Issues Affecting At-Risk and Out-of-School Youth

Seminar II: "Perspectives of Administrators of Programs Serving At-Risk and Out-of-School Youth"
A Forum — February 24, 1999

This seminar was the second in a series of learning activities organized by AYPF to explore issues affecting at-risk and out-of-school youth and the public policy response to their needs. These are young people who are largely undereducated and unskilled, who are not currently in school or in jobs and are seeking opportunities to further their education and prepare for the workforce. They are the "The Forgotten Half," those approximately ten million 18 - 24 year-olds who neither complete high school nor continue their formal education beyond high school graduation (Halperin, The Forgotten Half Revisited, 1998).

Presenters were: Taylor Frome, Executive Director, YouthBuild Philadelphia Charter School; Diane Cottman, Deputy Director Planning and Development, the Latin American Youth Center, Washington, DC; and Lorenzo Harrison, past Deputy Executive Director/Vice President of STRIVE, East Harlem, and currently Administrator for Youth Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. The presenters were asked to (1) describe their program and its evolution; (2) discuss implementation issues and concerns; (3) share perspectives on the needs of the young people served; and (4) share thoughts on how public policy can be shaped to better serve these youth.

YouthBuild and STRIVE are models that have been replicated nationally, whereas the Latin American Youth Center is a community-based organization providing a range of services and programs to neighborhood youth and families. Frome focused her comments broadly on the public’s inadequate response to the needs of dropouts who in some communities may represent a majority of their age cohort. Cottman described the needs of a community and one community-based organization’s response to those needs. Harrison discussed issues of capacity of organizations and individuals to provide quality services to clients and the accountability/sustainability mechanisms sought by funders.

YouthBuild

The YouthBuild model includes intensive academic instruction leading to the GED or a high school diploma and on-the-job training in construction. Class work is alternated with on-site training in rehabilitating abandoned houses and apartment buildings for low-income or homeless people. Youth development, leadership, community service and counseling are critical components of the program. Supports also include a living allowance. This year the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has put $35 million into local organizations sponsoring YouthBuild programs.

In 1991, Taylor Frome began to investigate the possibilities of establishing a YouthBuild in Philadelphia and started assembling resources. Funds for housing rehabilitation were committed by the City of Philadelphia, a housing project was organized by the Octavia Hill Association, the school district provided a full-time teacher and re-enrolled YouthBuild students in the school system, and private foundations provided start-up and implementation funds. Early on, a key decision was made to partner with the school district of Philadelphia and become the first YouthBuild program to offer students a high school diploma rather than a GED.

Motivated by the extremely high demand for learning opportunities for dropouts, a model of continual expansion has been pursued by YouthBuild Philadelphia. According to Frome, "All of our experience reinforces our assumption that dropouts are eager for opportunities to get their lives back on track." Through steady expansion, YouthBuild Philadelphia has grown from the first class of 28 students, to the current class of 175 and from one classroom to six in three different neighborhoods.

Two years ago YouthBuild Philadelphia became one of Pennsylvania’s first charter schools (the Philadelphia Youth For Change Charter School), thus allowing for a more intensive focus on education. According to Frome, "We are in the process of developing a truly stimulating, engaging and effective educational model for this population. Our classes are hands-on, project-based, and fun—so our students find out that they like learning—as they gain the basic skills they’ll need to succeed. We are working to tie our classes into measurable outcomes that meet local educational standards. The next stage in the evolution is to figure out how to offer training in fields other than construction and to develop the capacity to offer more resources, including in-house child-care."

Implementation

Among concerns that should be addressed in implementing programs for this population of youth, Frome identified (1) issues of scale to address the demand, (2) the false dichotomy of scale verses quality that has been an issue in providing services to at-risk youth, and (3) the development of realistic program designs in keeping with the non-linear way that young adults mature and explore career options.

Issues of Scale. Frome described the magnitude of the need for programs for out-of-school youth in Philadelphia. "The data on this population is appalling. The dropout rate is 51 percent, not counting those students who graduate without basic literacy skills. The sheer number of unprepared and uncredentialed young people requires that we think in terms of a solution as large as the public education system--not in terms of a few alternative programs." Between the Philadelphia Service Corps (serving 80 youth per year), YouthBuild (serving 175 per year) and the re-enrollment program in the public schools, a little over 1,000 slots exist for these young people to reconnect with education and prepare for entry to postsecondary education and training. (There may be as many as 10,000 underprepared youth leaving the schools each year who could benefit from other opportunities to continue their learning and development).

The Scale vs. Quality Issue is a Red Herring. Frome reflected on an issue that surfaced at the last seminar--the scale vs. quality debate that has surrounded public policy for out-of-school youth. She criticized the assumption that quality must be sacrificed in efforts to provide opportunities to a maximum number of young people and attributed this view to the belief that one-on-one close relationships with caring adults are essential for these young people, especially in view of the visible and dismal failure of our schools. "While I would not argue with either of these points, our experience is that small scale programs face critical quality and stability issues that cannot be ignored, and also ‘at-risk youth’ need exposure to many adult role models, not just one." Scale and quality can go hand in hand. We have only to look to the university system model of high quality services provided at a large scale for a comparable age group of young people in fashioning responses to at-risk and out-of-school youth. We should conclude that they can benefit from a similar model that is rich and stimulating.

High Levels of Social Upheaval for all Young Adults. According to Frome, young adults in the U.S. tend to make non-linear progress in terms of maturation and their ability to obtain and retain jobs. They do not complete school at 18 or 19 and immediately embark on careers. This is as true for poor, minority, inner-city residents as it is for the children of the middle class. "How then can we honestly expect young adults from homes where few family members, if any, have had a history of work, and where poverty, substance abuse and physical abuse have kept them from having a structured and orderly childhood to be successful faster than our own children?"

Perspectives on Young People

Frome made the following recommendations for programming for young people.

1. Young people need a quality educational experience that brings their literacy and numeracy skills up to a level that ensures workplace success, stimulates their natural curiosity and enhances their sense of themselves as learners and doers.

2. Young people need hands-on work experience to develop work habits that are needed by every workplace in the country.

3. Young people need a high level of social supports. The at-risk population has a long history of marginalization, substance abuse, physical abuse and neglect. Because of this, we need to pay special attention to helping them develop relationships with caring adults and role models, and to build positive peer groups.

4. The effects of economic injustice need to be addressed. To make a successful transition from the "underclass" to productive adulthood, at-risk youth will need the types of ongoing support and access to resources that the middle class provides for their children during their young adult years. This includes ongoing guidance regarding jobs and education, and assistance in meeting basic needs like housing, transportation, food and child care. They will also need support to deal with workplace stressors, and to recover from the set-backs our economy routinely deals the entry-level worker, and those that our cities routinely deal the poor. The conditions that lead to their previous "at-risk" status will not disappear automatically upon graduation.

5. Public policy should support five years of follow-up rather than just one year. How can we in good conscience expect at-risk youth or out-of-school youth to do more with less than we expect from in-school or even college youth who have other resources?

How Public Policy Can Be Shaped

Public policy must start from the premise that:

• all of these supports are necessary for a large percentage of the population
• there is no alternative that will cost less
• these young adults are not just going to disappear
• this population represents a large enough group that the cumulative effect of not addressing this problem will have a negative impact on the whole country

Makers of Public Policy need to understand that most young adults are interested in opportunities. Last year YouthBuild Philadelphia received over 600 applications for 175 openings. The "twilight schools" in Philadelphia, providing opportunities to earn two credits a quarter in classes from 3 to 6 PM, quickly filled their 900 openings even though they provide a slow route to the diploma and are without many of the supports these students need.

Public policy needs to mandate that public education reconnect with out-of school youth through education that is stimulating and meaningful. Public policy needs to engage employers in creating hands-on work experience that leads directly to jobs. Public policymakers need to understand that it will take a long-term, coordinated approach to developing pathways to productivity for all youth. Definitions of success should be the same for everyone, and a set back in the process (incarceration, pregnancy) should not change that goal. Therefore, there is a need to have multiple reentry points into the process of getting the education and skills needed.

We need to get rid of the distinction between at-risk, out-of-school youth and in-school youth--and set up a set of policies and systems that provide entry for everyone into productive adulthood. We cannot afford to wait until students drop out--we need many more summer job opportunities, summer schools, and programs that support students who are starting to fall behind.

We need to wean ourselves away from "demonstration projects" which can never address the issue at the scale needed and concentrate on policies that foster systemic institutional change—funding for summer schools, school-based programs that get at-risk students back on level and on track, programs that re-engage drop outs in their education and link them with employers, and supports for all youth returning from incarceration or dealing with the long-term effects of pregnancy and parenthood.

Latin American Youth Center

The Latin America Youth Center (LAYC) is a community-based, non-profit multi-cultural agency that promotes the individual, social and economic development of Latinos and other minority groups. It has a budget of $3.5 million per year. The Center is located in Columbia Heights, the most culturally diverse area of the District of Columbia with about 17,000 residents. Over the years, its services have evolved to address the changing needs of the community. The Board of Directors and staff are representative of the community and many Center alumni have been employed by the Center as youth workers and in other capacities. For many community youth, the Center is a home away from home, yet it functions as a bridge to the wider community.

In its 31st year, LAYC provides a comprehensive array of services and programs to over 5,000 Latinos, African Americans, Vietnamese, Africans and Caribbean Islanders through a host of initiatives, including education, job training, summer and after-school, entrepreneurial and college preparation activities; social services and family support; health education and prevention; leadership development; and the arts. The Center maintains a radio studio--Youth Radio, a nationally-recognized broadcast journalism training program--and houses the Next Step Public Charter School. The charter school opened in the fall of 1998 with its first class of 36 students; 24 are teen parents and 12 are youth who had dropped out of public high school. The Center also runs the Columbia Heights YouthBuild in collaboration with the Development Corporation of Columbia Heights.

In September 1998, following a three-and-a-half year fund-raising and renovation effort, the Center moved into its new facility. The goal in renovating the facility was to practice what the Center had preached all along--to create not just programs, but a place in the community that is warm, attractive, safe and truly deserving of the youth and families that use its services. Students became the Center’s moving company, participants in the YouthBuild program helped with renovations, and computers were wired and set by alumni. The staff and youth were also involved in the re-design of the building’s interior so that it reflects what the users want and expect. The facility boasts state-of-the art interior design and technology and provides many avenues for interaction, recreation and education for neighborhood youth as well as the community at large. Cottman noted that the downside of having the new building is that now some funders do not think that the Center is as financially deserving of their support.

Perspectives on Young People

Cottman noted that there are many broader concerns and priorities running throughout this community. Maintaining affordable housing is one of them. Gentrification is a major concern since less than half of the property in the area is owned by residents. Amidst these concerns are the daily lives of young people who are trying to survive an environment that is not very friendly.

The high school graduation rate is low. Although many of the programmatic offerings, such as after school tutoring, are based on identified needs of community youth, much of what the Center does is putting Band-Aids on problems that cry out for systemic change in the schools and the community as a whole. The challenge is to provide services to a population that does not have a political voice, to make an impact in the here and now, and continue to advocate for community youth, particularly those that are out-of-school. The Center gives youth a voice and a direct mechanism to be heard. They do not need to rely on adult translators.

STRIVE (Support Training Results in Valuable Employment)

Lorenzo Harrison recounted the history and development of STRIVE, an entrepreneurially run, flat organization conceived in 1984 in a housing project in East Harlem. Its basic design represents a coming together of the work and perspectives of several different and dynamic individuals--one from private industry with the deeply held belief that the only difference from being white and privileged and black and disadvantaged is just an accident of birth; and others with intensive residential treatment and community involvement backgrounds who intimately

understand the challenges many young people face from drugs, street violence, broken and disorganized home lives and limited opportunities. STRIVE was born from the JTPA-era’s focus on preparing individuals for unsubsidized employment. Its originators focused on developing job readiness skills needed for success in these jobs, specifically, attitudinal development, and addressing the individual’s perception of employment, challenging them to take ownership for their actions and responsibility for their decisions, and admonishing them to dispel feelings of victimization and replace them with feelings of empowerment.

The Clark Foundation in Cooperstown, New York charged the STRIVE employment group through a $4 million challenge grant to replicate the model in 11 sites in New York City. STRIVE now represents a public/private partnership. Additional programs have since been set up in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Ft. Lauderdale, Norwalk, Pittsburgh and San Diego.

Implementation

STRIVE is in 29 sites in cities across the country and not one is exactly the same. Issues of replication of the model have centered around establishing the critical relationships with the private sector and determining who can be "trusted" to replicate the concept. The trust factor is critical in implementation and replication, but is not a factor that shows up on a Request for Proposal or in an assessment. (In his role as a local program administrator, Harrison was often asked what oversight strategy was in place to ensure program accountability. The element of trust was not considered important. However, it must exist through a commitment to create a successful youth program.)

According to Harrison, successful implementation is about organizational capacity or the lack of it. Sustainability is the greatest concern and the cause of stress within and on organizations. Federal agencies must determine how to assess and address the capacity issue in funding replication efforts. As a DOL administrator, he would like to but can’t rely on "trust" as a measure of capacity. Unfortunately, programs are often rewarded for the quality of their grant writers, instead of the quality of their services to youth. According to Harrison, "We don’t ask program providers to tell us about the young participants and their needs, but rather do they understand the government procurement process." More importantly, programs must understand that they must show measurable outcomes in the services and activities provided.

He conceded that there is no cookie cutter application for replicating programs, and since we have not figured out the best replication strategy, we must look at the inherent principles and concepts that work as measures of program success--not necessarily the particular models or their components--and reinforce those principles through training and technical assistance to the funded youth programs. Training and technical assistance could potentially be provided through local, state or national resources.

In addition to "trust," Frome inserted the importance of "honesty" on the part of program providers to frankly discuss their capacity, the ability to control or not control certain variables and to lay open their need for technical assistance. However, the opportunity to be fully honest is seldom a part of the grant process. At the best, a program provider can say to a potential funder, "I think we’re going to be able to do this activity and these are the things that may stop us." It is as important to say what we don’t know and need help on. But in a competitive grant world, honesty is a negative value.

Questions and Answers

Following the presentation, seminar participants posed questions and participated in a discussion with the presenters. Following are questions, answers and observations made.

Questions and Answers

• What are the age limitations for a charter school?

The Philadelphia YouthBuild charter school can only serve youth through the age of 21 and receives $5,100 per student. Similar age parameters effect the Latin American Youth Center’s New Step Public Charter School. The per pupil amount may be a little larger because the amounts are set by the local district or state.

• What has been the impact and importance of raising academic standards on the population of youth?

We must be careful about how we address the issue of standards. High standards (academic and occupational) are not the problem because the requirements have increased to match the way jobs have changed. These kids we’ve been focusing on must face the same employment opportunities as other kids and must have access to rigorous learning environments.

In Philadelphia, one-fourth of students are truant on any day. Too many young people are being set up for failure through watered down offerings, substandard facilities and garbled messages about what is of value in our society and how one gains success and economic independence. Kids, however, are savvy and will respond positively to high standards and high expectations. We must fashion our messages in high value terms to which they can relate, e.g. college graduates earn 70 percent more than high school graduates.

• How do we widen learning opportunities and provide appropriate services?

We need to create numerous alternative learning environments where everybody has the opportunity to reach high standards. Charter schools have opened promising new opportunities for expanding learning environments and providing access to mainstream education funds. We need to promote and open up the alliance between the original proponents of charters to the people that can use them for at-risk young people. The challenge is also how to combine social services and other funds to provide the full range of services needy youth require.

• At the federal level, how do we differentiate between programs that are caring and have capacity from those that merely write good proposals?

We should look to the lessons of school reform regarding replicating principles and practices that have been documented as working best, building capacity through networks and providing technical assistance. Those organizations that support the field with on-line staff and with opportunities to be a part of a network are more successful in nurturing successful programs. This is an expensive approach--one we have not systematically used in programming for at-risk and out-of-school youth.

Observations

• We need a new term or vocabulary for describing at-risk or out-of-school youth. We should stop viewing them as dropouts.
• When young people participate in YouthBuild or Youth Corps, they are no longer out-of-school but are in-school (though not in traditional public schools). This is a success story without an attendant vocabulary. The vocabulary that should be used should include phrases like "expanded learning options."
• Many youth, though technically in school, are already lost to the system and missing the basics. Many of the most disadvantaged youth (in Detroit) are leaving school around 8th grade. Many are not meeting the transition to high school to even be counted as dropouts. There is not a lot of outcry and organizing around this issue or about meeting their needs. The implementation of high stakes testing and accountability measures has forced a mentality among many individuals in the education system that these kids tend to lower the overall test scores and ways are devised to kick them out. About half of the students entering YouthBuild from Detroit are not dropouts--they were put out, pushed out or suspended. There are not enough alternative places to put them.
• Geography has been an increasing indicator of which youth can be served (e.g., in empowerment or enterprise zones). However, the high mobility of many young people makes this approach--to target resources geographically--inadequate in following and providing young people with consistent programming.

Summary

Following are some summarizing statements drawn from the presentations and the discussion period.

• We tend to think that at-risk, out-of-school youth represent a small segment of the youth population, but in many places their absolute numbers are staggering while our response to them has been negligible. Many survive in unfriendly environments and seek environments that are safe and nurturing where their voices can be heard and respected.
• We cannot think in terms of quick fixes in moving youth in the "underclass" into economic self-sufficiency. We must think mainstream, giving them the same range of opportunities and time to develop that we provide for more advantaged individuals during their young adult years. Instead of thinking in terms of demonstrations or a few alternative programs, we need to think programmatically on a scale comparable to the public school or the university system.
• We must work from the premise that all youth need a quality educational experience to develop literacy and numeracy, hands-on work experiences to develop work habits, and sustained high levels of social supports.

True program replication is probably impossible. The basic principles and concepts that work should be cultivated, monitored and advanced. A culture should be developed on the part of program funders to promote honesty and frank assessment from program providers as a basis for providing technical assistance and support.

 

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org