Jump to:Page Content
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
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.
Synthesizes findings from the profiles of 13 research and evaluation reports added to the OST Program Research and Evaluation Database in August 2007.
Free. Available online only.
This Snapshot describes instruments used by current out-of-school time programs to evaluate their implementation and outcomes.
Free. Available online only.
This Snapshot reviews the role of technology in OST programs, highlighting the evaluation methods and findings about implementation and youth outcomes.
Free. 8 Pages.
This Snapshot reviews small-scale experimental evaluations of after school programs, highlighting these studies' evaluation strategies and results.
Free. 8 Pages.
This poster examined disadvantage at the family and neighborhood level and their associations with participation in out-of-school time activities. Specifically, the authors demonstrate that neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) characteristics (i.e., income, education, and employment) mediate the association between family income, parent education, and ethnicity and children's participation in a variety of activities outside of school. Family income and parent education, for example, are positively associated with an increased probability of youth participating in before- and after-school programs, community programs, and community center activities, but this increased probability is explained entirely by the fact that children in higher income and more educated families live in higher SES neighborhoods. Poster session submitted to Society for Research on Adolescence 2006 Bienniel Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
This paper examines whether youth who are at risk, according to child-, family-, school-, and neighborhood-level factors, are less likely to participate in out-of-school time activities, and whether the predictors depend on youth's age or socioeconomic status. Findings reveal that child- and family-level risks are most consistently related to youth's OST participation. However, these relationships emerge only in early and late adolescence, when youth have more autonomy in their decisions about non-school time use. For certain types of activities, namely those that require fees and financial commitments, contextual risks are more strongly associated with OST participation for higher SES families than for lower SES families.
Stone Wiske and David Eddy Spicer, from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, describe the school's Wide-Scale Interactive Development for Educators program
Dr. Peter A. Witt, the Elda K. Bradberry Recreation and Youth Development Chair at Texas A&M University, reflects on seven years of evaluating city after school programs in Texas.
Etagegnhue Woldeab and the Information and Technology team from the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants describe two web-based tools that are helping immigrant-serving agencies to operate more effectively.
Dennie Palmer Wolf and Jennifer Bransom offer lessons from the evaluation of a Dallas-based effort to promote
Emphasis is on continuous family-school teamwork efforts. Attention is given to family background and social context. The course will cover effective family involvement programs/models and current research underscoring the dynamic interaction between families and schools on the academic success of pre-K through grade 8 students.
Free. Available online only.
This study examined the extent to which Kentucky's teachers are prepared to work with families in the roles which they play in the education of their children. These roles include being teachers, supporters, advocates, and decision-makers. The research questions addressed the pre-service preparation by institutions of higher education, staff development activities of local school districts, and gaps in preservice and practicing teacher levels.
Free. Available online only.
Brian Yates from American University explains the value of both cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analyses in promoting investments in family involvement.
Nicole Yohalem, Karen Pittman, and Alicia Wilson-Ahlstrom from the Forum for Youth Investment provide an overview of program quality assessment tools.
Jonathan Zaff and Danielle Butler from America’s Promise Alliance look at how winners of the 100 Best Communities for Young People employ family involvement strategies.
E. Kinney Zalesne reveals how College Summit since its inception has used evaluation techniques that correspond to the different stages of the program’s development.
Kristen Zimmerman and Nancy Erbstein, Co-Directors of Community LORE, reveal how their organization promotes and supports youth participation in research, evaluation, and planning.
Joan Levy Zlotnik, Mary McCarthy, and Katharine Briar-Lawson review research and evaluation findings on public agency–university partnerships to educate public child welfare workers and the impact of such partnerships on workforce retention.
John Zuman and Beth Miller present an overview of the Massachusetts Afterschool Research Study, a statewide investigation into how after school programs constitute quality contexts for youth.