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 3: Youth Development Programs in Central Ohio: An Evaluation Report for the City of Columbus and the United Way of Central Ohio


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To examine the effectiveness of Cap City Kids in increasing academic achievement and school attendance among program participants.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental: Youth involved in the four original CCK after school program sites (n = 134) were compared to nonparticipating counterparts on school attendance and teacher reported grades in math and reading. The nonparticipating comparison group was matched to CCK participants based on school, teacher, age, gender, free and reduced-price lunch status, ethnicity, and the previous year’s reading proficiency score. Data were available for 115 of the 134 match counterparts, resulting in a total sample size of 249 students. This total sample was then divided into three groups, the high-attenders group (n = 58) who participated in the program more than 79% of the time, the moderate-attenders group (n = 29) who participated between 48% and 78% of the time, and those never or minimally attending (n = 87).
Data Collection Methods Secondary Source/Data Review: Teacher grade cards were collected for both the CCK groups and the comparison group. These grade cards included teacher reported grades in math and reading as well as students’ attendance data, and provide information on students for each of four quarters during the school year.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 2001–2002 school year.


Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Differences in grades among groups were nonsignificant in both reading and math across the four grade card periods. High attenders scored better on reading and math than moderate attenders and non-attenders throughout the four quarters, but these differences were also not statistically significant.

Youth in the high-attenders group had significantly less absenteeism than those attending never or more sporadically (p < .01). Follow-up tests found that significant differences were found between high attenders and non-attenders during the second grading period (p < .01) in particular.

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