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 4 and 5:
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

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	The third-year evaluation consisted of an implementation and an outcomes assessment. The implementation assessment gathered evidence of program quality in seven areas: (a) 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, (e) selection and implementation of curricula and activities to build cognitive skills and foster youth participants’ personal development, (f) reactions and changes in the schools hosting TASC projects, and (g) change in certain participant competencies and reactions. The outcomes assessment gathered evidence relating to five major questions: Who participates in TASC? What are youth’s patterns of after school participation? How does TASC participation affect youth achievement overall? What types of youth derive the most academic benefit from TASC participation? How does TASC participation affect youth’s school attendance?
Evaluation Design	Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Evaluators collected data on the TASC program’s 3rd year of operation in New York City sites that were first funded by TASC in either Year 1 (1998–1999) or Year 2 (1999–2000), known here as Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 projects. The evaluation administered surveys in all 96 TASC projects that were part of either Cohort 1 or Cohort 2 and were located in New York City. Youth surveys were administered in Cohort 1 projects, of which there were 44 in Year 3. When reviewing changes in test scores and school attendance associated with participation in a TASC project, the evaluators established a baseline against which to measure change. The baseline selected was the participant’s test score or school attendance rate during the school year prior to a youth’s enrollment in a TASC project. In their analyses, evaluators compared these base-year scores to those achieved after 1, 2, or 3 years of participation in a TASC project. Gains in test scores and school attendance experienced by TASC participants were compared to those of youth who never participated in a TASC project. For these nonparticipants, the base year was defined either as the year prior to the start of a TASC project, if they were already attending a TASC host school, or as the year prior to enrolling in a TASC host school. Although the characteristics of TASC participants were nearly identical to those of nonparticipants, statistical adjustments were made to control for baseline differences between the two groups of youth. Using data from the nonparticipants in all of the TASC project host schools, evaluators predicted the actual gains observed in scale scores on the New York City and New York State achievement tests in reading and mathematics. The student characteristics used to predict these gains, all as measured during the individual student’s base year, were the student’s base-year test scale score, eligibility for the free-lunch program, gender, grade level, race/ethnicity, classification as an English language learner, eligibility to receive special education services, and classification as a recent immigrant. One school characteristic was used, which was the percent of students in the school who were eligible for the free-lunch program in the student’s base year. Evaluators calculated nonparticipants’ expected gains by summing together the effects of all the above characteristics on nonparticipants’ academic outcomes. The evaluation applied this expected gain formula to TASC participants, calculating the gain that would be expected if the student never participated in TASC. The evaluators then compared participants’ true gain (the difference in their test scores between years) to their expected gain, and the difference was assumed to be a result of participation in the TASC program. A comparison of the characteristics of active participants (attending a TASC project over 60% of their days enrolled in the program, or 3 days a week) and nonparticipants showed few differences on key characteristics, although active participants tended to come from earlier grades than did nonparticipants. An in-depth study involved 15 TASC projects from Cohorts 1 and 2. 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. Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 surveys were completed by 95 site coordinators (response rate of 99%), 1,571 other TASC staff working in 88 projects, 69 principals of TASC host schools (response rate of 72%), and 2,103 participating youth in Grades 4–12 who were enrolled in 38 Cohort 1 projects (1,347 in Grades 4–5, 563 in Grades 6–8, and 193 in Grades 9–12).
Data Collection Methods	Document Review: The following documents were reviewed at in-depth study sites: budget, staff handbook, parent outreach materials, and participants’ completed work from the after school program. 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 in-depth information in areas of particular interest. Focus groups were conducted with directors and senior staff of grantee organizations. Observation: Project activities were observed during site visits to in-depth study sites using structured observational guides to examine program implementation. 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 Department of Education for students participating in TASC-funded projects and nonparticipants in the host schools. For nonparticipants and participants whose parents did not give consent for inclusion in the evaluation, all identifying information was removed from the individual-level data. 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. Evaluators classified participants as “highly active participants” if they attended an average of 80% of program days, or 4 days per week. Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to TASC site coordinators, other TASC staff, principals of host schools, and after school participants in Grades 4–12. Surveys asked these various stakeholders about their program perceptions and experiences. Tests/Assessments: Evaluators collected test scores from tests administered to students in New York City. Beginning in third grade, students take achievement tests in reading and in math in the spring of each school year. The tests administered to fourth and eighth grade students are required by the state, which specifies the test to be administered and the rubrics for scoring. To monitor student performance on a regular, continuing basis, the New York City system contracts with CTB-McGraw-Hill, the publisher of the state tests, to create tests for the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh grades, which are appropriate for students’ age and years of education at each grade and are similar in form and content to the state tests. The city tests produce scores that can be aligned with and compared to the scores for the fourth and eighth grades. For high school students, evaluators also collected Regents exam score data.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected during the 2000–2001 school year.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	The evaluators found that promising practices reports were an effective method of informing TASC sites about promising strategies and approaches used by their peers. TASC generates these products in two ways: through the Citigroup Success Fund for Promising Practices in After-School Programs, which helps site coordinators or project staff document their own practices, and the Resource Briefs and Tool Kits developed by Policy Studies Associates (PSA), which are written by evaluation staff based on interviews with project leaders and staff. Both products are disseminated to all TASC projects. Academic enrichment continued to be a priority for principals and site coordinators, and after school activities reflected this focus to a greater extent than in prior years. Site coordinators identified the following primary focus areas: academic/cognitive/literacy development (91%), artistic development (75%), physical fitness/athletic development/recreation (68%), cultural awareness and exploration (23%), health/well-being/life skills (11%), civic engagement/community service (8%), and career exploration/development (3%). Compared to Year 2, projects involved more youth more frequently in extended projects and group efforts. Observations in TASC projects suggest that these types of projects promoted active learning and positive interactions in contexts that youth enjoyed. Almost all of the evaluation’s categories of academic and cognitive development activity were offered with higher levels of intensity (i.e., frequency, extent of involvement of all students, duration through the year) in Year 3 than in Year 2. The increased levels of intensity of the varied academic and cognitive activities suggest that projects had adopted broader activity menus and hence had created a greater likelihood that activities were being matched to youth’s preferences and needs. Among artistic development activities, visual arts and crafts, and dance/movement were offered at the highest intensity, and the intensity of both types of activities increased over comparable levels in Year 2. The greatest amount of after school time was spent in three program activities: homework (173 minutes per week or 20% of program time), art (158 minutes per week or 18%), and recreation and sports (114 minutes per week or 13%). Ten percent of program time (90 minutes) was attributed to club or other activities, which included board games (e.g., chess) and community service, as well as sports and arts activities that participants selected on club days. Programs spent a substantial amount of time each week on transitional activities. They spent 97 minutes per week providing snacks to students (11% of program time), usually the first activity after the regular school day, and 112 minutes on transitions between activities and end of day dismissal (13% of program time).
Cost/Revenues	Based on projects’ own spending (and excluding the costs of administration and supports provided by TASC and others), the average budgeted cost for a day of service was $6.76 per participant. Personnel costs were the largest expense for almost every site, with projects spending an average of 85% of their funds for personnel. Sites reported that they would raise a third of their overall budgeted spending from matching funds and offset credits.
Parent/Community Involvement	According to survey data, projects achieved the highest levels of parent participation at special events hosted by the after school project, with 54% of site coordinators reporting that at least half of the parents typically attended special events. Site coordinators reached out to parents in several ways in Year 3, including referring parents to local agencies or organizations for assistance or information (77%), sponsoring cultural or recreational events (70%), talking individually with parents about their child’s needs or interests (47%), holding meetings where representatives of local agencies presented information (36%), and offering classes in parenting (30%), English as a second language (16%), and computer skills or GED exam preparation (11%). Parents who directly assisted the projects most often served as paid staff (at 68% of sites, up from 59% the previous year). They also were activity assistants (41%), members of the site’s advisory board (31%), tutors (31%), and language translators or interpreters (27%). Many site coordinators (78%) reported that the surrounding neighborhood was either very aware or somewhat aware of the TASC project, and more than half (51%) said community members (other than paid staff or parents) helped with the after school program at least once per month. Half of the site coordinators reported that after school participants attended a community event or volunteered at a community program at least once a month.
Program Context/ Infrastructure	TASC projects operated in schools that served some of the most disadvantaged students in the city, as measured by indicators of poverty and achievement. Across all New York City public schools (based on data from 1999–2000, as cited in PSA’s 2002 reports), 75% of elementary school students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, as were 72% of middle school students and 47% of high school students. Among schools with TASC projects, the median percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch was higher: 88% for elementary and middle schools and 44% for high schools. On the 2000 administration of the citywide CTB tests in reading, 42% of all elementary students and 37% of all middle school students scored at grade level or higher, compared with 32% and 24%, respectively, of students in schools with TASC projects. In math, 40% of elementary school students and 26% of middle school students scored at grade level or higher citywide, compared with 29% and 17%, respectively, for schools with TASC projects. Based on citywide data from 1999–2000, 85% of all students in elementary schools were nonwhite, as were 83% of middle school students and 84% of high school students. The comparable figures for schools with TASC projects were 92% in elementary schools and 90% in middle and high schools.
Program–School Linkages	TASC projects achieved fairly high degrees of partnership, coordination, and integration with their host schools. They typically solicited input from teachers and principals on youth’s academic needs, used school administrators to advise and monitor activities, coordinated homework assistance with classroom teachers, and adopted school themes for special projects. In surveys, principals of schools hosting these projects indicated a belief that the projects did not require as much of their direct involvement as in previous years. This view was reflected in principals’ reports of the amount of time spent on work related to the project, the frequency of their visits to the project, the frequency of their meetings with the site coordinator, and other information affirming the strength of the school/after school partnerships. Site coordinators’ representation on school-wide governing, coordinating, or advisory teams increased in Year 3, with over half of principals (54%) reporting TASC participation on such teams. Most principals said that TASC enhanced the overall effectiveness of the school. About a quarter of after school staff also worked in the host school as teachers, classroom aides or instructional assistants, or other staff. Most said that their dual roles benefited both the regular and after school programs.
Recruitment/ Participation	Although TASC enrollment in New York City has nearly tripled since the program began, project enrollment continued to average only about one third of the children in the host schools. Factors limiting enrollment included school and classroom space, demand for services, and administrative and teaching capacity. Over the 3 years of program operation, projects increased their inclusion of students with disabilities, especially in sites serving older students. Even so, students with disabilities were underrepresented in TASC projects, based on a comparison of enrollments of these students in TASC projects and in the host schools. Although attendance rates remained stable in Year 3 (averaging 74% in projects serving Grades K–8), a slightly larger proportion of students (78% in Year 3 vs. 77% in Year 2) met the standard for “active participation” than before. In Year 3, 75% of enrolled students remained enrolled every month through May, compared with 80% of students the previous year. The median program days attended by youth in each year rose from 80 days in 1998–1999 to 99 days in 1999–2000 and finally to 109 days in 2000–2001.
Satisfaction	Youth participants generally reported strong connections to their after school project. Most reported positive social interactions with peers and described the project as a place where people work together. However, participants expressed somewhat less satisfaction with their after school project than in the past, when asked how much they liked the program overall.
Staffing/Training	In Year 3, the total TASC project workforce in New York City included about 4,400 regular staff, 290 subcontracted staff, and 140 AmeriCorps members. In addition to these paid staff, projects reported an increasing use of volunteers. Most site coordinators were college graduates and had at least 3 years of experience working in social services, youth services, community agencies, or educational organizations. About half had experience managing that type of organization. Overall, site coordinators were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than in previous years. Fewer site coordinators than in previous years said that they intend to leave their job in the next year. About two thirds of project staff (other than site coordinators) said that they intend to return to their after school job next year. Staff who responded to the survey (other than site coordinators) had less education than was reported in previous years. A majority of staff were students themselves, either in college, graduate school, or high school. Most staff (excluding site coordinators) earned less than $16 an hour. Although site coordinators reported holding fewer all-staff meetings than in past years they met more frequently with subgroups of staff. Approximately 77% reported that they hold such meetings at least monthly. At more than half of the sites, classroom management, youth development, academic enrichment or literacy development, and athletic instruction emerged as the most useful training topics for staff, as reported by site coordinators.

Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic

All participants, regardless of how often they attended the TASC program, gained 2.8 scale score points more in math over 2 years than did similar nonparticipants (p <. 05).

Youth who participated in TASC the most consistently and for the longest period of time experienced the greatest gains. After 1 year of exposure to TASC, youth who were active participants in TASC projects in every year they participated performed similarly to nonparticipants. However, the same youth experienced gains in math scores that were significantly larger than the gains experienced by nonparticipants with similar characteristics after 2 (4 scale-score points, p < .05) and 3 years (6 scale-score points, p < .05) of exposure to TASC. Youth classified as “highly active” gained 6 scale-score points more than similar nonparticipants after only 2 years of TASC participation; this difference was significant (p < . 05).

Compared to responses in previous years, more elementary grade participants in Year 3 believed that the TASC program provided them with academic benefits (85% in Year 3 vs. 73% in Year 2).

On the citywide tests of reading and English language arts, TASC participants generally performed about the same as nonparticipants.

In general, the TASC participants who are at greatest academic risk made the largest math gains, when compared nonparticipants. Math benefits were clearly evident for youth who scored in the lowest of four proficiency levels in the year prior to TASC participation. The gains for these low-achieving youth were evident for active participants irrespective of their number of years of participation. Among youth from low-income families, the evaluation also found evidence of after school significant benefits in math after both 2 and 3 years of active participation (p < .05).

Among various subgroups examined, black students were especially likely to benefit from active participation in TASC projects, demonstrating gains in math over similar nonparticipants after 1, 2, and 3 years of active participation (p < .05). Hispanic students benefited significantly in math after 2 years of participation (p < .05).

Special education students and English language learners who participated actively in TASC projects showed significant benefits over similar nonparticipants in math after a year of participation (p < .05). (The evaluation had too few 2- and 3-year participants in these categories to permit results to be computed.)

Although TASC active participants demonstrated slightly higher baseline attendance in the year prior to TASC service than did nonparticipants (93.6% compared to 92.0%), the TASC active participants improved their attendance rates significantly more than did nonparticipants (p < .05).

TASC active participants also gained significantly more in school attendance than did nonparticipants at each grade level, with patterns in Grades 5–8 particularly noteworthy (p < .05). At those grades, TASC participation significantly moderated the attendance decline that was seen among nonparticipants. Although the attendance of nonparticipants decreased consistently between Grades 5 and 8, the attendance of active TASC participants rose at each grade level except for a decline between Grades 6 and 7 after 1 year of active participation. Even there, the attendance decline of TASC active participants was less than a third of the decline for nonparticipants.

Youth Development

Many participants said that the TASC program gave them new experiences and helped them develop life skills.

In questions addressed just to middle school participants, many said that the TASC project helped them master a performance skill, such as playing a musical instrument, singing, or speaking in front of a group. Many middle school participants also said that the program afforded them opportunities to contribute to the design or operation of the program itself.

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

Profile Information