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.
HFRP
> Out-of-School Time
> OST Database & Bibliography
> Database
> San Diego's "6 to 6" Extended School Day Program
A Profile of the Evaluation of San Diego's "6 to 6" Extended School Day Program
Profile Information
- Full Text (HTML)
- Request reprint permission
- How to cite
- About the OST Database
Program Description
| Overview | The San Diego “6 to 6” Extended School Day Program is designed to provide access to high quality, affordable enrichment programs before and after school to every elementary and middle school student in the city of San Diego, California. The program is designed to provide a safe place for students while their parents are at work, one that is both academically enriching and recreationally stimulating. |
| Start Date | 1998 |
| Scope | local |
| Type | after school, before school |
| Location | urban |
| Setting | public school |
| Participants | kindergarten through middle school students |
| Number of Sites/Grantees | The city has contracted with 15 community-based organizations to operate 196 sites for the school year, where each site serves 85–100 elementary students or 100–300 middle school students. There is a 3-year grant length for state and federal funds, while local funds are renewed annually. |
| Number Served | 25,000 (2000–2001) |
| Components | Community-based organizations in partnership with public schools operate the daily program, which consists of academic enrichment, youth development activities, creative and performing arts, leadership opportunities, and community service activities. |
| Funding Level | $16.95 million (FY 2002). The California After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnership program contributes $8.5 million dollars annually for the duration of its 3-year grant, the city contributed an additional $6.1 million (FY 2002), and the federal government, through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers funds, contributed $2.35 million (FY 2002). |
| Funding Sources | city of San Diego, state of California (After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program), and federal government (21st Century Community Learning Centers program) |
Evaluation
| Overview | Two evaluations of San Diego's “6 to 6” program have been conducted. The first evaluation, conducted by WestEd, examined the health and safety of the program and complaint procedures; the evaluators also analyzed existing satisfaction surveys. The second evaluation, conducted by Hoffman, Clark & Associates, examined the academic performance of San Diego's “6 to 6” program participants. |
| Evaluator | WestEd and Hoffman, Clark & Associates |
| Evaluations Profiled | San Diego After School Regional Consortium: Academic Indicator Report 1999–2000 (July 2001) Independent Evaluation of San Diego's “6 to 6” Extended School Day Program: Final Report (January 2002) |
| Evaluations Planned | San Diego After School Regional Consortium: Academic Indicator Report 2000–01 |
| Report Availability | Hoffman, J. (2001, July). San Diego After School Regional Consortium: Academic indicator report 1999–2000. San Diego, CA: Hoffman, Clark & Associates. McCormick, T., Bojorquez, J. C., & Tushnet, N. (2002). Independent evaluation of San Diego's “6 to 6” Extended School Day Program: Final report. Los Alamitos, CA: WestED. McCormick, T., Bojorquez, J. C., & Tushnet, N. (2001). Independent evaluation of San Diego's “6 to 6” Extended School Day Program: Interim report. Los Alamitos, CA: WestED. |
Contacts
| Evaluation | Joann Hoffman, M.P.H. Hoffman, Clark & Associates 731 South Highway 101, Suite #11 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Email: sbhca@pacbell.net Treseen McCormick Project Director WestEd 4665 Lampson Avenue Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Tel: 562-799-5169 Fax: 562-799-5151 Email: tmccorm@wested.org |
| Program | Steven Amick “6 to 6” Program Administrator 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-236-6312 Email: samick@sandiego.gov Deb Ferrin Child Care Coordinator 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 1300 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619-533-6511 Email: dferrin@sandiego.gov |
| Profile Updated | June 13, 2003 |
Evaluation 1 (Hoffman, Clark & Associates): San Diego After School Regional Consortium: Academic Indicator Report 1999–2000
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To determine if San Diego's “6 to 6” program improved participants' academic performance. |
| Evaluation Design | Quasi-Experimental: Data were collected from a random sample of program participants (n = 187) prior to the program year and after the program year. The study matched students' baseline academic indicators to follow-up academic indicators and conducted a pretest/posttest analysis. After matching pairs of pretests and posttests, the final sample included a total of 142 students. |
| Data Collection Methods | Secondary Source/Data Review: School attendance data were collected from students in Grades 4–8 at the end of the year prior to the current year of after school program participation (baseline) and at the end of the school year following the current year of after school program participation (follow-up). Tests/Assessments: SAT-9 reading and math scores were collected from students in Grades 4–8 at the end of the year prior to the current year of after school program participation (baseline) and at the end of the school year following the current year of after school program participation (follow-up). |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Baseline data were collected in 1999 and follow-up data were collected in 2000. |
Findings:
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Academic | Fifty-seven percent of sampled students increased their reading score over the year. Forty-four percent of students increased their SAT-9 math score from the baseline to the follow-up year. There were statistically significant increases in SAT-9 reading scores from the baseline to the follow-up measurement (p < .01). More specifically, 64.3% of participants were above the 25th percentile in 1999, while 70.6% were above the 25th percentile in 2000, a 9.8% increase. Over 2% more children scored above the 25th percentile in SAT-9 Math scores in 2000 than had in 1999, a total increase of 4% (although this difference was not statistically significant). School attendance increased by 1 day and absences decreased by 1 day for sampled students from the baseline to the follow-up year. This change was not statistically significant. |
Evaluation 2 (WestEd): Independent Evaluation of San Diego's “6 to 6” Extended School Day Program: Final Report
Evaluation Description
| Evaluation Purpose | To determine if San Diego's “6 to 6” program improved participants' academic performance. |
| Evaluation Design | Non-Experimental: Data were collected from a random sample of eight sites representing the four major providers of “6 to 6” services. Two sites were selected from each of three major providers, Harmonium Children's Services, Social Advocates for Youth (SAY), and the YMCA of San Diego County, and two sites were selected from a list of seven single-site providers. |
| Data Collection Methods | Document Review: At provider agencies, documents were gathered outlining staff hiring and training procedures, program expectations, program components, and implementation. From eight program sites, documentation outlining mandated procedures from the provider agencies was collected and reviewed. Additionally, accident and incident reports were reviewed. Data were collected in March 2001. Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews were conducted with program monitors, coordinators, supervisors, administrators, and all other appropriate staff at the four provider agencies according to a structured interview protocol. Interviews were conducted with supervisors at the eight program sites according to a structured interview protocol. Among other topics, information was collected on program implementation, program components, staff hiring procedures, accident and incident reporting, formal complaint procedures, and staff to student ratios. Data were collected during March 2001. Observation: Unannounced visits were conducted at the eight sites. Programs were observed, with a focus on heath and safety procedures. More specifically, evaluators gathered data on the way in which activities were conducted and whether or not they were conducted in compliance with the safety standards mandated by the city contract. These site visits were conducted in March 2001. Secondary Source/Data Review: Attendance records were reviewed. Surveys/Questionnaires: Satisfaction surveys conducted by program staff in consultation with Hoffman, Clark & Associates were reviewed. Satisfaction surveys of children collected information about their enjoyment of the program, their ability to do their homework, and their perceptions of the program's impact on their school success. Satisfaction surveys of parents covered their interpretations of program quality, their ability to communicate with program staff, and their perceptions of the program's impact on children's academic performance, among other items. Principals were surveyed about program quality, program-school linkages, and perceived program impact on participants. |
| Data Collection Timeframe | Data were collected in February and March of 2001. |
Findings:
Formative/Process Findings
| Activity Implementation | Across all sites, the average time spent on each activity was as follows:
|
| Parent/Community Involvement | Lines of communication with parents were clear and parents were informed, according to site supervisors, of all accidents and incidents. Site supervisors stated that they knew most, if not all, parents. Parent complaints appear to be dealt with promptly, documented if they are unresolved after the initial contact, and treated as important. There were few parent complaints and prior complaints appear to have been resolved according to documented procedures. |
| Program Context/Infrastructure | All sites had procedures in place to deal with both minor and major accidents and incidents. Supervisors explained that the procedure for a major accident included (in this order) applying first aid, calling emergency services if needed, contacting parents, contacting their own parent agency if one existed, and conducting follow-up. All sites had sign-in/sign-out procedures, but sites varied as to whether this was the responsibility of the staff, the students, or the parents. Student complaints were handled in a less formal manner than parent complaints, and were generally simply voiced to program staff. Only if student complaints were serious were they documented. Common student complaints included “not enough free play time,” “too much homework time,” and “better snacks.” Principals (n = 7) at the sites reported a need for improvement in integrating the “Blueprint for Student Success” into the program. |
| Satisfaction | Students were, overall, satisfied with the program. Lower grades (K–2) were more likely to report usually or always liking the program (91%) than upper grades (3–6, 65%). Parents expressed high levels of satisfaction, including their perceptions of the quality of academic enrichment, the degree to which children looked forward to the program, communication with staff, success at helping children complete homework, and the promotion of positive behavior in children. |
| Staffing/Training | All providers report conducting fingerprinting, Child Abuse Index investigation, and tuberculosis testing prior to all new employee hires. All providers mandate CPR, first aid, and child safety procedures training. There is mandatory training for all staff that occurs at the time of orientation at all sites. The three major providers also conduct regular mandatory training at scheduled staff meetings and require all site supervisors to attend city-sponsored trainings. At the time of the unannounced visits, all sites were within the required age-appropriate ratios and many had ratios better than 1:15. Ratios improved as the afternoon wore on since parents began to pick up children. Principals (n = 7) at the sites reported a need for improvement in incorporating credentialed teachers into the program. |
| Systemic Infrastructure | The city of San Diego conducts unannounced site visits twice yearly in addition to visits conducted when deemed necessary. All visits are recorded on program evaluation monitoring sheets and sites are graded on a scale of below standard, standard, above standard, or outstanding. When a city monitor observes a need for improvement, a follow-up visit is conducted within 30 days. If the program still is assessed as needing improvement, a letter is sent to the provider to resolve the problem. According to a review of the 1999–2000 monitoring sheets, a majority of sites were graded standard or above standard. A notable trend was improvement of grading from the first to the second yearly monitoring visit. Larger providers have regional supervisors who visit and monitor sites. Evaluation sheets are completed, suggestions and recommendations made, and follow-up with sites carried out. Single-site providers have a less formal review process, but tended to be located on-site and engaged in supervision of staff on a daily basis. |
Summative/Outcome Findings
| Academic | Almost two thirds of responding parents noticed improvements in their children's academic performance. Three principals reported noticing improvement in students' academic performance and homework completion. |