Contract No.: K-5547-5-00-80-30

MPR Reference No.: 8279-080

The Quantum 

Opportunity Program 

Demonstration: 

Implementation Findings 

August 2003 

Myles Maxfield 

Laura Castner 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Vida Maralani 

Department of Sociology 

University of California at Los 

Angeles (Previously of Berkeley 

Policy Associates) 

Mary Vencill 

Berkeley Policy Associates 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Employment and Training Administration 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 

Room N-5637 

Washington, DC 20210 

Project Officer: Eileen Pederson 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

600 Maryland Avenue, S.W. 

Suite 550 

Washington, DC 20024 

(202) 484-9220 

Project Director: Allen Schirm 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
iii 

D ISCLAIMER

This report was prepared under Contract No. K-5547-5-00-80-30 from the U.S. Department of 

Labor. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

A CKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of David Lah, Eileen Pederson, 

Daniel Ryan, and James Woods of the U.S. Department of Labor and of Allen Schirm and Nuria 

Roderiguez-Planas of Mathematica Policy Research. Chapters III through X are based largely on 

data gathered by Berkeley Policy Associates of Oakland, California. Errors and omissions are the 

sole responsibility of the authors. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
v 

D EDICATION

The authors dedicate this report to the individuals who devoted themselves to the youth 

participating in QOP: the QOP coordinators and case managers: 

Cleveland, Ohio Memphis, Tennessee Yakima, Washington 

Coordinator Coordinator Coordinators

 Mary Beth Bartholomew Sandra DeGraffenreaid Tamara Bosler

 Darrel Armstead

 

Case Managers Case Managers Case Managers

 Kacie Armstrong Angela Thomas Sondra Pieti

 Tameka Ronny-Gray William Little Jackie Meyer

 Bill Miller Kip Alexander Jose Sosa

 Mike Favors Nichelle Quinn 

 William Spells Bobbie Davis 

 

Fort Worth, Texas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Coordinator Coordinator 

 Karen Windham Deborah Scott 

 

Case Managers Case Managers 

 Shelley Marshall Ernest Merriweather 

 Linda Cantu Darold Williams 

 Angie Reeder Ashley Cooke 

 Rhonda Kerl Alexis Greaves 

 Dominicia Spikes 

 Jeannie Spitzer Washington, D.C. 

 Ellen Wedemeyer Coordinators 

 Marie Sharp 

Houston, Texas Cecily Williams 

Coordinators Rhonda Muse 

 Roberto Spears 

 Cornelius Crockett Case Managers 

 Kelvin Delmar 

Case Managers Anita Lyles 

 Jennifer Franco Themba Masimini 

 John Josiah Anthony (Tony) Lee 

 Tom Carrizal Sandra Richardson 

 Chenee Franklin 

 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
vii 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 DISCLAIMER.......................................................................................................................iii

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................................iii

 DEDICATION......................................................................................................................v

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................xi

I INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1

II WHAT IS QOP? ....................................................................................................................3

Target Population and Sample Selection.............................................................................3

Program Components and Services.....................................................................................4

What Kind of a Youth Program Is QOP?..........................................................................7

History of QOP......................................................................................................................9

QOP Funding and Structure...............................................................................................11 

III QOP IMPLEMENTATION BY SITE ...........................................................................13

IV INTENSITY.........................................................................................................................53

Intensity in the QOP Model ...............................................................................................53

Intensity as Implemented ....................................................................................................54 

V CASE MANAGEMENT AND MENTORING ...........................................................57

Case Management and Mentoring in the QOP Model ...................................................57

Case Management and Mentoring as Implemented ........................................................57 

VI THE EDUCATION COMPONENT .............................................................................61

The Education Component in the QOP Model..............................................................61

The Education Component as Implemented...................................................................61 

VII DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES ...............................................................................69

Developmental Activities in the QOP Model..................................................................69

Developmental Activities as Implemented.......................................................................70 
CONTENTS (cont.)

Chapter Page 

viii 

VIII COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................75

Community Service Activities in the QOP Model ..........................................................75

Community Service Activities as Implemented ...............................................................75 

IX INCENTIVES......................................................................................................................77

Incentives in the QOP Model.............................................................................................77

Incentives as Implemented..................................................................................................77 

X MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATION, AND TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE ......................................................................................................................81

Operating QOP under the JTPA Structure......................................................................81

Program Planning and Start-Up .........................................................................................82

National Program Management .........................................................................................83

Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................84

Local Grantee Management................................................................................................85

CBO Management of QOP ................................................................................................86

Schools ...................................................................................................................................87 

XI THE COST OF QOP .........................................................................................................89

Revenue per Enrollee...........................................................................................................89

Expenditures per Enrollee ..................................................................................................92

Technical Assistance ............................................................................................................92

Cost Accounting ...................................................................................................................94

Types of Expenditures.........................................................................................................94

QOP Costs Relative to Other Youth Programs ..............................................................94 

XII CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................99

XIII SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE YOUTH PROGRAMS ........................................109

Contracting, Governance, and Management..................................................................109

Evolving Program Goals and Service Mix......................................................................110

Target Group.......................................................................................................................111

Program Intensity, Case Management, and Mentoring.................................................112

Education.............................................................................................................................113

Developmental Activities ..................................................................................................113

Supportive Services ............................................................................................................113

Financial Incentives for Enrollees....................................................................................114 

 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................115
ix 

TABLES 

Table Page 

III.1 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóCLEVELAND..........................................................................15

III.2 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóFORT WORTH .......................................................................21

III.3 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóHOUSTON ..............................................................................27

III.4 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóMEMPHIS ................................................................................33

III.5 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóPHILADELPHIA....................................................................39

III.6 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONó WASHINGTON, D.C...........................................................43

III.7 SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP 

DEMONSTRATIONóYAKIMA...................................................................................47

VII.1 DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES OFFERED BY QOP 

DEMONSTRATION SITES ............................................................................................71

XI.1 REVENUE PER ENROLLEE PER YEAR BY SITE, YEARS 1 

THROUGH 4.......................................................................................................................90

XI.2 REVENUE PER ENROLLEE BY SITE, YEAR 5......................................................91

XI.3 EXPENDITURES PER ENROLLEE BY SITE AND YEAR, YEARS 1 

THROUGH 5.......................................................................................................................93

XI.4 VALUATION OF DONATED ITEMS.........................................................................96

XI.5 SALARIES, STIPENDS, AND OTHER ITEMS AS A PERCENT OF 

EXPENDITURES, YEARS 1 THROUGH 5................................................................97

XI.6 EXPENDITURES ON SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AND TUTORING 

COSTS BY SITE PER ENROLLEE PER YEAR, YEARS 1 THROUGH 4..........98
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
xi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

From July 1995 through September 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Ford 

Foundation operated a demonstration of the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP). QOP is an 

intensive case management and mentoring program for high school-aged youth that emphasizes 

after-school supplemental education, developmental activities, and community service activities. 

The primary goals of the program were to increase the likelihood that enrollees would complete high 

school and enter a postsecondary education and training program. The program was also intended 

to improve the youthís grades and achievement test scores and to reduce risky behaviors such as 

substance abuse, crime, and teenage childbearing. 

The evaluation was designed to estimate the impacts of QOP on its enrollees and to yield 

information for program designers and managers on the challenges for program design, 

implementation, and operation. This report documents how QOP was implemented at each of the 

seven sites participating in the demonstration. 

The method used for this report was to compare the implementation of the program at each 

demonstration site to the program model. The implementation at each site was observed during a 

visit lasting several days at each site in each year of the demonstration. Information was also 

gathered at annual staff conferences and periodic conference calls with site staff. During those 

visits, we met with each member of the QOP staff; officers of the community-based organization 

operating the site; officers of the local grantee organization; teachers; counselors; administrators of 

the QOP schools; and participating youth. 

The key implementation findings follow: 

• QOP can be implemented through local community-based organizations, 

although the complete QOP model is difficult to replicate. While none of the 

seven sites failed to implement the QOP demonstration, two sites implemented a 

version of QOP that deviated substantially from the program model, and the other five 

sites implemented programs that deviated moderately from the model. Deviations from 

the program model might have been reduced by using contracts or cooperative 

agreements rather than grants; by providing more time for the sites to plan and set up 

their operation; and by providing additional documentation, training, and technical 

assistance early in the sitesí involvement in the program. 

• QOP enrolled a representative sample of the target group of disadvantaged 

youths. In particular, QOP avoided the tendency of many youth programs to enroll 

the most motivated and able youth. Youth enrolled in QOP generally faced many 

barriers to educational success and needed many of the services offered by QOP. 

Given that many of these barriers were in place when the QOP enrollees joined the 

program in the middle of the 9th grade, future funders may consider a QOP model for 

middle-school-age youth. 
xii 

• Fidelity to the program model varied widely, from a replication of most of QOP’s 

components to a mere re-labeling of another youth program as QOP. Fidelity of 

implementation appeared to be associated with whether the community-based 

organization (CBO) operating QOP at the site had a pre-existing program broadly 

similar to QOP in philosophy and structure. 

• Apart from the number of hours of participation, the prescribed intensity for 

QOP was implemented at most sites. All sites implemented the prescribed ratio of 

roughly 15 to 25 enrollees per case manager. Most case managers stayed with the 

program for several years, and many stayed for the entire five-year duration of the 

demonstration. All of the sites, however, discovered that the intensity of QOP services 

had practical limits. QOPís policy of providing enrollees a great deal of access to case 

managers, some of whom were on-call seven days per week and 24 hours per day, and 

providing access to services regardless of the enrolleeís behaviors (i.e., becoming 

incarcerated, moving to another community, dropping out of high school) was generally 

well implemented. The demonstration showed that such policies are limited by the case 

managersí personal lives and families, the physical difficulties of providing services to 

enrollees who moved to other states or metropolitan areas, and the legal limits on case 

manager overtime in the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

• All sites successfully implemented case management and mentoring. Mentoring 

and case management formed the core of the QOP demonstration and were more 

intensive than in virtually any other youth program. Case managers reported forming 

relationships with about half of their caseloads, and those relationships resembled that 

of a caring aunt or uncle. 

• No site implemented all aspects of QOP’s education component. In particular, 

few sites regularly assessed academic performance using tests, no site developed 

individual education plans based on assessment results, no site implemented a sustained 

program of course-based tutoring, and only three sites effectively implemented 

computer-assisted instruction. 

• All sites successfully implemented developmental activities. While developmental 

activities were intended to focus on life skills that would enable the youth to avoid risky 

behaviors, they included many recreational activities at most sites. Enrollees found 

recreational activities to be fun, and case managers found them useful for fostering 

active program participation. 

• Few sites implemented the community service component as intensively as 

prescribed in the program model, especially in the latter half of the 

demonstration. Most sites decided to reallocate their resources away from community 

service to mentoring, case management, and educational activities. These decisions 

were based on case managersí assessment of enrollee needs.

• Only two sites offered the prescribed number of hours of education, 

developmental, and community service activities. Other sites offered fewer than 
xiii 

the prescribed number of hours for one or more program components, frequently the 

community service component. 

• All sites implemented the stipend and accrual account components, although 

accrual accounts at DOL-funded sites did not bear interest. Enrollees at those sites did 

not receive regular statements of their accrual accounts. Most sites implemented 

bonuses for enrollees who achieved major program milestones. 

• Most sites supplied many of the most commonly needed supportive services, 

including afternoon snacks and transportation to program activities. On the 

other hand, most sites did not meet their enrollees’ need for child care, health 

and mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and family counseling. 

Future comprehensive programs like QOP may consider placing greater emphasis on 

referring enrollees who have these needs to community organizations that specialize in 

these services. 

• On average, enrollees spent 23 percent of the goal of 750 hours of program 

activities per year over the first four years of the demonstration. The proportion 

of inactive enrollees grew from 1 percent in the first year to 36 percent in the fourth 

year. This suggests that the goal of 750 hours per year is unrealistic for this target group 

and that future programs may consider setting a lower goal. 

• The total QOP expenditure per enrollee averaged $25,000 for the full five years of 

the demonstration. The five-year expenditure per enrollee for the DOL-funded sites 

ranged from $18,000 to $22,000. For the two Ford-funded sites, the expenditure per 

enrollee was $23,000 in Yakima and $49,000 in Philadelphia. Thus, Philadelphia had a 

much higher expenditure per enrollee than any other site. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
1 

C HAPTER I 

I NTRODUCTION

From July 1995 through September 2001, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Ford 

Foundation operated a demonstration of the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP). QOP is an 

intensive case management and mentoring program for high school-aged youth that emphasizes 

after-school supplemental education, developmental activities, and community service activities. 

The QOP demonstration served a single cohort of 579 high school-aged youth from fall 1995, when 

all were beginning the ninth grade, through fall 2000.1 The QOP demonstration was implemented 

and operated by local community-based organizations (CBOs) in seven sites: six inner-city 

communities and one rural community. At each site, 50, 80, or 100 youth participated in the 

program. By the end of the demonstration, the enrollees had reached various points in their 

educationósome were attending college or other postsecondary training, some were still in high 

school, some had just finished high school or had just earned a general educational diploma (GED), 

and some had dropped out of high school and were working or unemployed. 

The primary goals of the program were to increase the likelihood that students would complete 

high school and enroll in postsecondary education and training. The program was also intended to 

boost academic achievement in reading and mathematics and to reduce risky behaviors such as 

substance abuse, crime, and teenage childbearing. The evaluation was also intended to yield 

information for program designers and managers on challenges to designing, implementing, and 

operating intensive case management and mentoring programs for disadvantaged youth. 

The purpose of this report is to document how the QOP program model was implemented and 

to identify lessons for future QOP-like programs. This report has two companion reports: Schirm 

et al. (2003) presents the short-term impacts of QOP on enrolled youth and Maxfield et al. (2003) 

summarizes all the evaluation findings. 

The implementation at each site was observed during a visit lasting several days at each site in 

each year of the demonstration. During those visits, we met with each member of the QOP staff; 

officers of the community-based organization operating the site; officers of the local grantee 

organization, school teachers, counselors, and administrators; and participating youth. The 

data/information gathered through these visits was supplemented by attending the annual training 

conferences for QOP staff and officers of the community-based organizations and participating in 

periodic conference calls with site staff. 

Chapter II describes the QOP model, the history of QOP, and the institutional structure of the 

demonstration. Chapter III views program implementation by site. A series of tables shows how the 

 1 The program at one of the sites began one year after the others and ran from fall of 1996 through fall 2001. 
2 

program implemented at each site compares with the program model and with the programs 

implemented at other sites. Chapters IV through X view implementation by program component: 

intensity (Chapter IV), case management and intensive mentoring (Chapter V), education (Chapter 

VI), developmental activities (Chapter VII), community service (Chapter VIII), financial incentives 

(Chapter IX), and management and administration (Chapter X). Chapter XI presents the costs of 

the QOP demonstration and Chapter XII offers conclusions regarding how QOP was implemented. 

The final chapter suggests lessons for future youth programs like QOP. 
3 

C HAPTER II 

W HAT I S QOP? 

The description of the QOP model covers the programís target population, the components of 

the program model, and the institutional structure of the demonstration. 

TARGET POPULATION AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The target group in the QOP demonstration was youth who met the following criteria: 

• Began the ninth grade at a high school with a dropout rate of 40 percent or more. 

• Had a grade point average (GPA) below the 67th percentile of entering ninth graders at 

the participating high school. (The GPA was measured on the basis of final eighthgrade grades.) 

• Were not repeating the ninth grade. 

• Were not so physically disabled or learning disabled that participation in the program 

would not be appropriate, as determined by the school. 

A sample of youth meeting these criteria was drawn from lists of ninth graders entering the 

schools participating in the demonstration. Sampled youth were aggressively recruited to participate 

in the demonstration, and more than 97 percent of those who could be found agreed to join the 

research sample. The youth were then randomly assigned to a treatment group or a control group. 

This means that QOP enrollees were representative of youth meeting the eligibility criteria and were 

not limited to those who had sufficient motivation, self-esteem, and optimism about the 

improvability of the future to seek out and volunteer for the program. This was an important 

feature of the evaluation. 

Most enrollees were 14 years old when they entered QOP and 19 years old when the 

demonstration ended. Virtually all enrollees lived in low-income neighborhoods and were African 

American or Hispanic. The group included undocumented residents, youth in special education 

programs, youth with disabilities, teen parents, youth involved in the juvenile justice system, out-ofschool youth, and youth who were one or more grades behind in basic skill levels. 
4 

PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND SERVICES

Case Management and Mentoring 

The central component of the QOP model was intensive case management and mentoring. 

Case management was defined as assessing the needs of each participating youth and structuring a 

service mix appropriate to those needs. Mentoring was defined as helping each youth establish a 

personal relationship with a caring adult. Case management and mentoring are regarded as two 

aspects of a single program component. In four respects, this component was more intensive in the 

QOP than in many other mentoring programs. 

• Enrollees had greater access to case managers. 

• Program eligibility was not contingent on enrollee behavior or life situation. 

• Case managers addressed all barriers facing participating youth. 

• The program provided substantial educational and other material resources to 

participating youth. 

Each of these is discussed in turn. 

First, QOP gave enrollees greater access to their case managers and engaged them in more 

program activities for a longer period of time. DOL-funded QOP CBOs employed a full-time case 

manager for between 15 and 25 enrollees.2 In other words, most case managers worked from 

morning until early evening every weekday and usually part of one weekend day. Most were also 

available to youth by telephone or pager at night and on weekends to respond to urgent situations. 

QOP provided mentoring services year round, including during summers and other school 

vacations. Absent staff turnover and the rare case of voluntary reassignment of youth to a different 

case manager, each enrollee had the same case manager for the full five years of the demonstration, 

although the intense involvement described here was limited to the first four years for all 

participants and to the fifth year for participants who continued in high school in the fifth year. 

The intensity of program activities is reflected in the program participation goal for each 

enrollee: 750 hours per year, or over 14 hours per week on average throughout the year. One-third 

of that time was to be spent on educational activities, one-third on community service, and one-third 

on developmental activities. A typical schedule included meetings with case managers, who were 

available at the school throughout the school day, program activities at a central facility from 3:00 

p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each weekday, and program activities for half a day every Saturday. Youth were 

also encouraged to participate in activities every day during lunch and free periods and during 

 2 The staffs of the two Ford-funded CBOs had both QOP and non-QOP job responsibilities, and were 

compensated by incentive payments based on program attendance. 
5 

summers and school vacations. Such intense involvement in the program continued for four to five 

years, longer than in many other youth programs. 

The second way in which QOP mentoring was more intensive than most programs of its type 

was that eligibility was not contingent on the enrolleeís behavior, change in residence, or health 

status. For instance, other similar programs limit eligibility to youth living in a specific 

neighborhood, to in-school or out-of-school youth, to youth in the criminal justice system or youth 

not in the criminal justice system, to able-bodied youth, or to youth who complete some minimum 

number of program activities. In contrast, QOP served youth who: 

• Dropped out of school. Program staff attempted to get dropouts to re-enroll in 

school or, failing that, to earn a GED. 

• Moved to a different school or neighborhood. Case managers were to provide 

services to those who moved to another neighborhood in the metropolitan area, to visit 

those who moved outside the metropolitan area but remained within driving distance, 

and to call those who moved beyond driving distance. Case managers were also 

expected to enlist someone at the studentís new school to help the youth who moved 

beyond driving distance. 

• Became incarcerated. Case managers were to visit and phone incarcerated enrollees, 

sending them educational materials to complete and return to the case manager. 

• Became ill or disabled. Case managers were to visit and provide educational materials 

to enrollees who were hospitalized or confined to their homes because of illness or 

disability. 

• Became inactive. Case managers were to maintain contact with inactive enrollees and 

attempt to engage them in the program. Once a youth was enrolled in QOP, a program 

slot was held for that person for the full five years of the demonstration regardless of 

how much time he or she spent in program activities. For example, some enrollees 

were active in the ninth grade and then became inactive in the tenth and eleventh 

grades. The program never filled those slots with new enrollees, and the case manager 

never gave up trying to re-engage the enrollees after they became inactive. 

The policy of maintaining contact despite the response of enrollees was based on the view that 

a youthís need for mentoring does not diminish and, indeed, may increase when he or she drops out 

of school; moves; or becomes incarcerated, disabled, ill, or inactive in the program. This philosophy 

also reflects the fact that the lives of many disadvantaged youth are unstable. For example, an 

enrollee might be in school in the ninth grade, drop out and become inactive in the program, move 

several times, become incarcerated, and eventually return to school or a GED program and become 

active again in the QOP after release. 

QOP mentoring was more intense than in other programs in terms of the depth and breadth of 

the youthsí relationship with their case manager. The relationship was personal, long-term, and 

comprehensive. While many QOP activities were conducted with groups of participants, case 

managers spent one-on-one time with every enrollee. Case managers were expected to help 
6 

enrollees overcome a broad range of barriers to achieving program goals. Common barriers 

included low educational achievement, alienation from school, substance abuse, physical health 

problems, mental health problems, gang membership, criminal activities, teen parenthood, unstable 

or abusive family environment, and insufficient money to pay for necessities. Some enrollees faced 

additional difficulties because their parents or guardians also had these same problems. 

Finally, QOP mentoring was more intensive than most youth programs in providing enrollees 

with material resources, including, at most sites, facilities for computer-assisted instruction, offices in 

the school, and a CBO facility near but separate from the school where enrollees could meet with 

case managers and other QOP enrollees. As discussed in more detail in the section on financial 

incentives, the program also provided enrollees with a cash stipend for time spent on program 

activities and set an equal sum aside in a savings account to defray some of the costs of 

postsecondary education or training. In addition to these material resources, most sites offered 

college tours and cultural and recreational activities as part of their mentoring activities. 

Education Services, Community Service Activities, and Developmental Activities 

While case management/mentoring was the central component of QOP, the program also 

included education services, community service activities, and developmental activities. Each of 

these components was geared toward achieving a specific program goal. 

• Education services were intended to raise enrolleesí academic achievement. Education 

services consisted of an academic assessment, which formed the basis of an individual 

education plan that included one-on-one tutoring and computer-assisted instruction in 

specific coursework and basic reading and mathematics. Education services also 

included visiting nearby college campuses and other activities designed to promote 

awareness of and planning for college. 

• Developmental activities including lifeskills training, employment-readiness training, 

cultural awareness, and recreation. Lifeskills training was generally designed to reduce 

the youthsí likelihood of engaging in risky behaviors, the consequences of which could 

become barriers to success. Risky behaviors include substance abuse, criminal behavior, 

and teenage parenting. 

• Community service activities, such as visiting the residents of a local nursing home or 

volunteering at a neighborhood food bank, were designed to help youth develop a sense 

of responsibility for the quality of life of others in their neighborhood. 

Supportive Services 

QOP provided afternoon snacks and transportation assistance to facilitate attendance at 

program activities. QOP also provided information on, and referrals to, other resources in the 

community. For example, some QOP case managers referred enrollees to community health and 

mental health services, summer jobs programs, and local agencies providing housing, transportation, 

or income support. 
7 

Financial Incentives 

Finally, QOP provided enrollees with three types of financial incentives to spend time on 

program activities. The first was a stipend of approximately $1.25 for every hour devoted to 

program activities other than mentoring and recreation. The second incentive was a matching 

amount deposited in an accrual account and promised to the enrollee when he or she earned a high 

school diploma or GED and enrolled in any of the following postsecondary activities: 

• Two- or four-year college 

• Accredited technical or vocational training program 

• Apprenticeship program certified by DOL 

• Armed forces 

The purpose of the accrual accounts was to provide financial support for college or other 

postsecondary training and to teach enrollees about planning, saving, and investing for the future. 

By the end of the demonstration period, accrual account balances ranged from a few hundred 

dollars to nearly $10,000, with most under $2,000. Final payments were made directly to the 

enrollee rather than to the postsecondary institution or to the enrolleeís parents. 

In addition to a stipend and accrual account contributions, participants at several sites could 

earn bonuses for achieving major milestones, such as completing the school year with a grade point 

average higher than a benchmark or completing a computer-assisted instruction module. Bonuses 

took many forms including cash, hours recorded for purposes of computing the stipend and accrual 

account contribution, and going with case managers to movies or other entertainment events. 

Finally, the case managers of the two Ford-funded sites received incentive payments based on 

the attendance of their participants at program activities. 

WHAT KIND OF A YOUTH PROGRAM IS QOP? 

Part of understanding QOP means understanding how it compares with other types of youth 

programs. Youth programs are broadly defined here as public programs intended to solve a social 

problem experienced by substantial numbers of individuals from age 12 through 21. This definition 

excludes programs not open to the public, programs targeting other age groups, programs designed 

to address problems not considered to be social, and programs targeting small numbers of 

individuals. It also excludes defunct federal youth programs, such as the Civilian Conservation 

Corps of the 1930s. 

Of the many programs that would fall within this broad definition, we focus on programs 

sponsored by the federal government that are designed to help disadvantaged youth avoid poverty in 

adulthood. In 1998, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) counted 131 such programs, where 
8 

a program was defined as an independent federal funding stream. These programs were sponsored 

by 16 federal agencies, collectively costing approximately $4 billion in 1997. Of these programs, 35 

provided mentoring and 37 provided academic tutoring (GAO 1998). QOP differs from other 

youth programs in terms of the social ìunitî it treats, cost, goals and service mix, target population, 

and the relationship between case managers and enrollees. 

The social unit treated by QOP is the individual youth, as opposed to the school, the family, 

employers, or the community. The QOP designers decided to focus on youth because they 

interpreted the problem of poverty and career failure from the human capital perspective. The 

human capital perspective comes from the field of economics and assumes that if the skills of a 

youth are improved, he or she will be employable and able to avoid poverty. Defining the programís 

social unit as a youth means that: 

• QOP is not a school reform program, in which the unit of intervention would be the 

school, school district, or state education agency. Although QOP provides tutoring and 

computer-assisted instruction, it was not designed to influence the structure, policies, or 

operation of the high schools with which local QOP programs are associated. 

• QOP is not a family therapy program. While case managers sought to involve the 

parents of enrollees and communicated regularly with many of them, QOP was not 

designed to address the problem of poverty and career failure by providing therapy to 

troubled families. 

• QOP does not focus on employers. QOP addresses the supply side of the labor 

market, that is, the skills that enrollees bring to the labor market as young adults. It 

does not address the demand side of the labor market, as does the Work Opportunity 

Tax Credit program by, for example, offering tax incentives for employers to hire 

disadvantaged persons. 

• QOP is not a community development program. Although all QOP sites lay within 

high-poverty communities, QOP was not intended to attract new businesses to the 

community or to address other social problems on a community-wide basis. 

In addition to the social unit, QOP also differs from other programs of its kind in cost. QOP is 

intensive and thus expensive. At $25,000 per enrollee, QOP costs more per enrollee than any other 

federal youth program, as discussed in detail in Chapter XI. The intensity of QOPís services is 

comparable to that of Job Corps, which is primarily a residential program, but QOP is not 

residential. 

QOP also differs from other programs of its kind in its goals and service mix. QOP focused 

more on educational outcomes and provided more education services than do most other DOLsponsored programs, which focus more on employment outcomes. In the language of other DOLsponsored programs, QOP focused on basic education skills, as opposed to vocational training, 

work-readiness training, job search assistance, job development, or direct placement. Under QOP, 

getting a job right after graduation from high school was not considered a measure of program 

success. 
9 

This focus on postsecondary education and training was motivated by two complementary 

trends in the U.S. labor market: 

• Falling real wages and higher unemployment of high school dropouts, those with a 

GED, and those whose terminal degree is a high school diploma. 

• Increasing real wages and high employment rates of those with postsecondary education 

or training. 

QOP was also more comprehensive and holistic than most other federal youth programs. It 

provided services related directly and indirectly to the following: basic education; college planning 

and applications (including financial aid); physical and mental health; substance abuse; conflict 

resolution; family planning; cultural and ethnic awareness; career awareness and planning; issues 

related to gang membership and involvement in the criminal justice system; coping with 

dysfunctional, abusive, or unsupportive family environments; finding summer jobs, transportation, 

nutrition, and housing; and paying bills in family emergencies. Traditionally, such services have been 

supplied by a host of programs independent of and not necessarily coordinated with one another. 

In addition to its scope of services, QOP differed from other youth programs in the scope of 

its target population, which is not limited to highly motivated eligible youth. While no youth 

program is mandatory, QOP enrolled all sampled eligible youth. Since eligible youth at the 

beginning of the demonstration were minors, program staff first approached a youthís parent (or 

parents), usually in person. Nearly all parents enthusiastically enrolled their son or daughter in 

QOP. Case managers attempted to engage reluctant eligible youth, so QOP enrolled many at-risk 

youth who would not have ended up in such a program had the recruitment procedures been more 

passive and selective, as in many youth programs. 

Finally, QOP differed from other programs of its kind in terms of the relationship between case 

managers and participating youth. This highly personal, long-lasting connection mirrored the 

relationship between a teenager and a nurturing, supportive, and available older relative such as an 

aunt or uncle. Enrollees could confide in their case managers more freely than they might confide in 

a parent, and case managers could provide guidance on how to handle a situation without risking the 

traditional parent-teen conflict that often works against the acceptance of such guidance. Like an 

older relative who has made a commitment to a child, case managers made every attempt to sustain 

the relationship with youth despite youthís disengagement and alienation. Finally, case managers 

acted as advocates by negotiating on behalf of youth with the high school, the college admissions 

and financial aid offices, and criminal justice and other public agencies. 

HISTORY OF QOP 

The QOP program model was developed in 1988 by three individuals: Robert Taggart of the 

Remediation and Training Institute of Alexandria, Virginia; Gordon Berlin, then of the Ford 

Foundation; and Benjamin Lattimore of Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America (OICA) 

in Philadelphia. The basis of the education component of QOP was the Comprehensive 
10 

Competencies Program (CCP), a computer-assisted instruction program that focused on reading and 

mathematics skills, and that operated in several cities in the late 1980s. Taggart developed CCP 

under grants from the Ford Foundation. 

To create QOP, Taggart, Berlin, and Lattimore added mentoring, community service, 

cultural/recreational/life-style activities, and financial incentives to CCP. From summer 1989 

through summer 1993, OICA implemented a pilot QOP program that was operated in five cities by 

five OICA affiliates. The pilot was funded by the Ford Foundation and evaluated by the Center for 

Human Resources at Brandeis University. The evaluation included an implementation and an 

impact analysis. 

The implementation analysis revealed wide variation in success across the five sites. One site 

failed to implement the program and dropped out of the pilot. Three sites were partly successful in 

implementing the program, but only one site did so completely. Hahn (1994) identified the 

following challenges to successful implementation of QOP: 

• At some sites, instability in the residence of the youth prevented long-term participation 

in the program. 

• Turnover in program staff and leaders in some sites interfered with the establishment of 

long-term mentoring relationships and disrupted the continuity in program policies and 

procedures. 

• The low-quality and inconsistent services offered in some sites discouraged enrollees 

from staying active. 

The impact analysis of the four remaining pilot sites concluded that it had a positive impact at 

the end of the four-year pilot period. The likelihood of becoming a teenage parent or dropping out 

of high school decreased, and the likelihood of graduating from high school in four years and 

enrolling in a postsecondary education or training program increased. These impacts did not 

manifest themselves until after four years of participation. Most of the pilot-wide impacts were 

attributable to a single site. Few significant impacts appeared in the other four sites. 

In spring 1995, DOL and the Ford Foundation began planning the full QOP demonstration. 

The perceived need to continue to test the program was based on the combination of significant 

positive impacts found through the pilot evaluation and the uncertainties regarding these impacts 

raised by technical reviews of the methods used by the pilot evaluation. In addition, the 

demonstration was seen as a way to test such a program operated by CBOs not affiliated with the 

founding organization, OICA, and funded, regulated, and directed by a federal agency, as opposed 

to a private foundation. 

In summer 1995, DOL awarded demonstration grants to five sites, as well as the contract for 

evaluating the demonstration to Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. The Ford Foundation awarded a 

single grant to Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America (OICA) in Philadelphia to 

operate two additional sites and provide technical assistance to all sites. By January 1996, six sites 

were up and running, and they completed operations in September 2000. The remaining seventh 

site started up in fall 1996 and continued operating through September 2001. 
11 

QOP FUNDING AND STRUCTURE

Under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), DOL funded program operations in five sites 

through grants to local organizations. For each of the first four years of the demonstration, each site 

received a grant of $200,000 and was obliged to provide local matching funds of an equal amount, 

for a total budget of $400,000 per year.3 In the fifth year, DOL-funded sites received a federal grant 

of $200,000 but no local matching funds. DOL distributed grant funds on a cost basis. Grants were 

renewed annually. 

DOL funded sites in Cleveland, Ohio; Fort Worth, Texas; Houston, Texas; Memphis, 

Tennessee; and Washington, D.C. Each grantee was the public agency that administered the JTPA 

program in its area, the service delivery area (SDA). The SDAs did not operate QOP directly but 

contracted with a local CBO to do so. Typically, 80 to 90 percent of the QOP grant was passed on 

from the SDA to the CBO in reimbursement for the CBOís expenses in administering and operating 

the QOP program. Each CBO hired a QOP coordinator and five case managers. Each case 

manager served from 15 to 25 youth, for a total of 100 enrollees per site. 

Through a grant to Opportunities Industrialization Centers of America (OICA), a Philadelphia 

CBO, the Ford Foundation funded program operations at two sites, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and 

Yakima, Washington.4 Despite the absence of a formal contractual arrangement between DOL and 

the Foundation, the two organizations coordinated their activities throughout the demonstration. 

The structure of the two Ford-funded sites differed in several ways from that of the five DOLfunded sites. OICA operated QOP in Philadelphia directly and had an informal agreement with its 

local OICA affiliate in Yakima to oversee operations there. The relationship between the 

Philadelphia OICA and the Yakima affiliate was that of a franchise linked to a national headquarters. 

Each Ford-funded site had 50 enrollees, half that of each DOL-funded site, and each had three case 

managers who also had responsibilities for programs other than QOP. 

Each site developed an informal relationship with one, two, or three high schools that 

participated in QOP in several ways. First, they provided the population of eligible students from 

which the evaluation sample was selected. Second, they gave case managers access to enrolleesí 

teachers so that case managers could monitor enrolleesí academic performance. Third, with the 

informed consent of enrolleesí parents, the schools gave case managers access to enrolleesí school 

records. Fourth, most schools provided office space for QOP case managers. Participating schools 

did not enter into a contractual arrangement with either the SDA or the CBO and were not 

reimbursed from the QOP grant. 

 3 Houston operated on a reduced budget for years 3 and 4 of the demonstration, after the local school district 

discontinued its match funding of the program. 

4 OICA was one of the designers of the QOP model and was involved in the pilot of QOP in the early 1990s. 

OICA operated the Philadelphia site directly, and funded the operation of the Yakima site. It also provided technical 

assistance to all the demonstration sites. 
12 

Case managers at some sites provided services during school hours in an office on school 

grounds. Case managers at other sites spent time in the school during school hours but did not have 

an office there. At still other sites, case managers had no significant in-school presence. For afterschool activities, most case managers and enrollees assembled at the CBOís facility. At three sites, 

the QOP activities scheduled for after-school hours were conducted in the schools. 
13 

C HAPTER III 

QOP I MPLEMENTATION BY S ITE

The seven demonstration sites varied substantially in the implementation and operation of 

QOP. Tables III.1 though III.7 show how each site implemented each program component relative 

to the program model for that component. Shown, too, are additional services not officially part of 

the program model that some sites provided. 

Several broad patterns emerge from the tables. 

• Fidelity to the program model varied widely, from a replication of most of QOPís 

components to a mere relabeling of another youth program as QOP. 

• All sites provided case management, intensive mentoring services, and developmental 

services. 

• No site implemented all aspects of QOPís education component. In particular, few 

sites regularly assessed academic performance, no site developed individual education 

plans based on assessment results, no site implemented a sustained program of coursebased tutoring, and only three sites effectively implemented computer-assisted 

instruction. 

• Only two sites offered the prescribed number of hours of education, developmental, 

and community service activities. Other sites offered fewer than the prescribed number 

of hours for one or more program components, frequently the community service 

component. 

• All sites faced practical limits to maintaining contact with enrollees who moved outside 

the metropolitan area. 

• All sites implemented the stipend and accrual account components, although accrual 

accounts did not bear interest at DOL-funded sites, and enrollees at those sites did not 

receive regular statements of their accrual accounts. 

• Most sites provided snacks and transportation, although these services were limited or 

delayed at several sites. No site fully met the need for child care. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
15 

TABLE III.1 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóCLEVELAND 

QOP Model Cleveland Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, 

determination of the best service mix for the 

enrollee, referral to other community 

organizations for services not directly 

provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee with the school, 

criminal justice system, and other 

organizations. May include referral to child 

care providers, substance abuse treatment, 

health screening and treatment, and mental 

health screening and treatment. 

Fully implemented. Project staff advocated 

on behalf of enrollees with the school and 

criminal justice system. Assessment and 

service planning consisted of occasional 

intensive efforts. The frequency of referrals 

to outside resources increased over the life 

of the program. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that 

of a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role 

model, advice, standards of behavior, 

discipline, and encouragement. 

Fully implemented. Staff and program 

managers placed a strong emphasis on 

mentoring. Case managers were 

conscientious in carrying out ìrole modelî 

responsibilities. The chief barrier to 

consistency in mentoring was frequent 

enrollee transfers to other schools and 

changes of residence. Case managers spent a 

lot of time tracking and visiting such 

enrollees. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are 

scheduled each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in 

community service.

Partially implemented. The program 

scheduled fewer than the prescribed number 

of community service hours. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, 

and onñcall during nights and weekends.

Fully implemented. Case managers had 

flexible schedules and set few limits on their 

availability to enrollees. 
TABLE III.1 (continued) 

16 

QOP Model Cleveland Site 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school 

attendance, location of residence, 

involvement in the criminal justice system, 

illness or disability, or inactivity. 

Fully implemented. In Year 5, the program 

conducted an intensive outreach campaign 

for dropouts and succeeded in re-engaging 

inactive enrollees. 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Fully implemented. 

Education 

Assessment

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year.

Not implemented. The program emphasized 

passing classes, passing the state proficiency 

test, and progress toward graduating or 

GED. Assessments were irregular or 

special-purpose. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic 

goals for the coming year. 

Not implemented. The program did not 

prepare formal plans. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, 

English, and other courses the enrollee is 

taking in school. 

Partially implemented. The program tried 

different approaches to tutoring, including 

volunteer tutors and informal provision of 

after-school homework help from staff, 

before settling on a strategy of paying for 

tutoring from an outside provider. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress.

Partially implemented. The site did not 

implement CAI for the first three years of 

the demonstration. A CAI laboratory was 

available to enrollees three days per week in 

the last two years of the demonstration. 
TABLE III.1 (continued) 

17 

QOP Model Cleveland Site 

Postsecondary Planning

Advice on selecting college preparatory 

courses in high school, tours of local college 

campuses, seminars on federal financial aid, 

assistance in completing college applications 

and Free Application for Federal Student 

Aid (FAFSA). For those not college-bound, 

planning for postsecondary apprenticeships 

and vocational-technical training. 

Fully implemented. The program provided 

workshops on applying to college and for 

financial aid, information on scholarships, 

SAT preparation, and college tours. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, 

including childbearing, substance abuse, and 

criminal behavior. Seminars also covered 

budgeting, saving, investing, and managing 

money.

Fully implemented. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and 

other cultural activities.

Fully implemented. The program conducted 

activities and outings throughout its five 

years. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. In later years of the 

demonstration, the program emphasized 

fitness and swimming. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the 

community, such as visiting nursing home 

residents.

Not implemented. The program conducted 

few community service activities. The 

majority of community service consisted of 

enrolleesí individual volunteer efforts 

certified by an adult sponsor. 
TABLE III.1 (continued) 

18 

QOP Model Cleveland Site 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on 

program activities other than recreation, paid 

biweekly or monthly. A contribution of an 

equal amount to an accrual account held by 

the program until the enrollee completes 

high school and enrolls in college, the armed 

forces, an accredited apprenticeship 

program, or a postsecondary vocationaltechnical school. Participants received 

bonuses for achieving major programmatic 

milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded sites 

received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance.

Fully implemented. The program also used 

bonuses awarded for achieving individually 

established goals. Bonuses were often inkind. 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added 

to the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Partially implemented. 

Transportation 

Provided transportation directly via car or 

van or through financial subsidy, such as free 

or discounted bus tokens, for transportation 

to and from program activities.

Fully implemented. The program distributed 

bus tokens daily and occasionally rented 

buses or vans. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities.

Fully implemented. 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer 

school. For other enrollees, arrange for parttime summer jobs. Continue to provide 

education, developmental, and community 

service activities throughout the summer and 

during other school vacations. 

Partially implemented. In first year, the 

program arranged a program-specific 

summer school program and many enrollees 

participated. In some years, the school 

district did not offer summer school classes 

at the QOP schools. 
TABLE III.1 (continued) 

19 

QOP Model Cleveland Site 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Fully implemented. Case managers stayed in 

touch with college attendees. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
21 

TABLE III.2 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóFORT WORTH 

QOP Program Model Fort Worth Site

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, 

determination of the best service mix for the 

enrollee, referral to other community 

organizations for services not directly 

provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the 

school, criminal justice system, and other 

organizations. May include referral to child 

care providers, substance abuse treatment, 

health screening and treatment, and mental 

health screening and treatment. 

Partially implemented. The program 

assessed enrollees by using Test of Adult 

Basic Education (TABE) when they first 

entered QOP, but the assessments were 

never used for planning education services. 

Plans were often generic. Case managers 

referred enrollees to other organizations for 

services and collaborated with other 

organizations in delivering services. 

Program did not strongly emphasize 

advocacy, especially during the first three 

years of the demonstration, but case 

managers maintained regular contact with 

teachers to track academic performance. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that 

of a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role 

model, advice, standards of behavior, 

discipline, and encouragement. 

Partially implemented. The CBO structured 

the program to prevent attachment of an 

enrollee to an individual case manager. An 

enrollee developed a relationship with all 

case managers as a group. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year

750 hours of program activities are 

scheduled each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in 

community service. 

Partially implemented. Activities were 

scheduled, but not at expected rate for at 

least one component. Participation was low 

and case manager outreach efforts 

inconsistent. 

Case Manager Hours per Week

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, 

and on call during nights and weekends. 

Not implemented. Case manager hours were 

regular and less flexible than at other sites. 

On-call availability varied among case 

managers. Case managers never worked 

more than 40 hours per week. 
TABLE III.2 (continued) 

22 

QOP Program Model Fort Worth Site

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school 

attendance, location of residence, 

involvement in the criminal justice system, 

illness or disability, or inactivity. 

Not implemented. QOP was implemented 

as an in-school program, which limited 

participation among those who had 

transferred or dropped out. 

Sufficient Financial Resources

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Not implemented. Expenditures per 

enrollee never met the standard. Only a 

single case manager was retained in the fifth 

year of the demonstration. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Not implemented. Assessment consisted of 

reports from teachers about progress in 

classes. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic 

goals for the coming year. 

Fully implemented. Case managers prepared 

education plans, and students progressing 

poorly were referred to tutoring, schoolsponsored after-school remedial classes. 

Case managers encouraged dropouts to 

enroll in alternative schools and GED 

preparation classes. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, 

English, and other courses the enrollee is 

taking in school. 

Fully implemented. After-school homework 

help sessions were scheduled regularly, and 

individual or small-group tutoring was 

arranged through school-sponsored 

programs and outside organizations. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Not implemented. By the second year of the 

demonstration, the program developed a 

computer laboratory in the school, but it 

never succeeded in establishing regular 

patterns of use, and it was unable to engage 

enrollees in taking advantage of CAI 

software on an ongoing basis. 
TABLE III.2 (continued) 

23 

QOP Program Model Fort Worth Site

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory 

courses in high school, tours of local college 

campuses, seminars on federal financial aid, 

assistance in completing college applications 

and Free Application for Federal Student 

Aid (FAFSA). For those not college-bound, 

planning for postsecondary apprenticeships 

and vocational-technical training. 

Partially implemented. The program 

provided modest postsecondary planning. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, 

including childbearing, substance abuse, and 

criminal behavior. Seminars also covered 

budgeting, saving, investing, and managing 

money. 

Fully implemented. In the first year, the 

program arranged for all students to attend 

ìQOP classesî as part of their regular school 

schedule. In subsequent years, it arranged 

for small groups to be excused from noncritical classes so that enrollees could attend 

life skills training classes delivered by staff 

from outside organizations. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and 

other cultural activities. 

Fully implemented. Case managers arranged 

an average of one or two cultural outings per 

month and provided transportation in either 

their own cars or rented vans. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. Case managers arranged 

one or two activities per month, such as 

professional baseball games, swimming, and 

trips to a shopping mall. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the 

community, such as visiting nursing home 

residents. 

Partially implemented. The program 

scheduled frequent community service 

activities including helping younger children, 

a food bank for AIDS victims, and staffing a 

telephone hotline for youth who were home 

alone after school. Scheduled community 

service hours did not meet the goal number 

of hours. 
TABLE III.2 (continued) 

24 

QOP Program Model Fort Worth Site

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on 

program activities other than recreation, paid 

biweekly or monthly. A contribution of an 

equal amount to an ìaccrual accountî held 

by the program until the enrollee completes 

high school and enrolls in college, the armed 

forces, an accredited apprenticeship 

program, or a postsecondary vocationaltechnical school. Participants received 

bonuses for achieving major programmatic 

milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded sites 

received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. Stipends were regular. 

The program raised the stipend amount 

substantially in the third year of the 

demonstration. 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added 

to the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Partially implemented. Early in the program, 

case managers solicited donations of snacks 

and kept snack food available in the QOP 

office. Snacks were not substantial, and 

nutrition was not emphasized. 

Transportation 

Provided transportation directly by car or 

van or through financial subsidy, such as free 

or discounted bus tokens, for transportation 

to and from program activities. 

Fully implemented. Transportation 

consisted of case managers giving people 

rides and renting vans for group outings. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Not implemented. 
TABLE III.2 (continued) 

25 

QOP Program Model Fort Worth Site

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer 

school. For other enrollees, arrange for parttime summer jobs. Continue to provide 

education, developmental, and community 

service activities throughout the summer and 

during other school vacations. 

Fully implemented. Summer school was 

scheduled and emphasized, and 

developmental and community service 

activities continued throughout the summer. 

The program emphasized job readiness 

training more than arranging for jobs. 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Not implemented. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
27 

TABLE III.3 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóHOUSTON 

QOP Program Model Houston Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, determination of 

the best service mix for the enrollee, referral to 

other community organizations for services not 

directly provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the school, 

criminal justice system, and other organizations. 

May include referral to child care providers, 

substance abuse treatment, health screening and 

treatment, and mental health screening and 

treatment. 

Partially implemented. Assessment of enrolleeís 

needs was informal. The coordinator 

periodically reviewed the situation of each 

enrollee with the youthís case manager. Case 

managers kept logs of contacts, problems, and 

plans, which were reviewed by the coordinator. 

Advocacy and individual counseling were 

strongly emphasized. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that of 

a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role model, 

advice, standards of behavior, discipline, and 

encouragement. 

Fully implemented. Mentoring was the most 

prominent feature of the program. Case 

managers visited each enrolleeís home every two 

weeks and prepared case notes documenting 

challenges facing each enrollee as well as 

strategies for resolving them. Moderate staff 

turnover and changes in workload meant that 

enrollees were sometimes switched from one 

caseload to another. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are scheduled 

each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community 

service. 

Not implemented. The Houston program did 

not schedule many formal activities due to 

budget constraints. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, and 

on call during nights and weekends. 

Fully implemented. 
TABLE III.3 (continued) 

28 

QOP Program Model Houston Site 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school attendance, 

location of residence, involvement in the 

criminal justice system, illness or disability, or 

inactivity. 

Fully implemented. 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Not implemented. After the second year, 

matching funds were cut and the program 

operated on half budget, with only four case 

managers, one of whom also served as the 

coordinator. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Not implemented. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic goals 

for the coming year. 

Partially implemented. Informal strategies were 

based on enrolleesí success in passing classes, 

attendance, and staying in school. QOP paid for 

night school, GED classes, and other academic 

remediation when needed. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, English, 

and other courses the enrollee is taking in 

school. 

Not implemented. Case managers occasionally 

helped with homework and encouraged students 

to take advantage of free tutoring services 

provided by the school. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Fully implemented. Use of CAI was relatively 

strong during the programís first three years. 

During the first year, the laboratory was located 

some distance from the schools. After that, 

computers were installed in the QOP offices in 

each of the two schools, and enrollees spent 

time using CAI software. The program offered 

special incentives for CAI activity and held 

contests to reward those who participated the 

most. By Year 4, students had lost interest but 

were still using computers to research colleges. 
TABLE III.3 (continued) 

29 

QOP Program Model Houston Site 

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory courses 

in high school, tours of local college campuses, 

seminars on federal financial aid, assistance in 

completing college applications and Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA.) 

For those not college-bound, planning for 

postsecondary apprenticeships and vocationaltechnical training. 

Partially implemented. College tours were local 

and brief. Postsecondary planning was not 

systematic. For many enrollees, more time was 

spent on solving more immediate personal and 

family problems than on longer-range planning. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, including 

childbearing, substance abuse, and criminal 

behavior. Seminars also covered budgeting, 

saving, investing, and managing money. 

Fully implemented. The program scheduled life 

skills courses weekly for the first three to four 

years of the demonstration, but much of the life 

skills training took the form of individual 

counseling and problem solving. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and other 

cultural activities. 

Partially implemented. Outings were infrequent 

because of the low budget. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. The program hosted 

occasional small-group activities throughout the 

demonstration, often including a meal. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the community, 

such as visiting nursing home residents. 

Partially implemented. Case managers scheduled 

community service activities on weekends and 

thus engaged few enrollees. Efforts dwindled in 

the programís later years. 
TABLE III.3 (continued) 

30 

QOP Program Model Houston Site 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on program 

activities other than recreation, paid biweekly or 

monthly. A contribution of an equal amount to 

an ìaccrual accountî held by the program until 

the enrollee completes high school and enrolls in 

college, the armed forces, an accredited 

apprenticeship program, or a postsecondary 

vocational-technical school. Participants 

received bonuses for achieving major 

programmatic milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded 

sites received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added to 

the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Not implemented. 

Transportation 

Transportation provided directly by car or van or 

through financial subsidy, such as free or 

discounted bus tokens, for transportation to and 

from program activities. 

Partially implemented. The CBO made a van 

available to QOP staff for group outings, but 

case managers had to drive two hours each way 

to pick up and return the van. Case managers 

also provided some transportation in their own 

cars. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Not implemented. 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer school. 

For other enrollees, arrange for part-time 

summer jobs. Continue to provide education, 

developmental, and community service activities 

throughout the summer and during other school 

vacations. 

Fully implemented. Case managers encouraged 

or arranged for summer school. Activities 

during summers differed little from those during 

the remainder of the year, with emphasis on 

mentoring and informal one-on-one or small 

group interactions. 
TABLE III.3 (continued) 

31 

QOP Program Model Houston Site 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Fully implemented. Case managers stayed in 

touch with enrollees and knew about their 

progress, challenges, and plans. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
33 

TABLE III.4 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóMEMPHIS 

QOP Program Model Memphis Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, determination of 

the best service mix for the enrollee, referral to 

other community organizations for services not 

directly provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the school, 

criminal justice system, and other organizations. 

May include referral to child care providers, 

substance abuse treatment, health screening and 

treatment, and mental health screening and 

treatment. 

Fully implemented. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that of 

a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role model, 

advice, standards of behavior, discipline, and 

encouragement. 

Fully implemented. The site was noteworthy for 

no staff turnover during the demonstration. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are scheduled 

each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community 

service. 

Partially implemented. Implementation was 

fuller in the first three years. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, and 

on call during nights and weekends. 

Fully implemented. All case managers carried 

pagers from start of service delivery and set few 

limits on their availability to enrollees. Case 

managers reduced their hours per week in the 

third year in response to DOL guidelines on 

over-time regulations. 
TABLE III.4 (continued) 

34 

QOP Program Model Memphis Site 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school attendance, 

location of residence, involvement in the 

criminal justice system, illness or disability, or 

inactivity. 

Fully implemented. Case managers kept in 

contact with all enrollees, including those who 

moved out of state. They mailed developmental 

exercises to enrollees who moved away and 

traveled to neighboring states to visit some 

enrollees. 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Fully implemented. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Not implemented. The program assessed most 

students once, at the end of second year of the 

demonstration, using a local agency that 

specialized in academic assessment of at-risk 

youth. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic goals 

for the coming year. 

Not implemented. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, English, 

and other courses the enrollee is taking in 

school. 

Partially implemented. Case management 

provided after-school assistance with homework 

and test preparation. QOP provided one-onone professional tutoring to a few entollees, but 

such assistance was not sustained. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Partially implemented. Access was sporadic 

during first two years of the demonstration. 

Access improved during later years. 
TABLE III.4 (continued) 

35 

QOP Program Model Memphis Site 

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory courses 

in high school, tours of local college campuses, 

seminars on federal financial aid, assistance in 

completing college applications and Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). 

For those not college-bound, planning for 

postsecondary apprenticeships and vocationaltechnical training. 

Partially implemented. The program provided 

trips to colleges and college fairs, but emphasis 

on college varied by case manager. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, including 

childbearing, substance abuse, and criminal 

behavior. Seminars also covered budgeting, 

saving, investing, and managing money. 

Fully implemented, although case managers were 

initially reluctant to discuss contraception and 

sexuality explicitly. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and other 

cultural activities. 

Fully implemented. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the community, 

such as visiting nursing home residents. 

Partially implemented. The community service 

component was well designed and well 

integrated into program services. Scheduled 

community service hours did not meet the goal 

number of hours. 
TABLE III.4 (continued) 

36 

QOP Program Model Memphis Site 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on program 

activities other than recreation, paid biweekly or 

monthly. A contribution of an equal amount to 

an ìaccrual accountî held by the program until 

the enrollee completes high school and enrolls in 

college, the armed forces, an accredited 

apprenticeship program, or a postsecondary 

vocational-technical school. Participants 

received bonuses for achieving major 

programmatic milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded 

sites received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added to 

the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Fully implemented. 

Transportation 

Transportation provided directly by car or van or 

through financial subsidy, such as free or 

discounted bus tokens, for transportation to and 

from program activities. 

Fully implemented. The program used CBO 

vans and case managersí cars to transport 

enrollees. It provided transportation to all 

activities. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Partially implemented. Enrollees with children 

were invited to bring children along on activities. 

Case managers or other enrollees provided child 

care for special events such as taking the GED 

test or tutoring. 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer school. 

For other enrollees, arrange for part-time 

summer jobs. Continue to provide education, 

developmental, and community service activities 

throughout the summer and during other school 

vacations. 

Fully implemented. Summer programs were 

very good. The SDA provided high-quality 

summer jobs. QOP paid for summer school 

upon request. 
TABLE III.4 (continued) 

37 

QOP Program Model Memphis Site 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Partially implemented. The program did not 

monitor college attendees formally but stayed in 

touch with many such enrollees informally. The 

frequency of communication varied greatly based 

on the strength of the mentoring relationship 

and whether youth were attending school in the 

local area. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
39 

TABLE III.5 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóPHILADELPHIA 

QOP Program Model Philadelphia Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, determination of 

the best service mix for the enrollee, referral to 

other community organizations for services not 

directly provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the school, 

criminal justice system, and other organizations. 

May include referral to child care providers, 

substance abuse treatment, health screening and 

treatment, and mental health screening and 

treatment. 

Fully implemented. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that of 

a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role model, 

advice, standards of behavior, discipline, and 

encouragement. 

Fully implemented. Relationships were close 

and long-term. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are scheduled 

each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community 

service. 

Partially implemented. The prescribed number 

of hours was scheduled in development and 

education, especially in the first two years. Few 

hours were scheduled in community service. 

Education hours in the first three years consisted 

primarily of CAI. Education hours declined in 

the fourth and fifth years of the demonstration. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, and 

on call during nights and weekends. 

Fully implemented. Case managers carried 

pagers from start of service delivery and set few, 

if any, limits on their availability to enrollees. 

Case managers reduced their hours per week in 

the third year in response to DOL guidelines on 

over-time regulations. 
TABLE III.5 (continued) 

40 

QOP Program Model Philadelphia Site 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school attendance, 

location of residence, involvement in the 

criminal justice system, illness or disability, or 

inactivity. 

Fully implemented, except for enrollees who 

moved out of state. Efforts to stay in contact 

with the several enrollees who wanted nothing to 

do with QOP from its inception became less 

frequent after the first year of the demonstration. 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Fully implemented. The budget and level of 

expenditure per enrollee at this Ford-funded site 

was higher than that of DOL-funded sites and 

higher than the other Ford-funded site. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Fully implemented. Enrollees were assessed 

three times during the demonstration by taking 

the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic goals 

for the coming year. 

Partially implemented. The program developed 

individual education plans (IEPs), but they were 

limited to CAI plans and did not cover other 

aspects of education. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, English, 

and other courses the enrollee is taking in 

school. 

Partially implemented. The program provided 

paid and volunteer tutoring in the first two years 

of the demonstration. Tutoring became less 

formal and systematic in later years. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Fully implemented. The program offered a 

state-of-the-art computer laboratory at the 

CBOís facility. 
TABLE III.5 (continued) 

41 

QOP Program Model Philadelphia Site 

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory courses 

in high school, tours of local college campuses, 

seminars on federal financial aid, assistance in 

completing college applications and Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). 

For those not college-bound, planning for 

postsecondary apprenticeships and vocationaltechnical training. 

Fully implemented. The program provided 

college tours, preparation for standardized 

examinations, and counseling on applying to 

college and for financial aid. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, including 

childbearing, substance abuse, and criminal 

behavior. Seminars also covered budgeting, 

saving, investing, and managing money. 

Fully implemented, in first two years. The 

frequency declined in the third year; none in the 

fourth year. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and other 

cultural activities. 

Fully implemented. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the community, 

such as visiting nursing home residents. 

Not implemented. Community service was 

never a systematic part of the service mix. 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on program 

activities other than recreation, paid biweekly or 

monthly. A contribution of an equal amount to 

an ìaccrual accountî held by the program until 

the enrollee completes high school and enrolls in 

college, the armed forces, an accredited 

apprenticeship program, or a postsecondary 

vocational-technical school. Participants 

received bonuses for achieving major 

programmatic milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded 

sites received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. The stipend rate increased 

by a small amount each year. The program also 

paid bonuses for completing a certain threshold 

of participation. The CBO invested the accrual 

account funds, which earned interest. Enrollees 

received a quarterly statement of their account. 
TABLE III.5 (continued) 

42 

QOP Program Model Philadelphia Site 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added to 

the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Partially implemented. Snacks were not 

provided each weekday afternoon but were 

provided on weekends. 

Transportation 

Transportation provided directly by car or van or 

through financial subsidy, such as free or 

discounted bus tokens, for transportation to and 

from program activities. 

Fully implemented. The program provided 

subway tokens but not vans or shuttles. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Partially implemented. Enrollees with children 

were invited to bring children along on outings. 

Case managers or other enrollees provided child 

care for special events such as taking the GED 

test or tutoring. 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer school. 

For other enrollees, arrange for part-time 

summer jobs. Continue to provide education, 

developmental, and community service activities 

throughout the summer and during other school 

vacations. 

Not implemented. While the program 

encouraged youth to go to summer school and 

paid for summer school in many cases, it offered 

few if any services during the summer months. 

It arranged for summer jobs during the first year 

but not in later years. 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Partially implemented. The program did not 

engage in formal monitoring, but it stayed in 

touch with many college attendees. The 

frequency of communication varied greatly based 

on the strength of the mentoring relationship 

and whether youth were attending school in the 

local area. 
43 

TABLE III.6 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONó 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

QOP Model Washington, D.C. Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, determination of 

the best service mix for the enrollee, referral to 

other community organizations for services not 

directly provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the school, 

criminal justice system, and other organizations. 

May include referral to child care providers, 

substance abuse treatment, health screening and 

treatment, and mental health screening and 

treatment. 

Partially implemented. Assessment of needs was 

not done formally and was not emphasized. 

Most case managers nonetheless knew about the 

needs of the enrollees in their caseloads. Case 

managers made some referrals to social services 

and to mental health screening. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that of 

a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role model, 

advice, standards of behavior, discipline, and 

encouragement. 

Fully implemented. Mentoring relationships 

were typically strong and positive but limited by 

turnover of both case managers and the 

coordinator. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are scheduled 

each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community 

service. 

Partially implemented. Scheduled activities at or 

near the prescribed number of hours for some 

components, but not for others. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, and 

on call during nights and weekends. 

Fully implemented. With a few exceptions, case 

managers were available to enrollees for the 

prescribed amount of time. Evening and 

weekend activities were frequent. 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school attendance, 

location of residence, involvement in the 

criminal justice system, illness or disability, or 

inactivity. 

Fully implemented. Participation suffered in the 

programís later years because of the number of 

transfers to other high schools. 
TABLE III.6 (continued) 

44 

QOP Model Washington, D.C. Site 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Fully implemented. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Not implemented. About half of the enrollees 

completed the Test of Adult Basic Education 

(TABE) in the second academic year of the 

demonstration. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic goals 

for the coming year. 

Not implemented. Plans were neither formal 

nor consistent. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, English, 

and other courses the enrollee is taking in school. 

Partially implemented. Case managers provided 

homework help when students requested it. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Partially implemented. The computer 

laboratoryís equipment and software were stateof-the-art. More problematic was the level of 

staff training. Students had access to the 

laboratory two days per week. 

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory courses 

in high school, tours of local college campuses, 

seminars on federal financial aid, assistance in 

completing college applications and Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). 

For those not college-bound, planning for 

postsecondary apprenticeships and vocationaltechnical training. 

Fully implemented. Case managers began 

discussing post-secondary options in the 

programís second year. The program scheduled 

local college tours, college fairs, and preparation 

for the PSAT and SAT. Planning and 

preparation for non-college-bound students was 

more individual and initiated by case manager. 
TABLE III.6 (continued) 

45 

QOP Model Washington, D.C. Site 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, including 

childbearing, substance abuse, and criminal 

behavior. Seminars also covered budgeting, 

saving, investing, and managing money. 

Partially implemented. Offered a varied and rich 

program of activities in the first two years of the 

demonstration. In later years, life skills training 

received less emphasis as the focus on education 

increased. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and other 

cultural activities. 

Fully implemented. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Fully implemented. Such activities were frequent 

on Fridays and non-school days. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the community, 

such as visiting nursing home residents. 

Partially implemented. Community service 

activities were planned in conjunction with the 

CBOís functions. Many students also arranged 

their own community service activities, 

consistent with the local school requirement of 

community service hours for graduation. 

Scheduled community service hours did not 

meet the goal number of hours. 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on program 

activities other than recreation, paid biweekly or 

monthly. A contribution of an equal amount to 

an ìaccrual accountî held by the program until 

the enrollee completes high school and enrolls in 

college, the armed forces, an accredited 

apprenticeship program, or a postsecondary 

vocational-technical school. Participants 

received bonuses for achieving major 

programmatic milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded 

sites received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. The program also offered 

in-kind incentives, including certificates and 

tickets to recreational activities. 
TABLE III.6 (continued) 

46 

QOP Model Washington, D.C. Site 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added to 

the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Fully implemented. Initial offerings were not 

nutritious, but emphasis on nutritional value 

increased in later years. 

Transportation 

Provided transportation directly by car or van or 

through financial subsidy, such as free or 

discounted bus tokens, for transportation to and 

from program activities. 

Fully implemented. Two dedicated QOP vans, 

with program logo on the side, provided 

transportation to and from program offices for 

use of after-school computer laboratories and 

enabled the program to provide transportation 

for recreational and development outings, 

college tours, etc. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Fully implemented. The program created a child 

care area adjacent to the computer laboratory to 

encourage participation among student parents. 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer school. 

For other enrollees, arrange for part-time 

summer jobs. Continue to provide education, 

developmental, and community service activities 

throughout the summer and during other school 

vacations. 

Fully implemented. Program activities 

continued through the summer; the program 

arranged for summer school and summer jobs. 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Partially implemented. Case managers had other 

responsibilities during the fifth year of the 

demonstration that limited the amount of time 

they could devote to staying in touch. 
47 

TABLE III.7 

SITE-BY-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE QOP DEMONSTRATIONóYAKIMA 

QOP Model Yakima Site 

Case Management/Networking 

Assessment of enrolleeís needs, determination of 

the best service mix for the enrollee, referral to 

other community organizations for services not 

directly provided by QOP. Representing and 

advocating for the enrollee before the school, 

criminal justice system, and other organizations. 

May include referral to child care providers, 

substance abuse treatment, health screening and 

treatment, and mental health screening and 

treatment. 

Partially implemented. No formal assessment of 

enrolleeís needs. Case managers made some 

referrals to social service providers but also 

stated they were not always sure enough about 

some needs. Developed formal contracts with 

enrollees early in the program. 

Mentoring 

A close personal relationship resembling that of 

a caring aunt or uncle. Providing a role model, 

advice, standards of behavior, discipline, and 

encouragement. 

Fully implemented. Mentoring was well 

implemented for those enrollees who remained 

engaged in the program. Since case managers 

did not have offices in the school, they had 

difficulty working with enrollees who did not 

come to the CBO facility. Several enrollees reengaged in the programís fourth year. 

Intensity 

Program Hours per Year 

750 hours of program activities are scheduled 

each year, 250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community 

service. 

Partially implemented. For the first three years, 

the program scheduled few developmental and 

community service activities. Barriers included 

budget constraints and enrolleesí family and 

work responsibilities. 

Case Manager Hours per Week 

Case managers are on duty each business day 

until early evening, one day on the weekend, and 

on call during nights and weekends. 

Partially implemented. Case managers were on 

duty only part-time and thus had little time to 

make home visits. They did not carry pagers. 

Part-time availability to QOP participants was 

consistent with the version of the QOP model 

implemented at Ford-funded sites. This 

involved staff having substantial non-QOP job 

responsibilities. 
TABLE III.7 (continued) 

48 

QOP Model Yakima Site 

Unconditional Enrollment and Access to 

Services 

Enrollment and access to services are not 

contingent on the enrolleeís school attendance, 

location of residence, involvement in the 

criminal justice system, illness or disability, or 

inactivity. 

Partially implemented. Case managersí time 

constraints kept managers from being as 

proactive when situations called for staying in 

touch with those who dropped out of QOP or 

moved away. 

Sufficient Financial Resources 

At DOL-funded sites, expenditure on direct 

services to enrollees of $4,000 per year per 

enrollee. Ford-funded sites were budgeted at 

$6,750 per year per enrollee. 

Not implemented. The budget at this Fordfunded site was less than that at DOL-funded 

sites and significantly less than that at the other 

Ford-funded site. The level of funding improved 

in the final two years of the demonstration. 

Education 

Assessment 

Assessment of academic achievement in 

mathematics and English once per year. 

Fully implemented. Used Test of Adult Basic 

Education (TABE) and tracked progress through 

the CCP software. 

Individual Education Plan 

An individual education plan based on the 

assessments, the enrolleeís grades, and 

consultations with the enrolleeís school 

counselor and teachers, setting academic goals 

for the coming year. 

Partially implemented. Developed education 

plans, but they were not comprehensive. Case 

managers collected report cards and mid-term 

examination results. They intervened only when 

there was a problem and did not routinely 

interact with teachers. Lack of office space at 

the school, along with other jobs during school 

hours, was a barrier to this interaction. 

Tutoring 

One-on-one tutoring in mathematics, English, 

and other courses the enrollee is taking in 

school. 

Partially implemented. Case managers provided 

tutoring. In early years, tutoring was geared to 

helping enrollees progress through the CAI 

program rather than focusing on course content. 

In later years, students increasingly requested 

and received help with homework. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

Access to a personal computer with CAI 

software, guidance on how to use the CAI 

effectively, and assessment of the enrolleeís 

progress. 

Fully implemented. The computer laboratory 

was new and state-of-the art and served as a 

center of program activities. Staff were well 

trained and tracked enrolleesí progress through 

the CAI. 
TABLE III.7 (continued) 

49 

QOP Model Yakima Site 

Postsecondary Planning 

Advice on selecting college preparatory courses 

in high school, tours of local college campuses, 

seminars on federal financial aid, assistance in 

completing college applications and Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). 

For those not college-bound, planning for 

postsecondary apprenticeships and vocationaltechnical training. 

Fully implemented. The program arranged 

college tours, both in and out of state. Case 

managers helped enrollees plan and apply for 

financial aid. QOP paid for SAT testing and 

encouraged students to prepare for and take the 

test. 

Developmental Activities 

(see Table VII.1 for a detailed list of activities) 

Decision-Making Skills 

Seminars on avoiding risky behaviors, including 

childbearing, substance abuse, and criminal 

behavior. Seminars also covered budgeting, 

saving, investing, and managing money. 

Partially implemented. In the first three years, 

the program offered few development activities. 

A new case manager in Year 4 and increases in 

the budget brought more frequent life skills 

activities and developmental outings. 

Cultural Awareness 

Exposure to fine arts, performing arts, and other 

cultural activities. 

Partially implemented. Outings were infrequent 

because of the low budget. 

Recreation 

Games, swimming, etc. Not implemented. Activities were rare, 

especially during Years 1 through 3, lacking 

money for transportation, food, and entry fees. 

Community Service 

Volunteer activities designed to improve the 

physical environment, such as cleaning up a 

vacant lot, or to assist others in the community, 

such as visiting nursing home residents. 

Partially implemented. Scheduled some 

community service activities, but this component 

received less emphasis than others. 
TABLE III.7 (continued) 

50 

QOP Model Yakima Site 

Financial Incentives 

A stipend of $1.25 per hour spent on program 

activities other than recreation, paid biweekly or 

monthly. A contribution of an equal amount to 

an ìaccrual accountî held by the program until 

the enrollee completes high school and enrolls in 

college, the armed forces, an accredited 

apprenticeship program, or a postsecondary 

vocational-technical school. Participants 

received bonuses for achieving major 

programmatic milestones. Staffs of Ford-funded 

sites received incentive compensation based on 

program attendance. 

Fully implemented. $1.33 per hour, 100-hour 

bonuses, and some achievement-based bonuses. 

Late in the demonstration, the CBO developed a 

point system in which enrollees could earn 

points for participation and positive behaviors 

and have points docked for negative behaviors, 

ultimately cashing in their points for prizes. In 

Year 4, the program provided debit cards for 

enrollees and implemented money management 

training. After the first two years of the 

demonstration, the CBO invested the accrual 

account funds, which earned interest. Enrollees 

received a quarterly statement of their account. 

Supportive Services 

Supportive services were not included in the 

original formal QOP model but were added to 

the model during the demonstration. 

Food 

Substantial snack each afternoon and during 

weekend activities. 

Partially implemented. Enrollees could purchase 

snacks at the CBOís snack bar. 

Transportation 

Provided transportation directly by car or van or 

through financial subsidy, such as free or 

discounted bus tokens, for transportation to and 

from program activities. 

Partially implemented. The centerís accessibility 

by school bus and public transportation was a 

help, but transportation at the end of the day 

was more of a problem. Parents often had to 

pick up their children. Case managers used their 

own cars for outings and weekend activities. 

Lack of money for transportation was cited as a 

factor limiting the number of activities and 

outings offered. 

Child Care 

Arrange for and fund child care during time 

spent on program activities. 

Not implemented. 
TABLE III.7 (continued) 

51 

QOP Model Yakima Site 

Summer QOP 

If the enrollee failed one or more courses, 

arrange for and fund remedial summer school. 

For other enrollees, arrange for part-time 

summer jobs. Continue to provide education, 

developmental, and community service activities 

throughout the summer and during other school 

vacations. 

Fully implemented. Case managers encouraged 

or arranged for summer school, and QOP paid 

for it. In some years, as many as half of 

enrollees attended. Also arranged for summer 

JTPA jobs. QOP programming continued 

throughout the summer. 

Postsecondary Services 

Monitor the enrolleeís progress in college or 

other postsecondary training. 

Fully implemented. Case managers stayed in 

touch with enrollees and appeared to know a 

great deal about their progress and challenges. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
53 

C HAPTER IV 

I NTENSITY

Starting with program intensity, this chapter begins a component-by-component analysis of 

how QOP was implemented. It and the next six chapters begin by summarizing the program 

model and conclude by describing how the demonstration sites actually implemented the 

component. 

INTENSITY IN THE QOP MODEL 

QOPís overall intensity was the main characteristic that distinguished it from many other youth 

programs. The program was intensive in several ways. 

• Services lasted for five years, starting in the ninth grade. Intense services lasted for the 

first four years, or until a youth completed high school. 

• Sites were to schedule 750 hours of activities per yearó250 in education, 250 in 

developmental activities, and 250 in community service activities. 

• Staff time was intensive, with one full-time case manager for 15 to 25 enrollees or parttime case managers paid according to their enrolleesí participation. 

• Case managers were expected to be on call at all times, making themselves available to 

enrollees at night and during weekends. 

• Program staff were required to continue trying to engage enrollees regardless of the 

enrolleesí response or whereabouts. This meant striving to stay in contact with 

enrollees who may be incarcerated, living out of state, attending a different school after 

a transfer, or disengaged from the program. 

• Because program staff members are expected to adopt a ìwhatever-it-takesî approach 

to enrolleesí needs, services were tailored to the unique circumstances of each enrollee. 
54 

INTENSITY AS IMPLEMENTED

While the QOP demonstration revealed several practical limits to implementing services at the 

prescribed level of intensity, it is clear that the program was more intensive than most other youth 

programs. Many of the school administrators, faculty, and CBO managers interviewed for this 

report stated that QOP was the most intensive program they had ever encountered. Principals at 

several QOP core schools said that, in particular, its intensive case management set QOP apart from 

other youth programs. One principal reported that QOP was more successful than any other youth 

program in his experience, saying, ìTheir intensive involvement is what distinguishes them from the 

others. They pick up youth at home. They do whatever is needed, inside or outside of school. 

They provide a stable and caring environment; they provide consistency.î 

However, every site found it difficult to implement the model with regard to three aspects of 

program intensity: offering 750 hours of activities, ensuring that case managers were on call at all 

times, and requiring that staff members never give up on an enrollee. 

Hours of Activities Offered 

Sites varied in the extent to which they met the guidelines for service intensity. Two sites 

scheduled 750 annual hours of program activities, allocating approximately 250 hours of 

participation each to education, community, and developmental activities. The five remaining sites 

scheduled fewer than 750 hours. Some of these sites scheduled enough hours in education or 

development activities, but none scheduled sufficient hours in community service. One site offered 

750 hours of program services, but case managers did not follow up with enrollees or make 

themselves available during off hours. In contrast, another site fell short of the prescribed number 

of hours but balanced services among the three components, and the case managers consistently 

pursued enrollees. As a result, enrollees at this site received a more intensive ìdoseî of QOP than 

enrollees at the other site even though it fell short of the 750 hours. 

The three sites that did not offer the required number of hours often emphasized one program 

component over the others. For instance, one of these sites fell far short of offering enough 

program hours in education, developmental, and community service activities but heavily 

emphasized mentoring activities. The siteís case managers visited the home of each enrollee who 

lived within the city limits twice a month regardless of whether the enrollee attended the core QOP 

school. Another site fell far short of the prescribed number of hours in several components, but 

offered many hours in CAI. 

Personnel Intensity 

The services offered at nearly all QOP sites were staff-intensive. Caseloads at each site were 

small relative to many other youth programs, ranging from 15 to 27 youths per case manager. 

Approximately 80 percent of case managers were responsible for 20 or fewer enrollees, and 90 

percent of case managers worked on QOP full time. Of the two sites where case managers worked 
55 

on QOP part time, case managers at one site had full-time positions as JTPA counselors.5 At the 

other site, case managers worked primarily on QOP but were also responsible for a small proportion 

of nonñQOP youth who attended the QOP host high school and were enrolled in another program 

administered by the QOP CBO. 

At five of the seven sites, case managers made themselves available to enrollees at all times. 

These staff carried pagers and encouraged youth to contact them as needed. Indeed, case managers 

at these sites reported that many enrollees called them in the evenings and on weekends. At the 

remaining two sites, case managers limited their availability. One site initially had only one pager 

that rotated among its case managers. However, beginning in the third year of the demonstration, 

all case managers at the site began carrying pagers, and as a result, enrollees called them more 

regularly. At the remaining site, case managers did not carry pagers but gave enrollees their home 

telephone numbers, although the extent to which the case managers made themselves available 

during off hours varied. 

The policy of providing access to case managers 24 hours a day, seven days a week is based on 

the recognition that disadvantaged youth most often need help during non-business hours. Sites 

that attempted to provide such access, however, found that round-the-clock access eventually led to 

staff burnout. Further, case managers are covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 

which required compensation at a higher rate for time on duty beyond 40 hours per week. While 

nearly all case managers spent more than 40 hours per week at work, none of the demonstration 

sites had budgeted for over-time compensation at the beginning of the demonstration. 

Most sites found that although it was not necessary for case managers to be available around 

the clock, case managers had to be reasonably accessible, and their hours, flexible. Sites also found 

that it was more effective for case managers to work in teams so that they could share the 

responsibilities of evening and weekend work. Case managers reported that although they 

frequently received calls during off hours, most of the situations leading to those calls could be 

handled over the telephone. 

The philosophy of never giving up on an enrollee was expressed in the program motto ìOnce 

in QOP, always in QOP.î However, sites found that there were practical limits to the 

implementation of this policy. By the fourth year of the demonstration, the proportion of 

participating high school students who had either transferred to another school or moved out of 

state ranged from 14 to 57 percent. For example, at one site, 30 of the 53 enrollees still known to be 

attending high school had transferred out of the QOP school. That proportion, added to the 

proportion of enrollees who had dropped out of school, moved away, enrolled in or completed a 

GED program, or were incarcerated, meant that nearly three out of every four QOP enrollees (74 

percent) at the site did not attend the QOP school during the latter part of the demonstration. 

With enrollees widely dispersed during the second half of the demonstration, case managers had 

to divide their time between providing services to local enrollees and tracking down distant 

 5 This arrangement was based on the design of the QOP pilot, in which case managers also had other full-time job 

responsibilities. Case managers were compensated for their overtime using an incentive system based on the number of 

hours that enrollees in their caseload spent on QOP activities. 
56 

enrollees. At some sites, case managers would set aside one morning a week to visit the other 

schools that QOP enrollees attended to follow up on them in person. During these visits, case 

managers checked enrolleesí attendance records and met with teachers or administrators if 

necessary. Case managers also set aside one or two more mornings or afternoons per week to 

connect with enrollees who had dropped out of school. To find these individuals, case managers 

made home visits, went to the enrolleesí places of employment, or drove around the neighborhoods 

where the enrollees might be found. Some sites balanced these responsibilities by relying on one 

case manager to follow up on out-of-school youth and another to visit the nonñQOP schools. 

It was particularly difficult for QOP case managers to maintain contact with enrollees who 

moved out of state. At some sites, case managers maintained regular contact through letters and 

telephone calls, sending packets of QOP materials and outlining activities for the enrollee to 

complete in exchange for continuing to receive a stipend. Some case managers also contacted 

enrolleesí new schools to arrange for the youth to accrue QOP hours for activities completed there. 

One case manager with six out-of-state enrollees in her caseload regularly sent them letters and 

QOP materials, encouraged them to identify local community service activities in which they could 

participate, and drove hundreds of miles to visit an enrollee who had moved to a neighboring state. 

Case managers found it more difficult to gain access to these youthsí academic records because 

administrators from the new schools were not familiar with the QOP program. Case managers 

learned about the academic progress of these enrollees only through the enrollees themselves or 

through their parents. 

Not all sites, however, were as diligent in following up on youth who had moved or transferred 

to a nonñQOP school. At these sites, case managers felt that they simply did not have enough time 

to serve youth who had moved away. Even at sites where staff members tried earnestly to keep in 

touch with youth who had moved or transferred, there were invariably some enrollees with whom 

case managers lost contact. Instead of continually trying to contact these individuals, many case 

managers felt that their time was better spent providing more services to the youth who remained 

geographically close to the site. 

Each site also had a few enrollees who were incarcerated. The ability to maintain ongoing 

contact with these individuals depended on the requirements of the facility in which the individual 

was detained or on the restrictions of the sentence. At several sites, case managers maintained 

limited contact with incarcerated youth by visiting them at their detention site, sending them letters, 

contacting them by telephone, or visiting them at home when they were released on a weekend pass. 

Case managers reported wasting many hours contacting individuals who had never participated 

in any QOP activities. Case managers tried for the first two years of the demonstration to engage 

these youth in QOP but reported that, by the programís third year, their time was better spent on 

youth who had some interest in QOP. 
57 

C HAPTER V 

C ASE M ANAGEMENT AND M ENTORING

Case management and mentoring were at the heart of QOP and served as the glue that held 

together all other program components. 

CASE MANAGEMENT AND MENTORING IN THE QOP MODEL

In the QOP model, the purpose of case management was to assess both the unmet needs of 

enrollees and the barriers they face and to fashion a service mix that best addressed those needs and 

barriers. Case managers addressed any problems in any aspect of the enrolleeís life; monitored the 

enrolleeís progress; and advocated for the enrollee in matters pertaining to school, family, the 

juvenile justice system, and college. The mentoring function involved a long-term personal 

relationship between a enrollee and his or her case manager that is similar to the relationship 

between a youth and a close and caring older relative. The case manager was expected to model 

appropriate behavior and attitudes, set disciplinary standards, and be continually available. 

CASE MANAGEMENT AND MENTORING AS IMPLEMENTED

Generally, the case management and mentoring component of QOP was successfully 

implemented. Case managers reported forming personal, mutually caring relationships lasting as 

long as the five years of the demonstration with between 40 and 60 percent of their total caseload. 

At all sites, mentoring absorbed the greatest number of staff hours. Despite the overall success in 

case management and mentoring, implementing the case management and mentoring component of 

QOP presented a number of challenges, such as staff turnover, relationships with parents, and other 

issues discussed below. 

Staff Turnover 

To the extent that longevity in large part characterizes a successful mentoring relationship, staff 

turnover has the potential to interfere with successful mentoring. Fortunately, turnover in the 

demonstration was relatively low. Of the 30 caseload groups in the demonstration, 14 had the same 

case manager throughout the first four years of the demonstration. During this time, one site 

experienced no staff turnover. At each of two other sites, the case managers for three caseload 
58 

groups remained the same for the first four years. Four of the seven sites experienced turnover of 

both coordinator and case managers. 

Turnover was most damaging in two circumstances. The first was when a position remained 

vacant for some time, leaving some enrollees with no primary mentor for as long as two or three 

months. Case managers who filled in as temporary mentors were overworked and often unable to 

meet enrolleesí needs. The second was when all enrollees experienced more than two case managers 

during the demonstration. Many enrollees did not develop strong relationships with their third case 

manager. 

Some CBOs attempted to protect enrollees from staff turnover by increasing case manager 

compensation. Case manager salaries were typically in the range of $20,000 to $30,000 per year. 

Relationships with Families 

At six of the seven sites, coordinators expected case managers to conduct regular home visits or 

maintain telephone contact with parents and family members of each enrollee in their caseloads. 

One site required case managers to visit homes twice a month. The majority of case managers 

adopted a dual approach to communicating with enrolleesí families. While staying in touch with 

individual families, they also conducted group events for parents such as picnics, awards banquets, 

open houses at the schools, and holiday celebrations. 

Case managers reported forming close and cooperative relationships with some parents but not 

with others. Many families were grateful to have support in looking out for their children. Case 

managers found that parents who were most difficult to reach might have felt threatened by case 

managersí mentoring relationships with their children. Moreover, some of the most-difficult-toreach families were those whose children had the largest number of persistent barriers to success. 

Case managers reported that some parents appeared anxious to limit the exposure of family 

problems to the case manager and saw the QOP case manager as being intrusive. Finally, in a few 

cases, case managers felt that parents had given up trying to influence their children, especially as 

enrollees grew older and more independent. QOP staff was least successful in engaging these 

parents. In those cases when the case manager established a relationship with the enrolleeís parent, 

the case manager found the relationship to be an asset in providing the enrollee with case 

management and mentoring. The parent helped the case manager locate the youth, reinforced the 

value of attending program activities, shared news about events in the enrolleeís life, and offered 

insights into the enrolleeís feelings and perceptions. 

Conflicting Roles of Nurturer and Disciplinarian 

Case managers adopted a variety of mentoring styles, ranging from parental and authoritarian to 

friendly but not authoritarian. Case managers at several sites adopted a relatively formal style, 

expecting enrollees to address them by their last names and enforcing strict behavior rules when 

enrollees were on site. Case managers, like parents, occasionally found that they had to discipline 

enrollees in addition to advocating for and nurturing them. For instance, most case managers did 

not advocate for students who engaged in ongoing negative behaviors, believing that unqualified 

support for poor behavior would send the wrong message to the youth and to his or her QOP 
59 

peers. Case managers balanced advocacy with discipline by discussing problem situations with their 

QOP colleagues and using their intuition to guide the youth in their caseload. 

The most successful mentors used a balance between nurturing and discipline. Some enrollees 

would steadfastly resist a parental or authoritarian approach while others would take advantage of or 

dismiss a case manager who adopted a more friendly approach. Case managers also learned that 

consistency was crucial. During the later years of the demonstration, some case managers found 

that they needed to nurture enrollees less in order to encourage them to become more self-reliant. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
61 

C HAPTER VI 

T HE E DUCATION C OMPONENT

THE EDUCATION COMPONENT IN THE QOP MODEL

The goal of QOPís education component was to improve enrolleesí basic skills and academic 

performance in high school and to prepare them for success in postsecondary education or training. 

The component included five key elements. 

• Academic assessment to identify the specific academic needs of each enrollee 

• An individualized education plan, including a sequence of instructional activities 

designed to bring each enrollee up to grade level in reading and mathematics and 

generally to keep youth on track academically 

• Course-based tutoring to help enrollees pass their high school courses 

• Computer-assisted instruction to support other educational activities and to leverage the 

case managersí time so that a larger number of enrollees could be served 

• Planning for postsecondary activities 

THE EDUCATION COMPONENT AS IMPLEMENTED

In describing the education component as implemented relative to the model component, we 

account for the fact that the model component continued to evolve during the first two years of the 

demonstration. DOLís QOP grant announcement did not require CBOs to budget for computerassisted instruction facilities or equipment, although the initial training of site staff stressed that 

computer-assisted instruction was necessary and that it required a facility and computer equipment. 

In the first year or two of the demonstration, the DOL-funded sites arranged for such facilities and 

equipment as best they could, considering that neither was included in their budgets. In the second 

year of the demonstration, staff training stressed the other aspects of the education model: 

assessment, education plans, and course-based tutoring. Thus, the full scope of the education 

component was not clear to the sites until the latter half of the second year of the demonstration. 
62 

In contrast, the Ford Foundation grant funded the installation of a comprehensive computer 

learning center in each of its two sites. These sites contracted with the Remediation and Training 

Institute for all the required hardware, software, and supporting materials as well as on-going 

training and technical assistance. These two sites were the only demonstration sites that had 

functioning computer laboratories at the beginning of the demonstration. 

The implementation of the education component varied widely from site to site and was 

incomplete at every site. By the time the education component became specified, the DOL-funded 

sites had already hired staff on the basis of their ability to serve as case managers rather than as 

teachers or tutors. Many sites tried to expand their services to include more formal educational 

activities, but they did not have the expertise to implement the needed changes either quickly or 

effectively. 

Because of the lack of expertise in education-related activities, QOP staff members required 

extensive training and technical assistance in how to select assessment tools, interpret assessment 

results, develop education plans, select a computer-assisted instruction system or vendor, and 

translate plans into a course of tutoring and computer-assisted instruction. 

Despite the barriers to implementing the education component, several sites succeeded in 

implementing some of its key elements. Their experiences with each element are described below. 

Assessments and Individual Education Plans 

Five sites used a formal assessment tool to determine enrolleesí basic skills, though few 

understood how to use the assessment results to develop formal individual education plans. The 

remaining two sites did not conduct assessments. 

One of the five sites that conducted assessments contracted for assessment services with a local 

CBO that specialized in remedial education for teenagers. The assessment process began during the 

fall semester in year three of the demonstration and continued into the spring term. Assessments 

were completed for approximately two-thirds of the siteís enrollees. By the time assessments were 

completed, most enrollees were finishing eleventh grade. The four other sites that conducted 

assessments did so early in the demonstration by using the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). 

Two of the sites did not use the results at all while the other two used them only for planning the 

sequence of CAI lessons. One of these two sites assessed enrollees three times: at program start-up, 

during fall of the second year, and in summer and fall of the fourth year. Case managers reviewed 

test results informally and noted progress and weaknesses in enrolleesí scores. However, the site did 

not use the assessment results to develop a structured education plan that integrated enrolleesí 

academic needs with their computer-assisted instruction activities. 

Enrollees showed little patience for standardized tests, refusing to attend QOP activities when 

assessment tests were administered. Some youth who did take the tests marked their answer sheets 

randomly to finish as quickly as possible. Enrollees who had difficulty reading were especially put 

off by the tests. The sites that succeeded in motivating the majority of their enrollees to complete 

assessments did so only by using incentives and bonuses, but even these devices failed to motivate 

many particularly resistant youth. Case managers reported that the assessments seemed to alienate 

the very enrollees most in need of QOPís educational services. 
63 

Only two sites made individual education plans for youth. Virtually all plans lacked depth and 

detail, were not tailored to individual needs, and listed generic activities such as ìafter-school 

tutoring, teacher conferences, reviewing progress reports.î Furthermore, even though enrollees at 

the two sites had taken the TABE, case managers did not incorporate the results into enrolleesí 

educational plans. 

While meaningful education plans were not developed at any site, case managers at most sites 

followed up on enrolleesí progress and needsóoften daily or weekly for in-school youth. Case 

managers reviewed report cards and progress reports, held meetings with teachers, and sat in on 

enrolleesí classes. They also encouraged enrollees who failed a class to attend summer school, and at 

many sites, QOP paid summer school fees for enrollees who could not afford them. These types of 

monitoring activities are essential to any effective individual education plan. Unfortunately, in the 

absence of formal education plans, these activities were often informal and unsystematic. 

Tutoring 

All sites offered some type of course-based tutoring, although the quality and consistency of 

services varied greatly. At some sites, case managers served as the tutors. They helped enrollees 

upon request, using whatever knowledge they had of the particular subject. Some case managers 

reported that they were uncomfortable providing tutoring. One site referred enrollees to their high 

school teachers for extra help. At another site, the coordinator set up extensive in-service training to 

improve case managersí tutoring skills. Some sites recruited volunteer tutors, although these sites 

had difficulty forging long-lasting relationships with the volunteers, most of whom were local college 

students who worked with QOP for only one or two semesters. Enrollees at one site where case 

managers acted as tutors reported that access to more expert tutoring would have greatly improved 

services at that site. 

Four sites were located in states that required passing a proficiency examination for high school 

graduation. At those sites, the tutoring was designed to prepare enrollees for the examinations. 

Staff at the sites learned that the tests were a major barrier to successful completion of high school. 

At one school, for example, only one-third of QOP enrollees had passed both the mathematics and 

the English sections of the stateís eighth-grade proficiency examination by the first semester of their 

senior year. 

Several sites also provided tutoring for SATs and ACTs. As test dates drew near, most sites 

focused educational activities on preparing for these tests. Case managers encouraged enrollees to 

attend Saturday workshops held at the school or at local community agencies. A few sites also 

purchased books and CD-ROMs that provided enrollees with test-taking tips and sample 

examinations. 

One site convinced a few enrollees who were most in need of academic remediation to 

participate in professional tutoring sessions offered through a different local CBO specializing in 

academic remediation of at-risk youth. Case managers provided transportation to and from the 

tutoring sessions to ensure enrolleesí attendance. The responsibility for transportation soon proved 

too burdensome for case managers, and, as managers ceased to provide transportation, youth ceased 

to attend tutoring sessions with any regularity. 
64 

One site took a particularly promising approach to tutoring, offering services after school four 

days a week. Tutors included a teacher from the high school who was paid for her time by the QOP 

program, student volunteers from the local university, and the siteís computer-assisted instruction 

teacher. Although student participation was voluntary, case managers encouraged participation by 

requiring youth to complete a specific number of tutoring hours to qualify for participation in 

upcoming recreational activities. 

Participation levels in tutoring activities were low in all sites. Enrollees were more likely to 

participate in tutoring for standardized tests and college entrance examinations than in course-based 

tutoring. 

Computer-Assisted Instruction 

The implementation of computer-assisted instruction varied greatly by site. The two Fordfunded sites had state-of-the-art computer laboratories operating at the start of the demonstration, 

and one DOL-funded site set up a state-of-the-art computer facility by the start of the second year. 

Lack of expertise and resources significantly hindered the remaining four DOL-funded sites for 

some or all of the demonstration period. Although each of the four sites devoted considerable time 

to setting up a computer laboratory, none succeeded in providing enrollees with a computer facility 

that was state-of-the-art or available for enough time. 

These four sites spent a great deal of staff time arranging for access to computer facilities 

owned and operated by other organizations. Unfortunately, after months of negotiations, the 

arrangements often fell through. Several sites eventually secured access to functioning, but 

outdated, computers without Internet access. One site was able to secure access to a computer 

laboratory for eighteen months. Another site set up a modern computer laboratory equipped with 

educational software in the fourth year of the demonstration. 

The two Ford-funded sites, which implemented computer-assisted instruction most effectively, 

set up a computer learning center at the CBOís facility, which housed modern, well-equipped 

computers with Internet access and Comprehensive Competency Program (CCP) software.6 The 

sites supplemented their CAI with other computer-based educational resources, including a library 

of CD-ROMS, educational videos, and paper-and-pencil workbooks. CCP developers provided site 

staff with extensive training on the use of the software and the accompanying materials. The two 

sites also had a least one staff member who had extensive computer skills. Thus, QOP staff at these 

sites was able to assist youth in navigating and managing the CAI software, web-based research 

activities, and other computer-based educational activities. 

 6 In recent years, the field of computer-assisted instruction has developed significantly as researchers and experts 

have discarded ìdrill and practiceî software in favor of more progressive educational technology that is integrated with 

school curricula, uses multimedia, is matched to learner skill levels, and through which instruction is conducted in small 

groups by teachers or trained paraprofessionals. Approaches of this caliber most often focus primarily on educational 

technology and do not try to offer the kind of comprehensive services offered by QOP. In our assessment of 

computer-assisted instruction in QOP, we did not hold demonstration sites to this standard. All QOP sites primarily 

used education software that was of the ìdrill and practiceî variety. And given the current model design, it is unrealistic 

to expect that sites could implement anything more progressive. Therefore, our analysis relates only to the type of 

computer-assisted instruction that was feasible given the design and funding of the demonstration. 
65 

The two Ford-funded sites emphasized computer-assisted instruction above other educational 

activities and did not offer tutoring services on a consistent basis. Staff completed assessments and 

individual education plans only with regard to computer-assisted instruction and did not use 

assessments to develop individual education plans that addressed enrolleesí academic progress 

holistically. It proved difficult, however, to address enrolleesí academic needs with computerassisted instruction alone. Case managers reported that many youth progressed through their CAI 

lessons but still failed their academic subjects. 

In DOL-funded sites, enrollee participation in CAI was lower than in other educational 

activities. The majority of enrollees found computer-assisted instruction boring and ìtoo much like 

school.î Enrollees seemed most engaged by computers that offered Internet access and had CDROM drives. By the fourth year of the demonstration, at least four sites had stopped using CAI. 

Postsecondary Planning 

All sites encouraged enrollees to plan for and pursue postsecondary education and training, and 

all emphasized college attendance more than any other postsecondary activity. Case managers 

encouraged enrollees to think about college by taking them on local and out-of-state college tours 

and to college fairs; inviting members of local fraternities and sororities to speak to enrollees; 

providing workshops for parents and youth on financial aid, application forms, and researching 

different colleges; encouraging youth to take the PSAT, SAT, or ACT and paying the registration 

fees if necessary; and helping enrollees prepare for these tests by offering tutoring and purchasing 

training software. Case managers received guidance on postsecondary planning during the second, 

third, and fourth training conferences. 

Many enrollees reported that college tours were among their favorite QOP activities. Enrollees 

enjoyed taking trips, especially to out-of-state campuses, and for many, the tours were their first 

opportunity to travel beyond their neighborhood. Many sites also used out-of-town college tours as 

an incentive, requiring that enrollees maintain a certain GPA or level of attendance at QOP activities 

(or both) to qualify for the trips. Some enrollees reported that they thought about college more than 

their non-QOP friends did. Others reported that without the constant reinforcement from case 

managers, they would not have made college a personal goal. 

Although staff at nearly all sites took youth on college tours as early as the first and second 

years of the demonstration, not all case managers gave college planning the same emphasis. Case 

managers at three sites encouraged enrollees to think about college but focused mostly on ensuring 

that the enrollees graduated from high school. These case managers believed that it was more 

important to remove the immediate barriers to enrolleesí success in high school. At these sites, 

motivated and higher-achieving enrollees sought information about college themselves. And 

although case managers were available and eager to help motivated students when called upon, they 

did not conduct many group activities that promoted college attendance. 

During the first four years of the demonstration, sites rarely emphasized other types of 

postsecondary education and training, such as vocational schools or apprenticeship programs. QOP 

staff knew little about quality vocational training or apprenticeship options despite the fact that 

between one-third and two-thirds of enrollees had no stated intention of attending college. Some of 

these enrollees hoped to join the military while others were considering trade school in electronics, 

carpentry, and cosmetology. Some youth had not made or followed through with plans at all. Every 
66 

case manager had one or more individuals on his or her caseload (and some had as many as six or 

eight) who had dropped out of school and disengaged from the education system altogether. At 

some sites, case managers encouraged these individuals to pursue alternative activities such as Job 

Corps or night school as a way to continue their education. 

This under-emphasis on other types of postsecondary education and training may be explained 

by QOPís philosophy that any youth can go to college if he or she is provided with the right 

supports. Program designers emphasized that college attendance was the goal for every enrollee. 

The technical assistance documentation and all national conferences supported this view. This 

emphasis set the tone for the activities pursued by the various sites. Nearly all case managers 

believed that in-school enrollees should aim to go to college. Moreover, during the first few years of 

the demonstration, staff encouraged all dropouts to return to high school. Only near the end of the 

program, when most youth were age 17 or older, did case managers begin to push enrollees who had 

either left school or were behind by more than two grade levels to pursue a GED and enroll in some 

form of vocational training. 

This singular focus on college may have alienated some youth who did not see college as a 

desirable goal. Presenting youth with a variety of postsecondary options would have allowed 

enrollees to choose the option with which they identified most. De-emphasizing college may also 

have reduced the risk of alienating enrollees who did not want to go to college and helped to keep 

them engaged in the program. 

Unmet and Changing Needs 

Staff at all sites expressed surprise and disappointment at the number of enrollees who failed 

classes or dropped out of school. Despite the emphasis on academic remediation and the personal 

dedication of staff, many enrollees did not stay on track academically. By the beginning of the 

fourth academic year of the demonstration, between 10 and 24 percent of enrollees at each site had 

dropped out of school and were not pursuing a GED. Even at the two sites with the highest 

promotion rates, fewer than 60 percent of enrollees were scheduled to graduate on time. 

During the first two years of the demonstration, staff tried to re-engage all enrollees in regular 

high school through whatever means possible. Case managers would call an enrolleeís parents if she 

or he were absent from school, would make home visits to find a enrollee who had not attended 

school for several days, and would even transport chronically truant youth to and from school every 

day. However, these efforts were not sustainable in the long run. As time went on, many youth 

transferred away from the QOP high school, making it difficult for case managers to keep up with 

enrolleesí attendance or school performance on a daily basis.7 Other youth repeatedly reneged on 

promises they made to teachers and case managers, making it impossible for QOP to negotiate a 

plan to keep them on track academically. 

By the fourth year of the demonstration, case managers at many sites began to recommend that 

certain enrollees, chiefly those who were more than one year behind grade level and unlikely to 

 7 Youth most at-risk of leaving school, however, needed daily monitoring. In most schools, after a given number 

of absences, teachers were required to give the offender a failing grade. Daily monitoring allowed case managers to 

intercede before enrollees reached the limit of allowable absences. 
67 

complete high school, take the GED examination rather than continue to pursue a regular high 

school diploma. By this time, each site also had a significant number of enrollees who had stopped 

going to school altogether. Case managers encouraged these youth to attend GED preparation 

classes, purchased GED workbooks for them to use at home, and purchased GED preparation 

software for the QOP computer laboratories.8 By the fifth and final year of the demonstration, 

QOP services at all sites focused almost entirely on helping youth who had not completed high 

school pass the GED examination and enroll in a vocational training program. 

 8 Most sites also had a few out-of-school enrollees who enrolled in programs such as Job Corps or YouthBuild. 

These enrollees received GED preparation services through these other programs. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
69 

C HAPTER VII 

D EVELOPMENTAL A CTIVITIES

DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES IN THE QOP MODEL

The QOP model stipulated that enrollees should spend 250 hours per year in developmental 

activities designed to broaden enrolleesí cultural horizons and strengthen their decision-making 

skills. QOPís developmental activities fall into four categories. 

• Life skills training, which helps enrollees improve their decision-making skills and 

avoid behaviors that could interfere with their education 

• Employment-readiness skills, which prepare enrollees for seeking and retaining jobs 

• Cultural activities, which expose enrollees to their own and other cultures and 

methods of self-expression 

• Recreational activities, which help enrollees build relationships with mentors and 

peers 

The rationale for the developmental component was that many youth from disadvantaged 

backgrounds have not been afforded the social and cultural experiences that provide the background 

that a youth needs to succeed in postsecondary education and the world of work. Few have had an 

opportunity to travel out of their home town, attend the theater or concerts, go to summer camp, or 

take music lessons. 

As a part of its technical assistance, OICA distributed to all sites a developmental curriculum 

including more than 300 examples of prestructured developmental activities that take the form of 

discussions, multimedia projects, field trips, and group projects that teach life skills.9 The activities 

were categorized into awareness skills, civics skills, community skills, computer skills, consumer 

skills, cultural skills, decision skills, employment skills, family skills, health skills, learning skills, 

relationship skills, safety skills, and social skills. The curriculum detailed the logistics, procedures, 

and discussion points needed to maximize the value of each activity. The documentation also 

provided guidance on how to sequence the activities to match the stages of youth development. 

 9 One module of these materials was developed by Public/Private Ventures of Philadelphia, PA. 
70 

DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES AS IMPLEMENTED

Sites were largely successful in implementing developmental activities. Table VII.1 presents a 

list of the developmental activities offered across QOP sites. During the demonstrationís first three 

years, four sites offered approximately 250 hours of developmental activities each year while the 

remaining three sites offered 180 to 200 hours. By the fourth and fifth years of the demonstration, 

all sites had de-emphasized developmental activities primarily because enrolleesí interest in them 

declined with age. While most sites continued to provide life skills sessions on dating, family 

planning, sexually transmitted diseases, money management, and employment-related issues such as 

writing a resume or interviewing for a job, the sessions became less frequent and more sparsely 

attended in the programís last two years. 

Sites designed their own developmental activities in addition to using the formal QOP 

curriculum. Each site had particular strengths that shaped the type of developmental activities it 

offered. For example, at least four sites had strong ties with the local JTPA summer youth 

employment program such that case managers at these sites tended to emphasize the development 

of employment skills. Another site was run by a CBO with access to a ropes-training course that 

QOP enrollees used during the summer. Therefore, case managers at this site tended to emphasize 

life skills development geared toward trust building, individual goal setting, and group decisionmaking. The strengths and interests of site staff also affected the design of developmental activities. 

One site had a case manager with a strong interest in technology. With his help, enrollees at that site 

developed a local QOP Web page. The coordinator at another site was skilled in visual and 

performing arts. She taught case managers how to conduct art and performance activities that both 

encouraged self-expression and creativity, giving students an avenue through which to communicate 

their feelings and goals. 

Sites structured developmental activities in several ways. Some were open to all enrollees and 

conducted in large groups. Other activities were offered to small groups through a sign-up sheet or 

on a first-come, first-served basis. Some activities, such as anger management workshops, were 

planned with certain enrollees in mind, and only those enrollees were ìinvitedî to join that activity. 

Particularly costly or popular activities, such as out-of-town trips, were used as incentives for 

participation in less popular activities, such as educational testing. 

Case managers reported that enrollees benefited from developmental activities. They believed 

these activities improved enrolleeís self-esteem and motivation, and contributed to a positive social 

orientation and strong social bonding. Enrollees identified developmental activities as ìfunî and 

among the best activities QOP offered. Many felt that QOP gave them access to activitiesósuch as 

traveling out of state, attending the Million Man March, or speaking to civic leadersóthat were 

otherwise out of reach. 

Because developmental activities drew more enrollees than did other activities, case managers 

used these activities to re-engage youth who had stopped participating in QOP. Case managers 

would contact inactive enrollees to invite them to special recreational and cultural events in hopes of 

drawing them back to the program. Even intermittent participation in these types of activities 

proved useful to case managers attempting to continue their mentoring relationships with reluctant 

enrollees. 
71 

TABLE VII.1 

DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES OFFERED BY QOP DEMONSTRATION SITES 

Life skills 

activities/discussion 

topics 

Budgeting 

Money management 

Financial planning 

Menu planning/grocery shopping 

Business ownership 

Personal hygiene 

Nutrition 

Overcoming adversity 

Conflict resolution training 

Managing anger 

Avoiding drug abuse 

Contraception, family planning, and 

abstinence 

Gang prevention 

CPR training 

Peer mediation training 

Behavioral skills 

Self-esteem 

Sexual harassment 

Sexual abuse 

Dating behavior and decision making 

Date rape 

Male parenting roles 

Importance of education 

Current magazine reading assignments 

Prison tours 

Decision-making/problem-solving activities 

Pre-employment training Worldñof-work basic skills 

Telephone etiquette 

Mock interviews 

Resume writing workshops 

On-site corporate tours 

Career exposure through guest speakers 

Summer placements in: 

Hospitals, nursing homes 

Federal, state, and county offices (e.g., health department, 

park service) 

Day care centers 

Local schools 

Restaurants 

Grocery stores 

Social service agencies (Goodwill, United Way) 

Cultural activities Museums 

Theater 

Ballet 

Symphonies, concerts 

Civic events 

Zoo 

State capitol tours 

Music and dance lessons 

Public lectures 

History videos 

Arts and crafts projects 

Fund raisers 

Workshops on topics such as African heritage, AIDS 

awareness, volunteerism, civic participation, 

entrepreneurship 

Classes in cooking, photography, arts and crafts 

Recreational activities Movies 

Ice skating 

Bowling 

Swimming 

Sailing 

Golfing 

Mountain biking 

Amusement/water parks 

Haunted houses 

Board/computer games 

Local fairs 

Picnics 

Attending sporting events 

Pizza lunches 

Dinners in restaurants 
72 

The following discussion explains how the sites implemented the four types of QOP 

developmental activities. 

Life Skills Training 

The life skills training offered by sites covered a wide range of subjects, including money 

management, nutrition, self-esteem, family planning, gang prevention, and current events (see Table 

VII.1). Activities varied greatly from site to site and even from case manager to case manager at a 

given site. Some activities were initiated by case managers as a result of mentoring interactions with 

enrollees. Other activities, such as gang prevention or anger management workshops, were designed 

for certain subgroups of enrollees. 

All sites emphasized pregnancy prevention but were challenged in how to deliver appropriate 

services. Because reducing teenage pregnancy was one of the demonstrationís objectives, OICA 

provided sites with material developed by Private/Public Ventures (P/PV) specifically for teenage 

pregnancy prevention. During the initial training conference, QOP site staff received instruction on 

how to use the P/PV material. Nevertheless, few sites provided enrollees with early or consistent 

education in the areas of sexuality and reproduction. Case managers at several sites said that they 

were uncomfortable addressing the topic, especially in mixed-sex groups and particularly during the 

first two years of the demonstration before they had established a solid, trusting, and mature 

relationship with enrollees. 

The sites addressed this awkwardness in several ways. Staff at several sites conducted separate 

sessions for men and women. Some sites invited other community agencies to come to QOP to 

make presentations on subjects such as family planning. Other sites did not conduct presentations 

on these topics but rather engaged students in related activities, such as mock parenting exercises 

using infant-sized dolls. Some sites limited themselves to the other facets of life skills training, such 

as financial planning and conflict resolution. 

Despite the emphasis on pregnancy prevention, however, case managers at four sites reported 

that at least one of every six enrollees was parenting or pregnant by the beginning of the fourth year 

of the demonstration, leaving staff both surprised and frustrated. Some case managers reported that 

no amount of training or education seemed to affect enrolleesí choices about sexual activity and 

contraception. 

Other areas of life skills training included substance abuse prevention, conflict resolution 

training, date rape, and sexual abuse. Some sites found that forming partnerships with agencies that 

specialized in these topics improved the overall quality of the services offered by QOP. For 

example, one site worked with the local Boys and Girls Club, which offered QOP enrollees anger 

management and self-esteem workshops, as well as with Planned Parenthood, which offered family 

planning and other life skills workshops. The same site also invited staff from another community 

agency to conduct a drug abuse prevention workshop. This cooperative approach meant that case 

managers did not have to become experts in all of the life skills areas but that they could build on 

the expertise of and lessons learned by other agencies. Case managers reported that such 

partnerships proved useful. 
73 

Employment-Readiness Skills 

Case managers reported that approximately 70 percent of QOP enrollees held jobs at some 

point during the first four years of the demonstration. Some found jobs on their own while others 

benefited from the assistance of case managers and SDA staff. As enrollees got older, many worked 

during both the school year and the summer. Most worked in the retail, service, and fast-food 

industries, although enrollees at two sites were offered summer internships in local government and 

social service agencies. 

Sites prepared youth for employment in various ways. Some conducted workshops on resume 

writing, job application preparation, interviewing, and the fundamentals of professional dress and 

behavior. The two sites with the most highly structured and best-developed employment-readiness 

activities worked closely with their local JTPA system. At one of these sites, the local SDAís youth 

employment program provided summer jobs for most enrollees. The work experience was tailored 

to the individualís age and interests whenever possible. Enrollees typically earned minimum wage 

and worked in organizations such as the health department, the local hospital, the department of 

parks and recreation, social service agencies, restaurants, and grocery stores. 

At one site, the CBO was also a JTPA grantee providing employment services to disadvantaged 

youth. This CBO had staff whose responsibilities included finding summer employment 

opportunities for youth. At some sites, the SDA arranged for enrollees in ninth and tenth grades to 

attend classroom-based employment training. At some sites, enrollees who were not of working age 

attended classes on career exploration and basic world-of-work skills (such as how to dress 

professionally, arrive on time, and behave properly in the work place). 

Unfortunately, summer employment opportunities sometimes conflicted with summer school. 

Case managers encouraged youth who had failed a class during the school year to attend summer 

school. Some sites paid the fees required for the enrollee to attend summer school. At the sites 

that provided summer internships through the local SDA, staff made every attempt to ensure that 

employment did not conflict with classes. If the conflict could not be resolved, case managers 

recommended summer school over employment. In some cases, case managers were not able to 

prevent an enrollee from choosing employment over summer school. This tension worsened as 

youth grew older. 

Cultural and Recreational Activities 

At the beginning of the demonstration, most sites emphasized recreational activities such as 

movies, sporting events, and ice-skating to attract youth to the program. As the demonstration 

continued, however, staff tried to limit the number of purely recreational activities and to focus 

more on activities with learning content. Many sites reported that the transition was not an easy one 

and that attempts to make developmental activities more substantive met resistance. Enrollees 

reported that they missed doing ìfun thingsî and that museums and other cultural activities were 

boring. Many case managers reported that, in implementing a future program, they would schedule 

fewer purely recreational activities. 

Sites that provided a more balanced mix of recreational and other developmental activities at 

the start of the demonstration experienced less difficulty in maintaining interest in a wide range of 

activities. Indeed, at some sites, recreational activities eventually became an informal part of the 

mentoring process instead of the mainstay of the developmental component. Case managers took 
74 

individuals or small groups to the movies, to their gym, or to the golf course as a way to spend 

unstructured time with enrollees. These informal, ad hoc activities often took place in the evenings 

or on weekends. 
75 

C HAPTER VIII 

C OMMUNITY S ERVICE A CTIVITIES

COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES IN THE QOP MODEL

The QOP model stipulated that enrollees must spend 250 hours per year performing services 

that both benefit the community and teach enrollees the value of helping others. Many community 

service activities were designed to expose enrollees to careers, connect them with community 

agencies that can provide them with additional support, and teach them social skills that will prove 

useful later in life. 

In the QOP documentation, community service activities for young enrollees were described as 

large-scale fix-up and clean-up projects, internships in hospitals, nursing homes, and homeless 

shelters. The curriculum materials distributed to all sites covered 46 sample service activities, 

including both large-group and individual assignments. They also described the logistics of setting 

up each activity and included guidelines for follow-up discussion between case managers and 

enrollees in the activities. 

COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES AS IMPLEMENTED

Of the four major QOP components, all seven sites accorded community service the least 

emphasis. Five of the seven sites offered fewer than the 250 annual hours stipulated in the model. 

The QOP site with the most active community service component offered an especially successful 

all-day workshop devoted to building enrolleesí community service skills. Attendees learned to 

conduct activities for young children in day care centers, such as storytelling, songs, and games. 

They also learned crafts such as making paper flowers and holiday pillows. 

At the same site, the coordinator developed a clown-mime troupe. The troupe performed in 

day care centers and nursing homes throughout the city and at QOP celebrations. In training 

sessions for interested enrollees, the coordinator taught entertainment and performance techniques. 

The enrollees also attended a workshop on making balloon sculptures, and they traveled to a nearby 

city to attend a training session on magic tricks. The troupe was popular among enrollees, increasing 

enrolleesí confidence and encouraging their creativity and self-expression. By QOPís fourth year, 

the troupe had grown from five to 15 performers. 
76 

The following are other examples of community service activities offered by the demonstration 

sites: 

• At two sites, staff connected QOP enrollees with ongoing service programs such as a 

weekly senior nutrition program and a food bank. 

• At least four QOP sites scheduled public clean-up and graffiti removal as part of their 

community service. One siteís school clean-up projects were arranged, in part, to 

improve the programís image with school administrators and staff. Most sites reported 

that clean-up activities were not popular, and few enrollees participated. The exception 

was a site that emphasized information about the history of the community. 

• Most sites participated in some activities sponsored by outside organizations, such as a 

fundraiser race for Head Start, a Red Cross blood drive, Habitat for Humanity building 

projects, and helping with a Special Olympics event. 

• Neighborhood-based projects included planning and running a Halloween party for 

neighborhood children, with proceeds donated to a local charity; working for a local 

theater; helping at a soup kitchen; helping with school registration and voter registration 

drives; and organizing a diabetes walkathon. 

• Other projects included volunteer work at a nursing home, child care centers, a local 

youth center, a food bank for people with AIDS, a hotline for latchkey kids, and a local 

childrenís museum. 

These successful community service activities were the exceptions at most sites. At the low end 

of the spectrum, one siteís community service program was so inactive that, by the beginning of the 

third academic year of the demonstration, 47 percent of its enrollees had not been involved in any 

community service activities during the year, and the median level of participation was only two 

hours over the life of the program. At another site, staff members were able to schedule only about 

four hours of community service activities a month during the first two years of QOP. In contrast, 

they scheduled between 10 and 20 hours a month in the last two years of the demonstration, but 

participation rates remained as low as two or three people per event. The principal reasons for the 

lack of emphasis on community service were the lack of staff experience with conducting 

community service activities, the lack of enrollee enthusiasm, and the need for case managers to 

devote their time to mentoring and education. 

Community service received little attention in the annual staff training sessions and in the 

technical assistance provided to sites. The technical assistance provider learned in the early months 

of the demonstration that many enrollees were deficient in academic skills and recommended that 

the education component should take precedence over community service. 
77 

C HAPTER IX 

I NCENTIVES

INCENTIVES IN THE QOP MODEL

The documentation provided at the initial training conference for site staff specified the 

following financial incentives for enrollees: 

• A stipend of between $1 and $1.33 for each hour spent on QOP activities other than 

recreation and mentoring 

• Bonuses awarded at the CBOsí discretion for completion of major blocks of activity, 

such as an academic year with good grades or a unit of the computer-assisted 

instruction curriculum 

• An amount equal to the earned stipend to be deposited in an accrual account and held 

for disbursement to the enrollee once he or she received either a high school diploma or 

GED and enrolled in a qualifying postsecondary education or training program (two- or 

four-year college, the armed forces, a certified apprenticeship program, or vocational 

training) 

Incentives were designed with several goals. Stipends were intended to induce enrolled youth 

to participate in QOP activities. Accrual accounts were intended both to help fund college and to 

teach the value of saving and investing. 

In addition to enrollee incentives, QOP provided incentive payments to staff members at most 

sites. Staff compensation at Ford-funded sites was entirely incentive-based. Staff members at some 

DOL sites received bonuses for good performance. 

INCENTIVES AS IMPLEMENTED

All sites implemented stipends as specified in the model. Case managers reported that stipends 

induced newly enrolled youth to attend program activities, thereby giving case managers an 

opportunity to establish a personal relationship with each enrollee. Once personal relationships 

were established, case managers found that stipends lost much of their power to induce 

participation. Enrollees attended program activities because of the social relationships with other 
78 

enrollees and the case managers rather than the stipend. In addition, stipends of slightly more than 

a dollar per hour began to pale next to the wages paid by the jobs that enrollees found after they 

turned 16. 

Some CBOs increased the stipend rate slightly in the latter two years of the demonstration to 

encourage enrollees to engage in specific activities, most often computer-assisted instruction. One 

site doubled and occasionally tripled the stipend during certain weeks to stimulate participation in 

computer-assisted instruction. Another site paid a stipend of $4 per hour for afternoon computerassisted instruction hours and $5.50 per hour for evening and weekend CAI hours. Both sites found 

that higher incentives were effective for only short periods of time and only for students already 

inclined to spend time on the computer. Many enrollees appeared to be bored by the software, and 

even the enhanced incentive failed to motivate them to use it over the long term. Some sites paid 

higher stipend rates for time spent preparing for the SAT or the state proficiency tests required for 

graduation. 

The types of program activities that qualified for a stipend varied by site. Only one site was 

consistent throughout the demonstration in offering a stipend for education, developmental, and 

community service activities but not for time spent in one-on-one mentoring with the case manager 

or on purely recreational activities, as specified in the original QOP model. Most sites, in their initial 

attempts to attract enrollees to the program, defined qualifying activities in broad terms. At the 

beginning of the demonstration, some sites paid stipends if the enrollee merely dropped by the QOP 

office. In later years, most sites adopted stricter policies, paying only for the time enrollees spent 

engaged in education, developmental, and community service activities. At least one site continued 

to pay stipends for mentoring time. 

Some sites paid stipends for time spent on school activities, such as summer school, even 

though QOP staff did not administer those activities. During the first summer of the 

demonstration, when most enrollees were too young for regular employment, one site arranged with 

the local SDA to define summer school as the enrolleeís summer job under JTPA and for JTPA to 

pay enrollees for attending summer school at the then-prevailing JTPA rate of $4.75 per hour. That 

site subsequently had difficulty re-engaging enrollees in QOP activities such as community service 

for which they received the regular $1.25 stipend. Another site paid a stipend for time spent on 

summer jobs. 

All sites paid stipends for organized group recreational activities. Sometimes these activities had 

bona fide developmental content, such as organized swimming lessons or aerobics classes, a movie 

or play selected for its content, or a QOP awards banquet. More problematic were decisions to pay 

stipends for purely recreational activities, such as picnics, football or basketball games, or trips to 

amusement parks. Several sites struggled with the decision about whether to continue to pay 

stipends for such activities after doing so initially. It was also difficult to decide how to pay stipends 

to enrollees who had moved out of state or transferred to a school so distant that they were no 

longer able to participate in QOP group activities. Case managers were often creative in helping 

these enrollees identify activities they could undertake independently to earn stipends. The case 

managers devised procedures for getting independent activities certified and approved for payment. 

Often they arranged for an adult at another school or an adult supervisor of a community service 

activity to sign a certification form to confirm the number of enrollee hours spent in the qualifying 

activity. In at least one site, youth participated in many community service activities other than 
79 

QOP activities, such as those sponsored, for example, by a church or other community group. 

Thus, case managers frequently relied on third-party certification of enrolleesí activities to approve 

the payment of stipends. 

Method of Paying Stipends 

Procedures for delivering stipends to enrollees varied from site to site, and payment was 

generally more difficult to arrange than sites expected. In the most straightforward practice, and the 

one preferred by case managers and enrollees, case managers delivered checks in person to enrollees 

at the QOP office. Case managers reported that, because enrollees had to pick up their stipend 

checks, youth appeared at the QOP office more often than they otherwise might have. 

At one site, the SDA required checks to be mailed directly from the SDA to the enrollee. Case 

managers were concerned that, in this case, parents might intercept some checks before they reached 

enrollees and use the funds for another purpose. 

Two sites deposited stipends funds directly into enrolleeís bank accounts and other sites 

adopted this practice during the second or third year of the demonstration. One advantage of direct 

deposit was that it permitted case managers to help enrollees set up savings accounts and to talk to 

them about sound money management. One site offered enrollees an additional $20 if they 

established savings accounts, and staff attempted to draw parents into the effort to educate enrollees 

about saving for the future. 

At a few sites, program managers had difficulty developing or negotiating procedures for 

prompt payment of stipends. Enrollees clearly saw timely payment as important and complained 

about delays. The most severe stipend-related problem was the JTPA prohibition on payment of 

stipends to undocumented enrollees. A few enrollees at two DOL sites were undocumented, and 

their ineligibility for a stipend deterred their participation in QOP activities. At both of these sites, 

however, case managers were eventually able to form mentoring relationships with undocumented 

QOP enrollees and even convince some of them to attend some QOP activities without stipends. 

Sanctions and Bonuses 

Several sites withheld all or some portion of the stipend as a sanction for misbehavior. One site 

listed specific behaviors and their associated stipend penalties in a public space. For instance, loud 

or disruptive behavior in the QOP office resulted in a one-hour deduction while violence or a threat 

of violence might result in the deduction of five hours or a full day. 

Many sites also paid bonuses for good behavior. One site awarded enrollees an additional $50 

for each 100 hours they completed in each program component. In addition, that site often gave 

on-the-spot bonuses of between $10 and $25, for example, to reward a enrollee who correctly 

answered a question about current events. This was the only site where staff clearly believed that 

money was a major motivator for enrollees. Two sites gave a monetary reward for good grades. A 

third site debated about whether to use such a reward but decided it would be unfair because some 

enrollees already were earning good grades. Instead, they occasionally rewarded an enrollee for 

achieving an agreed-upon improvement in grades. Several sites paid bonuses of $200 or $300 for 

completion of the GED. 
80 

Overall, in-kind bonuses were the most widely used reward. For instance, several sites 

rewarded active participation in QOP with the opportunity to go on special outings such as 

overnight or week-long out-of-town trips, which were extremely popular. One site adopted a point 

system that allowed enrollees to earn credits toward the purchase of a desired item such as sports 

equipment or automobile insurance. Points were deducted for particularly poor grades, missed 

assignments, and misbehavior. One site invited the enrollee in each caseload who spent the most 

hours each month in computer-assisted instruction activities to attend a group dinner with case 

managers at his or her favorite restaurant. Several sites used gift certificates or movie passes to 

reward desired behavior. 

Accrual Accounts 

All sites used accrual accounts as intended in the program model. Ford-funded sites regularly 

provided account statements to enrollees. In addition to showing the enrolleeís current accumulated 

balance, the statements included a projection of the amount the enrollee could accumulate by the 

end of the program if he or she participated in QOP for a specified number of hours per month. 

However, DOL-funded sites did not provide regular statements to enrollees, thereby reducing the 

incentive value of the accounts. DOL-funded sites relied on case managers to emphasize to 

enrollees the importance of accrual accounts. However, case managers typically did not have the 

information to calculate current balances or to project potential balances. 

The demonstration revealed some special difficulties posed by the administration of accrual 

accounts at the DOL-funded sites. Federal regulations restrict accrual accounts in two ways: First, 

contributions made by a grantee or contractor to a depository or investment account were not 

considered reimbursable expenses, and second, contingent payments were not considered 

reimbursable expenses. Given that the distribution of accrual account balances was contingent on 

the enrolleeís achieving certain programmatic goals, CBOs could not be reimbursed for accrual 

account contributions until after the funds were distributedófour or five years after the first 

contributions were to be made. DOL-funded CBOs solved this problem by keeping informal 

internal records of accrual account contributions and balances rather than setting up actual accounts 

in enrolleesí names or transferring any funds. When an enrollee met the conditions for receiving his 

or her accrual balance, the CBO paid the balance to the enrollee and submitted the expense to the 

SDA for reimbursement. This procedure required the CBO to reserve enough funds from each 

yearís grant to cover the contributions accrued in that year and to roll the reserved funds over from 

one year to the next to the end of the demonstration. A disadvantage of this approach was that 

accrual balances at DOL-funded sites did not earn interest, dividends, or capital gains over the 

several years of the demonstration period. 
81 

C HAPTER X 

M ANAGEMENT , A DMINISTRATION , AND 

T ECHNICAL A SSISTANCE

In this chapter, we assess the management and administration of the QOP demonstration in terms of 

the following: 

• Operating QOP under the JTPA structure 

• Demonstration planning and start-up 

• The roles of the Ford Foundation, DOL, and the technical assistance provider 

• Local management in the five SDAs that served as grantees for the DOL-funded sites 

• CBOís management of the program 

• The role of the QOP schools 

OPERATING QOP UNDER THE JTPA STRUCTURE

QOP was not a traditional JTPA program nor a typical WIA youth program. It was more intensive, 

more expensive, involved a longer treatment period, and required greater breadth and flexibility in 

expenses considered reimbursable. Because DOL anticipated the nontraditional nature of the program, it 

funded the demonstration under the pilots and demonstration title of JTPA, which allowed more flexibility 

than did the title for operational youth programs. 

Operating QOP within the JTPA framework limited the fidelity of implementation in several ways. 

First, even though the demonstration was funded under the pilots and demonstration title of JTPA, DOL 

designed QOPís implementation to simulate as closely as possible an operational program. Specifically, 

DOL funded the demonstration through grants to SDAs, the local JTPA agencies responsible for funding 

and monitoring operational programs. Since the funding mechanism was a grant, as opposed to a contract 

or cooperative agreement, DOL was not able to enforce local fidelity to the QOP model. Under a grant 

arrangement, the only sanction DOL could impose for deviating from the model was to withhold the 

subsequent yearís funding. The agency was not inclined to exercise this option for fear of losing several 

sites from the demonstration. As the SDA staffs became more aware of this issue over the first three years 

of the demonstration, they granted increased flexibility to the CBOs. This lengthy period in which the 

SDA staffs grew to accept the QOP model resulted in some of the implementation delays. 
82 

The second problem was that the QOP demonstration provided a more comprehensive array of 

services than most other JTPA programs. Some of these expenses fell outside the JTPA norm, and the 

SDA initially deemed them to be unreimbursable. These included after-school snacks, emergency cash to 

prevent a family from becoming homeless, tickets to the theater, magazine subscriptions, neighborhood 

clean-up outings, college tours, and camping trips. By the middle of the demonstration, the SDAs at all 

five DOL-funded sites provided increased spending flexibility to the QOP CBOs. The CBOs noted that 

the demonstration was funded under Title IV of JTPA, which was designed for demonstrations and was 

therefore more flexible than funding provided under other titles. Sites learned to provide the SDAs with a 

written justification for each type of nontraditional expense. DOL and the Ford Foundation addressed 

this issue by inviting SDA staff members to attend the annual QOP training conferences. DOL also 

provided written and oral guidance to SDA staff, explaining the flexibility and authority to expend federal 

funds in non-traditional ways. 

A third incompatibility between QOP and JTPA was that JTPA funds could not be used for 

undocumented residents, and several enrollees at two DOL sites were undocumented. 

At the beginning of the demonstration, DOL officials determined that undocumented residents who 

were otherwise eligible would not be excluded from QOP. The undocumented youth enrolled in QOP 

received services funded by the local matching grant at each DOL-funded site, but they did not receive 

stipends or accrual accounts. DOL was reluctant to identify the legal status of enrollees for fear of 

discouraging undocumented youth from participating in the program and possibly in school as well. 

School officials in one site subsequently indicated that it could have identified such youth had they been 

asked. This is an example of how future implementations could be improved by including the QOP 

schools in the program planning process. 

In response to this inequitable arrangement, several undocumented youth did not actively participate 

in the program during the first year of the demonstration. These inequities placed an extra burden on the 

case managers to engage undocumented youth who were treated differently than other participants. 

PROGRAM PLANNING AND START-UP

Some of the implementation challenges at DOL-funded sites would have been alleviated had it been 

possible to finalize the program model and prepare a detailed grant announcement and supporting 

materials for potential grantees before the grants were awarded. The grant announcement provided only a 

sketchy description of the program model, and several aspects of the program design were incomplete 

when service delivery began. For example, eligibility issues concerning students enrolled in special 

education programs and undocumented students remained unresolved when grants were awarded (but 

were reconciled before youth were randomly assigned). In addition, specifications of the education 

component were incomplete at start-up. Assessment, development of education plans, and course-based 

tutoring had yet to be specified as key elements of the program and the design of the computer-assisted 

instruction component had not been completely outlined. The grant announcement also did not require 

sites to budget for computer-assisted instruction facilities, instructional materials, and education expertise. 

As a result, DOL sites were not prepared to implement the CAI education component. Many sites 
83 

experienced difficulties and delays in opening and operating their computer centers and using them to full 

advantage. Another problem that might have been anticipated with more planning was the difficulty in 

administering the accrual accounts at DOL sites (explained in detail in Chapter IX). 

DOL awarded QOP demonstration grants to SDAs in June 1995, and scheduled CBOs to begin 

delivering services at the beginning of the academic year in August or September. One to two months 

proved to be inadequate for the SDAs to execute contracts with CBOs and for the CBOs to hire and train 

case managers, acquire a CAI system, develop a management information system, set up stipend and 

accrual account systems, prepare materials and plans, and enroll youth. In most sites, these activities took 

at least six months. 

The inadequate time to set-up QOP demonstration sites was only partially the result of DOL not 

anticipating the length of time needed for these activities. First, DOL rushed the demonstration into 

operation in the fall of 1995 to protect its continued funding. Second, DOL assumed OICA would 

provide the technical assistance required for a quick program start-up. Third, SDA and CBO personnel 

spent time securing the informed consent of enrolleesí parents for participating in and releasing data for 

the demonstration, an activity that would have required less time for an operational program. 

NATIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

The presence of two independent funding sources, DOL and the Ford Foundation, with two different 

agendas, resulted in five major differences in how the DOL- and the Ford-funded sites operated. 

• Compared with the DOL-funded sites, the Ford-funded sites implemented computer-assisted 

instruction more completely and with more up-to-date equipment. Most DOL sites had great 

difficulty starting up their computer learning centers while the learning centers at Ford-funded 

sites were well equipped and operational from the beginning of the demonstration period, 

likely due in part to Fordís experience overseeing the pilot program. 

• At DOL-funded sites, case managersí time was dedicated to QOP, whereas Ford-funded case 

managers had duties other than QOP case management. 

• Through most of the demonstration period, the Ford Foundation forward-funded its grantee 

(OICA), that is, paid portions of the total grant amount to OICA in advance of grantee 

expenditures, while DOL grantees were reimbursed after incurring expenses.10 OICA was 

able to invest much of its grants, thereby supplementing the grant with investment earnings. 

• Federal regulations imposed several restrictions on the administration of accrual accounts at 

DOL-funded sites. Enrollees at Ford-funded sites received investment earnings on their 

 10 OICA did not forward-fund the Yakima site. It reimbursed the Yakima siteís expenses much as DOL-funded sites were 

reimbursed. 
84 

account balances and received account statements quarterly. Enrollees at DOL-funded sites 

received neither. 

• Ford-funded sites used a different staffing and compensation model than did DOL-funded 

sites. DOL-funded case managers had full-time salaried positions on QOP. Ford-funded 

case managers had part-time positions with incentive compensation. 

• The Ford Foundation and DOL were involved in the operations of the demonstration to 

different degrees. The Ford Foundation representative took a hands-off approach to 

overseeing the project while DOLís representative worked closely with local grantees and 

program operators. Both grant officers deferred to their technical representatives for program 

direction, who also provided technical assistance and guidance to all grantees. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Both OICA and DOL provided technical assistance to QOP CBOs. As part of its grant from the 

Ford Foundation, OICA provided several types of technical assistance (TA) to all seven QOP sites. The 

annual training conference was the principal TA activity. All case managers and QOP coordinators, CBO 

managers, and SDA staff were included in the conference. Its most important functions were to train case 

managers on the QOP model and to build team spirit and solidarity among staff members. Staff at sites 

that had experienced internal communications problems (between, for example, the SDA and the CBO, 

or between the coordinator and case managers) found that those difficulties decreased after they had 

attended a conference and gained greater insight into each otherís perspectives. The conference also 

appeared to contribute to staff retention convincing some staff to persevere despite feelings of burnout 

from the stress of being a case manager. Conference attendees learned from each otherís successes and 

from the experts brought in to speak. Staff at all levels across sites exchanged ideas and worked together 

to iron out implementation difficulties. They gained an appreciation of the reasons for some of the 

difficulties faced by DOL in resolving mismatches between the demands of QOP and the constraints 

associated with federal funding. 

Other TA activities included helping sites set up and maintain the QOP management information 

system (MISs), making site visits, helping resolve management issues, and providing sites with written 

developmental curriculum material and CAI CD-ROMs. Several sites reported having unmet needs for 

TA, particularly through the first three years of the demonstration. The TA was insufficient for 

successfully establishing a smoothly functioning MIS at all sites. One site used an MIS from a different 

program to track QOP enrollee activities. Other sites experienced repeated difficulties with software or 

computer systems. OICA did not sufficiently train local staff to maintain and troubleshoot the QOP MIS. 

As a result, enrollee activity reports were often delayed by several months. At some sites, enrollee data had 

to be re-entered after being lost by the MIS. 

DOL also provided TA to the demonstration CBOs. To DOL-funded sites, DOL provided material 

to assist CBOs in selecting CAI software, guidelines on setting up and operating accrual accounts, and 

quarterly calls with each site throughout the fourth year of the demonstration to discuss service strategies 

for each enrollee at the site. To all seven sites, DOL provided guidance about Internal Revenue Service 
85 

requirements for withholding from stipend payments, guidance on the overtime policy and compensation 

requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, information on how to order videos on test-taking 

techniques, references to research on the efficacy of youth interventions, materials pertaining to applying 

to college and financial aid, and monthly conference calls with all sites to facilitate the cross-site sharing of 

best practices and innovative approaches. 

Although OICA and DOL performed these numerous TA activities, sites had substantial unmet need 

for TA. On-site TA was sporadic and poorly organized. Although OICA made initial visits to all sites, it 

never conducted a systematic assessment of site capacity or TA needs. It did not prepare site-specific TA 

plans or reports. Local programs would have benefited from ongoing efforts to provide training tailored 

to their needs. The implementation of QOP may have been stronger and more consistent across sites if 

OICA had assisted each site in planning its core services and making the best use of available community 

resources. 

OICA provided sites with substantial program materials, but site staff did not use them fully. At the 

initial training conference in 1995, OICA distributed a QOP replication manual that was based on the 

experience of the QOP pilot. The training that accompanied the manual did not, however, take into 

account the differences between the design of the pilot and the QOP model as adapted for the DOLfunded sites. Major portions of the replication manual and the training offered at the initial conference 

depended on the use of a specific proprietary CAI software package, a package that the DOL-funded sites 

did not use. Program materials might have been used more effectively if they had been accompanied by a 

face-to-face discussion of how to use them. 

Finally, the TA provider and the national partners did not provide enough support for several specific 

program components. Assessment, development of individual education plans, tutoring and community 

service were not emphasized and, as a result, were underused throughout the demonstration. 

LOCAL GRANTEE MANAGEMENT

While most SDA grantees at DOL-funded sites developed positive and supportive relationships with 

the operating CBOs, the role of the SDA grantees varied substantially from site to site and was 

problematic at a few sites. One siteís SDA-QOP relationship, while initially promising, became extremely 

troubled. SDA management expressed strong initial support for program goals and promised to 

contribute nonfederal funds to enhance local program operations, but the SDA director did not become 

personally involved in QOP operation and did not ensure that mid-level staff delivered on their promised 

support. Mid-level managers did not become committed to the QOP model and seldom intervened to 

resolve contracting difficulties between the local agency and the CBO. In the absence of signed contract 

renewals, the CBO continued to operate the program even though the SDAís payments were more than a 

year late. The relationship remained difficult well into the programís fifth year. 

At another site, communications between QOP and SDA staff were initially strained because the 

SDA staff assigned to QOP did not acknowledge the differences between QOP and traditional JTPA 

programs. Over time, the SDA began to cooperate with the CBO efforts to implement QOP by providing 

assistance with computers and summer jobs. SDA staff attendance at the QOP training conference 
86 

appeared to increase the SDAís appreciation for the programís importance and the demands it placed on 

program operators. 

At the three remaining DOL-funded sites, the SDA was a supportive and stabilizing management 

presence. At these sites, the support for QOPís goals was consistently strong and the partnership worked 

well from the beginning of the demonstration. The SDA provided transportation, jobs, and advocacy in 

working with other local partners. SDA staff from these sites attended all QOP training conferences. 

CBO MANAGEMENT OF QOP 

One of the questions posed at the beginning of the QOP demonstration was whether the program 

could be operated successfully by CBOs other than those that had developed the QOP model in the late 

1980s. The demonstration showed that the answer to that question is affirmative, provided that the 

program receives support from CBO management. In fact, CBO-level support was one of the most 

important determinants of successful program implementation. Conversely, the absence of CBO 

management support led to several of the most severe problems encountered during the demonstration. 

Two of the original CBOs were no longer operating the project by the second year, and a third never fully 

implemented the QOP model. In each of those instances, a major reason for project failure was lack of 

support from the CBOís management. 

At one CBO, the executive director resisted implementing the QOP model because it differed from 

its traditional programs. The CBOís approach to youth programming was inconsistent with QOPís 

education-oriented approach and with several of its other components. Had the SDA not intervened to 

operate the program directly and then subcontract with a different CBO, that siteís program would have 

concluded after the second year. 

At another site, the SDA was never able to develop a contract with the originally designated CBO in 

part because that CBO was financially unstable. The SDA eventually contracted with another CBO, but 

service delivery was delayed by one year. 

At a third site, the CBO did not implement the QOP model but rather operated a program that was a 

hybrid of its own service model and the QOP model. All QOP case managers went through the CBOís 

own training and considered QOP enrollees to be enrolled in its own program. The CBOís name received 

more prominence than QOP on QOP materials, and staff was instructed to answer the telephone by using 

the CBOís name rather than QOP. 

The remaining CBOs supported QOP from the beginning, giving their QOP coordinators substantial 

help. One CBO showed exceptional resilience and commitment to the program when it was forced to 

advance more than a yearís funding to QOP because the SDA did not renew contracts on a timely basis. 

Many demonstration achievements are attributable to the effective leadership, commitment, and 

innovation of QOP coordinators. The most effective coordinators were those who worked on QOP full 

time, communicated closely with case managers, and demonstrated a willingness to experiment with new 
87 

service approaches. The coordinator who had training as an educator turned out to be among the most 

innovative. 

Of the seven QOP sites, four experienced turnover in the coordinator position during the 

demonstration. Significantly, three of these four sites had CBO management that did not fully support 

QOP. A coordinator at one of these three sites who also served as a case manager found that the 

commitment required to manage the demands of two roles was extraordinary and not sustainable. The 

coordinators at the two other sites followed a ìhands-offî management style such that their programs 

received little of their time and attention. Coordinators at four well-managed sites had at least some direct 

relationship with enrollees, met frequently with staff, and played an active role in designing and planning 

project activities. 

Among the most important contribution coordinators made to the smooth functioning of QOP 

operations was the selection and training of case managers. Most coordinators were able to attract staff 

members who were ethnically and linguistically similar to the enrollees in their caseloads. In addition, 

most coordinators used male-female teams so that enrollees could develop relationships with a same-sex 

role model. One coordinator used a variety of ongoing professional development activities to strengthen 

her staffís capabilities. 

Overall, QOP coordinators recruited and retaining staff dedicated to the well-being of enrollees. 

Almost all coordinators experimented with a variety of strategies to prevent or alleviate staff burnout. The 

most common strategy was flexible scheduling. Another successful strategy was to shape activities to take 

advantage of staff interests and skills. 

SCHOOLS

The host high schools provided office space for QOP staff at most sites. The amount of 

communication between QOP staff and teachers and administrators ranged from regular consultation on 

individual enrolleesí academic progress to irregular and casual contact. The school district at one site was 

initially a sponsor and funder of the local QOP program, but terminated its sponsorship after learning that 

QOP continued to provide services to enrollees who dropped out of school or moved to another school 

district. 
Page Is Intentionally Left Blank to Allow for Double-Sided Copying 
89 

C HAPTER XI 

T HE C OST OF QOP 

This chapter presents the revenues and expenditures of the QOP demonstration, focusing 

primarily on program costs. Most cost figures are presented per enrollee and are expressed by site, 

by year, and by type of cost. 

REVENUE PER ENROLLEE

We begin with the income side of the granteeís ledger. In each of the five years of the 

demonstration, DOL provided $200,000 to each of the five DOL-funded sites, an amount that was, 

with one exception, matched by an equal amount of local funds in the first four years of the 

demonstration. The exception was one site that lost its local matching funds in the third and fourth 

years of the demonstration. DOL provided that site with an additional $50,000 grant in each of 

those two years, and classified the value of the SDAís staff time spent administering the grant as 

local matching funds. The additional funds came from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, which was interested in QOP as a gang 

violence and delinquency prevention program. 

The Ford Foundation provided the OICA with three grants totaling $4.1 million. The grants 

covered expenses for the demonstration in the two Ford-funded sites, administered by OICA, and 

for technical assistance to all of the demonstration sites. The second Ford-funded site provided its 

own funds to cover the expenses of tutoring and summer school tuition. 

Tables XI.1 and XI.2 present the sources of each siteís revenue on a per enrollee basis for the 

first four years and separately for the fifth year. Throughout much of this chapter, we present 

figures for the fifth year of the demonstration separately because both the services delivered in the 

fifth year and the fifth-year funding differed from the previous four years. Only those still in high 

school in the fifth year of the demonstration received intensive services. Moreover, DOL did not 

require local matching funds in the fifth year; therefore, budgets and the case manager staff at DOLfunded sites underwent a substantial reduction in the demonstrationís final year. 

Each DOL-funded site received $4,245 per year per enrollee on average during the first four 

years of the demonstration. The Ford-funded sites received $7,720 per year per enrollee on average 

for the first four years. All sites also received a variety of in-kind donations such as space in the 

schools, volunteer time, and tickets to events. Over the entire first four years of the demonstration, 

in-kind donations to QOP sites ranged from $129 to $2,680 per year per enrollee. 
90 

TABLE XI.1 

REVENUE PER ENROLLEE PER YEAR BY SITE, YEARS 1 THROUGH 4 

DOL-Funded 

 Cleveland Fort Worth Houston Memphis 

Washington, 

DCa Phi

Number of Enrollees 100 100 100 100 80 Total Revenue $4,518 $4,772 $4,444 $4,129 $5,219 $

Federal QOP Grant $2,000 $2,000 $2,250 $2,000 $2,500 

Ford Foundation/OICA NA NA NA NA NA $Cash Match Amount $2,000 $2,000 $1,419 $2,000 $2,500 

In-Kind Match Amount $0 $0 $554 $0 $0 

In-Kind Donations/Other Contributions $518 $772 $220 $129 $219 

SOURCE: Site financial statements. aThe SDA in Washington, DC, did not charge for its administration of the QOP grant. The value of this time was not included in the in-kind donb Revenue for Philadelphia did not include money spent for technical assistance for other sites. 
91 

TABLE XI.2 

REVENUE PER ENROLLEE BY SITE, YEAR 5 

DOL-Funded 

Cleveland Fort Worth Houston Memphis 

Washington, 

DC Phi

Number of Enrollees 100 100 100 100 80 Total Revenue $2,494 $3,165 $4,233 $2,583 $2,695 

Federal QOP Grant $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,500 

Ford Foundation/OICA NA NA NA NA NA 

Cash Match Amountb $327 $938 $1,814 $519 $0 

In-Kind Match Amount $0 $0 $385 $0 $0 

In-Kind Donations/Other Contributions $167 $228 $34 $64 $195 

Carryover from Years 1 through 4 $1,771 $2,540 $260 $1,442 $2,654 $

SOURCE: Site financial statements. aRevenue for Philadelphia did not include money spent for technical assistance for other sites. bThese cash matches were carried over from year 4 of the demonstration and do not represent new cash matches. 
92 

Total resources per enrollee over all five years of the demonstration, including cash and 

donated items, ranged from $19,099 to $23,571 per enrollee at DOL-funded sites, and ranged from 

$22,975 to $56,620 per enrollee at Ford-funded sites. These figures translate into a range of $4,129 

to $5,219 per enrollee per year for the first four years and $2,494 to $4,233 for the fifth year at 

DOL-funded sites. Revenues for Ford-funded sites ranged from $4,595 to $11,324 per enrollee per 

year. 

EXPENDITURES PER ENROLLEE

The total QOP expenditure per enrollee averaged $24,827 for the full five years of the 

demonstration (see Table XI.3). The average expenditure per enrollee for the DOL-funded sites 

was $16,732 for the first four years and $3,596 for the fifth year. For the two Ford-funded sites, 

expenditures per enrollee in the first four years were $21,267 in Yakima and $39,394 at Philadelphia. 

In the fifth year, they were $1,708 in Yakima and $9,780 in Philadelphia. Thus, the expenditures per 

enrollee over all five years varied substantially from site to site, ranging from $18,143 to $49,173. 

These figures may be decomposed into a range of $3,768 to $9,848 per year per enrollee for the first 

four years and a range of $1,708 to $9,780 per enrollee for the fifth year. One of the Ford-funded 

siteís per-enrollee expenditures stands out as much higher than those of the other sites. 

Annual expenditures at most sites varied over the five years of the demonstration. Spending 

typically increased each year during the first four years and decreased during the fifth year. For 

example, one site steadily increased its spending by $600 to $900 per enrollee each year until the last 

year, when expenditures fell back. QOP coordinators reported that they developed a better 

understanding of what they could do with the money and where they needed to spend it in the last 

few years compared with the first few years of the demonstration. Such year-to-year differences 

were possible because DOL permitted grantees to roll over any unspent balances from one year into 

the following yearís budget. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

The figures presented in other sections of this chapter cover program operations and 

management, excluding the cost of technical assistance provided to all sites by OICA. Technical 

assistance included helping sites set up their management information software, funding an annual 

week-long training conference for all QOP staff, and answering questions as needed. The cost of 

providing technical assistance for the five years of the demonstration was $1,125,493, or $37,516 per 

year per site. 
93 

TABLE XI.3 

EXPENDITURES PER ENROLLEE BY SITE AND YEAR, YEARS 1 THROUGH 5 

 DOL-Funded FORD-Funded 

 Cleveland 

Fort 

Worth Houston Memphis 

Washington, 

DCa

DOLFunded 

Average Philadelphiab Yakima 

Number of Enrollees 100 100 100 100 80 50 50 Year 1 $2,950 $2,495 $3,026 $2,682 $4,025 $3,036 $9,200 $5,450 Year 2 $3,773 $4,272 $4,665 $3,665 $4,364 $4,148 $9,879 $3,695 Year 3 $4,516 $4,394 $4,860 $4,039 $4,629 $4,487 $9,457 $5,397 Year 4 $5,062 $5,388 $4,965 $4,688 $5,202 $5,061 $10,858 $6,724 Total Expenditures, Years 1 through 4 $16,301 $16,549 $17,515 $15,074 $18,220 $16,732 $39,394 $21,267 

Average Expenditures, Years 1 through 4 $4,075 $4,137 $4,379 $3,768 $4,555 $4,183 $9,848 $5,317 Year 5 $4,207 $2,918 $4,478 $3,069 $3,310 $3,596 $9,780 $1,708 Total Expenditures, Years 1 through 5 $20,508 $19,468 $21,993 $18,143 $21,531 $20,329 $49,173 $22,974 

SOURCE: Site financial statements. 

NOTE: The in-kind donations for years 1 through 4 are spread evenly across those years for this table. The year 5 in-kind donations were 

included in the year 5 costs. 

aThe SDA in Washington, DC charged no expense for their efforts in the QOP demonstration. Estimates of the amount of this donated tim

not been included in the in-kind donations. 

bCosts for Philadelphia do not include money spent for technical assistance for other sites. 
94 

COST ACCOUNTING

Revenue and expenditure figures include cash and the value of donated items and volunteered 

time expended during the accounting period. Expenditures include those of the CBO and, for 

DOL-funded sites, the SDA. We assigned values to each type of donated item and volunteered 

time. Table XI.4 shows some of the more common donated items and their valuation. 

TYPES OF EXPENDITURES

At most sites, the largest component of expenditures was labor costs, including both wages and 

benefits, representing 24 to 67 percent of the total (see Table XI.5). Four of the five DOL-funded 

sites spent more than 50 percent of their budget on wages and benefits. The stipends and accrual 

accounts for the associates represented another 5 to 27 percent of the total costs. The two Fordfunded sites spent about 50 percent of their budgets on salaries and stipends, though they had 

budgeted from 50 to 90 percent for salaries and stipends. 

Other expenses included food, transportation, child care, and tutoring. Many of the food items 

were donated, and volunteers provided much of the tutoring. Sites did not maintain records for the 

costs of each of these items. Table XI.6 shows the total costs of these activities in the first four 

years of the demonstration and includes both in-kind and actual expenses. 

Two aspects of the costs at the Philadelphia site stand out beyond the fact that expenditures per 

enrollee were more than double those of DOL-funded sites. First, labor costs per enrollee were 171 

percent of the average for DOL-funded sites. Since the caseloads of Philadelphia case managers 

were approximately the same as those at other sites, this implies that each Philadelphia case manager 

received a substantially greater compensation than did case managers at DOL-funded sites. Second, 

other costs were 373 percent of the average for DOL-funded sites. Such costs of the Philadelphia 

site included the purchase of personal computer hardware and software, travel, leasehold 

improvements, maintenance and repair, and program supplies. 

QOP COSTS RELATIVE TO OTHER YOUTH PROGRAMS

QOP at almost $25,000 per enrollee is the most expensive federal youth program. By 

comparison, the operating costs of the also-expensive Job Corps program (as distinct from the fixed 

cost of the Job Corps residential facility) were approximately $17,000 per enrollee in 1998. In 

addition, the cost of operating a traditional Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) youth program was 

slightly over $2,000 per enrollee in 1996, less than one-tenth that of QOP. Finally, Upward Bound, 
95 

a pre-college program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education to provide academic 

enrichment to disadvantaged youth in grades 8 through 12 costs slightly over $6,000 per enrollee. 11

 11 As noted at the beginning of this chapter, QOP costs are averaged over all enrollees, including those who seldom 

or never engage in program activities. The costs of Job Corps, JTPA programs, and Upward Bound are averaged over

enrollees who engage in some program activities. If QOP costs were averaged over enrollees who engaged in some 

program activities, the per-enrollee costs would be even higher. 
96 

TABLE XI.4 

VALUATION OF DONATED ITEMS 

Type of Item Valuation 

New Computera $2,000 

Computer Upgradea $1,000 

Printera $500 

Internet Access $100 per month 

Tutoringb $40 per hour 

Lecture $100 per hour 

Donated Ticketsc

 $27 per ticket 

Office Space (full-time use) Cost per square foot estimated by CBO 

Office space (occasional use) Classroom size: $100 per use 

 Larger room: $500 per use 

aEstimated costs for purchase of new/upgraded mid-level system. 

bHourly charge for professional tutoring service. 

cEstimated average of ticket prices for sporting events, theaters, movies, and performing arts events. 
97 

TABLE XI.5 

SALARIES, STIPENDS, AND OTHER ITEMS AS A PERCENT OF EXPENDITURES, 

YEARS 1 THROUGH 5 

 DOL-Funded  Cleveland Fort Worth Houston Memphis 

Washington, 

DC Philad

Total Expenditures per Enrollee $20,508 $19,468 $21,993 $18,143 $21,531 $49Staff Wages and Benefits (amount followed by percent of total) 

$12,100 

59% 

$8,566 

44% 

$13,044 

67% 

$9,434 

52% 

$11,541 

54% 

$18

38

Student Stipends and Accrual Accounts (amount followed by percent of total) 

$2,666 

13% 

$1,168 

6% 

$973 

5% 

$2,540 

14% 

$3,099 

14% 

$5,

11

Other Costs (amount followed by percent of total) 

$5,742 

28% 

$9,734 

50% 

$5,451 

28% 

$5,806 

32% 

$6,891 

32% 

$25

51

SOURCE: Site financial statements aCosts for Philadelphia do not include money spent for technical assistance for other sites. 
98 

TABLE XI.6 

EXPENDITURES ON SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AND TUTORING COSTS BY SITE 

PER ENROLLEE PER YEAR, YEARS 1 THROUGH 4 

DOL-Fundeda Ford-Funded 

Cleveland Fort Worth Houston Memphis Philadelphiab Yakim

Food $32 $110 $17 $55 $231 $128 Transportation $63 $35 $193 $196 $670 $408 

Child Care $21 $3 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tutoring $126 $35 $61 $17 $476 $310 

SOURCE: Site financial statements. 

NOTE: This includes donated items (such as bags of food and restaurant certificates) and donated time (such as volunteer 

college students). 

aData for the Washington, D.C. site were not available.bCost for Philadelphia do not include money spent for technical assistance for other sites.
99 

C HAPTER XII 

C ONCLUSIONS

We assessed the implementation of the QOP demonstration by comparing the program 

operations to the QOP model developed by DOL, the Ford Foundation, and OICA. We begin with 

the broadest findings from that assessment, and conclude with findings that apply to each of the 

program components. 

All sites implemented a version of QOP for the full five years of the demonstration. All 

sites hired a full complement of staff, enrolled a representative sample of target youth, and provided 

case management and mentoring to their enrollees for five years. Program start up, from receiving 

the grant to the onset of service delivery, took about six months. The caseloads of case managers 

ranged from 15 to 27 enrollees per case manager. 

There was wide site-to-site variation in how faithfully the QOP model was 

implemented. One CBO limited its implementation of QOP to minor adjustments to its preñ

QOP flagship youth program. In large measure, the CBOís flagship program was relabeled as a 

QOP program without changing much of its program content. Aside from such an extreme, sites 

varied widely in terms of the emphasis placed on academic activities and community service and the 

provision of supportive services. Variation in mentoring was somewhat more modest. Case 

managers at two sites were routinely unavailable in the evening or on weekends. Sites varied in their 

efforts to stay in contact with enrollees who moved, dropped out, or became ill or incarcerated. 

Several factors appear to be associated with the variation in model implementation. The most 

important reason is that the QOP model is difficult for many CBOs to implement. QOP is more 

comprehensive and complex than most youth programs. It covers a wider array of services, involves 

engaging youth over a five year period covering multiple developmental stages, targets youth who 

may not be enthusiastic participants, requires delivering services in a wide range of settings, and 

involves maintaining links with other CBOs and public agencies. The staffs of several 

demonstration CBOs reported taking two years and two week long training conferences to 

understand the complexities of the model. The imperfect understanding of the model in several 

sites limited the fidelity of implementation, especially in the first half of the demonstration. 

In communications with sites, DOL did not require the sites to adopt all elements of the QOP 

model. The DOL grant announcement required DOL sites to admit only eligible youth; to set a goal 

of 750 hours of participation; to provide educational, developmental, and community service 

activities; to staff the program for a 20:1 ratio of enrollees to case managers; and to pay enrollees a 

stipend and accrual account. DOL asked each site to implement educational assessment, individual 

education plans, computer-assisted instruction, and tutoring only at the end of the second year of 

the demonstration.12 Further, DOL did not specify that its sites should provide supportive services. 

 12Some of this lack of initial guidance to sites resulted from DOLís need to implement the QOP demonstration 

quickly.
100 

The technical assistance provider suggested such supportive services to sites during annual training 

sessions starting in the second year of the demonstration. 

There were other sources of site-to-site variation. Chapter XI documents the wide variation in 

program expenditures per enrollee. The highest-cost site spent 2.7 times the amount of money per 

enrollee as did the least-cost site. Sites with greater expenditures per enrollee were able to 

implement fuller versions of QOP. 

A final source of variation in the fidelity of program implementation was that the leaders of 

some QOP SDAs and CBOs were more sympathetic to the QOP philosophy than were leaders at 

other sites. The leadership at one site in particular felt that QOPís intensity was harmful to enrollees 

in the long term. At the other extreme, the Philadelphia CBO was one of the designers of the QOP 

model and had both a deep understanding of and commitment to QOP. 

Enrolled youth faced many barriers to academic success and needed a wide array of 

services. Indeed, the intensity and number of barriers facing many enrollees exceeded the 

expectations of the demonstration designers and some site staff. Some of the barriers were apparent 

in the eligibility criteria for enrolling in QOP. All enrollees began QOP in schools whose dropout 

rates were 40 percent or more, and QOP enrollees were in the bottom two thirds of the grade 

distribution for entering ninth graders. By the fourth year of QOP, case managers reported the 

following about their caseloads: 

• Four in 10 enrollees had repeated at least one grade, and the large majority was at least 

one grade level behind in terms of achievement test scores. 

• More than one in five had been suspended or expelled from school. 

• Seven percent were special education students. 

• More than one in four abused substances. 

• One in five was involved in criminal activities, one in six had been incarcerated, and one 

in 10 was on probation. 

• One in six was a teen parent. 

• More than one in four experienced a severe personal or family crisis, such as 

homelessness or the violent death of a family member or close friend. 

Most sites did not offer, and most enrollees did not engage in, the suggested 750 hours 

of program participation per year. Sites varied substantially in the number of hours offered to 

enrollees. Only two of the seven sites scheduled 750 hours of activities per year, with approximately 

one-third in education, one-third in community service, and one-third in developmental activities. 

None of the remaining five sites scheduled 250 hours of community service activities; however, 

some sites succeeded in scheduling 250 hours in education or developmental activities. 
101 

Enrollees engaged in program activities for substantially fewer hours than the stated goals. On 

average, QOP enrollees spent 174 hours on QOP activities per yearó 23 percent of the goal of 750 

hours through the first four years of the demonstration. Enrollees spent an average of 72 hours per 

year on education (29 percent of the goal), 76 hours on developmental activities (30 percent of the 

goal), and 26 hours on community service (11 percent of the goal). The average time spent on QOP 

activities fell steadily from 247 hours in the first year of the demonstration to 89 hours in the fourth 

year. The percentage of enrollees spending no time at all on QOP activities increased steadily from 

1 percent in the first year to 36 percent in the fourth year. Enrollee hours varied widely, both within 

each site and from site to site. Total program hours per year per enrollee ranged from 345 to 68; 

hours in education activities from 161 to 24; hours in community service from 76 to 4; and hours in 

developmental activities from 108 to 40. Enrollees who spent few hours in QOP reported feeling 

that QOP was too much like school or that they faced a barrier to participation, such as 

transportation, child care responsibilities, or a job. 

Case managers developed close mentoring relationships with between 40 and 60 

percent of the enrolled youth assigned to them. Case managers at most sites implemented a 

broad scope of mentoring and interacted with an enrolleeís parent or guardian and school teachers, 

counselors, and other school administrative staff. As appropriate, some case managers made 

referrals to, and assisted the enrollee in making arrangements with agencies providing family 

planning, income support, housing, transportation, summer jobs, summer school, and GED 

programs. Many case managers assisted enrollees who became involved in the criminal justice 

system, especially those who became involved as juveniles. The case manager appeared with the 

enrollee at hearings and volunteered to monitor the enrolleeís behavior during probationary periods. 

Most case managers took enrollees on college tours and assisted their college-bound enrollees in 

selecting a college, applying for college, and applying for financial aid. 

The formation of mentoring relationships with enrollees in the other 40 to 60 percent of the 

caseload was limited by several factors. The most important factor was a youthís lack of interest in 

joining program activities. Given QOPís ideology and recruitment procedures (described in Chapter 

II), the enrolled population included youth who were not motivated to participate in program 

activities. At each site, around 1 percent of enrollees never had any contact with the program. Most 

of the remainder of the enrollees who did not form a close mentoring relationship with a case 

manager attended a small number of QOP activities at the beginning of the demonstration but did 

not sustain their participation. Some enrollees were unable to sustain their participation because of 

other after-school responsibilities, including involvement in a team sport, employment, and caring 

for younger siblings. 

Another limitation to forming close mentoring relationships was the mobility of many enrollees. 

By the fourth year of the demonstration, approximately one third of enrollees had left the original 

QOP high schoolsñtransferring to other schools or moving sufficiently far away that the case 

manager was unable to spend much time with them. Case managers found that maintaining 

mentoring relationships with the many youth who moved out of the area consumed a 

disproportionate share of their time. Case managers therefore reduced the intensity of their 

relationship with out-of-town youth in order to free up their time for the enrollees who remained 

nearby. 
102 

Sites implemented the QOP education component only partially. DOL-funded sites did 

not budget, plan, or staff QOP with a focus on education. At the beginning of the demonstration, 

most DOL-funded sites made little provision for computer-assisted instructional equipment or for 

tutoring services. In contrast, Ford-funded sites emphasized their CAI facilities and CAI activities. 

All sites staffed QOP with individuals experienced in delivering social services to disadvantaged 

youth, but not experienced in teaching. Case managers saw themselves more as mentors than as 

teachers. 

Even when DOL strengthened its emphasis on educational services in the second and third 

years of the demonstration, most sites continued to implement the education component only 

imperfectly. By this time, however, sites were largely locked into their previous staffing and 

budgeting decisions. Many sites tried to expand their services to include more formal educational 

activities, but, for most, educational services did not fundamentally improve. 

No site implemented periodic formal academic assessment or individual education planning. 

Five of the seven sites assessed enrolleesí academic achievement at least once during the 

demonstration while the remaining two did not. None of the five sites that assessed academic 

achievement tailored its education services to the results of the assessment. 

In spite of the absence of formal academic assessment and planning, case managers monitored 

the academic progress of each in-school enrollee by reviewing report cards, conferring with teachers, 

and occasionally sitting in on classes. Case managers tailored some services to the academic needs 

of each enrollee. Specifically, case managers tried to keep discouraged enrollees from dropping out 

of school, arranged for summer school for students who needed to repeat a failed course, assisted 

enrollees in preparing for high-stakes state achievement tests, and arranged for GED classes for 

dropouts. 

Sites did not provide one-on-one tutoring during the first year of the demonstration. All sites 

eventually offered it, but at most sites, it was sporadic and not sustained. Case managers themselves 

provided much of the tutoring, although many felt uncomfortable in the role of tutor. Tutoring 

typically consisted of answering enrolleesí questions about homework. Some sites occasionally 

arranged for tutorials by outside volunteers or by other agencies specializing in academic tutoring, 

but these efforts were also sporadic and not long lasting. 

The two Ford-funded sites and one of the DOL-funded sites implemented computer-assisted 

instruction (CAI) while the remaining four DOL sites did not meaningfully implement CAI. The 

four sites did not budget or plan at the beginning of the demonstration for the purchase and 

maintenance of facilities and equipment necessary for computer-assisted instruction, and little 

guidance was received from DOL or the TA provider. For several years, these sites attempted to 

negotiate with other organizations for free or inexpensive access to a computer facility, but such 

arrangements proved unsatisfactory, lasting for only a few months. Access was limited to a narrow 

range of hours and the equipment was out of date. In contrast, the two Ford-funded sites and the 

remaining DOL-funded site invested in a state-of-the-art facility, equipment, and library of 

educational software. 

All sites assisted enrollees in planning for postsecondary activities, particularly for college. 

Activities included preparation for SAT/ACT tests, participation in college fairs and college tours, 
 103 

and assistance in selecting a college, filling out college applications, writing the application essay, and 

applying for financial aid. QOP provided less preparation for other postsecondary activities that the 

program nonetheless viewed as successful outcomes, including postsecondary vocational schools, 

the armed forces, and certified apprenticeship programs. 

Developmental activities, including recreation, cultural awareness, and avoidance of 

risky behaviors, proved to be the most popular type of activity for both enrollees and case 

managers. As a result, the implementation of this component of QOP was more successful than 

the education or community service component. Four sites scheduled approximately 250 hours of 

developmental activities per year, with the remaining three sites scheduling between 150 and 200 

hours per year. Recreational activities were the most popular type of developmental activity. The 

popularity of developmental activities declined in the second half of the demonstration as enrollees 

became more involved in other activities, such as jobs and sports. 

Community service was not effectively implemented at most sites. While all sites 

implemented a program of community service, most case managers chose to allocate little time to 

this component. Their decision was largely motivated by the belief that enrollees would benefit 

more from time spent in mentoring, education, and developmental activities than time spent in 

community service. As a result, community service became an inactive component at most sites 

during the final three years of the demonstration. 

QOP enrollees had a greater need for supportive services than QOP designers and 

managers expected in terms of both the frequency and range of services. The need for 

supportive services fell into two categories: supportive services needed by a large proportion of 

enrollees and specialized supportive services needed by an individual enrollee or a small number of 

enrollees. The first of these categories included four supportive services―food, transportation, child 

care, and substance abuse treatment. 

• Food. In mid-afternoon after the school day, many enrollees were hungry and needed a 

substantial snack. Case managers found it necessary to provide snacks to induce 

enrollees to show up for afternoon program activities. Program-provided snacks also 

improved on the nutritional content of the snacks enrollees would have eaten in the 

absence of the program and helped maintain the youthsí attention on the program 

activity. Some participants also needed breakfast. DOL-funded sites generally did not 

budget or plan for significant expenses for food or other supportive services. By the 

midpoint in the demonstration, most sites had arrangements to provide food (and 

transportation) services. Six of the seven sites provided afternoon snacks either daily or 

weekly. Snacks became budgeted line items at the two Ford-funded sites and at two of 

the five DOL-funded sites. Two of the remaining DOL-funded sites provided snacks 

through donations by outside organizations and by case managers themselves. One of 

the DOL-funded sites did not provide snacks. 

• Transportation. Many enrollees needed transportation or a subsidy for the use of 

public transportation, both to the CBOís facility after school and to special group 

events on weekends. At the beginning of the demonstration, case managers attempted 

to provide transportation with their own cars. By the midpoint of the demonstration, 

three sites provided transportation with vans owned by the CBO. Other sites 

distributed bus or subway tokens to enrollees, and others provided subsidized taxi rides. 
104 

• Child care. From the beginning of the demonstration many enrollees did not have 

children of their own but cared for a younger sibling while the parent or parents 

worked. In the second half of the demonstration, case managers reported that 16 

percent of enrollees had children and that, for half of these enrollees, child care 

responsibilities were a barrier to participating in program activities. Child care was not 

provided in a sustained and systematic way. Reasons included the siteís lack of 

experience in providing child care, the cost of child care, and the difficulties associated 

with state and local licensing requirements for operating a public child care center. 

• Substance abuse treatment. Case managers reported that, by the third year of the 

demonstration, slightly over one in four enrollees used illegal substances at least 

occasionally and that approximately one-quarter of those used such substances heavily. 

The need for substance abuse treatment went largely unmet throughout the 

demonstration. 

The need for the second category of supportive services―specialized services needed by one or 

a small number of enrollees―proved surprising in two ways. First, even though only a small number 

of individuals needed each individual service, a large number of enrollees collectively needed a range 

of specialized services. Second, the range of such services was wide. Some enrollees had attempted 

suicide, experienced the death of a family member, were abused at home, were shot, became 

seriously and even terminally ill, were raped, entered the foster care system, became homeless, 

experienced substance abuse and domestic violence of their parents, and were in families who had 

no money for food or rent. Case managers took homeless youth into their own homes, arranged for 

funeral services, mediated family conflicts, arranged for stays at shelters for runaways, made loans to 

enrollees, and occasionally bought groceries or paid the family utility bill. Providing for such a wide 

variety of supportive services required sites to rely on the judgment of case managers with personal 

knowledge of the enrolleeís situation. CBOs and SDAs had to trust in the case managerís judgment 

and to remain flexible with respect to the types of expenses they allowed. For example, one site 

equipped its van for a wheel chair when one of its enrollees became disabled. Nevertheless, the 

sitesí abilities to provide many of the specialized supportive services were limited by restrictions on 

allowable expenses. 

Financial incentives for enrollees were successfully implemented. All sites paid stipends 

and established accrual accounts. Enrollees who met the requirements received their accrual 

account balances and used the funds to support their postsecondary training or education. The 

establishment of accrual accounts at DOL-funded sites was delayed by DOLís publishing guidelines 

and procedures for setting up the accounts only at the end of the third year of the demonstration, 

although sites were keeping sufficient funds in reserve for payment. The delay was caused by the 

fact that DOL paid grantees on a cost basis and accrual account contributions did not meet the 

definition of a cost on two grounds. First, accrual account contributions were held by the grantee or 

CBO and were not disbursed to enrollees at the time the contribution was made. Since no payment 

was made, the contribution was not considered a reimbursable expense. Second, given that ultimate 

disbursement of the accrual account was conditional on the enrolleeís behavior (i.e., the enrollee had 

to complete high school and enroll in an approved postsecondary education or training program), 

disbursement was uncertain. At the time the contributions accrued, enrollees could not be certain 

that they would ever collect the balances due to them. Accrual account balances for those enrollees 

who failed to meet the specified conditions could not ever be claimed as an expense. 
105 

This situation was resolved by requiring each DOL-funded site to maintain a record of the 

funds that would have been contributed to the accrual account of each enrollee, wait until the 

enrollee met the conditions for disbursement, pay the appropriate amount to the enrollee, and 

report the payment as a reimbursable expense at the time of disbursement. This approach required 

the grantee or the CBO to reserve enough of the total grant budget to cover large lump-sum 

payments at the end of the demonstration. One casualty of this informal bookkeeping system was 

that enrollees generally did not receive regular statements of their accrued amounts, accrued 

amounts were not invested, and case managers were unable to use accrual accounts as a device for 

teaching enrollees about managing money, investing, and planning. 

In contrast, Ford-funded sites made monthly accrual account contributions to separate 

accounts at a brokerage firm. Funds were invested conservatively, and the firm provided a quarterly 

statement to each enrollee. The sites used the accounts and statements to teach enrollees money 

management and investing. 

With respect to stipends, case managers reported that stipends appeared to induce greater 

participation in program activities among 14- and 15-year-old enrollees but had less influence on 

older enrollees, many of whom had jobs paying a much higher hourly wage. Several sites intensified 

the incentives by offering bonus stipends to enrollees who completed a major activity or achieved a 

major program success, an aspect of the program model that was not previously implemented at 

DOL-funded sites. 

A difficulty with stipends was the ambiguity about which activities were ìstipendable,î 

particularly activities that were not academic, community service, or life-skills activities. The 

ambiguity led to some site-to-site inconsistencies in stipend policy. For example, one site paid a 

stipend for every hour the enrollee worked at a summer job, and another site paid stipends for every 

hour the enrollee attended summer school class while other sites did neither. 

The demonstration revealed two legal issues. Midway through the demonstration, DOL 

notified its sites that, under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, sites could not require case 

managers to work more than 40 hours per week without compensation at an over-time rate. Serving 

from mid-morning to early evening every weekday and on one of two weekend days, as well as being 

on-call throughout each night, meant that case managers at several sites routinely worked more than 

40 hours per week. After DOL made the requirements of the act clear to sites, one site reduced case 

manager hours to 40 per week, thereby potentially limiting enrollee access to managers. Other sites 

did not originally make staff available for more than that amount. 

A legal inconsistency between the treatment of undocumented aliens under JTPA and their 

treatment by public schools resulted in undocumented enrollees not being offered stipends and 

accrual accounts. In 1982, the Supreme Court in Plyer v. Doe13 ruled that public school districts are 

not permitted to deny services to undocumented residents. Since the QOP demonstration drew its 

sample from lists of students enrolled in participating high schools, we included undocumented 

residents in the research sample. The result was that approximately 5 percent of enrollees, 

concentrated in the two Texas sites and the Yakima site, were undocumented aliens. However, the 

 13 U.S. Supreme Court, Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), 457 U.S. 202, Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School

District et al. v. Doe, Guardian et al. appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 80-1538, 

argued December 1, 1981, decided June 15, 1982. 
106 

DOL-funded sites were funded by JTPA, which forbade the delivery of services to undocumented 

aliens. DOL-funded sites underwrote most services for undocumented residents by relying on local 

matching funds, but were unable to provide stipends or accrual accounts for undocumented 

enrollees. 

The total QOP expenditure per enrollee averaged $25,000 for the full five years of the 

demonstration. The five-year expenditure per enrollee for the DOL-funded sites ranged from 

$18,000 to $22,000. For the two Ford-funded sites, the expenditure per enrollee was $23,000 in 

Yakima and $49,000 in Philadelphia. Thus, Philadelphia had a much higher expenditure per enrollee 

than any other site. 

Annual expenditures at most sites varied over the five years of the demonstration. Spending 

typically increased each year during the first four years and decreased during the fifth year to about 

one quarter of the average for the first four years. For example, one site steadily increased its 

spending by $600 to $900 per enrollee each year until the last year, when expenditures decreased 

sharply. QOP coordinators reported that they developed a better understanding of what they could 

do with the money and where they needed to spend it after the first year or two of the 

demonstration. 

These cost figures cover program operations and management, but exclude the cost of technical 

assistance provided by OICA. Because of the anticipated need for technical assistance and OICAís 

experience in helping to design the QOP model, Ford awarded a grant to OICA to provide technical 

assistance for the QOP demonstration. Technical assistance included helping sites set up 

management information software, funding annual week-long training conferences for all QOP 

staff, and answering questions as needed. OICA provided technical assistance for the first four years 

of the demonstration at a cost of $1,125,000, or $47,000 per year per site (not counting the 

Philadelphia site itself). In addition to providing technical assistance, OICA operated the 

Philadelphia site throughout the demonstration. 

QOP was incompatible with the operational youth program title of the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) in several ways. QOP was a nontraditional program that was many 

times more intensive, expensive, and holistic than the typical JTPA program, which lasted about six 

weeks, cost $1,000 to $2,000 per enrollee, and was administered exclusively in a group setting. 

Because of QOPís nontraditional nature, one or two of the SDAs were less than fully committed to 

the QOP model. The SDAsí low level of commitment manifested itself as a reluctance to reimburse 

nontraditional expenses of the QOP CBO. For example, one site fitted its van with equipment for a 

wheelchair for an enrollee who became disabled after being shot. Another site paid for music 

lessons for an enrollee whose case manager became convinced that such lessons would be an 

effective treatment for the youthís depression. SDAs ultimately reimbursed most nontraditional 

expenses, but only after considerable delay and additional documentation and justification from the 

CBO, and written guidance from DOL. 

A second dimension of incompatibility was that QOPís focus on case management and 

mentoring meant that the case manager was responsible for tailoring the service mix and supportive 

services to the individual enrolleeís needs. Case managers needed a level of spending authority 

consistent with their level of responsibility. Several SDAs and CBOs found that delegating spending 

authority to case managers was inconsistent with their traditional method of operation. 
107 

A third incompatibility between the QOP model and JTPA related to the handling of 

undocumented enrollees. As discussed above, the QOP demonstration served undocumented youth 

because of the programís involvement with the public school districts at each site. Since JTPA 

prohibited JTPA funding from benefiting undocumented residents, undocumented enrollees did not 

receive stipends or accrual accounts. Case managers reported that the absence of financial 

incentives alienated some undocumented enrollees in the first year of the demonstration. 

A fourth incompatibility related to outcome measures. The primary outcome measures of the 

QOP demonstration were earning a high school diploma or GED and enrolling in a postsecondary 

education or training program. The secondary outcomes were performing well on academic 

achievement tests and avoiding risky behaviors such as parenthood, substance abuse, and criminal 

activity. For operational JTPA programs, as opposed to demonstration programs, the primary 

outcome measure was whether or not the enrollee got a job. 

A fifth type of incompatibility was caused by the nature of JTPA grants for operating QOP. 

Funding the QOP demonstration via grants limited DOLís ability to require each site to implement 

the QOP model. As a result, no DOL-funded site fully implemented QOP. A second problem 

caused by the nature of the grants was that, even though DOL renewed each siteís grant in every 

year of the demonstration, each grant was limited to a one-year period. Since local matching grants 

conformed to the federal grant, the local matching grant never exceeded one year in duration. In at 

least one site, the one-year duration of matching grants allowed the local funding agency to avoid 

feeling it was committed to the demonstration for the full demonstration period. The source of 

matching funds at this site was the local school district, which became disenchanted with the 

program during the second year of the demonstration largely because many QOP enrollees moved 

to other school districts or dropped out of school. This meant that some of the school districtís 

funds were used for the benefit of youth not attending any school in that district. The school 

district elected not to renew its financial commitment for the third and fourth years. 

A sixth incompatibility was that, unlike most JTPA and WIA programs, initiation of the delivery 

of QOP services to participating youth took six months from the date of letting the QOP 

demonstration grants. QOP required more time for start-up than traditional JTPA and WIA 

programs for recruiting and training staff, arranging for facilities and equipment, and identifying and 

enrolling enrollees. Further, the extensive training of case managers required to start up a QOP 

program implies that case managers should be hired at least four months before the initiation of 

service delivery. 

The host schools and school districts must be intimately involved in local QOP 

programs, but the school system may not be able to provide financial support to QOP. 

Education is one of QOPís major components. Case managers found they needed to assist 

enrollees with coursework and advocate on behalf of their enrollees with school teachers and 

administrators. Case managers reported that knowledge of each enrolleeís teachers and coursework 

was important for assisting the enrollee effectively. 

Although QOP continued to serve enrollees who transfered to a different school or school 

district, dropped out of school altogether, or enrolled in a private GED class, public schools in 

many school districts are prohibited from providing services or financial support to youth who do 

not attend that school or at least attend some public school within that district. One QOP site used 

public school funds as local matching funds. Once the school district administrators realized that 

QOP was providing services to youth who attended other schools both in the district and outside 
108 

the district, as well as youth who dropped out, the school district terminated its funding. In 

contrast, other DOL-funded sites used local government revenues for the local match. Local public 

agencies were not limited to serving youth attending a particular school or school district. 
109 

C HAPTER XIII 

S UGGESTIONS F OR F UTURE 

Y OUTH P ROGRAMS

This chapter presents suggestions for the design, administration, and operation of current and 

future intensive case management and mentoring programs for youth. The suggestions are based on 

our assessment of implementation successes and the difficulties sites faced in implementing specific 

components of the QOP model, and are not based on statistical estimates of the impacts of the 

QOP demonstration. Where several sites struggled with a component, we suggest ways that future 

program designers and administrators might avoid difficulties. The suggestions do not imply a 

recommendation to continue a current program or initiate any future program. We begin with 

lessons that apply to the entire program and progress to lessons that apply to specific components. 

CONTRACTING, GOVERNANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

A program like QOP can be operated through local CBOs. Most such organizations enjoy 

some advantages over state or national organizations in that they have already forged informal 

networking relationships with other local agencies that provide related services, know 

neighborhoods well enough to keep track of participating youth, and enjoy access to local sources of 

case managers. 

If the funding organization wants sites to replicate a program model faithfully, however, we 

suggest it adopt a ìhands onî approach to model implementation, including the use of performancebased contracts rather than grants as the contracting mechanism. Contracts enable the funding 

agency to require implementation of a specific program model. Performance measures specified in 

the contract can help ensure the fidelity of site operations to the program model. We suggest the 

use of two types of performance measures: those indicating the fidelity of model implementation 

and those indicating program outcomes. The former should be based on a comparison of existing 

program policies and operations with the program model. The latter should include, for younger 

enrollees, improvement in achievement test scores, staying in school, promotion to the next grade, 

and avoiding risky behaviors such as pregnancy, substance abuse, and criminal activities. For older 

enrollees, performance indicators should include high school graduation, earning a GED, enrolling 

in college or another postsecondary training activity, and avoiding risky behaviors. Contracts should 

be in place six months before the beginning of the first academic year of service delivery to allow for 

program development, staff recruitment and training, acquisition of materials and equipment, and 

recruitment of eligible youth. 

Providing sites with comprehensive documentation, training, and guidance on the model early 

in the program can facilitate fidelity to the model. Some documentation should be provided before 

contracts are awarded, and the request for proposals should include a full description of the program 

model. The program description should make clear that the CBOsí budget should provide for 

computer-assisted instructional equipment and paid tutoring. After contracts are awarded and staff 

hired, each site should receive a more detailed documentation and specification of the program 
110 

model. We suggest that the funder conduct several activities immediately before and after award. 

First, the funding agency should review each potential CBO before award to assess the financial 

stability of the organization and its willingness to adopt an intensive, nontraditional program model. 

Second, the funding agency should conduct a kick-off meeting at each site during program launch to 

engage and brief officials from the involved schools and other community organizations. Third, site 

staff, funder staff, and the staff of intermediary institutions such as workforce investment boards 

(WIBs) should be trained in the program model. The initial training should last several days and 

should cover educational assessment, individual education plans, tutoring, computer-assisted 

education, health and mental health screening, and family therapy. After the initial training, there 

should be periodic in-service training and ongoing technical assistance. 

To enable CBOs to implement a holistic approach to treating barriers facing disadvantaged 

youth, contracts should allow for the reimbursement of costs for a wide variety of program activities 

and supportive services. Further, WIBs and CBO management should delegate a modest level of 

spending authority to case managers. The program documentation should include guidelines for 

acceptable expenditures. 

QOP-like youth programs should not be funded through the public school system. At one 

demonstration site in which a public school district provided local matching funds to QOP, the 

district withdrew its funding when it became aware that, after the first two years of the 

demonstration, some QOP enrollees had dropped out of school and others had transferred to other 

school districts. 

EVOLVING PROGRAM GOALS AND SERVICE MIX

The QOP demonstration treated youth from roughly ages 14 through 19. The needs of 

younger adolescents entering the program differ dramatically from the needs of young adults 

completing the program. Any program in which youth might participate for such a long period 

needs to adjust the service mix to address the changing needs of enrollees as they progress through 

the stages of adolescent development. 

Enrollees who have not yet engaged in risky behaviors need preventive services, that is, 

services designed to prevent youth from engaging in risky behavior in the future, as opposed to 

services that remediate the outcomes of past risky behaviors. Preventive services include academic 

assessment and development of an individualized education plan; homework assistance, tutoring, 

and computer-assisted instruction designed to assist the youth in passing all courses and getting up 

to grade level in reading and mathematics; advice on which courses to take in preparation for 

college; seminars, workshops, and other activities designed to prevent teen childbearing, substance 

abuse, and criminal activity; team building among enrollees, including asking enrollees who succeed 

at a difficult activity to assume responsibility for helping less successful enrollees; and community 

service. 
111 

Enrollees who have engaged in risky behaviors are more likely to need remediation services, as 

opposed to preventive services. For such enrollees, we suggest that youth programs tailor the 

program goal, service mix, and performance indicators to each of the following subgroups.14 

• Enrollees who were held back in high school for one or more years but did not 

drop out. High school graduation should be the short-term goal. Intensive remedial 

academic services are appropriate for this group. The longer-term goal should be 

enrollment in community college or other vocational postsecondary training. 

• Enrollees who dropped out and could not be persuaded to re-enter high school. 

Receipt of a GED certificate should be the short-term goal. GED preparation 

programs and assistance in enrolling in community college or other vocational 

postsecondary training are appropriate for this group. 

• Enrollees who have a child, abuse substances, or engage in crime. The program 

should focus on the goal of preventing those consequences from becoming barriers to 

continued education and training. Child care designed to enable enrollees to both 

engage in program activities and stay in school are appropriate for enrollees with 

children. Counseling and treatment programs are appropriate for those who abuse 

substances. For those who have become involved in the criminal justice system, case 

managers should appear at legal proceedings when appropriate and help to ensure that 

enrollees receive legal representation. 

Another QOP program goal that should keep up with the evolving circumstances of enrollees is 

that of sending every enrollee to college. While this goal is appropriate for enrollees in the 9th grade, 

by the time some enrollees reach the 11th and 12th grades, attending college may be unrealistic. For 

such enrollees, shifting the program goal and program resources to vocational/technical training, 

apprenticeship, or the armed forces may be more effective than clinging to college as the goal. 

TARGET GROUP

QOP case managers felt that intensive mentoring programs, especially those oriented to 

preventing risky behaviors, should consider enrolling at-risk youth as early as the beginning of 

middle school. Although QOP for middle school youth is outside the experience of this 

demonstration, many case managers reported that a large proportion of QOP enrollees already faced 

substantial barriers by the beginning of 9th grade. The majority had achievement test scores below 

grade level, often several grades below grade level, and many were already engaging in risky 

behaviors. 

 14 An individual enrollee can belong to more than one of these subgroups. 
112 

PROGRAM INTENSITY, CASE MANAGEMENT, AND MENTORING

For programs as intensive as QOP, case managers felt that caseloads should not go much above 

25 youth per case manager. According to case managers, youth with learning disabilities and youth 

who are out of school, involved in criminal activity, or both require about twice the average amount 

of the case managerís time. Caseloads with several such youth may need to be smaller than the 

standard caseload. 

While we support QOPís policy of not making continued enrollment contingent on enrollee 

behavior, we suggest that the slots of enrollees who remain inactive for a year, are sentenced to three 

or more years of incarceration, or move outside a reasonably large catchment area should be made 

available to other eligible youth. Many QOP slots remained essentially unfilled for the duration of 

the demonstration, an inefficiency that an ongoing program should avoid. For enrollees who are 

inactive but continue to reside in the area, the program should make continued, vigorous efforts to 

engage the youth for a full year. For youth who move far away, the program should arrange for the 

youth to enroll in a mentoring program in his or her new location. 

Based on experience in the QOP demonstration, the goal of 750 hours per year for each 

enrollee appears to be unrealistically high. We suggest that 450 hours per year of time spent in 

organized program activities, exclusive of one-on-one mentoring, might be more appropriate. 

Further, we suggest that the program should allocate the desired hours among types of activities in 

proportion to the priority of the type of activity. Education activities are the highest priority and 

should have a goal of 250 hours per year. Developmental activities are second priority, with a goal 

of perhaps 125 hours per year. Community service is third priority with a goal of 75 hours per year. 

To ensure that an individual enrollee can participate the desired amount of time in program 

activities, the CBO should schedule at least 30 percent more hours of program activities than the 

goal number of hours. Enrollees, particularly by ages 16 and 17, are involved in team sports, jobs, 

child care, and other responsibilities during the afternoon hours. The program should try to 

accommodate the schedules of such youth by offering program activities at a wide variety of times. 

Ease of access to case managers, tutors, and computer-assisted instruction is essential for active 

participation. The demonstration sites that maintained offices on school grounds found that many 

enrollees dropped in on their case managers before, during, and immediately after the school day for 

brief visits, suggesting that programs should arrange to have office space in host schools. In 

addition to providing enrollees with easy access to case managers, in-school offices offer case 

managers easy access to their enrolleesí teachers. The central program facility for after-school 

activities should ideally be within easy walking distance to the school. Case managers found it useful 

to transport enrollees between the school or home and the CBOís facility in order to ensure the 

active engagement of less enthusiastic enrollees. 

Several case managers reported that the requirement to be available nearly around the clock led 

to burnout and to conflicts with their family responsibilities. One approach to providing enrollees 

with more than 40 hours of access to case managers each week while avoiding stress and over-time 

pay for case managers is to stagger the schedules of case managers. This arrangement would require 

more than one case manager to establish a relationship with each enrollee. 
113 

Fourteen case managers, out of a case manager staff of 31, left the program during the five 

years of the demonstration. Enrollees seemed not to be disturbed by the departure of a case 

manager and the arrival of a new case manager if that event occurred once during the enrolleeís 

tenure in QOP. On the other hand, enrollees who had three or more case managers during the five 

years tended not to develop personal relationships with the third or fourth case manager. Requiring 

case managers to work in pairs, such that each enrollee develops a personal relationship with more 

than one case manager, limits the enrolleeís perception of instability when a case manager leaves, 

thereby reducing the risk of alienation from the program. 

EDUCATION

We suggest that each program site hire at least one staff member with a teaching or educational 

counseling background. Such a staff member can provide training and guidance to the staff with 

social service backgrounds in educational assessment, individual education plans, computer-assisted 

instruction, and tutoring. 

To be effective, tutoring and CAI resources should be budgeted, sustained, and available daily, 

with continuity of tutors and CAI staff. Relying on informal volunteer tutors or donated access to 

another organizationís CAI facility led to unsustained service delivery and became a barrier to 

implementing a systematic education program for QOP enrollees. 

Sites should monitor each enrolleeís academic progress by administering an achievement test 

each year. To tailor education services to each enrolleeís needs, sites should use the results of the 

assessment as the basis of an individual education plan for each enrollee. Tutoring and computerassisted instruction should be customized per the enrolleeís plan. 

DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Case managers reported that recreational activities were useful for recruiting and engaging the 

youth in a relationship with the mentor early in the enrolleeís tenure. After the first few months of 

engagement, developmental activities should incorporate more cultural and risky behavior-avoidance 

content and less recreational content. 

SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

Case managers reported unmet need among QOP enrollees for child care, mental health, 

substance abuse, and family therapy services. Since many CBOs are not staffed to provide such 

services directly, we suggest that CBOs train case managers to screen for service needs and then 

refer enrollees to other community organizations specializing in various social services. To facilitate 
114 

such referrals, each CBO should compile a comprehensive catalogue of organizations providing 

such services. It would also be helpful for the CBO to develop relationships with other 

organizations at the beginning of the program. The relationships may involve formal briefings or 

memoranda of understanding between the CBO and the organizations. 

The experience of the QOP demonstration suggests that sites should budget and plan for daily 

afternoon snacks and for transporting many enrollees to and from program activities. Sites should 

reimburse enrollees for child care expenses during hours spent in program activities to encourage 

continued participation by enrollees who have become parents. 

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR ENROLLEES

Case managers reported that stipends and accrual accounts were useful for encouraging the 

participation of younger enrollees, even beyond the incentive effects of recreational activities. 

Incentives were also useful for teaching money management, and accumulating savings for 

postsecondary training. Clear guidelines on what activities are stipendable should be disseminated to 

both staff and enrollees. 

We suggest that future programs offering accrual accounts explore the possibility of setting up a 

trust account for each enrollee so that the CBO can expense its accrual account contributions each 

month and thus be reimbursed for its contributions. To increase the funds available to collegebound enrollees, the site should arrange for an investment manager to invest the accrual account 

balances conservatively. As a device for teaching money management, the investment manager 

should provide statements to enrollees at least quarterly. 
115 

R EFERENCES

Blanchette, Cornelia M. ìAt-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated 

Federal Effort.î Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, T-HEHS-98-38, November 5, 

1997. 

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. Americaís Children: Key National 

Indicators of Wellbeing, 2000. Washington, D.C.: 2001. 

Hahn, Andrew, Tom Leavitt, and Paul Aaron. ìEvaluation of The Quantum Opportunities 

Program (QOP) Did The Program Work? A Report on the Post Secondary Outcomes and 

Cost-Effectiveness of the QOP Program (1989ñ1993).î Waltham, Mass.: Brandeis University, 

June 1994. 

Maxfield, Myles, Allen Schirm, and Nuria Roderiguez-Planas. “The Quantum Opportunity Program 

Demonstration: Implementation and Short-Term Impacts.” Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., 2003. 

National Center for Education Statistics. ìTrends in Academic Performance: Three Decades of 

Progress.î Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2000. 

Schirm, Allen, Nuria Roderiguez-Planas, Myles Maxfield, and Christina Tuttle. ìThe Quantum 

Opportunity Program Demonstration: Short-Term Impacts.î Washington, D.C.: Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., 2003. 

Teachman, Jay D., Kathleen M. Paasch, Randal D. Day and Karen P. Carver. ìPoverty during 

Adolescence and Subsequent Educational Attainment.î In Greg J. Duncan and Jeanne BrooksGunn., eds. Consequences of Growing Up Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1997. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. ìResident Population Estimates of the United States by Age and Sex.î 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1998b. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. ìPoverty in the United States: 1997.î Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Commerce, September 1998a.