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 Fort Worth After School (FWAS) program is a community-driven initiative that provides after school programs for youth in Fort Worth, Texas. Program goals revolve around three areas: educational competence, physical and social development, and crime reduction. Services provided include homework assistance, tutorial, snacks, cultural and recreational activities, and mentoring.
Start Date September 2000
Scope local
Type after school
Location urban
Setting public school
Participants preschool through middle school students
Number of Sites/Grantees 52 schools (47 elementary schools and 5 middle schools, 2000–2004); 55 schools (48 elementary schools and 7 middle schools, 2004–2005)
Number Served In the first 5 years, 16,252 youth attended at least 1 year of FWAS. In year 5, funding was allocated to support 50–150 youth per day at each campus.
Components A Coordinating Board (CB) made up of city, school district, and community representatives oversees the program, while an administrative staff monitors day-to-day operations. Most programs operate 4 days per week (Monday–Thursday) from the time school is dismissed until 6 p.m. At many of the sites, the same youth participate all 4 days each week. At several sites, some youth participate 2 days per week, with a different group of youth participating the other 2 days. In a few cases, programs are offered on Fridays. At each site, youth receive a snack and an opportunity to complete homework. Youth receive a combination of enrichment activities and free play or recreation time. Service providers include programming in at least three of five areas: academic enrichment, sports and recreation, cultural and fine arts, community service, and character development. FWAS established a youth-to-staff ratio minimum for all sites: 15:1 for elementary schools and 20:1 for the middle school.

The CB's selection of school sites was based on a combination of factors including the percentage of youth eligible for the Federal Free Lunch Program and crime statistics for the area around the school. Each year the CB approves several agencies/organizations as potential service providers. Principals at participating schools either select one of these providers to offer the program on their campus or develop a “site-based” (self-managed) program. FWAS is staffed by a director and two program coordinators. A Parent Advisory Committee (PAC), formed in year 2, is made up of parents of program participants. In addition, in year 3, monthly networking meetings hosted by service providers, schools, and community organizations were established to give site coordinators, providers, and principals the opportunity to talk, share, and collaborate.
Funding Level The city of Fort Worth and Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) jointly provided a total of $2.2 million per year for the first 5 program years. Some sites used additional funding sources to serve more youth; some are supported in conjunction with FWISD 21st Century Community Centers (21st CCLC) programs.
Funding Sources City of Fort Worth Crime Control and Prevention District, FWISD, U.S. Department of Education 21st Century Community Learning Center funds


Evaluation

Overview The evaluation sought data about program inputs (the elements that make up FWAS, such as its leaders, facilities, and activities); outputs (the number of youth attending FWAS, the types of activities offered, and the number of program hours provided); and outcomes (what happens to youth, parents, and the community as a result of FWAS).
Evaluators Peter A. Witt, Terri King, Jin-Hyung Lee, Kristi Montadon, Lydia Justice, Joanne Oh, Billy Brown, Texas A&M University
Evaluations Profiled Fort Worth After School Program: “A Diamond in the Rough” First Year Evaluation

Fort Worth After School Second Year Evaluation

Fort Worth After School Third Year Evaluation

Fifth Year Evaluation: Fort Worth After School
Evaluations Planned Evaluations are ongoing.
Report Availability Witt, P. A., & King, T. (2001). Fort Worth After School program: “A diamond in the rough” first year evaluation. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University. Available at rptsweb.tamu.edu/Faculty/Witt/1Report%20Text.PDF

Witt, P. A., King, T., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Fort Worth After School second year evaluation. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available at rptsweb.tamu.edu/Faculty/Witt/
FortWorth2003/FWASEVALS.htm

Witt, P. A., King, T., & Montandoni, K. (2003). Fort Worth After School third year evaluation. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available at: rptsweb.tamu.edu/Faculty/Witt/
FortWorth2003/FWASEVALS.htm

Witt, P. A., King T., Justice, L., Oh, J., & Brown B. (2005). Fifth year evaluation: Fort Worth After School. College Station: Texas A&M University. Available at: rptsweb.tamu.edu/
Faculty/Witt/FortWorth2003/FWASEVALS.htm


Contacts

Evaluation Peter A. Witt
Elda K. Bradberry Recreation and Youth Development Chair
Department of Recreation, Park, and Tourism
Texas A&M University
2261 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-2262
Tel: 979-845-7325
Email: pwitt@rpts.tamu.edu
Program Miguel Garcia
Director
Fort Worth After School
100 N. University NE 232
Fort Worth, TX 76107
Tel: 817-871-2369
Fax: 817-871-2893
Profile Updated May 24, 2006

Evaluation 1: “A Diamond in the Rough” First Year Evaluation


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To determine if FWAS was being successfully implemented and meeting its goals of youth educational competence, physical and social development, and crime reduction.
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: Evaluators assessed stakeholders' program perceptions and satisfaction; FWAS attendance; and participants' social behavior, school liking, homework completion, and other academic abilities. A sampling plan to cover the range of service providers led to a designation of 15 target sites. Some data were collected for all 52 sites (attendance; site coordinator, staff, and principal surveys; and service provider and FWAS administrative staff focus groups), while other data were collected only at target sites (parent and youth surveys and interviews; principal and program coordinator focus groups; and site visits). Parent and youth interviews were done at three target sites. Surveys were completed by 332 parents (94 of youth in grades Pre-K–2 and 238 of youth in grades 3–8), 451 youth in grades 3 or above, 45 principals, 51 site coordinators, 156 FWAS staff, and each service provider administrator.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: FWAS staff provided data on program goals, activities, and costs.

Interviews/Focus Groups: Interviews and focus groups discussed program quality, outcomes, satisfaction, goals, and activities.

Observation: Each target site was visited at least 3 times to assess quality and outcomes.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Demographic and attendance data were collected during a 2-week audit in February.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys asked about program goals and activities, quality, satisfaction, and outcomes.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 2000–2001 school year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation A typical day consisted first of snack and math/reading tutorials and/or homework assistance. Youth then rotated through different activities, including book club, chess club, art club, music club, Spanish club, cooking, sports, fishing, and computers. Free play recreation opportunities were also provided at most sites.
Costs/Revenues Budgets ranged from $20,294 to $63,485 per site. Each child care slot was allocated $730 ($2.04 per hour per child at full capacity). At actual capacity, FWAS spent $2.60 per hour per child.

At a typical site, teachers and site coordinators were to be paid $20 per hour, while cafeteria workers, tutors, and assistants were to be paid $10 per hour. Different providers set their own pay rates around these standards.
Parent/Community Involvement Of parents surveyed, 70% agreed “a lot” that they received sufficient and appropriate information about the program from staff.
Program Context/Infrastructure Of parents surveyed, 84% agreed that if their child were not in FWAS, he or she would have had little to do (especially parents of elementary school youth). Only 52% of youth agreed with this statement, but in interviews, many said that there was nothing to do at other programs in their neighborhoods.

Of middle school parents, 35% reported that their child would have been without adult supervision if not in FWAS; smaller percentages of elementary school parents agreed with this statement (12% for Pre-K–2, 18% for grades 3–5).

Of youth surveyed, 41% reported feeling fear when walking in their neighborhood, while 94% agreed that they felt safe in FWAS. The majority of parents (97%) and principals (71%) agreed that FWAS provided a safe environment for participants,

Youth expressed some concern about the quality of the experience and their “confinement” at school as opposed to being able to be at home or out in their neighborhoods.

Most staff felt that supplies were adequate, but some noted this as in need of improvement.

Both youth and site coordinators generally considered the program's snacks a weakness.

The 52 schools had a total enrollment of 31,593 youth during the 2-week audit. Of youth in target schools, 81% were on the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Program.
Program–School Linkages Some site coordinators disagreed that: principals kept them informed of important decisions (26%), a strong partnership existed between the school and FWAS (23%), and school staff followed through on commitments (17%). While principals and agency staff were more satisfied with partnerships, 22% of principals disagreed that FWAS reached out to school-day teachers.

One third of service providers disagreed that FWAS had adequate use of school space or facilities. Some sites had access to a wide array of school facilities, while others were more restricted. According to service providers, programs were often restricted to the cafeteria and outdoor play space, which was shared with other programs, and sometimes led to noisy and crowded conditions. In a few cases, programs had access to portable buildings and auditoriums, while library or computer facilities access was limited.
Recruitment/Participation According to FWAS attendance data, boys and girls were about equally represented; 52% of participants were Hispanic, 37% were African American, 8% were White, and 2% were other. In addition, 15% were in Pre-K and kindergarten, 26% were in grades 1–2, 52% were in grades 3–5, and 10% were in grades 6–8.

Sites differed in how youth were selected to participate. At some sites, youth were selected on a first-come, first-served basis, in others, youth were recommended by teachers based on their latchkey status or presumed need for social or academic development.
Satisfaction Of parents surveyed, 69% reported that their child was never or almost never bored during the program, while only 59% of youth gave the same answers.

Over 90% of surveyed parents said that they would recommend FWAS to others and would sign their child up again. Of youth surveyed, 47% said they would sign up again; most of the rest said they might, and only 15% said they would not recommend FWAS or sign up again. Older youth (grades 6–8) were less certain about signing up again than younger ones (grades 3–5). During interviews, some youth said that they did not tell others about FWAS for fear that more youth would join and they would get less attention and have less to do.
Staffing/Training FWAS had limited administrative and oversight team staff in its first 6 months.

Of parents surveyed, 84% thought that program leaders treated their child with respect, while 91% of youth agreed. In addition, 88% of parents thought that FWAS had good leaders.

Of principals surveyed, 96% agreed that FWAS staff properly supervised youth. The majority of principals and site coordinators also felt that staff set high expectations for youth and modeled responsible, positive behavior. However, they expressed concern in interviews regarding higher than desired staff turnover.

Coordinator and staff surveys indicated a need for more preservice and in-service training.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic All stakeholders indicated that homework completion was one of the best outcomes of FWAS participation. Three quarters of site coordinators indicated that FWAS provided an opportunity for youth to complete homework. In turn, parents and principals saw homework completion as impacting overall school-related performance.

Of youth surveyed, 49% reported always or almost always finishing homework at FWAS, and 63% reported that they always or almost always got help with their homework there.

Of principals surveyed, 80% reported increased homework completion at least sometimes, and about half agreed “very much” that FWAS improved the school's overall effectiveness (53%), students' attitude toward school (47%), and school attendance (49%).

Of parents surveyed, 61% agreed “a lot” that their children did better in school and looked forward more to going to school as a result of FWAS. Similarly, 59% of youth indicated that since they were in FWAS they liked school more; 69% of parents indicated the same.
Youth Development Sixty-two percent of youth surveyed agreed “a lot” that FWAS helped them learn to work with other youth; 71% of parents thought the same thing.

Of parents surveyed, 60% agreed “a lot” that their child learned new activities as a result of FWAS, including activities that they could also do at home instead of watching TV or playing video games.

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