TPC Journal V7, Issue 2 - FULL ISSUE

176 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 2 Based on the evaluation of research and the ability to fit in the parameters of this study, the decision was made to incorporate two interventions in our final treatment. Our final treatment was composed of a study skills intervention and an empowerment intervention. The intervention aimed to provide three foundational supports for the returning alternative academy students: group, mentor and advocate. The treatment was provided in a group format and students were supported by individual mentors and an advocate housed at their home school. Graduate student interns working toward their master’s, Ph.D. or Ed.S. degrees provided the mentoring. The advocate was a school counselor and designated point of contact in the home school system. The group treatment consisted of two phases. The first phase was a psychoeducational study skills group consisting of six modules covered over 8 weeks: (a) goal setting, (b) self-regulation, (c) organizational strategies, (d) study strategies and directions, (e) note-taking strategies and (f) test-taking strategies/managing test anxiety. When Phase I was completed, students transitioned immediately into Phase II, the EGAS model developed by Bemak et al. (2005). Even though this model was originally implemented with African American students, it was chosen because often students with multiple risk factors can be marginalized and can benefit from empowerment (Berger, 2011), and a majority of students returning from the alternative academy were African American. During Phase II, students continued to meet weekly through the duration of the school year. The EGAS setting was student-driven in that students presented the topics while leaders facilitated the group discussion. Each week, the students chose as the group topic personal problems that impacted their academic success. Ultimately, the four research questions guiding our investigation were: (1) What is the effect of a school-based youth intervention program on at-risk youth’s school attendance transitioning from an alternative educational setting to a traditional school setting as measured by number of periods absent? (2) What is the effect of a school-based youth intervention program on at-risk youth’s school disciplinary actions transitioning from an alternative educational setting to a traditional school setting as measured by number of discipline referrals? (3) What is the effect of a school-based youth intervention program on at-risk youth’s credit accrual transitioning from an alternative educational setting to a traditional school setting as measured by the percentage of classes passed? And (4) what is the effect of a school-based youth intervention program on at-risk youth’s school attitudes transitioning from an alternative educational setting to a traditional school setting as measured by the School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised (SAAS-R)? Methodology Procedure and Participants A two-group pretest-posttest design, which included collecting data at two time points over the course of the school year, was utilized to investigate the effectiveness of the school-based transitional support intervention program on the youth’s attitudes and behavior. Prior to the recruitment of participants, we received approval from our university’s Institutional Review Board and from the school district to conduct the study. The setting for the treatment and control groups were in high schools in the southeastern United States. The high school within one school district with the highest number of expulsions was selected as the treatment site. The other high schools in the school district’s alternative school returnees were used as a control group for the study. The at-risk youth targeted for this study were students returning from at least a 45-day remanded period at the school district’s alternative academy. There were a total of 100 participants ( N = 100), including 50 treatment and 50 control participants. Because of missing data, the sample size was reduced to 52 participants ( N = 52). There were 24 participants (N = 24) in the treatment group and 28 participants (N = 28) in the control