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 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