Quality and accountability in the out‐of‐school‐time sector

Abstract

In the fragmented out-of-school-time sector, defining and measuring quality in terms of staff behaviors at the point of service provides a common framework that can reduce obstacles to cross-sector and cross-program performance improvement efforts and streamline adoption of data-driven accountability policies. This chapter views the point of service, that is, the microsettings where adults and youth purposefully interact, as the critical unit of study because it is ubiquitous across out-of-school-time programs and because it is the place where key developmental experiences are intentionally delivered. However, because point-of-service behaviors are embedded within multilevel systems where managers set priorities and institutional incentives constrain innovation, effective quality interventions must contend with and attend to this broader policy environment. The Youth Program Quality Assessment (Youth PQA) is one of an emerging class of observational assessment tools that measure staff performances at the point of service and, depending on methodology of use, can help create the conditions that managers and youth workers need to accept, adopt, and sustain accountability initiatives. Observational assessment tools can be flexible enough to be used for program self-assessment (appropriate for low-stakes, non-normative learning purposes), external assessment (appropriate for higher stakes, normative comparisons, and performance accountability), and various hybrids that combine elements from each. We provide advice for decision makers regarding how to most effectively use the Youth PQA and similar measurement tools depending on the articulation of clear purposes for which accountability and improvement policies are enacted and effective sequencing of implementation.

Does Theming Camp Experiences Lead to Greater Quality, Satisfaction, and Promotion?

“…Another approach to quality is focusing on "coexistence and correspondence between staff practices and youth experience that is likely to produce positive developmental change" (Smith et al, 2010, p. 359). Indeed, focus on staff behavior and practice has been shown to elevate the quality of youth experience (Smith, Devaney, Akiva, & Sugar, 2009). …”

Training Staff to Create Caring Communities: Promises and Challenges

“…Implementation factors refer to the qualities of a program that depend on the individual staff member, such as social norms, organizational climate (Eccles, & Gootman, 2002), and other "artistic factors" (Ellis, & Rossman, 2008). Smith, Devaney, Akiva, and Sugar (2009) describe the ways individual staff members interact with youth at the point of service. The effects of training teachers (Tarlow, 1996), mentors (Rhodes, 2004), and athletic coaches (Newton, Watson, Gano-Overway, Fry, Kim, & Magyar, 2007) to promote caring community is well documented; however, effective methods for training youth workers in general are less clear (Shek, & Wai, 2008).…”

Including the Youth Perspective: The Development of the CPQA Camper Survey

“…The ability of youth programs to implement recognized best practices in their field is often expressed in terms of program quality. High quality programs include elements such as the performance and behavior of program staff; the existence of positive and supporting relationships; youth feeling a sense of belonging and developing self-efficacy; the availability of opportunities for active learning and the acquisition of new skills; and youth having the ability to make decisions, develop a sense of independence, and have a voice (Bowles & Brand, 2009;Durlak, et al, 2010;Grossman, Campbell, & Raley, 2007;Larson, Eccles, & Gootman, 2004;Larson, Rickman, Gibbons, & Walker, 2009;Sibthorp, Paisley & Gookin, 2007;Smith et al, 2009;Vandell, et al, 2007). In general, higher quality programs are those that are believed to produce increased outcome achievement, thus having a positive impact on the lives of youth (Garst, Browne & Bialeschki, 2011;Sheldon, Arbreton, Hopkins, & Grossman, 2010;Smith, Devaney, Akiva, & Sugar, 2009).…”