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 4: Attrition from After School Programs: Characteristics of Students Who Drop Out


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To examine differences between youth who stayed in MASCGP programs and youth who withdrew prior to the end of the school year.
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: Data were collected from all 234 youth in 8 MASCGP programs (19–47 youth per program). On average, youth were 11.5 years old. Nearly two thirds (61%) were male; 80% were non-White, with 96% of non-White participants being Black. According to parent reports on registration forms, 40% of youth were classified as latchkey (i.e., they would have no supervision after school if not for the program). The following data were collected on all registered youth at the 8 programs: demographic and program attendance (100% of youth, n = 234), school attendance (62% of youth, n = 146), school class grades (65% of youth, n = 153), census data (91% of youth addresses, n = 214), and youth surveys (100% of youth, n = 234).

Comparisons were made between youth who attended (stayers, n = 157) and youth who withdrew from the program (dropouts, n = 77). Comparisons were also made between youth with varying levels of program attendance. Comparisons were made on 12 outcomes, ranging from school attendance and grades to drug use, delinquency, and neighborhood disadvantage. Of the drop outs, 63 completed short withdrawal interviews.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Withdrawal interviews asked youth why they left the program.

Secondary Sources/Data Review: Demographic and program attendance data on youth participants were provided by all 8 programs. School attendance and grade data were obtained from participants' school records.

Block group data from the 1990 census were used to compute a measure of neighborhood social disorganization. This measure was made up of indicators for the proportion of youth in the block group displaying the following 12 family characteristics: welfare receipt, poverty, divorce, female unemployment, male unemployment, males not in the labor force, females not in the labor force, low professional/managerial employment, low family income, low educational attainment, low-level nonpublic school enrollment, and female-headed households.

Surveys/Questionnaires: A survey, What About You? (Gottfredson, 1991), was administered to youth at the beginning of the program year. The survey provided eight indicators of youth at-risk status: rebellious behavior, delinquent behavior, last year variety of drug use (i.e., usage of more types of drugs), last month frequency of drug use, attachment to school, commitment to education, peer drug models (i.e., how many of their friends use drugs), and parental supervision. In addition, a measure of youth's social skills was embedded in the survey.

Tests/Assessments: The social skills assessment in the survey was drawn from the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Elementary Level Student form (Gresham & Elliott, 1990).

References
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 in the 1998–1999 program year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Recruitment/Participation Dropout rates ranged from 11% to 53% per program.

Eleven out of the 12 comparisons between dropouts and stayers indicated that higher risk youth were more likely to drop out, though only three of these relationships were significant. More specifically, dropouts were more likely to have more peer drug models (p < .01), higher school absence rates (p < .01), and come from more socially disorganized neighborhoods (p < .05) than stayers.

Youth who reported more parental supervision had significantly higher levels of program attendance than youth who reported less parental supervision (p < .05).

Youth with more peer drug models (p < .01), days absent from school (p < .01), frequent drug use in the last month (p < .05), and variety of drug use in the last year (p < .05) had lower program attendance than youth less at-risk according to these characteristics.

Youth from more highly disorganized neighborhoods had lower levels of program attendance than youth from less highly disorganized neighborhoods (p < .01).

Withdrawal interviews indicated that the main reasons youth withdrew were because they found the program boring (33%), relocated (19%), and had transportation problems (14%). Transportation was mainly an issue in programs that did not provide transportation home after the program.

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