Last updated: 2001 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Alternative Schools 

Alternative schools are essentially specialized educational environments that place a great deal of 

emphasis on small classrooms, high teacher-to-student ratios, individualized instruction, 

noncompetitive performance assessments, and less structured classrooms (Raywid 1983). The purpose 

of these schools is to provide academic instruction to students expelled or suspended for disruptive 

behavior or weapons possession, or who are unable to succeed in the mainstream school environment 

(Ingersoll and Leboeuf 1997). 

Theoretical Foundation 

Alternative schools originated to help inner city youth stay in school and obtain an education (Coffee 

and Pestridge 2001). In theory, students assigned to alternative schools feel more comfortable in this 

environment and are more motivated to attend school. Students attending these schools are believed to 

have higher self-esteem, more positive attitudes toward school, improved school attendance, higher 

academic performance, and decreased delinquent behavior (Cox, 1999; Cox, Davison, and Bynum 

1995). As a result, many alternative schools are being used to target delinquent youth (Gottfredson 

1987; Arnove and Strout 1980). These schools serve the dual purpose of reinforcing the message that 

students are accountable for their crimes and removing disruptive students from the mainstream. In 

general, alternative schools assess academic and social abilities and skills, assign offenders to programs 

that allow them to succeed while challenging them to reach higher goals, and provide assistance 

through small group and individualized instruction and counseling sessions (Ingersoll and Leboeuf 

1997). In addition, students and their families may be assessed to determine whether social services 

such as health care, parenting classes, and other program services are indicated. 

While there is a great degree of variation among alternative schools, research demonstrates that the 

schools that succeed with this population of youth typically have the following elements: 

 Strong leadership

 Lower student-to-staff ratio

 Carefully selected personnel

 Early identification of student risk factors and problem behaviors

 Intensive counseling/mentoring

 Prosocial skills training

 Strict behavior requirements

 Curriculum-based on real-life learning

 Emphasis on parental involvement

 Districtwide support of the programs (Coffee and Pestridge 2001)

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2001. “Alternative Schools.” Literature review. Washington, 

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Alternative_Schools.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view 

or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

Outcome Evidence

Evaluations of early alternative schools generally found that these programs did not produce positive 

results (Raywid 1983). However, the ineffectiveness of these programs was attributable to weak 

program implementation (Cox 1999). For instance, many early programs were designed as a form of 

punishment with little regard for program intervention and a selection process devoid of any specific 

criteria. Consequently, all types of delinquent offenders, whether appropriate or not, were being 

sequestered in alternative schools with no resources for improvement. Reviews (Cox 1999; Cox, 

Davison and Bynum 1995; Duke and Muzio 1978; Hawkins and Wall 1980) of the early evaluations 

found that these studies were wrought with methodological problems including 1) a lack of a control 

or a comparison group, 2) failure to randomize when sampling from the student population, 3) a 

tendency to eliminate data on program dropouts, and 4) a lack of follow-up data on students. 

More recent evaluations (Kemple and Snipes 2000; Cox 1999; Cox, Davison, and Bynum 1995) suggest 

that alternative schools have some positive effects. A meta-analysis of 57 alternative school programs 

found that alternative schools have a positive effect on school performance, attitudes toward school, 

and self-esteem but no effect on delinquency (Cox, Davison, and Bynum 1995). The study also found 

that alternative schools that targeted at-risk youth produced larger effects than other programs and that 

the more successful programs tend to have a curriculum and structure centered on the needs of the 

designated population. These effects, however, may be short term. Using an experimental design with 

a 1-year follow-up of a single alternative school, Cox (1999) found that these positive effects were not 

observed 1 year later. Consequently, the type of follow-up support given to students in alternative 

schools may be important in achieving the long-term goals of the program. Finally, a 5-year evaluation 

of the career academy concept (the OJJDP alternative school model) covering nine schools and 1,900 

students found that, compared with their counterparts who did not attend, at-risk students enrolled in 

career academies were 1) one-third less likely to drop out of school, 2) more likely to attend school, 

complete academic and vocational courses, and apply to college, and 3) provided with more 

opportunities to set goals and reach academic and professional objectives (Kemple and Snipes 2000).

References

Arnette, J.; and M.C. Walsleben. 1998. Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in Schools. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Arnove, R.; and T. Strout. 1980. “Alternative School for Disruptive Youth.” Education Forum 44:453–71.

Coffee, J.; and S. Pestridge. 2001. Career Academy Concept. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

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

Cox, S. 1999. “An Assessment of an Alternative Education Program for At-Risk Delinquent Youth.” 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36(3):323–36. 

Cox, S.; W. Davison; and T. Bynum. 1995. “A Meta-Analytic Assessments of Delinquency-Related 

Outcomes of Alternative Education Programs.” Crime and Delinquency 41(2):19–34.

Duke, D.; and I. Muzio. 1978. “How Effective Are Alternative Schools? A Review of Recent Evaluation 

and Reports.” Teachers College Record 79:461–83. 

Gottfredson, G. 1987. American Education—American Delinquency. Today’s Delinquent 6(1):1–65.

Hawkins, J.; and J. Wall. 1980. Alternative Education: Exploring the Delinquency Prevention Potential. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Ingersoll, S.; and D. LeBoeuf. 1997. Reaching Out to Youth Out of the Education Mainstream. Bulletin. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

Kemple, J.; and J. Snipes. 2000. Career Academies: Impacts on Students’ Engagement and Performance in 

High School. San Francisco, Calif.: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. 

Raywid, M. 1983. “Alternative Schools as a Model for Public Education.” Theory Into Practice 22:190–

97.

Stern, D.; C. Dayton; and M. Raby. 1998. A Report: Career Academies and High School Reform. Berkeley,

Calif.: University of California at Berkeley.