Contents

• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
• Chapter I: Introduction
• Chapter II: The AfterZone Neighborhood Campus Service Delivery Model
• Chapter III: Engaging Middle School Youth
• Chapter IV: Quality Improvement
• Chapter V: The Search for Sustainability
• Chapter VI: Conclusions
• Endnotes
• Appendices

Click here to download the full report:
 AfterZones: Creating a Citywide System

1. Vandell, D., E. Reisner and K. Pierce. 2007. Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings From the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Irvine, CA: University of California and Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.; Durlak, J.A. and R.P. Weissberg. 2007. The Impact of After-School Programs That Promote Personal and Social Skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL); Harvard Family Research Project. February 2008. “After School Programs in the 21st Century: Their Potential and What it Takes to Achieve It.” Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 10, 1–12; Harvard Family Research Project. August 2004. “Understanding and Measuring Attendance in Out-of-School Time Programs.” Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 7, 1–12; and RAND. 2005. Research Brief: Making Out-of-School Time Matter. RAND. Retrieved 2009 from RAND at www.rand.org.

2. Huang, D., B. Gibbons, K.S. Kim, C. Lee and E. L. Baker. 2000. A Decade of Results: The Impact of the LA’s BEST After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Retrieved 2009 from www.lasbest.org; Arbreton, A.J.A., M. Bradshaw, J. Sheldon and S. Pepper. 2009. Making Every Day Count: Boys and Girls Clubs’ Role in Promoting Positive Outcomes for Teens. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures; and Durlak and Weissberg.

3. Grossman, J.B., M.L. Price, V. Fellerath, L.Z. Jucovy, L.J. Kotloff, R. Raley and K.E. Walker. 2002. Multiple Choices After School: Findings From the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. Public/Private Ventures.

4. Wigfield, A., J. Eccles, D. Mac Iver, D. Reuman and C. Midgley. 1991. “Transitions at Early Adolescence: Changes in Children’s Domain-Specific Self-Perceptions and General Self-Esteem Across the Transition to Junior High School.” Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565; Jacobs, J.E., S. Lanza, D.W. Osgood, J.S. Eccles and A. Wigfield. 2002. “Ontogeny of Children’s Self- Beliefs: Gender and Domain Differences Across Grades One Through 12.” Child Development, 73, 509-527. Both articles as cited in Wagner, A.L. 2005. “Early Adolescents’ Development Across the Middle School Years: Implications for School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 1096–2409. Retrieved 2009 from the Free Library at www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ PrintArticle.aspx?id=140524754. Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1988 as cited in Wells, Amy S. “Middle School Education: The Critical Link in Dropout Prevention.” ERIC/CUE Digest, 56. ERIC Clearninghouse on Urban Education New York NY, 1989 ERIC Identifier: ED311148.

5. Weisman, S.A. and D.C. Gottfredson. 2001. “Attrition from After School Programs: Characteristics of Students Who Drop Out.” Prevention Science, 2, 201–205.

6. Proscio, T. 2006. “Making the Most of the Day: The Final Report of The After School Project.” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Proscio, T. and B., J. Whiting. 2004 “After-School Grows Up: How Four Large American Cities Approach Scale and Quality in After-School Programs: Executive Summary and Overview.” New York: The After School Project.

7. The Rhode Island Program Quality Assessment (RIPQA), refers to the Youth Program Quality Assessment Tool (YPQA), Form A, developed by the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

8. After School Alliance Fact Sheet. 2009. “After School Issue Overview.” Retrieved 2009 from After School Alliance at www.afterschoolalliance.org.

9. Vandell, D., E. Reisner and K. Pierce. 2007. Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings From the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Irvine, CA: University of California and Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.; Durlak, J.A. and R.P. Weissberg. 2007. The Impact of After- School Programs That Promote Personal and Social Skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL); Harvard Family Research Project. February 2008. “After School Programs in the 21st Century: Their Potential and What it Takes to Achieve It.” Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 10, 1–12; Harvard Family Research Project. August 2004. “Understanding and Measuring Attendance in Out-of-School Time Programs.” Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 7, 1–12; and RAND. 2005. Research Brief: Making Out-of-School Time Matter. RAND. Retrieved 2009 from RAND at www.rand.org.

10. Walker, K. E. and Amy J.A. Arbreton. 2004. After-School Pursuits: An Examination of Outcomes in the San Francisco Beacon Initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

11. Huang, D., B. Gibbons, K.S. Kim, C. Lee and E.L. Baker. 2000. A Decade of Results: The Impact of the LA’s BEST After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Retrieved 2009 from www.lasbest.org; Arbreton, A.J.A., M. Bradshaw, J. Sheldon and S. Pepper. 2009. Making Every Day Count: Boys and Girls Clubs’ Role in Promoting Positive Outcomes for Teens. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures; and Durlak and Weissberg.

12. Russell, C.A., M.B. Mielke and E.R. Reisner. 2008.Evaluation of the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development Out-of-School Time Programs for Youth Initiative: Results of Efforts to Increase Program Quality and Scale in Year 2. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; Grossman, J.B., M. Campbell and B. Raley. 2007. Quality Time After School: What Instructors Can Do to Enhance Learning. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures; and Walker and Arbreton.

13. Grossman, J.B., M.L. Price, V. Fellerath, L.Z. Jucovy, L.J. Kotloff, R. Raley and K.E. Walker. 2002. Multiple Choices After School: Findings From the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

14. Kane, T.J. 2004. The Impact of After-School Programs: Interpreting the Results of Four Recent Evaluations. New York: W.T. Grant Foundation. As cited in Harvard Family Research Project. 2004. “Moving Beyond the Barriers: Attracting and Sustaining Youth Participation in Out-of-School Time Programs.” Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, 6, 1–16.

15. Morehouse, M. 2009. “Making the Most of the Middle: A Strategic Model for Middle School Afterschool Programs.” Afterschool Matters, Spring 2008.

16. Wigfield, A., J. Eccles, D. Mac Iver, D. Reuman and C. Midgley. 1991. “Transitions at Early Adolescence: Changes in Children’s Domain-Specific Self-Perceptions and General Self-Esteem Across the Transition to Junior High School.” Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565; Jacobs, J.E., S. Lanza, D. W. Osgood, J.S. Eccles and A. Wigfield. 2002. “Ontogeny of Children’s Self- Beliefs: Gender and Domain Differences Across Grades One Through 12.” Child Development, 73, 509-527. Both articles as citied in Wagner, A.L. 2005. “Early Adolescents’ Development Across the Middle School Years: Implications for School Counselors. Professional School Counseling, 1096–2409. Retrieved 2009 from the Free Library at www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/ PrintArticle.aspx?id=140524754. Massachusetts Advocacy Center, 1988 as cited in Wells, Amy S. “Middle School Education: The Critical Link in Dropout Prevention.” ERIC/CUE Digest, 56. ERIC Clearninghouse on Urban Education New York NY, 1989 ERIC Identifier: ED311148.

17. Weisman, S.A. and D.C. Gottfredson. 2001. “Attrition from After School Programs: Characteristics of Students Who Drop Out.” Prevention Science, 2, 201–205.

18. Eccles, J. and J.A. Gootman (eds.). 2002. Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

19. Proscio, T. 2006. “Making the Most of the Day: The Final Report of The After School Project.” Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; Proscio, T. and B., J. Whiting. 2004 “After-School Grows Up: How Four Large American Cities Approach Scale and Quality in After-School Programs: Executive Summary and Overview.” New York: The After School Project.

20. Halpern, R. 2003. “The Challenges of System-Building in the After-School Field: Lessons From Experience.” Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time.

21. The Rhode Island Program Quality Assessment (RIPQA), refers to the Youth Program Quality Assessment Tool (YPQA), Form A, developed by the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

22. Rhode Island Kids Count Factbook 2002. Cited in Bundy, A. and E. Fersh. 2003. Stepping Up! Out-of-School Time and Youth Development in Providence: A School-Community Analysis. Brandon, MS: Community Matters.

23. 2000 Census of Population, Profile Sample Data, Poverty of Individuals for Whom Poverty Status Is Determined, Census Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics. Calculations and ranking by Children’s Defense Fund. Retrieved 2009 from Children’s Defense Fund at www.childrensdefense. org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/ census/census-2000-child-poverty-data-cities.txt.

24. RIDE Information Works! School Year 2006–2007. Retrieved 2009 from Providence Plan at http://local.provplan.org/profiles// compplan/Education/Student_eligibility_lunch_07.gif.

25. Source: Rhode Island Dept of Education, 2000–2001. Cited in Bundy and Fersh.

26. See Bundy and Fersh 2003.

27. These findings were reported in an unpublished document compiled by the Providence After School Alliance.

28. Grossman et al.; Kane.

29. Market Street Research. 2004. Enhanced Out-of-School Time Activities for Middle School Students in Providence, Rhode Island. Northampton, MA: Market Street Research. Other commonly cited barriers were lack of transportation and cost.

30. Providence’s intention was to expand the OST initiative to include high school students and then elementary age groups at a later time. In 2009, at the end of this study, planning had begun for expansion to the high schools.

31. The grant was awarded to the Educational Partnership, an educational reform organization. After three years and the development of a new business plan, PASA’s original steering committee and Mayor Cicilline decided to form an independent nonprofit for PASA. The nonprofit became officially incorporated in July 2007 with Mayor Cicilline serving as the Board Chair and Hillary Salmons as the Executive Director.

32. For logistical and scheduling reasons, Club AfterZone is only offered at the anchor middle schools. Youth who go to off-site programs do not participate in Club AfterZone.

33. According to an earlier implementation report on the initiative, Coordinating Councils were very active during its start-up phase. Participation decreased once these systems were in place and there was less of a clear role for the Councils. See Brickman, A. 2007. Assessment of Phase 1 of the Implementation of the AfterZones. At the time of our study, local Council meetings were primarily attended by a core group consisting of the AfterZone manager, the site management agency representative, and one or two providers.

34. In the year of our study, City Year members provided support in about four of the AfterZone middle schools.

35. All youth, including those who travel to off-site programs, congregate in a central location at the middle school at the start of the afternoon so that school-based staff can take attendance.

36. See Grossman, J.B., C. Lind, C. Hayes, J. McMacken and A. Gersick. 2009. The Cost of Quality Out-of-School Time Programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. An accompanying “cost calculator” can be found at http://www.wallacefoundation.org/cost-of-quality/pages/default.aspx. This calculator estimates that the cost of programs like the AfterZones would range from $1,109 per slot (the cost of the 25th percentile most resourced program) to $2,257 per slot (the cost of the 75th percentile most resourced program). The number of slots a program has is equivalent to its average daily attendance. To convert this “per slot” cost into a “per youth” cost as reported in the text, one must divide the slot cost by the number of AfterZone youth that fill a slot. Local AfterZones are open four days a week, and preliminary data indicate that participants attend 1.6 days per week on average. Thus, on average, 2.5 youth “fill” one AfterZone slot. Dividing the slot cost by 2.5, we calculate that the “per youth” cost for programs like the AfterZones would range from $444 to $903.

37. The agencies comprised the John Hope Settlement House, the Providence Housing Authority, the West End Community Center and the YMCA. At the end of the 2008–09 school year, the Boys and Girls Club was added.

38. The issue of youth participation in AfterZones, and the relationship of various patterns of participation to youth outcomes, will be explored in depth in P/PV’s final report on the initiative, which will be published in 2011.

39. Walker and Arbreton.

40. Russell, Mielke and Reisner.

41. Durlak and Weissberg.

42. See Providence Guide to After-School Quality Standards. Retrieved 2009 from PASA at www.mypasa.org/failid/TEPQuality_ Guide_61.pdf.

43. See Revised Quality Indicators. Retrieved 2009 from PASA at www.mypasa.org/failid/Revised_Standards_indicators_matrix_7_11_06.doc.

44. YPQA/RIPQA define “reflection” as opportunities to review, summarize and/or evaluate recent events or activities through talking with others or writing.

45. All subsequent mentions of RIPQA will refer to Form A. PASA used Form B to identify capacity-building needs of the CBO site management agencies, but it has not used this form in assessments of AfterZone providers.

46. In the first year that observations were conducted, each activity was observed twice in a session. Subsequent activities were observed only once.

47. PASA consulted with High/Scope before eliminating the second observation. According to the three models of quality improvement and accountability systems developed by High/Scope, when resources are limited and the main purpose of assessment is to advance staff learning and promote buy-in, single (yearly) self-assessment observations are sufficient. See Smith, C. and T. Akiva. 2008. “Quality Accountability: Improving Fidelity of Broad Developmentally Focused Interventions.” In Yoshikawa, H. and B. Shinn (eds.). Transforming Social Settings: Towards Positive Youth Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 192–212; and Smith, C., T. Akiva, et al. 2009. “Quality and Accountability in the Out-of-School Time Sector.” In R. Granger, K. Pittman and N. Yohalem (eds.). New Directions for Youth Development: Defining and Measuring Quality in Youth Programs and Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 109–127.

48. Sheldon, J. and L. Hopkins. February 2008. Supporting Success: Why and How To Improve Quality in After School Programs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures; and Metz, R.A., J. Goldsmith and A.J.A. Arbreton. April 2008. Putting it All Together: Guiding Principles for Quality After-School Programs Serving Preteens. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

49. Fall and winter program cycles are each 11 weeks long; the spring cycle is 6 weeks long. It is likely that PASA will concentrate on a smaller group of providers during the shortened spring program cycle.

50. Weiss, H. and Priscilla M.D. Little. October 2008. Strengthening Out-of-School Nonprofits: A Role of Foundations in Building Organizational Capacity. New York: The Wallace Foundation.

51. PASA’s professional development activities were open to instructors who delivered programs as well as to their supervisors.

52. See Wynn, J.R. 2000. The Role of Local Intermediary Organizations in the Youth Development Field. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.

53. As discussed in Chapter I, the Coordinating Council was the group of providers, staff and other local stakeholders who were responsible for programming decisions for the local AfterZones.

54. Providers can offer more than one program in the AfterZones. However, both program grants and endorsed status are given to the individual program, not the provider. Therefore, a provider may offer two different programs, only one of which is endorsed.

55. See Lauer, P.A., M. Akita, S.B. Wilkerson, H.S. Apthorp, D. Snow and M. Martin-Glenn. 2006. Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk Students. Review of Educational Research, 76(3), 275-313; and Vandell, Reisner and Pierce.

56. We analyzed RIPQA scores of 40 AfterZone activities observed by PASA’s consultants during the 2007–08 school year and 36 activities observed in 2008–09. The first group of activities contained programs that were deemed by PASA as “best” programs. PASA agreed to let P/PV use the RIPQA scores on these 36 activities. In the 2008–2009 school year, to comply with the needs of the research study, PASA allowed P/PV to select which activities would be observed. In selecting activities for observation, P/PV made sure that (1) all three AfterZones were represented; (2) activities of different types (e.g., academic enrichment, art, life skills and sports) were represented in proportion to how they were offered in the AfterZones; and (3) programs were not observed in 2007–08.

57. For more information about the YPQA Validation Study and the two samples it used, see Smith, Charles and Charles Hohmann. 2005. Full Findings from the Youth PQA Validation Study. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Educational Research Foundation. Retrieved 2009 from HighScope Educational Research Foundation at www.​highscope.org.

58. Walker and Arbreton. The activities observed in this study were from five Beacons Centers. Three of the centers served middle school youth, one served high schoolers and one served elementary students.

59. Grossman, Lind, Hayes, McMacken and Gersick. The study found that 11 percent of teen programs charged enrollment fees and 15 percent charged fees for specific services, such as a field trip.

60. The 21st CCLC grants are funded by the federal government but awarded by the state department of education. The grants are awarded for a three-year period, after which the grantee must apply for a two-year extension grant, which is funded at a reduced level.

61. PASA has since secured a fifth grant for the Boys and Girls Club to run the site at the Roger Williams Middle School in the Olneyville AfterZone starting in the 2009–10 school year.

62. Providence City News. Issue 277, January 29, 2009. Retrieved 2009 from ProvidenceRI.com at www.providenceri.com/CityNews/newsletter2.php?id=193.

63. See Institute for Youth, Education and Families. 2009. Financial Strategies to Support Citywide Systems of Out-of-School Time Programs. Washington, DC: Institute for Youth, Education and Families. Retrieved 2009 from National League of Cities at www.nlc.org/IYEF/education/afterschool/resources.aspx.

< < Previous | Next > >