How Do Promise Neighborhoods’ Strategies Align With Research Evidence on Poverty and Education?

Abstract

Promise Neighborhoods attempt to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone’s “cradle to college pipeline” model of coordinated and continuous child and family services for a single neighborhood. We analyze the 46 planning and 18 implementation grants to determine which factors these neighborhoods plan to address and compare these efforts with research on poverty and academic performance. We conclude that Promise Neighborhoods more frequently focus on in-school factors and often fail to address many factors supported by prior research. We discuss the degree to which these neighborhoods are actually serving as all-encompassing cradle to college pipelines versus continuing current in-school efforts.

A Comparison of IHEs and Non-IHEs as Anchor Institutions and Lead Agents of Promise Neighborhoods Projects

“…This study modeled the framework proposed by Bower and Rossi (2019) who assigned a code wherever an intervention, support, or service was introduced. Bower and Rossi (2019) began with a provisional list of 18 factors based on Bower (2013), and identified 53 additional factors that were grouped under eight categories over subsequent readings.…”

“…Miller et al (2013) compared applications from 21 Promise Neighborhoods planning grants to 20 Promise Neighborhoods planning grants from tribal areas awarded in 2012 and found that most of the applicants largely focused their efforts on improving academic achievement, other school outcomes, and early childhood education. In an evaluation of planning and implementation grant applications awarded between 2010 and 2016, Bower and Rossi (2019) determined that the vast majority of grantees focused primarily on in-school changes or factors supported by little research. For example, most of the applications addressed improving childcare and screening for developmental delays, despite previous research suggesting that “child abuse, single parenthood, warmth or admonishment/praise heard at home” (p. 13) are key drivers of early childhood development.…”

“…Bower (2013) proposed a model that identifies 18 factors and conditions that affect children, which children they affect, and how policy can change them to improve academic performance. Bower and Rossi (2019) expanded the model to include 71 different in-school and non-school factors and conditions that grantees seek to address to improve the lives, achievement, and attainment of children who live or attend schools within their respective Promise Neighborhoods. The factors were grouped across eight different categories; including: Neighborhood/Housing, Health/Health Care Family/Home, Economic, School, Other Educational, Personal Efficacy, Technology, and a group of uncategorized codes.…”

“…The factors were grouped across eight different categories; including: Neighborhood/Housing, Health/Health Care Family/Home, Economic, School, Other Educational, Personal Efficacy, Technology, and a group of uncategorized codes. By comparing frequencies in the presence of different revitalization efforts across Promise Neighborhoods applications, Bower and Rossi (2019) found that this framework provides a more holistic and comprehensive understanding about what interventions, supports, and services lead agents of Promise Neighborhoods are more or less likely to emphasize.…”

Is there a place for place in educational attainment policy?

“…There have been many studies that have sought to quantify neighbourhood effects on educational attainment (see Bower & Rossi, 2019;Lupton & Kintrea, 2011;Nieuwenhuis & Hooimeijer, 2016). Nieuwenhuis and Hooimeijer conducted a meta-analysis of 88 studies in developed countries and concluded that neighbourhood poverty has an independent influence on educational attainment.…”