The Guidance Center’s

Social Innovation Fund 

Evaluation Report: 2014-15

Submitted to

The Guidance Center

by 

Meg V. Blinkiewicz, Ph.D.

Innovatus Consulting, LLC

August 19, 2015
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction 

The purpose of The Guidance Center’s (TGC) Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is to increase 

Kindergarten readiness in children who live in River Rouge, Michigan and attend River Rouge 

Schools. The theory behind this initiative is that if parental knowledge about how to create an 

enriched environment for their child increases and parents with the greatest need are able to 

improve their ability to support their child’s education, Kindergarten readiness rates will improve. 

The specific goals of the River Rouge Social Innovation Fund are to:

•

•

•

Engage parents in Families and Schools Together (FAST) learning and support groups 

to enhance family functioning and reduce parenting stresses by building a successful 

parenting community that allows parents to support their child’s education successfully; 

Implement the Community Organizing Around Family Issues (COFI) model to recruit 

families for FAST; and

Involve River Rouge leadership in data-driven decision making so that early childhood 

programs reach their capacity, continually improve, and are sustained over time.

Evaluation Design 

The evaluation was guided by a series of questions that sought to collect data to describe and 

explain the context in which the initiative was implemented, implementation of COFI and FAST, 

and outcomes achieved by the intervention. Data were collected through:

1. Secondary data related to the educational outcomes of River Rouge students;

2. Interviews with staff;

3. Focus groups with staff, COFI, and FAST participants;

4. Observations of COFI and FAST programming;

5. Parent surveys (see page xx of the report for a full description of each instrument);

6. Classroom Observation Record (COR) of Head Start students, collected three times during 

the past four school years; and

7. Ages and Stages Questionnaire for 2014-15 Head Start students at the end of the school 

year.

Description of Programming 

The Guidance Center offered two programs through its SIF initiative: (1) Community Organizing 

around Family Issues; and (2) Families and Schools Together. A description of each program 

and related evaluation findings are presented in this section of the Executive Summary.

COFI uses parents’ strengths and commitment to their children and neighborhood to help make 

positive change in their own lives, their families, and their communities. It emphasizes 

commonalities, rather than differences, between family and community leadership and between 

private and public issues.
iii

Twenty-three (23) River Rouge residents graduated from COFI over the life of the SIF initiative. 

COFI was staffed by a Coordinator who recruited residents, facilitated training sessions during 

the ten week cohorts, and guided graduates through implementing their work in the following 

areas:

•

•

•

•

Early childhood education;

Quality of life;

Housing; and

Safety.

These campaigns were identified by COFI participants and have resulted in the removal of two 

blighted homes in River Rouge, meetings with the Mayor of River Rouge, park clean-ups, the 

creation of business coalition, and the development of an improvement plan for River Rouge.

COFI graduates who participated in focus groups discussed the sense of unity the cohorts have 

along with an enhanced sense of confidence in themselves as individuals and as a collective. 

Participants stated,

•

•

“It opened my eyes to using these skills in my everyday life.”

“COFI was a wake-up call for me. I found goals I didn’t know I had. I’m getting my GED 

now.”

With respect to the results of the parent surveys related to general self efficacy, parental 

efficacy for helping their children in school, parent’s perception of their personal knowledge and 

skills, parent’s report of home-based involvement, and parent’s report of encouragement, no 

significant improvements were found. Given that that 18 parents completed both the pre- and 

post-tests, the small sample size can make detecting changes difficult. 

Families and School Together, or FAST, is a prevention and parent involvement program 

designed to prevent school failure by strengthening families’ protective factors and reducing risk 

factors. Kids FAST, for preschool-age children, is an eight week program that offers a structured 

set of activities including meal, scribbles, feeling charades, special play, lottery, parent group, 

and table-based coaching. The River Rouge FAST team earned its “Exemplary 

Implementation” certification, by receiving ten out of ten points for implementation fidelity. 

Twenty-one (21) parents graduated from FAST over the course of three cohorts offered during 

the last three years. During this time, 108 parents were recruited, 53 agreed to attend, and 46 

attended at least one FAST session. FAST parents who participated in focus groups indicated 

a high level of satisfaction with the program and indicated that they did not want it to end. They 

cited specific examples of how the program helped them be better parents and specific 

examples of their child’s improved behavior.

Specific findings from the pre- and post-assessments found statistical significant improvements 

in:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Parent’s relationship with the FAST child;

Reduction in conduct problems for the FAST child as reported by parents;

Reduction in peer problems for the FAST child as reported by teachers;

Improved community-social relationships for parents;

Total social relationships for parents;

Tangible support for parents (help with cooking, chores, child time)
iv

•

•

Emotional support (listening, getting together, getting advice); and

Total support for parents. 

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire was used to measure kindergarten readiness at the 

conclusion of the 2014-15 pre-school year. The ASQ provides feedback to children’s stage with 

respect to five scales: (1) communication; (2) gross motor skills; (3) fine motor skills; (4) problem 

solving; and (5) personal-social skills. Children are rated “above cut-off,” “at cut-off,” or “below 

cut-off.” 

With regard to Kindergarten Readiness as measured by the ASQ, 

•

•

•

FAST children from cohort two scored significantly lower than other FAST children and 

non-FAST children;

Children in cohorts one and three scored above non-FAST children in Fine Motor Skills, 

Problem Solving, and Personal-Social Skills; and

Children in all FAST cohorts scored below non-FAST children with respect to 

Communication and Gross Motor Skills.

Conclusions 

The River Rouge community, led by The Guidance Center and its Walter White Community 

Resource Center, designed and implemented a comprehensive community-driven, sociallyinnovative approach to kindergarten readiness. As with any change effort, lessons were 

learned along the way.

One of the lessons learned relates to designing and implementing a locally-driven initiative 

within the context of sometimes rigid federal guidelines. Two guidelines influenced the design 

of the River Rouge project in a less than desired way: (1) the requirement that families be River 

Rouge residents and reside in a specific zip code; and (2) the moderate level of evidence 

needed to be achieved through the evaluation of each SIF program.

The SIF requirement that participants live within a certain zip code reduced the number of 

potential participants significantly given the fluid boundaries that exist across River Rouge and 

its neighboring communities. A family’s move across the street and can transition them to 

another city and zip code. The high mobility rates in the “downriver” area, of which River Rouge 

is a part, make the SIF requirements problematic for consistent recruitment and retention of 

families. In addition, downriver residents define “community” differently than a zip code. For 

instance, individuals who participate in a community garden activity may not live in River Rouge 

but they identify with it as their “community” and are engaged with the Walter White Community 

Resource Center’s programming. This may an issue that future federally funded, communitybased work may want to take into account. 

Second, roughly a year and a half ago, the Guidance Center’s original design was modified to 

meet SIF guidelines. Specifically, the original design included a family literacy component that 

had to be eliminated because its level of evidence would not reach the moderate level by the 

conclusion of this SIF initiative. All SIF projects are required to reach the moderate level of 

evidence by the conclusion of their work. This program helped parents understand the 

importance of literacy and provided them with tangible strategies to make their home literacy 

rich. 
v

This mid-course change, which occurred during year two, caused a shift in the theory of change 

as well as shift in staffing and approach to the work. Originally, parents were going to be 

recruited for a literacy program and then made aware of, and recruited for, the COFI and FAST 

programs. 

As a result of the decision to eliminate the adult literacy program, the focus of FAST recruitment 

changed and turned to Head Start teachers, which proved to be an effective strategy. In 

addition, COFI was used a recruitment strategy for FAST. This intentional partnership between 

COFI and FAST seems to have been effective as well as may explain the positive outcomes in 

the area of parent social relationship improvements. 

Once these SIF guidelines were addressed, the River Rouge Kindergarten readiness project 

was implemented with full fidelity and was well received by families and community partners. In 

fact, COFI and FAST focus group participants repeatedly stated that they wanted both programs 

to continue for many years to come.

With regard to COFI, residents came together to improve the physical nature of their 

community, thereby making it more attractive and possibly increasing the number of families 

who attend River Rouge schools. In addition, an early childhood education campaign is being 

planned to kick-off for the 2015-16 school year.

The FAST program also was implemented with high fidelity over the past eighteen months. 

Participants rated the program highly and according to pre/post survey assessments, parents 

reported improvements in their social relationships and the behaviors of their FAST child.

Finally, given the relatively short period of full implementation and the small numbers of FAST 

children, influence on kindergarten readiness may be premature to fully assess. However, given 

that COFI participants have picked up the mantle of quality early childhood education in River 

Rouge, kindergarten readiness should continue to be monitored. 
6

INTRODUCTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INTERVENTION ________________________ 

The purpose of The Guidance Center’s (TGC) Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is to increase 

Kindergarten readiness in children who live in River Rouge and attend River Rouge Schools. 

The theory behind this initiative is that if parental knowledge about how to create an enriched 

environment for their child increases and parents with the greatest need are able to improve 

their ability to support their child’s education, Kindergarten readiness rates will improve. 

The sp

•

•

•

ecific goals of the River Rouge Social Innovation Fund are to:

Engage parents in Families and Schools Together (FAST) learning and support groups 

to enhance family functioning and reduce parenting stresses by building a successful 

parenting community that allows parents to support their child’s education successfully; 

Implement the Community Organizing Around Family Issues (COFI) model to recruit 

families for FAST; and

Involve River Rouge leadership in data-driven decision making so that early childhood 

programs reach their capacity, continually improve, and are sustained over time.

The SIF programs help parents and families reduce stress and give them the ability to be 

involved productively and actively in their child’s education by offering Families and Students 

Together or FAST. Families will be recruited for FAST through Community Organizing and 

Family Issues or COFI. The target population of the intervention is children age 0 to 8 and their 

parents and caregivers. The outcome of the intervention is to impact the level of kindergarten 

readiness among River Rouge children, beginning the process of school readiness before age 

three when it is most effective. 

The following objectives were projected for the entire life of the grant:

•

•

•

•

•

•

Head Start children will begin their preschool experience better able to take advantage 

of the opportunity this high quality experience provides them; 

Parents will be more actively and productively involved in their child’s education 

beginning in Head Start and continuing in Kindergarten;

There will be an increase in enrollment of children, parents and caregivers in early 

childhood programs (0 – 3 programming prior to Head Start enrollment) that help 

children get ready for school;

There will be an increase in overall Kindergarten readiness among River Rouge children 

whose parents took part in FAST, enrolled in non-Head Start early childhood programs, 

and developed the skills needed to achieve family stability and functioning;

Programming aimed at increasing school readiness will be developed using information 

and input from community stakeholders; and

Community members will play an increasingly visible role in community decision-making.

The level of Kindergarten readiness was measured using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire –

a recognized measure of collective Kindergarten readiness. Individual growth in parents 

knowledge about child development and early learning support and self-reports about how they 

use the knowledge; increases in enrollment in existing programming for children and decreases 

in the number of children being identified with social-emotional, developmental, or physical 

problems upon entry into Head Start and/or Kindergarten and increased abilities to support their 

child’s education among families who are enrolled in FAST programs, should all be tied to an 

increase in the ASQ scores of children enrolled in the River Rouge Schools. Parental 
7

engagement will also be measured at the time of Kindergarten enrollment. It is expected that 

children whose parents participate in FAST and children who received early interventions will 

have higher Kindergarten readiness and parental involvement in education than parents and 

children who were not involved in programming. 

The 2014-15 program year marked the second full year of implementation for both FAST and 

COFI. Multiple cycles of each intervention were conducted during the 2014-15 program year, 

thus providing a higher degree of evidence for the collective impact of the project – increasing 

Kindergarten readiness for children living in River Rouge who attend the River Rouge Schools.
8

EVALUATION DESIGN_________________________________________________________

The evaluation is framed by 12 questions categorized as context, implementation, or outcomes 

questions. Data collection and analysis methods are described following the list of questions. 

Context Questions 

1. In what context was each program implemented (COFI, FAST)?

2. What environmental factors influenced the implementation of each program?

Implementation Questions 

3. To what extent was COFI implemented with fidelity to the model? What variations 

occurred? Why?

4. What helps and what hinders the implementation of the COFI model within the River 

Rouge community? 

5. Was the COFI model successful in achieving its expected targets in terms of the number 

of:

a. adults trained as trainers? 

b. family members who become community organizers?

c. parents recruited into FAST and early childhood support services?

6. How many and what types of families enroll and how many completed FAST? 

7. Was FAST implemented with fidelity to the national model?

8. What helps and what hinders the ability of FAST to be implemented with fidelity to the 

model?

9. What helps and what hinders parents’ ability to use what they learn in FAST back at 

home? 

Outcome/Impact Questions 

10. Do parents whose family participated in FAST report significantly better family 

functioning and less parenting stress than the national average for parents who did not 

participate in FAST? 

11. Do Head Start children whose parents participated in FAST show significantly greater 

improvement in social competence and emotional maturity compared with Head Start 

children whose parents did not participate in the workshops?

12. Are children whose parents participate in FAST significantly more ready for Kindergarten 

than Head Start children whose parents did not have the opportunity to participate?
9

The implementation evaluation will focus on three aspects of program implementation:

1. Fidelity: FAST programming has developed program implementation measures 

designed to be administered by program personnel. This model of measuring fidelity to 

the model will be used in this evaluation as well. COFI training has been manualized 

and fidelity to the model can be measured based on completion of individual training 

modules and the extent to which the content of the training modules was inclusive. In 

order to ascertain whether or not fidelity has been achieved, the external evaluator will 

conduct periodic observations of program operations. Staff supervisory meetings will be 

used to give feedback about any fidelity problems that are identified.

2. Utilization: The Guidance Center’s program participant database will be used to collect 

data on parents who participate in COFI and FAST. Analysis of this database will 

provide information about who participates in these programs, average session 

attendance, and completion rates. The database will also be used to provide key 

demographic information about participants and non-participants. Information about 

program involvement in other Guidance Center programming will also be contained in 

the program participant database allowing information on program enrollment among 

non-participants to be controlled for as well. In addition, self-report information about 

program involvement prior to head Start enrollment that did not involve Guidance Center 

programming can also be collected from non-participants and participants at the time of 

COR assessments. It is possible that Head Start parents received early childhood 

programming from other agencies or in other communities including parenting classes, 

center-based childcare, parent-infant attachment support, etc.

3. Quality: With the aim of continuous quality improvement, periodic assessments will be 

gathered from COFI and FAST participants and staff regarding what is helping and what 

is hindering participation and outcome achievement. Data for these assessments will 

come from three sources:

a. Focus Group Interviews with Program Participants: Innovatus Consulting will 

facilitate focus group interviews with all FAST and COFI participants at the 

conclusion of each cycle. Participants will be asked about why they think parents 

participate or do not participate in the program, what aspects of the program 

seem to help them achieve the expected outcomes, and what aspects of the 

program need improvement. 

b. Focus Group Interviews with Program Staff: Innovatus Consulting will facilitate 

focus group interviews with COFI and FAST team members at the conclusion of 

each cycle. Staff will also be asked about why they think parents participate or do 

not participate in the program, what aspects of the program seem to help them 

achieve the expected outcomes, and what aspects of the program need 

improvement.

c. Open-Ended Questions on Participant Surveys: Open-ended questions will be 

included on the COFI participant surveys. The questions will inquire about how 

the program can be improved in terms of what and why participants feel aspects 

of the program are important to keep, could be eliminated, need to be changed, 

and/or are missing and need to be created. 
10

Sampling Plan 

The entire population of COFI and FAST participants was included in the implementation 

evaluation. Recruitment of program participants will begin on the first day of each COFI and 

FAST program session. The program facilitators read a script that explains the evaluation and 

its benefits, describes what evaluation data will be used and how it will be kept confidential, and 

invites participants to enroll. Consent forms were distributed at that time and participants had

the opportunity to either sign an agreement for themselves and their children to be part of the 

evaluation, or sign that they refuse participation for themselves and/or for their children. 

Measures 

Tables 1 and 2 describe the various data collection instruments used to evaluate COFI and 

FAST over the past three years. 

Table 1 

Data Collection Instruments and Administration

Program Assessments Given By Whom, 

When

FAST FAST Parent and Teacher Pre/Post Survey

New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al, 2001).

The Parental Role Construction for Involvement in the 

Child’s Education Scales (Walker, Dallaire, Sandler, 

Hoover-Dempsey, 2005):

Parental Self-Efficacy for Helping Child Succeed in School 

Scale.

Parents’ Perceptions of Personal Knowledge and Skills 

Scale.

Parent Report of Home-based Involvement Activities Scale.

Parent Report of School-based Involvement Activities 

Scale. 

Parent Report of Encouragement Scale.

Family Environment Scale (FES), Form R.

Program staff, pre at 

beginning end of 

program and post at 

end of program.

COFI New General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen et al, 2001).

The Parental Role Construction for Involvement in the 

Child’s Education Scales (Walker, Dallaire, Sandler, 

Hoover-Dempsey, 2005):

Program staff, pre at 

beginning end of 

program and post at 

end of program.

Data Collection Activities 

Data collected through focus group interviews, observations by the evaluator, and individual 

interviews with staff and other stakeholders were collected, analyzed, and managed by the 

external evaluator. All other evaluation data will be collected and entered into existing 

databases by Center for Excellence staff as part of standard program enrollment. 
11

The FAST pre-post parent survey was administered by program staff at the beginning and last 

session of the program per the program design. Pre and post-tests in each of the program areas 

will be administered by program staff and submitted to The Center for Excellence for entry into 

the appropriate database. Program staff will be trained in the administration of the standardized 

instruments and will administer them as part of intake to the program. Center for Excellence 

staff will monitor data collection at the beginning of the evaluation to make sure that protocols 

are being followed and will spot check adherence to protocols over the course of the evaluation. 

Staff were given a script to read that provides instructions for completing the parent surveys. 

The instructions will tell parents that the survey is confidential and to place the completed 

survey into the blank envelope and seal the envelope before giving it to the staff. The staff

placed all small envelopes into a large envelope and seal the large envelope in front of the 

participants to demonstrate that confidentiality of their responses were maintained. The 

envelopes will be given to The Guidance Center, Center for Excellence for data entry.

A parallel script was prepared for Head Start staff to administer to willing comparison group 

parents. The same data collection procedures were used for the comparison group parents as 

are described above for program participants. As noted above, FAST does not require the use 

of a comparison group.

COR data were collected as a normal course of business at Head Start in January and again in 

the Spring. Data are entered into The Guidance Center’s program participant database by data 

entry staff. Comparisons of COR scores will be made across participant groups including the 

number and level (dosage) of programming received. The Guidance Center has the ability to 

link records across programming to look longitudinally at what programming children and 

families have experienced.

ASQ data were collected by the Guidance Center as children left Head Start. ASQ results are 

used in the aggregate to individuate general kindergarten readiness of students. 

Data Analysis 

The Guidance Center de-identified all evaluation data and provide individual-level data and the 

data dictionary to Innovatus Consulting for quantitative analyses. The data were analyzed as

follows:

Implementation Evaluation

Frequency tables were computed from The Guidance Center’s program participant database to 

calculate how many and what types of parents participate in the two programs. Descriptive 

statistics were used to calculate attendance and completion rates. 

A simple thematic analysis was used to categorize responses to the open-ended questions on 

surveys and responses to focus group questions. The analyses focused on identifying what 

participants and staff say is helping and hindering program implementation and outcome 

achievement in order to identify specific aspects of COFI and FAST that need to be maintained, 

eliminated, changed and added. However, these themes are no longer available due to the 

early termination of the program from the portfolio.
12

For the program participant focus groups, Innovatus Consulting identified like concepts in the 

data. Grouped concepts were then examined to identify the underlying themes. Themes were 

presented to SIF team members for their assessment of the resulting themes seem to be 

reasonable interpretations of the data. 

Impact Evaluation 

Study design: This evaluation utilized a quasi-experimental design with a pre-post test and a 

non-random control group. The control group in this case is a pseudo-control comprised of the 

national FAST evaluation sample. Baseline equivalence was assessed using an independent 

sample t-test between the two groups. The logic of the design is that the baseline scores 

should be equivalent between the two groups and because they both received the intervention 

the post-intervention scores should also be equivalent or the local sample should be 

significantly higher than the national evaluation sample.

This design controls for multiple threats to internal validity:

History Because the national evaluation sample was collected substantially earlier than the local 

evaluation sample, there is no direct way to control for historical impacts, however, there are not 

any substantial changes in policy, funding, or social service environment that should reasonably 

be expected to favor the local evaluation sample

Maturation Because the intervention and comparison group both used pre-post test designs with 

similar intervals of assessment any differences due to maturation should be equivalent.

Testing and Instrumentation The national and evaluation groups were tested using the same 

assessment tools and as such any testing / instrumentation influence should be consistent 

across the two groups.

Selection There is a risk of selection bias as participants are recruited into the FAST evaluation 

on a voluntary, non-random basis and more motivated, higher functioning parents may be more 

likely to participate. However, assuming that the local evaluation sample scores from pre-test to 

post-test are statistically equivalent to the national evaluation sample, then the improvement 

from pre- to post-intervention scores for the local sample are at least independent of the 

outcome assessment It does not preclude the effects being associated with more motivated 

parents or some other attribute of the parent that is correlated with the decision to participate, 

however, this is more generalizable to the typical service population. 

Directionality of causal influence The direction of causal influence is addressed via the use of a 

pre- post-test design.

The biggest limitation to the current design is the limited sample size which reduces power and 

the stability of parameter estimates used for comparison with the national evaluation sample. 

However, this limitation is a function of the early exit of the program from the SIF portfolio rather 

than factors directly related to the design of the evaluation or the sampling/recruiting 

procedures. 

Originally we had proposed the use of a propensity score matched design and the use of the 

national evaluation sample findings were intended as a secondary validity check. However, due 

to limited ability to recruit control families and the shortened time-frame of the project this aspect

of the design was not able to be implemented and the national evaluation sample was the only 

comparison group utilized. Unfortunately, sample demographics at the non-aggregated level 
13

were not available so sample matching with the national evaluation participants was not 

possible.

For the FAST survey items, first paired t-tests was computed to test the statistical significance of 

the pre-post differences in scale scores between participants’ self assessments at the beginning 

and end of each FAST cycle. While families may have more than one child in their family, each 

parent/caregiver must identify a “FAST child.” Thus, only one child in the family will be studied. 

For the COR, repeated measures ANOVA was used, with the statistical test of interest being the 

group [program/comparison] * time [pre/post change] interaction. For ASQ scores, independent 

group t-test was used to compare the scores of Kindergartners whose parents participated in 

FAST with scores of Kindergartners whose parents did not participate in FAST. 

On any given comparable measure, the FAST program calculates statistical significance using 

paired t-test for the pre-post differences and independent groups t-test for the comparison of 

mean scores between Guidance Center FAST participants and the national average. 

Missing data was assumed to be Missing at Random and a non-significant Little MCAR test (χ2 

(45) = 48.15, p=.346) confirmed this assumption. Therefore missing data was handled with 

pairwise deletion. Given the small absolute amount of missing data in the sample the impact on 

analyses should be minimal.
14

FINDINGS___________________________________________________________________ 

This section of the report presents a discussion of the context in which this SIF project was 

implemented, the results of the implementation study as well as the outcomes achieved by the 

COFI and FAST programs. COFI is discussed first, followed by FAST.

Context of the River Rouge SIF Project 

River Rouge Michigan is a community of 7,903 (2010 U.S. Census) occupying 3.3 square miles 

in Wayne County, Michigan. The city is 39% White and 50% African America, and 11% 

Hispanic/Latino. There are 3,640 households, 36% of which have children under the age of 18 

living in them. About a quarter of families live below the poverty line, including 31% of those 

under the age of 18. 

Over the past five years, the River Rouge community has begun to examine kindergarten 

readiness as a major factor to address. One way to move children toward Kindergarten 

readiness is enrollment in high-quality pre-school programs like Head Start or GSRP (The Great 

Start Readiness Program - high quality preschool for low-income four year olds), programs that 

have been shown effective in terms of increased COR scores (Head Start 2011; U.S. Census 

2010; Head Start 2010 COR). In River Rouge, most children who are eligible for Head Start or 

GSRP are enrolled and most children (%) who enter Kindergarten have completed Head Start 

or GSRP. And yet, very few children enter kindergarten in the River Rouge School District 

(RRSD) ready to learn. Over 21% of kindergartners who entered RRSD in the fall of 2010 were 

judged to be very vulnerable in two or more domains of kindergarten readiness (UMSEM, 2010), 

and about half of the children were judged to be either ready or vulnerable in areas other than 

communication. 

Table 2 

RRSD Kindergarten Kids Not Ready (% completed Head Start or GSRP) 

Domain

VULNERABLE

(Below the 10th

percentile on the EDI)

VERY READY

(Above the 75th

percentile on the EDI)

Physical Health and Well-Being 30% (17) 11% (6)

Emotional Maturity 14% (8) 9% (5)

Social Competence 27% (15) 14% (8)

Language and Cognitive Development 13% (7) 14% (8)

Communication Skills and General 

Knowledge

0% (0) 16% (9)

Vulnerable on 2 or More Domains 21% (12)

Very Ready on 4 or More Domains 4% (2)

N=56 kindergarteners at Ann Visger Elementary School

Children from low-income families, most of the children who attend the RRSD, are 

disadvantaged from birth in terms of school readiness (Hart, 1995). The adult population of 

uninsured in River Rouge is 38 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. High poverty 

combined with the lack of public transportation and shortage of nearby health care facilities 
15

presents the potential for problems in pregnancy and delivery, low-birth weight babies, and 

undiagnosed in-vitro problems associated with developmental delays. 

Socio-economic status of children can negatively impact kindergarten readiness among 

children. For children in this population who may have developmental delays, early assessment 

and intervention is crucial to prevent developmental delays from exacerbating problems in 

school readiness and making remediation even more difficult. Lack of a consistent medical 

provider who is able to follow a child over time, lack of parent knowledge of normal 

developmental stages, and un-licensed, informal child care options all lead to a lack of early 

identification of developmental barriers to school readiness. In fact, a significant number of 

three year olds entering Head Start in the RRSD are developmentally unprepared to learn: 

twenty-six percent of 3-year-olds given screenings by River Rouge Head Start were identified as 

developmentally delayed during 2011 compared to 20 percent nationwide (Meisels, 2008). It is 

troubling to note that school readiness interventions may have limited effectiveness if they start 

after children are three years old (Lally, 2010). 

The problem in River Rouge is that children do not get the early learning experiences they need 

before they enroll in high quality preschool programs, and high quality preschool can only do so 

much to mitigate these early experiences. Parents and caregivers of children younger than 

three years of age do not have the skills needed to provide the early foundations for the children 

in their care. In addition, because children do not attend licensed and center-based childcare, 

or have medical homes (providing continuity of care for babies and toddlers), children are not 

screened effectively for developmental delays or medical and emotional conditions that could be 

mitigated prior to preschool enrollment – becoming barriers to full utilization of the preschool 

experience in getting children ready for kindergarten. 

Students who enter school not ready to learn do not catch up, reflected in standardized tests 

scores used throughout Michigan to measure competency at specific grade levels. Children in 

the third grade in River Rouge score in the bottom 1st percentile compared to the rest of 

Michigan students in third grade. Standardized test scores do not get much better over time, 

and there is a surge of students who leave RRSD in middle school for enrollment elsewhere and 

a final surge of students who leave school all together after ninth grade. Graduation rates 

(measured as the proportion of all students who enter the ninth grade who graduate) are below 

state averages and are even worse than rates in Detroit. Students start out not ready to learn 

and never catch up.
16

Table 3

Percent of Students Proficient: MEAP Test 2011

Subject Age River Rouge School 

District

Detroit Public 

School 

District

Michigan – All 

Public School 

Districts

# %

Math 3rd 

Graders

4% 10% 36%

6th 

Graders

6% 13% 37%

Reading 3rd 

Graders

16% 33% 62%

7th 

Graders

17% 30% 60%

Science 8th 

Graders

4% 2% 17%

Michigan Merit Exam High School Proficiency Scores 2011

11th Grade

Subject Test

River Rouge High 

School

Detroit – All 

High Schools

Michigan – All 

High Schools

Math 1% 17% 24%

Reading 9% 33% 53%

Science 0% 21% 26%

Social Studies 2% 46% 47%

Writing 33% 17% 41%

Table 4

RRSD Graduation Rates

Graduation 

Rate 2010

Graduation 

Rate 2011

Change from 

2010 to 2011

River Rouge School District 61.11% 38.78% -22.33%

Detroit School District 62.27% 59.74% -2.53%

Michigan - All School Districts 75.95% 74.33% -1.62%

 Source: The State of Michigan Center for Educational Performance and Information. 

It is in this context that The Guidance Center and its Walter White Community Resource Center 

partnered with residents and other community organizations to design and implement its SIF 

project. The next section of this report describes the implementation and outcomes associated 

with the COFI and FAST programs offered through the SIF initiative in River Rouge. 
17

Community Organizing for Family Issues Evaluation Findings

Community Organizing for Family Issues uses parents' strengths and commitment to their 

children and to their neighborhoods to help make positive change in their own lives, their 

families and their communities. It emphasizes the commonalities (rather than the differences) 

between family and community leadership, and between private and public issues.

Figure A 

COFI Model 

Family-focused organizing consists of four elements:

1. SELF: Leadership begins from within. Parents individually assess their needs, wants and 

values. They create supportive teams with one another, set goals, and establish plans for 

achieving those goals.

2. FAMILY: Parents become stronger leaders in their families. Parents support one another in 

gaining skills and confidence as family leaders, and also learn to set goals with their family 

members.

3. COMMUNITY: Parents work together to create change in community institutions such as 

schools, day care centers and social service agencies. To make their community more familyfriendly, parent leaders meet with neighbors, find common ground, develop new programs, 

organize community-wide campaigns, and realize the power of a collective voice.  
18

4. POLICY AND SYSTEMS: Parent leaders create a community-based policy agenda that 

starts with common concerns raised by parents, such as childcare, safety and school quality. 

Together, parent leaders organize to communicate their ideas and concerns to community 

decision makers. They may change programs and challenge policies that aren't meeting the 

needs of families, and they build partnerships with professionals to develop programs and 

policies that work.

Family Focused Organizing is distinct from, but also can be complementary to, more 

"traditional" community organizing models. COFI targets its organizing work toward a population 

that is often not involved in traditional organizing or the public sphere — very low income 

families including welfare recipients, recent immigrants (primarily mothers), and grandmothers 

raising grandchildren.

In River Rouge, the COFI program served a growing number of River Rouge families over the 

past two years. This increase is due, primarily, to a change in staffing and efforts to implement 

the COFI model with complete fidelity. COFI is a program designed to train community 

members to become active in the support of a community goal they believe is important. In this 

case, COFI trained community members interested in promoting school readiness in River 

Rouge. Participants are trained in individual and collective leadership skills and in the basic 

premise behind the need for enrollment in early childhood programming. 

COFI training takes place over a 10-week period and is broken down into three distinct pieces. 

First, COFI trainees learn about leadership by examining their own style, develop teams and 

decide on the target of their involvement. Second, trainees are organized into teams and 

supported in reaching out to parents, community members, leaders, businesses, human service 

organizations, and government to build partnerships around accomplishing their objectives. 

Third, trainees come back together to plan for sustainability. 

Working with the early childhood Systems Coordinator, COFI-trained community leaders helped 

develop and implement a campaign to increase knowledge of existing programs that help 

children and families get ready for school, work to get the community involved in supporting 

programming that supports early childhood development, and advocate for new programming 

as the need is recognized. Some of the community members interested in continuing to engage 

in community activism were trained as trainers in the COFI model and will use their training to 

draw in other community residents for other issues they identify as important. 

The COFI model begins its training in helping the individuals being trained to look at their own 

personal leadership traits and the role leadership plays in their personal lives and environments. 

Trainees move on to learn techniques for recruiting others, public speaking, how to conduct 

door-to-door surveys, canvassing and information sharing. Trainees also learn how to actively 

take part in public meetings and to organize information into sharable bytes. COFI-trained 

individuals develop socially based cohort support groups made up of others they trained and/or 

worked with. In other settings tracked by the originators of the program, these cohorts have 

gone on to change communities through policy changes and the individuals themselves have 

moved from an activist to a community leader. 

The fall COFI session ran from October to December 2014, the winter session operated from 

January to February 2015. The 2014 fall cohort yielded 13 graduates, which is the goal for each 

cohort, and 11 graduates for the winter 2015 cohort. COFI staff have also held six workshops 

for residents and have attended 30 community meetings, hosted by other organizations. 
19

As a result of the community organizing efforts, several “campaigns” are forming:

•

•

•

•

Early childhood education;

Quality of life;

Housing; and

Safety. 

These campaigns were responsible for establishing and sustaining quarterly meetings with the 

Chief of Police, parents, and the Mayor of River Rouge. In addition, COFI participants helped 

to successfully demolish one blighted home across from the building which houses the River 

Rouge Head Start and Community Resource Center and successfully seal four vacant homes 

in River Rouge, one block from the building. Finally, a “celebration of community” was held on 

MLK day in January 2015 with the intent of announcing the goals of working to address 

education, blight, violence, and opportunities for families. 

In addition to campaigns, COFI staff supported the creation and sustaining of several block 

clubs in River Rouge. One block in particular, had little to no “sense of community,” according 

to a focus group participant who stated that if COFI got a Block Club going on that block, it 

really did something.”

Finally, through COFI, several community partnerships have been created, including:

•

•

Two meetings with River Rouge/Downriver Ministerial Alliance; and

Four River Rouge Block-by-Block meetings to discuss education, blight, and 

opportunities for River Rouge families.

Table 5 summarizes the activities that occurred during the past year of COFI.

Table 5 

COFI Summary of Activities 

Activity Purpose

272 one-on-one meetings

Cohort 1:

23 recruited

15 participated

13 graduated

Cohort 2:

27 recruited

18 participated

11 graduated 

Recruitment for COFI

Training workshops (6) Train River Rouge residents in COFI method

Meetings with local partner organizations:

Block by Block (4)

River Rouge Ministerial Alliance (2)

Ann Visger Kindergarten Roundup (2)

Ann Visger PTA (1)

The COFI Coordinator and River Rouge 

residents partnered with local organizations to 

leverage local resources to address education, 

blight, violence, and other resident-driven 

interests. 
20

Rouge Tenant Council (3)

River Rouge School Board meetings (2)

River Rouge Economic Development 

Corp meetings (2)

River Rouge city council meetings (7)

Organized MLK day celebration of 

community in January 2015

This event addressed education, blight, 

violence, and opportunities for families

Block Club organizing:

Met with DPW director to discuss vacant 

lot maintenance and block clean-up

Summer clean-up projects on two streets

Meetings with individual block clubs

Created Holford families to create Block 

Club

To reinvigorate existing and start new Block 

Clubs as a way of engaging River Rouge 

residents in community improvement 

The community organizing techniques used for recruitment of the fall 2014 COFI session 

helped to make the session a success. One of the first techniques used is the one-on-one 

which consists of meeting with parents in Head Start and the community at large to hear their 

hopes and concerns for the community as it relates to their children and families. The one-onone is extremely helpful because it builds relationships among the organizer and the person. 

The one-on-one is a one sided conversation; it is meant to let the organizer hear uninterrupted 

about the things the person likes and does not like about the community and what they would 

like to see changed in the community. The relationship is continued as people are invited to 

join the first COFI session and the larger River Rouge Block by Block initiative. All members 

interviewed who expressed interest in working on initiatives to improve the community are 

invited to participate in COFI. 

•

The other important aspect of building connections and relationships is meeting people in 

various locations in the community. The organizer has met with members of the community at 

churches, civic organizations, public housing, senior center, businesses, city hall, and schools. 

The location is important because the organizer gets an understanding of the community and 

what is important to people. The goal of the organizer is to see the River Rouge community 

through the interviewee’s eyes. To this point, TGC has been successful in this effort and 

gained a level of respect in the community. 

On October 2nd 2014, the orientation of COFI took place and nearly 20 people participated. In 

the orientation they discussed the aspects of the community they liked and did not like and 

asked to describe a vision for the community. Over the following weeks participation remained 

high between 10 to 15 people. One of the reasons for the high participation is built from the 

relationships developed. Many of the older participants started to guide and mentor the 

younger participants. These relationships were built from the task to establish goals for 

themselves and their family. This task can be difficult for people when they are in high stress 

situations such as heading single family households, living in public housing, and being 

chronically underemployed or unemployed.

During two focus groups with nine and seven COFI participants, they explained each cohort of 

COFI was very effective and that each component (individual plan development, family 

planning, web of support, asking for help) was very helpful. As participants stated,

“It opened my eyes to using these skills in my everyday life.” 
21

•

•

“COFI was a wake up call for me. I found goals I didn’t know I had. I’m getting my GED 

now.”

“We had unity in our group. No one was working against us. No feuding. We built our 

foundation and made a lot of progress.”

Others talked about how quickly COFI was able to “get to results” as illustrated by the home that 

was demolished and the other house that was boarded up. One resident talked about the youth 

who used to walk across her yard and litter and now, by using the skills she learned in COFI, 

she was able to talk to them and now they help her maintain her yard.

Members of the second focus group and the second COFI cohort talked about the “movement 

to make River Rouge better for kids.” They stated, 

•

•

“Things happened, it wasn’t just talk and broken promises. We tore down a home, we 

boarded up another. The Mayor acted. He delivered paint to our block club.

“We don’t have any parks, we want to stop the violence, and we want to make sure our 

neighborhoods don’t have drugs. We are gaining insight into how River Rouge works so 

that we can make our neighborhoods a better place to live. We have a sense of 

determination and a sense of togetherness.”

Finally, focus group members talked about improvements in River Rouge including:

•

•

•

•

Removal of blighted homes and properties;

Clean-up of parks;

Creation of a business on Visger; and

Improvement plan for River Rouge.

COFI participants were asked to complete the Family Environment Scale (FES), the results of 

which are presented in Table 6. The FES consists of ten subscales that are rated on a zero to 

nine scale. As the data indicate, a statistically significant decline occurred in the independence 

domain while a statistically significant improvement occurred in the moral-religious orientation 

domain.

Table 6 

COFI: Family Environment Scale Results 

Subscale Pre-test

n=11

Post-test

n=11 Change

Cohesion 7.36 7.64 0.27

Expressiveness 5.45 6.27 0.82

Conflict 1.91 2.00 0.09

Independence 7.64 6.55 -1.09

Achievement orientation 6.09 6.45 0.36

Intellectual-cultural 

orientation 6.82 6.73 -0.09

Active-recreational 

orientation 5.91 5.27 -0.64
22

Subscale Pre-test

n=11

Post-test

n=11 Change

Moral-religious orientation 6.64 7.82 1.18

Organization 6.18 6.09 -0.09

Control 5.82 6.27 0.45

Table 7 presents the General Self Efficacy Scale results for COFI participants. No significant 

differences were detected between the pre- and post-test results. Scores increased for three 

items, remained the same for four items, and declined for one item. 

Table 7 

COFI: General Self-Efficacy Scale 

Item Mean

(n=11

Mean

(n=11) Difference p-value

I will be able to achieve 

most of the goals that I 

have set for myself

4.3 4 -0.3 0.635

When facing difficult tasks, 

I am certain that I will 

accomplish them

4.1 4.1 0 1

In general, I think that I can 

obtain outcomes that are 

important to me

4.3 4.4 0.1 0.871

I believe that I can 

succeed at most any 

endeavor to which I set my 

mind

4.2 4.3 0.1 0.882

I will be able to 

successfully overcome 

many challenges

4.1 4.3 0.2 0.871

I am confident that I can 

perform effectively on 

many different tasks

4.2 4.2 0 1

Compared to other people, 

I can do most tasks very 

well

4 4 0 1

Even when things are 

tough, I can perform quite 

well

4 4 0 1

As the data in Table 8 illustrate, COFI participants’ scores related to parent self efficacy for 

helping their child succeed in school did not significantly change over the course of the program. 

Improvements were detected for four items, scores did not change for one item, and scores 

declined for one item. 
23

Table 8 

COFI: Parent Self-Efficacy for Helping the Child Succeed in School Scale 

Item

Pretest

Mean

(n=10)

Posttest 

Mean

(n=10)

Difference p-value

I know how to help my 

child do well in 

preschool/school

5.4 5.7 0.3 0.279

I don’t know if I’m getting 

through to my child 2 3.2 3.2 0.177

I don’t know how to help 

my child make good 

grades in school

1.3 1.6 0.3 0.572

I feel successful about my 

efforts to help my child 

learn

5.6 5.2 -0.4 0.341

Other children have more 

influence on my child’s 

grades than I do (reverse)

1 1.3 0.3 0.133

I

don’t know how to help my 

child learn (reversed) 1.1 1.0 -0.1 0.332

I make a significant 

difference in my child’s 

school performance

5.3 5.3 0 0.957

Parent’s perception of their personal knowledge and skills also were assessed. As Table 9 

shows, scores improved for three items, remained the same for four items, and declined for two 

items.

Table 9 

COFI: Parent’s Perception of Personal Knowledge and Skills Scale 

Item

Pretest

Mean

(n=10)

Post-test

Mean

(n=10)

Difference p-value

I know about volunteering 

opportunities at my 

child’s school

5.4 5.4 0

1

I know about special 

events at my child’s 

school

5.3 5.5 0.2 0.647

I know effective ways to 

contact my child’s 5.8 5.6 -0.2 0.449
24

Item

Pretest

Mean

(n=10)

Post-test

Mean

(n=10)

Difference p-value

teacher

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child about the 

school day

5.8 5.8 0 1

I know how to explain 

things to my child about 

his or her homework

5.5 5.6 0.1 0.754

I know enough about the 

subjects of my child’s 

homework to help him or 

her

5.5 5.7 0.2 0.600

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child’s teacher

5.8 5.8 0 1

I know how to supervise 

my child’s homework 5.8 5.8 0 1

I have the skills to help 

out at my child’s school 5.9 5.8 -0.1 0.620

With regard to parents’ self-report of home-based involvement activities, four of the five items 

experienced a decline from the pre- to the post-test (Table 10). The fifth item showed no 

change. 

Table 10 

COFI: Parent Report of Home-based Involvement Activities Scale 

Item Pre-test

Mean

(n=10)

Post-test 

Mean

(n=10)

Difference pvalue

Talks with this child 

about the school day 5.7 5.5 -0.2 0.600

Supervises this child’s 

homework 5.7 5.3 -0.4 0.450

Helps this child study 

for tests 5.3 5.1 -0.2 0.781

Practices spelling, 

math or other skills 

with this child

5.6 5.1 -0.5 0.376

Reads with this child 5.7 5.7 0 1

Table 11 presents the results of the parent encouragement scale for COFI participants. Thirteen 

items comprise the parent report of encouragement scale. Parents reported an improvement on 
25

two items, a decline on ten items, and one item’s score did not change between the pre- and 

post-test. 

Table 11 

COFI: Parent Report of Encouragement 

Item Pre-test

Mean

Post-test

Mean Difference p-value

When he or she doesn’t feel like doing school 

work 5.00 5.4 0.4 0.513

To look for more information about school 

Subjects 4.7 4.3 -0.4 0.636

To develop an interest in schoolwork 5.5 4.6 -0.9 0.142

To believe that he/she can do well in school 5.6 5.6 0 1

To stick with problems until he/she solves 

them 5.7 5.2 -0.5 0.247

To believe that he/she can learn new things 5.7 5.4 -0.3 0.431

When he or she has trouble doing schoolwork 5.7 5.4 -0.3 0.464

To ask other people for help when a problem 

is hard to solve 5 5.5 0.5 0.402

To explain what he/she thinks to the teacher 5 4.6 -0.4 0.592

To follow the teachers directions 5.5 5.3 -0.2 0.743

When he or she has trouble organizing 

schoolwork 5.5 4.8 -0.7 0.308

To try new ways to do school work when 

he/she is having a hard time 5.5 5 -0.5 0.454

To be aware of how he or she is doing with 

schoolwork 5.2 5.1 -0.1 0.880

Families and School Together Evaluation Findings 

Kids FAST is a prevention and parent involvement program designed to prevent substance 

abuse, juvenile delinquency, school failure, child abuse and neglect, mental health problems, 

and violence. The FAST approach is to help parents reduce risk factors and strengthen 

protective factors by using a family-based model for young children and their families. The 

theory is that building protective factors creates resilience to school failure and build a positive 

family culture. 

The FAST team in River Rouge consisted of the Director of Programming for the Walter White 

Community Resource Center, the FAST trainer, and four partners (parent, education, and 

community). The FAST trainer received her certification in Kids FAST and FAST Works early on 

in the SIF initiative and provided training to local FAST team members. The CRC Director 

served as the overall director of FAST and supervised the FAST team. 

Each FAST team receives a fidelity rating based on program standards. FAST, Inc. rates each 

team’s fidelity to the model for each cycle, based on the following criteria:
26

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

A complete, fully trained team;

Representation from two different community based organizations;

The Special Presentation is held during the 5th session;

Weekly inclusion of all core program components: (1) a meal shared as a family unit; 

(2) family communication games played at a family table; (3) time for couples or 

buddies; (4) a self-help parent group; (5) one-on-one parent-child time; and (6) a fixed 

lottery that lets every family win once followed by a closing ritual;

Communication and interactions according to FAST empowerment strategies

Successful resolution of team conflict, if any;

A minimum of five graduating families;

Complete data (pre- and post-tests) from at least five of the graduate families; and

Active and ongoing FASTWORKS program.

Teams are awarded one point for each met criteria and no partial points are awarded. The 

fidelity rating is based on total points, as follows:

 1-3 points = Promising 

4-5 points = Effective Implementation

6-8 points = Model Implementation

9-10 points = Exemplary Implementation

The Guidance Center’s FAST team achieved certification with an Exemplary Implementation 

rating for fidelity. The FAST implementation received a ten out of ten implementation points. 

Certification is awarded based on information provided on the Team Review and Terms and 

Conditions for Accreditation and Evaluation Services Form. 

Kids FAST is an eight-week program with families participating in a set schedule of structured 

activities including:

Meal

Activities, like the meal, in which a boundary is drawn around the family unit to the 

exclusion of non- family members and the inclusion of family members will strengthen the 

family unit. Eating together at a table is a positive activity that many families fail to 

organize on a regular basis. The meal gives parents an opportunity to be in charge of 

their family; parents use power and delegate power by requesting that a child serves 

them their meal, and this clarifies the hierarchy in the family. Parent empowerment works 

best when parents have opportunities for reciprocity. The meal is cooked by FAST staff

who then assist children as they serve their family. Each whole family wins the prize

once, and in exchange for being the winner one week, the family becomes the host for 

the next week.

Scribbles

Parents instruct family members to take turns asking questions of each other. Family members 

are encouraged to become more open and expressive with each other. In this family exercise, 

each person gets an opportunity to say “I think” and to have others in the family listen and learn

by asking more questions. Openness and turn-taking is helpful in conflict resolution. With 

support from the team, parents see their children repeatedly listening to them, which empowers 

the parent. Clear rules about communication within the family unit are set by the parents, which 

promotes the differentiation of self and sets a basis for conflict resolution.
27

Feeling Charades

Playing Feeling Charades lets family members practice recognizing each others’ feelings. 

When family members can accurately identify feelings, they can offer support to one another 

and resolve conflict, making misunderstandings less likely. The team helps ensure that the 

parent is in charge of turn-taking and talking about feelings.

Special Play

One-on-one bonding occurs in Special Play, 15 minutes of child-directed play. When the parent 

attentively follows the child’s lead, the relationship between parent and child becomes stronger. 

The emotional nurturing supports parents’ beliefs that they are emotionally available. Children 

are more likely to listen to their parent when they feel special in the eyes of their parent. 

Contrary to expectations, parents wind up gaining more control over their children when they 

briefly give up control. The team coaches parents to experience the benefits of this 

counterintuitive activity.

Lottery

Winning the lottery celebrates the importance of each family. Family cohesion or sense of 

togetherness is celebrated. The team generates enthusiasm and helps to make each family 

feel special.

Parent Group

A sense of personal effectives often grows through social supports. Strong social support 

means that parents have other adults they can call upon. The ability to make friends is vital in 

creating the protective factor of social capital.

Table-Based Coaching

Table-based coaching empowers parents. Team members communicate with parents who 

instruct their children.

FAST Participants

Three cycles of FAST were implemented over the course of the grant: (1) May 15, 2014 to June 

17, 2014; (2) October 1, 2014 to December 12, 2014; and (3) January 23, 2015 to March 27, 

2015. Table 12 presents a summary of recruitment and participation data for each of the three 

cohorts along with a total for the three. As the data illustrate, just over 100 families were 

recruited for FAST, 50% of those agreed to attend, 46% attended at least one session and 46% 

graduated (21 families in total).

According to feedback obtained through FAST team focus groups conducted at the conclusion 

of each session, the FAST team learned what recruitment strategies were most successful. 

These include:

•

•

•

Collaborating with Walter White Head Start teachers to recruit families; 

Coordinating with Communities and Family Involvement (COFI) program to recruit 

FAST participants from COFI cohorts; and

Collaborating with the Parents as Teachers (PAT) staff person to identify and recruit 

potential FAST participants. 
28

Table 12

Summary of FAST Recruitment and Participation: Three Cohorts 

Cohort Number 

Recruited

Number 

Agreed to 

Attend

Number 

Attended at 

least One 

Session

Graduation 

 # %

Percentage of 

Sessions 

Graduated 

Families 

Attended

1 30 25 24 10 42 83%

2 65 15 12 6 50 88

3 13 13 10 5 50 95%

TOTAL 108 53 46 21 46 n/a

With regard to the demographics of FAST participants, 36% of children were African American, 

24% were White, and 21% were Hispanic/Latino. Gender was split equally between boys and 

girls. About 40% of parents were under the age of 32 and one-third were over the age of 36. 

Approximately 35% of parents were African American, 26% White, and 21% Hispanic/Latino. 

One third of parents hold a high school diploma or GED and 18% completed some college. 

Almost 40% have a full-time job, 14% work part-time, and 25% were not currently working at the 

time of FAST. Forty (40%) of families were married while 24% have never been married. Onefifth reported household income of less than $10,000 and 30% reported income of between 

$10,000 and $24,999. (See the Appendix for a more detailed description of participant 

demographics). The FAST team in River Rouge consisted of the Director of Programming for 

the Walter White Community Resource Center, the FAST trainer, and four partners (parent, 

education, and community). The FAST trainer received her certification in Kids FAST and FAST 

Works early on in the SIF initiative and provided training to local FAST team members. The 

CRC Director served as the overall director of FAST and supervised the FAST team. 

A critical component of the FAST model relates to improving family functioning. The Family 

Environment Scale was administered before and after each FAST cycle to help the FAST team 

and stakeholders understand the impact of the program on families.

The Family Environment Scale’s subscale scores range from 0 to 9 and the mean scores are 

presented for all three FAST cohorts in Table 13. As the data illustrate, no significant 

improvements were demonstrated through the pre- and post-tests. Specifically, improvements 

were evidenced in four subscales (a decline in conflict is an improvement), no change in one 

subscale, and a decline was measured in three subscales. 
29

Table 13

Family Environment Subscales: All FAST Cohorts

Subscale

Pre-Test Post-Test Change

Raw 

Score 

Mean

(n=18)

Standard 

Score 

Mean

(n=18)

Raw 

Score 

Mean

(n=18)

Standard 

Score 

Mean

(n=18)

Raw 

Score

(n=18)

Standard 

Score

(n=18)

Cohesion 7.78 57 7.72 57 -0.06 0

Expressiveness 5.06 47 5.56 50 0.50 3

Conflict 2.78 48 2.22 45 -0.56 -3

Independence 6.61 51 6.06 45 -0.56 -6

Achievement 

orientation 6.28 54 6.22 54 -0.06 0

Intellectualcultural 

orientation

6.11 52 6.28 54 0.17 2

Activerecreational 

orientation

5.56 51 5.56 51 0.00 0

Moral-religious 

orientation 7.28 63 6.89 61 -0.39 -2

Organization 6.11 53 6.22 54 0.11 1

Control 6.00 59 5.33 56 -0.67 -3

Families’ self-efficacy also was studied as part of the evaluation through the pre- postadministration of the eight item General Self Efficacy instrument. As Table 14 shows, no

significant improvements were demonstrated by FAST participants during the three cohorts. 

However, slight gains were made in five items, no change in one, and declines in two.

Table 14 

General Self-Efficacy: All FAST Cohorts 

Item

Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

Mean

(n=18)

Mean

(n=18)

I will be able to achieve most of the 

goals that I have set for myself 4.39 4.5 0.11 0.65

When facing difficult tasks, I am 

certain that I will accomplish them 4.39 4.39 0 1

In general, I think that I can obtain 

outcomes that are important to me 4.61 4.72 0.11 0.54

I believe that I can succeed at most 

any endeavor to which I set my 

mind

4.77 4.71 0.06 0.72

I will be able to successfully 

overcome many challenges 4.56 4.61 0.05 0.75

I am confident that I can perform 

effectively on many different tasks 4.61 4.67 0.06 0.67

Compared to other people, I can do 

most tasks very well 4.67 4.39 -0.28 0.1

Even when things are tough, I can 

perform quite well 4.72 4.39 -0.33 0.08
30

The relationship with the FAST child is assessed by a subscale on the Social Relationship 

Scale; scores range from1 (poor) to 10 (excellent quality). Parents reported a statistically 

important improved in their relationship with their FAST child, as indicated by the results in Table 

15. 

Table 15 

Social Relationship with FAST Child

Reported by Parents 

•

•

•

Subscales Site Average 

(n = 17)

National Average

(n = 8527)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Relationship with FAST 

Child

8.90 9.22** 7.80 8.61****

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

Twenty-three items on the Self Efficacy Questionnaire assessed three dimensions of

personal efficacy, with lower responses indicating lower effectiveness and higher 

responses indicating higher effectiveness:

Nurturance efficacy (capacity to provide children with love and support)

General efficacy (mastery in daily tasks, setting goals, and completing projects)

Social self-efficacy (confidence to establish and maintain social relationships)

Parents reported no statistically significant improvement in self-efficacy scores 

(Table 16).

Table 16 

Self Efficacy Reported by Parents 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 15-16)

National Average

(n = 8278)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Nurturance Efficacy 4.40 4.40 3.79 3.87** **

General Efficacy 4.07 4.13 3.51 3.58 

Social Self-Efficacy 3.67 3.64 3.29 3.35** **

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

Eight items on the Parent Involvement in Education Questionnaire assessed three 

dimensions of parental involvement in education: (1) parent school involvement; (2) 

parent to school contact; and (3) school to parent contact. Parents and teachers 

reported on parents’ involvement in children’s education. A score for total parent 

involvement can be obtained by adding the scores of the subscales. Parent responses 

range from “never” (0) to “six or more times” (4).
31

Parents reported no statistically significant improvement in their involvement in 

schooling scores (Table 17). Specifically, one score (parent school involvement) declined 

between ratings while the other three scores improved slightly. 

Table 17 

 Parent Involvement in School 

Reported by Parents 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 13-15)

National Average

(n = 7705)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Parent School Involvement 2.56 2.33 2.12 2.38** **

Parent to School Contact 1.95 2.05 1.24 1.40 

School to Parent Contact 1.70 1.93 1.28 1.41** **

Total Parent Involvement 2.02 2.24 1.56 1.76****

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

Twenty-eight items on the Parent Involvement in Education Questionnaire assessed four 

dimensions of the parent-teacher relationship and their impression of the parents’ 

involvement. The scores range from 1 to 5, with higher numbers indicating better 

relationship with the child’s parent, more frequent contact with the parent, and a 

perception of greater parental involvement in school.

Teachers reported no statistically significant improvement in parent involvements in 

school scores (Table 18). In FAST, all three post-test averages declined from the pre-test 

average.

Table 18 

Parent Involvement in School Reported by Teachers 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 11-19)

National Average

(n = 7883)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Teacher Relationship with Parent 4.28 3.93 4.10 4.23** **

Teacher Involvement with Parent 3.34 3.32 2.63 2.68 

Parent Involvement in Schooling 3.96 3.75 3.80 3.92** **

Gave Negative Report to Parents 1.63 1.53 1.85 1.83**

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

Twenty-five items on the Children’s Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire assessed five 

dimensions of children’s behavior: prosocial behaviors, emotional symptoms, conduct 

problems, hyperactivity, and peer problems. Five additional questions addressed the 

impact that the FAST child’s difficulties have on his or her everyday life. Subscales, 

including prosocial behaviors, range from 0 to 10. Total difficulties (a composite of all 

difficulties scores) can range from 0 to 50 and the impact scores can range from 0 to 15.
32

Parents reported a statistically significant improvement in conduct problems (Table 19)

while the other subscales improved slightly (n=5) or decline (n=1). The national averages 

show that significant improvements were made by FAST children across the country. 

Table 19

Strengths and Difficulties of Children Reported by Parents 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 16)

National Average

(n = 7868)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Prosocial Behaviors 7.63 7.75 7.56 7.92** **

Difficulties

- Emotional Symptoms 1.81 1.75 2.46 2.01****

- Conduct Problems 1.50 1.13* 2.40 1.99****

- Hyperactivity 3.94 4.19 4.50 3.96 

- Peer Problems 1.25 1.50 2.34 2.12** **

Total Difficulties 8.50 8.56 11.70 10.07 

Impact of Total Difficulties 0.63 0.88 1.33 0.92** **

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

Teachers reported no statistically significant improvement on the Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire (Table 20). The teacher data are confirmatory of parent feedback in that both 

teachers and parents reported an improvement in peer problems among FAST children. 

Teacher ratings of FAST children’s prosocial behaviors was lower than parent’s rating of this 

skill. As was the case with parent ratings, the national data indicate FAST children improved in 

their strengths and difficulties in other communities.

Table 20 

Strengths and Difficulties of Children Reported by Teachers 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 18-19)

National Average

(n = 8596)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Prosocial Behaviors 6.32 5.95 6.59 6.96** **

Difficulties

- Emotional Symptoms 1.63 2.11 1.56 1.44 

- Conduct Problems 1.26 1.11 1.85 1.72** **

- Hyperactivity 3.47 3.53 4.23 3.92****

- Peer Problems 2.05 1.42* 2.00 1.87****

Total Difficulties 8.42 8.16 9.63 8.95 

Impact of Total Difficulties 0.72 0.78 1.20 1.15** **

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001

The parents’ social relationships were assessed by a subscale on the Social Relationship Scale; 

scores range from 1(poor) to 10 (excellent quality). Parents reported a statistically significant 

improvement in community social relationships (+7%) scores (Table 21). It should be noted that 
33

this was cited as a strength of both the FAST and COFI programs by parents who participated in 

focus groups. Parents discussed how they had developed strong relationships with other FAST 

and COFI families and that these families were neighbors so that their relationships extended 

beyond program time.

Table 21 

 Social Relationships with Community 

Reported by Parents 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 17)

National Average

(n = 8537)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Community Social 

Relationships

8.25 8.64**  7.51 8.09****

Total Social Relationships 8.52 8.88*** 7.64 8.31****

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01 ****<.001

Social support is assessed with two questionnaires: the Social Support Questionnaire and the 

Reciprocal Support Questionnaire. The Social Support Questionnaire assesses three 

dimensions of social support:

•

•

•

tangible support (for example, help with cooking, chores, and child care);

affectionate support (for example, showing love and affection and giving hugs); and

emotional support (for example, listening, getting together and getting advice).

A score for total social support can be obtained by adding the scores of the subscales. Parent 

responses range from “never have support” (0) to “always have support” (3). Parents reported 

statistically significant improvements in three social support scores (Table 22), including tangible 

support, emotional support, and total support. In addition, the River Rouge post-test scores 

were higher than the national average in “tangible support.” As was stated earlier, this was the 

strength of FAST... providing social support for participating parents.

Table 22 

Social Support Reported by Parents 

Subscales Site Average

(n = 17)

National Average

(n = 8521)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean 

Tangible Support 2.12 2.44* 1.91 2.07****

Affectionate Support 2.33 2.51 2.23 2.38 

Emotional Support 2.14 2.46**  2.06 2.23****

Total Support 2.16 2.44** 2.03 2.20****

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01  <.001
34

FAST provides opportunities for parents to support one another. Parents were asked

about the support they received from and provided to other parents. Scores could 

range from 0 to 5 with higher levels meaning more support. Parents reported no 

statistically significant improvement in reciprocal support scores (Table 23) but the 

mean scores did improve for “support provided to other parents” and “total support 

reciprocal support.” It should be noted that the pre-test and post-test mean scores for 

River Rouge FAST participants were greater than the national average, indicating this 

was a strength of TGC’s FAST program. 

Table 23

Reciprocal Support Reported by Parents

Subscales Site Average

(n = 17)

National Average

(n = 8270)

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Pre-test 

Mean

Post-test 

Mean

Support provided to other parents 2.59 2.98 1.54 2.26** **

Support received from other parents 2.47 2.27 1.40 2.16 

Total reciprocal support 5.06 5.25 2.92 4.41** **

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01 ****p<.001

Stakeholder Feedback 

Parents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the FAST program and their

relationship with FAST participants. As the data in Table 24 suggest, FAST 

participants were very satisfied with the program and their relationships with FAST 

partners, or staff. 

Table 24 

Parents Ratings of FAST 

Site 

Average

(n = 16)

National 

Average

(n = 8073)

Mean Mean

On a scale of ‘very dissatisfied’ (1) to ‘very satisfied’ 

(10)

- All things considered, how satisfied were you with 

FAST?

8.75 9.29

One a scale of ‘poor’ (1) to ‘excellent’ (10)

- How do you rate your relationship with other FAST 

parents?

8.75 8.52

- How do you rate your relationship with the parent 

partner? 

9.06 8.83

- How do you rate your relationship with the school 

partner?

9.06 8.85

- How do you rate your relationship with the 

community agency partner?

8.56 8.76
35

During focus groups with FAST participants, parents talked about the most beneficial 

aspects of FAST and provided this specific feedback:

•

•

•

I learned how to listen to my FAST child and all my children. I learned they 

should have a voice in the family and how to actually listen to their needs and 

change my behavior.

I got to spend time with other adults and talk about “adult things” without my 

children being around. 

I made friendships that will last outside of FAST. I met neighbors that I never 

talked to before and now we’re friends and help with each other’s families.

When asked how FAST helped them with parenting, participants offered:

•

•

•

I am more open with my children and expressing our feelings.

I learned to count to ten before I comment or get mad. It has helped me to not 

yell at my kids.

I understand her behavior better now. I know she’s not doing something just to 

make me mad; she is trying to communicate with me, not make me mad.

Parents also talked about the changes they have seen in their FAST child:

•

•

She expresses herself better. We do feeling charades at home to help both of 

us talk about our feelings.

My child is more social. Before FAST, I couldn’t leave her with anyone or she 

would scream. Now, she loves coming her and can’t wait to leave me and go 

play with her friends and the FAST staff. That’s a huge accomplishment for her 

and me. 

When asked what they would change about FAST, responses varied by cohort. The 

first cohort talked about meal time and the need for it to be more efficient in terms of 

serving the food and making sure there was enough food. First cohort members also 

commented on Table-based coaching, which was addressed by staff in their feedback 

session as well. The cohort one FAST team was not completely comfortable with, or 

understand, the rationale behind Table-based coaching and thus implemented it 

somewhat unevenly, leading to some confusion by parents. Using this feedback, the 

FAST trainer emphasized Table-based coaching during cohort two and three team 

training, thereby improving its implementation. 

Teachers were also asked to rate the program on a scale of 1 to 10 in two areas: 

improvement in the child’s behaviors, relationships, academics, attitudes, and

attendance and benefits of FAST to the parents, themselves, and children. Data in 

Table 25 suggest that River Rouge Head Start teachers rated the FAST program 

similarly to other teachers who have had students participate in FAST. Specifically, 

River Rouge teachers’ ratings were lower on each of the eight items but in four cases, 

the differences were less than 0.5 points on the ten point scale. 
36

Table 25 

Teacher Ratings of FAST 

Site 

Average 

(n = 10-18 

)

National 

Average

(n = 7936)

Mean Mean

On a scale of ‘no improvement’ (1) to ‘excellent 

improvement (10)

- Did you see any improvement in this child’s behavior as 

a result of participating in FAST?

5.56 5.63

- Did you see any improvement in this child’s relationship 

with peers in the FAST program as a result of FAST?

5.28 5.72

- Did you see any improvements in this child’s academic 

performance as a result of participating in FAST?

5.00 5.54

- Did you see any improvement in this child’s attitude 

toward school as a result of participating in FAST?

5.20 5.90

- Did you see any improvements in this child’s attendance? 5.40 5.63

On a scale of ‘no benefit’ (1) to ‘great benefit’ (10)

- Did you see benefits to this child’s parents as a result of 

participating in FAST?

5.94 6.32

- Did you benefit from FAST being in your school? 6.33 6.77

- Did you see any benefits from this child’s participation in 

FAST?

5.83 6.50

Kindergarten Readiness 

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire was administered by Head Start teachers and Guidance 

Center staff at the conclusion of the 2014-15 school year to determine if any differences exist 

between FAST children and children who did not participate in FAST. As the data in Table 26

illustrate:

•

•

•

Cohort two FAST children scored significantly lower than other FAST children and nonFAST children;

Children in cohorts one and three scored above non-FAST children in Fine Motor Skills, 

Problem Solving, and Personal-Social Skills; and

Children in all FAST cohorts scored below non-FAST children with respect to 

Communication and Gross Motor Skills.
37

Table 26 

2014-15 Ages and Stages Questionnaire Scores: FAST/Non-FAST Children 

Scale

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Non-FAST

% Above

Cutoff N

% Above 

Cutoff N

% Above 

Cutoff N

% Above 

Cutoff N

Communication 62.5% 8 20% 5 60% 5 87% 61

Gross Motor Skills 75% 8 20% 5 60% 5 88.5% 61

Fine Motor Skills 87.5% 8 20% 5 80% 5 69% 61

Problem Solving 100% 8 40% 5 100% 5 74% 61

Personal-Social

Skills 100% 8 40% 5 100% 5 98% 61
38

Head Start students were assessed three times during the 2014-15 school year by their 

teachers using the Classroom Observation Record (COR). As the data in Table 27 illustrate, a 

higher proportion of FAST children scored “above the cut-off” than non-FAST children on ten of 

the thirteen COR measures. 

Table 27 

2014-15COR Assessment Results 

Measure

FAST Non-FAST

% of 

students 

who 

ended 

above 3

N

% of 

students 

who 

ended 

above 3

N

Approaches to Learning 100% 3 33 94%

Creative Arts 100% 3 33 94%

Language Literacy and Communication 100% 3 33 97%

Mathematics 67% 3 33 88%

Physical Development and Health 100% 3 33 97%

School Readiness-Approaches to Learning 100% 3 33 94%

School Readiness-Cognition and General Knowledge 67% 3 33 88%

School Readiness-Language and Literacy 100% 3 33 97%

School Readiness-Physical Development and Health 100% 3 33 97%

School Readiness-Social and Emotional 100% 3 33 94%

Science and Technology 100% 3 32 100%

Social and Emotional Development 100% 3 33 94%

Social Studies 100% 3 32 97%
39

For the 2013-14 school year, a higher proportion of FAST children scored higher than nonFAST children on five of the thirteen measures, as shown in Table 28. Again, the relatively 

small sample size for FAST children makes drawing conclusions difficult. 

Table 28 

2013-14 COR Assessment Results 

 

Measure

FAST Non-FAST

N

% of 

students 

who 

ended 

above 3

N

% of 

students 

who 

ended 

above 3

Approaches to learning 14 79% 68 96%

Approaches to learning 14 79% 68 96%

Cognition and general knowledge 14 86% 68 85%

Creative arts expression 14 86% 68 82%

English language development (Expressive) 14 93% 68 94%

English language development (receptive) 14 79% 68 94%

Language and literacy 14 93% 68 94%

Language development 14 93% 68 94%

Literacy knowledge and skills 14 79% 68 94%

Logic and reasoning 14 86% 68 85%

Mathematics knowledge and skills 14 71% 68 74%

Physical development and health 14 100% 68 99%

Physical development and health 14 100% 68 99%

Science knowledge and skills 14 71% 68 74%

Social and emotional development 14 79% 68 96%

Social and emotional development 14 79% 68 96%

Social studies knowledge and skills 14 79% 68 84%
40

CONCLUSIONS_______________________________________________________________

The River Rouge community, led by The Guidance Center and its Walter White Community 

Resource Center, designed and implemented a comprehensive community-driven, sociallyinnovative approach to kindergarten readiness. As with any change effort, lessons were 

learned along the way.

One of the lessons learned relates to designing and implementing a locally-driven initiative 

within the context of sometimes rigid federal guidelines. Two guidelines influenced the design 

of the River Rouge project in a less than desired way: (1) the requirement that families be River 

Rouge residents and reside in a specific zip code; and (2) the moderate level of evidence 

needed to be achieved through the evaluation of each SIF program.

The SIF requirement that participants live within a certain zip code reduced the number of 

potential participants significantly given the fluid boundaries that exist across River Rouge and 

its neighboring communities. A family’s move across the street and can transition them to 

another city and zip code. The high mobility rates in the “downriver” area, of which River Rouge 

is a part, make the SIF requirements problematic for consistent recruitment and retention of 

families. In addition, downriver residents define “community” differently than a zip code. For 

instance, individuals who participate in a community garden activity may not live in River Rouge 

but they identify with it as their “community” and are engaged with the Walter White Community 

Resource Center’s programming. This may an issue that future federally funded, communitybased work may want to take into account. 

Second, roughly a year and a half ago, the Guidance Center’s original design was modified to 

meet SIF guidelines. Specifically, the original design included a family literacy component that 

had to be eliminated because its level of evidence would not reach the moderate level by the 

conclusion of this SIF initiative. All SIF projects are required to reach the moderate level of 

evidence by the conclusion of their work.

This mid-course change, which occurred during year two, caused a shift in the theory of change 

as well as shift in staffing and approach to the work. Originally, parents were going to be 

recruited for a literacy program and then made aware of, and recruited for, the COFI and FAST 

programs. 

As a result of the decision to eliminate the family literacy program, the focus of FAST 

recruitment changed and turned to Head Start teachers, which proved to be an effective 

strategy. In addition, COFI was used a recruitment strategy for FAST. This intentional 

partnership between COFI and FAST seems to have been effective as well as may explain the 

positive outcomes in the area of parent social relationship improvements. 

Once these SIF guidelines were addressed, the River Rouge Kindergarten readiness project 

was implemented with full fidelity and was well received by families and community partners. In 

fact, COFI and FAST focus group participants repeatedly stated that they wanted both programs 

to continue for many years to come.

With regard to COFI, residents came together to improve the physical nature of their 

community, thereby making it more attractive and possibly increasing the number of families 

who attend River Rouge schools. In addition, an early childhood education campaign is being 

planned to kick-off for the 2015-16 school year.
41

The FAST program also was implemented with high fidelity over the past eighteen months. 

Participants rated the program highly and according to pre/post survey assessments, parents 

reported improvements in their social relationships and the behaviors of their FAST child.

Finally, given the relatively short period of full implementation and the small numbers of FAST 

children, influence on kindergarten readiness may be premature to fully assess. However, given 

that COFI participants have picked up the mantle of quality early childhood education in River 

Rouge, kindergarten readiness should continue to be monitored. 
42

Appendix 

• Demographic Data

• Cohort Level Data for FAST
43

Demographic Characteristics of Children 

AGE Site Average

# %

National Average

# %

≤ 6 16 76.2 3450 35.1

7 1565 15.9

8 1444 14.7

9 1157 11.8

≥ 10 1523 15.4

Missing n 5 23.8 691 7.0

Average 3.8 7.4

RACE/ETHNICITY

AfricanAmerican/Black15 71.4 3526 35.9

American Indian or 

Alaskan Native 

298 3.0

Asian 89 0.9

Caucasian/White 2335 23.8

Hispanic/Latino 2062 21.0

Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

22 0.2

Mixed Race/ 

Ethnicity

610 6.2

Other 1 4.8 227 2.3

Missing n 5 23.8 661 6.7

GENDER

Male 3 14.3 4737 48.2

Female 13 61.9 4482 45.6

Missing n 5 23.8 611 6.2
Demographic Characteristics of Parents

AGE Site Average

# %

National Average

# %

≤ 32 5 23.8 3913 39.7

33 492 5.0

34 422 4.3

35 1 4.8 385 3.9

≥ 36 10 47.6 3562 35.8

Missing n 5 23.8 1056 10.7

Average 43.8 35.1

RACE/ETHNICITY

AfricanAmerican/Black15 71.4 3480 35.4

American Indian or 

Alaskan Native

286 2.9

Asian 111 1.1

Caucasian/White 2 9.5 2603 26.5

Hispanic/Latino 2107 21.4

Native Hawaiian or 

Pacific Islander

28 0.3

Mixed Race/ 

Ethnicity

247 2.5

Other 1 4.8 226 2.3

Missing n 3 14.3 742 7.5

GENDER

Male 2 9.5 867 8.8

Female 16 76.2 8258 84.0

Missing n 3 14.3 705 7.2

EDUCATIONAL

ATTAINMENT

8th Grade or Below 584 5.9

Some High School 2 9.5 1276 13.0

High School 

Graduate or GED

8 38.1 2986 30.4

Junior or Vocational 

College

1 4.8 698 7.1

Some College (not 

Junior/Vocational)

2 9.5 1735 17.7

College Graduate 3 14.3 915 9.3

Some Graduate or 

Professional School

285 2.9

Graduate/ 

Professional School 

Degree

1 4.8 395 4.0
Missing 

n4 19.0 956 9.7

EMPLOYMENT

Full-time Job 3750 38.1

Part-time Job4 19.0 1346 13.7

Unemployed, looking 

for work

5 23.8 1400 14.2

Not employed 

outside home

1 4.8 1129 11.5

Disabled, unable to 

work

6 28.6 687 7.0

Student 400 4.1

Retired1 4.8 154 1.6

Missing n4 19.0 964 9.8

ACTIVITIES 

BEFORE FAST

Church 11 52.4 5861 52.9

Substance Abuse 

Treatment

1 4.8 247 2.7

Parent-Teacher 

Organizations

11 52.4 2990 32.7

Counseling for 

You/Children

3 14.3 1670 18.3

Community Center8 38.1 1158 12.7

Hospitalized2 9.5 560 6.4

Adult Education 

Program

2 9.5 2135 23.4

Volunteer Work 12 57.1 1907 20.8

Move to New Home1 4.8 1025 11.7
Demographic Characteristics of Families 

TOTAL FAMILY 

SIZE

Site Average

# %

National Average

# %

1 1 4.8 39 0.4

2 4 19.0 690 7.0

3 1 4.8 1603 16.3

4 1 4.8 2646 26.9

5 5 23.8 2123 21.6

6 3 14.3 1037 10.5

7 1 4.8 455 4.6

8 1 4.8 181 1.8

9 or more 230 2.3

Missing n 4 19.0 826 2.3

Average 4.4 4.5

MARITAL STATUS

Married 4 19.0 4116 41.9

Divorced 4 19.0 1009 10.3

Separated 2 9.5 693 7.0

Never Been Married 6 28.6 2345 23.9

Member of an 

Unmarried Couple

1 4.8 657 6.7

Widowed 201 2.0

Missing n 4 19.0 809 8.2

ANNUAL INCOME

Less than $10,000 11 52.4 2131 21.7

$10,000-$14,999 2 9.5 1346 13.7

$15,000-$24,999 4 19.0 1621 16.5

$25,000-$34,999 1405 14.3

$35,000-$49,000 927 9.4

$50,000-$74,999 762 7.8

$75,000-$99,999 276 2.8

$100,000 or more 150 1.5

Missing n 4 19.0 1212 12.3
Family Environment Scale: Three FAST cohorts 

Cohort 1 (5/15/2014)

N=10

Cohort 2 (10/1/2014)

N=4

Cohort 3 (1/23/2015)

N=4

Pre Post Chang

e

Pre Post Chang

e

Pre Post Chang

e

Cohesion 7.9 8.1 0.2 7.75 7.5 -0.25 7.5 7 -0.5

Expressivene

ss

5.7 5.3 -0.4 3.75 7 3.25 4.75 4.75 0

Conflict 2.8 2.2 -0.6 2.75 2 -0.75 2.75 2.5 -0.25

Independenc

e

6.8 6.5 -0.3 6.75 5.75 -1 6 5.25 -0.75

Achievement 

orientation 6.2 6.2 0 6.25 6.25 0 6.5 6.25 -0.25

Intellectualcultural 

orientation

6.5 6.4 -0.1 5.75 5.75 0 5.5 6.5 1

Activerecreational 

orientation

5.4 5.6 0.2 5 5.25 0.25 6.5 5.75 -0.75

Moralreligious 

orientation

7.2 6.6 -0.6 7.5 7.25 -0.25 7.25 7.25 0

Organization 5.8 6.7 0.9 7.75 6 -1.75 5.25 5.25 0

Control 5.8 5.5 -0.3 6.25 5.25 -1 6.25 5 -1.25

General Self-Efficacy Scale (FAST Cohort 1) 

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

I will be able to achieve 

most of the goals that I 

have set for myself

10 4.8 10 4.6 -0.2 0.511

When facing difficult tasks, 

I am certain that I will 

accomplish them

10 4.8 10 4.6 -0.2 0.449

In general, I think that I can 

obtain outcomes that are

important to me

10 4.9 10 4.7 -0.2 0.288

I believe that I can 

succeed at most any 

endeavor to which I set my 

mind

10 4.9 10 4.8 -0.1 0.556

I will be able to 

successfully overcome 10 4.8 10 4.8 0 1
Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

many challenges

I am confident that I can 

perform effectively on 

many different tasks

10 4.8 10 4.8 0 1

Compared to other people, 

I can do most tasks very 

well

10 4.6 10 4.9 0.3 0.135

Even when things are 

tough, I can perform quite 

well

10 4.6 10 4.9 0.3 0.135

Parent Self Efficacy for Helping the Child Succeed in School Scale (FAST Cohort 1)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

I know how to help my 

child do well in 

preschool/school

10 5.3 10 5.6 0.3 0.464

I don’t know if I’m getting 

through to my child 10 2.40 9 2.44 0.04 0.956

I don’t know how to help 

my child make good 

grades in school

10 1.60 10 2.10 0.5 0.392

I feel successful about my 

efforts to help my child 

learn

10 5.5 9 5.44 0.06 0.850

Other children have more 

influence on my child’s 

grades than I do (reverse)

6 - 4 - - -

I don’t know how to help 

my child learn (reversed) 9 1.56 10 2.60 1.04 0.230

I make a significant 

difference in my child’s 

school performance

10 5.40 10 5.10 0.3 0.408
Parent’s Perception of Personal Knowledge and Skills Scale (FAST Cohort 1) 

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

I know about volunteering 

opportunities at my child’s 

school

10 5.8 10 5 -0.8 0.087

I know about special 

events at my child’s school 10 5.6 10 5.5 0.1 0.722

I know effective ways to 

contact my child’s teacher 10 5.1 10 5.3 0.2 0.759

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child about the 

school day

10 5.6 10 5.6 0 1

I know how to explain 

things to my child about his 

or her homework

10 5.6 10 5.7 0.1 0.660

I know enough about the 

subjects of my child’s 

homework to help him or 

her

5.7 10 9 5.7 0 0.905

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child’s teacher

10 5.6 10 5.8 0.2 0.355

I know how to supervise 

my child’s homework 10 5.6 10 5.7 0.1 0.660

I have the skills to help out 

at my child’s school 10 5.5 10 5.6 0.1 0.754

Parent Report of Home-based Involvement Activities Scale (FAST Cohort 1) 

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

Talks with this child about 

the school day 10 5.6 10 5.6 0 1

Supervises this child’s 

homework 10 5.7 10 5.8 0.1 0.628

Helps this child study for 

tests 10 5.7 10 5.8 0.1 0.628

Practices spelling, math or 

other skills with this child 10 5 10 5.8 0.8 0.151

Reads with this child 10 5.7 10 5.5 -0.2 0.470
Parent Report of Encouragement (FAST Cohort 1)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference p-value

n Mean n Mean

When he or she doesn’t 

feel like doing school work 9 4.1 10 5.1 1 0.226

To look for more 

information about school 

subjects

9 5.3 10 5.2 -0.1 0.730

To develop an interest in 

schoolwork 10 5.5 10 5.5 0 1

To believe that he/she can 

do well in school 10 5.7 10 5.6 -0.1 0.749

To stick with problems until 

he/she solves them 10 5.6 10 5.5 -0.1 0.754

To believe that he/she can 

learn new things 10 5.7 10 5.6 -0.1 0.749

When he or she has 

trouble doing schoolwork 9 5.7 10 4.7 -1 0.181

To ask other people for 

help when a problem is 

hard to solve

10 5.5 10 5.4 0.1 0.795

To explain what he/she 

thinks to the teacher 10 5.4 10 5.1 -0.3 0.605

To follow the teachers 

directions 10 5.7 10 5.8 .1 0.628

When he or she has 

trouble organizing 

schoolwork

9 5.7 9 5.1 -0.6 0.172

To try new ways to do 

school work when he/she 

is having a hard time

9 5.7 10 5.3 -0.4 0.315

To be aware of how he or 

she is doing with 

schoolwork

9 5.7 10 5.4 -0.3 0.420

General Self-Efficacy Scale (FAST Cohort 2)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I will be able to achieve 

most of the goals that I 

have set for myself

4 4.75 4 4.25

When facing difficult tasks, 

I am certain that I will 

accomplish them

4 4.5 4 3.75

In general, I think that I can 

obtain outcomes that are 

important to me

4 4.75 4 4.25

I believe that I can 3 5 4 4.5
Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

succeed at most any 

endeavor to which I set my 

mind

I will be able to 

successfully overcome 

many challenges

4 4.5 4 4.25

I am confident that I can 

perform effectively on 

many different tasks

4 4.5 4 4.5

Compared to other people, 

I can do most tasks very 

well

4 4.75 4 4.25

Even when things are 

tough, I can perform quite 

well

4 5 4 4.25

Parent Self Efficacy for Helping the Child Succeed in School Scale (FAST Cohort 2)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I know how to help my 

child do well in 

preschool/school

4 5.25 3 5.33 0.08

I don’t know if I’m getting 

through to my child 4 2.5 4 2.75 0.25

I don’t know how to help 

my child make good 

grades in school

4 3 4 2.5 -0.5

I feel successful about my 

efforts to help my child 

learn

4 5 4 5.25 0.25

Other children have more 

influence on my child’s 

grades than I do (reverse)

1 1 0 -

I don’t know how to help 

my child learn (reversed) 4 1.25 4 2.25 1

I make a significant 

difference in my child’s 

school performance

4 5.25 4 5.25 0
Parent’s Perception of Personal Knowledge and Skills Scale (FAST Cohort 2)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I know about volunteering 

opportunities at my child’s 

school

4 5.75 4 5.25 -0.5

I know about special 

events at my child’s school 4 5.5 4 5.25 -0.25

I know effective ways to 

contact my child’s teacher 4 5 4 5.25 0.25

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child about the 

school day

4 5.75 4 5.25 -0.5

I know how to explain 

things to my child about his 

or her homework

4 6 4 5.25 -0.75

I know enough about the 

subjects of my child’s 

homework to help him or 

her

4 5.25 4 5.25 0

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child’s teacher

4 6 4 5 -1

I know how to supervise 

my child’s homework 4 6 4 5 -1

I have the skills to help out 

at my child’s school 4 6 4 5 -1

Parent Report of Home-based Involvement Activities Scale (FAST Cohort 2)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

Talks with this child about 

the school day 4 6 4 5.75 -0.25

Supervises this child’s 

homework 4 6 4 6 0

Helps this child study for 

tests 4 4.75 3

4.333

333 -0.41667

Practices spelling, math or 

other skills with this child 4 5.5 4 5.25 -0.25

Reads with this child 4 5.75 4 5.5 -0.25
Parent Report of Encouragement (FAST Cohort 2)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

When he or she doesn’t 

feel like doing school work 4 5.5 4 5.5 0

To look for more 

information about school 

subjects

4 5 3

3.666

667 -1.33333

To develop an interest in 

schoolwork 4 5 4 5.25 0.25

To believe that he/she can 

do well in school 4 5 4 5.5 0.5

To stick with problems until 

he/she solves them 4 5.5 4 5.5 0

To believe that he/she can 

learn new things 4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

When he or she has 

trouble doing schoolwork 4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

To ask other people for 

help when a problem is 

hard to solve

4 5.25 4 5.75 0.5

To explain what he/she 

thinks to the teacher 4 4.25 4 5.5 1.25

To follow the teachers 

directions 4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

When he or she has 

trouble organizing 

schoolwork

4 5.25 4 4.25 -1

To try new ways to do 

school work when he/she 

is having a hard time

4 5.25 4 5.25 0

To be aware of how he or 

she is doing with 

schoolwork

4 5.5 3 5 -0.5
General Self-Efficacy Scale (FAST Cohort 3)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I will be able to achieve 

most of the goals that I 

have set for myself 4 3.5 4 4 0.5

When facing difficult tasks, 

I am certain that I wil 

accomplish them 4 3.75 4 4 0.25

In general, I think that I can 

obtain outcomes that are 

important to me 4 4.25 4 4.75 0.5

I believe that I can 

succeed at most any 

endeavor to which I set my 

mind 4 4.5 4 4.5 0

I will be able to 

successfully overcome 

many challenges 4 4 4 4.5 0.5

I am confident that I can 

perform effectively on 

many different tasks 4 4.25 4 4.5 0.25

Compared to other people, 

I can do most tasks very 

well 4 4 4 4 0

Even when things are 

tough, I can perform quite 

well 4 4 4 4 0

Parent Self Efficacy for Helping the Child Succeed in School Scale (FAST Cohort 3)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I know how to help my 

child do well in 

preschool/school

4 5.25 4 5.25 0

I don’t know if I’m getting 

through to my child 4 1.25 4 2.5 1.25

I don’t know how to help 

my child make good 

grades in school

3 2 4 1.5 -0.5

I feel successful about my 

efforts to help my child 

learn

4 5.75 4 5.5 -0.25

Other children have more 

influence on my child’s 

grades than I do (reverse)

0 1 2 2

I don’t know how to help 4 1.5 4 1 -0.5
Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

my child learn (reversed)

I make a significant 

difference in my child’s 

school performance

4 4.5 4 5.5 1

Parent’s Perception of Personal Knowledge and Skills Scale (FAST Cohort 3)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

I know about volunteering 

opportunities at my child’s 

school

4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

I know about special 

events at my child’s school 4 5 4 5 0

I know effective ways to 

contact my child’s teacher 4 4.5 4 4.75 0.25

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child about the 

school day

4 5.75 4 5.5 -0.25

I know how to explain 

things to my child about his 

or her homework

4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

I know enough about the 

subjects of my child’s 

homework to help him or 

her

4 5.25 4 5.5 0.25

I know how to 

communicate effectively 

with my child’s teacher

4 5.5 4 5.5 0

I know how to supervise 

my child’s homework 4 5.5 4 5.25 -0.25

I have the skills to help out 

at my child’s school 4 5.25 4 5.25 0
Parent Report of Home-based Involvement Activities Scale (FAST Cohort 3)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

Talks with this child about 

the school day 4 5.75 4 6 0.25

Supervises this child’s 

homework 4 5.75 4 6 0.25

Helps this child study for 

tests 3 3.67 3 4.33 0.67

Practices spelling, math or 

other skills with this child 4 5 4 5.5 0.5

Reads with this child 4 5 4 5.25 0.25

Parent Report of Encouragement (FAST Cohort 3)

Item Pre-test Post-test Difference

n Mean n Mean

When he or she doesn’t 

feel like doing school work 4 5.5 4 4.5 -1

To look for more 

information about school 

subjects

4 3.75 4 5.25 1.5

To develop an interest in 

schoolwork 4 6 4 5.75 -0.25

To believe that he/she can 

do well in school 4 6 4 6 0

To stick with problems until 

he/she solves them 4 5.75 4 5.75 0

To believe that he/she can 

learn new things 4 6 4 6 0

When he or she has 

trouble doing schoolwork 4 6 4 5.75 -0.25

To ask other people for 

help when a problem is 

hard to solve

4 5.75 4 5.75 0

To explain what he/she 

thinks to the teacher 4 5 4 6 1

To follow the teachers 

directions 4 6 4 6 0

When he or she has 

trouble organizing 

schoolwork

4 5.75 4 6 0.25

To try new ways to do 

school work when he/she 

is having a hard time

4 6 4 6 0

To be aware of how he or 

she is doing with 

schoolwork

4 5.75 4 5.75 0