1 

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Issue Brief: Case Management in High Schools

July 2017

Introduction

In 2014–15, the high school graduation rate reached a record high of 83 percent (U.S. Department of 

Education 2016). Despite the gains, over half a million students still drop out of high school each year 

(U.S. Department of Education 2015). High schools have adopted various strategies designed to keep 

students who are at risk of not graduating in school and on track for earning the credits required to 

graduate. “At-risk” students are defined as those failing to achieve basic proficiency in key subjects or 

exhibiting behaviors that can lead to failure and/or dropping out of school. Dropout prevention 

strategies are diverse; they vary in type of program, services used, frequency, intensity, and duration of 

contact with target students.

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) sponsored the National Survey on High School 

Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate (HSS), which aimed to provide descriptive 

information on the prevalence and characteristics of dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. 

The survey collected data in the 2014–15 school year from a nationally representative sample of 

2,142 public high schools and focused on 13 specific high school improvement strategies1 identified by a 

panel of external experts and senior Department officials. All findings are based on self-reported data 

from school principals. This brief on case management is the tenth in a series of briefs being released 

this year with key findings about these high school improvement strategies. 

Definition of Case Management

The HSS defined case management as a school-based intervention in which a social worker or school 

professional (referred to as a case manager in this brief) provides intensive advising to students who are 

at risk of dropping out and connects them to an array of services to address their academic and 

nonacademic needs. Case managers provide regular monitoring of services and follow-up with students 

as needed. These services are designed to improve a student’s health, educational outcomes, and 

welfare and may include monitoring student academic performance and attendance; raising the 

expectations for students in setting educational/career goals and providing advice about postsecondary 

options; improving student engagement in school; reducing the incidence of at-risk behavior and

developing conflict resolution skills; addressing family issues or concerns; and referring students to

community resources for further assistance. 

 

1 The survey examined 13 strategies designed to improve high school outcomes for at-risk students. These strategies are: 

(1) academic support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) career-themed curriculum, (4) case management, (5) college-level 

coursework, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, (9) high school transition 

activities, (10) mentoring, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, and (13) student support teams. See 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-high-school.html for the series of briefs.
2 

Research on Case Management

Few rigorous studies have focused specifically on the effectiveness of school-based case management

models on high school graduation. As a broker of services to meet individual students’ needs, case 

managers can offer guidance and develop wraparound services to address the various obstacles that 

may prevent students from progressing in school. There is some research suggesting “wraparound 

services” may help students improve their mental health and juvenile justice outcomes. Wraparound 

services are provided by a team of practitioners who deliver a wide range of services for children and 

their families that address the full spectrum of health, education, safety, and welfare needs. A metaanalysis of seven studies documented the effects of youth receiving wraparound services compared with 

youth who did not receive wraparound services. Studies found that youth receiving wraparound services 

were in a more stable living environment and had slightly better mental health, youth functioning, 

school functioning, and juvenile justice-related outcomes (Suter and Bruns 2009). One case 

management model, Communities In Schools, that has been evaluated did not show impacts in the first 

year, with authors noting that it may take more than one year to show an effect (Corrin et al. 2015).

Survey Findings on Case Management

This brief describes the prevalence of case management as a high school dropout prevention strategy. It 

does not measure the effectiveness of case management, but instead describes the implementation of 

case management in high schools across the country. All findings are based on self-reported data from 

school principals. This analysis included an examination of four school characteristics: (1) size, 

(2) poverty, (3) locale, and (4) graduation rate. Only statistically significant differences within school 

characteristics (at p <. 05) are discussed; non-statistically significant differences are not reported. School 

characteristics were defined in the following ways.

School size. School size categories consisted of small schools (fewer than 500 students), medium 

schools (500–1,199 students), and large schools (1,200 or more students) based on 2013–14

Common Core of Data (CCD) student enrollment data. 

School poverty. Poverty levels were based on 2013–14 free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and total

CCD school enrollment data. The poverty categories were low-poverty schools (below 35 percent 

students with FRPL), medium-poverty schools (35–49 percent students with FRPL), and high-poverty 

schools (50 percent or more students with FRPL).

School locale. School locale included three mutually exclusive locales from the CCD: rural schools, 

suburban/town schools, and city schools. 

Graduation rate. School classification by graduation rate was based on three categories: lowgraduation rate (67 percent or lower graduation rate), medium-graduation rate (68 to 89 percent 

graduation rate), and high-graduation rate (90 percent or higher graduation rate).
3 

Summary of Key Findings

• Overall, 41 percent of high schools reported using case management for at least some students;

about nine percent of high school students nationwide participated in some type of case 

management, according to school principals. 

• Low-graduation rate schools were more likely than high-graduation rate schools to use case 

management; large schools were more likely than small schools to use case management; and 

more city and suburban schools used case management than rural schools. 

• Among high schools offering case management, the most common type of case management 

activity was preventing at-risk behavior through techniques such as coaching and behavioral 

support (87 percent), followed by monitoring student’s progress to help them stay on track 

academically (86 percent), modeling positive and respectful behavior (86 percent), and 

improving student engagement in school (82 percent).

• Among high schools offering case management, schools most commonly targeted students on 

the basis of their academic performance (55 percent), followed by discipline or behavioral issues 

(49 percent), staff referrals (47 percent), and attendance problems (42 percent).

• Of the schools that used case management, 65 percent reported that students were expected to 

meet with their case managers daily or weekly, 11 percent reported that students were 

expected to meet with their case manager every other week, and 17 percent reported that 

students were expected to meet with their case manager monthly or less frequently.

What is the prevalence of case management in high schools? 

Overall, 41 percent of high schools reported using case management for at least some students; about 

nine percent of high school students nationwide participated in some type of case management, 

according to school principals. The prevalence of case management differed by school size, school locale 

and graduation rate (Exhibit 1). There were no significant differences by school poverty level.
4 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of high schools that used case management 

by selected school characteristics, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: In 2014–15, 41 percent of high schools used case management for at least some 

students.

* p < .05. 

NOTE: An asterisk indicates statistical significance. The asterisk is placed on one case per 

comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were based on 

comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three 

categories were based on goodness-of-fit across all three categories.

Unweighted n = 1,925.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 5).

Differences by school size. Large schools were more likely than small schools to use case 

management (56 percent versus 34 percent).

Differences by school locale. More city and suburban schools used case management than rural 

schools (47 percent of city and 47 percent of suburban schools versus 30 percent of rural 

schools).

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to use case management (44 percent versus 36 percent).

What types of case management activities did high schools offer? 

Among high schools offering case management, the most common type of case management activity

was preventing at-risk behavior through techniques such as coaching and behavioral support 

(87 percent), followed by monitoring student’s progress to help them stay on track academically 

(86 percent); modeling positive and respectful behavior (86 percent); improving student engagement in 

school (82 percent); exploring community resources to address a student’s individual needs 

(80 percent); and addressing family issues or concerns (80 percent). There were differences in case 

management activities by school size, school poverty level, school locale, and graduation rate (Exhibit 2). 
5 

Differences by school size. Large schools were more likely than small schools to offer case 

management activities that focused on ensuring students stay on track academically (93 percent 

versus 82 percent), monitoring student attendance (86 percent versus 68 percent), and helping 

students select classes (64 percent versus 47 percent). 

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools 

to offer case management activities that focused on addressing family issues or concerns 

(85 percent versus 76 percent); low-poverty schools were more likely than high-poverty schools 

to offer case management activities that focused on helping students select classes (63 percent 

versus 47 percent).

Differences by school locale. More city and suburban schools offered case management 

activities that focused on monitoring student attendance than rural schools (79 percent of city 

schools and 81 percent of suburban schools versus 64 percent of rural schools).

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to offer case management activities that focused on improving student 

engagement in school (88 percent versus 79 percent) and addressing family issues or concerns 

(85 percent versus 77 percent). High-graduation-rate schools were more likely than lowgraduation-rate schools to offer case management activities that focused on helping students 

select classes (60 percent versus 42 percent).
6 

Exhibit 2. Among high schools that used case management, the percentage that offered specific 

activities by graduation rate, school size, school poverty level, and school locale, 2014–15

All schools 

with case 

management

Graduation 

rate Size Poverty Locale

Type of activities Low High Large Small High Low City Suburban Rural

Prevent at-risk 

behavior

87% 90% 86% 84% 87% 88% 84% 82% 89% 87%

Model positive & 

respectful 

behavior

86% 88% 86% 84% 86% 88% 84% 85% 89% 83%

Ensure students 

stay on track 

academically

86% 82% 86% 93%* 82% 83% 88% 89% 86% 82%

Improve student 

engagement in 

school

82% 88%* 79% 82% 84% 84% 81% 84% 83% 78%

Explore community 

resources to 

meet individual 

needs

80% 81% 77% 81% 82% 84% 77% 84% 80% 76%

Address family 

issues or 

concerns

80% 85%* 77% 75% 82% 85%* 76% 82% 81% 75%

Develop conflict 

resolution skills

77% 80% 76% 73% 78% 80% 76% 75% 78% 76%

Help raise students’ 

educational or 

career goals

77% 77% 75% 77% 78% 76% 75% 78% 79% 73%

Monitor attendance 76% 78% 76% 86%* 68% 76% 74% 79%* 81% 64%

Provide advice 

about 

postsecondary 

options

74% 72% 70% 78% 75% 75% 70% 78% 74% 70%

Help select classes 54% 42%* 60% 64%* 47% 47%* 63% 52% 57% 54%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that used case management in 2014─15, 87 percent offered activities to students to prevent 

at-risk behavior. 

*p < .05. 

NOTE: The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school characteristics with two categories were 

based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school characteristics with three categories were based on 

goodness-of-fit across all three categories.

Unweighted n = 801.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 13).

How did high schools target students for participation in case management? 

Among high schools with case management, schools most commonly targeted students on the basis of 

their academic performance (55 percent), followed by discipline or behavioral issues (49 percent), staff 

referrals (47 percent), and attendance problems (42 percent). The criteria schools used to target 

students for case management differed by school size, school poverty level, school locale, and 

graduation rate (Exhibit 3). 
7 

Differences by school size. Small schools were more likely than large schools to target students

on the basis of their academic performance (61 percent versus 49 percent) for case 

management; large schools were more likely than small schools to target English learner (EL) 

students (36 percent versus 26 percent) for case management. 

Differences by school poverty. High-poverty schools were more likely than low-poverty schools 

to target students with discipline or behavioral issues (58 percent versus 41 percent) and 

attendance issues (52 percent versus 35 percent) for case management. 

Differences by school locale. More rural schools targeted students on the basis of their 

academic performance than city or suburban schools (64 percent of rural schools versus 

51 percent of city schools and 52 percent of suburban schools) for case management. More city 

and suburban schools targeted students at a particular grade level than rural schools 

(16 percent of city schools and 10 percent of suburban schools versus 6 percent of rural schools) 

for case management. For example, some high schools may target first-year high school 

students to provide greater support. 

Differences by graduation rate. Low-graduation-rate schools were more likely than highgraduation-rate schools to target students with discipline or behavioral issues (64 percent 

versus 43 percent) for case management; high-graduation-rate schools were more likely than 

low-graduation-rate schools to target EL students (30 percent versus 13 percent) for case 

management. 

Exhibit 3. Percentage of high schools that targeted specific student subgroups or issues for 

participation in case management, 2014–15

All schools 

with case 

management Graduation rate Size Poverty Locale

Targeted subgroup Low High Large Small High Low City Suburban Rural

Performing below 

standards/grade 

level

55% 55% 55% 49%* 61% 55% 55% 51%* 52% 64%

Discipline or 

behavioral issues

49% 64%* 43% 43% 52% 58%* 41% 49% 49% 47%

Referred by high 

school staff

47% 47% 42% 42% 50% 50% 41% 48% 43% 51%

Attendance issues 42% 48% 37% 39% 41% 52%* 35% 45% 41% 41%

English Learners 31% 13%* 30% 36%* 26% 33% 32% 32% 31% 31%

Reentry students 13% 23% 7% 12% 13% 15% 11% 18% 12% 9%

Particular grade level 10% 15% 6% 6% 10% 12% 8% 16%* 10% 6%

Exhibit reads: Among high schools that used case management in 2014─15, 55 percent targeted students who were performing 

below standards or grade level.

*p < .05. 

NOTE: An asterisk indicates statistical significance. The asterisk is placed on one case per comparison. Differences across school 

characteristics with two categories were based on comparisons between the two groups. Differences across school 

characteristics with three categories were based on goodness-of-fit across all three categories.

Unweighted n = 488.

SOURCE: HSS survey of high school administrators, 2015 (Question 9).
8 

How frequently did students meet with case managers?

Of the schools that used case management, 65 percent reported that students were expected to meet

with their case managers daily or weekly, 11 percent reported that students were expected to meet

with their case manager every other week, and 17 percent reported that students were expected to 

meet with their case manager monthly or less frequently. Seven percent responded that they did not 

know. There was some variation in the frequency of scheduled meetings with case managers by school 

size; however, there were no differences by graduation rate, school poverty level, and school locale. 

Differences by school size. Small schools were more likely than large schools to report that case

managers met with their students daily (25 percent versus 13 percent). 

Methodology

The National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate was a 

survey of 13 high school strategies designed to improve graduation rates among students at risk of 

dropping out and was administered in the 2014–15 school year. The 13 strategies are: (1) academic 

support classes, (2) academic tutoring, (3) career-themed curriculum, (4) case management, (5) collegelevel coursework, (6) competency-based advancement, (7) credit recovery, (8) early warning systems, 

(9) high school transition activities, (10) mentoring, (11) personalized learning plans, (12) social services, 

and (13) student support teams.

The purpose of the survey was to inform education practitioners and policymakers about the 

prevalence, characteristics, and students served by these strategies in U.S. public high schools. The 

descriptive study did not measure the effectiveness of particular strategies but instead examined 

implementation factors in high schools across the country. The study team identified the 13 strategies 

and designed survey items for each strategy with input from a panel of external experts in the field and 

senior Department officials. All findings are based on self-reported data from school principals.

The researchers selected a nationally representative sample of high schools2 using a random sampling 

approach, stratifying high schools based on graduation rate (from EDFacts)

3 and locale code (from NCES 

2013–14 Common Core of Data). The survey collected data from high school principals (or designees 

knowledgeable about programs and strategies) at sampled schools. The survey response rate was 90

percent. The survey responses, after cleaning and processing, were analyzed in SAS and Stata using 

 

2

 All U.S. public high schools providing instruction to 12th grade students in the fall of 2010 were included in the sampling 

frame unless (1) the lowest offered grade was 11th grade or higher, (2) there were fewer than five students in grades 9 

through 12, (3) the percentage of students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 was under 20 percent of the total school 

enrollment and the total number of students in grades 9 through 12 was fewer than 20, or (4) the school name contained 

one of nine keywords indicating juvenile detention center or hospital. Of the 103,813 total schools listed in the 2010–11 CCD, 

22,447 high schools met the criteria to be included in the sampling frame. 3

 There were 3,302 schools without graduation rate information in the 2010–11 EDFacts public use data set. The researchers 

used an imputation approach to assign these schools to either the high- or low-graduation-rate stratum. The imputation 

process began by examining the distribution of the high/low graduation rate classification for 19,145 schools by sampling 

locale. The percentage of schools classified as high graduation rate was calculated separately for each locale sampling 

stratum; 68.4 percent of rural schools were classified as high graduation rate, 63.0 percent of suburban schools were 

classified as high graduation rate, and 41.0 percent of city schools were classified as high graduation rate. The research team 

randomly assigned each of the 3,302 schools with unknown graduation rates to the high graduation rate stratum with 

probability 68.4 if the school was classified as rural, with probability 63.0 if the school was classified as suburban, and with 

probability 41.0 if the school was classified as urban. The sample size was adjusted upwards to account for potential 

misclassification due to this method. In analysis, the researchers used the restricted-use 2013–14 EDFacts data and 

graduation rates published on school and district websites to fill in this missing data.
9 

descriptive techniques that apply the appropriate statistical population weights to account for 

stratification by graduation rate and locale. 

Results reported in this brief reflect the full survey sample unless otherwise noted and are 

representative of U.S. public high schools nationwide. References in the text to differences between 

subgroups based on sample data refer only to differences that are statistically significant using a 

significance level of 0.05.

References

Corrin, W., L. M. Prise, O. Cerna, Z. Haider, and M. Somers. 2015. Case Management for Students at Risk 

of Dropping Out: Implementation and Interim Impact Findings from the Communities in Schools 

Evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC. 

Suter, J. C., and Bruns, E. J. 2009. “Effectiveness of the Wraparound Process for Children with Emotional 

and Behavioral Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 12(4): 

336-351.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2016. “Table 1. Public High School 4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR).” 

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2014-15.asp

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2015. “Table 219.57. Population of 15- to 24-Year Olds Enrolled in Grades 10 through 12, 

Number Who Dropped Out (Event Dropouts), Percentage Who Dropped Out (Event Dropout 

Rate), and Percentage Distribution, by Selected Characteristics: 2014.” 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_219.57.asp
10

Appendix: Case Management (Survey Excerpt)

National Survey on High School Strategies Designed to Help At-Risk Students Graduate

5. In the 2014-15 school year, does your school have case managers? 

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection} Yes No

 

If user responds “Yes” to Q5, ask Q6 through Q14. Otherwise, skip to Q15.

6. What is the typical caseload for the case 

managers in your school? 

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection}

1 to 10 

students

11 to 15 

students

16 to 20 

students

More 

than 20 

students

   

7. How are case managers allocated to students? 

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection}

Offered of all students (school-wide) 

Offered to a subset of students 

Assigned to all students (school-wide) 

Assigned to a subset of students 

If user responds “Subset of students” to Q7 ask Q8 & Q0. Otherwise, skip to Q10. 

8. On average, approximately what percentage of high school 

students in your school receives a case manager in the 

2014-15 school year?

{Slide bar for 0% to 100%}

This section asks about a case manager. For the purposes of this survey, a case 

manager is an adult broker of different services to meet individual students’ 

needs, including academic, social, health, and financial (e.g., case management 

model, intrusive advising). A case manager is not a traditional high school 

counselor who focuses primarily on academic advising.
11

9. Are any of the following subsets of students targeted for receiving a case 

manager? 

(Check all that apply)

Students with attendance issues (e.g., truancy) 

Students with discipline or behavioral issues 

Students performing below standards or grade level 

Students in a particular grade level, regardless of performance 

Students referred by high school staff (e.g., counselor or teacher) 

Reentry students 

English Language Learners 

Other

(Please Specify________________)



10. Typically, which of the following qualifications 

do the case managers in your school have?

Required 

to have

Sometimes 

have

Never 

have

Don’t 

know

(Please select one option for each row)

Licensed in a mental health field (e.g., social 

work)

   

Licensed in a physical health field (e.g., nursing)    

Law degree    

Paralegal degree    

High school counselor    

Certified teacher or certified support staff    

Other

(Please specify: _______________)

   

11. Do the case managers in your school provide 

their services at your school location? Always Sometimes Never

Don’t 

know

   

12. Do the case managers typically fill any other 

roles or duties at your school? 

(Please select one option for each row) Always Sometimes Never

Don’t 

know

Teaching duties    

Administrative duties    

Social work duties    

School nurse or medical duties    

Guidance counselor    

Mental health counselor or psychologist    
12

13. What types of services do case manager(s) in your school provide?

(Check all that apply)

Ensure that students stay on track academically 

Provide advice about postsecondary options 

Help raise students’ educational or career goals 

Improve student engagement in school 

Prevent at-risk behavior

Model positive and respectful behavior 

Develop conflict resolution skills 

Monitor attendance

Help select classes

Address family issues or concerns 

Explore community resources to address individual needs 

Other

(Please Specify________________)



14. On average, how often do students meet with their case manager?

(Please select only one) 

{Only allow one selection}

Daily 

Weekly 

Every other week 

Once a month 

Less frequently than once a month 

I don’t know 

The full survey is available at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports-high-school.html