Program Profile: Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program

A high school transition program that targets ninth-grade students who are at risk of dropping out. Its goal is to improve high school graduation rates. This program is rated No Effects. The program did not have a statistically significant overall effect on students’ high school graduation rates or on several other measures (such as credits earned). There was a statistically significant positive effect on school attachment.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals/Target Population

The Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program is a high school transition program that targets ninth-grade students (at varying levels of risk for school-related problems) in low-income high schools. The goal of the intervention is to improve high school graduation rates among participating youths by improving their academic achievement, social–emotional skills, school attachment, and relationships with other students across grades.

Program Activities

In the first year, selected 11th- and 12th-grade students participate in a daily yearlong, leadership-training class taught by two faculty advisers (trained schoolteachers). The Peer Leaders are selected based on various leadership qualities and the degree to which they are on track to graduate. The training is designed to prepare the upper-class students to engage freshmen in weekly outreach sessions and to serve as positive role models.

The first three class sessions each week are devoted to leadership training. In these sessions, Peer Leaders learn about and practice social–emotional skills, goal setting, group facilitation, teamwork, active listening, and skills for time and stress management.

The fourth class of the week is a 40-minute outreach session in which pairs of Peer Leaders meet with groups of 10 to 12 freshmen. These sessions follow an interactive curriculum designed to foster attitudes and skills that will promote behaviors that reduce risk of dropout, with particular emphasis on promoting school attachment; achievement motivation; peer acceptance; social competence; and skills for anger management, decisionmaking, and goal setting.

In the fifth and final class each week, the upper-class student leaders reflect on that week’s outreach session with the freshmen. A family-night event is held once a year for parents and caregivers of both Peer Leaders and freshman participants to improve parent–student communication and to explore family attitudes.

In the second year, three 2½-hour booster sessions are provided to students who participated as freshmen. The purpose of these peer-led sessions is to reinforce academic self-efficacy and the skills for resisting negative peer influences, communication, goal setting, and decisionmaking.

Program Theory

The PGC Program is guided by the concept of social and emotional learning (SEL), which “involves the processes through which children and adults acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions” (Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning 2013, 4). SEL is associated with a positive impact on peer-group interactions; school climate; and students’ academic attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Zins et al. 2004).

In addition, the PGC Program is grounded in social learning theory, according to which students at risk of school dropout can learn positive skills and behaviors by observation and imitation of motivated and successful peer role models in a supportive, structured setting.

Additional Information

The Center for Supportive Schools, formerly the Princeton Center for Leadership Training (Powell 1993), is the developer of the PGC Program and also works in partnership with schools to implement it.

Study

Jenner and colleagues (2021) evaluated the PGC Program using a randomized controlled trial. Study participants were 1,351 incoming freshmen (ninth grade) students during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 school years from five rural, low-income public schools in North Carolina (an additional 181 students who were enrolled in the study and attending a sixth school were excluded from the final sample for the evaluation because the school experienced significant challenges implementing the PGC Program as a result of the impact and aftermath of Hurricane Florence). Eligible students were those in ninth grade for the first time who were present at the beginning of the school year and could complete the survey, unassisted, in English or Spanish within 60 minutes.

Three of the five schools offered PGC for 2 consecutive years, resulting in eight blocks of participants. Students were randomly assigned within blocks to either the Peer Group Connections Program group (n = 680) or the control group (n = 671).

Participants completed a baseline survey at the beginning of their freshman year and a follow-up survey at the end of the year. Outcomes were assessed using the end-of-year surveys and administrative records. Disciplinary Referral was a Yes/No outcome indicating whether the student had one or more disciplinary referrals at school. Credits Earned was a count of credits earned in the previous year. Promoted to 10th Grade was a Yes/No measure indicating whether the student was promoted at the end of the school year. Weighted Grade-Point Average was calculated at the end of the school year. The survey included measures of Social Competence, Decisionmaking Skills, School Attachment, and Growth Mindset—each demonstrating adequate reliability.

PGC Program group students were white (42.8 percent), Black (36.0 percent), “other” race/ethnicity (19.0 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (12.5 percent). Roughly half of the students were male (52.1 percent). Further, 12.6 percent of students had Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) and 1.6 percent were English Language Learner (ELL) students. They had attended an average of 162.6 days of eighth grade and passed an average of 7.2 classes in eighth grade. Control group students attended classes as usual, while the other group received the intervention. They were white (42.8 percent), Black (36.2 percent), “other” race/ethnicity (19.1 percent), and Hispanic/Latino (11.5 percent). Over half of the students were male (54.2 percent). Eleven percent of students had IEPs, and 1.9 percent were ELL students. They had attended an average of 160.5 days of eighth grade and passed an average of 7.2 classes in eighth grade. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in baseline characteristics.

Program effects were tested using regression analysis that controlled for the baseline measure of the outcome variable, age, race/ethnicity, gender, IEP and ELL status, and randomization block. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine program effects on mentees who met the minimum program requirements (i.e., 14 sessions).

Study

Johnson and colleagues (2014) evaluated the Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program. Study participants were 268 incoming freshmen (ninth grade) students (135 boys and 133 girls) from a low-income, urban high school selected during the 2005–06 school year. The majority of the participants were Hispanic/Latino (92 percent), with the remaining students either African American (2 percent) or members of another racial or ethnic group (6 percent). Students were randomly assigned to the PGC Program group (n = 94) or control group (n = 174). Three teachers, selected as faculty advisers, served as program instructors and trained 16 senior students to be Peer Leaders. Eight program groupings were formed, with 2 Peer Leaders and 12 freshmen per group.

All 268 participants completed a baseline survey at the beginning of their freshman year. The survey included a battery of questions about student behaviors and attitudes important for determining their risk of dropping out of school. These included discipline and absentee history, and aspects of personality such as sensation seeking, academic achievement, motivation, decisionmaking, goal setting, and attitudes toward school and peers.

The outcome measure was student graduation. This was determined through a list, obtained from the school, of students who had graduated from the high school as of June 2009 (4 years after the study participants began high school).

A Propensity to Graduate Score (PGS) was calculated for each participant using logistic regression analysis with graduation status (“yes” or “no”) as the outcome, and the participant characteristics measured on the baseline survey as predictors. There was no significant difference in the PGS between students in the program group and control group on propensity scores. Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine the overall effect of participation in the PGC Program on overall high school graduation.

Johnson and colleagues (2014) evaluated a Peer Group Connection (PGC) Program, in which a school stakeholders group—comprising a principal, a vice principal, administrators, and faculty representatives—was formed before program implementation. The program developers and researchers met frequently with the stakeholders before and throughout implementation to gather input and feedback for smooth implementation and to facilitate long-term growth and sustainability of the program. Before becoming faculty advisers for the program, selected teachers participated in an intensive 11-day training and a 4-day residential training. An additional 3-day residential training and three 1-day trainings for the faculty advisers were held during the 15 months of program implementation. In addition, program developers provided onsite technical assistance and consultation to faculty advisers to ensure implementation fidelity.

Throughout the school year, the program developers held monthly meetings with faculty advisers to obtain their feedback and discuss any need for modifications to the program model and/or activities. Weekly written feedback also was obtained from Peer Leaders and freshmen. In addition, program developers engaged in observations of faculty advisers when they trained Peer Leaders, and of Peer Leaders during their outreach sessions with the participating freshmen. The information gathered from the observations was used to provide feedback to both faculty advisers and Peer Leaders in regard to strengths and areas of improvement. Finally, trained research observers completed rating scales to capture the degree to which faculty advisers and Peer Leaders were implementing the program with fidelity and high-quality instruction.

Subgroup Findings

In Study 1 (Johnson et al. 2014), there was a statistically significant difference in the graduation rate of male students in the program and control groups that favored those in the PGC Program group. This difference was most evident among male students who exhibited a low-propensity-to-graduate score at baseline: those who participated in the PGC Program had a graduation rate of 60 percent, whereas youths in the control group had a graduation rate of 30 percent.

In Study 2 (Jenner et al. 2021), students in the PGC Program were 5 percent more likely to report that they intended to get a 4-year degree. This was a statistically significant difference. Complier average causal effect estimates were used to test for program effects on students who met the minimum requirement for program attendance of 14 sessions; 61 percent of the program youths met this threshold. Compared with their counterparts in the control group, those students were 7 percent less likely to be suspended, were 6 percent less likely to receive a disciplinary referral, and achieved 0.15 point higher weighted grade-point averages. These differences were statistically significant.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and No Effects in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs

Designed to foster the development of five interrelated sets of cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies, in order to provide a foundation for better adjustment and academic performance in students, which can result in more positive social behaviors, fewer conduct problems, and less emotional distress. The practice was rated Effective in reducing students’ conduct problems and emotional stress.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Multiple juvenile problem/at-risk behaviors
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Internalizing behavior

Dropout Prevention Programs

School- or community-based programs targeting frequently absent students or students at risk of dropping out of school. These programs are aimed at increasing school engagement, school attachment, and the academic performance of students, with the main objective of increasing graduation rates. The practice is rated Effective for reducing rates of school dropouts, and rated Promising for improving test scores/grades, graduation rates, and attendance.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Education - Dropout
	Education - Academic achievement/school performance
	Education - Graduation
	Education - Attendance/truancy

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?