Children, Youth, and Families At Risk (CYFAR) – Grant Project
2011-2016
Background
The purpose of the CYFAR grant is to integrate at-risk, low income children, youth and families into
ongoing Extension programs. States are asked to develop a uniform program model focused on a single
outcome that is implemented across 2 or more community sites. Projects must employ an ecological,
systems approach integrating family and community and demonstrate long-term sustainability. A
minimum of 50% of the participants in the program must be considered “at-risk,” such as living below
poverty level, parents that did not complete high school, a record with law enforcement, or other similar
risk indicators. CYFAR funding is provided from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) for
a 5-year period. A community site would likely receive $25,000 – 33,000 for the first year and $35,000$46,000 for years 2-5. For more information about CYFAR grants http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/family/cyfar/scp.html
While Wisconsin is currently receiving CYFAR funds, recent changes to the funding rules now allow a
state to apply for a second CYFAR grant at any time. In an informal discussion with Wisconsin’s current
CYFAR liaison, she suggested we consider reaching out to an urban audience for a second state project.
A team from 4-H Youth Development & Family Living Programs (Laurie Boyce, Donna Menart, Matt
Calvert, Mary Huser, Jeffrey Lewis & JulieAnn Stawicki) met to determine the viability of a second CYFAR
proposal. Ultimately a collaborative project was developed that we believe will address a need within
urban communities as well as build on existing capacity within both program areas. The scope and
several key elements of the project are defined in the following project description.
Proposed Project
Overview
Prior research has shown that gains from early childhood interventions (e.g. Head Start) ‘disappear’ as
children reach middle childhood. As a result, there is a need for programs that would sustain positive
youth development into elementary school and beyond. The most promising programs have used a
systematic, integrated approach to engaging parents in their children’s education by providing
connections to the school & community learning environments1. Harvard Family Research Project2
outlined three processes for effective family involvement in promoting positive youth outcomes as
depicted in Figure 1 (see page 4). Extension programs are ideal in facilitating parent engagement
through parenting programs and family involvement in school and communities.
The proposed project is a longitudinal, collaborative program to reach underserved and
underrepresented youth and their parents. The goal of this project is to support child cognitive
development by facilitating the transition to school through keeping parents engaged with their child’s
education and connecting families to schools and other important community resources. There are 4
key elements comprising this proposed project : 1) a 10-week evidence-based parent program - Raising
a Thinking Child; 2) a companion evidence-based school program - I Can Problem Solve; 3) an out-ofschool family program involving a 4-H club-like activity and 4) facilitation of a parent/school partnership.
1
Harvard Family Research Project (April, 2010). Family engagement as a systemic, sustained, and integrated strategy to
promote student achievement. Retrieved 06/07/2010 from hfrp.org/content/download/3633/102372/file/FINEFamilyEngagementCommentary.pdf
2 Harvard Family Research Project (Winter, 2006/2007). Family involvement in elementary school children’s education.
Retrieved 06/07/2010 from hfrp.org/content/download/1182/48686/file/elementary.pdf
CYFAR Proposal
1
The two evidence-based programs are key components of this initiative. These include Raising a
Thinking Child (RTC), a 10-week program for parents of 4-7 year old children, and a companion
classroom program I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) for children in Kindergarten and primary grades (for more
information about both curricula – see www.thinkingchild.com). Both programs have been evaluated as
effective programs for increasing children’s interpersonal & problem solving skills in an urban audience.
Several Family Living educators in the state have received training in RTC and are using the curriculum
successfully in their counties. Initial feedback from participants has been positive. Importantly, both
programs span a critical period of development by bridging the transition into elementary school.
Together, they provide a basis for building relationships among Extension, community resources, and
caregivers early in the project.
Success in sustaining early childhood gains is supported by engaging parents in their child’s education in
multiple settings. Therefore, the other two essential components of this initiative involve facilitating a
partnership between parents/caregivers and their children’s school and developing a program that
includes families in out-of school activities. It is expected that county educators bring their expertise in
building community coalitions in leveraging support for at-risk youth and their families. Specifically
programs should support parents in building connections with school teachers and afterschool
caregivers. In addition 4-H programs are an ideal setting for engaging families in youth development
programs during out-of-school time. Although engaging an urban audience in traditional programs has
been difficult, CYFAR funding has the ability provide resources and the potential to start a 4-H club in a
non-traditional setting. Local sites will be expected to design a sustainable 4-H club-like experience that
includes the traditional strengths of 4-H (such as a family involvement and youth/adult leadership
structures) with a focus on innovative strategies to reach out to a new audience.
Program Details
 4-H Youth Development & Family Living Program Collaboration: In order to create a
comprehensive support network, parent, youth, and school components will have to be well
integrated. This will require deliberate collaboration between Family Living and 4-H Youth
Development staff in providing services to identified children and their primary caregivers,
schools and community programs. Part of this effort will be focused on colleagues from both
program areas attending RTC & ICPS training at the beginning of the first year (and ultimately
co-teaching both parent & teacher portions of the program). It is anticipated that the CYFAR
project will be a significant time commitment. Educators should show a willingness to reallocate
their time to the project.
3

School Cooperation: In order to implement the program, educators need to have a strong
partnership with an identified elementary school. Preference will be given to a school located
in an urban community3.

Participants: A small cohort (up to 10) of 4 year-old children and their families recruited from an
identified Headstart program(s) (or other similar early childhood education programs). The
Urban community defined by:
 large concentrated population, tend to be socially complex (socioeconomic status, racial, origin)
 little connection with or knowledge of traditional 4-H club membership
 complex array of community organizations
 changing environment
CYFAR Proposal
2
cohort should be students who intend to transition to the partner elementary school’s
Kindergarten class the following year.
Each year of the program, a new cohort of 4-year olds and their families from the identified
early childhood program will be included. (See Table 1 on page 5 for cohort & program
timeline.)

Raising a Thinking Child: Parents of 4-year-old children would receive the RTC program in the
first year of their involvement in the project.

I Can Problem Solve: In the following 2 years (Kindergarten & 1st Grade), children would receive
the ICPS curriculum in school through their classroom.
ICPS training will be provided to teachers at the elementary school by the county educators
with the guidance of the national ICPS trainer. Ideally, this will be offered to all teachers during
a teacher in-service.

Parents and School Partnership Component: Sites will be expected to articulate how they will
facilitate a partnership between parents and schools. Programs can expand on existing local
programs as well as develop new opportunities to encourage mutual responsibility for
supporting children’s academic success.

Out-of-School Family Component: Local sites will be asked to design a companion program to
keep parents engaged throughout early elementary school – specifically addressing the out-ofschool time environment. Consider family friendly activities that would provide positive youth
development opportunities; a key piece of this program should be a 4-H club experience.
CYFAR Proposal
3
Figure 1
Processes of Family Involvement and Children’s Outcomes4
Parenting:
 Parent/Child Relationship
 Participation in childcentered activities
 Linkages with the community
Home-School Relationships:
 Communication
 Participation in school events
and formal parent
involvement programs
Child Outcomes:
 Higher reading scores
 Language growth &
development
 Motivation to achieve
 Social Competence &
prosocial behavior
 Positive engagement with
peers, adults and learning
 Quality work habits
Responsibility for Learning
Outcomes:
 Supporting literacy
 Helping with homework
 Managing children’s
education
 Maintaining high
expectations
4
From Harvard Family Research Project (Winter, 2006/2007). Family involvement in elementary school children’s education.
Retrieved 06/07/2010 from hfrp.org/content/download/1182/48686/file/elementary.pdf ; Harvard Family Research Project
(Winter, 2006/2007). Family involvement in early childhood education. Retrieved 06/07/2010 from
hfrp.org/content/download/1181/48685/file/earlychildhood.pdf
CYFAR Proposal
4
Table 1
Program participation by year in grant
Cohort A = 4-year olds (& parents) recruited in year 1
Cohort B = 4-year olds (& parents) recruited in year 2
Cohort C = 4-year olds (& parents) recruited in year 3
Cohort D = 4-year olds (& parents) recruited in year 4
Cohort E = 4-year olds (& parents) recruited in year 5
Program Element
Program Length
Raising a Thinking Child
10-Week Training
I Can Problem Solve Curriculum (K-1)
During school day & administered by
teacher
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
A
B
C
D
E
Teacher training as needed
A
A, B
B, C
C, D
Parent/School Partnership *:
Activity determined by County
A
A, B
A, B, C
A, B, C, D
Out-of-School Family component*:
4-H Club – design determined by
county
A
A, B
A, B, C
A, B, C, D
*This should be one activity that will grow in membership as cohort families are added, NOT separate
activities for each cohort, i.e., one 4-H club that grows and sustains over time.
CYFAR Proposal
5
Benefits to Participants
Youth:
 Enhances collaborations and connections between parents and schools that support youth
success
 Builds self-confidence and listening skills
 Encourages thinking about new and different solutions to problems
 Encourages positive social interaction with peers and decreases social withdrawal
 Increases academic achievement and classroom skills
 Builds connections to 4-H resources
Parents:
 Improves child self-confidence & behavior
 Provides new parenting strategies
 Expands social support networks
 Improves communication with school teachers
 Provides family enrichment activities via 4-H
Teachers & Principals
 Leverages community resources in support of school & students
 Provides a basis for partnership with parents
 Increases staff capacity
 ICPS reinforces curriculum goals and creates a more positive classroom atmosphere
 Deepens insight into children’s thoughts and feelings
UW – Extension Educators:
 Provides opportunity for involvement in innovative project with potential for transforming
communities
 Offers new resources to reach out to new audiences
 Builds scholarship and collaborative work across 4-H Youth Development and Family Living
Programs
 Strengthens community partnerships
 Boosters financial resources to supplement staff
Community Stakeholders:
 Increases access to state-level resources (evaluation, program development, training) and
connections with best practices and evidence-based approaches
 Increases capacity in local schools and community organizations
 Fosters leadership for coordinated approach to strengthen parent-school involvement focused
on successful youth and family outcomes
CYFAR Proposal
6
Just the Facts
What? An opportunity to secure outside funding for 5 years from the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) to improve childhood outcomes in your county.
Why? This innovative research project has the potential to transform communities. CYFAR funding
offers resources to reach out to new audiences, plus it provides a unique opportunity to work
collaboratively across 4-H Youth Development and Family Living Programs.
Who?
 Colleagues: 4-H Youth Development and Family Living educators in 2 counties working
collaboratively to improve childhood outcomes in at-risk youth. A team of state colleagues working
alongside and supporting the local work.
 Audience and Partners: Children from underserved populations (with preference for schools within
urban settings), their parents/caregivers, K-4 teachers and administrators
Where? 1 community site in 2 counties (2 project sites total) with a substantial high risk population of
children and families.
When? If awarded, federal funding would begin May 2011. Funding is renewable for up to 5 years.
How (or Next Steps)?
1. An informational Wisline on Tuesday, June 29th, 1-2pm to obtain more details and application
process. Here is the call-in information:
Conference Title: CYFAR
Moderators:
JulieAnn Stawicki & Mary Huser
Conference Date: 6/29/2010
Conference Time: 1:00:00 PM
Duration:
60 minutes
Call in to the conference up to 10 minutes prior to the start time using the numbers
below:
Toll-free Number: 800-462-1257
Local Number:
608-237-5850
Passcode:
6291905
2. Initial county proposals (3 pages max) due July 26th – emailed to JulieAnn Stawicki, 4-H Youth
Development Specialist (julieann.stawicki@ces.uwex.edu)
3. A state team will review the proposals to decide on the counties that best fit the proposed
project.
4. Finalists counties will be identified & the team will work with state staff to further elaborate
program details and develop the final proposal. Partner schools will be determined and
principals will be asked to sign a letter of support for the project.
5. A final state proposal will be developed and submitted by October, 2010.
CYFAR Proposal
7
County Proposal
Please answer the following questions briefly (maximum of 3 pages). Email completed proposals to
JulieAnn Stawicki, 4-H Youth Development Specialist (julieann.stawicki@ces.uwex.edu) by July 26th.
1. Who from 4-H Youth Development & Family Living will work on this project? What successes do
you have working together? What other support do you have for this project (including your
district director, Extension committee, and local school district)?
2. Identify a proposed elementary school and potential early childhood education partner.
Address how the elementary school fits the stated goal of working with an underrepresented
ethnic/racial minority population and/or within an urban community. Describe the nature of
your relationship with the proposed school and community.
3. Provide an overview of the key strategies to connect parents/caregivers with school & school
learning, specifically addressing how this would facilitate a parent/school partnership. This may
build on any existing parent partnership resources in the community.
4. Briefly describe how you would implement the ongoing family & out-of-school component of
the program. Give an overview of the design of the 4-H club experience and how you would
work to involve parents and families. This may build on any existing youth and family
programming in the community.
CYFAR County Proposal due July 26th
Email completed proposals to julieann.stawicki@ces.uwex.edu