Last updated: October 2010 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Afterschool Programs 

Afterschool programs (ASPs)—also called out-of-school time (OST) programs—include a variety of 

program types, structured in numerous ways, designed to affect a variety of outcomes. As the name 

implies, such programs generally occur outside of mandated school hours, although some programs 

classified as afterschool or out-of-school may be part of a larger program where elements are delivered 

during school hours. These may be delivered before school, in the afternoons once school has been 

dismissed, on weekends, or during the summer. 

Most current ASPs generally have one of three purposes, although these are not mutually exclusive: 

improving students’ academic performance, preventing problem behaviors from developing, and 

encouraging positive youth development (Lauer et al. 2006). 

ASPs have risen in popularity over the past decades as more women have moved into the workforce, 

and concerns about unsupervised children have grown. Research findings estimate that 35 percent of 

12-year-olds are left by themselves regularly while their parents are at work. In fact, the gap between

parent work schedules and child school schedules can total 20 to 25 hours per week (U.S. Department

of Justice 2000). This unsupervised time is a risk factor for serious and violent behavior among youths.

The evidence suggests that children “who are unsupervised during the hours after school are more

likely to use alcohol, drugs, tobacco,... receive poor grades, and drop out of school than those children

who have the opportunity to benefit from constructive activities supervised by responsible adults” (U.S.

Department of Justice 2000). Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Weisman (2001) also find that youths who

are unsupervised during afterschool hours are found to be more delinquent at all times, not only after

school. Research has documented an association between parental supervision and lower levels of

problem behaviors (Apsler 2009).

Also justifying the need for more programs to address this supervision gap is the apparent peak of 

violent crime in the 4 hours following the end of the school day (roughly 2–6 p.m.). Data from the FBI 

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) shows that crimes among youth peak between 3 

p.m. and 4 p.m. (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Other recent research, though, has used victimization

surveys, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, and reached the conclusion that the

dramatic peak in crime is, in fact, more modest than official data sometimes indicates and that

“juveniles are disproportionately victimized while at school relative to the percentage of time they

spend at school” (Soulé, Gottfredson, and Bauer 2008, 625). A recent study of Maryland students

based on victimization surveys shows that juvenile victimization and delinquency peak during school

hours, though more serious violent offenses are higher after school (Soulé, Gottfredson, and Bauer

2008). One reason for the discrepancy in findings based on NIBRS and survey data is that crime that

occurs in school or on the way to and from school often does not appear in official police records

(Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Weisman 2001).

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2010. “Afterschool Programs.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Afterschool_Programs.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or opinions 

expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

Where ASPs were once primarily viewed as a safe haven for youth when parents were unavailable for 

supervision, the growing emphasis on the need for improved academic performance and basic skills to 

succeed in the 21st century has transformed the vision of what ASPs can, and should, do for youth 

(Harvard Family Research Project 2008). ASPs’ potential led the federal government to become an active 

supporter of this growing movement. In 1994, Congress authorized the 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers program and increased funding for the centers from $40 million in 1998 to $1 billion 

in 2002. According to the original funding guidelines, these centers were to concentrate on providing 

academic and enrichment activities during afterschool hours; centers that included elements to help 

students reach state and federal standards were given extra consideration in the application process 

(James–Burdumy et al. 2005). The structure of funding changed in 2002 with the passage of No Child 

Left Behind, at which point funding began being distributed to states in proportion to allocation of Title 

I funds (James–Burdumy et al. 2005). As of fiscal year (FY) 2010, appropriations brought the total 

funding for the centers to $1.17 billion, an increase of $35 million over FY 2009.

The funding of these programs has in crucial ways been disconnected from the evidence of program 

effectiveness (Fagan 2007). For instance, funding grew rapidly from 1994 to 1998 with little evidence 

about the effectiveness of ASPs. When an evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

was published in 2005 that demonstrated no academic improvements and increased negative behaviors 

by participants, Congress nonetheless continued to fund the centers in 2006 with approximately $1 

billion (Fagan 2007). 

Although many continue to advocate for more ASPs, arguing that there is not enough supply to meet 

demand, some recent research has started to look at the match between supply and demand. Bodilly 

and Beckett examined this question in a 2005 report on OST programs. They found that most studies 

documenting unmet demand were highly flawed (e.g., they were based on unverifiable assumptions), 

and many studies, in fact, documented significant openings in extant programs. Low attendance is quite 

common in ASPs, and two studies that directly addressed this issue found that the ASP in question did 

not reduce the number of unsupervised youths (Apsler 2009; Weisman and Gottfredson 2001; James–

Burdumy et al. 2005). Based on their examination, Bodilly and Beckett recommended that improving 

the quality of existing programs should take precedence over increasing their supply. 

Characteristics of ASPs

One of the emerging aspects of evaluations of ASPs is the effort to identify what characteristics of 

programs make them most effective. Characteristics or components of effective programs include 

 An emphasis on social skills or character development

 More structure, with a predictable schedule

 Smaller size, with lower adult/youth ratios and with opportunities for one-on-one 

training/tutoring

 Strong links to school-day curriculum

 Qualified and well-trained staff (e.g., hiring staff that hold bachelor degrees)

 Higher percentage of male staff

 Low attrition (Durlak and Weissberg 2007; Fashola 1998; Gottfredson, Cross, and Soulé 2007)

In their review of programs that promote personal and social skills, Durlak and Weissberg remark on 

the differences in results found between programs that used evidence-based, skills-training approaches 

and those that did not: the former uniformly produced multiple benefits for youth, but the latter “were 

not successful in any outcome area” (Durlak and Weissberg 2007, 5). The following elements were used 

to identify programs that used evidence-based approaches:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

 A sequenced set of activities to achieve skill objectives

 The use of active forms of learning

 Emphasis concentration on developing personal or social skills

 The targeting of specific personal or social skills

Of the 73 quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations they studied, only the 39 programs that 

were identified as using evidence-based approaches were associated with positive outcomes.

Theoretical Foundation

Overall, little has been done to theorize why or how ASPs might succeed in the three main purposes 

proposed for such programs (that is, improving students’ academic performance, preventing problem 

behaviors from developing, and encouraging positive youth development). This lack of theoretical 

context is especially important in light of two issues. First, participation in ASPs is voluntary, and 

research shows that students who participate in ASPs are not like those who do not participate (Apsler 

2009; Bandy and Moore 2009; Bodilly and Beckett 2005; Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Weisman 2001). 

This phenomenon of self-selection poses a challenge to the implied universal utility and benefit of ASPs 

suggested by advocates, since many of those youths who could, in theory, most benefit from such 

programs may never participate (or may drop out during the program). This initial selection bias can 

be exacerbated by the selection bias introduced by differential participation rates (e.g., motivated 

students may engage more fully and for longer) and attrition (e.g., unmotivated or higher-risk youth 

may drop out). Second, a theoretical grounding could take into account research that has documented 

the negative effects on problem behaviors of aggregating youths, especially high-risk adolescents; such 

peer interactions can lead to increased problem behaviors (Cook, Gottfredson, and Na 2009; Dishion, 

McCord, and Poulin 1999; Dishion et al. 1991). Finally, the absence of a theoretical grounding for ASPs 

has resulted in multiple categorizations on the part of researchers, sometimes by program structure, 

sometimes by goals, and sometimes by content areas (Apsler 2009). 

Two very different theoretical frameworks for considering ASP/OST programming are offered by 

Gottfredson, Cross, and Soule (2007) and Feldman and Matjasko (2005). Gottfredson and colleagues 

argue the relevance of routine activities theory to ASP research, which postulates that “1) crime will 

increase when motivated offenders, suitable crime targets, and the absence of capable guardians 

converge in space and time; and 2) the likelihood of this occurring is based on the routine activities of 

an individual” (Gottfredson, Cross, and Soulé 2007, 294). ASPs can influence crime by changing the 

routine activities of a youth, reducing the unsupervised time spent with peers. 

In their review of the literature on extracurricular activities and adolescent development, Feldman and 

Matjasko offer an ecological framework that considers the mechanisms through which “activities exert 

their influence on development” (2005, 159; Fashola 1998). They consider some of the many mediator 

and moderator variables that influence the impact of programs within an ecological systems 

framework, which provides a foundation for examining the link between activity participation and 

adolescent functioning. They note that extracurricular activities cannot be divorced from other 

developmental contexts, such as families, schools, and communities. This model allows for 

consideration of how program participation may compensate for a “suboptimal fit in another context” 

(160). 

Outcome Evidence

Research over the first decade of the 21st century has been largely divided between studies that 

emphasize the positive effects of ASPs and reviews that argue the research methods of most ASP 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

evaluations are so weak that one can only draw the most preliminary of conclusions about programs’ 

effectiveness.

Limitations of Current ASP Evaluation Research

In a variety of reviews of ASP evaluations, various methodological limitations of evaluation research 

have been identified, including selection bias, methods for tracking dosage and program attrition, and 

the lack of a control group (see e.g., Apsler 2009; Bodilly and Beckett 2005; Gottfredson, Cross, and 

Soulé 2007; Scott–Little, Hamann, and Jurs 2002). 

The main weakness of evaluations to date is their lack of adequate controls for self-selection. Selfselection is the phenomenon where children who choose to participate in such programs differ from 

those who do not participate (Apsler 2009; Bandy and Moore 2009; Bodilly and Beckett 2005; 

Gottfredson, Gottfredson, and Weisman 2001). As Gottfredson, Cross, and Soulé note, those students 

who participate in ASPs “are also those who are already on track for prosocial development” (2007, 

290). Self-selection poses a challenge to evaluations because it is possible that the effects documented 

by an evaluation may be due not to the program, but to characteristics of the youths enrolled. Otherwise 

rigorous studies are even limited by this bias. For instance, one study that is characterized by the 

evaluators as a randomized controlled field trial—the gold standard for evaluation—draws its 

treatment and control subjects from those who indicated they wanted to participate in the program 

(James–Burdumy et al. 2005). This limitation in the research does not mean that these evaluations tell 

us nothing, but it does tend to lead to research that may overstate the positive effect of programs 

(Bodilly and Beckett 2005).

Related flaws in methodology include the lack of definitions of dosage and methods for tracking dosage 

(that is, how much of a program the youth actually was exposed to) and the lack of information on 

attrition rates and those who dropped out. Youths who drop out of a program may differ from those 

who remain enrolled. In a study of 234 students in eight Maryland ASPs, Weisman and Gottfredson 

(2001) documented a 33 percent dropout rate. In interviews with 82 percent of those who dropped out 

of the programs, they found that dropouts scored significantly more at risk on 11 of the 12 indicators 

than those who remain enrolled. Apsler (2009) also examines how the results of various evaluations are 

limited by the lack of an appropriate, or any, control group. Such limitations have affected the ability 

of researchers to reach general conclusions about the effectiveness and efficacy of ASPs. For instance, 

Scott–Little, Hamann, and Jurs (2002) attempted a meta-analysis of ASPs based on evaluations, but 

although they identified 23 studies that met the review criteria they found there were too few 

evaluations with sufficient detail (e.g., means and standard deviations) to calculate effect sizes beyond 

a very small sample. They carried out a meta-evaluation instead.

Another issue of concern has been the venue for publication. Evaluations that are published in peerreviewed journals generally report larger effect sizes than those published as dissertations or reports 

by the evaluator or program (Lauer et al. 2006; Scott–Little, Hamann, and Jurs 2002). By depending on 

published articles, the positive effects of ASPs may be overstated.

Research Results

Several of the largest, most rigorous evaluations have found a mix of small positive effects, no effects, 

or even small negative effects. The evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

program had both a rigorous design and a large sample size (James–Burdumy et al. 2005). Positive 

effects included elementary school students feeling safer and parent reports of improved school 

attendance. But overall, especially for programs designed to support and improve academic 

achievement, the outcomes were disappointing: treatment-group students did not boast higher levels 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

of academic achievement as measured by reading test scores or grades in school, compared with 

control-group students. Moreover, there was evidence of higher levels of negative behavior (e.g., 

suspensions, students being disciplined by teachers) among treatment-group students, compared with 

control-group students. Lauer and colleagues (2006) suggest that these findings may result in part from 

the aggregation of data across the various programs included in the evaluation, which would not 

distinguish effective from noneffective programs.

Similarly disappointing results were found in the evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in 

ASPs, a 2-year demonstration and random assignment evaluation of structured approaches to teaching 

math and reading in ASPs. Black and colleagues (2009) found that there was a positive and statistically 

significant improvement of approximately 10 percent in (0.09 standard deviation) student achievement 

in math after receipt of approximately 48 hours of academic instruction over 1 year. The evaluators 

described this improvement as about the equivalent of 1 month’s extra learning over the 9-month school 

year. But no further improvement occurred with a 2-year dose. Moreover, they found that there was no 

impact of the intensive reading program on scores after 1 year of participation, and that 2 years of 

participation resulted in a negative and statistically significant impact on reading scores. Lauer’s

evaluation of the Cooke Middle School Afterschool Recreation program, using an experimental design, 

produced similarly mixed results: students and parents responded positively to the program, but there 

was no measurable impact on school attendance, grades, test scores, in-school behavior, or time spent 

on homework (2002; as cited in Apsler 2009).

Despite these methodological problems and the weak results of some large, national evaluations of 

ASPs, many reviewers have pointed out that while firm conclusions may not be merited, the 

preponderance of evidence suggests that ASPs do have positive effects. On the cautious end of the 

spectrum, for instance, Bodilly and Beckett (2005) conclude in their review of OST program evaluations 

that while broad conclusions about the universe of ASPs cannot be made, the literature currently allows 

for the effects of specific programs to be reviewed, and some programs have demonstrated positive 

effects on outcomes ranging from academic achievement to social behaviors to attitudes. On the other 

end of the spectrum are reviews, such as that by Durlak and Weissberg (2007), which conclude that 

ASPs can have strong positive effects when they incorporate evidence-based approaches.

Lauer and colleagues performed a meta-analysis that revealed “small but statistically significant 

positive effects of OST on both reading and mathematics student achievement” (2006, 275). The 

researchers analyzed 35 program evaluations that employed either experimental or quasi-experimental 

designs—though, according to Apsler (2009)—these designs do not adequately account for selection 

bias. They looked at possible moderators of effectiveness, including timeframe, grade level, program 

focus, program duration, and student grouping. Of these moderators, they found grade level to be an 

important moderator, with the highest effect sizes for mathematics programs for students in middle 

and high school, and the highest effect sizes for reading programs for students in lower elementary and 

high school grades. 

McComb and Scott–Little speak of the “pattern of results” (2003, 1) that indicate the positive effects of 

school-readiness initiatives on youth outcomes. For instance, evaluations of programs such as LA’s 

BEST or Woodrock Youth Development Project found that programs had positive academic (LA’s BEST 

participants scored higher on standardized tests in language arts, math, and reading, and attended 

school more regularly) and psychosocial outcomes (participants in Woodrock Youth Development 

Project had higher prosocial scores than nonparticipants). They note that evaluations to date have not 

indicated “which students benefit the most and under what circumstances” (2003, 1). Feldman and 

Matjasko acknowledge it is “impossible to generally state that extracurricular activities are beneficial” 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

(2005, 163), given the negative effects noted in some program evaluations, but they likewise conclude 

that “[s]chool-based, structured, extracurricular activity participation... is associated with positive 

adolescent developmental outcomes” (2005, 193), including reduced dropout and problem behaviors 

and increased academic performance, school attainment, and psychological adjustment.

The findings on ASPs are suggestive of their potential, but confirmation about the overall effectiveness 

of such programs awaits more rigorous research. In the meantime, there is a group of programs, 

especially those that incorporate evidence-based approaches, which are available for replication.

References

Apsler, Robert. 2009. Afterschool Programs for Adolescents: A Review of Evaluation Research. 

Adolescence 44(173):1–19.

Bandy, Tawana, and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2009. Nonparticipation of Children and Adolescents In Outof-School Time Programs: Child, Family, and Neighborhood Factors. Research-to-Results Brief. 

Publication #2009–39. Washington, D.C.: Child Trends.

Black, Alison Rebeck, Marie–Andree Somers, Fred Doolittle, Rebecca Unterman, Jean Baldwin 

Grossman, Evaluation National Center for Education, Assistance Regional, and Sciences 

Institute of Education. 2009. The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in Afterschool 

Programs: Final Report. NCEE 2009–4077. National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance.

Bodilly, Susan J., and Megan K. Beckett. 2005. Making Out-of-School-Time Matter: Evidence for an Action 

Agenda. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.

Cook, Philip J., Denise C. Gottfredson, and Chongmin Na. 2009. School Crime Control and Prevention. 

Durham, N.C.: Duke University. 

Dishion, Thomas J., Joan McCord, and François Poulin. 1999. “When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups 

and Problem Behavior.” American Psychologist 54(9):755–64.

Dishion, Thomas J., Gerald R. Patterson, M. Stoolmiller, and Martie L. Skinner. 1991. “Family, School, 

and Behavioral Antecedents to Early Adolescent Involvement With Antisocial Peers.”

Developmental Psychology 27(1):172–80.

Durlak, Joseph A., and Roger P. Weissberg. 2007. The Impact of Afterschool Programs That Promote Personal 

and Social Skills. Chicago, Ill.: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.

Fagan, Abigail A. 2007. “Investment in Effective Afterschool Programs: Is It Worth the Risk?”

Criminology & Public Policy 6(2):319–26.

Fashola, Olatokunbo S. 1998. Review of Extended-Day and Afterschool Programs and Their Effectiveness. 

Report No. 24. Baltimore, Md.: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.

Feldman, Amy F., and Jennifer L. Matjasko. 2005. “The Role of School-Based Extracurricular Activities 

in Adolescent Development: A Comprehensive Review and Future Directions.” Review of 

Educational Research 75(2):159–210.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Amanda Cross, and David A. Soulé. 2007. “Distinguishing Characteristics of 

Effective and Ineffective Afterschool Programs to Prevent Delinquency and Victimization.”

Criminology & Public Policy 6(2):289–318.

Gottfredson, Denise C., Gary D. Gottfredson, and Stephanie A. Weisman. 2001. “The Timing of 

Delinquent Behavior and Its Implications for Afterschool Programs.” Criminology & Public Policy

1(1):61–86.

Harvard Family Research Project. 2008. Research Update: Highlights From the Out-of-School Time Database. 

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Family Research Project.

James–Burdumy, Susanne, Mark Dynarski, Mary Moore, John Deke, Wendy Mansfield, and Carol 

Pistorino. 2005. When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Lauer, Patricia A., Motoko Akiba, Stephanie B. Wilkerson, Helen S. Apthorp, David Snow, and Mya L. 

Martin–Glenn. 2006. “Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk 

Students.” Review of Educational Research 76(2):275–313.

McComb, Errin M., and Catherine Scott–Little. 2003. Afterschool Programs: Evaluations and Outcomes. 

Greensboro, N.C.: SERVE.

Scott-Little, Catherine, Mary Sue Hamann, and Stephen G. Jurs. 2002. “Evaluations of After-School 

Programs: A Meta-Evaluation of Methodologies and Narrative Synthesis of Findings.” American 

Journal of Evaluation 23(4):387-419.

Snyder, Howard, and Melissa Sickmund. 1999. Violence After School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Soulé, Dave, Denise C. Gottfredson, and Erin Bauer. 2008. “It’s 3 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Child 

Is? A Study on the Timing of Juvenile Victimization and Delinquency.” JQ: Justice Quarterly

25(4):623–46.

U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. Working for Children and Families: Safe and Smart Afterschool Programs. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Weisman, Stephanie A., and Denise C. Gottfredson. 2001. “Attrition From Afterschool Programs: 

Characteristics of Students Who Drop Out.” Prevention Science 2(3):201–05.