School-based
School-based programs help provide educational support, training and/or supervision for youth where academic and/or behavioral problems originated in the school setting. There are four types of school-based programs: After School, Alternative School, School Interventionist, and School Resource Officers.
After-school programs provide activities during the summer and after-school time frames to give youth a place to be engaged in constructive activity in order to reduce juvenile crime. This can include tutoring services or other educational support for youth.
Alternative Schools focus on youth who have been expelled or suspended form their home school system to provide academic enrichment to the youth. This helps youth earn credits while waiting to return to school so they don’t fall behind in school work, grades, and can graduate in a timely manner.
School Interventionists identify and coordinate behavioral or academic intervention for a student. Youth can be referred to the school interventionist for attendance issues, poor grades, lack of engagement, behavior issues, etc. The intervention process includes clearly identifying the problem, selecting a strategy to address the problem, and measuring the effectiveness of the strategy. The intervention can include other supports for the youth within the school or community.
School Resource Officers are career law enforcement officers, with sworn authority, who are assigned by the local law enforcement agency to work in collaboration with school and community-based organizations. The officer is on school campus and youth can be referred to the program for criminal activity, behavior problems, and/or academic issues.
evaluating school-based Programs
As part of our yearly evaluations for Community-based Juvenile Services Aid funded programs in fiscal year 2025, the JJI, in partnership with the NCC, developed evaluation matrices to categorize important outcomes for each program type evaluated. The following categories describe the important program outcome indicators for school-based programs. These categories can be used to assess the standing of a program in terms of whether it is successfully applying best practices and meeting expectations or common goals for such programs.
Evaluation Framework
Any program assessment must start by reviewing what data is available on processes and outcomes. Incomplete data or small sample sizes (i.e. few client cases) increase the risk of error in analysis. Shreffler and Huecker (2023) describe what Type I and II errors are – with high risks for error we might fail to identify a positive impact that’s occurring or falsely state the program was effective when it wasn’t. Small sample sizes run the risk of an outlier (one or two cases with unique, or very low/high values in an outcome) skewing the results.
A major goal of the Community-based Juvenile Services Aid (CBA) and Juveniles Services Commission Grant (JS) funding is to provide community-based services for juveniles who come in contact with the juvenile justice system and prevent youth from moving deeper into the system. CBA/JS funded programs are evaluated on how effective they are at preventing future system involvement (FSI) after youth are discharged from the program. FSI is evaluated in two ways – 1) comparing FSI between successful cases and unsuccessful cases and 2) overall FSI for all youth served. Evaluating these metrics gives a program the overall picture of FSI for the youth they come into contact with and helps programs more deeply understand how successful completion or discharge from their program impacts FSI of youth.
The following is a brief review of some of the existing literature related to school-based programs to further explain the importance of evaluating these outcomes in rating program effectiveness.
Brief Literature Review
Education-related risk factors have a significant influence on a youth’s likelihood of future involvement in the justice system. Sheppard and colleagues (2024) found that among youth receiving prevention services in Florida, school-related risk factors were the strongest predictors of future justice system contact. For example, youth with higher school connectedness or attachment show lower rates of delinquent behavior and system involvement (Li et al., 2011; Wilkinson et al., 2019). Likewise, higher academic achievement or engagement are consistently associated with reduced offending and fewer behavioral problems (Henry et al., 2012; Hoffmann, 2020; Lankester et al., 2024). These findings highlight the importance of school-based prevention strategies that promote positive engagement and academic success, which lead to reductions in youth system involvement.
School-based social-emotional learning (SEL) interventions aim to build protective factors such as emotional regulation, problem-solving, responsible decision-making, relationship skills, and positive self-concept. Multiple meta-analyses demonstrate that participation in SEL programs improves behavioral and social-emotional functioning and reduces indicators linked to delinquency risk (Durlak et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2017). Students engaged in high-quality SEL programs also demonstrate better school performance and fewer behavioral incidents, which collectively reduce pathways toward suspension, truancy, and system involvement.
After-school programs are commonly implemented as structured environments that provide supervision during peak hours of juvenile offending, while supporting academic progress and social skill development. However, research findings on their impact are mixed. A meta-analysis by Durlak and colleagues (2010) showed that youth who participated in after-school programs demonstrated stronger self-confidence, school connectedness, positive social behavior, and academic achievement. In contrast, other studies reported limited evidence that after-school programs improve school attendance or reduce externalizing behavior (Kremer et al., 2015), and only small, non-significant effects on delinquency outcomes (Taheri & Welsh, 2016).
These inconsistent findings may reflect substantial variation in program content and implementation, which lead to variation in youth program attendance and impacts. For example, Cross and colleagues (2010) found that programs with high quality program management and environment and programs with consistent, highly skilled staff led to more positive youth experiences. Similarly, Leos-Urbel (2015) found that programs with a supportive environment and opportunities for structured interactions led to improvements in youth test scores.
Overall, the literature indicates that strengthening youth engagement and achievement in school plays a critical role in preventing juvenile justice system involvement. However, a program’s curriculum quality and implementation strategies are extremely important to consider when evaluating program impacts.
For additional resources or to access articles referenced above, contact the JJI at unojji@unomaha.edu.
additional resources
The OJJDP publishes literature reviews on what works for juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention, including school-based programs.
Specifically, the OJJDP has published literature reviews on the after school programs (2010) and alternative schools (2001).
The School Community Intervention and Prevention website, based in Nebraska, contains resources on various school-related topics, including bullying prevention, school connectedness, and substance abuse.
