This article examines the relationship between after-school program quality, program attendance, and academic outcomes for a sample of low-income after-school program participants. Regression and hierarchical linear modeling analyses use a unique longitudinal data set including 29 after-school programs that served 5,108 students in Grades 4 to 8 over 2 years. Program quality measures, based on activity observations, include supportive environment, opportunities for purposeful engagement, and structured interactions. Findings suggest that middle school students attend programs with greater purposeful engagement less often, while attendance for younger students is less sensitive to program quality. Greater purposeful engagement is associated with lower test scores for elementary and middle school students. In contrast, a more supportive environment and greater opportunities for structured interactions relate to improvements in test scores. Findings are discussed in light of ongoing policy debate regarding the proper focus of after-school programs and concerns about poor program attendance.
AlexanderK.OlsonL.EntwisleD. (2007). Lasting consequences of the summer learning gap. American Sociological Review, 72, 167-180.
2.
BrecherC.BrazillC.WeitzmanB.SilverD. (2010). Understanding the political context of “new” policy issues: The use of the advocacy coalition framework in the case of expanded after-school programs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 335-355.
3.
ColemanJ.CampbellE.HobsonC.McPartlandJ.MoodA.WeinfeldF.YorkR. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
4.
CrossA.GottfredsonD.WilsonD.RorieM.ConnellN. (2010). Implementation quality and positive experiences in after-school programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 370-380.
5.
DeciE.RyanR. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
6.
DuncanG.LudwigJ.MagnusonK. (2007). Reducing poverty through preschool interventions. The Future of Children: The Next Generation of Antipoverty Policies, 17, 143-160.
7.
DurlakJ.WeissbergR.PachanM. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 294-309.
8.
DynarskiM.James-BurdumyS.MooreM.RosenbergL.DekeJ.MansfieldW. (2004, October). When schools stay open late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: New findings (Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9.
EngbergJ.GillB.ZamarroG.ZimmerR. (2012). Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?Journal of Urban Economics, 71, 189-209.
10.
GardnerM.RothJ. L.Brooks-GunnJ. (2009). Can after-school programs help level the playing field for disadvantaged youth? (Equity Matters: Research Review, No. 4). New York, NY: The Campaign for Educational Equity.
11.
GrangerR.KaneT. (2004, February). Improving the quality of after-school programs. Education Week, 23, 76.
12.
HirschB.MekindaM.StawickiJ. (2010). More than attendance: The importance of after-school program quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 447-452.
13.
James-BurdumyS.DynarskiM.DekeJ. (2007). When elementary schools stay open late: Results from the national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 296-318.
14.
JonesJ.DeutschN. (2011). Relational strategies in after-school settings: How staff-youth relationships support positive development. Youth & Society, 43, 1381-1406.
15.
LarsonR. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170-183.
16.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GlennM. (2006). Out-of-school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275-313.
17.
LauverS.LittleP. M.WeissH. (2004). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation, 6, 1-16.
18.
MarshH. W.KleitmanS. (2002). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the nonlinear. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 464-515.
19.
PandeyS.ElliottW. (2010). Suppressor variables in social work research: Ways to identify in multiple regression models. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 1, 28-40.
20.
PechmanE.MielkeM.RussellC.WhiteR.CoocN. (2008). Out-of-school time (OST) observation instrument: Report of the Validation Study. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
21.
PenuelW.McGheeR. (2010). 21st Century Community Learning Centers Descriptive Study of Program Practices. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.
22.
PierceK.BoltD.VandellD. (2010). Specific features of after-school program quality: Associations with children’s functioning in middle childhood. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 381-393.
23.
RothJ.MaloneL.Brooks-GunnJ. (2010). Does the amount of participation in afterschool programs relate to developmental outcomes? A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 310-324.
24.
RothsteinR. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New York, NY: Columbia University, Economic Policy Institute, Teachers College.
25.
ShernoffD. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 325-337.
26.
SmithC.PeckS.DenaultA.BlazevskiJ.AkivaT. (2010). Quality at the point of service: Profiles of practice in after-school settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 358-369.
27.
VandellD. L.ReisnerE. R.PierceK. M. (2007, October). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Report to the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, University of California, Irvine.
28.
WeissH.LittleP.BouffardS. M.DeschenesS. N.MaloneH. J. (2009). The federal role in out-of-school learning: After-school, summer learning, and family involvement as critical learning supports. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
29.
WeitzmanB.MijanovichT.SilverD.BrazillC. (2008). If you build it, will they come? Estimating unmet demand for after-school programs in America’s distressed cities. Youth & Society, 40, 3-34.
30.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
31.
YohalemN.Wilson-AhlstromA. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 350-357.
