1. Members of The Pathways from Poverty Consortium
Unpacking Poverty and Its Impact on Student Success: Colloquium II Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Members of The Pathways from Poverty Consortium
Robert Balfanz, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Co-Director, Center for Social Organization of Schools (CSOS)
Maxine Wood, Ed.D, Director/Senior Advisor, Pathways from Poverty
Richard Lofton, Ph.D. Post-doctoral fellow
Daniel Princiotta, Ph.D. candidate
Presented at the Colloquium II on Unpacking Poverty and Its Impact on Student Success, organized by the Pathways from Poverty Consortium -- Baltimore, MD

2. Overview of Presentation- A Three-Act Play with a Prelude
Prelude - Defining Poverty at Individual and Neighborhood Levels
Act 1 - What is Concentrated Poverty, Who Experiences it and Where is it Found?
Act 2 - How Does Concentrated Poverty Impact Student Success and Which Districts and Schools Face the Biggest Challenges?
Act 3 - What Do We Know About Solutions at the School and Neighborhood Levels?

3. Prelude: Thinking About How We Define Poverty and How This Informs Our Perceptions and Actions

4. Poverty can be both an individual/family experience and a group/neighborhood experience

5. Poverty at individual/family level
means not having enough money to provide/acquire the basics (food, shelter, clothing, heat, medicine, etc.) and/or to live in a safe and healthy environment.

6. Poverty at Group/Neighborhood Level
means living in areas where many other people are poor as well, or, as the census defines it, in ‘a spatial density of socio-economic deprivation’.

7. Poverty and Low Income are not the same thing, though in the media, policy reports, and daily conversation they are often used interchangeably.
*See handout for example

8. Defining Economic Hardship
Federal/Census Definitions of Individual/Family Economic Hardship
Low-income: Less than 200% of the Federal Poverty Level (Household of 4 is $48,500 or below)
Poverty: Less than 100% of the Federal Poverty Level
(Household of 4 is $24,250 or below)
Extreme Poverty: Less than 50% of the Federal Poverty Level (Household of 4 is $12,125 or below)
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2015

9. How Many People and Children Experience Economic Hardship?
Economic Hardship Status
(Percent of Poverty Level)
Total Persons Who Experience in US
Income Range for Family of Four
Total Number and Percent of All Children Who Experience in US
Low Income
(100%-199% )
60 million
$24,251- $48,500
16 Million (22%)
Poverty
(50% to 99%)
25.6 million
$12,125- $24,250
8.6 Million (12%)
Extreme Poverty
(< 50%)
20.4 million
0$- $12,125
7.2 Million (10%)
Total All Economic Hardship Status
106 million
31.8 Million (44%)

10. Percentage of Children in Low-Income and Poor Families by Race/Ethnicity

11. Defining Economic Hardship In Schools
Free and Reduced Lunch Income Eligibility 1
Free Meals--at or below 130% of the federal poverty level (A household of 4 annual income is $30,615 or below)
Reduced Price Meals-up to 185% of federal poverty level (A household of 4 annual income is $44,123)
1 Federal Register, 2014: Effective from July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015

12. Thus, when school free and reduced price lunch levels are used as a measure of “poverty,” it combines students who live in poverty with a sub-set of low-income students

13. This means that two schools with equal numbers of economically disadvantaged students, as measured by free and reduced price lunch levels, can serve two very different sets of students.

14. At the Extreme: Two Schools with 50% FRPL Student Populations
School A-50% FRPL Population
School B-50% FRPL Population
Two -thirds of families have incomes of $35,000 or more
One-third of families have incomes of less than $24,000
15% of all students in school live in poverty
Half of the families have incomes below $12,500
Half of the families have incomes between $12,500 and $24,000
50% of all students in school live in poverty

15. Defining Poverty by Place
High-Poverty Neighborhoods-census tracts with a poverty rate of at least 20% in a given year.
Distressed Neighborhoods-census tracts with a poverty rate of at least 40% in a given year.
Bureau of the Census, 1970

16. Why Were These Thresholds Chosen?
Available evidence shows that at the 20% threshold one begins to see impacts of living in a neighborhood of socio-economic deprivation, above and beyond the individual impacts of poverty, controlling for other individual and group characteristics.
Impacts of neighborhood poverty accelerate as concentrations climb from 20% to 40% when they appear to max out. When it was established in the 1970s, the 40% threshold also corresponded to what were commonly seen as “ghetto” neighborhoods.

17. Being Low-Income or Poor in a High-Poverty Neighborhood Creates a Double Burden
Living in communities with a large concentration of poverty causes additional burdens on residents
Beyond their own family circumstances
Must confront the poverty of those around them
Additional burdens that are associated with poverty
Higher crime rates, poor housing conditions, fewer job opportunities and more limited access to healthy food
The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America, 2008

18. Neighborhood Poverty Has Increased Substantially in the Past Decade
Brookings Institute Report on Growth and Spread of Concentrated Poverty
…. as poverty has spread, it has not done so evenly. Instead, it has also become more clustered and concentrated in distressed and high-poverty neighborhoods, eroding the brief progress made against concentrated poverty during the late 1990s.
The challenges of poor neighborhoods—including worse health outcomes, higher crime rates, failing schools, and fewer job opportunities—make it that much harder for individuals and families to escape poverty and often perpetuate and entrench poverty across generations.2
2 Reserve System and the Brookings Institution, “The Enduring Challenge of Concentrated Poverty in America. For a review of the literature on the effects of concentrated poverty, see the Federal: Case Studies from Communities Across the U.S.” (Richmond, VA: 2008); and Patrick Sharkey, Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress Toward Racial Equality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013).

19. Number of People Who Experience Neighborhood Poverty
Percent of People in Census Track who Live in Poverty
Number of Census Tracts
Total Number Living There (Millions)
Percent of US Population Living There
Percent of Poor Living There
Number of Poor Living There
Number and Percent of Children Living There
20% +
77.4 million
25.7%
53.5%
23.9 million
20.3 Million
(28%)
30% +
30 million
10%
27.8%
10.1 Million (14%)
40% +
3570
11.6 million 4%
12.2%
5.4 million

20. Complex takeaway: At least half of the people in high-poverty/distressed neighborhoods are not poor, but given what we know about residential segregation, most are likely low income, especially in distressed neighborhoods (nationally 75% poor or low income). Thus, low-income students in these neighborhoods are affected by living in concentrated poverty as well as students living in poverty. The key metric in terms of impact on student success is the percent of students living in these neighborhoods, and the concentration of them within schools.

21. Thus, the growth of neighborhood poverty over the past decade suggests that the scale and intensity of student needs have likely increased in the schools that serve these areas. Mapping the growth of neighborhood poverty shows that this impact has been unevenly felt across states and regions.

24. Our focus will be on the students and schools that experience concentrated poverty at its most extreme--those who live in neighborhoods with 40% or higher poverty rates

25. Concentrated Poverty and Student Success in Three Acts
Act 1 - Who, What, Where?
Who is affected?
Trace the historical and contemporary routes
Highlight the impacts of social and cultural Isolation
Examine multi-generational impacts
Act 2 - Impact on Students and Schools
What are the educational consequences?
How many schools and districts experience the impacts of students living in concentrated poverty, and at what magnitude?
Act 3 - What Can Be Done?
Examine what we know about solutions

26. Act 1 Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty: Who Experiences it, Where is it Located, How Does it Impact its Residents?

27. Who is Confronted with Concentrated Poverty?
Almost 12 million Americans live in concentrated poverty 1
Increase of 5 million from
Nearly 40 percent of people living in areas of concentrated poverty are African American 3
Nearly 40 percent of the total population living in communities of concentrated poverty are Hispanic 3
Almost three out of four African American families living in today’s most segregated, poorest neighborhoods are the same families that lived in the concentrated poverty of the 1970s 4
Mead’s work looks at 40 percent poverty in census tract and 30 percent zip code to be considered concentrated poverty
1 2013; 2 Kneebone, 2014; 3Meade, 2014; 4 Sharkey, 2013

29. How Were These Neighborhoods Formed? (Rural)
Small southern African Americans towns that were once slave plantations, then sharecropping/debt peonage (African American Belt- Arkansas to North Carolina; the Mississippi Delta)
More than one-half of residents in many American Indian reservation communities are poor (Desert Southwest and the upper Great Plains)
Lichter & Domenico, 2008

30. How Were These Neighborhoods Formed? (Urban)
African Americans
Great Migration – push and pull factors 1
Construction and maintenance of ghettos 2
Redlining policies and practices
White flight
Acts of terror
Restrictive covenants
Deprived of resources and investments
Hispanics
- Settled in gateway cities3 (Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Miami, San Diego )
These established enclaves continue to receive new waves of immigrants
Puerto Rican & Dominicans lived in concentrated poverty in Boston, Providence, Philadelphia and New York.
Mexicans often in urban clusters in the West
One in three individuals in major cities who lives in concentrated poverty is in a household in which English is not spoken at home4
1 Wilson, 1987; Wilkerson, 2010; 2 Massey & Denton, 1998; 3Patterson, 2002; 4Mead, 2014

31. How Were These Neighborhoods Formed? (Suburbs)
Between 2000 and , the number of poor suburban residents living in concentrated poverty grew by 139 percent - almost three times the pace of growth in cities
While African Americans have been moving to the suburbs since the 1970s, there has been an increase in the last 15 years, often settling in pockets of concentrated poverty1
Example: Ferguson, St. Louis2
Larman Williams in 1968, first African American to buy a home
By 1980, 14 % African American; 1990, 24%; 2000, 52%; 2010, 67%
Between 2000 and 2012, Ferguson’s poor population doubled
One in four lived below the federal poverty line and 44 percent of them fell below twice that level
Southeast corner isolated geographically from the rest of the city3
8th poorest census tract in the state; 95 percent are African American
While race changed in the suburbs, the power structure remained the same
Police department, fire department, leadership class, school administrators and teachers
1 Kneebone, 2014; 2Rothstein, 2015; 3Casselman, 2014

32. How Does Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty Impact the People who Live There?

33. Exposure to Neighborhood Inequalities
Increase of violence
Increase of crime
Different forms of policing
Hyper-incarceration
Limited access to private services/poor public services
Abundance of liquor stores
Excess of fast food/dood deserts
Higher banking expenses
Unhealthy environment
Poor housing
Underground economy
Decayed physical conditions of the built environment
Higher rates of unemployment/limited employment opportunities
1/3 adults are HS dropouts vs. 12% college grads
Wacquant, L. (2001); Sharkey, P. (2013); Wilson, W. (1987); Quane, J.M., Wilson, W.J. & Hwang, J. (2015); Jensen, E. (2009); Harding, D.J. (2003); Venkatesh, S.A. (2006)

34. Social and Cultural Isolation
Social Isolation-lack of contact or sustained interaction with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society
Friends, relatives and community members do not introduce individuals to jobs, resources and opportunities
Inability to gain access and embody certain behaviors, norms and skills that help people understand/read/navigate the global world
Lack of diverse role models
Mistrust and betrayal of institutions
Young, A.A. (2003); Small, M.L. (2009); Patillo, M. (2003); Wilson, W.J. (1987); Royster, D. (2003); Ditomaso, N. (2013); Atkinson & Kintrea, (2004).

35. Intangible Struggles in Concentrated Poverty
Preferential treatment to those who do not live in concentrated poverty, which maintains social isolation1
Hoarding of social resources and opportunities
Negative reputations of schools and communities in concentrated poverty
Social stigma of neighborhoods and families
Stereotypes held by institutions and social actors about residents who live in concentrated poverty
1Royster, D. (2003); Ditomaso, N. (2013).

36. Multi-Generational Impacts
“The American ghetto appears to be inherited…the neighborhood environments in which African American and white Americans live have been passed down across generations.”
  (Sharkey, 2013 p. 9)
Children grow up and remain in the same type of environment
Childhood exposure to neighborhood inequalities maintains concentrated poverty
Childhood exposure is not felt only in a single lifetime, but affects the next generation
Inequality is something that occurs over long periods of time and structures the opportunities available to families over multiple generations
Sharkey, 2013

37. Agency in the Midst of Concentrated Poverty
African Americans and Latinos in these areas do have meaningful social networks
Churches
Community centers
Social ties
Local clubs
Strong relationships
Safe spaces
Beauty shops, barber shops, homes
Stack, C. (1974); Ladner, J. (2000); Lofton, R. (2015); Wacquant, L.J.D. (1997)

38. ACT 2 What is the Impact of Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty on Students and Schools?

39. Concentrated Poverty and Schools
“A school’s socioeconomic background is a strong determinant of its students’ achievement”-- Coleman Report, 1966
Mary Kennedy in 1986 found that the relationship between school poverty concentrations and student achievement averages is stronger than the relationship between family poverty status and student achievement.1 
Among children who experience poverty, live in areas of concentrated poverty, and are not reading proficiently by third grade, 35% fail to graduate from high school by age 19.2
1Kennedy, 1986; 2Hernandez, 2012

40. Concentrated Poverty and Schools
When half a student body is poor, all students’ achievement will be depressed
When 75% are poor, all students’ achievement will be seriously depressed
A district with more than 60% poor children can no longer rely solely on its own internal efforts to avoid failure
Puma, M. et al, 1997; PPRAC

41. When both students and their parents grow up in concentrated neighborhood poverty, the impact on school success is magnified.

42. Sharkey’s thesis- the exposure of the ghetto over generations
PSID which began in 1968
Average scores on a reading/language test and an applied problem test, among children from four different groups of families
Never in poor neighborhoods
Parent in poor neighborhood
Child in poor neighborhood
Always in poor neighborhood
Sharkey, 2013

43. What are some of the mechanisms through which concentrated neighborhood poverty impacts student and school success?

44. Students who live in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty attend school less frequently. They have higher rates of absenteeism and chronic absenteeism.

45. A Better Picture of Poverty: What chronic absenteeism and risk load reveal about NYC's lowest income elementary schools
Found 130 elementary schools in NYC in which more than one- third of the children were chronically absent for five years in a row.
These schools have very low levels of academic achievement as measured by standardized tests.
Chronic absenteeism correlates with deep poverty--high rates of homelessness, child abuse reports, male unemployment, and low levels of parental education.
In fact, the report states, chronic absenteeism is a much better index of poverty than the traditional measure of the number of children eligible for free lunch.

46. Chronic stress associated with living in poverty has been shown to adversely affect children’s concentration and memory which may impact their ability to learn. (American Psychological Association)  The number of students being distracted and stressed by out-of-school struggles is 2-to-3 times higher in areas of concentrated poverty and reaches a level where it can impact the whole class (8-10 students or more in a class).

48. Concentrated Poverty Leads to Less Learning Time in School
UCLA Institute for Democracy conducted a statewide survey in California in November and December of 2013
783 California high school teachers completed minute online survey
3-5 teachers nested within 193 high schools
Low-concentration poverty school %
Low- and mixed-concentration poverty schools %
High-concentration poverty schools %

49. Concentrated Poverty Leads to Less Learning Time
The lack of qualified substitutes
Insufficient access to school libraries or computers
Extra time spent on testing
Emergency lockdowns
Disrupted days for non-instructional assemblies
More likely to be interrupted during class
Surveyed 800 California High school teachers
Rogers, J. & Mirra, N., 2014

50. Concentrated Poverty Leads to Less Learning Time
Lose 5 minutes on average in every instructional period compared to low-poverty schools (30 minutes per day)
In total, high-poverty schools lost 12.4% of their instructional days for these reasons, compared to 7% in low-poverty schools
Also higher rates of teacher absenteeism (which led to higher rates of teachers providing class coverage, instead of preparing for their classes or giving students extra help)
Rogers, J. & Mirra, N, 2014

51. Schools that Serve Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty Also...
Have higher suspension and expulsion rates
Have higher principal and teacher turnover
Are often staffed by less-experienced principals and teachers
As a result, greater student need is met with transient and less-experienced adults.

52. New analyses of the influence of concentrated neighborhood poverty on schools, districts, and student success nationwide
What is the size, scope, and location of the problem for schools and districts nationwide
Make preliminary investigations into concentrated poverty and student and school outcomes

53. School and student research questions
How many elementary, middle, and high schools are located in concentrated poverty neighborhoods?
How many students do these schools serve?
How do the elementary and middle school reading and math proficiency rates and high school graduation rates of public schools located in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (at the 40% level) compare to rates in schools not located in these neighborhoods?
Does this analysis provide evidence of the double burden on student success of being economically disadvantaged and living in a neighborhood of concentrated poverty (at the 40% level)?

54. Methods Map school locations and school district boundaries
Overlay neighborhood (Census tract) boundaries
Associate characteristics of neighborhoods with schools
Associate and aggregate characteristics of neighborhoods with school districts
Run descriptive analyses

55. Data and Sources
American Community Survey ( ): neighborhood poverty, number of children
Census TIGER/Line Shapefiles (2013): neighborhood boundaries, elementary and unified school district boundaries
Common Core of Data (2012): school locations (longitude and latitude), school level, number of students
EDFacts ( ): school math and reading proficiency rates, graduation rates

56. Number of schools located in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty (at the 40% level) and students served by these schools
School level
Schools
Students N
% of total
Total
6,645
6.4
2,594,000
5.2
Elementary
3,453
1,403,000
5.8
Middle
847
5.0
379,000
4.0
High
1,185
5.6
609,000
4.3
Other
707
10.1
204,000
10.7

57. Grade 5 math and reading proficiency rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)

58. Grade 5 economically disadvantaged students’ math and reading proficiency rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)
Evidence of double burden!

59. Grade 8 math and reading proficiency rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)

60. Grade 8 economically disadvantaged students’ math and reading proficiency rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)
Evidence of double burden!

61. High school graduation rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)

62. Economically disadvantaged students’ high school graduation rates by neighborhood concentrated poverty (at 40% level)
Evidence of double burden!

63. School district research questions
Across the nation, what levels of neighborhood poverty do school districts face?
Which school districts serve children in concentrated poverty, and where are the districts located?
Which school districts serve large numbers or percentages of students living in concentrated poverty?

64. Percentage of school districts facing various levels of neighborhood poverty
47 percent of districts have at least one neighborhood with 20%+ poverty
21 percent of districts have at least one neighborhood with 30%+ poverty
10 percent of districts have at least one neighborhood with 40%+ poverty (concentrated poverty) 64

65. Neighborhood poverty levels in Baltimore City Public School district65

66. Neighborhood poverty levels in Detroit Public Schools district66

67. Neighborhood poverty levels in Ferguson, MO67

68. School districts by the percentage of children in 30%+ poverty neighborhoods68

69. School districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods
About 13,000 elementary and unified school districts (excludes 4 percent of districts that are secondary only)
Relatively equally distributed: Around 2-3 percent of districts per category
2.75 million children in concentrated poverty (5 percent of all children)
About 80 percent of that number (2.25 million) in top two categories, roughly evenly split
p_conpovkid |
s_cat | Freq. Percent Cum.
0 | ,
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
Total | ,
. tab p_conpovkids_cat [iweight=n_conpovkids]
1 | 171,
2 | 325,
3 | 1,101,
4 | 1,152,
Total | 2,751, 69

70. Northeastern districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods70

71. Southeastern districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods71

72. Midwestern districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods72

73. Michigan districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods73

74. Southwestern districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods74

75. Western districts by the percentage of children in concentrated (40%+) poverty neighborhoods75

76. Top 10 school districts with the highest numbers of in-boundary children in concentrated (40%+) poverty
40%+ Poverty
District
State
Total N % N
New York City Department Of Education NY
1,240,861
14.5
180,176
Los Angeles Unified School District CA
759,389
11.6
88,065
Chicago Public School District 299 IL
427,892
18.4
78,690
Detroit City School District MI
134,302
54.0
72,587
Philadelphia City School District PA
239,992
25.8
61,933
Milwaukee School District WI
112,748
32.0
36,042
Fresno Unified School District
78,385
45.3
35,484
Houston Independent School District TX
218,462
14.3
31,292
Dade County School District FL
394,228
7.9
31,023
Memphis City School District TN
116,494
25.0
29,174

77. Most children living in concentrated poverty are in a very small number of districts
The top 10 school districts with the highest numbers of children living in concentrated poverty contain 23 percent of the nation’s total
Just 69 school districts contain more than half the nation’s children living in concentrated poverty
That said, there are small pockets of concentrated poverty (40%+) throughout the country
About 1,250 school districts have at least some concentrated poverty
Some of these districts face very substantial poverty rates

78. Top 10 school districts with the highest percentages of in-boundary children in concentrated (40%+) poverty
40%+ Poverty
District
State
Total N % N
Kiryas Joel Village Union Free School District NY
5,309
100.0
Shannon County School District 65-1 SD
3,669
Earlimart Elementary School District CA
2,692
Whiteriver Unified District AZ
2,587
Fabens Independent School District TX
2,233
Zuni Public Schools NM
1,559
Tornillo Independent School District
1,397
Sacaton Elementary District
1,188
La Villa Independent School District
845
Progreso Independent School District
720
4 BIA schools
4 Border towns w/ Mexico
1 children of Hispanic farm workers and fruit packers (migrant?)
Oddly enough, 1 orthodox
24 districts nationally w/ 100% of kids in 40% plus poverty
Orthodox
Bureau of Indian Affairs American Indian
Hispanic (Farm workers packing houses)
American Indian
Border Town
Border town
Near a border town

79. Top 10 school districts (highest n) with more than half of in-boundary children in concentrated (40%+) poverty
40%+ Poverty
District
State
Total N % N
Detroit City School District MI
134,300 54
72,600
Laredo Independent School District TX
22,000 69
15,100
Alhambra Elementary District AZ
22,400 61
13,600
Syracuse City School District NY
23,000 57
13,200
La Joya Independent School District
23,500 55
13,000
Donna Independent School District
18,900 66
12,400
Dearborn City School District 52
11,600
Flint City School District
18,500 56
10,400
Reading School District PA
18,800
10,200
Coachella Valley Unified School District CA
19,700 50
9,900
5 rust belt cities dead manufacturing cities
3 border cities
2 poor mainly Hispanic communities
Detroit (dead manufacturing)
Border city
Phoenix/Glendale carve out
Manufacturing
Detroit metro dead manufacturing
Flint, dead manufacturing
Reading, dead manufacturing Rail roads
Trailer parks & migrant workers among others?

80. Key Takeaways
National evidence consistent with idea of double burden exists
Geography of concentrated poverty is a patchwork quilt across our nation
A small number of districts faces substantial levels of concentrated poverty
A very small identifiable subset of districts makes up the bulk of the problem

81. ACT 3 What Do We Know About Solutions?

82. Examples of Promising practices include: Chicago 5 Essentials
CONCENTRATED POVERTY and Student Success Promising Responses & Practices
Examples of Promising practices include:
Chicago 5 Essentials
Diplomas Now
SEED Schools
Harlem Children’s Zone
Promise Neighborhoods
Choice Neighborhoods
Promise Zones
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI)
Moving to Opportunity (MTO)

83. Strategy 1: Strengthen and Design Schools to Meet the Needs of Students Who Live in Concentrated Neighborhood Poverty

84. Five Essential School Supports to Mitigate Neighborhood Poverty
University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research found 5 essential supports to improve academic success
Elementary Schools in high-poverty neighborhoods that were strong in these supports were 19 times more likely to improve learning in reading and mathematics
5 essential supports
School Leadership
Parent-Community ties
Professional capacity
Student-centered learning environments
Instructional guidance
In the most impacted neighborhoods, however, these supports alone were not enough
Bryk A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., Easton, J. (2010)

85. Schools as Safe Spaces in Concentrated Poverty
Schools are safer when teachers view parents as supportive partners in the educational process
Schools are safer when students feel that their teachers listen and care about their learning and overall well-being
Punitive measures are less likely to instill a sense of safety than measures that foster respect and trust
Sufficient staffing needed to keep teachers and other staff members from feeling overwhelmed so they can develop positive relationships with each other and with students and families
Steinberg, M., Allensworth, E. & Johnson, D. (2015)

86. Diplomas Now Secondary School Transformation Collaboration
Integrated Student Supports
Whole School Reform
Targeted Support & Whole School Prevention
14 Cities
Students
Baton Rouge
Boston
Chicago
Columbus
Detroit
Los Angeles
Miami
New York City
Philadelphia
San Antonio
Seattle
Tulsa
Washington, DC
32 Total Schools
16 Middle Schools
14 High Schools
buildings
Bold cities implementing Randomized Control Trial by MDRC
Investing in Innovation Fund Winner
1,700 Applicants
49 Grantees

87. Surrounding Teachers and Students with Support
Diplomas Now Model
Surrounding Teachers and Students with Support
Instructional Supports
Double dose math & English
Extra help labs
Common college preparatory or high school readiness curricula
Organizational Supports
Inter-disciplinary and subject focused common planning time
Bi-weekly EWI meetings
On-site school transformation facilitator
Professional Development Supports
Job-embedded coaching - Math and English instructional coaches
Professional learning community
Professional development linked to grade/subject instructional practice
Teacher Team (4 teachers)
Data Supports
Easy access to student data on the Early Warning Indicators
Benchmarks tied to national and state standards
On-site facilitator to leverage EWI data
3 -4 cohorts students
Student Supports
Multi Tiered Response to Intervention Model
8 to 20 City Year AmeriCorps members: whole school and targeted academic and socio-emotional supports
Communities In Schools on-site coordinator: case managed supports for highest need students
Interventions to address early warning indicators of
Attendance
Behavior
Course Performance
Whole school attendance, positive behavior, college-going culture
Strengthening student resiliency

88. Diplomas Now i3 2013-14 End-of-Year Results
Off Track Prior to Final Marking Period
Off Track at End of Final Marking Period
Getting off-track students back on track: The progress of students flagged with an off-track indicator prior to the final marking period of the school year in all DN i3 schools.
Preventing students from falling off-track : Percentage of students in all DN i3 schools not flagged with an off-track indicator prior to quarter 4 who stayed on track.
Overall Success : Percentage of students who ended the year on track in all DN i3 schools for the school year.
Percentage of Students
On Track
Percentage of Students
On Track
*Averages based on longitudinal data as available from 82 participating grades in 29 schools in 11 urban districts.

89. Concept The SEED School A safe, supportive environment for learning
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
The SEED School
Concept
A school developed to provide socially and economically disadvantaged children the opportunity to learn in a safe and nurturing residential environment. Specifically offering:
A safe, supportive environment for learning
Mostly voluntary enrollment
Involvement of the child’s family when appropriate
Limited tuition or no tuition
The SEED Foundation, February 2002 and
SEED Annual Report, 2014

90. The SEED School RESULTS
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
The SEED School
RESULTS
90% of SEED students who enter the ninth grade graduate from high school. For comparison: 81%of all students across the nation graduate from high school.
More than 90% of SEED graduates have been accepted to a 4-year college or university.
More than 90% of SEED graduates have enrolled in college. For comparison: 52% of low-income high school graduates enroll immediately in college.
71% of SEED graduates have college degrees, are currently enrolled in college or an alternative post-secondary program, or are in the military. For comparison: 11% of low-income, first-generation students who enroll in college earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

91. Strategy 2: Strengthen Schools and Provide Enhanced Social, Health, and Training Supports to Parents and Students from Cradle to Career

92. Early childhood programs with parent classes Public charter schools
CONCENTRATED POVERTY The Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) Promising Responses & Practices
A non-profit organization that funds and operates a neighborhood-based system of education and social services for children of low-income families in a 100-block area in Harlem, New York1.
Education Components
Early childhood programs with parent classes
Public charter schools
Academic advisors and afterschool programs for students attending regular public schools
Support system for former HCZ students enrolled in college
1Harlem Children’s Zone, FY 2014 Report

93. $5,000 vs $50,000+ Fitness program Asthma management program
CONCENTRATED POVERTY The Harlem Children’s Zone (continued) Promising Responses & Practices
Health Components
Fitness program
Asthma management program
Nutrition program
Neighborhood services, programs
Organizing tenant associations
One-on-one counseling to families
Foster care prevention
Community Centers
Employment and technology center (for teaching job-related skills to teens and adults
$5,000 vs $50,000+
HCZ spends $5,000 per child annually, while New York City spends more than $50,000 each year to incarcerate an inmate.

94. 100% “Harlem Gems” pre-kindergarteners were assessed as “school ready”
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices Results
100% “Harlem Gems” pre-kindergarteners were assessed as “school ready”
95% of high school seniors were accepted into college
$20 million in scholarships and grants were awarded to our most recent college freshmen
4,000+ parents have graduated from The Baby College® parenting workshop series
12,316 children served in FY 2013
1,450 students at Promise Academy Charter Schools
12,436 adults served in FY 2013
$101 million annual budget in FY 2013 (public and private funds)
954 students attending college
1.4 million free, healthy lunches and breakfasts served to HCZ children
4,000 children getting one hour of exercise daily

95. * http://www.promiseneighborhoodsinstitute.org/
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Promise Neighborhoods …
U.S. Department of Education programs developed to provide funding to support eligible entities including nonprofit organizations; institutions of higher education and Native American tribes to improve educational outcomes for students in distressed urban and rural neighborhoods.
Based on the experience of programs such as the Harlem Children’s Zone
Includes a planning year to develop a comprehensive community program with the specific goal of preparing students for success in college and careers. Planners/applicants must focus on schools in challenged neighborhoods and build services and supports for students from birth through college or career* *

96. * http://www.promiseneighborhoodsinstitute.org/
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Promise Neighborhoods
As of 2012, Promise Neighborhoods were operating in 20 states and the District of Columbia. Emphases continue to focus on offering children high-quality health, social, community and educational services and support.
Other communities are considering the Promise Neighborhoods’ model for replication, without federal support.
The Promise Neighborhood Institute at Policy Link* can offer technical assistance to communities (resources, training, tools) in this regard. * *

97. Strategy 3: Strengthen the Neighborhood

98. CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Choice Neighborhoods programs support locally driven strategies to revitalize neighborhoods by replacing distressed public or HUD-assisted housing* with mixed-income developments.
Preceded HOPE VI
Emphasizes preserving affordable housing and a more comprehensive approach to neighborhood change
Stakeholders and residents come together to create and implement a plan that transforms distressed HUD housing, while simultaneously addressing challenges of vacant housing.
Piloted in 2010, is part of the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative
Collaborative, place-based planning for neighborhood revitalization in areas of concentrated poverty.
Interim report—An Early Look at Choice Neighborhoods looks at qualitative and quantitative approaches to monitor impacts on five of the original implementation sites
*U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Choice Neighborhood, April 2014

99. CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
The President’s initiative to designate a number of high-poverty urban, rural and tribal communities as Promise Zones, where the federal government will partner with and invest in communities to create jobs, leverage private investment, increase economic activity, expand educational opportunities, and reduce violent crime.
A collaborative effort--between private business and federal, state, and local officials; faith-based and non-profit organizations; and striving kids and parents--to ensure that hard work leads to a decent living for every American in every community.

100. Promise Zone Designations
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Promise Zone Designations
January 9, 2014, the first urban, rural, and tribal Promise Zones were announced in a ceremony at the White House. They are located in: San Antonio (Eastside Neighborhood), Philadelphia (West Philadelphia), Los Angeles (Neighborhoods of Pico Union, Westlake, Koreatown, Hollywood, and East Hollywood), Southeastern Kentucky (Kentucky Highlands), and the Choctaw Nation in southeast Oklahoma.
Fifteen more will be designated by the end of 2016.

101. CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) an interagency collaborative supporting the Obama administration’s approach to federal engagement in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. The belief is that this alignment will allow resources to effectively support local community, government, business in creating successful neighborhoods of opportunity.
A place-based approach to help distressed communities transform into neighborhoods of opportunities.

102. Engages key federal agencies:
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Engages key federal agencies:
U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
Dept. of Justice
Dept. of Health & Human Services
NRI strategy seeks to integrate the Choice and Promise Neighborhood programs to ensure federal funds are aligned and local efforts are comprehensive.

103. The five programs at the center of the NRI: Choice Neighborhoods
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
The five programs at the center of the NRI:
Choice Neighborhoods
Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation (a community-based strategy designed to control and prevent violent crime, drug abuse, gang activity in high-crime neighborhoods across the country)
Community Health Centers have provided comprehensive high-quality prevention and primary health care to medically underserved urban and rural communities for four decades.
Behavioral Health Community Initiative focuses resources in selected disadvantaged communities seeking to improve outcomes for substance use, mental health prevention, treatment and recovery.

104. Strategy 4: Provide Residents with Means to Leave Neighborhoods of Concentrated Poverty

105. Traditional section 8 housing To move to a low-poverty neighborhood
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
In 1992, Congress authorized Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to implement in five cities (Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York) a randomized experiment involving families in public housing, to receive vouchers to use for housing. Three groups were identified and divided, assigned to use vouchers for:
Traditional section 8 housing
To move to a low-poverty neighborhood
As part of a control group
(Summary Overview of MTO, a Random Housing Assignment Mobility Study,

106. Findings of a follow-up study of MTO:
CONCENTRATED POVERTY
Promising Responses & Practices
Findings of a follow-up study of MTO:
Improved neighborhood outcomes...assignment to the MTO mobility groups led participating adults to feel safer and more satisfied with their housing and neighborhood
Had no effect on the labor market outcomes or social program participation of adults, but improved adults' mental health and some aspects of physical health
Improved outcomes for female youth, but on balance, had deleterious effects on male youths’ risky behavior
Had no detectable effects on the math and reading achievement of children (A Summary Overview of Moving To Opportunity)

107. References
Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (2004). Opportunities and despair, it’s all in there: Practitioner experiences and explanations of area effects and life chances. Sociology 38 (3), pp
Bryk, A., Sebring, B.P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., Easton, Q. J., (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago
Ditomaso, N. (2013). The American non-dilemma. Russell Sage
Casselman, B. (2014). The poorest corner of town.
Cortright, J. & Mahmoudi, D. (2014). Lost in Place: Why the persistence and spread of concentrated poverty--not gentrification--is our biggest urban challenge.
Harding, D.J. (2003). Counterfactual Models of Neighborhood effects: The effect of neighborhood poverty on dropping out and teenage pregnancy. American Journal of Sociology 109;
Hogrebe, M., Tate, W. (2010). School Composition and Context factors that moderate and predict 10th grade science proficiency, Teachers College Record, 112, 4.
Jargosky, P.A. (2013). Concentration of poverty in the new millennium: Changes in the prevalence, composition, and location of high-poverty neighborhoods. New York: The Century Foundation. Retrieved from the-new-millennium
Kennedy, M.M., et al. (1986). Poverty, Achievement and the distribution of compensatory education services: an interim report from the national assessment of Chapter 1, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Washington D. C.

108. References (cont.)
Kneebone, E. & Berube, A. (2013). Confronting suburban poverty in America: Brooking Press.
Kneebone, E. (2014). The growth and spread of concentrated poverty, 2000 to Brookings
PRRAC, Annotated bibliography: The impact of school based poverty concentrated on academic achievement and student outcomes
Roger, J. & Mirra, N. (2014). It’s About Time: Learning Time and Educational Opportunity in California High Schools 
Royster, D. (2003). Race and the invisible hand. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.  
Massey, D., & Denton, A.N. (1998) American Apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.
Meade, E. (2014). Overview of community characteristics in areas with concentrated poverty. ASPE Research Brief. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nauer, K., et al. (2014). A better picture of poverty: What chronic absenteeism and risk load reveal about NYC’s lowest-income elementary schools.
Lichter, D.T., & Parisi, D. (2008). Concentrated Rural poverty and the geography of exclusion. Report, Carsey Institute
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press.
Wilkerson, I. (2011) The warmth of other suns: the epic story of America’s great migration. Random House.
Wilson, W.J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged; the inner city, the underclass, and public policy: University of Chicago
Young, A.A. (2003). Social isolation, and concentration effects: William Julius Wilson revisited and re-applied, Ethnic and Racial Studies 26 (6)