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 3: Fort Worth After School Third 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 16 target sites. Some data were collected for all 52 sites (attendance; site coordinator, staff and principal surveys), while other data were collected only from target sites (parent and youth surveys and interviews; site visits). Surveys were completed in February by 358 parents, 492 youth in grades 3 and above, 52 principals, 52 site coordinators, 183 program staff, and all CB members. All principals and site staff who completed the February survey completed an additional survey in May. Interviews were ongoing with all of these stakeholders (except CB members) throughout the year.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: FWAS staff provided data on program goals, activities, cost, and attendance.

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

Observation: Each target site was visited at least 4 times to assess quality and outcomes.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Registration, demographic, and daily attendance data were collected from service providers.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Surveys asked about program goals and activities, quality, satisfaction, and outcomes.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 2002–2003 school year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Site coordinators reported that in year 3, 100% of sites provided homework assistance, fine arts, and character development/life skills; 98% provided academic enrichment and recreation/sports; and 88% provided community service.

During site visits, the following activities were observed: homework assistance (100% of sites), sports/recreation (100%), fine arts (94%), academic enrichment (75%), character development (63%), and community service (6%).

PAC members were impressed with the variety of activities, although items of concern expressed to the CB included a desire to have FWAS meet Monday through Friday (not just 4 days per week) and to make programs more fun.

The percentages of principals rating elements of FWAS as “very important” to include as part of the program at their site were: homework assistance/tutoring (78%); academic enrichment and culture/fine arts (59% each); character development (52%); sports/recreation (29%); and community service (27%). At sites where principals rated sports/recreation as very important, 50% indicated that FWAS performed very well in this area. Corresponding performance scores for the other areas were: cultural/fine arts (69%), homework assistance/tutoring (61%), academic enrichment (59%), character development (56%), and community service (54%). While importance ratings changed little from year 2, performance ratings improved for all areas except sports/recreation. Over the first 3 years, principals made changes in providers to meet their perceptions of important elements and then to maximize performance in each area.

About two thirds of youth surveyed (66%) indicated that they always or almost always got homework help at FWAS, while 100% of coordinators reported that FWAS provided opportunities to complete homework always or almost always and 76% of principals agreed that the provider performed well at providing homework assistance/tutoring. In addition, PAC members were grateful that FWAS provided opportunities to complete homework, although a desire for more tutoring was expressed.
Costs/Revenues Site budgets ranged from $39,153 to $47,790 ($42,297 on average), totaling $2,199,446. Several sites had funds from other sources that enabled them to serve additional youth (two middle school sites only received $18,000 in FWAS funds because 21st CCLC funds were also available at these sites). The cost per hour per child was $2.22 at full capacity and $2.17 at actual capacity.

PAC members indicated that they would be willing to pay for FWAS.
Parent/Community Involvement The majority of parents surveyed (96%) agreed that program staff supplied them with good information about FWAS.

In interviews, youth indicated that their parents were not always able to help them with homework due to language barriers, work schedule, or abilities.

In year 3, several organizations implemented programs. 4-H Club activities (e.g., gardening, self-esteem, student government, character building, water management) were provided at almost half of sites. Youth at two sites participated in the National Block Kids Building Contest, during which youth learned about construction profession. The Tarrant Area Food Bank's Kids Café provided hot meals to youth and staff at three sites. Sisters with Pride, a self-esteem and community service club, served girls at one site. Volunteers at five sites assisted with reading and homework through TCU America Reads.
Program Context/Infrastructure Parent survey responses indicated that if not in FWAS, 69% of youth would have had adult supervision almost all of the time, 19% for some of the time, 9% would have been alone, and 3% would have been with other youth but no adults. Parents indicated that, to be supervised, youth would have had to go to work with them or that supervision might have been provided by a sleeping adult. PAC members were grateful that their children were cared for and not alone after school.

The majority of parents surveyed (91%) agreed that if their child was not in FWAS, he or she would have had little to do. Just over half of youth surveyed (53%) agreed that there was nothing to do after school. In focus groups, when asked what they would have been doing after school if not in FWAS, youth said that they would have been home bored; playing outside; riding bikes, scooters, or skate boards; playing video games; watching TV; or just “hanging out.” When youth were asked about other programs in the neighborhood, they said that there was little else for them to do.

Of youth surveyed, 41% indicated some fear when walking in their neighborhood; those in grades 3–5 reported more fear (42%) than those in grades 6–8 (32%).

Of those surveyed, 90% of youth felt safe, and 99% of parents said that their child felt safe in FWAS. Similarly, 98% of principals and 100% of site coordinators said that FWAS provided a safe environment for youth. Youth who felt most afraid in their neighborhood felt safest in FWAS. When asked in interviews how FWAS made them feel safe, youth said that adults were always around and gave them attention, and that they felt safe being in the school building. Youth at several sites said that staff kept a list of adults who were allowed to sign them out, which gave them a sense of being protected.

The majority of parents (99%) and youth (94%) agreed that there were rules that youth must follow in FWAS. In interviews, youth said that rules helped them feel safe.

Only 48% of youth surveyed always or almost always liked the snack, 37% sometimes liked it, and 14% never or almost never liked it. In contrast, the majority of site coordinators believed that youth liked the snack (88%) and that there was a variety of snacks provided (89%).

Most staff surveyed agreed that they were provided with adequate space/facilities (96%) and supplies/materials (92%).

Eighty-six percent of students in target schools were on the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Program. Schools had a total enrollment of 30,816.

Many schools changed providers in years 2 and 3, often because principals sought providers to match their desired goals. In many cases, principals decided to become site-based (self-managed) to improve program development, management, and congruence with program goals. As FWAS went into year 4, the number of providers diminished from 11 to 6 (site-based providers are counted as a single category). Three agencies that had 16 sites between them in year 1 either had partial service status or were no longer involved with FWAS by year 3. These changes were due to principals' perceptions that the agency could not offer the full range of services desired, used too much funding for overhead, and/or did not provide the appropriate level of administrative oversight.
Program–School Linkages Year 3 networking meetings had an average attendance of 20–30 people, including site coordinators, service provider administrators, and principals. Topics and agendas included standards and guidelines, funding and grants, evaluation highlights, best practices, service provider overviews, resources available to programs, and collaboration opportunities.

Forty-two percent of programs hired school staff as site coordinators, and 58% of FWAS staff indicated that they were employed as school staff. All site-based programs employed teachers as site coordinators and staff. At 54% of schools, the site coordinator was also on the school staff.

The majority of agency staff agreed that they had regular contact with principals (96%) and that FWAS was part of an ongoing site-based committee or a separate committee established to deal with after school program issues (93%).

The majority of site coordinators (88%–96%) agreed that the principal was supportive of FWAS; they had regular contact with teachers to identify youth's needs and incorporate them into FWAS activities; a strong partnership existed between the school and FWAS; teachers were willing to collaborate with FWAS staff and provide information about homework; FWAS staff were supportive of FWAS; and the school informed them of important decisions. Coordinators employed by the school tended to agree with these items more often than those not employed by the school.

Of principals surveyed, 86% indicated that a mechanism was in place for communication between teachers and FWAS staff about homework assignments, and 81% indicated that the site-based committee included FWAS staff and/or FWAS program agenda items in regularly scheduled management meetings.

Of principals surveyed, 51% reported visiting FWAS at least once a week, 31% one or fewer times a month, 14% once a month, and 4% 1–2 times a semester; site based programs were visited more frequently. Of site coordinators, 35% reported that principals and teachers visited at least once a week, 35% a few times a month, 6% about once a month, 12% 1–2 times a semester, 2% less than once a semester, and 10% never.

In sites where both the site coordinator and other program staff were also on the school staff, 70% of principals reported that FWAS performed very well in communication with school staff. The corresponding percentages for other types of sites were: 57% in sites where only the site coordinator was on the school staff, 22% in sites where employee school staff but not the site coordinator was on the school staff, and 25% in sites where FWAS employed no school staff.

In years 1–3, sites had good cafeteria, gym, and auditorium access. In year 3, 96% to 98% had access to these school facilities: 64% had frequent auditorium access (every day or 2-3 times per week), 88% had frequent gym access, and 94% had frequent cafeteria access. Sites also had increased access to other facilities: In year 3, 81% had classroom access (71% frequently), 80% had library access (49% frequently), and 69% had computer lab access (39% frequently). Increased access, which led to more flexibility and programming variety, was due partly to more site-based programs, where school staff had more confidence in facility use. In some cases, principals gained confidence in providers and/or FWAS staff worked with providers and principals to increase access. Some programs failed to work closely with schools to get permission to use facilities. In a few cases, lack of trained staff prohibited facility use. Several programs shared cafeteria or gym space with other programs, which sometimes led to noisy and crowded conditions.
Recruitment/Participation The number of funded slots at each site was set at 50, for a total of 2,600 slots at the 52 sites. Slots were only available for 8% of the total students across schools.

In year 3, 47% of participants were male and 53% were female. In terms of ethnicity, 54% were Hispanic, 35% were African American, 8% were White, 1% were Asian, less than 1% were Native American, and 1% reported their ethnicity to be other.

FWAS attracted an increasing percentage of older youth from years 1–3, with youth in Pre-K to grade 2 decreasing from 41% to 28% of total participants, grades 3–5 increasing from 52% to 59%, and grades 6–8 increasing from 8% to 13%. Each grade from Pre-K to grade 5 had a fairly steady decline; the higher the grade, the lower the attendance (e.g., first graders had lower attendance than kindergarteners, etc.). Grades 6–8 varied by year, declining by grade in year 3, while year 2 declined for grade 6 but increased for grades 7 and 8.

Efforts were made in year 3 to standardize how youth were selected into FWAS; providers were urged to first take previous-year enrollees, then latchkey youth and those in need of social skill or academic development.

Programs operated from 109 to 162 days per site in year 3; 73% operated 109–125 days, and 27% 126–162 days, with an average of 126 and a total of 6,588 program days.

A total of 4,651 youth attended FWAS at least 1 day in year 3 (60–257 youth per site); this represented 175% of slots, indicating some enrollment turnover. The actual number of attendance days was 334,898 in year 3, a 6% increase from year 2. The possible number of attendance days decreased 3% from year 2 to 384,282 in year 3.

The percentage of slots utilized on a daily basis rose from 94% in year 2 to 102% in year 3. In year 3, more programs utilized more than their 50 allocated slots per day than in the previous year (49% vs. 33%), with fewer programs utilizing 39 or fewer slots per day (10% vs. 23%).

At most sites, the same youth participated all 4 days each week.
Satisfaction Over 95% of parents said that they would recommend FWAS to others or sign up their child again. For youth, 48% said that they would recommend FWAS to others, and 47% said that they would sign up again (35% and 40% said “maybe,” respectively). In interviews, some youth said that they did not tell others about FWAS because they did not want more youth to join, feeling that they would get less attention or have less to do. Others said that they would rather be at home, because they did not like to be at school through the school day plus after school.

Of parents surveyed, 92% indicated that they really liked FWAS, 91% agreed “a lot” that they liked being able to send their child to FWAS, and 87% agreed “a lot” that their child liked it. Similarly, PAC members were pleased with FWAS and grateful that their youth were given opportunities to grow. In contrast, 65% of youth surveyed indicated that they really liked FWAS.

Of parents surveyed, 84% reported that their child never or almost never felt bored during the program, compared to 60% of youth.

Of youth surveyed, 68% indicated that they felt good about themselves always or almost always when at FWAS.
Staffing/Training Major trainings held for FWAS staff in year 3 included: (a) FWAS Programming, which included such programming issues as attendance procedures and the importance of enrolling latchkey youth; (b) FWAS Attendance & Budget (2 trainings, one for site-based campuses and a second for service providers), which discussed procedures for data input, submission deadlines, and budget updates; and (c) After School Quality, which discussed creative programming that could be implemented in programs.

Of those surveyed, 84% of site coordinators and 92% of staff reported that training was at least somewhat adequate.

Of site coordinators surveyed, 39% reported receiving 15+ hours of training, 22% reported 11–14 hours, 16% reported 6–10 hours, 12% reported 3–5 hours, and 6% each reported 1–2 hours or none. For staff, 32% reported 15+ hours, 15% reported 11–14 hours, 14% reported 6–10 hours, 17% reported 3–5 hours, 11% reported 1–2 hours, and 12% reported none.

Of parents surveyed, 96% agreed that there were adults in FWAS whom their child respected, and 94% of youth agreed with this. Similarly, 82% of youth felt that FWAS adults always or almost always cared about them.

Almost 100% of parents agreed that FWAS had good leaders. PAC members were also impressed with staff quality.

All site coordinators felt that staff set high expectations for youth.

Of principals surveyed, 83% felt that the provider performed well in hiring qualified staff; they were more positive about staff quality when programs were site-based.

In most cases, service providers were able to retain staff, but in some cases there was greater than desired turnover. Principals and site coordinators indicated that providers should make continuing efforts to hire staff that would be available for the entire school year and have experience working with youth.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The majority of parents (98%) reported that as a result of FWAS, their child was doing better at homework, although only 54% of youth indicated that they always or almost always finished homework at FWAS.

The majority of principals surveyed agreed that FWAS performed well in improving youth's: awareness of the importance of learning (82%), school attendance (77%), and academic performance (81%).

Of parents surveyed, 90% agreed that their child did better at school, and 98% agreed that their child looked forward to going to school due to FWAS. Of youth surveyed, 55% indicated that since they were in FWAS they liked school more; 77% of parents indicated the same.
Youth Development Eighty-two percent of youth agreed that FWAS helped them learn to work with other youth; 98% of parents reported the same. During interviews, parents confirmed that they thought youth were learning to work better with others.

The majority of parents (94%) agreed that their child learned new activities in FWAS that they could do at home instead of watching TV or playing video games.

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