Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 1
San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood Initiative

Working toward building a stronger community and improving educational outcomes
May 2011 Trinity University: Urban Education 4391:3 Jaclyn Bays, Sheila Castle, Erin Dunk, David Nikaido, Charlie Mitchell
Promise Neighborhood Planning grant funding provided through the U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Education Award Number U215P100282 CFDA 84.215A
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
INTRODUCTION.....6 METHODOLOGY....7 THEMATIC FINDINGS, ANALYSES, & IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS...8 SOCIAL CAPITAL...8 PARENT EDUCATION.......9 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION..10 AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING.....12 CRIME, SAFETY, & RECREATION SPACES....13 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT......15 CONCLUSION......17 REFERENCES.......19 APPENDICES: REVIEWS OF RELEVANT LITERATURE......21 Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes.21 Out-of-School Time..32 Behavioral Readiness42 Influence of Health & Access to Care on Academic Success...48 The Importance of Early Childhood Education.59
Executive Summary
The San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood is a federally funded community initiative intended to identify factors that affect academic success and to design a plan to create a continuum of solutions to improve educational outcomes in schools throughout the area. As a collaboration of several entities including the City of San Antonio, San Antonio Independent School District, San Antonio Housing Authority, United Way of San Antonio, Trinity University, and others, the Initiative is currently operating with funding provided by a one-year federal planning grant. Our team worked under the direction of Dr. Christine Drennon, head of the Urban Studies Department at Trinity University and research director of the Initiative. We principally assisted with data collection, reviews of relevant literature, and data analyses. Our team specifically focused on qualitative data, with the aim of better understanding the unique strengths and needs of the Eastside community with respect to fostering an environment that will prepare children well for success in school and in future endeavors. Our data collection process consisted of conducting small focus groups with parents, youth, and community members. These groups were discussion-based, led by facilitators, and aimed to address questions such as whether families needs can be met within the neighborhood, and what challenges children face in successfully completing high school. Most groups were conducted in English, with a few conducted in Spanish. Each group was tape recorded and notes were taken of the discussions. The recordings were later transcribed and analyzed empirically to determine overriding themes, both within and across groups. Extensive literature reviews covering a variety of indicators related to academic outcomes were also conducted, and may be found in the Appendices of this report. Several important themes emerged from analyses of the focus groups, including: resident mobility and relationships among neighbors, parent education opportunities, parent involvement, after-school programming needs, early childhood education programs, and concerns regarding crime, safety, and the availability of public recreation spaces. High mobility within the community raises questions about the amount of social capital available within the Promise Neighborhood, and how relationships that cultivate social capital may be increased and/or improved. The topic of parent education pertains to the possibility that the area may need more resources to help parents obtain GEDs, receive tutoring in specific areas, or acquire other supports that will empower them to better assist their children with schoolwork. Parent
involvement was identified by several groups as crucial to academic success, which is a finding widely supported by the literature, and yet difficult to improve through straightforward interventions, given the key connection between parent involvement and parenting styles. A deficiency in the availability and quality of after-school programs and mentoring also suggests that additional resources or coordination may be needed in order to improve the productivity and safety of after-school time for children in the Promise Neighborhood. Early childhood education programs are available in the area, namely through Head Start and Early Head Start, but are presently underutilized in light of the profound impact of developing cognitive and behavioral skills early in life. Finally, participants repeatedly voiced concerns regarding crime, safety, and a lack of recreational spaces, leading to the likelihood that residents do not feel that they can engage in healthy physical activity in their neighborhood. Although the challenges present in the Promise Neighborhood are varied and may require significant resources to address, the community is also rich in existing assets. Without a doubt, strong connections already exist within organizations such as neighborhood associations and church communities. By extending these networks and coordinating the collective strengths of the area, the Eastside Promise Neighborhood is likely to fulfill its promise of enhancing educational prospects for children in the community, and improving quality of life for all residents.
Acknowledgments
The opportunity for our involvement with the research for the Eastside Promise Neighborhood Initiative would not have been possible without the input and assistance of several key individuals and organizations. The Promise Neighborhood staff and Advisory Board kept in close contact with us throughout the semester and provided critical support. We are incredibly grateful for the participation of the parents, students, and residents of the Eastside who attended focus groups and community meetings regarding the relationship between the education system and neighborhood. Without these individuals, our research could not have taken root in the project and proved applicable. We also extend our sincere thanks to Rey Saldaa, who guided the development of this report and helped us link together our experiences in this project with education theory and current debates concerning the future of public education in our nation. And finally, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Christine Drennon in the development of this final project. She was the groups liaison, advisor, and leader in both the academic aspects and the community relationships within the project and we absolutely could not have accomplished this without her.
Introduction
The Promise Neighborhood Initiative (PNI) is combating neighborhood decline in San Antonios Eastside a group of neighborhoods east of downtown, covering 2.25 square miles and bound by I-37, I-35, Commerce Street and the AT&T Center Parkway. Currently the Eastside has a predominant Hispanic population, but in the past the neighborhood was the traditional African American base. The Eastside has been characterized by a number of negative social problems, including teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, and poverty rates. PNI received a one year federal planning grant to address these and numerous other problems by integrating disparate education and revitalization efforts and creating a transformed Eastside Promise Neighborhood characterized by high quality small schools, engaged parent leaders and stable housing. Our research team was assembled, under the guidance of Dr. Christine Drennon of Trinity University, to perform two major tasks: collect qualitative data for both a needs assessment and an asset inventory of the Eastsides available resources, and research relevant literature pertaining to five themes identified by the federal grant as Promise Neighborhood indicators. For the first task we conducted 14 focus groups, made up of residential groups, either parents, students, neighborhood associations, or other groups. We recorded the conversations and transcribed them so that we could perform an objective qualitative analysis on the topics that residents brought up. The literature reviews were written for the purpose of informing the Promise Neighborhood Advisory Board about the most recent indicators and best practices being used to identify and combat areas of neighborhood decline. The five themes we investigated are the following (these literature reviews can be found in the appendices): Influence of community on academic outcomes Influence of health and access to health care on academic success Behavioral readiness in kindergarten students Early childhood education Out-of-school time programming After conducting the focus groups and researching relevant literature for Promise Neighborhood indicators, our team identified five topics that were both concerns of the Eastside residents and also appeared in the literature we reviewed. We drew from both sources to provide PNI some recommendations for moving forward in these five areas:
Social Capital Parent Education Barriers to Engaging in Physical Activity Parental Involvement Early Childhood Education
Methodology
The Promise Neighborhood Initiative conducted a needs assessment, an asset inventory, and a segmentation analysis of the Promise Neighborhood to determine the current state of the community and discover what is working and what is not working in terms of educational attainment. By gathering data from the schools and the surrounding neighborhood, the Initiative aims to identify factors outside of the school system that may influence the educational success and overall well-being of children living in and/or attending school in the Promise Neighborhood. Using this data, the Promise Neighborhood Initiative will create a continuum of community based, wrap-around solutions that will effectively create an educational pipeline for Promise Neighborhood students. Our particular project assisted the Promise Neighborhood Initiative by conducting fourteen focus groups with community members (including parents, youth, neighborhood associations, and public housing residents). Each focus group was led by a facilitator and a cofacilitator. Each facilitator asked questions from a standardized outline. The questions were specifically designed to elicit the various needs and strengths of the Promise Neighborhood. Each focus group was tape recorded and transcribed. In addition to being tape recorded, notes about the focus group were taken by at least one note-taker present at each group. At the conclusion of each focus group, short surveys were given to the participants; these surveys asked brief additional questions not asked in the focus group. In addition to conducting focus groups, literature reviews were compiled on various education related topics: factors influencing high school drop-out rates, early childhood education, health and access to health care, community and neighborhood influences, and use of out-of-school time.
Thematic Findings, Analysis, and Implications/Recommendations

1) Social Capital A consistent concern among neighborhood residents was the high mobility level in the neighborhood. They cited frequently moving neighbors as a detrimental to neighborhood quality. Specifically, the residents pointed to highly mobile renters as problematic. The high mobility in the neighborhood has prevented many people from forming strong trusting relationships with their neighbors. While some groups within the neighborhood such as the Dignowity Hill neighborhood association and the residents of Harvard Place felt they had strong ties with their neighbors, there were definite pockets of residential instability and distrust in the Promise Neighborhood. Relevant literature The literature on social capital is extensive and varied. While the term was coined by Jane Addams in The Death and Life of Great American Cities it was given importance by James Coleman in 1988 in his article Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital and further popularized by Robert Putnam in his 2000 book Bowling Alone. Both Coleman and Putnam emphasize the importance of social capital (specifically, trust and trustworthiness) in creating a high functioning community. Coleman makes the point that families, specifically parents, that know each other are much more able to enforce social norms and the fulfillment of obligations. Kristin Turney (2010) noted that residential stability (i.e. low mobility) is essential to the formation of social capital. Turney found that neighborhoods with high stability had higher levels of social capital regardless of socioeconomic status. As our complete literature review detailed, mobility is associated with adverse educational outcomes (Rumberger, 1998). Conversely, low mobility not only strengthens neighborhood ties and develops social capital, but improves educational outcomes for youth. Implications A significant goal of the Promise Neighborhood grant was to determine what assets were already in place. From our focus groups it seemed that the Dignowity Hill and Harvard Place/Eastlawn neighborhood associations as well as the public housing resident council at the Wheatley Courts, with their current levels of social capital, could serve as anchor institutions and facilitators for the rest of the neighborhood.
Programs and events to encourage neighbors meeting each other, such as block parties, could facilitate the creation of social capital. The focus groups for this project did this to some extent, allowing disparate groups to connect and exchange ideas and contact information. However, these events would have to bridge multiple social arenas to ensure new connections were being created. In addition, these programs or events would have to be structured such that the connections made would transfer into other neighborhood contexts. HIS Bridgebuilders may be the closest to this model currently, and, with the proper support, could grow to serve even more people. Several cities have created neighborhood resource hubs (sometimes called parent places, family resource centers, literacy hubs etc.) that serve as a central location for neighbors to gather (NLC, 2007). In this context parents are able to obtain information and services as well as meet with other parents while their children play. The parent rooms at the schools (funded and supported by Family Service Association as the Parent-Community-School Partnership Program), in part, serve this function. However, they lack the resource aspect of the neighborhood hubs and focus on parent engagement in the schools. The model of the parent room could be built upon to create a neighborhood resource hub for all residents. There would of course be hurdles to overcome in creating these resource hubs. Currently the parent room are used primarily by the Spanish speaking population in the neighborhood. In the focus groups the language barrier was cited not only as barrier between teachers and parents but also between different parts of the community. The theory on which the parent programs are built is inspiring; the networks that are forming, touching more and more parents every year, are beginning to provide the safety net that families need so desperately. The lack of a safety net has put tremendous pressure on our family structure -- pressure that materializes as domestic abuse, child neglect, and broken families. These parent rooms focus on the parental relationships -- not the children -- and in doing so, are building safer environments in which our children can grow. While the current parent room is a noble effort, the schools seem to be sending mixed messages about the how much they truly value parental involvement. A more prominent location for the parent rooms and perhaps a bilingual staffer could help to overcome these challenges. In addition, if the parent rooms are to become a resource hub for the entire neighborhood rather than just parents, they may need to move out of the schools and into the neighborhood. The residents specifically mentioned highly mobile renters as problematic. Part of the reason why the Dignowity Hill neighborhood association has such high social capital could be an increased rate of home ownership among its members. In addition one of the positive aspects of the neighborhood that was repeated on several occasions was its affordability. The combination of these two factors suggests that helping current renters transition to homeowners could help to lower the mobility rate and help improve relationships among neighbors. The city of San Antonio has an IDA (individual development account) program that is designed to help lower income individuals and families save for a down payment on a home. This program could be further publicized and promoted in the Promise Neighborhood to encourage home ownership and lower mobility rates.
2) Parent Education Another consistent theme that emerged from the focus groups was parent education. There was a consistent demand for GED programs and tutoring for parents. While there are a few organizations that offer GED classes, parents cited the scheduling of the classes and the cost as a serious impediment to attendance. Several parents expressed frustration over their inability to help their children with even elementary level homework. Enabling parents by providing educational services would help parents help their children. Some parents even suggested allowing parents to attend school with their children. The consistent sentiment in the focus groups was that school should be for the entire family rather than for children alone. The current limited provision of adult education services is separate from the school system and conflicts with the residents desires to make education a family experience. Relevant Literature The literature is quite clear on the role of a parents education level in a childs educational success. Multiple studies have found highly significant correlations between a parents educational attainment and the educational attainment of the student (Caldas, 1997; Entwisle, 1995; Roscigno, 2006; Turney, 2010). Studies have also shown that low educational attainment in parents can be mediated by the presence of other high status adults in the neighborhood and in schools (Ainsworth, 2002). High status is defined as having higher education or a managerial profession. High status adults in a neighborhood can serve as supports for parents with lower educational attainment. In neighborhoods with a high proportion of high status individuals, even if a students parent has low educational attainment, there will be somebody the student can go to for academic help. Conversely, the impact of low parent educational attainment on students is much higher in neighborhoods with a lower proportion of high status individuals. There are simply fewer people to turn to for academic help. Implications The neighborhood currently has few programs oriented at adult education. The exception is HIS BridgeBuilders which offers GED classes. This program could be expanded and further publicized to reach more of the community. One concern voiced among residents of the community was the prohibitive cost of many programs outside of the neighborhood. Heavily subsidized or free adult education programs could be beneficial for this neighborhood. In addition, St. Philips College borders the Promise Neighborhood, but few students there hail from the Promise Neighborhood area. Alternatively, bringing high status individuals into the neighborhood schools as tutors and mentors could help to mediate the effects of neighborhood wide low parent educational attainment. Communities in Schools is an active player in several other schools in San Antonio and could be recruited to the neighborhood. In addition, San Antonio has access to a large population of college students that could serve as tutors and mentors for the Promise Neighborhood students. A program designed to facilitate the connection between neighborhood schools and local colleges could help to create additional social ties as well as mediate low
parent educational attainment. 3) Early Childhood Education Preschool and pre-k programs came up only a few times during the focus group discussions. However, many other topics that were discussed indirectly relate to early childhood education as well. The focus group at Bowden Elementary discussed early childhood education as a way to get their kids on track for college. The Parent Facilitators focus group talked about tutoring and mentoring opportunities for young kids. Both the Washington Elementary and Harvard Place Neighborhood Association agreed that there should be consistent discipline at home and at school. Most of the focus groups also mentioned school attrition, grade retention, or motivation to continue school. Early childhood education can help address each of these issues. As the relevant literature suggests experiences in the first 5 years of childhood strongly correlate to behavior and cognitive skills later on in life. Relevant Literature Before a child is ready for kindergarten, there are certain skills they must develop before the age of 5. These include language, emotional and social skills, behavioral self-control, motivation to learn, enthusiasm, and curiosity (AECF, 2010). Building a strong skills foundation will help with development further along the road. For example, children who are able to sit still and follow directions will perform better in kindergarten than children who cant. Children who can clearly communicate their needs and wants are able to ask for assistance on their classwork. These are the kinds of skills that preschool education reinforces and that kindergarten classrooms expect. Children from low-income households have a hard time developing these skills because they arent as resource-rich as children from wealthy families. This difference in skill development is known as the readiness gap, which refers to a childs ability to learn in kindergarten. Research suggests that one way to address this gap is through preschool education programs at ages 3 and 4, or even earlier if possible. Head Start and Early Head Start are two early childhood education programs that have strong impacts on child development, including behavior, positive relationships with peers and adults, and academic gains (Currie, 2001). These programs are federally funded and are required to meet performance criteria found in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS). Programs that have a mixed-approach setting (that is they have programs that meet parents at their homes and also have classroom-type programs at a local center) and meet the HSPPS early on in their implementation phase are the most effective (Love et al., 2005). Programs that are not mixed-approach (either home-based or center-based) and do not meet the HSPPS are not nearly as effective. Early Head Start is for infants ages 0-3 and their mothers. A study that followed Early Head Start graduates suggests the program has an overall impact on both child and parent outcomes (Love et al., 2005). Performance in cognitive and language functioning increased and aggressive behavior decreased in the child. Parents were more supportive, read to their child more, and spanked them less. Head Start programs had positive impacts on children in the form
of reduced inattentiveness, fewer problems with structured learning, more positive peer and teacher interactions, and cognitive improvements (Puma, 2010). Studies that follow preschool graduates into adulthood show significant long-term impacts (Currie, 2001). Preschool graduates are more likely to complete high school, receive higher earnings, and be in better health. They are also less likely to repeat a grade, commit juvenile crimes, or have teen pregnancies.
Implications The literature suggests that the best way to help a child through school is to start them off early. Motivation, discipline, language skills, and social skills can all be learned at a young age. Parents in the Promise Neighborhood should enroll their children in available preschool programs to reap these benefits before its too late. There are 4 early childhood education programs in the neighborhood that we know of. Two of them are school-based pre-k programs, one is a Head Start program, and the fourth is Early Head Start. Around 50% of the 3 and 4 yearold population already attend these schools, but that number should be much higher. Building awareness in the community and reaching out to parents and encouraging them to enroll their young children into preschool should be a major concern of the Promise Neighborhood team. Funding for these programs is also an important issue. Community leaders should reach out to the SAISD and the city of San Antonio to ensure enough resources will be provided for early childhood centers to enroll 100% of the preschool-eligible population in the Promise Neighborhood. Another issue is ensuring that these 4 programs are of high-quality. Sub par programs do not benefit children as much, and programs that are essentially day-care models have even less of an effect (Love et al., 2005). The HSPPS assessment that measures program quality and child progress is an important indicator of program success. Only two of the programs in the Promise Neighborhood are Head Start, so they are required to follow these standards. The other two programs should be introduced to a similar program assessment if they havent been already. By following good, data-driven models these 4 programs currently have potential to affect 50% of the student population. If enrollment in these programs increases, that number could be even greater. 4) After-school Programming One of the most prevalent concerns for the parents of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood was the lack of mentoring and after school programs for their children. Many of the parents expressed this need because they have no place for their children to stay while the parents are at work during after-school hours. Other parents just wanted support for their students from trusted adults who can advise them. This concern tied with the social capital section as well because the parents suggested knowing very few, if any, responsible caregivers in the neighborhood. Because of this, they must resort to leaving their children in the hands of siblings, family members, or leaving them alone. The desire for after school programs also focused on providing the children
with a safe place to play with their friends, while also finding academic help. One woman in the Washington Elementary School focus group even said that, in addition to these other needs, she wanted her child to have more access to working technologies that were not present in the home, so that he could learn about things he was interested in as well as finish his homework at school. (Mother at Washington Focus Group)
Relevant Literature The literature reveals very positive outcomes when students have access to out-of-school programs that they can attend. These results include not only an aid in the development of children on a personal and academic level, but also improve the lives of the children and parents at home (Miller, OConnor, Sirignano, 1995). One study conducted on the effects of not having these programs or other childcare options echoed the claims we heard in the focus groups. Without the programs, parents of urban youth are more concerned about their childrens safety at school, in the neighborhood, and in the home while they are absent as well as more tense dispositions while they are with their children. Children tend to isolate themselves, act out more aggressively, and have more behavioral problems while in the school if they do not have care after they end classes. Another study showed that when an enrichment program was implemented during after-school hours in 24 Los Angeles middle schools, children enjoyed school more, teachers reported consistently better behavior among the students, parents claimed that their home lives were more pleasant, and school based crime dropped 40-60% among the 24 schools (Neuman, 2010). The literature emphasizes that these results are consistent throughout various studies and supports the notion that after-school programs for urban youth are crucial for maximum success in school and personal development. Implications Based on our asset inventory of the Promise Neighborhood, we have found that various after-school programs do already exist in the area, however, the parents and students are not aware that they are available and many serve children who live outside the Promise Neighborhood. This means that the programs could either be failing to reach out to the students who clearly need them the most, are already full and unable to accept more children into their program, or are not working closely enough with the schools to provide the convenience that the parents and students need in order to fully participate. One of the most effective programs in the country, Providence After School Alliance, shows that the most effective and beneficial way of providing after-school care to children is by catering to the needs of students and parents while also working extremely closely with the schools. This idea could be very helpful for the Promise Neighborhood because the parents have clearly expressed a need for programs. If the program could be consistent throughout all of the schools in the Promise Neighborhood and work with the parents as well, this could increase parental involvement, address safety for students, and provide academic services to the students as well.
5) Crime, Safety, & Insufficient Recreation Spaces: Eight of the nine focus groups explicitly discussed the topics of crime, safety, and the need for more parks and playgrounds. Participants at Bowden Elementary (in Spanish), Wheatley Middle School, Washington Elementary, Pershing Elementary (in Spanish), and Wheatley Courts Resident Council repeatedly mentioned that their neighborhoods either lacked places to exercise (specifically parks and playgrounds) or that they perceived such places in the area as unsafe. The remaining groups spoke more generally about crime and safety issues in the community, as well as the need to improve the overall quality of the physical environment. Given the connections not only between physical activity and general health, but also among activity and academic outcomes, it is crucial that these concerns are recognized and addressed. Relevant Literature Several recent literature reviews have confirmed a positive correlation among levels of physical activity and academic performance in children (Chomitz et al., 2009; Strong, et al., 2005; Trudeau & Shepard, 2008). Specifically, Trudeau and Shephard (2008) examined relationships among physical education, physical activity at school, school sports and measures of academic performance via a systemic literature review. They concluded that adding time during the school day for physical activity (PA) did not decrease academic performance, and may have actually resulted in gains, due to a variety of factors such as psychosocial effects and improved cognitive functioning. Conversely, removing PA time from the school day has shown adverse effects on academic performance. Strong and colleagues (2005) conducted an extensive review that covered research focusing on the effects of physical activity (PA) on a variety of health and behavioral outcomes, and then used this evidence to develop recommendations for daily PA in youth (6-18 years of age). More than 850 articles were reviewed that focused on the relationships among PA and weight/obesity, adiposity, cardiovascular health, asthma, mental health, academic performance, injuries, and musculoskeletal health/fitness. The review resulted in an evidence-based recommendation of 60 or more minutes of moderate to vigorous daily PA for school-aged youth that is appropriate, enjoyable, and diverse. Ideally, such physical activity should be structured into the school day, or at least included in after-school programs, but this is not always the case, especially as school districts negotiate difficult budgetary decisions. Thus, in order to ensure that not only children, but also their parents and other community members, engage in adequate amounts of PA, spaces and facilities for activity must be available and appealing. In a review of thirty-three quantitative studies that assessed relationships among physical activity patterns in children and aspects of the physical environment, Krahnstoever-Davison and Lawson (2006) determined that several significant correlations exist. The strongest association found in the research concerned childrens activity levels and the quality of components of transport infrastructure (including sidewalks, controlled intersections, and general traffic conditions). The authors also found that the existence of recreational infrastructure, such as parks, playgrounds, and similar facilities were associated with increased levels of PA among children. Finally, unfavorable local conditions, including actual levels of crime and the presence
of roaming street dogs, were significantly negatively correlated with PA levels in children. Implications The gravity of the issues mentioned at the focus groups regarding inadequate facilities for public recreation is underscored by academic findings concerning the importance of physical activity and the impact of the physical environment on activity patterns. Clearly connected to the previous section on social capital, it is evident that in order to meet this particular need of the Promise Neighborhood we must consider a continuum of solutions. While the concerns cited by the focus group members were generally focused on an overall lack of safety and physical structures that would enable physical activity, it may be possible to improve this situation through incremental measures. For example, Harlandale ISD has been partnering with the San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the Department of Community Initiatives, to foster physical activity among children in the area and improve access to summer youth programs (National League of Cities, 2010). In order to best meet the needs of families in the Promise Neighborhood with respect to achieving physical activity, resources must be leveraged and a variety of solutions should be implemented in a holistic manner, taking account of the social and physical complexity of the neighborhood. 6) Parental Involvement The lack of parental involvement was a constant theme in the focus groups. Parents gave two reasons as to why parents were not involved; language barriers and negative parent-teacher relationships. The focus group for Spanish speaking parents cited language issues as a primary barrier. The Spanish speaking parents indicated that language issues prevented them from effectively helping their children with homework and prevented them from establishing good parent-teacher relationships. Negative parent-teacher relationships were also mentioned as a potential deterrent to parental involvement. Many parents cited negative experiences with administration and teachers. One parent at Tynan disliked the fact that teachers dont engage parents enough: There is a need for more communication with parents and teachers. Teachers need to hold more parent teacher conferences. There should be about 4 (a year) or maybe a conference every couple of months.- A parent at Tynan Some parents indicated that administrators and teachers do not fully explain school or classroom policies: I got 2 progress reports [for my child], and I cant understand them [everyone agrees]. I need to understand it; I need to know what the letters mean. What does P, R, and S mean [on the progress report]? A parent at Tynan I would change the registration process. Im a first time parent and I didnt know anything about the registration process; I heard about the process through word of mouth. The process was not explained [by the school].-a parent at Tynan Negative teacher and parent interactions were directly cited: [Lack of parental involvement] probably has something to do with the staff. You
always get a phone call, but its always negative. Its a lack of communication, maybe [the teachers should] have positive message.-a parent at Wheatley Middle School
Relevant literature Overall, the literature agrees that parent involvement is a critical component in the academic success of children. Even though the literature indicates parental involvement is important for student achievement in general, very few studies have specifically looked at the effect of parental involvement on urban childrens academic success. One meta-analysis of 52 studies that did address this issue found, not surprisingly, that the parental involvement of urban children greatly affected their academic success. Because parental involvement is very difficult to define, this meta-analysis used multiple indicators of parental involvement. The study found that for urban children, subtle forms of parental involvement (parental expectations and parenting style) had a more profound impact on a childs academic success than more concrete forms of parental involvement (attendance at school functions, household rules, etc.). The study also found that parent engagement programs were effective in an urban context (Jeynes 2010) Implications Because parental involvement is such a crucial component of a childs academic success, the promise neighborhood initiative will need to engage parents of failing students. But at least one study has shown that parental expectations and parenting style are more important than showing up to school functions. This finding will make addressing the lack of parental engagement difficult. Parents may resist being told how to parent, or being told that they have low expectations for their children. They may not heed the advice given because it is offensive.
Conclusion
The purpose of the Promise Neighborhood planning grant was to identify the not only the needs in the neighborhood but also the current strengths. In an effort to create the most comprehensive and most effect school system possible, the grant undertook to examine the issue of education in a holistic manner asking the questions, What keeps our children from succeeding in school?, How can we improve educational outcomes for our children? and What do we need to do this?. To answer these questions our research group conducted numerous focus groups with parents and neighborhood residents to identify the needs of the community and also what assets were already in place that could be built upon. In addition, our group conducted extensive research on risk factors that affect school related outcomes as well as successful strategies, or best practices, from other communities. The literature reviews were created around five main themes: the effect of neighborhood and community on educational outcomes, the effect of early childhood education on educational outcomes, the effect of behavioral readiness on educational outcomes, the effect of health and wellness on educational outcomes, and the effect of out-of-school time on educational outcomes. These literature reviews can be found in their entirety in the appendices at the conclusion of this paper. The focus groups shed further light on how these issues manifested in the context of the Eastside neighborhood. Participants expressed concerns about the mobility of residents and the inability to create meaningful relationships with other residents (social capital); the level of parental education and how that impacted their ability to help their children (parent education and parental involvement); neighborhood characteristics such as crime and a lack of access to recreational facilities that prevented physical activity, and a lack of access to early childhood education. Utilizing issues brought forward by focus groups as well information gleaned from the literature reviews on risk factors and best practices for mediating these factors, we have developed the following recommendations regarding programming and services. These recommendations are purposefully diverse and designed to lay the groundwork for a continuum of solutions that will address the whole child and not just the academic life of the child. 1) Improve visibility of services and programs. Many residents were unaware of programs and services currently offered and thus were not using them. Many of these programs also addressed needs expressed by the residents such as adult education (Bridgebuilders), residential mobility (COSAs IDA program), and after school programs (YAGA and others).
2) Increase communication among residents and educators. Improving communication between the schools, teachers, and parents is crucial to creating positive connections between the schools and the community. However, this communication may require new and innovative channels to reach parents and residents as the current methods for disseminating information are not fully effective. Other cities have shown that reaching out to parents in non-traditional ways, such as providing information at the places where they shop, eat, play, and work, is more effective than simply using the school as the central point for all information. 3) Leverage current assets to encourage the development of social capital within the neighborhood. The Wheatley Courts Residents Council and the Dignowity Hill and Ahrvard Place/Eastlawn Neighborhood Associations could be prominent players in creating healthy relationships among residents. Programs like Communities in Schools (CIS), Youth Against Gang Activity (YAGA), and city-wide assets such as the large population of college students could serve a similar purpose within the school system. 4) Bring in additional resources that the neighborhood currently lacks. Residents expressed a need for additional early childhood education and our research found that there is indeed limited access to these services within the neighborhood. In addition, residents expressed concerns over the lack of healthcare and recreational facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, and tracks) in the neighborhood. The focus group participants were able to identify a host of problems that need to be addressed in the neighborhood. However, they also talked at great length about the history of the neighborhood and spoke with great affection on the positive role that the schools have played in the community. The residents also expressed a deep attachment to the neighborhood to the extent that despite all the problems they identified, they are generally unwilling to leave. This level of commitment from residents to the community suggests that with support from the Promise Neighborhood grant and the creation of an effective continuum of services, this neighborhood can achieve great things.
References
Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152. Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2010. Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report. Caldas, Stephen J. and Carl Bankston III. 1997. Effect of School Population Socioeconomic Status on Individual Academic Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 90(5): 269-277. Chomitz, Virginia, R., Meghan M. Slining, Robert J. McGowan, Suzanne E. Mitchell, Glen F. Dawson, and Karen A. Hacker. 2009. Is there a relationship between physical fitness and academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the northeastern U.S. Journal of School Health 79:30-36. Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociology 94 (Supp.): S95-S120. Currie, Janet. 2001. Early Childhood Education Programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(2): 213-238. Jeynes, William. 2010. "The Relationship Between Bible Literacy and Behavioral and Academic Outcomes in Urban Areas: A Meta-Analysis." Education & Urban Society 42(5):522-544. Krahnstoever-Davison, Kirsten and Catherine T Lawson. 2006. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 3(19). Love, John M., et al. 2005. The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs. Developmental Psychology 41(6): 885901. Miller, S., OConnor, Sirignano. 1995. Out-of-School Time: A Study of Children in Three LowIncome Neighborhoods. Child Welfare 74(6). Neuman, S. 2010. Empowered After School. Educational Leadership.67(7):30. Puma, Michael, et al. 2010. Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.org Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and the Inequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145. Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C.
Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents. Center for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76. Strong, William B., Robert M. Malina, Cameron J.R. Blimkie, Stephen R. Daniels, Rodney K. Dishman R.K., Bernard Gutin, Albert C. Hergenroeder, (), and Francois Trudeau F. 2005. Evidence basedcphysical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics 146(6):732-737. Trudeau, Francois, and Roy J. Shephard. 2008. Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(10). Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability, and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers. Journal of Family Issues 31(4): 499-524.
Appendices: Reviews of Relevant Literature The Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes: A Review
Introduction
It has long been known that there are multiple factors that influence educational outcomes for youth. The easiest causes to spot have traditionally been student effort and teacher effectiveness (Roscigno, 2006; Williams, 2002). However, recent research has pointed to much more systemic causes of low educational achievement. Perhaps the most systemic cause is the influence of community, neighborhood, and overall environment on educational achievement. Understanding at what level students are being affected; individual, family, or community (systemically) determines how, when, and where interventions should be implemented as well as what indicators should be measured to ensure effective interventions (Boyle, 2007). In order to understand the interplay of factors that creates systemic community level risk factors a brief review of the current research is warranted. This review will examine how the social and physical characteristics of neighborhoods contribute to issues of family stability, child and youth safety, and the influence of crime on educational outcomes. There are two overarching categories of research that address neighborhoods and their relationship to educational outcomes. The first addresses the social characteristics of neighborhoods and the second addresses the physical characteristics of neighborhoods. It is important to note that many of the neighborhood factors that influence these outcomes are interactive and cumulative in nature (Whipple, 2010). One characteristic of a neighborhood, such as containing a predominance of single-parent families, may have only a small effect on educational outcomes (Entwisle, 1995). However, the pervasiveness of multiple risk factors across several dimensions of daily life creates an environment unlikely to generate positive educational outcomes (Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007).
While the cumulative effects of these risk factors are wide-ranging and overwhelmingly negative, research has shown that there are ways of mediating these negative effects. In fact, there are a wide-range of programs and interventions used by many cities that have been shown to reduce the effects of neighborhood risk factors. These programs and interventions will be explored in greater detail later in this review.
Social Characteristics of Neighborhoods

POVERTY It is no secret that neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty experience a disproportionate number of adverse outcomes for residents (Ainsworth, 2002; Barnett, 2008; Mowbray, 2007;Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007). These outcomes include high rates of teenage pregnancy (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000), higher levels of health problems including diabetes, asthma, and obesity (Dawson 1991, as cited in White, 2000), delayed cognitive functioning and increased behavioral problems (Barnett, 2008), lower income and employment levels (Ainsworth, 2002), greater daily exposure to violence and aggression (Lord, 2007), and most importantly for this review, lower educational attainment (Ainsworth, 2002, McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000; Duncan et al. 1998, as cited in White, 2000; Whipple, 2010; Kent, 2009). Students living in high poverty areas are also more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as skipping school, premarital intercourse, theft, and gang involvement (Johnson, 2009; Kent, 2009). Poverty creates an adverse educational environment through a deprivation of parental and institutional resources (Roscigno, 2006). The majority of those in poverty are in fact working. They are the working poor. Systemic circumstances including the location of jobs they qualify for (usually far from where they live and with odd hours) (Cutler, 1997), the availability of public transportation (usually does not fit the working poors travel patterns or schedules well), and the need for childcare while they working severely limits the resources, namely time, that they can provide to their children (Roscigno, 2006). Time, more so than money, is perhaps the most important resource that parents can provide in order to increase the educational achievement of their children. Parental involvement both in an out of school has been shown to positively correlate with academic achievement and with the likelihood of adverse outcomes for students (Oyserman, 2007; Wooley, 2007). However, given the previously mentioned time constraints on the working poor, time is often a luxury they dont have. In addition, these families do not have the financial resources to supply substitutes such as formal daycare or educational support such as extra books, learning tools, or tutoring (Roscigno, 2006; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003). As a result many of these children are exposed to environments that are not stimulating and do not contribute positively to academic achievement (Entwisle, 1995; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003). ADULTS IN YOUTHS LIVES Research has also shown that the presence and involvement of caring adults and role models in
the community significantly contributes to a childs well-being and increases educational achievement. Wooley states that children develop positive behavioral and social patterns on the basis of their relationship with supportive adults those patterns affect all aspects of that childs development, including school performance (2007). Conversely, a lack of supportive adults either in the family, the neighborhood, or in the schools contributes to lower educational achievement. Single-parent families Another significant factor contributing to high risk neighborhoods is a concentration of single-parent families (Entwisle, 1995). Multiple studies have shown that students from singleparent families are at a much higher risk for adverse educational outcomes (Bankston, 1998; Entwisle, 1995; Rosigno, 2006). In addition, single-parent families are consistently more likely to be in poverty creating multiple areas of risk for children of single-parent families (McLanahan, 1989). It is important to note that the single-parent family of today is different from the single parent family of 30 years ago. Thirty years ago the majority of single parents were divorced, today the majority have never been married (Entwisle, 1995). This distinction is important because research has shown that while children of divorced families have a higher risk of adverse educational outcomes, the risk is even higher for students that come from never married families (Entwisle, 1995). In addition, todays families, particularly low-income minority families, also experience a much higher rate of parental incarceration (Wildeman, 2010). One study documented that even among students with similar risk factors (low SES, single-parent) students with incarcerated parents fared much worse on academic and behavioral measures (Neal, 2009; Wildeman, 2010). The research even noted that the academic performance of the sample group may have been elevated because the sample was drawn from a mentoring group comprised of self-selected participants. Considering that the subjects of this research faired much worse and yet were believed to have performed better than a more random sample, incarceration of a parent seems to have a significant effect on educational achievement. Students from single parent families also experience a higher level of mobility (McLanahan, 1989). Mobility is defined as non-promotional movement between schools (Rumberger, 1998). Students that change schools often experience a serious disruption in their social networks. This disruption cuts students social ties and creates the additional stress of forming new social networks in a foreign environment (Ainsworth, 2002; McLanahan, 1989; Ou, 2008). Students that experience high levels of mobility are also more likely to drop out and less likely to be engaged in school and to be reported as having behavioral problems (Engec 2006, as cited in Boon, 2011; Ou, 2008). Student mobility is also problematic because it not only increases the likelihood that a student will experience adverse educational outcomes but it also creates difficulties in tracking students across schools and districts (Rumberger, 1998). One study in California noted that students who changed school mid-year often took several weeks to re-enroll in a new school (Rumberger, 1998). This transition period results in a significant amount of school time lost and these students fall even further behind, creating additional risk factors. Mobility creates difficulties for any
student, however students in single-parent families are at an even greater risk because they move much more frequently, twenty to thirty percent more than their two-parent counterparts (McLanahan, 1989). Mobility quickly becomes a compounding factor for student already at risk. Parent engagement Parental engagement has been a consistent indicator of how well a student will perform in school (Boyle, 2007; Wooley, 2007). It has also been shown to be a strong mediator of other risk factors (Wooley, 2007). That is, a student with several risk factors will have a greater chance of academic success if they have a caring supportive parent at home (Wooley, 2007). While engaged parents are a boon to students, there are intervening variables that impact a parents level of engagement. Perhaps the largest constraint on parental involvement is time (Ainsworth, 2002). Particularly in single-parent families the time requirements and stresses of providing the bare necessities of food, clothing, and shelter demand so much of a parents time and energy that there is not much room for constructive engagement with their children or the school ( Entwisle, 1995; Levanthal, 2008). This lack of engagement affects not only students academic achievement but also their behavior. One study found that students who have a high amount of self-care, usually in the gap between when school is let out and their parents return from work, exhibit more aggressive behaviors and are more likely to engage in violence (Lord, 2007). The demands on single-parents and the working poor create a time dynamic not conducive to extensive engagement or involvement in anything outside of the basics. Another consistent indicator of how well a given student will do in school is their parents education level (Roscigno, 2006). A parents education level largely determines how much they will be able to help their child with homework and school projects. Students whose parents have high levels of educational achievement benefit from their parents out-of-school help, mentoring, and tutoring. Parents with low educational attainment are less able to help their kids with school work. This was a frustration expressed at several of the Promise Neighborhood focus groups.
Parenting styles There have also been several studies on the way that community and neighborhood can influence parenting styles. One of the most important factors in determining the quality of a neighborhood is the crime rate. However, crime rates are reported at the zip code level which rarely, if ever, corresponds with the boundaries of what residents perceive as their neighborhood (Ainsworth, 2002; Goldsmith, 2009). Because of this, most studies have used the perception of crime by residents to determine the subjective quality of the neighborhood. These studies have found that if a neighborhood is perceived as high crime, parents respond with more authoritarian parenting (Ainsworth, 2002). While these studies agree that perceived crime creates more authoritarian parenting styles, they disagree about the relative benefit or harm of such parenting styles. Some have found that authoritarian parenting styles lower self-esteem and self-reliance and prevent the development of autonomy (Taylor, 2000). Others have found that authoritarian parenting serves
as a protective factor in otherwise chaotic environments. Still others have found that authoritarian parenting is beneficial for some demographics but not for others (Dearing, 2005). Whether or not authoritarian parenting is helpful, its clear that the perception of crime in a community has an impact on youth. Neighborhood support and social capital Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of a neighborhood to measure is social capital. Social capital is defined in a variety of ways by different disciplines. However, they all essentially boil down to positive relationships with the people in ones social circle, assuming that this social circle is large enough to provide substantive support. For youth, it is positive relationships with adults that are most impactful (Wilkenfeld, 2008). Youth with high amounts of social capital have many strong relationships with the adults in their school, family, and community. These positive relationships create a network of opportunities (Wilkenfeld, 2008) as well as trust and norms of helpful, positive reciprocity (Putnam 2000; Wilkenfeld 2007). These networks and norms of trust and helpful reciprocity create a social safety net for residents of a given community. Coleman (1988) in his seminal exploration of social capital made an illustrative comparison of Detroit and Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, children wander and run free and parents worry about them infrequently. The same cannot be said of Detroit. The unspoken agreement of mutual and reciprocal care in Jerusalem is the essence of social capital. The presence of high social capital creates a host of benefits. Students with high social capital are more likely to form positive connections outside of their immediate network (Wilkenfeld, 2008). They are also more engaged and have higher positive feelings about school. These students become less likely to drop out and routinely have much higher levels of academic achievement than students with low social capital (Wilkenfeld, 2007). However, there are many community factors that can threaten the formation and preservation of social capital. Previous research has shown that disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to be socially isolated (Wilson, 1987) and lack instrumental supports for those in the community (Turney, 2010). Parents in disadvantaged communities also often receive less support outside of immediate family (Turney, 2010; Valladores, 2009). What instrumental support parents receive from family is often coupled with a lack of emotional support, particularly with regards to parenting (McLanahan, 1989). Mobility is also a significant deterrent to forming strong community connections. Neighborhoods with a high level of residential turnover have a much harder time establishing trust and forming relationships with their neighbors (Ainsworth, 2002). One significant finding has been that residential stability is strongly associated with the formation of social capital regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood (Turney, 2010). Simply put a neighborhood of people that stay in one place for longer, form stronger more positive relationships. Research has also shown that low educational attainment in a neighborhood often coincides with a high percentage of rental units (i.e. a highly mobile population) in the neighborhood (Boyle, 2007). The Promise Neighborhood focus groups also mentioned the high level of residential instability as an impediment to forming lasting relationships with their neighbors.
Clearly, the formation of strong positive relationships with adults in the community, whether immediate family, through neighborhood institutions like schools, or simply the next door neighbor has a strong positive effect on students academic performance.
Physical Characteristics of Neighborhoods

One of the most influential yet underestimated features of a neighborhood is the physical environment. Indeed, the physical environment is what most people consider when subjectively evaluating the quality of a neighborhood. The physical appearance and quality of housing stock, prominent neighborhood buildings, schools, infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks, and local amenities such as playgrounds and parks contribute to the perception of the quality of a neighborhood. These features also contribute to educational attainment, though often through indirect mechanisms. The second section of this review focuses on the impacts of the physical environment on education.
NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER Neighborhood disorder is defined by no singular aspect of a community. Rather it is the cumulative effects of graffiti, boarded up and abandoned buildings, litter, deteriorated housing stock, stray animals, unmaintained public areas, crumbling sidewalks, crime, drug activity, residential crowding, poor infrastructure, and general neighborhood deterioration that contribute to a sense of neighborhood disorder (Ceballo 2008; Whipple, 2010; Williams, 2002). Perhaps the most well known theory surrounding neighborhood disorder is the broken windows theory. First put forth by James Wilson and George Kelling (1982) the theory argues that physical disorder in a neighborhood increases the likelihood of social disorder, specifically crime. According to Wilson and Kelling, the presence of broken windows or other signs of physical neglect provide a social signal that no one cares about the area, so the area becomes a prime location for criminal mischief. It is on this sentiment that public disorder and crime begin to rise. A contending theory by Robert Sampson (1999) argues that physical disorder is a symptom rather than a cause of social disorder. Instead, physical disorder demonstrates a lack of community efficacy in maintaining public order. While there is disagreement on the causality of neighborhood disorder, there is general agreement that it represents a problem. Neighborhood disorder has been shown to be associated with lower GPAs, more suspensions of students, and less intent on the students part to complete high school (Williams, 2002). Physical and social disorder in neighborhoods has also been shown to translate into the school environment, resulting in more aggression and violence at school (Limbos, 2008). When physical risk is incorporated into the school environment, educational goals become a secondary concern for students and teachers alike (Plank, 2011). Neighborhood disorder also has a strong influence on parents. One study reported a low sense of
parental efficacy in low quality, high disorder neighborhoods (Ceballo, 2008). This result held true even after other confounding variables were taken into account. Studies have also found that neighborhood disorder in the form of a dilapidated housing stock and living with housing in disrepair causes psychological stress for low-income women (Burdette, 2011; Durden 2007). When one considers that parents, especially mothers, who experience depression and other mental health issues are less likely to be engaged with their children (Barnett, 2008; McLanahan, 1989) and parental engagement is linked to academic achievement, it is clear that the effects of neighborhood disorder reach far beyond simple litter and graffiti eyesores.
The Good News

For all the risks that disadvantaged neighborhoods have, they also have strengths. One researcher points out that not everyone from every disadvantaged neighborhood experiences negative academic outcomes (Mowbray; 2007). Instead of being viewed as a fluke, this kind of exception to the rule should be viewed as a product of resilient neighborhoods. The strengths in these resilient neighborhoods should be identified and built upon. Another researcher points out that the working poor are incredibly resourceful and creative in solving everyday challenges and that this strength should be recognized (Wilson, 2008). So far this review has focused on the risk factors of disadvantaged neighborhoods. Fortunately, much of the research reviewed has also provided community characteristics that can help to mediate these risk factors. One researcher found that high quality physical environments in preschools can serve as a protective factor for children who experience social and economic risks (Mashburn, 2008). High quality physical environments in preschools also served to mediate the risks of early low academic achievement associated with poverty (Mashburn, 2008). In addition, studies have shown that schools and school based programs do mediate many of the effects of disadvantaged neighborhoods. One study that compared the difference in test scores across season (summer vs. winter) found that gains in summer are positively correlated with parent education level, but winter gains are negatively correlated, suggesting that school does in fact mediate the effects of parents with low educational attainment (Entwisle, 1995). One school based program that focused on creating school based possible selves in youth was found to mediate the effects of low parental engagement. The intervention focused on creating positive possible selves that used focused on academics and education as a way to achieve positive future outcomes (Oyersman, 2007). One of the largest scale efforts at creating communities conducive to positive academic outcomes was created by the National League of Cities called the Cities Supporting Parents program. Six cities were selected to receive funding to establish programs and supports for disadvantaged neighborhoods. Two of these cities were in Texas (Fort Worth and Bryan) and had demographics and challenges similar to the Eastside Promise Neighborhood. While these six
cities had a variety of strategies to support parents they had a few notable strategies in common. They all had civic leaders heavily invested in the projects. In one city, the mayor and city council members did block walking in the target neighborhood to educate hard to reach residents on available resources. Almost all cities also created spaces for parent to gather within the neighborhood. These rooms had a variety of monikers (family room, parent resource center, literacy hub etc.) but they all served the same general purpose, to educate parents and to provide a place for parents to meet with other parents. These cities also brought information to the places where parents live, work, eat, shop, play and worship. By setting up kiosks in malls near the childrens play ground and at key intersections in the neighborhood and by putting information on literacy in restaurants the residents frequent the cities were able to reach residents within their daily lives. Recognizing that many residents rely on informal childcare networks such as family, friends, and neighbors, Forth Worth started a program to train not only parents but the local childcare support network in child development. This program also provided a way for these informal care givers to become licensed and start their own business.
Current Neighborhood Assets

The Eastside Promise Neighborhood currently has a variety of assets. Several organizations offer a variety of parenting programs and classes. While there are many organizations that offer parenting classes, there are relatively few that aim to improve the parents education level. The Healy-Murphy Center offers educational programs but these are targeted toward high school students. As this review noted, an essential part of any high functioning community is social capital. However, there seem to be no organizations dedicated to creating the connections and relationships necessary for social capital to form. While social capital may be an accidental byproduct of many of this programs, it is not purposefully cultivated. Boyle believes this to be a serious problem saying, Indeed, the absence of supportive social networks could undermine the motivation of disadvantaged families to access and/or use resources even if they involved no financial cost (2007). Wooley notes that these social networks are particularly important for students: Although many environmental risk factors are intractable to social service agencies and personnel, increasing the presence of supportive adult relationships in the lives of youths is an attainable goal (2007). While there are many programs that address issues related to the social structure of the neighborhood (high poverty, lots of single parents etc.) there are no programs that address the physical characteristics of the neighborhood. Neighborhood disorder (graffiti, litter, stray dogs) and a deteriorating housing stock are issues that have yet to be tackled by any organization. The Claude Black Center does list code compliance as one of its services. However, the website offers no additional information on what that means. The need for maintenance of infrastructure (streets, parks, sidewalks) and housing stock was an issue that came up in several of the focus groups, yet it seems to be unaddressed.
Bibliography: Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152. Bankston, Carl L. III and Stephen J. Caldas. 1998. Family Structure, Schoolmates, and Racial Inequalities in School Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family 60(3): 715-723. Barnett, Melissa A. 2008. Economic Disadvantage in Complex Family Systems: Expansion of Family Stress Models. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 11(3): 145-161. Boon, Helen Joanna. 2011. School Moves, Coping, and Achievement: Models of Possible Interactions. The Journal of Educational Research 104(1): 54-70. Boyle, Michael H., Katholiki Georgiades, Yvonne Racine, and Cameron Mustard. 2007. Neighborhood and Family Influences on Educational Attainment: Results from the Ontario Child Health Study Follow-Up 2001. Child Development 78(1): 168-189. Burdette, A.M, T.D. Hill, and L. Hale. 2011. Household Disrepair and the Mental Health of Low-Income Urban Women. Journal of Urban Health 88(1): 142-53. Ceballo, Rosario and Noelle Hurd. 2008. Neighborhood Context, SES, and Parenting: Including a Focus on Acculturation Among Latina Mothers. Applied Developmental Science 12(4): 176180. Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of Sociolgy 94 (Supp.): S95-S120. Cutler, David M. and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. Are Ghettos Good or Bad? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-872. Dearing, Eric. 2005. The Developmental Implications of Restrictive and Supportive Parenting across Neighborhoods and Ethinicities: Exceptions are the rule. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 25(5): 555-575. Durden, Emily D., Terrence D. Hill, and Ronald J. Angel. 2007. Social Demands, Social Supports, and Psychological Distress Among Low-Income Women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 24(3): 343-361. Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1995. A Parents Economic Shadow: Family Structure versus Family Resources as Influences on Early School Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family 57(2): 399-409. Goldsmith, Pat Rubio. 2009. Schools or Neighborhoods or Both? Race and Ethnic Segregation and Educational Attainment. Social Forces 87(4): 1913-1941. Johnson, Heidi. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Distressed Neighborhoods. ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4. Kent, Adam. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Low-Income Families. ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4. Levanthal, Tama; Dafna E. Kohen, V. Susan Dahinten, and Cameron N. McIntosh. 2008. Neighborhood Disadvantage: Pathways of Effects for Young Children. Child Development 79(1): 156-169. Limbos, Mary Ann P., and Carri Casteel. 2008. Schools and Neighborhoods: Organization and Environmental Factors Associated with Crime in Secondary Schools. Journal of School Health
78(10): 539-544. Lord, Heather and Joseph L. Mahoney. 2007. Neighborhood Crime and Self-Care: Risks for Aggression and Academic Performance. Developmental Psychology 43(6):1321-1333. Mashburn, Andrew J. 2008. Quality of Social and Physical Environments in Preschools and Childrens Development of Academic, Language, and Literacy Skills. Applied Developmental Science 12(3): 113-127. McLanahan, Sara and Karen Booth. 1989. Mother-Only Families: Problems, Prospects, and Politics. Journal of Marriage and Family 51(3): 557-580. Mowbray, Carol T., Michael E. Woolley, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Larry M. Gant, Megan E. Gilster, and Trina R. Williams Shanks. 2007. Neighborhood Research from a Spatially Oriented Strengths Perspective. Journal of Community Psychology 35(5): 667-680. Neal, Melissa F. 2009. Evaluating the School Performance of Elementary and Middle School Children of Incarcerated Parents. East Tennessee State University. Pp 1-134 National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.org Ou, Suh-Ru. 2005. Pathways of Long-Term Effects of an Early Intervention Program on Educational Attainment: Findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 26(5): 578-611. Oyserman, Daphna; Daniel Brickman, and Marjorie Rhodes. 2007. School Success, Possible Selves, and Parent School Involvement. Family Relations 56(Dec): 479-489. Plank, Stephen B., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Hollie Young. 2009. An Application of BrokenWindows and Related Theories to the Study of Disorder, Fear, and Collective Efficacy in Schools. American Journal of Education 115(2): 227-247. Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster. Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and the Inequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145. Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C. Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents. Center for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76. Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic Social Observation of Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology 105(3): 603-51. Taylor, Ronald D. 2000. An Examination o the Association of African American Mothers Perception of Their Neighborhoods with Their Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment. Journal of Black Psychology 26(3): 267-87. Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability, and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers. Journal of Family Issues 31(4): 499-524. Valladares, Sherylls and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2009. The Strengths of Poor Families. Child Trends (May): 1-8. Votruba-Drzal, Elizabeth. 2003. Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in Young
Childrens Home Learning Environments. Journal of Marriage and Family 65(May): 341-355. Whipple, Sara Sepanski; Gary W. Evans, Rachel L. Barry, and Lorraine E. Maxwell. 2010. An Ecological Perspective on Cumulative School and Neighborhood Risk Factors Related to Achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31(6): 422-427. White, Lynn and Stacy J. Rogers. 2000. Economic Circumstances and Family Outcomes: A Review of the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4): 1035-1051. Wildeman, Christopher and Bruce Western. 2010. Incarceration in Fragile Families. The Future of Children 20(2): 157-177. Wilkenfeld, Britt; Laura Lippman, and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2007. Neighborhood Support Index. Child Trends (Sept): 1-3. Wilkenfeld, Britt; Kristin Anderson Moore, and Laura Lippman. 2008. Neighborhood Support and Childrens Connectedness. Child Trends (Feb): 1-3. Williams, Trina R., Larry E. Davis, Julie Miller Cribbs, Jeanne Saunders, James Herbert Williams. 2002. Friends, Family, and Neighborhood: Understanding Academic Outcomes of African American Youth. Urban Education 37(3): 408-431. Wilson, David and Roger Keil. 2008. The Real Creative Class. Social & Cultural Geography 9(8): 841-847. Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. 1982.2 Broken Windows. Atlantic Monthly 249(3):29-38. Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wooley, Michael E. and Gary L. Bowen. 2007. In the Context of Risk: Supportive Adults and School Engagement of Middle School Students. Family Relations 56(Jan): 92-104.
Out-of-School Time
Indicators The parents of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood expressed specific concerns in many areas of their childrens everyday life, chief among them the experiences and activities their students are surrounded by outside of school. Throughout the focus group sessions, a lack of resources for after-school and summer programs was noted and the effects of the scarcity were articulated. Seven of the nine groups strongly discussed issues regarding a lack of active mentoring programs for their children and all groups discussed safety during out-of-school hours. These dialogues shed light on an element of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood that cannot continue to be overlooked: how children are spending their out-of-school time. The time that students spend out of school accounts for 87% of their total waking hours by the time they reach graduation age (Walberg 1984 as cited in Downey, Hippel and Broh 2004) making this time among the most influential in a childs success in personal development, academia and in society. This influence is, however, detected on both ends of the spectrum of success depending on whether the child experiences positive, negative, or an absence of activity, engagement, and leadership (Smith, Devaney, Akiva, & Sugar 2009). The study of out-of-school time is categorized based on who the children are with, what they are doing, and where they are (Miller, OConnor, & Sirignano 1995). The three main options for childcare for parents during out of school time consist of after-school or summer programs, arranging care through family or friends, or opting out of care and allowing the child to be on his or her own. Effects of Self-Care The vulnerability that children experience in the time they spend out of school varies drastically based on the community, school resources, and parental decisions (Miller et al. 1995). In low-income households and urban environments, out of school time provides children exposure to violence, crime, risky activities, and drugs outside the protective walls of school and creates an opportunity for these elements to impress upon children negatively (Jacobs, Vernon, & Eccles, 2004; Kemper et al, 1999; National Institute on Out-of-School Time, 2005; Riggs & Greenberg, 2004; Sanford, James, Edward, & William, 2000; Shann, 2001; as cited in Daud & Carruthers, 2008). Children in these situations are most susceptible to dangers under mild care or when they have no care at all outside of school. Since 1992, the number of school-aged children in America in self-care after school has risen from 2.6 million (Berman et al, 1992) to 15.1 million in 2009 (Afterschool Alliance, 2009), most likely as a result from working single parent households. With the majority of these children living in the urban environment, they are left vulnerable to the dangers of the streets for up to 15
hours a day (Pettit et al, 1997, 1999 as cited in Lord & Mahoney, 2007). Some positive outcomes may result from self-care, such as healthy independence from being self-reliable and a selfesteem boost; however the negative repercussions are much more prevalent and widespread (Berman et al, 1992). During after school time, the likelihood that children become victims of violence triples and the child crime rate peaks as well (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1997; Newman et al, 2000 as cited in Lord & Mahoney, 2007). In addition, consequences of self-care include greater fear and anxiety for both the parent and child, unnecessary and inappropriate levels of responsibility for a school-aged child, worry regarding safety or health for the child, loneliness, and unproductive usage of time after school (Berman et al, 1992). Long-term effects of self-care in urban communities have shown to include not only a hindrance on academic performance and development, but also an increase in aggression, isolation, and possible violence in the teenage and adult years of a childs life (Bell & Jenkins, 1993; Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis & Ramirez, 2001; Gorman-Smith & Tolan, 1998; Greenberg et al, 1999; Schubiner, Scott & Tzelepis, 1993; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000 as cited in Lord and Mahoney). Effects of After-School Programs This after-school experience serves as a contributing factor to the childs success in school and is considered a serious detriment to educational equality (Broh, Downey, Hippel, 2004). Because the in-school environments are considered the same for all students attending that particular school, no matter what home-life the student comes from, the environments and exposures outside of the school account for a significant portion of the achievement gap between students with ideal home lives and those who struggle in self-care (Broh et al, 2004). After-school and summer programs, if strategically organized and staffed, have the potential to eradicate many of these problems for students (Neuman, 2011). In one outcome study, the programs the students attended after school initiated a sort of resilience to negative external influences and promoted increased achievement in school, opportunities for personal growth, and significant peer and student/adult relationships (Cosden, Morrison, Gutierrez, & Brown, 2004 as cited in Daud & Carruthers 2008). This same result has been observed by many educational researchers in even broader areas of the lives of the students. The Afterschool Alliance reported that after tracking student development in 24 Los Angeles elementary schools implementing an enrichment program available during after-school hours, 75% of students claimed to be enjoying school more in addition to experiencing an improvement of grades (Afterschool Alliance, 2009 as cited in Neuman, 2011). This same study also reported that parents recognized less tension in their homes, teachers experienced improved behavior in their students during school hours, and school-based crime dropped an impressive 40 to 60 percent among the 24 schools (Afterschool Alliance, 2009). These positive results became noticeable once afterschool programs gained funding and rose to popularity in the mid-1990s (Bartko, 2005). After years of experimentation with different programs, several features have proven to be the keys to producing beneficial change in students education, personal development, and future success.
Key Factors to Successful After-School Programming Successful programs incorporate a sustained consistency of quality of mentors and activities, engagement with students, active participation in and attendance to the program, and a potential for gradual developmental improvement over time (Bartko, 2005; Miller et al, 1995; Smith et al, 2009). Research shows that combining these elements creates the organized, physically and emotionally safe, and structured programs that students need to achieve the goals associated with positive youth development. While the specific goals may be various depending on different programs purposes, the resulting characteristics of progress in students participating in effective programs is categorized in one study as the Five Cs of competence, confidence, connection, character, and caring (Phelps, Theokas, Lerner & Lerner, 2005). These five components, and others similar, are indicators regarding the strengths in development of programs (Phelps et al, 2009). Quality of Mentors and Activities The quality of a program has many determining factors. Positive relationship building among mentors and students as well as between peers, learning useful tasks or information, and an increase in difficulty and complexity of the tasks and information over a period of time can define the quality of a program (Smith et al, 2009). Not only do these elements encourage increasingly better quality of programming over time, they also clarify where accountability for a consistent standard is necessary in the program (Smith et al, 2009). This accountability should be directed at the staff that organize and run the program, as consistent accountability with program content is much more difficult to define (Ilfeld, 1996;Ypsilanti, Oden, Kelly & Weikart, 1992, 2005 as cited in Smith et al, 2009). Mentors and program directors must be held to a consistent standard within many areas of the program because they must develop and encourage trusted relationships that may be missing in all other facets of the students lives (Hirsch, 2011). It is even reported that teachers sometimes will avoid fostering these close relationships with students (and consider the expectation to do so a burden) because they do not believe they are equipped with the proper training or time to help students on a personal level as well as on an academic level (Hirsch, 2011). Another factor in maintaining a high quality program is consistency of the most basic and most important characteristics of the program such as who is staffing the program, who is attending the program, what the learning purpose is, and where it is held (Smith et al, 2009). Establishment of these factors allows progress to be more clearly depicted on an individual basis for the students and provides a secure structure that they can trust to remain consistent no matter what else occurs in their life (Daud & Carruthers, 2008). Other high-quality characteristics include opportunities to learn unique talents and information, skill-building and mastery of exercises, and community support through sponsoring organizations (Birmingham, Peckman, Russell, &Mielke, 2005 as cited in Neuman, 2011).
Engagement with Students Student engagement in a program refers to the level of commitment to, investment in, and, as a result, rewards gained from a program. Many reasons exist for why engagement of students is critical for effective programming. When youth adopt goals and projects as their own and see progression in these endeavors as a valuable accomplishment, they benefit by observing success within themselves through effort and participation in a challenge (Bartko, 2005). Through this mindset, research has shown that engaging children in this way results in more effort, perseverance, and a greater likelihood that they will accomplish what is expected of them (Blumenfeld, Modell, Bartko, Secada, Fredericks, Friedel, & Paris, 2005 as cited in Bartko, 2005). After-school programs encourage engagement because rather than focusing on test scores or academic achievement alone, the program emphasizes skilled performance that can be learned (Neuman, 2011). This is a positive alternative and an effective characteristic in the programs for children who may feel marginalized, incapable of success, or even invisible in their normal learning environments at school (Neuman, 2011). One study suggested three components that provide clarity of student engagement in after school programs. These three components produce what is called the ABC Model for engagement (Bartko, 2005). Affective engagement refers to dispositions and feelings towards leaders, curriculum, peers, and school as well as sentiments of belonging and valuing the learning process (Bartko, 2005). Daud and Carruthers experienced these reactions from students in response to participating in cooperative activities in different groups of peers (Daud & Carruthers, 2008). Relationships with mentors also lead to healthier interactions with peers as well as a continuous growth, experiencing belonging, and finally viewing mentors as friends to turn to rather than authorities to respect (Smith et al, 2009) Behavioral engagement is most associated with a students participation in the program including involvement in various activities with regard to attitude, concentration, following rules and effort in the activity (Bartko, 2005). Cognitive engagement involves an investment in learning and an eagerness to comprehend complex ideas while being willing to exert the effort necessary to attain new information (Bartko, 2005). This engagement can and must take place in certain areas of the program in order to be effective. Outreach to students and parents must be a critical component in promoting engagement in order to gain interest, build trust, and ensure security and safety for children and their families (Bartko, 2005). Staff must provide stimulating and challenging activities and experiences that the students can participate and invest their time in (Bartko, 2005). In addition to providing activities, mentors and leaders must be competent in teaching and understanding the activities as well as accepting and expectant of the progress of students (Bartko, 2005). Students who participated in the study by Daud and Carruthers mentioned that mentors who did not fulfill this ideal drove students away from the program and even reinforced and solidified the negative views of learning that the students had when they first entered the program ( Veronia as cited in Daud & Carruthers, 2008). Finally, programs must promote, nurture, and take advantage of
positive relationships built between peers and mentors (Bartko, 2005). One of the most fundamental features of childhood and adolescence is having fun with friends and programs have the potential to combine this feature with other effective components to promote and almost ensure positive youth development (Hirsch, 2011). Participation Consistent participation by youth is vital to observing outcomes and effects of a program, however, many factors contribute to why or which youths participate in the programs (Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). According to one study, participation in after-school programs has a stronger impact on youth coming from urban and low-income households because the living environments of these youth is often less enriching and more dangerous than the living environments of youth with middle-incomes (Robinson & Fenwick, 2007; Simpkins 2003 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). Unfortunately, most studies show that these students are the least likely to participate in the programs as well (Fulbright-Anderson et al, 2008; Harvard Family Research Project, 2007; Pedersen & Seidmann, 2005; Rothstein, 2004; Shann, 2002 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). Whether or not students participate and the extent to which they do participate is strongly determined by their parents and the academic (Lareau, 1989 as cited in Wimer et al. 2008) and social engagement within the home ( Dearing, McCartney, Weiss, Kreider, and Simpkins 2004; Weiss et al., 2003 as cited in Wimer et al., 2008). It is suggested in several studies that whether or not a parent will choose to enroll their student into an out-ofschool time program is strongly determined by the parents psychological, financial, and social resources (McLoyd, 1998 as cited in Wimer et al., 2008). Therefore, a parent who experiences greater social or financial disadvantages may be less likely to actively enroll their student into an out-of-school time program (Wimer et al., 2008). Other factors that can potentially affect the participation of students in out-of-school time programs are racial or ethnic background differences between participants. The reason for this variable is explained in various studies by three main hypotheses of leisure preferences and social interactions among varying races or ethnicities: marginality, ethnic/subculture preferences, and interracial relations and discrimination (Elmendorf, Wilfits, & Sasidharan, 2005; Lee, Scott, & Floyd, 2001; West, 1989 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). Because students who are members of an ethnic minority group are more likely to be the victims of bullying at school (Graham & Javonen, 2002 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010) there is a possibility that they are less likely to become involved in similar social situations of exposure to other ethnic groups. However, the understanding of the differences in ethnic preferences has also proven to be beneficial. In one study conducted by Perkins, it was observed that African-American females enjoyed their after-school program because they participated in activities that boosted their selfesteem and allowed them to develop meaningful relationships with peers and adults. African American males enjoyed the freedom of choice and autonomy in the program while Latin American students preferred the opportunities to play sports (Perkins et al. 2007 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). In response to these findings, many programs began implementing
culturally responsive teaching to their curricula in order to increase attendance and quality of participation (Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). Culturally relevant activities and exposure to diverse lifestyles in the programs encouraged cross-cultural communication and friendship and a widerange of life experiences for the students (Dee, 2004; Fong, 2004; Gay, 2002; Goldstein & Noguera 2006 as cited in Wu & Van Egeren, 2010). Finally defining effective participation in a program includes identifying indicators of successful development in the student participants. In one study, this is defined by investing the elements of quality and engagement into the program and observing resulting characteristics typical of positive youth development in the participants (Balsano et al, 2009). It is important to observe participation as a progression based on beginning attitudes and beliefs with improvement over time (Phelps et al, 2009). This may include observing a student improve socially by developing relationships with other participants or witnessing noticeable academic improvement through grades or tutoring participation. The context of the program should be the main focus rather than the specific content of the activities so that participation is observed on an individual basis and avoids the standardized achievement present in the school system (Phelps et al, 2009). This allows for students to improve at their own rate rather than being forced. Participation is most effective when the quality of activities as well as student willingness to try new things and attendance remains consistent throughout the time a student is part of a program (Eccles et al. 2008).
Best Practices: Providence After School Alliance One of the most successful after school programs that has been implemented with all of these standards and goals in mind is the Providence After School Alliance (PASA) in Rhode Island. The mission of this program is to expand and improve after-school opportunities for the youth of Providence by organizing a system to ensure all youth access to high-quality afterschool programs and learning opportunities (mypasa.org). This mission statement has influenced the out-of-school experience for thousands of students in Providence and is expanding to various other cities throughout the US. PASA was established in early 2005 as a fulfillment of a promise made by the mayor of Providence, David Cicilline, in response to widespread concern about a lack of enriching relevant activities for students after school (Cicilline, 2007). Once elected, Cicilline made it a priority to establish high-quality programs for youth that were both affordable and engaging within the community. He was convinced that out-of-school time was a resource that had gone ignored for far too many years in the city of Providence and to refrain from utilizing the potential for development during that time was a mistake (Cicilline, 2007). With this mindset, PASA was developed from scratch, intentionally not building on or increasing funding for existing programs, but structuring a brand new environment with organized standards (mypasa.org). In order to accomplish this goal, PASA founders implemented research strategies in order to most efficiently define and address the citys areas of greatest concern for children after school
(mypasa.org). In 2004, PASA hired Market Street Research to assess the positive and negative characteristics of the communities and to take the pulse of the parents and youth that would be influenced by the programs (mypasa.org). This research indicated that in this particular city, 48% of youth claimed to be at home alone after school, and only 10% of youth participated in a formal after school program three or more days out of the week (Market Street Research Inc., 2004). Despite these low numbers for initial participation in afterschool programs, middle school youth in focus groups expressed a strong desire for a place to go after school that can give them activities and time to be with friends because no one wants to go home after school (Market Street Research Inc., 2004). This not only indicated a need for intentional outreach but also showed that consistent quality assessments were essential once the programs had been established. Research became one of the greatest assets of ensuring the quality and effectiveness of the programs and PASA has initiated two more research studies since the beginning to ensure they are only providing positive and encouraging environments for the students and the community (mypasa.org). In January of 2006 the first PASA programs were enacted and given the term AfterZones by the youth participants (mypasa.org). As the programs developed and gained more student participants, Coordinating Councils for each community kept in regular contact with the program leaders, youth, and parents to ensure positive outcomes were being produced (mypasa.org). These Coordinating Councils consisted of partners associated with universities and non-profits as well as city leaders and principals of schools with involved students. The city leaders included the superintendent of schools, the director of the department of recreation, the police chief, and the mayor of Providence (Cicilline, 2007). The councils served as liaison between the resources of the city and the students in the programs. A Board of Directors, including community and parent leaders also contributes by maintaining the perspective of community involvement and development on a personal level (mypasa.org). The organization of the AfterZones includes time at the school, on site locations, and off site locations. The schools are intimately involved with the program and organize where the students should go as well as provide snacks, check-in, and making announcements (mypasa.org/programming-information). From the school the students leave for either an on site activity at the AfterZone base, or an off site activity at various locations around the city. The public school bus system provides transportation to all of these locations away from the school (mypasa.org). The on site activities usually consist of a larger group where mentors, tutors, and other volunteers are available to interact with the students. Activities on site include teamwork instruction, larger group projects, and one-on-one help with academics or counseling (mypasa.org/programming-information). Off-site activities are more specialized and are specific to the interests of the students that sign up to participate in these activities. Some examples of off site activities include community service projects, art projects such as murals or sculpting, various lessons in music or dance, and longer term small group projects that are at locations around the community (mypasa.org/azinaction). The effectiveness in student development for these groups has been extremely prevalent due to the availability of choice and encouragement to participate in off site programs. This provides the students with a pride in not
only their own personal abilities, but also in the community they live in and serve after school (mypasa.org). At the end of the daily program at five oclock, all students are returned to the AfterZone site and parents are able to pick them up. One of the unique factors about this program is the constant quality assessments that the programs undergo. Along with other after school program advocates, PASA developed the Rhode Island Quality Assessment Tool which provides a standard measurement of quality state-wide. This allows the program to be held to the highest standard as each site of the program is assigned a Quality Advisor who maintains a consistent level of quality. This consistency is crucial to the development of the students and has shown to be a powerful addition in producing positive results in Providence. Advances from this quality assessment include involving the schools as much as possible and even advocating that students receive extra credit for classes by doing long-term projects. As a new program, PASA has shown major improvements in the lives of the students, parents, and in the community of Providence in very little time. Expansion to other areas of the state will encourage further research on the effectiveness for a broader range of students and schools. Conclusion The Eastside Promise Neighborhood has expressed great concern about the after-school hours of their childrens day and the need for implementation of after-school programs has been expressed. Through an asset inventory of the Eastside, various existing establishments have shown great potential to provide the needed programming to the area. Programs specifically able to provide activities or care for children in the Eastside include Healy-Murphy Child Development, the Eastside Youth Center, YWCA on Hackberry, Woodward Community Center, Dawson Park and Community Center, Carver Community Center, 21st Century Learning Center, YAGA, San Antonio Sports: Dreams for Youth Fencing Program, Boys and Girls Club of San Antonio: STARS program, and church partnerships throughout the neighborhood. In the focus groups conducted with parents, youth, and community leaders on the Eastside, only three of these programs were mentioned as utilized assets in the neighborhood: Healy-Murphy Child Develpoment, YWCA on Hackberry, and the YAGA program. The availability of these programs coupled with the need of the community signifies that outreach to parents and students as well as communication with schools must be improved. Further research on how to accomplish these connections will increase the chances of programming reaching its full potential in the neighborhood. The link between these resources and those most in need of their services is definitely within grasp. The possibility of providing all children with a high-quality program after-school is not an impossible mission on the Eastside.
Citations
Afterschool Alliance. 2009. America After 3 PM. 3/25/11 http://www.afterschoolalliance.org
Balsano, Aida B.; Phelps, Erin; Theokas, Christina; Lerner, Jaqueline V.; Lerner, Richard M. 2009. Patterns of Early Adolescents Participation in Youth Development Programs Having Positive Youth Development Goals. Journal of Research on Adolescents 19(2): 249-259. Bartko, W. Todd. 2005. The ABCs of Engagement in Out-of-School Time Programs. New Directions for Youth Development 105: 109-120. Berman, Brad D.; Winkleby, Marilyn; Chesterman, Elizabeth; Boyce, W. Thomas. 1992. AfterSchool Child Care and Self-esteem in School-Aged Children. Pediatrics 89(4): 654-659. Broh, Beckett A.; Downey, Douglas B.; von Hippel, Paul T. 2004. Are Schools the Great Equalizer? Cognitive Inequality during the Summer Months and School Year. American Sociological Review 69: 613-635. Cicilline, David N., 2007. The Providence After School Alliance. Annenberg Institute for School Reform Summer (2007): 52-57. Daud, Ranna; Carruthers, Cynthia. 2008. Outcome Study of an After-School Program for Youth in a High-Risk Environment. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 26(2): 95-114. Eccles, Jacquelynne S.; Fredericks, Jennifer A. 2006. Is Extracurricular Activity Associated with Beneficial Outcomes? Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations. Developmental Psychology 24(4): 698-713. Eccles, Jacquelynne S.; Peck, Stephen C.; Roeser, Robert W.; Zarrett, Nicole. 2008. Exploring the Roles of Extracurricular Activity Quantity and Quality in the Educational Resilience of Vulnerable Adolescents: Variable and Pattern Centered Approaches. Journal of Social Issues 64(1): 135-155. Hirsch, Barton J. 2011. Learning and Development in After-School Programs. Phi Delta Kappan 92(5): 66-69. Lord, Heather; Mahoney, Joseph L. 2007. Neighborhood Crime and Self-Care: Risks for Aggression and Lower Academic Performance. Developmental Psychology 43(6): 1321-1333. Miller, Beth M.; OConnor, Susan; Sirignano, Sylvia Wolfson. 1995. Out-of-School Time: A Study of Children in Three Low-Income Neighborhoods.Child Welfare League of America 74(6): 1249-1280. Neuman, Susan B. 2011. Empowered After School. Educational Leadership April 2010. 3036. Pokela, Julie. 2004. Presentation. Enhanced Out-of-School Time Activities for Middle School Students in Providence, Rhode Island. Market Street Research, Inc. Providence After School Alliance, 2009. 4/5/11. www.mypasa.org Smith, Charles; Devaney, Thomas J.; Akiva, Tom; Sugar, Samantha A. 2009. Quality and Accountability in the Out-of-School Time Sector. New Directions for Youth Development 121: 109-127 Wimer, Christopher; Simpkins, Sandra D.; Dearing, Eric; Bouffard, Suzanne M.; Weiss, Heather B. 2008. Predicting Youth Out-of-School Time Participation: Multiple Risks and Developmental Differences. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 54(2): 179-204 Wu, Heng-Chieh Jamie; Van Egeren, Laurie A. 2010 Voluntary Participation and Parents Reasons for Enrollment in After-School Programs: Contributions of Race/Ethnicity, Program
Quality and Program Policies. Journal of Leisure Research 42(4): 591-620.
Behavioral Readiness
Introduction In recent years, there has been a large volume of research indicating that a childs behavior is a critical component of school or kindergarten readiness. Because of the importance of behavior to school or kindergarten readiness, scholars have identified two types of school readiness. One type is cognitive readiness, which includes skills such as early language development, pre-literacy skills, and memory. The other type is behavioral readiness, which refers to self-regulatory strategies and social skills that facilitate childrens transition to school environments (Campbell and von Stauffenberg 2007 as cited in McLeod and Fettes 2007). Researchers have estimated that on average 16% of children in the United States enter school with significant deficits in behavioral readiness (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000 as cited in Bierman et al. 2009). In general, children who are not behaviorally ready are at much greater risk of academic failure than children who are behaviorally ready (La Paro and Pianta 2000 as cited in McLeod and Fettes 2007). Unfortunately when determining whether a child is kindergarten or school ready, policy makers and educators only consider cognitive or academic readiness. Behavioral readiness is normally either excluded or is only tangentially considered. Unfortunately, this is true for the Promise Neighborhood Grant. One of the indicators that the Promise Neighborhood Grant requires to be collected is age appropriate functioning of preschool, prekindergarten and kindergarten students. The grant defines this indicator as the number and percentage of threeyear-olds and children in kindergarten who demonstrate at the beginning of the program or school year age-appropriate functioning across multiple domains of early learning as determined using developmentally appropriate early learning measures (Promise Neighborhood Grant, pg. 5). When one reviews Promise Neighborhood Needs Assessment Guide for developmentally appropriate early learning measures for the age appropriate functioning indicator, one finds that almost all the suggested measures involve tests which only assesses the cognitive or academic skills of students. Mechanisms which determine if students are behaviorally ready for school are almost completely absent from the Promise Neighborhood Needs Assessment Guide. Those mechanisms which purport to measure behavioral readiness only do so tangentially. In addition, the East Side Promise Neighborhood initiative currently has neither indicators for nor ways to measure behavioral readiness. The fact that behavioral readiness has not been mentioned in either the Promise Neighborhood RFP or the Promise Neighborhood Needs Assessment Guide is troubling because behavioral problems affect a very large proportion of poor children. While no definitive statistic exists for the number of poor children with behavioral problems, one study indicated that the rate of such behavioral problems in poor children ranges from 16-29% (Yoshikawa and Knitzer 1997 as cited in Jellinek et al. 2005)[1]. In a nationwide survey of kindergarten teachers perceptions of the school readiness and behavioral skills of their classes, about 30% of the teachers reported that the majority of the children entering kindergarten in their classes had problems following
directions and cooperating as part of a group and reported that there was a high prevalence of social skill and communication deficits in their classrooms. Interestingly, the proportion of poor and minority children in the school predicted all of these problems when kids entered kindergarten (Rimm-Kaufmann, Pianta, and Cox 2000: as cited Campbell and Stauffenberg 2008). Poverty as a Risk Factor Poor children seem to be at greater risk for behavioral problems. In general, poor children have more behavioral problems than children who are not poor (Gibbs 1986; Langner et al. 1970; Velez, Johnson, and Cohen 1989; Verhulst, Akkerhuis, and Althaus 1985; Werner 1985 as cited in Mcleod and Shanahan 1996). The more impoverished a childs family or environment is, the more likely that a childs is at risk of developing behavioral problems (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Evans, 2004; Linver, Brooks-Gunn, & Kohen, 2002; McLoyd, 1998; Taylor, Dearing, & McCartney, 2004; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002 as cited in Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor 2006). Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor also found that family income was associated with child behavioral problems; children had fewer behavioral problems when the level of their family income was relatively high than at times when their level of family income was relatively low. In general, the researchers argued that their study supports the claim that increases income for families in poverty will most likely lead to behavioral improvement in children (2006). Not only does the magnitude of poverty increases the risk of developing behavioral problems, but also the length of time a child is in poverty and the age at which a child experiences poverty affects the development of behavioral problems. The longer a child is in poverty, the greater risk that child has of developing behavioral problems (Duncan, BrooksGunn, and Klebanov 1994; McLeod and Shanahan 1993 as cited in Mcleod and Shanahan 1996). Even though the duration of poverty is a risk factor, increases in income for families who were chronically poor substantially reduced a childs behavioral problems (Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor 2006). Early experiences of poverty have a substantial influence in the development of behavioral problems. In one of their studies, McLeod and Shanahan found that children who had early experiences of persistent poverty (around ages 4 and 5) had higher levels of behavioral problems than children without these experiences; this difference lasted for every subsequent year those children were observed (5 years). McLeod and Shanahan found that even when the children with early experiences of poverty were no longer poor they had more behavioral problems than those children without those experiences (1996). This may indicate that increases in income may not be effective for those children who have had early experiences of poverty. Poverty is also indicative of violence within a neighborhood. Poor children are more likely than non-poor children to live in unsafe and crowded neighborhoods (Schubiner, Scott, andTzelepis 1993; Wilson 1991 as cited in McLeod and Nonnemaker 2000). Researchers have linked these kinds of neighborhood conditions to poor physical health and behavioral problems among children and adolescents (Aneshensel and Sucoff 1996; Klebanov et al. 1997 as cited in McLeod and Nonnemaker 2000). These kinds of neighborhoods are also more violent. Violence
especially places poor children at risk for developing behavioral problems because poor children are most likely to personally experience and witness violent acts (Emery & Laumann-Billings, 1998; Korbin, Coulton, Chard, Platt-Houston, & Su, 1998; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000 as cited in Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor 2006). Poverty also causes severe mental health problems[2] for parents. Poverty places burdensome demand on parents, which can diminish their mental health and their ability to be supportive parents. Poor parents also report relatively high levels of depression and anxiety (McLoyd 1990 as cited in McLeod and Nonnemaker 2000). The incidence of depression among low-income, single women with children is significantly higher than that of the general population. In a multi-site evaluation of Early Head Start, 52% of participating mothers reported depressive symptoms. In addition to this study, studies of women in welfare-to-work programs indicate that 35-58% of the women show symptoms of depression (Knitzer et al., 2008 as cited in Azzi-Lessing 2010). Mental health problems can severely impair parenting. The mental health problems of parents can cause them to use harsh or inappropriate parenting strategies, which increases their childs risk for developing behavioral problems (Conger et al., 2002; Elder, Nguyen, & Caspi, 1985 as cited Dearing, McCartney, and Taylor 2006; Conger et al. 1992; McLeod and Shanaban 1993; McLoyd and Wilson 1990, 1991 as cited in McLeod and Nonnemaker 2000). The mental health issues of parents can cause them to be less engaged and less sensitive to their children (Campbell and Stauffenberg 2008). This insensitivity can cause behavioral problems; the children of mothers who were both chronically depressed and insensitive had the highest levels of behavior problems (Campbell et al., submitted as cited in Campbell and Stauffenberg 2008). The Effects of Behavioral Problems T he behavioral problems a child has during the early school years can negatively affect educational attainment and long term social and economic outcomes (McLeod and Kaiser, 2004; Groot and van den Brink, 2007; Breslau et al., 2008 as cited in Breslau et. al. 2011). This may be because behavioral skills like a childs control of his/her attention, emotions, social competence, and regulatory skills are critical components of school readiness (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995; Lin, Lawrence, & Gorrell, 2003; McClelland& Morrison, 2003; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Weley & Buysse, 2003 as cited in Campbell and Stauffenberg 2008). Two researchers have identified a set of behaviors called learning-related social skills, which include selfregulation, and cooperation. These researchers have argued that these behaviors are necessary for early school success. These behaviors are necessary for early school success because teachers cannot teach basic skills if children are not able to sit still or pay attention. (McClelland and Morrison 2003 as cited in Campbell & Stauffenberg 2008). Researchers have shown that exhibiting some of the aforementioned problems early in school can have longitudinal effects. There is a longitudinal association between behavioral skills and academic achievement right up into high school (Breslau et al., 2009 as cited in Breslau et. al. 2011). Alexander and Entwisle found that behavioral problems in the first grade strongly predict negative academic outcomes during throughout the school years (1993). In their research, Breslau et al. have shown that behavior problems at ages 6 and 11 predicted lower
competences in math and reading at age 17 even after controlling for IQ (2011). Other researchers have found that behavioral problems negatively affect academic achievement even after controlling for I.Q. (Schaefer & McDermott, 1999 as cited in Domnguez et al. 2010). Regardless of I.Q., early behavior problems seem to impede the acquisition of basic skills. These basic skill deficits linger and lead to other skill deficits that negatively affect a childs academic performance in high school (Breslau et al. 2011). Intervention Targets The early years of school seem to be the best years for intervention. Behavioral readiness includes behaviors that are frequently defined as learning behaviors, which are approaches to learning that involve the capacity to navigate classroom routines and learning activities effectively (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000 as cited in Bierman et al. 2009). In the early school years, learning behaviors may not be stable. Using a statewide sample, Domnguez et al. found that Head Start preschoolers' learning behavior improved throughout the preschool year (2011). Indeed, Alexander and Entwisle argue that the first grade seems to be a window of opportunity for changing academic trajectories negatively affected by bad behavior; they argue that ensuring good classroom adjustment could establish good early learning habits and can place student on favorable trajectories that persist over time. Other researchers have shown that after the first grade aggression in children predict fairly stable and lasting behavioral problems (Kokko, Tremblay, Lacourse, Nagin, & Vitaro, 2006 as cited in Cavanagh and Huston 2006). This window of opportunity seems to be important; at every grade level, how teachers rate the behavior of a child has a substantial impact on that childs grades (Alexander and Entwisle 1993). This may be because problem behaviors may interfere with a childs ability to learn and also prevent the child from forming positive relationships with both teachers and peers (Entwisle and Alexander 1999 as cited in Cavanagh and Huston 2006). Targeting male and younger students may be very important. Even though there are individual differences in both learning behavior and rates of change for those behaviors, Domnguez et al. found that age and sex significantly predicted these differences. These researchers discovered that the gender of the student (being female) was a significant predictor of children's learning behavior and a predictor at the rates at which these behaviors change. This evidence suggests that female students have an advantage by starting school with more adaptive learning behavior and acquiring or developing adaptive learning behavior at a faster rate than male students (2011). Domnguez et al. findings were consistent with previous research that showed that female students have greater adaptive learning behavior relative to male students (Domnguez Escaln & Greenfield, 2009, McWayne et al., 2004; Ready, LoGerfo, Burkman, & Lee, 2005 as cited in Domnguez et al. 2011; Cavanagh and Huston 2006). Yet these findings are not found consistently throughout the literature (Coie & Dodge, 1998; Harden et al., 2000; Keenan & Shaw, 1997 as cited in Domnguez et al. 2011). Younger students may also be a target for intervention. Teachers rated older preschoolers as having more positive learning behaviors at the beginning of the school year. Yet teachers reported that older preschoolers had slower rates of improvement throughout the year (Domnguez et al. 2011). Another study found that older children had higher academic competency profiles and more adaptive learning behavior
(McWayne, Fantuzzo, & McDermott, 2004 as cited in Domnguez et al. 2011). Regardless of what group is the target of intervention, schools will be the primary vehicle of intervention. Unfortunately, the majority of children who need resources for behavioral problems do not receive them; researchers estimate that nearly 70% of children and adolescents in need of these resources do not receive them (Burns et al., 1995; Leaf et al., 1996 as cited in Azzi-Lessing 2010) and 70% those who do receive such resources indicate that school is the primary source for them (USDHHS, 1999 as cited in DeSocio and Hootman 2004)[3]. Assets to Confront This Problem There are a variety of factors affecting a childs behavior: poverty, neighborhood, parenting style, parental mental health issues, and etc. Because of the diversity of negative influences, the assets that can be used confront this problem are many. There are some assets which can reduce the effects of poverty: housing services, medical services, social services. There are other assets which directly address parental mental health issues: Center for Health Care Services, San Antonio Fighting Back, and the Center for New Communities. All of these resources offer some type of mental health program. Other resources can help parents improve their parenting styles: Children and Caregiver Connection, Healy-Murphy Center, and the Young Womens Christian Association. There is also an opportunity to use untapped resources to combat this problem. Any resources which could teach children important behavioral skills could possibly help. For instance, having more structured activities inside the classroom may be helpful.
References
1. Alexander, Karl L. and Doris R. Entwisle. 1993. "First-grade classroom behavior: Its short- and long-term consequences for school performance." Child Development 64(3):801-814. 2. Azzi-Lessing, Lenette. 2010. "Meeting the Mental Health Needs of Poor and Vulnerable Children in Early Care and Education Programs." Early Childhood Research & Practice 12(1).
3. Bayer, Jordana, Harriet Hiscock, Katherine Scalzo, Megan Mathers, Myfanwy McDonald, Alison Morris, Joanna Birdseye and Melissa Wake. 2009. "Systematic review of preventive interventions for children's mental health: What would work in Australian contexts?" Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 43(8):695-710.
4. Bierman, Karen L., Marcela M. Torres, Celene E. Domitrovich, Janet A. Welsh and Scott D. Gest. 2009. "Behavioral and Cognitive Readiness for School: Cross-Domain Associations for Children Attending Head Start." Social Development 18(2):305-323. 5. Breslau, Naomi, Joshua Breslau, Elizabeth Miller and Tenko Raykov. 2011. "Behavior problems at ages 6 and 11 and high school academic achievement: longitudinal latent variable modeling." Psychiatry Research 185(3):433-437. 6. Campbell, Susan and Camilla v. Stauffenberg. 2008. "Child characteristics and family processes that predict behavioral readiness for school." Pp. 225-258 in Disparities in school readiness: How families contribute to transitions in school., edited by A.C. Crouter. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 7. Cavanagh, Shannon E. and Aletha C. Huston. 2006. "Family Instability and Children's Early Problem Behavior." Social Forces 85(1):551-581.
8. Dearing, Eric, Kathleen McCartney and Beck A. Taylor. 2006. "Within-Child Associations between Family Income and Externalizing and Internalizing Problems." Developmental Psychology 42(2):237-252. 9. DeSocio, Janiece and Janis Hootman. 2004. "Children's Mental Health and School Success." Journal of School Nursing 20(4):189-196. 10. Domnguez, Ximena, Virginia E. Vitiello, Michelle F. Maier and Daryl B. Greenfield. 2010. "A Longitudinal Examination of Young Children's Learning Behavior: Child-Level and ClassroomLevel Predictors of Change Throughout the Preschool Year." School Psychology Review 39(1):29-47. 11. Jellinek, Michael S., Sandra Bishop-Josef, Michael Murphy and Edward F. Zigler. 2005. "Mental Health in Head Start: Leave No Child Behind." NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Intervention Field 8(1):25-35. 12. Mcleod, J. D. and M. J. Shanahan. 1996. "Trajectories of poverty and children's mental health." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 37(3):207-220. 13. McLeod, Jane D. and Danielle Fettes. 2007. "Trajectories of Failure: The Educational Careers of Children with Mental Health Problems." Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association: 653-701. 14. McLeod, Jane D. and James M. Nonnemaker. 2000. "Poverty and child emotional and behavioral problems: Racial/ethnic differences in processes and effects." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41(2):137-161.
[1] This source is actually about mental health problems. But in the academic literature, mental health problems for children are equated with behavioral and emotional problems (Bayer et al. 2009). Because people generally do not equate mental health with behavioral problems, references to mental health were replaced with behavioral problems throughout this paper for the sake of clarity. [2] Unlike with children, mental health problems for adults are not interchangeable with behavioral and emotional problems. When speaking of adults, mental health problems will not be replaced with behavioral problems. [3] It is important to mention, once again, that these statistics are actually about mental health problems. But in the academic literature, mental health problems for children are equated with behavioral and emotional problems (Bayer et al. 2009). Because people generally do not equate mental health with behavioral problems, references to mental health were replaced with behavioral problems for the sake of clarity.
Eastside Promise Neighborhood Literature Review: Influence of Health & Health Care Access on Academic Success Academic success, as measured by standardized test scores, grade point averages, and/or attainment of benchmarks such as a high school diploma, functions as a critical indicator of future financial security in modern U.S. society, and yet it is intrinsically linked to myriad factors that often reach well beyond individual control. Health and access to health care are two such dynamics that may impact a childs chance of academic success dramatically (Chomitz et al. 2009; Feinstein et al. 2008; Murray et al. 2007; Trudeau and Shephard 2008). Two of the twelve indicators that must be accounted for in the continuum of solutions for the San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood include whether children in the area have a medical home, and whether they are engaging in daily physical activity and maintaining diets rich in fruits and vegetables. Directly linked to these two indicators, preventable chronic disease in children and subsequent school absenteeism provide a clear example of a detrimental, yet avoidable, influence on educational outcomes. The adverse, cumulative impact of asthma, overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dental decay is striking, especially among children in vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and those of low socioeconomic status (Centers for Disease Control 2011; Flores and Tomany-Korman 2008; Fox et al. 2007). These children are often particularly at-risk due to an inability to access continuous, quality medical care, which functions in combination with environmental and social factors that predispose them to poor diets, poor air quality and insufficient opportunities to be physically active (Flores and TomanyKorman 2008; Strickland et al. 2011). Federal and state initiatives such as Medicaid and the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) aim to reduce inequality in access to health care by providing affordable or free health insurance, but the reach of such programs varies (Kenney et al. 2011; Perry and Kenney 2007; Shulman and Rosenbach 2007). Among the five schools included in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood, approximately one out of every five children is not covered by any type of health insurance (U.S. Census Bureau 2008/2009). Although medical and dental insurance facilitates receipt of services, researchers have noted that insurance alone does not guarantee adequate access (Shulman and Rosenbach 2007). Children and their families who have a usual source of care (USC), a regular physician or nurse, and receive all needed referrals for specialty care, help coordinating care, family-oriented care, and continuous care over an extended timeframe are said to have a medical home. Having a medical home substantially decreases the probability that a child has any unmet medical needs and increases the likelihood that he or she receives regular preventive visits (Strickland et al. 2011). Comprehensive policy interventions at the federal, state, city, and community levels are needed to address preventable chronic disease in children and expand access to proper care in order to ensure not only a healthier population, but also one more likely to find success in academics and beyond. Inequitable Prevalence of Preventable Chronic Disease The prevalence of asthma, obesity, diabetes type 2, and untreated dental decay among
poor children and children of ethnic/racial minority status differs dramatically from the rates found among higher socioeconomic status, white children in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control Health Disparities and Inequalities ReportUnited States, 2011, 15.8% of poor, black, non-Hispanic children have asthma, whereas only 7.6% of non-poor, non-Hispanic white children are afflicted by the disease (CDC 2011, data from U.S. National Health Interview Survey, 2006-2008). Similarly, the prevalence of obesity in white, non-Hispanic 2 to 19 yearolds is 14%, while the figure jumps to 22% of Mexican American children in the same age group (CDC 2011, data from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2005-2008). Although diabetes mellitus type 2 in children younger than 10 years is quite rare, the rate is significantly higher among youth ages 10 to 19 years and especially so in U.S. minority populations (CDC 2011). As the prevalence of childhood obesity continues to rise, it is highly probable that the proportion of children affected by diabetes type 2 will also increase, as will the number of children at risk of developing other complications related to overweight and obesity, such as cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disorders, pulmonary complications (including asthma and sleep apnea), liver disease, and psychosocial stresses (Dietz 1998; Swartz and Puhl 2003; Luder, Melnik, and Dimaio 1998; as cited in CDC Overweight and Obesity 2011). According to the Surgeon Generals landmark report, Oral Health in America (2000), dental decay is the most common chronic disease among U.S. children, affecting more than five times as many youth ages 5 to 17 years as does asthma. Inequity is also evident in dental disease more than a third of poor children ages 2 to 9 in the U.S. have an untreated dental decay, which is double the prevalence of untreated decay found in non-poor children of the same age group (Surgeon General 2000). Asthma Although factors that contribute to asthma in children are numerous and often difficult to address on an individual basis (such as air quality), research by Fox and colleagues (2007) has found that high-quality, culturally-appropriate health care, supplemented by community health workers functioning as intermediaries between families and physicians, may result in substantial improvements in asthma care processes and clinical outcomes. Progress achieved via the intervention of a Continuous Quality Improvement model in 7 clinics throughout California was linked to overall lower classifications of illness severity for the majority of participants in the study, leading to less use of clinical services, and fewer missed school days (Fox et al. 2007). Such results are particularly notable in light of the connection between school absenteeism, asthma and academic performance (Moonie et al. 2008), and disparities in asthma care according to race/ethnicity (Shields, Comstock, and Weiss 2004). Shields, Comstock, and Weiss (2004) examined differences in processes of care for white, Hispanic, and black children with asthma by analyzing claims data from the Massachusetts Medicaid program in 1994. The measures included receipt of primary and specialty care for asthma, appropriate pharmacotherapy, follow-up care after emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations for acute illness. After controlling for age, gender, disability status, and provider type, the researchers found several significant differences in
processes of care according to race/ethnicity. Specifically, Hispanic children were 39% less likely than white children to have had an appointment with an asthma specialist and 41% less likely to have received a follow-up visit within five days of receiving care in the ED. Likewise, black children were 64% less likely than white children to be seen for a timely follow-up after an ED visit. Even so, processes of care were significantly lacking for all children in the study; for instance, only 30% of children received a follow-up physician visit within 5 days of being discharged from hospitalization for asthma. These findings point to the need for improvements in processes of care for all children suffering from asthma, and emphasize the importance of ensuring that adequate care is particularly accessible to racial/ethnic minorities. Bearing in mind unique population characteristics, as well as cultural differences, may also help reduce the racial/ethnic gap in provision of care for children with asthma (Moorman et al. 2011, in CDC Inequalities Report). The study by Fox and colleagues (2007) suggests that the use of community health workers (CHW) may foster better communication and trust between families and health care providers by imparting an approachable and well-informed link. The authors note that integrating a CHW or health educator into a team of professionals may offer a greater likelihood of success by widening the perspective of the clinical care team to include more information regarding community contextual factors that may have an effect on reaching asthma management goals (Fox et al. 2007:910). The primary objective of each CHW in the study was to educate families about asthma in general, about self-management of the disease, and to provide resources for healthy behavior modifications, such as smoking cessation. The design of the study did not permit the researchers to disaggregate the relative effects of the Continuous Quality Improvement model, community health workers and the overarching support provided by the technical assistance team, but the magnitude of effects observed indicates the probable value of each component in improving clinical outcomes among low-income, multiethnic asthmatic children. Childhood Obesity & Diabetes Type 2 The challenges involved in reducing the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes may well be as complex as those posed by childhood asthma, if not more so. In the Eastside Promise Neighborhood, 24.5% of children ages 2 to 4 years enrolled in the Women, Children, and Infants Program (WIC) in 2008 and living in zip code 78202, were overweight or at risk for overweight, defined as 85th percentile or higher weight-for-stature (San Antonio Metropolitan Health 2008). This neighborhood statistic has a number of significant implications, not the least of which involves educational outcomes. The literature identifies positive correlations between nutritious diets, physical activity, physical fitness, and academic achievement (Chomitz et al. 2009; Feinstein et al. 2008; Strong et al. 2005; Trudeau and Shephard, 2008). However, funding and time allocation for physical education programs have been cut back or entirely eliminated in schools throughout the country; meanwhile, a variety of socio-environmental factors contribute to poor childhood diets and decreased physical activity. As noted by Ebbeling, Pawlak, and Ludwig in their review of childhood obesity-related research, the cultural and physical environment of the U.S. plays an enormous role in producing obesity: Several pervasive
environmental factors promote energy intake and limit energy expenditure in children, undermining individual efforts to maintain a healthy bodyweight (2002:478). The authors cover the consequences of food quality, advertising, and policy, as well as conflicts of interest that arise from interactions among these three domains. For example, pouring-rights contracts between soda companies and school districts permit the companies to exclusively advertise and sell to children on school property, generally for a period of 5 to 10 years, in exchange for upfront money (Price, Murnan, and Moore 2006). These contracts facilitate the presence of soda machines on campuses, which provide students with high-calorie, nutrient-deficient products, ultimately paid for by students and their families (Price, Murnan, and Moore 2006). Ebbeling, Pawlak, and Ludwig (2002) also highlight the fact that much of the built environment of the U.S. is inconducive to physical activity, namely due to a dearth of physical structures that promote pedestrian movement and active play, such as sidewalks, playgrounds, and bike paths. The authors also affirm that our culture places a premium on convenience: the car is preferred to walking, the lift [elevator] to stairs, and the remote control to manual adjustment (2002:478). While such behavior may be more typical of U.S. adults than children, these patterns are almost certainly transmitted through family norms or cultural practices. The authors conclude that the ultimate barrier to achieving change can be found in long-standing political and financial relationships which actively or passively contribute to an obesogenic environment. Certainly the forces contributing to childhood obesity, and consequently, type 2 diabetes in children, are formidable. Nevertheless, communities across the nation are taking action to handle the epidemic at city and neighborhood levels. Through funding and technical assistance provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), the National League of Cities (NLC), and the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), six cities participated in a two-year initiative to reduce and prevent childhood obesity, with a focus on collaboration and local policy changes. The program recently published its findings in the report Community Wellness: Comprehensive City-School Strategies to Reduce Childhood Obesity (2010). San Antonio was one of the six cities chosen for the initiative. Led by then-Mayor Phil Hardberger and City Manager Sheryl Sculley, the City partnered with Harlandale Independent School District (HISD) to implement programs such as mandatory physical activity time during afterschool programs and barring vendors of unhealthy foods from school premises. The other five cities in the initiative adopted similar strategies, specific to their communities needs, but broadly applicable to improving the health of children. San Antonio and HISD focused on promoting healthy school and afterschool environments through several specific actions, such as adopting CATCH (Coordinated Approach to Child Health) as the health curriculum for the district. CATCH is a nationally-recognized, evidence-based, coordinated school health program designed to promote physical activity and healthy food choices [It] fulfills the physical education requirements delineated in the Texas Education Code (NLC 2010:45). Although the report did not discuss the effectiveness of CATCH in HISD to date, its integrated approach should benefit the children of the school district by requiring that a certain amount of resources be allotted for school physical activity and the
provision of nutritious school meals. Although results are still pending, this programming is likely to benefit not only children at risk for preventable chronic disease associated with excess weight, inactivity and/or poor nutrition, but also the entire student body of each participating school. Dental Decay As a core component of general health and often acting as an indicator for systemic health problems, oral health is critical to the overall wellbeing of each child (Casamassimo et al. 2009). Research delineating the precise link between academic performance and poor oral health is limited, but a few recent studies show that such a relationship does exist, independent of other factors, while other studies point to the systemic importance of oral health (Blumenshine et al. 2008; Casamassimo et al. 2009; Jackson et al. 2011). In 2008, Blumenshine and colleagues published findings on the correlations among oral health status, sociodemographic characteristics, and academic performance. The study utilized data from the 2005 Child Health Assessment and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) survey, and analyzed the responses of parents of 2,871 school children (in kindergarten through high school) in North Carolina. Results showed that reports of children experiencing poor oral health, poor general health, or both conditions were significantly related to parental perceptions of poor school performance, with the greatest effects observed when children had both poor oral health and poor general health. Although the results of Blumenshine and colleagues (2008) did not prove a causal relationship between poor oral health and poor academic outcomes, they strongly suggest the likelihood that improving childrens oral health will improve school performance, particularly when coupled with improving general health statuses. Additionally, the research led to a related study focused on further investigating potential relationships among these factors. The study, published in early 2011, utilized 2008 CHAMP survey data to determine a causal relationship between absences due to dental pain or infection and poor school performance (Jackson et al. 2011). This was accomplished by adding questions to the oral health status section of the survey that directly addressed the causes of school absences related to oral health (specifically, whether absences were due to preventive care or dental pain or infection). The study sample was similar (2,120 school-aged children in North Carolina), and the results were quite similar, but more explicit. Through mediation analysis, the researchers found that poor oral health was associated with poor school performance, independent of school absences due to dental pain. Additionally, absences due to dental pain increased the likelihood of poor academic performance, whereas absences for routine dental care did not. These results underline the importance of routine dental care, to ensure that as many children as possible maintain good oral health and do not experience unnecessary, adverse impacts to school performance. Diet and Exercise By aiding in the maintenance of healthy bodies, nutritious diets and adequate physical activity play significant roles not only in the prevention of chronic disease, but also directly pertain to the domain of academic achievement. Recent research by Feinstein and colleagues
(2008) has revealed relationships among childrens diets at certain ages, and the test scores of the same students several years later. Similarly, a study by Florence, Asbridge, and Veugelers (2008) examined correlations among diet quality and reading and writing proficiencies of 5,200 fifth grade students in Nova Scotia, Canada. Feinsteins team of researchers investigated the dietary habits and academic achievement of nearly 14,000 children in South Western England over a period of more than ten years to determine whether a direct relationship may exist between the two factors, and if so, at which developmental stages nutrition may prove especially operative. The analyses controlled for several socioeconomic and demographic factors to the greatest extent possible in order to eliminate possible confounding biases. Higher levels of junk food (consisting of high-fat processed foods), consumed at ages 3, 4, and 7 years were correlated with lower standardized test scores at ages 10-11 years. Additionally, a positive correlation was shown between children with health-conscious diets (containing, for example, fresh produce and lean proteins) and their scores at ages 10 to 11. The traditional dietary pattern (including meat and cooked vegetables) was not correlated with test results (Feinstein et al. 2008). Results indicated that the diets of the children at age 3 had especially long-lasting effects on test scores, extending to their test performance at the ages of 10 to 11. The authors noted that the strong relationships involving the diets of children age 3 and subsequent test scores may demonstrate the existence of a developmental period during which children are more susceptible to the longterm impacts of their nutritional intake. These findings point to the potentially critical importance of high-quality nutrition for toddlers, with respect to their future academic success. The research specifically calls for cooperation between families, schools and government entities to achieve higher-quality nutrition for all children, especially before they enter primary school. Florence, Asbridge, and Veugelers (2008) reached similar conclusions in their research concerning the correlations among diet quality and reading and writing competence of fifthgrade students. As with Feinsteins study, the researchers controlled for socioeconomic status, and additionally, took into account the socioeconomic characteristics of the childrens neighborhoods. By measuring academic performance via a standardized literacy assessment and identifying diet quality with the Diet Quality IndexInternational, the authors found several important correlations. Students with overall poorer diet quality were significantly more likely to perform poorly in all components of the assessment. Fruit and vegetable intake, as well as dietary fat intake, were also associated with outcomes. While collecting dietary information, the researchers also determined the weight status of each participating child, and did not find a correlation among performance and weight status, after diet quality and socioeconomic status were accounted for. Taken as a whole, the results demonstrate the noteworthy relationship between diet quality and academic performance, independent of the potentially confounding effects of socioeconomic factors. Several recent studies have demonstrated significant relationships between physical activity and academic achievement that parallel findings concerning nutrition and academic performance (Chomitz et al. 2009; Strong et al. 2005; Trudeau and Shephard 2008). Chomitz and colleagues (2009) analyzed potential relationships between physical fitness, as assessed by standardized fitness tests administered during physical education classes, and academic
achievement, as determined by standardized test results. The children participating in the study attended racially and economically diverse urban public schools in Massachusetts. Following bivariate and multivariate regression analyses of fitness statuses and scores from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, the researchers determined that the probability that a child would pass the mathematics and English tests increased with the number of physical fitness tests passed. The study design controlled for variables such as race/ethnicity, weight status (according to BMI z-score), gender, grade, and socioeconomic status (as determined by eligibility for free school lunches). The results of Chomitz and colleagues (2009) align well with the conclusions reached by Trudeau and Shephard (2008) in a systematic review of recent research focusing on relationships between school-based physical activity and academic outcomes. The principal findings of the review strongly indicate that up to an additional hour of physical activity during the school day does not negatively impact academic measures, and may actually improve academic performance. Conversely, taking time away from physical activity and applying it to other subjects tends to show a corresponding reduction in the grade point averages of affected students. Thus, the time and resource trade-off that many school districts have undertaken when facing shrinking budgets and demands for higher test performance may not be beneficial to students in terms of academic performance. The authors also found that a significant majority of school fitness programs (physical education, school sports, and other school physical activity) improve some measure of students physical fitness. Aligning well with the results of Chomitzs study (2009), Trudeau and Shephard (2008) noted that an independent, positive correlation was observed between academic performance and physical activity across several studies, indicating that all children may derive academic benefit from participation in physical activity, regardless of personal fitness status. Strong and colleagues (2005) also conducted an extensive review that covered research focusing on the effects of physical activity on a variety of health and behavioral outcomes, and then used this evidence to develop recommendations for daily amounts of physical activity for youth 6-18 years old. More than 850 articles were reviewed that focused on the relationships among physical activity and weight/obesity, adiposity, cardiovascular health, asthma, mental health, academic performance, injuries, and musculoskeletal health/fitness. The review cumulated in an evidence-based recommendation of 60 or more minutes of moderate to vigorous daily physical activity for school-aged youth that is enjoyable and developmentally appropriate (Strong et al. 2005:736). Ideally, such physical activity should be structured into the school day, or at least included in after-school programs, which, as mentioned previously, is already a goal for schools such as those in the Harlandale Independent School District. Access to Care: Effectiveness of Medicaid and CHIP Although access to medical and dental care is affected by a multitude of factors, health insurance coverage functions as an extremely important determinant in whether individuals have access to services and receive necessary care (Institute of Medicine 2001). Similarly, the presence or absence of the model of care described as a medical home significantly correlates to
how well a childs medical needs are met and whether he or she receives preventive care (Strickland et al. 2011). Designed to target populations of children that generally do not have health insurance, let alone a medical home, Medicaid and the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP) provide coverage to millions of children throughout the country (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2011). At present, the literature does not establish a direct connection between access to care and academic outcomes, but in light of the impact of preventable chronic disease and the importance of maintaining health through physical activity and high-quality diets, access to medical and dental care ultimately contributes to childrens ability to perform well in school. Using data from the 2007 National Survey of Childrens Health (NSCH), Strickland and colleagues (2011) studied the relationship between having a medical home and selected health outcomes, and identified characteristics of children with a medical home. The authors noted that less than 60% of U.S. children had a medical home in 2007, according to the definition provided by the American Association of Pediatrics, but the vast majority met at least one of the five measured criteria, such as having a usual source of care or receiving family-centered care. After controlling for confounding variables, the researchers also determined that children lacking a medical home were three to four times more likely to have an unmet medical or dental need as children with a medical home. Significant racial/ethnic and income related disparities were evident with respect to whether a child had a medical home. Additionally, insured children were almost twice as likely to have a medical home as children without medical insurance. The findings draw attention to the positive outcomes associated with receiving care in a medical home, and particularly stress the significance of having health insurance. In 2007 Shulman and Rosenbach, of Mathematica Policy Research, published a report under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that reviewed 15 studies of SCHIP in 14 states to determine the effectiveness of the program over the course of its first decade in existence. Recognizing that insurance is not the only element necessary to receive care, the review focused on whether SCHIP enrollees experienced increased access to care by measuring three dimensions of access, including potential access, realized access, and perceived access. The review found that after enrolling in SCHIP, children were generally more likely to have a usual source of care and less likely to have unmet health care needs. Children who had not been insured for 6 months or more prior to enrollment made the most gains in access, but certain historical gaps persisted, including those between the access levels of minority children as compared to white children. The effect size of gains in access varied across the studies and according to the measure; however, most were at least 10%. As documented by Shulman and Rosenbach (2007), the results of the 15 studies collectively indicate that SCHIP is in fact greatly increasing access to health care by providing insurance to approximately 7 million children. Also published in 2007, a study by Perry and Kenney examined how well SCHIP and Medicaid functioned in terms of increasing quantity and quality of preventive care provided for children in low-income families. Data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were analyzed to determine rates of preventive care visits of children between the ages of 3 to 17 years in families with incomes less than 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL), who were either
insured through SCHIP/Medicaid, privately insured, insured for part of the previous 12 months, or uninsured for the entire past year. The researchers also noted how often the children received preventive medical advice on the following topics: healthy eating, exercise, effects of smoking in the home, using a helmet when riding bicycles or motorcycles, and using proper safety restraints in cars. Controlling for child- and family-level variables, linear regression models were used to determine several key relationships. Firstly, publicly insured children were more likely than children in any other group to have had a preventive care visit in the past year, but this only included 41% of the publicly insured children, indicating that insufficient numbers of children across all categories received preventive care. Children who had not been insured for any part of the past year were the least likely to have had a preventive visit. Publicly insured children were also the most likely group to receive physician advice in one of the five defined preventive education categories. Again, however, rates of children and/or parents receiving such advice were well below a satisfactory level; fully 48% of children who had had a preventive visit did not receive advice in any of the measured areas. More recently, research has focused not only on the general changes initiated by Medicaid and CHIP in childhood wellbeing, but has also investigated the effects of adjustments within individual state programming. Specifically, Kenney and colleagues (2011) studied changes in receipt of preventive medical and dental care among children enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP in Idaho and Kentucky, following policy changes that the two states made in the past few years that were projected to increase receipt of such care. In Idaho, increased rates of reimbursement were associated with increases in well-child care (preventive visits). Children in Kentucky experienced higher rates of dental preventive care following higher reimbursement rates, and Idahos shift to a managed care model facilitated more preventive dental visits. Although rates of receipt of preventive care are still fall significantly below recommended levels, the results indicate that policy adjustments such as allowing higher rates of reimbursement for care providers, adding certain incentives, and making changes in the delivery system may lead to higher levels of preventive care for children enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP. Conclusion Both the discrete and potentially cumulative impacts of preventable chronic disease, diet quality, physical activity, and access to health care have the capacity to profoundly influence the wellbeing, readiness to learn, and academic outcomes of children. Children living and attending schools in San Antonios Eastside Promise Neighborhood may be tremendously benefited in these domains by programs and facilities already in operation throughout the area. These resources range from summer food service programs that ensure children receive adequate nutrition during the summer months, to affordable medical service providers such as Methodist Healthcare Ministries, operated at the Bishop Ernest T. Dixon Jr. Clinic. Several parks and community centers provide open space, recreational equipment, and youth activity programs (for example, Lockwood and Dignowity Parks, and Woodward and Dawson Community Centers). As a particularly broad resource for Promise Neighborhood youth, the Eastside Youth Center offers services such as tutoring and mentoring, meals, field trips, access to computers, and
physical education. Additionally, certain programs presently in place may have the capacity to expand and reach more individuals and groups within the neighborhood. For instance, the Texas Department of State Health Services has been working in conjunction with the Antioch Community Transformation Network to facilitate a program called Families Preventing Diabetes/Familias Preveniendo la Diabetes, which aims to reduce the prevalence of diabetes through community-based health education classes taught by community health workers, or Promotoras, and supervised by nurses (San Antonio Metro Health 2010). These classes are currently conducted on the Eastside, and hypothetically could develop in scope and curricula in order to address issues such as childhood obesity, poor dental health, physical inactivity among children, and/or asthma. Certainly considerable work remains to be done with respect to increasing the health and access to health care of youth in the Eastside Promise Neighborhood, but through perseverance and cooperation, the community has a remarkable opportunity to improve the chances of health and success for its youth.
References Blumenshine, Stephanie L., William F. Vann, Ziya Gizlice, and Jessica Y. Lee. 2008. Children's School Performance: Impact of General and Oral Health. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 68:8287. Casamassimo, Paul S., Sarat Thikkurissy, Burton L. Edelstein, and Elyse Maiorini. 2009. Beyond the dmft: The Human and Economic Cost of Early Childhood Caries. Journal of American Dentistry Association 140(6):650-657. Centers for Disease Control: Health Disparities and Inequalities ReportUnited States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6001.pdf Centers for Disease Control: Childhood Overweight and Obesity, 2010. Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html Chomitz, Virginia, R., Meghan M. Slining, Robert J. McGowan, Suzanne E. Mitchell, Glen F. Dawson, and Karen A. Hacker. 2009. Is there a relationship between physical fitness and academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the northeastern U.S. Journal of School Health 79:30-36. Ebbeling, Cara B., Dorota B. Pawlak, and David S. Ludwig. 2002. Childhood Obesity: publichealth crisis, common sense cure. The Lancet 360(9331):473-482.
Feinstein, Leon, Ricardo Sabates, Annik Sorhaindo, Imogen Rogers, David Herrick, Kate Northstone, and Pauline Emmett. 2008. Dietary patterns related to attainment in school: the importance of early eating patterns. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62:734-739. Florence, Michelle D., Mark Asbridge, and Paul Veugelers. 2008. Diet Quality and Academic Performance. Journal of School Health. 78:209215. Flores, Glen, and Sandy C. Tomany-Korma. 2008. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Medical and Dental Health, Access to Care, and Use of Services in US Children. Pediatrics, 121:286298. Fox, Patrick, Patricia G. Porter, Sibylle H. Lob, Jennifer Holloman Boer, David A. Rocha, and Joel W. Adelson. 2007. Improving Asthma-Related Health Outcomes Among Low-Income, Multiethnic, School-aged Children: Results of a Demonstration Project That Combined Continuous Quality Improvement and Community Health Worker Strategies. Pediatrics 120:902-911. Stephanie Jackson, William F. Vann, Jonathan B. Kotch, Bhavna T. Pahel, & Jessica Y Lee. 2011 Impact of Poor Oral Health on Childrens School Attendance and Performance. American Journal of Public Health e1-e7. Institute of Medicine. 2001. Coverage Matters: Insurance and Health Care. 1st ed. National Academies Press. Kenney, Genevieve M., James Marton, Ariel E. Klein, Jennifer E. Pelletier, and Jeffery Talbert. 2011. The Effects of Medicaid and CHIP Policy Changes on Receipt of Preventive Care among Children. Health Services Research 46:298318. Moonie, Sheniz, David A. Sterling, Larry W. Figgs, and Mario Castro. 2008. The Relationship between School Absence, Academic Performance, and Asthma Status. Journal of School Health 78(3):140-148. Murray, Nancy G., Barbara J. Low, Christine Hollis, Alan W. Cross, and Sally M. Davis. 2007. Coordinated School Health Programs and Academic Achievement: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of School Health. 77:589600. National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education and Families, & American Association of School Administrators. 2010. Community Wellness: Comprehensive City-School Strategies to Reduce Childhood Obesity. National League of Cities. Retrieved from: http://www.nlc.org/ASSETS/8C058F1AA8C4474BAACFBB804C652A00/IYEF_Communi ty_Wellness_4-10.pdf
Perry, Cynthia D., and Genevieve M. Kenney. 2007. Preventive care for children in low-income families: how well do Medicaid and state children's health insurance programs do? Pediatrics 120(6):1393-1401. Price, James, Judy Murnan, and Bradene Moore. 2006. Soft Drink Vending Machines in Schools: A Clear and Present Danger. American Journal of Health Education 37(5):306-314. San Antonio Metropolitan Health District. 2008. Health Profiles 2008: Bexar County Overweight/Underweight WIC Children by Zip Code. Retrieved from: http://www.sanantonio.gov/health/pdf/hp2008/Other/WIC%20by%20BMI.pdf San Antonio Metropolitan Health District. 2010. Steps to a Healthier San Antonio: Families Preventing Diabetes. Retrieved from: http://www.sanantonio.gov/HEALTH/Stepsdiabetes.html Shields, Alexandra E., Catherine Comstock, and Kevin B. Weiss. 2004. Variations in Asthma Care by Race/Ethnicity Among Children Enrolled in a State Medicaid Program. Pediatrics 113:496 -504. PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD At the beginning of the 2008-2009 Shulman, Shanna, and Margo Rosenbach. school year, 4% of children entering 2007. SCHIP at 10: A Synthesis of the kindergarten were kinder-ready. Evidence on Access to Care in SCHIP, By the end, only 52% were kinderFinal Report. Mathematica Policy ready. Research, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/SCHIPaccess.pdf Strickland, Bonnie B., Jessica R. Jones, Reem M. Ghandour, Michael D. Kogan, and Paul W. Newacheck. 2011. The Medical Home: Health Care Access and Impact for Children and Youth in the United States. Pediatrics 127(4):604-611. PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD The graduating class of 2009 at Sam Houston High School was 45.9% of the total students. Strong, William B., Robert M. Malina, Cameron J.R. Blimkie, Stephen R. Daniels, Rodney K. Dishman R.K., Bernard Gutin, Albert C. Hergenroeder, (), and Francois Trudeau F. 2005. Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. Journal of Pediatrics 146(6):732-737.
Trudeau, Francois, and Roy J. Shephard. 2008. Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 5(10). U.S. Census Bureau. 2008/2009. Census American Community Survey 2008 and 2009: SAISD 100% Enrollment Effort. Retrieved from:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTSubjectServlet?_ts=316440681437
The Importance of Early Childhood Education: A Review of Successful Preschool Programs and Their Long-term Effects By David Nikaido This paper will address the importance of early childhood education in three ways: (1) Provide an overview of successful pre-k programs and their effects on childhood, adulthood, and family outcomes; (2) Share evidence for the economic benefit of investing in the early childhood education; (3) Share recommendations for developing high-quality early childhood experiences in our public school systems. This paper is relevant to the following Promise Neighborhood indicators: (required indicators) age-appropriate functioning in school; students at or above grade level in math and English; high school graduation rates; children in early childhood settings; (optional indicators) over-age middle school students; students who feel hopeful or engaged; engaged parents; teen birth rates; median household income; crime rates. This paper will focus on five longitudinal studies that followed the lives of infants all the way through adulthood and have linked successful early childhood education programs to positive adult outcomes. In 2009, over 1.2 million children in the United States under the age of five were enrolled in PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD early childhood programs. Texas alone had Tynan Early Childhood 200,529 children participating in programs Education Center has both a available in 82% of school districts (Barnett, Head Start and an Early Head 2009). Within the past decade, however, Start program. government spending on early childhood care has decreased across the nation. In 2002, the average state spending was $4,700 per child. By 2009, spending had decreased to $4,143. Texas itself spent only $3,790 per child in 2009 and will likely spend even less in 2011 with the recently proposed $9.8 billion budget cut to Texas public schools (Smith, 2011). The drastic effects of these budget cuts are unknowable at this time, but the effects and benefits of early childhood education are not.
The National Research Council (Shonkoff, Phillips, and Keilty, 2000) defines early childhood education as child intervention before age 5 that focuses on cognitive skill development, school readiness, and social and emotional developments. Experiences from birth to age 5 have been shown to directly influence outcomes in adulthood, including economic stability, work productivity, and mental health (Demma, 2010). Both positive and negative childhood experiences can have great consequences in adult life. Adverse childhood experiences may lead to abnormal brain development (Heckman, 2008). On the other hand, educational interventions in early child care settings can triple the chance that a child will attend a college or university (Pungello, Campbell, and Barnett, 2006). One of the biggest advantages of investing in early childhood care may be that it is a cost efficient method to improving the outcomes of children born into disadvantaged homes (Reynolds and Temple, 2008). The achievement gap begins before kindergarten. Children who are born and raised in disadvantaged homes tend to arrive on the first day of school already 12-14 months behind their more advantaged peers in language and pre-reading skills (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2010). This gap is known as the readiness gap. Readiness includes good health, supportive family, safety, positive social interaction skills, language, motivation to learn, emotional and behavioral self-control, and physical skills and capacities (AECF, 2010). Teachers would also add communicating needs and wants verbally, enthusiasm and curiosity, taking turns, and knowing how to pay attention as important indicators of readiness (Currie, 2001). If a child enters kindergarten already behind on the readiness gap, then by the time she enters fourth grade there is a good chance shell be up to 2-3 years behind the national average (McKinsey & Company, 2009). Not only will she be behind, but she wont have a chance to catch up either. The classroom curriculum changes when a student hits fourth grade. Before then, kids are still learning to read, but in the fourth grade kids are reading to learn. Reading proficiently by this time is recognized by the National Assessment of Educational Progress as a major indicator for successful high school graduation. The readiness gap is not always due to family income or broken homes (absence of parents), but mostly to missing links in the development of readiness skills and attributes. Discovering the source of these missing links is an important aspect of early childhood research, but some predictors for these gaps include mothers education level, low-birth weight, and the quality of the nurturing environment at home (Heckman, 2008). Children of the poorest and least educated mothers, those who are on the wrong side of the gap, have the most to gain from participating in early childhood programs (Currie, 2001). For this reason enabling disadvantaged children to receive a high-quality education between the ages 0 to 8 is vital for their success in the public education system. Five program studies and their outcomes In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson passed a legislative bill unofficially known as the War on Poverty which provided a wide spectrum of measures to combat the rising national poverty rate. Head Start was a grant program that rose out of the bill. It was headed by the US Department of Health and Human Services as a means to improve the learning skills, social
skills, and health status of poor children so that they can begin schooling on an equal footing with their more advantaged peers (Currie and Thomas, 1995). Since 1965, a number of federal funded, state funded, and privately funded programs have emerged all across the US. Research groups have since set out to determine the effectiveness and outcomes of these programs and what implications they might have on public policy. The following is a review of the effectiveness of Head Start, Early Head Start, and three other programs that have had research impact in the field of early childhood education. Three of the programs underwent longitudinal studies that have followed program participants from early childhood all the way into adulthood, one study followed participants from 3-4 years of age into first grade (Head Start), and another followed participants from birth until fifth grade (Early Head Start). A summary of each programs methods and procedures will first be described. Following will be an overview of effects on students and parents as well as a cost-benefit analysis of preschool programs overall. Head Start. Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has helped prepare over 22 million low-income children for elementary school. It is the largest federally funded program for early childhood education and has had impacts all over the nation. The Head Start Impact Study began in October of 2000 to determine the effectiveness of Head Start on both children and their parents. It also set out to discover under which conditions Head Start is most effective and for which children. The study involves over 5,000 three and four year olds across 84 different preschool programs and so far has followed children up through first grade (another report is due to come out by the end of the year that will report on third grade outcomes). The research team, Puma et al. (2010), followed two cohorts of Head Start participants 3 year olds and 4 year olds both entering Head Start for the first year. The team studied each group separately to determine the benefits of one and two years of participation in the program (it should be noted, however, that 3 year olds did not receive a different curriculum the second year, but rather repeated the same program offered to 4 year olds twice). Four areas of development were investigated, including cognitive outcomes, socialemotional outcomes, health outcomes, and parenting outcomes. Improvements in all four areas were found in the 3 year old cohort, while the 4 year old cohort showed improvements in cognitive and health outcomes (Puma et al., 2010). For more information on Head Start, please visit http://www.nhsa.org/. Early Head Start. Since its beginning in 1995, Early Head Start has grown to include over 1,600 programs that serve over 900,000 children nationwide. In 2010, it appropriated over $7 billion in matching funds to program partners. In order to qualify for funds, a program must serve low-income families with pregnant moms or infants and toddlers up to age 3. Each must meet the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS), which stipulate that programs provide high-quality, comprehensive child development services delivered through home visits, child care, case management, parenting education, health care and referrals, and family support. Programs are allowed to select one of three program models home-based, center-based, or a mixed approach of both. Centers were often located at schools or local community centers. There are two program studies for Early Head Start in this report. The first, conducted by
Love et al. (2005), was completed as part of the National Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project. It evaluated 3,001 families in 17 programs through a randomized trial that involved interviews of primary caregivers, observations of parent-child interactions, and child assessments. The study had three major findings: (1) Early Head Start had significant impacts on child and parent outcomes; (2) programs that followed the HSPPS produced a greater range of impacts for both parent and child; (3) impacts were even greater for mixed-approach programs that were fully implemented during the initial period of becoming an Early Head Start program. The first finding will be discussed in more detail later on, but for more information on the second and third finding please refer to the full report (Love et al., 2005). The second program study, conducted by Vogel et al. (2010), reported on outcomes of Early Head Start graduates seven years later while they were attending fifth grade. The study collected data from 1,632 sample members, 66% of whom participated in the age 5 follow-up study. The research team found overall impacts only in social-emotional outcomes; however it did find many other impacts in certain subgroups. The study also found differences in using home-based, center-based, or mixed-approach programs. Early Head Start had the biggest impact on African American children and families using home-based programs they had fewer household moves, lower rates of ADD/ADHD, depressive symptoms, and family conflict and higher family incomes. For more information on Early Head Start, please visit http://www.ehsnrc.org/. Carolina Abecedarian Project. The Abecedarian PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD Project began in 1972 as a longitudinal prospective Nearly half of all children in the study of children from low-income, disadvantaged Promise Neighborhood under families and the benefits of intensive early educational the age of 5 are enrolled in intervention. The research study, Campbell et al. (2002), nursery school, Head Start, or was primarily investigating two major issues: the preschool programs. malleability of impoverished childrens intellectual and cognitive development given early environmental support and enrichment; and the degree to which their school performance might be enhanced by preschool and primary school treatment. The research team has since followed 104 participants up to age 21 and has found benefits other than educational attainment which led them to investigate what other positive changes are linked to educational attainment in young adult circumstances. Program participants began in infancy, attending full-day educational child care all year round. The program emphasized cognition, language, and adaptive behavior, with an emphasis on individual development. After age 5, half the participants were provided a home-school resource teacher during the first 3 years of public school. The goal of providing the resource teacher was to encourage relationships between schools and parents and to focus on increasing parental involvement. The research team found that preschool treatment had a much stronger effect on longterm academic indicators than the resource teacher did. At the end of the report, the team offered this conclusion: High-quality educational child care can make a dramatic difference in the lives
of young African American adults reared in poverty. Individuals assigned to the preschool treatment group had, on average, significantly higher cognitive test scores as young adults than did untreated controls, they earned higher scores on tests of reading and mathematics skills, they attained more years of education, they were more likely to attend a 4-year college or university, and they were less likely to become teen parents. For more information on the Abecedarian Project, please visit http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~abc/. High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. The High/Scope Perry Preschool (HPP) Program began as a way to evaluate a newly created preschool education model in which teachers help children plan, carry out, and review their own educational activities. Begun in 1962, before the inception of Head Start, the HPP Program was an alternative method for fixing grade retention in a time when there were very few preschool programs around. After 1965, the program was at the forefront of the early childhood education movement. The High/Scope Educational Research Foundation formed in 1970 and began publishing its landmark studies of the long-term effects of the HPP program. The study, conducted by Schweinhart et al. (2004), identified a sample of 123 lowincome African-American children who were born into poverty, 58 of whom were placed in the preschool program at ages 3 or 4. The program lasted half a day and also included weekly home visits by the teachers. Researchers collected data for the children at ages 3-11, 14, 15, 19, 27, and 40 (with only a 6% missing data rate). The team found positive outcomes in the lives of the children who participated in the HPP Program. The conclusion was that high-quality preschool programs for young children living in poverty contribute to their intellectual and social development in childhood and their school success, economic performance, and reduced commission of crime in adulthood (Schweinhart et al., 2004). These included positive effects on test scores, grades, school graduation rates, and adulthood earnings, and negative effects on crime rates and welfare use. For more information on HighScope, please visit http://www.highscope.org/. Chicago Longitudinal Study. The Chicago Longitudinal Study began as a federallyfunded investigation on the effects of early childhood intervention at the Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC). The CPC Program is the second oldest federally funded preschool program that began in 1967 (Head Start is the first). Each center is located near an elementary school, and so children who attend the preschool program receive additional support for the next three years at the elementary school as well. Parents are also required to attend the program along with their child once a week. The studies that come out of Chicago Longitudinal Study are very beneficial because they are generalizable at the state and federal levels, since the CPC Program is both large and similar to Head Start. Arthur J. Reynolds and colleagues have published numerous findings on the effects of the CPC program. Their Paths of Effects series investigates how 5 mechanisms (cognitive advantage, family support, school support, motivational advantage, and social adjustment) contribute to the effects of preschool participation on over 1400 low-income participants who attended the program for 1-2 years. Two studies (2004; 2011) have both determined that a program model including all 5 mechanisms best fits the outcomes of participants. This shows that preschool
programs that incorporate all five of the mechanisms and dont focus on only one or two will have the greatest long-term effects. By seventh grade, participants in the CPC program were showing reductions in grade retention, special education, delinquency, and had higher reading scores. Children who attended the preschool program had a reduced dropout rate of 24%. At age 24, participants showed positive improvements in high school completion, college attendance, occupational prestige, and health insurance coverage. They also showed reductions in crime rates, depressive symptoms, and substance abuse. For more information on the CLS, please visit http://www.cehd.umn.edu/icd/cls/. Effects of Preschool Education All five of the program studies found positive impacts on both cognitive and noncognitive developments as well as parent outcomes. Cognitive developments include skills in reading, language, math, and boosts in overall IQ scores. The effect of cognitive advantages on overall educational success has been researched extensively and has the most supporting evidence for showing long-term effects (Reynolds and Ou, 2011; Heckman, 2008; Schweinhart et al, 2004; Campbell et al, 2002). Non-cognitive developments cover a variety of areas, including socio-emotional skills, attention span, following directions, working with others, motivation, school commitment, and self-confidence. Though these developments do not directly influence many long-term effects, they can be powerful indirect influencers (Reynolds and Ou, 2011). A child who has strong cognitive advantages and no motivation will hardly perform as well as a child with strong cognitive advantages and strong motivation. Parent outcomes are very important as well, because family support also directly influences long-term effects (Reynolds and Ou, 2011). Important attributes of the family include parent behavior, parent relationship with the child, parent involvement in school, child abuse and neglect, and the mothers education level. Adulthood outcomes, which were heavily influenced by all three of the above, will be discussed at the end of this section. Cognitive Developments. A childs vocabulary at age 3 can already predict reading achievement by the third grade (AECF, 2011), and by that time wealthy children have heard 30 million more words than low-income children (Hart and Risley, 2003). Babies who are born with low birth-weight, which can be up to 10% of babies from low-income families (KIDS COUNT, 2008) are at a greater risk for neurodevelopmental problems (AECF, 2011). However, these disadvantages can be counteracted if a child receives a high-quality preschool education and enters kindergarten ready to succeed. Cognitive advantage accounts for 26%-40% of the indirect effects of preschool on later life outcomes, including reduced felony arrests, reduced depressive symptoms, and occupational prestige (Reynolds and Ou, 2011). Children who completed the Early Head Start program showed positive impacts on language development at the end of the program; 51.1% of the treated group scored below 85 on the PPVT-III test (vocabulary), while in the control group 57.1% scored below 85, this difference is statistically significant. Children were at home-based programs did not show significant improvements, however children at mixed-approach programs yielded results greater than
expected (Love et al., 2005). As for the Head Start program, both the 3 year old and the 4 year old cohorts saw cognitive improvements that lasted through first grade. The 4 year olds had increased vocabulary scores on the PPVT-III, and the 3 year olds saw improvement in oral comprehension. There were two Head Start subgroups that also saw significant improvements. Children of parents with no depressive systems showed positive impacts in language, literacy, and math skills. Children from high-risk households showed impacts on five direct cognitive assessments (Puma et al., 2010). Unfortunately, these gains were short-lived for participants of both the Early Head Start and Head Start programs. For the overall sample, positive effects were no longer present by the time children entered the fifth grade (Vogel et al., 2010). This loss of benefits may be due to the quality of schools attended. A study of Head Start children has shown that among all African American students, Head Start graduates are more likely to attend schools of worse quality. White children who graduate Head Start attend higher-quality schools and their benefits continue to have impacts as they grow older (Currie and Thomas, 2000). This same effect also appeared in graduates of the Chicago Child-Parent Center Program (Reynolds, Ou, and Topitzes, 2004). Participants of the Abecedarian preschool program showed positive cognitive developments that lasted all the way through age 21. Those who received treatment as a child earned test scores equivalent to 1.8 years higher in reading and 1.3 years higher in math than those who did not receive treatment (Pungello et al., 2006). The program was different from Head Start and Early Head Start in that it provided higher-quality education in preschool and included academic assistance through the first three years of elementary school. Perry Preschool graduates also saw lasting cognitive improvements. Participants outperformed non-participants on language and intellectual tests from their preschool years up to age 7; on achievement tests at age 9, 10, and 14; and on literacy tests at ages 19 and 27 (Schweinhart et al., 2004). Female participants also saw reduced treatment for mental impairment, 8% vs. 36% of the control group, and grade repetition, 21% vs. 41%. Non-cognitive Developments. Many preschool programs used to measure their success in early childhood education by looking at increases in IQ scores. However, these gains are usually short-lived and not dependable as a good measure of success (Currie and Thomas, 2000). For this reason, measuring cognitive ability should not be the only indicator of success in school and life. Programs that build character and motivation and do not focus only on cognitive development alone are more effective (Heckman, 2008). Socio-emotional skills are positively correlated to literacy achievement in elementary students (Miles and Stipek, 2006). Teacher ratings of student social skills are a significant predictor of delinquency and special education (Reynolds et al., 2004). Non-cognitive skills promote the formation of cognitive skills, but cognitive skills dont necessarily promote the formation of non-cognitive skills (Cunha and Heckman, 2008). Fostering non-cognitive abilities in early stages of life greatly effects cognitive development, which is not as malleable later on in life (Cunha, Heckman and Schennach, 2010). The Early Head Start program had the largest effect on child engagement of parents and sustained attention on objects (Love et al., 2005). African American children in the Head Start program had reduced inattentiveness, fewer problems with structured learning, positive peer and
teacher interactions, and had better relationships with teachers (Puma et al., 2010). In kindergarten, Perry Preschool graduates did not see significant differences in motivation or self-esteem compared to non-participants (Barnett, 1992). Among preschool participants, some group differences did appear around age 15 (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). These groups were separated by the type of curriculum they received in preschool; there were three curriculum models: Direct Institution, Nursery School, and High/Scope. Those who were in the High/Scope model reported advantages in highest year of schooling planned, fewer sources of irritation, less self-reported misconduct, and fewer juvenile arrests. The Nursery School and High/Scope groups both had advantages over the Direct Instruction group in experiencing fewer years of identified emotional impairment or disturbance and in ever doing volunteer work. The Chicago Longitudinal Study found both short-term and long-term effects in social and emotional developments (Niles, Reynolds, and Nagasawa, 2006). The effect sizes were modest and most remained significant through age 15. The strongest short-term effects include social adjustment in school, assertive social skills, task orientation, frustration tolerance, and peer social skills. The strongest long-term effects that remained through age 15 were social adjustment, total competence, and assertive social skills. The Abecedarian study did not report measures for non-cognitive developments. Parent Outcomes. The quality of parenting, which is not linked to family income or parental education, is an important indicator of child well-being (Heckman, 2008). Some predictors of behavior problems and cognitive development for the child are family income, maternal vocabulary, home environment and maternal cognitive stimulation (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). These were stronger predictors than any characteristics of child care they attended (though attending center-based care did improve cognitive and language development). Parents who attend parenting education programs showed improvements in parenting practices and increased knowledge of the parenting role (McGroder and Hyra, 2009). These advantages affected their childrens antisocial behaviors, safety, and development. Early childhood programs that incorporate family services have shown the most promise for reducing delinquency (Yoshikawa, 1995). Parents of the Early Head Start program showed changes in parenting behavior that included being more supportive (responding to bids for attention, encouraging learning, positive regard, etc.), participating in semi-structured play, reading more to their child, and spanking less (Love et al., 2005). Head Start parents saw similar changes (Puma et al., 2010). The Abecedarian program greatly benefited single teenage mothers. Compared to mothers who did not receive free, high-quality day care, the Abecedarian mothers had attained 1.2 more years of education (Campbell, Breitmayer, and Ramey, 1986). Of these mothers, 46% received post-high school education, compared to only 13% of mothers in the control group. They were also more self-supporting with 70% not receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children funds compared to 58% of the control group. Ninety-two percent of the program mothers were more likely to be employed, compared to only 66% of mothers not in the program (Ramey et al., 2000). Neither the Perry Preschool study nor the Chicago Longitudinal Study report measures on
parent outcomes.
Adulthood Outcomes. The effects of preschool education on adulthood outcomes include positive improvements in educational attainment, homeownership, employment rates, income levels, health coverage as well as others. Preschool graduates also see reductions in criminal arrests, teen pregnancies, and substance abuse. Table 1 displays all of the significant outcomes of three programs that followed preschool graduates through adulthood. Program Outcome Measures Participants Nonparticipan ts Abeced arian Project (104 total subjects ) % in school at age 21 % attended college % in skilled job % homeowner at age 21 Age when first child born % teen parent % with medical coverage at age 21 % regular smoker % used marijuana (past month) 42 36 47 29 19.1 26 45 39 18 20 14 27 19 17.7 45 31 55 39 Years of education 12.2 11.6
High/S cope Perry Prescho ol (123 total subjects )
% completed high school
77
60
% females completed high school % arrested 5+ times by age 40 % served jail time by age 40 % employed at age 27 % employed at age 40 Median income at age 27 Median income at age 40 % homeowner at age 27 % homeowner at age 40 % using sedatives, sleeping pills, etc. % used marijuana (past month) Chicag o ChildParent Centers (1303 total subjects ) % completed high school by age 21 Years of education at age 21
88 36 9 69 76 $12,000 $20,800 27 37 17 48 11.3
46 55 21 56 62 $10,000 $15,300 5 28 43 71 10.9
70.5
53.7
% attended college % any juvenile arrests % felony arrest at age 24 % served jail time by age 24 % with medical coverage at age 24 % indicated depressive symptoms at age 24 % substance misuse since age 16
13.5 11 9.9 14.7 71.8 12.8 14.3
10.4 22.3 14.4 19.8 60.9 17.4 18.8
Table 1. Carolina Abecedarian Project Campbell et al., 2002; Pungello et al., 2006; High/Scope Perry Preschool Program Schweinhart et al., 2004; Chicago Child-Parent Center Program Reynolds et al., 2004; Reynolds and Ou, 2011.
Among the Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program participants, 55.3% completed high school by age 20 compared to 47.3% of the control group. This difference translates to a 20% increased rate of graduation over the control group (Reynolds et al., 2004). Both the Carolina Abecedarian Project (CAP) and High/Scope Perry Preschool (HPP) Program participants also had higher high school completion rates (Campbell et al., 2002; Schweinhart et al., 2004). In the CAP Program women saw the most benefit; they earned 1.2 more years of education than women who didnt participate. There were no significant differences among the two male groups. Women were also more likely to be in school at age 21 and to have attended a 4-year college. Similar advantages for women also appeared in the HPP Program. Seventy-seven percent of the HPP group graduated from high school compared to 60% of the control group, but this finding is more pronounced among the female participants, in which 88% vs. 46% graduated. The research team linked this major difference to cognitive skill development; 8% of the female program group had mental impairment compared to 36% of the no program group, and 21% repeated a grade compared to 41% (Schweinhart et al., 2004). Surprisingly, the CAP study did not find any significant reduction in juvenile arrests among its participants. This outcome contrasts with both the CPC group and the HPP group, which both saw significant reductions. Half as many CPC participants were arrested for juvenile offenses compared to the control group. HPP participants were rated significantly below their peers in delinquency and adult crime rates throughout all 40 years of the study. A cost-benefit analysis of the HPP Program revealed that 88% of the total savings were crime related (Schweinhart et al., 2004). It should be noted that preschool advantages dont naturally carry through to adulthood.
Children experience a lot between kindergarten and senior year of high school. Preschool may help students begin their education with a strong foundation, but many other factors could prevent them from reaching graduation. African American Head Start graduates who attend poor, low-quality schools lose all of their preschool gains by age 10 (Currie and Thomas, 1995). Head Start graduates who attend high-quality schools, however, see their gains multiplied (Reynolds et al., 2007). Because so many variables affect child development, many longitudinal studies (Campbell et al., 2002; Puma et al., 2010; Pungello et al., 2006; Schweinhart et al., 2004) can only show correlations between early childhood programs and positive adulthood outcomes. A few recent studies by the Chicago Longitudinal Study team (Reynolds et al., 2004; Reynolds and Ou, 2011) have shown that certain mediators, such as school and family support, do greatly contribute to the indirect effects of preschool gains. These findings could help inform policy and procedures for educational programs that come after preschool so that early childhood gains wont be lost. Cost-Benefit Analysis Education is strongly linked to the US economy. Over a decade ago, the annual cost of school dropouts and delinquency combined was estimated at $350 billion (Cohen, 1998; National Science and Technology Council, 1997). The dropout class of 2009 alone cost the nations economy nearly $335 billion (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009), and thats not including the cost of delinquency. One study (McKinsey & Company, 2009) claimed that if all the dropout students between 1983 and 1998 met the achievement levels of higher-performing nations, the United States GDP would have been $1.3 to $2.3 trillion higher in 2008. If nothing changes within the next decade, 13 million students will drop out costing the nation another $3 trillion (Rouse, 2005). McKinsey & Company calls this difference between our actual economy and our potential economy the equivalent to a permanent, deep recession, and it cant just be ignored. According to a study by Reynolds and Temple (2008) that summarized the cost-benefit analyses of all three longitudinal studies, high-quality, comprehensive preschool education programs are very cost-effective. For two of the programs, the CPC Program and the HPP Program, the public benefit per dollar invested was $7. A summary of the analyses for all three programs can be found in Table 2. Costs and benefits High/Scope Chicago ChildAbecedarian Perry Parent Centers Project Preschool Program costs ($) Average participant For one year 15,844 9759 7384 4856 35,864 13,900
Program benefits ($) Total benefits Net benefits (minus costs) Total benefit per dollar invested Public benefit per dollar invested 138,486 122,642 8.74 7.16 74,981 67,595 10.15 6.87 135,546 99,682 3.78 2.69
Table 2. Schweinhart et al., 2004; Reynolds and Temple, 2008; Campbell et al., 2002.
The cost of sending a child to preschool for one year can range from $5,000-$7,000 for large-scale, federally funded programs, such as the CPC Program and Head Start (Administration for Children and Families, 2011; Reynolds and Temple, 2008). Head Start in particular, which operates 20 hours a week for 34 weeks a year, pays back about 23% of the federal and local costs of providing the program after all the benefits are considered (Currie, 2001 this analysis was done in 1999 dollars). If Head Start was extended to be a full-year, full-day program the cost per child would be around $9,000 a year, but the program would pay back around 39% of the costs instead of 23%, making the program even more cost-effective. James Heckman (2008), a Nobel laureate for economics, compared cost-effectiveness of investing in early childhood education programs rather than rehab or training programs for young adults. His results show that the optimal investment period for a child is between ages 0-3, and investing earlier is always better than investing later. For adult programs to achieve similar results as childhood programs the cost of the program could be up to 35-50% higher. The same study also found that 50% of the variance in adulthood earnings is determined by age 18. Spending money on early development rather than adult remediation is more cost-effective for both the program administrators and the program participants. Moving Forward Among the five programs discussed above, there are five characteristics that stand out as proven factors of program success (Reynolds and Temple, 2008; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). The program must: (1) include a curriculum that focuses on language-based school readiness skills and incorporates self-initiated learning rather than direct instruction; (2) have a low student-teacher ratio; (3) serve program participants for two or more years; (4) include an intensive parent involvement component; (5) use schools as the single administrative system for early childhood and in-school interventions. Preschool curriculum models that focus on self-initiated learning rather than direct instruction have strong positive effects on social and emotional skills later on in life (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). A study that compared the HPP curriculum with the traditional direct instruction curriculum found that only 6% of those who were in the HPP Program received
treatment for emotional impairment during their school years (the study participants were 23 years old), while 47% of the direct instruction group did receive treatment. This result is attributed to the emphasis on self-initiated planning, social reasoning, and other social objectives. Language-based skill development improved in all five of the programs reviewed earlier (see Cognitive Developments). This shows that effective methods for enhancing language skills at the preschool level are out there and should be utilized. Vocabulary and pre-reading skills are significantly higher for students that attended preschool (Puma et al., 2010; Pungello et al., 2006; Love et al., 2005; Schweinhart et al., 2005). These skills are important not only for cognitive development but also for emotional stability. One study (Miles and Stipek, 2006) shows that literacy achievement is linked to reducing aggressive behavior in elementary school students. Class size reduction and two years of preschool are important to give developing children the individualized attention they need to succeed (Early et al., 2007; Reynolds et al., 2004; Puma et al., 2010). The economic benefit of reducing class size actually pays for the cost of hiring more teachers and teacher aides (Reynolds and Temple, 2008). Extending programs to two years is also economically advantageous (Currie, 2001). Cognitive gains last much longer and effects on the family as a whole are much stronger (Puma et al., 2010). High quality teachers are also essential to effective classrooms (Early et al., 2007). Preschool teachers should not simply be viewed as child care providers; they need to be trained to professional standards and understand that they are teachers for children at risk (Pungello et al., 2006). Preschool programs should encourage and enable parents and families to involve themselves in producing positive outcomes for their children (AECF, 2010). Parents who engage in their role as a co-educator early on are less likely to spank their children, more likely to read to them, and more likely to involve them in cultural enrichment activities (Puma et al., 2010). Involved parents also play a major role in reducing juvenile delinquency and helping their child succeed academically (Reynolds et al., 2011). Successful programs engaged parents by inviting them weekly to participate in classroom activities, having parent-teacher meetings at the childs home, or holding weekly events that target parents (Schweinhart et al., 2004; Campbell et al., 2002). The transition from preschool to kindergarten is most successful when a single administrative system is able to handle it (Reynolds and Temple, 2008). One recommendation is to use schools as the center for handling data and information. By developing a coordinated, longitudinal data system it is easier to keep track of important data that can help identify the most vulnerable children (Demma, 2010). Without a coordinated system, chunks of data go missing when a child transfers from one program setting to another. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2010) even recommends coordinating data from birth all the way through third grade. Integrating multiple funding sources also becomes easier, since the developmental system is all in one place (Demma, 2010). Closing Thoughts There is no formula for the perfect early childhood education program, but there are mounds of research that have whittled the development process down to a few key steps. Success
is in no way out of reach. All it takes to move forward is initiative, informed planning, and patience. The long term effects of preschool education are profoundly positive and very economical, but waiting 20 years to see those effects is not easy. Keeping our childrens futures in mind should be the only motivation we need to make changes now.
References Administration for Children & Families. 2010. Head Start Program Fact Sheet. US Department of Health and Human Services. Alliance for Excellent Education. 2009. The High Cost of High School Dropouts: What the Nation Pays for Inadequate High Schools. Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2010. Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report. Barnett, Steven W. 1992. Benefits of Compensatory Preschool Education. The Journal of Human Resources 27(2): 279-312. Barnett, Steven W., et al. 2009. The State of Preschool 2009. National Institute for Early Education Research. Campbell, Frances A., Bonnie Breitmayer, and Craig T. Ramey. 1986. Disadvantaged Single Teenage Mothers and Their Children: Consequences of Free Educational Day Care. Family Relations 35(1): 63-68. Campbell, Frances A., et al. 2002. Early Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science 6(1): 42-57. Cohen, M. A. 1998. The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14(5). Cunha, Flavio and James J. Heckman. 2008. Formulating, Identifying, and Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Journal of Human Resources 43(4): 738-782. Cunha, Flavio, James J. Heckman and Susanne M. Schennach. 2010. Estimating the Technology of Cognitive and Noncognitive Skill Formation. Econometrica 78(3): 883931. Currie, Janet and Duncan Thomas. 1995. Does Head Start Make a Difference? The American Economic Review 85(3): 341-364. Currie, Janet and Duncan Thomas. 2000. School Quality and the Longer-Term Effects of Head Start. The Journal of Human Resources 35(4): 755-774. Currie, Janet. 2001. Early Childhood Education Programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives 15(2): 213-238. Demma, Rachel. 2010. Building Ready States: A Governors Guide to Supporting a Comprehensive, High-Quality Early Childhood State System. NGA Center for Best Practices: Education Division.
Early, Diane M., et al. 2007. Teachers Education, Classroom Quality, and Young Childrens Academic Skills: Results from Seven Studies of Preschool Programs. Child Development 78(2): 558-580. Hart, Betty and Todd R. Risley. 2003. The Early Catastrophe: The 30 Million Word Gap by Age 3. American Educator 27(1): 4-9. Heckman, James J. 2008. Schools, Skills, and Synapses. Economic Inquiry 46(3): 289-324. KIDS COUNT. 2008. Data Across States: Low-Birthweight Babies. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Love, John M., et al. 2005. The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs. Developmental Psychology 41(6): 885901. McGroder, Sharon M. and Allison Hyra. 2009. Developmental and Economic Effects of Parenting Programs for Expectant Parents and Parents of Preschool-age Children. Partnership for Americas Economic Success 10: n. pag. McKinsey & Company. 2009. The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in Americas Schools. Miles, Sarah and Deborah Stipek. 2006. Contemporaneous and Longitudinal Associations Between Social Behavior and Literacy Achievement in a Sample of Low-Income Elementary School Children. Child Development 77(1): 103-117. National Assessment for Educational Progress. 2007. Reading Assessment. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. 2000. The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and Language Development. Child Development 71(4): 960-980. National Science and Technology Council. 1997. Investing in our future: A national research initiative for Americas children for the 21st century. Niles, Michael D., Arthur J. Reynolds, and Mark Nagasawa. Does Early Childhood Intervention Affect the Social and Emotional Development of Participants? Early Childhood Research & Practice 8.1 (2006): n. pag. Web. 1 April 2011. Puma, Michael, et al. Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Jan. 2010. Web. 28 March 2011. Pungello, Elizabeth P., Frances A. Campbell, and Steven W. Barnett. Poverty and Early Childhood Educational Intervention. Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity Policy Brief Series, Dec. 2006. Web. 18 March 2011. Ramey, Craig T., et al. Persistent Effects of Early Childhood Education on High-Risk Children and Their Mothers. Applied Developmental Science 4.2-14 (2000): 75-103. Web. 4 April 2011. Reynolds, Arthur J. and Suh-Ruu Ou. Paths of Effects from Preschool to Adult Well-Being: A Confirmatory Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Program. Child Development 82.2 (2011): 555-582. Web. 1 April 2011.
Reynolds, Arthur J., et al. (2007). Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-Being: A 19-Year Follow Up of Low-Income Families. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 161: 730-739. Reynolds, Arthur J., Suh-Ruu Ou, and James W. Topitzes. Paths of Effects of Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Attainment and Delinquency: A Confirmatory Analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Child Development 75.5 (2004): 1299-1328. Web. 23 March 2011. Rouse, Cecilia E. 2005. The Labor Market Consequences of an Inadequate Education. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Social Costs of Inadequate Education, Teachers College at Columbia University, NY. Schweinhart, Lawrence J. and David P. Weikart. The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study Through Age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12.2 (1997): 117-143. Web. 23 March 2011. Schweinhart, Lawrence J., et al. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions, and Frequently Asked Questions. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 2004. Web. 23 Feb. 2011. Shonkoff, Jack, Deborah Phillips, and Bonnie Keilty. 2000. Early Childhood Intervention: Views from the Field. National Research Council and Institutes of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. Smith, Morgan. Pre-K Programs Vulnerable as Schools Confront Cuts. The Texas Tribune 26 Jan. 2011. Web. 1 April 2011. Vogel, Cheri A., et al. Early Head Start Children in Grade 5: Long-Term Follow-Up of the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project Study Sample. US Department of Health and Human Services. Web. 1 April 2011. Yoshikawa, Hirokazu. Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and Delinquency. The Future of Children 5.3 (1995): 51-75. Web. 4 April 2011.

Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 1

San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood Initiative

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 2

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 3

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 4

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 5

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 6

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 7

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 8

Thematic Findings, Analysis, and Implications/Recommendations

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 9

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 10

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 11

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 12

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 13

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 14

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 15

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 16

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 17

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 18

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 19

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 20

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 21

Social Characteristics of Neighborhoods

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 22

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 23

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 24

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 25

Physical Characteristics of Neighborhoods

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 26

The Good News

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 27

Current Neighborhood Assets

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 28

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 29

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 30

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 31

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 32

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 33

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 34

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 35

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 36

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 37

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 38

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 39

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 40

Quality and Program Policies. Journal of Leisure Research 42(4): 591-620.

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 41

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 42

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 43

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 44

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 45

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 46

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 47

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 48

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 49

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 50

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 51

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 52

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 53

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 54

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 55

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 56