Do After-school Programs Affect Important Youth Outcomes? If So, Do We Know Why? Robert C. Granger, Ed.D.

1. Do After-school Programs Affect Important Youth Outcomes? If So, Do We Know Why? Robert C. Granger, Ed.D. Remarks prepared for “Making a Difference in After-school - Measuring and Improving Program Quality” Sacramento, CA / March 17, 2009

2. Two questions • Do after-school programs improve academic performance? • Do we know why some programs make a difference while others do not? 2

3. Two answers • Yes* • Starting too… • *Yes, but… 3

4. The review BackgroundPolicymakers and practitioners want to know if after-school programs affect academic achievement. Goal Review strong evidence regarding the effects of after-school programs and examine the practices of effective programs. MethodSummarize the results from three rigorous reviews of over 90 evaluations of after-school programs. 4

5. Society for Research in Child Development. (2008, April). After-school Programs and Academics: Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research. (Social Policy Report Vol. XXII, No. 2). Ann Arbor, MI: Robert C. Granger. Society for Research in Child Development. (2008, April).Improving After-school Programs in a Climate of Accountability. (Social Policy Report Brief Vol. XXII, No. 2). Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.srcd.org/spr.html 5

6. The findings • On average after-school programs improve important academic outcomes like test scores and grades. • A subset of the evaluated programs that achieved outstanding results account for the overall positive picture. • The most effective programs had explicit goals, activities aligned with those goals, and got youth actively involved in their own learning. 6

7. The two most important questions facing policymakers and practitioners in education and youth programs: • What do effective teachers, youth workers, or mentors do differently than their less effective colleagues? • Can you make teachers, youth workers, or mentors more effective? 7

8. Sources of useful information about both questions • Practitioner consensus on best practices (Forum for Youth Investment, 2003) • In-depth studies of program practices (Halpern, Larson, Hirsch) • Practitioner efforts to improve program effectiveness (Many) • Measures of program quality (Forum for Youth Investment, 2009) 8

9. Measuring what matters • Importance of the point-of-service. • Good measures have clear, unambiguous items. • The best measures also teach. 9

10. Making a Difference in After School: Measuring and Improving After School Quality Nicole Yohalem, Forum for Youth Investment Sacramento, CAMarch 17, 2009

11. Quality assessment tools • Assessing Afterschool Program Practices Tool (APT) National Institute on Out-of-School Time and the MA Department of Education • CORAL Observation Tool (CORAL) Public/Private Ventures • Out-of-School Time Observation Instrument (OST) Policy Studies Associates • Program Observation Tool (POT) National Afterschool Association • Program Quality Observation (PQO) Deborah Vandell and Kim Pierce • Promising Practices Rating Scale (PPRS) WI Center for Education Research and Policy Studies Associates, Inc. • Quality Assurance System (QAS) Foundations Inc. • Program Quality Self-Assessment Tool (QSA) New York State Afterschool Network • School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale (SACERS) Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC • Youth Program Quality Assessment (YPQA) High/Scope Educational Research Foundation Measuring Youth Program Quality A Guide to Quality Assessment Tools Updated January 2009

12. Quality assessment tools There is a lot of similarity in how quality practice is defined. All tools assess: • Relationships • Environment • Engagement • Social/Behavioral Norms • Skill Building Opportunities • Routine/Structure Note: CA self-assessment tool includes items that address these areas.

13. Measuring what matters • Importance of the point-of-service. • Good measures have clear, unambiguous items. • The best measures also teach.

14. Emphasis on point-of-service • CA Tool: 16 of 77 items focus on POS • SACERS & NAA < half focus on POS • APT & YPQA > half focus on POS

15. Clear and unambiguous? Examples from the CA tool: High inference • Ensures staff & volunteers have respectful interactions with participants & families. Low inference: • Regularly provides families with program information in multiple languages and literacy levels.

16. Measures that teach? Examples from the CA Tool: Diagnostic • Provides opportunities & support for participants to take on leadership roles. Diagnostic and prescriptive • Regularly provides collaborative partners with program information, such as program progress and evaluation reports and information about program events, in a variety of formats and in multiple languages if appropriate.

17. Quality improvement Key components of quality improvement systems: • Quality standards that include what should happen at the point of service • Ongoing assessment of how well services compare to the standards • Targeted plans for how to improve • Training and coaching that fits improvement plans

18. Emerging examples and lessons • Afterschool Program Assessment System (APAS) National Institute on Out-of-School Time • Youth Program Quality Intervention (YPQI) Weikart Center for Youth Program Quality

19. APAS pilot • Conducted by NIOST, Wellesley College • October 2006-July 2008 • Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Middlesex Cnty NJ • 65 individuals, 28 programs, 3 intermediaries • Well-established K-8 after-school programs • Low stakes • Emphasis on continuous improvement, flexibility

20. Core APAS tools and supports • Tools • Survey of Afterschool Youth Outcomes Tool (SAYO) • Assessing Afterschool Program Practices Tool (APT) • Web-Based Data Management System • Supports • Training (2 days up front, online training ongoing) • 1-day site visit • Local coach

21. Findings from the APAS pilot • APAS helped programs identify areas for improvement and staff development • Most sites said they made program changes as a result. • Coaches are key to implementation and useful to sites • Engagement across staff levels is important • Engaging funders is important (even with low stakes) based on follow-up phone interviews with sites and coaches For more on APAS: www.niost.org/content/view/1654/282/

22. Youth Program Quality Intervention `` ` l • Systemic quality improvement systems (QIS) anchored by the YPQA being developed in: • Statewide strategies: MI, ME, RI, KY, NM, AR, MN, IA, WA, NY • Cities and Counties: Austin, Chicago, Rochester, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Palm Beach County, Baltimore, Nashville, St. Louis, Louisville, Georgetown Divide/Sacramento, Columbus IN, Indianapolis IN, Tulsa OK Seattle Rochester Minnesota Grand Rapids Washington* M i n n e a p o l i s Maine Chicago New York e t r o i t Iowa Indianapolis Rhode Island Sacramento/ Georgetown Divide m b u s Columbus Baltimore St. Louis Kentucky Oklahoma Nashville Arkansas New Mexico Austin West Palm Beach County

23. YPQI Focus: POS quality in context POS Point-of-Service Youth PQA Form A Engagement Interaction Support Safety PLC Professional Learning Community Youth PQA Form B • Org policies/practices • Management values • Performance feedback • Continuity/staffing • Standards and metrics • Staff development SAE System Accountability Environment

24. The Providence AfterSchool Alliance (PASA) Quality Improvement Strategy Quality Standards Improvement Efforts • What exists • What we know • What works • Based on national examples • Learning communities • Site visits • Model curricula • School alignment Quality Indicators • Measure of standards • Promising practices • Provider/Community Input Capacity Building/ Professional Development Self-Assessment Tool • Staffing & Prof. Dev. Survey • Workshop series tied to RIPQA • BEST Youth Worker Training • Standards workshops aligning academics with enrichment Tracking Tool • Partnership with High/Scope • Rhode Island Program Quality • Assessment Tool (RIPQA) • -Adopted by 21st CCLC initiative and in use statewide • Youthservices.net • Participation & • retention data • Citywide data • management system

25. Incentivizing participation • PASA “endorsed” programs must: • Maintain certain enrollment and retention benchmarks • Have a written curriculum • Undergo self-assessment using RIPQA annually • In exchange for: • Streamlined grant application process • Small administrative funding supplement

26. Requiring participation Excerpt from Rhode Island 21st CCLC RFP “Applicants must participate in the 21st CCLC Rhode Island Youth Program Quality Assessment Process (RIPQA), which includes the use of a self-assessment tool, outside observations, development and implementation of action plans to strengthen the program over time, working with a Technical Advisor, including designation of staff to coordinate the process.”

27. Rhode Island 21st CCLC pilot • Assessment & Planning • Kick-off, 2-day training on RIPQA • Quality Advisor (QA) meets with programs individually to orient • Observation visits (3-8 programs per site) • QA develops progress report, teams meet with instructors to share reports and develop action plans • ED and other key staff complete Form B individually • QA summarizes, meets with team to discuss scores and improvement strategies • QA generates overall report on strengths and improvement steps • Training & Technical Assistance • Series of 2-hour workshops focused on RI-PQA content • Additional training on behavior management • AYD training (32 hours) offered twice annually • 4-session supervisor training • 5 hours of on-site coaching per site from QA

28. RI 21st CCLC pilot – lessons • Lessons Learned • Programs liked tool and found process worthwhile • Initial data collection model was time consuming • Timing is important to ensure changes get implemented • Needs across sites are very similar • Strong desire for on-site TA/coaching • Adjustments for Cohort 2 • Smaller observation teams, fewer observations per site • One program report as opposed to individualized reports • Additional TA/training • Start with Form B, then observations (Form A) • For more information: www.mypasa.org/pasa-strategies

29. Palm Beach County QIS Pilot • Centerpiece of the Prime Time Initiative • 38 providers in pilot; now working with 90 • January 2006 – fall 2007 • Based on the PBC-PQA • Financial incentives for programs PD Training

30. Findings from the Palm Beach pilot • Most programs completed all phases of QIS • Quality improved • Quality improvement is a long-term process • On-site TA very important component • Clarity of purpose is critical • Spielberger & Lockaby, 2008 • www.chapinhall.org

31. Coaching • Characteristics: • Willing to listen • Experienced • Accessible • Flexible • Responsive • Creative • Resourceful • Roles/functions: • Keep programs engaged • Deliver training • Answer questions on tools, process • Participate in observations • Generate reports • Facilitate improvement planning • Provide on-site feedback, modeling • Key considerations: • Program vs. system-level coaching, role of intermediaries • Dosage

32. Purposes and methods Smith, Devaney, Akiva & Sugar forthcoming in New Directions

33. Lessons for California • Have well defined purposes for the system. • Focus on the point of service. • Anchor quality improvement efforts with data about the POS. • Create incentives for continuous improvement. • Build in on-site, ongoing technical assistance/coaching. • Be intentional about pilot participation. • Build learning communities. • Recognize that management is a key lever. • Worry about the quality of your measures and data.

34. For more information: Nicole Yohalem, Program DirectorForum for Youth Investmentnicole@forumfyi.org www.forumfyi.org