This qualitative case study examined how social capital development was facilitated in an urban after-school program. Specific attention was devoted to identifying structures and strategies that helped student participants develop social capital, the types of social networks that were developed through program participation, and the outcomes that were attributed to these networks. The findings suggest that the program’s purposeful design and skillful implementation presented students with opportunities to forge heterogeneous and bridging relationships that fundamentally shaped their learning experiences and their future social, educational, and professional aspirations.
AnyonJ. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge.
2.
ApslerR. (2009). After-school programs for adolescents: A review of evaluation research. Adolescence, 44, 1-19.
3.
BerlinerD. (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record, 108, 949-955.
4.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
5.
BourdieuP. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
7.
CosdenM.MorrisonG.AlbaneseA. L.MaciasS. (2001). When homework is not homework: After-school programs for homework assistance. Theory Into Practice, 43, 220-226.
8.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
CroningerR.LeeV. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103, 548-581.
10.
GoddardR. D. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on students’ chances of academic success. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59-74.
11.
GoodT. L. (2008). In the midst of comprehensive school reform: Principals’ perspectives. Teachers College Record, 110(11), 41-60.
12.
GranovetterM. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
13.
GreeleyA. (1997). Coleman revisited: Religious structures as a source of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 587-594.
14.
GrossmanJ. B.RhodesJ.AberM. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in youth mentoring programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 199-206.
15.
HirschB. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
HirstK. (2005). Perspectives on early childhood education. Sterling, VA: Trentham.
17.
LeeV. E.CroningerR. C. (1994). The relative importance of home and school in the development of literacy skills for middle-grade students. American Journal of Education, 102, 286-329.
18.
LinN. (1999). Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467-487.
19.
LinN. (2000). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LouryG. (1977). A dynamic theory of racial income differences. In WallaceP. A.Le MundA. (Eds.), Women, minorities, and employment discrimination (pp. 153-186). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
21.
MarshallG. N.BurnamM. A.KoegelP.SullivanG.BenjaminB. (1996). Objective life circumstances and life satisfaction: Results from the course of homelessness study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 44-58.
22.
MillerP. (2007). Examining boundary spanning leadership in university-school-community partnerships. Journal of School Public Relations, 28(2), 189-211.
23.
MillerP. (2008). Neighbors engaged in dialogue: The Rogers Center and the Northeast Neighborhood. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 12(1), 71-95.
24.
MillerP. (2009). Boundary spanning in the homeless education situation: Notes from an emergent faculty role in Pittsburgh. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 616-630.
25.
NogueraP. (2003). City schools and the American Dream. New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
PortesA. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
28.
PosnerJ.VandellD. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs?Child Development, 65, 440-456.
29.
PosnerJ. K.VandellD. L. (1999). After-school activities and the development of low-income urban children: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 35, 868-879.
30.
PutnamR. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
31.
RiggsN. (2006). After-school program attendance and the social development of rural Latino children of immigrant families. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(1), 75-87.
32.
Southwestern Pennsylvania Afterschool Resource Collaboration. (2009). Sparc Project. Available from http://www.swpaafterschool.org/
33.
ZhangJ. J. (2002). Development of the scale for program facilitators to assess the effectiveness of after school achievement programs. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10, 151-167.
