National League of Cities Institute for Youth, Education, and Families

1
National League of Cities Institute for Youth,
Education, and Families

• The 5th National Forum of the Coalition for
  Community Schools
• Community Schools Creating the Conditions for
  Learning
• Baltimore, Maryland June 14-16th, 2006

2
National League of Cities

• Represents roughly 18,000 cities
• Direct member cities 1,600
• 49 state municipal leagues
• Work with local elected officials from cities of
  all sizes and all parts of the country

3
NLC Institute for Youth, Education, and Families

• Launched in January 2000 by Boston Mayor Tom
  Menino
• Not a think tank but rather an action tank
• Provides municipal officials with
• Guidance and assistance on core program areas
• Information on promising/best practices
• Peer Learning Networks of local officials
  working on similar issues and concerns.

4
YEF Core Program Areas

• Obesity in Children Youth
• Disconnected Youth
• Safety of Children and Youth
• Transitional Jobs
• Help for Working Families

• Early Childhood Development
• Afterschool
• High School Reform
• School Improvement
• Youth Master Planning
• Youth Leadership Youth Participation in
  Municipal Government

5
Municipal Leadership-WHY?

• Challenge and opportunity for cities and towns of
  all sizes
• Cross-system collaboration likely key strategy to
  reduce/solve
• Mayors (and other municipal leaders) are an
  underused resource

6
Cross-system collaboration as strategy

• Features of agencies engaged in collaboration
• Porous
• Responsive to new norm
• Ready to overcome policy, procedural, attitudinal
  barriers
• Sometimes two systems, sometimes multiple

7
Collaboration

• Definition Exchanging information, altering
  activities, sharing resources and enhancing the
  capacity of another for mutual benefit and to
  achieve a common purpose. -- Himmelman, 2002
• Distinct from networking, coordinating,
  cooperating
• Another definition putting the money on the
  tableand taking your hands off.

8
One in six disconnected...

• 3.8 million between 16 -24 neither in school nor
  employed number is increasing
• 20 in New York City, Los Angeles
• 20,000 per year leaving foster care
• 200,000 per year leaving correctional facilities
• Overlaps teen parents, homeless, runaways

9
Disconnected Youth Case Study Sites

• Albany, New York
• Baltimore, Maryland
• Boston, Massachusetts
• Corpus Christi, Texas
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• San Diego, California
• San Francisco, California
• San José, California

10
Early Findings - Case Study Sites

• Importance of leadership
• Multi-dimensions of cross-system collaboration
• Importance of intermediary or lead agency
• Importance of accountability systems, attention
  to data

11
Baltimore, Maryland Population 651,000

• Strong record of collaboration between the school
  system and youth employment and training.
• Operation Safe Kids pilot brings numerous
  agencies together for integrated and holistic
  case management of some of the citys youth most
  involved with the justice system.

12
San José, CaliforniaPopulation 895,000

• Bringing Everyones Strengths Together (BEST)
  funding collaborative pursues strategic
  prevention, intervention, and suppression
  initiatives, functions as a community
  foundation for youth programs.
• The city provides significant operating and seed
  funding - 3 million/year
• Leadership comes from the mayor through the Gang
  Prevention Task Force.

13

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (population
1,517,500)

• CORA Beacon, an afterschool program for high
  school youth, situated in Grover Washington
  Middle School.
• Achieving Independence Center is a comprehensive
  one-stop center for young people aging out of
  foster care. Developed as a partnership between
  the city Department of Human Services and the
  Philadelphia Workforce Development Corporation.
• Strong intermediaries such as Philadelphia Youth
  Network and Philadelphia Safe and Sound help
  convene and direct focused energy on the needs of
  vulnerable older youth in transition.

14
Why Engage Mayors and Councilmembers in Education?
Successful public schools and afterschool
programs are critical to

• Health and well-being of communities
• Public safety and crime reduction
• Economic development
• Strong and engaged citizenry
• Student academic achievement

15
Municipal Interest in Education

• 93 of city officials say that the quality of
  education is very important to the well-being of
  their cities
• 95 of city officials say that they are very
  concerned or somewhat concerned about the quality
  of education in their communities
• City officials cite that the most persuasive
  reasons for improving the quality of education in
  their communities are
• Improve community life and cohesion
• Foster economic growth
• Develop a skilled workforce
• Attract and retain families and residents

16
Education and Economic Development
Lifetime earnings of 18-65 year olds for high
school graduates and dropouts in the state of
Massachusetts (in 1,000)
All Men Women 729 954
490 1,075 1,398 755 346 444 265
No diploma or GED High school graduate or GED
holder Difference in lifetime earnings
17
City and School Collaboration

• Strong partnerships can
• Address social and economic conditions of the
  most vulnerable students with wraparound
  services, etc.
• Remove obstacles to achievement through teacher
  recruitment support, school readiness
  improvement, etc.
• Achieve savings through joint-use agreements,
  shared maintenance, etc.

Strong, effective partnerships elicit positive
outcomes for kids, families, and communities
18
Helping Municipal Leaders Expand Options and
Alternatives for High School
A 24-month technical assistance initiative to
help mayors and councilmembers foster strong high
school learning communities that prepare all
students for college, work, and citizenship Work
in 5 cities Corpus Christi, Tex., Hartford,
Conn., Phoenix, Ariz., San Antonio, Tex., San
Jose, Calif.
19
Corpus Christi, Texas

• Creating a broader awareness within the community
  of alternative high school options, community
  partnerships, and community schools through a
  series of forums
• Held a forum in December on full service
  community schools

20
Phoenix, Arizona

• Developing standards for small schools
• Creating more professional development
  opportunities for small school staff

21
San Antonio, Texas

• Preparing for a city-wide summit that will be
  attended by over 200 people
• The summit will focus on three major issues
• Pre-natal to Pre-K
• P-16
• Workplace Skills

22
San Jose, California

• Developing a 4-tier plan for high schools
• Parental involvement with high school youth
• Expansion of truancy prevention/intervention
  efforts
• Creation of high school afterschool programs
• Asset inventory of current services for youth

23
Municipal Connection to Afterschool

• Mayors and Councilmembers see the critical link
  between afterschool and other community goals
• Workforce/economic development
• Public safety Juvenile crime/violence
  prevention
• Reduce time for risky behaviors
• Ensure the health and well-being of communities
• Help working families school age care and worker
  productivity
• Support academic achievement
• Increase youth civic participation

24
Municipal Leaders Value Afterschool

• Every year since 1995, 21 of municipal leaders
  consider afterschool programs as one of their
  citys top three most pressing needs
• 65 of respondents in large cities said their
  municipalities provide direct afterschool
  services
• 35 of elected officials said their cities
  offerings of afterschool programs are less than
  adequate for children and families.
• 78 of city officials believe afterschool
  programs enhance their effort to curb juvenile
  crime or violence during daytime hours.

25
Municipal Leaders Engaged in Afterschool

• NLC works with municipal officials to help them
  use their leadership/bully pulpit to
• Promote partnerships to strengthen and support a
  citywide afterschool system
• Increase awareness of importance of afterschool
  programs
• Build public will and support
• Broaden access
• Assess local resources and needs
• Improve quality
• Align in-school with out-of-school time learning
• Finance citywide systems
• Develop governance structure

26
Municipal Leadership to Expand Learning
Opportunities (MLELO)

• Charlotte, NC Build public will by empowering
  neighborhood leaders
• Fort Worth, TX Improve program quality by
  creating standards, sustainability
• Fresno, CA Address lack of programs in
  low-income neighborhoods
• Grand Rapids, MI Identify local resources, gaps
  in services and afterschool needs
• Indianapolis, IN Find funds through partnership
  and collaboration
• Lincoln, NE Promote partnerships by engaging the
  entire community
• Spokane, WA Empower Youth
• Washington DC Build partnerships to raise
  academic achievement

27
Integrating Education and Afterschool

• Brockton, MA Develop a standard afterschool
  curriculum
• Cleveland, OH Advocate for city tax levy to fund
  afterschool initiatives
• Little Rock, AR Create a city-school liaison to
  focus on alignment
• Norfolk, VA Create citywide standards and model
  middle school program
• Pasadena, CA Infuse project-based learning into
  afterschool and share learning standards
• Waco, TX Increase links through professional
  development and community assets

28
City Leaders Engaged in Afterschool Reform (CLEAR)

• Goals
• To engage mayors and city councilmembers in
  building citywide afterschool systems
• To improve the availability and quality of safe,
  enriching and recreation activities
• To align in-school learning with afterschool
  learning
• To develop sustainable systems for afterschool
• To connect cities with state-level efforts
  through the Mott Foundations Statewide
  Afterschool Network efforts

29
CLEAR Cities (Phase II)

• Alexandria, VA created OST office, build public
  will for new afterschool programs
• Baton Rouge, LA community assessment, engaging
  broad stakeholder group, financing
• Boise, ID Mayors Council on Children Youth,
  youth mapping, public engagement campaign
• Bridgeport, CT integrate all citywide
  initiatives into strategy, sustainability, ensure
  program equity, partnerships
• Denver, CO community assessment mapping,
  citywide vision, quality improvement
• Florence, SC juvenile crime prevention, broad
  stakeholder group, develop business champions
• Las Cruces, NM community engagement, standards,
  cross-community partnerships to increase
  resources
• Salt Lake City, UT citywide summit to engage
  stakeholders, financial sustainability,
  integration

30
Recommended steps to creating systems to engage
youth

• Convene stakeholders
• Assess strengths/needs
• Involve youth
• Use existing resources
• Gather data
• Build public and leadership support

31
Action Kits

• Reengaging Disconnected Youth
• Supporting Early Childhood Success
• Improving Public Schools 
• Expanding Afterschool Opportunities
• Promoting Youth Participation
• Helping Working Families
• Protecting Children and Youth

32
Questions to consider

• 3. Assuming gaps need to be filled - who would
  you involve in developing an initiative?
• 4. What are some immediate steps you want to
  take regarding youth when you return to your
  community?

• What are the situations facing youth in your
  community?
• Is there a collaborative effort in your city to
  engage youth and how well is it working?

33
Contact Information

• National League of Cities
• Institute for Youth, Education Families
• 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
• Washington, DC 20004-1763
• Lucinda Dugger Phone [phone]
• Jessica Sandoval Phone [phone]
• Bela Shah Phone [phone]