A drop-out prevention program for high-risk inner-city youth.

Lever et al. (2004) built the FUTURES program for teens at high risk of dropping out. The teens lived in poor inner-city neighborhoods.

The program gave smaller classes, adult mentors, and quick mental-health help. The authors only describe the parts; they do not say if it worked.

The paper lists the pieces of FUTURES but gives no outcome numbers. We do not know if more kids stayed in school.

Ganz et al. (2009) ran a similar after-school bundle for urban African-American youth. Both studies pair mentoring with family support, showing the idea keeps popping up.

Barlow et al. (2015) went bigger. They tested a whole-school model for all students with disabilities and used a quasi-experimental design. That study extends the FUTURES idea from a small club to every classroom.

Iwata et al. (1990) took a stricter ABA path. They used a brief functional assessment to return truant kids to class and showed clear attendance gains. Their data give the missing piece Nancy et al. left out: proof that function-based plans can work.

You now know the parts of a dropout package—small classes, mentors, mental-health access—but you also know the 2004 paper never proved those parts help. Borrow the proof from neighbors: add quick data, track daily attendance, and match support to why each teen skips school. Start small, measure, then scale.