At every follow-up, average grades of treatment youth were significantly higher than control and comparison group youth. At the 30-month follow-up the treatment group’s average score was 86.88, compared to 78.79 for the comparison group and 75.67 for the control group. It should be noted that at baseline assessment, treatment and comparison group children already had significantly higher grades than control youth.
At the 30-month follow-up, the treatment group had significantly higher grades than both the comparison and control groups in the following areas: reading, spelling, history, science, and social studies. Although there were no differences at the 30-month follow-up in English and writing, the treatment group had significantly higher grades at the 18-month follow-up. In mathematics, the treatment group had significantly higher grades than the comparison and control groups at the 18-month follow-up; however, at the 30-month follow-up, the treatment and comparison groups did not differ from each other. They did, however, have significantly higher grades than the control group. There were no significant differences in geography grades between the groups at any follow-up.
At the 30-month follow-up, the treatment group had significantly fewer days missed (2.19 days) compared to the comparison group (12.33 days) and control group (16.67 days).
There were no significant differences between the groups at any follow-up point in the frequency of behavioral incidents.
The Schinke et al. (2000) study evaluated the effects of Project Learn on youth in public housing in New York City, N.Y., Cleveland, Ohio, Oakland, Calif., Tampa, Fla., and Edinburgh, Texas. This program was implemented by Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGC) in communities they already served. For the purpose of the evaluation, a site in each city that had BGC, but not the Project Learn enhancement, was matched on demographics, youth proportion, size, and public housing service population of the Treatment sites to serve as the Comparison site. Additionally, a Control site was matched to each Treatment site using a youth facility that was not BGC and did not provide educational enhancements to their adolescent students. In total, 15 sites were used (five Treatment, five Comparison, and five Control), matched on geographic and demographic variables. Youth and parents at each site completed informed consent statements. The total number of participants at baseline was 283. At the 18-month follow-up, the number of participants had decreased to 249, and to 191 by the final 30-month follow-up. An attrition analysis showed participant drop-off did not differ significantly between intervention groups and sites.
Of the 283 youth across the 15 sites at baseline, the average age was 12.3 years. Forty percent were female. The participant group was 63 percent black, 19 percent Hispanic, 13 percent white, and 5 percent Asian or of another ethnicity. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or ethnicity between groups. Although treatment and comparison youth came from BGCs, control youth were regular users of their facilities, which included after-school, recreational, and human services programs. Treatment sites were encouraged to participate in the evaluation when chosen; comparison sites were motivated by the receipt of the program after the evaluation; and control sites received a financial incentive at each measurement.
Data from schools were collected to assess students’ performance in mathematics, English grammar, composition, reading, spelling, history, science, social studies, and geography. Schools also provided attendance records and behavioral incidents. Researchers used analysis of variance to test for differences between the treatment, comparison, and control groups.
The Schinke et al. (2000) evaluation also looked at self-report surveys from students and teachers on perceived abilities and enjoyment of various scholastic activities and subjects. These results are not reported in CrimeSolutions.gov. For further information on additional outcome results, please see the study reference under the program's Evidence Base.