Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
348833287
label
Teen Outreach Program
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
348833287
contentType
document
title
Teen Outreach Program
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)
AmeriCorps Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
348833287
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
311842741-20130661F-Seg3-041-007-2023
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9d09f8960b6f12f3
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F (3)
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Americorps
Series/Staff Member:
General Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
24239
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Teen Outreach Program
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
66
1
1
3
OF JUNIOR LEAGUES
ASSOCIATION
AJLI
INTERNATIONAL
FACT SHEET
TEEN OUTREACH PROGRAM
THE
ONI
The Teen Outreach Program (TOP) was established in 1978 by Brenda Hostetler, director of pregnancy prevention
programs in the St. Louis Public Schools. In 1981, the Junior League of St. Louis and the Danforth Foundation
began sponsoring the program, whose goal was to decrease the rate of adolescent pregnancy and increase the rate
of high-school graduation for at-risk teens. In 1984, the Junior League of St. Louis initiated a national
demonstration effort funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. Since 1987 the Association of Junior
Leagues International Inc. (AJLI) has been responsible for the national program, with funding from the Charles
Stewart Mott Foundation, the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, and the Stuart Foundations.
The Teen Outreach Program expanded from eight Junior League sponsors with nine classroom sites in 1984 to
a total of 33 Junior Leagues and other community-based sponsors and 95 classroom sites in the 1992-93 school
year. AJLI is currently developing state and community models to institutionalize TOP and replicate it on a wider
basis. A state model for TOP is being developed in California. AJLI is working with community sponsors in
seven communities (Atlanta; Bronxville, NY; New Orleans; Reno; Roanoke, VA; Charleston, WV; and Seattle)
to develop a community/school partnership which will focus on implementing the program on a district-wide
basis.
Teen Outreach began as a comprehensive program to help adolescents develop a positive self-image, concrete life
management skills, and future goals, though the marketing strategy identified it primarily as a program aimed
at preventing adolescent pregnancy. Over the past six years, its focus has been on fostering positive development
in at-risk youth.
In every Teen Outreach Program, a group experience, a facilitator/student relationship, and a volunteer experience
build self-esteem and individual skills. A unique relationship develops between the program facilitators and the
female and male adolescents who participate in the TOP curriculum in small peer-group settings. The community
service component enhances the students' sense of self-worth and enables them to see themselves as valuable,
contributing members of their communities. Both the volunteer component and the classroom discussions have
been identified as key elements in TOP's success.
The 'helper-therapy' principle introduced by Riessman (1965) suggests that helping other people can be therapeutic
and can lead to personal growth, particularly for persons in disempowered groups. A sense of empowerment is
engendered by placing students in help-giving rather than help-seeking roles, such as in hospitals, nursing homes,
day care centers and other community sites (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Rappaport, 1987). The volunteer component
is also based on the premise that when young people become effective volunteers, a belief that they can succeed
in attempts to behave competently increases. This belief in turn leads to more persistent effort to perform
competently (Bandura, 1977).
TOP's volunteer component is consistent with the notion that education may most effectively proceed in real-life
settings outside of classrooms (Sarason, 1984). Gottfredson (1985) has noted that outside work may provide
youths who do not fit into the mold of traditional schooling an alternative route for success; work may provide
a legitimate means to meet needs and strengthen adolescents' bond to the social order. Because volunteer
experiences teach pre-employment skills, yet do not increase financial independence from parents, they do not
THE ASSOCIATION OF
JUNIOR LEAGUES
INTERNATIONAL. INC.
660 FIRST AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016-3241
PHONE: 212-683-1515
800-95-LEAGUE
FAX: 212-481-7196
weaken parental control, a potential problem with teenage jobs. A successful TOP volunteer component ideally
offers assignments that actively engage students and provide them with choices about their volunteer work.
TOP links the volunteer program to the school experience; a U.S. Department of Labor study found that work
experience, when closely coordinated with school, increases both school attendance and grades (Barton & Frazer,
1980). An emotionally supportive classroom environment in which the students do most of the talking and
facilitators relate to students in a compassionate and non-judgmental manner has been found to be most successful.
The Teen Outreach classroom activities increase students' commitment to academic endeavors, to the program
facilitator, to each other, and to TOP itself. Teen Outreach may increase adolescents' attachment and
commitment to basic societal norms, such as completing school and avoiding delinquent behavior.
Finally, the Life Options curriculum, because it emphasizes positive decision-making skills, may enhance
adolescents' skills in dealing with social situations they face. The curriculum presents topics and exercises that
the facilitator can use to generate further group discussion. The content and the interactive style of sessions about
relationships, life planning, peer pressure and family issues help teens learn to think critically about these issues
and to evaluate their own behavior. TOP participants are helped to develop better communication skills and learn
to resolve differences of opinion and other conflicts.
The average Teen Outreach group consists of 15 to 20 females and males. Sessions take place during the daily
school curriculum or after school; at some of the schools it may be taken for credit. All Teen Outreach programs
have a community sponsor, typically a Junior League but sometimes another community agency. The sponsor
is responsible for 1) securing funding for the program, 2) arranging for and monitoring the volunteer experiences,
and 3) collaborating with the school system.
TOP includes a significant evaluation component and maintains a database on participants and comparison
students. National data indicate that the program has resulted in statistically significant reductions in teenage
pregnancies and school failure. In the seven years ending in 1991, Teen Outreach participants averaged a 5
percent lower rate of course failure, a 18 percent lower rate of school suspension, a 50 percent lower rate of
school drop out, and a 33 percent lower rate of pregnancy than students in the control group.
The Teen Outreach Evaluation represents 3,674 students at 60 sites who range in age from 11 to 21, and whose
average age is 14.9 years old. About 40% of the students are black, 40% are white, and 13% are Latina/o.
Those in other racial/ethnic groups include mostly native Americans and Asians. Two-fifths of the participants
come from single parent families; the parents of about one-fifth had less than a high school education.
Approximately 1500 students participated in the program in the 1991-92 school year. Some students enter TOP
on a volunteer basis when they hear of the program; others are targeted by program facilitators or counselors as
at "high risk" for leaving school or becoming pregnant. High risk factors include having a parent or older sibling
who did not graduate from high school or who became pregnant as a teenager. At still other schools, facilitators
seek out students who are not yet exhibiting negative behaviors but who could be at risk.
TOP's congruence with related research undoubtedly contributes to its unusually positive outcomes. In 1987, the
report of the National Research Council's Panel on Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing, Risking the Future:
Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy and Childbearing, named TOP as one of only three teen pregnancy prevention
strategies with any documented evidence of reducing pregnancy. The first published academic article on the Teen
Outreach Program was published in the American Journal of Community Psychology in December 1990, entitled
"School-Based Prevention of Teenage Pregnancy and School Dropout: Process Evaluation of the National
Replication of the Teen Outreach Program." More recently, TOP's success has been documented in Preventing
Adolescent Pregnancy: Model Programs and Evaluations.
###
9/93
OF JUNIOR LEAGUES
ASSOCIATION
AJLI
INTERNATIONAL
FACT SHEET
THE ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR LEAGUES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
THE
ONI
The Association of Junior Leagues International Inc. (AJLI) is an organization of women committed to promoting voluntarism and
to improving the community through the effective action and leadership of trained volunteers. The 284 Junior Leagues throughout
the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Great Britain have a collective membership of more than 190,000 women.
ASSOCIATION STRUCTURE:
The international headquarters in New York City serves as a base from which staff and volunteers serve the Junior Leagues.
A 27-member Board of Directors is accountable to the Leagues for the development of governing policies and AJLI's
strategic plan, which are implemented by staff and volunteer service providers. A 19-member Resolutions Committee
consisting of elected League members manages the process by which Junior Leagues determine AJLI external policies to
effectuate community impact. AJLI is supported by membership dues, foundations, corporations, and grants, and it
sponsors revenue-producing efforts to meet the cost of its programs and activities.
ASSOCIATION GOALS
(1) To be in the forefront of community leadership as an influential advocate and catalyst for societal change. (2) To
empower trained volunteers to be a leading force in meeting critical community needs through direct service projects and
programs. (3) To be a creative, viable association that meets League and individual member needs. (4) To promote
multiculturalism and contribute to eliminating discrimination against women and discrimination based on race, ethnicity,
or religion.
The Association's strategic plan enables AJLI and the Junior Leagues to achieve these goals. The plan focuses on (1) issue
priorities -- specific areas in which the Association seeks change at the community, national, or international levels -- and
(2) organizational priorities -- those functions or concerns that the AJLI Board identifies as vital to building organizational
capacity. The identification of these priorities, based on input from the Leagues, enables the Association to marshal its
resources to assist Junior Leagues in maximizing their community impact.
ISSUE PRIORITIES
The Association has two issue priorities: Child Health and Education. In addition to building on the Leagues' long history
of involvement in these areas, the issue priorities were selected for their potential to impact broad populations and to
advance diverse community collaborations. The Association provides technical assistance in the form of consultations,
demonstration projects, publications, and conferences to Junior Leagues working in these areas.
CHILD HEALTH: The Association believes that all children, youth, and pregnant women should be guaranteed availability
of and access to appropriate preventive and primary care. For over 70 years, AJLI and the Junior Leagues have been
leaders and innovators in child health reform. AJLI's Child Health Program, launched in fall 1992, is supporting the
development by Junior Leagues of successful community models that demonstrate the impact of effective citizen action
on community child health issues. Junior Leagues and State Public Affairs Committees (SPACs) will pursue child health
initiatives in their communities that employ multi-strategic approaches, including direct service, public education, and
advocacy. A team of trained volunteers and staff provides technical assistance to Junior Leagues pursuing child health
initiatives. Partial funding for the Child Health program is provided by the Aetna Foundation.
EDUCATION: AJLI supports efforts to ensure that all people have access to an education that will provide the skills
necessary to be productive members of our global society. Strategies for the achievement of this outcome include the
identification of effective ways for citizen volunteers and voluntary groups to engage with and have impact on educational
systems. While the Education priority is in the planning stages, AJLI currently sponsors two related programs:
Partnership for Progress (PFP). Six Junior Leagues are active in the Association's PFP program, supported by the Edna
McConnell Clark Foundation. The purpose of the program is to establish the community as a major stakeholder in school
reform with the power to leverage for change.
(over, please)
THE ASSOCIATION OF
JUNIOR LEAGUES
INTERNATIONAL. INC.
660 FIRST AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016-3241
PHONE: 212-683-1515
800-95-LEAGUE
FAX: 212-481-7196
Teen Outreach Program (TOP). Designed to provide a positive environment to support youth development, TOP helps
youth avoid at-risk behaviors, such as adolescent pregnancy, substance abuse, and school failure. Currently operating in
108 classrooms in 39 cities, TOP helps teens develop life goals and a sense of self-efficacy through facilitated group
discussions and a community service component. Independent evaluations have verified TOP's success in reducing the
rate of teenage pregnancy and school failure. AJLI is developing replication models for the institutionalization of the
program in educational systems at local and state levels. Current TOP funders include the Carnegie Corporation of New
York, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Smith-Richardson Foundation, and the Stuart Foundations.
In addition to the collective activities related to education and child health, the Junior Leagues address a wide range of other issues
depending on the needs and opportunities facing their local communities. These include substance abuse, child abuse and neglect,
violence against women, criminal justice, health, family services, education, cultural enrichment, historic preservation, urban
revitalization, and the environment.
ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITIES
The Association's organizational priorities focus on building a strong infrastructure for the Leagues and the entire
Association as a foundation for the achievement of their strategic plans. Key activities of the infrastructure that ensure
capacity-building include the achievement of multiculturalism; educational and training events, consultations, and resources
focusing on leadership development; effective organizational governance; membership retention; and sound organizational
management at the international, national, and local levels.
The Association and Leagues recognize that today's complex issues demand innovative, disciplined approaches that draw
on all functions and members of the League. In response, they have adopted an outcome-oriented or goal-centered
approach, in which the entire League strategically determines its goals and then decides on a plan to achieve them. Every
function and activity of the League is centered around its goals, assuring that League resources and energy are aligned with
that to which the League is truly committed. AJLI and the Leagues believe that collaborations are critical to identifying
and solving community problems.
MULTICULTURALISM
Junior Leagues reach out to women of all races, religions, and national origins who demonstrate an interest in and
commitment to voluntarism. One of the Association's overarching goals and organizational priorities is the promotion of
multiculturalism and the elimination of discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, or religion.
The Association provides a network of services to help Junior Leagues reach this goal and to ensure that its membership
is inclusive of all women who share the mission. AJLI's services seek to create an environment in Junior Leagues and their
communities where diverse perspectives and different cultures are respected and valued. AJLI provides a variety of written
and visual resources to assist Leagues in their multicultural work. An innovation is the multiculturalism demonstration
project, a three-year effort designed to create and test strategies and methodologies for furthering League and community
diversity. AJLI staff, a cadre of trained service providers, and expert consultants provide leadership for League visits,
telephone consultations, workshops, and seminars to enhance cross-cultural awareness, understand the effects of prejudice
and racism, and develop community collaboration and networking skills.
RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Trained Junior League volunteers and staff provide services to Leagues on organizational priorities through individual
consultations, trainings, and meetings. The Association encourages a multi-strategic approach to community impact that
encompasses direct service, public awareness, and advocacy. The Association's Washington, D.C. office coordinates
national advocacy activities and assists Junior Leagues in their work on local and state policies. To enable Junior Leagues
to access and exchange information about trends in the voluntary sector and community activities, the Association has
developed and implemented an Electronic Bulletin Board.
The Association also publishes a number of periodicals and resources designed to provide technical assistance, background
information, and strategies for community impact in key areas. These include: Junior League Review, the official magazine
of the Association, with a circulation of 190,000; What Works, a newsletter for League leadership; a periodic Legislative
Network on federal legislation and activities related to the strategic plan; and tip sheets, briefing papers, and manuals
targeting key functions.
11/93
OF JUNIOR LEAGUES
ASSOCIATION
AJLI
INTERNATIONAL
FACT SHEET
TEEN OUTREACH PROGRAM
THE
ONI
THE EVALUATION OF TEEN OUTREACH
1984 to 1991
The evaluation of Teen Outreach began in the 1984-85 school year and has now covered 7
years, through 1990-91.
During that time, data have been gathered from:
** 3,674 Teen Outreach students, and
** 4,202 comparison students, nationwide and in Canada.
During the last three of these years, a portion of these students were in sites where true
random assignment of Teen Outreach and control students was possible. The random
assignment data set includes:
** 472 Teen Outreach students, and
** 496 comparison students.
In the entire 7 year sample, the following results have been obtained:
** a 5% lower rate of course failure in school;
** an 18% lower rate of school suspension;
** a 33% lower rate of pregnancy; and
** a 50% lower rate of school dropout among Teen Outreach students than among
comparison students.
The differences in these rates between Teen Outreach and comparison students are
statistically significant and participation in Teen Outreach is significantly related to each
outcome when controls are introduced for race, gender, grade, mother's education, living
arrangement, and pre-program levels of each of these indicators. In other words, this
impact of Teen Outreach is net of the impacts of these other factors.
These same results in the random assignment subsample show:
** a 32% lower rate of course failure in school;
** a 37% lower rate of school suspension;
** a 43% lower rate of pregnancy; and
** a 75% lower rate of school dropout among Teen Outreach students than among
a randomly assigned group of control students.
THE ASSOCIATION OF
JUNIOR LEAGUES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
660 FIRST AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10016-3241
PHONE: 212-683-1515
800-95-LEAGUE
FAX: 212-481-7196
These results too, are statistically significant and net of the control variables listed above.
Research on the components of the program that seem essential to its success show that it
is important that each Teen Outreach group include the following:
A volunteer component that:
** includes assignments that actually engage students, and
** gives young people choices about their volunteer work.
A classroom environment that:
** students feel is emotionally supportive, and
** in which students, rather than facilitators, do most of the talking.
This research has also shown that the following are NOT related to the success of the
program:
** student characteristics such as race or gender;
** facilitator characteristics such as age, education, or background;
** location of the program (urban or rural);
** structural characteristics of the program such as whether or not it is offered for
credit, whether it is after or during school.
Thus, the results of the program seem robust in many settings and for varying audiences.
There is a trend in these data for the program to be more successful with older students. The
program does have beneficial impacts on middle school students but at least in terms of the
outcomes reported above, these impacts are not as consistently strong as they seem to be among
older students. The program is currently developing a revised curriculum to be used with
middle school students.
DATA FROM THE RANDOM ASSIGNMENT SAMPLE
1988-89 to 1990-91
50%
44%
40%
30%
30%
27%
20%
17%
10%
7%
4%
4%
1%
0%
course failure***
suspension**
pregnancy***
dropout***
TO Students
Comparison Students
""Participation in Teen Outreach is significantly related to lower rates of this behavior after controlling
for race, gender, grade, mother's education, living arrangement and the pre-program level of each of these
indicators. Note: (The significance level of Teen Outreach participation on pregnancy rates is .06)
PREVENTING
ADOLESCENT
PREGNANCY
Model Programs and Evaluations
Brent C. Miller
Josefina J. Card
Roberta L. Paikoff
James L. Peterson
editors
S
SAGE PUBLICATIONS
International Educational and Professional Publisher
Newbury Park London New Delhi
Contents
Preface
vii
1. Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Programs:
Design, Monitoring, and Evaluation
JOSEFINA J. CARD, JAMES L. PETERSON,
CATHERINE G. GREENO
1
2. Small Group Sex Education at School: The McMaster
Teen Program
B. HELEN THOMAS, ALBA MITCHELL, M.
CORINNE DEVLIN, CHARLIE H. GOLDSMITH,
JOEL SINGER, DEREK WATTERS
28
3. Enhancing Social and Cognitive Skills
RICHARD P. BARTH, NANCY LELAND,
DOUGLAS KIRBY, JOYCE V. FETRO
53
4. An Information and Skills Approach for Younger Teens:
Postponing Sexual Involvement Program
MARION HOWARD and JUDITH A. MCCABE
83
5. A Comprehensive Age-Phased Approach: Girls
Incorporated
HEATHER JOHNSTON NICHOLSON and
LETICIA T. POSTRADO
110
6. Life Options and Community Service: Teen Outreach
Program
SUSAN PHILLIBER and JOSEPH P. ALLEN
139
7. School-Linked Reproductive Health Services: The Johns
Hopkins Program
LAURIE SCHWAB ZABIN
156
8. School-Based Clinics
DOUGLAS KIRBY and CINDY WASZAK
185
9. A Health Beliefs Field Experiment: Teen Talk
MARVIN EISEN and GAIL L. ZELLMAN
220
10. Comparing Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Programs:
Methods and Results
BRENT C. MILLER and ROBERTA L. PAIKOFF
265
Index
285
About the Editors
289
About the Contributors
291
6
Life Options and Community Service
Teen Outreach Program
SUSAN PHILLIBER
JOSEPH P. ALLEN
Introduction
Teen Outreach is a school-based program for adolescents that was
designed originally to prevent early pregnancy and to encourage regular
progress in school. The program seeks to reach its goal through a
combination of small group discussion strategies using its own curric-
ulum and by providing volunteer service experience in the community
for its young participants. It is. in other words, a program in the "life
options" tradition of teen pregnancy prevention programs (Dryfoos,
1990; Hayes. 1987) and a program that has amassed several years of
evaluation data showing positive results.
AUTHORS' NOTE: Teen Outreach and its evaluation are funded by the Charles Stewart
Mott Foundation. the Lila Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund. and other foundations. We are
grateful for their support. The program is coordinated by the Association of Junior
Leagues International. to whom the authors express appreciation for their support and
assistance in gathering these data. The authors also wish to thank Kathy Arnold and Merry
Oakley of Philliber Research. who have patiently coded. computer-entered. and processed
these data. Most important. we wish to thank the Teen Outreach facilitators and their
Junior League colleagues from throughout the United States and Canada who have
gathered the data and run the programs that made this evaluation possible.
139
140
Life Options and Community Service
In 1981. the Junior League of St. Louis assumed a major role in
promoting and funding the Teen Outreach program. which had begun in
1978 as a collaborative effort between the Danforth Foundation and the St.
Louis Public Schools. In 1983, funding was obtained from the Charles
Stewart Mott Foundation to begin a 3-year national replication of Teen
Outreach. By 1987, a second 3-year national replication effort began under
the direction of the Association of Junior Leagues International. in coop-
eration with the American Association of School Administrators.
Teen Outreach has maintained a nationwide evaluation system to
monitor program outcomes since 1984. This chapter reports the data
produced by that system. with special emphasis on data from the fifth
year of this monitoring. the 1988-1989 school year. This latter year is
emphasized because it is the most recent for which analysis is complete
and because it was the first year in which the program had any substan-
tial number of teens who were assigned randomly to the program or
control groups for evaluation. In addition. however. the chapter com-
pares these last year results with those from the other four years of
evaluation in order to make clear the general pattern in program out-
comes for Teen Outreach.
Program Components
Teen Outreach is a school-based program that is most often run
through the collaborative efforts of a local Junior League, local school
personnel. and, when the League is not the funder. a local funder as
well. The program has two main components: use of a curriculum in
small group discussion sessions led by a facilitator, and involvement of
young people in volunteer service in the community.
The curriculum and volunteer service are the core components of
Teen Outreach and are shared by all its sites nationwide and in Canada.
Beyond these commonalities. however. are variations in program im-
plementation. shown in Table 6.1. Most Teen Outreach programs are
offered after school hours, with about one third offered during school;
slightly less than half are offered for credit.
The students in Teen Outreach meet at least once per week through-
out the school year and engage in discussions on such topics as under-
standing themselves and their values. communication skills, human
growth and development. issues related to parenting, and family rela-
tionships and community resources. While the curriculum does contain
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
141
Table 6.1 Selected Variations in the Teen Outreach Program Among
Sites: 1988-89
Percentage of Programs Offered
During school
31%
For credit
46%
After school
69%
No credit
54%
Reported Coverage of Unit
Curriculum Unit
None
A Little
A Los
Almost All
Orientation
6
31
23
40
Volunteer experience
6
31
34
28
Understanding yourself
0
11
51
37
Values
3
31
34
31
Life planning
8
26
43
23
Communication
6
28
37
28
Life pressures
11
23
23
43
Family
6
31
34
28
Relationships
6
20
37
37
Growth/development
23
40
14
23
Parenting
28
31
23
17
Issues in parenting
28
43
11
17
Community resources
20
43
26
11
some traditional sex education information. this is not its primary
emphasis. In fact, as the data in Table 6.1 show, the curriculum units
on these topics are covered less thoroughly by facilitators than are other
topics.
The style of the curriculum is to utilize group discussions and activ-
ities that are facilitated rather than taught. The best facilitators in the
program become mentors and friends for their Teen Outreach students
and create a support-group environment in which students are assured
of understanding and confidentiality from both peers and the facilitator.
Facilitators for the program often receive training at the annual national
Teen Outreach conference, in which a variety of workshops are held to
acquaint them with the structure of the program. its curriculum. and the
facilitator style that the program seeks. Some facilitators have been
trained by those who have been running the program in their local areas
or by personnel from the Junior League.
The volunteer activities in the program vary widely in their settings
and tasks, reflecting variations in community needs and in the ages and
142
Life Options and Community Service
Table 6.2 The Growth of Teen Outreach, 1984 to 1990
School Year
Students
Cities
Sites
1984-85
148
8
9
1985-86
444
16
24
1986-87
632
15
35
1987-88
782
14
44
1988-89
1028
28
60
circumstances of the Teen Outreach students. These activities are most
often coordinated by the local Junior League and have included work
in hospitals and nursing homes. participation in walkathons, work at the
school itself, tutoring for younger students, and many other types of
work.
Teen Outreach sites do not all offer the same number of classroom
hours or the same number of volunteer hours for each student. The
minimum standards at Teen Outreach sites are that students should meet
for 1 hour per week for a year and that each student should perform a
minimum of 1 hour per week of volunteer work.
Characteristics of Teen Outreach Students
Table 6.2 shows the growth of Teen Outreach since 1984. The number
of Teen Outreach sites increased from 9 in the 1984-85 school year to
60 in 1988-1989. During the same period of time, the number of
students enrolled in the program increased by almost seven-fold. to over
1,000 in the 1988-1989 school year. Teen Outreach has always been
located in geographically dispersed areas of the United States. The first
Canadian site was added in the 1985-1986 school year.
Local Teen Outreach sites range in size from 5 students in Bristol.
Rhode Island, to 23 students in Charlotte, North Carolina. Middle
schools. junior highs, and senior highs all serve as sites for Teen
Outreach. The average Teen Outreach site enrolls 15 students in a single
section of the program.
Teen Outreach students enter the program in a variety of ways. At
most schools. they volunteer to participate. responding to announce-
ments of the program on posters or in the school media. At other sites,
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
143
students are sought out by the Teen Outreach facilitators or by school
counselors because they are believed to be "high risk" for school
leaving or pregnancy. At still other schools, facilitators seek out stu-
dents who are not yet exhibiting negative behaviors but who could
become high risk. Table 6.3 shows the characteristics of the national
sample of Teen Outreach students and their comparisons in 1988-1989.
Data for each of the 5 years of evaluation show similar characteristics.
Over 75% of those enrolled in Teen Outreach nationwide are females.
They range in age from 11 to 21, with an average age of 14.9 years. A
similar range occurs in grade level. with students as young as the fifth
grade and as old as high school seniors. About 40% of the Teen
Outreach students are black. another 40% are white, and 13% are
Hispanic. Those in other race/ethnicity groups include mostly Native
Americans and Asians.
About 41% of these young people come from nonintact families, and
about a fifth have mothers and fathers with less than a high school
education. Much variation exists in the socioeconomic level of the
families of Teen Outreach students, however. since almost 30% of their
mothers have at least some college education. In each year of the
evaluation. the Teen Outreach and comparison students have been
generally well matched on the characteristics shown in Table 6.3. In 4
out of the 5 years, however, some variables were not matched. For
example, in 1988-1989, students in Teen Outreach were significantly
more likely than their comparisons to be female. In Years 3 and 4, more
Teen Outreach students than comparisons came from nonintact fami-
lies, and in Year 1. Teen Outreach students came from school grades
lower than did the comparison students. In each year's analysis. these
differences were controlled in the multivariate analyses, as will be
illustrated below.
The Evaluation Design
The evaluation design for Teen Outreach relies on the utilization of
common reporting forms at all sites. Each site recruits a local compar-
ison group at the beginning of the school year, preferably using true
random assignment procedures. When this is not possible, the compar-
ison students are generally named by the program participants as young
people they know who might have filled out the intake form "about like
you did." In 1988-1989 five sites were able to use randomization
144
Life Options and Community Service
Table 6.3 Demographic Characteristics of Teen Outreach and Compartson
Students: 1988-89
Teen Outreach Students
Comparison Students
Characteristics
N - 493
% . 100
N ⑉ 490
% - 100
Sex
Male
116
23.6
159
32.5
Female
375
76.4
330
**67.3
Age
11-13
52
10.6
61
12.5
14
144
29.5
142
29.0
15
143
29.2
131
26.8
16
80
16.4
82
16.8
17
52
10.6
47
9.6
18-21
I8
3.7
26
5.3
Average
14.9
14.9
Grade
5-7
32
6.5
46
9.4
8
70
14.3
53
10.9
9
169
34.3
182
37.5
10
105
21.4
100
20.5
11
73
14.9
60
12.3
12
42
8.6
46
9.4
Average
9.5
9.4
Sibe
0-1
163
33.2
145
29.7
2-4
229
46.6
245
50.2
5 or more
99
20.2
98
20.1
Average
2.8
2.9
Race
Black
197
40.1
191
39.1
White
199
40.6
209
42.7
Hispanic
66
13.4
62
12.7
Asian
3
0.6
6
1.2
Native American
23
4.7
17
3.5
Other
3
0.6
4
0.8
Lived with
Mother and father
288
58.8
281
57.6
Mother only
171
34.8
161
33.0
Father only
9
1.8
9
1.8
Guardian
10
2.0
13
2.7
Other arrangement
13
2.6
24
4.9
Mother's education
Less than high school
99
20.3
85
17.5
High school graduate
181
37.0
173
35.6
Some college
89
18.2
89
18.3
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
145
Table 6.3 Continued
Teen Outreach Students
Comparison Students
Characteristics
V If 495
% = 100
M 490 <
3 = 100
College graduate plus
52
10.6
74
15.2
Don't know
68
13.9
65
13.4
Father's education
Less than high school
83
16.9
75
15.4
High school graduate
147
30.0
140
28.8
Some college
64
13.1
64
13.1
College graduate plus
63
12.9
93
19.1
Don't know
133
27.1
115
23.6
NOTE: **Difference between the Teen Outreach and comparison students IS statistically significant x P < 01.
The totals vary somewhat from 495 (Teen Outreach students) and 490 (comparison students) due to
missing information on some variables.
procedures to assign students to their Teen Outreach or control groups.
This chapter presents data separately for these five randomized sites, as
well as for the total program samples in each year.
The evaluation of Teen Outreach has always monitored the following
outcome variables for both program students and their comparisons:
school suspension, failure of courses in school, dropping out of school,
and pregnancies.
In 1988-1989, data were also gathered on arrests, skipping school.
use of alcohol or marijuana, having sexual intercourse, using contra-
ception when sexually active, joining after-school activities. getting an
award. getting on the honor roll. and educational aspirations.
These outcomes were added to produce a fuller picture of other
impacts that Teen Outreach might be having on young people and to
include some positive outcomes to those already monitored.
The evaluation is thus somewhat demanding for a school-based
program of this kind, in that it measures almost exclusively behavioral
outcomes. neglecting the traditional emphasis on participant testimoni-
als, knowledge change, or attitude change. The evaluation system for
Teen Outreach seeks to report outcome measures on these variables at
the end of the school year for all students originally enrolled in the
program, regardless of their attendance at the program or their volunteer
'ork patterns. Data are collected. however. on how much exposure to
en Outreach each student receives.
146
Life Options and Community Service
Table 6.4 Information on the Evaluation Samples
Prercentage
Loss to
Follow-up
Total
Sites
Between
w Teen
Number
Participating
Intake
Outreach
n Comp
Year
of Sites
in Evaluation
and Exit®
Students
Students
1984-85
9
9
10.2
151
151
1985-86
24
22
4.0
444
542
1986-87
35
35
3.8
632
848
1987-88
48
44
5.8
823
912
1988-89
60
35
10.1
495
490
1988-89 Random
assignment sample
5
5
0.0
79
89
NOTE: "Among perticipating sites.
Table 6.4 shows how many of the Teen Outreach sites in each year
participated in the evaluation and the rates of loss to follow-up in each
of these years. When the number of Teen Outreach sites was small.
every effort was made to ensure full participation in the national
evaluation. As the number of sites has become larger, participation in
the evaluation (which must, of course, be voluntary) has been less. even
while the actual number of students on whom data are available contin-
ues to grow. Only in the 1988-1989 school year was the participation
rate in the evaluation worrisome. This lower participation rate was most
probably due to the difficulty of maintaining communication with the
rapidly growing number of sites participating in Teen Outreach. Unfor-
tunately, it is not possible to tell how sites that participate in the
evaluation may differ from those that do not. A 5-year comparison of
the characteristics of students in the program for whom data were
reported in the evaluation. however. demonstrates little change. A
random sample of about one third of the program sites has been chosen
in 1990-1991 to participate in the national evaluation.
For sites that have furnished evaluation information. loss to follow-
up between program intake and exit has been acceptably low. This rate
has not risen above 10.2% and in most years has been considerably
lower. The rate of loss is slightly higher among comparison students
than among Teen Outreach students. as might be expected.
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
147
Since the sample size in 1988-1989 permitted such an analysis. the
demographic characteristics of Teen Outreach students who were lost
were compared with those same characteristics among the comparison
students who were lost. Age, gender. race, parents' education. or family
intactness did not differ. but the two lost samples did differ in two other
ways. The lost Teen Outreach students were more likely to have re-
ceived awards in school in the previous year than were the students from
the comparison group who were lost. Also, the lost Teen Outreach
students were less likely to report being previously suspended than were
the lost comparison students. Since overall loss was so low. these
differences are unlikely to affect the conclusions reported here. Also.
these variables on prior status of Teen Outreach and comparison stu-
dents are controlled in relevant analysis.
Risk Factors at Program Entry
Table 6.5 shows the baseline or program entry measures of program
outcomes for students in the 1988-1989 sample. Again, these data are
similar across all 5 years. It is important to examine these factors as
they appeared when the Teen Outreach and comparison students entered
the program year in order to (a) describe the kind of population being
served by Teen Outreach. and (b) ensure that these are indeed two
well-matched groups of students.
In the year before entry into the program. over 4% of the Teen
Outreach students had already been pregnant at least once. Over 17%
of them had been suspended. and 5% of them reported having been
arrested. Almost 40% reported failing courses in the year before the
program began. and more than 30% had skipped school. More than a
third had used alcohol or marijuana during the past month. and more
than a fifth had had intercourse during that month. Only 41% of those
having had intercourse had used any form of contraception.
On the positive side, almost 60% said they had received some kind
of an award. Slightly more than a fourth were on the honor roll in the
previous year. Virtually all the students asserted at the beginning of the
school year that they intended to complete both high school and college.
an overstatement of likely achievement.
Again in each year of the evaluation. one or another of these factors
has not been perfectly matched between Teen Outreach and the com-
parison groups. For example, in 1988-1989. the Teen Outreach students
148
Life Options and Community Service
Table 6.5 Status of Teen Outreach and Companson Students at Intake:
1988-89
Teen Outreach Students
Comparison Students
Characteristics
N = 495
% = 100
N и 490
as и 100
Negauve Behaviors
Ever been pregnant or
caused a pregnancy
22
4.5
38
.7 8
Last year ever -
get suspended
85
17.3
86.
17.6
get arrested
25
5.1
27
5.5
fail courses
190
38.8-
190
39.2
skip school
151
30.9
141
29.1
Last month ever -
used alcohol/marijuana
129
33.7
121
31.7
had intercourse
81
21.2
84
22.4
used contraception
33
40.7
47
55.9
Positive Behaviors
Last year ever-
get awards
283
57.9
251
*51.3
get on the bonor roll
126
25.7
149
30.5
Educational Aspirations
Complete high school
likely
480
98.0
474
97.7
unlikely
10
2.0
11
2.3
Complete college
likely
397
81.0
387
79.6
unlikely
93
19.0
99
20.4
NOTE: "Difference between the Teen Outreach and companson students IS statistically significant up < 05.
were significantly less likely than their comparisons to have been
pregnant before they began Teen Outreach. Teen Outreach students
were also more likely to have gotten awards prior to the start of the
program year.
The Outcomes of Teen Outreach
Figures 6.1 through 6.4 show the impact of Teen Outreach on the four
major outcome variables of interest: pregnancy, school suspension.
course failure. and school dropout. Figure 6.1 shows the percentage of
Teen Outreach and comparison students who became pregnant during
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
149
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88 .
1988-89
-
1988-89
-
(meth
TO Students
Comp Students
Figure 6.1. Percentage Pregnant or Causing Pregnancy.
each of the 5 program years and in-the random assignment sample in
1988-1989. The percentage data shown in this figure and in the three to
follow are without any controls for background differences between these
two samples of students. The figure also shows, however. the results of
multivariate analyses using logistic regression. In each year. grade level
of the students and prior suspension history were included in the multivar-
iate equation. In addition. other variables were introduced into these
equations if the Teen Outreach and comparison students differed on the
variable (e.g., gender in 1988-1989) or if the variable might confound the
results (e.g., failing courses was also controlled in the suspension equa-
tion). The specific variables in each equation thus varied somewhat from
year to year. The asterisks at the bottom of each year's data indicate
whether participation in Teen Outreach was still significantly related to the
outcome variable of interest. net of these other variables.
Figure 6.1 shows that in all six samples. Teen Outreach students had
lower pregnancy rates during the program year than did the comparison
students. In all but the random assignment sample (which was too small
to permit analysis). participation in Teen Outreach was significantly
related to having a lower pregnancy rate.
Figure 6.2 shows the percentage of Teen Outreach and comparison
students who were suspended from school in each of the six samples.
150
Life Options and Community Service
35%
30% -
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1984-85
19th
is
1986-87
-
1987-88
-
1988-89
-
1988-89
-
I (modem sugare -
Students
I
Comp Students
Figure 6.2. Percentage Suspended During Program Year.
In five of the six samples shown. Teen Outreach students had lower rates
of school suspension than did comparison students. In four of the samples.
including the smaller random assignment sample, participation in Teen
Outreach was significantly related to lower rates of suspension, net of
grade. prior rates of suspension, failing courses, and selected other vari-
ables introduced in a given year to control for sample differences.
In Figure 6.3. comparable data are shown for rates of failing courses
during the program year among Teen Outreach and comparison stu-
dents. Again. in five of the six samples. Teen Outreach students were
doing better at the end of the program year. In four samples, participa-
tion in Teen Outreach was significantly related to lower rates of course
failure. net of grade, prior rates of failure, and other necessary variables
introduced in a given equation to control sample differences.
Figure 6.4 offers data on school leaving in the same six samples. In
all six samples, Teen Outreach students had lower rates of dropping out.
Again. in four samples, participation in Teen Outreach was signifi-
cantly related to lower rates of dropping out when grade. pregnancy
during the program year. and selected other variables were controlled.
As noted above. the 1988-1989 evaluation data set also included
some additional outcomes not common to all six samples. An examina-
tion of these outcomes showed that participation in Teen Outreach was
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
151
60%
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
1984-85
.
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88 -
1988-89
1988-89
.
(retal)
nades - general Intes)
TO Students
Comp Students
Figure 6.3. Percentage Failing Courses During Year.
significantly related to not getting arrested. skipping school less frequently.
more regular use of contraception among sexually active students. getting
awards. and getting on the honor roll. again net of the prior history of these
behaviors and selected background characteristics. Participation in Teen
Outreach was not significantly related to less use of alcohol or marijuana or
to raising aspirations to finish high school, although both of these differences
favored Teen Outreach students.
Correlates of Teen Outreach Success
In data published elsewhere (Allen. Philliber. & Hoggson. 1990). the
correlates of successful change among students in Teen Outreach have
been examined. The focus of this analysis was to assess under which
conditions and for which kinds of participants this program was most
successful. This analysis found that the sites that served primarily older
students had lower levels of student problem behaviors at program exit,
after controlling for problem behaviors at entry. In addition. programs that
most fully implemented the volunteer component had greater success.
Equally important are the findings on which variables did not seem
related to program success. Analysis has not found any relationship
between gender of students and program success. Minority status of
students is likewise not related to success. nor is parent education.
152
Life Options and Community Service
10%
8%
6% -
4% -
2% -
0%
1984-85
1985-86
-
1986-87
-
1987-88
1988-89
1988-89
(retal)
(randem usignment sires)
TO Students
Comp Students
Figure 6.4. Percentage Dropping Out of School.
Several program characteristics or variations are also not related to
program success. These include classroom hours. whether credit is
offered for participation. whether the program is offered during or after
school. and the amount of the curriculum used.
The higher success rate of the program among older students is not
surprising in one sense, since Teen Outreach was created originally for
high school students. On the other hand. it may be that the evaluation
of the program is not currently measuring enough outcome variables
appropriate to younger students.
The importance of the volunteer component is to be expected in light
of current theories of empowerment and ecological development
(Bronfenbrenner. 1979; Rappaport. 1987). The opportunity of young
people to become help givers may indeed be an important experience
in their development. Still. this research cannot demonstrate a causal
link between these experiences and positive outcomes. It may be that
some other factor not yet measured completely (such as a caring facil-
itator who works hard to provide successful volunteer experiences and
who cares, in general. about his or her students) produces this finding.
It is gratifying for any program to discover that it is equally success-
ful with both males and females and with those of different racial/ethnic
groups. Similarly, for purposes of program replication. it is encouraging
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
153
to find that when the program is offered and whether or not it is attached
to course credit. makes little impact on its success.
The lack of relationships between classroom hours and amount of
curriculum use and program success pose interesting questions. Cer-
tainly it seems reasonable to posit that number of classroom hours
should be less important than the quality of those hours. The curriculum
used in the Teen Outreach program does include discussions around
topics that should support the development of life options to pregnancy
and other negative behaviors. The activities in the curriculum and the
style in which they are offered to students, however. are intended to
facilitate group bonding and trust among Teen Outreach group members
and their facilitator. Thought of in that context, then. it seems likely
that the sheer amount of such material used may be less important than
the way in which it is delivered. Indeed. case reports from facilitators
suggest that they use a variety of supplemental materials to keep their
discussions timely and responsive to student needs.
Conclusions
This chapter has presented data on program outcomes in Teen Out-
reach from six different samples. These data were gathered over 5
different school years. Only one of these samples utilized random
assignment to create a control group. Unfortunately, this was the small-
est sample of the six. Still, in all of these samples, the results are similar.
Almost all of the differences between the Teen Outreach and com-
parison students are in the desired direction: Teen Outreach students
generally had fewer pregnancies, fewer courses failed. fewer school
suspensions, and lower rates of school dropout than comparison stu-
dents. More important, in each of the samples, the Teen Outreach
students had significantly lower rates than did comparison students in
half or more of these negative behaviors, even when prior risk and
background characteristics were controlled.
These are results that, to our knowledge, are not duplicated by any
other program of this kind in the nation. The random assignment results
obtained in 1988-1989 add yet additional strength to the conclusion that
Teen Outreach is a program that works.
We hasten to add that such a positive conclusion is supported more
by the weight of evidence here than by the rigor of the research
procedures used in each year. In only one sample were all the Teen
154
Life Options and Community Service
Outreach and comparison students assigned randomly. and this sample
is the smallest of the SIX. leaving too little power to detect statistical
significance except in the case of the largest differences. and limiting
the capacity for multivariate analysis. At many Teen Outreach sites,
participants were self-selected. Also. these data are from self-reports.
and future studies will need to validate these with more objective
sources of information such as report cards. Still. the weight of evidence
here is overwhelmingly positive.
If these effects for Teen Outreach are real (as they appear to be). the
evaluation design has not yet revealed for how long they last. While
some 1-year follow-up data have been gathered from subsets of the
youth enrolled and their comparisons, this question of the length of
effects will need further research.
Given these cautions, however. it may still be worth discussing why
Teen Outreach appears to be often successful in lessening school prob-
lems and postponing pregnancy. Indeed, the program does include
elements that are being recommended currently by those who have
reviewed what we know about success in these areas (e.g., Dryfoos.
1990; Hayes. 1987; Mueller & Higgins. 1988).
At its heart and when it works best, Teen Outreach includes mentor-
ing from a caring and supportive facilitator, a work experience in the
community that offers both the opportunity for skill building and the
opportunity to feel needed. and a peer support group atmosphere. In
addition. the curriculum concentrates on developing concrete coping
skills, as well as the cognitive base necessary to avoid pregnancy. These
include skills in assertiveness. in decision making, in use of community
resources, and in communication.
The intervention is not a "one-shot" brief program. but rather a
year-long effort. In fact, many Teen Outreach students request a second
year of participation. While no direct measures of such a dimension
have been taken by the current evaluation system. visits to Teen Out-
reach sites repeatedly confirm the impression that students become
proud of their membership in the group and that it comes to function as
their "in-crowd" or "clique."
These characteristics of the program. taken together. would seem to
account for the general success of the program. Future evaluation of
Teen Outreach will focus on increasing the number of sites that can use
true random assignment to create a control group. on assembling infor-
mation on the longer term impacts of the program. and on continuing
examination of the conditions under which the program works best.
PHILLIBER and ALLEN
155
References
Allen. J ? Philliber. S. 3c Hoggson. N (1990). School-based prevention of teenage
pregnancy and school dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication or the
Teen Outreach program. American Journal of Community Psychology. 18. 505-524.
Bronfenbrenner. U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Dryfoos. J. G. (1990). Adolescents ar risk: Pregnancy and prevention. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hayes. C. Ed.). (1987). Risking the future. Washington. DC: National Academy.
Mueller. D., & Higgins. P. (1988). Funders' guide manual: A guide 10 prevention
programs in human services. St. Paul. MN: Amherst S. Wilder Foundation.
Rappaport. J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory
for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology. 15, 121-148.
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1990
Innovative Programs
School-Based Prevention of Teen-Age Pregnancy
and School Dropout: Process Evaluation of the
National Replication of the Teen Outreach Program¹
Joseph P. Allen²
University of Virginia
Susan Philliber
Philliber Research Associates
Nancy Hoggson
The Association of Junior Leagues
Examined a program designed to prevent adolescent pregnancy, school
failure, and dropout using a process model of evaluation to assess with which
groups of participants and under what conditions the program was most ef-
fective. Students in the Teen Outreach Program of the Association of Junior
Leagues and matched comparison students in 35 schools nationwide partici-
pated. Sites that highly utilized a volunteer service component, and sites that
primarily served older students reported lower levels of student problem be-
haviors at program exit, after controlling for problem behaviors at entry.
These findings occurred only for program youths and not for comparison
youths. The connection of volunteer service to reductions in adolescent
problem behaviors is interpreted in terms of helper-therapy and empower-
ment theories. Limitations of the analytic strategy used in this study, as well
as techniques for addressing the limitations, are also disucssed.
The Teen Outreach program and its evaluation have been supported by grants from the Charles
Stewart Mott Foundation, the Lila Wallace Reader's Digest Fund, and other sources. We also
thank the Association of Junior Leagues, local Junior Leagues around the country, and the
students and facilitators who made this program possible. Correspondence concerning the Teen
Outreach Program should be sent to Kathy Herre, Association of Junior Leagues, 660 W. 1st
Avenue, New York, New York 10016.
All correspondence concerning this study should be sent to Joseph P. Allen, Department of
Psychology, Gilmer Hall, University of Uirginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903.
506
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
Many of the problems that affect adolescents in our society such as teen-
age pregnancy, school failure, and school dropout-have serious conse-
quences for adolescent development as well as substantial costs to society
(Burt, 1986, Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Loeber & Dis-
hion, 1983; National Research Council, 1987). The high short- and long-term
costs associated with these problems create a pressing need for preventive
programs in this area.
Schools provide an attractive potential site for preventive interventions,
given both their geographic consolidation of adolescents and the 15,000 hours
students spend in formal schooling through the high school years (Weiss-
berg & Allen, 1986; Zigler, Kagan, & Muenchow, 1982). As preventive pro-
grams are developed, however, there is a need for research that focuses not
only upon program outcomes but also upon the processes by which programs
produce change in participants (Gray & Braddy, 1988). In assessing program
effects, action research with children and adolescents must also account for
the developmental stage of program recipients (Rolf, 1985). Such research
is needed to move beyond a simple catalog of programs which did and did
not work and to provide a base for developing new programmatic inter-
ventions.
This study describes process-oriented evaluation data from a preven-
tive intervention that has attracted national attention for its role in prevent-
ing school dropout and teen-age pregnancy. The Teen Outreach Program,
sponsored by the Association of Junior Leagues in collaboration with the
American Association of School Administrators, is a school-based program
that encourages young people to perform volunteer service in their commu-
nities. The program links volunteer work to classroom-based group discus-
sion on a wide range of issues, from human growth and development to
making life decisions. The Teen Outreach Program was recently identified
by the National Research Council (1987) in an extensive review of teen preg-
nancy prevention programs as one of only three approaches with document-
ed effectiveness in reducing teen-age pregnancies. Four consecutive years of
data on the program have indicated that it reduces teen-age pregnancy and
school failure and dropout rates by approximately 30 to 50% relative to
matched comparison groups of students (Philliber, Allen, Hoggson, &
McNeil, 1989).
Yet, important as these initial findings are, they tell us little about which
aspects of the program are important to its apparent success and under which
conditions the program is most likely to be successful. The present study uti-
lized a comparative design to move beyond the traditional evaluation focus
(i.e., Did it work?) to the more informative questions: "What works best?,"
"With whom?," and "Under what conditions?" (Basham, 1986). Such an ap-
Prevention Evaluation
507
proach is a necessary step in moving from successful individual programs
to identified principles of intervention that can be used in designing new pro-
grams and modifying existing systems.
For example, one potentially important element of the Teen Outreach
Program is its emphasis upon volunteer service. This emphasis has the poten-
tial to empower students by taking them out of traditional classroom roles
and giving them a chance to be help-givers rather than just help-receivers
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Rappaport, 1987). The "helper-therapy" principle,
introduced by Riessman (1965), suggests that helping other people can be
therapeutic and can lead to personal growth, particularly for persons in dis-
empowered groups. A number of programs based upon this principle have
now been developed, including programs targeted at adolescents. Although
the effects of these programs have not yet been systematically documented
(Cowen, 1982; Harrington, 1986), the helper-therapy principle suggests one
mechanism by which volunteer work in the Teen Outreach program might
benefit students.
A second possible effect of volunteer service on students may be to in-
crease their identification with the prosocial values of adults in the larger
community. Adolescents' prosocial values have been directly related to mul-
tiple indices of their social competence and inversely related to several seri-
ous adolescent problem behaviors (Allen, Leadbeater, & Aber, 1990; Allen,
Weissberg, & Hawkins, 1989). Also, Staub (1979), in a review of empirical
studies of children participating in helping interactions, concluded that helping
interactions may shape a child's prosocial behavior. Thus there are many
benefits that potentially accrue to children when education is moved "be-
yond the walls of the classroom" as Sarason (1982) has suggested. Yet,
whether a volunteer service component is actually related to the program's
overall success has not yet been examined.
Several other aspects of the Teen Outreach Program may also be relat-
ed to the program's success. For example, a diverse population of young peo-
ple participate in the Teen Outreach program, including males and females,
in 7th through 12th grades, who are from a range of racial/ethnic back-
grounds. The program uses a curriculum that provides information on hu-
man development, information on skills for making life-options decisions,
and supportive group discussions. Again, however, whether any of these fac-
tors is actually related to program success is unknown.
This study addressed questions about the conditions under which the
Teen Outreach program was successful by examining naturally occurring var-
iations in the implementation of the Teen Outreach program at 35 different
sites in 30 schools across the United States. Within each site, we assessed
four different types of factors that were potentially relevant to the success
508
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
of students in the Teen Outreach program. These included (a) student demo-
graphic factors (age, race, gender); (b) structural program factors (whether
the program was given during vs. after school and whether it was offered
for credit vs. not-for-credit); (c) program intensity factors (number of hours
spent in classroom discussions and in volunteer activities); and (d) curricu-
lar factors (use of various parts of the Teen Outreach curriculum).
Our goal was to identify factors that would explain the differing rela-
tive effectiveness of different Teen Outreach programs at different sites. Be-
cause it is virtually impossible to assign students randomly to enough different
versions of any national program to meaningfully explore intra-program
differences experimentally,³ an analytic framework was established to as-
sess and account for multiple potential confounding factors. Thus, an ef-
fort was made to assess the role of overall cohort effects, schoolwide effects,
and motivational biases in influencing the results at any given site.
This study was embedded within a larger evaluation that used a quasi-
experimental design involving Teen Outreach students and a comparison
group of students closely matched on various background characteristics
(Philliber et al., 1989). Following the lead of several recent studies of adoles-
cent problem behaviors (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Donovan, Jessor, & Cos-
ta, 1988; Kandel & Raveis, 1987; Leadbeater, Hellner, Allen, & Aber, 1989)
we assessed outcomes in terms of multiple problem behaviors, and we as-
sessed the presence of an overall problem behavior syndrome as our out-
come measure.
METHOD
Settings
The Teen Outreach Program was conducted at 35 different sites in 30
schools nationwide in 1986-1987. It was a collaborative effort between local
school personnel, local Junior Leagues, and the Association of Junior Leagues
and American Association of School Administrators. The program was
{Obtaining random assignment of students to treatment and control groups within a site is a
somewhat more feasible goal which is being implemented in future years' evaluations of Teen
Outreach. However, this use of random assignment still does not help in the comparison of
Teen Outreach programs at different sites, where site and population of students are inevita-
bly confounded.
Prevention Evaluation
509
designed to provide meaningful volunteer service experiences and classroom-
based discussion opportunities to young people identified by teachers and
guidance counselors as at risk for significant behavioral problems (particu-
larly school dropout and teen-age pregnancy).
Students in the program participated in ongoing classroom-based dis-
cussions of issues covered in the Teen Outreach Curriculum (Association of
Junior Leagues, 1988) in meetings held at least once weekly throughout an
academic year. The curriculum consisted primarily of techniques for engag-
ing students in discussions of selected topics, group exercises, and films and
informational presentations. The primary emphasis of the curriculum was
on the promotion of meaningful discussions of developmental tasks faced
by adolescents. Topic areas included understanding yourself and your values,
communication skills, dealing with family stress, human growth and develop-
ment, and issues related to parenting. Although the program was partially
directed at prevention of teen-age pregnancy, materials relating to sex edu-
cation constitute less than 10% of the overall curriculum and are incorpo-
rated within the general program emphasis upon making good decisions about
important life options. Classroom discussions were led by trained facilita-
tors, who were often schoolteachers or guidance personnel.
An additional role of the classroom-based discussions was to introduce
and tie together the volunteer experiences which are at the heart of the Teen
Outreach Program. Teen Outreach participants are all expected to partici-
pate in a range of volunteer activities provided to them by their facilitators,
working in conjunction with volunteers of local Junior Leagues. Volunteer
activities were developed to be sensitive to the needs and capacities of local
communities, and thus varied substantially in their nature, and in the amount
of commitment they required of students. The one common feature of all
of the volunteer work was that students ratified it as meaningful to them.
Volunteer activities included work as aides in hospitals and nursing homes,
participation in walkathons, volunteer work at school, and a wide range of
other types of work. Although all programs share the common features
described above, there is significant diversity among programs around the
country in terms of populations of students, curriculum use, and intensity
of the program.
Although there was tremendous diversity in the implementation of Teen
Outreach Program, certain elements were common to all programs. For ex-
ample, all programs involved both classroom and volunteer activities. The
classroom activities involved meeting at least once weekly for a period of
1 hour. Although the type of volunteer work students performed varied con-
siderably, a minimum of an average of ½ hour per week of volunteer activi-
ty was expected of students in all implementations of the programs.
510
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
Participants
Participants in the study included 632 students who participated in the
Teen Outreach Program and 855 comparison students. Students ranged in
age from 11 to 19 years and in grade level from 7th to 12th grade. At any
given site, students tended to be at or near the same grade level; across sites,
however, the target grade levels of the program varied depending upon the
interests of those running the program locally. Teen Outreach students en-
tered the program in a variety of ways. At some sites, students elected to
participate in response to schoolwide announcements. At other sites, they
were targeted by program facilitators if they were considered at risk of school
dropout or pregnancy, although they may not have yet exhibited any nega-
tive behaviors. A small number of participants (approximately 6%) had been
previously involved with the Teen Outreach Program. Finally, at some sites,
students were arbitrarily assigned by facilitators and guidance counselors.
Comparison students were selected in two ways. Either Teen Outreach
students nominated other students whom they guessed "would fill out the
entry questionnarie about the same way [they] did," or facilitators or guidance
counselors responsible for selecting Teen Outreach students sought students
from similar sociodemographic backgrounds and with similar levels of
problems as Teen Outreach participants. Background characteristics of Teen
Outreach participants and comparison students at program entry are present-
ed in Table I. Participation in the evaluation was a requirement of the Teen
Outreach Program. Thus, all participating students were included in the evalu-
ation at entry. Attrition over the course of the study was 2.4% among Teen
Outreach students and 4.8% among comparison students. Incomplete pro-
gram and exit data were obtained for an additional 6.5% of Teen Outreach
students, who were also excluded from the analyses. However, there were
no significant effects of loss-to-follow-up on the demographic or problem
behavior measures presented in Table I, nor were there significant interac-
tions of loss-to-follow-up with membership in the program versus compari-
son group for any of these measures.
Measures
Demographic Characteristics. Students filled out a brief self-report ques-
tionnaire indicating their age, grade level in school, race, predominant house-
hold composition (one-vs. two-parent) and parents' education levels (1 - not
a high school graduate, 2 - high school graduate, 3 - some college, 4 - college
graduate). These data, reported in Table I, indicate significant diversity in
the Teen Outreach sample but a close match between Teen Outreach and com-
Prevention Evaluation
511
Table I. Background Characteristics of Teen Outreach and Com-
parison Students at Entry
Teen outreach
Comparison
n = 632ª
n = 855°
M
SD
M
SD
Demographic factors
Age (years)
15.6
1.3
15.7
1.4
Grade in school
9.8
1.3
9.8
1.3
Grade (%)
7-9
44
47
10-12
56
53
Gender (%)
Female
70.3
67.1
Male
29.7
32.9
Race (%)
White
49.5
51.7
Black
32.6
31.4
Hispanic
9.7
7.7
Other
8.2
9.2
Mother's education level
2.29
1.01
2.33
1.02
Father's education level
2.29
1.07
2.44b 1.08
Live in two-parent
household (%)
53.5
62.7ᵇ
Problem behaviors
Fail any courses
in prior year (%)
53.9
44.3%ᵇ
Suspended in prior
year (%)
21.8
17.4
Pregnant previously (%)
4.9
5.1
Total problem behaviors
at entry (0-8)
0.80
0.77
0.66ᵇ 0.76
"N's vary somewhat due to missing data for some variables.
ᵇp < .05.
parison students. However, Teen Outreach students were significantly less
likely to report having lived in a two-parent household for most of their lives
than were comparison students; they also reported that their fathers had
slightly lower levels of education than comparison students' fathers (median
education level in both groups was high school graduation).
Problem Behaviors. Self-report questionnaires were used to assess stu-
dents' problem behaviors. When sensitively collected, anonymous self-report
instruments have been found to be among the least biased means of assessing
adolescent problem behaviors such as teen-age pregnancy, with substantial
evidence available to support their overall reliability and validity (Elliott &
Ageton, 1980; Farrington, 1973; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). At
512
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
entry, we asked students (a) whether they had ever been pregnant (female)
or caused a pregnancy (male), (b) whether they had failed any courses dur-
ing the prior year at school, and (c) whether they had been suspended in the
prior year at school. At exit we asked the same questions of students (except
that the pregnancy question was modified to refer only to the academic year
of the program) and also added a question about whether a studlent had
dropped out of school in the prior year or intended not to return to school
in the fall. Because each of these problem behaviors had sufficiently low base
rates to make estimation of program effects upon them difficult, and because
they were significantly intercorrelated, problem behaviors were combined into
an overall problem behavior syndrome scale which was a 0-3 scale at entry
and a 0-4 scale at exit.⁴ This approach is consistent with extensive evidence
that these specific problem behaviors constitute a meaningful syndrome of
problematic behavior (Donovan & Jessor, 1985; Donovan et al., 1988;
Kandel & Raveis, 1987; Leadbeater et al., 1989). Additionally, use of a syn-
dromal measure prevents fluctuation in the form of expression of problematic
behavior (e.g., school failure vs. school dropout) from confounding the
results. Although this approach does not permit estimation of program ef-
fects on individual problem behaviors, it does provide a maximally sensitive
indication of program effects on an important and theoretically relevant syn-
drome of problem behaviors, while minimizing the number of partially redun-
dant hypotheses being tested.
Program Implementation
Variations in the implementation of Teen Outreach at different sites
were assessed by the collection of various measures from Teen Outreach facili-
tators.
Intensity measures consisted of facilitators' reports of the number of
volunteer hours worked by participating adolescents as well as the number
of group discussion hours for each student. Although these measures were
obtained for each student, data were summed and averaged within individu-
al Teen Outreach sites for all analyses. This was done to provide the best
measures of the program offered to, students at a site, while minimizing the
extent to which these measures were confounded with motivational differ-
ences among individual students at a site.
Structural program measures assessed whether Teen Outreach was
offered during versus after school, and as a for-credit versus a not-for-credit
Maximum-likelihood factor analysis revealed that a one-factor solution was sufficient to account
for the common variance in the
Prevention Evaluation
513
activity. These measures were judged particularly likely to be sensitive to
differences in the motivation levels of students in different Teen Outreach
programs. Students in during-school and for-credit versions of the program
might be expected to have somewhat less intrinsic motivation to participate
in the program (because they were receiving credit and/or avoiding other
courses) than students in after-school and not-for-credit versions. This ef-
fect may be mitigated by the fact that in-school versions of the program some-
times involved after-school volunteer activities, whereas after-school versions
sometimes involved school-based volunteer activities.
Curriculum-use was measured in two ways. All facilitators completed
a survey of how much they used the 11 units of the cirriculum, using a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from (1) none of this unit, (2) a little of this unit, (3) a
lot of this unit, to (4) almost all of this unit. A measure of overall curriculum
use was the average use of all units of this curriculum. However, an iterated
principal factors analysis of usage of these 11 units (using a Varimax rota-
tion and using squared multiple correlations for initial estimates of commu-
nality) also suggested an interpretable four-factor solution of curriculum
factors. Using standardized scores of variables with loadings above .40 to
produce factors yielded the following four curriculum-use factors: (a) An
orientation section (consisting of introductory units as well as material ex-
plaining the volunteer experience); (be) a self-awareness section including units
on understanding yourself and life pressures; (c) a social awareness section
including units on life planning, family, values, relationships, and commu-
nication; (d) a developmental section including units on growth, parenting,
issues related to parenting, and community resources. Units within each of
these four factors were largely contiguous in the curriculum. Thus, each factor
represented a discrete section of the curriculum.
Procedure
Students were assessed at program entry at the start of the school year
and again at program exit in the late spring. The Teen Outreach Program
was conducted during this same period. Questionnaires were administered
by Teen Outreach facilitators during an early Teen Outreach class, or in study
halls and other school settings for comparison students. Students were told
that none of their answers would be reported to other school officials and
that no data that identified them in any way would be reported. Student con-
sent and parental consent were obtained both for participation in the pro-
gram and in its evaluation.
Design
This study was designed to assess individual and programmatic factors
that were related to the behavioral changes of Teen Outreach participants.
514
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
Because of the double-nested nature of the design (students within sites), the
study treated program differences as fixed instead of random) effects.
Although this makes it impossible to establish the generalizability of the
reported findings, it does allow identification of features that are related to
the programs' success and that can be examined in future replications. All
program inputs were considered in terms of the average program input
received by students at a given site. For some program inputs, such as volun-
teer experience, individual students varied in their amount of experience wi-
thin a site. This individual variation was not used, as it was considered likely
to be highly sensitive to student motivational differences within a site (its
use could artifactually enhance the relation between volunteer experience and
behavioral outcomes). Thus, the average amount of volunteer experience at
a site was used to provide a measure of the volunteer experience available
at a site. In contrast, behavioral outcomes were analyzed at the level of in-
dividual students, as each student provides an independent test of the effect
of the specified level of program inputs on behavioral outcomes, and motiva-
tional differences appear appropriately as error variance in this analysis (e.g.,
within-site variation in outcomes provides a background against which
between-site variation could be gauged).
RESULTS
Program Implementation
There was substantial variation in the implementation of the Teen Out-
reach Program across different sites in both the in-class and volunteer com-
ponents of the curriculum. The mean score for the use of the curriculum
was 2.99 (SD = 0.82), which corresponds to using "a lot" of the material
in each of the units of the curriculum. There was some variation across sites
in how much various subsections of the curriculum were used, with the de-
velopmental section (including issues on human growth and development,
and parenting) the least consistently used (mean use = 2.55, SD = 0.69) and
the section on self-awareness being the most consistently used (mean use:
3.32, SD = 0.73). The average participant in the program received 72 hours
of classroom-based discussion time (SD = 33.0), over a range of from 28
to 165 sessions during the year.
There was also substantial variation across sites in the amount of volun-
teer experience received by students. The average site gave its participants
32.2 hours of volunteer work (SD = 24.4, range = 1.15 to 125 hours); 90%
of sites provided students with an average of at least 1 hour of volunteer
work per month. These data on variations in program implementation -
Prevention Evaluation
515
though not unusual for a nationally oriented program tailored to local
needs - highlight the importance of examining the relation between differ-
ent implementations of the program and its success at various sites.
Preliminary Analyses of Changes in Problem Behaviors
The overall effectiveness of Teen Outreach has been previously
documented for these data, with the finding that Teen Outreach participants
had significantly lower levels of suspension, school dropout, and pregnan-
cy, and insignificantly lower levels of failure in courses than comparison stu-
dents, even after controlling for levels of problem behavior at entry and
significant demographic factors (National Research Council, 1987; Philliber
et al., 1989). Although not the focus of this paper, a brief summary of these
findings provides a context for interpreting data on why and when Teen Out-
reach is effective. At entry, Teen Outreach students in this study had an aver-
age of 0.80 of a possible 3 problem behaviors whereas comparison students
had 0.66 problem behaviors, a statistically significant difference, T(628, 853)
= 3.45, p < .001. However, at exit, Teen Outreach students had an average
of 0.70 of a possible 4 problem behaviors, whereas comparison students had
0.80 problem behaviors, and this difference was also significant, T(615, 815)
= 2.16, p < .04. These findings are robust even when controlling for entry
problem behaviors and preexisting group differences in fathers' level of edu-
cation and household composition.5 Thus, Teen Outreach students went from
having significantly more problem behaviors than comparison students at
the beginning of the program to significantly fewer problem behaviors by
the program's end.
Initial analyses for this study also examined the continuity in levels of
behavior problems within both the Teen Outreach and comparison group
students over time. Students' total number of behavior problems at exit were
significantly correlated with their number of problems at entry within both
the Teen Outreach (r = .44, p < .001) and comparison groups (r = .51,
p < .001). This finding indicates the importance of statistically accounting
for students' levels of problem behaviors at entry prior to examining the corre-
lates of levels of problem behaviors at exit.
⁵Analysis of problem behaviors individually supports these findings, with significant differences
found between the Teen Outreach and comparison groups in levels of school failure, teen-age
pregnancy, and school dropout, after controlling for entry levels of problem behavior and group
demographic differences in logistic regressions (Philliber et al., 1989). When a combined problem
behavior factor was created using only school dropout, failure, and pregnancy data at both
entry and exit, comparable results for program effectiveness were obtained.
516
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
There were no interactions of the relation between entry and exit levels
of problem behaviors with student demographic characteristics, or any of
the program factors examined in the study. This indicates that it is statisti-
cally valid to remove the effects of entry level of problem behaviors from
measures of exit levels when examining predictors of exit levels of problem
behavior.
Next, analyses were performed to assess whether schoolwide factors
at each site significantly influenced changes in problem behavior levels of
both Teen Outreach and comparison students at individual sites. These ana-
lyses served to decrease the likelihood that relative differences in the success
of Teen Outreach programs at different sites would inadvertently be con-
founded with unrelated schoolwide influences at these sites. Change in
problem behavors was measured as the residual in Time 2 problem behaviors
over and above what could be predicted in a regression equation by Time 1
problem behaviors. This method accounts for both the slightly different met-
rics of the measures at Times 1 and 2, and for regression effects within the
data, while providing a sensitive measure of behavior problem change (El-
liott & Voss, 1974; Luborsky et al., 1980; Weisz, 1986). Use of residualized
change scores, rather than simple Time 2 scores, also reduces the influence
of preexisting differences in the populations of Teen Outreach students at
different sites on outcomes at those sites.
Next, we examined the relationship between residualized change scores
of Teen Outreach and comparison students at the same sites. No correlation
was found between change in number of problem behaviors in Teen Out-
reach participants and change in comparison students at the same site using
site level data (r(35) = .02, ns) and residualized measures of change. This
lack of correlation suggests that the success of Teen Outreach students at
a given site was unlikely to be an artifact of schoolwide factors unrelated
to the program. Based on these data, it was not considered necessary or use-
ful to use comparison student change at a site as a covariate in further ana-
lyses. Further analyses were conducted using only data from the sample of
Teen Outreach participants.
Multiple regression equations were used to examine relationships be-
tween student outcomes at program exit and four sets of student entry charac-
terisitcs and program factors thought likely to predict these outcomes: (a)
student demographic characteristics at program entry, (b) the amount of var-
ious components of the program received by students at a site, (c) the struc-
ture of the program, and (d) use of the prescribed curriculum. Regression
equations were set up with the number of behavioral problems at exit as the
dependent variable. As discussed above, the number of behavior problems at
entry was entered first in all equations to remove its effects. Then, each of
the four groups of factors listed above was entered as a block and assessed
Prevention Evaluation
517
for the significance of its contribution to predicting the number of students'
behavior problems at exit. Finally, for each group of program factors as-
sessed, interactions of these factors with relevant demographic variables were
also considered as a block.
Demographic Factors
The role of three demographic factors - students' gender, grade level,
and minority status - and two child-rearing environment factors - parents'
years of education, and living in a one versus two-parent family - were as-
sessed using the technique described above. Table II presents the results of
this equation in which entry level of problem behaviors was entered first,
followed by a block of demographic factors followed by the block of child-
rearing environment factors. Only the block of demographic factors added
significantly to the prediction of Teen Outreach students' problem behaviors
at exit, Fchange (3, 544) = 3.89, p < .01. Examination of individual demo-
graphic factors within this block reveals that students' grade level was the
sole significant predictor of problem behaviors at exit, F(1, 544) = 9.90,
p = .002. Teen Outreach students in higher grades were significantly more
likely to have fewer problem behaviors than would be predicted based on
entry data than were Teen Outreach students in lower grades. This effect
remains equally strong even when school dropout was excluded from ana-
lyses (due to its potential confound with grade level). When the comparison
group was examined, neither grade in school, nor the blocks of demograph-
ic or child-rearing environment factors, were significantly related to problems
at exit. Examination of the relation of grade to amount of volunteer ex-
Table II. Hierarchical Regression Using Demographic Factors to Predict
Behavior Problems at Exit
Variables
Change
Total
Step
entered
ß
in R²
R²
1
Behavior problems (entry)
.45°
Total for step
.19c
.19c
2
Grade
- .12ᵇ
Sex
- .03
Minority status
.02
Total for step
.02ᵇ
.21°
3
Parents' education
.00
Live in two-parent family
.08a
Total for step
.01
.22°
°p < .05.
ᵇp < .01.
°p < .001.
518
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
perience, number of classroom-discussion hours, overall curriculum use, and
structural features of the program revealed only a small significant relation
of grade with number of volunteer hours worked (r = .10, p < .02).
Given these findings, all further analyses included the effects of grade
level of students as well as the interaction of grade level with various pro-
gram factors.
Intensity Factors
Two intensity factors representing the amount of classroom-based dis-
cussion and volunteer service experiences at a site were considered next. These
were entered as a block in a hierarchical regression to predict number of
problems at exit, after entering number of problems at entry and students'
grade level. Results are presented in Table III. This block significantly con-
tributed to the prediction of problems at exit, Fchange (2. 570) = 3.34, p <
.05. The average number of hours of volunteer work at a site was the single
significant predictor within this block. This equation reveals that students
in programs where more volunteer work was performed had fewer problems
at exit after controlling for problem behaviors at entry than did students in
programs where less volunteer work was performed. Further, entry of a block
of interaction effects of these two Intensity factors with students' grade lev-
els also significantly added to the predictive power of the equation, Fchange
(2, 568) = 3.1, p < .05. Within this block, only the interaction of number
of classroom hours with grade was significantly related to problem behaviors.
This interaction indicated that more classroom hours were related to fewer
problems for younger students but not for older students.
Table III. Hierarchical Regression Using Program Dosage Factors to
Predict Behavior Problems at Exit
Variables
Change
Total
Step
entered
Beta
in R²ᵃ
R²ᵃ
1
Behavior problems (entry)
.45°
Grade
- .13°
Total for step
.21°
.21c
2
Classroom hours
- .02
Volunteer hours
- .09ᵇ
Total for step
.01ᵇ
.22°
3
Class hours * Grade
.10b
Volunteer hours Grade
.00
Total for Step
.01ᵇ
.23°
"Values for R² and change in R² are rounded.
ᵇ.01 < p < .05.
°p < .001.
Prevention Evaluation
519
Structural Factors
Two structural factors - whether a program was offered during versus
after school and for-credit versus not-for-credit were entered in the next equa-
tion using dummy variables. As with intensity factors above, these were en-
tered as a block in a hierarchical regression to predict number of problems
at exit, after entering number of problems at entry and students' grade level.
Entry of this block did not significantly improve the predictive power of the
equation nor did entry of a block of interaction effects of these two struc-
tural factors with students' grade level.
Curriculum Use
A hierarchical regression to predict students' number of problems at
exit was next examined. The total curriculum-use score was entered after num-
ber of problems at entry and grade level. Because logistical difficulties in
data collection resulted in significant missing data for curriculum use, these
analyses were conducted in equations separate from those described above.
Although total curriculum use was not a significant predictor of problems
at exit, the interaction of curriculum use with grade was significant when
next entered into the equation. Examination of total curriculum use separately
for younger and older students (below 10th grade and at/above 10th grade)
revealed that higher levels of curriculum use had a stronger relationship to
decreased problem behaviors for younger students than for older students,
though in neither group was this relationship significant. Thus, the substan-
tive meaning of the interaction of curriculum use with grade in predicting
outcomes appears to be minimal.
Finally, we used a hierarchical regression equation to examine the four
more specific curriculum-use factors entered as a block following problems
at entry and grade level. Neither this curriculum-use block, nor a subsequent
block of interactions of curriculum use with grade level, significantly added
to the equation.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that Teen Outreach sites were most
successful when they worked with older (vs. younger) students, and when
the volunteer component of the program was more intensively (vs. less in-
tensively) implemented at a site. In addition, sites that worked with younger
students tended to be more successful when they had more rather than less
intensive classroom components. Several potential markers of students' moti-
520
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
vation levels were related to students' characteristics at entry across sites but
were not related to change over the course of a program. Finally, students'
gender and minority status appeared unrelated to their success in the program.
Because these findings about different program and student factors were
not based upon an experimental design (which would have required randomly
assigning participants to different sites around the country), several proce-
dures were undertaken to increase our confidence that the findings were not
artifactual in nature. Students' entry levels of problem behaviors were exa-
mined and controlled, and comparison students' change over time was also
examined for its possible relation to the findings presented. This approach
reduces, but does not eliminate, the likelihood that student differences at
entry and extraprogrammatic effects in schools might have produced the rela-
tionships described above.
In addition, examination of structural variables (e.g., whether a pro-
gram was for-credit vs. not-for-credit) that were most likely to be related
to students' motivation levels reduced the likelihood that observed program
effects were simply a result of motivational differences between students at
different sites at entry. Significantly, these structural variables were related
to exit problem behaviors prior to controlling for entry problem behaviors.
Controlling for problem behaviors at entry thus appears to be at least a
moderately effective strategy for handling important differences among stu-
dents entering the program. This approach decreases the likelihood that find-
ings about the effects of Teen Outreach and its various components are
artifacts of preexisting student characteristics at different sites and in pro-
gram versus comparison groups.
Although these attempts to eliminate confounding factors are far from
foolproof, they increase our confidence in our findings by ruling out several
of the major alternative explanations for them. Any interpretation of these
findings, however, must begin with the statement that none are demonstra-
bly causal in nature, and that all require replication in other programs, in
other sites, and in studies using methods other than self-reports. Given these
limits, however, we believe this study offers several contributions to our under-
standing of programs targeted at preventing adolescent behavior problems.
The finding that Teen Outreach appears to be more effective with high
school than with junior high school students highlights the need to be de-
velopmentally sensitive in both targeting and evaluating prevention programs
for children and adolescents (Leadbeater et al., 1989). Clearly, even an ap-
parently successful prevention program was not equally successful with all
age groups. These findings further document the importance of considering
differential effects of interventions for different subgroups of participants
(Allen, 1989). The findings also suggest the need to be alert to possible limits
to the approach of "intervening early" in preventive programming; making
Prevention Evaluation
521
interventions age-appropriate may be more important than simply making
them early. For example, although it appears that the volunteer component
of the Teen Outreach Program may partially account for its success, partic-
ularly with older students, there is some evidence that increased emphasis
upon the classroom-based portion of the program (classroom hours and cur-
riculum use) was related to better outcomes among younger students. Alter-
natively, the age effects reported might reflect differential sensitivity of the
outcome measures to changes in students of different ages. For example,
among younger students, who are not legally permitted to drop out and who
are less likely to become pregnant, poor attendance patterns may be a more
appropriate outcome measure. In either case, the importance of sensitivity
to developmental differences within a program's target population is clear.
Future studies are needed to assess Teen Outreach in terms of outcomes which
are more developmentally relevant for younger children (e.g., skipping school)
and which follow younger participants over time.
The relation between the extent of the volunteer component and fewer
behavior problems at exit supports a central premise of the program and cur-
rent theories of empowerment and ecological development (Bronfenbrenner,
1979; Rappaport, 1987): that volunteer experiences- the opportunity to be
help-givers may be essential formative experiences for at-risk adolescents.
This study cannot, of course, demonstrate a causal relation between volun-
teer experiences and student success; some other factor, such as a highly skilled
program facilitator, might account both for more extensive volunteer ex-
periences and for more student success at a site. In addition, the effect of
number of volunteer hours performed on student outcomes was quite small
in absolute terms. It must be remembered, however, that the measure of
volunteer experience-raw number of hours is relatively crude. Further
studies that assess types and qualities of volunteer experiences may help to
better specify the nature of this effect. For example, the different quality
of volunteer activities open to older students may partially explain the rela-
tively greater success of Teen Outreach within that age group. Also, given
that most sites provide students with volunteer activity in amounts at least
equal to that provided by many short-term interventions with school-age chil-
dren (e.g., 10-20 hours), it is most appropriate to interpret the effect of volun-
teer work on outcomes as reflecting the effect of large versus moderate
amounts of volunteer work and not as the effect of some versus no volun-
teer work. Given that the volunteer component of Teen Outreach is one of
its most distinguishing features, and that Teen Outreach is one of the only
school-based, non-contraceptive-focused programs to demonstrate reductions
in teen pregnancy (National Research Council, 1987), the current findings
regarding the volunteer component are particularly significant and are im-
portant to investigate further.
522
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
An important caveat in interpreting negative results in this study is that
analyses are relatively insensitive to effects of program factors that were con-
sistently implemented across sites (e.g., have little variance). For example,
because most sites used most of the curriculum units, it is impossible to as-
sess the importance of the curriculum to the success of the program. Yet,
while sex education curricula have generally been found to have little effect
on adolescent behavior (National Research Council, 1987), it may be that
the broader life skills curriculum of Teen Outreach, in combination with rele-
vant volunteer experience, does indeed contribute to the program's success.
This question can only be addressed by evaluating future implementations
of the program in which the curriculum is less fully utilized.
Research is currently being conducted to explore further the relation
between volunteer service in a Teen Outreach program and lower levels of
problem behaviors of students in that program. For example, does volun-
teer service foster the development of relationships with adults who are not
authority figures, who do not threaten adolescents' sense of autonomy as
a teacher might (Allen, Aber, & Leadbeater, 1990), and who can thus
positively influence adolescents' values and behaviors? Or, does volunteer
service empower adolescents and provide them with the chance to try out
adaptive adults roles as help-givers? Research in progress is also beginning to
address some of the methodological limitations of this study, such as the wide
variety of means of selection of students for comparison groups. Research
to increase our understanding of the connection between volunteer service
and adolescent problem behavior is essential to determining how and whether
other preventive interventions might effectively incorporate volunteer serv-
ice components.
Overall, this study illustrates the value of an analytic strategy that fo-
cuses upon why and how a program works, rather than just whether it works.
In addition, this study demonstrates the usefulness of an analytic strategy
that seeks to rule out possible confounding factors in the absence of random
assignment, while capitalizing on the natural variations in program implemen-
tation that occur in the replication of many successful programs. The results
of this study also suggest that the Teen Outreach Program, especially its
volunteer component, may provide important lessons for other preventive
interventions targeted at adolescents. Further research is now being conducted
to determine why volunteer activities were associated with success in Teen Out-
reach, and why the program appears more effective with older students, and
to replicate the basic findings about the success of the program using a random
assignment experimental design. Research of this type is essential if we are to
move beyond identifying a host of fragile programs, which work under some
conditions and not others, and toward the development of a truly useful tech-
nology for preventive interventions.
Prevention Evaluation
523
REFERENCES
Allen, J.P. (1989). The effect of school setting on youth social interaction across ages. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 81, 408-416.
Allen, J. P., Aber, J. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (1990). Adolescent problem behaviors: The
influence of attachment and autonomy. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13, 455-467.
Allen, J. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & J. L. (in press). The relationship of adolescents' expectations
and values to delinquency, hard drug use and unprotected sexual intercourse. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 2, 85-98.
Allen, J. P., Weissberg, R. P., & Hawkins, J. (1989). The relation between values and social
competence in early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 25, 458-464.
Association of Junior Leagues. (1988). Teen Outreach Program curriculum. New York: Author.
Basham, R. B. (1986). Scientific and practical advantages of comparative design in psychother-
apy outcome reach. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 88-94.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burt, M. R. (1986). Estimating the public costs of teenage childbearing. Family Planning Per-
spectives, 18, 221-226.
Cowen, E. L. (1982). Primary prevention: Children and the schools. Journal of Children in
Contemporary Society, 14, 57-68.
Donovan, J. E., & Jessor, R. (1985). Structure of problem behavior in adolescence and young
adulthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 890-904.
Donovan, J. E., Jessor, R., & Costa, F. M. (1988). Syndrome of problem behavior in adoles-
cence: A replication. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 762-765.
Elliott, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported
and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.
Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Farrington, D. (1973). Self reports of deviant behavior: Predictive and stable? Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology and Police Science, 61, 99-110.
Gray, D. O., & Braddy, B. A., (1988). Experimental social innovation and client-centered job-
seeking programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 325-343.
Harrington, D. (1986). Early adolescent helper program. Journal of Experiential Education,
9, 26-29.
Huesmann, L. R., Eron, L. D., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1984). Stability of aggres-
sion over time and generatins. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120-1134.
Kandel, D., & Raveis, V. (1987, April). Depression, suicidal ideation, and substance use in adoles-
cence and young adulthood. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.
Leadbeater, B. J., Hellner, I., Allen, J. P., & Aber, J. L. (1989). The assessment of interper-
sonal negotiation strategies in multi-problem youth. Developmental Psychology, 25,
465-472.
Loeber, R., & Dishion, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: A review. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 94, 68-99.
Luborsky, L., Mintz, J., Auerbach, A., Christoph. P., Bachrach, H., Todd, T., Johnson, M.,
Cohen, M., & O'Brien, C. P. (1980). Predicting outcomes of psychotherapy: Findings
of the Penn Psychotherapy Project. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 471-481.
National Research Council (1987). Risking the future: Adolescent sexuality, pregnancy and child-
bearing (C. D. Hayes, Ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management prac-
tices and delinquency. Child Development, 55, 1299-1307.
Philliber, S. P., Allen, J. P., Hoggson, N., & McNeil, W. (1989). Teen Outreach: A three-year
evaluation of a program to prevent teen pregnancy and school dropout. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-148.
524
Allen, Philliber, and Hoggson
Riessman, F. (1965). The helper-therapy principle. Social Work, 10, 27-32.
Rolf, J.E. (1985). Evolving adaptive theories and methods for prevention research with chil-
dren. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 631-646.
Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the school and the problem of change (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Staub, E. (1979). Positive social behavior and morality: Vol. 2. Socialization and development.
New York: Academic Press.
Weissberg, R. P., & Allen, J. P. (1986). Promoting children's social skills and adaptive inter-
personal behavior. In L. Michelson & B. Edelstein (Eds.), Handbook of prevention (pp.
153-176). New York: Plenum Press.
Weisz, J. R. (1986). Contingency and control beliefs as predictors of psychotherapy outcomes
among children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54,
789-795.
Zigler, E., Kagan, S. L., & Muenchow, S. (1982). Preventive interventions in the schools. In
C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. New York:
Wiley.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
TEEN OUTREACH
NEWS
Volume 3, Number 1
A Project of The Association of Junior Leagues International, Inc.
Fall 1993
SERVICE LEARNING AND THE TEEN OUTREACH PROGRAM
by Anne Collins
and fit together facts to better understand
"What we've learned from Teen
their communities and their roles as com-
"Service learning" is a phrase on the lips
Outreach is that volunteering is
munity members.
of members of Congress these days. Com-
pelled by evidence that volunteering can
closely linked to young people's abil-
Implementing Service Learning in
provide both young people and their com-
ity to avoid some of the problems —
Teen Outreach
munities with numerous benefits, in Sep-
such as school failure and dropout,
Thoughtfully planned activities in which
tember, the President and Congress re-
and teen pregnancy — that devas-
students' wishes and needs are placed at the
authorized the National and Community
tate so many teens each year," ex-
forefront are essential to successful service
Service Act as part of the President's Na-
tional and Community Service Trust Act
plains evaluator Dr. Joseph Allen.
learning. Because students' preferences,
community needs, and program resources
of 1993. This Act could influence educa-
are different for each Teen Outreach class-
tional experiences for as many as 750,000
isn't provided in isolation."
room, there is no single way to implement
children in its first year.
Reflection is the component of service
service learning. However, there are some
Although service learning is a relatively
learning that provides this necessary con-
common elements of good programs:
new phenomenon to Congress, it is not
new to Teen Outreach. Core components
of the program - the volunteer activity
and time for reflection - have provided
many students with the opportunity to
engage in service learning. In fact, evalua-
tions indicate that this combination of vol-
unteer service with a classroom atmosphere
that enables reflection, has been the key to
the program's success in many communi-
ties.
TOPI
"What we've learned from Teen Out-
reach is that volunteering is closely linked
TOPE
ПОР
to young people's ability to avoid some of
the problems — such as school failure and
dropout, and teen pregnancy - that dev-
astate so many teens each year," explains
evaluator Dr. Joseph Allen. "At the same
time, we've learned that simply performing
volunteer work may not be as important as
Atlanta Teen Outreach Students at the Festival of Trees with their facilitator Lillie Mitchell
how the volunteer work is structured. For
example, volunteer work selected by the
text for students' volunteer work. "The
Students help plan the activities.
students and performed against the back-
reflection component is what makes the
Whether the volunteer component con-
drop of supportive classroom discussions
difference between community service and
sists of group or individual activities, stu-
was strongly associated with positive stu-
service learning," explains Paula Flaherty,
dents must participate in deciding what to
dent outcomes; without these conditions
director of the West Virginia Service Learn-
do. For many young adolescents, however,
in place, volunteer work was only tenu-
ing Institute. "It is a structured method by
"What do you want to do?" is a question
ously linked to any positive outcomes. This
which students evaluate what happens both
they are not yet equipped to answer with-
suggests that volunteering may be helpful
to them and to the community as they
out adults who offer ideas and information
to students, but primarily when they feel
undertake community service." Reflection
they have some control over it and when it
occurs when participants observe, question
(continued on page 5)
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
Community Development
Research Briefs & Case Studies
Reports
Cornell Community and Rural Development Institute
Vol 1, No 4, October 1993
INNOVATION IN SMALL MANUFACTURING FIRMS
by Ruth C. Young, Joe D. Francis, and Christopher H. Young
For many decades
Important innovations have
But the chain of reasoning is
economists have claimed that the
had their start in small businesses,
tenuous that links these two
main stimulus for fundamental
and smaller firms face greater risks,
measures to high technology and
economic change is innovation, the
especially during their
then by
successful introduction of new
crucial early years.
extension to
products to the market (Schumpeter
Thus programs have
How can we find a way to
innovation, and
1939; 1947).
developed to help small
identify individual innovators
it has led far
A good idea for a new
innovators, like the
within an industry?
from
product is only the beginning of
Small Business
Schumpeter's
innovation, for many new ideas never
Innovation Research
original idea
reach production. Innovative firms
Program, a federal-state partnership.
that the individual innovative firm
must be effective at marketing and a
stimulates economic change.
host of other practices that make
Measuring Innovation: The
good business sense.
Problem
Unanswered Questions
But working definitions of
First, does it make sense to
Innovators Are Leaders
innovation are far from precise.
say that a whole industry is "high
Only the very few firms on
Even as money is spent to find and
technology" because many firms use
the cutting edge of change are
nurture innovation, debate continues
high-technology processing? Does
genuine innovators,
over what it is or is
the use of high-technology processing
according to
not, how we identify
tell anything about innovative
Schumpeter (1947
There is no such thing as an
it, and how it is
product design or effective
82). There is no
"innovative industry," only
related to other
marketing?
such thing as an
leaders and followers within
factors such as the
And are we sure that the
"innovative
each industry.
use of high
number of scientists and engineers
industry," only
technology
on the payroll and the dollars spent
leaders and
production or special
on research and development are the
followers within
marketing strategies.
best indicators of innovative output?
each industry.
Moreover, innovation has proven
More to the point, how can
In Schumpeter's view,
difficult to quantify using data from
we find a way to identify individual
changes begun by innovative firms
the typical census of business.
innovators within an industry?
cause the whole economy to evolve on
Researchers on innovation often rely
Industry-wide statistics are little
a continuous basis. Innovation
on two measures that
help: data
creates an economic revolution from
are supposed to
concerning
within.
gauge the use of high
High technology and research and
innovative
technology:
development expenditures are not
firms are
Importance for Growth
employment of
good indicators of innovation.
lost when
Fostering innovation may be
scientists and
averaged
a key to growth in the nation's
engineers, and
into a mass
economy. Efforts to understand
expenditures on research and
of data collected from non-innovators.
innovation and to locate and support
development. Data are not available
And finally, how can we
innovative firms are receiving
firm-by-firm; the numbers are
distinguish innovation from other
substantial funding from both
usually averaged over an entire
kinds of change? For example,
governmental and private sources.
industry.
flexibility, the constant adjustment of
CaRDI provides research, education and policy analysis on critical community and rural development issues