School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies
Published: 2002-02-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that the national status dropout rate--the percentage of 16- through 24-year olds who are not enrolled in school and who lack a high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate--fluctuated between 10.9 and 12.5 percent between 1990 and 2000. However, dropout rates have varied considerably between regions of the country and among ethnic groups. Research has shown that dropping out it is a long-term process of disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. NCES and private research organizations have identified two factors--an individual's family and his or her experience in school--that are related to dropping out. Various state, local, and private programs are available to assist youth at risk of dropping out of school. These programs range in scope from small-scale supplementary services that target a small group of students, such as mentoring or counseling services, to comprehensive school-wide restructuring efforts that involve changing the entire school to improve educational opportunities for all students. One federal program, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program, is specifically targeted to dropouts, but the program is new and the Department of Education has yet to evaluate its effectiveness. In September 2001, the program awarded grants to state and local education agencies working to reduce the number of school dropouts. Other federal programs have dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives, and many more federal programs serve at-risk youth but do not have dropout prevention as a stated program goal.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Over the last decade, between 347,000 and 544,000 10th- through 12th- grade students dropped out of school each year without successfully  completing a high school program. In October 2000, about 11 percent of  16- through 24-year-olds who were not enrolled in a high school program  had neither a high school diploma nor an equivalent credential. These  dropouts earn lower incomes, are more frequently unemployed, and have  more limited job opportunities than high school graduates. Dropouts are  more likely to receive public assistance than high school graduates, and  dropouts make up a disproportionate share of the nation’s prison and  death row inmates, thus imposing a burden on all levels of government.  Although the problem has long been recognized, earlier federal efforts to  reduce the number of dropouts showed mixed results, and the last  significant federal funding for a dropout prevention program ended in  1995. Multiple approaches to dropout prevention exist, and many experts  believe that dropout programs should be tailored to the needs of the  student population being served. You asked us to examine the dropout  prevention efforts currently underway. As agreed with your office, we  focused our work on answering the following questions:
What are the national and regional dropout rate trends?
What does the research say about factors associated with dropping out?
What state, local, or private efforts have been implemented to address the  factors associated with dropping out?
What federal efforts exist to reduce dropout rates and what is known  about their effectiveness?
In conducting this work, we interviewed officials at the National Center  for Education Statistics (NCES) and reviewed NCES annual reports,  statistics, and studies related to dropout rates. We also contacted and  reviewed the reports of dropout prevention experts at universities, federal  agencies, and private research organizations. We conducted site visits at  state, local, and private dropout prevention programs in six  states—California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.  These programs were selected based on recommendations obtained from  a variety of sources, including federal program administrators, evaluations  of programs, and program experts. We interviewed, in all 50 states and the  District of Columbia, state at-risk coordinators that were either identified  by the National Dropout Prevention Center in South Carolina or who were  referred to us by state program administrators. In addition, we interviewed  officials from the federal programs that could fund local dropout  prevention efforts. We also reviewed evaluations of programs funded by  the federal School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program (SDDAP)  in fiscal years 1988-1995. Appendix I further describes our scope and  methodology. We conducted our review between January and October  2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The adverse impact that dropping out of school has on both those who  drop out and society itself has long been recognized. Multiple studies have  shown that dropouts earn less money and are more frequently  unemployed than graduates. Dropouts are about three times as likely as  high school completers who do not go on to college to be welfare  recipients, and about 30 percent of federal and 40 percent of state prison  inmates are high school dropouts thus imposing a considerable cost on all  levels of government. Given the multiple adverse consequences associated  with dropping out, lowering the dropout rate has long been a goal of  educators and legislators.
The 1968 amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of  1965 established local demonstration projects aimed at reducing the  dropout rate. From 1969 through 1976, some 30 projects received $46  million in grants from the Department of Education (then the Office of  Education) to develop and demonstrate educational practices that showed  promise in reducing the numbers of youth who failed to complete their  secondary education. The act was amended again in 1974, when funding  for dropout prevention efforts was consolidated with funding for other  programs, and states were given the discretion to decide what financial  support dropout prevention projects would receive through state- administered consolidated grants. In 1988, the Congress created the  SDDAP. The program consisted of competitive grants from Education to  89 school districts and community organizations. In fiscal years 1988-1995,  SDDAP grantees received nearly $227 million in federal funds.  Authorizations and appropriations for the program ended in fiscal year  1995. The School Dropout Assistance Act was passed in 1994 and  authorized funding in fiscal years 1995 to 1999, but was never funded.  Dropout prevention program funding was subsequently provided in fiscal  year 2001 when Education’s Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program  received appropriations of $5 million.
Although federal funding for dropout prevention programs has been  inconsistent, the National Dropout Prevention Center (NDPC) has existed  for 15 years and is privately funded. Many of the program officials with  whom we spoke said that NDPC was a resource on which they depended  for information. This center is housed at Clemson University in South  Carolina and offers various resources to those wishing to implement  dropout prevention programs. For example, NDPC manages a database  that provides program profiles, including contact information, for model  programs located throughout the country. In addition, NDPC provides an  overview of the 15 strategies it has identified as being the most effective in  preventing dropout. NDPC also contracts with school districts and  communities to assess and review the dropout prevention programs in the  school district and make recommendations for improvement. Much of this  information and additional information on annual national conferences  and professional development services are available on the center’s  website: www.dropoutprevention.org.
NCES, part of Education’s Office of Educational Research and  Improvement, is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and  reporting data on the condition of education in the United States. Since  1989, NCES has annually published data on high school dropout statistics.  NCES’ most recent publication provides national level data for three  measures—event and status dropout rates and high school completion  rates. Periodically, NCES also reports on cohort dropout rates. NCES  also reports dropout rates for groups with various characteristics (e.g.,  sex, ethnicity, age, and recency of immigration).
section_title: Dropout Rates Changed Little in the 1990-2000 Period and Vary Considerably Between Regions and Ethnic Groups
paragraphs: Nationally, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Rates  varied considerably, however, depending on the geographic region and  ethnic group. The highest dropout rates occurred in the South and West,  while the Midwest and Northeast tended to have lower rates. Dropout  rates were much higher for Hispanics than for other ethnic groups,  affected primarily by the very high dropout rates for Hispanics born  outside the United States. Dropout figures also vary depending on which  dropout or school completion measure is used, primarily because  calculations use different age groups, data, or definitions of dropout. No  one measure is appropriate for all situations. Those using dropout or  completion data must familiarize themselves with the various measures  and select the one that best meets their needs.
subsections: section_title: National Dropout Rates Show Little Change in Recent Years
paragraphs: For the nation as a whole, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Data compiled by NCES indicates that the percentage of 16- through 24-year-olds who were dropouts ranged between 10.9 and 12.5 percent. While the year-to-year results went up in some years and down in  others, the net result was a decline of 1.2 percentage points during this  time period.
section_title: Dropout Rates Vary Considerably by Region and Ethnic Group
paragraphs: Dropout rates show considerable variation when broken down by region  or by ethnic group. The highest dropout rates occurred in the South and  West, while the lowest rates occurred in the Northeast and Midwest. As figure 2 shows, while the national portion of 16- through 24-year-olds that  were dropouts was 10.9 percent in October 2000, the regional average  ranged from 12.9 percent in the South to 8.5 percent in the Northeast.
Analyzed by ethnic group, dropout rates were higher for Hispanics than  for other ethnic groups, as shown in figure 3. For example, in 2000, the  Hispanic dropout rate was 27.8 percent compared with 6.9 percent and  13.1 percent for white non-Hispanics and black non-Hispanics,  respectively. Asian/Pacific Islanders had the lowest dropout rate,  3.8 percent, in 2000. However, due to the relatively small sample sizes,  reliable estimates for Asian/Pacific Islanders could not be calculated  before 1998, so they are not shown separately in the trend lines in figure 3.  In addition, sample sizes were too small for NCES to calculate dropout  rates for American Indians/Alaskan Natives in any year.
Further analysis offers additional insight into the high dropout rate for  Hispanics. Compared to non-Hispanics in the United States, a much higher  percent of Hispanic children were born outside the United States—43.6  percent versus 6.5 percent. The dropout rate for Hispanics born outside  the United States was much higher than that for Hispanics born in the  United States in 2000 (44.2 percent vs. 15.2 percent). As a result, although  Hispanics born outside the country accounted for only 6.6 percent of all  16- through 24-year-olds, they accounted for more than a quarter of all  dropouts in 2000 and thus significantly raised the overall Hispanic dropout  rate and the national dropout rate. In addition, data from 1995 show that  more than half (62.5 percent) of the foreign-born Hispanic youths who  were dropouts had never enrolled in a U.S. school, and 79.8 percent of  these young adults who had never enrolled in U.S. schools were reported  as either speaking English “not well” or “not at all.”
The high dropout rates for Hispanics also affect the state differences in  high school completion rates. As table 2 shows, the states with the highest  rates of high school completion among 18- through 24-year-olds (Alaska,  Maine, and North Dakota) have very small percentages of Hispanics, while  the states with the lowest rates of high school completion among 18- through 24-year-olds (Arizona, Nevada, and Texas) have very large  percentages of Hispanics. Our analysis of the state-by-state information  for all 50 states and the District of Columbia shows that two factors—  Hispanics as a percent of 18- to 24-year-olds in 1999 and the percentage  increase in Hispanics under 18-years-old in the 1990s—account for about  40 percent of the variation in the high school completion rates between  states.
section_title: Multiple Ways of Measuring School Dropout or Completion Exist, Each Appropriate in Different Situations
paragraphs: Analyzing dropout rates is made more complicated by the fact that  multiple ways exist to measure the extent of dropping out—and no one  measure is ideal for all situations. For example, one way to measure  dropouts is to determine the percentage of students that drop out in a  single year. This measure is referred to as an event dropout rate. NCES’  event dropout rate measures the number of 15- through 24-year-olds that  drop out of grades 10-12 in the past year without completing a high school  program. While such a measure can be used to spot dropout trends on a  year-to-year basis, it does not provide an overall picture of what portion of  young adults are dropouts. If the concern is whether the total population  of dropouts is growing, shrinking, or staying about the same, a different  measure is needed.
Several ways exist to measure the portion of young adults who are  dropouts rather than the percentage who drop out in any given year. In  one such approach, referred to as the status dropout rate, NCES measures  the percentage of all persons from 16- through 24-years-old who are not  enrolled in school and have not earned a high school credential, including  those who never attended school in the United States. A similar but  somewhat different measure is the high school completion rate. NCES’  completion rate measures the percentage of 18- through 24-year-olds who  are no longer in school and have a high school diploma or an equivalent  credential, including a General Education Development (GED) credential.  The status dropout rate and the completion dropout rate differ because  they are based on different populations. Only the status dropout rate  calculation includes 16- and 17-year-olds and those 18- through 24- year­ olds who are still enrolled in a high school program. Because of these  differences, the status dropout rate and the high school completion rate  are not the simple inverse of each other. Another approach, called the  cohort dropout rate, uses repeated measurements of a single group of  students to periodically report on their dropout rate over time.
Further complicating the picture, most of the types of dropout measures  have at least two rates, which differ because they are based on different  age groups, data, or definitions of dropouts. For example, some rates use  data for a single year while others use a 3-year average, and some count  GED recipients as graduates while others do not. (See app. II for  descriptions of each of the published dropout and completion measures  we identified.)
Different measures can be used separately or together to examine various  dropout trends. For example, figure 4 shows the event dropout rate, the  status dropout rate and the high school noncompletion rate. The event  dropout rate, which measures only those youth who drop out in a single  year, is lower than the other two measures which deal with the percentage  of dropout in an age group regardless of when they dropped out. The event  dropout rate rose slightly—0.8 percentage point—between 1990 and 2000.  However, this change was not statistically significant. The noncompletion  rate and the status dropout rate showed similar patterns during the 10-year  period, with the noncompletion rate declining 0.9 percentage point and the  status rate declining 1.2 percentage points during the period. However, as  mentioned earlier, these two rates differ, in part because they are based on  different age groups.
Another high school completion measure is the “regular” high school  completion rate. This rate is the number of public high school seniors who  earn a regular diploma in a given year stated as a percent of the number of  entering freshman 4 years earlier. For example, in the 1998-1999 school  year, public high schools awarded 2,488,605 regular high school diplomas.  This number was 67.2 percent of the 3,704,455 students who began the  ninth grade 4 years earlier in the fall of 1995. Like all the other dropout  measures we identified, the regular graduation rate has its uses, but no one  measure is appropriate for all situations. As a result, users of dropout and  completion data must familiarize themselves with the many measures  available and select the measure or measures which best meet their needs.
section_title: Multiple Factors Are Related to Dropping Out
paragraphs: Research has shown that multiple factors are associated with the  likelihood of dropping out. Education and private research organizations  have identified two main types of factors associated with the likelihood of  dropping out—one type involving family characteristics and the other  involving students’ experiences in school. For example, students from  low-income, single-parent, and less-educated families drop out at a much  higher rate than other students. Similarly, low grades, absenteeism,  disciplinary problems, and retention for one or more grades are also found  at much higher-than-average rates among students who drop out.  However, identifying students likely to drop out is not just a matter of  identifying students with high-risk characteristics, because research shows  that dropping out is often the culmination of a long-term process of  disengagement that begins in the earliest grades. Study of this long-term  pattern may offer ways to better and earlier identify potential dropouts.
subsections: section_title: Family- and School- Related Factors Are Correlated With Dropping Out
paragraphs: Research indicates that a number of family background factors, such as  socioeconomic status, race-ethnicity, single-parent families, siblings’  educational attainment, and family mobility are correlated with the  likelihood of dropping out. Of these factors, socioeconomic status, most  commonly measured by parental income and education, bears the  strongest relation to dropping out, according to the results of a number of  studies. For example, an NCES longitudinal study of eighth graders found  that while data show that blacks, Hispanics, and Native American students  were more likely to drop out than white students, this relationship is not  statistically significant after controlling for a student’s socioeconomic  status. Studies have also found that dropping out is more likely to occur  among students from single-parent families and students with an older  sibling who has already dropped out than among counterparts without  these characteristics. Other aspects of a student’s home life such as level  of parental involvement and support, parent’s educational expectations,  parent’s attitudes about school, and stability of the family environment can  also influence a youth’s decision to stay in school. For example, results  from the NCES study found that students whose parents were not actively  involved in the student’s school, whose parents infrequently talked to  them about school-related matters, or whose parents held low  expectations for their child’s future educational attainment were more  likely to drop out.
Students’ past school performance is also related to the likelihood of  dropping out. For example, research shows that students with a history of  poor academic achievement, evidenced by low grades and poor test  scores, are more likely to drop out than students who have a history of  academic success. In addition, students who are overage for their grade or  have repeated a grade are more likely to drop out. For example, one study  found that students who had repeated a grade as early as kindergarten  through fourth grade were almost five times as likely to drop out of school  than those who had not. The odds of students who had repeated a later  grade—fifth through eighth grade—of dropping out were almost 11 times  the odds of those students who had never repeated these grades. Other  school experiences related to dropping out include students having a  history of behavior problems and having higher rates of chronic truancy  and tardiness.
Research also indicates that dropout rates are associated with various  characteristics of the schools themselves, such as the size of the school,  level of resources, and degree of support for students with academic or  behavior problems. For example, a summary of the research on school  size and its effect on various aspects of schooling, found that in terms of  dropout rates or graduation rates, small schools tended to have lower  dropout rates than large schools. Of the 10 research documents that were  summarized, 9 revealed differences favoring or greatly favoring small  schools, while the other document reported mixed results.
section_title: Dropping Out Is a Long- Term Process
paragraphs: Various research studies have focused on dropping out is a long-term  process of disengagement that occurs over time and begins in the earliest  grades. Early school failure may act as the starting point in a cycle that  causes children to question their competence, weakens their attachment  to school, and eventually results in their dropping out. For example, a  study examining the first- to ninth-grade records for a group of Baltimore  school children found that low test scores and poor report cards from as  early as first grade forecast dropout risk with considerable accuracy. This  process of disengagement can be identified in measures of students’  attitudes as well as in measures of their academic performance. Studies  have shown that early behavior problems—shown in absenteeism,  skipping class, disruptive behavior, lack of participation in class, and  delinquency—can lead to gradual disengagement and eventual dropping  out. For example, a report summarizing a longitudinal study of 611 inner- city school children found significant relationships between behavior  problems in kindergarten through grade 3 and misconduct in the  classroom at ages 14 and 15, future school disciplinary problems, police  contacts by age 17, and subsequently higher dropout rates. Study of such  long-term patterns that often lead to dropping out may offer ways to better  and earlier identify potential dropouts.
section_title: A Variety of Programs Address the Dropout Problem
paragraphs: Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the  factors associated with dropping out, ranging from small-scale  supplementary services to comprehensive school reorganizations. These  initiatives are limited in the degree to which they address family-related  factors associated with dropping out, such as income; they focus mainly  on student-related factors, such as low grades and absenteeism. While  dropout prevention programs can vary widely, they tend to cluster around  three main approaches: (1) supplemental services for at-risk students; (2)  different forms of alternative education for students who do not do well in  regular classrooms; and (3) school-wide restructuring efforts for all  students. Several of the programs we reviewed have conducted rigorous  evaluations, with others reporting positive outcome data on student  progress and student behavior. States’ support of dropout prevention  activities varies considerably with some states providing funds specifically  for dropout prevention programs while others fund programs to serve at- risk youth, which may help prevent them from dropping out.
subsections: section_title: Local Entities Use Three Main Approaches for Dropout Prevention
paragraphs: Local entities have implemented a variety of initiatives to address the  factors associated with dropping out of school. Our visits to 25 schools in  six states—California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and  Washington—showed that initiatives in these schools cluster around three  main approaches: (1) supplemental services for at-risk students; (2)  different forms of alternative education, which are efforts to create  different learning environments for students who do not do well in regular  classrooms; and (3) school-wide restructuring efforts for all students.  Individual programs may focus exclusively on one type of approach, or  use a combination of approaches to address many of the student- and  school-related factors associated with dropping out of school. Several of  the programs we reviewed have conducted rigorous evaluations, and  others are reporting positive outcome data on student academic progress  and student behavior.
subsections: section_title: Supplemental Services for At-Risk Students
paragraphs: Providing supplemental services to a targeted group of students who are at  risk of dropping out is one approach used by many of the programs we  visited. Some of the more common supplemental services include  mentoring, tutoring, counseling, and social support services, which  operate either during the school day or after school. These services aim to  improve students’ academic performance, self-image, and sense of  belonging. For example, Deepwater Junior High School in Pasadena,  Texas, offers the Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program, an internationally  recognized cross-age tutoring program designed to increase the self- esteem and school success of at-risk middle and high school students by  placing them in positions of responsibility as tutors of younger elementary  school students. At Deepwater Junior High, officials told us that about 25  eighth graders tutor kindergartners through second graders at the local  elementary school for 45 minutes a day, 4 days a week. Tutors are paid $5  a day for their work, reinforcing the worth of the students’ time and  efforts. According to officials, the program has improved the tutors’  attendance in school, behavior, self-esteem, willingness to help, and sense  of belonging. Another benefit of the program is its impact on students’  families, such as improved relationships between the tutor and his or her  family and between families and the school. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth  Program is also the subject of a 1992 rigorous evaluation that compared 63  Valued Youth Program tutors with 70 students in a comparison group.
This evaluation showed that 2 years after the program began, 12 percent of  the comparison students had dropped out compared with only 1 percent of  the Valued Youth Program students. Average reading grades, as provided  by reading teachers of tutors and comparison group students, were  significantly higher for the program group, as were scores on a self-esteem  measure and on a measure of attitude towards school. The Valued Youth  Program has been widely replicated throughout the Southwest and  elsewhere.
At another school we visited—Rolling Hills Elementary in Orlando,  Florida—officials told us that 85 percent of the students are on free or  reduced-price lunches (which are served to lower-income children), and  that the school provides multiple supplemental academic programs and  social services to address many of the academic, personal, and social  problems that are often associated with students likely to drop out of  school. These programs and services include pre-school and kindergarten  classes to help at-risk children become successful learners, two “dropout  prevention” classes for students who are behind their grade level, after  school tutoring classes, and a variety of social and counseling services.  Progress reports are sent to parents to keep them informed of their child’s  progress. The school also works with three full-time therapists who help  students with their social and emotional problems. Teachers and staff  monitor students’ attendance and identify early on those with attendance  problems. This monitoring effort has resulted in improved student  attendance. School officials emphasized the importance of identifying at  an early age children who are likely to become academic underachievers,  truants, or likely to develop behavioral problems, and the need to develop  programs to address the academic and behavior needs of these children.  Although longitudinal studies looking at the effects of these services over  time would be needed to determine the effectiveness of Rolling Hills’ early  intervention program at preventing students from dropping out, research  suggests that early identification and intervention can help counteract the  process of disengagement and withdrawal from school.
Another form of supplemental services provided by schools we visited is  school-community partnerships. While a variety of approaches are used by  school officials to create school-community partnerships, the  partnerships we reviewed focused on providing an array of supportive  services to students and their families, including mental health counseling,  health care, adult education, and recreation programs. For example, the  Tukwila School District in Tukwila, Washington, aims to improve student  achievement in school by focusing on school, family, and community  collaborations. According to officials, the District offers mentoring and  tutoring programs, internships, and an array of health and social services.  By building partnerships with state and federal agencies, nonprofits, and  other organizations, the District hopes to maximize resources in ways that  would strengthen young people and their families. A longitudinal study of  the District’s program during the 1994-1996 school years found that 58  percent of the elementary students who received human services from  district service providers and/or community agencies had higher grades  than a control group of students who did not receive services, and 74  percent of secondary school students receiving services had improved  their course completion rates after two semesters of service.
section_title: Alternative Learning Environments
paragraphs: The second approach commonly used by localities we visited is to provide  alternative educational environments for students who do not do well in  the regular classroom. These alternative learning environments attempt to  create a more supportive and personalized learning environment for  students to help them overcome some of the risk factors associated with  dropping out, such as school disengagement and low attachment to  school. Alternative learning environments can either operate within  existing schools or as separate, alternative schools at an off site location.  Alternative environments operating within regular schools can include  small groups of students meeting each day to work on academic skills in a  more personal setting, or smaller schools housed within the regular  school, such as ninth grade or career academies which focus on a specific  group of students or offer a curriculum organized around an industry or  occupational theme. Alternative schools located off site are generally  smaller schools than those the students otherwise would have attended.  These smaller schools usually have smaller classes, have more teachers  per student, and offer a more personalized learning environment for  students. For example, the Seahawks Academy in Seattle, Washington, is a  small alternative school for seventh, eighth, and ninth graders who have  been unsuccessful in the traditional middle and high schools. According to  officials, the academy is a partnership between Seattle Public Schools,  Communities in Schools (CIS), the Seattle Seahawks football team, and  corporate partners and strives to provide a safe, nurturing, and supportive  learning environment for about 110 students. The school offers smaller  class sizes, tutors, mentors, no cost health care, and social services.  Students wear Seahawks Academy uniforms and must commit to strict  behavior contracts signed by the student and parent. Officials told us that  the Academy’s policies foster positive expectations and “Seahawks  Academy culture,” teaching students to respect each other, teachers, and  themselves. The Academy emphasizes attendance, academic achievement,  and appropriate behavior. Evidence of program effectiveness includes  improved test scores, fewer discipline problems, and no suspensions or  expulsions for the last 2 school years compared with suspensions of about  7 percent and expulsions of about 0.5 percent at other schools in the  district.
Another example of an alternative learning environment is the Partnership  at Las Vegas (PAL) Program at the Las Vegas High School in Las Vegas,  Nevada. The PAL program is a school operating within the existing school  with a school-to-careers curriculum that is designed to provide students  with both academic and career-related skills to prepare them for entry into  an occupation or enrollment in higher education. Officials said that by  linking academic coursework to career-related courses and workplace  experience, the PAL program aims to motivate students to stay in school  and promote an awareness of career and educational opportunities after  high school. According to officials, the program is made up of a team of 6  teachers and about 150 at-risk 11th and 12th grade students. Program  participants attend classes 4 days a week and report to a work site for a  nonpaid internship 1 day a week. The program features academic courses  that stress the connection between school and work and include language  arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and computer applications.  Essential program aspects include business etiquette lessons, career  speakers, field trips, business internships, developing peer and team  affiliations, and constant monitoring and evaluation of student progress.  According to officials, evidence of program effectiveness includes  improved attendance and fewer discipline problems than non-PAL  participants. In addition, the PAL program reports a dropout rate of about  2 percent for PAL participants, compared with a rate of 13.5 percent for  non-PAL participants.
While only one of the alternative programs we visited has been rigorously  evaluated, the others are reporting positive outcomes in areas such as test  scores and students’ behavior. For example, the Excel program at the  Middle School Professional Academy in Orlando, Florida, an alternative  school designed to meet the special needs of disruptive, expelled, and  disinterested youth, reported substantial gains in mean grade point  averages for students in the program. Officials also reported fewer  discipline problems and a retention rate of 95 percent for the 2000-2001  school year. The Ranger Corps, at Howard Middle School in Orlando,  Florida, a Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC) program for  about 50 seventh graders, also reported gains of about 15 percentage  points in reading test scores as well as increased attendance and fewer  disciplinary problems.
section_title: School-Wide Restructuring Efforts
paragraphs: The third type of approach used by local entities is school-wide  restructuring efforts that focus on changing a school or all schools in the  school district in an effort to reduce the dropout rate. School-wide  restructuring efforts are generally implemented in schools that have many  students who are dropout prone. The general intent of this approach is to  move beyond traditional modes of school organization to make schools  more interesting and responsive places where students learn more and are  able to meet higher standards. Some researchers have suggested that these  restructuring efforts have the potential to reduce dropping out in a much  larger number of students by simultaneously addressing many of the  factors associated with dropping out. An example of a school-wide  restructuring effort is Project GRAD (Graduation Really Achieves Dreams)  in Houston, Texas—a 12-year-old scholarship program that reports a track  record of improving student academic performance and increasing  graduation rates. The program was initially established in 1989 as a  scholarship program, but in 1993, the program began implementing math,  reading, classroom management, and social support curriculum models in  a feeder system of schools (all the elementary and middle schools that  feed students into a high school). According to officials, the program  expanded its services to the elementary grades after program supporters  recognized the need to begin intervention in the earliest grades for it to be  more successful. Project GRAD emphasizes a solid foundation of skills in  reading and math, building self-discipline, providing resources for at-risk  children, and offering college scholarship support. Project GRAD has  reported demonstrating its effectiveness with higher test scores, higher  graduation rates, greater numbers of scholarship recipients, and fewer  disciplinary problems in the schools. For example, a 1999-2000 rigorous  evaluation of the program showed that Project GRAD students  outperformed students in corresponding comparison groups in math and  reading achievement tests and made substantial gains in college  attendance. The success of Project GRAD has led to its expansion into  three additional feeder systems in Houston, with a 5-year plan to expand  into two more feeder systems. The model is being replicated in feeder  systems in Newark, Los Angeles, Nashville, Columbus, and Atlanta.
Another example of a school-wide restructuring effort is the Talent  Development program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—a comprehensive  high school reform model that aims to improve large high schools that face  serious problems with student attendance, discipline, achievement scores,  and dropout rates. This model has been implemented in four Philadelphia  high schools and approved for implementation in two others. We visited  three high schools in Philadelphia that use this approach. According to  officials, these schools provide or are in the process of implementing a  separate academy for all ninth graders, career academies for 10th through  12th graders, and an alternative after-hours twilight school for students  who have serious attendance or discipline problems. Block scheduling,  whereby students take only four courses a semester, each 80 to 90 minutes  long, and stay together all day as a class, is used in each school. The longer  class periods enable teachers to get to know their students better and to  provide times for individual assistance. A report on the outcomes of this  model at two schools showed that the percentage of students promoted to  the tenth grade has increased substantially, and the number of  suspensions has dropped dramatically. The report also indicated that  students had significant gains on standardized achievement tests in math  and improved student attendance.
The career academy model implemented at Talent Development schools  and other high schools we visited has been the subject of in-depth  evaluations. Career academies represent the high school reform  movement that is focused on smaller learning communities. Academy  components include rigorous academics with a career focus, a team of  teachers, and active business involvement. Extensive evaluations on the  academies indicate a positive impact on school performance. For example,  in a 10-year, ongoing national evaluation of nine career academies,evaluators compared the performance of 959 students who participated in  career academies and 805 similar students who applied to but did not  attend an academy.  The evaluation also has a long follow-up period,  which extends 4 years beyond the students’ scheduled graduation from  high school.  One report from the evaluation found that among students at  high risk of school failure, career academies significantly cut dropout rates  and increased attendance rates, number of credits earned toward  graduation, and preparation for postsecondary education.  A follow-up  report issued in December 2001 stated that although the career academies  enhanced the high school experiences of their students, these positive  effects did not translate into changes in high school graduation rates or  initial transitions to post-secondary education and jobs.  For example,  some of the students at high risk of school failure obtained a GED instead  of graduating.  The report also notes that the full story of career academy  effectiveness is still unfolding and that longer-term results should be  examined prior to making definitive judgments about the effectiveness of  the approach.
section_title: Most States Provide Programs That Serve At-Risk Youth
paragraphs: Many states have dropout prevention programs or programs that serve at- risk youth that may help prevent them from dropping out of school.  Specifically, our calls to 50 states and the District of Columbia found that  14 states have statewide dropout prevention programs, and 29 other  states and the District of Columbia have programs to serve at-risk youth  that may help prevent them from dropping out of school. Seven states  have no statewide programs identified to prevent dropout or serve at-risk  youth. Services provided by dropout prevention programs and programs  that serve at-risk youth may be similar. However, the number of school  districts served and the scope of services offered by either type of program  varies greatly by state. Some states provide dropout prevention services in  each of the states’ districts, while others have dropout prevention  programs that serve only a limited number of school districts.  For  example, Tennessee awards $6,000 dropout prevention grants to only 10 of  its 138 school districts annually.
The following examples illustrate how states implement their dropout  prevention and at-risk programs:
The official dropout prevention programs implemented in California,  Texas, and Washington vary in their form and funding. One of California’s  four dropout prevention programs, the School-Based Pupil Motivation and  Maintenance Program, provides $50,000 per school to fund a school  dropout prevention specialist (outreach consultant) at 300 schools in  about 50 school districts each year. The outreach consultants work to  provide early identification of students at risk of failing or dropping out  and then coordinate the resources and services of the whole school and  surrounding community to identify and meet the needs of these children  so they can succeed and stay in school. Texas’ dropout prevention  program, the State Compensatory Education (SCE) Program, provides  state funds to schools that have a large percentage of at-risk students  (i.e., students with many of the characteristics associated with dropping  out). The SCE program funds services such as supplemental instruction or  alternative education with the goal of enabling students not performing at  grade level to perform at grade level at the conclusion of the next regular  school term. In addition, each district is responsible for developing a  strategic plan for dropout prevention. Washington changed its dropout  prevention program’s focus in 1992 from targeted dropout prevention  services to a comprehensive, integrated approach to address many of the  factors associated with the long-term process of disengagement from  school that often begins in the earliest grades. Washington uses about 15  state programs to help prevent students from dropping out, including  programs emphasizing early intervention, schools-within-schools, and  community partnerships. How state funds are used to meet state  education objectives is largely left up to the school districts.
Georgia, the District of Columbia, and Utah have no statewide dropout  prevention programs, but instead offer comprehensive programs to serve  at-risk students. Georgia’s comprehensive approach to serving at-risk  students provides different services to students of different ages. For  example, Georgia has an Early Intervention program for students in  kindergarten through third grade, a reading program for students in  kindergarten through second grade, and Alternative Education for  students who are academically behind and disruptive. State funds are  allocated to alternative schools based on a formula grant process. The  District of Columbia also takes a comprehensive approach to preventing  students from dropping out through a variety of services targeted to at-risk  students. Programs include Head Start; after school programs; school  counseling; community service; alternative schools that offer small  classes, career readiness, testing, and counseling; and a program to  apprehend truant students and provide them with counseling and referral  services. Federal and District dollars are used to fund these programs.  Utah offers a number of programs to serve at-risk students. Programs  include alternative middle schools, gang intervention, and  homeless/disadvantaged minorities programs. These programs provide  mentoring, counseling, and health services to students, and state funds are  awarded to school districts through both competitive and formula grants.
section_title: Multiple Federal Programs Provide Funds That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention
paragraphs: The Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program (DPDP)—funded at  $5 million for fiscal year 2001—is the only federal program that has  dropout prevention as its sole objective; because the program is new, the  Department of Education has not yet evaluated its effectiveness.However, other federal programs are also used by local entities to provide  dropout prevention services.  For example, five federal programs have  dropout prevention as one of their multiple objectives and several more  programs—such as Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 21st Century  Community Learning Centers—serve at-risk youth even though dropout  prevention is not the programs’ stated goal. Reducing the dropout rate is  not a stated program goal of most current programs, and thus assessing  how effective the current federal programs have been in reducing the  dropout rate is very difficult given that very few programs have been  evaluated in terms of their effects on the dropout rate. Prior evaluations of  the SDDAP—which have measured program effect on dropout  rates—showed mixed results. Although some experts and state and local  officials did not believe the creation of additional federal dropout  programs was warranted, some of these officials suggested a central  source of information on the best dropout prevention practices could be  useful to states, school districts, and schools.
subsections: section_title: One Current Federal Program Has Dropout Prevention as Its Sole Objective, but Multiple Programs Fund Such Efforts
paragraphs: Currently, the only federal program that has dropout prevention as its sole  objective is the DPDP. In fiscal year 2001, the Congress appropriated $5  million for the program. The program, in turn, awarded 13 grants of  between $180,000 and $492,857 to 12 local education agencies (LEAs) and  one state education agency (SEA) with dropout rates of at least 10  percent. These grant recipients are to work in collaboration with  institutions of higher education or other public or private organizations to  build or expand upon existing strategies that have been proven effective in  reducing the number of students who drop out of school. The Stephens  County Dropout Prevention Project in Toccoa, Georgia, for example, was  awarded $441,156 to screen all 2,400 students in Stephens County in  grades 6 to 12 to determine specific needs based on at-risk traits. The  project seeks to significantly reduce suspension, grade retention, and  repeat offenses leading to expulsion and referrals to the court system  through partnerships with the Communities in Schools of Georgia, the  National Dropout Prevention Center, and the Department of Juvenile  Justice. Another grant recipient, a tribal school located in Nixon, Nevada,  was awarded $180,000 to assist approximately 200 Native American  students in grades 7 to 12 who have not succeeded in a traditional public  school setting to remain or return to high school and graduate by  developing individualized education plans.
In addition to DPDP, we identified five programs that have dropout  prevention as one of their multiple objectives, with total funding of over  $266 million from three federal agencies. In fiscal year 2000, Education  received appropriations of $197.5 million to fund three of these programs,  and the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor received total  appropriations of $69.2 million to fund their programs. Two programs  account for most of these funds: Talent Search and School-to-Work.  Education’s Talent Search program, funded at $100.5 million in fiscal year  2000, provides academic, career, and financial counseling to its  participants and encourages them to graduate from high school and  continue on to the postsecondary institution of their choice. Education  and Labor, who jointly administer the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of  1994, each contributed $55 million in fiscal year 2000. This program’s goal  is to provide students with knowledge and skills that will allow them to  opt for college, additional training, or a well-paying job directly out of high  school. Education’s Title I, part D program, funded at $42 million in fiscal  year 2000, provides grants to SEAs for supplementary education services  to help youth in correctional and state-run juvenile facilities make  successful transitions to school or employment upon release. Two smaller  programs that also have dropout prevention as one of their goals are  Justice’s Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) and Labor’s Quantum  Opportunities Program (QOP). JUMP was funded at $13.5 million in fiscal  year 2000 and aims to reduce juvenile delinquency and gang participation,  improve academic performance, and reduce the dropout rate through the  use of mentors. Labor allocated $650,000 to QOP in fiscal year 2000 and  states that its program goals include encouraging students to get a high  school diploma, providing post-secondary education and training, and  providing personal development courses.
Twenty-three other federal programs serve at-risk youth, although dropout  prevention is not the programs’ stated goal. (See app. III for a complete list  of these programs.) Safe and Drug Free Schools and 21st Century  Community Learning Centers are examples of such programs. Education’s  Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, funded at $428.6 million in fiscal  year 2000, works to prevent violence in and around schools and to  strengthen programs that prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and  drugs. Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program,  funded at $453 million in fiscal year 2000, enables schools to stay open  longer and provide a safe, drug-free, and supervised environment for  homework centers, mentoring programs, drug and violence prevention  counseling, and recreational activities.
None of the five programs for which dropout prevention is an objective  track the portion of funds used for dropout prevention. However, many  state and local officials informed us that they use one or more of these and  the other 23 federal programs that serve at-risk youth to address the  factors that may lead to students dropping out. The use of programs such  as these for dropout prevention is consistent with a recent NDPC  recommendation that dropout prevention proponents should look beyond  traditional dropout prevention program funding and seek funds from  programs in related risk areas, such as teenage pregnancy prevention,  juvenile crime prevention, and alcohol and drug abuse prevention to  identify and secure grant funding sources.
section_title: Few Current Federal Programs’ Effects on Dropouts Have Been Evaluated, and Evaluation of Past Federal Dropout Prevention Programs Showed Mixed Results
paragraphs: Since DPDP grants were just awarded in September 2001, Education has  not been able to evaluate the program’s effect on the dropout rate. In  addition, most federal programs that address dropout prevention have  other goals, and the measurement of these goals takes precedence over  measuring the program’s effect on the high school dropout rate. For  example, programs that promote post-secondary education as their major  goal, such as Talent Search, measure the program’s effect in assisting  program participants enroll in college rather than what portion of  participants complete high school. Also, because many federal programs  provide funds for states and localities to administer programs,  responsibility for evaluating and measuring the effectiveness of programs  is also devolved to the state and local level. For example, Education’s Title  I Neglected and Delinquent Program mostly administers the distribution  and allocation of funds to states. While many of the programs it funds list  dropout prevention as one of their intended goals, states are not required  to report on their program’s effect on dropout rates.
The three major evaluations of the former dropout prevention program—  Education’s SDDAP which funded demonstrations from 1988-1995—have  shown mixed results. A study of 16 targeted programs showed programs  that were intensive in nature and that were operating in middle school  could improve grade promotion and reduce school dropout rates.  However, the same study showed that programs implemented in high  school did not affect personal or social outcomes that are often correlated  with dropping out (e.g., student’s self-esteem, pregnancy, drug use, and  arrest rates). The study’s authors concluded that dropout prevention  programs are more effective when implemented in earlier grades. A  second study of SDDAP programs, which focused on the impacts of  school restructuring initiatives, concluded that restructuring would not,  in the short term, reduce dropout rates. This study explained that school  restructuring was often a lengthy process, and finding the true effect of  such efforts on dropout rates could take longer than the 3- to 4-year period  of most demonstration programs. This study also explained that although  dropout rates were not reduced in schools that restructured, other  outcomes such as school climate—the environment of the school and how  teachers and students interact— and test scores often improved and that  these improved outcomes could ultimately affect the dropout rate. Finally,  the third study evaluated 16 programs and found promising strategies for  reducing dropout rates at all levels of elementary and secondary  education. The study found that at the elementary school level, in-class  adult friends (trained volunteers or helpers), after-school tutoring, and  enrichment exercises that are directly related to in-class assignments  appeared to be effective approaches. At the middle school level,  coordinated teaching strategies, flexible scheduling, heterogeneous  grouping of students, and counseling services were found to be useful. At  the secondary school level, the study found that paid-work incentives  monitored by the school and tied to classroom activities were very  successful for promoting school engagement. While all three studies of  SDDAP programs identified some promising practices or strategies for  preventing dropouts or addressing the factors associated with dropping  out, none of the programs studied were consistently effective in  significantly reducing dropout rates.
State and local officials also had numerous suggestions for reducing the  dropout rate. Several of them suggested that Education develop a central  source of information on the best dropout prevention strategies. For  example, an administrator at Independence High School in San Jose,  California, asked that the federal government act as a clearinghouse for  information about effective dropout prevention programs, provide a list of  people that could be contacted to find out about these programs, and  identify programs that could be visited to observe best practices for  preventing dropouts. A consultant for the California Department of  Education suggested that the federal government could develop model  dropout prevention programs and publish information on programs that  were successful. The At-Risk Coordinators in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, and  New York made similar suggestions for a national clearinghouse or  information on best practices for preventing students from dropping out.
As mentioned earlier, NDPC is an organization that provides an  NDPC-developed list of effective strategies and information on self- reported model programs on its website. However, the NDPC is  completely self-funded through memberships, grants, and contracts and  does not have sufficient resources to (1) disseminate information that is  available on its database of promising dropout prevention programs and  practices, or (2) thoroughly review programs included in its model  program listing. Instead NDPC relies on its website to communicate about  effective dropout prevention practices and its data are based on voluntary  submissions of program descriptions and promising practices by its  members and other experts in the dropout prevention field. While some  dropout prevention program officials mentioned NDPC as a useful  resource, they believe a more complete and current database of program  descriptions and promising practices would better serve their needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although there have been many federal, state, and local dropout  prevention programs over the last 2 decades, few have been rigorously  evaluated. Those federally funded programs that have been evaluated have  shown mixed results. Several rigorously evaluated local programs have  been shown to reduce dropout rates, raise test scores, and increase  college attendance. In addition, some state and local officials believe that  they are implementing promising practices that are yielding positive  outcomes for students, such as improved attendance and grades and  reduced discipline problems, although their programs have not been  thoroughly evaluated. Education could play an important role in reviewing  and evaluating existing research and in encouraging or sponsoring  additional research to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of state and  local programs. Subsequently, Education could disseminate the results of  such research and information on the identified best practices for state  and local use. Opportunities exist for Education to identify ways to  collaborate with existing organizations, such as the NDPC, that are already  providing some information on existing programs. As schools continue to  look for ways to ensure all students succeed, such research and  information could play a vital role in developing and implementing  effective programs.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education (1) evaluate the quality of  existing dropout prevention research, (2) determine how best to  encourage or sponsor the rigorous evaluation of the most promising state  and local dropout prevention programs and practices, and (3) determine  the most effective means of disseminating the results of these and other  available studies to state and local entities interested in reducing dropout  rates.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Health and Human  Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families and the  Department of Education.  HHS had no comments.  Education provided a  response, which is included as appendix V of this report, and technical  comments, which we incorporated when appropriate. Education agreed  that dropping out is a serious issue for American schools, emphasized the  importance of school improvement efforts in the No Child Left Behind Act  of 2001, and provided additional information about relevant Education  programs and activities.  In response to our recommendations that  Education evaluate the quality of existing dropout prevention research and  determine how best to encourage or sponsor rigorous evaluation of the  most promising state and local dropout prevention programs and  practices, Education agreed that rigorous evidence is needed and said that  it will consider commissioning a systematic review of the literature on this  topic.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 3 days after the  date of this letter.  At that time we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Education, appropriate congressional committees, and other  interested parties. If you or your staff have any questions or wish to  discuss this material further, please call me or Diana Pietrowiak at  (202) 512-7215. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine dropout rate trends and identify factors associated with  dropping out, we obtained and reviewed reports, statistics, and studies  developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the  Annie E. Casey Foundation, and the National Dropout Prevention Center  (NDPC). We also obtained the papers presented at the Harvard University  Dropouts in America symposium in January 2001 and subsequently made  available on the Internet. In addition to interviewing officials at each of the  entities listed above, we interviewed dropout prevention experts at  universities, federal agencies, and private research organizations and  obtained and reviewed their publications.
To obtain information on the services offered by state, local, and private  agencies to students who are at-risk of dropping out, we conducted site  visits in six states—California, Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, and  Washington. We selected these states because our analysis of the literature  and discussions with key dropout prevention experts identified a variety  of promising dropout prevention programs within these states in each of  the major types of dropout prevention approaches—supplemental services  for at-risk students, different forms of alternative education, and school- wide restructuring efforts. Between February and August 2001, we also  conducted telephone interviews with state at-risk coordinators in all 50  states and the District of Columbia who were either identified by the  NDPC or who were referred to us by state program administrators. From  the telephone interviews, we determined, among other things, (1) whether  the state had a dropout prevention program, (2) if the state had other  programs for at-risk youths, and (3) if any evaluations had been made of  the effectiveness of the state programs’ impact on reducing dropouts. Our  review focused only on dropout prevention programs and efforts. We did  not obtain information on dropout recovery programs that try to get  dropouts to return to school or on programs designed to help dropouts get  a General Education Development (GED) credential or other type of high  school credential. As a result, our list of programs whose funding could be  used to prevent dropouts in appendix III does not include programs aimed  only at dropout recovery or helping dropouts to get a GED or other type of  high school credential.
To identify what federal efforts exist to address dropout prevention and if  they have been proven effective, we interviewed officials from the U.S.  Departments of Education, Labor, Justice, and Health and Human Services  who manage programs that aid in reducing the dropout rate. We developed  our initial list of federal dropout prevention programs through our  literature review and updated the list with references made by the various  federal program officials. We obtained information on how the programs  operated, how funds were dispersed, how dropout prevention was  prioritized, and whether or not the programs had been evaluated. We also  reviewed evaluations of the federal School Dropout Demonstration  Assistance Program (SDDAP), which funded local dropout prevention  programs in fiscal years 1988-1995.
section_title: Appendix II: Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures
paragraphs: Table 3 provides a description of each of the types of dropout and  completion measures and the individual measures developed by each of  three different organizations.  Since 1989, the National Center for  Education Statistics (NCES) has annually published a report on dropout  rates, Dropout Rates in the United States. The most recent report  includes status and event dropout rates and high school completion rates.  Occasionally, the report includes cohort rates. Both a national and state  status dropout rates are developed annually by the Annie E. Casey  Foundation for its Kids Count Data Book. A second measure of school  completion, the “regular” graduation rate, is occasionally published by the  Center for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Postsecondary  Education Opportunity.
section_title: Appendix III: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention
paragraphs: Table 4 lists 23 federal programs that federal, state, and local officials  identified as programs from which funds are used to serve at-risk youth,  which in turn could help to prevent their dropping out. Thus, these  programs provide funds that can be used for dropout prevention activities.
section_title: Appendix IV: High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000
paragraphs: Completion rate  (percent)
State  Alabama  Alaska  Arizona  Arkansas  California  Colorado  Connecticut  Delaware  District of Columbia  Florida  Georgia  Hawaii  Idaho  Illinois  Indiana  Iowa  Kansas  Kentucky  Louisiana  Maine  Maryland  Massachusetts  Michigan  Minnesota  Mississippi  Missouri  Montana  Nebraska  Nevada  New Hampshire  New Jersey  New Mexico  New York  North Carolina  North Dakota  Ohio  Oklahoma  Oregon  Pennsylvania  Rhode Island  South Carolina  81.6  93.3  73.5  84.1  82.5  81.6  91.7  91.0  88.0  84.6  83.5  91.8  86.4  87.1  89.4  90.8  90.4  86.2  82.1  94.5  87.4  90.9  89.2  91.9  82.3  92.6  91.1  91.3  77.9  85.1  90.1  83.0  86.3  86.1  94.4  87.7  85.7  82.3  89.0  87.9  85.1  Completion rate  (percent)
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Susan Chin, Amy Gleason Carroll,  Jeffrey Rueckhaus, Charles Shervey, and Anjali Tekchandani made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: Alexander, Karl, Doris Entwisle and Nader Kabbani, The Dropout Process  in Life Course Perspective: Part I, Profiling Risk Factors at Home and  School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, 2000.
Cardenas, Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel, Josie D. Supik, and Richard J.  Harris, The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention  Strategies for At-Risk Students, Texas Researcher, Volume 3, Winter 1992.
Cotton, Kathleen, School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,  School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #20, Northwest Regional  Educational Laboratory, 1997.
Dynarski, Mark, Philip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert, Wood, Impacts  of Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report, Mathematica Policy  Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.  _____, Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report,  Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.
Finn, Jeremy D., Withdrawing From School, Review of Educational  Research, Summer 1989, Volume 59, Number 2.
Gleason, Philip, Mark Dynarski, Do We Know Whom To Serve?, Issues in  Using Risk Factors to Identify Dropouts, Mathematica Policy Research,  Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, June 1998.
Greene, Jay P., High School Graduation Rates in the United States,  Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,  November 2001.
Kemple, James J., Career Academies: Impact on Students’ Initial  Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment, New York:  Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.
Kemple, James J., Jason C. Snipes, Career Academies: Impact on  Students’ Engagement and Performance in High School, Manpower  Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, 2000.
Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, Characteristics of At-Risk Students in  NELS:88, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education  Statistics, NCES 92-042,Washington, D.C., 1992.
Kaufman, Phillip, Jin Y. Kwon, Steve Klein, Christopher D. Chapman,  Dropout Rates in the United States: 1998, U.S. Department of Education,  National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2000-022,Washington, D.C.,  November 1999.
Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, Christopher D. Chapman, Dropout  Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of Education, National  Center for Education Statistics, NCES 2002-114,Washington, D.C.,  November 2001.
McMillen, Marilyn, Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, U.S.  Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES  97-473, Washington, D.C., July 1997.
Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and Patterns  1981 to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001  Rossi, Robert J, Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School Dropout  Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Evaluation Report, American  Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, 1993.
Slavin, Robert E., Olatokumbo S. Fashola, Show Me the Evidence! Proven  and Promising Programs for America’s Schools, Corwin Press, Inc., 1998.
U.S. General Accounting Office, At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple  Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions (GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6,  1996).  _____, At-Risk Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on  Improving Student Outcomes (GAO-01-66, Oct. 10, 2000).  _____, Hispanics’ Schooling: Risk Factors for Dropping Out and  Barriers to Resuming Education (GAO/PEMD-94-24, July 27, 1994).  _____, School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs (GAO/HRD-87-108,  July 20, 1987).
Wirt, John, Thomas Snyder, Jennifer Sable, Susan P. Choy, Yupin Bae,  Janis Stennett, Allison Gruner, Marianne Perie, The Condition of  Education 1998, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for  Education Statistics, NCES 98-013, Washington, D.C., October 1998.