1 Promoting School Readiness and Early Grade Success in Neighborhoods: Findings from Nine Cities Leah Hendey G. Thomas Kingsley The Urban Institute Urban Affairs Association: Chicago, IL March 6, 2009

2 Overview Introduction to the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) NNIP School Readiness and Early Grade Success Cross-site Initiative  Objectives  Phase I Findings  Phase II Plans

3 National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) Started in 1996 as a partnership of local data intermediaries, coordinated by the Urban Institute. Defining Functions:  Building and operating information systems with integrated and recurrently updated data on neighborhood conditions.  Facilitating and promoting the direct practical use of data by community and city leaders in community building and local policy making.  Emphasizing the use of information to build the capacities of institutions and residents in distressed neighborhoods. 2009: Partners in 31 cities around the country

4 NNIP School Readiness and Early Grade Success Cross-site Initiative Competitive proposal process among partners:  Atlanta, Chattanooga, Cleveland, Denver, Indianapolis, Memphis, Miami, Milwaukee and Providence were selected. Goals:  Develop thorough understanding of school readiness and early grade success system as a whole.  Use data collected to promote collaboration and coherence on policy advocacy in this area.  Ready Child Equation: Ready Families + Ready Communities + Ready Services + Ready Schools = Ready Children

5 NNIP School Readiness and Early Grade Success Cross-site Initiative Phase I: (Oct. 07-May 08)  Scan local early childhood support system  Involve other local organizations  Complete school readiness and success brief Phase II: (June 08-May 09)  Plan for future activity to address local priorities  Conduct a Community Children’s Policy Forum  Participate in cross-city research and advocacy

6 Phase I Findings (System Scan): The state of school readiness systems varied considerably across sites, with sites typically having a high level of fragmentation.  Ranged from Miami and Cleveland (more of a system approach– still requires some integration) to Milwaukee and Indianapolis (little or no local engagement on the issue).

7 Phase I Findings (System Scan): System scan covered 9 domains Availability of data varies by site and domain.  Least amount of data and integration with system: Home Visits and Family Support domain Concerns about Head Start or the school district operating in “silos.” Unresolved issues on obtaining data related to restrictions on confidentiality and HIPAA.

8 Phase I Findings (System Scan): Several sites have a county-level group or collaboration on early childhood and families. United Way is involved in almost all sites. Many sites have programs that operate in cities across the nation.  SPARK, Smart Start, Parents as First Teachers, HIPPY, Nurse-Family Partnerships

9 Phase I Findings (System Scan): Many sites have a quality rating and improvement systems for child care settings or are working to implement them. Almost all sites (except Milwaukee) have some type of Kindergarten Assessment tool, though the utility and reliability of tool vary.

10 Phase I Findings (System Scan): The scan attempted to lay out the elements of the school readiness system but did not evaluate the adequacy of the system. Especially:  Home Visits/Parental Support, services ages 0-3 generally  IDEA services  Child Care Subsidies

11 Phase I Findings (School Readiness Briefs): There are clear disparities between neighborhoods on risk factors for not being ready for school. Almost all sites developed a risk or vulnerability index to map where the most at- risk children live.  Most indices included some data on birth outcomes

12

13

14 Phase I Findings (School Readiness Briefs): In many cities there have been demographic shifts in the neighborhoods over time. The most at-risk children are typically in high poverty/high minority neighborhoods that are often not located near good schools or services.

15

16

17

18 Phase I Cross-site Conclusions: Initiative brought people together across the early childhood system to create forward momentum for a more coherent system supported by data. Promising Practices: An integrated agency or organization that engages stakeholders, promotes system integration and uses data to support early childhood policy. Invest In Children – Cuyahoga County, OH This work needs to be continued – there is more to be done on developing a comprehensive and seamless approach to early childhood policy, programming and advocacy. Special attention needs to be paid to transitions between periods, from 0-3 services to 3-5 services to services for school-aged children.

19 Phase I Cross-site Conclusions: Neighborhood-based data system on school readiness indicators. Considerable lack of evaluation of early childhood programs. Performance management measures are needed. Gaps in outreach and public education on services.

20 Phase II – Future Plans Partners working on memos detailing their future efforts on school readiness and success.  Examples from those already submitted: Assemble and monitor data on school readiness over time Collaborate with local agencies to address data gaps and use data to raise awareness of school readiness Make sure local voices have a role in state policy discussions. Mobilize or strengthen neighborhood-based strategies in support of children and families. Create/identify instrument to assess school readiness

21 Phase II – Community Forums One partner (Denver) has already conducted their forum:  Forum participants interacted and engaged with maps and report – really made clear that services are not located where vulnerable children are living. Planned Forums – Capturing opportunities  Milwaukee - Engaging business leaders by framing school readiness as economic development driver.  Chattanooga - Working with local funders, their advisory committee and timing the forum to coincide with the legislative session.  Miami - Working to get all stakeholders “on message” with one agenda before holding their forum to reach out to neighborhoods and grassroots organizations.

22 Questions? Leah Hendey Research Associate The Urban Institute Washington, DC