Out of School Time Programs

This article discusses after-school education or Out of School Time in U.S. public education. Out-of-school time (OST) is a broad term that includes organized activities after school, before school, during lunchtime, on weekends, holidays, and in summer school programs. There has been tremendous growth in this relatively new field, and public support for OST programs is strong. However, along with the increase in funding comes a new interest in accountability for the tax dollars spent. Thus, the demand for rigorous research to determine best practices and characteristics of effective programs is high. Except for one early national evaluation of OST programs, the results are generally positive, and tend to support programs that offer a wide variety of enrichment opportunities, rather than focusing exclusively on academic achievement. This paper also includes a description of 13 exemplary OST programs, as well as recommendations for more rigorous research.

Keywords After-School Education; After-School Programs; Enrichment Activities; Extended School Day; Extracurricular Activities; High Risk Students; In Loco Parentis; Out-of-School Time; Summer School; Supplemental Educational Services; Youth Programs

Overview

Out of school-time (OST) is a broad term that refers to any program, activity or opportunity that occurs during non-school hours where children and youth, aged 6 to 18, are supervised by adults who are promoting their development (Trammel, 2003). Out-of-school time can happen after school, before school, during lunchtime, on weekends, holidays, and in summer school programs. The term OST is a departure from older references to after school programs that typically had a narrower focus on after-school academic assistance (Trammel, 2003).

Out of school-time programs have been around for over a century (Gayl, 2004), but the federal government did not become involved in OST programs until the mid-1990s (James-Burdumy, Dynarski, Moore, Deke, Mansfield, Pistorino & Warner, 2005). Therefore, OST programs are a relatively new field. Since 1994, OST programs have doubled in number (Miller & Snow, 2004), and a number of societal and regulatory factors can be attributed to this growth. Indeed, some authors even refer to this grassroots phenomena as the after-school movement (Afterschool Alliance, 2004). The many, varied organizations involved in some way with out-of-school time include libraries, parks departments, YMCAs and other private program providers, housing agencies, police departments, city hall, and, of course, schools (Journal of Staff Development, 2011).

Growth of OST

In 2005, 40% of K-8 students attended an OST program at least once a week; however, there are not enough spaces available to meet the current demand. According to a household survey, approximately 61% of those children enrolled in OST programs attend a school or center-based program in a public school. Schools and community organizations often implement OST programs in order to meet the needs of at-risk students; unfortunately, due to lack of availability the programs struggle to reach the disadvantaged students who would most likely benefit from OST activities. Besides lack of availability and out-of-pocket expenses for families, children and youth often lose interest in OST programs, and attendance is patchy.

One reason for the growth of OST programs is that more parents are in the workforce, so there is greater need for adult supervision of children and youth outside of school time (Gayl, 2004; Hollister, 2003). Today, both parents often work outside the home, and there is also an increase in single-parent households (Trammel, 2003; Kleiner & Chapman, 2004). Second, there is research to show that OST programs deter youth from crime, and have positive effects on their social skills (Gayl, 2004). Dobbins (2005, p. 1) quotes from a Department of Justice report that the hours of 3:00 to 6:00 pm are "prime time for juvenile crime." Lastly, the push from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) to raise educational standards has led many to believe that OST programs can improve academic achievement by providing extra learning opportunities (Miller & Snow, 2004).

Public Support for OST

In addition to the tremendous growth in OST programs, public support for OST programs is strong (Lumsden, 2003a; Afterschool Alliance, 2004). Public support encourages politicians to support OST initiatives, and now governments at both the federal, state and local levels fund a variety of OST programs. In 1994, Congress authorized the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program as part of the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The CCLC program grew from a budget of $40 million to $1 billion in 2002; however, there were no significant increases since then (James-Burdumy et al., 2005).

Increased funding for OST programs has also led to increased demand for accountability of the tax dollars spent (McComb & Scott-Little, 2003; Afterschool Alliance, (2003). In addition, an often-cited reason for OST programs is to help meet the needs of low-income children (Miller & Snow, 2004). Besides these two reasons for gathering data to support OST programs, an important study in 1999 reported few positive and some negative results in a multi-year evaluation; this report created quite a stir among OST providers and evaluators, and even led the George W. Bush administration to propose a funding cut.

Applications

Need for Safety of Children

There are many reasons children and youth need OST programs, but there are three main outcomes described in the literature. First, the safety of children is a primary concern. According to Lumsden (2003b, p. 2), "more than 28 million school-age children have parents who are employed, and between seven and fifteen million of these children go home to an empty house on any given day." Younger children who are unsupervised after school have their personal safety and emotional security at risk (Lumsden, 2003b). Older unsupervised youths are more likely to experiment with high-risk activities like drugs, alcohol, sex, and crime (Reisner, White, Russell & Birmingham, 2004).

Improved Academic Achievement

A second desired outcome of OST programs is to improve students' academic achievement (Afterschool Alliance, 2003; Peter, 2002). After passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, there was greater necessity for educators to help their students reach benchmark academic standards (Gayl, 2004). Lawmakers agreed that academically focused OST programs would help their state achieve the standards set by NCLB. In addition, NCLB requires Title 1 schools to offer supplemental services (i.e., out of school time) for students in schools who fail to meet adequate yearly progress (Miller & Snow, 2004; Department of Education, 2007).

Enhanced Life Skills or Psychosocial Development

Third, some of the most consistent positive outcomes found in OST research relate to enhanced life skills or psychosocial development (McComb & Scott-Little, 2003). In general, OST programs based on holistic youth development rather than management of problems tend to have more outcomes that are positive and cover a broader array of domains. Politicians tend to focus on academic achievement, but others are concerned about programming that provides opportunities for physical activity, creativity, and fun (DeAngelis, 2003). Students who regularly attend OST programs seem to enjoy school more, have more positive attitudes to learning, and better in-school behavior according to their teachers’ reports ("Moving Beyond," 2004). The National Institute on Out-of-School Time reports that opportunities to engage in physical activity out of school are an important way to combat the recent rise in childhood obesity ("Making the Case," 2005; Hall & Gruber, 2006), as the percentage of overweight children ages 6 to 17 tripled in three decades (Ferrandino, 2007). In addition, children and youth not enrolled in OST programs tend to have too much idle time, which leads to excessive TV viewing. According to Ferrandino (2007, p. 19), "one-third of children under age 12 spend more than four hours a day watching TV, as do one-fifth of 12th graders on weekdays." In one study, youth who reported learning new skills, learning about college, and learning about jobs through activities in the program were more engaged, as were youth who found the staff caring and competent. Results demonstrated that the link between learning content for the future and engagement was stronger for older youth than younger youth (Greene et al., 2013).

Helping Parents

Finally, although not an outcome for students, helping parents is another psychosocial benefit of OST programs, and some authors mention this specifically as an important benefit (Afterschool Alliance, 2003; Miller & Snow, 2004). OST programs allow working parents to worry less about their children's safety, to save time in their busy lives, to have greater awareness of community agencies, and to improve their attendance at work (Afterschool Alliance, 2003).

Further Insights

According to a National Household Education Survey in 2005, 61% of children in kindergarten through grade eight (K-8) attended a school-based or center-based after school program at a public school (Carver & Iruka, 2006). The remaining approximately 39% of OST programs operate among private schools (10%), community centers (8%), programs in their own building (15%), and other locations (5%). Community-based and school-based OST programs may have different approaches, but the goal of helping students reach their potential and make positive gains are the same for any organization ("Promising Practices," 2007).

Meeting the Needs

In 2005, 40% of K-8 students attended an OST program at least once a week (Carver & Iruka, 2006). However, some estimate that only one-third of children needing after-school care are receiving it (Gayl, 2004; "Making the Case," 2005). Unfortunately, OST opportunities are more limited for low-income and minority children when compared to the space available to white and higher income children (Wright, 2005). Thirty percent of parents whose children are not in an OST program would enroll them in one if it were available to them ("Making the Case," 2005).

Positive Environment

In general, the research shows that OST programs can help youth develop in a positive environment. However, often the children who enroll in these programs are those who would receive adult supervision and enrichment activities even if the program did not exist. The result is that OST programs struggle to reach the disadvantaged students who would most likely benefit from OST activities (Gayl, 2004). Ironically, the main reason schools and community groups develop OST programs is to meet the needs of low-income children (Miller & Snow, 2004).

Cost-Effectiveness

OST programs generally cost less than after-school care by non-relatives (Carver & Iruka, 2006).

Barriers to OST Program Participation

Besides lack of availability and expenses for OST programs, there are other reasons children and youth lose interest in the programs. The Harvard Family Research Project ("Moving Beyond," 2004, p.3) lists five barriers to OST program participation:

• Due to the impact of NCLB, there are more stringent demands for achievement in school, and students often prefer to relax and just be with their friends after school.

• Teens often want to work outside the home; lower income families may rely on this income as a necessity.

• Older students may have family responsibilities such as caring for younger siblings.

• Students find the programs boring and lose interest in the activities.

• Students cannot travel safely to and from their OST program.

The reasons most frequently cited by youth for not participating in programs during their free time in a 2011 survey by the John W. Gardner Center for Youth at Stanford University were family responsibilities (31%), such as chores at home or taking care of siblings, and not knowing about any available programs (30%). Both are commonly cited challenges from the literature. (Castrechini, Gardner & Ardoin, 2011) Participation rates in OST programs is generally acknowledged to be patchy, and more regular attendance is a goal worth pursuing (Gayl, 2004; McComb & Scott-Little, 2003). stated in the HFRP report, "if participants vote with their feet, then most of these programs are not appealing enough to keep them coming back" (2005, p. 2).

Evaluating Exemplary OST Programs

According to the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, components of high-quality after-school programs include: clearly defined program goals and funding that aligns with them; strong, experienced leadership; and staff members who are able to motivate students and stay with the program for a while . The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) summarized evaluations of thirteen exemplary OST programs in the United States to demonstrate positive outcomes and identify best practices (Trammel, 2003). Here are brief descriptions of the AYPF compendium programs:

• 4-H-the largest volunteer co-educational program in the world, this evaluation focused on a special public housing 4-H program in Kansas City, Missouri.

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)-Congress authorized the 21st CCLC program in 1994 in order to open up school properties for use by communities, including OST programs. 21st CCLCs offer a variety of activities, mostly to help students meet state academic standards.

• Beacons-these are community-based programs located in public schools in New York. They offer a wide range of activities from voter registration, immigrant supports, pregnancy prevention, and mental health referrals to after school childcare.

• BELL After-School Instructional Curriculum-two members of the Harvard Black Law Student Association founded the Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL) organization in 1992. The BELL After-School Instruction Curriculum (BASIC) program offers students small group tutoring and mentoring for 3 hours per day after school over 30 weeks per year.

• Big Brothers, Big Sisters (BB/BS)-a 93-year old program that matches volunteer adults with young people, and provides students with one-to-one mentoring.

• Boys & Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA)-in 1996, with 2,000 facilities in all 50 states, the B&GCA launched an after school educational enhancement program for young people living in public housing.

• Cap City Kids (CCK) Program-the Mayor of Columbus, Ohio, initiated this program to improve educational outcomes as well as access to youth development programs in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

• Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)--the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention started JUMP in 1995. One-to-one mentoring by adult volunteers serves youth at risk for delinquency, gang involvement, educational failure, or dropping out of school.

• LA's Better Educated Students for Tomorrow (BEST)-this program targets younger students (K-5) from minority or low-income families. Daily activities provide homework help, computer activities, drama, sports, visual arts, reading, and field trips.

• Quantum Opportunities Project (QOP)-this year round, four-year program provided each student with a caring adult role model. Students enrolled in this program, based in five different communities across the country, were from families receiving food stamps or public assistance.

• Sacramento START-an after school program that provides a safe and educational learning environment for elementary students from low-income families.

• The After-School Corporation (TASC)-the mission of TASC is to support school-based after school programs offered by nonprofit or community-based organizations. TASC's reach is significant and so far supports 130 organizations in 143 New York schools.

• Youth Education for Tomorrow (YET)-established to improve the capacity of faith-based institutions to provide literacy, mentoring, and child-care services. The evaluation focused on literacy for young people whose reading level was at least three years below their grade level.

AYPF divided the analysis of the compendium program evaluations into the following components: academic assistance, cultural enrichment, drug and alcohol prevention, life skills training, mentoring, parent and community involvement, and sports and recreation. 4-H is the only program that provided all 7 components; most of the remaining programs offered 5 or 6 of the 7 components, except for BB/BS, JUMP, and YET. BB/BS offers only one component--mentoring; however, it is a highly effective program that "speak[s] to the effectiveness of an asset-based approach to youth policy that is very different from the problem-oriented approach prevalent in some youth programming" (Trammel, 2003, p. 22).

Issues

Increased demand for OST programs is a relatively new phenomenon, and with this intensifying movement, there is a greater need to account for the tax dollars spent on OST programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2004; McComb & Scott-Little, 2003). Thus over the last ten years, there is increased attention paid to the rigors of OST program evaluations.

In 1999, the Department of Education initiated an independent national evaluation of the growing and popular 21st CCLC programs, which swelled from a budget appropriation of $40 million in 1998 to $1 billion in 2002 (James-Burdumy et al., 2005; Dynarski, Moore, Rosenberg, Deke, & Mansfield, 2004). The researchers published the findings in the spring of 2003, and the Bush administration described the results as "disappointing initial findings from a rigorous evaluation of the 21st CCLC program" (Gayl, 2004, p. 5). Based on this relatively small evaluation, the Bush administration proposed a 40% cut to after school funding; specifically, the proposed 2003 budget was cut to $600 million from $993 million the previous year and this drastic reduction affected 1.3 million children in 1,400 communities across the country (Investment in After-School Programs, 2003). Gayl (2004, p. 5) described the proposed cut as "an overreaction to and an inappropriate political use of the research." After some debate and a Senate Hearing ("Investment," 2003), the 21st CCLC program was eventually protected from the cut; however, the budget has since been frozen (Gayl, 2004). This early evaluation drew a lot of criticism from OST program evaluators, who believe the findings were not sufficient to judge the effectiveness of specific after-school strategies (Miller & Snow, 2004; Ferrandino, 2007).

Research

In 2004, Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL) reviewed thousands of studies, and identified 27 reading studies and 33 mathematics studies that were rigorous enough to include in a synthesis of program evaluations. McREL's analysis showed small but overall positive effects for both reading and mathematics with at-risk students, and published the findings to help designers and implementers build effective OST programs (Miller & Snow, 2004).

The After-School Corporation (TASC) supported a study that examined the characteristics of ten high-performing after-school projects (Birmingham, Pechman, Russell & Mielke, 2005). The evaluators found the following shared characteristics:

• The program offers a wide variety of enrichment opportunities.

• There are many opportunities for skill building and mastery, especially with the arts because a performance of the skill allows practice to the point of mastery.

• There is an emphasis on building positive relationships with the host school.

• Experienced leaders and qualified well-trained staff are hired.

• The funding organization provides administrative, fiscal, and professional development support.

Often OST programs are under pressure to focus on academic achievement; however, this report "reinforces the viability of an after-school model that emphasizes a wide variety of compelling youth-oriented activities" (Birmingham et al., 2005, p.ii). In other words, a more holistic and positive approach to youth development has more potential for solid gains (DeAngelis, 2001; Seidel, Aryeh & Steinberg, 2002; "Promising Practices," 2007).

Ensuring Rigorous Research Design

After reviewing 13 OST program evaluations, Trammel (2003) identified five ways to ensure rigorous research design:

• Random assignment of subjects (this technique is often poorly received by program directors who fear that needy students will not be able to participate in a program).

• Control group and treatment groups are matched and not randomly selected.

• Treatment measures are repeated over time on the same students.

• Evaluators communicate clearly with program coordinators about what information is required.

• Funding agencies offer technical assistance to help programs manage student database files.

Poor research design allows critics of a program to use the results to support funding reductions; similarly, questionable findings weaken the position held by a program's advocates.

In an ERIC Digest article, Lumsden (2003b) identified the three main factors that jeopardize OST programs:

• Inadequate staffing

• Funding

• Transportation

Staff turnover is often high, with low wage compensation, and this can be a significant hurdle to quality programming ("Promoting Quality," 2004). As mentioned previously, a lack of positive research results has reduced funding despite continued strong public support for OST programs (Lumsden, 2003a). Finally, approximately one-fifth of students not participating in OST programs say transportation is the main reason they do not attend ("Moving Beyond," 2004).

In 2004, Congress declared October 14 to be "Lights on After School" day, and more than 7,000 events took place across the country to help promote OST programs ("Making the Case," 2005). As OST programs continue to grow, this grassroots movement will mature, and evaluations will become more rigorous as best practices emerge (Little, 2004). Building the infrastructure in a systematic way will involve finding ways to collaborate on funding, require planning and cooperation among stakeholders, set high quality standards for OST programs, and designate strong leadership with agreed upon objectives ("Making the Case," 2005; Ferrandino, 2007).

Terms & Concepts

At-Risk Students: These students are sometimes referred to as low-income students or disadvantaged students; the ERIC descriptor is high risk student. Characteristics of at-risk students include the following:

• Eligible for free or low-cost lunches (i.e., parents income at or below 130% of the poverty line)

• Not meeting the requirements for promotion to the next grade level

• Academic performance is below other students at same age and grade level

• In danger of dropping out of school

• Failing two or more subjects

• Not reading at their grade level

Enrichment Activities: Examples of enrichment activities include group work on science projects, math games, and the study of plants and animals, and opportunities to create a newspaper, write a play, tackle homework, use computers, or participate in special interest groups or clubs.

Extracurricular Activities: The U.S. Department of Education defines extracurricular activities as those that occur on weekdays outside of school hours, and are not part of a formal before- or after-school program. Such activities may include organized sports, debate or science clubs, music lessons, scouts, or religious activities. If the child's parent reports that the child participated in an extracurricular activity to cover a period after school when the child needed adult supervision, then the activity is non-parental care.

Holistic Education: A philosophy of education that not only prepares students academically, but also helps them face the trials of life. Students learn about themselves, how to behave, their social and emotional development, how to face life's challenges, and an appreciation for the arts. Holistic educators look beyond a student's score on standardized tests, and use real life experiences, current events, and the arts to engage students directly with the environment. Teachers encourage collaborative work environments, as well as critical thinking and reflection rather than passive memorization of facts.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The NCLB Act sets challenging state standards for reading and mathematics, and annually tests all students in grades 3-8. Annual statewide progress objectives ensure that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. Test results must be disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. Schools that do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) must take corrective action; on the other hand, the ED will reward schools that meet or exceed AYP objectives.

Program Evaluation: "The systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future program development" (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/evaluation_manual/glossary.html).

Supplemental Educational Services: Supplemental educational services are part of the No Child Left Behind Act, which defines these services as additional academic instruction designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools in need of improvement. Supplemental educational services must be provided outside of the regular school day, and they must be high quality, research-based, and specifically designed to increase student academic achievement.

Title 1 Schools: The U.S. Department of Education bases Title 1 funding on a formula that counts the number of students living in poverty from U.S. Census data. The state receives funding through this formula, and then distributes it to districts based on the numbers of students receiving free or low-cost lunches. To qualify as a schoolwide Title 1 school, 40% of the students must receive free or low-cost lunches.

Bibliography

Afterschool Alliance. (2003). Afterschool Alliance backgrounder: Formal evaluations of afterschool programs. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/backgrounder.doc

Afterschool Alliance. (2004). Afterschool alliance backgrounder: formal evaluations of the academic impact of afterschool programs. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Evaluations_Academic_0904.pdf

Birmingham, J., Pechman, E., Russell, C. A., & Mielke, M. (2005). Shared features of high-performing after-school programs: a follow-up to the TASC evaluation. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/fam107/fam107.pdf

Carver, P. R., & Iruka, I. U. (2006). National Household Education Survey. E.D. TAB. NCES 2006-076: ED Pubs.

Castrechini, S., Gardner, J. W., & Ardoin, N. M. (2011). Youth resource mapping: Partnering with service providers and youth to understand the supply and demand for youth services in a local context. Perspectives on Urban Education, 8, 3-10. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=69756037&site=ehost-live

DeAngelis. (2001). What makes a good afterschool program? Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar01/afterschool.html

Dobbins, D. (2005). U.S. Department of Justice funding opportunities for afterschool. Funding Note. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.financeproject.org/irc/ost/funding.asp

Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenberg, L., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program--new findings. ED Pubs.

Ferrandino, V. (2007). A new day for learning: a report from the Time, Learning, and Afterschool Task Force. Retrieved June 13, 2007, from George Lucas Educational Foundation http://www.edutopia.org/foundation/pressreleases/070111-anewdayforlearning.pdf

Fleming, N. (2011). After-school programs. Education Week, 31, 5. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66838665&site=ehost-live

Gayl, C. L. (2004). After-school programs: expanding access and ensuring quality. In PPI Policy Report. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from Progressive Policy Institute http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900023&contentID=252753

Greene, K., Lee, B., Constance, N., & Hynes, K. (2013). Examining youth and program predictors of engagement in out-of-school time programs. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42, 1557-1572. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90169378&site=ehost-live

Hall, G., & Gruber, D. (2006). Healthy choices afterschool: Investigation of the alignment of physical activity and nutrition programs/curricula and the National Afterschool Association Program Standards. National Institute on Out-Of-School Time, Wellesley College.

Hollister, R. G. (2003). The growth in after-school programs and their impact. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from the Brookings Institution http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/pagedefs/b9feffb46ea6ff3c5742fa060a1415cb.xml

Investment in after-school programs. (May 13, 2003). In Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate. One Hundred Eighth Congress, First Session, Special Hearing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 483 012). Retrieved June 13, 2007, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED483012

James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., Pistorino, C., et al. (2005). When schools stay open late: the national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Final Report: ED Pubs. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/21stfinal.pdf

Kleiner, B., Nolin, M. J., & Chapman, C. (2004). Before-and after-school care, programs, and activities of children in kindergarten through eighth grade: 2001. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2004-008: ED Pubs.

Little, P. M. D., Ed. (2004). Evaluating out-of-school time program quality. The Evaluation Exchange: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 10 1-32.

Lumsden, L. (2003a). After-school programs. National Association of Elementary School Principals, 20 1-6.

Lumsden, L. (2003b). Afterschool programs. (Report EDO-EA-03-08 ) Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED), Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480741).

Making the case: a fact sheet on children and youth in out-of-school time. (2005).. Retrieved June 12, 2007 from National Institute on Out-of-School Time: Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College. http://www.niost.org/publications/Factsheet_2005.pdf

McComb, E. M., & Scott-Little, C. (2003). A review of research on participant outcomes in after-school programs: implications for school counsellors (Report EDO-CG-03-08). University of North Carolina at Greensboro. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED482765).

Miller, K., & Snow, D. (2004). Out of school time programs for at-risk students. Noteworthy Perspectives. Retrieved June 11, 2007, from http://www.mcrel.org/topics/productDetail.asp?productID=195

Moving beyond the barriers: attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, July 2004, 6, 1-6.

Performance measures in out-of-school time evaluation. (2004). Out-of-School Time Evaluation Snapshot: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1-7.

Peter, N. (2002). Outcomes and research in out-of-school time program design. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from Best Practices Institute http://education.ucdavis.edu/cress/ccsp/download/peter.pdf

Promising practices in afterschool program and school partnerships: after school issues. (2007). National Institute on Out-Of-School Time, Wellesley College, 3 , 1-6.

Promoting quality through professional development: a framework for evaluation. (2004). Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation: Harvard Family Research Project, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 8, 1-12.

Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality, scale, and effectiveness in after-school programs. Retrieved June 13, 2007, from http://www.tascorp.org/publications/catalog/fiveyrevaluation/TASC%20Summary%20Report%20Final.pdf

Seidel, S., Aryeh, L., & Steinberg, A. (2002). Project-based and experiential learning in after-school programming. Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Trammel, M. (2003). Finding fortune in thirteen out-of-school time programs: a compendium of education programs and practices. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from American Youth Policy Forum http://www.aypf.org/publications/Compendium2003.pdf.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Facts and Terms Every Parent Should Know About NCLB. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/parents/parentfacts.html

Wright, E. (2005). Supporting student success: a governor's guide to extra learning opportunities. National Governors Association.

Young, B. (2004). Vision, leadership, and determination: cities and their partners are creating after-school system. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from National Institute on Out-Of-School Time http://www.niost.org/CCNvision.pdf

Suggested Reading

Ascher, C. (2006). NCLB's Supplemental Educational Services: Is this what our students need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88 , 136-141. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22650657&site=ehost-live

Chappell, S. V. (2006). Children "At Risk": Constructions of childhood in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Federal After-School Program. Arts Education Policy Review, 108 , 9-15. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24660496&site=ehost-live

Child Trends Databank of After-school Activities (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/indicators/86AfterSchoolActivities.cfm

Harvard Family Research Project's Out-of-School Time Program Research and Evaluation Database (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/evaldatabase.html

Think Outside the Clock. (2011). Journal of Staff Development, 32, 46-49. Retrieved December 19, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=59582267&site=ehost-live

Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76 , 275-313. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21628645&site=ehost-live

Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and the development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76 , 811-825. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17598013&site=ehost-live

Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Lord, H. (2007). After-school program engagement: links to child competence and program quality and content. Elementary School Journal, 107 , 385-404. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24222628&site=ehost-live

National Conference of State Legislatures' Overview of Out-of-School Time Programs (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/OverviewII.htm#Programs

National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST) (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.niost.org/index.html

Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2004). After-school youth development programs: a developmental-ecological model of current research. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 7 , 177-190. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=15182785&site=ehost-live

The After-School Corporation (TASC) (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.tascorp.org/index_html

U .S. Department of Education (n.d.). Retrieved July 31, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov