CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Scope of the Problem Habitual truancy can be defined as unexcused absences from school

by a minor that exceed the number of such absences allowed under State law. Each State has its own school attendance laws, which specify 1) the age at which a child must begin school, 2) the age at which a youth can legally drop out of school, and 3) the number of unexcused absences that constitute truancy under the law (NCSE, N.d.). There are variations across the States in the mandatory starting age for school and the legal dropout age (Education Commission of the States, 2007), and variations across jurisdictions in the legally permissible number of unexcused absences from school (National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention, N.d.). In all States, however, truancy is a status offensean act that is unlawful because of the status (in this case, age) of the person committing the act, not because of the act itself. While truancy is widely acknowledged to be a problem nationwide, it is very difficult to find data that delineate the full extent of the problem due to data collection and reporting issues at the school, local and State levels (Heilbrunn, 2007). Data is available from petitioned truancy cases, but there are limitations to this data since most truancy cases never reach a petition status. According to one study of the Denver truancy court, only between 2 and 4 percent of students who met the State statute for truancy were subject to a court action (MacGillivary and Erickson, 2006). Nonetheless, trends in petitioned truancy cases suggest the breadth of the truancy problem. Between 1995 and 2005, the number of petitioned truancy cases increased from 32,800 to 52,400, an increase of 60 percent (Puzzanchera and Sickmund, 2008). In 2005, truancy cases made up 35 percent of all petitioned status offense cases, compared to 28 percent in 1995 (Puzzanchera and Sickmund, 2008). Of these truancy cases, 35 percent involved girls (Puzzanchera, 2007), and for females, petitioned truancy cases outnumbered all other status offenses (Puzzanchera and Sickmund, 2008). While truancy cases increased in this time frame for all age groups, the largest relative increases were seen for 16- and 17-year-olds. Based on self-report data from the Monitoring the Future survey, 11 percent of eighth graders and 16 percent of 10th graders reported recent truancy (Henry, 2007). Not only is reliable truancy data difficult to find, other data help obscure the scope of the problem (Balfanz et al., 2008; Levy and Henry, 2007; Nauer et al., 2008). For instance, average attendance rates across school districts may mask significant truancy rates at particular schools. This is true for New York City: at 96 of the 366 middle schools, more than 30 percent of youth were chronically absent during the 200708 school year, but the average schoolwide attendance rates for each grade during the same year were at least 90 percent, a target rate viewed by many schools as acceptable (Nauer et al., 2008). Similarly obscured is the significance of truancy statistics for secondary schools; since dropouts in upper grades are not enrolled in any school, they are excluded from truancy calculations (Heilbrunn, 2007; Levy and Henry, 2007). When one considers that only two thirds of ninth graders will graduate, it becomes clear to what degree this statistical absence can skew truancy calculations (Heilbrunn, 2007; Levy and Henry, 2007; MacGillivary, 2006). The exclusion of dropouts from truancy statistics also obscures the significant differences between graduation rates for whites and minorities (Seeley and MacGillivary, 2006).

Theoretical Context Youth often face a number of barriers that can challenge their interest in and ability to attend school. While generally the literature on truancy is in its infancy (Heilbrunn, 2007), a variety of school, family, community and individual characteristics have been identified that can contribute to the problem of truancy (Baker et al., 2001; Heilbrunn, 2007; Hammond, Smink, and Drew, 2007; NCJRS, n.d.). School factors include: Inconsistent and ineffective school attendance policies Poor record keeping Not notifying parents/guardians of absences Unsafe school environment Poor school climate Poor relations with teachers Inadequate identification of special education needs Family and community factors include: Negative peer influences, such as other truant youth Financial, social, medical, or other programs that pressure students to stay home to help with family: Child abuse and neglect Family disorganization Teen pregnancy or parenthood Lack of family support for educational and other goals Violence in or near the home or school Differing culturally based attitudes towards education Student factors include: A lack of personal and educational ambition Poor academic performance Low school attachment Retention/overage for grade Poor relationships with other students Gang involvement Lack of self-esteem Unmet mental health needs Alcohol and drug use and abuse

In a study examining the risk factors for school dropout, Hammond, Smink, and Drew (2007) identified four factors that significantly impact dropout rates at all three school levels: low achievement, retention/overage for grade, poor attendance, and low socioeconomic status (SES). Henry and Huizinga (2007a) found that the most robust predictors of truancy are school performance and involvement with delinquent peers, though these two factors appear to behave synergistically so that truancy is mitigated for those associating with delinquent peers but performing well in school. Barriers facing truant youth are significant and often multifaceted. Data from OJJDPs Truancy Reduction Demonstration Programs showed that of the 634 students participating: 87 percent qualified for free or reduced price lunch 36 percent lived with only one adult in the home 20 percent lived with no working adult in the home 19 percent had individual education plans 15 percent had school discipline problems at program intake 13 percent had juvenile justice involvement (Finlay, 2006b) In one informal tally carried out in a truancy court in Denver in 2003, of the 40 truancy cases heard that one day, only three cases involved no major, identifiable issue other than truancy; over half had prior referrals to the Department of Human Services; and approximately 30 percent were classified as incorrigible/ungovernable (Heilbrunn, 2004). Data from a National Center for Children in Poverty study show that the most common risks experienced by U.S. kindergarteners include the following: 19 percent live with a single mother 18 percent live below the Federal Poverty Level 14 percent come from a large family with four or more children at home 12 percent live with a mother who has not completed high school (NCCP, 2008)

The self-reported reasons for truancy vary considerably, and studies show that dropouts are not a homogenous group (Hammond, Smink, and Drew, 2007). According to focus groups at truancy reduction sites, youth reported various reasons for their truancy, including getting behind in school and work, which often initiated a cycle of chronic absenteeism; being bored; a school environment with uncaring adults and teachers; poor relationships with teachers; bullying; and disrespect from staff (Attwood and Croll, 2006; Gonzales, Richards, and Seeley, 2002). According to a 1992 report by the National Center for Education Statistics (McMillen et al., 1993), four dropouts in 10 said that they left school because they were failing or they did not like school, and males and females reported in roughly equal numbers that they were leaving school because of personality conflicts with teachers. More males than females dropped out because of school suspension or expulsion. The dropout rate among 16- to 24-year-olds who had repeated more than one grade was 41 percent, compared with 17 percent of those who had repeated only one grade and 9 percent of those who had not repeated any grades. Dropout rates were highest 7among those who had repeated grades 7, 8, or 9. Although most dropouts reported school related reasons for leaving, most female dropouts reported family related reasons. Among dropouts, 21 percent of females and eight percent of males dropped out because they had become parents (McMillen et al., 1993). Students and school staff often disagree on the reasons for truancy. In one survey, students cited boredom, loss of interest in school, irrelevant courses, suspensions, and bad relationships with teachers as major factors leading to the decision to skip school. In contrast, school staff believed truancy to be related to students problems with their families and peers (ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management and Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1999). Given the multifaceted issues that can lead to truancy, prevention programs need to: Be comprehensive, flexible, responsive, and persevering View children in the context of their families Deal with families as parts of neighborhoods and communities Have a long-term, preventive orientation and a clear mission and continue to evolve over time Be well managed by competent and committed individuals with clearly identifiable skills Have staff who are trained and supported to provide high-quality, responsive services Operate in settings that encourage practitioners to build strong relationships based on mutual trust and respect. (Schorr, 1997 as in Baker et al 2001, p. 7).