Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

21^st Century Community Learning Centers

OVERVIEW

The 21^st Century Community Learning Centers program was created by Congress to increase the availability of after-school programs across the U.S. The program provides funding for centers that offer a variety of after-school programs. Eligible school districts receive federal grants on a per-child basis for students attending an after-school program at a community learning center within the district. The Community learning centers are located within an elementary or middle school building and usually employ some of the school’s teachers to staff the after-school programs. School districts must offer at least four of 13 program-types, defined by the 21^st Century program, at their community learning centers. These activities include integrated education, health services, social services, recreational activities, cultural activities, literacy education, day care, telecommunications education, and technology education. An experimental evaluation of seven elementary school programs was conducted, but only the results of the first-year evaluation are available. Community learning centers had little impact on students’ academic outcomes. The program was effective in increasing parental involvement in the schools. Another evaluation found positive impacts on frequency of being tutored and number of afternoons spent watching television, but found no impacts on other behavioral outcomes, or on academic, social/emotional, or parental outcomes.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Middle and elementary school students

The community learning centers funded by the 21^st Century program vary across localities, but generally offer three types of activities: academic assistance to students, recreational activities, and cultural enrichment and interpersonal skills development. Usually, the first time-slot at a community learning center is used to give academic assistance to students; these sessions focus on giving homework help and generally last 45 to 60 minutes. After that, students most often engage in recreational activities, or cultural enrichment and interpersonal skills development sessions. Expenditures for the middle school programs were estimated to be around $1,000 per enrolled student for an academic school year.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Mullens, J., Gleason, P., James-Burdumy, S., Rosenberg, L., Pistorino, C., Silva, T., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., Heaviside, S., & Levy, D. (2003). When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, First-Year Findings. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., January 2003.

Evaluated population: Seven grantees (school districts) that operated centers serving elementary school students. In total, there were 1,000 students in the treatment or control groups. The sample was 28.2 percent Caucasian, 66.8 percent African-American, 1.8 percent Hispanic, 1.0 percent American Indian, 1.9 percent Asian, and 0.3 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. 71.4 percent of schools had at least half of their students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches.

Approach: To evaluate the elementary school programs, researchers selected districts which were considered most able to carry out an experimental design. The researchers note that this limits the generalizability of the findings. Within these seven districts, a total of 1,000 students were randomly assigned to either treatment programs or a control group. Researchers gathered data using student questionnaires, school records, parent questionnaires, and teacher questionnaires. These sources of data looked at academic performance, homework completion, behavior, feelings of safety, and personal and social development.

Results: Students in the community learning centers did not receive higher grades in reading or math than did students in the control condition; however, their social studies grades were significantly higher. Reading test scores of treatment students were not higher than those of students in the control condition. The program also had no impact on student self-reported completion of homework and teachers’ satisfaction with completed homework. Parents of elementary school students in the program were more likely to help their child with homework and attend school meetings than parents of students in the control condition.

The researchers noted problems with the implementation of the programs in the various centers. Low participation was common across centers, averaging less than two days a week, and students were found to have higher attendance rates on days where academic tutoring or cultural learning sessions were not being conducted.

Zief, S.G. (2005). A mixed-methods study of the impacts and processes of an after-school program for urban elementary youth. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Evaluated population: The sample was 102 students from an urban elementary school that serves low income students. Fifty-one percent of the students were female, and 75 percent received free or reduced price lunch. The sample was 91 percent Black, three percent Hispanic, two percent white, zero percent Asian or Indian, and three percent “other.”

Approach: Forty students were randomly selected to participate in the after-school program during the 2002-2003 school year. The other 62 served as controls. Data on attendance and achievement were collected from student records at the beginning and end of the school year. Parent, student, and teacher surveys were used to assess behaviors, activities, supervision and support, social/emotional outcomes, and parental outcomes, after the 2002-2003 school year, and again in winter of 2004, about six months after the program had ended.

Results: Students who were selected to participate in the program saw a tutor more frequently and spent time with friends after school less frequently, compared with students who were in the control group. Students participating in the program also watched television in the afternoon on fewer days than did controls, but there were no group differences in the number of hours of television watched per day. There were no impacts on the other aspects of supervision and support, or on other behavioral outcomes, which included substance use, homework, absences, and delinquency. There was also no impact on academic, social/emotional, or parental outcomes. The impacts that the program had on activities and behaviors had disappeared by the time of follow-up. There was a negative impact on perceived safety at follow-up, with parents of children who had participated in the program reporting more concern over their children’s safety than parents whose children had not been selected for the program, and children who had participated in the program reporting that they felt marginally less safe, compared with children who had not participated in the program.

One limitation of the evaluation is that students whose parents did not return the survey were more likely to be female and to come from more socioeconomically disadvantaged families.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References

KEYWORDS: Children (3-11), Adolescents (12-17) , Black/African American, Community-based, School-based, Urban, Cost, Elementary, After-School Program, Skills Training, Mentoring, Tutoring, Attendance, Academic Achievement/Grades, Academic Motivation/Self-Concept/Expectations/Engagement, Reading/Literacy, Mathematics, Social Skills/Life Skills, Self-Esteem/Self-Concept, Delinquency

Program information last updated 7/25/11.