."

R. Loeber et al., Urban Delinquency and Substance
Abuse: Initial Findings (Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, 1994), 15.

------------------------------

Fearful Students

Problem Summary

Many students are genuinely afraid to attend
school. In 1991 approximately 56 percent of
juvenile victimization happened in school or on
school property; 72 percent of personal thefts from
juvenile victims occurred in school; and 23 percent
of violent juvenile victimization occurred in
school or on school property.(15)

In a 1993 U.S.Department of Health and Human Services
study, onein seven male students in grades 9 through
12 reported having carried a gun within the past 30
days.(16) Another 1993 poll found this to be
consistent across grades. Of 2,508 students
surveyed from 96 elementary, middle, and senior
high schools nationwide, 15 percent reported they
had carried a handgun on their person within the
previous 30 days, 4 percent said that they had
taken a handgun to school during the previous year,
and 22 percent said that they felt safer having a
handgun on their person if they were going to be in
a physical confrontation.(17) According to a report
by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, in the 4
years between 1986 and 1990, there were 71
handgun-related deaths and 201 woundings at schools
across the Nation.(18) 

Many students bring weapons to school because of
the proliferation of gangs, drug activity, and
other students carrying weapons. The upward trend
of juvenile violence and victimization can create a
climate of fear that pervades the school setting.
Parents fear for their children's safety going to
and from school, and children are often
apprehensive at school from fear of bullying or
threats of violence. In 1993 more than half of a
nationally representative sample of 6th through
12th grade students were aware of incidents of
bullying with 42 percent having witnessed
bullying.(19)

In a 1995 survey of 2,023 students in grades 7
through 12, almost half stated that they had
changed their behavior as a result of crime or the
threat of crime. For example, to protect
themselves, one in eight has carried weapons, and
one in nine has stayed home from school or cut
class. Students in at-risk neighborhoods were four
times as likely to have carried weapons, stayed
home from school, or cut class to protect
themselves.(20) A 1993 survey by USA WEEKEND, based
on mail-in responses of 65,193 students in grades 6
to 12, reported that 37 percent of students did not
feel safe in school and 50 percent knew someone who
switched schools to feel safer. Of those responding
to the survey, 43 percent avoided school restrooms,
20 percent avoided school hallways, and 45 percent
avoided school grounds in general.(21) 

Promising Approaches

Various types of partnerships between school
officials and law enforcement officers have
addressed the problem of youth who are afraid to
leave their homes or go to school because of
violence, bullying, or gang activities. 

Improving the School Atmosphere. Some approaches
focus on improvements in the school atmosphere by:

o Formulating school security plans and
establishing school safety teams that involve
students. 

o Providing crime prevention training for students.

o Forging partnerships with community agencies that
enhance school resources and activities.

o Increasing communication among teachers,
students, and law enforcement officials.

o Organizing parent-student patrols and safe
corridors.

o Legislating drug- and gun-free school zones.

o Sponsoring campuswide cleanups.

o Fostering parent involvement.

o Offering teachers school safety training.

o Creating schoolwide violence prevention
curriculums.

o Establishing peer mediation and conflict
resolution programs.

Responding to Perpetrators of Violence. Other
programs respond to the perpetrators of violence
and fear through curriculums that engage bullies,
gang members, and violent students in learning
anger management, conflict resolution, resistance
to peer pressure, and appreciation of diversity. A
number of communities have implemented
victim/offender programs that require juvenile
offenders to make restitution to victims for damage
or losses incurred or to perform community
services. Others have established crisis
intervention teams that help students cope with
troubling violent incidents in and around school.

------------------------------

Under a grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the University
of South Carolina is testing a violence prevention
program among rural youth in six South Carolina
school districts that, in part, focuses on
bullying. The program encourages teachers to set
firm limits for unacceptable behavior and to
observe and monitor student activities including
lunch and break times. School staff are trained to
intervene quickly when students break the rules and
respond with consistent sanctions. At the same
time, staff reinforce socially acceptable behavior
by acknowledging, praising, and recognizing
students who follow school rules and demonstrate
socially acceptable behavior. The program is based
on a successful model in Norway that led to a
50-percent drop in bullying incidences within 2
years of implementation. The program also decreased
truancy, vandalism, theft, and alcohol consumption
and improved student attitudes toward school.

M. Donnelly, "Nobody Likes a Bully," South Carolina
Family Futures 1 (March 1996), 1, 6-7.

------------------------------

Many jurisdictions also focus on fear related to
gang violence. They employ strategies that include
teams of community volunteers, school officials,
and youth-service providers. Working together, they
conduct special outreach programs to juvenile gang
members designed to reduce gang threats,
recruitment, and revenge; remove gang graffiti in
and near the school campus; control campus access;
provide afterschool programs; and establish
comprehensive dress codes or uniform policies that
eliminate gang signs and colors from the school
environment.

Targeting Weapons. These program strategies include
antiweapon campaigns that increase student
engagement with school officials, anonymous
hotlines for reporting weapons and other criminal
activity, school resource officers, locker
searches, and clear school policies and discipline
codes. The majority of weapon reduction programs
involve curriculums that emphasize the prevention
of weapon misuse, the risks involved with the
possession of a firearm, and the need for learning
conflict resolution and anger management skills.
Programs often use videotapes showing the tragic
results of gun violence and may also include
firearm safety instruction, public information
campaigns, counseling programs, partnerships with
hospital emergency rooms, and crisis intervention
hotlines.

------------------------------

In 1994, officials in Tucson, Arizona, developed
Firearms Awareness and Safety Training (FAST) to
provide an intermediate sanction short of
adjudication and incarceration for juveniles --
generally first-time offenders -- cited for minor
firearms offenses. A multi-agency program staffed
by volunteer law enforcement and justice system
professionals, FAST is a 1-day educational course
in gun laws, safety rules, gun storage
responsibility, and firearms accidents. Those
diverted into FAST may choose to participate or
face a court hearing. Parents must attend with
their children. The underlying theme is that both
juveniles and parents are responsible for their
actions and decisions. Since its inception, FAST
has served 153 juveniles, only 1 of whom has
reappeared in juvenile court on a subsequent
firearms violation. Although further evaluation is
warranted, initial results demonstrate that youth
referred to FAST reoffend at a lower rate than
overall rates for arrested juveniles.

Richard Wood and Steve Ballance, The FAST Program
Evaluation Report: 1994-1996 (Tucson, Arizona, Pima
County Juvenile Court Center, 1996).

------------------------------

Truants

Problem Summary

Across the Nation many children as young as
elementary school age are staying away from school
for a variety of reasons. Some are slow learners,
some lack personal and educational goals because of
an absence of academic challenge, some fear
violence, and some have parents who are guilty of
"educational neglect." With daily absentee rates as
high as 30 percent in some cities, it is not
surprising that truancy is listed among the major
problems facing schools. The statistics speak
volumes:

o In New York City, the Nation's largest school
system, about 150,000 of its 1 million public
school students are absent on a typical day.(22)

o The Los Angeles Unified School District, the
Nation's second largest district, reports that an
average of 62,000 students (10 percent of its
enrollment) are out of school each day.(23)

o In Detroit, 40 public school attendance officers
investigated 66,440 chronic absenteeism complaints
during the 1994-95 school year.(24)

The impact of truancy extends beyond the loss of
educational opportunity. Many police departments
report that daytime crime rates are rising, in part
because some students who are not in school are
busy committing crimes such as burglaries,
vandalizing cars, shoplifting, and scrawling
graffiti on signs and office buildings. When police
in Van Nuys, California, conducted a 3-week-long
school truancy sweep, shoplifting arrests fell 60
percent.(25) Police in St. Paul, Minnesota,
reported that crimes such as purse snatching
dropped almost 50 percent after police began
picking up truants and taking them to a new school
attendance center.(26)

Truancy has become such a significant problem that
some cities are now passing ordinances allowing
police to issue a citation to either the parent or
the truant, which can result in a $500 fine or 30
days in jail for the parent and suspension of the
youth's license to drive.(27) In addition to fining
parents, courts can order them to attend parenting
classes and hold them in contempt of court. In some
cases the court may take a child away from a parent
and make the child a ward of the court.(28)

------------------------------

"There are many things we can do that are far more
cost-effective than waiting for the crisis of
delinquency or crime to occur. . . . Truancy
prevention programs should be developed in every
elementary school so that at the first sign of
truancy, police, social service agencies, and the
school join together to identify the cause and do
something about it before it is too late." --
Attorney General Janet Reno 

"National Agenda for Children: On the Front Lines
With Attorney General Janet Reno," Juvenile Justice
(Fall/Winter 1993), 2-3.

------------------------------

Promising Approaches

Team Approaches. Schools are joining with district
attorneys' offices and law enforcement, social
services, and community agencies in their attempts
to address truancy. This team approach focuses on
both the parents and child. It determines what
issues (educational, health, economic,
psychological, behavioral) are contributing to the
child's truancy. The team addresses the identified
needs and gives a clear message on school
attendance to the parents and the child. If these
efforts do not result in regular school attendance,
the team refers the case to the district attorney's
office for a hearing. Reports indicate that in many
instances this approach is working. In cases where
truancy persists, the district attorney's office
will refer the student, the parents, or both to
court. Court dispositions may include counseling on
communication, conflict resolution education,
parenting skills, and community service or a fine.

Truancy Centers. Centers dedicated to truancy
reduction are being established across the country
as a tool that school, law enforcement agencies,
and community organizations can use to address
their truancy problems. Boys and Girls Clubs and
other youth-serving organizations are making their
facilities available to schools to support truancy
center programs. Jurisdictions are giving police
officers authority to stop and question youth who
are in the community during school hours. Police
take those youth who do not have a legitimate
excuse for being absent from school to a truancy
center, where professionals assess the family
situation to determine what family-based or other
services may be needed and whether followup may be
required. The center contacts the school and either
releases the child to a parent or guardian or
transfers the child to an alternative facility
pending release. In order to return to school, the
student must be accompanied by his or her parent or
guardian.

Community Assessment Centers. Sometimes referred to
as juvenile assessment centers, the community
assessment center concept is being adopted by
jurisdictions to comprehensively address the needs
of at-risk and delinquent youth. Assessment centers
combine the efforts of law enforcement with social
service and mental health agencies to bring needed
services to juveniles who commit first-time, minor,
or status offenses, including truancy. Based on an
assessment provided by a multidisciplinary team
housed at the assessment center, services are
provided in a timely and comprehensive manner. This
comprehensive and immediate intervention is
designed to help prevent repeat offending.

Alternative Schools. Many truants benefit from the
smaller classes, higher teacher-to-student ratio,
and more hands-on learning found in an alternative
school setting. 

------------------------------

The Truancy Abatement and Burglary Suppression
(TABS) program was established in 1993 to address
truancy and juvenile crime in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
TABS is a collaborative effort of the Milwaukee
County sheriff's office, police department, and
public schools and the Boys and Girls Club of
Greater Milwaukee. Law enforcement officers pick up
juveniles who are in the community during school
hours without an excused absence and take them to
TABS centers at the Boys and Girls Clubs. Center
staff process the truants and contact the parents.
The parents and the student work with the school
counselor to set goals for regular school
attendance. If social services are needed, the
counselor arranges them and any followup
conferences. For chronic truants, police may issue
citations to the parents and require the student to
participate in counseling and diversion programs.
For 1993-94, the police department's evaluation of
TABS shows that as student attendance improved over
a 30-day tracking period, daytime juvenile crime
rates declined. Violent juvenile crime was
significantly reduced: homicides by 43 percent;
sexual assaults, 24 percent; robberies, 16 percent;
and aggravated assaults, 24 percent. Nonviolent
crimes were down also, but not as significantly. In
1994-95, daytime juvenile crime declined even
further in all areas except homicide.

Community Health Concepts, We're Keeping TABS on
Truants (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: August 1995), 3-4.

------------------------------

Suspended and Expelled Students

Problem Summary

Weapons possession, substance abuse, disruptive
behavior, assaults on school staff and students,
and criminal acts committed outside school are five
reasons schools are removing increasing numbers of
students from the educational mainstream.

o Wisconsin schools expelled about 70 percent more
students in 1993-94 than in the previous school
year.(29)

o By the end of the 1993-94 school year, Colorado's
public schools recorded 65,547 suspensions, some
students having been suspended more than once.(30)

o One Oregon school district expelled nearly one
student per day during the first 3 months of the
1994-95 school year after enacting a zero tolerance
policy on weapons.(31)

o During the 1993-94 academic year, a record 17,046
violent incidents plagued the New York City
schools. More than 4,000 teachers were assaulted,
and 7,254 weapons were confiscated. According to
the New York Board of Education, 150 students were
caught with firearms.(32)

Under the Improving America's Schools Act, in order
to receive Title I funds from the U.S. Department
of Education, a State must have a law ". . .
requiring local educational agencies to expel from
school for a period of not less than one year a
student who is determined to have brought a weapon
to school," except that the local chief
administrative officer may modify the expulsion
requirement on a case-by-case basis.(33) As a
result, school districts are increasingly ordering
1-year expulsions for students who bring weapons to
school, spawning a large number of students ranging
from elementary to high school age who must be
dealt with in alternative schools, in the juvenile
justice system, or on the streets. Schools and
communities must face the problem of how suspended
and expelled students can continue to receive an
education and what kind of academic setting should
be provided for them. 

Promising Approaches

In-School Suspensions. Typically, disruptive
students are suspended from school and placed under
parental supervision for the duration of their
out-of-school suspension. Students, however, often
lack oversight due to parents' work schedules,
repeat the same disruptive behaviors in the home
and community, and miss homework assignments.
Schools also lose Average Daily Attendance income.
These factors created the need to alter the
out-of-school suspension policy for many school
districts. They concluded that disruptive students
need a structured environment to help them change
their behavior while staying focused on their
education. In-school suspensions are one answer
these school districts have chosen to address the
problem of disruptive student behavior. Students
with chronic discipline problems are removed from
their regular classroom and placed in a highly
structured environment, generally with no more than
15 students, for a specified period of time. These
in-school suspension programs provide academic and
counseling components, including a range of
individually designed learning modules and computer
tutorial programs developed to promote success in
the classroom; a counseling program based on an
assessment of identified needs; an interpersonal
training program to develop coping and
communication skills; and conflict resolution and
law-related education programs. A community service
component is included in many programs to help
build self-esteem through helping the less
fortunate while developing socially acceptable
behaviors and attitudes.

Alternative Schools. Many school districts have
chosen alternative schools to provide academic
instruction to students expelled for such offenses
as weapons possession; suspended from their regular
school for a variety of reasons, including
disruptive behavior; or unable to succeed in the
mainstream school environment. Alternative schools
come in all sizes and settings, from space in a
large department store, community center, or empty
office building to a portable structure. More
important than location is what alternative schools
offer these troubled youth. For many, an
alternative school presents and reinforces the
message that students are accountable for their
actions. At the alternative school, they receive an
assessment of their academic and social abilities
and skills, are assigned to a program that allows
them to succeed while challenging them to reach
higher goals, and receive assistance through small
group and individualized instruction and counseling
sessions. In addition, students and their families
may receive an assessment to determine if social
services such as health-care, parenting classes,
and other program services are indicated. 

To help students return to their regular schools,
alternative schools develop individualized student
plans. For many students, however, returning to a
setting where they failed is not an attractive
option. Many students want to remain in the
alternative school, and some school districts
permit this. Often, those who do remain in the
alternative school are allowed to graduate with
their mainstream school classmates. Alternative
schools that succeed with this population of youth
typically have the following elements:

o Strong leadership.

o Lower student-to-staff ratio.

o Carefully selected personnel.

o Early identification of student risk factors and
problem behaviors.

o Intensive counseling/mentoring.

o Prosocial skills training.

o Strict behavior requirements.

o Curriculum based on real life learning.

o Emphasis on parental involvement.

o Districtwide support of the programs.(34)

Many alternative schools also have a strong
community service component that helps students
recognize their responsibility to their community
and others while gaining self-esteem for their
contributions.

------------------------------

The Barron Assessment and Counseling Center is a
promising project of the Boston public school
system. If a student is found to have had a weapon
on school property, he or she is charged under the
disciplinary code. The parents are contacted, and
the school principal or superintendent conducts a
hearing. If the charges are warranted, the student
is immediately referred to the center. At the
center, students (elementary through high school)
receive academic, psychological, and social
assessments and crisis intervention counseling.
Staff prepare individualized service delivery plans
for each client. The students continue to receive
assignments from school. The program has an
aftercare component to continue services to the
youth after release from the center. Although
outside evaluation has not yet been completed,
internal evaluation indicates a recidivism rate of
5 percent for first-time offenders from 1987 to
1993. Northeastern University School of Law, the
Office of Emergency Medical Services, and Vietnam
Veterans Against Violence provide special workshops
to teach these youth alternatives to violence. This
program is coordinated with the juvenile court, the
juvenile probation department, and the Departments
of Youth Services, Social Services, and Mental
Health.

Reducing Youth Gun Violence: An Overview of
Programs and Initiatives (Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, May 1996), 26.

------------------------------

Students Being Reintegrated From the Juvenile
Justice System

Problem Summary

More than 500,000 delinquency cases disposed each
year by juvenile courts result in court orders
allowing the juvenile offender to remain in the
community on probation -- or return to the
community following a residential placement -- and
continue normal activities such as school and
work.(35) Regular school attendance and community
service often are conditions of these orders.

For the vast majority of children on probation or
in aftercare, educational success is critical to
preventing recidivism and further involvement in
the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Yet
meeting the educational needs of youth on probation
or in aftercare status has proven to be a
particularly difficult problem. Institutional
resistance and barriers between the educational and
justice systems often result in a lack of advance
planning and coordination that further exacerbates
the problem. Juvenile offenders may arrive at a
school without advance notice, institutional
scholastic documentation, or a reintegration plan.
Further, these youth frequently face parents who
have given up on them, teachers and fellow students
who fear them, and citizens who do not want them in
the community. 

Promising Approaches

Programs that focus on the population of
court-involved youth tend to fall into three
categories: (1) model learning environments that
enhance the juvenile's education within a detention
or alternative placement setting, (2) prerelease
strategies that support linkages between juvenile
justice and school agencies, and (3) transitional
settings that ensure the juvenile's smooth reentry
into a mainstream or alternative school setting.

Model Learning Environments. These learning
environments for detained and incarcerated youth
encompass the philosophy that education should be
the centerpiece of each juvenile's institutional
experience. Facility staff consider themselves
teachers and regard every contact with a youth as a
teaching opportunity. This model expands learning
beyond classroom activity into the spectrum of the
institutional experience -- including individual
and family counseling, treatment, and development
of conflict resolution skills -- and trains and
empowers staff to teach and make learning
enjoyable. Educational programs deal with the
problem of learning disabilities, which have been
identified as an important risk factor contributing
to school failure and entry into the juvenile
justice system. Model correctional learning centers
are places where residents, their families, and
staff are all learners and where youth are equipped
with knowledge and skills to live productively.

Prerelease Strategies. These strategies are
critical for supporting the juvenile's transition
from the juvenile justice system into the
community. A cluster group composed of multiple
agencies (mental health, social service, probation,
child protection, and education) can provide
services or treatment for a family. The group meets
on a regular basis to share information and provide
integrated services. A school representative
(principal, social worker, counselor, or homeroom
teacher) typically chairs the cluster group, and
all group members provide information related to
the child that is shared with other cluster
members. Placement considerations and discussions
with regular school officials begin well before the
student is scheduled to leave residential care.
Juvenile justice officials share information on the
therapeutic needs, academic functioning,
educational goals, and aftercare conditions with
the school. A key factor in easing the
reintegration process is a visit by the student to
the school prior to release.(37)

------------------------------

Studies have shown that youth who are learning
disabled are very likely to drop out of school
rather than face the ridicule of their peers for
their school failure. Research has also shown that
a strong relationship exists between learning
disabilities and delinquency. In the eyes of many
students with learning disabilities -- and in the
eyes of some of their peers, it may be better to be
a delinquent than to be labeled the "class dummy."
A 1993 report of the King County Juvenile Detention
Special Education Project in Seattle, Washington,
disclosed some interesting data. Fifty percent of
the 1,700 detained youth in the project were in
special education classes and, of those youth, 48
percent were identified as learning disabled.(36) 

To better address the needs of these youth, greater
attention needs to be paid at a much younger age to
the nature of learning disabilities, their impact
on learning and the processing of information in
the classroom setting, and their relationship to
dropping out and delinquency. Parents, schools, and
the juvenile courts need to be more aware of this
"hidden handicap." Many youth who choose
delinquency over failure in school could be helped
if their disabilities were properly diagnosed and
treated early enough in their school careers. Those
professions that directly interact with the
learning disabled need to share their knowledge and
information on how best to identify and treat
learning disabilities. This could lead to a
significant reduction in the number of delinquents
who are learning disabled and keep more children in
the education mainstream.

------------------------------

Transitional Settings. Several approaches can be
used to help a juvenile move smoothly back into
school from a correctional facility.

Alternative schools. An alternative school facility
may provide an appropriate interim placement for a
juvenile exiting a detention facility or a
residential placement. An alternative setting
reduces the risk that a child will be lost in the
system without needed support services. Such a
setting provides an appropriate environment in
which to incrementally reduce the level of
attention and structure the student has required
and is accustomed to receiving. 

Short-term enrollment. This approach can be used in
transitioning a juvenile from a more restrictive
alternative school into a regular or less
restrictive alternative school setting. This may be
complemented with a student admission interview; a
review of policies and procedures; a clear
explanation of a zero tolerance policy within the
school environment for substance abuse or other
delinquent behaviors; a violence elimination
contract; parent notification of accountability;
assignment of cluster or interagency
representatives; and identification of target
academic, behavioral, and vocational goals.

Restorative justice model. As the offender moves
into the education mainstream, it may be
appropriate to tailor the curriculum to the
juvenile offender, thereby addressing the needs of
the student and the community. For example, under
the restorative justice model, the offender may be
required to pay restitution for damages inflicted
upon the victim and to pursue a personalized
educational plan. This plan helps the student
complete educational and vocational goals and may
provide school credit for community service
projects.

Probation officers on campus/law-related education.
Other program approaches include (1) placing
probation officers on campus to provide intensive
supervision for students who are on probation or
parole, or (2) implementing a law-related education
curriculum. A prime purpose of these programs is to
help prevent the returning juvenile from engaging -
- or reengaging -- in delinquent activity,
including gang behavior. Involvement with gangs
appears to be common with many juvenile offenders,
especially those juvenile offenders leaving
institutional care. Whether these juveniles are
actually members of a gang or "wannabe" members,
the potential gang influence is a reality. Gang
influences can seriously undermine the
effectiveness of educational programs that assist
the juvenile offender. Therefore, schools should
also develop strategies to combat the presence of
gangs in the community and the school. 

School-to-work programs. These programs emphasize
the connection between the classroom and the work
setting. Students have an agenda that includes
academic subjects and goal setting, management,
problem solving, and conflict resolution education.
These life skills are incorporated into the
programming to reflect real world contexts such as
thinking creatively and working in teams to achieve
a common goal. To be effective, the school setting
must provide structure, and teachers, counselors,
and administrators must document student behavior
and progress toward program completion. Appropriate
individualization is required for each student. A
hierarchy that provides the kind of structure and
consistency often associated with residential
facility "programming" is helpful in assisting the
student to acquire skills for reentry into a
regular education setting.

For each of these approaches, it is important to
remember that the impact of the family on the
emotional and academic well-being of the juvenile
is crucial. If the family is not functional, then
the risk for academic failure and further justice
system involvement is significantly increased.
Consequently, schools must assist in educating
families and helping families obtain necessary
services.

------------------------------

The Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections
(ADJC) Education System operates three secure care
schools for adjudicated youth: Adobe Mountain
School (located in Phoenix) and Catalina Mountain
School (located in Tucson) serve male youth, and
Black Canyon School (located in Phoenix) serves
both male and female youth. The ADJC Education
System is accredited and provides the Success
School alternative education program to transition
students from secure care to the appropriate public
school or work environment. Youth (85 percent male
and 15 percent female) between the ages of 12 and
17 who come to the program are behind academically
by 2 to 3 years. As a result of their participation
in this program, they score an average of 40
percent higher on tests of reading, writing, and
math than they had previously.

Success School is the result of research on
Effective Schools; the Coalition of Essential
Schools methodology; Total Quality Management
techniques; and Outcome-Based Education strategies.
Students are served by multidisciplinary teams of
teachers and receive a full vocational and social
skills assessment, standardized testing, and
appropriate placement. Once released, those
students who are unable to return to their school
districts of residence attend Charter Success
Schools located in the community. The community
transition component of Success Schools allows for
a systemic implementation of effective educational
practices, and ultimately for a juvenile's
educational success.

A. Wright, "Success Guaranteed: The Pathfinder
Project," Preventing School Failure 40 (2) (Winter
1996), 67, 70-71.

------------------------------

Dropouts

Problem Summary

Dropouts quit school for a number of reasons:
academic problems, difficulties with other
students, boredom, employment, teenage pregnancy,
lack of parental concern, difficulties at home, and
expulsion because of discipline problems.(38)

Dropout rates not only affect individual students'
lives negatively but can also, as indicated
earlier, have a broader impact on the economy
because "dropouts are more likely than high school
graduates to be unemployed and on welfare."(39) 

Promising Approaches

Schools with low dropout rates share common
factors: relatively small size; extensive
one-on-one work with students; teaching methods
that draw students into the learning process; and
teachers, staff, and parents who are personally
involved with helping students learn. Through these
approaches, they create a bond between students and
the school environment that keeps students enrolled
and involved in "their" school.

School-to-Work Programs. Schools and communities
need to view the dropout problem from both
prevention and intervention perspectives. Two
similar but different approaches are needed to help
keep youth at risk from dropping out of school and
to provide programs to bring those youth who have
dropped out of school back to complete their
education requirements and graduate or earn a
general equivalency diploma. Intervention
approaches can use alternative schools or develop
ties to the business community to provide academic
and job training that addresses the needs and
interests of the student. These school-to-work
programs provide students not only with their high
school diploma but also a certificate of
achievement for learning a skill or trade that
helps them gain entry to employment after high
school.

Career Academy Programs. Some schools implement
career academy programs that allow students to
choose a professional track such as emergency
services, law and justice, nursing and medical
care, computer technology, and other professional
fields. The key feature of these dropout programs
is their ability to place the academic process into
a context that provides on-the-job experience,
experiential learning, future employment
opportunities, career options, or advancement to
higher education programs. Also, many of the same
features of successful alternative school programs
are provided by successful dropout prevention and
intervention programs, particularly lower
student-to-staff ratio, districtwide support,
intensive counseling/mentoring, strict behavior
requirements, and a curriculum based on real life
learning. 

------------------------------

Communities In Schools, Inc. (formerly Cities In
Schools, Inc.) (CIS) is the Nation's largest
stay-in-school network. Funded in part by OJJDP,
CIS works to connect a community's existing health,
education, and human resources with students and
their families. CIS emphasizes four basic
principles: Every child needs and deserves a
personal one-on-one relationship with a caring
adult, a safe place to learn and grow, a marketable
skill to use upon graduation, and a chance to give
back to peers and community.

A report of outcome data on CIS students for 1992-
1993 indicated significant success in keeping
students in school and increasing their
performance. A longitudinal study found that by
1993 nearly 80 percent were still in school. In
addition, 70 percent of students with high
absenteeism prior to entering CIS improved their
attendance, and 60 percent of students with
unsatisfactory grade point averages improved their
averages in the year in which they joined CIS.

S.B. Rossman and E. Morley, The National Evaluation
of Cities In Schools: Executive Summary
(Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,
April 1995), 81, 84.

------------------------------

Overview of YOEM Initiative Activities

As noted, the Departments of Education and Justice
have provided a grant to the National School Safety
Center (NSSC) to implement the YOEM initiative.
NSSC is working with communities to expand, share,
and use information on effective ways to address
school safety and student fear, truancy,
suspensions and expulsions, dropouts, and
reintegration. Several activities have been
designed and implemented to further the goals of
the initiative.

Kickoff Meeting

A meeting was held in Boston, Massachusetts, in May
1996 at the John F. Kennedy Library to announce the
YOEM initiative and raise public awareness of this
critical issue. More than 325 representatives from
the juvenile justice system, law enforcement,
education, business/corporate community,
foundations and associations, social services,
youth-serving agencies, and other related fields
attended the 1-day meeting to share their concerns,
experiences, and commitment to addressing this
population of youth. Attorney General Janet Reno's
message to the participants challenged them to form
collaborative, community partnerships to attract
and welcome youth back into the mainstream of
American education.

Public Information Forums

Four YOEM information forums were held during the
summer of 1996 at regional sites (two in Federal
Empowerment Zones and two in Federal Enterprise
Communities) to showcase information on effective
and promising programs that address the problem of
youth out of the education mainstream. The sites
and dates of the forums were Detroit, Michigan
(July 12); Los Angeles, California (July 31);
Charlotte, North Carolina (August 16); and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (August 26). Nearly
1,000 representatives from educational
institutions, probation departments, correctional
facilities, law enforcement agencies, juvenile
courts, youth-serving organizations, and community
groups attended the forums. At the regional forums,
speakers identified the school-related risk factors
in the lives of these youth, provided the latest
information on promising and proven methods to
address these risk factors, and showcased
innovative and collaborative partnerships and
comprehensive programs that are meeting the needs
of youth at risk in our schools and communities.

Training and Technical Assistance

Beginning in late fall of 1996, following a
competitive selection process, NSSC began providing
individualized training and technical assistance to
10 competitively selected jurisdictions to assist
school districts, juvenile and family courts,
social service agencies, community organizations,
and other service providers to develop new programs
or enhance existing programs that comprehensively
address the needs of youth out of the education
mainstream. Of the 10 sites, 6 are located in
Federal Enterprise Zones, Empowerment Communities,
and Enhanced Empowerment Communities. The 10 sites
are: San Jose, CA; Las Vegas, NV; Hastings, NE;
Washington, DC; Reading, PA; Essex County, NJ;
Macon, GA; Louisville, KY; Hennepin County, MN; and
Phoenix, AZ.

The training component will assist these
jurisdictions in the following manner:

o Further assess the problem, as needed, and
identify community strengths and resources.

o Share information on effective and promising
intervention techniques.

o Enhance the role of educators, juvenile justice
personnel, community leaders, youth-serving groups,
and the business community in program formulation
and implementation.

o Identify methods of working across agencies to
develop and implement effective programs.

Publication

A comprehensive publication will be made available
on the YOEM initiative and will include a directory
of effective and promising programs, a list of
resource organizations, recommended reading, and
Federal, State, and local resources available to
assist in meeting the needs of youth out of the
education mainstream. 

Conclusion

The untapped potential of our Nation's young people
must not be neglected. Innovative, promising, and
effective approaches are available to prevent crime
and delinquency and nurture each child's potential
to become a successful and contributing member of
society. Each young person deserves the opportunity
to demonstrate that he or she is capable of
success.

The YOEM initiative is expected to demonstrate that
we can stem the tide of children leaving the
education mainstream and that many of the youth who
have fallen out of the education mainstream can be
saved from falling out of the mainstream of
society. It is hoped that these youth will be able
to experience the personal success of completing a
homework assignment, passing a test, helping
another student with a science project, avoiding a
fight, giving back to their community through
service, and earning a high school or general
equivalency diploma that will prepare them for a
successful future.

Resources

Publications available from the U.S. Department of
Education's Clearinghouse (800-624-0100) 

Alternative Education Programs for Violent and
Chronically Disruptive Students: Best Practices.
(1996). Washington, DC: Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program, U.S. Department of Education (free).

Creating Safe Schools: A Resource Collection for
Planning and Action. (1996). Washington, DC: Safe
and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of
Education (free).

Manual on School Uniforms. (1996). Washington, DC:
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department
of Education (free).

Manual To Combat Truancy. (1996). Washington, DC:
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department
of Education, in cooperation with Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice (free).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education. (1996). Creating Safe and
Drug-Free Schools: An Action Guide. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice (free). 

Publications available from OJJDP's Juvenile
Justice Clearinghouse (800-638-8736)

Coffey, O., and M. Gemignani. (1994). Effective
Practices in Juvenile Correctional Education: A
Study of the Literature and Research 1980-1992.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice
(document identification number: NCJ 150066; cost:
$15, U.S.; $19.50, Canada and other countries).

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. (1996). Combating Violence
and Delinquency: The National Juvenile Justice
Action Plan (Summary). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice (document identification
number: NCJ 157106; free).

Costello, L. (Ed.). (1995). Part of the Solution:
Creative Alternatives for Youth. Washington, DC:
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, National
Endowment for the Arts, and U.S. Department of
Justice (document identification number: NCJ
152982; free).

Crawford, D., and R. Bodine. (November 1966).
Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to
Implementing Programs in Schools, Youth-Serving
Organizations, and Community and Juvenile Justice
Settings. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program,
U.S. Department of Education (document
identification number: NCJ 160935; free).

Education in the Law: Promoting Citizenship in the
Schools. (1990). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice (document identification number: NCJ
125548; free).

Garry, E. (1996). Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime
of Problems. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice (document identification number: NCJ
161958; free).

Gemignani, R. (1994). Juvenile Correctional
Education: A Time for Change. Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice (document identification number: NCJ
151264; free).

Hodges, J., et al. (1994). Improving Literacy
Skills of Juvenile Detainees. Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice (document
identification number: NCJ 150707; free).

Laney, R. (July 1996). Information Sharing and the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice
(Fact Sheet #39).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (May 1996). Reducing Youth Gun
Violence: An Overview of Programs and Initiatives.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice
(document identification number: NCJ 154303; free).

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. (November 1995). Delinquency Prevention
Works. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
(document identification number: NCJ 155006; free).

Weitz, J.H. (April 1996). Coming Up Taller: Arts
and Humanities Programs for Children and Youth At
Risk. Washington, DC: President's Committee on the
Arts and the Humanities.

Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. (1993).
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
U.S. Department of Justice (document identification
number: NCJ 143453; free).

Witt, P.A., and J.L. Crompton (Eds.). (1996).
Public Recreation in High Risk Environments:
Programs That Work. Arlington, VA: National
Recreation and Park Association (document
identification number: NCJ 159776; call for
availability).

Endnotes 

1. J. Butts, Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1994
(Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,
October 1996), 8.

2. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Dropout Rates in the
United States: 1993 (Washington, DC: September
1994), vii.

3. Teens, Crime and the Community, Between Hope and
Fear: Teens Speak Out on Crime and the Community
(Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council,
National Institute for Citizen Education in the
Law, and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, December
1995), 49.

4. Alternative Education Programs for Violent and
Chronically Disruptive Students: Best Practices
(Washington, DC: Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Program, U.S. Department of Education, October
1996), 7.

5. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, Youth Indicators 1993:
Trends in the Well-Being of American Youth
(Washington, DC: October 1993), 145. 

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census: Current Population
Reports 1994, Educational Attainment in the United
States: March 1993 and 1992 (Washington, DC: May
1994), Table D.

7. J. Catterall, "On the Social Costs of Dropping
Out of School," The High School Journal 71 (1987),
4-5.

8. H.N. Snyder and M. Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders
and Victims: A National Report, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice (Washington, DC: August 1995), 16; D.
Huizinga, R. Loeber, and T.P. Thornberry, Recent
Findings From the Program of Research on the Causes
and Correlates of Delinquency (Washington, DC:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, in press),
35. 

9. Community Health Concepts, Executive Summary:
We're Keeping TABS on Truants, Boys and Girls Clubs
of Greater Milwaukee (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: August
1995), 8.

10. A. Beck et al., Survey of State Prison Inmates
1991 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics,
U.S. Department of Justice, March 1993), 3.

11. J. Austin et al., Juveniles Taken Into Custody:
Fiscal Year 1993 (Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, September 1995), 22.

12. Committee for Economic Development, Children in
Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally
Disadvantaged: Executive Summary (New York:
Committee for Economic Development, 1987), 2.

13. 1995 State Legislative Summary: Children, Youth
and Family Issues (Denver, Colorado: National
Conference of State Legislatures -- Children and
Families Program, December 1995), 149.

14. National School Safety Center, Increasing
Student Attendance (Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, April 1994), 3.

15. Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and
Victims: A National Report, 22.

16. B. Brown, Trends in the Well-Being of America's
Children and Youth: 1996 (Washington, DC: Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, April 1996), 140. 

17. LH Research, Inc., A Survey of Experiences,
Perceptions, and Apprehensions About Guns Among
Young People in America (New York, NY: LH Research,
Inc., for The Harvard School of Public Health, July
1993), vi.

18. Caught in the Crossfire: A Report on Gun
Violence in Our Nation's Schools (Washington, DC:
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, September
1990), 1.

19. H.N. Snyder, M. Sickmund, and E. Poe-Yamagata,
Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on
Violence (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice, February 1996), 5.

20. Teens, Crime and the Community, Between Hope
and Fear, 10.

21. L. Ansley, "It Just Keeps Getting Worse," USA
WEEKEND (August 13-15, 1993), 5.

22. B. Shuster, "L.A. School Truancy Exacts a
Growing Social Price," Los Angeles Times, June 28,
1995, sec. A, p. 12.

23. Shuster, sec. A, p. 1.

24. J. Richardson, "Searching for Answers to
Student Absenteeism," Detroit Free Press, February
7, 1996, sec. NWS, p. 1A.

25. Shuster, sec. A, p. 1.

26. E. Garry, Truancy: First Step to a Lifetime of
Problems (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice, 1996), 4.

27. National School Safety Center, Increasing
Student Attendance (Westlake Village, CA: National
School Safety Center, April 1994), 4.

28. D. deVise, "Area Schools Get Tough on Truants,"
Long Beach Press Telegram (October 3, 1995), B-1.

29. "Number of Expulsions Soars in Wisconsin,"
Education Week 14 (18) (January 25, 1995), 4.

30. M. Stevens and M. Eddy, "Middle School
Suspensions," The Denver Post (January 29, 1995),
8A.

31. J. McCullough, "Policy Makes A Point,"
Statesman Journal (December 13, 1994), 1, 2A.

32. M. Parente, "No Second Chance: Gun-Toters May
Get `Zero Tolerance'," New York Newsday (September
8, 1994), A3.

33. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and Office
of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education, Creating Safe and
Drug-Free Schools: An Action Guide (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, September 1996), 24-25.

34. R.D. Stephens, "Keeping in Touch With the
Bunch," School Safety (Winter 1995), 2.

35. Snyder and Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and
Victims: A National Report, 135.

36. A. Foxworth et al., King County Juvenile
Detention Special Education Project: 1990-1993
Final Report (Seattle, Washington: King County
Department of Youth Services and Seattle Public
Schools, 1993), 10A.

37. Returning to School From Incarceration," School
Safety Update (February 1996), 2.

38. Committee for Economic Development, Children in
Need: Investment Strategies for the Educationally
Disadvantaged (New York: 1987), Executive Summary,
2; quoted in William T. Grant Foundation, Interim
Report, 74. 

39. R.L. Colvin, "Dropout Rate Twice the State
Average," Los Angeles Times (June 14, 1995), B-1.