You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

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.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview Located in Columbus, Ohio, and initiated by the city of Columbus’ Mayor’s Office of Education, Capital Kids’ mission is to: (1) provide a safe, caring, and enriching environment for children during nonschool hours; (2) provide places where children can increase their academic, interpersonal, and social skills; (3) involve families in planning and participating in activities; and (4) foster positive connections between family, school, and community. (Capital Kids was known as Cap City Kids [CCK] at the time of the evaluations in this profile and therefore is referred to by that name.)
Start Date summer 2000
Scope local
Type after school
Location urban
Setting public school, recreation center
Participants kindergarten through middle school students
Number of Sites/Grantees five sites (four recreation centers and one charter school) in 2000–2001 and 35 sites in 2001–2002
Number Served 240 students in 2000–2001 and over 1,000 students in 2001–2002
Components CCK has five main components, which illustrate its beliefs about quality after school programs.
  1. Academic Support – transitioning children from school day to after school by creating experiences and activities that are age appropriate, developmentally and culturally appropriate and enriching, and by communicating with schools regarding individual child’s academic successes and needs (e.g., homework help, science projects, literacy activities, tutoring, computer enhancements)
  2. Safety/Wellness/Nutrition – (1) keeping kids fit – providing for moderate to vigorous developmentally appropriate physical activity, developing sport skills, developing patterns of lifelong wellness (healthy food choices, physical activity), (2) nutritious snack – offering amount sufficient for growing children each day and providing at least two items from at least two different food groups from the food pyramid
  3. Environment: Indoor and Outdoor – environment is one of the most critical factors in program development and implementation. Effective indoor and outdoor space design and effective uses of shared space will provide opportunity for developmentally appropriate recreational and socialization activities.
  4. Prevention/Skill Building – providing a variety of resources for programs to increase prevention-based activities; activities include substance abuse prevention, asset building activities, youth mentoring, peer mediation, leadership skills, social skills, and problem-solving skills and youth prevention activities
  5. Strong Family Involvement – providing for family involvement in program development and implementation, family involvement activities to create a more diverse program with enriching multicultural experiences, and skill-building activities that promote communication between parent, program staff, and school
Funding Level Total CCK funding for 2001–2002 is $1.2 million.
Funding Sources Funding comes from multiple sources, including the City of Columbus general fund, City of Columbus Community Development Block Grant funding, local foundations, United Way of Central Ohio, and corporate sponsors.

Evaluation

Overview CCK’s 2001 evaluation consisted of two phases. Phase one consisted of a formative process evaluation. Phase two consisted of a summative outcomes evaluation. An evaluation report also was completed in February 2003 which overviews findings from 2001–2002 academic school year. This report contains evaluation findings from a study of 24 after school programs in Columbus, Ohio, about 50% of which are partially funded through CCK. In addition to these evaluation findings, the report extends the quasi-experimental evaluation of the four pilot CCK sites evaluated in the 2000–2001 school year. Only this latter portion of the report is profiled here.
Evaluator Dr. Dawn Anderson-Butcher, Ohio State University
Evaluations Profiled An Evaluation Report for the Cap City Kids Program: Phase One (2001)

An Evaluation Report for the Cap City Kids Program: Phase Two (2002)

Youth Development Programs in Central Ohio: An Evaluation Report for the City of Columbus and United Way of Central Ohio (2003)
Evaluations Planned Data are currently being collected for a third year of evaluation (2002–2003 academic school year). Focus has moved toward using the data generated from the evaluations to guide professional development opportunities for program leaders/staff. Thus, the evaluation’s primary purpose now involves total continuous improvement efforts.
Report Availability Anderson-Butcher, D. (2001). An evaluation report for the Cap City Kids program: Phase one. Columbus: Center for Learning Excellence, Ohio State University.

Anderson-Butcher, D. (2002). An evaluation report for the Cap City Kids program: Phase two. Columbus: Center for Learning Excellence, Ohio State University.

Anderson-Butcher, D. D., Midle, T., Fallara, L., Hansford, C., Uchida, K., Grotevant, S., et al. (2003). Youth development programs in central Ohio: An evaluation report for the City of Columbus and United Way of Central Ohio. Columbus: Center for Learning Excellence, Ohio State University.

Contacts

Evaluation Dawn Anderson-Butcher, Ph.D., LISW
College of Social Work and the Center for Learning Excellence, John Glenn Policy Institute
The Ohio State University
325D Stillman Hall
1947 College Road
Columbus, OH 43210
Tel: 614-292-8596
Email: anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu
Program Hannah Dillard
Director, Office of Education
Mayor’s Office
90 W. Broad St., #108
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: 614-645-8821
Email: ghdillard@cmhmetro.net
Profile Updated May 5, 2003

Evaluation 1: An Evaluation Report for the Cap City Kids Program: Phase One


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To develop a comprehensive understanding of what is working, what is not working, and what program strategies can be improved on in order to enhance CCK youth development programming. The CCK program had just been put into operation during the 6 months before this evaluation was conducted. Thus, it was important to examine CCK’s early implementation fidelity. (I.e., was the program doing what it was supposed to do?) The evaluation thus examined what lessons could be learned to enhance the program as it went full-scale.
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: The evaluator examined program documents, conducted site visit observations and informal interviews with CCK staff, and conducted surveys with youth, parents/guardians, teachers/school staff, and program staff. The evaluation was conducted primarily at the four recreation-center-based pilot program sites, in which 181 students were registered for programming (although site visits were made to the charter school site). Only 141 of these youth then enrolled in the evaluation study (received parental/guardian consent for participation). Within these four sites, the evaluators collected survey data from 106 of the 141 youth enrolled in the evaluation study (75% response rate), 61 parents/guardians (50% response rate), 106 teachers/school staff (of which 75% reported having CCK students in their classes), and 12 program staff (60% response rate).
Data Collection Methods Document Review: The evaluator analyzed formal assessments of three of the four pilot sites provided by Action for Children, a local nonprofit that provides technical assistance and training to after school and summer programs for youth. The assessments rated the percentage of goals each site had attained in their programming and administration, in such areas as materials/supplies, health and safety, management, partnerships, family involvement, etc.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Informal interviews were conducted with program staff, asking questions related to how the program was going, what academic components were present, how many kids attended on a daily basis, etc.

Observation: The evaluator conducted two site visits to each of three of the recreation center sites, and one site visit to the fourth. Three site visits were made to the charter school site.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Program sites kept registration data on all participating youth. These included demographic and socioeconomic information, such as gender, ethnicity, family income, whether the family was “female-headed,” and daily attendance rates.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Youth participating in the programs, their parents/guardians, teachers/school staff at the local schools that fed into the programs, and program leaders completed surveys related to overall program satisfaction and success. Specifically, surveys asked about experiences after school, satisfaction with the program, effectiveness of the program, and questions related to program outcomes. Respondents to the youth surveys were 64% female and 36% male. The average age of respondent was 8.34 (SD =1.82). Demographic information was not collected among parents/guardians or teachers/school staff. The average age of the program staff was 31 years of age; 75% were female and 25% male.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the spring and summer of 2001.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Children were broken up by age group in order to provide more developmentally appropriate activities.

Site visits revealed a variety of enrichment activities, such as Irish dancing, making cheesecake, sports/recreation, and doing various arts projects.

Site visits revealed that struggling children were provided with extra attention and one-on-one services.

Site visits revealed that youth were often engaged in unstructured activities. The evaluator suggested that more organized program strategies be implemented that enhance the amount of time youth spend with actual “time-on-task.” Likewise, programs struggled with transition periods that at times appeared chaotic.

Site visits revealed that programs were activity focused, and were not outcome oriented. For example, academic activities consisted mostly of homework completion or computer time, rather than spending time on the academic program goal of youth learning math and reading.
Cost/Revenues The program was provided at no cost to participants during the pilot phase in 2001. There is now a charge of $5 per family per year, as of 2003, but flexibility is used when families cannot afford this fee.
Parent/Community Involvement The independent assessments on three centers provided by Action for Children revealed extremely positive ratings in the area of family involvement and partnerships with various community based organizations such as YMCAs, settlement houses, Girl Scouts, etc.

Site visits revealed that staff and administrators were sensitive to the children and families with whom they worked. They tried not to judge and made efforts to build strong relationships with parents/guardians.

Site visits revealed that some sites had parents/guardians planning what activities would be offered.

Site visits revealed that some sites sent food home with children for families.

Site visits revealed that some parents/guardians volunteered in the programs, while others worked as staff in the programs.

Site visits revealed that sites conducted outreach to some parents/guardians and families through family nights, concerts, and dances.

Site visits revealed that some sites provided referrals to parents/guardians and families for other social services.

Site visits revealed that prevention components were sometimes underdeveloped because of weak partnerships with community resources.

Of youth survey respondents, 92% indicated that their parents/guardians and staff communicated regularly.

Of youth survey respondents, 68% indicated their parents/guardians would go to a CCK staff member for help if they needed to.

Of parent/guardian survey respondents, 93% stated they would go to a CCK staff member for help with their child.
Program Context/Infrastructure Site visits indicate that the programs have adequate resources, supplies, and materials and operate in nice recreation and school facilities.

The independent assessments of the three centers provided by Action for Children revealed that all three sites were attaining between 84% and 90% of their targeted goals. These goals include adequacy of the program site, materials and supplies, health and safety, strong program components, administration, management, staff, family involvement, and partnerships. The assessments were extremely positive about CCK’s administration and management.

Eighty-eight percent of youth survey respondents indicated feeling safe at CCK, as compared to 78% feeling safe in their neighborhoods.
Program-School Linkages Site visits revealed some outreach to personnel at the local feeder schools, with some connections being built with teachers, counselors, and principals. However, the programs were often not linked well with curriculums at the children’s schools.

Teacher surveys revealed a substantial lack of knowledge about the CCK program’s particulars. On any given question, 9% to 81% of the teachers did not know enough to answer the question.

Teachers/school staff reported in their surveys that they would like to build stronger relationships with the staff at the after school programs.
Recruitment/Participation Participation operated on a first-come, first-serve basis, leading the evaluator to conclude that the most disadvantaged and “in need” students may not have been included as much as they could have been, as those most vulnerable may be less likely to sign up expediently.

Data were collected from youth related to why they come to the program. Top motivators for participation included youth liked the activities, the food, and they built relationships with program staff. Some youth came because their parents/guardians made them.

Recruitment did not focus on bringing friends of participants into the program, which the evaluator argues may be detrimental to the program’s goals, given research and practice findings suggesting that friends are an integral part of programming.
Satisfaction Approximately 92% of children reported they were happy with the program.

Eighty percent of children reported they tell their friends to come to CCK.

Ninety-three percent of youth survey respondents indicated that the adults at CCK care about them. Ninety-eight percent of parents/guardians indicated that CCK staff care about their children.

One hundred percent of parents/guardians reported they were satisfied with the program and its hours.

Ninety-eight percent of parents/guardians indicated that they recommended the CCK program to their friends/neighbors.
Staffing/Training Site directors were required to have bachelor’s degree in education, youth services, or a comparable field. Site directors were also required to work a 40-hour week.

The independent assessments of three centers provided by Action for Children revealed that each program had what was judged to be an adequate staff-to-youth ratio. These ratios were 1:12, 1:11, and 1:7.

Site visits revealed that staff felt supported by the CCK administrator, and often seek her out for assistance. In turn she was responsive to staff and tried not to overload them.

Site visits revealed strong leadership from program staff. Staff had built strong relationships with youth and some parents/guardians, their program strategies were engaging and creative, and they were extremely motivated and energetic.

Site visits revealed that some sites shared staff with other programs, such as the recreation center and arts programs in order to maximize resources.

Site visits revealed that consistency of discipline among staff was occasionally lacking.

Of youth survey respondents, 85% indicated they would go to a CCK staff member for help if they needed it.
Systemic Infrastructure Site visits revealed the city to be treating staff well in terms of paying staff, giving them cell phones, resources, computer access, file cabinets, etc.

During the more recent years, the city administration and the local United Way host monthly meetings with CCK sites and local youth development organizations, providing ongoing support, technical assistance, and resource opportunities to programs.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Approximately 89% of youth survey respondents indicated they learned new things at CCK that help in school.

Of youth survey respondents, 66% noted that they feel better about taking tests since going to CCK.

Of youth survey respondents, 86% believed they were doing a better job on their homework because they attend CCK.

Of parent/guardian survey respondents, 93% reported that their child completes school homework more often since participating in CCK.

Of parent/guardian survey respondents, 90% indicated that their child’s grades have improved since s/he started CCK.
Family Ninety-five percent of parents/guardians indicated that the food that CCK sends home with their children helps them support their families.
Youth Development Of youth survey respondents, 76% indicated they learned to get along with other kids at CCK.

Of parent/guardian survey respondents, 90% indicated that their child gets along better with other kids because of CCK.

Of parent/guardian survey respondents, 97% indicated that their child has improved his/her social skills since going to CCK.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project