Brooks, P. E., Valdes, R. M., Herman, J. L., & Baker, E. L. (1990). Evaluation report, March 1, 1990: LA’s BEST after school education and enrichment program. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California–Los Angeles.

Brooks, P. E., & Herman, J. L. (1991). Evaluation report, July 31, 1991: LA’s BEST an after school education and enrichment program. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California–Los Angeles.

Brooks, P. E., & Forman, R. (1993). Final evaluation report, December 17, 1993: LA’s BEST an after school education and enrichment program. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California–Los Angeles.

Brooks, P. E., Mojica, C. M., & Land, R. E. (1995). Final evaluation report: Longitudinal study of LA’s BEST after school education and enrichment program, 1992–94. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California–Los Angeles.

Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). A decade of results: The impact of the LA’s BEST after school enrichment initiative on subsequent student achievement and performance. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.pasesetter.com/reframe/documents/uclaeval.pdf

Huang, D., Choi, K., Davis, D., Henderson, T., Kim, K. Lin, S., et al. (2003). Evaluating the impact of LA’s BEST on students’ social and academic development: Study of 74 LA’s BEST Sites 2001–2002 final report. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles.

Huang, D., Choi, K., Henderson, T., Howe, J., Kim, K., Vogel, M., et al. (2004). Evaluating the impact of LA’s BEST on students’ social and academic development: Study of 100 LA’s BEST Sites 2002–2003. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles.

Huang, D. (2004). Exploring the long-term impact of LA’s BEST on students’ social and academic development. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles.

Huang, D., Kim, K. S., Marshall, A., & Perez, P. (2005). Keeping kids in school: An LA’s BEST example—A study examining the long-term impact of LA’s BEST on students’ dropout rates. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles.

Huang, D. (2005). Evaluating the effects of academic skills and academic enablers taught at LA’s BEST on the achievement of student participants. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles.

Peppler, K. A., & Catterall, J. S. (2006). Year two evaluation of the LA’s BEST After School Arts Program: Evaluating student learning in the arts. Los Angeles: Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. University of California–Los Angeles.

Goldsmidt, P., Huang, D., & Chinen, M. (2007). The long-term effects of after-school programming on educational adjustment and juvenile crime: A study of the LA’s BEST after-school program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Huang, D., Coordt, A., La Torre, D., Leon, S., Miyoshi, J., Pérez, P., & Peterson, C. (2007). The afterschool hours: Examining the relationship between afterschool staff-based social capital and student engagement in LA’s BEST (CSE Technical Report 712). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R712.pdf

Huang, D., Miyoshi, J., La Torre, D., Marshall, A., Perez, P., & Peterson, C. (2007). Exploring the intellectual, social and organizational capitals at LA’s BEST (CSE Technical Report 714). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R714.pdf

Huang, D., Leon, S., La Torre, D., & Mostafavi, S. (2008). Examining the relationship between LA’s BEST program attendance and academic achievement of LA’s BEST students (CRESST Report 749). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R749.pdf

Huang, D., La Torre, D., Duong, N., Huber, L. P., Leon, S., & Oh, C. (2009). A circle of learning: Children and adults growing together in LA’s BEST (CRESST Report 758). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R758.pdf

Huang, D., Leon, S., Harven, A. M., La Torre, D., & Mostafavi, S. (2009). Exploring the relationships between LA’s BEST Program attendance and cognitive gains of LA’s BEST students (CRESST Report 757). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R757.pdf

Huang, D., Leon, S., Hodson, C., La Torre, D., Obregon, N., & Rivera, G. (2010). Preparing students for the 21st Century: Exploring the effect of afterschool participation on students’ collaboration skills, oral communication skills, and self-efficacy. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California–Los Angeles. Available at: www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R777.pdf

Regino Chávez
Director of Evaluation
LA’s BEST
711 E. 14th Place
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Tel: 213-745-1900 x52995
Email: reginoc@lasbest.lausd.net

Interviews/Focus Groups: Program participant interviews gathered information about the afterschool activities in which youth participants would have engaged had the program not been available, and perceptions of the program, including its activities, safety, and staff.

Parent interviews gathered information about afterschool care activities and costs prior to the program, perceptions about LA’s BEST staff and programming, parent involvement in the program, effects of the program on their children, and demographics.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Information about grades was collected from the schools that the participants attended.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Principal surveys gathered information about satisfaction with afterschool staff, program effectiveness and accomplishments, others’ reactions to the program, and the usefulness of other types of programming.

Site coordinator surveys gathered information about their satisfaction with staff, hiring problems, program components and effectiveness, participants’ responses to the program, level of support from others, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

Staff surveys gathered information about program effectiveness, participants’ responses to the program, quality of work environment, training, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

Classroom teacher surveys gathered information about perceptions of the effects of LA’s BEST on participants, involvement in the program, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

The on-site survey gathered information about attendance, program release procedures, staffing, staff training, and program implementation.

School-day teachers reported positive achievements among their LA’s BEST students as a group compared to their non-LA’s BEST students.

Overall grades were found to be significantly higher after program participation, as were some areas of effort. However, science achievement, physical education achievement, and attendance rates were higher in the fall of 1998 than in the fall of 1999.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Program participant interviews gathered information about the afterschool activities in which youth would have engaged had the program not been available, and perceptions of the program, including its activities, safety, and staff.

Parent interviews gathered information about afterschool care activities and costs prior to the program, perceptions about LA’s BEST staff and programming, parent involvement in the program, effects of the program on their children, and demographics.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Data related to school performance included grades, absences, tardiness, and English as a Second Language status. Police information included statistics on arrests and criminal activities in neighborhoods surrounding the eight intensive study sites.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Principal surveys gathered information about satisfaction with afterschool staff, effectiveness of the program, program accomplishments, others’ reactions to the program, and the usefulness of other types of programming.

Site coordinator surveys gathered information about satisfaction with staff, hiring problems, program components and effectiveness, participants’ responses to the program, level of support from others, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

Staff surveys gathered information about program effectiveness, participants’ responses to the program, quality of work environment, training, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

The on-site survey gathered information about program attendance, release procedures, staffing, staff training, and implementation.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Program participant interviews gathered information about the afterschool activities in which youth participants would have engaged had the program not been available, perceptions of the program and its activities, the presence/absence of positive role models, expectations about the future, attitudes toward school and the afterschool program, family characteristics, and gangs and drugs.

Parent interviews gathered information about afterschool care options, perceptions of LA’s BEST staff and programming, parent involvement in the program, effects of the program on participants, parents’ aspirations for their children, neighborhood safety, and demographics.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Data on attendance, grades, academic classifications, and frequency of address/school changes were collected from school records.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Principal surveys gathered information about satisfaction with afterschool staff, program effectiveness and accomplishments, others’ reactions to the program, and the usefulness of other types of programming.

Site coordinator surveys gathered information about satisfaction with staff, hiring problems, program components and effectiveness, effect of the program on participants, level of support from others, and recommendations for youth who should be in the program but were not.

Staff surveys gathered information about program effectiveness, the effect of the program on participants, the quality of the work environment, and training.

On-site surveys gathered information about program attendance, release procedures, staffing, staff training, and implementation.

In the absence of LA’s BEST, 34% of children and 23% of parents indicated that their afterschool arrangements would not include “adequate adult supervision.”

Both children and parents experienced the afterschool program as significantly safer (p < .001) than their neighborhoods. Parents interviewed in Cantonese and Vietnamese, however, while rating the afterschool program as safer than the neighborhood, rated both places as not very safe and preferred to keep their children closer to home.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Youth interviews collected information about afterschool activities, relationships with adults and peers, feelings about school and academic aspirations, the presence/absence of positive role models, safety, neighborhood environment, gangs, and drugs. Program participants were also asked about their feelings about the afterschool program.

Parent interviews collected information about afterschool care situations, safety, neighborhood environment, the presence/absence of positive role models, and gangs. Parents of program participants were also asked about their feelings about the afterschool program.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Data were collected on student grades for program and comparison children for the school years 1988–89 through 1993–94.

Achievement and effort grades were higher for all LA’s BEST participants after they participated in the program than before they participated.

While initial achievement and effort grades were lower for the participant group than for the comparison group in each of the five subject areas in Method 1 and for four of the five areas in Method 2, by Year 2, program participants had “caught up” with the comparison group, achieving about the same GPAs in nearly all subjects.

In Year 2, program children were more likely than the comparison group to report that they like school “more” or “a lot more” than the previous year. Non-program children were most likely to respond “No change” to this question. However, the program and comparison groups did not differ in their responses to this question in Year 1.

Program children held a higher expectation of how far they would go in school compared to non-program children.

Among parents who completed the 1993–94 (Year 2) survey, program parents were more likely to report that their children had changed “somewhat” or “very” positively in regard to knowledge about specific subjects than non-program parents, who were more likely to report “No change.”

There were no significant differences between program and non-program children in feeling that the grown-ups in their afterschool lives cared about them, expected them to do well, and were easy to talk to. However, 80% of program children compared to 55% of non-program children felt that the grown-ups during their afterschool hours were helpful.

Both program and non-program children reported that they relied on school friends first, parents and siblings second, other family members third, and outsiders last when they needed help with a problem. Program children were more likely than non-program children to expand their “help with a problem” resources to include teachers and student aides.

Secondary Sources/Data Review: Data were collected on the rate at which students were redesignated as fully proficient in English, school absence rates, course-taking patterns, and rates of student mobility (transiency).

Tests/Assessments: Scores from the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills and the Stanford-9 Achievement Test in reading math and language arts were reviewed.

Longer-term program participation was significantly related to positive achievement on standardized tests of mathematics, reading, and language arts when the influence of gender, ethnicity, income, and language status was controlled for.

More program participation was related to better subsequent program attendance when the influence of gender, ethnicity, income, and language status was controlled for.

Higher levels of program participation led to better subsequent school attendance, which, in turn, related to higher academic achievement on standardized tests of mathematics, reading, and language arts.

Language redesignation rates favored LA’s BEST participants when compared with non-LA’s BEST youth for fourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade data. No significant differences were found in comparing performance for grades 5 and 7.

Absence data for the fifth-grade group (1994–95) showed that youth who participated in LA’s BEST had significantly fewer absences in grades 6 and 7, although no differences were detected in grades 8 and 9.

Although in the initial year LA’s BEST youth began with mathematics achievement scores significantly lower than those of nonparticipants, in 1997–98 those differences no longer existed.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Staff surveys addressed indicators of social capital, defined as staff–youth relationships (as measured by the presence of trust, bonding, and support), collective staff efficacy (i.e., staff’s perception of their ability to have a positive effect on youth development), and communication and teamwork. The youth survey addressed participants’ perceptions of staff–student relationships, participants’ engagement in the program and in school, the value of education, and future aspirations.

When asked how often afterschool staff communicated with the school staff, responses varied from “infrequently” to “daily,” with 32% reporting “several times a week.”

Only 44% of the afterschool staff responded that they were “very comfortable” communicating with school staff.

The majority of the afterschool staff (57%) agreed that LA’s BEST staff effectively communicated with the school staff.

LA's BEST sites with a higher mean score for staff perceptions of social capital also had a significantly higher mean score for youth perceptions of staff–youth relationships (p < .05).

Staff perceptions of collective staff efficacy were positively and significantly associated with youth perceptions of staff–youth relationships while controlling for the demographic variables (p < .05).

No relationship was found between staff perceptions of teamwork and communication and youth perceptions of staff–youth relationships.

The majority of staff agreed that “every child can learn” (88%), that staff can find an alternative way to teach a child who is not benefiting from the traditional teaching strategy (86%), and that staff are able to get through to difficult youth (64%). Staff disagreed that they would give up on youth and staff lacking the skills to produce meaningful learning (86% and 79%, respectively).

The majority of staff disagreed with statements about the presence of poor teaching methods (72%), difficulty reaching all youth (71%), and youth disciplinary problems (70%).

Staff generally felt that they possessed the necessary resources to perform their job tasks. Specifically, over one third of staff agreed or strongly agreed that the quality of school facilities facilitates the teaching and learning process, participants’ home life “provides so many advantages that they are bound to learn,” participants come to the program ready to learn, and opportunities in this community help ensure that program participants will learn. The majority of staff either strongly disagreed or disagreed that “students here just aren’t motivated to learn” (67%) and that learning was negatively influenced by worrying about safety (62%). Nearly half of the staff strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement about drug and alcohol abuse in the community making learning difficult for youth. And when asked about whether there was a lack of instructional materials, a greater percentage of staff disagreed (43%) than agreed (28%) with the statement.

Staff reported working both collaboratively and individually on a regular basis. The majority of staff reported daily communication and teamwork (74% and 58%, respectively). In addition, the great majority of staff members (85%) worked individually at least several times a week.

The majority of staff (73%) reported that they were “very comfortable” communicating with other LA’s BEST staff at their program site. More specifically, 80% of the staff responded that they were “very comfortable” working as part of a team and 73% of the staff responded that they were also “very comfortable” working individually.

The majority of LA’s BEST staff agreed that staff respect the thoughts and opinions of other staff (89%), share ideas including teaching ideas and behavior modification techniques (84%), and help out even though the task they’re helping with may not be a part of their official assignment (80%).

When asked to describe the relationship they had with youth participants, the overwhelming majority of staff used descriptors such as mentoring, warm, important, and influential. In addition, more than 75% of staff characterized their relationship with youth as positive, supportive, encouraging, and strong. Similarly, more than two thirds of staff reported that they liked the youth in their program (75%) and believed in them (68%).

When asked about the types of staff–youth interactions that occurred in the program, the majority of staff reported positive statements such as feeling comfortable approaching youth (80%) and that youth felt comfortable approaching them (57%).

Most staff reported interacting with youth regarding school work and behavioral issues “almost daily” or “daily” (86% and 69%, respectively). The majority of staff also reported interacting with youth regarding family and home issues at least once per week (80%) and interacting with youth regarding social and friend issues “almost daily” or “daily” (59%).

Over half of the staff reported that program youth trusted and respected them a lot (58% and 53%, respectively). In addition, more than 75% of the staff reported that they respected these youth a lot. Most LA’s BEST staff felt that youth participants were more than “somewhat” trustworthy and were confident in the reliability of these youth (73% and 74%, respectively).

The vast majority of staff reported that they discussed the importance of education with youth and encouraged them to try hard in school at least several times a week (96% and 99%, respectively). Further, almost all staff (nearly 100%) reported making youth feel important at least several times a week and most staff reported that they anticipated LA’s BEST youth would graduate from high school (86%) and go on to college (73%).

The majority of youth participants said “yes” (as opposed to “no,” “not really,” or “sometimes”) when asked about whether they were comfortable with and had feelings of trust toward the LA's BEST staff (57% and 62%, respectively). However, youth were less likely to report that staff showed trust toward youth and had belief in what they say (44% and 19%, said “yes,” respectively), although the majority responded at least “sometimes” (79% and 68%, respectively).

More than 75% of youth responded that they at least “sometimes” believed that LA’s BEST staff listened to and believed in them, and a similar percentage reported that they liked the LA’s BEST staff.

The majority of youth reported that LA’s BEST staff helped youth when they did not understand something (69%) and/or as needed (59%).

More than half of youth reported that LA's BEST staff cared about them and informed them that they can do anything if they work hard (62% and 53%, respectively). In addition, for each of the seven support and encouragement questions, over 70% of the youth responded at least “sometimes” feeling important and emotionally supported by LA’s BEST staff.

Secondary Source/Data Review: The evaluator established a longitudinal database on LA’s BEST participants, which includes demographics, academic data (e.g., standardized test scores), and information on the number of days youth attended LA’s BEST each year.

Test/Assessments: Included in the longitudinal database are reading and math standardized test scores for each LA’s BEST participant for each year on the California Standards Test.

Secondary Source/Data Review: LA’s BEST provided program attendance data. In addition, the local school district provided data on student background characteristics, achievement, and report cards. The student report card data included teacher ratings on students’ work and study skills as well as teacher ratings of student citizenship.

Surveys/Questionnaires: The youth survey examined 21st century skills, defined as self-efficacy, oral communication skills, and collaboration skills.

Test/Assessments: Items for each of the scales in the survey were selected or adapted from previously established scales including Form A of the Communication Attitude Test (Bruten, 1985), the Student Attitudes toward Group Environment questionnaire (Kouros & Abrami, 2006), and Bandura’s Children’s Self-Efficacy Scale (2006). In addition, the local school district provided test score date for the California Standards Test in math and English language arts.

References:
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares and T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 5. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Bruten, G. J. (1985). Communication attitude test: Form A. Retrieved from
www.unl.edu/fluency/pdfs/test.pdf

Kouros, C., & Abrami, P. C. (2006, April). How do students really feel about working in small groups? The role of student attitudes and behaviors in cooperative classroom settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California.

Program attendance levels were not significantly associated with youth's self-efficacy, oral communication skills, or collaboration skills.

Youth with higher program attendance consistently rated themselves more in accordance with the external measures of academic performance on the California Standards Test and teacher report card ratings than the lower attendees did. This was particularly true for self-efficacy and communication skills (p < .05).