| 0

Sunset Park AmeriCorps

EVALUATION REPORT

NEW YORK STATE COMMISSION SUBGRANTEE: 2016-2019

Sunset Park Health Council 

dba Family Health Centers at NYU Langone

6025 6th Avenue

Brooklyn, NY 11220

Lina Vong, AmeriCorps Director
| 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND

The Sunset Park Health Council dba Family Health Centers at NYU Langone (FHC) operates the Sunset 

Park AmeriCorps program as part of its mission to address unmet community need in Sunset Park. 

Sunset Park is a diverse, densely populated, low-income neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York. The 

community has a very high percentage of residents of racial/ethnic minority status and, for decades, has 

been a first destination for waves of new immigrants and refugees from around the world. English 

proficiency is a major barrier for residents and Sunset Park has one of the lowest high school attainment 

rates in New York City. During the 2017-2018 grant year, 24 AmeriCorps members served in programs 

designed to improve community members’ school readiness (3 members) and financial stability (21 

members). 

In compliance with AmeriCorps contractual regulations as a subcontract under the New York State 

Commission, the Sunset Park AmeriCorps program staff conducted a mixed-method process and 

outcomes evaluation using data collected in 2017-2018. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess 

areas of strength and opportunities for growth in Sunset Park AmeriCorps member support activities 

and members’ impact on their programs and Sunset Park community members. The team was 

supported by internal FHC staff, including the Director of Community Benefit Evaluation and data 

analysts who brought expertise in goal alignment, assessment, data collection, analysis, and use to the 

efforts. 

The following program process and outcomes components were assessed in this evaluation:

 Process: AmeriCorps members receive consistent, high-quality support from AmeriCorps staff, site 

supervisors, and other organization staff; 

 Process: AmeriCorps members are reliable, effective program members; and 

 Outcome: AmeriCorps members impact program participants’ school readiness and financial 

literacy.

CONCLUSIONS 

Member Support and Preparation: Overall, the support provided by AmeriCorps staff, site supervisors, 

and Team Day was well designed. It provided members with the needed support to develop and practice 

the skills to successfully complete projects and impact the community.

Member Effectiveness: 2017-2018 members’ contributions were highly rated by supervisors. All 

members who were assessed were rated as meeting or exceeding requirements on their overall 

contribution to the program.

Member Impact: All members who were assessed were rated as meeting or exceeding requirements on 

their overall contribution to their programs. AmeriCorps members played a critical role in reaching and 

impacting at-risk, economically disadvantaged community members. In 2017-2018, members worked 

with the Parent-Child Home Program, enabling all 52 children to complete with 94% showing socialemotional and literacy gains. Members worked with 408 economically disadvantaged individuals to 

provide financial literacy services, and 69% demonstrated improved financial knowledge. Members 

often cited impacting individuals and the community as high points during their service. 
| 2

Barriers and Enablers to Successful Member Experience and Impact: Member feedback indicates that 

clear expectations, opportunities for formal and informal feedback and communication, and interactive 

training activities on topics with clear alignment to their service, life or life after AmeriCorps goals made 

the difference between more and less meaningful supports. Strategic pairings of AmeriCorps members 

with needs, structured program training and implementation supports, and member’s ability to 

implement interventions with high fidelity supported successful implementation and participant 

impacts. 

Other Lessons Learned: The evaluation questions covered many aspects of the member and participant 

activities and yielded useful actionable next steps, including new strategies to explore and insights into 

the alignment of our programs and outcomes and the Corporation for National Community Service 

priority areas. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Adjust the alignment of Sunset Park AmeriCorps service programs and the Corporation for National 

Community Service priority areas in the 2019-2022 application. 

 Continue to strengthen the evaluation and data-informed design of member and participant 

programming. 

 Hold “Office Hours” after Team Days and remind members and supervisors of opportunities for asneeded support from AmeriCorps staff.

 Revise the process for and documentation tools used during scheduled check-ins with members and 

supervisors. 

 Incorporate member and supervisor questions and input into the annual Supervisor Handbook 

revisions and refresher training. 

 Continue to include members in Team Day topic selection, design, and facilitation, and share survey 

results with them and other session facilitators.

 Explore more opportunities for members to support each other.

This report summarizes the findings and actions that will be taken as a result.

 Background and Purpose

 Results

 Conclusions and Recommendations

 References

 Appendices
| 3

BACKGROUND 

The Family Health Centers at NYU Langone is a subgrantee of the New York State Commission, operating 

the Sunset Park AmeriCorps program. 

COMMUNITY OVERVIEW 

Sunset Park is a diverse, densely populated low-income neighborhood located in southwest Brooklyn

(total population 129,227). Demographically, Sunset Park has a very high percentage of residents of 

racial/ethnic minority status: 46% Latino, 36% Asian, 15% white, 2% Black, and 1% two or more races. 

For decades, the community has been a first destination for waves of new immigrants and refugees 

from around the world. Sunset Park has one of the highest foreign-born populations in NYC. More than

half of residents (52%) were born outside of the United States. English proficiency is a major barrier for 

residents – four out of five Sunset Park residents over the age of five speak a primary language other 

than English at home, and more than half of residents (54%) speak English less than very well. The 

population is primarily low-income working class. Thirty percent of residents, including 46% of children, 

live below the federal poverty level. (American Community Survey 2012-2016).

Poverty and new immigrant status of both children and adults in Sunset Park significantly impact 

academic achievement. Parent’s ability to speak English is closely tied to their success and their 

children’s success in school. Limited English proficiency can limit job opportunities, earnings, access to 

health care, and the ability of parents to advocate for their child in school (Shields and Behrman 2004).

Sunset Park has one of the lowest high school attainment rates in New York City. Almost half of adults 

over 25 in Sunset Park have less than a high school degree (47% in Sunset Park, compared with 19% 

citywide). (American Community Survey 2012-2016)

MEMBER PREPARATION AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW 

Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff provide coaching and one-on-one support to members, including support 

with: the application process; role-specific skill-building; AmeriCorps logistics; and the life after 

AmeriCorps preparation and transition. Members also meet with their site supervisor at least once per 

week. Sunset Park AmeriCorps members also receive and facilitate Team Day trainings (scheduled every 

three weeks) to build knowledge, skills and networks to be used during and after service.

MEMBER PLACEMENT ACTIVITIES OVERVIEW 

The Sunset Park AmeriCorps program utilizes a “Two-Generation” approach to support low-income 

families and children with significant barriers to financial stability and educational attainment. Barriers 

include lack of high school diploma, limited English proficiency, under- or unemployed, and income 

under 100% poverty level. Emerging research suggests when opportunities for children and parents are 

approached jointly, the benefits may be greater than the sum of the separate parts (JFF 2016). During 

2017-2018, 24 AmeriCorps members provided financial literacy coaching and education, and early 

literacy programming to high-need community residents. 

Twenty-one AmeriCorps members provided financial literacy workshops and supportive services to a 

wide range of high-need individuals seeking services for English literacy, high school equivalency classes, 

crisis management, concrete services, and workforce development. Members served in Family Health 

Center programs, as well as adult education and workforce development programs at two partner 

organizations – Turning Point and Brooklyn Workforce Innovations. Combined, the three organizations
| 4

work directly with over 500 adults with low educational attainment and/or limited work experience to 

gain the education, skills, and certifications necessary to improve their employment opportunities. 

In 2017-2018, three members served in the Sunset Park Parent-Child Home Program. The participants in 

our Parent-Child Home Program (PCHP) are new immigrant parents with limited English (Spanish and 

Chinese speaking) and various risk factors, and their children between 2 to 4 years old. The program 

focuses on social and emotional development and literacy for children. The program is an evidencebased intervention that has been shown to bridge the achievement gap and reduce the income-based 

disparities in school readiness and educational attainment. Families receive biweekly home visits during 

which home visitors (AmeriCorps members) model positive parent-child interactions using books and 

educational toys that families keep. Extensive research has been conducted on the model, which is 

available on the National Center’s website (https://www.parent-child.org ).

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess areas of strength and opportunities for growth in Sunset Park 

AmeriCorps member support activities and members’ impact on their programs and Sunset Park 

community members. The following program process and outcomes components were assessed in this 

evaluation: 

 Process: AmeriCorps members receive consistent, high-quality support from AmeriCorps staff, site 

supervisors, and other organization staff; 

 Process: AmeriCorps members are reliable, high-quality program members; and 

 Outcome: AmeriCorps members impact program participants’ school readiness and financial 

literacy. 

The evaluation was designed to answer the following evaluation questions:

 Were member support and preparation activities designed and implemented to achieve successful 

outcomes? 

 Did members’ tasks, activities, and projects meet expectations? 

 What impact did members’ contributions have on program participants?

 What were the barriers and enablers that made the difference between successful and 

disappointing implementation and outcomes? 

 What else was learned? 

See Appendix N for the initial Sunset Park AmeriCorps logic model. The financial literacy curriculum and 

workshops were modified during the first year of the program. 
| 5

EVALUATION METHODS 

The Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff conducted a mixed-method process and outcomes evaluation using 

data collected in 2017-2018. The team was supported by internal Family Health Centers staff, including 

the Director of Community Benefit Evaluation and data analysts who brought expertise in goal 

alignment, assessment, data collection, analysis, and use to the efforts. 

The data sources, tools, and analysis plan were designed to answer the evaluation questions and strike a 

balance between rigor, feasibility, sustainability, and participant and staff assessment burden. The 

mixed-method plan leverages existing, validated tools already in use by programs, and uses 

supplemental data sources and tools as needed to answer evaluation questions. Designs and analysis 

vary by tool. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, were generated for quantitative data; analysis 

assessing individual change was used as appropriate. Narrative and qualitative data was analyzed for key 

themes. 

The evaluation plan included twelve data sources:

1) AmeriCorps operations and administrative data

2) Member mid-point interviews (Appendix A)

3) Member exit interviews (Appendix B)

4) Supervisor mid-point interviews (Appendix C)

5) Member performance evaluations (Appendix D and Appendix E)

6) Team Day workshop surveys (Appendix F and Appendix G)

7) Financial Literacy Workshop Survey: Checking + Savings (Appendix H)

8) Financial Literacy Workshop Survey: Banking + Checking + Savings + Credit (Appendix I)

9) Best Plus 2.0 Test (Appendix J)

10) Tests for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Reading (Appendix K)

11) Tests for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Math (Appendix L)

12) Child’s Behavior Traits (CBT) (Appendix M)

ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS DATA 

AmeriCorps operations and administrative data, such as recruitment and retention, was used as part of 

the evaluation plan. The data was managed and analyzed through AmeriCorps and in-house systems. 

Service programs enrollment and activity logs were also used. These items were monitored for all 24 

members on an ongoing basis, with informal analysis used to review individual patterns and memberwide trends.

MEMBER AND SUPERVISOR INTERVIEWS 

Family Health Centers staff revised member and supervisor interview protocols to assist with notetaking 

and data analysis. Closed-ended, Likert-scale ratings were added to the mid-point member and 

supervisor interview guides to capture AmeriCorps staff’s summative assessments of the interviewees’ 

comments for each question, and each category. The original developer of the tools is unknown. The 

revised guides were piloted in 2017-2018 with a sub-sample of members and supervisors. Data from the 

revised tools was used in this evaluation.
| 6

Member interviews 

AmeriCorps staff conducted mid-point and exit interviews using the revised guides. The mid and exit 

interview guides were designed to assess the quality of and member satisfaction with their site, 

preparation activities, support, and role. 

The mid-point interview guide includes 23 questions organized under four categories: logistics, service 

activities, supervision, and goals. Most questions include two-point or four-point rating scales to record 

AmeriCorps staff’s assessment of the member’s responses (e.g. Yes – No; Exceptional – Acceptable –

Needs Improvement – Unacceptable). Each section also includes two additional ratings completed by 

AmeriCorps staff during or immediately following the interview: overall rating (Exceptional – Acceptable 

– Needs Improvement – Unacceptable); and follow-up needed (No – No, but monitor – Yes, non-urgent 

– Yes, urgent). The tool was designed to be used during one-on-one interviews with each member. The 

initial plan was to use the revised protocols to document mid-point interviews with all 2017-2018 Sunset 

Park AmeriCorps members. Due to the Sunset Park AmeriCorps director staffing transition and vacancy, 

a convenience sample and group interviews were conducted. The mid-point tool was piloted with seven

members through five interviews. All but one was a group interview. There were slight variations in the 

tool versions used, but this did not have a large impact on analysis. Frequencies were generated for each 

question and each category. 

The revised exit interview guide consisted of 13 open-ended questions organized under four categories: 

host site, Sunset Park AmeriCorps program, personal experience/ reflection, and open items. The Sunset

Park AmeriCorps director conducted seven exit interviews by phone and in person. The director

summarized interviewee responses in the template. Three staff (two AmeriCorps staff and one nonAmeriCorps Family Health Centers staff) reviewed the responses and documented themes within each 

and across all exit interviews. The group collaboratively generated cross-reviewer themes through a 

group analysis session. 

Supervisor interviews

AmeriCorps staff conducted mid-point interviews with supervisors to assess the quality of and 

supervisors’ satisfaction with member and support structure. The revised tool consists of 20 questions 

organized under four categories: AmeriCorps member, supervision and training, AmeriCorps staff and 

program, and member data and outcomes tracking. Likert-scales were added to this interview protocol 

to assist with notetaking and analysis. Due to director position vacancy, methods were altered from 

separate interviews with supervisors for each member, to three interviews with four supervisors. 

Frequencies were generated for the Likert-scale assessments completed by AmeriCorps staff using the 

revised protocol.

MEMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 

All members receive a formal performance evaluation one or two times per service term, depending on 

term length. Performance evaluations are completed by supervisors and reviewed with members. Two 

different versions of the tool were used during the 2017-2018 program cycle. The original developer of 

the performance evaluation tools is unknown. The performance evaluation forms use four-point Likertscales to assess member skills and behaviors in core areas: overall performance; customer service and

community participation; productivity and quality of work; leadership, judgement, problem solving; 

dependability and initiative; cooperation; and position knowledge and skill development.

Nineteen of 24 members had available assessments at the time of this evaluation report due to 

staggered start dates and part-time service. Sixteen AmeriCorps members were rated using form version 
| 7

A, and three were rated using form version B. The most recent version of each member’s evaluation was 

included in the analysis. Seven mid-term and 12 end-of-term performance evaluations were included in 

the analyses. Frequencies were generated for each question. Individual analyses were conducted for 

members who received a rating of two or lower on one or more question. The two form versions 

contained different four-point scales. Version B questions were aligned with the categories in version A.

See Appendix O for question crosswalk. 

MEMBER TRAINING SURVEYS 

Surveys are distributed at the end of each Team Day training (offered every three weeks) to assess

member satisfaction with workshop components. Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff designed the survey. 

Participants ranked each workshop component on a four- or five-point scale (unlabeled, number scale; 

one is the lowest rating, four or five the highest). This evaluation includes results from seven of 12 Team 

Days offered in 2017-2018. Total responses per workshop ranged from eight to 21, and typically all or 

most participants completed a survey. It was not possible to distinguish OCFS-funded AmeriCorps 

members’ responses from other members’ responses.

FINANCIAL LITERACY PARTICIPANT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS GAIN ASSESSMENTS 

Self-reported knowledge and skills gains 

Family Health Centers staff adapted a retrospective pre/post tool provided by National Association of 

Community Health Centers (NACHC) to align with the topics and goals of two financial literacy 

workshops. Participants completed surveys at the end of each workshop and staff generated 

frequencies to assess participant self-reported gain between pre and post ratings. Analyses included 

gain on total pre and post scores, and gain on individual questions and topics. Seventy-five participants 

in seven workshops completed surveys. 

Knowledge and skills tests 

Best Plus 2.0 is a knowledge and skills test for English as a Second Language (ESOL) students developed 

by Center for Applied Linguistics. It is a funder-mandated assessment in Family Health Centers ESOL 

classes. Most program participants completed the Best Plus 2.0 at least two times per program cycle

(baseline and comparison to later test(s) taken). Student early or unexpected exit from the class were 

the primary reasons for missing post tests. The funder-mandated system defines and calculates gain 

(students moving to a higher level/ Measurable Skill Gain). The test score is converted to a scaled score/ 

grade equivalent, which is then converted to a federal NRS level. Gain analysis in this evaluation report 

includes students who had a post assessment taken during 2017-2018, and an earlier assessment from 

this or a previous time period to compare it to (baseline). 

Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Reading and Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Math 

are reading and math knowledge tests developed by Data Recognition Corporation (DRC) and are 

funder-mandated for Family Health Centers’ Adult Basic Education and High School Equivalency 

(ABE/HSE) classes. Most program participants complete the TABE – Reading and TABE – Math at least 

two times per program cycle (baseline and comparison to later test(s) taken). As with ESOL, students’ 

early or unexpected exits from the program were the primary reasons for the absence of post test 

results. The funder-mandated system defines and calculates students moving to a higher level/ 

Measurable Skill Gain for all three tools. The test score is converted to a scaled score/ grade equivalent, 

which is then converted to a federal NRS level. Gain analysis in this evaluation report includes students 

who had a post assessment taken during 2017-2018, and an earlier assessment from this or a previous 

time period to compare it to (baseline).
| 8

SCHOOL READINESS PARTICIPANT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS GAIN ASSESSMENT 

Child’s Behavior Traits (CBT) is a 20-question observational assessment of child’s school readiness 

(cognitive abilities, task orientation, independence, social cooperation, and emotional stability). The 

Parent-Child Home Program, Inc. developed the tool. A trained program staff completes the assessment 

at the beginning and end of each program year for all participants (four assessments administered over 

the two-year program). Change between pre- and post- assessment total score in each one-year period

constitutes gain. All 52 children received pre- and post- assessments in 2017-2018. 

Data Source and Evaluation Question Alignment 

Staff synthesized (triangulated) results across tools to answer the evaluation questions and identify 

actions.

DATA SOURCES EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Were member 

support and 

preparation 

activities 

designed and 

implemented to 

achieve 

successful 

outcomes?

Did members’ 

tasks, activities, 

and projects 

meet 

expectations?

What impact did 

members’ 

contributions 

have on 

program 

participants?

What were the 

barriers and 

enablers that 

made the 

difference 

between 

successful and 

disappointing 

implementation 

and outcomes?

What else was 

learned?

Administrative and 

operations data X X X X

Member and supervisor 

interviews X X X X X

Member performance 

evaluations X X X X X

Member training surveys X X X X X

Financial literacy 

participant knowledge 

and skills gain 

assessments

X X X

School readiness 

participant knowledge 

and skills gain 

observational assessment

X X X
| 9

RESULTS 

The results in this section are organized by data source. Results are triangulated and tied to the guiding

evaluation questions in the Conclusions and Recommendations section. 

ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONS DATA 

The Sunset Park AmeriCorps program had full member enrollment for the 2017-2018 program year. The 

program had a high percentage of returning members (42%). Program retention was 84.6%. This is 

slightly lower than the previous year’s retention (90%). Two members left for cause. They both served 

up to four terms, but did not finish the 1700 commitment in their last month of service. Another 

member found employment after four weeks of service and exited from service. 

The Sunset Park AmeriCorps director transitioned to a new role and the position was vacant for five 

months in the 2017-2018 program year. AmeriCorps staff, supervisors, and other Family Health Centers 

staff worked to minimize the impact on members and supervisors. The 2017-2018 evaluation plan 

included developing, piloting, and revising several evaluation tools. The tool development, piloting 

process, and samples reached were altered due to the staffing transition and vacancy, particularly the

interviews and member training surveys. 

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

The retention, enrollment, and other administrative and operations data represented the full 2017-2018 

cohort and the team plans to continue to leverage this data for ongoing monitoring and evaluation

activities. 

MEMBER AND SUPERVISOR INTERVIEWS 

Member Interviews 

AmeriCorps staff used the revised interview protocols to document structured notes during mid-point 

and/or exit interviews with 10 of 24 AmeriCorps members. Seven members participated in mid-point 

interviews and seven participated in exit interviews. Five mid-point interviews were documented using 

the revised protocol; four of the five interviews were group interviews. In three of five mid-point 

interviews OCFS-funded members and members funded by other sources participated; responses could 

not be separated. Exit interviews were completed one-on-one between AmeriCorps members and the 

Sunset Park AmeriCorps director. Overall, across mid- and exit- interviews, members were satisfied with 

their tasks and logistics of their placements, and support from their site supervisors.

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

Goals

Supervision

Service Activities

Logistics

Exceptional Acceptable Needs Improvement

Unacceptable Unclear/ Multiple Responses Missing

Preliminary member mid-point interview data suggests members had high-quality 

logistics, service activities, supervision and goals.
| 10

The AmeriCorps staff’s Likert-scale interview notes suggest that members were serving in meaningful 

and appropriate roles and tasks at their sites. The data also suggests that the members interviewed 

were receiving adequate support and training from their supervisors. Member goals-related data is 

limited due to missing or unclear data. In several of the interviews, AmeriCorps staff circled more than 

one response to document variation in member responses. These responses were excluded from the 

analysis (as indicated in unclear/multiple responses).

The seven member exit interviews contributed useful insights into host sites, Sunset park AmeriCorps 

staff, and growth opportunities. All members reported receiving adequate training, support and 

feedback from their supervisor and colleagues at their host sites. Required program documentation and 

travelling between sites required some acclimation. Similar themes emerged in Team Day survey data, 

but it is unclear whether they are isolated to a few members or broader-reaching. Other potentially 

emerging themes regarding opportunities to improve or continue successful practices include: regular 

site supervision; continued/more opportunities for skill building (such as communicating with frustrated 

participants, office etiquette, and technology skills); and continued/ more opportunities to learn from 

and share skills with other members. 

Supervisor interviews 

AmeriCorps staff conducted interviews with four of 13 supervisors. These supervisors support seven

OCFS-funded members and two other AmeriCorps members.

1

1

2

1

3

2

1

1

Member Data and Outcomes Tracking

AmeriCorps Staff and Program

Supervision and Training

AmeriCorps Member

Exceptional Acceptable Needs Improvement

Unacceptable Unclear/ Multiple Responses Missing

It is premature to draw themes from the supervisor interviews based on the very limited amount of data 

collected using the interview tools in 2017-2018. The information – once documented in a consistent 

format for the full supervisor group – will be useful for program planning and evaluation. 

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

The mid-point member and supervisor interview protocol development and pilot were impacted by the 

staffing transition. The analyses and results do not include all members or supervisors; results are

suggestive, rather than representative of all OCFS-funded Sunset Park AmeriCorps members. Switching 

to group interviews and aggregate notetaking on the template also further reduced the availability of 

some interview data due to inconclusive or missing notes. Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff, including the 

new director, and Family Health Centers discussed the strengths and challenges highlighted during these

pilots. Process and content amendments will be made prior to use in the 2018-2019 cycle to ensure 

improved ability to document and analyze the data. For example, following the interviews, AmeriCorps 

staff reported confusion about the Likert-scale definitions. Staff plan to use the protocol during 

individual interviews with each member. Staff will consider opportunities for more robust analyses, such 

Preliminary mid-point supervisor interview data suggests high-quality member

contributions and supervisor support. 
| 11

as comparing member and supervisor responses per member-supervisor pair, and aggregating member 

responses across supervisors and program type. The team will also assess the feasibility of additional 

means to collect member feedback about support from Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff, such as an end-ofterm member survey; having Sunset Park AmeriCorps staff ask these questions may impact members’ 

candor. 

MEMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS 

Nineteen of 24 members had performance evaluations available for analysis at the time of this report

due to staggered start dates and varied service terms. The most recent version of each member’s 

evaluation was included in the analysis. Seven mid-term and 12 end-of-term performance evaluations 

were included in the individual-level and aggregate analyses. Two different versions of the tools were 

used. Sixteen AmeriCorps members were rated using form version A (vA), and three were rated using 

form version B (vB). 

Performance reviews were overwhelmingly positive. Fifteen of 19 members assessed (79%) met or 

exceeded requirements or were rated as good or excellent on all questions assessed (the two forms 

used different four-point scales). Twelve of 16 members assessed with version A met or exceeded 

requirements for all questions; all three members assessed with version B were rated as good or 

excellent for all questions assessed.

Performance Domain Rating Summary

Overall Contribution to 

Program

 All members (19 of 19) met or exceeded requirements (vA) or were good or 

excellent (tool vB)

Customer Service and 

Community 

Participation

3 areas assessed in vA; no questions direct match in vB

 All 16 members assessed met or exceeded requirements in all 3 areas

Productivity and 

Quality of Work

3 areas assessed in vA; no questions direct match in vB

 14 of 16 members or met or exceeded requirements in all 3 areas

 2 of 16 members received at least 1 rating of <=2

Leadership, 

judgement, and 

problem solving

9 areas assessed in vA, 3 areas assessed in vB

 14 of 16 members met or exceeded requirements in all 9 areas (vA)

 All members rated using tool vB were rated as good or excellent in all areas

 2 of 16 members received at least 1 rating of <=2

Dependability and 

Initiative

6 areas assessed in vA, 3 areas assessed in vB

 13 of 16 members met or exceeded requirements in all 6 areas (vA)

 All members rated using tool vB were rated as good or excellent in all areas

 3 of 16 members each had 2 areas in need of improvement

Cooperation 5 areas assessed in vA, 3 areas assessed in vB

 15 of 16 members met or exceeded requirements in all 5 areas (vA)

 All members rated using tool vB were rated as good or excellent in all areas

 1 of 16 members had 1 area in need of improvement

Position Knowledge 

and Skill Development

7 areas assessed in v1, 3 areas assessed in v2

 14 of 16 members met or exceeded requirements in all 7 areas (v1)

 All members rated using tool v2 were rated as good or excellent in all areas

 2 of 16 members received at least 1 rating of <=2 in this domain (v1)
| 12

Four members were rated as needing improvement in at least one assessment question. The total 

number of “improvement needed” ratings varied by member (typically only a few questions, with one 

member needing improvement in almost half of the questions) ranging from a few 1, 2, 5, and 13 of 34 

questions) and spanned all topic areas except Customer Service and Community Participation. There 

was little overlap between specific behaviors or skills they needed to improve, and all four members 

received an overall contribution to the program rating as meeting requirements or higher. The results, 

therefore, suggest overall successful accomplishment of projects, and opportunities for individualized 

support, rather than frequent or common barriers to success.

MemberCustomer 

Service +

Community

count

Productivity

+ Quality

count

Leadership+ 

Judgement+ 

Problem

Solving 

count

Dependability

+ Initiative

count

Cooperation 

count

Position 

Knowledge+

Skill 

Development

count

Total

count 

(excluding

overall 

contribution)

A 0 0 2 2 0 1 5

B 0 2 5 2 1 3 13

C 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

D 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

Member performance evaluations have been a long-standing element of the Sunset Park AmeriCorps 

program. AmeriCorps staff informally reviewed results and analyzed them at the member-level prior to 

2017-2018. Staff plan to continue formal data analysis and will review the process with supervisors to 

encourage consistent, quality documentation. Ideally, future analyses will include end-of-term 

performance evaluations for all members (using the same form). AmeriCorps staff will continue to 

examine recruitment processes for opportunities to streamline member start dates. 

MEMBER TRAINING SURVEYS 

This evaluation report includes data from seven Team Days offered between 2/23/2018 and 7/20/2018. 

AmeriCorps staff, members, Family Health Centers staff, and staff from external organizations designed 

and facilitated the sessions. Total responses per workshop ranged from eight to 21, and typically all or 

most training participants completed a survey. Results include all members (OCFS-funded and other 

members).

Members rated the Team Day sessions very positively. The majority of sessions (23 of 28) received 85% 

positive ratings or higher (as indicated by a 4 or 5 out of 5 , or 3 or 4 out of 4 on survey Likert-scale 

ratings). Five of 28 sessions received below 85% positive ratings; these sessions spanned different topics 

and facilitators. The facilitator’s organization, interactivity, and applicability of the topic to the member’s 

service, life, and/or career or education goals made the difference between more and less successful 

sessions based on open-ended responses. 

Team Day 

Date

Activity Type/ Goal 4 out of 5 (or 

3 out of 4)

5 out of 5 (or 

4 out of 4)

Positive 

Rating %

Total 

Respondents

4/27/2018 Life/ Personal Development 33% 48% 81% 21

5/18/2018 Service 28% 50% 78% 18

6/29/2018 Unknown 17% 58% 75% 12

2/23/2018 Service 26% 32% 58% 19

7/20/2018 Ice breaker 25% 25% 50% 8
| 13

The training surveys included open-ended feedback organized into “Roses” (successes) and “Thorns” 

(challenges). “Rose” responses covered a range of areas, such as impact on community, role-specific 

tasks, skill building, and opportunities for relationship building and networking. For example:

[I] got a student an internship and was able to get two students to 

understand long division

A child I recently started visiting again is now becoming more comfortable 

and greets me with a hug versus hiding behind mom.

[The] program year ended for PCHP so we have been hearing how all the 

families are grateful for their times with me and really saw a big change in 

their parenting. Makes me feel like I have been doing well.

Meet new people/ connections. Learning to navigate social media.

I continue to build strong relationships with network professionals

“Thorns” responses often focused on role-specific tasks (such as balancing documentation and direct 

work with community members), keeping up with AmeriCorps hours, and participant outcomes that 

were less than desired. For example:

I feel a little stressed and overwhelmed with work

Not sure if I’m doing enough hours

A student constantly gets to school three hours late and doesn’t see a 

problem, no matter what anyone says

Both the “Roses” and “Thorns” highlight members’ commitment to high-quality work and 

service, and impacting financial literacy and school readiness for Sunset Park community 

members. 

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

The analysis does not represent all Team Days offered in 2017-2018 (earlier surveys were not available 

for formal analysis due to the staffing transition). The previous AmeriCorps director informally reviewed 

earlier surveys, and staff assume that the sessions received similar response distributions to the 

February – July 2018 sessions. The surveys were anonymous, to encourage candor, which made it 

impossible to distinguish OCFS-funded members from other members results. In addition, the lack of

text quantifiers in the response scales could contribute to inconsistency across survey participants. The 

survey tool is being revised for the 2018-2019 program year and will include the following modifications: 

member funding source; better-defined (and consistent) text based three- and four-point Likert scales, 

such as Very Satisfied – Very Dissatisfied; question(s) assessing members’ intended use of the 

information; and participant coding of “Roses” and “Thorns” responses for more efficient and accurate 

analysis. 
| 14

FINANCIAL LITERACY PARTICIPANT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS GAIN ASSESSMENTS 

During this time, 408 economically disadvantaged individuals received financial literacy services. The 

programs use different assessment tools with different administration schedules (such as baseline and 

post, baseline and re-assessments based on number of instructional hours, and so forth). The average 

rate of skill gain was 69%, with a program-specific rates ranging from 65%-75%. This was close to the 

anticipated 70% improved financial literacy knowledge target, and exceeded the anticipated total 

number of participants reached (260 anticipated and 408 actual).

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

The Best Plus 2.0 and Tests for Adult Basic Education are widely used tools and central components to 

adult education programming. Leveraging these tools for the AmeriCorps evaluation plan helped reduce 

participant and staff assessment burden. The Financial Literacy Workshop survey is a retrospective 

pre/post and relies on participant self-reported gains. This design provides more opportunity for 

participant bias (such as reporting more positive gains than actually achieved) than direct knowledge 

and skills tests. Staff chose the design to best align with the workshop context and length. Program staff 

advised that a conventional pre/post survey design could be an undue burden to participants (English 

language learners of varying levels). AmeriCorps staff will continue to assess the potential to include 

more rigorous tools and designs. 

SCHOOL READINESS PARTICIPANT KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS GAIN ASSESSMENT 

All 52 children participating in the Parent-Child Home Program received pre- and post- assessments in 

2017-2018. All 52 families completed the 2017-2018 program. Ninety-four percent of children 

demonstrated social emotional and literacy gains (assessed using the Child’s Behavior Traits 

assessment). 

CBT Score Pre Post Change

Average 2.4 3.1 .7

Range 1.4 - 3.4 2.2 - 3.9

Pre/Post Change # %

Decrease 2 4%

No change 1 2%

.1 to > 1 38 73%

1 to > 2 11 21%

2 to > 3 0 0%

3 to > 4 0 0%

Strengths, Limitations, and Opportunities 

The Child’s Behavior Traits is a funder-mandated assessment tool to measure child gains in the ParentChild Home Program. As with the Best Plus 2.0 and TABE, using assessment tools already embedded in 

program operations reduces staff and participant assessment burden. 
| 15

CONCLUSIONS 

Conclusions drawn from the 2017-2018 results are organized by the guiding evaluation questions:

 Were member support and preparation activities designed and implemented to achieve successful 

outcomes? 

 Did members’ tasks, activities, and projects meet expectations?

 What impact did members’ contributions have on program participants?

 What were the barriers and enablers that made the difference between successful and 

disappointing implementation and outcomes?

 What else was learned? 

MEMBER SUPPORT AND PREPARATION 

Overall, the support provided by AmeriCorps staff, site supervisors, and Team Day was well designed.

It provided members with the needed support to develop and practice the skills to successfully impact 

the community. 

ENROLLMENT AND RETENTION. The program had a high percentage of returning members (42% in 

2017-2018), which we attribute to the member preparation and support structure. The program was

fully enrolled and retained 84.6% of members. While this retention is lower than 2016-2017, two 

members left for cause in the final month of their service.

PREPARATION AND SUPPORT FROM AMERICORPS STAFF. There were staffing transitions on the 

AmeriCorps staff team during 2017-2018, but overall, members reported receiving the support they 

needed. Members at the same site as AmeriCorps staff saw it as an advantage to getting informal 

support. 

PREPARATION AND SUPPORT FROM SITE SUPERVISOR. Members were satisfied with their tasks and 

logistics of their placements, and support from their site supervisors. The following components 

contributed to members’ sense of preparation and support: alignment between their daily tasks and 

Member Position Description; having a clear sense of supervisor’s expectations; receiving direct 

feedback and having opportunities to ask questions during scheduled and unscheduled 

supervision/support. There were three seemingly isolated challenges reported by members: irregular or 

inconsistent supervision meetings, balancing paperwork and service to families, and having slow times 

at their site and not having a sense of what to work on next.

TEAM DAY TRAININGS: (GROUP SUPPORT FROM AMERICORPS STAFF AND MEMBERS). Members rated 

the Team Day sessions very positively. The majority of sessions received 85% positive ratings or higher. 

The facilitator’s organization, interactivity, and applicability of the topic to the member’s service, life, 

and/or career or education goals made the difference between more and less successful sessions.

MEMBER EFFECTIVENESS

2017-2018 members’ contributions were highly rated by supervisors. All members who were assessed 

were rated as meeting or exceeding requirements on their overall contribution to the program.

Most members met or exceeded requirements in all behaviors and skills assessed under the following 

topic areas: 
| 16

 Customer service and community 

participation

 Productivity and quality

 Leadership, judgment, and problem solving

 Dependability and initiative

 Cooperation

 Position knowledge and skill development

Members also expressed pride in and satisfaction with task-specific accomplishments and collaborating 

with colleagues through various means, including as “Roses” in Team Day surveys.

MEMBER IMPACT 

All members who were assessed were rated as meeting or exceeding requirements on their overall 

contribution to their programs. AmeriCorps members played a critical role in reaching and impacting 

at-risk, economically disadvantaged community members. 

AmeriCorps members played a critical role in reaching at-risk children and families, and increasing 

children’s social emotional development and literacy. In 2017-2018, all 52 children completed the 

Parent-Child Home Program and 94% showed social emotional and literacy gains. Ultimately, each 

family involved gained the support and skills to improve school-readiness. The program did not meet its 

anticipated target enrollment (62 families) due to a reduction in program-specific funding for the PCHP 

program. However, we had a higher-than-anticipated retention of families, and therefore were just two 

children below our anticipated program completion target (52 actual versus 54 anticipated). The 

program exceeded anticipated social and/or emotional and literacy gains (49 actual versus 40 

anticipated for both).

AmeriCorps members played a critical role in reaching economically disadvantaged community 

residents and improving their financial knowledge. In 2017-2018, 408 economically disadvantaged 

individuals received financial literacy services, and an average of 69% demonstrated improved financial 

knowledge. This was close to the anticipated 70% improved financial literacy knowledge target, and 

exceeded the anticipated total number of participants reached (260 anticipated and 408 actual).

Members often cited impacting individuals and the community as high points during their service. For 

example, the following quote was a “Rose” a member listed in a Team Day survey: 

[The] program year ended for PCHP so we have been hearing how all the families 

are grateful for their times with me and really saw a big change in their 

parenting. Makes me feel like I have been doing well.

Strategic (and vigilant) member recruitment and intentional pairing of AmeriCorps members with 

program and program participants’ needs contributed to success. Parent-Child Home Program’s 

structured program and assessment implementation training and supports contributed to high-fidelity 

implementation (which contributed to participant outcomes). School-readiness participants showed 

remarkable gains, exceeding program targets with 49 out of 52 (94%) children showing gain compared 

to the target of 75%. 

OTHER LESSONS LEARNED 

The evaluation questions covered many aspects of the member and participant activities and yielded 

useful actionable next steps, including new strategies to explore and insights into the alignment of our 

programs and outcomes and the Corporation for National Community Service priority areas.
| 17

RECOMMENDATIONS 

The team identified the following action items to leverage strengths and promote high quality, 

consistent programs and impacts through this evaluation:

 Adjust the alignment of Sunset Park AmeriCorps service programs and the Corporation for 

National Community Service priority areas in the 2019-2022 application. While we met most 

of the output and outcome targets in each priority area (school readiness and economic 

security), evaluation activities yielded insights into modifications. Parent-Child Home Program 

will continue to be aligned with school readiness, and an additional validated tool already 

being used by the program will be added to the measurement suite to demonstrate program 

impact on parenting skills. Aligning the adult education and workforce programs with job 

readiness and employability (instead of financial literacy) and academic enrichment and 

support services for at-risk high school students with the education priority area will result in 

better alignment between service program and participant need.

 Continue to strengthen the evaluation and data-informed design of member and participant 

programming. The program will more formally assess the impact service experiences have on 

members’ sense of community, self-efficacy, and career or education skills or plans in 2018-

2019. The program will revise evaluative tools to continue to improve our ability to consistently 

use data to monitor quality, yield actionable answers, and support continuous improvements. 

AmeriCorps staff piloted three member and supervisor interview tools in 2017-2018. Final 

revisions, based on the pilots, will be made and the tools will be used in 2018-2019. The Team 

Day survey was revised to better align with goals and to more efficiently yield usable results. It 

was launched in fall 2018 and data management plans were streamlined for quicker analysis. 

The results will be shared with session facilitators (staff, external, and members) after each 

Team Day to highlight strengths and areas in need of improvement, and inform future 

offerings. A Department of Community Based Programs Orientation post-training survey and 

site supervisor training survey will be included in the 2018-2019 evaluation plan. The team is 

assessing the feasibility and utility of implementing an end of term survey.

 Hold “Office Hours” after Team Days and remind members and supervisors of opportunities 

for as-needed support from AmeriCorps staff. AmeriCorps staff will remind supervisors and 

Members about opportunities for unscheduled/ informal check-ins during orientations, 

trainings, Team Days, and through email. “Office hours” immediately following Team Day will 

be held, which may be particularly useful for Members who are placed at different sites from 

AmeriCorps staff.

 Revise the process for and documentation tools used during scheduled check-ins with 

members and supervisors. Members and supervisors will have three formal check-ins starting 

in 2018-2019. The first will be used to establish relationships and check-in on how the member 

is doing – all members at a site will meet together, meeting with supervisors will be one-onone. The second check-in will be more structured, one-on-one interviews using revised 

interview tools. The third and final formal check-in will be one-on-one exit/service close-out

interview using an interview view guide. 

 Incorporate member and supervisor questions and input into the annual Supervisor 

Handbook revisions and refresher training. Taking these steps will ensure that supervisors 

continue to: understand the alignment between AmeriCorps goals and member roles at their 

sites; are aware of expectations, such as having regularly scheduled, in-person supervision 

meetings with members; are using the correct forms and data collection tools; and have 
| 18

opportunities to collaboratively brainstorm solutions to any common questions or challenges, 

such as balancing paperwork and participant interactions, ensuring steady flow of tasks that 

members can navigate on their own, and preparing members for new tasks and projects. 

 Continue to include members in Team Day topic selection, design, and facilitation, and share 

survey results with them and other session facilitators. These strategies will help ensure the 

relevance of topics and quality of sessions, and will help members practice career skills. Build in 

refreshers on AmeriCorps related tasks and goals, such as using the education award and 

OnCorps system. 

 Explore more opportunities for members to support each other. Many of our placements 

require bilingual speakers, which are in high demand. Because of this, member start dates have 

varied, making it more challenging to create cohorts. Members value opportunities to interact 

and collaborate with other members, and these opportunities provide a meaningful support 

mechanism. Staff will continue to adapt recruitment strategies to help ensure alignment of 

member start times, as well as strategies to best support members with misaligned start times.
REFERENCES

| 19

American Community Survey 2012-2016, Sunset Park East and Sunset Park West Neighborhood 

Tabulation Areas, retrieved 2018/8 from NYC Department of City Planning Population FactFinder 

https://popfactfinder.planning.nyc.gov/

JFF. (2016). Two Generations Approaches [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://jfforg-prodprime.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/Two_Generation_Approaches_Paper_052716.pdf

Shields, M., & Behrman, R. (2004). Children of Immigrant Families: Analysis and Recommendations. The 

Future of Children, 14(2), 4-15. doi:10.2307/1602791
APPENDICES

Appendices | 20

Appendix A Member Mid-Point Interview Guide

Appendix B Member Exit Interview Guide

Appendix C Supervisor Interview Guide

Appendix D Member Performance Evaluation Version A

Appendix E Member Performance Evaluation Version B

Appendix F Member Training Survey Sample A

Appendix G Member Training Survey Sample B

Appendix H Financial Literacy Workshop Survey A

Appendix I Financial Literacy Workshop Survey B

Appendix J Best Plus 2.0 Test Sample

Appendix K Tests for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Reading Sample

Appendix L Tests for Adult Basic Education (TABE) – Math Sample

Appendix M Child’s Behavior Traits (CBT) Assessment

Appendix N Sunset Park AmeriCorps Logic Model

Appendix O Evaluation Methodology Additional Details
APPENDIX A: MEMBER MID-POINT INTERVIEW GUIDE 

Appendix A | 21
Appendix A | 22
Appendix A | 23
APPENDIX B: MEMBER EXIT INTERVIEW GUIDE 

Appendix B | 24
APPENDIX C: SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW GUIDE 

Appendix C | 25
Appendix C | 26
Appendix C | 27
APPENDIX D: MEMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VERSION A 

Appendix D | 28
Appendix D | 29
Appendix D | 30
Appendix D | 31
Appendix D | 32
Appendix D | 33
APPENDIX E: MEMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VERSION B 

Appendix E | 34
Appendix E | 35
Appendix E | 36
Appendix E | 37
APPENDIX F: MEMBER TRAINING SURVEY SAMPLE A 

Appendix F | 38
Appendix F | 39
APPENDIX G: MEMBER TRAINING SURVEY SAMPLE B 

Appendix G | 40
Appendix G | 41
APPENDIX H: FINANCIAL LITERACY WORKSHOP SURVEY A 

Appendix H | 42
APPENDIX I: FINANCIAL LITERACY WORKSHOP SURVEY B 

Appendix I | 43
Appendix I | 44
APPENDIX J: BEST PLUS 2.0 TEST SAMPLE 

Appendix J | 45
Appendix J | 46
Appendix J | 47
Appendix J | 48
Appendix J | 49
Appendix J | 50
Appendix J | 51
Appendix J | 52
Appendix J | 53
Appendix J | 54
APPENDIX K: TESTS FOR ADULT BASIC EDUCATION (TABE) – READING SAMPLE 

Appendix K | 55
Appendix K | 56
Appendix K | 57
Appendix K | 58
Appendix K | 59
Appendix K | 60
Appendix K | 61
Appendix K | 62
Appendix K | 63
Appendix K | 64
Appendix K | 65
Appendix K | 66
Appendix K | 67
Appendix K | 68
Appendix K | 69
Appendix K | 70
Appendix K | 71
Appendix K | 72
Appendix K | 73
Appendix K | 74
Appendix K | 75
Appendix K | 76
Appendix K | 77
APPENDIX L: TESTS FOR ADULT BASIC EDUCATION (TABE) – MATH SAMPLE 

Appendix L | 78
Appendix L | 79
Appendix L | 80
Appendix L | 81
Appendix L | 82
Appendix L | 83
Appendix L | 84
Appendix L | 85
Appendix L | 86
Appendix L | 87
Appendix L | 88
Appendix L | 89
Appendix L | 90
Appendix L | 91
Appendix L | 92
Appendix L | 93
Appendix L | 94
Appendix L | 95
Appendix L | 96
Appendix L | 97
Appendix L | 98
Appendix L | 99
Appendix L | 100
Appendix L | 101
Appendix L | 102
Appendix L | 103
Appendix L | 104
Appendix L | 105
APPENDIX M: CHILD’S BEHAVIOR TRAITS (CBT) ASSESSMENT 

Appendix M | 106
Appendix M| 107
APPENDIX N: SUNSET PARK AMERICORPS LOGIC MODEL 

Appendix N | 108
Appendix N| 109
Appendix N| 110
Appendix N| 111
APPENDIX O: EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ADDITIONAL DETAILS

Appendix O | 112

MEMBER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION VERSION CROSSWALK

Version B questions were organized under Version A categories for analysis. Highlighted questions 

indicate compatible questions across versions. 

Version A 

Categories

Version A Questions Version B Questions

Position 

Knowledge 

and Skill 

Development

1. Position Knowledge

2. Willingness to take on New 

Projects

3. Written and verbal 

communication skills

4. Ability to work with 

clients/patients

9. Ability to work with 

clients/patients

5. Ability to work with supervisor 6. Ability to work with 

supervisor

6. Ability to effectively 

communicate with co-workers 

and staff

7. Ability to make appropriate 

referrals

12. Ability to make 

appropriate referrals

Cooperation 8. Flexibility / Ability to adapt to 

change

1. Flexibility / Ability to adapt 

to change

9. Ability to respond to 

constructive criticism

10. Ability to cooperate

11. Reliability 2. Reliability

12. Ability to respond to 

constructive criticism

5. Ability to respond to 

constructive criticism

Dependability 

and Initiative

13. Punctuality

14. Attendance

15. Follows instructions

16. Ability to work 

independently

10. Ability to work 

independently

17. Ability to take initiative 3. Ability to take initiative

18 Commitment to increasing 

own knowledge and expertise

14. Commitment to 

increasing own knowledge 

and expertise

Leadership, 

Judgement 

and Problem 

Solving

19. Ability to solve problems 4. Ability to solve problems

20. Ability to Follow Up and 

Complete Tasks and Position 

Assignments

21. Ability to Make Appropriate 

Decisions

22. Ability to Recognize 

Limitations and/or Skills

23. Willingness to Serve and 

Assist Customers, Clients, Public, 

and Staff 

24. Influences Positive Behavior 

in Others
Appendix O| 113

Version A 

Categories

Version A Questions Version B Questions

25. Consistently Adheres to 

Policies and Procedures

26. Ability to maintain written 

records

13. Ability to maintain written 

records

27. Demonstration of leadership 15. Demonstration of 

leadership

Productivity 

and Quality of 

Work

28. Ability to Effectively 

Prioritize Tasks

29. Efficiently Completes Job 

Responsibilities

30. Maintenance of Work Area

Customer 

Service and 

Community 

Participation

31. Knowledge of Community

Resources and Disseminates 

Information to Customers, 

Clients, Public and Staff 

32. Networks with other 

Community Organizations or 

Service Providers 

33. Promotes Agency Services 

and its Mission 

34. Overall contribution to 

program 

16. Overall contribution to 

program

In my opinion, this member's 

greatest strengths have been:

21. In my opinion, this 

member's greatest strengths 

have been:

In my opinion, the member 

needs to improve in the following 

areas:

22. In my opinion, the 

member needs to improve in 

the following areas:

Other Comments for Mid-Term 23. Other comments for MidTerm

7. Ability to work with the 

other site staff

8. Ability to work with other 

members

11. Ability to convey 

appropriate information

17. Ability to provide 

academic support to students 

in a classroom

18. Ability to recruit and 

screen candidates for the WPP 

program

19. Ability to assist teacher in 

preparing materials for 

instruction

20. Ability to develop 

community internships