Developing After-School Programs for Youth in High Risk Environments

Developing After-School Programs for Youth in High Risk Environments

Peter A. Witt
Dwayne Baker

*This paper originally appeared in: Witt, P. A., & Baker, D. A. (1997). Developing after-school programs for youth in high risk environments. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 68(9),18-20.

Youth in the United States have a lot of discretionary time, the misuse of which can lead to a variety of social and personal problems. After-school (as well as late-night, weekend, and summer) programs can be one means of providing more structured, better supervised, and more productive use of free time. In a recent National League of Cities survey, cities listed before- and after-school programs as the most pressing need for children 10-14 years of age, followed by a need for recreation activities, and programs designed to deal with delinquency and youth crime. This article outlines some of the substantive information about the need for after-school programs, studies that offer guidelines as to ideal program characteristics, and the need to move programs beyond simply child care to purposive prevention and intervention efforts.

Peter A. Witt is Professor and Head, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University. He is the Coordinator of the At-Risk Youth Recreation Consortium. Dwayne Baker is Visiting Instructor, Department of Recreation Management and Tourism, Arizona State University.

Address all correspondence to:

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences

Texas A&M University

MS 2261

College Station, TX 77843-2261

Phone: (409) 845-7324

FAX: (409) 845-0446

E-Mail: PWITT@RPTS.TAMU.EDU

The recent Carnegie Commission's Report, A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Non-School Hours (1992), indicated that youth in the United States have a lot of discretionary time. Unfortunately, the report also indicates that:

"Much of [this time] is unstructured, unsupervised, and unproductive for the young person. Only 60 percent of adolescents' waking hours are committed to such essentials as school, homework, eating, chores, or paid employment, while fully 40 percent are discretionary" (p. 10).

After-school (as well as late-night, weekend, and summer) programs can be one means of providing more structured, better supervised, and more productive use of free time. After-school programs are believed to help prevent some of the problems arising from the risks faced by youth (e.g., lack of home supervision during after-school hours, low family income, lack of positive adult role models and mentors, and lack of community opportunities) (NRPA, 1994; Witt & Crompton, 1996; Baker & Witt, 1996).

In many communities appropriate adult supervision does not exist to help guide the constructive use of the available discretionary time; community resources for the positive use of discretionary time do not appear to be available; and young adolescents do not appear to have developed the interests or skills that would enable them to make positive use of the available time. In fact, in many communities spending time on the streets or home-alone leads to undertaking a variety of problem behaviors which ultimately can lead to an increase in school dropouts, teen pregnancies, drug and alcohol abuse, gang involvement, and ultimately involvement with the juvenile justice system (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992).

These issues are probably the reason that in response to a recent survey by the National League of Cities of 800 cities from across the United States, before and after-school programs were seen as the most pressing need for children 10-14 years of age, followed by a need for recreation activities, and programs designed to deal with delinquency and youth crime. For children ages 15-18, programs to deal with delinquency and youth were listed as the most pressing need (Kyle, 1996). These results also point to the validity of the adage: "you can deal with the problem now, or deal with more serious issues later." Failure to create opportunities during the after-school hours for younger children can lead, in part, to the need to deal with issues of delinquency and youth crime later.

While the Carnegie report and the National League of Cities survey focused mainly on young adolescents, the issue of discretionary time use is no less severe for younger school-aged children, particularly for those children who receive little or no adult supervision after school and who live in neighborhoods that have few positive resources for involving youth in constructive alternatives for free-time utilization. Considerable concern has been expressed about children who are primarily involved in self-care ("latchkey children") after school, and thus go home or to a friend's house and are not supervised by an adult or older sibling (Steinberg, 1986).

The Bureau of the Census (1994) estimates that approximately 1.6 million 5 to 14 year olds were in self-care for a significant portion of the day (usually after school). Self-care has been associated with several negative outcomes. Self-care children are more lonely (Quay, 1992), anxious, headstrong, and likely to have peer conflicts (Vandell & Ramanan, 1991), less likely to complete their homework (Long & Long, 1989), and have poorer emotional well-being (Vandell, et al, 1995) than children who either have adult care after school or attend structured, supervised after-school programs. Self-care children tend to be more involved with peers, have more contact with deviant peers, and boys have poorer parent-adolescent relations (Galambos & Maggs, 1991). Steinberg (1986) found that children who "hang out" after school were most susceptible to peer pressure, followed by those children who went to a friend's house, followed by those children who went home.

At the other end of the spectrum, Posner and Vandell (1994) found that after-school program participants watched less television and spent more time in academic activities and enrichment lessons. They suggested that these factors were associated with improved academic and conduct grades, peer relations, and emotional adjustment.

The provision of safe, positive environments has been a major goal of many after-school programs. In addition, depending on the program, goals have included efforts to reduce problem behaviors exhibited by participants, expose children to positive role models, and enable children to interact with peers in a positive and appropriate manner. In some cases, especially when after-school programs are administered in cooperation with the schools or organized at school sites, programs contain an academic learning component that either helps children complete homework assignments, or extends the school day by offering additional opportunities for children to be involved in academic-oriented learning opportunities (Witt & Crompton, 1996).

Because of the critical importance of children finishing school, there is interest in increasing the amount of time that children are involved in educational activities beyond hours already devoted to the school day. The lack of scholastic support and/or role models in the homes of many inner-city youth (National Research Council, 1993) provides further impetus for the development of after-school programs coordinated through the joint efforts of park and recreation, school, and other community agencies. It would be expected that involvement in these types of programs would increase school attendance and grades, and in the long term, many of these programs hope that their efforts will decrease the number of children dropping out of school at an older age.

Areas where there is high level of parental unemployment and low in per capita income are especially critical for developing after-school program services. Poverty and factors associated with poverty have a pervasively negative effect on child adaptation (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993). Moreover, the negative effects of poverty are cumulative and therefore increase as the child gets older. Some of the negative effects associated with living in poverty include: violent crime and feelings of hopelessness and despair (McLoyd & Wilson, 1992; Schorr, 1992). Poor children are also at higher risk for low self-confidence, conduct problems, depression, peer conflict, lack of immunization, physical abuse, neglect, and unintended injury (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992; McLoyd & Wilson, 1992). In addition, exposure to violence compounds the risks associated with academic failure and poverty. Violence exposure tends to be associated with increased levels of fear, anxiety, and depression (Richters & Martinez, 1993). Poverty increases the probability of students dropping out of school, with high school drop-out rates 300% higher among poor youth (Lerner, 1995).

In one of the few studies reported about the impact of after-school programs for children from high risk environments, Posner and Vandell (1994) report positive impacts on academic achievement and social adjustment for those attending formal after-school programs in comparison to other types of after-school care, (e.g., mother-care, self-care, or supervision by another adult).

Children in formal programs spent more time in academic activities and enrichment lessons and less time watching TV and playing outside unsupervised than other children. They also spent more time doing activities with peers and adults and less time with siblings than did other children. The time that children spent in these activities was correlated with their academic and conduct grades, peer relations, and emotional adjustment. (Posner & Vandell, 1994, p. 440)

The study was conducted at one point in time with the assumption that differences in the target variables were due to the type of involvement the child had after school.

A recent study by Witt and Baker (1996) that studied differences between program participants and non-participants showed the potential for an after-school program with significant content aimed at improving academic skills to impact school grades. Comparison of program participants and non-participants (grades three to six) indicated significant differences in math, science, reading and language grades at the end of the year. Differences in general self-esteem were also noted. For all significant variables, students participating more often in the after-school program appeared to show greater impact. Given that the majority of the program leaders in these programs were teachers, students seem to be benefiting from scholastic role models that may be less available in their homes or in their communities. Based on observations and discussions with teachers and program leaders, the focus of this after-school program was more than just an extended school day. Most of the program leaders tried to use the after-school activities to provide quality contact time and highlight the linkage between fun and learning. In the words of one teacher, "using play and fun to provide increased opportunity for success in school does wonders". The results of this study tend to support her premise. Further studies are being taken comparing programs that range from placing significant emphasis on academic and other learning objectives to those that are designed more as child care.

The provision of caring adult leaders and recreation-based activities planned as purposive interventions are critical program elements (Pizor, 1992). Even when programs have a high degree of academic content, recreation activities provide an important "hook" that attracts children to become involved. Presenting activities in a recreational mode helps distinguish the after-school period as just more structured classroom learning tacked onto the end of the day. The existence of caring adults, appropriate controls against deviant behavior, and the absence of negative peer influences, among other program elements, have been cited as contributing to positive learning experiences for children (Jessor, 1992). After-school programs can make an important contribution by offering program elements (protective factors) that help mediate between risks that are inherent in the child's environment and the consequences that may occur as a result of subsequent problems (Jessor, 1992; Werner & Smith, 1992). Organizations like Boy/Girl Scouts, 4-H, and Boys' and Girls' Clubs have long recognized the value of recreation activities as a setting through which instrumental goals can be accomplished (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992).

Helping children and youth make more constructive use of the hours after school presents a significant challenge and public policy issue. Schools, park and recreation departments, and other youth serving agencies will need to make a renewed commitment to mounting meaningful programs for all children and youth, elementary through high school age. Developing programs that do more than supply childcare is particularly challenging. Fulfilling this need will require additional investments of tax dollars as well as contributions from the private sector. The needs are too great to ignore this issue.

References

Baker, D., & Witt, P. A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school programs. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 60-81.

Battle, J. (1992). Culture-free self-esteem inventories (2nd Edition). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1992). A matter of time: Risks and opportunities in the nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as a process. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), pp. 517-528.

Galambos, N. L. & Maggs, J. L. (1991). Children in self-care: Figures, facts, and fiction. In J. V. Lerner & N. L. Galambos (Eds.), Employed mothers and their children, pp. 131-157. New York: Garland.

Jessor, R. (1992). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. In D. E. Rogers & E. Ginzberg (Eds.), Adolescents at Risk: Medical and Social Perspectives. Boulder: Westview Press.

Kyle, J. E. (May 27, 1996). Addressing the needs of youth in America's cities and towns. American Cities Weekly.

Lerner, R. M.(1995). America's youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Long, L. & Long, T. J. (1989). Latchkey adolescents: How administrators can respond to their needs. NASSP Bulletin, 73(514), pp. 102-108.

Marsh, H. (1990a). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), pp. 646-656.

McLoyd, V. C. & Wilson, L. (1992). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and child mental health. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy, pp. 105-135. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

National Recreation and Park Association. (1994). Beyond fun and games: Emerging roles of public recreation. Arlington, VA.: National Recreation and Park Association.

National Research Council. (1993). Losing Generations: Adolescents in high-risk settings. Washington, DC.: National Academy Press.

Pizor, A. G. (1992). Preventing delinquency: An assessment of park and recreation actions. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

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, pp. 440-456.

Quay, L. (1992). Personal and family effects on loneliness. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13(1), pp. 97-110.

Richters, J. E. & Martinez, P. E. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and children's chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), pp. 609-627.

Schorr, L. B. (1992). Effective programs for children growing up in concentrated poverty. In A. C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy, pp. 260-281. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: An ecological analysis. Developmental Psychology, 22(4), 433-439.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992). Census of population and housing: Summary tape file 3A, 1990. (CD90-3A) (CD-ROM). Washington, DC., September, 1992.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1994). Who's minding the kids?, Statistical brief. Washington, DC.

Vandell, D. L., Posner, J., Shumow, L., & Kang, K. (1995). Concurrent, short-term and long-term effects of self-care. Poster presented at the biennial meeting for the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN, March.

Vandell, D. L. & Ramanan, J. (1991). Children of the national longitudinal survey of youth: choices in after-school care and child development. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), pp. 637-643.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Witt, P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1996). Recreation programs that

work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.