Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Pretest and posttest interviews were conducted with 47 youth (21 boys and 26 girls) participating in one of the two afterschool programs. Youth who participated in the study ranged in age from 6–16 with an average of just under 9 years old. The majority of participants (87%) were White.

All afterschool program teachers (N = 36) at each location completed pretest and posttest surveys.

Interviews were conducted with 17 of the 25 parents/caregivers who agreed to be interviewed. Most parents/caregivers interviewed reported that they were mothers (88%), employed (88%), and married (82%). The majority had completed some postsecondary education (65%). On average, caregivers reported working 37.5 hours each week. 

Interviews/Focus Groups: Youth interviews examined their perceptions of their life skills, school connectedness, and parents’ caregiving practices over the course of the school year.

Parents/caregivers interviews assessed the relationship between youth behaviors and competencies and perceptions of life skills, school connectedness, and caregiving practices, as well as perceptions of their child’s afterschool program and the influence of that program on their child’s behavior, peer relationships, and parent–child relations.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Program teacher surveys examined youth participants’ progress in the program.

Test/Assessments: Youth interviews included adaptations of the following assessments:

1. 24 items from The Life Skills Development Evaluation (Bailey & Deen, 2002) on decision-making, leadership, time management, prosocial behaviors, conflict resolution, and risk taking.
2. 14 items from the Children’s Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (Schwarz & Mearns, 1989; see also Schaefer, 1965) on perceptions of parent involvement.
3. 10 items from the School Environment Scale (National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1988) on perceptions of school connectedness.

Program teacher surveys included a version of the Teacher–Child Rating Scale (Hightower et al., 1986), with 36 items (18 competencies and 18 problem behaviors of youth). Competency subscales included acting out, shyness/anxiety, and learning problems. Behavior problem subscales included frustration, tolerance, assertiveness, and task orientation.

Parent interviews included adaptations of the following assessments:

1. 14 items from the Teacher–Child Rating Scale (Hightower et al., 1986) to assess their child’s competency and problem behaviors.
2. 14 items from the Children’s Report of Parent Behavior (Schwarz & Mearns, 1989; see also Schaefer, 1965) to assess caregiving behaviors.
3. 28 items from the Inventory of Parent Influence (Campbell, 1996) to assess their involvement in their child’s education on five dimensions: parental pressure, parental psychological support, parent help, press for intellectual development, and monitoring and time management.
4. 24 items from the Quality of School Age Child Care Checklist (Family Policy Program, 1997) on their perceptions of the afterschool program, which comprise four subscales: guidance and supervision, program and activities, parent, school and community relationships, and staffing characteristics.

Related references:
Bailey, S. J. & Deen, M.Y. (2002). Development of a web-based evaluation system: A tool for measuring life skills in youth and family programs. Family Relations, 51, 138–147.

Campbell, J. R. (1996). Developing cross-national instruments: Using cross-national methods and procedures. International Journal of Educational Research, 25, 485–496.

Family Policy Program. (1997). Quality of school age child care: A checklist of indicators—adapted. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Family Policy Program.

Hightower, A. D., Work, W. C., Cowen, E. L., Lotyczewski, B. S., Spinell, A. P., Guare, J. C., & Rohrbeck, C. A. (1986). The teacher–child rating scale: A brief objective measure of elementary children’s school problem behaviors and competencies. School Psychology Review, 15(3), 393–409.

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. (1988). School environment scale. Washington, DC: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Schwarz, J. C., & Mearns, J. (1989). Assessing parental childrearing behaviors: A comparison of parent, child, and aggregate ratings from two instruments. Journal of Research in Personality, 23, 450–468.

Schaefer, E. S. (1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 36, 417–424.

Interviewed parents/caregivers agreed that the program provided appropriate activities (mean = 4.28 on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

Interviewed parents/caregivers were, on average, uncertain about the afterschool program’s adequacy to facilitate parent–school–community relationships (mean = 3.31 on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Several parents stated feeling somewhat disconnected from the program and that they would like to be more involved.

In interviews, parents/caregivers cited the program’s hours of operation as problematic and they requested more flexibility in time offerings.

Interviewed parents/caregivers agreed that the staff exhibited positive and professional characteristics (mean = 4.16 on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). 

Interviewed parents/caregivers agreed that the program provided adequate guidance and supervision (mean = 3.90 on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

Surveys indicated a significant decrease from pretest to posttest in youth reports that their classes were boring and that youth wasted time when they should have been studying (p < .01 for each).

Six parents remarked that the program assisted with homework completion and four reported that it influenced their child’s study skills. As one parent noted, “He knows when to do homework, and doesn’t hurry through it. He knows he has to do it himself.”

Youth reported that their parents were significantly less willing to let them choose their own way of doing things (in general) at posttest than pretest (p < .05).

Some parents reported in interviews that they no longer had homework struggles as youth completed their assignments after school, leaving more family time in the evening. One parent commented: “The afterschool program lessens the stress of having homework done, therefore I don’t need to worry. It leaves more time for fun.” In addition, many parents/caregivers reported that they enjoyed a less stressful relationship with their child as a result of decreased evening homework demands.

Some parents/caregivers suggested in interviews that the program improved communication between them and their child. 

From pretest to posttest, program teacher ratings revealed that youth showed significant decreases (p < .001 for each) in behavioral problems, both overall and in terms of the subscales for youth acting out, exhibiting shyness or anxiety, and learning problems. 

From pretest to posttest, program teacher ratings revealed that youth showed significant gains (p < .001 for each) in competencies overall and in terms of the subscales of youth frustration tolerance, assertiveness, and task orientation.

Anecdotal comments from program teachers revealed that youth exhibited increased politeness in their interactions with adults and their peers and a willingness to engage in life skills activities (e.g., computer training, decision-making, and communication exercises) over the course of the afterschool year.

Parents reported an improvement in their children’s social skills and peer relationships. Four parents believed the program assisted their children in being more confident and outgoing. As one parent put it, “[My child] is able to be more outgoing and more sociable with kids her age, as well as older and younger kids.” Eight parents reported that the program had given their children more diversity in their friendships.