After-School Programs (ASP) in Public Elementary Schools: A National Analysis of Program Delivery for Free, Fee-Based, and Other Types of Asps

Background:

Students living in poverty have fewer opportunities to participate in after-school programs, despite these programs substantially increasing their potential for school success. The present study analyzes characteristics of schools with different types of after-school programs (fee-based, 21^st Century Community Learning Center-CCLC, other type of after school) at their physical location. It was hypothesized that schools with higher percentages of students eligible for Free-and-Reduced Meals (FARM) and higher percentages of minority-enrolled students were more likely to have 21^st CCLC programs versus other program types.

Methods:

Secondary data were utilized from the 2008 Fast-Response Survey System (FRSS), a cross-sectional data set distributed by the National Center on Education Statistics (NCES) within the U.S. Department of Education. Of the 1,601 responding schools in the sample, 35% reported more than half minority enrollment and 50% reported more than half FARM-eligible students.  

Chi-square tests were conducted between after-school program type (fee-based, 21^st CCLC, other) and percent of students eligible for FARM as well as percent of minority students enrolled. Three logistic regression models tested the relationship between school characteristics (% eligible for FARM, % minority students enrolled, school locale, region, school size) and after-school program types (fee-based, 21^st CCLC, other). 

Findings:

Chi-square tests indicated significant associations between having a specific type of after school program and percent minority-enrolled as well as percent eligible for FARM.  When controlling for other predictors in the logistic regression model, schools with 35% or fewer students  qualifying for FARM have 11.5 times the odds (OR = 11.5, p < .01) of having a 21^st CCLC program than schools  with 75% or more students qualifying for FARM. Smaller schools have 2.5 times the odds (OR = 2.5, p < .01) of having fee-based programs than schools with 500 or more students. The odds of having a fee-based after-school program are lower for schools with fewer FARM-eligible students. Compared to schools with 75% or more students eligible for FARM, schools with 35% to 49% of students eligible for FARM have twice the odds (OR = 1.78, p < .05) of having any other type of after-school program. 

Conclusion:
Key findings were that schools with fewer students eligible for FARM had higher odds of having a 21^st CCLC program than schools with more students eligible for FARM. This finding is particularly striking since 21^st CCLC grants are meant to provide funding for after school programs in low income communities. Second, the odds of having a fee-based after-school program are lower for schools with higher income students than schools with more students qualifying for FARM; although, one may expect schools with higher income families to   offer fee-based programs. Third, schools with fewer students have greater odds of having fee-based programs than schools with larger student bodies. This finding suggests smaller schools are more able to charge fees for after school programs. Lastly, schools serving middle-income families have programs that are neither free nor fee-based. Results from this study highlight program delivery inequalities and identify areas for future research on policy addressing such disproportionality.