Search Publications | The Evaluation Exchange | FINE Network | OST Database

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Beacons Initiative—New York, New York

Program Description

Overview	The New York City Beacons Initiative links community-based and nonprofit organizations with schools to increase supports for youth and families. These supports should meet the needs of youth and assist them in building academic and social competencies, laying the foundation for economic self-sufficiency, successful parenthood, and active engagement in their communities. Beacons are school-based community centers offering after school programs as well as extended programming for children, youth, and families in the evenings, on weekends, and during the summer. Beacons also serve as a community resource, providing support and services to parents, senior citizens, and other community members. The Beacon model is being replicated or adapted in cities across the country. The strategy underlying the Beacons is based on research findings and practitioner experience indicating that positive outcomes for youth result from individual developmental opportunities combined with community-wide support. Beacon programs provide positive ways to meet their needs such as safety, sense, belonging, mastery and a sense of contribution to others.
Start Date	1991
Scope	local

Type	after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend, comprehensive services
Location	urban
Setting	public schools
Participants	preschool through high school students, others from surrounding neighborhood
Number of Sites/Grantees	80
Number Served	over 76,000 youth and 33,000 adults in 1998 and 180,000 youth and adults in 2001
Components	Beacons are open year-round and operate a minimum of 42 hours, six days a week. Most programs operate between 3pm and 10pm daily. There is at least one Beacon in each of the 32 Community School Districts throughout the city. Based in local schools, Beacons are operated by community-based organizations. Beacons provide a broad range of services to youth, their families, and local community residents. Programs include after school and evening programs such as homework and tutorial assistance; literacy programs and preventive services; GED, English as a Second Language, and computer courses; and recreational and cultural activities such as basketball leagues, arts and crafts, theater, and dance. The youth programs are designed around youth development principles. Services are individually tailored by local organizations working with advisory panels to meet the needs of the community in each Beacon program. Young people serve on these councils and have a major role in advising and working in programs. In many sites, 30% or more of staff are young people still in school. The Beacon Program requires extensive partnership/linkages with other local entities across disciplines in order maximize resources and services to participating youth and adults. These include police precincts, community schools, planning boards, and other community-based and governmental agencies, as well as religious and business organizations.
Funding Level	$36 million—each Beacon receives a base grant of $400,000 annually, as well as an allotment of $50,000 for space and cleaning costs.
Funding Sources	New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD). Some sites also have secured additional funding from local and national foundations on a site-by-site basis. Sixteen Beacon sites integrate public funding for foster care prevention into the Beacons. Numerous private funders have committed more than $10 million to the Beacons for special programs, training, and evaluation. These include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Open Society Institute, Pinkerton Foundation, Hayden Foundation, and many others.
Other	The Youth Development Institute (YDI) of the Fund for the City of New York provides ongoing support and technical assistance to the Beacons, with funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Wallace Funds, the Charles Hayden Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and J. P. Morgan. YDI's assistance includes organizing monthly meetings of Beacons directors, professional development activities for Beacons directors and staff, linkages to resources such as funding and staff training opportunities, advocacy with public agencies to foster collaborative relationships with the Beacons, and grants to help individual Beacons develop in specific areas.

Evaluation

Overview	The goal of the evaluation is to provide information and insights to help improve the initiative as a whole and individual Beacon programs in New York City. It also seeks to inform decision making regarding the initiative and efforts to implement Beacons in other cities. The Academy for Educational Development (AED) evaluation has worked closely with DYCD and YDI. The evaluation was commissioned in 1997 by YDI. Phase I was completed in 1998 and published in 1999, and examined initial implementation of the initiative. Phase II, which looked at program outcomes, was completed in the fall of 2002, and the findings have begun to be put into use in capacity building work by YDI. AED has conducted extensive briefings with these lead agencies, public policymakers, Beacon sites, and others. It has worked with all of the key organizations in the Beacons effort to translate evaluation findings into clear and specific language that could be used to continuously improve the work of the Beacons.
Evaluators	AED, the Hunter College Center on AIDS, Drugs, and Community Health, and the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago
Evaluations Profiled	Evaluation of the New York City Beacons: Summary of Phase I Findings A Place to Grow: Evaluation of the New York City Beacons
Evaluations Planned	none
Report Availability	Warren, C., Brown, P., & Freudenberg, N. (1999). Evaluation of the New York City Beacons: Summary of Phase I findings. New York: Academy for Educational Development. Available at: www.aed.org/news/articles/beacons.html. Warren, C., Feist, M., & Nevarez, N. (2002). A place to grow: Evaluation of the New York City Beacons. New York: Academy for Educational Development. Summary report available at scs.aed.org/grow.pdf (Acrobat file).

Contacts

Evaluation	Elayne Archer Academy for Educational Development 100 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011 Tel: 212-243-1110 Email: earcher@aed.org
Program	Peter Kleinbard, Director, Youth Development Institute Fund for the City of New York 121 Sixth Avenue New York, NY 10013-1505 Tel: 212-925-6675 Email: pkleinbard@fcny.org
Profile Updated	July 1, 2003

Evaluation 2: A Place to Grow: Evaluation of the New York City Beacons

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To gain information and insights to improve individual sites and the initiative as a whole and determine the impact of the Beacons on youth, families, schools, and communities. Specifically, the evaluation examined the implementation and impact of the five characteristics central to YDI's youth-development framework, asking to what extent youth had opportunities to: (1) participate in stimulating and engaging activities, (2) develop caring and trusting relationships, (3) be challenged to grow by high expectations, (4) connect with and contribute to their communities, and (5) benefit from a continuity of adult support.
Evaluation Design	Non-Experimental: The evaluation design for the Phase II evaluation included the selection of six intensive-study sites through a stratified random sample in order to represent the full range of Beacons as then operating in New York City. The stratified random sampling method was used to provide a cross section of the Beacons in terms of evaluators' rankings of completeness of implementation (in the Beacons' four core areas of youth-development programming, academic support, family involvement, and community building), geographic location, and type of lead agency. In the summative findings below, some results are reported for sites with higher youth development quality vs. sites with lower youth development quality. Regression analyses indicated that quality of this youth development implementation was not correlated with overall school quality or neighborhood safety. Also, the degree to which youth were potentially at risk was distributed across the intensive-study sites.
Data Collection Methods	Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews were conducted with youth, Beacon, lead agency, and school staff, as well as adults in the community. Interviews asked about what they did at the Beacon, the types of activities they took part in, how the Beacon helped them at school, and/or how it had helped them avoid high-risk behaviors. Parents were asked about how the Beacon helped their children, how the Beacon made a difference in the neighborhood, etcetera. Observation: The Beacon environment and a sample of Beacon activities were observed during site visits. Surveys/Questionnaires: Youth at the six intensive-study sites were surveyed regarding their reasons for coming to Beacons, their experiences at Beacons centers, and their perceptions of Beacons' impacts on themselves, their families, their schools, and their communities.
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected in spring and fall of 1999.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	Evaluators concluded that at Beacon centers, adults lead participants in stimulating, engaging activities that combine fun with opportunities to learn and develop the different competencies that youth will need as adults. The majority of young people reported that they had participated in discussions on drugs and alcohol and on sexuality, reproductive health, and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. Youth and parents both frequently cited homework assistance as a positive and valued activity offered by Beacons. Group size emerged as a critical factor in effective programming; the smaller the group, the more likely evaluators were to see the development of caring and trusting relationships among youth, availability of adult support, and flexibility to allow young people to contribute to running activities.
Parent/Community Involvement	More than half of the adults surveyed across all sites (54%) did not have children at the Beacon, which the evaluators suggest indicates that Beacons are acting as true community centers rather than just an extension of the school. The evaluators found that community residents were “well aware” of the Beacon's presence, despite little advertising and its location within a school building. Adults reported participating in sports and physical fitness activities, basic education, English-language instruction, GED preparation, and computer instruction at Beacons.
Program/School Linkages	Few school staff members felt informed about the Beacon in their building, and even fewer had participated in Beacon activities or worked for the Beacon, despite efforts on the part of the Beacons to increase staff awareness of Beacons' operations.
Satisfaction	Both surveys and interviews revealed that, when asked why they came to Beacon, young people most frequently responded that Beacon activities were fun. Of community residents who had heard about the Beacon, more than half rated their neighborhood Beacon as good; an additional quarter rated it as excellent.
Staffing/Training	YDI offers a wide range of professional development opportunities for Beacons directors and staff, including monthly meetings of directors (for incorporating youth-development perspectives into organizational behavior), and training opportunities for staff in youth-development principles and practices. Participation in these professional development activities were voluntary, and sites with more frequent attendance at YDI meetings and training activities had the highest-rated youth development quality and most positive youth findings. Older youth helped out with activities for younger children as either volunteers or paid staff. Monthly Beacon directors' meetings were used as a vehicle for disseminating new information and as an opportunity to support Beacons around common challenges, as well as to inform Beacon directors about available training opportunities for themselves and their staff. Staff with training in working with young people were found to be more “intentional” in their work with youth, particularly in challenging them to grow, managing groups, and responding to individual needs. Beacons made an effort to hire staff from the communities they serve, with the intent being for youth to see staff members with whom they share a common racial or ethnic background. At the same time, the presence of some teachers were also sought in order to give educational activities their maximum value.
Systemic Infrastructure	New York City's Department of Youth and Community Development provided numerous supports benefiting both new and old Beacons, including a Beacon manual, contract-monitoring procedures aligned with youth development principles, an automated contract-development process, and monthly directors' meetings for all Beacon directors.

Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic	In sites with higher youth development quality (as measured by: youths' level of activity participation, relationship development, personal growth due to high expectations, communities involvement, and support from adults), young people were less likely to cut classes.
Family	Parents cited Beacons' workshops and counseling for helping them learn to communicate better with their children and their children's teachers.
Prevention	In sites with higher youth development quality young people were less likely to hit others to hurt them, deliberately damage other people's property, steal money or other property, or be in a fight. Students reporting frequent discussions of alcohol and drugs were less likely than others to report having used marijuana in the two previous months. Older youth reported that seeing themselves as role models for younger children helped them avoid negative behaviors such as fighting or using drugs.
Youth Development	In sites with higher youth development quality young people were more likely to: (1) feel better about themselves, (2) believe that youth of all races and ethnicities were valued at the Beacon, and (3) report that the Beacon helped them learn leadership skills. Older youth repeatedly mentioned that they felt responsible to serve as role models for younger children. Beacons youth reported learning leadership skills, especially moral leadership skills such as learning right from wrong, learning how to resolve conflicts, being independent, and helping and teaching others. More than three-quarters of middle school and high school surveyed youth reported having helped someone younger at the Beacon.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Beacons Initiative—New York, New York

Profile Information