I now understand that quality afterschool programs may help decrease delinquent behaviors for the youth participants, but I heard that there is compelling criticism of the methodological quality of the existing evaluations. Would you please give me a clue about it?

No worries.

Thanks for the information.

Yes, if you search more evaluation results, you might find some methodological weaknesses in the research. For example, in a review of 34 programs, Fashola (1998) noted that there was an absence of rigorous research designs; specifically, the failure of the evaluations to avoid the possibility of selection bias. In a meta-analysis of 23 afterschool programs, Scott-Little and colleagues (2002) found that programs may have some positive impacts on participants but to draw conclusive results, more rigorous research is needed. In their review of prior research, Bodilly and Beckett (2005) found that compared to the number of programs operating very few have been evaluated. They also noted the failure of evaluations to control for self-selection bias resulting from the voluntary nature of program participation. Over 20 years after Holland and Andre raised methodological concerns about afterschool research, many flaws persist in current evaluation research. For instance, Apsler (2009) identified two forms of selection bias present in evaluations of afterschool programs: selection bias inherent in the research design (voluntary nature of programming, program location differences) and selection bias resulting from the level of participation and attrition (sporadic participation, high attrition). Although methodological concerns have been raised, valuable information can be gained through an examination of prior research.