This Issue Focus was originally prepared as one of 15 transition memos on pressing education and social policy issues for the incoming Obama Administration and the new Congress. To read the other memos in the series, visit Policy and Research Recommendations.

Bottom Line

About half of school-age children participate in after-school programs, and there is widespread public support for after-school programs among parents, school staff, and community members. The U.S. Department of Education spends roughly $1 billion a year supporting after-school programs. Research suggests that after-school programs can make a difference in academic performance and socio-emotional development, but the record is far from consistent and the two rigorous studies of the largest federal programs found limited or no impacts on student outcomes. The logical next step is a systematic effort to improve the quality of federally funded after-school programs.

What Do We Know?

After-school programs offer opportunities for enrichment and academic support. After-school programs are called on to meet many different goals: providing a safe environment (especially for children of working parents), supporting positive development of youngsters, and improving academic performance. Programs emphasize these priorities differently. With the press for academic performance during the school day, there is growing support for after-school “enrichment” activities and additional academic support.

Currently, about half of all K-12 children participate in some kind of after-school program, leaving more than 7 million children (mostly middle and high school students) unsupervised at some point in the after-school hours. Unsupervised children are more likely to have academic and social problems, to use drugs or alcohol, or to engage in other risky behavior. Nationwide, an estimated 6.5 million children in grades K-12 participate in some kind of after-school program. About one million of these are in centers supported by the 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) program, the largest federal program with about $1 billion in annual funding. Most of these programs operate in schools.

Attendance is far from consistent, hampering efforts to improve academic performance. Participation in after-school programs is voluntary, so many children do not participate at all and those who do participate have much less consistent attendance than in the normal school day (sometimes as little as one or two days a week).

Emerging networks of after-school programs are working to improve program quality. Large networks of centers exist in New York City and Los Angeles, and some organizations are working nationally, providing training for staff and academic material for programs.

What Does the Research on After-School Programs Say?

The research record is inconclusive, in part because it is hard to separate out the effects of participation in after-school programs. Because participation is voluntary and is often driven by parental desires or student motivation, it is hard to identify a comparison group similar to participants. Random assignment studies provide the best way to isolate program effects, but many studies have used less reliable methods because of understandable program operation considerations.

Evidence on the overall value of participating in an after-school program is mixed. After-school programs can make a difference, but research suggests specific program features matter. A major synthesis found some smaller-scale programs did produce positive academic and developmental effects, driven by programs that had a sequence of activities that used active learning techniques, focused on developing personal or social skills, and explicitly targeted activities to improve these skills. The available evidence from Mathematica Policy Research’s national study of elementary and middle school 21st CCLC centers found the programs made little difference for students academically or developmentally. However, the academic support offered in most 21st CCLC programs at the time of the study was only homework help, and student attendance was low.

A few rigorous ongoing studies are focused on academic support offered within after-school programs. A random assignment study by MDRC is testing adaptations of in-school math and reading curricula for second- through fifth-graders in after-school programs; at the one-year point, the study found positive impacts on math achievement and no impacts on reading. A random assignment study by MPR of a different in-school reading program adapted for fourth- through sixth-grade students found positive effects on several reading outcomes for certain subgroups of students. Other studies are underway, several focusing on instructional programs developed within the after-school setting and emphasizing active learning techniques, a connection to the local program context, and enrichment activities.

What Do We Need to Know?

Programs need better evidence to make informed choices about how to support their students academically. Program managers face an array of academic support options, but few programs have solid evidence of effectiveness. The federal government can continue to support rigorous research on the effectiveness of additional strategies, especially those developed specifically for after-school programs or by networks of after-school programs.

Programs serving middle and high school students face special challenges and have very little solid evidence to guide program decisions. Many secondary students are far behind academically and need support to catch up. And attendance tends to be low. Tutoring, mentoring, community service linked to instruction, and other support strategies should be tried and carefully studied.

Programs need help improving program participation. Low levels of participation limit the effectiveness of any after-school program; however, there is great variation across centers, suggesting program design choices matter. Experimentation with alternative academic strategies, attendance rules, and incentives for students could provide valuable lessons for boosting attendance. Strategies are likely to vary greatly between elementary and secondary school students.

Key References

Black, A.R., and colleagues. 2008. The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs: Findings After the First Year of Implementation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Dynarski, M., and colleagues. 2003. When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, First-Year Findings. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Granger, Robert. 2008. "After-School Programs and Academics: Implications for Policy, Practice, and Research." Social Policy Report, XXII, 2, 1-19.

Hartry, Ardice, Robert A. Fitzgerald, and Kristie Porter. 2008. "Implementing a Structured Reading Program in an Afterschool Setting: Problems and Potential Solutions." Harvard Educational Review 78, 1: 181-210.