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 6:
Building Quality, Scale, and Effectiveness in After-School Programs: Summary Report of the TASC Evaluation

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To answer three central questions: Are TASC services meeting high expectations for quality? Do youth benefit from participation in TASC projects? What practices are associated with the greatest benefits for youth participants?
Evaluation Design	Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: The evaluation of TASC’s first four years consisted of an implementation and an outcomes assessment. The evaluation focused on the group of TASC projects in New York City that were first funded in the first two years of TASC’s operations, 1998–1999 (Year 1) and 1999–2000 (Year 2). This set of projects included all 50 projects first funded in Year 1 and all 50 projects first funded in Year 2. Ninety-six of these projects continued operation in Year 3, and 95 were operating in Year 4. These projects offered the longest period during which evaluators could observe change in program implementation, and participation patterns, and participants’ educational performance. Evaluators collected data through surveys, site visits, and the review of administrative records for Years 1–4. Survey data were collected from projects first funded in Year 1 and Year 2, except youth survey data, which were only collected from projects first funded in Year 1. Because the full sample size was not attained until Year 2 for the site coordinator, staff, and principal surveys, most cross-time comparisons reviewed in the report using this data span Years 2 through 4. The evaluation compared TASC participants to nonparticipants who attended TASC host schools (defined as any student who attended a TASC host school while a project was open and who did not participate in a TASC project in any year). The final student sample for the evaluation contained information on 52,355 students who participated in TASC programming and on 90,806 students in the same schools who did not participate in TASC services. 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. The PreK–8 youth who participated in TASC programs closely resembled the nonparticipating students in the same schools on measures of family income, gender, receipt of special education, status as English language learners and as recent immigrants, and prior educational performance. Although racial/ethnic characteristics were very similar across participants and nonparticipants, black students were more highly represented among participants (37%) than among nonparticipants (28%). In contrast to the similarity of participants and nonparticipants in Grades K–8, measures available to the evaluation indicated that high school students who participated in their school’s TASC after school project differed rather consistently from nonparticipating students in the same high schools. In particular, in Year 4, TASC participants in Grades 9–12 demonstrated lower levels of educational risk than did nonparticipants, as demonstrated by lower self-reported levels of free- and reduced-price lunch eligibility, receipt of special education services, recent immigrant status, English Language Learner status, and baseline academic achievement and school attendance. Participants were also more likely than nonparticipants to be African American, female, and less concentrated in the lower grades of high school. Although the characteristics of the K–8 students who participated in the TASC after school projects were nearly identical to those of nonparticipants, statistical adjustments were made to control for baseline differences between the two groups. Because of data limitations and less comparability between participants and nonparticipants at the high school level, statistical adjustments could only be made for participants in Grades PreK–8. 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. Using the above predictions, evaluators calculated nonparticipants’ expected gains on academic outcomes. The evaluation then applied this expected gain formula to TASC participants, calculating the gain that would be expected if the student had 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. To examine which program-related factors were associated with positive outcomes for youth, the evaluators also took the results of the regression models described above and looked at which factors were related to greater student gains across TASC projects. Evaluators categorized each participating youth as an active or nonactive participant each year. In Grades PreK–8, an active participant was one who attended a TASC project at least 60 days during the school year (out of the typical 160 days of project operations) and also attended at least 60% of the days that it was possible to attend, or an average of 3 days per week. For youth in Grades 9–12, TASC’s project structure and operation were premised on youth attending the project on a less frequent basis. Accordingly, evaluators established a different threshold for categorizing a student in Grades 9–12 as an active participant: a minimum of 20 days over a school year and 20% of the days that it was possible to attend, or an average of 1 day per week. In addition to the overall sample, site-visit samples (in-depth study sites) included 10 projects in Year 1, 15 projects in Year 2, 15 projects in Year 3, 14 projects in Year 4, and 14 projects in Year 5. Sites were purposively selected to obtain diversity along dimensions including grade span, type of sponsor, and geographic location.
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: In each year of the study, evaluators collected data through observations conducted in visits to a sample of TASC projects. In general, the evaluation used site-visit data to explore the relationships, issues, and tensions surrounding the design and implementation of TASC projects. Secondary Source/Data Review: TASC and PSA developed a participant tracking system to register the following: the date each participant enrolled in TASC activities, the participant’s withdrawal date, and the participant’s daily after school attendance during the period between enrollment and withdrawal. In addition, the evaluators cross-referenced TASC participants with the New York City Department of Education’s data on participants’ biographical characteristics (date of birth, sex, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, and whether the student was a recent immigrant), their eligibility for special instructional programs serving English language learners and students with disabilities, and their educational characteristics (grade in school, years of enrollment in a particular school, annual school attendance rates, and achievement on state and citywide tests of reading and math). Data on additional educational characteristics were obtained for high school students, including students’ accumulation of high school credits and Regents test performance in English and math. Evaluators also identified students in host schools who did not participate in TASC and obtained the same information on these nonparticipants as it obtained on participants. Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys were administered to TASC site coordinators, other staff in TASC projects, principals of host schools, after school participants in Grades 4–12, and their parents. Surveys asked these various stakeholders about their perceptions of the program, as well as their experiences with the program. Participant surveys were collected from 1,584 youth in Year 1 (surveys from 82% of participating sites), 1,865 youth in Year 2 (87% of participating sites), 2,103 youth in Year 3 (88% of participating sites), and 2,031 youth in Year 4 (98% of participating sites). The evaluation used separate survey forms for youth in Grades 4–5, 6–8, and 9–12. The surveys asked youth to assess the degree to which the TASC project had fostered positive social interactions, built a sense of community within their projects, given them opportunities to grow, exposed them to new experiences, engaged them in learning, and given them an overall satisfying experience. Parent surveys were collected from 1,292 parents in Year 1 (70% of participating sites), and 1,630 parents in Year 2 (91% of participating sites). This survey contains questions about parents’ background characteristics, children’s time use prior to participating in after school programming, perceptions of and satisfaction with the after school programming, and perceptions of child and family outcomes associated with participation in after school programming. TASC staff surveys were collected from 906 staff in Year 1 (86% of participating sites), 1,155 staff in Year 2 (87% of participating sites), 1,571 (92% of participating sites), and 1,369 staff in Year 4 (93% of participating sites). This survey contains questions pertaining to job characteristics; job satisfaction, supervision, and support; training/technical assistance opportunities; relationship with school; and background/experience. TASC site coordinator surveys were collected from 47 site coordinators in Year 1 (94% of eligible site coordinators), 94 site coordinators in Year 2 (94%), 95 site coordinators in Year 3 (99%), and 79 site coordinators in Year 4 (83%). This survey contains questions pertaining to program goals, enrollment, program activities/schedule, student/staff interactions, staffing, supervision and support, relationship with school, parent/community outreach/involvement, and site coordinator background/experience. Evaluators constructed an intensity index for various activities from these surveys, using a formula to incorporate site coordinators’ reports of the frequency and duration of specific activities and the proportion of students participating in the activity. Index values ranged from 4 at the highest level of frequency, duration, and coverage to 0 at the lowest level. TASC principal surveys were collected from 34 principals in Year 1 (68% of eligible principals), 66 principals in Year 2 (66%), 69 principals in Year 3 (72%), and 65 principals in Year 4 (68%). This survey contains questions about principals’ perceptions of the after school program, its strengths and weaknesses, its relationship with the school and school day teachers, and its effectiveness in benefiting students. 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 obtained Regents exam score data.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected between 1998 and 2003.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	Focusing on the highest project averages in Year 4, three activity areas clustered together with very similar levels of intensity (2.71 to 2.79): artistic development, academic/cognitive/literacy development, and social/cultural awareness and exploration. Projects for which comparable data were available in all 3 years remained fairly stable in intensity levels. The greatest increase over time appeared in the intensity of social and cultural awareness activities and the greatest decrease in fitness/sports/recreation activities. Analysis of the intensity of academic activities indicated that six activities were implemented with relatively high intensity (i.e., above 3.00) in Year 4: homework help, organized reading, recreational reading, math games, word games, and organized writing. A review of changes in the intensity of these and other academic/cognitive activities indicates small but noteworthy increases in organized reading and tutoring, suggesting more focused efforts to improve participants’ academic achievement. Noteworthy declines in this time period appear in organized writing, group instruction, computer training (likely due to projects’ reduced access to computers), and study skills activities. In Year 4, almost all projects (97%) employed culminating performances, indicating a popularity that has remained steady over time. Overall, 67% of site coordinators said that most or all students in the after school project participated in activities culminating in a performance. Eighty-seven percent of projects involved students in one to four such activities a year, with the typical annual number of such activities increasing since Year 2. In Year 4, 77% of site coordinators said that their project’s participants engaged in group activities that were tied in some way to one or more academic subject areas, that extended over a single day, and that involved research, writing, and discussion. This percent of projects involved in group work reflected an increase from Year 2, when 62% of TASC sites reported that they used group efforts. In Year 4, 24% of coordinators said that most or all of their participants had completed at least one group activity. Among this subgroup of coordinators, 63% said that most youth participated in three to four group activities during the school year. In Year 4, 76% of site coordinators reported that their TASC project used one or more themes to link activities across different program components, a percentage that had remained stable since Year 2. Thirty-five percent of Year 4 projects said that the project’s themes were coordinated with those used by the school. A little over a third of site coordinators (36%) reported in Year 4 that they used curricula developed outside the project or school, a small increase from Year 2. According to principal surveys, 95% agreed that students had opportunities to participate in activities in TASC projects not available during the regular school day, while 66% agreed that students received additional opportunities to develop literacy skills. Eighty-two percent of site coordinators said that they required activity or lesson plans from at least some staff. Two fifths (41%) of these site coordinators said that they regularly required activity plans from most or all staff. At some projects, the site coordinator kept activity plans on file, so that staff could borrow ideas from each other and ask the creator of a lesson plan for help in implementing it.
Parent/Community Involvement	According to site coordinator surveys, 72% of projects offered parents opportunities to attend cultural or recreational events in the community, 37% offered parenting classes (e.g., classes to help parents learn about the school system and communicate with the school, how to help their children with schoolwork and prepare for tests, etc.), 36% offered opportunities to hear from and talk with representatives from local agencies or other organizations (e.g., health, police, employment and training programs), 24% offered classes to help parents develop their own skills (e.g., GED preparation or computer skills, etc.), 18% offered English as a second language classes, and 14% offered other events and activities. Analyses demonstrated increases in all of these activities across years. The increases in “opportunities to hear from and talk with representatives from local agencies or other organizations” and “opportunities to attend cultural and recreational events in the community” were significant (p < .05). According to site coordinators, people in the neighborhoods surrounding their projects were generally aware of them, with 86% reporting that the surrounding neighborhood was either very aware or somewhat aware of the project. According to interviews and observations, TASC projects’ engagement with the community was grounded in their sponsoring organizations’ ongoing community outreach and engagement. High school projects were especially likely to engage with the community through development of internships for participants.
Program Context/ Infrastructure	Compared to New York City’s public schools overall, the schools in the evaluation sample enrolled higher percentages of students from low-income families, low-achieving students, and Black or Hispanic students. This difference was most pronounced for schools hosting PreK–8 projects and less pronounced for schools hosting high school projects.
Program–School Linkages	Interviews revealed that after school staff, site coordinators, and principals perceived many unexpected benefits of hiring teachers from the regular school day. Interview responses indicated that these teachers seemed to bring insights into after school participants’ academic and developmental needs, and gained insight into their current and future students by meeting them in a more relaxed setting. Also, school day teachers were more likely to have access to school resources, either in their own classrooms or when using a colleague’s classroom. In addition, regular day teachers who worked in TASC often served as advocates for it, encouraging other teachers to share space or refer students. Interviews with after school staff and site coordinators also revealed some negative consequences of hiring regular day teachers: Projects wanting to offer an experience different from the regular school day sometimes found that teachers wanted to conduct after school activities just like regular day classes, particularly when site coordinators did not have full control over which teachers they could hire; some teachers were exhausted by the end of the school day or found themselves short on planning time for the next day; regular school day teachers were typically more expensive to hire than nonteachers; teachers were unavailable during the regular school day for TASC training, and perceived their education and classroom experience as too advanced for them to benefit from TASC training. Across the sites, site visits and interviews revealed that while the site coordinator communicated regularly with the principal, the coordinator had the leeway to hire and supervise staff as well as determine program activities and the weekly schedule. The principal typically acted as an after school advocate (with the regular day staff) and a leader in logistical brainstorming around such issues as sharing space and wrapping around non-TASC after school activities. In surveys in Year 4, virtually all principals of host schools (97%) reported a strong partnership between the school and the after school project. This level of affirmation represented an increase from prior years, with 87% and 90% of principals reporting a strong partnership in Years 2 and 3, respectively. In addition, in Year 4, 86% of principals reported that the TASC project was aligned or coordinated with the school in some way. Of surveyed principals in Year 4, 86% reported that the after school program staff solicited input from the principal and teachers on skills with which students needed help and incorporated these topics into after school activities, 65% reported that the after school program adopted school themes for special projects, 61% reported that the after school program used school administrators (e.g., deans, assistant principals) to advise or monitor activities, 51% reported that after school staff coordinated homework assistance with classroom teachers, and 51% reported that the coordinator of the after school program served on a school planning team. While the use of all of these strategies increased between Years 2 and 4, according to principals, the integration of school themes and the identification of skill needs increased most during the period. According to site coordinator surveys, between Years 2 and 4, after school projects had increased access to the schools’ playground/outdoor activity areas, auditoriums, and gymnasiums, especially among elementary school projects, as well as increased access to the use of telephones, fax machines, photocopiers, and storage space amongst all projects. Elementary-grade projects had decreased access to computer labs and classroom computers across this period, although access to both rose for high school projects. According to principal surveys, the following measures of program–school relationships showed major increases after Year 2: after school staff reaching out to teachers in the school to identify the needs of students, after school staff following through with the commitments they made to the principal and other school staff, after school staff taking care of the space the school provided the project, and students being properly supervised by after school staff. The percentage of principals’ positive responses decreased significantly on one measure: the after school project having enough capacity to serve all interested students. In Year 4, principals reported that the following program elements needed attention: qualifications of program staff other than the site coordinator (56%), quality of homework help (52%), quality of academic enrichment activities (44%), coordination/integration with the school curriculum (41%), coordination with the school (31%), number of staff (22%), and staff turnover (20%). Interviews with principals suggested that concerns about staff qualifications may be linked to many principals’ preference that the after school project employ as many teachers from the regular school day as possible.
Recruitment/ Participation	Within PreK–8 host schools, about 32% of students in each school enrolled in the TASC project. At Grades 9–12, 59% of students in each school enrolled, though this figure is higher primarily because several high schools automatically enrolled all students in the TASC program. Overall, low-income students (as determined by eligibility for subsidized meals) constituted 91% of PreK–8 participants and 75% of high school participants. Hispanic and Black students accounted for 85% of participants at PreK–8 levels and 78% of Grade 9–12 participants. Among the 75 projects serving Grades PreK–8 for which adequate enrollment data were available for Years 2, 3, and 4, project enrollment remained relatively stable, increasing slowly across program years. A factor promoting enrollment stability was TASC’s policy of adjusting grant amounts during the program year to align the amounts with actual project attendance. In Year 2, the average enrollment was 236 students, increasing to 278 in Year 3, an increase of 18%. In Year 4, the average enrollment in these projects increased slightly to 289, a 4% increase. The proportion of students who participated in TASC for an entire school year increased moderately between Years 3 and 4. In Year 4, 77% of participating students continued to attend the project every month through May, compared with 74% the previous year. Among PreK–8 students who participated 1 year and could attend a 2nd year because they continued in a school that hosted a TASC project, 63% also participated a 2nd year. In 2001–2002, 71% of PreK–8 participants in TASC projects met the criteria established for active participation. Among TASC participants in Grades PreK–8 during the 2001–2002 school year, a project attendance rate of 60% represented the 18th percentile of attendance rates among all TASC participants, and a project attendance rate of 80% represented the 40th percentile point. This means that 18% of all TASC participants at this grade span had a TASC attendance rate of 59% or lower, and 40% had an attendance rate of 79% or lower. Median TASC attendance rates for PreK–8 students increased in each of the 4 years of TASC program operation that were assessed. The midpoint on the attendance rate continuum increased from 78% in Year 1 to 80% in Year 2 to 83% in Year 3 and to 85% in Year 4. During 2001–2002, 47% of participants in Grades 9–12 met the criteria for active participation. Among TASC participants in Grades 9–12 during the 2001–2002 school year, a project attendance rate of 20% represented the 38th percentile of attendance rates among all TASC participants, and a project attendance rate of 60% represented the 90th percentile point. Median TASC attendance rates for students in Grades 9–12 fluctuated slightly across the 4 years of TASC program operation. The median number of days attended in 1998–1999 was 80 days, in 1999–2000 the median was 99 days, in 2000–2001 it was 109 days, and in 2001–2002 it was 107 days. This calculation excludes sites that submitted data for fewer than 8 months in a school year and the sites that operated only a half-year in 1998–1999 or 1999–2000.
Staffing/Training	Of site coordinators in Year 4, 86% held at least a bachelor’s degree and 40% held at least a master’s degree. Although average education levels of site coordinators were high, they declined (but not significantly) over Years 2, 3, and 4. Evaluators note that this decline is likely due to the promotion of assistant site coordinators into lead positions. These individuals had not needed the higher education levels to be hired as assistant coordinators, but they proved themselves to be effective in subordinate positions and were eventually promoted based on their work experience and performance. In Year 4, 85% of site coordinators reported at least 3 years of experience working in social services, youth services, community organizations, or educational organizations before working in a TASC after school project; this level remained stable over time. In the same year, 50% of site coordinators reported at least 3 years’ experience in managing social services, youth services, community organizations, or educational organizations prior to working in a TASC after school project; this level also remained fairly stable. In addition, 78% of site coordinators in Year 4 reported having at least 3 years of experience providing direct services to youth, a level that remained stable over the data collection period. About a fifth of site coordinators (21%) reported that they held some type of state teaching certification from New York or another state. Of these site coordinators, 20% held a regular license to teach in New York City, 20% held a New York State certificate, and others held provisional certificates of various types, with some site coordinators holding more than one type of teaching certificate. Survey results showed that 95% of site coordinators reported a high level of job satisfaction (above the midpoint on a scale measuring job satisfaction), a level that remained stable across all years of the evaluation. Forty percent of responding staff held a 2-year college degree or higher. Nineteen percent of responding staff had not yet graduated from high school. Over half of project staff (57%) who were not working as site coordinators were themselves enrolled as students while working in a TASC project. The part-time nature of many TASC jobs made after school employment compatible with course enrollment. Most TASC staff who were enrolled in education programs were college students. In Year 4, 80% of staff reported experience in social services, youth services, community organizations, or education, 67% reported experience working in a school, 53% reported 3 or more years in social services or education, 43% reported 3 or more years providing direct services to children, and 18% reported having some sort of teacher certification. Almost a third (32%) of staff reported that they worked in the host school in some capacity during the school day. Thirteen percent said that they worked as classroom teachers during the school day, 9% worked as classroom assistants, and 10% worked in other positions, such as instructional specialist, pupil support staff, and administrator. Of after school staff who also worked in the host school during the school day, 50% strongly agreed that their relationships with some students improved because they got to work with them after school, 36% strongly agreed that they got a chance to try new activities and teaching strategies, 22% strongly agreed that they changed some activities or teaching strategies in their regular classroom, 7% strongly agreed that they worried about getting burned out on teaching, and 4% strongly agreed that they had less time for their regular teaching responsibilities. Of responding paid staff, 95% indicated that they were “highly satisfied” with their work in TASC. As in previous years, almost two thirds (65%) of project staff in Year 4 reported that they intended to return to their jobs in the upcoming year. Ten percent said that they would not return, and 25% said that they were not sure whether they would return. Among those not returning or not sure, the main reason was needing to work more hours or full-time. Of site coordinators in Year 4, 87% reported that staff meetings were held at least once a month, which was an increase in reported staff meetings from prior years. In addition, 71% of site coordinators reported that they held meetings of subgroups of staff at least once a month. The typical staff-meeting agenda included discussion of new activities, upcoming staff development, policy changes (most often regarding student attendance), and the sharing of lesson plans. When asked what types of training were most valuable, project staff identified topics that were most closely related to their core day-to-day responsibilities, especially how to involve and teach after school participants. For site coordinators, these topics centered on project management and operations. Other staff were most interested in learning how to design activities to engage, involve, and teach after school participants. Examined across 3 years of staff responses, the percent of other after school staff who said they participated in after school training as part of their job increased steadily, from 62% to 68% to 78% in Years 2, 3, and 4, respectively. All of the sites visited in the evaluation opened their program year with a 1–2-week staff orientation that covered topics such as child-abuse detection, classroom management, and group cohesion building, as well as specific instruction in leading arts and academic enrichment activities. Staff members who did not participate in training were mainly those who worked in the TASC project 10 or fewer hours a week (47% of all staff not participating in training), were 21 years old or younger (17%), and worked in the school during the regular day and also worked more than 10 hours a week in the after school project (7%). The level of satisfaction with training reflected a steady upward shift, with site coordinators who reported that the training served their purposes “completely” increasing from 18% in Year 2 to 22% in Year 3 to 38% in Year 4. Over half of site coordinators and staff reported that they had implemented ideas and strategies from the training and technical assistance and that the implementation had improved the TASC project. Another third of each group was in the process of implementing ideas and strategies gleaned from the assistance.

Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic	Among all TASC PreK–8 participants, the average change in scores on the math test was 1.4 standardized scale score points more after 2 years of participation than would be predicted from students’ characteristics. The difference between this change in performance and that of nonparticipants was significant (p < .05). Participants earned 0.2 more points than similar nonparticipants after 1 year of TASC participation, which was significant (p < .05). After 1 year of exposure to TASC, active PreK–8 participants gained more in math performance than expected based on their characteristics (p < .05). Students who were active TASC participants also experienced gains in math scores that were significantly larger than expected after 2 years of exposure to TASC (p < .05). Active PreK–8 participants who scored at or above grade level in math (proficiency levels 3 and 4) in the year prior to enrolling in a TASC project had significantly larger gains than predicted after both 1 and 2 years of active participation. Active PreK–8 participants who scored below grade level in math (proficiency levels 1 and 2) in the year prior to enrolling in a TASC project had mixed results in math. They gained significantly less than predicted after 1 year of active participation (p < .05) but significantly more than expected after 2 years of participation (p < .05). Active PreK–8 participants who were eligible for free lunch in the year prior to TASC participation gained more points than expected in math after both 1 and 2 years of participation. Active PreK–8 participants who were not eligible for free lunch in the year prior to TASC participation gained fewer points than expected after participating in TASC for 1 year but more points than expected after 2 years. Active PreK–8 Black and Hispanic participants gained more points than expected in math after 1 and 2 years of exposure to TASC, while White and Asian students gained the expected number of points. Special education PreK–8 students who attended TASC projects gained more points than expected on math tests after a year of participating in TASC, as did English Language Learners. Recent immigrants, in contrast, gained fewer points than expected in math after a year of TASC participation. No subgroup effects were found for PreK–8 on the basis of participants’ gender. In the four sites for which fairly complete Regents data were available, high school TASC participants passed more exams earlier in their high school career than did nonparticipants, with active participants especially likely to pass five exams by the end of 12th grade in two of the four schools. In the sites for which sufficient data on high school credits earned were available, the average number of credits earned among high school TASC participants was significantly higher than the average for nonparticipants (p < .05). In the two sites for which data on eighth grade proficiency levels were available, 7 out of 10 comparisons showed that participants had earned more credits at the end of ninth grade than nonparticipating students with equivalent eighth grade scores. No achievement differences were evident in ELA/reading tests. While TASC PreK–8 participants began TASC with higher school attendance rates than nonparticipants, after 1 year of TASC exposure, the average attendance rate among all participants increased by 0.53 percentage points, compared with an increase of 0.11 percentage points for nonparticipants, for a net difference of three quarters of a day over a 181-day school year. The corresponding increase among active participants was 0.75 percentage points, yielding a net difference in gains in school attendance of 1.2 days over the school year. After 2 years of participation, the school attendance rates for all TASC participants increased by 0.68 percentage points, compared with 0.38 percentage points for nonparticipants, the equivalent of attending an additional half-day of school per year, compared to nonparticipants. Over the same period, the school attendance rates of active participants increased by 0.80 percentage points, for an additional three quarters of a school day per year, compared to nonparticipants. These significant attendance gains (p < .05 for each) were still found after controlling for youth’s attendance rates prior to beginning TASC. Though preexisting differences in attendance rates were greater for high school youth, TASC participants’ attendance rates declined less and sometimes increased in comparison with nonparticipants, after controlling for students’ prior level of school attendance. The attendance gains associated with active TASC participation were largest in the middle grades. For each of Grades 5–8, the difference between participants and nonparticipants in attendance gains was positive and significant (p < .05). Participants made more positive 1-year gains in both English language arts (ELA) and math test scores in TASC projects that offered a high intensity of academic and cognitive development activities. Participants made more positive 1-year gains in both English language arts (ELA) and math test scores in TASC projects that offered high intensity in activities focusing on fitness, sports, and recreation. In TASC projects in which the site coordinator had a teaching certificate, participants performed better in both English language arts (ELA) and math test scores than participants in other sites. In TASC projects where the site coordinator required project staff to submit lesson or activity plans, participants made greater gains on ELA and math tests than in programs where the site coordinator did not require lesson plans. In sites where at least 25% of project staff had a 4-year college degree, participants had more positive changes in math and ELA test scores than in TASC sites with a lower proportion of school staff members with such degrees. Positive relationships with 1-year student gains in reading and math were found in programs that employed staff who worked in the host school in some capacity (with associations found when more than 25% of staff reported this characteristic), spoke a language in addition to English (when more than 50% of staff reported this characteristic), and were under the age of 35 (when more than 75% of staff reported this characteristic). Qualitative evidence suggests that certain program features were especially important to youth outcomes, including (a) the partnership between nonprofit sponsoring organizations and host schools, (b) the location of after school services within participants’ own schools, (c) the employment of a full-time project site coordinator, and (d) the expectation that participants would attend the after school project almost every day. The following percentages of principals reported that TASC “very much” enhanced students’ attitudes toward school (56%), improved student attendance (42%), enhanced students’ motivation to learn (34%), contributed to improved student skills in math (24%), and contributed to improved student skills in reading (23%).
Family	According to principal surveys, 79% agreed that parents expressed more positive feelings about the school because it provided a safe place for their children after school. Thirty-one percent (31%) of principals reported that TASC “very much” increased parents’ attendance at school events and 15% reported that it “very much” increased parents’ attendance at parent–teacher conferences.
Prevention	Forty-one percent of principals reported that TASC “very much” improved student safety, and 17% reported that it “very much” reduced vandalism at the school.
Systemic	Forty-five percent of principals reported that TASC “very much” enhanced the overall effectiveness of the school.

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

Profile Information