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 ▼

Research Description

Overview and Components This study examined family involvement efforts in Cohort 5 of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, a group of sites that have received 21st CCLC funding in multiple years and that continue to receive funding. 21st CCLC programs provide expanded learning opportunities for youth in a safe, drug-free, and supervised environment. Administered by the United States Department of Education, the 21st CCLC program provides funding to states to allocate to local educational agencies. Programs are divided into cohorts by the year they receive their first federal grant.
Start Date Data were collected for this study Spring 2003 through Spring 2004.
Scope national
Type after school, summer/vacation, before school, weekend, comprehensive services
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting public schools
Participants preschool through high school students
Number of Sites/Grantees 1,504 programs in Cohort 5
Number Served varied by program
Study Details The study’s first phase examined programs’ efforts to encourage family involvement. The second phase examined several programs with high levels of family involvement to learn specifically about the implementation and efficacy of various family involvement strategies.
Funding Level $1,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002; $993,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 (total 21st CCLC funding)
Funding Sources The program is funded by the United States Department of Education.
Researchers Abby R. Weiss, Harvard Family Research Project

Roblyn A. Brigham, Brigham Nahas Research Associates

Carol Sills Strickland and Isabella Jean, Institute for Responsive Education (IRE)
Research Profiled The Family Participation in After-School Study

Promising Practices That Promote Family Participation in After School Programs: Another Link to Positive Educational Outcomes
Research Planned None
Report Availability Weiss, A. R., & Brigham, R. A. (2003). The family participation in after-school study. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education.

Strickland, C. S. with Jean, I. (2005, April 12). Promising Practices that promote family participation in after school programs: Another link to positive educational outcomes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Institute for Responsive Education

Available at www.responsiveeducation.org/publications.html


Contacts

Research Abby R. Weiss
Project Manager
Harvard Family Research Project
50 Church Street, 4th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel: 617-496-5498
Fax: 617-495-8594
Email: abby_weiss@harvard.edu

Linda Peterson
Vice President
Institute for Responsiveness Education
Cambridge College
School of Education 80 Prospect St., 3rd Flr.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Tel: 617-873-0613
Fax: 617-873-0273
Email: linda.peterson@cambridgecollege.edu
Program Robert Stonehill
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
United States Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20208-5524
Tel: 202-260-9737
Email: rstonehi@inet.ed.gov
Profile Updated October 25, 2006

Research Study 1: The Family Participation in After-School Study


Research Description

Research Purpose To answer the following questions: What are programs’ family involvement goals? What activities and services are offered to promote family involvement, and what are their range and frequency? How do the frequency and type of family involvement activities differ between programs that have staff assigned to work with families and those that do not? Are there differences in services provided or in family involvement goals based on characteristics such as population served or location?
Research Design Non-Experimental: Project directors sent surveys to all program coordinators who managed programs under their direction. A total of 1,504 surveys were distributed to coordinators, of which 622 were completed and returned, yielding an overall response rate of 41%. Of the 310 directors who distributed surveys, 195 (63%) had at least one coordinator return a survey. Programs served an average of 232 youth, with 95% serving 600 youth or fewer. The majority of coordinators reported that their programs served youth from low-income families (e.g., 72% served a population in which more than half of youth were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch). Nearly all (98%) programs were housed in public schools and most (87%) were located in the same building as the school the participants attended. According to coordinators, 76% of programs served elementary school students, 44% served middle school students, 20% served high school students, and 12% served preschoolers (52% served more than one grade-level grouping). The average length of time that programs had been in operation was 3.5 years, ranging from 1 to 31 years (many programs were in existence prior to receiving 21st CCLC funds).

Analyses compared programs with mostly White youth (25% or less youth of color) to those with mostly youth of color (75% or more youth of color). Results were also examined based on location (urban, suburban, rural) and whether the program had a staff member dedicated to communicating with and developing programming for families, and if so, how much of their time was dedicated to this aspect. In 30% of sites, at least 75% of participants were youth of color, while 40% served fewer than 25% youth of color, and 14% each served 25%–50% or 50%–75% youth of color. Forty-eight percent of programs were in rural areas, 38% in urban areas, and 14% in suburban areas. The majority of sites that served primarily White youth were rural (71%), while the majority of sites that served primarily youth of color were urban (62%). Fifty-four percent of sites had a staff member responsible for working with families, of which 32% dedicated more than 50% of their time to this work.
Data Collection Methods Surveys/Questionnaires: Survey questions were based on four domains of family involvement in out-of-school time outlined by Caspe, Traub, & Little, 2002: communication with families, family engagement in youth-centered programming, governance and leadership, and services specifically designed and provided for families. In each domain, the survey asked several questions about the type of family involvement activities offered and the frequency with which they were offered.

Reference:
Caspe, M., Traub, F., & Little, P. (2002). Beyond the head count: Evaluating family involvement in out-of-school time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Data Collection Timeframe Surveys were administered in the spring of 2003.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Costs/Revenues Most programs (75%) did not charge a fee to youth participants. Of those that charged for services, three quarters charged on a sliding scale and 72% offered scholarships.
Parent/Community Involvement Respondents reported that providing food, childcare, and advertising were the keys to getting both a high number of parent participants and repeat participation from parents.

Forty-seven percent of programs employed family members as paid staff, and 60% had family members volunteer; 7% required family members to volunteer or participate.

Most programs (80%) reported family involvement goals related to helping parents support their children/their children’s education. These goals included helping families work with youth to improve academic performance, homework completion, and school attendance (29%); increasing communication between families and program staff about the program and youth’s academics (27%); and increasing parent participation in their children’s education (24%).

Two thirds of coordinators articulated family involvement goals related to meeting parents’ needs and improving family life. These goals included providing parents with: educational opportunities such as classes/training on parenting or job skills (19%); support services and community resource information to improve family life (15%); and recreation and social opportunities to spend leisure time with their children and develop a sense of community (14%). These goals also included improving: parent–child relationships (11%) and family “status” (e.g., helping “healthy families stay together,” 7%).

Thirty percent of programs reported that their primary parent involvement goal was to support program staff and encourage parental buy-in.

Programs communicated with families informally through: chats with parents at drop-off/pick-up (55% of sites regularly [at least once a month], 17% occasionally); phone conversations with family members (34% regularly, 18% occasionally); notes sent to parents about a specific child (34% regularly, 16% occasionally); home visits (4% regularly, 4% occasionally); and email to parents (2% regularly, 5% occasionally).

Programs communicated with families formally through: newsletters distributed to parents (63%, averaging 7 per site per year); meetings/conferences with a family member of each youth (28%, averaging 5 per year); and group meetings for family members (56%, averaging 5 per year).

The majority of coordinators felt that they did “pretty” or “very” well in communicating to families about youth’s behavior (86%), program news (81%), positive news about youth (81%), program schedule (77%), program attendance (70%), academics (66%), and youth’s educational options (65%).

Programs with staff dedicated to family involvement were more likely to reach out to families regularly, both formally and informally. Specifically, programs with designated staff were more likely to do the following occasionally or regularly: speak with families by phone (63% vs. 40%), send notes home (59% vs. 39%), chat informally with families (80% vs. 63%), publish newsletters (68% vs. 55%), hold group meetings with families (68% vs. 42%), and hold parent meetings (37% vs. 18%). Only in the case of email and home visits were no differences found between programs.

Programs offered the following activities for families once a year or more: events that showed youth’s work (79% of programs), engagement of parents in support of their children’s learning through such means as homework help and literacy programs (76%), program orientation (74%), family night (71%), getting to know staff events (60%), parties (54%), informational sessions about educational options such as high school or postsecondary choices (37%), and weekend family excursions (24%).

Programs serving mostly youth of color were more likely than those that served fewer youth of color to offer at least one parent information session about educational options per year (47% vs. 28%) and to host events that gave families a chance to see youth’s work multiple times during the year (63% vs. 45%).

Urban sites were somewhat more likely than other sites to host program orientations and parties for families: 35% of urban sites hosted more than one orientation in the last year, while 27% of suburban and 21% of rural sites did so; and 42% of urban sites held more than one party during the year, while 31% of suburban and 25% of the rural sites did so.

Programs with staff dedicated to family involvement were more likely than those without such staff to engage parents in supporting youth’s learning through such means as homework help and literacy programs (85% vs. 64%). Programs with designated staff were also more likely to offer program orientations, family nights, weekend events, parties, get-to-know-staff events, information sessions on educational options, and events where parents could see youth’s work. The amount of time staff spent on this part of the job was not related to whether programs offered these events.
A majority (84%) of coordinators said that they collected information from parents about their program needs and/or satisfaction with services through parent surveys, focus groups, etc. Programs that served mostly White youth were more likely to collect these data than programs that served mostly youth of color (90% vs. 71%).

Families were involved in program governance/leadership through serving on program advisory boards (60% of programs), helping plan events and activities (53%), working with program staff and community stakeholders to build and change after school services (50%), serving as program evaluators (38%), participating in curriculum development (31%), and having voting rights on program initiatives (17%). However, 28% of programs reported that they did not involve parents in governance/leadership in any of the ways listed on the survey.

Programs that served mostly youth of color were more likely to report that they provided opportunities for families to work to build and change after school services than those serving mostly white youth; programs that served mostly White youth were slightly more likely to conduct needs assessments than those serving mostly youth of color (90% versus 79%).

Programs with designated family involvement staff were more likely to have families involved in program governance and leadership. In addition, programs with designated staff who spent more time on family involvement were more likely than programs whose designated staff spent less time to have family members with voting rights on program initiatives (24% vs.13%) and participating in curriculum development (41% vs. 25%).

In terms of services to support families, the majority of sites facilitated communication between families and schoolteachers/principals (89%) and linked families with social services and other community resources (70%). Many also offered parenting classes (47%), English as a Second Language classes (ESL, 27%), General Educational Development classes (GED, 22%); family literacy programs (43%), and job skills training (13%).

Programs offered the following supports to families to enable and encourage them to participate in the program: 69% provided families with transportation to program activities, 47% provided childcare, and 43% offer translation services for non-English-speaking families.

Programs serving primarily youth of color were more likely than those serving primarily white youth to provide family literacy programs (51% vs. 34%), ESL classes (37% vs. 16%), GED classes (29% vs. 18%), and job skills training (24% vs. 13%).

Programs with designated family involvement staff were more likely to provide the following services to families than those without such staff: family literacy programs (57% vs. 25%. The only differences found between programs with staff that devoted more than 50% of their time to this work to those with staff that devoted less than 50% of their time were in the provision of family literacy programs (68% vs. 53%) and job skills training (36% vs. 20%).

Sixty-one percent of coordinators felt that they were “somewhat successful” and 27% felt they were “very successful” in implementing their family involvement goals.

When asked about major family participation successes, coordinators cited the following: family members participating multiple times in events (29%); well-attended family activity nights and night/weekend classes, especially when performances or food were provided (24%); a general increase in parents’ program participation and volunteerism including chaperoning field trips (22%); showing youth’s work in academics, athletics, and performance (15%); providing support to families such as adult education (12%); and increasing parent communication such as getting families’ input (12%). Successes reported less often included improved: parent satisfaction (8%), parent comfort level at the school/program (6%), family relationships (5%), youth academic performance (4%), and families’ community involvement (3%). Four percent of programs reported that they had no family participation successes.

When asked about challenges in implementing family participation, coordinators cited parents’ work schedules (89%), family culture and language (26%), and residence of families outside of the school neighborhood (19%). In addition, 25% of coordinators indicated “other” challenges, such as “parent apathy” or “lack of parent interest.” Some respondents indicated that parents had many activities and obligations competing for their time and so were unable to commit to program activities. Other reported challenges concerned transportation, childcare, lack of adequate staffing, and funding.

Family language was cited more often as a challenge by coordinators at urban sites (34%) than suburban (23%) or rural (15%) ones.

Supports and resources cited by coordinators as necessary for successful family participation included: more money for parent volunteer incentives, staff training, family activities, and so on (34%); additional staff to work with families (17%); school administration volunteers and support (13%); transportation (11%); better communication between stakeholders (8%); more time, materials, and community support (8%); childcare (6%); and adequate space/ facilities and translation services (5%). A few respondents blamed parents for not participating (6%) and listed incentives used to encourage them to do so (e.g., speakers/instructors, advertising, food, activities).

Research Study 2: Promising Practices That Promote Family Participation in After School Programs: Another Link to Positive Educational Outcomes


Research Description

Research Purpose To better understand program practices that engage and support families successfully and to address the following questions: Is family engagement considered an “add-on” to programs, or are families integrated into the daily operations of programs? What do differences in family engagement programming mean for parents? Are children attending programs more regularly and doing better in school when their families are engaged in and supported by after school programs? Do different program goals result in different levels of engagement for families?
Research Design Non-Experimental: Based on a survey of all Cohort 5 programs (see Research Study 1), researchers conducted follow-up phone interviews with 30 programs seen as candidates for an in-depth study of sites with particularly effective family involvement strategies. Of these, 17 were dropped from consideration for the following reasons: the program was no longer in operation or had reduced funding, which usually meant that family involvement activities were cut; the program sounded much better on paper than in the phone interview; or researchers were unable to reach anyone at the site. Of the remaining 13 sites, researchers chose 6 sites to visit in 6 states (Colorado, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, and Mississippi). Five sites were in urban areas (3 in small cities, 2 in big cities), and the sixth was in a rural area. These sites served between 100 and 350 children of various ages (infants to teens), from culturally and ethnically diverse backgrounds (mostly non-White), and from backgrounds of economic poverty (at 5 sites, over 75% youth were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, one of which had 100% eligibility, while the 6th had 50–75% eligibility). Some programs were open to all interested youth, while others gave priority to those needing academic support. Three of the school sites met or exceeded federal, district, or statewide achievement goals.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Researchers spoke with over 100 people, including leadership staff at each site, teachers, principals, parents, and 32 youth between the ages of 8 and 14.

Observation: All 6 sites were visited to learn about family involvement practices.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected February through June 2004.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Costs/Revenues A major challenge noted by respondents at almost all programs was funding insecurity. This insecurity affected programs both directly (i.e., the downsizing of effective programming), and indirectly (i.e., anxiety over not knowing if the program would continue the next year). The drain on staff’s time and energy each year in writing proposals and gathering reporting data also affected programs’ efficacy; the consensus among staff was that such time could be better used to design and carry out program activities.
Parent/Community Involvement While all coordinators noted events with high family turnouts, most wanted more parent participation on a regular basis. Practical barriers to family involvement cited by staff included lack of: time (due to work and other obligations), transportation, and translation/childcare services. Staff also reported that parent engagement was often complicated by such issues as parents’ limited parenting concept and apathy.

The first step that most programs took toward involving families in their children’s education seemed to be to create a welcoming environment and a quality program where children had fun and were helped to make academic and social progress in school. While no one mentioned this explicitly as a strategy, researchers saw it as an element that was common to all the visited sites and one that was essential to engaging families.

Some of the strategies that programs used to draw families’ attendance included scheduling events at the end of the day and providing food, offering performances and other exhibits of youth’s work, and making services available such as childcare, transportation, or translation. Most programs offered workshops, classes, and services based on what parents wanted rather than on assumptions made about what parents needed.

Programs communicated with families in a variety of ways. At all sites, parents picked up their children each day, allowing for informal face-to-face exchanges. Two sites had full-time staff whose main task was to communicate with families. At one site, families received program newsletters monthly and “good news” postcards several times a year. At another site, community advocates conducted extensive home visits with families whose children had difficulty in school. These advocates connected families with resources and built a strong rapport with families; program leaders reported that this influence impacted parental participation, especially in parent–teacher conferences, in which 90% of families participated, up from 23% in the 1st program year. A full-time parent–community liaison at one site planned programming and outreach activities, such as family field trips to allow families to venture beyond their neighborhood, and an event featuring dinner, music, and a raffle on parent–teacher conference night to encourage parents to come to school.

Sites offered youth-centered activities for families, including family programs, field trips, outings, parties, and opportunities to watch children perform. At one site, which was part of a strong participatory community where parents and neighbors supported youth in tangible ways such as building a community playground park, the coordinator was able to enlist parents’ help by doing interesting activities and giving parents some ownership over activities. Another site offered many opportunities for parents and children to share learning experiences, including regular family nights, craft nights, mother–son/father–daughter dances, museum trips, camping, and canoe building. At a third site, the coordinator organized financial literacy classes for parents and children to attend together.

Most program features intended to meet adults’ needs evaporated as funding requirements shifted toward school test accountability preparation, although such features did not disappear entirely. The core of one site’s programming was Even Start, a literacy-focused program serving immigrant families, in which parents attended English, basic education, or computer skills classes while their children were in early childhood or school-age groups. At another site, families were provided with dinner, parent workshops (e.g., “how to talk so kids will listen”), and a literacy program, in which a community education partner held English as a Second Language and basic education classes for parents 3 nights a week while children did homework or other supervised activities. At a third site, a parent–community liaison brought in teachers for weekly arts and crafts classes and workshops on topics such as sexually transmitted diseases, computer literacy, resume writing, and yoga for parents. She also spoke with families individually and connected them with resources.

Almost all of the sites collected data from parents through surveys or focus groups about their program needs and satisfaction levels, and most reported that family members were included on advisory boards and helped to plan activities and evaluate the program.

At one site, parents were vital to program leadership in their roles as staff and volunteers; several parents were employed as staff and many parents volunteered enthusiastically. Parents volunteered to help with activities like making costumes for after school shows, or coaching soccer and cheerleading. Some family members were hired as staff to teach specific classes like dance, crochet, or cooking; these staff often volunteered additional time, even after their children had graduated.

At one site, parents were actively engaged in local politics and became skilled advocates for the program. These parents designed a “booster club” to raise funds and awareness among other parents about issues affecting the program and to engage in advocacy for financial and other support from the city’s business community and elected officials. This group expressed the need to become the “arms” for the coordinator and actively aid in seeking additional funds. Besides school- and community-based activities, this group became involved in citywide advocacy around declining after school funding, and met with the local town council, mayor, governor, and senators.

All sites expanded the resources available to youth and families by cultivating links with community partners and school programs. Partners included cultural organizations, local businesses, academic, community education, and vocational programs, Boy and Girl Scouts, and community colleges. Through these connections, programs provided a variety of academic and extracurricular activities for youth (e.g., martial arts, music, drama, dance) and parents (e.g., adult education classes and workshops).

According to observations, the coordinators respected parents as partners in their children’s education and helped connect the often different cultures of school and family, while maintaining a balanced view of parents as having both assets and needs.
Program Context/Infrastructure For all of the coordinators, each of their programs had been in existence for more than 3 years under their leadership. Benefits of this relative longevity included low turnover of key staff, resulting in familiarity and positive relationships with families and school staff, and a record of successful activities that could be repeated.
Program–School Linkages Nearly all sites felt it was important to facilitate communication among schoolteachers, program staff, and parents. These communications were facilitated by: (a) teachers participating in after school tutoring, homework help, or academic support sessions (3 sites); (b) report cards shared with program staff (2 sites); (c) program staff and teachers talking with each other to connect children’s learning by using similar themes (1 site); (d) a notebook passed between teachers and program staff to provide continuous written dialogue on youth’s strengths and weaknesses (1 site); and (e) the site coordinator participating in a school committee on academic and discipline problems to provide insights on family issues that might contribute to youth’s troubles (1 site).
Staffing/Training Each site was led by skilled professionals who managed structured, well-organized programs. The staff at each site cultivated a welcoming, family-friendly environment that engendered good relationships, a sense of trust, and a collaborative approach to running the program.

The coordinators were African American, Hispanic, and European American men and women, with experience in teaching, early childhood, grants management, engineering, business/entrepreneurship, the arts, and the military. While some had been in the field of education or youth development for much of their careers, others became familiar with youth through church or community work.

All of the coordinators served the children and families in their programs with a sincere commitment that was evident in the interactions observed and the words they spoke about the work that they did.

Besides coordinators, staff consisted of parents, school paraprofessionals, college students, experienced youth workers, community people, volunteers, and schoolteachers.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Community Development Parents that attended Even Start commented that they enjoyed being able to give back to their community by volunteering, helping to translate, supporting the program, and providing outreach—all of which was possible due to their increased English skills and confidence.
Family Parents commented that Even Start helped them to become better advocates for their children and understand their rights as parents. They said that their improved English skills helped them to get better jobs, assist their children with homework, feel more comfortable at the store and doctor’s office, and translate for other parents at parent–teacher conferences. These parents felt more independent and believed they were serving as role models for their children by continuing their education.

At the site that provided dinner, workshops, and a literacy program for parents, all parents found the staff responsive and supportive but expressed different benefits from participating. White parents noted that their participation helped them build better relationships with teachers and communicate better with their children; they also became more involved in volunteering during the school day and for family events. Parents who had immigrated from Mexico said that learning English and literacy skills had been “very helpful” as it had enabled them to work in English-speaking environments and understand more English. Because the language barrier prevented them from being able to help their children with schoolwork, they were glad to know their children were getting help with homework while they were learning English.

One parent who also acted as an after school staff member noted an impact on children as they started to see that their parents get more involved; she said that once children see a connection between parents and staff members (“My mother knows this person”), they seem more likely to listen and be ready to learn. In the program, this staff member observed that different grade levels respect each other, that families can get together and have a good time with teachers, and that “the whole family’s involved.”

 

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