Leveraging Resources to Promote Positive School-CBO Relationships

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Pentious

A review article examines how community-based organizations (CBOs) and public schools leverage four categories of resources to strengthen school-CBO relationships and support youth learning and positive development. Using the Ferguson and Dickens resource framework and drawing on evaluation reports from the Harvard Family Research Project’s Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Database, the article analyzes implementation findings related to shared goals, coordination, and resource management. It highlights common challenges and practical examples drawn from a subset of 15 programs that operate in public schools under CBO management.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Our Methodology

The HFRP Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Database

Physical Resources

leveraging resources to Promote Positive School-CBO Relationships by Christopher Wimer, Margaret Post, and Priscilla Little courtesy Cedar Ridge Fun, Fun, Fun, and More Fun 4-H Club, Gainesville, FL M any afterschool programs operated by neighborhood or community-based organizations (CBOs) take place in students’school buildings. Navigating relationships between afterschool programs and their host public schools can be challenging for both parties. At times, tension in such relationships can throw unnecessary roadblocks on the path to achieving successful and enriching youth programming. Connecting, coordinating, and leveraging the resources of both schools and CBOs, however, can enable both institutions to develop and implement effective afterschool programs (Blank & Langford, 2000) . Ferguson and Dickens (1999) delineate four primary forms of resources or assets necessary for any Wimer, C., Post, M., & Little, P. (2003). Leveraging Resources to Promote Positive School-CBO Relationships. Afterschool Matters, 3, 13–21. community development organization to accomplish its goals and achieve its outcomes: • Physical resources: concrete assets such as buildings, tools, or materials • Financial resources: money and funding streams • Social resources: the norms, shared understandings, and trust inherent in strong relationships among various actors • Intellectual resources: the skills, knowledge, and competence of main stakeholders such as teachers and program staff This review article uses the Ferguson and Dickens resource framework to examine how CBOs and schools have leveraged their resources to achieve their common goal: the increased learning and positive development of youth in their care. Our review drawson rich evaluation data harvested from the Harvard Wimer, Post, and Little Leveraging Resources 15 Family Research Project’s (HFRP’s) Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Database to provide examples of afterschool programs that have successfully navigated the challenges of sharing resources with schools. Our Methodology The HFRP’s Out-of-School Time Program tion Database provides information about Evaluaevalua- tions of out-of-school time (OST) programs and initiatives. Its purpose is to support the development of high-quality OST evaluations and programs. Evaluations in the database meet the following three criteria: • The evaluated program or initiative operates during out-of-school time. • The evaluation (or evaluations) aims to answer a specific evaluation question or set of questions about a specific program or initiative. • The evaluated program or initiative serves children between the ages of 5 and 19. Each profile contains detailed information about the evaluations, as well as an overview of the OST program or initiative itself. The settings of the programs profiled in the database differ quite a bit, ranging from school-based, school-operated programs to schoolbased, CBO-operated programs to community- or university-based programs. Programs profiled include not only afterschool programs, but also summer, special weekend, before-school, and weekend programs, as well as comprehensive initiatives with multiple OST components. The programs in this review represent a subset of the database: afterschool programs that take place in public schools but are managed or operated by CBOs. Of this subset, we examined the evaluation reports to find those that included an evaluation of the program’s implementation. Of those, we selected those whose implementation findings dealt with school-CBO relationships. This process resulted in a final set of 15 programs, from which the issues and examples highlighted in the rest of this article are drawn (see box) . While these programs are not statistically representative of all such programs, we hope that the situations culled from these evaluations will provide helpful “food for thought” to practitioners and program planners who need

FAQs

What challenges do the authors identify in school-CBO relationships for afterschool programs?

The authors note that coordinating and navigating relationships between afterschool programs run by CBOs and host public schools can be challenging, and tension may create obstacles to effective youth programming.

Which four resource categories does the article use to analyze program success?

It uses physical, financial, social, and intellectual resources: tangible assets, funding, relationship norms and trust, and stakeholders’ skills and knowledge.

How does the review select the programs it analyzes?

The review uses a subset of the database focusing on afterschool programs in public schools managed or operated by CBOs, then selects those whose evaluation findings address implementation and school-CBO relationship issues, resulting in 15 programs.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Pentious