U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

September 2001

A Message From OJJDP

Each school day, hundreds of thousands of students are missing from

their classrooms—many without a

bona fide excuse.

Left unchecked, truancy is a risk factor for serious juvenile delinquency.

Truancy’s impact also extends into

the adult years where it has been

linked to numerous negative outcomes. Consequently, it is critical

to identify strategies that intervene

effectively with youth who are chronically truant and that interrupt their

progress to delinquency and other

negative behaviors by addressing

the underlying reasons behind their

absence from school.

This Bulletin provides an overview

of the problem of truancy; describes

the correlations of family, school,

economic, and student factors with

truancy; notes truancy’s role as a

predictor of delinquency, including

juvenile daytime crime; and tallies

truancy’s social and financial impacts.

Two OJJDP-funded projects are featured: the ACT Now program operated by the Pima County Attorney’s

Office in Arizona and the Truancy

Reduction Demonstration Program,

a partnership with the Executive

Office for Weed and Seed and the

Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Program.

Truancy is an early warning sign for

future problems and should not be

ignored. This Bulletin should assist

our efforts to give it the attention it

requires.

Truancy, or unexcused absence from

school, has been linked to serious delinquent activity in youth and to significant

negative behavior and characteristics in

adults.1 As a risk factor for delinquent behavior in youth, truancy has been found

to be related to substance abuse, gang

activity, and involvement in criminal activities such as burglary, auto theft, and

vandalism (Bell, Rosen, and Dynlacht,

1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Garry, 1996; Huizinga,

Loeber, and Thornberry, 1995; Rohrman,

1993). 

Much of the work in the area of developmental pathways to delinquency shows

that these behavioral problems often are

followed by progressively more serious

behavioral and adjustment problems in

adulthood, including an increased propensity for violent behavior (Bell, Rosen,

and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Kelley

et al., 1997). Further, adults who were

frequently truant as teenagers are much

more likely than those who were not to

have poorer health and mental health,

lower paying jobs, an increased chance

of living in poverty, more reliance on

welfare support, children who exhibit

problem behaviors, and an increased

likelihood of incarceration (Bell, Rosen,

and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990; Hawkins and Catalano, 1995; Ingersoll and

LeBoeuf, 1997; Rohrman, 1993).

Truancy Reduction:

Keeping Students 

in School

Myriam L. Baker, Jane Nady Sigmon, and M. Elaine Nugent

Left unaddressed, truancy during the

preteen and teenage years can have significant negative effects on the student,

schools, and society. It is important to

identify promising strategies to intervene

with chronic truants, address the root

causes of truancy, and stop youth’s progression from truancy into more serious

and violent behaviors.

This Bulletin highlights some of the major

research findings regarding the problem

of truancy and demonstrates why it is

important that schools and communities

work to prevent and reduce its incidence.

It also discusses Abolish Chronic Truancy

(ACT) Now and the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s

(OJJDP’s) Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program (TRDP) and the TRDP

evaluation.

Overview of the

Truancy Problem

Every day, hundreds of thousands of youth

are absent from school; many are absent

without an excuse and deemed truant.

Although national data on truancy rates

are not available (in part because no uniform definition of truancy exists), many

large cities report staggering rates of truancy and chronic absenteeism.2 Some

large cities report that unexcused absences can number in the thousands
2

toward education are also important

factors in the community.

Predictor of Delinquency

Truancy has been clearly identified as one

of the early warning signs that youth are

headed for potential delinquent activity,

social isolation, and/or educational failure.

Several studies have established lack of

commitment to school as a risk factor for

substance abuse, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and dropping out of school (Bell,

Rosen, and Dynlacht, 1994; Dryfoos, 1990;

Huizinga, Loeber, and Thornberry, 1995;

Rohrman, 1993). Decades of research have

also identified a link between truancy and

later problems such as violence, marital

problems, job problems, adult criminality,

and incarceration (Dryfoos, 1990; Catalano et al., 1998; Robins and Ratcliff,

1978; Snyder and Sickmund, 1995).

More recent studies, such as OJJDP’s

Program of Research on the Causes and

Correlates of Delinquency,3 indicate that

truancy may be a precursor to serious

violent and nonviolent offenses and that

the connection between truancy and

delinquency appears to be particularly

acute among males (Kelley et al., 1997).

In addition, findings from OJJDP’s Study

Group on Very Young Offenders indicate

that chronic truancy in elementary school

is linked to serious delinquent behavior

at age 12 and under (Loeber and Farrington, 2000).

Juvenile Daytime Crime

In several jurisdictions, law enforcement

officials have linked high rates of truancy

to daytime burglary and vandalism (Baker, 2000). Before TRDP started, for example, police in Tacoma, WA (one of OJJDP’s

TRDP sites), reported that one-third of

burglaries and one-fifth of aggravated

assaults occurring between 8 a.m. and 1

p.m. on weekdays were committed by

juveniles. In Contra Costa County, CA

(another TRDP site), police reported that

60 percent of juvenile crime occurred between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays.

These daytime juvenile crime rates were a

primary reason that sites began implementing TRDP.

Social and Financial Impact

Students with the highest truancy rates

have the lowest academic achievement

rates, and because truants are the youth

most likely to drop out of school, they

have high dropout rates as well (Dynarski

on certain days (Heaviside et al., 1998).

In Detroit, MI, for example, school attendance officials investigated 66,440 complaints of chronic absenteeism during the

1994–95 school year, and in Chicago, IL, the

average 10th grader missed 6 weeks of instructional time during the 1995–96 school

year (Garry, 1996; Roderick et al., 1997).

A national review of discipline issues in

schools conducted in 1996–97 found that

public school principals identified student

absenteeism, class cutting, and tardiness

as the top discipline problems in their

schools (Heaviside et al., 1998).

In general, the proportion of truancy

cases handled in juvenile court is relatively small. However, the juvenile justice

system is increasingly serving as the final

stop for truants and as a mechanism for

intervening with chronic truants. Recent

statistics available on the extent of truancy cases in juvenile court clearly demonstrate how important it is for schools

and communities to confront this issue.

In 1998, truancy accounted for 26 percent

of all formally handled status offense

cases, representing an 85-percent increase in truancy cases in juvenile court

since 1989 (from 22,200 cases in 1989 to

41,000 cases in 1998) (Puzzanchera et al.,

forthcoming).

A closer look reveals that the number of

petitioned truancy cases around the country is about evenly divided between boys

and girls and that whereas the majority of

petitioned truancy cases involve 15-yearolds, there have been petitioned cases

involving boys and girls as young as 10

(Puzzanchera et al., forthcoming).

Correlates of Truancy

Preliminary findings from OJJDP’s evaluation of TRDP (see page 9) confirm previous

findings that, in general, the correlates of

truancy fall into four broad categories: 

◆ Family factors. These include lack

of guidance or parental supervision,

domestic violence, poverty, drug or

alcohol abuse in the home, lack of

awareness of attendance laws, and

differing attitudes toward education.

◆ School factors. These include school

climate issues—such as school size and

attitudes of teachers, other students,

and administrators—and inflexibility in

meeting the diverse cultural and learning styles of the students. Schools often

have inconsistent procedures in place

for dealing with chronic absenteeism

and may not have meaningful consequences available for truant youth

(e.g., out-of-school suspension).

◆ Economic influences. These include

employed students, single-parent

homes, high mobility rates, parents

who hold multiple jobs, and a lack of

affordable transportation and childcare.

◆ Student variables. These include drug

and alcohol abuse, lack of understanding of attendance laws, lack of social

competence, mental health difficulties,

and poor physical health.

Although not mentioned specifically, the

community significantly influences the

occurrence of truancy as well. Community

factors are folded into the above four

areas. For example, economic conditions

and differing culturally based attitudes
3

and Gleason, 1999). The consequences

of dropping out of school are well documented. School dropouts have significantly fewer job prospects, make lower

salaries, and are more often unemployed

than youth who stay in school (U.S. Department of Education, 1993). According

to a recent report from the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (2001:2), “6.0 percent of

workers with a high school diploma were

in poverty [in 1999], considerably lower

than the proportion of those who had not

completed high school (14.3 percent).”

High school dropouts are also more likely

to depend on welfare, experience unstable

marriages, and serve time in prison than

those who complete their schooling (Snyder and Sickmund, 1995; U.S. Department

of Education, 1993).

The financial impact of truancy and the

dropouts that result can be measured in

a number of ways:

◆ Less educated workforce.

◆ Business loss because of youth who

“hang out” and/or shoplift during

the day.

◆ Higher daytime crime rates (in some

cases).

◆ Cost of social services for families of

children who are habitually truant. 

Truancy, however, has an even more

direct financial impact on communities:

the loss of Federal and State education

funding.

OJJDP’s Response to

Truancy

OJJDP is committed to identifying what

works in preventing and reducing truancy

and has supported numerous truancy initiatives and evaluations, two of which are

described in the sections that follow: ACT

Now—a prosecutor-led program in Pima

County, AZ—and TRDP. 

The ACT Now Program

The Pima County Attorney’s Office (PCAO)

in Arizona is among the many prosecutors’ offices nationwide that have recognized truancy as a significant problem and

designed alternatives to adjudication by

intervening with truants to prevent subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior.

Pima County, located in the southeastern

portion of Arizona, is the second most

populous county in the State, with an estimated population of more than 780,000

people. More than half of the population

lives in Tucson, the county seat. Between

1991 and 1995, Pima County’s truancy

rates were among the highest in the State,

accounting for more than 50 percent of

the State’s chronic truancies (Bernat,

1996). In addition to high truancy rates,

Pima County’s juvenile arrest rates were

higher than the State average (National

Center for Juvenile Justice, 1996). Statistics also showed that in 1993, 8,720 juveniles were referred to the Juvenile Court

Center, and between 1993 and 1996, the

number of referrals increased approximately 23 percent, to 10,773. Since 1993,

the most frequent type of referral (accounting for roughly one-quarter of all

referrals) has been for status offenses,

which include truancy.4

During 1993 and 1994, a statewide working group in Arizona focused attention on

youth crime and developed recommendations for prevention and early intervention. To address truancy and youth crime,

the group recommended approaches that

focus on the root causes of poor school

attendance, such as lack of parental control due to insufficient parenting skills,

child abuse or neglect in the home, and

family instability. The group also suggested

that requiring parents to ensure that their

children are supervised and holding parents accountable would increase school

attendance and decrease juvenile crime.

The working group’s recommendations

resulted in an amendment to the State

compulsory school attendance law to

include criminal sanctions for parents or

guardians who do not ensure that their

children attend school.

To address key risk factors associated

with youth crime—poor school attendance and truancy—one of the working

group members, PCAO’s deputy county

attorney, initiated the development of a

PCAO truancy diversion program. Armed

with the new law that strengthened the

enforcement of the existing compulsory

school attendance statute by creating

criminal fines and penalties for parents,

PCAO formulated its truancy plan to include three key elements:

◆ Enforcement of the mandatory attendance law by holding parents

accountable.

◆ Provision of a diversion program that

offers services to address the root

causes of truancy.

◆ Sanctions for parents and youth for continued truancy or failure to complete

the diversion program successfully.

Critical to the truancy program’s success would be the active participation of

school districts, local schools, law enforcement offices, and community agencies, all of which have some responsibility

for educating, providing services to,

assisting, or intervening with youth.

Armed with a vision, a concrete plan, and

printed materials, PCAO invited more than

100 key stakeholders to convene and discuss the problem of truancy. The traditional response to truancy in the county

had been to process the youth through

the juvenile court, which often resulted

in diversion with no consequences. As a

result, school administrators had lacked

confidence in the process and welcomed

the new law and the new strategy for addressing truancy. With the interest and

support of school administrators, PCAO

moved forward with its program for the

1994–95 school year. The program, Abolish Chronic Truancy (ACT) Now, became

a cooperative effort among PCAO, the

schools, law enforcement, and community

organizations/agencies that provide services to youth and families. 

During the initial stages, no community

agency was available to partner with

PCAO to provide case management or

services to truant youth and their families. Thus, in the first program year, PCAO

received referrals directly from schools

and coordinated the diversion program.

A community-based nonprofit agency, the

Center for Juvenile Alternatives (CJA), was

established in spring 1995 in Pima County

to provide an alternative to the institutional detention of status offenders, to

take on case management responsibilities

for the ACT Now program, and to provide

services as part of the program to youth

and their families. During the latter half

of 1995, CJA became firmly established,

and ACT Now became a fully coordinated

interagency response to truancy.5

As envisioned, ACT Now was to create and

implement a sound, uniform enforcement

plan that would not require significant

investment of resources. The expressed

purpose of the program was to return the

habitually truant minor to school through

the coordination and cooperation of participating schools, prosecution, law enforcement, and CJA. ACT Now is grounded in

the philosophy that a breakdown in parental supervision has occurred, resulting in

truancy, curfew violations, and juvenile

involvement in a wide range of criminal

and other unacceptable behaviors. The

program design consists of several steps:
4

◆ Participating schools monitor attendance closely and, after the first unexcused absence, send a letter to parents

advising them of the potential for prosecution.6 The letter states that the

school is working in close cooperation

with PCAO’s Truancy Enforcement

Program and that if the youth has at

least three unexcused absences, his

or her attendance record will be forwarded to the program.

◆ After the third unexcused absence, a

truancy referral form with identifying

data and other background information, the youth’s official attendance

record, and a notarized affidavit certifying the unexcused absences are sent

to CJA.7

◆ Upon referral, parents are notified that

they may be subject to misdemeanor

prosecution and their child to filing of

a truancy petition in juvenile court.

Parents are offered the opportunity to

participate in a diversion program and

are asked to contact CJA.

◆ Upon contacting CJA, parents or guardians are offered a deferred prosecution

diversion program and asked to sign a

written contract outlining terms of the

agreement.

◆ The parents who accept deferred prosecution are referred to community

agencies that provide access to counseling, parenting skills classes, and support groups for the youth and parents.

Referrals are made based on CJA’s psychosocial evaluations of truants and

their families to determine the root

causes of the truancy.

◆ Successful adherence to the terms

of the deferred prosecution contract

by parents results in case dismissal.8

Process and Implementation

Outcomes

In 1996, OJJDP awarded a grant to the

American Prosecutors Research Institute

(APRI) to conduct an evaluation of ACT

Now. Full evaluation results, documenting

both the implementation process and

program outcomes, are found in Abolish

Chronic Truancy Now Diversion Program:

Evaluation Report (Sigmon, Nugent, and

Engelhardt-Greer, 1999).9

APRI’s process evaluation documented

the planning, implementation, evolution,

and operation of ACT Now from the

time the program was initiated through

the 1997–98 school year. Evaluation results indicate that, while the program’s

purpose—to prevent chronic truancy

by holding parents accountable and offering deferred prosecution along with

services—has held constant since its inception, the program’s operation evolved

significantly in its first 2 years, resulting

in improved practice and expanded reach.

The following components of the ACT

Now program appear to have contributed

to its successful implementation: 

◆ Clearly stated goals and objectives that

address a problem of concern to community stakeholders and provide a

basis for a program in which communities can participate.

◆ Consistent written guidelines on program procedures, including sample

letters to parents (in both English and

Spanish) and referral forms.

◆ Annual training for key school administrators who can discuss program goals

and procedures; provision of CJA and

PCAO contacts who can answer school

administrators’ questions about referrals throughout the year.

◆ Clear delegation of the development

of an attendance policy and the

determination of when a student is truant to school officials.

◆ Establishment of a minimum number

of absences before a student is referred

to CJA, while recognizing local school

decisionmaking in determining when

a referral is appropriate.

◆ Use of a new source of leverage in

responding to truancy (the threat of

parental prosecution) and a consistent

response when schools refer parents

of truant students to CJA after a minimum of three unexcused absences.

◆ A coordinated response that includes

services to address the underlying

causes of truancy.

◆ Allocation of CJA and PCAO staff, who

work cooperatively with schools and

law enforcement agencies in coordinating a communitywide response to

truancy. 

◆ Enforcement of attendance statutes to

send a consistent message to parents

and youth regarding the seriousness of

truancy.

◆ Effective use of media coverage of the

program and its associated truancy

American Prosecutors Research Institute

The American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI) is a nonprofit research and

program development resource that provides prosecutors with training and curriculum development, technical assistance, and consultation services and also produces publications and conducts research. Since its inception in 1984, APRI has

become a vital resource and national clearinghouse for information on the prosecutorial function and has supplied the field with interdisciplinary responses to the

complex problems of crime and delinquency. For more information, visit APRI’s

Web site at www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/Index.html.
5

sweeps to increase the community’s

awareness of truancy, its consequences, and efforts to combat it.

Two key shortcomings of the program

were identified. First, at the time of the

evaluation, the program had not implemented a consistent method for providing

timely feedback to schools about the status of their referrals to CJA and the intervention’s outcome or whether a case was

being prosecuted. Second, the computerized database and case tracking system

originally envisioned by PCAO did not

materialize, and the collection of data to

track cases and monitor program outcomes and effectiveness was not fully

implemented until fall 1997. Although the

program has taken steps to address both

issues, evaluators recommended continued improvement in these two areas.

Conscientious followthrough with all

program participants is required for the

program to be effective in the future.

The successful cooperation and collaboration among agencies involved in the

program have contributed significantly

to the program’s success and represent

an unintended consequence of its implementation. As a result of these activities, community stakeholders have developed new links that will serve as the

basis for future joint activities of benefit

to the community. 

Evidence of Effectiveness

APRI focused on answering several key

questions about the program’s effectiveness by collecting data on attendance

rates (year-end attendance), number of

truancies and dropouts, referrals to CJA

and PCAO, services provided to youth

and their families, and successful program

completion/case disposition. A sample

of four participating school districts was

selected for a more indepth analysis of

service delivery outcomes in the 1997–98

school year and attendance/truancy patterns over time. The key questions (and

findings) of this evaluation follow.

What impact has ACT Now had on

school response to truancy and reporting practices? The number of truancy

referrals has increased steadily (from 46

in the 1994–95 school year to 332 in the

1997–98 school year) as has the number

of schools making referrals to ACT Now.

Data indicate that since the program’s

pilot phase in 1995–96, program awareness has increased and truancy reporting

has improved. In the years prior to full

program implementation (1994–95 and

1995–96), there were few truancy referrals.

During this time, schools made referrals

directly to PCAO, and the policy of systematic dissemination of information to referring schools was not yet in place. When

ACT Now became fully operational and

reporting procedures were formalized, the

number of schools reporting truancies

(and the ratio of schools that reported to

those that participated) increased substantially. This increase is a strong indication of school administrators’ confidence

in the program and reflects significant

change in reporting processes.

How does the threat of prosecution affect whether parents ensure that their

children attend school? Evaluators

looked at two measures to determine the

answer to this question: (1) the number of

advisory letters sent to parents compared

with the number of subsequent referrals

to CJA; and (2) PCAO prosecution of parents. APRI hypothesized that if the process has an effect on parental accountability, the number of referrals should be

less than the number of advisory letters

sent to parents, indicating that action had

been taken to address the truancy. Participating schools countywide sent a total of

2,870 advisory letters to parents or guardians of truant youth between 1995 and

1998. During the same period, schools

made 1,118 referrals to CJA based on the

parents’ or guardians’ failure to address

truancy, a number substantially less than

the number of advisory letters sent. Thus,

the threat of prosecution prompted 61 percent of parents or guardians to take corrective action. When the effect on parental

response is examined by school year, however, a marked decrease is seen between

the 1995–96 and 1996–97 school years—in

1995–96, 86 percent of parents took corrective action, as compared with only 21 percent in 1996–97. This variation over time

can be attributed to a number of changes

that were occurring in the program.

The decrease in the number of advisory

letters sent by schools and in subsequent

program referrals between the 1995–96

and the 1996–97 school years can be linked

to the fact that ACT Now had not yet been

formalized in 1995–96. Also, the 1995–96

school year was the first year that schools

referred truancies directly to CJA rather

than PCAO. CJA offered very little outreach

to the schools during this time to explain

their role or to build confidence among

school administrators in the procedures.

Both factors may account for the decrease

in parental response in the 1996–97 school

year. After the program procedures were

more clearly articulated to school administrators, the number of advisory letters

sent and parental response to the letters

increased.

Truants whose parents failed to address

the attendance problem or participate in

the ACT Now program were referred by

CJA to PCAO for prosecution. Between

1994 and 1998, PCAO handled 674 truancy

cases. The number of such defendants

increased over time, from 50 in 1994–95 to

372 in 1997–98. Between the 1995–96 and

1996–97 school years, the number of defendants increased 171 percent (from 68

to 184); similarly, a 102-percent increase

in the number of defendants occurred

between the 1996–97 and 1997–98 school

years (from 184 to 372). Overall, nearly

65 percent of the cases represented truants between ages 13 and 15, and 22

percent involved truants between ages

10 and 12. The youngest truants, ages

6 to 9, represented approximately 11

percent of the cases.

Using prosecutorial discretion, PCAO did

not file charges in all 674 cases. An analysis of PCAO truancy case processing by

school year shows that the majority of

cases were closed with no disposition,

primarily because a parent or guardian

could not be located. More than half of

the cases were closed in school years

1994–95 and 1995–96. By the 1996–97

school year, the number of cases closed

without PCAO action decreased, and more

parents were prosecuted, specifically:

◆ In school year 1994–95, 27 percent of

cases were prosecuted.

◆ In school year 1995–96, 23 percent of

cases were prosecuted.

◆ In school year 1996–97, 41 percent of

cases were prosecuted.

◆ In school year 1997–98, 41 percent of

cases were prosecuted.

Of those cases that were not closed by

PCAO, the majority resulted in guilty pleas,

and of those that were resolved through a

bench trial, 98 percent were found guilty.

The most commonly imposed sanctions

included community service or a $200

fine. In ACT Now’s initial phase (during

the 1994 to 1996 school years), almost

half of those prosecuted (42.9 percent)

were sentenced to perform community

service and slightly more than one-third

(35.7 percent) were fined.

By the 1996–97 school year, the range of

sanctions had expanded to include higher
6

fines—between $300 and $500—suggesting

a stronger attempt by the juvenile court

and PCAO to hold parents accountable.

In fact, during this period the number of

parents/guardians who took corrective

action to address the truancy before being

referred for prosecution increased substantially. Fewer community service sanctions and more sentences of unsupervised

probation and payment of fines were imposed. One explanation for the change in

types of sanctions imposed is that the

community service option did not work

as originally planned. Under the initial

program plans, schools were to develop

community service projects at the school

for parents to complete as part of their

sentence. Schools were reluctant and, as

a result, few developed such projects.

Anecdotal information gathered during

site visits and through telephone interviews indicates that because the community service concept did not work as

planned, it was phased out as a sentencing option.

Are truant youth and their parents or

guardians receiving adequate services to

address the root causes of the truancy?

CJA conducts an intake assessment before

making any service referrals. Services are

tailored to the specific needs of truant

youth and their families to address the

root causes of truancy in addition to other

factors related to family social and physical health. Services range from assessments to evaluations to counseling to living assistance. In the 1995–96 school year,

CJA staff made only 197 service referrals,

but by the following school year, the number of referrals had increased to 593.10

The majority of referrals were for counseling, intensive case management services,

and participation in the ACT Well class,

a 6-hour program designed to provide

information to youth and parents and

help them build skills to prevent truancy.

The increase in referrals continued in the

1997–98 school year; the majority of the

714 referrals made were for intake assessment followed by other services, such as

counseling, case management, and conflict resolution.

To further assess service delivery, additional individual-level data were collected

for the four school districts in the evaluation sample. In the 1997–98 school year,

the first year individual-level data were

available, 394 youth from the four school

districts included in the evaluation were

referred to CJA. CJA recommended services for more than half of all the youth

referred. Services were recommended

only for those youth whose parents responded either to the first or second CJA

advisory letter (57 percent).

Of the parents who did not respond to the

letters, more than one-third were referred

for parental prosecution. For others of

these parents (roughly 10 percent), the

case was closed and no recommendations

were made because the parents or youth

could not be located or had moved, the

youth was in an out-of-home placement,

the youth was being home schooled, or

the school withdrew the referral. Of the

youth who were referred to services,

79 percent successfully completed the

program and the charges were dismissed.

As shown in the table below, parental

response to the first letter from CJA is a

strong predictor of successful program

completion.

Preliminary evidence suggests that the

provision of services has a lasting effect

on subsequent truancy and parental supervision. In the 1997–98 school year, only

33 of the 394 youth (8 percent) referred

from the four school districts in the sample were recidivists, suggesting that ACT

Now and related services have an effect

on truancy.11 Ideally, tracking youth

individual-level data to assess prior performance in the program would provide

a further indication of the strength of the

relationship between successful program

completion and recidivism. However, the

data available for this evaluation were

insufficient for such indepth analysis.

How has the number of truancies and

dropouts changed during the program?

Two variables were used to assess

changes in truancy and dropout rates:

school reports of the number of truancies

and the cumulative number of dropouts.

Data were collected from PCAO and the

four sample school districts for the 1996–

97 and 1997–98 school years to determine

whether the number of truancies had

changed.12

Each school district showed a decrease

in the number of truancies between the

1996–97 and 1997–98 school years, ranging from a decrease of 64 percent in the

largest school district to 4 percent in the

smallest. The truancy rate for the largest

district in the sample originally had been

among the highest in the State, and thus

the observed decrease is dramatic.

Another measure of the program’s effectiveness was the examination of recidivism. Because truancy data on individuals

were unavailable, APRI used the number

of dropouts as a proxy variable for subsequent, chronic truant behavior (i.e.,

recidivism). If ACT Now is effective in

addressing chronic truancy, there should

be a decrease in the number of dropouts

relative to the number of truancies being

reported. Such a finding would provide

initial support for the hypothesis that

ACT Now is effective in breaking the cycle

of truancy before it leads to dropping out

of school. With the exception of the two

smaller school districts, both of which

experienced a slight increase in the number of dropouts, the cumulative number

of truancies and dropouts decreased from

the 1996–97 to the 1997–98 school year. In

addition, the largest decrease in dropouts

correlated with the largest decrease in truancy rates. 

Although these figures suggest that ACT

Now is effective in reducing chronic truancy and school dropouts, no further

concrete conclusions can be drawn from

these data because the number of truancies reported does not equal the number

of youth who have been truant. Truancy

data on individuals are necessary to determine whether the proportion of dropouts to truants has changed over time.

Moreover, without individual truancy and

dropout data, it is impossible to make

Relationship Between Parents’ Response to Letters and Completion of

Program (1997–98 School Year)

Program Successfully Program Not

Response to Completed Completed Total

Letter Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

First 119 86.2 19 13.8 138 100

Second 34 73.9 12 26.1 46 100

Total 153 83.2 31 16.8 184 100

Note: Chi-square=3.737; p=0.05.
7

concrete statements about the relationship between truancy and dropping out

of school.

Overall Assessment

ACT Now has developed into an institutionalized response to truancy in Pima

County. The schools, law enforcement,

PCAO, service providers, and the local

media see the program as an integral

part of the community’s efforts to address

truancy and associated problems that put

youth at high risk of serious delinquent

behavior.

Overall, ACT Now has become a new

source of leverage for schools to respond

to truancy and has allowed for a more consistent response when schools make referrals to CJA. Critical to this process was the

establishment of a minimum number of

absences before a referral was made and

a recognition of local schools’ decisionmaking authority in determining when a

referral is appropriate. In addition, the

relationships built among the schools, law

enforcement, the juvenile court, and PCAO

are an important program outcome.

The outcome evaluation supports APRI’s

finding that ACT Now has resulted in a coordinated response to truancy that is embraced by the schools, law enforcement,

the prosecutor, and the courts. This response is evidenced by the number of truancy sweeps, CJA referrals, services provided to youth and their parents, parental

prosecutions, guilty pleas, and the increasing monetary sanctions imposed.

ACT Now also appears to have an effect

on parental accountability and school

attendance.

This evidence, however, must be interpreted carefully, as it is based primarily

on aggregate data. Individual data on

truants, parents, and recidivism would

provide stronger evidence. In addition,

information from parents regarding their

perceptions of the ACT Now program and

its impact on their supervision of school

attendance would further enhance the

current evaluation’s findings.

Truancy Reduction

Demonstration

Program

In 1998, OJJDP, the Executive Office for

Weed and Seed, and the U.S. Department

of Education’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Program initiated a demonstration grant

program for truancy reduction.13 In

developing the structure of their truancy

reduction effort, OJJDP and its partnering

agencies relied on lessons learned from

and key principles of other truancy and

risk prevention initiatives that have

shown promising results.

A comprehensive, collaborative model

that targets the reduction of risk factors

associated with incidence of truancy was

suggested by the Youth Out of the Education Mainstream (YOEM) Initiative14

and is further supported in the literature

(Catalano et al., 1998; Dryfoos, 1990; Morley and Rossman, 1997; Schorr, 1997). The

models that show the most promise, not

only of reducing truancy, but also of affecting its risk factors, include several

key components:

◆ Parental involvement.

◆ Meaningful sanctions or consequences

for truancy.

◆ Meaningful incentives for school

attendance.

◆ Ongoing school-based truancy reduction programs.

◆ Involvement of community resources

(e.g., law enforcement).

Based on her extensive work with successful prevention models targeting at-risk

youth and families across the country,

Schorr (1997) concludes such programs

must:

◆ Be comprehensive, flexible, responsive,

and persevering.

◆ View children in the context of their

families.

◆ Deal with families as parts of neighborhoods and communities.

◆ Have a long-term, preventive orientation and a clear mission and continue

to evolve over time. 

◆ Be well managed by competent and

committed individuals with clearly

identifiable skills.

◆ Have staff who are trained and supported to provide high-quality, responsive services.

◆ Operate in settings that encourage

practitioners to build strong relationships based on mutual trust and

respect.

One of the most important elements of

any effective prevention effort is the existence of a collaborative partnership of

public agencies, community organizations,

and concerned individuals that interact

with and provide services to truant youth

and their families. OJJDP’s Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic

Juvenile Offenders highlights the critical

need for this collaboration: “Comprehensive, communitywide prevention requires

collaboration and resource sharing. In

most communities, barriers must be broken down and collaborative bridges built

among and within agencies, organizations,

and groups with responsibility for addressing juvenile delinquency” (Howell,

1995:26). For example, schools need to

interact more effectively with community

organizations (businesses, senior organizations, local government, social services

organizations, health agencies, and civic

organizations) to achieve their educational goals. Such collaboration needs to exist within the school system as well—

among teachers, administrators, teaching

assistants, special education teachers,

parents, and students (Howell, 1995). 

TRDP Demonstration Sites

In 1998, OJJDP solicited applications from

communities that were engaged in integrated, communitywide plans to reduce

truancy. Applicants were required to

outline a comprehensive program that

included four major components:

◆ A continuum of services to support

truant youth and their families.

◆ System reform and accountability.

◆ Data collection (from schools, agencies, courts) and evaluation.

◆ A community education and awareness

program that addresses the need to

prevent truancy and intervene with

truant youth.

In 1999, OJJDP awarded funds to eight

sites, a mixture of Weed and Seed and

non-Weed and Seed sites (one, Georgia,

declined to apply for continuation after

the first year). The seven remaining sites

are diverse in geography, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and community-based

leadership. Common to the truant population at all sites is the high representation

of minority students and families and of

students and families living in poverty.

Sites received either $50,000 or $100,000

per year for 3 years. The disparity in

funding was due to the assumption that

the Weed and Seed sites (funded at

$50,000) would need less money for startup and planning because the program

would exist within the local Weed and

Seed effort. While the demonstration
8

sites/programs listed below were being

chosen, OJJDP selected the Colorado

Foundation for Families and Children

(CFFC) as the national evaluator of this

project.

Department of Health and Human

Services/Weed and Seed Office, Contra

Costa County, CA. Contra Costa County

is building on its Weed and Seed efforts

to implement a program targeting ninth

grade students with a history of chronic

truancy and their families. An onsite probation officer will deliver the intervention

by assessing families and youth and referring them to appropriate resources within

the school and community.

State Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL.

The State Attorney’s Office provides a

precourt diversion program for truant

youth and their families. The school district refers families to the program when

chronic truancy has not been solved by

school-based intervention. Following the

referral, a hearing is conducted with the

parent, youth, school attendance social

worker, and volunteer hearing officer. A

contract is negotiated that includes plans

for reducing truancy and accessing services and community supports. A case

manager makes home visits and monitors

the family’s compliance with the plan. In

the fall of 2000, a school-based component

was added to address prevention and

early intervention at two elementary

schools, where an onsite case manager

monitors attendance and provides early

outreach.

Clarke County School District (Weed and

Seed site), Athens, GA. Clarke County’s

Reducing Truancy in Middle Grades program employed a case manager who

worked directly with students at two middle schools to identify youth with five or

more unexcused absences. The case manager made home visits, called parents,

and facilitated parent-teacher conferences

to assess the causes of truancy. The case

manager provided referrals to communitybased resources and some direct services

to families. In addition, students and families who did not respond to the program’s

case management approach were summoned to appear before an attendance

panel. This site declined to apply for continuation after the first year and is no

longer participating in TRDP.

University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI. The

University of Hawaii is building on a previous program to prevent truancy in the

Wai’anae area. Attendance officers in two

elementary schools work to provide early

outreach to young students and their

families when absences become chronic.

Community resources are used to address

the issues that may prevent youth from

attending school regularly. In addition, the

schools work with the Honolulu police

department to provide Saturday truancy

workshops for youth with chronic truancy

problems and their families.

Suffolk County Probation Department

(Weed and Seed site), Yaphank, NY.

Suffolk County’s South Country Truancy

Reduction Program, which builds on community policing efforts, targets elementary

and middle school students who have illegal absences. A probation officer monitors

attendance in collaboration with school

personnel, facilitates access to school and

community-based services needed by the

student and family to establish regular

school attendance, and observes attendance and other school-based indicators to

ensure that the student’s attendance and

engagement at school are improving. A

similar model is in existence at the local

high school.

Mayor’s Anti-Gang Office (Weed and

Seed site), Houston, TX. The Mayor’s

Anti-Gang Office placed an experienced

case manager in one high school to identify students with chronic truancy patterns.

Through home visits and school-based

supports, students and their families are

provided with services, support, and resources to address truancy. The program

also works with community police officers, who provide a “knock and talk”

service for youth and their families when

truancy continues to be an issue. The

officers assess family functioning and

deliver information about the law and

truancy outcomes; they also issue the

official summons to court for a truancy

petition.

King County Superior Court, Seattle,

WA. After a truancy petition is filed,

families have the option of attending

Colorado Foundation for

Families and Children

The Colorado Foundation for Families

and Children (CFFC) is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes the

health, education, and well-being 

of children and families through research, program development, and

evaluation of promising communitybased activities. CFFC accomplishes

this by assisting in the formation of

partnerships between governmental

and private entities to support the

community implementation of effective practices. In addition to evaluating TRDP, CFFC oversees the evaluation of several truancy projects in

Colorado. For more information,

visit CFFC’s Web site at www.

coloradofoundation.org. For information about CFFC’s evaluation of

TRDP, visit www.coloradofoundation.

org/nationaltruancyproject.
9

an evening workshop, participating in a

community truancy board hearing, or proceeding to court on the charges. The workshop includes education about truancy

law and outcomes and facilitates planning

between the parent and youth for addressing the cause of truancy. Community truancy boards composed of local community

members hear the case, develop a plan

for use with the youth and family, and

monitor compliance with the stipulated

agreement. In the fall of 2000, a schoolbased component was added to address

prevention and early intervention.

Safe Streets Campaign (Weed and Seed

site), Tacoma, WA. The Tacoma truancy

project is based in one middle school

where an onsite coordinator monitors

attendance and connects youth and their

families with community resources to

address the underlying causes of truancy.

This program works in tandem with law

enforcement officials and a truancy center,

to which truant youth are delivered and

then assessed after pickup by community

police officers.

The National Evaluation

The goal of the evaluation of TRDP is to

describe the process by which interagency community-based coalitions develop, implement, and sustain effective

truancy reduction efforts. Sites work with

the national evaluator to accomplish the

goals of the evaluation. By design, these

efforts are intended to build on the community’s strengths: its service organizations, social support agencies, businesses,

parents, youth, and religious organizations.

In addition, programs should enhance the

awareness of the community, policymakers, and stakeholders that truancy prevention and reduction are necessary components of systemic support to keep

youth in school and out of the juvenile

justice system. 

The evaluation has two main components: determining whether the programs

reduce truancy and describing the role

and processes of the community-based

collaboratives driving the local programs.

The collaboratives’ processes also are

being evaluated to help other sites in

their implementation plans. 

The design for program evaluation is

multimodal. As sites implement their programs and begin to serve students and

families, numeric and descriptive data are

collected. Indicators for success evaluated

across all sites include school attendance,

school discipline, and academic achievement. Each site has been empowered to

further tailor its individual evaluation to

track additional outcomes that may be of

local interest. For example, some sites are

questioning participating students and

families about their awareness of existing

public outreach efforts to determine the

efforts’ efficacy in reaching the target

audience.

A survey was administered early in program implementation to assess the type

of information and level of detail that

would be available from individual sites.

This survey directly informed the empirical data collection strategy planned.

Individual-level, schoolwide, and communitywide data on the following elements

were requested:

◆ Individual-level: Demographics of the

targeted students and their families

and targeted students’ school attendance, academic achievement, discipline incidents, and so forth.

◆ Schoolwide: Special education rates,

data regarding free and reduced-price

lunches, school completion/promotion

rates, attendance rates, discipline statistics (e.g., suspension, expulsion, office referrals), academic achievement

information, and dropout rates.

◆ Communitywide: Truancy petitions

filed and cases heard (including breakdown by age, ethnicity, gender, and

grade level of truant youth), daytime

crime data (including arrests, gang

activity, and commitments of youth to

secure detention facilities), probation

and diversion data, comparable data

from a control group (i.e., another

school), and other data involving issues such as substance abuse, child

welfare, and mental health.

All sites may not have all of the data

available; however, most key correlates

and indicators are available to inform

the evaluation.

Program Context

To date, contextual data describing the

schools and communities in which the

programs are situated indicate that primary correlates with truancy and school

disengagement include poverty, low academic achievement, high mobility (e.g.,

moving from home to home, school to

school), high rates of school discipline,

and overrepresentation of special education eligibility.

Of the data elements requested, only attendance rates, eligibility for free and

reduced-price lunches, and special education rates were reported reliably. These

data are provided in figure 1. Because

school districts and States vary in the

way such data are collected and counted,

the consistency in measures across sites

is not yet clear.

As an early activity in the evaluation, sites

were asked to complete a logic model for

their programs, identifying the targeted

strengths and needs of the students, families, schools, and community. Sites used

the model to frame the flow of needs assessment, program strategies, measurable

milestones, and ultimate results. “Youth to

be in school and succeeding” was unanimously identified as the expected result

of the sites’ truancy programs. Each site

used the same logic model template to

frame its assessment and plan. Because

each site serves a different community

and different target population, the

strengths, needs, strategies, and milestones may differ from site to site. Figure

2 summarizes the commonalities found

across sites (see page 11).

The Community-Based

Collaboratives

The evaluation of community-based collaborative groups depends on multiple

methods to gather information: a survey

entitled Working Together: A Profile of Collaboration (Omni Institute, 1992), one-onone telephone interviews, onsite group

interviews, and site-based observations.

The information collected during the first

year is considered a baseline and will help

evaluators understand the context in

which each program exists.

Working Together measures the perceptions of group members in five key areas:

context, structure, membership, process,

and results. Survey results are intended

to be used as a springboard for action

planning. Evaluators administer the instrument annually and inform each site of

the results on a yearly basis. During the

first year that Working Together was

administered, evaluators received 82

completed surveys (about 11 surveys
10

75 80 85 90 95 100

Athens, GA

Honolulu, HI

Houston, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Tacoma, WA

Yaphank, NY

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Percent

0 5 10 15 20 25

Athens, GA

Honolulu, HI

Houston, TX

Tacoma, WA

Yaphank, NY

Special Education Eligibility

School Attendance Rates

Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility

Percent

Athens, GA

Honolulu, HI

Houston, TX

Jacksonville, FL

Tacoma, WA

Yaphank, NY

93.3

98.0

88.2

86.0

89.2

93.4

60.9

80.0

52.0

83.0

78.0

21.9

16.9

11.7

9.0

22.0

16.4

Figure 1: School-Based Context of TRDP

Note: Data unavailable for Contra Costa County, CA, and Seattle, WA. Special education data

unavailable for Jacksonville, FL.

Telephone interviews, which will be held

annually, were conducted with participants from six sites in the first year.15

A total of 24 interviews—approximately

4 per site—were completed with representatives from law enforcement, schools,

courts, and community-based organizations who were active in the communitybased groups. The interviews assessed

participants’ awareness of the local causes

and correlates of truancy, their perceptions

of the presence of needed partners in the

collaborative task force, the state of interagency collaboration, and the need for policy change.

Interviewees all indicated their communities had been working on truancy issues

for at least 2 years. As they reported, the

causes of truancy, in general, fell into four

broad categories: family factors, school

factors, economic influences, and student

variables (see page 2 for a more detailed

discussion of these factors).

Interview respondents were asked to identify who should be the collaborative’s key

members (see figure 4, page 12). The majority identified law enforcement, youth

services, juvenile justice agencies, schools,

social services, and community-based organizations as important key members. Although very few mentioned parents, youth,

the faith community, businesses, and social organizations, these individuals and

organizations are also key members of truancy collaboratives.

Respondents were then asked if all needed partners identified above were at the

table. The majority indicated that all necessary stakeholders were present (see

figure 5, page 12); some realized they

were missing important members of the

community—typically identified were the

faith and business communities.

Onsite interviews, which will be held

annually, suggested that many of the

collaboratives were unclear about their

group vision or mission and hence about

their goals and necessary steps to achieve

goals.

Site-based observations are still being

compiled, as some sites were not operational at the time this Bulletin was written. In addition, the operational sites did

not always understand the purpose of

requests for site visits during which “typical” activities would be observed. Hence,

these data are still being collected in

some cases.

Specific issues regarding jurisdiction,

funding, and the sharing of information

from each of the 7 participating sites).

Representatives from law enforcement,

courts, schools, mental health agencies,

and community-based organizations

completed the surveys. Figure 3 (page 12)

shows that, on average, sites rated their

performance and success in each area

fairly high, with some differences.
11

Figure 2: Logic Model for TRDP Evaluation

Family School Student Community

Strengths

Communication between Afterschool resources available Knowledge of school Strong agency 

school and home Information-sharing established environment collaboration

Knowledge of home with other agencies Desire to be in school Available resources

Knowledge of family needs and succeeding Community center

Tutorial services

Community attendance 

panel

Clear laws

Political support

Needs

Basic Positive school climate Education and awareness Service agency 

• Housing Education and awareness • Consequences of truancy coordination

• Employment • Risk factors for truancy law • Streamlined assess- 

• Childcare • Process for truancy referrals • Value of education ment and referral

• Transportation • Early intervention/prevention • Available resources • Reduced duplication

Education and awareness Services Social/emotional skills of services

• Parenting skills • Mentoring • Adjustment to middle Culturally appropriate 

• Value of education • Tutoring school/high school practices

• Community resources • Counseling • Peer and family Involvement of all 

• Importance of parental • Mediation relationships community partners

involvement at school • Alternative programs • Coping strategies • Police

• Truancy and attendance • Afterschool programs Behavioral support • Faith community

laws Tracking and monitoring Academic support • Business community

Addressing cultural attendance Attachment to school Education/awareness/

differences Commitment by administration mobilization

• Translation of services • Truancy law

• Value of education • Value of education

Treatment • Truancy risk factors

• Mental health assessment • Process across

• Family counseling agencies

• Substance abuse intervention

Strategies

Assessment Technical assistance Assessment Development of mission 

Resource referral and training Referral statement

Counseling Grants to support efforts Peer programs Assessment of

Education Cross-agency training Truancy education collaborative

Parenting programs Development of districtwide Education about Training conference

attendance policy consequences Public awareness

Development of Social work interventions campaign

afterschool programs Establishment of a 

task force

Community training

Milestones

Improved access to Awareness of risk factors Improved peer and Mission and work plan 

services More efficient referrals family relationships identified

Improved involvement Community truancy boards Decreased behavior referrals Contract made with

in child’s education in place Improved attendance schools

Improved employment Conference planned Improved academics Conference held

Access to childcare Training disseminated Improved access to services Community awareness 

and transportation to schools Improved attachment enhanced

Understanding of Understanding of to school Public service 

truancy process truancy system announcements 

Improved parenting skills Increased program referrals distributed

1,000 families served Improved monitoring of Improved involvement

attendance and valuing of youth

More available services
12

about youth and families are problematic

for certain agencies and need to be dealt

with from the start to enhance implementation of the program and the ongoing

health of the coalition. As part of the planning process, collaboratives should identify the roles, responsibilities, and understandings among cooperating agencies

and formalize agreements by using a

memorandum of understanding. In addition, the collaboratives require continuing

education and need to be made aware of

the importance of involving the community at large—particularly parents, youth,

the faith community, and local businesses.

Parents and youth are required to be involved, and the faith and local business

communities are key for volunteer, financial, and in-kind support through services.

CFFC (as national evaluator) offers facilitation and action planning services to

collaboratives. Such activities can greatly

benefit these and future projects that are

seated within a collaborative and multiagency setting; sites will be encouraged

to use this service in the future. 

Overall Assessment

TRDP’s first year has yielded a strong base

of information to direct the program’s further development. Almost all of the participating sites need much more time, support,

and training than anticipated to facilitate a

successful start, both in program implementation and development and in maintenance of the community-based collaboratives directing the program. 

Access to data, particularly across system

lines (e.g., schools, courts, law enforcement), continues to require evaluation

staff assistance in a variety of ways. To

ensure that the data collected are consistent across sites and that they reflect the

context in which the program exists, ongoing contact is crucial—especially sitebased support on at least a semiannual

basis. The national evaluators can facilitate information sharing and formalized

agreements that might not otherwise

occur so readily. 

In addition, implementing culturally appropriate practices and obtaining family

involvement continue to be troublesome

for the sites. OJJDP has encouraged sites

to use resources that can assist in developing strategies for improving practices

in these areas.

Early in the project, the evaluation revealed commonalities in structure and

planning processes among the seven participating programs, such as the existence

of an extensive startup period and a

strong community collaborative. After

examining initial outcome data, evaluators will make available implications for

best practices in the fall of 2001. Evaluators are tracking outcome data that

focus on five target areas: student demographics, family demographics, a needs

assessment, a service plan, and quarterly

outcomes. Specific outcomes being measured include improvement in attendance

and academics and reductions in office

referrals, suspensions, expulsions, and

involvement with the juvenile justice

department.

It is expected that the lessons learned

from the diverse TRDP programs about

establishing and maintaining effective

community-based leadership and

70%

14%

9%

7%

Law enforcement, youth services, juvenile justice agencies, schools, social services, 

community-based organizations

Business community, youth, 

social organizations

Truancy center, mental health 

organizations

State attorney, faith-based 

organizations, hospital, parents

Figure 4: Partners Identified as

Necessary to Reducing Truancy

Note: n=18 respondents.

76%

18%

6%

All present

Missing key members

Do not know

Figure 5: Response to Question

Regarding the Presence of Necessary

Partners

Note: n=17 respondents.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Context

Structure

Membership

Process

Results

Average Score

3.5

3.3

3.3

3.2

3.0

Domain

Figure 3: Results of Initial (First Year) Administration of 

Working Together

Note: n=82 responses. A score of 1=negative, 4=positive.
13

interventions will guide future work by

OJJDP and communities to prevent

truancy.

Conclusion

Chronic truancy has long been identified

as a key predictor for negative outcomes

in education, employment, and social success. The correlates of chronic truancy

continue to be holistic in nature and include family, school, economic, and

student variables. Several promising programs are now in existence and, with the

support of OJJDP, are making significant

headway against the truancy problem. 

Programs such as ACT Now and TRDP

build on the strengths and resources

within local communities to target truancy from a “carrot and stick” perspective.

Students and families need both the

incentive to attend school (the carrot)

and meaningful consequences for chronic

nonattendance (the stick). Truancy is a

violation of State law as a status offense

for the youth and educational neglect for

the parent; addressing the underlying

issues is necessary for long-term behavior change. Underlying issues that have

been identified by these projects include

family poverty, less education, substance

abuse, cultural variation in the valuing of

public education, and pressures on the

youth to work and provide childcare for

younger siblings.

Implementing a successful, sustainable

truancy reduction project has its share

of challenges, as illustrated by ACT Now

and TRDP. Gaining consensus among

schools to adopt a uniform definition of

truancy and a standardized approach to

the increase in school absences is a significant challenge. In addition, gaining cooperation from diverse key community players, such as law enforcement, courts,

social services, parents, and communitybased organizations, can be a challenging

and time-consuming task. Finally, implementing effective, data-driven methods

for tracking both the occurrence of truancy and the impact of programs on key

indicators of success is a struggle for

many programs.

Endnotes

1. The definition of truancy is usually

established by school district policy and

may vary across districts. For the purposes of this Bulletin, truancy is generally

defined as an unexcused absence from

school or class (i.e., an absence without

the proper approval of appropriate school

officials).

2. Generally, absentee rates are highest

in public schools in the inner-city where

larger numbers of students are eligible for

free or reduced-price lunches (Heaviside

et al., 1998). (Higher truancy rates generally correlate with poverty; higher rates of

free and reduced-price lunches are typically used as evidence of poverty.)

3. This series of long-term studies, which

have followed thousands of at-risk youth

in three cities for more than a decade, is

designed to improve the understanding of

serious delinquency, violence, and drug

use by examining how youth develop

within the context of family, school, peers,

and community. For more details about

this program, visit ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ccd.

4. Retrieved from the Web at www.sc.co.

pima.az.us.

5. Seven school districts (not including

the Tucson Unified School District) participate in ACT Now. Of these, the four most

populous were selected to participate in

the evaluation of ACT Now: Amphitheater,

Sunnyside, Marana, and Flowing Wells.

All four are located in the Tucson metropolitan area, and their total student enrollment represents approximately 77 percent of the Pima County public school

students who are not enrolled in the

Tucson Unified School District.

6. Because school attendance is monitored

by an attendance clerk at each school,

attendance clerks and local school administrators were key figures in program

implementation.

7. The affidavit certifying the truant student’s attendance record is a critical

component of the prosecution strategy

because it obviates the necessity of having school officials testify at court proceedings in each case. This plan represented a major inducement to school

administrators, who did not relish the

notion that staff time could be taken up

with frequent court appearances.

8. Prior to the involvement of CJA, participating service providers were asked to

submit information to PCAO verifying that

referred parents had successfully completed the program and thus complied

with the terms of the diversion agreement. Later, CJA monitored compliance

with the terms of the diversion contract.

9. To order this publication, contact

APRI’s Research Unit at 703–549–4253 or

visit its Web site, www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/

Research_and_Development/Research_

and_Development.html.

10. The number of referrals to various

services does not represent the number

of youth referred to such services. Youth

often are referred to multiple services;

however, referral data were only available

in aggregate form, making it impossible to

determine the actual number of youth

who received services.

11. The 1997–98 school year marks the

first year in which recidivism data were

tracked.

12. Ideally, the evaluation would consider

pretest truancy from the 1995–96 school

year; however, reliable truancy data for

that year were unavailable.
14

13. Weed and Seed is a community-based

strategy combining law enforcement and

human services to improve communities

by reducing crime and revitalizing community involvement and resources. Weed and

Seed requires an active and participating

collaborative group, on which the grant

program can theoretically build.

14. YOEM, which was a joint initiative of

OJJDP and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools

Program, U.S. Department of Education,

focused on truants, dropouts, and youth

who were fearful of attending school, suspended or expelled, or in need of help to

become reintegrated into mainstream

schools from juvenile detention and correctional settings.

15. The exclusion of two sites was due

to site-based difficulties with startup and

interviewee accessibility.

References

Baker, M.L. 2000. Evaluation of the Truancy

Reduction Demonstration Program: Interim

Report. Denver, CO: Colorado Foundation

for Families and Children.

Bell, A.J., Rosen, L.A., and Dynlacht, D.

1994. Truancy intervention. The Journal

of Research and Development in Education

57(3):203–211.

Bernat, F.P. 1996. Survey Evaluation for

the Governor’s Division for Children: State

Truancies and Unexcused Absences. Final

Report. Phoenix, AZ: Governor’s Division

for Children.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2001. A Profile

of the Working Poor, 1999. Report 947.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Catalano, F.R., Arthur, M.W., Hawkins, J.D.,

Berglund, L., and Olson, J.J. 1998. Comprehensive community- and school-based

interventions to prevent antisocial behavior. In Serious and Violent Juvenile

Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful

Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and

D. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Dryfoos, J.G. 1990. Adolescents at Risk:

Prevalence and Prevention. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Dynarski, M., and Gleason, P. 1999. How

Can We Help? Lessons From Federal

Dropout Prevention Programs. Princeton,

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Garry, E.M. 1996. Truancy: First Step to a

Lifetime of Problems. Bulletin. Washington,

D.C. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hawkins, J.D., and Catalano, R. 1995.

Risk Focused Prevention: Using the Social

Development Strategy. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C.,

and Farris, E. 1998. Violence and Discipline

Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996–97.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, National Center for

Education Statistics.

Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing

the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,

Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., and Thornberry,

T. 1995. Urban Delinquency and Substance

Abuse: Initial Findings. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Ingersoll, S., and LeBoeuf, D. 1997. Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education Mainstream. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Kelley, B.T., Loeber, R., Keenan, K., and

DeLamarte, M. 1997. Developmental Pathways in Boys’ Disruptive and Delinquent

Behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Loeber, R., and Farrington, D. 2000. Young

children who commit crime: Epidemiology,

developmental origins, risk factors, early

interventions, and policy implications.

Development and Psychopathology

12(4):737–762.

Morley, E., and Rossman, S.B. 1997.

Helping At-Risk Youth: Lessons From

Community-Based Initiatives. Washington,

DC: The Urban Institute.

National Center for Juvenile Justice.

1996. Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics,

1990–1994. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center

for Juvenile Justice.

Omni Institute. 1992. Working Together:

A Profile of Collaboration. Denver, CO:

Omni Institute.

Puzzanchera, C., Stahl, A., Finnegan, T.,

Snyder, H., Poole, R., and Tierney, N.

Forthcoming. Juvenile Court Statistics 1998.

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Robins, L.N., and Ratcliff, K.S. 1978. LongRange Outcomes Associated With School

Truancy. Washington, DC: Public Health

Service.

Roderick, M., Chiong, J., Arney, M., DaCosta, K., Stone, M., Villarreal-Sosa, L., and

Waxman, E. 1997. Habits Hard To Break: 

A New Look at Truancy in Chicago’s Public

High Schools. Research in Brief. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago, School of Social

Service Administration.

Rohrman, D. 1993. Combating truancy in

our schools—a community effort. Bulletin

76(549):40–51.

Schorr, L.B. 1997. Common Purpose:

Strengthening Families and Neighborhoods

To Rebuild America. New York, NY:

Doubleday.

Sigmon, J.N., Nugent, M.E., and EngelhardtGreer, S. 1999. Abolish Chronic Truancy Now

Diversion Program: Evaluation Report.

Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors

Research Institute.

Snyder, H.N., and Sickmund, M. 1995.

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National

Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. 

U.S. Department of Education, 1993. Conditions of Education: 1993 (Indicators 32 and

34). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education.
15

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of 

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number

1999–MU–MU–0014 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

Acknowledgments

Myriam L. Baker, Ph.D., is a private consultant specializing in development and

evaluation of programs for at-risk youth and a primary consultant to the Colorado

Foundation for Families and Children in its evaluation of the Truancy Reduction

Demonstration Program. Jane Nady Sigmon, Ph.D., is former Director of Research

at American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), and M. Elaine Nugent is current Director of Research at APRI.

Photographs pages 2 and 8 copyright © 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.; photographs pages

4 and 13 copyright © 1997 PhotoDisc, Inc.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 188947

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300