Download - Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
1/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 1
San Antonio EastsidePromise Neighborhood
InitiativeWorking toward building a stronger community and
improving educational outcomes
May 2011
Trinity University: Urban Education 4391:3
Jaclyn Bays, Sheila Castle, Erin Dunk, David Nikaido, Charlie Mitchell
Promise Neighborhood Planning grant funding provided through the U.S. Department of
Education, Fund for the Improvement of Education Award Number U215P100282 CFDA
84.215A
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
2/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
INTRODUCTION.....6
METHODOLOGY....7
THEMATIC FINDINGS, ANALYSES, & IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS...8
SOCIAL CAPITAL...8
PARENT EDUCATION.......9
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION..10
AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING.....12
CRIME, SAFETY, & RECREATION SPACES....13
PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT......15
CONCLUSION......17
REFERENCES.......19
APPENDICES: REVIEWS OF RELEVANT LITERATURE......21
Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes.21
Out-of-School Time..32
Behavioral Readiness42
Influence of Health & Access to Care on Academic Success...48
The Importance of Early Childhood Education.59
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
3/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 3
Executive Summary
The San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood is a federally funded community
initiative intended to identify factors that affect academic success and to design a plan to create a
continuum of solutions to improve educational outcomes in schools throughout the area. As a
collaboration of several entities including the City of San Antonio, San Antonio Independent
School District, San Antonio Housing Authority, United Way of San Antonio, Trinity University,
and others, the Initiative is currently operating with funding provided by a one-year federal
planning grant. Our team worked under the direction of Dr. Christine Drennon, head of the
Urban Studies Department at Trinity University and research director of the Initiative. We
principally assisted with data collection, reviews of relevant literature, and data analyses. Our
team specifically focused on qualitative data, with the aim of better understanding the unique
strengths and needs of the Eastside community with respect to fostering an environment that will
prepare children well for success in school and in future endeavors.
Our data collection process consisted of conducting small focus groups with parents,
youth, and community members. These groups were discussion-based, led by facilitators, andaimed to address questions such as whether families needs can be met within the neighborhood,
and what challenges children face in successfully completing high school. Most groups were
conducted in English, with a few conducted in Spanish. Each group was tape recorded and notes
were taken of the discussions. The recordings were later transcribed and analyzed empirically to
determine overriding themes, both within and across groups. Extensive literature reviews
covering a variety of indicators related to academic outcomes were also conducted, and may be
found in the Appendices of this report.
Several important themes emerged from analyses of the focus groups, including: resident
mobility and relationships among neighbors, parent education opportunities, parent involvement,
after-school programming needs, early childhood education programs, and concerns regardingcrime, safety, and the availability of public recreation spaces. High mobility within the
community raises questions about the amount of social capital available within the Promise
Neighborhood, and how relationships that cultivate social capital may be increased and/or
improved. The topic of parent education pertains to the possibility that the area may need more
resources to help parents obtain GEDs, receive tutoring in specific areas, or acquire other
supports that will empower them to better assist their children with schoolwork. Parent
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
4/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 4
involvement was identified by several groups as crucial to academic success, which is a finding
widely supported by the literature, and yet difficult to improve through straightforward
interventions, given the key connection between parent involvement and parenting styles. A
deficiency in the availability and quality of after-school programs and mentoring also suggests
that additional resources or coordination may be needed in order to improve the productivity andsafety of after-school time for children in the Promise Neighborhood. Early childhood education
programs are available in the area, namely through Head Start and Early Head Start, but are
presently underutilized in light of the profound impact of developing cognitive and behavioral
skills early in life. Finally, participants repeatedly voiced concerns regarding crime, safety, and a
lack of recreational spaces, leading to the likelihood that residents do not feel that they can
engage in healthy physical activity in their neighborhood.
Although the challenges present in the Promise Neighborhood are varied and may require
significant resources to address, the community is also rich in existing assets. Without a doubt,
strong connections already exist within organizations such as neighborhood associations and
church communities. By extending these networks and coordinating the collective strengths ofthe area, the Eastside Promise Neighborhood is likely to fulfill its promise of enhancing
educational prospects for children in the community, and improving quality of life for all
residents.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
5/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 5
Acknowledgments
The opportunity for our involvement with the research for the Eastside Promise
Neighborhood Initiative would not have been possible without the input and assistance of several
key individuals and organizations. The Promise Neighborhood staff and Advisory Board kept in
close contact with us throughout the semester and provided critical support. We are incredibly
grateful for the participation of the parents, students, and residents of the Eastside who attended
focus groups and community meetings regarding the relationship between the education systemand neighborhood. Without these individuals, our research could not have taken root in the
project and proved applicable. We also extend our sincere thanks to Rey Saldaa, who guided the
development of this report and helped us link together our experiences in this project with
education theory and current debates concerning the future of public education in our nation.
And finally, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Christine Drennon in the development of this
final project. She was the groups liaison, advisor, and leader in both the academic aspects and
the community relationships within the project and we absolutely could not have accomplished
this without her.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
6/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 6
Introduction
The Promise Neighborhood Initiative (PNI) is combating neighborhood decline in San
Antonios Eastside a group of neighborhoods east of downtown, covering 2.25 square miles
and bound by I-37, I-35, Commerce Street and the AT&T Center Parkway. Currently the Eastside
has a predominant Hispanic population, but in the past the neighborhood was the traditional
African American base. The Eastside has been characterized by a number of negative social
problems, including teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, and poverty rates. PNI received a oneyear federal planning grant to address these and numerous other problems by integrating
disparate education and revitalization efforts and creating a transformedEastside Promise
Neighborhoodcharacterized by high quality small schools, engaged parent leaders and stable
housing.
Our research team was assembled, under the guidance of Dr. Christine Drennon of Trinity
University, to perform two major tasks: collect qualitative data for both a needs assessment and
an asset inventory of the Eastsides available resources, and research relevant literature
pertaining to five themes identified by the federal grant as Promise Neighborhood indicators. For
the first task we conducted 14 focus groups, made up of residential groups, either parents,
students, neighborhood associations, or other groups. We recorded the conversations and
transcribed them so that we could perform an objective qualitative analysis on the topics that
residents brought up.
The literature reviews were written for the purpose of informing the Promise
Neighborhood Advisory Board about the most recent indicators and best practices being used to
identify and combat areas of neighborhood decline. The five themes we investigated are the
following (these literature reviews can be found in the appendices):
Influence of community on academic outcomes
Influence of health and access to health care on academic success
Behavioral readiness in kindergarten students Early childhood education
Out-of-school time programming
After conducting the focus groups and researching relevant literature for Promise
Neighborhood indicators, our team identified five topics that were both concerns of the Eastside
residents and also appeared in the literature we reviewed. We drew from both sources to provide
PNI some recommendations for moving forward in these five areas:
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
7/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 7
Social Capital
Parent Education
Barriers to Engaging in Physical Activity
Parental Involvement
Early Childhood Education
Methodology
The Promise Neighborhood Initiative conducted a needs assessment, an asset inventory,
and a segmentation analysis of the Promise Neighborhood to determine the current state of the
community and discover what is working and what is not working in terms of educational
attainment. By gathering data from the schools and the surrounding neighborhood, the Initiative
aims to identify factors outside of the school system that may influence the educational success
and overall well-being of children living in and/or attending school in the PromiseNeighborhood. Using this data, the Promise Neighborhood Initiative will create a continuum of
community based, wrap-around solutions that will effectively create an educational pipeline
for Promise Neighborhood students.
Our particular project assisted the Promise Neighborhood Initiative by conducting
fourteen focus groups with community members (including parents, youth, neighborhood
associations, and public housing residents). Each focus group was led by a facilitator and a co-
facilitator. Each facilitator asked questions from a standardized outline. The questions were
specifically designed to elicit the various needs and strengths of the Promise Neighborhood.
Each focus group was tape recorded and transcribed. In addition to being tape recorded, notes
about the focus group were taken by at least one note-taker present at each group. At the
conclusion of each focus group, short surveys were given to the participants; these surveys asked
brief additional questions not asked in the focus group.
In addition to conducting focus groups, literature reviews were compiled on various
education related topics: factors influencing high school drop-out rates, early childhood
education, health and access to health care, community and neighborhood influences, and use of
out-of-school time.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
8/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 8
Thematic Findings, Analysis, and Implications/Recommendations
1) Social Capital
A consistent concern among neighborhood residents was the high mobility level in the
neighborhood. They cited frequently moving neighbors as a detrimental to neighborhood quality.
Specifically, the residents pointed to highly mobile renters as problematic. The high mobility in
the neighborhood has prevented many people from forming strong trusting relationships with
their neighbors. While some groups within the neighborhood such as the Dignowity Hillneighborhood association and the residents of Harvard Place felt they had strong ties with their
neighbors, there were definite pockets of residential instability and distrust in the Promise
Neighborhood.
Relevant literature
The literature on social capital is extensive and varied. While the term was coined by
Jane Addams in The Death and Lifeof Great American Cities it was given importance by James
Coleman in 1988 in his article Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital and further
popularized by Robert Putnam in his 2000 bookBowling Alone. Both Coleman and Putnam
emphasize the importance of social capital (specifically, trust and trustworthiness) in creating a
high functioning community. Coleman makes the point that families, specifically parents, that
know each other are much more able to enforce social norms and the fulfillment of obligations.
Kristin Turney (2010) noted that residential stability (i.e. low mobility) is essential to the
formation of social capital. Turney found that neighborhoods with high stability had higher levels
of social capital regardless of socioeconomic status. As our complete literature review detailed,
mobility is associated with adverse educational outcomes (Rumberger, 1998). Conversely, low
mobility not only strengthens neighborhood ties and develops social capital, but improves
educational outcomes for youth.
Implications
A significant goal of the Promise Neighborhood grant was to determine what assets were
already in place. From our focus groups it seemed that the Dignowity Hill and Harvard
Place/Eastlawn neighborhood associations as well as the public housing resident council at the
Wheatley Courts, with their current levels of social capital, could serve as anchor institutions and
facilitators for the rest of the neighborhood.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
9/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 9
Programs and events to encourage neighbors meeting each other, such as block parties,
could facilitate the creation of social capital. The focus groups for this project did this to some
extent, allowing disparate groups to connect and exchange ideas and contact information.
However, these events would have to bridge multiple social arenas to ensure new connections
were being created. In addition, these programs or events would have to be structured such thatthe connections made would transfer into other neighborhood contexts. HIS Bridgebuilders may
be the closest to this model currently, and, with the proper support, could grow to serve even
more people.
Several cities have created neighborhood resource hubs (sometimes called parent
places, family resource centers, literacy hubs etc.) that serve as a central location for neighbors to
gather (NLC, 2007). In this context parents are able to obtain information and services as well as
meet with other parents while their children play. The parent rooms at the schools (funded and
supported by Family Service Association as the Parent-Community-School Partnership
Program), in part, serve this function. However, they lack the resource aspect of the
neighborhood hubs and focus on parent engagement in the schools. The model of the parentroom could be built upon to create a neighborhood resource hub for all residents.
There would of course be hurdles to overcome in creating these resource hubs. Currently
the parent room are used primarily by the Spanish speaking population in the neighborhood. In
the focus groups the language barrier was cited not only as barrier between teachers and parents
but also between different parts of the community. The theory on which the parent programs are
built is inspiring; the networks that are forming, touching more and more parents every year, are
beginning to provide the safety net that families need so desperately. The lack of a safety net has
put tremendous pressure on our family structure -- pressure that materializes as domestic abuse,
child neglect, and broken families. These parent rooms focus on theparental relationships -- not
the children -- and in doing so, are building safer environments in which our children can grow.While the current parent room is a noble effort, the schools seem to be sending mixed messages
about the how much they truly value parental involvement. A more prominent location for the
parent rooms and perhaps a bilingual staffer could help to overcome these challenges. In
addition, if the parent rooms are to become a resource hub for the entire neighborhood rather
than just parents, they may need to move out of the schools and into the neighborhood.
The residents specifically mentioned highly mobile renters as problematic. Part of the
reason why the Dignowity Hill neighborhood association has such high social capital could be an
increased rate of home ownership among its members. In addition one of the positive aspects of
the neighborhood that was repeated on several occasions was its affordability. The combination
of these two factors suggests that helping current renters transition to homeowners could help to
lower the mobility rate and help improve relationships among neighbors. The city of San
Antonio has an IDA (individual development account) program that is designed to help lower
income individuals and families save for a down payment on a home. This program could be
further publicized and promoted in the Promise Neighborhood to encourage home ownership and
lower mobility rates.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
10/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 10
2) Parent Education
Another consistent theme that emerged from the focus groups was parent education.
There was a consistent demand for GED programs and tutoring for parents. While there are a few
organizations that offer GED classes, parents cited the scheduling of the classes and the cost as a
serious impediment to attendance. Several parents expressed frustration over their inability tohelp their children with even elementary level homework. Enabling parents by providing
educational services would help parents help their children. Some parents even suggested
allowing parents to attend school with their children. The consistent sentiment in the focus
groups was that school should be for the entire family rather than for children alone. The current
limited provision of adult education services is separate from the school system and conflicts
with the residents desires to make education a family experience.
Relevant Literature
The literature is quite clear on the role of a parents education level in a childs
educational success. Multiple studies have found highly significant correlations between aparents educational attainment and the educational attainment of the student (Caldas, 1997;
Entwisle, 1995; Roscigno, 2006; Turney, 2010). Studies have also shown that low educational
attainment in parents can be mediated by the presence of other high status adults in the
neighborhood and in schools (Ainsworth, 2002). High status is defined as having higher
education or a managerial profession. High status adults in a neighborhood can serve as supports
for parents with lower educational attainment. In neighborhoods with a high proportion of high
status individuals, even if a students parent has low educational attainment, there will be
somebody the student can go to for academic help. Conversely, the impact of low parent
educational attainment on students is much higher in neighborhoods with a lower proportion of
high status individuals. There are simply fewer people to turn to for academic help.
Implications
The neighborhood currently has few programs oriented at adult education. The exception
is HIS BridgeBuilders which offers GED classes. This program could be expanded and further
publicized to reach more of the community. One concern voiced among residents of the
community was the prohibitive cost of many programs outside of the neighborhood. Heavily
subsidized or free adult education programs could be beneficial for this neighborhood. In
addition, St. Philips College borders the Promise Neighborhood, but few students there hail from
the Promise Neighborhood area.
Alternatively, bringing high status individuals into the neighborhood schools as tutors
and mentors could help to mediate the effects of neighborhood wide low parent educational
attainment. Communities in Schools is an active player in several other schools in San Antonio
and could be recruited to the neighborhood. In addition, San Antonio has access to a large
population of college students that could serve as tutors and mentors for the Promise
Neighborhood students. A program designed to facilitate the connection between neighborhood
schools and local colleges could help to create additional social ties as well as mediate low
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
11/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 11
parent educational attainment.
3) Early Childhood Education
Preschool and pre-k programs came up only a few times during the focus group
discussions. However, many other topics that were discussed indirectly relate to early childhoodeducation as well. The focus group at Bowden Elementary discussed early childhood education
as a way to get their kids on track for college. The Parent Facilitators focus group talked about
tutoring and mentoring opportunities for young kids. Both the Washington Elementary and
Harvard Place Neighborhood Association agreed that there should be consistent discipline at
home and at school. Most of the focus groups also mentioned school attrition, grade retention, or
motivation to continue school. Early childhood education can help address each of these issues.
As the relevant literature suggests experiences in the first 5 years of childhood strongly correlate
to behavior and cognitive skills later on in life.
Relevant LiteratureBefore a child is ready for kindergarten, there are certain skills they must develop before
the age of 5. These include language, emotional and social skills, behavioral self-control,
motivation to learn, enthusiasm, and curiosity (AECF, 2010). Building a strong skills foundation
will help with development further along the road. For example, children who are able to sit still
and follow directions will perform better in kindergarten than children who cant. Children who
can clearly communicate their needs and wants are able to ask for assistance on their classwork.
These are the kinds of skills that preschool education reinforces and that kindergarten classrooms
expect. Children from low-income households have a hard time developing these skills because
they arent as resource-rich as children from wealthy families. This difference in skill
development is known as the readiness gap, which refers to a childs ability to learn inkindergarten. Research suggests that one way to address this gap is through preschool education
programs at ages 3 and 4, or even earlier if possible.
Head Start and Early Head Start are two early childhood education programs that have
strong impacts on child development, including behavior, positive relationships with peers and
adults, and academic gains (Currie, 2001). These programs are federally funded and are required
to meet performance criteria found in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS).
Programs that have a mixed-approach setting (that is they have programs that meet parents at
their homes and also have classroom-type programs at a local center) and meet the HSPPS early
on in their implementation phase are the most effective (Love et al., 2005). Programs that are not
mixed-approach (either home-based or center-based) and do not meet the HSPPS are not nearly
as effective.
Early Head Start is for infants ages 0-3 and their mothers. A study that followed Early
Head Start graduates suggests the program has an overall impact on both child and parent
outcomes (Love et al., 2005). Performance in cognitive and language functioning increased and
aggressive behavior decreased in the child. Parents were more supportive, read to their child
more, and spanked them less. Head Start programs had positive impacts on children in the form
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
12/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 12
of reduced inattentiveness, fewer problems with structured learning, more positive peer and
teacher interactions, and cognitive improvements (Puma, 2010).
Studies that follow preschool graduates into adulthood show significant long-term
impacts (Currie, 2001). Preschool graduates are more likely to complete high school, receive
higher earnings, and be in better health. They are also less likely to repeat a grade, commitjuvenile crimes, or have teen pregnancies.
Implications
The literature suggests that the best way to help a child through school is to start them off
early. Motivation, discipline, language skills, and social skills can all be learned at a young age.
Parents in the Promise Neighborhood should enroll their children in available preschool
programs to reap these benefits before its too late. There are 4 early childhood education
programs in the neighborhood that we know of. Two of them are school-based pre-k programs,
one is a Head Start program, and the fourth is Early Head Start. Around 50% of the 3 and 4 year-old population already attend these schools, but that number should be much higher. Building
awareness in the community and reaching out to parents and encouraging them to enroll their
young children into preschool should be a major concern of the Promise Neighborhood team.
Funding for these programs is also an important issue. Community leaders should reach out to
the SAISD and the city of San Antonio to ensure enough resources will be provided for early
childhood centers to enroll 100% of the preschool-eligible population in the Promise
Neighborhood.
Another issue is ensuring that these 4 programs are of high-quality. Sub par programs do
not benefit children as much, and programs that are essentially day-care models have even less of
an effect (Love et al., 2005). The HSPPS assessment that measures program quality and childprogress is an important indicator of program success. Only two of the programs in the Promise
Neighborhood are Head Start, so they are required to follow these standards. The other two
programs should be introduced to a similar program assessment if they havent been already. By
following good, data-driven models these 4 programs currently have potential to affect 50% of
the student population. If enrollment in these programs increases, that number could be even
greater.
4) After-school Programming
One of the most prevalent concerns for the parents of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood
was the lack of mentoring and after school programs for their children. Many of the parents
expressed this need because they have no place for their children to stay while the parents are at
work during after-school hours. Other parents just wanted support for their students from trusted
adults who can advise them. This concern tied with the social capital section as well because the
parents suggested knowing very few, if any, responsible caregivers in the neighborhood. Because
of this, they must resort to leaving their children in the hands of siblings, family members, or
leaving them alone. The desire for after school programs also focused on providing the children
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
13/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 13
with a safe place to play with their friends, while also finding academic help. One woman in the
Washington Elementary School focus group even said that, in addition to these other needs, she
wanted her child to have more access to working technologies that were not present in the home,
so that he could learn about things he was interested in as well as finish his homework at
school. (Mother at Washington Focus Group)
Relevant Literature
The literature reveals very positive outcomes when students have access to out-of-school
programs that they can attend. These results include not only an aid in the development of
children on a personal and academic level, but also improve the lives of the children and parents
at home (Miller, OConnor, Sirignano, 1995). One study conducted on the effects of not having
these programs or other childcare options echoed the claims we heard in the focus groups.
Without the programs, parents of urban youth are more concerned about their childrens safety at
school, in the neighborhood, and in the home while they are absent as well as more tensedispositions while they are with their children. Children tend to isolate themselves, act out more
aggressively, and have more behavioral problems while in the school if they do not have care
after they end classes. Another study showed that when an enrichment program was implemented
during after-school hours in 24 Los Angeles middle schools, children enjoyed school more,
teachers reported consistently better behavior among the students, parents claimed that their
home lives were more pleasant, and school based crime dropped 40-60% among the 24 schools
(Neuman, 2010). The literature emphasizes that these results are consistent throughout various
studies and supports the notion that after-school programs for urban youth are crucial for
maximum success in school and personal development.
Implications
Based on our asset inventory of the Promise Neighborhood, we have found that various
after-school programs do already exist in the area, however, the parents and students are not
aware that they are available and many serve children who live outside the Promise
Neighborhood. This means that the programs could either be failing to reach out to the students
who clearly need them the most, are already full and unable to accept more children into their
program, or are not working closely enough with the schools to provide the convenience that the
parents and students need in order to fully participate. One of the most effective programs in the
country, Providence After School Alliance, shows that the most effective and beneficial way of
providing after-school care to children is by catering to the needs of students and parents while
also working extremely closely with the schools. This idea could be very helpful for the Promise
Neighborhood because the parents have clearly expressed a need for programs. If the program
could be consistent throughout all of the schools in the Promise Neighborhood and work with the
parents as well, this could increase parental involvement, address safety for students, and provide
academic services to the students as well.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
14/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 14
5) Crime, Safety, & Insufficient Recreation Spaces:
Eight of the nine focus groups explicitly discussed the topics of crime, safety, and the
need for more parks and playgrounds. Participants at Bowden Elementary (in Spanish),
Wheatley Middle School, Washington Elementary, Pershing Elementary (in Spanish), and
Wheatley Courts Resident Council repeatedly mentioned that their neighborhoods either lackedplaces to exercise (specifically parks and playgrounds) or that they perceived such places in the
area as unsafe. The remaining groups spoke more generally about crime and safety issues in the
community, as well as the need to improve the overall quality of the physical environment.
Given the connections not only between physical activity and general health, but also among
activity and academic outcomes, it is crucial that these concerns are recognized and addressed.
Relevant Literature
Several recent literature reviews have confirmed a positive correlation among levels of
physical activity and academic performance in children (Chomitz et al., 2009; Strong, et al.,
2005; Trudeau & Shepard, 2008). Specifically, Trudeau and Shephard (2008) examinedrelationships among physical education, physical activity at school, school sports and measures
of academic performance via a systemic literature review. They concluded that adding time
during the school day for physical activity (PA) did not decrease academic performance, and may
have actually resulted in gains, due to a variety of factors such as psychosocial effects and
improved cognitive functioning. Conversely, removing PA time from the school day has shown
adverse effects on academic performance.
Strong and colleagues (2005) conducted an extensive review that covered research
focusing on the effects of physical activity (PA) on a variety of health and behavioral outcomes,
and then used this evidence to develop recommendations for daily PA in youth (6-18 years of
age). More than 850 articles were reviewed that focused on the relationships among PA andweight/obesity, adiposity, cardiovascular health, asthma, mental health, academic performance,
injuries, and musculoskeletal health/fitness. The review resulted in an evidence-based
recommendation of 60 or more minutes of moderate to vigorous daily PA for school-aged youth
that is appropriate, enjoyable, and diverse. Ideally, such physical activity should be structured
into the school day, or at least included in after-school programs, but this is not always the case,
especially as school districts negotiate difficult budgetary decisions. Thus, in order to ensure that
not only children, but also their parents and other community members, engage in adequate
amounts of PA, spaces and facilities for activity must be available and appealing.
In a review of thirty-three quantitative studies that assessed relationships among physical
activity patterns in children and aspects of the physical environment, Krahnstoever-Davison and
Lawson (2006) determined that several significant correlations exist. The strongest association
found in the research concerned childrens activity levels and the quality of components of
transport infrastructure (including sidewalks, controlled intersections, and general traffic
conditions). The authors also found that the existence of recreational infrastructure, such as
parks, playgrounds, and similar facilities were associated with increased levels of PA among
children. Finally, unfavorable local conditions, including actual levels of crime and the presence
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
15/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 15
of roaming street dogs, were significantly negatively correlated with PA levels in children.
Implications
The gravity of the issues mentioned at the focus groups regarding inadequate facilities for
public recreation is underscored by academic findings concerning the importance of physicalactivity and the impact of the physical environment on activity patterns. Clearly connected to the
previous section on social capital, it is evident that in order to meet this particular need of the
Promise Neighborhood we must consider a continuum of solutions. While the concerns cited by
the focus group members were generally focused on an overall lack of safety and physical
structures that would enable physical activity, it may be possible to improve this situation
through incremental measures. For example, Harlandale ISD has been partnering with the San
Antonio Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the Department of Community Initiatives,
to foster physical activity among children in the area and improve access to summer youth
programs (National League of Cities, 2010). In order to best meet the needs of families in the
Promise Neighborhood with respect to achieving physical activity, resources must be leveragedand a variety of solutions should be implemented in a holistic manner, taking account of the
social and physical complexity of the neighborhood.
6) Parental Involvement
The lack of parental involvement was a constant theme in the focus groups. Parents gave
two reasons as to why parents were not involved; language barriers and negative parent-teacher
relationships. The focus group for Spanish speaking parents cited language issues as a primary
barrier. The Spanish speaking parents indicated that language issues prevented them from
effectively helping their children with homework and prevented them from establishing good
parent-teacher relationships.Negative parent-teacher relationships were also mentioned as a potential deterrent to
parental involvement. Many parents cited negative experiences with administration and teachers.
One parent at Tynan disliked the fact that teachers dont engage parents enough:
There is a need for more communication with parents and teachers. Teachers
need to hold more parent teacher conferences. There should be about 4 (a year) or
maybe a conference every couple of months.- A parent at Tynan
Some parents indicated that administrators and teachers do not fully explain school or classroom
policies:
I got 2 progress reports [for my child], and I cant understand them [everyone
agrees]. I need to understand it; I need to know what the letters mean. What does
P, R, and S mean [on the progress report]? A parent at Tynan
I would change the registration process. Im a first time parent and I didnt know
anything about the registration process; I heard about the process through word of
mouth. The process was not explained [by the school].-a parent at Tynan
Negative teacher and parent interactions were directly cited:
[Lack of parental involvement] probably has something to do with the staff. You
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
16/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 16
always get a phone call, but its always negative. Its a lack of communication,
maybe [the teachers should] have positive message.-a parent at Wheatley Middle
School
Relevant literature
Overall, the literature agrees that parent involvement is a critical component in the
academic success of children. Even though the literature indicates parental involvement is
important for student achievement in general, very few studies have specifically looked at the
effect of parental involvement on urban childrens academic success. One meta-analysis of 52
studies that did address this issue found, not surprisingly, that the parental involvement of urban
children greatly affected their academic success. Because parental involvement is very difficult
to define, this meta-analysis used multiple indicators of parental involvement. The study found
that for urban children, subtle forms of parental involvement (parental expectations andparenting style) had a more profound impact on a childs academic success than more concrete
forms of parental involvement (attendance at school functions, household rules, etc.). The study
also found that parent engagement programs were effective in an urban context (Jeynes 2010)
Implications
Because parental involvement is such a crucial component of a childs academic success,
the promise neighborhood initiative will need to engage parents of failing students. But at least
one study has shown that parental expectations and parenting style are more important than
showing up to school functions. This finding will make addressing the lack of parental
engagement difficult. Parents may resist being told how to parent, or being told that they havelow expectations for their children. They may not heed the advice given because it is offensive.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
17/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 17
Conclusion
The purpose of the Promise Neighborhood planning grant was to identify the not only the
needs in the neighborhood but also the current strengths. In an effort to create the most
comprehensive and most effect school system possible, the grant undertook to examine the issue
of education in a holistic manner asking the questions, What keeps our children from
succeeding in school?, How can we improve educational outcomes for our children? and
What do we need to do this?.
To answer these questions our research group conducted numerous focus groups with
parents and neighborhood residents to identify the needs of the community and also what assets
were already in place that could be built upon. In addition, our group conducted extensiveresearch on risk factors that affect school related outcomes as well as successful strategies, or
best practices, from other communities.
The literature reviews were created around five main themes: the effect of neighborhood
and community on educational outcomes, the effect of early childhood education on educational
outcomes, the effect of behavioral readiness on educational outcomes, the effect of health and
wellness on educational outcomes, and the effect of out-of-school time on educational outcomes.
These literature reviews can be found in their entirety in the appendices at the conclusion of this
paper.
The focus groups shed further light on how these issues manifested in the context of the
Eastside neighborhood. Participants expressed concerns about the mobility of residents and the
inability to create meaningful relationships with other residents (social capital); the level of
parental education and how that impacted their ability to help their children (parent education
and parental involvement); neighborhood characteristics such as crime and a lack of access to
recreational facilities that prevented physical activity, and a lack of access to early childhood
education.
Utilizing issues brought forward by focus groups as well information gleaned from the
literature reviews on risk factors and best practices for mediating these factors, we have
developed the following recommendations regarding programming and services. These
recommendations are purposefully diverse and designed to lay the groundwork for a continuumof solutions that will address the whole child and not just the academic life of the child.
1) Improve visibility of services and programs. Many residents were unaware of programs and
services currently offered and thus were not using them. Many of these programs also addressed
needs expressed by the residents such as adult education (Bridgebuilders), residential mobility
(COSAs IDA program), and after school programs (YAGA and others).
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
18/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 18
2) Increase communication among residents and educators. Improving communication between
the schools, teachers, and parents is crucial to creating positive connections between the schools
and the community. However, this communication may require new and innovative channels to
reach parents and residents as the current methods for disseminating information are not fullyeffective. Other cities have shown that reaching out to parents in non-traditional ways, such as
providing information at the places where they shop, eat, play, and work, is more effective than
simply using the school as the central point for all information.
3) Leverage current assets to encourage the development of social capital within the
neighborhood. The Wheatley Courts Residents Council and the Dignowity Hill and Ahrvard
Place/Eastlawn Neighborhood Associations could be prominent players in creating healthy
relationships among residents. Programs like Communities in Schools (CIS), Youth Against
Gang Activity (YAGA), and city-wide assets such as the large population of college students
could serve a similar purpose within the school system.
4) Bring in additional resources that the neighborhood currently lacks. Residents expressed a
need for additional early childhood education and our research found that there is indeed limited
access to these services within the neighborhood. In addition, residents expressed concerns over
the lack of healthcare and recreational facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, and tracks) in the
neighborhood.
The focus group participants were able to identify a host of problems that need to be
addressed in the neighborhood. However, they also talked at great length about the history of the
neighborhood and spoke with great affection on the positive role that the schools have played inthe community. The residents also expressed a deep attachment to the neighborhood to the extent
that despite all the problems they identified, they are generally unwilling to leave. This level of
commitment from residents to the community suggests that with support from the Promise
Neighborhood grant and the creation of an effective continuum of services, this neighborhood
can achieve great things.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
19/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 19
References
Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood
Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152.
Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2010.Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade
Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report.
Caldas, Stephen J. and Carl Bankston III. 1997. Effect of School Population Socioeconomic
Status on Individual Academic Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 90(5):
269-277.
Chomitz, Virginia, R., Meghan M. Slining, Robert J. McGowan, Suzanne E. Mitchell, Glen F.
Dawson, and Karen A. Hacker. 2009. Is there a relationship between physical fitness and
academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the northeastern
U.S.Journal of School Health 79:30-36.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American
Journal of Sociology 94 (Supp.): S95-S120.
Currie, Janet. 2001. Early Childhood Education Programs.Journal of Economic Perspectives
15(2): 213-238.
Jeynes, William. 2010. "The Relationship Between Bible Literacy and Behavioral and Academic
Outcomes in Urban Areas: A Meta-Analysis." Education & Urban Society 42(5):522-544.
Krahnstoever-Davison, Kirsten and Catherine T Lawson. 2006. Do attributes in the physical
environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 3(19).
Love, John M., et al. 2005. The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and
Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs.Developmental Psychology 41(6): 885-
901.
Miller, S., OConnor, Sirignano. 1995. Out-of-School Time: A Study of Children in Three Low-
Income Neighborhoods. Child Welfare 74(6).
Neuman, S. 2010. Empowered After School.Educational Leadership.67(7):30.
Puma, Michael, et al. 2010.Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.Putnam, Robert. 2000.Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting
Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.org
Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and the
Inequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145.
Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
20/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 20
Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents.
Center for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76.
Strong, William B., Robert M. Malina, Cameron J.R. Blimkie, Stephen R. Daniels, Rodney K.
Dishman R.K., Bernard Gutin, Albert C. Hergenroeder, (), and Francois Trudeau F. 2005.
Evidence basedcphysical activity for school-age youth.Journal of Pediatrics146(6):732-737.
Trudeau, Francois, and Roy J. Shephard. 2008. Physical education, school physical activity,
school sports and academic performance.International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition
and Physical Activity 5(10).
Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability,
and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers.Journal of Family Issues
31(4): 499-524.
Appendices: Reviews of Relevant Literature
The Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes:
A Review
Introduction
It has long been known that there are multiple factors that influence educational outcomes for
youth. The easiest causes to spot have traditionally been student effort and teacher effectiveness
(Roscigno, 2006; Williams, 2002). However, recent research has pointed to much more systemic
causes of low educational achievement. Perhaps the most systemic cause is the influence of
community, neighborhood, and overall environment on educational achievement. Understandingat what level students are being affected; individual, family, or community (systemically)
determines how, when, and where interventions should be implemented as well as what
indicators should be measured to ensure effective interventions (Boyle, 2007). In order to
understand the interplay of factors that creates systemic community level risk factors a brief
review of the current research is warranted. This review will examine how the social and
physical characteristics of neighborhoods contribute to issues of family stability, child and youth
safety, and the influence of crime on educational outcomes.
There are two overarching categories of research that address neighborhoods and their
relationship to educational outcomes. The first addresses the social characteristics of
neighborhoods and the second addresses the physical characteristics of neighborhoods. It isimportant to note that many of the neighborhood factors that influence these outcomes are
interactive and cumulative in nature (Whipple, 2010). One characteristic of a neighborhood, such
as containing a predominance of single-parent families, may have only a small effect on
educational outcomes (Entwisle, 1995). However, the pervasiveness of multiple risk factors
across several dimensions of daily life creates an environment unlikely to generate positive
educational outcomes (Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007).
http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Strong+W.B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7101763671http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Malina+R.M.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7103385658http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Blimkie+C.J.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004547062http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Daniels+S.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=26326659800http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Gutin+B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7006470769http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Hergenroeder+A.C.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004698479http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Trudeau+F.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004008900http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-20544461668&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-20544461668&src=s&imp=t&sid=q-i4BtMxLQe_bDUg8WLxvpM%3A30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Malina+R.M.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7103385658http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Blimkie+C.J.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004547062http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Daniels+S.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=26326659800http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Gutin+B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7006470769http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Hergenroeder+A.C.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004698479http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Trudeau+F.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004008900http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-20544461668&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-20544461668&src=s&imp=t&sid=q-i4BtMxLQe_bDUg8WLxvpM%3A30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Strong+W.B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7101763671 -
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
21/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 21
While the cumulative effects of these risk factors are wide-ranging and overwhelmingly
negative, research has shown that there are ways of mediating these negative effects. In fact,
there are a wide-range of programs and interventions used by many cities that have been shown
to reduce the effects of neighborhood risk factors. These programs and interventions will be
explored in greater detail later in this review.
Social Characteristics of Neighborhoods
POVERTY
It is no secret that neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty experience a
disproportionate number of adverse outcomes for residents (Ainsworth, 2002; Barnett, 2008;
Mowbray, 2007;Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007). These outcomes include high rates of teenage
pregnancy (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000), higher levels of health
problems including diabetes, asthma, and obesity (Dawson 1991, as cited in White, 2000),
delayed cognitive functioning and increased behavioral problems (Barnett, 2008), lower income
and employment levels (Ainsworth, 2002), greater daily exposure to violence and aggression(Lord, 2007), and most importantly for this review, lower educational attainment (Ainsworth,
2002, McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000; Duncan et al. 1998, as cited in
White, 2000; Whipple, 2010; Kent, 2009). Students living in high poverty areas are also more
likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as skipping school, premarital intercourse, theft,
and gang involvement (Johnson, 2009; Kent, 2009).
Poverty creates an adverse educational environment through a deprivation of parental and
institutional resources (Roscigno, 2006). The majority of those in poverty are in fact working.
They are the working poor. Systemic circumstances including the location of jobs they qualify
for (usually far from where they live and with odd hours) (Cutler, 1997), the availability of
public transportation (usually does not fit the working poors travel patterns or schedules well),
and the need for childcare while they working severely limits the resources, namely time, that
they can provide to their children (Roscigno, 2006).
Time, more so than money, is perhaps the most important resource that parents can provide in
order to increase the educational achievement of their children. Parental involvement both in an
out of school has been shown to positively correlate with academic achievement and with the
likelihood of adverse outcomes for students (Oyserman, 2007; Wooley, 2007). However, given
the previously mentioned time constraints on the working poor, time is often a luxury they dont
have. In addition, these families do not have the financial resources to supply substitutes such
as formal daycare or educational support such as extra books, learning tools, or tutoring(Roscigno, 2006; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003). As a result many of these children are exposed to
environments that are not stimulating and do not contribute positively to academic achievement
(Entwisle, 1995; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003).
ADULTS IN YOUTHS LIVES
Research has also shown that the presence and involvement of caring adults and role models in
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
22/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 22
the community significantly contributes to a childs well-being and increases educational
achievement. Wooley states that children develop positive behavioral and social patterns on the
basis of their relationship with supportive adults those patterns affect all aspects of that childs
development, including school performance (2007). Conversely, a lack of supportive adults
either in the family, the neighborhood, or in the schools contributes to lower educationalachievement.
Single-parent families
Another significant factor contributing to high risk neighborhoods is a concentration of
single-parent families (Entwisle, 1995). Multiple studies have shown that students from single-
parent families are at a much higher risk for adverse educational outcomes (Bankston, 1998;
Entwisle, 1995; Rosigno, 2006). In addition, single-parent families are consistently more likely
to be in poverty creating multiple areas of risk for children of single-parent families
(McLanahan, 1989). It is important to note that the single-parent family of today is different from
the single parent family of 30 years ago. Thirty years ago the majority of single parents were
divorced, today the majority have never been married (Entwisle, 1995). This distinction isimportant because research has shown that while children of divorced families have a higher risk
of adverse educational outcomes, the risk is even higher for students that come from never
married families (Entwisle, 1995).
In addition, todays families, particularly low-income minority families, also experience a
much higher rate of parental incarceration (Wildeman, 2010). One study documented that even
among students with similar risk factors (low SES, single-parent) students with incarcerated
parents fared much worse on academic and behavioral measures (Neal, 2009; Wildeman, 2010).
The research even noted that the academic performance of the sample group may have been
elevated because the sample was drawn from a mentoring group comprised of self-selected
participants. Considering that the subjects of this research faired much worse and yet werebelieved to have performed better than a more random sample, incarceration of a parent seems to
have a significant effect on educational achievement.
Students from single parent families also experience a higher level of mobility
(McLanahan, 1989). Mobility is defined as non-promotional movement between schools
(Rumberger, 1998). Students that change schools often experience a serious disruption in their
social networks. This disruption cuts students social ties and creates the additional stress of
forming new social networks in a foreign environment (Ainsworth, 2002; McLanahan, 1989; Ou,
2008). Students that experience high levels of mobility are also more likely to drop out and less
likely to be engaged in school and to be reported as having behavioral problems (Engec 2006, as
cited in Boon, 2011; Ou, 2008).
Student mobility is also problematic because it not only increases the likelihood that a student
will experience adverse educational outcomes but it also creates difficulties in tracking students
across schools and districts (Rumberger, 1998). One study in California noted that students who
changed school mid-year often took several weeks to re-enroll in a new school (Rumberger,
1998). This transition period results in a significant amount of school time lost and these students
fall even further behind, creating additional risk factors. Mobility creates difficulties for any
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
23/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 23
student, however students in single-parent families are at an even greater risk because they move
much more frequently, twenty to thirty percent more than their two-parent counterparts
(McLanahan, 1989). Mobility quickly becomes a compounding factor for student already at risk.
Parent engagementParental engagement has been a consistent indicator of how well a student will perform inschool (Boyle, 2007; Wooley, 2007). It has also been shown to be a strong mediator of other risk
factors (Wooley, 2007). That is, a student with several risk factors will have a greater chance of
academic success if they have a caring supportive parent at home (Wooley, 2007). While
engaged parents are a boon to students, there are intervening variables that impact a parents
level of engagement.
Perhaps the largest constraint on parental involvement is time (Ainsworth, 2002).
Particularly in single-parent families the time requirements and stresses of providing the bare
necessities of food, clothing, and shelter demand so much of a parents time and energy that there
is not much room for constructive engagement with their children or the school ( Entwisle, 1995;
Levanthal, 2008). This lack of engagement affects not only students academic achievement butalso their behavior. One study found that students who have a high amount of self-care, usually
in the gap between when school is let out and their parents return from work, exhibit more
aggressive behaviors and are more likely to engage in violence (Lord, 2007). The demands on
single-parents and the working poor create a time dynamic not conducive to extensive
engagement or involvement in anything outside of the basics.
Another consistent indicator of how well a given student will do in school is their parents
education level (Roscigno, 2006). A parents education level largely determines how much they
will be able to help their child with homework and school projects. Students whose parents have
high levels of educational achievement benefit from their parents out-of-school help, mentoring,
and tutoring. Parents with low educational attainment are less able to help their kids with schoolwork. This was a frustration expressed at several of the Promise Neighborhood focus groups.
Parenting styles
There have also been several studies on the way that community and neighborhood can
influence parenting styles. One of the most important factors in determining the quality of a
neighborhood is the crime rate. However, crime rates are reported at the zip code level which
rarely, if ever, corresponds with the boundaries of what residents perceive as their neighborhood
(Ainsworth, 2002; Goldsmith, 2009). Because of this, most studies have used the perception of
crime by residents to determine the subjective quality of the neighborhood. These studies have
found that if a neighborhood is perceived as high crime, parents respond with more authoritarian
parenting (Ainsworth, 2002).
While these studies agree that perceived crime creates more authoritarian parenting
styles, they disagree about the relative benefit or harm of such parenting styles. Some have found
that authoritarian parenting styles lower self-esteem and self-reliance and prevent the
development of autonomy (Taylor, 2000). Others have found that authoritarian parenting serves
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
24/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 24
as a protective factor in otherwise chaotic environments. Still others have found that
authoritarian parenting is beneficial for some demographics but not for others (Dearing, 2005).
Whether or not authoritarian parenting is helpful, its clear that the perception of crime in a
community has an impact on youth.
Neighborhood support and social capital Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of a neighborhood to measure is social capital.
Social capital is defined in a variety of ways by different disciplines. However, they all
essentially boil down to positive relationships with the people in ones social circle, assuming
that this social circle is large enough to provide substantive support. For youth, it is positive
relationships with adults that are most impactful (Wilkenfeld, 2008). Youth with high amounts of
social capital have many strong relationships with the adults in their school, family, and
community. These positive relationships create a network of opportunities (Wilkenfeld, 2008) as
well as trust and norms of helpful, positive reciprocity (Putnam 2000; Wilkenfeld 2007). These
networks and norms of trust and helpful reciprocity create a social safety net for residents of a
given community. Coleman (1988) in his seminal exploration of social capital made anillustrative comparison of Detroit and Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, children wander and run free and
parents worry about them infrequently. The same cannot be said of Detroit. The unspoken
agreement of mutual and reciprocal care in Jerusalem is the essence of social capital.
The presence of high social capital creates a host of benefits. Students with high social
capital are more likely to form positive connections outside of their immediate network
(Wilkenfeld, 2008). They are also more engaged and have higher positive feelings about school.
These students become less likely to drop out and routinely have much higher levels of academic
achievement than students with low social capital (Wilkenfeld, 2007).
However, there are many community factors that can threaten the formation and
preservation of social capital. Previous research has shown that disadvantaged neighborhoodstend to be socially isolated (Wilson, 1987) and lack instrumental supports for those in the
community (Turney, 2010). Parents in disadvantaged communities also often receive less support
outside of immediate family (Turney, 2010; Valladores, 2009). What instrumental support
parents receive from family is often coupled with a lack of emotional support, particularly with
regards to parenting (McLanahan, 1989).
Mobility is also a significant deterrent to forming strong community connections.
Neighborhoods with a high level of residential turnover have a much harder time establishing
trust and forming relationships with their neighbors (Ainsworth, 2002). One significant finding
has been that residential stability is strongly associated with the formation of social capital
regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood (Turney, 2010). Simply put a
neighborhood of people that stay in one place for longer, form stronger more positive
relationships. Research has also shown that low educational attainment in a neighborhood often
coincides with a high percentage of rental units (i.e. a highly mobile population) in the
neighborhood (Boyle, 2007). The Promise Neighborhood focus groups also mentioned the high
level of residential instability as an impediment to forming lasting relationships with their
neighbors.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
25/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 25
Clearly, the formation of strong positive relationships with adults in the community,
whether immediate family, through neighborhood institutions like schools, or simply the next
door neighbor has a strong positive effect on students academic performance.
Physical Characteristics of Neighborhoods
One of the most influential yet underestimated features of a neighborhood is the physical
environment. Indeed, the physical environment is what most people consider when subjectively
evaluating the quality of a neighborhood. The physical appearance and quality of housing stock,
prominent neighborhood buildings, schools, infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks, and
local amenities such as playgrounds and parks contribute to the perception of the quality of a
neighborhood. These features also contribute to educational attainment, though often through
indirect mechanisms. The second section of this review focuses on the impacts of the physical
environment on education.
NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER
Neighborhood disorder is defined by no singular aspect of a community. Rather it is the
cumulative effects of graffiti, boarded up and abandoned buildings, litter, deteriorated housing
stock, stray animals, unmaintained public areas, crumbling sidewalks, crime, drug activity,
residential crowding, poor infrastructure, and general neighborhood deterioration that contribute
to a sense of neighborhood disorder (Ceballo 2008; Whipple, 2010; Williams, 2002).
Perhaps the most well known theory surrounding neighborhood disorder is the broken
windows theory. First put forth by James Wilson and George Kelling (1982) the theory argues
that physical disorder in a neighborhood increases the likelihood of social disorder, specifically
crime. According to Wilson and Kelling, the presence of broken windows or other signs of
physical neglect provide a social signal that no one cares about the area, so the area becomes a
prime location for criminal mischief. It is on this sentiment that public disorder and crime begin
to rise.
A contending theory by Robert Sampson (1999) argues that physical disorder is a
symptom rather than a cause of social disorder. Instead, physical disorder demonstrates a lack of
community efficacy in maintaining public order. While there is disagreement on the causality of
neighborhood disorder, there is general agreement that it represents a problem.
Neighborhood disorder has been shown to be associated with lower GPAs, more suspensions ofstudents, and less intent on the students part to complete high school (Williams, 2002). Physical
and social disorder in neighborhoods has also been shown to translate into the school
environment, resulting in more aggression and violence at school (Limbos, 2008). When physical
risk is incorporated into the school environment, educational goals become a secondary concern
for students and teachers alike (Plank, 2011).
Neighborhood disorder also has a strong influence on parents. One study reported a low sense of
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
26/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 26
parental efficacy in low quality, high disorder neighborhoods (Ceballo, 2008). This result held
true even after other confounding variables were taken into account. Studies have also found that
neighborhood disorder in the form of a dilapidated housing stock and living with housing in
disrepair causes psychological stress for low-income women (Burdette, 2011; Durden 2007).
When one considers that parents, especially mothers, who experience depression and othermental health issues are less likely to be engaged with their children (Barnett, 2008; McLanahan,
1989) and parental engagement is linked to academic achievement, it is clear that the effects of
neighborhood disorder reach far beyond simple litter and graffiti eyesores.
The Good News
For all the risks that disadvantaged neighborhoods have, they also have strengths.
One researcher points out that not everyone from every disadvantaged neighborhood experiences
negative academic outcomes (Mowbray; 2007). Instead of being viewed as a fluke, this kind of
exception to the rule should be viewed as a product of resilient neighborhoods. The strengths in
these resilient neighborhoods should be identified and built upon. Another researcher points out
that the working poor are incredibly resourceful and creative in solving everyday challenges and
that this strength should be recognized (Wilson, 2008).
So far this review has focused on the risk factors of disadvantaged neighborhoods. Fortunately,
much of the research reviewed has also provided community characteristics that can help to
mediate these risk factors. One researcher found that high quality physical environments in
preschools can serve as a protective factor for children who experience social and economic
risks (Mashburn, 2008). High quality physical environments in preschools also served to
mediate the risks of early low academic achievement associated with poverty (Mashburn, 2008).
In addition, studies have shown that schools and school based programs do mediate many
of the effects of disadvantaged neighborhoods. One study that compared the difference in test
scores across season (summer vs. winter) found that gains in summer are positively correlated
with parent education level, but winter gains are negatively correlated, suggesting that school
does in fact mediate the effects of parents with low educational attainment (Entwisle, 1995). One
school based program that focused on creating school based possible selves in youth was
found to mediate the effects of low parental engagement. The intervention focused on creating
positive possible selves that used focused on academics and education as a way to achievepositive future outcomes (Oyersman, 2007).
One of the largest scale efforts at creating communities conducive to positive academic
outcomes was created by the National League of Cities called the Cities Supporting Parents
program. Six cities were selected to receive funding to establish programs and supports for
disadvantaged neighborhoods. Two of these cities were in Texas (Fort Worth and Bryan) and had
demographics and challenges similar to the Eastside Promise Neighborhood. While these six
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
27/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 27
cities had a variety of strategies to support parents they had a few notable strategies in common.
They all had civic leaders heavily invested in the projects. In one city, the mayor and city council
members did block walking in the target neighborhood to educate hard to reach residents on
available resources. Almost all cities also created spaces for parent to gather within the
neighborhood. These rooms had a variety of monikers (family room, parent resource center,literacy hub etc.) but they all served the same general purpose, to educate parents and to provide
a place for parents to meet with other parents.
These cities also brought information to the places where parents live, work, eat, shop,
play and worship. By setting up kiosks in malls near the childrens play ground and at key
intersections in the neighborhood and by putting information on literacy in restaurants the
residents frequent the cities were able to reach residents within their daily lives. Recognizing that
many residents rely on informal childcare networks such as family, friends, and neighbors, Forth
Worth started a program to train not only parents but the local childcare support network in child
development. This program also provided a way for these informal care givers to become
licensed and start their own business.Current Neighborhood Assets
The Eastside Promise Neighborhood currently has a variety of assets. Several
organizations offer a variety of parenting programs and classes. While there are many
organizations that offer parenting classes, there are relatively few that aim to improve the
parents education level. The Healy-Murphy Center offers educational programs but these are
targeted toward high school students.
As this review noted, an essential part of any high functioning community is social
capital. However, there seem to be no organizations dedicated to creating the connections and
relationships necessary for social capital to form. While social capital may be an accidental by-
product of many of this programs, it is not purposefully cultivated. Boyle believes this to be a
serious problem saying, Indeed, the absence of supportive social networks could undermine the
motivation of disadvantaged families to access and/or use resources even if they involved no
financial cost (2007). Wooley notes that these social networks are particularly important for
students: Although many environmental risk factors are intractable to social service agencies
and personnel, increasing the presence of supportive adult relationships in the lives of youths is
an attainable goal (2007).
While there are many programs that address issues related to the social structure of the
neighborhood (high poverty, lots of single parents etc.) there are no programs that address the
physical characteristics of the neighborhood. Neighborhood disorder (graffiti, litter, stray dogs)
and a deteriorating housing stock are issues that have yet to be tackled by any organization. The
Claude Black Center does list code compliance as one of its services. However, the website
offers no additional information on what that means. The need for maintenance of infrastructure
(streets, parks, sidewalks) and housing stock was an issue that came up in several of the focus
groups, yet it seems to be unaddressed.
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
28/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 28
Bibliography:
Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood
Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152.
Bankston, Carl L. III and Stephen J. Caldas. 1998. Family Structure, Schoolmates, and Racial
Inequalities in School Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family 60(3): 715-723.Barnett, Melissa A. 2008. Economic Disadvantage in Complex Family Systems: Expansion of
Family Stress Models. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 11(3): 145-161.
Boon, Helen Joanna. 2011. School Moves, Coping, and Achievement: Models of Possible
Interactions. The Journal of Educational Research 104(1): 54-70.
Boyle, Michael H., Katholiki Georgiades, Yvonne Racine, and Cameron Mustard. 2007.
Neighborhood and Family Influences on Educational Attainment: Results from the Ontario
Child Health Study Follow-Up 2001. Child Development78(1): 168-189.
Burdette, A.M, T.D. Hill, and L. Hale. 2011. Household Disrepair and the Mental Health of
Low-Income Urban Women.Journal of Urban Health 88(1): 142-53.
Ceballo, Rosario and Noelle Hurd. 2008. Neighborhood Context, SES, and Parenting: Includinga Focus on Acculturation Among Latina Mothers.Applied Developmental Science 12(4): 176-
180.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American
Journal of Sociolgy 94 (Supp.): S95-S120.
Cutler, David M. and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. Are Ghettos Good or Bad? The Quarterly
Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-872.
Dearing, Eric. 2005. The Developmental Implications of Restrictive and Supportive Parenting
across Neighborhoods and Ethinicities: Exceptions are the rule.Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 25(5): 555-575.
Durden, Emily D., Terrence D. Hill, and Ronald J. Angel. 2007. Social Demands, SocialSupports, and Psychological Distress Among Low-Income Women.Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships 24(3): 343-361.
Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1995. A Parents Economic Shadow: Family
Structure versus Family Resources as Influences on Early School Achievement.Journal of
Marriage and Family 57(2): 399-409.
Goldsmith, Pat Rubio. 2009. Schools or Neighborhoods or Both? Race and Ethnic Segregation
and Educational Attainment. Social Forces 87(4): 1913-1941.
Johnson, Heidi. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Distressed
Neighborhoods.ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4.
Kent, Adam. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Low-Income
Families.ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4.
Levanthal, Tama; Dafna E. Kohen, V. Susan Dahinten, and Cameron N. McIntosh. 2008.
Neighborhood Disadvantage: Pathways of Effects for Young Children. Child Development
79(1): 156-169.
Limbos, Mary Ann P., and Carri Casteel. 2008. Schools and Neighborhoods: Organization and
Environmental Factors Associated with Crime in Secondary Schools.Journal of School Health
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
29/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 29
78(10): 539-544.
Lord, Heather and Joseph L. Mahoney. 2007. Neighborhood Crime and Self-Care: Risks for
Aggression and Academic Performance.Developmental Psychology 43(6):1321-1333.
Mashburn, Andrew J. 2008. Quality of Social and Physical Environments in Preschools and
Childrens Development of Academic, Language, and Literacy Skills.Applied DevelopmentalScience 12(3): 113-127.
McLanahan, Sara and Karen Booth. 1989. Mother-Only Families: Problems, Prospects, and
Politics.Journal of Marriage and Family 51(3): 557-580.
Mowbray, Carol T., Michael E. Woolley, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Larry M. Gant, Megan E.
Gilster, and Trina R. Williams Shanks. 2007. Neighborhood Research from a Spatially Oriented
Strengths Perspective.Journal of Community Psychology 35(5): 667-680.
Neal, Melissa F. 2009. Evaluating the School Performance of Elementary and Middle School
Children of Incarcerated Parents.East Tennessee State University. Pp 1-134
National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting
Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.orgOu, Suh-Ru. 2005. Pathways of Long-Term Effects of an Early Intervention Program on
Educational Attainment: Findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study.Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology 26(5): 578-611.
Oyserman, Daphna; Daniel Brickman, and Marjorie Rhodes. 2007. School Success, Possible
Selves, and Parent School Involvement.Family Relations 56(Dec): 479-489.
Plank, Stephen B., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Hollie Young. 2009. An Application of Broken-
Windows and Related Theories to the Study of Disorder, Fear, and Collective Efficacy in
Schools.American Journal of Education 115(2): 227-247.
Putnam, Robert. 2000.Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and theInequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145.
Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C.
Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents. Center
for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic Social Observation of
Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.American Journal of
Sociology 105(3): 603-51.
Taylor, Ronald D. 2000. An Examination o the Association of African American Mothers
Perception of Their Neighborhoods with Their Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment.Journal
of Black Psychology 26(3): 267-87.
Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability,
and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers.Journal of Family Issues 31(4):
499-524.
Valladares, Sherylls and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2009. The Strengths of Poor Families. Child
Trends (May): 1-8.
Votruba-Drzal, Elizabeth. 2003. Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in Young
-
8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research
30/75
Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 30
Childrens Home Learning Environments.Journal of Marriage and Family 65(May): 341-355.
Whipple, Sara Sepanski; Gary W. Evans, Rachel L. Barry, and Lorraine E. Maxwell. 2010. An
Ecological Perspective on Cumulative School and Neighborhood Risk Factors Related to
Achievement.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31(6): 422-427.
White, Lynn and Stacy J. Rogers. 2000. Economic Circumstances and Family Outcomes: AReview of the 1990s.Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4): 1035-1051.
Wildeman, Christopher and Bruce Western. 2010. Incarceration in Fragile Families. The
Future of Children 20(2): 157-177.
Wilkenfeld, Britt; Laura Lippman, and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2007. Neighborhood Support
Index. Child Trends (Sept): 1-3.
Wilkenfeld, Britt; Kristin Anderson Moore, and Laura Lippman. 2008. Neighborhood Support
and Childrens Connectedness. Child Trends (Feb): 1-3.
Williams, Trina R., Larry E. Davis, Julie Miller Cribbs, Jeanne Saunders, James Herbert
Williams. 2002. Friends, Family, and Neighborhood: Understanding Academic Outcomes of
African American Youth. Urban Education 37(3): 408-431