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 Project HOPE (Holistic Opportunities Plan for Enrichment) works with community-based after school programs in Durham, North Carolina, to provide tutoring to children from low-income families. Sponsored by Duke University and North Carolina Central University (NCCU) in collaboration with the Durham Public Schools and local leaders, the project provides children with safe places to study and socialize under the guidance of supportive, caring adults. Its goals are to (a) improve academic and social outcomes for children in neighborhoods surrounding the two universities, (b) increase the universities’ engagement with the community, (c) promote changes in institutional policies (e.g., promoting use of university facilities), and (d) explore lessons learned about university and community engagement.
Start Date 2002
Scope local
Type after school, summer/vacation, weekend
Location urban
Setting community-based organizations, religious institutions
Participants kindergarten through high school students (K–11)
Number of Sites/Grantees four sites in 2003; five sites in 2004; six sites in 2005
Number Served 166 in 2004
Components Youth participants receive individualized tutoring, mentoring, and arts enrichment programming at community centers located in their own neighborhoods, both after school and during the summer. Some sites also hold weekend activities. Duke students enrolled in certain education classes serve as program tutors to fulfill a service-learning component of these courses.
Funding Level $2.25 million for 2002–2005; $500,000 for 2005–2009
Funding Sources W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Wachovia Foundation
Other Project HOPE is a program of the Duke-Durham Neighborhood Partnership, a structured partnership between Duke University and the surrounding community that marshals resources to improve the quality of life and boost student achievement in neighborhoods and schools near Duke’s campus. The partnership works to help create affordable housing, reduce crime, improve healthcare, and support K–12 public schools

Evaluation

Overview During the 2003–2004 program year, internal and external evaluation plans were executed. The internal evaluation examined participants’ social and academic outcomes. The external evaluators examined program implementation and worked with Duke and NCCU to provide monthly and quarterly reports on program activities.
Evaluators Barbara Jentleson, Duke University

Jan Upton and Dawayne Whittington, Institutional Research Consultants
Evaluations Profiled Project H.O.P.E. Annual Report, 2003–2004 School Year

External Evaluation: On-Site Observations February–March 2004
Evaluations Planned The external evaluators conducted community surveys and stakeholder interviews during the 2003–2004 school year; these results are forthcoming. Both the internal and external evaluations are ongoing. The external evaluation procedures will shift to a focus on program efforts to promote long-term sustainability.
Report Availability Jentleson, B., & Westmoreland, H. (2004). Project H.O.P.E. annual report, 2003–2004 school year. Durham, NC: Duke University, Office of Community Affairs.
community.duke.edu/neighborhood_priorities/Project_Hope.pdf (Acrobat file)

Upton, J., & Whittington, D. (2004). External evaluation: On-site observations February–March 2004. Durham, NC: Institutional Review Consultants.


Contacts

Evaluation Barbara Jentleson, Ed.D.
Director
Project HOPE
Box 90739
Durham, NC 27708
Tel: 919-668-6276
Email: bcj3@duke.edu		  
Program Barbara Jentleson, Ed.D.
Director
Project HOPE
Box 90739
Durham, NC 27708
Tel: 919-668-6276
Email: bcj3@duke.edu
Profile Updated April 27, 2005

Evaluation 1: Project H.O.P.E. Annual Report, 2003–2004 School Year


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To measure participants’ academic and social outcomes over the 2003–2004 program year.
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Pretest/posttest data were collected on youth participants at all five sites. Pretest surveys were completed by 41 elementary students (Grades K–5) and 20 secondary students (Grades 6–11) September–October 2003. Posttest surveys were completed by 60 elementary student participants and 24 secondary student participants April–May 2004. The pretest/posttest comparisons examined the aggregate outcomes for the entire pretest sample with the entire posttest sample to allow students to maintain anonymity in their responses. All 166 students were given the opportunity to complete a survey but responding to the survey was voluntary.

At the end of both the fall and spring semesters of the 2003–2004 school year, surveys were collected from 61 of the project’s Duke student tutors (29 in the fall and 32 in the spring). In April–May 2004, surveys were also collected from 15 schoolteachers who had students attending Project HOPE.

Program records indicated that of the 166 children served, 85 were male and 81 were female. The majority were African American (n = 156), while the remainder were Latino (n = 6), White (n = 3), and “other” (n = 1). Of the youth for whom data were available (n = 140), 64% were in elementary school and 36% were in secondary school. At pretest, 95% of secondary students surveyed lived with at least one parent, 40% lived with two parents, and 15% lived in an alternative living situation (grandmother, aunt/uncle, foster, etc.). At posttest, the reported family composition was slightly different, with an increase in the number of students who lived with two parents and an increase in the number of students who lived in alternative living situations: 83% lived with at least one parent, 46% lived with at least two parents, and 25% lived in alternative living situations. Participants attended 30 different Durham public schools.
Data Collection Methods Secondary Source/Data Review: Report cards from Durham Public Schools were collected on 98 participants to measure changes in grade point average (GPA). Program attendance data were also collected from program staff.

Surveys/Questionnaires: The pretest elementary survey asked whether youth looked forward to going to school, studied hard for tests, felt safer in the after school program than when they were not participating in the program, and had parents who talked to them about school or homework. The posttest elementary survey asked whether these youth looked forward to attending the program, felt comfortable talking with staff, got help with their homework when they needed it, and thought the program helped them to do better in school. The pretest and posttest surveys for secondary student participants included items about their family composition, academic goals, involvement in extracurricular activities, quality of life issues (e.g., being happy with the way they looked), training for interests in different areas (e.g., job skills) and volunteer interests (e.g., helping children read).

Duke student tutors were asked to evaluate their own outcomes as a result of their involvement in the service learning portion of the education class, including tutoring, reflection sessions, and class discussions. Tutors were asked to rate 25 possible outcomes, including such statements as, “I developed more empathy for children who have difficulty in school,” and “I enhanced my sense of responsibility.” Tutors rated each statement on a scale from 1 (“this statement is not in any way true of my experience”) to 5 (“this statement is very true of my experience”). They were then asked to rate the three statements reflecting the most significant impacts on them and the three statements reflecting the least significant impacts on them. Lastly, tutors responded to an open-ended question asking them to reflect on how working with Project HOPE children deepened and broadened their understanding of issues in the education class.

The schoolteacher survey asked about youth participants’ academic and social outcomes that could be attributed to program participation, such as improvements in the following: turning in homework and completing it to the teacher’s satisfaction, ability to get along well with other students, volunteer activities, and attentiveness in class. The survey also asked teachers about participants’ academic performance and whether they came to school ready and prepared to learn. Teachers provided suggestions for project staff and other open-ended feedback on their perceptions of the project’s impact on their students.

Test/Assessments: End of Grade (EOG) reading and math test results were collected from Durham Public Schools on 74 participants in the spring of 2004. A score of 3 or 4 is equivalent to grade level achievement and is the desired test outcome.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected during the 2003–2004 program year.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Parent/Community Involvement At pretest, 76% of surveyed elementary students reported that their parents talked to them about school or homework. Similarly, 75% of surveyed secondary students at pretest reported that they had someone at home to help them with homework.
Program Context/Infrastructure At pretest, 93% of surveyed elementary students reported that they felt safer in the after school program than when they were not participating in the program.
Program/School Linkages Teacher suggestions for project staff included making the school connection earlier in the school year; continuing work on student organizational, social, and behavioral skills; and more work on reading.
Recruitment/Participation On average, participants attended the program 74% of available program days, ranging from an average of 66% to 77% by site. The slightly lower percentages were at the two newest sites. Elementary students’ attendance was consistently higher than that of middle school and high school students.

At pretest, the majority of surveyed elementary students reported that they looked forward to school (95%) and studied hard for tests (80%)..
Satisfaction At posttest, 90% of surveyed elementary students looked forward to attending the program.

At posttest, the majority of surveyed elementary students reported that they got help with their homework when they needed it (92%).
Staffing/Training At posttest, 92% of surveyed elementary students felt comfortable talking with the staff.

Tutors most commonly rated the following statements as “true” or “very true” of their service learning experience: “I developed more empathy for children who have difficulty in school” (79% in the fall, 94% in the spring); “I learned ’more’ and developed a deeper understanding of educational issues” (86% in the fall, 81% in the spring); “I gained a deep sense of satisfaction by helping others” (83% in the fall, 78% in the spring); “I gained a deeper sensitivity to and understanding of diversity issues (race, class, gender)” (79% each in the fall and spring); and “I enhanced my sense of responsibility” (79% in the fall, 72% in the spring).

In response to the survey item asking tutors to rate the three areas that were most significantly impacted by their service learning experience, the following items were most frequently rated in the top three: developing greater empathy for students having difficulty in school (41% in the fall, 22% in the spring), getting a deep sense of satisfaction from helping others (38% in the fall, 28% in the spring), developing more tolerance and patience when working with others (28% in the fall, 31% in the spring), clarifying possible future educational and career plans (38% in the fall, 13% in the spring), and learning more and developing a greater understanding of educational issues (24% in the fall, 22% in the spring).

Tutors most commonly rated the following statements as either “not in any way true” or “not true in some ways” of their service learning experience: “I strengthened my organization skills” (52% in the fall, 37% in the spring); “I developed leadership skills” (31% in the fall, 32% in the spring); “I developed a sense of being connected in spirit to something greater than myself” (28% in the fall, 26% in the spring); and “I clarified my possible future educational and career plans”(24% in the fall, 29% in the spring).

In response to the survey item asking tutors to rate the three areas that were least significantly impacted by their service learning experience, the following items were most frequently rated in the top three: strengthening organizational skills (59% in the fall, 34% in the spring), developing a sense of being connected in spirit to something larger than themselves (21% in the fall, 34% in the spring), developing more complex ways of analyzing problems (21% in the fall, 19% in the spring), and improving critical thinking skills (21% in the fall, 19% in the spring).


Summative/Outcome Findings

Academic The majority of participants received a passing score of 3 or 4 on the EOG reading test (69%) and math test (80%).

The majority of participants maintained or improved their GPA over the year (78%) and had a C average or better on their overall GPA (80%).

At posttest, the majority of surveyed elementary students reported that they thought the program helped them to do better in school (93%).

At both pretest and posttest, all secondary students surveyed reported that it was important to do well in school.

From pretest to posttest, secondary student survey results demonstrated an increase in the numbers of students planning to graduate from college (75% at pretest to 92% at posttest), with an attendant decrease in the number of students reporting that they planned on finishing high school only (15% at pretest vs. 4% at posttest). At posttest, no students reported planning to quit before graduating high school, which was an improvement over the 5% of students who provided this response at pretest.

Of teachers surveyed, 80% felt that participants improved in turning in homework and completing it to their satisfaction. In addition, 60% reported that participants demonstrated satisfactory academic performance and came to school ready and prepared to learn.
Workforce Development Of secondary students surveyed at pretest, 50% or more were interested in the following training areas: cooking, childcare, and job skills. At posttest, 45% or more were interested in cooking, childcare, computer literacy, and job skills.
Youth Development Of surveyed teachers, 87% reported that participants improved in getting along well with other students. In addition, 60% reported that participants improved in their volunteer activities and attentiveness in class.

From pretest to posttest, secondary student survey results demonstrated increased participant involvement in extracurricular activities either at school or in the community, including an increase in students who reported being involved in the following: at least one activity (80% at pretest vs. 100% at posttest), at least two activities (45% at pretest vs. 63% at posttest), and three or more activities (15% at pretest vs. 38% at posttest).

At posttest, 90–100% of surveyed secondary students reported the following outcomes occurring sometimes or often: being happy with the way they looked, being happy with their weight, playing sports with others, using a computer, and using the library. These results indicate an increase from the 84–89% reported on these outcomes at pretest. There was a decrease, however, in the number of participants who reported having a close friend to talk to sometimes or often (89% at pretest vs. 86% at posttest).

Secondary students reported the following decreases in negative outcomes occurring sometimes or often: being out late with nothing to do (74% at pretest to 48% at posttest), being home alone (79% at pretest to 65% at posttest), feeling lonely (47% at pretest to 39% at posttest), and fighting or being suspended (32% at pretest to 35% at posttest). However, an increase was seen in the percentage of students who reported smoking or drinking sometimes or often (0% at pretest to 13% at posttest).

Of secondary students surveyed at pretest, 40% or more were interested in the following volunteer areas: assisting children, special events, and helping children read. At posttest, 40% or more indicated interest in these areas, as well as assisting animals, painting houses, and environmental activities.

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