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 The Hawaii Department of Education (DOE) implemented the After-School Plus Program (A+) in response to an increased need for high quality, affordable, school-age child care services for elementary school youth in Hawaii. The goals of A+ are to: (1) provide after school supervision of children in a stimulating and caring environment, (2) reduce the incidence of latchkey children, (3) reinforce and expand children's learning experiences, (4) enhance the relationship between home and school in collaboratively meeting children's needs, (6) improve children's physical fitness, and (7) better use school facilities during nonschool hours.
Start Date February 1990
Scope state
Type after school
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public schools
Participants K–6
Number of Sites/Grantees 171 in 1990–1991 (143 directly run and 28 run by private contractors) and 175 in 2001–2002 (126 directly run and 49 run by private contractors)
Number Served 21,340 (February 1990–January 1991)
Components A+ child care services are provided after school until 5:30pm during the regular school year and include homework assistance, enrichment activities, and supervised recreational activities. Privately run A+ programs offer extended hours of operation at no additional charge, and child care on days when school is closed for an additional fee. All latchkey children enrolled in public elementary schools (K–6) in Hawaii are eligible to participate in the program if they are living with both parents who are employed, a single parent who is employed, parents working in the A+ program, and parents attending colleges, universities, or other types of schools or engaged in job training programs during the hours of A+ operations.
Funding Level $10.69 million in 2000
Funding Sources Hawaii DOE, parent fees


Evaluation

Overview The Hawaii DOE commissioned an in-depth evaluation to provide timely information on the operation and quality of the A+ program.
Evaluators Fern Marx and Michelle Seligson, Wellesley College Center for Research on Women
Evaluations Profiled Final Report on a Study of the Hawaii After School (A+) Program
Evaluations Planned Internal evaluations are conducted by the program at the end of each year through parent surveys to solicit feedback for program improvement.
Report Availability Marx, F., & Seligson, M. (1991). Interim report on a survey of the Hawaii After School (A+) Program. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child Care Project of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Marx, F., & Seligson, M. (1991). Final report on a study of the Hawaii After School (A+) Program. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child Care Project of the Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.


Contacts

Evaluation Fern Marx
Wellesley Centers for Women
Wellesley College
106 Central Street
Wellesley, MA 02481
Tel: 781-283-2558
Fax: 781-283-2504
Email: fmarx@wellesley.edu
Program Greg Knudsen
Hawaii Department of Education
P.O. Box 2360
Honolulu, HI 96804
Tel: 808-586-3230
Fax: 808-586-3234
Profile Updated July 23, 2003

Evaluation: Final Report on a Study of the Hawaii After School (A+) Program


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To provide timely information to DOE and the state legislature on the operation and quality of the A+ program, its impact on families using the program, the impact/burden on the school personnel directly and indirectly involved in the program, and the impact of the program on the community in terms of the overall level of school-age child care available and on private providers of school-age child care.
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: Survey data were collected from 168 of 171 sites and a representative sample of 16 sites was chosen for site visits.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Small focus groups were conducted with children to find out about their feelings toward A+. In addition, parents, staff, and other stakeholders were informally interviewed to learn about perceptions of the program and its strengths and weaknesses.

Observation: Evaluators spent a total of two days at each site and used a structured observation instrument, the Assessing School-Age Care Quality (ASQ),¹ developed by the Wellesley Project especially for school-age child care programs.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Attendance and other project records were collected and analyzed from the program's records.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were sent to all 143 direct school administered programs and all 28 contracted programs. The overall response rate was 98%, with 168 of 171 sites returning completed questionnaires. Survey questions used both open-ended and multiple-choice formats and asked about student enrollment, primary and secondary space used by the A+ program, availability of equipment and materials, use of community facilities and resources, and requests for services not presently provided. Another set of questions asked about: the relationship between the A+ program and school personnel; the impact of the program on the school and school personnel; and how communication between parents, the school, and state and district DOE personnel could be improved. The survey concluded with aspects of A+ program respondents would most like to improve and what they were most proud of. Contracted programs were asked additional questions regarding: loss of staff to A+ programs, why the agency decided to provide the A+ program, and how contracted programs differed, if at all, from DOE administered programs. Program quality was considered in questions related to: site-specific goals; benefits of providing A+; scope of activities/experiences provided; education, experience, and age of staff; staff turnover and vacancies; and child-staff ratios. Information was also collected on program planning time and staff training and development activities, as well as parent participation and communication with parents.

Tests/Assessments: The ASQ used during the site visits uses a five-point scale to rate specific program areas and quality indicators, with higher scores indicating higher quality.

¹ The ASQ is now incorporated into the National School-Age Care Alliance's (NSACA) Standards for Quality School-Age Care. See National School-Age Care Alliance. (1998). The national school-age child care standards for quality school-age care. Boston, MA: Author. Or www.nsaca.org.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during January, February, April, and May of 1991.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Almost all sites provided outdoor, supervised play, and 88% provided organized individual or team sports at least once a week.

For the programs' enrichment focus, 95% of sites provided crafts, 90% provided creative arts, 69% provided music, and 59% provided dance at least once a week. Homework help was provided daily by 98% of sites.

Directly offered programs were more likely than contracted programs to offer reading and tutoring, while contracted programs were more likely to provide drama, field trips, and swimming.

The majority of A+ programs offered science activities, creative writing, cooking/food preparation, and dramatics, usually on a monthly basis.

Foreign languages, computers, and swimming were the least frequently offered activities.

Site visits revealed that developmentally appropriate activities and child choices in activities were weak program areas.

Seventy-three percent of interviewed parents felt that the number of activities and choices offered to the children should be increased. Similarly, 34% of program staff who completed surveys responded that additional activities should be offered to provide a well balanced program.
Program Context/Infrastructure ASQ scores on program quality ranged from 1.93 to 3.98. Over three-fifths of the programs scored above the 2.5 midpoint of the scale; 45% scored above 3. Little difference was noted between ASQ scores of contracted programs versus directly operated programs.

The highest rated program areas, according to ASQ scores, were in human relationships, outdoor space, and safety and health, all of which received scores above three. The lowest rated program areas, according to ASQ scores, were in nutrition, child choices, and developmentally appropriate activities, particularly in programming for older children.
Over half of the programs reported that their primary space used on a daily basis was shared with the school and/or other programs. The cafeteria and playground were the most frequently used spaces on a daily basis.

Shared space was reported as a significant problem for 49% of sites, as was adequate storage space (60%), space for activities (43%), and adequate supplies of materials (36%).
Program-School Linkages Site visits revealed that one important factor in setting the tone for acceptance of A+ was the proactive role of the principal in supporting the program.

Teachers were found to have problems in understanding the purpose of A+ and its place in the school environment. More positive teacher attitudes about the program were found when extra effort was expended by members of the school and the community to incorporate them.
Recruitment/Participation The average number of students enrolled in the A+ programs was 128 (with a range from 20 students in two sites to 374 students in one site).

Eighty-nine percent of children enrolled in A+ because their parents are working.

Programs reported that about one-quarter of their enrolled students were unsupervised after school before the implementation of the A+ program.
Satisfaction Although approximately 60% of children in focus group interviews said they liked coming to the program, many recommended changes related to the areas of nutrition, developmentally appropriate activities, child choices, and indoor space.

Over half of interviewed parents felt that the program should provide additional days and hours to help meet their needs as working parents.
Staffing/Training Many parents and other stakeholders felt that additional staff training would improve the program.

Eighty-four percent of A+ Site Coordinators had bachelor's or graduate degrees, while 35% of Group Leaders (program staff below the Site Coordinators) had such degrees.

Staff-child ratios showed very wide ranges, with some programs reporting ratios as low as 1:2 and others as high as 1:37, although few programs reported ratios higher than 1:20.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Few parents (roughly 8%) reported that A+ improved their children's academic skills.
Youth Development During site visit interviews, parents pointed to their children's improvements in communication with authority figures, being more relaxed with adults, and learning how to play and socialize with other children as ways in which the program successfully responded to their children's needs.

Some parents noted that the program helped reduce racial discrimination and increased multicultural awareness amongst their children.

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