After-School Programs

Abstract

While after-school programs are plentiful, they are often developed arbitrarily with little attention given to theoretical underpinnings that may inform program interventions. In this article, after-school programs are situated in resilience theory as protective factors, which encourage resilience among young Black males and other urban youth. The resilience literature is explored, granting attention to varying resilience models and contextualizing resilience in young Black males. Several risk factors such as poverty, violence exposure, and academic difficulty, which often plague these young men, are also examined. Finally, after-school programs are introduced as resources for Black males and other urban youth.

Keywords

after school youth development Black African American males resilience

On the radio show, This American Life, radio reporters were embedded in Chicago’s Harper high school for 6 months (Glass, 2013). Harper is well known for being plagued by violence and, in particular, by the end of the 2011-2012 school year, more than 29 of their current or former students were shot; 8 of them were killed. In a candid interview with a Harper student, she explained the best way to avoid violence in her community is to “stay away from your block as long as you can, every day . . . get involved with something at school so you can stay as late as they let you” (Glass, 2013).

Equally compelling stories are reported from urban school districts across the United States. Researchers have documented how poor urban schools, a lack of jobs, policing strategies that target urban youth of color, and other institutional structures coalesce to form a backdrop that encourages negative outcomes for urban youth and particularly for young Black males (Brunson, 2007; Ferguson, 2001; Levitan, 2004; Miller, 1996; Spencer, 2001; Wilson, 1996). Yet, less is known about the psychological and environmental factors in urban neighborhoods that protect these young men from negative outcomes and promote healthy development.

Although it remains important to highlight and change those structural inequities that discourage healthy development, this article uses a resilience framework to focus on protective factors in urban neighborhoods that encourage young Black males to reach their full potential. Similar to the aforementioned student from Harper High School, the writer concurs that “getting involved” with an extracurricular activity during the after-school period is a protective factor that can prevent young people from academic failure, violence exposure, and other risks associated with residing in underserved urban environments. Prior to examining risk and resilience in Black males and the important role after-school programs can have on their lives, a brief review of the resilience literature is provided.

Resilience

Resilience is defined as a “dynamic process encompassing positive adaptation within the context of significant adversity” (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000, p. 543). Two conditions must be present for an individual to be considered resilient: (a) exposure to substantial risk, trauma, and/or severe adversity, and (b) the achievement of positive adaptation despite major risks and/or adversity. The term resilient is applied to youth who are considered vulnerable or at increased likelihood to experience negative outcomes associated with risk, but are somehow able to avoid these outcomes and mature into psychologically healthy adults.

It was during the 1970s that pioneering scientists and clinicians pointed out that exposure to risks only locked some kids into negative outcomes, while other youth who faced similar risks developed relatively unscathed (Rutter, 1979; Werner, Bierman, & French, 1971; Werner & Smith, 1977). Researchers began to examine the factors in the lives of resilient youth that fostered positive adaptation amid significant adversity. These factors later became known as protective factors because they protect or buffer against, and in some cases counteract the negative effects caused by exposure to risks and adversity (Luthar et al., 2000; Rutter, 1979; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012).

Protective factors can either be assets or resources (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Assets are psychological protective factors, such as an optimistic future outlook, high self-esteem, and an easy temperament, which encourage positive youth outcomes even under the most difficult circumstances. Resources are environmental protective factors such as familial support, parental monitoring of behavior, and adult mentoring, which also protect vulnerable youth. After-school programs in urban and high-risk neighborhoods are a resource.

Resilience research has traditionally concentrated on three areas: assets, familial resources, and community resources (Garmezy, 1991; Wright, Masten, & Narayan, 2013). Early resilience researchers often analyzed the assets that resilient children possessed. Personal qualities such as high self-esteem (Masten & Garmezy, 1985), positive future outlook (Wyman et al., 1992), and an easy temperament (Werner & Smith, 1982) were identified as assets that encouraged youth resilience.

Researchers also identified the family as a possible resource. Werner and Smith (1982) found that positive caregiver-child interactions at age 2 years predicted resilient outcomes at ages 10 and 18. Wyman et al. (1992) compared stress-resilient to stress-affected children ages 10 to 12 and reported that stress-resilient children had more stable family environments, consistent family discipline, and nurturing relationships with primary caregivers. After reviewing qualitative data analyses, Jarrett (1995) concluded that there are five family characteristics associated with resilient African American youth: (a) a supportive adult network structure, (b) restricted family-community relations, (c) stringent parental monitoring strategies, (d) strategic alliances with mobility-enhancing institutions and organizations, and (e) adult-sponsored youth development.

Although less articulated in the research literature, the third possible sites for the development of youth resilience are community resources or those resources that reside outside of the individual or family contexts. Early on, Rutter (1979) identified good schools as a possible community resource, while also acknowledging the complicated debate regarding what constitutes a good school. The peer group has also been cited as a possible resource; however, the true relationship of the peer group to risks and resilience is complex and remains inconclusive (Condly, 2006; Wyman et al., 1992). In some cases, the peer group functions as a resource, and in other cases it is a risk factor (Condly, 2006; Wright et al., 2013).

In Zolkoski and Bullock’s (2012) review of the resilience literature, they contended that community resources heighten youth resilience by supporting family caretakers, who in turn provide additional support for their children. For example, Wolff (1995) found that employment opportunities for high-risk men greatly reduced risks for the children of these men. More recent reviews have also highlighted the role of community support on resilience (Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2009). Although data indicate that community resources that support the family can indirectly encourage resilience among the family’s children, much less is known about additional community resources, such as after-school programs, which can directly encourage youth resilience.

There are varying resilience models that clarify the interaction between risks and protective factors (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Luthar, 1993; Luthar et al., 2000). These models can be condensed into three categories: (a) direct effect, (b) mediator, and (c) curvilinear models. In the direct-effect model, often referred to as the compensatory (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005) or protective (Luthar, 1993; Luthar et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2013) model, an asset or resource counteracts or compensates for a risk factor. This model involves the direct effect of a protective factor on an outcome. Fergus and Zimmerman cited the relationship among youth poverty, adult monitoring, and violent behavior as an example. They explained that youth living in poverty, likely as a result of neighborhood deterioration and increased violence exposure, are more likely to engage in violent behavior than youth not living in poverty. However, a resource such as adult monitoring of behavior can compensate or counteract youth violence and other negative outcomes associated with poverty (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

In the mediator model, assets and resources regulate the relationship between risks and outcomes. The mediator model has also been referred to as a protective model (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005); although other researchers have called for more clarity in resilience mediation models by utilizing more specific nomenclature (Luthar, 1993; Luthar et al., 2000), Luthar et al. prefer the following terms: protective-stabilizing (when the protective factor in question confers stability or competence despite increasing risk), protective-enhancing (when it allows youth to negotiate stress such that their competence is augmented with increasing risk), or protective but reactive (when a protective factor offers advantages but less so when stress levels are higher versus lower).

In the curvilinear model sometimes referred to as the challenge model (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Garmezy et al., 1984), exposures to low levels and high levels of risks are correlated with negative outcomes. In contrast, intermediate levels of risk are correlated with positive outcomes. Fergus and Zimmerman (2005) explained the curvilinear model, stating, “The idea is that adolescents exposed to moderate levels of risk are confronted with enough of the risk factor to learn how to overcome it but are not exposed to so much of it that overcoming it is impossible” (p. 403). For instance, too little family discord may not prepare youth with the coping ability to successfully negotiate problems that occur in their lives outside of the home. However, too much family discord may be overwhelming and lead to additional social and psychological problems (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

It should also be noted that these resilience models may not occur independently of one another. That is, an asset or a resource may have both a compensatory and a protective effect or either a compensatory or a protective effect. Also, in some instances, the same protective factor may encourage different outcomes depending on the child. Gordon and Song (1994) asserted that in one context an asset or resource may have a positive effect on an outcome; however, in a different context that same asset or resource may have a negative effect on the outcome variable. Take for example, a study by Gutman, Sameroff, and Eccles (2002) on risk and protective factors for academic achievement. Gutman et al. found that democratic decision making in the family, usually considered a resource that elicits positive academic outcomes for White youth, increased academic risk for urban African American youth.

This outcome difference is likely a result of environmental risk levels. For African American youth who reside in high-risk urban environments, a democratic and more liberal approach to parenting may increase the child’s vulnerability to potentially lethal neighborhood risks, thereby decreasing academic achievement. In contrast, in middle- and upper-class White neighborhoods where harmful risks are less prevalent, democratic parenting allows the child to exercise freedom, learn from mistakes, and develop responsibility, which likely increases academic achievement. This difference is important because it underscores Gordon and Song’s (1994) notion that context is a critical variable in the identification of risks, assets, and resources. In the case of after-school programs, which will be examined later in the article, the context in which the program operates and the population whom the program serves are also equally important.

A final point regarding resilience is that resilient youth often do not exhibit positive adjustment across all contexts (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Instead, a child may exhibit resilience in certain contexts, while continuing to be vulnerable in others. Luthar (1993) posited that resilience may be more important in certain contexts for different children. In a context where risk factors precipitate increases in certain dangerous outcomes, those particular outcomes become salient contexts for resilience. In the case of at-risk young Black males, who are often caught in environments (Ferguson, 2001; Miller, 1996; Wilson, 1996) that encourage academic failure and violence exposure, succeeding in school and avoiding violence are critical displays of resilience. In this article, academic success and decreased violence involvement are considered indicators of resilience in young Black males. In the next section, the salient risks, assets, and resources of this group are examined.

Black Males, Risks, and Resilience

Urban, low-income, ethnic minority youth in the United States are often plagued by some of the most negative academic, social, and health outcomes. Still, no group of youth finds themselves in as precarious a situation as young Black males. As evidenced by the youth murdered in Chicago’s public school system, Black males are often at the receiving end of violent victimization. Recent data indicate that this group is more likely to be violently victimized than youth from other racial backgrounds ( Violence Policy Center, 2010). Although laws such as slavery, the Black Codes, and Jim Crow have historically placed Black males at heightened risk of violent victimization, during the 1970s, in part, due to the rapid social and physical deterioration of urban neighborhoods, the rate of violent homicide among this group saw dramatic increases (Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2005). Since 2000, these increases have reached a plateau and in many cases declined. Nevertheless, the homicide rate among Black males still dwarfs those of U.S. males from other racial backgrounds (CDC, 2005; Fox & Swatt, 2009; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2006).

Education statistics paint a similar picture for this group. Black and Latino males are more likely to drop out of school than all other racial or ethnic groups, and even when Black males are in school, they more likely to be suspended or expelled than other groups (Holzman, 2012). For some of these young men, being at home does not appear to be a refuge. The majority of young Black males reside in single parent households (U.S. Bureau of Census, 2001), which are not a risk factor in itself, but often lead to risk factors such as decreased parental supervision and low family income (Lindblad-Goldberg, 2006). As such, approximately 42% of single Black mothers live below the poverty line (Department for Professional Employees, 2007).

Available research has also pointed out that these varying risk factors (i.e., increased likelihood of violence exposure, academic problems, low family income) may be more problematic for males than females (Condly, 2006; Rutter, 1979). Rutter explained that males exhibit increased vulnerability to both physical and psychosocial stress. He further asserts that males are at greater risk of developing emotional problems from exposure to familial discord.

Cumulative Risks

In Rutter’s (1979) seminal work on psychiatric illness, he also contended that risk factors can have both a cumulative and interactive effect. He noted that the presence of a single risk factor or one isolated stress was no more likely to increase the incidence of psychiatric illness among children than being exposed to no risk factors. In contrast, when any two risks occurred simultaneously, the likelihood of psychological problems increased no less than fourfold. With additional concurrent risks, problem behavior increased several times further. Rutter also noted that one chronically occurring risk can have an equally powerful impact as multiple compounding risks. For instance, chronic exposure to violence may have a similar effect on a child as being exposed to multiple isolated risk factors. These findings are indicative of how risk intensity, accumulation, and/or chronicity can interact and increase the likelihood of convergent problems (Evans, Li, & Whipple, 2013; Hill & Madhere, 1996; O’Connor, Mueller, & Neal, 2014; Ostaszewski & Zimmerman, 2006; Rutter, 1979).

Many young Black males find themselves entangled within a complex assortment of cumulative risks. Most of these young men reside in urban areas, which for the past 40 years have suffered substantial decreases in viable employment opportunities, an influx of illegal low-priced narcotics, changes in policing strategies that disproportionately target this group, and a decaying public education system (Evans et al., 2013; Ferguson, 2001; Miller, 1996; Sum, Khatiwada, & McLaughlin, 2010; Wilson, 1996). In essence, many young Black males are born into a web of risks that would appear inescapable for any group, and especially for males who show increased vulnerability to environmental stress (Condly, 2006; Rutter, 1979). Risks such as poverty, chronic violence exposure, poor education, exposure to drugs, and shrinking employment opportunities are often associated with being a Black male in an urban environment (Thomas & Stevenson, 2009). These risks occur concurrently, chronically, and accumulate, thereby increasing academic failure and violence involvement.

Black Males and Resilience

Despite what appears to be an insurmountable accumulation of risks, the majority of Black males do complete high school, more Black males are in college than ever before, most do not engage in serious violent behavior, and the vast majority of these young men maintain generally positive outcomes (Cook & Cordova, 2007). Although there is a substantially smaller group of studies that focus solely on resilient Black males, many of the protective factors identified in the general research body also apply to this group. Assets such as easy temperament, positive coping strategies, high self-esteem, and positive future outlook appear to be just as protective for high risk Black males as other groups (Li, Nussbaum, & Richards, 2007). Resources identified in the general resilience literature such as supportive parents, caring extrafamilial adults (i.e., mentors, coaches), good teachers, high socioeconomic status, and safe neighborhoods also protect urban young Black males from violence involvement and academic failure (Li et al., 2007; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012).

In the limited collection of studies, which examined resilience exclusively among Black youth, a few additional protective factors emerged. Herndon (2003) found a belief in spirituality was an important asset that led to resilient educational outcomes among young Black males in college. In Herndon’s study, Black males who had established spiritual beliefs were also more persistent and had a higher internal locus of control.

Several researchers have claimed that support from extended family (i.e., grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, Godparents) is also a resource for Black adolescents (Floyd, 1996; Jarrett, 1995; Taylor, 1996). Utilizing a sample of Black Philadelphia teenagers, Taylor pointed out that the presence of organized extended family networks was associated with increases in self-reliance and grade point average, but negatively associated with problem behaviors such as physical assault and vandalism. Other research on urban Black youth has indicated that support from extended family can mediate the effects of violence exposure, such as anxiety and subsequent violence involvement (Hill, Livermore, Twaite, & Jones, 1996; Hill & Madhere, 1996).

Cultural factors such as ethnic and racial identity have also been recognized as unique protective factors among Black adolescents (Caldwell, Khon-Wood, Schmeelk-Cone, Chavous, & Zimmerman, 2004; Wright et al., 2013). Racial and ethnic identities are different constructs (Worrell & Gardner-Kitt, 2006); however, they both highlight ones’ affiliation with a group that has a similar history, belief system, and set of perceptions. Although researchers have pointed out that the relationship between racial or ethnic identities and school performance remains inconclusive (Steward et al., 2002), most accept that positive group affiliation or heightened racial or ethnic identity is generally associated with more positive outcomes (Arbona, Jackson, McCoy, & Blakely, 1999; Caldwell et al., 2004; Smith, Walker, Fields, Brookins, & Seay, 1999; Wright et al., 2013).

In a study on Black adolescents about the protective value of racial identity on violence-related outcomes, Caldwell et al. (2004) indicated that the buffering effects of racial identity attitudes against violent behavior were most pronounced among Black males. Black males whose racial group affiliation was more central to their identity were less likely to engage in violent behavior (Caldwell et al., 2004). Similarly, Arbona et al. (1999), in a study with both Black and Latina/o participants, concluded that ethnic identity was predictive of negative attitudes toward fighting among Black youth. In another study with an overwhelmingly Black adolescent participant pool, increases in ethnic identity were associated with increases in self-esteem, perceived self-efficacy, and positive social attitudes (Smith et al., 1999).

Although resilience research is only emerging, researchers have identified several risk and protective factors that have powerful effects on the lives of youth in general and Black youth in particular. Yet, a dearth of literature exists on protective factors and, more specifically, community resources that show promise in developing resilience among Black males. In the next section, after-school programs are examined as one resource that harbors promise for increasing the well-being of young Black males.

After-School Programs

After-school programs are diverse institutions that operate during the nonschool hours, including after school, on weekends, and sometimes during the summer, to provide academic as well as nonacademic activities for youth. Some after-school programs are connected to schools and referred to as extended-day programs (Fashola, 2003) and others are community-based organizations. Participants are generally 5 to 18 years of age; however, some programs provide services for young adults up to 21 years old.

After-school programs have been a part of the national landscape for some time, yet little is known about their history. One account suggests that after-school programs emerged as a result of early-20th-century child labor laws, which led to an upward spike in school enrollment (Halpern, 2002). The after-school period became more critical as parents and policy makers struggled to find appropriate activities for children during this unique and new time period. Consequently, after-school programs were developed as a method to curb post-school loitering and public nuisance, particularly among low-income youth (Halpern, 2002).

During the late 1960s and 1970s, as a part of former President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, inner-city after-school programs were highlighted again. The War on Poverty initiatives coincided with increasing urban decay, unprecedented numbers of women entering the formal workforce and leaving children at home unsupervised, and an explosion of illegal, street-level narcotics in urban centers (Lopoo, 2005; Wilson, 1996). These social changes dramatically increased youth vulnerability to risky environments, and underscored the need for after-school programs to provide safety and supervised recreation during the after-school period. More recently, as a part of President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act, after-school programs have come under pressure to increase standardized tests scores for underperforming youth (Kane, 2004). While after-school programs have been around for some, there is little conceptual consensus about how these programs should operate. Thus, programs are often developed arbitrarily with little attention given to outcomes and other important questions that can shape the theoretical underpinnings of after-school time. In the remainder of this article, outcomes associated with after-school programs are explored and a theoretical framework for after-school programs for Black males and other urban youth is posited.

Can After-School Programs Increase Positive Outcomes Among Urban Youth?

Despite the emerging status of after-school program research, researchers, community members, and government legislators have cited the promise of after-school programs (Congressional Record, 2001; Fashola, 2003; Halpern, 2003; Hirsch, 2005; Mason-Dixon Polling, & Research, 2002; Posner & Vandell, 1994; Quinn, 1999; Woodland, 2008; Woodland, Martin, Hill, & Worrell, 2009). In a study utilizing urban and low-income youth, Posner and Vandell (1994) indicated that after-school program attendance was associated with improved academic performance, better conduct in school, better peer relations, and greater emotional adjustment. Researchers have also indicated that youth who attend after-school programs tend to maintain higher grade-point averages, have less school absences, and are less likely to engage in violence (Dubois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Kane, 2004).

In addition to examining the impact of after-school programs on urban youth in general, a smaller group of researchers have considered the important contributions after-school programs can have on the lives of young Black males (Fashola, 2003; Woodland, 2008). Due to the high rates of academic failure and violence exposure among these young men, Woodland (2008) and Fashola (2003) have argued that after-school programs, which have flexible curriculums, provide protection from violence, and additional opportunities for academic development, and are uniquely qualified to buffer against the specific risks faced by urban young Black males.

Data (National Institute on Out-of-School Time [NIOST], 200; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], 2011) indicate that it is the time period immediately following school that all youth are most likely to be violently victimized. Researchers have pointed out that after-school programs, which provide a safe and structured space during those hours following school, are critical allies in combating youth violence during this time period (NIOST, 2004). The writer further argues that the provision of safe and structured spaces during the after-school period is of particular importance to urban young Black males who are the most likely to be plagued by violence (Violence Policy Center, 2010).

Researchers have also highlighted that after-school programs, unlike public schools, have curriculum flexibility (Beck, 1999; Woodland, 2008). Many programs use this flexibility to increase participant engagement by including culturally relevant content, providing individualized attention, and adjusting the instruction pace to meet the needs of the program participants (Fashola, 2003; Woodland, 2008). This increased flexibility in academic instruction is also vital for young Black males who, as a group, are at the bottom of a disproportionate number of academic indicators (Holzman, 2012). Good after-school programs that protect urban youth from violence during the critical post-school hours and provide strategies to increase academic performance can be a valuable community resource. For young Black males, who suffer like no other group with problems related to violence exposure and academic failure, researchers have noted that after-school programs appear particularly promising (Fashola, 2003; Hirsch, 2005; Woodland, 2008).

The promise of after-school programs has also been highlighted for quite sometime by parents. A 1998 Stewart Mott Foundation poll revealed that 93% of parents and nonparents support expanding after-school activities, and more than 80% said they would be willing to use tax dollars for this purpose. Police departments and court officials have also recognized the importance of after-school programs. In a random survey of 1,178 police chiefs, sheriffs, and prosecutors, respondents were asked to rank the impact of several strategies to reduce youth violence and crime. By more than a 4 to 1 margin, law enforcement officials chose providing after-school programs, rather than hiring more police officers, as having the greatest impact on reducing youth violence and crime (NIOST, 2004). In 2001, federal government legislators also made a bold move toward supporting after-school programs, when the U.S. Congress appropriated nearly a billion dollars toward the development of 21st Century Community Learning Center after-school programs.

Community organizations have even sought to use after-school programs as a way to increase the well-being of the communities where youth participants reside. Organizations such as Young Doctors DC, Focus Hope of Detroit, and the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) have used after-school programs as key elements of community revitalization. Young Doctors DC trains community youth to be lay health ambassadors and health practitioners to their own medically underserved communities. Focus Hope used community arts after-school programs to provide safe spaces for youth and developed programs for participating youth to improve the landscape of their neighborhoods. The HCZ started as an out-of-school-time program that sought to bring resources to one block in Harlem, thus revitalizing that block. Thirty years later, HCZ has developed into multiple programs that focus on centralizing resources for the entire Harlem Community.

Although popular opinion as well as much of the available research literature, albeit in its emerging state, has indicated that after-school programs are associated with decreases in violence exposure and increases in academic performance among youth (Fashola, 2003, 2005; Hirsch, 2005; Woodland, 2008), some have argued that little evidence exists to support these claims (Olsen, 2000; Sherman et al., 1997). Olsen (2000) posited that researchers and policy makers have overinflated the problem of unsupervised youth during the after-school time, resulting in gross overspending of government funds on after-school programs. It is further asserted that the impact of after-school programs on academic performance, violence prevention, and neighborhood crime are minor at best (Olsen, 2000).

Additional research has pointed out that not only are some after-school programs ineffective, but in at least one study, after-school program participation was associated with negative behaviors (Vandell & Corasaniti, 1988). Vandell and Corasaniti indicated that teachers, parents, and peers rated the behavior of middle-income youth who attended after-school programs more negatively than nonattending youth; however, the same study yielded positive ratings for the low-income youth who attended the same after-school programs.

Vandell and Corasaniti’s (1988) findings are important because they highlight a few key points. First, due to several reasons, not all after-school programs are going to be effective for all kids. Certain kids will not want to attend after-school programs, and others who attend may not be engaged with the program, causing poorer outcomes (Mahoney, Lord, & Carryl, 2005). Some additional reasons for ineffective after-school programs are poor staff–child relationships, staff under-education, inconsistent program operation hours, and unsafe environments (Woodland, 2008). Still, available data do indicate that effective urban after-school programs can result in positive outcomes among substantial numbers of vulnerable youth (Hirsch, 2005; Posner & Vandell, 1994; Quinn, 1999).

The second key point that Vandell and Corasaniti’s (1988) findings underscore is that context and background are important variables in the identification of risks, assets, and resources (Gordon & Song, 1994). Due to contextual differences, after-school programs may assist vulnerable youth in high-risk neighborhoods to develop resilience, but may have different or no effects on middle- and upper-income youth reared in low-risk environments. And finally, this study accentuates the point that protective factors tend to exhibit protection for youth who are most vulnerable, such as those reared in low-income and high-risk neighborhoods (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Wright et al., 2013). Available health, education, and criminal justice data (Ferguson, 2001; Miller, 1996; Oliver, 2006; Violence Policy Center, 2010) indicate that young Black males represent one faction of the most vulnerable and underserved who, the writer argues, would uniquely benefit from the increased safety and additional academic instruction that often occurs in after-school programs. Even skeptics (Olsen, 2000; Sherman et al., 1997) concede that after-school programs in high-risk environments demonstrate promise at improving the lives of participating youth and the immediate conditions of the surrounding neighborhood.

How Do After-School Programs Increase Positive Outcomes Among Urban Youth?

Although much of the data indicate that effective after-school programs are associated with positive outcomes for young Black males and other urban youth (Woodland et al., 2009; Fashola, 2003, 2005; Hirsch, 2005; Posner & Vandell, 1994), little is known about how these after-school programs increase and augment positive youth outcomes. Luthar et al. (2000) pointed out that simply describing which factors seem to be associated with resilience is insufficient. Instead, researchers should examine “how such factors contribute to positive outcomes” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 544). Masten (2007) has examined resilience for several years and has considered the multiple perspectives that researchers have used to examine resilience (Masten, 2001). In her earlier research, she provided resilience framework that can be used to examine how after-school programs encourage positive outcomes (Masten, 1994). Masten (1994) theorizes that there are four fundamental strategies to foster resilience: (a) reduce vulnerability and risk, (b) reduce stressors, (c) increase available resources, and (d) mobilize protective processes. The writer would also include a fifth strategy for use with youth of color: utilizing culture as an asset. In this section, the writer uses these five strategies to provide the theoretical underpinnings into how effective after-school programs increase positive outcomes for young Black males and other urban youth.

Reducing Vulnerability and Risks

Reducing vulnerability and risks, the first strategy suggested by Masten (1994), includes providing interventions and programs that prevent future risks. Masten cited pregnancy health programs as an example of one way to reduce child and parental vulnerability and risks. Through providing education about optimal health practices during pregnancy, pregnancy programs decrease both the mother and child’s susceptibility to risks associated with perinatal complications. By reducing birth-related complications, the child’s future vulnerability to chronic illnesses and other related risks are also sharply reduced.

After-school programs reduce risks and vulnerability associated with academic failure and violence exposure in a similar way (Crank, Crank, & Christensen, 2003; Fashola, 2003, 2005; Linnehan, 2001). The majority of programs that have educational success with urban youth provide either direct academic assistance, such as tutoring and homework help, or indirect academic assistance in the form of creative writing, music education, or other intellectual tasks (Crank et al., 2003; Woodland, 2008).

Recent data indicate several after-school programs have been effective at creatively addressing the educational needs of young Black males (Crank et al., 2003; Fashola, 2003, 2005; Linnehan, 2001; Woodland, 2008; Woodland et al., 2009). In Bass and Coleman’s (1997) study of a small group of academically at-risk Black male sixth-graders who attended a culture-based after-school program, teacher ratings revealed that after 1 year of program participation, students exhibited significant increases in positive classroom behavior and academic performance. Parents also noticed dramatic increases in their son’s grades and less behavioral difficulty at home (Bass & Coleman, 1997). Similarly, a study with a racially diverse group of adolescents conducted by Eccles and Barber (1999) revealed that merely attending post-school extracurricular activities positively predicted grade-point average. By providing additional time on academic tasks, homework assistance, and utilizing creative methods to engage youth in academics, after-school programs both directly and indirectly supplement the education of young Black males and reduce risks associated with academic failure.

Inner-city after-school programs also reduce youth vulnerability to violence by providing safe environments during a time that is considered high risk for youth crime and violent victimization (OJJDP, 2011). Although some researchers suggest that after-school programs do little to decrease overall neighborhood violence (Olsen, 2000), providing protected and supervised spaces for youth who reside in these violent areas remains paramount. Protecting youth from violent encounters decreases their vulnerability to the physical and psychological injuries associated with violence exposure. Also, youth who are exposed to less violence are less likely to be violent (Hill & Madhere, 1996; McCart et al., 2006).

The Big Brothers and Big Sisters program and the Boys and Girls Club of America are examples of after-school programs that resulted in decreases in violence among the youth and neighborhoods they target (Dubois et al., 2002; Mason-Dixon Polling, & Research, 2002; Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 1995). One study revealed that after 18 months of attending the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program, participating youth were 33% less likely to engage in violent behavior than control group youth (Tierney et al., 1995). Similarly, placement of Boys and Girls clubs in low-income and high-risk neighborhoods has been associated with decreases in violence and crime in the surrounding area (Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, 2002; Patten & Robertson, 2001). Included in the mission of many after-school programs is the provision of a safe and educationally rewarding environment for youth during the after-school period. After-school programs accomplish their mission by providing safety during a high-risk time for youth while engaging participants in creative academic exercises and increasing time on educational tasks.

Reducing Stressors

Masten’s (1994) second strategy emerges from data that indicate the accumulation of multiple risk factors can have a debilitating effect on young people (Rutter, 1979; Werner & Smith, 1998; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). Available research suggests that reducing risk factors in a young person’s life dramatically increases their ability to be resilient (Evans et al., 2013; Rutter, 1979). Although the majority of after-school programs are preventive and thus attempt to offset risks before they occur, some of the more comprehensive programs aim to reduce risks accumulation.

Olsen (2000) highlighted one comprehensive after-school program called the Quantum Opportunity Program (QOP). To decrease the stress associated with the lack of financial resources, QOP provided youth with stipends for attendance. Many programs have adopted youth stipends to reduce stress associated with low family incomes, particularly for relatively older youth participants. Young people often use stipends to eliminate risk factors associated with decreased financial resources. Some youths assist their family by purchasing groceries or paying a utility bill. Other youth contribute a portion to their families and use the rest to purchase personal items, thus decreasing their personal financial burden on their caretakers.

In addition to stipends, many programs provide healthy meals with high concentrations of fruit and vegetables to offset poor diets, which are often associated with residing in underserved neighborhoods. Public health literature has documented both the absence of full service grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods and the over-saturation of fast-food restaurants, liquor stores, and other businesses (i.e., bodegas, corner stores) that provide unhealthy food choices for residents of these neighborhoods (Kaufman & Karpati, 2007; Morland, Wing, & Diez, 2002). The poor diets that occur as a result of limited-quality food choices are associated with various chronic illnesses and problems, including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and even poor academic functioning among youth (Morland et al., 2002; Pascoe, Shaikh, Forbis, & Etzel, 2007).

After-school programs also eliminate stressors by providing a structured and caring environment during the after-school period (Fashola, 2003; Woodland et al., 2009). Youth who live in high-risk neighborhoods are more likely to be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. These young people are more likely to witness violence, be pressured to engage in drug distribution, and be victimized by police officers. They may also face other lethal consequences associated with living in a high-risk neighborhood (Brunson, 2007). Although after-school programs tend to focus more on methods of preventing risks before they occur, the mere existence of an after-school program in a high-risk neighborhood can reduce the accumulation of risks in the lives of participating youth.

Increasing Available Resources

Increasing available resources is the third basic strategy for encouraging resilience (Masten, 1994). After-school programs are a unique protective factor because they attract additional resources. After-school programs often link youth with additional caring adults who provide mentorship, critical advice, and social support (Beck, 1999; Dubois et al., 2002; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Patten & Robertson, 2001; Tierney et al., 1995; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). Available research has indicated that caring adult–child relationships are one of the building blocks of youth resilience (Patten & Robertson, 2001; Tran & Weinraub, 2006). Furthermore, for young Black men, who studies suggest (Fashola, 2003, 2005) lack quality role models, providing additional caring relationships with adults is critical (Woodland, 2008).

After-school programs also increase resources for youth in high-risk areas by providing tutors, therapists, and access to computer technology. In some cases, programs provide resources such as job training and education for parents. This type of parental support can lead to more positive outcomes for their children (Wolff, 1995; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012). Comprehensive after-school programs may also increase neighborhood social capital by engaging local politicians, redirecting government funds to the after-school program’s surrounding area, and hosting neighborhood events. In sum, these programs can be unique resources because they act as a conduit for additional protective factors in high-risk communities.

Mobilizing Protective Processes

Masten’s (1994) final strategy of mobilizing protective processes refers to organizing readily available protective factors in the surrounding community. In most cases, exceptional programs are adept at locating and utilizing available community assets and resources. Throughout the years, Masten and others have even cited the ability of after-school mentoring programs to mobilize protective relationships between local adults and children (Masten, 1994; Wright et al., 2013; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012).

Some after-school programs have also sought to mobilize and strengthen the parent and child relationship (Beck, 1999; Jayroe & Brenner, 2005). One program with primarily low-income African American participants utilized parents as equal partners in the planning, operation, and facilitation of daily program activities (Jayroe & Brenner, 2005). Parents, caretakers, and extended family members were encouraged to seek employment or volunteer with the program and assist their own children in developing critical academic skills. Even parents who had difficulties with reading and other subjects were encouraged to participate and offered meaningful positions in the program (Jayroe & Brenner, 2005). Parent involvement was also supported by offering modest stipends to offset costs associated with transportation. Jayroe and Brenner concluded that this after-school program successfully mobilized parents and other related community adults by underscoring their authority, utilizing their strengths, and engaging them in an egalitarian relationship. After 1 year of participating in this program, youth participants demonstrated substantial improvement in their reading ability (Jayroe & Brenner, 2005).

After-school programs also mobilize existing protective factors by enhancing youth assets. One after-school program, which focused solely on African American males, increased youth problem-solving ability by allowing the participants to take turns at tutoring each other (Gardner et al., 2001). Youth were given some of the responsibility of preparing each other for upcoming reading and math standardized tests. Peer tutoring, according to Gardner et al., creatively empowered these youths and allowed them to sharpen their own problem-solving and teaching abilities as they learned how to effectively educate their peers. After 1 year, program participants substantially increased their math and reading standardized test scores (Gardner et al., 2001). In addition to enhancing youth assets such as problem-solving and teaching ability, this program also mobilized a group of African American men from the local church to provide youth mentoring. As a result, this program was able to effectively mobilize both assets and resources that encouraged resilience for the target group of young men.

Utilizing Culture as an Asset

Although not originally included by Masten (1994), resilience research has developed to include expanding cultural knowledge as another way of increasing resilience, particularly in youth of color (Bass & Coleman, 1997; Beck, 1999; Lee, 2007; Wright et al., 2013). Lee (2007) reminds us that a primary step of using culture as an asset is recognizing youth’s “cultural data sets” (p. 35). Cultural data sets include the beliefs and routines of individuals that inform their socialization and problem solving. Recognizing, acknowledging, and utilizing these cultural data sets to assist youth in academic and life problem solving can strengthen the role that culture plays in resilience. After-school programs often consider the cultural data sets of participants as a way to foster communication and provide a sense of empowerment (Woodland, 2008; Woodland et al., 2009; Harvey & Hill, 2004).

An extensive body of research has explored how a lack of relationships with positive role models, debilitating stereotypes, and racism have created repressive cultural images and negative life pathways for young Black males and other youth of color (Fashola, 2003; Ferguson, 2001; Miller, 1996; Wilson, 1996). After-school programs also utilize culture as an asset by exposing program participants to positive individuals and images of people of color that are associated with self-efficacy, scholarship, personal improvement, and social action. Some scholars argue that exposing youth of color to this cultural information replaces their own repressive self-stereotypes with powerful and prosocial images of people of color. These positive cultural images act as assets for youth by offsetting deeply ingrained stereotypes and thereby increasing their range of self-possibilities (Woodland et al., 2009; Bass & Coleman, 1997; Fashola, 2003, 2005; Harvey & Hill, 2004).

One type of after-school program referred to as Rights of Passage (ROP) programs, designs their entire curriculum around using culture as a protective asset (Harvey & Hill, 2004; Warfield-Coppock, 1992; Woodland, 2008). ROP programs, which tend to focus primarily on young Black males and more frequently Black females, engage participants in critical discussions and activities that often address the history of Black people, unique issues in psychosocial development, academics, and a variety of other issues relevant to young Black males. These culture-based discussions and activities are intended to increase both cultural knowledge and racial identity, which, ROP architects suggest, will lead to reduced involvement in risky behaviors (Bass & Coleman, 1997; Warfield-Coppock, 1992). Several studies have indicated that for young Black males, participation in ROP programs is associated with increases in academic performance and less involvement with violence and other types of delinquency (Bass & Coleman, 1997; Gavazzi, Alford, & McKenry, 1996; Harvey & Hill, 2004).

As another way to use culture as an asset, some after-school programs encourage youth to examine different aspects of popular culture (i.e., movies, music, videos, books) for signs of stereotypes and racism pertaining to Black people (Watts, Abdul-Adil, & Pratt, 2002). These stereotypes and images are then deconstructed and applied to varying aspects of the participants’ lives. Encouraging young Black males to analyze popular cultural messages about their racial group empowers these young men to challenge damaging images, while also learning about positive alternative images of Black men. Fine (1991) has also pointed out that youth of color who are able to critically understand their environment are more likely to avoid the complex interaction among education, racism, and inequality, which often contributes to violence and academic failure. Similarly, Spencer et al. (2006) noted that “cultural information affords youth of color the ability to proactively respond to environmental experiences and stereotypic messages” (p. 635). Without the use of culture as an asset, these stereotypes can be particularly damaging for Black males.

These five strategies provide one possible framework for how after-school programs develop resilience among young Black males and other urban youth of color. There is little evidence that indicates that any one method will increase resilience in all urban youth. However, after-school programs that can reduce participants’ vulnerability and stress, mobilize available protective factors, and identify creative ways to use culture as an asset, will likely show tremendous promise toward increasing resilience among participants.

Conclusion

Urban youth, such as the 29 youth who were shot from Harper high school (Glass, 2013), are often caught in a web of life-threatening risks. Perhaps no other group of youth in the United States is as intensely entangled in this web as young Black males. After-school programs, with their focus on education and preventing violence, and their physical location in urban, underserved neighborhoods, can be primary resources in assisting Black males in escaping such tragic outcomes. Resilience researchers have historically examined the individual risks associated with living in an urban context. This has left resilience scholarship void of a complex analysis of how urban environments, systems, and institutions can underscore, mitigate, attenuate, moderate, and/or prevent risks (O’Connor et al., 2014). With continued support, quality research, and appropriate funding, researchers and practitioners may be able to translate after-schools programs into sites of resilience, amassing a constellation of resources in communities that are otherwise marginalized (Masten, 2011). However, as many researchers (Fashola, 2003, 2005; Olsen, 2000; Woodland, 2008) have indicated, not all after-school programs are effective and not all after-school programs will work for all children. They are only one ally in this continuing battle to improve the outcomes of young Black males and other urban youth.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This article is dedicated to the students at Harper High School and the following Chicago schoolchildren who were all murdered during the 2006-2007 school year.

Fernando Haywood 17

Samuel Spicer 19

Jelisa Baker 15

Delmont Fulton 15

Toreon Baker 15

Luis Hernandez 19

Dantel Curtis 14

Antonio Harris 19

Jose Hernandez 18

Laura Joslin 12

Marcel Collins 17

Troy Lee 9

Devin Standifer 16

Lupita Hernandez 18

Dijohn Childs 15

Andrik Shaw 17

Lazarus Jones 13

Kenneth Jones 16

Victor Casillas 15

Christopher Pineda 17

Richard Chambers 19

George Carrasquillo 15

Quinton Jackson 14

Marquise Jackson 11

Christopher Watson 16

Tashema Nero 14

Blair Holt 16

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Malcolm H. Woodland is a child and adolescent forensic psychologist and the director of Young Doctors DC, a youth development organization.

References

Arbona

Jackson

R. H.

McCoy

Blakely

(1999). Ethnic identity as a predictor of adolescents’ attitudes toward fighting. Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 323-340. doi:10.1177/0272431699019003002

Bass

Coleman

(1997). Enhancing the cultural identity of early adolescent male African Americans. Professional School Counseling, 1, 48-51.

Beck

E. L.

(1999). Prevention and intervention programming: Lessons from an after-school program. Urban Review, 31, 107-124. doi:10.1023/A:1023200500215

Benzies

Mychasiuk

(2009). Fostering family resiliency: A review of the key protective factors. Child & Family Social Work, 14, 103-114. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00568x

Brunson

R. K.

(2007). “Police don’t like Black people”: African-American young men’s accumulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 71-101. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00423

Caldwell

C. H.

Khon-Wood

L. P.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Chavous

T. M.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2004). Racial discrimination and racial identity as risk or protective factors for violent behaviors in African American young adults. American Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 91-105. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000014321.02367.dd

Center for Disease Control. (2005). Table 45, Death rates for homicide, according to sex, race, Hispanic origin, and age: United States, selected years 1950-2003. In Health, United States, 2005 with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans (p. 219). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#page=172

Condly

S. J.

(2006). Resilience in children: A review of the literature with implications for education. Urban Education, 41, 211-236. doi:10.1177/0042085906287902

Congressional Record. (2001). Speeches pertaining to S. 1005, S5983. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2001-06-07/pdf/CREC-2001-06-07-pt1-PgS5969.pdf

10.

Cook

B. J.

Cordova

D. I.

(2007). Minorities in higher education twenty-second annual status report: 2007 supplement, American Council on Education: Washington, DC.

11.

Crank

Christensen

(2003). The Ada sheriffs’ youth foundation: The development of a decentralized youth program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 341-350. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00027-8

12.

Department for Professional Employees. (2007). Fact sheet 2007 for professional women: Vital statistics. Available from www.dpeaflcio.org

13.

Dubois

D. L.

Holloway

B. E.

Valentine

J. C.

Cooper

(2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157-197. doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714

14.

Eccles

J. S.

Barber

B. L.

(1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10-43. doi:10.1177/0743558499141003

15.

Evans

G. W.

Whipple

S. S.

(2013). Cumulative risk and child development. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1342-1396. doi: 10.1037/a0031808

16.

Fashola

O. S.

(2003). Developing the talents of African American male students during the nonschool hours. Urban Education, 38, 398-430. doi:10.1177/0042085903038004004

17.

Fashola

O. S.

(2005). Educating African American males: Voices from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

18.

Fergus

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399-419. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

19.

Ferguson

A. A.

(2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

20.

Fine

(1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.

21.

Floyd

(1996). Achieving despite the odds: A study of resilience among a group of African American high school seniors. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 181-189. doi:10.2307/2967312

22.

Fox

A. J.

Swatt

M. L.

(2009). Recent surge in homicides involving young Black males and guns: Time to reinvest in prevention and crime control. Retrieved from http://www.jfox.neu.edu/Documents/Fox%20Swatt%20Homicide%20Report%20Dec%2029%202008.pdf

23.

Gardner

Cartledge

Seidl

Woolsey

M. L.

Schley

G. S.

Utley

C. A.

(2001). Mt. Olivet after-school program: Peer-mediated interventions for at-risk students. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 22-33. doi:10.1177/074193250102200104.

24.

Garmezy

(1991). Resilience in childrens adaptation to negative daily life events and stressed environments. Pediatrics, 20, 459-466.

25.

Garmezy

Masten

A. S.

Tellegen

(1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111. doi:10.2307/1129837

26.

Gavazzi

Alford

McKenry

(1996). Culturally specific programs for foster care youth. Family Relations, 45, 166-174. doi:10.2307/585287

27.

Glass

(Host). (2013, February 15). This American life [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/487/harper-high-school-part-one

28.

Gordon

E. W.

Song

L. D.

(1994). Variations in the experience of resilience. In Wang

M. C.

Gordon

E. W.

(Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 27-43). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

29.

Gutman

L. M.

Sameroff

A. J.

Eccles

J. S.

(2002). The academic achievement of African American students during early adolescence: An examination of multiple risk, promotive, and protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 367-369. doi:10.1023/A:1015389103911

30.

Halpern

(2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104, 178-211. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00160

31.

Halpern

, (2003). Making play work: The promise of after-school programs for low-income children. New York: Teachers College.

32.

Harvey

Hill

(2004). Africentric youth and family rites of passage program: Promoting resilience among at-risk African American youths. Social Work, 49, 65-74. doi:10.1093/sw/49.1.65

33.

Herndon

M. K.

(2003). Expressions of spirituality among African-American college males. Journal of Men’s Studies, 12, 75-84. doi:10.3149/jms.1201.75

34.

Hill

H. M.

Livermore

Twaite

Jones

L. P.

(1996). Exposure to community violence and social support as predictors of anxiety and social emotional behavior among African American children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 399-414. doi:10.1007/BF02233862

35.

Hill

H. M.

Madhere

(1996). Exposure to community violence and African American children: A multidimensional model of risks and resources. Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 26-43. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199601)24:1<26::AID-JCOP3>3.0.CO;2–1

36.

Hirsch

B. J.

(2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11087-000

37.

Holzman

(2012). Urgency of now: The Schott 50 state report card on public education and Black males. Cambridge, MA: The Schott Foundation for Public Education. Retrieved from http://blackboysreport.org/urgency-of-now.pdf

38.

Jarrett

R. L.

(1995). Growing up poor: The family experiences of socially mobile youth in low-income African American neighborhoods. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 111-135. doi:10.1177/0743554895101007

39.

Jayroe

T. B.

Brenner

(2005). Family members as partners in an after-school and summer literacy program. Reading Horizons, 45, 235-253.

40.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2006). Race, ethnicity & health care fact sheet: Young African American men in the United States. Washington, DC: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved from www.kff.org/minorityhealth/upload/7541.pdf

41.

Kane

T. J.

(2004). The impact of after-school programs: Interpreting the results of four recent evaluations (A Working Paper of the William T. Grant Foundation). University of California: Los Angeles, CA.

42.

Kaufman

Karpati

(2007). Understanding the sociocultural roots of childhood obesity: Food practices among Latino families in Bushwick, Brooklyn. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2177-2188. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.019

43.

Lee

C. D.

(2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

44.

Levitan

(2004). A crisis of Black male employment: Unemployment and joblessness in New York City. New York, NY: Community Service Society. Retrieved from http://www.cssny.org/page//images/uploads/pubs/CrisisofBlackMaleEmployment2003.pdf

45.

S. T.

Nussbaum

K. M.

Richards

M. H.

(2007). Risk and protective factors for urban African American youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 21-35. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9088-1

46.

Lindblad-Goldberg

(2006). Successful African American single-parent families. In Combrinck-Graham

(Ed.), Children in context: Perspectives on treatment (pp. 142-162). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

47.

Linnehan

(2001). The relation of a work-based mentoring program to the academic performance and behavior of African American students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 310-325. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1810

48.

Lopoo

L. M.

(2005). Maternal employment and latchkey adolescents. Social Service Review, 79, 602-623. doi:10.1086/454387

49.

Luthar

S. S.

(1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in the study of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 441-453. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1993.tb01030.x

50.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164

51.

Mahoney

J. L.

Lord

Carryl

(2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and the development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76, 811-825. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00879.x

52.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. (2002). New York State survey of teens. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/polling/school_poll_final_2002.pdf

53.

Masten

A. S.

(1994). Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation despite risk and adversity. In Wang

M. C.

Gordon

E. W.

(Eds.), Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects (pp. 3-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

54.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

55.

Masten

A. S.

(2007). Resilience in developing systems: Progress and promise as the fourth wave rises. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 921-930. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000442

56.

Masten

A. S.

(2011). Resilience in children threatened by extreme adversity: Frameworks for research, practice, and translational synergy. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 141-154. doi:10.1017/S0954579411000198

57.

Masten

A. S.

Coatsworth

D. J.

(1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments. American Psychologist, 53, 205-220. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.205

58.

Masten

A. S.

Garmezy

(1985). Risk, vulnerability, and protective factors in developmental psychopathology. In Lahey

Kazdin

(Eds.) Advances in clinical child psychology (vol. 8). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

59.

McCart

M. R.

Smith

D. W.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. G.

Ruggiero

K. J.

(2006). Do urban adolescents become desensitized to community violence? Data from a national survey. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 434-442. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.434.

60.

Miller

(1996). Search and destroy: African American males in the criminal justice system. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

61.

Morland

Wing

Diez

(2002). The contextual effect of the local food environment on residents’ diets: The atherosclerosis risk in communities study. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 1761-1767. doi:10.2105/AJPH.92.11.1761

62.

National Institute on Out-of-School Time. (200). Making the case: A fact sheet on children and youth in out-of-school time. Wellesley Center for Research on Women. Wellesley, MA.

63.

O’Connor

Mueller

Neal

(2014). Student resilience in urban America. In Milner

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 75-96). New York, NY: Routledge.

64.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2011). Statistical briefing book. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02201.asp

65.

Oliver

(2006). The streets: An alternative Black male socialization institution. Journal of Black Studies, 36, 918-937. doi:10.1177/0021934704273445

66.

Olsen

(2000). 12-hour school days? Why government should leave afterschool arrangements to parents: Executive summary (Policy Analysis, 372). Washington, DC: The Cato Institute.

67.

Ostaszewski

Zimmerman

M. C.

(2006). The effects of cumulative risks and promotive factors on urban adolescent alcohol and other drug use: A longitudinal study of resiliency. American Journal Community Psychology, 38, 237-249. doi:10.1007/s10464-006-9076-x

68.

Pascoe

J. M.

Shaikh

Forbis

S. G.

Etzel

R. A.

(2007). Health and nutrition as a foundation for success in school. In Pianta

R. C.

Cox

M. J.

Snow

K. L.

(Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. 99-120). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brooks.

69.

Patten

Robertson

A. S.

(2001). Focus on after-school time for violence prevention (Eric Digest). Retrieved from http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/eric.ed.gov/ERIC_Digests/ed455975.htm

70.

Posner

J. K.

Vandell

D. L.

(1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65, 44-456.

71.

Quinn

(1999). Where need meets opportunity: youth development programs for early teens. Future of Our Children when School Is Out, 9, 96-116.

72.

Rutter

(1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and disadvantage. In Kent

M. W.

Rolf

I. E.

(Eds.), Primary prevention of psychopathology: Social competence in children (pp. 49-74). Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

73.

Sherman

L. W.

Gottfredson

MacKenzie

Eck

Reuter

Bushway

(1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the United States Congress. Retrieved from http://www.rolim.com.br/2002/_pdfs/ing.pdf

74.

Smith

E. P.

Walker

Fields

Brookins

C. C.

Seay

R. C.

(1999). Ethnic identity and its relationship to self-esteem, perceived self efficacy and prosocial attitudes in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 867-880. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0281

75.

Spencer

M. B.

(2001). Resiliency and fragility factors associated with the contextual experiences of low-resource urban African-American male youth and families. In Booth

Crouter

A. C.

(Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 51-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76.

Spencer

M. B.

Harpalani

Cassidy

Jacobs

C. Y.

Donde

Gross

T. N.

. . . Wilson

(2006). Understanding vulnerability and resilience from a normative developmental perspective: Implications for racially and ethnically diverse youth. In Cicchetti

Cohen

D. J.

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (pp. 627-670). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

77.

Steward

R. J.

Harvell

Eades

Tashima

Smith-Jobski

Lin

Eldridge

(2002). Black racial identity attitude development in the Black community: A study of psychological adjustment, coping styles and GPA. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_stor-age_01/0000019b/80/1a/9e/ee.pdf

78.

Stewart Mott Foundation. (1998). Charles Stewart Mott Foundation poll on after-school care. Retrieved from http://www.mott.org/

79.

Sum

Khatiwada

McLaughlin

(2010). The 2007-2009 recession’s effect on New England’s African American males. Retrieved from http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/c&b/2010/winter/Andrew_Sum_Black_Males.pdf

80.

Taylor

R. D.

(1996). Adolescents’ perceptions of kinship support and family management practices: Association with adolescent adjustment in African American families. Developmental Psychology, 32, 687-695. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.4.687

81.

Thomas

D. E.

Stevenson

(2009). Gender risk and education: The particular classroom challenges for urban low-income African American boys. Review of Research in Education, 33, 160-180. doi: 10.3102/0091732X08327164

82.

Tierney

J. P.

Grossman

J. B.

Resch

N. L.

(1995). Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

83.

Tran

Weinraub

(2006). Child care effects in context: Quality, stability, and multiplicity in nonmaternal child care arrangements during the first 15 months of life. Developmental Psychology, 42, 566-582. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.566

84.

U.S. Bureau of Census. (2001). America’s families and living arrangements: Population characteristics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf

85.

Vandell

D. L.

Corasaniti

M. A.

(1988). The relation between third graders’ after-school care and social, academic, and emotional functioning. Child Development, 59, 868-875. doi:10.2307/1130254

86.

Violence Policy Center. (2010). Black homicide victimization in the United States: An analysis of 2007 homicide data. Retrieved from http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf

87.

Warfield-Coppock

(1992). The rites of passage movement: A resurgence of African-centered practices for socializing African American youth. Journal of Negro Education, 61, 471-482. doi:10.2307/2295365

88.

Watts

Abdul-Adil

Pratt

(2002). Enhancing critical consciousness in young African American men: A psychoeducational approach. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 3, 41-50. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.3.1.41

89.

Werner

E. E.

Bierman

J. M.

French

F. E.

(1971). The children of Kauni Honolulu. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

90.

Werner

E. E.

Smith

R. S.

(1977). Kauai’s children come of age. Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.

91.

Werner

E. E.

Smith

R. S.

(1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children. McGraw-Hill: New York.

92.

Werner

E. E.

Smith

R. S.

(1998). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York, NY: Adam.

93.

Wilson

(1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York, NY: Random House.

94.

Woodland

M. H.

(2008). A validity study of scores on the Personal and Academic Self-Concept Inventory based on a sample of Black college males. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 452-478. doi: 10.1177/0095798408316795

95.

Woodland

M. H.

Martin

J. M.

Hill

R. L.

Worrell

F. C.

(2009).The most blessed room in the city: The influence of a youth development program on three young Black males. Journal of Negro Education, 78, 233-245.

96.

Wolff

(1995). The concept of resilience. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 565-574. doi:10.3109/00048679509064968

97.

Worrell

F. C.

Gardner-Kitt

D. L.

(2006). The relationship between racial and ethnic identity in Black adolescents: The Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) and the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 6, 293-315. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0604_1

98.

Wright

M. O.

Masten

A. S.

Narayan

A. J.

(2013). Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In Goldstein

Brooks

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of resilience in children (pp. 15-37). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_2

99.

Wyman

P. A.

Cowen

E. L.

Work

W. C.

Raoof

Gribble

P. A.

Parter

G. R.

Wannon

(1992). Interviews with children who experienced major life stress: Family and child attributes that predict resilient outcomes. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 904-910. doi:10.1097/00004583-199209000-00019

100.

Zolkoski

S. M.

Bullock

L. M.

(2012). Resilience in children and youth: A review. Child and Youth Services Review, 34, 2295-2303. doi:dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009