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

Evaluations 2 and 3:
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

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To assess evidence of program quality in five areas: (a) youth participant recruitment, enrollment, and retention; (b) project staff recruitment, deployment, supervision, and retention; (c) establishment and maintenance of productive relationships with the host school and the community; (d) use of available resources to improve project operations and quality; and (e) selection and implementation of curricula and activities to build cognitive skills and foster participants’ personal development.
Evaluation Design	Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: The evaluation compared academic indicators (performance on standardized tests and school attendance) of TASC participants to nonparticipants in schools that host TASC projects. Data were collected from TASC sites funded in the first two years of TASC (Rounds 1 through 4). The in-depth study involved 15 TASC projects (five from the third round of grantees was added to the original 10 from the 1st-year study). 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: The following program documents were reviewed at in-depth study sites: budget, staff handbook, parent outreach materials, fiscal reports (from 73 of the 109 sites), and participants’ completed work in the after school program. Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews of site coordinators, principals, project staff, teachers and other school staff, parents, and students 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: Participant data, including demographic characteristics, school attendance, grade promotion, standardized test performance in core subjects, and enrollment and attendance in TASC projects, were collected from the New York City Board of Education for students participating in TASC-funded projects and nonparticipants in the host schools. TASC attendance and enrollment data were also collected for all youth participants. Evaluators classified participants as “active participants” if they attended an average 60% of program days, or 3 days per week. Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to site coordinators, school principals, and project staff participating in projects funded in Rounds 1 through 4. Surveys were also administered to 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 only. 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. The site coordinator survey also included questions about 42 possible activities in eight content areas (literacy skills development; cognitive development and/or academic achievement; artistic development; social and cultural awareness/exploration; health, well-being, or life skills; physical fitness—athletic or recreational; civic engagement or community service; and career exploration/development) and about the use of group projects, culminating products, and culminating performances. Tests/Assessments: The youth participant survey included a number of assessments, measuring academic self-esteem (e.g., I think I am a good student), sense of the program as a community (e.g., people care about each other in this program), trust in and respect for teachers (e.g., the teachers in this program don’t care what I think), social interactions in the after school environment (e.g., I have a hard time finding friends here), sense of autonomy in the after school environment (e.g., I get to do what I want here), program connection (e.g., I feel like I belong here), and program opportunities to be challenged (e.g., I get to work on projects here that make me think). 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. Due to the types of standardized tests administered to ninth through 12th graders, no longitudinal analysis of individual level achievement was possible.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected in spring 2000.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	The primary focus areas of TASC projects identified by Year 2 coordinators were academic/cognitive/literacy development, followed by artistic development, then physical fitness/athletic development/recreation. Year 2 opportunities for academic and cognitive development took the form of homework help, organized or recreational writing and reading activities, problem-solving games, word games, group instruction in specific academic subjects, and math games. Of these, homework help was offered most often and at the highest intensity. TASC projects provided several types of opportunities for youth to develop their skills and exposure to the arts. These included arts and crafts activities, arts instruction, studio experiences encouraging students’ own artistic expression and practice, opportunities to develop artistic appreciation through exposure to museums and to musical and dramatic performances, and opportunities to meet practicing artists and performers. Year 2 opportunities for social development and support services, as reported by site coordinators, included organized social events, activities to explore different cultures and languages, unstructured time for socializing, and field trips to cultural/ethnic centers, events, exhibits, and performances. Most projects offered sports and recreation opportunities, including organized team sports instruction and activities, free time for physical play and pick-up sports, organized individual sports instruction and activities, martial arts instruction, and fitness classes and activities. Projects also generally offered activities in which youth learned about linking their own lives to the broader world outside their school and family. These activities included service projects, discussion of current events, and career exploration. Among the group of in-depth study projects, those in their 2nd year of operation were more likely to develop and use comprehensive program schedules than those in their 1st year. These schedules resulted in improvements in program quality. With some exceptions, TASC projects participating in the in-depth study did not develop or use formal curricula, nor did formal lessons plans or frameworks typically guide student activities. An important curricular approach emerging across many program sites in Year 2 was project-based and interdisciplinary learning, often combining student learning experiences in social studies, science, the arts, reading, math, and writing.
Cost/Revenues	TASC continued to link the amount of project grants to each project’s adjusted enrollment figures, with the allocation formula set at about $1,000 per child. TASC grants to New York City projects totaled $18.2 million in Year 2; grants to the sites outside New York City totaled $530,000. BOE’s allocation was $2.3 million while sites reported a total of $2.3 million raised in matching funds.
Parent/Community Involvement	Parent involvement at many of the in-depth study sites continued to be low; however, sites were increasingly exerting efforts to involve and inform parents. When asked about reaching out to parents, 48% of coordinators said they had talked to at least 16 parents individually in the last month about their child’s needs or interests. Fifty-nine percent of site coordinators reported that parents served as paid staff and 34% reported that parents served as activity assistants. Methods for increasing parent involvement included offering adult education classes, hiring parent liaisons, and inviting parents to after school events. The in-depth study sites revealed a range of communication strategies with parents, from a written system for documenting children’s daily experiences for parents, to a checklist on which staff indicated homework completion and any behavior problems, to no policies at all for parental communication. Thirty-six percent of principals reported that TASC had increased parents’ attendance at parent–teacher conferences. Ninety-four percent of parents report that the program hours met their needs. Although site coordinators said the local community was aware of the TASC project, they reported relatively few interactions with members of the community.
Program–School Linkages	Principals who were engaged in their schools’ after school projects typically offered programming suggestions, made resources available, helped remove barriers to smooth operations, and encouraged stakeholders to participate fully in the project. Responses to principals’ surveys indicate that principals worked less on the after school projects in Year 2 than in Year 1, but visited the programs slightly more often. In survey responses, 89% of principals agreed that there was a strong partnership between the after school program and the school, up from 84% in Year 1. On 14 out of 16 measures of school–TASC-after-school relationships, principals reported more positive responses in Year 2 than in Year 1. There was a lack of consensus among teachers on how much integration and coordination was desirable between the school and the TASC after school project. Second year projects that encountered difficulty in gaining access to school resources in Year 1 reported fewer difficulties in Year 2, although gaining access to computers, the library, and the computer lab remained a challenge at more than half the sites. Principals noted that parents expressed more positive feelings about the school as a result of the TASC projects because it provided a safe place for their children after school (60% of principals agreed).
Recruitment/ Participation	In Year 2, TASC projects in New York City were located in schools that served some of the city’s most disadvantaged students. TASC projects in Year 2 enrolled a total of 32,186 students, with about 64% of them enrolled in elementary schools. The average attendance rate of TASC projects serving grades K–8 in Year 2 was 74%, with the highest rate (77%) being among elementary school children. Among 34 Year 2 projects first funded in Year 1, 17 improved their attendance rates from Year 1 to Year 2, 4 experienced no change, and the attendance of 13 declined. An average of 77% of participants met the standard of active participation each month, slightly more than in Year 1 (74%). In Year 2, active participants were very similar to nonparticipants on measures of poverty, race/ethnicity, status as recent immigrants, status as English language learners, and academic performance. Active participants in Grades K–12 attended school at an average rate of 92.9% while nonparticipants attended school at an average rate of 91.3%.
Satisfaction	Ninety-seven percent of parents surveyed indicated that their child liked to come to the program. Parents demonstrated a very high level of satisfaction with the TASC program. Parents were most satisfied with those programs that devote a substantial amount of time to homework completion, have clear and well communicated safety and supervision procedures, have opportunities for students to explore nonschool related interests, and provide opportunities for child socialization and recreation.
Staffing/Training	Projects in Year 2 achieved overall success in recruiting, hiring, and retaining staff who were generally qualified for the role assigned to them. The evaluators estimate that TASC projects employed approximately 3,000 staff members in Year 2. The coordinators of TASC projects typically had professional backgrounds in youth development or recreation, social service management, or education. Among other staff employed in TASC projects, about 32% reported that they were a member of the host school’s regular staff, and 55% stated they were students themselves, in most instances college students. The racial/ethnic backgrounds of TASC coordinators/staff were non-Hispanic/Black (38%/37%); Hispanic/Latino (21%/32%); and non-Hispanic/White (37%/21%). Staff supervision in TASC projects typically occurred in two ways: through weekly or monthly staff meetings and through site coordinators’ efforts to observe instruction and monitor lesson plans. Site coordinators reported generally high levels of job satisfaction, with coordinators of 2nd-year projects reporting higher satisfaction levels than coordinators of new projects. Sixty percent of the Year 2 site coordinators said that they planned to return to their jobs in the 2000–2001 school year and 19% weren’t sure. Among project staff other than coordinators, 67% said that they planned to return to their jobs in the 2000–2001 school year and 23% weren’t sure. In Year 2, TASC increased the variety and amount of training and technical resources available to sites and worked with service providers to target training to projects’ needs. PASE, TASC, and the organization that administers their TASC grant were the main sources of training for site coordinators and their staffs. Sixty-nine percent of coordinators described these resources as “a good start,” with fewer either saying that “they serve my purposes completely” (18%) or responding less favorably (14%). Positive responses on these survey items were higher in Year 2 than in Year 1. The percentage of coordinators who reported that they had implemented training lessons and that the new methods had improved their projects doubled between Year 1 and Year 2 (from 21% to 43%).

Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic	In grades 3–8, active participants (defined as students who attended a TASC project three or more days a week) who scored in the lowest proficiency level on citywide standardized tests of reading and math in 1998–1999 improved more than their nonparticipating counterparts. Thirty-one percent of active participants scoring in the lowest proficiency level in math in 1998–1999 scored at a higher proficiency level in 1999–2000 as compared to only 23% of nonparticipants. Further, 2% of these active participants increased their proficiency to grade level as compared to 1% of nonparticipants. These were both significant differences (p<.05). Also, a similar pattern was observed in the reading tests administered to students in grades 3–8, but the differences between nonparticipants and active participants were not statistically significant. For eighth graders, there was a greater increase in mean scores in citywide standardized math tests from the previous year among active participants than among nonparticipants. For active participants in eighth grade, the mean gain in scale score from the previous year was 22 points or one grade level. For nonparticipating eighth graders, the increase in scale score over the same year was only 17 points. Due to the types of standardized tests administered to ninth through twelfth graders, no longitudinal analysis of individual level achievement was possible. However, active participants were more likely to take and pass the Regents Math Sequential 1 exam by ninth grade as compared to nonparticipants: 32% of active ninth grade participants passed the exam as compared to 1% of ninth grade nonparticipants. Furthermore, of those ninth graders to pass the Regents Math Sequential 1 exam, active participants were far more likely to pass the more advanced Math Sequential 2 and 3 exams: 52% of active participants vs. In Grades 3–8, active participants who scored in the lowest proficiency level on citywide standardized tests of reading and math in 1998–1999 improved more than their nonparticipating counterparts. Thirty-one percent of active participants scoring in the lowest proficiency level in math in 1998–1999 scored at a higher proficiency level in 1999–2000 as compared to only 23% of nonparticipants. Further, 2% of these active participants increased their proficiency to grade level as compared to 1% of nonparticipants. These were both significant differences (p < .05). Also, a similar pattern was observed in the reading tests administered to students in Grades 3–8, but the differences between nonparticipants and active participants were not significant. For eighth graders, there was a greater increase in mean scores in citywide standardized math tests from the previous year among active participants than among nonparticipants. For active participants in eighth grade, the mean gain in scale score from the previous year was 22 points or one grade level. For nonparticipating eighth graders, the increase in scale score over the same year was only 17 points. Active participants were more likely to take and pass the Regents Math Sequential 1 exam by ninth grade as compared to nonparticipants—32% of active ninth grade participants passed the exam as compared to 1% of ninth grade nonparticipants. Furthermore, of those ninth graders to pass the Regents Math Sequential 1 exam, active participants were far more likely to pass the more advanced Math Sequential 2 and 3 exams—52% of active participants versus 15% of nonparticipants in the same grades. A higher percentage of active participants took and passed the Regents English exam (a high school graduation requirement) than nonparticipants, 23% and 9%, respectively, by the end of the 11th grade. Gains in reading test scores were associated with sites in their 2nd year of operation. Gains in math test scores were associated with sites that named TASC as a primary source of training and technical assistance. The school attendance rate of active participants in grades K–8 increased more than that of K–8 nonparticipants from 1998–1999 to the 1999–2000 school years. Over this period, the school attendance rate for active participants increased from 92.2% to 93.2%; for nonparticipants, the school attendance rate over these 2 years was steady at 90.9%. This difference in gains was statistically significant (p < .05). For active participants, school attendance rates increased from kindergarten through fifth grade and then declined through eighth grade. In contrast, nonparticipants had attendance rates increase from kindergarten only until fourth grade and suffered a steeper decline through eighth grade. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05). Of students with school attendance rates in the lowest quartile in 1998–1999, active participants improved their school attendance rates more than nonparticipants. Fifty-one percent of previously low-attending active participants moved out of the lowest quartile of school attendance by the end of the 2000 school year, while only 32% on nonparticipants did so. This difference was statistically significant (p < .05). When asked whether the after school program helped them to read and understand more, 73% of elementary participants, 66% of middle school participants, and 75% of high school participants agreed. Eighty-six percent of parents expressed agreement that the project helped their child academically. Principals reported that the TASC project had improved the following elements of the school: overall effectiveness (84%), students’ motivation to learn (81%), students’ attitudes toward school (81%), and student attendance (77%). Ninety-four percent of responding principals said that the benefits of hosting the TASC project “very much” or “somewhat” outweighed the costs; this is higher than in Year 1.
Family	Forty-five percent of principals reported that the TASC program increased parental attendance at school events by a “great extent” or “some extent.” Parents agreed that program hours were convenient (94%), they were missing less work than before (60%), and that the program provided support to enable them to keep their job (59%) and work more hours (54%).
Youth Development	Eighty-seven percent of elementary school participants reported positive interactions with other participants in the after school program. Seventy-eight percent of participants reported a sense of belonging engendered by the program, with particularly high scores among high school participants. Seventy-one percent of participants responded positively to questions about their exposure to engaging, stimulating activities in their TASC after school project. Sixty-nine percent of elementary school participants responded positively to questions about their sense of the after school project as a community in which people work together. Seventy-eight percent of high school participants and 52% of middle school participants responded positively to questions about the TASC project as a community.

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

Profile Information