Supporting Immigrant and Refugee Children Through Asset-Based Community Programming

Abstract

Providing culturally responsive, trauma-informed afterschool programming is a promising intervention to promote the adjustment, educational achievement, and well-being of newly arrived refugee and immigrant children. Connecting Communities and Multilingual Learners (CCML) is a local nonprofit organization in the Southeastern part of the United States that provides this type of programming to newly arrived families. To better understand their impact on children, CCML aimed to examine its model of programming via a mixed methods, strengths-focused evaluation. Evaluation efforts focused on describing the effects of the program on children at CCML’s flagship site in a robust urban center. Data were collected from students and facilitators at two times (beginning and end of the year) over one academic school year. Results revealed that CCML supported students’ socio-emotional well-being, English language acquisition, and cultural pride in positive and sustaining ways. Evidence from this study suggests that culturally responsive and trauma-informed programs offer promising, adaptable models for addressing the evolving needs of newly arrived refugee and immigrant youth in diverse community contexts.

1. Introduction

Community becomes a particularly important consideration for immigrants seeking refuge in the United States, especially in light of the socio-political climate that has evolved since 2016. Current policies related to immigration, including the increased focus on deportation, have notably affected the well-being and sense of belonging within immigrant and refugee communities [1]. Beyond its direct impact on undocumented individuals, this approach has fostered an environment where immigrants often feel a heightened sense of vulnerability. This climate can impact various facets of their lives, creating barriers to something as fundamental as accessing necessary support services [2].

According to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) from November 2021, the total immigrant population in the U.S., including both legal and undocumented individuals, reached 46.2 million, marking the highest figure ever recorded in the nation’s history [3]. In the fall of 2021, over 5.3 million English learners were registered in public elementary and secondary schools, making up almost 11 percent of the entire K-12 student population [4]. These students experienced not only academic challenges but also socio-emotional and economic hardships when migrating to a new place [5,6]. In response to this increasingly volatile environment, national studies suggest that community organizations offering afterschool programs for immigrant youth can serve as vital support systems. Such organizations help these children build their social and cultural capital, improve emotional health, and strengthen academic achievement [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Afterschool programs must address not only students’ academic needs but also their emotional and social well-being. A supportive and empowering environment in such programs can positively affect immigrant youth’s academic success and mental health [14].

Therefore, this article focuses on the evaluation of the CCML program and outlines how their asset-based, community-focused afterschool programming effectively supports the academic and socio-emotional development of immigrant and refugee children.

2. Literature Review

Recent research studies show that afterschool programs play a crucial role in youth’s academic and social development. For example, Leos-Urbel’s study investigated the relationship between afterschool program quality and student outcomes, focusing on factors influencing attendance and test scores. The researchers found that a supportive environment in afterschool programs and structured interactions positively impacted test scores, highlighting important considerations for afterschool policy and program focus [15]. In addition, Zief et al. explored the impact of afterschool programs that combined academic support with youth development and recreational activities on various outcomes for participants. The findings indicated that access to afterschool programs has potential benefits, particularly in enhancing participation in enriching activities and improving social and emotional development. For example, one program, the Cooke Middle School Afterschool Recreation Program, was noted for successfully raising participants’ college aspirations and increasing involvement in strength training activities. Overall, participation in afterschool programs resulted in slight positive effects on engagement in athletics and arts [16]. However, the impact on standardized reading test scores was negligible, and any observed improvements in grades were minimal and not statistically significant. Furthermore, Perry and Calhoun-Butt’s analysis identified five primary domains related to youth experiences in the afterschool programs, including “education, visions of the future, cultural influence, current priorities, and program satisfaction” ([17], pp. 489–490). Within the education domain, various subcategories emerged that included general educational goals, familial influences, and economic pressures. Educational aspirations ranged from pursuing post-secondary education to the immediate necessity of obtaining a high school diploma. Family roles were varied, with some youth receiving encouragement and emotional support, while others lacked academic help due to family members’ limitations in certain subjects. Overall, these findings illustrate the complex interplay of educational goals, family support, and pressing life challenges faced by the youth participants.

Afterschool programs have had a positive impact on immigrant youth on many levels by promoting various beneficial, transformative practices. For example, Hall et al. examined the experiences of afterschool programs supporting immigrant and refugee children in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. This study highlighted effective strategies, such as promoting the use of native languages alongside English, celebrating students’ cultural heritages, and including staff with shared immigrant backgrounds. The findings indicate that these intentional approaches can enhance enrollment and effectiveness with this vulnerable population [18]. While many programs were not originally designed for immigrant youth, they still aligned with best practices, such as fostering a positive climate and strong social and emotional learning. Overall, the study emphasized the importance of tailored support for the successful development of immigrant and refugee students. Additionally, afterschool programs that prepare young immigrants for civic participation help them “develop agency, organizational skills, responsibility, persistence, strategic thinking, and ability to apply these skills in other areas of their lives” ([19], p. 4). It has been suggested that more innovative programming is often found in community-based organizations that go beyond traditional afterschool tutoring. Community-based academic support programs, designed to improve the well-being and performance of immigrant children in school, have proven to be transformative for these populations [20]. In addition, Cureton further emphasizes the significance of afterschool programs by investigating the engagement of refugee youth in such initiatives. The research reveals that structured afterschool environments enhance academic skills and promote social connections, which are vital for emotional support and community integration [9]. This perspective reinforces the idea that afterschool programs must extend beyond basic tutoring to include comprehensive support addressing the multifaceted needs of immigrant and refugee youth. Moreover, Baldridge et al. highlight the experiences of practitioners and scholars in addressing equity within these programs, emphasizing the need for culturally responsive practices that affirm the identities of immigrant youth [8]. These insights are crucial, as they point to the necessity of creating inclusive environments that recognize and celebrate the diverse backgrounds of participants. Taken as a whole, the literature indicates that afterschool programs must integrate academic support with a strong emphasis on socio-emotional development. By fostering a supportive atmosphere that encourages social engagement, these programs can significantly enhance the adjustment and educational outcomes of immigrant and refugee children.

Little research in the U.S. Southeast has been able to highlight the work of community-based non-profit organizations and what is being undertaken to uplift the lives of these immigrant and newly arrived refugees. Thus, the following study was guided by the following research question: In what ways can an asset-based community organization support language acquisition, cultural pride and the socio-emotional well-being of immigrant children and their parents?

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Context

CCML, a local non-profit organization in the Southeastern part of the United States, was established in 2013 to serve the community’s growing immigrant population. In response to the needs of schools and newly arrived immigrant and refugee families desperate to find support for their children, this community non-profit organization emerged to support these young learners by providing a linguistically and content-rich, asset-based afterschool program, designed to support the whole child. During the academic year and through different summer programs, CCML serves approximately 150 newly arrived immigrant and refugee children from Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, The Gambia, Vietnam, Burma, Bhutan, Thailand, Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, among others, each year. CCML was founded to provide wrap-around services to address the urgent needs of newly arrived immigrant and refugee families seeking support for their children.

The organization delivers culturally responsive, hands-on afterschool and summer programs specifically for newly arrived children from countries around the world. These programs integrate full meals and transportation and feature a distinctive curriculum focused on supporting English acquisition and literacy, fostering socio-emotional well-being, and nurturing cultural pride and appreciation as children adapt to their new home in the United States. Active and experiential learning methods support students’ development of social skills, self-awareness, and emotional regulation through group activities, collaborative projects, and real-world scenarios. These programs feature a unique curriculum that employs practical, immersive learning methods to meet the comprehensive needs of its student population. Their focus on hands-on and interactive activities often includes practical language use and direct engagement with literacy materials, rather than passive instruction.

Beyond these direct educational initiatives, the group extends comprehensive, culturally responsive wraparound support to hundreds of refugee and immigrant families, aiming to ensure the stability and well-being of every child by supporting their family. This crucial support system relies on a team of “community navigators” who connect families to vital resources in their first language, with assistance available in thirteen languages. This approach is designed to address existing gaps in culturally responsive services, access, and support for newly arrived families striving to thrive. The services, delivered through a dedicated team and a community center, adopt an equity-centered, trauma-informed approach with a cultural lens. Through an active community presence and advocacy, the organization strives to promote inclusivity. This deep cultural and linguistic understanding is significantly enabled by the unique composition of the staff that is immigrant-led. The organization is committed to building a team that fully represents the experiences, languages, and countries of the families they serve.

A typical day at the CCML program runs from Monday to Friday, starting with staff picking up students from school and bringing them to the program. Upon arrival, students are welcomed into a warm environment where they enjoy a family-style meal together, fostering a sense of community and belonging. After the meal, students participate in outdoor recreation, allowing them to engage in physical activity and social interaction. Following recreation, students receive homework help and one-on-one or small group literacy tutoring tailored to their needs. Each child receives personalized attention. After homework assistance, students gather as a full group to discuss upcoming events, where they practice their listening and communication skills with visual aids to enhance understanding. They then break into smaller groups to work on student-driven projects, exploring themes from astronomy to kindness, which encourages creativity and teamwork. The staff at CCML is culturally representative, comprising individuals from diverse backgrounds, including some who are refugees themselves. This diversity enriches the program, as facilitators bring unique perspectives and experiences to the learning environment. They receive coaching and professional development to implement research-based teaching strategies effectively, ensuring that all children feel respected and valued for their cultural identities. Thus, this research seeks to explore whether this inclusive atmosphere helps students thrive both academically and personally.

3.2. Research Procedure

During the 2022–2023 academic year, the researchers launched the first phase of the evaluation program to assess the impacts of this afterschool programming and family support navigators on students and parents. The researchers utilized standardized assessments and gathered insights from surveys completed by students, parents, and class facilitators to inform improvements in the organization’s services. Data was collected through two evidence-based surveys, incorporating validated scales for child and adolescent well-being.

These surveys were administered in a personal interview format at the beginning and end of the academic year, with administrators fluent in students’ home languages to ensure clear communication and understanding. The surveys were collaboratively developed, beginning with a review of the existing literature to identify validated scales related to English language acquisition, cultural pride, and socio-emotional well-being. These scales were adapted for the program’s diverse, culturally sensitive context. They underwent pilot testing with students to refine clarity and response scales, ensuring they reflected students’ experiences. The finalized surveys were administered twice during the academic year—at the beginning and end—by trained assistants who matched students with speakers of their preferred language to foster comfort. Incorporating both quantitative and qualitative questions, the surveys allowed for statistical analysis and rich narratives. Data analysis used descriptive and inferential statistics to assess the program’s impact, with findings shared with stakeholders for ongoing improvement. This process highlights the program’s commitment to evidence-based evaluation and continuous enhancement.

3.3. Research Participants

During this study, 118 students completed the beginning of the year (BOY) survey, while 103 completed the end of year (EOY) survey, with 101 participating in both. The fluctuation in numbers was due to families joining or leaving the program throughout the year. Classroom facilitators provided assessments on students’ English language acquisition, cultural pride, and socio-emotional well-being at both BOY and EOY. A total of 138 responses were collected from classroom facilitators. However, after matching BOY and EOY and eliminating incomplete responses, 82 cases provided data for both time points from classroom facilitators. Additionally, 110 parents participated in the family survey that provided the evaluation team with insights on the families’ experiences with the organization. While the responses from parents were not included in this specific study, the data reinforced the positive impact of the organization’s efforts.

The students in this study were participants in the afterschool program who attended 14 different schools located in the Southeast part of the U.S. The age of the student participants at the beginning of the year (BOY) ranged from 1 to 14 years, with a mean age of 8.83 years. At the end of the year (EOY), the age ranged from 5 to 14 years, with a mean age of 9.45 years. Regarding the primary language spoken, nearly half of the students indicated that English was their primary language (N = 55; 45.83%). The remaining students reported Spanish (N = 20; 16.67%), Dari (N = 12; 10.0%), Pashto (N = 2; 1.67%), and Burmese (N = 2; 1.67%) as their primary languages. A significant number of students (N = 20; 16.67%) reported having more than two primary languages, and among them, 17 students mentioned English as one of their primary languages.

3.4. Research Method

The study utilized quantitative and qualitative methods. Mixed methods, within the paradigm of community-engaged research, necessitate the systematic integration of both qualitative and quantitative data collection to answer complex questions not achieved with one methodology alone. While not delineated within the scope of this particular report, the research team also conducted an in-depth qualitative inquiry into the “why” and “how” that influenced community perceptions, lived experiences, and structural barriers that may have impacted the experiences of the students and families. This article reports on the quantitative component of the results. Specifically, it evaluated the impact of the CCML program on students’ English language acquisition, cultural pride, and socio-emotional well-being through descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics summarized the data, providing insights into the mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values. A paired sample t-test assessed the significance of differences in these variables before and after the intervention, identifying statistically significant changes. Effect sizes were interpreted using Cohen’s criteria, with thresholds for small (0.01), medium (0.06), and large (0.14) effects.

4. Results

The findings are discussed in three categories: English language acquisition, cultural pride, and socio-emotional well-being.

4.1. English Language Acquisition

To evaluate students’ perceived level of English language acquisition, the researchers focused on three key aspects: (a) English language self-efficacy, (b) language literacy, and (c) academic self-efficacy. The results from the pre- and post-surveys are presented in

Table 1. Students’ Perceived English Language Acquisition.

Question	Admin	Not So Great	Just OK	Good	Very Good/ Excellent
I can speak and understand English (language self-efficacy)	Pre	5	18	28	70
		(4.2%)	(15.3%)	(21.2%)	(59.3%)
	Post	3	9	29	60
		(3.0%)	(8.9%)	(28.7%)	(59.4%)
I can read and write in English (language literacy)	Pre	16	22	20	59
		(13.7%)	(18.8%)	(17.1%)	(50.4%)
	Post	8	9	29	55
		(7.9%)	(8.9%)	(28.7%)	(54.5%)
I am a ________ student (academic self-efficacy)	Pre	8	13	42	55
		(6.8%)	(11.0%)	(35.6%)	(46.6%)
	Post	1	18	40	43
		(1.0%)	(17.6%)	(39.2%)	(42.2%)
When it comes to homework, I feel ____ (academic self-efficacy)	Pre	14	30	32	40
		(12.1%)	(25.8%)	(27.6%)	(34.5%)
	Post	29	35	14	23
		(28.7%)	(34.6%)	(13.9%)	(22.8%)

Note: Not So Great = 1, Just OK = 2, Good =3, Very Good/Excellent = 4.

.

In the pre-survey, students rated their English language acquisition highly, with a mean score of 3.12 (SD = 0.64). In the post-survey, their rating remained similarly high at a mean score of 3.07 (SD = 0.58). This indicates that students’ perceptions of their English language acquisition remained relatively stable throughout the program. Notably, there was an upward trend in language literacy from the pre-survey (mean = 3.08, SD = 1.12) to the post-survey (mean = 3.30, SD = 0.93). This positive change suggests that the CCML program may have positively influenced students’ language literacy skills.

To obtain a more objective evaluation of the students’ progress in language acquisition following the intervention, data were collected from the program facilitators.

Table 2. Facilitator’s Evaluation of Students’ English Language Acquisition.

Question	Admin	Home Language Use	Non-verbal	Telegraphic/ Formulaic Use	Productive Language Use	Proficient
This student seems to speak and understand English	Pre	10	4	12	19	81
		(7.9%)	(3.2%)	(9.5%)	(15.1%)	(64.3%)
	Post	1	1	6	36	50
		(1.1%)	(1.1%)	(6.4%)	(38.3%)	(53.2%)
This student seems to read and write English	Pre	10	5	20	22	60
		(8.5%)	(4.3%)	(17.1%)	(18.8%)	(51.3%)
	Post	1	8	9	39	37
		(1.1%)	(8.5%)	(9.6%)	(41.5%)	(39.3%)

Note: Home Language Use = 1, Non-verbal = 2, Telegraphic/Formulaic Use = 3, Productive Language Use = 4, Proficient = 5.

presents two questions that were given to the facilitators to gather this information.

The results demonstrate a significant shift in facilitators’ assessments of students’ language acquisition between the pre-survey (M = 3.46, SD = 2.15) and the post-survey (M = 4.29, SD). The statistical significance of this change is indicated by a p-value of less than 0.001. This data suggests that, on average, facilitators perceived an enhancement in students’ overall English language acquisition following their participation in the CCML program. Furthermore, the effect size analysis showed a large effect, with the partial η² value of 0.144. This suggests that the facilitators’ perception of the students’ language acquisition improvements after receiving support from CCML were notably substantial.

In conclusion, the difference between student responses and facilitator evaluations can be explained by noting that students often see their experiences differently than the facilitators who evaluate their performance. This gap may come from different expectations and perspectives on learning outcomes. The link between student self-reports and instructor evaluations can show a disconnect in understanding or communication about language-learning success benchmarks. While students may feel they are learning and improving, facilitators might focus on specific performance measures that are not visible in students’ self-assessments. This indicates a need for further research in this area.

4.2. Cultural Pride

In order to assess students’ perceived levels of cultural pride, three questions were administered, and the results are summarized in

Table 3. Students’ Perceived Cultural Pride.

Question	Admin	Never	Sometimes	Most of the Time	Almost Always
I am proud to be from my family’s country	Pre	2	6	13	92
		(1.8%)	(5.3%)	(11.5%)	(81.4%)
	Post	2	3	18	79
		(2.0%)	(2.9%)	(17.6%)	(77.5%)
I think it is cool to be from my family’s country	Pre	4	4	19	85
		(3.6%)	(3.6%)	(16.9%)	(75.9%)
	Post	3	5	12	83
		(2.9%)	(4.9%)	(11.6%)	(80.6%)
I am proud of speaking the language of my family’s country______	Pre	3	12	7	87
		(2.8%)	(11.0%)	(6.4%)	(79.8%)
	Post	3	2	21	70
		(3.1%)	(2.1%)	(21.9%)	(72.9%)

Note: Never = 1, Sometimes = 2, Most of the Time = 3, Almost Always = 4.

. The overall mean score across these three questions was relatively high for both the pre-survey (M = 3.67, SD = 0.61) and the post-survey (M = 3.71, SD = 0.52). Although there was a minor increase in the mean score in the post-survey compared to the pre-survey, this change was found to be statistically insignificant, as indicated by the paired t-test results, t(df = 89) = −0.647, p = 0.52. Consequently, it can be inferred that the students’ perceptions of their cultural pride remained largely consistent before and after their participation in the CCML program.

The facilitators evaluated students’ sense of cultural pride and appreciation through two key dimensions: (a) cultural pride and (b) cultural appreciation. The first dimension was assessed via two specific questions, while the second was addressed through a single question. The details of these questions, along with the frequency of the ratings given by facilitators, are outlined in

Table 4. Facilitators’ Evaluation of Students’ Cultural Pride.

Question	Admin	Never	Sometimes	Most of the Time	Almost Always
This student seems to feel a sense of belonging to their own ethnic/cultural group (cultural pride)	Pre	1	23	45	51
		(0.8%)	(19.2%)	(37.5%)	(42.5%)
	Post	0	17	32	45
		(0.0%)	(18.1%)	(34.0%)	(47.9%)
This student shares facts and traditions that are important to their ethnic/cultural group at CCML (cultural pride)	Pre	23	42	25	29
		(19.3%)	(35.3%)	(21.0%)	(24.4%)
	Post	8	28	27	31
		(8.5%)	(29.8%)	(28.7%)	(33.0%)
I have observed this student honoring or being curious about other students’ ethnic/cultural backgrounds (cultural appreciation)	Pre	16	45	31	30
		(13.1%)	(36.9%)	(25.4%)	(24.6%)
	Post	2	17	42	33
		(2.1%)	(18.1%)	(44.7%)	(35.1%)

Note: Never = 1, Sometimes = 2, Most of the Time = 3, Always = 4.

. It illustrates a significant shift in facilitators’ assessments of students’ cultural pride and appreciation over time. For example, in the pre-survey, 18.3% of facilitators indicated “Never” in response to the question regarding whether students share facts and traditions that are important to their ethnic or cultural group with their peers and staff at CCML. However, this percentage notably decreased to 8.5% in the post-survey, while the response rate for “Most of the Time” increased from 19.8% to 28.7%. A similarly encouraging trend was observed in relation to the question assessing cultural appreciation.

The paired sample t-test confirmed a significant improvement in facilitators’ evaluation of students’ cultural pride and appreciation, t(df = 81)= −5.007, p < 0.001. In the pre-survey, facilitators’ ratings yielded a mean of 2.03 (SD = 2.02) across the three questions, while the mean increased to 3.09 (SD = 0.70) in the post-survey. The effect size was found to be very large, η² = 0.236, indicating that the facilitators generally perceived a considerable enhancement in students’ cultural pride and appreciation after the CCML afterschool programming.

4.3. Socio-Emotional Well-Being

To understand students’ perceived socio-emotional well-being before and after the intervention, a total of 22 questions were developed (see

Table 5. Students’ Perceived Socio-emotional Well-being.

Question	Admin	Never	Sometimes	Most of the Time	Almost Always
There is one or more grown-up who cares about me at CCML (connection with trusted adults)	Pre	2	12	23	73
		(1.8%)	(10.9%)	(20.9%)	(66.4%)
	Post	4	11	22	65
		(3.9%)	(10.8%)	(21.6%)	(63.7%)
I can talk to the grown-ups at CCML if I need help (connection with trusted adults)	Pre	4	19	23	68
		(3.5%)	(16.7%)	(20.2%)	(59.6%)
	Post	4	15	17	66
		(3.9%)	(14.7%)	(16.7%)	(64.7%)
Grown-ups at CCML take the time to get to know me (connection with trusted adults)	Pre	3	15	27	67
		(2.7%)	(13.4%)	(24.1%)	(59.8%)
	Post	4	12	24	61
		(3.9%)	(11.9%)	(23.8%)	(60.4%)
I can easily explain how I feel inside to a friend or grown-up (emotional intelligence)	Pre	9	40	27	41
		(7.7%)	(34.2%)	(23.1%)	(35.0%)
	Post	10	23	40	29
		(9.8%)	(22.6%)	(39.2%)	(28.4%)
I know how my body feels when I am mad/sad/frustrated (emotional intelligence)	Pre	6	28	28	53
		(5.2%)	(24.3%)	(24.4%)	(46.1%)
	Post	8	21	36	38
		(7.8%)	(20.4%)	(34.9%)	(36.9%)
I know how my friends are feeling inside (emotional intelligence)	Pre	18	21	38	37
		(15.8%)	(18.4%)	(33.3%)	(32.5%)
	Post	10	24	26	43
		(9.7%)	(23.3%)	(25.2%)	(41.8%)
I can name what I am feeling (emotional intelligence)	Pre	10	28	35	42
		(8.7%)	(24.4%)	(30.4%)	(36.5%)
	Post	10	28	35	42
		(10.8%)	(18.6%)	(31.4%)	(39.2%)
When I am mad/frustrated/sad I know at least one activity I can use to calm down (emotion regulation skills)	Pre	11	27	27	49
		(9.7%)	(23.7%)	(23.6%)	(43.0%)
	Post	9	22	23	47
		(8.9%)	(21.8%)	(22.8%)	(46.5%)
I can show my feelings to others at CCML (emotion regulation skills)	Pre	15	32	31	32
		(13.0%)	(27.8%)	(27.0%)	(32.2%)
	Post	10	28	27	37
		(9.8%)	(27.4%)	(26.5%)	(36.3%)
I like coming to CCML (sense of belonging)	Pre	3	12	23	78
		(2.6%)	(10.4%)	(19.8%)	(67.2%)
	Post	3	21	26	53
		(2.9%)	(20.4%)	(25.2%)	(51.5%)
There are people at CCML who miss me if I am not here (sense of belonging)	Pre	10	11	25	63
		(9.2%)	(10.1%)	(22.9%)	(57.8%)
	Post	8	14	30	48
		(8.0%)	(14.0%)	(30.0%)	(48.0%)
I feel comfortable sharing about myself and my life with friends at CCML (sense of belonging)	Pre	8	33	25	47
		(7.1%)	(29.2%)	(22.1%)	(41.6%)
	Post	17	16	25	43
		(16.8%)	(15.8%)	(24.8%)	(42.6%)
I feel safe at CCML (sense of safety)	Pre	0	11	18	85
		(0.0%)	(9.6%)	(15.8%)	(74.6%)
	Post	3	8	20	68
		(3.0%)	(8.1%)	(20.2%)	(68.7%)
I can do things for myself (self-efficacy)	Pre	6	15	40	55
		(5.2%)	(12.9%)	(34.5%)	(47.4%)
	Post	4	10	36	52
		(3.9%)	(9.8%)	(35.3%)	(51.0%)
I am in control of how I act (self-efficacy)	Pre	7	22	38	48
		(6.1%)	(19.1%)	(33.0%)	(41.8%)
	Post	9	13	28	52
		(8.8%)	(12.7%)	(27.5%)	(51.0%)
I try to solve problems (self-efficacy)	Pre	4	30	32	50
		(3.4%)	(25.9%)	(27.6%)	(43.1%)
	Post	7	10	38	47
		(6.9%)	(9.8%)	(37.2%)	(46.1%)
I like to help others feel better (capacity for compassion)	Pre	6	19	21	69
		(5.2%)	(16.5%)	(18.3%)	(60%)
	Post	3	13	24	62
		(2.9%)	(12.8%)	(23.5%)	(60.8%)
I feel happy coming to CCML (engagement at CCML)	Pre	3	13	21	77
		(2.6%)	(11.4%)	(18.4%)	(67.6%)
	Post	5	15	21	61
		(4.9%)	(14.7%)	(20.6%)	(59.8%)
I enjoy the activities at CCML (engagement at CCML)	Pre	3	13	25	72
		(2.7%)	(11.5%)	(22.1%)	(63.7%)
	Post	4	17	24	57
		(3.9%)	(16.7%)	(23.5%)	(55.9%)
I think CCML helps me with school (engagement at CCML)	Pre	2	14	29	68
		(1.8%)	(12.4%)	(25.6%)	(60.2%)
	Post	10	11	25	56
		(9.8%)	(10.8%)	(24.5%)	(54.9%)
I feel comfortable with the other kids at CCML (engagement at CCML)	Pre	9	14	36	53
		(8.0%)	(12.5%)	(32.2%)	(47.3%)
	Post	10	25	22	45
		(9.8%)	(24.5%)	(21.6%)	(44.1%)
I have enough time to do my homework at CCML (engagement at CCML)	Pre	12	16	23	60
		(10.8%)	(14.4%)	(20.7%)	(54.1%)
	Post	13	15	22	51
		(12.9%)	(14.8%)	(21.8%)	(50.5%)

Note: Never = 1, Sometimes = 2, Most of the Time = 3, Almost Always = 4.

). These questions were designed to measure eight specific aspects of socio-emotional well-being: (a) connection with at least one trusted adult, (b) emotional intelligence, (c) emotion regulation skills, (d) sense of belonging, (e) sense of safety, (f) self-efficacy, (g) capacity for compassion, and (h) engagement at CCML. The data collected from these measures provided vital insights into how the program influenced the socio-emotional development of the students. By evaluating changes across these dimensions, the researchers could assess the overall effectiveness of the CCML programming in fostering a supportive environment that promotes the well-being of immigrant and refugee children.

The data analysis for this construct involved examining each sub-construct individually due to the high volume of questions. The results, summarized in

Table 6. Students’ Perceived Socio-emotional Well-being by Sub-Constructs.

Construct	Number of Questions	Admin	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Connection with at least one trusted adult	3	Pre	3.46	0.58	0.33	0.00
		Post	3.42	0.65	0.67	0.00
Emotional Intelligence	4	Pre	2.92	0.62	0.75	0.00
		Post	2.97	0.64	0.5	0.00
Emotion Regulation Skills	2	Pre	2.88	0.85	0.00	0.00
		Post	2.98	0.83	0.00	0.00
Sense of Belonging	3	Pre	3.28	0.69	0.33	0.00
		Post	3.13	0.75	0.33	0.00
Sense of Safety	1	Pre	3.65	0.65	0.00	0.00
		Post	3.55	0.77	0.66	0.66
Self-Efficacy	3	Pre	3.15	0.66	0.33	0.00
		Post	3.25	0.66	0.00	0.00
Capacity for Compassion	1	Pre	3.33	0.93	0.00	0.00
		Post	3.42	0.83	0.00	0.00
Engagement at CCML	5	Pre	3.37	0.59	0.40	0.00
		Post	3.21	0.77	0.00	0.00

Note: Never = 1, Sometimes = 2, Often = 3, Always = 4.

, indicate that students rated their socio-emotional well-being positively, with mean ratings exceeding 3 for most sub-constructs. This implies that a majority of students answered with “Most of the Time” or “Almost Always” to the related questions within each sub-construct.

Additionally, two exceptions were noted regarding emotional intelligence and emotion regulation skills. The means were slightly lower, measuring at 2.92 and 2.97 for emotional intelligence, and 2.88 and 2.98 for emotion regulation skills in the pre- and post-surveys, respectively. While there was a slight increase in the means from the pre-survey to the post-survey, these changes were not statistically significant according to the paired sample t-test. For the other sub-constructs, minor fluctuations in mean ratings were observed between the pre-survey and post-survey, but none of the differences achieved statistical significance.

Furthermore, a comprehensive assessment of overall socio-emotional well-being, utilizing the questions outlined in Table 6, revealed no significant difference between the pre-survey and post-survey ratings. This was confirmed through a paired sample t-test (t(df = 75) = −0.507, p = 0.61). These findings indicate that, overall, students’ socio-emotional well-being remained relatively stable throughout the duration of the program.

The facilitators’ assessment of students’ socio-emotional well-being encompassed seven key dimensions, which were measured through a total of 12 quantitative questions. These dimensions include: (a) connection with others, (b) emotional intelligence, (c) emotion regulation skills, (d) sense of belonging, (e) capacity for compassion, (f) engagement at CCML, and (g) friendships. A summary of the frequency of facilitators’ ratings is presented in

Table 7. Facilitators’ Evaluation of Students’ Socio-emotional Well-being.

Question	Admin	Never	Sometimes	Most of the Time	Almost Always
This student seems to feel connected to other students at CCML (connection with others)	Pre	0	10	38	78
		(0.0%)	(7.9%)	(30.2%)	(61.9%)
	Post	0	10	32	52
		(0.0%)	(10.6%)	(34.1%)	(55.3%)
This student seems to feel connected to staff at CCML (connection with others)	Pre	5	18	44	58
		(4.0%)	(14.4%)	(35.2%)	(46.4%)
	Post	0	11	32	51
		(0.0%)	(11.7%)	(34.0%)	(54.3%)
This student seems to notice how friends are feeling (emotional intelligence)	Pre	5	30	46	40
		(4.1%)	(24.8%)	(38.0%)	(33.1%)
	Post	3	27	34	30
		(3.2%)	(28.7%)	(36.2%)	(31.9%)
This student asks for help when overwhelmed by an emotion (emotion regulation)	Pre	13	39	41	26
		(10.9%)	(32.8%)	(34.5%)	(21.8%)
	Post	16	38	15	25
		(17.0%)	(40.4%)	(16.0%)	(26.6%)
This student keeps their feeling to themselves (emotion regulation)	Pre	29	45	27	18
		(24.4%)	(37.8%)	(22.7%)	(15.1%)
	Post	21	44	21	8
		(22.4%)	(46.8%)	(22.3%)	(8.5%)
This student seems to know at least one way to calm down when they are mad/sad/frustrated, etc. (emotion regulation)	Pre	3	37	36	35
		(2.7%)	(33.4%)	(32.4%)	(31.5%)
	Post	3	42	31	18
		(3.2%)	(44.7%)	(33.0%)	(19.1%)
This student seems comfortable showing their feeling to others at CCML (emotional regulation)	Pre	5	38	44	33
		(4.2%)	(31.7%)	(36.7%)	(27.5%)
	Post	3	30	27	32
		(3.3%)	(32.6%)	(29.3%)	(34.8%)
This student seems to feel a sense of belonging at CCML (sense of belonging)	Pre	1	13	46	64
		(0.8%)	(10.5%)	(37.1%)	(51.6%)
	Post	0	9	34	51
		(0.0%)	(9.6%)	(36.2%)	(54.2%)
This student seems to like helping others feel better (capacity for compassion)	Pre	3	31	36	47
		(2.5%)	(26.5%)	(30.8%)	(40.2%)
	Post	2	25	28	38
		(2.1%)	(26.9%)	(30.1%)	(40.9%)
This student seems to enjoy the activities at CCML (engagement at CCML)	Pre	1	32	46	46
		(0.8%)	(25.6%)	(36.8%)	(36.8%)
	Post	0	21	25	48
		(0.0%)	(22.3%)	(26.6%)	(51.1%)
		1–2 friends	3–4 friends	4 or more
About how many friends does this student have at CCML? (friend)	Pre	21	54	51
		(16.7%)	(42.8%)	(40.5%)
	Post	13	33	48
		(13.8%)	(35.1%)	(51.1%)

Note: Never/1–2 friends = 1, Sometimes/3–4 friends = 2, Most of the Time/4 or more friends = 3, Almost Always = 4.

.

The evaluative ratings provided by facilitators regarding students’ socio-emotional well-being were generally moderate, with an average rating nearing three. It is important to highlight that facilitators assigned comparatively lower ratings to items assessing students’ emotion regulation skills, with the predominant rating being two (sometimes). These ratings showed minimal variation in the post-survey. Additionally, responses to the two questions measuring students’ emotional intelligence also reflected relatively high frequencies of ratings of two or three, in contrast to other items assessed.

In regard to the emotional intelligence sub-construct, the mean scores for the two questions exhibited a statistically significant difference between the pre-survey (M = 2.56, SD = 0.87) and the post-survey (M = 2.87, SD = 0.88). This conclusion is supported by the paired sample t-test results, which revealed t(df = 76) = −2.594 and a p-value of 0.011. The effect size was calculated to be moderate, with η² = 0.082. These findings suggest that facilitators perceived an enhancement in students’ emotional intelligence as a result of the CCML program.

Additionally, the connection with others sub-construct also led to statistical significance, with a higher mean for the post-survey (M = 3.44, SD = 0.60) compared to the pre-survey (M = 3.23, SD = 0.60), as shown by the paired sample t-test t(df = 81) = −2.578, p = 0.012. This difference yielded a medium effect size of η² = 0.076, implying that the facilitators observed increased connectivity between their students and others.

Finally, the mean across all 12 questions was found to significantly differ between the pre-survey (M = 2.51, SD = 0.79) and the post-survey (M = 2.92, SD = 0.5). The paired sample t-test indicated a significant improvement in facilitators’ evaluation of students’ socio-emotional well-being, t(df = 77) = −4.318, p < 0.001. This significance was associated with a large effect size, η² = 0.197. This finding collectively suggests that the facilitators generally perceived that students’ socio-emotional well-being had been enhanced through the CCML afterschool programming.

5. Discussion

The results indicate that CCML’s programming significantly enhances students’ socio-emotional well-being, supports English language acquisition, and fosters cultural pride among immigrant and refugee children, especially from the classroom facilitators’ perspective. The results emphasize the importance of addressing both academic and emotional needs in afterschool programs to effectively support the adjustment and development of these children. The findings from the evaluation of the CCML programming align with and expand upon the established literature addressing the impact of afterschool programs for immigrant and refugee youth. The findings of this study resonate with the literature by Uygur and Bakan, which highlights the socio-political challenges faced by immigrant communities due to anti-immigrant sentiment, emphasizing the necessity of supportive environments that “combat the exclusion and demonization of immigrants” ([1], p. 836). In alignment with Gonzales, who discusses the barriers immigrants face in accessing support services, the CCML program effectively mitigates feelings of vulnerability by fostering a culturally responsive and trauma-informed environment [2]. Furthermore, Cureton emphasizes the critical role of community programs in fostering resilience among immigrant youth, advocating for the design of supportive, culturally sensitive, and comprehensive programs that address both academic and socio-emotional needs [9]. In this context, CCML plays a vital role in fostering resilience and promoting positive outcomes among immigrant youth. This nurturing setting not only promotes academic growth but also enhances socio-emotional well-being, consistent with prior research on effective afterschool programs.

The literature review highlights the multifaceted role that afterschool programs can play in the academic and social development of youth, particularly focusing on the importance of a supportive environment. For instance, research by Zief et al. points to the potential benefits of programs that integrate academic support and recreational activities, noting improvements in participation and socio-emotional outcomes [16]. This echoes CCML’s findings that their programming effectively bolstered students’ socio-emotional well-being and cultural pride, indicating that the CCML model successfully incorporates these dual focuses on academic and emotional development. Additionally, Leos-Urbel’s study, which explores the relationship between program quality and student outcomes, suggests that structured interactions within supportive environments contribute to better academic performance [15]. The positive results observed at CCML regarding English language acquisition can be partially attributed to the program’s structured, supportive interactions that foster an engaging learning atmosphere. Moreover, the CCML programming reflects the principles discussed by Hall et al., which advocate for culturally responsive practices that celebrate students’ cultural heritages [18]. By promoting the use of native languages and employing staff with shared immigrant backgrounds, CCML’s practices echo Hall et al.’s findings that such strategies enhance enrollment and effectiveness for immigrant populations.

As CCML continues to refine its program model based on participant feedback and outcomes, it has the potential to address the areas identified in the literature, such as increasing student engagement and minimizing academic challenges. Furthermore, the findings from Perry and Calhoun-Butt, regarding the interrelatedness of educational aspirations, family support, and life challenges, are mirrored in CCML’s evaluation [17]. The organization’s programming allows for a space where cultural identity and familial influences are explored and supported, reinforcing students’ educational aspirations and personal growth. The CCML emphasis on cultural pride not only aligns with the literature but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the challenges faced by immigrant children, potentially leading to improved academic and social outcomes. While the literature indicates variable impacts on standardized test scores, the CCML findings suggest that success may not only be measured through academic metrics, but also through enhancements in socio-emotional health and community connections. This affirmation stresses the need for a holistic view in evaluating afterschool programs, where qualitative measures of student well-being hold as much importance as traditional academic assessments.

Some limitations of the current study are worth noting. First, data were collected from only a single year, although both pre- and post-survey data were available within a year. Future research should aim to capture longitudinal data to better understand the gains students experience over time through the program. Second, due to the limited sample size, this study relied primarily on descriptive analyses. With a larger dataset, future analyses should incorporate more advanced statistical approaches, such as confirmatory factor analysis, to further validate the findings. Additionally, the research was conducted in a specific geographic area, potentially influencing the outcomes based on local characteristics. Time constraints also prevented a thorough examination of long-term effects, while some data relied on self-reported measures, introducing possible bias. Furthermore, not all external variables were accounted for, which could have impacted the conclusions drawn, and the focus on specific variables might have overlooked other important factors. We also acknowledge the epistemological assumptions underlying our research design and measures, which are rooted in specific cultural frameworks. Overall, these limitations highlight the need for further research to expand on these findings.

In conclusion, the CCML study not only corroborates the existing literature on the impact of afterschool programs but also builds upon it by providing evidence of the direct benefits associated with a culturally responsive and supportive environment. This study emphasizes the need for continuous improvement in program delivery and an awareness of the unique challenges faced by immigrant and refugee youth. By focusing on socio-emotional well-being and educational engagement, organizations like CCML are pivotal in disrupting inequities and fostering resilience among newly arrived immigrant families.

6. Conclusions

The evaluation of the CCML afterschool programming reveals positive impacts on the socio-emotional well-being, English language acquisition, and cultural pride of newly arrived immigrant and refugee children. These findings highlight the critical role that culturally responsive and trauma-informed programming plays in addressing the unique challenges faced by this population. By fostering an environment that values emotional and social growth alongside academic achievement, CCML not only enhances educational outcomes, but also contributes to the overall adjustment and integration of these children into their new communities.

The implications of this study are numerous. Community organizations that serve immigrant populations should prioritize the development of programs that are not solely focused on academic support but also encompass the broader emotional and social needs of participants. Emphasizing culturally responsive practices can help to cultivate a sense of belonging and affirm the identities of immigrant and refugee youth. Additionally, further investment in program evaluations can help organizations like CCML refine their program models, ensuring they remain adaptable to the needs of the families they serve. Ultimately, collaboration between educational institutions, community organizations, and policymakers is essential to create supportive ecosystems for immigrant youth. By fostering partnerships that strengthen these afterschool programs, stakeholders can amplify their effects and contribute to a more equitable and inclusive educational landscape for all children. In conclusion, the findings underscore the importance of disrupting inequities through asset-based community programming designed specifically for immigrant and refugee children, as such initiatives are vital for fostering their social, emotional, and academic development.