Casee

18

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families

in the United States

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

The diversity among children enrolling in early childhood programs has increased steadily over the last 15 years, a trend that is expected to continue. The rapid growth of the Latino population in the United States is a factor contributing to this demographic shift. According to the 2010 Census, Latinos are the largest minority group in the United States reaching 50 million (16.3%), with Latino children presently comprising 23% of the nation’s population younger than 18 years of age (Passel, Cohn, & Lopez, 2011). Data from 2007 indicate that just over half of all Latino children are “second generation,” meaning their parents were the fi rst generation to immigrate to the United States (Fry & Passel, 2009). Latinos in the United States originate from over 20 dif- ferent countries, with the largest percentage of Latinos being of Mexican origin or descent (63%), from nations in the Caribbean (15.5%), in Central America (8%), and South America (5.5%) (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Immigrants from Latin American countries constitute over 50% of all immigrants in the United States. Although a large percentage (62%) of children from immigrant families are residents of fi ve states (California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas), children of immigrants account for at least 10% of children in 26 states (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2008).

With respect to language development, the majority of children in Latino immigrant families grow up in bilingual environments. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that 96% of Latino immigrants, ages 5 and older, speak a language other than English at home (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). Although immigrant families account for most of the families who speak a lan- guage other than English at home, not all dual language learners (DLLs) are children of immi- grants. In the United States, there are native-born families who speak English and also speak a language other than English at home; for example, among U.S.-born Latinos ages 18 and older, over 60% speak a language other than English at home (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008).

The changing U.S. demographics pose a need for revisiting the way in which family literacy programs have been conceived, so that they can meet the particular needs of the diverse groups of families they currently serve. In this chapter, we discuss family literacy with a focus on pro- grams for Latino families. Acknowledging the diversity that exists within this population, we discuss the characteristics and needs of U.S.-born, immigrant and refugee Latino families. We begin by defi ning family programs for both groups and then present a review of factors that need to be taken into account when developing family literacy programs for these populations. Next, we review family literacy programs developed and/or adapted for use with Latino families, and

270

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

271

provide a set of recommendations emerging from this review. We end with a discussion of rel- evant gaps and unanswered questions.

Defi ning Family Literacy for Latino Families

The cultural nature of literacy experiences has been extensively discussed and documented (e.g., Gadsden, 2004; Purcell-Gates, 2000). Families engage in activities that support their children’s literacy, and those activities refl ect families’ beliefs, values, and priorities. For ethnic minority, immigrant, and refugee families, their beliefs, values, and priorities may diff er from those of the mainstream society and, therefore, the ways in which they support their children’s literacy development may take forms that do not always match the expectations of schools and existing family literacy programs. The lack of awareness and consideration of families’ cultural context in the design and implementation of family literacy programs for these populations may have a negative impact on families’ abilities to use all the resources they bring with them to raise their children (Puchner, 1997). Furthermore, depending on how much they are willing to accept and follow practices of mainstream society, they may alienate themselves and their children from their culture of origin, which may aff ect the development of children’s cultural identity, and the possibility of maintaining a healthy and supportive relationship with their families.

Family literacy programs in the United States have used various approaches. For example, two main types involve use of either “direct literacy instruction to adults in hopes that the eff ect will trickle down to children, or direct instruction to parent and child together” (Puchner, 1997). However, a limitation of these direct instruction approaches is that the design of topics and tasks are often based on assumptions and norms established by mainstream society. In con- trast, Auerbach (1997) describes how other approaches try to be responsive to the interests and needs of the targeted families by “embedding the literacy practices in the participants’ daily lives; empowering the families by acknowledging and valuing their literacy practices; understanding that literacy is acquired by active engaged learners; and documenting their experiences in order to learn from them …” (as cited in Rodriguez, 2006). In this chapter, we take the perspective that the culturally embedded approach may be more eff ective with ethnic minority, immigrant and refugee families in general, and with Latino families in particular. To this end, we provide a review of evaluation studies of family literacy programs to discern whether or not this view is supported by research evidence.

Prior to the empirical review, we fi rst off er a discussion of relevant factors that help capture the diversity among children and families that comprise Latinos in the United States. These include factors at the community, family, and individual levels. In order to help better contextu- alize the experiences of Latinos in the United States, family literacy providers should be mindful of these factors that may signifi cantly impact the likelihood of success of family literacy initia- tives with Latino populations.

Heterogeneity Among Latino Families

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity

Because of the multitude of countries of origin or heritage among Latino populations, ethnic and cultural variations are to be expected. In addition, although Spanish is the home language for many Latinos in the United States, there are Latinos who speak Portuguese (Brazilians) or one of many indigenous languages spoken throughout Latin America. These possible variations within the Latino population are often overlooked by practitioners and researchers. As men- tioned above, Latinos of Mexican origin or ancestry make up the majority of the U.S. Latino

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

272

population (63%), they are followed by Puerto Ricans (8.9%), Cubans (3.5%), and Salvadorians (3.3%) (Ennis, Rios-Vargas & Albert, 2011). Patterns of immigration from have changed con- siderably over the past few decades. This diversity among Latino families can have implications for literacy programs because of diff erences in language dialect, as well as in beliefs, values, and practices. These diff erences occur in addition to variability in socioeconomic status, parental education, and acculturation, which may infl uence parental values and practices to support their children’s literacy development. For example, depending on families’ experiences and beliefs, they may place more or less value on education and literacy practices as defi ned by the main- stream culture. Additionally, diff erences may exist between U.S.-born and immigrant children with regard to opportunities to learn both English and their family language, in terms of read- ing, writing and speaking. Moreover, beliefs may vary by cultural group in terms of the specifi c role of parents in teaching literacy skills to their children, and the relative emphasis they may place on raising children to be profi cient, bilingual adults.

Factors Associated with Migration and Adjustment

In addition to variation associated with culture and ethnicity, Latinos in the United States vary on other signifi cant dimensions that could infl uence their participation, engagement, and success in family literacy programs. For example, Latinos diff er in their mode of entry into the United States and their documentation status. Family factors that could infl uence participation include family composition and income, language preference, the amount of time they have spent in the host country, level of acculturation, and acculturative stress. Lastly, individual characteristics that are salient to Latinos include experiences with education, schedule confl icts, and depression.

Mode of entry and documentation. Latinos in the United States have diff erent experiences depending on whether they arrived in the United States as authorized immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, refugees, or migrant workers. As of March 2010, there were approximately 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, making up 3.7% of the population (Passel & Cohn, 2011). The estimated population of unauthorized migrant workers was about 11.5 million in 2006, almost half of whom entered the country with appropriate documentation (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006). Furthermore, 13.9 million people live in families in which the head of household or the spouse is an unauthorized immigrant (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006). Although these numbers do not capture proportions related to specifi c ethnic groups, Latinos make up the vast majority. Therefore, mode of entry and documentation status are very relevant issues for Latino families. The types of literacy programs that can be accessed by and will be helpful for these families will diff er greatly, particularly if programs fail to recognize the transient nature of employment opportunities for Latino adults, or diff erences within the families when some lack documentation while others are native born and hold citizenship status. Also, fear associated with risk of deportation can prevent unauthorized Latino immigrant families from participating in programs off ered by schools, especially in states where immigration raids have increased in recent years.

Barriers to health and educational services. Research shows that as a group, Latinos have less access to healthcare and social services than other ethnic groups. For example, 31.7% of Latinos are uninsured, compared to 10.7% of Caucasians and 19% of African Americans. Additionally, fewer than 1 in 20 Latino immigrants with psychological disorders seek mental health services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). This lack of access may be related to a number of barriers including a lack of childcare, transportation, work schedule confl icts, as well as language barriers and not feeling comfortable with the service providers. For

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

273

example, in a sample of 54 Latino parents, Mendez and Westerberg (2011) found that a lack of childcare, feeling too tired, not wanting to participate in a parenting program, or being enrolled in college classes at night prevented them from participating in a preventative intervention held at Head Start involving ESL classes and parenting information. Assessing the specifi c needs of the targeted group and tailoring the family literacy program accordingly can help encourage Latino families’ participation.

Length of stay and acculturation. Another factor that may infl uence Latino immigrant families’ participation in programs off ered by their children’s schools is the amount of time they have lived in the United States. Of the 17,721,530 foreign-born Latinos living in the United States, 38.8% have lived in the country for over 20 years, 30.6% between 10 and 20 years, and 30.6% fewer than 10 years (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). Time spent in the United States can infl uence people’s opportunity to learn English and can provide the opportunity for exposure to language, media, and customs, as well as the opportunity to become familiar with available social services and support networks. This exposure can infl uence the process of acculturation. Acculturation refers to adapting to the language, lifestyles, and rules of the host country (White, Roosa, Weaver, & Nair, 2009). Most current conceptualizations of acculturation use a bidimensional model. For example, Berry (2003, 2006) explained that people face two issues in the process of acculturation: the reconciliation of the preference to maintain their native culture and identity as well as the preference to be a part of and participate in the larger society with other cultural groups. Although the length of time spent in a country can infl uence acculturation, it does not always lead to exposure to the host country’s culture, as some immigrants live in communities where they maintain the language and culture of their country of origin, having few opportunities of interaction with the mainstream culture. In addition, individual families decide how they will negotiate the relationship with the language and culture of the country they decided to make their new home. Therefore, families may be at diff erent points in the continuum of the acculturation process depending on their particular background and experiences.

Family Characteristics

Family values. The importance of family, in particular the concept of familisimo, has been theorized as an important construct to consider in supporting the overall well-being of members of a Latino family. “Familismo is a strong identifi cation with and attachment to the family, marked by strong feelings of loyalty, reciprocity, and solidarity among family members (Vega, 1995)” (cited in Castro, Ayankoya, & Kasprzak, 2010). Similarly, research has found that Latinos place a great emphasis on the importance of extended family as a source of social and emotional support. Latino families more frequently live with their extended family, and they rely on extended family to help with childrearing (Leidy, Guerra, & Toro, 2010; Sarkisian, Gerena, & Gerstel, 2006). Familismo shapes Latino parents’ childrearing practices, as they emphasize the importance of building relationships with family members and use discipline strategies that foster these relationships (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2007). This emphasis on the importance of the family and in particular the role that parents and extended kin play in the upbringing of children is an important strength or resiliency factor present in many Latino families. This characteristic of Latino families may imply that an approach that includes extended family members may contribute to the success of family literacy programs with this population.

Research has shown that familismo infl uences Latino parenting, both through their expectations of their children and the use of support from extended family in child rearing (Parra Cardona et al., 2009). Moreover, similar research on cultural values and childrearing has addressed the cultural value of respeto within Latino families (Calzada, Fernandez, & Cortes, 2010; Gonzales-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

274

Ramos, Zayas, & Cohen, 1998). This value has been described as an emphasis on obedience and respect shown to adults by children being raised in a Latino culture. In their study of Dominican and Mexican mothers of 4 year olds, Calzada (2010) showed that respeto has multiple dimensions, including obedience to authority, deference, decorum, and public behavior. For family literacy programs that occur outside of the home, aspects of respeto, in particular décorum and deference, will play a key role in how Latina mothers interact with professionals, as well as their expectations for interactions between their children and providers. In the remainder of this section, we review data on types of family structures and other contextual variables that impact the interaction between family literacy program providers and Latino families.

Family composition. Family literacy programs should recognize that Latino adults and children live in diverse households. In terms of living situations, the majority of Latinos live in a household headed by a married couple (59%). Just 21.3% live in a female-headed household, 10.1% live in a male-headed household, and 9.5% live in non-family households (e.g., working men sharing a household) (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). The percentage of two-parent headed households among Latinos can serve as a protective factor to support their children’s development and learning, especially if programs can involve both parents in complementary ways. Thus, family literacy programs could build on that source of strength.

Latino families tend to be larger than two person families. Only 27% of Latinos live in two person families, 46.3% live in three or four person families, and 26.3% live in fi ve or more per- son families (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). Forty-two percent of Latino women who gave birth in 2007 were not married (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). Raising children in a single parent household puts limits on the resources a parent may have to be involved in a literacy program. Although these data are informative, there are nuances and varied combinations of variables that constitute the heterogeneity of family composition within the Latino population. Family com- position among Latino families is also aff ected by country of origin, length of residency in the United States, generation, and socio-economic status. For example, the percentage of households headed by a married couple seems to be higher among Latino immigrants than among U.S.-born Latinos or second and higher generation Latinos. As another example, the percentage of female- headed families may be higher among families from some countries of origin in comparison with others (Tienda & Mitchell, 2006).

Family income. Although most Latino households have one or more working adults, the majority of working Latinos earn less than $50,000 per year and over 44% earn less than $20,000 per year (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). In families where one parent is earning this income to support four people, resources will be scarce. Additionally, the more children parents need to care for, the more challenging it may be to involve their families in literacy programs.

Language preference in the home setting. Another factor that is important to consider when looking at family literacy programs in the United States is the language preference of the family. A family that prefers to speak Spanish at home may be less interested or able to participate in a literacy program delivered primarily in English. Additionally, it is important to assess and consider the reasons for the language preference when developing appropriate family literacy programs. In her model of the negotiation of language preference, Lutz (2008) identifi ed contextual, parent, and child factors that play a role. The parent’s linguistic context, including length of planned stay in the country, language skills, and language experiences (e.g., discrimination associated with her language background) infl uence the parent’s perceptions of the benefi t and risk associated with diff erent home language choices. These parent contextual factors, along with school and community language experiences, infl uence children’s language

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

275

preferences. Parent’s perceptions and children’s preferences, in turn, impact the home language. These factors could impact a family’s participation in numerous ways. For example, some research has found that among Mexican Americans, parents put a large emphasis on their children learning English because they view English as necessary for succeeding in the United States (Valdés, 1996). On the other hand, a family who is only staying in the country temporarily for work may not see the value in learning English.

Other families may want their children to maintain their home language and be bilingual because of the advantages for their children’s future and to keep their children connected with their family and culture. Those families emphasize speaking Spanish (or another non-English language) at home, particularly in places where bilingual schooling is not available. However, just because a family’s language preference is Spanish, one cannot assume that the family does not want to learn English. Other reasons for Latino families preferring to speak Spanish at home may be that the parents have little knowledge of English, and/or that Spanish is the primary language spoken in the community, giving the family little opportunity to learn English.

Understanding the factors that infl uence Latinos language abilities will be important to informing the development of family literacy programs. Perhaps programs that provide a basic ESL curriculum for adults in combination with family literacy experiences would most benefi t parents with low literacy ability in English. Also, a challenge among some Latinos is the low level of literacy in their fi rst or home language, which makes it diffi cult for them to approach the task of learning English. For those families, having the opportunity to become literate in their fi rst or home language before learning English will be benefi cial.

Individual Characteristics

Factors that are associated with the parents or heads of household include several demographic or background characteristics such as their educational history, individual and family income, employment status, child care preferences, and language ability. Additionally, mental health diffi culties, including acculturative stress and depression, may also impact parents’ ability to par- ticipate in family literacy programs.

Educational background and/or other demographic variables. Educational attainment may also infl uence the success of family literacy programs in terms of recruitment and retention in the intervention. Adults’ prior experiences with schooling and/or formal opportunities for education may determine the value they place on such learning opportunities, as well as their willingness to participate. Almost 40% of Latinos have not graduated from high school, 26% have a high school diploma, while 12.9% have graduated from college, compared to 30.7% of Caucasians who have a college degree (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). In terms of Latino youth, 39.9% of children ages 3–4 are enrolled in preschool compared to over 50% of White, African American, and Asian children (Pew Hispanic Center, 2008). If family members do not have experience participating in a classroom environment, they may fi nd aspects of formal family literacy programs to be unfamiliar and perhaps unwelcoming. Instead, more interactive programs that occur in diff erent settings, including the home or community environments, may have greater appeal and relevance for building literacy skills.

Furthermore, family members who are busy during the day because of their own school schedule or work situation will not be able to consistently attend a program that is very time consuming or confl icts with these other demands. Emerging research on childcare preferences suggests that Latino children are less likely to participate in formal child care settings compared to other ethnic groups and are more likely to choose relative care than center based care (Del- gado, 2009; Liang, Fuller, & Singer, 2000). Latino children are underrepresented in center-based

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

276

childcare and pre-kindergarten programs and this is a key contributing factor to disparities in school readiness (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011; Mather & Foxen, 2010). These fi ndings suggest that family literacy programs located in centers may have limited access to families, as opposed to programs who utilize home-based visitation as a strategy.

Acculturative stress. The process of acculturation places demands on people to learn a new language and to adjust to new cultural values and expectations (Berry & Kim, 1988). Additionally, families may experience stress and confl ict because of changes in family members’ roles and responsibilities (Berry & Kim, 1988). Acculturative stress has been conceptualized as the stress associated with the navigation of two cultures, as well as experiences of discrimination, problems in communicating due to language, and family confl ict that results from youth adopting majority values (Polo & Lopez, 2009; Suarez-Morales, Dillon, & Szapocznik, 2007). Therefore, it is expected that families that have recently arrived to the host country would show the highest levels of acculturative stress, which can signifi cantly impact their ability to locate resources and participate in preventative, as opposed to crisis-oriented, mental health services. In other words, families experiencing stressors will prioritize their most immediate needs fi rst, and the topic of family literacy may not be perceived as an urgent need. Family literacy programs that incorporate discussion of problems related to acculturative stress and problem solving to reduce such stress may better serve the needs of the Latino immigrant community, particularly those who are recent arrivals to the United States.

Depression and other mental health issues. Alarmingly, Latinos are two times as likely to experience depression as Caucasians (Alegria et al., 2006). Depression may decrease people’s motivation and energy to participate in such a program. Additionally, depression is associated with a lack of self-effi cacy. If parents do not believe that they will be able to learn from a family literacy program, they may be unwilling to participate. However, the impact of depression on interactions may not be unidimensional. In a study of primarily African American caregivers from low-income backgrounds, depression was shown to have an impact on parent program participation for a subset of mothers, while others showing depression were not as aff ected because of their high levels of commitment to involvement as a parent with their preschooler (Mendez, Carpenter, LaForett, & Cohen, 2009). More research on how depression interacts with program participation among Latino families would be useful to inform this process.

Research on refugee populations suggests that Latino immigrants who are exposed to high levels of violence or political persecution often present with trauma-induced psychopathology, such as anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, in a study by Eisenman, Gelberg, Liu, and Shapiro (2003), 50% of Latino primary care patients living in the Los Ange- les area reported political violence experiences in their home country. Eight percent endorsed experiences of torture, and individuals who experienced political violence were more likely to meet symptom criteria for PTSD, to endorse symptoms of depression and panic disorder, and to experience chronic pain. Clearly, factors associated with prior trauma would have signifi cant impact on the family and children who were exposed to these stressors

In sum, this overview described a number of individual, family, and contextual factors that may impact the delivery of family literacy programs with Latino families. It seems logical that family literacy for this population may need to include other interventions, in addition to the focus on promoting development of children’s literacy, which can provide other needed referrals and/or services to Latino families. Such resources might include connections with social service agencies, job or employment skills, mental health treatment, legal consultation or other supports designed to assist families with the process of acculturation and adjustment to life in the United States.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

277

Review of Family Literacy Programs

We now turn our attention to the empirical literature regarding the implementation and effi cacy of family literacy programs with Latino families. In our review, we identifi ed several programs in the literature using two main selection criteria. First, the program needed to meet our defi - nition of family literacy as implementing a two-generation approach with a focus on promot- ing literacy through a dyadic interaction between parents and other family members and their children. The second selection criterion was the availability and/or discussion of evaluation data to establish how well or to what capacity the program has worked with Latino families in particular. The programs that are contained within this review are (1) Even Start, (2) Parents as Teachers, (3) HIPPY, and (4) FLAME.

Even Start

The William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy Program (Even Start) was instituted by the federal government in 1989. The program began as a small demonstration study and since then has grown tremendously with programs around the United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (Even Start of Missoula, n.d).

Description of the program. The purpose of the program is to contribute to break the cycle of poverty and illiteracy by assisting families to create home environments that support their children’s learning. It aims to provide basic education and literacy services to low income families with children under 7 years of age.

Guiding principles. One of the major guiding principles of this program is the belief that providing parents with services such as basic adult education, English as a second language support and GED as well as parenting education will help them become better prepared and more confi dent in their role as their child’s fi rst teacher.

Program components. Even Start has four required components: early childhood education, adult education, parenting education, and parent-child literacy services. It is believed that this combination of components allows for enhanced child literacy, enhanced parenting skills, and home literacy environment as well as enhanced literacy skills for parents. In turn, it is expected that this program will promote greater economic outcomes among families and, consequently, enhanced long-term literacy outcomes for their children (St.Pierre, Ricciuti, & Rimdzius, 2005).

Implementation with Latino populations. The Even Start program has been replicated with samples of Latino children. One hundred forty-four Latino children participating in Even Start were compared to a sample of 25 Latino children who attended a comparable program without a bilingual education teacher. Results showed that the children in the Even Start program had slightly better post-test scores than the comparison group. However, the fi ndings cannot be generalized due to the non-randomization of the study and the small sample size.

Program Evaluation/Evidence of success. Thus far, three national evaluations and one national experimental study have been conducted on the Even Start Family Literacy program. Here, we report the results of the third Even Start evaluation (St.Pierre et al., 2005). The researchers conducted an experimental evaluation of 18 Even Start projects with 463 families for 2 years. They found no statistically signifi cant fi ndings between the families and children who attended an Even Start project and those in the control group on any measures of child outcomes (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery-Revised,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

278

Story and Print Concepts, Social Skills Rating System, and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale), parent literacy outcomes or parent-child interactions. The authors believe these fi ndings may be due to the fact that participation on behalf of the children and parents was insuffi cient in order to make an impact. Even Start does not have any specifi c requirements with regard to the number of hours or sessions families must participate, therefore, participation is really up to the parents. St.Pierre and colleagues (2005) found that parents attended only a fraction of what was off ered: parents attended only 30% of the adult education activities, 24% of the parenting education sessions, 25% of the parent-child activities, and between 30% and 62% of the early childhood education opportunities.

Although no statistically signifi cant diff erences were observed between the Even Start fami- lies and those in the control group, the authors did fi nd some interesting non-experimental correlations indicating that the more hours the children spent in early childhood education, the higher their scores on three WJ-R subsets (Dictation, Applied Problems, and Incomplete Words), and on the WJ-R Early Developmental Skills Cluster. There was also a positive rela- tionship between the number of hours the parents spent in parenting education and children’ scores on the PPVT-III, three subsets of the WJ-R, and on the WJ-R Early Development Skills Cluster. There was a negative relationship between the number of hours parents spent in adult education and 2 subsets of the WJ-R (Dictation and Applied Problems). Finally, no relationship was found between the number of hours the parents spent in adult education and their scores on any of the parent assessments.

In summary, evidence from a national evaluation of Even Start suggests that the program has some degree of impact on children and families. Evidence for eff ectiveness with Latino families is limited at this time; however, the program has been implemented with this population.

Parents as Teachers (PAT)

The PAT program is founded on the research of Burton White of the Harvard Preschool Proj- ect. The program’s concept was developed in the 1970s in the state of Missouri when educators became aware of and concerned over the fact that children entered kindergarten with varying levels of preparedness. PAT was fi rst piloted in 1981 with fi rst time parents of newborn children. Funding was provided from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as well as The Danforth Foundation. In 1985, PAT was deemed cost eff ective and benefi cial and, therefore, it became implemented in all Missouri school districts. PAT is now found in all 50 states and 7 other countries (parentsasteachers.org).

Description of the program. PAT’s purpose is to improve school readiness and healthy development in young children by strengthening home-school relations. In addition, PAT aims to empower parents by providing them with knowledge about child development and, consequently, increasing their confi dence as their child’s fi rst teacher.

Guiding principles. The biggest element that drives PAT is the value placed on the home- school connection. PAT is a “family focused parent education program that emphasizes parenting behavior as the vehicle through which positive eff ects on children are to be achieved.” The guiding belief is that parents are children’s fi rst teachers and parents should be supported in that role (Wagner, Spiker, & Linn, 2002, p. 68).

Program components. Home visits are a key component of PAT. Regular home visits are conducted by a trained and certifi ed parent educator to educate parents about child development issues, model age appropriate activities with the children, and to respond to any general concerns

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

279

or questions parents may have. Parents also meet in groups and have the opportunity to create networks with other PAT families in order to build support and discuss child development issues. Moreover, developmental screening of children is conducted periodically and parents are provided referrals to services they may need. PAT is designed to be implemented from birth until age 3.

Implementation with Latino populations. PAT has been used with various populations. Relevant to this review, Wagner and Clayton (1999) used PAT with teen parents over the age of 19 who had a child under the age of 6 months or who were expecting, with 57% of participants of Latino descent. Wagner and Clayton demonstrated that diff erences in PAT outcomes could be observed when comparing the outcomes of children with Latina mothers versus those with non-Latina mothers. In another study, Wagner and colleagues (2002) used PAT with low income and moderate income families including a group of Latino families, but no comparisons were made across ethnic groups. A description of the studies is presented below.

Program evaluation/Evidence of success. First, it is important to note that PAT programs saw unfortunate high levels of attrition, especially when it was implemented with teen parents. Wagner and Clayton (1999) asserted that this was due to the fact that teen parents were less likely to participate in the home visits and were often “no shows” for their appointments with home visitors. Another reason for the high attrition rates was the fact that many families relocated and became unable to complete the program. PAT is intended to be implemented until the child turns three but many parents fail to continue past the child’s second birthday.

Wagner and Clayton (1999) demonstrated that PAT had very diff erent outcomes when used with two diff erent populations. The fi rst sample consisted of 355 teen parents; 177 were assigned to the PAT group and 178 were assigned to the control group. 57.1% of the teen mothers in the PAT group were Latina and 20.3% were Caucasian. Similarly, 55.1% of the mothers in the con- trol group were Latina and 19.1% were Caucasian. Wagner and Clayton’s second sample (non- teens) consisted of a total of 497 parents of which 298 received PAT services and 199 were in the control group and did not receive PAT services. In this group, 83.6% of the PAT mothers were Latina and 16.5% were Caucasian. In the control group, 76.9% of the mothers were Latina and 23.1% were Caucasian.

Outcomes were assessed using a variety of measures: parent knowledge was measured using the 57 item Knowledge of Infant Development Inventory (KIDI), parent attitudes were mea- sured using the Parenting Sense of Competence (PSOC) Scale, parenting behaviors were assessed using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory, child development was measured using the Developmental Profi le II (DPII) and child health was assessed by collecting and reviewing children’s immunization histories as well as through parent interviews (Wagner & Clayton, 1999).

Wagner and Clayton (1999) found that PAT had little eff ect on parenting knowledge, atti- tudes, or behaviors. No signifi cant eff ects were found in terms of children’s health. However, there was some evidence that PAT improved children’s cognitive development and also their social and self-help development. In terms of child outcomes, the PAT children of non-teen moms benefi ted signifi cantly in the area of self-help development; these children advanced approximately 2 months over the control group. Small, non-signifi cant eff ects were found for social development. For the Teen PAT group, children were found to have statistically signifi cant gains of one or more months over the control group in cognitive development. Additionally, when comparing the eff ects of PAT on children of Latina and non-Latina mothers it was found that children of Latina mothers “derived greater benefi t from the program than did children of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

280

non-Latina mothers, for whom program eff ects were negative and that the children of Spanish speaking Latinas benefi ted the most” (1999, p 104).

Wagner and colleagues (2002) implemented the PAT program with parents of low income, those earning less than $15,000, and parents of more moderate incomes, those earning $15,000 or higher. For this sample, at the time of enrollment, 29.4% were White, 58.2% were African American, and 12.4% were Latino/Asian/Other. Wagner et al. found that scores for parenting knowledge on most of the measures were much lower for the low-income group but neither of the groups had statistically signifi cant diff erences on measures of parenting knowledge. In addi- tion, scores were lower for low-income parents on measures of parenting behaviors. In terms of child outcomes, small positive eff ects were found for the poorest children on three of the fi ve DPII measures and a moderate eff ect was found on the Adaptive Social behavior Inventory (ASBI) score (Wagner et al., 2002).

Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)

The HIPPY program, founded by Avima D. Lombard, began in Tel Aviv, Israel, in 1969 as a research and demonstration project. In 1984, the program arrived in the United States and as of 2006–2007 there were 146 HIPPY programs within 25 states serving more than 16,000 children and families. HIPPY is also implemented in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada (Hippy USA, 2011).

Description of the program. HIPPY is a 2-year, home based, early intervention program that aims to prepare children for school by “enhancing the home literacy environment, the quality of parent-child verbal interaction, and parents’ ability to help their children learn” (Baker, Piotrkowski, & Brooks-Gunn, 1999, p. 117).

Guiding principles. HIPPY utilizes an ecological approach that recognizes the importance of a child’s family, community and society on his or her development (Baker et al., 1999).

Program components. The core elements of the program include: bimonthly home visits and group meetings, specifi c curricula that include books, and activities focused on language and literacy (Baker et al., 1999). The home visits are conducted by “para professionals,” who are parents who live in the same neighborhoods as the participating parents, speak the same language, and often share the same cultural identity as the parents (Nievar, Jacobson, Chen, Johnson, & Dier, 2011). The HIPPY model has undergone modifi cations since its inception. Although the core elements of the program have remained intact, changes have been made to the curriculum used by the home visitors and parents. More current models of HIPPY incorporate mathematically based activities in addition to language and literacy activities.

Implementation with Latino populations. The HIPPY model has been adapted for use in various other countries such as Germany, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Canada. Materials are available in many languages: English, Spanish, Hebrew, Arabic, and German and will be available in other languages in the future (Hippy USA, 2011). A recent implementation of HIPPY occurred with Latino immigrant families.

Program evaluation/Evidence of success. Nievar et al. (2011) examined the eff ects of the HIPPY program specifi cally on Latino immigrant parents and their children. They used a quasi experimental research design with two cohorts. The fi rst cohort included 108 participants, 54 of which were randomly selected parents who were actively participating in the HIPPY program.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

281

The other 54 served as a comparison group and consisted of parents on a HIPPY waiting list who were not receiving HIPPY services. All participants were of Latino origin; Spanish language surveys were used with the majority of the sample (3% preferred to use an English language survey). On average, mothers were 30.8 years of age and 92.5% of the mothers were married with 11.2% of the marriages being common-law marriages. Income data showed 37.6% of the families had an annual income between 15,000 and 25,000; 29.7% had an income less than 15,000 and 33% had an income over 25,000. Three percent of the families had an income over 45,000 (Nievar et al., 2011). The second cohort consisted of 131 children in third grade who were former HIPPY participants and 131 third graders who shared similar demographics but who never participated in HIPPY. The HIPPY parents received weekly packets with activities and games to use with their children. They welcomed home visitors into their homes to assist them with learning to use the materials and parents engaged with their children using the specifi c curriculum for 20 minutes each day. All materials and books were provided in Spanish (Nievar et al., 2011).

The study found that the HIPPY program had a positive eff ect on the home environment of young children from Spanish-speaking homes from the fi rst cohort. In addition, mothers who participated in HIPPY had higher levels of parenting self-effi cacy, and these families had more learning and educational materials available to their children in their home than those who did not participate in HIPPY (Nievar et al., 2011). In the second cohort, the third grade follow- up sample, HIPPY participation resulted in later academic achievement. Reading scores were higher for the children who participated in HIPPY compared to those in the comparison group, but these diff erences were not statistically signifi cant. However, in spite of the non-signifi cant fi ndings, HIPPY participation “may have helped these students attain a higher level of later achievement than expected based on their at risk status” (Nievar et al., 2011, p. 275).

In an older study, Baker and colleagues (1999) obtained mixed fi ndings regarding the eff ect of HIPPY on children’s cognitive skills, standardized test performance and achievement and school adaptation. The fi rst cohort began HIPPY in the winter of 1990 and consisted of 37 families who received HIPPY services and 32 families in the control group. Thirty-eight percent of the families were of Latino origin. The second cohort began HIPPY in the fall of 1991 and consisted of 47 HIPPY families and 66 control families. In this cohort, 28% of the families were of Latino origin. Baker and colleagues (1999) found that “HIPPY children outperformed control group children on measures of cognitive skills at the end of kindergarten, on measures of classroom adaptation at the beginning of the fi rst and second grades, and on standardized reading tests at the end of fi rst grade” (p. 122). The diff erences found were statistically signifi cant. Interestingly, no signifi cant fi ndings were found with cohort two. The researchers examined the data in hopes of identifying diff erences between the two groups that could have explained the mixed fi ndings, but were unable to identify any.

HIPPY has a history of implementation with Latinos; it is a program implemented within the home, which seems to be an advantage when working with this population. Results from these evaluation studies provide some promising evidence to show its eff ectiveness with Latino families.

Project FLAME Family Literacy: Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando [Learning, Improving, Educating]

Project FLAME was designed by Flora Rodriguez-Brown and Timothy Shanahan of the Uni- versity of Illinois at Chicago in 1989. The program’s intent was to support parents of preschool and school age children by providing them with knowledge about how to create a literacy rich home environment. Although the majority of families served by FLAME are Spanish speak- ing, the FLAME model can also be applied to serve African American and other families in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

282

multicultural settings within the United States. In addition to English and Spanish, FLAME materials have been translated into Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese (Project FLAME, 2003).

Description of the program. The purpose of this program is to improve the school readiness of children whose parents are not profi cient in English, particularly in the areas of literacy and writing, by assisting parents to improve their English profi ciency.

Guiding principles. Learning is placed within the family context. “Because literacy learning is culturally bound, when there are home-school diff erences in communication style, views of literacy, or the nature of literacy interactions, children’s literacy achievement is at risk” (Rodriguez-Brown, 2004, p. 587). FLAME was designed for Latino families who have children between 3 and 9 years of age.

Program components. At its core, FLAME consists of two main components: Parents as Teachers—this is the program’s core, and Parents as Learners—these are twice weekly, 2-hour sessions on basic skills, general education development or ESL support.

Program evaluation/Evidence of success. In 1995, an evaluation study revealed the eff ectiveness of the program and FLAME received a dissemination grant from the U.S. Department of Education to carry out the program on a national scale. In a more recent study, Rodriguez-Brown (2004) found that participation in FLAME increased parents’ understanding of the home-school relationship and also increased the use of literacy activities within the home. In order to asses if parents’ participation in education classes had an eff ect on child outcomes, the author used a variety of measures to test children’s academic development: Letter Recognition Tests, The Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, Print Awareness Tests, LAS-English Language Profi ciency Test, and the Pre-LAS. When pre- and post-test scores of children who participated in Project FLAME during the 1998–1999 school year were compared, it was found that they had statistically signifi cant gains in uppercase letter recognition, lowercase letter recognition, and in the Clay Print Awareness Test. Moreover, signifi cant gains were found for 3- to 4-year- olds at post-test on the Spanish Pre-Boehm Test and the Pre-LAS, and 5- to 6-year-olds gained signifi cantly on the English Boehm and the LAS (Rodriguez-Brown, 2004).

Additional Promising Practices and Programs

In this section, we present two programs that we believe show promise as programs that could eff ectively address the family literacy needs of Latino families, even though they did not meet the inclusion criteria for our review. The Early Authors Program was not originally designed as an intervention targeting the parent-child literacy interactions, however, parents participate in the program at certain points. The Early Authors program off ers several examples of how interven- tions can use culturally embedded and culturally responsive techniques to promote children’s literacy. The Learning Together Program is a family literacy program at the initial stages of its implementation, and thus, evaluation data are not available. This program does not target Latino families in particular, but it has been designed to address the literacy needs of immigrant families from diverse ethnic, cultural and language groups located in North Carolina.

The Early Authors Program (EAP)

This program was originally called Authors in the Classroom and it was created by Ada and Campoy in 2003. It was later co-authored by Judith K. Bernhard and adapted for use in early

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

283

childhood education settings (Early Authors Program, 2011). EAP was fi rst implemented in Miami-Dade county Florida in 2003–2004 with 1,179 children from 800 families in 32 diff erent early childhood education centers. The program sought to promote preschool children’s bilin- gual literacy. Children were randomly assigned to both the control and experimental condition. A pretest posttest design was used and results of the initial study revealed that children in the experimental EAP classrooms benefi ted in terms of their reading scores as well as on their identi- ties and self-esteem (Bernhard et al., 2006).

Description of the program. This is a 12-month early literacy intervention that encourages children to become writers by self-authoring their own books in the classroom. EAP promotes a positive attitude toward reading and seeks to instill pride with regard to children’s families and cultural identities.

Guiding principles. EAP aims to foster a connection between home and school by incorporating elements of the home language in the classroom and in activities with the help of a literacy consultant familiar with children’s home language. In addition, EAP values diversity and inclusion and promotes the development of bilingualism (Bernhard et al., 2006).

Program components. The bookmaking component begins with children self-authoring books using themselves and their families as characters in their books. Children were then taught to recite rhymes and poems in their home language with the assistance of their classroom teachers. All EAP classrooms had the appropriate technology to help the children create physical books: computers, digital cameras, color printers, and laminators. Literacy consultants provided assistance to the teachers in order to improve the quality of literacy related activities in the classroom. The consultants also incorporated the children’s home language, usually Spanish, into classroom literacy discussions (Bernhard, Winsler, Bleiker, Ginieniewicz, & Madigan, 2008). This addition refl ects the awareness of the importance of promoting family and cultural pride among the children.

Family meetings are also part of the program. Four 2-hour meetings allow parents and family members to engage in simple writing exercises using prompts from their own lives and experi- ences. The activities provide the foundation for group discussions around key themes. The dis- cussions culminate with family members authoring “I am” books, “Where I come from” poems, and “ABC” books (Bernhard et al., 2006, p. 2391).

Program evaluation/Evidence of success. The EAP was found to “be eff ective in increasing not only things like the number of relevant books in the classrooms, but also the general quality of the literacy environment, and the frequency with which teachers engaged in literacy activities in the classroom” (Winsler et al., 2008, p. 89). Furthermore, results indicate that the intervention increases children’s language skills and prevents children from falling behind in terms of comparing EAP children with national age norms.

Results indicate that EAP shows great promise with young children, literacy environments are improved, and children show greater gains in language and literacy development. The pro- gram values home and culture, and this is refl ected in children’s motivation toward creating the texts. Finally, some qualitative evidence of the program’s success is found in children’s observ- able behavior. For example, children formed fuller sentences, became more verbal, and began to understand the connections between writing and reading (Winsler et al., 2008, p. 100). It is not yet known if the program has an impact on parent outcomes or family literacy, particularly among Latino families.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

284

Learning Together

In North Carolina, the Guilford Child Development’s Learning Together Program helps under- served parents from diverse backgrounds improve their literacy and life skills, while also focusing on the school readiness of their children.

Description of the program. Learning Together is a family literacy program that helps both adults and children develop new skills. One of the main features of the program is the use of children’s books as a centerpiece. Parents and children receive a new book each month to help build their own personal library at home. This promotes continued reading in families’ homes and nurtures their love of books. Each book of the month has associated activities that relate to use of the community resources. Parents typically enroll in the program for one or more years. The program enrolls parents with children as young as six months.

Guiding principles. According to their philosophy, Learning Together encourages parents and their children to learn together under one roof. This program also enrolls parents from a variety of ethnic and language backgrounds, and works with recent immigrants.

Program components. The program consists of four components: Adult Education, Early Childhood Education, Parent and Child Together (PACT), and Parent Time. Learning Together integrates these areas by using quality children’s books as a “centerpiece.” Parents receive the monthly selected “centerpiece” book to help build their own personal library at home. This promotes continued reading in families’ homes and nurtures their love of books. Each book of the month has associated activities that relate to use of the community resources.

The fi rst component of Learning Together is Adult Education, which includes GED and ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) classes for adults 18 and older, at all ability levels and from all backgrounds. Guilford Technical Community College (GTCC) instructors teach these classes in small classroom settings. Instructors provide one-on-one, personalized interaction to help participants work at their own pace to improve their reading, writing, math, and communication skills, and English. Adult students must be evaluated and are placed into ability groupings based on their baseline literacy levels in English.

The second component of Learning Together is Early Childhood Education, which takes place during the adult GED and ESOL classes, and is designed to prepare children, from 6 months to 4 years old, for kindergarten and success in school. Early education teachers provide a safe and nurturing, center-based environment where children participate in a variety of activities based on his or her individual strengths and interests. Parents are encouraged to be involved to promote a lifelong love of learning. Children participate in activities, such as dramatic play, art, music, gross motor skills, fi ne motor skills, science, and reading. Parents and children attend the program at the same time, approximately three mornings or evenings a week for 3 hours each day.

A third component of Learning Together is Parent and Child Together Time (PACT Time). This is designed for parents and children participating in Learning Together to help build par- enting skills and parents’ involvement in their children’s development of learning, which is done though guided one-on-one play or activities between parents and children. In addition to foster- ing parenting skills and involvement, this component strives to increase knowledge and access of community resources through fi eld trips to local museums, libraries, health clinics, and parks, among others.

The last component of Learning Together is Parent Time, which is aimed at parents’ involve- ment in Learning Together. This component helps parents develop strengths and discover new ideas and resources to promote parenting skills and ability to take advantage of community resources. Representatives from outside agencies conduct presentations based on the needs of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

285

the parents. Topics are decided based on parents’ inquiries and issues. Such presentations have consisted of family health, work readiness, eff ective life skills, children’s health and development, nutrition, discipline strategies, and basic skills computer training, among others. Parent Time has also utilized lessons from The Companion Curriculum (Mendez, 2010), an empirically valid parent training program for parents of preschool children to learn about strategies for encourag- ing language, emotional development, and numeracy in the home.

Overall, Learning Together works to promote family literacy through a four pronged approach. By promoting literacy and skills at a parent level, child level, and family level, Learn- ing Together provides families with the tools needed to continue fostering literacy development autonomously, beyond the duration of the program. Cultural practices are also featured through- out the program, and the participation by parents from a broad range of ethnic and language backgrounds are encouraged and supported. Bilingual instructors are utilized and materials are translated into a variety of languages, including Spanish.

Program evaluation/Evidence of success. In a pilot study involving a sample of 21 mothers from one of the four Learning Together sites, data were collected on demographics and parent outcomes. Mothers in the pilot study were from six diff erent countries and 83% of mothers in the sample reported incomes below the poverty line. Mothers were interviewed in either Spanish or English both before the program intervention and at three-month follow-up. Across this interval, mothers reported an increase in their involvement in educational activities at home and increases in their interest in parenting. Further research is being conducted to better understand how Learning Together impacts family, parent, and child outcomes across multiple domains, and how multidimensional family literacy programs best serve families from a diversity of ethnic and language backgrounds.

Gaps and Unanswered Questions

This review has off ered an opportunity to evaluate the existing literature on the eff ectiveness of family literacy programs with Latino populations. The major programs that have served this population have been in existence for several decades. However, the most recent information on adaptations of the HIPPY program and Project FLAME yield the best outcome data for improv- ing outcomes for Latino families. Additionally, some newer programs are emerging that are cul- turally embedded in the lives of Latino families and may show impact on literacy for parents and children. However, the overall review suggests that there are a multitude of gaps and unanswered questions that can be examined with rigorous evaluation research involving Latino samples. In this conclusion, we off er some suggestions for types of information and questions that could be explored further within the context of family literacy intervention research.

First, the majority of the studies reported being signifi cantly impacted by recruitment and retention issues for their sample, with the majority of studies documenting an underutilization of their program. Sometimes these rates of underutilization occurred at staggering rates, and pro- grams like Even Start do not indicate a specifi c requirement for parent participation. Therefore, we recommend researchers pay greater attention to the study of implementation of programs and program fi delity, in order to discern which factors are predictive of attendance, attrition, and who benefi ts from family literacy programs. As discussed in the background for this chapter, a wide range of individual, family and community factors may impact who takes advantage fully of participation in family literacy programs.

A second, but related, issue in the arena of implementation involves the diversity and het- erogeneity of Latino families in terms of their composition, ethnic identity and beliefs about literacy. A careful consideration during the screening process for enrollment in family literacy

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

286

initiatives might inform which families are most receptive to diff erent types of intervention models. For example, Latino families whose children are enrolled in kinship care might be more interested in a home-visitation model such as Parents at Teachers, whereas families with children enrolled in a child care setting outside the home might be able to attend a center-based program off ering adult education as well. An empirical question also unaddressed is whether family literacy programs can successfully meet the needs of immigrant families from a variety of language or cultural groups, as is the approach taken in the Learning Together program, or if family literacy should only target one language group (e.g., Spanish speakers, or immigrants from Honduras) as their primary population. Examining how to balance the need for programs to enroll participants, as well as to consider issues of language and acculturation, are important considerations moving forward.

In terms of the actual programming, some programs off ered more specifi cs than others in terms of the ways in which culture was incorporated into the family literacy intervention. As addressed in the background, programs that are based in mainstream ideas about teaching lit- eracy in order to succeed in American culture may be limited in their impact on Latino fami- lies. In contrast, programs that were embedded in the family culture did a much better job of describing the program lessons and content that incorporated and built on family strengths (e.g., Project FLAME, Early Authors). We recommend that family literacy programs be explicit in designing programming that will appeal to Latino families, and use cultural adaptations at the onset to reduce attrition.

Other literature on family engagement for Latino parents suggests several factors that help to promote school-family partnerships with this population. For example, Auerbach (2004) empha- sized the need for (a) creating small, intimate settings where parents feel comfortable sharing their true concerns and (b) providing information that is relevant to Latinos using speakers with similar cultural backgrounds. Others note the importance of school leadership in establishing a strong school-family partnership, particularly in school settings or communities where groups of parents have been marginalized or left out of the dialogue (Auerbach, 2009; Shapiro, DuPaul, Barnabas, Benson, & Slay, 2010).

In terms of conducting evaluation research, issues such as collecting adequate background information on the families and children, as well as greater attention to measurement issues in general, would improve the quality of this literature. For example, understanding and measuring the impact of family literacy on the development of children’s language systems, and administer- ing assessments in both the native language and English is essential for informing the true impact of the intervention. Greater attention to use of randomized designs, as well as implementation of culturally adapted interventions, would inform which family literacy programs work for Latino families in particular community settings. Lastly, given the concerns raised about underutiliza- tion of formal child care during early childhood and the preschool years (Karoly & Gonzalez, 2011), the study of implementation of center-based programs should be a focus in terms of how to reduce barriers for Latino families to accessing educational services.

In sum, although we found limitations of this review in terms of understanding the impact of family literacy programs on Latino families, there is some limited evidence of eff ective imple- mentation with Latino populations. We are encouraged by the emergence of adapted and newer interventions that incorporate aspects of family culture from the outset. We expect attention to these and other cultural and linguistic considerations to gain increased attention from the research community. Incorporating family background characteristics, community factors, and barriers to accessing services into new research involving Latino families would help strengthen our knowledge base regarding eff ective family literacy initiatives .

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Family Literacy Programs for Latino Families in the United States

287

References

Alegría, M., Takeuchi, D., Canino, G., Duan, N., Shrout, P., Meng, X., & Gong, F. (2004). Considering context, place, and culture: The National Latino and Asian American Study. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 208–220.

Auerbach, E. (1997). Reading between the lines. In D. Taylor (Ed.), Many families, many literacies: An international dec- laration of principles (pp. 71–82). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 125–145.

Auerbach, S. (2009). Walking the walk: Portraits of leadership for family engagement in urban schools. The School Community Journal, 9–32.

Baker, A. J., Piotrkowski, C. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1999). The home instruction program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY). The future of children home visiting: Recent program evaluation, 9(1, Spring/Summer).

Bernhard, J. K., Cummins, J., Campoy, F. I., Ada, A. F., Winsler, A., & Bleiker, C. (2006). Identity texts and literacy development among preschool English language learners: Enhancing learning opportunities for children at risk for learning disabilities. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2380–2405.

Bernhard, J. K., Winsler, A., Bleiker, C., Ginieniewicz, J., & Madigan, A. L. (2008). “Read my story!” Using the early authors program to promote early literacy among diverse, urban preschool children in poverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 76–105.

Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 719–734.

Berry, J. W., & Kim, L. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. R. Dasen, J. W. Berry, & N. Sartorius (Eds.), Health and cross-cultural psychology: Towards applications (pp. 207–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Calzada, E. J., Fernandez, Y., & Cortes, D. E. (2010). Incorporating the cultural value of respeto into a framework of Latino parenting. Culturally Diverse and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 77–86.

Castro, D., C., Ayankoya, B., & Kasprzak, C. (2010). The new voices ~ nuevas voces guide to cultural and linguistic diversity in early childhood. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Delgado, E. A. (2009). Latinos’ use, desire, and type of non-parental child care arrangements. Journal of Latinos and Education, 8(2), 119–140.

Early Authors Program. (2011). Retrieved on April 28, 2011, from http://www.ryerson.ca/bernhard/research/ early-authors-gallery/

Eisenman, D. P., Gelberg, L., Liu, H., & Shapiro, M. F. (2003). Mental health and health-related quality of life among adult Latino primary care patients living in the United States with previous exposure to political violence. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 627–634.

Ennis, S. R., Rios-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010. 2010 Census brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.

Even Start of Missoula: History. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2011, from http://evenstartmt.tripod.com/id1.html Fry, R., & Passel, J. S. (2009). Latino children: A majority are U.S.-born off spring of immigrants. Pew Hispanic Center.

Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=110 Gadsden, V. L. (2004). Family literacy and culture. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 401–424).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L. H., & Cohen, E. V. (1998). Child-rearing values of low-income, urban Puerto Rican

mothers of preschool children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 377–382. Guilamo-Ramos, V., Dittus, P., Jaccard, J., Johansson, M., Bouris, A., & Acosta, N. (2007) Parenting practices among

Dominican and Puerto Rican mothers. SocialWork, 52, 17–30. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Children in immigrant families: Looking to America’s

future. Society for Research in Child Development Social Policy Report, 22(3). HIPPY USA. Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters. (2011). Retrieved on May 1, 2011, from http://

hippyusa.org/ Karoly, L. A., & Gonzalez, G. C. (2011). Early care and education for children in immigrant families. Future of Chil-

dren, 21, 71–101. Leidy, M., Guerra, N., & Toro, R. (2010). Positive parenting, family cohesion, and child social competence among

immigrant Latino families. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 252–260. Liang, X., Fuller, B., & Singer, J. D. (2000). Ethnic diff erences in child care selection: The infl uence of family struc-

ture, parental practices, and home language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(3), 357–384. Mather, M., & Foxen, P. (2010). America’s future: Latino child well-being in numbers and trends. National Council of La

Raza. Retrieved from http://www.nclr.org

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Dina C. Castro, Julia Mendez, Sandra Garcia, and Diana Westerberg

288

Mendez, J. L., Carpenter, J., LaForett, D., & Cohen, J. (2009). Parental engagement and barriers to participation in a community-based preventive intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 1–14.

Mendez, J. L., & Westerberg, D. (2011). Reducing barriers to participation using a culturally adapted treatment for Latino parents of preschool children attending Head Start. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. Manu- script submitted for publication.

Nievar, M. A., Jacobson, A., Chen, Q., Johnson, U., & Dier, S. (2011). Impact of HIPPY on home learning environ- ments of Latino families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 268–277.

Parra Cardona, J., Holtrop, K., Córdova, D., Escobar-Chew, A., Horsford, S., Tams, L., & … Fitzgerald, H. E. (2009). ‘Queremos aprender’: Latino immigrants’ call to integrate cultural adaptation with best practice knowledge in a parenting intervention. Family Process, 48(2), 211–231.

Parents as Teachers. (2010). Retrieved May 1, 2011, from http://www.parentsasteachers.org/ Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2011, February, 1). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, 2010. Pew His-

panic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=133 Passel, J., Cohn, D., & Lopez, D. (2011, March, 24). Hispanics account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade.

Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=140 Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). Modes of entry for the unauthorized migrant population (Fact Sheet). Retrieved from

http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=19 Pew Hispanic Center. (2008). Pew Hispanic Center tabulations of 2008 American community survey (1% IPUMS).

Retrieved from http://pewhispanic.org/factsheets/factsheet.php?FactsheetID=46 Polo, A. J., & Lopez, S. R. (2009). Culture, context, and the internalizing distress of Mexican American youth. Journal

of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 273–285. Project FLAME. Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando. (2003). Retrieved on April 28, 2011, from http://www.uic.

edu/educ/fl ame/index.html Puchner, L. D. (1997). Family literacy in cultural context: Lessons from two case studies. National Center for Adult Literacy

Technical Report TR97-01. Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.

Mosenthal, … R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 853–870). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rodriguez, M. V. (2006) Language and literacy practices in Dominican families in New York City. Early Child Devel-

opment and Care, 176(2), 171–182. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2004). Project FLAME: A parent support family literacy model. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.),

Handbook of family literacy (pp. 213–229). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sarkisian, N., Gerena, M., & Gerstel, N. (2006). Extended family ties among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Whites:

Superintegration or disintegration? Family Relations, 55, 331–344. Shapiro, E., DuPaul, G., Barnabas, E. Benson, J. L. & Slay, P. M. (2010). Facilitating school, family, and community

Partnerships: Enhancing student mental health: An overview of the special series. School Mental Health, 2, 45–51. St.Pierre, R. G., Ricciuti, A. E., & Rimdzius, T. A. (2005). Eff ects of a family literacy program, on low-literate

children and their parents: Findings from an evaluation of the even start family literacy program. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 953–970.

Suarez-Morales, L., Dillon, F. R., & Szapocznik, J. (2007). Validation of the acculturative stress inventory for chil- dren. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 216–224.

Tienda, M., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (2006). Multiple origins uncertain destinies: Hispanics and the American future. Washing- ton, DC: National Academies Press.US Census Bureau.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity—A supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.

Valdés, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. New York, NY: Teach- ers College Press.

Vega, W. A. (1995). The study of Latino families: A point of departure. In R. E. Zambrana, R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Understanding Latino families: Scholarship, policy, and practice (pp. 3–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wagner, M. M., & Clayton, S. L. (1999). The parents as teachers program: Results from two demonstrations. The Future of Children Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations, 9(1), 91–115.

Wagner, M., Spiker, D., & Linn, M. I. (2002). The eff ectiveness of the parents as teachers program with low-income parents and children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(67), 67–81.

White, R. M., Roosa, M., Weaver, S., & Nair, R. (2009). Cultural and contextual infl uences on parenting in Mexican American families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 61–79.

Winsler, A., Tran, H., Hartman, S. C., Madigan, A. L., Manfra, L., & Bleiker, C. (2008). School readiness gains made by ethnically diverse children in poverty attending center-based childcare and public school pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(3), 314–329.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

$ {D

at e}

. $ {P

ub lis

he r}

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .