“…and it is not a time like when I was a teenager. I could just impress a supervisor or manager, fill out the application, and I had a job…But now, I have to break that down to [the youth] consistently and show them they can’t get discouraged…And that’s my fear: [their] frustration and despair.” — Ralph, Workforce Development Specialist, October 2010.
Ralph is speaking about the young adults who have dropped out of school and for whom he is seeking job placements. Surely, their “frustration and despair” resound in today’s headlines and in the many communities in which 40% or more of adolescents fail to complete high school.
The major challenges in reaching dropouts are scale and selection. Scale, because only a small proportion are served with current resources; selection because most programs, including the leading national initiatives, are designed to enroll participants with skills that are strong enough that they can achieve a diploma and be ready for a job within months. The problem is that seventy percent of dropouts read and do math below the eighth grade level. Most will be require a year or more to obtain a GED and will face multiple hurdles before they are ready for stable employment. Prolonging services means that achieving marketable outcomes for young adults is expensive, and results uncertain, as some will drift away when the pathway gets lengthy. This presents an enormous challenge for the field. In 2011–2012, I studied two leading community-based programs for youth who have dropped out of high school, observing activities, interviewing staff and tracking 27 participants for one year. I focused at the community level because this is where most young adults are served, and yet these programs receive little attention.
For the case studies, I sought strong sites that were initiated and managed locally and served nearly the full range of dropouts. After reviewing five, I selected two–each in a major northeastern city. Beyond specific practices or components, what I observed to be the most important features of these sites were that: 1) each has a profound commitment to this population and has been in operation for at least seven years despite ongoing difficulties with the funding and policy environment, 2) each has sought to continually refine its work in light of experience and research, and 3) each has demonstrated the ability to sustain the involvement of many participants for a year or more and help them complete steps towards a marketable outcome.
I have also found that the sites share characteristics, which, when taken together, are key to their strength of operation. Detailed descriptions of their work and participant responses can be found in the full case study.
In these programs:
The shifting funding and policy environments are a constant challenge to local programs. But when well-implemented and with an integrated set of these strategies, these programs enable young people to advance. At the same time, advocating for additional funding that would enable outreach to more young people, especially those who have the greatest gaps in skills, is critically important.