Search Publications | The Evaluation Exchange | FINE Network | OST Database

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.

A Profile of the Evaluation of The After-School Corporation (TASC)

Program Description

Overview	The After-School Corporation (TASC) works in New York City and throughout the New York State region to: (a) enhance the quality of afterschool programs by emphasizing program components associated with student success and program sustainability, and (b) increase the availability of afterschool opportunities by providing resources and strategies for establishing or expanding afterschool projects.
Start Date	1998
Scope	state
Type	afterschool
Location	urban, suburban, rural
Setting	public schools

Participants	elementary through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees	From 1998 to 2008, TASC directly supported 322 afterschool programs in New York City, and helped establish additional programs in the New York State region.
Number Served	From 1998 to 2008, more than 350,000 youth (300,000 in New York City and 50,000 in the New York state region)
Components	TASC provides grants to nonprofit organizations that establish partnerships with individual public schools. These grants support school-based projects that aim to improve academic learning, promote healthy development, and reduce anti-social behavior. Under the TASC approach, afterschool services are provided through a partnership between a public school (known as the host school) and a local nonprofit organization with ties to the community served by the host school. All students enrolled in the host school are eligible to participate in the afterschool project, which provides services free of charge from the end of each school day to approximately 6pm in the evening. The afterschool programs are intended to supplement the learning experiences of the regular school day, and programming generally emphasizes academic enrichment, homework assistance, the arts, and recreation. The intent of this program approach is to combine the community connections, youth expertise, cultural resources, and specialized foci of selected nonprofit organizations with the academic focus, facilities, and access to students that public schools can provide.
Funding Level	From 1998 to 2008, TASC raised $490 million in private and public funds, after a founding investment of $125 million. Total support and revenue for fiscal year 2009 was $16,489,506.
Funding Sources	The Atlantic Philanthropies, Inc., Lois Collier, NYC Council, New York City Department of Education, New York State Education Department, New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, Open Society Institute, other public sources (including local, state, and federal programs and agencies), and other foundations, corporations, and individuals.

Evaluation

Overview	To assess TASC’s effectiveness, an evaluation was conducted to answer questions about quality and scale in program implementation, program effects on participating youth, and program practices linked to their successful outcomes.
Evaluator	Policy Studies Associates, Inc.
Evaluations Profiled	Increasing and Improving After-School Opportunities: Evaluation Results From the TASC After-School Program’s First Year Building Quality and Supporting Expansion of After-School Projects: Evaluation Results From the TASC After-School Program’s Second Year Patterns of Student-Level Change Linked to TASC Participation, Based on TASC Projects in Year 2 Supporting Quality and Scale in After-School Services to Urban Youth: Evaluation of Program Implementation and Student Engagement in TASC After-School Program’s Third Year Promoting Learning and School Attendance Through After-School Programs: Student-Level Changes in Educational Performance Across TASC’s First Three Years Building Quality, Scale, and Effectiveness in After-School Programs: Summary Report of the TASC Evaluation After-School Programs and High School Success: Analysis of Post-Program Educational Patterns of Former Middle-Grades TASC Participants
Evaluations Planned	None
Report Availability	Fiester, L., White, R. N., Reisner, E. R., & Castle, A. M. (2000). Increasing and improving after-school opportunities: Evaluation results from the TASC after-school program’s first year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Birmingham, J., & Welsh, M. (2001). Building quality and supporting expansion of after-school projects: Evaluation results from the TASC after-school program’s second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. White, R. N., Reisner, E. R., Welsh, M., & Russell, C. (2001). Patterns of student-level change linked to TASC participation, based on TASC projects in year 2. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Reisner, E. R., Russell, C. A., Welsh, M. E., Birmingham, J., & White, R. N. (2002). Supporting quality and scale in after-school services to urban youth: Evaluation of program implementation and student engagement in TASC after-school program’s third year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1434/ Welsh, M. E., Russell, C. A., Williams, I., Reisner, E. R., & White, R. N. (2002). Promoting learning and school attendance through after-school programs: Student-level changes in educational performance across TASC’s first three years. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1436 The After-School Corporation. (2003). The After-School Corporation fifth-year report. New York: Author. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1439 Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality, scale, and effectiveness in after-school programs: Summary report of the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/2466/ Policy Studies Associates. (2004). Building quality, scale, and effectiveness in after-school programs: Supplementary papers to accompany the summary report of the TASC Evaluation. Washington, DC: Author. Birmingham, J., & White, R. N. (2005). Promoting positive youth development for high school students after school: Services and outcomes for high school youth in TASC programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1447/ Russell, C. A., & Reisner, E. R. (with Johnson, J. C., Rouk, Ü., & White, R. N.). (2005). Supporting social and cognitive growth among disadvantaged middle-grades students in TASC after-school projects. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1448/ Russell, C. A., Mielke, M. B., & Johnson, J. C. (2007). After-school programs and high school success: Analysis of post-program educational patterns of former middle-grades TASC participants. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at: www.tascorp.org/content/document/detail/1758

Contacts

Evaluation	Elizabeth Reisner Policy Studies Associates, Inc. 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 Tel: 202-939-5323 Fax: 202-939-5732 Email: ereisner@policystudies.com
Program	Lucy Friedman President The After-School Corporation 925 9th Avenue New York, NY Tel: 212-547-6951 Email: lfriedman@tascorp.org
Profile Updated	May 9, 2011

Evaluation 1: Increasing and Improving After-School Opportunities: Evaluation Results From the TASC After-School Program’s First Year

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To describe the After-School Corporation’s After-School Program (TASC) start-up and initial operations.
Evaluation Design	Non-Experimental: Survey data were collected in TASC projects funded in Rounds 1 and 2 (50 projects in total). The design also included in-depth study of program start up and initial operations of 10 TASC projects (five from each of the first two rounds of grantees). Criteria for project selection for the in-depth study included evidence of practices that showed promise in supporting TASC’s key goals or innovative approaches that showed strong potential for success, and evidence of strong implementation of a program component emphasized by TASC.
Data Collection Methods	Document Review: Budget documents, staff handbook, parent outreach materials, and youth participant work were reviewed during site visits to in-depth study sites. Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews of site coordinators, principals, project staff, teachers and other school staff, parents, and youth participants, were conducted during site visits to in-depth study sites. Data collected were similar to those collected in surveys, but sought more depth in areas of particular interest. Observation: Project activities were observed during site visits to in-depth study sites. Secondary Source/Data Review: Youth participant data, including demographic characteristics, school attendance, grade promotion, standardized test performance in core subjects, and enrollment and attendance in TASC projects were collected for youth participating in TASC-funded projects in Rounds 1 and 2 and nonparticipants in the host schools. TASC attendance and enrollment data were also collected for all youth participants. Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to site coordinators, principals, project staff, youth (in Grades 4–12), and parents (who had one or more children currently enrolled in the after school program) participating in projects funded in Rounds 1 and 2. Survey questions addressed issues of program implementation and quality, including goals, activities, opportunities, services, curriculum and instruction, project climate, links with the regular school day, governance and administration, staffing and professional development, and resources and sustainability. In addition, the survey collected data concerning youth’s program experiences and outcomes, including issues of cognitive/academic growth, growth related to special areas of program focus, college and career preparation, health and safety, social development, and institutional and community outcomes (safety/sense of safety and institutionalization of after school programming). Surveys of parents also collected information about parents’ satisfaction with the program, involvement with the project and the school, and the program’s effect on employment. Tests/Assessments: Test score data collected included the Language Assessment Battery administered in each grade, the Regents Sequence 1 and Sequence 3 exams in mathematics administered to high school students, and the Regents English exam administered to high school students, the CTB math and reading tests administered in Grades 3–8, the Performance Assessment in Mathematics (PAM) tests administered in Grades 5–7, the Performance Assessment in Language (PAL) test administered in sixth grade, and the Regents Sequence 2 exam in mathematics administered to high school students.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected in spring 1999.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	Projects’ areas of service in Year 1 clustered around (listed in order of frequency) arts enrichment, recreation, literacy and language arts, sports, cultural awareness, technology literacy, mathematics and science, community service, career preparation, and college preparation. Over 90% of projects reported the following activities were offered 2 or more days per week: homework help/tutoring, sports/fitness, arts education, and academic enrichment. Projects typically scheduled activities so that every child participated in two or three activities per day, often rotating among five or six activities per child throughout the week. Because homework assistance was important to many stakeholders, it was an essential component for virtually all Year 1 projects. Data from in-depth study projects indicated that projects embedded academic learning in ostensibly nonacademic activities. In addition to academic learning, the after school projects offered opportunities for social development and support services and most sites offered occasional activities related to health education and healthy living. Instructional strategies included projects that enabled hands-on discovery by children, team teaching, student engagement in integrated, culminating experiences such as performances, and individualized teaching geared to each child’s strengths and weaknesses.
Cost/Revenues	TASC spent $9.2 million on a combination of startup and operating grants in Year 1. After TASC, the largest source of project resources was the Board of Education of the City of New York, which provided facilities, goods (food and supplies), and services (transportation for field trips and security) to all projects. The third largest source of project support was the grantee organizations themselves, which provided goods and services to their project sites. The largest expense across projects was personnel; projects used about three quarters of their grant funds to cover personnel costs. The second largest expense was project administration. Projects generally met TASC guidelines for spending approximately $1,000 per child.
Parent/Community Involvement	Site coordinators’ survey responses suggested that contact with parents was regular, frequent, and conducted through varied strategies; however, interviews with site coordinators indicate that parental contact in Year 1 consisted primarily of one-time or occasional activities that occurred on an informal basis. In order of frequency, interviews with site coordinators revealed the following efforts to involve families: recruitment of parents to organize year-end culminating events and family nights; hiring of parents as assistants or counselors; hosting special events for families; sending home flyers, newsletters, and monthly calendars; holding monthly workshops for parents; designating the school parent–teacher association president to oversee family outreach efforts for the program; referring parents to other services offered by their sponsoring agency; recruiting parents as program volunteers; and including parents on project leadership committees. About two thirds of site coordinators reported sending materials home a few times a month. Staff reported doing this less often, with 43% sending home materials rarely or never. More than half of site coordinators reported holding meetings or events to which parents were invited at least a few times a month. Staff reported engaging in this activity less often, with 66% reporting rarely or never holding such meetings or events. More than half of site coordinators reported that they spent time talking on the phone with parents daily. More than two thirds of staff reported doing this rarely or never. Almost two thirds of site coordinators reported holding informal conversations with parents on-site most days. Project staff reported that this was the most common form of communication with parents. Thirty-two percent of staff said that they held such conversations daily, 21% 1–2 times weekly, 25% a few times a month, and 22% rarely or never. Thirteen percent of site coordinators reported holding conferences with one or more parents almost daily, while another approximately 20% held them once or twice weekly. About 20% of site coordinators and 76% of staff reported rarely or never holding conferences with parents. Interviews with site coordinators revealed that they perceived the following factors to limit outreach to families: lack of engagement by parents of adolescents, lack of support from the host school, parents’ work schedules, parents’ language and cultural barriers, and families’ residence outside the school neighborhood. Almost two thirds of parents said that their contact with their children’s school had increased as a result of the after school program. Year 1 data indicated that outreach to the community occurred on a much more sporadic basis than outreach to parents.
Program Context/ Infrastructure	Although stakeholders and participants in the initiative generally agreed on program goals, interviews and survey responses revealed relevant variation in individual objectives. In general, projects attempted to accommodate all of these goals, although with varying emphases across projects. Central partners in the TASC-supported after school program included the nonprofit grantee organizations that administer the after school projects, the Board of Education (BOE), and the schools in which the projects operate. As a program partner, BOE exerted a powerful (though indirect) influence through its standards for student academic performance. A comparison of the schools that host TASC after school projects with all New York City public schools revealed that the TASC host schools served students who were typically poorer, more likely to be non-White, and slightly more likely to be English language learners than the average student in the city’s public schools. The vast majority of schools participating in TASC also hosted one or more other after school projects, although most of these operated for considerably less time, served fewer students, and provided more specialized services than the TASC-supported projects. Although TASC after school activities occurred throughout the host schools in Year 1, projects did not always have access to all of the space they needed. Most TASC projects were located in neighborhoods with high crime rates. Seventy-one percent of youth participants said that it was true or very true that they felt safer after school as a result of the TASC program, while 96% of parents reported that the program seemed safe. Sixty-three percent of secondary school students reported feeling safer at the after school program than at other locations where they spent time; 5% felt less safe at the program.
Program–School Linkages	Although survey data demonstrated that after school staff and site coordinators communicated frequently with school staff on an informal basis, interviews suggested that these contacts involved only a handful of school staff. Few projects had formal mechanisms for cultivating relationships between the two staffs. Virtually all site coordinators emphasized the key role that principals played in governing after school projects. Principals’ views of coordination and collaboration with the after school program were positive. Site coordinators and project staff rated coordination as generally high. Since BOE schools were subject to stringent language and literacy student performance standards, most principals were eager to link their schools to after school programs that provide opportunities for students to read, write, and develop critical skills related to achieving the standards. Surveys revealed that gaining access to teachers’ classrooms for after school activities and gaining access to the host schools’ computer and technology equipment were major challenges for TASC programs. Almost three quarters of site coordinators agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that TASC’s curriculum and instruction reinforce concepts taught during the school day.
Recruitment/ Participation	Parents’ survey responses revealed that the most common reasons they sent their children to the TASC program were as follows: to have a safe place for children to be after school (86% of parents), to have children do better in school (84%), to have children receive help in reading and math (83%), and to have children receive homework help (75%). The racial/ethnic background of TASC participants reflected that of students in the host schools overall, 48% were Hispanic and 40% were African American. A slightly higher proportion of TASC participants were designated bilingual (16%) compared to the bilingual population among nonparticipating students in the host schools (14%). The proportion of participating students who qualified for free or reduced-price lunch (88%) was equal to the percent of qualifying nonparticipants in the host schools. The distribution of students by gender was more even among TASC participants (50% male, 50% female) than among nonparticipating students in the host schools (48% female, 52% male). TASC participants had a higher average school attendance rate during the school year prior to the TASC program (93%) than did nonparticipants in the host schools (83%). Students in TASC reported engaging in several risk behaviors, the most prevalent of which were fighting, alcohol use, and sexual intercourse, in that order. Among students for whom the BOE records include information on grade-level promotion and retention, more TASC participants (90%) than nonparticipants in host schools (84%) were promoted to the next grade in 1998. TASC participants scored higher on several standardized tests in 1997–1998 than did nonparticipants, including the Language Assessment Battery administered in each grade, the Regents Sequence 1 and Sequence 3 exams in mathematics administered to high school students, and the Regents English exam administered to high school students. The performance of participants and nonparticipants was nearly identical on all other exams for which the evaluation has information, including the CTB math and reading tests administered in Grades 3–8, the PAM mathematics tests administered in Grades 5–7, the PAL Language test administered in sixth grade, and the Regents Sequence 2 exam in mathematics administered to high school students. Most students continued to participate in the program for several months after enrolling. The overall daily attendance rate across all projects—the ratio of the number of days attended by students to the number of days of service—was 74%. The proportion of active participants (defined as those participants who attended projects 3 or more program days per week) was higher in projects serving elementary schools (81% of enrolled students) than in combined elementary–middle-grades schools or middle schools (74% and 40%, respectively). Over 22% of children in the 50 host schools were enrolled in a TASC after school program.
Satisfaction	On surveys, youth participants reported a fairly high degree of satisfaction with the program. Most participants said that they liked the program, that the program engendered a sense of belonging (in terms of having friends in the project and feeling successful or comfortable in the project), and that staff conveyed a sense of support (i.e., staff care, take time to explain things, act fairly toward students).The biggest problem reported was troublemaking by a few participants. Parents’ survey responses were generally positive about the program.
Staffing/Training	In survey responses, both site coordinators and project staff indicated relatively high levels of qualifications and experience. Most site coordinators had earned at least a master’s degree and two thirds have prior experience as a manager of administrator of a social service, education, or community development program. Almost half had prior experience as a classroom teacher. Project staff had a more diverse range of qualifications and experiences, consistent with their varied roles within projects. The racial/ethnic group most heavily represented among project staff was African American, with smaller percentages of Hispanic and White staff. About 60% of all staff worked 15 hours a week (3 hours a day, 5 days a week); most of the remaining staff worked fewer hours. The median student–staff ratio was near 10:1, which was the target level set by TASC. On staff surveys, just two thirds of responding staff said they planned to return to the program in Year 2, with most of the remaining staff uncertain of their future plans. Almost all responding staff said they enjoyed working in the after school project and found the work challenging and rewarding. The dimensions of job satisfaction that received the fewest positive ratings were access to needed materials and equipment, existence of an effective policy on student behavior problems, and staff involvement in decision making. More than half of site coordinators indicated that recruiting and hiring staff was a challenge in Year 1, especially due to the mandated 10:1 ratio and the budgetary constraints that programs’ spending cannot exceed $1,000/child. The challenge of finding qualified staff consumed much of the site coordinators’ time. More than half of site coordinators reported holding staff meetings at least monthly while 82% of staff who worked more than 8 hours a week reported attending staff meetings weekly or biweekly. In Year 1, PASE delivered training in three formats: weeklong training institutes, monthly meetings for site coordinators, and “core knowledge” training provided to after school project staff. Training participants favored training sessions that focused on practical, concrete topics and issues they confront in their everyday work. More than two thirds of site coordinators said the training they received in Year 1 either completely met their needs or provided a good start and over three quarters said the quality and the content of the training and technical assistance were good or excellent and were useful. Almost three quarters of project staff who provided survey responses said they participated in training during Year 1 and most found the training to be valuable. Both coordinators and staff noted that more help and support would permit them to implement the ideas and strategies they learned about. In particular, site coordinators reported that they could have used more training in the following areas, especially in early training sessions: managing project staff, day-to-day operations, budgeting, developing and administering academic instruction, assessing a program’s short-term effectiveness, using computerized spreadsheets, negotiating with school partners, serving special needs students, using the BOE spending authority, and developing staff’s professional skills.
Systemic Infrastructure	In Year 1, TASC established an administrative framework that governed its central operations and the operations of every funded project. This framework included both TASC’s core requirements and less formal expectations. Site-specific arrangements for internal governance relied on the administrative procedures used by the grantee organizations. Site coordinators noted in surveys that they expected a high level of oversight during the 1st year of operation, but several noted that reporting to three entities was difficult for new project leaders. The types of grantee organizations that ran TASC sites included youth-serving organizations, community development corporations and community service organizations, neighborhood settlement houses and community centers, multigenerational family support service organizations, public and private cultural institutions, youth sports or arts organizations, faith-based organizations, and institutions of higher education.

Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic	Participants in higher attendance projects reported more often than participants in other projects that they read and understood more than they did before participating in the project, finished their homework, felt safe after school, learned to speak and understand English, felt more comfortable solving math problems, and learned to work with other students. Survey results indicate that students and parents felt that the program had improved participants’ academic skills and involvement. Seventy-seven percent of participants and 86% of parents believed that the program helped participants complete homework; 65% of participants felt the program aided them academically by enabling them to read and understand more; 62% of participants felt the program made them more comfortable solving math problems.
Community	Sixty percent of secondary school students said on surveys that the program helped them feel more like part of their community and 55% said that they had learned about their community through the program. Forty-five percent of TASC high school students reported engaging in some form of community service, one third of whom did so through the TASC program.
Family	More than half of the parents who responded to surveys said that their children’s participation in the program had helped them to miss less work than before, hold onto their jobs more easily, and work more hours.
Youth Development	Student survey results indicate that TASC participants felt that the program had improved their interpersonal skills (80%). Seventy-eight percent of participants reported on surveys that the program had helped them make more friends, and 91% of parents surveyed agreed with this statement. Survey results indicate that participants and their parents felt that TASC contributed to nonacademic learning. Participants reported in surveys that they had learned about their own and other cultures through the program (63% of participants), improved their ability to speak and understand English (52% of participants and 56% of parents), and learned to use computers for schoolwork (48% of participants). Fifty-nine percent of secondary school students and 61% of their parents responded in surveys that the program helped participants become more comfortable speaking to groups.

A Profile of the Evaluation of The After-School Corporation (TASC)

Profile Information