© Child Trends 2003
Check and Connect
OVERVIEW
Check and Connect is a program designed to increase high school engagement and completion through a mentor/advocate. This evaluation randomly assigned special education students to a Check and Connect or a control group. Results of the evaluation showed an increase in attendance and goal-setting and a decrease in school mobility.
Target population: High school students
Check and Connect is a program designed to increase student engagement through seven elements. 1) Routine monitoring of alterable indicators is the act of "checking" on students absenteeism, suspensions, and accrual of credits by monitors (program staff). This information is summarized and used to guide students and observe progress. 2) Individualized and timely intervention is the component of the program that is "connecting." Monitors act as mentors, advocates, and service coordinators in an effort to maintain education as a prominent issue for the students, teachers, and family. 3) Relationship building maximizes personal contact over a four- to five-year period between a monitor and student in an effort to build trust. 4) Persistence plus is a message to the students that there would be someone who believed in them and would not let them become distracted from school. This person would be available from year to year and through the summer, as well. 5) Following students and families is an approach that follows the student from school to school if they move. 6) Problem solving increases the acquisition of conflict resolution skills and solution seeking skills. 7) Promoting affiliation with school is an element that involves the monitors informing students of school options, waiving enrollment fees, walking with students to meetings, and other ways to increase school affiliation.
Monitors maintain contact through the school year and summer. Monitors work 20 to 35 hours per week and keep a caseload of 25 to 44 students.
Training for Check and Connect costs $545 to $595 and does not include travel and lodging. Information is available here: http://www.ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect/training.html
Evaluated Population: 144 9th graders from seven high schools in an urban district. Students were receiving special education services for an emotional or behavioral disability. 84% of the sample was male, and 64% of the sample was African American. 70% of the sample were eligible for free or reduced lunch, and 65% were living with one parent.
Approach: Recruitment for this evaluation took place over two cohorts. Students in each cohort were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups
Students were measured on tardiness, absences, suspensions, behavior referrals, course failures, credits earned, and school changes.
Results: After four years, students who were assigned to the treatment group (39%) were significantly less likely to drop out of school than control group students (58%) (a small effect size of 0.18). At years 3 and 4, treatment group students attended school with greater consistency and were less likely to remain out of school all year when compared with control group students (small effect sizes of 0.22 and 0.32, respectively). In years 1 and 4, treatment group students were more likely to remain in one educational setting in a year when compared with control group students (small effect sizes of 0.17 and 0.35, respectively). There were no significant differences between the groups on school mobility in year 2, but, in year 3, control group students were more likely to remain in one school than treatment group students (a small effect size of 0.21). At the end of year 4, treatment group students were more likely to be enrolled in an educational program or to have completed high school than control group students (61% vs. 43% with a small effect size of 0.14). Treatment group students were more likely to have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) written and to participate in their IEP meeting than control group students (a small effect size of 0.26). Significantly more treatment group students stated goals in postsecondary education, community participation, and recreation and leisure when compared with control group students (small effect sizes of 0.33, 0.34, and .32, respectively).
African American treatment group students were more likely to remain in one educational setting in year 4 than control group students (60% vs. 51% with a small effect size of 0.37). No other impacts were found for the African American subgroup.
Female treatment group students were more likely to have stated goals than control group students. In year 4, male treatment group students were more likely to attend school (38% vs. 29%) and less likely to be out of school all year (20% vs. 47%) when compared with control group males. Male treatment group students were more likely to have an IEP updated after ninth grade than control group students (53% vs. 36% with a small effect size of 0.27). In year 3, control group males were more likely to remain in one school when compared with treatment group students (64% vs. 53%).
http://www.ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect/
Program manual available at: http://www.ici.umn.edu/checkandconnect/publications/default.html#manual
Program categorized in this guide according to the following:
Evaluated participant ages: 14
Program components: Mentoring/tutoring, school-based,
Program outcomes: education and cognitive development,
KEYWORDS: adolescents, youth, high school, male, female, black/African American, white/Caucasian, urban, case management, summer program, mentoring, school engagement, high school completion, college enrollment/preparation, academic motivation/self-concept/expectations, community service, manual, cost.
Program information last updated on 10/26/09.
|
|
|
© Child Trends 2003 |