ED 189 531

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPORT NOPUB DATEGRANTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CG 014 5513

mai, Laraine M.: And others.The Learning Laboratory. The Door--A Center ofAlternatives. Services ReFearch Mono9raph Series.International Center for Inteqrative Studies, NewYork, N.Y.National Inst. on Drug Abuse (DNEW/PHS), Rockville,Md.DBMS-ADM-BO-928BO5H81-DA-01674-0152p.

MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.. Adjustment )(to Environmapt1: Adolescents: *DrugAbuse: Drug Education; *trug Rehabilitation:*Intervention; Models: *Nontraditional Education;Progrhi Evaluation: *Youth Problems; *YouthPrograms

ABSTRACTThis report preseks the findings and recommendations

of the Learning aboratory project, an exploratory study of analternative education model designed to help drug-abusingaddlescents. Th, materials address: (1) the- facility, materiale,staff, and activities of the pro4ram: /(2) the curriculum, basicskills morkshoph, language classes, field trips, and counselingsessions: (3) the six modes of client'evaluation;, ((4) clientdkaracteristics: (5) program effectiVeness reflected by client

` educational progress, involvement, and drug use change; ane(6)criteria used to predict success and failure of the participants./Recommendations, areas of.continued problems, a bibliography, andstatistical appendices are also provided. (HLM)

k

************************************************************ ************ Reprodpctions supplied by EDP* are the best that can be made *

* .,, from the original document1 *

. w

-,-41;1110ri

I.

i

THIS DocATNIE NI HAS OF EN REPRO-MOLT- 0 F XA( ILV A% RECEIVED FROMTilt PC RSON OIl ORGANIZAT ION ORIGIN-ATING IT POIN TS Of VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATE ID DO NOT NE(ESSA41Il 'Y REPT/E-st NT Of I I( IA( NATIONAl INSTITUTE OFROW- A HON POSITION OR PO( ICY ,f

V

The DoorA Center of Alternatives

U 011PARTMONT OF NIIALTH.BOUCA.TIONIL WILFARIINATIONAL INSTITUT! OF

!DUCAT ION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERWESPublic Health Service <

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration*

National Institute on Drug Abuse5600 fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland20857

,143

trS JUL 3 1980

Th( Services Research Reporto and Monograph Series far e issued 1)y the staf fof the Services Research Branch, Division of Resource Development , National,lnslitute on Drug Abuse., ,:_twir primary purpose is to provide r epor Is tothe drug abuse treatreont fnwmunity on tlw service del iver y and poi 1cy-oriented findings from E3 rary'ch-sponso red studies. I hese will include stateof the art studies , innovative service delivery models for dif ferent clientpopulations, innovative troo tine nt management and financing t echniques, and

Atreatment Outcome studies.

Thls project was conducted by Laraine M. Mai with the assistance of Suzanne F. Pedrick andMichael B. Greene undeAr NIDA grant No. 51101 DA 01() 711-03 to T he International Center forIntegrative Studies, New Yorl(, flew York 10011.

J

,

1.7

>f

The material contained herein does not necessarify reflect the opinions, official policy, or posi-tion of the National institute on Drug Abuse of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental HealthAdministration, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The photographs in this publication cannot be reproduced without written,permissionfrom The Door, 6181Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10011.

DHHS PublicatiOn No. (ADM) 80-929Printed 1980

43

Preface

This- report presents the findlogs and recommendations of the Learning Laboratory

project, an exploratory study 'of an alternative education mocked designed to help treat

drug-abusing adolescents. The Learning Laboratory demonstration project was oper-ated by The Door--A 'tenter of Alternatives, a reultiservii:e center for youths in NOW

York C i ty . (II thin T iwse Door s- -A Repert on T he Door- - A Center of Al to rna lives , a

publication whicE describes various programs opera(ed-by the boor, .wilf be ivaiLibleshortly from the National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse information.) Both The Door

and the Learning Laboratory are projects of the International Center for integrative

Studies. The initial ideas for the establishment of the project developed friom 3 years

of experience of the Education Counseling Services of The Deor in aiding drug-abusing

youths. Many of these youths did not seek-help from traditional drug,treatment pro-

grams. They .did, however, see a poor education and lack of basic skills as major

obstacles in obtaining satisfying jobs, vocational training; or higher educdtion.

The Learning Laboratory was designed to offer these youths an environment in which

to address and resolve adjustment problems through participation lit a practical learn-ing process. It was also designed to serve as a' model program which could be repli-

Cated within the public Isc.hool system, other drug treatment, programs, or relevanthuman services agenciesi

This descriktion of the Learning Li)Joratary programi/and its impact will 'have signifi-

cance for persons engaged in the provision of both treatment and prevention services.

The Learning Laboratory is not only an important treatment experience, but also holds

promise as a major progrdm of early intervention. As will be discussed in the report,the youths (ages 12-21) seen In the Learning Laboratory are Usually school dropouts(.76 percent), unemployed (75 percent), and are using opiate or--more commonly--

'nonoplate drugs with some frequency. While most of the Learning Laboratory youths

report an arrest history, comparatively few have been convieted and/or imprisoned.The Learning Laboratory then provided thes'e youngsters with an alternative to theantisocial drug-related careers on which Boy had embarked. Youngsters whj- had

reason to see- themselves as failures in school and failures in ilfe were,provIdedunique opportunities to build self-esteem and competence In areas crucial to their later

functioning, The Learning Laboratory sought 'to build core lite skills as well -as -core

academic and vocational skills. What follows is a description of that program and ananalysis bf Its ,Impact on ,the youngsters referred to it.

1

,

1

e

Contents

PREFACE'7 >-

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

111

1

1. BACKGROUND 3

2. THE PROGRAM 5

3. CURRICULUM 11

/1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 17

5. CLIENT CHARACTERISTICS 20

6. EVALUATION OF PROGRESS 25

7. PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS

U. NEED FOR SUPPLEMENTARY SEftVICES 311

9. SIGN IFCCANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SELECTED 'BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX A,

APPENDIX B

i v

37

111

119

1

Introdiiction apcir\ Summary

The Learning Laboratory, a 3-year researchand demonstration project funded Aby theNational institute on Drug Abuse, *as devel-oped In 1974 by the international Center forintegrative Studies as a'modef to demonstrateand evaluate the drug treatment and rehabili-tative effects Of an experimental educationproiram. The project was specificallydesigned to serve inner-city youths who wereInvolved in drug abuse, who had learningproblems, and who had become disinterestedin and alienated from th4ir schools. LearningLaboratory clients were Vouths who had failedrepeatedly or been "pushed on" in school-who struggled with fear-piing problems due.toemotional, social, or phYsical difficulties orcultural differences, who lacked sufficient

'skills to apply for high school equivalencypreparation or vocational training programs,and who lacked self-confidence and realisticlife goals. The Learning Laboratory was-established to offer. these youthful drug abus-eri an individualized structured educationand treatment program. It was structuredto help youngsters come to a greeter under-standing of and develop the ability to dealwith the factors underlying their drug useand educational problems, while preparingthemselves through the acquisition of neededskills to establish an independent, construc-,tive, and drug-free life.

In January 1975, the Learning Laboratorybegan adtnitting youthful tirug abusersbetween the ages of 12 and 21. During thenert 3 years, 160 young people participatedIn the program.' Seventy-three percent (117)of this group remained in the Learning Labor-atory for 3 months or more and actively.par-

' ticipated for, an average of 6.5 months'. Ofthis group, which comprised the study sample,76 percent were school dropouts, 75 percentwere unemployed, ,tand 95 percent were regular(daily to once-per:reek) drug users. Follow-up cytta were collected on 54 participants dur-ing the final months of the program.

As reflected in the drug abuse and dropoutliterature, youths who came to the programwere experiencing nuMerous difficulties inthe Interpersonal, familial, and socioeconomic

dimensions of their lives. Thirty-six percentof the participants came to the progrbm byword of moutt), having heard of the LearningLaboratory from friends or relAtives, whileothers were ,referred by agencies and Institu-tions including the public schools, the courts,and adolescent reeidences. Ongoing contactwas maintained with several of t ese agencies,and muttial systems of.support, referral, andinformation exchange we tablished.

The Learning Laboratory treatment componentsaddressed a variety of topics on remedial to

\ advanced levels and used a range of formatsfor learning in order to meet appropriatelyhe diversity of problems and interests of

clients. In addition to improving academicand prevocational skills, the workshops,special projects, and other components wereoriented toward increasing clients' knowledge .

about personal, social, vocation'al, and envi-ronmental issues, problems with which inner-city adolescents commonly struggle and whichare fraquently associated with youthful drugabuse. Program combonents were organized i

into the following areas: individualized basicskills workshops; nglish as a second languageand Spanish language workshops, theme-centered workshops, special projects and fieldtrips, community meetings, and indivigluilcounseling..

Learning Laboratory clients participated inregularly scheduled evaluations of Abeir prog-ress. These included monthly mid-cYcle, end-of-cycle, and quarterly evaluations, andcovered changes in participants' learningskills, attitudes, and behavior. Each youngperson also kept a journal of daily activities.

The effectiveness of the program was statis-tically evaluated by measuring peetest andposttest. changes in threedimensions of theparticipants' lives: ; educational progress,drug use pa terns, end involvement in pur-poseful bCtIvl es (employmerit, training, and/,or education). , The participants were foundto have significantly Improved in all threeareas, and the results Indicate that the pro-gram was therapeutically effective. ' In addi-tion, the results contrast favorably with

1

,

46:

normative trends and with other types of pro-,grammatic Interventions.r--**

Analyses of which clients were most and leastsuccessful in the program indjcated that thosewho were least successful generally had sig-nifkantly poorer initial reading levels andshowed greater instability in their living situ-ations. Five of the 10 specially developededucation indices significantly discriminatedthe successful from the unsuccessful.partici-pants. An analysis of the reasons -why par-ticipants left the program revealed that morethan- half left as a consequence of personal

111

Or emotional f)roblenui, and moody hall leftdue to financial pressures. Professional psy-chological assessment and counseling, stipends,and vocational training- wore [-mom-mended as supplemeiltary, servk.es that couldhelp to address these problems- more fully Infuture programs of this kind. An analysisof the clients' needs at foliowup indicated acpntinued pa ttern .of financ al hardship and aneed for vocational skills t ning as well asa continued interest in -ing their- edu(a--

.;tion.

1. Background

The extent of school failure among yduths Is

clearly, though not exclusively, demonstratedby the high rate of dropping out among highschool student!. Throe generah questionsregarding the nature of the dropout problemhave been asked: (1) Why do youths dropout of school? (2) Are there any character-istics distinguishing those who drop out ofschool/ (3) What are the consequences of-dropping out in terms of the psychologicalneeds of adolescents/. These questions, ofcourse, can only JP IP addressed very brieflyhere. Very little empirical work has exploredthe problem of why adolescents drop out ofschool. The Community. Council of GreaterHew York conducted a survey of researchaddressing this question and found a widerange of reasons why young people drop out(1976). Most research has focused on thecharacteristics of youths who do drop outand has Ibugil that they are typically alienatedfrom their sthools, their families, their domi-nant peer group, and from the economic main-stream (Mechan and Mink 1970; Cervantes1965; Schreiber 1970; Elliot and Voss 19710.,

In addition, the institutional and interpersonalsupports important to normal adolescent

/growth are muar-less available to dropoutsthan to youths in school. That such support'resides, in great measure, in the Schools isreflected in the finding that the peak agefor Juvenile delinquency in. England shifteddramat.ically from age 13 to 14 at exactly thesame time at 'which the mandatory school ageincreased from 13 to 14 (Mays 1971). AsErikson (1963, 1968) and others havestressed, adolescents need gradually andfreely to explore their Interests, creative out-lets, career ideas, interpersonal needs, likes,and dislikes. They need to build a resilientand stable personal and egclal identity.' Thisprocess Is facilitated by encolinters with avariety of positive adult role models. Theseopportunitle, for psychological and psycho-social gro h are greatly diminished whenthe adoies leaves ichool. For manyyouths, the nal result of dropping Out isthat they are prematurely forced to make life.decisions and choices tbr which they are notprepared.

3

Atthough tu-dies of dropping out and ofadolescer rug abuse have generally remainedseparate. c nsiderabie overlap In the iharatterliatIons of dropouts and drug abuser 5 canbe found. A significantly higher Incidenceof Illicit drug use has been found amongdropouts (Johnston 1973). Furthermore, drugabuse has been found to be inversely relatedto school achievement (Smith and Fogg 1975;Johnston 1973, 1974). Johnston found that"level of education Is Inversely related toevery one of the drugs, legal and illegal,during the school years" (1973, p. 129).That is, youths who use any or all of theIllicit drugs tend to perform less adequatelythan do nonusers. However, Johnston iscareful to point out that these reported gradedecrements occurred at least as far back asthe ninth grade, before most adolescentsstarted using drugs. It Is, therefore, Impos- .

sIble to determine the direction of causality.As Johnston suggests, some other underlyingfactor or set of factors may have stimulatedboth drug use aQd dropping out.

" tAs with youth who drop out of high school,adolescent drug users and abusers also tend 'to be alleriatipi from school, their family, andthtir peers, and. typically have poor self-esteem and ikk self-confidence (Block 1975;Carman 1973; Johnston 1973; Adler and Joteca1973; Kandel 1975; Smith and Fogg 1975;Norem-Hebeisen 1975; Wechsler and Thum 1973;Yinkelovich 1975). Drugs are often used byadolescents as a buffer against the stressesand strains of growing into adulthood efhphen1971; Dohner 1973),- a transition which istypically more traumatic for the high schooldropout than Kr the high school of collegestudent. Instead of leer ing how{to coperealistically and construc eiy with anxiety,disappointments, depre on, and identitycon sion, many adolescents turn to drugs,whic are often readily available. In manycas s these youths feel that society end itsinstitutions are unresponsive to their needand that there is no meaningful place forthem. They mild support from their peersand from responsible adults In order to gainstrength and confidence to* cope with theirmany life struggles. They also need

encouragement and quiderwe in becomingactively Involved In meanitsgful activities whichfacilitate rather than hinder adolescent devel-opment. Without such opportunities, manyyouth become increasingly Involved with thesubculture of drug abusers and becomeincreasingly fearful of learning to deal withtheir problems without the aid of drugs.Without viapie options many eventually actout their problems end hostilities In sociallyand psychologleally damaging ways (Prebleand (asey 1969).

Information derived from documented researchstudies suggests several general guidelinesfor education programs serving adolescents.If dropping out and drug Meuse are viewedas behavioral manifestations of feeling unre-lated to persons and institutions In the envi-ronment and as indicative of unresolvedconflicts within themselves, then any attemptto resolve these problems must be directedboth at alleviating alienation and at creatingopportunities to facilitate personal growthand exploration. Despite their failures inschool, the vast majority of these youngpeople express a strong desire tO learn (Com-munity Council of Greater New York 1976),but they do not wish to return to their pre-vious schools (Lokin 1973). Elliot and Voss(1974) found that dropping out of school, byvirtue of removing the youth from an intoler-able setting, often reduced the dropout's rateof delinquent behavior..

Al number of suggestions drawn from researchliterature can be set forth which take Intoconsideration the desire to learn among drop-outs and ,drug abusers, as-lwell as theirbroad-balged alienation and their histories offailures. end frtIstration . First, any educa-tional program fol' "pr m youths" shouldprovide a setting in whi the young peoplereceive structured support for their efforts.This could involve idividualized attentionand availability ofLeathers or counselors withwhom the young eerson can feel comfortablespeaking about academic as well as personalproblems. These adolescents need someoneto talk with about the difficulties they maybe having in relating positively with theirpeers, parents, and other adults. , They needto be able to talk with adults who will listen

fl

and, respond suppdrtWely In a nonludgmbnt almanner about serious issues such as druguse or boy fr lend /91 rl fr lend tonflic ts . Theyalso need to learn how to apply what theylearn In school to their daily lives. TheImportance of proAddlnq for these needs IsIndica ted In several studios, as well- as, inthe Learning I aboratory findings . Repeat-edly, participants in Ow Learning Laboratoryindicated that, while they Were in school they.felt there was no one In the school systemthey could 'really talk to, that too muchemphasis was piacti on grades, and that theteachers did not, respect them (Thornburg1971, 1975; Ahistrom and Havighurst 1971;Community Council of Greater New York 1976;'National 1-ducation Association of the UnitedStates 1965; Wynne 1976):

Second, as many of these studies Indicate,these young people, felt alienated from thecontent of what is taught In school and unin-volved in selecting what to study. An educa-tion program should provide students anopportunity to learn about and becomeInvolved in activities that are meaningful totheir lives. These might Include workshopsand seminars on such topics as developinglife skills, psychosocial problems of adoles-cents, career exploration, vocational skillstraining, ethnic studies, and physical fitness.The selection of subjects should reflect anattitude that all alpects of the young person's'life are Important, and that education is anenterprise which deals holistically with people'slives. Whatever learning opportunities areoffered, the young people should participateactively to the degree appropriate In theirselection.

Third,.'there should be built into the programthe means for working cooperatively in groups.Students should be encouraged.to work non-competitively with peers, to reduce theirsense of alienation, to develop a more positiveself-Image, and to increase their, ability towork productively with others.

Finally, youths need to participatelin estab-lishing realistic short- and long-term goalsfor themselves, and their teachers need toprovide frequent feedback and evaluation oftheir progress.

9

2. The Program

. FACILITY

The Learning Labotratory wa4; ,located Inthe facility housing The Dem4--A Center 'of

Alternatives, a multiservice center for youthsin New York City. It was designed to Incor-porate many of the features of an open class-room, a multimedia learning center, and alibrary. Areas for workshops and projects,

T

5

et,

4

V.

'

'oi-P6"

,t

1: neNtim

'

V-Y o c4A

special audiovisual presentations, group meet-ings, tutoring, and individual study wereset up a n d defined by flexible arrangementsof tables, carrels, files'', and bookshelves.Minienvironments were created utilizing books,wall maps, poster, and other materialsreflecting the activities of each major work-shop area . The resource center containedbasic reference materials such as encyclope-dias, newspapers, magazines, . dictionaries,and atlases, as well as a variety of 1.wint andnonprint materials of general interest. Theresource center was ava ilable to any partici-pant during program hours and Served toencourage participantsAto explore their owninterests and to Improve their academic skillseither on their own or with peers, outsidethe regularly scheduled activities. The physi-cal environment of the Learning Laboratorywas intended to diminish the young person'sfear of being "trapped" in a traditional schoolsetting and to reduce the tendency to identifya new educational program -with previousschools and negative associations.

1

EDUCATIONAL MATERIALSAND TECHNOLOGY

The collection of prin't*and nonprint materialscovered a wide varietyof areas im ludingremedial reading, mathematics, writing skills,secondary stience. and social studies. Englishas a second language, literature, consumereducation, life skills, anthropology, religion,career INiucatIon, ecology, psychology,women's studies, and btack, Hispanic, andThird World studies. 'To the extent possible,materials of varying levels of difficulty andof different formats were collected in eacharea. Materials from participants' own lifesituations, such as subway and bus Maps,job apOlitation forms, recipes, %directories,product labels, directions, and want ads werealso collected. Ail materials were organizedaccording to workshops or interest areas andwere color coded to make them easier tolocate. All participants were entitled to takeout books from the library for 2-week periods.

. ,

`74L

, 4 =I ,

e 27.

. .

ftStSt

In addition to print materials, many types ofeducational audiovisual hardware and softwarewere selected. Criteria used In selectingequipment included simplicity and flexibilityof use, durability, economy, and variety ofmaterials each machine was able to accommo-date. The media library included the follow-ing audiovisual equipment: sound filmstripprojectors, silent fi1m4trip projectors, 8-mmprojectors, a 16-mm projector, a ilide pro-jector (with accompanying tape recorder forsynchronized sound-slide presentations), anoverhead projector, tape recorders, readingpacers, calculators, and typewriters. A col-lection of audiovisual materials specific to eachpiece of equipment was developed and contin-ued to expand throughout the existence ofthe Learning Lal)oratory.

All of the educational materials were evalu-ated for their appropria,teness and relevance

to the needs and interests of inner-city,drug-abusing youths and for quality of pres-entation, level of difficulty, educationalapproach, durability, and economy. Specialattention was given to the selection of high-interest/low-level materials, in areas wherethere were few good commercially prodtwedmaterials, teachers developed their own.Informal evaluation) of the educational materi-als was made continually by both the staffand the participants, and suggestions fornew materials were frequently elicited.

STAFF AND STAFF TRAINING

The staff consisted of an administrative direc-tor, a research associate, a program coordina-tor (supervising teacher), a counselor, four -

teachers, a teacher aide, a librarian/media

.14

-4,`'1.4

1Pr't

40.

forr'j-V

7

4

12

St.

3t1

k

Ytr

specialist, and volunteer tutors. In develop-ing an innovative education and drug treat-ment program for youths who had frequentlyfailed in school and other life endeavors, theselection and training of a capable staff wasof major importance. After an initial screen-ing interview, those who seemed most quali-fied and interested In the .project wereInvited-to participate in a supervised pricticeteaching or counseling .session. In additionto professional requirements Specific te eachposition, all staff members,were required tohave a mlnimorn of.'2 years Axperience work-ing with urbon youth, te be flekible in. their

.approadi to education and.counseling, to betelom oriented., arid to enjoy working with .

young people.

All new staff members received apOroximately1 month of initial orientation-and training.Training in -the use of tlient thirts, Inter-.. .

1'44' 4.,1"V

viewing techniques, writing of monthly evalu-ations, angi filling out the educational indiceswas continued throughout the orientation peri-od. During this month, the new staff mem-

, bars Also participated in workshops, attendedstaff meetings, and were trained in the con-tent and use or the educational materials andt(ichnology utilized by the project. Also,the new teaching staff were allotted time todevelop the curriculum for their assignedworkshops.

In addition to this initial orientation andtraining period, ongoing training was con-ducted on a regular basis. This trainingwas instituted to supplement the staff's pro-fessional education and experience and wasdesigned to help them to respond more effec-tively to the needs of the inner-city, drug-abusing youths': Outside sneakers wereinvited to conduct training sessions on such

topics as drugs and drut; abuse, human rela--tiOn5 and comimmicition, counselhig arid interviewing skills, arid the dynamics of adolescent.development , hi-Jun.1Se training sessions wer ealso conducted hi Ylali areas AS currk Oh011development. individyalizati.on of materials,recordkeeping, couris-eling, and organizat kmalskills. I nseryk: e meetings were held twice awitiek. T hese meetings served qs a forum fornew program -ideas and procedures, xoordina-t ion of program components. disc uss ion of '1

strategies for dealing with new problems, antitreatment planning sessions for new as well `'as ongoing clients. Mat f meetings arid train-ing sessions enabled tht s\ 1 f memh.ers to'I

work together as an integrat d, mutually sup-portive, interdisciplinary team.

PROGRAM ORGANIZATION

The Learning Laboratory operated 5. days aweek on a year-round _basis, in the after-noons and evenings. Program activities,andevaluations were scheduled around 8-weNccycles. At the end of each cycle,- partici-

MaNal.m.

9

pants met with their primary teachir toevievy monthly evaluatools and client journals,

to receive feedhar k to I OvieW prow ani sched.ile , and to reassoSS MO need for suppor tive

servic es. Wiii-kshop and tutor ing scheduleswere adjusted wherct appropriN4e, and IleWprogram ar Tivi ties were int roduced at thebegioning of 'a new cycle. Although the pro-gram ran on a cyclical schedule, new participants could enter at any point once theirorientation pro( es was completed. Eac hclient followed an individually structured pro-gram which included educational activitiesand supportive counseling designed to meethiis or her particular m1e(is I he [Jut ationof a participant's involvement WaS determinedby individual needs and goals.

INTAKE, ORIENTATION,AND TREATMENT PLANNING

Each young person was 'initially screened toinsure that the drug use, age, and educa-tional requirements of the project were met.

L,a0

41h

Those who met these criteria were Invited toa new peOple's meeting. These miretings wereheld once or twice a week as needed andmarked the starting point of, a 1-week orienta-tion process for newly arriving youths. Themeetings provided a forum in which to begin

-to express needs, desires, and fears regard-ing their education and drug abuse problems.Besides encouraging the young people to talkabout themselves and to ,begin to establish

'positive contacts with peers and the stailf,new people's meetings aisg served to informprospective participants about the activitiesand objectives of the program. lours weregiven accompanied by an explanation of hoWthe various areas were used. In addition toan orientation to the types and location ofmaterials and equipment, clients were giveninstruction In the use of the educational tech-nology.

burIng the 2-week orientation period, all pro-spective clients were required to participatein Learning Laboratory activities at leastthree times a week for a minimum of 2 hourseach day. Attendance In one of the basicskills workshops was mandatory, as wasattendance at weekly .tommunity meetings.Participants also had appointments with thereading snd mathematics teachers for an initialassessment of their skill levels, and duringthis time a staff member was assigned to com-plete the intake interviews, which consistedof demographic information, a psychosocialhisiory, and a drug and education historyand profile,

In addition to these required activities, pro-spective participants were encouraged toexplore and utilize the resource area on theirown. and to drop in on open workshops. Theorientation period was conceived as a timewhen new young people would begin tobecame familiar and comfortable with the pro-gram, staff, and other participants. It wasa time, moreover, in whlch the young people,especially those who had experienced a greatdeal of alienation in their lives, began todevelop a sense of belonging through theestablishment of warm and supportive humancontacts.

10

Following each candhlate's orientation period,the staff met to discuss what they felt to bethe Inot appropriate treatment, plan for theyoung person. On the basis of informationgathered .during the WHOM Interviews, skillassessment tests, and an assessmeot of the ,

candidate's part kipation during orirntation.,the Indlyjdual's strengths and problem areasin his or .her life situation and in past orpresent school situations were identified.The process of defining conditions and atti-tudes -Influential fn the InItiaticrfi and continu-atIon of d'rug abuse was begun, and the natureand extent of c'orilmitment the staff felt, a youngperson could realistically make was assessed.Guidelines for the structure and content of aparticipant's schedule were dtweloped, andlearning materials and approaches to be usedwere recommended. In some cases, when theyoung person's orientation attendance wassporadic, she or he was required to continueIn the orientation phase until all the compo-nents outlined above were completed. Incases of an apparently severe-perceptual ororganically based learning problem or a needfor intensive psychological counseling, theyoung person was referred to an appropriateagency er clinic. Young people who wereconsidered appropriate and ready for the pro-gram chose or were assigned to a mainteacher. In the Initial meeting between anew participant and his or her main teacher,the consent form was explained and signed,realistic short-- and long-term goals weredeveloped, a schedule was made for the pres-ent cy-cle, and the client journal was explainedand begun . Some yoyng people, because oftheir fear of failure and difficulty in-followingthrough with a commitment, were given limitedschedules, especialhy during the initial cycle.Once they began to feel a sense of accomplish-ment and were able to make a consistenteffort, their schedules,were expanded. Theteacher also reviewed the special role of themain \keacher and the general rules- for par-ticipatPan in the program. From the beginningof the r participation young people wereencouraged to take on as much responsibilityand initiative as they were able.

5

3. Curriculum

A range Of forthats for learning was utilizedin order to meet the diversity of needs andinterests of clients appropriately. Topicswere offered at remedial to advanced second-ary levels and oriented t4:ntord increasingknowledge about the personal, social, vocal-tional, and environmental Issues which arefrequently associated with youthful drugabuse. Gaining knowledge of these different

areas meant more than merely absorbingInfOrmation -about them. It also meant that_participants were encouraged to incorporiatetheir newly acquired knoiAledge into thblrday-to-day behavior.

Program components were organized into thefollowing areas: Individualized basic skillsworkshops, English as a second language and

a,

11

C.;

Spanish language workshops, theme-centeredworkshops, special proiects and field trips,

meetings, ild individual counsel-ing.

II§IDIVIDUALIZED BASIC' SKILES WORKSHOPS

Small-group Instruction was provided for sixto eight participants with similar levels ofability' who needed assistance in mathematics,reading, writing, and other language skills.Although basic skills workshops were notidentified by level of difficulty, they wereusually divided-into three groupings: (1)those with., clients functioning on or belowthird grade level, (2) those with clients func-tioning between fourth and sixth grade levels',and (3) those with clients functioning at orabove seventh grade level. Each participantin a basic skills workshop had his or her ownspecific goals and materials and proceeded athis or her own pace. Educational technologyincluding reading pacers, autotutorettes, and

Aak

r

VAir

sound filmstrips were used on an individualited or team basis.

Individualizatiiin of basic skills workshopsnot only allowed participants to learn at theirown pace kind a6cordifig to their own hestlearning style, it also allowed teachers theflexibility to build in materials and activitiesthat diretly related to clients life sitcrations.For example, topics such as budgeting, learn-ing to read subway maps and directories,and filling' out applications were incorporatedinto the workshops. In addition, individu-alizing learning in a group seeting vreventedthe isolation of clients and encouraged thedevelopment of a spirit of community amongmembers of a workshop. Informal peer tutor-ing and teaming up to do exercises was alsoencouraged and often occurred between par-ticipants.

In some cases participants who needed addi-tional help in a basic skill or who were ini-tially too self-conscious of their low skilllevel to s-it at a table with others wereassigned a tutor on a one-to-one basis.

roof

12

5-

tf`R.,

17

r,S

CC/

___

i,4.4,1141'.41(

r.,

Goals of participants in the basic skills work-shops included completing pre-G.E.D.(General Educational Diploma) preparationsand preparing for the high school equivalencyexamination or for vocational training examina-tions. Participants who were still attendinga 'public school utilized the basic skills work-shops as a remedial program which supple-mented their regular school classes.

ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGEAND SPANISH LANGUAGE WORKSHOPS

The English as a second lanpuage workshopsapproached the study of English within abroad cross-cultural context. They wereaimed at youthful drugs abusers who had notachieved a fUnctional proficiency in English,were isolated, and had difficulty functioningIn a new cultural environment. Studiesincluded the differences and similarities incultures, such as values and social customs,and how these are expressed through lan-guage, as well as exploration of social prob-lems and Issuetre!evant to inner-city youths.EhglIIh granimar and conversation werestudied, in the context of life in the UnitedStates and were oriented to buil4I1 a func-

,sioTet-

44. %itr117-4.140Pr-

tional vocabulary appropriate to the realitiesof New York City. Language exercises dealtwith practical life situations through readings,dialogues, and skits about typical day-to-dayexperiences. Materials such as sound film-strips, slides, and songs were used. Thefocus of the workshops was on helping youngpeople to attain a basic mastery of the Englishlanguage, to become familiar with and comfort-able in, their new cultural environment, andto develop the tools needed to' be able to dealmore constructively with the kinds of life situ-ations which were influential in their involve-ment in drug abuse. Youths in need ofadditional aisistance received individual tutor-ing.

Spanish language workshops were offered toclients of Hispanic background who could notread, speak, or write fluently in Spanish.Becoming grounded in their native languageoften improved their self-image as learners,and helped them to qualify for bilingualemployment opportunities. With six to eightstudents in each, both the Spanish languageand the English as a second language work-shops combined individualized jtnd group-centered learning.

;x

MOM-CENTERED WORKSHOPS

Theme-centered workshops focused on valuesclarification, problem solving, career educa-tion, and cultural studies, and were offeredto groups of 8 to 12 participants. Theiegroup discussions were facilitated by a staffmember or visiting speaker and met once aweek for 1 or 2 hours. Films, filmstrips,and other educational materials were utilized.These workshops helped participants learn tocommunicate more clearly and openly, to .

explore personal and societal values, and todevelop good problem-solving skills. In thearea of'career education, volunteer repre-sentatives from, local business and industry,is well as staff of The Door's vocation cogn-seling servkes,- led discussions about a verilety of careers and job &slang.

Other themeentered workshops 'focused oncultural studies and .includiteblack history,Rlapanic studies, and Third Wotid studies.These \'workshops were aimed at increasingparticipants' understanding of and apprecia-

'1

tlon for their own and ottiers' cultural back-grounds.

PREVOCATIONAL SKILLSTRAINING WORKSHOPS

Responding to the concern among participantsto prepare for and obtain employment, severalworkshops were offered that focused upon'Introductory vocational skills. Generallythese workshops were conducted in 8-weekcycles and .met twice weekly for 2 hours.They include training in basic electricity.introductory lectronics, bbokkeepIng, basicaccounting, nd photography. All the work-shops with the exception of photograp,hy weretaught on 0 voluntary basis by teams fromtwo large companies. Participation in a pre-vocational skills training workshop often moti-vated clients to apply themselves with greatercommitment to their basic skills as they expe-rienced a direct and practical connectionbetween academic skills imprOvement and

.career goals. q

4.*

*It;- .

. ;k-4

SPECIAL PROJECTSAND FIELD TRIPS

Special projects were conducted once a weekfor- 2 hours and involved a group of 12 to 20participants. The projects provided clientswith an opportunity to explore ksues of par-1ticular interest, including sexuality, familyplanning and the responsibilities of familylife, nutrition, physical fitness, and the legalrights of minors. Each project series wasconducted by a qualified professional fromThe Door or other service agency. Partici-pation in simcial projects often resulted inclients seeking help for problems they werepreviqusly unwilling to address.

The field trips enabled participants to gainexpOture to new areas of the city and itsagencies, institutions, and lifestyles. Byvisiting local neighborhoods and communitycenters, participants also had an opportunityto .gain a broader perspective of the city andof their own neighborhoods. Some field tripswere made In conjunction With '411 pecial prop.ect (s ch as the visit to the L4bue of Women

,

-49-4,4thiet . z

nr.

.1,,1

74511gtltrii.1116-

Voters during the national elections workshop)and %ere, sometimes used as an adjunct totheme-centered workshops.

-COOUNITY MEETINGS

'Community meetings occurred once a weekfor lf hours and were attended by all partici-pants and several staff members. These meet-ings were designed to enhance the sense ofbelonging and community among the partici-pants: in addition, tile community meetingsprovided a forum In which issues andanriouncements affecting the program and par-ticipants were discussed. These includeddiscussions about "hanging-out," the diffl:culties In being on time, keeping the facilityorderly, how to make neW participants feelwelcome, and announcements of new programactivities and interesting events around thecity.

Educational games were also played. Theseincluded "treasure hunts" In wfiich severalquestions were, asked, the answers to whichcould all be found In the.resource center;

and "password ," 1n 'which teams of fourj-t,*ar-ticipants were asked questions from curric0-lum and general knowledge areas. , Inaddition, communi ty meetings provided afor um for- feedback from participants aboutthe program. Participants were asked toevaluate their. experience in the LearningLaboratory, how it was different from regu-

i la r school , and how it could be improved.

INDIVIDUAL COUNSELING

Main teachers, the education counselor, andthe teacher aide provided individual counstl-

, log to all participants. At the end of ear hcycle, a formal meet ing was scheduled betwer*each part Wipant and his or hoc main teacherin order to evaluate progress and to develop

..karl appropriate schedule for the coming t.ycle.Teachers also provided individual counselingto their clients when appropriate during acycle. Counseling sesions often included anexploration of how t he participants were usingwhat they were learning outside of the class-room. T he teacher aide and the ethic' ationcounselor provided followup and crisi s-coun-Soling . In addi fluff, the counselor assistedIn r esol Ving school prot.dems anti in clarifyingfuture educational goals, and arronged forreferra4 to .special education clinics, colleges,financial aid of fices , and adult erfuca lioncourses.

16

.414,

4 Evaluation Metilodology

Six modes of evaluation of individuals wereemployed, which enabled the staffx as wellas the participants., to devel4 a more compre-hensive diagnostic framework for assessingparticipants' strengths -and weaknesses, theirunderlying as well as immediate problems,and their optimal learning styles. Since eval-uation was viewed as a continuous process,the diagnostic framework end educational pre-scriptions were responsive to clients' needsand growth. Each evaluative modality isdescribed below.

INTAKE INTERVIEWS

The Intake interview served as an in-depthqualitative needs assessment. The interviewswere divided into two sections: the psycho-social profile and the education profile. The

"psychosocial profile yielded bask demographicdata, information on the young person's cur-rent livcing situation, his or her psychosocialhistory and family background, medical, psy-chiatric, end legal histories, and drug usepatterns. In obtaining such information, ini-tial insights were gained into possible under-lying causes of the client's educational anddrug problems.

The education profile covered factual informa-tion about the participant's educational A-tory and currefit status, and elicited theyoung .person's subjective assessment ofschool experiences.and attitude toward learn-ing. Through this exploration, likes anddislikes regarding the school experience wereidentified, as was individual interest In par-ticular subject areas. Clients were also askedabout their academic goals, their interpersonallife at school, and their perceptions of theirprbbiems, failures, and successes at school.This accomplished two important functions.

.k First, in asking such questions, each young-kilatikson began to realize that the staff was

interested In his or her unique set of percep-tions and not simply in objective achievementlevels. Second, the responses to thes1 ques-tions informed the main teachers about the

Nkbeeds of their clients and enabled them to

17

better assist the young person Jn establishingappropriate goals and schedules.

I

STANDARDIZED TEST'S

A number of standardized achievement anddiagnostic tests were selected and utilized.The Stanford Diagnostic Test, and Gray'sand Gilmore's Oral Reading Tests 'were usedto estimate instructional level and to diagnosereading problems. The Wide Range Achieve-ment Test and the Metropolitan AchievementTest were'used to assess basic verbal andmathematics skill levels. In some cases Initialformal testing was postponed or bypassedentirely because of a participant's excessivetest anxiety. Many youths had long historiesof test failure, and some had developed suchpoor self-images that they simply assumedthat they would do poorly on any test theytook. More significantly, the staff was neverentirely satisfied that the tests yielded anaccurate representation of a participant's abil-ities. None of the tests was ever validatedfor an inner-city, largely tninority population.On the other hand, tests did familiarize par-kticipants with standardiked tests and testingprocedures, which was helpful to those plan-ning to take the -G.E.D. and vocationali train-ing examinations.

MONTHLY EVALUATIONSOF WORKSHOPS

At the end of each month, workshop leader,swrote progress notes on each participant andentered them into the client's chart. Theseevaluations included an assessment of the par-ticipant's skills improvement, attitudes towardthe subject matter and studying, the qualityof workshop participatiOn, and their patternsof attendance and punctuality. Monthly eval-uations were particularly useful to the mainteachers, who could, by consulting a client'schart, obtain a quick, reliable summary of aparticular person's progress. In this way,

22

the main teacher could intervene at appropri-ate times to providp assistance or guidanceto IndlviduMs who were having difficulty.

CLIENT JOURNALS

During orientation, participants were provkledwith a fplder and forms for the purpose of

. keeping- a daily journal of their workshopactivities.. Participants recorded the subjectsthey covOred each day and what they plannedto work pn during the next session. Theycould also Indicate how they felt about th4irprogress or difficulties in the workshop.The client journ&s were, In essence, asequential history of the participants' prog-ress and served as concrete documentation oftheir educational accomplishments and prog-ress. This is especially useful for youngpeople who tend to deprecate their educationalaccomplishments and lose perspe tive on theirprogress and long-term achieve nts. Main-taining personal journals also r forced par-ticipants' continued active participation intheir own program.

EDUCATIONAL INDICES

The educational indices consisted of 10 itemseach rated on a 5-point scale. The itemswere developed to assess change in a widerange of attitudes and activities which wereconsidered significant to a participant's prog-ress. The breficith/rnd depth of the edtica-tional indices, as contrasted with typicalunitary measures of achievement, enabled themain teachers to develop a better understand-ing of the possible social and psychOogicalfactors involved In their client's lOrningproblems and to gain a .more compr43hensiveunderstanding of their client's education&needs.

Teachers weØ instructed in how to use theindices prqferly during their initial trainingperiod. statistical assessment of the educa-tional lpdices interrater reliability resulted inan acceptable range of reliability coefficients.The indkes were administered after a youngperson's firpt month of participation in orderto establishr a base line, and every 3 monthsthereafter. These results were entered onthe client's charts.

END-OF-CYCLE EVALNIATIONS

At the conclusion of each 8-week cycle, themain teachers met with each of their. clients

I.

18

individually for -an in- cjepth evaluation ofprogress during the provious cycle . I heyoung people reviewed their journak and wereenoouraged to crrque their work during -thecycle and to Identify their strengths andweaknesses. Regular participation 'in theirown evaluation helped partkipants to becomemore self-directed in their education choices.A principal source for this self-evakiationwas, the young person's workshop Journal.The main teachers.were as supportive as wastherapeutically appropriate during the eval6a-tion. After discussing the client's vrogress,the young person and the maln teacher devel-oped-a schedule for the next 8-week cycleand set new short-term goals.

FOLLOWUP AND TERMINATION

There were three levels of followup: (1) fol-lowup when the participants were absent 2or 3 days without notke, (2) followup whenparticipants were absent for a prolongedperiod of time, and (3) followup of all theparticipants during The last months of pro-gram operation.

During orientation participants were instructedto call their main Iteacher if They were notable to attend a sGhedyled activity. When aperson was absent and did not call, the mainteacher or the teacher aide attenipted to tele-phone the following day to inquire about theproblem. If there was no answer, or theyoung person did not have a telephone, ashort note was mailed expressing concern.Many participants were surprised that theirabsence had been noticed and often respondedto these telephone calls and letters withappreciation of their teacher's efforts.

If a participant continued to miss scheduledworkshops regularly and did not respond toeither telephone calls or letters, furtherinquiries were made. In some cases mainteachers, Ithe teacher aide, or the counselormade house, visits in order to contact the par-ticipant, learn the reason for the prolongedabsence, and discuss whether she or hewished to return. If, despite these efforts,a participant remained absent for 1 month,she or he was officially terminated. However,the main teacher always made sure the par-ticipants understood that if they felt readyat a later time to reenter the program theywould be welcomed back.

When a participant was officlaily terminated,a termination summary was written by themain teacher. This summary included thefollowing information: the official terminationdate, a statement as to why the participant

23 .

first came to the progAmn, a review of Theservices received by the participant and hisor her responses to them, a summary of theparticipant's progress while active in the pro-gram, a statement of the participant's currenteducatleñal, vocational, and living status, anindication of his or her drug use, an explana-tion ot why the participank left the pro6eilm,an assessment of the partkipant's unmetneeds, and recommendations for future plan-ning if the partkipant returned. The termi-nation summary was used as a principalsource of data in the evaluation of the pro-gram's effeetiVeness.

Finally, an attempt was.made during 1978 tocontact all people who had participated inthe Learning Laboratory. Once contacted,they were Invited back for a followup inter-view, Or, if they could not come to theprogram, the ihterview was conducted by tele-phone. During the course of this interview,the clients were asked about their currentliving situations, their current educational,and vocation& involvements, ,and were askeddetailed questions concernlpg their currentdrug use patterns. The kitents were alsolsked how the program had helped them In

19

'

each vf these areas and a'bout their presentneedi. Finally, they were offered assistancein accomplishing any goals they had specifiedor In resolving a rw problems they were expe-riencing. The three purposes of this followupinterview were--(1) to maintain a record of4he client's current drug use pattern, educa-tional and -vocational status, and living situa-tion, (2) to obtain retrospective-evaluationsof the program, and (3) to offer additionalservices, when appropriate. -Many youngpeople were appreciative of this continuedinterest in them and responded favorably tooffers of assistance.

in general, the followup and termination pro-cedures were conceived of as therapeuticactivities in which concern, rather than criti-cism, was offered. The followup efforts thusfunctioned to support the person's develop-mental needs, even if such support meanthelping to find more appropriate agencies tomeet these needs. It also- enabled thosePeoPle.who were unable to participate success-fully in the program to view their lack ofsuccess as a result of not being ready at thattime in their lives for this type of program,rather than as another education& failure.

5. Client Characteristics

The Learning Laboratory was designed to mrtthe needs of youth between the ages of 12and 21, with an emphasis on reaching older'adolescents having already dropped .out.

participants ranged in age from 13 to21, with a mean age of 17.9 years. Malesoutnumbered females three to one, 'which couldbe a reflection of the' greater social pressuremen feel to find employment. Interest In

im-proving skills and IncreasIng job opportu-nities was frequently expressed. Upon entryInto the Learning Laboratory, 76 percent ofthe participants were not in school, 75 per--'cent were unemployed tonly 11 percent wereemployed full time), and 46 percent indicatedthey spent their time "hanging out." Nearlyall of the participants were ffom minorityethnic groups; 56 percent were black, 34 per-cent Nispanic, 8 percent white, and 2 percentfrom other minority populations. All lived inthe New York City metropolitan area.,

fi

LIVING ARRANGEMENTSAND FAMILY LIFE

A high incidence of broken homes and a gen-erally unstable home environment character-ized the Learning Laboratory population.Thirty-six percent of participants lived with-out either of their parents, and an equal per-centage lived with one p4krent. Twenty=onepercent of the Learning Laboratory partici-pants stated at entry that they needed tomove from their present residence and thatthey could not study at home. If they wereliving with their parents, youth In this cate-gory indicated that their relationships withtheir parents and sibIir9s were unsatisfactoryFifty-six percent of all participants had infact left their family ho sehoid at least once.

Most of the younii people did not know theirparents' occupation or salary, although 27percent reported that their parents receivedpublic assistance. In addition, 69. percent ofthe parents had reportedly never reached orcompleted high school.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT

Among the Learning Laboratory participantsthe rate of police contact was 49 percent,which Is substantially higheri than the 1976juvenile rate of 11 percent for New York City(Police Department, City of New York, YouthAid Division 1976). Most participants hadbeen arrested but neither convicted norplaced in jail. Only 10 percent had been con-victed and served time In prison, and another11 percent had served time In prison but hadever been convicted.

DRUG USE

The most frequently used drugs mong theparticipants -were marijuana, ohol,. andcocaine. Ninety-two percent of the partici-pants had used marijuana during the pastyear, with the vast majority using marijuanaseveral times per week or more. Sixty-fivepercent used alcohol during the past year,with 58 percent of these participants usingalcohol at least once per week. Finally, 47percent had used cocaine within th4\pastyear, with the majority of this group VsIngcocaine at least once per week. The remain-der of drugs used by the Learning Labora-tory participants, varying in annualprevalence rates from 8 to 15 percent,included heroin and other opiates, methadone,barbi turates, amphetamines, hallucinogens,and psychotropics and inhalants.

Kovacs' (1975) system was adopted to Inferthe purpose(s) drug use served for the par-ticipants. Three-quarters of the youngpeople used sirugs In order to avoid unpleas-ant feelings, such as anxiety and depression.The next most prevalent reason was to avoidhaving to relate openly with others in situa-tions that caused them anxi?ity (19 percent).Young people often reported that they useddrugs prior to going to parties, before goingto school, and before seeing their girlfriendor boyfriend.

20

25

TAIRA

Lategory

Living arrangementWith one parent onlyWith both parentsWith nonparent relatives

4Aloneinstitution or group homeWith fr iendsUndomiciled

Living situationStableFairly stableUns table

Family stabill tyParent marriage intactParent marriage not IntactDo not know

Reason left home-Did not leave homeRan awayI ndependenceThrown out .

Boarding school oradolettent residence

Parental deathCourt ordered

Living arrangements and family life

11 Percent age Category N Percent ar)f.

117 Family relations 106

36 Cooperative28 Independent 19

12 Competitive 10

9 ndif ferent 10

7

6 Parental source of income 305

2, One or both parent sworking

1)5

117 Public assistance 27

25 Do not know-

e

5421 Parental education 96

Primary and/or junior116 high school 30

34 High school 39

64 Post-high school 22

2 Do not know 9

117442614

0

3

3

2

Looking at the participant's overt statementsas to why they used drugs provides a similarpicture. Forty-two percent indicated theyused drugs to calm down or relax, 40 percentstated they liked to "get high" or "feelgood," 22 percent said they used drugs whensocializing, and 9 percent reported that theyusecisdrugs to avoid depression or boredom.Only 3 percent felt they used drugs fromhabit or/because they were addicted. Whenasked how they felt before using drggs, 26percent said they felt anxious and 26 percentsaid they felt depressed, lonely, or bored.On the other hand, 20 percent indicated thatthey felt "OK," and 19 percent said they felthappy or spiritual.

Seventy-eight percent of participants statedthat a friend "turned them on" to drugs.This figure is consistent with nearly all pre-vious surveys on this question (Goldstein1975; Kande! 1973; Braucht et al. 1973;

Johnston 1973; Goldstein et al. 1970). Thatdrug use patterns are determined to a sub-stantial degree by peer or friendship usage isreflected In the fact that 70 percent said thatmost of their friends used drugs. Twenty-

21

three percent of the participants reportedthat only some of their friends used drugs,and 7 percent reported that none of theirfriends used drugs. Furthermore, 20 per-cent indicated that their parents used drugs(including alcohol), and 48 percent reportedthat their siblings used drugs (usually mari-juana).

In light of the functions drugs served in thelives of the Learning Laboratory participants,It Is not surprising that a majority, 52 per-cent, indicated that they did not Initiallydesire to alter their drug use and that onlyonly one in five had previously sought helpfor a drug "problem."

SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

Responses revealed that the young peopleperformed poorly and generally disliked andwere alienated from schools. Seventy-sixpercent had dropped out at an average age'of 16 years. They had been out of schoolan average of 11 years at the time of program

4%

26

TABLE 2. -Drug use nformatlun

...

Category N

108

Percentage

78

236

Reason for initiating drug use'Conforming with peersCuriosityPressure from ielativesReading .and7or TV

Friends' use of drugsMost use drugsSome or few use drugs -

' None use drugs .

111 .

70231

Family use of drugs'Parents use drugs .

' Siblings or relatives, use drugsNene 'use drugs

113194839

Context of drug use'PositivebselfPositive/otherNegative/self ,,-. ,

Negative/other

113Li

5

714'

19

Stated reason(s) for maintaining drug use'_Calm down or. relax .

Qet high or feel good .

SocializeRelieve ,slepression or boredomHabit or addiction A..

Not sure

100 .424022

932

>

'Feelings, before using drugs'AnxiousDepressed, lonely, bored

.Normal or OKHappy/spiritualVariable, depends upon drugs/selfAngry .

.

912626201910

Ii .- __.,-)

Desire- to alter drug useYes -

No' .

101_

113

57

Sought help for drug useYes . ,,,

.

No .,

1

i_ r 4,

10724

79

.

'More than one subcategory could be checked. le

22

2 7

TAtILE 3.School experiences and perceptions of school

Category N 4 Perientage Mean S.D.

11In year's

School statusDropoutin school

,117

7617

,

High school graduate 4

G.E.D. or training program 3

Age dropped out' 89 16.4 1.6

Years out of school' 89 , 1.6 1.5

Reason(s) for dropping out" - 89

Lost interest/direction 36

Did not like school 26

Drugs 21

Family problems 20

Suspended/expel led 18 (

Other 18

Emotional/medical 14

Poor/failing grades 13

Finances 12...

Grades last semester 110

Passed all subjects 26

Failed one or two courses 47

Failed term 26 /.

N

Initial reading scores3 99 6.1 2.9

Initial mathematics scores',

, 80 5.6 1.9

Years of school completed 116 9.6 1.5

. ,

'Includes only dropouts from flriple.2More than one subcategory could be checked.'Scores reported in terms of grade-equivalent scores.

entry. Of those still In school, 55 percenthad failed at least one course in their lastsemester. The mean reading and mathscores for all participants were 6.1 and 5.6(grade-equivalency scores), respectively, yetthey had completed almost 10 years of school-ing.

Among those who dropped out of school, thetwo most common reasons given for droppingout were "losing interest/direction" (36 per-cent) and "didn't like school" (20 percent).'When asked specifically what they did notlike about school, the most frequentresponses were: the teachers (21 percent),the fact that they had to conform to school

4

rulcift (18 percent), and that the social lifewas "bad," often referring to violence in theschools or to gangs (14 percent). Almost aquarter of the participants (23 percent) saidthey did not talk wlth anyone at school, and59 percent said they only spoke to friends inschool. When asked If they had a particularteacher or counselor they could talk to, 44percent said no.

The young people were also asked when theyliked school_ most. The highest percentageliked school best during 'their elementaryschool years and least during their highscbool years. When asked how scho.ol hadchanged, the most common ,responses were

23

that there was more and excessive pressureto learn as they progressed In school andthat they themselves had cianged or simplylost interest In school. Par exlcally, as thepressures mounted and as th became moreallenated and less motivated, t ,p young peoplefelt they had fewer arid fewer sthool person-nel they could turn to.

Despite negative experiences fn a schoolenvlronment, 77 percent of the partIcIpants

211

Indicated that they enjoyed learning, andanother 22 percent said that they enjoyedMarning under sonic circumstarwes. In spe-cifylng what they perceived to be their big--gest obstacle to learning, self-blame wasmost frequently mentioned (51 percent).Respondents indicated that- they "were lazy,""couldn't concentrate well," or "just lostinter`est. "

.29

6. Evaluation of Progress

1(ngolng evaluation of each client's progresswas conducted using the participants' jour-nals, monthly and end-of-cycle evaluations,and quarterly educational assessment indices.Pretest data based on initial Interviews werecompared to posttest data derh7ed from termi-nation summaries and foliowup interviews.Followup information was gathered on 514young pe9cie who had remained in the pro-gram for at least 3 months. The data dis-tributions of the followup sample and anonfollowup sample (63 clients who also par-ticipated in the program a minimum of 3months but who could not be contacted) werecompared, and it was determined that thetwo groups were similar. Chl-squaOle testsfor categorical data and t-tests for continuousdata were applied to every variable whichconformed to the assumptions of each test.Of the 50 variables examined, only 4 werestatistically significant. The followup samplescored higher on "constructive interactionwith staff° and on "ability to follow through,"and the nonfollowup sample had favorablescores on the other two variables; their "fam-ily members were less involved with drugs"and they were more likely "to commence druguse because of peer conformity." Given theinconsistencies of these results and the factthat the great majority of variables did notre h statistical significance, all findingsre rted here can be generalized to the entireLea ning Laboratory population.

EDUCATION.\ XL OUTCOMES

Three related measures were combined toassess participant's educational outcomes:(1) the degree to which they had met statedshort-term goals at termihation; (.2) thedegree to which they had'met long-term goalsat fbIlowup; and (3) their educational involve-ment at followup. One additional measure ofeducational impact, independently examined,was the young people's subjective perceptionof if and how the Learning Laboratbry fur-thered their educational achievement.

4d

or

At the end of the orientation period, clientsworked with a teacher to select short- andlong-term goals. . Not all goals were directlyrelated to raising achievement levels andImproving study skills. Goals were also I

related to reducing drug usage and improving'interpersonal relationships with peers andparents.

The terminationummary report provided suf-ficient information to rate the degree to whichclients met their short-term educational goals.A four-part scale Was adopted to make theassessments. Rater reliability was essessedby having 2 judges independently rate 20

randomly selected charts.. The reliabilitycoefficient of re0.86 (Pearson's Product-.Moment Correlation) was acceptable (Anastase196). A similar procedure was used toassess long-term educational goals. The tworaters again concurred in their assessments(r=0.79).

Ectucational involvement was as.lessed at fol-lowup. It was learned that 43 percent ofthe clients were currently- involved 4,Q educa-tional activities. This compared favorably tothe 20 percent that Kempt (1976) found In asimilar followup study of dropouts inPhiladel-phia. Furthermore, 17)percent of the Leam-ing Laboratory participants were attendingcollege at the time of followup.

The three measures of educational outcomewere then combined into a single measure.The educational outcome level sdale provideda means for comparing the educational prog-ress of clients based on an individualizecimeasure of the young people's accomplishmentstoward meeting their goals. Sixty-nine per-cent of participants had some success in

. achieving their initial goias.0

The relationship between achlevemerkt testscores administered during the orientationperiod and educational outcome scores wasexamined to esess the degree to which incom-ing achievement levelp accounted for the sam-ple variance. Reading scores did, in fact,account for 20 percent of the variance(r=0.45), while mathematics scores accounted

25

-

*

TARIM 4. --Educational outcome level and its relationship to selected variables

Educationaloutcome Percentage

Meanreading

Meanma th

Meaneducation

indices

Mean no.months inprograin

level (.1154) (f=51) (t1=111) gi=53) (W-7.511)

Z2 8.7 6.4 3.03 17 7.3 11.4 2.9 5.6

30 5.8 5.9 2.6 7.6

1 31 5.0 5.4 2.0 5.8

rz' 3.45 .10 2.50 3.28

'The correlations were based upon the raw "scores" of the independent variables.2p < 0.01.3p < 0.05.

for only 1 percent of the variance (rmi0.10).Therefore, initial academic capability andPeading achievement did predict to someextent subsequent educational outcomes.

The mean educational index of each partici-pant was examined in relation to his or hereducational outcome .level. Ten educationalindices were developed to provide a broad-based and ongoing evaluation of the partici-pants. The. indices ranged from "activeinvolvement in planning educational program"to "self-concept as a learner" and "consist-ency of involvement." LEach index was ratedon a one-to-five scale by the person's mainteacher. Interrater reliability was adequatiV,ranging from 0.50 f811/40.80, with a mean toree-lation of 0.63 (Kendall's w). The "meaneducational index" referred to above is theaverage rating each participant received after1 month of participation in the program. Themean educatioral index (table 4) accounts for25 percent of \the variance in educational out-come (r=0.50) level. That this variableaccounts for a greater proportion of the vari-ance than does reading achievement is 'proba-bly due to the breadth of educationally relatedissues it covers,' As such it is the best indi-vidual predictor of education outcome level.

The final variable examined, mean number ofmonths In the program, .was somewhat relatedto educational outcome level but accountedfor only 8 percent of the variance in educa-tional outcome level (rv0.28). 1To furtherassess the relationship between length of

participation and educational outcome, a chi-square analysis was performed to supplementthe correlation analysis. Those who remainedin the program 3 to 6 months' were compared'to those who stayed 7 months or more interms of whether they achieved an educationaloutcome level ;core of 3 or Li (top half), oran educational outcome level score of 1 or 2(Oottom half). The analysis revealed that

'those who stayed in the program longer didnot score significantly better or worse thanthose who stayed in the program less time.It appears that young people can benefit fromshort-term as well as from long-term involve-ment in the program.

Only 2 percent of the young people did not-perceive their experience in the LearningLaboratory as educationally beneficial. Eightypercent felt it had helped raise thein skilllevel, and 63 percent feltithey had benefitedfrom counseling. This latter perception isimportant when contrasted with the 44 per-cent the participants who had previouslystet* they had no particular counselor orteaciTer they could talk to while in highschool.

PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITIES

A four-point scale was developed to reflectthe extent of involvement in purposeful activ-ities. Purposeful activities were defined toinclude part-time employment and/or

""V

TABLE B. Perception of Learning Laboratory as helpful in furtheringeducational achievement

Type of helpPercentage

(N=54)

Raise skills 80

Counseling 63

Direct referral 15

No help 2

NOTE: Respondents were permitted to indicate more than one way inLabgratory helped to further their educational achievement.

part-time schooling or training. The relativestability of' the individual's living situationwas also incorporated into this scale becauseit was felt that an unstable living situatio9exacerbated the participant's alienation anddepressed the already weakened motivation totry to "make It."

As can be seen from table 6, .the extent ofthe participants' involvement in purposefulactivities changed markedly from time of entryto followup. The percentage of participantswho were engaged in at least part-time.pur-poseful activities increased from 52 percent

TABLE 0.Purposeful

Level of activity

1. Positive full-time activityStable living situationAdequate. finances

2. Positive full-time activityStable living situationIn need of money

3. Positive part-time activity ,

Stable or fair living situationIn need of money

which the Learning

to 81 percent. Conversely, 48 percent wrenot engaged in any purposeful activity atime of entry, while at followup only 19.pecent were not engaged in any purposefulactivity. In addition, the percentage of thoseengaged in full-time activities Jumped from 28percent at entry to 50 percent at followl,m.Not shown in the table, but relevant here,

. is the fact that 52 percent of the participantswere employed at the time of followup; 30percent were employed full time.

activity level (percentages

Total percent demonstratingsignificant purposetbi. activity

4. Either: No positl've activity andStable or fair living situation

4.Or: Unstable living situation

511)

27

At entry At followup

24 39

4 11

24 31

52 81

48 19

TABLE 7. --Program was helpful in furthering vocational involvement

Type of help

ounseling

DI ct referralRai ing skillsNo help

'Respondents could indicate more than one category.

These figures compare favorably with otheravailable data. Kempt (1976) found that only26 percent of the Philadelphia dropouts hehad studied were.employed at the end of 1year, and nearly half were not engaged inany purposeful activity.

The philosophy of the program waNhat edu-cation, especially for this population, shouldgo beyond mere academic skill enhancementto include such basic components as helpingthe young people to overcome their historiesof failure and their negative views of them-selves, and to learn to work cooperativelywith. others. -Table 7 indicates that partici-pants perceived that the Learning Laboratory

Percentage'(N 511)

116

1 2

6

1114

had he,Iped further their vocational involve-ment, mostly through counseling.

DRUG USE CHANGE

Table 8 reveals that 50 percent of the partici-pants decreased their drug use, 48 percentshowed no s(gnificant change, and 2 percentincreased their drug use. More spedflcally,2 percent shifted from minimal to no druguse, 22 percent shifted from frequent,use ofsoft drugs to minimal or no drug use, 11 per-cent shifted fritm soy hard use to minimalor no drug use, 15 percent sfilfted from some

TABLE 8.Change in drug use from program entryto followup

Type of changePercentage

(t)=54)

From minimal drug useTo no drug use 2

T? regular soft drug use 2

From 'regular soft drug useTo minimal or no drug use 22

No significant change 37

From regblar hard drug useTo minimal or no use 11

To regular soft drug use 15

No significant change '11

Total decreased drug use 50

Total no change t18

Total increasi3d drug use 2

28 33

4

hard use to frequent soft us d 2 percentshifted fron1 minimal ;Ise to fr uent soft use.These findings contrast sharply- with the agetrends reported In the adolescent drug useliterature, which is consistent in reportingthat drug use Increases with age during theadolescent Years (Carman 1973; Wechsler andThum 1973; Johntton 1973; Josephson et al.1972; Kande! 1975 Blackford 1974; Wolfsonet al. 1972; Berg 1970).

SUMMARY

Program effectiveness was examined in termsof progress made along three dimensions:educational gprogress, extent of involvementIn purposeful activities, and drug use change.The analyses were based on comparisons of

the participant's status At entry and at (01-

lowup. Within each dimension positive andsignificant progress, was found to haveoccurred. In terms of educational progress,43 percent of the participants were involvedin education or trainirM- programs at followup,69 per'cent were at least moderately success-ful In achieving their Initial educational goals,and 98 percent of the particIpants,consIderedthe Learning Laboratory to have been helpfulin furthering their educational achievement.There was a 30 percent Increase In part-timepurposeful activity levels, and a twofoldincrease In the number of young peopleemployed. Fifty-slx percent of participantsfelt that they had beep helped in furtheringtheir vocational Involvent, In the area ofchange In drug use patte11s, 50 percent ofthe participants decreased their drug useand 2 percent Increased their drug use.

29

34

7. Predictdrs of Success

Operational definitions of uccess and failure\were established in order to etermine whichvariables or characteristics, if Any, discrimi-nate the successful from the notse-successfulparticipants. The purpose in doing this istwofold. First, such characteristics can beused to identify whkh problems the programwas best and least equipped to ameliorate.Second, such information can be used inaltering the admittance procedures or in sug-gesting programmatk modifications for futureprograms of this kind.

CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS

in establishing criteria for sucaess, the threeoutcome areas could be examined separatelyor combined into a single composite measure.The composite measure was chosen for twdreasons. First, there were young people whosucceeded in one outcome area but who didnot do well in another area and bcould there-fore not be considered successful or unsuc-cessful from a holiStid point of view. Second,it was desirable to use the purest measure ofsuccess and lack of success so that the vari-ables which were found to discriminate signifi-cantly between the two samples would bemaximally valid. Since the sample was notlarge enough for the application of multivari-ate analyses such as1 multiple regression ordiscriminate analysis, t-tests were Ded toassess the differences between the'Samplemeans along each continuous variable; chi-square analysis was applied to distributionsof the sample for discontinuous variables.

COMPARISON OF THE SUCCESSFULAND NOT-SO-SUCCESSFULPARTICIPANTS

ft

The composite success classification system ispresented below. Since approximately one-quarter of the participants were categorizedintq.success and lack-of-success groups, they

30

will be referred to henceforth as the top quar-ter (TQ) and the bottom quarter (6Q) groups.

Having defined the TQ (N=13) and BQ (Nz12)groups, all variables whiEh might differeiitiatethe two groups were examined. A total of37 variables were examined, ranging fromthe number of years the participants wereout of school at program entry to the degree-to whkh their friends used drugs. Of these37 variables, 29 met the assumptions of eitherthe t-test or chi square.

The TQ and BQ groups were found to be sig-nificantly different in_terms of six variables.It should be pointed out that the direction ofdifferences between the 2 groups on theremaining 31 variables are, with some minorexceptions, consistent with the -likerature andwith commonsense assumptions. For example,67 percent of the BQ group had beenarrestefl, while only 31 percent of the TQgroup had beeill. Dropouls d'aditionally havemore police coritact than do youths who havenot dropped out (Schreiber 19611).

There were fewer dropouts among the TQthan the BQ group (77 percent as opposedto 83 percent); the dropouts among the TOgroup had been more successful while Invschool than the BQ-group dropouts. Thedropouts among the TQ group left school atan older age (17.1 as opposed to 16.0 years),had finislled more years of school (10.1 asopptsed -to 9.2 years), and had been out ofschool for,less time (1.15 as opposed to 1./5years) than the BQ-group dropouts. Vernierand Davis (1963) found that the longer theschool interruption of iropouts, the lesslikely they were to complete resumed educalwtion programs. Furthermore, those in theTQ group, whether or not they had droppedout, had failed courses in their last year ofschool less frequently than had those in theBQ' group (64 as opposed to 100. percent).This latter finding is consipent with researchindicating that among dropouts who return toeducational programs, those who do best hadbetter grades while still in school (Saleemand Miller 1963; Kohen and Barker 1976;Wehrwein 1970; Hess 1966).

35

The TQ-group members were more self-confident, felt they learned more quickly,felt they were working closer to their poten-tial, and were more satisfied with their per-formance in school. It should be remembered,however, that these measures were taken dur-ing orientation and therefore anticipate,rather than reflect actual performance. Thefindings are consistent with previous studieswhich Indicate that dropouts, as contrastedto graduates, have low self-esteem (Ahistromand Havighurst 1971; Thornburg 1971, 1975;National Education Association of the .UnitedStates 1965). Friends of the TQ group wereless consistently perceived as using drugs;they "hung out" less, and were perceived ashaving generally more favorable attitudestoward school than were friends of the BQgroup. A number of studies have reportedsimilar findings with regard to the friendsboth of drug users and dropouts (Adler andJoteca 1973; Saleem and Miller 1963; Johnston1973; Goldstein 1975; Elliot and Voss 1974)7

Conversely, the TQ group experienced theirparents as less supportive, had left home ingreater numbers, and had parents who hadfewer years of formai schooling. Severalstudids have found these and related vari-ables to discriminate between drug abusersand nonusers and between dropouts andgraduates. (Wechsler and Thum 1973; Adlerand Joteda 1973; Mechan and Mink 1970;Cervantes 1965; Johnston 1973). Otherstudies of adolescent drug abuse and of drop-outs, however, have found parental apdfamilial influences to be less potent Olan 'peerinfluences (Elliot and Voss 1974; Kande! /1973)

Of the whole range of 37 variables, the' edu-cational indices as a group best discrirciinatedthe TQ from the BQ group. All differences

IN were in the expected direction. and 5 of the10 indices were found to be statistically sig-nificant: constructive interaction with thestaff, consistency of involvement, active par-tkipati self-directedness as a learner, andability 50 foUpw through. These Indices weretaken, montb following entry into the pro-gram. Th in teachers, therefore, throughuse of the educational indices, were-able toidentify who was making significant progressand who was having trouble befre the out-comes were known. These ind ces can beexceedingly useful in identifying, -at a veryearly stage, those people who need moreintense tutoring and counseling4or furtherevaluation for possible referral.

The remaining significant variable was read-ing achievement score at entry. (Mathematicsathievement 'score differences were in theexpected direction but not significantly so.)That reading scores Olscriminate these two

A

groups Is not surprising because a minim(Ilreading competency is required fOr successin almost any life endeavor. In fact, no mem-ber of the 'VC) group had a reading smrebelow 3.0, while several members of the BOgroup fail below this mark.

CLIENTS WHO ENTERED BUTSTAYED FOR LESSTHAN 3 MONTHS

Participants (N=43) who stayed active in theprogram for less than 3 months were consid-ered unsuccessful. Unfortunately, the staffwas unable to contact many of these youngpeople for followup, and of those reached,only two or three were willing to participateln a followup interview. There were, how-ever, 12 (28 percent) participants who wereactive far less than 3 months for whom profiledata were complete. This made It possible tocompare these participants with the TQ andBQ groups.

These comparisons, however, did not proveto be revealing. On most variables, including9 out of 10 educational indices and both thereading and mathematics achievement scores,the young people who stayed less than 3months were distributed between the TQ andBQ groups without being significantly differ-ent from either group. This group generallyappeared to have neither a better nor a worseprognosis than both the TQ and BQ groups.The only variable in which this group consist-ently differed from the TQ and BQ groupswas school Involvement. There were moredropouts among this group (92 percent asopposed to 77 and 83 percent, respectively,for the TQ and LiQ groups); they had leftschool at an earlier age (15.4 years asopposed to 17.1' and 16.0 years for the TQand BQ groups); and they had been out ofschool longer (2.91 years as opposed tb 1:15'and 1.28' years).

These results could be interpreted to elventhat this group of young people were of aver-age capability IA relation to the entire Learn-ing Laboratory population, but that reentryinto an educational setting represented agreater commitment than they were capableof making. Perhaps their lives were in suchdisarray thati they needed to develop basicsupport systbms before reentering an educa-"tional program. Reinforcing this conjectureis the fact that 42 percent were experiencing

'These figures are significant at the 0. Os5

)level.

31

36

TABLE a. .Composite success classificatory system

. Education Purposeful activities Drug use

Code Description Code Description Code Description

Top qearter (TQ) 4 No worse than 3 onshort- and long-term

II Positive, full-time activ-ity; stable living situa-

3 From minimal drug useor regular soft drug

Must receive onlythose codes indi-cated on thlslevel 3

goals and current edu-cation5TTnvolvement

Either: average of 3 or 3

tlon; finances OK

Positive, full-time activ- 4

use to minimal or nodrug use

From regular hard drug

more on short- and long- Ity; stable living situa- ... use to minimal or no

J term goals and no edu-cational involvement

tIon; In need of money drug use

Or: pattern of 3, 2 orTT 3 on short- and long-term goals and educa-al involvement

5 From regular hard druguse to regular soft drugUse

-

'41

(2) Regular soft drug usewith no significant -change--only If combinedwith a 3.5 code averageon educ tion and pur-poseful ctivities

Bottom quarter 2 Lither: pattern of 3, 2 or 2 Positivv, part-time actiy- 2 Regular soft drug use to

(BQ)

Must receive onlythose codes indi-

2, 3 on short- and long-term goals and no educa-tional involvement ,

Or: pattern of 1, 2 or 1

lty; ,stable or falr livingsituation; in need of money

Either: no positive activity

regular hard driig use orregular soft drug usewith no significant change

cated on this -271 on short- and long- ITOliable or fair living 6 Regular hard drug use

level.

term goals and &time-tional involvement

situationOr: unstable living situa-

with no significant chtnge

11-6n 7 From minim4I drug use

1 Average of 1.5 or less,On short- and Ipng--,term

,to regular loft drug use

goals and no etwrenteducational involvement

(5) F m some hard drug useregular soft drug use--

only if combined withcode average of 1.5 or

' less on education andpurposeful activities

,

3 b

sersious problems such as Illness, pregnancy,or legal hassles at the tirne they left the pro-gram.

SUMMARY

An Index of success was constructed by com-bining the educational, drug change, andpurposeful activity participation outcomeindices. The members of the folibwup samplewho scored highest on the composite successmeasure were compared with the members who

scored lowest. These subgroups were namedthe top quarter (TQ) and the bottom quarter(BQ) . For the most part these groups dif-fered, though not signrcantly so, In waysconsistent with the litefature. The TQ groupwas found to have better educational records,higher self-esteem, and friends who weremore positively oriented towarclkschool andless Involved with drugs, The BQ group,however, consistently rated their family lifeas more supportive and stable than the TQgroup, perhaps Indicating that family life initself may not be as significant as oftenreported.

33

8. Need for SupplementaryServices

This chapter will focus upon those problemsrequiring supplementary services, which theLearning Laboratory, as it existed, was notdesigned to provide. Two sources of datawere employed. First, the termination sum-maries were examined to determine the reasonsthe participants left the program; second,the needs of the participants, as of late 1977,were examined utilizing the followup reports.The sample for these analyses consists of the54 young people why were interviewed forfollowup and who had participated in theLearning Laboratory for at least 3 months.This is the same sample which was employedfor.the analyses of the program's effective-nes!. As noted earlier, this sample does notdiffer significantly from the population as awhole, and thus the results can be general-ized to the entire Learning Laboratory popu-lation.

t`b7,

REASONS FOR LEAVING

Each participant's main teacher wrote a termi-nation summary in which the young person'sinvolvement in the program was reviewed andthe reasons for leaving were described. Tbereasons given for leaving are based uRon theteacher's educated interpretation of the stated,and in some cases unstated, reason(s) forleaving. For example, if a young man statedthat he was leaving because of loss of inter-est in the program, but his teachers knewthat hff was under pressure to get a Job, thelatter reason would be indicated.

The reasons for leaving fell into roughly eightcategories. In many cases a person left formore than one reason, and this was sorecorded. In order to Insure rater reliabil-ity, 2 judges Independently coded the reasons

TABLE 10.--Reasons for leaving

Reason for leaving'

Personal/emotional problems, apathy, lackof discipline

Financial problems, 14)(10 Job, looking forJob, inadequate housing

Social or peer problemsFamily problemsFrustrati.n at making too little progressPursuing further educationSevere drug problemsLegal problems

41

Percentage

'The mean number of reasons per participant is 1.8.

NOTE: N=42. Six participants were terminated because the program closedUefore their treatment could be completed, and six participants lefthaving only mirkor problems.

ti

34

69

48241710

7

5

for leaving for 20 randomly selected riartici-pants. The category selections of both judgesoverlapped at a rate of 65 percent. Thisrate of overlap, which Is adequate to estab-lish reliability, was based upon the numberof category assignments in which both judgesagreed divided by the totileumber of cate-gory assignments made bboth judges.

Personal/emotional problems were cited by 69percent of the participants as the reason forleaving the program. These young peopleoften stated that they felt very confused,did not haVe a stable Sense of who they were,and were unclear about the present directionof their lives. They were in most cases SOoverwhelmed by their problems that they wereunable to benefit from counseling efforts orceferrais on their behalf, and could notdevote their energies to the tasks requiredof them atthe Learning Laboratory.

The next most frequently cited reason foreying (48 percent) was financial probipms.Inancial pressures were often so severe that

the person could no lonjer afford the "lux-ury" of learning to read better and of study-ing for the high schOol equivalency examina-tion. These young people often had financialobligations and simply had no viable optionsother than devoting their time and energiesto finding and maintaining a job. A numberof the participants became too ImpAlent tospend months in academic pursuits beforeseeing any monetary rewards. In addition,once their skill level was elevated and theybegan feeling more confident of themselves,some of the participants left the program tolook for .a Job.

That Jobs and Job training were high prioritiesis reflected in the popularity of the prevoca-tional skills workshops which were offered.Basic electricity and introductory electronicswere offered by volunteer tepresentatives ofthe Xerox Corporation, And several basicbookkeeping workshops were provided byvolunteers from Arthur Young and Company.Announcements of 'these workshops met withenthusiastIC responses, despite homework andminimum basic skit! requirements. In fact,those who were accepted in the prevocationalskills workshops became noticeably more moti-vated to improve their basic academic skills.

Nearly one-fourth of the participants citedpeer pressure as the reason for droppingout. Faced with negative peer pressures,

1/4 their motivatIon to struggle toward initial edu-catiorial goals was ofte diminished to theextent that they graduaH toppeclcoming tothe Learning Laboratery.

Family problems accounted for 17 percen(ofthe dropout rate. These problems ranyeNfrom having an unstable home situationcreated by hostility and cornpetitIvenes4 amo gfamily members to family pressures to "makmoney" rather than "just study."

PRESENT NEEDS

Nine categories of "present needs" viere J.141-oped based on information gathered Cit3-r-Ingthe followup interview. Reliability wasassessed by the amou.nt of overlap in thecatei)ory assignments of 20 randomly chosenyoung people by 2 independent Judges. Theoverlap rate of 82 percent was more than ade-quote to establish reliability. The overalldistribution of present needs Is presented Intable 11.

SiXty-one percent indicated a desire to fur-ther their educational training. Many whohad not obtained their G.E.O. wished tostudy further in order to do so. Others hadgone back to high school after having droppedout, and still others had plans to pursue acollege 'education.

Exactly half the young people indicated thatthey were looking for employment and/or thattheir level of Income was inadequate. Fur-thermore, 43 percent expressed a desire tqsecure vocational training. The employmentoutlook for this population is dismal, and con-commitant financial needs are great. Skillstraining appropriate educational programs andcounseling are Reedpd and are perceived assuch by the young people.

Youn people were categorized as needingdrug counseling If they stated that theywished to decrease their drug use, if theyfelt their drug use interfered with their func-tioning, or if they were currently seekinghelp for their drug problems. This expres-sion of need for drug counseling by 35 per-cent of the participants is heartening becauseof the continuing, though reduced, drug usereported in the foliowup interviews. Itappears that despite significant reductions intheir drug use patterns, the young peopleremained aware of the negative impact drugscan have upon psychological aied educationaldevelopment.

The explanation for the 31 percent rate ofmedical anct nutritional problems is 'unclear.Economically disadvantaged youths are consid-ered at risk with regard to medical and nutri-tional problems (Sterne 1978), and perhapsawareness of such problems indicates animprovement in self-awareness and self-esteem.

35

TABLE 11. -- Present needs

Need description

Further educationFinancial needVocational trainingDrug counselingMedical and nutrition& needsLegal counselingCounseling toward goalsFamily counselingNo significant needs

NOTE: N.1511. Mi'11% number of responses is

The iq percent. whb cited legal problems isunder andable given.the high rate of crimi-nal ju tice contact for this popufation.

-"CounseRng toward goals" included expres=sions of confusion by a young person abouthis or her future or identity. The 15 per-cent who needed goal-oriented counselingrepresents a marked improvement when com-pared to the overall status of the clients atprogram entry.

Finally, 11, percent of the young peopleexpressed the need for family counseling.And 11 percent indkated that they had nomajor problems. Again, these figures reflectmajor gains in the' population ale whole. Ahigh percentzige of these people had familyproblems .at prograin entry, and almost Mihad major problems of some sort.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The overriding recommendation that can bemade is that vocational skills training andpsychological counseling be integrated intofuture programs of this sort. Financial needand interest in vocational *ills trainingloomed large both in-the reasons for leavingand in sthtements of present need. Thesefacts support the adoption of a policy inwhieh' stipends are provided, to financiallyneedy participants. In addition to the emer-gency transportation fund which was avail-able. 4

2.7.

Percenta9e_

61

50113

3531

171511

11

Second, More extensive:zehological coun-.seling should be made liable. Sixty per-cent of the participants left- because ofpersonal problems. Despite the.existence ofthe Learning. Laboratory's strong supportsystem, this was not sufficient to meet theneeds of the participants. These youngpeople may have been better served in aresidential or full-day, less flexibly struc-tured program. It was difficult to remaincommitted to a learning program for 3 monthsor more, and the students probably needed arespite after several months' involvement. Atthe time of followup, 60 percent planned toor were pursuing further education. One ofthe strengths of the Learning Laboratory wastpat people were not made to feel like failuresif they were referred out or left the programon their own. Participants were always toltithey could return they wished to. Somepeople did, in fact, leave for a month or twoand then resumed active partkipation.Others, es can be seen from the high rpte of"current feducational involvement," enteredother e14caUon programs after leaving.

The multifaceted alienation which existed whenthe young people entered the Learning Labora-tory, was greatly diminished. 'After partkipat-ing in the program the youhg people seeMedmuch more positively oriented toward educationand educational institutiops, and the degreeand extent of family problems wert reduced.Alienation from the economic mainsti-eam, how-ever, still persisted.

9. Significance andRecommendations

SIGNIFICANCE

Education as a DrugTreatment Modality

The Learning Laboratory provided evidencethat a ,holistic and individualized 'educationprogram can serve as an effective treatnrntmodality for drug-abusing youths. Fifty per-cent of the participants terminated or signifi-cantly reduced their drug use, and only 2percent followed the normative trend ofincreasing their drug use. Furthermore, thepartIcIpantfc made significant educational prog-ress and became increasingly involyed in pur-poseful activities such as vocational training,employment, and further schooling.

LearningLebo tory as a Model

The content and format of the program weredesigned to be easily in rporated Into thepublic school system. 1,4xamples of compo-nents which could be irkDrporated into exist-ng educational programs include (1) the

troduction of workshop'i geared-to themediate needs of inner-city youths, such

s values clarification, decisionmaking, andprevocational activities; (2) the provision ofmore opportunities for active and meaningfulparticipation by students_ in their education;(3) the buil4ing of effective illkages withagencies and institutions outside ,the schoolthat could provide supportive services andresource personnel to conduct special 'in-school workshops on topics such as legalrights of minors, sexuality, and family plan-ning; (11) ongoing inservice training forteachers and counselors to fill the gaps intheir professional,training; and (5) introduc-tion of more comprehensive eva ations of +,

students to facilitate more accurap assess-of strengths, weaknesses, an progrIss,

as well as to serve as a basis for in vidufil-ized treatment 6lannin

r.

41:0

A ComprehensiveApproach to Evaluation

The comprehensilveness with which clients'participation was evaluated and the degree towhich clients contributed individually to theirown evaluation helped to diminish commonlyexperienced feelings of allenatiwi, fragmenta-tion, and confusion. This apiproach alsoproved effective in identifying underlyingfactQrs InvoIvitd in the participants' drugabuse and educational problems, and provideda substantial basis for developing effectiveindividualized treatment plans. Six distincteValuative modalities were employed, includingclient-maintained journals, end-of-cycle evalu-ations, and diagnostic, educational indices.Attitudes, habits, interpersonal skills, values,and academic skills were all considered rele-vant components of the educational process.,

Orientation of Pcogram,Materials and Components

The dIversity4of learning activities and educa-tional materials incorporated into the LearningLaboratory program maximized the range oflearning styles and academic problems thatcould be accommodated. The learning activ-

-' 'Ries were oraanized Into five general areasranging froeiendividualized basic skills work-shops tp community meetings and specialprojects on topics of particular interest toadolescents. The &teas of study within thevarious components imeluded values stiarifica-tion, black studies, Spanish, consunier advo-cacy, mathematics, and reading. Efforts werealways made to collect materials that wererelevarrylitr the lives of inner-city youths;some rials, such as subway maps andapplication forms, were drawn directly fromthe everrday activities of the participants.

37

4

4 3

The Orientation Period andIndividualized Scheduling

The 2-week orientation period provided anopportunity for the young people to meet thestaff and to participate in the various compo-nents of the program without having to makeimmediate commitments which they were oftenunprepared to make. The orientation periodalso enabled the young people to start gradu-ally to develop a sense of belonging at% tobecome familiar enough wRh the program tobe able to begin to participate actively inthe development of a learning treatment plan.Individualtzed scheduling made it possible forclients to establish schedules and make commit-ments that were realistic, and it also gavethem an opportunity to experience earlyachievement and a sense of direction.

Role of the Main-Teacher

Each staff person providing InstrtActIonalservices was assigned to be. the ma1MNteacherto several participants. Main,teachers servedas the primacy counselors arid advisors totheir clients. They met regularly with theirclients to provide feedback about progress,to discuss problems related to their programor other aspects of their lives, and to pro-vide referrals when needed.

The one-to-9ne relationship between the par-ticipants anolf the main teachers proVided thestability the clients needed to develop a trust-ing relationship with a mature and concernedadult. This, in turn, enabled the staff toprovide effective supportive counseling andat the same time challenge their clients towo i k to their fullest capabilities.

Staff Training

Gaps in the professional training of teacherswere identified and discussed, and appropri-ate 'ongoing training was provided. Areasfocused upon Included the psychologicaldynamics otadolescents, drug abuse, record-keeping, organization skills, human relations,communications, and needs assesiment. Thestaff training also helped to promote communi-cation among the staff and to functitin betteras am integrated team.

Research Design

The research design sof` the evaluation wasgrounded in the phlksophy and treatmentobjectives of the program and resulted in anexploratory analysis of how well these objec-tives were-satisfied. The research pointed .

to specific ways in which the Learning Labora-r

40 38

tory and 91zetiar programs lSould be strength-ened. Furthermore, the research demon-strated how the part icipants' concreteaccomplishments, such as securing employ---vzment, reducing drug use, and successful lycontinuing their educations, could be incor-porated into statistically analyzable outcomemeasures.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations, divided intoservice-related and research-related areas,are suggested as helpful addi (Ions and modi-fications for programs having treatmentobjectives similar to those of the LearningLaboratory.

Additional Needed Services

Finandal and vocational needs. Vocationalskills training works-Ws would be beneficialto such programs. Much interest In voca-tional training was expressed among the par-tkipants, and many experienced severefinancial need. Due to their very low skilllevels, most participant were unable to gainadmission to establish vocational trainingprograms. In addition, stipends, providedon an as-needed basis, would help.to reducethe financial hardships with which many par-ticipants were burdened.

Psychological counseling needs. The needfor psychologkal counseling was expressed,both indirectly and directly, by many _partici-pants. This service could be provided byan In-house psychologist, who could also helpto identify those young people who would beunlikely to benefit from suc h. a pregrambecausvf serlotiT psychologkal problems.

Learning disabilities specialist. teveral low-level readers could have benefited from theservices of a learning disabilities specialisThis teacher could provide appropriate tut r-ing. and small-group work, and could alsoconduct initial diagnostic assessments to deter-mine if participants having yery seriouslearning problems could be mofe appropriatelyserved at specialized clinks.

Suggested Additions to andModifications of Research

Followue. The validity of the followup inter-view could be enhanced by the use (with tttepermi§sion of the clients) of independent non-

coofirmants. Validity couAd also beenhanced by conducting the followup interviewat fixed intervals dated from each client'sofficial termination date.

4IP

Multivariate analyses. With the enlargement-orThe sampTe..lize, multivariate analyses couldbe pmployed to determine which clibnt-relatedvariables or set of variables best accountedfor each of the successful outcome measures.Also, multIvariate analyses, with a largersample ond more precise documentation, couldhelp to pinpoint which program componentsor set of components were most effective.

39

MeasurTes of af tective development, Reliableand valid moasures of sell-esteem and otherdimensions of affective development, shouldbe 'developed to assess progress made by theparticipants. A f fective development is com-monly recognized as a significant componentin any therapeutic process, but remains quitedifficult to assess.

45

Selected Bibliography

Abelson, H.1.; Fishburne, P.M.; and Cis In, 1. National Survey on Dru.9_ Abuse: 1977.

Rockville, Md.: National institute on Drug Abuse, 1077.

Adler, P.T., apd Joteca, L. Drug use among high school students: Patterns aril correlates.International Jourcial of the Addictions, 8(3):537-548, 1973.

-

Ahlstrom, W.M., and Havighurst, R.J. 400 Losers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

Anastase, A. Psychological Testing. Toronto: Macmillan, 1968.

Beane, J.A. The high school: Time for reform. Educational Leadership, 35(2):128-133, 1977.

BeInstock, H. School dropouts and Job outlook. In: Mink, O.G., and Kaplan, B.A., eds.America's Problem Youth. Scranton, Pa.: international Textbook, 1970. pp. 3-10.

Berg, D.F. The non-medical use of dangerous drugs: A comprehensive view. International

Journal of the Addictions, 5:777-834, 1970.

Blackford, L. Surveillance of Student Drug.Use. San Mateo County, California, Preliminary

Report-19747 Sacramemto: California Depariment of Public Hearth and-Welfare, Research

ahd Statistics Section, 1974.

Block, J.R. Behavioral and demographic correlates of drug use among students in grades 7-12.

N In: Lettleri, D.J., ed. Predicting Adolescent Drug Abuse: A Review of Issubs, Methods

and Correlates. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print-

ing Office, 1975. pp. 263-276.

Blum, R.H.; Aron, J.; Tutko, T0'; Feinglass, S.; And Fort, .1. Drugs 'and high school students.

In: R.H. Blum and AssociateAs, eds. Students and Drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1969.

Braucht, G.N.; Bralcarsh, D.; Follingstad, D.; and Berry, K.L. Deviant drug use in adoles-

cence: A review of psychological correlates. P§ychological Bulletin, 79:92-106, 1973.

Crumpton, E.; and Grayson, H.M. Personality factors in marihuana Lise: A pre-

liminary report. Othives of General Psychiatry, 24:163-165, 1971.

Burks, E.C. CongressiOnalibanel cites drug crisrs In New York. New York Times, Feb. 8,

1977. p. 54.

Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.

Chicago: ,Rand MeNally, 1963.

Carman, R.S. Drug use and personal values In high scho students. Internsational Journal of

the Addictions, 8(0:733-739, 1973.

Caulley, D.N., and Grotelueschen A.D. The illusion of learner accomplishment. Educational

1..eac, 3500:280-283, 1978.

141

/ 4 6,

Cervantes, L.F. The Dropou : Causes and Cures. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of MichiganPress, 1965.

Cohen, A.Y. The journey beyond trips: Alternatives to drugs: Journal of Psychedelic Drugs,3(2):380-3115, 1971.

Coleman, J.S. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1961.

Coleman, J.S. Youth: Transition to Adulthood. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.

Community Council of rir eater New York, The. Re ort on Monitoring What Happens to ChildrenOut of School. 1Tew York: the Council, 1916.

Cruze, Estimating the social costs of drug abuse. The U.S. Journal of Drug and AlcoholDependence, 2(2):7-14, 1978.

Dembo, R., and Burgos, W. "A Framework for Developing Drug Abuse Prevention Strategiesfor Young People in Ghetto Areas." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducation Research Association, San Francisco, Apr. 19-23, 1976.

Dobkin, R.A. Teen unemployment. Long Island Press, May 4, 1976. p. 22.

Dohner, V.A. Alternatives to drugs. Journal of Drug Education, 2(1):3-22, 1972,

Duke, D.L., and Muzio, I. How effective are alternative schools? A review of recent evaluationsand reports. Teachers -College Record, 79(3):461-483, 1978.

Elliot, D.S., and Voss, H.L. Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books,1974.

Erikson, E. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1963.

krikson, E. Identhy, Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.

Fiske, E.B. Illiteracy in the U.S.: Why John can't cope. New York Times, 12:1,22, Apr. 30,1978a.

Fiske, E.B. ork school reading level still low. NeW York Times, A:1, Jan. 11, 1978b.

Flint, J. I g joblessness bewilders young blacks. New York Times, NJL:2, Sept. 9, 1977.

Fundley, W.1 Language development and dropout. In: Schreiber, D., ed. The School Drop-out. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1964. pp. 160-10.

\.Goldstein, J.W. sessing the interpersonal determinaMis of adolescent drug use. In: Lettleri,

D.J., ed. di Adolescent Dru_g Abuse: A Review of issues, Methods and Correlates.Washingto , uperintendent of-Documents, U.S. -Government 'Printing4Office, 1975.pp. 45-52. i

'Goldstel J.W.; Korn, J.H.; Abel, W.H.; and Morgan, R.M. Epidemiology and Social Psy-chol of Student Drug Use: Report on Phase One. Final -Report, NOAH Project No.MHf1SHOS. WashIngtoryt D.C.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1970. (ERIC Documenta-tlVh System NI:h ED 057398)

Goodman, P. Growing Up Absurd. New York: Knopf, 1956.

Hess, R.A. "A Comparative Study of Successful and Unsuccessful Students at a High Schoolfor Returned Drdpouts." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1966.

Hicks, 'LH... and Buhler, J.H. Schools children like: What do they say about them? 'Educa-tional Leadership, ,Feb. 1977. pp. 388-392.

Horn, F.R. A pilot program to aid returning school dropouts. Journaik Secondary Education,40(94)077-188, 1965.

Ps,

42( 1

Johnston, L.D. Drugs and American Youth. Ann Arbor, Mich.: The Institute for SocialResearch, 19-71.

Johnston, L.D. Drug use during and after high sA.hool: Results from a national longitudinalstudy. In: Greene, M.I1., and DuPont, R.L., eds. rhe tpidemiolegy of Drug Abuse.Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Cover-1114ra Pr iiitin9 Offic e, 1971i,

PP. 29-37.

Johnston, L. D . Bachman, J .G. ; and O'Malley , P.M . Drug Use Among High School Students.Rockville, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1978.

Josephson, E.; Ilabe nan, P.; Zanes, A.; and I linson, O. Adolescent marilmana use: Reporton a national survey. In: Einstein, S., and Allen, S., eds. Student Drug Surveys._ .

Farmingdale, N.Y.; Haywood, 1972.

Kamali, K., and Steer, R.A, Polydrug use by high school students: Involvement and correlates.Internationa) Journal of the Addictions, 11(2):337-3113, 1976.

Kande!, D. Adolescent marihuana use: Role of parent's and peers. Science', 181:1067-1070, 1973.r--

Kandel, 0. Some comments on the relationship of selected criteria variables to adolescent iflicitdrug use. In: Lettieri, D.J., ed. Predicting Adolescent Dru_g_ Abuse: A Review of Issues,Methods and Correlates. Washington, 5.C.: Superintendent of bocuments, U.S. Covernment

-15-11-ritTgOfike-,-TOS:-. pp. 3/I3-361.

Kempt, E.S. Survey of Philadelphia High School Dropouts 1974-75. Philadelphia: PhiladelphiaSchool Dit-ri-C-t, Office of Research and Evaluation, 1976.

Kohen, A.I., and Barker, SA-C. The Antecedents and Consequences of Interr_u_ption of FormalSchoollnr?_: A Review of' the LTie-r-a-t-u-r-e-.---redifib-U-s-,--"Mii: OFilo State ITniverSity, Tent-6-r TorTruman esources,-.1-91-6.

4. Kovacs, M. A psychological approach toward the meanings of drug use. In: Lettieri,ed. Predictigg Adolescent Drug Abuse: A Review of Issues, Methods and Correlates.Washington, . C. : Superintende-nt Of -kocuments, ITS.- -C6vernment 15rin-ting -07-fiEe-, 1975.pp. 61-75. .

Lewis, J.M. The psychiatrist and the drug scene. Bulletin of the Menning.er Clinic, 36(10:1119-4211, 1972.

Loken, J.O. ,Student Alienation and Dissent. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice-Hall r, 1973.

Lombillo, J.R., and Hain, J. Patterns of drug use in a high school population. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 128(7):836-8111, 1972.

Mays, J.B. The adolescent as a social being. In: Howells, J.G., ed. New Perspectives/inAdolescent Psychiatry. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1971. pp. 126-151..

Mechan, J.A., and Mink, E.B., Characteristics of and programs for the school dropout: Someresearch findings. In: Mink, 0.G., and Kaplan, B.A., eds. America's Problem Youth.Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook, 1970. pp. 01i-78.

Moorefield, S. North, south, east, and west side story. A me r ic a n Education, 13(1):12-16, 1977.

Na onal Education Association of the United States. Dropout Studies: Design aria Conduct.Washington, D.C.: the Association, 1965.

. NatbnaI Urban League, Research Department. Jobless back to recession level. QuarterlyEconomic Report on the Black Worker. Report No. 9. Washington, D.C.: the League,March 1977.

New York City Board of Education, High Schdol Division. Personal communkation dated Jan.23, 1978.

4 8

New York State Office of Drug Abuse Servicel. New York State Drua Abuse Program: 1977State Plan Update, New York: the Office, 1177.

New York Times. Truancy rate linked to welfare growth. NewYork Times, Oct. 3, 1977.

New York Times. Studies show that poor health correlates with poverty. New York Times,D:4, Apr. 10, 1978.

Norem-Hebelsen, A.A. Self-esteem as a predictor of adolescent drug abuse. In: Lettierl, D.J.,ed. Predictin. Adolescent Dru. Abuse: A Review of Issues, Methods and Correlates.Washing on, I. uper n ensent o Documen s I overnment r nt ng S ce-,-1975.pp. 193-206.

Phin, J., and Mcirein, M. The Impact of the Education System and Its Relation to the Educat-lonarNeeds and Learning Styles of Drug Using Youth. Philadelphia: The PolytechnicResearch Center of Philadelphia Psychiatric Center, 1976.

Police Department, City of New York, Youth Aid Division. Annual Report, 1976. New York:the Department, 1976.

Preble, E., and Casey, J.J. Taking care of business--The heroin user's life on the street.International Journal of the Addictions, 4:1-24, 1969.

Raskin, A.H. The system keeps the young waiting. New York Times, 4:1 Dec. 5, 1976.

Roberts, J.L. Let's keep them in school. CalifOrnia Journal of Secondary Edaion, 33:115-118, 1959.

Rufener, Rachel, J.V.; and Cruze, A.M. Management Effectiveness MeasiKes for NIDADrug Abuse Treatment Programs. Vol. 1: Cost Benefit Analysis. Research TI-iangle Pirk,

Research Triangle lnstitute, 1976.A

Saleem, B., Jand Miller, S. The Ne lected Drosout: The Returnee. Syracuse, SyiracuseUniVerillity, Youth Development Cener, 1,,3.

Schenk, J. Structure of drug use acid drug\ definition among youth. International. Journal ofthe AddictiOns, 12(4):459-469', lt7f.

Schreiber, D. Guidance and the sfhool dropout.- In: SChrelber, D., ed. The School Dr-opout.-...lyashington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1964.

Schreiber, D. School dropoutsThe persistent problem and the setarch for solutions./ In: Mink,O.G., and Kaplan, B.A., eds. America's Problem Youth. Scranton, Pa.: InternationalTdxtbook, 1970. pp. 55-63.

Smith, G.M., and Fogg, C.P. Teenage drug use: A search for causes and consequences. In:..Lettleri, D.J., ed. Predicting Adolescent Drug Abuse: A ReNtrew of issues,,Methods andCorrelates. Washington, Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing t-

Office, 1975. pp. 277-282.

Sterne, M. Residents of Harlem suffer worst health in New York. New York Times, A:1, D:4,Apr. 10, 1978.

Swisher, J.D., and Crawford, J.L. An evaluation `of 'a Short-term drug education program._The School Counselor, 18:265-273, 1971.

Swisher, J.D., and Warner, R.W. A Stay of Four Approaches to Drug Preventiori. FinalReport. U,S. bçpartment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,...01.ireauof Research. Was ington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, 1971.

10 Swisher, J.D.; Whrner, R.W.; and Herr, E.L. Experimental comparisons of four ppproa es to.drug abe prevention among ninth and eleventh'graders. Journal of Counseling Psychology,19(4):33V-332, 1972.

49

1

Thornburg, H.D. An Invest_irtion of Attitudes Among Potential Dropouts from Minority GroupsYDuring Their Freshman ear Tn'iniF School. I-Ina 'Report. Tr:S.-Office or rducation,

Bureau=ol Research. Wiihing-ton,- 3:C7:-Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1971.

Thornburg, H.D. Attitudinal determinnç1s in holding dropouts in school. Journal of Educa-tional Research, 68(5):181-185, 1975

Tylitr, L.L. Curriculum evaluation and 4:00i-sons. Educational L adershlp 35(14):275-279: 1978.

Tyler, R.W. Fifty years4of theory and practice. Social Policy, 8(2):11-17, 1977.

Verner, C., and Davis, C. &mpitetions and dropouts: A review of research. Adult Education,. 14:157-176, 1963. o

t-

Vidal, D. Rise In ciropouts in New York City shocks regents. New Y7k Times, Oct. 11, 1977.pp. 1, 19 ....___

Vocational Foundation, Inc. Our Turn to Listen. New York: the foundation, 1977.

Wechsler, H., and Thum, D. Drug use among teenagers. International Journal of the Addic-J tions, 8(6):909-920, 1973.

Wehrweln, A. Work opportunity center. High School Joprnal, 53:1019-1454, 1970.

Whitson, E.A.; Lavenhar, M.A.; Blum, R.; Quinones, M.A.; Einstein, S.; and Louria, D.B.Survey of drug abuse In six New Jersey high schools: Methodology and general findings.In: Einstein, E., and Atten, S., eds. Student Drug Surveys. Farmingdale, N.Y.:Baywood, 1972.

Wobliatt, L.H. Why capable students drop out of high school. gulletin of the National Education'Association of Secondary School Principals, 145:1-8, 1961.

Wynne, E. Adolescent alienation and youth policy. Teachers College Record, 78(1):23-40,9976.

Yankelovich, D. How students control their drug crisis. Psychology Today, Oct. 1975. pp.39-42.

Appendix A

Statistical comparisons of the top-quarter (TQ) andbottom-quarter (13Q) groups

CategoryN

(11))N

(0)Chi

square

Degreesof

freedomx

(TQ)5Z_,

(13Q) t

Length in program (months) 13 12 23 8.2 6.1 1.26Family relations (cooperative

vs. noncooperative) 12 12 0.17 1 -

Parental support 10 12 , 20 1.5 1 .3 .53Parental influence 10 12 . 20 2.1 2.0 .29Marriage intact J113 12 .03 1

.

Parent eaucation 13 11 22 1.8 1 .9 -.21Desire to change drug

use level 13 10 .06 1

Time spent hanging outAge dropped out

141 6

1210

.05 1

18 1 7.1 16.0 1.17Last grade completed 13 12 23 10.1 9.2 1.43Years out of school 10 12 20 \41.2 1.3 .13Grades last year . 11 11 20 2.3 2 . 2 -.27Enjoy learning 13 12 23 1.0- 1.2 .23Self-evaluation

Self-confidr; 13 10.

21 3. f 3.7 .02Rate of learning 13 10 21 3.4 2.8 1.04Satisfaction with school

performance 1 3 10 21 2.5 2.4 .31Working to potential 13 10 IQ 1 3.0 2.0 1.99

Reading scores , 12 12 22 7.2 4.6 '2.20Mathematics scores 9 1* 18 6.2 5.5 .88Educational indices .

Awareness of learningdifficulty . 13 12 23 2.8 2.2 1.45

Active Involvement in plan-nin91 educational program 1 3 12 23 2.8 1 .9 2.03

anstructive interaction . J

( with staff 1 3 12 23 3.4 2.2' 22.93

Attitude toward educationalprogram v 1 3 12 23 3.4 2.5 1.98

Corisistency of involvement 13 12 23 3.0 1 .4 22.83Active participation in

educational program 1 3 12 23 .1 2.0 '2.62Facility in education

program . , 11 C 8 17 3.1 2.4 1.26Self-concept as a learner 13 . 12 23 2.8, 2.3 1.21Self-direction as a learner 1 3 12 23 2.5 1 .7 '2.54Ability to follow through 13 12 23 2.9 2.0 '2.41

'Significant at p < 0.05.2Significant at p < 0.01.

41

Appendix BSchool experiences tend perceptions of school

Category Percentage Category Percentage

Disliked aspect(s) of What aspect(*) ofschool school changed 110

Teechers 21 More excessive learn-Rules 18 ing pressure 24Sodal life 14 Reference,to self 24Falling/ frustration .11 Nothing changed 19Particular subject *11 Social life 15Grades and tests 9 Teachers 10Nothing 8 Class shifting 4Other 7 Other 3

Large classes Moro learning 2Everything 3 More and excessive r es 2

Largeness/isolation 2

Liked aspect(s) ofschool 114 Who talked to InLearning in general 24

schOol 113

Social lifeNothing

2420

Friendsleachers

5932

Particular subjects 14 N4 one 23Gym/sports 11 Cotinkelorsi 20Other 10May around/hang out 4 Particular teacher/coun-Field trips 4 selor to talk to 4 111Teachers 3 Counselor 27

Teacher 12When liked most lor Out-of-school counselor 19

Grade school 45No one 44

Junior high school 28High school 15 Obstacles to learning 117NeverAll the sameVocational school

127

2

Reference' to selfNegative peer influencesTeachers

51

1610

Enjoy learning' 115Family problemsFinances

7;7

Yes 77 School/particular classesSvmetimes 22 boring JrNo 1 Drug abuse 4

Unsure 3Gener:al areas of interest 114 Minor 3

Creafive'artsSports.

4132

Think about In school 110

Sclence/math 26 Getting out/cutng 33Readlng/literature 18 Daydreaming 24Career skills 16 Doing school work 19Life/self 12 FutureC.O.D. 12 Graduating

ther 12 Own inadequacy 4

History 4 Falling 3Do not know 3 Otr 9

Want to learn in school 114

Sclence/math 39Career skills 21

Reeding/literature 20Creative arts 10Life/self 16HIstoryOther 7

Sports 4 //

'Only one response could be chosen for this questlot Multiple responses were poSsIble for all

00111MMOIT OgIMITIM OPTIC! 1950 -0* ill_246/6060