ANNUAL EVALUATION
FAMILY LITERACY PILOT PROGRAM
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
December I 995
Report # 95- 20
_ r
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
December 26,1995
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPYT" '%" DITOR GENEPAL
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
The Honorable Lisa Graham
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, an Annual Evaluation of the
Family Literacy Pilot Program. This report is in response to the provisions of Session
Laws 1994, 9th Special Session, Chapter 1, Section 9.
This is the first in a series of three reports. The second and final evaluation reports are
scheduled to be released on or before December 31, 1996, and December 31, 1997,
respectively. Our evaluation study finds that Arizona's family literacy sites follow
nationally recommended standards in program design and implementation. However,
budgeting errors by the Arizona Department of Education have created funding
shortages for second- year services.
The Arizona Department of Education has reviewed a draft of this report, but chose not
to submit a formal response.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on December 27, 1995.
Sincerely,
u ~ o u ~ lRa. Nsor ton
Auditor General
2 9 1 0 NORTH 44TH STREET s SUITE 4 1 0 . PHOENI, X, ARIZONA 8 5 0 1 8 rn ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 3 3 3 m FAX ( 6 0 2 ) 5 5 3 - 0 0 5 1
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has completed the first of a series of three annual
program evaluation reports to be issued on the Family Literacy Pilot Program. This
evaluation was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1994, 9th Special
Session, Chapter 1, Section 9. The second and final evaluation reports are scheduled to be
released on or before December 31,1996, and December 31,1997, respectively.
Arizona's Family Literacy Program aspires to stop the intergenerational cycle of
undereducation and poverty by increasing the basic academic and literacy skills of preschool-aged
children and their parents who live in areas with a high incidence of economic and
educational disadvantages. The Arizona Department of Education ( ADE) is responsible for
family literacy administration. ADE funded 15 contractors serving 25 family literacy program
sites in fiscal years 1994- 1995 and 1995- 1996. ADE also funded two existing family literacy
programs ( referred to as model programs throughout this report) to offer staff training and
assist with the establishment and expansion of pilot programs. Appropriations for the Family
Literacy Pilot Program totaled $ 975,000 in fiscal year 1994- 95 and $ 1,000,600 in fiscal year
1995- 96.
Arizona Family Literacy Sites
Follow Nationally Recommended Standards
( See pages 9 through 13)
Most of Arizona's family literacy sites show strong potential for success in achieving overall
program goals and objectives. Service delivery methods across the State emulate recognized
family literacy practices and also explore new ways to serve Arizona's hard- to- reach
populations. The following points illustrate several notable program practices:
Arizona sites use service delivery models that integrate program components
recommended by the National Center for Family Literacy ( NCFL) as essential for
successful implementation. The sites incorporate adult literacy and early childhood
instruction, parent and child interaction time, and parent education and discussion
groups.
While incorporating standard family literacy components, Arizona sites have also adapted
services to meet the special needs of each site's targeted population.
Recruiting strategies are focused on enrolling families who both need, and are likely to
remain in, the family literacy program. Participant retention is key in improving the
program's chances for success.
Arizona's pilot program staff started their first year of service delivery trained in the
mechanics of successful family literacy implementation. Sound family literacy principles
established prior to service delivery should assist site staff in implementing their
programs both consistently and effectively.
Budgeting Errors Create
Funding Shortage for
Second- Year Services
( See pages 15 through 17)
The 1995- 96 family literacy budgets approved by the ADE exceed the Program's available
funding. Even after applying over $ 425,000 in carryover funds from fiscal year 1994- 95, the
Program remains nearly $ 103,000 short of fully funding the grants it has awarded. The
funding shortage will impact family literacy programs and their participants, since it will
either reduce or eliminate services at some sites.
ADE also did not possess the necessary information to make funding decisions for individual
grant awards. ADE did not require the programs to report total program budgets ( including
local, state, and federal funds) so that ADE could judge the ability of contractors to provide
services.
Family literacy administrators should establish proper budgeting procedures to ensure
overallocations and funding shortages do not occur in the future. They should also consider
the availability of additional local, state, and federal funding when making funding decisions.
ADE Should Expand and
Enhance Program Monitoring
( See pages 19 through 22)
ADE's Adult Education Division should expand and enhance pilot program monitoring to
guarantee quality family literacy service delivery. Pilot programs in their first implementation
year require significant monitoring to ensure they are appropriately delivering legislated and
other quality services.
The Adult Education Division's limited resources and expertise threaten its ability to perform
adequate monitoring tasks. The Adult Education Division, while qualified to oversee the
family literacy adult education component, does not have staff with adequate expertise to
monitor family literacy programs' early childhood and parenting components.
We recommend that family literacy administrators develop an effective monitoring plan. A
structured and coordinated monitoring plan can ensure adequate expertise exists to provide
program oversight
Table of Contents
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Finding I: Arizona Family Literacy
Sites Follow Nationally
Recommended Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Programs Follow National
Family Literacy Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Service Delivery Adapted to Fit
Needs of Arizona's Diverse Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Diverse Strategies for Participant
Recruitment Used to Increase Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Staff Received Statewide Family
Literacy Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Finding 11: Budgeting Errors Create
Funding Shortage for
Second- Year Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
ADE Approved Grants
in Excess of Available Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Budgeting Errors Caused
Funding Shortage in
Fiscal Year 1995- 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
iii
Table of Contents ( connt)
Paqe
Finding Ill: ADE Should Expand
and Enhance Program Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Monitoring Important
During First Year of Pilot
Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Limited Staff Resources and
Expertise Jeopardize ADE's
Ability to Monitor Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Family Literacy Administrators
Should Collaborate with Model
Programs and Other ADE Divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Statutory Annual
Evaluation Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m m a m m m . . m . o . m . . . a- i
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Family Literacy Grant Awards and Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Arizona Family Literacy Pilot
Program Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Model Program and
Training Resource Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Figure 1
Tables ( can't)
Paqe
Family Literacy Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Characteristics of Family
Literacy Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Evaluation Criteria for
Family Literacy Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a- ii
Figure
Family Literacy Participant Ethnicity
April 1,1995 through November 10,1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has completed the first of a series of three annual
program evaluation reports to be issued on the Family Literacy Pilot Program. This
evaluation was conducted pursuant to the provisions of Session Laws 1994, 9th Special
Session, Chapter 1, Section 9. The second and final evaluation reports are required to
be released on or before December 31, 1996, and December 31, 1997, respectively.
Family Literacy Goals
Arizona's Family Literacy Program aspires to stop the intergenerational cycle of
undereducation and poverty by increasing the basic academic and literacy skills of eligible
parents and their preschool children. The program is based on the premises that 1) the
educational skills of parents must increase in order to increase literacy and reduce poverty
among the current generation of families; and 2) the educational skills of children must
increase in order to increase literacy and reduce poverty among the next generation of
families.
Poverty and undereducation interact across generations in the following ways:
The National Center for Chldren in Poverty reports that children whose parents lack
a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to live in poverty than children
whose parents are high school graduates.
Research shows that preschool participation for at- risk children leads to long- term
outcomes such as increased levels of high school completion, better employment, higher
incomes, a reduced dependency on welfare, and lower involvement in the criminal justice
system. However, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office ( GAO) study found
that children in families where the most educated parent had less than a high school
diploma were 20 percent less likely to participate in preschool than children whose
parents had a high school diploma. In addition, children in or near poverty were 16 to
20 percent less likely to attend preschool programs than middle- income children.
Children from low- income families show poorer performance in school even at the
earliest grades. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that children from
low income families are 50 percent more likely than children from high income families
and 35 percent more likely than children from middle income families to be retained in
the early grades. In 1991, the high school dropout rate among children of low income
families was more than twice the rate of middle income families, and ten times the rate
of high income families.
Family literacy programs incorporate adult, child, and parent education in a manner that
is more effective than programs that focus exclusively on adults or children. Services target
the entire family, and include adult and early childhood education, as well as instruction
in parenting and parent- child interaction.
Evaluations of two National Centers for Family Literacy ( NCFL)- endorsed models serving
more than 500 families in 10 cities found that family literacy programs are useful in reaching
undereducated and poor families. Specifically:
Adults and children in family literacy programs produce higher literacy and
developmental gains than those in programs focusing only on adults or only on children.
Family literacy increases adult retention in programs and parents express greater support
for their children's education.
After participation in family literacy programs, children performed well in kindergarten
and first grade, and adults continued their progress by obtaining employment, furthering
their education, and reducing their welfare dependence,
Family literacy participants are, perhaps, most able to describe how the program works. The
following excerpts written by students in the Mesa Family Tree Program, one of Arizona's
model family literacy programs, reflect the programs' importance in the participants' lives:
W e have learned that without a high school diplonza lfe isn't that great. You need an
education to get anywhere in lzp, especially to get a good- paying job. . . That's why we're
here in Family Tree. We are tying harder to mnke lip better with an education. In the Family
Tree Project we also have a preschool for our drildren to attend. We really love the way & e
preschoo1 is set up fm the children. . . "
" The year was 1991 and the day was August 1 1. That was the day a 14year- old girl became
n another. . . tlznt 14- year- old girl was me. . . 1 had to nzk very serious decisions in my lije
and I had to choose between school and my family, I chose my family. I dropped out of school
and I am now frying to get my GED. Going to GED classes has also been hard. My goal
is to get my GED, start at Pima Medical College and become a nurse, and begin a good lzp
for nze and my son. "
Target Population
Family literacy serves preschool- aged children and their parents living in areas with a high
incidence of economic and educational disadvantages. Eligible parents include those who:
1) have a three- or four- year- old child; 2) lack sufficient mastery of basic educational or basic
English language skills needed to function in society, or lack a high school diploma or its
equivalent; and 3) are United States citizens or legal residents, or are otherwise lawfully
present in this country.
Administrative Entity
The State Board of Education and the Arizona Department of Education ( ADE) are
responsible for family literacy administration. The family literacy legislation requires the State
Board of Education to: 1) establish and administer a family literacy pilot program through
the Division of Adult Education; 2) adopt procedures necessary to implement the Family
Literacy Pilot Program; 3) authorize two model and training program grants; and 4)
authorize and establish family literacy pilot projects at locations where there is a high
incidence of economic and educational disadvantage.
The ADE's Division of Adult Education maintains the State's family literacy administration
and coordination authority. The Division has 12 total FTEs, and dedicates 1 FTE to family
literacy administration and coordination.
Appropriation and Budget
Appropriations for the Family Literacy Pilot Program totaled $ 975,000 in fiscal year 1994- 95
and $ 1,000,600 in fiscal year 1995- 96. The two- year appropriation marks the State's first
budgetary commitment to family literacy services, and makes Arizona one of a handful of
states to fund a family literacy initiative through its department of education.
Several programs in Arizona have, however, been operating with local, private, and federal
support for at least seven years. Arizona's federally funded Even Start program began in
1988 and currently supports eight Even Start sites. These family literacy programs serve
undereducated parents with children ages 0 to 7 years, and must fund a percentage of the
program through local contributions.' In addition, Pima County Adult Education began
operating a family literacy program through the Toyota Families for Learning Program in
1991, and the Mesa Unified School District also began operating their Family Tree Program
in 1991.
1 Local contribution can mean state funding ( e. g. ADE K- 12 K- 3 At- Risk, Pre- School At- Risk), district
funding, Head Start, or Title I funds.
In March 1995, the Legislature revised the provisions of the original appropriation to make
the funds nonreverting, allowing additional time, if needed, to spend implementation dollars.
This allowed the program to carry over unspent funds to subsequent fiscal years.
Fiscal Year 1994- 95 - In fiscal year 1994- 95, ADE allocated 83 percent of total family
literacy funding to pilot programs, 12 percent to model and training resource programs,
and 5 percent to administration. Pilot programs expended first- year funds for direct
services, capital outlay expenditures, and other start- up costs. Model training and
resource funds supported two statewide training sessions and technical assistance to both
ADE and pilot programs in setting up family literacy sites across the State. ADE
expended the majority of administration funds for operating expenses, such as
educational supplies, training, and conference expenses. Table 1 presents fiscal years"
1994- 95 and 1995- 96 family literacy grant awards and expenditures.
Table 1
Family Literacy Grant Awards ,
and Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
1994- 95 1995- 96
Actual
Grant Awards Expenditures Grant Awards
Pilot Program
Contracts $ 811,942
Model Training and
Resource Contract" 121,960
Administration 48,750
Total $ 982,652 $ 549,347 $ 1,529,227 "
" These monies are used to give two existing programs funds to offer training to the new programs.
The fiscal year 1994- 95 appropriation was $ 975,000.
The fiscal year 1995- 96 appropriation was $ 1,000,600.
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 budget and expenditure
reports obtained from ADE's Adult Education Division.
I Fiscal Year 1995- 96 - ADE will use the total fiscal year 1995- 96 appropriation and
all fiscal year 1994- 95 carryover monies to fund the Program's second year. Of the
total $ 1,529,227 approved for fiscal year 1995- 96, the Agency allocated 91 percent to
pilot programs, 9 percent to model and training resource programs, and no funding
to administration. Proposed program budgets reveal that the majority of fiscal year
1995- 96 funds will support direct services, including instruction and instructional
support. Model training and resource programs will dedicate second- year funds to
specialized on- site training and technical assistance.
Fifteen Pilot Program and
Two Model Program Contractors
ADE funded 15 contractors serving 25 family literacy sites and 2 model and training resource
programs in fiscal years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96.' Table 2 ( see page 6) presents the eight Arizona
counties containing family literacy sites, the pilot program contractors in each county, the
number of sites administered by each contractor, and their fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96
state- supported budgets.
Pilot program contractors include ten school districts, three community- based organizations,
one college, and one adult education provider. Each of the sites targets about 15 families,
or 375 total families. Eight of Arizona's 15 counties contain at least one state- funded family
literacy site. No potential contractors applied for funding in the seven unrepresented
counties. The majority of family literacy sites serve urban areas, with 18 of the 25 sites
serving metropolitan Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma. Seven sites serve Arizona's rural
population, with two sites in Cochise and Coconino Counties, and one site each in Apache,
Navajo, and Yavapai Counties.
ADE also provided funds for two existing family literacy programs to offer training and
serve as models and training resources for the establishment and expansion of pilot programs
throughout the State. Model and training program responsibilities to pilot programs include
providing technical assistance, conducting teacher and staff development training, site
visitations, and workshops. Two entities applied for and received model and training
program funding. Table 3 ( see page 7) presents the two model program contractors, the
number of sites assigned to each, their location, and their fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96
budgets.
See the Appendix for a detailed description of the proposal evaluation and selection process.
Table 2
Arizona Family Literacy Pilot
Proqram Contractors
Grant Awards
Pilot Program No. of Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
County Contractors Sites 1994- 95" 199~- 96~
Apache Red Mesa Unified School District 1 $ 73,178 $ 99,920
Cochise Cochise College 1 17,746 50,301
Council for Family Concern 1 18,875 58,000
I Coconino Flagstaff Unified School District 2 157,794 85,100
Maricopa Isacc School District 1 19,927 99,997
Literacy Volunteers of Maricopa
County 1 16,420 45,527
Mesa Unified School District 3 56,341 125,617
Phoenix Indian Center 1 20,712 49,130
Tempe Elementary School District 1 50,000 50,000
Navajo Pinon Unified School District 1 83,676 137,752
Pima Pima County Adult Education 3 137,531 149,982
Tucson Unified School District 5 80,000 250,000
Yavapai Chino Elementary School District 1 6,942 32,732
Yuma Crane Elementary School District 2 42,800 85,528
Sornerton School District - 1 30,000 70,000
Total
I
I
" Fiscal year 1994- 95 amounts represent state monies distributed to pilot program contractors for the last three
months of the fiscal year. Amounts vary substantially because some contracted programs did not include
service delivery costs in first- year estimates, and other contracted programs included monies from local and
federal sources. Amounts shown above do not include local and federal funding.
Fiscal year 1995- 96 amounts represent approved contract amounts.
Source: Offlce of the Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 model program
budgets obtained from ADE's Adult Education Division.
Table 3
Arizona Model Program and
Traininq Resource Contractors
Model No. of Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Program Sites 1995 1996
Contractors Assigned Regional Coverage Budget Budget
Mesa Unified School Maricopa County
District 12 and Northern Arizona $ 52,045 $ 69,686
Pima County Adult Pima County and
Education - 13 Southern Arizona 69,915 69,955
Total -- 25 $ 121,960 $ 139,641
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 model program budgets
obtained from ADE's Adult Education Division.
Evaluation Scope,
Responsibilities, and Methods
The Family Stability Act requires the Office of the Auditor General to perform three annual
evaluations on the Family Literacy Pilot Program. The legislation mandates annual program
evaluations examining program effectiveness, level and scope of services included within
the programs, the type and level of criteria used to establish participant eligibility, and the
number and demographic characteristics of participants. The Office of the Auditor General
is required to submit annual reports to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
President of the Senate, the Governor, and the Joint Committee on Children and Families,
on or before December 31, in the years 1995,1996, and 1997.
This first- year report includes:
A discussion of the family literacy sites' strong potential for success
An analysis of budgeting errors that resulted in a funding shortage for second- year
program budgets
Suggestions for improving ADE's program monitoring function
Responses to evaluation questions posed in Session Laws 1994, 9th Special Session,
Chapter 1, Section 9.
Methods used in this evaluation include ongoing interviews with family literacy
administrators and program staff, consultation with national family literacy experts, and
document and file reviews of program budgets and records. We also reviewed existing
literature on family literacy programs and evaluations, observed two family literacy sites,
and observed and participated in three family literacy trainings.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, Adult Education Division Director, Family Literacy Coordinator, and staff of the
Arizona Department of Education's Adult Education Division, as well as the Family Literacy
Pilot Program staff for their cooperation and assistance d m g the first year of the Family
Literacy Pilot Program evaluation.
FINDING I
ARIZONA FAMILY LITERACY SITES
FOLLOW NATIONALLY
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS
Arizona's Family Literacy sites show strong potential for success in achieving overall
program goals and objectives. First, programs follow nationally recommended standards for
service delivery models. Each integrates the core program components required for
comprehensive, quality family literacy programming. Second, sites use unique service
delivery approaches to meet the needs of the State's diverse population. Third, sites practice
extensive participant recruitment efforts to increase program retention. Finally, staff possess
the training needed to implement successful family literacy programs.
Programs Follow National
Family Literacy Models
Arizona sites use service delivery models that integrate program components deemed
essential by the National Center for Family Literacy ( NCFL). NCFL is a private nonprofit
corporation that is the primary source of advocacy, training, information, and research for
the family literacy movement Arizona's family literacy legislation instructed programs to
either 1) use a nationally recognized family literacy model, such as models developed by
the NCFL; or 2) use a model that, in the determination of the project team and the State
Board of Education, is superior to a nationally recognized family literacy model. While site
employees altered models to meet their administrative and targeted populations' needs,
models met basic NCFL standards.
Models is~ clrrdec ore co~~ zpo~ zen- t s Family literacy, as defined by the NCFL, is an
intergenerational education program for parents and children that integrates four essential
components. These components serve as the basis for quality family literacy models. Arizona
sites include and integrate the four core components.
Adult literacy instruction includes either adult basic education ( ABE) and general
education development ( GED), or English for Speakers of Other Languages ( ESOL)
instruction. Based on their individual needs, eligible parents receive either the ABE/ GED
or the ESOL component
Early childhood instruction uses a developmentally appropriate curriculum to foster
early literacy skills. Teachers focus on developing the cognitive, physical, social, and
emotional skills critical to future academic success. Adult and child education components
occur simultaneously, allowing both parents and children adequate time to progress
toward each component's goals.
w Parent and child interaction time ( PACT time) allows parents and their children to work
and play together as a functional family unit Child- initiated activities allow parents to
learn, teach, and communicate with their children, using positive parenting skills that
are transferrable to the home.
Parent education discussion and support groups facilitate parent discussions about issues
or problems surrounding parenting. Participants learn from the experiences of their peers,
receive encouragement from the group, and practice collective problem solving.
Service Delivery Adapted
to Fit Needs of Arizona's
Diverse Population
Wlule Arizona sites follow national family literacy models, they have also adapted service
delivery to meet the special needs of each site's targeted population. The family literacy
legislation included few specific program design requirements, allowing Arizona's pilot
programs to design their own service delivery approaches for their sites and populations.
Sites used th~ so pportunity to improve program success by increasing access to services,
incorporating cultural norms into services, finding ways to alleviate barriers that keep
families from participating, and using collaboration to develop community support for the
programs. Because program designs vary, evaluators will eventually be able to examine the
relationship between program design and outcomes to test each design's effectiveness and
determine the best service delivery methods.
To provide site- appropriate family literacy instruction, sites considered the needs of their
targeted populations when developing service delivery designs. The following illustrates
various service delivery approaches implemented at several sites.
Program Component Integration - The Mesa Family Tree Project uses a center- based
model to bring parents and cluldren to the school together. This approach allows adults
and children to receive instruction in adjoining classrooms, facilitating the children's
adjustment to a school setting. The center- based model incorporates PACT time into each
day's schedule, allowing parents and children to conveniently interact, usually in the
children's classroom. The parent and child components finish at the same time, allowing
the family to leave together. Mesa also uses regular home visits to supplement classroom
instruction and to assess parenting progress.
H Alternative Scheduling - The Crane Elementary School District's program in Yuma
diverges from the center- based model and adjusts program component times to meet
scheduling difficulties of populations living on the U. S.- Mexico border. To incorporate
parent support and PACT time components, the program requires parents to attend
regular workshops in either the mornings or the afternoons, and to spend at least two
mornings a month working in the children's classroom. This differs from a more
traditional center- based approach, where parents and children attend classes offered at
the same time each day. Although this deviates from normal service delivery methods,
the National Center for Family Literacy states that providing each of the four core
compone~~ itss m ore important than the times at which they are offered.
r Cultural Responsiveness - The Red Mesa Unified School District's program, located
in the heart of the Navajo Reservation, incorporates traditional Navajo beliefs and
traditions into programming to best serve the unique needs of Native American families.
For example, teachers focus on the importance of oral language as the root of written
language and implement learning experiences that extend the child's and parent's
understanding of the Navajo community's rich cultural heritage and related activities.
Collaboration - The Literacy Volunteers of Maricopa County, Inc. collaborates with
Southwest Human Development, Phoenix Union Adult Basic Education, and Madison
Elementary School District to provide family literacy services in central Phoenix. This
unique collaborative team combines nonprofit community- based providers with local
school districts. The collaborators use the expertise available from each involved member
to create a strong and diverse family literacy team.
Diverse Strategies for
Participant Recruitment
Used to Increase Retention
Family literacy sites incorporate recruitment strategies into their service delivery designs to
enroll famihes exhibiting both need and dedication to the program. According to the NCFL,
these strategies should increase participant retention and improve chances for program
success. Most families receive the program's maximum benefit through continuous and
intensive family literacy services.
Family literacy program staff use a variety of recruitment methods to contact members of
their targeted and ofien hard- to- reach populations. Many eligible participants have very little
contact with anyone outside their immediate family or neighborhood, and others have
limited English skills that isolate them within their communities. To reach these potential
participants, staff use several approaches that include the media ( e. g. flyers, newsletters,
newspaper announcements), community and school- based outreach ( sending notes home
with school children), and community liaisons to alert potential participants of the program's
existence. Staff then receive either verbal or written information from families interested in
the program. For example, potential participants in one program fill out applications that
include a description of family members, educational achievement, income level, and receipt
of other existing services and support ( e. g. Aid to Families with Dependent Children
[ AFDC] and Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System [ AHCCCS]). Other participants
express interest through informal discussions with family literacy staff.
Program staff explain and discuss services with potential participants before enrolling them.
One program rates all families based on their responses to application items, and then
conducts home visits to obtain more information from the family and to discuss the program
in detail. Another program brings potential participants to the family literacy site to explain
the program in its actual setting. These strategies are consistent with NCFL indicators of
effective intake and orientation procedures. Family literacy programs also obtain written
informed consent from participants at the time of enrollment
Research indicates time spent educating potential participants about the program before
enrollment pays off with higher program retention. Attrition rates are lower in family literacy
programs concerned with recruitment and retention than in other adult education activities,
where there is often a 70 percent attrition rate. Participants entering programs with accurate
expectations about services offered and the possible outcomes may be more likely to stay
throughout the year.
Staff Received Statewide
Family Literacy Training
Arizona's pilot program site staff started their first year of service delivery trained in the
mechanics of successful family literacy service implementation. Staff received this knowledge
through two statewide trainings designed to prepare pilot sites for effective family literacy
service delivery. Training sessions taught staff members proper implementation methods
and staff teamwork concepts. Self- assessments collected from participants at the beginning
and end of the training indicate participants increased their knowledge of all family literacy
core program components. Establishng sound family literacy principles prior to service
delivery should enable sites to implement their programs both consistently and effectively.
Statewide Pilot Program Coordinator Training - The coordinator training in April 1995
introduced the pilot program coordinators to the model program staff, and familiarized
coordinators with program requirements, funding, reports, and continuation grants.
Program coordinators are responsible for hiring staff, managing program budgets, and
overseeing classroom activities at each site. Approximately 30 program coordinators
and administrators attended the training. Because 10 of the 15 contractors were new to
the family literacy concept, trainers informed participants of start- up issues and potential
problems, as well as the details of family literacy grant administration. The training
allowed coordinators to return to their sites with a better understanding of how to
proceed with staff recruitment and hiring, how to meet the site's physical needs, and how
to obtain the necessary coordination and collaboration agreements with school districts
and community providers.
Statewide Pilot Program Staff Training - A five- day staff training familiarized
participants with family literacy program implementation, focusing on the integration
of the four core components. Because most staff had prior teaching experience with either
adults or children, the training stressed the required interaction between parent and child.
I Twenty- seven instructors, including model and training program staff, adult education
and early childhood teachers, former family literacy program participants, program
coordinators, and school district representatives, spoke at the conference. At least 100
I family literacy staff attended the training.
I RECOMMENDATION
This chapter provides information only; therefore, no recommendations are presented.
FINDING II
BUDGETING ERRORS CREATE
FUNDING SHORTAGE FOR
SECOND- YEAR SERVICES
The fiscal year 1995- 96 family literacy program budgets approved by the ADE exceed
available second- year funding. The funding shortage will impact family literacy programs
and their participants, since it will either reduce or eliminate services at some sites. The
ADE's failure to analyze both first- and second- year budget proposals prior to awarding
grants resulted in the approval of program grants that exceeded the available appropriation.
ADE Approved Grants
in Excess of Available Funding
ADE cannot fund family literacy sites at their approved second- year levels. ADE awarded
more funds than were available. In addition, ADE failed to inform contractors in a timely
fashion of the second- year budget constraints. The budget shortfalls may negatively affect
both the programs and their participants.
ADE awarded grnnts is1 excess of frmditrg - In both fiscal years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96, ADE
awarded more funds to programs than were available. In fiscal year 1994- 95 the
appropriation was $ 975,000 and the grant awards totaled $ 982,652. However, due to the
limited time the program was operational in fiscal year 1994- 95, few programs expended
their total funds in this year. As a result, instead of a shortage there was actually $ 425,653
in carryover funds remaining at the end of the year that reverted to ADE and were available
for use in the second year.
In fiscal year 1995- 96, ADE again awarded more funds than were available. The fiscal year
1995- 96 appropriation was $ 1,000,600 and the addition of the carryover funds from fiscal year
1994- 95 raised this total to $ 1,426,253. However, ADE awarded grants for the second year
totaling $ 1,529,227. Thus, even with the carryover funds ADE remains $ 102,974 short of fully
funding the grants it has awarded.
ADE late isr irlfonrzittg prograins about fintdittg slsovfnge - As of December 1,1995, ADE
had not yet informed site administrators of the funding shortage. Administrators at family
literacy sites expected that the first- year carryover would be used to augment second- year
budgets. Contrary to program administrators' expectations, ADE plans to reallocate the
carryover to meet already approved budgets, rather than to increase program funding. As
a result, programs will need to adjust their expectations and manage the impact of the
funding shortage when they are already in the second half of their instructional year.
ADE should have informed program staff of the funding shortage in Jdy 1995 when the
shortfall was discovered. Site employees could have used the extra time to plan for the
impact, or to obtain additional resources to cover their unmet needs. While program staff
were informed on at least four different occasions that payments on their budget requests
would be based on fund availability, they were not informed of the funding shortage.
Instead, ADE vaguely informed program administrators that carryover funds would assist
the Agency in determining their total grant awards.
Shortage impacts programs and participants - ADE's funding shortage will impact family
literacy programs and their participants because it will lead to service reductions, or service
elimination at some family literacy sites. At the time this report was written, program
administrators had not decided how to manage the funding shortage. They had, however,
suggested two possibilities: 1) proportional reductions in each family literacy budget; or 2)
elimination of at least one family literacy site. Either option will affect the programs' abilities
to provide services. For instance, budget reductions across sites may force some programs
to end services a month earlier than intended. In addition, a site elimination would force
a program to stop services after families had already started receiving instruction.
Budgeting Errors Caused
Funding Shortage in
Fiscal Year 1995- 96
Budgeting errors during the contracting process led to the second- year funding shortage.
ADE administrators working with the Department of Administration's ( DOA) State
Procurement Office ( SPO) approved program grants without taking time to consider whether
enough second- year funding existed for all 25 sites. Although contractors submitted budget
proposals for fiscal years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 at the same time, ADE and DOA approved
program grants without considering or even adding second- year budgets.
ADE and DOA slrnre resportsibility for budgeting ewors - While ADE family literacy
administrators committed budgeting errors, the DOA's SPO also shares some responsibility
for the mistakes. At the time family literacy funds became available, the SPO managed ADE's
procurement and contracting role. This role changed slightly during the family literacy
Request for Proposal ( RFP) process because ADE needed to complete family literacy contracts
on a limited time line. DOA thus allowed ADE to perform various procurement tasks under
the SPO's authority. The two agencies shared procurement responsibilities, and both ADE
and DOA administrators signed final pilot program contracts.
Fzrszdi~ tgd ecisioszs ignored fiscal year 1995- 96 budgets - Because DOA and ADE focused
their attention on the prompt distribution of fiscal year 1994- 95 funds, they overlooked the
second year overallocation. During the RFP and contracting stages, the two agencies wanted
to quickly move the programs through the contracting process to allow them to start
providing services. Attempts to expedite the process so programs could begin services may,
however, have contributed to funding errors. Because the appropriation did not become
effective until September 17, 1994, the RFP process lasted through the first few months of
1995, leaving only three months in fiscal year 1994- 95 for actual service delivery. While the
ADE and DOA selected proposals according to specific eligibility criteria ( see the Appendix),
they failed to take the time to properly examine budget figures prior to contract awards.
Instead, DOA and ADE decided to sign contracts first, and to amend contracts later if budget
adjustments were necessary.
ADE and DOA used the first- year budgets to project the funding needed for the second year.
However, the fiscal year 1994- 95 budgets did not provide an accurate basis for projecting
the funds needed for the second year of delivering family literacy services. First- year budgets
included costs for only three months, and many programs excluded service delivery costs
during this short time frame. Funding needed for the second year, however, required
increases for full- year instruction, instructional support, administration, and operations.
Proposed program budgets for fiscal year 1995- 96 were an average of $ 23,106 higher than
fiscal year 1994- 95 budgets. The overallocation thus occurred because fiscal year 1995- 96
budgets were approved based on substantially lower first- year budget figures.
F~ lszdingd ecisions not based olr total yvogrmrr budgets - A DE and DOA also did not possess
the necessary budget information to make funding decisions. ADE did not require contractors
to report any additional funding ( local, state, or federal) for their programs on their budget
requests. Instead, the Agency required programs to submit budgets that included only state
family literacy funding. As a result, ADE was unable to determine what portion of the
program state funds would support, or if budget requests were even reasonable.
When selecting family literacy sites for funding, ADE should base budget decisions on
criteria that directly indicate funding needs. Most importantly, ADE should require the
program to submit a budget proposal detailing all sources of funding, including local, state,
and federal. This information is essential to determining whether the program has
appropriate funding. For example, a site that receives support through a partnership with
a local Head Start program will require additional monies only for the program's adult and
parenting components. Other criteria to consider include the program's need for capital
outlay expenditures, and prior experience with family literacy programming. New programs
will need to increase their budgets to account for start- up costs such as hiring, training, the
preparation of program facilities, and program development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADE should examine and adjust budgets prior to approving contracts.
2. ADE should base program budgeting decisions on criteria directly related to funding
needs. Specifically, program administrators should base decisions on the program's total
budget, including state, federal, and local funds. Additional criteria to consider include
the program's need for capital outlay expenditures, and prior experience with family
literacy programming.
FINDING Ill
ADESHOULD EXPANDAND
ENHANCE PROGRAM MONITORING
ADE's Adult Education Division should expand and enhance pilot program monitoring to
guarantee delivery of quality family literacy services. Pilot programs require sighcant
monitoring to ensure that program design and service delivery contain legislated and other
quality components. The Adult Education Division's limited resources and expertise
jeopardize its ability to provide comprehensive program oversight Family literacy
administrators should collaborate with model programs and other ADE divisions to
strengthen the Division's oversight role.
Monitoring Important During First
Year of Pilot Program Implementation
Because 10 of the 15 contractors have not previously implemented a family literacy program,
significant monitoring is needed during the first implementation year to ensure programs
provide quality family literacy services. A program's first year is often difficult and
demanding as staff learn new techniques. Teachers have the complex task of integrating the
education, parent, and parent- child interaction components to ensure hoped- for results occur
not only in the classroom, but also in the home. These issues make monitoring and assistance
particularly critical during the pilot program's first year of providing services. Such
monitoring includes frequent phone and on- site contact, classroom observation, budget and
expenditure reviews, checks for compliance with legislated program requirements, and
program record and documentation reviews.
Lack of monitoring during the first year of providing services could result in poor quality
services that undermine the program's intent Family literacy claims success from the
synergistic interaction between program components. A site's failure to properly implement
the program could disrupt this interaction, thereby threatening its overall success. While
adults and children would likely still advance their literacy skills, unsuccessful component
integration would most significantly affect parenting and parent and child interaction
outcomes. Without these outcomes, family literacy fails to differ from individual adult
education or early childhood programs.
Skillful program monitoring allows state- level administrators to identdy characteristics that
signal quality in programs, as well as those that indicate possible problems. Even Start
coordinators in many states implement quality program monitoring plans that include several
layers of review and monitors with different areas of expertise. North Carolina's Even Start
administrators have a four- year monitoring plan that involves a monitoring team consisting
of the Even Start state coordinator, adult education specialists, early childhood specialists,
a compensatory education consultant, and state agency representatives from the adult
education and early childhood divisions. The State's plan requires site visits for each of the
four implementation years, with the visiting team and activities dependent on the needs of
the State and program at that time. For example, first- year monitoring includes assistance
and guidance in program setup and implementation, second- year monitoring includes
program component reviews, and during the third year state personnel assess compliance
and program quality. This approach ensures that adequate personnel visit family literacy
sites, and that the team completes appropriate preplanned monitoring tasks.
Limited Staff Resources
and Expertise Jeopardize ADE'S
Ability to Monitor Programs
The Adult Education Division's limited resources and expertise jeopardize its ability to
perform adequate monitoring tasks. Family literacy funds support only one Adult Education
staff member, the Family Literacy Coordinator. This individual maintains responsibilities in
addition to family literacy that prevent her from dedicating the necessary resources to
program monitoring. For example, the Coordinator also monitors the Adult Education
budget, oversees staff requests for equipment, provides computer training as needed, and
manages all Adult Education data. Because she must maintain these additional
responsibilities, only about 60 percent of her time is dedicated to family literacy tasks. The
limited staffing problem could be somewhat alleviated by more dependence on support staff
for basic data entry and clerical activities.
Adult Education staff, while qualified to oversee the family literacy adult education
component, do not possess adequate expertise to monitor the early childhood and parenting
components of family literacy programs.' The Division's staff do not have prior early
chldhood training or experience with family literacy program oversight As North Carolina's
program demonstrates, visiting teams should display several different areas of expertise. At
a minimum, Arizona's monitoring team should include the Family Literacy Coordinator and
experts in adult and early childhood education.
1 Although family literacy funds support only 1 FTE, the Adult Education Director and other support
staff also commit time to the program.
20
Family Literacy Administrators Should
Collaborate with Model Programs
and Other ADE Divisions
Family literacy administrators should collaborate with the two model and training programs
and other ADE divisions to expand and enhance their program monitoring role? They can
accomplish this in two ways: 1) develop a formal monitoring partnership with model and
training programs; and 2) coordinate site visits with other ADE and training program staff
qualified in family literacy program component monitoring.
ADE is the only entity formally responsible for program monitoring. While model and
training programs conduct site visits to each program, they do not hold official monitoring
responsibilities. Model programs are not formally responsible for reporting specific pilot
program progress or activities to family literacy administrators, nor are they responsible for
fiscal or statutory compliance monitoring.
Develop a fonnalmonitouis~ gpavf~ msl~- i pA lthough contractors do not hold formal quality
assurance responsibilities, ADE can collaborate with model programs to obtain information
useful for monitoring purposes. For example, model program staff can check sites for quality
indicators on recruitment practices, the integration of the core family literacy components,
staff development, and collaboration with local social service organizations. This information
has dual benefits. Model staff can use it to identrfy ways to improve program service
delivery, and ADE staff can use it to monitor program quality and progress. Also, to ensure
models do not have a conflict of interest, each model could monitor the other's pilot sites.
ADE and model staff should clarify monitoring roles by formalizing an agreement, and
subsequently inform pilot programs of the terms of their relationship.
Family literacy administrators and model and training program staff agree that they should
collaborate to adequately fulfill the monitoring role. One model program staff member
offered assistance in developing a formal monitoring tool for use on site visits. This tool
could be used in various forms by either ADE staff or model staff. While model program
employees will not assume fiscal monitoring responsibilities, they can assist with instructional
or classroom monitoring.
Coovdimzte site visits - Adult education staff should coordinate site visit activities with
other ADE staff to ensure adequate expertise exists for program oversight. Agency personnel
experienced at providing family literacy oversight and conducting site visits to statewide
early childhood programs can provide valuable training and may participate in actual
monitoring. For example, Arizona's Even Start Coordinator has been monitoring Even Start
family literacy sites for several years, and can provide valuable assistance to Adult Education
staff. In addition, ADE's early childhood staff visit preschool sites across the State. When at-risk
and family literacy sites overlap, ADE's early childhood staff can assist with monitoring
family literacy's early childhood component.
1 As previously discussed, Mesa Unified School District # 4 and Pima Adult Education are the two model
program contractors.
Adult Education staff currently support and participate in agency- level collaboration with
ADE's Early Childhood Division. Family literacy administrators regularly involve the Even
Start Coordinator in statewide family literacy planning and activities, and meet regularly
with administrators of the At- Risk Preschool Program. At the time of the evaluation, Adult
Education had plans to extend this relationship to cover program monitoring. Staff should
take timely steps to implement this plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ADE's Adult Education Division should enhance the program monitoring process. Family
literacy administrators should collaborate with model programs and other ADE divisions
to develop an effective monitoring plan. Model program responsibilities should be
formally defined and communicated to sites. Family literacy administrators should ensure
the monitoring team includes the Family Literacy Coordinator and experts in adult and
early childhood education.
2. ADE's Adult Education Division should collaborate with model and training programs .
and determine their capacity to assist with the program monitoring process. Models
should explore ways to transfer useful information to family literacy administrators and
then formalize this relationship.
STATUTORY ANNUAL
EVALUATION COMPONENTS
Session Laws 1994, gth Special Session, Chapter 1, Section 9 requires the Office of the Auditor
I General to include nine factors in the annual evaluations of the Family Literacy Pilot
Program.
11 1. Information on the number and characteristics of the program participants.
I Sites reporting participant data - This report contains participant data for families
enrolled in 13 family literacy sites. While the remaining 12 sites serve families, they
did not report participant data in time for inclusion in this report. Table 4 lists I contractors who submitted participant information, as well as those who did not
I Table 4
Familv Literacy Contractors
Contractors Reportinq Participant Data Contractors Not Reporting
Crane Elementary School District ( 2 sites) Chino Valley Unified School District
Isaac School District Cochise College
Literacy Volunteers of Maricopa County Council for Family Concern
Mesa Unified School District ( 3 sites) Flagstaff Unified School District ( 2 sites)
Phoenix Indian Center Tucson Unified School District ( 5 sites)
Pima County Adult Education ( 3 sites) Red Mesa Unified School District
Pinon Unified School District Somerton School District
Tempe Elementary School District
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of participant data reported to ADE's Adult
Education Division.
The participant information that follows is presented in aggregate form on the 13
sites listed in the first column of Table 4.
Number of enrolled participants - By the middle of November 1995, the 13
reporting sites enrolled 164 families. Family literacy programs target between 10
and 15 families per site; therefore, when fully providing services we estimate the
number of families for all 25 sites will fall between 250 and 375.
Adult participants are divided almost evenly between ESOL and GED classes, with
52 percent in ESOL and 48 percent in GED classrooms.
Family Ethnicity - Figure 1 ( see page 25) shows that the majority of families
enrolled are Hispanic ( 83 percent).' Additionally, about 10 percent of families are
Native American, 5 percent are, White non- Hispanics, and African- American and
Asian/ Pacific Islanders each represent 1 percent of families.
Program Parents - Almost all family literacy adult participants are mothers,
although the program does involve the fathers in several activities throughout the
year. Half of program parents are between 26 and 35 years old, and of the sites
reporting, there is only one teenage parent.
Program Children - Family literacy sites serve 172 three- and four- year old
children. Only 7 of the 164 families have more than one child in the program. Of
the children served, 49 percent are female and 51 percent are male. Almost three-fourths
of all family literacy children are four- year- olds ( 73 percent).
Family Status - Program participants are members of families that are mostly
poor and undereducated. Almost three- fourths of famibes have less than $ 10,000
annual income, and about four out of every five adult participants have less than
a high school education. English language literacy is also low. Less than 20 percent
of families listed English as the primary language spoken at home.
A low percentage of actual adult program participants are employed. The majority
of the participants' spouses ( mostly males) are employed and provide the primary
source of income for the family. Many families also receive some form of
government assistance; however, most subsist primarily on one adult's income.
1 This distribution should change slightly with the addition of data from the 12 non- reporting sites. Two
of the three contractors serving Native Americans did not submit participant data by November 10,
1995, in time for inclusion in this report.
I
24
Figure 1
Family Literacy Participant Ethnicity '
April 1, 1995 throuqh November 10, 1995
hite1Non Hispanic
Islander t%
a Figure reports ethnicity data for only the 13 sites that reported participant data as of November 10, 1995.
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of participant data submitted by program contractors.
A high proportion of family literacy famihes contain two parents with more than one child.
Only about one- fifth of adults reported they were single parents. Sites thus appear to serve
families that are structurally intact, but need the skills and the education necessary to escape
the effects of poverty and undereducation.
Table 5 ( see page 26) presents statistics on the characteristics of family literacy families.
--
Table 5
Characteristics of Family
Literacy Families
Family Variables Arizona Family Literacy Families
Income
Annual household income
Primary source of income
Education
Highest grade achieved
73% have an annual income of less than $ 10,000
60% report wages as their primary source of income
83% have less than a high school education
Language
Primary language spoken in the home 7' 2% primarily speak Spanish in their home
Employment
Program Parent Employment 11% of program parents are employed
Spousal Employment 65% of spouses are employed
Family Structure
Family Description 72% describe their families as a couple with children
Number of adults in household 73% of households contain two adults
Number of children in household 50% have three or more children in their household
Source: Office of the Auditor General staff analysis of family literacy participant data submitted by
November 10,1995.
2. Information on contractors and program service providers.
Fifteen Pilot Program Contractors - The State Board of Education approved family
literacy project funds for 15 contractors serving 25 sites in Arizona. Contractors
include ten school districts, three community- based organizations, one college, and
one adult education provider. See Table 2 on page 6 for a description of each pilot
program contractor, their location, the number of sites administered by each
contractor, and their fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 state- supported budgets.
Two Model and Training Resource Contractors - Two entities, Mesa Unified School
District and Pima County Adult Education, applied for and received model and
training program funding for fiscal years 1994- 95 and 1995- 96. The family literacy
legislation authorized funding for two existing family literacy programs to offer
training and serve as models and training resources for the establishment and
expansion of pilot programs throughout the State. The Mesa program serves 12 sites
in Arizona's northern region ( including Maricopa County), and Pima County Adult
Education serves the 13 southern Arizona sites.
Mesa Unijied School District Family Tree Project - The Mesa Unified School District
Family Tree Project has over four years of family literacy experience and operates
programs at eight Mesa elementary schools. The program's training model includes
periodic state and regional training sessions, hosting visitors from pilot program sites,
written and verbal technical assistance, and site visits.
Pima County Adult Education - Pima County Adult Education started its family
literacy project in the Tucson community over four years ago, and now operates five
elementary school- based sites. Pima County uses a team approach to training, using
four family literacy teachers who share teaching and training responsibilities. Training
and technical assistance includes six areas of support: training workshops and
seminars, pilot site visits, model program and classroom observations, regionalization
and statewide planning, monthly family literacy focus mailings, and technical
assistance.
3. Information on program revenues and expenditures.
Appropriations for the Family Literacy Pilot Program totaled $ 975,000 in fiscal year 1994 -
95 and $ 1,000,600 in fiscal year 1995- 96. Family literacy funds are nonreverting, allowing
the ADE to carry over unspent funds. Although the original appropriation was reverting,
the Legislature approved ADE's request for non- reversion in March 1995, allowing
programs additional time, if needed, to spend implementation dollars. See pages 3
through 5 for a description of fiscal years' 1994- 95 and 1995- 96 expenditures.
4. Information on the number and characteristics of enrollment and disenrollment.
The family literacy legislation requires that each site enroll no fewer than 10 and no more
than 15 families. Several sites have not yet enrolled the minimum 10 families. While these
sites plan to serve at least 10 families, they have not been operating long enough to enroll
enough participants. Several family literacy sites have enrolled more than the maximum
number of allowable families. Interviews with 10 contractors reveal that at least 4 sites
serve more than 15 families. Two of the 4 sites serve 18 families, 1 site serves 17, and
1 serves 19. Sites serving less than 10 or more than 15 families are not in compliance with
the legislation.
Criteria obtained from early childhood program guidelines and interviews with program
staff reveal that programs can serve more than 15 families without negatively impacting
either adults or children. The National Association for the Education of Young Children
( NAEYC) and Arizona's Early Childhood Advisory Council state that the appropriate
child- teacher ratio for four- year- olds is 10 to 1, or approximately 20 children per
classroom with a teacher and an aide. The ratio decreases slightly for three- year- olds, but
ranges between 14 and 20 children per classroom. Family literacy programs with a mix
of three- and four- year- olds can thus serve between 15 and 20 children per classroom
without violating developmentally appropriate practices. No universally accepted
guidelines exist for the appropriate number of adults per classroom. Arizona's adult
education statistics show, however, that most classrooms contain more than 20 adults.
The Legislature should consider increasing the range for family enrollment from 10 to
15 families to 10 to 20 families. Programs can serve up to 20 families at almost the same
cost it takes to serve between 10 and 15 families. The range increase will thus allow
programs to serve more families at a decreased sost per family.
5. Information on the average cost for each participant in the program.
Family literacy is based on the premise that a program incorporating adult, child, and
parent education is more effective than independent adult or early childhood
components. Research shows adults and children in family literacy programs produce
higher literacy and developmental gains than those in programs focusing only on either
adults or children. Because quality family literacy programs provide several concurrent
services to families, programs require higher levels of funding than those serving only
adults, children, or parents.
Cost per family - In fiscal year 1995- 96, we estimate Arizona family literacy
programs will spend $ 6,527 per family for family literacy services.
Office of the Auditor General staff calculated the cost per family estimate using all
sources of funds dedicated to family literacy services ( including local, state, and
federal sources), and the total number of enrolled participants in each program.' In
addition to state funds, almost all sites receive additional contractor, federal, or private
funds for family literacy programs ( e. g., school district contributions, Head Start, and
Arizona At- Risk Preschool). These additional funds can either partially support overall
costs, or support individual program components.
Any contribution by the contractor and other non- state funding decreases the amount
the State needs to contribute to family literacy programs. Partnerships and multiple
funding streams allow the State to fund more sites than would be possible without
a sharing of resources.
Costs vary substantially across programs - Cost- per- family estimates vary
substantially across sites. Much of the variation can be explained by differences in
1 Office of the Auditor General staff collected budgets from each contractor that detailed program funds
and funding sources for each pilot program site.
the amount of contractor and other funding contributed to each site. For example,
Lsaac School District in Phoenix provides services at a cost of $ 7,127 per family. In
addition to $ 99,997 in state funding, the District provides an additional $ 61,401 to the
program. The site also receives $ 55411 from other sources, committing a total of
$ 213,809 to the program. A portion of the site's non- family literacy funding represents
Head Start funds for the early childhood component
Geographic considerations also affect costs per family. The three programs serving
Native American populations in northern Arizona have high per- family costs. For
example, Flagstaff Unified School District provides services to Leupp School at a cost
of $ 8,221 per family, Red Mesa Unified School District at a cost of $ 9,229 per family,
and Pinon Unified School District at a cost of $ 12,043 per family. Each of these sites
has new family literacy programs in areas with few resources. As a result, the
programs needed to expend a large portion of funding for operational and
administrative costs. Also, in at least two cases, workers must travel large distances
to conduct home visits on the Navajo reservation.
Combined component cost comparisons - Although family literacy program costs
are high, proponents argue that investment in integrated family literacy service
delivery may have a higher impact on intergenerational undereducation and poverty
than an investment in individual components. Family literacy recognizes the
important link between the parent and child, and the need to effect change in each
family member. While individual components work to increase adult literacy and
parenting skills, and to improve children's developmental progress, they do not
independently result in the same intergenerational effects that come from
comprehensive family literacy services. Therefore, higher family literacy costs can pay
off through cost savings for future generations.
The National Center for Family Literacy recommends comparing family literacy costs
to the combined costs of an early childhood program, an adult education program,
and a parent education program. However, reliable cost estimates for such a
combined cost comparison are not available.
Even Start cost comparisons - Cost comparisons with comparable Arizona Even
Start programs show state- funded sites provide family literacy services at a lower rate
than the federally funded Even Start family literacy sites. Arizona Family Literacy
and Even Start both deliver family literacy services to parents and their children. Their
only major differences include funding sources and the eligibility age for children.
Even Start are federally funded programs that provide family literacy services to
families with children ages 0 to 7, while Arizona family literacy programs receive
state funding and serve only three- and four- year- olds. Arizona began distributing
Even Start funds in 1988 and currently has eight Even Start sites.
Two Even Start sites that closely resemble family literacy sites serve each family at
an annual cost of $ 8,012 and $ 10,390, respectively. Like family literacy programs, these
two sites adhere to National Center for Family Literacy ( NCFL) models. Thus,
compared to Even Start sites that deliver similar services, Arizona family literacy sites
have lower overall costs per family.
6. Information concerning progress of program participants in achieving goals and
objectives.
This report does not address the progress of participants in achieving program goals and
objectives. Information demonstrating progress toward increased literacy, better parenting,
and developmental progress for preschool children will be available in 1996, after
programs deliver services for one full program year.
7. Recommendations regarding program administration.
A. ADE should improve the family literacy budgeting process. Specifically, they should:
1. Examine and adjust budgets prior to approving contracts.
2. Base program budgeting decisions on criteria directly related to funding needs.
Specifically, base decisions on the program's total budget, including state, federal,
and local funds. Additional criteria to consider include the program's need for
capital outlay expenditures, and prior experience with family literacy
programming.
3. Reexamine the level of state funding required to support family literacy programs.
Specifically, the Agency should consider the ability of programs to dedicate
additional local, state, and federal funds to the support of services.
B. Adult Education Division should collaborate with the model and training programs
and determine their capacity to assist with the program monitoring process. Models
should explore ways to transfer useful information to Adult Education and then
formalize this relationship.
8. Recommendations regarding informational materials distributed through the
programs.
The model programs have provided pilot programs with training and material that will
be useful in the program implementation.
Model programs disseminated family literacy manuals developed by the National Center
for Family Literacy ( NCFL) to all pilot program staff. The manuals familiarized staff with
family literacy components and provided a comprehensive guide for pilot program
service delivery. NCFL manuals included extensive information on topics such as
recruitment and retention, adult education, early childhood education, parenting
discussion groups, parent and child interaction time, and assessment and program evaluation
Staff also received information and materials specifically relating to each of the four
program components. For example, adult education materials included GED study books,
pre- GED books, and reading books at various proficiency levels. Early childhood
materials included children's books and developmentally appropriate toys. In addition,
staff received materials through vendor fairs involving numerous adult and early
childhood education vendors, nutrition classes offered by the University of Arizona, early
childhood training from a nationally recognized organization, and educational computer
software.
9. Recommendations pertaining to program expansion.
This report cannot address recommendations pertaining to program expansion until
outcome data is available.
APPENDIX
FAMILY LITERACY PROPOSAL
EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS
The pilot program proposal evaluation and selection process resulted in contract awards for
15 of the 16 submitted proposals. Proposals meeting legislated eligibility requirements were
evaluated by a three- member evaluation committee using criteria developed by the legislation
and the State Board of Education. Selection decisions were based on evaluation ratings, as
well as the evaluation committee and the Department of Administration ( DOA) State
Procurement Office's ( SPO) recommendations.
I Eligibility Criteria - Local education agencies and adult education programs ( including
school districts, community college districts, correctional facihties, community- based
organizations, institutions serving educationally disadvantaged adults, or any other
institution receiving public funds to provide adult education services) in areas
demonstrating a high incidence of economic and educational disadvantage were eligible
for pilot program funding. The State Board of Education interpreted these criteria as:
Economic disadvantage - Public school attendance areas where the percentage of residents
living in poverty exceeds the state average of 15.7 percent
Educational disadvantage- Public school attendance areas where the percentage of
residents 25 years and older who have not graduated from high school exceeds the state
average of 21.3 percent
Evaluation Criteria - Family literacy legislation states that at a minimum, selection
criteria for grant awards must include: 1) the adult population's educational needs; 2)
the incidence of unemployment in the county, district, or local targeted school service
area; 3) the degree to which community collaboration and partnership demonstrate the
ability to bring additional resources to the program; and 4) the readiness and likelihood
of the proposing organizations to establish a successful family literacy project The State
Board of Education added economic disadvantage to the list, and as illustrated in Table
6 ( see page a- ii) defined and assigned points to each criterion:
a- i
Table 6
Evaluation Criteria for
Family Literacy Proposals
Criteria
Economic disadvantage
Educational disadvantage
Unemployment
Collaboration and partnership
Program and instructional model
Source: ADE's Adult Education Division.
Points
25 points
25 points
5 points
15 points
30 points
Proposal Selection - Using these criteria along with DOA Procurement's standard
evaluation criteria, the three- member proposal evaluation committee recommended
contract award without reservation to 13 of the 16 applicants. The committee expressed
concern about the three remaining proposals because they contained limited information,
but chose to recommend contract award contingent on the availabdity of funding and
program clarification. Three factors influenced this decision: 1) the need for services in
each targeted community; 2) funding availability; and 3) the level of technical assistance
available from model and training programs.
Based on an independent review of both program proposals and evaluation committee
reports, DOA Procurement recommended against awarding a contract to one of the
remaining three applicants. The recommendation did not prevent service delivery to that
proposal's targeted community, since one of the other proposals included a plan for
service delivery to that same site.
a- ii
