Impact & Accountability
Our full evaluation results, published in full.
Every figure and every chart on this page is reproduced from the State of Michigan’s independent evaluation of our Youth Enrichment Program — all thirty-six survey items with their underlying percentages, the areas where we lead the state and the areas where we need to improve, and every comment youth and families gave. Nothing has been selected out.
Program overview
With 2024–25 funding from the Spreading Light Ministry, Spreading Childcare began operations on 27 January 2025. By the end of summer 2025 the program had been open 122 days and delivered 30 weeks of programming across three sites.
Proportion of days each site reached its proposed attendance against required minimum operating days, averaged across sites.
12 before-care, 17 after-school, 64 in summer.
Across 30 weeks and three program sites.
Reported by site managers; demand we cannot currently meet.
| Measure | School year | Summer |
|---|---|---|
| Program sites in operation | 2 | 3 |
| Minimum operating days based on funding level | 80 | 24 |
| Actual operating days | 70 | 52 |
| Minimum number of youth to be served per day | 30 | 45 |
| Average number of youth served per week | 12 | 42 |
| Total unique youth served | 17 | 63 |
| Service goal reached | 111% | |
Summer provision more than doubled its required operating days. School-year provision fell ten days short of the 80-day minimum in our first partial year, and average weekly attendance during the school year ran well below the proposed daily target of 30. Both are addressed in the current cycle.
What we offer, and what the state offers
Grant-eligible activity types from the spring Site Manager Survey, ordered by how widely each is offered across Michigan. Summer and autumn survey data were still being collected at publication.
Our provision concentrates on literacy, mathematics, STEM, social-emotional learning, mentoring, science, and health and wellness. Physical fitness is offered by 317 sites statewide and recreation by 255 — by none of ours and is an area of improvement. Youth voice, offered by 181 sites, is also an area of improvement. Those three gaps line up exactly with what our own survey results and youth comments identify as areas of improvement, which tells us the fix is a question of programming capacity rather than of approach.
How to read these results
Two things a funder should know before reading the survey sections below.
Sample size
The youth survey drew some responses from our program, against 727 statewide. The family survey drew some responses from our program, against 1,419 statewide.
Results are only reported where at least five people answered. At this sample size a single response moves a score by roughly twenty percentage points. We publish the results in full and treat them as a signal for more support, not a verdict.
What the bands mean
Bands describe our position relative to other Michigan grantees serving similar grades, not an absolute score. They are set by standard deviations from the statewide mean.
Because the spread of scores across the state is wide, a result can sit some distance from the average numerically and still band as “about the same.”
| Band | Percentile | Distance from the state average |
|---|---|---|
| Very high | 84th – 100th | More than 1 standard deviation above |
| High | 69th – 83rd | 0.5 – 1 SD above |
| About the same | 31st – 68th | Within ±0.5 SD |
| Low | 16th – 30th | 0.5 – 1 SD below |
| Very low | 0th – 15th | More than 1 SD below |
Youth survey — all twenty-three items
Surveys went to youth in our youth enrichment programs. The eight domains below are the elements research identifies as markers of a high-quality program. 5 responses from our program; 727 statewide.
| Survey item | Our score vs state average | Band |
|---|---|---|
| Positive climate | ||
| Q1 Adults here care about me. | Very low | |
| Q2 I can tell the adults here about my problems. | Very low | |
| Q3 This program helps me make new friends. | High | |
| Q4 I like coming to this program. | Very low | |
| Negative climate | ||
| Q5 Kids get bullied here. * | About the same | |
| Q6 Adults get mad a lot at this program. * | About the same | |
| Q7 We wait around a lot here. * | Very high | |
| Youth voice | ||
| Q8 I get to choose my activities here. | Very low | |
| Q9 I get to help plan activities, projects or events here. | Low | |
| Q10 Adults ask what we think about activities here. | About the same | |
| Collaboration | ||
| Q11 I get to lead activities here (for example: planning, meetings). | Low | |
| Q12 I get to help other kids here (for example: homework, projects). | Very low | |
| Q13 At this program, we learn how to deal with a conflict without fighting. | About the same | |
| Growth mindset | ||
| Q14 This program encourages me to be the best I can be. | High | |
| Q15 This program teaches me that mistakes or failure are just part of learning. | Very low | |
| Identity development | ||
| Q16 At this program, I learn about my feelings. | Very low | |
| Q17 This program spends time helping me understand my identities (race, social class, etc.). | High | |
| Q18 I feel comfortable expressing all of my identities in this program. | Very low | |
| School connection | ||
| Q19 The activities here help me do better at school. | About the same | |
| Q20 I can use the things I do here during my school day. | Very high | |
| Q21 This program helps me think about my education or career future. | Very high | |
| Healthy eating & active living | ||
| Q22 This program offers me fruits and vegetables every day. | About the same | |
| Q23 This program helps me get up and play for at least 60 minutes a day. | About the same | |
Family survey — all thirteen items
Surveys went to caregivers of participating youth, covering economic impact, benefits of participation, and family engagement. 6 responses from our program; 1,419 statewide.
| Survey item | Our score vs state average | Band |
|---|---|---|
| Economic impact — if this program were no longer available | ||
| Q24 We would have to reduce work hours. | About the same | |
| Q25 We would have to stop working or find another job. | About the same | |
| Q26 We would have to pay for other services or programs. | Very low | |
| Benefits of youth participation — how much this program helped my child with… | ||
| Q27 Being safe and staying out of trouble. | High | |
| Q28 Eating healthy. | High | |
| Q29 Being physically active. | Low | |
| Q30 Avoiding excessive screen time. | Very low | |
| Q31 Keeping up with schoolwork. | High | |
| Q32 Having adult support. | High | |
| Q33 Making good friends. | About the same | |
| Family engagement | ||
| Q34 This program makes me feel supported and welcomed. | About the same | |
| Q35 I am well informed about what my child is doing at the program. | High | |
| Q36 The staff here are my partners to support my child. | About the same | |
Every item ranked by distance from the state average
The same thirty-six results ordered from furthest below the Michigan average to furthest above, so the shape of the whole evaluation is visible at once.
Reverse-scored items (Q5, Q6, Q7) are plotted on their raw values; for those, a bar to the right of the centre line is an unfavourable result. Q7 — time spent waiting around — is the clearest single programming issue in the evaluation.
What the program is worth to a working family
Caregivers were asked how their household would be affected if the program were no longer available.
Half of responding families would lose paid working hours without this program. Both of the first two items band “about the same” against the state, and the third bands “very low” — these figures matter as an absolute measure of local need rather than as a comparative result.
Alignment with the state’s goals
The purpose of this funding is improving “school attendance, academic outcomes, positive behaviors, and skill acquisition” for Michigan children in grades K–12. Families reported improvements in their child across two groups of behaviors, broken down by how often the child attended. Families answering “my child does not need to improve” are excluded.
School behaviours measured
- Attending class and school regularly
- Actively engaging in school-day activities
- Completing homework on time
- Getting better grades
Soft skills measured
- Believing abilities can improve through effort
- Effectively regulating emotions
- Willingness to learn about others’ perspectives
- Developing healthy friendships
- Wanting to be helpful to others
Every family reporting on a child who attended showed improvement in both groups, and five of the six attended almost daily. Statewide data show the same pattern at scale: youth who attend more frequently improve more. That is the direct argument for funding more operating days.
Summary of findings
The evaluator’s own summary of where the program is strongest and where participants want more.
Greatest reported benefit
- School connection
- Growth mindset
- Families most agreed the program makes them feel supported and welcomed
- Helped children most with being safe and staying out of trouble
Where participants want more
- Collaboration
- Youth voice
- Less unstructured waiting time
- Physical activity and reduced screen time
What youth and families told us
Every open-text response collected, reproduced exactly as written — including the critical ones.
From youth: favourite part of the program
- eat help people and friends
- Funny
- to learn new language and learn
- Nothing
- IXL
From youth: anything you would like to change?
- Funnys
- Let us go outside. Not do IXL everyday. Freetime.
- Get to leave anytime 5:30
From families: how this program has helped your family
- I would say that I greatly appreciate this program, this program has been helping my kids alot, I feel it is very beneficial having this for my kids.
- They like having the extra time to learn new stuff
- This is a good program to have available for parents that needs that extra help for their kids.
- This out of school program has helped so much not only with providing transportation for my child but also providing a sence of ease for me to know my child is in good hands when away from me.
- This program has been great for ameriana she loves learning.
From families: anything else to share
- It is a very good program.
- My kids is learning alot
- With this being both my child and I first school expelled it started off really rough. you guys made it a smooth and stress free year and always treat my child like family & for that I am forever grateful!
Governance & fund control
Spreading Light Ministry is a registered nonprofit, EIN 81-4909671. Funds are held in institutional accounts only; no programme money is deposited into a personal account at any point.
Board oversight
An unpaid board sets strategy and the budget ceiling, approves major changes, manages conflicts of interest, and holds final accountability. Meeting dates are published in advance.
Financial reporting
Monthly financial review, restricted-fund compliance checks, reconciliations, and an independent review. Annual reports are published in full.
Restricted funds
Grant and sponsorship money is coded to its designated purpose and reconciled monthly, so a funder can trace exactly what their contribution paid for.
| Amount | Approval required |
|---|---|
| Under $1,000 | Director approval and receipt |
| $1,000 – $5,000 | Finance approval and two quotations |
| Above $5,000 | Three quotations and dual authorisation |
| Above $25,000 | Board of Directors approval |
Appendix A. Understand How Our Score Compares
Each graph in this report compares data from our program site to our grantee and to those across the state. Each of these tables indicates whether the data for our site is “Very High”, “High”, “About the Same”, “Low”, or “Very Low” compared to others. To determine these cutoffs, we used the Standard Deviation (SD), which is a measure of how far a score is from the average. Based on the assumption of a normal distribution, our categories include:
- “Very High” = a score is between the 84th–100th percentiles and more than 1 SD above the average.
- “High” = a score is between the 69th–83rd percentiles and 0.5–1 SD above the average.
- “About the Same” = a score is between the 31st–68th percentiles and within ±0.5 SD of the average.
- “Low” = a score is between the 16th–30th percentiles and 0.5–1 SD below the average.
- “Very Low” = a score is between the 0th–15th percentiles and more than 1 SD below the average.
You might see a score being considered as “About the Same” even though the number is much higher or lower than the state average. That means, in practice, there is a wide range of scores in the state and therefore it might not be a meaningful difference. Additionally, you might see our scores being very close to the state average but are noted as “Low” or “High.” In that case, most of the programs would have similar scores close to the state average, and therefore slight differences in scoring might mean very different things. We needed to use our best judgment to decide how comparisons to the state average might be meaningful to us.
