Background: Education plays a pivotal role in empowering individuals with the knowledge and skills needed for careers, economic progress, and societal engagement. Dropping out of school before achieving a qualification undermines these opportunities and has an impact on individuals and society (Audit Commission, 2010; OECD, 2023). International and national policies prioritize reducing dropout rates. For example, the 2021 target of the European Council Resolution is to reduce the dropout rate below 9% by 2030 (Council Resolution, 2021). Assessing the effectiveness of programs to tackle school dropout is challenging, as it needs longitudinal evaluations to grasp their long-term impacts on school competition. Consequently, many studies focus on intermediate outcomes or predictors of dropout that manifest earlier, such as student academic achievement, attitudes, and behaviors (Battin-Pearson, 2000; EASNIE, 2019; Rumberger, 2011). The latest systematic reviews with meta-analysis focusing on the impact of school dropout programs were conducted during the 2010s. Wilson et al. (2011) assessed the impact of prevention and intervention programs on school dropout and graduation rates. Tanner-Smith and Wilson (2013) investigated the effect of a similar set of studies on student absenteeism. Chappell et al. (2015) evaluated the effectiveness of dropout prevention programs in reducing dropout rates and increasing graduation rates. The lack of recent reviews shows the need to examine the available evidence. Purpose: We conducted an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) illustrating the extent and distribution of evidence concerning dropout programs targeting K-12 students and youth up to 24 years old. EGMs are visual representations to summarize existing evidence on a given topic and to show areas where further research is needed to bridge gaps (White et al., 2020). In our EGM, programs were classified into three domains -- prevention, intervention, and compensation -- based on the framework outlined by the European Council Recommendation (2022/C 469/01). Each program domain was further distinguished into categories (e.g., mentoring, case management) based on previous literature (e.g., Rumberger et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2011). Outcomes of interest were grouped into two domains, ultimate outcomes (i.e., school dropout and/or school completion) and intermediate outcomes (i.e., educational performance, behaviors, attitudes, and relational/social factors). We adopted a logic model based on Rumberger (2011), Dupéré (2015), EASNIE (2019), and Battin-Pearson (2000) to portray the different pathways expected for the impact of the diverse program domains on intermediate and ultimate outcomes (Figure 1). Method: This study follows a systematic process for study identification, selection, and data extraction. The review protocol has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal before the start of the EGM process and it is still under review. Search strategy: A comprehensive search was conducted to retrieve both published and unpublished studies. Strategies included database search (e.g., ERIC, Education Source, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), searches on websites of organizations such as the What Works Clearinghouse and the Campbell Collaboration, and backward and forward citation chasing in previous reviews on school dropout. Efforts were also made to establish contact with prominent researchers in the field to identify any additional unpublished reports or ongoing studies. Data collection and analysis: To be included, studies needed to: (a) be published in English from 2011 to 2023; (b) include a control group following regular practice or an alternative program; (c) be either a randomized control trial (RCT) or a quasi-experiment (QED), or a systematic review of intervention studies using meta-analysis techniques to combine study results; (d) evaluate replicable school-based, school-affiliated, and community-based programs expected to have an impact on staying (or returning) in school; (e) target K-12 students or school leavers up to 24 years old, their teachers, parents, school leaders, or other stakeholders; (f) measure either ultimate outcomes on school completion/graduation/dropout, or intermediate outcomes (i.e., educational performance, behaviors, attitudes, and relational/social factors) if the programs mentioned an explicit link with school dropout. We selected relevant studies based on inclusion criteria using a two-step process (i.e., title and abstract screening and full-text review). The selection process was carried out using Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/) with each record reviewed by two independent reviews. Conflicts were resolved by a third experienced reviewer. A draft codebook was developed based on the PICOS framework to extract relevant characteristics, piloted on several studies, and revised as necessary. The team is currently coding the included studies on MetaReviewer (http://www.metareviewer.org). To code studies, a team member codes each study with a second coder validating their responses. The quality of the included studies was assessed by coding methodological characteristics, such as study design, publication status, study size, counterfactual, baseline equivalence. Findings: Our search strategy found a total of 20,137 records. After the selection process (Figure 2), we included 145 studies. To date, 84 studies have been coded. Preliminary results indicate that 51 studies focused on intervention programs, 32 on prevention program, and only 1 study on compensation program. Regarding outcomes, 37 studies examined intermediate outcomes only, 32 considered both intermediate and ultimate outcomes, and 15 solely focused on ultimate outcomes. Most of the studies (n = 39) used an ex post facto design or a randomized controlled trial (n = 27). Studies including ultimate outcomes are more often retrospective studies (n = 32). Results of the complete set of included studies and variables coded as well as the visual interactive map will be presented at the conference upon acceptance. Conclusions: Since 2011, several studies have explored programs designed to combat dropout rates. However, we expected a larger number of studies based on results from previous reviews. Preliminary findings suggest that most of the studies focused on evaluating intervention programs for students identified as at risk. Many studies that evaluated the ultimate outcomes predominantly relied on retrospective data.