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

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.