in their personal lives. Relatedly, nearly half of teachers surveyed in the same communities cite students’ lack of motivation, poor academic performance, and lack of support at home as drivers behind student dropout (UNICEF 2015). For youth who do not receive adequate support and guidance at home nor in school, making poor decisions such as dropping out may be the “path of least resistance” and the easiest choice to make in the short term.

These aspects of adolescent decision-making and dropout can help inform policy and program interventions, as discussed in the next section.

# **4. What works to reduce dropout? Global evidence and Central American experience**

A growing evidence base points to promising options for reducing dropout, but many challenges remain for researchers and policy makers, including estimating costs, and improving targeting and coordination across interventions to achieve the largest and most cost-effective impacts. In a recent narrative review, Almeida, Fitzsimons, and Rogers (2015) assess the small but growing body of global evidence from rigorously evaluated programs and policies to reduce dropout, with a focus on secondary dropouts.<sup>25</sup> In this section, we summarize their insights, and link them to the Central American experience. Table 8 lists the main types of policies and programs that have been implemented throughout the world that address underlying factors linked to the marginal benefits and costs of dropout, broadly grouped by the level at which they act (individual/household versus community or macro). Given the lifecycle nature of the dropout decision, we also attempt to generally distinguish between interventions aimed primarily at preventing dropout by making improvements that benefit entire student populations, or are aimed at ages prior to when substantial dropout occurs, versus those aimed at intervening particularly for those youth who are at risk of dropping out in the near future. In many cases, this distinction is not clear-cut. For example, broad programs are often targeted in their implementation, due to budget constraints and need, and in these targeted schools or communities, youth face many risks, including dropout.

## **4.1 Building human capital before youth consider dropping out**

High-quality early childhood interventions have shown promising results for disadvantaged youth.<sup>26</sup> A handful of randomized evaluations from the United States, Jamaica, and other countries demonstrate that early interventions, including nutritional supplementation, psychosocial stimulation, and high-quality preschool can have lasting impacts on at-risk individuals, through increased attainment (and therefore less dropout), higher wages, and better mental health. As discussed earlier, these interventions are particularly appealing because they are preventative, and increase the productivity of later human capital investments.

In Central America, preschool coverage remains limited, particularly among the poor. In Costa Rica, where there is no public spending on preschool, only 25 percent of 3-5 year olds in the bottom quintile are enrolled, compared to 53 percent in the top quintile (World Bank 2014d). In Panama, where an early childhood development plan was adopted in 2009 and is currently waiting

> 25 The authors define rigorous evaluations as those that employ a plausible counterfactual, including randomized control trials, difference-in-difference, regression discontinuity, and other empirical designs.

> 26 All evidence described in this section that is not cited here is cited in detail in Almeida, Fitzsimons, and Rogers (2015).

22