|
Learn About Our...
Programs
Program Model
Program Levels
Need for Programs
|
Camp Fire USA
builds caring, confident youth and future leaders.
For more information, please contact:
Kelita Bak, vice president of government
relations,
at Kelita.Bak@campfireusa.org
|

Secure online donations.
|
|
The Impact of After-School Programs
After-school programs are a
cost-effective federal investment.
The
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Center for
the Study and Prevention of Violence
Rose
Institute
-
The Rose Institute finds
that quality after-school programs can reduce costs related to welfare,
crime, and education (remediation services and grade repetition) for an
average net benefit of between $79,484 and $119,427 per participant.[2]
After-school programs help kids achieve in
school.
Gansk & Associates
-
In the initial year of study, LA’s BEST students began
with math achievement scores that were significantly lower than
non-participants. After long-term participation in the after-school program,
these students increased their test scores to be comparable to their peers.[5]
Mathematica, Inc.
After-school programs keep kids safe and out
of trouble while parents work.
Department of Justice
-
Participation in
the Quantum Opportunities Program led to fewer arrests among participants:
19%
of QOP
members were arrested compared to 23% of the
control group.[10]
National Research Council
-
Students with a high level of participation are less
likely than non-participants to engage in problem behavior, such as being
arrested, taking drugs, engaging in teen sex, smoking, and drinking.[11]
UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation
After-school programs receive
widespread public support.
According to a nationwide survey of 800 registered voters
in August of 2002:
Learn More About:
|
[3]
Blueprints Model Programs: Quantum
Opportunities Program (QOP).
[4]
Klein, S.P., R. Bolus (2002). Improvements in Math and Reading Scores of
Students Who Did and Did Not Participate in the Foundations After School
Enrichment Program During the 2001-2002 School Year. Santa Monica, CA:
Gansk & Associates, 12. A summary of this report is available on-line at
http://www.foundationsinc.org/ExtendedDayFolder/conclusions.asp.
[5]
Huang, Denise., B. Gribbons, K.S. Kim, C.
Lee, and E.L. Baker (2000). A Decade of Results: The Impact of LA’s BEST
After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and
Performance. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of
Evaluation, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, 9. Available on-line at
http://www.lasbest.org/learn/uclaeval.pdf.
[6]
Dynarski, M., C. Pistorino, M. Moore, T. Silva, J. Mullens, J. Deke, P.
Gleason, W. Mansfield, S. James-Burdumy, S. Heaviside, L. Rosenberg, D. Levy
(2003). When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation of the
21st-Century Community Learning Centers Program. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, xii and 71. Available on-line at
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/21cent/firstyear/.
[7]
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2001). Community
Programs to Promote Youth Development. Committee on Community-Level
Programs For Youth. Jacquelynne Eccles and Jennifer A Gootman, eds. Board on
Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 30. Available on-line
at
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309072751/html/.
[11]
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 30.
|
|
|
|
|