The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 emphasizes the importance of making its work- and school-based activities available to "all" students. Policymakers and staff in the National School-to-Work Office and the U.S. Department of Education have interpreted this to mean that STWOA should not only serve those students who are enrolled in school but those young people (16- to 24-year-olds) who have left high school without a diploma. The purpose of this section is to review what is known about the use of the STW strategy to address the educational needs of out-of-school youth. The central conclusion is that this strategy appears to offer advantages over traditional methods of working with out-of-school youth. Several well-regarded programs actually use at least some elements of the strategy in their work with this population. Nevertheless, the systematic evidence for the effectiveness of STW for this population remains scarce. Evaluations and studies of STW have not focused on the out-of-school or at-risk youth population to determine the prevalence of its use as a reform strategy. Clearly, the thinking and policy development about this subject is at a rudimentary stage. Much more work needs to be done before we can get a sense of the diffusion and effectiveness of STW as a strategy for out-of-school youth.
The original impetus for the development of a STW strategy during the 1980s was not a concern for the education of out-of-school or at-risk youth. Indeed, the problems of educationally at-risk youth had been addressed a decade earlier through federal legislation promoted by the U.S. Departments of Education and Labor. Rather, policy advocates focused STW on the "forgotten half," the middle half of the student population who were neither at-risk nor headed for college. STW was initially meant to strengthen the educational preparation of young people who do not receive baccalaureate degrees, and who would be holding the large group of "front-line" jobs. Researchers felt that educational systems in Germany and Japan did a better job than those in the United States in the preparation of young people to assume these jobs. Policymakers believed that the education of this group of students was weak by international standards, and that improvements in their preparation was central to strengthening productivity and international competitiveness.
Given the focus on the forgotten half, it is not surprising that the initial efforts to implement the STW strategy have largely ignored out-of-school youth. However, the stated objectives of STW have changed. Indeed, advocates suggest that the STW approach may actually be more successful than traditional strategies for addressing the difficult problems of this population.
The educational and employment problems of out-of-school youth have proved to be difficult to address through public policy. Many of these young people lack self-esteem, have academic skills far below the grade level that corresponds to their ages, and know little about the world of work or how to go about preparing for and finding a job. This complex collection of problems call for long-term solutions that emphasize personal development and academic instruction, in addition to training for job skills. However, most programs for out-of-school youth offer short-term occupational training and job counseling and placement assistance.
There has been considerable systematic study of the programs that serve out-of-school youth such as those funded by the JTPA (Job Training Partnership Act) and JOBS (Job Opportunity and Basic Skills). These programs, for the most part, have not been successful in improving the life chances of youth who are most at risk of education and employment failure (Gambone, 1993). A large-scale study of the JTPA system showed that out-of-school youth who participate in JTPA programs do no better than those who do not participate. In fact, these youth fare even worse in job training strategies (Bloom, Orr, Cave, & Bell, 1993; Gambone, 1993). Short-term solutions based on providing occupational skills simply have not been successful (Grubb, 1995a). Based upon the negative findings in reports such as the National JTPA Study, released in early 1995, and the Gambone (1993) report, "Strengthening Programs for Youth," Congress cut the 1996 funding for the JTPA program targeting out-of-school youth (Title II-C) by 70% (Brown, 1996). Subsequently, local and state governments have been forced to scale back or even eliminate programs serving the out-of-school youth population. There is a sense in policy circles that nothing works for this difficult population.
Despite this discouraging record, some observers believe that newer approaches may result in more success (Committee for Economic Development, 1997; Walker, 1997). And some individual programs, such as the Center for Employment Training in San Jose, have been shown to be effective in rigorous evaluations (Melendez, 1996). The question we are addressing in this section is whether the STW strategy can be part of a new approach to solving the employment and educational problems of this group of young people.
Does the STW strategy offer any advantages over the traditional approaches used to address the problems of out-of-school youth? STW includes many characteristics that policymakers believe are necessary for successful youth programs. First, STW is designed to be a comprehensive program which goes well beyond the short-term strategies generally used. The active and student-centered pedagogy that characterizes STW has a chance of reaching many students who are disaffected by traditional didactic teaching methods. STW also emphasizes the importance of strong relationships with mentors and other adults. Furthermore, work-based learning may give disaffected students an opportunity to take on responsibility and to be treated like adults. This contrasts to the highly regulated classroom experience that most students experience. In some cases, these motivational factors may change students' perspectives on education as they learn how they can use their education and grow to appreciate the necessity of education in achieving their goals. As a result of these types of experiences, STW advocates argue that the strategy can have developmental benefits that reinforce academic and work-related skills. The principles that Walker (1997) proposes for policy and programs to help out-of-school youth are highly consistent with the STW strategy.
One of the most serious barriers that thwarts the employment of many at-risk youth is that employers have little confidence in them. One potential benefit of STW programs is that they can help employers overcome this negative stereotype. A report by the Young Adult Learning Academy (1996) (a program for out-of-school youth in New York City) mentions that through school-to-work experiences on job sites, students can demonstrate their ability, capacity for effective work, and desire to learn. The school-to-work program also serves to break stereotypes of out-of-school youth, by providing a forum where students, employers, and practitioners can interact and discuss their previous experiences.
At the same time, there are serious obstacles to the full involvement of out-of-school youth in STW programs. First, implementation is often hampered by an inflexible school setting to which the program must adhere. Second, finding appropriate work placements or non-classroom opportunities for out-of-school youth may be particularly challenging. Program operators already have difficulty recruiting employers for students without serious problems, and they are often reluctant to threaten their tenuous relationships by sending less academically successful students. Third, many out-of-school youth have needs that high school students do not such as income, childcare, transportation, housing assistance, health services, and counseling. As a result, STW for out-of-school youth will require additional resources. It is not surprising that educators, struggling to get the reform implemented and to demonstrate positive results, would be reluctant to take on the greatest challenges until they have seen some successes with students who require less effort and fewer resources (Bailey, 1993).
Despite these problems, there are a slowly growing number of programs with many school-to-work characteristics that are designed to serve this population. We describe four such programs, each of which provides a comprehensive set of services including career counseling with an emphasis on youth development. They also attempt to coordinate the teaching of academic skills with work-based learning, thus emphasizing both academic and work-related skills. These are all relatively new programs, and they have not yet been rigorously evaluated. What is notable at this point is that they represent a new approach to helping out-of-school youth.
City-As-School (CAS) is an alternative New York City High School that was created in 1972. There are now branches in several boroughs. The Manhattan branch enrolls approximately 950 students each year in the 10th through 12th grades. CAS is considered a "second chance" institution; those who apply have generally failed at other schools and may be called "at-risk." CAS places students in unpaid internships with hundreds of area employers. Students receive high school credit for completing a series of internships, called Learning Experiences. For example, to receive an English credit, a student must do a substantial amount of writing at the worksite, as well as complete a Learning Experience Activities Packet (LEAP), which is a curriculum guide often specifically tailored for that particular internship. Learning Experiences outside of the school are augmented by in-house classes and seminars during which faculty lead discussions and projects around the internships. A credit/no credit grading system and the absence of letter grades further adds to the "alternative" nature of the school.
CAS states that its dropout rate is less than the city average. Research at CAS has shown that the staff no longer have to spend a large amount of time recruiting employer partners; the school is well-known and calls frequently come in requesting interns. Program staff work closely with employers to find out how each student will fit into the organization and to make sure the employers understand that the purpose is to make a contribution to the welfare of youth. CAS demonstrates the feasibility of a long-term program with a strong work-based learning component for students who have failed in traditional schools. Over the last 25 years it has led to a high school diploma for many students who had already left the regular school system. Unfortunately, while this experience is encouraging, there are no evaluations that can definitively attribute the particular program characteristics to student or program success.
The Young Adult Learning Academy (YALA) (1993) in New York City is a program for out-of-school youth that is now more than ten years old. YALA has a solid history of providing comprehensive services specifically to out-of-school youth. YALA combines academic learning with work experience in a variety of industries. It began in 1984 as a response to a serious challenge: to serve dropout youth ages 16 to 24 who are ineligible or excluded from JTPA programs because of their low reading scores and poor potential for employment. According to 1993 statistics, YALA's participants included a high proportion of teenage parents (40%) and individuals who have been incarcerated (an estimate of 24%) and/or on welfare (40%). YALA operates through a network of community-based organizations (CBOs) who recruit and screen recruits, who are then referred to YALA. YALA offers four different programs, each with a different theme: (1) leadership, (2) arts, (3) ESL, or (4) childcare.
One of YALA's programs is the Youth Internship Program (YIP), which focuses on childcare. YIP is a six-week program that targets youth between the ages of 17 to 21. YIP recruits through schools and community-based organizations to find out-of-school youth who are unemployed and interested in early childcare. YIP started eight years ago. It is a unique program because it is a collaboration between YALA and the Borough of Manhattan Community College. The majority of YIP's 70 current participants are female.
The YIP curriculum links academic study with childcare education. The curriculum, jointly developed by YALA staff and the head of early childcare education at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, is regularly updated to reflect staff experience and student input. For instance, each participant creates an extensive manual about early childcare on computers. The manual is based on what participants learn in their classes as well as on their own experiences in caring for children. These manuals serve as tool kits when participants begin their internship experience at childcare centers. The participants also create children's books.
All participants in YIP are involved in daily job training that focuses on career preparation and postsecondary education in early childcare. In addition, all participants obtain internships in early childcare. Connecting school-to-work activities include weekly meetings among students and staff to discuss their internships. YIP also has a counseling component. All participants must meet with a counselor on at least a biweekly basis for academic, personal, and career counseling.
YALA has a family support services office that works with local hospitals, clinics, childcare facilities, and others to provide support services for participants and to train staff in family-related issues. As mentioned earlier, out-of-school youth often require services that are not needed by traditional high school youth. YALA provides transportation services, free lunches, and childcare provisions for participants. The program has a job developer who places nearly half of the participants in jobs yearly. The program also works closely with colleges to place students into postsecondary education while they are in YIP or once they complete YIP. YALA also provides follow-up programs for participants that have completed YIP.
Overall, the program helps participants remain in employment, gain entrance into college or other educational programs (e.g., GED), or find employment. One of the program's features that has contributed to its success is its provisions for childcare, health, mental health, and substance abuse services. In addition, the program offers activities that promote socialization (e.g., parties, picnics, and recognition ceremonies).
The program runs for only six weeks, partially due to minimal JTPA funding. According to Catherine Gretchkosey, Director of YIP, this is a source of frustration. Gretchkosey states that YALA attempts to offer comprehensive services and encourages participants to go through a sequence of YALA programming. For example, participants can begin in STAGES (a leadership program), then enter YIP, and later enroll in an evening program.
YALA creatively offers a long-term program that includes a follow-up component. The program provides academic preparation that is linked to postsecondary education (Borough of Manhattan Community College). In addition, YALA's counseling aspect focuses on the developmental needs of its participants. In sum, YALA's emphasis on the coordination objective for comprehensive services makes it distinguishable from many JTPA programs that have been less successful in making connections between academic and work-based learning.
Another notable program for out-of-school youth that incorporates elements of STW strategy is YouthBuild USA, an alliance of independently managed and financed local programs (mostly community-based, independent organizations) funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD serves as the national intermediary and support center for YouthBuild programs nationwide. The YouthBuild program was founded in 1976 by an East Harlem teacher named Dorothy Stoneman. Initially, Stoneman was approached by several students who wanted to renovate an abandoned house for homeless people.
Since its beginning, the program has expanded outside of New York. In 1988, Stoneman started YouthBuild in Boston as a small project funded by the Ford Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. By the early 1990s the program had been replicated in 11 cities across the United States. YouthBuild USA was formally established in 1990. In June 1994, there were 15 YouthBuild programs, with 400 young people participating. Currently, there are 108 YouthBuild sites across the country. In 1995-1996, YouthBuild served 3,000 young people from 17-24 years of age (the program prefers not to take 16-year-olds but does make exceptions). Nearly 80% of its participants were men, 90% from low-income families. Many of the young people who participate in YouthBuild are from troubled backgrounds--some with absentee parents and some who are parents themselves.
The YouthBuild program has two goals: (1) to supply permanent, affordable housing for homeless and low income persons; and (2) to provide economically disadvantaged high school dropouts with opportunities to obtain an education, employment skills, and on-site work experience. Originally, YouthBuild lasted for 18 months, but because of budget cutbacks the program now runs for 12 months. Programming includes three basic components: (1) educational services, (2) leadership training, and (3) on-site training. YouthBuild combines a half time alternative school with on-the-job instruction in vocational skills and with what YouthBuild calls leadership training. The leadership training is a combination of personal and group counseling, peer support, and trainee self-governance. Participants alternate weekly between schooling (earning a high school equivalency diploma) and learning the basics of the construction trades, such as carpentry, painting, plumbing, and electrical wiring, through WBL. YouthBuild finds employment for participants so they can obtain the skills required in construction or related fields. These job placements are also considered the primary vehicle to teach youths how to develop a good work ethnic. The YouthBuild program is also unique in that it provides personal and group counseling (an intensified counseling unit) and "wrap around" follow-up services, which were not a major aspect of JTPA programs.
Youth Fair Chance (YFC) is perhaps the most self-conscious attempt to apply the school-to-work model to out-of-school youth. The other programs that we have discussed here started before the period when the STW model was developed. While they have many of the characteristics of the model, they were not designed explicitly to adhere to it. YFC was authorized by JTPA in 1992 and, therefore, was started during the period when the STW model was being seriously discussed prior to the passage of STWOA in 1994. By 1994, YFC was an established program funded by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program supports efforts in 16 urban and rural communities and enables 16- to 30-year-old youth to complete high school, gain access to better jobs, and obtain counseling and assistance with other problems that may be obstacles to their success: "YFC's primary goal was to create a range of opportunities for youth to complete their education, prepare for employment and postsecondary education, and obtain assistance with personal problems" (T. Orr, 1997).
YFC stresses heightened access to services and integration. The program has built collaboratives with local organizations and community residents, set up learning centers, and worked with schools to start STW programs (Corson, Dynarski, Haimson, & Rosenberg, 1996). It is unique because it focuses on specific geographic areas, provides outlets for community input, and works closely with schools. According to T. Orr (1997), YFC emphasizes positive youth development without solely concentrating on youth deficits. This is similar to YouthBuild's philosophy. YFC also provides comprehensive services to participants living in high poverty areas in urban and rural communities. These comprehensive services involve employment training programs, education through community learning centers and alternative schools, better access to higher education, cultural opportunities, sports and recreation, childcare, transportation, and case management and other social services. YFC must use complementary programs, such as YouthBuild and other JTPA funded programs, and community-based organizations to strengthen overall service delivery.
According to Packer and Pines (1996), the YFC's out-of-school youth program in Seattle, Washington, would be better termed a school and work transitions program than school-to-work. YFC emphasizes keeping youth in school as well as obtaining and maintaining their employment. The primary mode of service to out-of-school youth between the ages of 14 to 30 is a Community Career Center (CCC). The CCC is based on a holistic model. In addition to providing job training and placement, services include counseling, recreation, and childcare to reduce the obstacles of returning to school (or other education and training programs) or gaining and retaining employment. This operation is contracted to a community-based organization called the Southwest Youth and Family Services. A local private industry council (PIC) offers technical assistance, staff training, and development.
The YFC program in Cleveland is a collaboration involving Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU). YOU focuses its attention on youth employment issues and works with Cleveland public schools and the Education Development Center (EDC), a nonprofit organization focusing on education technical assistance with headquarters in Massachusetts. This out-of-school youth component augments academic and advanced manufacturing skills instruction with case management, career counseling, and linkages to supportive services. The Cleveland and Seattle programs are just two out of 16 programs that are operated by YFC.
Corson et al. (1996) found STW initiatives in at least one area school in each of the YFC programs. These STW initiatives were designed to serve both in-school youth and out-of-school youth who were included in the target area. After two years of planning and implementation, elements of STW programs are functioning in many of the schools chosen as part of the YFC program. Gaining support from the school staff was easier at schools that had existing STW initiatives in place. Employers got involved after school staff fully understood and accepted STW as part of the curriculum. Employer participation included hosting students and interns, playing teacher for a day, job shadowing, and helping to develop STW curricula. Employers and schools worked jointly to create career awareness, either through career day presentations, worksite visits, or other means. Some YFC programs were able to develop internships for STW participants who were older students. In general, schools typically offered a few internships; often, the internships had existed before YFC, although YFC usually led to schools being able to develop more internships (Corson et al., 1996). Schools also developed dropout prevention programming by offering counseling, life skills classes, tutoring and remedial help, mentoring classes, and parental classes.
Despite success in early implementation, YFC's STW initiative is only in its infancy (it is two years old) with much work to be done. For instance, integration between the internship and classroom learning experience is weak. YFC's strength lies in its ability to empower the community to get involved with out-of-school youth. Interviews with youth participants indicate that they value their exposure to education, job skills training, career opportunities, caring and supportive adults, and flexible and accessible services (T. Orr, 1997). It is still too early to evaluate the overall effects of YFC or to determine the role played by its STW-like components. The STW strategy has certainly had a strong influence on the design of YFC, and some STW components are widely used. On the other hand, few of the YFC sites have implemented the comprehensive STW model and the establishment of internships seems to be particularly difficult.
These examples illustrate the promise of the STW strategy for serving out-of-school youth despite the fact that program components have not been widely or systematically used. Some well-established programs such as City-as-School and the Young Adult Learning Academy have shown that it is possible to combine academic and work-based learning with counseling, career guidance, and other services. However, these programs remain small and the specific effects of the STW-like characteristics have not been well-measured. Broader efforts such as those mounted by the YFC initiative have not had widespread success in implementing the STW model, particularly the WBL component. But this program is still very new.
Based upon conversations with STW evaluators and state and federal officials involved with STW implementation, it would be difficult to count precisely the number of out-of-school youth served by programs receiving STWOA funds. Nevertheless, the programs described here illustrate an apparent trend toward using the integrated STW strategy for this population. A forthcoming report by Jobs for the Future promotes work and learning for disadvantaged students and emphasizes the potential of programs with STW characteristics. The National School to Work Office has also begun to urge recipients of STWOA funds to make more systematic efforts to address the problems of out-of-school youth. Evaluations should be conducted to test the effectiveness of this approach.