Search Publications | The Evaluation Exchange | FINE Network | OST Database

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Adventure Central

Program Description

Overview	Adventure Central (AC) provides out-of-school time programming services to youth in Dayton, Ohio. Its mission is to promote academic and leadership skills in a welcoming, safe, fun, and active setting that utilizes volunteers and community resources with adult and youth interaction.
Start Date	2000
Scope	local
Type	after school, summer
Location	urban
Setting	community-based organization

Participants	kindergarten through high school students (ages 5 to 19)
Number of Sites/Grantees	one
Number Served	239 youth and 35,000 contact hours in 2004
Components	Located at Wesleyan MetroPark in Dayton, Ohio, AC serves youth and their families from the surrounding neighborhood during after school and summer hours. Drawing from the combined resources of Five Rivers MetroParks (a park district located in Greater Dayton, Ohio) and Ohio State University Extension 4-H Youth Development, program activities focus on science, nature, and technology and include after school programming, day camps, subject area clubs, a youth board, a workforce prep program, overnight camps, and family-focused programs.
Funding Level	approximately $350,000 annually
Funding Sources	Five Rivers MetroParks; Ohio State University Extension; Ohio 4-H Foundation; Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) through the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Centers for Disease Control; 4-H initiatives at the state level (4-H R.O.C.K.S. [Reading Out of Class Kids Succeed]) and the national level (Health Rocks!); and private businesses/donors (e.g., Sam's Club)

Evaluation

Overview	Evaluations have been conducted to examine youth's motivations for program participation and the relationships between youth participants and adults both inside and outside of the program.
Evaluator	Theresa M. Ferrari and Jessica E. Paisley, Ohio State University Extension Cassie L. Turner, Black Swamp Council, Boy Scouts of America
Evaluations Profiled	An Exploratory Study of Adolescents' Motivations for Joining and Continued Participation in a 4-H Afterschool Program Extent of Positive Youth–Adult Relationships in a 4-H Afterschool Program
Evaluations Planned	An evaluation is currently in progress (fall 2005); some results should be available by the end of 2005.
Report Availability	Ferrari, T. M., & Turner, C. L. (2005). An exploratory study of adolescents' motivations for joining and continued participation in a 4-H afterschool program. Manuscript accepted for publication. Journal of Extension. Available at www.ohio4h.org/tferrari/afterschool_resources.html. Paisley, J. E., & Ferrari, T. M. (2005). Extent of positive youth–adult relationships in a 4-H afterschool program. Journal of Extension, 43(2). Available at www.joe.org/joe/2005april/rb4.shtml or www.ohio4h.org/tferrari/afterschool_resources.html.

Contacts

Evaluation	Theresa M. Ferrari Assistant Professor and State Extension Specialist 4-H Youth Development Ohio State University Extension 2120 Fyffe Road, Rm. 25 Ag Admin Columbus, OH 43210 Tel: 614-247-8164 Fax: 614-292-5937 Email: ferrari.8@osu.edu
Program	Graham Cochran Center Director Adventure Central 2222 N. James H. McGee Blvd. Dayton, OH 45427 Tel: 937-268-1037 Fax: 937-268-8428 Email: gcochran@adventurecentral.org
Profile Updated	September 27, 2005

Evaluation 2: Extent of Positive Youth–Adult Relationships in a 4-H Afterschool Program

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To address the following questions: 1. To what extent are participants experiencing positive youth–adult relationships? 2. What factors contribute to the development of these relationships? 3. How do participant's relationships with adults at AC compare to those with adults in other contexts?
Evaluation Design	Non-Experimental: A youth survey was administered to examine the extent of relationships between youth and adults and to compare these relationships across contexts. Observations were conducted to learn more about the processes that contribute to youth–adult relationships. Lastly, attendance records were tracked for individuals to determine whether there was an association between attendance and youth's relationships with adults at AC. Youth were grouped into high and low attendees, split at the median for all participants at 76 hours of attendance during the 5-month study period. All 60 youth attending AC during fall 2001 were invited to participate in the evaluation. Forty-eight received parental permission and completed the survey (80%). Of these 48 youth, 54% were female, and 46% were male. Twenty-three percent were 4–6 years old, 25% were 7–8, 23% were 9–10, and 29% were 11–13. The majority were African American (88%), with the remainder of mixed racial backgrounds (12%). Of the 45 youth for whom data were available, 42% had changed homes in the past year. Of the 46 youth for whom data were available, 48% lived in single parent households, 30% lived with two parents (including step-parents), 13% lived with non-parents (e.g., grandparents, guardian), and 9% lived with parent(s) and grandparent(s).
Data Collection Methods	Observation: Ten program observation periods totaling 5 hours were conducted (two observations each for five groups) using the event sampling method (Beaty, 1994). The observer recorded the date, time, type of activity, and child–staff ratio within the group. Event sampling was conducted for 25-minute periods, followed by 5 minutes of additional notation. Evaluators attempted to conduct the two observations on different days of the week and at different times of day. Interactions between youth and adults were categorized as emotional support (e.g., listens to a child), instrumental support (e.g., gives a child clear directions), or negative interactions (e.g., criticizes a child). Secondary Source/Data Review: Attendance data were obtained from program records and measured by the quantity of contact hours during the 5-month study period. Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to students, parents, site coordinators, staff, teachers, principals, and advisory council members at the participating 3:00 Project and MSAS sites. The surveys addressed satisfaction with the program and curriculum as well as community collaboration in support of the program. Survey respondents were asked to respond to statements on a five-point scale, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree,” which was collapsed into three categories for analytic purposes. The survey also included open-ended questions. In total, 1,124 surveys were analyzed. These 1,124 surveys consisted of 661 students, 201 parents, 104 teachers, 66 staff members, 51 advisory council members, 24 site coordinators, and 17 principals. Surveys/Questionnaires: Youth surveys measured participants' relationships with adults (AC adults, teachers, adults in the home, and adults in the neighborhood). Tests/Assessments: Youth surveys included a series of four scales. The items measured youth's views of adults as caring, encouraging, approachable, and trustworthy. Youth were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements on a 4-point scale of NO! (coded as 0), no (coded as 1), yes (coded as 2), and YES! (coded as 3). This scale was modeled after Arthur, Pollard, Hawkins, and Catalano (1997). To record observations, evaluators modified a checklist for observing staff interactions in school-age childcare programs (Ohio Hunger Task Force, 1999). They created additional items based on the literature (Dungan-Seaver, 1999; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa,, 2002; National School-Age Care Alliance, 1998; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996). Three broad categories of behaviors were identified: communication (e.g., uses supportive language), teaching (e.g., assists a child with homework), and conflict or discipline (e.g., handles conflict, disciplines a child). References: Arthur, M., Pollard, J., Hawkins, J., & Catalano, R. F. (1997). Student survey of risk and protective factors. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs. Beaty, J. J. (1994). Observing development of the young child (3rd ed.). New York: Merrill. Dungan-Seaver, D. (1999). After-school programs: An analysis of research about the characteristics of effectiveness. Minneapolis: McKnight Foundation. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J. (2002). Mentoring: A promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends. National School-Age Care Alliance. (1998). The NSACA standards for quality school-age care. Boston: Author. Ohio Hunger Task Force. (1999). Urban school initiative school-age child care project 1998–1999: School-year evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Author. Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D. L. (1996). Quality of care at school-aged child care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Development, 67, 2434–2445.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected November 2001–March 2002.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Recruitment/Participation	Youth attended AC between 4 hours and 246.5 hours during the 5-month study period, with a mean of 98.9 hours and a median of 76 hours. Youth who attended for more program hours were significantly more likely than those who attended for fewer program hours to have positive relationships with AC adults (p < .01) and to report more positive relationships on 4 of the 6 scale items: adults at AC care about me (p < .05), I can tell adults at AC about my problems (p < .01), adults at AC tell me “good job” (p < .05), and adults at AC encourage me (p < .05). In addition, when attendance was measured according to the median split, high attendees' responses were significantly more positive than those of low attendees for 3 of the 6 scale items: trust adults at AC, adults at AC tell me “good job,” and can tell adults at AC about my problems (p < .05 for each).
Staffing/Training	Communication between the 3:00 Project staff and parents, teachers, advisory council members improved in 1997–1998 compared to the previous year. In addition, the majority of parents at MSAS were satisfied with the flow of information from the programs. Nearly 95% of the 3:00 Project parents and 88% of MSAS parents reported that staff kept them informed of their child's successes and difficulties. The majority of parents, teachers, principals, staff members, site coordinators, and advisory council members (75%–100%) from both the 3:00 Project sites and MSAS sites agreed that the 3:00 Project is a safe and healthy place for adolescents to go after school. A smaller majority (65%–88%) of students in the programs agreed to the same sentiments.
Staffing/Training	For the survey scale measuring the extent of youth's positive relationships with AC adults, the mean rating across items was 2.71 on a scale of 0–3, ranging from 2.63 (can tell adults at AC about my problems) to 2.79 (trust adults at AC) for individual scale items. Analysis found no significant gender differences in responses. Youth's relationships with AC adults had significantly higher survey ratings on average than those with neighborhood adults or teachers (p < .01 for each), but did not significantly differ from those with adults in the home. Youth relationships also rated significantly higher for adults in the home than for adults in the neighborhood (p < .05). Youth–adult interactions observed at AC were primarily one on one (84%), with considerably fewer being whole group (9%) or small group (7%). The ratio of AC adults to youth was at least 1:6 during the observation times. The frequencies of emotional support interactions observed between AC adults and children were as follows: talks to a child in a positive tone (n = 99), listens to a child (n = 56), uses a child's name when talking to him/her (n = 55), uses supportive language with a child (n = 30), encourages a child to participate (n = 12), acknowledges a child's arrival or departure (n = 2), remains calm/patient with an angry/upset child (n = 2), and comforts/consoles a hurt/upset/disappointed child (n = 1). Evaluators did not observe any instances of AC adults asking a child about his/her day. The frequencies of instrumental support interactions observed between AC adults and children were as follows: gives a child clear directions (n = 75), disciplines a child (n = 47), assists a child with homework (n = 34), teaches a child (n = 14), answers a child's question (n = 13), handles conflict (n = 3), and teaches how to work through conflict (n = 1). Evaluators did not observe any instances of AC adults talking to a child about his/her future plans. The frequencies of negative interactions observed between AC adults and children were as follows: talks to a child in a negative tone (n = 9) and criticizes a child (n = 5). Evaluators did not observe any instances of AC adults yelling at a child.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Adventure Central

Profile Information