good life guidebook for impact measurement

THE GOOD LIFE

GuidebookFor Impact Measurement

THE GOOD LIFE

GuidebookFor Impact Measurement

v 1.0

research

Ravi HanumaraRobert Taunton

Seth Olsen

White PaPers

Ravi HanumaraRachel Goldman

Partners

Better TomorrowsProject Access

Life Steps

sPecial thanks

John O’DonnellCaleb Roope

Geoffery BrownSteve WhiteJon Webb

William HirschJim SilverwoodJohn Huskey Aaron MandelGary Downs

David ReznickSuzie Hsieh

Listed above are some of our most notable recent

accomplishments.

This information is compiled by

Center for the Greater Good430 East State Street

Eagle, ID 83616

See contact page for full disclaimer.

All rights reserved © 2012 Center for the Greater Good

intrODUctiOn

What began as the personal mission of the Center for the Greater Good’s founder, John Belluomini, is now a comprehensive tool aimed at reinvigorating communities by focusing on the people who live in them. John’s vision to create a stable living environment for the working class as a means to eradicate poverty is the driving force behind this guidebook.Reflecting on the positive interventions he received from teachers in school, John began his research on the cause and effects of what keeps communities in intense poverty and what helps create more stable middle-class environments. After over 3 years of research, we are now releasing this guidebook to share our findings and perpetuate a more holistic approach in community rehabilitation: focus on the people first.Our research has shown us two main things: the essential need for people-driven interventions and the importance of properly tracking and measuring the success of intervention programs. Here you will find our research summarized and our methodology for impact measurement outlined.In this guidebook

we have focused on 4 main areas found to limit one’s potential to achieving self-sufficiency: economic stability, education, health and social responsibility. With the help of LifeSTEPS, we have drilled down into each of these areas, identified interventions and found programs to help people reach positive outcomes. This is just the beginning. It is our collaborative partnerships and the knowledge they have shared with us that have enabled us to envision the future of sustainable financial and healthy community development practices. We understand the interconnected nature of the issues supporting poverty. We are here to collaborate and share resources so that we may all study, evolve and enhance what truly makes communities thrive; the people.

close-up on: the Good lifeceO anD FOUnDer, JOhn BellUOmini, takes the staGe

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Introduction | 5

contents.

Section 1OUtcOme

evalUatiOns criteria

P.8

ecOnOmic staBility

P.10

health & Wellness

P.28

sOcial OBliGatiOn

P.48

chilDhOOD eDUcatiOn

P.20

White PaPer-

Financial FreeDOm

P.16

White PaPer-

OBesityP.36

White PaPer- liFe

skillsP.18

White PaPer- air

QUalityP.44

Section 2cOre &

enhanceD services

P.54

Section 3White

PaPer-the cOntinUUm

FUnDP.78

enDP.94

hOUsinG tyPes chart

P.82

seniOr services

P.56

cycle OF assessment

P.86

Familyservices

P.66

White PaPer-

citizens FirstP.84

White PaPer-

cOmmUnityP.90

White PaPer-

OPen sPaceP.92

White PaPer-

OUtcOmesP.76

OUtcOme evalUatiOns criteria

The charts in this section describe the thought process behind Center for the Greater Good’s Outcome Evaluations Criteria. The first step toward measuring outcomes is to identify a broad problem. Broad problems (such as Economic Instability, Poor Education, or Deteriorating Health) typically have multiple causes and require a variety of interventions. Our process breaks each broad problem into sub-concerns and identifies a positive outcome for participants. Through research and strategic partnerships, Center for the Greater Good has identified one or more interventions for each sub-concern. We intend to use the identified interventions to communicate with social service providers the best methods for impacting residents in a meaningful and measurable fashion. Measurement indicators provide insight on the progress of interventions and feedback on how to move forward.

methODOlOGy

Our process behind developing our Outcomes Evaluations Criteria began with countless hours of research and numerous interviews with housing developers, social service providers, on-site resident coordinators and other field experts. We eventually identified four main concerns which act as barriers to ending transgenerational poverty. After identifying the concerns, we created an information matrix of sub-concerns cross-referenced with our database of articles; this allowed us to identify indicators which have been linked to the concerns.Through a year long collaboration with leading national and regional non-profit social service providers we have identified interventions to address each of the indicators we set out to study.

OUtcOmes evalUatiOns criteria

SECTIOn 1

OutcOme evaluatiOns

“real change can be

achieved!”-Christoph Gabler, Senior Vice President, AEGOn

9

Concerns associated with the

individual economic household

stability effect the community

including youth, adults and

seniors.


YOUR COMMUnITY’S

ecOnOmic staBilitY

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 11

Primary Concern: Economic Stability

sub concern: alleviating Poverty

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren The number of unemployed persons

increased 60% from 2008-2009. Less affluent households are more likely to have unmet needs, less stable employment, and less comprehensive medical coverage. Three quarters of all households with incomes below the poverty line spend over 50% of their incomes on rent, eliminating funds for fresh food, utilities, medical care or childcare. About 26% of renters spent more than half of their pre-tax incomes on rent and utilities in 2009.

Crisis prevention; partnering with local stores for employment; food banks; relocation counseling; referrals to agencies.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary Outcome

Families and individuals stabilized/successfully housed.

ü

üü

ü

sub concern: Barriers to home Ownership

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Low-income residents saddled with low

savings, poor credit and lacking the understanding of the pathway to home ownership.

Credit counseling; financial literacy and family savings courses; home ownership educational courses.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeIncreased income, improved credit scores, readiness for home purchase through increased savings and contributions to IRA’s.

üü

sub concern: limited mobility Options

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Low-income residents who rely on

public transportation lack access to jobs, educational opportunities and needed services, if transportation is not available or has limited service.

Van pools or vouchers for tickets on public transit.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeIncreased income and educational achievement.

ü

üü

ü


sub concern: Poor socioeconomic success

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Adult outcomes are far worse for poor

children than non-poverty children. The likelihood of not completing high school is three times greater. The likelihood of having a non-marital birth is 3 times greater. A third of poor children spend half their early adult years in poverty. Only a third of poor boys go on to have consistent employment in early adulthood.

Jobs skills and job readiness training; ESL courses; financial literacy and family savings courses; income supplements to further education; child care; partnerships with local businesses to hire graduates of computer training courses.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeRemoves barriers to continuing education. Improved job skills and job readiness. Increased employment and average wage and income. Improved English test scores. Child care allows single parents to be employed and gain education. Increased educational level correlates to higher standard of living, improved lifestyle and higher self-esteem.

üü

ü

sub concern: risk of homelessness

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Homelessness is a condition that erodes

a family’s sense of security, privacy, stability, control and emotional and physical health. Homelessness increased 3% from 2008-2009 and homeless families increased 4% (highest of all sub-populations). About one quarter to one third of homeless individuals have serious mental illness. Homeless children suffer from malnutrition, lead poisoning and other serious medical conditions. 30% of parents report chronic medical issues.

Emergency assistance; eviction prevention counseling; resident advocacy and counseling; temporary cash assistance; mediation services for tenants in housing; referrals to other support services; supportive housing; partner with local stores and agencies to provide provisions and employment.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeLower eviction rate and family stabilization. Reduced frequency of unwanted moves disrupting educational instruction and academic performance.

üü

üü

lack of shelter is one of the five elements that define poverty. The classification of ‘severe burden’ is

defined as spending over 50% of one’s income on shelter. A variety of factors contribute to the disproportionate cost of housing. Personal choice might be a component, but do public policies also need to be re-examined?

in 1937, the national Housing Act created the public housing program. It was designed to serve low-income

families. The Brooke Amendment to the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act established the rent threshold of 25

percent of family income. The threshold has been raised to 30 percent, which is the rent standard for most government housing programs today.

individuals on the lowest rungs of the income ladder suffer the most from high housing costs. Whereas most

Americans can plan for the unexpected, the future, and take vacations, those in poverty are often unable to enjoy a high quality of life after paying housing expenses. Because of this, households at the bottom rungs of income ladder are more likely to be severely housing cost-burdened. Michael Stone coined

the term “shelter poor” in the late 1980’s for households that cannot meet their needs for food, clothing, medical care and transportation at an adequate level after paying for housing.

Disproportionate housing costs mainly contribute to suppressing the success potential of low-

income individuals. The consequences to a high cost of living shows in the health, happiness, education level and relationships of the inflicted individual. Without adequate housing, children of low-income individuals are doomed to follow in their parents’ footsteps.

three quarters of all impoverished households spend over 50% of

their incomes on rent.

-national Alliance to End Homelessness


The national poverty rate is the highest it has been for the last 11 years.

-2010 US Census

WHITE PAPER REPORT

Financial FreedomMany low-income communities have social services provided on site. However, most of these services do not reach full effectiveness as they are often underfunded and lack real outcome measurements. These services are sustained mainly on periodic grants, which means services are typically the first thing to go when cash flow becomes tight. The Continuum Fund speaks to many of the problems that both service providers and non-profits encounter. The fund seeks to provide a social services budget of $80,000 per 100 units per year; funding one Community Coordinator full time per 100 Units. By including the funding for on-site services and Community Coordinators in our model we are able to supply reliable cash flow for the organizations we work with; allowing them to serve the community rather then search for grant funding.With reliable funding Community Coordinators are able to:

- Reach out and collaborate with other non-profits in the surrounding areas to bring in even more services.

- Partner with small businesses and entrepreneurs to provide job opportunities as well as financial education to residents.

- Leverage technology to incorporate resident and investor feedback. - Leverage technology to track and measure outcomes.

hOW OUr Financial mODel WOrks

Center for the Greater Good’s Continuum Fund supplies low cost capital to community development projects. A percentage of the interest paid back by the property, the fund pays for the social services. Because the on-site services and Coordinator are funded by the debt service and cash flow of the project, the consistency and effectiveness of the integrated social services is supported. Ultimately, this enables the Community Coordinator and service organizations to focus on creating impact rather than spending time and resources applying for grants.

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 17

WHITE PAPER REPORT

liFe SkillS and entrepreneurShipLife Skills and Entrepreneurship are key to breaking the cycle of poverty. In low-income community developments, it is not uncommon to find high levels of unemployment and low levels of education. Very essential skills from household maintenance to balancing one’s checkbook are often overlooked skill-sets. By fostering life skills, not only are residents able to take care of themselves, but also have a stable and healthy lifestyle for their whole families.Entrepreneurship is a key element in economic growth and a powerful force that can effectively help break the cycle of poverty. Through hands-on learning programs we can provide the necessary skills and training on how to create, run and prosper from running one’s own business. The tools for both personal and financial growth go hand-in-hand - benefiting the entire community.

liFe skills

The issues we all deal with in life are diverse, and so to are the skills we need to navigate through our path everyday. Life skills are a key component to an individual’s success in life; promoting a greater sense of competence, usefulness, power, and sense of belonging. Ranging from practical skills to communication, the broad scope of life skill programs offered is truly dependent on the specifics of each community. It is here that we support the essential elements true to everyone’s lives: decision making and values clarification.

entrePreneUrshiP

Center for Greater Good recognizes the research and policy work of the Kauffman Foundation on the subject of entrepreneurship. The foundation’s efforts to advance education, training and grants to support this subject are invaluable. Education prepares one to become an entrepreneur, and the economic system gives a person the opportunity to be one. Entrepreneurship not only breaks individuals out of the cycle of poverty, but also promotes job creation, and solves many economic and social services concerns. We support entrepreneurial opportunity and foster potential through education and training programs.



Educated children someday

grow into educated adults.

The strongest strategy for

poverty alleviation is to end

it before it begins; before it

becomes a cycle.

YOUR COMMUnITY’S

childhOOd educatiOn


Primary Concern: Education

sub concern: low educational attainment

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren A 1995 longitudinal study revealed that

poor children who did not attend after-school programs are six times more likely to drop out of high school, three times more likely to be suspended, twice as likely to be arrested by senior year, and are 75% more likely to have tried smoking or drugs by senior year. A 2011 study found that one in six students not reading proficiently in third grade dropped out; a rate four times that of proficient readers. 22% of children that lived in poverty do not graduate versus 6% that have never been poor.

Early childhood education; after-school programs and learning centers; computer training; resident scholarships; student employment in the community.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeReduced grade retention rate, improved rate of high school completion, better scholastic placement and more years of completed education or vocational training. Lower rates of suspension, juvenile arrest, and violent arrests. Improved physical and psychological health.

üü

ü

Low-income six times more

out of high

students are likely to drop school.

-national High School Center

23


sub concern: childhood mobility

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren The lower the family income, the

more likely the family is to move. This contributes to poor achievement, grade retention and dropout rates through disruption of academic performance. Mobile children must change teachers, curricula and friends; more likely to receive poor assessments and incomplete school records. Children suffer from anxiety and depression, making it difficult to keep friends.

Eviction prevention counseling; resident advocacy and counseling; temporary cash assistance; mediation services for tenants in housing court.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeHigh rate of eviction prevention; family stabilization. Reduced frequency of unwanted moves. Improved academic achievement. Improved physical and psychological health.

üü

sub concern: household Overcrowding

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Low-income children can be trapped

in noisy and over-crowded home environment not appropriate for academic performance.

Relocation counseling; financial literacy and family savings courses.Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeImproved study environment and academic performance.

üü

education is an integral component contributing to transgenerational poverty. To thouroughly examine

concerns of education and indicators of student success, one must consider the entirety of a student’s life; especially his or her home environment. Conditions such as over-crowded living conditions, lack of study space, chronic illnessess, or reduced parental support can affect whether or not a child is successful in school.

there is an undenyable correlation between poor housing conditions and less than average education.

For children who are raised in poor conditions, it is common to miss school due to housing related illnesses or drop out of high school all together; both of which will cause a student to achieve less throughout his or her lifespan than higher income counterparts will. The inevitable next step for impoverished children is to continue on the path of trans generational poverty in adulthood.

the U.S. Census Bureau reports on individuals who never achieve a high school diploma, saying on

average they make $18,734 annually; whereas a high school graduate would

make $9,000 more. In contrast, college graduates make an average salary of $51,206; which increases to $74,602 upon completion of a master’s degree.

in order to be a financially successful adult, proper education is crucial. In order to be successful in school

as a child, it is neccessary to have a stable home environment. Through strategic interventions early in life, low-income children will eventually become financially self-sufficient in adulthood; lessening their potential burden while increasing their positive influence to society.

children from low-income families are raised in environments that do

not promote their cognitive and social development

-Jane Waldfogel, Columbia University School of Social Work


“All children should have the basic nutrition they need to learn and grow and to pursue their dreams.”

-Michelle Obama


Mental and physical health

greatly affect one’s quality

of life. Simple interventions

can have a high impact on a

person’s health.

YOUR COMMUnITY’S

health & Wellness


Primary Concern: Health

sub concern: housing conditions

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Because of the great number of

hours spent inside the house, housing conditions are key factor in determining physical and mental health. Overcrowding, poor repair, or health hazards cause family stress. Children are most vulnerable because they cannot choose their living conditions. Low-income children are disproportionately disadvantaged by lead paint contamination.

Relocation counseling; household maintenance education.Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeImproved health, IQ and lifetime earnings.

ü

üü

sub concern: senior Physical and Psychological health

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Seniors particularly rely on a fragile

arrangement of paid and unpaid help to maintain independence. A 2006 AARP study indicated 36% of Section 202 residents over 62 years and 38% in LIHTC were frail or disabled. Many suffer from loneliness and depression, and lack treatment for chronic conditions.

Transportation to health services; medical house calls; cleaning service; home delivered meals & groceries; guardianship; senior center; adult day care; financial management and assistance.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeIncreased independence for seniors. Improved medication and health management. Reduced burden on family members for transportation to medical services. Reduced hospital and emergency services visits. Reduced social isolation improves psychological health. Improved fitness.

ü

ü

“Our neighborhoods are literally making us fat.”

-Susan H. Babey, PhD, Senior Research Scientist

31


sub concern: Personal safety

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Seniors living alone are at risk for injury

and death.“ I am OK” Committees (Red Cross seniors program); emergency preparedness.Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeSafety net of a tight community saves lives.

ü

sub concern: substance abuse

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Young persons affected by reduced

stability and safety are vulnerable to further victimization and negative behavioral choices.

After-school programs; learning centers; parenting classes; job skills training; youth employment in community.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeReduced drug use; improved academic performance.

üü

ü

sub concern: Disease prevalence

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Asthma prevalence in 2009 was 8.2% of

the population. Households with family incomes below the federal poverty level have higher asthma prevalence than those with higher incomes.

Relocation counseling and services; diabetes and obesity prevention programs; after-school programs.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeReduction in diabetes and obesity rates. Decrease in respiratory related diseases from better air ventilation and higher quality living environment.

ü

üü

ü

Due to the association between a lack of education, poor health, and decision making, individuals

in poverty are more likely to smoke compared to high income individuals. According to a 2008 Gallup survey, 34% of individuals in the $6,000-$12,000 income range are smokers. In contrast, only 22% of individuals who make $30,000 more are smokers; this number is consistent with the worldwide average. As income reaches $90,000 per year, the number of smokers drops to 13%.

low-income communities become particularly burdened by smoking and its effects. Cancer Research

UK reports that children whose parents smoke are three times more likely to become smokers than children who grow up in smoke-free homes. Due to increased exposure, they are also more burdened by the consequences of second hand smoke.

not only are low-income earners more likely to become smokers, but they are also less equipped

to deal with the effects of smoking due to lack of quality healthcare and less

expendable income for treatments.

By identifying and implementing effective interventions including health education, health clinics,

and healthy behaviors incentives, the degredation of health and eventual death of tobacco users in low-income communities can be avoided. The best ouotcome is to educate the children to prevent them from becoming smokers in the first place, but measures must also be taken to free current users of their addiction so they can live longer, healthier lives with less health expenses.

tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families

of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic

development.-World Health Organization


“the poorest among us suffer most because they lack quality health care and live in high-risk environments.”

-Susan H. Babey, PhD, senior research scientist at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research


sub concern: Wellness and Fitness

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren There are direct links between income level

and health. A child’s health decreases dramatically when their parents are uneducated. It has been shown that a child is six times more likely to suffer form poor health when his or her parents have not completed high school, compared to children of parents with at least one college degree.

Health fairs, resident activity programs; health insurance education.Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary Outcome

Increased access to health services and information. Seniors age in place.

ü

üü

ü

sub concern: nutrition and Food security

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Three fourths of all households with

incomes below the poverty line spend over 50% of their incomes on rent, eliminating funds for fresh food, utilities, medical care or childcare.

nutritional courses for school-age children; grocery delivery to seniors; on-site food banks; food co-ops.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeImproved health. Increased fresh food access and options, especially for seniors. Healthier fast foods choices more consumption of whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. Children more willing to try new foods.

ü

üü

WHITE PAPER REPORT

the coSt oF obeSity

It is no surprise that poor nutrition has become increasingly common in the United States; it is a fact that can be observed in the general population through obesity. What may come as a surprise is the true cost of obesity, the underlying causes and the alarming rate at which it affects low-income individuals when compared to their higher income counterparts. Weight-related medical costs are estimated to have reached $147 billion in 2008 (that’s 9.1 percent of all medical spending) and show no signs of subsiding. 1 Besides the obvious mobility disadvantage to being obese, it is known to cause a series of physical and psychological ailments including: diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, asthma, depression and anxiety. These are in addition to the social discrimination and the stigma one faces as an overweight or obese member of society.2

The effects of obesity are lethal, and together cause an estimated 300,000 deaths per year in the United States.3 According to the national Institute of Health, obesity and being overweight are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States.4 Low-income individuals face a hardship when dealing with health issues because of their general lack of access to quality health care, combined with a shortage of expendable income for medical expenditures and higher deductibles. To make matters worse, low-income individuals are at higher risk of becoming overweight or obese due to community infrastructure deficits such as the limited availability of fairly priced produce and safe outdoor parks. In a 2010 study of more than 6,000 adults, BMI and income were found to have an inverse relationship. Those with lower incomes were statistically more likely to have higher BMIs and vice versa.5 According to a 2007 national study of 40,000 children, children from lower income households had more than two times higher odds of being obese than children from higher income households.6 Rates of severe obesity were also 1.7 times higher among low-income children and adolescents nationwide.7 The mission for Center for the Greater Good is to eradicate poverty and create healthy communities through innovative financial investments and distinctive strategies for community enhancement. We have identified the following as contributing factors to the alarming poor health in low-income communities:

- Limited resources and lack of access to healthy and affordable foods. - Fewer opportunities for physical activity.

Instead of simply treating health conditions caused by poor nutrition, we are looking into the root of the problem. Improved nutrition leading to reduced obesity is just one of the many ways in which we are realizing our vision for healthy, stable communities in the United States.

POOr nUtritiOn in lOW-incOme cOmmUnities

Arguably, the main cause of disproportionate obesity in low-income communities in the United States is limited access to resources such as healthy, affordable foods. The lack of high quality community infrastructure in low-income areas, including full-service grocery stores and farmer’s markets8, fuel

1 “Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity « Food Research & Action Center.” Food Research & Action Center. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/what-are-the-consequences-of-adult-overweight-and-obesity/>.

2 Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Overweight and obesity: a major public health issue. Prevention Report 2001;16.4 Clinicalguidelinesontheidentification,evaluation,andtreatmentofoverweightandobesityinadults.Executivesummary. National Institutes of

Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, June 1998.5 “Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity « Food Research & Action Center.” Food Research & Action Center. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.

<http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/>.6 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity7 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity8 Beaulac, J., E. Kristjansson, and S. Cummins. 2009. A systematic review of food deserts, 1966–2007. Preventing Chronic Disease


this disparity. Residents are sometimes forced to shop for groceries in convenience stores and other small stores, which do not offer the wide variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products necessary to maintain a healthy diet.9 When healthy foods are offered, they are often higher cost and lower quality than similar items in larger stores.10 Due to the high cost and low quality of produce and dairy products at small grocery stores, households with limited resources are sometimes forced to rely on cheaper, more densely caloric, non-perishable low-nutrition foods (such as products containing processed sugar, refined grains and added fats) in order to minimize cost and maximize caloric density.11 A 2009 study examining neighborhood disparities in food access found that, “neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity.”12

Low-income neighborhoods not only lack affordable sources of quality nutritious foods, they commonly contain disproportionate amount of fast food restaurants (sometimes twice as many)13 which offer a low cost, convenient yet nutritionally void alternative to fresh, perishable foods. According to a study conducted by UCLA, when asked, “46 to 49 percent of low-income teens reported eating fast food on the previous day, compared with 37 percent of more affluent teens.”14 The scarcity of fresh, affordable, nutritious food makes it difficult for an individual with restricted income and limited transportation to maintain a healthy diet. Unfortunately, nutrition is only half the battle in the war on obesity.not only do low-income neighborhoods commonly lack community supporting retail such as full-scale grocery stores, studies also show residents have less opportunity for physical activity. In middle and upper class communities, it is easy to take for granted the presence of parks, trees, bike paths and quality recreational facilities because they are abundantly available. In both urban and rural low-income communities, green space is hard to come by and trees are few and far between. When a park does exist, it is often ill equipped for safe inhabitance by children and even adults. Crime, traffic, unsafe playground equipment, visual signs of trash and disrepair, and noise15 are just some of the factors driving individuals away from public parks. Such conditions make it difficult for them to lead active lives16, and in turn contribute to obesity.17 With parks in a state of disrepair and the absence of bike paths, people end up spending more time engaging in sedentary activities such as reading, watching TV, playing video games and using the computer.18 An excess of sedentary activities can be detrimental to the development of children and teens who should be growing, learning and exploring, socializing, developing new skills and establishing healthy habits before transitioning into adulthood. The same UCLA study also found that, “56 percent of low-income teens watch more than two hours of television per day, compared with 46 percent of more affluent teens.”19 Some might argue a sedentary after school lifestyle is not alarming for a teen, especially if he or she attends public school with mandated Physical Education classes; but schools in low-income communities have been reported to have less recess and lower-impact PE classes than other schools.20 In fact, of low-income teens surveyed, nearly one fifth of them admitted to not getting at 9 Beaulac , 200910 Andreyeva, Tatiana, Michael W. Long, and Kelly D. Brownell. “The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research

on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food.” Government,Politics,andLaw. American Journal of Public Health, Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <yaleruddcenter.org>.

11 Drewnowski A. Barratt-Fornell A. Do healthier diets cost more? Nutrition Today 2004:39:161-168.12 Larson, N.I., M.T. Story, and M.C. Nelson (2009). “Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S.,” American Journal

of Preventive Medicine, 36(1): 74-81.e10.13 Driscoll,Gwendolyn.“ObesityamongState’slow-incomeTeensNearlyTripleThatofMoreAffluentPeers/UCLANewsroom.”Home/UCLA

Newsroom. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/obesity-among-california-s-low-72532.aspx>.14 Driscoll, Gwendolyn15 Neckerman, K.M., M. Bader, M. Purciel, and P. Yousefzadeh (2009). “Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas,” National Poverty Center Working Paper,

www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/food-access/index.php16 Powell, Lisa M., Sandy Slater, and Frank J. Chaloupka. “The Relationship between Community Physical Activity Settings and Race, Ehtnicity and

Socioeconomic Status.” Evidence-BasedPreventativeMedicine I.2 (2004): 135-44. Open Mind Journals. Web.17 Singh, G. K., Siahpush, M., & Kogan, M. D. (2010). Rising social inequalities in US childhood obesity, 2003-2007. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(1), 40-

52.18 Singh, 201019 Driscoll, Gwendolyn20 Barros et al., 2009; UCLA Center to Eliminate Health Disparities, 2009.

38 | Reports |Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

least 60 minutes of physical activity per week, as recommended by the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans.21 Schools in low-income communities are often underfunded and do not offer the variety of after school sports opportunities as one would find at an affluent school. Barely one third of low-income teens were reported to be active participants in school sports teams, when almost half of affluent teens do participate.22 The combination of poor quality food and sedentary lifestyles is leading to an epidemic of obesity in low-income communities, causing children to become overweight and obese at an alarming rate. As the children become teenagers and later adults, they lack the tools and education to help their own children achieve a higher level of physical health.

PrOmOtinG nUtritiOn anD exercise FOr resiDentsCenter for the Greater Good has multiple strategies for battling obesity and promoting health in low-income communities. We offer low interest loans for community revitalization projects and we offer developer incentives for the creation of community support services and other improvements. One of our strategies is to invest in community infrastructure. The current tax credit system encourages the development of low-income housing in prime locations, walking distance to destinations such as grocery stores, transit, parks and gyms. Housing ends up being built in prime locations, often in middle to upper class communities, which is great for those areas and the residents of the building. The trouble is, the system does nothing to improve communities that do not already have the infrastructure in place. Center for the Greater Good invests in all kinds of community beneficial projects such as: providing low cost commercial rental facilities for small businesses, and incentives to bring grocery stores and other retailers to neighborhoods. After all, sometimes all it takes is one project to fuel the revitalization of an entire area. Instead of moving people to areas with better infrastructure already in place, we analyze market studies and resident input surverys to dictate what the current infrastructure is lacking; this way, we know the project we invest in is going to be successful. By bringing a neighborhood a grocery store, we are not only offering access to improved nutrition; we are also giving citizens the opportunity to be employed at the grocery store. This creates a cycle of benefits where the money invested directly impacts your community.For projects built in infrastructure rich areas, Center for the Greater Good could potentially offer bus passes to residents. Access to transit, in some cases, eliminates the need for a resident to own a car; saving time and money for the resident, and reducing the strain on roads due to wear, tear and traffic. Transit passes also allow residents to travel to grocery stores and recreation facilities if there aren’t any within walking distance, improving their chance to engage in healthy activities. Depending on the needs of individual communities, some housing projects contain a gym within their facility, offering residents the most convenient, safe and cost effective access to the physical activity everybody needs in order to live a healthy life.The most important solution to the issue of deteriorating health in low-income communities due to poor nutrition and lack of exercise is education. People cannot be expected to change their habits if they are unaware of the resources provided to them, the importance of exercise and nutrition, and how to use the gym and cook healthy, low cost meals. One of our main strategies for improved nutrition in our residents is the existence of a community garden. A community garden is an education tool disguised as a hobby. It can be tended to and enjoyed by residents of all ages, and the food grown can be used in community meals. Residents can take pride in their own ability to grow and cook healthy foods.

21 Driscoll, Gwendolyn22 Driscoll, Gwendolyn


eDUcatiOn anD access tO inFrastrUctUre are key tO BreakinG the cycle OF POOr nUtritiOn

The obesity epidemic in the United States is a growing concern in all communities, but low-income communities produce a disproportionate percentage of overweight and obese individuals. “Our neighborhoods are literally making us fat,” said Susan H. Babey, one of the authors of UCLA’s policy brief. “We need better strategies and more thoughtful urban planning if we are going to make our towns and cities livable, not just places where we live.”23 Fortunately, Center for the Greater Good offers an innovative financial model for community revitalization projects, bundled with community support services to ensure success.

23 Driscoll, Gwendolyn


BMI and income have

an inverse relationship.

- Food Research & Action Center

43

WHITE PAPER REPORT

reSident health, practiceS and materialityThe correlation between building materials and occupant health has become undeniable over the past twenty years. As time goes on, it is clear the lower income population in the United States bears the brunt of the damage. On average, Americans spend 90% of their time indoors.1 Besides the obvious health benefits of spending time outdoors (such as natural Vitamin D exposure, mood enhancement, and outdoor exercise), too much time inside can be dangerous if one occupies a space with poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, indoor levels of pollutants may be two to five times higher, and occasionally more than 100 times higher, than outdoor levels.2 Exposure to indoor air pollutants has been linked to life threatening diseases, the most common of which is asthma. One in five people have asthma. Every day, asthma in the United States causes: 40,000 people to miss school or work, 5,000 people to visit the emergency room, 1,000 people to be admitted to the hospital for an average of 3 days, and 11 people to die.3 The annual cost of asthma in the United States is estimated to be nearly $18 billion, $10 billion of which is the direct cost of hospitalization.4 With healthcare costs as high as they are, those who are truly burdened by this disease are the low-income population. According to a UCLA study, a low-income individual is twice as likely to visit the emergency department due to asthma when compared to higher-income individuals, and once there, they are six times as likely to be hospitalized.5 “The poorest among us suffer most because they lack quality health care and live in high-risk environments,” said Ying-Ying Meng, a Senior Research Scientist with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “That disparity also burdens our health system with costly emergency care and hospitalizations and extracts the additional high cost of millions of lost days of work and school.” Meng added, “Asthma has the potential to be debilitating, but it can be effectively controlled through appropriate medical care and avoidance of triggers.”6 The Center for the Greater Good is dedicated to solving the problem of poor health in communities, instead of simply treating the condition. We have spent countless hours alongside our developer partners identifying the best practices in community development building design, with the objective of reducing the effects of asthma and other health concerns caused by poor IAQ.

the air We Breathe is slOWly POisOninG Us

It is easy to identify the source of poor IAQ in buildings and to recognize how pollutants affect the residents’ overall quality of life; the difficult part is eliminating them. Sources of indoor air pollution may include: combustion sources; building materials and furnishings; household cleaning, maintenance, personal care, and hobby products; central heating and cooling systems and humidification devices; and outdoor sources such as radon, pesticides, and outdoor air pollution.7 The Center for Disease Control warns that indoor contaminants such as dust mites, molds, cockroaches, pet dander, secondhand smoke and some chemicals can trigger asthma attacks.8 Moving forward, there are strategies to improving IAQ that have the potential to decrease the

1 The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality. U.S. EPA/Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6609J) Cosponsored with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA 402-K-93-007.

2 The Inside Story3 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America - Information About Asthma, Allergies, Food Allergies and More! Web. 13 nov.

2011. <http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8>.4 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America5 Driscoll, Gwendolyn. “Asthma Disproportionately Affects Low-income Populations | UCLA Center for Health Policy

Research.” UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. UCLA, 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 13 nov. 2011. <http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=71>.

6 Asthma Disproportionately Affects Low-income Populations7 “Indoor Air Home | Air.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/>.8 Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality: United States, 2003-05, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/

hestats/ashtma03-05/asthma03-05.htm


burden of asthma and other preventable health concerns for communities; the greatest challenge is completing renovation and demolition of existing structures without releasing harmful chemicals and dust particles into the air and soil.

Best Practices in healthy BUilDinG DesiGn anD cOnstrUctiOn

The Center for the Greater Good works with foundations and investors to build communities in a financially innovative way with innovation extending to every aspect of the projects we fund. We strive for buildings that are designed with the resident’s health in mind. Our Best Practices in design are focused around passive methods for improved materiality, increased natural light and improved air circulation. The Center for the Greater Good encourages developers to invest in natural, durable building materials that do not off gas. Ideal building materials contain recycled content; come from natural, plentiful or renewable sources; have a resource-efficient manufacturing process; are locally available; are salvaged, refurbished or remanufactured; are recyclable or reusable; durable; are low or non toxic; output minimal chemical emissions; have a low VOC assembly; are moisture resistant; and are healthfully maintained. We encourage developers to design buildings with maximum indoor exposure to natural light as part of our commitment to further improve resident health and reduce energy costs associated with lighting. The benefits of natural light include: reduced energy consumption; reduction of mildew or mold buildup; natural vitamin D exposure; increased productivity experienced for occupants; and improved interior visual appeal.9 We also stress the importance of fresh air. Air circulation removes stale air and dissipates pollutants. Filtering mechanically circulated air cuts down on the distribution of mold, mildew, dust, allergens, pet dander, and other potentially dangerous particles. The Center for the Greater Good does more than strive to build better quality buildings. We also encourage the healthiest possible strategies of construction, maintenance and eventual demolition. Our developer partners work with only the highest quality construction firms to ensure two concepts on the job site: the proper installation and implementation of new building materials and strategies; and the best practices for building construction, renovation and demolition. Many approaches with the purpose of improving building efficiency and occupant health (such as the use of new materials and construction methods) require special installation. It is important that time and care be taken during the strategy implementation process to ensure the building functions as planned. The best practices for building construction, renovation and demolition must also be followed to preserve IAQ by reducing the release of contaminates into the air. Examples of practices include: the isolation of construction work areas from occupied areas through the use of appropriate containment barriers; the negative pressurization of construction work areas and/or the positive pressurization of occupied areas to prevent the migration of air contaminants; and maintenance of an adequate unoccupied buffer zone around the work areas to allow for construction or renovation traffic.

imPrOve the QUality OF the air, imPrOve the QUality OF the liFe

Asthma affects one out of five Americans, but it affects the low-income population at a far higher rate, partially due to hazardous living conditions. Society will benefit from a reduction in asthma among the low income population because it can recover some of the $18 Billion spent annually on asthma treatment. Individuals and society will also benefit financially by missing work less due to asthma symptoms. Children living an asthma free life will develop more active lifestyles and miss school less often. The Center for the Greater Good, alongside our developer partners and foundations, is investing in proactive solutions to poor health in communities. 9 “Natural Lighting Strategies and Benefits | One Green Planet.” One Green Planet | One Green Planet | One Green Planet Is

an Online Ecosystem That Draws Links between the World of Ecology, the Environment, Animals and Vegan Living. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/natural-lighting/>.


Households of lower income

have higher levels of stress

which is damaging to a child;

especially when paired with

criminal activity, neglect, or

substance abuse.

YOUR COMMUnITY’S

sOcial OBligatiOn


in low-income households where the head of the family is lacking the education and opportunity to make

a decent living to support his or her family, some resort to illegal activities to bring money into the household. Though the short term justification for criminal activity may keep a family off the streets, the long term effects for children growing up in an unstable household are almost immeasurable.

infants in homes with criminal activity, such as meth lab homes, are more likely to be severely neglected and

physically abused. The effects on a

child’s social behavior due to criminal activity in the home is the consequence most readily observable. According to the Office of Justice Programs, children growing up among the chaos of illegal activity exhibit disorderly behavior and experience delays in cognitive functioning, including “low self-esteem, a sense of shame, and poor social skills.”

Observing illegal activities in the home as a child and growing up in an unstable environment

can lead to undesirable teen behaviors. Consequences include “emotional and

mental health problems, delinquency, teen pregnancy, school absenteeism and failure, isolation, and poor peer relations.” Children from these homes are also more likely to follow in their parents’ footsteps, engaging in criminal activity themselves.

lower-income youths can be susceptible to illegal forms of

income, leading to grave effects on families.

-Children’s Environmental Learning and the Use, Design and Management of Schoolgrounds


Single parent households experience high stress due to lower income and lack of support.

- Child Welfare Information Gateway

52 | Section 1 | Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

Primary Concern: Social Responsibility

sub concern: crime

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Lower-income youths can be susceptible

to illegal forms of income generation, leading to potential incarceration, or death, with grave effects on families.

After-school programs; youth volunteer programs.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeYouths engaged in productive activities leading to reduced vandalism, violent crimes and drug use. Enhanced self-esteem.

ü

ü

sub concern: community Pride

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren High rates of resident mobility results in a

lowered sense of community commitment and attachments among residents, contributing to increased crime and drug use.

neighborhood Watch; Safe neighborhood Action Programs; neighborhood volunteer programs; youth volunteer programs.

Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeImproved community safety from increased social relationships and trust.

ü

üü

ü

sub concern: Domestic violence, child abuse/neglect

Primary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Children in low-income families are more

likely to be maltreated due to parental stress.

Family education and life skills training; child protective services referrals.Adults

Seniors

Community

Primary OutcomeReduction in number of victims.

üü

Children in low-income families, many times, are more likely to be maltreated.

-US Department of Health and Human Services

cOre & enhanceD services

The Outcomes Evaluations Criteria document from Section 1 identifies the issues we seek to solve by offering on-site services in the communities we are involved in. This section, the Core and Enhanced Programs, is more specific about available programs and the measurable indicators associated with each program. The listed programs are divided into two main categories and two sub-categories. The main categories are Family Housing and Senior Housing, because they are typically housed in separate locations and the residents have distinct needs. The sub-categories are Core Programs and Enhanced Programs. Core Programs are typical services which are already in place at many housing facilities. Enhanced services are innovative solutions which involve community interaction to solve the problem.

methODOlOGy

Our process for creating the Core and Enhanced Programs List included taking all the priority interventions and classifying them into the four categories previously listed. With the help of Project Access, LifeSTEPS, and Success Measures, we matched each intervention with every affected indicator and significant research data. The evaluation method we created is different than the methods already being implemented throughout the industry because it utilizes a variety of data collection methods and types. We not only record how many residents are receiving each service, but we also analyze resident surveys and factual data, such as death rate or change in GPA.

cOre & enhanceD PrOGrams

SECTIOn 2

cOre &enhancedservices

“We are a constantly

maturing species!“

-Terry Mollner, Chair, Trusteeship Institute, Inc.

55

PROGRAMS FOR

seniOrs

This section is a description

of our concerns, measurable

indicators, and interventions.

These strategies are to be

implemented at low-income

family housing facilities.



Concern: Education

core services

Intervention Indicators with Outcomes

Computer Training Computer skill level

number of residents achieving employment

Art Classes number of residents attending

Self-reported mental health improvement

Community Library Access to books

enhanced services


ESL Classes number of residents attending

number of residents completing

Improvement in communication skills


Concern: Health

core services


Referrals to Agencies number of residents referred

“I’m OK” Program number of volunteers checking on seniors

Health Classes Self-reported health improvement

Obesity rate

number of hospital visits

number of ER visits

Self-reported diet improvement

Growth Programs Self-reported improvement

Grocery Delivery number of residents receiving service

Insurance Education number of residents with health insurance

Household Education Cleanliness of residence

nutrition Classes number of residents attending


number of nutrition related health issues

Self-reported health improvement

Healthy Cooking Classes number of residents attending


Drug and Alcohol Awareness number of residents attending

Substance abuse rate

Fitness Classes number of residents regularly attending

Obesity rates


Community Gardens Self-reported diet improvement

Community pride

Household Maintenance number of residents receiving service

Percent of residences considered clean

Health Fairs number of residents attending


Health Clinic On-Site number of residents served


Transportation to Practitioners number of residents transported

Food Banks and Donations number of residents served

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Self-reported diet improvement

Counseling number of residents served

Self-reported improvement in stress reduction

enhanced services


Health Adult Day Care number of residents served

Self-reported physical and mental health

Who says you can’t change your stripes? 61


Concern: Economic Stability

core services


Crisis Management number of residents served

Resolution success rate

Eviction Prevention Eviction rate

Temporary Cash Assistance number of residents served

number of residents attending mandatory counseling

Percent repayment

Financial Literacy Classes number of residents attending

Default rates

Credit scores

Savings rate

Financial literacy

Entrepreneurship Programs number of residents completing

number of businesses started

number of businesses that are going concerns

Local Retail Partners number of partners

Home Ownership Courses number of residents attending & completing

number of residents that purchase homes

enhanced services


Linkages to Discounts number of residents served

number of partner businesses

Mediation Services number of residents served


Percent of cases successfully resolved

Supportive Housing number of residents served


number of ER visits

Guardianship Services number of residents served

Partnerships with Local Stores number of residents served

Van Pools/ Bus Vouchers number of residents served

Percent increase in access to education and employment

Translation and Interpretation number of residents served


Concern: Social Obligation

core services


Intergenerational Programs number of mentors

number of youth participating

Positive influence on youth

Vandalism

Substance abuse

Reading scores of students

Math scores of students

neighborhood Watch Vandalism

Crime rate

Special Events number of events

number of residents attending

Personal Safety number of residents attending preparedness workshops

number of emergency drills

PROGRAMS FOR

Families

This section is a description

of our concerns, measurable

indicators, and interventions.

These strategies are to be

implemented at low-income

family housing facilities.



Concern: Social Obligation

core services


Youth Volunteer Program number of youth participating

number of juvenile arrests

Vandalism

Substance abuse

Youth Employment number of youth employed

Mentoring Programs number of mentors

number of youth participating

Positive influence on youth

Vandalism

Substance abuse



Parenting Classes number of parents attending and completing

Self-reported improvement in family life

Child Protective Services Domestic abuse reports

neighborhood Watch Vandalism

Crime rate

Special Events number of events

number of residents attending

Personal Safety number of residents attending preparedness workshops

number of emergency drills


Concern: Education

core services


Early Childhood Education number of children attending


Percent of children prepared to begin elementary school

After-School Tutoring number of children/youth attending

Math scores

Reading scores

Report cards-GPA

Vandalism rate

Substance abuse


High school graduation rate

Grade retention rate

Computer Training Computer skill level


Unemployment rate

School Supplies number of children with supplies

Summer Enrichment Programs number of children/youth attending

Substance abuse

Vandalism rate


Community Library Access to books

Child Care Stress levels of single employed parents

Parent access to education and employment


Student Career Programs Percent admittance to community colleges and universities

High school graduation rate

Standardized test scores

GED Classes GEDs attained



enhanced services


ESL Classes number of residents attending

number of residents completing

Self-reported improvement in communication skills

Scholarships number of requests

number of residents served

Success rate to further education

49 percent of American babies born into poor families will be poor for at least half their childhoods.

-Urban Institute, 2010


Concern: Health

core services


Health Referrals number of residents referred

Health and Wellness Classes Self-reported health improvement

Obesity rate


number of ER visits


Youth Obesity Prevention Obesity rate

Diabetes rate

Health Insurance Education number of resident with health insurance

Household Maintenance Cleanliness of residence

nutritional Courses Self-reported diet improvement

number of nutrition related health issues

Healthy Cooking Classes number of residents attending


Drug and Alcohol Awareness number of residents attending

Substance abuse rate

Fitness Classes number of residents regularly attending

Obesity rates


Community Gardens Self-reported diet improvement

Community pride

Health Fairs number of residents attending



Transportation-Van Pools number of residents transported

Food Banks and Donations number of residents served

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Self-reported diet improvement

Counseling number of residents served

Self-reported improvement and stress reduction


Concern: Economic Stability

core services


Resident Advocacy number of residents served

Resolution Success Rate

Job Skills Training Unemployment rate


Income gains

Percent and age of trainees that find jobs

number of residents employed after 1 year

Job Fairs number of residents attending

Unemployment rate

Income gains

Eviction Prevention Eviction rate

Temporary Cash Assistance number of residents served

number of residents attending mandatory counseling

Percent repayment

Financial Literacy Classes number of residents attending

Default rates

Credit scores

Savings rate

Financial literacy

Entrepreneurship Courses number of residents completing

number of businesses started

number of businesses that are having concerns

Partners with Local Retailers number of partners


Home-Ownership Education number of residents attending and completing

number of residents that purchase homes

enhanced services


Linkages to Discounts number of residents served

number of partner businesses

Medication Services number of residents served


Partners with Local Retailers number of residents served


number of graduates employed after 1 year

Supportive Housing number of residents served


number of ER visits

Partnerships with Local Stores number of residents receiving products

Van Pools or Bus Vouchers number of residents served

Percent increase in access to education and employment

Interpretation Services number of residents served

WHITE PAPER REPORT

meaSurementS and outcomeSCenter for the Greater Good has done over a thousand hours of research into best practices and programs to develop a comprehensive set of outcomes under categories such as Health, Education, Economic Stability and Social Responsibility. Outcomes range from reducing eviction rates, increasing education levels, improving overall health to increasing a sense of community, green outcomes and encouraging entrepreneurship. Our approach ensures that measurements are based on outcomes rather than the typical approach of simply measuring impact by attendance at scheduled programming.In collaboration with seasoned social service providers, we have created a list of interventions for each desired outcome. Also, for each desired outcome, we have created a list of affected indicators to be measured. The interventions are categorized into two menus - Core Programs and Enhanced Programs.

trUe imPact

While we do track attendance, our measurements are designed to measure the effectiveness of the programs. Each of the outcomes are mapped with specific indicators to assess the true impact and effectiveness of the social services. For example, in the case of an after-school program, math scores, reading scores, report cards (GPA), vandalism rates, substance abuse rates, juvenile arrest rates, high school graduation rates, and grade retention rates are measured.

accOUntaBility

Based on the metrics, progress towards outcomes can be accurately assessed. In case a particular social service program does not show significant progress towards the desired outcomes, the program can be re-analyzed, reinforced with additional resources, or replaced by another more effective program. This keeps the providers accountable for ensuring the efficiency and efficacy of the programs they provide.

transParency

Measurements also serve the purpose of making the outcomes of any community completely transparent. Technology tools coupled with scientific data analysis will be used to provide regular progress reporting to foundations and investors.In addition to providing these reports, Center for the Greater Good will also make the process of creating the integrated social service plan, as well as the resulting measurements, publicly available so that the model can be replicated in other communities.


WHITE PAPER REPORT

the continuum Fund

aBOlishinG POverty thrOUGhOUt a liFetime

Many philanthropic ventures focus on a specific solution to a problem. However, when applied to the problem of poverty, this way of thinking is flawed. There is not a singular reason for poverty and therefore no singular solution. This is why Center for the Greater Good purposes addressing people’s needs throughout their life, from birth to old age; the entire continuum. Our goal is to supply people with the tools needed to live a life well above the poverty line and caters to the specific challenges unique to each individual.

hOUsinG

Supportive Housing – Extremely Low Income. The goal of this program is to assist the homeless. Getting into a safe and healthy environment is the first step towards breaking the binds of poverty. In addition to providing housing, supportive housing is closely tied to the services that help people work through substance abuse, addiction/alcoholism, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and other obstacles to living a successful life.Public Housing – Very Low Income. This program helps the individuals at the borderline of homelessness. People often turn to illegal and dangerous activities in order to survive, by providing public housing we are able to keep families moving up and out of poverty. With the burden of paying rent reduced, individuals are able to focus employment and obtaining the life skills necessary to break the binds of poverty.Section 8 Housing – Income Ranges. This program provides vouchers to low-income individuals or families so they can afford safe and decent housing in the private sector. This subsidized program requires participants to contribute no more than 30 percent of their income to housing expenses (rent and utilities). The participant is allowed to choose his or her own housing environment, as long as it is at or below the ‘market average’ as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).Senior Housing – Income Ranges. This category of housing is designed for seniors of many income levels, especially those living on a fixed income. Senior housing is commonly equipped with social services in the category of health and community involvement. Low-Income Student Housing – Low Income. The purpose of this program is to open the opportunity of higher education to people with a wider range of incomes and situations than the current market. Low-income families typically face a barrier to entry when seeking to obtain self sufficiency due to a lack of education; leading to limited career progression potential. Low-income student housing is designed to meet the needs of individuals with or without families who seek to further their education.Workforce Housing– Low Income. This program serves to bridge the gap between dependence and self sufficiency. Aimed at helping families and individuals with low cost housing when their incomes do not support the most basic of needs. Through this program, tenants are obligated to pay 30% of the given rent themselves. This ensures that families have a safe and healthy environment despite the fact that they could not afford it entirely on their own.Market Rate – Average or Above Average Income. This is the ultimate goal. By improving health, education, and income we strive to have every individual move into market rate housing. It is at this point that we see people living self sufficient lives supported by themselves.


health

Our goal is to maximize health throughout the entirety of each person’s life by focusing on the following areas:

- Prenatal Care - Mental Health - nutrition, Malnutrition, Asthma and Obesity - Cancer - End of Life Care/Funeral Services

eDUcatiOn

Poverty and poor education are a vicious circle. We encourage learning at every level by utilizing these programs:

- Early Childhood Education - GED Assistance - Job Training - College Prep - Income Development

It is a fact, that in order for families to be self sufficient and remain above the line of poverty, income has to increase. Our health and education programs heavily influence a person’s ability to earn income, but that does not guarantee employment. To combat this, we equip individuals with the specific tools to move up in the work force and provide opportunities for adequate employment. Examples of programs that focus on employment are:

- General Education - Degree/Certificate Assistance - Interview Skills/Career Skills - Job Preparation - networking Opportunities - Job Placement

There is no “one-size fits all” for eradicating poverty, but when housing, health, education, and income are addressed we will see improvements across the board. We aim to enable families and individuals to take more than a step away from poverty, we want them to keep moving and improving their lives until they are completely above the poverty line, which is why we choose to focus on the full continuum of factors related to poverty. Through the combination of all of our programs, we can help people throughout the entire process, and in time, we will see poverty in the United States destroyed.


Supportive Housing is a temporary solution to homelessness. Its purpose is to provide safety to high risk individuals and to help them find permanent housing. Services include encouraged sobriety and severe mental health interventions.

The purpose of Public Housing is to provide stability to individuals and families who are at risk of homelessness or were formerly homeless. Residents are reintroduced into society and interventions are used to inspire them to pursue financial self sufficiency.

Section 8 Housing vouchers allow recipients to receive assistance, keeping the freedom to choose their own housing. Freedom lets recipients focus on friends, family and increasing their income.

the cOntinUUm FUnDS

uP

PO

Rt

ivE

HO

uS

ing

Pu

bl

iC H

Ou

Sin

g

SE

Ct

iOn

8 H

Ou

Sin

g

extremely lOW incOme

Workforce Housing helps low wage employees live in the neighborhoods they work in, cutting commute time and cost, improving the quality of life for individuals and families. The time and money saved allows our the recipients to take full advantage of the interventions offered to them.

Low-Income Student Housing is designed to support children, families and individuals who wish to pursue higher education. Services focus on meeting students’ needs and increases the likelihood of completing school.

Low-Income Senior Housing is designed to allow seniors to age in place and live out their lives in a healthy and productive fashion.

Market Rate Housing is the goal for all residents housed by the Continuum Fund. Once they achieve financial self-sufficiency, residents are educated, happy, sober and involved in the community. Residents no longer need supportive services.


WO

Rk

fO

RC

E H

Ou

Sin

g

St

ud

En

t H

Ou

Sin

gS

En

iOR

HO

uS

ing

Ma

Rk

Et

Ra

tE

HO

uS

ing

aBOve averaGe incOme

WHITE PAPER REPORT

citizenS FirSt houSing

startinG On the GrOUnD

At Center for the Greater Good, our social service plans are based on the premise that each community has a unique set of needs. While there are many needs in common, we hold that the specific set of services appropriate for a particular community is unique. We build communities from the inside out, rather than from the outside in. A pre-packaged social services plan is not effective or wise. Creating an integrated social services plan based on the input from the community is far more effective at creating lasting change. Our process incorporates participation from residents, coordinators, and foundations in the creation of the integrated social services framework tailored to each community.

thOrOUGh neeDs assessment

The process starts with a thorough assessment of the neighborhood and residents by the community coordinator. The coordinator identifies the demographics of the residents, existing facilities available, and problems within the neighborhood.

inFOrmatiOn, eDUcatiOn anD resiDent FeeDBack

A community is only as strong as the residents who comprise it. We engage all members of the communities we work in through the use of surveys, tenant meetings and our outcomes evaluation software. Residents participant in the planing process of programs offered by working with the Community Coordinators in evaluating the area’s needs assessments and working together in creating proactive plans for success in their communities.

inPUt FrOm FOUnDatiOns

The Coordinator then considers all assessment information at hand, works with Center for the Greater Good and representatives from foundations to create the integrated social service plan specific to each community. Outcome evaluation tools developed by Center for the Greater Good are made available to the coordinator in order to ensure the effectiveness of the integrated social service plans, allow them to track indicators, set goals and support periodic progress reports towards goals to investors and other interested parties.

accOUntaBility OF services

Outcome indicators not only track progress towards goals, but also serve as feedback to the process. If the feedback shows that some goals will not be met, the program will be reanalyzed and measures will be taken to adjust the services offered. Some possible measures are providing more resources, changing one or more programs responsible for the driving indicators, or selecting a service provider to offer services more effectively.


startinG On the GrOUnD

Our social service plans are based on a framework where there is not a one-size-fits all set of services. Our services are developed individually for each community. Each community is unique, so the integrated social services offered should also be a unique combination based on the community’s needs.The chart on page 87 describes our unique method for social services delivery; it is how we insure constant effectiveness through Outcome Evauations Criteria. The steps are as follows:

- Step 1: Assess the Situation. Before prescribing a cure, it is important to diagnose the problem.

- Step 2: Non-profit and Resident Education. We educate the involved parties about the problem we diagnose, and solutions which have been effective in the past.

- Step 3: Non-profit and Resident Collaboration. As a team, we work with involved parties to help them identify the solution that is right for their particular community.

- Step 4: Coordinator Execution. The Coordinator creates a detailed assessment for each individual, provides access to the appropriate programs, removes barriers that might impede success and maintains contact with the Residents.

- Step 5: Tracking, Measuring and Evaluating. Using the methods described in Section 1, we track the success of the programs.

- Step 6: Report. We report our findings to all involved parties.

After the reports are published, we return to step 1 and re-assess the situation.

CGG InnOVATIOn In

sOcial services

the cOntinUUm FUnD

assess

evalUate

cOOr-cOlla-DinateBOrate

eDUcate

rePOrt

87

Together, we can make a

better future for the 46,200,000

impoverished Americans.

89

WHITE PAPER REPORT

community opportunityCommunity Coordinators play a vital role in bringing the community together and serve as the link between resources and residents. For residents to learn about and take full advantage of the provided resources, they require the assistance of a trusted and dedicated coordinator.

cOmmUnity cOOrDinatOrs

To ensure the effectiveness of each community, choosing the right community coordinator is important. The following criteria are minimum requirements for our Community Coordinators:

- Available for full time employment. - A minimum of 2 years of experience in community coordination. - Strong background in case management. - A history of empathy and passion to make a difference.

Permanent FUnDinG

Community Coordinators are funded permanently and predictably through cash flow generated by the project rather than relying on grants. This allows the Community Coordinator to focus on and serve the community’s residents.

BUDGet FOr OUtreach

Community Coordinators play a vital role in bringing all the community resources together and making it available for the residents to use to the fullest potential. In addition to their salary, funding for use by the Community Coordinator will be available through the Continuum Fund. The Community Coordinator will use the available funding to bring together the non-profits, small businesses and residents.

case manaGement anD inteGrateD services

Serving as the first point contact, the Community Coordinator is available to residents with any problem – simple or complex. They work with the resident to address their issue with an appropriate integrated solution.By collaborating with public agencies and non-profits, Community Coordinators accomplish far more than they would on their own. In addition to managing the administration of programs, the Coordinators also track and measure the progress and efficacy of programs. Using the Outcome Evaluations Criteria, they will be designing and revising programs in order to meet and exceed program goals.


WHITE PAPER REPORT

open SpaceCommunity development projects supported by the Center for the Greater Good’s The Continuum Fund undergo a rigorous due diligence to determine that they will achieve the goals and requirements for significant social impact. While the provision of social services is often treated as a check-the-box requirement or delivered as an underfunded set of interventions, Center for the Greater Good has established groundbreaking criteria and standards for environmental and social impact that create true change in the lives of the residents.

- Each community is evaluated from a physical and social perspective and is required to demonstrate the following minimum standards:

- Inclusion of a community facility meeting minimum space requirements and design features – 3,000 square feet per 100 units with a minimum size 2,500 square feet.

- Community buildings constructed using high quality building materials that do not off-gas;

- Indoor facilities that connect to outdoor community space in order to create an uninterrupted flow of community activities.

- Optimize the community physical and psychological benefits by having direct access to natural sunlight and fresh air.

- The facilities should be designed for maximum accessibility, beyond ADA standards, to foster a true sense of togetherness within the community – which includes members of all abilities and mobility levels.

- The facilities should be designed to house a variety of activities in the most space-efficient way possible through the use of flexible design.

Sufficient space for service providers also enables the facilities to act as an incubator, promoting collaboration and innovation. Open space coupled with healthy surroundings not only improves both the physical and mental health of residents, but also creates a strong sense of community. Thus, open space is indispensable in creating a healthy and happy community.


contactPhOne

208 859 7057

[email protected]

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

aDDress410 East State Street

Eagle, ID 83616

DisclaimerThis guidebook is provided for information purposes only. The Center for the Greater Good has released this research in order to promote a greater public understanding of the issues addressed by “CGG” in its ongoing assessment of poverty in the United States and its relation to best practices in the housing and social services industries. All the information in this guidebook is published in good faith and for general information purpose only. We do not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information in this guidebook is strictly at your own risk and Center for the Greater Good will not be liable for any losses and damages in connection with the use of our research. Although Center for the Greater Good has made every effort to ensure that the information in this guidebook was correct at press time, “CGG” does not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause.

Neither this guidebook, nor any opinion expressed herein, should be construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to acquire any securities or other investments mentioned herein. The company accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the use of this guidebook or its contents. This guidebook may be reproduced, distributed or printed by any recipient for any purpose.All rights reserved © 2012 Center for the Greater Good.

seniOr resiDent services

Port, Cynthia L., Sheryl Zimmerman, Christianna S. Williams, Debra Dobbs, John S. Preisser, and Sharon Wallace Williams. 2005. “Families Filling the Gap: Comparing Family Involvement for Assisted Living and nursing Home Residents With Dementia,” The Gerontologist 45 (1): 87–95.Toseland, Ronald, and Tamara Smith. 2001. Supporting Caregivers Through Education and Training. A technical assistance monograph prepared for the national Family Caregiver Support Program Initiative of the U.S. Administration on Aging.Knight, Bob G., Steven M. Lutzky, and Felice Macofsky-Urban. 1993. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Interventions for Caregiver Distress: Recommendations for Future Research,” The Gerontologist 33 (2): 240–248Pillemer, Karl, Jill Suitor, Charles R. Henderson, Rhoda Meador, Leslie Schultz, Julie Robison, and Carol Hegeman. 2003. “A Cooperative Communication Intervention for nursing Home Staff and Family Members of Residents,” The Gerontologist 43 (Special Issue II): 96–106.naylor, M. et al. (1999). Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders. Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 613-620.KRA Corporation. (1996). Evaluation of the Service Coordinator Program. Prepared for the Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.Collin Siu 2009 Impacts of nutrition and human services interventions on the health of elderly and disabled persons in public housingDavid Greenberg nandita Verma Keri-nicole Dillman Robert Chaskin FEBRUARY 2010. Creating a Platform for Sustained neighborhood Improvement InTERIM FInDInGS FROM CHICAGO’S nEW COMMUnITIES PROGRAMGitlin, Laura, Karen Reever, Marie P. Dennis, Esther Mathieu, and Walter W. Hauck. 2006. “Enhancing Quality of Life of Families Who Use Adult Day Services: Short- and Long-Term Effects of the Adult Day Services Plus Program,” The Gerontologist 46 (5): 630–639.

nUtritiOn

Family Living Programs Impact Report: nutrition Education Program Reaches Low-Income Families Across the StateThe Reinvestment Fund, 2008. The majority of supermarket jobs are part-time (84 percent of jobs analyzed in the study). The Reinvestment Fund. The Economic Impacts of Supermarkets on their Surrounding Communities, Philadelphia, PALavin, M. “Supermarket Access and Consumer Well-Being: The Case of Pathmark in Harlem.” International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 33, no.5 (2005): 388-398Pristin, T. “Harlem’s Pathmark Anchors a Commercial Revival on 125th Street,” The new York Times, november 13, 1999 Sarah Treuhaft, Allison Karpyn. PolicyLink, The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food and Why It Matters

sOUrces citeD anD cateGOrizeD

mOBility

United Ways Impact ReportCLC - Investing in Multifamily Excellence, NeighborworkSupporting national Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC neighborworksWood, Michelle, Jennifer Turnham, and Gregory Mills. 2008. Housing Affordability and Family Well-Being: Results from the Housing Voucher Evaluation. Housing Policy Debate 19(2).Preventing Homelessness and Promoting Housing Stability: A Comparative Analysis Donna Haig Friedman, Jennifer Raymond, Kimberly Puhala, Tatjana Meschede, Julia Tripp, Mandira Kala, June 2007Strategies for Preventing Homelessness U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research, Burt and Pearson 2005

JOB skills

RealInvestmentsRealResults.pdfYouthbuildKing County’s Job InitiativeConnection To Work Case StudyUnited Way Funded Workforce ProgramsRichmond BuildSupporting national Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC neighborworksOverall Strategy Youth, Reentry, Green JobsThe Bayfair Employment Training Academy (BETA) program

aFter schOOl PrOGrams

James,W. & Wabaunsee, R. (1995). At-risk students: Drug prevention through afterschool/latchkey programs?, Drugs: Education, Prevention, Policy (Vol. 2, pp. 65-75).Jones, M. B. & Offord, D. R. (1989). Reduction of antisocial behavior in poor children by nonschool skill development, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Vol. 30, pp. 737- 750).Schinke, S. P., Cole, K. C. & Poulin, S. R. (1998). Research report:Thirty month data and process findings: Evaluation on educational enhancement program of Boys and Girls Clubs of America (pp. 1-31).Schinke, S. P., Orlandi, M.A. & Cole, K. C. (1992). Boys and girls clubs in public housing developments: Prevention services for youth at risk, Journal of Community Psychology (OSAP Special Issue, pp. 118-128)Warren, C., Feist, M. & nevarez, n. (2002). A Place to Grow: Evaluation of the new York City Beacons. new York City:Academy for Educational Development.Richardson, J. L., Radzisewska, B., Dent, C.W. & Flay, B. R. (1993). Relationship between afterschool care of adolescents and substance use, risk taking, depressed mood, and academic achievement, Pediatrics (Vol. 92, pp. 32-38).Riley, D., Steinberg, J.,Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing Problem Behaviors and Raising Academic Performance in the nation’s Youth. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 97

Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D.,Williams, J., & Smith, J. (1999). 1998-99 School Year Program Evaluation: Urban School Initiative School Age Child Care Expansion. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.Cardenas, J.A. (1992).The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students, Texas Researcher (Vol. 3, pp. 111-130).Campbell, P. B., Storo, J. & Acerbo, K. (1995). Math, Science, Sports, and Empowerment: Girls Incorporated Replication and Expansion of the Eureka! Model, Executive Summary. Groton, MA: Campbell-Kibler Associates.Fleming-McCormick,T. & Tushnet, n. (1996). 4-H After School Activity Program. Los Angeles: Southwest and West Regional Education Laboratory.Heath, S. B. & Soep, E. (1998).Youth development and the arts in non-school hours, Grantmakers in the Arts newsletter (Vol. 9, pp. 9-17).Baker, E. L. & Gribbons, B. (1998). Evaluating the Long-term Impact of After School Programs: Applying new Methodologies to Assess the Effects of LA’s BEST on Student Performance. Los Angeles: University of California.Kahne, J., nagaoka,A., O’Brien, J., Quinn,T., & Thandiede, K. (1999). School and after-school programs as contexts for youth development. In M. C.Wang & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Improving Results for Children and Families: Linking Collaborative Services With School Reform Efforts. Oakland, CA: Mills College.Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care:Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development (Vol. 65, pp. 440-456).Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1999).After-school activities and the development of lowincome urban children: A longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 868-879).Riley, D., Steinberg, J.,Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing Problem Behaviors and Raising Academic Performance in the nation’s Youth. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.Marshall, N., Coll, C. G., Marx, F., McCartney, K., Keefe, N., & Ruh, J. (1997). After-school time and children’s behavioral adjustment, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (Vol. 43, pp. 497-514).Pierce, K. M., Hamm, J.V. & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children’s adjustment in first-grade classrooms, Child Development (Vol. 70, pp. 756- 767).Rodriguez, E., Hirschl,T. A., Mead, J. P., & Groggin, S. E. (1999). Understanding the Difference 4-H Clubs Make in the Lives of new York Youth: How 4-H Contributes to Positive Youth Development. Ithaca, nY: Cornell University.Vandell, D. L. & Pierce, K. M. (1999, April 14). Can After-school Programs Benefit Children Who Live in High-crime Neighborhoods? Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,Albuquerque, nM.Vandell, D. L. & Pierce, K. M. (1997). Safe Haven Program Evaluation (1995-96). Madison,WI: Madison Metropolitan School District.Carlisi,A. M. (1996). The 3:00 Project Program Evaluation. Decatur, GA: Georgia School-Age Care Association.Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). A Decade of Results:The Impact of the LA’s Best After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.U.S. Department of Education. (2003). When Schools Stay Open Late:The national Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.Washington, DC: author.Brooks, P. E. (1995). Longitudinal Study of LA’s BEST After School Education and Enrichment Program, 1992-1994. Los Angeles.

98 | Sources Cited | Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

Huang, D. (2001). An after-school evaluation system for middle and high school programs,national Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (Vol. 85, pp. 45-61).Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster,W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Vol. 8, pp. 423-459).Schlegel, C. (2003). Citizen Schools: Evaluation summary. In B. M. Miller (Ed.). Boston, MA.Schwager, M., Garcia, E., Sifuentes, M., & Tushnet, n. (1997). Evaluation of the Los Angeles STARS program. Los Angeles, CA:WestEd.Baker, D. & Witt, P.A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school recreation programs, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (Vol. 14, pp. 23-44).Hamilton, L. S. & Klein, S. P. (1998). Achievement test score gains among participants in the Foundations School Age Enrichment Program (pp. 1-16). Unpublished manuscript.Hamilton, L. S., Le,V. & Klein, S. P. (1999). Foundations School-Age Enrichment Program: Evaluation of Student Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.Supporting national Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC neighborworksIntegrating Community Technology and Community Building: Early Results from the Camfield Estates-MIT Creating Community Connections Project

Pre schOOl

Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 19. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, number EightLongitudinal Results of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by D.P. Weikart, D.J Deloria, S.A. Lawser, & R. WiegerinkHome Teaching with Mothers & Infants: The Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infact Education Project – An Experiment by D.Z. Lambie, J.T. Bond, & D.P.WeikartThe Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade by D.P. Weikart, J.T. Bond, & J.T. McneilThe Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum Demonstration Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results by D.P. Weikart, A.S. Epstein, L.J.Scheinhart, &J.T. Bond An Economic Analysis of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by C.U. Weber, P.W. Foster, & D.P. WeikartThe Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infant Education Project: Longitudinal Follow-up by A.S. Epstein & D.P. WeikartYoung Children Grow up: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 15 by L.J. Scheinhart & D.P. WeikartChanged Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19 by J.R. Berrueta-Clement, L.J. Scheinhart, W.S. Barnett, A.S. Epstein, & D.P.WeikartEffects of a School-Based, Early Childhood, Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being. A 19-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Families Arthur J. Reynolds, PhD; Judy A. Temple, PhD; Suh-Ruu Ou, PhD; Dylan L. Robertson, PhD; Joshua P. Mersky, PhD; James W. Topitzes, PhD; Michael D. niles, PhDLong-term Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest A 15-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public Schools Arthur J. Reynolds, PhD Judy A. Temple, PhD Dylan L. Robertson Emily A. Mann, MSSW EARLY EDUCATIOnAL

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 99 www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 99

good life guidebook for impact measurement

Documents