Engaging Older Youth: Program and City-Level Strategies

Click here to download the full report:
 Engaging Older Youth: Program and City-Level Strategies


Appendix A: Cities and Initiatives

Chicago, IL

City initiative

The Chicago Out-of-School Time (OST) Project is a citywide afterschool initiative facilitated by the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (FSS) in partnership with After School Matters, Chicago Public Schools, the Chicago Park District, and the Chicago Public Library. The Chicago OST Project started in 2006 with a grant from The Wallace Foundation and works to bring together city, education, and afterschool leaders to create capacity building, professional development, technical assistance, and data coordination opportunities to provide the city’s youth with coordinated, high-quality afterschool programming.1

Coordinating body

FSS spearheads the Chicago OST Project. Formerly known as the Department of Children and Youth Services, FSS was created by Mayor Richard M. Daley in 2004 to coordinate and fund more than 300 afterschool and social service organizations.2 The department supports youth from infancy to age 18, provides resources for parents and caregivers, and offers the latest data, research, and best practices for the city’s educators.

FSS supports the Chicago OST project in providing coordinated efforts to better serve Chicago youth through a citywide program and participant database for afterschool program providers, a website that serves as a hub of information for families and youth on afterschool programs in their community, a focused effort to support career preparation and youth employment, and a commitment to supporting afterschool program quality improvement.

City demographic information

Approximately 2,800,000 people live in the city of Chicago.3 Per-capita income in the city is $26,814, with approximately 20.7 percent of individuals living below the poverty level.4 The population is 39.9 percent White; 34.6 percent Black or African American; 27.8 percent Hispanic or Latino; 4.9 percent Asian; and 0.2 percent American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander. 1.7 percent are of two or more races.5 A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 36.1 percent of the city population.6

Cincinnati, OH

City initiative

CincyAfterSchool is the afterschool component of the Cincinnati Public School’s Community Learning Centers (CLC) movement, which provides access to opportunities and services and engages families and youth in revitalizing their neighborhoods, all in one centrally located place: the local public school. CLCs are located on 20 school campuses across Cincinnati and offer families and youth access to health and social services as well as educational and recreational opportunities.7

CincyAfterSchool is a partnership between the YMCA of Greater Cincinnati and Cincinnati Public Schools.8 Its mission is to engage “youth, parents, and the community to improve academic achievement and build healthy futures for all.” Founded in 2004, CincyAfterSchool is supported by 21st Century Community Learning Center funds and other public and private support. The initial $5.1 million in 21st Century grants has grown to $25.5 million, and the school district has contributed Title I funds to the initiative.

Coordinating body

The YMCA of Greater Cincinnati’s Community Services branch is the coordinating body that facilitates CincyAfterSchool. The YMCA helps manage afterschool throughout the district and works with a CLC’s lead agency and providers. The YMCA of Greater Cincinnati also provides programs, camps, and services for people of all ages throughout the Cincinnati region in 14 locations.

Cincinnati has many additional citywide collaboratives and regional planning efforts focused on youth. These include Cincinnati Youth Collaborative, Strive, United Way’s Success by 6, Agenda 360, and Vision 2015.

City demographic information

Cincinnati has a population of approximately 300,000 people.9 The estimated per-capita income is $23,894 per year.10 Cincinnati has an estimated 20.9 percent of families and 25.7 percent of individuals who live below the poverty level.11 The population is 51 percent White; 44.4 percent Black or African American; 1.9 percent Hispanic or Latino; 1.4 percent Asian; and 0.1 percent American Indian or Native Alaskan. 2.2 percent are of two or more races.12

New York City, NY

City initiative

In September 2005, The New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) launched the Out of School Time (OST) Initiative to provide a mix of academic, recreational, and cultural activities for young people after school, on holidays, and during the summer. As of 2009–2010, the OST initiative consists of 516 programs citywide, all of which are provided at no cost to participants. The programs are operated by 175 community-based organizations and located in schools, community centers, settlement houses, religious centers, cultural organizations, libraries, and public housing and parks facilities.

The budget for the OST initiative has grown from $46.4 million in FY06 to $110.7 million in FY10. This funding is included in the city’s 4-year financial plan and thus is a sustainable source of revenue for community-based organizations in years to come. DYCD targeted 77 high-need zip codes for its programs, and 62 percent of participants reside in one of the priority zip codes.

More than 80,000 children and youth from kindergarten through twelfth grade participate in programming provided through DYCD. Programs offer academic support, cultural arts opportunities, recreational activities, enrichment, and civic engagement; most operate between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and on school holidays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. More than half of the programs in the initiative are now year-round, so thousands of elementary and middle school-aged children have access to a full-time, comprehensive summer program.

Coordinating body

DYCD—created through the merger of the Department of Youth Services and the Community Development Agency in 1996—works to provide quality youth and family programming across the city, including afterschool and summer programs, community-based services such as literacy programs for youth and adults, workforce development opportunities for youth (including a large-scale summer youth employment program), runaway and homeless youth outreach, and Beacon community centers.13 The department administers city, state, and federal funds to these programs and provides additional support.

The key organizing principles DYCD employed in implementing New York City’s OST Initiative included collaboration, quality, and accountability: DYCD created a comprehensive system that coordinates resources from 10 city agencies, most extensively with the city’s Department of Education to secure space and resources. To ensure high-quality programs, DYCD invests in technical assistance and capacity building as well as direct services. Finally, DYCD’s OST initiative introduced a new performance-based contract model that holds programs accountable for reaching specific participation goals and reduces the funding amount provided to programs that do not reach those goals.

City demographic information

New York City has an estimated population of 8,300,000.14 Per-capita income is approximately $30,415 per year,15 with an estimated 15.7 percent of families and 18.6 percent of individuals below the poverty level.16 New York City’s population is 44.6 percent White; 25.1 percent Black or African American; 27.5 percent Hispanic or Latino; 11.8 percent Asian; and 0.5 percent American Indian or Native Alaskan. 2.1 percent are of two or more races.17 A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 47.8 percent of the city population.18

Providence, RI

City initiative

Providence’s AfterZones, coordinated by the Providence After School Alliance (PASA), act as networks of programs that make up a “community campus”19 of programs, centralizing information and connecting schools, libraries, recreation, and community centers to organize and expand programs for Providence middle school youth. Youth have access to a wide range of activities throughout the year, both on school sites and in community organizations through the AfterZones. Transportation is provided to AfterZone participants throughout Providence. Each AfterZone is led by a community-based site management agency and is advised by a coordinating council comprising community, city, and school leaders. AfterZones share procedures in recruitment, scheduling, and other components to make it easier for youth, families, and providers to participate in the initiative.

Coordinating body

PASA is a partnership between public and nonprofit afterschool providers launched in 2004 by Mayor David N. Cicilline.20 The mission of PASA is to “expand and improve afterschool opportunities for the youth of Providence by organizing a system to ensure all youth access to high-quality afterschool programs and learning opportunities.”21 PASA serves as an intermediary organization that seeks to provide leadership, build systems and capacity, develop and revise policy, and leverage resources to achieve its mission.

PASA focuses its work on four systemic strategies to support the development of middle school youth: quality improvement and capacity building, including assessment, accountability, and the development of quality standards; the development of AfterZones for middle school youth; the development of a newly designed high school system (launched in 2009); and the creation of stronger connections with the school system through expanded learning opportunities.22

City demographic information

Providence has a population of approximately 170,000 people.23 The per-capita income of the city is $21,108, with 20.5 percent of families and 26 percent of individuals below poverty level. The population is 48.5 percent White; 14.5 percent Black or African American; 37.6 percent Hispanic or Latino; 5.7 percent Asian; and 0.9 percent American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander. 4.2 percent are of two or more races.24 Of the middle school population in the school district, 91 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 47.8 percent of Providence families.25

San Francisco, CA

City initiative

The San Francisco Afterschool for All (AFA) initiative brings together a variety of stakeholders, including city departments, the school district, private funders, afterschool providers, and parent organizations that work together voluntarily to increase access to high-quality afterschool options for elementary and middle school youth. In late 2005, Mayor Gavin Newsom and the superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District pledged that the city and school district would lead the initiative and focus on coordinating resources and efforts to increase access and quality. The initiative builds partnerships that facilitate sharing data, coordinating capacity building and professional development efforts, and targeting resources to meet youth and family needs.

Coordinating bodies

The AFA initiative is led by the city Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF) and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). DCYF uses local city tax dollars and a property tax set-aside called the Children’s Fund to issue grants to community-based organizations that operate more than 140 OST programs. In addition to making grants, DCYF helps coordinate policy and programming efforts, provides technical assistance, and monitors and evaluates programs. DCYF also grants funds for child care, youth employment, family support, violence prevention, youth empowerment, and wellness services, in addition to funding the following OST programming initiatives:

  • Rec Connect Initiative—created to provide a community hub of services for families in high-need neighborhoods, with community-based organizations providing OST programming in city recreation centers.
  • SF Beacon Initiative—a public–private partnership founded in 1994 that supports community centers in public schools. The centers promote education, career development, arts and recreation, leadership, and health in children and youth. Beacons receive core funding from DCYF; they also receive funding from SFUSD and private funders.
  • SF TEAM—an initiative started in 2001 to infuse literacy into afterschool programs, particularly programs that serve kindergarten through eighth-grade children and youth struggling academically. Funded by DCYF and SFUSD, the initiative provides oversight and technical assistance. Community-based organizations operate SF TEAM programs at 11 school-based afterschool sites throughout the city.

SFUSD also leads the AFA initiative. SFUSD operates its own set of afterschool programs, which are operated by district staff, called Child Development Center School-Age Care programs. SFUSD receives state and federal afterschool funding from the California Department of Education and contracts with community-based organizations to operate afterschool programs at schools (called ExCEL programs). SFUSD provides training workshops, technical assistance, and monitoring for its afterschool programs.

City demographic information

Approximately 800,000 people live in San Francisco.26 The per-capita income of San Francisco is $46,015,27 with 11 percent of individuals below the poverty level.28 The population is 54.5 percent White; 6.5 percent Black or African American; 14 percent Hispanic or Latino; 31.3 percent Asian; and 0.8 percent American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander. 3 percent are of two or more races.29 A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 45.2 percent of the city population.30

Washington, DC

City initiative

The Project My Time (PMT) initiative seeks to provide enriching and engaging afterschool, weekend, and summer programming for middle school students to increase the likelihood of their completing high school.31 PMT operates in 10 schools citywide. Each PMT site has a full-time site director who coordinates with multiple OST providers operating in each school building. The program operates daily from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m., and students receive a snack and homework assistance during program time.

Coordinating body

The DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation (“The Trust”) is “a public-private partnership chartered by the District to help a wide variety of organizations improve the quality, quantity, and accessibility of services and opportunities for every child in the city. [Its] vision is that each child in the District of Columbia is given every opportunity to develop and grow into a healthy, caring, and productive adult.”32 The Trust works to increase resources for youth and families, strengthen services for children and youth, and create an evaluation framework for these programs.

The Trust provides technical and financial assistance to many agencies and organizations serving DC’s youth. In fiscal year 2007, The Trust granted more than $18 million to community-based organizations such as parent centers, OST programs, youth entrepreneurship and older youth programs, summer camps, adult literacy programs, lifelong learning coaches, and charter school improvements.33 The Trust convenes public and private entities regularly and partners with programs to provide research and evaluation tools to DC’s youth-serving organizations. In its efforts to maintain and improve quality programming, The Trust has developed OST standards derived from lessons offered by programs nationwide, the experience of The Trust’s staff, and promising practices from DC’s best programs.34

City demographic information

Approximately 588,000 people live in the District of Columbia.35 Per-capita income is approximately $41,144 per year.36 The city is 36.1 percent White; 54.4 percent Black or African American; 8.5 percent Hispanic or Latino; 3.2 percent Asian; and 0.3 percent American Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, or Other Pacific Islander. 1.7 percent are of two or more races.37 A language other than English is spoken in the homes of 14.6 percent of the city population.38

Appendix B :Youth Participation Community of Practice

The Youth Participation Community of Practice was created for practitioners, researchers, and other innovative educators across the country to have the opportunity to share and learn new practices and thinking around recruiting and retaining older youth in OST activities. With representatives from 12 cities across the United States, the Youth Participation Community of Practice created a learning community, and its members acted as respondents and partners in our research about older youth and OST participation.

The group convened regularly through interactive audio conferences to share knowledge, challenges, and new ideas about a wide range of topics in the afterschool arena. Meetings include:

August 2008: Discussion of Conceptual Framework of Older Youth and OST Participation Study

October 2008: Family Engagement: Systems-level Strategies for the Role of Families in Afterschool Participation

December 2008: Recruitment and Social Marketing Strategies: How City Systems Can Support Increased Participation

April 2009: Using Participation Data and Management Information Systems (MIS) in Afterschool Systems: How Data Can Support Youth Participation Issues

June 2009: Building City-level Initiatives That Support Afterschool Youth Participation

September 2009 and April 2010: Study Findings

The following list of Youth Participation Community of Practice Members shows their organizational affiliation at the time of data collection.

Boston, MA

Mariel Gonzales
Vice President and COO, Boston After School & Beyond

Janette McKinnon
Deputy Director of Partners for Student Success, Boston After School & Beyond

Adam Shyevitch
Teen Initiative Director, Boston After School & Beyond

Cambridge, MA

Khari Milner
Director, Cambridge Public School & Afterschool Partnership, Cambridge Public Schools

Susan Richards
Out-of-School-Time Coordinator, The Agenda for Children, City of Cambridge

Joellen Scannell
Principal, Peabody School

Chicago, IL

James Chesire Director, Chicago Out-of-School Time Project, Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (FSS)

Cincinnati, OH

Jane Keller
President and CEO, Cincinnati Youth Collaborative

Rebecca Kelley
District Vice President, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati,
Executive Director, CincyAfterSchool

Deborah Rose-Milavec
Coordinator of Emerging Workforce Development Services, Southwest Ohio Region Workforce Investment Board

Julie Theodore Doppler
Director, CincyAfterSchool, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati

Denver, CO

Shirley Farnsworth
Director of Community Education, Denver Public Schools

Meredith Hayes
Youth Instructor, Catholic Charities, Archdiocese of Denver, CO

Maxine Quintana
Director of Student Programs, Mayor’s Office for Education and Children

Grand Rapids, MI

Ellen Arrowsmith
ELO Network Coordinator, Our Community’s Children

Lynn Heemstra
Executive Director, Our Community’s Children

New York, NY

Christopher Caruso
Assistant Commissioner, Out-of-School Time, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

Bonnie Rosenberg
Project Director, Out-of-School Time, NYC Office of the Mayor

Hal Smith
Director of Program Operations, Youth Services, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

Oakland, CA

Kasey Blackburn
Program Manager, Oakland SUCCESS, Afterschool Programs Office

Corey Newhouse
Consultant, Oakland SUCCESS, Afterschool Programs Office

Jane Nicholson
Executive Officer, Complementary Learning, Oakland Unified School District

Providence, RI

Elizabeth Devaney
Director, Quality Initiatives, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

Jean Pettengil
Site Supervisor, Bridgham Middle School; 21st CLCC Coordinator, John Hope Settlement House

Kuniko Yasutake
AfterZone Manager, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

San Francisco, CA

Asha Mehta
Director, San Francisco Beacon Initiative

Jo Mestelle
Director, Rec Connect Initiative

Laura Moye
Data & Evaluation Manager, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF)

Sandra Naughton
Senior Planner and Policy Analyst, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF)

Max Rocha
Senior Planner and Policy Analyst, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF)

St. Louis, MO

Ron Jackson
Assistant Executive Director, St. Louis For Kids

Robbyn Wahby
Education Liaison, Office of the Mayor

Claire Wyneken
Vice President, Wyman Center

Washington, DC

Charles Evans
Senior Program Officer, DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Jacquelyn Lendsey
Vice President, DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Meeta Sharma-Holt
Director, Project My Time, DC Children and Youth Investement Corporation (CYITC)

Carol Strickland
Director of Research and Evaluation, DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

National Program Representatives and Consultants

Abigail Diner
Director, Measurement & Planning, Program & Youth Development Services, Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Karen MacDonald
VP, Program & Youth Development Services, Boys & Girls Clubs of America

Pam Stevens
Senior Consultant, PS Consulting NOLA, LLC

Appendix C
Respondent Listi

Chicago, IL

Muriel Baptiste
Program Specialist, Region 2, After School Matters

Alfredo Calixto
Executive Director, Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development (BUILD)

James Chesire
Director, Chicago Out-of-School Time Project, Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (FSS)

Sally Csontos
Program Improvement Initiative Lead, Chicago Out-of-School Time Project, Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (FSS)

Rebecca Estrada
Director, Youth Options Unlimited, Erie Neighborhood House

Joshua Fulcher
Educational Programs Coordinator, Youth Options Unlimited, Erie Neighborhood House

Sandra Han
Senior Program Innovations Manager, Chicago Department of Family and Support Services (FSS)

Ray Legler
Director, Research and Evaluation, After School Matters

Miriam Martinez
Education Council Director, Mikva Challenge

Bernadette Nowakowski
Director, Children and Young Adult Services, Chicago Public Library

Mandee Polonsky
Manager, Enrichment Programs, Office of the Extended Learning Opportunities, Chicago Public Schools;
Executive Director, After-School All-Stars Chicago

David Sinski
Executive Director, After School Matters

Brenan Smith
Associate Director, Mikva Challenge

Charlie Tribe
Program Manager, Chicago Park District

Steve Weaver
Director, Region 2, After School Matters

Robin Willard
Young Adult Specialist, Chicago Public Library

Cincinnati, OH

Islord Allah
Co-founder and Director, Elementz

Deborah Mariner Allsop
Executive Director/CEO, FamiliesFORWARD

Jeff Edmondson
Executive Director, Strive (launched by the Knowledgeworks Foundation)

Steve Elliott
Director, High School Service-Learning Program, Mayerson Foundation

Shane Fletcher
Site Manager, Withrow University High School, FamiliesFORWARD

LaRue Harrington
Site Coordinator, South Avondale, Urban League of Greater Cincinnati

Jane Keller
President and CEO, Cincinnati Youth Collaborative

Rebecca Kelley
District Vice President, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati; Executive Director, CincyAfterSchool

Liz Mitchell
Club Director, Espy Boys and Girls Club

Patricia Nagelkirk
Director, Community Impact, United Way of Greater Cincinnati

Aaron Penn
College Student Participant, Elementz

Jennifer Pugh
Co-director, Elementz

Eileen Reed
President, Cincinnati Board of Education, Cincinnati Public Schools

Paula Sherman
Site Coordinator, Pleasant Hill Academy, YMCA of Greater Cincinnati

Jamell Taylor
Site Coordinator, Rockdale, Urban League of Greater Cincinnati

Michael Thomas
Superintendent of Recreation, Cincinnati Recreation Commission

Brandon “Abdullah” Willis
Program Director; Recording Studio Manager, Elementz

New York City, NY

Yael Bat-Chava
Director, Program Evaluation and Management Analysis, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

Yvonne Martinez Brathwaite
Director of Regional and National Programs, Partnership for After School Education (PASE)

Christopher Caruso
Assistant Commissioner, Out-of-School Time, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development

Danielle DiMare
Director of School and CBO Partnerships, NYC Department of Education

Steve Kessler
Afterschool Coordinator, Staten Island Jewish Community Center

Ellen O’Connell
Associate Director, Regional and National Programs, Partnership for After School Education (PASE)

Ji Young Park
Director, Groundwork for Youth, Groundwork, Inc.

Faisal Rahman
Director, Beacon and Work Readiness Programs, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development

Bonnie Rosenberg
Project Director, Out-of-School Time, NYC Office of the Mayor

Marsha Scipio
Director, Brooklyn Office, Legal Outreach

David Whyne
Associate Executive Director, Community Service, Sunnyside Community Services

Denice Williams
Assistant Commissioner, Capacity Building, NYC Department of Youth and Community Development

Peter Wilson
Director, College Readiness Program, Sunnyside Community Services

Shelly Wimpfheimer
Executive Director, Partnership for After School Education (PASE)

Carole Wu
Youth Department Associate; Assistant Director, College Readiness Program, Sunnyside Community Services

Judith Zangwill
Executive Director, Sunnyside Community Services

Providence, RI

Denise Carpenter
Executive Director, Providence Middle Schools

John Carvalho
Sergeant, Youth Services Bureau, Providence Police Department

Beth Cuhna
Executive Artistic Director, Traveling Theatre

Elizabeth Devaney
Director, Quality Initiatives, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

Sorrel Devine
Director, Resident Services, Providence Housing Authority

Patrick Duhon
Deputy Director, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

Doreen Grasso
Instructor, Cooking and Eating Club, Mt. Hope Learning Center

Rebekah Greenwald
Education Director, Apeiron Institute for Sustainable Living

Susan Kelley
Site Supervisor, Del Sesto Middle School, Providence YMCA Youth Services

Julie Lamin
Executive Director, KidzArt

Vanessa Miller
Director of Education, Curriculum, and Assessment; Facilitator, Young Actor’s Playground Traveling Theatre

Alejandro Molina
AfterZone Manager, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

Isaac Ogbomo
Executive Director, Raising Hope

Jean Pettengill
Site Supervisor, Bridgham Middle School, John Hope Settlement House

Ann-Marie Reddy
Executive Director, Mt. Hope Learning Center

Maryellen Snyder
Instructor, Sun, Cars and Fun; Apeiron Institute for Sustainable Living

Kuniko Yasutake
AfterZone Manager, Providence After School Alliance (PASA)

San Francisco, CA

Germaine Bond
Program Director, The Fellas and Just 4 Girls programs, Bayview/Hunter’s Point YMCA

Taylor Brady
Interim Executive Director, California School Age Consortium

Stephanie Choy
Member, Parents Advisory Council of San Francisco Board of Education; Afterschool for All (AFA) Advisory Council

Michelle Cusano
Director, Richmond Village Beacon, Richmond District Neighborhood Center

Carol R. Hill
Youth Services Programs Director, Richmond Village Beacon, Richmond District Neighborhood Center

Jeremy Lansing
Community Training Program Manager, Sports4Kids

Linda Lovelace
Director, Afterschool for All (AFA), San Francisco Unified School District; Afterschool for All Advisory Council

Julie Matsueda
Deputy Director, Programs, Japanese Community Youth Council

Asha Mehta
Director, San Francisco Beacon Initiative

Jo Mestelle
Director, Rec Connect Initiative

Laura Moye
Data & Evaluation Manager, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF)

Sandra Naughton
Senior Planner and Policy Analyst, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF);
Afterschool for All (AFA) Initiative

Erin Reedy
Associate Executive Director, Stonestown Family YMCA

Max Rocha
Senior Planner and Policy Analyst, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth & Their Families (DCYF)

Noelia Sanchez
Technology and Operations Director, Girlsource Technology and Leadership Program

Erika Tamura
Program Director, Japanese American Youth Services, Japanese Community Youth Council

Washington, DC

Shanita Burney
Associate Project Director, Project My Time, DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Goldie Deane
Director, Urban Arts Academy, Words Beats & Life

Ximena Hartsock
Deputy Chief Officer of Teaching and Learning, DC Public Schools

Katrina Hochstetler
Middle School Program Director, DC SCORES

Lynsey Wood Jeffries
Executive Director, Higher Achievement Program, DC Metro

Rahaman Kilpatrick
Director of In-school/After-school Operations, LifeSTARTS

Ellen London
Communications Manager, DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Amy Nakamoto
Executive Director, DC SCORES

Victor Reinoso
Deputy Mayor for Education, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education

Katherine Roboff
Director of Site Operations, Higher Achievement Program, DC Metro

Meeta Sharma-Holt
Director, Project My Time, DC Children and Youth Investement Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Nicholette Smith-Bligen
Chief of Staff; Vice President of Operations, DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Curtis Watkins
Founder and Executive Director, LifeSTARTS

Keith Watson
Consultant, DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Gail Williams
Deputy Director, Higher Achievement Program, DC Metro

Millicent Williams
President and CEO, DC Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation (CYITC)

Robin Winer
Program Development, Multicultural Career Intern Program (MCIP)

Appendix D
Sample Selection and Description

This appendix outlines how we selected programs for participation in the study and describes the full sample of 198 programs that responded to the survey.

Participation Rate Calculations

We asked each city to send us individual-level daily attendance data covering the 2007–2008 school year. In order to calculate average attendance rates for different subgroups of youth, we asked each city to send the records with demographic information attached, and with enrollment and exit dates, so that we would be able to calculate the attendance rate as the proportion of days attended out of the possible days that the youth could attend.ii

Table D.1 provides a rough summary of how we calculated the average attendance rates within each city. Two of the cities entered their data, and were therefore able to extract their data, in a format that met our request for attendance information. Three cities gathered daily attendance information, but they did not track enrollment or exit information electronically, nor did they have data that would allow us to know exactly how many days a program met. In these cases, we estimated possible days of attendance universally for all youth in the same program but used the maximum number of days that any youth in the program actually did attend as the base upon which a participation rate was calculated. The database of one of those three cities contained very few programs for middle school, so we needed to ask the city representatives to identify additional middle school programs based on their knowledge of those programs. Finally, one city had established its own way of examining participation rates to align with the needs of its funder, viewing participation as the proportion of youth in a program who met a certain number of expected hours of participation; we used that city’s format and definition.

In the next section, we provide more detail on how we selected programs for the survey sample, based on these various city databases.

Sample Selection

To learn about practices that engage and sustain older youth participation, we sought programs that were already successful in these areas; therefore, we used the city-level MIS from the six participating cities to identify moderate- to high-participation programs. In addition to serving middle and/or high school youth, to be eligible for selection, these programs were required to

  • Have at least seven participants
  • Meet a minimum number of days, which differed by cityiii
  • Have an MIS participation rate of at least 50 percent in most cases, with 44 percent the lowest rate included in two citiesiv,v

Of the 362 programs that met the above criteria, we also asked that they

  • Operate during the school year, alone or in combination with summer programming
  • Not be solely focused on the prevention of particular behaviors and issues (e.g., teen pregnancy, substance use)


A total of 346 programs met these additional criteria and received a link to the program survey. Of these programs, 198 (57 percent) completed the survey. All results from statistical analyses (e.g., correlations and regression analyses) presented throughout the report reflect responses by this group of 198 programs, referred to throughout as the “survey sample.”

Table D.2 shows how participation of the selected “survey sample” compared with that of all of the programs serving older youth for which the cities collect participation data (the “full sample”).vi We also display the same information for our “interview sample,” those programs that we visited in person. The table shows the range and average of all programs across all cities as well as how the cities differed. (To calculate the city averages, we averaged the participation rate across all the programs within a city and then took the mean across the cities.)


As would be expected, given that we picked the sampled programs that met a minimum level for participation, the average participation rate for the survey sample is higher than that for the full database. In turn, the interview sample has an even higher participation rate. The table also shows that we found similar rates of participation for the survey and interview samples between high school and middle school youth; however, the rates within the larger, full-city MIS database indicate that high school youth, on average, participate with greater intensity.

There is not much difference when comparing the program-level rates with the city-level rates. Because we received databases with variation in the number of programs within each city for which there were data, there was a chance that the program averages could be very different from the city-level averages. For instance, if a city’s MIS included a very large number of programs relative to the other cities, then its data would weigh more heavily in the program averages and could potentially pull the program average up or down. That did not turn out to be the case, however. In the text of the report, we present only the program-level analyses.

Program Sample Description

Program overview

The programs that responded to our survey have been operating in their current locations over a wide range of time periods, with half being fairly new (operating 5 or fewer years) and about 5 percent operating for more than 40 years. Only 36 percent are based in schools; 64 percent are community-based programs.

Many programs in our sample do not only operate during afterschool hours—almost one-third (29 percent) are open on weekends and during the week, and almost half (46 percent) serve youth throughout the summer as well as during the school year. The vast majority (86 percent) operate on certain days and times; only 14 percent are drop-in programs.

The median annual budget of participating programs was about $150,000, but varied widely with about 17 percent reporting incomes of $10,000 or less and about 9 percent reporting budgets of $1,000,000 or higher.


Corresponding with the wide range in program budgets, programs range from very small to quite large—serving from 2 to 6,400 youth, with a median of 90 youth participants. Only 10 programs (e.g., YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs) serve 1,000 or more youth. Most of these youth are ethnic minorities and/or economically disadvantaged. In the average program, 49 percent of youth are African American; 27 percent are Latino; 10 percent are Asian; 9 percent are White; 4 percent are mixed race; fewer than 1 percent are Native American; and 1 percent are from other ethnic backgrounds. In about two-thirds of programs, more than 75 percent of participants are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Although programs appear to be reaching many youth who could benefit from their services, in most cases the programs do not operate in particularly underserved areas; only about one-quarter (26 percent) are the only program in their neighborhood with their particular focus.

While many programs that serve teens also serve younger children (39 percent), 61 percent serve only teens. Twenty-nine percent serve only middle school youth, 12 percent serve only high school students, and 14 percent serve both middle and high school youth. In addition, 6 percent serve both high school youth and young adults. Fewer than 1 percent serve only youth who are past high school.


Programs reported staffing their programs with a median of a little over six full-time equivalent (FTE) paid staff and four volunteers who work directly with youth participants. Of these, four FTE staff and two volunteers spend at least some of their time working with older youth. The staff-to-youth ratio is about 1 FTE staff member for every 17 youth participants in the program.

Programs also reported their staff-to-youth ratios within given activities separately for youth of different ages. Their reports suggest that the number of youth served per staff member in given activities increases slightly as youth get older: The median number of youth for each staff member in activities for elementary school youth is about 12, about 13 for middle school youth, and 15 for high school-aged youth (see Table D.3).


Staff members came to these programs with varied experiences and characteristics that could contribute to successful work with youth. For example, 62 percent of programs reported that most or all of their staff members who plan or lead activities for older youth reflect the cultural background of the youth they work with, and just over half (55 percent) reported that most or all staff members came to the program having previously worked with older youth. A quarter of the programs hired people who were neighborhood residents (27 percent), and slightly more than one-third (35 percent) of the programs hired people with training in cultural competence or with some type of content specialization.

Programs either offer or require many different types of training for their staff. The vast majority offer training in curriculum and activity planning and implementation (92 percent), regular monitoring and feedback on activity implementation (91 percent), youth and child development (86 percent), or classroom/group behavioral management (87 percent). A large majority offer training in health and safety (83 percent), mediation and conflict resolution (79 percent), or family engagement (67 percent). In more than half of the programs (58 percent), activity leaders had received an average of 10 or more hours of training in the last year. In most programs, activity leaders are given frequent opportunities to meet together without youth to discuss program-related issues. In just over half of the programs (54 percent), staff members meet for this reason at least twice a month.


The programs in our sample reported offering youth a wide variety of activities (see Table D.4). At least two-thirds offer enrichment activities (e.g., painting, drama, music), academic activities, opportunities for leadership development, or recreational activities. Programs also showed variety within their offerings: 72 percent reported offering four or more different types of these activities for youth to choose from. Youth participants seem to take advantage of the variety: In 45 percent of programs, 100 percent of youth were involved in more than one type of activity.


The programs offer a wide array of targeted services for youth. The most common are life-skills training and computer/technology programs, offered in at least two-thirds of programs (see Table D.5).


The programs also offer many leadership opportunities for youth, with at least two-thirds offering opportunities to volunteer in the program, have input into designing activities, or design or lead activities for their peers or younger youth (see Table D.6). Youth did not always take advantage of these activities, however: Only 20 percent of programs reported that all participating youth were involved in one or more leadership activities.


Beyond offering activities, programs strive to develop strong relationships between staff members and youth participants; only 3 percent of programs reported that youth–staff relationship building was not an explicit goal of the program. Programs reported fostering these relationships in a variety of ways: More than two-thirds (70 percent) reported that youth have opportunities to interact informally with staff members outside of specific activities, 81 percent provide opportunities to interact one-on-one with staff members, and about half (52 percent) reported that adults are assigned groups of older youth to look out for and develop relationships with. About one-fifth of programs (21 percent) use one of these strategies, 47 percent use two, and 29 percent use all three to foster relationships between program staff and older youth. In addition, more than half (54 percent) reported linking youth with mentors (e.g., college, career, academic).

The vast majority of programs (88 percent) implement a variety of strategies to get to know youth outside of the confines of the program. Examples include collecting youth participants’ report cards (58 percent), meeting one-on-one to see how things are going (61 percent), making school visits if needed (38 percent), contacting parents regularly (55 percent), or publicly recognizing good grades or other accomplishments outside the program (51 percent). A little more than two-thirds (70 percent) reported using more than one of these strategies.

Recruitment and retention

Programs reported using several strategies to recruit older youth for involvement in the program (see Table D.7). The most common strategies, used by at least two-thirds of the programs, were asking youth to refer their friends (87 percent), visiting schools to get referrals (72 percent), and attending community events (70 percent). Programs typically use more than one of these strategies, and 60 percent use five or more.


To ensure active participation, most programs contact absent youth either formally (e.g., 55 percent reported that staff members are responsible for contacting youth who have been absent a certain number of times) or informally (e.g., 39 percent reported that staff members sometimes try to get in touch with absent youth). Several programs offer incentives for active participation, including field trips (65 percent), awards or gift certificates (54 percent), and formal public recognition (47 percent). Fewer reported offering jobs (21 percent), financial incentives (21 percent), or school credit (14 percent).

Engaging parents

Although the programs we visited reported experiencing great challenges as they tried to engage parents, responses to our survey suggested that programs are not simply giving up on this goal (see Table D.8). At least 90 percent reported inviting parents to program activities, sending information home to parents, or talking with parents over the phone. Eighty-two percent reported using five or more of the strategies we asked about. About half (52 percent) reported that they are in regular contact with at least a quarter of participants’ parents, and 20 percent have a parent liaison.


Initiative-related activities

The programs in our sample had been accessing funding or services through their city’s OST initiative for a median of about a year. Programs ranged from never having accessed the initiative (6 percent) to working with the initiative for a little more than 8 years (2 percent).

We asked programs several questions about their use of the city initiative and how they felt it had helped support the program’s participation goals. As shown in Table D.9, the most frequent initiative-related activities reported by programs included attending workshops or trainings (92 percent) and conferences (89 percent) organized by the initiative. Other common initiative supports for programs include being observed by the initiative (87 percent) and receiving resources and materials distributed by the initiative (85 percent). Only about one-third of programs reported receiving help with fundraising and development.


Overall, providers reported that the initiative had helped them achieve their goals for youth. About two-thirds (68 percent) strongly agreed that the initiative helped to improve outcomes for older youth, 58 percent strongly agreed that the initiative helped increase enrollment of older youth, and the same proportion felt that the initiative helped increase engagement levels of older youth.

We also asked the programs whether they had received help in 26 different areas. The 10 areas in which the most programs reported receiving help are described in Table D.10. More than two-thirds of programs reported that the initiative had helped to increase connections with other organizations, provided their program with funding, or given them access to participation data.


Appendix E
Analysis Description

To examine which program characteristics were most strongly associated with retention, we conducted a series of regression analyses. Our outcome measure was the proportion of older youth participants who attended the program for 12 or more months. We asked programs to include breaks in attendance. For example, if a youth participates for 1 month, then doesn’t participate for 2, and then participates again for 1 month, that would yield a 2-month duration. Thus, shorter-term programs could have 12-month participants if, for example, youth attended a session, then came back to subsequent sessions of the activity, even after a break in attendance.

We considered 14 sets of practice measures to include in these analyses, corresponding to those factors that our literature review indicated were important for retaining youth

  • Recruitment
  • Safety
  • Peer interactions
  • Types of activities offered
  • Types of services offered
  • Staffing
  • Program quality
  • Rewards and incentives for participation
  • Adult support (staff–youth relationships)
  • Keeping up with youth participants’ lives outside of the program
  • Leadership opportunities
  • Evaluation efforts
  • Parent engagement
  • Interaction with the out-of-school time (OST) initiative

Within each of these practice areas, we examined bivariate correlations between participation (i.e., the proportion of youth who participated 12 or more months) and all variables that fell under each practice measure heading. For example, to measure parent engagement, we examined correlations between participation and 13 practices related to parent engagement—including having one-on-one meetings with parents, holding parent events, offering courses for parents, and having a parent liaison, as well as the proportion of parents with whom the program is in regular contact. Additionally, we included a variable indicating the number of activities the program implements to try to engage parents. We determined which measure within each of these practice groups had the strongest association with participation and used that measure in the regression to represent its practice group or construct. In two areas—safety and interactions with the OST initiative—the correlations between all related variables and participation were relatively weak, so they were not included in the final models.

We then tested regression models that included the 12 practice measures most strongly correlated with participation, namely

  • The number of strategies used to recruit older youth (ranging from 1–8)
  • The number of opportunities for peer interactions offered by the program (0–5)
  • The number of types of activities offered to older youth (1–8)
  • The number of types of services offered to older youth (1–11)
  • The staff-to-youth ratio (calculated value ranging from 0–.71)
  • How often activity leaders meet for 30 minutes or more to discuss program-related issues (6-point scale ranging from “never” to “weekly”)
  • The number of rewards and incentives offered by the program (0–6)
  • The number of strategies used by programs to build youth–staff relationships (0–3)
  • The number of ways staff keep informed about youth participants’ lives outside of the program (0–5)
  • The number of leadership opportunities offered by the program (1–9)
  • Whether the program uses data for staff development and training (yes/no)
  • The number of activities/events offered by the program to engage parents (1–9)

We also included five structural variables. These structural variables were included in all regression models that followed, whether or not they continued to be significant predictors of participation once other variables were included in the model:

  • Whether the program served at least 100 youth (yes/no)
  • Whether the program was school-based (yes/no)
  • Whether the program served only older youth (yes/no)
  • Number of months per year the program is open (out of 12)
  • Number of days per week the program is open (out of 7)

After conducting the first regression model, which included the five structural variables and the 12 practice measures, we omitted the practice measures that were most weakly related to participation. We excluded measures one by one, until we achieved our “strongest model,” which took into account the five structural variables and only those practice measures that made significant contributions to participation. As such, any measure that was statistically significant in this regression model was important in predicting participation, even after accounting for the five structural variables and the other practice measures that remained in the model at that point.

We tested these models on three different groups of programs: the full sample, programs that reported on their high school students, and programs that reported on their middle school participants. In the full sample, larger programs (i.e., those with 100 or more participants) and programs that were not school-based had higher proportions of youth who participated for at least 12 months. The more successful programs offered youth more leadership opportunities (the strongest correlate of participation in this model), used more strategies to keep up with youth participants’ lives outside of the program, and were more likely to provide staff members with at least 30 minutes a week to meet and discuss the program.

The programs that reported on their high school and middle school youth each contained different variables that remained in their respective final regression models (i.e., variables that were significantly associated with participation rates once all other measures were included). As such, we wanted to test whether these variables were significantly more important in predicting participation in either the middle school or high school samples. To do this, we conducted a series of regression analyses that included our five structural variables and: (a) an interaction term for each of those five (one-by-one in five separate regression analyses); or (b) one additional variable (e.g., number of activities, number of services, etc.) and an interaction term between that variable and high school/middle school status.

Of the first five regression analyses that tested whether any of the structural variables made significantly larger or smaller contributions to the middle school or high school models, only one was significant: The number of months open was more important (in a positive direction) for high school programs than middle school programs.

The second set of 12 regression analyses tested whether any of the additional variables differed in their contributions to the high school and middle school models. None of this second set of regression analyses yielded results that suggested a significant difference in the strength of association between the variable of interest and participation rates in programs responding about their high school versus middle school youth (i.e., in no case was the interaction term significant). Therefore, we concluded that these variables were similarly important in these two sets of programs.

Interestingly, in our initial exploration of what was significantly associated with retention, we did not find a correlation between the intensity rate (the days per session attended) calculated using the MIS data and the retention rate calculated from the survey data. This was true for the overall survey sample, as well as for the disaggregated middle and high school samples. We did find, however, that the MIS intensity rate was correlated with the survey ratings of the proportion of youth who come to the program every day, providing some validity to the respondents’ ratings of their programs’ youth participation rates. One plausible explanation for the lack of association is the nature of programming for older youth, as noted in the text.

Appendix F:
Twenty-eight Programs/Organizations Interviewed

Chicago, IL

Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development (BUILD), Inc.

Since 1969, BUILD, Inc. has worked in some of Chicago’s toughest neighborhoods giving at-risk youth alternatives to the violence that takes away their positive potential. Applying a model of positive youth development, BUILD seeks to redirect the behavior of gang-affiliated youth and potential gang recruits in order to improve their chances of leading fulfilling lives. BUILD’s mission is to engage youth at risk, in the schools and on the streets, so they can realize their educational and career potential and contribute to the stability, safety, and well-being of local communities. BUILD serves more than 3,500 youth annually in nine Chicago neighborhoods and throughout Cook County through its rehabilitation program in the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center. BUILD’s comprehensive program model includes prevention, intervention, and BUILDing Futures (college preparation, career readiness, and leadership development).

Youth Options Unlimited at Erie Neighborhood House

Erie Neighborhood House started as a church in 1870 and has evolved with the changing needs of the community into a nonprofit organization that works to support and provide resources for low-income, immigrant families. Erie House serves more than 5,000 participants per year through educational programming. The mission of Erie Neighborhood House is “to promote a just and inclusive society by strengthening low-income, primarily Latino families through skill building, access to critical resources, advocacy, and collaborative action.”39 Every year, the Youth Department, or YOU (Youth Options Unlimited), serves more than 150 youth between sixth and twelfth grades. It concentrates on seven areas: sports and recreation, academics, life skills, mentoring, parent involvement, noncore services, and leadership development. The YOU provides an enriching alternative to the streets after school with its wide variety of Expanded Learning Programs.

Mikva Challenge

Founded in 1997, the Mikva Challenge is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that works with underserved Chicago high school youth to develop civic engagement and leadership skills so that they become active leaders in their communities. Mikva Challenge seeks to cultivate and strengthen civic leadership through programs that encourage youth to participate in three areas of civic engagement: policy making, activism, and electoral participation. Based on the belief that “the best way to learn leadership and democracy is to experience both,”40 the mission of the Mikva Challenge is to “develop the next generation of civic leaders, activists, and policy-makers.”41

Cincinnati, OH


Elementz is a community-based hip-hop organization that provides youth and young adults between ages 14 to 24 with opportunities to explore, create, and excel in the hip-hop arts. Programming includes learning and supporting peer education in activities such as graffiti arts, music recording and production, hip-hop dance, and DJing, as well as opportunities for academic and college-preparatory mentoring and support. Elementz provides a safe, family-like space that fosters leadership development among staff members and youth participants and offers youth from Cincinnati neighborhoods access to state-of-the-art equipment, artists, and instructors.

Espy Boys and Girls Club at Oyler Community Learning Center

The Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Cincinnati provide afterschool and summer programming for youth in eight locations in the Cincinnati area. The mission of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Cincinnati is to “create hope, opportunity and foster civic engagement by enabling all young people, especially those who need us most, where they need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.”42 The Espy Boys and Girls Club, located at Oyler Community Learning Center, has numerous afterschool academic and enrichment activities as well as a special teen center for older youth to focus on age-specific programming and development.

Families FORWARD

The Children’s Protective Service of the Ohio Humane Society—doing business as FamiliesFORWARD—is a charter agency of the United Way of Greater Cincinnati, formerly known as the Community Chest. For more than 130 years, the Children’s Protective Service has worked with schools to support healthy families in Cincinnati, especially families and youth who have suffered from neglect or abuse. With a new name and a new preventative focus, FamiliesFORWARD has a mission to develop healthy, educated, and supported youth, and to serve as “a broadly implemented model for successful school-based, family-centered programs.”43

Powel Crosley, Jr. YMCA at Pleasant Hill Academy index.shtml

Powell Crosley YMCA, part of the YMCA of Greater Cincinnati, is the lead agency for the Community Learning Center (CLC) at the Pleasant Hill Academy, a preschool through eighth-grade school. Through its work with the CLC, Powel Crosley coordinates academic and enrichment activities at the school. Pleasant Hill has a magnet college preparatory curriculum for the older elementary and middle school students.

Urban League of Greater Cincinnati at South Avondale School
Urban League of Greater Cincinnati at Rockdale School


The Urban League of Greater Cincinnati, an affiliate of the National Urban League, was founded in 1949 with a mission to “eliminate the barriers of racism and level the playing field for all African Americans and others at risk by promoting their economic self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship through effective leadership in the areas of comprehensive employment, youth and family development, and advocacy.”44As part of their work toward the organization’s mission, the Urban League partners with Community Learning Centers and other nonprofit and community-based organizations to support programming that emphasizes leadership, networking, volunteering, and youth and family academic and social development. The Urban League serves as the lead agency that runs Cincy- AfterSchool programs at the South Avondale and Rockdale schools.

New York, NY



Groundwork was founded in 2002 in Brooklyn, with a mission “to support young people living in high poverty urban communities as they develop their strengths, skills, talents and competencies through effective experiential learning and work programs.”45 Groundwork offers extensive afterschool and enrichment programs for middle and high school students, including literacy skill development, community service projects, tutoring and recreational activities, and an intensive, four-year Groundwork for Success program that supports academic achievement in high school and college, leadership development, and concentrated support with the college application process.

I.S. 49 JCC/Beacon program—Staten Island Jewish Community Center (JCC)

The I.S. 49 JCC/Beacon program is run through the Staten Island Jewish Community Center (JCC), an organization that is “dedicated to encouraging harmony throughout the community by providing facilities and programs that are open to all regardless of race, religion, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or political affiliation.”46 Located in the north shore region of Staten Island, the I.S. 49 JCC/Beacon program provides more than 1,800 youth and adults monthly enrichment activities and resources, including afterschool, evening, and Saturday programming, as well as mental and physical health supports and services.

Legal Outreach

Founded in 1983, Legal Outreach is a community-based organization that supports eighth- through twelfth-grade students from underserved communities of New York City through an intensive legal education and academic program. In partnership with law schools, law firms, public interest organizations, and volunteers from various branches of the legal profession, Legal Outreach uses law education to develop youth leadership, self-confidence, and academic success and to encourage advancement toward higher education.

College Readiness Program at Sunnyside Community Services

Sunnyside Community Services’ College Readiness Program prepares high school students and recent graduates, ages 14 to 21, for the college admissions process. The low-cost program is designed to provide participants with a well-rounded understanding of the higher education system in order to make academic choices that will benefit them in the future. Through regular and advanced SAT classes, college/university admissions and financial aid workshops, college trips, college essay and application building sessions, reading/writing seminars, creative writing seminars, and individual advisement, students become well-versed in college admissions criteria, build their skills for standardized examinations (e.g., SATs), improve their writing, locate scholarship opportunities, and complete necessary applications for college/university admissions and financial aid. Since 1974, Sunnyside Community Services has served youth, adults, and families in Queens with social services and educational programming such as English language learning courses and intergenerational tutoring, mentoring, and relationship-building programs.

Providence, RI

Cooking and Eating Club—Mt. Hope Learning Center

The Mt. Hope Learning Center is a community-based organization that seeks to “provide a safe environment in which the children and adults of the community can learn skills that will enable them to enhance their quality of life and have more productive futures.”47 In partnership with Providence After School Alliance, the Mt. Hope Learning Center offers the Cooking and Eating Club afterschool program for Providence middle school students. Youth learn cooking skills and make a variety of breakfast, lunch, and dinner foods, while having the opportunity to enjoy their creations in a supportive, educational group setting.

Knight’s Kick Soccer—Raising Hope


The Knight’s Kick Soccer program is offered through Raising Hope, Inc., “a community-based nonprofit organization dedicated to providing afterschool and out-of-school time activities to minority children and youth for physical, intellectual, social, moral, and cultural development.”48 Along with other arts and enrichment activities offered through Raising Hope, Knight’s Kick Soccer gives Providence youth the opportunity to engage in team-building and sports skills, motivating them to pursue and excel in soccer while also strengthening social skills, academics, and other aspects of their development.


TeenzArt is an arts and drawing program, under the KidzArt umbrella of creative arts enrichment programs, offered by an organization of Providence artist educators. The organization’s motto is that “if you can dream, you can draw,” and through the TeenzArt program, youth learn and practice drawing techniques and ways to focus the mind through relaxation, breathing, and concentration exercises. Other programs and activities include a jewelry-making workshop and an exploration of other artistic outlets. Instructors incorporate academic learning and concepts into the projects, using works of art to tie into skills learned during the school day.

Sun, Cars and Fun—Apeiron Institute

Sun, Cars and Fun is an afterschool enrichment activity for middle school students, provided by the Apeiron Institute, an organization that seeks to promote sustainable living through teaching sustainable practices to schools, businesses, and communities in Rhode Island. Students who participate in Sun, Cars and Fun learn about recycling, sustainability, and environmental science while exploring the outdoors and finding fun and new ways to build small cars and other objects out of recycled or reusable materials.

Young Actor’s Playground—Traveling Theatre

The Traveling Theatre uses the arts as a vehicle to engage youth in creative learning by teaching and strengthening cooperative learning, literacy, problem solving, creativity, coping skills, and the self-confidence to face everyday challenges. The Young Actor’s Playground (YAP) is one of 18 arts enrichment programs offered to youth in kindergarten through twelfth grades throughout the state of Rhode Island. YAP offers a broad overview of basic theatre skills such as improvisation, pantomime, and movement while promoting self-expression and civic awareness.

San Francisco, CA


GirlSource is a nonprofit organization that has provided leadership and employment opportunities for low-income, high school-age girls in the San Francisco area since 1998.

Through the Technology and Leadership and Bound for Success programs, students benefit from paid job experience, skill building, individualized support for social and academic achievement, and life and career counseling.

Japanese American Youth Services (JAYS)

JAYS is one of several youth programs offered through the Japanese Community Youth Council, an organization that has been serving San Francisco families since 1970. Through leadership and personal development activities, the JAYS program seeks to “empower youth by supporting their development as resources for themselves, their peers, their families, and their community.”49 Students participate in community service projects, trainings, and workshops where they learn and discuss topics such as conflict resolution, facilitation and communication skills, mental and physical health, and college preparation skills.

Richmond Village Beacon

The Richmond Village Beacon, a program of the Richmond District Neighborhood Center, was founded in San Francisco in 1998 with a mission to “provide a safe, fun, and supportive environment in the Richmond District for all youth and adults to explore and reach their full potential through youth development programming, supportive services, and adult enrichment activities in a school-based setting.”50 Through programming for people of all ages, the Richmond Village Beacon seeks to promote and foster a diverse, inclusive, and strong sense of community in its neighborhood.

Stonestown YMCA

The Stonestown YMCA is a full-facility YMCA that has served a community within San Francisco since 1954, offering myriad programs, courses, and other resources. Stonestown’s After School Enrichment Programs (ASEP) are free programs focused on academics, enrichment, and recreation, offered at neighboring elementary and middle schools. Activities include creative writing, dance, language classes, and leadership and community service. ASEPs are a collaboration between Stonestown, After School for All, and the Department of Children, Youth & Their Families.

The Fellas and Just 4 Girls programs at YMCA— Bayview Hunter’s Point

The YMCA in the Bayview Hunter’s Point area of San Francisco has two gender-specific programs—The Fellas boys program and the Just 4 Girls program—that are focused on leadership development, college access, career planning, and social and academic support. Both programs seek to build self-esteem and leadership skills and work to support positive youth development.

Washington, DC


DC SCORES seeks to create a positive connection to school and community, inspire a commitment to creative expression, and motivate students to live healthy lifestyles through its program model that emphasizes creativity through poetry, physical activity through soccer, and positive changes in the community through service learning. DC SCORES is the flagship site of America SCORES, the nation’s largest afterschool soccer and literacy program.

Higher Achievement Program

The Higher Achievement Program provides middle school youth from underserved areas with year-round academic enrichment programs and preparation for top high school placement. Each year, hundreds of students in Washington, DC, Virginia, and Maryland undergo more than 650 hours of rigorous academic training. The mission of the Higher Achievement Program is “to develop academic skills, behaviors, and attitudes in academically motivated and underserved middle school children to improve their grades, test scores, attendance, and opportunities—resulting in acceptance to college preparatory high schools.”51

LifeSTARTS Youth & Family Services

LifeSTARTS Youth & Family Services provides mentoring, advocacy, academic, and social support and services to more than 1,000 youth and families annually in the Washington, DC area. LifeSTARTS promotes academic and social success with programming both in school and after school for youth ages 5 to 17. Formerly known as The East Capitol Center for Change, the organization became LifeSTARTS in 2007 with a commitment to engage and empower the community in working together to address the complex social issues faced by youth and families in the community.

Multicultural Career Intern Program (MCIP)

The Multicultural Career Intern Program (MCIP) began in 1979 as a job-skills-development school for the Columbia Heights community in Washington, DC. In 1989, MCIP merged with a DC public school to become Bell Multicultural High School. MCIP now serves more than 1,300 middle and high school students with a commitment to research-based practice, academic achievement, and community building. Along with an emphasis on academic enrichment, MCIP seeks to develop youth participants’ life skills and to strengthen family connections.

Words Beats & Life

Words Beats & Life focuses on the transformative power of hip-hop arts to enhance individual development and self-expression, support academic and personal achievement, and build a strong community. Originating at a hip-hop conference at the University of Maryland in 2000, Words Beats & Life officially became a nonprofit organization and developed its first program, The DC Urban Arts Academy, in 2003. Words Beats & Life runs multimedia hip-hop arts programming, researches and produces a global journal of hip-hop, and works with universities to infuse hip-hop arts into the higher education setting.

Appendix G:
Practices and Features of High-Retention Programs

This appendix, a companion to Chapter 2, covers analysis of survey data from 198 programs. We were interested in the practices, strategies, and structures that were significantly associated with longer retention (participation for 12 months or longer) among older youth participants. As a first step, we wanted to identify what aspects differed between high- and lower-retention programs. We defined high-retention programs as those that retained 50 percent or more of their older youth for a year or more and lower-retention programs as those that did not; high-retention programs made up 42 percent of our sample.

The tables in this appendix present the usage rates of high- and lower-retention programs for a number of practices and structural features. The significance levels presented in the tables are based on our bivariate analysis comparing high- and low-retention variables. Many of these differences disappeared when we conducted our multivariate analyses; nevertheless, we present these tables for descriptive purposes. See Chapter 1 for more description of our data analysis and Chapter 2 for additional explanation of these analyses.










Appendix Notes

i. Titles and organizational affiliations correspond to data collection period.

ii. For example, if a youth enrolls after the start of a program, his or her attendance rate could be calculated to be lower than it should be if we could not eliminate the days prior to the youth participant’s enrollment from the total possible days of attendance.

iii. Programs/Activities had to have taken place for a minimum number of days (i.e., we did not include 1-day events or very short-term programs). In New York City and Washington, DC, programs had to have met for at least 18 days during the school year. In Providence, the required minimum of days possible varied by the session during which the program/activity took place—approximately half the number of weeks that the session lasted. Programs/activities that took place during the fall or winter session were required to have met at least 6 days; spring session programs/activities had to have met at least 3 days.

iv. On average, about three-quarters (74.7 percent) of the programs in each city met the minimum 44 percent criteria, but this ranged from just under half (49.3 percent) to all the programs in a city meeting the minimum cutoff.

v. Because Cincinnati’s initiative has fewer programs for older youth than the other initiatives in this study, we used this participation rate cutoff where data were available and developed a reputational sample for the rest of the survey and interview sample.

vi. The table does not include data from New York City or Cincinnati. The participation calculations in New York City were not comparable to those of the other cities; because the bulk of the programs surveyed from Cincinnati were selected based on nominations, participation data were often not available.

1. City of Chicago. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: City of Chicago

2. City of Chicago. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: http://www. (“Who We Fund”)

3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact Finder

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Cincinnati Public Schools. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

8. CincyAfterSchool. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

9. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact Finder (

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. NYC Department of Youth and Community Development. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: html/about/about_dycd.shtml

14. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact Finder (

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid.

19. Providence After School Alliance. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

20. Ibid.

21. Providence After School Alliance. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

22. Providence After School Alliance. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

23. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact F​inder (

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact Finder (

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2008, from: projectmytime.asp

32. DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2008, from:

33. DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2008, from:

34. DC Children & Youth Investment Trust Corporation. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from:

35. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006–2008 American Community Survey. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2009, from: Fact Fi​nder (

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Ibid.

39. Erie Neighborhood House. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:​?objectTypeID=7&objectID=188

40. Mikva Challenge. Retrieved Oct. 26, 2009, from: http://www.

41. Ibid.

42. Boys & Girls Club of Greater Cincinnati. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

43. Families FORWARD . Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from: http:// www.familiesfo​

44. Urban League of Greater Cincinnati. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

45. Groundwork, Inc. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from: Groundw​​ork Inc.

46. JCC of Staten Island. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

47. Mt. Hope Learning Center. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

48. Raising Hope, Inc. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from: http://www.r​

49. Japanese Community Youth Council. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

50. Richmond Village Beacon. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

51. Higher Achievement Program. Retrieved Aug. 28, 2009, from:

< < Previous |