A Meta-Analysis of After-School Programs That Seek to Promote Personal and Social Skills in Children and Adolescents

  • Joseph A. Durlak
  • Roger P. Weissberg
  • Molly Pachan
Original paper

Abstract

A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to enhance the personal and social skills of children and adolescents indicated that, compared to controls, participants demonstrated significant increases in their self-perceptions and bonding to school, positive social behaviors, school grades and levels of academic achievement, and significant reductions in problem behaviors. The presence of four recommended practices associated with previously effective skill training (SAFE: sequenced, active, focused, and explicit) moderated several program outcomes. One important implication of current findings is that ASPs should contain components to foster the personal and social skills of youth because youth can benefit in multiple ways if these components are offered. The second implication is that further research is warranted on identifying program characteristics that can help us understand why some programs are more successful than others.

Keywords

After-school Meta-analysis Social competence Social skills Youth development 

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  1. Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Stanush, P. L., & McNelly, T. L. (1998). Factors that influence skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance, 11, 57–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. *Astroth, K. A., & Haynes, G. W. (2002). More than cows and cooking: Newest research shows the impact of 4-H. Journal of Extension, 40, 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. *Baker, K., Pollack, M., & Kohn, I. (1995). Violence prevention through informal socialization: An evaluation of the South Baltimore Youth Center. Studies on Crime and Prevention, 4, 61–85.Google Scholar
  4. *Baker, D., & Witt, P. A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school programs. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14, 60–81.Google Scholar
  5. Baldwin, S. A., Murray, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2005). Empirically supported treatments or Type I errors? Problems with the analysis of data from group administered treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 924–935.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. *Belgrave, F. Z., Chase-Vaughn, G., Gray, F., Addison, J. D., & Cherry, V. R. (2000). The effectiveness of a culture- and gender-specific intervention for increasing resiliency among African American preadolescent females. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 133–147.Google Scholar
  7. *Bergin, D. A., Hudson, L. M., Chryst, C. F., & Resetar, M. (1992). An afterschool intervention program for educationally disadvantaged young children. The Urban Review, 24, 203–217.Google Scholar
  8. Birmingham, J., Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Mielke, M. (2005). Shared features of high-performing after-school programs: A follow-up to the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Retrieved May 29, 2007 from www.sedl.org/pubs/catalog/items/fam107.html.
  9. *Bissell, J., Dugan, C., Ford-Johnson, A., Jones, P., & Ashurst, J. (2002). Evaluation of the YS-CARE after school program for California work opportunity and responsibility to kids (CalWORKS). Department of Education, University of California, Irvine and Research Support Services.Google Scholar
  10. Bodilly, S., & Beckett, M. K. (2005). Making out-of-school time matter: Evidence for an action agenda. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved September 10, 2005, from www.rand.og//pubs/monographs/MG242/index.html.
  11. Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock and putting stock in primary prevention: Characteristics of effective programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Brooks, P. E., Mojica, C. M., & Land, R. E. (1995). Final evaluation report: Longitudinal study of LA’s BEST after school education and enrichment program, 19921994. Los Angeles: University of California, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  13. Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure programming with adolescents. Journal of Experiential Education, 17, 40–47.Google Scholar
  14. *Chase, R. A. (2000). Hmong American partnership: 2HTN final report. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hilllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning [CASEL]. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and emotional learning programsIllinois edition. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.casel.org.
  17. Commission on Positive Youth Development. (2005). The positive perspective on youth development. In D. W. Evans, E. B. Foa, R. E. Gur, H. Hendin, C. P. O’brien, M. E. P. Seligman, & B. T. Walsh (Eds.), Treating and preventing adolescent mental health disorders: What we know and what we don’t know (pp. 497–527). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(1), 260.Google Scholar
  19. Derzon, J. (2006). How effective are school-based violence prevention programs in preventing and reducing violence and other antisocial behaviors? A meta-analysis. In S. R. Jimerson & J. J. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 429–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. 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, 157–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Durlak, J. A. (1997). Successful prevention programs for children and adolescents. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  22. Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34, 917–928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Durlak, J. A.,Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R, D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2009). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional development: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  24. Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention mental health programs for children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 115–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Dusenbury, L., & Falco, M. (1995). Eleven components of effective drug prevention curricula. Journal of School Health, 65, 420–425.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. *Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenberg, L., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program: New findings. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  28. Eccles, J. S., & Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school activities for youth. Review of Research in Education, 26, 113–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. *Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M., & Williams, I. J. (2005). Putting students on a pathway to academic and social success: Phase III findings of the Citizen Schools evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. *Foley, E. M., & Eddins, G. (2001). Preliminary analysis of Virtual Y after-school program participants’ patterns of school attendance and academic performance: Final evaluation report program year 19992000. NY: National Center for Schools and Communities, Fordham University.Google Scholar
  31. *Fuentes, E. G. (1983). A primary prevention program for psychological and cultural identity enhancement: Puerto Rican children in semi-rural northeast United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44 (05), 1578B.Google Scholar
  32. Gerstenblith, S. A., Soule, D. A., Gottfredson, D. C., Lu, S., Kellstrom, M. A., & Womer, S. C. (2005). After-school programs, antisocial behavior, and positive youth development: An exploration of the relationship between program implementation and changes in youth behavior. In J. L. Mahoney, J. S. Eccles, R. W. Larson, et al. (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. *Gottfredson, D. C., Soule, D. A., & Cross, A. (2004). A statewide evaluation of the Maryland after school opportunity fund program. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  34. Granger, R. C. (2008). After-school programs and academics: Implications for policy practice, and research. Social Policy Report, 22(3–11), 14–19.Google Scholar
  35. Granger, R. C., & Kane, T. (2004). Improving the quality of after-school programs. Education Week, 23, 76–77.Google Scholar
  36. *Grenawalt, A., Halback, T., Miller, M., Mitchell, A., O’Roarke, B., Schmitz, T., et al. (2005). 4-H animal science program evaluation: Spring 2004What is the value of the Wisconsin 4-H Animal Science Projects? Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
  37. Gresham, F. M. (1995). Best practices in social skills training. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology-III (pp. 1021–1030). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  38. *Hahn, A., Leavitte, T., & Aaron, P. (1994). Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Did the program work? Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School, Center for Human Resources.Google Scholar
  39. Haney, P., & Durlak, J. A. (1998). Changing self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 423–433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hansen, D. M., & Larson, R. W. (2007). Amplifiers of developmental and negative experiences in organized activities: Dosage, motivation, lead roles, and adult-youth ratios. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Harvard Family Research Project. (2003). A review of out-of-school time program quasi-experimental and experimental evaluation results. Cambirdge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.Google Scholar
  42. Harvard Family Research Project (2009). Out-of-school-time program research and evaluation database and bibliography. Retrieved June 5, 2009 from http://www.hfrp.org/out-of-school-time/ost-database-bibliography.
  43. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  44. Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (2005). Youth program quality assessment validation study: Findings for instrument validation. Retrieved April 6, 2006 from http://www.highschope.org/EducationalPrograms/Adolescent/YouthPQA/YouthPQASummary.pdj.
  46. Hill, J. C., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hirsch, B., & Wong, V. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and New York: Teachers College Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. *Huang, D. (2004). Exploring the long-term impact of LA’s Best on student’s social and academic development. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).Google Scholar
  49. *Huang, D., Sung Kim, K., Marshall, A., & Perez, P. (2005). Keeping kids in school: An LA’s BEST example National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) Center, Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  50. *Hudley, C. (Ed.). (1999). Problem behaviors in middle childhood: Understanding risk status and protective factors. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: California Wellness Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 066).Google Scholar
  51. Institute for Education Sciences. (2008a). What works clearinghouse procedures and Standards Workbook, Version 2.0, December, 2008. Retrieved June 18, 2009 from http/ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocViewer/Doc.aspx?docid=198tocid=1.Google Scholar
  52. Institute for Education Sciences. (2008b). Technical details of WWC-conducted computations. Retrieved June 6, 2008 from http//ies.ed.gov.ncee.wwc/pdf/conducted_computations.pdf.Google Scholar
  53. *James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Deke, J., & Mansfield, W. (2005). When school stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  54. Kane, T. J. (2004). The impact of after-school programs: Interpreting the results of four recent evaluations. Retrieved January 17, 2006 from www.wtgrantfondation.org/usr_doc/After-school_paper.pdf.
  55. Ladd, G. W., & Mize, J. (1983). A cognitive social learning model of social skill training. Psychological Review, 90, 127–157.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. *LaFrance, S., Twersky, F., Latham, N., Foley, E., Bott, C., Lee, L., et al. (2001). A safe place for healthy youth development: A comprehensive evaluation of the Bayview Safe Haven. San Francisco, CA: BTW Consultants and LaFrance Associates.Google Scholar
  57. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Green, M. (2006). Out-of school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. *Lauver, S. C. (2002). Assessing the benefits of an after-school program for urban youth: An impact and process evaluation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (02), 533A.Google Scholar
  59. *LeCroy, W. W. (2004). Experimental evaluation of “Go Grrrls” preventive intervention for early adolescent girls. Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 457–473.Google Scholar
  60. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. *LoSciuto, L., Hilbert, S. M., Fox, M. M., Porcellini, L., & Lanphear, A. (1999). A two-year evaluation of the Woodrock Youth Development Project. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 488–507.Google Scholar
  62. Lösel, F., & Beelman, A. (2003). Effects of child skills training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mahoney, J. P., Parente, M. E., & Zigler, E. F. Afterschool program participation and children’s development. In J. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and human development. New York: Wiley (in press).Google Scholar
  64. *Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). Afterschool program participation and the development of child obesity and peer acceptance. Applied Developmental Science, 9, 202–215.Google Scholar
  65. Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Lord, H. (2007). Program-level differences in afterschool program engagement: Links to child competence, program quality and content. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 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, 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mahoney, J. L., Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (2001). Youth recreation centre participation and criminal offending: A 20-year longitudinal study of Swedish boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mahoney, J. P., & Zigler, E. F. (2006). Translating science to policy under the No Child Left Behind act of 2001: Lessons from the national evaluation of the 21st-Century Community Learning Centers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. *Mason, M. J., & Chuang, S. (2001). Culturally-based after-school art programming for low-income urban children: Adaptive and preventive effects. Journal of Primary Prevention, 22, 45–54.Google Scholar
  70. *Maxfield, M., Schirm, A., & Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2003). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Implementation and short-term impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  71. *McClanahan, W. S., Sipe, C. L., & Smith, T. J. (2004). Enriching summer work: An evaluation of the summer career exploration program. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.Google Scholar
  72. Miller, B. M. (2003). Critical hours: After-school programs and educational success. New York: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Retrieved December 13, 2005 from www.nmefdn.org/uploads/Critical_hours_Full.pdf.
  73. *Monsaas, J. (1994). Evaluation reportFinal validation: Project EMERGE, Cript County Atlanta, GA: Emory University.Google Scholar
  74. *Morrison, G. M., Storino, M. H., Robertson, L. M., Weissglass, T., & Dondero, A. (2000). The protective function of after-school programming and parent education and support for students at risk for substance abuse. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 365–371.Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  76. *Neufeld, J., Smith, M. G., Estes, H., & Hill, G. C. (1995). Rural after school child care: A demonstration project in a remote mining community. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14, 12–16.Google Scholar
  77. *Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention to enhance school involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 313–326.Google Scholar
  78. Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2008). Out-of-school time (OST) observation instrument: Report of the validation study. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Retrieved July 30, 2009 from www.policystudies.com.
  79. *Philliber, S., Kaye, J., & Herrling, S. (2001). The national evaluation of the Children’s Aid Society Carrera model program to prevent teen pregnancy. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates.Google Scholar
  80. *Phillips, Ruby S. C. (1999). Intervention with siblings of children with developmental disabilities from economically disadvantaged families. Families in Society, 80, 569–577.Google Scholar
  81. *Pierce, L. H., & Shields, N. (1998). The Be A Star community-based after-school program: Developing resiliency in high-risk preadolescent youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 175–183.Google Scholar
  82. *Prenovost, J. K. E. (2001). A first-year evaluation of after school learning programs in four urban middle schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62 (03), 884A.Google Scholar
  83. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  84. Riggs, N. R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2004). After-school youth development programs: A developmental-ecological model of current research. Clinical Child and Family Review, 7, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. *Ross, J. G., Saavadra, P. J., Shur, G. H., Winters, F., & Felner, R. D. (1992). The effectiveness of an after-school program for primary grade latchkey students on precursors of substance abuse. Journal of Community Psychology, OSAP Special Issue, 22–38.Google Scholar
  86. Roth, J. L., Malone, L. M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Does the amount of participation in afterschool programs relate to developmental outcomes: A review of the literature. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9303-3.
  87. *Rusche, S., Kemp, P., Krizmanich, J., Bowles, E., Moore, B., Craig Jr., H. E., et al. (1999). Helping everyone reach out: Club Hero, final report. Atlanta, GA: National Families in Action & Emstar Research.Google Scholar
  88. Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. *Schinke, S. P., Orlandi, M. A., Botvin, G. J., Gilchrist, L. D., Trimble, J. E., & Locklear, V. S. (1988). Preventing substance abuse among American-Indian adolescents: A bicultural competence skills approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 87–90.Google Scholar
  90. *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, OSAP Special Issue, 118–128.Google Scholar
  91. Sheldon, J. Arbreton, A., Hopkins, L., & Grossman, J. B. (in press). Investing in success: Key strategies for building quality in after-school programs. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9296-y.
  92. Shernoff, D. J. (2010). Engagement in after-school programs as a predictor of social competence and academic performance. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9314-0.
  93. Simpkins, S., Little, P., & Weiss, H. (2004). Understanding and measuring attendance in out-of-school time programs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Available at www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief7.html.
  94. *Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 59–75.Google Scholar
  95. *Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 602–610.Google Scholar
  96. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (2006). Time for Achievement: Afterschool and out-of-school time. SEDL Letter, 18, Number 1. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http:/www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v18n01/SEDLLetter-v18n01.pdf.
  97. *St. Pierre, T. L., & Kaltreider, D. L. (1992). Drug prevention in a community setting: A longitudinal study of the relative effectiveness of a three-year primary prevention program in Boys & Girls Club across the nation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 673–706.Google Scholar
  98. *St. Pierre, T. L., Mark, M. M., Kaltreider, D. L., & Aikin, K. J. (1997). Involving parents of high-risk youth in drug prevention: A three-year longitudinal study in Boys & Girls Clubs. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 21–50.Google Scholar
  99. *St. Pierre, T. L., Mark, M. M., Kaltreider, D. L., & Campbell, B. (2001). Boys and Girls Clubs and school collaborations: A longitudinal study of a multicomponent substance abuse prevention program for high-risk elementary school children. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 87–106.Google Scholar
  100. *Tebes, J. K., Feinn, R., Vanderploeg, J. J. Chinman, M. J., Shepard, J. Brabham, T., et al. (2007). Impact of a positive youth development program in urban after-school settings on the prevention of adolescent substance use. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 239–247.Google Scholar
  101. Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. *Tucker, C. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Using culturally sensitive theories and research to meet the academic needs of low-income African American children. American Psychologist, 57, 762-773.Google Scholar
  103. Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2004). How to estimate and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. *Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., Brown, B. B., Dadisman, K., Pierce, K. M., & Lee, D. et al. (2005). The study of promising after-school programs: Examination of intermediate outcomes in year 2. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/childcare/statements.html.
  105. *Vandell, D. L., Reisner, E. R., Brown, B. B., Dadisman, K., Pierce, K. M., & Lee, D. (2004). The study of promising after-school programs: Descriptive report of the promising programs. University of Wisconsin, Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/childcare/statements.html.
  106. *Vincent, V., & Guinn, R. (2001). Effectiveness of a Colonia educational intervention. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 229–238.Google Scholar
  107. *Weisman, S. A., Soule, D. A., & Womer, S. C. (2001). Maryland after school community grant program report on the 19992000 school year evaluation of the phase 1 after-school programs. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  108. *Weisman, S. A., Womer, S. C., Kellstrom, M., Bryner, S., Kahler, A., Slocum, L. A., et al. (2003). Maryland after school grant program part 1: Report on the 20012002 school year evaluation of the phase 3 after school programs. University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  109. Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence-enhancement and prevention programs. In I. E. Siegel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol 4: Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 877–954). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  110. Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Yohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. Fischer, S., & Shinn, M. (2007). Measuring youth program quality: A guide to assessment tools. Retrieved April 20, 2007 from www.forumfyi.org/Files/Measuring_youth_ program_quality.pdf.
  113. *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.Google Scholar
  114. Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the research say?. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph A. Durlak
    • 1
  • Roger P. Weissberg
    • 2
  • Molly Pachan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Chicago & Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL)ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations