All Work and All Play: Participation in Leisure Activities in Academically Focused Afterschool Programming Is Linked to Better Math Grades

Jamie H. Wu ^1,2, Hope O. Akaeze¹, Naikuan Yang¹, Beth Prince¹, Minchuan Anderson¹, Debbie Stoddard¹, and Holli Schlukebir¹

¹Community Evaluation Programs, University Outreach and Engagement, Michigan State University, U.S.A.

²Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State University, U.S.A.

Abstract

Designed to improve outcomes for children from high-poverty, low-performing schools, the federally funded 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program emphasizes academic outcomes. We examined the effects of participation in academic and leisure activities in Michigan 21^st CCLC programs on English language arts (ELA) and mathematics grades among seventh- and eighth-grade students. Leisure activities were defined as any nonacademic activity: recreation and social time, physical movement, youth development, arts, and health and nutrition. Results showed that male students, low-income students, and academically at-risk students had lower grades in both ELA and math grades than their counterparts, regardless of other demographic factors or participation patterns. Data from our sample did not reveal any racial differences in ELA and math grades. Being older and having special education status were both associated with lower ELA grades, while English language learners tended to have higher ELA grades. After adjusting for these demographic differences, our study found that the dosage of leisure activities was linked to better math grades, while the dosage of academic activities was not linked to either ELA or math grades. A 10-hour increase in leisure activity time was associated with an increase in the math grade point of approximately 0.02 (A = grade point 4; B = 3), on average. Our study suggests that children from disadvantaged backgrounds might be best served when 21^stCCLC programs balance their academic focus with play and leisure activities.

Keywords: 21^st Century Community Learning Centers, leisure activity participations, out-of-school time, academic outcomes

The saying, “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy,” summarizes the importance of play for children. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), Article 31, declares that play is a child’s right. Participation in leisure, play, and recreation activities is crucial for positive youth development (Caldwell & Witt, 2011). Leisure activities not only offer youth a break from school demands but also promote mental health and physical fitness (Jussila et al., 2023) and give youth an opportunity to gain essential life skills such as collaboration, time management, and work–life balance (Caldwell & Witt, 2011).

Historically, out-of-school time (OST) programs for children and youth were designed first to keep participants safe after school (Halpern, 2003; Mahoney et al., 2009). For more than a century, afterschool programs run primarily by local and national community-based organizations fulfilled that role while adding youth development activities that enabled young people to develop social and emotional skills while having fun (Halpern, 2003). Academics, other than providing time for homework, was rarely considered (Halpern, 2006).

That mission began to shift with the expansion and evolution of the 21^st Century Community Learning Centers (21^st CCLC) program, the only federal funding stream for OST programming (Afterschool Alliance, 2021; Halpern, 2003). As its name suggests, 21^st CCLC was originally conceived as an out-of-school learning center for all community members. Its 2002 reauthorization under No Child Left Behind narrowed the focus to afterschool programming aimed at improving the academic outcomes of students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools (Afterschool Alliance, 2021). The federal government invested over $1.34 billion in 2022–2023 (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education [OESE], n. d.) through grants to states for OST programming. The stated mission of 21^st CCLC is providing “opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students, particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to meet the challenging State academic standards” (Title IV, Part B, 2015). Although grantees are also required to “offer students a broad array of additional services” ranging from drug and violence prevention to arts programming (Title IV, Part B, 2015), federal performance reports for 21^st CCLC grantees center on improving participants’ grades, test scores, and other school outcomes (OESE, 2024)—“a task for which [OST programs] are not well designed,” as Akiva et al. (2020) put it. This emphasis on academic intervention in OST programming for low-income students overlooks the importance of children’s leisure interests (Philp, 2022).

As state evaluators for Michigan’s 21^st CCLC program, we conducted research to assess the extent to which both academic and leisure activities affected the academic results on which federal grantees are required to report. Using data reported by 21^st CCLC programs in Michigan, we examined the effect of hours participants spent on academics and on “leisure,” broadly defined as all nonacademic activities, on students’ grades in mathematics and English language arts (ELA), concentrating on students in grades 7 and 8.

Literature Review

Early evidence of the effectiveness of 21^st CCLC was mixed, and most budget years see calls for eliminating or reducing funding (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). However, the relationship between high-quality OST programming for low-income students and improved academic performance is well established (e.g., Jenson et al., 2018; Mahoney et al., 2005; Seitz et al., 2022). The U.S. Department of Education’s (2023) annual report on 21^st CCLC for 2021–2022 showed that substantial percentages of students improved in the mandated measures: test scores, grades, attendance, in-school suspensions, and engagement in school. Low-income students, in particular, can receive more academic benefit from OST programs than middle- or high-income students (Heath et al., 2022; Morris, 2015). Crosnoe et al. (2015) associated low-income students’ consistent participation in OST programs with sustained academic improvement, implying that sustaining students’ interest in the activities offered by OST programs is important to program impact.

Benefits of Nonacademic Activities in OST

While quality OST programs are a recognized intervention for students in low-income and underperforming school districts, many researchers and practitioners critique the hyper-fixation on academic interventions as the primary focus for OST activities (e.g., Akiva et al., 2020; Halpern, 2006; Philp & Gill, 2020). Caetano et al. (2024) found that students typically reach a point where academic enrichment activities no longer impact their academic development. Philp (2022) theorizes that deficit thinking in OST program design disadvantages the development of low-income students by overemphasizing academics, as time spent in academic pursuits reduces the amount of time spent in activities that foster participants’ individual interests. Programs designed for high-income students often include structured leisure activities and fun, student-directed learning opportunities (Philp & Gill, 2020). Leisure can foster students’ interest in niche areas; in turn, these interests can fuel exploration of a subject or career path students had never previously considered (Akiva et al., 2020; Philp & Gill, 2020; Philp, 2022).

In addition to furthering students’ interest development, possible benefits of structured leisure in OST programming include supporting the development of their sense of self, confidence, sense of empowerment and engagement, and relationships with other students (Greer et al., 2024). Nonacademic youth-centered OST spaces provide opportunities for young people to develop relationships with caring adults outside of family and school—relationships that foster a host of positive youth development outcomes (Greer et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2016). Structured leisure activities can provide children with an outlet for stress and an opportunity to develop coping strategies (Hutchinson & Robertson, 2012). Building students’ social-emotional skills through leisure can also reinforce their academic capacity, as students can use newfound coping skills and confidence to navigate the uncertainties of school (Hutchinson & Robertson, 2012). OST programs combining social-emotional development and academic interventions can positively impact students’ mental well-being; for example, such programs may decrease the likelihood of suspension or expulsion (Jenson et al., 2018) and reduce the incidence of anxiety and depression among students (Metsäpelto et al., 2010). Indeed, participation in any kind of extracurricular activity, including community-based programming, has been associated with less screen time and better mental health among young adolescents (Oberle et al., 2020).

Another argument for leisure activities in OST is related to lack of opportunity during the school day. Most elementary school children have at least one recess period during school, but the incidence of recess declines dramatically starting at grade 6 (National Center for HIV/AIDs, 2015). Recess is less common in urban and low-income schools than in other areas (Council on School Health, 2013). A policy brief published by the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that children who had recess time were more focused when they returned to academic tasks—no matter whether they had spent that leisure time in active play, socialization, or any other activity (Council on School Health, 2013).

A related issue is a dramatic decline in physical activity as children age, a decline that becomes marked in early adolescence (Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment, 2013; van Sluijs et al., 2021). Worldwide, children from higher-income families were more likely to engage in physical activity than lower-income children (van Sluijs et al., 2021). Opportunities for outdoor play, in particular, are less available to children in predominantly Black or low-income neighborhoods, where safety is a concern and green spaces are scarce (Kepper et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2023).

Michigan’s 21^st Century Community Learning Centers

In 2022–2023, the state of Michigan received $37.065 million in federal funding for its 21^st CCLC programs (Office of Elementary & Secondary Education, n.d.). With nearly 3% of the federal 21^st CCLC budget, Michigan served over 17,000 students across 254 sites statewide. Most sites (84%) served elementary-age children only or elementary and middle school combined (Authors, 2023). Program design varies, but every site provides both academic support and nonacademic enrichment programming, as required by the grant; almost all youth participated in some form of academic activity.

A key difference between school and OST is that young people get to choose whether or not to attend. For elementary age children, that choice is often made by caregivers; in middle school, children are more likely to begin to exercise agency in whether or not to go to the afterschool program on a given day (Akiva & Horner, 2016). Furthermore, most Michigan programs offer choices of activities. For example, after snack and homework time, children may be able to choose between robotics, theater, or literacy support activities.

As evaluators of Michigan’s 21^st CCLC program, we have seen a consistent pattern in which participation in leisure activities is high for elementary-age children but drops after youth enter middle school (Authors, 2023). This finding is consistent with literature documenting the observation that children entering adolescence face increasing academic pressure and experience decreasing participation in recreation and physical activity (Committee on Physical Activity, 2013; Council on School Health, 2013; van Sluijs et al., 2021). Our study focused on the linkage between leisure participation in Michigan 21^st CCLC programs and seventh- and eighth-grade students’ ELA and math grades. One reason for the selection of these middle school years is that these are the years in which sites are required to report school grades in ELA and math, not just standardized test scores. More broadly, the confluence of increasing academic pressure and less time for leisure makes grades 7 and 8 a “sweet spot” for exploring the influence of OST leisure on children’s physical, social-emotional, and academic development before they enter high school.

Methods

Sample and Data Collection

In the 2022–23 program year, 83 Michigan 21^st CCLC programs served 2,234 seventh and eighth graders, according to the state 21^st CCLC database. The primary outcomes 21^st CCLC sites are required to report for seventh- and eighth-grade students are their school grades in ELA and math. Sites also report on seventh graders’ standardized test scores, but eighth graders do not take state standardized tests in ELA or math.

Michigan’s 21^st CCLC grantees reported both site-level and individual-level information on academic and structured leisure activities in which students participated. Each site provided descriptions of every activity offered. Table 1 summarizes the rubric we devised to classify activities as primarily academic or primarily leisure. In developing the rubric, we began with the categories specified in the 21^st CCLC grant (column 1) and then subdivided into more precise categories (column 2) to facilitate coding. For activities that included both academic and leisure components, we used the activity description to decide whether academic or leisure was primary and then designated the other as secondary. The time spent in the activity was then coded as 100% of the primary category and 50% of the secondary category. For example, a 60-minute session that consists entirely of reading instruction and independent reading would be classified as 60 minutes of academic dosage for each child. A 60-minute session that reviews content and vocabulary from the reading and then moves on to discussion of how to present the book as a play and improvisation of a few scenes would be classified as 60 minutes of academic activity and 30 minutes of leisure, specifically performing arts. Conversely, a 60-minute basketball session in which the coach has each player calculate statistics such as percentage of successful shots would be coded as 60 minutes of leisure in the form of physical activity and 30 minutes of academic activity. This method of calculating dosage and the categories in Table 1 were approved by the Michigan Department of Education for the evaluation of its 21^st CCLC programs.

Table 1. Coding of Academic and Leisure Activities

21^st CCLC Activity Type	Session Type*
*Academic*
Subjects: ELA, math, science, engineering, history, social studies, fine arts, second language, more	Academic enrichment: enhancing academic skills, preferably through play- or project-based activities
	Homework help/tutoring
*Leisure*
Technology	Computers or computer programs
Technology	Video & media
Arts	Arts & crafts
	Music
	Theater
	Dance
	Poetry
	General arts
Physical movement	Team sports
	Non-team sports
	General sports
Recreation & social	Recess / physical free play
	Games
	Social events, camp, fun days
Youth development	Career development
	Social emotional learning
	Community service
	Conflict resolution
	Resistance and risk prevention
	Leadership development
	Safety, physical health
	Adult mentoring
Food & nutrition	Food & nutrition education (not including snack or meal time)

* The coding rubric is used for all Michigan CCLC programs. This summary lists only activity and session types that apply to seventh- and eighth-grade students.

Table 3. Description of Model Variables

Variable	n	Mean	%	Min	Max	SD	Skew	Kurtosis
ELA grade	1282	2.2	-	0	4	1.39	-0.28	-1.25
Math grade	1267	2.1	-	0	4	1.38	-0.21	-1.25
Academic dosage in hrs/yr	2234	43.3	-	0	233	42.35	1.46	2.11
Leisure dosage in hrs/yr	2234	58.3	-	0	417	61.84	1.56	2.42
Age in years	2232	13.6	-	9	18	0.84	0.44	1.32
Female	1129	-	50.5	0	1	-	-	-
English language learner	146	-	6.7	0	1	-	-	-
Academically at risk	1895	-	91.8	0	1	-	-	-
Free & reduced-price lunch	1880	-	86.2	0	1	-	-	-
Special education	431	-	20.2	0	1	-	-	-
Race
White	618	-	29.0	0	1	-	-	-
African American/Black	1022	-	47.9	0	1	-	-	-
Asian	31	-	1.5	0	1	-	-	-
Hispanic/Latino	271	-	12.7	0	1	-	-	-
Arabic/Middle Eastern	74	-	3.5	0	1	-	-	-
American Indian/Native Alaskan	4	-	0.2	0	1	-	-	-
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	2	-	0.1	0	1	-	-	-
Multiracial	67	-	3.1	0	1	-	-	-
Another race	45	-	2.1	0	1	-	-	-

Table 4. Fixed Effects Estimates for Regression of English Language Arts Grade on Leisure Dosage

Variable	Estimate	S.E.	z-value	p-value
Intercept	4.818	0.680	7.081	0.000
Academic dosage	0.004	0.014	0.260	0.795
Leisure dosage	0.018	0.010	1.844	0.065
Age in years	-0.132	0.049	-2.717	0.007
Female	0.320	0.074	4.306	0.000
English language learner	0.486	0.159	3.050	0.002
Academically at risk	-1.068	0.133	-8.049	0.000
White	0.172	0.112	1.539	0.124
Hispanic/Latino	-0.104	0.133	-0.777	0.437
Other race	-0.011	0.145	-0.076	0.939
Free & reduced-price lunch	-0.277	0.103	-2.677	0.007
Special education	-0.237	0.096	-2.465	0.014

Table 5. Fixed Effects Estimates for Regression of Math Grade on Leisure Dosage

Variable	Estimate	S.E.	t-value	p-value
Intercept	3.036	0.680	4.468	0.000
Academic dosage	0.009	0.015	0.636	0.524
Leisure dosage	0.021	0.010	2.107	0.035
Age in years	0.006	0.049	0.131	0.896
Female	0.192	0.074	2.586	0.010
English language learner	0.232	0.161	1.440	0.150
Academically at risk	-1.256	0.135	-9.286	0.000
White	-0.033	0.113	-0.294	0.769
Hispanic/Latino	0.048	0.134	0.361	0.718
Other race	0.052	0.145	0.356	0.722
Free & reduced-price lunch	-0.266	0.103	-2.594	0.009
Special education	-0.042	0.095	-0.439	0.660

Discussion

The federal 21^st CCLC grant requires academic participation for all students, and grantees’ performance is measured primarily by academic outcomes. Using Michigan’s 21^st CCLC as the context, this paper examines the effects of academic and leisure participation on ELA and math grades among seventh- and eighth-grade participants. After controlling for demographic differences, this study found that leisure dosage was associated with higher math grades, while academic dosage was not correlated with students’ ELA or math grades. The implication is that a balance of leisure and academic activities could link to better academic outcomes. Our study found that participating in additional 10 hours of leisure activities in a program year was linked to an increase of 0.02 in a student’s math grade, on average.

The data revealed differences in participants’ math and reading grades by demographic categories: male and low-income students had lower grades in both ELA and math. No gap emerged between White and non-White students’ ELA and math grades. ELLs tended to have higher ELA grades. Students classified into special education and those who were older had lower ELA grades. For all groups, more leisure time in OST added up to higher math grades, though there was no significant effect on ELA grades.

Our finding about the effect of leisure time on math grades aligns with current calls for balance between academic and leisure activities in OST (e.g. Halpern, 2006; Philp & Gill, 2020), supported by empirical evidence of the importance of free time and of programming in the arts, sports, health, and social-emotional development. The American Academy of Pediatrics found that children could focus better on academic tasks after a recess break—but few children in grades 7 and 8, especially those in low-income neighborhoods, have recess time during school (Council on School Health, 2013). Like most people of any age, middle-schoolers need leisure time as an outlet to decrease stress; leisure activities can also help young people develop coping skills (Hutchinson & Robertson, 2012). The right level of participation in OST programs that combine academic and leisure can improve students’ social-emotional health (Metsäpelto et al., 2010) and school behavior (Jenson et al., 2018).

Furthermore, Philp (2022) argues that the emphasis on academic activities in OST programming is a symptom of deficit thinking targeting students from low-income and minoritized backgrounds. Leisure activities in OST enable students to explore their interests in a fun, self-driven way (Akiva et al., 2020; Philp & Gil, 2020; Philp, 2022). Akiva et al. (2020) believe that the opportunity to engage in “interest driven activities” enables participants “to develop personal identities that are more aligned with [students’] cultural or ethnic backgrounds” (p. 11). Leisure activities that introduce OST participants to new interests or new ways of learning can motivate disengaged students to reengage with classroom learning (Akiva et al., 2020; Philp & Gil, 2020).

The seventh and eighth graders in our sample did spend more afterschool time in leisure activities than in academic pursuits. This finding is partly a function of the ability of programs to combine academic and leisure goals in a single activity. Our finding suggests that balancing academic pursuits with leisure activities may have a positive effect on at least one academic outcome. Ultimately, the central problem with the emphasis on academic learning in 21^st CCLC programming may be a matter of opportunity cost. Caetano et al. (2024) found that academic enrichment activities reach a point of diminishing returns when they compete with other priorities, such as family responsibilities, and replace vital activities such as recreation and sleep.

Limitations

One limitation of our study is that missing data were treated as missing at random in the analysis, on the assumption that the probability of missing data can be reasonably explained by the other measured variables in the data. We do not have any reason to suspect a systematic pattern in the missing values; however, if such a pattern exists, the results may have been affected.

The quality of the data on academic and leisure activities in Michigan 21^st CCLC sites is largely outside our control. The data were reported by 21^st CCLC sites. Although site coordinators and data entry personnel receive guidance about how to describe their activities, time pressures and other constraints may affect the accuracy of those descriptions.

Another aspect of the study that can be seen as a limitation is the decision to report grades but not test scores, which many see as more reliable. The reason is that standardized tests in ELA and math are administered in Michigan to students in grade 7 but not grade 8. Another outcome of interest would have been measures of behavioral development, such as school suspensions or teacher ratings of classroom behavior. We did not include such measures because our interest was specifically the extent to which leisure activities could be related to academic outcomes, the primary set of outcomes on which 21^st CCLCs are judged.

A limitation with more impact on conclusions is that the study findings do not support causal inferences. We have observed a linkage between higher leisure dosage and better math grades, but we cannot suggest that more leisure participation causes better math grades. One possibility is selection bias: Students who are more competent with math might be the ones who are more active in their leisure pursuits during OST.

Furthermore, we studied one cohort of students in two grade levels for one year in one state’s 21^st CCLC program. Studies of the effects of leisure and academic activities on the grades of seventh and eighth graders in other 21^st CCLC programs would improve confidence in our conclusions.

Implications for Policy and Practice

As part of a larger national initiative to address disparities in educational outcomes for disadvantaged young people, 21^st CCLC programs are designed to provide a mix of academic and nonacademic activities to bolster the academic outcomes of students from low-income backgrounds (Title IV, Part B, 2015). In their nearly 30-year history, 21^st CCLC programs have emphasized academic enrichment activities to improve the academic performance of students in underperforming schools (Holstead & Hightower, 2011; Williams et al., 2021). However, overemphasis on academic interventions at the expense of leisure activities could reduce the impact of 21^st CCLC programming on participants’ academic and social-emotional growth. Currently, the federal Office of Elementary and Secondary Education collects limited data on nonacademic activities but does not publish data on leisure activity participation in 21^st CLCC programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). All outcomes on which sites and grantees are required to report are either academic outcomes such as grades and test scores or school-related behavioral outcomes such as attendance and suspension rates. Our study suggests that leisure activity participation in Michigan 21^st CCLCs may be more closely associated with math grades than participation in academic activities alone. One implication for policy and practice is that 21^st CCLC programming should intentionally incorporate ample opportunities for socialization, physical activity, arts and sports programming, civic engagement, leadership, and other youth development activities alongside (and perhaps sometimes instead of) activities focused specifically on building academic skills. OST programming that balances leisure and academic activities may be the best way to address students’ academic and social-emotional needs.

Practically speaking, one potent way to promote more nonacademic activities such as physical activities or youth development activities in 21^st CCLC programming might be to require sites and grantees to report on additional student outcomes beyond academically focused measures. For example, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education has identified resources for measuring social-emotional learning in school settings (Stoker & Borman, 2022). Similar resources might be deployed to measure social-emotional outcomes in 21^st CCLC programs. As the business cliché goes, “What gets measured gets managed.” The requirement that 21^st CCLC grantees and sites report on academic outcomes gives them a strong incentive to emphasize academic programming.

Avenues for Future Research

Our study offers a rare glimpse into how the structure of government-funded OST programs impacts students’ academic outcomes. It helps to fill the gap in empirical research on how leisure intersects with 21^st CCLC programming. Because of its importance in policy discussions and cost to the federal government, examining 21^st CCLC can help differentiate its impact from the impact of other programs and suggest ways to improve its design. Our study involves one set of students in one year in one state’s 21^st CCLC program. More empirical studies that examine the impact of leisure activities on academic outcomes are needed. The impact on social-emotional outcomes also deserves attention. Findings in both areas could add to the field’s knowledge and help to inform policy and program decisions.

In addition to replicating designs similar to ours in other states’ 21^st CCLC programs with other cohorts of students, other future research could take a more granular approach to examine different types of leisure activities. For example, some researchers have found that sports and other physical activity can have a different effect from other nonacademic activities on academic outcomes (Covay & Carbonaro, 2010; Heath et al., 2022). Other studies could examine other types of nonacademic structured activities, from arts programming to leadership development and civic engagement activities, and how they affect both academic and social-emotional indicators. Further research on the effect of physical activity on 21^st CCLC participants could suggest changes to program design to better support students’ academic outcomes. Another avenue for further understanding is examining how 21^st CCLC site locations and community determinants of child well-being affect the distribution and impact of leisure activities in 21^st CCLC programs.

Many avenues remain for research into the distribution and impact of leisure activities in 21^st CCLC programs nationwide. Our finding that OST leisure activities had more connection with one academic indicator than academic activities did should help motivate other researchers to explore some of these avenues. If other studies find that leisure activities have more effect than academic activities alone, 21^st CCLC policies may need to shift to better support the academic and social-emotional development of underserved youth.

Correspondence should be addressed to

Jamie H. Wu

wuhengch@msu.edu

Hope O. Akaeze: 0000-0002-8877-7900

Holli Schlukebir: 0009-0009-3455-2261

Author Contributions

Content Development, J.H.W. and H.S.; Data Analysis, H.O.A.; Data Cleaning, N.Y. and M.A.; Data Collection, B.P. and D.S.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Michigan Department of Education (MDE) and Michigan Lifelong Education, Advancement, and Potential (MiLEAP) through the State Evaluation of Michigan 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant.

Funding Source

The data used for this paper come from the Michigan 21^st Century Community Learning Centers state evaluation project funded by the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential (formerly the Michigan Department of Education).

References

Afterschool Alliance. (2021). Two decades of 21^st Century Community Learning Centers. Issue Brief 78. https://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/issue_briefs/issue_21stCCLC_78.pdf

Afterschool Alliance. (n.d.). 21^st Century Community Learning Centers: 21^st CCLC is a critical source of funding for many local afterschool and summer learning programs. https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/policy21stcclc.cfm

Akiva, T., Delale-O'Connor, L., & Pittman, K. J. (2020). The promise of building equitable ecosystems for learning. Urban Education, 58(6), 1271–1297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920926230

Akiva, T., & Horner, C. G. (2016). Adolescent motivation to attend youth programs: A mixed-methods investigation. Applied Developmental Science, 20(4), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2015.1127162

Authors. (2023, April). Michigan Nita M. Lowey 21^st Century Community Learning Centers evaluation 2021-22 annual report.

Caetano, C., Caetano, G., & Nielsen, G. (2024). Are children spending too much time on enrichment activities? Economics of Education Review, 98, 102503.

Caldwell, L. L., & Witt, P. A. (2011). Leisure, recreation, and play from a developmental context. New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(130), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.394

Committee on Physical Activity and Physical Education in the School Environment; Food and Nutrition Board; Institute of Medicine. (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201496/

Council on School Health. (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics, 131(1), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2993

Covay, E., & Carbonaro, W. (2010). After the bell: Participation in extracurricular activities, classroom behavior, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 83(1), 20–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040709356565

Crosnoe, R., Smith, C., & Levanthal, T. (2015). Family background, school-age trajectories of activity participation, and academic achievement at the start of high school. Applied Developmental Science, 19(3), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2014.983031

Greer, C. D., Fosl, L. G., & Mitchell, B. D. (2024). Reimagining approaches to out-of-school time spaces that center youth. Children and Schools, 46(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdad026

Halpern, R. (2003). Making play work: The promise of afterschool for low-income children. Teachers College Press.

Halpern, R. (2006). Critical issues in afterschool programming. Monographs of the Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy, Erikson Institute, Vol. 1, No. 1. https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/Halpern_role.pdf

Heath, R. D., Anderson, C., Turner, A. C., & Payne, C. M. (2022). Extracurricular activities and disadvantaged youth: A complicated—but promising—story. Urban Education, 57(8), 1415–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918805797

Holstead, J., & Hightower King, M. (2011). High-quality 21^st Century Community Learning Centers: Academic achievement among frequent participants and non-participants. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 16, 255–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2011.611045

Hutchinson, S., & Robertson, B. (2012). Leisure education: A new goal for an old idea whose time has come. Pedagogía Social, 127–139. https://doi.org/10.7179/psri_2012.19.09

Jenson, J. M., Veeh, C., Anyon, Y., St. Mary, J., Calhoun, M., Tejada, J., & Lechuga-Peña, S. (2018). Effects of an afterschool program on the academic outcomes of children and youth residing in public housing neighborhoods: A quasi-experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.014

Jussila, J. J., Pulakka, A., Ervasti, J., Halonen, J. I., Mikkonen, S., Allaouat, S., Salo, P., & Lanki, T. (2023). Associations of leisure-time physical activity and active school transport with mental health outcomes: A population-based study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 33, 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.14292

Kepper, M. M., Staiano, A. E., Katzmarzyk, P. T., Reis, R. S., Eyler, A. A., Griffith, D. M., Kendall, M. L., ElBanna, B., Denstel, K. D., & Broyles, S. T. (2019). Neighborhood influences on women’s parenting practices for adolescents’ outdoor play: A qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(20), 3853. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203853

Klumpner, S. K., & Woolley, M. E. (2021). Expanding after school program access for vulnerable students: Examining the efficacy of federal policy and funding. Education and Urban Society, 53(9), 987-1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211004550

Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76(4), 811–825.

Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Zigler, E. F. (2009). Afterschool programs in America: Origins, growth, popularity, and politics. Journal of Youth Development, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2009.250

Metsäpelto, R., Pulkkinen, L., & Tolvanen, A. (2010). A school-based intervention program as a context for promoting socioemotional development in children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(3), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0034-5

Morris, D. S. (2015). Actively closing the gap? Social class, organized activities, and academic achievement in high school. Youth & Society, 47(2), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12461159

National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of Adolescent and School Health. (2015). Results from the school health policies and practices study 2014. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/35705

Oberle, E., Ji, X. R., Kerai, S., Guhn, M., Schonert-Reichl, K. A., & Gadermann, A. M. (2020). Screen time and extracurricular activities as risk and protective factors for mental health in adolescence: A population-level study. Preventive Medicine, 141, 106291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106291

Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. (n.d.). Funding status & awards. Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/21st-century-community-learning-centers/funding-status-21st-century-community-learning-centers/

Office of Elementary & Secondary Education. (2024). Performance. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/21st-century-community-learning-centers/performance-21st-century-community-learning-centers/

Philp, K. D. (2022). More than homework help: The critical role of afterschool programs for youth learning and development. Theory into Practice, 61(4), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107344

Philp, K. D., & Gill, M. G. (2020). Reframing after-school programs as developing youth interest, identity, and social capital. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219892647

Sanders, M., Winston, J., & Rochester, S. E. (2023, February 23). Most Black children live in neighborhoods that lack amenities associated with child well-being. Child Trends. https://childtrends.org/publications/most-black-children-live-in-neighborhoods-that-lack-amenities-associated-with-child-well-being

Seitz, S., Khatib, N., Guessous, O., & Kuperminc, G. (2022). Academic outcomes in a national afterschool program: The role of program experiences and youth sustained engagement. Applied Developmental Science, 26(4), 766–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2021.1993855

Title IV, Part B of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (20 U.S.C. 7171-7176). (2015). https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/21st-century-community-learning-centers/

U.S. Department of Education. (2023). 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC performance data: 2021-2022 (18th report). https://oese.ed.gov/files/2024/03/21APR-2021-2022-Report-2024.03.05.pdf

van Sluijs, E. M. F., Ekelund, U., Crochemore-Silva, I., Guthold, R., Ha, A., Lubans, D., Oyeyemi, A. L., Ding, D., & Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2021). Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet, 398(10298), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01259-9

Williams, H. P. (2021). The role of federal and state policy in addressing early childhood achievement gaps: Parent perceptions and student outcomes related to 21st Century Learning Centers programming in the United States. International Journal of Child Care and Educational Policy, 15(16), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00093-7https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00093-7

Wu, H-C. J., Kornbluh, M., Weiss, J., & Roddy, L. (2016). Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: The Youth-Adult Partnership Rubric. Afterschool Matters, 23. https://www.niost.org/Afterschool-Matters-Spring-2016/measuring-and-understanding-authentic-youth-engagement-the-youth-adult-partnership-rubric

Table 2. Grade Conversion into Continuous Variables
Alphabetical Grade	Numeric Grade	Grade Point
A	90 or above	4
A- or B+	85 – 89	3.5
B	80 – 84	3
B- or C+	75 – 79	2.5
C	70 – 74	2
C- or D+	65 – 69	1.5
D	64 – 60	1
D-	55 – 59	0.5
F	54 or below	0