evaluation report - children's aid society

0

The Children’s Aid Society

Twenty-first Century

Community Learning Center

Grant (2010-2013)

Evaluation Report

Prepared by

Eoin Collins, Muamer Rasic and Heléne Clark

December, 2013

ActKnowledge 365 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor

New York, NY 10016

Telephone 212.817.1906

www.actknowledge.org

tel:212.817.1906

CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

1. Introduction and Background………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

2. Children’s Aid Society Community Schools and Community School Theory of Change ………….8

3. Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

3.1 Youth Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

3.2 Parent/Family Outcomes………………………………………………………………………………………………..21

4. Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….24

Appendix 1: Literature Review on Community Schools…………………………………………………………….26

Appendix 2: References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34


2

Executive Summary

This is a report of the results of an evaluation focused on the two Children’s Aid Society

community schools in New York City where the elements of the community school model are at

an advanced stage of implementation. These are:

Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School, which incorporates three middle

schools on one campus (I.S. 218, M.S. 293, and M.S. 322); and

Mirabal Sisters Community School, which incorporates two middle schools on one

campus (M.S. 319 and M.S. 324).

Both schools are based in Washington Heights and have been community schools for some

time. They were selected by CAS and the evaluators as the best implementers of the model out

of the five community schools funded for the last five years under 21st Century Community

Learning Center grants. The previous years of evaluation looked at implementation and

outcomes in all five schools. As one would hypothesize, outcomes were best when

implementation was strongest. Therefore, this evaluation focuses on outcomes and lessons in

schools in which implementation has the most fidelity to the CAS Community School model.

The evaluation focused in particular on the progress made by these two schools over the period

2010-20121 in achieving outcomes linked to various preconditions for student success

articulated in the Children’s Aid Society Community Schools Theory of Change (ToC). Key

findings on youth outcomes and parent/family engagement are summarized as follows.

Youth Outcomes

Academic Achievement

Average student proficiency in Math in both community schools increased each year

from 2010 to 2012. Proficiency increased among after school participants and students

in each school as a whole. Over this period Math proficiency of after school students

increased from 46% to 57% compared to school wide improvements of 39% to 55% for

Salomé and of 52% to 59% for Mirabal.

Average proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) for each school has been lower and

somewhat more variable than proficiency in Math between 2010 and 2012. This is

correlated to the significant number of English Language Learners who comprise over

40% of students in both community schools; in the school with fewer ELL students, ELA

proficiency was significantly higher.

1 DOE instituted a new test in the 2009-2010 school year, and again in the 2012-2013 school year to reflect Common Core curricula. Therefore, the years available for longitudinal comparison are 2010, 2011 and 2012.


3

Tests changed between 2012 and 2013 and therefore it is not possible to compare 2013

results to previous years. Nationally, and within CAS community schools, scores on the

new test trend lower. Future tests will have to use the 2013 test as a baseline.

Attendance and Absentee Rates

The leadership of the Children’s Aid Society in understanding and addressing

absenteeism and chronic absenteeism is having an effect in the two schools under

review.

Both community schools have had attendance rates above 90% through 2010-2013,

broadly in line with the average attendance rates for middle schools in the city through-

out this period.

Chronic and severely chronic absentee rates in both schools have decreased from 2010-

11 to 2011-12 academic school years and the rates were lower than the city average for

2011-2012 academic school year.

Youth development

A significant majority of after school students were very positive about the after school

program in their school believing it to be a comfortable and supportive environment.

The CAS after school students are participating in a variety of academic and enrichment

programming ranging from use of computers to physical and recreational activities.

Surveys indicate that the after school programs are having a positive impact on social

and emotional development. For example, a majority of students from 2010-2012

agreed that the program in their school is providing positive role models and helping

them get on better with others.

The surveys also indicate the after school program activities are helping participants

improve reading, writing, and math and develop the capacity and skill to do better in

school.

Afterschool participants score highly on questions relating to goals and aspirations. For

example, more than 90 percent of after school students in both schools indicated an intent to

attend and finish college.

Parent/Family Engagement

The two community schools scored higher than the city average on every domain on

parent/family engagement measured in Department of Education parent surveys from 2010 to

2013. In particular:


4

The response rates to the DOE Parent Surveys, which can be considered an indicator of

parent engagement, are higher for both community schools than the city average.

The schools also scored higher than the city average on all domains including ‘safety and

respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’ and ‘engagement’ by the school.


5

1. Introduction and Background

This is a report of the results of a 21st Century Community Learning Center (21CCLC) evaluation

focused on the two Children’s Aid Society community schools in New York City where the

elements of the CAS community school model are at an advanced stage of implementation.

These schools are Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School and Mirabal Sisters

Community School.

The evaluation of the schools has been carried out with reference to the Theory of Change for

Community Schools developed by CAS and ActKnowledge, which sets forth the range of

preconditions necessary to achieve overall student success. This encompasses preconditions

around youth development, academic achievement, attendance and participation,

parent/family engagement, and involvement with the schools.

In keeping with the goals of 21st Century Community Learning Center (21CCLC) funding, the

successes of programs funded by 21CCLC, in particular the after-school program, are the basis

of analysis. Students in 21CCLC after-school programs are compared with students not

attending, and school-wide results are reported as well.

1.1 Background to the Evaluation

This is the fifth year of a 21st Century Community Learning Center Grant which The Children’s

Aid Society received for programs at five schools –Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Campus, Mirabal

Sisters Campus, Vito Marcantonio P.S./I.S. 50, The Bilingual Magnet School P.S.211, and

Herman Ridder I.S. 98. For the following reasons, CAS and the evaluators decided that more

could be learned from examining the schools with highest fidelity (Salomé Urena de Henriquez

and Mirabel Sisters Campus) to the CAS Community School model. These factors determined

the focus of the Year 5 evaluation:

1. Previous evaluation has confirmed, as hypothesized, that better implementation leads

to better outcomes.

2. Conversely, reporting on outcomes for schools that have challenges and barriers to

integrating and providing services does not shed light on whether the community school

model is, itself, effective.

3. The two schools with the most success at implementation have the most to teach us

about the connection between program offerings, student and school need, and

achieving outcomes.


6

4. On a practical level, evaluation resources were lower in Year 5, and priority was given to

drawing lessons about what happens when programming is actually implemented as

intended.

1.2 Methods

The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative analysis. These

include:

Development and Refining of the Theory of Change

The Children’s Aid Society and ActKnowledge developed a comprehensive Theory of Change

for Community Schools in 2011. It is a good model of Community School components and it

serves as a basis for evaluation. The theory is described in detail in Section 3.

Site Visits

ActKnowledge conducted site visits at each community school using interview protocols,

focus group protocols, and observational protocols designed to elicit the views of

stakeholders on developments and achievements of community school programming. Visits

at each site involved structured meetings and interviews with stakeholders including:

o Interviews with community schools site directors

o Interviews with principals

o Interviews with parent coordinators

o Interviews with after school staff

o Focus groups with parents

o Focus groups with students participating in the after school program

o Observations of after school activities.

Youth Surveys

ActKnowledge analyzed results from youth surveys which have been developed and

conducted each year by The Children’s Aid Society and which are posted on

youthservices.net. Note: End of school year surveys were not undertaken in 2013 so the

results in the evaluation are for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.

Identification and Analysis of Academic and Attendance Data

ActKnowledge analyzed academic and attendance data from youthservices.net and the New

York City Department of Education.

o The academic data were analyzed for the 2009-2010 through 2011-2012 academic

years, and findings were reported on ‘average % proficiency on Math and ELA’ State

Exams for Salomé Ureña Campus, Mirabal Sisters Campus, and CAS after school


7

participants in general. DOE instituted a new test in the 2009-2010 school year, and

again in the 2012-2013 school year to reflect Common Core curricula. Therefore, the

years available for longitudinal comparison are 2010, 2011 and 2012.

o The attendance rates were analyzed from 2009-2010 through 2012-2013 academic

school years.

o The chronic and severely chronic absentee rates were analyzed from 2010-2011

through 2011-2012 academic school years on Salomé Ureña Campus, and Mirabal

Sisters Campus, and a comparison to the citywide average was conducted for the

2011-2012 academic school year.

Parent Surveys

ActKnowledge analyzed results from Department of Education Parent Surveys from 2010-

2013 on Salomé Ureña Campus and Mirabal Sisters Campus and compared the results with

the citywide average. The Department of Education parent survey measures the perception

and satisfaction of parents with their children’s schools across domains that include ‘safety

and respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’, and ‘engagement’.


8

2. Profile of the Community Schools and Community School Theory of

Change

2.1 Salomé Ureña de Henriquez Campus (I.S. 218, M.S. 293, M.S. 322)

The Salomé Ureña Middle Academies (SUMA IS 218) was established as a Full Service

Community School in 1992 through a partnership between The Children’s Aid Society, the New

York City Department of Education, Community School District Six, and community-based

partners. Located in Washington Heights, the school was purpose-built as a community school

and was, with P.S. 5, among the first community schools to be established by CAS.

In 2004, Salomé Ureña Middle Academies was divided into three schools: I.S. 218, M.S. 293

(now called City College Academy of Arts) and M.S. 322. The Children's Aid Society still provides

full services and programs to all schools on the campus. Services and programs include after-

school, Saturday, holiday and summer programs. They also include mental health, medical, and

dental services; and a set of services relating to family support and community engagement.

These include a family resource room, vocational and educational training, adult education,

advocacy and leadership opportunities. From its inception the school has served as a prototype

for the community schools model for hundreds of community schools in the United States and

abroad.

Chart 1 below shows enrollment for each constituent school in Salomé Ureña. The total number

of students that attended Salomé Ureña Campus was 997 in 2012-2013.

Chart 1: Enrollment at Salomé Ureña Campus

As noted in Chart 2, English Language Learners have comprised a significant part of the student

body in I.S. 218 and M.S. 322 - ELL students comprised 45.6 percent of students in I.S. 218 and

40.4 percent of students in M.S. 322 in 2012-2013. The City College Academy of Arts (CCAA) has

significantly fewer English Language Learners.

368 365 341 309

490 494 463

428

258 270 271 260

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

IS 218

MS 322

CCAA 293


9

Chart 2: % ELL Students at Salomé Ureña Campus

2.2 Mirabal Sisters Campus (M.S. 319, M.S. 324)

The Mirabal Sisters Campus opened in 1994 as I.S. 90 in collaboration with The Children’s Aid

Society and in 2004 was divided into three schools, two of which subsequently merged.

The Children's Aid Society provides similar services and programs to those which have been

developed in Salomé Ureña Campus including an after school program, various health services

and services to support parents and the wider community. The Mirabal Sisters Campus is also

located in the Washington Heights/Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan.

Chart 3 below shows the number of enrollments from 2009 to 2013 with a total enrollment of

1054 in 2013. As illustrated in Chart 4, Mirabal also, like Salomé, has a significant number of

English Language Learners comprising 40.1 percent of students in M.S. 324, and 35.3 percent at

M.S. 319 in 2013.

Chart 3: Enrollment at Mirabal Sisters Campus

44% 45.5% 44.3% 45.6%

36.3% 37.7% 38.2% 40.4%

11.6% 12.6% 9.2% 7.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

IS 218

MS 322

CCAA 293

538 570 649 634

422 407 427 424

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MS 319

MS 324


10

Chart 4: % ELL Students at Mirabal Sisters Campus

2.3 Children’s Aid Society Community Schools Theory of Change

The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and ActKnowledge developed the Community Schools Theory

of Change over the course of a year and completed it in May 2011. The CAS Community Schools

Theory of Change was created in a series of participatory meetings and is the basis for CAS

evaluation efforts. It serves as a fairly good model of Community School components in general.

The theory is a good starting point for any initiative, although each should reflect its particular

context, needs and priorities.

The CAS Community Schools Theory of Change has three outcome pathways to achieve its long-

term outcome of “Youth have opportunities for positive engagement after high school.” The

three outcome pathways consist of Youth Outcomes, Parents and Families Outcomes, and

Institutional Outcomes.

Youth Outcomes Pathway

A key precondition to the long-term outcome ‘Youth have opportunities for positive

engagement after high school’ as articulated in the Theory of Change is ‘Young people succeed

academically’ – i.e., students are earning good grades in class, passing state exams, and

graduating. For young people to succeed academically they have to have ‘high attendance.’

They must be present in school to keep up with class materials and homework. A precondition

to regular attendance is good health – i.e., students are not out sick on a regular basis. Also, a

‘school-based health center’ is there to provide ‘quality health care’ so that students can be

treated in the school rather than be out sick.

Parent and Family Outcomes Pathway

The Children’s Aid Society has identified parent and family engagement as an important

precondition to youth outcomes as articulated in the Theory of Change. The long-term outcome

36.8% 38.2% 39.1%

35.3%

40.0%

44.5% 44.0%

40.1%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MS 319

MS 324


11

of the parents and family pathway is ‘Parents/Families are partners:’ They become partners by

‘engaging at every level’– i.e., by supporting their children’s academic needs at home, creating

an ‘in-home learning’ environment, being supportive at school, being ‘active participants at

school,’ by attending school events and meetings, and so on.

Institutional Outcomes Pathway

The Institutional Outcomes pathway shows short-term preconditions to outcomes in the parent

and family pathway as well as the youth pathway. Institutional outcomes (preconditions)

comprise ‘securing sustainable funding,’ ‘sharing data, results, and evidence with partners,’

‘capacity building at the site level,’ and ‘strong and effective leadership;’ all of which make the

‘community school model sustainable’.


13

3. Findings

In this section we present key findings from the evaluation based on a selection of key

outcomes articulated in the Theory of Change.

3.1 Youth Outcomes

Academic Achievement

One of the key youth outcomes articulated in the Theory of Change is ‘Young people succeed

academically’. As illustrated in Chart 5, proficiency in Math between 2010 and 2012 has

increased each year for both schools and for after school students within each school. In

particular:

At Salomé Ureña Campus, average % proficiency increased from 39% in 2009-10, to 45%

in 2010-11 and 55% in 2011-12.

At Mirabal Sisters Campus, average % proficiency increased from 52% in 2009-10 to 58%

in 2010-11 and 59% in 2011-12.

Over this period math proficiency of after school students was 46% in 2009-2011 and

increased to 57% in 2011-12.

The new proficiency test aligned with the common core curriculum resulted in a 30.4 percent

decline in average scores for math in NYC in the 2012-2013 school year as compared to the

previous year2. The two schools under review also posted lower proficiency rates under the

new testing. These results are discontinuous from previous years, owing to the difference in

both curriculum and test content, and cannot be compared. Test results for 2013 will provide a

new baseline.

2 For discussion on the implications of the move to the new proficiency testing see the report 2013 New York State Common Core Test Results: New York City Grades 3-8. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/2013_math_ela_deck.pdf

http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/2013_math_ela_deck.pdf


14

Chart 5: Average % Proficiency in Math

Chart 6 below illustrates average proficiency in English Language Arts. Proficiency in ELA for

each school and in after school students has been lower and somewhat more variable than

proficiency in math between 2010 and 2013. For example:

At Salomé Ureña Campus the average proficiency in ELA was 28% in 2009-10, decreasing

to 23% in 2010-11 and then increasing to 32% in 2011-12.

At Mirabal Sisters Campus the average proficiency was 20% in 2009-10, increasing to

21% in 2010-11 and then 25% in 2011-12.

CAS after school students average proficiency increased from 23% in 2009-10, to 24% in

2010-11 and 28% in 2011-12.

Chart 6: Average % Proficiency in ELA

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average % Proficient inMath Salome Urena DeHenrique(IS218,MS322,CCAA293)

Average % Proficient inMath Mirabal SitersCampus (MS319,MS324)

Average % Proficient inMath CAS AfterschoolStudents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Average % Proficient inELA Salome Urena DeHenrique(IS218,MS322,CCAA293)

Average % Proficient inELA Mirabal SitersCampus (MS319,MS324)

Average % Proficient inELA CAS AfterschoolStudents


15

The relatively low levels of proficiency in ELA, compared to scores in math, is correlated with

the high numbers of English Language Learners (ELL) in the schools. This can be seen if the

figures for the constituent schools are disaggregated. For example, in Salomé Ureña over 45

percent of the student body at I.S. 218 in 2011-2012 were English Language Learners and the

proficiency level in ELA in this period was 18 percent. By contrast, M.S. 293, another

constituent school of Salomé, had an enrollment of only 7.3 percent of ELL students and, at 56

percent, showed much greater proficiency in ELA.

Attendance

A key precondition in the Theory of Change for students to succeed academically is having ‘High

Attendance’ in school. Charts 7 and 8 below illustrate average attendance rates for each

community school and their constituent schools from 2010 to 2013 compared to an

approximate city average.3

As illustrated there is some variation in attendance rates among the constituent schools at both

Salomé and Mirabal. From 2010 to 2013 CCAA 293 had an attendance rate above the city

average while I.S. 218 was somewhat lower. At Mirabal Sisters Campus, both schools had an

average attendance rate consistently above the city average throughout this period.

Chart 7: Attendance Rate at Salomé Ureña Campus

Chart 8: Attendance Rate at Mirabal Sisters Campus

3 The city average was calculated by the evaluators using the New York City Department of Education Progress

Reports.

89.9% 90.3% 91.2%

89.2%

91.8% 91.1%

92.3% 91.6%

95.0% 94.3%

95.2% 94.8%

86.0%

88.0%

90.0%

92.0%

94.0%

96.0%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

IS 218

MS 322

CCAA 293

94.2%

93.4%

94.3% 94.4%

95.0% 95.0% 94.9% 94.8%

92.5%

93.0%

93.5%

94.0%

94.5%

95.0%

95.5%

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

MS 319

MS 324


16

Chronic/Severely Chronic Absenteeism

Even a school with high attendance rates can have high ‘chronic or ‘severely chronic’ absentee

rates – for example, because different students take turns being absent on a daily basis. The

attendance rate might be 95 percent but when the absences are added together, they can

accumulate and student(s) can miss a month or more of school over the course of the school

year. In New York City, a student is ‘chronically’ absent if he/she misses 20-37 days of school in

a year and ‘severely chronically’ absent if he/she misses 38 days or more of school. 4

The Children’s Aid Society has been taking leadership on analyzing and dealing with chronic

absenteeism in its community schools. Figures on chronic absenteeism in both schools show

that this leadership is having an impact. As outlined in Chart 9 below, ‘chronic’ and ‘severely

chronic’ absentee rates declined for both community schools between 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The ‘chronic absentee’ rate in Salomé Ureña Campus decreased from 16 percent to 15 percent

and the ‘severely chronic’ absentee rate decreased from six percent to five percent. Similarly in

Mirabal Sisters Campus, the ‘chronic absentee’ rate decreased from 11 percent to 8 percent but

the ‘severely chronic absentee’ rates was maintained at four percent. These percentage

differences appear low, but the absolute numbers of chronically absent students are relatively

small, so a small percentage difference means a few individuals have been turned around.

Chart 9: Chronic and Severely Chronic Absentee Rate Comparison between Salomé Ureña and

Mirabal Sisters Campus (2010-11 and 2011-12)

4 For fuller analysis of chronic absenteeism see for example the resources section of the National Center for Community Schools and reports for example, the National Center for Children in Poverty Report Present, Engaged, and Accounted For (Chang at el, 2008).

16% 15%

6%

5%

11%

8%

4% 4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

%ChronicallyAbsent in2010-11

%ChronicallyAbsent in2011-12

% SeverelyChronicallyAbsent in2010-11

% SeverelyChronicallyAbsent in2011-12

Salome Urena DeHenrique Campus(I.S.219, M.S.293,M.S.322)

Mirabal Sisters Campus(M.S.319, M.S.324)


17

‘Chronic’ and ‘severely chronic’ absentee rates for Salomé Ureña and Mirabal Sisters Campus

were lower for New York City as a whole in 2011-2012. This is illustrated in Chart 10 below

which shows that Mirabal Sisters Campus and Salomé Ureña Campus had ‘chronic absentee’

rates of eight and 15 percent respectively compared to 19 percent for the city as a whole. The

two schools also had ‘severely chronic absentee’ rates of four and five percent respectively

compared to six percent for the city.5

Chart 10: 2011-12 Chronic and Severely Chronic Absentee Rate: Salomé Ureña and Mirabal

Sisters Campus Compared to Citywide Average

Key personnel in both schools highlighted the capacity of the community school model to

engage with all stakeholders, particularly with parents, as being critically important to

addressing absenteeism and chronic absenteeism issues. For example, travel between the

United States and the country of origin of students from immigrant communities (who

comprise a significant proportion of the student body in both schools) was found to be one

factor in absentee rates for some students. The success of the community school in engaging

with parents provided effective approaches to facilitate such travel in ways that reduced

student absenteeism.

5 Data derived from Balfanz and Byrnes (2008). Meeting the Challenge of Combating the Chronic Absenteeism: Impact of the NYC Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Chronic Absenteeism and School Attendance and Its Implications for Other Cities. http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combating_chronic_absenteeism.pdf

19%

6%

15%

5%

8%

4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

% Chronically Absent % Severely ChronicallyAbsent

Citywide

Salome Urena DeHenrique Campus(I.S.219, M.S.293,M.S.322)

Mirabal Sisters Campus(M.S.319, M.S.324)


18

Youth Development

The Theory of Change for Community Schools identifies a whole set of youth development

preconditions necessary for student achievement including key outcomes around social,

emotional and health development. Afterschool programs are designed to provide students

with a variety of academic and enrichment activities that encompass all these aspects of young

people’s development. CAS has designed and administered youth surveys which seek to

capture the impact of these various activities across these areas. Selected highlights from the

surveys are presented as follows.

Chart 11 below illustrates student’s perceptions of the after school program in terms of feeling

welcomed and included. A large majority of students are very positive about the after school

program staff, agreeing with the statement that ‘staff really care about me’. Students also

describe after school as fun and as a place where their ideas are heard.

Chart 11. Positive Perceptions of the Afterschool Program

Chart 12 below illustrates some of the opportunities offered to students by the after school

program in each community school. For example, large majority of students state that they get

an opportunity to ‘do a lot of new things’, to use computers, engage in sports and also in the

arts. These are opportunities are all linked to social and physical health outcomes identified as

important preconditions in the Theory of Change, including self-awareness and growth through

new opportunities.

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012

Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus

I have fun My ideas are heard

I feel comfortable Staff really care about me


19

Chart 12. Selected opportunities for students offered by the Afterschool Program

In addition to enrichment opportunities (which encompass arts, sports, etc.) the after school

programs offer activities directly relating to academic improvement. Chart 13 below outlines

students’ perceptions of these various elements of the after school program on their school

work and academic capacity. For example, a large majority of students stated in each year from

2011 to 2012 that, since joining the after school program, they have improved their homework

skills, reading, writing, and math. A large majority also say that after school program helps them

get better grades in school.

Chart 13. Impact on school work and academic capacity

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012


I get a chance to do a lot of new things

Play an instrument, sing, dance, act, draw or do some other type of art

Use computer or some other technology better

Physical activities: playing sports, dancing, or martial arts

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012


Improve my homework skills Improve my study skills

Improve my reading Improve my writing

Improve my math Get better grades in school


20

Chart 14 below shows that the after school programs are having a significant impact on

students’ perceptions of goals and aspirations. High aspirations and expectations on the part of

students (and on the part of parents and teachers) has been identified in the Theory of Change,

and in the education literature more broadly, as key preconditions for student progression. For

example, a large majority of students agree with the statement that they will go to college,

finish college, and, more immediately, finish middle school.

Chart 14. Impact on Educational Goals and Aspirations

The survey also looks at other indicators related to student participation and success in school.

For example, as noted on Chart 15, a significant majority of after school students agreed that

the after school program helps them work better with others, keep safe and out of trouble, and

contributes to positive decision-making around health and money management.

Chart 15.Other Indicators Relating to Youth Development

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012


I will finish middle school I will finish high school or get my GED

I will go to college I will finish college

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012


Work together with others better

Stay out of trouble and make decisions that keep me safe

Make smart decisions about saving and spending money

Make better choices about health and nutrition

Helps make me a positive role model


21

3.2 Parent/Family Engagement Outcomes

As articulated in the CAS community school Theory of Change, the involvement and

engagement of parents is a fundamental part of the community schools model. Effective parent

engagement needs work at every level of the school, from simple communication right through

to methods to involve parents in school governance.

Both community schools, in line with the community school model, have placed a strong

emphasis on parent involvement. Both offer a range of facilities and services to meet the needs

of parents and to involve them as partners in the work of the school and in the education of

their children.

At Salomé, the CLC programs have targeted services towards single parents, immigrant families,

and low-income families. Mirabal has an equally strong focus on meeting the needs of parents

and involving them in the school. Facilities and services provided by both schools include the

provision of very accessible and visible family rooms, provision of adult education (for example,

ESL, GED classes, financial literacy, etc.) and measures to engage parents as volunteers in the

school.

Department of Education (DOE) parent surveys show that the work of the community schools

on parent engagement is having an impact. As illustrated in Chart 16 below, the response rate

to the DOE Parent Surveys by Salomé and Mirabal is substantially above the NYC average. This

response rate can itself be considered an indicator of success of the school in engaging with

parents.6

Chart 16: DOE Parent Survey Response Rate (%)

6 The Department of Education parent survey measures the perception and satisfaction of parents with their

children’s schools across domains that include ‘safety and respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’, and

‘engagement’.

72% 74% 62%

70% 85%

95% 95% 96%

49% 52% 53% 54%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus CityWide


22

Parents from Salomé and Mirabal, as shown in Chart 17, below also scored higher than the city

average in questions relating to safety and respect. Questions on safety included scoring on

statements such as ‘my child is safe’ and ‘having an adult whom my child trusts and can go for

help’.

Chart 17: Satisfaction across domains – Safety and Respect

As illustrated in Chart 18, parents in the two schools also scored higher on academic

expectations than the citywide average. The survey questions consisted of the school having

‘high expectations for my child’, ‘gives my child meaningful assignments that help him or her

learn’, ‘is preparing my child well to be promoted to the next grade level or graduate’, and

‘helps keep my child on track for college, career and success in life after high school.’

Chart 18: Satisfaction across domains – Academic Expectations

9.1 9.0 9.0 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.2

8.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.4

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Salome Urena Campus

Mirabal Sisters Campus

CityWide

8.6 8.5 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.8 9.0

8.0 8.0 8.0 8.3

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Salome Urena Campus


CityWide


23

Parents at Salomé and Mirabal as shown in Chart 19 scored higher on communication than the

NYC average. The survey questions consisted of the school ‘keeps me informed about my child’s

academic progress’, ‘keeps me informed about what my child is learning’, ‘keeps me informed

about services for me or my child, such as tutoring, after-school programs, or workshops at

school’, ‘communicates with me in a language that I can understand’, and ‘gives my child

regular and helpful feedback on his or her work.’

Chart 19: Satisfaction across domains – Communication

Parents at Salomé and Mirabal as shown in Chart 20 again scored higher on measures of parent

engagement in the school than the city average. Indicators of engagement included questions

relating to whether the school made them feel welcome, whether it catered to their language

needs, was flexible around scheduling meeting at different times of the day and whether the

school was responsive to parent feedback.

Chart 20: Satisfaction across domains – Engagement

8.5 8.4 8.5 9.1

8.7 8.8 8.6 8.7

7.8 7.9 7.9 8.4

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Salome Urena Campus


CityWide

8.4 8.2 8.4 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.7

7.9 7.8 7.9 8.1

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Salome Urena Campus


CityWide


24

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of this evaluation show that the two CAS community schools where the community

school model has been most comprehensively implemented have achieved important

outcomes in grade improvement and reduction in absenteeism. Linked to this is the success of

the schools in engaging parents, a key precondition for student success, but a challenge for

most schools, especially for Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School and Mirabal Sisters

Community School given the diversity of the populations they serve.

Key personnel in each of the schools interviewed through the course of the evaluation noted

the importance of the community school model in achieving these outcomes and highlighted a

number of key factors facilitating or presenting challenges for implementation. In particular:

A point consistently raised was that the Community School should be viewed as a strategy

rather than a program. A ‘strategy’ suggests something that can be changed to reflect

shifting needs, challenges and opportunities, which was considered the key strength of the

community school model. The capacity to respond to shifting needs was considered

especially important given the profile of the areas that the schools serve which include

diverse, disadvantaged, and often rapidly changing population groups.

The importance of parent involvement in achieving youth development goals was strongly

emphasized. However, engaging parents is challenging to any school and the success of the

two community schools with parents has been based on ongoing efforts to understand,

identify and respond to existing and emerging needs. The importance of ‘learning by doing’

was emphasized – in other words, developing programs and services for families and friends

and learning from, rather than being discouraged by, those programs which have been less

successful. The flexibility of the community school model in this respect was considered

crucial in developing innovative approaches to involving parents.

It is important that the Community ‘Site Director’ role is a senior position, integrated into

the leadership of the school and that the role encompasses the skills and experience

necessary to co-ordinate and connect all the partnerships (especially with school principals)

necessary to support the community school model. In both schools the site directors were

fully integrated into the leadership of the schools, including representation on key

governance committees and at executive staff meetings.

Staff turnover has been a significant issue for the community schools in being able to

implement and sustain programs. Limited budgets have meant that it has not always been

possible to offer compensation levels that attract and retain the personnel with the skills

needed to sustain different community programs and services.


25

Given the importance of social and emotional development of students as preconditions to

academic and overall student development (as articulated in the community school Theory

of Change), there is a need for ongoing development of measures to assess progress

towards these outcomes and compare them consistently over time.

The Theory of Change developed by CAS and ActKnowledge has provided an important and

well-publicized framework for change that the community school model is seeking to

achieve. There is now an opportunity to revisit and refine the theory based on the

experience of the CAS community schools and in particular, the experience of the two

schools where the model has been most comprehensively implemented.

A Community School Theory of Change has been used successfully in Hartford, Connecticut

to create workplans and targets for each school. Use of the ToC in this way helps align

everyone’s work and expectations. We recommend integrating the outcomes and

pathways in the CAS Theory of Change into daily operation.


26

Appendix 1. Literature Review on Community Schools

Rise of the Full-Service Community School Model

In the 1980s, school health clinics began to be implemented in middle and secondary schools

throughout the United States (McMahon et al., 2000). In the late 1980s, and throughout the

1990s, efforts for a collaborative model of community programs and extended day activates

increased. The integrated programs were designed to combat problems of substance abuse,

unprotected sex, stress, school failure, and community violence which are rampant in poverty

stricken neighborhoods. Programs included school-based dental clinics, health centers, mental

health centers, family resource centers, and after school centers (Benson et al., 2009). As

defined by Joy Dryfoos, the full-service community school is designed to promote the physical,

emotional, social, and academic growth of children living in high-risk neighborhoods (as cited in

McMahon et al., 2000, p. 69). With access to a wide variety of services, the full-service

community school addresses barriers to learning and optimal development that are associated

with poverty (McMahon et al., 2000).

In New York City, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) partnered with the New York City Board of

Education and opened the first New York City public community school in 1992 (Quinn, 2005).

According to the Vice President for Community Schools in New York City/Director of the

National Center for Community Schools, Jane Quinn (2005) has conceptualized the CAS

approach as a ‘developmental triangle’ (p. 17). The triangle includes a strong instructional

program with high academic standards for all students, enrichment activities to support

students’ cognitive, social, emotional, moral and physical development, and a full range of

health and mental health services. Every school tailors their programs to the needs of the

students and their families (Quinn, 2005). Currently, CAS operates 21 community schools in

New York City located in low-income neighborhoods of Washington Heights, Harlem, the South

Bronx and Staten Island (www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools). Most CAS schools

are open all day and in the evenings, six days per week, year-round.

http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools


27

In 1994, CAS founded the National Center for Community Schools

(www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org) to fulfill the increasing demand for information

and advice on how to implement community schools. The organization advocates on a local and

national platform to advance the community schools model for reforming the education

system. They also provide consultations and assistance to community school initiatives

throughout cities in the United States. CAS is also an active and founding member of the

Coalition for Community Schools (CCS), established in 1997. CCS is a non-profit advocacy group

for nationwide community schools as the way to strengthen families, schools and communities

(www.communityschools.org).

Because community schools are structured according to the needs of the students, family and

neighborhoods in which they serve, there is no formal model for community schools (Coalition

for Community Schools, 2012). According to the CSS (2012), there are currently over 5,000

national and international community schools that exist including community schools, full-

service community schools, and extended-day schools. Evaluations of community schools have

been performed in cities such as Tulsa, OK; Hartford, CT; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Multnomah

County, OR; Cincinnati, OH; Paterson, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Greater Lehigh Valley, PA; Nashville,

TN; and some form of community schools can be found in neighborhoods all over the United

States and abroad (Coalition for Community Schools, 2012). CSS (2012) does not advocate

solely for full-service community schools, although they do focus on public schools. Rather, they

advocate for school and community partnerships that create strategies and programs that help

students, families and communities achieve optimal outcomes.

Benefits of Community Schools

Gains in Academic Achievement

Research has shown that participating in the programs and services provided by a community

school (whether it be a full-service community school or an extended-day school) can raise

academic achievement according to increases in standardized exam scores and overall school

grades (Walker, Kronick, & Diambra, 2007; Quinn, 2005; Rosas, Case, & Tholstrup, 2009). An

evaluation of CAS community schools found that students participating in CAS after-school

http://www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org/

http://www.communityschools.org/


28

programs from 2004 to 2007 scored significantly higher on the mathematics state standardized

exams compared to students in non-community public schools (Coalition for Community

Schools, 2009). Walker et al. (2007) found that students who attended after-school tutoring and

enrichment programs7, scored significantly higher in reading and math standardized exams

compared to students who did not participate in the after-school program (p. 24). Walker et al.

(2007) noted that some of the factors related to student’s increase in academic achievement

could be the many forms of positive reinforcement implemented by tutors and volunteers of

the after-school program. Additionally, family involvement in community schools and after-

school programs could be a factor that influences the increase in academic achievement

(Walker et al., 2007).

Gains in Non-Academic Developmental Outcomes

Community schools not only show positive outcomes in academic achievement, but non-

academic developmental outcomes as well. A longitudinal evaluation conducted for two CAS

community schools reported that CAS students had improvements in attendance, academic

achievement, parental involvement, reductions in the number of suspensions, and improved

student attitudes toward school in comparison to non-community NYC public schools students

(Quinn, 2005, p.22). A research brief from the Coalition for Community Schools (2009) reported

on the results of many different evaluations of community schools. CCS reported significant

improvements in attendance and a reduced dropout rate among students enrolled in

community schools from various cities and neighborhoods, as well as nationwide according to a

large study conducted by Communities in Schools (as cited in Coalition for Community Schools,

2009). Other benefits found from students participating in CAS community school programs

include significant increases in students’ self-esteem and career aspirations, as well as a

decrease in problem behaviors (Coalition for Community Schools, 2009).

Benefits to Families of Students Enrolled in Community Schools

7 Enrichment programs included drama, music, Spanish, art, science club, cooking, knitting and sewing, dance, and recreation activities.


29

Due to the many services such as healthcare, family resources and employment support, and

mental health, families benefit from community schools as well. A research brief from the

Coalition for Community Schools (2009) stated that families of community school students have

shown an increase in family stability, more school involvement, better communication with

teachers, and have felt a greater sense of responsibility for their children’s learning. Family

health programs in community schools have reported positive changes in health habits such as

eating healthier and exercising more (Coalition for Community Schools, 2009). In Dryfoos’

(2000) report of findings from 49 community school initiatives, many parents reported an

increase in volunteer hours, an improvement in their child development practices, were less

stressed, spent less money on childcare (due to services available in the community school),

missed fewer days of work, and reported an overall improvement in basic needs such as

housing, food, clothing, transportation, finances and employment. A large amount of research

has shown the negative effects that poverty has on family dynamics, functioning and child

development (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Evans, 2004) With the

various and confounding factors that influence student academic achievement, community

schools providing services for students as well as their families are paving a successful path

towards real education and social reform.

Benefits to Teachers

A report by the non-profit/advocacy group, Communities in Schools (2009) surveyed over 1500

teachers in community schools throughout Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington

and Texas. Over 70% of teachers surveyed reported that they were able to be more effective

teachers because the community schools helped students acquire resources needed for

learning, improved students’ attitudes towards learning, increased students’ engagement in

learning, and improved student disruptive behavior; teachers also reported that their students

were better able to resolve distracting social and emotional issues, had improved attendance,

and decreased high risk behavior outside the classroom (Communities in Schools, 2009).

Benefits of Community Partnerships with Schools


30

Effective community partnerships with schools address the many barriers students have to

learning. With better access to health care and dental care, students and families have reported

lower hospitalization rates, higher immunization rates, improvements in oral hygiene, and

higher rates of health insurance coverage (Dryfoos, 2000). With access to mental health

programs, students of community schools are provided with therapists and psychologists that

can help them cope with the stresses that the effects of poverty has on their lives, including

witness to community and domestic violence. Furthermore, with academic and recreational

programs provided during after-school hours, less students are getting into trouble on the

streets and lower violence rates and safer streets have been reported in neighborhoods where

community schools are located (Dryfoos, 2000). Additionally, access to a great number of staff

members and volunteers in a community school, both during regular school hours and after-

school, provides students with a larger number of role-models and positive mentors in their

lives in the face of the stresses they face in their neighborhoods and homes (Coalition for

Community Schools, 2009; Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Allen-Meares, 2002; Leonard, 2011 Walker,

Kronick, & Diambra, 2007)

Barriers to the Success of Community Schools

In their qualitative study of the first year of a full-service elementary school in San Francisco,

Abrams and Gibbs (2000) described the social and cultural barriers that impeded the ideal

development of cooperative and collaborative relationships among school staff, parents, and

other community members. One barrier discussed was the unequal parent participation among

various ethnic groups, social class, and level of education; this caused a tense dynamic among

school staff, parents, and community members. Power struggles between school activists and

the principal they chose, as well as the pressure school staff felt to meet unrealistic goals and

expectations, added to the frustration of the many involved in the implementation of the

school.

Dryfoos recommended, as part of the full-service community school model, that “parents,

community members, and school staff develop a shared analysis of the root causes of

educational disadvantage as well as integrated and multilayered strategies for social change”


31

(as cited by Abrams & Gibbs, 2000, p. 99) in order to prevent these barriers to the success of

collaboration in community schools. Leonard (2011) found that successful school-community

partnerships are those that build collaborative relationships that not only meet the needs of

students, but are also aware of the many factors that lead to educational disadvantage. Using

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Leonard (2011) advocated for a cultural cohesion

and reform as stated, “though students may be the developmental target, mutual change is the

story of relationships; in this case, the partnering institutions evolved to more effectively

address student needs.” (p. 1005).

In order to prevent power struggles between community members and school administrators,

Abrams & Gibbs (2000) suggested that during the planning process of a new community school,

role clarifications and boundaries should be clearly defined. Furthermore, making everyone

aware that positive outcome changes such as students’ increased academic achievement and

social competence takes time and patience can ease the pressure school staff often feel in any

type of education reform effort (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000).

A common problem in various community schools is that school-based health and mental

health centers are treated as “outsiders” by the school staff and administration. Dryfoos (1998)

noted that turf problems such as use of space, lack of communication between teachers,

principals, social workers, custodians, etc. cause tension among community school staff

members. These turf problems can be overcome by “working with school personnel to give

them a sense of shared ownership and shared responsibility” (Dryfoos, 1998, p. 407).

Due to the difficulty of assessing every component of community schools (as there are many

addressing the barriers to learning), as well as low participation rates of participants and the

challenge of attaining parental consent, there currently is not a substantial amount of

quantitative research on full-service community schools (Walker et al., 2007). According to

Cole-Zakrzewski (as cited in Walker et al., 2007), “the time needed to see student change, and

high mobility rates among students in these programs” (p. 22) also add to the difficulty of

conducting empirical research on community schools.

Suggestions for Future Research


32

Walker et al. (2007) recommend tracking a small number of students (preferably those that

attend the extended-day programs in the community school), working with community school

programmers that have strong relationships with parents of students, which fosters trust and

influences more parents to provide consent for a research evaluation. Another way to increase

the number of parents who consent is to have consent forms in various languages in case a

parent does not speak English. A suggestion given by Walker et al. (2007) is to obtain informed

consent at the beginning of the school year so the parent can not only learn more about the

school’s programs, but also so the researchers can explain the purpose of the evaluation and

how it is important to measure and document improvements in their student’s academic life.

Though it is difficult many times to attain a large participant sample in a community schools

evaluation, due to the challenge of a low volume of parental consent, efforts should be made to

create an evaluation or research study that recruits a large number of participants. Though

each community school is different (in fact, no public or private school in the world can be

exactly the same due to a myriad of student, family, community, teacher, and program

differences), it may be beneficial to combine data from multiple community schools (perhaps

even in various cities) with a comparison to non-community schools in order to make the

sample size larger and increase external validity. Unfortunately, not many people are aware of

community schools, especially full-service community schools. With the present situation of

little empirical research available on community schools, it is important to raise efforts to

conduct research on community schools in order to further increase awareness, and influence

educational policy as well.

In addition to using academic grades as an outcome for community school evaluations,

personal growth, social development, improved health, and community improvements

(Dryfoos, 1998) should also be measured considering the multi-faceted approach of full-service

community schools in terms of the programs and services they provide to students and

families. Fortunately, many evaluations of community schools currently are using a variety of

assessments to identify the various outcomes of students’ development in the context of

community schools. Furthermore, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data in


33

community school research and evaluations can provide a depth of information to inform

future research, practice and policy.

Policy Implications

Adelman & Taylor (2000) discussed how to address the barriers to development, learning and

teaching in community-school partnerships with suggestions for school reform efforts and

policy. They stated:

Currently, most reforms are not generating the type of comprehensive, multifaceted

approach necessary to address the many overlapping barriers – including those factors

that make schools and communities unsafe and lead to substance abuse, teen

pregnancy, dropouts and so forth…developing such an approach requires more than

outreach to link with community resources (and certainly more than adopting a school-

linked services model), more than coordination of school-owned services, more than

coordination of school and community services, and more than Family Resource Centers

and Full-Service Schools. (Adelman & Taylor, 2000, p. 175).

Adelman & Taylor (2000) suggested that school reform efforts need to go beyond what is

advocated by full-service schools by handling barriers to development, learning, and teaching in

a comprehensive fashion. They promoted the extensive restructuring of community-school

operations, as well as ensuring that all efforts to combat the barriers to development, learning

and teaching, or the “Enabling Component” (Adelman & Taylor, 2000, p. 175) are fully

integrated within all frameworks of the school. With the current educational reform efforts

focused on increasing teacher quality and students’ standardized test scores, these points

Adelman & Taylor (2000) made are still highly relevant. They also suggested that schools share

resources in order to improve cost-effectiveness, which could also address the concerns of

current policymakers who are concerned with the United States’ current issue of the fiscal cliff

and governmental debt.

In addition to strengthening the structure and organization of school-based community services

in community schools, other policies are necessary to reduce the effects of poverty experienced


34

by students of community schools. Jozefowicz-Simbeni and Allen-Meares (2002) suggested that

policies are needed that increase parents’ income, education, job training, and employment.

Though many community schools have family and parent resource centers and employment

support services, it is up to economic and educational policies to address the low income and

low education levels of many parents in high-poverty neighborhoods.


35

Appendix 2. References

Abrams, L.S., & Gibbs, J.T. (2000). Planning for school change: School-community

collaboration in a full-service elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79-103.

Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Promoting mental health in schools in the midst of school

reform. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 171-178.

Balfanz, Robert, and Byrnes, Vaughan (2008). Meeting the Challenge of Combating the Chronic

Absenteeism: Impact of the NYC Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Chronic

Absenteeism and School Attendance and Its Implications for Other Cities

http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combati

ng_chronic_absenteeism.pdf

Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of community

schools. American Educator, 33(2), 22-47.

Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual

Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371-399.

Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of

Children, 7(2), 55-71.

Chang, N. Hedy, and Romero, Mariajose (2008). Present, Engaged, and Accounted For: The

Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades. National Center

For Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_837.pdf

Chang, N. Hedy, and Romero, Mariajose (2008). Present, Engaged, and Accounted For. The

Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades

Children’s Aid Society. (2012). www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools.

Coalition for Community Schools. (2009). Research brief. Retrieved from

http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combating_chronic_absenteeism.pdf

http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combating_chronic_absenteeism.pdf

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_837.pdf

http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools


36

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CCS%20Research%20Repor

t2009.pdf

Coalition for Community Schools. (2012). www.communityschools.org

Communities in Schools. (2009). Teacher support study. Retrieved from

http://www.communitiesinschools.org/media/uploads/attachments/The_Communities

_InSchools_Teacher_Support_Survey_1.pdf

Dryfoos, J.G. (1998). School-based health centers in the context of education reform. Journal of

School Health, 68(10), 404-408.

Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Retrieved from

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/evaluation%20of%20comm

unity%20schools_joy_dryfoos.pdf

Evans, G.W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77-

92. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77

Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D.M.H., & Allen-Meares, P. (2002). Poverty and schools: Intervention and

resource building through school-linked services. Children & Schools, 24(2), 123-136.

Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community

partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5),

987-1010.

McMahon, T.J., Ward, N.L., Pruett, M.K., Davidson, L., & Griffith, E.E.H. (2000). Building

full-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaboratives.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 65-92.

National Center for Community Schools. (2012). www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org

Quinn, J. (2005). The Children’s Aid Society community schools: A full-service partnership

model. New Directions for Youth Development, (107), 15-26.

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CCS%20Research%20Report2009.pdf

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CCS%20Research%20Report2009.pdf

http://www.communityschools.org/

http://www.communitiesinschools.org/media/uploads/attachments/The_Communities_InSchools_Teacher_Support_Survey_1.pdf

http://www.communitiesinschools.org/media/uploads/attachments/The_Communities_InSchools_Teacher_Support_Survey_1.pdf

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/evaluation%20of%20community%20schools_joy_dryfoos.pdf

http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/evaluation%20of%20community%20schools_joy_dryfoos.pdf

http://www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org/


37

Rosas, S., Case, J., & Tholstrup, L. (2009). A retrospective examination of the relationship

between implementation quality of the coordinated school health program model and

school-level academic indicators over time. Journal of School Health, 79(3), 108-115.

Walker, C.S., Kronick, R., & Diambra J.F. (2007). Assessment of a full-service school, after

hours tutoring and enrichment program. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(2), 21-27.

evaluation report - children's aid society

Documents