FAMILY, SCHOOL AND

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

Carolyn Herrington

Florida State University

November 2011

WHAT ARE FAMILY, SCHOOL AND

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS?

Programs that improve children’s lives

through better coordination of services at

the neighborhood level

FAMILY, SCHOOL AND

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

How do they work?

Are there successful examples?

What can research tell us?

FAMILY, SCHOOL AND

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

How are they funded?

What policies are needed to support

partnerships?

Control

EDUCATION UNDER PRESSURE

Control

Means

Costs

PRESSURE FOR INCREASED

PRODUCTIVITY

• Difficult to increase costs• Difficult to increase costs

• Search for greater efficiencies through

partnerships

• For troubled communities, critical to

control environment

Rationale for Partnerships

• Services for children may be available but • Services for children may be available but

are difficult to access

• Child diagnosis may be delayed and

condition worsens

• Parents can not afford services

• Difficult if both parents work

Benefits through partnerships

• Parent: better diagnosis of children’s need• Parent: better diagnosis of children’s need

• Parent: faster linking of children with needed

services

• Parent: reduction in number of professionals

and time to coordinate services

• System: better educated, healthier children

• System: reduction of per child cost of services

Why should schools be involved?

• Cognitive development is dependent on • Cognitive development is dependent on

prior cognitive development; skill

development is dependent on prior skill

development

• Learning opportunities lost in the early

years may be remediated later but at

much greater costs • Heckman, J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in

disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900-1902.

Why should schools be involved?

Schools buildings, staff and resources can serve as Schools buildings, staff and resources can serve as

an anchor for other services:

• publicly-subsidized health,

• nutrition,

• developmental services,

• career and mental health counseling

• welfare benefits and

• outreach to parents

RESEARCH

Growing body of research on impact of Growing body of research on impact of

early intervention and cost savings in

preventing problems

FAMILY, SCHOOL AND

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS

RESEARCH

• Anthropology • Counseling• Anthropology

• Biological

Sciences/Neurology

• Economics

• Psychology

• Sociology

• Counseling

• Education

• Health

• Organizational

Theory

• Social Ecology

RESEARCH

RESEARCH ON EARLY INTERVENTION CONTINUES TO ARGUE FOR

EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

AND HEALTH SERVICES

• Importance of out-of-school and early • Importance of out-of-school and early

school experiences

• Intersection of poverty and achievement

threatens educational improvements

• Reductions in cost to the taxpayer in the

long term are substantial.

Harlem Children’s Zone

TWO PROMISING EXAMPLES

Harlem Children’s Zone

Chicago Child-Parent Centers

HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE

HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE

ZONE – 100 blocks serving 10.000

children

What is unique about Harlem

Children’s Zone?

• COMPREHENSIVE CHILDREN’S SERVICES

• Nutritional services and education• Nutritional services and education

• Social services – help with housing, legal

services, health services

• Adult education on parenting (Baby College)

• INTEGRATED SERVICES

• PLACE-BASED

• Must live in zone

• All children in zone are eligible

CHICAGO CHILD-PARENT CENTERS

• School-based

• Serves very low-income neighborhoods• Serves very low-income neighborhoods

• Federally funded

• Ages 3-5

• Follow-up ages 6-8

• Parental participation required

• Outreach to parents

CHICAGO CHILD-PARENT CENTERS

• Class size 8

• Serves two meals daily

• Transportation provided

• Weekly parental participation

• Children screened for vision and health problems

• Per participant cost:$5219

CHICAGO CHILD-PARENT CENTERS

Rate of return for early childhood services: Rate of return for early childhood services:

• $8.47 through increasing economic activity and

decreasing public expenditures

• Rate of return for school-age program $1.97• Reynolds, A., Temple, J., Robertson, D., & Mann, E. (2002). Age

21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent

Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267-303.

IMPORTANT SIMILARITIES

• HARLEM

CHILDREN’S ZONE

(New York City)

• CHICAGO

CHILD/PARENT

CENTERS(New York City)

• Setting: challenging

urban environment

• Stress on parent

involvement and

education

• Coordinate with

other community-

based services

CENTERS

• Setting: challenging

urban environment

• Stress on parent

involvement and

education

• Coordinate with other

community-based

services

IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES

• HARLEM CHILDREN’S ZONE

• CHICAGO CHILD/PARENT

CENTERSZONE

• Privately-financed

• Community-based

• Founded: 20 years ago

• Promising but too soon to evaluate

• Government-financed

• School-based

• Founded: 40 years ago

• Substantial evidence for success

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

• Leadership challenges and sustainability• Leadership challenges and sustainability

• Length of time required for substantial

results – 10-20 years

• Trade-offs between long-term investments

and short-term results

• Funding for core operations

• Sustaining funding during economic

downturns (when need is greater)

• Self-sustaining – fee generation

Financing Sources:

Challenges to coordinate

Local NationalLocal

Regional

National

Challenges - Stability

Funding needs to be:Funding needs to be:

• Reliable,

• Sufficient,

• Continuous, and

• Flexible

Challenges - Accountability

• The more resources and programs are • The more resources and programs are

blended – in order to achieve the

presumed greater efficiencies = the more

difficult it is to account for the particular

streams of monies and their impact on

the desired outcomes

FINANCING AND POLICY

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Require coordinate planning and budgeting 1. Require coordinate planning and budgeting

for child-oriented services

2. Fund pilot programs and evaluate

3. Pooling of funding across agency barriers

4. Evaluate coordination effectiveness as well as

child outcomes

1. Allow for waivers at the local level

FINANCING AND POLICY

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Allow for waivers at the local level

2. Delegating funding authority to community

leaders

3. Incentivize innovation

4. Redeploy existing funds into lower costs/more

effective programs