QUANTUM OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (QOP)

Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

QUANTUM OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (QOP)

OVERVIEW

Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) is an intensive, multi-component intervention program for disadvantaged teens during their four years in high school. The program is designed to increase graduation rates, decrease pregnancy rates, and decrease violent behavior rates. Program components include life skills training, academic help, tutoring, mentoring, community service, and financial incentives. Experimental evaluation shows that participation in QOP had several positive outcomes, including increases in teens' academic skills, receipt of honors and awards, high school graduation rates, college attendance, and community service. Participation decreased the likelihood of being high school dropout, becoming pregnant, or fathering a child.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Ninth-graders from primarily low-income families.

Originated in 1989, the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) was designed to provide an intensive package of "quantum opportunities" and services to program participants throughout their four years in high school, aimed at fostering their academic and social development. Participation in QOP was designed to increase the percentage of disadvantaged students who graduate from high school, who do not become or make someone pregnant, and who do not engage in violent behavior.

As outlined below, QOP provided a variety of components with which to promote bonding, community service, life and academic skills, and employability in participants; the program also provided financial incentives for participation in these components. Program opportunities were offered year-round, with the major focus on educational activities. The program curriculum, to date, has differed according to the institution that runs the program site. Ford Foundation-funded sites used an educational program named Comprehensive Competencies Program (CCP), consisting of 96 courses. These courses employed a computer lab and offered tutoring and help with homework. Also, courses on topics such as employment, consumer economics, health and family concerns, and ESL were offered. At both the Ford- and Department of Labor-funded sites, there were community service activities (e.g., increasing parents' awareness about health, drugs and alcohol, etc.) that provided participants with work experience and the opportunity to improve their communities. Local sites had a counselor assigned to a small group of participants. This counselor was committed to stay with the group for the four years of high school and beyond.

Component	Provided by	Duration	Description
Education-related activities (tutoring, computer-assisted instruction, homework assistance)	Adult counselors committed to 4 years	250 hours/year after school	Different settings: community agencies, public schools, homes, group activities
Development activities (acquiring life, family skills; planning for college and jobs)	Adult counselors committed to 4 years	250 hours/year after school	Different settings: community agencies, public schools, homes, group activities
Service activities (community service projects, helping with public events, holding regular jobs)	Adult counselors committed to 4 years	250 hours/year after school	Different settings: community agencies, public schools, homes, group activities
Hourly stipends and bonuses for completing each segment of the program

· Number of children/teens in program: More than 600 children in high school.
· Length: All four years of high school.
· Intensity: 250 hours per year of intensive activities in each of three areas: educational assistance, community service activities and developmental activities.
· Service delivery mode: At local sites through a counselor assigned to a group for four years.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Evaluated population: 50 students at each of five sites: Philadelphia, San Antonio, Saginaw, Oklahoma City and Milwaukee. Students were exiting eighth-graders whose families received public assistance. Roughly 85% of the original groups were available to evaluate at the follow-up data collection.

The most rigorous evaluation to date of the QOP was conducted by Hahn, Leavitt and Aaron (1994). In the summer of 1989, there was a mass recruitment of disadvantaged students who were entering ninth grade. In each of the five sites, above, 50 students were randomly selected from lists of eighth-grade students whose families received public assistance. Each was then assigned to an experimental (QOP) group or a control group (25 in each group at each site). This study compared the baseline (ninth grade) to post high school (with approximately15 percent attrition).

During the high school years, experimental and control group members filled out questionnaires regarding demographic characteristics, work and school experience, health knowledge and personal attitudes and opinions. They also took the Test of Adult Basic Education to assess academic skill levels and the APL 40-item Version Survey-CCP Tier Mastery Test to assess functional skill levels. Post-high school follow-ups were done by telephone and mail surveys. Over the course of the program, participants spent an average of 1300 hours participating in the program.

There were several findings on QOP during the high school years. Two years elapsed before the effects of QOP began to show. However, after two years the experimental group averages for all 11 academic and functional skills were higher than the control group and five of the scores were statistically significant. By the time the sample was ready to finish high school, the experimental group was higher on all 11 skill scores, and all differences of the scores were statistically significant. Also, after two years, the experimental group's educational expectations were much higher, and the difference between the experimental and the control group was statistically significant. When the groups were ready to leave high school, this gap had widened.

In the post-high school period, there were larger and significant differences between the experimental and the control groups. The experimental group was more likely to have graduated from high school and to be in a post-secondary environment, thus, much less likely to be high school dropouts than the control group. There were differences between two- and four-year college attendance; the experimental group was three times as likely to attend a four-year college and twice as likely to attend a two-year institution. The experimental group was also less likely to have children, more likely to have received honors and awards, and to have performed community service.

It should be noted that program impacts were much stronger for the Philadelphia site than the other sites. Philadelphia stood out as having exceptional results; in all reports, they tended to be more successful, especially with the high school graduation and post-secondary attendance percentage (76 percent of Philadelphia students graduated and went on to a post-secondary education vs. 50 percent in Oklahoma City). In some instances, this was the only site that produced statistically significant results. This may have been because other sites had a smaller number of children and/or the other sites were unable to implement, perform and use the program like the Philadelphia site.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References:

Hahn, A. (1994). Extending the time of learning. In D.J. Besharov (Ed.), America's Disconnected Youth: Toward a Preventative Strategy, pp. 233-266. Washington, DC: CWLA Press and American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Hahn, A, Leavitt, T. & Aaron, P. (1994). Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program: Did the program work? Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School.

Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s):

Manlove, J., Terry-Humen, E., Romano Papillo, A., Franzetta, K., Williams, S., & Ryan, S. (2002). Preventing teenage pregnancy, childbearing, and sexually transmitted diseases: What the research shows (Research brief). Washington , DC : Child Trends.

Manlove, J., Terry-Humen, E., Romano Papillo, A., Franzetta, K., Williams, S., & Ryan, S. (2001). Background for community-level work on positive reproductive health in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Redd, Z., Brooks, J., & McGarvey, A. (2002). Educating

America

's youth: What makes a difference (Research brief). Washington , DC : Child Trends.

Redd, Z., Brooks, J., & McGarvey, A. (2001). Background for community-level work on educational adjustment in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Zaff, J. F. & Michelsen, E. (2002). Encouraging civic engagement: How teens are (or are not) becoming responsible citizens (Research brief). Washington , DC : Child Trends.

Zaff, J. F. & Michelsen, E. (2001). Background for community-level work on positive citizenship in adolescence: Reviewing the literature on contributing factors. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

SUMMARY & CATEGORIZATION

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 9^th-graders (at program debut) / Program age ranges in the Guide: 12-14, 15-21

Program components: Clinic/provider-based, Service/vocational, Mentoring/tutoring

Measured outcomes: Education/cognitive, Life skills, Reproductive health, Citizenship

Program information last updated 1/29/02.