|
Policy Framework
Especially in low-income neighborhoods, schools are an attractive setting for after-school programs for many reasons, including their physical facilities and their convenience. Indeed, the vision of some youth development experts is to transform public schools into full-service youth and community centers that open early in the morning and stay open into the early evening, as well as on weekends. While federal spending on school-based, after-hours programs has risen dramatically over the past several years, little is known about the realities and challenges of providing services in this context.
Launched in 1997, the Extended-Service Schools (ESS) Initiative helped establish after-school programs in 60 elementary and middle schools in 17 cities across the country. In 2002, Public/Private Ventures and MDRC completed a four-year evaluation of the initiative.
Agenda, Scope, and Goals
Each ESS program adopted one of four nationally recognized after-school models and tailored it to local circumstances and needs. Partnerships between the local school district and a university or a community-based organization (or both) facilitated this process. The activities offered by the programs included homework help, enrichment and artistic activities, and sports. Despite differences in orientation, the programs shared most of the following aims:
- to improve young people’s academic performance;
- to offer youth an opportunity to use their out-of-school time safely and productively;
- to foster the development of positive relationships among young people, as well as between young people and adults;
- to get parents more involved in their children’s lives and schooling; and
- to provide youth with enriching athletic and cultural experiences.
The ESS evaluation examined the after-school programs’ implementation, quality, and cost. It also analyzed program participation patterns and the benefits of participation, as seen by students and their parents. The evaluation sought to answer these questions:
- What were the characteristics of children and youth who attended the programs, how much did they attend, and why? Did the programs attract young people who would benefit most from participation?
- What features characterized the activities that seemed most likely to promote the positive development of children and youth? What organizational structures and programmatic approaches best sustain these practices?
- In what ways did young people who participated believe they benefited from the ESS programs?
- How much did the programs cost, and how were they financed?
Design, Sites, and Data Sources
Using data collected from 1998 through 2001, the study focused on the implementation and perceived benefits of the ESS programs. The implementation research was augmented by analyses of participation and program costs. While program implementation was examined in all 60 sites, the analysis of participation, costs, and benefits focused on 10 programs in six communities: Aurora, Colorado; Boston, Massachusetts; Central Falls, Rhode Island; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Missoula, Montana; and Savannah, Georgia.
The study findings are based on site visits; computerized records of program attendance; cost records; surveys of program participants and their parents; and interviews with program staff, students, parents, program partners, and city officials.
Findings
The findings on ESS are available in the 2002 final report, Multiple Choices After School: Findings from the Extended-Service Schools Initiative by Jean Baldwin Grossman, Veronica Fellerath, Linda Z. Jucovy, Lauren J. Kotloff, Marilyn Price, Rebecca Raley, and Karen E. Walker.
|
|
