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 6: After-School Programs, Antisocial Behavior, and Positive Youth Development: An Exploration of the Relationship Between Program Implementation and Changes in Youth Behavior


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To assess the relationship between program implementation and youth outcomes.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Data were collected from 21 program sites. Implementation data were collected from program staff records, observations (8 site visits at each program site), and program director interviews at all 21 sites.

Program outcomes were assessed from participant surveys and school records collected 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 completed pretest surveys, and 402 (83%) of these youth also completed posttest surveys. The sample was 46% male and 82% non-White, with an average age of 10.5 years. Pretest/posttest school attendance data were collected for 53% of pretested youth, and pretest/posttest grades data were received for 60% of pretested youth.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: Logs and forms completed by program staff provided data on daily facets of program administration and components (amount of time spent in academic, recreation, social skills, and youth-staff ratio during the academics component).

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 Source/Data Review: Youth's school records (grade point averages [GPA] and attendance data) were collected for the 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 school years.

Surveys/Questionnaires: The youth survey, What About You? (Gottfredson, 1991), measured youth's 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 youth's 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

Program Context/Infrastructure Middle school programs were expected to meet 3 days per week for a total of 90 program days, and elementary school programs were expected to meet 4 days per week for a total of 120 program days. Middle school programs in general exceeded this standard by meeting for 116 days, while elementary school programs fell short, meeting 107 days on average.

Elementary school participants were found to have received approximately 30 fewer hours of social skills and character development lessons over the course of the program than middle school participants.

In the typical program, students received approximately 1.7 hours of educational services per week and 1.8 (elementary) or 2.4 (middle) hours of social skills or character development training.
Recruitment/Participation On average, youth attended 71% (for middle school youth) and 80% (for elementary school youth) of available program days. The mean number of days actually attended was 64 (middle) and 68 (elementary). Eighty-four percent of elementary and 77% of middle school youth participated for more than 30 days.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The number of social skills lessons completed by participants, as reported by the program directors in interviews, was related to improvements in GPA (p < .01). In particular, participation in more than 30 lessons predicted increases in GPA; all other participants showed a decrease in GPA.

The number of social skills lesson hours (according to program logs) predicted increased school attendance (p < .01). In particular, providing more than 1 hour of social skills per week predicted increases in school attendance.

More than 3 hours of academics per week predicted increases in elementary school participants' school attendance (p < .05), though this relationship was not found for middle school youth.
Prevention Programs rated by observers as having more efficient procedures (p < .05), higher levels of behavior management (p < . 01), and higher levels of overall structure (p < .05) showed significantly smaller increases in youth's rebellious behavior from pretest to posttest.

Programs rated by observers as having higher levels of overall structure were more likely than other programs to show gains in youth's intentions not to use drugs (p < .05).

The number of hours youth were involved in academics per week predicted lower variety of drug use in the last year for elementary school youth (p < .01), though this relationship was not found for middle school youth. In particular, more than 2.33 hours of academics per week predicted decreases in the variety of drug use by elementary school participants.

The percentage of time spent in recreation predicted increases in delinquent behavior, after school violent crime, and peer drug models for middle school participants (p < .05 for each). In particular, more than 2.6 hours per week of recreation was related to increases in these three negative outcomes.

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