School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in	 
Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies	 
(01-FEB-02, GAO-02-240).					 
                                                                 
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.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-240 					        
    ACCNO:   A02619						        
  TITLE:     School Dropouts: Education Could Play a Stronger Role in 
Identifying and Disseminating Promising Prevention Strategies	 
     DATE:   02/01/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for education					 
	     Dropouts (education)				 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Secondary education				 
	     Secondary school students				 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program			 
	     Department of Education Dropout			 
	     Prevention Demonstration Program			 
                                                                 
	     Department of Education Project GRAD		 
	     Dept. of Education Safe and Drug-Free		 
	     Schools and Communities Program			 
                                                                 
	     Dept. of Education Title I Program 		 
	     DOJ Juvenile Mentoring Program			 
	     DOL Quantum Opportunities Program			 
	     School Dropout Demonstration Assistance		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps		 
	     Dept. of Education 21st Century			 
	     Community Learning Centers Program 		 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-240
     
United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Report to the Honorable Jim Gibbons,

House of Representatives

February 2002

SCHOOL DROPOUTS

Education Could Play a Stronger Role in Identifying and Disseminating
Promising Prevention Strategies

GAO-02-240

Contents

Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Dropout Rates Changed Little in the 1990-2000 Period and Vary

Considerably Between Regions and Ethnic Groups Multiple Factors Are Related
to Dropping Out A Variety of Programs Address the Dropout Problem Multiple
Federal Programs Provide Funds That Can Be Used for

Dropout Prevention Conclusions Recommendations Agency Comments 1

2 4

6 15 17

26 31 32 32

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Appendix II Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures

Appendix III Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention

Appendix IV High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000

Appendix V Comments From the Department of Education

      Appendix VI                    GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments                 44
                                               GAO Contacts                           44
                                              Acknowledgments                         44

     Bibliography                                                                     45

Tables

Table 1: Dropout Rates in October 2000 for U.S. and Foreign-Born 16- through
24-Year-Olds

Table 2: High School Completion Rate 1998-2000 and Percentage of 18- Through
24-Year-Olds in Selected States in 1999 Who Were Hispanic

Table 3: Dropout and Completion Measures Table 4: Federal Programs That Can
Be Used for Dropout Prevention

                                     11

                                   12 36

                                     38

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts, October
1990 Through October 2000

Figure 2: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by
Region, October 2000

Figure 3: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by Ethnic
Group, October 1990 Through October 2000

Figure 4: Event and Status Dropout Rates and Noncompletion Rates, 1990
Through 2000

                                    7 9

                                   10 14

Abbreviations

CCD Common Core of Data
CPS Current Population Survey
DPDP Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program
GAO General Accounting Office
GED General Education Development
GRAD Graduation Really Achieves Dreams
HHS Health and Human Services
JUMP Juvenile Mentoring Program
JROTC Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
LEA local education agency
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NDPC National Dropout Prevention Center
PAL Partnership at Las Vegas
QOP Quantum Opportunities Program
SDDAP School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program
SEA state education agency

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

February 1, 2002

The Honorable Jim Gibbons House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Gibbons:

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

Results in Brief

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.

National dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. NCES- which
is the primary federal entity responsible for publishing U.S. dropout
data-reports that the national status dropout rate, which is the percent of
16-through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and who have not
completed a high school diploma or obtained a high school equivalency
certificate, fluctuated between 10.9 and 12.5 percent in the 1990-2000
period.1 However, dropout rates have varied considerably between regions of
the country and ethnic groups. For example, in 2000 dropout rates were
higher in the South and West than they were in the Midwest and Northeast
regions. In addition, dropout rates are considerably higher for Hispanics
than for other ethnic groups, and Hispanics born outside the country are
nearly three times as likely to drop out as those born in 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 dropout measure is ideal for all
situations. The status dropout rate is useful in measuring the percent of
16-through 24-year-olds who are not enrolled in school and who have not
earned a high school diploma or equivalent credential, but does not indicate
how well schools are preventing students from dropping out in a given year.
The event dropout rate provides a better measure of how well schools are
performing in a given year since it measures the percent of 15-through
24-year-olds who dropped out of grades 10-12 in just the last year.

1This report focuses on the status dropout rate. According to NCES, this
rate reveals the extent of the dropout problem in the population and can be
used to estimate the need for further education and training designed to
help dropouts participate fully in the economy and life of the nation. This
rate includes individuals who may not have attended school in the United
States.

Research has shown that multiple factors are associated with dropping out
and that dropping out of school is a long-term process of disengagement that
occurs over time and begins in the earliest grades. NCES and private
research organizations have identified two types of factors-those associated
with families and those related to an individual's experience in school-that
are related to dropping out. For example, students from low-income,
single-parent, and less-educated families often enter school less prepared
than children from more affluent, better educated families and subsequently
drop out at a much higher rate than other students do. Factors related to an
individual's experiences in school often can be identified soon after a
child begins school. These factors, such as low grades, absenteeism,
disciplinary problems, frequently changing schools, and being retained for
one or more grades, are all found at a much higher than average rate in
students that drop out. Study of the long-term process of dropping out may
provide insights into ways to identify earlier potential dropouts.

A variety of 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. The Coca-Cola Valued Youth
Program, for example, supports a tutoring program in which older children
tutor younger children, and Project GRAD is a comprehensive school reform
model that provides integrated programs for kindergarten through 12th grade
students. Several of the dropout prevention programs we reviewed have been
rigorously evaluated to determine their effectiveness, and other programs
have shown improvements in one or more aspects, such as students' attendance
and test scores. States' support of dropout prevention activities varies
considerably, with some states providing funds specifically for dropout
prevention programs while others fund programs to serve the broader
population of at-risk youth, which may help prevent them from dropping out.

One federal program, the Dropout Prevention Demonstration Program
(DPDP)-first funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2001-is specifically
targeted to dropouts; because the program is new, the Department of
Education has not yet evaluated 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, such as
Education's Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth who
are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk of Dropping Out (Title I, part

D), 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. The federal government does not track the amount
of federal funding used for dropout prevention services or require that
evaluations of programs include assessments of their effect on dropout
rates, even for programs for which dropout prevention is an objective. Thus,
the total federal funding used for dropout prevention activities or their
impact on reducing dropouts is not known. Evaluations of the prior federal
program devoted entirely to dropout prevention, the SDDAP funded from 1988
to 1995, showed mixed results, with many of the efforts it funded having
little or no significant impact on dropout rates. Experts and state and
local officials suggested several ways to improve the effectiveness of
federal efforts to reduce the dropout rate, such as creating one source of
comprehensive information on promising dropout prevention practices and
strategies. We are recommending that 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. In
commenting on a draft of this report, Education agreed that dropping out is
a serious issue for American schools and that rigorous evaluation of dropout
prevention programs is needed. Education said that it would consider
commissioning a systematic review of the literature on this topic.

Background 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. Dropouts2 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
dropouts3 thus imposing a considerable cost on all

2Based on a 1996 study of 25- to 34-year-olds who had dropped out of high
school after completing 9 to 11 years of school.

3Wirt, 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., (Oct. 1998).

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.4 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

4School Dropouts: Survey of Local Programs, (GAO/HRD-87-108, July 20, 1987).

Dropout Rates Changed Little in the 1990-2000 Period and Vary Considerably
Between Regions and Ethnic Groups

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.5 Periodically, NCES also
reports on cohort dropout rates.6 NCES also reports dropout rates for groups
with various characteristics (e.g., sex, ethnicity, age, and recency of
immigration).

Nationally, dropout rates changed little in the 1990-2000 period. Rates
varied considerably, however, depending on the geographic region and ethnic
group.7 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.

5Kaufman, Phillip, Martha Naomi Alt, and 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., (Nov.
2001).

6See app. II for a description of each type of dropout and high school
completion rate.

7The dropout rate referred to in this section of the report is the status
dropout rate, which is the proportion of all 16- through 24-year-olds who
are not enrolled in a high school program and have not completed high
school. This measure is used because it reveals the extent of the dropout
problem in the population and can be used to estimate the need for further
education and training for dropouts. See app. II for a description of each
type of dropout and high school completion rate.

National Dropout Rates For the nation as a whole, dropout rates changed
little in the 1990-2000
Show Little Change in period. Data compiled by NCES indicates that the
percentage of
Recent Years 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.

Figure 1: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts, October
1990 Through October 2000

Percent 13.0

                                    12.5

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year

Note: This figure presents NCES' status dropout rate.

Source: NCES,  Dropout Rates in the United  States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table C, p. 51.

Dropout  Rates Vary  Dropout rates  show considerable variation  when broken
down by region

Considerably  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

and Ethnic Group

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.

Figure  2:  Percentage of  16-  Through  24-Year-Olds Who  Were Dropouts  by
Region, October 2000

Percent 14.0

                                    12.9

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0 South

                Region West Midwest Northeast United States

Note: This figure presents NCES' status dropout rate.

Source: NCES,  Dropout Rates in the United  States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table 3, p. 13.

Analyzed by  ethnic group, dropout rates were higher  for Hispanics than for
other  ethnic groups, 8 as  shown in  figure 3.  For example,  in 2000,  the
Hispanic dropout rate was 27.8 percent compared with 6.9 percent and

8For an expanded discussion of the nature and extent of the school dropout
problems among Hispanics see Hispanics' Schooling: Risk Factors for Dropping
Out and Barriers to Resuming Education (GAO/PEMD-94-24, July 27, 1994).

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.

Figure 3: Percentage of 16- Through 24-Year-Olds Who Were Dropouts by Ethnic
Group, October 1990 Through October 2000

40 Percent

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic National average White, non-Hispanic

Note: This figure presents NCES' status dropout rate.

Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table B5, p. 37.

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."9

Table 1: Dropout Rates in October 2000 for U.S. and Foreign-Born 16- through
24-Year-Olds

Birth place

Dropout rate (percent)

Percent of all dropouts

Percent of 16- through 24-year-olds

                     Born outside of the United States

Hispanic 44.2 26.7

Non-Hispanic 7.4 3.7

                         Born in the United States

Hispanic 15.2 11.9

                         Non-Hispanic 7.9 57.7 79.3

Note: This table presents NCES' status dropout rate.

Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table 3, page 13.

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.10 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

9McMillen, 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, tables 16 and 20.

10See app. IV for a list of the completion rate for each state and the
District of Columbia.

40  percent of  the variation in  the high  school completion rates  between
states.11

Table 2: High School Completion Rate 1998-2000 and Percentage of 18- Through
24-Year-Olds in Selected States in 1999 Who Were Hispanic

                                   State

Percent completion rate for 18-through 24-year-olds, 1998-2000

             Hispanics as a percent of all 18- through 24-year-olds in 1999

Maine 94.5

North Dakota 94.4

Alaska 93.3

Arizona 73.5

Nevada 77.9

Texas 79.4

                              National average

85.7

Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table C7, p. 53;
GAO's calculations based on Census Bureau data.

Multiple Ways of Measuring School Dropout or Completion Exist, Each
Appropriate in Different Situations

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

11Our analysis is based on high school completion rates among 18- through
24-year-olds who are no longer enrolled in high school or lower grades, a
somewhat different measure than the status dropout rates used earlier in the
discussion. We used the high school completion rate because NCES had
state-by-state data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, but did
not have status dropout rate data by state.

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- yearï¿½olds 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.

Figure 4: Event and Status Dropout Rates and Noncompletion Rates, 1990
Through 2000

Percent

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Non-completion rate

Status dropout rate

Event dropout rate

Note: The noncompletion rate is 100 percent minus the completion rate. This
rate is used to provide a figure in the same range as the event and status
dropout rates.

Source: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, U.S. Department of
Education's, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, table B1, p.
33; GAO's calculation of high school noncompletion rates.

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.

Multiple Factors Are Related to Dropping Out

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.

Family- and School-Related Factors Are Correlated With Dropping Out

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.12 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

12Kaufman, 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.

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.13 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 summary14 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.

Dropping Out Is a Long-Various research studies have focused on dropping out
is a long-term

Term Process 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

13Kaufman, Philip, Denise Bradby, (as above)

14Cotton, Kathleen, School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,
School Improvement Research Series, Close-Up #20, Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1997.

early as first grade forecast dropout risk with considerable accuracy.15
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.16 Study of such long-term patterns that often lead to
dropping out may offer ways to better and earlier identify potential
dropouts.

A Variety of Programs Address the Dropout Problem

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.

15Alexander, 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.

16Finn, Jeremy D., Withdrawing From School, Review of Educational Research,
Summer 1989, Volume 59, Number 2, p.131.

Local Entities Use Three Main Approaches for Dropout Prevention

Supplemental Services for At-Risk Students

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.

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.17

17Cardenas,Jose A., Maria Robledo Montecel, Josie D. Supik, Richard J.
Harris,The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout Prevention Strategies for
At-Risk Students, Texas Researcher, Volume 3, Winter 1992.

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,18 the

18For an expanded discussion of school-community partnerships see At-Risk
Youth: School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student Outcomes
(GAO-01-66, Oct.10, 2000).

Alternative Learning Environments

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.

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),19
the Seattle Seahawks football team, and

19CIS is a national nonprofit organization that aims to keep kids in school
and prepare them for success in life by bringing health and social services
into schools.

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

School-Wide Restructuring Efforts

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.

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.20

The career academy model21 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,22 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,

20Philadelphia Education Fund. The Talent Development High School:
First-year Results of the Ninth Grade Success Academy in Two Philadelphia
Schools, 1999-2000.

21For an expanded discussion of career academies see At-Risk Youth:
School-Community Collaborations Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, pp.
16-17 (GAO-01-66, Oct. 10, 2000).

22Kemple, James J., Jason C. Snipes, Career Academies: Impact on Students'
Engagement and Performance in High School, New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, 2000.

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. 23 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.

Most States Provide Programs That Serve At-Risk Youth

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,24 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.25 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.

23Kemple, James J., Career Academies: Impact on Students' Initial
Transitions to Post-Secondary Education and Employment, New York: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, December 2001.

24States with statewide dropout programs: California, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

25States with no statewide programs for at-risk students: Alaska,
Connecticut, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and West
Virginia.

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.

Multiple Federal Programs Provide Funds That Can Be Used for Dropout
Prevention

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.26 However, other federal programs
are also used by local entities to provide dropout prevention services. 27
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.

26On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110). Part H of Title I of the Act is entitled
the Dropout Prevention Act, which calls for a coordinated national strategy
and creation of a National School Dropout Prevention Initiative to provide
for school dropout prevention and reentry and to raise academic achievement
levels by providing grants to schools through state and local educational
agencies.

27For additional discussion of the multiple federal programs that could fund
similar services for at-risk youth and for school dropouts see, At-Risk and
Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions
(GAO/HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6, 1996).

One Current Federal Program Has Dropout Prevention as Its Sole Objective,
but Multiple Programs Fund Such Efforts

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 2000.28 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

28The authority provided by the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994
terminated on October 1, 2001.

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.

Few Current Federal Programs' Effects on Dropouts Have Been Evaluated, and
Evaluation of Past Federal Dropout Prevention Programs Showed Mixed Results

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 study29 of 16 targeted programs showed programs that were
intensive30 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,31 which
focused on the impacts of

29Dynarski, Mark, Phillip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert Wood, Impacts of
Dropout Prevention Programs, Final Report, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.

30Students in high-intensity programs generally remained in the program for
the full school day with smaller classes and accelerated curricula designed
to help them catch up to their peers.

31Dynarski, Mark, Phillip Gleason, Anu Rangarajan, Robert Wood, Impacts of
School Restructuring Initiatives, Final Report, Mathematica Policy Research,
Inc., Princeton, New Jersey, 1998.

school restructuring initiatives,32 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.33 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

32Restructuring strategies include (1) developing curricular and
instructional methods where students have an opportunity to learn more, (2)
having teachers play a more active role in managing schools, and (3)
encouraging schools to be more sensitive to the concerns of parents and
students.

33Rossi, Robert J, Evaluation of Projects Funded by the School Dropout
Demonstration Assistance Program, Final Evaluation Report, American
Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, California, 1993.

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.

                                 Conclusions

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.

Recommendations

Agency Comments

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.

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.

Sincerely yours,

Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

                      Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures

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.1 The most recent report includes status and
event dropout rates and high school completion rates. Occasionally,2 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.3 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. 4

                  Table 3: Dropout and Completion Measures

Measure/source Description

Event Dropout Rates Measures the annual incidence of dropout-that is, the
percent of students who leave school in a given year without completing a
high school program.

National Event Rate (NCES) NCES publishes a national event dropout rate,
which it defines as the percent of 15- to 24-year-olds who were enrolled in
high school the prior October but had not completed high school and were not
enrolled in grades 10 to 12 a year later. According to this definition, a
person could complete high school by either earning a high school diploma or
receiving an alternative credential such as a GED. The national rate is
computed from sample data collected from 50,000 U.S. households by the
Census Bureau in its October Supplement to the Current Population Survey
(CPS).

State Event Rates (NCES) NCES publishes state event dropout rates for grades
9 to 12 based on state-reported data collected through its annual survey of
state and local public educational agencies, known as the Common Core of
Data (CCD). The number of participating states using sufficiently consistent
data definitions and collection procedures to be included in NCES' annual
report increased from 14 states in the 1991-1992 school year to 37 states
and the District of Columbia for the 1997-1998 school year. State data were
not available states with large school-age populations - California,
Florida, New York, and Texas - in the most recent school year.

1Most recently, 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.

2Recently, 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.

3Recently, 2001 Kids Count Data Book, Annie E. Casey Foundation.

4Recently, Mortenson, Thomas G., High School Graduation Trends and Patterns
1981 to 2000, Postsecondary Education Opportunity, June 2001.

Appendix II: Descriptions of Dropout and Completion Measures

Measure/source Description

Status Dropout Rates Measure the portion of individuals within a particular
age group (typically young adults) who are not enrolled in a high school
program and have not completed high school

National Status Rates (NCES & Annie E. Casey Foundation)

NCES uses data from the CPS to calculate the national status dropout rate,
which it defines as the proportion of 16- to 24-year-olds who are not
enrolled in a high school program and have not completed high school. The
Annie E. Casey Foundation also uses CPS data to calculate a national status
dropout rates, but for a smaller age-range - 16-to 19-year-olds. Both
sources consider those who earn an alternative credential, such as a GED, to
have completed high school.

State Status Rates (Annie E. Casey Foundation)

The Annie  E. Casey Foundation also  uses data from CPS  to calculate status
dropout rates for each state. However, because of the small sample sizes for
some states  the margins  of error  are large and there  is no statistically
significant difference in the  dropout rate between many states with similar
rates.

Cohort Dropout Rate Measures what portion of a group of students, usually in
a single grade, drop out over a period of time

Cohort Rate (NCES) Based on data collected through its National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 -which followed an 1988 eighth-grade student
cohort through four waves of data collection (1988, 1990, 1992, and
1994)-NCES periodically reports a cohort dropout rate for various time
intervals between 1988 and 1994.a

Completion Measures Represent the proportion of young adults, not enrolled
in high school or below, who are defined as having completed high school.
Depending on the measure, "completion" may be characterized by a single
benchmark, such as receipt of a diploma, or, more frequently, includes
high-school equivalence (e.g., GED) and, in some cases, nondegree
certification (e.g., certificate of attendance).

National and State High School Using data from the CPS, NCES computes
completion rates, which it defines as the

Completion Rates (NCES) proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds, not currently
enrolled in high school or below, who have a high school diploma or the
equivalent. NCES typically also reports completion rates excluding
alternative credentials, but did not do so in Dropout Rates in the United
States: of changes being made to the CPS. State rates are based on a 3-year average
of data while national rates are computed from both 3-year and 1-year
databases.

National and State "Regular" High This rate represents the number of
students who, in a given year, complete a regular high

School Graduation Rates (Center for school program and earn a diploma. This
rate compares the number of diploma-earning

the Study of Opportunity in Higher graduates with the number of students
enrolled in the ninth-grade 4 years earlier. The data

Education) for this measure are collected by NCES through the CCD collection
from state education agencies.

aIn addition, in its publications, NCES has compared these rates with those
obtained a decade earlier through its related longitudinal study, High
School & Beyond (HS&B).

Sources: NCES, Dropout Rates in the United States: 2000, Dropout Rates in
the United States: 1998, and Dropout Rates in the United States: 1995, U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement;
High School Dropout Rates, U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, National Institute on the Education of
At-Risk Students, Consumer Guide, Number 16, March 1996; Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2001 Kids Count Data Book; and Mortenson, Thomas G., High School
Graduation Trends and Patterns 1981 to 2000, Postsecondary Education
Opportunity, June 2001.

Appendix III: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention

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.

Table 4: Federal Programs That Can Be Used for Dropout Prevention

Program Federal Department

Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps U.S. Department of Defense (JROTC)

21st Century Community Learning Centers U.S. Department of Education

Carl  D.  Perkins Vocational  and  Technical  U.S. Department  of Education
Education Act of 1998

Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program

 U.S. Department of Education Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions U.S.
                          Department of Education

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I, part A - Basic Grants

                        U.S. Department of Education

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

  U.S. Department of Education High School Reform State Grant Program U.S.
                          Department of Education

     Indian Education Discretionary Grants U.S. Department of Education

        Indian Education Formula Grants U.S. Department of Education

  Migrant Education Program U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug-Free
  Schools and Communities Governor's Program U.S. Department of Education

Smaller Learning Communities Program U.S. Department of Education

Upward Bound U.S. Department of Education

Head Start Program U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Independent Living Program U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Temporary Assistance  to Needy Families U.S. Department  of Health and Human
Services

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Formula Grants
Program

                         U.S. Department of Justice

Title V Community Prevention Grants Program

                         U.S. Department of Justice

OJJDP's Truancy Reduction Demonstration Program

                         U.S. Department of Justice

Migrant Seasonal Farmworker Program U.S. Department of Labor

Youth  Activities U.S.  Department of  Labor  Youth Opportunity  Grants U.S.
Department of Labor

Appendix IV: High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000

Completion rate (percent) State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky 86.2  Louisiana  82.1 Maine 94.5  Maryland 87.4  Massachusetts 90.9
Michigan 89.2  Minnesota  91.9 Mississippi 82.3  Missouri 92.6  Montana 91.1
Nebraska 91.3 Nevada 77.9 New Hampshire 85.1 New Jersey 90.1 New Mexico 83.0
New York 86.3  North Carolina 86.1 North Dakota 94.4 Ohio 87.7 Oklahoma 85.7
Oregon 82.3 Pennsylvania 89.0 Rhode Island 87.9 South Carolina 85.1

Appendix IV: High School Completion Rates, October 1998 Through 2000

Completion rate (percent) State

                             South Dakota 92.0

                               Tennessee 89.0

                                 Texas 79.4

                                 Utah 90.0

                                Vermont 90.8

                               Virginia 87.3

                              Washington 87.4

                             West Virginia 89.6

                               Wisconsin 90.0

                                Wyoming 86.5

Note:  This appendix presents  high school  completion rates of  18- through
24-year-olds not currently enrolled in high school or below.

Source:  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, table B9, pp. 41-42.

                     Page 41 GAO-02-240 School Dropouts

                     Page 42 GAO-02-240 School Dropouts

                     Page 43 GAO-02-240 School Dropouts

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Diana M. Pietrowiak, (202) 512-6239 Charles M. Novak, (206)
287-4794

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Susan Chin, Amy Gleason
Carroll, Jeffrey Rueckhaus, Charles Shervey, and Anjali Tekchandani made key
contributions to this report.

Bibliography

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.

Bibliography

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).

Bibliography

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select
"Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products" under the GAO
Reports heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, D.C. 20013

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

Visit GAO's Document GAO Building

Distribution  Center  Room 1100,  700 4th  Street, NW  (corner of 4th  and G
Streets, NW) Washington, D.C. 20013

To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm,

Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected], or

Federal Programs 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering
system).

Jeff   Nelligan,  Managing   Director,   [email protected]   (202)  512-4800

Public Affairs U.S.  General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149,
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***