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 LA's BEST (Better Educated Students for Tomorrow) Program
Profile Information
- Full Text (HTML)
- How to cite
- About the OST Database
Program Description
| Overview | The LA’s BEST (Better Educated Students for Tomorrow) Program is an afterschool program that serves elementary-school-aged youth in Los Angeles, California. The program provides youth with a safe environment, enhanced opportunities through integrated educational supports, educational enrichment activities to supplement and deepen the regular program, recreational activities, and interpersonal skills and self-esteem development. |
| Start Date | 1988 |
| Scope | local |
| Type | afterschool |
| Location | urban |
| Setting | public schools |
| Participants | elementary school students |
| Number of Sites/Grantees | 186 elementary schools |
| Number Served | 28,000 per year |
| Components | The program is available from the end of the school day until 6 pm, Monday through Friday, at no cost to parents. In addition, numerous citywide events and field trips are scheduled on weekends. To attend, youth must enroll in the program and are expected to participate on a regular basis. |
| Funding Level | $36 million (2009–2010) |
| Funding Sources | City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Unified School District, private sector, private foundations, 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, California Department of Education, other federal grants, and private individuals |
Evaluation
| Overview | Beginning in the 1989–90 school year, a series of evaluation studies has been conducted that examine the program’s implementation and impact. |
| Evaluator(s) | Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles |
| Evaluations Profiled | Evaluation Report, March 1, 1990 Evaluation Report, July 31, 1991 Final Evaluation Report, December 17, 1993 Final Evaluation Report: Longitudinal Study, 1992–94 The impact of the LA’s BEST after school enrichment initiative on subsequent student achievement and performance Examining the Relationship between Afterschool Staff-Based Social Capital and Student Engagement in LA’s BEST Exploring the Relationships between LA’s BEST Program Attendance and Cognitive Gains of LA’s BEST Students Exploring the Effect of Afterschool Participation on Students’ Collaboration Skills, Oral Communication Skills, and Self-Efficacy |
| Evaluations Planned | The Center for the Study of Evaluation team continues to evaluate the role of LA’s BEST in supporting youth’s academic and social development. The Center is currently conducting an exploratory study on the first year of LA’s BEST summer schools’ impact on language development—due June 30, 2012. |
| Report Availability |
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. 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., 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 |
Contacts
| Evaluation |
Regino Chávez |
Denise Huang, Ph.D. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation 301 GSE & IS Bldg Los Angeles, CA 90095 Tel: 310-206-9642 Email: dhuang@cse.ucla.edu |
| Program | Carla Sanger President and CEO LA’s BEST Office of the Mayor 200 N. Main Street, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Tel: 213-847-3681 Fax: 485-6606 Email: csanger@mayor.lacity.org |
|
| Profile Updated | April 4, 2012 |
Evaluation 4: Final Evaluation Report: Longitudinal Study, 1992–94
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To examine the impact over time of LA’s BEST on youth’s effort and achievement in school subjects, attitudes toward school, self-esteem, personal goals and aspirations, and experiences of close relationships with peers and adults. |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: The study examined two groups of fifth and sixth graders: 80 program youth recruited from the 10 longest operating LA’S BEST sites who participated in LA’s BEST for at least 2 years by the end of the 1993 school year, and 66 comparison youth who resembled the first group, but who had participated in LA’s BEST for less than three months (if at all). The two groups and their parents were interviewed in the 1992–93 school year and again in the 1993–94 school year. Two types of analyses were done on academic outcomes: Method 1 controlled for length of time in the program and statistically adjusted “before program” performances of both groups of students, while Method 2 controlled for initial differences by eliminating “outliers”—youth who had unusually high or low performance—from both groups. Subsamples resulted that were more similar in their initial grades. |
| Data Collection Methods |
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. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Data were collected for the school years 1992–93 (Year 1) and 1993–94 (Year 2). |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Recruitment/ Participation | Both program and non-program children felt equally unsafe in their neighborhoods. |
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Academic |
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.” |
| Prevention | Program children felt significantly safer than non-program children in their afterschool hours, even those Year 2 students who had transitioned into middle and junior high school and thus had been out of the program for one full year. |
| Youth Development |
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. |