Your browser does not support JavaScript!
PREVENTION
Academic Skills Enhancement
Afterschool/Recreation
Alternative School
Bullying
Classroom Curricula
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
Community Awareness/Mobilization
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gang Prevention
Gender-Specific Programming
Leadership and Youth Development
Mentoring
Parent Training
School/Classroom Environment
Truancy Prevention
Vocational/Job Training
Wraparound/Case Management
IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Afterschool/Recreation
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Conflict Resolution/Interpersonal Skills
Diversion
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gender-Specific Programming
Parent Training
Teen/Youth Court
Restorative Justice
Wraparound/Case Management
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Afterschool/Recreation
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Drug Court
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gun Court
Gender-Specific Programming
Home Confinement
Mental Health Court
Probation Services
Restorative Justice
Shelter Care
Wraparound/Case Management
RESIDENTIAL
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Correctional Facilities
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Group Home
Residential Treatment Centers
Wilderness Camps
REENTRY
Aftercare
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Reentry Court
Vocational/Job Training
MPG HOME
SEARCH HOME
SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE
SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS
PROGRAM TYPES
RATING SYSTEM
REFERENCES
NOMINATE PROGRAMS
RELATED LINKS
RESOURCES
DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE
DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE
Reconnecting Youth
Intervention:
Reconnecting Youth is a school-based prevention program that helps youth at risk of dropping out. The three primary program goals are to 1) increase school performance, 2) decrease drug involvement, and 3) decrease suicide-risk behaviors. The class concentrates on skills training within the context of adult and peer support. The class helps at-risk youth strengthen protective factors while reducing suicide and other related risk factors in four primary areas: school, peers, family, and self. The program targets students in grades 9 through 12 who show signs of poor school achievement and potential for dropping out of high school (low grades and absenteeism) and who exhibit other problem behaviors such as substance abuse, depression, and suicidal ideation.
The Reconnecting Youth class consists of 10 to 12 students and incorporates social support and life skills training into a daily, semester-long class using a 75-lesson curriculum. The class is part of the high school curriculum, and students are usually invited (but are not required) to participate in the class. Students who do take part in Reconnecting Youth receive course credit for participating. Students who would benefit the most from Reconnecting Youth are identified from among set criteria:
The student is behind in credits for a grade level and is in the highest 25th percentile for absences and has a grade point average (GPA) below 2.3.
The student has a prior dropout status.
The student is referred by school personnel and meets one or more of the criteria in point 1.
The Reconnecting Youth class is a theory-based intervention that incorporates components of strain, social learning, and social control theories into an integrated model. The class concentrates on two essential components: social support and life-skills training. The social support elements framing the program are a) a network component built on prosocial relationship bonds emerging between the teacher and students and within the intervention peer group and b) a social support process derived from the group interaction processes and life-skills training. The life-skills training consists of four elements: self-esteem enhancement, decision-making, personal control, and interpersonal communication. Each unit’s presentation is sequenced, beginning with skill introduction, skill development, application, and finally skill transfer and relapse prevention. Problem-related skills are also included in each unit and are applied to the central program goals, such as increasing mood management to decrease depression, suicide risk behavior, and anger control problems.
The Reconnecting Youth Leader who runs the class (usually a school staff member who excels at working with high-risk youth and has completed the Reconnecting Youth training module) monitors class attendance, school achievement, moods, drug involvement, and social interactions and also helps establish drug-free social activities and friendships.
Evaluation Methodology:
Study 1
Program effectiveness was first studied by Eggert, Seyi, and Nicholas (1990) using a quasi-experimental design with 264 high-risk students in a northwestern urban high school serving predominately white, middle-class students. High-risk students were identified by computer-generated lists of 9th through 12th graders who met one or more of the following criteria: previous dropout status, below-average school performance (low GPA, deficits in earned credits toward graduation), and chronic absenteeism (below-average attendance). High-risk students were assigned on a first-come–first-served basis to either the experimental group or the control group. Of the 107 high-risk students originally assigned to the experimental group, 73 completed a full semester of the intervention. The comparison group originally included 157 students identified as high-risk and eligible for participating in the class but who could not be accommodated or chose not to participate. From this pool, 73 were randomly selected to match the experimental group. The experimental group was on average 17 years old; more than half were male (53 percent), and 42 percent lived with a single parent. The experimental and control groups were similar in age and family living situations. Major differences between the groups included a larger percentage of males versus females in the comparison group and a higher proportion of 12th graders in the experimental group. The comparison group also experienced more transfers to different schools.
The study measured school achievement, truancy or school attendance, and drug involvement. School achievement was measured by students’ GPAs and the number of credits earned each semester, obtained through academic records. Drug involvement was measured using the Drug Involvement Scale that included 22 Likert-type items in two subscales: Adverse Drug Consequences and Drug Use. The major analyses used a two-factor mixed ANOVA to test the experimental and comparison groups’ pretreatment and posttreatment credits earned, GPAs, and absences per semester. Paired t–tests were used to test pretreatment and posttreatment drug involvement changes for program participants only.
Study 2
A replication study completed by Eggert and colleagues (1994) used a two-group, repeated-measure, intervention trial to study program effectiveness at four northwestern urban high schools. The study sample randomly assigned 259 youths at high risk of dropping out of school to either the experimental or control condition, including 101 students in the experimental group and 158 students in the control group. The experimental group went through a 1-semester, 5-month elective course taken as one of five or six regular classes. The control group went through a regular school schedule. The experimental group was 50.5 percent male and 26.0 percent minority, with an average age of 16. The experimental and control groups did differ on many characteristics at the baseline. Students in the experimental group tended to be older and evidenced more school absences and lower GPAs. Program participants also reported lower levels of support from teachers, higher levels of drug use, and greater drug control problems and consequences. Thus, there appears to be a self-selection bias operating in the study: high-risk experimental students with fewer problems refused to participate in the prevention program, or youths who refused to participate in the control group were less well off, or both conditions may be true.
Given the selection bias, trend analysis was used to test the effectiveness of the intervention program. The study measured program effectiveness by comparing school performance and drug involvement at program exit (5 months) and at follow-up (10 months). School performance was measured by semester GPA and class absences, based on school records. Drug involvement was measured by the Drug Involvement Scale for Adolescents, which looked at drug use progression, drug control, and adverse consequence. Self-esteem, school bonding, and deviant peer bonding were also measured using the High School Questionnaire: Inventory of Experiences.
Evaluation Outcome:
Study 1
In terms of school achievement the posttest results showed that the intervention program retained significantly more potential dropouts than did the regular school program for the control group (74 percent versus 61 percent). Although both high-risk groups displayed a downward trend before treatment, during the program the experimental group improved their GPAs and earned more credits per semester while the comparison students continued to decline, creating a significant interaction effect. In addition, truancy decreased for the students who participated in the program, while it grew worse for students in the control group. Though students in the experimental group initially had higher truancy rates than the comparison students, their absenteeism dropped, while the control students’ absences continued to increase.
In terms of drug involvement, students in the experimental group significantly decreased their drug use, reported fewer problems with family and friends, and experienced fewer disciplinary actions in school over time (these results were not compared with the control group, who were not asked about drug involvement).
Study 2
Students who participated in the program showed a tendency (though not significant) to curb their progression of drug use. They also showed a significant decrease in drug control problems and consequences, compared with students in the control group. However, both groups were equally likely to avert progression of their drug use (from cigarette and alcohol use to hard drugs) and equally likely to decrease problems controlling drug use and consequences of adverse use.
With regard to school achievement, in the 2 semesters prior to entering the program the experimental group did not significantly differ from control students with respect to GPA. By the semester immediately preceding the program, the experimental group was showing a steady decline in GPA and was experiencing significantly poorer school performance. However, the analysis showed that by the end of the intervention semester the experimental group had increased their GPAs across all classes taken, while control students’ GPAs remained essentially the same.
With respect to absences, both groups were showing an increase in class absenteeism before the intervention semester. During the semester, truancy continued to increase for the control group, while there was no change for the experimental group. In addition, program participants perceived improvements in grades, whereas the control students did not, which was supported by the improvement in students’ GPAs. However, the experimental group was also more likely to perceive that their school attendance improved over time, even though this was not reflected in school records.
The experimental group also showed a steady, significant increase in self-esteem scores, while there was essentially no change for the control group. Females in the experimental group showed a significant decreasing trend in deviant peer bonding, while males in the experimental group and both male and female controls showed no shift in their relations with deviant peers. The experimental group also showed a steady increasing trend in perceived school bonding compared with the control group.
Other Information:
References:
Eggert, Leona L. and Jerald R. Herting. 1991. “Preventing Teenage Drug Abuse: Exploratory Effects of Network Social Support.”
Youth & Society
22(4):482–524.
Eggert, Leona L. and Christine D. Seyi, and Liela K. Nicholas. 1990. “Effects of a School-Based Prevention Program for Potential High School Dropouts and Drug Abusers.”
The International Journal of the Addictions
25(7):773–801.
Eggert, Leona L. Elaine Adams Thompson, Jerald R. Herting, and Liela J. Nicholas. 1995. “Reducing Suicide Potential Among High-Risk Youth: Tests of a School-Based Prevention Program.”
Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior
25(2):276–96.
Eggert, Leona L., Elaine Adams Thompson, Jerald R. Herting, Liela J. Nicholas, and Barbara Garii Dicker. 1994. “Preventing Adolescent Drug Abuse and High School Dropout Through an Intensive School-Based Social Network Development Program.”
American Journal of Health Promotion
8:202–15.
Thompson, Elaine Adams, Leona L. Eggert, and Jerald R. Herting. 2000. “Mediating Effects of an Indicated Prevention Program for Reducing Youth Depression and Suicide Risk Behaviors.”
Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior
30(3):252–71.
Program Specification:
Current Rating:
Promising
Expected Date of Re-Review:
Summer 2013
Program Type:
Alcohol and Drug Therapy / Education
Classroom Curricula
Conflict Resolution / Interpersonal Skills
Truancy Prevention
Ethnicity:
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
White
Gender:
Both
Age:
14
-
19
Special Populations:
Truant/Dropout
Target Settings:
Suburban
Urban
Problem Behaviors:
Academic Problems
Alcohol,Tobacco and Other Drug Use
Risk & Protective Factors:
Risk
Individual
Favorable attitudes toward drug use/Early onset of AOD use/Alcohol and/or drug use
School
Low academic achievement
Negative attitude toward school / Low bonding / Low school attachment / Commitment to school
Protective
Individual
Positive / Resilient temperament
Religiosity / Involvement in organized religious activities
Social competencies and problem solving skills
Peer
Involvement with positive peer group activities
School
High expectations of students
High quality schools / Clear standards and rules
Presence and involvement of caring, supportive adults in school
Additional Information:
SAMHSA: NREPP
NIDA: Preventing Drug Abuse
Status:
Program is in operation at this time.
Performance Measures:
Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):
Delinquency Prevention
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model:
PDF
Performance Matrix:
PDF
School Programs
Classroom Curricula
Logic Model:
PDF
Performance Matrix:
PDF
School Programs
Truancy Prevention
Logic Model:
PDF
Performance Matrix:
PDF
Contact Information:
Program Developer:
Liela J. Nicholas
Reconnecting Youth Prevention Research Programs
14620 Northeast 65th Court
Redmond,
WA
98052
Phone: 4258611177
Fax: 4258618071
Email:
Click Here
Website:
Click Here