Evaluation of the Milk and Cookies (MAC) 
Children’s Program

 

Community Affiliations and University Partner

Assisting Families of Inmates (AFOI; formerly Prison Family Support Services) and Virginia Commonwealth University School of Social Work.

Abstract 

The Milk and Cookies (MAC) Children’s Program is a specialized program designed to meet the needs of children of incarcerated parents and their families within a school-based setting.  This program, developed and implemented by Assisting Families of Inmates (AFOI) in Richmond, Virginia, had an overall goal of serving 30 families within a two-year demonstration project period.  Evaluation data reveal that the program was successful in identifying, recruiting, and providing services to 41 families (including 65 children and 45 adults) during this two-year period.  Over 1300 services were provided, including intake/initial assessments, ongoing assessments/relationship building, individual counseling, group counseling/support groups, family assistance with concrete needs, mentoring and tutoring, and information and referral services.  Data on the effects of the Children’s Support Group showed significant increases in perceived social support by friends and connection to positive cultural identity and significant decreases in feelings of secrecy and stigma.  Teacher ratings of student behavior revealed improvement by 80% or more students in the following areas: appears happier, relating better to teacher, relating better to peers, more compliant with school rules, less frustrated, accepts suggestions/feedback better, improved overall behavior.  School indicators showed improved grades for 29% of students in language arts, 14% in mathematics, 50% in social science, and 29% in science.   

Please click here for Power Point presentation

Background and Questions

The Milk and Cookies (MAC) Children’s Program of Assisting Families of Inmates (AFOI) represents a unique service designed to meet the physical, emotional, and social needs of children of incarcerated parents and their families.  This program was named the Milk and Cookies (MAC) Children’s Program to engender interest and enthusiasm among children and reduce the social stigma that is associated with parental incarceration.  The MAC Children’s program is a school-based program within Richmond’s Blackwell community; a community that has been known to have one of the city’s highest levels of poverty, unemployment, crime, and violence. The number of children impacted by parental incarceration in the Blackwell area is quite high.  The school’s principal has estimated that almost 40% of the students attending Blackwell Elementary School have one or both parents incarcerated. 

Due to the high level of urban blight that had descended upon Blackwell and the neighborhood’s close proximity to a planned corporate development, the community became the recipient of a federal revitalization program called the Hope VI Project.  At the same time, the Richmond City School Board approved the construction of a new Blackwell Elementary School, which was completed in time for the 1999-2000 school year.   The first stage of Hope VI began in March 1999 with the demolition of subsidized housing that had been condemned and marked for replacement with new structures, both single and multiple family dwellings.  Families living in the subsidized housing were given 120-day notice to vacate their apartments or houses and find other residences.  The Hope VI plan calls for the families who were displaced to receive “self-sufficiency” services that will enable them to elevate their standard of living and thereby qualify for the new Blackwell housing.  However, some have expressed doubt as to whether or not displaced families will have the resources needed to return to their community when that time comes.

This mass exodus of families from Blackwell created instability among the elementary school’s student population.  By the beginning of the 1999-2000 school year many families had been relocated to other communities, which forced the school system to redraw school jurisdictions; thus allowing empty seats at Blackwell to be filled and alleviating overcrowding at some neighboring schools.  That year was truly a year of transition for Blackwell Elementary.  It is notable that, while struggling to adjust to an ever-changing number of students with a myriad of academic and social problems, the school was successful at improving pupil test scores to a significant degree.  Today, morale among both students and school personnel appears high and the focus for everyone in the community is on their hope for the future.

The overall goal of the MAC Children’s Program is to identify and work with a maximum of 30 families with school-aged children over the course of a two-year demonstration period.  School personnel, collaborating partners, and other community agencies that have direct contact with eligible children constitute the referral base for the program.  The long-term evaluation questions originally included assessing expected positive outcomes of the program in 6 areas: 1) children’s positive psychosocial indicators; 2) children’s school success indicators; 3) parents’/caregivers’ knowledge regarding specialized needs of children of incarcerated parents; 4) children’s and parents’/caregivers’ level of social support; 5) access of program participants to needed services; and 6) knowledge/sensitivity among targeted service providers/ community groups regarding the unique needs and strengths of children with incarcerated parents and their families.

Site (Partner) Description: Assisting Families of Inmates (AFOI) began in 1978 as an outreach mission of the Second Presbyterian Church to serve the transportation needs of families with loved ones incarcerated in Virginia’s state prison system.  The program operates with a full-time Executive Director, part-time clerical and support staff, and over 125 volunteers.  In addition to visiting-day transportation services, AFI provides support group meetings, informational workshops, and individual counseling and referral services.  Experience gained through many years of working with AFOI families provided the impetus for the development of specialized services for children of incarcerated parents.  The MAC Children’s Program was designed to be staffed by 1 full-time Program Coordinator/Case Manager, 1 part-time Volunteer and Family Services Case Manager, and a cadre of volunteers.  Administrative, supervisory, and clerical support services would be provided by AFOI.  Primary funding for the operational and staffing needs of the MAC Children’s Program was obtained from the Jackson Foundation, United Way, Memorial Foundation for Children, and the Robins Foundation.  Total funds received from these sources during the two-year demonstration project period totaled $93,159.  Funds from the UJIMA Collaborative of Virginia Commonwealth University’s Institute for African American Mental Health Training and Research ($2,270), and faculty release time from Virginia Commonwealth University’s Community Service Associates Program, provided additional support for evaluation activities.

Implementation of the MAC Children’s Program involves collaboration with two additional agencies: Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) of Richmond and Communities in Schools (CIS).  OAR was primarily responsible for recruiting, hiring, and supervising the part-time Volunteer and Family Services Case Manager who is responsible for developing or coordinating volunteer mentoring services; support and employment-related services for parents/caregivers; communication activities with incarcerated parents; and transitional and post-release services with newly released incarcerated parents.  CIS operates within Blackwell Elementary School as a central service broker and is comprised of professionals from several area agencies (Family and Children’s Services of Richmond, Weed & Seed, Children’s Health Involving Parents). The MAC Children’s Program became a partner in this school-based team of professionals.

Analyses and Results

The overall goal of the MAC Children’s Program was to identify and work with a maximum of 30 families with school-aged children over the course of the two-year demonstration period.  School personnel, collaborating partners, and other community agencies that have direct contact with eligible children constitute the referral base for the program.   Efforts during the first two years of operations have focused primarily on 8 areas: public relations activities; identification and recruitment of children and parents/caregivers; child and family needs assessments and individualized service plans; support and recreational services for children, including development of a Children’s Support Group; direct information and counseling for children and parents/caregivers; referral of children/caregivers to other service providers; service linkage for parents/caregivers for employment skills training and job placement services; and advocacy and community education activities regarding the unique needs and strengths of children of incarcerated parents and their families.  Although plans for service in an additional 4 areas also took place (support and educational services for parents/caregivers, including development of a Parent/Caregivers’ Support Group; volunteer mentoring services; referral services for newly released incarcerated parents for transitional and post-release services; and communication facilitation activities between incarcerated parent, parent/ caregiver, and child when appropriate), these activities were not fully realized due to the inability of OAR to hire and maintain a person in the part-time Volunteer and Family Case Manager position.

Parallel to program activities, a series of program evaluation efforts also occurred during this time period.  These included: initial evaluability assessment and development of a Program Logic Model; development of 5 new service delivery forms; identification or development of 7 program-specific evaluation instruments; data analysis; production of a first year Monitoring Evaluation Report (program implementation and operations) and second year Process Evaluation Report (attainment of program objectives).  The following provides a summary of the major findings from these two evaluation reports.

Most of the necessary program inputs were in place within the first year, with the notable exception of the part-time Volunteer and Family Services Case Management Position.  Repeated recruitment efforts did not produce a suitable person to fill this position, adversely affecting the development of the volunteer mentoring services, the parent/ caregiver support services, referral and brokering services for both non-incarcerated parents/caregivers and newly released parents, and communication activities with incarcerated parents.

In addition to this problem in staffing, the program was adversely affected by the changing landscape in the Blackwell community.  Due to the Hope VI Project, there has been considerable turnover, not only in the families living in the neighborhood, but also in school personnel and students attending Blackwell Elementary School.  Even in the most stable communities and schools, developing an effective identification and referral system takes time and persistence.  It was particularly difficult in the environment surrounding the MAC program, which was a major reason for the decision to extend services to another public school (Swansboro Elementary) and community center (Sacred Heart Center).

Given these realities, it is significant that the MAC Children’s Program was able to implement many of its proposed activities and provide a number of services to participating families.  The program enrolled a total of 41 families and 110 individuals (65 children and 45 adults) during the first two years of operation.  The following figures document the number and types of services provided during this time period.  [Although information regarding service delivery was maintained during the first two quarters of the 1999-2000 school year using a CIS Team form, it was determined that his form was not able to document MAC Program activities adequately.  Thus, data presented for 1999-2000 are based on a service delivery form specifically developed for the program.]

First Year of Operations (January – June 2000)

A total of 406 services were provided to either children or parents/caregivers from January to June 2000.  The largest category of service was group counseling/support groups (n = 187), followed by individual counseling (n = 70); family assistance with concrete needs (e.g., housing/shelter, food, clothes, heating or cooling services) (n = 50); information/referral services (n = 25); intake/initial assessments (n = 22); ongoing assessments/relationship building (n = 22); mentoring & tutoring (n = 12); teacher consultations (n = 11); case closures (n = 4); and parent/caregiver conference (n = 3).

Second Year of Operations (July 2000-June 2001)

A total of 937 services were provided to either children or parents/caregivers during the second year of program operations.  The largest category of service was group counseling/support groups (n  = 320), followed by individual counseling (n = 190); recreation & enrichment services (n = 102); ongoing assessments/relationship building (n = 72); mentoring & tutoring (n = 44); teacher consultations (n = 44); information/ referral services (n = 41); family assistance with concrete needs (e.g., housing/shelter, food, clothes, heating or cooling services) (n = 34) intake/initial assessments (n = 30); case staffing (n = 43);  parent/caregiver conference (n = 22); and case closures (n = 14).

The vast majority of program efforts in both years were accomplished by the full-time Program Coordinator/Case Manager.  Data on these efforts do not include public relations activities or advocacy and education activities.

During the second year of program operations, data were collected for the purpose of assessing attainment of program objectives tied to the Children’s Support Group.  The following provides the results of these evaluation efforts:

Perceived Social Support:  Analysis revealed a statistically significant trend (p = .053) in increases in “social support by friends”.  Findings failed to show support for hypotheses about increases in social support by parents/caregivers or teachers.

Secrecy:  Analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease (p < .05) in the need to maintain secrecy about the incarcerated parent.

Stigma:  Analysis revealed a statistically significant trend (p = .074) in the level of stigma associated with having an incarcerated parent.

Connection to Positive Cultural Identity:  Analysis revealed a statistically significant increase (p < .001) in knowledge related to positive cultural identity.

Teacher Ratings of Behavior.  Eighty percent or more children were rated by their teacher as showing positive changes in the following areas: appears happier, relating better to teacher, relating better to peers, more compliant with school rules, less frustrated, accepts suggestions/feedback better, overall behavior improvement.

Grades:  The following percentages of students showed improved grades during the school year:  29% language arts; 14% mathematics; 50% social science; 29% science.

In addition to quantitative indicators, children also participated in focus group interviews, which asked them about their perceptions of the Children’s Support Group.  Three major themes emerged:  1) children reported learning how to talk about their parents being in jail and how to share their feelings about their family situations; 2) children liked being in a special group and developing friendships in the group; 3) children formed intense, positive bonds to the support group facilitator.

Implications for Practitioners 

·     Identification and recruitment of families of children of incarcerated parents is a long, involved process due to issues of stigma or bias that produce shame and secrecy among family members and a protective stance among potential referral sources.

·     Building trust and effective working relationships in disenfranchised and under-served communities is a slow, painstaking process with both community residents and professionals serving the community.

·     Children of incarcerated parents and their families can be engaged in service delivery if program services are both relevant and culturally-sensitive. 

·     Effective strategies for both recruitment and engagement in service delivery include: assertive, yet respectful, outreach efforts; commitment to ongoing relationship-building with children and adults; and use of a “collaborative partnership” model vs. an “expert” model.

·     Expectations regarding necessary start-up time need to be realistic and should take into account unforeseen complications and setbacks.

·     Findings suggest that focused intervention with children of incarcerated parents can positive impact perceived levels of social support from friends, decrease feelings of secrecy and stigma, increase connection to positive cultural identity, and improve school-related performance and behaviors.

·     More comprehensive and targeted resources are needed to positively impact the family systems and schools systems of children of incarcerated parents.

 Implications for Researchers and Evaluators

·     Evaluators must take sufficient time to both build respectful, collaborative relationships with program staff and others important to the program.

·     Evaluators should develop a good, working knowledge of program structure and program activities and help program staff develop an accurate model of the program (the “real” program vs. the one on paper). 

·     An evaluability assessment should be conducted prior to beginning any other evaluation activities.  This includes determining:  1) clarity concerning the evaluation’s purpose; 2) the existence of an accurate Program Logic Model;  3) the stage of program development; 4) the suitability of existing data and data collection mechanisms; 5) the adequacy of available evaluation resources; 6) clarity concerning the roles of both evaluation staff and program staff; and 7) the administrative and political climate surrounding the evaluation in regards to level of support for evaluation efforts and utilization of evaluation findings.

·     Evaluators should recognize that they are conducting research within a fluid and ever-changing action setting.  This requires flexibility on the evaluator’s part and the willingness to change aspects of evaluation activities based on the realities and needs of the program and the population being served.

·     Evaluators must be able to detect the “story beneath the numbers” in order to produce the most accurate and fair picture of program efforts and outcomes.   Toward that end, qualitative data, including narratives from the perspective of both staff and program participants, should be included in the evaluation approach.

Contact Information:

Project Evaluator:  Dr. Michael J. Sheridan, Associate Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Social Work.  1001 W. Franklin St., Box 842027, Richmond, VA 23284-2027.  E-mail:  msheri@mail2.vcu.edu

Back to Ujima Home