Learning from Small-Scale Experimental Evaluations of After School Programs
Snapshot at the Out-of-School Time website - at Harvard Family Research Project
Harvard Family Research Project's series of Out-of-School Time Evaluation Snapshots distills the wealth of information compiled in our Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Database and Bibliography into a single report.
This Snapshot reviews small-scale experimental evaluations of after school programs, highlighting these studies' evaluation strategies and results.
The evaluation of the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) initiative is one of the largest and most publicized experimental studies of after school programs.2 Now, a growing body of experimental studies of smaller after school programs and initiatives is beginning to surface, as stakeholders in the field seek to learn when, whether, and how individual after school programs can make a difference in the lives of youth.
The three basic expected behavioral outcomes are acceptance by teachers and students of cultural uniqueness and differences, Latino students' active bilingual speech in the presence of teachers and other children, and receptiveness of the school's students and staff to cultural differences.
Evaluators can test the equivalence between the two groups on observed factors after randomization to ensure that the randomization produced groups that appear similar.
The average sample of initial respondents was 116 youth, who were then randomly assigned to either a treatment group or a control group, usually on a one-to-one basis.
One helpful strategy for assessing the potential problems stemming from these sample sizes was employed in the CASP evaluation.
Family Findings No significant treatment effects were found for family functioning, family social support, or the quality of sibling relationships.
Youth Development Findings Results showed that children who participated in the program showed increased socioemotional adjustment compared to children in the control group (the latter group showed no improvements).
