School-Community Collaboration to Improve the Quality of Life for Urban Youth and Their Families

School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS)

Research You Can Use

Topical Synthesis #5

School-Community Collaboration to Improve the Quality of Life for Urban Youth and Their Families

Kathleen Cotton

The Schooling Practices That Matter Most

View details »

by Kathleen Cotton

Add to cart

View all School Improvement products

Given the changing makeup of the American family and the additional economic, demographic, and societal pressures that confront today's children and youth, schools cannot be expected to tackle these problems alone.
--Robinson and Mastny: LINKING SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE, 1989
Urban districts are increasingly aware that they cannot combat the most severe schooling problems of central-city children and youth independent of the larger community.
--Oakes: IMPROVING INNER-CITY SCHOOLS: CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN URBAN DISTRICT REFORM, 1987

INTRODUCTION

Theories abound as to why the school
reform/restructuring movement of recent years has not made more impressive progress toward its goal of improved academic outcomes for American students. Analysts have cited factors such as insufficient building-level control of school improvement efforts and inadequate staff development provisions for impeding progress toward higher levels of student achievement.
Those who focus on schooling in urban settings, however, point to a more obvious reason: "Recent state reforms have largely bypassed millions of students in urban schools across the nation," notes Cuban (1989), and thus "real school improvement has yet to penetrate most urban schools" (p. 29).
Lack of effort on the part of some urban educators to undertake school improvement projects is only part of the story, however. In many settings, school and district staff have tried very hard to raise student performance through changes in curriculum, instruction, grouping strategies, and other school practices. But even in these settings, success has often been limited.
Increasing numbers of educators and social scientists are now contending that the nation's urban schools need much more than academically oriented change to improve the learning of their students. These analysts argue that the widespread poverty typical of urban schools-- and the physical, mental, emotional, familial, and criminal problems often associated with poverty--are the main impediments to school success for many American children.
Sylvester (1990) writes:
School reform--simply improving the way teachers teach and the ways schools are structured--is not enough. Teachers must now find ways to cope with children who live in dysfunctional families, who are victims of violence, who use drugs, who do not speak English, who are pregnant, who are homeless. Teachers, even the best ones, cannot help these children by themselves (p. 32).
Asked why the reform/restructuring movement has had little effect on outcomes for urban children and youth, analysts such as Cohen (1989) point out that "the school reform movement has not focused on support services--it has focused on academics" (p. 8). These writers assert that addressing the problems associated with poverty calls for greatly expanded support service provisions--trained personnel, financial allocations, and other resources far beyond those available within the educational system.
They argue that schools must, therefore, enter into collaborative arrangements with health and social service agencies and other relevant organizations and institutions in their communities to bring these resources to bear on the multiple and urgent needs of many urban children and their families.
THE NEED

When discussing the need for school-community collaboration to address a range of problems experienced by students and families, two subjects require attention: (1) the nature of the problems themselves and (2) the current inability of human services organizations, including schools, to respond adequately to these problems.
STUDENT AND FAMILY ISSUES FACING THE SCHOOLS
Anyone who pays attention to television, radio, magazine, and newspaper reports on current social problems knows that today's young people are prey to a large array of negative forces, with urban youth especially at risk. Because these issues have been so widely publicized, only an overview will be presented here.
Driscoll (1990) notes that:
...large, urban public schools with the fewest number of socioeconomic advantages...often coexist and compete with a range of urban phenomena that include gangs, high mobility, high rates of unemployment, and remarkably few incentives for economically disadvantaged students to remain in school (p. 4).
Looking at contemporary society and identifying problems that place young people at risk of failure, demographer Harold Hodgkinson (1991) cites:

A high percentage of babies born to drug- and alcohol-using mothers and/or mothers who receive no prenatal care
A high incidence of child abuse
A high incidence of poverty
Major changes in family structure, most notably a significant increase in single-parent families, which are usually headed by women
High correlation between lack of education and poverty
High correlation between lack of education and crime
High correlation between dropout and prisoner rates.

Hodgkinson concludes that "America's children are a truly endangered species" and that educators alone cannot hope to fix the problem of the underachievement of at-risk children, because their status results to a large extent from their socioeconomic problems (p. 16).
Along the same lines, Reed and Sautter (1990) point out that "more than 12.6 million U.S. youngsters--nearly 20 percent of all children under the age of 18--are poor" (p. 3) and that "the schools need a coordinated and concerted societal effort" to deal with the many serious social problems associated with poverty (p. 8).
A more complete itemization of these social issues is offered by Shedlin in his 1990 article on the need for school-social service collaboration:

More than 60 percent of mothers with children under 14 are in the labor force. More than half of all mothers with children under a year old are in the labor force.
Fewer than half of all preschool children are immunized against preventable diseases, and the incidence of infectious childhood disease is rising.
More than 9 million children have no health care; more than 12 million have no health insurance; 18 million have never seen a dentist.
More than one-third of all children under 18 do not live with both biological parents.
Forty percent of the poor in America are children.
Of the nearly 13 million poor children, more than 40 percent live in families with incomes of less than half the federal poverty level--$12,091 per year for a family of four.
Fifteen of every 100 children are born in households where no parent is employed; one out of every four children will be on welfare at some point before adulthood.
Malnutrition affects nearly half a million children.
Families with children now make up the largest and fastest growing segment of the homeless population.
An estimated l.5 million children in the U.S. are homeless as a result of having been cast out of their families.
In 1986 over 2 million children were reported abused, neglected, or both.
More than 70 percent of U.S. teenagers have experimented with drugs.
Approximately half of U.S. teenagers are sexually active by the time they leave high school. Each year nearly half a million teenagers have abortions, and more than half a million give birth.
Every day nearly 2,000 teenagers drop out of high school [leading to a dropout rate of over 30 percent].
One thousand young people attempt suicide every day (p. 16).

One could cite many more unsettling statistics about societal problems involving and affecting school-age children and their families. It should be adequate to note that these problems are widespread and that virtually everyone who writes about these problems contends that the schools, by themselves, cannot possibly keep the nation's seriously affected students in school or equip them for success in work or postsecondary education.
THE INADEQUACY OF EXISTING SERVICES
Granting that poverty and other social ills cannot be cured or fully compensated for by the schools, what about those health and social service providers that exist specifically to deal with these problems? Why aren't they and the schools working together successfully to meet the needs of disadvantaged students and their families?
Analysts have identified many reasons. The following list is drawn from the work of Ascher (1990); CCSSO (1991); Farrar and Hampel (1987); Guthrie and Guthrie (1990); Levitan, Mangum, and Pines (1989); Murray and Mess (1986); Naparstek, et al. (1982); Pathfinder (1987); and Robinson and Mastny (1989):

School staff generally lack information about the range of services available from health and social services agencies in the community.
Many districts do not have the services of professionals to provide support services except on a minimal level.
Social service agency provisions are often piecemeal and crisis oriented.
Service providers are sometimes not aware of one another's existence and/or provisions.
Social service school staff sometimes fear for their jobs if they refer students to outside agencies.
Intervention in such areas as pregnancy prevention and psychological counseling is controversial, and school personnel are concerned about parent and community response.
In school settings, matching students and services is usually characterized by considerable informality; administrators rarely try to coordinate the activities of social service staff, and there is a lack of systematic record keeping.
The delivery system for the full range of programs is so fragmented that few families obtain all the assistance to which they are entitled.
Agencies and state departments are limited by their traditional service and professional boundaries.
Services are often delivered in an inefficient, duplicative, and bureaucratically confusing fashion.
Social service agencies generally do not acknowledge and utilize informal community helping systems, such as community centers and churches, which could help them reach clients and extend services.
There are sometimes areas of need which are not addressed by any service provider in a region.
Health and social service provisions are sometimes offered at times of day and at locations which make them largely inaccessible to those in need.
Agency personnel are sometimes insensitive to ethnic and cultural backgrounds of clients, which further impedes these people's willingness to seek assistance.
Conflicting eligibility criteria sometimes function as a barrier to families receiving needed services.
Legal obstacles prevent organizations such as churches or ethnic clubs from receiving funding, even though they might be ideally situated to provide services or referrals.
Confidentiality requirements often get in the way of cooperative relationships between schools and community service agencies.

To say that "services are often fragmented," and "coordination is poor" is an abstract way of expressing the problem. What these observations really mean is that, in one fairly typical case study, a disadvantaged California family with school-age children experiencing multiple needs had to appear, complete applications, and tell their story at 17 different locations in order to access all the services for which they were eligible (OREGONIAN 1991). In Arkansas, a family of six was served by 25 different human service professionals (SEDL 1990c).
"The child with multiple needs is like a pinball in a pinball machine bouncing from one place to another," writes Stanford University professor Michael Kirst (EDUCATION USA 1990, p. 135). Service provisions are excessive and overlapping for some needs (e.g., half a dozen different federal programs provide family planning services), and woefully inadequate in others.
MOTIVATORS AND BARRIERS

Probably the single most significant factor motivating schools and community groups (social service agencies, business, neighborhood associations, etc.) to collaborate on behalf of children and families in need is the recognition that resources are scarce and unlikely to become more plentiful in the near future. As Levitan, Mangum, and Pines note in their 1989 proposal for a family-centered service delivery system:
Though more funds are needed and could be used to good advantage, appreciable increases are unlikely in the current political and economic situation. Hence, it is essential to get the maximum return from each dollar expended (p. 3).
In addition, each segment of the community has its own set of motives for desiring collaboration with the schools.
MOTIVATING FACTORS FOR POTENTIAL COLLABORATORS
The question, "what's in it for us?" is bound to occur to staff of any social service agency or other community organization considering a collaborative relationship with a school or schools in their area. The literature on school-community linkages identifies reasons for the interest expressed by various community constituents in collaborative relationships with schools:

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES. Staff of these agencies greatly value their connections with the schools. Since virtually all young people pass through the schools, schools can provide human service agency staff access to the community's young people and, through them, to families experiencing needs. It has been repeatedly noted that community health and other social service efforts cannot be successfully instituted without the cooperation of schools, local government, hospitals, and community groups (Ascher 1988; Oakes 1987; and Spring 1988).
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES. Higher education representatives want to avoid expenditures for remediation and developmental courses and generally believe that supporting improvements in K-12 education is a good investment. Also, they stand to increase their enrollments if they assist in the development of capable high school graduates who value further education. Work with the public schools enables higher education personnel to keep abreast of educational issues and developments and thus avoid accusations of being "out of touch" (Gold 1985).
PARENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS. These individuals naturally want to assure a wide range of life choices and economic self-sufficiency for the community's young people. In the case of older community members, offering support and sharing experience with young people can increase their sense of worth and productivity (Comer 1986, 1988; Freedman 1988; and Hodgkinson 1991).
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY. Business representatives have cited a variety of reasons for wanting to collaborate with schools, including their desire for a competitive workforce and for a pool of qualified potential employees. According to a 1987 National Alliance of Business report, "the second most often cited reason for a business selecting a particular location is the quality of the schools." Other motivators include a desire to reduce taxes and welfare costs by reducing unemployment and to improve the career development and guidance available to young people.
MEMBERS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS typically support close relationships with the schools as a means of increasing community cohesiveness and gaining support and involvement for community projects.

These and other groups have relationships with the schools that bear on many aspects of school operations. The information base on parent/community involvement in instruction and school governance and the literature on business-school partnerships both detail such relationships and the motivating forces leading to their development. The current investigation does not address these relationships in detail; they are referenced only as they bear on the delivery of needed health, social, and related services to students and families.
BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION
If there is a need for collaborative projects to meet the multiple needs of disadvantaged students and their families, and if various community groups see advantages for themselves and for the schools in engaging in such collaboration, then why isn't it happening on a larger scale and with more positive outcomes?
"Interagency cooperation is much like preventive health care," observe Dunkle and Nash: "Everyone believes in it, but few actually practice it" (1990, p. 35). Many educators, social scientists and others have sought to identify and address the barriers present in the current system--or, as Guthrie and Guthrie characterize it, the "�nonsystem' driven by funding concerns and crisis mentality" (1990, p. 1).
Dunkle and Nash assert that "developing integrated relationships [among human service providers] is about as easy as dancing with an octopus, with each agency or organization a �tentacle.' In looking at a high risk teenager:

An educator sees a STUDENT in danger of dropping out;
A health-care provider sees a PATIENT at risk of having a low-birthweight baby;
A social-service worker sees a CLIENT who may require public assistance;
A juvenile justice worker sees a potential RUNAWAY;
An employment specialist sees a TRAINEE needing multiple services; and
A community or religious leader sees the troubled OFFSPRING of a personal friend" (p. 44).

These "categorical or discrete definitions of problems," (SEDL 1990b, p. 2) result in programs being given responsibility to address only one problem area or one audience. This, in turn, gives rise to several related barriers to collaboration, as identified by Gold (1985):

ORGANIZATIONAL AUTONOMY. Collaboration poses a challenge to the organizational habit of setting priorities without regard to the perspectives of other organizations.
SINGULAR PERSPECTIVES. The tendency of each organization to have a very limited view of clients and their needs can impede collaboration, as does the use of jargon that is not meaningful outside each organization's narrow confines.
DIFFERING MANDATES AND PROCEDURES. These can lead to a lack of understanding and/or respect for the constraints under which other organizations must operate.
COMPETING/ADVERSARY RELATIONSHIPS. Social service organizations may be in competition with one another for clients or funds, be charged with evaluating each other's performance, or have a history of friction with one another--all of which can be expected to interfere with collaboration.

"No one," observes Weiss (1984), "will admit that he or she DOES NOT WANT COOPERATION or a working partnership" (p. 2). Yet, as Dunkle and Nash point out with reference to the lack of incentives for collaboration:
Staff members and agencies are rewarded when they win more funds--and more services and programs--for their department. But they are typically not rewarded for identifying needed services in another department or organization, even when those other services are exactly what should help an at-risk young person succeed"
(p. 35).
Even when schools, social service agencies, and other organizations overcome their initial resistance to sharing information and pooling at least some of their resources, other barriers often present themselves. Guthrie and Guthrie (1990), Pathfinder (1987), Robinson (1985), and Weiss (1984) invite potential collaborators to watch out for pitfalls such as:

NO ACTION; TALK ONLY. Gatherings become gripe sessions and participants fail to stay focused on tangible results.
AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES CREATE ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY by forming an interagency "czar" or "superagency," and the focus on service delivery is lost.
ONE AGENCY DOMINATES proceedings, leaving other members feeling they have little influence.
Some members' participation is characterized by COMPETITIVENESS, CYNICISM, A PREFERENCE FOR WORKING ALONE, and/or HIDDEN AGENDAS for personal advancement.
Efforts may be afflicted by the "TERRIBLE T'S"-- Tradition, Turf, (lack of) Trust, (lack of) Time, and Trouble (feeling it is too much trouble to overcome complacent and resistant attitudes).

Of the prospect of true collaboration--among social service agencies and between these agencies and the schools--Sylvester (1990) writes:
It sounds remarkably simple. It is remarkably difficult. In order to provide ... comprehensive and cohesive services to at-risk children and their families ... the school and social service bureaucracies must overcome years of differing traditions. People who have never worked together must form teams. Schools must open their doors to outsiders, and social service agencies must relinquish control of some activities. Then, in order to make it all work on a large-scale basis, there must be fundamental institutional changes in the way programs are funded, in the way professionals are trained, and in the way outcomes of education and social service programs are measured (p. 33).
APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY COLLABORATION:
***         GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES            ***
***       AND THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY         ***
Clearly, the barriers to effective interorganizational collaboration on behalf of disadvantaged families are formidable. Still, those seeking to develop and implement collaborative projects have a wealth of validated structures to consider--structures that reveal the many ways that community groups have organized themselves to meet the needs of children and families in need.
STRUCTURES FOR COMMUNITY COLLABORATION
The following types of governance structures have been used for interagency collaborations undertaken for a wide variety of purposes, including substance abuse prevention; career education; the delivery of public services, public works, and facility management; and expansion of low-cost housing, as well as the provision of health and social services to disadvantaged students and their families. Collaborations utilizing these different structures are cited in the work of Boulter (1990); Chavis and Florin (1990); Florin (1989); Gold (1985); Kotler (1982); Spring (1988); Williams (1989); and Woodson (1982):

LEAD AGENCY. A single community agency or organization serves as the nodal point and primaryliaison for activities.
COORDINATING COUNCIL. This group provides a structure in which information is distributed and attempts are made to coordinate services among service delivery agencies or organizations.
PROFESSIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. This group supplies professional advice and sometimes services; members include respected professionals who have legitimacy in the community.
STEERING AND POLICY COMMITTEES OR BOARDS. This group provides governing/planning functions for a larger collective body or organization.
TASK FORCE. A task force is the implementer of particular program activities and often consists of both professional and nonprofessional members.
GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. These are informal voluntary structures that are locally initiated by residents responding to particular concerns and conditions. These groups build upon people's commitment to their own turf and translate the abstract concept of community into concrete reality.
NETWORKS. These are loosely structured linkages among groups and organizations that share commitment to a particular community issue. Networks have no formal leadership structure. They encourage the sharing of ideas, experiences, and strategies.
COALITION/COLLABORATION. These are formal alliances of organizations that have come together to work for a common goal.
CO-PRODUCTION. City government and neighborhood organizations divide service delivery responsibility into component tasks which are then parceled out to each, e.g., via service contracts.

Successful projects, it turns out, may utilize any of these structures or a combination of them. The choice of structure is likely to be determined based on the nature of the community which will be involved in organizing and receiving services. As noted in the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory's INSIGHTS newsletter (1990a):
Programs that successfully link education, health, and human services tend to [be characterized by] organizational models that reflect the needs of the communities they serve (p. 3).
And, as indicated by Ascher (1990):
It is ... commonly agreed that the best school-human service collaborative programs are locally defined and arise out of a community's own peculiar history, strengths, interests, and needs (p. 2).
THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY
To elaborate on this last point, those who have studied successful examples of interagency collaboration within communities often point out that the SENSE OF COMMUNITY itself is a critical element in the success of these projects. That is, the presence of characteristics that cause people (as individuals and as members of organizations) to feel a sense of community membership is likely to increase their commitment to collaboration and enhance their effectiveness as collaborators. Thus, although it is outside the scope of this paper to review the sociological literature on community consciousness and community development, it is worthwhile to import a few key concepts from this literature to the present discussion.
What makes for a sense of community? Chavis, et al. (1986) and McMillan and Chavis (1986) tell us that a sense of community is derived from perceptions of membership, influence, fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection.

MEMBERSHIP includes a sense of boundaries, emotional safety, sense of belonging, and personal investment. These aspects work together to determine who is part of the community and who is not.
INFLUENCE refers both to the community's power to affect the individuals and organizations within it and to the power of the individuals and organizations to affect decisions which have communitywide impact.
FULFILLMENT OF NEEDS refers to the members of a community having values and needs that are similar enough to one another that the community as a whole can organize its need-meeting activities and set priorities.
SHARED EMOTIONAL CONNECTION pertains to the capacity of a community to give its members positive ways to interact, important events to share, positive means of resolving events, and opportunities to honor members.

Put more simply, Florin and Chavis (1990) write that "a sense of community is a perception that members have of belonging and being important to each other" (p. 3).
In the context of discussing the power inherent in urban neighborhood organizations to effect positive change, Hallman (1984) offers several definitions and descriptions of "community," concluding with his own:
... people within a limited territory possessing shared values, common interests, and norms of conduct, engaging in social interaction and mutual aid, and having their own groups, associations, and institutions to help meet their basic needs (p. 34).
However, Florin and Chavis (1990) also point out that:
Because �community' has traditionally been defined in geographic terms, community development has traditionally centered on territorial communities. But community can also be defined nonterritorially. Transportation and communications have allowed people to form their own communities of interest (p. 2-3).
The emergence of nonterritorial "communities of interest" is an important consideration. It is increasingly commonplace for geographically separated schools, families, and institutions to see themselves as comprising a community and to undertake collaborative projects. This is most often the case when students from different parts of a city come to a given school for reasons such as magnet program participation, other special schooling needs, or desegregation mandates.
SOME PROMISING PRACTICES

According to the Council of Chief State School Officers report, JOINING FORCES: LINKING EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES TO HELP CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AT RISK (1989), at least 30 states have called for some interagency action on dropout prevention and related issues. The report catalogs approximately 200 programs linking education, social welfare, and sometimes other types of agencies. Activities cover a broad range, including mandates calling for interagency agreements; conferences and other gatherings promoting collaboration among children's services professionals; projects linking education with welfare, community services, and housing; and projects that provide training for school staff members and/or resource materials for their use.
Of the school-community collaborations itemized below, some, such as the New Jersey School-Based Youth Services Program, are large-scale efforts, while others, such as the San Diego New Beginnings Project, currently involve only a few schools. Some, such as James Comer's Child Study Center projects, show very positive results, while most others either show mixed results or are too new to have been thoroughly evaluated. All, however, involve bringing together school personnel with health/social service staff--and sometimes people from the private sector and other organizations as well--to work together to meet the needs of the disadvantaged. The list is far from exhaustive, but is representative of the kinds of projects currently in operation around the U.S.:

NEW JERSEY SCHOOL-BASED YOUTH-SERVICES PROGRAM. Administered by the State Department of Human Services in collaboration with the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health, this program was launched in response to the multiple problems afflicting the state's urban teenagers. Districts applying for state monies must detail plans for working with local agencies offering services relevant to local needs. Sites (which must be in or near a school) offer individual and family counseling, recreational, health, substance abuse, and job counseling/placement services; some also offer day care for teen parents, dropout recovery services, or referrals for such services (Cohen 1989; Sylvester 1990).
YALE UNIVERSITY CHILD STUDY CENTER SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. Originally developed in 1968 and piloted in New Haven, Connecticut schools, this program is now implemented in over 50 schools around the country. Intended to assist low-SES children who are not developmentally ready to benefit from traditional school structures and methods, the program utilizes a Mental Health Team (principal, social worker, psychologist, and special education teacher), a School Governance and Management Team, a Parents Program, and a Curriculum and Staff Development Program (Comer 1986, 1988).
MARYLAND'S INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON TEENAGE PREGNANCY AND PARENTING. The Departments of Education, Health, Human Resources, Employment, and Juvenile Services, as well as the governor's councils on children and adolescent pregnancy jointly administer a grant program to fund local teenage-pregnancy committees to undertake a variety of local projects, including staff training, development of teen drama groups, and development of service directories (Dunkle 1989).
SAN DIEGO NEW BEGINNINGS PROJECT. City and county personnel, the community college district, and the San Diego City schools fund centers which provide a variety of services to families, including physical examinations, job training, food stamps, and eyeglasses. The centers offer families "one-stop" registrations for all the social services for which they qualify. Centers are staffed by social workers, counselors, and nurses (CCSSO 1991; EDUCATION USA 1990; OREGONIAN 1991).
ILLINOIS OUNCE OF PREVENTION FUND. Established in 1982 and jointly funded by the Department of Children and Family Services, the Illinois State Department of Education, and the Public Health and Public Aid Departments, this collaborative administers 40 programs which provide health, social, recreational, and educational services to families at central locations. Comprehensive school-based clinics, teen parent programs, and child development programs are a few of the Fund's service provisions (EDUCATION USA 1990).
ELDER MENTORS PROGRAMS. Programs such as Teen Moms (Portland, Maine) and School Volunteers (Boston, Massachusetts) involve older citizens who volunteer assistance and guidance to teenage mothers, jail-bound young offenders, and students in danger of dropping out of school. Connections provide counseling, social support, role models, and most of all, friendship. Evaluations indicate that intergenerational relationships formed through these programs enhance young people's resilience and capacity to cope successfully with life stresses (Freedman 1988).
LOS ANGELES FOCUS ON YOUTH PROJECTS. Multidisciplinary teams (typically composed of teachers, principals, school psychologists, counselors, parents, and social service agency representatives) coordinate school and community services to provide health and social services and keep young people in school. Among the services provided are family and pregnancy counseling, crisis intervention, job training and placement, tutoring, gang diversion, health and child care, recreation, and other assistance. Funding is provided to projects at 16 elementary, junior high, and senior high schools through collaboration of the school district, the private sector, and local community agencies (McCurdy 1990).
OKLAHOMA COUNTY COALITION OF CITIZENS AND PROFESSIONALS FOR YOUTH. To ensure comprehensive service delivery, this coalition, made up of representatives from education, social services, juvenile justice, mental health, medicine, and law enforcement, has sponsored legislation affecting truancy laws, the sharing of confidential information among service providers, the development of family support centers, the formation of a youth advisory council, and a referral center for truant students (SEDL 1990c).
ARKANSAS CORNERSTONE PROJECT. This project develops neighborhood centers where parents, youth, and professionals meet to plan and work together in a variety of programs, including parenting skills, child care, drug and alcohol prevention and treatment, personal growth, educational enrichment, preventative health services, and referral services. Public and private agency personnel, members of community organizations, representatives of employer and employee associations, and service recipients collaboratively plan and carry out service delivery (SEDL 1990c).
CHATHAM COUNTY-SAVANNAH YOUTH FUTURES AUTHORITY. Funded with state monies, local in-kind contributions, and matching funds from the Annie E. Casey Foundation of Greenwich, Connecticut, this program serves middle school students identified as at risk of dropping out and their families. A cadre of caseworkers serve as liaisons between the school and the families, determining what services families are getting and which are still needed, then developing coordinated plans to meet student and family needs. Participating students attend smaller classes, pursue individualized learning plans in remedial basic skills labs, and work with adult mentors (Sylvester 1990).
KENTUCKY INTEGRATED DELIVERY SYSTEM (KIDS). Designed by the state Cabinet of Human Resources in response to a mandate by the governor, this initiative assists communities in delivering available health and human services at school sites. The initiative has led to the creation of a network of Family and Youth Service Centers throughout the state (CCSSO 1991).
PRESLEY-BROWN INTERAGENCY CHILDREN'S SERVICES ACT. School districts participating in a three-year effort to coordinate health and human service delivery to California students may request a waiver of any state regulations which hinder efforts to link services. The act was sponsored by the Coalition for Children together with a group of child-serving agencies under the leadership of the California State Department of Education (CCSSO 1991).
FLORIDA INTERAGENCY STUDENT SERVICES PROGRAM. Authorized by the state legislature and implemented by the State Department of Education, this program provides grants and assistance to middle schools to enable them to offer school-linked health and social services. The program is currently working with several school districts and universities to design an evaluation instrument to assess the effectiveness of the school-based programs (CCSSO 1991).
OKLAHOMA EARLY INTERVENTION PLAN FOR CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. Six regional centers have been established which pool resources from the State Departments of Education, Health, Mental Health, and Human Services to provide an array of health and social services to families in need (SEDL 1990c).
ALACHUA COUNTY (FLORIDA) PROGRAM. County schools, together with state social service agencies and the University of Florida Medical School Department of Pediatrics, coordinates service delivery to children and their families through a "one-stop shopping" service center. Services provided on site include health care for pregnant women and their babies, high school and adult education courses for parents, nutrition and medical services, preschool and latchkey programs, and after-school care. The program was launched with a combination of state start-up funds and the reallocation of existing resources (Shedlin 1990).
SAN JOSE (CALIFORNIA) SUCCESS TEAM SCHOOLS. A pilot program in three elementary and two middle schools provides services for children and families at school sites. Counseling, health services, and parent education services are available, as well as an array of services to help children succeed academically. Foundations and community agencies provide funding and in-kind services, and improved coordination of services is expected to bring about better use of existing funds (Shedlin 1990).

*** Critical Elements of *** *** Successful School-Community Linkages ***

As part of their analyses of projects like these, many educators and sociologists have identified what they believe to be the essential features of those collaboratives which are achieving success in meeting their objectives. The following program characteristics are identified in the work of Ascher (1990, 1988); Cohen (1989); Committee for Economic Development (1987); Gold (1985); Guthrie and Guthrie (1990); SEDL (1990a,b); and Sylvester (1990):

They are comprehensive and intensive, either directly offering a wide array of services, or providing an easy entry point to services.
They move beyond crisis management and even early intervention to focus on prevention and development.
They are staffed by professionals who are knowledgeable about children and youth, and they are child-centered, putting the needs of the child above institutional or other concerns.
They deliver services to families; the child is treated as a member of a family, and the family is treated as a member of a community, so that a family unit, rather than a group of individuals, is served.
They provide a range of professionals--from nurses to teachers to psychologists--who function as a team and build trusting, respectful relationships with those served.
They frequently make use of case managers who serves as liaisons between children/families and the various agencies providing services.
Staff are given the time, training and skills-- including multicultural awareness and communication skills--to establish and maintain these sustained and supportive relationships.
They are characterized by shared governance and mechanisms which span political and organizational boundaries.
Their funding is shared among collaborators, and restrictions on funding are loosened.
They are results oriented and accountable to participants, families, and the general public.
They cross long-standing bureaucratic and professional boundaries--often providing services in nontraditional settings and at nontraditional hours.
They have meaningful support from people in positions of power and influence.
They respond to local needs; no one administrative arrangement or service setting fits every situation.
There is evidence that small programs work best. Massive programs run the risk of becoming wrapped in bureaucratic anonymity and red tape and thus of depersonalizing problems that involve basic human needs.
They are flexible, going beyond the rigid rules and procedures that keep services fragmented and overlapping.
They are voluntary; participants are involved because they perceive mutual benefit for those engaged in the effort, not because they are required to be.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
SCHOOL-COMMUNITY COLLABORATION

Having identified common characteristics across successful programs, analysts have gone on to offer recommendations to others who want to engage in collaborative activities. The following experiencebased suggestions are divided into those related to policy and those related to the collaborative process.
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING POLICY
These are drawn from the work of Clasby (1979); Committee for Economic Development (1987); CCSSO (1991); and SEDL (1990b):
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

Policies should be revised so as to reduce the proliferation of mandated advisory groups, increase flexibility to accommodate variations in state and local needs, and strengthen federal mandates and incentives for community involvement.
The federal government should set the tone and direction for change by establishing and funding demonstration projects in early childhood education, dropout prevention, and other programs targeted to improve the quality of education for children in need.
Federal policymakers should also waive regulations to enable service providers to be able to mobilize the resources needed to serve children and families.
Federal representatives should provide leadership in interagency collaborations by:

--Establishing state-level coalitions of agencies, teachers, parents, students, the private sector, and foundations to plan and evaluate policy approaches that will support local efforts
--Establishing information systems for sharing information and data for planning.
STATE GOVERNMENT:

Interagency efforts should be initiated or formally endorsed by the governor and state legislature in order to insure participation of all relevant agencies and organizations.
Cost sharing among participants of linkage programs should be promoted (e.g., repositioning staff from one agency to another or to the school).
State policymakers should mandate interdisciplinary training of classroom teachers and social workers in teacher preparation programs and schools of social work.
These professionals-in-training should also receive training in multicultural awareness and communications to strengthen their effectiveness in working with students and families from diverse backgrounds.
Inservice workshops and training should be provided to classroom teachers and community agency workers on social issues which impact students and clients and on strategies for effectively dealing with these problems.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT:

Resources for incentive (seed) grants to local community organizations should be made available.

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING OPERATIONS
These recommendations are identified in writings by Ascher (1990); Bain and Herman (1989); Benard (1987); Florin and Chavis (1990); Guthrie and Guthrie (1990); Institute for Educational Leadership (1986); Pathfinder (1987); Reed and Sautter (1990); Robinson and Mastny (1989); SEDL (1990 a,b,c); and Weiss (1984):

Define the community--Who will be served? Who will be the service providers? What other organizations and individuals should have input into the program or project?
Involve all key players. This not only breaks down the isolation of the school, but also creates a broad sense of ownership and commitment. In addition to social service agencies, health organizations, juvenile justice, and so on, reach out to:

--Community groups--civic, cultural, economic, fraternal, governmental, patriotic, political, professional, religious, retirement, welfare, and youth, as well as established school liaison groups such as the PTA, neighborhood associations, citizen advisory committees, and alumni groups
--Parents. Invite parents to meetings, give them key roles on task forces and subcommittees, and involve them in special events.

Establish a structure that utilizes cooperative funding--contributions of financial support and/or sharing of space, facilities, and resources, including personnel.
Obtain commitment from top-level officials in each key collaborating organization.
Concentrate initially on issues whose mutual relevance and importance is readily apparent.
Provide training on the collaboration process, and make participants aware of the attributes of successful collaborative projects undertaken in other settings.
Develop a plan.

--Vision: Envision how you would like to see children served and agencies interacting. Identify ways that services might be made more comprehensive, preventive, child-centered, and flexible.
--Goals and expectations: Identify outcomes you can reasonably expect for children and changes you foresee in how agencies interact.
--Roles: Determine roles and responsibilities of each participating agency; do this with an eye to the capabilities, legal constraints, etc. of each participant.
--Evaluation: Plan evaluation activities at the beginning. Evaluate both the quality of services to children and the quality of the collaborative process.

Conduct a review of what needs are already adequately met, and what services are already in place; then identify remaining areas of need.
Maintain a system for careful record keeping.
Plan for and conduct long-term evaluation of program success and the progress of participants.
Build, where possible, upon successful past collaborative experiences.

PROVIDING SERVICES AT SCHOOL SITES
Proponents of school-agency linkages hold different points of view about whether school buildings ought to be the sites for providing services to students and families. This issue is raised in the work of Ascher (1990); Shedlin (1990); and SEDL (1990a), among others. Those who favor school-based service delivery offer the following arguments:

Because all children have to attend school, schools are the "most accessible, appropriate, and accountable institutions for establishing collaboratives" (Ascher 1990, p. 1).
Schools are usually geographically accessible and familiar to community residents.
Schools are the primary, and often the only, community institutions seen as positive and neutral.
Schools are concerned with students' overall development; therefore, it is logical for them to coordinate students' contact with human service agencies.

Others, meanwhile, contend that services should be housed in locations other than schools, because:

Schools should not invade areas that are the proper domain of parents, and placing schools in a service coordinator role may inappropriately increase their control over students' lives.
Neighborhood schools have become rare, due to such things as federal desegregation court orders or children attending particular schools because of special needs.
Schools should not be expected to solve societal problems.
School staff members are already overworked and, in any case, are not trained to deliver social services.
Schools can be difficult institutions for other professionals to interact with, since established school practices sometimes work against collaborative approaches.

The truth is that some successful collaborative projects are school based and some are not. It appears that the placement of such services is yet another matter that should be left up to the discretion of collaborators in each local community. Who houses the services seems to be less important than assuring that resource provision and decision making are shared.
BUILDING SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Another emerging theme in the work of those who support school-community linkages is that programs should move client families in the direction of self-sufficiency, rather than fostering their dependence, as some assistance programs have tended to do. This view is supported in a recent piece of federal legislation called the Family Support Act of 1988 (NEW PARTNERSHIPS 1989). Proceeding from the philosophy that social welfare systems should help families to become selfsufficient, the legislation mandates:

Enforcement to assure that child support payment obligations are met by absent parents
Education and basic skills training for welfare recipients
Expanded federal funds for child care services for parents receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Transition support as participants leave assistance programs for employment
The provision of limited assistance to unemployed two-parent families.

Another aspect of developing self-sufficiency in disadvantaged populations is described in the work of Freedman (1988); Benard (1991); and Gibbs and Bennett (1990). These authors cite research showing that programs which increase young people's exposure to "protective factors," such as expressions of adult concern and caring and opportunities to contribute to group well-being, are very effective in increasing those young people's resiliency, self-determination, and success. Participants in such programs have been found to have lower rates of drug/alcohol use, teenage pregnancy, delinquency, and dropping out than would be expected given the stresses and disadvantages which characterize their lives. Development of schoolcommunity programs aimed at reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors in the lives of these youth is therefore encouraged.
THE CRITICAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY RESIDENTS
Finally, the literature on interagency collaboration repeatedly reminds program planners that real and lasting improvement in a community's quality of life requires meaningful involvement of community residents themselves. We have repeatedly noted that the "best" structure for collaboration depends on the nature of the community to be served. Moreover, successful programs draw upon the wisdom and strength of community inhabitants in planning and operating programs. This seems obvious, and yet Naparstek, et al. (1982) remind us that:
One of the chief shortcomings of most federal programs has been the failure to base mental health, human services, and community and economic development initiatives on the strengths, resources and diversities existing in local communities. Community organizations and organizational and cultural networks that have the capacity to support people in need are bypassed (p. 54).
Woodson (1982) underscores the critical role of community residents in improvement efforts:
In countless communities ... individuals, churches, and neighborhood organizations have succeeded where largescale programs have failed to solve, or even to address, a specific community problem (p. 138).
And Hallman (1984) reports findings that ought to have a humbling effect on those who would presume to "fix" the local community through the machinations of outside "experts":
... individual reports suggest that the help received from family, relatives, and neighbors is about as helpful as that received from professionals and, in some instances, more helpful
(p. 21).
When "helping" programs try to operate without the informed viewpoints and resources that community members can bring to bear on meeting their needs, those programs generally alienate the community and fail to ameliorate the problems they were designed to address. It is a source of frustration to many analysts that our society continues to overlook the wisdom and experience of members of disadvantaged communities regarding the issues that affect them. In his discussion of effective community-based programs, Woodson says:
The success of these individuals or organizations has been recognized by community residents, documented by statistics collected by the police, and given official sanction when city agencies contract with these groups for services. Community programs and projects are studied by experts. Their leaders are interviewed by local and national media. Yet when a major social crisis erupts...rarely if ever are these leaders included in the task forces and conferences following the disruption (p. 139).
Community-based improvement projects need the involvement of educational, health, social service, and other professionals in order to succeed; but they also need to be grounded in faith in the people who reside in the community--faith in their judgment, motivation, and goodwill.
Woodson's words on this subject will serve to conclude the present discussion:
A new societal policy should be based on the conviction that the best interests of people cannot be determined by outside experts, however benevolent in intention. Benevolence, or compassion, is an insufficient premise for public policy....The poor should not serve the purpose of providing therapeutic outlets for the compassionate aspirations of other classes; nor should they serve as the power base for those who profess to represent their interests or as the subjects of social experiments. Social policy must be founded on trust among people and in their innate capacity to help themselves
(p. 140).
REFERENCES

Ascher, C. "Linking Schools With Human Service Agencies." ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON URBAN EDUCATION DIGEST 62 (1990): entire issue.
Discusses the need for school-social service agency collaboration and provides an overview of the kinds of collaborations initiated in communities around the nation. Identifies the major characteristics of successful collaboratives.

Ascher, C. URBAN SCHOOL-COMMUNITY ALLIANCES. TRENDS AND ISSUES NO. 10. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education/Institute for Urban and Minority Education, 1988.
Discusses the need for, nature of, and results produced by collaborative projects involving urban schools and other organizations, including business, health and social service agencies, arts and cultural institutions, and universities and colleges. Also identifies research needs regarding such projects.

Bain, J. H., and Herman, J. L. IMPROVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR UNDERACHIEVING MINORITY STUDENTS: A PLANNING GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY ACTION. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1989.
Offers guidelines for school personnel to use to engage community support and work with community groups to improve schooling outcomes for low-achieving minority students. Includes sample letters, planning and record keeping forms.

Barnes, R. W. AN EVALUATION OF THE YOUTH AWARENESS PROGRAM (YAP), SCHOOL YEAR 1983-84. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools, September 1984. (ED 250 415)
Describes the nature and outcomes of a collaborative program of the DC schools and the Metropolitan Police Department which focused on helping secondary students to make appropriate decisions about sex, drugs, crime, and careers. The program had a significant positive impact on both students' level of knowledge and their attitudes.

Benard, B. FOSTERING RESILIENCY IN KIDS: PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN THE FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY. Portland, OR: Western Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities, August 1991.
Discusses factors which research has shown to foster resiliency in young people growing up in stressful circumstances and enable them to succeed rather than falling prey to negative social forces.

Benard, B., and Fafoglia, B. "Knowing What to Do--and Not to Do--Reinvigorates Drug Education." ASCD CURRICULUM UPDATE 29/2 (1987): 1-12.
Discusses effective and ineffective approaches to preventing/reducing drug and alcohol use among schoolage young people. Identifies ways that schools and communities need to work together to increase the effectiveness of prevention programs.

Boulter, R. O. "Building a Balanced Community: Jubilee Housing." THE WORLD & I 5/10 (1990): 501-511.
Describes the history of Jubilee Housing, Inc., a nonprofit housing corporation in Washington, DC, which has grown from a modest community volunteer effort in the late 1960s to an extensive, successful and largely resident-operated organization serving low-income renters.

Bruner, C. THINKING COLLABORATIVELY: TEN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO HELP POLICY MAKERS IMPROVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium, 1991.
Uses a question-and-answer format to provide guidance to state and local policy makers regarding ways to foster collaboration to benefit children and families. Includes resource listings for those seeking more indepth information.

Bryk, A. S., and Driscoll, M. E. THE HIGH SCHOOL AS COMMUNITY: CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES AND CONSEQUENCES FOR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison, November 1988.
Analyzes data from the High School and Beyond Study to identify factors which make up a sense of community in secondary schools, and identifies the effects of a sense of community--or the lack of it--on students and teachers.

Chavis, D. M., and Florin, P. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION: RATIONALE, CONCEPTS, AND MECHANISMS. San Jose, CA: Bureau of Drug Abuse Services, County of Santa Clara, May 1990.
Covers some of the same concepts as the authors' paper on community development for substance abuse prevention (see Florin, below), as well as offering definitions of key terms and descriptions of various structures for community participation.

Chavis, D. M.; Florin, P.; and Felix, M. R. J. "Nurturing Grassroots Initiatives for Community Development: The Role of Enabling Systems." ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK (1990, in press).
Presents a rationale and guidelines for the development of "enabling systems"--structures which can expand and increase the effectiveness of citizen involvement in community organizations. Identifies types and functions of enabling systems, including brief descriptions of actual, currently operating systems.

Chavis, D. M.; Hogge, J. H.; McMillan, D. W.; and Wandersman, A. "Sense of Community Through Brunswik's Lens: A First Look." JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 14/1 (1986): 24-40.
Presents and tests a Sense of Community Index that permits users to determine the relative influence of various factors on the overall perception of a sense of community. Findings support the theory that a sense of community is derived from perceptions regarding membership, influence, fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection.

Chavis, D. M., and Wandersman, A. "Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development." AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 18/1 (1990): 55-81.
Presents a model which shows that having a sense of community can influence people's perception of the community environment, their social relations within the community, and their perception of control and empowerment in such a way that they are more likely to participate in voluntary community organizations.

Chenault, J. "Career Education as a Community Process." JOURNAL OF CAREER EDUCATION 9/3 (1983): 192-202.
Discusses the evolution of career education from a traditional, school-based effort to a collaborative community effort that includes the school as one of the participants. Includes a description of different models of community-based career education.

Clasby, M. COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON THE ROLES OF THE SCHOOL IN THE COMMUNITY. IRE REPORT NO. 3. Boston, MA: Institute for Responsive Education, 1979.
Reports on a series of 15 interviews conducted with citizens experienced in school-community relations at five sites: Washington, DC; Sacramento, CA; Tuskegee, AL; Boston, MA; and Philadelphia, PA. Respondents discussed progress and problems in school-community relations and offered recommendations for strengthening these relations.

Cohen, D. L. "�Joining Forces': An Alliance of Sectors Envisioned to Aid the Most Troubled Young." EDUCATION WEEK 8/25 (March 15, 1989): 7-14.
This series of articles discusses a Council of Chief State School Officers report on collaborative programs involving schools, health agencies, and social service agencies across the nation. Also presents a rationale for such collaborations, describes some of the programs, and identifies key elements of successful projects.

Comer, J. P. "Educating Poor Minority Children." SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN 259/5 (1988): 42-48.
Describes the Yale University Child Study Center program, which enhances young children's ability to succeed in school through close parent-school alliances and the work of a mental health team and a governance and management team.

Comer, J.; Haynes, N. M.; Hamilton-Lee, M.; Boger, J. M.; and Joyner, E. YALE CHILD STUDY CENTER SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY AND LONG TERM EFFECTS. New Haven, CT: Child Study Center, Yale University, 1986. (ED 283 910)
Describes this long-running public school-university cooperative school improvement program and cites research indicating steady progress in the achievement and other outcomes of the poor, inner-city, predominantly black students attending the Connecticut schools in which the program has been implemented.

Committee for Economic Development. CHILDREN IN NEED: INVESTMENT STRATEGIES FOR THE EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED. New York: Research and Policy Committee, Committee for Economic Development, 1987.
Identifies the need for improved educational and other services for America's disadvantaged school population. Outlines a reform strategy which specifies roles for federal, state, and local authorities and which focuses on prevention/intervention for pregnant and parenting teens and their young children, school restructuring, and retention/re-entry for dropouts and potential dropouts

Cotton, K. EDUCATING URBAN MINORITY YOUTH: RESEARCH ON EFFECTIVE PRACTICES. TOPICAL SYNTHESIS #4. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1991.
Summarizes findings from 61 research studies and reviews about educational practices which are beneficial--and those which are harmful--to urban minority students. Includes recommendations drawn from the research.

Council of Chief State School Officers. "A Concern About...Promoting School-Linked Approaches to the Delivery of Effective Health and Social Services for Youth and Families." CONCERNS 33 (June 1991): 1-9.
Outlines the need for school-linked services for families in need, together with a discussion of the barriers to efficient service delivery and the policy and operational issues involved in removing these barriers.

Cuban, L. "At-Risk Students: What Teachers and Principals Can Do." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 46/5 (1989): 29-32.
Argues that school improvement and reform have largely bypassed urban schools and presents research findings concerning educational practices which promote success for students in these schools.

Driscoll, M. E. "The Formation of Community in Public Schools: Findings and Hypotheses." ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTEBOOK 34/4 (1990): entire issue.
Reviews data on 357 public, private, and Catholic schools to identify the components which make up a "sense of community" within schools. Found that both large size and low socioeconomic status work against the development of a sense of community.

Dunkle, M., and Nash, M. "Creating Effective Interagency Collaboratives." EDUCATION WEEK 8/25 (March 15, 1989): 44, 35.
Discusses the need for interagency collaboration to address the needs of at-risk youth and outlines approaches which can lead to successful collaboratives.

EDUCATION USA 32/19 (January 8, 1990): 135-142. Special Issue: Children's Services.
Focuses on links being established among governmental, health, social welfare, and educational agencies across the United States.

Farrar, E., and Hampel, R. L. "Social Services in American High Schools." PHI DELTA KAPPAN 69/4 (1987): 297-303.
Discusses the serious problems and needs of today's teenagers and the ways that social service providers in the nation's high schools respond to these needs and problems. Typical patterns of organization for social services provision indicate a lack of coordination.

Florin, P. NURTURING THE GRASSROOTS: NEIGHBORHOOD VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND AMERICA'S CITIES. New York: Citizens Committee for New York City, Inc., 1989.
Discusses the attributes of volunteer neighborhood groups and gives examples of various groups and their achievements in areas such as bringing about physical improvements and fighting crime and drugs. Includes a description of the operations and achievements of the Citizens Committee for New York City.

Florin, P., and Chavis, D. M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION. San Jose, CA: Bureau of Drug Abuse Services, County of Santa Clara, May 1990.
Reviews the concept of community development, describes the contributions a community development approach can make to substance abuse prevention, and suggests mechanisms for linking community development and substance abuse programs.

Florin, P. R., and Wandersman, A. "Cognitive Social Learning and Participation in Community Development." AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 12/6 (1984): 689-708.
Tests an approach to predicting and understanding resident participation in community development efforts through membership in neighborhood block associations.

Florin, P.; Chavis, D.; Wandersman, A.; and Rich, R. "A Systems Approach to Understanding and Enhancing Grassroots Organizations: The Block Booster Project." In R. Levine and H. Fitzgerald (eds.). ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC PSYCHOLOGICAL SYSTEMS. New York: Plenum, 1991.
Discusses the systems framework used to conceptualize the functioning of voluntary community organizations (VCOs), summarizes findings about the viability of these organizations, reports outcomes of the Booster Block interventions, and discusses implications for working with other VCOs in the future.

Freedman, M. PARTNERS IN GROWTH: ELDER MENTORS AND AT-RISK YOUTH. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1988.
Discusses exemplary intergenerational programs through which older citizens are providing assistance and guidance to teenage mothers, jail-bound young offenders, and students in danger of dropping out of school.

Gibbs, J., and Bennett, S. TOGETHER WE CAN REDUCE THE RISKS OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE AMONG YOUTH: A FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY PREVENTION PLANNING. Seattle, WA: Comprehensive Health Education Foundation, 1990.
Provides background information on and suggestions for developing school-community approaches which can reduce the likelihood of drug and alcohol use by the community's children and youth.

Gold, G. G. COLLABORATE WITH THE COMMUNITY. MODULE CG A-3 OF CATEGORY A-3 OF CATEGORY A--GUIDANCE PROGRAM PLANNING. COMPETENCY-BASED CAREER GUIDANCE MODULES. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, 1985. (ED 257 978)
Offers information to help guidance personnel to increase their knowledge and skills in linking community-based career guidance programs with education and employment initiatives to assist both youth and adults. Includes readings drawn from a variety of sources.

Guthrie, G. P., and Guthrie, L. G. STREAMLINING INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION FOR YOUTH AT RISK: ISSUES FOR EDUCATORS. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, September 1990.
Presents a rationale and offers guidelines for interagency collaboration aimed at improving the delivery of educational and other services to at-risk youth and their families. Guidelines are based on a review of promising models operating in various parts of the U.S.

Hallman, H. W. NEIGHBORHOODS: THEIR PLACE IN URBAN LIFE. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, 1984.
Provides alternative definitions of neighborhoods and neighborhood communities and discusses the various meanings and functions of neighborhoods--as physical settings, social communities, little economies, political communities, and others.

Hodgkinson, H. L. BEYOND THE SCHOOLS: HOW SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES MUST COLLABORATE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS FACING AMERICA'S YOUTH. Alexandria, VA: American Association of School Administrators; National School Boards Association, 1991.
Describes the social problems which have brought about a need for school-community collaboration in support of at-risk young people. Offers a series of ten strategies to improve outcomes for all students, especially those at risk of school failure.

Institute for Educational Leadership. METROLINK: DEVELOPING HUMAN RESOURCES THROUGH METROPOLITAN COLLABORATION. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership, March 1986. (ED 291 832)
Describes the activities of and findings from projects involving schools, communities, and businesses to enhance youth employment opportunities in five metropolitan areas: Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Hartford, CT; Indianapolis, IN; and Portland, OR in 1984-85. Findings about the nature of such collaborations are presented in the form of twelve "themes."

Kagan, S. L. COLLABORATION IN ACTION: RESHAPING SERVICES FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Bush Center for Child Development and Social Policy, September 1990. (ED 328 363)
Presents the methods and results of a study of collaboration among child and family services providers, including identifying and describing effective early care and education collaborations. Seventy-two collaborations were studied.

Kahn, J., and Larson, G. "Meeting Needs with Scarce Resources: Community Network Building for LowIncidence Conditions." In EDUCATION AND THE CHANGING RURAL COMMUNITY: ANTICIPATING THE 21ST CENTURY. Proceedings of the 1989 ACRES/NRSSC Symposium, March 1989. (ED 315 249)
Describes the community network model outlined in Pathfinder (1987) below. Concludes that the key ingredients for the development of a successful network include cooperative working relationships, a formal identification process, leadership development, realistic funding, and clear and open communication.

Kindred, L. W.; Bagin, D.; and Gallagher, D. R. THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976.
Discusses the need for the schools to be accountable to the public and for schools and communities to work together toward shared goals. Provides extensive discussions and guidelines for school staff to use in establishing and maintaining positive, productive community relations.

Kotler, M. "Partnerships in Community Service." JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ACTION 4/4 (1982): 45-50.
Discusses partnerships formed by local governments and neighborhood organizations to facilitate the delivery of various public services, particularly environmental services, public works, and facility management. Examples of different partnership arrangements are given.

Levitan, S. A.; Mangum, G. L.; and Pines, M. W. A PROPER INHERITANCE: INVESTING IN THE SELF-SUFFICIENCY OF POOR FAMILIES. Washington, DC: Center for Policy Studies, The George Washington University, July 1989.
Proposes a comprehensive, family-centered approach to developing social programs to address the needs of the poor. Describes a structure for this "family investment initiative," which would allow poor families to seek assistance at family investment centers in their communities.

Levy, M. R. ASSESSING YOUR COMMUNITY ON OVERLAY MAPS. Eugene, OR: Northwest Community Education Development Center, University of Oregon, 1975.
Discusses the use of overlay maps to increase one's knowledge of a given community through the development of overlay maps of its boundaries, people, land use, organizations, agencies, and other features.

Lindberg, M. "Partnership for Community Problem Solving: Failure and Promise." In PUBLIC POLICIES FOR DISTRESSED COMMUNITIES, edited by F. S. Redburn and T. R. Buss. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1982, 259- 267.
Discusses attempts made by various communities to address their problems through the formation of partnerships, effective and ineffective approaches, and guidelines for effective partnerships involving members of different social and economic sectors.

Mastny, A. Y.; Miller, D.; and Lazarus, A. LINKING SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: RESOURCE DIRECTORY. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Center for Community Education, School of Social Work, 1989.
A companion document to the Robinson and Mastny guidebook (see below), provides national and state-bystate listings and descriptions of resource
organizations in a variety of areas, including adolescent pregnancy/parenting, child abuse and neglect, child advocacy, dropout prevention, drug and alcohol abuse, family life and sex education, and mental health/counseling.

McCurdy, J. "Los Angeles Project Helps Keep At-Risk Students in School: Cadre of Professionals Offer Academic and Emotional Support." EDUCATION USA 32/37 (1990): 283.
Reports on the evaluation of the Focus on Youth project, which has been found to have reduced dropouts, improved attendance, and raised achievement in 16 Los Angeles elementary, junior high, and senior high schools in low-income minority areas.

McMillan, D. W., and Chavis, D. M. "Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory." JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY 14/1 (1986): 6-23.
Reviews sociological literature on the factors which comprise people's sense of community and proposes criteria for a definition and theory of sense of community. These include membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional connection.

Murray, L., and Mess, M. NO EASY ANSWERS: A BLUEPRINT FOR ACTION IN WORKING WITH PREGNANT AND PARENTING ADOLESCENTS AND THOSE AT RISK. Newark, NJ: Association for Children of New Jersey/New Brunswick, NJ: New Jersey Network on Adolescent Pregnancy, Rutgers University, 1986.
Presents the results of a study designed to collect information on the State of New Jersey's service provisions in the field of adolescent pregnancy-- pregnancy prevention, pregnancy services, and teen parenting. Offers recommendations based on findings.

Naparstek, A. J.; Biegel, D. E.; Haskell, C.; and Sherman, W. "Achieving Human Scale: A Policy Framework for Building Partnerships." In NEIGHBORHOOD NETWORKS FOR HUMANE MENTAL HEALTH CARE, by A. J. Naparstek, D. E. Biegel, S. R. Spiro, J. Coffey, and John Andreozzi. New York: Plenum Press, 1982, 47-62.
Describes needs for collaborative partnerships between mental health service providers and the communities they serve, barriers to the development of such partnerships, and suggestions for use by those desiring to establish productive partnerships.

NEW PARTNERSHIPS: EDUCATION'S STAKE IN THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1988. Washington, DC: William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship, 1989.
Describes the provisions of the Family Support Act of 1988, discusses the need for comprehensive services for disadvantaged families, and outlines ways that all levels of government can work with schools and human service agencies to develop collaborative programs.

Oakes, J. IMPROVING INNER-CITY SCHOOLS: CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN URBAN DISTRICT REFORM. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1987. (ED 291 831)
Discusses approaches to improving schooling conditions and outcomes, particularly for urban schools serving disadvantaged populations. Approaches highlighted include application of effective schooling research, alternative programs, early childhood programs, social supports, and cooperative partnerships.

Pathfinder. HOW TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY NETWORK. Minneapolis, MN: Pathfinder, 1987.
Offers guidelines for community network development based on learnings from demonstration projects in Minnesota and Wisconsin. While the Pathfinder model grew out of a need to coordinate services for children with chronic health problems and their families, the recommended steps are applicable to other kinds of network building as well.

Plant, R. "Community: Concept, Conception, and Ideology." POLITICS AND SOCIETY 8/1 (1978): 79-107.
Discusses various political and historical views of community in an attempt to resolve the different meanings ascribed to this term.

Raywid, M. A. "Community and Schools: A Prolegomenon." TEACHERS COLLEGE RECORD 90/2 (1988): 197-210.
Argues that modern society lacks the cohesive communities that were part of the experience of previous generations and promotes the idea of deliberately working to create a sense of community in the public schools.

Reed, S., and Sautter, R. C. "Children of Poverty: The Status of 12 Million Young Americans." PHI DELTA KAPPAN 71/10 (1990): 1-12.
Analyzes the economic circumstances of children in the U.S. and concludes that, "more than 25 years after America first declared war on poverty, the nation's children are worse off than ever." Proposes increased government funding and school-community collaboration to address the problems associated with widespread poverty.

Robinson, E. R. GUIDE TO NETWORKING. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Social Work, Center for Community Education, 1985.
Provides information about networking by presenting answers to commonly asked questions and through identifying the steps involved in establishing a network. Sample letters and forms are included.

Robinson, E. R., and Mastny, A . Y. LINKING SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: A PRACTICAL GUIDE. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Social Work, Center for Community Education, 1989.
Offers a model process for effective school-community collaboration, including roles and responsibilities of various actors, suggested steps to follow, evaluation guidelines, and sample letters and forms.

Schindler-Rainman, E., and Lippitt, R. TEAM TRAINING FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE: CONCEPTS, GOALS, STRATEGIES AND SKILLS. Riverside, CA: University of California, 1972.
Documents the development and implementation of a college extension training program designed to build participant skills in group processes to bring about community change.

"San Diego schools help pupils by helping families." OREGONIAN, May 13, 1991, pp. A1, A6.
Describes New Beginnings, a San Diego program that provides on-campus access to food stamps, eyeglasses, physical examinations, job training, and other services to disadvantaged students and their parents.

Shedlin, A., Jr. "Shelter from the Storm." THE AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL 177/8 (1990): 12-16.
Argues that the public schools were "designed for a society that no longer exists," and that they need to take on the role as the center of social services for children. Describes several approaches schools across the country are taking to provide or coordinate needed services.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. "SchoolLinked Services--So that Schools Can Educate and Children Can Learn--Part 1." INSIGHTS ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND PRACTICE 20 (May 1990).
Describes the nature of the need for schools to integrate social and health service providers and increase access to these services for disadvantaged students and families who are in need. Identifies attributes of programs which successfully link education, health, and human services.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. "SchoolLinked Services--So that Schools Can Educate and Children Can Learn--Part 2." INSIGHTS ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND PRACTICE 20 (August 1990).
Identifies additional characteristics of successful programs bringing together educational, health, and social services and explores policy changes needed to make efficient service delivery possible.

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. "SchoolLinked Services--So that Schools Can Educate and Children Can Learn--Part 3." INSIGHTS ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND PRACTICE 20 (September 1990).
Identifies the efforts of policymakers, educators, and human service professionals in the Southwest region who are working to bring about the kinds of coordinated service delivery systems that can effectively meet the needs of at-risk students and their families.

Spring, W. J. "A Public/Private Careers Service: Building Network of Opportunity for the Majority of Our Young People." SCHOOL SUCCESS FOR STUDENTS AT RISK: ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1988, 248-273.
Draws upon European apprenticeship practices and model American projects such as the Boston Compact to argue that the U.S. needs a "new institution," which would engage the business community "as organized participants in the community's effort to instruct and to provide an economic future for its young people," particularly at-risk minority youth.

Sylvester, K. "New Strategies to Save Children in Trouble." GOVERNING 3/8 (1990): 32-37.
Discusses the trend toward school-social service agency collaboration to address an array of needs experienced by students and their families. Gives examples of successful pilot programs, and identifies common elements across these programs.

Warren, D. I. HELPING NETWORKS: HOW PEOPLE COPE WITH PROBLEMS IN THE URBAN COMMUNITY. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
Presents results of a study of the ways in which different populations in a community deal with their problems (1) independently of professional service agencies and (2) through utilizing such agencies.

Weiss, J. A. "Pathways to Cooperation Among Public Agencies." JOURNAL OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT 7/1 (1987): 94-117.
Examines the kinds and degrees of cross-agency cooperation engaged in by nine groups of local school districts. Discusses barriers to cooperation and forces that cause agencies to overcome those barriers. Offers a process model which can help agency personnel to design more workable cooperative relationships.

Weiss, M. PARTNERS: REACHING OUT. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Montana Adult Education Association and Montana Association of Community Education, Lewiston, MT, October 1984. (ED 258 670)
Discusses the importance of, barriers to, and essential elements in cooperative partnerships involving, public schools, community colleges, community education programs, businesses, and other organizations. Provides examples of partnerships with which the author has been involved.

Wellman, B. "The Community Question Re-Evaluated." In POWER, COMMUNITY AND THE CITY, VOLUME I, edited by B. Wellman. New Brunswick: Transition Books, 1988, 81- 107.
Discusses past and present concepts of "community." Concludes that personal communities or networks, which are defined socially rather than spatially, are the significant communities in modern urban settings and that these personal communities connect their members to larger social structures.

Wilkins, R. "The Black Poor Are Different." NEW YORK TIMES, August 22, 1989, p. 23.
Argues that the legacy of racism and the breakdown of the family in black urban culture have created a particular set of problems which can best be addressed by making needed social services available through the public schools.

Williams, M. R. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZING FOR URBAN SCHOOL REFORM. New York: Teachers College Press, 1989.
Examines the history of, need for, and barriers to neighborhood organizing to bring about school improvement, particularly in poor, inner-city settings. Includes case studies and suggestions based on findings.

Winecoff, L., and Powell, C. FOCUS: SEVEN STEPS TO COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING. Midland, MI: Pendell Publishing Co., 1975.
Describes a model to be used by diverse groups within a community to work together to address their shared concerns and problems. Includes a focus on establishing and pursuing measurable outcomes and evaluating project effectiveness.

Woodson, R. L. "The Importance of Neighborhood Organizations in Meeting Human Needs." Chapter 1 in J. A. Meyer, ed., MEETING HUMAN NEEDS: TOWARD A NEW PUBLIC PHILOSOPHY. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1982, 132-149.
Focuses on the key role of neighborhood groups in serving the needs of community members, including a discussion of the drawbacks associated with the attempts of social service agencies to address problems, barriers faced when neighborhood groups pursue self-help activities, and the stages in the development of these groups.

This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, under Contract Number RP91002001. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the Department, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
November 1991

This document's URL is:

Home | Up & Coming | Programs & Projects: School Improvement | People | Products & Publications | Topics

� 2001 Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory

Date of Last Update: 8/31/01
Email Webmaster
Tel. 503.275.9500

School Improvement Research Series(SIRS)

Research You Can Use

Topical Synthesis #5

School-Community Collaboration to Improve the Quality of Life for Urban Youth and Their Families

The Schooling Practices That Matter Most

School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS)