strong field framework

8/8/2019 Strong Field Framework

1/16

F O C U S A Regional Nonproft Sector Report

June 200 9

F O C U S A Field Assessment Guide

The StrongField FrameworkA Guide and Toolkit or Fundersand Nonprofts Committed toLarge-Scale Impact


2/16p a g e 1 | T h e j a m e s i r v i n e o u n d a T i o n

o c u s T h e s T r o n g i e l d r a m e w o r k

itt 2

wy B i itt l c 3

T st 4

Shared Identity

Standards o Practice

Knowledge Base

Leadership and Grassroots Support

Funding and Supporting Policy

Tt a pt g t at 6

1. Getting Started: Dening the Field

2. Planning the Work: Crating a Research Agenda

3. Gathering Results: Assessing the Field

4. Analyzing Results: Formulate Recommendations

c sty: T j i t mt pty at 12

ContentsContents




Introduction

h y b tt y t t.dtt tt - tt t y

. e tt t y t .

Our nations leading oundations and nonprots are committed to achieving compelling and

ar-reaching goals like those above. Many o them, however, have come to believe that their bold

aspirations cannot be realized without a critical mass o organizations and individuals aligned and working

eectively as a eld. For the goals mentioned above,

the strength o the ater-school, charter school and

early education elds, respectively, may mean the

dierence between success and ailure.

Thats why eld building is a critical strategy

or social change; its also why unders and nonprots

committed to large-scale impact know that they need

to be intentional about strengthening the elds in

which they operate. Yet these agents o social change

oten struggle to understand how to ocus their eld-building investments and activities because they lack

a comprehensive and coherent map o the strengths and weaknesses o their eld.

To help address this challenge, The James Irvine Foundation asked The Bridgespan Group to

develop an approach to assessing the strengths and needs o a eld. The result is a ramework or buildingmore robust elds, The Strong Field Framework, presented in this report. (We have used the ramework

to assess the eld o multiple pathways in Caliornia in order to inorm our Youth program strategy.

The rameworks application to the multiple pathways eld is included as a case study on page 12.)

The Strong Field Framework can help other oundations and nonprots to assess the strengths

and needs o the elds they seek to build, and to prioritize their eorts and investments. It has helped

us become more strategic in our eld-building work; we have also ound that the very act o assessing a

eld, i done in collaboration with the elds leaders, can help to coalesce the organizations and agencies

working towards a common goal in powerul ways.

We hope it can do the same or you, and we would welcome your input and eedback as well asaccounts o your own experiences, as you work to strengthen your eld.

wt f?

A ty o organizations and individuals:

working together towards a , and

using a set of to achieving

that goal




Systemic change is critical or solving some o the greatest social challenges in our nation today. And one o themost important levers or bringing about such change is eld building coordinating the eorts o multiple

organizations and individuals around a common goal and creating the conditions necessary or them to succeed.

Why? When successul, such eorts can improve the overall inrastructure o a eld, enabling the

organizations within it to achieve greater social impact. The rising tide in the orm o support or weaker

organizations, lled gaps in service, enhanced understanding o peers working towards the same or similar goals,

and improved communication and coordination throughout lits all boats. Importantly, however, the goal o

eld building is not to make each organization ollow the same strategy or approach; rather, it is to enable a variety

o organizations to operate and collaborate more eectively, whether their eorts center on specic aspects o the

eld or are more broadly ocused.

What do eld-building eorts look like? It depends on the eld itsel, and its particular strengths and

weaknesses. Take the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations (RWJF) eorts to eliminate tobacco use in the United

States. RWJF committed to this goal in the early 1990s. Translating the goal into practice, the oundations strategy

or building the tobacco cessation eld ocused on the policy and environmental actors aecting tobacco use;

RWJF made investments in encompassing research, policy interventions, prevention and cessation programs,

education and advocacy, coalition building, leadership training, convening, and communications activities.1

The Aspen Institutes microenterprise und or innovation, eectiveness, learning, and dissemination

(FIELD) provides another example. The purpose o the FIELD program is to expand the microenterprise

development eld by developing and disseminating best practices or microenterprise practitioners and educating

unders and policymakers about microenterprise as an anti-poverty strategy. The FIELD programs work includes

publications on the state o the microenterprise eld, training or practitioners on scaling programs with quality, and

perormance measurement tools to measure the impact o microenterprises.2

Finally, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provides an example o eld building in the area o

confict resolution. Beginning in the 1980s and continuing or more than two decades, the Hewlett Foundations

grants to the eld have supported virtually every aspect o todays confict resolution eld: rom the development

o a theoretical oundation that seeks to understand the sources and dynamics o confict, to the emergence o

sustainable practitioner organizations that apply confict resolution tools across society, to the inrastructure that

supports the continuing vitality and advancement o the eld. 3

Why Field Building Is an Important Lever or Change

1 Bornemeier, James, Taking on Tobacco: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundations Assault on Smoking. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Anthology, 2005.2 From the Aspen Institutes FIELD website, www.eldus.org.3 Kovick, David, The Hewlett Foundations Conict Resolution Program: Twenty Years of Field-Building 19842004. Hewlett Foundation, May 2005.




The Strong Field Framework is a tool designed to help you assess the major elements o a eld, revealing in theprocess areas o particular strength and also areas o weakness. Using the ramework requires gathering objective

inormation about ve key components o a given eld (discussed below), via primary research methods such

as surveys, interviews, ocus groups and organizational proling, as well as secondary research gathering and

analyzing existing inormation.

The goal is to paint a robust, data-rich picture o each o the ve components. With these pictures in hand,

you can develop a comprehensive denition o the eld, its key stakeholders and their roles. You will also be able

to assess the elds state o evolution and its strengths and needs. Finally, the exercise itsel can help strengthen the

cohesiveness o the eld and build stronger partnerships among its members.

ct

The Strong Field Framework has ve components: shared identity, standards o practice, knowledge base,

leadership and grassroots support, and unding and supporting policy. Each is urther described as ollows, then

summarized in a chart on page 5.

Shared Identity

A shared identity is the oundation or any eld o practice, without which individuals and organizations

with similar motivations and goals may end up working in isolation or at cross-purposes. Do those working in the

eld identiy as members o a eld? Are they clear about what the eld is collectively trying to accomplish? How

well do diverse and distinct individuals and organizations in the eld collaborate? Are there common approaches

and practices to achieving an overall goal? As the accompanying graphic shows, shared identity is an overarching

component binding the other components in common purpose.

Standards of Practice

Classically, elds (like medicine or law) are comprised o trained practitioners who are engaged in an area

o specialized practice.4 The same should be true or strong elds engaging in social change. Does the eld have

codied practices? Are there demonstration models that members o the eld are aware o? How well developed

are the training and proessional development programs that support practitioners? Are there established processes

and organizations to ensure the quality and delity o implementation?

The Strong Field Framework

4 Melinda Fine, What Does Field-Building Mean for Service-Learning Advocates? National Service Learning Partnership, 2001.




T st

s itty Community aligned around a common purpose and a set o core values

st pt k B

l

gt st

st py

Codifcation o standards

o practice

Exemplary models and

resources (e.g., how-to guides)

Available resources to support

implementation (e.g., technical

assistance)

Respected credentialing/

ongoing proessional

development training or

practitioners and leaders

Credible evidence that practice

achieves desired outcomes

Community of researchers to

study and advance practice

Vehicles to collect, analyze,

debate and disseminate

knowledge

Inuential leaders and

exemplary organizations

across key segments of the

eld (e.g., practitioners,

researchers, business leaders,

policymakers)

Broad base of support from

major constituencies

Enabling policy environment

that supports and encourages

model practices

Organized unding streams

from public, philanthropic and

corporate sources o support

Knowledge Base

It takes credible research that conrms the ecacy o core practices to strengthen a eld. How well

developed is this evidence and knowledge base? Are there experts who research the eld? How engaged are these

experts and practitioners with the ongoing improvement o the eld? How well is knowledge documented and

disseminated within the eld?


To build and sustain a eld, leadership and grassroots support are critical. 5 Are there infuential leaders and

exemplary organizations working to advance the eld? Is there a broad base o support rom key constituencies?


Dedicated unding, along with supporting policy, can oster the development o a eld. Is there sucient

unding or the eld to achieve its goals? Is the policy environment supportive? Is the eld actively involved in

helping to develop the policy environment?

5 Not all elds require grassroots support. The conict resolution eld described earlier in the report, for example, did not need a broad base of public support

to be successful.




Toolkit A Practical Guide to Field Assessment

This toolkit describes the steps you can take to assess

the social change eld you may be working in. To

explain how to use the toolkit, each step is illustrated

with a hypothetical application to the eld o Early

Learning in the state o Washington.

1 gtt stt: df t The rst step is to dene the elds boundaries

as clearly as possible. It is critical at the outset to dene

the elds common goal

including values and belies

its common approaches, and the community o

actors working to advance it. Shared identity is the basis

o a eld o practice, without which individuals and

organizations may work in isolation or at cross-purposes.

Keep in mind these questions as you dene your eld:

Common goal

Whatistheissuethatthiseldistrying

to infuence?

Whoisthetargetpopulation?

Whatistheeldsdesiredoutcome(s)or the target population?

Common approach

Whataretheapproachesusedtoachieve

these outcome(s)?

Aretheseapproachescodied?

Areactorsintheeldalignedonusingthem?

Community of organizations and individuals

Whoaretheprimaryactorssupporting

and aliated with the eld?

Arethereanyskepticsofthiseld?

What are their critiques?

a c bt ct st

Success or failure of your assessment will hinge on

properly dening the eld. It is important to dene the

eld as narrowly as possible to maximize the potential

to see alignment (of goals and practices) among the

members of the eld.

Yet it is also important to capture the natural boundaries

of the eld and include those who see themselves as

contributors to the eld. In trying to dene elds as

examples for this report, for example, being overly broad

would be problematic. For instance, taking foster care as

a eld may cut too broad a swath because it encompasses

too much disagreement in goals and approaches of theeld. Yet, early childhood education as a eld works well

given the relative agreement in goals and practices among

its members.

ey l wt stt

The of Washingtons Early Learning eld is to

prepare all children in Washington from birth to ve years

old to be successful in school and life.

A variety of approaches are being used to realize the vision

and goals of the eld. These include center care, parental

care, and friends, family and neighbor (FFN) care. There

is disagreement about how educational early childhood

education needs to be to prepare children for school.

Despite these differences, there are elements of

to reach the goal of the eld.

The ty of key stakeholders supporting and

afliated with the Early Learning eld includes individuals

and organizations in these categories:

Childcare providers

Parents

Funders

Regulators/quality rating entities Business leaders

Community leaders

Researchers

Advocacy organizations

Policymakers

K12 educators

illusTraTion




2 p t w: ct r aI your goal is to assess the eld as a whole, it is important to talk to representatives rom each area o the

eld. The second step, then, is to identiy the individuals and organizations you will engage with across each o the

elds segments (e.g., unders, service providers, policy makers, researchers, beneciaries). Your particular goal willdetermine the number o interviews, ocus groups, surveys and so orth that will be needed to capture a

robust assessment.

For those eld builders6 whose goal is to leverage a eld assessment to quickly identiy and prioritize their

investments within the eld, it is possible to develop an objective perspective on the strengths and weaknesses o

the eld by simply interviewing representative individuals and organizations in the various stakeholder categories

within the eld (see Option A on page 8).

However, organizations wanting to partner with the eld to develop a shared strategy to advance the

eld should consider convening an advisory committee (consisting o infuential and respected leaders rom each

segment o the eld) and investing in a more robust research agenda. Convening such a committee not onlyyields guidance in setting the research agenda, interpreting emerging ndings and ormulating recommendations,

but it can also help to coalesce the leadership o the eld. In addition, expanding the research agenda to include

interviews with a greater number o stakeholders provides eld builders with a deeper data set and understanding

o the eld, and also oers an opportunity to establish or deepen relationships with those other stakeholders (see

Option B on page 8).

For all types o eld assessment, no matter how robust, perorming secondary research in each eld category

is also important. Having short initial conversations with prominent researchers studying the eld is a good starting

point or understanding the scope and strengths o the secondary research base. It is also important to include

people who will candidly discuss both the strengths and weaknesses o the eld. Including critical riends and otherdetractors on the interview list will help create a uller picture o the state o the eld youre assessing.

6 Foundations and nonprot leaders who are seeking to build a eld as a strategy for achieving their social change goal.


9/16p a g e 8 | T h e j a m e s i r v i n e f o u n d a T i o n

f o c u s T h e s T r o n g f i e l d f r a m e w o r k

ot a: h-l r a ey l wt stt

To perform an objective and relatively high-level

assessment of the Early Learning eld in Washington to quickly identify and prioritize investments within the

eld you would speak to representative individuals or

organizations within each eld segment.

Research approach consists of

Number of interviews: 1015

The research agenda would include interviewing between

1 and 3 representative individuals or organizations in the

broad eld segments. For example, in Early Learning:

Childcare providers

Parents

Funders

Regulators/quality rating entities

Business leaders

Community leaders

Researchers


Policymakers

K12 educators

Technical assistance providers

il

lusTraTion

ot B: c r a ey l wt stt

For a robust assessment of Washingtons Early Learning

eld with the goal of holistically understanding

strengths and weaknesses to formulate an investment

approach you would speak to leading representativesin each eld segment, create an Advisory Committee of

leaders from each eld segment, and pull together group

interviews of beneciaries and practitioners.

Research approach consists of

Number of interviews: 2550

Number of focus groups/group interviews: 13

(e.g., parents, childcare providers)

Number of Advisory Committee meetings: 23

(e.g., align on research agenda, discuss emerging

ndings, formulate recommendations)

Using your relationship network, scanning the secondary

research and testing your list with a few initial eldleaders, would likely lead you to interview and include

on your Advisory Committee leaders of these kinds of

organizations:

Funders

Federal government: Department of Health and

Human Services

State government: Department of Early Learning

Private philanthropy: Gates Foundation, Annie E.

Casey Foundation

Regulators/quality rating entities

Seeds to Success initiative in Department of

Early Learning

Business leaders

Business Partnership for Early Learning Microsoft Corporation

Community leaders

United Ways of Washington

Researchers

Institute of Learning and Brain Science

Washington State University Spokane, Child and

Family Research Unit


Talaris Institute

Foundation for Early Learning

Policymakers

Washington State Legislature

K12 educators

Statewide: Ofce of Superintendent of Public

Instruction Local: Puget Sound Education Service District

Technical assistance providers

Success by Six of Snohomish County

Thrive by Five Washington

You might also hold group interviews with parents and

childcare providers.

il

lusTraTion




3 gt rt: a t The goals o your primary and secondary research should be to collect sucient data to determine the

current strength o the eld in each category o the Strong Field Framework (See The Strong Field Framework on

page 5 or characteristics that dene a strong eld). In each interview, you would test the characteristics o a strongeld to determine the primary strengths and weaknesses in each eld category. (See the ollowing page or an

illustrative assessment o the strength o Washingtons Early Learning eld).

A systematic approach to interviewing will aid you in collecting inormation rom your primary sources.

An interview guide can help standardize the approach to interviewing, allowing you to ask your questions

consistently, which is critical to being able to identiy trends in interviewee responses. I you are using a team to

conduct your interviews, you may want to share interview notes among the team on a regular basis and refect

as a team about the ndings o the interviews.

The interview team should meet regularly to develop hypotheses about the eld, and to use these

hypotheses to shape uture interviews and research. Regular check-ins with your external Advisory Committeeabout your emerging ndings can help to rene the hypotheses and build buy-in throughout the eld.


11/16p a g e 1 0 | T h e j a m e s i r v i n e o u n d a T i o n


il

lusTraTion

a t ey l wt stt

I you tested the strength o Washingtons Early Learning feld against the Strong Field Framework, you might fnd the ollowing

strengths and weaknesses emerge rom interviews and secondary research:

stt w

s itty Field members have a strong afliation withthe early learning eld.

There is wide agreement about the goal

of the eld: to increase the early learning

opportunities in Washington so that more

children are ready to be successful in school.

Field members do not agree about terminologyin the eld.

Field members do not agree on a common

approach to achieving the goal; there is great

disagreement about how educational the

approach to early learning needs to be to

achieve the goal.

st

pt

There are several promising practices in the

eld, which have been well documented.

Proven approaches (e.g., Abecedarian, Perry

Preschool, Nurse Family Partnership) with

measurable outcomes exist.

Proven models exist at the site level but have

not been demonstrated at a regional scale.

Many key areas of early learning (e.g., friends,

family and/or neighbor care, low-intensity parent

education) lack proven models.

There is no agreed upon codied standard or

measure for early learning and quality varies

greatly around the state. There are multiple delivery methods (e.g.,

out-of-home learning environments, in-home

care, parent education) hindering standard

development.

Quality training and professional development

opportunities for new and experienced

practitioners are limited.

k B There is a strong community of researchers

working on researching early learning.

There is a strong evidence base; the long-

term impact of early learning on public

investments is well documented.

Promising new measurement systems to

measure kindergarten readiness are being

developed.

There is little infrastructure to disseminate

knowledge within the eld.

Further research is needed to prove effectiveness

of model programs on specic populations.

l gt st

There are inuential leaders in key segments

of the eld (e.g., researchers, intermediaries,

funders, practitioners).

Early learning is a major priority in

Washington.

Parents do not all recognize the importance

of early learning and its far-reaching effects

on student success.

Center-based care is a politically sensitive topic

in the state, limiting parental support for early

learning (especially for parents who believe early

learning is about limiting parent choice about

how and where young children should

be educated).

st py

There is emerging support for quality

improvement and measurement.

Funding for early childhood programs is

fragmented. Practitioners must cobble funds

together; sources include local, state, federal

government, public and private foundations,

and nonprots.

State funding for quality improvement and

measurement was recently cut.

Model programs are cost prohibitive, which

has affected the elds ability to replicate at

a regional scale.

Professional development and training is

expensive, which has affected the elds ability

to deliver quality early learning at scale.




4 ayz rt: t rtOnce the interviews and secondary research are complete, eld builders will then be able to compare

ndings on strengths and weaknesses o each eld category, and ormulate recommendations to strengthen the

eld. In raming the recommendations, you need to keep in mind the audience

a particular actor (under ornonprot) or the entire eld.

To increase engagement with the eld, you can share emerging themes with the Advisory Committee.

In addition to engaging the eld in your work, the use o an Advisory Committee allows eld leaders to weigh in

on the critical next steps o the research. Using the eedback rom your Advisory Committee and the themes rom

the interviews and secondary research, develop recommendations o investments and activities or the eld.

Initially, you may nd that your list o recommendations is quite long. To create a list o recommendations

that is actionable and achievable, you may want to winnow down the list o recommendations and prioritize

the most critical recommendations on the list. You should determine whatever criteria are most appropriate to

prioritize your recommendations. For example, you can anchor your criteria with your organizations strategy.You may also want to sequence your recommendations by dividing your recommendations into near-term

(e.g., 1218 months), moderate-term (e.g., 35 years), and long-term (e.g., 710+ years) subsections.

t rt ey l wt stt

When considered together, the strengths and weaknesses you have identied in each eld category indicate that

Washingtons Early Learning eld is at a promising stage of development but the eld faces challenging barriers. These

barriers must be overcome to improve the quality of early learning opportunities for Washingtons children. Given this

information, you might formulate the following types of recommendations:

rt #1. Design and conduct awareness and outreach activities for parents and the general public about the

importance of early learning and about what quality early learning looks like.

To be successful, the Early Learning eld in Washington must engage parents to demand quality early learning opportunities

for their children. Currently, most parents do not know that early learning can improve long-term outcomes for their children,

nor do they know what quality early learning looks like. By increasing awareness of the importance of quality early learning,

the eld can increase the public pressure for funding and supportive policies for quality early learning.

rt #2. Identify the most promising practices in early learning and demonstrate effectiveness with

broad populations.

While promising practices exist in the eld, the eld would benet from a more denitive evidence base, demonstrating the

effectiveness of these practices at a regional scale and with different ethnicities, nationalities and income groups. Without

knowing what promising practices have broad application, legislators cannot direct large pools of funding towards the most

effective programs and practitioners cannot be sure they are providing effective programs to all beneciaries.

rt #3. Create a statewide quality improvement and rating system to sustain continuous improvement in

quality of care in licensed childcare facilities.

To increase the availability of high-quality, early learning opportunities in Washington, the eld must be clear about what

high quality looks like. The eld would benet from a system that provides clear benchmarks of quality, regular assessments

and aligned incentives to encourage continuous improvement in the eld. The Early Learning eld is not aligned on what

quality looks like, and to achieve the outcomes the eld desires for children in Washington, it is critical that the eld gain

clarity to advance the eld.

illusTraTion




The Irvine Youth program seeks to increase the number

o low-income youth in Caliornia who complete high

school on time and attain a postsecondary credential

by age 25. The Youth programs leaders believe that a

multiple pathways approach, which combines rigorous

college preparatory and career education in high school,

can dramatically improve rates o college and career

preparation because it makes high school relevant to

young peoples utures. (See box at right or a more

detailed description o multiple pathways.)

Multiple pathways programs build on workbegun in the 1970s with career academies; the

Foundations leaders believe that this approach has

the potential to improve the quality o the 600+ such

academies already in the state, and also to harness

their momentum. The Foundation thus seeks to

make multiple pathways programs available to low-

income youth across Caliornia. The centerpiece o

its strategy or doing so is to help build a vibrant and

capable eld o direct providers, intermediaries (e.g.,

curriculum developers, technical assistance providers),

policymakers, researchers and parent/student leaders.

Irvines leaders began their work on multiple

pathways with an intentional period (about three years)

o grantmaking to test their hypotheses. During that

time, they came to appreciate even more ully the

importance o eld building to embedding multiple

pathways in school districts across Caliornia. Without

a strong eld, multiple pathways could never get to

scale and be sustained. Irvine needed a well-inormed

plan or its eld-building investments and activities.

The Foundations leaders also realized that the eld

itsel needed to come together around a shared set o

priorities to grow stronger. With those goals in mind,

they asked The Bridgespan Group to analyze the

multiple pathways eld and make recommendations on

how to build the eld.

To assess the state o the eld, the Bridgespan

team interviewed more than 60 members o the eldrepresenting educators, administrators, the business

community, districts, policymakers, researchers and

unders, along with a ew prominent skeptics. The

team also conducted a ocus group o school district

superintendents and perormed a thorough assessment

o related secondary research. Beore beginning the

interviews, the Bridgespan team developed the Strong

Field Framework ater identiying elements that were

core to success o a eld based on research on existing

eld rameworks. The team used the ramework to

guide the interviews and conversations in the eld and

continued to rene ramework through the course o

the eort to assess the eld.

Case Study: The James Irvine FoundationsMultiple Pathways Field Assessment

wt mt pty?

Multiple pathways programs provide young people with

rigorous and relevant secondary educations. The goal of

these programs is to graduate high school students on

time and ready for success in college and career.

To reach that goal, multiple pathways programs

offer students an integrated academic and technical

curriculum, as well as work-based learning opportunities,

academic and social supports, and a clear connection to

a full range of postsecondary options and careers (e.g.,

two- and four-year colleges, one-year certicate programs

and high skill careers).

Integration of curriculum occurs when teachers look

or lesson plans and projects to incorporate academic

concepts into technical courses or apply real-world

concepts in academic courses. In pathways programs,

integration of curriculum typically centers around a single

industry theme such as building and environmental

design which threads through all of the students

academic coursework and work-based learning

opportunities.




To ground the work in practice and ensure that it would build upon the wealth o existing knowledge

and experience in the eld, the team also established a 24-member advisory committee made up o key members

o the eld. Committee members provided important eedback on the data collected; they also played a role in

orming conclusions based on that data. Beyond adding an important voice, the committee played an active role

in the work, which helped build cohesion within the eld. The committee helped develop the research agenda and

provided extensive insight and eedback on ndings and recommendations.

at y t f:

Shared Identity

Membersoftheeldcaneasilyandconsistentlyarticulatethegoalsandcoreelementsofthemultiplepathways

approach. The eld is reasonably well-aligned at this level.

Bycontrast,membersoftheelddonotagreeonthedetailsofexecution,suchasterminologyordenitionsof

key concepts o multiple pathways. Whats more, while the various practitioners eel strong aliation with elds

related to multiple pathways, ew see it as their primary eld o aliation.

Standards of Practice

Theeldiswellawareofmodelschool-levelprograms;sitevisitstomodelprogramsareseenasthemost

eective way to demonstrate the promise o the multiple pathways approach.

However,itiscriticalthatmultiplepathwaysbedemonstratedatalargersystem-widescale.Districtor

county-level demonstrations will be needed to urther rene the elds standards o practice and prove the

easibility and impact o multiple pathways beyond existing school-level models.

Thereisadearthofteacherspreparedtodelivermultiplepathwaysandalackoftechnicalassistancecapacityto

help deliver multiple pathways. The supply o trained teachers, curricula and technical assistance is insucient to

support growing demand

Knowledge Base School-leveldemonstrationprogramshavegeneratedpromisingevidenceofsuccess.Theeldbenetsgreatly

by a series o rigorous, randomized studies7 about the eectiveness o the multiple pathways approach that

demonstrated positive eects o multiple pathways.

Therearetwomajorgapsintheevidencebasethattheeldmustovercomeinordertoachievescale:

(1) Lack o evidence about best practices in delivering specic components o the multiple pathways approach;

and (2) lack o understanding about how best to measure student achievement.

Theeldlackssystematicwaystoshareknowledgeandbestpractices.


District,policyandbusinessleadersincreasinglysupportthemultiplepathwaysapproach.Proofofthis

growing support is demonstrated by the growth o a state-supported, career-themed academy program and

also by the growth o business coalitions around Caliornia that are active in establishing multiple pathways

in their communities.

However,withoutparentandstudentsupport,multiplepathwayscannotsucceed;theirengagementisan

important component o bringing multiple pathways to scale.

7 MDRC has published a series of random assignment studies about career academies over the last decade that indicates the approach improves outcomes for students,

particularly for those most at risk of dropping out or underachieving. The MDRC studies examined a cohort of students who applied to nine average-performing career

academies over 15 years. Compared with the control group, career academy students were more likely to have completed academic and CTE coursework and participated

in work-based learning opportunities that included paid internships.





Certainpoliciesandstructures,inherenttothetraditionalschoolmodel,makeitdifculttoexecutemultiple

pathways eectively. Innovative practitioners have been able to overcome these barriers; however, on a large,

system-wide scale, doing so will be more dicult, due to lack o systematic incentives. Field leaders will need to

cobble together unding in order to make multiple pathways work.

rt

Ater assessing the eld, the Bridgespan team concluded that it was at an early stage o development, and

needed to overcome a set o key barriers to make multiple pathways available to many more youth in Caliornia.

Working closely with Irvine and the advisory committee, team members developed three recommendations:

Recommendation #1Develop a clear, precise defnition o multiple pathways, messaging aligned with that defnition and a quality-control system

to distinguish high-fdelity implementations.

The eld is not aligned on a denition o multiple pathways. Even though that may alienate some members o

the eld, its worth the tradeo or the eld to develop a more precise denition and message. The eld also

needs to develop a quality-control system to ensure that everyone can distinguish high-delity multiple pathwaysimplementations.

Recommendation #2

Establish large-scale, system-wide demonstrations.

Large-scale demonstrations are being hindered by a combined lack o evidence, inrastructure and regional

intermediaries. The eld needs to overcome these barriers to prove the easibility and impact o multiple

pathways at a district or county level.

Recommendation #3

Work to increase state unding and create more supportive policies that would acilitate broad adoption.

Broad adoption o multiple pathways requires greater unding and more supportive state-level policies.

Implementation o multiple pathways at the district or county level provides a unique opportunity to learn

whats required or scale and to build a constituency or statewide adoption. Policymakers should be involved

in these demonstrations, perhaps through a ormalized partnership, so that they can see the benets and the

requirements o multiple pathways when implemented at a district or county level. Parents, students and district

leaders in these demonstration sites should also advocate or state-level unding and supportive policies or

multiple pathways.

t

To read the entire Focus report on Assessing

Californias Multiple Pathways Field, please visit

www.irvine.org/publications.


16/16

aboutfocus

focus is aperiodicalpublicationofthe james irvinefoundation, designedto spotlight

selected issues, trendsand challengesof the nonprofitsector incalifornia. focusand

its partnerpublication, focusbrief, areavailablefreeof chargefromthe foundations

web site, www .irvine.org .

2009 thejamesirvinefoundation. thiseditionoffocusmaybereprintedorphotocopiedforfreedistribution, withattributiontothejamesirvinefoundation.

aboutth ejames irvinefoundation

the james irvinefoundation is aprivate,nonprofitgrantmakingfoundationdedicated

to expandingopportunityfor the peopleofcaliforniato participate inavibrant,

successfuland inclusivesociety.the foundationsgrantmakingfocusesonthreeprogram

areas:arts,californiademocracyand youth.since1937the foundationhas providedover

$1billion in grantsto morethan3,000nonprofitorganizationsthroughoutcalifornia.

with$1.4 billion in assets,the foundationmadegrantsof$78million in2008for

the peopleofcalifornia.

aboutth ebridgespan group

founded in2000and incubatedatbain&company, the bridgespangroup is a501(c)(3)

nonprofitorganizationthathelpsnonprofitand philanthropicleadersto makestrategic

decisionsand tobuildorganizationsthat inspireand acceleratesocialchange.formore

aboutthe bridgespangroupgo to www .bridgespan.org or callthe sanfranciscooffice

at415.627.1100.

th ejames irvinefoundation

575marketstreet

suite3400

sanfrancisco,ca 94105

415.777.2244

865southfigueroa

suite2308

los angeles,ca90017

213.236.0552

www .irvine.org

th ebridgespan group

535boylstonstreet

10thfloor

boston,ma02116

617.572.2833

112west34thstreet

suite1510

new york,ny10120

646.562.8900

465californiastreet

11thfloor

sanfrancisco,ca 94104

415.627.1100

www .bridgespan.org

f o c u s t h e s t r o n g f i e l d f r am ewor k

strong field framework

Documents