Search Publications | The Evaluation Exchange | FINE Network | OST Database

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.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Project HOPE

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 2: External Evaluation: Onsite Observations February–March 2004

Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose	To examine program implementation across sites.
Evaluation Design	Non-Experimental: Observations and staff interviews were conducted during site visits to all five sites; the evaluator visited each site once for a 1-day period.
Data Collection Methods	Interviews/Focus Groups: Site coordinators were interviewed at each site and were asked how they felt about Project HOPE and its activities, whether there had been any changes in services and strategies since last year, and how they felt about their role in the program. The evaluator also talked informally with staff and volunteers. Observation: The evaluator took notes on all aspects of that program day, including program activities; interactions between participants, staff, and tutors; and perceived characteristics of participants, staff, and tutors (e.g., race and gender).
Data Collection Timeframe	Data were collected February–March 2004.

Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation	Activities at all sites focused on academics and followed a similar schedule. Each site started with individual reading time, followed by time to work on homework, and then a time allowing students to choose a less structured academic activity. One site coordinator commented that having participants be responsible for reading and summarizing what they read was her way of getting them to calm down and prepare for tutoring. She also noted that the youth were not used to just sitting and reading and thought her incorporation of this activity would help them develop good reading habits. However, observation across sites indicated that the noise level and activity of other youth arriving seemed conducive to participants’ skimming magazines, but appeared to be too loud to allow them to concentrate enough to comprehend a chapter of a novel or a story. Based on site observations, settling students down from snack time or arrival time often interfered with coverage of academics. Difficulties with getting students to focus on schoolwork were especially evident at sites serving teens. Some sites offered other nonacademically focused activities. One site held a Saturday program with field trips to various sites, including those that exposed participants to different cultures and lifestyles. Another site had participants go to a local theater every Thursday for piano and dance lessons. A third site planned to provide a career options program. Based on site observations, reliance on participants to bring in homework sometimes resulted in productivity problems, as more obstinate and less motivated participants often arrived without specified tasks. In some cases, tutors had to be very persistent in trying to get some participants to take out their homework or prove that they had not been assigned any. Tutors’ responses were often to ask such students to read or work on the computer, but this was not often effective, as these activities mainly ended up distracting others.
Parent/Community Involvement	Beyond a few parents who transported their children, there was no parent participation at any of the sites on the days observed. At all sites except one, getting parents to participate was seen as a struggle. According to one coordinator, only one or two parents typically attended program events, although most attended the end-of-semester tutor appreciation event. Another coordinator reported that many parents needed to take more responsibility for their children’s educational success rather than expecting Project HOPE to fill this role. The coordinator at the site where parent involvement was not a struggle credited lack of transportation as the reason for parents being more involved, since parents had to come pick up their children. At this site, parents appeared to take greater interest in their children’s academic progress than at other sites; as parents came to pick up their children, each held a brief conversation with a staff member that often focused on their child’s homework progress, attendance, and behavior. Program attempts to connect to parents included strategies such as holding activities aimed at parents, as well as more general efforts to support parents and get them involved with their child’s academic progress. For example, one coordinator sometimes represented parents at teacher conferences. Activities for parents at another site included monthly informal meetings and more formal meetings with invited speakers held roughly every 3 months. In addition, National Student Partnership came to this site to offer parents advice on such issues as finding jobs and helping their children receive scholarships, and a program called Family-to-Family provided information on foster parenting. A third site held a Saturday program focusing on increasing parents’ ability to support their children socially and academically. The coordinator said that parents’ desire to attend this program was strong, but scheduling conflicts often prevented them from attending. Community participation was nonexistent at most sites on the days observed, although several sites reported strong community connections. For example, one site had a connection to an active church, other groups at Duke, and additional programs that enabled it to get a multitude of volunteers. Another site had connections to a variety of community-based assistance and resources, such as a Head Start program and GED and continuing education programs. Another site was part of a church with many community programs in place, including a food pantry and job training programs. This center also worked with a Duke fraternity for a separate program. Finally, another site had a teen center that functioned as a food pantry 2 days a week.
Program Context/Infrastructure	The sites’ ample physical space, often including multiple activity rooms or locations, permitted groups to have separate activities with few distractions. One site’s founder reported that participants were physically arranged to maximize their attention to academics. To keep the focus on their own tutor, participants sat face-to-face with their tutors and with their backs to other groups. Being part of a larger center allowed students at one site a broader range of potential activities, such as dance and gym activities. One site was associated with a 21st Century Community Learning Centers program (a U.S. Department of Education after school initiative) sponsored at that site. This link seemed to provide access to resources that other sites may not have had. For example, this site received 10 laptops with wireless Internet connections from this program.

Program/School Linkages

One site was connected to a local charter school and had a close relationship with this school, which helped them retrieve data on students’ academic performance directly from participants’ teachers.

Recruitment/Participation

According to staff, the numbers of participants regularly attending the program ranged from 11 at one site to approximately 40 at another. On the days observed, the numbers of participants in attendance ranged from 11 to 30 across sites. Most participants appeared to be African American.

Aside from one coordinator’s concern about the teen attrition rate, recruitment and enrollment did not seem to be a challenge at any of the sites. Two sites had enrollment waiting lists, as lack of staff kept them from taking more participants. One coordinator indicated that physical space limitations prevented them from accepting more participants.

One site coordinator reported that none of the original group that signed up for the program actually enrolled, largely due to the fact that the center did not offer transportation.

Satisfaction

Coordinators at all sites spoke highly of the program and seemed pleased with assistance received from program staff and volunteer tutors. For example, one coordinator said that out of the 6 years her center had been in operation, the year they began Project HOPE was the best. She pointed primarily to the money as a help, but also underscored the assistance of the tutors, viewing them as role models and a source of hope for participating children. Another coordinator commented that the staff helped her considerably by bringing age appropriate resources, and that the tutors made her days go more smoothly.

At all sites, the evaluator noted that the older students appeared to be less enthused and focused than the younger students.

Staffing/Training

One site had five paid staff members, while the other four sites each had three paid staff members. Not all staff, however, were present on the days observed.

The number of Duke tutors present on the days observed ranged from 3 at one site to 12 at another. In addition, some sites had other volunteers from the community.

One site’s paid staff, who had solid teaching experience and were enrolled in master’s and Ph.D. programs, seemed to bring experience that allowed them to implement a more organized and focused program than at other sites. Discipline at this site was strong and there were few disturbances; paid staff members only had to remind students to whisper and no participants left their seat without permission. Tutors did not need to discipline participants at all.

One site coordinator strictly held to a 1:1 participant-tutor ratio to ensure that participants got ample assistance. Observations revealed that for the bulk of the time, each participant had his/her own personal tutor. Another coordinator mentioned that because her site started with fewer students, they were able to have more one-on-one pairings. She adjusted for the increase in participants by having a paid staff member work with all third graders.

One site coordinator reported that although acquiring tutors was easier than in the past, it was still a struggle. Acquiring tutors was not seen as a problem at the other sites.

At all sites, the evaluator judged that tutors worked well with and were respectful to participants, and appeared to genuinely care about participants’ progress. The evaluator also noted that most participants showed respect for the tutors, although tutors at one site’s teen center had a difficult time getting participants to do homework. Tutors often struggled to get students to sit down and focus. One coordinator mentioned that in her experience, tutors sometimes became too friendly with the children and often needed to be firmer with them. At some sites, tutors appeared to choose to work with the easiest participants, only to be disturbed later by the ones they had avoided.

While all sites demonstrated warmth and friendliness toward participants, they varied in the extent to which they appeared to make tutors feel welcomed and appreciated. For example, at one site, tutors and staff had minimal interaction.

Staff at some of sites appeared to have difficulty delegating tasks to tutors or assistants.

A Profile of the Evaluation of Project HOPE

Profile Information