4-h afterschoolflorida4h.org/afterschool/doc/ferraripaper.doc · web viewthis logo communicates...

4-H Afterschool -- DraftApril 21, 2003

-- DRAFT--

4-H Afterschool

Rationale, Program Delivery Models, and Theoretical Base:

A Reference for Extension Professionals

By

Theresa M. Ferrari, Ph.D.Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist

4-H Youth DevelopmentThe Ohio State University

Ina Metzger Linville, Ph.D.State 4-H Youth Development Specialist

University of Missouri – Columbia

Nancy Valentine, Ed.D.National Program Leader

Families, 4-H and NutritionCooperative States Research, Education and Extension Service

United States Department of Agriculture

Last Revised04/21/03

1


Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Defining 4-H Afterschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Scope of 4-H Afterschool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Rationale for 4-H and Extension Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9What are the Issues? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Why Should 4-H Be Involved in After-School Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

An Extension Program Development Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Community Needs Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Impacting Program Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Extension managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Community managed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Impacting Program Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Staff development and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Enhancing the educational environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Creating partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Evaluating after-school programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

ECI evaluation system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Working With Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Where Do You Fit in This Picture? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Theoretical Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Developmental Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Developmental concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Youth development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Educational Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Experiential learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Anchored learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Care Settings for Children and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Ecological Systems Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

The authors acknowledge the contributions of members of the 4-H Afterschool National Leadership Team to the 4-H Afterschool effort: Kashyap Choksi, Ron Drum, Don Floyd, Lynda Harriman, Susan Halbert, Andrea Hutson, Sharon

Junge, Eric Killian, Lisa Lauxman, Eddie Locklear, Gretchen May, Sheila Urban Smith, Sam Suina, Deirdre Thompson, Bonita Williams, and Sherri Wright

2


4-H Afterschool Rationale, Program Delivery Models, and Theoretical Base:

A Reference for Extension Professionals

Introduction

After-school programming has received tremendous attention over the past few years at

the local, state, and national levels. It is estimated that as many as 15 million youth in America

are not engaged productively during their after-school time, putting them at risk for involvement

in activities and environments that can inhibit positive development. The after-school hours have

been referred to as a time that holds the potential for great risks as well as the promise of great

opportunity. Over the past two decades, Cooperative Extension System professionals have

realized this potential and this promise and have provided significant leadership that has

improved the quality and availability of after-school programs around the country. A national

effort called 4-H Afterschool 1 has been launched to build on these past accomplishments, create

a brand image to raise visibility, assist with marketing, and expand the outreach of 4-H to

positively impact youth through after-school programs.

4-H Afterschool programming takes many shapes and forms. Whatever shape or form it

takes, 4-H Afterschool programming must be anchored in sound research and practice. The

purpose of this reference guide is to provide background information for Extension

professionals2 engaged in working with after-school programs. First, we present a definition of 4-

H Afterschool. In the second section we present a rationale for 4-H and Extension involvement in

the field of after-school programs. Extension staff can play a variety of roles that increase the

quantity of quality programs in the communities they serve as well as the quality of existing

1 4-H Afterschool is made possible through the generous contribution of the JCPenney Afterschool Fund, the national presenting sponsor.2 4-H Afterschool is designed for all Cooperative Extension System staff people who work with after-school programs, regardless of their titles, job responsibilities, or funding sources.

3


programs. Thus, in the third section we describe an Extension Program Development Model that

outlines delivery models of 4-H Afterschool that will help achieve those goals. Finally, we

discuss the theoretical foundation for a comprehensive approach to after-school programs. It is

our intent to provide all Extension professionals with information that should lead to a consistent

understanding of the theories and principles that underlie 4-H Afterschool. The information in

this document is designed to provide the overarching framework from which all CES staff can

work. With this understanding, the local Extension professional can impact the development of

quality programming for school-age youth and teens during the out-of-school time. After-school

programs across CES can therefore be planned, implemented, evaluated, and marketed with

some degree of consistency.

Definitions

A broad range of out-of-school activities and organizations are described as after-school or out-

of-school programs, creating ambiguous definitions (Gootman, 2000).

In many cases after-school program and out-of-school time program have come to be used

synonymously.

Both refer to a broad range of programs available to children and youth ages 5 to 14 that

take place outside the regular school day. Programming in the hours that constitute out-of-school

time is not solely the domain of any one group. The out-of-school time field is currently

populated by a myriad of program types, program locations, and sponsoring organizations, and

therefore programs may take a variety of different formats. As such, the needs of the

organization to offer certain content may take precedence over parents’ needs to have regularly

available programs that coincide with their work hours. Organizations providing programs in the

4


out-of-school time overlap the school-age child care, youth development, and education fields

(Gannett & Shortt, 2001; Miller, 2001; Seligson et al., 1999). In many cases, programs result

from the collaboration of several entities to meet common goals.

Defining 4-H Afterschool

What is 4-H Afterschool? The term 4-H Afterschool provides a unified identity and brand

image for all new and existing Extension programs conducted in after-school settings. The name

4-H Afterschool was created to include a variety of program efforts already underway within the

CES, including Cooperative State Research and Education and Extension System (CSREES)-

supported programs that are detailed in Appendix B, as well as those programs funded and

supported through local and state efforts. This variety is reflective of the diverse needs of

children and youth, their families, and the communities where they live. It is consistent with

Extension’s grassroots approach to meeting community needs. Building on Extension’s years of

successful programming, 4-H Afterschool is designed to further increase staff capacity to

develop and implement effective programs and to work in partnership with other youth-serving

organizations. These efforts will ultimately increase the quality and quantity of after-school

programs in America’s communities. The aim is to increase young people’s opportunities to

develop lifelong skills and have fun learning in safe, healthy, enriching environments.

4-H Afterschool was built on the foundation of the “Extension CARES . . . for America’s

Children and Youth” Initiative (ECI), a national initiative of the CES, and incorporates the

theoretical models, goals and objectives, and evaluation system developed by the Initiative. More

information on ECI is contained in Appendix A, and the theoretical models will be discussed

later in this document. The primary goals of 4-H Afterschool are:

1. To increase the quality and availability of after-school programs,

5


2. To increase the numbers of young people and volunteers involved in after-school

programs,

3. To increase the use of 4-H and Extension curricula in after-school programs,

4. To increase the knowledge and skills of after-school program staff,

5. To increase the number of 4-H clubs in after-school programs, and

6. To increase awareness of 4-H as a major contributor and leader in the after-school

field.

The definition of 4-H Afterschool is built on current definitions developed in the field of

after-school and out-of-school programs (National Institute of Out-of-School Time, 2000;

National School-Age Care Alliance, 1999); these definitions are included in Appendix C. Thus,

4-H Afterschool programs:

1. Are offered during the times children and youth are not in school and their parents are

in need of safe, healthy, caring, and enriching environments for their children. They

include before- and after-school hours, teacher workdays, school holidays, summer

months, and in some cases, weekends.

2. May reach children and youth from kindergarten to twelfth grades (although not

necessarily in the same program).

3. Engage children and youth in long-term, structured, and sequentially planned learning

experiences in partnerships with adults. Programs can include those that are offered

every day or several days of the week, every weekend for multiple months, in

concentrated times such as resident and day camps, or a combination of these

formats.

6


4. Are designed on principles of youth development to address they interests of children

and youth and their physical, cognitive, social, and emotional needs.

Long-term experiences are needed to achieve the broad goals of positive youth

development, including development of positive relationships and mastery of skills. This

theoretical base is discussed in a later section. Structured learning experiences involve

constructive activities, but the word structure does not have a rigid meaning in these experiences.

Structure does not imply that every minute of every hour has to be filled with assigned activities. It does imply that there is an intentional plan for providing a variety of choices for children and youth – including time to just ‘hang out’ with their friends or to do a crossword puzzle alone (Stevens, 2002, p. 7)

Scope of 4-H Afterschool

Despite their diversity, 4-H Afterschool programs share common elements that are

embodied in the above definition. They are designed to meet the developmental needs of

children, youth, and families. For example, Stephanie, a five year old, is enrolled in a before- and

after-school program by her parents, who pay a fee to offset the costs of staff, snacks, and

program materials. Dell, a seventh grader, drops into the 4-H Afterschool computer lab located at

his school and is really into building his business with the fun, educational software he can use

there after school. Todd, a junior in high school, goes to the elementary school’s after-school

program one day a week as his 4-H community service project, where he reads to the children to

help get them hooked on reading. Although these environments are varied, they are appropriate

for the abilities and characteristics of the youth involved, and all are part of what is meant by 4-H

Afterschool.

The initial scope of 4-H Afterschool was to focus on making an impact on the quality of

existing after-school programs. Specifically, resources have been created to introduce 4-H

curricula to those who work with after-school programs (a curriculum sampler), to train staff of

7


after-school programs, and to start 4-H clubs in after-school settings. The resource guides were

piloted tested around the country and revised based on the feedback provided by the pilot sites.

Additional materials may be developed as additional needs are identified and resources are

available.

To increase visibility of Extension’s efforts, marketing materials such as a website

(www.4hafterschool.org), press releases, success stories, and talking points have also been

developed. As resources become available to support 4-H Afterschool efforts, additional

resources for Extension professionals are planned. Appendix D provides a more detailed

description of some of the resources available.

4-H is not universally associated with after-school programming in the eyes of the public,

as noted in a study of the 4-H brand (Clancy, 2001). In this study, 4-H was the only youth

organization to have a substantial difference in rural versus urban recognition, with recognition

higher in rural areas. The strongest recognition was the association with agriculture, while only a

small percent associated 4-H with after-school programming.

To aid in projecting an image of 4-H’s involvement in after-school programming, a 4-H

Afterschool logo and tag line were designed in August 2002. On the left-hand side, the 4-H

emblem anchors the logo. The 4-H emblem already has considerable name recognition and is

viewed as an asset to attracting individuals to the program because of the positive reputation

enjoyed by 4-H (Clancy, 2001). The 4-H emblem is followed by the words “4-H Afterschool.”

When the logo is of sufficient size, the tagline “Extraordinary Learning Opportunities” appears

in smaller letters under 4-H Afterschool. Flowing between the 4-H emblem and the words are

graduated, shaded dots in a figure-eight configuration – the symbol for infinity. In other words,

the extraordinary learning opportunities and the life skills gained by youth in 4-H Afterschool are

8

http://www.4hafterschool.org/


never-ending. The tagline was adapted from “extraordinary places to learn,” one of the five

principles stated in the National 4-H Strategic Plan (National Strategic Direction Team, 2001). 4-

H Afterschool embodies the recommendations made in the plan to combine quality curriculum

and caring adults to enhance long-term, sustained learning opportunities for youth, as well as to

“position 4-H leadership to provide exceptional services to after-school programs” (p. 12). This

logo communicates the brand image of 4-H Afterschool to the public. The logo can be found in

Appendix E. The 4-H Afterschool brand can be used to provide a unified image of Extension’s

program efforts in relation to after-school programming.

Rationale for 4-H and Extension Involvement in After-School Programs

What Are the Issues?

What youth do in their out-of-school time is a concern for millions of American families,

particularly those in which the single parent or both parents are employed. With nearly 40

million children between the ages of 5 and 14, the United States is experiencing a burgeoning

need for out-of-school programs (Capizzano, Tout, & Adams, 2000; Larner, 2000). Although

there are approximately 6 million children K-8 who participate in before- and after-school

programs (U.S. Department of Education, 1999a), the numbers who still desire options is larger.

However, exact figures of the number of children in need of after-school programs are difficult

to document; estimates range from 8 million youth ages 5 to 14 (NIOST, 2003) to 15 million

(U.S. Department of Education, 1999a).

Increased public attention has focused on the needs of youth during their out-of-school

hours. After-school programs have “exploded into the nation’s consciousness” according to

Michelle Seligson, former director of the National Institute on Out-of-School Time (Seligson,

9


1999, p. 135). As well, the current interest in out-of-school time programs has been described as

“unprecedented” (Gannett & Shortt, 2001, p. 10). This sense is bolstered by recent public

opinion polls that indicate that the public is in favor of after-school programs, to the point where

they support such spending in favor of tax cuts (Afterschool Alliance, 2002; Fight Crime, Invest

in Kids, 2001). Demand for after-school programs exists, and many existing programs are at

capacity (Grossman et al., 2002).

By the late 1990’s there was an increasing sense that out-of-school programs would meet

a variety of needs. There is a growing awareness that where youth spend their time, what they

do, and with whom they do it are important to their overall development (see Gootman, 2000;

Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, & Foster, 1998). The after-school hours represent either risk or

opportunity (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1992). Youth who are unsupervised

after school are much more likely to engage in activities that place them at risk (Galambos &

Maggs, 1991; Steinberg, 1986). As one recent report describes, we face a critical choice about

what happens in the after-school hours: These hours can be the prime time for juvenile crime or

for youth enrichment and achievement (Newman, Fox, Flynn, & Christeson, 2000).

The focus on programming in the out-of-school time should not only be about preventing

risk. Programs in the out-of-school hours can give youth safe, supervised places to spend time,

along with chances to learn new skills, develop their interests, and spend meaningful time with

peers and adults (e.g., see Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Gambone & Arbreton, 1997; Gootman,

2000; Roth et al., 1998). Participation in high quality after-school programs is linked with a

lower incidence of problem behaviors, such as decreased academic failure, substance use, and

delinquency (Anderson-Butcher & Fink, 2001; Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003;

Grossman et al., 2002; Holland & Andre, 1987; Larson, 1994; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Posner

10


& Vandell, 1994; Riley, Steinberg, Todd, Junge, & McClain, 1994; Schinke, Orlandi, & Cole,

1992). Furthermore, youth who attend these programs have demonstrated improved academic

behaviors (e.g., better school attendance, more positive school attitudes, and better grades) and

improved personal and social skills (e.g., positive relationships with adults, opportunity to make

new friends; greater self-concept & self-esteem; Baker & Witt, 1996; Grossman et al., 2002;

Huang, Gribbons, Kim, Lee, & Baker, 2000; Posner & Vandell, 1994; Riley et al., 1994; U.S.

Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2000).

A study by Posner and Vandell (1994) demonstrated that differences in the activities that

take place in after-school settings contributed to positive outcomes. They found that children in

formal after-school care compared with those who were unsupervised (a) spent more time in

academic activities and enrichment, (b) spent more time in structured activities, (c) spent less

time watching TV, and (d) spent more time in activities with peers and adults. Regarding the

variety of program activities, Rosenthal and Vandell (1996) noted that it was not the presence or

absence of a particular activity that was important. Rather, offering children a wide array of

different types of activities (such as drama, academics and homework help, snacks, games) over

the course of a week appears to be the important feature.

Low-income children may have fewer opportunities to engage in enrichment activities

and other positive experiences (Miller, O=Connor, Sirignano & Joshi, 1996; Posner &

Vandell, 1994). They are more likely to experience problems associated with high-risk

environments. Therefore, participation in after-school programs may be particularly important

for low-income children.

After-school programs are not simply needed for young children. A recent publication by

the Forum for Youth Investment suggests that high school is the “next frontier for after-school

11


advocates” (Pittman, Yohalem, Wilson-Ahlstrom, & Ferber, 2003, p. 8). While older youth have

developed skills that enable them to care for themselves, self-care is not always the most

desirable option. Although there has been rapid growth in the number of after-school programs

in the past several years (Miller, 2001), these programs have not necessarily targeted adolescents.

In fact, out-of-school opportunities decline rather than increase with age (Pittman et al., 2003).

Further compounding the issue may be the sentiment that out-of-school activities for teens are

“nice but not necessary” (Pittman et al., 2003, p. 2). In fact, we believe the opposite is true. What

is also true is that the activities that attract teens and meet their developmental needs will look

different from programs for younger children.

Even though many teens participate in after-school programs through their school, over

half (52%) of teens in a recent survey conducted by the YMCA say they wish there were more

after-school activities in their neighborhood or community (YMCA of the USA, 2001). This

sentiment has been echoed by youth in other studies (Jackson, Anderson-Butcher, & Ferrari,

2002). Two out of three (67%) of teens surveyed in the YMCA study (2001) said they would be

likely to participate in after-school programs that would help them get better grades, develop

leadership skills, and be more involved in their community while having fun with other teens.

Adolescents want to have a voice and a choice in selecting programming options (Jackson et al.,

2002; Turner, 2002).

After-school programs have captured the attention of community and political leaders

at all levels. ). Quality after-school programs have been called the “cornerstone” of the goal to

reduce crime (Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2001). Nationally, the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers represent a significant investment (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

According to the National Governor’s Association (2002), at least 20 states passed legislation

12


pertaining to after-school policies, ranging from the creation of new programs to financing and

regulating existing ones. At the city level, comprehensive efforts are occurring in Los Angeles,

New York, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle (Harvey & Shortt, 2001), among others (Hall &

Harvey, 2002). Clearly, the climate is right for attention to out-of-school time issues.

Why Should 4-H Be Involved in After-School Programs?

Clearly, there is a significant need for after-school programs. Why should we care about

this situation? An article in the most recent issue of The Center (Summer 2002), the publication

of the Center for 4-H Youth Development at the University of Minnesota, posed this same

question and made a similar case to the one presented above (Marczak & Moreau, 2002).

What is the connection with the 4-H program? Providing experiences for young people

that address healthy development is the goal of 4-H. The 4-H program has long prided itself on

the opportunities it offers for youth to develop into confident, capable, and contributing citizens.

While there is a growing need for programs in the hours immediately following the school day

(i.e., the time when children are more likely to be unsupervised), 4-H clubs are not generally

offered during this time frame, nor is their contribution to preventing risk and enhancing

opportunities fully appreciated. However, the mission of the Cooperative Extension System has

always been to extend the resources of the university to address the needs of the people in each

state. The needs of families and youth for quality after-school programs have been clearly

articulated in the research literature as well as the popular press. What better way to accomplish

the mission of Extension and expand the 4-H program than by placing a priority on after-school

programming? Working with youth, families, and communities in new ways represents a

challenge as well as an opportunity for Extension professionals.

13


It is not feasible for Extension professionals to meet all the after-school program needs

for youth in their communities. However, many communities have existing programs that would

benefit from Extension’s expertise and resources, and they would welcome opportunities to work

in partnership with Extension staff. Extension youth development professionals can increase

access to programs by facilitating cooperative efforts among community-based youth

organizations (Hobbs, 1999; National Strategic Directions Team, 2001). Furthermore, Blyth

(2000) suggests that one of the roles for the network of Extension’s professional staff located

throughout the state would be to “provide a solid foundation for increased efforts to orient,

educate, and train the people” who work with youth on a daily basis (p. 14).

It is also documented that there are challenges in running effective after-school programs

(Gootman, 2000; Larner, Zippiroli, & Berman, 1999; Miller, 2001). Primary among these

challenges are program quality, staff training, staff turnover, and consistent funding. Extension

professionals can play a role in assisting with these aspects of programming.

An Extension Program Development Model for Out-of-School Time

While many would agree that Extension has a significant role to serve in after-school

programming, what form does this programming take? 4-H Afterschool programs take many

shapes and forms. 4-H Afterschool provides a variety of education and technical assistance

programming opportunities for Extension professionals that vary in degrees of time and

intensity. For example, Extension professionals can:

1. Assist community groups to establish after-school programs

2. Train staff of after-school programs

3. Infuse 4-H and Extension curriculum into after-school programs

14


4. Establish and administer 4-H Afterschool programs

5. Start 4-H clubs in after-school programs and provide on-going support to these clubs

6. Bring resources to the community (e.g., assistance with needs assessment, program

quality standards, grant proposal writing)

7. Address the needs of families

8. Provide research-based information for public policy changes.

Time Intensity of 4-H Afterschool ProgrammingMinimal Time Maximum Time

Provide unbiased information for community change

Establishing & managing 4-H Afterschool Programs

Bring resources to the community

Train staff and/or volunteers to establish 4-H Afterschool programs

Infuse 4-H curriculum into after-school programs

Start 4-H Clubs in existing after-school programs

Figure 1 Time Intensity of 4-H Afterschool Programming

15


There is no single recipe for creating after-school programs. In the 1990’s the Extension

Consortium for School-Age Child Care (1993), a group of Extension staff and key leaders in the

after-school field, created a program development model for school-age child care. The model

depicted in Figure 2 is an adaptation of this model. It provides a way to understand each delivery

method, and it also provides an umbrella for grouping common programming goals. Extension

professional plays a different role in each delivery model. A description of each portion of the

model follows.

Figure 2

An Extension Program Development ModelAdapted from the Extension School-Age Child Care Consortium, 1993

16


Community Needs Assessment

The foundation of the program development process is a community needs assessment.

The basic purpose of an assessment is to develop an understanding of the landscape of after-

school program in a defined area (e.g., neighborhood, town, city, county, region, state, etc.). In

the early 1990’s, Riley (1992) pioneered one such needs assessment process at the University of

Wisconsin, and Extension professionals in other states have used this process successfully (see

Hobbs, 1995; Hobbs & Chang, 1996; Karns & Stevens, 1995). Questions to address in a needs

assessment include:

Are children’s needs being met?Are there gaps in service?Are specific audiences or areas underserved?What barriers exist?Are programs well staffed and of high quality?(Harvey & Shortt, 2001)

There are many ways to assess needs; the method will depend in part of the information

that is desired. For example, part of the needs assessment could include mapping the location of

existing programs in a geographic area (e.g., neighborhood, city, county). If no programs exist,

then the feasibility of establishing a new program might be assessed. Further, it might involve

finding out more specific information about the organizations that operate the programs and their

specific program offerings (e.g., operating hours, age groups served, program focus, etc.). If

these elements of programming are known, it might be important to assess needs for staff

training.

That being said, the needs assessment process should be conducted in such a way as to

determine if there is a need to increase quantity or increase quality, recognizing that these two

aims are not mutually exclusive. If the determination is made that the quantity of programs is

lacking, then it goes without saying that the goal is to develop high quality programs to meet this

17


need. In other words, “with these enhanced opportunities for expansion comes a corresponding

need to help communities build high quality programs, practices, and staff, and to plan for

sustainabililty” (Harvey & Shortt, 2001, p. iii).

Impacting Program Quantity

Essentially, having an impact on the quantity of programs means establishing a new

program that did not exist before. This need is particularly crucial in communities where no

options currently exist. Despite the increasing number of programs, there are still many areas of

the country without sufficient out-of-school time options. From an Extension perspective, two

basic delivery models can be used to increase quantity: extension managed and community

managed.

Extension managed. As implied in the title, the Extension-managed model means that

Extension staff bears the ultimate responsibility for the operation of the program. In other words,

if a staff member resigns, it is up to Extension staff to the hire the replacement and to ensure that

the program is adequately staffed in the interim period. In addition to staffing, fiscal

management, curriculum, supplies, physical facilities, and risk management are other major

factors. If the program is funded through grants, meeting the requirements of the funding agency

will be an additional responsibility. Because of the commitment of time and resource involved,

considerable thought should be given to the decision to deliver programming through an

Extension-managed model. On the other hand, exercising control over the program quality is an

advantage. Those who deliver programming this way report that they gain visibility, credibility,

and community support from their efforts. Working with youth with greater frequency over a

longer time period has the potential to make a great impact in their lives. Obtaining support from

18


advisory groups and other key stakeholders would be an essential part of the decision-making

process.

Community managed. With the community-managed model, the Extension professional

plays a different role. This role may involve bringing community leaders and concerned citizens

together around the issue of after-school programs, perhaps to conduct the needs assessment

process. Or it may mean working with an existing group, such as the PTA, that has identified a

need, but is not sure how to proceed. The culmination of such a process may result in locating a

community agency willing to undertake the responsibility of running the program or, if no such

organizations are available, in creating a non-profit board with parent and community

representatives to manage the program. The Extension professional may continue to work in a

support role as the group is established, and may provide support in sustaining the program,

through areas such as grant proposal writing and evaluation (shifting to the program quality side

of the model). Those involved often find themselves in a role of influencing public policy when

they work with local school personnel on issues such as building use and transportation.

Whichever route is pursued, the end result is that a new program is created and is now available

to meet the community’s needs. As a result, those involved in such a process often feel

tremendous commitment and ownership toward the program.

Resources are available for the local extension professional to use to increase the quantity

of after-school program settings for school-age children. The Children, Youth, and Families

Educational Resource Network’s (CYFERnet) School-Age Site has a variety of information on

site development and program management (see resources at www.cyfernet.org; see Appendix B

for more information on CYFERnet).

19

http://www.cyfernet.org/


Impacting Program Quality

The quality of the after-school environment is an important aspect of understanding the

effects of after-school programs on youth (Vandell & Posner, 1999). Fashola (1998) concluded

that there is no straightforward answer to the question of what works best in after-school

programs, believing that “the answer depends on why the program was set up, the extent to

which the program designed addresses the needs of the participants, and the extent to which the

program shows positive outcomes when evaluated for evidence of effectiveness” (Fashola,

1998). Despite that assertion, there is general agreement about elements that contribute to

program quality (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Gootman, 2000; U.S. Department of Education &

U.S. Department of Justice, 1998, 2000). Youth in all types of programs, regardless of the focus

(e.g., academic, recreational, or cultural) appear to benefit from consistent structure, active

community involvement, extensive training for staff and volunteers, and responsiveness to

participants’ needs and interests (Fashola, 1998; Gootman, 2000). In particular, several practices

were found to have strong support in the literature: variety of activities, flexibility of

programming, and a positive emotional climate (Beckett, Hawken, & Janknowitz, 2001).

Programs should provide a variety of activities (Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996); these

activities and the context of the program should be developmentally appropriate, addressing the

physical, cognitive, social, and emotional needs of youth. Rosenthal and Vandell (1996) found

that when programs offered a greater variety of different activities there were more positive staff

interactions with children, the program appeared more age appropriate, and children had more

positive program perceptions. Significantly, a recent study has concluded that the ability of the

staff member leading the activity was more important to quality than the specific activity itself

(Grossman et al., 2002).

20


A recent policy brief that quotes Deborah Vandell, a noted researcher in after-school

programs, sums up the discussion on program quality. It also provides support for the earlier

definition of 4-H Afterschool and connects with the ECI theoretical framework that is discussed

in a later section.

Important findings are beginning to emerge related to after-school program quality. Beneficial effects have been associated with high quality programs; there is also emerging evidence of the negative effects of poor-quality programs. The recent report by the National Research Council described some of these elements of program quality. I see four as key. First, supportive relations with staff. It is important for kids to have staff who care about them, and who know what to do because they have the necessary training and skills. Second, positive peer relations. Third would be opportunities for sustained and meaningful engagement in substantive activities. These can be sports, arts, music, science, or literacy. What’s important from a quality perspective is that the activities have meaning for the kids and that they are able to do them over a period of time so they can get engaged. An additional quality indicator is that the programs are both physically and psychologically safe. (cited in Pittman, Yohalem, & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2002, p. 3)

That being said, the difference with the strategies on the program quality side of the

Program Development Model is that the Extension professional works with existing programs

conducted by other organizations to provide educational support. Four basic strategies to

increase program quality are part of the model: staff development and training, enhancing the

educational environment, involving the community and developing partnerships, and evaluating

after-school programs.

Staff development and training. In this delivery model, Extension staff may provide

education and technical assistance to other groups who are starting or working to improve after-

school programs. Although a review by the RAND Corporation (Beckett et al., 2001) indicated

that most after-school programs provide staff training, there is tremendous variety among

programs and providing sufficient and appropriate staff training remains one of the recurring

issues in the field of after-school programs. As stated by Shortt (2002), after-school programs

21


“cannot produce positive results without the most critical element of program quality: a

committed and competent workforce” (p. 120).

Providing training staff is thought to be associated with several positive results. A study

by Rosenthal and Vandell (1996) provided support for the belief that better educated staff had

the training that results in higher quality developmentally appropriate programs (i.e., those that

have more positive interactions with children, provide more activities for them, and are more

flexible in meeting their needs). The type of training needed depends on what is required by the

sponsoring organization, staff training requests, and skills required to meet identified program

goals (Beckett et al., 2001).

Technical assistance and training may be provided on a small scale (e.g., one-on-one

consultation) or a larger scale. Specifically, Extension professionals may provide educational

experiences for staff of after-school programs on an occasional basis by request, as a planned

part of their program on a regular and frequent basis, or through specialized events such as

statewide conferences. They may provide workshops on topics such as child development,

experiential education, curriculum, parent involvement, strategic planning, evaluation, and so

forth.

Guiding Growth: Training Staff for Working with Youth in After-School Programs,

developed through 4-H Afterschool, is a beginning resource to assist the Extension professional

with training after-school program staff in creating an environment that fosters positive youth

development. Topics include developmental stages, the learn-by-doing experiential education

model, and involving parents in programs. Further training can be provided on other youth

development concepts and after-school staff can learn to appropriately evaluate and use

curriculum from a variety of sources. In addition, Extension professionals in some states have

22


designed a series of training programs that count toward continuing education requirements,

have developed on-line courses, have worked with community colleges to provide professional

advancement opportunities, have organized and sponsored conferences, and have worked with

others in their state to develop career ladder or lattice systems. These experiences and

opportunities help advance the professional development of the after-school staff, and advance

the after-school field overall.

Enhancing the educational environment. Extension staff may provide education and

technical assistance to enhance the educational environment of after-school programs. There are

many ways to enhance the educational environment, but the primary way that Extension staff do

so is through curriculum support. Perhaps the closest comparison in 4-H is the school enrichment

delivery model and its variations. Providing curriculum support may mean supplying curriculum

materials, and the training to use them, to program sites and having the program staff use that

curriculum in their planned program. Some Extension staff members have created curriculum

kits that may be loaned to after-school sites. Alternately, an Extension professional, program

assistant, or volunteer may actually do the teaching directly with the program participants.

Extraordinary Learning Opportunities: A Sampler of 4-H Afterschool Activities provides a

wealth of diverse, learn-by-doing activities, adapted from Extension curricula, that can be

implemented in after-school programs.

A specific variation of this model is that of starting 4-H clubs in after-school programs, or

what might be termed as a club within a club. In other words, the 4-H club operates within the

structure of the community-based organization that sponsors the after-school program. This

delivery model works when the goals of the two organizations are compatible and there is a

shared sense of ownership (Ferrari & Hartzell, 2002, 2003; Hartzell, 2001). It may mean that 4-H

23


is offered on a particular day of the week or that particular projects are offered. There may be a

designated time for club meetings, where youth say the 4-H pledge, have officers, and make

choices about activities to pursue (when it is appropriate for the age group) or have a leader-

directed group learning experience (e.g., Cloverbud programs for younger children). As well, the

person responsible may be staff paid by Extension (e.g., program assistant), staff of the

organization running the program (e.g., YMCA or Boys & Girls Club staff member), a volunteer,

or some combination. The Extension professional works collaboratively with the after-school

program to implement this model. Although the relationships may vary in their level of

formality, it is essential to discuss each organization’s expectations for what will occur. A

written memorandum of agreement may assist in this regard (a sample may be found in Starting

4-H Clubs in After-School Programs). Although Extension staff members may initially run

programs, equipping others with the skills and confidence to carry out 4-H club activities extends

the reach to those youth who otherwise might not get a chance to participate in the structured

learning experiences that 4-H provides.

While starting 4-H clubs is a familiar part of a 4-H professional’s job, there are different

dimensions to establishing a 4-H club in an after-school setting. Extension staff must take into

account the needs and knowledge of the after-school staff and the settings where after-school

programs take place in order to make it successful. For example, the typical after-school program

structure lends itself to group activities more than individual projects., Starting 4-H Clubs in

After-School Programs is a step-by-step guide to assist with starting 4-H clubs in after-school

programs to assist with implementing this program model.

24


Creating partnerships. This delivery model is included in the model to recognize that

Extension professionals do not work alone and can use this as a viable strategy to establish,

maintain, or expand after-school programs. As expressed in the CYFAR philosophy,

effective programs cross bureaucratic lines, are collaborative works of many agencies, organizations, and citizens. Collaborations of agencies working with citizens can reduce duplication of efforts, create higher quality programs, and bring increased resources to bear strategically on identified problems. (Wright & Bersamin, 2002)

Much effort goes into creating and maintaining successful partnerships. Working

Together for Children and Families: A Community’s Guide to Making the Most of Out-of-School

Time (Harvey & Shortt, 2001) is a resource from the National Institute on Out-of-School Time

that offers strategies for community collaboration based on the MOST Initiative. Those who

have participated in such initiatives have documented different approaches, as well as the

advantages and the challenges involved (Hall & Harvey, 2002). This process of working together

necessitates involving stakeholders, providing leadership, and building new working

relationships to enhance programs. With a credible reputation in the community, Extension

professionals may be in a good position to bring community organizations together for such a

purpose. Extension’s National Network for Collaboration (http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/cd/index.htm)

is a valuable source of information on collaboration. In additional several sustainability studies

document its importance (Mancini & Marek, 1998; Marek, Mancini, & Brock; Marek, Mancini,

Earthman, & Brock, 2003).

Evaluating after-school programs. As Extension professionals have become more

accountable for determining the impact of programs, they can be a resource to existing after-

school programs to determine both the quality of the program and the outcomes for the children

and youth involved. The important question is not what have you done, but rather, what different

did it make? (NIOST, 2000). Many after-school programs may not have defined program success

25

http://crs.uvm.edu/nnco/cd/index.htm


in terms of outcomes. In many cases, program evaluation may be limited because program staff

lack the skills to conduct evaluation. Time available to conduct an evaluation is another limiting

factor. Extension professionals might assist local programs to develop and carry out an

evaluation plan.

One aspect of quality determination looks at the environmental features of the after-

school program and rates them according to established criteria. The National School-Age Care

Alliance (NSACA) has an accreditation system that has standards of quality; a list of these

standards is included in Appendix F. In this system, trained endorsers visit after-school programs

to evaluate them based on the NSACA standards. Endorsers are trained by NSACA; although

they receive no compensation, their expenses for acting as an endorser are reimbursed. More

information on this accreditation system can be found at the NSACA website (www.nsaca.org).

In addition, the School-Age Care Environmental Rating Scale3 (SACERS) is an

observation tool that may be used to determine the quality of the environment for school-age

children (Harms, Jacobs, & White, 1996). SACERS is based on developmentally appropriate

practices for working with school-age children and is the most common instrument used by

researchers to determine the quality of the environment. This instrument is composed of 43 items

grouped into six subscales; each item is rated on a seven-point scale. The six areas are space and

furnishings, health and safety, activities, interactions, program structure, staff development. Six

supplementary items are included for programs enrolling children with disabilities. According to

its developers, SACERS was designed to be comprehensive yet easy to use. Validity and

reliability for this instrument have been determined. It has multiple uses, including self-

evaluation, program monitoring, and research. Information on SACERS may be accessed at the

3 This instrument can be purchased from The Teachers College Press at http://store.tcpress.com/0807735078.shtml

26

http://store.tcpress.com/0807735078.shtml

http://www.nsaca.org/


website of the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at the University of North

Carolina (http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ecers/).

Several tools are available to assess programs from a youth development perspective; two

in particular will be noted here. The Chapin Hall Center for Children has produced A Self-Study

Guide for Managers and Staff of Primary Support Programs for Young People (Costello, Barker,

Pickens, Cassaniga, Merry, & Falcon, 2000), a guide that closely parallels key elements

identified as important for positive youth development (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Peterson

et al., 2001). This self-study guide is intended to help youth-serving organizations consider how

their programs contribute to healthy development and how those contributions might be

enhanced. The guide offers four key program components (safety, comfort, and belonging;

positive social interactions and relationships; activities and programming that promote healthy

development; and organizational and administrative competence) and describes basic qualities

within each component. Using it can help staff set goals and work towards improvements. The

University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension’s Program and Activity Assessment Tool

(PAAT) is another such tool that is available (Zeldin, Day, & Matysik, 2000). The PAAT

instrument is comprised of three main parts—opportunities, supports, and organization. It can be

used to assess the strengths and weaknesses of specific youth development programs, activities,

and events. Multiple stakeholders can complete these checklists to obtain different perspectives.

In particular, a checklist designed to solicit youth input is included.

Effective evaluation involves knowing what the program’s desired outcomes were in the

first place. Currently programs within the field have a variety of goals. As stated earlier, many

programs focus more on doing activities rather than stating goals in terms of the results of those

activities. Developing a logic model is a process that has been recommended for out-of-school

27

http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ecers/


time programs (Little, DuPree, & Deich, 2002). Information on this process is available from

several sources (Coffman, 1999; Millar, Simeone, & Carnevale, 2001; Taylor-Powell, 2001).

Determining youth outcomes (i.e., measurable changes in individuals) is still a major

challenge for the field. Often, multiple methods (quantitative and qualitative) are necessary.

More evaluation resources, methodologies, and tools are available from CYFERNet at

www.cyfernet.org. Clearly, much can be done in the area of program evaluation.

ECI evaluation system. A major challenge for the Cooperative Extension System is

working within the multiple levels of a system, that although national system in scope, is quite

decentralized. The grassroots nature of Extension programming resists top-down directives.

Furthermore, each individual state has its own system and requirements for reporting. However,

the need for accountability is increasing, and future program efforts are dependent upon securing

additional funding.

The “Extension CARES . . . for America’s Children and Youth” National Initiative (ECI)

has created a web-based evaluation and reporting system. This system is available to report on 4-

H Afterschool efforts. By using the evaluation system, Extension professionals are able to

generate local reports; in addition, the system provides data that can be aggregated for state and

national use. More information on this system and how to use it can be found by accessing the

website at http://eci.ext.msstate.edu.

Working with Families

[To be added]

28

http://eci.ext.msstate.edu/



Where Do You Fit Into This Picture?

Extension staff may choose one or more ways to approach after-school program

development and delivery methods. Choosing one model does not eliminate others from

consideration. However, staff may make such decisions based on community needs, as well as

their program priorities and their own areas of expertise. Staff who have had the experience with

one or more delivery models can be a valuable resource to others who are contemplating similar

programs. The creation of networks for sharing such expertise can be accomplished through

national initiatives and regional and state-level efforts, including 4-H Afterschool.

Theoretical Perspectives

4-H Afterschool anchors programs in research. The result is good programs and practice.

As its underlying foundation, 4-H Afterschool shares the theoretical framework articulated by the

“Extension CARES . . . for America’s Children and Youth” Initiative of the Cooperative

Extension System, which is included in Appendix A (Todd, 2002; USDA, 2001). Thus, 4-H

Afterschool programming draws from fields such as child development, youth development,

education, child care, and ecological systems theory. This comprehensive approach supports the

notion that quality after-school programs must include development, education, and care

dimensions (Figure 1 in Appendix A). To ensure quality, these three components can vary in

proportion, but all three must be present to some extent. These major theoretical models and

concepts are discussed in the following section.

Developmental Frameworks

Developmental concepts. As 4-H Afterschool programs are administered, practitioners

must be mindful that youth experience growth in the physical, cognitive, social, and emotional

29


domains. Overall, some general principles apply. While recognizing the need to examine growth

in each of these domains individually, there is an equal need to remember that they are

integrated. What occurs in one domain influences development in the others. While most aspects

of development occur in a predictable sequence, their timing is unique to the individual. Each

youth develops at different rates. That is, one ten-year-old is not the same as every other ten-

year-old. Furthermore, youth can be at different stages within each domain of development. For

example, a 7-year-old boy may have physical skills of a 10-year-old, social skills of a 5-year-old,

emotional behavior of a 4-year-old, and cognitive skills of a 7-year-old. This principle is

illustrated in Figure 3 of Appendix A. Consequently, a child may look and act differently from

another child who is the same age. Despite the predictability of some normative milestones and

transitions, events can occur in a child’s life that alter the course of development in unexpected

directions.

Developmentally appropriate practices are based on what is known about how children

and youth develop. Developmentally appropriate programs focus on children and youth’s needs

and interests and take into account their physical, emotional, social, and cognitive growth. Such

practices also take into account the need for cultural relevance. Guidelines for developmentally

appropriate practices are available for working with school-age children (Bredekamp & Copple,

1997).

Youth development: Process, philosophy, and programs. To maximize program

effectiveness, practitioners must also be knowledgeable of youth development concepts. Youth

development is the natural process of developing one’s capacities. Positive youth development

occurs from an intentional process that promotes positive outcomes for young people by

providing opportunities, choices, relationships, and the support necessary for youth to participate

30


(USDA, 2002). Many youth organizations, including 4-H, have adopted a positive youth

development approach. That is, these organizations aim to provide programs that enhance the

development of the whole child–physical, cognitive, social, and emotional. Such an approach

does not ignore problem behaviors youth may demonstrate. Rather, the framework is much

broader, with a focus on development of the strengths and assets of young people. Therefore,

there is an emphasis on life skills development. The youth development approach recognizes that

“problem free is not fully prepared” (Pittman, 1991), and furthermore, that fully prepared is not

fully engaged. A youth development organization is an organization that meets the needs of

young people by offering programs with a variety of active program options, emphasizing social

group experiences, and providing individual attention and counsel (Walker, Dunham, & Snyder,

1998).

Youth development programs are intentional efforts: “While youth development happens

everywhere and not just in programs, youth development programs are perhaps the most

deliberate efforts to stimulate development” (Blyth, 2000, p. 10). Furthermore, there is an

understanding that certain efforts will produce quality results: “High quality youth development

doesn’t just ‘happen,’ but rather it occurs through careful planning and the deliberate inclusion of

certain elements” (Astroth, 2000). A recent review of the literature undertaken by the National

Research Council recommends that certain program elements must be in settings for youth to

achieve positive outcomes (Eccles and Gootman, 2002). This idea is also supported by the results

of National 4-H Impact Assessment study (Peterson, Gerhard, Hunter, Marek, Phillips, &

Titcomb, 2001), as well as other youth development studies and reviews (America’s Promise,

2000; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Family & Youth Services Bureau, 1997; Gambone & Arbreton,

1997; Scales & Leffert, 1999). Critical program elements are:

31


1. Positive relationships with caring adults, good emotional and moral support

2. Feeling emotionally and physically safe.

3. Structure and limits that are developmentally appropriate and that recognize and

value youth’s increasing social maturity and expertise.

4. Feeling a sense of belonging in an inclusive environment.

5. Exposure to positive morals, values, and social norms.

6. Opportunities to build and master skills in areas of interest.

7. Opportunities to value and practice service to others.

8. Opportunities for self-determination and engagement in learning.

9. Opportunities to see oneself as an active participant in the future.

Providing youth with opportunities of prolonged participation incorporating the critical

elements of positive youth development settings will help youth achieve positive youth

outcomes. A review of literature examining youth program evaluations produced three main

conclusions: (a) programs that included more of the elements of positive youth development had

more positive outcomes, (b) the evaluations affirmed the importance of close relationships

between youth and adults, and (c) duration matters – the strongest impacts were found among

youth who had participated for a year or more (Roth et al., 1998).

There is much support in the literature for the idea that youth who participated in settings

with the features described above would later develop into mature, responsible, skilled, and

competent adults. These programs are inclined to foster identity development, in turn providing

youth with improved self-concepts, self-confidence, and optimism about the future (Grossman et

al., 2002; Kahne, Nagaoka, Brown, O’Brien, Quinn, & Thiede, 2001; McLaughlin, 2000; Posner

& Vandell, 1994). McLaughlin’s study (2000) found that participants in quality youth

32


development programs had a stronger sense of civic responsibility and saw greater importance in

being involved with their communities and in doing community service or volunteering.

4-H programs provide youth with opportunities to acquire new knowledge and skills

immediately. With prolonged participation, behavior and attitudinal changes yield the following

youth development outcomes:

1. Competence – advanced skills in content of interest

2. Character – clear consistent moral precepts that guide behavior

3. Caring – willingness to respond to the needs and concerns of others

4. Confidence – willingness to take on new challenges and expect success

5. Connections – establishing and maintaining relationships on many levels

6. Contributions – making a difference in the lives of others through service

USDA, 2002

Educational Frameworks

Education theorists conceive of learning as a continuous process grounded in interaction

with the social and physical environment (Berk, 2000; Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 1984). Learning

experiences that are active, participatory, and reflective are recommended. Furthermore,

nonformal learning experiences should be structured and intentional. Practitioners’ knowledge of

learning processes and methodologies will enhance the after-school experience for young people.

Experiential learning. 4-H Afterschool programs are developed to ensure that young

people actively learn using hands-on educational experiences. Experiential education consists of

any structured learning activities that engage individuals directly in the topic being studied. The

experiential approach to learning is often referred to as “learn-by-doing” and is considered a

hallmark of 4-H educational experiences. The experiential learning model developed by David

33


A. Kolb (1984, 2002) and modified by 4-H includes five stages; a diagram of this model appears

in Appendix G.

1. Participants experience the activity – perform or do it.

2. Participants share the experience by describing what happened.

3. Participants process the experience to determine what was most important and

identify common themes.

4. Participants generalize from the experience and relate it to their daily lives.

5. Participants apply what they learned to a new situation.

(Horton, Hutchinson, Barkman, Machtmes, & Myers, 1999)

What is evident from these five steps is that the complete learning cycle is much more

than “doing.” To have a meaningful experience, the “do” part of the learning cycle may need to

be conceptualized as a series of activities (Horton et al., 1999). The complete cycle of learning

takes place when a person is involved in an activity or series of activities, looks back at it

critically, determines what was useful or important to remember, and uses this information to

perform another activity. Although presented sequentially, the order the youth experience the

stages may vary depending on the learning objectives and interaction of the youth and the

experience. Many professionals in 4-H Youth Development simplify the model to do, reflect,

and apply. When youth experience, process, and apply an activity, they learn from thoughts and

ideas about the experience. Each step contributes to their learning. Each of these steps is

accomplished through positive and appropriate questions, encouragement, and support provided

by the caring adults who work with youth.

Providing an experience alone does not create experiential learning. Experiences lead to

learning if the participant understands what happened, sees patterns of observations, generalizes

34


from those observations, and understands how to use the generalization again in a new situation.

The overall goal of the experiential learning process is to provide young people with positive

learning experiences and tools to use in their lives.

Using such a model helps to promote intentional learning, not just a collection of random

activities, and is therefore related to enhancing program quality. Curriculum in the National 4-H

Juried Curriculum collection uses this experiential model. The curriculum materials in the

collection are peer reviewed, helping to insure they are of the highest quality. Information about

the materials in this collection may be found at the Collection website (http://www.national4-

hheadquarters.gov/4h_curric.htm) or through the 4-H Cooperative Curriculum System

(http://www.n4hccs.org/).

Anchored learning. The term anchored learning was first coined by the Cognition and

Technology Group of Vanderbilt (CTGV), which used technology to create simulations to

provide a context for students to use math and physics principles as strategies to solve problems

(Bransford, & Stein, 1993; CTGV, 1990; 1993). They drew their work from previous learning

theories of Lave (situated learning, 1988; 1990) and Brown and colleagues (situated cognition,

1989).

4-H has been anchoring its learning through projects for decades. Youth select 4-H

topics called projects based on their interest. Lave (1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991) would

categorize this as the problem being owned by the learner. Learning has more meaning when it is

about the focused interest of the learner (Rogers & Friedberg, 1994). 4-H projects are sequential

learning units in subject matter areas such as aerospace, computer science, food and nutrition,

environmental stewardship, and so forth. 4-H projects are examples of situated cognition as

described by Brown, Collins and Duguid (1989; CTGV, 1993). In other words, the learner gains

35

http://www.n4hccs.org/

http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/4h_curric.htm

http://www.national4-hheadquarters.gov/4h_curric.htm


knowledge by experiencing or approximating the real setting. For example, youth learn

knowledge of foods and nutrition by preparing meals in the kitchen. Concepts of flight and

trajectory are gained by launching rockets. The social interaction with the leader and the

instructional materials help the youth understand the relevant knowledge to be gained.

Many educators use authentic assessment strategies to accompany 4-H project work.

Project records provide a portfolio for the member to demonstrate setting goals, developing a

plan of action, and conducting a self-assessment of learning. Project judging provides an

opportunity to demonstrate knowledge of industry standards by placing products or case

situations in ranked order according to criteria. In addition, 4-H members provide oral reasons to

a judge to defend their ranked order. Feedback to the youth by an official provides the correct

placing and then models critical thinking by giving their reasons for the official ranked order. 4-

H members exhibit products or artifacts produced in the project learning experience. Authentic

feedback is provided through conference judging. A judge and member confer on the project

exhibit item. This exchange should yield what the member did, how the member completed the

project, what the member would do differently, and plans for next year. The judge provides the

member feedback on approximation of mature practice. Another authentic assessment tool is

skill-a-thons (CTGV, 1993; Collins et al., 1989; Wiggins, 1993). Problem situations are

presented to members and they actually demonstrate fixing the problem or describe their

problem-solving approach. Feedback is provided to the member on their demonstration of

mastery.

Care Settings For Children and Youth

The concept of care encompasses safety, health, guidance, and nurturing. For older youth,

the community has a responsibility to care for them by ensuring a successful transition to

36


adulthood. The child care field offers standards of good practice for after-school programs. The

standards allow for assessment of the setting, to ensure that it provides the appropriate adult

supervision and accountability for their well being that allow children and youth grow and thrive

in their environment. The National School-age Care Alliance (NSACA) Standards for Quality

School-Age Care were developed for programs working with children 5 to 14 years of age. The

36 NSACA standards are categorized in six areas—human relationships; indoor environment;

outdoor environment; activities; safety, health, and nutrition; and administration. The first five

categories of standards are program elements that can be readily observed in a program. The

sixth area, administration, contains policy, structure, and practices that provide a good

foundation for programs, but cannot be readily observed. The 36 NSACA Standards are included

in Appendix G. Further information on the standards can also be found in the publication Making

an Impact on Out-of-School Time (National Institute on Out-of-School Time, 1999).

Ecological Systems Theory

Stewart (2001) has suggested that “in order to foster successful development, there must

be a good ‘fit’ between the demands and resources of the environment and the needs of the

individual” (p. 119). Thus, programming for youth during the out-of-school time should be

holistic in its approach, drawing from the ecological systems theoretical perspective

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Bronfenbrenner & Neville,

1994). Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposes a view of human development that conceptualizes it as

an evolving process of interactions of people with their environment. He pictures the

environment in which an individual functions as consisting of multiple, interconnected levels.

Figure 1 in Appendix A illustrates these concepts.

37


These environments vary in their proximity to the individual, from face-to-face

interactions to more removed social contexts. Each of these contexts reciprocally interacts with

the others, creating a dynamic system of complex interactions. This systematic view of the

environment is coupled with recognition that the individual is a system as well, and brings a

complex array of characteristics to these environments. Furthermore, the individual is seen as an

active agent rather than as someone who merely reacts to changes in the environment. The

interactions of the individual with the environments or systems affect the growth and

development of the youth. The effects of these environments may be either positive or negative;

that is, the environment may present risks to or provide opportunities for development

(Garbarino, 1982).

Bronfenbrenner (1979) viewed the most immediate environments as a particularly

significant influence because they involve a person’s direct participation and interaction.

Examples of these settings would be the family, the school classroom, out-of-school clubs and

organizations, and the peer group. More than likely, a person is an active participant in several of

these environments simultaneously. Beyond the physical setting, these systems are characterized

by activities, interpersonal relationships, and roles. Therefore, two processes are the “principal

engines” of development: (a) social interaction, with various numbers and types of people, and

(b) engagement in “progressively more complex activities and tasks” (Bronfenbrenner, 1993; p.

11). Therefore, what people do and with whom they do it are significant influences on their

development.

Children and youth are affected by their own abilities and traits, their families, their

schools, the after-school programs they attend, their communities, and the society in which the

live. An ecological framework underlies 4-H Afterschool programming as it provides

38


extraordinary learning opportunities for youth, engages the family, and works with the

community to create policies that foster positive youth development. Such an approach directs

one to pay particular attention to the dynamic interaction between individuals within the multiple

settings where their development can be enhanced or discouraged. It also includes a

consideration of cultural, temporal, historical, and economic factors, as well as family, school,

and peer influences as part of the broader landscape of relevant factors.

Conclusion

Extension professionals can guide the development of quality after-school programming

for school-age youth and teens. 4-H Afterschool provides a way to connect diverse program

efforts. In this guide, we have provided a rationale, program delivery models, and a theoretical

base for 4-H Afterschool. This should provide Extension professionals with the background

information needed to understand the common elements that anchor their work with after-school

programs. After reading this paper, the authors hope the reader has gained insight into 4-H

Afterschool programs:

1. 4-H Afterschool programs can take many shapes and forms.

2. The definition of 4-H Afterschool provides some key elements of the programming

that falls under this umbrella.

3. The program development model provides a framework for local Extension faculty to

self-define their role in 4-H Afterschool.

5. The theories and principles underlying 4-H Afterschool address the “why” or the

rationale for programming that facilitates the development of quality programming

relevant to the community context.

39


Exciting times are ahead for those who choose to work with after-school programs.

Collectively, the efforts of the Cooperative Extension System will make an impact in the lives of

youth, families, and communities.

40


Appendix A

Extension Cares for America’s Children and Youth Initiative

Program Theory

Figure 1. An Ecological Model for Promoting Quality Child Care, School-Age Care, and Out-of-School Programs for Older Youth and Teens

Figure 2. Developmental Stages of Children and Youth

Figure 3. Developmental States in Different Domains

Figure 4. Required Elements of Quality Child Care, School-Age Care and Out-of-School Programs for Older Youth and Teens

Figure 5. Empowerment and Action Research Evaluation Approaches

Figure 6. Factors Leading to Quality Programs and Positive Child Outcomes

41


PROGRAM THEORY UNDERLYING THE EXTENSION “CARES”... FOR AMERICA’S CHILDREN AND YOUTH INITIATIVE

The program theory underlying the national Extension “CARES” Initiative (ECI) is included in Figure 1. Five theoretical perspectives have contributed to the development of this program theory:

* An ecological systems theory (Figures #1 and #6):

Children and youth are affected by their own abilities and traits, their families, the child care, school-age care and teen out-of-school programs they attend, their communities, and the society in which they live. Action must occur simultaneously at all levels to effect change.

* A developmental framework (Figures #2 and #3):

Children and youth each develop at different rates.Children can be at different stages within each developmental area.

Age is not a perfect predictor of developmental stage.Children develop best in the type of program that meets their unique needs and the goals and needs of their families.

* An interdisciplinary approach (Figure #4):

Quality early care and education, school-age care, and out-of-school programs for older youth and teens must include developmental, educational, and care giving perspectives.

* A sustainable communities model:

Decisions relating to children, youth, families, and community programs supporting families must be made in an interconnected manner resulting in communities that are socially equitable, economically prosperous, and environmentally friendly.

* An action research, empowerment-based evaluation strategy (Figure #5):

Action researchers value the generation of knowledge through research methods, require participation of stakeholders in the knowledge generation process, and seek to effect real-world change as a result of the knowledge gained. Consistent with an empowerment approach, state and local teams will receive training and technical assistance providing them with the knowledge, skills and support needed to select unique program goals and methods, plan and implement the evaluation, interpret results, and disseminate findings.

* A respect for diversity:

42


Programs for children and youth must respect the cultural heritage and values of families. Families and communities must demonstrate respect for diversity. Children and youth must have the skills needed to live and work in an increasingly diverse society.

43

4-H Afterschool Working DraftApril 21, 2003

45

Figure 1: An Ecological Model for Promoting Quality Child Care, School-Age Care and Out-of-School Programs for Older Youth and Teens

Society

CommunityPu

blic

Polic

yAv

ailab

ility

Accessibility

Affor

dabil

itySustainability

Diversity

Quality

Child/Youth

Outcomes

Economy

Program Characteristics

FamilyCharacteristics

Child/YouthCharacteristics

Historical Influences

WW II

Manufacturing to

Service Economy

EconomicRecessions

War on Poverty

Women'sMovement

Devolution

Welfare Reform

Source:Cooperative Extension System

Extension "CARES" for America's Children and Youth Initiative August, 2002


46

Figure 2. Developmental Stages of Children and Youth

Degree of Child Self-Regulation

Lower

Child's Age in Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Early Childhood

Middle Childhood

Early Adolescence

Late Adolescence

Early Adulthood

Higher

InfancySource: Cooperative Extension System Extension "CARES" for America's Children and Youth Initiative August, 2002


47

Figure 3: Developmental States in Different DomainsChildren can be in different developmental stages in each developmental area.

Source: Cooperative Extension System Extension "CARES" for America's Children and Youth Initiative August, 2002


48

Source: Cooperative Extension System Extension "CARES" for America's Children and Youth Initiative

August, 2002

Figure 4: Required Elements of Quality Child Care, School-Age Care, and Out-of-School Programs for Older Youth and Teens

Development Education

Care

Quality Child Care, School-Age Care, and

Out-of-School Programs for Older

Youth and Teens

Caregiving Experiences that: -Nurture -Guide -Protect -Meet Basic Needs

Educational Experiencesto Promote Learning

Experiences to PromotePhysical, Cognitive, Social, & EmotionalDevelopment of Children/Youth and Strengthen Family Relationships



49

Program Planners --Community --State --National

Evaluation Approach --Applied research methods --Participatory & empowering --Results used to address local, state, and national issues

Program Participants --Community --State --National

Program Evaluators --Community --State --National

Figure 5. Empowerment and Action Research Evaluation Approaches




50Figure 6: Factors Leading to Quality Programs and Positive Child Outcomes

Quality Environmentsfor Children/Youth

Community Context

Community Supports for Programs

Program Contexts

Family Supports for Programs

Child/YouthCharacteristics & Outcomes

Source: Cooperative Extension System, Extension "CARES" for America's Children and Youth Initiative, August, 2002

Child/ YouthCharacteristics: *Sex *Personality *Ability * Motivation *Cultural Background

Within OtherCommunity Settings: -- School, Church, Recreation, Work

Within the Family: *Strong Family Relationships *Effective Parenting Skills *Sufficient Resources

Child/Youth Outcomes: *Eager to Learn *Caring *Responsible *Productive *Engaged in Community

Community Resources: *Support for Adequate Compensation *Access to Child Care Subsidies *Amount of Staff Training *Breadth of Staff Training *Quality of Staff Training *Opportunities for Professionalism *Capacity for Evaluation

Community Programs: *Availability *Accessibility *Affordability *Sustainability *Quality

Providers/Staff/ Administrator: *Training *Attitudes, Knowledge, Skills, & Behaviors *Professionalism *Education *Compensation

Program Setting: *Physical Setting --Health --Safety --Learning Environments *Food Quality *Curriculum *Family Focus *Administration *Accreditation

Family Skills: *Attitudes about Care & Education *Knowledge of Quality Program Indicators *Knowledge & Skills for: --Supporting Program Goals at Home -- Family Involvement --Family Advocacy

Family Behaviors: *Use of High Quality Settings *Willingness to Pay Adequate Fees *Support Program Goals at Home *Involvement in Program *Advocate for Quality Care & Education

Community Context: *Attitudes *Diversity *Public Policy *Regulations *Resources *Educational Opportunities *Facilities *Transportation *Employment *Economy

Within the Child/School-age Care or Teen Setting: *Meets the Needs of Children/Youth *Meet the Needs of --Staff --Families --Employers --Communities *Sustainable w/Low Staff Turnover *Meets Quality Standards

Shaded boxesare not majorfocus of ECI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12


Appendix B

Cooperative Extension System Initiatives and Programs Related to After-School Programs

Extension CARES . . . for America’s Children and Youth National Initiative (Extension Cares)

www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares

Extension CARES, or ECI, is a national initiative of the Cooperative Extension System that improves child care and youth programs for infants and toddlers, preschoolers, school-age children and youth, and teens in out-of-school time.

See Appendix A for more information on Extension CARES.

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR)

http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/cyfar

Through an annual Congressional appropriation for the national Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) Program, CSREES allocates funding to land-grant university Extension Services for community-based programs for at-risk children and their families. Since 1991, CYFAR has supported programs in more than 600 communities in all states and territories. State and local public and private organizations have contributed cash and in-kind resources that match or exceed the federal appropriation.

The CYFAR Program is based on research on effective programs for at-risk youth and families and on the human ecological principle of working across the lifespan in the context of the family and community. To assure that critical needs of children and families are met, CYFAR supports comprehensive, intensive, community-based programs developed with active citizen participation in all phases. CYFAR promotes building resiliency and protective factors in youth, families, and communities.

CYFAR supports collaboration—forming lasting partnerships to achieve greater outcomes and to provide a support base for sustaining programs for at risk. CYFAR also promotes the use of technology to improve programs, provide efficient access to educational resources, and provide essential technological skills for youth and adults in at-risk environments.

Each year over 900 Extension staff, collaborators, and volunteers participate in the national CYFAR conference, sponsored by CSREES and planned by university and county faculty representing CYFERnet and CYFAR projects.

51

http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/cyfar

http://www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares


Children, Youth, and Families Education Resource Network (CYFERnet) www.cyfernet.org

CYFERnet is a national network of land-grant university faculty and county Extension educators working to support community-based educational programs for children, youth, parents, and families. Through CYFERnet, partnering institutions merge resources into a "national network of expertise" working collaboratively to assist communities. CYFERnet provides program, evaluation, and technology assistance for children, youth, and family community-based programs. CYFERnet is funded as a joint project of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and the Cooperative Extension System. Materials on CYFERnet are screened, peer reviewed, and posted by CYFERnet's Editorial Board members from universities across the United States.

Resources in CYFERnet are grouped early childhood, school-age, teens, parent/family, community, and evaluation.

Military Partnerships

Through an agreement between USDA and the Department of Defense, resources of Army and Air Force are merged with those of CSREES and land-grant universities to develop education and research programs that are beneficial to youth and families on military installations. The intention is to build lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships between the military branches and Extension at the national, state, county, community, command, and installation levels.

USDA/Army Youth Development Project (http://www.usda-army-ydp.org/) The USDA/Army Youth Development Project (AYDP) is a partnership between two Federal agencies collaborating to provide quality youth development programs involving Army youth, families, and communities.

Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) http://www.reeusda.gov/f4hn/efnep

The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service's (CSREES) Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) is a unique program that currently operates in all 50 states and in American Samoa, Guam, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It is designed to assist limited resource audiences in acquiring the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and changed behavior necessary for nutritionally sound diets, and to contribute to their personal development and the improvement of the total family diet and nutritional well-being.

The delivery of EFNEP youth programs takes on various forms. EFNEP provides nutrition education at schools as an enrichment of the curriculum, in after school care programs, through 4-H EFNEP clubs, day camps, residential camps, community centers, neighborhood groups, and home gardening workshops. In addition to lessons on nutrition, food preparation, and food safety, youth topics may also include fitness, avoidance of substance abuse, and other health related topics.

52

http://www.reeusda.gov/f4hn/efnep

http://www.usda-army-asat.org/



Appendix C

Definitions

What is an out-of-school time program?

Out-of-school time programs are any organized programs for school-age youth (5- to 14- year-olds) that occurs outside regular school hours. Before and after-school, school-age child care, enrichment, tutoring, weekend, school vacation, and summer programs can all be considered out-of-school time programs. Such programs are run by schools, community centers, non-profit and for-profit companies, churches, and other organizations. At the most basic level, these programs exist to keep children safe and occupied while their parents are working or otherwise unavailable.

Quality programs go beyond basic care and work to:

Promote the emotional and physical well being of young people.Strengthen social and problem-solving abilities of young people.Teach young people the skills they need to be successful in school and work.Foster community by building on the assets of young people and their families.

National Institute on Out-of-School Time, 2000

In 1999, the National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA) developed a working definition of school-age care that can be paraphrased as a working definition of after-school programs:

“Afterschool programs focus on the need to provide out-of-school programs that foster a holistic approach to the development of children and youth. Afterschool professionals are committed to standards that foster children’s social, emotional, cognitive, moral, and physical development. Through quality programs that are in tune with community needs, they provide culturally relevant activities and perspectives which complement children’s experience in their school, family, community, and societal environments.”

53


Appendix D

Current Resources Developed by 4-H Afterschool - 2002

(with funding provided by the JCPenney Afterschool Fund)

The following materials were developed to assist Extension professionals who are just

beginning programs in after-school settings. Materials were piloted tested around the country and

adjusted based on this feedback.

1. Starting 4-H Clubs in After-School Programs is a step-by-step guide to starting 4-

H clubs in after-school programs.

2. Extraordinary Learning Opportunities: A Sampler of 4-H Afterschool Activities

provides an introduction to the wealth of diverse, proven, “learn-by-doing”

curricula to implement in after-school programs.

3. Guiding Growth: Training Staff for Working with Youth After-School Programs is a

resource to train staff in creating an environment that fosters positive youth

development. Topics include developmental stages of youth development, the

“learn-by-doing” model, involving parents in programs, and more.

The 4-H Afterschool website contains marketing information such as press releases, and

success stories. It also contains links to other after-school organizations and resources. To find

out more about these and other resources, visit the 4-H Afterschool website at

http://www.4hafterschool.org

54

http://www.4hafterschool.org/


Appendix E

4-H Afterschool Logo

The 4-H Afterschool logo is available for download at http://www.4hafterschool.org/Staff/Public_Relations_Tools/Download.asp

55

http://www.4hafterschool.org/Staff/Public_Relations_Tools/Download.asp


Appendix F

National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA) Standards

Human Relationships1. Staff relate to all children and youth in positive ways.2. Staff respond appropriately to the individual needs of children and youth.3. Staff encourage children and youth to make choices and to become more responsible.4. Staff interact with children and youth to help them learn.5. Staff use positive techniques to guide the behavior of children and youth.6. Children and youth generally interact with one another in positive ways.7. Staff and families interact with each other in positive ways.8. Staff work well together to meet the needs of children and youth.

Indoor Environment9. The program’s indoor space meets the needs of children and youth.10. The indoor space allows children and youth to take initiative and explore their interests.

Outdoor Environment11. The outdoor play area meets the needs of children and youth, and the equipment allows

them to be independent and creative.

Activities12. The daily schedule is flexible, and it offers enough security, independence, and

stimulation to meet the needs of all children and youth.13. Children and youth can choose from a wide variety of activities.14. Activities reflect the mission of the program and promote the development of all the

children and youth in the program.15. There are sufficient materials to support program activities.

Safety, Health, & Nutrition16. The safety and security of children and youth are protected.17. The program provides an environment that protects and enhances the health of children

and youth.18. The program staff try to protect and enhance the health of children and youth.19. Children and youth are carefully supervised to maintain safety.20. The program serves foods and drinks that meet the needs of children and youth.

Administration21. Staff/child ratios and group sizes permit the staff to meet the needs of children and youth.22. Children and youth are supervised at all times.23. Staff support families’ involvement in the program.24. Staff, families, and schools share important information to support the well-being of

children and youth.25. The program builds links to the community.

56


26. The program’s indoor space meets the needs of staff.27. The outdoor space is large enough to meet the needs of children, youth, and staff.28. Staff, children, and youth work together to plan and implement suitable activities, which

are consistent with the program’s philosophy.29. Program policies and procedures are in place to protect the safety of the children and

youth.30. Program policies exist to protect and enhance the health of all children and youth.31. All staff are professionally qualified to work with children and youth.32. Staff (paid, volunteer, and substitute) are given an orientation to the job before working

with children and youth.33. The training needs of the staff are assessed, and training is relevant to the responsibilities

of each job. Assistant Group Leaders receive at least 15 hours of training annually. Group Leaders receive at least 18 hours of training annually. Senior Group Leaders receive at least 21 hours of training annually. Site Directors receive at least 24 hours of training annually. Program Administrators receive at least 30 hours of training annually.

34. Staff receive appropriate support to make their work experience positive.35 The administration provides sound management of the program.36. Program policies and procedures are responsive to the needs of children, youth, and

families in the community.

For more information:

The National School-Age Care Alliance1137 Washington St.Boston, MA 02124Phone: (617) 298-5012Fax: (617) 298-5022e-mail: [email protected] web: http://www.nsaca.org

57

http://www.nsaca.org/

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix G

Experiential Learning Model

1. DOYouth do or experience an activity related to a learning topic. This could involve making something, playing a game, or solving a problem.

2. REFLECTNext, youth share what they think happened in the experience. They think about what they did, how it felt, whether it was easy or difficult. When young people share what they’ve learned, they not only stimulate their own growth, but the growth of their group as well.

So what? Youth also analyze the experience by reflecting on problems or issues that came up for them. They look for patterns or themes, with the goal of building a bridge to new knowledge and skills.

3. APPLYIn this step, youth generalize the experience by connecting it to real-world examples.

Finally, youth apply what they’ve learned by thinking about it in terms of new situations that might happen now or in the future. This is where they get to think about “now what” am I going to do with what I’ve learned.

Each of these steps is accomplished through positive and appropriate questions, encouragement, and support provided by the caring adults who work with youth. The overall goal of the experiential learning process is to provide young people with positive learning experiences and tools to use in their lives.

58


59


REFERENCES

Afterschool Alliance. (2002). Afterschool alert: Poll report. Report available at http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/polling4.html

America’s Promise – The Alliance for Youth. (2000). The five promises. Retrieved from http://www.americaspromise.org/FivePromises/FivePromises.cfm

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Fink, J. (2002). The importance of a sense of belonging to youth service agencies: A risk and protective factor analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. M. (2003). Participation in Boys and Girls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), 39-53.

Astroth, K. (2000, February 1). Critical elements and practices for 4-H: An overview and summary for youth development professionals. Handout distributed at Ohio 4-H In-Service, Columbus, OH.

Baker, D., & Witt, P.A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school recreational programs. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 23-44. Retrieved from http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/Faculty/Witt/wittpub3.htm

Beckett, M., Hawken, A., & Jacknowitz, A. (2001). Accountability for after-school care: Devising standards and measuring adherence to them. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.ran.org/publications/MR/MR1411

Berk, L. E. (2000). Child development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Blyth, D. (2000). Extension’s role in community youth development for the 21st century. The Center, Fall, 6-17. (Publication of the 4-H Center for Youth Development at the University of Minnesota). Retrieved from http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/center/Center2000.html

Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The ideal problem solver (2nd ed). New York: Freeman.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742.

60

http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/center/Center2000.html

http://www.ran.org/publications/MR/MR1411

http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/Faculty/Witt/wittpub3.htm

http://www.americaspromise.org/FivePromises/FivePromises.cfm

http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/polling4.html


Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of human developmental processes. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Theoretical models of human development. Vol. 1 of Handbook of Child Psychology (5th ed., pp. 993-1028). New York: Wiley.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Neville, P. (1994). America’s children and families: An international perspective. In S. L. Kagan & B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America’s family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. ###). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Capizzano, J., Tout, K., & Adams, G. (2000). Child care patterns of school-age children with employed mothers. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/op41/occa41.html

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the after-school hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation.

CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

CTGV, Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1993). Anchored instruction and situated cognition revisited. Educational Technology, March, 52-67.

Clancy, K. (2001). Towards building a stronger 4-H “brand.” Paper presented at the National Association of Extension 4-HAgents Annual Conference, Bismarck, ND.

Coffman, J. (1999). Learning from logic models: An example of a family/school partnership program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/content/pubs/onlinepubs/logic.pdf

Costello, J., Barker, G., Pickens, L., Cassaniga, N., Merry, S., & Falcon, A. (2000). A self-study guide for managers and staff of primary support programs for young people (PS-30). Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Available on-line at http://www.chapin.uchicago.edu

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A., (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

61

http://www.chapin.uchicago.edu/

http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/op41/occa41.html


Extension Consortium for School-Age Child Care. (1993). Program development guide. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.

Family and Youth Services Bureau. (1997). Understanding youth development: Promoting positive pathways of growth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from the National Clearinghouse on Families and Youth Web site: http://www.ncfy.com/undyouth.htm

Fashola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness (Report #24). Washington, DC: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved from http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/

Ferrari, T. M., & Hartzell, L. B. (2002, October). Club within a club: Promoting 4-H clubs in a Boys & Girls Club setting. Poster session presented at the National Association of Extension 4-H Agents, Norfolk, VA.

Ferrari, T. M., & Hartzell, L. B. (2003). Building a collaboration for youth development: The “club-within-a-club.” Manuscript submitted for publication.

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (1999). Police chiefs say more government investments in kids are key to fighting crime: Survey findings. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fightcrime.org

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2001). More than two-thirds of public say boosting investments in kids is higher priority than tax cut. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fightcrime.org/

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2002). National law enforcement leadership survey. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fightcrime.org/

Gambone, M. A., & Arbreton, A. J. A. (1997). Safe havens: The contributions of youth organizations to healthy adolescent development. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Gannett, E., & Shortt, J. (2001). Making the case for after school. Leading the Way, 10-13. (A publication of United Way of Massachusetts Bay). Retrieved from http://www.uwmb.org/ltw/fall01/coverstory.htm

Galambos, N. L., & Maggs, J. L. (1991). Out-of-school care of young adolescents and self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 644-655.

Garbarino, J. (1982). Children and families in the social environment. New York: Aldine.

Gootman, J. (2000). After-school programs to promote child and adolescent development. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309071798/html/2.html

62

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309071798/html/2.html

http://www.uwmb.org/ltw/fall01/coverstory.htm

http://www.fightcrime.org/



http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/

http://www.ncfy.com/undyouth.htm


Grossman, J. B., Price, M. L., Fellerath, V., Jucovy, L. Z., Kotloff, L. J., Raley, R., & Walker, K. E. (2002). Multiple choices after school: Findings from the extended-service schools initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Hall, G., & Harvey, B. (2002). Building and sustaining citywide afterschool initiatives: Experiences of the Cross-Cities Network citywide afterschool initiatives. Wellesley, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time.

Harms, T., Jacobs, E. V., & White, D. R. (1996). School-Age Care Environment Rating Scale. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College.

Hartzell, L. B. (2001). The club within a club: A collaboration among Boys and Girls Clubs of Columbus and the Ohio State University 4-H Youth Development. Unpublished manuscript. (Available from the author at Boys & Girls Clubs of Columbus, Inc., 115 S. Gift St., Columbus, OH)

Harvey, B., & Shortt, J. (2001). Working together for children and families: A community’s guide to making the most of out-of-school time. Welleslely, MA: National Institute on Out-of-School Time. Retrieved from http://www.niost.org/MOSTguide.pdf

Hobbs, B. B. (1995). Final report of the Oregon school-age child care needs assessment project. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Extension. Retrieved from http://www.nncc.org/SACC/orsac.html

Hobbs, B. B. (1999). Increasing the 4-H participation of youth from high-risk environments. Journal of Extension, 37(4). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/rb1.html

Hobbs, B. B., & Chang, I. J. (1996). Identifying and meeting the school-age child care needs of rural families. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, Winter, 13-24.

Holland, A., & Andre, T. (1987). Participation in extracurricular activities in secondary school: What is known, what needs to be known? Review of Educational Research, 57, 437-460.

Horton, R. L., Hutchinson, S., Barkman, S. J., Machtmes, K., & Myers, H. (1999). Developing experientially based 4-H curriculum materials (4-H 897). Columbus: Ohio State University.

Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). A decade of results: The impact of the LA’s BEST after school enrichment program on subsequent student achievement and performance. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.lasbest.org/learn/uclaeval.pdf

Jackson, K., Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ferrari, T. M. (2002). Adolescents in Ohio: What are they doing? What could they be doing? Presentation at the Ohio Department of Education, Office of Early Childhood annual conference, November 3-5, Columbus, OH.

63

http://www.lasbest.org/learn/uclaeval.pdf

http://www.joe.org/joe/1999august/rb1.html

http://www.nncc.org/SACC/orsac.html

http://www.niost.org/MOSTguide.pdf


Kahne, J. Nagaoka, J., Brown, A., O’Brien, J., Quinn, T., & Thiede, K. (2001). Assessing after-school programs as contexts for youth development. Youth and Society, 32(4), 421-445.

Karns, J. T., & Stevens, G. L. (1995). Parental employment and rural school-age child care needs. Child and Youth Care Forum, 24(5), 315-324.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (2002). David A. Kolb on experiential learning. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm

Larner, M. (2000). Why should we care about after-school care? In N. Walker & M. Barratt (Eds.), Child care and education (Michigan Family Impact Seminars Briefing Report). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Children, Youth & Families. Retrieved from http://www.icyf.msu.edu/fiseminars.html

Larner, M. B., Zippiroli, L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). When school is out: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9(2), 4-20. Retrieved from http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=71875

Larson, R. (1994). Youth organizations, hobbies, and sports as developmental contexts. In R. K. Silbereisen & E. Todt (Eds.), Adolescence in context: The interplay of family, school, peers, and work in adjustment (pp. 46-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lave, J. (1988). The culture of acquisition and practice of understanding (Institute for Research on Learning Report No. IRL188-0007). Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research On Learning. See www.edbydesign.org/foundations/situated_learning.htm

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. See www.gwu.edu/~tip/lave.html for an overview of Situated Learning by Jean Lave.

Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71(2), 241-253.

Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 241-253.

Mancini, J., & Marek, L. I. (1998). Patterns of project survival and organizational support: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study (Publication Number 350-800). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-800/350-800.html

64

http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-800/350-800.html

http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/lave.html

http://www.edbydesign.org/foundations/situated_learning.htm

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=71875

http://www.icyf.msu.edu/fiseminars.html

http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-explrn.htm


Marczak, M., & Moreau, R. (2002). Out-of-school time hoopla: Why should we care? The Center, Summer 2002, 12-19. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota’s Center for 4-H Youth Development web site http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/Center/PDF/Center2002Whole.pdf

Marek, L. I., Mancini, J., & Brock, D. P. (1999). Continuity, success, and survival of community based projects: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study. (Publication Number 350-801). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-801/250-801.html

Marek, L. I., Mancini, J., Earthman, E., & Brock, D. P. (2003). Ongoing community-based program implementation, successes, and obstacles: The National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study (Publication Number 350-804). Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. Retrieved from http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-804/350-804.html

McLaughlin, M. W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Retrieved from the Public Education Network website http://www.publiceducation.org/download/pen23.pdf

Millar, A., Simeone, R. S., & Carnevale, J. T. (2001). Logic models: A systems tool for performance management. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 73-81.

Miller, B. M. (2001). The promise of after-school programs. Educational Leadership, 58(7), 6-12.

Miller, B. M., O’Connor, S., Sirignano, S. W., & Joshi, P. (1996). “I wish the kids didn’t watch so much TV: Out-of-school time in three low income communities. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child Care Project.

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2000). Making the most of out-of-school time. Wellesley, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.niost.org/Making%20an%20impact.html

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (2000). After-School Issues: Measuring what matters. Retrieved from

National Governor’s Association. (2002). Expanding learning: Extra learning opportunities in states. [On-line] http://www.nga.org/center/topics/1,1188,D_363,00.html

National School-Age Care Alliance. (1999). NSACA standards for quality school-age care. Retrieved from http://www.nsaca.org/standards_glance.htm

National Strategic Directions Team. (2001, April). The power of youth in a changing world: Jump at the chance (The National 4-H Strategic Plan). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.4hrevolution.org

65

http://www.4hrevolution.org/

http://www.nsaca.org/standards_glance.htm

http://www.nga.org/center/topics/1,1188,D_363,00.html

http://www.niost.org/Making%20an%20impact.html

http://www.niost.org/Making%20an%20impact.html

http://www.publiceducation.org/download/pen23.pdf




http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/Center/PDF/Center2002Whole.pdf


Newman, S. A., Fox, J. A., Flynn, E. A., & Christeson, W. (2000). America’s after-school choice: The prime time for juvenile crime, or youth enrichment and achievement. Washington, DC: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids.

Peterson, B., Gerhard, G., Hunter, K., Marek, L., Phillips, C. & Titcomb, A., (2001) National 4-H Impact Study. Washington, DC: USDA. Retrieved from http://www.4h-usa.org/Impact1.pdf

Pittman, K. (1991). Promoting youth development: Strengthening the role of youth-serving and community organizations. Washington, DC: Center for Youth Development and Policy Research, Academy for Educational Development.

Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2002). Policy commentary #1: Out-of-school research meets after-school policy. Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment.

Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., & Ferber, T. (2003). Policy commentary #2: High school after-school: What is it? What might it be? Why is it important? Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment.

Posner, J. K., & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65, 440-456.

Riley, D. (1992). Project manual: The SACC community assessment and development project. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Riley, D., Steinberg, J., Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing problem behaviors and raising academic performance in the nation’s youth: The impacts of 64 school-age child care programs in 15 states supported by the Cooperative Extension Service Youth at Risk initiative. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://www.nncc.org/SACC/wi.sacc.html

Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan. See www.gwu.edu/~tip/rogers.html for an overview of Experiential Learning by Carl Rogers.

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D. L. (1996). Quality of school-age child care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and parent perspectives. Child Development, 67, 2434-2445.

Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(4), 423-459.

Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis: Search Institute.

66

http://www.gwu.edu/~tip/rogers.html

http://www.nncc.org/SACC/wi.sacc.html

http://www.4h-usa.org/Impact1.pdf


Schinke, S. P., Orlandi, M. A., & Cole, K. C. (1992). Boys & Girls Clubs in public housing developments: Prevention services for youth at risk. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 118-128.

Seligson, M. E., Brown, C., Barnes-O’Connor, K. L., & Walker, G. C. (1999). Four commentaries: The policy climate for after-school programs. The Future of Children, 9(2), 135-150. Retrieved from http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=71945

Shortt, J. (2002). Out-of school time programs: At a critical juncture. In G. G. Noam & B. M. Miller (Eds.), New Directions for Youth Development (No. 94, pp. 119-123). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: An ecological analysis. Developmental Psychology, 22, 433-439.

Stevens, P. (2002). Talking out-of-school. The Center, (Summer), 6-11. Retrieved from University of Minnesota Center for Youth Development http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/Center/PDF/Center2002Whole.pdf

Stewart, R. (2001). Adolescent self-care: Reviewing the risks. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 82(2), 119-126.

Taylor-Powell, E. (2001, December). Logic model workbook (Part A and Part B). Retrieved April 2003, from University of Wisconsin-Extension-Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation Unit Web site http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/LMworkshopA.pdf and http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/LMworkshopB.pdf

Todd, C. (2001). Evaluation model for the Extension Cares Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares/evaluation.htm

Turner, C. L. (2002). Factors contributing to adolescents’ commitment to Adventure Central, a 4-H after-school program. Unpublished master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2001). Extension CARES . . . for America’s Children and Youth. Retrieved from http://www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares/evaluation.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2002). 4-H Youth Development facts in brief – 2002. Retrieved from http://www.4h-usa.org/4HFacts2002.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (1999a). National Household Education Survey (NHES). Retrieved from the National Center for Education Statistics website http://www.nces.ed.gov

67

http://www.nces.ed.gov/

http://www.4h-usa.org/4HFacts2002.pdf

http://www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares/evaluation.htm

http://www.reeusda.gov/extensioncares/evaluation.htm

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/LMworkshopB.pdf

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/LMworkshopA.pdf

http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/Center/PDF/Center2002Whole.pdf

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=71945


U.S. Department of Education. (1999b). Bringing education to after-school programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/After_School_Programs/Title.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2001). 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/21stcclc/

U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice. (1998). Safe and smart: Making after-school hours work for kids. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SafeandSmart/

U.S. Department of Education and U. S. Department of Justice. (2000). Working for children and families: Safe and smart after-school programs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/afterschool/

Vandell, D. L., & Pierce, K. M. (1999). Can after-school programs benefit children who live in high crime neighborhoods? N. L. Marshall (Chair). Children’s Out-0f-Schol Time: The next generation of research. Poster symposium conducted at the meeting for the Society of Research in Child Development.

Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. K. (1999). Conceptualization and measurement of children’s after-school environments. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Assessment of the environment across the lifespan (pp. 167-196). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Walker, J., Dunham, T., & Snyder, E. (1998). Clubs and groups in the social education of young people. The Center, Winter, 20-27. (Publication of the 4-H Center for Youth Development at the University of Minnesota). Retrieved March 2001, from http://www.fourh.umn.edu/educators/research/Center/Center1998.html

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 200-214.

Wright, S. K. B., & Bersamin, M. (2002). CYFAR philosophy. Retrieved from CYFAR website http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/cyfar/philosophy.htm

YMCA of the USA. (2001). After school for America’s teens: A national survey of teen attitudes and behaviors in the hours after school (Executive Summary). Chicago, IL: YMCA.

Zeldin, S., Day, T., & Matysik, G. (2000). Program and Activity Assessment Tool. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Department of 4-H Youth Development. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/4h/paat/

68

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/4h/paat/

http://www.reeusda.gov/4h/cyfar/philosophy.htm

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/afterschool/

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SafeandSmart

http://www.ed.gov/21stcclc/

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/After_School_Programs/Title.html

4-h afterschoolflorida4h.org/afterschool/doc/ferraripaper.doc · web viewthis logo communicates...

Documents