Transcript After-School Programs: When and Why They Support Positive

When and Why After-School Programs
Support Children’s Development
Deborah Lowe Vandell
University of Wisconsin
April 30, 2003
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
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
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
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)
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
Programs are more likely to have
beneficial effects….
when program quality is higher
Study of Varying Quality After-School
Programs
• Longitudinal study
• 150 children recruited in first grade from 30 afterschool programs
• Child functioning in 1st – 3rd grades
• Program quality assessed at least twice yearly
• Include controls for family background and child
prior functioning
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
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.
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)
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 7point 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).
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)
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
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)
Cumulative Program Quality
• Mean program quality (Grades 1 & 2)  2nd grade
functioning
• Mean program quality (Grades 1 & 2 & 3)  3rd grade
functioning
Measures of Child Functioning
Domain
Source
Measure
Academic grades
Work habits
Social Skills
T
T
T
Mock Report Card
(Pierce, Hamm, & Vandell)
Loneliness
C
Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction
(Asher, Hymel, & Renshaw)
Depression
(Kovacs)
C
Children’s Depression Inventory
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
Academic Grades
Model 1 (R2)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 105
N = 74
.533***
.454***
.037**
.051**
ns
ns
Child & family characteristics
Model 2 (change in R2)
Qualitative ratings composite
Model 3 (change in R2)
Ratings composite X gender
Work Habits
Model 1 (R2)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 105
N = 74
.465***
.353***
Child & family characteristics
Model 2 (change in R2)
ns
.033 p<.06
ns
.045*
Qualitative ratings composite
Model 3 (change in R2)
Ratings composite X gender
stronger for
girls
Social Skills
Model 1 (R2)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 105
N = 74
.427***
.387***
ns
ns
Child & family characteristics
Model 2 (change in R2)
Qualitative ratings composite
Model 3 (change in R2)
Ratings composite X gender
ns
.061**
stronger for
girls
Loneliness
Model 1 (R2)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 119
N = 89
.249***
.493**
NA
.030*
NA
.021*
Child & family characteristics
Model 2 (change in R2)
Child perspective
Model 3 (change in R2)
Child perspective X gender
stronger
for girls
Loneliness
Model 2B (change in R2)
Emotional support (beta)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 119
N = 89
.085**
.106***
-.314**
Peer affiliation (beta)
NA
Autonomy (beta)
NA
-.345***
Depression
Model 1 (R2)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 119
N = 90
.372***
.251***
NA
.085**
NA
ns
Child & family characteristics
Model 2 (change in R2)
Child perspective
Model 3 (change in R2)
Child perspective X gender
Depression
Model 2B (change in R2)
Emotional support (beta)
Grade 2
Grade 3
N = 119
N = 90
.095***
.163***
-.344**
Peer affiliation (beta)
NA
Autonomy (beta)
NA
-.336***
Programs are more likely to have
effects….
when children attend them for more days
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)
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+)
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. nonparticipants
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)
Why are after-school programs beneficial?
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 afterschool hours, evenings, and weekends
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
• 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.
Student Activities at Programs and
Elsewhere
Activity
No program
At program
6.3
Not at
program
7.1
Homework
Enrichment
5.7
6.7
19.2***
Eating
11.0
7.5*
2.6**
TV
19.5
19.2
0.6***
Sports
5.4
4.9
32.4***
Volunteer
Service
0.1
0.1
3.5***
10.6***
Differences in Supervision
No
program
Not at
program
At Program
Unsupervised
peers
Supervised
Peers
No adults
16.7
21.0
7.2***
26.4
26.0
91.1***
38.4
38.4
7.5***
Alone
12.9
11.7
0.0
Sib care
5.8
3.5
0.1
Differences in Motivation, Effort,
and Feelings
No program
Motivation
2.7
Not at
program
2.9
At program
Effort
1.9
1.9
2.5***
Importance
2.4
2.5
2.9***
Idle
1.4
1.5
1.4***
Positivity
2.2
2.3
2.5***
Negativity
1.3
1.2
1.3
3.0***
The NICHD Study of Early Child Care is wellsuited to examining the effects of before/afterschool 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
Study Participants
Recruitment Sample
1st Grade Sample
N = 1,364
N = 933
52%
boys
50% boys
24%
children of color
20% children of color
11% moms not high school
graduates
14%
single mothers
10% moms not high
school graduates
11% single mothers
Maternal Reports of Before/AfterSchool 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
Five Types of Before/After-School
Arrangements
• Before/after-school programs
• Extracurricular activities
• Sitter care
• Father care
• Nonadult care
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
Percentage of Children (n = 933) Who Never, Sometimes, and
Consistently Participated in Different Types
of Out-of-School Arrangements
(Children Can Have Multiple Arrangements)
Never
Sometimes
Consistently
Programs
60
25
15
Extracurricular
20
53
27
Sitter
14
58
28
Father
25
52
23
Nonadult
72
25
3
Family Predictors
• 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 354 months (yes = 1)
Child Predictors
• Gender
• Behavior problems – 54 months
– CBCL
• Language competence – 54 months
– Preschool Language Scale
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
Child Developmental Outcomes: First
Grade
• Academic outcomes
– Woodcock-Johnson: Letterword identification
– Woodcock-Johnson: Applied
problems
– Academic grades
• Social outcomes – teacher
report
– Behavior problems
– Social skills
• Social outcomes - mother
report
– Behavior problems
– Teacher-reported work habits
– Social skills
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)
Academic Achievement of Children who
Never, Sometimes, and Consistently
Participated in Extracurricular Activities
Letter-word
Applied
problems
Never
111.1a
112.0a
Sometimes
112.4a
111.8a
Consistently
115.5b
116.1b
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
Types of Extracurricular Activities
• Team sports (21-34%)
• Individual sports (18-27%)
• Dance & music lessons (17-32%)
• Youth organizations (7-18%)
• Tutoring (0-1%)
• Academic enrichment (2-4%)
Father Care was Associated with
Teacher-Reported Social Outcomes
• MANCOVA – F (6,1680) = 2.36, p = .03
• ANCOVA
– Less externalizing behavior (p < .05)
Externalizing Behaviors (T scores) of
Children Who Never, Sometimes, and
Consistently Received Father Care
• Never
52.2a
• Sometimes
51.6a
• Consistent
50.0b
Participation in other types of before/afterschool care was not associated with child
functioning in first grade
Conclusions
• Consistent participation in extracurricular activities
during kindergarten and first grade was associated with
children’s academic achievement.
• Voluntary structured activities during nonschool hours
may have beneficial effects on student performance at
school.
Next Steps
• Relations between After-School Experiences and
Students’ Academic, Social, and Behavioral
Functioning
• Study of Promising Programs
• Longitudinal Study of After-School Arrangements
- SECCYD
• Academic vs. extracurricular activities
[email protected]
for more information