Disciplinary alternative schools have a reputation as gateways to the juvenile and criminal justice systems. The authors conducted an evaluation of an intervention (Strategies for Success) designed to divert seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-grade alternative school students from this gateway. They used propensity score matching and a multivariate random effects model to estimate program impacts and found that the program not only increased attendance rates, at least in the short term, but also increased the likelihood of reassignment to alternative schools. The discussion focuses on possible reasons and solutions for high rates of return to alternative school and for the erosion of program effects.
Advancement Project, Padres and Jovenes Unidos, Southwest Youth Collaborative, and Children & Family Justice Center ofNorthwestern University School of Law. 2005. Education on lockdown: The schoolhouse to jailhouse track. Washington, DC: Advancement Project.
2.
Arum, R., and I.R. Beattie.1999. High school experience and the risk of adult incarceration. Criminology37: 515—37.
3.
Carpenter-Aeby, T., and V.G. Aeby.2001. Family-school-community interventions for chronically disruptive students: An evaluation of outcomes in an alternative school. School Community Journal11(2): 75—92.
4.
Cochran, W.G.1968. The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics24: 291—313.
5.
Dehejia, R.H. and S. Wahba.2002. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics84: 151—61.
6.
DiClemente, R.J., G.M. Wingood,K.F. Harrington,D.L. Lang,S.L. Davies,E.W. Hook III , et al. 2004. Efficacy of an HIV prevention intervention for African American adolescent girls. Journal of the American Medical Association292(2): 171—79.
7.
Dunbar, C., Jr.2001. From alternative school to incarceration. Qualitative Inquiry7:158-170.
8.
Dynarski, M. and P. Gleason.2002. How can we help? What have we learned from recent federal dropout prevention evaluations?Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk7(1): 43—69.
9.
Fallis, R.K. and S. Opotow.2003. Are students failing school or are schools failing students? Class cutting in high school. Journal of Social Issues59(1): 103—19.
10.
Freedman, D.A.2006. Statistical models for causation: What inferential leverage do they provide? Evaluation Review30: 691—713.
11.
Ho, D.E., K. Imai, G. King, and E.A. Stuart.2007. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis15: 199—236.
12.
Imbens, G.W.2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics86:4—29.
13.
Kleiner, B., R. Porch, and E. Farris.2002. Public alternative schools and programs for students at risk of education failure2000—01. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
14.
Klopovic, J., M.L. Vasu, and D.L. Yearwood.2003. Effective program practices for at-risk youth: A continuum of community-based programs. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
15.
Lillard, L.A. and C.W.A. Panis.2003. aML Multilevel Multiprocess Statistical Software, Version 2.0. Los Angeles: EconWare.
16.
Luellen, J.K., W.R. Shadish, and M.H. Clark.2005. Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review29: 530—58.
17.
Matthews, A., and W.W. Swan.1999. TOPS: An alternative approach for the at-risk middle school student. Journal of At-Risk Issues6(1): 24—31.
18.
Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, A. Fagan, D. Ballard, and D. Elliott.2004. Successful program implementation: Lessons from Blueprints. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
19.
Owens, L. and L. Konkol.2004. Transitioning from alternative to traditional school settings: A student perspective. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The Journal of Strength-Based Interventions13(3): 173—76.
20.
Richart, D., K. Brooks, and M. Soler.2003. Unintended consequences: The impact of “Zero Tolerance” and other exclusionary policies on Kentucky students. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth.
21.
Rollin, S.A., C. Kaiser-Ulrey, I. Potts, and A.H. Creason.2003. A school-based violence prevention model for at-risk eighth grade youth. Psychology in the Schools40:403-416.
22.
Rubin, D.B. and N. Thomas.2000. Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association95: 573—85.
23.
Sekhon, J.S.2007. Alternative balance metrics for bias reduction in matching methods for causal inference. Unpublished working paper. Retrieved August 10, 2007 from http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/ .
24.
Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell.2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
25.
Skiba, R.J., R.S. Michael, A.C. Nardo, and R.L. Peterson.2002. The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review34: 317—42.
26.
Stevick, E.D. and B.A.U. Levinson .2003. From noncompliance to Columbine: Capturing student perspectives to understand noncompliance and violence in public schools. The Urban Review35(4): 323—49.
27.
Stürmer, T., M. Joshi, R.J. Glynn, J. Avorn, K.J. Rothman, and S. Schneeweiss.2006. A review of the application of propensity score methods yielded increasing use, advantages in specific settings, but not substantially different estimates compared with conventional multivariable methods. Journal ofClinical Epidemiology59: 437—47.
28.
Wald, J. and D.J. Losen.2003. Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development99: 9—15.
29.
Wang, X., T.G. Blomberg, and S.D. Li.2005. Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation Review29: 291—312.
30.
Weissberg, R.P., K.L. Kumpfer, and M.E.P. Seligman , M.E.P. 2003. Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist58: 425—32.
31.
Wheelock, A. and J. Miao.2005. The ninth-grade bottleneck: An enrollment bulge in a transition year that demands careful attention and action. School Administrator62(3): 36—40.
32.
Wilson, D.B., D.C. Gottfredson, and S.S. Najaka.2001. School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology17: 247—72.
33.
Wolf, E. and K. Sowards.2005. Strategies for Success: Final evaluation report to the U.S. Department of Education. Syracuse, NY: Justice Strategies, Center for Community Alternatives.
34.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
