When and Why After-School Programs Support Children’s Development

1. When and Why After-School Programs Support Children’s Development Deborah Lowe Vandell University of Wisconsin April 30, 2003

2. Several Factors Have Contributed to an Increased Interest in After-School Programs • High rates of maternal employment • 69% of married mothers and 71% of single mothers of 6- to 17-year-olds are employed • Concerns about • negative effects of self-care • youth as victims and perpetrators of crime • lagging academic performance • Inequities in access to after-school activities and programs

3. After-School Programs Narrowly Defined and Broadly Defined • Narrow definition – programs that are offered by schools or other organizations on a daily basis throughout the year • Broad definition – includes extracurricular activities, sports, clubs, and activities that are offered on a regularly scheduled basis by schools, libraries, and youth organizations

4. Variations in After-School Programs • Homework clubs • Preparation for standardized tests • Extension of the school day • Science, math, & computer clubs • Organized sports and recreational sports • Music, drama • Arts and crafts • 4-H, Scouts, YMCA

5. Current After-School Initiatives • 21st Century Community Learning Centers • 40M in 1997; $1B in 2002; • 1.2 million students participated in programs located at 3600 schools in 2001 • 2,252 applications for funding; 310 awards in 2000 • Future funding is uncertain • Boys and Girls Clubs • State-level initiatives • California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership (30,000 children) • Local initiatives • L.A.’s Best, The After-School Corp (TASC)

6. Limitations of Previous Research • “Evaluation of after-school activities is still limited. Often the information about a program is based on the opinions of experts instead of formal evaluations.” (Working for Children and Families, 2000, p. 7) • “Circumstances surrounding the type of care provided, the kinds of students who attended the different programs, and what the programs themselves entailed, have rarely been studied in detail.” (Fashola, 1998, p. 3) • Failure to control for family background and child’s prior functioning • Failure to consider variations in program quality

7. Programs are more likely to have beneficial effects…. when program quality is higher

8. Study of Varying Quality After-School Programs • Longitudinal study • 150 children recruited in first grade from 30 after-school programs • Child functioning in 1st – 3rd grades • Program quality assessed at least twice yearly • Include controls for family background and child prior functioning

9. Developmental theory and after-school practitioners argue that high quality programs provide students with opportunities to • Form supportive relationships with adults • Form supportive relationships with peers • Engage in substantive activities that are meaningful to students

10. In previous research, my colleagues and I found: • Children report less emotional support when after-school staff are hostile and negative. • Children report more positive experiences at programs that offer a greater variety of activities. • Boys display fewer internalizing and externalizing problems in 1st grade when program staff interact more positively with children. • Boys obtain lower reading and math grades when program staff are more negative during interactions. • Frequent negative interactions with peers at the program predict more internalizing and externalizing problems, and poorer social skills, at school. • Children display better social skills at school when their after-school programs are more flexible.

11. Measures of After-School Program Quality • School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (SACERS) • Observers’ ratings of program quality • Child reports: After-School Environment Scale (ASES)

12. SACERS • 6 program features (space & furnishings; health and safety; range of activities; interactions between staff and children, parents, classroom teachers, & other staff; program structure; staff development) rated on 7-point scales • Collected four times in 2nd grade, three times in 3rd grade, • Settings were typically minimal quality (M = 4.0 in 2nd grade and 4.4 in 3rd grade).

13. Qualitative Ratings of Program Quality • Collected 4 times in 2nd grade and 3 times in 1st and 3rd grades • Ratings were averaged to create annual overall observed quality scores (after reflecting negative regard, negative behavior management, and chaos) • Good reliability (M alpha = .76; range = .61 - .85)

14. Qualitative Ratings • Staff positive regard • Staff negative regard • Staff uses positive behavior management • Staff uses negative behavior management • Programming flexibility • Age-appropriate activities • Chaotic setting

15. Child Report of Program Quality • After-School Environment Scale (ASES; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996) • Collected twice a year • 18 items in 1st and 2nd grade rated on 3-pt scales; 31 items thereafter rated on 4-pt scales • Overall score (M = 2.4, sd = .4 in 1st and 2nd grades; M = 3.0, sd = .6 in 3rd grade) • Emotional Support (19 items) • Autonomy/Privacy (6 items) • Positive Relations with Peer (6 items)

16. Cumulative Program Quality • Mean program quality (Grades 1 & 2)  2nd grade functioning • Mean program quality (Grades 1 & 2 & 3)  3rd grade functioning

17. Measures of Child Functioning DomainSourceMeasure Academic grades T Mock Report Card Work habits T (Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell) Social Skills T Loneliness C Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction (Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw) Depression C Children’s Depression Inventory (Kovacs)

18. Analytic Plan • Model 1: Child and family characteristics • Child gender • Prior child functioning (measured in 1st grade) • Firm but responsive parenting (measured cumulatively) • Family income (measured cumulatively) • Model 2: Cumulative program quality added • Model 3: Cumulative program quality X child gender added

19. Academic Grades

20. Work Habits

21. Social Skills

22. Loneliness

23. Loneliness

24. Depression NA NA

25. Depression .095***

26. Programs are more likely to have effects…. when children attend them for more days

27. Safe Haven Evaluation • 4 school-based after-school programs serving 152 students grades 3 to 5 • ASES scores (M = 2.7, sd = .3, range 2.6 – 2.9) • Student characteristics • 77% free or reduced lunch • 71% children of color • 49% single parent households • 47% males • Program attendance varied from 1 to 163 days (median = 92 days)

28. Controlling for prior child functioning, children who attended programs for more days • Had fewer absences from school (-.34*) • Were rated by teachers as • having better work habits (.27*) • Working well with others (.23+)

29. TASC Evaluation • 96 programs • 12,973 very active participants • 17,805 active participants • 8,104 non-active participants • 39,870 non-participants • Math and reading gains, and decreased problem behaviors for very active participants vs. non-participants

30. Program Effects Also Are More Evident For • Low-income children (Grossman; Marshall; Pettit; Posner & Vandell; TASC) • Children with limited English proficiency (TASC evaluation) • Low achieving students (TASC)

31. Why are after-school programs beneficial?

32. Experience Sampling Study • 191 low-income 8th grade students • 8 school-based programs in 3 communities • Students wore watches that beeped 35 times during 1 wk in the fall and 35 times during 1 wk in the spring • Beeps occurred at random times during the after-school hours, evenings, and weekends

33. Students Completed Logbooks • For each signal, students recorded • Who they were with • Where they were • What they were doing • How they were feeling • Levels of effort, concentration, motivation

34. On average, students responded to 33 of the 35 signals during the week. • 12,143 after-school, evening, and weekend experiences were reported. • 5, 136 of the experiences occurred after school.

35. Student Activities at Programs and Elsewhere

36. Differences in Supervision

37. Differences in Motivation, Effort, and Feelings

38. The NICHD Study of Early Child Care is well-suited to examining the effects of before/after-school care • 10 research sites • Prospective longitudinal design • Large and diverse sample (n = 933) • Extensive measures of family background, early child care, and child prior functioning

39. Recruitment Sample N = 1,364 52% boys 24% children of color 11% moms not high school graduates 14% single mothers 1st Grade Sample N = 933 50% boys 20% children of color 10% moms not high school graduates 11% single mothers Study Participants

40. Maternal Reports of Before/After-School Arrangements • 4 telephone interviews (K fall & spring; 1st grade fall and spring) • Time spent each weekday between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. in each of 11 nonmaternal care arrangements

41. Five Types of Before/After-School Arrangements • Before/after-school programs • Extracurricular activities • Sitter care • Father care • Nonadult care

42. Cumulative Participation Scores were Created • Mean hours in the care arrangements were skewed, so dichotomous (yes/no) participation scores at each of the 4 interviews were created • Cumulative participation scores were based on the proportion of interviews (2 in K, 2 in 1st grade) in which each type of care was used • Never • Sometimes • Consistently

43. Percentage of Children (n = 933) Who Never, Sometimes, and Consistently Participated in Different Types of Out-of-School Arrangements (Children Can Have Multiple Arrangements)

44. Maternal employment hours Parenting Observed Endorsed strategies Demographic factors Family income Household structure Race and ethnicity Maternal education Full day vs half-day kindergarten Early child care M hours 3-54 months % center care % child care homes % father care M quality 6-54 months Exclusive maternal care 3-54 months (yes = 1) Family Predictors

45. Child Predictors • Gender • Behavior problems – 54 months • CBCL • Language competence – 54 months • Preschool Language Scale

46. Examination of Relations between Before/After-School Care and Child Developmental Outcomes • Multivariate analyses of covariance (covariates were all family factors in previous analyses, matching child outcome variables at 54 months, & child gender), followed by ANCOVAs and pairwise t-tests • Time (never, sometimes, consistently) in 5 types of care entered simultaneously

47. Academic outcomes Woodcock-Johnson: Letter-word identification Woodcock-Johnson: Applied problems Academic grades Teacher-reported work habits Social outcomes – teacher report Behavior problems Social skills Social outcomes - mother report Behavior problems Social skills Child Developmental Outcomes: First Grade

48. Participation in Extracurricular Activities was Associated with Academic Outcomes • MANCOVA F (8, 1656) = 2.23, p < .05 • ANCOVAs • Letter-word identification (p < .05) • Applied problems (p < .001)

49. Academic Achievement of Children who Never, Sometimes, and Consistently Participated in Extracurricular Activities

50. Number and Duration of Extracurricular Activities in a Week • Children who participated in extracurricular activities typically had a single activity each week. Very few children had more than 2 activities. • Children who participated in extracurricular activities typically spent between 1 and 3 hrs a week in the activities