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 Hmong Youth Pride (HYP) is an after school program for Hmong youth in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. HYP's primary goals are to: (1) prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use by improving students' academic achievement, school commitment, and future aspirations; (2) enhance participants' cultural pride and family relationships; and (3) bolster parental involvement in the children's schooling and increase parents' awareness of ATOD use risks.
Start Date 1990
Scope local
Type after school, comprehensive services, mentoring
Location urban
Setting public school
Participants elementary school students; ages 9–12, grades 4–6 (2000)
Number of Sites/Grantees three elementary schools (2000)
Number Served 211 in 1995–2000; 80–85 youth per year, with participation for up to three years
Components The program has three major components: after school activities for youth, parent involvement activities, and cultural awareness training for school staff.

The after school component of HYP includes tutoring sessions and structured group activities. Tutoring sessions are held in small groups twice a week by a program manager, one assistant, and several volunteer college student mentors. This tutoring is intended to increase school performance and commitment to school, and is based on educational plans developed for each youth by program staff in consultation with the youth's teacher and parents. Biweekly after school structured group activities, including Hmong language and cultural lessons, ATOD education and goal setting, and occasional recreational activities take place in groups of four to six students led by a peer helper, the tutor-mentors, cultural specialists, and adult volunteers. These activities are intended to increase youth's cultural pride, academic aspirations (future outlook), positive family relationships (reduced conflict), and disapproval of ATOD use.

Parent involvement activities include two or three home visits per year from a program manager; twice per year special family gatherings; and quarterly parent training workshops on ATOD awareness, discipline techniques, setting limits and rules, and other topics. These activities are intended to improve ATOD awareness, family management practices (e.g., parental involvement in children's education), and parenting skills.

The cultural awareness training component involves four hours of in-service training on Hmong culture provided to the teachers, administrators, and other school staff at participating schools. These workshops are intended to improve the cultural competence of targeted schools and teachers regarding Hmong families and Hmong culture, and to increase youth's and parents' feelings of support for their culture in the schools.
Funding Level $167,000 annually
Funding Sources United Way, McKnight Foundation, Excel Energy Foundation
Other Since the time of the evaluation, HYP has been expanded to include middle school students, and now serves grades four through eight. HYP is run by the Hmong American Partnership (HAP), which was founded in 1990 as a Hmong community-based organization that would draw equally on strengths of Hmong culture and those of other American communities. HAP's mission is to: (1) foster trust, (2) assist Hmong in achieving their full potential and participating actively in the community, and (3) promote mutual respect, cultural awareness, and the exchange of knowledge and values.


Evaluation

Overview In 1995, HAP, in partnership with the Wilder Research Center (WRC), obtained a grant from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention to carry out a five-year outcome evaluation of HYP.
Evaluator Richard A. Chase and Douglas Clement, Wilder Research Center
Evaluations Profiled Hmong American Partnership: HYP Final Report
Evaluations Planned Small-scale outcome evaluation is ongoing.
Report Availability Chase, R. A., & Clement, D. (2000). Hmong Youth Pride: Outcomes evaluation summary. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center. Available at: www.wilder.org/research/reports.html?summary=80

Chase, R. A. (2000). Hmong American Partnership: HYP final report. St. Paul, MN: Wilder Research Center.


Contacts

Evaluation Richard A. Chase
Consulting Scientist
Wilder Research Center
1295 Bandana Boulevard North, Suite 210
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55108
Tel: 651-647-4617
Fax: 651-647-4623
Email: rick@wilder.org
Program Laura LaBlanc
Hmong Youth Pride
Hmong American Partnership
1075 Arcade St.
St. Paul, MN 55106
Tel: 651-495-1505
Fax: 651-495-1605
Email: laura@hmong.org
Profile Updated April 22, 2004

Evaluation: Hmong Youth Pride: Outcomes Evaluation Summary


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To measure the relationship between HYP participation and (1) youth's academic achievement, school attitudes, cultural pride, and ATOD attitudes; (2) parents' school involvement, parenting skills, awareness of risks of youth ATOD use, and perceptions of school support for Hmong culture; and (3) tangible school support for Hmong culture.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Data on four youth cohorts were collected over five years (1995–1999). Evaluators used repeated measures at baseline (when youth first entered HYP) and post-program (at the end of each program year). Cohort 1 also had a one-year follow-up after participants completed HYP. The first three cohorts each had a treatment and comparison group; measures were administered at the same time periods for both groups. The fourth cohort consisted only of a treatment group. Data collection methods were identical for each cohort at baseline and post-program. In addition, qualitative data were collected for all cohorts through focus groups with those involved with the program and through observations of program activities.

All youth who enrolled in HYP at the three sites were included in the evaluation. School staff referred youth to HYP on the basis of lacking good grades, appropriate classroom behavior, commitment to school, and/or adequate parental school involvement. The treatment group included 80 to 85 Hmong fourth through sixth grade youth (ages 9–12) per year as well as one of their parents. A total of 211 youth and 211 parents participated over the five years (some youth participated for more than one year, as enrollment could continue for up to three years). During the five program years, 52 enrolled youth (25%) stopped participating in HYP prior to the evaluation's completion. According to program staff, these youth often had poor attendance and/or moved out of the service area. These program dropouts were slightly younger at baseline and more likely to have been born in the U.S. than those remaining in HYP. There were no significant differences between the two groups on gender, academic achievement, aversion to ATOD use, risk for poor future outlook, or risk for poor family relations. Treatment and comparison group comparisons exclude the program drop outs.

Comparison groups of Hmong youth (and their parents) were recruited as convenience samples for the first three cohorts (114 youth total). The cohort 1 comparison group consisted of 45 youth from two schools in St. Paul, Minnesota, who were initially enrolled in a similar program that was canceled due to budget cuts. Cohort 2 and 3 comparison groups each consisted of 30 youth who were recruited from two other St. Paul schools with well over 300 Hmong students but no after school programming for Hmong students or plans for programming.

Cohort 1 data were gathered in spring and fall 1995 (time 1/baseline), spring 1996 (time 2), spring 1997 (time 3), and spring 1998 (time 4/posttest). In this report, data were analyzed only for cohort 1 program students who “graduated” from HYP at time 3. Of the 85 cohort 1 HYP youth who were tested at baseline, 66 were tested at time 2 and 3. Of the 45 cohort 1 comparison youth who were tested at baseline, 42 were tested at time 2 and 3. In this cohort, 21 program parents and 30 comparison parents completed surveys. Comparison youth had characteristics (gender, birthplace, academic achievement scores, risk level for future goals, and family relationships) similar to the program group, although the comparison group was somewhat older than the program group.

Cohort 2 data were collected in spring and fall 1996 (time 1/baseline), spring 1997 (time 2), spring 1998 (time 3/posttest), and spring 1999 (time 4). Because cohort 2 was very small, data were analyzed only from time 1 to time 3. Of the 51 cohort 2 HYP youth who were tested at baseline, 48 were tested at time 2, and 32 were tested at time 3. Of the 30 comparison youth in cohort 2 at baseline, all 30 were tested at time 2, and 25 were tested at time 3. In this cohort, 26 HYP parents and 22 comparison parents completed surveys. The cohort 2 comparison group had family characteristics and risk factors similar to the HYP group on academic achievement scores, birthplace, age, and risk level for future goals and family relationships, but had a higher proportion of females (53%) than the HYP group (25%), and higher levels of parental involvement on several measures.

Cohort 3 data were gathered in spring and fall 1997 (time 1/baseline), spring 1998 (time 2), and spring 1999 (time 3/posttest). Of the 33 HYP youth in cohort 3 who were tested at baseline, 28 were tested at time 2, and 16 were tested at time 3. Of the 30 comparison youth in cohort 3 at baseline, 24 were tested at time 2, and 22 were tested at time 3. In this cohort, 16 HYP parents and 21 comparison parents completed surveys. The program and comparison groups for cohort 3 were similar with respect to risk level for future goals and family relationships, but dissimilar with regard to age, gender mix, birthplace, and academic achievement scores. The comparison group was younger, more female, less U.S.-born, and more academically successful than the program group.

Cohort 4 data were gathered in spring and fall 1998 (time 1/baseline) and spring 1999 (time 2/posttest). Of the HYP youth in cohort 4, 25 were tested at baseline, and 17 were tested again at time 2. In this cohort, 15 HYP parents completed surveys.
Data Collection Methods Document Review: Program intake forms were reviewed to collect basic demographic data on youth participants (age, gender, and whether the child was born in the US).

Interviews/Focus Groups: Near or after the end of each program year, evaluation staff led structured group discussions at all three sites with youth, teachers, parents, and program staff. Discussions were intended to elicit input regarding HYP's strengths and weaknesses, and covered perceptions and attitudes regarding parental involvement, outcomes related to youth enrichment, and school and teacher sensitivity and support for Hmong culture. Youth discussion groups took place during a regularly scheduled after school HYP session and were held without program staff to encourage candid feedback. Teacher discussions were held at the end of the school day; all teachers of students participating in HYP were invited to attend. Program staff discussions were held at their offices. Parent discussions were held during general cultural gatherings hosted by HAP and tended to be small, with only 19 parents giving feedback in discussion groups in two successive years.

Observation: During site visits, the evaluation team observed and recorded evidence of institutional supports that encourage Hmong cultural pride, including posters, signs, pictures, literature, stories, school programs, and celebrations. Based on these observations, the team rated the cultural competence of schools and teachers regarding Hmong families on a scale from 1 (no tangible support) to 4 (ample support).

Surveys/Questionnaires: Youth enrichment outcomes were measured using the Hmong Youth Survey, developed by WRC for this evaluation. The survey includes items on ATOD approval and disapproval, attitudes towards school, and cultural pride. Family and parenting outcomes were measured using the Hmong Parent Survey, also developed by WRC for this evaluation. The survey includes items on school involvement, ATOD awareness, signs of children's possible drug or alcohol abuse, discipline strategies, parent-child relationships, and school and neighborhood environments.

Test/Assessments: Youth reading (letter-word identification and passage comprehension) and math (calculation and applied problems) scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement were collected to measure academic achievement. Youth were also administered the instrument, “What I Think of School” (Reid & Landesman, 1988), which provides information on youth's perceptions of their school experiences, including whether they like school, try hard, etc. The Youth Survey contains two scales from the Personal Experience Inventory (Winters & Henly, 1989): (1) the Future Goals Scale—planning for and thinking about future plans, goals, and expectations; and (2) the Family Relationships Scale—how well youth get along with their parents and whether there is parent-child conflict. The Youth Survey also includes select items from a Youth ATOD Disapproval scale, developed for this evaluation, to examine what changes occurred as a result of HYP regarding youth's disapproval of ATOD use. Included in the Parent Survey were two multi-item scales developed for this evaluation: Effective Parenting and High Awareness of ATOD dangers.

References:
Reid, M., & Landesman, S. (1988). What I think of school. Seattle: University of Washington.

Winters, K. C., & Henly, G.A. (1989). Personal experience inventory, the personal experience inventory manual and test. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected between 1995 and 1999.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation Youth reported in focus groups that recreation (including field trips, outdoor play, and snacks) was their favorite activity, and many expressed that they wanted more recreation in HYP. Youth also commonly expressed appreciation for homework help, exposure to Hmong language and culture, and opportunities to make friends. Few youth expressed strong opinions about the ATOD lessons.

Staff in focus groups felt that the curriculum was good, but needed continual revision so that youth would not get bored from year to year. Youth also expressed a desire for greater variety in the curriculum.

Common youth complaints in focus groups about HYP included having to write too much and taking too many tests.
Parent/Community Involvement Program staff in focus groups cited poor parental involvement as a barrier to program success. Similarly, parents expressed a desire for more communication with program staff.

In the first year's focus group, only one parent felt schools made a considerable effort to involve them. The following year, parents said schools made some efforts to involve them.

In the first year's focus group, most parents reported knowing very little about HYP. The following year, parents reported that they were much more knowledgeable about HYP.
Program-School Linkages Throughout the program years, teachers in focus groups expressed concern that communication with HYP staff was poor. Although staff tended to have a more positive sense of communication and coordination with teachers than did teachers, both teachers and staff recommended better coordination and communication.

Program staff in focus groups pointed to inadequate school space as a barrier to program success.

In feedback sessions held after the first years of the program, teachers said they had little understanding of how youth were selected for HYP (youth were referred by their previous year's teachers), but this confusion was reduced over time. Similarly, staff felt that the selection process improved over the years, as teachers better understood the program.

On a scale from 1 (no tangible support) to 4 (ample support), evaluators rated the cultural competence of schools and teachers regarding Hmong families as between “limited” and “adequate” support for all cohorts' treatment and comparison schools (ranging from a rating of 2.3 to 2.9 for treatment schools, and remaining at 2.9 for all three comparison cohorts).
Recruitment/Participation Teachers expressed concern in focus groups that space in the program was too limited.
Satisfaction For the most part, youth had very positive opinions of HYP, and almost all participants said in focus groups that they would return to HYP the following year, if possible.

In the first two years' feedback, parents said their children enjoyed HYP.
Staffing/Training Staff in discussion groups recommended more consistent discipline for students.

One of the most common complaints about the program made by youth in the focus groups involved being disciplined by staff for misbehaving.

Program staff in focus groups pointed to the lack of mentors as a barrier to program success. Students also expressed a desire for more mentors.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic Gains were generally seen from baseline to posttest in the percentage of youth scoring at or above average on letter-word identification scores, although none of the differences in percent changes between program and comparison groups were statistically significant. Cohort 1 program youth increased from 41% to 46%, and comparison youth increased from 45% to 52%. Cohort 2 program youth increased from 31% to 54%, while comparison youth increased from 52% to 56%. Cohort 3 program youth increased from 25% to 38%, while comparison youth remained at 91%. Cohort 4 program youth increased from 35% to 53%.

From baseline to posttest, the four cohorts varied in percentage changes of youth scoring at or above average on calculation scores; differences in percent changes between program and comparison groups were significant only for cohort 3. Cohort 1 program youth declined from 91% to 86%, while comparison youth remained at 77%. For cohort 2, gains were seen for both program youth (from 54% to 85%) and comparison youth (from 68% to 72%). Cohort 3 program youth increased from 37% to 56%, and comparison youth declined from 91% to 82% (p<.05). Cohort 4 program youth showed gains from 44% to 82%.

The four cohorts varied in percentage changes from baseline to posttest of youth scoring at or above average on passage comprehension scores, with program youth showing gains for all cohorts. For cohort 1, gains were seen for both program youth (from 46% to 50%) and comparison youth (from 39% to 52%); the percent change difference between program and comparison youth was not significant. In cohorts 2 and 3, program youth increased (from 46% to 62% in cohort 2 and from 19% to 44% in cohort 3), while comparison youth declined (from 68% to 52% in cohort 2 and from 95% to 91% in cohort 3). The percent change differences between program and comparison youth were significant for both cohorts (p<.05). Cohort 4 program youth showed gains from 53% to 71%.

None of the differences between program and comparison groups in percentage changes from baseline to posttest of youth scoring at or above average on applied problem scores were significant. Cohort 1 program youth declined from 82% to 77%, while comparison youth increased from 74% to 77%. Cohort 2 program youth decreased from 73% to 69%, while comparison youth increased from 72% to 76%. For cohort 3, gains were seen for both program youth (from 50% to 69%) and comparison youth (from 86% to 91%). Cohort 4 program youth increased from 59% to 71%.

Differences between treatment and comparison youth in percentage changes from baseline to posttest of youth saying they liked school “a lot” were significant only for cohort 3. In cohorts 1 and 2, the percent reporting that they liked school a lot decreased for both program youth (from 78% to 52% in cohort 1 and from 82% to 59% in cohort 2) and comparison youth (from 71% to 68% in cohort 1 and from 68% to 56% in cohort 2). In cohort 3, the percent of program youth reporting that they liked school a lot increased from 31% to 63%, while the percent of comparison youth reporting this decreased from 62% to 52% (p<.05). The percent of cohort 4 program youth who reported liking school a lot decreased from 65% to 59%.

There were no significant differences between treatment and comparison youth for any of the cohorts in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of youth saying they tried hard in school. In cohort 1, program youth showed a decline in the percentage saying they tried hard at school, from 96% to 91%, while comparison youth showed an increase, from 90% to 94%. For cohort 2, the percent of program youth did not change (93% at both time points), and comparison youth decreased from 96% to 88%. In cohort 3, the percent of program youth decreased from 81% to 75%, while the percent of comparison youth increased from 95% to 100%. The percent of cohort 4 program youth decreased from 94% to 88%.

There were no significant differences between treatment and comparison youth for any of the cohorts in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of youth endorsing the view that skipping school is bad. For cohort 1, decreases were seen for both program youth (from 77% to 64%) and comparison youth (from 87% to 58%). Alternately, for cohort 2, increases were seen for both program youth (from 48% to 70%) and comparison youth (from 50% to 80%). In cohort 3, the percent remained at 56% for program youth, and increased from 55% to 82% for comparison youth. Cohort 4 program youth decreased from 88% to 71%.

Differences between treatment and comparison groups in percentage changes from baseline to posttest of parents who felt their child was doing satisfactorily in school were significant only for cohort 2. In cohort 1, program parents increased from 81% to 86%, while comparison parents remained at 73%. Cohort 2 program parents increased from 85% to 100%, while comparison declined from 100% to 91% (p<.05). Cohort 3 program parents decreased from 88% to 81%, while comparison parents increased from 76% to 86%. Cohort 4 program parents remained at 100%.

There were no significant differences between treatment and comparison groups for any of the cohorts in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents believing that their children's teachers respect Hmong culture. In cohort 1, declines in percentages were seen for both program parents (from 91% to 81%) and comparison parents (from 87% to 67%). Cohort 2 program parents remained at 89%, while comparison parents decreased from 91% to 86%. Cohort 3 program parents remained at 94%, while comparison parents increased from 71% to 91%. Cohort 4 program parents increased from 80% to 100%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between program and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents believing that their children's teachers understand Hmong culture. In cohort 1, declines were seen for both program parents (from 91% to 81%) and comparison parents (from 90% to 70%). For cohort 2 and 3, increases were seen for both program parents (from 89% to 92% for cohort 2 and from 94% to 100% for cohort 3) and comparison parents (from 86% to 91% for cohort 2 and from 57% to 86% for cohort 3). Cohort 4 program parents increased from 73% to 100%.

In focus groups, a number of teachers, parents, and program staff reported that the HYP program helped youth academically.
Family Significant differences between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who reported attending parent-teacher conferences were found only for cohort 2. In cohort 1, increases were seen for both program parents (from 71% to 81) and comparison parents (from 77% to 80%). Cohort 2 program parents increased from 42% to 100%, while comparison parents decreased from 95% to 86% (p<.001). Cohort 3 program parents increased from 75% to 94%, while comparison parents remained at 95%. Cohort 4 program parents increased from 93% to 100%.

Significant differences between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who reported attending Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) meetings were found only for cohort 2. For cohort 1, increases were seen for both program parents (from 52% to 67%) and comparison parents (from 33% to 57%). Cohort 2 program parents increased from 42% to 52%, while comparison parents decreased from 71% to 36% (p<.05). Cohort 3 program parents decreased from 63% to 44% and comparison parents increased from 38% to 52%. Cohort 4 program parents increased from 40% to 73%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who reported contacting the school about their child. Cohort 1 program parents increased from 71% to 81%, while comparison parents decreased from 87% to 80%. For cohort 2 and 3, increases were seen for both program parents (from 62% to 89% for cohort 2 and from 81% to 94% for cohort 3) and comparison parents (from 95% to 96% for cohort 2 and from 86% to 91% for cohort 3). Cohort 4 program parents increased from 87% to 93%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who had involvement other than attending parent-teacher conferences, contacting school about child, or attending PTO (e.g., attending school events or helping with class trips or projects). Cohort 1 program parents decreased from 52% to 48%, while comparison parents increased from 13% to 43%. Cohort 2 program parents decreased from 39% to 31%, while comparison parents increased from 46% to 50%. For cohort 3, increases were seen for both program parents (from 50% to 63%) and comparison parents (from 43% to 62%). Cohort 4 program parents increased from 47% to 73%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who exhibited effective parenting, as measured by positive (“yes”) responses to all four items of the Effective Parenting scale. Cohort 1 program parents increased from 67% to 81%, while comparison parents decreased from 87% to 80%. In cohort 2, increases were seen both for program parents (from 85% to 89%) and comparison parents (from 77% to 91%). Cohort 3 program parents decreased from 94% to 81% while comparison parents increased from 71% to 86%. Cohort 4 program parents decreased from 100% to 93%.

Significant differences were found only for cohort 3 between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in the percentage of youth at risk of family estrangement as measured by the Family Relationships scale. For cohort 1 and 2, decreases in the percentages of youth considered at risk were seen for both program youth (from 82% to 73% in cohort 1 and from 74% to 58% in cohort 2) and comparison youth (from 80% to 63% in cohort 1 and from 84% to 82% in cohort 2). Cohort 3 program youth increased from 86% to 94%, while comparison youth decreased from 76% to 55% (p<.05). Cohort 4 program youth decreased from 88% to 77%.

In the first two years' focus group feedback, parents said that the program encouraged their own school involvement. Specifically, parents said that programs raised their awareness about how to get involved and helped them feel more comfortable being involved. However, teachers in discussion groups did not feel that the program contributed to greater parent involvement at school.
Prevention In cohort 1, the percent of parents who were concerned that their child was mistreated by other youth because of cultural differences increased significantly more (p<.05) from baseline to posttest among the comparison group (from 50% to 93%) than among the program group (from 81% to 91%). In cohort 2, the percent of program parents concerned about this remained at 85%, while the percent of comparison youth declined from 86% at to 64%; these differences were not significant. For cohort 3, program parents increased from 56% to 94% in the percent concerned, while comparison parents showed a decrease from 81% to 71%—a difference significant at the .01 level. Cohort 4 program parents showed a decrease in percentage feeling this way, from 80% to 73%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in the percentage of youth who were considered at risk as measured by the Future Goals scale. Cohort 1 program youth saw a decrease in the percentage of youth considered at risk, from 73% to 59%, while comparison youth showed an increase from 50% to 53%. For cohort 2, decreases were seen for both program youth (from 78% to 52%) and comparison youth (from 68% to 64%). Cohort 3 program youth increased from 69% to 75%, while comparison youth decreased from 59% to 50%. Cohort 4 program youth increased from 59% to 65%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of youth who perceived ATOD use to be bad and harmful, as measured by the Youth ATOD Disapproval scale. Cohort 1 program youth saw a decrease in the percentage of youth who disapproved of ATOD use, from 96% to 86%, while comparison youth increased from 90% to 97%. Cohort 2 program youth increased from 78% to 93%, while comparison youth decreased from 92% to 84%. Cohort 3 program youth decreased from 94% to 75%, while comparison youth increased from 77% to 91%. Cohort 4 program youth remained at 94%.

No significant differences were found for any of the cohorts between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in percentages of parents who exhibited high awareness of ATOD dangers. Treatment parents in cohort 1 and 2 showed no changes in the percentage with high awareness (95% and 89% respectively), while treatment parents in cohorts 3 and 4 showed increases (from 63% to 100% and from 80% to 87% respectively). Comparison parents showed increases in all four cohorts: from 77% to 83% in cohort 1, from 91% to 96% in cohort 2, and from 76% to 100% in cohort 3.
Youth Development Significant differences were found only for cohort 1 between treatment and comparison groups in changes from baseline to posttest in the percentage of youth who felt “very proud” of their cultural heritage. Cohort 1 program youth increased from 73% to 100%, while comparison youth decreased from 90% to 87% (p<.05). Cohort 2 program youth increased from 70% to 89%, while comparison youth decreased from 84% to 76%. For cohort 3, increases were seen for both program youth (from 44% to 56%) and comparison youth (from 77% to 86%). Cohort 4 program youth increased from 88% to 82%.

In focus groups, teachers reported that the program helped their students socially and culturally.

In focus groups, program staff tended to report that the program improved youth's cultural pride and social confidence.

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