Chapter 16

After School as a Context for Prosocial Development

Lisa M. DeBellis, Christopher E. Smith, and Anne-Marie E. Hoxie

Our after-school program has not only had a positive impact on the kids. It’s had an impact on the staff members, the families, and the community. During the school day, the kids don’t get the chance to get involved in activities that help their community. Here, they do. Our program’s trademark is that we believe we can make a difference.

—Helena Yordan, Program Coordinator of the Committee for Hispanic Children & Families After-School Program at PS/MS 279 in the Bronx, New York

Numerous studies have shown the positive impacts that after-school programs have on children and youth. Oftentimes, they expose children and youth to a range of new and different activities in which they can excel (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007). For many children who would otherwise be left unsupervised after the school day ends, after-school programs provide a vital service in keeping kids safe and happy. In fact, researchers have shown that children and youth who are left unsupervised after school are at risk for engaging in drug use and exhibiting both externalizing and internalizing behaviors, such as aggression and depressive symptoms (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Meece, 1999; Vandell, Reisner, & Pierce, 2007). Participation in structured activities outside of school has also been associated with decreased likelihood of high school dropout and criminal activity and arrest in young adulthood, even for youth who displayed behaviors or characteristics that categorized them as at-risk for such negative and developmentally harmful outcomes (Mahoney, 2000). In addition, many studies have shown that participation in after-school programs helps support participants’ academic performance (e.g., Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010; Lauer et al., 2006; Miller, 2005; Reisner, White, Russell, & Birmingham, 2004; Russell, Mielke, Miller, & Johnson, 2007).

Many research studies have also shown that after-school programs provide a place for children and youth to develop positive relationships with peers and adults, serve their communities, and improve their attitudes about themselves and others, thereby supporting their prosocial development (Arbreton, Bradshaw, Sheldon, & Pepper, 2009; Arbreton, Sheldon, & Herrera, 2005; Lerner, Lerner, & colleagues, 2009; Reisner et al., 2004). In particular, a recent meta-analysis showed that participation in after-school programs helped children and youth build self-confidence and self-esteem, promoted engagement in positive social behaviors, and reduced the occurrence of negative behaviors (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010). In this chapter of the handbook, the authors will present research to support the many benefits that participation in after-school programs has on children and youth, with a particular emphasis on the research supporting how after-school programs serve as ideal contexts for the prosocial development of children and youth. Specifically, we will review the design of and research on three successful and well-established after-school initiatives, namely The After-School Corporation’s (TASC’s) model of after-school programming, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and 4-H Clubs.

After-school programs provide an ideal context for children and youth’s prosocial development. In response to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, many school leaders and educators have drastically reduced the amount of time children and youth spend in important activities, such as recess or play, the arts, music, and physical education (Grey, 2009; Pederson, 2007). They have done this in order to increase the amount of instructional time spent on the core subject areas, specifically mathematics and English language arts, in efforts for children and youth to perform well on high-stakes standardized assessments, the results of which are often tied to school funding (Grey, 2009; Pederson, 2007). Oftentimes, the types of activities that are getting cut from school schedules are the same activities that not only help children to grow intellectually but also allow them to develop positive relationships with peers and adults and practice positive social behaviors (see examples in Carlson et al., 2008; Deasy, 2002; Ginsburg, 2007). In fact, studies have shown that prosocial behaviors are not abundantly observed in traditional classroom settings (Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1983), suggesting that the classroom may not be the best place to promote children and youth’s prosocial development (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). Oftentimes, after-school programs serve as settings where children and youth get the opportunities to participate in important activities and lessons that their schools are cutting out of their schedules. In fact, throughout their history, after-school programs have often focused on educating the “whole child” (Halpern, 2002).

History of After-School Programming

The after-school hours have often been considered a time of “risk or opportunity” for children and youth (Hofferth, 1995, p. 1); for those children and youth who have somewhere to go and something productive to do, the after-school hours present them with opportunities for positive development. For those children and youth who are left unsupervised without a place to go or something productive to do, the after-school hours present them with an opportunity to engage in risky or undesirable behaviors. The underpinnings of after-school programs actually emerged in the late 1800s with the creation of boys clubs, which were usually housed in churches or other community buildings (Halpern, 2002). In large part, these clubs gave youth a place to go after education laws went into effect in the early 1900s, which led to an increase in school participation rates and a decrease in child labor rates (Halpern, 2002). The first actual after-school programs to emerge were founded by people who wanted to keep kids safe from the potential dangers of hanging around on the streets of big cities (Halpern, 2002). Although much has changed since those early days, after-school programs often still provide children and youth with a safe place to go after they are dismissed from school; however, many of them today have more ambitious and diverse goals, including increasing participants’ academic achievement, building their social competencies, providing them with career and job training, and improving their attitudes about themselves, school, and others, to name a few.

In 1994, the federal government created 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) to allow for more community use of schools (James-Burdumy et al., 2005). In 1998, the focus of the funding stream specifically became dedicated to school-based after-school programs around the nation. Today, the 21st CCLC is the only federal funding stream dedicated to after-school programming in the United States, and it serves just under two million children and youth nationwide (Afterschool Alliance, 2010a). The 21st CCLC programs offer academic, artistic, and cultural enrichment opportunities and activities to children and youth in grades K–12 and their families when school is not in session. These programs currently operate in over nine thousand public schools or community centers across the nation (Afterschool Alliance, 2010a). Although this may seem like a large number of children and youth being served, many children and youth are still left without a place to go after school. Estimates are that approximately fourteen million children and youth in the United States do not have adult supervision after they are dismissed from school (Blank, 2005). The Afterschool Alliance recently conducted a national household survey of 29,754 families across the country. The results of the survey revealed that there are not nearly enough programs to support the children, youth, and families who need them. In particular, parents of the 18.5 million children and youth who were not currently participating in an after-school program (or 38 percent) said they would enroll their child in an after-school program if it were available to them (Afterschool Alliance, 2010b).

After-school programs vary widely in their range of programming and activities offered (Halpern, 2002). The 21st CCLC after-school programs are not exceptions to this. Overall, the 21st CCLC after-school programs in New York State alone focus on a variety of different activities and services. For example, according to a report from Learning Point Associates (Naftzger et al., 2007), 85 percent of the 21st CCLC after-school program coordinators from New York State reported that they spent time on recreation at their program, while 81 percent reported time spent on academic enrichment; 38 percent reported time spent on drug awareness, violence prevention, and/or character education; 34 percent reported time spent on youth leadership activities; 30 percent reported time spent on community service and service learning projects; and 21 percent reported time spent on mentoring. Nationwide, tutoring and homework help, academic enrichment, and recreation are the most common services currently offered to children and youth in the 21st CCLC–funded after-school programs (Afterschool Alliance, 2010a).

Benefits of After-School Participation

Since the 1990s, great interest has been placed on learning if after-school programs help students to improve academically (Halpern, 2002). During that time, many began to wonder particularly if after-school programs could help to lessen the achievement gap between high and low socioeconomic status children (Halpern, 2002). Although there has been variability in the findings across different studies regarding the potential academic benefits of after-school participation, many studies have shown that high-quality programs (with specific features, which will be discussed) do in fact help children and youth to improve in their academic performance. Specifically, research has consistently shown that when participants attended programs that offered academic and social activities, participants made the biggest improvements in achievement, providing evidence that both academic and social activities are important for after-school programs that look to help students improve academically (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Lauer et al., 2006; Redd, Brooks, & McGarvey, 2002).

A recent meta-analysis (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010) investigated the impacts of after-school programs that promoted personal and social skills such as self-awareness, social relationships, and responsible decision making on social and academic outcomes. There were over seventy after-school programs and forty-nine prior reports represented in this study (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010). The researchers chose to include only prior studies of after-school programs for children and youth between the ages of five and eighteen whose missions included promoting personal and social development. The specific impacts that were investigated included impacts on feelings and attitudes about themselves and toward their schools, school performance, and indicators of behavioral adjustment. Behavioral adjustment indicators included both the presence of positive behaviors and the avoidance of negative behaviors, including the following: presence of effective expressions of feelings, positive interactions with others, cooperation, leadership, and assertiveness in social contexts, and reduction or avoidance of noncompliance, aggression, delinquent acts, rebelliousness, and conduct problems (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010).

The researchers also investigated whether or not evidence-based approaches to the promotion of social-emotional development were employed by programs and how this affected outcomes (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010). In particular, the researchers coded the programs according to the presence or absence of the following four evidence-based approaches: (1) sequence (whether programs used a sequenced set of activities to teach skills); (2) active (whether the program used active learning to teach skills); (3) focus (whether the program had a specific component dedicated to personal or social skills); and (4) explicitness (whether the program targeted the development of specific personal or social skills) (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010). The results showed that after-school programs positively affected students’ feelings and attitudes toward themselves and their schools, promoted positive social behavior and reduced problem behavior, and boosted their school performance. These results held true only for participants who attended programs that used the four evidence-based approaches discussed previously. This research suggests that programs with distinct features that target the social-emotional development of participants are able to help students gain important benefits from after-school activities, including both social and academic benefits (Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Durlak et al., 2010).

As previously discussed, after-school programs vary in their goals, missions, and activities. Although many programs (and the evaluations of those programs) focus on participants’ academic performance, others also aim to contribute to participants’ prosocial development. Three such after-school initiatives that have proven to be particularly effective in contributing to participants’ prosocial development include TASC-model after-school programs, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and 4-H Clubs. The remainder of this chapter will focus on describing how each of these initiatives works to impact participants’ prosocial development and will synthesize the research illustrating their successes in this important endeavor.

The After-School Corporation (TASC)

The After-School Corporation was founded in 1998 to make after-school programs accessible to all children, especially for disadvantaged youth who often do not have the same opportunities available to them after school, such as dance classes, music lessons, and private tutoring. Thus TASC sought to form partnerships between community-based organizations and public schools to offer after-school programs that give disadvantaged youth access to these types of opportunities. TASC-model after-school programs are more than drop-in clubs or child-care centers. TASC ensures that the programs provide youth with consistent, high-quality activities to promote their social and academic growth. Building on the positive impacts that are evident in their after-school programs, TASC is now seeking to reform education by insisting that the school day include these types of high-quality activities and learning experiences. Politicians and educational reform leaders are all speaking of extending our students’ school days and years. TASC is currently working to ensure that the best after-school practices are infused in these efforts and has built their Expanded Learning Time initiative upon this premise. Rather than allowing school days to be extended by providing more of the same types of classroom activities during the extended hours, TASC advocates for schools to join with community partners to provide more enriching activities that have been shown to foster positive social and academic development in youth (The After-School Corporation, 2011).

Beginning in 1998, TASC built a network of after-school programs that all share common features. Program activities are provided in partnership between a school and a community-based organization, such as the YMCA or local settlement houses. Activities are available to all children in the school free of charge, and children who enroll are expected to attend from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. each day that school is in session. Programs offer a range of activities, from academic enrichment activities such as literacy-based projects to homework help. Programs also provide opportunities for youth to participate in various art-based activities, such as theater, dance, visual arts, and music, as well as recreational activities. Most programs make social development and community engagement a key focus in all of these activities. For example, some programs have offered activities meant to encourage positive nutritional choices among youth while incorporating an element of community activism. In one program specifically, children learned about the importance of healthy eating habits and worked with their community to encourage local bodegas to offer more nutritional choices such as fruit and skim milk.

TASC-model after-school programs are meant to enhance students’ social and academic learning experiences. By offering the enriching types of activities that are often the first to be eliminated by school budget cuts, such as arts and music activities, TASC-model after-school programs reinforce youths’ academic development by connecting their activities to what students are learning about during the school day. Students in TASC-model after-school programs are often not exposed to these activities outside of their program. These novel activities create opportunities for youth to develop new interests while engaging in positive interactions with peers and adult staff members, which may benefit youth while in school.

TASC-model after-school programs are staffed by a blend of school day administrators, teachers, youth workers, activity specialists, and sometimes social work professionals. Programs often employ staff members from the students’ communities, giving them an advantage in understanding issues that students may face day to day outside of the school building. Typically, after-school staff members, referred to as youth workers, are younger than the teachers that students work with during the school day. By encouraging interactions between youth workers and students, programs can foster close, trusting, and mentoring relationships. This staffing structure also makes the program more approachable for parents, who sometimes feel intimidated by their students’ school due to their own negative educational experiences, undocumented immigrant status, or other barriers.

Since their inception, TASC-model after-school programs have been studied extensively by Policy Studies Associates (PSA; e.g., Reisner et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2007). The firm provided evaluation services to TASC to help the organization make informed decisions on program services, as well as to document how TASC has impacted schools and youth. In both studies of TASC (Reisner et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2007), PSA examined the academic and prosocial outcomes of youth. Regarding academic outcomes, the evaluations demonstrated that students in TASC-model after-school programs improved in student achievement as evidenced by standardized test score gains and improved school attendance rates (Reisner et al., 2004; Russell et al., 2007). The results of the evaluation by Reisner and colleagues (2004) showed that third- through eighth-grade participants in TASC-model programs (N = 5,543) had greater gains in their math standardized scores than matched nonparticipants, specifically with an effect size of .13 for one year of program participation and .79 for two years of program participation. In addition, there is evidence that participation in TASC-model after-school programs has long-lasting positive benefits for participants. Russell and colleagues (2007) conducted a follow-up study with former participants to examine whether youth experiences in TASC-model after-school programs during the middle school grades were associated with positive educational outcomes in high school. The results of the study showed that former TASC participants (N = 2,390) had significantly higher school attendance rates in the ninth grade than nonparticipants, with a demonstrated effect size of .26 (Russell et al., 2007). The results of this study showed that the academic benefits of attending TASC-model after-school programs in middle school can last well into students’ high school years (Russell et al., 2007).

PSA’s evaluation of TASC-model after-school programs also examined the implementation of activities that foster prosocial development and how participation in these activities impacted participants’ social outcomes. In the first few years of the initiative, TASC-model after-school programs increased the amount of activities that centered on youth working together as a group, such as peer discussion, conflict resolution, and life skills instruction (Reisner et al., 2004). As previously discussed, schools are often limited in providing opportunities for student learning outside of the core subject areas, such as opportunities to have peer discussion and teach students about life skills. Programs fill this gap by providing youth opportunities to positively engage with their peers and encouraging positive social interactions between youth and staff members. In fact, Kahne and colleagues (2001) reported that adolescents report having more positive interactions with after-school staff members than they do with their classroom teachers. Specifically, inner-city African-American boys described their schools as notably less supportive than their after-school programs (Kahne et al., 2001). Furthermore, supportive relationships with after-school staff members are particularly important for youth who have detached relationships with their parents (Mahoney, Schweder, & Stattin, 2002). Youth who participate in after-school activities are less likely to have symptoms of depression, especially when youth deem a group leader at their after-school program particularly supportive (Mahoney et al., 2002).

In PSA’s evaluation of TASC-model after-school programs, students reported that their after-school programs provided them with a positive climate in which they could develop positive relationships with their peers and adult staff members (Reisner et al., 2004). Deeper examination of TASC-model after-school programs showed that many middle school programs made explicit efforts to promote positive relationships between the staff members and the youth (Russell et al., 2007). In middle school programs that offered team-oriented activities, where staff established clear expectations for their interactions, youth were most likely to show positive peer interactions (Russell et al., 2007). Students also reported that they held a high level of trust for the staff members at their programs, and this was evident in the evaluators’ observations of after-school program activities, in which staff modeled active listening skills and promoted positive behaviors while encouraging students’ skill development (Russell et al., 2007). The opportunities that TASC-model after-school programs provide for positive interactions with peers and adults are very important because it is during these types of interactions that children and youth are able to practice and experience cooperation, mutuality, and reciprocity, which contribute to their prosocial development (Eisenberg et al., 2006).

Boys and Girls Clubs of America

Like TASC-model after-school programs, Boys and Girls Clubs of America have also provided children and youth with a safe place to learn and grow outside of school in the company of supportive adults. The first club opened over 150 years ago. Today, clubs serve approximately 4.2 million children and youth between the ages of six and eighteen in four thousand clubs around the country (Boys and Girls Clubs of America, n.d., Facts and Figures). The mission of the initiative is to enable young people, especially those who are disadvantaged, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens (Arbreton et al., 2009). Typically, clubs serve ethnically and racially diverse children and youth from mostly low-income backgrounds (Arbreton et al., 2009). To achieve their mission, Boys and Girls Clubs offer a variety of programs to children and youth that aim to do the following: (1) build their character and leadership skills; (2) help them to succeed in their academics and explore different career fields; (3) develop healthy habits and life skills; (4) foster interest, engagement, and appreciation for the arts; and (5) provide them with the opportunity to play sports, stay fit, and socialize in positive ways with their peers (Boys and Girls Clubs of America, n.d., What We Do).

Many studies have shown the positive effects that participation in Boys and Girls Clubs has on children and youth, including improved academic performance and attitudes towards school, reduction of risky or delinquent behaviors, giving children and youth increased access to technology, and helping them to develop and reach career goals (for a synthesis of this research, see Arbreton et al., 2005). In 2005, researchers from Public/Private Ventures began a longitudinal study examining the effects of participation in Boys and Girls Clubs on several aspects of youth development (Arbreton et al., 2009). Unlike studies that came before, the goal of this study was to understand the effects of the “whole club experience” on children and youth as opposed to focusing on specific outcomes separately (Arbreton et al., 2009, p. ii).

Over four hundred seventh- and eighth-grade participants from ten clubs across the country took part in the study. Most participants were black or Hispanic, and over 70 percent received free or reduced-price lunch at school (Arbreton et al., 2009). The researchers followed participants over a two-and-a-half-year period, through their transition into high school. The transition into high school is commonly considered a tumultuous time for adolescents, and so effects of participation during this period were of particular interest to the researchers. For this age group specifically, Boys and Girls Clubs typically emphasize the importance of offering a breadth of activities, opportunities for youth leadership, a focus on positive relationships between youth and staff members, and a space and time for teens to socialize and relax informally (Arbreton et al., 2009).

The researchers surveyed participants twice over the course of the study. The researchers also reviewed participants’ club attendance records, and they interviewed several participants and their club staff members (Arbreton et al., 2009). Specifically, the researchers looked to answer how club participation may have affected youth in the following three outcome categories: good character and citizenship, academic success, and healthy lifestyles (Arbreton et al., 2009). Regarding academic outcomes, the researchers found that participation in clubs was associated with significantly fewer unexcused absences and a greater sense of effort and confidence toward schoolwork. Furthermore, the researchers found significant participant effects for reduced risk of drug use, alcohol, cigarettes, and engaging in sexual intercourse (Arbreton et al., 2009). For the remainder of this discussion, we will focus on the good character and citizenship outcomes, as these outcomes most readily relate to participants’ prosocial development.

The researchers included several questions on surveys and interview protocols pertaining to good character and citizenship outcomes, which are correlates of prosocial behaviors, including questions about participants’ display of fairness, integrity, open-mindedness, social competence, negative problem solving and positive conflict resolution, aggression, and shyness (Arbreton et al., 2009). Over the two-and-a-half-year period, Boys and Girls Club participants showed improvements in a number of these outcomes, including significant decreases in their levels of both shyness and aggression (Arbreton et al., 2009). They also showed significant improvements in integrity (defined as knowing right from wrong), engagement in community service projects, and leadership. Furthermore, 91 percent of participants who were surveyed in the study reported that they had opportunities to cooperate with peers at their clubs, and 91 percent reported feeling like they belonged at their club (Arbreton et al., 2009).

In interviews with staff members, the researchers asked how the clubs specifically contributed to these positive results regarding character and citizenship (Arbreton et al., 2009). Most staff members reported that they contributed to youth’s positive development by giving them attention and providing them with opportunities to learn in both formal and informal ways (Arbreton et al., 2009). Similarly, participants believed that adult staff members were very supportive of them and found the staff members to contribute significantly to their development of good character and citizenship. During interviews by the researchers, staff members and participants reported that youth learned about a variety of important things at their clubs, including respecting others, collaboration and sportsmanship, listening to others, and being open-minded. Another recurring theme that emerged from the interviews included how staff members taught participants how to take responsibility for themselves and their actions and how to have self-confidence. The participants discussed how they learned about these things in a variety of ways, including specific activities offered at the clubs, informal conversations with staff members, and watching staff members themselves model positive behaviors (Arbreton et al., 2009). As shown in this study, after-school staff members play a vital role in the benefits participants receive. In supportive and structured after-school programs, mentoring in particular has been shown to be an important aspect of the program design in supporting positive social and academic outcomes (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002).

4-H Clubs

Another out-of-school initiative that has been shown to influence the prosocial development of children and youth is 4-H Clubs. 4-H is the nation’s largest youth development organization, with more than six million youth participating across the country (4-H, n.d., Get Involved). The first program was established in 1902, and their mission has evolved over time to help youth learn leadership skills and become more proactive in their communities. Youth from all parts of the country and across the world are served, and they rely on adult volunteers and mentors to implement their programming (4-H, n.d., History).

The national 4-H curriculum has three different concentrations: science, healthy living, and citizenship. Programs that implement the citizenship curriculum aim to engage youth in their communities and help them build decision-making skills and civic knowledge. Members participate in citizenship projects to help them accomplish these goals, and this programming is delivered through clubs, camps, and in-school and after-school services (4-H, n.d., Curriculum). One way that 4-H has tried to increase citizenship is through community service learning projects. Through these projects, which range from 4-H youth reading to younger children in their neighborhoods, to planting flowers near their schools, to maintaining their local parks and recreational centers, youth actively participate in service experiences that provide a direct benefit for the needs of their community. They are also given time to reflect upon their experiences and talk with their peers, which serves as a great way to connect academics and character education (Phelps & Kotrlik, 2007).

The Institute for Applied Research in Youth Development started the 4-H study of positive youth development in the 2002/3 school year (Lerner et al., 2009). This study employed a longitudinal sequential design starting with fifth-grade students, and their most recent report includes findings from the sixth wave of data collection, when the original sample had reached the tenth grade. In this report, both cross-sectional (N = 2,371) and longitudinal (N = 797) findings were presented, and 4-H participants were compared to peers in a matched comparison group who chose their levels of participation in other out-of-school programs. The cross-sectional sample of tenth graders had significantly higher scores than their peers on measures of positive youth development and contributions to others and their community. The longitudinal 4-H group also reported significantly higher levels of contribution to others and their community than their peers. In addition, the longitudinal 4-H sample scored significantly higher than their peers on a measure of civic identity and engagement, which includes items that assess participants’ civic duty, civic helping (time spent helping others in informal settings), and civic activities (time spent in formal activities giving back to others). The evaluators attributed these differences, in large part, to the developmental asset building that goes on in these programs. Prior research has shown that effective youth development organizations foster positive relationships between youth and adults, and, on average, 4-H participants reported having a significantly higher number of mentors than their counterparts (Lerner et al., 2009).

Research derived from this study was used to learn more about the positive youth development and prosocial behavior that results from participation in these programs. Lerner and colleagues (2005) used data from the first wave of data collection to provide empirical evidence for the 5-C model of positive youth development. Based on literature reviews and the experiences of practitioners, researchers have long used this model to conceptualize positive youth development, consisting namely of (1) competence, defined as having a positive view of one’s actions in specific areas; (2) confidence, defined as having an internal sense of positive self-worth and self-efficacy; (3) connection, defined as having positive bonds with people and institutions; (4) character, defined as having respect for societal and cultural norms; and (5) caring (Jelicic, Bobek, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2007; Lerner et al., 2009). Researchers have theorized that the presence of the five Cs in an adolescent leads to the emergence of a sixth C, contribution, which involves youth contributing positively to themselves, their families, and their communities (Lerner et al., 2005). This theory has been tested with data from the 4-H study. Using the first two waves of data, Jelicic and colleagues (2007) assessed whether fifth-grade scores on positive youth development covaried across time with measures of community contribution. Community contribution was measured as a composite of twelve items divided into the following four subsets: leadership, service, helping, and ideology. The authors found that positive youth development scores in grade 5 predicted contribution in grade 6 (Jelicic et al., 2007). Thus, participation in programs such as 4-H, which promote positive youth development, has been empirically tested and correlated with youth making more community contributions. Researchers have therefore hypothesized that the availability of activities that support the five Cs help to guide youth toward making meaningful and positive contributions to society (Lerner et al., 2009). Youth development programs like 4-H often provide the best opportunity for younger youth to connect to and contribute to their communities, thus contributing to their prosocial development.

Researchers have also examined the developmental trajectories of 4-H participants. Lewin-Bizan and colleagues (2010) sought to identify trajectories in positive youth development and contribution across six waves of data collected for the 4-H study. Overall, the authors found four trajectories for positive youth development, and the majority of 4-H participants (67.3 percent) clustered into the two highest-trajectory groups. For contribution, four trajectories were also found, and the majority of participants (79.5 percent) clustered in the two moderately high trajectory groups. Lerner and colleagues (2009) compared the trajectories for positive youth development and contribution of 4-H participants to those of youth in other out-of-school-time programs. Overall, youth who had participated in 4-H at one point throughout the fifth- to ninth-grade period were significantly more likely to have high trajectories for positive youth development and contribution. Youth who participated in 4-H for at least one year were over two times more likely than their peers to be in the highest contribution trajectory (Lerner et al., 2009). While youth who participated in 4-H during middle and/or high school appear to be on a healthy developmental trajectory, there are multiple contextual influences that can affect these pathways. Using the first and third wave of 4-H data, Urban, Lewin-Bizan, and Lerner (2009) examined whether neighborhood assets moderated the relationship between extracurricular activity involvement and positive and negative developmental outcomes. Overall, researchers found that for girls living in low-asset neighborhoods and for boys living in high-asset neighborhoods, low to moderate levels of activity involvement predicted increases in the five Cs (Urban, Lewin-Bizan, & Lerner, 2009). While more research needs to be conducted on the relationships between activity involvement, gender, and neighborhood quality, these studies provide evidence that positive prosocial outcomes emerge from 4-H participation.

Because of the expansiveness of 4-H programs, which operate in many different youth development settings, much of the data used in the 4-H study of positive youth development was not collected in after-school settings; however, 4-H after-school programs are prominent throughout the country, and many of the positive findings referenced above are relevant to out-of-school-time settings. It is clear that 4-H provides opportunities for participants to help their communities and develop relationships with adult mentors. While the discussion of the studies cited above centered on prosocial outcomes that result from participation, it should be noted that other benefits, such as decreases in the emergence of depressive symptoms and risk behaviors, were also found for 4-H participants (Urban et al., 2009).

Conclusion

As illustrated through a review of the research in this chapter, after-school programs not only provide a safe place for children and youth to learn and grow, but they also serve as ideal contexts for their prosocial development in several different ways. First, they provide children and youth with a safe place to relax and socialize, where they have the time and opportunity to build strong, reciprocal relationships with friends and positive adult role models. These relationships then serve as a foundation for them to explore and develop new interests and talents and to build confidence and self-esteem. After-school programs, such as the ones described in this chapter, also look to engage children and youth more fully in their communities through special programming and projects that aim to improve the neighborhoods where they and their families live. Through these programs and projects, children and youth learn how to contribute to others and their community, thereby learning how to become responsible and proactive citizens. Especially at a time when schools are held accountable mostly by their students’ standardized test scores in mathematics and English language arts, and most of students’ time in school is spent focusing on test preparation as a result, after-school programs may provide some children and youth with their only opportunity to learn, practice, and appreciate what it means to be prosocial.

References

Afterschool Alliance. (2010a). 21st Community Learning Centers: Providing after-school supports to communities nationwide (Fact sheet). Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/factsResearch/21stCCLC_Factsheet.pdf

Afterschool Alliance. (2010b). America after 3PM: From big cities to small towns. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM_Cities_Towns_10122010.pdf

The After-School Corporation. (2011). ExpandED schools: A new way to increase kids’ learning time & opportunity. Retrieved from: http://www.tascorp.org/section/aboutus.

Arbreton, A., Bradshaw, M., Sheldon, J., & Pepper, S. (2009). Making every day count: Boys and Girls Clubs’ role in promoting positive outcomes for teens. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Arbreton, A. J. A., Sheldon, J., & Herrera, C. (2005). Beyond safe havens: A synthesis of 20 years of research on the Boys & Girls Club. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Blank, S. (2005). Hours that count: Using after-school programs to help prevent risky behaviors and keep kids safe. New York: The After-School Corporation.

Boys and Girls Clubs of America. (n.d.). Facts and figures. Retrieved from http://bgca.org/whoweare/Pages/FactsFigures.aspx

Boys and Girls Clubs of America. (n.d.). What we do. Retrieved from http://www.bgca.org/whatwedo/Pages/WhatWeDo.aspx

Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Lee, S. M., Maynard, L. M., Brown, D. R., Kohl, H. W., III, et al. (2008). Physical education and academic achievement in elementary school: Data from the early childhood longitudinal study. American Journal of Public Health, 98(4), 721–727.

Deasy, R. J. (Ed.). (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development. Washington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197.

Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs that promote personal and social skills. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://casel.org/publications/the-impact-of-after-school-programs-that-promote-personal-and-social-skills

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 646–718). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

4-H. (n.d.). Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.4-h.org/resource-library/curriculum

4-H. (n.d.). Get involved. Retrieved from http://www.4-h.org/get-involved

4-H. (n.d.). History. Retrieved from http://www.4-h.org/about/4-h-history

Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191.

Grey, A. C. (2009). No Child Left Behind in art education policy: A review of key recommendations for arts language revisions. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 8–15.

Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2), 178–211.

Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1983). Prosocial behavior in the classroom. Academic Psychology Bulletin, 5(2), 319–338.

Hofferth, S. (1995). Out-of-school time: Risk and opportunity. In T. Swartz & K. Wright (Eds.), America’s working poor (pp. 123–153). South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press.

James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., Mansfield, W., & Pistorino, C. (2005). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/21stfinal.pdf

Jelicic, H., Bobek, D. L., Phelps, E., Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (2007). Using positive youth development to predict contribution and risk behaviors in early adolescence: Findings from the first two waves of the 4-H study of positive youth development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31(3), 263–273.

Kahne, J., Nagaoka, J., Brown, A., O’Brien, J., Quinn, T., & Thiede, K. (2001). Assessing after-school programs as contexts for youth development. Youth & Society, 32(4), 421–446.

Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275–313.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005). Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 17–71.

Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Colleagues. (2009). Waves of the future: Report of the findings from the first six years of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Retrieved June 9, 2011, from www.4-h.org/uploadedFiles/About_Folder/Research/Tufts_Data/4-H-Positive-Youth-Development-Study-Wave-6.pdf

Lewin-Bizan, S., Lynch, A. D., Fay, K., Schmid, K., McPherran, C., Lerner, J. V., et al. (2010). Trajectories of positive and negative behaviors from early- to middle-adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(7), 751–763.

Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a moderator in the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development, 71(2), 502–516.

Mahoney, J. L., Schweder, A. E., & Stattin, H. (2002). Structured after-school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with detached relations to their parents. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(1), 69–86.

Mahoney, J. L., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent anti-social behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 113–127.

Miller, B. M. (2005). Pathways to success for youth: What counts in after-school (Massachusetts After-School Research Study [MARS] Report). Retrieved June 1, 2011, from http://supportunitedway.org/files/MARS-Report.pdf

Naftzger, N., Bonney, C., Donahue, T., Hutchinson, C., Margolin, J., & Vinson, M. (2007). 21st century community learning centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC performance data: 2005–06. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Pederson, P. V. (2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on non-assessed subjects. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas, 80(6), 287–291.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of after-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment. Child Development, 70(3), 768–778.

Phelps, C. S., & Kotrlik, J. W. (2007). The relationship between participation in community service-learning projects and personal and leadership life skills development in 4-H leadership activities. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(4), 67–81.

Redd, Z., Brooks, J., & McGarvey, A. (2002, August). Educating America’s youth: What makes a difference (Research Brief). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality, scale, and effectiveness in after-school programs: Summary report of the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Russell, C. A., Mielke, M. B., Miller, T. D., & Johnson, J. C. (2007). After-school programs and high school success: Analysis of post-program educational patterns of former middle-grades TASC participants (Report to the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation). Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Urban, J. B., Lewin-Bizan, S., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The role of neighborhood ecological assets and activity involvement in youth developmental outcomes: Differential impacts of asset poor and asset rich neighborhoods. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 601–614.

Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., & Pierce, K. M. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs (Report to the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation). Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.