You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

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.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview The San Francisco Beacon Initiative (SFBI) was founded by a broad-based group of San Francisco leaders who wanted to transform public schools in low-income neighborhoods into youth and family centers that would serve as beacons of activity uniting communities. Stakeholder groups, facilitated by the Community Network for Youth Development (CNYD) and the Institute for Research and Reform in Education (IRRE), developed a theory of change to be used throughout the initiative to guide its action and management. At the site level, the theory of change emphasized the following four critical developmental supports and opportunities for youth development: supportive relationships, safe places to spend leisure time, interesting and challenging learning experiences, and opportunities for meaningful roles and responsibilities. The initiative aims to help youth through participation in Beacon activities during out-of-school time to develop competencies that will help them become responsible adults.
Start Date Founded in 1994, the first five centers opened between 1996 and 1998. Three more were added in 1999.
Scope local
Type after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend, comprehensive services
Location urban
Setting public schools
Participants elementary through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees eight centers
Number Served 7,500 youth and adults from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000
Components The centers are designed to be neighborhood gathering places that provide an array of developmental opportunities for community youth in nonschool hours, as well as activities for adults. Youth programs focus on five areas: leadership, career development, arts and recreation, health, and education. As a result of increased national and local attention on school accountability and student performance in recent years, the youth programming has shifted from a broad youth development agenda, equally incorporating these five areas, to one with a strong focus on educational programming. By 2001, all centers were running educational support programs at least 4 days per week. Neighborhood adults can participate in English and computer lessons, community events, and parent support groups. Although some Beacon Centers provide traditional social services, their goals are much broader. As community centers, they are designed to be responsive to the local needs and conditions of specific neighborhoods. The communities’ ethnic makeup, organizational resources, and specific youth and adult needs shape the centers’ operations and offerings. The centers provide activities in the hours immediately after school, during some evenings, during lunch, on Saturdays, and in the summer, and they range from daily and weekly programs to single-time events.
Funding Level $4 million in 2000; $8.4 million in 2003–2004. The 2003–2004 figure includes $2.4 million from the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families and an additional $6 million leveraged by the eight centers, both in-kind and cash. It does not include in-kind contributions that have been provided by the school district (space and janitorial services).
Funding Sources Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF), Juvenile Probation Department, local private foundations (represented by the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund), the school district, California’s Safe Neighborhood and After-School Partnerships Act, the federal government’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative
Other A complex organizational structure links the Beacon Centers together. Each center’s day-to-day operations are overseen by a community-based organization, while a citywide steering committee of funders oversees the entire initiative. The steering committee sets policies and expectations for center operations, provides core funding, and raises additional money for the centers. As the initiative’s operational manager during the first 5 years of the centers’ operations, CNYD helped identify key challenges and brought them to the steering committee’s attention. In addition, CNYD provided centers with technical assistance and training, kept lines of communication open among the partners, brought potential funders and activity providers to the centers, and managed a public support campaign to introduce elected officials and community members to the programs. Through CYND, all center directors met monthly to share information about the institutions and people who provide activities at their centers. Many of those functions are now handled by the executive director of the San Francisco Beacon Initiative and her staff, located in DCYF.

Evaluation

Overview Designed around SFBI’s theory of change, the evaluation aimed to (a) assess the initiative’s progress in achieving its intended outcomes, and (b) analyze how the initiative set out to achieve these outcomes.
Evaluator Karen E. Walker and Amy J. A. Arbreton, Public/Private Ventures
Evaluations Profiled Working Together to Build Beacon Centers in San Francisco: Evaluation Findings From 1998–2000

After-School Pursuits: An Examination of Outcomes in the San Francisco Beacon Initiative
Evaluations Planned none
Report Availability Walker, K. E., & Arbreton, A. J.A. (2001). Working together to build Beacon Centers in San Francisco: Evaluation findings from 1998–2000. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Walker, K. E., & Arbreton, A. J. A. (2004). After-school pursuits: An examination of outcomes in the San Francisco Beacon Initiative. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.

Available at www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/publications.asp?search_id=8.

Contacts

Evaluation Karen Walker
Vice President, Director of Research
Public/Private Ventures
2000 Market Street, #600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: 215-557-4412
Fax: 215-557-4469
Email: kwalker@ppv.org
Program Virginia Witt
Executive Director
San Francisco Beacon Initiative
1390 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: 415-934-4848
Fax: 415-554-8965
Email: vwitt@sfbeacon.org
Profile Updated December 21, 2004

Evaluation 1: Working Together to Build Beacon Centers in San Francisco: Evaluation Findings From 1998–2000


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To examine the SFBI’s progress in developing an administrative structure and establishing the centers necessary to achieve the initiative’s long-term goal of improving the lives of the city’s youth.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Data were gathered on the first five Beacon Centers that opened between fall 1996 and fall 1998. Three of the five centers operate in middle schools, one is in a high school, and one is in an elementary school.

The evaluation included all sixth and seventh graders (Beacon Center participants and nonparticipants) at the three middle schools hosting Beacon Centers. Surveys were administered to participant and nonparticipant youth in November 1998 and November 1999. Survey response rates ranged from 51% to 87% at each center for each round. School records were integrated with survey data to compare the academic performance of the Beacon Center youth with those who do not attend the centers.

In addition, site visits were conducted at the five sites to assess the centers’ implementation.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: SFBI documents were reviewed, including training and outreach materials, progress reports, and budgets.

Interviews/Focus Groups: During biannual visits to the centers, approximately 80 staff members and activity providers and 35 stakeholders were interviewed. Stakeholders include public and private funders, steering committee members, CNYD staff, school-district personnel, and administrators from city agencies. In these interviews, evaluators collected data about the centers’ operations, the host schools, Beacon-school relationships, and the visions of key stakeholders and how well those visions were being implemented. Some interviewees provided information about their institutions’ reasons for getting involved in the initiative, along with descriptions of their involvement. Some also acted as key informants in helping understand local concerns and circumstances.

Observation: From summer 1999 through spring 2001, observers examined Beacon Center activities, looking particularly at such key youth development dimensions as adult-youth interactions, peer interactions, and opportunities for decision making that staff members provided. Observations assessed several attributes of the adult-youth relationships in a subset of activities at each center, including adult responsiveness (encouragement and support of youth’s efforts), instrumental support (helping youth understand and succeed at the task at hand during the activity), and the emotional quality of the relationship (e.g., staff and youth appeared to enjoy each other’s company).

Secondary Sources/Data Review: School records were collected from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) on gender, ethnicity, grade point averages, suspensions, and attendance. In addition, CNYD oversaw the development of a web-based management information system (MIS) that permitted all centers to enter a variety of information including participant enrollment and attendance data; youth demographics; activities information, including schedules, who administers them (the Beacon Center or a collaborating agency), and the core area each encompasses; and individual staff data.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys served to measure how the students spend their out-of-school time and to document their developmental opportunities. Youth survey responses provide measures of several different constructs: school engagement, self-efficacy, positive reaction to challenge, meaningful roles and responsibilities, and supportive relationships with adults and peers.

Tests/Assessments: Standardized test scores (math and reading Normal Curve Equivalent scores) were collected from SFUSD.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between fall 1998 and summer 2000.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation In fall 1999, each of the eight centers provided 14 to 24 activities for youth.

The centers provided a diverse mix of activities, although more activities focused primarily on two of the five core areas: (a) education and (b) arts and recreation.

The centers provided a broad range of educational enrichment activities, from homework help for individuals to book clubs and structured tutoring and reading programs.

About 75% of the middle school participants surveyed thought the centers’ programming offered them variety and choice.

The most popular adult activities were English as a second language, dance, and computer courses.

Seven of the activities observed were given ratings lower than the midpoint of the adult-youth relationships scale. The activities with the lowest ratings of adult responsiveness and instrumental and emotional support tended to be those that were more instructional in nature (e.g., chess club). In contrast, activities with the highest ratings were mostly leadership activities with high levels of youth planning and involvement (e.g., youth councils).

Four of the five Beacon Centers established safety and support teams to promote a sense of safety. The site without a formal team was a small school with restricted access through a central courtyard; Beacon staff did not think a team was necessary there.
Costs/Revenues Public and private funders adopted unified guidelines for Beacon funding proposals, and core monies were pooled and distributed through joint decisions.

Most of the public funds for the centers’ core operations come from DCYF. Efforts to diversify the public funds available for core support included bringing other city institutions into the initiative and calling for additional state legislation for youth services. For example, initiative leaders helped garner public support for legislation to increase the city’s set-aside of 2.5 cents to 3 cents per $100 of assessed real property value for children and youth services. A portion of those funds provided 85% of the centers’ core operating budget of $350,000 per year. In fall 2000, this legislation passed, increasing the set-aside to 3 cents and extended the program for 15 years.

Seventeen private foundations provided capacity-building grants to centers and 15% of their core operating budgets. They also financed CNYD, the public support campaign, and the evaluation. Most of the local foundations that contributed pooled their resources, giving the steering committee flexibility in deciding how to spend the funds.

In fiscal year 2000, each center received an additional $178,500 to $770,000 from a variety of sources-including the Juvenile Probation Department and the school district, both of which received state and federal funds for after school activities. Local agencies provided in-kind resources by operating activities at the centers and providing space.
Parent/Community Involvement Each center worked with 7 to 14 community partners. The proportion of youth served by the partners varied widely-at one center, partners served 17% of the youth, at another, 90%.

Staff from partnering organizations provided activities in all five core areas, and volunteers and AmeriCorps members helped increase the centers’ abilities to provide services. In addition, some partner organizations provided services such as immunizations for youth and transportation for youth with special needs.

The availability of suitable partners depended largely on the range and number of organizations within the neighborhood. To offset the dearth of services evident in two of these communities, center staff called on agencies in other areas of the city and on community residents, who acted as independent contractors, to provide activities for youth.

Staff who coordinated activities at the Beacon Centers used a variety of strategies to ensure communication among the partners, such as weekly or bimonthly meetings.

The centers had mixed success in fostering community engagement among residents. They were most successful in attracting adults and youth to program activities and in attracting partner agencies from the community to implement programs at or for the centers.

The centers employed neighborhood adults as safety and support team staff and as activity providers. The Meadow Beacon Center, in particular, partially compensated for its surrounding community’s low number of youth-service agencies by hiring community residents as providers.

A public support campaign, managed by CNYD, succeeded in garnering support from local officials, who attended events at the centers and voiced their support.
Program Context/Infrastructure The centers did not provide transportation, and about a quarter of the youth experienced difficulties in getting home after programs ended. In at least one school, where 40% of the youth were bused, a lunchtime activity was offered to counter the transportation problems.

Because elementary and middle schools are designed for use during the day, the centers’ lighting was often inadequate for evening activities. Centers attempted to use portable lights or to persuade the schools to improve lighting, but these efforts had limited success. The question of funding for additional lighting emerged as a serious issue.

Eighty-seven percent of participating middle school youth considered the centers safe.
Program-School Linkages The initiative’s long-term vision included increasing Beacon-school integration, but a consensus on what this means had not been reached. At all centers, Beacon and school staff discussed space issues. At three centers, the cooperation went further, with center and school staff discussing specific students and programs.

Development of a standard agreement about the use and maintenance of school space proved elusive.
Recruitment/Participation The centers met or exceeded their goal of attracting 500 to 1,000 youth and adults at each center annually, whose ethnic diversity mirrored the community’s population. From July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, the five centers in the study each served 640 to 1,640 participants—3,746 youth and 1,435 adults in total.

In fiscal year 2000, the centers served 150 to 764 adults, about 25% of each center’s total participation.

The average number of youth and adults served on a daily basis ranged from 51 to 174 across centers. The two centers that served the most people daily (and met the expectation to serve at least 150 people a day) were located in the largest schools.

The proportion of Latino and White youth at the centers reflected the racial makeup of the host schools. Fewer Asians and more African Americans used the centers than the schools’ racial breakdown would have indicated.

In the three middle schools studied, approximately half of youth participants were middle school students, and the rest were evenly split between elementary and high school students. In the high school, approximately 80% of youth participants were high school students. In the elementary school, approximately 70% of youth participants were elementary school students.

The centers served approximately equal numbers of girls and boys.

The Beacon Centers at the three middle schools recruited proportionately more students at risk of academic failure than attended the host schools. Specifically, Beacon youth had significantly lower grade point averages (p < .001 for all three middle school centers), and standardized test scores in math (p < .001 for Valley and Summit, and p < .05 for Meadow). Two of the centers served proportionately more youth who had been suspended from school and (perhaps as a result) fewer youth who had attended all days of school. Additionally, at two schools, Beacon youth tended to have lower reading test scores than non-Beacon youth.

In October 1999, 51% to 79% of the youth at the centers attended activities once a week or less. The centers subsequently added programs that meet more frequently.

Of Beacon youth at each center, 60% to 84% participated in only one activity over a 4-month period.

Beacon Centers relied on several tactics to ensure that their programs were well used by youth in the host schools and surrounding neighborhoods and adults in the community, including placing signs and banners advertising the presence of the centers in highly visible locations both in and outside the schools; printing flyers in several languages, including Russian, Spanish, Cantonese, and Tagalog that list their offerings by season; and advertising in several languages on the radio and in community newspapers.

Beacon staff undertook extensive outreach and recruitment efforts. They attended school staff meetings, and school staff helped to recruit youth to the centers. In the Valley Beacon Center, staff handed out program information in the cafeteria during lunch. At the high school that hosts the Ocean Beacon Center, Beacon staff made announcements over the public address system. In the Eastern Beacon Center, staff maintained a database with all the students’ names and addresses and mailed out flyers as new programs were developed.

Beacon staff felt that word of mouth and one-on-one conversations with youth worked best to advertise the centers and their programs; both they and school staff referred youth to the centers. In addition, Beacon Center safety and support staff said they approached youth hanging out after school to persuade them to participate in Beacon programs.

Initially, identifying who was responsible for youth recruitment and outreach proved to be a program challenge. Providers from subcontracted agencies believed that this responsibility fell to Beacon staff, while Beacon staff thought the responsibility should be shared. As a result of this early confusion, several centers defined more clearly the outreach and recruitment strategies, including who was responsible for these tasks. At the Valley Beacon Center, a staff person was hired specifically to do outreach and educate providers on the best way to advertise their activities.

According to the fall 1999 survey of sixth and seventh graders, the number of host school students who had not heard of their Beacon Center ranged from 7% to 19% at each center.

Beacon Centers’ efforts to make their programs accessible to the communities they served included addressing physical barriers to accessibility; providing all activities, events, and programs for free; offering programs in the early morning, during the day, and in the evening to accommodate youth and parent schedules; and hiring staff who speak languages spoken in the community.

Center after school, summer, and weekend activities were limited to children living outside the neighborhood unless their parents or other adults arranged transportation.

Transportation problems were more critical for elementary school children than for older youth because the younger children could not take public transportation alone, and the elementary schools did not often have “late buses” to transport children who stayed for extracurricular activities.

Centers faced challenges in attracting community adults and youth to leadership roles. At the beginning of the initiative, each community convened a planning group that included agency partners, staff from the lead agencies, school staff, and community residents. Group members helped identify community needs and in some cases laid out a preliminary plan of action. Neighborhood residents (both adults and youth) played a limited role in the original planning councils. As implementation got under way, the councils’ role diminished, and Beacon directors took over the responsibility for convening the councils. Beacon staff continued to work with these councils, but reported that community engagement was low. Councils met irregularly, attendance was sporadic, and Beacon staff were not sure what role they hoped councils would play.
Staffing/Training The centers hired staff members who reflected the neighborhoods’ diversity.

Staff experience varied across and within the Beacon Centers. Beacon directors tended to be the most experienced staff; they typically had several years of administrative experience in other youth-serving organizations. Other staff’s experience ranged widely, from having a few years of experience in other youth-serving organizations (e.g., YMCA), to having relatively recently graduated from college with some experience in youth work, to (in a few cases) having worked as a paraprofessional in a school.

The staff who provided activities were relatively young—many were in their 20s.

Staff from agencies contracted by Beacon Centers to provide youth development activities (e.g., leadership groups and performing arts activities) had backgrounds similar to Beacon staff; they tended to be young and have a few years experience in youth-serving organizations.

Training and technical assistance were available to Beacon staff in several ways. First, CNYD provided specific training at centers. The Eastern Beacon Center, for example, had a small group of disruptive youth and requested that CNYD teach staff how to manage behavioral problems and to provide training in child abuse and conflict management. Center youth-program coordinators also discussed specific job concerns with CNYD staff. In addition, the Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium (BAYAC) supplied centers with AmeriCorps members, who, in addition to working at centers, spent Fridays at BAYAC, where they received training in literacy, youth development, budgeting, time management, CPR and first aid, and meeting facilitation. Lastly, the YMCA provided training to centers in such areas as youth work principles, child-abuse prevention, incorporating leadership into youth programs, and the legal issues involved in working with youth.

Community residents who served as individual subcontractors reported limited access to training. Because training provided by the centers was typically on-the-job, subcontractors, who were not under direct Beacon supervision, did not receive this benefit. Centers did not provide more formal ongoing training opportunities for subcontracted individuals.

Youth-program coordinators focused on and paid attention to the needs of the youth; adult-program coordinators worked with parents and adult community residents to design programs of interest to them; and site managers and Beacon directors responded to the broader needs of school personnel, the community, and partner agencies.

Coordinating Beacon staff became responsible for transmitting youth development principles and effective practices to their providers by dispensing ideas and information in Beacon staff meetings. In addition, the Meadow Beacon Center prepared a provider manual that included information about the youth development framework that the center wanted providers to implement in all activities.

At each center 27% to 56% of Beacon youth did not identify any Beacon adults on whom they could rely for support. When adults at school were included (teachers, counselors, coaches, or other non-Beacon Center adults), the proportion was much smaller, ranging from 10% to 14%.
Systemic Infrastructure Stakeholders made an early commitment to identify the initiative’s common mission, goals, and outcomes. These elements were structured into a theory of change, which identified the strategies and partners responsible for carrying them out. The theory of change has been used throughout the initiative to guide its action and management.

Public and private funders adopted unified guidelines for progress reports, greatly reducing paperwork at the centers.

Establishing standards to ensure high quality programs was difficult; enforcing standards across multiple organizations with different cultures and experience levels added to the challenge.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Youth Development Beacon youth surveyed reported significantly greater opportunities to assume a range of formal, informal, and representation-type leadership roles than did nonparticipant youth surveyed (Valley: p < .01, Meadow: p < .05, Summit: p < .001).

Middle school participants reported spending approximately 2.5 hours more per week in productive leisure activities—art, music, dance, drama, and tutoring—than youth who attended the schools but not the centers. There were significant differences (p < .05 for each) in watching TV (less time spent by participants than nonparticipants), organized sports (more time spent by participants than nonparticipants), and religious activities (more time spent by participants than nonparticipants). This comparison shows how Beacon Center participants may differ in how they spend their out-of-school time from their other classmates, but does not indicate whether there were differences between participants’ and nonparticipants’ leisure time before the program began.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project