|
Guide
to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth
|
THE SUMMER TRAINING AND EDUCATION PROGRAM (STEP)
OVERVIEW
The Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) is designed to minimize academic losses during summer vacation from school, and to prevent pregnancy and resultant school dropout, in low-achieving, at-risk adolescents. The program operates on the school and community levels, providing remedial education, life skills training, part-time summer jobs, and contact with the program throughout the school year. Experimental evaluations of the program show that participation in STEP had certain positive impacts in the short-term, such as higher reading grades, math grades, and scores of contraceptive knowledge. However, STEP had no lasting effects on participants 2 to 3 years after the program in educational, employment, welfare participation, or reproductive behaviors. Only test scores on knowledge of responsible social and sexual behavior remained higher at this follow-up time.
DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
Target population: Program participants were 14- to 15-year-old
low-achieving adolescents from poor families.
The Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) is designed to minimize adolescents' loss of academic knowledge during summer vacation from school, and to prevent pregnancy and resultant school dropout. STEP teaches technical, education, and life skills, including instruction on contraceptive availability and use. The program operates on the school level, employing innovative curricula, teaching methods, computer-assisted instruction, and providing contact with the program throughout the school year; STEP also operates on the community level, where local employment and training agencies provide part-time summer work for participants.
| Component | Provided by | Duration | Description |
| Remediation | Local school district | 90 hours, 2 summers | Innovative curricula and teaching methods; and computer-assisted instruction focused on reading and math skills and higher-order thinking |
| Part-time summer work | Local employment and training agencies | 90 hours, 2 summers | Minimum wage, part-time |
| Life skills | Local school district | 18 hours, 2 mornings per week | High-engagement summer classes focusing on life issues such as sexual behavior, drug use, careers, and community involvement |
| Support during school year | Local school district | Average 5-15 hours per year | Infrequent contact during school year. One-on-one adult contact, recreation, and other noneducational activities. |
The Summer Training and Education Program served 20,000 adolescents at 100 separate locations, nationwide, through 1991.
EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM
Walker, G., & Vilella-Velez, F. (1992). Testing the model. In Anatomy of a demonstration: The Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) from pilot through replication and postprogram impacts. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Evaluated population: Cohorts II and III: 2,519 youth ages 14-15 at the beginning of program. Approximately 86 percent were ethnic minorities; about half lived in female-headed households.
Objective:
Assess the short-term impacts of the program on participants in terms of schooling and academic performance, adolescent pregnancy and parenthood Assess the feasibility of implementing the model in various settings and on a large scale
Measurement instrument:
Summer tests (Metropolitan Achievement Test), participant questionnaires, program records and school records.
Evaluation:
Type: Experimental; random assignment to intervention and control groups
Statistical techniques: Multiple regression analysis, significance level =.10
Results:
Increased reading grades, math grades, and contraceptive knowledge during program participation. The program did not, however, change teens' sexual activity, use of contraception, or births
Other information:
Full program was 15 months; program conducted mainly during summer months.Control group participates in the local Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (SYETP) program. At two sites, controls are also guaranteed a SYETP job for the second summer.The return rate for participants who completed the first summer was 75 percent; intensive outreach efforts were required to achieve this rate.
Walker, G., & Vilella-Velez, F. (1992). Long-term impacts. In Anatomy of a demonstration: The Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) from pilot through replication and postprogram impacts. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Evaluated population: Cohorts II and III (3,226)
Cohort II: (54 months after enrollment, or 3.25 years after program ended)
Cohort III: (42 months after enrollment, or 2.25 years after program ended)
Objective:
To assess (a) the impacts of the program on measures of education, reproduction behavior, early employment, and welfare, and (b) the feasibility of implementing the model in various settings on a large scale.
Measurement instrument:
In-program (summer tests, questionnaires, and program records) and postprogram (follow-up interviews and high school transcripts) data were collected.
Evaluation:
Type: Experimental; random assignment to intervention and control groups
Statistical techniques: Longitudinal evaluation; random assignment to treatment group (offered the opportunity to participate in STEP) and control group (offered a one-summer job in the federally funded SYETP); regression analysis. Significance level = .10
Results:
Long-term impacts (2 and 3 years post-program): After the program ended, impacts decayed rapidly:
Grades: no impact
Test scores: no impact
Dropout rate: no impact
College attendance: no impact
Knowledge of and test scores on responsible social and sexual behavior: increased
Sexual behavior: no impact
Teen pregnancy rate: no impact
Post - high school employment rate: no impact
Welfare receipt: no impact
Of the youths who were not attending school, about half were working.
Other information:
Evaluators believe that although the summer program was effective in preventing students from losing academic skills over the summer, the summer intervention may not have been long enough to have long-lasting effects. The program had no major environmental impact; e.g., the need for money was a major reason students dropped out of high school.
SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION
References:
Walker, G. & Vilella-Velez, F. (1992). In Anatomy of a demonstration: The Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) from pilot through replication and postprogram impacts. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
Program also discussed in the following Child Trends publication(s):
Jekielek,
S., Cochran, S. W., & Hair, E. (2002). Employment programs and youth
development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
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.
Program categorized in this guide according to the
following:
Evaluated participant ages: 14-15 / Program age ranges in
the Guide: 12-14, 15-21
Program components: School-based, Clinic/provider-based,
Service/vocational
Measured outcomes: Education/cognitive, Reproductive health
Program information last updated 4/6/07
