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 goal of the Maryland After School Community Grant Program (MASCGP), which served Maryland youth in grades 4 through 8, was to strengthen youth resiliency and prevent substance abuse, violence, and delinquency among youth by increasing the availability of high quality, structured after school programs. The program's objectives were to increase participants' supervised after school time, academic performance, social skills, attachments to prosocial adults, aversion to substance use and illegal behavior, and involvement and investment in constructive activities.
Start Date 1997 (completed in June 2002)
Scope state
Type after school
Location urban, rural, and suburban
Setting public school, community-based organization, faith-based organization, private facility, recreation center
Participants elementary and middle school students (fourth through eighth graders, some third graders)
Number of Sites/Grantees approximately 40
Number Served 469 in 2001–2002
Components MASCGP activities varied by sponsoring agency (county or state government, public schools, youth agencies, church, and private organizations), program site (community center or public school), number of youth served, participation “dosage” (number of hours participants experience the program), and fee schedule. All MASCGP centers were required to include three basic components: academic achievement; social skills; and “bonding” activities, such as sports, arts, crafts, and other recreational activities aimed at retaining participants.
Funding Level $1.1 million for the 2001–2002 school year
Funding Sources Safe and Drug Free Schools Program of the U.S. Department of Justice, Maryland Governor's Office of Crime Control & Prevention, parent fees, other sources
Other MASCGP was incorporated into a larger “Youth Strategies” Activity Initiative that combines eight federal and state funding streams and funds a wide variety of prevention activities to reduce or prevent youth substance abuse and crime. The 5-year consolidated grant initiative offered $15 million over 18 months (January 2002–June 2003) to 24 Maryland communities for prevention, intervention, and aftercare services for youth.


Evaluation

Overview The goals of the evaluation were to examine program implementation and impact on participants' behavior and levels of risk and resiliency. Further studies focused on predictors of dropping out of programs, mechanisms linking participation to reduced delinquency, and relationships between program implementation and youth outcomes.
Evaluator Denise C. Gottfredson, Stephanie A. Weisman, Shannon C. Womer, Melissa Kellstron, Sean Bryner, Amy Kahler, Lee Ann Slocum, Shaoli Lu, and David A. Soulé, University of Maryland, College Park
Evaluations Profiled Maryland After School Community Grant Program: Report on the 1999–2000 School Year Evaluation of the Phase 1 After School Programs

Maryland After School Community Grant Program Part 1: Report on the 2000–2001 School Year Evaluation of the Phase 2 After School Programs

Maryland After School Community Grant Program Part 1: Report on the 2001–2002 School Year Evaluation of the Phase 3 After School Programs

Attrition From After School Programs: Characteristics of Students Who Drop Out

Do After School Programs Reduce Delinquency?

After-School Programs, Antisocial Behavior, and Positive Youth Development: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Program Implementation and Changes in Youth Behavior
Evaluations Planned none (The “Youth Strategies” Activity Initiative will be evaluated by Dr. Denise C. Gottfredson of the University of Maryland.)
Report Availability Weisman, S. A., Soulé, D. A., & Womer, S. C., under the direction of Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Maryland After School Community Grant Program: Report on the 1999–2000 school year evaluation of the Phase 1 after school programs. College Park: University of Maryland.

Weisman, S. A., Womer, S. C., Lu, S., Soule, D. A., Bryner, S. L., Kahler, A., et al., under the direction of Gottfredson, D. C. (2002). Maryland After School Community Grant Program part 1: Report on the 2000–2001 school year evaluation of the Phase 2 after school programs. College Park: University of Maryland.

Weisman, S. A., Womer, S. C., Kellstrom, M. A. Bryner, S., Kahler, A., & Slocum, L. A., under the direction of Gottfredson, D. C. (2003). Maryland After School Community Grant Program part 1: Report on the 2001–2002 school year evaluation of the Phase 3 after school programs. College Park: University of Maryland.

Weisman, S. A., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Attrition from after school programs: Characteristics of students who drop out. Prevention Science, 2, 201–205.

Gottfredson, D. C. Weisman, S. A., Soulé, D. A., Womer, S. C., & Lu, S. (2004). Do after school programs reduce delinquency? Prevention Science, 5, 253–266.

Weisman, S. A., Soule, D. A., Gottfredson, D. C., Lu, S., Kellstrom, M. A., Womer, S. C., & Bryner, S. L. (2005). After-school programs, anti-social behavior, and positive youth development: An exploration of the relationship between program implementation and changes in youth behavior. In J. L. Mahoney, J. S., Eccles & R. W. Larson (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school, and community programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Contacts

Evaluation Denise C. Gottfredson, Ph.D.
Project Director
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
2220D LeFrak Hall
University of Maryland
Tel: 301-405-4717
Fax: 301-405-4733
Email: dgottfredson@crim.umd.edu
Program Andrea Alexander
Youth Services Division Chief
Governor's Office of Crime Control & Prevention
300 E. Joppa Rd, Suite 1105
Baltimore, MD 21286-3016
Phone: 410-321-3521 ext. 356
Fax: 410-321-3116
Email: andrea@goccp-state-md.org
Profile Updated May 19, 2006

Evaluation 2: Maryland After School Community Grant Program Part 1: Report on the 2000–2001 School Year Evaluation of the Phase 2 After School Programs


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To provide information on implementation of the 21 programs during the 2000–2001 year, to identify the major risk and protective factors associated with delinquency and drug use, and to identify program characteristics related to changes in these risk and protective factors and in delinquency and drug use.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Implementation data were collected from program staff records and observations at all 21 sites. Pretest/posttest attendance data were received for 53% of pretested youth, while pretest/posttest grade point average (GPA) data were received for 60% of pretested youth. Each program director was interviewed and 8 site visits were conducted at each program.

Program outcomes were assessed from data collected from program participants at the beginning and end of the program year. A total of 486 of the 625 youth who had ever registered for these programs during 2000–2001 were administered the pretest survey, while 402 (83%) of these youth were administered the posttest survey. Stayers (those who took both pretest and posttest surveys) and dropouts (those who did not take the posttest) did not appear to be significantly different from one another on pretest measures, with the exception that dropouts were involved in significantly fewer constructive activities than stayers (p < .01). The final sample (those completing both the pretest and posttest) was 46% male and 82% non-White. The average age of the sample was 10.45 years.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: Logs and forms completed by program staff provided data on daily facets of program administration and components (academic, recreation, and social skills).

Interviews/Focus Groups: Program directors were interviewed at the end of the year about the programs' populations served, staff, and components.

Observation: Site visits examined program characteristics, including the structure of program components, youth engagement levels, social climate, and behavior management.

Secondary Sources/Data Review: Students' school records (grades and attendance data) were collected from the prior (1999–2000) and present (2000–2001) school years.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Youth completed the What About You? survey (Gottfredson, 1991) at the beginning and end of the school year. The survey measures youth' attachment to school, rebellious and delinquent behavior, drug use, attitudes about drug use, peer relationships, parental supervision, commitment to education, belief in rules, and unsupervised after school time and involvement in constructive activities.

Tests/Assessments: Additional items were added to the What About You? survey from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Elementary Level Student form (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), which measured youth's social skills, and from the Communities That Care Youth Survey (Arthur, Pollard, Hawkins & Catalano, 1995), which measured youths' attachment to prosocial adults.

References
Arthur, M., Pollard, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. (1995). Communities that care youth survey. Seattle, WA: Developmental Research and Programs.

Gottfredson, G. (1991). What about you? Ellicott City, MD: Gottfredson Associates.

Gresham, F., & Elliott, S. (1990). Social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 2000–2001 school year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation According to program staff logs, all programs provided at least one fun, constructive, interesting activity. On average, such activities were provided 95% of days, with three out of five programs providing these activities every program day.

According to program observations, only 19% of programs provided recreational activities with a high level of structure. (Thirty-eight percent provided medium-structure recreational activities and 43% provided low structure.)

Nearly all programs offered arts and crafts and performing arts activities, while about half offered wilderness or challenge activities and nearly one third offered an entrepreneurship activity.

Two thirds of programs met the administrative standard of offering group field trips outside the after school program setting throughout the program year. In total, 169 field trips were taken during the year.

Program director surveys indicated that educational activities used only 49% of best practices specified by the evaluators as such prior to the evaluation.

According to survey responses, just over a quarter of programs (27%) used academic assistance programs developed by researchers.

In 90% of programs, every youth participated in structured educational activities at least 1.5 hours per week, with an average of 2.6 hours of such instruction per week.

All programs provided social skills development training through curricula or activities designed to teach, model, or reinforce social skills and character.

Observations revealed that few programs met administrative standards related to the specified content of social skills development training.

Program director surveys indicated that social skills training used only 37% of “best practices.”

Forty-two percent of programs met the administrative standard of having every youth participate in an average of 1.5 hours per week of structured social skill and character development activities.

Program director surveys and interviews revealed that social skills training components were much more structured than the academic assistance or recreation components.

Based on survey responses, 53% of programs used social skills training curricula developed by researchers.
Costs/Revenues Seventy-one percent of programs charged no fee for after school services. Of programs that charged fees, fees ranged from $5 per year to $50 per month.

One third of program directors reported in interviews that program funding was one of their program's primary difficulties.
Parent/Community Involvement Seventeen programs (81%) provided at least one activity for families, according to program staff logs.

Ten percent of programs met the administrative standard of contacting a parent/guardian regarding youth's progress throughout the program year. In total, there were 34 times during the program year that programs contacted a parent/guardian of a MASCGP youth.

One program met the administrative standard of seeking parent/guardian input for academic assessments. Overall, parent/guardian input was sought in 18% of assessments.

Of the individual academic plans that were developed, 48% were shared with the youth and his/her parent or guardian (as opposed to the administrative standard of 100%).

One third of program directors reported in interviews that parent cooperation, involvement, and understanding were primary difficulties encountered in the program.
Program–School Linkages Four programs (19%) met the administrative standard of conducting an assessment of all youth in their program. In total, academic assessments were made for 66% of youth. Three programs (14%) met the administrative standard of having these academic assessments done by an educational professional in the youth's school or by a qualified after school staff member. In total, a qualified professional conducted 63% of academic assessments.

Four programs (19%) met the administrative standard of developing individual academic plans for all youth based on the assessment of educational need. In total, academic plans were made for 66% of youth. Of these plans, 79% included general and subject-specific learning objectives (as opposed to the administrative standard of 100%).

All programs provided structured educational activities based on youth's academic plans.
Program Context/Infrastructure Overall, programs met 47% of their implementation standards, ranging from 25% to 71%.

Forty-eight percent of the programs operated 4 days per week, 28% operated 5 days per week, and 24% operated 3 days per week.

The majority of programs operated between 2.5 and 3 hours per week.

Only a quarter of programs appeared to use a discipline management system consistently and to reward good behavior, while just over half of programs (57%) had clear expectations for youth behavior and demonstrated consistency in managing youth.

Observations suggested that only 29% of the programs were effective at monitoring youth.

Twenty-nine percent of elementary school programs, 60% of middle school programs, and 67% of mixed elementary/middle school programs met the administrative standard of offering after school activities for at least a specified number of days (at least 90 days for middle school youth and at least 120 days for elementary school youth). The average number of days of offered activities was 105 at middle school programs, 117 for elementary school programs, and 135 for mixed programs.
Recruitment/Participation All but one site served both genders, with the one remaining site serving only boys.

Seventy-one percent of programs served youth with behavior problems, nearly half served youth at risk of being expelled from school, and nearly a fifth (19%) served gang members.

About half of the programs met the administrative standard of having a core group of 20 youth who participated regularly. Programs served an average of 18 youth regularly.

Ten percent of programs met the administrative standard of having all youth attend 80% of all sessions. Programs had an average of 68% of participants attend 80% of sessions.

Throughout the school year, 29% of participants dropped out of the program. Those who dropped out attended 53 program days on average, as compared to 112 days for stayers.

More program dropouts than stayers tended to be white (p < .01).
Staffing/Training The majority of programs (62%) experienced staff turnover during the year (average rate of 6%).

Nine programs (43%) reported difficulty recruiting and/or retaining qualified staff. Of these nine programs, eight mentioned a lack of qualified applicants as a reason for this difficulty, four mentioned the time/hours of the program, one mentioned childcare licensure requirements, and one mentioned transportation issues.

In 95% of observations, adults involved in the program appeared to be caring, genuinely interested in the youth, and accessible to the youth.

Adult–youth relations were rated as good or exceptional in 71% of observations.

Relations among staff were rated as good or exceptional in 76% of observations.

Almost 60% of programs met the administrative standard of having all of their direct service staff judged as competent in the areas they were delivering services, as indicated by prior training. On average, 87% of staff were judged to have enough relevant experience in this regard.

Six programs (29%) met the administrative standard of having 90% of their direct service staff participate in four staff development sessions per year in their service delivery area. In total, 42% of staff participated in at least four staff development sessions.

The average ratio of trained academic assistance staff to youth was 1:6 across programs.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Participants in programs offering more than 30 lessons in social skills had significantly higher gains in GPA than did participants in programs with fewer such lessons (p < .01).

Participants in programs offering more than 1 hour per week of social skills lessons had significantly higher gains in school attendance than did participants in programs with lower levels of such lessons (p < .01).

Participants in elementary school programs that had more than 3 hours of academics per week had significantly larger gains in the percentage of days they attended school than participants in programs with lower levels of academics (p < .05).

Participants in programs offering more than 2.5 hours of recreational activities per week had significant decreases in GPA compared to participants who had fewer hours of such activities (p < .01).
Prevention Programs rated by observers as having more efficient procedures had greater reductions in rebellious behavior than programs with less efficient procedures (p < .05).

Programs rated by observers as having higher levels of overall structure had greater reductions in rebellious behavior than programs with low or medium structure (p < .05).

Programs rated by observers as having higher levels of behavior management had greater reductions in rebellious behavior than programs with lower levels of behavior management (p < .01).

Programs rated by observers as having higher levels of overall structure had greater gains in youth's intentions not to use drugs than programs with low or medium structure (p < .05).

Participants in elementary school programs that had more than 2.33 hours of academics per week had significantly greater decreases in last year variety of drug use (a scale that counts the number of different drugs they admitted using) than participants in programs with lower levels of academics per week (p < .01).

For middle school participants, the dedication of lower levels of program time to recreation is associated with lower delinquent behavior, while higher percentages of program time concentrated on recreation is related to more delinquent behavior (p < .05).

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