0
The Children’s Aid Society
Twenty-first Century
Community Learning Center
Grant (2010-2013)
Evaluation Report
Prepared by
Eoin Collins, Muamer Rasic and Heléne Clark
December, 2013
ActKnowledge 365 Fifth Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone 212.817.1906
www.actknowledge.org
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2
1. Introduction and Background………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
2. Children’s Aid Society Community Schools and Community School Theory of Change ………….8
3. Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
3.1 Youth Outcomes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13
3.2 Parent/Family Outcomes………………………………………………………………………………………………..21
4. Conclusions and Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………….24
Appendix 1: Literature Review on Community Schools…………………………………………………………….26
Appendix 2: References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
2
Executive Summary
This is a report of the results of an evaluation focused on the two Children’s Aid Society
community schools in New York City where the elements of the community school model are at
an advanced stage of implementation. These are:
Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School, which incorporates three middle
schools on one campus (I.S. 218, M.S. 293, and M.S. 322); and
Mirabal Sisters Community School, which incorporates two middle schools on one
campus (M.S. 319 and M.S. 324).
Both schools are based in Washington Heights and have been community schools for some
time. They were selected by CAS and the evaluators as the best implementers of the model out
of the five community schools funded for the last five years under 21st Century Community
Learning Center grants. The previous years of evaluation looked at implementation and
outcomes in all five schools. As one would hypothesize, outcomes were best when
implementation was strongest. Therefore, this evaluation focuses on outcomes and lessons in
schools in which implementation has the most fidelity to the CAS Community School model.
The evaluation focused in particular on the progress made by these two schools over the period
2010-20121 in achieving outcomes linked to various preconditions for student success
articulated in the Children’s Aid Society Community Schools Theory of Change (ToC). Key
findings on youth outcomes and parent/family engagement are summarized as follows.
Youth Outcomes
Academic Achievement
Average student proficiency in Math in both community schools increased each year
from 2010 to 2012. Proficiency increased among after school participants and students
in each school as a whole. Over this period Math proficiency of after school students
increased from 46% to 57% compared to school wide improvements of 39% to 55% for
Salomé and of 52% to 59% for Mirabal.
Average proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) for each school has been lower and
somewhat more variable than proficiency in Math between 2010 and 2012. This is
correlated to the significant number of English Language Learners who comprise over
40% of students in both community schools; in the school with fewer ELL students, ELA
proficiency was significantly higher.
1 DOE instituted a new test in the 2009-2010 school year, and again in the 2012-2013 school year to reflect Common Core curricula. Therefore, the years available for longitudinal comparison are 2010, 2011 and 2012.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
3
Tests changed between 2012 and 2013 and therefore it is not possible to compare 2013
results to previous years. Nationally, and within CAS community schools, scores on the
new test trend lower. Future tests will have to use the 2013 test as a baseline.
Attendance and Absentee Rates
The leadership of the Children’s Aid Society in understanding and addressing
absenteeism and chronic absenteeism is having an effect in the two schools under
review.
Both community schools have had attendance rates above 90% through 2010-2013,
broadly in line with the average attendance rates for middle schools in the city through-
out this period.
Chronic and severely chronic absentee rates in both schools have decreased from 2010-
11 to 2011-12 academic school years and the rates were lower than the city average for
2011-2012 academic school year.
Youth development
A significant majority of after school students were very positive about the after school
program in their school believing it to be a comfortable and supportive environment.
The CAS after school students are participating in a variety of academic and enrichment
programming ranging from use of computers to physical and recreational activities.
Surveys indicate that the after school programs are having a positive impact on social
and emotional development. For example, a majority of students from 2010-2012
agreed that the program in their school is providing positive role models and helping
them get on better with others.
The surveys also indicate the after school program activities are helping participants
improve reading, writing, and math and develop the capacity and skill to do better in
school.
Afterschool participants score highly on questions relating to goals and aspirations. For
example, more than 90 percent of after school students in both schools indicated an intent to
attend and finish college.
Parent/Family Engagement
The two community schools scored higher than the city average on every domain on
parent/family engagement measured in Department of Education parent surveys from 2010 to
2013. In particular:
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
4
The response rates to the DOE Parent Surveys, which can be considered an indicator of
parent engagement, are higher for both community schools than the city average.
The schools also scored higher than the city average on all domains including ‘safety and
respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’ and ‘engagement’ by the school.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
5
1. Introduction and Background
This is a report of the results of a 21st Century Community Learning Center (21CCLC) evaluation
focused on the two Children’s Aid Society community schools in New York City where the
elements of the CAS community school model are at an advanced stage of implementation.
These schools are Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School and Mirabal Sisters
Community School.
The evaluation of the schools has been carried out with reference to the Theory of Change for
Community Schools developed by CAS and ActKnowledge, which sets forth the range of
preconditions necessary to achieve overall student success. This encompasses preconditions
around youth development, academic achievement, attendance and participation,
parent/family engagement, and involvement with the schools.
In keeping with the goals of 21st Century Community Learning Center (21CCLC) funding, the
successes of programs funded by 21CCLC, in particular the after-school program, are the basis
of analysis. Students in 21CCLC after-school programs are compared with students not
attending, and school-wide results are reported as well.
1.1 Background to the Evaluation
This is the fifth year of a 21st Century Community Learning Center Grant which The Children’s
Aid Society received for programs at five schools –Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Campus, Mirabal
Sisters Campus, Vito Marcantonio P.S./I.S. 50, The Bilingual Magnet School P.S.211, and
Herman Ridder I.S. 98. For the following reasons, CAS and the evaluators decided that more
could be learned from examining the schools with highest fidelity (Salomé Urena de Henriquez
and Mirabel Sisters Campus) to the CAS Community School model. These factors determined
the focus of the Year 5 evaluation:
1. Previous evaluation has confirmed, as hypothesized, that better implementation leads
to better outcomes.
2. Conversely, reporting on outcomes for schools that have challenges and barriers to
integrating and providing services does not shed light on whether the community school
model is, itself, effective.
3. The two schools with the most success at implementation have the most to teach us
about the connection between program offerings, student and school need, and
achieving outcomes.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
6
4. On a practical level, evaluation resources were lower in Year 5, and priority was given to
drawing lessons about what happens when programming is actually implemented as
intended.
1.2 Methods
The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach of qualitative and quantitative analysis. These
include:
Development and Refining of the Theory of Change
The Children’s Aid Society and ActKnowledge developed a comprehensive Theory of Change
for Community Schools in 2011. It is a good model of Community School components and it
serves as a basis for evaluation. The theory is described in detail in Section 3.
Site Visits
ActKnowledge conducted site visits at each community school using interview protocols,
focus group protocols, and observational protocols designed to elicit the views of
stakeholders on developments and achievements of community school programming. Visits
at each site involved structured meetings and interviews with stakeholders including:
o Interviews with community schools site directors
o Interviews with principals
o Interviews with parent coordinators
o Interviews with after school staff
o Focus groups with parents
o Focus groups with students participating in the after school program
o Observations of after school activities.
Youth Surveys
ActKnowledge analyzed results from youth surveys which have been developed and
conducted each year by The Children’s Aid Society and which are posted on
youthservices.net. Note: End of school year surveys were not undertaken in 2013 so the
results in the evaluation are for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.
Identification and Analysis of Academic and Attendance Data
ActKnowledge analyzed academic and attendance data from youthservices.net and the New
York City Department of Education.
o The academic data were analyzed for the 2009-2010 through 2011-2012 academic
years, and findings were reported on ‘average % proficiency on Math and ELA’ State
Exams for Salomé Ureña Campus, Mirabal Sisters Campus, and CAS after school
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
7
participants in general. DOE instituted a new test in the 2009-2010 school year, and
again in the 2012-2013 school year to reflect Common Core curricula. Therefore, the
years available for longitudinal comparison are 2010, 2011 and 2012.
o The attendance rates were analyzed from 2009-2010 through 2012-2013 academic
school years.
o The chronic and severely chronic absentee rates were analyzed from 2010-2011
through 2011-2012 academic school years on Salomé Ureña Campus, and Mirabal
Sisters Campus, and a comparison to the citywide average was conducted for the
2011-2012 academic school year.
Parent Surveys
ActKnowledge analyzed results from Department of Education Parent Surveys from 2010-
2013 on Salomé Ureña Campus and Mirabal Sisters Campus and compared the results with
the citywide average. The Department of Education parent survey measures the perception
and satisfaction of parents with their children’s schools across domains that include ‘safety
and respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’, and ‘engagement’.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
8
2. Profile of the Community Schools and Community School Theory of
Change
2.1 Salomé Ureña de Henriquez Campus (I.S. 218, M.S. 293, M.S. 322)
The Salomé Ureña Middle Academies (SUMA IS 218) was established as a Full Service
Community School in 1992 through a partnership between The Children’s Aid Society, the New
York City Department of Education, Community School District Six, and community-based
partners. Located in Washington Heights, the school was purpose-built as a community school
and was, with P.S. 5, among the first community schools to be established by CAS.
In 2004, Salomé Ureña Middle Academies was divided into three schools: I.S. 218, M.S. 293
(now called City College Academy of Arts) and M.S. 322. The Children's Aid Society still provides
full services and programs to all schools on the campus. Services and programs include after-
school, Saturday, holiday and summer programs. They also include mental health, medical, and
dental services; and a set of services relating to family support and community engagement.
These include a family resource room, vocational and educational training, adult education,
advocacy and leadership opportunities. From its inception the school has served as a prototype
for the community schools model for hundreds of community schools in the United States and
abroad.
Chart 1 below shows enrollment for each constituent school in Salomé Ureña. The total number
of students that attended Salomé Ureña Campus was 997 in 2012-2013.
Chart 1: Enrollment at Salomé Ureña Campus
As noted in Chart 2, English Language Learners have comprised a significant part of the student
body in I.S. 218 and M.S. 322 - ELL students comprised 45.6 percent of students in I.S. 218 and
40.4 percent of students in M.S. 322 in 2012-2013. The City College Academy of Arts (CCAA) has
significantly fewer English Language Learners.
368 365 341 309
490 494 463
428
258 270 271 260
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
IS 218
MS 322
CCAA 293
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
9
Chart 2: % ELL Students at Salomé Ureña Campus
2.2 Mirabal Sisters Campus (M.S. 319, M.S. 324)
The Mirabal Sisters Campus opened in 1994 as I.S. 90 in collaboration with The Children’s Aid
Society and in 2004 was divided into three schools, two of which subsequently merged.
The Children's Aid Society provides similar services and programs to those which have been
developed in Salomé Ureña Campus including an after school program, various health services
and services to support parents and the wider community. The Mirabal Sisters Campus is also
located in the Washington Heights/Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan.
Chart 3 below shows the number of enrollments from 2009 to 2013 with a total enrollment of
1054 in 2013. As illustrated in Chart 4, Mirabal also, like Salomé, has a significant number of
English Language Learners comprising 40.1 percent of students in M.S. 324, and 35.3 percent at
M.S. 319 in 2013.
Chart 3: Enrollment at Mirabal Sisters Campus
44% 45.5% 44.3% 45.6%
36.3% 37.7% 38.2% 40.4%
11.6% 12.6% 9.2% 7.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
IS 218
MS 322
CCAA 293
538 570 649 634
422 407 427 424
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
MS 319
MS 324
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
10
Chart 4: % ELL Students at Mirabal Sisters Campus
2.3 Children’s Aid Society Community Schools Theory of Change
The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and ActKnowledge developed the Community Schools Theory
of Change over the course of a year and completed it in May 2011. The CAS Community Schools
Theory of Change was created in a series of participatory meetings and is the basis for CAS
evaluation efforts. It serves as a fairly good model of Community School components in general.
The theory is a good starting point for any initiative, although each should reflect its particular
context, needs and priorities.
The CAS Community Schools Theory of Change has three outcome pathways to achieve its long-
term outcome of “Youth have opportunities for positive engagement after high school.” The
three outcome pathways consist of Youth Outcomes, Parents and Families Outcomes, and
Institutional Outcomes.
Youth Outcomes Pathway
A key precondition to the long-term outcome ‘Youth have opportunities for positive
engagement after high school’ as articulated in the Theory of Change is ‘Young people succeed
academically’ – i.e., students are earning good grades in class, passing state exams, and
graduating. For young people to succeed academically they have to have ‘high attendance.’
They must be present in school to keep up with class materials and homework. A precondition
to regular attendance is good health – i.e., students are not out sick on a regular basis. Also, a
‘school-based health center’ is there to provide ‘quality health care’ so that students can be
treated in the school rather than be out sick.
Parent and Family Outcomes Pathway
The Children’s Aid Society has identified parent and family engagement as an important
precondition to youth outcomes as articulated in the Theory of Change. The long-term outcome
36.8% 38.2% 39.1%
35.3%
40.0%
44.5% 44.0%
40.1%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
MS 319
MS 324
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
11
of the parents and family pathway is ‘Parents/Families are partners:’ They become partners by
‘engaging at every level’– i.e., by supporting their children’s academic needs at home, creating
an ‘in-home learning’ environment, being supportive at school, being ‘active participants at
school,’ by attending school events and meetings, and so on.
Institutional Outcomes Pathway
The Institutional Outcomes pathway shows short-term preconditions to outcomes in the parent
and family pathway as well as the youth pathway. Institutional outcomes (preconditions)
comprise ‘securing sustainable funding,’ ‘sharing data, results, and evidence with partners,’
‘capacity building at the site level,’ and ‘strong and effective leadership;’ all of which make the
‘community school model sustainable’.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
13
3. Findings
In this section we present key findings from the evaluation based on a selection of key
outcomes articulated in the Theory of Change.
3.1 Youth Outcomes
Academic Achievement
One of the key youth outcomes articulated in the Theory of Change is ‘Young people succeed
academically’. As illustrated in Chart 5, proficiency in Math between 2010 and 2012 has
increased each year for both schools and for after school students within each school. In
particular:
At Salomé Ureña Campus, average % proficiency increased from 39% in 2009-10, to 45%
in 2010-11 and 55% in 2011-12.
At Mirabal Sisters Campus, average % proficiency increased from 52% in 2009-10 to 58%
in 2010-11 and 59% in 2011-12.
Over this period math proficiency of after school students was 46% in 2009-2011 and
increased to 57% in 2011-12.
The new proficiency test aligned with the common core curriculum resulted in a 30.4 percent
decline in average scores for math in NYC in the 2012-2013 school year as compared to the
previous year2. The two schools under review also posted lower proficiency rates under the
new testing. These results are discontinuous from previous years, owing to the difference in
both curriculum and test content, and cannot be compared. Test results for 2013 will provide a
new baseline.
2 For discussion on the implications of the move to the new proficiency testing see the report 2013 New York State Common Core Test Results: New York City Grades 3-8. http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/2013/2013_math_ela_deck.pdf
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
14
Chart 5: Average % Proficiency in Math
Chart 6 below illustrates average proficiency in English Language Arts. Proficiency in ELA for
each school and in after school students has been lower and somewhat more variable than
proficiency in math between 2010 and 2013. For example:
At Salomé Ureña Campus the average proficiency in ELA was 28% in 2009-10, decreasing
to 23% in 2010-11 and then increasing to 32% in 2011-12.
At Mirabal Sisters Campus the average proficiency was 20% in 2009-10, increasing to
21% in 2010-11 and then 25% in 2011-12.
CAS after school students average proficiency increased from 23% in 2009-10, to 24% in
2010-11 and 28% in 2011-12.
Chart 6: Average % Proficiency in ELA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average % Proficient inMath Salome Urena DeHenrique(IS218,MS322,CCAA293)
Average % Proficient inMath Mirabal SitersCampus (MS319,MS324)
Average % Proficient inMath CAS AfterschoolStudents
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Average % Proficient inELA Salome Urena DeHenrique(IS218,MS322,CCAA293)
Average % Proficient inELA Mirabal SitersCampus (MS319,MS324)
Average % Proficient inELA CAS AfterschoolStudents
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
15
The relatively low levels of proficiency in ELA, compared to scores in math, is correlated with
the high numbers of English Language Learners (ELL) in the schools. This can be seen if the
figures for the constituent schools are disaggregated. For example, in Salomé Ureña over 45
percent of the student body at I.S. 218 in 2011-2012 were English Language Learners and the
proficiency level in ELA in this period was 18 percent. By contrast, M.S. 293, another
constituent school of Salomé, had an enrollment of only 7.3 percent of ELL students and, at 56
percent, showed much greater proficiency in ELA.
Attendance
A key precondition in the Theory of Change for students to succeed academically is having ‘High
Attendance’ in school. Charts 7 and 8 below illustrate average attendance rates for each
community school and their constituent schools from 2010 to 2013 compared to an
approximate city average.3
As illustrated there is some variation in attendance rates among the constituent schools at both
Salomé and Mirabal. From 2010 to 2013 CCAA 293 had an attendance rate above the city
average while I.S. 218 was somewhat lower. At Mirabal Sisters Campus, both schools had an
average attendance rate consistently above the city average throughout this period.
Chart 7: Attendance Rate at Salomé Ureña Campus
Chart 8: Attendance Rate at Mirabal Sisters Campus
3 The city average was calculated by the evaluators using the New York City Department of Education Progress
Reports.
89.9% 90.3% 91.2%
89.2%
91.8% 91.1%
92.3% 91.6%
95.0% 94.3%
95.2% 94.8%
86.0%
88.0%
90.0%
92.0%
94.0%
96.0%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
IS 218
MS 322
CCAA 293
94.2%
93.4%
94.3% 94.4%
95.0% 95.0% 94.9% 94.8%
92.5%
93.0%
93.5%
94.0%
94.5%
95.0%
95.5%
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
MS 319
MS 324
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
16
Chronic/Severely Chronic Absenteeism
Even a school with high attendance rates can have high ‘chronic or ‘severely chronic’ absentee
rates – for example, because different students take turns being absent on a daily basis. The
attendance rate might be 95 percent but when the absences are added together, they can
accumulate and student(s) can miss a month or more of school over the course of the school
year. In New York City, a student is ‘chronically’ absent if he/she misses 20-37 days of school in
a year and ‘severely chronically’ absent if he/she misses 38 days or more of school. 4
The Children’s Aid Society has been taking leadership on analyzing and dealing with chronic
absenteeism in its community schools. Figures on chronic absenteeism in both schools show
that this leadership is having an impact. As outlined in Chart 9 below, ‘chronic’ and ‘severely
chronic’ absentee rates declined for both community schools between 2010-11 and 2011-12.
The ‘chronic absentee’ rate in Salomé Ureña Campus decreased from 16 percent to 15 percent
and the ‘severely chronic’ absentee rate decreased from six percent to five percent. Similarly in
Mirabal Sisters Campus, the ‘chronic absentee’ rate decreased from 11 percent to 8 percent but
the ‘severely chronic absentee’ rates was maintained at four percent. These percentage
differences appear low, but the absolute numbers of chronically absent students are relatively
small, so a small percentage difference means a few individuals have been turned around.
Chart 9: Chronic and Severely Chronic Absentee Rate Comparison between Salomé Ureña and
Mirabal Sisters Campus (2010-11 and 2011-12)
4 For fuller analysis of chronic absenteeism see for example the resources section of the National Center for Community Schools and reports for example, the National Center for Children in Poverty Report Present, Engaged, and Accounted For (Chang at el, 2008).
16% 15%
6%
5%
11%
8%
4% 4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
%ChronicallyAbsent in2010-11
%ChronicallyAbsent in2011-12
% SeverelyChronicallyAbsent in2010-11
% SeverelyChronicallyAbsent in2011-12
Salome Urena DeHenrique Campus(I.S.219, M.S.293,M.S.322)
Mirabal Sisters Campus(M.S.319, M.S.324)
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
17
‘Chronic’ and ‘severely chronic’ absentee rates for Salomé Ureña and Mirabal Sisters Campus
were lower for New York City as a whole in 2011-2012. This is illustrated in Chart 10 below
which shows that Mirabal Sisters Campus and Salomé Ureña Campus had ‘chronic absentee’
rates of eight and 15 percent respectively compared to 19 percent for the city as a whole. The
two schools also had ‘severely chronic absentee’ rates of four and five percent respectively
compared to six percent for the city.5
Chart 10: 2011-12 Chronic and Severely Chronic Absentee Rate: Salomé Ureña and Mirabal
Sisters Campus Compared to Citywide Average
Key personnel in both schools highlighted the capacity of the community school model to
engage with all stakeholders, particularly with parents, as being critically important to
addressing absenteeism and chronic absenteeism issues. For example, travel between the
United States and the country of origin of students from immigrant communities (who
comprise a significant proportion of the student body in both schools) was found to be one
factor in absentee rates for some students. The success of the community school in engaging
with parents provided effective approaches to facilitate such travel in ways that reduced
student absenteeism.
5 Data derived from Balfanz and Byrnes (2008). Meeting the Challenge of Combating the Chronic Absenteeism: Impact of the NYC Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Chronic Absenteeism and School Attendance and Its Implications for Other Cities. http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combating_chronic_absenteeism.pdf
19%
6%
15%
5%
8%
4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
% Chronically Absent % Severely ChronicallyAbsent
Citywide
Salome Urena DeHenrique Campus(I.S.219, M.S.293,M.S.322)
Mirabal Sisters Campus(M.S.319, M.S.324)
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
18
Youth Development
The Theory of Change for Community Schools identifies a whole set of youth development
preconditions necessary for student achievement including key outcomes around social,
emotional and health development. Afterschool programs are designed to provide students
with a variety of academic and enrichment activities that encompass all these aspects of young
people’s development. CAS has designed and administered youth surveys which seek to
capture the impact of these various activities across these areas. Selected highlights from the
surveys are presented as follows.
Chart 11 below illustrates student’s perceptions of the after school program in terms of feeling
welcomed and included. A large majority of students are very positive about the after school
program staff, agreeing with the statement that ‘staff really care about me’. Students also
describe after school as fun and as a place where their ideas are heard.
Chart 11. Positive Perceptions of the Afterschool Program
Chart 12 below illustrates some of the opportunities offered to students by the after school
program in each community school. For example, large majority of students state that they get
an opportunity to ‘do a lot of new things’, to use computers, engage in sports and also in the
arts. These are opportunities are all linked to social and physical health outcomes identified as
important preconditions in the Theory of Change, including self-awareness and growth through
new opportunities.
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus
I have fun My ideas are heard
I feel comfortable Staff really care about me
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
19
Chart 12. Selected opportunities for students offered by the Afterschool Program
In addition to enrichment opportunities (which encompass arts, sports, etc.) the after school
programs offer activities directly relating to academic improvement. Chart 13 below outlines
students’ perceptions of these various elements of the after school program on their school
work and academic capacity. For example, a large majority of students stated in each year from
2011 to 2012 that, since joining the after school program, they have improved their homework
skills, reading, writing, and math. A large majority also say that after school program helps them
get better grades in school.
Chart 13. Impact on school work and academic capacity
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus
I get a chance to do a lot of new things
Play an instrument, sing, dance, act, draw or do some other type of art
Use computer or some other technology better
Physical activities: playing sports, dancing, or martial arts
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus
Improve my homework skills Improve my study skills
Improve my reading Improve my writing
Improve my math Get better grades in school
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
20
Chart 14 below shows that the after school programs are having a significant impact on
students’ perceptions of goals and aspirations. High aspirations and expectations on the part of
students (and on the part of parents and teachers) has been identified in the Theory of Change,
and in the education literature more broadly, as key preconditions for student progression. For
example, a large majority of students agree with the statement that they will go to college,
finish college, and, more immediately, finish middle school.
Chart 14. Impact on Educational Goals and Aspirations
The survey also looks at other indicators related to student participation and success in school.
For example, as noted on Chart 15, a significant majority of after school students agreed that
the after school program helps them work better with others, keep safe and out of trouble, and
contributes to positive decision-making around health and money management.
Chart 15.Other Indicators Relating to Youth Development
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus
I will finish middle school I will finish high school or get my GED
I will go to college I will finish college
0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%
100.0%
2010-2011 2011-2012 2010-2011 2011-2012
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus
Work together with others better
Stay out of trouble and make decisions that keep me safe
Make smart decisions about saving and spending money
Make better choices about health and nutrition
Helps make me a positive role model
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
21
3.2 Parent/Family Engagement Outcomes
As articulated in the CAS community school Theory of Change, the involvement and
engagement of parents is a fundamental part of the community schools model. Effective parent
engagement needs work at every level of the school, from simple communication right through
to methods to involve parents in school governance.
Both community schools, in line with the community school model, have placed a strong
emphasis on parent involvement. Both offer a range of facilities and services to meet the needs
of parents and to involve them as partners in the work of the school and in the education of
their children.
At Salomé, the CLC programs have targeted services towards single parents, immigrant families,
and low-income families. Mirabal has an equally strong focus on meeting the needs of parents
and involving them in the school. Facilities and services provided by both schools include the
provision of very accessible and visible family rooms, provision of adult education (for example,
ESL, GED classes, financial literacy, etc.) and measures to engage parents as volunteers in the
school.
Department of Education (DOE) parent surveys show that the work of the community schools
on parent engagement is having an impact. As illustrated in Chart 16 below, the response rate
to the DOE Parent Surveys by Salomé and Mirabal is substantially above the NYC average. This
response rate can itself be considered an indicator of success of the school in engaging with
parents.6
Chart 16: DOE Parent Survey Response Rate (%)
6 The Department of Education parent survey measures the perception and satisfaction of parents with their
children’s schools across domains that include ‘safety and respect’, ‘academic expectations’, ‘communication’, and
‘engagement’.
72% 74% 62%
70% 85%
95% 95% 96%
49% 52% 53% 54%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Salome Urena Campus Mirabal Sisters Campus CityWide
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
22
Parents from Salomé and Mirabal, as shown in Chart 17, below also scored higher than the city
average in questions relating to safety and respect. Questions on safety included scoring on
statements such as ‘my child is safe’ and ‘having an adult whom my child trusts and can go for
help’.
Chart 17: Satisfaction across domains – Safety and Respect
As illustrated in Chart 18, parents in the two schools also scored higher on academic
expectations than the citywide average. The survey questions consisted of the school having
‘high expectations for my child’, ‘gives my child meaningful assignments that help him or her
learn’, ‘is preparing my child well to be promoted to the next grade level or graduate’, and
‘helps keep my child on track for college, career and success in life after high school.’
Chart 18: Satisfaction across domains – Academic Expectations
9.1 9.0 9.0 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.2
8.7 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.4
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Salome Urena Campus
Mirabal Sisters Campus
CityWide
8.6 8.5 8.4 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.8 9.0
8.0 8.0 8.0 8.3
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Salome Urena Campus
Mirabal Sisters Campus
CityWide
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
23
Parents at Salomé and Mirabal as shown in Chart 19 scored higher on communication than the
NYC average. The survey questions consisted of the school ‘keeps me informed about my child’s
academic progress’, ‘keeps me informed about what my child is learning’, ‘keeps me informed
about services for me or my child, such as tutoring, after-school programs, or workshops at
school’, ‘communicates with me in a language that I can understand’, and ‘gives my child
regular and helpful feedback on his or her work.’
Chart 19: Satisfaction across domains – Communication
Parents at Salomé and Mirabal as shown in Chart 20 again scored higher on measures of parent
engagement in the school than the city average. Indicators of engagement included questions
relating to whether the school made them feel welcome, whether it catered to their language
needs, was flexible around scheduling meeting at different times of the day and whether the
school was responsive to parent feedback.
Chart 20: Satisfaction across domains – Engagement
8.5 8.4 8.5 9.1
8.7 8.8 8.6 8.7
7.8 7.9 7.9 8.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Salome Urena Campus
Mirabal Sisters Campus
CityWide
8.4 8.2 8.4 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.7
7.9 7.8 7.9 8.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
Salome Urena Campus
Mirabal Sisters Campus
CityWide
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
24
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this evaluation show that the two CAS community schools where the community
school model has been most comprehensively implemented have achieved important
outcomes in grade improvement and reduction in absenteeism. Linked to this is the success of
the schools in engaging parents, a key precondition for student success, but a challenge for
most schools, especially for Salomé Ureña de Henríquez Community School and Mirabal Sisters
Community School given the diversity of the populations they serve.
Key personnel in each of the schools interviewed through the course of the evaluation noted
the importance of the community school model in achieving these outcomes and highlighted a
number of key factors facilitating or presenting challenges for implementation. In particular:
A point consistently raised was that the Community School should be viewed as a strategy
rather than a program. A ‘strategy’ suggests something that can be changed to reflect
shifting needs, challenges and opportunities, which was considered the key strength of the
community school model. The capacity to respond to shifting needs was considered
especially important given the profile of the areas that the schools serve which include
diverse, disadvantaged, and often rapidly changing population groups.
The importance of parent involvement in achieving youth development goals was strongly
emphasized. However, engaging parents is challenging to any school and the success of the
two community schools with parents has been based on ongoing efforts to understand,
identify and respond to existing and emerging needs. The importance of ‘learning by doing’
was emphasized – in other words, developing programs and services for families and friends
and learning from, rather than being discouraged by, those programs which have been less
successful. The flexibility of the community school model in this respect was considered
crucial in developing innovative approaches to involving parents.
It is important that the Community ‘Site Director’ role is a senior position, integrated into
the leadership of the school and that the role encompasses the skills and experience
necessary to co-ordinate and connect all the partnerships (especially with school principals)
necessary to support the community school model. In both schools the site directors were
fully integrated into the leadership of the schools, including representation on key
governance committees and at executive staff meetings.
Staff turnover has been a significant issue for the community schools in being able to
implement and sustain programs. Limited budgets have meant that it has not always been
possible to offer compensation levels that attract and retain the personnel with the skills
needed to sustain different community programs and services.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
25
Given the importance of social and emotional development of students as preconditions to
academic and overall student development (as articulated in the community school Theory
of Change), there is a need for ongoing development of measures to assess progress
towards these outcomes and compare them consistently over time.
The Theory of Change developed by CAS and ActKnowledge has provided an important and
well-publicized framework for change that the community school model is seeking to
achieve. There is now an opportunity to revisit and refine the theory based on the
experience of the CAS community schools and in particular, the experience of the two
schools where the model has been most comprehensively implemented.
A Community School Theory of Change has been used successfully in Hartford, Connecticut
to create workplans and targets for each school. Use of the ToC in this way helps align
everyone’s work and expectations. We recommend integrating the outcomes and
pathways in the CAS Theory of Change into daily operation.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
26
Appendix 1. Literature Review on Community Schools
Rise of the Full-Service Community School Model
In the 1980s, school health clinics began to be implemented in middle and secondary schools
throughout the United States (McMahon et al., 2000). In the late 1980s, and throughout the
1990s, efforts for a collaborative model of community programs and extended day activates
increased. The integrated programs were designed to combat problems of substance abuse,
unprotected sex, stress, school failure, and community violence which are rampant in poverty
stricken neighborhoods. Programs included school-based dental clinics, health centers, mental
health centers, family resource centers, and after school centers (Benson et al., 2009). As
defined by Joy Dryfoos, the full-service community school is designed to promote the physical,
emotional, social, and academic growth of children living in high-risk neighborhoods (as cited in
McMahon et al., 2000, p. 69). With access to a wide variety of services, the full-service
community school addresses barriers to learning and optimal development that are associated
with poverty (McMahon et al., 2000).
In New York City, the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) partnered with the New York City Board of
Education and opened the first New York City public community school in 1992 (Quinn, 2005).
According to the Vice President for Community Schools in New York City/Director of the
National Center for Community Schools, Jane Quinn (2005) has conceptualized the CAS
approach as a ‘developmental triangle’ (p. 17). The triangle includes a strong instructional
program with high academic standards for all students, enrichment activities to support
students’ cognitive, social, emotional, moral and physical development, and a full range of
health and mental health services. Every school tailors their programs to the needs of the
students and their families (Quinn, 2005). Currently, CAS operates 21 community schools in
New York City located in low-income neighborhoods of Washington Heights, Harlem, the South
Bronx and Staten Island (www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools). Most CAS schools
are open all day and in the evenings, six days per week, year-round.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
27
In 1994, CAS founded the National Center for Community Schools
(www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org) to fulfill the increasing demand for information
and advice on how to implement community schools. The organization advocates on a local and
national platform to advance the community schools model for reforming the education
system. They also provide consultations and assistance to community school initiatives
throughout cities in the United States. CAS is also an active and founding member of the
Coalition for Community Schools (CCS), established in 1997. CCS is a non-profit advocacy group
for nationwide community schools as the way to strengthen families, schools and communities
(www.communityschools.org).
Because community schools are structured according to the needs of the students, family and
neighborhoods in which they serve, there is no formal model for community schools (Coalition
for Community Schools, 2012). According to the CSS (2012), there are currently over 5,000
national and international community schools that exist including community schools, full-
service community schools, and extended-day schools. Evaluations of community schools have
been performed in cities such as Tulsa, OK; Hartford, CT; New York, NY; Chicago, IL; Multnomah
County, OR; Cincinnati, OH; Paterson, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Greater Lehigh Valley, PA; Nashville,
TN; and some form of community schools can be found in neighborhoods all over the United
States and abroad (Coalition for Community Schools, 2012). CSS (2012) does not advocate
solely for full-service community schools, although they do focus on public schools. Rather, they
advocate for school and community partnerships that create strategies and programs that help
students, families and communities achieve optimal outcomes.
Benefits of Community Schools
Gains in Academic Achievement
Research has shown that participating in the programs and services provided by a community
school (whether it be a full-service community school or an extended-day school) can raise
academic achievement according to increases in standardized exam scores and overall school
grades (Walker, Kronick, & Diambra, 2007; Quinn, 2005; Rosas, Case, & Tholstrup, 2009). An
evaluation of CAS community schools found that students participating in CAS after-school
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
28
programs from 2004 to 2007 scored significantly higher on the mathematics state standardized
exams compared to students in non-community public schools (Coalition for Community
Schools, 2009). Walker et al. (2007) found that students who attended after-school tutoring and
enrichment programs7, scored significantly higher in reading and math standardized exams
compared to students who did not participate in the after-school program (p. 24). Walker et al.
(2007) noted that some of the factors related to student’s increase in academic achievement
could be the many forms of positive reinforcement implemented by tutors and volunteers of
the after-school program. Additionally, family involvement in community schools and after-
school programs could be a factor that influences the increase in academic achievement
(Walker et al., 2007).
Gains in Non-Academic Developmental Outcomes
Community schools not only show positive outcomes in academic achievement, but non-
academic developmental outcomes as well. A longitudinal evaluation conducted for two CAS
community schools reported that CAS students had improvements in attendance, academic
achievement, parental involvement, reductions in the number of suspensions, and improved
student attitudes toward school in comparison to non-community NYC public schools students
(Quinn, 2005, p.22). A research brief from the Coalition for Community Schools (2009) reported
on the results of many different evaluations of community schools. CCS reported significant
improvements in attendance and a reduced dropout rate among students enrolled in
community schools from various cities and neighborhoods, as well as nationwide according to a
large study conducted by Communities in Schools (as cited in Coalition for Community Schools,
2009). Other benefits found from students participating in CAS community school programs
include significant increases in students’ self-esteem and career aspirations, as well as a
decrease in problem behaviors (Coalition for Community Schools, 2009).
Benefits to Families of Students Enrolled in Community Schools
7 Enrichment programs included drama, music, Spanish, art, science club, cooking, knitting and sewing, dance, and recreation activities.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
29
Due to the many services such as healthcare, family resources and employment support, and
mental health, families benefit from community schools as well. A research brief from the
Coalition for Community Schools (2009) stated that families of community school students have
shown an increase in family stability, more school involvement, better communication with
teachers, and have felt a greater sense of responsibility for their children’s learning. Family
health programs in community schools have reported positive changes in health habits such as
eating healthier and exercising more (Coalition for Community Schools, 2009). In Dryfoos’
(2000) report of findings from 49 community school initiatives, many parents reported an
increase in volunteer hours, an improvement in their child development practices, were less
stressed, spent less money on childcare (due to services available in the community school),
missed fewer days of work, and reported an overall improvement in basic needs such as
housing, food, clothing, transportation, finances and employment. A large amount of research
has shown the negative effects that poverty has on family dynamics, functioning and child
development (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997; Evans, 2004) With the
various and confounding factors that influence student academic achievement, community
schools providing services for students as well as their families are paving a successful path
towards real education and social reform.
Benefits to Teachers
A report by the non-profit/advocacy group, Communities in Schools (2009) surveyed over 1500
teachers in community schools throughout Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington
and Texas. Over 70% of teachers surveyed reported that they were able to be more effective
teachers because the community schools helped students acquire resources needed for
learning, improved students’ attitudes towards learning, increased students’ engagement in
learning, and improved student disruptive behavior; teachers also reported that their students
were better able to resolve distracting social and emotional issues, had improved attendance,
and decreased high risk behavior outside the classroom (Communities in Schools, 2009).
Benefits of Community Partnerships with Schools
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
30
Effective community partnerships with schools address the many barriers students have to
learning. With better access to health care and dental care, students and families have reported
lower hospitalization rates, higher immunization rates, improvements in oral hygiene, and
higher rates of health insurance coverage (Dryfoos, 2000). With access to mental health
programs, students of community schools are provided with therapists and psychologists that
can help them cope with the stresses that the effects of poverty has on their lives, including
witness to community and domestic violence. Furthermore, with academic and recreational
programs provided during after-school hours, less students are getting into trouble on the
streets and lower violence rates and safer streets have been reported in neighborhoods where
community schools are located (Dryfoos, 2000). Additionally, access to a great number of staff
members and volunteers in a community school, both during regular school hours and after-
school, provides students with a larger number of role-models and positive mentors in their
lives in the face of the stresses they face in their neighborhoods and homes (Coalition for
Community Schools, 2009; Jozefowicz-Simbeni & Allen-Meares, 2002; Leonard, 2011 Walker,
Kronick, & Diambra, 2007)
Barriers to the Success of Community Schools
In their qualitative study of the first year of a full-service elementary school in San Francisco,
Abrams and Gibbs (2000) described the social and cultural barriers that impeded the ideal
development of cooperative and collaborative relationships among school staff, parents, and
other community members. One barrier discussed was the unequal parent participation among
various ethnic groups, social class, and level of education; this caused a tense dynamic among
school staff, parents, and community members. Power struggles between school activists and
the principal they chose, as well as the pressure school staff felt to meet unrealistic goals and
expectations, added to the frustration of the many involved in the implementation of the
school.
Dryfoos recommended, as part of the full-service community school model, that “parents,
community members, and school staff develop a shared analysis of the root causes of
educational disadvantage as well as integrated and multilayered strategies for social change”
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
31
(as cited by Abrams & Gibbs, 2000, p. 99) in order to prevent these barriers to the success of
collaboration in community schools. Leonard (2011) found that successful school-community
partnerships are those that build collaborative relationships that not only meet the needs of
students, but are also aware of the many factors that lead to educational disadvantage. Using
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, Leonard (2011) advocated for a cultural cohesion
and reform as stated, “though students may be the developmental target, mutual change is the
story of relationships; in this case, the partnering institutions evolved to more effectively
address student needs.” (p. 1005).
In order to prevent power struggles between community members and school administrators,
Abrams & Gibbs (2000) suggested that during the planning process of a new community school,
role clarifications and boundaries should be clearly defined. Furthermore, making everyone
aware that positive outcome changes such as students’ increased academic achievement and
social competence takes time and patience can ease the pressure school staff often feel in any
type of education reform effort (Abrams & Gibbs, 2000).
A common problem in various community schools is that school-based health and mental
health centers are treated as “outsiders” by the school staff and administration. Dryfoos (1998)
noted that turf problems such as use of space, lack of communication between teachers,
principals, social workers, custodians, etc. cause tension among community school staff
members. These turf problems can be overcome by “working with school personnel to give
them a sense of shared ownership and shared responsibility” (Dryfoos, 1998, p. 407).
Due to the difficulty of assessing every component of community schools (as there are many
addressing the barriers to learning), as well as low participation rates of participants and the
challenge of attaining parental consent, there currently is not a substantial amount of
quantitative research on full-service community schools (Walker et al., 2007). According to
Cole-Zakrzewski (as cited in Walker et al., 2007), “the time needed to see student change, and
high mobility rates among students in these programs” (p. 22) also add to the difficulty of
conducting empirical research on community schools.
Suggestions for Future Research
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
32
Walker et al. (2007) recommend tracking a small number of students (preferably those that
attend the extended-day programs in the community school), working with community school
programmers that have strong relationships with parents of students, which fosters trust and
influences more parents to provide consent for a research evaluation. Another way to increase
the number of parents who consent is to have consent forms in various languages in case a
parent does not speak English. A suggestion given by Walker et al. (2007) is to obtain informed
consent at the beginning of the school year so the parent can not only learn more about the
school’s programs, but also so the researchers can explain the purpose of the evaluation and
how it is important to measure and document improvements in their student’s academic life.
Though it is difficult many times to attain a large participant sample in a community schools
evaluation, due to the challenge of a low volume of parental consent, efforts should be made to
create an evaluation or research study that recruits a large number of participants. Though
each community school is different (in fact, no public or private school in the world can be
exactly the same due to a myriad of student, family, community, teacher, and program
differences), it may be beneficial to combine data from multiple community schools (perhaps
even in various cities) with a comparison to non-community schools in order to make the
sample size larger and increase external validity. Unfortunately, not many people are aware of
community schools, especially full-service community schools. With the present situation of
little empirical research available on community schools, it is important to raise efforts to
conduct research on community schools in order to further increase awareness, and influence
educational policy as well.
In addition to using academic grades as an outcome for community school evaluations,
personal growth, social development, improved health, and community improvements
(Dryfoos, 1998) should also be measured considering the multi-faceted approach of full-service
community schools in terms of the programs and services they provide to students and
families. Fortunately, many evaluations of community schools currently are using a variety of
assessments to identify the various outcomes of students’ development in the context of
community schools. Furthermore, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data in
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
33
community school research and evaluations can provide a depth of information to inform
future research, practice and policy.
Policy Implications
Adelman & Taylor (2000) discussed how to address the barriers to development, learning and
teaching in community-school partnerships with suggestions for school reform efforts and
policy. They stated:
Currently, most reforms are not generating the type of comprehensive, multifaceted
approach necessary to address the many overlapping barriers – including those factors
that make schools and communities unsafe and lead to substance abuse, teen
pregnancy, dropouts and so forth…developing such an approach requires more than
outreach to link with community resources (and certainly more than adopting a school-
linked services model), more than coordination of school-owned services, more than
coordination of school and community services, and more than Family Resource Centers
and Full-Service Schools. (Adelman & Taylor, 2000, p. 175).
Adelman & Taylor (2000) suggested that school reform efforts need to go beyond what is
advocated by full-service schools by handling barriers to development, learning, and teaching in
a comprehensive fashion. They promoted the extensive restructuring of community-school
operations, as well as ensuring that all efforts to combat the barriers to development, learning
and teaching, or the “Enabling Component” (Adelman & Taylor, 2000, p. 175) are fully
integrated within all frameworks of the school. With the current educational reform efforts
focused on increasing teacher quality and students’ standardized test scores, these points
Adelman & Taylor (2000) made are still highly relevant. They also suggested that schools share
resources in order to improve cost-effectiveness, which could also address the concerns of
current policymakers who are concerned with the United States’ current issue of the fiscal cliff
and governmental debt.
In addition to strengthening the structure and organization of school-based community services
in community schools, other policies are necessary to reduce the effects of poverty experienced
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
34
by students of community schools. Jozefowicz-Simbeni and Allen-Meares (2002) suggested that
policies are needed that increase parents’ income, education, job training, and employment.
Though many community schools have family and parent resource centers and employment
support services, it is up to economic and educational policies to address the low income and
low education levels of many parents in high-poverty neighborhoods.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
35
Appendix 2. References
Abrams, L.S., & Gibbs, J.T. (2000). Planning for school change: School-community
collaboration in a full-service elementary school. Urban Education, 35(1), 79-103.
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Promoting mental health in schools in the midst of school
reform. Journal of School Health, 70(5), 171-178.
Balfanz, Robert, and Byrnes, Vaughan (2008). Meeting the Challenge of Combating the Chronic
Absenteeism: Impact of the NYC Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Chronic
Absenteeism and School Attendance and Its Implications for Other Cities
http://www.nyc.gov/html/truancy/downloads/pdf/meeting_the_challenge_of_combati
ng_chronic_absenteeism.pdf
Benson, L., Harkavy, I., Johanek, M., & Puckett, J. (2009). The enduring appeal of community
schools. American Educator, 33(2), 22-47.
Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53(1), 371-399.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55-71.
Chang, N. Hedy, and Romero, Mariajose (2008). Present, Engaged, and Accounted For: The
Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades. National Center
For Children in Poverty. http://www.nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_837.pdf
Chang, N. Hedy, and Romero, Mariajose (2008). Present, Engaged, and Accounted For. The
Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades
Children’s Aid Society. (2012). www.childrensaidsociety.org/community-schools.
Coalition for Community Schools. (2009). Research brief. Retrieved from
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
36
http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/AssetManager/CCS%20Research%20Repor
t2009.pdf
Coalition for Community Schools. (2012). www.communityschools.org
Communities in Schools. (2009). Teacher support study. Retrieved from
http://www.communitiesinschools.org/media/uploads/attachments/The_Communities
_InSchools_Teacher_Support_Survey_1.pdf
Dryfoos, J.G. (1998). School-based health centers in the context of education reform. Journal of
School Health, 68(10), 404-408.
Dryfoos, J. G. (2000). Evaluation of community schools: Findings to date. Retrieved from
http://www.communityschools.org/assets/1/assetmanager/evaluation%20of%20comm
unity%20schools_joy_dryfoos.pdf
Evans, G.W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59(2), 77-
92. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77
Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D.M.H., & Allen-Meares, P. (2002). Poverty and schools: Intervention and
resource building through school-linked services. Children & Schools, 24(2), 123-136.
Leonard, J. (2011). Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to understand community
partnerships: A historical case study of one urban high school. Urban Education, 46(5),
987-1010.
McMahon, T.J., Ward, N.L., Pruett, M.K., Davidson, L., & Griffith, E.E.H. (2000). Building
full-service schools: Lessons learned in the development of interagency collaboratives.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 65-92.
National Center for Community Schools. (2012). www.nationalcenterforcommunityschools.org
Quinn, J. (2005). The Children’s Aid Society community schools: A full-service partnership
model. New Directions for Youth Development, (107), 15-26.
CAS 21st Century CLC Grant Evaluation 2010-2013
37
Rosas, S., Case, J., & Tholstrup, L. (2009). A retrospective examination of the relationship
between implementation quality of the coordinated school health program model and
school-level academic indicators over time. Journal of School Health, 79(3), 108-115.
Walker, C.S., Kronick, R., & Diambra J.F. (2007). Assessment of a full-service school, after
hours tutoring and enrichment program. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 13(2), 21-27.