promise neighborhood comparative research

8/3/2019 Promise Neighborhood Comparative Research

1/75

Promise Neighborhood Initiative | 1

San Antonio EastsidePromise Neighborhood

InitiativeWorking toward building a stronger community and

improving educational outcomes

May 2011

Trinity University: Urban Education 4391:3

Jaclyn Bays, Sheila Castle, Erin Dunk, David Nikaido, Charlie Mitchell

Promise Neighborhood Planning grant funding provided through the U.S. Department of

Education, Fund for the Improvement of Education Award Number U215P100282 CFDA

84.215A


2/75


Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

INTRODUCTION.....6

METHODOLOGY....7

THEMATIC FINDINGS, ANALYSES, & IMPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS...8

SOCIAL CAPITAL...8

PARENT EDUCATION.......9

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION..10

AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMMING.....12

CRIME, SAFETY, & RECREATION SPACES....13

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT......15

CONCLUSION......17

REFERENCES.......19

APPENDICES: REVIEWS OF RELEVANT LITERATURE......21

Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes.21

Out-of-School Time..32

Behavioral Readiness42

Influence of Health & Access to Care on Academic Success...48

The Importance of Early Childhood Education.59


3/75


Executive Summary

The San Antonio Eastside Promise Neighborhood is a federally funded community

initiative intended to identify factors that affect academic success and to design a plan to create a

continuum of solutions to improve educational outcomes in schools throughout the area. As a

collaboration of several entities including the City of San Antonio, San Antonio Independent

School District, San Antonio Housing Authority, United Way of San Antonio, Trinity University,

and others, the Initiative is currently operating with funding provided by a one-year federal

planning grant. Our team worked under the direction of Dr. Christine Drennon, head of the

Urban Studies Department at Trinity University and research director of the Initiative. We

principally assisted with data collection, reviews of relevant literature, and data analyses. Our

team specifically focused on qualitative data, with the aim of better understanding the unique

strengths and needs of the Eastside community with respect to fostering an environment that will

prepare children well for success in school and in future endeavors.

Our data collection process consisted of conducting small focus groups with parents,

youth, and community members. These groups were discussion-based, led by facilitators, andaimed to address questions such as whether families needs can be met within the neighborhood,

and what challenges children face in successfully completing high school. Most groups were

conducted in English, with a few conducted in Spanish. Each group was tape recorded and notes

were taken of the discussions. The recordings were later transcribed and analyzed empirically to

determine overriding themes, both within and across groups. Extensive literature reviews

covering a variety of indicators related to academic outcomes were also conducted, and may be

found in the Appendices of this report.

Several important themes emerged from analyses of the focus groups, including: resident

mobility and relationships among neighbors, parent education opportunities, parent involvement,

after-school programming needs, early childhood education programs, and concerns regardingcrime, safety, and the availability of public recreation spaces. High mobility within the

community raises questions about the amount of social capital available within the Promise

Neighborhood, and how relationships that cultivate social capital may be increased and/or

improved. The topic of parent education pertains to the possibility that the area may need more

resources to help parents obtain GEDs, receive tutoring in specific areas, or acquire other

supports that will empower them to better assist their children with schoolwork. Parent


4/75


involvement was identified by several groups as crucial to academic success, which is a finding

widely supported by the literature, and yet difficult to improve through straightforward

interventions, given the key connection between parent involvement and parenting styles. A

deficiency in the availability and quality of after-school programs and mentoring also suggests

that additional resources or coordination may be needed in order to improve the productivity andsafety of after-school time for children in the Promise Neighborhood. Early childhood education

programs are available in the area, namely through Head Start and Early Head Start, but are

presently underutilized in light of the profound impact of developing cognitive and behavioral

skills early in life. Finally, participants repeatedly voiced concerns regarding crime, safety, and a

lack of recreational spaces, leading to the likelihood that residents do not feel that they can

engage in healthy physical activity in their neighborhood.

Although the challenges present in the Promise Neighborhood are varied and may require

significant resources to address, the community is also rich in existing assets. Without a doubt,

strong connections already exist within organizations such as neighborhood associations and

church communities. By extending these networks and coordinating the collective strengths ofthe area, the Eastside Promise Neighborhood is likely to fulfill its promise of enhancing

educational prospects for children in the community, and improving quality of life for all

residents.


5/75


Acknowledgments

The opportunity for our involvement with the research for the Eastside Promise

Neighborhood Initiative would not have been possible without the input and assistance of several

key individuals and organizations. The Promise Neighborhood staff and Advisory Board kept in

close contact with us throughout the semester and provided critical support. We are incredibly

grateful for the participation of the parents, students, and residents of the Eastside who attended

focus groups and community meetings regarding the relationship between the education systemand neighborhood. Without these individuals, our research could not have taken root in the

project and proved applicable. We also extend our sincere thanks to Rey Saldaa, who guided the

development of this report and helped us link together our experiences in this project with

education theory and current debates concerning the future of public education in our nation.

And finally, we would like to acknowledge Dr. Christine Drennon in the development of this

final project. She was the groups liaison, advisor, and leader in both the academic aspects and

the community relationships within the project and we absolutely could not have accomplished

this without her.


6/75


Introduction

The Promise Neighborhood Initiative (PNI) is combating neighborhood decline in San

Antonios Eastside a group of neighborhoods east of downtown, covering 2.25 square miles

and bound by I-37, I-35, Commerce Street and the AT&T Center Parkway. Currently the Eastside

has a predominant Hispanic population, but in the past the neighborhood was the traditional

African American base. The Eastside has been characterized by a number of negative social

problems, including teen pregnancy, high school dropouts, and poverty rates. PNI received a oneyear federal planning grant to address these and numerous other problems by integrating

disparate education and revitalization efforts and creating a transformedEastside Promise

Neighborhoodcharacterized by high quality small schools, engaged parent leaders and stable

housing.

Our research team was assembled, under the guidance of Dr. Christine Drennon of Trinity

University, to perform two major tasks: collect qualitative data for both a needs assessment and

an asset inventory of the Eastsides available resources, and research relevant literature

pertaining to five themes identified by the federal grant as Promise Neighborhood indicators. For

the first task we conducted 14 focus groups, made up of residential groups, either parents,

students, neighborhood associations, or other groups. We recorded the conversations and

transcribed them so that we could perform an objective qualitative analysis on the topics that

residents brought up.

The literature reviews were written for the purpose of informing the Promise

Neighborhood Advisory Board about the most recent indicators and best practices being used to

identify and combat areas of neighborhood decline. The five themes we investigated are the

following (these literature reviews can be found in the appendices):

Influence of community on academic outcomes

Influence of health and access to health care on academic success

Behavioral readiness in kindergarten students Early childhood education

Out-of-school time programming

After conducting the focus groups and researching relevant literature for Promise

Neighborhood indicators, our team identified five topics that were both concerns of the Eastside

residents and also appeared in the literature we reviewed. We drew from both sources to provide

PNI some recommendations for moving forward in these five areas:


7/75


Social Capital

Parent Education

Barriers to Engaging in Physical Activity

Parental Involvement

Early Childhood Education

Methodology

The Promise Neighborhood Initiative conducted a needs assessment, an asset inventory,

and a segmentation analysis of the Promise Neighborhood to determine the current state of the

community and discover what is working and what is not working in terms of educational

attainment. By gathering data from the schools and the surrounding neighborhood, the Initiative

aims to identify factors outside of the school system that may influence the educational success

and overall well-being of children living in and/or attending school in the PromiseNeighborhood. Using this data, the Promise Neighborhood Initiative will create a continuum of

community based, wrap-around solutions that will effectively create an educational pipeline

for Promise Neighborhood students.

Our particular project assisted the Promise Neighborhood Initiative by conducting

fourteen focus groups with community members (including parents, youth, neighborhood

associations, and public housing residents). Each focus group was led by a facilitator and a co-

facilitator. Each facilitator asked questions from a standardized outline. The questions were

specifically designed to elicit the various needs and strengths of the Promise Neighborhood.

Each focus group was tape recorded and transcribed. In addition to being tape recorded, notes

about the focus group were taken by at least one note-taker present at each group. At the

conclusion of each focus group, short surveys were given to the participants; these surveys asked

brief additional questions not asked in the focus group.

In addition to conducting focus groups, literature reviews were compiled on various

education related topics: factors influencing high school drop-out rates, early childhood

education, health and access to health care, community and neighborhood influences, and use of

out-of-school time.


8/75


Thematic Findings, Analysis, and Implications/Recommendations

1) Social Capital

A consistent concern among neighborhood residents was the high mobility level in the

neighborhood. They cited frequently moving neighbors as a detrimental to neighborhood quality.

Specifically, the residents pointed to highly mobile renters as problematic. The high mobility in

the neighborhood has prevented many people from forming strong trusting relationships with

their neighbors. While some groups within the neighborhood such as the Dignowity Hillneighborhood association and the residents of Harvard Place felt they had strong ties with their

neighbors, there were definite pockets of residential instability and distrust in the Promise

Neighborhood.

Relevant literature

The literature on social capital is extensive and varied. While the term was coined by

Jane Addams in The Death and Lifeof Great American Cities it was given importance by James

Coleman in 1988 in his article Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital and further

popularized by Robert Putnam in his 2000 bookBowling Alone. Both Coleman and Putnam

emphasize the importance of social capital (specifically, trust and trustworthiness) in creating a

high functioning community. Coleman makes the point that families, specifically parents, that

know each other are much more able to enforce social norms and the fulfillment of obligations.

Kristin Turney (2010) noted that residential stability (i.e. low mobility) is essential to the

formation of social capital. Turney found that neighborhoods with high stability had higher levels

of social capital regardless of socioeconomic status. As our complete literature review detailed,

mobility is associated with adverse educational outcomes (Rumberger, 1998). Conversely, low

mobility not only strengthens neighborhood ties and develops social capital, but improves

educational outcomes for youth.

Implications

A significant goal of the Promise Neighborhood grant was to determine what assets were

already in place. From our focus groups it seemed that the Dignowity Hill and Harvard

Place/Eastlawn neighborhood associations as well as the public housing resident council at the

Wheatley Courts, with their current levels of social capital, could serve as anchor institutions and

facilitators for the rest of the neighborhood.


9/75


Programs and events to encourage neighbors meeting each other, such as block parties,

could facilitate the creation of social capital. The focus groups for this project did this to some

extent, allowing disparate groups to connect and exchange ideas and contact information.

However, these events would have to bridge multiple social arenas to ensure new connections

were being created. In addition, these programs or events would have to be structured such thatthe connections made would transfer into other neighborhood contexts. HIS Bridgebuilders may

be the closest to this model currently, and, with the proper support, could grow to serve even

more people.

Several cities have created neighborhood resource hubs (sometimes called parent

places, family resource centers, literacy hubs etc.) that serve as a central location for neighbors to

gather (NLC, 2007). In this context parents are able to obtain information and services as well as

meet with other parents while their children play. The parent rooms at the schools (funded and

supported by Family Service Association as the Parent-Community-School Partnership

Program), in part, serve this function. However, they lack the resource aspect of the

neighborhood hubs and focus on parent engagement in the schools. The model of the parentroom could be built upon to create a neighborhood resource hub for all residents.

There would of course be hurdles to overcome in creating these resource hubs. Currently

the parent room are used primarily by the Spanish speaking population in the neighborhood. In

the focus groups the language barrier was cited not only as barrier between teachers and parents

but also between different parts of the community. The theory on which the parent programs are

built is inspiring; the networks that are forming, touching more and more parents every year, are

beginning to provide the safety net that families need so desperately. The lack of a safety net has

put tremendous pressure on our family structure -- pressure that materializes as domestic abuse,

child neglect, and broken families. These parent rooms focus on theparental relationships -- not

the children -- and in doing so, are building safer environments in which our children can grow.While the current parent room is a noble effort, the schools seem to be sending mixed messages

about the how much they truly value parental involvement. A more prominent location for the

parent rooms and perhaps a bilingual staffer could help to overcome these challenges. In

addition, if the parent rooms are to become a resource hub for the entire neighborhood rather

than just parents, they may need to move out of the schools and into the neighborhood.

The residents specifically mentioned highly mobile renters as problematic. Part of the

reason why the Dignowity Hill neighborhood association has such high social capital could be an

increased rate of home ownership among its members. In addition one of the positive aspects of

the neighborhood that was repeated on several occasions was its affordability. The combination

of these two factors suggests that helping current renters transition to homeowners could help to

lower the mobility rate and help improve relationships among neighbors. The city of San

Antonio has an IDA (individual development account) program that is designed to help lower

income individuals and families save for a down payment on a home. This program could be

further publicized and promoted in the Promise Neighborhood to encourage home ownership and

lower mobility rates.


10/75


2) Parent Education

Another consistent theme that emerged from the focus groups was parent education.

There was a consistent demand for GED programs and tutoring for parents. While there are a few

organizations that offer GED classes, parents cited the scheduling of the classes and the cost as a

serious impediment to attendance. Several parents expressed frustration over their inability tohelp their children with even elementary level homework. Enabling parents by providing

educational services would help parents help their children. Some parents even suggested

allowing parents to attend school with their children. The consistent sentiment in the focus

groups was that school should be for the entire family rather than for children alone. The current

limited provision of adult education services is separate from the school system and conflicts

with the residents desires to make education a family experience.

Relevant Literature

The literature is quite clear on the role of a parents education level in a childs

educational success. Multiple studies have found highly significant correlations between aparents educational attainment and the educational attainment of the student (Caldas, 1997;

Entwisle, 1995; Roscigno, 2006; Turney, 2010). Studies have also shown that low educational

attainment in parents can be mediated by the presence of other high status adults in the

neighborhood and in schools (Ainsworth, 2002). High status is defined as having higher

education or a managerial profession. High status adults in a neighborhood can serve as supports

for parents with lower educational attainment. In neighborhoods with a high proportion of high

status individuals, even if a students parent has low educational attainment, there will be

somebody the student can go to for academic help. Conversely, the impact of low parent

educational attainment on students is much higher in neighborhoods with a lower proportion of

high status individuals. There are simply fewer people to turn to for academic help.

Implications

The neighborhood currently has few programs oriented at adult education. The exception

is HIS BridgeBuilders which offers GED classes. This program could be expanded and further

publicized to reach more of the community. One concern voiced among residents of the

community was the prohibitive cost of many programs outside of the neighborhood. Heavily

subsidized or free adult education programs could be beneficial for this neighborhood. In

addition, St. Philips College borders the Promise Neighborhood, but few students there hail from

the Promise Neighborhood area.

Alternatively, bringing high status individuals into the neighborhood schools as tutors

and mentors could help to mediate the effects of neighborhood wide low parent educational

attainment. Communities in Schools is an active player in several other schools in San Antonio

and could be recruited to the neighborhood. In addition, San Antonio has access to a large

population of college students that could serve as tutors and mentors for the Promise

Neighborhood students. A program designed to facilitate the connection between neighborhood

schools and local colleges could help to create additional social ties as well as mediate low


11/75


parent educational attainment.

3) Early Childhood Education

Preschool and pre-k programs came up only a few times during the focus group

discussions. However, many other topics that were discussed indirectly relate to early childhoodeducation as well. The focus group at Bowden Elementary discussed early childhood education

as a way to get their kids on track for college. The Parent Facilitators focus group talked about

tutoring and mentoring opportunities for young kids. Both the Washington Elementary and

Harvard Place Neighborhood Association agreed that there should be consistent discipline at

home and at school. Most of the focus groups also mentioned school attrition, grade retention, or

motivation to continue school. Early childhood education can help address each of these issues.

As the relevant literature suggests experiences in the first 5 years of childhood strongly correlate

to behavior and cognitive skills later on in life.

Relevant LiteratureBefore a child is ready for kindergarten, there are certain skills they must develop before

the age of 5. These include language, emotional and social skills, behavioral self-control,

motivation to learn, enthusiasm, and curiosity (AECF, 2010). Building a strong skills foundation

will help with development further along the road. For example, children who are able to sit still

and follow directions will perform better in kindergarten than children who cant. Children who

can clearly communicate their needs and wants are able to ask for assistance on their classwork.

These are the kinds of skills that preschool education reinforces and that kindergarten classrooms

expect. Children from low-income households have a hard time developing these skills because

they arent as resource-rich as children from wealthy families. This difference in skill

development is known as the readiness gap, which refers to a childs ability to learn inkindergarten. Research suggests that one way to address this gap is through preschool education

programs at ages 3 and 4, or even earlier if possible.

Head Start and Early Head Start are two early childhood education programs that have

strong impacts on child development, including behavior, positive relationships with peers and

adults, and academic gains (Currie, 2001). These programs are federally funded and are required

to meet performance criteria found in the Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS).

Programs that have a mixed-approach setting (that is they have programs that meet parents at

their homes and also have classroom-type programs at a local center) and meet the HSPPS early

on in their implementation phase are the most effective (Love et al., 2005). Programs that are not

mixed-approach (either home-based or center-based) and do not meet the HSPPS are not nearly

as effective.

Early Head Start is for infants ages 0-3 and their mothers. A study that followed Early

Head Start graduates suggests the program has an overall impact on both child and parent

outcomes (Love et al., 2005). Performance in cognitive and language functioning increased and

aggressive behavior decreased in the child. Parents were more supportive, read to their child

more, and spanked them less. Head Start programs had positive impacts on children in the form


12/75


of reduced inattentiveness, fewer problems with structured learning, more positive peer and

teacher interactions, and cognitive improvements (Puma, 2010).

Studies that follow preschool graduates into adulthood show significant long-term

impacts (Currie, 2001). Preschool graduates are more likely to complete high school, receive

higher earnings, and be in better health. They are also less likely to repeat a grade, commitjuvenile crimes, or have teen pregnancies.

Implications

The literature suggests that the best way to help a child through school is to start them off

early. Motivation, discipline, language skills, and social skills can all be learned at a young age.

Parents in the Promise Neighborhood should enroll their children in available preschool

programs to reap these benefits before its too late. There are 4 early childhood education

programs in the neighborhood that we know of. Two of them are school-based pre-k programs,

one is a Head Start program, and the fourth is Early Head Start. Around 50% of the 3 and 4 year-old population already attend these schools, but that number should be much higher. Building

awareness in the community and reaching out to parents and encouraging them to enroll their

young children into preschool should be a major concern of the Promise Neighborhood team.

Funding for these programs is also an important issue. Community leaders should reach out to

the SAISD and the city of San Antonio to ensure enough resources will be provided for early

childhood centers to enroll 100% of the preschool-eligible population in the Promise

Neighborhood.

Another issue is ensuring that these 4 programs are of high-quality. Sub par programs do

not benefit children as much, and programs that are essentially day-care models have even less of

an effect (Love et al., 2005). The HSPPS assessment that measures program quality and childprogress is an important indicator of program success. Only two of the programs in the Promise

Neighborhood are Head Start, so they are required to follow these standards. The other two

programs should be introduced to a similar program assessment if they havent been already. By

following good, data-driven models these 4 programs currently have potential to affect 50% of

the student population. If enrollment in these programs increases, that number could be even

greater.

4) After-school Programming

One of the most prevalent concerns for the parents of the Eastside Promise Neighborhood

was the lack of mentoring and after school programs for their children. Many of the parents

expressed this need because they have no place for their children to stay while the parents are at

work during after-school hours. Other parents just wanted support for their students from trusted

adults who can advise them. This concern tied with the social capital section as well because the

parents suggested knowing very few, if any, responsible caregivers in the neighborhood. Because

of this, they must resort to leaving their children in the hands of siblings, family members, or

leaving them alone. The desire for after school programs also focused on providing the children


13/75


with a safe place to play with their friends, while also finding academic help. One woman in the

Washington Elementary School focus group even said that, in addition to these other needs, she

wanted her child to have more access to working technologies that were not present in the home,

so that he could learn about things he was interested in as well as finish his homework at

school. (Mother at Washington Focus Group)

Relevant Literature

The literature reveals very positive outcomes when students have access to out-of-school

programs that they can attend. These results include not only an aid in the development of

children on a personal and academic level, but also improve the lives of the children and parents

at home (Miller, OConnor, Sirignano, 1995). One study conducted on the effects of not having

these programs or other childcare options echoed the claims we heard in the focus groups.

Without the programs, parents of urban youth are more concerned about their childrens safety at

school, in the neighborhood, and in the home while they are absent as well as more tensedispositions while they are with their children. Children tend to isolate themselves, act out more

aggressively, and have more behavioral problems while in the school if they do not have care

after they end classes. Another study showed that when an enrichment program was implemented

during after-school hours in 24 Los Angeles middle schools, children enjoyed school more,

teachers reported consistently better behavior among the students, parents claimed that their

home lives were more pleasant, and school based crime dropped 40-60% among the 24 schools

(Neuman, 2010). The literature emphasizes that these results are consistent throughout various

studies and supports the notion that after-school programs for urban youth are crucial for

maximum success in school and personal development.

Implications

Based on our asset inventory of the Promise Neighborhood, we have found that various

after-school programs do already exist in the area, however, the parents and students are not

aware that they are available and many serve children who live outside the Promise

Neighborhood. This means that the programs could either be failing to reach out to the students

who clearly need them the most, are already full and unable to accept more children into their

program, or are not working closely enough with the schools to provide the convenience that the

parents and students need in order to fully participate. One of the most effective programs in the

country, Providence After School Alliance, shows that the most effective and beneficial way of

providing after-school care to children is by catering to the needs of students and parents while

also working extremely closely with the schools. This idea could be very helpful for the Promise

Neighborhood because the parents have clearly expressed a need for programs. If the program

could be consistent throughout all of the schools in the Promise Neighborhood and work with the

parents as well, this could increase parental involvement, address safety for students, and provide

academic services to the students as well.


14/75


5) Crime, Safety, & Insufficient Recreation Spaces:

Eight of the nine focus groups explicitly discussed the topics of crime, safety, and the

need for more parks and playgrounds. Participants at Bowden Elementary (in Spanish),

Wheatley Middle School, Washington Elementary, Pershing Elementary (in Spanish), and

Wheatley Courts Resident Council repeatedly mentioned that their neighborhoods either lackedplaces to exercise (specifically parks and playgrounds) or that they perceived such places in the

area as unsafe. The remaining groups spoke more generally about crime and safety issues in the

community, as well as the need to improve the overall quality of the physical environment.

Given the connections not only between physical activity and general health, but also among

activity and academic outcomes, it is crucial that these concerns are recognized and addressed.

Relevant Literature

Several recent literature reviews have confirmed a positive correlation among levels of

physical activity and academic performance in children (Chomitz et al., 2009; Strong, et al.,

2005; Trudeau & Shepard, 2008). Specifically, Trudeau and Shephard (2008) examinedrelationships among physical education, physical activity at school, school sports and measures

of academic performance via a systemic literature review. They concluded that adding time

during the school day for physical activity (PA) did not decrease academic performance, and may

have actually resulted in gains, due to a variety of factors such as psychosocial effects and

improved cognitive functioning. Conversely, removing PA time from the school day has shown

adverse effects on academic performance.

Strong and colleagues (2005) conducted an extensive review that covered research

focusing on the effects of physical activity (PA) on a variety of health and behavioral outcomes,

and then used this evidence to develop recommendations for daily PA in youth (6-18 years of

age). More than 850 articles were reviewed that focused on the relationships among PA andweight/obesity, adiposity, cardiovascular health, asthma, mental health, academic performance,

injuries, and musculoskeletal health/fitness. The review resulted in an evidence-based

recommendation of 60 or more minutes of moderate to vigorous daily PA for school-aged youth

that is appropriate, enjoyable, and diverse. Ideally, such physical activity should be structured

into the school day, or at least included in after-school programs, but this is not always the case,

especially as school districts negotiate difficult budgetary decisions. Thus, in order to ensure that

not only children, but also their parents and other community members, engage in adequate

amounts of PA, spaces and facilities for activity must be available and appealing.

In a review of thirty-three quantitative studies that assessed relationships among physical

activity patterns in children and aspects of the physical environment, Krahnstoever-Davison and

Lawson (2006) determined that several significant correlations exist. The strongest association

found in the research concerned childrens activity levels and the quality of components of

transport infrastructure (including sidewalks, controlled intersections, and general traffic

conditions). The authors also found that the existence of recreational infrastructure, such as

parks, playgrounds, and similar facilities were associated with increased levels of PA among

children. Finally, unfavorable local conditions, including actual levels of crime and the presence


15/75


of roaming street dogs, were significantly negatively correlated with PA levels in children.

Implications

The gravity of the issues mentioned at the focus groups regarding inadequate facilities for

public recreation is underscored by academic findings concerning the importance of physicalactivity and the impact of the physical environment on activity patterns. Clearly connected to the

previous section on social capital, it is evident that in order to meet this particular need of the

Promise Neighborhood we must consider a continuum of solutions. While the concerns cited by

the focus group members were generally focused on an overall lack of safety and physical

structures that would enable physical activity, it may be possible to improve this situation

through incremental measures. For example, Harlandale ISD has been partnering with the San

Antonio Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the Department of Community Initiatives,

to foster physical activity among children in the area and improve access to summer youth

programs (National League of Cities, 2010). In order to best meet the needs of families in the

Promise Neighborhood with respect to achieving physical activity, resources must be leveragedand a variety of solutions should be implemented in a holistic manner, taking account of the

social and physical complexity of the neighborhood.

6) Parental Involvement

The lack of parental involvement was a constant theme in the focus groups. Parents gave

two reasons as to why parents were not involved; language barriers and negative parent-teacher

relationships. The focus group for Spanish speaking parents cited language issues as a primary

barrier. The Spanish speaking parents indicated that language issues prevented them from

effectively helping their children with homework and prevented them from establishing good

parent-teacher relationships.Negative parent-teacher relationships were also mentioned as a potential deterrent to

parental involvement. Many parents cited negative experiences with administration and teachers.

One parent at Tynan disliked the fact that teachers dont engage parents enough:

There is a need for more communication with parents and teachers. Teachers

need to hold more parent teacher conferences. There should be about 4 (a year) or

maybe a conference every couple of months.- A parent at Tynan

Some parents indicated that administrators and teachers do not fully explain school or classroom

policies:

I got 2 progress reports [for my child], and I cant understand them [everyone

agrees]. I need to understand it; I need to know what the letters mean. What does

P, R, and S mean [on the progress report]? A parent at Tynan

I would change the registration process. Im a first time parent and I didnt know

anything about the registration process; I heard about the process through word of

mouth. The process was not explained [by the school].-a parent at Tynan

Negative teacher and parent interactions were directly cited:

[Lack of parental involvement] probably has something to do with the staff. You


16/75


always get a phone call, but its always negative. Its a lack of communication,

maybe [the teachers should] have positive message.-a parent at Wheatley Middle

School

Relevant literature

Overall, the literature agrees that parent involvement is a critical component in the

academic success of children. Even though the literature indicates parental involvement is

important for student achievement in general, very few studies have specifically looked at the

effect of parental involvement on urban childrens academic success. One meta-analysis of 52

studies that did address this issue found, not surprisingly, that the parental involvement of urban

children greatly affected their academic success. Because parental involvement is very difficult

to define, this meta-analysis used multiple indicators of parental involvement. The study found

that for urban children, subtle forms of parental involvement (parental expectations andparenting style) had a more profound impact on a childs academic success than more concrete

forms of parental involvement (attendance at school functions, household rules, etc.). The study

also found that parent engagement programs were effective in an urban context (Jeynes 2010)

Implications

Because parental involvement is such a crucial component of a childs academic success,

the promise neighborhood initiative will need to engage parents of failing students. But at least

one study has shown that parental expectations and parenting style are more important than

showing up to school functions. This finding will make addressing the lack of parental

engagement difficult. Parents may resist being told how to parent, or being told that they havelow expectations for their children. They may not heed the advice given because it is offensive.


17/75


Conclusion

The purpose of the Promise Neighborhood planning grant was to identify the not only the

needs in the neighborhood but also the current strengths. In an effort to create the most

comprehensive and most effect school system possible, the grant undertook to examine the issue

of education in a holistic manner asking the questions, What keeps our children from

succeeding in school?, How can we improve educational outcomes for our children? and

What do we need to do this?.

To answer these questions our research group conducted numerous focus groups with

parents and neighborhood residents to identify the needs of the community and also what assets

were already in place that could be built upon. In addition, our group conducted extensiveresearch on risk factors that affect school related outcomes as well as successful strategies, or

best practices, from other communities.

The literature reviews were created around five main themes: the effect of neighborhood

and community on educational outcomes, the effect of early childhood education on educational

outcomes, the effect of behavioral readiness on educational outcomes, the effect of health and

wellness on educational outcomes, and the effect of out-of-school time on educational outcomes.

These literature reviews can be found in their entirety in the appendices at the conclusion of this

paper.

The focus groups shed further light on how these issues manifested in the context of the

Eastside neighborhood. Participants expressed concerns about the mobility of residents and the

inability to create meaningful relationships with other residents (social capital); the level of

parental education and how that impacted their ability to help their children (parent education

and parental involvement); neighborhood characteristics such as crime and a lack of access to

recreational facilities that prevented physical activity, and a lack of access to early childhood

education.

Utilizing issues brought forward by focus groups as well information gleaned from the

literature reviews on risk factors and best practices for mediating these factors, we have

developed the following recommendations regarding programming and services. These

recommendations are purposefully diverse and designed to lay the groundwork for a continuumof solutions that will address the whole child and not just the academic life of the child.

1) Improve visibility of services and programs. Many residents were unaware of programs and

services currently offered and thus were not using them. Many of these programs also addressed

needs expressed by the residents such as adult education (Bridgebuilders), residential mobility

(COSAs IDA program), and after school programs (YAGA and others).


18/75


2) Increase communication among residents and educators. Improving communication between

the schools, teachers, and parents is crucial to creating positive connections between the schools

and the community. However, this communication may require new and innovative channels to

reach parents and residents as the current methods for disseminating information are not fullyeffective. Other cities have shown that reaching out to parents in non-traditional ways, such as

providing information at the places where they shop, eat, play, and work, is more effective than

simply using the school as the central point for all information.

3) Leverage current assets to encourage the development of social capital within the

neighborhood. The Wheatley Courts Residents Council and the Dignowity Hill and Ahrvard

Place/Eastlawn Neighborhood Associations could be prominent players in creating healthy

relationships among residents. Programs like Communities in Schools (CIS), Youth Against

Gang Activity (YAGA), and city-wide assets such as the large population of college students

could serve a similar purpose within the school system.

4) Bring in additional resources that the neighborhood currently lacks. Residents expressed a

need for additional early childhood education and our research found that there is indeed limited

access to these services within the neighborhood. In addition, residents expressed concerns over

the lack of healthcare and recreational facilities (such as parks, playgrounds, and tracks) in the

neighborhood.

The focus group participants were able to identify a host of problems that need to be

addressed in the neighborhood. However, they also talked at great length about the history of the

neighborhood and spoke with great affection on the positive role that the schools have played inthe community. The residents also expressed a deep attachment to the neighborhood to the extent

that despite all the problems they identified, they are generally unwilling to leave. This level of

commitment from residents to the community suggests that with support from the Promise

Neighborhood grant and the creation of an effective continuum of services, this neighborhood

can achieve great things.


19/75


References

Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood

Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2010.Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade

Matters. KIDS COUNT Special Report.

Caldas, Stephen J. and Carl Bankston III. 1997. Effect of School Population Socioeconomic

Status on Individual Academic Achievement. The Journal of Educational Research 90(5):

269-277.

Chomitz, Virginia, R., Meghan M. Slining, Robert J. McGowan, Suzanne E. Mitchell, Glen F.

Dawson, and Karen A. Hacker. 2009. Is there a relationship between physical fitness and

academic achievement? Positive results from public school children in the northeastern

U.S.Journal of School Health 79:30-36.

Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American

Journal of Sociology 94 (Supp.): S95-S120.

Currie, Janet. 2001. Early Childhood Education Programs.Journal of Economic Perspectives

15(2): 213-238.

Jeynes, William. 2010. "The Relationship Between Bible Literacy and Behavioral and Academic

Outcomes in Urban Areas: A Meta-Analysis." Education & Urban Society 42(5):522-544.

Krahnstoever-Davison, Kirsten and Catherine T Lawson. 2006. Do attributes in the physical

environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 3(19).

Love, John M., et al. 2005. The Effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-Year-Old Children and

Their Parents: Lessons for Policy and Programs.Developmental Psychology 41(6): 885-

901.

Miller, S., OConnor, Sirignano. 1995. Out-of-School Time: A Study of Children in Three Low-

Income Neighborhoods. Child Welfare 74(6).

Neuman, S. 2010. Empowered After School.Educational Leadership.67(7):30.

Puma, Michael, et al. 2010.Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.Putnam, Robert. 2000.Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting

Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.org

Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and the

Inequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145.

Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C.


20/75


Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents.

Center for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76.

Strong, William B., Robert M. Malina, Cameron J.R. Blimkie, Stephen R. Daniels, Rodney K.

Dishman R.K., Bernard Gutin, Albert C. Hergenroeder, (), and Francois Trudeau F. 2005.

Evidence basedcphysical activity for school-age youth.Journal of Pediatrics146(6):732-737.

Trudeau, Francois, and Roy J. Shephard. 2008. Physical education, school physical activity,

school sports and academic performance.International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition

and Physical Activity 5(10).

Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability,

and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers.Journal of Family Issues

31(4): 499-524.

Appendices: Reviews of Relevant Literature

The Influence of Neighborhood and Community on Educational Outcomes:

A Review

Introduction

It has long been known that there are multiple factors that influence educational outcomes for

youth. The easiest causes to spot have traditionally been student effort and teacher effectiveness

(Roscigno, 2006; Williams, 2002). However, recent research has pointed to much more systemic

causes of low educational achievement. Perhaps the most systemic cause is the influence of

community, neighborhood, and overall environment on educational achievement. Understandingat what level students are being affected; individual, family, or community (systemically)

determines how, when, and where interventions should be implemented as well as what

indicators should be measured to ensure effective interventions (Boyle, 2007). In order to

understand the interplay of factors that creates systemic community level risk factors a brief

review of the current research is warranted. This review will examine how the social and

physical characteristics of neighborhoods contribute to issues of family stability, child and youth

safety, and the influence of crime on educational outcomes.

There are two overarching categories of research that address neighborhoods and their

relationship to educational outcomes. The first addresses the social characteristics of

neighborhoods and the second addresses the physical characteristics of neighborhoods. It isimportant to note that many of the neighborhood factors that influence these outcomes are

interactive and cumulative in nature (Whipple, 2010). One characteristic of a neighborhood, such

as containing a predominance of single-parent families, may have only a small effect on

educational outcomes (Entwisle, 1995). However, the pervasiveness of multiple risk factors

across several dimensions of daily life creates an environment unlikely to generate positive

educational outcomes (Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007).
http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Strong+W.B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7101763671http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Malina+R.M.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7103385658http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Blimkie+C.J.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004547062http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Daniels+S.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=26326659800http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Gutin+B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7006470769http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Hergenroeder+A.C.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004698479http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Trudeau+F.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004008900http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-20544461668&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-20544461668&src=s&imp=t&sid=q-i4BtMxLQe_bDUg8WLxvpM%3A30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Malina+R.M.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7103385658http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Blimkie+C.J.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004547062http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Daniels+S.R.&origin=resultslist&authorId=26326659800http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Dishman+R.K.&origin=resultslist&authorId=8622492900http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Gutin+B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7006470769http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Hergenroeder+A.C.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004698479http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Trudeau+F.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7004008900http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-20544461668&origin=resultslist&sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-20544461668&src=s&imp=t&sid=q-i4BtMxLQe_bDUg8WLxvpM%3A30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0http://www.scopus.com/search/submit/author.url?author=Strong+W.B.&origin=resultslist&authorId=7101763671


21/75


While the cumulative effects of these risk factors are wide-ranging and overwhelmingly

negative, research has shown that there are ways of mediating these negative effects. In fact,

there are a wide-range of programs and interventions used by many cities that have been shown

to reduce the effects of neighborhood risk factors. These programs and interventions will be

explored in greater detail later in this review.

Social Characteristics of Neighborhoods

POVERTY

It is no secret that neighborhoods with high concentrations of poverty experience a

disproportionate number of adverse outcomes for residents (Ainsworth, 2002; Barnett, 2008;

Mowbray, 2007;Whipple, 2010; Wooley, 2007). These outcomes include high rates of teenage

pregnancy (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000), higher levels of health

problems including diabetes, asthma, and obesity (Dawson 1991, as cited in White, 2000),

delayed cognitive functioning and increased behavioral problems (Barnett, 2008), lower income

and employment levels (Ainsworth, 2002), greater daily exposure to violence and aggression(Lord, 2007), and most importantly for this review, lower educational attainment (Ainsworth,

2002, McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994 as cited in White, 2000; Duncan et al. 1998, as cited in

White, 2000; Whipple, 2010; Kent, 2009). Students living in high poverty areas are also more

likely to engage in delinquent behaviors such as skipping school, premarital intercourse, theft,

and gang involvement (Johnson, 2009; Kent, 2009).

Poverty creates an adverse educational environment through a deprivation of parental and

institutional resources (Roscigno, 2006). The majority of those in poverty are in fact working.

They are the working poor. Systemic circumstances including the location of jobs they qualify

for (usually far from where they live and with odd hours) (Cutler, 1997), the availability of

public transportation (usually does not fit the working poors travel patterns or schedules well),

and the need for childcare while they working severely limits the resources, namely time, that

they can provide to their children (Roscigno, 2006).

Time, more so than money, is perhaps the most important resource that parents can provide in

order to increase the educational achievement of their children. Parental involvement both in an

out of school has been shown to positively correlate with academic achievement and with the

likelihood of adverse outcomes for students (Oyserman, 2007; Wooley, 2007). However, given

the previously mentioned time constraints on the working poor, time is often a luxury they dont

have. In addition, these families do not have the financial resources to supply substitutes such

as formal daycare or educational support such as extra books, learning tools, or tutoring(Roscigno, 2006; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003). As a result many of these children are exposed to

environments that are not stimulating and do not contribute positively to academic achievement

(Entwisle, 1995; Vortruba-Drzal, 2003).

ADULTS IN YOUTHS LIVES

Research has also shown that the presence and involvement of caring adults and role models in


22/75


the community significantly contributes to a childs well-being and increases educational

achievement. Wooley states that children develop positive behavioral and social patterns on the

basis of their relationship with supportive adults those patterns affect all aspects of that childs

development, including school performance (2007). Conversely, a lack of supportive adults

either in the family, the neighborhood, or in the schools contributes to lower educationalachievement.

Single-parent families

Another significant factor contributing to high risk neighborhoods is a concentration of

single-parent families (Entwisle, 1995). Multiple studies have shown that students from single-

parent families are at a much higher risk for adverse educational outcomes (Bankston, 1998;

Entwisle, 1995; Rosigno, 2006). In addition, single-parent families are consistently more likely

to be in poverty creating multiple areas of risk for children of single-parent families

(McLanahan, 1989). It is important to note that the single-parent family of today is different from

the single parent family of 30 years ago. Thirty years ago the majority of single parents were

divorced, today the majority have never been married (Entwisle, 1995). This distinction isimportant because research has shown that while children of divorced families have a higher risk

of adverse educational outcomes, the risk is even higher for students that come from never

married families (Entwisle, 1995).

In addition, todays families, particularly low-income minority families, also experience a

much higher rate of parental incarceration (Wildeman, 2010). One study documented that even

among students with similar risk factors (low SES, single-parent) students with incarcerated

parents fared much worse on academic and behavioral measures (Neal, 2009; Wildeman, 2010).

The research even noted that the academic performance of the sample group may have been

elevated because the sample was drawn from a mentoring group comprised of self-selected

participants. Considering that the subjects of this research faired much worse and yet werebelieved to have performed better than a more random sample, incarceration of a parent seems to

have a significant effect on educational achievement.

Students from single parent families also experience a higher level of mobility

(McLanahan, 1989). Mobility is defined as non-promotional movement between schools

(Rumberger, 1998). Students that change schools often experience a serious disruption in their

social networks. This disruption cuts students social ties and creates the additional stress of

forming new social networks in a foreign environment (Ainsworth, 2002; McLanahan, 1989; Ou,

2008). Students that experience high levels of mobility are also more likely to drop out and less

likely to be engaged in school and to be reported as having behavioral problems (Engec 2006, as

cited in Boon, 2011; Ou, 2008).

Student mobility is also problematic because it not only increases the likelihood that a student

will experience adverse educational outcomes but it also creates difficulties in tracking students

across schools and districts (Rumberger, 1998). One study in California noted that students who

changed school mid-year often took several weeks to re-enroll in a new school (Rumberger,

1998). This transition period results in a significant amount of school time lost and these students

fall even further behind, creating additional risk factors. Mobility creates difficulties for any


23/75


student, however students in single-parent families are at an even greater risk because they move

much more frequently, twenty to thirty percent more than their two-parent counterparts

(McLanahan, 1989). Mobility quickly becomes a compounding factor for student already at risk.

Parent engagementParental engagement has been a consistent indicator of how well a student will perform inschool (Boyle, 2007; Wooley, 2007). It has also been shown to be a strong mediator of other risk

factors (Wooley, 2007). That is, a student with several risk factors will have a greater chance of

academic success if they have a caring supportive parent at home (Wooley, 2007). While

engaged parents are a boon to students, there are intervening variables that impact a parents

level of engagement.

Perhaps the largest constraint on parental involvement is time (Ainsworth, 2002).

Particularly in single-parent families the time requirements and stresses of providing the bare

necessities of food, clothing, and shelter demand so much of a parents time and energy that there

is not much room for constructive engagement with their children or the school ( Entwisle, 1995;

Levanthal, 2008). This lack of engagement affects not only students academic achievement butalso their behavior. One study found that students who have a high amount of self-care, usually

in the gap between when school is let out and their parents return from work, exhibit more

aggressive behaviors and are more likely to engage in violence (Lord, 2007). The demands on

single-parents and the working poor create a time dynamic not conducive to extensive

engagement or involvement in anything outside of the basics.

Another consistent indicator of how well a given student will do in school is their parents

education level (Roscigno, 2006). A parents education level largely determines how much they

will be able to help their child with homework and school projects. Students whose parents have

high levels of educational achievement benefit from their parents out-of-school help, mentoring,

and tutoring. Parents with low educational attainment are less able to help their kids with schoolwork. This was a frustration expressed at several of the Promise Neighborhood focus groups.

Parenting styles

There have also been several studies on the way that community and neighborhood can

influence parenting styles. One of the most important factors in determining the quality of a

neighborhood is the crime rate. However, crime rates are reported at the zip code level which

rarely, if ever, corresponds with the boundaries of what residents perceive as their neighborhood

(Ainsworth, 2002; Goldsmith, 2009). Because of this, most studies have used the perception of

crime by residents to determine the subjective quality of the neighborhood. These studies have

found that if a neighborhood is perceived as high crime, parents respond with more authoritarian

parenting (Ainsworth, 2002).

While these studies agree that perceived crime creates more authoritarian parenting

styles, they disagree about the relative benefit or harm of such parenting styles. Some have found

that authoritarian parenting styles lower self-esteem and self-reliance and prevent the

development of autonomy (Taylor, 2000). Others have found that authoritarian parenting serves


24/75


as a protective factor in otherwise chaotic environments. Still others have found that

authoritarian parenting is beneficial for some demographics but not for others (Dearing, 2005).

Whether or not authoritarian parenting is helpful, its clear that the perception of crime in a

community has an impact on youth.

Neighborhood support and social capital Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of a neighborhood to measure is social capital.

Social capital is defined in a variety of ways by different disciplines. However, they all

essentially boil down to positive relationships with the people in ones social circle, assuming

that this social circle is large enough to provide substantive support. For youth, it is positive

relationships with adults that are most impactful (Wilkenfeld, 2008). Youth with high amounts of

social capital have many strong relationships with the adults in their school, family, and

community. These positive relationships create a network of opportunities (Wilkenfeld, 2008) as

well as trust and norms of helpful, positive reciprocity (Putnam 2000; Wilkenfeld 2007). These

networks and norms of trust and helpful reciprocity create a social safety net for residents of a

given community. Coleman (1988) in his seminal exploration of social capital made anillustrative comparison of Detroit and Jerusalem. In Jerusalem, children wander and run free and

parents worry about them infrequently. The same cannot be said of Detroit. The unspoken

agreement of mutual and reciprocal care in Jerusalem is the essence of social capital.

The presence of high social capital creates a host of benefits. Students with high social

capital are more likely to form positive connections outside of their immediate network

(Wilkenfeld, 2008). They are also more engaged and have higher positive feelings about school.

These students become less likely to drop out and routinely have much higher levels of academic

achievement than students with low social capital (Wilkenfeld, 2007).

However, there are many community factors that can threaten the formation and

preservation of social capital. Previous research has shown that disadvantaged neighborhoodstend to be socially isolated (Wilson, 1987) and lack instrumental supports for those in the

community (Turney, 2010). Parents in disadvantaged communities also often receive less support

outside of immediate family (Turney, 2010; Valladores, 2009). What instrumental support

parents receive from family is often coupled with a lack of emotional support, particularly with

regards to parenting (McLanahan, 1989).

Mobility is also a significant deterrent to forming strong community connections.

Neighborhoods with a high level of residential turnover have a much harder time establishing

trust and forming relationships with their neighbors (Ainsworth, 2002). One significant finding

has been that residential stability is strongly associated with the formation of social capital

regardless of the socioeconomic status of the neighborhood (Turney, 2010). Simply put a

neighborhood of people that stay in one place for longer, form stronger more positive

relationships. Research has also shown that low educational attainment in a neighborhood often

coincides with a high percentage of rental units (i.e. a highly mobile population) in the

neighborhood (Boyle, 2007). The Promise Neighborhood focus groups also mentioned the high

level of residential instability as an impediment to forming lasting relationships with their

neighbors.


25/75


Clearly, the formation of strong positive relationships with adults in the community,

whether immediate family, through neighborhood institutions like schools, or simply the next

door neighbor has a strong positive effect on students academic performance.

Physical Characteristics of Neighborhoods

One of the most influential yet underestimated features of a neighborhood is the physical

environment. Indeed, the physical environment is what most people consider when subjectively

evaluating the quality of a neighborhood. The physical appearance and quality of housing stock,

prominent neighborhood buildings, schools, infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks, and

local amenities such as playgrounds and parks contribute to the perception of the quality of a

neighborhood. These features also contribute to educational attainment, though often through

indirect mechanisms. The second section of this review focuses on the impacts of the physical

environment on education.

NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER

Neighborhood disorder is defined by no singular aspect of a community. Rather it is the

cumulative effects of graffiti, boarded up and abandoned buildings, litter, deteriorated housing

stock, stray animals, unmaintained public areas, crumbling sidewalks, crime, drug activity,

residential crowding, poor infrastructure, and general neighborhood deterioration that contribute

to a sense of neighborhood disorder (Ceballo 2008; Whipple, 2010; Williams, 2002).

Perhaps the most well known theory surrounding neighborhood disorder is the broken

windows theory. First put forth by James Wilson and George Kelling (1982) the theory argues

that physical disorder in a neighborhood increases the likelihood of social disorder, specifically

crime. According to Wilson and Kelling, the presence of broken windows or other signs of

physical neglect provide a social signal that no one cares about the area, so the area becomes a

prime location for criminal mischief. It is on this sentiment that public disorder and crime begin

to rise.

A contending theory by Robert Sampson (1999) argues that physical disorder is a

symptom rather than a cause of social disorder. Instead, physical disorder demonstrates a lack of

community efficacy in maintaining public order. While there is disagreement on the causality of

neighborhood disorder, there is general agreement that it represents a problem.

Neighborhood disorder has been shown to be associated with lower GPAs, more suspensions ofstudents, and less intent on the students part to complete high school (Williams, 2002). Physical

and social disorder in neighborhoods has also been shown to translate into the school

environment, resulting in more aggression and violence at school (Limbos, 2008). When physical

risk is incorporated into the school environment, educational goals become a secondary concern

for students and teachers alike (Plank, 2011).

Neighborhood disorder also has a strong influence on parents. One study reported a low sense of


26/75


parental efficacy in low quality, high disorder neighborhoods (Ceballo, 2008). This result held

true even after other confounding variables were taken into account. Studies have also found that

neighborhood disorder in the form of a dilapidated housing stock and living with housing in

disrepair causes psychological stress for low-income women (Burdette, 2011; Durden 2007).

When one considers that parents, especially mothers, who experience depression and othermental health issues are less likely to be engaged with their children (Barnett, 2008; McLanahan,

1989) and parental engagement is linked to academic achievement, it is clear that the effects of

neighborhood disorder reach far beyond simple litter and graffiti eyesores.

The Good News

For all the risks that disadvantaged neighborhoods have, they also have strengths.

One researcher points out that not everyone from every disadvantaged neighborhood experiences

negative academic outcomes (Mowbray; 2007). Instead of being viewed as a fluke, this kind of

exception to the rule should be viewed as a product of resilient neighborhoods. The strengths in

these resilient neighborhoods should be identified and built upon. Another researcher points out

that the working poor are incredibly resourceful and creative in solving everyday challenges and

that this strength should be recognized (Wilson, 2008).

So far this review has focused on the risk factors of disadvantaged neighborhoods. Fortunately,

much of the research reviewed has also provided community characteristics that can help to

mediate these risk factors. One researcher found that high quality physical environments in

preschools can serve as a protective factor for children who experience social and economic

risks (Mashburn, 2008). High quality physical environments in preschools also served to

mediate the risks of early low academic achievement associated with poverty (Mashburn, 2008).

In addition, studies have shown that schools and school based programs do mediate many

of the effects of disadvantaged neighborhoods. One study that compared the difference in test

scores across season (summer vs. winter) found that gains in summer are positively correlated

with parent education level, but winter gains are negatively correlated, suggesting that school

does in fact mediate the effects of parents with low educational attainment (Entwisle, 1995). One

school based program that focused on creating school based possible selves in youth was

found to mediate the effects of low parental engagement. The intervention focused on creating

positive possible selves that used focused on academics and education as a way to achievepositive future outcomes (Oyersman, 2007).

One of the largest scale efforts at creating communities conducive to positive academic

outcomes was created by the National League of Cities called the Cities Supporting Parents

program. Six cities were selected to receive funding to establish programs and supports for

disadvantaged neighborhoods. Two of these cities were in Texas (Fort Worth and Bryan) and had

demographics and challenges similar to the Eastside Promise Neighborhood. While these six


27/75


cities had a variety of strategies to support parents they had a few notable strategies in common.

They all had civic leaders heavily invested in the projects. In one city, the mayor and city council

members did block walking in the target neighborhood to educate hard to reach residents on

available resources. Almost all cities also created spaces for parent to gather within the

neighborhood. These rooms had a variety of monikers (family room, parent resource center,literacy hub etc.) but they all served the same general purpose, to educate parents and to provide

a place for parents to meet with other parents.

These cities also brought information to the places where parents live, work, eat, shop,

play and worship. By setting up kiosks in malls near the childrens play ground and at key

intersections in the neighborhood and by putting information on literacy in restaurants the

residents frequent the cities were able to reach residents within their daily lives. Recognizing that

many residents rely on informal childcare networks such as family, friends, and neighbors, Forth

Worth started a program to train not only parents but the local childcare support network in child

development. This program also provided a way for these informal care givers to become

licensed and start their own business.Current Neighborhood Assets

The Eastside Promise Neighborhood currently has a variety of assets. Several

organizations offer a variety of parenting programs and classes. While there are many

organizations that offer parenting classes, there are relatively few that aim to improve the

parents education level. The Healy-Murphy Center offers educational programs but these are

targeted toward high school students.

As this review noted, an essential part of any high functioning community is social

capital. However, there seem to be no organizations dedicated to creating the connections and

relationships necessary for social capital to form. While social capital may be an accidental by-

product of many of this programs, it is not purposefully cultivated. Boyle believes this to be a

serious problem saying, Indeed, the absence of supportive social networks could undermine the

motivation of disadvantaged families to access and/or use resources even if they involved no

financial cost (2007). Wooley notes that these social networks are particularly important for

students: Although many environmental risk factors are intractable to social service agencies

and personnel, increasing the presence of supportive adult relationships in the lives of youths is

an attainable goal (2007).

While there are many programs that address issues related to the social structure of the

neighborhood (high poverty, lots of single parents etc.) there are no programs that address the

physical characteristics of the neighborhood. Neighborhood disorder (graffiti, litter, stray dogs)

and a deteriorating housing stock are issues that have yet to be tackled by any organization. The

Claude Black Center does list code compliance as one of its services. However, the website

offers no additional information on what that means. The need for maintenance of infrastructure

(streets, parks, sidewalks) and housing stock was an issue that came up in several of the focus

groups, yet it seems to be unaddressed.


28/75


Bibliography:

Ainsworth, James, W. 2002. Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood

Effects on Educational Achievement. Social Forces (81)1: 117-152.

Bankston, Carl L. III and Stephen J. Caldas. 1998. Family Structure, Schoolmates, and Racial

Inequalities in School Achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family 60(3): 715-723.Barnett, Melissa A. 2008. Economic Disadvantage in Complex Family Systems: Expansion of

Family Stress Models. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 11(3): 145-161.

Boon, Helen Joanna. 2011. School Moves, Coping, and Achievement: Models of Possible

Interactions. The Journal of Educational Research 104(1): 54-70.

Boyle, Michael H., Katholiki Georgiades, Yvonne Racine, and Cameron Mustard. 2007.

Neighborhood and Family Influences on Educational Attainment: Results from the Ontario

Child Health Study Follow-Up 2001. Child Development78(1): 168-189.

Burdette, A.M, T.D. Hill, and L. Hale. 2011. Household Disrepair and the Mental Health of

Low-Income Urban Women.Journal of Urban Health 88(1): 142-53.

Ceballo, Rosario and Noelle Hurd. 2008. Neighborhood Context, SES, and Parenting: Includinga Focus on Acculturation Among Latina Mothers.Applied Developmental Science 12(4): 176-

180.

Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American

Journal of Sociolgy 94 (Supp.): S95-S120.

Cutler, David M. and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. Are Ghettos Good or Bad? The Quarterly

Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-872.

Dearing, Eric. 2005. The Developmental Implications of Restrictive and Supportive Parenting

across Neighborhoods and Ethinicities: Exceptions are the rule.Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology 25(5): 555-575.

Durden, Emily D., Terrence D. Hill, and Ronald J. Angel. 2007. Social Demands, SocialSupports, and Psychological Distress Among Low-Income Women.Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships 24(3): 343-361.

Entwisle, Doris R. and Karl L. Alexander. 1995. A Parents Economic Shadow: Family

Structure versus Family Resources as Influences on Early School Achievement.Journal of

Marriage and Family 57(2): 399-409.

Goldsmith, Pat Rubio. 2009. Schools or Neighborhoods or Both? Race and Ethnic Segregation

and Educational Attainment. Social Forces 87(4): 1913-1941.

Johnson, Heidi. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Distressed

Neighborhoods.ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4.

Kent, Adam. 2009. Vulnerable Youth and the Transition to Adulthood: Youth from Low-Income

Families.ASPE Research Brief, US Dept. of Health and Human Services (July): 1-4.

Levanthal, Tama; Dafna E. Kohen, V. Susan Dahinten, and Cameron N. McIntosh. 2008.

Neighborhood Disadvantage: Pathways of Effects for Young Children. Child Development

79(1): 156-169.

Limbos, Mary Ann P., and Carri Casteel. 2008. Schools and Neighborhoods: Organization and

Environmental Factors Associated with Crime in Secondary Schools.Journal of School Health


29/75


78(10): 539-544.

Lord, Heather and Joseph L. Mahoney. 2007. Neighborhood Crime and Self-Care: Risks for

Aggression and Academic Performance.Developmental Psychology 43(6):1321-1333.

Mashburn, Andrew J. 2008. Quality of Social and Physical Environments in Preschools and

Childrens Development of Academic, Language, and Literacy Skills.Applied DevelopmentalScience 12(3): 113-127.

McLanahan, Sara and Karen Booth. 1989. Mother-Only Families: Problems, Prospects, and

Politics.Journal of Marriage and Family 51(3): 557-580.

Mowbray, Carol T., Michael E. Woolley, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, Larry M. Gant, Megan E.

Gilster, and Trina R. Williams Shanks. 2007. Neighborhood Research from a Spatially Oriented

Strengths Perspective.Journal of Community Psychology 35(5): 667-680.

Neal, Melissa F. 2009. Evaluating the School Performance of Elementary and Middle School

Children of Incarcerated Parents.East Tennessee State University. Pp 1-134

National League of Cities: Institute for Youth Education, and Families. 2007. Supporting

Parents: Promising City Efforts to Help Young Children Succeed. Pp 1-68. www.nlc.orgOu, Suh-Ru. 2005. Pathways of Long-Term Effects of an Early Intervention Program on

Educational Attainment: Findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study.Journal of Applied

Developmental Psychology 26(5): 578-611.

Oyserman, Daphna; Daniel Brickman, and Marjorie Rhodes. 2007. School Success, Possible

Selves, and Parent School Involvement.Family Relations 56(Dec): 479-489.

Plank, Stephen B., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Hollie Young. 2009. An Application of Broken-

Windows and Related Theories to the Study of Disorder, Fear, and Collective Efficacy in

Schools.American Journal of Education 115(2): 227-247.

Putnam, Robert. 2000.Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rosigno, Vincent T., Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Martha Crowley. 2006. Education and theInequalities of Place. Social Forces 84(4): 2121-2145.

Rumberger, Russell W., Katherine A. Larson, Gregory J. Palardy, Robert K. Ream, and Nina C.

Schleicher. 1998. The Hazards of Changing Schools for California Latino Residents. Center

for Latino Policy Research, Institute for the Study of Social Change (Oct): 1-76.

Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. Systematic Social Observation of

Public Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.American Journal of

Sociology 105(3): 603-51.

Taylor, Ronald D. 2000. An Examination o the Association of African American Mothers

Perception of Their Neighborhoods with Their Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment.Journal

of Black Psychology 26(3): 267-87.

Turney, Kristin and Kristen Harknett. 2010. Neighborhood Disadvantage, Residential Stability,

and Perceptions of Instrumental Support among New Mothers.Journal of Family Issues 31(4):

499-524.

Valladares, Sherylls and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2009. The Strengths of Poor Families. Child

Trends (May): 1-8.

Votruba-Drzal, Elizabeth. 2003. Income Changes and Cognitive Stimulation in Young


30/75


Childrens Home Learning Environments.Journal of Marriage and Family 65(May): 341-355.

Whipple, Sara Sepanski; Gary W. Evans, Rachel L. Barry, and Lorraine E. Maxwell. 2010. An

Ecological Perspective on Cumulative School and Neighborhood Risk Factors Related to

Achievement.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31(6): 422-427.

White, Lynn and Stacy J. Rogers. 2000. Economic Circumstances and Family Outcomes: AReview of the 1990s.Journal of Marriage and Family 62(4): 1035-1051.

Wildeman, Christopher and Bruce Western. 2010. Incarceration in Fragile Families. The

Future of Children 20(2): 157-177.

Wilkenfeld, Britt; Laura Lippman, and Kristin Anderson Moore. 2007. Neighborhood Support

Index. Child Trends (Sept): 1-3.

Wilkenfeld, Britt; Kristin Anderson Moore, and Laura Lippman. 2008. Neighborhood Support

and Childrens Connectedness. Child Trends (Feb): 1-3.

Williams, Trina R., Larry E. Davis, Julie Miller Cribbs, Jeanne Saunders, James Herbert

Williams. 2002. Friends, Family, and Neighborhood: Understanding Academic Outcomes of

African American Youth. Urban Education 37(3): 408-431

promise neighborhood comparative research

Documents