PROGRAMS BEGINNING WHEN CHILDREN ARE IN MIDDLE AND/OR HIGH SCHOOL

• Learn and Service America
  
• Say It Straight: Youth-Centered Communication Skills Training
  
• Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America
  
• Adventure Education and Outward Bound
  

I. Learn and Service America

The following review was written by Benard and is reprinted here with her permission.

Service learning is an educational process that relates service experiences to the school or community directly to the curriculum’s subject matter. A three-year interim evaluation study of more than 1,000 students in Learn and Service America (LSA) found positive impacts not only on the students, but also on cooperating schools and community organization as well as on the larger communities (Brandeis University and Abt Associates, 1996). LSA is a competitive grants program carried out under the National and Community Service Act of 1993.

Service learning programs showed statistically significant, positive impacts on several measures of civic and educational development:

Impact on Community Organizations

During the 1995-96 school year, Learn and Serve students were involved in more than 300 district projects or activities in each semester, providing more than 154,000 hours of service over the year. Officials of community organizations consistently gave students high praise for the "valued added" they provided to their organizations’ mission and work.

Community officials give service learning projects high ratings and would use Learn and Serve students again. On a 10-point scale (10=Best Possible), they rated participants as follows:

• 8.7 for their impact on clients
• 8.2 for their community impact

In addition, 96% said they would use the volunteers again; 755 said that the volunteers had helped raise the skill levels, engagement, and self-esteem of their clients; and over 66% said that the volunteers had fostered a more positive attitude toward working the schools, and over 50% said that new relationships with the public schools had been produced.

In an earlier study commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation, researchers identified that the key components of successful service learning efforts included the following:

• Staff believes that youth are resources.
  
• Students make real decisions and solve real problems.
  
• Responsibilities and accountability are clear.
  
• Classroom learning occurs in authentic ways.
  
• Nurturing teachers and other adults are essential.
  
• Time for processing, planning, and reflection on service is provided for both students and teachers.
  

According to these researchers, successful learning in the middle grades is linked to a school’s strong beliefs that adolescents can make "genuine, lasting, and responsible contributions" to their communities and that they can learn their academic subjects and develop ethics through service learning integrated into the curriculum (Harrington and Schine, 1989).

II. Say It Straight (SIS): Youth-Centered Communication Skills Training
Dr. Paula Englander Golden

The following review was written by Benard and is reprinted here with her permission.

Say It Straight (SIS) is a communication skills program grounded in developmental principles. In addition to training in interpersonal communication skills -- honest assertiveness and peer support, "it provides an opportunity to explore intrapersonal communication, that is, connecting to one’s internal resources and discovering one’s deepest yearnings, such as the wish to be significant, to be valued and loved, and to be capable of loving and valuing others" (Golden, et al., 1996).

Since 1982, Golden has been conducting evaluation on SIS effectiveness in the prevention of alcohol and drug abuse, HIV/AIDs, violence, and delinquency. In 1986, she reported a longitudinal study on alcohol and drug related school suspensions among trained students in sixth through ninth grades versus untrained students. She found "not a single" alcohol or drug related school suspension during an entire school year in one middle school where an almost totally trained milieu was attained in the first month of the 1984-1985 school year (1986). In a 1987 study, she extended SIS training to high school students and measured juvenile police offenses. Over a 1 ½ year follow-up, the untrained students had about 4 ½ times as many juvenile criminal offenses as the trained students. In 1996, she published the results of SIS training with almost 3,000 students in grades three through twelve, as well as 230 parents and other adults living in high-risk environments. All participants – trained by trainers who had only a four to six day training – showed significant increases in behavioral intentions to implement constructive decisions in difficult situations and feel more at ease doing so.

Based on the principles of Dr. Virginia Satir, SIS focuses on building honest, assertive communications skills through extensive role-playing of interpersonal situations in which students find themselves. Examples of such situations include, "How do I say no to a friend? How do I say ‘I have quit’ to a group of friends? How do I say ‘I don’t like what I see you doing’ to a friend?" The training is action-oriented and uses visual, auditory, and kinesthetic modalities to involve people with different learning styles. Communication processes such as placating and blaming, being sarcastic, passive- aggressive, disruptive, irrelevant, or ‘spacing out,’ lecturing, discounting feelings, and -- on the positive side -- honoring oneself and others are first explored by body sculpting – placing one’s body into physical postures that intensify, make overt and concrete the internal experience of these communications. Each sculpture (action) is accompanied by reflection and dialog. These communications are then embedded in movies that portray difficult interpersonal situations. The movies are developed by participants who play parts in them as actors. Participants discover how they feel and the effect they have on others as they communicate in different ways. Strengthening of personal and social responsibility is facilitated as participants practice prosocial behaviors in difficult situations.

Unique features of SIS training include:

1. Flexibility to be applied across settings (churches, schools, prisons, support groups, treatment agencies, community-based organizations, etc.) and across age groups and roles (students, parents, teachers, youth workers).

2. Training entire classrooms or schools, rather than selected students who have been labeled in negative ways, gives the message that everyone can improve their communications skills, thus creating bonds rather than separations among people.

3. Focusing on solutions, on improving coping skills, on one’s strengths and resources. At no time during the training is factual information about alcohol or drugs given.

4. Giving ownership and responsibility for the training to participants by letting them choose the content of the movies, i.e., letting them co-create their training. This not only assures cultural, ethnic, developmental, and gender relevancy, it respects the participants’ freedom. According to Golden (1986), "Nowhere [in SIS training] are students told what their deep wishes of new choices should be.... Since freedom is one of the most important values to young people, the trainers minimize the risk of rebellious reaction to the training by avoiding debate and respecting the students’ freedom."

The following review was written by Benard and is reprinted here with her permission.

In 1995, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), a national not-for-profit research corporation based in Philadelphia, published the fourth and final volume of its three-year, $2,000,000 evaluation of Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (BB/BS). This was an impact study of the oldest and most carefully structured mentoring effort in the U.S. According to the authors of Making A Difference , "Our research presents clear and encouraging evidence that caring relationships between adults and youth can be created and supported by programs and can yield a wide range of tangible benefits." Furthermore, "The most notable results are the deterrent effect on initiation of drug and alcohol use, and the overall positive effects on academic performance that the mentoring experience produced" (Public/Private Ventures, November, 1995).

Using a classical experimental research methodology with random assignment, P/PV conducted a comparative study of 959 ten to sixteen year olds who applied to BB/BS programs in eight geographically diverse cities in 1992 and 1993. Half of these youth were randomly assigned to a treatment group for which BB/BS matches were made or attempted; the other half were assigned to waiting lists. After 18 months, the two groups were compared. Participants in a BB/BS program were 46% less likely to start using illegal drugs; 27% less likely to start drinking. However, the effect was even stronger for minority Little Brothers and Sisters. Compared to the controls, these children were:

• 70% less likely to initiate drug use,
  
• One-third less likely to hit someone,
  
• Skipped fewer classes and half as many days of school,
  
• Felt more competent about doing schoolwork,
  
• Showed modest gains in their grade point averages, with the strongest gains among the Little Sisters,
  
• Improved their relationships with both their parents and their peers.
  

Of particular note is that probably all of these youth – both treatment and control groups – would be considered "high-risk" youth:

• 90% lived with only one of their parents.
  
• Over 80% came from impoverished homes.
  
• Over 40% received either food stamps and/or cash public assistance.
  
• 40% came from homes with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.
  
• Nearly 30% came from families with a record of domestic violence.
  
• Nearly 30% were victims of emotional, physical, or sexual abuse.
  

Conversely, the Big Brothers and Sisters were generally well-educated young professionals. About 60% were college graduates; nearly two-thirds had a total household income over $25,000, with 40% over $40,000. Also of note, about three-fourths of the volunteers were white. In essence, despite this enormous social distance between the youth and the volunteers, they were able to establish successful relationships – across their class and race differences. From this as well as their three other BB/BS studies, the researchers attribute these successful outcomes to two overall characteristics: the one-to-one relationship and the program’s supportive infrastructure.

First of all, the relationship was of sufficient intensity. In the 400 matches studied here, more than 70% of the matches met three times a month for an average of 3-4 hours per meeting, and 50% met one time a week. This comes to around 144 hours of direct contact a year, not counting telephone interactions.

Secondly, even though this outcome study did not examine the nature of the relationship between the adult and youth, the third companion study, Building Relationships with Youth in Program Settings (Public/Private Ventures, May, 1995) illuminated the nature of the relationships that were of sufficient intensity and duration to produce these effects. The sustained relationships were those in which the mentor saw him/herself as a friend, not as a teacher or preacher. These "developmental" relationships were grounded in the mentor’s belief s/he was there to meet the developmental needs of youth – to provide supports and opportunities the youth did not currently have. " While most developmental volunteers ultimately hoped to help their youth improve in school and be more responsible, they centered their involvement and expectations on developing a reliable; trusting relationship, and expanded the scope of their efforts only as the relationship strengthened." These volunteers placed top priority on having the relationship be enjoyable and fun to both partners. Furthermore, they were "there" for the young person, listened nonjudgmentally, looked for the youth’s interests and strengths, and incorporated the youth into the decision-making process (gave them "voice and choice") around their activities.

In contrast to these developmental relationships (fortunately, two-thirds of the 82 relationships examined were developmental) were the "prescriptive " relationships in which the adult volunteers believed their primary purpose was guiding the youth toward the values, attitudes, and behaviors the adult deemed positive: "Adults in these relationships set the goals, the pace, and/or the ground roles for the relationship. These volunteers were reluctant to adjust their expectations of the youth or their expectation of how quickly the youth’s behavior could change." A majority of these prescriptive volunteers were basically there to fix kids ... typically to improve school performance – and most of their shared time was spent in conversation – not fun activities – around grades and classroom behavior. For these volunteers, risk lay within the youth: "What seemed to stand out for these prescriptive volunteers was less the deficiencies present in the youth’s environment, and more – particularly in terms of morals and values – those present in the youth themselves – deficiencies prescriptive volunteers frequently sought to rectify." Not surprisingly, the adults and youths in these matches found the relationship frustrating and nonsupportive. Of these prescriptive relationships, only 29% met consistently (compared to 93% of the developmental), and at the 18-month follow-up, only 32% were ongoing, compared to 91% of the developmental.

From the studies of BB/BS program practices, recruitment, and screening, as well as from earlier P/PV research on mentoring, the researchers conclude that "the following program irreducibles are prerequisites for an effective mentoring program":

1. Thorough volunteer screening that weeds out adults who are unlikely to keep their time commitment or might pose a safety risk to the youth.

2. Mentor training that includes communication and limit-setting skills, tips on relationship building, and recommendations on the best way to interact with a young person.

3. Matching procedures that take into account the preferences of the youth, their family, and the volunteer, and that use a professional case manager to analyze which volunteer would work best with which youth.

4. Intensive supervision and support of each match by a case manager who has frequent contact with the parent or guardian, volunteer, and youth, and provides assistance when requested or as difficulties arise. This includes supporting the mentors both by being available and by facilitating peer support groups for them.

Implications for Prevention, Education, and Youth Development

A development approach is key to successful learning and social development. "The findings in this report speak to the effectiveness of an approach to youth policy that is very different from the problem-oriented approach that is prevalent in youth programming. This more developmental approach does not target specific problems but rather interacts flexibly with youth in a supportive manner."

Creating "mentor-rich" environments that create multiple opportunities for young people to interact with an array of caring adults must be a major focus of our work.. This means that relationships must be the central focus of reform and prevention efforts in schools, community-based organizations, and communities as a whole (Freedman, 1993).

IV. Adventure Education and Outward Bound
A Meta-Analysis by John Hattie and Colleagues

The following review was written by Benard and is reprinted here with her permission.

This meta-analysis was based on 1,728 effect sizes drawn from 151 unique samples from 96 studies of out-of-school adventure programs around the world. This study involved 12,057 unique participants of whom 72% were male and 28% female, ranging in age from 11 to 42 years. These programs usually involve small groups of students, young and old, who are transported to the wilderness and assigned challenging tasks such as mastering a river rapid or hiking to a remote point. The largest is Outward Bound, a private, nonprofit group serving more than 40,000 students worldwide each year.

Overall, the researchers found students made gains on 40 different outcomes which they categorized into six major categories:

1. Leadership – conscientiousness, decision making, teamwork, organizational ability, time management, values, and goals.
   
2. Self-concept – physical ability, peer relations, general self, physical appearance, academic confidence (mathematics, reading, GPA, problem solving), self-efficacy, self-control, family and self understanding.
   
3. Personality – femininity, masculinity, achievement motivation, emotional stability, control of aggression, assertiveness, locus of control, maturity, and neurosis reduction.
   
4. Interpersonal Skills – cooperation, communication, social competence, behavior, relating skills, and decreases in recidivism.
   
5. Adventurousness – taking on challenges, flexibility, physical fitness, environmental awareness.
   

A key finding of this study is that the students’ gains increased over time, sometimes months after participants completed the 20 to 26 day programs. This contrasts sharply to most educational interventions in which program effects fade after the program terminates. A theme underlying the outcomes with the greatest effects related to self-control; the authors conclude that "adventure programs appear to be most effective at providing participants with a sense of self-regulation" (p. 70).

The researchers believe that adventure programs have positive effects for four main reasons:

1. The intensity of the immediate experience allows the participant full involvement in the activity.
   
2. The challenge and specific goals direct attention and effort.
   
3. The large amount and quality of feedback is vital to the experiential learning process: "Feedback is the most powerful single moderator that improves affective and achievement outcomes."
   
4. Mutual group support provides opportunities in which to reflect, dialog, and act, as well as to cope with and understand one’s world (p.75).
   

Finally, the researchers warn that "adventure programs are not inherently good. There is a great deal of variability in outcomes between different studies, different programs, and different individuals" (p.77).