Suhyun Suh is an

assistant professor at
Auburn University,
Auburn, AL.
E-mail:
[email protected]
Jingyo Suh is an
associate professor at
Tuskegee University,
Tuskegee, AL.
Risk Factors and Levels of Risk for
High School Dropouts
The study in this article identifies three major risk cat- identified parents’ low educational attainment, the
egories of high school dropouts and evaluates the number of household members, and lack of motiva-
impact of possible prevention strategies. As students tion as reasons why students with a low socioeco-
accumulate these risks, they became more likely to drop nomic status (SES) drop out of school. Ekstrom,
out and prevention programs become less effective. Goertz, Pollack, and Rock (1986) found that
Additionally, it was found that factors influencing the dropouts tend to be racial minorities from poor fam-
decision to drop out vary for different sources of risk, ilies. Students’ deviant and resistant behaviors also
and thus there should be a range of prevention strate- were identified as strongly related to dropping out
gies offered to accommodate for this variance. of school. Fine and Rosenberg (1983) indicated that
high school dropouts challenge the dominant belief
ince the 1970s, there has been a growing effort that education leads to success in life. Pittman

S to improve high school graduation rates. In

1983, the National Commission on Excellence
in Education sounded the alarm because U.S. edu-
(1986) and Tidwell (1988) pointed out that stu-
dents’ resistance and resentfulness toward the school
community was a major variable in their decision to
cational standards had fallen behind other major drop out.
industrialized countries (National Commission on Students’ low level of engagement in their educa-
Excellence in Education, 1983). The commission tion has been considered by other researchers
called for a reform of the nation’s educational system (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall, 2003) as an
in fundamental ways and a renewal of the nation’s important factor leading to higher dropout rates.
commitment to high-quality education. Though Finn (1989) also proposed that behaviors associated
these issues received increased attention following with dropping out of school stem from a withdraw-
the commission’s call, little research has been devot- al from school life. A study of elementary and mid-
ed to how much the likelihood of dropping out of dle school students found that school variables were
school increases when students accumulate multiple consistent predictors of alienation from school. The
risk factors. researchers noted that contrary to the generally
Studies on high school dropouts have primarily accepted theory that alienation from school is a
been concerned with the identification of character- steady developmental process, alienation from
istics associated with dropout risk, and researchers school may not be overtly manifested until students
have consistently found them in varied domains such reach high school.
as school, family, community, and the students Researchers also have found that the combination
themselves (Farmer & Payne, 1992; Gruskin, of two or more risk factors increases the likelihood
Campbell, & Paulu, 1987; Kronick & Harcis, 1998; of dropping out (Croninger & Lee, 2001; Farmer et
Orr, 1987; Payne, 1989; Reyes, 1989; Roderick, al., 2004). When a student is exposed to multiple
1993; Suh, Suh, & Houston, in press; Tindall, risk factors, he or she is likely to be less motivated to
1988; Valdivieso, 1986; Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, do schoolwork and to eventually drop out of school
1997; Wehlage, 1989). Many researchers simply (Suh et al., in press). Farmer et al. also found that
identified the multiple factors contributing to youth who experienced a single risk factor in early
school dropout. adolescence had moderately increased levels of school
For example, Coley (1995) presented school- dropout, whereas youth with a combination of two
related problems such as disliking school, receiving or more risk factors had significantly higher dropout
poor grades, not being able to keep up with school- rates. They also examined the extent to which sin-
work, and not getting along with teachers as four of gle- and multiple-risk profiles were evident in cross-
the top six reasons for dropping out. Devine (1996) sectional samples from inner-city and rural areas.

1 0 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 7 | A S C A 297
 Some researchers have tried to explain this contributing to high school dropout and the extent
dropout phenomenon by using interaction or cause- of their impact on the likelihood of dropping out of
and-effect relationships of contributing factors. For school. Based on previous research, this study classi-
example, Holt (1995) suggested that low achievers fied students into the three major at-risk categories
usually come to school lacking basic skills that are of a low grade point average (GPA), low SES, and
prerequisites for learning. Academic failure increases behavioral problems. Within each of these three at-
students’ alienation from school, leading to absen- risk groups, the study also examines variables that
teeism, which in turn increases dropout risk. Devine interact to increase the risk of dropping out. Four
(1996) also speculated that potential dropouts might research questions were tested: (a) What are the
have behavioral problems as a result of lack of inter- most significant risk factors leading to school
est in school as well as poor academic performance. dropout? (b) How much does the combination of
Early prevention is one of the most often cited two or more risk factors accelerate the likelihood of
strategies for school completion. For example, child dropping out compared to a single risk? (c) What are
behavior researchers observed that early-school-age the predictive indicators within each risk group and
children with early assault conduct problems are at how different are they across the different types of
high risk for school dropout as well as substance at-risk groups? (d) What kinds of prevention strate-
abuse, violence, and delinquency in their later years. gies are effective for different sources of risk?
Consequently, developing treatment strategies to re-
duce conduct problems when aggression is in its more METHOD
malleable form prior to age 8, and thus interrupting
When a student is its progression, is of considerable benefit to both fam- Data
ilies and society (Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2003). Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of
exposed to multiple Researchers also have reported connections Youth (NLSY97) database from the U.S.
between measures of academic performance in early Department of Labor were used in this study.
risk factors, he or elementary school and dropout behavior before Participants were selected using a nationally repre-
high school graduation (Barrington & Hendricks, sentative sample of approximately 9,000 youths who
she is likely to be 1989; Ensminger & Slusarcick, 1992). They empha- were 12 to 16 years old as of December 31, 1996.
sized the need to examine causes of dropping out The Department of Labor conducted the initial sur-
less motivated to before high school because many students drop out vey (Round 1) in 1997. In that round, both the eli-
before the 10th grade. These observations are con- gible youth and one of that youth’s parents received
do schoolwork and sistent with the suggestion in the growing literature hour-long personal interviews. Youths have been
on adolescent development that, because changing reinterviewed annually since then. Data from rounds
to eventually drop the performance path at the high school level is very 1–5 of the NLSY97/01 were released in August
difficult, school performance must be improved at 2003. The data in this report excluded 2,792 stu-
out of school. an earlier point in the student’s development to dents who either were enrolled in high school or
improve adolescent achievement (Entwisle, 1990). were not enrolled but working toward a General
In a rural middle school study, Edmondson and Educational Development (GED) certificate, be-
White (1998) indicated that younger students were cause they had neither completed high school nor
more open to support services, while older students dropped out. Composing the final sample were
might be more focused on peer approval and their 3,111 males and 3,081 females who either complet-
need for independence. Also, because older children ed high school or dropped out without receiving a
have been in school longer, they may have a stronger diploma or a GED by December 31, 2000. Among
defeatist attitude than the younger students. the 6,192 students in the sample, 5,244 completed
Among the characteristics associated with high school with a diploma or GED, and 948 did not.
dropout, many researchers have identified three
main risk indicators. They include poor academic Procedure
performance (or low grade point average), low SES, To identify the common causes of dropping out
and deviant behavior (or behavioral problems) from the NLSY97, this study considered 180 vari-
(Ekstrom et al., 1986; Phelan, 1992; Rumberger, ables as possible contributing factors of dropping
1987; Suh et al., in press). Regardless of the source out of school. Drawn from numerous literary
of risk factors, it is noteworthy that multiple risk fac- sources and empirical studies, these variables repre-
tors contribute to and accelerate the risk of dropping sent personal, behavioral, familial, school-related,
out of school. and community-related aspects of students’ school
performance. Multiple logistic regression using the
PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY forward selection procedure was used to systemati-
cally screen all variables and arrive at a good parsi-
The purpose of this study was to identify the factors monious model (Tamhane & Dunlop, 2000).

298 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

 The screening process yielded 16 statistically sig- uated high school with a diploma or received a
nificant predictors of high school dropout. They GED, the dependent variable is coded as 0. If a stu-
include (a) low grade point average in the eighth dent did not graduate and was not enrolled in high
grade (GPA); (b) low socioeconomic status (SES); school in the survey year of 2001, the dependent
(c) students who were suspended (SUSPENSION); variable is coded as 1.
(d) students’ expectations to stay in school the next
year (INSCHOOL); (e) enrichment risk index RESULTS
(ENRICHMENT); (f) number of days absent from
school (ABSENT); (g) whether the student lived Table 1 shows two models (Model 1 and Model 2)
with both biological parents as of 1996 (BIOPAR- of predictors of school dropouts. The columns of
ENT); (h) physical environment risk index Table 1 denote the value of the regression coeffi-
(PHYSINDEX); (i) first sexual experience at age 15 cient, the significance level, and the probability val-
or prior (FIRSTSEX); (j) number of household ues of the 16 predictors. Model 1 presents the initial
members (HHSIZE); (k) percentage of peers plan- estimation of school dropout with three at-risk fac-
ning to go to college (PEERS); (l) residence in met- tors (academic risk, low socioeconomic status, and
ropolitan area (MSA); (m) region (REGION); (n) behavioral problems) included in the regression
positive perception toward teachers (TEACHERS); model. The statistical significance of Model 1 points
(o) number of fights at school (FIGHT); and (p) if to a strong association between each risk factor and
the student had been threatened with harm at the likelihood of dropping out. The probability val-
school (THREAT). ues represent the expected change in the probability
Six are quantitative or composite index variables, of dropping out of school for every one-standard-
and the remaining 10 variables are qualitative. The deviation increase in the predictor variable. The
six quantitative/index variables are absenteeism, change in the probability is obtained by subtracting
household size, number of fights at school, percent- 1 from Exp(B), where the positive value represents Early prevention is
age of peers planning to go to college, enrichment an increase in the likelihood of dropping out and the
risk index, and physical environment risk index. negative value indicates a decrease. For example, one of the most
Quantitative variables were transformed into stan- academic risk (low GPA) increases the probability of
dard normalized variables for ease of interpretation. dropping out by 115.9% (2.159 – 1 = 1.159 or often cited
The qualitative variables were coded 1 if the state- 115.9%), while socioeconomic risk (SES) and behav-
ment was true or present and 0 if not. For example, ioral risk (SUSPENSION) increase the likelihood of strategies for school
a student was assigned a low GPA code value of 1 if dropping out by 75.0% and 77.5%, respectively.
he or she received a low GPA in eighth grade and a Many students (1,395 youths) are exposed to completion.
value of 0 if he or she received a medium or high multiple risk factors (two or three risks) rather than
GPA. The quantitative variables indicate the initial one alone. For example, 183 students have both aca-
survey value. Two index variables, enrichment risk demic and socioeconomic risks. If there exists a sys-
index and physical environment risk index, were cal- tematic relationship among risk factors, then multi-
culated from a group of survey questions included in collinearity is present and statistical difficulties arise
the NLSY97/01. The first includes educational in fitting the regression model unless extra predictor
enrichment activities and resources, and the second variables are deleted (Pedhazur, 1997). To minimize
includes home and community environments. multicollinearity in the regression model and to
The three variables of low GPA, suspension, and facilitate the interpretation of risk backgrounds, we
low SES received special attention in the coding pro- introduced the variable (RISK) of number of risk
cedure because these have been widely identified by factors on behalf of the three at-risk variables of low
researchers as major risk factors to dropout. Low GPA, low SES, and suspension. RISK is coded from
performers were identified as students with an 0 (no risk) to 3 (all three background risks). Model
eighth-grade GPA of “half Cs and half Ds” or below 2 shows predictors of school dropouts when the
(Suh et al., in press). The suspension category number of risk factors is included as a predictor. All
included students who had been suspended at least other predictors remain the same as Model 1. The
once. Low SES indicated students from families estimated coefficient on the RISK variable indicates
whose annual income was below $30,000 in 1997. that students with one risk factor have an 89.3 per-
To distinguish between these risk factors and other cent higher likelihood of dropping out than students
predictors of dropping out, risk factors or risk back- who do not.
grounds refers to students displaying one or more of Table 2 is constructed to show four different
the above three criteria. Predictors of dropping out logistic regression models according to the number
refers to the remaining 13 independent variables. of risk factors present. Because the number of risk
The dependent variable (DROPOUT) represents factors is the most significant predictor of dropout
high school dropout/completion. If a student grad- and has one of the largest odds value, we need to

1 0 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 7 | A S C A 299
 Table 1. Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Dropout
(Baseline Model)
Variable Model 1 Model 2
B Sig. Exp(B) B Sig. Exp(B)

GPA .769 .000 2.159 — — —

SES .559 .000 1.750 — — —
SUSPENSION .574 .000 1.775 — — —
RISK — — — .638 .000 1.893
INSCHOOL –.237 .000 .789 –.235 .000 .791
ENRICHMENT –.273 .000 .761 –.273 .000 .761
ABSENT .230 .000 1.258 .230 .000 1.258
BIOPARENT –.672 .000 .511 –.653 .000 .520
PHYSINDEX .207 .000 1.230 .200 .000 1.222
FIRSTSEX –.233 .000 .792 –.233 .000 .792
HHSIZE .206 .000 1.228 .205 .000 1.227
PEERS .171 .000 1.186 .717 .000 1.186
MSA .324 .000 1.383 .318 .000 1.375
REGION 4.835 .001 125.816 4.638 .002 103.309
TEACHERS .998 .002 2.714 1.010 .002 2.746
FIGHT .126 .001 1.135 .123 .002 1.131
THREAT –.132 .019 .876 –.130 .019 .878
Constant –3.403 .000 .033 –3.389 .020 .034

Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .305 for Model 1 and .304 for Model 2. –2 log likelihood = 4105.397 for Model 1
and 4108.945 for Model 2. Percentage correctly predicted for high school completers = .853 for Model 1
and .967 for Model 2. Percentage correctly predicted for dropouts = .222 for Model 1 and .217 for Model 2.
N = 6,192.

further investigate the role of this variable in the ment risk index, household size, absenteeism, age of
model. We estimated the probability of dropping first sexual experience, and percentage of peers
out for four different groups of students by the going to college. In the 1 Risk model, predictors are
number of risk factors: (a) students without any risk similar to the 0 Risk model with the exception that
factors (N = 2,878); (b) students with only one risk student residing in a metropolitan area, the number
factor regardless of the source of the risk (N = of fights in school, and whether the student has been
1,915); (c) students with two risk factors (N = threatened with physical harm in school are signifi-
1,112); and (d) students with all three risk factors cant. In the 2 Risks model, the physical environment
(N = 283). The predictor variables used for analysis risk and the percentage of peers going to college are
are the same as the predictors in Table 1 except that no longer significant. The most dramatic change is
the variable “number of risk factors” is controlled made in the 3 Risks model, where only four predic-
instead of one of the other predictors. tors (whether the student lived with both biological
In Table 2, the statistical significance of the pre- parents, household size, region, and absenteeism)
dictors and the impact of possible prevention—the are significant; all other predictors significant in the
odds, Exp(B)—are significantly different from the previous models are no longer significant.
results in Table 1. In the 0 Risk model, significant The odds column, Exp(B), varies significantly
predictors of school dropout are expectations to stay depending on the number of risks. In general, the
in school, enrichment index, whether the student odds of a unit or one-standard-deviation change in a
lived with both biological parents, physical environ- predictor variable are large when the number of risks

300 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

 Table 2. Odds Ratio of the Multivariate Logistic Regression Model According to the
Number of Risks
Variable 0 Risk 1 Risk 2 Risks 3 Risks

INSCHOOL .723 ** .766 ** .834 ** .934

ENRICHMENT .561 ** .738 ** .855 * 1.155
ABSENT 1.468 ** 1.170 ** 1.214 ** 1.548 **
BIOPARENT .414 ** .658 ** .525 ** .442 *
PHYSINDEX 1.449 ** 1.273 ** 1.066 1.144
FIRSTSEX .714 ** .766 ** .841 * 1.022
HHSIZE 1.198 * 1.169 ** 1.188 ** 1.431 **
PEERS 1.376 ** 1.215 ** 1.095 1.162
MSA 1.452 1.473 ** 1.386 * .684
REGION .078 1.964 10516.73 ** 194220.7 *
TEACHERS .445 1.202 1.906 6.946
FIGHT .952 1.513 ** 1.151 ** .981
THREAT 1.176 .636 ** .869 1.053
Constant .103 .134 .078 .087 *

Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .225 for 0 Risk; .181 for 1 Risk; .146 for 2 Risks; .214 for 3 Risks. –2 log likelihood =
822.101 for 0 Risk; 1524.784 for 1 Risk; 1278.908 for 2 Risks; 342.266 for 3 Risks. Percentage correctly
predicted for high school completers = .997 for 0 Risk; .974 for 1 Risk; .924 for 2 Risks; .730 for 3 Risks.
Percentage correctly predicted for dropouts = .097 for 0 Risk; .111 for 1 Risk; .227 for 2 Risks; .600 for 3
Risks. N = 2,878 for 0 Risk; 1,915 for 1 Risk; 1,112 for 2 Risks; 283 for 3 Risks. *p < .05. **p < .01.

is small. For instance, a one-standard-deviation Models in Table 3 show that the magnitude of the
increase in the enrichment index decreases the prob- odds and the level of significance of predictors are
ability of dropping out by 43.9% (.561 – 1 = –43.9 quite different for each risk factor. The GPA model
or –43.9%) for the 0 Risk model. In the 1 Risk and shows statistical significance for the four independ-
2 Risks models, increasing the enrichment index by ent variables of whether the student expects to be in
one standard deviation decreased the likelihood of school the next year, absenteeism, age of first sexual
dropping out by 26.2% and 14.5%, respectively. This experience, and percentage of peers going to col-
implies that prevention strategies become less effec- lege. The actual dropout rate for this type of at-risk
tive as the number of risks increases to two or three. student is 15.9% (74 out of 465), the lowest among
To determine the predictive indicators within each the three types of risk. In the SES model, the statis-
risk group (low SES, low GPA, and suspension) and tically significant predictors are enrichment index,
how they differ from each other, we ran another physical environment risk index, household size,
logistic regression analysis for students who drop whether the student expects to be in school the next
out of high school. Because we wanted to determine year, and age of first sexual experience. The dropout
the differences between each at-risk group, each rate for students with a low socioeconomic status is
sample included students with only one of the three 16.6% (107 out of 644). The model of students who
risk backgrounds (see Table 3). The first model (0 are suspended shows that as many as nine independ-
Risk) is the same as the one in Table 2. For the re- ent variables are significant predictors of school
maining three models (low GPA, low SES, and sus- dropout. The actual dropout rate for this type of at-
pension), the samples are mutually exclusive because risk student is 18.1% (146 out of 806), the highest
the sample for multiple risks such as a low academic among the three types of at-risk.
performer with behavioral problems is excluded. The only significant predictor (p < 0.05) in all four
The sample size is 465 for low GPA, 644 for low models is whether the students expect to attend
SES, and 806 for those who had been suspended. school the upcoming year; the other predictors are

1 0 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 7 | A S C A 301
 Table 3. Odds Ratio of the Multivariate Logistic Regression Model for Single At-Risk
Students
Variable GPA SES SUSPENSION

INSCHOOL .674 ** .676 ** .783 *

ENRICHMENT .799 .658 ** 1.162 *
ABSENT 1.367 * 1.131 .591 *
BIOPARENT .919 .562 1.352 *
PHYSINDEX 1.070 1.278 ** .850 **
FIRSTSEX .738 * .667 ** 1.150
HHSIZE 1.047 1.286 ** 1.252
PEERS 1.300 * 1.154 1.686 *
MSA 1.289 1.382 20.823 **
REGION 1.184 .176 1.178
TEACHERS .871 8.644 1.569
FIGHT 1.435 1.742 .632 **
THREAT .684 .397 .091 *
Constant .164 .131 .841

Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .119 for GPA; .226 for SES; .212 for SUSPENSION. –2 log likelihood = 370.774 for
GPA; .226 for SES; .212 for SUSPENSION. Percentage correctly predicted for high school completers =
.987 for GPA; .961 for SES; .965 for SUSPENSION. Percentage correctly predicted for dropouts = .055 for
GPA; .170 for SES; .171 for SUSPENSION. N = 465 for GPA; 644 for SES; 806 for SUSPENSION.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

partially significant depending on the association of likelihood of dropping out of school and how much
background risks. This implies that the student’s the combination of two or more risk factors acceler-
expectation to be in school next year (INSCHOOL) ates the likelihood of dropping out. We also exam-
is the most reliable predictor regardless of risk type. ined what are the predictive indicators within each
Because the actual significance of any predictor var- risk group and how they differ across the different
ies across the risk factors, possible prevention strate- types of at-risk groups. Ultimately, this study was
gies also will vary in their effectiveness. intended to explore what kind of prevention strate-
gies would be effective for at-risk adolescents with
DISCUSSION different sources of risk.
While it appears that academic risk (low GPA) has
Results from the analysis of the National the greatest impact on dropout rates, the current
Longitudinal Survey of Youth database provide valu- results indicate that all three factors (low GPA, so-
able information on the characteristics of high cioeconomic status, and behavioral problems) have
school dropouts and possible strategies for dropout an almost equivalent effect on dropout rates when
prevention and intervention efforts. First of all, as is examined independently. Therefore, developing
extensively addressed in the existing literature, we dropout prevention programs that target students
found the three risk factors of academic failure, low with only an academic risk factor may not be as effec-
socioeconomic status, and behavioral problems to tive as possible. First, programs that target students
have a major impact on the decision to drop out of with academic risk alone may overlook students who
school. Besides these three risk factors, 13 other pre- display one or both of the other two risk factors but
dictors (see Table 1) also were found to be statisti- not a low GPA. Second, because students with a low
cally significant. However, the purpose of this study GPA may very likely have other risk factors that
was not limited to identifying risk variables, but also result in a low GPA, the program may not suffi-
to further examine the extent of their impact on the ciently meet their needs. According to our data, pro-

302 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

grams that target students at-risk academically have aid students in effectively dealing with them, school
a very high possibility of including students with counselors could contribute to decreasing the
other risks. The number of students who have only dropout rate.
a low GPA is 7.5% (465 of 6,192). However, 8.8% The findings of this study could be useful when
(543 of 6,192) displayed both a low GPA and school counselors develop dropout prevention pro-
behavioral risks, 3.0% (184 of 6,192) displayed a low grams targeted to one at-risk group or another. The
GPA and low SES, and 4.6% (283 of 6,192) dis- predictors targeted by these intervention programs
played all three risks. The total number of students should differ depending on the students’ risk factors,
with more than one risk is 16.3% (1,009 of 6,192), as different predictors affect each group of students
far more than those with an academic risk alone. differently. For example, for the group of students
Our study also indicated that early prevention and with only academic risk, counselors may want to
intervention efforts are critical. As students accumu- work around the following four topics: (a) examin-
late risk factors, they become more likely to drop out, ing and developing plans for the coming year
and possible intervention efforts become more limit- (expectations to stay in school); (b) identifying fac-
ed. The dropout rate for students with one risk is tors interfering with attendance and generating
17.1%, for two risks it is 32.5% (90.1% increase), and strategies to improve attendance (absenteeism); (c)
for three risks it is 47.7% (178.9% increase). Consider- exploring the impact of peers on students’ aspiration
ing that many students (1,395 youths) who dropped for higher education (percentage of peers going to
out exhibited multiple risk factors, early prevention college); and (d) understanding the physical, social, We found the three
and intervention efforts when students display no or and psychological development of students and
one risk factor for dropout are highly recommended. increasing a sense of respect for their own body (age risk factors of
As the number of risk factors increases, not only of first sexual experience). Among these four predic-
do the dropout rates rise dramatically, but the num- tors, absenteeism and peer relations appeared to academic failure,
ber of significant predictors decreases. This decrease have a higher impact on dropout than the other two
may limit prevention methods. Students who exhib- indicators; therefore, programs with limited time or low socioeconomic
ited two or fewer risk factors had 8 to 11 significant resources may find more success by focusing on
predictive indicators, but only four predictors were these two indicators. status, and
significant among those students with all three risk Likewise, for the group of students with low SES,
factors. Therefore, the fewer risk factors the students this study identified five significant risk factors: (a) behavioral
have, the more likely it is that multiple predictors students’ expectations to stay in school, (b) age of
will influence their decision to drop out of school. first sexual experience, (c) limited educational problems to have a
Multiple intervention methods may be needed to enrichment activities and resources, (d) risk of harm
help these students stay in school. from the students’ physical environment, and (e) major impact on the
Additionally, this study implies that interventions household size. While students’ expectations to stay
are more effective when students display fewer risk in school and age of first sexual experience also were decision to drop out
factors. This can be seen in the odds ratio, Exp(B), predictors in the academic risk group, the other
where the odds of a unit or one-standard-deviation three are unique to this group. Therefore, coun- of school.
change in a predictor variable are large when the selors need to help the students explore and identify
number of risks is small. For example, a one-stan- negative impacts of their limited resources and dis-
dard-deviation increase in the enrichment index advantaged environments on their academic
decreases the likelihood of dropping out of school achievement and develop strategic plans to raise
by 43.9% in the 0 Risk model, 26.2% in the 2 Risks their resilience against these difficult situations.
model, and 14.5% in the 3 Risks model. Specifically, because physical environment and
Finally, although the three risk factors have a household size are the two most significant predict-
major impact on dropout (17.0%, 32.5%, and 47.7% ing factors, prevention programs should emphasize
dropout rate for one risk, two risks, and three risks, the nature of their impact on students’ academic
respectively), some students dropped out even when achievement and strategies to counteract that.
they displayed none of these risk factors. The current The third type of at-risk group, students with
study found that the dropout rate for students who behavioral problems, including suspension from
exhibited no risk factors but still dropped out is school, has nine factors influencing the decision to
4.3%, and eight predictive indicators impacted the drop out, more than the other two groups. Five are
decision of these students (see Table 2). Developing shared with other groups, while the remaining four
school-wide dropout prevention programs around are unique to the behavioral group. The five shared
these indicators would reach students who display factors are (a) students’ expectations to stay in
no risk factors, reducing their likelihood of dropping school, (b) absenteeism, (c) association with college-
out. By being sensitive to the impact of these indi- bound peers, (d) limited educational enrichment
cators on students’ lives and creating programs to resources, and (e) unhealthy community and family

1 0 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 7 | A S C A 303
 environment. The four factors unique to this group Conclusion
are (a) the possible impact of living with a nonbio- The American School Counselor Association (2005)
logical parent, (b) the effects of living in a metro- recommends that each school or district develop a
politan area, (c) participation in fights at school, and school counseling program aligned with the school
(d) whether the student had been threatened with or district’s academic goals. In schools or districts
harm at school. where dropout is an increasingly troublesome prob-
In the behavioral group, many of these indicators lem and where raising the graduation rate becomes
reflect the special difficulties associated with living in a critical goal, it is recommended that school coun-
a metropolitan area. Therefore, prevention efforts selors examine the characteristics of at-risk dropout
directed to students with behavioral problems in students in their schools, keeping in mind the find-
metropolitan areas need to address specifically how ings of this study. This investigation will help school
living in those areas can affect students’ decisions to counselors tailor their efforts to the unique needs of
drop out. Residence in a metropolitan area is the their student population.
largest risk indicator for students with behavioral Three differences were found between the exist-
troubles, but programs also should address these stu- ing literature and the findings in this study. First, this
dents’ peer relationships, the possible emotional im- study attempted to develop the concept that early
pact caused by living with a nonbiological parent, and intervention should be based upon the number of
In order to identify the educational climate of their living environment. risk factors that students display rather than using
Finally, this research identified that a student’s age- or grade-based reference. Early intervention
students who expectation to attend school the next year is the only implies early school age or a lower grade level of the
significant predictor in all four risk models. Other student in most existing dropout literature (Fasko &
display a risk factor, predictors are only partially significant depending on Fasco, 1998; Lehr, Hansen, Sinclair, & Christenson,
the risk source. This implies that a student’s expec- 2003; O’Connor, 1985; Rush & Vitale, 1994).
school counselors tation to be in school the next year is the most reli- Waiting until high school to address the dropout
able predictor regardless of the risk type. This find- issue may be too late for most students. However,
need to actively ing confirms the existing literature (Finn, 1989; redefining early intervention as intervention when
Rumberger, 1987; Trusty, 1996; Trusty & Dooley- students display one of the three risk factors of low
involve teachers Dickey, 1993) that underscores the major role of GPA, low SES, or behavioral problems can be useful
student engagement with the school on eventual at any level of school. By identifying students when
and parents in school completion. This indicates that school-wide they develop one or two risk factors, regardless of
dropout prevention and intervention efforts should their school level or age, prevention programs can
collaboration and address students’ educational aspirations and plans possibly effectively lower dropout rates. Addi-
for the coming years. This might further imply that tionally, we believe that possible prevention strate-
consultation career exploration and counseling should be given a gies should take into account that factors contribut-
priority in the secondary school counseling program ing to dropping out differ according to the risk each
activities. development. Students’ educational expectations student displays.
have a critical impact on their decision to either con- In order to identify students who display a risk fac-
tinue or suspend their education in high school tor, school counselors need to actively involve teach-
whether or not they display at-risk status by experi- ers and parents in collaboration and consultation
encing risk factors (academic difficulty, low SES, or activities. It is also imperative that school counselors
behavior problems). Therefore, by developing pro- serve as advocates for students from low socioeco-
grams to help students develop optimistic outlooks nomic backgrounds and work closely with school
of their educational development, school counselors authorities and community members to provide a
could prevent students from dropping out of school. better educational environment for this group of
students. Students from a low socioeconomic back-
Limitations ground are more likely to drop out because of the
It is important to note that the adolescents in this lack of educational enrichment activities and
study were 12 to 16 years old as of 1996 and, thus, resources, and the impact of their community envi-
may not fully reflect the behavior of current high ronments on their lives. These findings urge school
school students. Risk factors considered in this study counselors to assist these students by helping them
are limited to the three major at-risk factors. Further understand how their environment causes develop-
research is clearly needed in order to better under- ment of negative self-concepts and beliefs, therefore
stand individual, home, and school influences of fac- adversely impacting their schoolwork. At the same
tors beyond the three risk factors identified in this time, counselors may want to help these students
investigation. develop resilience against these obstacles.
In summary, this study identified three major at-
risk categories of students who drop out of school.

304 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING

This study also found that students who drop out Kronick, R. F., & Harcis, C. H. (1998). Dropouts: Who drops out and
often have multiple risk factors influencing their why and the recommended action (2nd ed.). Springfield,
IL: Charles C. Thomas.
decision. Because these risk factors are often firmly
Lehr, C., Hansen, A., Sinclair, M., & Christenson, S. (2003). Moving
in place by high school and occur in conjunction beyond dropout prevention towards school completion:
with each other, this study supports the need for An integrative review of data-based interventions. School
early intervention when younger students are more Psychology Review, 32, 342–364.
likely to display fewer risks. This study also identified National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A
nation at risk. Washington, DC: Author.
the different predictors associated with each at-risk
O’Connor, P. (1985). Dropout preventing programs that work.
group. By knowing which predictors are more sig- Oregon School Study Council Bulletin, 29(4), 1–34.
nificant in each at-risk group, school counselors can Orr, M. T. (1987). Keeping students in school: A guide to effective
better tailor dropout prevention programs to their dropout prevention programs and services. San Francisco:
students. ❚ Jossey-Bass.
Payne, C. (1989). Urban teachers and dropout-prone students:
The uneasy partners. In L. Weis, E. Farrar, & H. G. Petrie
References (Eds.), Dropouts from school: Issues, dilemmas, and
American School Counselor Association. (2005). The ASCA solutions (pp. 113–128). New York: State University of
national model: A framework for school counseling New York Press.
programs (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research
Barrington, B. L., & Hendricks, B. (1989). Differentiating charac- (3rd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace & Co.
teristics of high school graduates, dropouts, and non- Phelan, W. T. (1992). Building bonds to high school graduation:
graduates. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 309–319. Dropout intervention with seventh and eighth graders.
Caraway, K., Tucker, C. M., Reinke, W. M., & Hall, C. (2003). Self- Middle School Journal, 24(2), 33–35.
efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure as predictors Pittman, R. B. (1986). Importance of personal, social factors as
of school engagement in high school students, potential means for reducing high school dropout rate.
Psychology in the Schools, 40, 417–427. The High School Journal, 70, 7–13.
Coley, R. J. (1995). Dreams deferred: High school dropouts in the Reyes, P. (1989). Factors that affect the commitment of
United States. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, children at risk to stay in school. In J. M. Lakebrink (Ed.),
Policy Information Center. Children at risk (pp. 18–31). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping Roderick, M. (1993). The path to dropping out: Evidence for
out of school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ intervention. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, Rumberger, R. W. (1987). High school dropouts: A review of
548–581. issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57,
Devine, J. (1996). Maximum security: The culture of violence in 101–121.
inner-city schools. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rush, S., & Vitale, P. A. (1994). Analysis for determining factors
Edmondson, J. H., & White, J. (1998). A tutorial and counseling that place elementary students at risk. Journal of
program: Helping students at risk of dropping out of Educational Research, 87, 325–333.
school. Professional School Counseling, 1, 43–47. Suh, S., Suh, J., & Houston, I. (in press). Predictors of categorical
Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). at-risk high school dropouts. Journal of Counseling and
Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a Development.
national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 356–373. Tamhane, A., & Dunlop, D. (2000). Statistics and data analysis.
Ensminger, M. E., & Slusarcick, A. L. (1992). Paths to high school Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
graduation or dropout: A longitudinal study of a first- Tidwell, R. (1988). Dropouts speak out: Qualitative data on
grade cohort. Sociology of Education, 65, 95–113. early school departures. Adolescence, 23, 939–954.
Entwisle, D. R. (1990). Schools and the adolescent. In S. S. Tindall, L. W. (1988). Retaining at-risk students: The role of career
Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The and vocational education. Columbus, OH: Center on
developing adolescent (pp. 197–224). Cambridge, MA: Education and Training for Employment. (ERIC
Harvard University Press. Document Reproduction Service No. ED303683)
Farmer, J. A., & Payne, Y. (1992). Dropping out: Issues and Trusty, J. (1996). Counseling for dropout prevention:
answers. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas. Applications from multicultural counseling. Journal of
Farmer, T., Price, L., O’Neal, K., Man-Chi, L., Goforth, J., Cairns, B., Multicultural Counseling and Development, 24, 105–117.
et al. (2004). Exploring risk in early adolescent African Trusty, J., & Dooley-Dickey, K. (1993). Alienation from school: An
American youth. American Journal of Community explanatory analysis of elementary and middle school
Psychology, 33, 51–60. students’ perceptions. Journal of Research and
Fasko, S. N., & Fasco, D. (1998). A systems approach to self- Development in Education, 26, 232–242.
efficacy and achievement in rural schools. Education, 119, Valdivieso, R. (1986). Must they want another generation of
292–301. Hispanic and secondary school reform? New York:
Fine, M., & Rosenberg, P. (1983). Dropping out of high school: Clearinghouse on Reform Evaluation.
The ideology of school and work. Journal of Education, Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determina-
165, 257–272. tion and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a
Finn, J. K. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of
Educational Research, 59, 117–142. Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176.
Gruskin, S. J., Campbell, M. A., & Paulu, N. (1987). Dealing with Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2003). Treating conduct
dropouts: The urban superintendents’ call to action. problems and strengthening social and emotional
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of competence in young children: The Dina Dinosaur
Educational Research and Improvement. treatment program. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral
Holt, J. (1995). How children fail. New York: Addison Wesley Disorders, 11, 130–143.
Longman.

1 0 : 3 F E B R UA R Y 2 0 0 7 | A S C A 305
 Wehlage, G. G. (1989). Dropping out: Can school be expected
to prevent it? In L. Weis, E. Farrar, & H. G. Petrie (Eds.),
Dropouts from school: Issues, dilemmas, and solutions (pp.
1–19). New York: State University of New York Press.

306 ASCA | PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL COUNSELING