SEL-Focused After-School Programs

SEL-Focused After-School Programs

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

Summary
After-school programs offer young people opportunities for self-expression, exploring their
talents, and forming relationships with supportive adults. That is, after-school programs
promote young people’s social and emotional learning (SEL) skills—whether the programs use
that term or not.
Despite these programs’ potential, Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch write, they have yet to
make a big impact on the field of SEL. One reason is that studying them poses many problems
for researchers—for example, attendance isn’t mandatory, meaning that it can be hard to
separate a program’s effects from young people’s personal characteristics that led them to
choose the program in the first place. Still, research shows that after-school programs can
promote many desirable SEL outcomes, and Hurd and Deutsch outline the factors that make
high-quality programs stand out.
How could policy help after-school programs promote SEL more effectively? First, positive
youth-staff relationships are crucial to effective programs, and competent adult staff are the
linchpin of effective after-school programs targeting SEL outcomes. Yet the after-school
work force is poorly paid, and turnover is high. Hurd and Deutsch suggest several ways to
professionalize after-school work—for example, by boosting professional development and
creating more opportunities for career advancement.
Second, as schools have become more focused on standardized test scores, funders and
policymakers have pushed after-school programs, too, to demonstrate their academic impact.
Hurd and Deutsch write that this approach is misguided: overemphasizing academic outcomes
leads to neglect of SEL outcomes that can help young people become productive and engaged
citizens. They argue for expanding the criteria used to determine whether after-school
programs are effective to include SEL. More broadly, they write, high-stakes evaluations create
a disincentive for programs to undertake the difficult work of assessing and improving their
own practices. A better approach to evaluation would focus less on whether programs “work”
and instead seek ways to make them work better.

www.futureofchildren.org

Noelle Hurd is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Virginia. Nancy Deutsch is an associate
professor in the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia.
Robert Granger, former president of the William T. Grant Foundation, reviewed and critiqued a draft of this article.

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 95

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

O
ut-of-school settings, such time (a history we review below), only one
as after-school programs and extensive review has examined whether
community organizations, after-school programs that focus on social
are natural sites for social and personal development hold promise
and emotional learning for boosting students’ SEL development.
(SEL) interventions. Because these In this article, we go over the findings from
programs and organizations don’t have that analysis, paying particular attention
schools’ curricular demands and often to the features of effective programs. We
have broader developmental goals and also briefly review a broader set of studies
missions, they can focus on SEL skills and that investigate the impacts of participating
outcomes to a greater extent than schools in SEL-focused after-school programs. To
can. Many of the types of skills that SEL structure the article, we ask five questions
interventions target are also implicit or specific to SEL and after-school programs:
explicit in the missions and objectives of
out-of-school programs. Yet despite their 1. Are after-school programs well
potential to strongly influence SEL, out-of- suited for promoting SEL?
school programs generally have had limited
2. Is it realistic to expect after-school
impact on the field of SEL, possibly because
programs to affect SEL?
of their diversity—they range from after-
school and summer programs to family- and 3. Do after-school programs affect
community-level interventions—or the SEL?
challenges of evaluating interventions in
such settings. In this article, we examine 4. Why have findings thus far been so
research specific to SEL interventions that disappointing?
occur outside of school hours. But rather
5. Where should researchers and
than consider all out-of-school contexts, we
practitioners focus in the future?
limit our scope to after-school programs,
defined as adult-structured programs for We conclude with policy implications for
students that are offered during the school promoting SEL via after-school programs.
year between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00
p.m.1 Moreover, we review only programs Are After-School Programs Well
that explicitly target what we define as SEL Suited for Promoting SEL?
skills, whether the program uses the term
SEL or not. This narrowed focus lets us be The history of formal after-school programs
more thorough. In any case, most of the suggests that they’ve always focused on
research on SEL interventions in out-of- SEL. Such programs arose in response
school contexts has taken place in after- to changing social conditions and the
school programs rather than other settings. constraints of school, and their goals are
Thus research on after-school programs also often aligned with those of SEL. Thus,
offers the best opportunity to learn what research on after-school programs often asks
works. whether and how they foster SEL-related
competencies. After-school programs are
Even though SEL goals are common in also rich in relationships. They offer good
programs that operate outside of school opportunities for young people to form the

9 6  T H E F U T UR E OF C HI L DRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

kinds of relationships with adults that we preventing delinquency among boys and
believe enhance SEL. reducing sexual risk among girls; teaching
vocational and domestic skills (for boys and
girls, respectively); and Americanization
The history of formal after- of immigrant youth, who made up a large
proportion of the children served by early
school programs suggests that programs.2 The adult staff members in
they’ve always focused on these programs were to provide consistent
oversight, guidance, role modeling, and
SEL.
support. From the beginning, programs
differentiated themselves from schools in
Historical Perspective both their aims and activities.

After-school programs have been around These broad trends continued through
for more than a century, and they’ve the mid-20th century. Although these
always aimed to foster positive youth programs’ aims were shaped by changing
development broadly, including what demographics and by societal developments
we now call SEL. After-school programs such as mass media, the economy, and
were developed in the late 19th century families’ work circumstances, the focus
as a practitioner-based movement, long on play, children’s developmental needs,
before they became a field of study. Early and after-school programs as unique out-
programs sprang from reformers’ concerns of-school settings continued. During the
about children’s safety and socialization. second half of the 20th century, programs
Child labor and compulsory education laws again responded to social concerns about
combined to leave children free during low-income children.3 Reformers feared
the after-school hours. In large cities that these children were feeling alienated
with growing immigrant populations and from broader American society. As a result,
crowded housing, many working-class and after-school programs became a space
low-income children spent their out-of- where poor children could “feel valued and
school time on the streets. Child advocates recognized.”4 At the same time, after-school
worried about these trends. They saw a programs continued to identify themselves
need for safe spaces where children could as places where children who felt alienated
play after school. They also saw a need by schools could express themselves and
for adults to structure and supervise such experience a sense of belonging. In the
play to socialize children in middle-class 1960s, in response to increasing worries
American values. The programs they built about urban poverty, programs began to
varied greatly and local actors developed focus more on academic activities, which
their own aims and policies within them, yet gave them access to government funding
they shared common goals. In his history of earmarked for improving education in high-
after-school programming, Robert Halpern poverty neighborhoods. And as more and
identified the early goals of the field as more mothers entered the work force in
protecting and caring for children; giving the late 20th century, public attention again
children opportunities to play, frequently turned to after-school programs as safe,
as a means to promote SEL-related skills; supervised spaces for children.

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 97

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

Although most programs retained their (relating, caring), hands (giving, working),
core recreational activities and continued and health (being, living). Although Boys
to offer young people opportunities for & Girls Clubs and 4-H both include some
self-expression, exploring their talents, academic programming, their goals are
and forming relationships with supportive much broader than academics alone,
adults, it also became increasingly common encompassing the types of personal and
to set aside time for children to get help social competence that make up SEL.
with their homework. More recently, after-
school programs have been under pressure The Role of Adult Staff
to demonstrate academic impacts, but
Competent adult staff are the linchpin of
this push has been driven by funders and
effective after-school programs targeting
policy makers rather than the programs
SEL outcomes.7 Interactions with staff
themselves. As schools have become more
shape young people’s experiences, and those
focused on standardized test scores, after-
interactions are the pathways through which
school programs, too, have been pushed to
after-school programs affect SEL.8 Adult
demonstrate their academic impact. This
staff influence young people’s outcomes
trend threatens after-school programs’
in many ways. They determine whether
traditional focus on self-expression,
the program’s space will be conducive to
exploration, and development.
SEL development, they implement the
Despite the increased pressure to boost test curriculum and transmit the program’s
scores, numerous after-school programs values, and they cultivate meaningful
explicitly aim to enhance young people’s relationships.
social and emotional competencies. For
Effective Staff Practices for Promoting
example, Boys & Girls Clubs of America,
SEL
one of the nation’s largest networks of
out-of-school centers (serving nearly Adult staff foster SEL development by
four million children at four thousand giving young people autonomy, choice,
clubs), seeks to “promote and enhance the and appropriate levels of structure and
development of boys and girls by instilling a supervision.9 Basing its recommendations
sense of competence, usefulness, belonging on the best developmental science research,
and influence.” Its mission is “to enable all the National Research Council and Institute
young people, especially those who need of Medicine suggests that adults can foster
us most, to reach their full potential as positive developmental settings by providing
productive, caring, responsible citizens.”5 eight components:10
Similarly, 4-H, which reaches six million
young people, aims to “[empower] young • physical and psychological safety;
people to be true leaders,” described as
“young people who have confidence; know • appropriate structure;
how to work well with others; can endure
• opportunities to belong;
through challenges; and will stick with a job
until it gets done.”6 4-H’ers work on four • positive social norms;
values (the four H’s of the organization’s
name): head (managing, thinking), heart • support for efficacy and mattering;

9 8  T H E F U T UR E OF C HI L DRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

• opportunities for skill building; from increasing opportunities to help set

rules and expectations themselves. Thus,
• integration of family, school, and staff can set and monitor clear boundaries
community efforts, and but also let young people make important
• nurturance and support. program decisions. University of Illinois
researchers Reed Larson and Rachel Angus
Below, we apply each of these have called this approach “leading from
recommendations to promoting SEL in behind”; they found that young people
after-school programs. benefit most when adult staff support
participants’ leadership and offer “light
Safety. Unquestionably, adult staff members’
touch guidance and assistance as needed.”12
ability to ensure participants’ physical and
emotional safety is vital—not just during the Belonging. By highlighting their strengths,
program itself, but on the way to and from emphasizing healthy identity development,
it as well. Safety is a basic human need that and encouraging positive bonding, staff
must be satisfied for young people to have can enhance young people’s sense of
the mental resources they need to improve belonging, which in turn will help recruit
their social and emotional competencies. and retain a diverse set of participants.13
Staff can ensure safety by selecting safe Program staff must also deal effectively
locations, by establishing transportation with the participants’ social identities and
plans that consider safety hazards, and by cultural backgrounds. Belonging is likely
including activities that foster healthy and to be more important to young people
positive peer group interactions. Ensuring from marginalized social groups, for
safety also means understanding implicit whom key developmental tasks include
and explicit biases on the part of both staff being able to feel good about their group
and young people, and collectively working membership and connection to similar
to confront these biases by modeling fair
others. Participants should be able to feel
treatment of young participants.
good about their own social identities (for
Structure. After-school programs should example, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
be structured to ensure that they give orientation, ability status) and to interact
young people the stability to grow and positively with members of different
develop. Specifically, daily activities should groups. Thus, staff should ensure that
give young people space to process their interactions occur on a level of equal
emotions, share their experiences, listen to status, explicitly talk about difference in
the experiences of others, work together relation to privilege and oppression, and
in teams, solve problems, and reflect on ask young people from different groups
the outcomes of their decisions.11 Staff to work collaboratively to achieve shared
must find the right balance between giving goals.14 Because no population of young
participants autonomy and, through clear people is homogeneous, staff should also
and consistent rules and expectations, pay attention to differences within racial,
setting limits on their behavior. Depending ethnic, cultural, gender, ability, and sexual
on their age and how long they participate in orientation groups, as well as between such
the program, young people may also benefit groups.15

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 99

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

Positive social norms. Program staff can would like to take on. When activities have
foster SEL competencies by supporting a consequences for real-world problems
group culture that is conducive to prosocial facing them and their communities, young
values and behavior. For example, staff people can gain a sense of mattering and
can set expectations regarding the use of making a difference. Adult staff can help
inclusive language; group check-ins (in them gain agency by actively seeking their
which participants report on their weekly input and creating leadership positions
highs and lows) can be an opportunity for them to fill. Adults also can give young
for staff to model caring responses to the people greater responsibility based on
good and bad things happening in young their age and experience in the program.
people’s lives. Although a program’s cultural For example, youth-adult partnerships—
norms should vary to accommodate the in which youth and adults work
participants’ backgrounds and needs, collaboratively to address important social
prosocial norms are fundamental to issues—seek an equal distribution of power
constructive behavior. Programs can between adult staff and participants.
establish patterns of behavior that lead
participants to internalize certain values and Skill building. Staff can promote SEL
morals.16 In this way, behavioral patterns can by letting participants plan, practice,
be self-reinforcing and solidified as good and perform targeted skills and apply
habits. But if staff and participants don’t those skills to the real world; by giving
intentionally establish positive social norms, frequent feedback; by making sure that
less favorable norms may emerge and young people take an active role in their
become difficult to alter. Therefore, staff own learning; and by helping young
need to develop practices that foster good people focus on personal improvement
behavior, mutual respect, and inclusivity instead of comparing themselves to
from the very beginning and maintain them others.18 Staff also can model SEL skills
throughout the program. themselves. Other ways to build skills
include coaching youth on successful
Efficacy and mattering. Feeling effective interactions with peers or adults, setting
at appropriately challenging tasks and high expectations for participants,
making a difference in one’s social world encouraging them to persevere when
are central to growth in SEL competencies. things get tough, celebrating their effort,
Adult program staff can foster efficacy and and scaffolding (that is, providing more
mattering through engaging and personally support initially and gradually withdrawing
meaningful activities. As they progress from it as they become able to complete a
childhood to adolescence, young people task independently).19 As in other areas,
are increasingly likely to benefit from young people’s cultures, backgrounds,
empowering, youth-centered programs. ages, and experiences should guide which
They can learn to develop their own voice skills the program targets. For example,
and leadership potential when they have an important SEL skill for young people
a say in how programs are run or what of color is bicultural competence, or
types of activities are made available.17 the ability to successfully navigate two
They can also help identify community cultures. Thus, programs that serve racial
service projects or injustices that they and ethnic minorities may help participants

1 00   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

get better at code switching—moving from young people’s needs and desires), effective
one cultural style of interacting to another. communication, and empathy. Adults who
understand the roles of power and privilege
in maintaining societal inequities can
After-school staff may have effectively bridge differences have the best
chance to nurture and support all young
more opportunities for participants.
informal conversations and
Youth-Staff Relationships
shared activities than the
young people’s own parents. Unlike teachers, after-school program staff
don’t face heavy instructional requirements
and evaluation responsibilities. That means
Integration of family, school, and they have more flexibility in working with
community. When adult expectations and young people.21 In fact, after-school staff
values are consistent across family, school, may have more opportunities for informal
and community, it’s easier for young people conversations and shared activities than
to establish positive attitudes and patterns the young people’s own parents, who
of behavior. Moreover, adults can use may be contending with work and other
their connections with other adults to help competing responsibilities. Unlike parents
give young people new opportunities and and teachers, after-school staff not only
connections of their own. Adult program have time to share with young people
staff are uniquely positioned to bridge during the after-school hours, but can also
youths’ social contexts such as family, often do so around activities that align with
school, community, and workplace. They their interests. These less structured and
can expose families, schools, and the perhaps more enjoyable interactions may be
broader community to the SEL content that ideal for transferring adult values, advice,
program participants are learning. If they and perspectives.22 After-school program
do so, adults in other settings can reinforce staff also tend to be closer in age to young
the after-school learning and apply it more participants and are often from the same
broadly. communities. Both factors may encourage
closer relationships and lead young people
Nurturance and support. Caring and to see program staff as more credible
responsive staff members have the best sources of information than teachers or
chance to enhance young people’s SEL parents. These two factors may also help
outcomes.20 Adults who have the capacity after-school staff serve as role models,
to understand and appropriately respond especially if they’ve overcome challenges
to young people’s cultural backgrounds similar to those that the program’s
and needs are best positioned to build participants face.23
strong, positive relationships. Thus, after-
school programs seeking to boost students’ In-depth observations of after-school
SEL outcomes should screen adults for programs and interviews with staff members
key qualities such as attunement (that is, and participants have identified features of
the ability to read and flexibly respond to youth-staff relationships that appear to be

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 101

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

related to young people’s SEL development. • First, programs should recruit

These include such things as the nature of young people who are more likely
staff-youth communication (for example, the to benefit from participation (for
peerlike nature of interactions or culturally example, because their interests are
relevant ways of communicating), the a good match with the program’s
way staff handle young people’s dilemmas activities). Seeing youth succeed in
that crop up during the program, how the program is a powerful incentive
they express respect for participants, and for staff because it reinforces the
how staff and participants communicate challenging work that they do.
with each other about the young people’s
strengths and struggles.24 Using data from its • Second, programs should ensure
National Outcomes Survey, the Boys & Girls that multiple staff members have
Clubs of America examined associations appropriate training in practices to
between youth-staff relationships and how promote SEL. Staff members should
young people described their experiences receive equivalent training so that
at the clubs. It found that young people they can best support each other
tended to have more positive experiences and all youth in attendance. Having
when staff knew all the participants’ names, many trained people on hand also
had relationships with their parents, worked means that one staff member can
well together, and had received training in work on an individual participant’s
program planning.25 Although such research needs while another leads the larger
can’t prove that links between youth-staff group.
relationships and outcomes are causal, it
• Third, staff members need
nonetheless suggests that programs can
collaborative planning time before
foster SEL when staff cultivate meaningful
program sessions and interactive
relationships with young participants.
debriefing afterward to ensure that
Supporting Adult Staff they can communicate with one
another, prepare adequately for
If staff practices play a central role in young program sessions, and work together
people’s SEL development, then support for to respond to problems that arise.
the staff is crucial to after-school programs’ Staff members may also need time
success. Recently, the SEL Challenge—a to process their own reactions to
collaboration among practitioners, program sessions and to support
researchers, and a prominent national one another when they encounter
foundation that analyzed eight highly difficulty. A supportive and collegial
effective after-school programs across the environment can motivate staff
country—sought to identify key practices members to put forth their best
that foster growth in six SEL outcomes: effort and may reduce staff turnover.
emotion management, empathy, teamwork,
initiative, responsibility, and problem • Fourth, staff need organizational
solving.26 Among its recommendations, supports such as extended vacation
the project suggested five strategies for after intensive periods of work,
supporting program staff: mental health services or referrals,

1 02   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

resources for continued learning, to be high. Therefore, even though youth-

and check-ins with supervisors to adult relationships can be a significant
ensure the staff’s general wellbeing. strength of such programs, they can also
Staff who have the supports they be less stable than in schools. Funders’
need to bolster their own mental increasing focus on academic outcomes may
health and wellbeing are better also lead programs to offer fewer types of
positioned to serve program activities that are most likely to enhance
participants effectively. SEL. Some of these issues, such as sporadic
attendance, affect researchers’ ability to
• Fifth, programs should support confidently measure program effects. They
continuous improvement. Staff may also affect the quality of the programs
need opportunities to reflect on themselves, and as we discuss below, quality
and refine program practices. The has an impact on program effects.
inclusion of evaluation components
to assess their practices will make
staff members more aware of
Despite their strengths,
strengths and areas that need
improvement. Such evaluations after-school programs face
could collect data from young a number of barriers in
people, staff, and staff supervisors;
if these evaluations include self-
promoting SEL, such as
assessment, however, that should sporadic attendance and high
not be the only component. staff turnover.
Is It Realistic to Expect After-
School Programs to Affect SEL? Do After-School Programs Affect
SEL?
After-school programs are natural settings
for promoting young people’s SEL skills. Many comprehensive after-school programs
Because the programs don’t face schools’ focus on personal and social skills broadly,
curricular demands, they can focus on even if they don’t use the term SEL.
nonacademic skills. Well-run after-school Reviews of how after-school programming
programs let young people participate affects academic outcomes have yielded
in activities that are meaningful to them mixed findings.27 Here we review the
and that form rewarding relationships. research exploring SEL-related outcomes
But despite these strengths, after-school from after-school programs that aim to
programs face a number of barriers in improve young people’s personal and
promoting SEL. First, participation in social development. These types of after-
after-school programs isn’t mandatory. school programs have been associated with
As a result, SEL interventions in after- improvement in such SEL outcomes as
school programs will never reach all young self-confidence, self-regulation, and social
people, and sporadic attendance may competence, as well as with decreases in
dampen a program’s effects. Further, staff adjustment problems such as delinquency,
turnover in after-school programs tends depression, and anxiety.28 Evaluations of

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 103

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

after-school programs that target SEL positive attitudes toward school, positive
skills, however, vary widely with respect to social behavior (for example, cooperation
the methods they use and the effects they and leadership), grades, and standardized
report. test scores. At the same time, they reduced
problematic behaviors such as aggression
In 2010, psychologists Joseph Durlak, Roger and drug use. Overall, the size of these
Weissberg, and Molly Pachan published a effects was in the small-to-medium range;
meta-analysis of after-school programs with in statistical terms, average program effect
an explicit SEL component (a meta-analysis sizes—a number that assesses how large
is a statistical technique that combines the the difference is between two groups on
results from many studies to test for overall an outcome of interest—ranged from .12
effects). 29 They included 68 studies of SEL- for academic grades to .34 for increased
focused after-school programs. About half self-esteem.
the programs targeted elementary school-
aged students, about one-third targeted Not all after-school programs targeting
middle school–aged students, and about SEL outcomes produced the desired
10 percent were geared toward high school improvements in students’ skills and
students (several evaluations didn’t report behaviors. Only programs that used
participants’ ages). About one-third of the evidence-based skills-training approaches
studies used a randomized design, meaning were effective in boosting students’ SEL
that young people were randomly assigned outcomes. Evidence-based skills-training
either to a program or to an alternative approaches met four requirements,
such as a waiting list. Because a randomized identified by the acronym SAFE: they
design removes bias introduced by self- included a sequenced (S) set of activities,
selection into a program (that is, young emphasized active (A) forms of learning,
people who sign up for and attend after- included a focused (F) component aimed
school programs may differ in important directly at improving students’ social and
ways from those who don’t), it’s considered emotional skills, and contained explicit (E)
the best way to test whether an intervention learning objectives (that is, program staff
works. The rest of the studies included in communicate to young people what they’re
the meta-analysis used what researchers expected to learn through the program).
call quasi-experimental designs, which use Programs that didn’t follow the SAFE
different approaches to cope with bias and guidelines showed no effects on the studied
isolate program effects. Although more SEL outcomes. The SAFE programs yielded
than one-third of the studies did not give average effect sizes in the small-to-medium
much information about the demographics range—from .14 for school attendance to
of study participants, those that did .37 for increased self-esteem.
represented groups of young people who
were diverse with regard to race/ethnicity The fact that SEL-focused after-school
and socioeconomic status. programs can affect such a variety of
outcomes underscores their potential value.
The meta-analysis found that after-school Moreover, even if the size of the programs’
programs targeting SEL outcomes appear effects fell in the small-to-medium range,
to improve young people’s self-confidence, those effects were larger than those found

1 04   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

Table 1. SEL-Related Outcomes of After-School Programs

Program Population SEL Skills Assessed Findings

Boys & Girls Clubs Club members ages Psychosocial Positive experience at
of America (four 10–18 functioning clubs, but not
clubs in one city) attendance alone, was
associated with positive
outcomes
Boys & Girls Clubs Club members in Character development Greater attendance was
of America (10 seventh and eighth grade associated with
urban clubs) improvement in about
half the outcomes
assessed
Boys & Girls Clubs Club members and Self-concept, social skills, Greater attendance at
of America (one comparison group from attachment to family, clubs, but not
urban club) same community; mean risky behaviors participation alone, was
age 11 associated with positive
outcomes
Boys & Girls Clubs Club members nationally; Community service, Middle and high
of America (2,400 compared to data on peers social skills, risky school club members
clubs nationally) from other national studies behaviors volunteered more and
reported lower levels of
substance use; higher
quality and level of
participation associated
with some outcomes
4-H (in 42 states) 7,000 youth in grades 5 C’s—Confidence, In some grades
5–12 (~2,520 of those Competence, Character, 4-H members
were 4-H participants) Caring, and Connection— demonstrated more
as well as contribution positive outcomes in the
to community 5 C’s and were more
likely to contribute to
their communities
After School Matters High school students 21st Century Skills linked Positive effect on some
(apprenticeship program to SEL outcomes; no effect on
in Chicago)* majority of outcomes
Systematic review of Primarily low-income College aspirations, No effects
programs with recreational racial/ethnic minority believing the best about
or youth development focus students in urban areas people, bonding, feeling
combined with academic bad for others, feeling
supports * left out, sticking to beliefs
Maryland’s After School Elementary and middle Social skills, social Participation was linked
Community Grant Program school students bonding, delinquency, to small decreases in
(14 sites)** substance use delinquency for middle
school students
35 high-quality after- 3,000 elementary and Work habits, task Program participants
school programs from middle school students persistence, social improved in many of the
ethnically diverse, high skills, prosocial tested skills
poverty communities behaviors, problem
behaviors, misconduct

Sources: See endnote 30.

Note: * = experimental design; ** = three of 14 sites used experimental design.

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 105

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

for other types of youth programs, such as Participating in SEL-focused after-school

school-based drug prevention or mentoring programs has been associated with outcomes
programs. In fact, the average effect of that include improvements in social skills,
SAFE after-school programs on students’ prosocial behavior, community service,
standardized test scores was larger than the civic activity, academic and school-related
average effects found in meta-analyses for outcomes, and reductions in delinquency
after-school and summer school programs and other problem behaviors. But even
that focus heavily on academics. The effects when studies have documented positive
of SAFE programs may also have been effects on some outcomes, they tend to
underestimated. A high proportion of the find no effects on others. And the effects
comparison group students (that is, those they do find are often limited to certain
who did not participate in a particular SEL age groups or genders. Overall, findings
after-school program) were participating in from correlational studies (that is, studies
other types of after-school activities, rather that look at associations between programs
than attending no program at all. Further, at and outcomes without fully controlling for
least some of the SEL after-school programs sources of bias) tend to find some positive
recorded fairly inconsistent attendance by outcomes, but experimental studies (that is,
participants. Both of these factors make it studies that more completely account for
harder for researchers to isolate a program’s bias) find fewer or none. One limitation of
effects. The fact that we see rather strong correlational studies is that they don’t let
findings despite the presence of factors that us determine whether participation in the
could undermine their effects suggests that program actually caused the differences we
SAFE after-school programs can indeed see in youth outcomes, as opposed to the
foster SEL development along with a host of possibility that the program attracted young
other positive youth outcomes. people who were already doing better than
their peers.
What Does the Rest of the
Research Say? One trend that we see across many of the
studies is that program quality matters.
Beyond the meta-analysis by Durlak,
Attendance alone doesn’t appear to be
Weissberg, and Pachan, other evaluations
enough to promote SEL outcomes. Rather,
of after-school programs’ effects on SEL
multiple studies have found that positive
outcomes have yielded inconsistent results.
outcomes are related to how much young
Table 1 summarizes findings from studies of
people participate in the program and the
after-school programs that have examined
quality of the experience they have there.
SEL-related outcomes, ranging from studies
Although program quality is often measured
of single after-school centers to combined
by outside observers, young people’s own
studies of multiple programs. Although
perceptions of program quality may also be
there is a rich tradition of qualitatively
an important predictor of outcomes.31
analyzing SEL development in after-school
programs using a descriptive approach, we Differences among Young People
only included quantitative (that is, numeric)
findings in our summary so that we can Young people’s experiences in after-school
compare the sizes of program effects. programs and the extent to which they

1 06   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

benefit from participation aren’t a function used rigorous randomized designs have
of the program alone—they’re determined been criticized for other methodological
by the fit between the program and the flaws, such as ignoring differences in
young people’s characteristics.32 Not only implementation across sites. Third,
may outcomes differ across different evaluation studies often look only at
groups, but different program features may participation versus nonparticipation in a
be important to different young people.33 given program. But participation comprises
Despite the role that race, ethnicity, culture, many things, including frequency of
and other characteristics play in shaping attendance, years of participation, breadth
young people’s experiences in SEL-focused of the activities in which one participates,
after-school programs, however, few studies and quality of engagement.35 Therefore,
have considered differences in experiences participation defined simply in terms of
and outcomes as a function of participants’ attendance may not be related to effects.
characteristics. Among the few studies that Fourth, young people who don’t participate
have done so, age and gender have been in a given program are frequently
associated with differences in a program’s participating in another program, rather
effects.34 But these differences haven’t than no program at all. Working parents
shown a consistent pattern. need childcare after school, and they’re
likely to find an alternative program if
their child isn’t assigned to the after-school
The very nature of after- program being studied. For example, in
the experimental study of After School
school programs poses Matters, 91 percent of the comparison
problems for researchers. group participated in other after-school
programs.36 Thus, after-school research
After-school programs are is often comparing the program being
both voluntary and, for many studied to another program or activity. And
families, necessary. as the Study of Promising After-School
Programs shows, many young people
participate in several programs, which
Why Have Findings Been makes distinguishing the effects of any given
Disappointing? program even harder.37

Significant limitations make it hard to Indeed, the very nature of after-school

draw definite conclusions from studies of programs poses problems for researchers.
SEL-focused after-school programs. First, After-school programs are both voluntary
many studies of after-school programs and, for many families, necessary. Moreover,
don’t evaluate program curricula or specific many of the outcomes that researchers
program activities, so it isn’t clear what are interested in are related to the very
precisely is being evaluated. Second, youth and family characteristics that may
few studies of after-school programs also affect young people’s participation in
use research designs that prove a causal after-school programs. Although it’s hard
link between participation and SEL- for researchers to isolate program effects,
related outcomes. Even studies that have we recognize that after-school programs

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 107

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

are an important part of the landscape effects that do. Currently, many researchers
for young people, especially those who argue that better integration of multiple
live in marginalized communities and approaches to evaluation could better
attend under-resourced schools. Being account for the complexities inherent
unsupervised in the after-school hours is in evaluating SEL-focused after-school
associated with substantial risk for young programming.39 Although randomized
people, suggesting that involvement in design has been upheld as the gold standard
any supervised after-school programs is for evaluating program effects, this
preferable to being left unsupervised.38 approach does little to help us identify how
Consequently, it may be better if and why programs benefit (or fail to benefit)
researchers and practitioners focus on young people. When assessments are
improving the quality of programs rather limited to closed-ended measures, and only
than on simply attempting to prove whether include measures of attitudes and behaviors
particular programs work. before and after a program, evaluators
miss the opportunity to collect more
Where Should Researchers and detailed information about how individuals
Practitioners Focus in the Future? experienced the program and what they
found to be most or least beneficial. As
As we’ve noted, evaluations of after-school a result, evaluators may not be able to
programs—and the conclusions we can explain what about the program made a
draw from them—have been limited in difference (or why it didn’t)—and that’s the
various ways. Self-selection into programs kind of information that can help programs
restricts our ability to ascertain their improve. Integrating various approaches
effects and determine whether any given to evaluating programs—for example, by
findings generalize to groups of young including open-ended interviews with
people who differ in substantial ways from program staff and participants—could help
those studied. Other complicating factors researchers determine not just whether a
include the tremendous variety in purpose, program benefited its participants, but also
activities, and dosage (that is, frequency understand why it did or did not confer
and length) across SEL-focused after-school benefits and in what other contexts we may
programs. All these factors likely play a role or may not expect to see effects.40 Extensive
in determining the extent to which young observations of highly effective SEL-focused
people benefit. And as we’ve mentioned, after-school programs have identified
young people’s own attributes also likely universal processes that effectively build
influence their experiences in programs, SEL across different programs, and
meaning that some of them benefit more they’ve pointed to program practices
than others. that best promote these processes.41 And
new measures (for example, the Youth
It’s important to highlight all the challenges Program Quality Assessment) have been
facing evaluations of SEL-focused after- developed to assess two critical ingredients
school programs, because these challenges of SEL-focused after-school programs:
can contribute to inconsistent findings the quality of the setting as a whole, and
across evaluation studies. They can lead us the experiences and interactions of the
to find effects that don’t exist and to miss young people and adults in that setting.42

1 08   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

Measuring these dimensions also can help programs to promote improvements

to capture universal processes that drive in SEL, we must look beyond research
program effects, and programs can use and practice to consider the pivotal
such assessments to drive improvements role of policy. To start, we make several
in their practices. The notion that only recommendations for policy changes
researchers should conduct evaluations is at various levels that could make adult
antiquated. Scholars increasingly advocate staff more effective. Positive youth-staff
for greater bidirectional influence between relationships likely are the driving force of
research and practice and for shifting the effective after-school programs targeting
broader agenda of evaluation research away SEL outcomes, and a number of structural
from proving what works to identifying program elements may determine whether
opportunities to improve programs.43 these relationships confer benefits to
This approach to evaluation could greatly participating youth. For example, a high
enhance the experiences and outcomes youth-staff ratio and high staff turnover
of young people who attend SEL-focused can undermine the formation of strong ties
after-school programs. between young people and adults. High-
quality programs have been found to have
We also advocate for considering social low staff turnover rates and to hire staff
justice in the practice and study of SEL- with more experience and higher levels of
focused after-school programing. For education.45 Yet the after-school workforce
example, we should ask what program as a whole tends to have high turnover
factors can promote the greatest rates, and workers enter the field with
improvements among the most marginalized mixed levels of relevant prior experience—
and underserved youth.44 Moreover, and, as with other childcare jobs, the pay
underserved youth may find it harder to get is low.46 Thus, programs may have a hard
to after-school programs because of factors time hiring and retaining the most qualified
such as cost and transportation. If they can’t people.
get to after-school programs, they’re likely
One way to boost staff quality is to
to spend more time in unsupervised and
professionalize after-school staff positions.47
unstructured activities, placing them further
These positions often feature low status
at risk for poor outcomes. Staff turnover
and low pay, and they seldom provide
and limited program offerings also tend to
opportunities for hierarchical advancement
be more common in programs that serve
within a youth-serving organization.
marginalized youth. In this way, after-school
A greater emphasis on professional
programs may replicate and extend societal
development, growth, and career
inequality. If young people’s experiences in
advancement is key to improving staff
after-school programs vary in accordance
quality and retention. Furthermore, staff
with their access to resources more
evaluations should focus explicitly on the
generally, such programs will exacerbate
quality of interactions with young people,
disparities rather than remedy them.
and incentives should be provided for staff
Implications for Policy members who consistently perform well
or demonstrate improvements. We can
To bolster the potential of after-school also help create professional networks of

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 109

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

youth workers—similar to teacher learning after-school program staff, it could also

communities—so that they can learn bridge young people’s school and after-
from one another and access in-person school experiences. Consistency of adults
and online opportunities for networking, across different contexts can further support
training, and support.48 SEL development.

Another challenge is that staff positions Policy could also alter the approach to
in after-school programs are, by their evaluating after-school programs by
very nature, part-time. Hence they may broadening the criteria used to determine
be better suited to young adults who whether programs are effective and,
are completing their education, or to consequently, worth funding. The current
retirees. One way to encourage young overemphasis on academic and economic
adults to take these positions would be outcomes leads to neglect of SEL outcomes
to forgive student loans in exchange for that are valuable in their own right and
a set time commitment to after-school also have great potential to foster more
programs in underserved communities. successful life outcomes over time. Focusing
Such an approach could make these exclusively on academic improvement or
positions more desirable for young adults reductions in problem behavior as the
and diminish staff turnover in under- key determinants of effective after-school
resourced programs. Giving young adults programming can mean taking resources
opportunities to advance into full- away from programs that effectively
time positions in an organization could foster growth in SEL competencies. And
also help to attract qualified staff and because SEL competencies can take
would increase opportunities for junior time to translate into improvements in
leadership. And some organizations, such academic performance and classroom
as Boys and Girls Clubs of America, have behavior, programs shouldn’t lose funding
junior staff programs in which teenage if little or no immediate change can be
participants undertake an apprenticeship seen in those outcomes. Expanding the
program aimed at developing their skills criteria used to evaluate programs to
and interests in human services work. include key SEL outcomes could also
In any program, as staff members move help to produce productive and engaged
through the ranks, they could mentor less citizens, rather than just high-achieving
experienced hires. students.50 Collectively, we should invest
in supporting the next generation’s ability
Another option for overcoming the to make positive contributions to society
problems associated with part-time work in many areas. Undoubtedly, feeling self-
would be to hire staff who can combine confident and being able to effectively
school and after-school work hours. This manage relationships with others are central
could mean hiring teachers and teacher’s to engaged citizenship, and the personal and
aides as after-school program staff or social skills that constitute SEL are at the
finding opportunities for after-school core of civil society.
staff to extend their hours by working in
schools during the day.49 Such an approach We’ve discussed the need for evaluations of
might not only enhance the quality of after-school programs to shift from focusing

1 10   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

solely on whether programs are effective re-evaluation. High-stakes evaluations create

to focusing on how to make them work a disincentive for programs to undertake
better. The current policy environment the difficult work of assessing their practices
isn’t structured to support such a shift. and outcomes. But creating incentives for
Notions of accountability reinforce the evaluation would better support after-school
removal of human and financial support programs’ efforts to further develop and
from programs when evaluations don’t refine their approaches to fostering young
show effects. This policy climate may, people’s SEL development. After-school
in fact, discourage programs from programs are uniquely positioned to further
seeking evaluation and may undermine the goals of the SEL movement. Not only
opportunities to learn about nuanced are their objectives aligned with those
aspects of programs that could be modified of targeted SEL interventions, they also
to yield program benefits. An alternative can help level the playing field for young
approach to evaluation would prioritize people with the fewest resources. Thus,
finding the key elements of features allocating more attention and resources to
or practices that have been linked to determining how we can best promote SEL
improvements in after-school participants’ after school holds promise for broadening
outcomes. Evaluation data could then drive the SEL movement’s impact on all young
program improvements and subsequent people.

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 111

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

ENDNOTES
1. Robert C. Granger et al., “Improving After-School Program Quality,” working paper, William T. Grant
Foundation, New York, 2007.
2. Robert Halpern, “A Different Kind of Child Development Institution: The History of After-School
Programs for Low-Income Children,” Teachers College Record 104 (2002): 178–211.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid. 199.
5. “Our Mission,” Boys & Girls Clubs of America, http://www.bgca.org/whoweare/Pages/Mission.aspx.
6. “Benefits of 4-H,” 4-H, http://4-h.org/parents/benefits.
7. Robert C. Granger, “Understanding and Improving Effectiveness of After-School Practice,” American
Journal of Community Psychology 45 (2010): 441–6, doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9301.
8. Kim M. Pierce, Daniel M. Bolt, and Deborah L. Vandell, “Specific Features of After-School Program
Quality: Associations with Children’s Functioning in Middle Childhood,” American Journal of
Community Psychology 45 (2010): 381–93, doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9304-2.
9. Deborah L. Vandell et al., “Children’s Organized Activities,” in Handbook of Child Psychology and
Developmental Science, vol. 4, Ecological Settings and Processes in Developmental Systems, ed. Marc.
H. Bornstein and Tama Leventhal, 7th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015).
10. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Community Programs to Promote Youth
Development (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002).
11 Charles Smith et al., Preparing Youth to Thrive: Promising Practices for Social and Emotional Learning
(Washington, DC: Forum for Youth Investment, 2016).
12. Reed W. Larson and Rachel M. Angus, “Pursuing Paradox: The Role of Adults in Creating Empowering
Settings for Youth,” in Empowering Settings and Voices for Social Change, ed. Mark Aber, Kenneth
Maton, and Edward Seidman (New York: Oxford, 2010), 65–93.
13. Richard F. Catalano et al., “Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on
Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs,” Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 591 (2004): 98–124, doi: 10.1177/0002716203260102.
14. Biren (Ratnesh) A. Nagda and Patricia Gurin, “Intergroup Dialogue: A Critical-Dialogic Approach to
Learning about Difference, Inequality, and Social Justice,” New Directions for Teaching and Learning
111 (2007): 35–45, doi: 10.1002/tl.284.
15. Joanna L. Williams and Nancy L. Deutsch, “Beyond Between-Group Differences: Considering Race,
Ethnicity, and Culture in Research on Positive Youth Development Programs,” Applied Developmental
Science 20 (2016): 2031–13, doi: 10.1080/10888691.2015.1113880.
16. L. Rowell Huesmann and Nancy G. Guerra, “Children’s Normative Beliefs about Aggression
and Aggressive Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1997): 408–19, doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408.
17. Milbrey W. McLaughlin, Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for Youth Development
(Washington DC: Public Education Network, 2000).
18. Ibid.
19. Smith et al., Preparing Youth to Thrive.
20. McLaughlin, Community Counts.

1 12   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

21. Jean E. Rhodes, “The Critical Ingredient: Caring Youth-Staff Relationships in After-School Settings,”
New Directions for Youth Development 101 (2004): 145–61, doi: 10.1002/yd.75.
22. Jean E. Rhodes, Jean B. Grossman, and Nancy L. Resch, “Agents of Change: Pathways through Which
Mentoring Relationships Influence Adolescents’ Academic Adjustment,” Child Development 71 (2000):
1662–71, doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00256.
23. Jennifer G. Roffman, Carola Suarez-Orozco, and Jean E. Rhodes, “Facilitating Positive Development
in Immigrant Youth: The Role of Mentors and Community Organizers,” in Community Youth
Development: Programs, Policies and Practices, ed. Francisco A. Villarruel et al. (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 2003), 90–117.
24. Barton J. Hirsch, A Place to Call Home: After-School Programs for Urban Youth (New York: Teachers
College Press, 2005); Reed W. Larson and Kathrin C. Walker, “Dilemmas of Practice: Challenges
to Program Quality Encountered by Youth Program Leaders,” American Journal of Community
Psychology 45 (2010): 338–49, doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9307-z; Nancy L. Deutsch and Jeffrey N. Jones,
“Show Me an Ounce of Respect: Respect and Authority in Adult-Youth Relationships in After-School
Programs,” Journal of Adolescent Research 23 (2008): 667–88, doi: 10.1177/0743558408322250; Barton
J. Hirsch, Nancy L. Deutsch, and David L. DuBois, After-School Centers and Youth Development: Case
Studies of Success and Failure (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
25. Boys & Girls Clubs of America, National Youth Outcomes Initiative 2014 Outcomes Report: From
Indicators to Impact (Atlanta: Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 2014), http://www.bgca.org/whoweare/
Documents/2014_National_Outcomes_Report-FINAL.pdf.
26. Smith et al., Preparing Youth to Thrive.
27. Robert C. Granger and Thomas Kane, “Improving the Quality of After-School Programs,” Education
Week 23 (2004): 52; Deborah L. Vandell et al., The Study of Promising After-School Programs:
Descriptive Report of the Promising Programs (Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, University of Wisconsin, 2004).
28. Vandell et al., “Children’s Organized Activities”; Priscilla M. D. Little, Christopher Wimer, and Heather
B. Weiss, “After School Programs in the 21st Century: Their Potential and What It Takes to Achieve It,”
Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation, no. 10 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family
Research Project, February 2008).
29 Joseph A. Durlak, Roger P. Weissberg, and Molly Pachan, “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 (2010): 294–309, doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6.
30. Jennifer G. Roffman, Maria E. Pagano, and Barton J. Hirsch, “Youth Functioning and Experiences
in Inner-City After-School Programs Among Age, Gender, and Race Groups,” Journal of Child and
Family Studies 10 (2001): 85–100, doi: 10.1023/A:1016681517546; Amy Arbreton et al., Making Every
Day Count: Boys & Girls Clubs’ Role in Promoting Positive Outcomes for Teens (Philadelphia: Public/
Private Ventures, 2009); Dawn Anderson-Butcher and Scottye J. Cash, “Participation in Boys & Girls
Clubs, Vulnerability, and Problem Behaviors,” Children and Youth Services Review 32 (2010): 672–78,
doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.01.002; Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 2014 Outcomes Report; Richard
M. Lerner et al., The Positive Development of Youth: Comprehensive Findings from the 4-H Study of
Positive Youth Development (Chevy Chase, MD: National 4-H Council, 2013); Barton J. Hirsch et al.,
After-School Programs for High School Students: An Evaluation of After School Matters (Evanston, IL:
Northwester University, 2011); Susan Goerlich Zief, Sheri Lauver, and Rebecca A. Maynard, “Impacts
of After-School Programs on Student Outcomes: A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews
(2006), no. 3, doi: 10.4073/csr.2006.3; Denise C. Gottfredson et al., “Do After School Programs Reduce
Delinquency?” Prevention Science 5 (2004): 253–66, doi: 10.1023/B:PREV.0000045359.41696.02;
Elizabeth R. Reisner et al., Charting the Benefits of High-Quality After-School Program Experiences:
Evidence from New Research on Improving After-School Opportunities for Disadvantaged Youth

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 113

Noelle Hurd and Nancy Deutsch

(Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, 2007); Deborah L. Vandell, Elizabeth R. Reisner, and Kim
M. Pierce, Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the
Study of Promising Afterschool Programs (Irvine: University of California, Irvine, 2007).
31. Sabrina Kataoka and Deborah L. Vandell, “Quality of Afterschool Activities and Relative Change in
Adolescent Functioning over Two Years,” Applied Developmental Science 17 (2013): 123–34, doi:
10.1080/10888691.2013.804375.
32. Greg J. Duncan and Deborah L. Vandell, Understanding Variation in the Impacts of Human Capital
Interventions on Children and Youth (Irvine: Irvine Network on Interventions in Development,
University of California, 2012).
33. Barton J. Hirsch, Megan A. Mekinda, and JulieAnn Stawicki, “More than Attendance: The Importance
of After-School Program Quality,” American Journal of Community Psychology 45 (2010): 447–52, doi:
10.1007/s10464-010-9310-4.
34. Lerner, et al., Positive Development of Youth; Jennifer G. Roffman, Maria E. Pagano, and Barton
J. Hirsch, “Youth Functioning and Experiences in Inner-City After-School Programs Among
Age, Gender, and Race Groups,” Journal of Child and Family Studies 10 (2001): 85–100, doi:
10.1023/A:1016681517546; Deborah L. Vandell, Elizabeth R. Reisner, and Kim M. Pierce, Outcomes
Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the Study of Promising
Afterschool Programs (Irvine: University of California, Irvine, 2007).
35. Jennifer A. Fredericks et al., “Measuring Youth Participation, Program Quality, and Social and
Emotional Skills in Afterschool Programs,” in Advances in Child and Family Policy and Practice:
Integrating Research into Practice and Policy, vol.1, ed. Nancy L. Deutsch (New York: Springer,
forthcoming).
36. Barton J. Hirsch et al., After-School Programs for High School Students: An Evaluation of After School
Matters (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, 2011).
37. Elizabeth R. Reisner et al., Charting the Benefits of High-Quality After-School Program Experiences:
Evidence from New Research on Improving After-School Opportunities for Disadvantaged Youth
(Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, 2007); Vandell et al., Longitudinal Findings.
38. Reisner et al., Charting the Benefits.
39. Patrick H. Tolan and Nancy L. Deutsch, “Mixed Methods in Developmental Science,” in Handbook
of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, vol. 1, Theory and Method, ed. Willis F. Overton and
Peter C. M. Molenaar, 7th ed. (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015), 713–57.
40. David W. Grissmer, Rena F. Subotnik, and Martin Orland, A Guide to Incorporating Multiple
Methods in Randomized Controlled Trials to Assess Intervention Effects (Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, 2009).
41. Smith et al., Preparing Youth to Thrive.
42. Charles Smith and Charles Hohmann, The Youth Program Quality Assessment Validation Study:
Findings for Instrument Validation (Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation,
2005).
43. Dale A. Blyth, “Making the Personal, Social and Economic Impact of Youth Work More Visible: An
American Perspective on the Use of Evidence,” paper presented at informal meeting of European
Union directors general of youth, Dublin, Ireland, March 13, 2013.
44. Nancy L. Deutsch et al., “Let’s Talk After-School: The Promises and Challenges of Positive Youth
Development for After-school Research, Policy, and Practice,” in Deutsch, Advances.

1 14   T HE F UT UR E OF C HI LDRE N
 SEL-Focused After-School Programs

45. Denise Huang and Ronald Dietel, Making Afterschool Programs Better (Los Angeles: National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), UCLA Graduate School of
Education and Information Studies, 2011), http://cresst.org/wp-content/uploads/huang_MAPB_v5.pdf.
46. Judy Nee et al., Understanding the Afterschool Workforce: Opportunities and Challenges for an
Emerging Profession (Oakton, VA: National AfterSchool Association, 2006), http://2crsolutions.com/
images/NAAUnderstandingtheAfterschoolWorkforceNovember.pdf.
47. Deutsch et al. “Let’s Talk After-School.”
48. Milbrey W. McLaughlin and Joan E. Talbert, Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities:
Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement (New York: Teachers College Press, 2006).
49. Rhodes, “Critical Ingredient.”
50. Deutsch et al. “Let’s Talk After-School.”

VOL. 27 / NO. 1 / S PR ING 2017 115