ArticlePublisher preview availableLiterature Review

Review and Evidence Gap Map of mentoring programs for adolescent males with disabilities

Wiley
Journal of Adolescence
Authors:
Mark J. Van Ryzin
Mark J. Van Ryzin
Mark J. Van Ryzin
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Jonathan L. Rochelle
Jonathan L. Rochelle
Jonathan L. Rochelle
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
James Sinclair
James Sinclair
James Sinclair
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
John Lind
John Lind
John Lind
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract and Figures

Introduction Adolescent males with disabilities face unique challenges, and mentoring programs designed for this population could support more positive long‐term outcomes. In the current study, a scoping review of empirical research on such programs was conducted. The review was intended to capture the characteristics of existing mentoring program for males with disabilities and map those characteristics in a way that sheds light on the overall status of the field. Methods The review included different types of mentoring (e.g., adult to child, peer to peer, etc.) as long as the program explicitly defined the formation of a long‐term relationship between mentor and mentee. The search identified 21 relevant studies that were categorized using four dimensions: 1) Setting (i.e., school/after school, community‐based, on‐line/virtual, or mixed); 2) Sex (i.e., males only or mixed males/females); 3) Outcomes (i.e., academics, social‐emotional skills, health, transition from high school, or program implementation); and 4) Evaluation methodology (i.e., experimental, nonexperimental, or qualitative). The findings are summarized in an Evidence Gap Map. Results Only three studies used an experimental design, although they were able to demonstrate significant promise in promoting positive outcomes for youth with disabilities. Beyond these studies, however, there was little evidence supporting program efficacy for males with disabilities, as most studies in the sample were nonexperimental in nature. Conclusions Overall there are few mentoring programs that target this population, and experimental research on programs that target academic and health outcomes is particularly lacking.
Figures - available from: Journal of Adolescence
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Learn more
Content available from Journal of Adolescence 
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Received: 5 January 2024
|
Accepted: 17 August 2024
DOI: 10.1002/jad.12398
REVIEW ARTICLE
Review and Evidence Gap Map of mentoring programs for
adolescent males with disabilities
Mark J. Van Ryzin |Jonathan L. Rochelle |James Sinclair |John Lind
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA
Correspondence
Mark J. Van Ryzin, University of Oregon, Eugene,
OR, USA.
Email: markv@uoregon.edu
Funding information
Institute of Educational Sciences
Abstract
Introduction: Adolescent males with disabilities face unique challenges, and men-
toring programs designed for this population could support more positive long‐term
outcomes. In the current study, a scoping review of empirical research on such
programs was conducted. The review was intended to capture the characteristics of
existing mentoring program for males with disabilities and map those characteristics
in a way that sheds light on the overall status of the field.
Methods: The review included different types of mentoring (e.g., adult to child, peer to
peer, etc.) as long as the program explicitly defined the formation of a long‐term rela-
tionship between mentor and mentee. The search identified 21 relevant studies that were
categorized using four dimensions: 1) Setting (i.e., school/after school, community‐based,
on‐line/virtual, or mixed); 2) Sex (i.e., males only or mixed males/females); 3) Outcomes
(i.e., academics, social‐emotional skills, health, transition from high school, or program
implementation); and 4) Evaluation methodology (i.e., experimental, nonexperimental, or
qualitative). The findings are summarized in an Evidence Gap Map.
Results: Only three studies used an experimental design, although they were able to
demonstrate significant promise in promoting positive outcomes for youth with
disabilities. Beyond these studies, however, there was little evidence supporting pro-
gram efficacy for males with disabilities, as most studies in the sample were non-
experimental in nature.
Conclusions: Overall there are few mentoring programs that target this population,
and experimental research on programs that target academic and health outcomes is
particularly lacking.
KEYWORDS
adolescence, disabilities, Evidence Gap Map, mentoring
1|INTRODUCTION
Adolescence is a particularly important developmental window that serves as a period of transition to young adulthood, and this
critical life stage has many important developmental milestones (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Among these are identity for-
mation, in which adolescents assess who they are and who they would like to become, and the development of social skills to
promote inclusion in the peer group. An inability to achieve these milestones can have negative effects on physical and mental
health and educational attainment. This paper makes the case that these developmental milestones can be challenging for males,
and especially challenging for males with disabilities, which can have negative implications for both the physical and mental
health and the educational success of this population. As a consequence, the development of interventions (e.g., mentoring
programs) that can support males with disabilities through the transition to adulthood is particularly crucial. We review each
milestone below and in each case we highlight the ways in which male disabled adolescents are uniquely impacted. Throughout
this article, the term disabilities refers specifically to high‐incidence disabilities, encompassing learning disabilities, emotional or
behavioral disabilities, speech‐language disorders, and other health impairments, including ADHD and ADD.
Journal of Adolescence. 2025;97:5–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jad
|
5
© 2024 Foundation for Professionals in Services to Adolescents.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Sex differences in the social brain and in social cognition
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2021
Many studies have reported sex differences in empathy and social skills. In this review, several lines of empirical evidences about sex differences in functions and anatomy of social brain are discussed. The most relevant differences involve face processing, facial expression recognition, response to baby schema, the ability to see faces in things, the processing of social interactions, the response to the others’ pain, interest in social information, processing of gestures and actions, biological motion, erotic, and affective stimuli. Sex differences in oxytocin‐based parental response are also reported. In conclusion, the female and male brains show several neuro‐functional differences in various aspects of social cognition, and especially in emotional coding, face processing, and response to baby schema. An interpretation of this sexual dimorphism is provided in the view of evolutionary psychobiology.
View
Physical Activity of Adolescents with and without Disabilities from a Complete Enumeration Study (n = 128,803): School Health Promotion Study 2017
Article
Full-text available
Evidence suggests that adolescent males take part in more moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) than females, and that adolescents with disabilities participate in even less. Public health data are typically based on the international physical activity (PA) recommendations of at least 60 minutes of MVPA daily. However, it appears that data are lost because a person who reports MVPA 0–6 days a week is grouped together and is considered as ‘inactive’. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to report differences among adolescents with and without disabilities who were ‘active’ and ‘inactive’ and to explore differences by sex. A complete enumeration study (2017 School Health Promotion Survey; n = 128,803) of Finnish adolescents aged between 14–19 years old was conducted. The single item self-report MVPA was used with items from the Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Data were grouped into physiological and cognitive disabilities and were split into active and inactive adolescents based on the PA recommendations; subsequently, binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Data from the inactive participants were analyzed with multivariate analysis of covariance and effect sizes were reported. Approximately 10% of males and 17% of females reported disabilities. There were fewer adolescents with disabilities who took part in daily PA (OR = 0.90, CI = 0.85–0.94), especially among those with cognitive disabilities (OR = 0.86, CI = 0.82–0.91). There were more active male than female adolescents (OR = 1.48, CI = 1.43–1.52). Of the inactive adolescents, females reported similar MVPA to males, with and without disabilities after controlling for age, school type, and family financial situation. Inactive adolescents with walking difficulties reported the least amount of MVPA (males; mean = 2.24, CI = 2.03–2.44, females; mean = 2.18, CI = 1.99–2.37). The difference in means with adolescents without disabilities according to Cohen’s d effect size was medium for males (0.56) and females (0.58). The effect sizes from all other groups of disabilities were small. The difference in PA between males and females has diminished among the inactive groups, yet there is still a need to improve the gap between males and females, especially for those who meet the PA recommendations. More strategies are needed to improve MVPA among adolescents with disabilities, especially those with cognitive disabilities.
View
Disability and Rehabilitation How do peers promote social inclusion of children with disabilities?A mixed-methods systematic review View supplementary material How do peers promote social inclusion of children with disabilities? A mixed-methods systematic review
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2019
Purpose: This mixed-methods systematic review synthesized findings from studies published between January 1, 2006 and July 31, 2018 on the social inclusion experiences of children with and without disabilities, as viewed from their own perspective, with a focus on how typically developing peers promote social inclusion. Method: Forty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were synthesized by means of content analysis. Results: The findings detail the inner social inclusion experiences (e.g., feeling included, different) of children with disabilities and provide information regarding the influence of disability type (e.g., physical, social, affective) on typically developing peers' responses (e.g., acceptance vs. rejection), peers' explanations for social inclusion/exclusion, and peers' relationships with children with disabilities. Barriers to social inclusion, supports, as well as strategies used to promote social inclusion, as perceived by peers and children with disabilities, are also reported. Conclusion: The findings of this review provide evidence that despite society's efforts to promote social inclusion, children with disabilities continue to report feeling lonely and excluded, having limited contact socially outside of home, and encountering systemic barriers (e.g., bullying, discrimination). More research on the social inclusion experiences of children with disabilities beyond educational settings is needed, such as in the contexts of recreation and leisure, community, and employment. Implications for rehabilitation The perspectives of children with and without disabilities need to be integrated in activities and programs aimed at promoting social inclusion. Teaching social inclusion strategies to children with and without disabilities is needed to help them deal with barriers. In addition to educational settings, rehabilitation clinicians need to promote social inclusion strategies in other contexts such as recreation and leisure, community, and employment contexts.
View
The reality and evolutionary significance of human psychological sex differences
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2019
The aims of this article are: (i) to provide a quantitative overview of sex differences in human psychological attributes; and (ii) to consider evidence for their possible evolutionary origins. Sex differences were identified from a systematic literature search of meta‐analyses and large‐sample studies. These were organized in terms of evolutionary significance as follows: (i) characteristics arising from inter‐male competition (within‐sex aggression; impulsiveness and sensation‐seeking; fearfulness; visuospatial and object‐location memory; object‐centred orientations); (ii) those concerning social relations that are likely to have arisen from women's adaptations for small‐group interactions and men's for larger co‐operative groups (person‐centred orientation and social skills; language; depression and anxiety); (iii) those arising from female choice (sexuality; mate choice; sexual conflict). There were sex differences in all categories, whose magnitudes ranged from (i) small (object location memory; negative emotions), to (ii) medium (mental rotation; anxiety disorders; impulsivity; sex drive; interest in casual sex), to (iii) large (social interests and abilities; sociosexuality); and (iv) very large (escalated aggression; systemizing; sexual violence). Evolutionary explanations were evaluated according to whether: (i) similar differences occur in other mammals; (ii) there is cross‐cultural consistency; (iii) the origin was early in life or at puberty; (iv) there was evidence for hormonal influences; and (v), where possible, whether there was evidence for evolutionarily derived design features. The evidence was positive for most features in most categories, suggesting evolutionary origins for a broad range of sex differences. Attributes for which there was no sex difference are also noted. Within‐sex variations are discussed as limitations to the emphasis on sex differences.
View
The Effects of Youth Mentoring Programs: A Meta-analysis of Outcome Studies
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2019
  • J YOUTH ADOLESCENCE
Mentoring programs, which pair youth with caring, non-parental adults with the goal of promoting positive youth development, are an increasingly popular strategy for early intervention with at-risk youth. However, important questions remain about the extent to which these interventions improve youth outcomes. The present study involved a comprehensive meta-analysis of all outcome studies of intergenerational, one-on-one youth mentoring programs written in the English language between 1975 and 2017, using rigorous inclusion criteria designed to align with developmental theories of youth mentoring. Analysis of 70 mentoring outcome studies, with a sample size of 25,286 youth (average age of 12 years old), yielded a statistically significant effect of mentoring programs across all youth outcomes. The observed effect size fell within the medium/moderate range according to empirical guidelines derived from universal prevention programs for youth, and was consistent with past meta-analyses of youth mentoring. Moderation analyses indicated that programs serving a larger proportion of male youth, deploying a greater percentage of male mentors or mentors with a helping profession background, and requiring shorter meetings yielded larger effect sizes, as did evaluations that relied on questionnaires and youth self-report. Taken together, these findings provide some support for the efficacy of mentoring interventions, while also emphasizing the need to remain realistic about the modest impact of these programs as currently implemented, and highlighting opportunities for improving the quality and rigor of mentoring practices.
View
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach
Article
Full-text available
Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
View
Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems
Article
  • Nov 2008
Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior. We conducted a meta‐analytic review of selective and indicated mentoring interventions that have been evaluated for their effects on delinquency outcomes for youth (e.g., arrest or conviction as a delinquent, self‐reported involvement) and key associated outcomes (aggression, drug use, academic functioning). Of 112 identified studies reported published between 1970 and 2005, 39 met criteria for inclusion. Mean effects sizes were significant and positive for each outcome category. Effects were largest (still moderate by Cohen's differentiation) for delinquency and aggression. However, these categories also showed the most heterogeneity across studies. The obtained patterns of effects suggest mentoring may be valuable for those at‐risk or already involved in delinquency and for associated outcomes. Moderator analyses found stronger effects in randomised controlled trials compared to quasi‐experimental studies, for studies where emotional support was a key process involved in mentoring, and where professional development was a motivation for mentors. However, the collected set of studies are less informative than expected with quite limited detail in studies about what comprised mentoring activity and key implementation characteristics. This limitation encourages caution particularly in interpreting the moderated effects. These findings add to the longstanding calls for more careful design and testing of mentoring efforts to provide the needed specificity to guide effective practice of this popular approach. Abstract Background In recent years, mentoring has drawn substantial interest from policymakers, intervention theorists, and those interested in identifying promising and useful evidence‐based approaches to interventions for criminal justice and child welfare outcomes (Grossman & Tierney, 1998; Jekliek et al., 2002). Mentoring is one of the most commonly‐used interventions to prevent, divert, and remediate youth engaged in, or thought to be at risk for, delinquent behavior, school failure, aggression, or other antisocial behavior (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002). One account lists over 4500 organizations within the United States that use mentoring to promote youth wellbeing and reduce risk (Rhodes, 2002). Definitions of mentoring vary, but there are common elements. For the purpose of this review, mentoring was defined by the following 4 characteristics: 1) interaction between two individuals over an extended period of time, 2) inequality of experience, knowledge, or power between the mentor and mentee (recipient), with the mentor possessing the greater share, 3) the mentee is in a position to imitate and benefit from the knowledge, skill, ability, or experience of the mentor, 4) the absence of the role inequality that typifies other helping relationships and is marked by professional training, certification, or predetermined status differences such as parent‐child or teacher‐student relationships. A total of 39 topic and methodologically eligible studies were identified for inclusion in the meta‐analysis (out of 112 outcome reports) on delinquency, aggression, drug use, and academic achievement, which are each associated consistently with delinquency involvement or risk for such involvement. Objectives This systematic review had the following objectives: To statistically characterize the evidence to date on the effects of mentoring interventions (selective and indicated) for delinquency (e.g. arrest, reported delinquency), and related problems of aggression drug use, school failure. To attempt to clarify the variation in effects of mentoring related to program makeup and delivery, study methodology, and participant characteristics. To help define mentoring in a more systematic fashion than has occurred to date to, in turn, help clarify what constitutes mentoring and what might be key components for future research. To identify gaps in this research area and make recommendations for further research. To inform policy about the value of mentoring and the key features for utility. Search Strategy The authors of three meta‐analyses on mentoring or related topics (1) DuBois et al. (2002) on mentoring in general, 2) Lipsey and Wilson (1998) on delinquency interventions in general, and 3) Aos et al. (2004) on interventions for delinquency and associated social problems) were contacted for databases on reports and coding approaches. In addition, we searched various databases including PsychINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Science Citation Index (SCI), Applied Social Sciences Indexes and Abstracts (ASSIA), MEDLINE, Science Direct, Sociological Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center) and the Social, Psychological, Educational and Criminological Trials Register (SPECTR), the National Research Register (NRR, research in progress), and SIGLE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe). Finally, the reference lists of primary studies and reviews in studies identified from the search of electronic resources were scanned for any not‐yet identified studies that were relevant to the systematic review. Selection Criteria Studies that focused on youth who were at risk for juvenile delinquency or who were currently involved in delinquent behavior. Risk is defined as the presence of individual or ecological characteristics that increase the probability of delinquency in later adolescence or adulthood. We included interventions focusing on prevention for those at‐risk (selective interventions) and treatment (indicated interventions) that included mentoring as the intervention or one component of the intervention and at least measured impact of the program. We excluded studies in which the intervention was explicitly psychotherapeutic, behavior modification, or cognitive behavioral training and indicated provision of helping services as part of a professional role. We required studies to measure at least one quantitative effect on one of the four outcomes (delinquency, aggression, substance use, academic achievement) in a comparison of mentoring to a control condition. Experimental and high quality quasi‐experimental designs were included. The review was limited to studies conducted within the United States or another predominately English‐speaking country and reported in English and to studies reported between 1970 and 2005. Data collection and Analysis All eligible studies were coded using a protocol derived from three related prior meta‐analyses, with 20% double‐coded. The intervention effect for each outcome was standardized using well established methods to calculate an effects size with 95% confidence intervals for each of the four outcomes (if included in that study): delinquency, aggression, drug use and academic achievement. Meta‐analyses were then conducted for each independent study within a given outcome (delinquency, aggression, drug use, and academic achievement). Effect sizes for each study were scaled so that a positive effect indicated a desirable outcome (i.e., lower delinquency, drug use, and aggression or higher academic achievement). Main Results 112 studies were identified as meeting inclusion criteria as focused on delinquency and mentoring. Of these, 39 met the additional criteria for inclusion in the quantitative analyses. 22 were randomized controlled trials and 17 were quasi‐experimental studies involving non‐random assignment, but with matched comparison groups as was described above. Twenty studies reported delinquency outcomes, 19 reported academic achievement outcomes, 6 reported drug use outcomes, and 6 reported aggression outcomes. Main effects sizes were positive and statistically significant for all four outcomes, though some studied showed zero or negative effects. Significant variation across studies was also present. For delinquency substantial heterogeneity was found among studies’ results ( Q (19) = 71.2, p < .01 ; Range: SMD = ‐0.18 to SMD = 1.73) and the mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.11 – 0.36. For aggression some heterogeneity was found among studies’ results ( Q (19) = 9.78, p < .10; SMD = ‐0.05 to SMD = 0.95) and the mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.06 – 0.74. For drug use heterogeneity was substantial ( Q (5) = 18.5, p < .01; SMD = ‐0.13 to SMD = 0.34). The mean effect size using random effects calculation was SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = ‐0.02 – 0.28. Academic achievement results did not show evidence of heterogeneity ( Q (19) = 25.4, ns; SMD = ‐0.21 to SMD = 0.63), and the weighted random effects estimate of effect size was SMD = 0.08, 95% CI = 0.01 – 0.15. We compared effect sizes of those studies that were random assignment experimental designs with those that were quasi‐experimental and found RCTS had a larger average effect size. We conducted moderator analyses to attempt to determine whether effects differed according to the criteria for selecting participants, key processes of mentoring interventions, presence of other interventions in the study, motivations of mentors, or assessment of quality or fidelity of the intervention. To do so we combined effects across outcomes to provide adequate power for valid analyses and because analyses to check for bias in effects due to outcome suggested no such effect. The analyses were limited due to the relatively limited information about these characteristics extractable from many reports and perhaps may have some limitation in direct application due to this combining of outcomes. We found evidence for moderation when professional development was a motive for becoming a mentor and when emotional support was emphasized within the intervention. Effect sizes did not differ by whether or not other components were used, how risk was identified (environmental versus individual characteristics) or if fidelity adherence and implementation features were assessed. Reviewers’ Conclusions This analysis of 39 studies on four outcomes measuring delinquency or closely related outcomes suggests mentoring for high‐risk youth has a modest positive effect for delinquency, aggression, drug use, and achievement. However, the effect sizes varied by outcome with larger effects for delinquency and aggression than for drug use and achievement. Also, effect sizes varied more for delinquency and aggression than for drug use or academic achievement. We also identified some characteristics that moderated effects that provide some additional understanding for further studies and program preference. RCTS had larger effect sizes than quasi‐experimental studies. Effects tended to be stronger when emotional support was a key process in mentoring interventions, and when professional development was an explicit motive for participation of the mentors. While these findings support viewing mentoring as a useful approach for intervention to lessen delinquency risk or involvement, due to limited description of content of mentoring programs and substantial variation in what is included as part of mentoring efforts detracts from that view. The valuable features and most promising approaches can not be stated with any certainty. In fact, there is a remarkable lack of description of key features or basic program organization that is typically provided in empirical reports of effects with not much increase in quality of reports over the time period studied here. Given the popularity of this approach, the promise of benefits should be seen as a strong argument for a concerted effort through quality randomized trials to specify the theoretical and practical components for effective mentoring with high‐risk youth. Concordantly, lacking such features, further trials may not add useful knowledge.
View
The School-to-Prison Pipeline: The Plight of African American Males in Special Education: Insights from Educators across World
Chapter
  • Mar 2019
In the USA, public schools are legally mandated to provide free and appropriate special education services for students, ages 3–21, who are diagnosed with one or more of 13 established disability categories. Approximately 13% of American students in public schools receive special education services. While American educators are predominantly Caucasian females, American public school classrooms currently—for the first time in history—consist of a majority of non-White students. New trends of cultural diversity have created many challenges and controversies in the American education system, including the disproportionately high allocation of racial minority students in special education programs. The inappropriate placement and inadequate special education instruction of African American males contribute to limited academic achievement and motivation for this population of students, which instigates delinquency/expulsion and frequently leads to illegal behaviors and imprisonment. This phenomenon is known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Issues such as punitive discipline models, limited access to general education classrooms, and low high school graduation rates contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. Solutions such as increased teacher-parent collaboration, implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy, socio-emotional learning, and the use of culturally unbiased assessments are suggested.
View
Adolescent Development
Article
  • Jan 2001
This chapter identifies the most robust conclusions and ideas about adolescent development and psychological functioning that have emerged since Petersen’s 1988 review. We begin with a discussion of topics that have dominated recent research, including adolescent problem behavior, parent-adolescent relations, puberty, the development of the self, and peer relations. We then identify and examine what seem to us to be the most important new directions that have come to the fore in the last decade, including research on diverse populations, contextual influences on development, behavioral genetics, and siblings. We conclude with a series of recommendations for future research on adolescence.
View
Secondary school dropout and work outcomes in ten developing countries
Article
  • Jul 2018
  • J POLICY MODEL
This paper analyzes the impact of secondary school dropout on the work outcomes of young people in ten developing countries. Understanding such a phenomenon is important because it may affect work prospects, exacerbate income inequality and determine macroeconomic lasting effects given that the formation of a skilled workforce is a key element of economic development and growth. When accounting for endogeneity, we find that secondary school dropout decreases the probability of being employed in non-elementary occupations, suggesting that unskilled workers fail to meet the increasing demand for a skilled workforce. Secondary school dropout, indeed, hinders the accumulation of adequate levels of human capital and anticipates entry into the unskilled labor market. Thus, policy-makers should aim at the extension and efficacy of compulsory education to the secondary level to avoid future under-education problems to promote a skilled workforce and encourage economic development and growth in the long run.
View