School-based after-school programs have enjoyed enormous popularity over the past 10 years with Federal and local governments who view after-school programs as opportunities to improve educational outcomes among youth and reduce crime during after-school hours. Despite the popularity of these programs, evaluations have presented mixed results in terms of client outcomes. Moreover, evaluations of such programs have tended to narrowly focus on either program implementation issues or program outcomes, leaving a gap in the literature concerning whether the quality and content of after-school programs contributes to client outcomes. The evaluation of five Beacon centers attempts to address this literature gap by examining not only program quality and content, but also client outcomes. The San Francisco Beacon Initiative (SFBI) began in 1994 as a plan to turn public schools in low-income neighborhoods into youth and family centers. Members of the SFBI worked with consultants to design high quality programming and relied on research to understand the connection between developmental experiences and young people’s social and academic outcomes. Five Beacon centers were opened between Fall 1996 and Fall 1998. Evaluation of the programs began in 1998; data included information from the Web-based management information system (MIS), which provided data about who used the centers, how often, and for how long. In-school surveys with students and staff surveys were also utilized, as well as observations of Beacon center activities, feedback from participants, interviews with staff, and focus groups and interviews with Beacon center participants. Key findings indicated that the San Francisco Beacon centers were well funded, well staffed, and well implemented. The Beacon centers exceeded usage predictions, serving between 350 and 720 young people at each center. Youth attended the centers on average between one and three times per week and youth reported many benefits of participating in Beacon activities, such as a sense of belonging. Youth who participated in Beacon activities reported many positive outcomes, such as increased levels of adult support, leadership experiences, and engagement in school work. However, participation by youth in Beacon center activities did not improve the academic attainment of participants. Despite the unaffected academic outcomes, the SFBI played a positive role in the lives of young people. Table, notes