Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
55030443
label
[Improving Results for Children - Designing Strategies for System Change] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
55030443
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
[Improving Results for Children - Designing Strategies for System Change] [1]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)
Gaynor McCown's Printed Materials Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
55030443
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763285-20110255S-034-007-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
087a391abe0dfb33
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs Speakers contact list (partial)
n.d.
P6/b(6)
(2 pages)
002. list
The Policymakers' Program Advisory Board 1994-1995 contact list
n.d.
P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Gaynor McCown (Printed Materials)
OA/Box Number: 7324
FOLDER TITLE:
[Improving Results for Children - Designing Strategies for System Change] [1]
2011-0255-S
rc242
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(h)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
h(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN:
Designing Strategies for System Change
January 19-22, 1995
Clearwater, Florida
CHANGING GOVERNANCE TO ACHIEVE
BETTER RESULTS FOR
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
A Working Paper
(This paper is 1 working draft. developed to start discussion at
the meeting of six states that are implementing or planning new
forms of governance at the local level.)
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
1250 Eye Street, NW. Suite 503
Washington, DC 20005
October. 1994
CHANGING GOVERNANCE TO ACHIEVE
BETTER RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
I. WHY ARE NEW FORMS OF GOVERNANCE NEEDED?
2
II. THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
7
III. AN EMERGING FRAMEWORK OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNANCE
I+
IV. IMPLEMENTING NEW FORMS OF GOVERNANCE (To be completed after the six
state meeting)
21
V. CONCLUSION
22
CHANGING GOVERNANCE TO ACHIEVE
BETTER RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
INTRODUCTION
Most state governments, and many local communities. are seeking ways to improve results for
children and families.
The reasons are not hard to find. By most measures. the conditions or many children and
families are deteriorating. The National KIDS COUNT report highlights these trends: over the
past decade. six of the ten indices measuring the well-being or children and youth have been
getting worse. not better. Recent data indicating a rise in child poverty (to almost 23% of all
children) suggest that these downward trends will continue.
As states and communities try to reverse this decline. many are deciding that this effort requires
a thorough redesign of the ways in which we assist children and families. Changes are being
made in the way that health. education, and social services are being organized, financed. and
delivered. In order to achieve better results for families and children. states and localities are
seeking to:
Provide services that are more responsive to individual need more preventive, and
more supportive of families:
Finance services in a way that supports a more flexible. individualized approach;
and
Organize and govern services so that they are more effective and more coherent
in carrying out a community's agenda on behalf of children. and more rooted
within local communities.
These three types of changes are of course intertwined. Typically. one set triggers activities in
the other two. This paper focuses on the third of these changes: new forms or governance.
Page 2
The paper first examines new governance roles that are being assumed by entities at the local
level, and then focuses on governance changes that are being developed jointly by state agencies
and local communities. Although some cities and towns are working indigently to implement
new forms of governance. the emerging "partnerships" between state government and localities
are of particular interest. These efforts must address issues of scale, equity, resource allocation,
legitimacy, and representation that may not surface when a community creates a new governance
body without state level involvement.
This working draft is organized in four sections:
Section [ reviews the rationale for new forms of governance. Why is change
necessary
Section II defines what is meant by governance at the local level. What are the
key characteristics or the new entities that are taking on this role?
Section III outlines a framework that several states and communities are using as
they establish new forms of governance. What is the nature of this new
partnership? What are its implications for other major stakeholders. such as local
government or school boards?
Section IV (to be developed following the six states' meeting on governance) will
describe alternative strategies for implementing new governance structures.
The paper concludes with brief observations about some of the larger purposes behind the
movement toward improved governance.
I.
WHY ARE NEW FORMS OF GOVERNANCE NEEDED"
The case for new forms of governance grows from the conviction that. in many communities,
our current education, health, and social service systems are not achieving good results for
children and families. despite effective individual programs and many committed professionals.
Page 3
Part of the reason for this is chronic underinvestment in these systems. School systems and
health and human service programs lack the funds they need to fully do their jobs. Before that
situation improves. however, it is likely that we must address another problem that is what
governance is all about: the fundamental mismatch between what are known to be the
ingredients of successful community strategies for children and families. and the way that our
health. education, and social service systems currently operate.
Community Needs
In the ideal world. a community seeking to improve the lives of its families and children would
be able to move forward on a unified agenda designed around a clear set or results. The
community's agenda for families and children would be broadly understood and embraced. and
a wide variety or resources would be mobilized to do "whatever it takes" to accomplish these
results. Strategies would be tailored for different neighborhoods. and ultimately. for individual
families. Actions would be based on an understanding of problems that was grounded in facts
as well as residents' perceptions. and community members could track progress toward the
results they seek.
Communities would view their actions on behalf of children and families as part of a broader
commitment to create and maintain safe and economically viable places to live. Social supports
for children and families would be linked with actions to ensure safe streets. adequate housing,
and secure and accessible jobs. Underlying all of these activities would be a strong commitment
to "leave no child behind", and to assure equitable and culturally sensitive responses to all
children and families.
In reality, communities trying to improve results for families and children in this way confront
existing public systems whose very structures often block this approach. rather than support it.
The fundamental problem is the fragmented and categorical nature of most forms of assistance
and support for families and children. Federal. state. and local programs are the result of
specific mandates to address particular problems (whether directed toward health. child welfare.
Page
education. mental health, criminal justice. substance abuse. employment and training, or other
needs).
Programs have proliferated with little relationship to one another. and with no design for
creating a coherent system of supports at the local level. Any family seeking help is fared with
a complicated web of eligibility and service restrictions. Any community -- whether a
neighborhood, town, or city -- trying to organize an effective network or supports for families
and children has no focal point for doing SO. Nowhere is there responsibility for coordinating
or managing the human service and education system as 3 whole. No entity is envisioned in
current federal, state. or local policy as the place where diverse programs fit within a unified
community strategy that could accomplish clearly defined results.
Equally difficult for local communities is the fact that current service mandates mostly aim to
redress problems. rather than promote healthy development. With the exception of general
education mandates. there is no base or federal. state. and local policy that charges state agencies
or local communities to promote the healthy development of children or the stability and strength
of families. Instead. help is triggered after problems become severe. Recent emphasis on
"preventive" strategies in social service. mental health. and health care systems is token, at best.
Barely a tiny fraction of total investment is being devoted to earlier interventions. vet significant
(and in many instances. growing) expenditures are made once families are close to collapse.
Any community seeking to mobilize resources in the manner described above. and aiming to put
together a range of family supports so that all families have access to resources that help them
to raise their children well, will find few dollars available for this purpose.
A third problem confounding communities' efforts is the intergovernmental complexiry of current
financing and governance structures. The key policy and budget decisions for education, health,
and social service systems are made at different governmental levels and by different governing
structures. Governance for education is primarily local (by elected or appointed school boards).
Education policy as well as management decisions are being moved into schools themselves.
Governance for social services is much more centralized. Decision-making for child welfare and
juvenile justice services. for example. are more likely to be made at the state level (except in
states which retain strong county administration of these systems). Mental health systems reflect
Page 5
still a third division of state/local responsibilities: freestanding local boards govern much of their
operations.
This hodge podge of governance structures means that basic decision-making is cumbersome, and
better suited for "maintenance" rather than change. The systems are rule-bound, using much
of their energies to assure compliance with standardized procedures. With decision-making
spread diffusely "across" categorical agencies and "up and down" levels of government. there
is a constant need for checking and rechecking decisions. Implementing new courses or action
requires approval from several governmental layers. and from multiple categorical systems. By
the time significant efforts are mobilized. the compelling problem may have changed or
worsened.
Because decision-making that could be directed at genuinely improving the situation of children
and families is so difficult. current human service agencies us well as schools tend 10 focus more
on managing resources rather than on achieving resuits. No single system can control or
influence the "cross system" dollars and staff that are required to improve the most important
outcomes for families and children. Thus. each system -- whether schools. social services. or
health -- can claim (with some justification) that it cannot be held accountable for achieving
better results.
As an example. many school personnel today argue that they cannot succeed because so many
children have problems at home that prevent their learning. Schools do not control the
community resources that could address these problems. Simultaneously. human service
agencies have little ability or opportunity to orchestrate their resources in combinations with one
another or with the schools. Thus. each system continues to be criticized for failures. while all
lack authority to achieve many of the necessary changes.
For all of the reasons cited above. we are perpetuating what exists rather than replacing
ineffective activities with better strategies. Because there is no one vantage point from which
the impact of multiple systems can be assessed, there is little opportunity to respond to local
need by increasing investments in one area while reducing them in another. All of the systems
tend to perpetuate the status quo. Change occurs by adding new programs or new funds to
Page
existing programs, but rarely by fundamentally restructuring the way all services are organized
or financed. so that the results are more of the same.
The development of new forms of governance aims at addressing these structural problems and
at improving the way that decisions are made. resources are deployed, and strategies are
implemented at the local level. By establishing or designating entities at the local level that will
assume a new. broad-based responsibility for improving results for families and children. local
communities (and. increasingly. states) are creating:
focal points for developing coherent community strategies. not just new programs:
forums through which diverse and scattered resources (money and staff) can be
pulled together and deployed in a more effective way:
mechanisms for beginning to shift energies and investment from piecemeal
remedial services to more proactive approaches: and
entities which can begin establishing accountability for overall improvements in
the well-being or a community's families and children.
Although new forms of governance make sense solely as a matter of structural coherence,
ultimately they address more profound goals. They represent a new and intense community
commitment on behalf of families and children. They must be fueled by a passion to make
things better for all or a community's children. or they are likely to run out of steam.
Overcoming the barriers inherent in current education and human service structures is a daunting
task. Implementing major changes will require years of painstaking and difficult work.
Communities willing to pursue this task must be motivated by their dedication to make things
better for families and children.
Ultimately. the "governance job" is about more than better decision-making or systems change.
It is about delivering on the hopes that all parents and all communities have for their children:
that children will grow up in families that help them become healthy happy. productive adults.
Page 7
II.
THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE
When talking about local governance, it is helpful to reach a common understanding of what is
meant by the term. In the context of this paper. local governance is the decision-making
process by which a community improves the operations of its human service and education
programs in order to advance broadly supported strategies that achieve desired results for
families and children.
To accomplish this goal. communities are establishing or designating entities that are willing to
begin assuming responsibilities for the well-being of children and families. These entities may
be known as community collaboratives. community partnerships. local planning entities. and so
forth This paper refers generically to local governance entities. and means by that term
groups made up of public and privare sector constituencies and community residents that take
on the governance role described above.
Experience suggests that there are several characteristics that are crucial to these entities' ability
to exercise a role that can be described as "governance." These entities must:
Take sustained responsibility for designing and implementing strategies io achieve
cleariv defined results for families and children;
Operate according to a set of principles concerning service delivery and a
communiry's commitment io its families and children;
Have legitimacy and credibility to adequately represent local residents,
communities. and state and local government:
Influence the allocation of resources across systems as necessary 10 accomplish
the desired results; and
I
The term governance is rurely used in local efforts because it connotes hierarchy and a strong
governmental influence.
Page 8
Maintain standards of accountability for individual systems, as well as for the
community as a whole. concerning the agreed upon ourcomes for children and
families.
Each of these represents a change from current patterns of decision-making on behalf of children
and families, and warrants further explanation.
Achieve Broadly Defined Outcomes
First. local governing entities take sustained responsibility for designing and implementing
strategies to achieve broadly defined outcomes for families and children. Several issues are
key here.
Local governance entities are oriented to producing outcomes. rather than to just promoting a
certain type of service or vaguely "making things better" for children. Some of the early local
governance efforts focused on a limited range or outcomes for a defined target population or
children. Savannah's Youth Futures Authority aimed to improve high school graduation rates
and reduce teen pregnancy. among other goais. More recently established entities often focus
on a broader set or outcomes. Rochester, NY's CHANGE strategy targets the list of desired
outcomes shown in Figure I.
Defining a broad scope of outcomes does not preclude setting priorities. Communities usually
find that they cannot work equally intensely on all outcomes at once: By establishing far
reaching goals at the start. the governance entity clarifies two points: (1) its intent to eventually
improve a broad range or conditions for the community's families and children, and (2) the fact
that narrow categorical approaches rarely succeed, since progress in one set or outcomes (e.g.,
early childhood outcomes) is linked to others (e.g., youth outcomes).
Whether a governance entity's desired outcomes are more narrowly or broadly conceived, they
must represent an agenda that engages and motivates their community. A primary difference
between local groups that view their roie as governance (rather than just planning). is that they
frame their agendas in terms that community residents and citizens can understand and support.
Page 9
FIGURE I
Outcomes Adopted
by Rochester NY CHANGE Process
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES & INDICATORS
HEALTHY BIRTHS evidenced by lower rates of:
low birth weight babies
late cr no prenatal care
births to schocl-age females
CHILDREN READY FOR SCHOOL evidenced by:
completed immunizations
no uncorrected vision or hearing defects
no preventable CT untreated health problems
living in own family or stacle faster care
school readiness traits as obsarved by teacher
CHILDREN SUCCEEDING IN SCHOOL avidanced by:
academic achievement measures
attendance / truancy
placement in special education
retention in grade
suspensions
YOUNG PEOPLE AVOIDING:
school age pregnancy
substance abuse
involvement in violence (victim or perpetrator, and
including child abuse, suicide, homicide and
arrests for violent crimes)
FAMILIES LIVING ABOVE POVERTY:
economic stability
safe and supportive ilving environment
mobility
Page 10
This is a further reason for the focus on outcomes and results. rather than more abstract notions
of "improved services" or "systems change." Increasingly, governance entities strive to define
their goals in simple, declarative. understandable terms. so that they can marshall maximum
degrees of community support.
Operate According to Principles
The second distinguishing feature of local governance entities is that their actions are driven by
a set of principles concerning service delivery and the community's commitment to is
families and children. The specific principles vary. but generally they emphasize that a
community's response to children's and families' needs should be respectful or families
autonomy and diversity. should be comprehensive and individualized. should be directed toward
increasing independence, and so forth. Although these values are by now commonplace in the
national rhetoric of reform. their continued emphasis by local governance entities indicates that
they cannot be taken for granted.
Regardless of which specific principles are adopted by a governance entity. the key point is that
how services. supports. and educational opportunities are made available is often as important
to local governing entities as what is provided.
Have Legitimacy and Credibility
A third characteristic is that local governance entities must have legitimacy and credibility to
adequately represent residents, communities. and state and local government. Two concepts
are important here.
"Legitimacy" connotes that local governance entities have been formaily recognized by key
constituencies as playing a role on their behalf. These constituencies can include state agencies.
local government. and other governing units (such as a school board), as well as private sector
interests. parents. business. and other sectors of the community. To achieve legitimacy, some
local governing entities negotiate written agreements with key constituencies. spelling out roles
and responsibilities i as with the Local Investment Commission (LINC) in Kansas City, MO.
Page 11
in its relationship to the school board). In other instances. legitimacy is formally conveyed by
means of statute or executive order (e.g., Prince George's County, MD. Commission on
Families). In some examples. an entity's legitimacy is negotiated with several of the key
constituencies at once, so that mutual expectations are clear. (Albuquerque's Human Needs
Strategic Planning Council is engaged in this process now.) In all cases. the intent is to formally
recognize the local governing entity's role in the planning and implementation of human services
or education.
"Credibility" addresses the less formal trust and recognition that a local governing entity must
have in a community. Credibility has to be earned. rather than assigned. All of the local
entities that have been playing some form of governance role emphasize the importance or
"earning their stripes" and gaining 2 community's confidence. Without it. much or the formal
authority and recognition referred to above means little. Once they gain credibility. local entities
often make significant accomplishments even without formally delegated powers.
Whether the focus is legitimacy or credibility. local entities involved in governance have to
achieve both with each of their major constituencies. Building legitimacy and credibility requires
different steps depending on whether the constituency is local or state government. parents. the
local business community. or another important stakeholder. Given the complicated nature of
this task, legitimacy and credibility are achieved over an extended period of time. not suddenly
bestowed.
Key to both legitimacy and credibility is a governance entity's leadership. The right leadership
"around the table" established credibility early-on. Ongoing demonstrations of leadership by a
governance group earns community trust, and usually translates directly into greater influence
in all aspects of the community's educational and human service systems.
Influence Over Dollars
Closely related to the concept of legitimacy is the notion that local entities involved in
governance must influence the allocation of resources across systems as necessary to
accomplish the desired results. Over the long haul. unless local governing entities can affect
Page 12
how dollars are spent and how staff are deployed. they are unlikely to make much of a
difference in the provision of human services and education. More importantly, they will have
little effect in improving outcomes for families and children.
Influence over dollars and staff of the major systems in a community (i.e., schools. human
service agencies. the private sector) can come in different forms. Some jurisdictions are
considering giving local governing entities direct control over funds that are now controlled by
public sector agencies. In these models. dollars would flow through local governing entities in
order to assure that all relevant agencies direct their actions to 1 common community agenda.
The aim is to give local communities direct decision-making authority over how funds are spent.
In other instances. local entities involved in governance do not have direct financial control. but
instead influence allocation or resources through the priorities they set and the plans they
develop. The idea behind this approach is that. once all the parties involved in a local entity
agree to a course of action, each of the parties will deploy all possible resources in 1 way which
supports this direction. In some communities. their work on assessing needs. developing plans
and setting priorities is seen as a necessary first step toward actual control or resources.
Whichever approach is taken. a common principle underlies this aspect or local governance:
without gaining influence over funding. a local entity cannot achieve its aims in the long run.
Ability to focus dollars and staff in support of a community's agenda is one thing that
distinguishes local governance from many other interagency efforts whose impact is uncertain.
Move Toward Greater Accountability
The final critical aspect of local governance is that these entities are envisioned as maintaining
standards of accountability for individual systems and their agencies and constituencies, as
well as for the community as a whole. In keeping with governance entities' focus on results,
they must be able to measure baselines, document progress. and ensure that all the parties who
commit themselves to take action on an agenda actually do so. Two levels of accountability are
sought: (1) holding individual systems participating with the governance entity accountable for
Page 13
specific outcomes, and (2) holding the governance entity itself accountable for how it operates,
uses its dollars, and accomplishes its desired outcomes.
A local governance entity's emphasis on accountability can have significant effect in a local
service system, even before the entity gains significant authority in other areas. Simply
documenting and making publicly available the data about how children and families are faring,
and about how well current systems are able to assist them. is an important spur to action. For
example. Savannah's Youth Futures Authority has had considerable impact on the educational
system simply by systematically gathering. analyzing. and publicizing data about educational
performance for the first time in that community.
In the long run. the aim is that governance entities will develop data systems and performance
measurement systems that allow on-going learning about "what works." so that a community's
responses to children's and families' needs can be continually adjusted and improved. The "seif-
evaluation" system used by Prince George's County's Commission for Families to assess its
family preservation services is 1 prototype of this approach. This goal must be achieved
incrementally and over time. since it depends on data systems that can assess progress across
multiple systems.
As all of these characteristics operate together. local governance entities speak for, and to, a
broadly-based constituency to: (1) determine what results are most important to the community:
(2) determine the patterns of education and human service delivery. and other community
supports that can contribute toward those results: (3) decide how state and local funds along with
other resources will be used in the community to serve children and families: (+) track progress
against the desired results: and (5) remain accountable to the community for those results.
While communities on their own can make progress in establishing new forms of local
governance, it is clear from this definition that real "local governance" requires the participating,
cooperation, and support of a number or current governmental entities. A number of state
governments are considering how they can promote and contribute to these changes. In the next
section of this paper. we examine how concepts of local governance. as described above. are
Page 14
being considered as part or broader state-local partnerships to improve results for families and
children.
III.
AN EMERGING FRAMEWORK OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNANCE
A basic framework for envisioning new forms of community governance and their relationship
to state agencies and other key stakeholders is shown in Figure II. It involves new entities at
both the state and local level. More importantly. it invoives new relationships among a variety
of partners: between state government and local communities: between and among state
government. local government. and other governance entities such as school boards: and perhaps
most importantly. between agents or government and residents or neighborhoods and
communities.
This section provides an overview of this framework. sketching its basic components and the
new roles and relationship that are envisioned among them.
A State-Local Framework
The core element is a new entity at the local level with responsibility for mobilizing community
resources on behalf of specific outcomes for families and children. The key characteristics of
this entity have been described in the previous section.
The makeup of this entity can vary widely. but in most instances it combines parents and citizens
with representatives of schools. health and human service agencies. local government. and
business and civic leadership. Its priorities will also vary. depending on the needs of the local
community.
As Figure II indicates, in many jurisdictions this local entity may actually be a network of more
localized entities that ensure that planning and service delivery are individualized to smaller
geographic areas (neighborhoods or other sub-city or sub-county areas). Unless 1 local
Page 15
governance entity can extend itself in this way, it is unlikely to generate strategies and activities
which are individualized enough to meet people's needs.
In order for these local entities to thrive, state agencies need to establish a policy, fiscal. legal,
and operating environment that supports these new entities. This involves creating opportunities
for these entities to develop: supporting their evolution: giving them access to resources as they
assume progressively greater responsibilities: and establishing 3 reasonable system of
accountability. This is no simple task. It requires change in the ways in which state agencies
structure their decision-making. as well as in what roles they play in relation to local
communities.
Structurally. states are forming new interagency mechanisms to coordinate budget and policy
decisions. Interagency cabinets are established for this purpose ( as in Maryland). Other states
use less formal Interagency Committees (New Mexico). A third approach is the creation of a
public/private intermediary that expands ownership or change beyond the public sector (as in
Missouri's Family Investment Trust). Whichever approach is used. the aim is 1 decision point
where policy and budget decisions that affect local children and family and human service.
education systems (and. increasingly. employment and training services as well) can be made
by state agencies in a unified fashion.
Beyond new structures. states are trying to create policy climates that support local governance
entities by establishing new relationships between agencies and local communities. This involves
shifting roles and responsibilities so that state agencies are responsible for:
agreeing on broad policy directions:
establishing standards for service delivery;
providing resources in an equitable fashion to localities:
creating incentives for good performance (and eventually sanctions for poor
performance); and
establishing accountability and measurement systems for local efforts.
Page 16
Figure II
CSSP
Oct 1994
Governance for a
Comprehensive Community Services System
Executive Branch
Legislative Branch
Governor's Office
STATE
Judicial Branch
Department of Human Services
LEVEL
Department of Health
Private Sector Partners
State Government
Department of Education
Office of the Budget
State-wide Technical Assistance
Two-way Communication
and Training to Communities
Planning. Oversight. and Coordination
Outcomes and Standards
Allocation & Accountability
Parents
Schools
LOCAL
Children and Family
Employment
LEVEL
Services Collaboratives
Courts and
and Economic
Judicial
Development
Representation
Civic and Business
Health. Social Services. and
Leaders
Mental Health Agencies
Income Support
Local Government
and Housing
COMMUNITY -
NEIGHBORHOOD
Cluster Council
Cluster Council
Cluster Council
LEVEL
Collaboratives' Evolving Responsibilities
Sharing
Developing Strategies
Allocating Discretionary Funds
Disseminating Outcome Measures
Developing Creative Financing
Services
Page 17
Other functions that state agencies have often performed are being shared with local
jurisdictions. Thus. (at least in theory) the following functions are being more consistently
delegated to local levels:
detailed decisions about service delivery;
choices among competing priority services:
some allocation decisions for major funding sources: and
other decisions which must closely mirror local conditions.
A summary or the types or changes envisioned for state agencies is shown in Figure III which
is part of Missouri's Family Investment Trust's communication to local communities about what
state agencies will do differently.
Impiementation Issues
States' experiences with new forms of local governance are relatively limited. Maryland. Iowa.
and a few other states have been impiementing versions of the approach outlined in Figure II for
several years. but many more states (Missouri. Washington. Oregon. Vermont, Kansas. and
others) are just beginning to develop their approaches.
The limited experience to date. however. suggests several critical implementation issues.
Needed techniques and technologies. Developing new governance structures in uncharted
territory and requires new techniques for both management and accountability. One of the most
important of these is the need to learn how to develop, manage by: and be accountable for
outcomes or results. A focus on outcomes strikes a responsible political chord. and thus can
help build public and political support for communities strategies. However. there is a real
danger of over-promising unless state systems develop techniques for identifying interim
benchmarks that help gauge progress toward long term goals. State agencies will need (and are
in the process of developing) processes for (1) reaching consensus on desired outcomes. (2)
linking community strategies to outcomes. (3) developing fiscal strategies tied to outcomes. and
(+) establishing new accountability systems.
Page 18
FIGURE III
IMPLICATIONS OF
GOVERNANCE CHANGES
FOR
STATE AGENCIES' ROLES
FROM
TO
Responsibility for detailed local
Defining desired results with
program design
communities
Emphasis on detailed procedural
Greater reliance on results and
requirements
outcomes
Prescriptive. line item budgeting
Flexible funding arrangements. tied
to performance expectations
Direct service provision
Community decisions about direct
services
Single agency focus in policy-
Multi-system planning and
making and budgeting
budgeting
Unilateral decision by state-level
Decision-making with community
agencies
partnership
While these techniques are being developed. states must be cautious in their claims for this
direction, to avoid "setting themselves up" -- to say nothing of local communities -- for
unreasonable judgements about success and failure.
New capacities at all levels of the system. The most frequent need expressed by local groups
assuming governance roles is the need for training and skill building so that they feel more
comfortable with their responsibilities. The tasks associated with local governance -- use of data
to understand local needs. development of comprehensive strategies to achieve results. juggling
Page 19
of political agendas -- cannot be done offhandedly. They require preparation and capacity-
building over time.
The same need exists at the state level. however, for the managers and administrators who will
shortly find themselves responsible for providing technical assistance rather than program
directives. for measuring results rather than procedural compliance. and for attempting to set
parameters that promote local initiative rather than circumscribe it.
Building the necessary capacities will require states to invest in training. team-building. and
learning opportunities bevond current levels. One of the recognized costs or change must be
helping the people who administer these systems to retool skills. Without this investment. other
essential elements of the changes envisioned by states cannot occur.
Bolder program reform. Attention to governance issues should not obscure the need for
continued and even accelerated attention to programmatic changes and improvements. Getting
the structural relationships "right" across categorical systems and between levels of government
has little impact unless the various programmatic streams -- whether aimed at educating children.
preserving families. addressing employment and training needs. or other goals -- embody
effective strategies for this purpose. In-school reform must proceed simultaneously with schools'
development of new ties with community agencies. Child welfare agencies must reinvent
outmoded services ( such as most foster care systems) while helping to create more unified and
preventive community support systems.
These "two tracks" of change must be valued and promoted by state governments as they test
new forms of governance. Assembiing the elements of a strong community system to achieve
results for children and families cannot work unless each of the elements is effective in its own
right.
Fiscal strategies that mirror desired changes. Financing strategies can and should help drive
many of the changes discussed above. If. as states and communities undertake these changes.
dollars are not flowing in different ways. it is a sure sign that nothing is really different.
Page 20
States and localities are developing financing strategies that in many ways parallel and reinforce
the types of changes that are being made in governance systems. The goal is for funds to be
available more flexibly. linked more closely to outcomes, and attached to a different type of
accountability measures. Examples of these approaches include the decategorization efforts that
some states are implementing (Iowa, Maryland, and others). performance-based funding with
local jurisdictions (Michigan, in its child welfare programs), and a few state's efforts at
outcomes-based budgeting.
Eventually. changes in governance should generate more than small-scale changes in the way
dollars are allocated throughout the system. However. it is likely that these financing and
budgeting changes will have to be implemented gradually. as the systems to support them are
developed.
Rewards, incentives, and sanctions. This aspect or governance has received little focus among
states and localities considering new governance approaches. Some attention is given to creating
incentives for local performance -- for example. through fiscal incentives (such as the
opportunity that Marvland provides for counties to retain funds "saved" as jurisdictions reduce
their out-of-home care expenditures and expand home-based services) or some other type or
recognition. Sanctions have received less attention. (The education system has grappled more
extensively with these issues than has human services. For example. as state education agencies
give autonomy to local schools. there is usually an understanding that persistent poor
performance may lead to actions as drastic as state takeover.)
The lack of emphasis on rewards and penalties is probably appropriate at this early stage or
governance changes. What states and communities are trying to achieve must be determined
before its consequences are fully sorted out. However. over the longer run. this dimension of
governance must be more central. Most of the anticipated shifts require new accountability
mechanisms. and accountability means little if it is not accompanied by consequences.
Protections and support for unpopular causes. In the movement toward greater local
involvement and control in education and human services. states and localities must attend to
issues such as equity in resource distribution. the rights of minority populations. and the need
Page 21
for special consideration for low-incidence/high-need groups. The prevalence of the "not in my
backyard" syndromes is just one indication of the difficulties that greater local authority over
dollars and decisions can create.
Assuring that important safeguards for people's rights are not lost emphasizes the need to
distinguish carefully among the types of decisions that will be redistributed among state and local
levels. The movement toward greater local involvement in human service and education
governance is not served well by broadbrush rhetoric about "shifting authority to the local
level." A more careful sifting-through of precisely what types or responsibility. authority. and
resource control will be altered. and how this will be done. is required.
Given these implementation issues. an important implementation principle underlying states and
localities' development of local governance mechanisms is that these changes are evolutionary
in nature. Structural changes should proceed as techniques and technologies are developed.
Changes in financial control should occur as capacities are built. New responsibilities should
be added when previous responsibilities are mastered. And accountability for outcomes should
be phased in as resources and skills to accomplish these outcomes as they are developed.
The sequence of this evolution will vary by state, but its pace need not be glacial. Some states
will want to jump start their process by first changing statewide statutory mandates. and then
hoping that capacities and technologies can develop. Others are letting new collaborative entities
evolve from the ground up, letting communities take the lead in assembling the necessary
capacity before sweeping statewide changes are made. Still others are combining both strategies.
The principle underlying all of these approaches is that the desired changes are by definition
long-term in nature. and will require leadership as well as public commitment that is willing to
stay the course of their evolution.
IV.
IMPLEMENTING NEW FORMS OF GOVERNANCE (To be completed after the six
state meeting)
Page 22
V.
CONCLUSION
Changes that communities and states are making in the governance of education and human
services have many dimensions. At one level, they involve the most basic elements of public
policy and government. They address issues such as "who should decide what?", "whose
priorities should be given precedence?" and "at what level of government can decisions best be
made?" For state agency leaders and legislators, this is often the dimension that receives most
focus.
For people in local communities (towns. neighborhoods. and cities), the stakes are even higher.
The opportunities presented by "opening up" the governance process park more fundamental
questions such as "what do we want for our families and children?". and "what are the essential
ingredients or a community that cares about childr on?". Discussions about governance become
one strand of a boarder conversation about envisioning a better, safer, healthier. more supportive
environment for children and families.
At times, these two perspectives on governance can seem at odds. Several of the earliest
attempts at governance resulted in meeting after meeting, where state agency representatives
focused on how state agency responsibilities could be "delegated" to communities, while local
people wanted to address only how the community could generate new preventive initiatives.
Ultimately, however, shifts in governance are about both of these issues. They involve
redistribution of state/local. county/state, and cross-sector authorities. Perhaps more
importantly, however, they represent an attempt to create in local jurisdictions the capacities,
resources, and tools for local residents to achieve more for their families and children.
Redirection of state resources and authority are just one tool -- a powerful one -- to do so. The
ultimate aim is one that local community representatives and state administrators and
policymakers can agree on: helping communities to help families to raise healthy, happy, safe,
and well-educated children.
THE POLICYMAKERS' PROGRAM
WINTER MEETING
THE SHERATON SAND KEY HOTEL
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
JANUARY 19-22, 1995
CONFERENCE BRIEFING BOOK
Crunsom
the canforth
foundation
IN COLLABORATION WITH
The Education Commission of the States
The National Conference of State Legislatures
The National Governors' Association
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tab 1
Conference Agenda
Tab 2
Participant Rosters:
a.
State Team Rosters
b
Speakers
C.
Invited Guests
d.
Policymakers' Program Staff
Tab 3
Speaker Biographical Information
Tab 4
Description of the 1995 Policymakers' Program, Advisory Board, and Staff
Rosters
Tab 5
Application to Apply to the Policymakers' Summer Institute, August 12-17, 1995
Tab 6
Policymakers' Program Yearly Calendar
Tab 7
Articles/Reports/Papers by Speakers
A.
Sharon Lynn Kagan:
Kagan, Sharon Lynn. "Readying Schools for Young Children: Polemics and
Priorities." Phi Delta Kappan, November, 1994.
Kagan, Sharon Lynn. "Families and Children: Who is Responsible? Childhood
Education. 1994.
Kagan, Sharon L. and Neville, Peter R. "Family Support and School-Linked
Services. Family Resource Coalition Report. 1993-94
B.
Mark Friedman
Friedman, Mark. "Financing Reform: As In How to Pay for Reform. The Center
for the Study of Social Policy, 1994
Friedman, Mark. "Financing Reform: As In How to Reform Financing of Family
and Children's Services. The Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1994.
i
Friedman, Mark. "Financing Reform of Family and Children's Services: An
Approach to the Systematic Consideration of Financing Options (Or "The
Cosmology of Financing"). The Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1994.
C.
Mark Pitsch
Pitsch, Mark. "Congress Likely To Ponder Federal Role in Education:"
Education Week. November 16, 1994.
Pitsch, Mark and Harp, Lonnie. "Elections Are Likely To Spur Shift in Power."
Education Week. December 14, 1994.
D.
The Rainmakers
Parents as 'Rainmakers': Healthy Learners' Project. Family Resource Coalition
Report. 1993-94
E.
Harold A. Richman
"Changing Governance To Achieve Better Results for Children and Families."
Center for the Study of Social Policy. October, 1994
Chaskin, Robert and Garg, Sunil. "The Issue of Governance in Neighborhood
Based Initiatives." Chapin Hall Center for Children. 1994.
Chaskin, Robert and Richman, Harold. "Concerns About School-Linked Services:
Institution-based Versus Community-based models." The Future of Children.
Spring, 1992.
F.
Deborah Wadsworth
"First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools--Executive
Summary." The Public Agenda Foundation, New York, N.Y.
"The Broken Contract: Connecticut Citizens Look At Public Education--Executive
Summary." The Public Agenda Foundation, New York, N.Y.
Wadsworth, Deborah. "Bridging the Divide: What the Public Is Telling Educators
Could Help Resuscitate School Reform." Education Week. November 30, 1994.
ii
Tab
8
Additional Readings/Resources
"A Strike for Independence: How a Missouri School District Generated Two
Million Dollars to Improve the Lives of Children." The Center for the Study of
Social Policy, Washington, D.C.
"Ten Ground Rules for Reinventing State Education and Human Services."
Highlights of the Meeting of Legislative Chairs and Governors' Aides of the
Policymakers' Program January, 1994.
Carter, Judy Langford. "Moving From Principles To Practice: Implementing a
Family-Focused Approach in Schools and Community Services. The Family
Resource Coalition Report. 1993-94.
Farrow, Frank, Watson, Sara, and Schorr, Lisbeth. "Improving Outcomes for
Children and Families. Family Resource Coalition Report. 1993-94
Gardner, Sidney L. "Key Issues in Developing School-Linked, Integrated
Services." The Future of Children. Spring, 1992.
Levy, Janet E. And Shepardson; William. "A Look at Current School-Linked
Service Efforts. The Future of Children. Spring, 1992.
Morrill, William A. "Overview of Service Delivery to Children:" The Future of
Children. Spring, 1992.
Trujillo, Lucy "Learning from Denver Family Resource Schools: The Model and
the Process." Family Resource Coalition Report. 1993-94.
iii
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
1
Divider Title:
CONFERENCE AGENDA
IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN:
DESIGNING STRATEGIES FOR SYSTEM CHANGE
January 19-22, 1995
Sheraton Hotel, Sand Key Island
Clearwater Beach, Florida
SPONSORED BY:
The National Conference of State Legislatures
The National Governors' Association
The Education Commission of the States
The Danforth Foundation
AGENDA
The overall goal of the Policymakers Program is to help policymakers design state policy that will ensure that
all children and youth succeed as healthy, productive citizens and learners -- in school and beyond.
The goals of this seminar are:
To stimulate dialogue between education and human service policymakers and governors about changing
systems that serve children.
To move our discussion from exploring the need for collaboration, to a discussion about using collaboration for
systems change.
To explore new developments in the research and practice of comprehensive services to support all children.
To bring together governors/governors' staff and state legislators chairing education and human service
committees to discuss their roles in implementing a statewide strategy for improved results for all children..
To provide opportunities for states to share experiences, difficulties, and accomplishments in implementing
system reform.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19
3:00 PM - 6:00 PM
REGISTRATION
Lobby - 1
3:00 PM - 6:00 PM
HOSPITALITY
Starfish Room - 7
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
ORIENTATION SESSION
Palm Room
This session is an overview of the Policymakers' Program for participants who
are new to the Program and/or new to this meeting.
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
RECEPTION
Island 1
7:00 PM
DINNER
Island - 1
KEYNOTE ADDRESS: IMPROVING RESULTS FOR CHILDREN
The speaker will overview the "state of the art" of efforts to improve public
policy to better serve all children. What have we accomplished and what is still
to be done? We will detail successes in redesigning education and human
service systems, and discuss current challenges, identify pressing political and
public policy issues.
Speaker:
Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yale University
FRIDAY, JANUARY 20
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST
Gulf Room
9:00 AM - 10:00 AM
INTRODUCTIONS
Palm Room
DISCUSSION OF MEETING AND AGENDA
DISCUSSION OF POLICYMAKERS PROGRAM
During this time we will review the agenda for the days ahead and discuss the
goals and structure of the Policymakers Program. Three individuals who
coordinated state teams participating in previous Policymakers Institute will
share information and experiences.
Speakers:
Senator Jeb Spaulding, Vermont
Sen. Elaine Szymoniak, Iowa
Rep. Ron Cowell, Pennsylvania
10:00 AM - 10:15 AM BREAK
Palm Room
10:15 AM - 11:45 AM
WHAT AMERICANS EXPECT FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Palm Room
Education reform has encountered serious setbacks from an active and
organized public. Recently, the Public Agenda Foundation has examined the
attitudes not just of the vocal minority, but of the public as a whole. During
this session we will examine changing attitudes about education and schools
and explore the implications of these views for public policy.
Speaker:
Deborah Wadsworth, The Public Agenda Foundation
Discussant:
Bob Sexton, Executive Director, Pritchard Committee for
Academic Excellence
NOON - 1:00 PM
LUNCH
Rusty's
1:00 PM - : 2:15 PM
DEVELOPING AND GOVERNING COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS
Palm Room
As state are redesigning education and human services, they will need to
develop new strategies and systems of services and new approaches to
governance. In this session we will examine issues related to developing and
managing new initiatives and involving the community in reform efforts.
Speakers:
Harold Richman, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago
Ralph Smith, Annie E. Casey Foundation
2:30 PM - 4:00 PM
INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS OF EDUCATION CHAIRS, HUMAN
SERVICE CHAIRS, AND GOVERNORS/GOVERNORS STAFF
During these informal roundtable meetings, participants will discuss current
issues in the states: The dominant issues confronting each group will be
reported to the full group during this evening's dinner.
Palm Room - Governors Staff
Gulf Room - Human Service Chairs
Beach Room - Education Chairs
4:00 PM - 6:30 PM
FREE TIME
6:30 PM - 9:00
DINNER AND WORKING SESSION
Island - 1
We will continue our discussion of the impact of public opinion on designing
political strategies for system change. We will analyze the recent elections and
discuss implications of those results for education policy and services to
children and families.
Speakers:
Celinda Lake, Mellman, Lazarus, and Lake
Vince Breglio, R/S/M and Company
SATURDAY, JANUARY 21
7:30 AM - 8:30 AM
BUFFET BREAKFAST
Island 1
8:30 AM - 9:45 AM
CREATING BETTER SYSTEMS: EXPERIENCES FROM THE FIELD
Island 2.
During this session we will highlight an innovative and exciting program
operating in Miami that employs a "bottom-up" philosophy to engage people in
reform. The RAINMAKERS Program focuses on empowering parents to
become involved in school and community affairs.
Moderator: Rep. Wilhelmina Delco, Texas
Speakers:
Tania Alameda, Director, Bureau of Children's Affairs, Miami Beach
Grace Nebb, Principal, Fienberg Fisher Elementary School, Miami Beach
Juanita Sosa, Parent
Rosario Gutierrez, Parent
Discussant: Hedy Chang, California Tomorrow
10:00 AM - 11:15 AM
CREATING BETTER SYSTEMS: DESIGNING AND
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES FOR COLLABORATION
Island - 2
There are many exciting programs such as RAINMAKERS scattered
throughout the country. One of the major challenges for state and local
policymakers is the "scaling up" of such pilot programs to district and/or state-
wide levels. This session will feature a discussion of these issues with local
policymakers currently engaged in implementing broad scale reform.
Moderator:
Hedy Chang, California Tomorrow
Speakers:
Gerry House, Superintendent, Memphis City School District
Roland Chevalier, Superintendent, St. Martin Parish School District
Thelma Jackson, Washington School Boards Association
11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
SMALL GROUP DISCUSSIONS
States will be combined into several small groups to identify implementation
barriers and strategies for scaling up reform.
Group 1: Cordita - 5
Group 2: Coquina - 3
Group 3: Scallop - 2
Group 4: Sun Dial - 4
Group 5: Palm 1
12:30 PM - 1:45 PM
LUNCH
Island 1
OBSERVATIONS FROM WASHINGTON
During lunch we will talk with a Washington DC-based education reporter
about the new federal environment (congressional leadership, committee
structure, etc) and potential impacts on education and childrens policy.
Speaker:
Mark Pitsch, Washington Editor, Education Week
2:00 PM - 3:15 PM
FUNDING COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS AND SYSTEM CHANGE
Island 2
Many states have found the most difficult piece of system reform to be in
designing new funding schemes. During this session we will discuss new ways
of thinking about funding in education and human service reform, including
budget and appropriation strategies, financial planning, and linking funding
and outcomes.
Speaker:
Mark Friedman, Center for the Study of Social Policy
3:30 P.M. - 5:00 PM
STATE TEAMS MEET
Participants will meet with others from their state to begin to identify specific
state strategies for moving reform forward. Speakers and special guests will be
available to work with state teams.
Gulf Room: Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Pennsylvania, Utah
Palm Room: Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Dakota
Island - 2: New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
RECEPTION
Lobby 3
7:00 PM
DINNER
Island 1
SUNDAY, JANUARY 22
8:00 AM - 9:00 AM
BRUNCH
Island 1
9:00 AM - 10:30 AM
STATE REPORTS AND NEXT STEPS
Island 2
During this session we will identify the next steps in the Policymakers Program,
including application to the summer Institute, and the availability of technical
assistance and mini-grants. Teams will also hear from each other about
strategies that have been identified during the past few days for moving state
reform forward.
10:30 AM - 11:00 AM
EVALUATION
Island 2
11:00 AM
ADJOURN
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
2
Divider Title:
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Colorado
John Calhoon
Sally Vogler
Governor's Office
Governors Office
136 State Capitol Building
State of Colorado
Denver Colorado 80203
136 State Capitol
(303) 866-2120
Denver Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3123
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Delaware
Patricia Blevins
Pascal Forgione
Delaware State Senate
Superintendent of Public Instruction
209 Linden Avenue
Delaware Department of Public
Wilmington Delaware 19805
Instruction
(302) 994-4843
Post Office Box 1402, Townsend Bldg #279
Federal and Lockerman Street
Dover Delaware 19903
(302) 739-4601
Lynn Howard
Jane Maroney
Office of the Governor
Delaware State House of Representatives
State of Delaware
4605 Concord Pike
12 Floor, Carvel State Office Building
Wilmington Delaware 19803
820 N. French Street
(302) 478-2672
Wilmington Delaware 19801
(302) 577-3299
Bruce Reynolds
David Sokola
Representative
State Senator
Delaware House of Representatives
State of Delaware
Legislative Hall
Legislative Hall
Dover Delaware 19903
Dover Delaware 19903
(302) 323-2815
(302) 739-4139
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Idaho
John Hansen
Dorothy Reynolds
State Senator
Health Chair
Idaho State Senate
Idaho House of Representatives
2840 Westmoreland Drive
1920 Howard
Idaho Falls Idaho 83402-4603
Caldwell Idaho 83605
(208) 529-9732
(208) 459-2553
Jeffrey Shinn
Office of the Governor
Division of Financial Management
Room 122, Statehouse
Boise Idaho 83720
(208) 334-3138
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Kentucky
Tom Burch
Freed Curd
State Representative
Kentucky State Legislature
State of Kentucky
1607 Sycamore Street
4074 Somoa Way
Murray Kentucky 42071
Louisville Kentucky 40218
(502) 753-5841
(502) 564-8100
Policymakers Educ. H
n Svs. Chairs
Missouri
Pat Dougherty
Jill Friedman
Missouri State Legislature
Governors Office
State Capitol Building
State Capitol, Room 216
Jefferson City Missouri 65101
Jefferson City Missouri 65101
(314) 751-3599
(314) 751-3283
Sheila Lumpe
Annette Morgan
Missouri Legislature
State Representative
Room 311
Missouri House of Representatives
Capitol Building
District 41
Jefferson City Missouri 65101
Capitol Building, Room 235
(314) 751-4265
Jefferson City Missouri 65101
(314) 751-4485
Sue Shear
Beth Wheeler
State Representative
Director of Legislative Affairs
State of Missouri
Office of the Governor
Capitol Building
Post Office Box 720
Room 302
Jefferson City Missouri 65120
Jefferson City Missouri 65101
(314) 751-6575
(314) 751-4163
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
New Hampshire
Robert Foster
Nils Larson
Chairman
Chair, House Education Committee
Health, Human Services & Elderly
Legislative Office Building 202
State House (LOB Annex)
Concord New Hampshire 03301
Concord New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-3334
(603) 271-3580
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
New Jersey
Barbara Anderson
C. Louis Bassano
New Jersey Department of Education
Senate Human Services Committee
240 W. State Street, 15th Floor
324 Chestnut Street
Trenton New Jersey 08625
Union New Jersey 07083
(609) 292-9899
(908) 687-4127
John Ewing
John Rocco
New Jersey State Senate
New Jersey General Assembly
59 Winebrook Road
District 6
Bernardsville New Jersey 07924
532 W. Route 70
(908) 766-7757
Cherry Hill New Jersey 08002
(609) 428-8077
Edward Tetelman
New Jersey Department of Human Services
CN700
Trenton New Jersey 08625-0700
(609) 202-1617
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
New Mexico
Carlos R. Cisneros
J. Paul Taylor
State Senator
New Mexico
New Mexico State Senate
Post Office Box 1129
Questa New Mexico 87556
(505) 586-0873
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Ohio
Grace Drake
Mike Fox
Ohio Senate
Ohio House of Representatives
Senate Building, Room 221
77 S. High Street, 10th Floor
Columbus Ohio 43215
Columbus Ohio 43215
(614) 465-7505
(614) 644-6721
Joan Lawrence
Cooper Snyder
State of Ohio
State Senator
77 S. High - Vern Riffe Center
Ohio State Senate
Columbus Ohio 43266-0603
Senate Office Building
(614) 644-6711
Columbus Ohio 43215-4276
(614) 466-8082
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Oklahoma
Bernest Cain, Jr.
John Cox
State Senator
Director of Cabinet Constituent Affairs
Oklahoma State Senate
Governor's Office
2300 N. Lincoln
212 State Capitol
#413 State Senate
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105-4808
(405) 523-4235
(405) 425-0126
James Hager
Jason Logan
House of Representatives
Cabinet Liaison
Room 305-A
Governor's Office
State Capitol
212 State Capitol
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105-4885
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105
(405) 521-2711
(405) 523-4235
Ed Long
Mark Seikel
State Capitol Senate
Chairman, Human Services Committee
2300 N. Lincoln
Oklahoma House of Representatives
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105
State Capitol - Room 330
(405) 521-5630
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73105
(405) 557-7400
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Oregon
Tom Hartung
Carolyn Oakley
Oregon State Senate
State Representative/Chairman House
% 13975 N.W. Burton Street
Education Committee
Portland Oregon 97229
3197 Crest Loop, NW
(503) 986-1950
Albany Oregon 97321
(503) 928-7745
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Pennsylvania
Michael Breslin
Ronald R. Cowell
Executive Deputy Secretary
State Representative
Public Welfare
Chair, House Education Commission
332 Health & Welfare Building
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
P.O. Box 2675
Post Office Box 117 - Main Capitol
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17110
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 783-4284
(717) 783-1914
Leonard Gruppo
David Richardson
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Chair
P.O. Box 193 - Main Capitol
House Health and Welfare Committee
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17120
House of Representatives
(717) 783-6437
319 South Office Building
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-3181
Allyson Schwartz
Jess Stairs
State Senator
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Pennsylvania State Senate
P.O. Box 193 - Main Capitol
Senate Box 204004
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17120
Harrisburg Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 783-9311
(717) 787-1427
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
South Dakota
Kris Graham
David Munson
Governor's Office
South Dakota Legislature
State Capitol Building
South Dakota State Capitol
Pierre South Dakota 57501
Pierre South Dakota 57501
(605) 773-3661
(605) 773-3251
Richard Negstad
Roger Porch
State Senator
South Dakota State Senate
State of South Dakota
HC1, Box 25
Capitol Mailroom
Wanblee South Dakota 57577
Capitol Building
(605) 462-6489
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre South Dakota 57501-5070
(605) 773-3821
Lola Schreiber
South Dakota State Legislature
HCR 2 - Box 39
Gettysburg South Dakota 57442
(605) 258-2103
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
West Virginia
Mary Compton
Barbara Harmon-Schamberger
Chair
Secretary of Education and the Arts
Health and Human Resources
State of West Virginia
Charleston West Virginia 25305
Charleston West Virginia 25305
Lloyd Jackson
David Miller
Chair
Charleston West Virginia 25305
Senate Education Committee
Charleston West Virginia 25305
Roman Previoso
Chair
House Education Committee
Charleston West Virginia 25305
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Utah
Beverly Evans
Lloyd Frandsen
House of Representatives
Utah House of Representatives
State Capitol - Room 318
State Capitol
Salt Lake City Utah 84114
Salt Lake City Utah 84114
(801) 538-1029
(801) 538-1029
Corrine Hill
Howard Stephenson
Principal
Education Commission Chair
Wasatch Elementary School
Utah State Senate
30 R Street
1038 E. 13590 S
Salt Lake City Utah 84103
Draper Utah 84020
(801) 972-8814
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. list
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs Speakers contact list (partial)
n.d.
P6/b(6)
(2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Gaynor McCown (Printed Materials)
OA/Box Number: 7324
FOLDER TITLE:
[Improving Results for Children - Designing Strategies for System Change] [1]
2011-0255-S
rc242
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
h(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
h(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
h(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Speakers
[001]
Tania Alameda
Bryna Berman
% Tania Alameda
P6/(b)(6)
P6/(b)(6)
Vince Breglio
Hedy Chang
R/S/M and Company
California Tomorrow
9344 Lanham-Severn
Fort Mason Center
Suite 102
Building B
Lanham Maryland 20706
San Francisco California 94123
(301) 306-0844
(415) 441-7631
Roland Chevalier
Alice Collins
Superintendent
% Tania Alameda
St. Martin Parish School District
Post Office 30x 859
P6/(b)(6)
St. Martinvi le Louisiana 70582
(318) 394-6261
Wilhelmina Delco
Mark Friedman
Center for the Study of Scoial Policy
P6/(b)(6)
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 503
Washington DC 20005
(202) 371-1565
Rosaria Gutierrez
Gerry House
City of Miami Beach
Superintendent
Attn: Tania Alameda
Memphis City School District
1700 Convention Center Drive
2597 Avery Avenue
Miami Beach Florida 33139
Memphis Tennessee 38112
(901) 325-5300
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Speakers
Thelma Jackson
Sharon Lynn Kagan
The Bush Center for Child Development
P6/(b)(6)
Social Policy, Yale University
310 Prospect Avenue
New Haven Connecticut 06511
(203) 432-9931
Celinda Lake
Grace Nebb
Mellman, Lazarus, & Lake
Principal
1054 31st Street, NW
Fienberg/Fisher School
Washington DC 20007
1420 Washington
(202) 625-0370
Miami Beach Florida 33139
(305) 531-0419
Mark Pitsch
Harold Richman
Education Week
Chapin Hall Center for Children
Suite 250
University of Chicago
4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW
1155 East 60th Street
Washington DC 20008
Chicago Illinois 60637
(202) 364-4114
(312) 753-5958
Robert Sexton
Ralph R. Smith
Executive Director
The Annie E. Casey Foundation
The Prichard Committee for Academic
701 St. Paul Street
Excellence
Baltimore Maryland 21202
Post Office Box 1658
(410) 547-6600
Lexington Kentucky 40592
Juanita Sosa
Elaine Szymoniak
City of Miami Beach
Chair, Human Resources Committee
Attn: Tania Alameda
2116 44th Street
1700 Convention Center Drive
Des Moines Iowa 50310
Miami Beach Florida 33139
(515) 279-3115
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Speakers
Deborah Wadsworth
Executive Director
Public Agenda Foundation
6 East 39th Street
New York New York 10016
(212) 686-6610
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Guest
J. Lawrence Aber
Cynthia Brown
Director
Director, Resource Center on Educational
National Center for Children in Poverty
Equity
154 Haven Avenue
Council of Chief State School Officers
New York New York 10032
One Massachusetts Avenue, Northwest
(212) 927-8793
Suite 700
Washington DC 20001-1431
(202) 336-7007
Michael Casserly
Ellen Galinsky
Executive Director
Co-President
Council of Great City Schools
Families and Work Institute
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
330 Seventh Avenue
Suite 702
New York New York 10001
Washington DC 20004
(212) 465-2044
(202) 393-2427
Stacie Goffin
Michael Levine
Senior Specialist
Program Officer
Early Childhood Care and Education
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
437 Madison Avenue
4900 Oak
New York New York 10022
Kansas City Missouri 64112-2776
(212) 371-3200
(816) 932-1129
Gaynor McGowan
Barbara Reisman
Domestic Policy Council
Executive Director
Old Executive Office Building, Room 217
Child Care Action Campaign
The White House
330 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
Washington DC 20500
New York New York 10001-5010
(202) 456-5575
(212) 239-0138
Gail Richardson
Shelly Smith
Child Care Action Campaign
National Conference of State
330 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
Legislatures
New York New York 10001-5010
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
(212) 239-0138
Denver Colorado 80262
(303) 830-2200
Policy kers Educ. H n Svs. Chairs
Progr Staff
Beverly L. Anderson-Parsons
Louise Bauer
InSites
National Conference of State Legislators
419 Canyon Avenue, Suite 300
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Fort Collins Colorado 80521
Denver Colorado 80202
(303) 484-7116
(303) 830-2200
Julie Bell
Patricia Brown
Education Program Director
Senior Policy Analyst
National Conference of State
National Governors Association
Legislatures
Hall of the States Building
1560 Broadway #700
444 N. Capitol Street, #267
Denver Colorado 80202
Washington DC 20001
(303) 830-2200
(202) 624-7705
Sharon Brumbaugh
Paul Goren
Board Development Specialist
Program Director, Education
Pennsylvania School Board Association
Center for Policy Research
774 Limeklin Road
National Governors Association
New Cumberland Pennsylvania 17070
Hall of the States Building
(717) 774-2331
444 N. Capitol Street - #267
Washington DC 20001
(202) 624-5309
James Harvey
Brenda Hostetler
James Harvey and Associates
Danforth Foundation
1129 20th Street, Northwest
231 S. Bemiston - Suite 1080
Suite 400
St. Louis Missouri 63105
Washington DC 20036
(314) 862-6200
(202) 659-4670
Robert H. Koff
Linda McCart
Program Director
National Governors Association
Danforth Foundation
444 North Capitol Street
231 S. Bemiston - Suite 1080
Washington DC 20001
St. Louis Missouri 63105
(202) 624-5336
(314) 862-6200
Policymakers Educ. Human Svs. Chairs
Program Staff
Alex Medler
Jeb Spaulding
Education Commission of the States
State Senator
707 17th Street
Chair Senate Education Commission
Denver Colorado 80202
State of Vermont
(303) 299-3635
% Post Office Box 222
Montpelier Vermont 05602
(802) 223-1118
Sherry Tomczak
Gerrit Westervelt
Danforth Foundation
Director, State Relations
231 S. Bemiston - Suite 1080
Education Commission of the States
St. Louis Missouri 63105
707 Seventeenth Street
(314) 862-6200
Denver Colorado 80202
(303) 299-3612
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
3
Divider Title:
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
SPEAKER BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Tania Alameda is a doctoral student of Social Welfare Policy in the School of Social Work at
Florida International University (FIU), Miami, Florida. She had the opportunity to be involved in
the Healthy Learners Project as project coordinator for four years. The Healthy Learners Project,
A Danforth Foundation Funded-FIU directed initiative, is a family empowerment school-based
services project housed at Fienberg/Fisher Elementary School, Miami Beach, Florida. Ms.
Alameda is currently the Director of the Bureau of Children's Affairs for the City of Miami
Beach. She has served as consultant and trainer to many local and national organizations about
family empowerment and school and community-based services integration. Ms. Alameda has
also given presentations in a variety of meetings and conferences. Most recently she was a
participant in a White House Meeting entitled "Comprehensive Strategies for Children and
Families: The Role of the Schools and Community-Based Organizations."
Vincent Breglio is a co-founder of Research/Strategy/Management Inc. (R/S/M), a Washington-
based consulting and opinion survey research firm formed in January 1983. Mr. Breglio has more
than twenty-five years of experience in strategic consulting and survey research. He served as
Director of Polling for the 1988 Bush-Quale campaign and Deputy Director of Strategy and
Senior Consultant for the 1980 and 1984 Regan-Bush campaigns. Mr. Breglio has been a
counselor to Presidents, Senators, Governors, news organizations, Fortune 500 corporations,
foundations, associations, and educational institutions.
Hedy Chang is the Co-Director of California Tomorrow, a nonprofit policy research and
advocacy organization working statewide on issues affecting the state's future as a multiethnic
and multiracial society. Ms. Chang directs two projects within the organization. The first is a
two-year project dedicated to investigating the implications of cultural and linguistic diversity for
program design, policy, staff training and recruitment about early care and education. The
second, Collaborative Services for Diverse Communities, helps communities develop
comprehensive integrated programs and policies for ethnically and linguistically diverse children,
youth and families by providing technical assistance to selected communities, developing a
network of technical assistance providers, producing relevant resource materials and seeking
needed statewide and local policy changes. Ms Change has written many articles and reports
including Affirming Children's Roots: Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in Early Care and
Education. Ms. Chang currently is the Secretary, Board of Director's of the National Coalition of
Advocates for Children, a member of the oversite board for the National Center for Service
Integration, a member of the California Healthy Start Advisory Committee and serves on the
Executive Committee of the Greater Bay Area Family Resource Network.
1
Roland Chevalier is the Superintendent of the St. Martin Parish School District in St.
Martinville, Louisiana, a post he has held for four years. Mr. Chevalier has worked in the St.
Martin Parish District for nearly twenty years. Before his appointment as Superintendent, Mr.
Chevalier was Director of Personnel, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Principal, Assistant
Principal and a Chemistry and Physics Teacher.
Wilhelmina Delco served in the Texas house of representatives for twenty years (1974-1994).
Ms. Delco did not stand for reelection November 1994. For her last two terms she served as
Majority Leader Pro Tempore. Ms. Delco served as Chair of the Higher Education Committee
from 1979-1991. She began her career in politics by serving six years as a member of the city of
Austin, Texas Board of Education. Ms. Delco has held offices in almost every major education
organization including the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Education
Commission of the States. She is a member of the Policymakers' Advisory Board. She continues
to serve on corporate boards and as a consultant to a variety of groups and organizations. She
currently chairs the Committee on Integrity and Quality in Education for the U.S. Department of
Education.
Mark Friedman is currently a senior associate at the Center for the Study of Social Policy,
Washington, D.C., working on financial technical assistance to states and local governments, in
support of family and children's services reform. Before joining the Center, Mr. Friedman served
for nearly twenty years in the Maryland Department of Human Resources, including six years as
the Department's chief financial officer. During this time Mr. Friedman played a key role in
financing and implementing family preservation and other children's services, and was responsible
for major revenue initiatives under Titles IV-A, IV-E, Child Support, Medicaid and SSI. Mr.
Friedman has spoken extensively on the subject of financing human services reform, and has
contributed to several recent Center publications on family and children's services.
Rosario Gutierrez is a Rainmaker parent at the Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School, Miami
Beach, Florida.
Gerry House is Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools, the 15th largest school system in
the nation. She has served in this position since July 1, 1992. She came to Memphis from Chapel
Hill, North Carolina where she was Superintendent of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School system for
seven years. Before that, she was a teacher, junior and senior high guidance counselor, principal,
a director, and assistant superintendent. Ms. House has won many awards and recognitions,
including being twice named in the Executive Educator magazine's as one of the nation's top 10
Executive Educators in education.
2
Thelma Jackson is now serving her third term as President of the North Thurston School Board
in Washington state. She is the Past President of the Washington State School Directors
Association, Past President of the Pacific Region Conference of the National School Boards
Association, and is currently Vice Chairperson of the Ashington State African-American Affairs
Commission. She has served as a consultant to Governors Gardner and Lowry on education
issues. She has been a member of The Board of Education since 1977. Ms. Jackson also serves
as Senior vice-president for Management Services for Nat Jackson and Associates, Inc., a
diversified services and telecommunications company she and her husband founded in 1977.
Sharon Lynn Kagan is a Senior Associate at Yale University's Bush Center in Child
Development and Social Policy. She is recognized nationally and internationally for her work
related to the care and education of young children and their families. Ms. Kagan plays a
leadership role in the early childhood field. Formerly Chairperson of the Family Resource
Coalition's Board of Directors and a board member of the National Association for the Education
of Young Children, she is currently Chairperson of the National Education Goals Panel Readiness
Technical Committee and a member of more than thirty international and national commissions,
panels, advisory groups, and editorial boards. She was a member of President Clinton's education
transition team, and many National Commissions on Head Start and Chapter 1. Ms. Kagan's
writings explore the preparation and assessment of young children for school, the facilitation of
home-school transitions for children and families, and the readiness of both children and schools
for learning. Ms. Kagan has served as a Head Start teacher and director, an administrator in the
public schools, a fellow in the U.S. Senate and, while on leave from Yale, Director of the New
York City Mayor's Office of Early Childhood Education.
Celinda Lake is a partner in the firm of Mellman, Lazarus and Lake, Inc., the researched based
strategy firm. Ms. Lake is one of the Democratic Party's leading political strategists, serving as a
tactician and senior advisor to the national Party Committees, dozens of Democratic incumbents
and challengers at all levels of the electoral process, and democratic parties in several Eastern
European countries. During the 1992 election cycle, Lake oversaw focus group research for the
Clinton/Gore Campaign and served as a general consultant throughout the campaign. Ms. Lake is
also one of the nation's foremost experts on electing women candidates and on framing issues to
women voters. Her most recent areas of concentration have been the changing politics of the
Western stats, health care in the 1990's children as a political issue, and the environmental
movement today. Lake has also recently become pollster to U.S. News & World Report.
3
Grace Nebb is the principal of a dynamic full service school, the Fienberg-Fisher Elementary
School, in Miami Beach, Florida. She has been an elementary teacher, an assistant principal, and
a college professor. Ms. Nebb has received many honors and awards among them, the 1982-83
Teacher of the Year and the 1994-95 Miami Beach Senior High School Feeder Pattern Principal
of the Year. Fienberg-Fisher Elementary School has a grade pattern of PK-6 and an enrollment
of approximately 1, 100 students. She started the Full Service School initiative at Fienberg-Fisher
with a grant received from the Danforth Foundation. Ms. Nebb is very involved in community
activities and professional organizations and associations.
Mark Pitsch is the Washington Editor for Education Week, the only independent, national
newspaper devoted to federal, state and local policy developments in education. He has been with
Education Week since 1990, and has been Washington Editor since August 1993. As Washington
Editor, Mr. Pitsch oversees Education Week's coverage of the White House, U.S. Department of
Education, and Congress. He also serves as the newspapers' lead political and federal education
policy reporter. In addition, Mr. Pitsch is responsible for monitoring Washington news
developments in areas other than education that are of interest to educators--for example, welfare
and health-care reform.
Harold A. Richman is Director, Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago a
post he has held since 1985. Chapin Hall Center for Children is an independent center dedicated
to bringing sound information, rigorous analysis, and an independent perspective to the ongoing
public debate about the needs of children and the ways in which those needs can best be met. Mr.
Richman is the Hermon Dunlap Smith Professor of Social Welfare Policy in the School of Social
Service Administration, University of Chicago. He is a former White House Fellow and Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Labor, W. Willard Writz. From 1992-94 he served as Co-Chair,
Roundtable on Community Initiatives for Children and Families for the National Academy of
Sciences. Mr. Richman is engaged in work associated with three current projects (a) Exploring
the Uses of Available Data for Monitoring and Improving the Condition of Children; (b)
Understanding and Improving Services for Troubled Children and Families; and (c) Developing
and Evaluating Community-Based Service Systems and Supports for All Children and Families.
Robert F. Sexton has been the Executive Director of the Prichard Committee for Academic
Excellence since its creation in 1983. A Louisville native, he also has been the Deputy Director of
the Kentucky Council on Higher Education, an administrator at the University of Kentucky, a
teacher, and an advisor to many states, universities and foundations. Mr. Sexton was a founder of
Kentucky's Governor's Scholar Program and the Commonwealth Institute for Teachers. His
volunteer work has been extensive and includes being the founder and president of the Kentucky
Center for Public Issues, publisher of The Kentucky Journal, and co-chair of the Carnegie Center
for Literacy and Learning in Lexington.
4
Ralph Smith is a program officer, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, Maryland: He joined
the foundation fall, 1994. Mr. Smith is the Founding President and past Executive Director of
the Philadelphia Children's Network. He has served on the faculty of the Law School of the
University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Smith has written many articles and papers with particular
emphasis on civil rights. During 1990 and 1991, he served as an Executive Assistant to the
Mayor of the City of Philadelphia, where his portfolio included development and management of
programs related to children. From 1983-1989, he was affiliated with the School District of
Philadelphia, first as Consultant to the Superintendent and then as Chief of Staff and Chief
Operating Officer. As Consultant, he was the architect of the District's nationally recognized
voluntary desegregation program. As Chief of Staff, he had line responsibility for the key non
finance operating departments.
Jeb Spaulding is serving his sixth term in the Vermont State Senate. He is Chairperson of the
Senate Education Committee, Chair of the Joint Administrative Rules Committee and is a member
of the Senate Government Operations Committee and the Senate and Joint Rules Committee.
During his tenure in the legislature, Mr. Spaulding has served on and/or chaired blue ribbon
committees to revise the State's state aid, special education and vocational education funding
formulas. He played influential roles in establishing Vermont's challenge grant program for high
performance schools, statewide assessment program, including portfolios, and the State's early
education initiative. Mr. Spaulding serves on the Executive and National Steering Committees of
the Education Commission of the States, served as Vice Chair of the Education Committee of the
National Conference of State Legislatures, and is a board member of the New England Board of
Higher Education. He also serves as a member of the Policymakers' Program Advisory Board.
Juanita Sosa is a Rainmaker parent at the Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School, Miami Beach,
Florida.
Elaine Szymoniak is a State Senator representing Des Moines, Iowa. She was first elected to
the Iowa Senate in November 1988. Senator Szymoniak currently serves as Chair of the Senate
Human Resources Committee. She also has sat on the Education, Ways and Means, Local
Government, and Judiciary Committees. Senator Szymoniak also served on the Des Moines City
Council form 1977-1985. She is retired from the Iowa Department of Education, Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation and is a licensed speech-language pathologist audiologist.
5
Deborah Wadsworth is Vice President and Executive Director of the Public Agenda Foundation,
a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to enhance citizen understanding of complex
public policy issues. A former college administrator, Ms. Wadsworth was part of a group of
educators brought together in the late sixties by then Governor of New York, Nelson Rockefeller,
to plan and develop a new college within the State University of New York, the College at
Purchase. She served the college through the seventies as its Dean of Admissions. More
recently, she served as a program officers of the John and Mary R. Markle Foundation with
special responsibility for projects that focused on the impact of mass communications on the
political process. Immediately before joining the Public Agenda Foundation, Ms. Wadsworth was
the Executive Director of the Smart Family Foundation.
6
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
4
Divider Title:
POLICYMAKERS: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Suppored in
Brann .11!0n with
I'm Dantonic Foundament
Education Commission of the States
National's Conference of State Legislatures
The Policymakers Program
National Governors Association
The Policymakers' Program
A Program of
The Danforth Foundation
The Danforth Foundation, in cooperation with the Education Commission of the States, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association, is expanding efforts to
support systemic education reform and promote dialogue among Policymakers and practitioners
concerned with education, health, and other human services. A five-year initiative, the Policymakers'
Program, was launched in 1992 to help state legislators and their staffs, governors and their education
and human service program advisors, and educational leaders improve the process by which policy
affecting children and youth is developed, integrated, implemented, and evaluated The program
seeks to improve the development of young people by attending to the broader needs of children and
families as well as their education.
Context, Assumptions, and Goals
Over the years, most state Policymakers have created a fragmented set of policies to address the
needs of children and families. This fragmentation, and the confusion attending it, as well as
conflicting resource allocation schemes dilute state efforts to provide efficient and effective services.
Paradoxically, the very policies which should ensure that children and youth succeed often work at
cross purposes. For example, education, health, human services, and early childhood education
programs at the federal, state and local levels are budgeted separately, administered independently,
and provided to different clients through different delivery systems. Efforts to get these systems to
work together in the best interests of children. (i.e., to offer the combination of services needed by
children when they most need them) frequently flounder because of the ways these systems are
organized, financed, and held accountable.
Further; the education reform movement that began more than a decade ago is at a critical juncture.
Governments at all levels have implemented important reforms, and the number of schools that have
improved student performance has increased dramatically. Collaboration between education and
human service systems has expanded as well, with many innovative programs thriving But reform
that affects all schools in a district, for example, is still the exception rather than the norm, and many
policies and practices hinder progress rather than support change. The vision of all children
succeeding as healthy, productive citizens will remain just a vision unless policymakers demonstrate
the political will and energy to spread what works throughout the system.
The Danforth Foundation 211 South Bemiston Avenue Suite 1080. St. Louis/Missouri 61/05-1996 314-802-0200
Policymakers' Program Description
Page 2
Although the obstacles to change are present at all levels, real solutions must emerge from an artful
balance of "top-down" and "bottom-up" reforms as well as cooperative efforts between and among
state and local policymakers and frontline service providers. Although national and state leadership
on these issues is required, policies should build local capacity to deal with problems and arrive at
comprehensive solutions:
Because families have the primary responsibility for nurturing their children, neither schools nor social
services agencies can accept full responsibility for the development of young people and effective
education for all. Consequently, policy development and implementation must include multiple units
and levels of government, policymakers, parents, health and human service personnel, community
leaders, those who receive services, and those who prepare service providers
It is the expectation of the sponsoring organizations that state leaders will use the Policymakers'
Program to strengthen their vision for children and families and define a process for achieving that
vision that is appropriate for their state and local community circumstances: The program is designed
to help policymakers determine why our education and human services systems so often flounder--
and develop strategies to get them back on track. Because of the fragmentation of the present policy.
and service delivery systems, state leaders have expressed a desire to improve them. This interest has
served as a catalyst for exploring and developing new types of policy leadership.
Given this context, the overall goal of the Policymakers' Program is to help policymakers create
strong leaders and state policy that will ensure that all children and youth succeed as healthy,
productive citizens and learners --in school and beyond. The program complements and reinforces
ongoing state efforts to improve the education, health, and human services systems which serve
children and families. Drawing on this vision, the program seeks to help policymakers examine and
challenge beliefs and assumptions about present systems and to consider policies and practices that
will lead to more effective and efficient delivery of services.
The Policymakers' Program, guided by a National Advisory Board (see attached roster), is focused
on achieving the following objectives:
Develop new ways to focus the attention of policymakers and practitioners on supporting
successful delivery of education, health and human services to children and families:
Develop a comprehensive approach to improving children's readiness for school and their
performance in school.
Reinforce cooperation among the education, health, labor, legal, and human service systems
by providing opportunities to bring policymakers and practitioners together.
Rethink funding streams and finance systems in the support of effective programs and
services.
Policymakers' Program Description
Page 3
Participants in the Policymakers' Program will
Access valid information about the condition of children, the services they need, and effective
strategies to promote the well-being of children and families.
Develop skills to build coalitions in support of systemic education/human service policy
initiatives aimed at improving the level of learning for all children.
Learn about successful programs and models and ways to document success:
Consider strategies to engage citizens in public discourse concerning issues such as
appropriate expectations for children, performance standards, ways to encourage high quality
performance of teachers and other service providers, ways to decentralize decision-making
and responsibility, and ways to reward risk taking and challenging initiatives:
To accomplish these objectives, state teams of policymakers; practitioners, and parents are assembled
and supported Team members must be committed to developing and carrying out state and local
initiatives that advance learning and the well-being of children, youth, and families Each year, a
Policymakers" Summer Institute is held for selected state teams. To participate in the Summer
Institute, appropriate members of state teams must take part in the Legislative Chairs' and Governors'
Forum and the Technical Assistance program components outlined below. Applications to each
program component are reviewed by staff and staff recommendations, in turn, are reviewed by the
National Advisory Board.
Program Components
Two meetings and related support activities provide the foundation for the Program's support to state
teams.
Legislative Chairs' and Governors' Forum (January)
This Forum provides support to legislative chairs, governors or their advisors to promote
cross sector/cross committee bipartisan approaches to systemic reform, including collabora-
tions between education and human services. Each state that attends the Forum must be
represented by at least one Education and one Human Service Legislative Committee
Chairperson.
Representatives from about 20 states will attend the January 1995 Forum. The Danforth
Foundation covers participant travel and lodging expenses. A variety of areas are examined,
including the effectiveness of present state education and human service systems to improve
outcomes for children, common state objectives, the design and implementation of major
changes in school finance, governance, and assessment of results, investment in prevention
programs that promote early childhood development, and development of skills needed to
Policymakers' Program Description
Page 4
design and launch an action agenda for state and local education reform
Technical Assistance
All states participating in the Forum are eligible to apply for the Policymakers' Summer
Institute Three teams are selected through a competitive process by the Program staff Each
state team receives assistance from ECS, NCSL, NGA and Danforth staff to help members
prepare for the Institute.
Program staff work with state teams in their states between February and July to prepare
individuals for the Policymakers' Institute meeting. At least two on-site team meetings are
held to lay the groundwork and refine the team's agenda for the summer institute.
States not selected for the Summer Institute meeting may be eligible for technical assistance
support from ECS, NCSL and NGA through the support of the Danforth Foundation States
wishing to build on and continue their work begun at the Forum are welcome to apply for
assistance in meeting facilitation, tapping the expertise of national experts, or other activities
that support the goals of the Program.
Policymakers' Summer Institute (August)
Three state teams participate in a week-long summer institute to help them develop an action
plan to improve education for all children.
The Policymakers' Summer Institute provides a series of activities designed to challenge
current thinking about policies that affect the delivery of education and human services.
Participants will have an opportunity to work with nationally known individuals who have
different views of how educational and human service systems should function. During the
Institute, each state team will develop its own action agenda for continuing its work.
The Danforth Foundation covers the travel and lodging expenses for three state teams of
approximately 12 members who represent various levels of education and human service
policymaking and service provision.
Outcomes for the Institute include a written state action plan that:
a.
Defines the problem(s) the team will address;
b.
State a long-term vision;
C:
Identifies specific goals, action steps and strategies that the team is committed
to undertaking; and
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. list
The Policymakers' Program Advisory Board 1994-1995 contact list
n.d.
P6/b(6)
(partial) (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Domestic Policy Council
Gaynor McCown (Printed Materials)
OA/Box Number: 7324
FOLDER TITLE:
[Improving Results for Children - Designing Strategies for System Change] [1]
2011-0255-S
rc242
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA)
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
h(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
h(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
h(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
h(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
h(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
THE POLICYMAKERS' PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD 1994-1995
William Purcell, Chairperson
Bernice Bloom
Hon Ronald Cowell
Executive Assistant to the Governor
State Representative
Office of the Governor
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
State of Illinois Center, Floor 16-100
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 606
Chicago, IL 60601
Pittsburgh, PA 15221-5002
Christopher Cross
Thomas Davis
Executive Dir.
President
Council for Basic Education
Septagon Industries, Inc.
1319 F Street N.W., Suite 900
113 E. Third Street
Washington, DC 20004-1152
Sedalia, MO 65301
Hon Wilhelmina Delco
Susan Fuhrman
P6/(b)(6)
[002]
Director, The Natl. Research Center on
Education Policy and Student Learning
Rutgers Univ., Woodlawn Neilson Campus
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-0270
Robert Koff
Anne Mitchell
Program Director
Early Childhood Policy Research
Danforth Foundation
HC #1 Box 77
231 S. Bemiston Ave. Suite 1080
Climax, NY 12042
St. Louis, MO 63105
Hon William Purcell
Hon David Richardson
Office of the House Majority Leader
State Representative
Tennessee State Legislature
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
18A Legislative Plaza
Room 319, South Building
Nashville, TN 37243-0152
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Ted Sanders
Hon Jeb Spaulding
Supt. of Public Instruction
State Senator
State Department of Education
Chair, Senate Education Committee
65 S. Front Street. Room 808
Vermont State Senate
Columbus, OH 43266-0308
State House, #28
Gary Stangler
Susan Traiman
Director
Director, Education Initiative
Missouri Department of Social Services
The Business Roundtable
PO Box 1527, Broadway State Office Bldg.
1615 L Street, N.W. Suite 1100
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Washington, DC 20036-5610
Policymakers' Program Description
Page 5
d.
Articulates short and long-term results expected from the
teams' efforts.
Effectiveness of state action plans and subsequent team activity over a fifteen-month period
is assessed against stated goals, and short and long-term expectations.
Technical Support to Alumni States
States that complete the Institute may apply for additional technical assistance from the
Foundation and the sponsoring organizations (for example, a minigrant from the Danforth
Foundation). In addition, graduates of the Institute are invited to provide technical assistance
to other state policymakers through presentations at meetings of the sponsoring organizations
and program activities, including serving as faculty at the Summer Institute. As of August
1994, state teams from Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Iowa, Nebraska and Georgia have
participated in Summer Institutes.
The Foundation and the cooperating organizations hope this Program will serve as a national model
of leadership development in education and human services policymaking.
CLINTON LIBRARY PHOTOCOPY
THE POLICYMAKERS PROGRAM STAFF 1994-95
Julie Bell or Louise Bauer
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway, Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303), 830-2200
Paul Goren, Patricia Brown, or Linda McCart
National Governors' Association
444 N. Capitol Street N.W., Suite 267
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: (202) 624-5383 or 624-5336
Gerrit Westervelt
Education Commission of the States
707 17th Street, Suite 2700
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 299-3612
Robert Koff
Program Director
The Danforth Foundation
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1080
St. Louis, MO 63112
Phone: (314) 862-6200
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
5
Divider Title:
APPLICATION TO THE
POLICYMAKERS PROGRAM SUMMER
INSTITUTE, August 12-17 1995
The Policymakers' Program
co-sponsored by:
The Danforth Foundation
Education Commission of the States
National Conference of State Legislators
National Governors' Association
REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS TO THE POLICYMAKERS' INSTITUTE
The Policymakers Program is a five-year effort of the Danforth Foundation
in cooperation with the Education Commission of the States, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association.
The purpose is to stimulate and support fundamental reform in education
and human services and to promote collaboration among education, health
and other human service providers. The goal of the program is to enable
policymakers to use their leadership skills and the policymaking process to
implement change that will enhance the well-being of all children.
Attachment A provides a complete description of the program and a list of
contact people.
The Policymakers' Institute
The purpose of Policymakers' Institute is to provide a forum for three state
teams to develop an action plan to improve the education and well-being for
all children within that state. The 1995 Institute will be held in St. Louis,
Missouri on August 12-17, 1995.
The Institute is an intensive five-day work and decision-making process to
create an action agenda for change. It provides a series of activities designed
to challenge current thinking about policies that affect the delivery of
education and human services. Participants will have an opportunity to
work with nationally known individuals who have different views of how
educational and human service systems should function. During the
Institute, each state team will develop its own action agenda for continuing
its work. An agenda from the 1994 Institute is enclosed as Attachment B.
The Danforth Foundation covers the travel and lodging expenses for three
state teams of approximately 12 members each who represent various levels
of education and human service policymaking and service provision.
Page 1
January 6, 1995
The major outcome for the Institute is a written state action plan that the
team is committed to implement. The plan is expected to:
1)
Define the problem(s) the team will address;
2)
State a long-term vision;
3)
Identify specific goals, action steps and strategies that the team
is committed to undertaking; and
4)
Articulate short and long-term results expected from the team's
efforts.
Effectiveness of state action plans and subsequent team activity over a fifteen-
month period is assessed against goals, and short and long-term expectations.
Competitive Selection Process
Three state teams will be selected from among those applying to participate in
the Policymakers' Institute. Only those states whose representatives
participated in the Legislative Chairs/Governors Meeting in January 1995 or
those states who applied but were not selected for the 1994 Institute are
eligible to apply. Completed applications must be submitted by the state team
leader and received by Robert Koff at the Danforth Foundation by the close of
business on Tuesday, February 28, 1995. States will be notified of their
acceptance by Friday, March 3, 1995.
How to Apply
States interested in applying for the Institute must submit the following
materials to Robert Koff at the Danforth Foundation.
1.
Statement of Interest, Commitment and Capacity. Provide an
overview of the state's interest in and commitment to participating in the
Institute by addressing as many of the following items as are appropriate for
the state. (The overall response to the items in this section of the application
should be no longer than four (4) pages.)
State Goals for the Institute. What does the state hope to
accomplish by participating in the Institute? How will the Institute
build on current state reform efforts?
Status of State Education and Human Services Policy. What are
the state's current education and human services priorities? How
have they been established? How have they been reflected in recent
budgets? Are these priorities consistent across agencies? Are the
Page 2
January 6, 1995
priorities aligned to address current conditions? What agencies are
currently working together to improve outcomes for all children and
youth? Describe how the state coordinates children's services.. Does
this coordination process include education reform initiatives?
Barriers. What are the major impediments to systemic reform
in education and human services? How and by whom are these
barriers currently being addressed?
Accountability Mechanisms. How will the state assess its
progress on systemic reform in education and human services? What
accountability mechanisms are in place to determine, measure, and
report on outcomes? How will progress toward the improvement of
children's services be measured?
Public Involvement. How will the state involve the public --
parents, community members, business representatives, local
government -- and the education and human services practitioners in
its systemic reform agenda?
Team Strengths. What are the skills; strengths, and experience
which the state team believes it could offer other teams in the
Institute?
Follow-Through. What specific steps will be taken to follow
through on the team's work at the Institute? What specific steps will
be taken to involve legislative and executive branch leadership? In the
event your state is not selected for the Institute, what plans do you
have for continuing the work initiated during your participation in the
Policymakers' Program?
2.
Team Composition. The application must propose a team leader who
will coordinate assembly of the Institute team and be responsible for follow-
through on the state's action plan. The application must describe the
qualifications of the team leader and provide a description of the proposed
team membership. It is not necessary to include names of all team members
at this time -- just the stakeholder groups that will be represented on the team
and a brief rationale for why they were selected. However, at least half of the
team members' names should be included (meaning they have made a
commitment to attend).
At a minimum, the teams must include at least two legislative committee
chairs, one each from education and human services; the Governor's
education and/or human services policy advisor(s); a representative from the
state departments of education and human services; and a local service
provider, e.g., a teacher, principal, social worker or school counselor. Other
Page 3
January 6, 1995
team members should include representatives of local governments;
business; consumers, e.g., parents and students; and other appropriate state
department representatives such as health, mental health, justice or
corrections. Team members should have the positional authority to get
things done and/or the ability to influence others in their peer groups: The
team members should reflect the cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity
of the state.
Each of the three state teams selected for the Institute may bring a maximum
of fifteen (15) members. (The Danforth Foundation will cover the expenses of
twelve (12) of the team members.) It is recommended that a larger number of
people be recruited for the "home team.' This will help the state begin to
build a greater base of support at the outset, and it will ensure that a sufficient
number of people have been adequately prepared for the Institute in the
event of last-minute cancellations.
Upon acceptance to the Institute, each state team will be assigned a facilitator
from the Policymakers' Program staff, who will help the team leader
determine the final composition of the state team. The team composition
must be determined by March 31, 1995, and a complete list of those who plan
to attend the Institute, including names, titles, addresses, telephone and
facsimile numbers, should be submitted to the state team's facilitator.
Alternates for team members should also be specified in case a designated
team member cannot attend due to unforeseen circumstances.
3.
Preparation for the Institute. Each state team must make a
commitment to assemble their entire team for at least two team meetings in
their respective states during the period of March-July, 1995. States applying
to the Institute must agree to hold the dates of May 26, June 2, and June 9 for
one of their pre-Institute meetings. Each of three states selected may indicate
their preference of those three dates. The state team's facilitator and other
appropriate staff from the Policymakers Program will assist the team leader
in preparing for and conducting these meetings. The purpose is to ensure
that all members of the team are adequately prepared for the work the team
will be engaged in at the Institute.
4.
Application Contact Person. Provide the name, title, address,
telephone and facsimile numbers of the contact person for this application.
Selection Criteria
Each application will be reviewed for demonstration of the state's
commitment to systemic reform in education and human services across all
levels, i.e., between the legislative and executive branch; between education
Page 4
January 6, 1995
and other services to support children and families; and between state and
local government.
Applications will also be evaluated based on clearly stated reasons for
participation, including:
how the Institute will help the state move forward in improving
out comes for children and youth;
team composition, i.e., have the appropriate stakeholders been
included to ensure that decisions and recommendations can be implemented;
team commitment to adequate preparation for the Institute
through at least two in-state meetings between March and July; and
the state's ability and commitment to following through with
the plan developed at the Institute.
The Policymakers' Program staff will try to select states that will provide a
mix of regional, demographic, and political characteristics, as well as different
levels of policy development on systemic reform in education and human
services.
Completed applications should be mailed to:
Robert Koff
Program Director
The Danforth Foundation
231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 1080
St. Louis, Missouri 63105-1996
Applications must be received no later than 5:00 p.m., February 28, 1995, in
order to be considered.
Page 5
January 6, 1995
APPENDIX B
THE POLICYMAKERS' INSTITUTE
August 14-19 , 1994
AGENDA
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
7:00-8:00
Buffet Breakfast
7:00-8:00
Buffet Breakfast
8:00-8:30
Confronting the
8:00-9:30
How to Hold Gov't.
Challenge
Accountable for
Why we're here..
Decision Making
What we expect..
Ralph Smith
8:30-11:00
Team Work Time
9:30-12:30
Team Work Time
Where is our state?
Presenters available
to teams.
11:00-12:30
Lessons from the
Field
11:45-12:30
Buffet Lunch
Ohio group
Working lunch
12:30-1:30
Lunch
1:00-2:30
Joining Forces
Janet Levy
1:30-3:30
Collaborative
Development
2:30-4:00
Team Work Time
3:00-5:00
Registration
Martin Gerry
J. Levy available
to teams.
3:30-4:15
6:00-7:00
Reception
Step Into Action/
3:30-6:00
Flex Team Time
Prep. for Presen-
taions
5:30-6:00
Conveners/Faculty
7:00-10:00
Welcome Dinner
Meeting
4:00-6:00
Ice breaker
Group Pictures
Flex Team Time
Group activity
6:45
Social
(State of your
state)
5:00-5:45
Conveners/Faculty
7:15
Barbecue at Pool
Meeting
6:00
Buses leave for
Dinner/Bot. Garden
THE POLICYMAKERS' INSTITUTE
August 14-19 , 1994
AGENDA
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
7:00-8:00
Buffet Breakfast
7:00-8:00
Buffet Breakfast
7:00-8:00
Buffet Breakfast
Receive Institute
8:00-9:00
Presentation Two
8:00-9:00
Presentation One
Questionnaires
Meeting w/Agency
Community Forum
Staff & Front-line
Providers
8:00-9:00
Team Work Time
9:00-11:00
Strategies for Action
Building Support in
9:00-10:00
Presentation Three
9:00-10:30
Present Action
Community
Meeting w/Governor
Plans
Stafford, Swenson,
& Legislative leaders
Sexton, Purefoy
10:30-11:00
Awards &
10:00-2:00
Team Work Time
Recognition
Team Time
Buffet lunch available
11:00-3:00
Buffet lunch available
2:00-3:00
Cross-team Reflec-
11:00-1:00
Brunch/Focus
Presenters available
to teams.
tions/Consultations
Groups/Adjourn
3:00-4:00
Cross-team Reflec-
3:00-6:00
Flex Team Time
tions/Consultations
5:30-6:00
Conveners/Faculty
4:00-6:00
Flex Team Time
Meeting
5:00-5:30
Conveners/Faculty
6:00
Social
Meeting
6:30-7:30
Buffet Dinner
6:00
Buses Leave for
at Hotel
Dinner at Bob Koff's
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
6
Divider Title:
POLICYMAKERS' PROGRAM YEARLY
CALENDAR
POLICYMAKERS' PROGRAM
Yearly Planner for 1995
January
January
March
July
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
19 Policymakers' Winter Meeting
3
Meeting in St: Louis
1
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
(Leg. Chairs & Gov. Aides)
Schedule Participating State
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Clearwater; Florida
Site Visits/Technical
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Assistance
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
29 30 31
20 Policvmakers' Winter Meeting
Three States Selected to Attend.
30 31
(Leg. Chairs & Gov. Aides)
Policymakers' Institute
Clearwater, Florida
31 State Team Membership Final-
21 Policvmakers' Winter Meeting
ized. Schedule for State
(Leg. Chairs & Gov. Aides)
Technical Assistance
February
August
Clearwater, Florida
Finalized
SMTWTES
SMTWTFS
1 2 (3) 4
(1) 2 3 4 5
5 6 7 8 9: 10 11
22 Policvmakers' Winter Meeting
April
6 7. 8 9 10 11 12
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
(Leg: Chairs & Gov. Aides)
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Clearwater, Florida
18 ECS; Steering Committee,
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Denver, CO
26 27 28
27 28 29 30 31
27 NGA Winter Meeting; Washing-
ton, D.C.
19 ECS, Steering Committee,
Denver, CO
28 NGA Winter Meeting, Washing-
ton, D.C
20 ECS, Steering Committee,
March
Denver, CO
September
SMTWTFS
29 NGA Winter Meeting, Washing-
SMTWTFS
1 (2) (3) 4
ton, D.C.
May
1
2
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
26 State Team Meeting Reserved
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
February
Date
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29 30 31
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
3 NGA Meeting, Washington,
June
D.C.
2 State Team Meeting Reserved
4 NGA Meeting, Washington,
Date
D.C.
April
9 State Team Meeting Reserved
October
,
SMTWTFS
5 NGA Meeting, Washington,
Date
SMTWTFS
1
D.C.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 Policvmakers' Statf Meeting in
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
6
NGA Meeting, Washington,
St. Louis
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
D.C.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
29 30 31
16 Policymakers' Staff Meeting in
24 NCSL Conference: Funding
St: Louis
Education in the 1.990s,
Santa Fe, NM
July
25 NCSL Conference: Funding
11 ECS Annual Meeting, Denver
May
November
Education in the 1990s,
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
Santa Fe, NM
12 ECS Annual Meeting, Denver
1 2 3 4 5 6
12
2
3
4
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
5 6 7. 8 9 10 11
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
26 NCSL Conference: Funding
13 ECS Annual Meeting, Denver
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Education in the 1990s,
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
28 29 30 31
Santa Fe, NM
26 27 28 29 30
14 ECS Annual Meeting, Denver
March
16 NCSL, Annual Meeting, Milw-
2 Policymakers' Program Staff
aukee, WI
Meeting in St. Louis
June
Program Staff Review Institute
17 NCSL, Annual Meeting, Milw-
December
SMTWTFS
Applications
aukee, WI
SMTWTFS
1
2
3
1 2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 Notification to States of Accep-
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 NCSL, Annual Meeting, Milw-
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
tance of Application
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
aukee, WI
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Policymakers' Program Staff
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
25 26 27 28 29 30
31
A Program of the Danforth Foundation offered n cooperation with the Education Commssion of the States, The National Conference of
State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association: Printed 1/5/95
POLICYMAKERS' PROGRAM
Yearly Planner for 1995
January
July
SMTWTFS
July
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19 NCSL, Annual Meeting, Milw-
SMTWTFS
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
aukee; WI
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
22 23 24 25 26 27. 28
20 NCSL, Annual Meeting, Milw-
16 17 18 19 20 21 = 22
29 30 31
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
aukee; WI
30x31
29 NGA Annual Meeting, Burling-
ton, VT
February
30 NGA Annual Meeting, Burling-
S M T W T F S
ton, VT.
August
SMTWTFS
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8 .f 9 10 1-1
31 All State Site Visits Completed
(1) 2 3 4 5
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
NGA Annual Meeting, Burling-
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
:13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ton, VT
26 27 28
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
August
1
NGA Annual Meeting, Burling-
ton, VT
March
12 Policymakers Summer Institute
S M T W T F S
in St: Louis
September
SMTWTES
1 (2) 3 4
1
N
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13 Policymakers' Summer Institute
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
in St. Louis
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
26 27 28 29 30 31
14 Policymakers' Summer Institute
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
in St. Louis
15 Policymakers' Summer Institute
in St. Louis
April
16 Policymakers' Summer Institute
October
SMTWTFS
I
in St. Louis
S M T. W T F S
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
17 Policvmakers' Summer Institute
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
in St. Louis
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
30
29 30 31
December
14 Policvmakers' Advisory Board
Meeting, St. Louis
May
15 Policymakers' Advisory Board
November
S M T W T F S
Meeting, St. Louis
SMTWTFS
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
28 29 30 31
26 27 28 29 30
June
December
SMTWTFS
SMTWTFS
1
2
3
1
2
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
17. 18 19 20 21 22 23
25 26 27 28 29 30
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
A Program of the Danforth Foundation offered n cooperation with the Education Commssion of the States, The National Conference of
State Legislatures, and the National Governors' Association: Printed 1/5/95
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
7
Divider Title:
ARTICLES/REPORTS/PAPERS BY
SPEAKERS
Sharon Lynn Kagan
Readying Schools
For Young Children
Polemics and Priorities
As the nation
increasingly focuses on
making young children
ready for school.
attention must be given
to making schools and
communities ready for
children. To do so, Ms.
Kagan suggests, means
confronting the
polemics raised by past
and present reform
efforts, shedding
ambivalence regarding
the role of schooling in
American society, and
dealing head-on with
action priorities.
By Sharon L. Kagan
OMETIMES things work. Dur-
S
ing the past five years, calls to
increase support for young chil-
dren and their families have rever-
berated through the White House,
state houses, and houses on Main Street,
USA. Presidents, politicians, and parents
dollar invested in early intervention. "x"
ever. real action on behalf of young chil-
have been alerted to the importance of the
times the amount is saved later on: there
dren is taking place. In the public arena
early years. And folks seem to be catch-
are few parents who do not recognize the
there have been significant (though not
ing on: there is hardly a legislator on Capi-
importance of the early vears to their chil-
necessarily sufficient) increases in the
tol Hill who doesn't know that, for every
dren S later development: and the first of
number of children's services funded at
SHARON L. KAGAN is a senior associate
our national goals for education focuses
federal and state levels.' Schools and
at the Bush Center in Child Development and
on young children: by the year 2000 all
school districts throughout America have
Social Policy at Yale University. New Haven,
children will start school ready to learn.
modified their programs to accommodate
Conn.
More than simple recognition. how-
young children and their families. In the
226
PHI DELTA KAPPAN
Illustration by Kay Salem
private arena. families are seeking more
for young children.
ago. efforts like these were dreams. There
information and better services for their
was little talk of an early care and educa-
children: Even in the for-profit sector.
Current Reform Movements
tion system: there were few who dared to
bookstores teem with volumes on "how
And the Polemics They Present
look beyond individual programs and to
to parent." toy stores feature scores of
discern common needs of the field.
items dubbed "developmentally appro-
A nascent early care and education
Today, though not officially dubbed a
priate." and, in late summer. gift shops
movement. In an ideal world a movement
movement. early care and education ef-
stock "So you're going to kindergarten"
focusing on young children would be built
forts look remarkably like one. These ef-
greeting cards to mark children's entry to
on principles of child development. tak-
forts are capturing increased media at-
school. Efforts to meet the needs of young
ing the diverse needs of families and com-
tention. they are occupying more space
children have taken hold: the early care
munities into consideration It would II-
on education conference agendas and in
and education movement is on the march.
low for universal access and would yield
professional periodicals. and they are in-
As attention to young children inten-
services and supports of high quality.
creasingly involving corporate leaders.
sifies and as calls to do more on their be-
Funding would be robust. teachers and
Perhaps even more important. today's
half mount. America has become con-
caregivers would be adequately compen-
early care and education efforts are fos-
cerned with school readiness. Most of the
sated. and the necessary elements of asys-
tering change in the way such services
attention has focused on what readiness
tem - e.g., planning. financing, training.
are conceptualized. Like other incipient
means and on how to identify children
advocacy. and data collection and use
movements. early care and education ef-
deemed "ready" for school. However.
would be in place. The movement would
forts are challenging assumptions that
other perspectives on readiness warrant
call for continuity of services. and ex-
have prevailed for decades. and they are
equally serious consideration. including
pected outcomes would routinely be
raising tough issues.
the pivotal roles that schools and com-
achieved.
For example. in simply considering
munities play in creating contexts that are
Currently. this picture does not match
which young children should be served
ready for young children.
the reality of the nascent early care and
under public auspices. America's univer-
To that end. my purpose in this article
education movement. To the contrary. to-
sal educational entitlement for children
is to focus on the "ready school" - and
day's early care and education efforts rep-
aged 5 and older is stunningly (and sad-
on the polemics and priorities that need
resent a collection of comparatively iso-
lv) juxtaposed to the categorical and defi-
to be considered as schools and their com-
lated events. taking hold idiosyncratical-
cit-driven approaches that pertain to chil-
munities ready themselves for young chil-
ly throughout the nation in schools. child-
dren just a year younger. Indeed. advo-
dren and their families. I suggest that 1
care centers. resource and referral agen-
cates and parents are beginning to ask
nascent early care and education move-
cies. and Head Start programs. In some
what makes age 5 so magical, and why
ment exists and that. by harnessing that
places the movement is characterized by
the children who are deemed to benefit
movement along with other current social
its emphasis on quality, as shown by dra-
most from early education - notably
movements and the lessons from the long
matic increases in the number of programs
those who are poor - have only limited
history of school reform. we can create
being accredited and by emergent efforts
access to such services.'
"ready schools."
to establish effective accreditation and
Pedagogically. the early care and ed-
In doing so, I acknowledge that the
certification processes. In other places
ucation movement is challenging policy
pressures being brought to bear by today's
the movement is characterized by a focus
makers and consumers to overcome dis-
various social and education reform
on continuity of services. on collabora-
tinctions between care and education. sug-
movements - including the early care
tion. and on coordinated planning across
gesting that there IS actually little differ-
and education movement - create for-
agencies and sectors. This emphasis is ap-
ence. High-quality experiences for young
midable and often competing demands
parent in diverse efforts to effect transi-
children necessarily involve both care and
for scarce school resources: time. money,
tions between Head Start and the schools
education. The movement is defining ele-
personnel. And I tackle the serious ques-
and in state and local planning efforts.'
ments of early learning and development
tion of how America can make its schools
Other reforms center on coordinated
and characteristics of high-quality prac-
truly ready for young children in light of
training and "articulation" among the var-
tices that transcend settings.¹⁰ It is also
the multiple responsibilities placed on
ious systems that prepare early childhood
raising tough questions regarding how
schools. I focus first on the nature of the
educators. In still other places early child-
these elements can be incorporated into a
early care and education movement and
hood reform involves the mobilization of
system that acknowledges the importance
on several allied movements. Second, I
early childhood advocates to bring dis-
of many institutions, including schools.
place these reform movements within the
cordant state regulations into alignment.
Finally, in seeking collaboratively to
historical context of efforts to change the
Finally, in certain cases the movement
create better outcomes for children. the
schools. Third, I discuss the pros and cons
seeks to focus on "outcomes" for chil-
movement is raising fundamental ques-
of enhanced school involvement in meet-
dren.'
tions about who - families, schools, in-
ing the diverse needs of children and fam-
However disparate such efforts. how-
termediaries. communities - is respon-
ilies - offering priorities for thinking
ever uncoordinated they may appear. how-
sible for creating and implementing an
and action regarding how schools might
ever strongly they reflect the policy of
integrated early care and education sys-
reasonably accommodate society's chal-
"letting a hundred flowers bloom," they
tem." In short, like any movement for
lenges and, in so doing. ready themselves
are nevertheless occurring. Five years
change. the early care and education move-
NOVEMBER 1994
227
ment is seeking to reform what is - con-
Through the years. as family support
sion of services through family centers.
verting it over the long haul into what
has adhered 10 these tenets. it has been par-
Bevond the establishment of family sup-
might be.
ticularly effective as a catalyst for change
port centers in schools. many state edu-
As dramatic as the emergence of an
in diverse institutions. Institutions may
cation departments and school districts
early care and education movement may
have fostered the establishment of addi-
appear. it is important to note that it comes
tional school-based family support pro-
at a time when social reformers are en-
grams. along with outreach programs that
gaged in a host of other movements
Inherent in
extend into the children homes (e.g.,
at reconfiguring the nature and structural
Missouri and Minnesota)
alignment of mainstream institutions. It
the concept of
Fueled by a combination of federal.
is not mere coincidence that America is
state. and local support. the school-based
simultaneously engaged in the reform of
school-linked
family support movement is burgeoning.
early care and education. of family sup-
service-integration
and it promises cutting-edge reform in the
port. or school-linked integration of ser-
ways schools and families interact and in
vices. of welfare. of health care. of edu-
efforts is the need
the ways in which all families are sup-
cation generally. and or community de-
ported in their multiple roies as parents
velopment. to name a few. The nation is
to streamline
and providers.
dissatisfied with the way its government
services to
School-linked service-integration move-
and its institutions (some include the fam-
ment. Closely aligned with the family sup-
ily in this category) are functioning. and
maximize access
port movement. the school-linked service-
the nation is serious about change. More-
over it is not mere coincidence that the
and efficiency.
integration movement also seeks strong
ties with the community in its efforts to
tough issues - governance. financing.
make comprehensive services more read-
training, outcomes, equity. excellence/
ily available to students and their fami-
quality, and diversity - transcend indi-
lies. The goal of these efforts is to improve
vidual reform movements. Clearly. these
adopt the principles of family support. in-
"the educational performance and well-
reform movements - and the early care
fusing their normal operations with a fam-
being of at-risk. school-age children by
and education movement - need to learn
ily support perspective. In addition. large
addressing their multiple needs in a co-
from one another and to be understood
agencies may create special family sup-
ordinated manner. It should be noted
and acted on in relation to one another.
port programs. Sometimes these programs
that. in this definition. such school-linked
Given this need. I now turn to a brief dis-
are operated under the aegis of the spon-
services are envisioned primarily for it-
cussion of allied reform movements. pay-
soring institution. and sometimes anoth-
risk. school-age children. In addition. there
ing special attention to their implications
er agency will simply make use of the
are school-linked efforts that attend to the
for "ready schools."
sponsoring institution's facilities. It is not
needs of children in general - for exam-
Family support movement. Little
unusual for a health center. for example.
ple. by creating links with community-
known and understood just two decades
to have adopted a family support orien-
based organizations for after-school care.
ago. the family support movement has
tation that affects its basic institution-
There are also efforts that link children
grown remarkably and now holds a prom-
al policies (such as visiting provisions)
younger than school age with child care
inent position on the American social
and also to have established 1 family sup-
and other services.
agenda. Emanating from fields as diverse
port program. either independently or in
Inherent in the concept of school-linked
as health. education. welfare. prison re-
conjunction with a hospital. Similarly.
service-integration efforts is the need to
form. community development. parent
schools have been particularly influenced
streamline services so that access and
education. social work. and organization-
by the family support movement. with
efficiency will be maximized." To meet
al theory. the movement is reforming the
many using the movement's principles to
this need. services may be collocated on
ways in which human services are thought
reshape basic policies (for example, re-
school grounds or in school facilities. ad-
about and delivered. Family support is
port card conferences). In addition. many
ministered either by the school itself or
rooted in commitments to building on
schools have created family support cen-
by other agencies or organizations. Joy
family strengths. to prevention. to diver-
ters or family resource rooms in their
Dryfoos notes that only a small percent-
sity, to peer support, and to family integ-
buildings."
age of such arrangements are actually ad-
rity. Begun originally by program pro-
The commitment of educational insti-
ministered by the schools. 17 In most cas-
viders who were eager to learn and to
tutions to family support centers has been
es. services are linked to the schools via
share family support strategies. the move-
so strong that some states have passed
contractual agreements. established sys-
ment has always accorded prominence to
legislation establishing centers as com-
tems of referral. and sometimes mecha-
egalitarian relationships among and be-
ponents of education reform (e.g., Ken-
nisms that enable staff members of vari-
tween families and program staff.¹³ It
tucky. Connecticut. and Florida). Other
ous community agencies to be "outpost-
has worked to ensure that programs arell
states, such as Colorado, have adopted
ed" or shared. While the approaches are
embedded in and contribute to communi-
a mixed delivery system for family sup-
diverse. each reflects the intention of en-
ties while they simultaneously alter main-
port. including schools and other com-
suring access to and continuity of ser-
stream bureaucracies.
munity-based organizations in the provi-
vices.
228
PHI DELTA KAPPAN
In 1993 the school-linked service-in-
ter, and to do it in new ways. Internal re-
lectively: while they propose necessary
tegration movement involved more than
forms include school-based decision mak-
changes and present untold opportunities,
200 districts and at least eight states.
ing. incentive-based or outcome-based in-
taken together they present a herculean
which delivered a variety of health, so-
struction. total quality management. and
agenda - for the nation as a whole and
cial. and educational services at or near
new standards: external reforms focus on
for educators in particular. Under the aegis
schools. Dramatically appealing in con-
vouchers. tax credits. and other fiscal in-
of reform. educators are being asked to
cept. these school-linked service-integra-
struments that attempt to realign power.
take on responsibilities related to each of
tion efforts are rapidly growing and pos-
Whatever the strategy. the school reform
the movements.
ing new challenges for educational insti-
agenda reflects a clear dissatisfaction
For example. education is deemed es-
tutions. Recalling the community schools
with business as usual and a ubiquitous
sential to good health. an antidote to wel-
movement of eras past but extending the
press for change.
fare dependency. and important to effec-
concept further. school-linked service-
Beyond altering old practice. the
tive parenting. Schools are being asked
integration demands more than opening
to reconsider their course offerings. re-
(practically and metaphorically) the
quirements. and curriculum content and
schoolhouse doors and making school fa-
to infuse more into the school day. More-
cilities and governance structures more
The history
over. in part because of their centrality
accessible to the community. It also de-
of American
and universality, schools are being legit-
mands a fundamental reconsideration of
imately called upon to serve as reposi-
how schools are financed in light of oth-
education may be
tories for a range or child. adult. and
er services for children and how schools
community services e.g., employment
carry out their functions in light of the re-
regarded as the
training and counseling. substance abuse
sponsibilities of other community insti-
assimilation of
intervention. health inoculations. and
tutions.
midnight basketbail. School leaders are
Health and welfare reform move-
episodic efforts
being asked to collaborate with others as
ments. With federal legislation currently
under consideration, some kind of health
to stretch the
community renewal and systemic reform
efforts take hold. Schools are being giv-
and welfare reform appears imminent.
Speculation on the implications for schools
boundaries of its
en the responsibility for producing stu-
dents who meet world-class standards
is rampant. with some suggesting that
institutions.
and for readying our young people for a
such reforms will have massive impact on
global economy. In short. schools and
schooling and others suggesting that the
school personnel - already struggling to
effects will be less far-reaching. Whatever
discem what constitutes pedagogical ex-
the precise legislative outcomes, the lives
school reform movement seeks to replace
cellence and improvement - are also be-
of poor children and their families are
old aims of education, shifting emphasis
ing placed at the vortex of broader social
likely to be altered. Mothers with very
from equity and experimentation to ex-
reforms.
:0
young children may be provided with
cellence. Since 1983 excellence has be-
supports that enable them to engage in or
come the currency of the school reform
continue their education or employment
realm. galvanizing new systems of and
Reforms of the Past
training: poor children may be afforded
approaches to standards and accountabil-
As challenging as these trends appear.
necessary inoculations. The participation
ity. With the advent of the national edu-
it is important to note that this is not the
of schools in the delivery of such services
cation goals. excellence has become the
first period in our nation's history when
is not unthinkable. nor is it unreasonable
standard for all students. not simply for
seemingly independent reform efforts
to consider the inventive use of poten-
some.
have collided. nor is it the first time that
tial funding to meet the needs of children
Assessing the movements. Several gen-
schools have been asked to act as instru-
and families. Thus reforms in the areas of
eral comments may be made about the
ments of social change by taking on more
health and welfare offer opportunities,
movements described above. First. each
and different responsibilities Indeed.
though still unclear, to employ potent
represents a symptom of a broader prob-
the history of America may be chronicled
mechanisms for making schools more
lem - an overall national ambiguity re-
as the accommodation of successive re-
ready for children and their families.
garding the appropriate role of govern-
forms, and the history of American edu-
The school reform movement. While
ment in the lives of children and families.
cation may be regarded as the assimila-
more established than the early care and
Second. each has been conceptualized
tion of episodic efforts to stretch the
education reform movement, the school
separately, and, while making sense on
boundaries of its institutions.
reform movement is similar in that it is
its own, each typically reflects only tan-
Lawrence Cremin. raising the issue of
composed of a variety of largely unco-
gential understanding of the other move-
why schools have been consistently em-
ordinated efforts. Furthermore, like the
ments. Third, each demands formidable
broiled in such controversies. notes that
early care and education movement. the
change if its aims are to be successfully
historically American education has tried
school reform movement has asked indi-
met.
to be responsive to the social. political.
viduals and institutions to take on new re-
Perhaps only one important thing
and economic problems of our society." =
sponsibilities
to do more, to do it bet-
needs to be said about the movements col-
From Aristotle to Arendt, Cremin notes
NOVEMBER 1994
229
that education has always served pro-
lunches, kindergartens. medical and den-
tem - one that emphasizes fulfillment of
foundly political functions. functions that
tal inspections. home visits, vocational
diverse individual and family needs as an
inextricably link the social responsibili-
guidance and counseling programs. ser-
essential factor in children's intellectual
ties of schools with their intellectual re-
vices for wayward youth, and summer
growth.
sponsibilities. Indeed. noted reformers
programs. to name but a few. 23 Commu-
Despite the regularity and intensity of
- Thomas Jefferson. Horace Mann. John
nity schools took root in the 1930s and
these efforts. it should be noted that they
Dewey - have amplified such purposes.
rose to prominence in the 1950s. Devot-
have always been couched as "reforms."
viewing schooling as the process of cre-
ing its annual yearbook for 1952-53 to
Such efforts did not necessarily reflect ed-
ating an embryonic community life in
community education. the National Soci-
ucational thought and training or the in-
which children's intellectual. personal.
ety for the Study of Education reported
tentions of the education establishment.
emotional. and social development should
that schools had two emphases: to serve
Indeed. many educators shied away from
be nourished.
the entire community, not merely the
broadening the responsibilities of educa-
Translating these purposes into edu-
school-age population. and to develop the
tional institutions. Perhaps they did so
cation reform movements followed with
resources of the community as a part of
because of a latent recognition that it is
regularity. With the economic depression
the educational enterprise."
precisely these millennial hopes and this
of 1893 and the onslaught of new immi-
Such commitment to expanding the
"political utopianism" that create illu-
grants. poverty became a social problem
definition of and services associated with
sions and expectations of schooling -
of magnitude. The schools - not unex-
schools was reaffirmed in the 1960s when
expectations that perpetually disappoint
pectedly - were charged with broader so-
education reformers focused on support-
the American public and result in a loss
cial mandates of feeding poor children
ing families. not simply the children in
of faith in the capacity of schools to per-
and acculturating new Americans. Typi-
them. In reality, then. today's efforts to
form and reform.
cally fueled by forces outside the conven-
serve children in the context of families
Nevertheless. recent analyses suggest
tional bureaucracy. the causès that school
and communities represents a deep-seat-
that. despite the politicization of Ameri-
reformers promoted included school
ed legacy of the American education sys-
can education and our utopian ambitions.
we have made headway in meeting chil-
dren's and society's needs more compre-
hensively. David Tyack notes that. despite
intentions to "restore an imagined gold-
en age of academic rigor" to schools.
schools actually have opened their doors
to a broadened agenda. He notes that
administrators have become managers of
schools that deliver social and health ser-
vices as well as instructional services, ver-
ifying this observation with the somewhat
startling fact that in 1950 teachers con-
stituted 70% of all school employees.
while in 1986 they constituted just 52%.
Moreover. in that same period. the ratio
of pupils to support staff members fell
from 83:1 to 30:1.
Schools have quietly edged forward
in their efforts to meet a broader social
agenda. Patricia Graham notes the ac-
complishments of schools in this area and
suggests that American schools have long
been involved in carrying out a social mis-
sion, indicating that education has always
delivered what society wanted. Ameri-
cans wanted greater access for all students
and more sustained attendance. and we
got it. Rather than be chided as a failure.
Camphell
American education should be (and once
was) praised for its accomplishments.
"I don' 't have time to help my parents with the housework. Helping them with
Directions for the Future
the computer is a full-time job.
The central question we must ask our-
selves today is. If American education has
230
PHI DELTA KAPPAN
directly and indirectly effected signifi-
gested that a system of primary services
approach involves "action" steps that can
cant social change in the past. why not
be enriched. that such primary services be
be undertaken in total or in part. Though
now? Why shouldn't schools reach out to
linked to the organized infrastructure of
not discrete steps. I present them as such.
families and support them in addressing
child services. and that planning for such
and order them roughly in terms of prior-
the challenges of the next century? Why
shared responsibility take place at the com-
ity. I do this partly because schools and
shouldn social services be integrated and
munity level."
districts differ in their intentions and ca-
linked to schools? Why shouldn schools
The schools role: the cans. Careful
pacities and partly because I believe that
play a role in meeting the needs of
reading of the rationales for the "cons" is
some ordering might be helpful.
younger and younger children? Why
revealing. Nowhere is it suggested that
shouldn't schools be realigned so that
the schools should be completely ab-
they are ready for children entering the
solved of concerns with the comprehen-
Think Strategies
formal education system?
sive needs of children or families. Rather.
Conceptualize ready schools within
The schools role: the cons. Three dif-
each rationale offers cautions and sug-
the context of broader school and social
ferent reasons are routinely offered for
gests boundaries for school roles within
reform. School-based reforms for young
not involving the schools in such social
the context of other community institu-
children need to be designed and imple-
reform. First. there is the incompetence
tions. The question today is not whether
mented within the context of the major re-
rationale: schools don' do a good enough
schools have any role with regard to fam-
form movements that are affecting edu-
job with the challenges and children they
ily support and comprehensive services:
cation generally. Piecemeal application
now have. so what evidence is there that
it is what that role should be and how it
of reforms - some at the preschool lev-
giving schools more responsibility will
should be carried out in light of the many
el. some at the elementary level: some
improve outcomes for all youngsters?
demands schools face. How do we recon-
evoking one educational orientation. some
Second. there is the mismatch ration-
cile our concerns about giving the schools
another - makes little sense if we agree
ale: schools are not social service agen-
too much responsibility with our legiti-
that children's growth is continuous and
cies. SO they should be relieved or the so-
mate demands to use schools to achieve
that children benefit from continuity of
cial agenda. as the Committee for Eco-
broader social aims?
experiences and philosophies. If they are
nomic Development (CED) has recom-
While these questions are germane to
too numerous or if they are contradic-
mended. IN According to this view. the suc-
the education or students of all ages. they
tory. reform strategies have little chance
cess or failure of schools to meet a more
seem particularly important as we consid-
comprehensive social agenda is not pri-
er the case of young children. Because
marily a matter of competence. Instead. by
services for the young have traditionally
bogging the schools down with too many
been lodged as close to home and kin as
HIGH/SCOPE
diverse missions. reformers derail them
possible. most early care and education
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
from their primary focus and make them
programs regard themselves as part of the
Landmark Study
less effective in meeting both academic
community infrastructure. While far from
and social goals. The CED argues that
perfect. such programs do offer a res-
Major contribution
to the national understanding
community problems should be addressed
ervoir of knowledge of family support
of the importance of
by community-driven services and institu-
and comprehensive services from which
high-quality early childhood education
tions. Such services "may be placed in the
schools can draw. Moreover. in grappling
schools. they may be delivered through the
with the questions of creating a systemic
Significant Benefits
schools. but they should not be made the
infrastructure. the nascent early care and
responsibility of the schools.
education movement must confront many
The High/Scope
The third rationale for relieving the
of the fundamental questions being con-
Perry Preschool Study
schools of broadened social responsibili-
sidered by schools as they entertain the
Through Age 27
ties is the exclusivity rationale. It is re-
expansion of their agendas: How do we
An important book for
lated to the mismatch rationale and sug-
define education? Where does it take place
EDUCATORS
gests that it is a mistake to link children's
and what constitutes a school? What are
services too closely with any single in-
the purposes of education and what do we
POLICY MAKERS
stitution. When such linking occurs. ser-
consider to be appropriate outcomes for
ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN
vices tend to conform to the requirements,
children? How we answer these questions
LIBRARIANS
priorities. and world view of that partic-
with regard to young children may set the
RESEARCHERS
ular institution. Installing such authority
stage for how they will be answered for
and responsibility in the schools under-
American schooling in general.
plays the need to reform the nature of so-
In readying schools for young chil-
$25
cial service delivery generally. Moreover,
dren. we need to consider our strategies
such a move has the potential to alienate
and priorities with care. I discuss two
HIGH/SCOPE PRESS
the community it seeks to empower. un-
approaches below. The first involves
600 N RIVER ST
dermining the development of commu-
"think" strategies, the mental precursors
YPSILANTI MI 48198-2898
nity leadership. 30 To redress these issues,
to action. I offer them as a set. to be tak-
phone 800-40-PRESS
Joan Wynn and her colleagues have sug-
en and considered together. The second
fax 800-442-4FAX
NOVEMBER 1994
231
children are dispersed across the commu-
support centers. to the realignment of staff-
nity. with families engaged in communi-
ing patterns. One extremely successful
ty planning and decision making. Fami-
early childhood program. for example. in-
Families, child-
lies, child-care centers. Head Start pro-
cluded a family worker in each of its pre-
grams. schools. and communities are seen
school classrooms to ensure continuity
care centers,
as partners in meeting 1 children's agen-
between home and the program.3 Build-
Head Start
da. Examples of comprehensive planning
ing on experiences from the family sup-
that is rooted in the community exist -
port movement, opportunities for parents
programs, schools,
as does a strong commitment to commu-
to be supported in their parenting and pro-
nity building on the part of Gov. Howard
vider roles are becoming increasingly
and communities
Dean of Vermont. current chair of the Na-
common through the provision of child
tional Governors' Association.
care. school-age child care. and family sup-
are seen as
port services. Finally, by augmenting their
partners in
Action Strategies
normal policies. schools can create family-
friendly environments that provide options
meeting a
Create the most pedagogically ro-
for parent engagement.
children's agenda.
bust. developmentally appropriate envi-
Create linkages with community
ronments for learning that are feasible.
services. Beyond extracting lessons from
The foremost responsibility of the ready
the movements for early care and educa-
school is to create environments that nur-
tion and family support. schools need to
ture children's development and learning.
build on lessons being learned by the
of being implemented well or of achiev-
Drawing on ongoing work in the early care
school-linked service-integration move-
ing their stated goals.
and education movement. such environ-
ment. Though not always easy to build.
2 Recognize that the needs of young
ments must take account of children's
many such linkages have resulted in the
children and their families will be diverse
family settings and prior learning situa-
delivery of support services to children
and may differ from those of older chil-
tions and make explicit links to families
and families either directly or indirect-
dren and their families. The individual-
and to preschool and child-care programs.
ly through the schools. In these cases,
ization of instruction has long been a fun-
Such environments should incorporate
schools become permanent or temporary
damental tenet of educational philosophy,
children's home language and home cul-
locales for service delivery; they may al-
and it is now fairly routine to acknowl-
ture; they should capitalize on develop-
so create linkages that result in an elabo-
edge the implications of individualiza-
mental strengths and address develop-
rated system of case management or in
tion for developmental curriculum. Such
mental needs. Understanding and provid-
an integrated approach to referrals. Such
individualization regarding families is al-
ing opportunities for optimal physical.
linkages may involve the creation of new
so gaining currency and needs to be nur-
social. emotional. and cognitive develop-
uses of data. inventive funding arrange-
tured. However, while it is important to
ment within the context of predisciplinary
ments. altered school schedules, shared
recognize individual differences in chil-
domains is the challenge of early educa-
staffing. and public/private partnerships.
dren and families. it is also critical to rec-
tion.
4. Commit to community building. Fi-
ognize that most families with young chil-
Such positive climates for instruction
nally. as I have suggested above, schools
dren face common tasks and challenges
are not solely influenced by classroom
are but one of the child-serving institu-
that need to be met by a ready school. For
pedagogy: they are strongly influenced
tions of the community. Being of the com-
example. the pressures of parental sepa-
by the practices of schools. Ready schools
munity suggests that schools have roles
ration will demand greater sensitivity and
need to examine the ways in which chil-
not only in taking from the community,
a different level of educational engage-
dren enter and are screened for entry in-
but in building the community. Helping
ment for younger children than for older
to schools; they need to examine how in-
other institutions - libraries. departments
children. Moreover, many families come
formation about children's progress is con-
of parks and recreation. community action
to school directly from a preschool expe-
veyed to families; they need to examine
agencies - stretch their normal efforts to
rience in which they have been heavi-
patterns of grade-to-grade transition and
take on new educational roles is critical,
ly involved; consequently, they may seek
the optimal use of noninstructional per-
as is the building of collaboration for hon-
continued involvement and have much to
sonnel. In short. ready schools demand
est community planning and develop-
offer the schools.
new actions that are predicated on the de-
ment. In short. schools must take a seat at
3
Recognize that ready schools need
velopmental needs of children.
the community table.
to exist within "ready communities."
2. Create and ensure ongoing linkages
Given the nature of the needs of today's
with and supports to and from families.
Like myriad other reform movements.
young children and their families and the
More than at other ages, the need for fam-
the early care and education movement
diversity of the reforms being proffered
ily engagement is critical during the ear-
cannot thrive amidst a culture that refus-
by the society, it seems both necessary
ly years. Such engagement can take dif-
es to accept social responsibility for its
and wise to envision ready schools as a
ferent forms, ranging from the develop-
children and continues to tolerate ambi-
part of ready communities. When this
ment of formal outreach and/or home-vis-
guity regarding the function of school-
viewpoint is adopted. responsibilities for
iting programs. to the creation of family
ing in American society. Schools that are
232
PHI DELTA KAPPAN
ready to serve young children and their
Haven. Conn.: Quality 2000. Bush Center in Child
18. School-Linked Human Services. p. 1..
families are schools that are ready to
Development and Social Policy, Yale University,
19. Prisoners of Time (Washington, D.C.: Office of
serve the nation, as educators - in con-
1994): and Jule Sugarman. Building Early Child-
Educational Research and Improvement. U.S. De-
houd Systems: A Resource Handbook Washington,
partment of Education. April 1994).
cert with families and communities -
D.C.: Child Welfare League of America. 1991).
20. Behrman. op. cit.
work to make American education truly
12. FRC Report: African-American Families (Chi-
21. Lawrence Cremin. Public Education (New
world class.
cago: Family Resource Coalition). Soring 1993: Sid
York: Basic Books. 1976): and idem. Traditions of
Gardner. Reform Options jor the Intergovernmental
American Education (New York: Basic Books,
Funding System: Decategorization Policy Issues
1. Martin Gerry, "Financing Children's Services:
1977).
(Washington. D.C.: Roundtable on Effective Ser-
Exploring the Options," paper prepared for the Fi-
22. Lawrence Cremin. Popular Education and its
vices. 1993): Martin Gerry, A Joint Enterprise with
nance Project/Quality 2000 Conference. Bush Cen-
Discontents (New York: Harper & Row. 1989).
America's Families :0 Ensure Student Success
ter in Child Development and Social Policy. Yale
23. David Tyack. "Health and Social Services in
(Washington. D.C.: Council of Chief State School
University, New Haven. Conn.. 1994.
Public Schools: Historical Perspectives." in Behr-
Officers. 1993); and Curolyn Marzke and Deborah
2. Among the successful programs from which dis-
man. pp. 19-31.
Both. Getting Started: Planning a Comprehensive
tricts can choose are James Comer and the School
Services Initiative (Fails Church. Va.: National Cen-
24. Community Education: 52nd VSSE Yearbook.
Development Program. Robert Slavin and Success
ter for Service Integration, 1994).
Part // (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
for A.1. Khatib Waheed and Caring Communities,
1953).
13. Sharon L. Kagan and Bernice Weissbourd. eds..
Edward Zigler and the Schools of the 21st Century.
Purting Fumilies First: America's Family Support
25. Cremin. Popular Education.
and the National Head Start Transition Project.
Movement and :he Challenge of Change (San Fran-
26. Tyack. P. 27.
3. Keith A. Cmic. guest editor. "Special Edition on
cisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994).
27, Patricia A. Graham. "What America Has Ex-
School Readiness - Scientific Issues." Early Edu-
14. FRC Report: Family Support and School-
pected of Its Schools Over the Past Century." Amer-
cation and Development. April 1994: and Gual !
Linked Services (Chicago: Family Resource Coa-
ican Journal of Education, February 1993. pp. 33-
Technical Planning Group. Reconsidering Chil-
lition). Fall/Winter 1993: and Sharon L. Kagan.
98.
dren's Early Development and Learning: Toward
"Home-School Linkages: History's Legacy and the
28. Patting Learning First: Governing and Manag-
Shared Beliefs and Vocabulary (Washington, D.C.:
Family Support Movement." Sharon L. Kagan et
ing the Schools for High Achievement (New York:
National Education Goals Panel. 1993).
ai., eds., America's Family Support Programs (New
Committee for Economic Development. 1994).
4. Sue Bredekamp. "Lessons on Quality from Na-
Haven. Conn.: Yale University Press. 1987). pp.
29. Ibid., ?. 5.
tional Accreditation." paper presented at the annu-
161-81.
30. Robert Chaskin and Harold Richman. "Con-
al meeting of the American Educational Research
15. School-Linked Human Services: A Comprehen-
cerns About School-Linked Services: Institution-
Association. Atlanta. 1993: Standards jor Quality
sive Strategy jor Aiding Students at Risk of School
Based Versus Community-Based Models." in Behr-
Programs for Young Children: Early Childhood
Failure (Washington. D.C.: U.S. General Account-
man. pp. 107-17.
Education and :he Elementary School Principal
ing Office. 1994). D. 1. For 1 discussion that distin-
31. Joan Wynn et al., Children, Families. and Com-
(Alexandria. Va.: National Association of Elemen-
guishes between family support and school-linked
munities: A New Approach to Social Services (Chi-
tary School Principals. 1990): and Louise Stoney
services. see Sharon L. Kagan and Peter Neville.
cago: Chapin Hall Center for Children. University
and Andrea Genser. Establishing Effective Certifi-
"Family Support Services and School-Linked Ser-
or Chicago. 1994).
ca:e Programs: Issues jor States (Rochester. Minn.:
vices: Variations on a Theme." FRC Report: Fam-
National Association of Child Care Resource and
32. The Texas IAF Vision for Public Schools: Com-
ily Support and School-Linked Services (Chicago:
munities of Learners (Austin: Texas Interfaith Ed-
Referral Agencies. 1992).
Family Resource Coalition). Fall/Winter 1993.
ucation Fund. 1990): and Chair's Agenda. 1994-
5. Sharon L. Kagan. United We Stand: Collabora-
16. Richard E. Behrman, ed., The Future of Chil-
1995 (Washington. D.C.: National Governors' As-
tion for Child Care and Early Education Services
dren: School-Linked Services (Los Altos. Calif:
sociation. 1994).
(New York: Teachers College Press. 1991).
Center for the Future of Children. David and Lu-
33. Jean Layzer. Barbara Goodson. and Judith Lay-
6. Gwen Morgan et al., Making a Career of It: The
cille Packard Foundation. 1992).
zer, Evaluation of Project Giant Step: Year Two Re-
State of the States Report on Career Development
17. Joy G. Dryfoos. Full-Service Schools (San Fran-
port - The Study of Program Effects (Cambridge.
in Early Care and Education (Boston: Wheelock
cisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994).
Mass.: ABT Associates. n.d.).
College Center for Career Development in Early
Care and Education. 1993).
7. Improved Outcomes for Children Project. A
Framework for Improving Outcomes jor Children
Discover
and Families (Washington, D.C.: Center for the
the
World
Study of Social Policy. Harvard Project on Effec-
tive Services. National Center for Education and the
Economy/National Alliance for Restructuring Edu-
cation, 1993).
8. Research and Policy Committee of the Commit-
While Teaching the World's Children
tee for Economic Development. Why Child Care
Matters: Preparing Young Children for a More Pro-
Join the more than 500 teachers
ductive America (New York: Committee for Eco-
PLEASE SEND ME A FREE BROCHURE ON
nomic Development. 1993); and The Business
and administrators placed by ISS
TEACHING OVERSEAS
Roundtable. Business Roundtable Participation
each year in international and
Guide: A Primer for Business on Education (New
NAME:
American schools around the
York: National Alliance or Business. 1991).
9. Poor Preschool-Aged Children: Numbers Increase
world. Ask about our year-round
ADDRESS:
but Most Not in Preschool (Washington. D.C.: U.S.
recruitment services and our
General Accounting Office. 1993).
recruitment centers in
10. Bettye Caldwell. What Is Quality Child Care?
(Washington, D.C., National Association for the Ed-
February and June.
KPN 10.11/94
ucation of Young Children, 1985).
UN
11. Sharon L. Kagan and the Quality 2000 Essen-
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS SERVICES
tial Functions Task Force, The Essential Functions
of an Early Care and Education System (New
PO Box 5910, Princeton. NJ 08543; Phone: 609-452-0990; Fax: 609-452-2690
NOVEMBER 1994
233
Families and Children:
Who is Responsible?
Sharon L. Kagan
Sharon L. Kagan is Senior Associate at Yale University's Bush Center in Child Develop-
ment and Social Policy, New Haven. Connecticut. This article is based on her keunote
address at the ACEI Study Conference in New Orleans. Louisiana. March 30. 1994.
o people outside
tions have much to teach and learn
greatest burden" (Cremin, 1987).
the United States.
from each other. Each nation's
The family was responsible for
the title of this ar-
choices in allocating responsibility
framing children's ideas about the
ticle must seem unusual. In many
for children and families have deep
world and how they ought to be-
other.nations, this question was
roots in specific cultural values and
have in it. The church carried the
solved long ago. Other nations do
norms that have developed over
lesser responsibility of imparting
not allow national politics to ob-
time. This article focuses on the
moral teachings and conducting
scure issues of child allowances,
United States as a case study, ex-
community ceremonials that united
paid maternity and paternity leave,
ploring the following issues: the
individual families. Schools' re-
voluntary home visitation, quality
deep roots underlying the nature of
sponsibility was limited mostly to
child care and school age care.
responsibility for children and fami-
teaching reading and writing.
Family and child advocates do not
lies in America: the deep results,
Framing this tripartite division
have to compete with transporta-
both intended and unintended, of
of responsibility. the colonists rein-
tion and defense interests for fed-
American attitudes toward respon-
stituted precedents established in
eral funds. Many countries have
sibility for children and families;
the Poor Laws of 1601 under which
established services to children and
the deep issues that need to be con-
families were the line of first pro-
families as a national priority.
sidered by the United States and all
vision. The communities (schools
Thus, in many nations of the world
nations when shaping responsibil-
and churches) intervened only
it is quite clear who is responsible
itv for children and families; and
when families failed and then pro-
for children and families.
the deep change that might be pos-
vided help only for local residents,
Such commitment to children and
sible if we adopt certain concrete
setting the stage for local and state
families is, however, hardly univer-
strategies for improving services to
control of human services and for the
sal. Furthermore, the increasing
children and families.
stigmatization of troubled families.
needs of youngsters, coupled with
From the outset. people regarded a
global competition and govern-
Deep Roots: The American
family's need for community sup-
ment deficits, make even stronger
Experience
port or governmental intervention
and broader commitment necessary.
Historians and social anthropolo-
as a sign of weakness. Colonists at-
We must begin to consider issues of
gists note that America developed
tributed poverty to moral indecency
responsibility on an international
its notion of social responsibility for
and human ineptitude. The colonists
scale in order to recognize the in-
children and families from a heri-
did, however, view education as an
creasingly complex lifestyles of chil-
tage of English traditions (Cremin,
entitlement for all, presumably to
dren and families throughout the
1987; Lvnn, 1980). When the colo-
prepare citizens for participation in
world. The United Nations under-
nists flocked to America, they
the great experiment of democracy.
scored this need by declaring 1994 to
brought with them a social configu-
As increasing numbers of immi-
be the Year of the Family.
ration that separated the house-
grants came to the shores of
hold, the church and the school.
America. social and education ser-
Organization
Each entity "stood in time honored
vices grew. Although funding,
While no country has perfectly
relation to the others, with the
professionalization and regulations
solved the "responsibility" ques-
nuclear family (an idea transported
in these fields increased, the basic
tion, this article recognizes that na-
from England) carrying by far the
nature of human services through-
4
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
out the nation staved the same. So-
lists for child care, with up to
Parents are often forced to piece to-
cial services remained for those
30,000 names and projected waiting
gether services in order to provide
who could not provide for them-
periods of over a year. Estimates
full care for their children. Conse-
selves; education was for all.
of homelessness in our nation
quently, children are juggled from
These patterns etched the cur-
range from 1.7 million to 3 million
program to program. rarely experi-
rent nature of responsibility for
per year; families with children ac-
encing programmatic or philo-
children and families. Given the
count for 43 percent of that popu-
sophic continuity.
history of primarily familial re-
lation (Children's Defense Fund,
Finally, the service system has
sponsibility for child and family
1994). Furthermore, about 45 per-
few quality safeguards. The neces-
well-being and localized commu-
cent of the nation's children under
sity for quality programming is not
nity or government intervention
two. are not fully immunized
adequately recognized by many of
only in the case of "failure," federal
(Children's Defense Fund, 1994).
those who allocate funds, nor is it
commitment to families and children
In short, basic needs-child care.
supported by state statute. Work-
in the United States was limited.
housing, immunizations-are not
ers in the child and family service
Only in the face of national cri-
available to all Americans who
field are unable to command wages
ses have "beneficent" federal legis-
need them.
much above those or babysitters.
lators accorded temporary support
A second consequence of America's
and unrestricted access to the field
to children and families. The Great
limited national commitment to
creates an unlimited supply of
Depression, World War II and the
children is the severe inequity in
workers. Therefore, the quality of
War on Poverty inspired federal
who receives the services that exist.
providers is seriously compromised.
child care services and Head Start
Approximately one fourth of
When government has intervened.
as a means of staving off national
America's young children live in
the resulting child and family ser-
disaster. In short, the U.S. govern-
poverty. These children need ser-
vices are of high quality. Bereft of
ment has accepted responsibility for
vices the most and yet receive them
federal investments and universal
the well-being of children and fami-
the least. Forty-nine percent of
commitments, the quality of child
lies only during times of compelling
poor children do not have access to
and family services will continue to
social need. Overall, responsibility
preschool programs (U.S. General
suffer (Kagan & Newton. 1989;
for children and families remained
Accounting Office, 1993).
Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1989).
with parents and kin and a stigma
A third consequence of limited
In short, the historically rooted
was attached to government or
federal responsibility for children
national ethos of limited federal re-
community help.
and families in the United States is
sponsibility for children and fami-
inefficiency, inconsistency and
lies results in services that are
Deep Results: What Are the
fragmentation of services. The Na-
ranked low on every important
Consequences of America's
tional Academy of Sciences (1990)
variable: quantity, equity, continu-
Deep Roots?
demonstrated that while scores of
ity and quality. Families do their
When America's notions of re-
disconnected federal supports for
best to serve their children, but of-
sponsibility to children and families
child care exist. they are so frag-
ten face untenable odds. They are
were being developed, it was surely
mented that the exact number of
then forced to turn to an inad-
difficult to foresee how they would
these supports has not been for-
equate service system.
play out over time. Today, however,
mally identified. Some studies
we can pinpoint several important
(Stephan & Schillmoeller, 1987) iden-
Deep Issues: The Who, What
consequences of America's ethos of
tify 22 federal child care programs,
and How of Responsibility
privatized responsibility and defi-
while others (U.S. Department of La-
for Children and Families
cit-oriented government involve-
bor, 1988) cite 31 programs in 11
Every nation must consider transcen-
ment in child and family issues.
federal agencies.
dent issues in discerning responsibil-
First, services for children and
Each program comes with its
ity for children and families: 1)
families are not and never have
own unique federal regulations,
Who should be targeted for gov-
been as abundant as they should
funding sources and funding pat-
emment support and commitment?
be. State and federal child care dol-
terns, with few incentives for
Should government support mostly
lars do not begin to support the
streamlining or collaboration
children. mostly families or both?
need for assistance. A recent
(Kagan, 1991; Sugarman, 1991).
2) Nations must develop a precise
Children's Defense Fund report
Consequently, practitioners com-
focus for government commitment.
(1994) notes that 31 states and the
pete for children, services, staff and
Should responsibility and support be
District of Columbia had waiting
space (Goodman & Brady, 1988).
cultivated for program development
FALL 1994
5
only, or for both programs and intra-
backgrounds. Serving all children,
ture that includes: 1) cross-system
structure? 3) Nations must discern
however, requires enormous finan-
collaboration. 2) consumer and
how different parties should be re-
cial outlavs or tax incentives. which
public involvement, 3) quality con-
sponsible to children and families.
in turn depend upon significant
trol, 4) adequate levels of financ-
Who should provide direct services
changes in political thinking. At
ing and 5) the development of the
and who should determine policy or
the direct service level, working
work force (Kagan & Quality 2000
generate funds? Each of these issues
with families and children together
Essential Functions Task Force,
is explored below, using the United
also requires change. Staff trained
1993). Therefore, many have recog-
States as a case example.
to work primarily with children or
nized that responsibility for children
with adults question their capacity
and families must be diversified in
Responsibility for Whom? For cen-
to deliver high quality programs to
focus so that both direct services
turies. nations have divided their
both populations simultaneously
and service systems can be
services to children and families.
In short, the question of whom to
strengthened.
Sometimes the services provided
support expands the universe of
for children are in competition with
those to be served. bringing with it
How Should Responsibility Be
those provided for families. The
still unanswered questions of what
Distributed? Apart from issues of
early childhood field in the United
such expanded responsibility should
who should be covered and what
States has not fallen prey to such
entail and how it can be achieved.
the focus should be; we need to ad-
dichotomous thinking because of a
dress questions of how responsibil-
shared belief that young children
What Should Be the Focus of Re-
ity for children and families should
cannot be served in isolation from
sponsibility? Not surprisingly,
be distributed. Osborne and
their families. Such beliefs have
given the pressing need, responsi-
Gaebler (1992), in their work on
found expression historically in
bilitv for children and families in
reinventing government, share the
parenting cooperatives. Head Start
the United States has centered on
view that the functions of govern-
and hosts of other programs, in-
sustaining direct services to children
ment have been confounded in the
cluding Even Start and the Com-
and families rather than focusing
United States. The authors contend
prehensive Child Development
on the development of infrastruc-
that government is a blunt instru-
Program. The growth and expan-
ture-training, regulations, re-
ment for service delivery and there-
sion of such programs has helped
sources and referrals-to support
fore should not be in the business
disseminate the notion of public re-
those services. Throughout the
of providing direct services to chil-
sponsibility for both children and
1980s. the policy emphasis on direct
dren and families. Rather, govern-
families.
services was SO strong that lobby-
ment should guide service delivery
But the question of which chil-
ing for anything else was consid-
through policy decisions. Such
dren and which families are the
ered akin to taking food from the
guidance requires people in gov-
nation's responsibility remains
mouths of starving children.
ernment positions who see the uni-
largely unanswered in the United
Recently, however, a growing
verse of options and can balance
States. Despite increased recogni-
segment of the early childhood
competing demands for resources.
tion that children and families of all
field has recognized that direct ser-
Direct service, on the other
racial and economic backgrounds
vices to children and families will
hand. relies on people who are
need supports. public commitment
always be compromised unless the
closer to individual consumers and
in the United States has been
proper supports exist to shore up the
can focus on service missions and
largely limited to poor and minor-
service svstem. We need training
perform them well. Theorists have
ity populations. Indeed, the first
mechanisms. an advocacy capacity
begun to define roles and responsi-
National Education Goal-to ready
and data collection. Child and fam-
bilities for different parties serving
all children for school by the year
ily service providers have come to re-
children and families, indicating that
2000-may mark the first time that
alize that they must develop a vision
without such definition commit-
the nation has expressed the clear in-
extending beyond direct services in
ment to children and families will
tention of advancing the health, edu-
order for the field to advance.
have fewer positive effects.
cation and well-being of all children.
This work has begun through
It is becoming clearer philo-
the national Quality 2000 initiative.
Deep Change-Strategies for
sophically that nations should be
The leaders have identified not
Optimal Responsibility
serving families and children to-
only the characteristics of quality
Consideration of these deep issues
gether and should be concerned
child and family service programs,
surrounding responsibility for chil-
about children and families of all
but also a quality service infrastruc-
dren and families-the who, the
6
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
he recent national
what and the how-leads to the
tiple needs and con-
legislation reflects
difficult question of who is really
cerns are incorporated
government's
responsible for children and fami-
into the institution's op-
lies in America. Given the nation's
erating procedures.
willingness to carve a
ideological history, coupled with
Despite these rather
role for itself that is
what we know from research. there
robust movements out-
more supportive of
is no reason to question that the
side of government. the
primary responsibility for child
federal government re-
families than we have
rearing in the United States cur-
mained quite remote
ever before seen.
rently resides first with parents,
from family support ef-
next with family and kin and then
forts until 1993. Re-
with neighborhood and commu-
cently, however, the
nity. Responsibility for children
Family Support and Family Preser-
strategy and 3) public will.
and families is not shifted whole-
vation Act. the Family Medical
Fortunately, the knowledge base
sale in different stages from one of
Leave Act, new provisions in Head
for family support and for shared
these groups to another; rather, it is
Start and Chapter I, and Secretary
commitment to children and fami-
shared among them.
of Education Richard Rilev's stated
lies in the United States has been
Inherent in this definition of
commitment to families, demon-
documented in literature and forti-
"sharing" is the reality that those
strate that the federal government
fied by hundreds of demonstration
closest to the child share more of
is recognizing the value of family
programs. A social strategy for
the responsibility, accompanied by
support and family engagement as
supporting children and families.
the growing recognition that fami-
prevention and promotion strategies.
however. has been missing in the
lies need support. Indeed, through-
This shift in government think-
United States. But as advocates
out the nation, an entire new breed
ing, however subtle. is important.
have increasingly come together to
of services, called family support
The recent national legislation re-
pass key legislation. the seeds for a
programs, are taking root to assist
flects government's willingness to
social strategy seem to have been
individuals in their parenting roles.
carve a role for itself that is more
put in place. Indeed. a coalition of
Family support programs are de-
supportive of families than we
multiple organizations participated
signed to serve not just parents in
have ever before seen. Much of the
in framing the ideas for the Family
need, but all parents. Such sup-
legislation delineates explicit roles
Support and Family Preservation
ports are taking the form of
for communities, in which commu-
Act.
parenting education, home visits,
nities are considered planning and
What seemed to be missing most
center-based services and services
decision-making entities guided by
in that effort was the third necessity
that function in mainstream institu-
general frameworks outlined by
for social reform-public will. The
tions such as schools and hospitals.
the federal government. Some call
strength of public will in the U.S.,
Just as important, institutions,
this the top-down/bottom-up ap-
however, has recently changed. In
including corporations, are adopt-
proach to shared responsibility.
reviewing poll's about child care
ing family orientations predicated
It is clear that the government
and family issues. the Child Care
on the belief that in order to secure
perceives itself as the steerer, rather
Action Campaign and the Commu-
a better future for children, all of
than the rower, in supporting chil-
nications Consortium Media Cen-
society's institutions must pull to-
dren and families. We should take
ter (1994) found that 69 percent of
gether. This family focus will not
heart, however, and realize that
Americans rated child care as either
emerge from installing simple add-
this perception is an advancement
an extremely or a very important
on programs that remain separate
in and of itself. Recognizing this
priority. In 1993, 55 percent of all
from mainstream institutions. The
shift in governmental commitment
Americans stated that government
adoption of a family focus increas-
is important. Equally important to
should play a greater role in pro-
ingly results in a reorientation of
Americans and citizens of other na-
viding child care assistance to fami-
the very fabric-the institutional
tions is recognizing how the shift
lies. This growing concern may be
culture and beliefs-of an organi-
came about. Such understanding
due to the pressure of daily living
zation. A family-focused institu-
can guide us in fashioning addi-
and to the need for child care and
tion does not view its employees as
tional reform. Richmond and
family supports to transcend pov-
workers only; rather, they are
Kotelchuck (1984) noted that three
erty. In addition, data are un-
workers, parents, community
things are needed for social reform:
equivocal about the relationship
members and partners whose mul-
1) a knowledge base, 2) a social
between. voter concern and news
FALL 1994
7
coverage. Over 200 studies clearly
of communities and neighborhoods
immunized, and all families will be
demonstrate that voters' opinions
and taxpayers are all responsible in
likely to have a better understand-
reflect the overall coverage of the
different wavs. The once-prevalent
ing of child and human develop-
preceding week's news. In short,
refrain, "Parents first; government
ment. Overall, the signs indicate
using the media is one way to
when they fail" is slowly being re-
that America will become a more
pique voter support for child and
placed by "Parents are primary; so-
caring society, one that is more con-
family issues.
ciety is willingly supportive."
ducive to children and youth's op-
Another recently successful
In a system of shared responsi-
timal development.
strategy has been the forging of
bility, government is responsible
This change will happen because
coalitions to address specific issues.
for providing incentives and ve-
we will learn from states and other
This approach has been used at the
hicles to empower families in caring
nations, because we will have the
national level to advocate for fam-
for themselves and their children.
knowledge to support the new re-
ily support and preservation legis-
Government's role includes regula-
ality that parenting must be shared.
lation, and it is also becoming
tion and the promulgation of new
and because ive will have ener-
prevalent in states. In Indiana.
knowledge and information. Gov-
gized public will. It will happen
teams within and outside of gov-
ernment in the United States
because people throughout the na-
ernment came together to pool re-
should not be responsible for actu-
tion will see to it that what John
sources so that a Healthy Families
ally providing every child with
Dewey said becomes true: "What
initiative could be launched. Colo-
quality early care and education;
every man wants for his own chil-
rado implemented a similar initia-
rather, it must ensure that every
dren. a just society has the obliga-
tive through the work of advocates
child has access to such service.
tion to deliver for all its children."
outside of government and a com-
If government functions in this
A poem by Shel Silverstein
bination of public funding streams.
manner, and if responsibility for
(Children's Defense Fund, 1991, p.
Increasingly, strong coalitions of
and support of children and fami-
20) summarizes well where we are
people inside and outside of govern-
lies is truly shared throughout the
with respect to sharing responsibil-
ment are forming to frame action
nation, significant changes in child
ity for children and families:
agendas and share responsibility
and family services may occur by
for children and families.
2010. While child care will still
Listen to the mustir't. child.
Learning from this deep change
need quality enhancements, it will
Listen to the don'ts
taking place in the nation, we can
be available to all children. It is
Listen to the shouldn its
begin to define optimal responsibil-
probable that family support as we
The impossible. the toon is
itv. Ideally, who is responsible for
know it will become institutional-
Listen to the never haves
children and families? The answer
ized and that corporations will
Then listen to Ille-
is both simple and complex. We all
adopt more family supportive poli-
Anything can happen. child
are. Parents, professionals. residents
cies. Children may well be fully
ANYTHING can be.
References
Kagan, S. L.. & Quality 2000 Essential Func-
Ypsilanti, ME High/Scope Press.
Child Care Action Campaign. & Communi-
tions Task Force. (1993). The essential
Stephan. S., & Schillmoeller. S. (1987). Child
cations Consortium Media Center.
functions of the cariv child care and educa-
day care: Selected federal programs. Wash-
(1994). Polling analysis of citild care issues.
tion system: Rationale and definition. New
ington. DC: Division of Education and
1988-1993. New York: Author.
Haven, CT: Yale University Bush Center.
Public Welfare. Congressional Research
Children's Defense Fund. (1991). The state
Lynn, L. (1980). The state and human services:
Services. Library of Congress.
of America's children wearbook. 1991.
Organizational change in " political context.
Sugarman. ]. M. (1991). Building cariv child-
Washington. DC: Author.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
hood systems: A resource handbook. Wash-
Children's Defense Fund. (1994). The state
National Academy of Sciences. (1990). Who
ington, DC. Child Welfare League of
of America's children yearbook, 1994.
cares for America's children? Child care
America.
Washington, DC: Author.
policy for the 1990's Washington, DC:
U. S. Department of Labor. (1988). Child
Cremin. L. (1987). Traditions of American
Author.
care: A workforce issue. Washington. DC:
education. New York: Basic Books.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992).
Author.
Goodman, I. F., & Brady, ! P. (1988). The
Reinventing government: How the entrepre-
U. S. General Accounting Office. (1993).
challenge of coordination. Newton, MA:
neurial spirit is transforming the public see-
Poor preschool-aged children Washington,
Education Development Center.
for. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
DC: Author (GAO/HRD93-111BR).
Kagan, S.L. (1991). United the stand: Collabora-
Richmond. J. B., & Kotelchuck. M. (1984).
Whitebook. M., Howes. C., & Phillips. D.
tion for child care and cariy education services
Commentary on changed lives. In R.
(1989). Who cares? Child care teachers and
New York: Teachers College Press.
Berrueta-Clement. L. Schweinharrt, S.
the quality of care in America (Executive
Kagan, S.L. & Newton. J. (1989). For-profit
Barnett. A. Epstein. & D. Weikart (Eds.).
Summary, National Child Care Staffing
and non-profit child care: Similarities and
Changed lives: The des of the Perry Pre-
Study). Oakland. CA: Child Care Em-
differences. Young Children. 45(1), 4-10.
school Program on youths through age 19.
ployee Project.
8
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
OVERVIEW
FAMILY SUPPORT AND
SCHOOL-LINKED SERVICES:
Variations on a Theme
by Sharon L. Kagan and
Peter R. Neville
n the five years since the last FRC
without good reason. given that family
Origins
Report. on school-related child and
support and school-linked Services share
The school-linked service and family
family services. 11c have witnessed a
many of the same philosophies. strate-
support movements emanate from two
proliferation of programs. an expanding
gies. and goals. Both recognize the need
very different histories and environ-
interest at the legislative level. and an
to improve the health. education. and
ments. each having unique opportunities
increasingly widespread public acknowl-
social welfare of children and families if
for and barriers to action. School-linked
edgment of the need for comprehensive
children are to develop and grow
service efforts have com entionally
family services. Indeed. the movement to
successfully Both strive 10 create
grown up in the context of rigid school
provide an integrated and comprehensive
flexible and nonhierarchical staffing
and human service bureaucracies. in
array of supports for children and
structures. 10 be responsive to their
order 111 implement their reform philoso-
families is reaching a critical stage. the
communities. and 10 involve parents
phies and goals. even in isolated pro-
have established promising program
collaboratively as both planners and
grams. school-linked efforts have faced
models. which swiftly gained broad-
consumers of services. School-linked
the challenge of altering entrenched
based commitment. and 11'c' have made
services and family support also attempt
modes of service delivery and bringing
some inroads into established systems.
to tailor services 10 meet the multifaceted
together traditionally independent
We now face the challenge of institution-
needs of individuals. transcending the
agencies-each with its own orientation.
alizing these reforms on a >> stem-wide
narrowly defined boundaries established
agenda. philosophy. and professional
basis-what Bruner has called "moving
by conventional categorical programs.
standards-into collaborative partner-
from marginal to mainstream.
Further. their shared commitment to
Ships.
Having arrived at the brink of major
universal service shuns the traditional
Drawing heavily on the concepts and
reform. we need to Come 10 some degree
deficit orientation of human services.
techniques of service integration efforts
of consensus on the definitions and
which stresses the weaknesses of the
to effect such change. the school-linked
terminology HC apply to our efforts.
neediest. and replaces it with the
service movement since its inception has
Specifically "e have not yet clarified
philosophy that all children and families
had to contend directly with the legacy
the meaning and relationship of two
can benefit from support. All together.
of power relationships-how the control
terms-family support and school-linked
these similarities demonstrate the very
over service planning and delivery has
services. Their many strategic Similari-
close parallels between the two move-
been allocated-that have long charac-
ties often lead people to use these terms
ments. They help explain why people
terized schools and human service
interchangeably. but equating them
frequently overlook differences between
systems. In essence. school-linked
obscures subtle but critical differences in
them and why individual programs may
services have needed to reshape the
the origins and priorities of the school-
seem to reflect both approaches simulta-
distribution of power and authority along
linked service and family support
neously
four dimensions. in each case working to
movements. Acknowledging the Similari-
eliminate competition and increase
ties and differences can not only help us
Differences
power-sharing.
refine our understanding of these
When programs are not viewed in
First and fundamentally. bringing
approaches. but also can help us clarify
isolation. however. but from a broader
together it comprehensive array of
the rich and unique lessons each move-
perspective as elements of growing
services has required restructuring the
ment has to contribute to fundamental
national movements. it becomes clear
relationships among agencies that have
change in education and human service
that despite their multiple similarities
traditionally operated independently of
delivery
family support and school-linked
each other. Before school-linked services
services have developed from different
Similarities
can devise strategies for bringing all
origins and often place different priori-
service providers to the table and. as
The confusion over terminology is not
ties on the goals of their services.
Gardner notes. prevent any single agency
from dominating the collaborative effort
family support has been able to explore
reality they tend to see family services
and alienating other participants-. they
and develop the types of power-sharing
within the context of forging comprehen-
must address long histories of competi-
relationships among individuals (e.g.,
sive services for children. not as its
tion for resources and influence. deep-
among staff and between staff and
primary raison d'être. In contrast. family
seated professional biases and animosity.
families) that have come to characterize
support places primary importance on
and regulations that hinder working
the principles and practices of the
serving the family as a unit. contributing
across categorical lines.
movement. Indeed. family support has
to the growth and well-being of all
Second. school-linked service efforts
made considerable advances in the areas
members. Such an approach does not
have had to grapple with established
of community ownership. voluntary
imply the neglect of services for chil-
hierarchies among staff members. Multi-
participation. and flexible responsiveness
dren: rather. enabling the family to
tier structures of decisionmakers and
to need. Moreover. when launched.
operate successfully as J unit and to
subordinates have had to be reconsidered
family support programs did not have
fulfill its own tasks and responsibilities
in order to create power-sharing.
institutional change of mainstream
is viewed as the most effective and
flexibility. and responsiveness among
bureaucracies as their goal. They could
efficient means of supporting the child's
staff in school-linked service programs.
contour their agenda to create programs
healthy development." In family support.
Staff have had to reexamine their own
that-were designed precisely to mitigate
then. the needs of the family as a unit are
roles and authority in some cases
the entions associated with complex
primary.
learning to relinquish control, and in
social service institutions.
Further. although both movements
others becoming accustomed to a new
express the importance of comprehen-
sense of ownership and recognition on
Priorities of Service
siveness. perhaps school-linked efforts
planning and governance issues.
In addition 10 differences in origin.
can bring together a wide range of
Third. substantive parent and commu-
and perhaps in part because of them.
services because they are located within
nity influence in school operations has
family support and school-linked
established service systems and close to
long been a point of controversy and
services often prioritize their service
major funding streams. As family
confrontation." Although the goals of
goals differently. We do not suggest that
support moves into schools and other
school-linked services include working
family support and school-linked
mainstream institutions. it is recognizing
closely with parents and their communi-
services focus on two entirely different
that systemic reform is critical and that
ties as equal allies in governing compre-
types of service. but we believe that an
there is a growing need for truly compre-
hensive service efforts. achieving and
examination of the emphases these two
hensive services. As family support
sustaining such equity and interaction
movements place on the services they
begins to concentrate on incorporating
has frequently been hindered by schools
provide reveals a slight divergence in
more services. it faces the challenges of
and other service agencies' historical
approach.
maintaining the movement's philosophy
reluctance 10 share their decision-making
Based in the child-serving context of
and traditions of cooperation and power-
authority with parents.
the schools. school-linked services tend
sharing-many of the same issues of
Related to the restructuring of parent-
to focus primarily on meeting the
systemic change with which school-
school relations. the fourth institutional
comprehensive needs of the child: they
linked service efforts have long
legacy of power-sharing for its lack
concentrate on broadening the spectrum
grappled.
thereof) that school-linked services have
of services. focusing on children's
faced has been the traditional hierarchi-
physical and social as well as cognitive
Sharing the Knowledge
cal relationship between program staff
development. Such programs also
Recognizing both the similarities and
and service consumers. Breaking down
recognize the benefit of supports
the subtle differences between family
such legacies and establishing it voice for
provided to the family (e.g., parent
support and school-linked services
families in determining their needs and
education. job training). although in
effectively serves a dual purpose. In
how services are provided
addition to-helping clarify
has been a considerable
our shared definitions of
challenge for proponents of
the terms. this analysis
school-linked services.
enables us to outline the
The family support
knowledge and expertise
movement. on the other
that each movement has
hand. originated outside
"As both family support and school-linked
accumulated in the course
mainstream institutions and
of its development. As
systems. Though family
support has made recent
services work toward further expansion and
both family support and
school-linked services
forays into system bureau-
cracies. historically ii has
systemic reform, each has something to
work toward further
expansion and stemic
not had to contend with
reform. each has some-
traditions of inflexibility
teach and something to learn
thing to teach and some-
and institutionalized
thing to learn.
cultures of competition to
Much in the same way
the degree that school-
that children's early
linked services have. As a
experiences shape their
result of this freedom.
personalities and strengths. the unique
importance of addressing the family as a
Schoolicinked
origins of family support and school-
Seven
unit or stressing the need for a truly
Sir Informa Research
linked services have strongly marked the
comprehensive range of services. each
San
Francisco
State
characteristics and areas of expertise of
contributes important lessons that future
1992)
the two movements. In working toward
reform efforts. be they school-linked.
X
many of the goals it shares with family
family support. or other. would do well
for
Educations
support. the school-linked service
to heed.
movement has faced numerous en-
trenched burriers as a result of its
S.L
position within established institutions.
Notes
OR
Cigier
As a result. it has developed a degree of
expertise in integrating services and
reshaping ossified structures and power
"
relationships. skills that are critical in
S_
bringing these sorts of efforts into
osse.-Bass:
mainstream systems on it larger scale.
Less restricted by hierarchical
Sharon L. Kagan. Ed.D. 13 senior
institutional cultures. family
associate at the Bush Center IN Citid
support has traditionally been
Development and Social Policy at
Yale University. A trequent
able to focus more on restruc-
consultant " the White House
turing the relationships among
Congress. the U.S Departments of
individuals. helping to
Education and Health and Human
elaborate the characteristics
Services. and numerous foundations
and protessional associations. Lynn
and delivery mechanisms that
15 chair .s; the Family Resource
define the reformed approach
RESOLVING TURF ISSUES
Codition's board. directors.
to education and human
charrperson of the National
When a multiagency collaboration effort has progressed to the
Education Goals Panel Readiness
services. Consequently.
stage where potential partners are at the table. cry the following
Technic at Committee. and (: former
though growing from some-
group activity to cast turf issues in a new light:
governing board member of the
what different roots. family
National Association for the
Education of Young Citidren.
support and school-linked
Divide participants into small groups making sure that each group
Author of numerous publications.
services can each provide
has at least one representative from each partner agency. Pose
site has edited or co-edited nine
critical knowledge and skills
several hypothetical problems to the groups and ask each person
books. including America's Family
to inform the systemic reform
in the small group to indicate what services s/he can contribute to
Support Programs and Putting
Families First.
of child and family services.
the solution. Reconvene the large group and have each small
lewing their differences
group report.
Peter R. Nevilie 15 " research
in priorities. we again find that
assistant at the Bush Center in Child
family support and school-
This activity sparks discussion, reinforces the collaborative spirit.
Development and Social Policy at
Yale University. His work has
linked services contribute
and clarifies strengths of particular partners. It also is a construc-
focused on family support. service
complementary elements to a
tive way for collaborative partners to find out about each other
integration. carly care and
reformed service system.
and the services other organizations provide.
education. and job training and
family education for Head Start
Whether highlighting the
families.
Mark Friedman
FINANCING REFORM
As In
HOW TO PAY FOR REFORM
OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
1250 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC
HOW ARE AMERICAN CHILDREN DOING?
KIDS COUNT
NATIONAL TRENDS STATE TREN
BENCHMARK
1985 to 1991
1985 to 1991
Percent low birth-weight babies
5%
37 states
worse*
*
worse
Infant mortality rate
16%
47 states
(per 1,000 live births)
better
better
Child death rate Ages 1-14
9%
35 states
(per 100,000 children)
better
better
Percent of all births that are to
20%
47 states
single teens
worse
worse* *
Juvenile violent crime arrest
50%
49 states
rates Ages 10-17 (per 100,000 youths)
worse
worse* *
Percent graduating from high
4%
39 states
school
worse
worse *
Percent teens not in school and
7%
34 states
not in labor force Ages 16-19
better
better
Teen violent death rate
13%
34 states
Ages 15-19 (per 100,000 teens)
worse
worse *
Percent children in poverty
4%
33 states
better
better*
*
Percent children in single-
11%
45 states
parent families
worse
worse *
*Includes the District of Columbia
KIDS COUNT 13
The Annie E. Casey Foundati
The Center for the Study of Social Pcl
A PLANNING PROCESS
FOR FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE REFORM
Outcomes for
THE SYSTEM
Children
THE SYSTEM
AS IT IS
AS IT
NOW
SHOULD BE
Principles
Reinvestment
Multi-Year
Commitment
and
Program Agenda
Financing Options
COMBINED PROGRAM FISCAL
GOVERNANCE
LEADERSHIP
STRATEGY
STRATEGY
AND
PROFESSIONAL
Fund Source
Program Use
DEVELOPMENT
STATE
STRATEGY
COUNTY
Cross
Community
COMMUNITY
Cross
Agency
ACTION PLAN - POLITICAL STRATEGY
SP7
Center for the Study of Social Policy
DEFINITIONS
OUTCOME or RESULT
A condition of well-being
for families. children or communities
For example: Healthy Births
INDICATOR
A measure, for which data is available,
which helps quantify the achievement
of outcomes
For example: Rates of low birth weight babies
PERFORMANCE MEASURE
A measure of the effectiveness of
agency or program service delivery
For example: Percent of teen parents
keeping clinic appointments
CSSP Draft 12/94
Outcomes Adopted
by Rochester NY CHANGE Process
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES & INDICATORS
HEALTHY BIRTHS evidenced by lower rates of:
low birth weight babies
late or no prenatal care
births to schocl-age females
CHILDREN READY FOR SCHOOL evidenced by:
completed immunizations
no uncorrected vision cr hearing defects
no preventable or untreated health problems
living in own family or stacie foster care
school readiness traits as observed by teacher
CHILDREN SUCCEEDING IN SCHOOL avidenced by:
academic achievement measures
attendance / truancy
placement in special education
retention in grade
suspensions
YOUNG PEOPLE AVOIDING:
school age pregnancy
substance abuse
involvement in viclence (victim or perpetrator, and
including child abuse, suicide, homicide and
arrests for violent crimes)
FAMILIES LIVING ABOVE POVERTY:
economic stability
safe and supportive living environment
mebility
ATTRIBUTES OF EFFECTIVE SERVICES
Geographically and psychologically accessible
Minimal barriers to participation (simple eligibility
process)
Comprehensive and responsive (usually implies
collaboration across systems and disciplines)
Personalized responses (implies flexibility and front-line
worker discretion)
Family-centered services and supports
Partnerships between parents and professionals
Responsive to neighborhood and community
Outcome-oriented accountability
Preventive orientation
Mission driven, shaped by client needs
Unbureaucratic climate
Relentless problem-solving capacity
Emphasis on relationships of mutual trust evolving
Product of the Improved Outcomes Project
The Center for the Study of Social Poli
The Harvard Project on Effective Services
The National Center for Education and the Economy
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
COMBINED PROGRAM AND FISCAL STRATEGY
Source of Funds
Use of Funds
Redeployment
Off the Top Cost
School-Linked Community Services
Refinancing
Medicaid
Prevention of Out of Home Care
IV-E
IV-A
Continuum of Out of Home Care
Other
Training
Governance
*wi mich to do the but ve can
Center for the Study of Social Polic-
winsources MU have as a way of making a
cash for what me want / need,
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
A COMBINED PROGRAM AND FISCAL STRATEGY
SOURCE OF FUNDS
USE OF FUNDS
Redeployment Strategies
School-Linked Community Services
Family Support Network
Out of State to In-State Care
Out of Home Care to Family Preservation
Screening, Outreach, Case Management
Out of Home Care to Reunification
Parent Support and Education
Home Visiting
Health Services
Mental Health Services
Teen Pregnancy Prevention Services
Drop-out Prevention Services
Refinancing Strategies
Substance Abuse Services
Recreation Services
Child Care
Medicaid
Employment Services
Education
Service Claims
Prevention of Out of Home Care: Family
Child Welfare
- EPSDT
Preservation Services (FPS)
Juvenile Justice
- Case Management
Public Health
- Rehab. Option
Statewide Fuil Access
Mental Health
Admin. Claims
Cross Systems Gatekeeping
Continuum of Out of Home Care
Title IV-E
Day Treatment
Child Welfare
Eligibility
Family Foster Care and Support Services
Juvenile Justice
Admin. Costs
Therapeutic Foster Care and Support Services
Training
Group Care and Support Services
Adoption and Post Adoption Services
Reunification Services
Title IV-A (Emergency Assistance)
Training
Child Welfare
Family Pres. Services
Juvenile Justice
180 Days Foster Care
University Center
Mental Health
Protective Services
Cross-Agency Training
Eligibility
Governance
Costs of Local Collaboratives
State and County Children's Cabinet
"Off the Top Costs"
Other Possibilities
Agency Staff (eligibility and administrative
JOBS (Program IV-F)
costs)
Child Support (TV-D)
Systems development
Donations/Grants/Fees/Loans etc.
Technical Assistance
Reinvestment Tracking
FINANCING REFORM
OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICE
"THE COSMOLOGY OF FINANCING"
REDEPLOYMENT
INVESTMENT BASED
CAPITATION BASED
CUT BASED
MATERIAL
REFINANCING
TITLE IV-E
TITLE IV-A
TITLE XIX
RAISING REVENUE
FEDERAL FUNDING
STATE AND LOCAL FUNDING
PRIVATE FUNDING
RESTRUCTURING
SEAMLESS SERVICES
FUNDING POOLS
FLEXIBLE DOLLARS
TRUST FUNDS
INCENTIVES
OUTCOME BASED BUDGETING
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
REDEPLOYMENT
State, Local and Capped Federal Funds
INVESTMENT-BASED REDEPLOYMENT
Using return on investment concepts
SHIFT OUT-OF-HOME CARE FUNDS TO:
- FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES
- REUNIFICATION SERVICES
- POST ADOPTION SERVICES
STEP DOWN LEVELS OF CARE:
- OUT-OF-STATE TO IN-STATE
- INSTITUTIONAL CARE TO COMMUNITY CARE
CAPITATION-BASED REDEPLOYMENT
Moving money within a cap "umbrella"
MEDICAID CAPITATION:
- FOR "HIGH-END" CHILDREN
- FOR MEDICAID IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
CUT-BASED REDEPLOYMENT
Setting priorities and moving money
MATERIAL REDEPLOYMENT
Moving staff and other resources
TITLE IV-E
POTENTIAL FOR INCREASING STATE CLAIMS
MAINTENANCE (50% TO 80% FFP)
COVERED SERVICES:
-- FAMILY FOSTER CARE (CW/JJ/MH)
-- GROUP CARE
-- INSTITUTIONAL FOSTER CARE
-- NON-SECURE DETENTION
ALLOWABLE COSTS:
-- IN ALLOWABLE PLACEMENTS
-- FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER, DAILY
SUPERVISION, TRAVEL
ELIGIBLE CHILD:
-- AFDC ELIGIBLE (OR WOULD BE IN SIX MONTHS
BEFORE REMOVAL)
-- VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT WITH COURT REVIEW
-- COURT DETERMINATION OF BEST INTERESTS
AND REASONABLE EFFORTS
ADMINISTRATION - ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES (50% FFP)
-- ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
-- REFERRAL TO SERVICES
-- PREPARATION/PARTICIPATION IN JUDICIAL
PROCESS
-- CHILD PLACEMENT
-- CASE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-- SUPERVISORY CONFERENCES
Center for the Study of Social Policy
-- RECRUITMENT AND LICENSING OF FOSTER
HOMES
-- RATE SETTING
-- EXCLUDES: FACE-TO-FACE THERAPY
TRAINING (75% FFP)
-- FOR WORKERS, STAFF, FOSTER PARENTS
-- IV-E ELIGIBILITY PROCEDURES
-- CHILD WELFARE PROTECTIONS
METHOD OF CLAIMING
-- DIRECT CHARGE
-- COST ALLOCATION (TIME STUDY/COST
POOL/IV-E ELIGIBILITY RATE)
-- RETROACTIVE CLAIMS (2 YEAR LIMIT)
Center for the Study of Social Policy
TITLE IV-A
POTENTIAL FOR FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES
AND RELATED SERVICES
DEFINITION OF EMERGENCY (STATE PLAN)
AT RISK OF ABUSE OR NEGLECT
AT RISK OF OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT
ELIGIBILITY
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AT ANY INCOME
LEVEL SET BY THE STATE
ONE EMERGENCY IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD
STATEWIDE COVERAGE
ENTITLEMENT/ACCESS
ALLOWABLE SERVICES/ACTIVITIES
PROVIDED OVER 6 TO 12 MONTHS
FPS AND RELATED SERVICES (I&R,
COUNSELING, ASSISTANCE IN SECURING
SHELTER, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CHILD CARE,
ETC.)
FC PLACEMENT COSTS FOR 6 TO 12 MONTHS
INVESTIGATION WORK OF PS STAFF AS IV-A
ADMINISTRATION
METHOD OF CLAIMING (50% FFP)
DIRECT CHARGE (MUST AVOID DOUBLE
BILLING)
COST ALLOCATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS
Center for the Study of Social Policy
MEDICAID POTENTIAL FOR CHILDREN'S SERVICES
SERVICE AREAS
PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
SCHOOLS
-- IEP-RELATED SERVICES
-- SCHOOL HEALTH AND RELATED SERVICES
CHILD WELFARE/JUVENILE JUSTICE
-- FAMILY PRESERVATION AND RELATED
SERVICES
-- OUT-OF-HOME CARE
PUBLIC HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH
MR/DD
OTHER
AUTHORIZATION AND CONTROL OPTIONS
MEDICAID OPTIONS:
-- EPSDT
-- REHABILITATION
-- MODEL WAIVER
-- 1915(a)
--
TARGETED CASE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORIZATION THROUGH:
-- EPSDT SCREEN
-- LICENSED PRACTITIONER (REHAB)
-- OTHER
RATE SETTING:
-- TIME BILLING vs. MONTHLY RATE
-- FLAT RATE vs. FULL COST
MANAGED CARE
-- HMO
-- PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN
ADMINISTRATION
-- TCM ADMINISTRATION
-- EPSDT ADMINISTRATION
METHOD OF CLAIMING
DIRECT CHARGE: (50% TO 80% FFP)
-- ELIGIBLE CHILD
-- ELIGIBLE SERVICE
-- PLAN OF SERVICE
-- RECORD OF SERVICE
COST ALLOCATION: (50% FFP)
--
HEALTH RELATED SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
BILLING:
-- DIRECT TO MEDICAID
-- THROUGH OTHER STATE AGENCY
-- CERTIFICATION OF MATCH TO MEDICAID
AGENCY
Center for the Study of Social Policy
AN APPROACHTO REFINANCING SCHOOL
SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID
MEDICAID
CLINIC\EPSDT\REI IAB\TARGETED CASE MANAGEMENT
ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES
(EPSDT)
CLINIC\EPSDT\REI IAB/TCM
- Outreach
- Assisting willi Medicald eligibility
IEP RELATED
- Coordination of health screening,
OTHER TREATMENT
SERVICES
examinations and assessments
SERVICES
- Case planning, coordination
and follow-up
- Coordinating pronatal care services
- Speech Pathology
- EPSDT Screens
- Coordinating nutrition services
- Occupational Therapy
- Student Support Team
- Physical Therapy
Screens
- I lealth aducation and health guldance
- Psychological Services
- Day Treatment Services
- Interagency coordination
- School I lealth Services
- Mental 1 lealth Services
- Social Work Services
- Aller School Services
- Assessment, Screenlng, and
- Parent "Interventions"
Diagnostle Services
- Targeted Case Management
- Transltion Services
- Other
- Other
Billing based on agency agreement,
federal reimbursement @ 50% of
Billing based on service provision to eligible child; and
eligible claim (75% for skilled medical
federal reimbursement at states Medicald matching rate (50.80%)
professionals)
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
MEDICAID ISSUES
(and some ideas about how to deal with them)
Reinvestment
Money back to Family and Children Services
Money back to Prevention: Double benefit.
Rematch Funds: Triple benefit.
Control of Use
Scope and Duration Definitions
Provider Qualifications
Medical Necessity Definition
EPSDT case plans vs. new services in state plan
Gate Keeper Service Authorizations
Prior Authorization if Necessary
1915(a) Pilot
1115 Demo
Excessive Billing
Capitated Rates
Complexity
Daily or Monthly Rates
Event vs. time billing
Use of Administrative Cost Time Study
Cost Neutrality
Consider Uncompensated Care in Rates
Consider 100% state and local expenditures for health care
Certification of Match (i.e. existing funds)
Coordination
EPSOT Plan (IEP, IFSP, and Student Assistance Team)
School Linked Services Structure (EPSDT admin)
Local Child Council
HMO (be careful not to put too much in the contract)
PCCP networks
Eligibility
Ribicoff Children
Family of One (children in out-of-home care)
SSI/1634 states/Zebley
OBRA 90 - 133%-185%
1902(r)(2) Special Populations
In Home Services
Model 50/200 - TEFRA
2176 Home and Community Based Waiver
Rehab or EPSDT (Not Clinic) Options
Out of Home Care
Therapeutic Components of Day Treatment, Therapeutic Foster Care.
Group and Institutional Care
Blended Rates
- IV-A Emergency
-- IV-E Maintenance
- XIX Rehab & PC
Statewideness
Medicaid Administrative Cost Agreements
1915(a)
Freedom of Choice
Managed Care HMO 1915(b) (Freedom of Choice Waiver)
1915(a)
Third Party
Skip claim for MA Children Without insurance
Reimbursement and
Title V Maternal & Child Health Special Medicaid Provisions
Fees
Center for the Study of Social Polic
Combined Program and Fiscal Scrategies
THE PITFALLS AND THE PROMISE
1.
BE POLITIC
Start with 1 conspiracy
End with 1 Love-In
2.
PROGRAM MUST DRIVE FISCAL
Joint program fiscal strategy
Get recycling commitment first
3.
MUST INVEST - no free lunch
4.
MUST USE EXPERTISE
Other states' experience
Consultants where necessary (nct contingency fee)
5.
REMEMBER ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
Do nc do everything II once
Remember the workers
6.
REMEMBER ENTROPY
Plan for decay or be prepared to pay
7.
GIVE PEOPLE INCENTIVES
8.
GIVE PEOPLE CREDIT
9.
CHALLENGE THE FEDS where necessary
10.
POLITICAL AND MANAGEMENT PRIORITY
Create it
Communicate it
Maintain it
Center for the Study of Social Policy
THE ETHICS OF REFINANCING
RESPONSIBLE REFINANCING
A commitment to reinvest in family and children services.
Financing options crafted to support client and service needs
Willingness to be creative and take reasonable risks in th
interest of children.
Investment in infrastructure.
Staged implementation over time.
Care and attention to good accounting practice.
IRRESPONSIBLE REFINANCING
Money is the object.
Choose the options without regard to service implications.
Layer on new work without new staff.
Move on all fronts at once.
Reduce the budgets of agencies dollar for dollar
- Use dollars to offset current costs
-- Use dollars for purposes unrelated to families or children
-- Use dollars to cover normal growth
-- Use dollars to cover the agency's share of cuts.
Use high cost contingency fee contracts.
Worry about disallowances later.
Center for the Study of Social Pc
FINANCING REFORM
As In
HOW TO REFORM FINANCING
OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
1250 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC
CHANGE THE WAY WE THINK
OUTCOMES
--
The Bottom Line Well Being of Families and Children
(not agency process/production/performance)
--
Working Backward from Outcomes to Budgets
--
Whatever it Takes: Formal and Informal Services and
Supports
BASELINES
Historical Data
--
Cost of Failure - Cost of Bad Outcomes Forecast
INVESTMENTS
--
Multi-Year Perspective
--
Disciplined Cost Benefit Analysis
--
Bridge Financing
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
CHANGE THE WAY WE ACT
CREATE NEW WAYS TO BUDGET
--
A Multi-year (5 year +) Family and Children's
Budget
--
An Annual (Legislatively mandated) Cost of Bad
Outcomes Baseline Forecast
--
A New Approach to Building Budgets and
Budget Agendas
--
A Family and Children's Investment Board
--
A Cost Benefit Research Agenda
RENEGOTIATE THE DEAL WITH
COMMUNITIES
--
Trade Outcomes Accountability for Fund
Flexibility
--
Simplify Federal and State Funding Structures
CHANGE THE FRONT LINE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PROGRAMS AND FINANCE
--
Seamless Services with Backroom Financing
--
Flexible Dollars
:
Incentives
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S BUDGETS
STAGE I (INVENTORY)
Simple inventory of spending by agency
Summary of current outcome indicators for
families and children
STAGE II (FUNCTIONAL) Above Plus
Summary of spending by function across
agency and categorical lines
STAGE III (OUTCOME BASED) Above Plus
Summary of spending by outcome
Across agencies, across sectors, across
levels of government
Historical data on outcomes and cost
Baseline forecasts of outcomes and cost
Analysis of investment options and financing
alternatives
Center for the Study of Social Policy
FOTB2C
CSSP - DRAFT 4/20/94
INITIATIVE-BASED VS OUTCOME-BASED BUDGETING
INITIATIVE-BASED BUDGETING
POSSIBILITIES
PROPOSALS
PRIORITIES
PACKAGING
ONE-YEAR
What's possible?
BUDGET AGENDA
Wish list
What should we
What can we afford?
I low can we package
What Is our plan for
seriously consider?
What is most saleable?
our initiatives?
Problem list
for next year?
Political list
OUTCOME-BASED BUDGETING
OUTCOMES
INDICATORS
WHAT WORKS
GAP ANALYSIS
MULTI-YEAR
BUDGET AGENDA
What results do we want
How do we measure
What works to produce
What do we have and
What Is our plan for
for familes and children?
those results?
those results?
need of what works?
the next 5 10 years?
Center for the Study of Social Policy
CSSP - DRAFT 12/21/93
FROM OUTCOMES TO BUDGETS
THE IMPROVED OUTCOMES PROJECT APPROACH
Verslon B
OUTCOMES
INDICATORS
WHAT
SYSTEM'S VIEW
MULTI-YEAR
WORKS
and GAP ANALYSIS
BUDGET
I lealthy
Lower rates of
Single Outcome
The System
The "Right" Side
Births
low birthweight births
As 11 Should Be
Prenatal Care
Lower rates of
Two-Year Okls
Immunized
No prenatal care
Universal Services
Proposed
All Children
All Children
Children Ready
Ages
Ages
Budget
for School
Actions
0 to 5
6 to 18
Children Succeeding
Familles and Children
In Trouble
In School
Youngsters Avoiding
Multiple Outcomes
Total Funds
I ligh Risk Behavlor
Gap Analysis
General Funds
Family Support
Federal Funds
Children In Familles
Other Funds
with Income over
What's Needed
the Poverty Line
Young Adults who
What's Available
Self-Sufficient
Decreased Use of
The Difference
5 to 10
Inappropriate and
Governance
Flscal Years
Expensive Services
CSSP/MF/DRAFT 4/29/94
TRADING FUND FLEXIBILITY FOR OUTCOME ACCOUNTABILITY
THE 6 BALANCING ACTS
1. CREATING AN OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK
Reaching agreement on a reasonable set of core outcomes
Reaching agreement on how local outcomes can and will be chosen
2. CREATING A FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS SYSTEMS GOVERNANCE
Finding a strategy which can grow as trust builds
Defining partnerships between state agencies, between state and the counties,
between county agencies, between the county and the education community,
between the county/education partnership and the cities and local communities
3. CREATING INCENTIVES FOR PREVENTION
Packaging funding for prevention and remediation
Providing financial and other incentives for investment in long term prevention
Providing access to investment capital inside and outside current resource streams
4. CREATING INCENTIVES FOR DIVERSITY
Cultural competence
Diversity of participation
Diversity of approaches to services and supports including non-traditional services
and service delivery
5. CREATING STANDARDS
Reaching agreement on performance (and coverage) minimums
Reaching agreement on the outlines of a vision and how to begin to describe what
optimal performance might look like
6.
CREATING SAFEGUARDS
Reaching agreement on "traditional" block grant safeguards, like (projected and
actual) inflation, caseload and other economic adjustments.
Reaching agreement on "non-traditional" safeguards, like equalization and
stabilization safeguards related to tax base, service carve-outs, and insurance and
reinsurance protections.
DRAFT
Revised 6/28/94
FINANCING REFORM
OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
An Approach to the
Systematic Consideration of Financing Options
Or
"The Cosmology of Financing"
The Center for the Study of Social Policy
1250 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
June 14, 1994
This paper was supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the
Foundation Consortium for School-Linked Services.
This paper was also supported in part by the Improved Outcomes for Children
Project, which is funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation,
Lilly Endowment, Carnegie Corporation, Danforth Foundation, and the Pew
Charitable Trusts.
FINANCING REFORM
OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
An Approach to the Systematic Consideration of Financing Options
Or
"The Cosmology of Financing"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
I.
REDEPLOYMENT: USING THE MONEY WE ALREADY HAVE
4
A.
Investment Based Redeployment
+
B.
Capitation Based Redeployment
9
C.
Cut Based Redeployment
10
D.
Material Redeployment
11
II.
REFINANCING: FREEING FUNDS FOR REINVESTMENT
13
A.
Title IV-E Foster Care and Subsidized Adoption
14
B.
Title IV-A Emergency Assistance
16
C.
Medicaid: An Overview
18
D.
Medicaid in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice
19
E.
Medicaid in Health, Mental Health,
Mental Retardation, and Developmental
Disability Services
19
F.
Medicaid in the Schools
20
III.
RAISING REVENUE: GENERATING NEW FUNDING
TO SUPPORT FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
22
A.
New Federal Funding
22
B.
State and Local Funding
23
C.
Private Funding
24
IV.
RESTRUCTURING FINANCIAL SYSTEMS: USING
FINANCIAL STRUCTURES TO EFFECT CHANGE
25
CONCLUSION
26
FINANCING REFORM OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES
An Approach to the Systematic Consideration of Financing Options
Or
"The Cosmology of Financing"
INTRODUCTION
There is a broad and growing consensus that the current systems of services for families and
children must change and that it is both imperative and possible to better support families and
achieve positive outcomes for families and children. This is one in a series of papers intended
to assist states, counties. cities and communities in advancing that process of change. It is
designed to help jurisdictions build a financial strategy to support a reform agenda for families
and children by identifying several ways in which funds can be made available to pay for new,
improved or transformed services and supports for families and children. This paper will be
most useful to those who have already begun the work of developing a reform agenda and have
begun thinking about the requisite fiscal and political strategies to put that agenda in place.
States and localities throughout the country are engaged in a variety of efforts to improve the
way they administer, finance and deliver services to vulnerable families and children in order
that more children grow up in stable, nurturing families and become healthy, productive adults.
Many of these reform efforts share the following principles including:
Services and supports should be rooted in the community, easily accessible to
families, and delivered in a manner that respects cultural and community
differences;
Services and supports should be focussed on the whole family. with professionals
working in partnership with families to identify their strengths and needs as well
as to secure assistance;
Services and supports should be established as part of a comprehensive array. of
community services rather than narrowly drawn as discrete, isolated services;
Services and supports should be offered to families early in order to avoid crises
or at least lessen their intensity; and
Page 2
There should be agreement on the desired outcomes to be achieved for children
and families and on the ways that progress will be measured.
Although these principles are enunciated by many state and local reform efforts today, different
jurisdictions have chosen different programmatic entry points for change. Some states such as
Missouri and Maryland are emphasizing the needs of children in the deepest parts of the service
system - those in out-of-home care and especially out-of-state care. Reforms are being advanced
to move these children back into families in their home communities. Iowa is similarly
addressing children who would previously have been placed in out-of-home care through their
"decategorization" initiative in which out-of-home funds are pooled and used to support children
closer to home. Other jurisdictions are starting with early identification of high risk populations
and trying to bring together new, improved services to head off negative outcomes for children.
The New Futures initiative in five cities is an example of this type of reform effort which seeks
to reduce dropout and teen pregnancy rates in disadvantaged communities. The Healthy Start
Program in California is supporting cross system partnerships at the school and school district
level to meet the needs of low-income children, youth, and their families through school-linked
services. Still other jurisdictions have chosen to launch neighborhood-based prevention
programs targeted on residents in low-income communities. Vermont's Success by Six initiative
and Kentucky's Family Resource Centers located in or near schools are examples of this type
of reform venture.
Regardless of the specific programmatic agenda chosen, all of these initiatives involve
readjusting relationships between local, state, and federal governments. Localities find
themselves working much more closely with their state counterparts who in turn must often
develop new partnerships with the federal government. The financing strategies that are
developed to support the site's programmatic agenda also involve shifts among the various levels
of government and between governmental agencies, as will be shown later in this paper.
In all cases, states and localities are seeking new funding sources to help support their
programmatic reform initiatives. Especially in times of tight budgets, most jurisdictions have
few if any new dollars to invest in systemwide reform. This means they must create political
and financial strategies that use current and future resources in new ways and that maximize all
Page 3
available sources of revenue. This paper explores some of the major financing strategies that
states and localities can use as they restructure the ways services are delivered to needy children
and families.
Several essential points should be kept in mind as states and localities embark on major human
service reform efforts. First is the central principle of all good financial planning, that
programs drive financing, not the other way around. Financial strategies must be used to
support improved outcomes for families and children. And financing strategies which cannot
be adequately adapted to program ends should not be used, even if they happen to generate more
money than other approaches.
Second, no single financing approach will serve to support an ambitious agenda for change.
Financing packages should be developed by drawing from the widest possible array of resources.
Many individuals or organizations are stuck on one approach to financing (usually the one that
involves asking for more state or local general funds). Yet there are many alternatives.
Financing is an art not a science, and creativity is the order of the day. In the end, more
general funds may be necessary to support system changes, but these will only be forthcoming
and deserved if states first make the best use of existing resources and use other approaches at
their disposal.
Finally, this technical assistance guide for considering financing options is a work in progress,
not a finished set of answers. It is not possible to describe all financing strategies or options in
a single document. This paper cannot, in its current form, fully present or justify the examples
used to illustrate financing strategies. In some cases there are small libraries devoted to these
program approaches. And the circumstances of federal, state, and local funding are constantly
changing. The paper is set up in the form of a four part check list of financing strategies, with
examples of how such strategies can be applied to finance a program reform agenda. We think
the four part framework (Redeployment, Refinancing, Revenue Raising, and Restructuring)
presented here is one which can provide a home for new approaches and new opportunities as
they develop.
Page 4
I.
REDEPLOYMENT: USING THE MONEY WE ALREADY HAVE
Redeployment means using the monetary and non-monetary resources already available in the
service system. Redeployment should always be the financing option of first choice for two
reasons. First, the use of existing resources for new purposes involves changing the way we do
business, the essence of reform itself. The second reason has to do with accountability. Before
asking for new funds - and new funds may be necessary for any ambitious agenda - there is a
programmatic and political imperative to make the best use of existing resources.
Redeployment applies not just to state and local general funds, but aiso to the large array of
capped federal fund sources which are used to finance health. education. and social services
(including such diverse fund sources as the Social Services Block Grant. Maternal and Child
Health funds, and Chapter I funds).
There are at least four different forms of redeployment to consider:
A.
Investment Based Redeployment
This is redeployment based on the concept of return on investment common to all business
financing. In the world of human services, investment based redeployment depends on an
understanding of the cause and effect relationship between a service intervention (investment)
and some future reduction in the demand for service and cost of entitlement spending (return).
If properly structured, investment based redeployment can pay for itself in combined cost
savings and cost avoidance over a period of one or more fiscal years.
Under this approach, investments in prevention measures are financed by using the prevention
savings generated in other parts of the budget, most importantly entitlement line items. For
example, investments in routine preventive health care for low income families have been
financed in part from reduced use of emergency and in patient care. Employment training and
transitional wage supplementation have been financed from reduced or avoided AFDC costs. In
some few cases, these kinds of transfers can be accomplished in a single budget year. In most
Page 5
cases, savings take longer to accrue and a multi-year approach is required. Unfortunately, multi-
year investment financing is uncommon in most public budgeting systems, outside of capital
budgets (e.g., bonds for bridge construction secured with toll revenue). And multi-year
investment based redeployment requires strong executive and legislative leadership support, and
a working partnership between those with program responsibility and those with financial
responsibility.
Investment based redeployment also requires agreement on the baseline forecasts of entitlement
expenditures which will occur without change in policy. (Such forecasts are sometimes known
as "cost of failure" analyses, or "cost of bad outcome" analyses.) A baseline forecast is
necessary so that parties to the investment can quantify the benefits or prevention investments
and agree on how cost savings and cost avoidance will be calculated and credited. Baseline
forecasts allow the consideration of expected increases in cost. and the potential redeployment
of funds which are, or will be, dedicated to cover those costs. For example. funds included in
a proposed (balanced) budget to cover foster care caseload increases. can be considered a source
of investment funds for measures which might prevent or diminish the expected caseload growth.
For some program components, such as AFDC or Foster Care caseloads, baseline forecasts for
one or two fiscal years may be produced as part of the annual budget process. Forecasting,
however, is a complex and often controversial process, and forecasts are rarely produced for
more than a handful of programs. Forecasting requires a good base of historical information,
and an understanding of the controllable and uncontrollable factors which influence future cost.
The best forecasting processes involve building consensus among stakeholders (i.e., executive
and legislative budget offices) about high, medium, and low estimates. An investment of time
in such consensus building can sometimes serve to shift the discussion from short term stop-gap
measures to longer term solutions.
Finally, investment based redeployment requires a base of research or experience which links
investments to savings. Reliable research on cost/benefit relationships is rare, but should be
among the highest priorities for researchers in the human services field as well as those, in the
public and private sectors, who fund research.
Page 6
At the bottom line, the layman's version of investment based redeployment is based on the
simple question: "If we are going to spend all this money anyway, can't we do better?" As a
general rule, it should be possible to create an investment based redeployment strategy which
finances prevention of any expensive entitlement service.
Some important examples of investment based redeployment include:
1.
Out-of-Home Care Entitlements
Out-of-home care for children is one of the largest entitlement expenditures of state and
local government. The full cost of such care averages over $10,000 per year per child,
and can exceed $100,000 for children in the most expensive forms of care. Total
government expenditures for out-of-home care costs exceed $3 billion per year, and
involve all major child serving systems, including Child Welfare (CW), Juvenile Justice
(JJ), Public Health (PH), Mental Health (MH) and Education (ED). There are at least
two investment based redeployment strategies which utilize savings in the out-of-home
care budget:
a.
Preventing out-of-home care and reducing length of stay. Services which prevent
or lessen stays in out-of-home care can produce savings in the cost baseline for
out-of-home care. If services are targeted to children who would otherwise enter
care, or who are already in care, it may be possible to save (or avoid) out-of-
home care costs in excess of service cost. It is important to note that such
services can be difficult and costly to implement, and require careful planning and
oversight. There is also some controversy over the extent to which various
program models actually save or avoid cost. And efforts to reduce entry into
foster care must not serve to diminish the clear first priority given to child safety.
Nevertheless, some jurisdictions such as Prince George's County, Maryland and
Michigan have implemented programs based on established service models that
have helped change the pattern of caseload growth. At least three out-of-home
care redeployment approaches can be considered:
Family Preservation Services: services designed to prevent unnecessary
foster care, group home or other out-of-home care placement.
Page 7
Reunification Services: services designed to return children safely to their
homes.
Post Adoption Services: services designed to preserve high-risk adoptions
and prevent return to out-of-home care as a result of disrupted adoptions.
b.
Stepping Down Levels of Care. It is not uncommon for children to be placed in
more expensive care (e.g., residential treatment, emergency facilities) for longer
periods than necessary. The causes for this phenomenon are complex, but a major
factor is often the lack of available community-based alternatives. Development
of less expensive community-based care can sometimes be financed by systematic
efforts to "step down" levels of placement where this is appropriate for individual
children. Out-or-home care funds can be used to finance the start-up and
continuing costs of newer forms of care. In some cases this form of financing can
be applied on a child by child basis using a "wrap around" approach to tailor an
individual plan of care for a child with funds currently devoted to his or her care.
Implementing these changes requires the system-wide commitment of those
involved in the placement system, including judges, front-line workers, and
private agencies. And careful planning is required to assure that newly vacated
beds are not simply refilled. As discussed in Section II below, Medicaid funding
can sometimes be used to help finance the therapeutic components of services in
the placement continuum.
At least three step down approaches can be considered:
Out-of-state to in-state: Where children are placed in expensive out-of-
state facilities, it may be possible to return children to less expensive,
newly developed or specially tailored in-state care.
Institutional care to therapeutic foster care: Therapeutic foster care can be
used to replace or shorten stays in more expensive institutional care.
Group care to supported family foster care: Neighborhood based family
foster care, connected to services which support the foster family and
meet the special needs of the child, may be used to replace or shorten
stays in more expensive group care.
Page 8
2.
Health Care Entitlements
The health care system provides some of the best examples of the relationship between
preventive and remedial costs. Using high cost entitlement expenditures as the signal of
redeployment potential, it may be possible to disaggregate publicly supported health
costs, build strategies which reduce the need for each high cost component of care, and
redeploy saved and avoided costs to fund preventive services. Approaches which are
often cited to illustrate this strategy include:
Prenatal care and teen pregnancy prevention: It may be possible to shirt saved or
avoided health care funds for intensive care for premature births to targeted low
birth weight prevention efforts and teen pregnancy prevention.
Immunization: The cost associated with treating preventable illness could be
shifted to support expanded immunization efforts. Since the benefits of
immunizations take several years to materialize, this may require some form of
multi-year bridge financing. (See the discussion of loans and bond financing in
Section IV below.)
The following idea illustrates the possibility of a more experimental approach to
investment based redeployment.
Violence prevention: Violence is increasingly viewed as a priority public health
problem. There is, at best, conflicting evidence on what approaches to violence
prevention work. If successful strategies can be identified, it may be possible to
package saved or avoided violence related costs (including such things as direct
emergency room costs, costs of incarceration, and indirect savings in public and
private insurance costs) and use these savings to support violence prevention
efforts.
Page 9
B.
Capitation Based Redeployment
A second approach to redeployment involves the use of capitation strategies. Capitation means
packaging services (ideally the related elements of prevention and treatment costs) into a single
fixed per person payment for a class of individuals. This structure creates a fiscal mechanism
and a fiscal incentive which encourages controlling costs and shifting fund use toward preventive
services.
The basic questions to be answered in capitation approaches involve what service costs to include
in the package, how to set rates fairly, and what provider or service structure to use. There is
a growing body of experience with capitation approaches. The best known include the emerging
forms of managed health care, including health maintenance organizations and other provider
networks. Capitation approaches are also being used for the treatment costs of special
populations, such as children in out-of-state out-of-home care (as in Maryland), or children in
high cost out-of-home placements (as in Arizona, California, New Mexico, Ohio, and others).
These are often implemented within the Medicaid program in conjunction with one or more
refinancing strategies described in Section II. They typically involve packaging all costs of care
for a defined group of children, with the state agency or provider then given wide flexibility in
crafting a plan of community-based care. Savings from these approaches can be used for
preventive services both for children inside and outside the capitation plan. Another example
of capitated services is the use of a capitation rate for Medicaid reimbursement of special
education ancillary services in the Boston education system.
Section 1915(a) of the Medicaid program provides a particularly useful tool to implement
capitation models. This section of the Social Security Act provides states the option to establish
capitated contracts for service for specified populations and designated geographic areas. While
rate setting methods and other components of the contracts may require federal approval, use
of 1915(a) is a state option under Medicaid and does not require a state plan waiver. The option
provides a useful means to test capitation approaches under Medicaid in one or several
jurisdictions before committing to statewide implementation.
Page 10
C.
Cut Based Redeployment
This is the traditional method of moving money - cutting one thing to fund another. Most often
there is little relationship between the program cut and the program funded. Savings from cuts
are often used to fill budget gaps or add to the funds available for discretionary spending by the
Governor or Legislature. It is, of course, possible to be more deliberate about the business of
identifying cuts and using those funds for new purposes. This more deliberate process involves
setting priorities, reducing low priority expenditures and using freed funds to support an agenda
of program and system change.
Many systems have now been through so many rounds of budget cuts that the choice of priorities
is stark. Where efficiencies or cuts are still possible, administrators often hoard these actions
to offer up in the inevitable next round. But in spite of these strains. there is broad agreement
that money currently in the human services system is not being used very well, that inefficiencies
do exist and that spending patterns are often out of synch with current needs. This view applies
not just to state and local general funds, but to the wide array of federal block grants and capped
federal funding sources as well. The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), for example, has
been part of the Social Security Act for over 20 years, and fund allocation in most states reflects
a 20 year accumulation of budget and political compromise. Members of the education
community will admit privately, if not publicly, that some Chapter I and Drug Free Schools
funding could be put to better use. Many are skeptical that historical patterns of fund use can
be reconsidered, but this should not deter consideration of new choices.
The most important issue in cut-based redeployment is establishing the set of principles used to
set priorities. One approach is to sort expenditures into "mandatory" and "non-mandatory"
categories and then further subdivide programs in terms of low, medium, and high impact on
life, health, and safety. Most cut processes quickly focus on the non-mandatory - low
life/health/safety set of services. These are often the prevention expenditures where increased
investments are necessary. A better approach is to look at the system's use of funds through a
very particular lens: How does each expenditure contribute to achieving the outcomes we want
for families and children? Where does each expenditure fit in our overall strategy to improve
outcomes? Low impact strategies can be cut in favor of those more likely to succeed. Funding
Page 11
for similar functions across systems can be combined. Waivers can be obtained for mandated
expenditures or service delivery patterns which are inefficient or unnecessary. Where
expenditures are reviewed against common goals which are articulated and applied to multiple
systems of care, it is less likely that individual agencies will see the process as unfair or
unproductive. Funding pool structures discussed below can provide a framework within which
to pursue this kind of redeployment.
D.
Material Redeployment
This type of redeployment involves the transfer or reuse of existing positions or other tangible
resources: This approach becomes more important for administrators closer to the front line.
who may not have the discretion to shift dollars but can shift staff. It is possible. for example,
to outstation workers in schools or other community settings. or combine resources across
systems to create common intake and assessment capacity. These types of changes may be
possible without any new expenditure of funds.
The most ancient form of financing is a form of material redeployment called bartering. The
application. of bartering to human services is illustrated by a case in Chicago where local
program directors arranged a trade of day care services for drug treatment services. Young
mothers in the drug treatment program gained access to day care. And day care parents gained
access to drug treatment. The trade was mutually beneficial, as all good trades are. No money
changed hands. Other trades are of course possible: space for services (as in Florida's rebuilding
of schools destroyed by Hurricane Andrew where space for community service providers is part
of the new building design); equipment for services; or land for services (as in the case of an
agreement exchanging a day care center for a 99 year lease on Native American land).
Page 12
Bartering is possible even at the state or federal level. But at the local level it can be a simple
answer to a complex problem. Organizational deals which could take years to hammer out in
budget or legislative processes can be done in practice with a minimum of bureaucracy. Such
actions can also be the first step to other forms of working together for mutual benefit. In fact,
some of the best forms of collaboration resemble simple markets where organizations bring
resources to the table and trade those resources for the benefit of their clients and organizations.
Page 13
II.
REFINANCING: FREEING FUNDS FOR REINVESTMENT
By refinancing we mean claiming open ended (i.e., not limited by federal appropriation) federal
funds to pay for services now financed entirely with state and local funds, freeing those funds
for reinvestment. Freed state and local funds can be rematched with federal funds when used for
federally eligible expenditures.¹ Refinancing efforts generally make use of the remaining open
ended federal titles of the Social Security Act. The most important of these titles include: Title
IV-E Foster Care; Title IV-A Emergency Assistance and Child Care: Title XIX Medicaid (in
states without voluntary caps adopted as part of waiver programs); Title IV-D Child Support
Enforcement; and Title XVI SSI benefits. In many cases, services or activities can be funded
under more than one Title. It is important to consider the best mix of federal claiming, and,
most importantly, the claiming approach which best supports service goals.
One of the great dangers of refinancing work is the risk that money produced by such efforts
will not be used to advance the reform agenda for families and children. Refinancing proceeds
usually take the form of state or local general fund revenue, which can be used for many
different purposes, not necessarily those related to reform. Refinancing work should result in
funds available for reinvestment in improved or expanded family and children's services.
Decisions about reinvestment must be made before work on refinancing begins. Without some
way to protect the freed up money, it is likely that refinancing funds will return to the general
treasury to be used for whatever priorities appear on the state or local political agenda at the
time. The best way to help assure that the proceeds of refinancing go to good use is to recognize
the political nature of the budget process and use that process effectively. The single best way
to be effective in these processes is to have a compelling vision of change which attracts
Some state and local accounting systems permit federal fund reimbursement to be received
directly as general fund revenue, in much the same way that fee payments or debt collection
amounts are treated. These amounts may then be rematched with federal funds when they are
used for federally eligible purposes. Alternatively, state and local accounting systems may
require that federal reimbursement be credited to the specific accounts which generated the
claim. In this case, an equal general fund amount can be freed, and these freed funds can be
rematched with federal funds when used for federally eligible purposes. In cases where the funds
freed by refinancing are federal block grant funds, it may be necessary to, first, exchange these
funds for general funds by transfer between program budgets.
Page 14
political support and makes reinvestment in families and children a winning political act.
In some states and communities, political leaders have established commitments, by executive
order or legislation, to reinvest funds generated by refinancing. Some of the best examples of
formal reinvestment structures include the trust fund established by legislation in Colorado for
reinvestment of Title IV-A refinancing funds and the community reinvestment process for federal
administrative claims established in North Dakota. In other states, reinvestment commitments
have been established in the budget process itself (as in Iowa. Maryland, Missouri, and
Tennessee), or by contract (as in the case of school Medicaid contracts in Missouri and New
Mexico).
The second essential refinancing caveat concerns the need for up-front investment in
administrative capacity to assure that federal funds are properly claimed and not subject to later
audit disallowance. Federal program requirements and claiming procedures can be complex and
can create significant new workload. Some of the anticipated new revenue should be advanced
to build staff and systems capacity to adequately cover this workload. Where direct service staff
are required to perform new administrative work, additional service positions should be created
at least to maintain existing service capacity. As a rule of thumb, five to ten percent of newly
anticipated revenues should be invested in this kind of infrastructure support.
Following are the major refinancing options under Titles IV-E, IV-A and XIX which can be used
to provide funding for reinvestment in family and children's services.
A.
Title IV-E Foster Care and Subsidized Adoption
Title IV-E is the title of the Social Security Act which provides funding for foster care and
subsidized adoption. Title IV-E provides reimbursement for foster care maintenance costs (i.e.,
room and board and related costs) at the state's Medicaid matching rate, which varies between
50 percent and 80 percent based on the state's per capita income. Administrative costs are
reimbursed by the Federal government for all states at 50 percent. Training claims are
reimbursed at 75 percent.
Page 15
There are six basic strategies for increasing IV-E claims:
1)
Increase the IV-E eligibility rate. The most important element of IV-E claiming
is the percentage of children in out-of-home care who are IV-E eligible. Foster
care maintenance costs are reimbursed only for eligible children. And the IV-E
eligibility rate is also used to calculate the federal share of IV-E administrative
claims. A description of IV-E eligibility requirements is beyond the scope of this
paper. The most important requirements specify that the child must have received
AFDC (or been eligible to receive AFDC) at the time of placement or during the
preceding six months; and placement court orders must specify that placement is
in the best interest of the child, and that reasonable efforts have been made to
prevent placement. Most states have made significant progress in improving Title
IV-E eligibility rates. Achievable rates for most states exceed 60 percent. And
in high poverty areas, achievable rates may exceed 75 percent.
2)
Increase IV-E administrative claims through better time study coverage, better
claiming definitions, and improved cost allocation methodology. Title IV-E
administration covers a wide range of activities including eligibility determination,
foster home recruitment, child placement and judicial processes. and case
management. In effect, IV-E administration covers all activities in support of the
out-of-home placement system except face-to-face therapy. Time studies typically
find that 80 percent of child welfare worker activities can be classified as
administration under IV-E. Random statistical studies of worker time are used to
capture these costs, and there are there are often ways to improve the functioning
of these systems and the way in which the resultant data is used to increase the
size of the claim.
3)
Expand IV-E coverage to the Juvenile Justice and Mental Health system,
including both service and administrative claims. Many children in out-of-home
care in the Juvenile Justice and Mental Health systems are potentially eligible for
Title IV-E. Establishing coverage for these children involves the same rules and
protections required for children in the Child Welfare system. However, IV-E
claims in these systems are limited by prohibitions on payment for placement in
public institutions, secure detention, and for-profit facilities.
4)
Expand coverage of group and residential costs using a blended rate approach
which coordinates rate setting and cost coverage with Medicaid. Many of the
costs of group and residential care are potentially reimbursable under Title IV-E,
Title XIX, or both. It is possible to create a rate structure which takes advantage
of the optimum mix of these funding streams, and increases net federal
reimbursement.
Page 16
5)
Improve use of IV-E training funds (at 75% FFP) through university based
training or direct contracting for training services. Public universities may use
approved overhead and indirect costs as match.
6)
Use enhanced matching rate funds for information systems development and
implementation. Seventy-five (75) percent matching funds are available for three
years (Federal Fiscal Years 1994 to 1996) for planning, development and
implementation of child welfare information systems. Subsequent operating costs
will be reimbursed at 50 percent. A number of states are using these funds to help
develop cross agency information systems which can provide the data and
management support needed for family and children's service. reform.
B.
Title IV-A Emergency Assistance
Title IV-A of the Social Security Act provides states the option to establish an emergency
assistance program for families with children. Federal reimbursement is provided for all states
at 50 percent. A growing number of states (including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, and others) have received approval for state
plans which define the emergency as "risk of out-of-home care." Using this definition of
emergency, it is possible to receive reimbursement for many services provided over a 6 to 12
month period to families and children in the Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Mental Health
systems. There are important restrictions on the use of Title IV-A funds which must be carefully
considered in any planned use of this fund source. Most importantly, emergency assistance may
be provided to a family only once in any 12 month period. States with pre-existing IV-A
emergency assistance programs must establish systems to avoid duplicate claims. (Michigan has
lead the way in solving this problem by using a computer match to identify multiple claims for
the same family and submitting the higher service expense for IV-A reimbursement.) Title IV-A
is an individual entitlement benefit, and the state must have a clear audit trail back showing what
services are provided to specific eligible individuals. Title IV-A requires an income test, but
many states have used simplified procedures which test whether the family has sufficient cash
resources to pay for the emergency response. With family preservation services, for example,
averaging about $4,000 per family, most families can be made eligible. Another important
Page 17
provision of Title IV-A is the requirement that benefits be available statewide. IV-A funding,
therefore, may not be suitable for sub-state pilots or demonstrations.
The three most important groups of programs which can be refinanced through Title IV-A are:
1)
Family Preservation and related services. When family crises place children at
risk of out-of-home placement, it is possible to receive Title IV-A reimbursement
for a wide range of service responses to this emergency. Many states have used
Title IV-A to support family preservation services designed to keep children
safely in their own homes and avoid placement where possible. Other services
which could be financed as part of the emergency response include assessment
and diagnostic services, domestic violence services, respite care, and cash
assistance such as transitional housing assistance. Title IV-A can be used in
conjunction with Medicaid and redeployment strategies to finance common
prevention services across systems. The best example of this is North Dakota
which is using its higher federal matching rate under Medicaid to pay for family
preservation services for Medicaid eligible families, and charges Title IV-A for
family preservation costs for all other families. Savings from the out-of-home care
budget have been redeployed to help cover the non-federal share.
2)
Protective Services Investigation activity. If the definition of emergency is "risk
of out-of-home placement," then the process of determining whether such a risk
exists becomes part of the eligibility process for Title IV-A. In most cases, this
determination is made by protective services workers, and a portion of this
worker time may be claimed as IV-A administration. Other administrative claims
are also possible in any child serving system providing services under Title IV-A.
3)
The first 6 to 12 months of foster care or shelter care placement. When placement
in out-of-home care cannot be prevented, the cost of the initial placement may be
partially financed with Title IV-A funds. Funding for such placements are not
subject to the same restrictions which limit placement reimbursement under Titles
IV-E and XIX. Where Title IV-A is used to fund out-of-home care placements,
there will usually be some offsetting reductions in claims under Title IV-E.
At the time of this writing, a cap on Title IV-A emergency assistance is under consideration as
part of the financing plan for welfare reform. While such a cap will produce relatively little
savings for the federal government it will, if enacted, serve to shut down what has become the
single most important source of federal support for family preservation services, at a time when
Page 18
the federal government is touting its (much smaller) support for family preservation under the
family preservation and support provisions of OBRA 93.
C.
Medicaid: An Overview
The Title XIX (Medicaid) program provides federal support for states' health and rehabilitative
services for low-income families and individuals. Although Title XIX is best known as a primary
health care program, it actually permits considerable discretion in the structure and coverage of
state programs. Federal reimbursement is provided for direct service costs at rates which vary
by state from 50 percent to 80 percent based on state per capita income. Administrative costs
(including training) are reimbursed for all states at 50 percent. One of the most important
components of Title XIX is the Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT)
program. This program was significantly strengthened in 1989 when states were required to
bring their screening rates up to 80 percent and provide needed services identified in the
screening process, whether or not such services were otherwise provided to Medicaid recipients
under the state's plan. This change in federal law served to establish EPSDT as the single most
important health entitlement for poor children and created a powerful framework for covering
therapeutic services provided inside and outside the traditional health system. Medicaid is a
complex program, and it is beyond the scope of this paper to summarize its provisions. The best
source of such information is the Medicaid Source Book published in January 1993 by the
Congressional Research Service.
The following sections outline some of the most important refinancing applications of Title XIX.
²Administrative activities which require the skills of a medical professional (e.g., public
health nurse) are reimbursed at 75 percent.
Page 19
D.
Medicaid in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice
Many services in child welfare have definable therapeutic components which can be made
eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. In addition, many activities within the Child Welfare and
Juvenile Justice systems qualify as Medicaid administrative activities. Major options include:
1)
Case management claims using Targeted Case Management (as a service) or
EPSDT/Administrative case management as an administrative claim. These are
two, generally mutually exclusive, ways to capture funds for case management
activities under Medicaid. For states with FFP rates above 60 percent (28 states),
the higher reimbursement rate under the service claim approach may offset the
relatively easier implementation requirements for administrative claims, which are
reimbursed at 50 percent.
2)
Continuum of Care claims: It is possible to use EPSDT or the Rehabilitation
option under Title XIX to claim for costs of the therapeutic components of care.
across the community-based care and out-of-home care service continuum,
including:
a)
Home and community-based services including such services as day
treatment and respite care services,
b)
Therapeutic foster care,
c)
Non-secure group care, and
d)
Residential treatment.
E.
Medicaid in Health, Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Developmental
Disability Services
These are the service systems in which Medicaid claiming stratègies have been most thoroughly
developed by the states. In many cases, state and local governments have used existing Medicaid
service definitions and claiming procedures to generate federal claims for traditional health
services provided in these systems. Federal waivers for home and community-based care have
been widely used for other services necessary to prevent institutionalization or allow return to
less expensive home and community care. Administrative claims have, generally been less well
Page 20
developed in these service areas, and represent an untapped refinancing potential in many states.
Under Medicaid administration, it is possible to claim for a wide range of health related
activities including outreach, public education, case management, and coordination functions in
addition to normal administrative overhead. Random time studies can be used to capture these
costs, at both the state and local level, in the same way that such processes are used in the Child
Welfare system.
Medicaid claiming potential should be reviewed in the following service areas:
1)
Public health services, including services provided in public health clinics and
through other direct and contract public health programs.
2)
Mental health services, including both direct and contract services, and the costs
of out-of-home care for Medicaid eligible clients in non-institutional settings.
3)
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability services. including such
services as respite care, and the costs of out-of-home care in non-institutional
settings.
4)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part H services for infants and
toddlers, including services identified in the Individualized Family Service Plans
for Medicaid eligible children.
F.
Medicaid in the Schools
Medicaid can be used to refinance some existing costs of the education system, and provide
significant new resources for reinvestment in family and children's services. Significant claims
are possible for therapeutic services provided by schools to Medicaid eligible children. Claims
are also possible for EPSDT services and administrative activities when schools become partners
in the EPSDT program. There are a wide range of approaches to setting up Medicaid claiming
for schools. The best approaches use service definitions which are tailored to school settings
(under EPSDT or the Rehabilitation option), use capitated approaches wherever possible, and
generate full cost reimbursement. There are four primary areas for Medicaid claiming. The first
Page 21
three involve services provided to Medicaid eligible children. The last covers administrative
activities in support of the EPSDT program.
1)
Special Education Individualized Education Plan (IEP) related services. This
includes the most common of IEP services (such as occupational therapy, physical
therapy, and speech therapy) as well as the less common services (psychological
services, social work, transition services, etc.) Plans developed under an EPSDT
umbrella may allow any medically necessary service to be claimed.
2)
EPSDT screening services. Schools can directly perform full or partial screens
or serve as sites for such screenings.
3)
Other School based health services (such as health clinic services) or services
targeted to special populations (such as day treatment services or services for
pregnant and parenting teens).
4)
EPSDT Administration. A wide range of health education and support activities
can be claimed as Medicaid administration using a time study to capture costs.
Activities include outreach, case planning and coordination and health education.
Page 22
III.
RAISING REVENUE: GENERATING NEW FUNDING TO SUPPORT FAMILIES
AND CHILDREN
The refinancing section above presents a very particular kind of revenue raising strategy: the use
of open-ended federal revenue to free up existing state and local funds. This is only one of many
revenue strategies which may be harnessed to support a reform agenda. Revenue strategies range
from the traditional, though always dangerous, use of taxes to the non-traditional and still
experimental use of bond authority for human services capital investment. In addition to some
of the major revenue approaches discussed below, the grantsmanship marketplace provides
thousands of smaller public and private sources of funding for worthy and not so worthy ideas.
The following sections present three broad sets of revenue strategies which should be considered
as part of any effort to develop a comprehensive program and financial plan.
A.
New Federal Funding
We have already discussed new uses of existing block grant funds under redeployment, and the
creative use of existing open-ended federal titles under refinancing. It does not happen often, but
there are occasionally new federal fund sources to consider. Two such sources are available as
a result of the passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993:
1)
Family Preservation and Family Support funds: For the first time, federal funds
are provided for the specific purpose of supporting family preservation and family
support services. The funds are a state entitlement, included in a new section of
Title IV-B. Total funding under this section increases over five years from $60
million in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1994 to $255 million in FFY 1998. In the
first year, states are required to conduct a broadly based planning process which
sets out five year goals for family preservation and family support, and identifies
how state and federal resources will be used to improve the overall system of
services for families and children.
2)
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities: These new funds present a
major opportunity to combine human service reform and economic development
work in local communities. Funds are provided to support 6 urban and 3 rural
Empowerment Zones and 65 urban and 30 rural Enterprise Communities.
Page 23
Empowerment Zone awards will provide $100 million over two years to urban
sites and $40 million to rural sites. The smaller Enterprise Community awards
will provide grants of about $3 million plus a wide array of tax and other
benefits.
B.
State and Local Funding
Several approaches to increasing state and local revenue should be considered in any
comprehensive multi-year financing plan.
1)
Fair Share of Revenue Growth. Family and children's services arguably have a
claim to total revenue growth at least equal to the state or local growth rate in
general fund revenue. While the argument only works in years of revenue
increase. it can be argued that new spending for families and children should be
equal to revenue growth net of inflation. These are complex positions to articulate
but may represent the largest block of resources available for reform agendas over
the long term.
2)
Taxes. There are, of course, a wide range of tax strategies, all of which are
politically risky. But taxes (particularly special purpose taxes) should not be left
out of the arsenal. Special purpose taxing districts for children have operated in
some Florida counties since the 1940's. There has been more mixed success with
special purpose lotteries (the only known form of popular tax), with revenues
sometimes used to offset education formula funds or other base funding. Tax
check-offs are used in many states allowing taxpayers to designate a portion of
their taxes for special purposes. They can produce a small but useful revenue
stream. If the agenda is sufficiently important and politically compelling, it may
even be possible to consider mainstream tax strategies. The point is that, while
tax approaches must be handled with care, they should not be ignored as part of
a potential financing plan.
Page 24
C.
Private Funding
Private funding sources are often ignored in putting together public financing packages, but a
wide range of private sources can and should be considered. By private funding we mean any
funds which derive from a non-governmental source. As with other funding strategies, it is
essential that private funding approaches support and not drive program goals. Following are
some of the more important categories of private financial support:
1)
Third Party Collections: This includes everything from child support collections
to collections of health and other insurance benefits. If properly planned, revenue
will almost always exceed collection costs and the net profit from such efforts can
be reinvested.
2)
Fees: Where appropriate, fees can be charged to recover some or all of the cost
of service. Fees are commonly used in services for which there is a private
market, such as child care or personal care services. Fee revenue can be obtained
by increasing traditional fees (including indexing to inflation), or by considering
non-traditional use of fees.
3)
Donations: Foundations and businesses can provide important flexible funding
particularly for leveraging other funding or gap filling purposes.
4)
Volunteers: Volunteerism constitutes a form of non monetary donation which can
be an important financing tcol. Volunteers can be used to directly supplement the
workforce, as in the case of outreach and education, or can provide services and
supports, not part of the paid service system such as mentoring, recreation or
peer counseling.
5)
Loans: If a sound case can be made for a return on investment, then bond
financing or other forms of borrowing are theoretically possible. These are, of
course, fundamental approaches in business, and widely used in community and
economic development but relatively new to human services. It may be possible
to apply loan based financing to some of the out-of-home care or health service
investments discussed in the redeployment section above. It is also possible to use
revolving loan funds within the government budget structure to support the start
up costs of service enterprises (such as child care), or to test the concepts of
human service investment before seeking private financing.
Page 25
IV.
RESTRUCTURING FINANCIAL SYSTEMS: USING FINANCIAL STRUCTURES
TO EFFECT CHANGE
Even the best reform strategies may ultimately fail if financial systems and financial incentives
work against reform goals. An essential part of any reform strategy is reform of the financial
system itself. Following is a basic list of structural changes which may be considered as part of
this process:
1)
Seamless Services Design: Service structures should make financing (and federal
fund claiming) invisible to families and children to the greatest extent possible.
Service systems should be designed to operate with a "front room," where
families are treated with respect, the needs of all members considered, and
services provided regardless of federal or state service categories. In the "back
room," the service agency should do everything possible to qualify families and
children for different funding streams, and collect as much reimbursement as
possible to support the services for all families.
2)
Funding Pools: Funding pools can provide the flexibility necessary for
communities to produce better results for less money; but only if the funding pool
provides new forms of accountability to replace the old categorical accountability
structures. At the bottom line, funding pools involve structuring a new "contract"
between the agencies providing funds and the communities using those funds. In
its best form, such a contract should represent a trade of new authority and
flexibility in the use of funds for new accountability for outcomes for families and
children.
3)
Flexible dollars: Even without changing the whole system, it is possible to create
pockets of flexible funding which can be used to fill gaps in services. Such funds
are often an inexpensive way to make a categorical system more effective. As
such, they remove the barriers to meeting families' unique needs.
4)
Incentives: Incentive promote change by rewarding good practice. There are a
wide range of incentive structures possible from the casework level (making it
easier to prevent foster care than it is to remove and place children outside the
home) to the systemic level (allowing local collaboratives to keep savings from
reduced placements). Ultimately systems must shift to providing incentives for
improving results for families and children.
Page 26
5)
Trust Funds for families and children: Trust funds can provide a financial
sanctuary for an investment pool for families and children. Redeployment
investment schemes might actually be structured to repay trust fund "loans."
6)
Outcome (or Result) Based Budgeting: Major changes are needed in the budgeting
and decision making structures which frame the long term investment decisions
for families and children, and help hold us all accountable for outcomes for
families and children. Major elements of an outcome based budgeting structure
include a Family and Children' Budget; a periodic consensus forecast of the
cost of continuing current policy; an analysis of prevention and non
prevention expenditures and a systematic assessment of investment options; a
multi-year budget process which derives spending priorities from an orderly
review of outcomes, indicators of outcome achievement, effective strategies which
change outcomes, and the resources necessary to put effective services and
supports in place.
CONCLUSION
This broad inventory of financing strategies is intended to support a systematic approach to
thinking about ways to pay for family and children's services reform. Using the document
involves taking each element of an ambitious plan for change, and considering how each of the
four financing strategies discussed above may be used or adapted. By working systematically
through these options, and using the process to explore non-traditional approaches, it may be
possible to craft a financing plan to support an ambitious programmatic agenda. Together, these
financing approaches could produce a significant portion of the investment funds necessary to
produce better outcomes for our families and children. And in the long run, improving outcomes
for families and children, by investing in prevention and support, and lowering the cost of
treating problems after they occur, may be the most important financing strategy of all.
Mark Pitsch
EDUCATION WEEK
American Education's Newspaper of Record
Volume XIV, Number 11 November 16, 1994
© 1994 Editorial Projects in Education / $3.00
Fighting Back
Approval of
Prop 187 Spurs
Suits, Protests
Most Education Groups
In Culif. Assail Measure
By Lynn Schnaiberg
P
roposition 187, a controversial ballot
measure that California voters made
law last week, has sparked a flurry of law-
suits in state and federal courts and sent
students into the streets in protest.
Lawsuits have triggered court orders
that bar implementation of the new law.
which denies most social services to illegal
immigrants, including education in the
public schools.
Passage of the measure, dubbed "Save
Our State" by proponents. was denounced
immediately by nearly every state educa-
Continued on Page 25
ELECTION
'94
Joann Vitalli
Detroit passes $1.5 billion school bond. page 6.
Many anti-tax measures defeated. page 17.
Change ahead in state politics. policy page 17.
Cheryl Mullen was so disturbed by the actions of the Lake
G.O.P. tide hits state chiefs' races. page 20.
County, Fla., school board that she ran for the board herself.
Other parents sought their own ways to counter a school
Republicans claim Texas state board. page 20.
board taken over by the religious right. See Story, Page 32.
School issues fail in governors races. page 21.
Fegeral education leaders win, page 26.
2 New Volumes
Even as Whittle Falls on Hard Times,
Congress Likely
Of Standards for
Edison Model Leaves Wichita Hopeful
To Ponder Federal
History Unveiled
Second in an occasional series.
to sign a letter of intent to have the Edison
Role in Education
By Karen Diegmueller
By Mark Waish
Project take over a few of its schools, begin-
ning in the fall of 1995.
By Mark Pitsch
T
wo new volumes of national standards
Wichita, Kan
The Edison Project is one of several edu-
for history were unveiled last week,
presenting a sweeping view of the world
E
cation-reform efforts that hope to create in
Washington
ven as controversy swirls around the
Edison Project like tumbleweed in a
novative schools that can be replicated on a
that few precollegiate students have likely
T
he 104th Congress will convene in Jan-
Kansas tornado, educational leaders here
much larger scale. Many educators view
encountered before.
the "scaling up" of effective reform strate-
uary with Republican majorities in
both chambers for the first time in 40 years.
With intentionally little fanfare, the Na-
gies as one of the fundamental challenges in
The historic realignment will radically al-
Center for History in the Schools at
Scaling
UP
improving the nation's schools. (See Educa-
ter the prospects for education legislation and
the University of California at Los Angeles
tion Week, Nov. 2. 1994.)
may curtail the federal role in setting educa-
released voluntary benchmarks in the
Wichita residents interviewed recently
tion policy, which has taken on new impor-
study of history for K-4 students and world-
said the community remains committed to
tance under the Clinton Administration
history standards for middle and high
are eager to give the private, for-profit
bringing in the Edison Project, but many
Indeed. Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., who
school students.
school-reform effort a shot.
wonder whether it will actually happen.
is in line to become the chairman of the
Until recently, the content-standards de-
"It will be unfair to public education if we
The Edison Project. launched three
House Education and Labor Committee,
velopers had planned to present their work
don't get a chance to try it," said Larry R.
years ago by the media entrepreneur
said last week that he will embark on a
in Washington to Sheldon Hackney, the
Vaughn, the superintendent of the 48,000-
Christopher Whittle. is now straining to
comprehensive analysis of the federal role
chairman of the National Endowment for
pupil Wichita school district.
distance itself from the business troubles
and federal programs.
the Humanities, one of the major benefac-
tors of the project.
The district made headlines last spring
of its founder. The project is seeking a ma-
jor infusion of capital, perhaps as much as
"There will be a major rethinking of what
But criticism of the U.S. history stan-
when it became one of the first in the nation
our role should be, but I think the first thing
Continued on Page 12
we should do is find out where we are and
dards for grades 5-12, which were released
what we have done," said Mr. Goodling, a
month, and the ensuing flurry of media
20-year veteran of the House who has been
coverage, led them to forfeit a celebration.
When a School
The arts and geography standards were re-
Growing Pains
the ranking Republican on the education
Becomes a Home
panel since 1989.
leased with fanfare earlier this year. and a
Dade County officials abandon
bration is planned this week when ci-
Seeking to protect students from
"There certainly will be less involve-
hope that a school-construction
ment from the federal government" under
standards are released. (See Education
ravages of the streets
program financed by the district's
Chicago officials eye a private
a Republican-controlled Congress, said
eek, Nov. 2. 1994.)
record breaking $1 billion bond
sector solution:
Sen. James M. Jeffords, R-Vt., who will
The quiet release of the world-history
3
issue will relieve its
likely chair the Senate Subcommittee on
ment did not allow it to avoid crit-
hoarding schools.
chronic overcrowding
8
Education, Arts, and Humanities.
Continued on Page 14
Come January. Republicans will have 53
Continued on Page 31
12
EDUCATION WEEK DECEMBER 14. 1994
ACROSS THE NATION
Officials Signal Interest in Rethinking the Balance of Power
Continued from Page 1
idea of greater decentralization
The Administration's Goals
agendas of new state school
grams and devolving authority
Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. a
2000: Educate America Act. more-
chiefs, governors. state-board
has outstripped the likelihood of
block grants or to limits on fed-
Democrat, hosted a daylong hear-
over, is seen by some observers as
members, and federal lawmakers.
achieving these goals. Now that
eral regulation of schools.
ing last week on how to stream-
a federal program that provides
This trend is also evidenced in
the Republicans have won power
But the transformation in
line programs to improve services
tremendous state-level authority.
the growing popularity of charter-
based on such themes. some
Washington could go considerably
for children and families.
The law includes a demonstration
school laws. which allow local
argue. they will find it a harder
further than that. according to
"The relationship [between
program in which up to six states
groups to set up publicly financed
job to make the ideas work.
Patty Sullivan, an education-pol-
state and federal. governments)
are eligible to waive regulations
schools free of most regulations.
"Restructuring sounds good be-
was already changing. and the
in several federal programs in ex-
(See related story, page 14.)
cause it doesn't cost anything, it
THE NEW MAJORITY
Congress appears ready to push it
change for greater accountability
"People want to get the central
assumes more efficiency, and
farther," said a spokesman for the
from school districts
government out of their back-
promises a focus on results. but
EDUCATION AND THE G.O.P.
Democratic Governors Associa-
Yet. in some states, policymak-
yard. and they think they have
there are a lot of reasons why
tion. "I think most governors
ers view the Administration's pro-
the ability to make decisions if
campaign strategies don't get
icy analyst at the National Gover-
would go along-with that."
gram as an effort to give Wash-
they are given the chance." said
translated into reality." said Gor-
nors' Association.
ington a heavier hand in running
Justin King, the executive direc-
don M. Ambach, the executive di-
She said state and federal law-
Clinton's 'Reinvention'
schools, citing provisions that call
makers are discussing "devolu-
In fact, the Clinton Administra-
on states to set content and per-
or turning over to the states
tion-headed by a former Gover-
formance standards and set up a
services that federal programs
nor-has already made attempts
process for developing model na-
now provide, as well as the possi-
to.change state-federal relations,
tional standards.
bility of swapping or splitting re-
most notably through its
sponsibilities.
"reinventing government" effort.
State Mandates
Under such schemes, states
In addition to improving effi-
The trend toward granting
could assume burdens now car-
ciency, the effort is designed to
school districts waivers from state
ried by some federal programs
trim the federal bureaucracy, free
regulations only emphasizes how
while the federal government as-
states and localities from regula-
restrictive and overly bureau-
sumes full responsibility in other
tory burdens, and harmonize the
cratic states have become. argues
8
or they could agree that the
workings of the federal govern-
Governor-elect George W. Bush of
1
I government would finance
ment with states and localities.
Texas. who has listed deregulat-
higher-education programs while
And last week. Administration
ing schools as his top priority.
states pay for elementary and
officials reached an agreement
"Schools spend too much time
secondary schools.
with the state of Oregon to waive
justifying what they are doing
"If you talk about total devolu-
federal regulations related to
and not enough time doing it."
The promise of "home-rule schools" helped elect George W. Bush,
tion, that means no more Goals
some child-welfare programs. iSee
said Karen Hughes. Mr. Bush's
left, but Gordon M. Ambach warns "there are a lot of reasons why
2000," Ms. Sullivan said. referring
story, page 22.)
communications director.
campaign strategies don't get translated into reality."
to the federal education-reform
President Clinton. in a speech
Mr. Bush has championed
law that President Clinton won
to the Democratic Leadership
"home-rule schools," an idea that
tor of the Michigan Association of
rector of the Council of Chief
approval of last spring. "That's
Council last week. said he was
would allow local voters and
School Boards.
State School Officers.
going to be very much a part of
open to reducing the powers of
school boards to put together their
While many school board mem-
In addition. he said, shifting
the discussion."
the federal government.
own management plans and cur-
bers may be prepared to lead
state education departments to an
"I don't know who's going to de-
The Republicans say they want
ricula if they agreed to abide by
a discussion ranging from starfing
advisory function would likely re-
[federal education] programs
to give more power back to the
state and federal laws and to meet
to textbooks to teaching methods.
quire more employees and would
if states are offered a much better
states, more power back to the
performance standards.
handing them more authority and
not diminish their importance, as
she added.
cities," he said. "Let's do it to-
"The students' needs, the text.
autonomy would spur better deci-
monitoring performance and ad
gether. But don't you walk away
books, the hours, the class sizes
Decentralization
sionmaking, Mr. King suggested.
vising local decisionmakers are
from the fact that we started it,
might be far different in the Rio
"I think they can be brought up
more demanding than checking
Congressional Republicans have
and we intend to finish it, and we
Grande Valley than in rural west
to it," Mr. King said.
paperwork. And even if states
already promised to shrink the
want them to go with us."
Texas or Dallas or Houston," said
vastly expand the number of char-
size of the federal government,
But while the "reinvention"
Ms. Hughes. "This was the point
Seeing Is Believing
ter schools, which enjoy the maxi-
consolidate some social-service
drive has gotten high marks from
that got the most emotional re-
Still, many observers are skepti-
mum amount of freedom. they will
programs, and turn others over to
some observers. they say Admin-
sponse from voters-they know
cal about shifting significant new
remain a tiny slice of the nation's
the states. They have enlisted
istration officials have failed to
that a one-size-fits-all education
authority to the local level.
school system. Mr. Ambach said.
such Washington research and po-
win any from voters.
system has not worked."
They point out that few districts
"The rhetoric around decentral-
litical organizations as the Her-
"The Administration, from the
Most readings of November's
have used existing opportunities
ization, devolution. and reinvent-
itage Foundation and Empower
very beginning, has had a pecu-
state-election results suggest that
to assume greater control Dis
ing is intensifying. but the reality
America to develop proposals re-
tricts have not extensively tapped
is not there." argued James W.
lated to education. (See Education
waivers from state rules. they say,
Guthrie, the director of the
Dec. 7. 1994.)
and many educators appear con-
Peabody Education Policy Center
Rep. Bill Goodling, R-Pa., who is
tent to follow state prescriptions.
at Vanderbilt University in
slated to become the chairman of
"Prior to the beginning of educa-
Nashville "When you punch into
the House Economic and Educa-
tion reform. you would hear a lot
legislators and state board mem-
tional Opportunities Commit-
of superintendents and teachers
bers. you find they don't like to
tee-formeriy the Education and
saying that one of the reasons
give up decisionmaking and they
Labor Committee-has pledged
things were so bad was that their
like micromanaging."
to embark on a comprehensive re-
hands were tied," remarked Terry
In short, many observers say
view of the federal role in educa-
N. Whitney, a senior policy spe-
they will believe the latest cru-
tion. His Senate counterpart. Sen.
cialist for the National Confer-
sade for federalism and local con-
Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R-
ence of State Legislatures in Den-
Kan., is likely to do the same.
trol is real when it is in place.
Rosin Anngton
ver. "But that is a lot of hot air."
"It's like seeing a play for the
And at a recent conference, the
But some officials who have
Republican Governors' Associa-
third time and you know the
Paul
watched as local districts have re-
plot." said John F. Jennings, the.
tion, now 30 members strong,
sisted offers of greater leeway
chief education counsel to the
called on the incoming 104th Con-
Donald F. Ketti believes the shift to less government Involvement
note that the political dynamic
House Education and Labor Com-
gress to lift federal mandates,
"Is going to accelerate." James W. Guthrie hears "the rhetoric
has changed in recent years.
federal regulation, and enact
mittee, who is retiring this month
1
around decentralization," but says "the reality Is not there."
The National Association of
constitutional changes to enable
after a long career on Capitol Hill
State Boards of Education, for in-
"states to become full partners
"We've gone through this two
liar way of trampling on their
the role of state education depart-
stance. is advising its members to
again in a dynamic federal system
times before with [Presidents]
own applause lines," said Mr.
ments may move more toward
become more aggressive in set-
premised on dual sovereignty."
Kettl, who has studied the federal
Nixon and Reagan. and the gover-
monitoring district performance
ting policy directions for districts.
"Restoring balance in state-fed-
nors start out very avidly for it."
streamlining program, known as
and away from drawing up
"This may really be when the
eral relations," reads a document
"But by the time the details of
the National Performance Review
marching orders on how schools
rubber meets the road," said
the G.O.P. governors approved. "is
In education, the newly reau-
the legislation are written, they
will operate, according to Chris
Brenda Welburn. the executive
perhaps the most important na-
thorized Elementary and Sec-
see there is less money with the
Pipho, a state-policy expert for
director of NASBE. "In this envi-
tional reform that could be under-
freedom," he said.
ondary Education Act gives the
the Education Commission of the
ronment, governors and legisla-
aken by the 104th Congress."
Secretary of Education broad au-
"The American political system
States in Denver.
While their Democratic counter-
tures are going to do this if the
is remarkably moderating," Mr.
thority to waive certain regula-
"This is coming, and it is coming
education departments or state
irts have not formally echoed
Guthrie said. This is going to be
tions, and allows grant-recipients
from so many different sides," Mr.
boards don't."
e recommendations, they gener-
to consolidate administrative
a lot less drastic than its oppo-
Pipho said, noting the prominence
ly seem comfortable with the
Other observers say the political
nents fear and a lot less success-
funds and program applications.
of educational deregulation on the
currency of streamlining pro-
ful than its proponents hope."
EDUCATION WEEK
Inerican Education's Newspaper of Record
Volume XIV. Number 15 December 14. 1994
5 1994 Editorial Projects in Education / $3.00
Elections Are
Voices From
Annenberg Set
Likely To Spur
The City
To Announce
Shift in Power
Round of Gifts
Officials Seek To Rethink
L.A., Chicago To Get
The Roles of Government
Up To $50 Million
By Mark Pitsch
By Lynn Olson and
and Lonnie Harp
Meg Sommerfeld
A
3 the reconfigured Congress and state
N
early a year after he pledged to pro-
legislatures prepare to convene next
vide $500 million to the nation's pub-
month. many lawmakers and governors
lic schools. the philanthropist Walter H.
are signaling an interest in rethinking the
Annenberg is getting ready to announce
roles of federal. state, and local govern-
where a big portion of that money will go.
ments. That sentiment could launch the
Mr. Annenberg is expected to announce
in the next two weeks that he will provide
THE NEW MAJORITY
up to $50 million each to the Los Angeles
EDUCATION AND THE G.O.P.
and Chicago metropolitan areas. He may
also provide as much as $50 million for
rural schools.
most dramatic power shift in decades.
In a White House ceremony last Decem-
Observers say the Republican victories
ber. the retired publisher and diplomat
in the midterm elections have laid the
announced the first $115 million in gifts
groundwork for a transformation that
to three national organizations-the Edu-
would curtail federal powers in favor of
cation Commission of the States, the New
state decisionmaking in a host of policy
American Schools Development Corpora-
reas, including education. At the same
tion. and the Annenberg Institute for
me, state G.O.P. leaders may speed up ex-
School Reform. a group created a few
eriments in transferring authority from
months earlier at Brown University. (See
state capitals to local governments.
Education Week. Jan. 12. 1994.)
The elections, in which the G.O.P. cap-
-I think it's slower than one might hope,
tured majorities in the House and the
but given the complexity of it. all of us are
Senate, took a majority of the governor-
ships. and made big gains in state legisla-
very encouraged by how this is moving,"
tures, "certainly accentuated a trend that
Theodore R. Sizer. the president of the An-
nenberg Institute, said last week.
has been, perhaps. already under way,"
said Donald F. Kettl. a visiting scholar
In September, the Annenberg Founda-
with the Brookings Institution, a Wash-
Continued on Page 10
ington think tank. "The feeling of having
less government and less federal involve-
ment is going to accelerate."
On Capitol Hill. Mr. Kettl suggested.
Charter Revoked
such changes could lead to the consolida-
tion of some education programs into
Laura Miller
The Los Angeles school board
has decided to pull the plug on
Continued on Page 12
one of the district's 10 charter
schools because of
Vouchers a not state topic. page 14.
Tatyana and Tony Hearns live with their mother, Enelda, In Trenton, N.J. Like the
mounting debts and
parents of thousands of other children in the city, Ms. Hearns hopes her
mismanagement.
3
Welfare tops federal agenda. page 18.
youngsters can beat the odds against them and make something of their lives.
The new Congress organizes, page 20.
But she knows that to do so, they need a good education. Four familles reflect
on their lives and their Involvement with the city's schools. See Story, Page 25.
Spreading the Word
A growing number of foundations,
Effort To Do the Right Thing Upsets Ga. County
which traditionally have sought to
create innovative pilots, now see
By Robert C. Johnston
English in the 1,200-student district for 22
the need to play a more
West, a white businessman and a former
Morgan. Ga.
years, says he is doing the right thing And
member of the local school board. "At the
active role in "scaling
federal civil-rights officials whom he in-
up" successful models.
6
A
fter Corkin Cherubini was elected the
rate we going, we'll be back to the 60's
vited to visit the district say that some of
superintendent of schools in Calhoun
with whites in private schools."
the practices he is ending are not only un-
County, Ga., two years ago, he set out to
A current school board member, Julian
fair, but also illegal.
dismantle a series of district practices that
Holder, who is black, countered: "Some-
But reactions to his reforms have
he says amount to "education apartheid."
thing had to be done, and [Mr. Cherubini)
reached emotional extremes in this rural
Kan. System Upheld
They include a longstanding practice of
took action." Mr. Holder said the tracking
farming area, where white residents par-
rouping kindergartners in a way that
system consigned black students to less
The Kansas Supreme Court has
ticularly resent his invitation to the civil-
antains some white-majority classrooms
challenging classes and low expectations.
given lawmakers its stamp of
rights investigators and the media atten-
the black-majority district, tracking by
Black and white residents do agree on
approval for a 1992 state law
tion that followed them to Calhoun
ability beginning in the 3rd grade, and
one thing: The recent developments have
designed to make the
County.
segregating cheerleading squads.
strained relations between the groups,
state's school-finance
"I don't think anyone is more disliked
Mr. Cherubini, who taught high school
which had been largely genteel but distant.
here than Dr. Cherubini," said Richard
system more equitable.
15
Continued on Page 13
TON
WASHINGTON
NOVEMBER 16. 1994 EDUCATION WEEK
31
Faces on Education Committees To Remain Much the Same
Continued from Page 26
Kennedy, a Democrat who had
Senator Kennedy will lose his
Other races that had been
Subcommittee and will likely re-
ples
trailed in early polls.
chairmanship of the Labor and
watched carefully by education ad-
so-
Democratic incumbents, many of
Republican W. Mitt Romney ar-
turn as its ranking minority
Human Resources Committee.
vocates were those of two senior
member
lan-
whom were financially backed by
gued in part that the 62-year-old
probably to Sen. Nancy Landon
members of the House Labor and
Rep. Pat Williams, D-Mont.
liberal incumbent had been in
Kassebaum. R-Kan. Still, Mr.
Education Committee who were
won his statewide seat by seven
tal.
ELECTION
'94
Washington too long. But Massa-
Gold said his status within party
considered vulnerable.
percentage points over Republi-
cial
chusetts, a liberal stronghold. re-
ranks may be enhanced by the loss
Returns from Michigan's 9th
can challenger Cy Jamison, and
tained Senator Kennedy by a 17.
of so many Democrats.
Congressional District see-sawed
education groups, several law-
may take the ranking-Democrat
hips
point margin.
makers who have traditionally
"Senator Kennedy really per-
Kildee Wins a Squeaker
for hours before Rep. Dale E. Kil-
slot on the Postsecondary Educa-
dee, a Democrat, was pronounced
tion Subcommittee.
supported education will return
formed well in his debates: that
Sen. James M. Jeffords. R-Vt.,
a four-percentage-point winner
Two more junior members who
ling
for the 104th Congress.
was probably the turning point."
also faced a tight race, but will re-
over Republican Meagan O'Neil.
were considered vulnerable won
Most notably, Massachusetts
said Howard J. Gold, a professor of
turn-and will probably be the
Mr. Kildee was the chairman
re-election by large margins: Rep.
for
voters extended the 32-year Cap-
government at Smith College in
chairman of the Education, Arts.
of the House Elementary. Secon-
Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., and
itol Hill career of Sen. Edward M.
Northampton, Mass.
and Humanities Subcommittee.
dary, and. Vocational Education
Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y.
ing
Realigned Congress Likely To Rethink
Likely Committee Leaders
art
Federal Role in Restructuring Schools
With the Republican takeover of the Senate and House in last week's
midterm elections, education-related committees and subcommittees
nel
Continued from Page I
"What I think they [the voters)
cuts in domestic spending.
will have new chairmen and ranking minority members in the 104th Con-
ild
said is they still don't like what
However, Mr. Jeffords. who has
gress. Though the positions will be determined when party caucuses
the
members in the Senate and at
they see when they watch us
proposed adding 1 percent of the
meet next month, the ist below shows the lawmakers with the most
least 228 members in the House.
seniority and thus the most likely chance of assuming a chairmanship or
De-
working here." the President said
federal budget annually to educa-
ranking membership. New rules for House Republicans will prevent
A few House seats were undecided
at a news conference. "They still
tion programs. said he would con-
them from chairing more than one committee or subcommittee.
late last week.
haven't felt the positive results of
tinue to push for increased educa-
In other power shifts on commit-
things that have been done here
tion spending-as long as the
tees, Sen. Nancy Landon Kasse-
that they agree with when they
programs withstand scrutiny.
Senate Panels
nel
baum. R-Kan., is slated to chair
hear about them."
"The question is: Are.w serious
it
the Senate Labor and Human Re-
Rep. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., who
about Goals 2000? And if we're se-
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
sources Committee; Sen. Arlen
is expected to be the next Speaker of
rious about it," the school-reform
ove
and Education
Specter, R-Pa., will likely become
the House. and Sen. Bob Dole, R-
strategy should receive sufficient
Chairman: Arien Specter, R-Pa.
È
the chairman of the Senate Appro-
Kan., the likely Senate majority
financial support, he said.
Ranking member: Tom Harkin, D-lowa
ad
priations Subcommittee on Labor,
leader, also pledged cooperation.
Mr. Goodling's effort to raise
Health and Human Services, and
So did Administration officials,
that sort of question would come
Budget Committee
her
Chairman: Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.
to-
Education: and Rep. John Porter,
who noted that the spate of educa-
just months after the enactment of
Ranking member: Emest F. Hollings. D-S.C.
on
R-III., will probably become the
tion bills passed over the last two
a series of bills-chiefly the Goals
chairman of the counterpart
years all received some measure of
2000: Educate America Act and
Labor and Human Resources Committee
ed
House appropriations panel.
bipartisan support.
the Elementary and Secondary
Chairman: Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R-Kan.
ad
Such assignments are subject to
In addition, the Republicans
Education Act, which reauthor-
Ranking member: Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
ad
votes when the House and Senate
who are in line to chair education
izes most K-12 programs-that
Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Children. Families.
to
G.O.P. caucuses meet next month.
panels are considered moderates.
were designed as catalysts for
Drugs. and Alcoholism
Prognosticators had long fore-
(See related story. this page.)
standards-driven school reforms
ng.
Chairman: Daniel R. Coats. R-ind.
nt-
seen G.O.P. gains in last week's mid-
But observers say Republicans
at the state and local levels.
Ranking member: Christopher J. Dodd. D-Conn.
in
term elections, but few had expect-
will likely attempt to advance
The Clinton Administration and
ed the breadth of the Republican
such controversial proposals as
other proponents see the bills as bi-
Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Education. Arts.
on
victory. In the 103rd Congress.
programs allowing parents to use
partisan efforts to make the federal
and Humanities
Chairman: James M. Jeffords. R-Vt.
ed
Democrats controlled both cham-
public funding to pay private
government a partner in reform.
Renking member: Claiborne Pell. D-R.I.
bers, with 56 members in the 100-
at
school tuition and efforts to sup-
But opponents-as well as some
member Senate and 256 members
port privatization in schools.
Republicans. who supported the
Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Employment and
ng
in the 435-member House.
Moreover, the social issues that
bills-say the measures could lead
Productivity
ed
"We've re-created politics in
caused so much controversy during
to the federal government's usurp-
Chairman: Strom Thurmond. R-S.C.
Washington with this election."
consideration of education bills this
ing local control.
Ranking member: Paul Simon, D-III.
es
in
said Charles O. Jones. a visiting
year-such as school prayer and
Mr. Goodling said he plans to re-
Labor and Human Resources Subcommittee on Disability Policy
scholar at the Brookings Institu-
sex education-will likely surface
view education laws to insure that
Chairman: Orrin Hatch. R-Utah
ee
ed
tion, a Washington think tank.
again with more force.
state and local governments have
Ranking member: Tom Harkin, D-lowa
Most notably. he said, the ex-
"The social issues are high-pro-
flexibility in how they spend fed-
nt
amination of federal programs
file things," said Edward R. Kealy,
eral money, that the laws do not
House Panels
rs,
ad
that Mr. Goodling suggested is
the director of federal relations for
impose excessive federal man-
il-
likely to occur in many areas.
the National School Boards Asso-
dates. and that they support high-
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor. Health and Human Ser
Tied to that, Mr. Jones said, will
ciation, adding that Republicans
quality programs.
and Education
be internal reforms-revamping
"may want to move them" early in
"You can be assured that we will
Chairman: John Porter, R-III.
er
the committee structure and ap-
the session.
make very. very sure that stan-
Ranking member: David R. Obey, D-Wis.
plying federal laws to Congress it-
Indeed, The Washington Post re-
dards-setting provisions] are not
id
self, for example-that some Re-
ported last week that Mr. Ging-
mandates," said Mr. Goodling.
Budget Committee
Ip
publicans campaigned on.
Mr. Goodling said he would also
Chairman: John R. Kasich, R-Ohio
rich had pledged a House vote by
IC-
Ranking member: Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn.
President Clinton also was
next July on a constitutional
like to revisit the Administra-
elected on such a theme, he said,
amendment to allow voluntary
tion's direct-lending program, un-
Education and Labor Committee
le
but failed to carry through.
prayer in public schools.
der which the government makes
Chairman: Bill Goodling, R-Pa.
"That's a really big message
college loans directly to students
Ranking member: William L Clay, D-Mo.
from this election.' Mr. Jones said.
Shifting Tactics
rather than through private lend-
le
d-
Most policy implications, how-
While Democrate have for years
ers, and Title I of the E.S.E.A.,
Education and Labor Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary,
and Vocational Education
ever, are unclear, he said.
used the powers of the majority par-
which includes a funding formula
Chairman: Mr. Goodling has seniority. but rules require a different
en
"Following an election like this,
ty to stifle such proposals procedur-
Mr. Goodling is unhappy with.
chairman.
you can't automatically say what's
ally. the new political climate could
"There's going to be a heck of a
Renking member: Date E. Kildee, D-Mich.
80
going to happen," Mr. Jones said.
turn the tables and force them to
lot to do, and if we can improve
'a
"All the connectors in policymaking
turn to weapons of the minority,
any of the laws in any major
Education and Labor Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education
ng
between the executive and Con-
such as Senate filibusters. The Re-
ways, that will be great." said
and Training
Chairman: Tom Petri, R-Wis.
gress have come loose, and they
publicans may also force Mr. Clin-
Undersecretary of Education
le
Ranking member: Pat Williams, D-Mont.
need to be plugged in again."
ton to veto education bills.
Marshall S. Smith.
Many education advocates also
But if Congress seeks to make
Education and Labor Subcommittee on Select Education and
Piedges of Cooperation
fear the realignment's implications
changes to the E.S.E.A. so soon
Civil Rights
to
President Clinton took partial
for the budget process, as Republi-
after reauthorization. Mr. Smith
Chairman: Cass Ballenger. R-N.C.
d
blame for his party's losses: and
cans have historically favored a
1. "you end up jerking around a
Ranking member: Major R. Owens, D-N.Y.
The Rainmakers
parents for assistance. Families access to
have a traffic light installed on a busy
often scheduled in a manner that re-
medical services has improved. And. the
street that the students cross each day.
quired parents to spend most of the day
project has been instrumental in address-
Improved lines of communication and
at the agency. and staff members
ing community problems such as
sensitivity to the needs of parents have
and lack of cultural aware-
poverty discrimination. housing dis-
continued to bring about changes in the
ness created barriers for the parents.
placement. hunger. and homelessness.
ways services are provided. Tania
"When the was raised at one of our
The Referral and Information Network
Alameda points out that the idea of
public meetings of the consortium. the
(R.A.I.N. is a central component of the
services being "consumer-driven" was
agency was able to hear it. As a result.
Fisher-Fienberg program. Parents who
not initially familiar to many of the
they provided cultural training for their
become part of the network receive 4()
service agencies. She cites an example of
employees. changed their appointments
hours of training: 20 hours learning how
one service agency that had proven 10 be
system and gave their staff members
to work with the various service agen-
less sensitive to parental needs than
nametags
cies. and 20 visiting families in the
initially anticipated. Appointments were
community to provide assistance and
learn about/concerns. The RAINMAK-
ERS earn a small stipend of S40 weekly
for eight hours of work per week: most
volunteer additional hours. Many have
gotten jobs in the school as teacher's
aides.
RAINMAKERS:
A core group of 40 of these parents
has also established a significant
The Parents' Perspective
presence in the community. working
against the displacement of poor families
and gaining support from housing
enise Gomez and Teresa
her three children was in kindergarten:
officials and philanthropists (1) establish
Martiato have been active
she wanted to be close to him. Today
more low-rent housing. They have
participants in the Healthy
She's an active community leader on
arranged for an on-site office for Legal
Learners' Project and the RAINMAK-
housing issues. She is president of the
Services of Greater Miami to advise
ERS program from its inception. Both
RAINMAKER Board. and has been
families on immigration. housing and
have taken the required preparatory
appointed to the board of directors of the
other legal issues. And. they taken on
courses that allow them to work both
Miami Beach Development Corporation
projects such as: earning child-care
inside the school and in outreach
and it community health clinic. Martiato
credentials and identifying sites for
capacities throughout the community on
is employed full-time as a parent aide at
daycare facilities: setting up clothing and
behalf of other families.
the Fienberg-Fisher Elementary School.
food pantries: and establishing a job
Denise Gomez. a single mother of two
Upon moving to Miami Beach. Gomez
bank.
girls. once coped with a school system
realized that she would have to learn
The Healthy Learners' consortium.
that provided no coordinated educational
about the schools in order to ensure that
which meets monthly. brings parents.
or therapeutic help
her daughter's needs
program. school. and community
for one of her
would be met. She
representatives together. Even parents
daughters. who has
got involved with
with limited English feel increasingly
special needs.
the Healthy Learn-
empowered to voice their concerns. A1 a
Now. through the
ers' Project. "almost
meeting earlier this year. for example.
Healthy Learners'
at the ground level."
the agenda included a personal statement
Project. her
soon after Fienberg-
daughter gets all
Fisher received the
by the city's mayor on the city's commit-
ment to family values and community
the necessary
therapy and
Teresa Martiato, a
initial program
grant. She remem-
care issues. and a reassurance that the
special education
efforts being made by the project and the
RAINMAKER parent savs.
bers the initial
she requires. And
meetings where
parent RAINMAKERS were not going
Gomez serves as
"This project has given
parents voiced their
unnoticed by the city. A school counse-
the coordinator for
power to the Latino
fears and concerns.
lor reported on the efforts to find space
the R.A.I.N.
She was part of the
in the community to locate portable
Room. which
community. Before. if a
core group of
classrooms for daycare purposes:
parent volunteers
landlord gave them an
RAINMAKER
representatives from the Absenteeism
useras homebase
parents who
Home Intervention team reported that
for linking with
eviction notice, the parents
received the
they were still making home visits based
social service
didn't know their legal
required 4() hours of
on school referrals and asked the
agencies in town.
training.
principal to make sure faculty referred
Teresa Martiato
rights. Now they don get
Gomez says that
children to them as soon as they had
began volunteering
mistreated. The authorities
of her first tasks was
three consecutive absences: and there was
at Fienberg-Fisher
to go door-to-door
an update on the progress being made to
Elementary School
hear us when we speak.
throughout the
when the oldest of
neighborhood with a
questionnaire. getting parents' opinions
parents didn't know their legal rights.
leader. with a great deal of knowledge on
on how the community could be im-
Now they don't get mistreated. The
the problems of the schools. parks. and
proved. "Knowing what I went through
authorities hear us when we speak."
housing developments. Until she began
as a parent. I felt that if I could help just
Martiato says that the change in
working full-time at the school. she was
one other parent. that would be enough."
attitudes has resulted in better treatment
being considered for an internship in the
she says now. in explaining why she
of parents and in the creation of new
Mayor's office. Martiato is currently
decided toget involved in the project.
programs to meet their needs. She names
involved in discussions with the Housing
In her referral capacity. Gomez does
the HeadStart program at Fienberg-
Authority to develop more low-income
all the footwork to link families with the
Fisher and the project's Homework Club
housing in the area. "It may take time."
area's social services. including visiting
as just two of the benefits that have been
she says. "hut they re beginning 10 pay
the agencies and letting them know the
realized since the Healthy Learners'
attention."
families' needs. She and the other
Project began. Her own involvement in
When asked what advice she would
parents who volunteer in the R.A.I.N.
the community and as a RAINMAKER
give to people planning a new school-
Room do intake interviews. make initial
parent makes the Homework Club
linked community program. Denise
assessments. help parents set goals and
especially advantageous. "I don't always
Gomez says she'd stress the importance
make appropriate referrals for families.
have time to check my own kids'
of creating an environment that mini-
based on their needs. She believes that
homework. so they go there for help:
mizes the awe parents feel for the
the Healthy: Learners' Project has been
about 130 kids participate and the
schools. That awe often prevents them
instrumental in breaking down some of
parents work closely with the teachers."
from approaching the schools with
the barriers that exist for families in the
Gomez says that being involved as a
questions or concerns about their
community. "So many of the parents in
RAINMAKER has boosted her self-
children. An on-site program like the
the area have no legal status: they don't
esteem. "I know I count and can do
Healthy Learners' Project can let parents
know the language: they afraid to get
something to control my own life." she
know they Te welcome and make the
help for their children. This program
says. She believes the community has
schools feel more accessible Gomez also
helps them realize that they not
become friendlier. because parents now
recognizes that schools may initially feel
alone."
have the opportunity to get to know one
threatened by a program that encourages
She's aware that the illegal status of
another They also realize there's a place
parental involvement: programs must
many families poses challenges for them.
they can go where they won feel
make/sure to keep lines of communica-
and for the schools as well. "They're the
belittled or fearful of the authorities. "It's
tion open at every step in the process. in
ones whose children don't come to
like they know that there's support for
order to reassure the school that the
school. whose children don't get to the
them."
program and the parents who get
doctor or have shoes. They may be living
In describing her own sense of
involved are there to serve the needs of
at the poverty level. even with both
empowerment. Martiato mentions her
the school and its teachers.
parents working. So they have to leave
interest in housing issues. Once threat-
Teresa Martiato. asked the same
their children alone: they think there's no
ened with eviction from her apartment.
question. says that she'd encourage a
one to help them. or even to help their
she was encouraged to file a lawsuit
program to focus initially on engaging
children with homework. We try to help
against the city to highlight the crisis in
the interest and participation of those
them understand that what we're doing
availability of affordable housing.
parents who are already actively volun-
has nothing to do with immigration. If
Today. she is a recognized community
teering in the schools. She suggests a
we can get them [connected] to
low -key approach that doesn't
the agencies that provide
insist on parental involvement
assistance. it can alleviate stress
because even if you reassure
and frustration for many of
them that they have nothing to
them."
fear from the authorities. some
The word "empowerment"
parents will be initially reluctant.
crops up frequently when Gomez
"Let them stay where they are."
and Martiato speak about the
says Martiato. "because eventu-
benefits of the Healthy Learners'
ally more parents are going to
Project. Martiato points out that
want to he involved than you
the project addresses parents'
anticipated."
desires to be olved in their
"One of Denise Gomez' first
Both women are convinced of
children's schools and to have
the value of Healthy Learners'.
some say about what happens in
tasks was to go door-to-door
In fact. Denise Gomez says that
their community. I always felt
if she has to move to a new area
that they needed a voice-with
throughout the neighborhood
when her daughter enters middle
the legislature. with the Board of
school. she "implement a
Education-but the authorities
with a questionnaire getting
[parent involvement| program
weren't paying attention. This is
myself." And Teresa Martiato
a poor community. and when
parents' opinions on how the
says that a supportive program
you have no money. authorities
like this can help preserve
don't listen. This project has
community could be improved."
families by alleviating some of
given power to the Latino
the stress of being poor. That.
community Before. if a landlord
she says. is a "stress that can
gave them an eviction notice. the
break families apart."
Harold A. Richman
DRAFT
DRAFT
The Issue of Governance in Neighborhood-Based Initiatives
by
Robert J. Chaskin
and
Sunil Garg
December 1994
THE CHAPIN HALL CENTER FOR CHILDREN
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
1155 East Sixtieth Street
Chicago, Illinois 60637
DRAFT
DRAFT
INTRODUCTION
The current. renewed interest in community-based approaches to social reform has spawned a
significant number of initiatives in recent years. While their programmatic focus varies--ranging from service
provision and coordination to housing and economic development to "comprehensive" development and
attempts at broad "systems reform" they share some central assumptions about the possibilities for promoting
social change, the failure of categorical approaches to problem solving, and the nature of local communities
and their potential role in driving change.
Although in many cases government agencies and finances play a role in supporting these initiatives.
much of the activity is being spearheaded by private philanthropies and acted on by private and nonprofit
organizations and agencies. Often. it has been private foundations that have driven the conceptual
development and initial organization of these initiatives. including pulling together the participants at the local
level to guide program development and implementation. These participants. most often professionals
representing agencies and organizations in the private sector. tend to be organized in some way as a formal
governing mechanism for each initiative. Frequently, participants in this governing structure will also include
residents of the target area as well as some representatives of local government.
The purpose of this paper is to consider the nature of these emerging neighborhood governance
structures and to highlight some issues that we believe would benefit from further investigation. First. we will
briefly explore the assumptions and rationale for neighborhood governance that seem. in part. to drive these
initiatives. Second. we will outline some central issues of concern regarding the relationship of neighborhood
1
DRAFT
DRAFT
governance to existing governmental structures and mechanisms. Third. we will explore the intent. structure.
and operation of an illustrative set of current initiatives' neighborhood governance entities in light of these
issues. Finally. we will review the issues that we believe require further attention and make some
recommendations for further action.
ASSUMPTIONS AND RATIONALE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNANCE
The rationale for promoting social change through local governance seems to stem from two. usually
connected. convictions. The first concerns a belief in the centrality of the democratic process. While this
conviction is often expressed as an ethical imperative, arguments supporting it invariably stress its ultimate
pragmatism as well as its essential morality. At the center of this belief is the notion that the design and
implementation of fair and effective policies and programs must be informed by and developed with reference
to the concerns. needs. and priorities of the individuals and families they will affect. This conviction stresses
the need for the devolution of authority to the local level and the importance of the role of citizens in an active
democratic process.
The second conviction is essentially pragmatic. It is the belief that centralized. categorical approaches
to social change and service provision have failed. and that a more connected. coordinated. and responsive
approach is needed to promote long-term. sustainable change.
Democracy and local governance
Arguments for promoting social change through democratic. participatory means incorporate both
ethical and practical dimensions. Ethically, to incorporate citizen participation in policymaking and program
2
DRAFT
DRAFT
delivery is to take seriously the rights and responsibilities of citizens to have some control over policies that
will have an impact on their lives (Barber 1984). Practically. involving citizens in planning and implementing
practices that affect them promotes better (i.e., more connected. directed. and appreciated) policies. By better
calibrating policies and programs to the needs and priorities of citizens. such activity produces both more
competent programming and greater public confidence in the designers and providers of such programs
(Valelly 1993).
Such involvement is seen as most useful at the neighborhood level because of the immediacy and
accessibility of the local community in people's lives. The neighborhood is seen as both the primary context
(beyond the household) for family life and a focus of many informal relationships and activities. In addition.
it often serves as the place of provision for many goods and services. and as the reference point from which
access to others is defined. The neighborhood can thus be seen as a "mediating institution." operating between
individuals and the structures and institutions of the larger society. Because of its ubiquity and proximity to
many of the activities of daily life. the neighborhood as mediating institution is the place "within the formal
framework of democratic polity that most people have, in the most exact sense. a political will" (Berger and
Neuhaus 1977. 42).
Within this neighborhood focus. then, the ethical dimension of the argument concerns a belief in local
rights; the practical dimension includes convictions regarding local knowledge and local power.
Local rights. That individuals have the right to a meaningful voice regarding issues that affect them
is a basic tenet of American democracy. Although the achievement of equality and freedom are often
frustrated. "democracy is the only political system which permits constant change and the freedom of
individual political action which it requires
Hence it is the potential for freedom. equality. justice, security.
risk-sharing. and self-esteem. etcetera. rather than the actuality which legitimates American democracy"
3
DRAFT
DRAFT
(Binder 1986. 7). This potential can only he realized through respect for and support of individuals ability
to make choices and take control of their own lives. and it is this belief that forms the basis for accepting local
rights as a prerequisite for social action.
Local knowledge. The focus on local knowledge stems from the belief that local people understand
the needs. opportunities. priorities. and special dynamics at work in their neighborhood in ways that
professional nonresidents attempting to implement planned change do not. Even if the identification of needs
does not differ (service providers and employed mothers both recognizing the need for accessible child care.
for example). residents' knowledge may provide important insight into how the provision of services should
be carried out. or where a certain facility should be placed. For example. Linda Burton (1991) describes the
link between drug-trafficking schedules and child care strategies in one urban neighborhood. Three distinct
shifts of drug activity directly determine the availability of public space to neighborhood families at different
times of day. and govern to this extent how children are cared for. Knowledge of such dynamics could
substantially influence the planning and provision of services in the neighborhood.
Local power. The issue of local power has at least two dimensions. The first concerns political
power. In this dimension the notions of knowledge and rights are organized into meaningful political
channels. Through the vote. through lobbying, through protest. through advisory councils. through
operational partnership. power-sharing. or outright control of the programs or institutions that influence
neighborhood life. representatives from the local citizenry press for action based on their knowledge.
perspectives. and priorities.
The second dimension is one of capacity. By engaging in policy planning. local citizens further
develop the skills, experience, connections. and will to both plan and implement local policies. projects. and
programs. Under this assumption. local leadership is developed and the structure of opportunity is changed
4
DRAFT
DRAFT
such that both local institutions and individuals are better able to perform on their own behalf. In this way,
local participatory structures can operate like Tocqueville's schools of democracy: "they put [liberty] within
the people's reach: they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of
it" (Tocqueville 1988 I 1966], 63).
Improving service delivery: coordination and connection
The second rationale for promoting social change through local governance concerns the limitations
of a centralized system of categorical responses to individual needs and the inability of such it system to respond
adequately to the interrelated sets of needs and circumstances of individuals and families.
Arguments regarding the shortcomings of a deficit-driven. problem-oriented. categorical system of
service delivery are legion (see. e.g., Schorr 1988; Gardner 1989: Levitan. Mangum and Pines 1989; Edelman
and Radin 1990: Bruner 1991: Committee for Economic Development 1991). In essence. these arguments
suggest that an atomistic approach to discrete problems has focused on symptoms rather than causes. and has
therefore been unable to promote sustainable change. The complexity. inaccessibility. and lack of
coordination among servicés has led to frustration on the part of individuals in need. and to the perpetuation
of a client-provider system in which those seeking help are moved powerlessly through a labyrinth of
bureaucratic prerequisites and protocols. This is particularly true for families with multiple needs and limited
resources, circumstances that are often associated.¹ By failing to address the interrelationships among needs
1
For example, one report suggests that while nearly 93 percent of middle class families face one
or fewer "obstacles to self-sufficiency" (joblessness, poor education. poor housing. ill health. etc.). 81
percent of families in poverty face two or more such obstacles. and over half face three or more (Levitan,
Mangum. and Pines 1989).
5
DRAFT
DRAFT
and circumstances. categorical approaches have failed to address systemic inadequacies or build the capacity
among individuals for addressing related needs and achieving broader goals.
Attempts to address such fragmentation are not new. though there has been an ongoing tension
between periodic efforts at coordination and a de facto trend toward specialization (Halpern 1991). Often.
reform attempts that seek to increase coordination of strategies focus on the local community--usually defined
as a town. village. or neighborhood within a larger city--as the unit of action. Since the late nineteenth
century. for example. settlement houses provided a range of services under a single roof in a number of urban
neighborhoods: the early twentieth century saw the rise of the community center movement (in which public
schools were targeted for development as neighborhood centers) and the "social unit" experiments (in which
neighborhoods were organized--block by block--to define needs and coordinate solutions): the 1960s
supported such community-based service coordination initiatives as the Gray Areas projects of the Ford
Foundation and the Johnson administration's War on Poverty programs; and many Community Development
Corporations (CDCs) seek to provide housing, social services. and economic development activities within
geographically defined neighborhoods (Miller 1981; Melvin 1987; Fisher 1981; Ford Foundation 1964; Marris
and Rein 1982 I 1967]; Ford Foundation 1973).
One reason the local community (often. in particular. the neighborhood) is chosen as the unit of action
for service coordination and other "comprehensive" strategies is because it is seen as the place where the needs
and circumstances of individual residents and families most clearly come together. In programmatic terms. the
neighborhood is therefore viewed as the right locus for the confluence of categorical programs and funding
streams; the place where categorical programs and problems fit together (Chaskin 1994).
If the neighborhood or local community is, in fact. an appropriate unit of analysis and action for
coordinating services or focusing activities toward "comprehensive" reform. the structure of any given
6
DRAFT
DRAFT
neighborhood does not necessarily provide a clear mechanism for promoting such activities. For the most
part, although neighborhoods may. through unofficial arrangements and the activities of discrete
organizations. carry on a number of political functions (including the production of collective or public
goods). neighborhoods are not administrative units: they are "neither politically nor administratively
independent" (Crenson 1983; Taub 1990). It is for this reason that many of the current initiatives seeking to
promote the coordination of services or the fostering of comprehensive change at the neighborhood level tend
to seek out or (more often) create a formal structure of governance at the local level. Governance. in this way.
is meant to provide a mechanism to promote and facilitate citizen participation in planning and
decisionmaking. to connect such planning to the systems and institutions that develop policy and provide
services. and to bring to bear in a more cohesive way the various categorical funding streams necessary to fund
social programs and development activities. Governance structures are thus created to link "communication,
information sharing. and planning functions with more authoritative efforts to redirect financing and assess
system performance" (Center for the Study of Social Policy 1991).
GOVERNANCE AND GOVERNMENT: ISSUES OF CONCERN
While the philosophical underpinnings and practical rationale for the development of neighborhood
governance entities are clear. several issues regarding their potential structure and operation within the context
of local government are worth examining. Three issues seem particularly important: (1) the nature of the
relationship between neighborhood governance structures and local government: (2) the nature of
representation and issues of legitimacy and connection: and (3) the question of long-term viability.
7
DRAFT
DRAFT
Neighborhood initiatives and neighborhood governance: roles and relationships
Part of the impetus behind the development of private. localized approaches to problem solving and
the development of neighborhood governance structures has been the perceived inability of government to
resolve particular problems. Thus, grassroots movements at the local level are said to have emerged "because
of the failures of both representative democracy and governmentally mandated citizen participation to reflect
the needs of low- and moderate-income people" (Periman 1978). and formal approaches to coordinating
service delivery at the local level is propelled both by the often insignificant role municipal governments play
in service delivery and by the lack of governmental authority at the municipal level to bring categorical
funding streams together (Center for the Study of Social Policy 1991).
In fact. the roles that local governments play in the provision of public goods and services differ
tremendously across cities and regions. Although municipal governments are generally responsible for basic
"housekeeping functions" such as sanitation. police and fire protection. and mass transportation. some may
also play a role in the delivery of a broader array of services. including the management of health. welfare. and
educational systems (Peterson 1981). Differences in the division of labor and responsibility between states.
counties. and cities are further complicated by an increasing tendency for governments to foster the
privatization of such activities through contracting with nonprofit service organizations. In addition to the
increased fragmentation such practices may cause. contracting may have serious implications for the
accountability of government to its citizens with regard to program delivery. and for the ability of private
nonprofits to play a constructive advocacy role. Thus, because responsibility for service delivery is
increasingly based with private agencies. the link of accountability between citizens and government for the
delivery of such services is diffused. Further. as contracting arrangements increase. nonprofits become more
and more a part of the government's social service system--dependent on it for revenue. destabilized by
8
DRAFT
DRAFT
cutbacks. with an increasing exchange of personnel between the public and private sectors--and are less able
to play a role as political advocates for change in government policy and practice (Rathgeb Smith 1993).
Neighborhood governance structures can thus be seen as attempting to address these ambiguities and
discontinuities by providing additional or alternative mechanisms to guide planning and promote the
coordination and delivery of services and the implementation of other strategies at the local level. Yet the
nature of these structures and their relationship to formal government may be unclear.
At least four distinct possibilities present themselves. First. neighborhood governance entities may
be developed as parallel institutions to local government. seeking to provide an alternative mechanism for
the development and provision of public goods and services currently the responsibility of local government.
Second. neighborhood governance entities may be developed as separate but complementary institutions to
local government. operating independently but with the intent to plan for and provide goods and services that
are beyond the purview of local government. Third. they might be developed as entities incorporated into
local government as formal extensions of municipal mechanisms of representation and action. Fourth,
neighborhood governance may be developed in opposition to local government. as an advocacy mechanism
to influence policymaking, resource allocation. and service delivery. Each of these general approaches has
implications for the likely effectiveness. legitimacy, and long term viability of the governance entity being
developed.
Participation, legitimacy, and connection
Neighborhood governance is attractive from one point of view because of its proximity to the people
to be affected by policy: the neighborhood offers the "possibility of face-to-face interaction. which lies at the
heart of the theory of participatory democracy" (Berry, Portney and Thomson 1993). How this participation
9
DRAFT
DRAFT
is structured. however. will make a substantial difference in the degree to which such structures can be seen
as connected to and acting on behalf of the interests of "the community."
Issues of legitimacy and citizen participation have long been central to the development and
implementation of community- and neighborhood-based initiatives. In the early part of the twentieth century.
for example. the social unit experiment in Cincinnati established representative councils in neighborhoods of
approximately 12.000 people. A Citizens Council. made up of one representative from each block in the
neighborhood. determined policy for the social unit. These representatives were elected by the block-level
organization (the "Council of Neighbors"). thus providing representation on a block-by-block basis (Betten
and Austin 1977; Melvin 1987).
In the 1960s. the Community Action Program (CAP). which began with a central focus on the
coordination of services at the local level. quickly became focused on the issue of citizen participation. losing
sight of its original intent almost entirely (Peterson and Greenstone. 1977). Participation in CAP took several
forms. Citizens sometimes acted as voting members of the local policymaking group. as advisors to such a
group. through direct social action (ranging from self-help to participation in community corporations to
advocacy and protest). or through use of and employment in Program projects (Kramer 1969). These modes
of participation provided for a range of representational efficacy and degrees of power sharing. from essential
nonparticipation or "tokenism" (e.g., by informing citizens of their rights and options without providing
channels for feedback) to modes of participation that lead to degrees of genuine citizen power through
partnership on joint policy boards. by delegating power, or through outright citizen control (Arnstein 1969).
Recruitment strategies under the Community Action Program. however. while providing access and political
legitimacy to at least some previously unempowered target area residents. often "screened out the hard-core
poor and resulted in a 'creaming' process whereby previously affiliated residents with a strong ethnic
10
DRAFT
DRAFT
identification prevailed in a pseudodemocratic system with very low accountability to an amorphous
electorate" (Kramer 1969. 261).
But the issue of legitimacy includes both the question of adequate representation and its auspice.
Municipalities. after all. are representational democracies that govern by mandate determined through electoral
processes. Although representation of interests may well be uneven (lower income people and minorities often
voting less frequently and being underrepresented in government) and different parts of the system may have
distinctive methods for decisionmaking and conflict resolution (from city council elections to school board
caucuses to executive appointment in departments of parks and sanitation. for example). municipal
government may insist on its status as the formally legitimized mechanism for citizen
representation. Thus. when Community Action Agencies were organized by federal mandate without the
inclusion or cooperation of local government (eliding the issue of local jurisdiction). CAP met with
tremendous resistance from city governments (as well as the "hostility of existing agencies"). eventually
foreing a redefinition of the governance structure to diminish the role of citizens and yield to the authority of
local government (Kravitz and Kolodner 1969; Kramer 1969: Morone 1990).
Recently. several cities have promoted neighborhood-based governance structures through variously
constructed systems of neighborhood organizations connected to each other and to city hall. Neighborhood
representatives are elected and serve principally to advise and negotiate on the allocation of funds and the
delivery of services. and in many cases seem to have increased the influence of neighborhood associations in
informing the cities' agendas (Berry. Portney. and Thomson 1993). Similarly, a planned project in Austin.
Texas will build a two-tiered governance structure in which neighborhood residents are to be elected by their
neighbors to serve on Neighborhood Development Committees. each of which will have jurisdiction over
resource allocation for its neighborhood. These residents can select representatives from the city. school. or
11
DRAFT
DRAFT
service sectors to serve with them. and will in addition serve on a Coordinating Council along with public
sector officials to set policy and allocate resources for projects that cross individual neighborhood interests.
At both-levels. residents will maintain a majority of the seats (Strategic Partnerships for Urban Revitalization
[n.d.]).
In other instances. where citizen participation was sought in an advisory (rather than a governing)
capacity. citizen panels have been formed by drawing a stratified. random sample of residents to advise
policymakers on the viability of proposed projects (Crosby, Kelly and Schaefer 1986: Kathlene and Martin
1991).
Often. however. governance structures created at the neighborhood level address the need for
neighborhood representation neither through electoral processes nor statistical sampling. Instead. they rely
a great deal on existing community-based and community-representing organizations (CBOs and CROs).
which are believed to be embedded institutions with mechanisms for inclusion and communication that can
streamline the representation of neighborhood interests. While this may be the case. sometimes the
establishment of these organizations. rather than emerging as grassroots responses to local needs. were fostered
or stimulated by outside organizations (such as government and corporations) in need of information. support.
or legitimation in the neighborhood (Taub et al. 1977). And regardless of their origins, in operation they often.
over time. succumb to the "iron law of oligarchy" (Michels 1949 [1915]); they are led by "local elites" who
are rarely elected and operate with few mechanisms of communication with or accountability to the residents
at large (Cnaan 1991; Bolduc 1980). When seeking to include resident representation unaffiliated with these
12
DRAFT
DRAFT
more formal indigenous structures ("grassroots" or "nontraditional" leaders). neighborhood governance
structures may rely more on self-selection. or on "descriptive representation" than on democratic means.
Long-term viability
The issue of the viability of neighborhood governance entities over the long term stems both from
questions about the nature of the relationship between such structures and local government and from concerns
regarding the nature of their representation. legitimacy. and connection to the neighborhood. It seems clear
that. depending on how these relationships are developed. the establishment of neighborhood governance
structures may engender conflict or cooperation (or both. or neither) with the government entities within
whose jurisdiction an initiative falls. with organizations currently operating independently in the
neighborhood. and with the residents themselves. Over the long term. the ultimate success of such structures
may rely on the extent to which they (or what they leave behind) can foster cooperation with other
organizations and the municipal. county, and state governmental units from which they ultimately must draw
both jurisdiction and funds.
While many neighborhood-based initiatives are clearly conceived as long-term endeavors seeking
sustainable. systemic change. the precise nature of this change and appropriate mechanisms to be put in place
to ensure sustainability are often initially unspecified. underconsidered. or meant to be tested over time.
developmentally. Again. several possibilities present themselves. Governance structures may. for example,
:
Descriptive representation is described by Jenkins (1987) as a principle of leadership selection
whereby "leaders proportionately correspond to certain demographic characteristics" of the neighborhood.
Although he discusses models of representation within nonprofit organizational structures and not within
neighborhood governance structures that may incorporate the participation of several such organizations,
the notion of descriptive representation may hold true both for the leadership of formal neighborhood
organizations (cf. Cnaan 1991) and for unaffiliated residents recruited to serve on neighborhood
governance entities.
13
DRAFT
DRAFT
be temporary tools to foster and improve institutional collaboration among CBOs. service providers. and
governmental agencies. and to promote responsiveness between these entities and the neighborhoods in which
they work. Where this is the case, the outcome may be the creation of a set of strengthened institutions and
sustainable relationships rather than a new local institution with formal responsibility for such coordination.
Where successful. the long-term viability in this model will likely be vested in a strong voluntary sector
working collaboratively and now better connected to (and therefore more influential with) the formal
structures of power.
Neighborhood governance structures might also be conceived as pilot structures. ultimately to be
incorporated into the formal structure of local government. Here the goal may be to create a layer of
accountability below that currently provided by the structure of representative government in a given city. and
to connect that layer of governance permanently to the processes of policy definition and resource allocation.
Long-term viability in this model is based on the direct incorporation of local governance to the formal
processes of governmental decisionmaking.
A third possibility is for neighborhood governance entities to stand as separate. formal structures of
representation and action. Such structures may operate as complementary or in opposition. to local
government. In either case. the long-term viability of such structures (again. where successful) will most
likely be vested in their perceived legitimacy as representatives of a constituency. which may include both.
neighborhood residents and neighborhood serving organizations, and/or in their proven capacity to effect
change.
To better understand these issues. we turn now to a brief examination of the field.
14
DRAFT
DRAFT
NEIGHBORHOOD GOVERNANCE IN PRACTICE
Many current. community-based initiatives share the belief that neither grassroots approaches nor
government and private sector "systems reform" will. in isolation of the other. adequately enhance the social.
economic. and physical development of communities. Instead. these initiatives seek to strengthen
neighborhoods by linking "top down" and "bottom up" approaches: they attempt to build on neighborhood
strengths and participation through the establishment of neighborhood governance entities while simultaneously
attempting to make government more responsive to these entities. This desire to converge bottom up and top
down approaches influences both the intent of the neighborhood governance entities (i.e., their mission. roles:
and responsibilities) and their structure (i.e., who will participate and how they are selected). The different
structures and intents of these governance entities. in turn. result in varying relations with local government.
including the extent to which government "transfers" certain responsibilities to these governance entities.
We selected for review five "comprehensive" initiatives that have been operating for at least three
years. While no five initiatives can be strictly representative of the field as a whole. we believe those chosen
to be particularly illustrative of the strategies and issues we seek to explore. Because they are comprehensive--
seeking to address social. economic. and physical conditions together in a neighborhood--they will likely
encounter the issues concerning governance. participation. and systems reform that might be encountered in
programs more narrowly defined. In addition. these initiatives, taken together, represent a broad range in the
nature. breadth. and continuance of government involvement with the neighborhood governance entities--from
government sponsorship of these entities, to partnership with them, to maintaining some form of
representation on them. to no formal involvement at all.
15
DRAFT
DRAFT
At one end of the spectrum of government involvement is the Neighborhood-Based Alliance (NBA).
which is a product of state government legislation. NBA operates in 27 sites throughout the State of New
York. At the other end of the spectrum is the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative (DSNI). a single-site
initiative operating in Roxbury. Massachusetts. Currently. DSNI has no formal government involvement in
their operations. Between these two initiatives rest three others with varying levels of government
responsibility. Community Building in Partnership. Inc. (CBP). a single-site initiative in Maryland. results
from a partnership between the Enterprise Foundation. the Baltimore City government. and representatives
from the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood who were initially selected by the Mayor of Baltimore. Agenda
for Children Tomorrow (ACT). with five sites in New York City. encourages but does not require the
participation of local government agencies on the neighborhood governance entities. In addition to the
financial support ACT receives from the Tides Foundation. it receives in-kind support from the New York City
Mayor's office. and high-level city officials sit on ACT's Oversight Committee. Finally. the Neighborhood
Family Initiative (NFI). sponsored by the Ford Foundation and administered through the community
foundations in Detroit. Hartford. Memphis and Milwaukee. involves local government representatives on each
of the neighborhood collaboratives. but does not specify the nature of their role nor the level of their
involvement.
Our review of these initiatives' neighborhood governance entities focused on three elements: (1) their
mission. roles, and responsibilities: (2) their organizational structure. membership. and operations; and (3)
their projected long-term development.
16
DRAFT
DRAFT
Mission, roles, and responsibilities of neighborhood governance entities
While the governance structures created under all these initiatives have been conceived of as
mechanisms to promote sustainable. systemic change. the intent and responsibilities of the neighborhood
governance entities differ somewhat across initiatives. Much of the difference results from the nature of the
relationship between the governance entities and government anticipated by the initiatives. both in the short-
and long-term.
Planning. The principal responsibility of most neighborhood governance entities has been to develop
a focused plan that defines strategic approaches to meeting the needs of the neighborhood and attempts to
overcome the barriers of fragmented and categorical funding streams and service delivery practices. Planning
generally has involved two tasks: '(1) a needs assessment. identifying and prioritizing the issues and concerns
most immediate to the neighborhood. and (2) a capacity assessment. identifying available strengths and
resources. Under some initiatives. the sponsor has established certain particular requirements of the plan. For
example. the Neighborhood Advisory Councils under NBA must ensure. as an initial step. the provision of
one of two "core services" in the neighborhood. either crisis intervention or case management.
Once developed. the plans serve as guiding documents. in essence laying out the primary objectives
of the neighborhood governance entity and its supporting strategies. The plans (generally covering a one- to
five-year time-period) have consumed the majority of the neighborhood governance entities' energy and time
during its first couple of years of operation. and will continue to be revised beyond the defined "planning
stage."
Coordinating. To facilitate the realization of its plan's primary objectives. neighborhood governance
entities typically are charged with the responsibility to coordinate the efforts of appropriate service institutions
and organizations. Many times this involves identifying opportunities for cooperation and collaboration
17
DRAFT
DRAFT
among participating members of the governance entity itself. as well as catalyzing important organizations
and institutions. both within and outside the community, who may not be direct participants. The
responsibility of coordination does not necessarily involve the allocation of funds by the neighborhood
governance entities to implementing organizations; for the most part. they serve as a brokers for organizations
and institutions to more effectively and efficiently access existing funding.
Implementing projects and programs. Generally. the neighborhood governance entities are not
intended to become direct providers of services or producers of goods to neighborhood residents through the
implementing of projects and/or programs. More commonly. they "incubate" projects and programs.
developing and often managing their initial implementation. In the long-term. however. this responsibility
is often transferred to an existing or a newly created organization formally structured to continue the
implementation and operation over time. Community Building in Partnership. for example. initiated a
corporation to manage the neighborhoods' housing and physical development. but this corporation now
operates independently. with its own board of directors: staff. and funding. In the Neighborhood and Family
Initiative. three models are developing across sites. The first model posits the neighborhood collaborative as both
a generator and (at least in the short term) coordinator of development strategies. but not as an implementing
body directly. Here, the collaborative spins off particular sets of implementation activities to newly formed
organizations and coalitions of organizations. on the boards of which the collaborative maintains a significant
voting presence. In the second model. the collaborative itself is to implement projects under its own aegis (one
has incorporated as a nonprofit CBO to accomplish this). though often acting in partnership with other
institutions and organizations. The third model sees the collaborative as a facilitator and grantmaker. funding
existing organizations to implement collaborative-designed or approved projects and encouraging cooperation
among them.
18
DRAFT
DRAFT
Allocating Resources. Whereas planning and coordinating by neighborhood governance entities may
serve to better utilize and leverage the allocation of funds from private philanthropies and government. giving
them the power to allocate such resources transfers an important responsibility of these institutions to the
neighborhood level. Typically among the initiatives reviewed. funding received by the neighborhood
governance entities from private foundations was non-categorical and could be allocated in support of
programs and projects determined by the governance entity. However. funding from government for
allocation by the neighborhood governance entities remained categorical. For example. under the
Neighborhood-Based Alliance. twenty-four state agencies channel categorical funds to the state's Department
of Social Services. who signs a contract with and transfers the money to the lead agency representing the
Neighborhood Advisory Councils. The contract details the purposes of the funding and establishes
performance standards. The NAC. in consultation with the lead agency. then subcontracts to other
organizations and institutions in the neighborhood to conduct the needed programs and projects. The NACs
role then is to use its understanding and knowledge of the neighborhood to better direct and coordinate
categorical state agency funding. In the absence of the NACs, state agencies would have individually
continued to fund organizations within the neighborhood through the standard request for proposal process.
Organizing. Initiatives reviewed generally desired to be inclusive and most therefore encouraged
neighborhood governance entities to implement some form of organizing. particularly in relation to involving
neighborhood residents. Some neighborhood governance entities employ formal organizing tacties. The
Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, for example. has a staff member whose responsibility it is to organize.
and Agenda for Children Tomorrow has begun working with institutions whose mission it is to organize. such
as ACORN. For the most part, however, organizing neighborhood residents is not a principal responsibility
19
DRAFT
DRAFT
of governance entities, and neighborhood outreach is often limited to mobilizing residents to attend meetings
or activities. or sharing information through newsletters or flyers.
Advising and advocacy. Because of the involvement of government at some level under all but one
of the initiatives reviewed. the neighborhood governance entities tend to maintain more of an advisory than
an advocacy stance toward government. For example. the neighborhood governance entities under Agenda
for Children Tomorrow work closely with ACT staff. who are housed in the Mayor's office. Through these
interactions. ACT staff become informed of neighborhood concerns and needs. and they in turn attempt to
work with city agencies to promote change within government. The neighborhood governance entities.
however. do not advocate for this change. Among the initiatives reviewed. only DSNI. in which local
government has no formal role in the initiative. plays a more traditional advocacy role in relation to local
government.
The Structure of the Neighborhood Organizations
The universe of participants involved in these initiatives includes some combination of neighborhood
residents. representatives of neighborhood organizations and institutions. funders, and representatives of local
government. Initiatives have sought to structure the neighborhood governance entities to bring together,
around the same table. a range of these participants in the hope of using their different experiences. fields of
expertise. and access to resources to break down categorical thinking and bring to bear assets within and
beyond the neighborhood. The nature of the representation and participation of these various participants.
however. differs across (and sometimes within) initiatives. as does their influence on the operations of the
governance entities.
20
DRAFT
DRAFT
Representation and Participation. To understand the nature of representation and participation of
various participants in the initiatives reviewed. two components of the neighborhood governance entities were
examined: (1) the composition of membership: and (2) the process of selection.
Membership In defining the composition of the neighborhood governance entity. some initiatives
have pursued a more formal approach than others. For example, the three partners. involved in the
development of Community Building in Partnership (the Enterprise Foundation. the Baltimore City
government. and representatives of the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood) agreed to an eleven-member
board with neighborhood representatives occupying six of those seats. local government representatives
occupying four seats. and with one seat reserved for the Entérprise Foundation. Similarly. the Dudley Street
Neighborhood Initiative has defined the membership to its board of directors. The Riley Foundation. the
principal sponsor of DSNI. initially recommended the composition of the board. but residents approved an
alternative board with greater resident participation. Currently. the board consists of 12 community residents
(with equal representation from the neighborhoods' four ethnic/racial groups) and representatives from the
following organizations and institutions: five nonprofit agencies from health and human services fields: two
community development corporations: two small businesses; two members from the broader business
community: two religious community members; and two other members determined by the board. The board
has allocated it seat each for a local government and a state government representative. but they have remained
unoccupied.
Other initiatives have exercised less control in defining the composition of the neighborhood
governance entities. offering general principles instead of blueprints. The composition of the neighborhood
collaboratives under the Neighborhood and Family Initiative. for example, is guided by the Ford Foundation's
charge to "bring together low-income neighborhood leaders and representatives of the public and private
21
DRAFT
DRAFT
sectors." Membership for the collaboratives was guided by a simple matrix outlining three representational
categories: (1) low-income residents ("grassroots leaders"); (2) neighborhood professionals and entrepreneurs
("bridge people"); and (3) representatives from public- and private-sector organizations beyond the
neighborhood ("movers and shakers"). Similarly, the neighborhood governance entities under Agenda for
Children Tomorrow are encouraged to include residents. nonprofits, business, and local government
representatives. but the composition remains open for neighborhood interpretation. Finally. while NBA
requires that all members of Neighborhood Advisory Councils be "from the neighborhood." it does not define
the details of that composition nor the criteria for neighborhood membership.
Process. The process of selecting participants for the neighborhood governance entities also has
differed across initiatives. with some initiatives choosing to implement a more formal process than others.
The initial eleven member board of CBP. for example. was appointed by the mayor of Baltimore. This board
has been charged with selecting up to ten additional members with two stipulations: (1) residents must
maintain a majority on the board. and (2) the majority of the board must be mayoral appointees. In NFI. each
local community foundation was granted the authority to select the membership of the neighborhood governance
entities in accordance with the guiding principles regarding composition. Membership recruitment was performed
initially through an iterative interviewing process. with individuals interviewed referring other possible members
to NFI staff. Ongoing membership recruitment is now the responsibility of the collaboratives themselves. but
much the same methods are used. DSNI. on the other hand. has adopted a more democratic process to its
governance formation: board members are elected to two-year terms by the membership. with membership
being open to any neighborhood resident for an annual fee of one dollar.
Other initiatives have been inclined to "allow the neighborhoods" to determine the form of their
governance entities. The Neighborhood-Based Alliance. for example. circulates a request for proposals and
22
DRAFT
DRAFT
asks neighborhoods to form their own coalitions in response. These coalitions either build on existing
relations between neighborhood agencies or are new agency alliances developed around the initiative. NBA's
oversight committee of representatives from twenty-four state agencies must approve the proposed coalition.
which then decides how to form the governing entity. the Neighborhood Advisory Council (NAC). Some have
chosen to have lead agencies appoint or select members. while others have members elect representatives to
the NAC.. Similar to NBA. ACT asks coalitions within neighborhoods to respond to the initiative. It does not.
however. require the formation of an official governance entity.
Operations. Whether or not they are recognized as such. the neighborhood governance entities under
the initiatives reviewed typically functioned like boards of directors. The full membership meets
approximately once a month to set policy. and committees established to develop and guide particular policies
meet more often. Committees generally involve the participation of governance members. and often include
other neighborhood representatives (e.g., residents. business owners) and representatives from outside the
neighborhood (e.g., service providers, government agencies) that do not sit on the formal governance board.
In this way. committees become a mechanism for expanding involvement in the activities of the neighborhood
governance entity to many different participants. and to increase access to differing resources.
Because members of the neighborhood governance entities and their respective committees are for
the most part volunteers. staff hired by the initiatives tend to be the principal agents dedicated to carrying out
the governance entities' plans. The size and roles of the paid staff varies across the initiatives. CBP, for
example, has a staff of approximately thirty-five people. while DSNI has one consisting of about seven. Under
NFI. NBA. and ACT. much of the responsibility in directing and implementing plans rests with a single person
identified as the project director, local consultant. or local planner. respectively. This person may in some
instances be supported by minimal additional staff. such as an administrative assistant or outreach coordinator,
23
DRAFT
DRAFT
or with paid consultants. Where possible. staff hiring occurs from within the neighborhood. but in most
instances staff are professionals from outside the neighborhood who need to operate as a bridge between the
neighborhood. the professionals from the private sector. and local government.
24
DRAFT
DRAFT
The Long-Term Development of Neighborhood Governance Entities
The planned. long-term development of the neighborhood governance entities under the five initiatives
reviewed differs significantly. Community Building in Partnership and the Dudley Street Neighborhood
Initiative. the two single-site initiatives. have formalized their governance entities as 501(c)(3) organizations, and
authorized them to take an active. ongoing role in developing the neighborhood capacity to provide for the
necessary services. Under both initiatives. the neighborhood governance entity has been charged with planning.
coordinating. implementing. and allocating resources. with DSNI placing a greater emphasis on organizing and
advocating as well. In the long term. CBP sees the partnership reflected in the neighborhood governance entity
continuing. As capacity is built within the Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood. the governance entity's principal
responsibility would become one of coordinating the activities of neighborhood organizations. DSNI's governing
entity. in which local government has no formal role. receives major technical and financial support from the City
of Boston to support its redevelopment agenda. It sees itself as remaining separate from local government and
continuing over the long term as the principal developer in the Roxbury neighborhood.
Under Agenda for Children Tomorrow. the neighborhood governance entities serve primarily as brokers.
They do not implement programs and/or projects. nor do they allocate funding. ACT intends for these
responsibilities to remain unchanged. Instead. ACT is focusing on providing more support to the governance
entities and advocating for reform in local government bureaucracy on behalf of the governance entities. To
better support the governance entities, ACT staff is planning to add two new positions in its central office. to
update its community profiles by conducting a socioeconomic survey of each, and to provide training primarily
to the local planners. In the arena of systems reform. ACT staff are working to have the City label all contracts
by locality. thereby enabling policymakers and communities to determine whether human service resources are
available and accessible. In addition, ACT is trying to secure funding for the local planners from city agencies
25
DRAFT
DRAFT
instead of private foundations. For example. one local planner is currently being funded through a grant from
the City's Community Development Agency.
The funding granted for allocation by Neighborhood Advisory Councils under the Neighborhood-Based
Alliance has been to date categorical funding. NBA staff are currently working to increase the NAC's access to
more funding. For instance. it has secured preferential status for collaborating organizations who. through the
brokering by the NAC. answer it state agency's request for proposals. NBA also hopes to persuade local
governments to contract with the NACs and funnel money through their lead agency. Because all of the five
current sites under Agenda for Children Tomorrow overlap with NBA neighborhoods. NBA staff. as well as ACT
staff. are working to develop ways for their governance entities to better complement and possibly integrate with
each others. Funding to the NACs. either from state or local government. however. is envisioned by NBA staff
to remain categorical.
In NFI. the ongoing existence and role of the neighborhood collaboratives is unclear. Some
collaboratives have started independent nonprofits to implement particular pieces of their agenda and one has
incorporated as a 501(c)(3) organization. The collaborative itself may continue as a coordinating body or may
devolve its authority over time to the organizations it has spawned. Although representatives of local
government sit on each collaborative, they sit as one of many "stakeholders." broadly representative of a set
of interests. perspectives, and (at least in theory) access to resources. They tend. however. not to provide a
direct connection to governmental decisionmaking authority (over the allocation of resources. for example).
and their long-term connection to any neighborhood governance structure that may be left behind remains
unclear. The role of local government is likely to remain fluid, with each site deciding the nature of its own
relationship with local government.
26
DRAFT
DRAFT
CONCLUSIONS
The initiatives reviewed share the desire to develop greater capacity at the neighborhood level while
simultaneously working to make local government more responsive to the concerns and needs of these
neighborhoods. Yet the creation of neighborhood governance entities to serve as mechanisms for planned
community change takes many forms. with governance entities maintaining varying responsibilities and
addressing the issues of representation. participation. structure. and operations differently. An examination
of the ideas driving their creation and the approaches taken to operationalize them raises a number of
questions. In particular. three central. interrelated issues (slightly reformulated) remain problematic: (1)
legitimacy and connection: (2) organizational structure: and (3) auspice and viability.
Legitimacy and connection
One central issue regarding neighborhood governance concerns the relationship of a neighborhood
governance entity to the neighborhood it is constructed to represent and its connection to the broader
community. There are at least two issues here: (1) the nature of representation of its members and (2) the
source of their legitimacy.
Determining the nature of representation of governance members requires answering a number of
questions. For whom are individual members presumed to speak (and with what authority)? What they are
expected to bring to the table? What they can expect to take from it? Are members formal representatives of
particular constituencies and partners, empowered to make decisions on behalf of those partners and bring
resources to bear to transform those decisions into actions? Or are they seen as more generally representative
27
DRAFT
DRAFT
of a set of interests and perspectives. drawn together to inform debate and foster possibilities for cooperation
rather than serve as the mechanism for its immediate realization?
In either case (though particularly in the former) the source of members' legitimacy as representatives
of such interests or constituencies is an important consideration. This is particularly true regarding
representatives of "the neighborhood." While representatives from formal organizations may be appointed
with the clear and formal approbation of their boards. and representatives from government can be similarly
appointed through appropriate administrative channels. there is no such simple mechanism for appointing
neighborhood representatives. In the absence of a concerted neighborhood organizing effort leading to
elections of resident representatives. initiatives often rely on informal networking approaches to identifying
possible participants. processes of resident self-selection. and reliance on members of "embedded"
neighborhood organizations to act as neighborhood representatives in addition to being representatives of their
own institutional interests and perspectives. Are these appropriate criteria for addressing the issue of
representation and connection? How can they be improved? What impact do different models of
representation and connection have on program development and delivery?
Organizational structure
The question of organizational structure concerns. in part. defining and operationalizing the possible
and appropriate roles of individual citizens, voluntary organizations. local institutions. and local government
within (or connected to) a governance mechanism. Many of the current initiatives attempt to bring together
representatives from each of these groups to work side by side. presumably on equal footing. The rationale for
this model is clear: it represents an attempt to bring to bear different perspectives. bases of knowledge. bodies
of expertise, access to resources and, through their interaction. break down the barriers of categorical thinking
28
DRAFT
DRAFT
and connect professional planning with grassroots intent. Yet there are a number of tensions at play within this
model, deriving from the unequal distribution of power among members of the group. the disjunction between
modes of communication and decisionmaking. and differences in the ways immediate needs and long-term goals
are addressed. Such tensions are particularly clear concerning the roles, relationships. and dynamics between non-
professional residents and professionals that work within and beyond the target neighborhood (see. e.g., Chaskin
and Ogletree 1993). How can such organizations be structured to minimize such tensions and maximize the
possibility for consensus? What ought to be the nature and extent of resident participation in the planning and
governance of such initiatives? Are threshold numbers for such involvement necessary to ensure a meaningful
resident voice? How should resident participation be structured. and how should it relate to the formal
involvement of local organizations (CBO's. service providers. businesses. schools)? How should a neighborhood
governance structure relate to the formal structures of representation and service provision furnished by local
government?
Auspice and viability
Finally. there endures the question of long-term viability and the appropriate auspice under which
neighborhood governance structures should exist. In part. this question presents a tension between the
benefits of promoting strong voluntary action and driving change from the private sector on the one hand. and.
on the other. the advantages of connecting neighborhood governance to the governmental systems from which
jurisdiction and funding must ultimately (at least in large part) be drawn. The possibility for the long-term
viability of neighborhood governance theoretically exists in either case. but there are limits and potential
problems in each. While a strong, recognized neighborhood organization (or unified coalition of organizations
representing. in the aggregate. the neighborhood as a whole) may be able to promote a certain level of change
29
DRAFT
DRAFT
and successfully advocate to government for particular policies and practices. it must still ultimately rely on
government for significant funding. jurisdictional approval. and the provision of basic services. Conversely.
directly connecting such governance structures to government presents the possibility of cooptation. in which
the fates of neighborhood organizations and governance structures are SO tied to the structure of authority that
they are unable to effectively advocate a minority position.
This tension may argue for the development of a particular kind of partnership. but how that
partnership is best structured remains an open question. One study of participatory neighborhood governance
structures promoted by five city governments suggests that there are four factors associated with success. The
first factor is a strong motivation to make participation work. deriving from three sources: (1) demand from
citizen groups: (2) vision of government leaders: and (3) participation mandates. The second factor is a design
that begins with the intent of creating a citywide system based on small "natural" neighborhoods (those
reviewed were mainly between 2.000 and 5,000. hut up to about 14,000 residents) in which the necessary
political innovations (neighborhood outreach. communication. planning. budgeting) were in place at the
outset. The third factor is described as a "sophisticated political balance." in which partisan politics is
excluded from the participation system (e.g., neighborhood organizations and neighborhood media cannot
support one political candidate over another). The fourth factor involves the "ability to reach a plateau of
participation before encountering financial or political reversals" (Berry, Portney. and Thomson 1993). Are
these findings useful to other initiatives? Do other attempts to promote neighborhood governance support
these findings? What are the relative benefits of each approach? Can the necessary conditions be developed
where they aren't immediately apparent?
30
DRAFT
DRAFT
Conclusion
Our examination has raised some persistent questions without enabling us. at this stage. to provide
clear answers to them. While we can outline the issues. we don't know very much about the relative
benefits of different ways of structuring neighborhood governance. the effects of different structures on
(and expectations for) representation. or the relative benefits of different roles for government in
neighborhood governance. Consequently. an agenda for further exploration emerges more clearly than an
obvious policy agenda. This agenda might. in the first instance. clarify the theoretical framework in which
to understand current intitiatives, and begin to build a consciously defined knowledge base on which to
draw lessons and refine policy approaches. A principal task might be to more rigorously explore and
synthesize lessons across initiatives promoting neighborhood governance toward a better understanding of
the relative benefits of different structures and relationships. In addition. it might be profitable to work
toward the development of a more definite taxonomy of roles and responsibilities. in which we can tease
out. given a particular set of goals. which decisions are best made at which level of involvement and
through which vehicles (e.g., neighborhood organizations, some form of neighborhood governance. a
broader voluntary sector).
Related to this agenda is the need to further explore the issue of capacity. both as it exists and is
developing. within initiative neighborhoods. What. exactly. lies behind the notion of "capacity building"
that seems to inform SO many of these initiatives? Often. the goal of resident "empowerment" (to plan and
implement their vision) is conflated with a concern for the development of a more technical capacity to
deliver goods and services (a "technical/production paradigm" in Bill Traynor's 1993 terms). To what
extent are these goals compatible; to what extent is there tension between them? Is a principal focus on
31
DRAFT
DRAFT
one likely to be more effective or efficient (for what ends?) than the other? What are the relative benefits
to different approaches to capacity building?
In considering neighborhood capacity. there are at least three possible levels of intervention: the
individual level, the collective level. and the institutional level. Capacity-building at the first level is
likely to focus on developing "human capital"--knowledge. skills. leadership. and employment
possibilities for individual residents. At the second level. the concern is on building "social capital"--
promoting instrumental ties (and affective connections?) among citizens to foster valuable networks of
communication. collective action. and mutual aid. At the third level. capacity-building may focus on
strengthening the ability of organizations and institutions to function effectively and efficiently. Given
this range of possible foci. how should we consider interventions that focus on building particular
capacities of individuals (in themselves. as a strategic point of intervention. and relative to other
approaches)? How essential (for what ends?) is a strong focus on traditional organizing techniques. i.e..
organizing citizens around a given issue or set of concerns? Can one expect to build "neighborhood
capacity" without it? How should the development of capacity of local organizations--to deliver services.
produce goods. promote neighborhood interests. connect with resident priorities as well as connect
residents to resources in the broader community and the broader community to the neighborhood--be
related to action at the level of individual residents? What roles might an intermediary organization (such
as the Urban Strategies Council or the Center for Community Change) play in facilitating such efforts. To
what extent should the construction of particular approaches to capacity building be grounded in a set of
objectives (e.g., addressing the needs of children in poverty) or a kind of instrumentality (e.g., a
neighborhood governance entity)?
32
DRAFT
DRAFT
Finally, there is an additional perspective on these issues that is critical. not just to inform a
knowledge-building agenda. but for strategic purposes. For while we have examined the governance of
neighborhood-based initiatives from the perspective of those initiatives, we have not looked at the
phenomenon from the perspective of local government. Do local governments see the initiatives as the
full realization of the democratic ethic. or as threatening the representative function of democratic
government? Do they feel the initiatives are performing functions that are more properly left to local
government? Do they see the initiatives as long term partners or as first steps toward sub-city
government? Do they think the initiatives are well intentioned hut unlikely to last. and SO to be ignored or
tolerated? Do they see the initiatives as an incipient form of special-purpose government. like school
boards or health services districts?
The pursuit of these questions from the perspective of local government is of strategic importance
because it is necessary to stimulate constructive debate about the long-term implications of the current
generation of neighborhood-based initiatives for the democratic process, for sustained neighborhood
development. and for the role of local government in neighborhood affairs. We believe this debate is
essential to the interests of neighborhood development and to the vitality of local government.
33
DRAFT
DRAFT
REFERENCES
Arnstein. Sherry R. 1969. "A ladder of citizen participation." Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 35:pp. 216-224.
Barber. Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Berger. Peter and Richard John Neuhaus 1977. To Empower People: The Roles of Mediating Structures
in Public Policy. Washington. D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Berry. Jeffrey. Kent E. Portney. and Ken Thomson 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington.
D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Betten. Neil. and Michael J. Austin. 1977. "The unwanted helping hand." Environment
19 (1):pp. 13-22.
Binder. Leonard 1986. The natural history of development theory. Comparative Studies in
Society and History 28(1):pp. 3-33.
Bolduc. Vincent L. 1980. "Representation and Legitimacy in Neighborhood Organizations: A Case
Study." Journal of Voluntary Action Research 9(1-4):pp. 165-178.
Bruner. Charles. 1991. Thinking Collaboratively: Ten Questions and Answers to Help Policy
Makers Improve Children's Services. Washington. D.C.: The Education and Human Services
Consortium.
Burton, Linda M. 1991. "Drug Shifts and Their Impact on Families." The American Enterprise
May/June 1991:pp. 34-37.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. 1991. Building a Community Agenda: Developing Local Governing
Entities. Washington, D.C.: The Center for the Study of Social Policy.
Chaskin. Robert J. 1994. Defining Neighborhood. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for
Children at the University of Chicago.
Chaskin. Robert J. and Renae Ogletree. 1993. The Ford Foundation's Neighborhood and Family
Initiative: Building Collaboration: An Interim Report. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for
Children at the University of Chicago.
Cnaan. Ram A. 1991. "Neighborhood-Representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They?" Social
Service Review 65:pp. 614-634.
34
DRAFT
DRAFT
Committee for Economic Development. 1991. The Unfinished Agenda: A New Vision for Child
Development and Education. New York: Author.
Crenson. Matthew A. 1983. Neighborhood Politics. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
Crosby, Ned. Janet M. Kelly. and Paul Schaefer. 1986. "Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen
Participation. Public Administration Review. 46. 170-179.
Edelman. Peter B. and Beryl A. Radin. 1990. "Effective Services for Children and Families: What do We
Know and What Do We Do Now as a Consequence?" Paper presented to the Workshop on
Effective Services for Young Children. Washington. D.C.
Fisher. Robert. 1981. "From Grass-Roots Organizing to Community Service: Community Organization
Practice in the Community Center Movement. 1907-1930 Pp. 33-58 in Community Organization
for Social Change: A Historical Perspective. (cd.) R. Fisher and P. Romanofsky. Westport.
Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Ford Foundation. 1964. "Public Affairs: Gray Areas Program." Review paper. New York: Ford
Foundation Archives. Report no. 002845.
Ford Foundation. 1973. "Community Development Corporations: A Strategy for Depressed Urban and
Rural Areas. A Ford Foundation Policy Paper. New York: Ford Foundation.
Gardner. Sid. 1989. "Failure by Fragmentation." California Tomorrow. Pp. 18-25.
Halpern. Robert. 1991. "Supportive services for families in poverty: Dilemmas of reform." Social Service
Review 65:pp. 343-364.
Jenkins. J. Craig. 1987. "Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Advocacy." Pp. 296-320 in The Nonprofit
Sector. (ed.) Walter W. Powell. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kathlene. Lyn., and John A. Martin. 1991. "Enhancing Citizen Participation: Panel Designs.
Perspectives. and Policy Formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 10(1): 46-63.
Kramer. Ralph 1969. Participation of the Poor: Comparative Community Case Studies in the War on
Poverty. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall
Kravitz. Sanford. and Ferne K. Kolodner. 1969. "Community Action: Where Has It Been. Where Will It
Go?" Annals of the American Academy of Political Science 385:30-40.
Levitan. Sar A., Garth L. Mangum. and Marion W. Pines. 1989. A Properlinheritance:
Investing in the Self-Sufficiency of Poor Families. Washington. D.C.: Center for Social Policy
Studies. George Washington University.
35
DRAFT
DRAFT
Marris. Peter. and Martin Rein. [1967] 1982. Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action
in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Melvin. Patricia Mooney. 1987. The Organic City: Urban Definition and Community Organization 1880-
1920. Lexington. KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
Michels. Robert 1949 [1915]. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchic Tendencies of
Modern Democracy. Glencoe. IL: Free Press.
Miller. Z. L. 1981. "The Role and Concept of Neighborhood in American Cities." Pp. 3-32 in Community
Organization for Urban Social Change: A Historical Perspective. (ed.) R. Fisher and P.
Romanofsky. Westport. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Morone. James A. 1990. The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American
Government. New York: Basic Books.
Perlman. Janice 1978. "Grassroots Participation from Neighborhood to Nation." Citizen Participation in
America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. pp. 65-80.
Peterson. Paul E. 1981. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Peterson. Paul and J. David Greenstone 1977. "Racial Change and Citizen Participation: The
Mobilization of Low-Income Communities through Community Action." Pp. 241-284 in A
Decade of Federal Antipoverty Programs: Achievements. Failures. and Lessons. New York:
Academic Press.
Schorr. Lisbeth B. 1988. Within Our Reach. New York: Anchor Press.
Smith. Steven Rathgeb 1993. "The New Politics of Contracting: Citizenship and the Nonprofit Role."
Public Policy for Democracy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute Press. pp. 119-135.
Strategic Partnerships for Urban Revitalization [n.d.] Austin: City of Austin Children & Youth Services.
Taub. Richard P. 1990. Nuance and Meaning in Community Development: Finding Community
and Development. New York: Community Development Research Center. New School for Social
Research.
Taub. Richard P., George P. Surgeon. Sara Lindholm. Phyllis Betts Otti and Amy Bridges. 1977. "Urban
Voluntary Associations. Locality Based and Externally Induced." American Journal of Sociology
83(2):pp. 425-442.
Tocqueville. Alexis de 1988 [1966]. Democracy in America. (ed.) J.P. Mayer. (trans.) George Lawrence.
New York: Harper & Row.
36
DRAFT
DRAFT
Traynor. Bill 1993. "Reflections: Shifting the Paradigm in Community Development." Economic
Development & Law Center Report. December 1993:pp. 10-13.
Valelly. Richard 1993. "Public Policy for Reconnected Citizenship." Pp. 241-266 in Public Policy for
Democracy. Washington. D.C.: The Brookings Institute Press.
37
Concerns About
School-linked Services:
Institution-based
Versus Community-
based Models
Robert J. Chaskin
Harold A. Richman
Abstract
The systems that serve families and children should address the basic developmental
needs of children. Those needs can best be met within a broadly defined service
system that offers both services to promote general development as well as services
to respond to the specific problems of individual children in trouble. The question
the authors address is whether the model of school-linked. integrated services that
places the school in the central position to facilitate access to the range of necessary
services is the best approach. Although the school may seem like the logical choice
as the lead institution. the authors cite arguments against building a governance
structure that favors any single institution. They contend that multiple access points
are essential for serving all children in a community and that citizens should
participate in defining their community's needs and the strategies for meeting them.
Chaskin and Richman present an alternative to the school-based model: they de-
scribe the community-based model. in which a diversity of service providers. admin-
istrative contexts. and institutions work under collaborative governance in a system
of linked services. A community-based system involves the major public and private
entities in the community, including schools, social services. churches. health provid-
ers. and other community organizations which collaborate within a consortium of
existing agencies or a newly created entity.
Robert J. Chaskin is a
research associate at
The Chapin Hall Cen-
ter for Children at the
he impetus behind the movement supporting school-linked,
University of Chicago.
T
integrated services derives from a very real concern about the
Harold A. Richman,
failure of the current fragmentary approach to social services
Ph.D., is the Harmon
delivery. The shortcomings of the fractured, categorical structure under
Dunlap Smith profes-
which we operate are by now quite clear, and the case for comprehensive,
sor at the University of
coordinated services has been well made. 1 Rather than seeking to address
Chicago and director
the needs of the whole person or the whole family, we now engage in an
of The Chapin Hall
Center for Children.
atomistic approach to discrete problems. Rather than addressing the
100
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1992
root causes of problems experienced by families and children. we attack
their symptoms and leave the systems that serve children and families
intact. Lack of coordination among service providers leads to waste and
frustration and to the perpetuation of a client-provider system in which
those seeking help are moved powerlessly through a labvrinth of bureau-
cratic prerequisites and protocols. This is particularly true for families
and children with multiple needs-the families who have limited skills
for seeking out and making use of what help might be available.
This lack of coordination and poor service are stimulating reform in
many child-serving systems: education. health. and social services. Ac-
cording to one report. "The convergence of reform in all of the people-
serving systems presents a moment of unique opportunity in which to
pursue a collaborative agenda."
Concerns About
primarily or exclusively (o any single
the School-linked
institution.
Service Model
We recognize that many of the authors
for this journal agree that neither the
Linking services (() schools is one fre-
schools nor any other institution should
be allowed to control or dominate the
quently discussed model of collaborating
to provide services for children and youth.
planning or governance of school-linked
In this model. health and social services
services. In practice. however. the ten-
(potentially including tutoring: employ-
dency for this to happen is great. As a
ment training and placement: counseling
result. school-linked services grow to re-
for children. youth. and families: family
flect. primarily. the operational desires
planning: health services: dav care facili-
and needs of the school. It is this tendency
that causes our concern. which focuses on
ties: classes in parenting skills: and SO
forth) are within or near the school build-
several key elements.
ing used by the target population. and the
First. the variability of children's and
staff of the school facilitates access to these
families' needs requires access to services
services. Several models of this sort of ser-
and strategies that are various and vari-
vice coordination are in existence. some
able-that is. both different and open to
for quite a long time. and have evidenced
change. Second. services and strategies
genuine success along several dimen-
sions.3 The possibilities of such strategies
have become. in fact. front-page news.+
Our reservations reflect our con-
In the flush of excitement about these
cerns about linking any model
possibilities. we believe certain potential
problems have not been given sufficient
of children's services primarily
attention. Our examination of these prob-
or exclusively to any single
lems does not represent an outright rejec-
institution.
tion of school-linked services: this article
is designed to bring forward some funda-
mental concerns raised by this approach
to service delivery.
should grow from an understanding of the
needs of children. and families and the
Although we understand a variety of
contexts in which they live and act-not
definitions are possible. for the purposes
from the organizational advantages of an
of this discussion. we define a school-
established institution. Third. we are con-
linked service model as one where the
cerned that embedding the administra-
school is the primary site for the provision
tion of a range of services within an
of social and health services or where the
established institution runs the risk of bu-
school controls or dominates the planning
reaucratic rigidity and the diminution of
and governance of such services. Our re-
pluralist, citizen-based planning. We be-
servations reflect our concerns about link-
lieve that mechanisms must be developed
ing any model of children's services
to support direct citizen participation in
Concerns About School-linked Services
109
the assessment of needs and the delivery
mastery. cognitive and creative ability. vo-
of services to meet them.
cational accomplishment. and engage-
ment in the work of citizenship (including
The Needs of Children
adherence to ethics and access to social
and political participation)
The purpose behind school-linked. inte-
grated services. as with any other model of
Children have these needs met and
service delivery. IS ostensibly to better serve
gain these competencies within their fami-
the needs of :1 target population. in this
lies. if they have supportive families. and
case school-age children and their fami-
through opportunities bevond the family.
lies. It seems reasonable. therefore. to
if such opportunities are available. These
begin our discussion of the comparative
opportunities include participation in
benefits and problems of such a model
group activities: association with peers:
with an examination of the needs of those
moral and practical guidance: access to
it is supposed to serve. the range of re-
role models: activities that help cultivate
sponses appropriate to those needs. and
knowledge. skills. and physical. emotional.
the successes and failures of those
and intellectual growth: and situations
that develop the ability to act autono-
responses.
mously and with others. Some children
All children and youth have certain
have particular needs beyond this arrav
basic developmental needs that must be
because they are ill or have physical or
met through their cumulative involvement
mental disabilities. learning disorders. or
in several social contexts (family. school.
behavioral problems-special needs that
church. job. neighborhood) and that in-
require special responses. To meet chil-
form and are informed by the needs of
dren's general and special needs. a com-
connected actors (parents. peers. teach-
plex of opportunities and services should
ers. employers. neighbors). In seeking to
he made available." These should range
define youth development. Karen Pittman
from the primary services-that array of
has reviewed the literature and synthe-
activities. facilities. and events that make
sized a list of basic developmental needs.
up the fabric of children' organized social
These include a sense of safety and struc-
world-to the specialized services
ture. of belonging and membership. of
designed to treat specific children's speci-
self-worth. of independence and control
fic problems through a specially designed
over one's life. of closeness and participa-
and often individually administered inter-
tion in relationships. and of competency.
vention. Our definition of children services.
In normal development. these needs are
therefore. encompasses those opportuni-
addressed by the acquisition of health and
ties and services that promote general de-
physical competency. personal and social
velopment and those opportunities and
services that are designed to respond to
the specific problems of individual chil-
dren in trouble.
We believe that children. as they are
growing up. benefit simultaneoush from
help with normal developmental tasks as
well as from help with specific problems.
And we believe such benefit is more likely
if opportunities and services directed at
both normal development and problem
remediation are developed and operated
as part of a single. broadly defined service
system. Therefore. we believe our inclusive
definition of children's services is more use-
ful than the usual, more restrictive defini-
tion, which stresses only service responses
to categorically defined children's
problems.
A broad system of children's services
Kathy Sloane
can evolve through several steps. First. the
quality and quantity of primary services
can be enhanced within communities to
better address the diversity of children's
110
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1992
interests and needs. Next. the provision of
their parenting roles while allowing them
specialized services can be coordinated so
to continue their educations.
that access to various services is facilitated
for children and families. especially for
Other arguments in favor of the
those with multiple problems. Finally, the
school-centered model include the notion
provision of both primary and specialized
that the school has traditionally played a
central role in the community. The estab-
services can be organized into a system of
interrelated activities and affiliations that
lished role of the school. combined with
addresses the developmental needs of all
children as well as responds to certain chil-
dren's special problems.
Too strong an institutional bias
Through these stages a system of activ-
runs the risk of missing a sub-
itv and services can develop to address
stantial number of children in
both the universal and specialized needs
need.
of children. The question then becomes
where and with whose participation
should such a system be developed?
the space and facilities it provides. makes
it a logical place to concentrate services.
The School as the
Further. because the school is a well-estab-
Primary Context
lished institution. with ties not only to the
local community. but also carrying fund-
ing and an operational mandate from the
The model of school-linked. integrated
larger municipality and the state. it offers
services places the school in the central
an existing administrative structure for the
position to facilitate access to the range of
provision and coordination of social and
necessary services. To some extent. this is
health services for children and youth.
a logical extension of the role schools have
traditionally played in providing certain
These arguments have merit, particu-
health and social services. such as counsel-
larly when weighed against a similar model
ing and guidance. limited health care, and
whose focal point is a different institution,
vocational training.
such as a church or community center.
Clearly, certain services-such as child
Accept for a moment the desirability
care. as previously discussed-should be
of having a single institution play the lead
governed. if not by the school entirely,
role in providing or facilitating access to a
then in collaboration with the school. The
range of social and health services for
best location for these services is on school
children. youth. and families (though this
grounds.
is a notion we will argue against) How
appropriate a choice is the school as that
But other conclusions are not so clear.
institution? Other possible focal institu-
In addition to difficulties attached specifi-
tions-such as churches and synagogues,
cally to the school as an institution, ques-
settlement houses. libraries. or commu-
tions arise about building a service delivery
nity centers-may, in some cases. play
strategy around any single institution.
more central roles in the lives of the com-
munity's children.
Arguments Against the
In certain respects. however. the
School-centered Model
school does seem like the logical choice as
a lead institution. First. the school has di-
We argue against building a governance
rect access to more children than any
structure that too strongly favors any single
other institution in the community. Law
institution and against rooting points of
requires children to be in school for hun-
access to social services in any one of these
dreds of davs each year and a substantial
institutions. Too strong an institutional
number of hours each dav. No other insti-
bias runs the risk of missing a substantial
tution has a legal mandate that provides
number of children in need: to serve all
such general access. For children and
children, multiple access points are essen-
youth who are not in school because of
tial. This access must include not only
extenuating personal circumstances, pro-
physical or eligibility access to existing
viding social services on school grounds
services, but also the opportunity for citi-
can still make sense. For example, on-cam-
zens to participate in the process of defin-
pus child care for the children of teenage
ing community needs and the strategies
women supports the young mothers in
for meeting them.
Concerns About School-linked Services
111
Institutional Rigidity
those who promote substantial parental
In terms of delivering services to children.
involvement in preschools to oppose pub-
we believe there are dangers to overem-
lic school control of preschool education.
powering a single institution: the school is
Our purpose here is not to take a side in
no exception. Overempowerment could
this complex debate about preschools. It
cause services to conform primarily to the
is. rather. to cite the debate as an example
institutional requirements. priorities. and
of both principled and strategic opposi-
world view of the school. When the self-
tion to centralizing programs and services
in the schools.
protection and self-perpetuation of the or-
ganization become a more motivating
The Disenfranchised
force for the bureaucracy than its original
A second issue that raises questions about
mison d'être. structures can ossify. In such
the suitability of the school as the central
cases. the participatory involvement of
context for service provision and or access
community members is in danger of being
is the relationship some children and their
closed off.
parents have with school. For the disen-
The current debate over the appropri-
franchised. school may be the last place
ate location and administrative context of
they would turn for help. A substantial
preschool education (that is. the davtime
percentage of students (perhaps those
care and education of 3- and +vear-olds)
most in need of the services the school-
provides an example of our concern. In its
linked model hopes to make available)
simplest form the question revolves
may be loath to take advantage of such
around where control of preschool educa-
services when offered through the aegis of
tion should lie: in the public schools. in
what is to them rand often to their parents
the hands of traditional child care provid-
as well) an unfriendly institution or an
ers. in Head Start programs. and or in
institution they associate with failure and
other community groups.
trouble. A possible indication of this is the
The argument for public school spon-
estimated 25% of high school students
sorship and control of preschool programs
who will not graduate this year 2 In poor
is strong. Schools are universal institu-
and urban areas. that figure is likely to be
tions. a fact that facilitates universal provi-
substantially higher: The 1980 census esti-
sion of services. Schools have established.
mated a 40% dropout rate from 1970
professional personnel and standards that
through 1980 in Detroit. for example.
can be adapted to the tasks of preschool
Reasonableness of Expectations
education more easily than having to de-
Third. where the schools are struggling to
velop personnel and program standards
remain open and perform their basic edu-
from scratch in different contexts. Going
cational functions. the reasonableness and
with schools may be easier and safer: easier
wisdom of their taking on nonacademic
because so much is already in place: safer
tasks must be questioned. In these situa-
in terms of avoiding potentially for-
tions. particular schools may be unable to
midable opposition by school administra-
fulfill the responsibilities of the school-
tors and unions to any other alternative.
linked model. Therefore. other organiza-
tions must be available. In Camden. New
Jersey, for example. a recent study exam-
For the disenfranchised, school
ined the roots and development of caring
may be the last place they would
attitudes and the commitment of poor
inner-city adolescents to helping others.
turn for help.
The results of the study suggested that
guidance to these young people is coming
not from schools. but from involvement
But is it better? That is the question
with outside groups and activities.9 The
posed by those who favor preschool oppor-
value of these nonschool voluntary pro-
tunities that are diverse in content, govern-
grams, groups. and activities. both as an
ance. and philosophy. These proponents
alternative to what the school can offer
believe that the public schools. because of
and as a complement to the school's roles.
their bureaucratic structure and the rigidi-
has been attested elsewhere as well. 10
ties that inevitably accompany it. are less
Schools and the Larger Community
likely to value or implement such diversity.
The fear that schools will not be able to
The fourth difficulty with the school-cen-
change their way of doing business leads
tered model is that it assumes a correlation
between the school's catchment area and
ii2
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1992
cialized. it is difficult for a school to create
support networks and approaches that are
tailored to the particular needs of cultural
and ethnic subgroups. Thus. for example.
the African-American church may in cer-
tain instances provide its constituency a
much more accessible and congenial
source of services and referral than the
school can. hope to provide. Similarly,
community-based organizations serving a
cultural subset of a school's population
may be particularly well situated to provide
for and guide some students in need. An
example is Las Madrinas. a mentoring pro-
gram that expands on the cultural conven-
tion of compadrazgo and adapts it to the
urban American setting. Las Madrinas
©Kalny Sloane
brings together Hispanic junior high
school girls with successful. young His-
panic ewomen-"godmothers"-whoactas
role models. confidants. and advisors. 10
This is not to suggest that the school can-
resident communities. The "community
not or should not attempt 10 address the
assumed by the school-centered model
needs of minority or special populations
or that such needs should be dealt with
may not necessarily correspond to the
larger social sphere in which children live.
separately and only within the realm of a
given subculture. Our goal. simply. is to
Several factors may militate against a
point out the difficulty of addressing this
true correlation between the school and
diversity sufficiently by channeling access
the residential. familial. religious. and in-
primarily through the school.
formal spheres of activity and belonging
that define each child's communal exist-
From all these considerations. itisclear
ence. Such factors include attendance at
that we cannot take for granted the notion
that the chool is the natural emotional,
magnet schools rather than schools that
draw their students from a geographically
political and cultural center of the neigh-
circumscribed area: schools that serve a
borhood. "11 The nature of community life
is too diverse and the arrav of services and
large, low-density geographic area that
might be attended by students from sev-
opportunities required for children is far
eral communities: and busing practices
too broad for the school. or any single
and other district-wide procedures that
institution. to plan or provide. To con-
use a unit larger than the local community
strain points of access to a school-based
system would be to lose the richness and
to accomplish an administratively or politi-
cally imposed agenda. In these cases. chil-
diversity required in such an arrav of
services.
dren may identify more strongly with the
circumscribed locality in which family.
What. then. is an alternative:
friends. clubs. and out-of-school activities
provide the most important contexts for
The Community-based
social life. Children may look to these non-
Model
school sources for the services and sup-
ports they need. In such cases. services
We believe it is possible to construct an
provided through a school-linked system
alternative model for delivering services to
of service delivery may be more difficult to
children-a model that incorporates a di-
access than those for which access is
versity of services. governances. and insti-
provided through an institution or organi-
tutions and facilitates their working in a
zation within the primary communal
collaborative. integrated way without cen-
context.
tralizing everything in one institution.
In addition. because the school must
such as the school. The structural context
often serve a more diverse (ethnically, ra-
of this model is the community. The
cially, and religiously) group of children
model functions through a joint govern-
than some other community institutions
ance structure that includes the school as
that have the freedom to be culturally spe-
one of a range of institutional players
Concerns About SchooHinked Services
working in concert to provide and facili-
Broadly conceived. community refers
tate access to services in the community.
here to the local context in which people
We believe this model offers the best pos-
live. It is referred to by its geographic iden-
sibility to reach the goals of service diver-
tity. but its place on the map is only one
sity and access. as long as the structure is
of its attributes. It is :1 place of reference
inclusive enough.
and belonging. and the community in-
cludes dimensions of space. place. and
Since our purpose here is to voice re-
sentiment as well as of action. 12 It is de-
servations about the school-linked model.
fined by a dynamic network of associations
this is not the place to develop this alter-
that binds (albeit looselv) individuals. fa-
native fullv. We believe. however. that it is
milies. institutions. and organizations into
important to establish the viability of the
aweb of interconnections and interaction.
alternative bv expanding a bit on the sig-
nificance of the central focus. the commu-
The local community can be seen as a
nity, and on the major operational feature.
functional unit in which goods and serv-
collaborative governance.
ices are provided and consumed. interper-
sonal relationships are created and
The Community
maintained. participation in activities is
shared. and the circumstances of local life
Children learn. grow. and develop in sev-
are held in common. 13 This definition of
eral interrelated contexts. Their experi-
ences in each of these contexts are
community is not necessarily dependent
on clear geographic boundaries (different
transformed into skills. knowledge. be-
residents may have slightly different con-
liefs. expectations. and behaviors. Also.
ceptions of where the neighborhood
these experiences inform goals, aspira-
begins and ends). but it does assume that
tions. and the ways in which children and
the community's residents hold in com-
vouth will act and respond in other con-
mon 1 range of mutual experiences and
texts. Family, school. neighborhood. relig-
circumstances and have shared access TO
ious organizations. work. sports teams.
an arrav of organizations. institutions. serv-
clubs. and informal associations are all per
ices. and activities.
tential contexts in which cognitive. social.
and affective development occur.
The local community looks very differ-
ent in different places. 14 particularly with
Probably. membership in these con-
regard to rural and urban settings. social
texts overlap. Therefore. consider one per-
and economic status. and the degree to
son's memberships as forming a set of
which the target populations of certain
interactive spheres. One can construct
services and organizations coincides with
such spheres of activity and influence for
the boundaries of the community.
each child. but one can also speak of a
collective sphere in which some common-
Because low-income. urban communi-
ality exists among the associations. experi-
ties are so often the target of service-re-
ences. and activities of a larger group.
form efforts. it is important to take into
Looked at in this way, the broadest local
account their special characteristics. For
context in which these different spheres
are likely to coexist is the community.
We believe that the community is the
appropriate context for providing and fa-
cilitating access to the necessary array of
services and opportunities. The local com-
munity can serve as the locus for a system
of linked services and can provide the rele-
vant context in which individual organiza-
tions and institutions function.
The concept of community is a particu-
larly difficult one. but it is important to
clarify its meaning when planning commu-
nity-based strategies. Though community is
a term broadly used. it has accrued so
many meanings-both denotative and
connotative-that it needs to be defined
©Kathy Sloane
with reference to the issue at hand.
114
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1992
one thing, individuals may identify with
cial): financial (through the pooling of
and concentrate their activities and use of
service dollars from several programs at
services within a local area substantially
the community level). and, or managerial
smaller than the city as a whole. 15 The
(through the efficiency of integrated serv-
boundaries of these neighborhoods are
ice delivery). The administrative context
informed bv residents own "cognitive
for such a collaboration can be a consor-
maps is, their own mental con-
tium of existing agencies or a newly cre-
ception of their community-as well as by
ated entity.
external boundaries drawn by city plan-
Several nascent models of such a col-
ners and politicians. It is important to con-
sider these smaller units when considering
laborative governance structure are now
the provision of social services for children
being developed. The field of community
and families. particularly with reference to
development provides a number of exam-
the ways in which such services and activi-
ples. One. the Mid-Bronx Community
ties may be linked and made to work
together.
The community is a particularly appro-
Because they are generally less
priate context for planning and delivering
mobile than adults, children
services for children and families. Because
they are generally less mobile than adults.
are more dependent on and
children are more dependent on and af-
affected by their local
fected by their local community. It is where
they engage in informal. personal associa-
community.
tions (friends. family): structured activities
(Little League. scouts. counseling. hobby
groups. therapy. and instruction): and re-
Housing Corporation. formed in 1974. is
lationships with. formal institutions
a coalition of churches. civic organiza-
(schools. churches. health centers). The
tions. block clubs. and tenant organiza-
physical contexts of these relationships
tions. In The coalition was incorporated as
vary (playground. street corner. library,
a nonprofit organization. By collaborat-
home. school. parole office. health center.
ing with other nonprofit organizations.
settlement house). In constructing a SVS-
banks. and government. the corporation
tem of services for children and families.
works to renovate abandoned buildings
it is important to incorporate and build on
and construct new housing in the neigh-
these associations. activities. and relation-
borhood.
ships. and the settings in which they occur.
A current Ford Foundation initiative
Collaborative Governance
which is being tested in four cities. is an-
other example. The initiative provides for
A communitv-based system that governs
focused. comprehensive. neighborhood-
the development and delivery of services
based development through a collabora-
and provides and nurtures access to them
tive body that represents neighborhood
needs to be flexible. accessible. and ac-
residents. local foundations. city govern-
countable to those it hopes to serve. It
ment. and commercial and industrial in-
must base its work on the needs of its
terests with an identifiable stake in the
clientele. Therefore. such a system re-
community. These "collaboratives" are
quires mechanisms whereby the citizenry
newly formed entities of perhaps 20 mem-
(not just professionals) can contribute to
bers each that act as the generative bodies
the development. planning, and delivery
for planning and implementing of devel-
of necessary services.
opment strategies.
The hallmark of collaborative govern-
Two other examples. dealing more
ance is the convening of the major public
with service delivery than community de-
and private entities in the community-
velopment. are also worth noting. One is
including schools. social services.
the Cluster Initiative in Chicago. which
churches. health providers. and commu-
involves the institutional collaboration. on
nity and other organizations-to plan and
an equal footing. of the Chicago Public
implement an integrated service system
Schools. the Chicago Park District. and the
for children in that community. The in-
Chicago Housing Authority. The goal of
centives for these institutions to join to-
the collaboration is to improve the school
gether can be political (through the
performance of students in certain neigh-
invitation or mandate of an elected offi-
borhoods. The second example is from
Concerns About School-linked Services
115
California. where legislation has been pro-
The extent to which collaborative gov-
posed that would mandate local collabo-
ernance invests in the continued input
rative governance in the delivery of social
and guidance of local residents is critical.
services. The Neighborhood Family Serv-
and the mechanisms through which such
ice Organization pilot project would estab-
input can be accommodated are in need
lish a system capable of integrating "a
of considerable investigation and experi-
comprehensive arrav of public and private
mentation. Conducting open forums. in
programs. The organization would be up-
the context or contexts most applicable for
erated by a newly created board composed
a particular community (a town meeting
of a majority of neighborhood residents
or a church group. the school. the park.
chosen by election and a representátive
the library). is one potential outreach and
from each of four city agencies: the
feedback mechanism. Forming citizen
mavor's office. the county board. the
panels. in which a stratified. random sam-
school board. and the juvenile court.
ple of residents is chosen 10 participate in
This collaborative structure is verv simi-
a structured process of policy review and
recommendation. is another method that
lar to that which governs the Minhalot.
neighborhood self-management councils
has proved useful in facilitating citizen par-
that have been operating successfully in
ticipation in the planning process. 18 What-
ever the mechanism. local residents must
Jerusalem since 1980. The Minhalot allow
residents to participate in the administra-
have an opportunity to shape and guide
tion of neighborhood social services. edu-
the service system.
cation. and the physical maintenance of
Conclusions
their communities. The councils operate
primarily through two mechanisms. First.
The creation of a community-based.
they participate in nonpartisan elections
rather than an institution-based (for ex-
to choose a governing board made up of
ample. school-based) governance and co-
residents and representatives of institu-
ordinating structure for a system of
tions and services operating in the neigh-
activities and services for children is a for-
borhood. Second. council members are
midable task. Previous efforts at govern-
encouraged to volunteer for subcommit-
ance and coordination have had a vision
tees dedicated to solving particular prob-
limited [() specialized services and provid-
lems in the community Each Minhalet is
ers. and thus they have seemed appropri-
recognized by the city council as the "le-
ate for professional or institutional
gitimate representative of the neighbor-
interests only. Often these efforts have
hood" in negotiations with the city,17
seemed irrelevant to the community and
LA CLINICA CE RAZA
CENTER
&
NO
PARKING
DOCTORS
ONLY
© Kathy Sloone
THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN - SPRING 1992
have lacked community support and par-
services and opportunities as the respon-
ticipation. If a broadened vision of appro-
sibility of the community rather than of a
priate services and providers-including
single institution. that responsibility can
schools. parks. clinics. libraries. and men-
become a vehicle for enriching (or even
tal health centers-spawns a broader et-
creating) community. Such an approach
fort at governance and coordination, such
could foster mechanisms for promoting
vision might become community prop-
involvement in the community. In addi-
ertv. The stakes may then seem high
tion. community involvement could pro-
enough to enough people to command
vide for and respond to the needs for
the attention necessary to result in sub-
diversity among the residents of a commu-
stantive and sustainable service develop-
nity and weave together from many insti-
ment and reform.
tutions and interests a rich infrastructure
If we see the planning, promoting. and
to support children and families.
provision of the full range of children's
1. Arguments in favor of a comprehensive approach to service delivery are not new. and
there seems to have been a constant pull between periodic attempts at coordination and a
de facto trend toward specialization. Halpern. R. Supportive services for jamilies in pountly:
Histoncal perspectives. dilemmas of reform. Mimeograph issued by Erikson Institute. Chicago:
Erikson Institute. 1990: Some of the more recent treatments of this theme include
Schorr, I.. with Schorr. D. Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: An-
chor Books. 1988: Gardner. S. Failure by fragmentation. California Tomorrow (Fall, 1989):
18-25: Levitan. S.A., Mangum. G.L... and Pines. M.W. A proper inheritance: Investing in the self-
sufficiency of poor families. Washington. DC: The George Washington University, Center for
Social Policy Studies. 1989: Edelman. P.B., and Radin. B.A. Effective services for children
and families: What do we know and what do we do now as a consequence? Paper pre-
sented to the Workshop on Effective Services for Young Children. Washington. DC. No-
vember 1990; Bruner, C. Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and unswers 10 help policy
makers improve children's SETUICES. Washington. DC: The Education and Human Services
Consortium. 1991: Committee for Economic Development. The unfinished agenda: A new vi-
sion for child development and education. New York and Washington. DC: CED. 1991.
2. Levy, J.E., with Copple. C. Joining forces. A report from the first year. Alexandria. VA: National
Association of State Boards of Education. 1989. p. 1.
3.
Among the longer-running programs are Cities in the Schools, which has programs oper-
ating across the country: the New Futures School in Albuquerque. created in 1970: and
James Comer's New Haven Model Programs, which have been replicated in other cities.
For a general overview of such programs. see note no. 1. Committee for Economic Devel-
opment. and note no. 2. Lew.
4. School's new role: Steering people to services. New York Times. May 15. 1991. at AL
5.
Pittman, K.J., with Wright. M. A rationale for mhancing the role of the non-school voluntary ser-
tor in youth development. Report prepared for The Carnegie Council on Adolescent Devel-
opment Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs. Washington. DC:
Center for Youth Development and Policy Research. Academy for Educational Develop-
ment. 1991.
6. A more detailed treatment of the argument that follows can be found in Richman, H..
Wvnn. J.. and Costello, J. Children services in metropolitan Chicago: Directions for the future.
Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. 1990.
7. "Primary services include sports teams. hobby clubs. after school programs. youth volun-
teer activities. telephone warm lines. and mentoring programs. as well as the resources of
museums. parks. and libraries. Primary services are available for use voluntarily most
often without an elaborate process of certifying need or eligibility." See note no. 6, Rich-
man. Wvnn. and Costello, p. 7.
8.
Kountz. V., and Mosey. S., eds. Lower Woodward social and demographic data. A report of the
Neighborhood and Family Initiative. Detroit: The Community Foundation for Southeast
Michigan, 1990.
9.
Hart, D. Inner city youth committed to care: The contributions of self-understanding, parents. and
teachers. Interim final report to the Lilly Endowment Research Grants Program on Youth
and Caring. Indianapolis. IN: Lilly Endowment. Inc., 1990.
Concerns About School-linked Services
117
10. Price. R.H., Cioci, M.. Penner. W. and Trautlein, B. School and community support pro-
grains that enhance adolescent health and education. Working paper prepared for the
Carnegie Council- Adolescent Development. Washington, DC, April 1990.
11. Quote attributed to Education Commission of the States. as quoted in let's do 11 our way.
Working together for educational excellence. Booklet prepared by R.C. Smith. C.A. Lincoln.
and D.L. Dodson for MDC. Inc. Chapel Hill, NC: South Carolina ETV. 1991.
12. Levi. Y. Communitv-cooperative relationships. In Community and Cooperatives in Participa-
tory Development. Y. Lew and H. Litwin. eds. Hants. England: Gower Publishing Company,
Ltd., 1986.
13. Warren. R. The community in America. 3d ed. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company. 1978.
14. Warren has developed a comparative framework whereby American communities can be
compared along four dimensions: (1) the degree of local autonomy. (2) the coincidence
of service areas. (3) the degree of psychological identification with the locality. and (4)
the strength of the relation of various local units to one another (the "horizontal pat-
tern"). See note no. 13. Warren. p. 13.
15. One conception of these units is that of the "defended neighborhood." a residential area
defined and identified by its existence within certain boundaries. The defended neighbor-
hood may occupy as small an area as a building in a housing project or may include a
larger area "which people use in their daily round of local movement." These boundaries
produce neighborhoods where residents share an identity based on the boundaries
rather than on any sentimental or associational ties among members though these may
also exist). Such neighborhoods constitute safe havens for their members and serve in
part to "regulat[e] spatial movement io avoid conflict between antagonistic groups." Sut-
tles. G. The social construction of communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1972.
16. Himmelman. A.T. Communities working collaboratively for a change. Working paper for
The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. University of Minnesota. 1990. Him-
melman. in seeking to construct a model of "multisector collaboration." describes four lev-
els of interorganizational involvement ranging from informal "networking." where only
information is exchanged for mutual use and benefit: to full "collaboration." where infor-
mation and resources are shared. and activities may be altered. and organizations act to
enhance "the capacity of [each other] to achieve mutual benefits and it common pur-
pose." Also. Himmelman distinguishes between "collaborative betterment." which in-
volves limited community representation. and "collaborative empowerment." in which
ownership rests primarily with the community.
17. The neighborhood councils (Minhaloty Force jor democratization and citizens participation in Jeru-
salem. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Association for Neighborhood Self-Management. ca. 1990.
There are three kinds of Minhalot. and this variation describes a continuum of develop-
ment from the youngest to the most established. The youngest and least developed are
legal extensions of the Jerusalem Association: the second are independent, incorporated.
nonprofit entities: and the third integrate control of the neighborhood community cen-
ters. which provide direct service to the communities.
18. Crosby. N.. Kelly. J.M., and Schaefer. P. Citizens Panels: A new approach to citizen partici-
pation. Public Administration Review (1986) 46:170-79; Kathlene. L., and Martin. J.A. En-
hancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives. and policy formation. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management (1986) (1):46-63.
Deborah Wadsworth
FIRST THINGS FIRST:
What Americans Expect from the Public Schools-Summary
First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools is the latest in a series of
Public Agenda surveys focused on education reform. It is based on interviews with more than 100 Ameri-
cans, including 550 white, African-American and tradition Christian parents of children currently in public
school. The report describes ten findings with important implications for those aiming to improve education
and regain the necessary broad public support to do 80. Public Agenda is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research
and education organization.
FINDING 1: First Things First: Safety, Order, and the Basics
For the large majority of Americans, too many public schools are not providing the minimum prerequisites
for education-a safe, orderly environment and effective teaching of "the basics."
It seems axiomatic to people that schools should be safe, orderly, and conducive to teaching and learn-
ing, but Americans in all parts of the country and across every demographic category say their local
public schools are not providing this basic underpinning for sound education. This study captures
decisively what opinion research has suggested over the last decade: Americans are concerned that too
many public schools are so disorderly and undisciplined that learning cannot take place. And the
public's concern about order has been joined in the last few years by a disturbing new fear-that schools
are violent and unsafe.
FINDING 2: The Public and Higher Standards
Americans believe the higher standards promoted by leadership are necessary-indeed, the public strongly
supports them-but they do not believe they are sufficient.
Like leadership, the public has its own very clear agenda for improving the schools. People believe that
academic standards should be raised, and that schools should hold students accountable for doing their
best. But for the public, raising standards is only half an answer. Since Americans are most concerned
about whether schools furnish a safe, orderly environment in which children learn the basics,
leadership's education agenda sometimes seems mystifyingly incomplete.
FINDING 3: Public Response to Teaching Innovations
The leadership agenda for education reform faces an additional stumbling block-widespread discomfort
with new teaching methods that often accompany reform.
The reform movement risks losing public support if it ignores the public's concerns about safety, order,
and basics. But there is another element of reform that leads many Americans to question whether
those "in charge" really share the public's goals.
Among opinion leaders in government, business and education, the drive to raise academic standards
has been tied to a number of other teaching reforms: reforming math education to focus on concepts
rather than rote learning; teaching composition with less emphasis on grammar and spelling; ending
the "tracking" of students, and replacing standardized, multiple-choice tests with new, more "authentic"
assessments that ask students to solve problems. But the large majority of Americans are uncomfort-
able with many of these changes. Overall, the public seems to have a more traditional view of what
should be happening in the classroom. They want to see students learning some of the same things-in
the same ways-that they learned in school.
FINDING 4: The Ideal Classroom
People's traditionalism about education does not mean that they yearn for "the good old days" in every
respect. They seem to want a new and improved version of the little red schoolhouse.
Despite their strong support for more order and discipline in the schools, and their commitment to more
traditional teaching methods, the public overwhelmingly rejects the notion that schools should be
domains of boredom or fear. People believe that learning can be fun and interesting, and want schools
to find ways to help children enjoy their education and become more confident and self-assured. They
seem to reject both extremes in education-either intimidating students or pandering to them.
© 1994, Public Agenda
FINDING
The Public and the School Wars
Most Americans are not preoccupied by concerns about sex education and multiculturalism that have
caused such acrimonious debate in many communities.
Despite the attention they have attracted, "values" disputes about how history and science should be
taught, how minorities are portrayed, what textbooks should be used, and what moral traditions should
be conveyed in sex education are not at the top of the public's list of concerns. When most people con-
sider mind. how well public schools are serving the nation's children, these are not the issues that leap to
FINDING 6: The Most-Valued Values: Tolerance and Equality
People want schools to teach values. They especially want schools to emphasize those values that allow a
diverse society to live together peacefully.
The public's lack of concern about "values issues" does not mean that Americans endorse education that
is value-neutral or makes no judgments about moral behavior. There is a circle of broadly agreed upon
values people expect the schools both to teach directly and to reinforce by example. And there are some
"lessons" that most Americans believe are not the business of the public schools—those that seem aimed
at dividing people, rather than helping them live together in harmony.
FINDING 7: Sex Education, Yes, But...
There is strong support for public schools playing a central role in sex education-an overwhelming consen-
sus that parents need help. However, on questions of premarital sex and homosexuality, there are sharp
divisions over how graphic and morally judgmental sex education should be.
Americans express broad support for giving students information about the biological aspects of sex, the
dangers of sexually transmitted disease, and for older students, information about birth control. How-
ever, sex education is a far more divisive issue when it turns to topics such as abortion, sex outside
marriage, and homosexuality. Americans have different viewpoints about these topics, and, because
they are so emotionally charged, people hold their views intensely.
FINDING 8: Special Focus: Traditional Christian Parents
Traditional Christian parents share most of the same concerns about the public schools-and support most
of the same solutions-as other Americans, but they have a special perspective on issues related to sex and
religion.
Public school parents who attend church regularly and say that they accept the Bible as the literal
word of God or consider themselves "born-again" are just as likely to support solutions directed at
improving safety, order, and command of the basics as other parents. They are, however, especially
concerned about sex education that accepts premarital or homosexual sex. They are more concerned
schools. about profanity in assigned reading, and more eager to include Christian religious materials in public
FINDING 9: Special Focus: African-American Parents
African-American parents have the same concerns about the schools-and the same ideas about what needs
to change-as other Americans. They strongly support setting and enforcing high standards for their
children.
Like other Americans, African-American parents are concerned about safety, order, and the basics.
However, they are significantly more dissatisfied with their local schools' performance. There are two
areas where African-American parents have a distinctive viewpoint. They want more candid sex educa-
tion and AIDS prevention programs for their children at an earlier age. And they are concerned about
negative stereotypes in textbooks and curricula-an issue that troubles only a small percentage of
white parents. What this study captures most among African-American parents is a magnified call for
schools that are safe, for teaching that produces solid academic skills, and for programs that will help
them protect their children from AIDS and early pregnancy.
FINDING 10: The Public and the Educators: The Fault Line Beneath the Trust
Americans still trust teachers, principals, and school boards to make decisions about how to manage the
schools-but the public's trust is wavering.
Americans believe that, compared to other decision makers such as elected officials, business people and
religious leaders, educators can be trusted with decisions about running the schools. But some specific
findings about teachers and principals suggest that substantial numbers of Americans are not com-
pletely confident about their performance or judgment.
Copies of a full report are available from: Public Agenda, 6 East 39th Street, Suite 900, New York, NY 10016.
Tel: 212-686-6610, Fax: 212-889-3461 ($10.00 each or $5.00 each for 10 or more copies).
COMMEN TAKY
Bridging the Divide:
What the Public Is Telling Educators
Could Help Resuscitate School Reform
hese are not the best of times for
T
By Deborah Wadsworth
nowhere near as good as they should be.
educators or education reformers.
An indication of the gulf between these
Educators are frustrated by an
groups is exemplified by findings from a
apparent paucity of understand-
study we conducted in Connecticut, where 68
ing and support, as evidenced by rising
percent of the educators said they believe
criticisms and a wave of failing referen-
schools today are better than when they were
dums. Reformers see their grand designs
unraveling in communities from Colorado
in school. while just 16 percent of the public
share that optimistic view.
to Connecticut as parents and taxpayers
join more traditional advocates of the sta-
The differences in how these groups analyze
the problem are equally dramatic. Educators
tus quo.
often perceive a breakdown of the social con-
It's a particularly good time, therefore, to
stand back and re-examine goals and
tract whereby each generation supports the
strategies. We at the Public Agenda Foun-
education of the next. a breakdown they some-
dation in New York City have very current
times attribute to public complacency. tax-
information on how Americans feel about
payer selfishness, and, in the case of inner
education reform, information we believe is
cities; even to racism. They often see the solu-
tial to resuscitating reform that oth-
tion in terms of more money, smaller cl
1.
erwise may be drowning.
and extra help for students with various spe-
cial needs.
Founded in 1975 by Cyrus Vance and
Daniel Yankelovich as a nonprofit and
nonpartisan organization to study such is-
sues. Public Agenda has for the past half-
dozen years built a reputation on inter-
C
ontrary to what many educators be-
lieve, the public values education as
much as ever. It also strongly sup-
preting the nuances and subtleties of
ports the goal of racial integration
public opinion on the issue of education
and believes that every child deserves an
reform. In so doing we have identified
equal education. But it also believes intensely
misperceptions and highlighted disconti-
that while the schools haven't created today's
quities between the public's agenda and
problems, they are badly off track in address-
that of reform leaders.
ing them. People suspect that many of t
Reviewing the situation recently, we real-
problems have little to do with money, and
ized that despite all our previous intensive
that until they are addressed, more money will
research with multiple constituencies
in fact be wasted.
across the nation, we still had fundamental
But the disconnects aren't only between edu-
questions. Why, we asked, is there so much
cators and the public: there are equally wide
opposition to reform, not only from educa-
gaps between the public's priorities and the re-
tors who might feel threatened but also
form agenda. Such differences may well ex-
from parents? And why is there so little
plain why the public's overwhelming support
support from the citizenry at large? Why
for higher standards has not translated into
are referendums and legislative initiatives
support for school reform.
going down in flames, often ignited by a
We found three major reasons for this lack
bizarre coalition of left-leaning advocates of
of support. One is that the public's chief con-
"political correctness" and right-leaning ad-
cern about our schools-making them safe,
herents of "values"?
orderly, and purposeful enough for learning to
Convinced there was more to learn, in
take place-is not being addressed by today's
the summer of 1994 we conducted focus
reform agenda or by today's reform leaders.
groups in Birmingham. Ala.; Philadelphia;
People see and read about schools in chaos—
Minneapolis; and Des Moines, along with a
schools with little sense of order, respect, or
national, random-sample survey of 1,100
discipline; schools where teachers appear to
Americans. We included an oversampling
dress or act unprofessionally; schools in which
Rebecca Kingery
of parents with children in school, African-
discussions take place that people consider in-
American parents, and parents identified as traditional
ditional Christian parents share most of the same con-
appropriate for the classroom; and schools in-
Christians. The resulting report, released in early Octo-
creasingly infested with drugs and violence.
ber, was titled "First Things First: What Americans Ex-
cerns about the public schools, and they support most of
pect From the Public Schools" (See Education Week, Oct.
the same solutions. In fact, African-American parents
How, people ask. can learning take place in such a dis-
are by any measure even more dissatisfied than others
aster zone? And shouldn't this problem be fixed before
12, 1994).
Analyzing that research, along with our other recent
with their children's schools and more concerned that
Continued on Page 38
studies in several individual states, we discovered some-
standards in their communities' schools are too low.
They neither want nor expect the schools to make al-
Deborah Wadsworth is the executive director of the
thing old and something new.
lowances for their children.
Public Agenda Foundation in New York City. Copies of
The "something old" was further evidence of what we
The "something new" we discovered may explain why
the report, "First Things First: What Americans Expect
had found in previous research: extraordinarily strong
this broad base of potential support has not been trans-
From Their Public Schools," are available for $10 each
support among Americans for higher educational stan-
lated into positive public engagement. for we found fun-
(plus $1.50 for shipping and handling) from Public
dards and expectations. They strongly favor clear guide-
Agenda, 6 East 39th St., New York, N.Y. 10016.
I
damental differences between how educators and the
on what children should learn and what teachers
hould teach. Eighty-seven percent believe students
public view the schools and school reform. Our conclu-
puld not graduate from high school without writing
sion: Until the views of the public and of society's lead-
Rd speaking English well, and seven in 10 favor raising
ers, including educators. are better aligned, and until
these groups start listening meaningfully to one another,
5-OIGIT
80202
standards of promotion from grade school to junior high.
progress is unlikely.
020
0000
018
People believe that by asking more, you get more.
First, educators and the public hold fundamentally
03
They don't believe in passing kids from grade to grade,
or In letting them graduate without evidence of achieve-
different views about how the schools are doing. Edu-
1560
BROADWAY STE
700
ment. They oppose giving "A's for effort."
cators generally believe the schools are doing pretty
DENVER, CO
2-5176
We also found that African-American parents and tra-
well under the circumstances, while the public finds
their local schools better than SI
is elsewhere, but
VOICES IN
ine
them. And for most people. it
mance on academic matters.
doesn't seem cruel or wasteful for
The key issue, of course, is what
THE HALL
Divide
students to memorize the 50
to do with this information, which
state capitals and where they're
seems to me to be practical. com
VOICES
High School
located.
monsensical, non-ideological. an
IN THE
What's happening, we believe;
intellectually consistent.
Principals at Work
Continued from Page 48
is that people are discovering
In fact. whether we believe peo
HALL
through their own interactions
ple are correct in their
BY WILLIAM E. WEBSTER
any academic-reform agenda is
school
and experiences with young peo-
1
principate
beside the point. The
tackled?
ple that those basic skills are not
strongly held views by the people
It's difficult to overstate the
there. When someone observes a
who pay the taxes. pass or defea:
force of public opinion on this
supermarket checkout person
the referendums. and elect mem
issue. Almost nine Americans in
who cannot make change, that to
bers of schools boards and stat
10 believe that dependability and
them is authentic assessment. It
legislatures. If we want to im
High school principals are pragmatic problem solvers,
discipline make a great deal of
convinces people that the basic
prove our schools. we had better
keenly aware of their communities, staff, and stu-
difference in how students learn,
skills are not being taught or
take their views into account
dents. They work hard and possess great energy,
Educators and education re-
enthusiasm, and commitment. They are national as-
formers need to consider at leas:
sets that should not be taken for granted.
three possible alternative re.
These impressions of America's high schools and
sponses. Any one of these choices
or a combination. could be appro-
their administrators evolved through visits and in-
priate in any particular situation
terviews in more than 150 high schools in 23
One option is to decide that the
states and 7 countries, in crime ridden cities, in
public's concerns require genuine
posh suburbs, in the forests of the Northwest and
change in the leadership agenda
the Appalachians, along California's scenic coast,
This might mean expanding that
and on the flatlands of the Great Plains. Web-
agenda to incorporate such item.
ster's remarkable and readable three-year study
as safety and discipline and pro-
yields fascinating insights into the role of the high
grams in parenting skills. I:
might mean. a more overt empha-
school principal. It should be required reading for
sis on basics and possibly re-ex-
anyone who is - or would be - a principal in to-
amining or delaying some of the
day's high schools.
more innovative teaching tech-
niques until a successful founda-
Paperbound: $8, plus a processing charge.
tion has been laid and the public
At bookstores or order direct: 1-800-766-1156.
Rebecca Kingery
is more receptive.
Phi Delta Kappa, P.O. Box 789, Bloomington, IN
Another option is for leaders 11.
versus about half who believe
47402-0789. MasterCard and Visa orders also
learned. and they regard those
determine after an honest and
are accepted by fax at (812) 339-0018.
that learning will improve by, for
basics not only as important in
candid soul-searching that the
example, replacing multiple-
themselves but also as the foun-
public's views stem from serious
choice tests with essay tests.
dation for more advanced learn-
misunderstanding about what is
Three-quarters of the population
ing. To promote "higher-order
really taking place in the schools
supports the permanent removal
thinking skills" when kids can't
and to respond. therefore, with
from school of students caught
make change seems to the public
better, more effective communica-
with weapons or drugs and the
wrongheaded if not absurd.
tions that correct these m
OUR OTHER
removal from the classroom of
Public views on teaching tech-
ceptions. That doesn't m
persistent troublemakers.
YOUTH
niques remain pretty traditional.
new slogan or marginal repackag
It's people's chief interest, and
and people are concerned about
ing; that approach has been tried
they fail to find it covered in most
Jerry
what they see as educational
in many communities and found
discussions of school reform.
"fads." They tend to reject ex-
wanting. It means real. thought-
Conrath
Some people will respond that
tremes of any kind; for example.
ful. and ongoing communication
the media have overemphasized
they support neither corporal pun-
that acknowledges and addresses
the problems of order and disci-
ishment nor the use of street lan-
the public's concerns and priori-
DEVELOPING SELF CONTROL, SELF
pline or that certain proposed re-
guage in teaching inner-city kids.
ties and explains clearly how
RESPECT, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN
forms will help address them. But
So when we talk about math re-
schools are addressing them.
the public is convinced that the
form. for example, we face a di-
TODAY'S YOUTH
A third approach is for leaders
learning environment is seriously
chotomy. Over 80 percent of our
deficient, and reformers need to
to conclude that the public's point
"You can't give kids self esteem.
math professionals favor the early
You help them earn it.'
deal with that fact, whether it be
of view is in whole or in part mis-
use of calculators; only one in 10
taken, a conclusion that requires
OUR OTHER YOUTH 1995 CONFERENCES:
perception or reality.
Americans agrees.
The second public view that is
the exercise of true leadership-
February 17, 18, 1995
In contrast to their concern
- San Diego
the slow. exacting process of
threatening support for reform is
about teaching techniques, the
April 7, 8, 1995
-
Baltimore
captured in responses to the ques-
building a constituency for ideas
public is less preoccupied with de-
April 28, 29, 1995
tion "Which student is more likely
that are worthwhile but not popu-
Dubuque
bates of such issues as sex and
lar. This is the most difficult path
to succeed?" Sixty-one percent of
AIDS education, multicultural ex-
but the only honest one if leaders
Friday In-depth Application Workshops
the public responded that the stu-
periences and stereotyping, and
conclude that their approach, and
Adult Responsibilities, then Youth Responsibility
dent from a stable and supportive
school prayer. They also go be-
not the public's, is the one that
family who goes to a poor school
Positive Classroom Interventions
yond what I have space to cover
will best help children and their
is more likely to succeed. Only 26
Practice What We Presch: Adult Communication Skills
here. For purposes of this exposi-
families.
percent believe a good school can
Friday Information and Demonstration Workshops
tion, let me say only that people
We at Public Agenda present
compensate for a troubled family.
are far less concerned about these
Successful Programs and Practices - Nationwide
Moreover, 55 percent of the public
this research in the hope that ed-
issues than they are about safety.
Schools-within-Schools
ucators and reform leaders will
say parents are doing a worse job
order, and the basics.
Community and Parents
than in the past. And if that's the
read it carefully, thoughtfully, and
It's also worth adding that
objectively in an honest effort to
Offered by Authorities on OUR OTHER YOUTH
case, some people reason, will it
while teachers remain generally
Saturday Intensive Training and Practice
really do any good to pour more
understand what the public is
well regarded, we found what
saying.
with Jerry Conrath
money into the schools or reform
seems to be some diminution of
How Adults Teach and Reinforce Levels of Pride
the curriculum? Americans across
Is the public right or wrong?
public support. We think that
School to Work Imperatives
all racial and demographic cate-
Perceptive or wrongheaded?
people's doubts grow out of a per-
gories support this concept.
Whatever one concludes, and
Ways to Influence Other Adults
ceived lack of discipline and
The third factor at work is a
whichever course of action is
order in the classroom. and a
strong suspicion among the pub-
adopted. the public's perceptions
"Hard Work Done Well Feels Good"
perception that some teachers
lic that reformers are promoting
should not be dismissed light
are more anxious to be pals with
fuzzy and experimental teaching
Educators and reformers
kids than to be role models. Peo-
For
information:
Our
Other
Youth
techniques at the expense of the
listen to and respect what
(206)
468-3169
ple cite good teachers and an or-
Lopez Island, WA 98261
basics. People believe that chil-
public is saying. For change will
Rt.
2
Box
2434
derly learning environment as
dren should learn grammar and
not occur until the public becomes
the most important factors
spelling before creative writing;
an equal and valued partner in
needed for children to learn. But
the effort.
THE BROKEN
CONTRACT
Connecticut Citizens
Look At Public Education
A Report from Public Agenda
Prepared for the
William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many of Connecticut's educational leaders are convinced that the Connecticut public has
"turned its back on the state's children." There is widespread concern among educational
leadership that most people in Connecticut are complacent about the schools in their own
communities. unconcerned about schools in other areas and especially indifferent to the
problems of the inner-cities. As a result. they feel that the public has broken the implicit
social contract where older generations support the education of the next generation. and
they see the public as increasingly unwilling to support education. precisely at a time
when a public school system overburdened by social problems is desperately in need of
support. To test this perception. Public Agenda conducted a state-wide survey of public
attitudes. supplemented by focus groups and a special survey of educators and commu-
nity leaders.
Our research shows that the leadership perception is partly right and partly wrong. The
Connecticut public is ambivalent about support for education and about proposals to
integrate the schools. However. resistance grows not from lack of concern. but from a
view that the schools are headed in the wrong direction. From the public's point of view.
it is educators and parents themselves who have broken the contract. Specifically. the
Connecticut public feels that the schools are failing to hold up their end in four signifi-
cant ways: failure to maintain a safe environment for children. failure of many parents to
support their own children. failure to teach even basic literacy and computational skills.
and an inadequate emphasis on discipline.
Safety
Eighty-one percent of the Connecticut public believe that keeping the schools free of
drugs. crime and gangs should be a top priority. and only 28% think that the schools are
doing a good job at this.
Parents
Eighty-two percent think that parents are "not fulfilling their responsibili-
ties toward the education of their children." Many Connecticut residents
do not see what good it does to support public education when parents
Many Connecticut
themselves are not doing their job.
residents do not
see what good it
Basics
does to support
Fifty-eight percent believe that the schools are not doing a good job of
public education
teaching "the basies" and people are deeply skeptical of new educational
when parents
methodologies such as heterogeneous grouping. Ninety-four percent
themselves are not
think that schools should be changed so that no one can graduate from
doing their job.
high school without being able to write and speak English clearly.
Discipline and Respect for Authority
There is a widespread belief that the schools are not stressing discipline. failing to teach
students good work habits and allowing some students to disrupt the education of others.
Eighty-six percent support taking persistent troublemakers out of class, and 83% think
that students should not be allowed to leave school grounds during the day.
From the public's perspective. these priorities have three things in common: they are
essential for quality education. the public schools are not doing it good job on them and
they have virtually nothing to do with money. By an almost two to one margin. people
say that schools especially need greater accountability and more discipline. things that
do not cost more money.
Furthermore. Connecticut residents say that they have been burned by past reform efforts.
which have raised taxes and teachers' salaries but not. in the public's view. improved the
quality of education. Only 20% of the state's residents think that increasing teacher
salaries in the 1980's substantially improved education in the state. Catholic schools. by
contrast. are perceived as doing a good job by 62% of Connecticut residents. and our
study suggests this is precisely because they emphasize the basics and remove trouble-
makers.
Despite their criticisms. Connecticut residents are not willing to abandon the public
schools. Only one-third of the public support instituting a system of vouchers that could
be used at private schools. And only 24% favor measures to have private companies
manage the public schools.
The survey also focused specifically on integration and the plight of
inner-city schools. African-Americans and whites share many of the same
criticisms of the state's schools in general and of inner-city schools in
Only 20% of the
particular. Both groups agree that the most severe problems for inner-city
state's residents
students include unstable families. lack of parental support. and crime and
think that increasing
drugs.
teacher salaries in
the 1980's substan-
But African-Americans are more likely than whites to single out more
tially improved
school-specific concerns: low levels of funding. il searcity of good
education in the
teachers. and the presence of many teachers who do not enforce high
state.
standards. Thus. they are more supportive of measures that would in-
crease funding for inner-city schools and promote integration. Whites are
more likely to think that such steps will not make much difference to
inner-city children unless and until schools and families first deal with the top priorities:
safety. parental involvement. the basics. and discipline.
© 1994 Public Agenda
ADDITIONAL READINGS/RESOURCES
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
8
Divider Title: