Upload
linette-douglas
View
216
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lessons Learned from Working with Absenteeism Data: A Local Evaluation
informing positive community change
Presented by: Dr. L. Shon Bunkley, CRPOctober 16, 2008
CRP’s local evaluation of a pilot truancy reduction project
Program background 6 months in operation (Dec ‘07 – May ‘08) Collaboration between school district, police,
county prosecutor, job and family services, juvenile court
Targets elementary and middle school students Program components
3 unexcused absences = Warning letter from Prosecutor
5 unexcused absences = Mediation session 10 unexcused absences = Truancy board hearing 15 unexcused absences = Referral to Juvenile Court
CRP’s local evaluation of a pilot truancy reduction project (cont’d)
Major measures of success All pilot schools meet or exceed the
attendance standards set by CCS Reduce by 50% the number of referrals to
juvenile court from pilot schools Reduce by 75% the rate of unexcused
absences for students who participate in a mediation session
Several secondary measures, like 30 consecutive days of no absences
CRP’s local evaluation of a pilot truancy reduction project (cont’d)
Evaluation methodology Literature review Interviews
Staff Stakeholders Parents and youth
Analysis of secondary data Student absences School attendance rates School referrals to juvenile court
CRP’s evaluation findings
Between December and February, 199 students were mediated
Unexcused absences among mediated students at the pilot schools declined anywhere from 36% to 76%
Nearly 100 (50%) mediated students had 30 days of no unexcused absences following mediation
Too early to gauge school level improvements in attendance and referrals to juvenile court
Lesson 1: Define measures and outcomes
Definition of truancy Excused vs. unexcused absences
Definition of referral Eligible vs. charges filed
Lesson 2: Caution against the assessment of impact of a pilot project Assessing impact in 1st year is made difficult by:
Project being operational for a limited amount of time Not enough time to iron out the “kinks” of the project Not enough time to expect to see marked change Limited amount of data for analyses
Influence of several other district initiatives aimed at reducing truancy, such as truancy sweeps
High student mobility within the district Seasonal/time-specific attendance patterns Moderating factors (e.g., substance abusing parent)
Lesson 3: Be aware of competing interests
Client need for data to support effectiveness of the project In need of additional funding Desire for replication
Evaluator’s responsibility to keep the evaluation objective and balanced
Lesson 4: Clarify data elements and collection procedures
What data elements are needed Student vs. school-level data Program stats vs. school/district stats Ancillary indicators/facilitators of success, like
GPA Who will be responsible for collecting what
data School district vs. program staff Timelines will be dependent upon when the
district releases data Reconciliation of attendance data
Lesson 5: Get clarity and agreement on how data will be analyzed Rate of absences vs. number of
absences Average rate vs. median rate of
absences Inclusion/exclusion of students mediated
at the end of the school year
Up Front…
1. Define measure and outcomes2. Caution against the evaluation of the
impact of a pilot project3. Be aware of competing interests4. Clarify data elements and collection
procedures5. Get clarity and agreement on how
data will be analyzed
For more information
Dr. L. Shon Bunkley, Senior Research Associate
Community Research Partners(614) 224-5917, ext. [email protected]