Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good



Our research has shown us two main things: the essential need for people-driven interventions and the importance of properly tracking and measuring the success of intervention programs. ...

Our research has shown us two main things: the essential need for people-driven interventions and the importance of properly tracking and measuring the success of intervention programs.

In this guidebook you will find our research summarized and our methodology for impact measurement outlined.
We have focused on 4 main areas found to limit one’s potential to achieving self-sufficiency: economic stability, education, health and social responsibility. With the help of LifeSTEPS, we have drilled down into each of these areas, identified interventions and found programs to help people reach positive outcomes.

This is just the beginning. It is our collaborative partnerships and the knowledge they have shared with us that have enabled us to envision the future of sustainable financial and healthy community development practices. We understand the interconnected nature of the issues supporting poverty. We are here to collaborate and share resources so that we may all study, evolve and enhance what truly makes communities thrive; the people.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



5 Embeds 141 67 31 26 14 3


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good Document Transcript

    • THE GOOD LIFEGuidebook For Impact Measurement
    • THE GOOD LIFEGuidebook For Impact Measurement v 1.0
    • INTRODUCTION research Ravi Hanumara Robert Taunton Seth Olsen White Papers Ravi Hanumara Rachel Goldman Partners Better Tomorrows Project Access Life Steps Special Thanks John O’Donnell Caleb Roope Geoffery Brown Steve White Jon Webb William Hirsch Jim Silverwood John Huskey Aaron Mandel Gary Downs David Reznick Suzie Hsieh Listed above are some of our most notable recent accomplishments. This information is compiled by Center for the Greater Good 430 East State Street Eagle, ID 83616 See contact page for full disclaimer. All rights reserved © 2012 Center for the Greater Good
    • | Center for Greater Good | Introduction | 5Close-up on:The Good LifeCEO and Founder, John Belluomini, takes the stageWhat began as the personal mission of the we have focused on 4 main areas found to limitCenter for the Greater Good’s founder, John one’s potential to achieving self-sufficiency:Belluomini, is now a comprehensive tool aimed economic stability, education, health and socialat reinvigorating communities by focusing on the responsibility. With the help of LifeSTEPS, wepeople who live in them. John’s vision to create have drilled down into each of these areas,a stable living environment for the working class identified interventions and found programs toas a means to eradicate poverty is the driving help people reach positive outcomes.force behind this guidebook. This is just the beginning. It is our collaborativeReflecting on the positive interventions he partnerships and the knowledge they havereceived from teachers in school, John began shared with us that have enabled us tohis research on the cause and effects of what envision the future of sustainable financial andkeeps communities in intense poverty and healthy community development practices.what helps create more stable middle-class We understand the interconnected nature ofenvironments. After over 3 years of research, the issues supporting poverty. We are here towe are now releasing this guidebook to share collaborate and share resources so that we mayour findings and perpetuate a more holistic all study, evolve and enhance what truly makesapproach in community rehabilitation: focus on communities thrive; the people.the people first.Our research has shown us two main things:the essential needfor people-driveninterventions andthe importance ofproperly trackingand measuringthe successof interventionprograms. Here youwill find our researchsummarized andour methodology forimpact measurementoutlined.In this guidebook
    • Contents. Section 1 Outcome Evaluations Criteria p.8 Social Obligation p.48 Economic Childhood Health & Stability Education Wellness p.10 p.20 p.28 White White White White Paper- Paper- Life Paper- Paper- Air Financial Skills Obesity Quality Freedom p.18 p.36 p.44 p.16
    • Section 2 Core & Enhanced Services p.54 White Paper- Outcomes p.76 Section 3 White Senior Family Paper-The Services Services Continuum p.56 p.66 Fund p.78 Housing Cycle of End Types Chart Assessment p.94 p.82 p.86 White White White Paper- Paper- Paper-Citizens Community Open Space First p.90 p.92 p.84
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria Section 1 Outcome evaluationsOutcome Evaluations CriteriaThe charts in this section describe the thought process behindCenter for the Greater Good’s Outcome Evaluations Criteria.The first step toward measuring outcomes is to identify a broadproblem. Broad problems (such as Economic Instability, PoorEducation, or Deteriorating Health) typically have multiplecauses and require a variety of interventions.Our process breaks each broad problem into sub-concerns andidentifies a positive outcome for participants. Through researchand strategic partnerships, Center for the Greater Good hasidentified one or more interventions for each sub-concern.We intend to use the identified interventions to communicatewith social service providers the best methods for impactingresidents in a meaningful and measurable fashion. Measurementindicators provide insight on the progress of interventions andfeedback on how to move forward.MethoDologyOur process behind developing our Outcomes EvaluationsCriteria began with countless hours of research and numerousinterviews with housing developers, social service providers, on-site resident coordinators and other field experts. We eventuallyidentified four main concerns which act as barriers to endingtransgenerational poverty. After identifying the concerns, wecreated an information matrix of sub-concerns cross-referencedwith our database of articles; this allowed us to identify indicatorswhich have been linked to the concerns.Through a year long collaboration with leading national andregional non-profit social service providers we have identifiedinterventions to address each of the indicators we set out tostudy.
    • “Real change can beachieved!” -Christoph Gabler, Senior Vice President, AEGON 9
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria YOUR COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC STABILITY Concerns associated with the individual economic household stability effect the community including youth, adults and seniors.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 11Primary Concern: Economic StabilitySub Concern: Alleviating PovertyPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren ü The number of unemployed persons Crisis prevention; increased 60% from 2008-2009. Less affluent partnering with localAdults ü households are more likely to have unmet stores for employment;Seniors needs, less stable employment, and less food banks; relocation ü comprehensive medical coverage. Three counseling; referrals toCommunity quarters of all households with incomes below agencies. ü the poverty line spend over 50% of theirPrimary Outcome incomes on rent, eliminating funds for fresh food, utilities, medical care or childcare. AboutFamilies and individuals 26% of renters spent more than half of theirstabilized/successfully pre-tax incomes on rent and utilities in 2009.housed.Sub Concern: Barriers to Home OwnershipPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Low-income residents saddled with low Credit counseling; financial ü savings, poor credit and lacking the literacy and family savingsAdults ü understanding of the pathway to home courses; home ownershipSeniors ownership. educational courses.CommunityPrimary OutcomeIncreased income, improved credit scores, readiness for home purchase through increasedsavings and contributions to IRA’s.Sub Concern: Limited Mobility OptionsPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren ü Low-income residents who rely on Van pools or vouchers for public transportation lack access to jobs, tickets on public transit.Adults ü educational opportunities and needed services, if transportation is not availableSeniors ü or has limited service.Community üPrimary OutcomeIncreased income and educational achievement.
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria Sub Concern: Poor Socioeconomic Success Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children ü Adult outcomes are far worse for poor Jobs skills and job children than non-poverty children. The readiness training; ESL Adults ü likelihood of not completing high school courses; financial literacy Seniors is three times greater. The likelihood and family savings courses; of having a non-marital birth is 3 times income supplements to Community ü greater. A third of poor children spend further education; child half their early adult years in poverty. care; partnerships with Only a third of poor boys go on to have local businesses to hire consistent employment in early adulthood. graduates of computer training courses. Primary Outcome Removes barriers to continuing education. Improved job skills and job readiness. Increased employment and average wage and income. Improved English test scores. Child care allows single parents to be employed and gain education. Increased educational level correlates to higher standard of living, improved lifestyle and higher self-esteem. Sub Concern: Risk of Homelessness Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children ü Homelessness is a condition that erodes Emergency assistance; a family’s sense of security, privacy, eviction prevention Adults ü stability, control and emotional and counseling; resident Seniors physical health. Homelessness increased advocacy and counseling; ü 3% from 2008-2009 and homeless temporary cash assistance; Community families increased 4% (highest of all sub- mediation services for ü populations). About one quarter to one tenants in housing; referrals third of homeless individuals have serious to other support services; mental illness. Homeless children suffer supportive housing; from malnutrition, lead poisoning and partner with local stores other serious medical conditions. 30% of and agencies to provide parents report chronic medical issues. provisions and employment. Primary Outcome Lower eviction rate and family stabilization. Reduced frequency of unwanted moves disrupting educational instruction and academic performance.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 13 Three quarters of all impoverished households spend over 50% of their incomes on rent. -National Alliance to End HomelessnessL ack of shelter is one of the five percent of family income. The threshold the term “shelter poor” in the late 1980’s elements that define poverty. The has been raised to 30 percent, which is for households that cannot meet their classification of ‘severe burden’ is the rent standard for most government needs for food, clothing, medical caredefined as spending over 50% of one’s housing programs today. and transportation at an adequate level Iincome on shelter. A variety of factors ndividuals on the lowest rungs of the after paying for housing. Dcontribute to the disproportionate cost income ladder suffer the most from isproportionate housing costsof housing. Personal choice might be a high housing costs. Whereas most mainly contribute to suppressingcomponent, but do public policies also Americans can plan for the unexpected, the success potential of low-need to be re-examined? the future, and take vacations, those income individuals. The consequencesI n 1937, the National Housing Act in poverty are often unable to enjoy a to a high cost of living shows in the created the public housing program. high quality of life after paying housing health, happiness, education level and It was designed to serve low-income expenses. Because of this, households relationships of the inflicted individual.families. The Brooke Amendment to the at the bottom rungs of income ladder Without adequate housing, children of1968 Housing and Urban Development are more likely to be severely housing low-income individuals are doomed toAct established the rent threshold of 25 cost-burdened. Michael Stone coined follow in their parents’ footsteps.
    • The nationalpoverty rate isthe highest ithas been forthe last 11 years. -2010 US Census
    • 15
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 17Financial FreedomMany low-income communities have social services provided on site. However, most of theseservices do not reach full effectiveness as they are often underfunded and lack real outcomemeasurements. These services are sustained mainly on periodic grants, which means services aretypically the first thing to go when cash flow becomes tight.The Continuum Fund speaks to many of the problems that both service providers and non-profitsencounter. The fund seeks to provide a social services budget of $80,000 per 100 units per year;funding one Community Coordinator full time per 100 Units.By including the funding for on-site services and Community Coordinators in our model we are ableto supply reliable cash flow for the organizations we work with; allowing them to serve the communityrather then search for grant funding.With reliable funding Community Coordinators are able to: -- Reach out and collaborate with other non-profits in the surrounding areas to bring in even more services. -- Partner with small businesses and entrepreneurs to provide job opportunities as well as financial education to residents. -- Leverage technology to incorporate resident and investor feedback. -- Leverage technology to track and measure outcomes.HOW OUR FINANCIAL MODEL WORKSCenter for the Greater Good’s Continuum Fund supplies low cost capital to community developmentprojects. A percentage of the interest paid back by the property, the fund pays for the social services.Because the on-site services and Coordinator are funded by the debt service and cash flow of theproject, the consistency and effectiveness of the integrated social services is supported. Ultimately,this enables the Community Coordinator and service organizations to focus on creating impact ratherthan spending time and resources applying for grants.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 19Life Skills and EntrepreneurshipLife Skills and Entrepreneurship are key to breaking the cycle of poverty. In low-income communitydevelopments, it is not uncommon to find high levels of unemployment and low levels of education.Very essential skills from household maintenance to balancing one’s checkbook are oftenoverlooked skill-sets. By fostering life skills, not only are residents able to take care of themselves,but also have a stable and healthy lifestyle for their whole families.Entrepreneurship is a key element in economic growth and a powerful force that can effectively helpbreak the cycle of poverty. Through hands-on learning programs we can provide the necessary skillsand training on how to create, run and prosper from running one’s own business. The tools for bothpersonal and financial growth go hand-in-hand - benefiting the entire community.LIFE SKILLSThe issues we all deal with in life are diverse, and so to are the skills we need to navigate throughour path everyday. Life skills are a key component to an individual’s success in life; promoting agreater sense of competence, usefulness, power, and sense of belonging. Ranging from practicalskills to communication, the broad scope of life skill programs offered is truly dependent on thespecifics of each community. It is here that we support the essential elements true to everyone’slives: decision making and values clarification.ENTREPRENEURSHIPCenter for Greater Good recognizes the research and policy work of the Kauffman Foundation onthe subject of entrepreneurship. The foundation’s efforts to advance education, training and grantsto support this subject are invaluable. Education prepares one to become an entrepreneur, andthe economic system gives a person the opportunity to be one. Entrepreneurship not only breaksindividuals out of the cycle of poverty, but also promotes job creation, and solves many economicand social services concerns. We support entrepreneurial opportunity and foster potential througheducation and training programs.
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria YOUR COMMUNITY’S Childhood education Educated children someday grow into educated adults. The strongest strategy for poverty alleviation is to end it before it begins; before it becomes a cycle.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 21Primary Concern: EducationSub Concern: Low Educational AttainmentPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren ü A 1995 longitudinal study revealed that Early childhood education; poor children who did not attend after- after-school programsAdults ü school programs are six times more likely and learning centers;Seniors to drop out of high school, three times computer training; more likely to be suspended, twice as resident scholarships;Community ü likely to be arrested by senior year, and student employment in the are 75% more likely to have tried smoking community. or drugs by senior year. A 2011 study found that one in six students not reading proficiently in third grade dropped out; a rate four times that of proficient readers. 22% of children that lived in poverty do not graduate versus 6% that have never been poor.Primary OutcomeReduced grade retention rate, improved rate of high school completion, better scholastic placementand more years of completed education or vocational training. Lower rates of suspension, juvenilearrest, and violent arrests. Improved physical and psychological health.
    • Low-incomesix times more out of high
    • students arelikely to dropschool. -National High School Center 23
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria Sub Concern: Household Overcrowding Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children Low-income children can be trapped Relocation counseling; ü in noisy and over-crowded home financial literacy and family Adults ü environment not appropriate for academic savings courses. Seniors performance. Community Primary Outcome Improved study environment and academic performance. Sub Concern: Childhood Mobility Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children ü The lower the family income, the Eviction prevention more likely the family is to move. This counseling; resident Adults ü contributes to poor achievement, grade advocacy and counseling; Seniors retention and dropout rates through temporary cash assistance; disruption of academic performance. mediation services for Community Mobile children must change teachers, tenants in housing court. curricula and friends; more likely to receive poor assessments and incomplete school records. Children suffer from anxiety and depression, making it difficult to keep friends. Primary Outcome High rate of eviction prevention; family stabilization. Reduced frequency of unwanted moves. Improved academic achievement. Improved physical and psychological health.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 25 Children from low-income families are raised in environments that do not promote their cognitive and social development -Jane Waldfogel, Columbia University School of Social WorkE ducation is an integral component For children who are raised in poor make $9,000 more. In contrast, college contributing to transgenerational conditions, it is common to miss school graduates make an average salary of poverty. To thouroughly examine due to housing related illnesses or drop $51,206; which increases to $74,602concerns of education and indicators of out of high school all together; both of upon completion of a master’s degree. Istudent success, one must consider the which will cause a student to achieve n order to be a financially successfulentirety of a student’s life; especially his less throughout his or her lifespan than adult, proper education is crucial.or her home environment. Conditions higher income counterparts will. The In order to be successful in schoolsuch as over-crowded living conditions, inevitable next step for impoverished as a child, it is neccessary to have alack of study space, chronic illnessess, children is to continue on the path of stable home environment. Throughor reduced parental support can affect trans generational poverty in adulthood. strategic interventions early in life, low- Twhether or not a child is successful in he U.S. Census Bureau reports income children will eventually becomeschool. on individuals who never achieve financially self-sufficient in adulthood;T here is an undenyable correlation a high school diploma, saying on lessening their potential burden while between poor housing conditions average they make $18,734 annually; increasing their positive influence to and less than average education. whereas a high school graduate would society.
    • “All childrenshould havethe basicnutritionthey needto learn andgrow andto pursuetheirdreams.” -Michelle Obama
    • 27
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria YOUR COMMUNITY’S Health & Wellness Mental and physical health greatly affect one’s quality of life. Simple interventions can have a high impact on a person’s health.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 29Primary Concern: HealthSub Concern: Housing ConditionsPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Because of the great number of Relocation counseling; ü hours spent inside the house, household maintenanceAdults housing conditions are key factor in education. ü determining physical and mental health.Seniors ü Overcrowding, poor repair, or healthCommunity hazards cause family stress. Children are most vulnerable because they cannot choose their living conditions. Low- income children are disproportionately disadvantaged by lead paint contamination.Primary OutcomeImproved health, IQ and lifetime earnings.Sub Concern: Senior Physical and Psychological HealthPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren Seniors particularly rely on a fragile Transportation to health arrangement of paid and unpaid help to services; medical houseAdults ü maintain independence. A 2006 AARP calls; cleaning service;Seniors study indicated 36% of Section 202 home delivered meals & ü residents over 62 years and 38% in groceries; guardianship;Community LIHTC were frail or disabled. Many suffer senior center; adult day from loneliness and depression, and lack care; financial management treatment for chronic conditions. and assistance.Primary OutcomeIncreased independence for seniors. Improved medication and health management. Reducedburden on family members for transportation to medical services. Reduced hospital andemergency services visits. Reduced social isolation improves psychological health. Improvedfitness.
    • “Ourneighborhoodsare literallymaking us fat.” -Susan H. Babey, PhD, Senior Research Scientist 31
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria Sub Concern: Personal Safety Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children Seniors living alone are at risk for injury “ I am OK” Committees (Red and death. Cross seniors program); Adults emergency preparedness. Seniors ü Community Primary Outcome Safety net of a tight community saves lives. Sub Concern: Substance Abuse Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children Young persons affected by reduced After-school programs; ü stability and safety are vulnerable learning centers; parenting Adults ü to further victimization and negative classes; job skills training; Seniors behavioral choices. youth employment in community. Community ü Primary Outcome Reduced drug use; improved academic performance. Sub Concern: Disease prevalence Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children Asthma prevalence in 2009 was 8.2% of Relocation counseling ü the population. Households with family and services; diabetes Adults ü incomes below the federal poverty level and obesity prevention Seniors have higher asthma prevalence than programs; after-school ü those with higher incomes. programs. Community ü Primary Outcome Reduction in diabetes and obesity rates. Decrease in respiratory related diseases from better air ventilation and higher quality living environment.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 33 Tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic development. -World Health OrganizationD L ue to the association between a ow-income communities become expendable income for treatments. B lack of education, poor health, particularly burdened by smoking y identifying and implementing and decision making, individuals and its effects. Cancer Research effective interventions includingin poverty are more likely to smoke UK reports that children whose parents health education, health clinics,compared to high income individuals. smoke are three times more likely to and healthy behaviors incentives, theAccording to a 2008 Gallup survey, become smokers than children who degredation of health and eventual34% of individuals in the $6,000- grow up in smoke-free homes. Due death of tobacco users in low-income$12,000 income range are smokers. In to increased exposure, they are also communities can be avoided. The bestcontrast, only 22% of individuals who more burdened by the consequences ouotcome is to educate the children tomake $30,000 more are smokers; this of second hand smoke. prevent them from becoming smokers Nnumber is consistent with the worldwide ot only are low-income earners in the first place, but measures mustaverage. As income reaches $90,000 more likely to become smokers, also be taken to free current usersper year, the number of smokers drops but they are also less equipped of their addiction so they can liveto 13%. to deal with the effects of smoking due longer, healthier lives with less health to lack of quality healthcare and less expenses.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 35 “The poorest among us suffer most because they lack quality health care and live in high- risk environments.” -Susan H. Babey, PhD, senior research scientist at the UCLA Center for Health Policy ResearchSub Concern: Wellness and FitnessPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren There are direct links between income level Health fairs, resident ü and health. A child’s health decreases activity programs; healthAdults ü dramatically when their parents are insurance education.Seniors uneducated. It has been shown that a child ü is six times more likely to suffer form poorCommunity health when his or her parents have not ü completed high school, compared to childrenPrimary Outcome of parents with at least one college degree.Increased access tohealth services andinformation. Seniors agein place.Sub Concern: Nutrition and Food SecurityPrimary Impact Current Conditions Service InterventionChildren ü Three fourths of all households with Nutritional courses for incomes below the poverty line spend school-age children; groceryAdults ü over 50% of their incomes on rent, delivery to seniors; on-siteSeniors eliminating funds for fresh food, utilities, food banks; food co-ops. ü medical care or childcare.CommunityPrimary OutcomeImproved health. Increased fresh food access and options, especially for seniors. Healthier fastfoods choices more consumption of whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. Children more willingto try new foods.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 37The Cost of ObesityIt is no surprise that poor nutrition has become increasingly common in the United States; it is a factthat can be observed in the general population through obesity. What may come as a surprise isthe true cost of obesity, the underlying causes and the alarming rate at which it affects low-incomeindividuals when compared to their higher income counterparts. Weight-related medical costs areestimated to have reached $147 billion in 2008 (that’s 9.1 percent of all medical spending) and showno signs of subsiding. 1 Besides the obvious mobility disadvantage to being obese, it is known tocause a series of physical and psychological ailments including: diabetes, heart disease, high bloodpressure, asthma, depression and anxiety. These are in addition to the social discrimination and thestigma one faces as an overweight or obese member of society.2The effects of obesity are lethal, and together cause an estimated 300,000 deaths per year inthe United States.3 According to the National Institute of Health, obesity and being overweightare the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States.4 Low-income individualsface a hardship when dealing with health issues because of their general lack of access to qualityhealth care, combined with a shortage of expendable income for medical expenditures andhigher deductibles. To make matters worse, low-income individuals are at higher risk of becomingoverweight or obese due to community infrastructure deficits such as the limited availability of fairlypriced produce and safe outdoor parks. In a 2010 study of more than 6,000 adults, BMI and incomewere found to have an inverse relationship. Those with lower incomes were statistically more likelyto have higher BMIs and vice versa.5 According to a 2007 national study of 40,000 children, childrenfrom lower income households had more than two times higher odds of being obese than childrenfrom higher income households.6 Rates of severe obesity were also 1.7 times higher among low-income children and adolescents nationwide.7The mission for Center for the Greater Good is to eradicate poverty and create healthy communitiesthrough innovative financial investments and distinctive strategies for community enhancement.We have identified the following as contributing factors to the alarming poor health in low-incomecommunities: -- Limited resources and lack of access to healthy and affordable foods. -- Fewer opportunities for physical activity.Instead of simply treating health conditions caused by poor nutrition, we are looking into the root ofthe problem. Improved nutrition leading to reduced obesity is just one of the many ways in which weare realizing our vision for healthy, stable communities in the United States.Poor Nutrition in Low-Income CommunitiesArguably, the main cause of disproportionate obesity in low-income communities in the United Statesis limited access to resources such as healthy, affordable foods. The lack of high quality communityinfrastructure in low-income areas, including full-service grocery stores and farmer’s markets8, fuel1 “Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity « Food Research & Action Center.” Food Research & Action Center. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://>.2 Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Overweight and obesity: a major public health issue. Prevention Report 2001;16.4 Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Executive summary. National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, June 1998.5 “Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity « Food Research & Action Center.” Food Research & Action Center. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <>.6 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity7 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity8 Beaulac, J., E. Kristjansson, and S. Cummins. 2009. A systematic review of food deserts, 1966–2007. Preventing Chronic Disease
    • 38 | Reports |Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.comthis disparity. Residents are sometimes forced to shop for groceries in convenience stores andother small stores, which do not offer the wide variety of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products necessary to maintain a healthy diet.9 When healthy foods are offered, they areoften higher cost and lower quality than similar items in larger stores.10 Due to the high cost and lowquality of produce and dairy products at small grocery stores, households with limited resources aresometimes forced to rely on cheaper, more densely caloric, non-perishable low-nutrition foods (suchas products containing processed sugar, refined grains and added fats) in order to minimize cost andmaximize caloric density.11 A 2009 study examining neighborhood disparities in food access foundthat, “neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to conveniencestores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity.”12Low-income neighborhoods not only lack affordable sources of quality nutritious foods, theycommonly contain disproportionate amount of fast food restaurants (sometimes twice as many)13which offer a low cost, convenient yet nutritionally void alternative to fresh, perishable foods.According to a study conducted by UCLA, when asked, “46 to 49 percent of low-income teensreported eating fast food on the previous day, compared with 37 percent of more affluent teens.”14The scarcity of fresh, affordable, nutritious food makes it difficult for an individual with restrictedincome and limited transportation to maintain a healthy diet. Unfortunately, nutrition is only half thebattle in the war on obesity.Not only do low-income neighborhoods commonly lack community supporting retail such as full-scale grocery stores, studies also show residents have less opportunity for physical activity. Inmiddle and upper class communities, it is easy to take for granted the presence of parks, trees, bikepaths and quality recreational facilities because they are abundantly available. In both urban andrural low-income communities, green space is hard to come by and trees are few and far between.When a park does exist, it is often ill equipped for safe inhabitance by children and even adults.Crime, traffic, unsafe playground equipment, visual signs of trash and disrepair, and noise15 are justsome of the factors driving individuals away from public parks. Such conditions make it difficult forthem to lead active lives16, and in turn contribute to obesity.17 With parks in a state of disrepair andthe absence of bike paths, people end up spending more time engaging in sedentary activities suchas reading, watching TV, playing video games and using the computer.18 An excess of sedentaryactivities can be detrimental to the development of children and teens who should be growing,learning and exploring, socializing, developing new skills and establishing healthy habits beforetransitioning into adulthood. The same UCLA study also found that, “56 percent of low-income teenswatch more than two hours of television per day, compared with 46 percent of more affluent teens.”19Some might argue a sedentary after school lifestyle is not alarming for a teen, especially if he orshe attends public school with mandated Physical Education classes; but schools in low-incomecommunities have been reported to have less recess and lower-impact PE classes than other9 Beaulac , 2009schools.20 In fact, of low-income teens surveyed, nearly one fifth of them admitted to not getting at10 Andreyeva, Tatiana, Michael W. Long, and Kelly D. Brownell. “The Impact of Food Prices on Consumption: A Systematic Review of Research on the Price Elasticity of Demand for Food.” Government, Politics, and Law. American Journal of Public Health, Feb. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <>.11 Drewnowski A. Barratt-Fornell A. Do healthier diets cost more? Nutrition Today 2004:39:161-168.12 Larson, N.I., M.T. Story, and M.C. Nelson (2009). “Neighborhood Environments: Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S.,” American Journal13 Driscoll, Gwendolyn. “Obesity among State’s low-income Teens Nearly Triple That of More Affluent Peers / UCLA Newsroom.” Home / UCLA of Preventive Medicine, 36(1): 74-81.e10. Newsroom. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <>.14 Driscoll, Gwendolyn15 Neckerman, K.M., M. Bader, M. Purciel, and P. Yousefzadeh (2009). “Measuring Food Access in Urban Areas,” National Poverty Center Working Paper,16 Powell, Lisa M., Sandy Slater, and Frank J. Chaloupka. “The Relationship between Community Physical Activity Settings and Race, Ehtnicity and Socioeconomic Status.” Evidence-Based Preventative Medicine I.2 (2004): 135-44. Open Mind Journals. Web.17 Singh, G. K., Siahpush, M., & Kogan, M. D. (2010). Rising social inequalities in US childhood obesity, 2003-2007. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(1), 40-18 Singh, 2010 52.19 Driscoll, Gwendolyn20 Barros et al., 2009; UCLA Center to Eliminate Health Disparities, 2009.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 39least 60 minutes of physical activity per week, as recommended by the Federal Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans.21 Schools in low-income communities are often underfunded and do not offer thevariety of after school sports opportunities as one would find at an affluent school. Barely one third oflow-income teens were reported to be active participants in school sports teams, when almost half ofaffluent teens do participate.22The combination of poor quality food and sedentary lifestyles is leading to an epidemic of obesity inlow-income communities, causing children to become overweight and obese at an alarming rate. Asthe children become teenagers and later adults, they lack the tools and education to help their ownchildren achieve a higher level of physical health.Promoting Nutrition and Exercise for ResidentSCenter for the Greater Good has multiple strategies for battling obesity and promoting health in low-income communities. We offer low interest loans for community revitalization projects and we offerdeveloper incentives for the creation of community support services and other improvements. Oneof our strategies is to invest in community infrastructure. The current tax credit system encouragesthe development of low-income housing in prime locations, walking distance to destinations suchas grocery stores, transit, parks and gyms. Housing ends up being built in prime locations, oftenin middle to upper class communities, which is great for those areas and the residents of thebuilding. The trouble is, the system does nothing to improve communities that do not already havethe infrastructure in place. Center for the Greater Good invests in all kinds of community beneficialprojects such as: providing low cost commercial rental facilities for small businesses, and incentivesto bring grocery stores and other retailers to neighborhoods. After all, sometimes all it takes is oneproject to fuel the revitalization of an entire area. Instead of moving people to areas with betterinfrastructure already in place, we analyze market studies and resident input surverys to dictatewhat the current infrastructure is lacking; this way, we know the project we invest in is going to besuccessful. By bringing a neighborhood a grocery store, we are not only offering access to improvednutrition; we are also giving citizens the opportunity to be employed at the grocery store. Thiscreates a cycle of benefits where the money invested directly impacts your community.For projects built in infrastructure rich areas, Center for the Greater Good could potentially offerbus passes to residents. Access to transit, in some cases, eliminates the need for a resident to owna car; saving time and money for the resident, and reducing the strain on roads due to wear, tearand traffic. Transit passes also allow residents to travel to grocery stores and recreation facilitiesif there aren’t any within walking distance, improving their chance to engage in healthy activities.Depending on the needs of individual communities, some housing projects contain a gym within theirfacility, offering residents the most convenient, safe and cost effective access to the physical activityeverybody needs in order to live a healthy life.The most important solution to the issue of deteriorating health in low-income communities due topoor nutrition and lack of exercise is education. People cannot be expected to change their habitsif they are unaware of the resources provided to them, the importance of exercise and nutrition,and how to use the gym and cook healthy, low cost meals. One of our main strategies for improvednutrition in our residents is the existence of a community garden. A community garden is aneducation tool disguised as a hobby. It can be tended to and enjoyed by residents of all ages, andthe food grown can be used in community meals. Residents can take pride in their own ability togrow and cook healthy foods.21 Driscoll, Gwendolyn22 Driscoll, Gwendolyn
    • 40 | Reports |Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.comEducation and Access to Infrastructure are key to Breakingthe Cycle of Poor NutritionThe obesity epidemic in the United States is a growing concern in all communities, but low-incomecommunities produce a disproportionate percentage of overweight and obese individuals. “Ourneighborhoods are literally making us fat,” said Susan H. Babey, one of the authors of UCLA’s policybrief. “We need better strategies and more thoughtful urban planning if we are going to make ourtowns and cities livable, not just places where we live.”23 Fortunately, Center for the Greater Goodoffers an innovative financial model for community revitalization projects, bundled with communitysupport services to ensure success.23 Driscoll, Gwendolyn
    • BMI andincome have an inverse relationship. - Food Research & Action Center 43
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 45Resident Health, Practices and MaterialityThe correlation between building materials and occupant health has become undeniable over thepast twenty years. As time goes on, it is clear the lower income population in the United Statesbears the brunt of the damage. On average, Americans spend 90% of their time indoors.1 Besidesthe obvious health benefits of spending time outdoors (such as natural Vitamin D exposure, moodenhancement, and outdoor exercise), too much time inside can be dangerous if one occupies aspace with poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, indoorlevels of pollutants may be two to five times higher, and occasionally more than 100 times higher, thanoutdoor levels.2 Exposure to indoor air pollutants has been linked to life threatening diseases, themost common of which is asthma. One in five people have asthma. Every day, asthma in the UnitedStates causes: 40,000 people to miss school or work, 5,000 people to visit the emergency room,1,000 people to be admitted to the hospital for an average of 3 days, and 11 people to die.3The annual cost of asthma in the United States is estimated to be nearly $18 billion, $10 billion ofwhich is the direct cost of hospitalization.4 With healthcare costs as high as they are, those who aretruly burdened by this disease are the low-income population. According to a UCLA study, a low-income individual is twice as likely to visit the emergency department due to asthma when comparedto higher-income individuals, and once there, they are six times as likely to be hospitalized.5“The poorest among us suffer most because they lack quality health care and live in high-riskenvironments,” said Ying-Ying Meng, a Senior Research Scientist with the UCLA Center for HealthPolicy Research. “That disparity also burdens our health system with costly emergency care andhospitalizations and extracts the additional high cost of millions of lost days of work and school.”Meng added, “Asthma has the potential to be debilitating, but it can be effectively controlled throughappropriate medical care and avoidance of triggers.”6 The Center for the Greater Good is dedicatedto solving the problem of poor health in communities, instead of simply treating the condition. Wehave spent countless hours alongside our developer partners identifying the best practices incommunity development building design, with the objective of reducing the effects of asthma andother health concerns caused by poor IAQ.The Air we Breathe is Slowly Poisoning UsIt is easy to identify the source of poor IAQ in buildings and to recognize how pollutants affectthe residents’ overall quality of life; the difficult part is eliminating them. Sources of indoor airpollution may include: combustion sources; building materials and furnishings; household cleaning,maintenance, personal care, and hobby products; central heating and cooling systems andhumidification devices; and outdoor sources such as radon, pesticides, and outdoor air pollution.7The Center for Disease Control warns that indoor contaminants such as dust mites, molds,cockroaches, pet dander, secondhand smoke and some chemicals can trigger asthma attacks.8Moving forward, there are strategies to improving IAQ that have the potential to decrease the1 The Inside Story: A Guide to Indoor Air Quality. U.S. EPA/Office of Air and Radiation. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6609J) Cosponsored with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA 402-K-93-007.2 The Inside Story3 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America - Information About Asthma, Allergies, Food Allergies and More! Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <>.4 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America5 Driscoll, Gwendolyn. “Asthma Disproportionately Affects Low-income Populations | UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.” UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. UCLA, 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.healthpolicy.>.6 Asthma Disproportionately Affects Low-income Populations7 “Indoor Air Home | Air.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <>.8 Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality: United States, 2003-05, hestats/ashtma03-05/asthma03-05.htm
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 47burden of asthma and other preventable health concerns for communities; the greatest challenge iscompleting renovation and demolition of existing structures without releasing harmful chemicals anddust particles into the air and soil.Best Practices in Healthy Building Design and ConstructionThe Center for the Greater Good works with foundations and investors to build communities in afinancially innovative way with innovation extending to every aspect of the projects we fund. Westrive for buildings that are designed with the resident’s health in mind. Our Best Practices in designare focused around passive methods for improved materiality, increased natural light and improvedair circulation. The Center for the Greater Good encourages developers to invest in natural, durablebuilding materials that do not off gas. Ideal building materials contain recycled content; come fromnatural, plentiful or renewable sources; have a resource-efficient manufacturing process; are locallyavailable; are salvaged, refurbished or remanufactured; are recyclable or reusable; durable; arelow or non toxic; output minimal chemical emissions; have a low VOC assembly; are moistureresistant; and are healthfully maintained. We encourage developers to design buildings withmaximum indoor exposure to natural light as part of our commitment to further improve residenthealth and reduce energy costs associated with lighting. The benefits of natural light include:reduced energy consumption; reduction of mildew or mold buildup; natural vitamin D exposure;increased productivity experienced for occupants; and improved interior visual appeal.9 We alsostress the importance of fresh air. Air circulation removes stale air and dissipates pollutants. Filteringmechanically circulated air cuts down on the distribution of mold, mildew, dust, allergens, pet dander,and other potentially dangerous particles.The Center for the Greater Good does more than strive to build better quality buildings. We alsoencourage the healthiest possible strategies of construction, maintenance and eventual demolition.Our developer partners work with only the highest quality construction firms to ensure two conceptson the job site: the proper installation and implementation of new building materials and strategies;and the best practices for building construction, renovation and demolition. Many approaches withthe purpose of improving building efficiency and occupant health (such as the use of new materialsand construction methods) require special installation. It is important that time and care be takenduring the strategy implementation process to ensure the building functions as planned. The bestpractices for building construction, renovation and demolition must also be followed to preserve IAQby reducing the release of contaminates into the air. Examples of practices include: the isolation ofconstruction work areas from occupied areas through the use of appropriate containment barriers;the negative pressurization of construction work areas and/or the positive pressurization of occupiedareas to prevent the migration of air contaminants; and maintenance of an adequate unoccupiedbuffer zone around the work areas to allow for construction or renovation traffic.Improve the Quality of the Air, Improve the Quality of the LifeAsthma affects one out of five Americans, but it affects the low-income population at a far higherrate, partially due to hazardous living conditions. Society will benefit from a reduction in asthmaamong the low income population because it can recover some of the $18 Billion spent annuallyon asthma treatment. Individuals and society will also benefit financially by missing work less dueto asthma symptoms. Children living an asthma free life will develop more active lifestyles andmiss school less often. The Center for the Greater Good, alongside our developer partners andfoundations, is investing in proactive solutions to poor health in communities.9 “Natural Lighting Strategies and Benefits | One Green Planet.” One Green Planet | One Green Planet | One Green Planet Is an Online Ecosystem That Draws Links between the World of Ecology, the Environment, Animals and Vegan Living. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <>.
    • Outcomes evaluations criteria YOUR COMMUNITY’S Social Obligation Households of lower income have higher levels of stress which is damaging to a child; especially when paired with criminal activity, neglect, or substance abuse.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 49 Lower-income youths can be susceptible to illegal forms of income, leading to grave effects on families. -Children’s Environmental Learning and the Use, Design and Management of SchoolgroundsI n low-income households where child’s social behavior due to criminal mental health problems, delinquency, the head of the family is lacking the activity in the home is the consequence teen pregnancy, school absenteeism education and opportunity to make most readily observable. According to and failure, isolation, and poor peera decent living to support his or her the Office of Justice Programs, children relations.” Children from these homesfamily, some resort to illegal activities growing up among the chaos of illegal are also more likely to follow in theirto bring money into the household. activity exhibit disorderly behavior parents’ footsteps, engaging in criminalThough the short term justification for and experience delays in cognitive activity themselves.criminal activity may keep a family off functioning, including “low self-esteem,the streets, the long term effects for a sense of shame, and poor socialchildren growing up in an unstable skills.” ohousehold are almost immeasurable. bserving illegal activities in theI nfants in homes with criminal activity, home as a child and growing such as meth lab homes, are more up in an unstable environment likely to be severely neglected and can lead to undesirable teen behaviors.physically abused. The effects on a Consequences include “emotional and
    • Single parenthouseholdsexperience highstress due tolower incomeand lack ofsupport. - Child Welfare Information Gateway
    • 51
    • 52 | Section 1 | Center for Greater Good | Primary Concern: Social Responsibility Sub Concern: Crime Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children ü Lower-income youths can be susceptible After-school programs; to illegal forms of income generation, youth volunteer programs. Adults leading to potential incarceration, or Seniors death, with grave effects on families. Community ü Primary Outcome Youths engaged in productive activities leading to reduced vandalism, violent crimes and drug use. Enhanced self-esteem. Sub Concern: Community Pride Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children ü High rates of resident mobility results in a Neighborhood Watch; lowered sense of community commitment Safe Neighborhood Action Adults ü and attachments among residents, Programs; neighborhood contributing to increased crime and drug volunteer programs; youth Seniors ü use. volunteer programs. Community ü Primary Outcome Improved community safety from increased social relationships and trust. Sub Concern: Domestic Violence, Child Abuse/Neglect Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention Children Children in low-income families are more Family education and ü likely to be maltreated due to parental life skills training; child Adults ü stress. protective services referrals. Seniors Community Primary Outcome Reduction in number of victims.
    • Children in low-income families, many times, are more likely to be maltreated. -US Department of Health and Human Services
    • CORE & ENHANCED PROGRAMS Section 2 Core & enhanced servicesCore & enhanced servicesThe Outcomes Evaluations Criteria document from Section 1identifies the issues we seek to solve by offering on-site servicesin the communities we are involved in. This section, the Core andEnhanced Programs, is more specific about available programsand the measurable indicators associated with each program.The listed programs are divided into two main categories andtwo sub-categories. The main categories are Family Housing andSenior Housing, because they are typically housed in separatelocations and the residents have distinct needs. The sub-categories are Core Programs and Enhanced Programs. CorePrograms are typical services which are already in place at manyhousing facilities. Enhanced services are innovative solutionswhich involve community interaction to solve the problem.METHODOLOGYOur process for creating the Core and Enhanced Programs Listincluded taking all the priority interventions and classifying theminto the four categories previously listed. With the help of ProjectAccess, LifeSTEPS, and Success Measures, we matched eachintervention with every affected indicator and significant researchdata.The evaluation method we created is different than the methodsalready being implemented throughout the industry because itutilizes a variety of data collection methods and types. We notonly record how many residents are receiving each service, butwe also analyze resident surveys and factual data, such as deathrate or change in GPA.
    • “We are aconstantly maturing species!“ -Terry Mollner, Chair, Trusteeship Institute, Inc. 55
    • CORE & ENHANCED PROGRAMS Programs for Seniors This section is a description of our concerns, measurable indicators, and interventions. These strategies are to be implemented at low-income family housing facilities.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 57Concern: EducationCore ServicesIntervention Indicators with Outcomes Computer Training Computer skill level Number of residents achieving employment Art Classes Number of residents attending Self-reported mental health improvement Community Library Access to booksEnhanced ServicesIntervention Indicators with Outcomes ESL Classes Number of residents attending Number of residents completing Improvement in communication skills
    • 58 | Section 2 | Center for Greater Good | Concern: Health Core Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Referrals to Agencies Number of residents referred “I’m OK” Program Number of volunteers checking on seniors Health Classes Self-reported health improvement Obesity rate Number of hospital visits Number of ER visits Self-reported diet improvement Growth Programs Self-reported improvement Grocery Delivery Number of residents receiving service Insurance Education Number of residents with health insurance Household Education Cleanliness of residence Nutrition Classes Number of residents attending
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 59 Number of nutrition related health issues Self-reported health improvement Healthy Cooking Classes Number of residents attending Self-reported diet improvementDrug and Alcohol Awareness Number of residents attending Substance abuse rate Fitness Classes Number of residents regularly attending Obesity rates Self-reported health improvement Community Gardens Self-reported diet improvement Community pride Household Maintenance Number of residents receiving service Percent of residences considered clean Health Fairs Number of residents attending Self-reported health improvement Health Clinic On-Site Number of residents served Self-reported health improvementTransportation to Practitioners Number of residents transported Food Banks and Donations Number of residents served Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Self-reported diet improvement Counseling Number of residents served Self-reported improvement in stress reductionEnhanced Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Health Adult Day Care Number of residents served Self-reported physical and mental health
    • Who says youcan’t changeyour stripes? 61
    • 62 | Section 2 | Center for Greater Good | Concern: Economic Stability Core Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Crisis Management Number of residents served Resolution success rate Eviction Prevention Eviction rate Temporary Cash Assistance Number of residents served Number of residents attending mandatory counseling Percent repayment Financial Literacy Classes Number of residents attending Default rates Credit scores Savings rate Financial literacy Entrepreneurship Programs Number of residents completing Number of businesses started Number of businesses that are going concerns Local Retail Partners Number of partners Home Ownership Courses Number of residents attending & completing Number of residents that purchase homes Enhanced Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Linkages to Discounts Number of residents served Number of partner businesses Mediation Services Number of residents served
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 63 Percent of cases successfully resolved Supportive Housing Number of residents served Number of hospital visits Number of ER visits Guardianship Services Number of residents servedPartnerships with Local Stores Number of residents served Van Pools/ Bus Vouchers Number of residents served Percent increase in access to education and employment Translation and Interpretation Number of residents served
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 65Concern: Social ObligationCore Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Intergenerational Programs Number of mentors Number of youth participating Positive influence on youth Vandalism Substance abuse Reading scores of students Math scores of students Neighborhood Watch Vandalism Crime rate Special Events Number of events Number of residents attending Personal Safety Number of residents attending preparedness workshops Number of emergency drills
    • CORE & ENHANCED PROGRAMS PROGRAMS FOR Families This section is a description of our concerns, measurable indicators, and interventions. These strategies are to be implemented at low-income family housing facilities.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 67Concern: Social ObligationCore ServicesIntervention Indicators with Outcomes Youth Volunteer Program Number of youth participating Number of juvenile arrests Vandalism Substance abuse Youth Employment Number of youth employed Mentoring Programs Number of mentors Number of youth participating Positive influence on youth Vandalism Substance abuse Reading scores of students Math scores of students Parenting Classes Number of parents attending and completing Self-reported improvement in family life Child Protective Services Domestic abuse reports Neighborhood Watch Vandalism Crime rate Special Events Number of events Number of residents attending Personal Safety Number of residents attending preparedness workshops Number of emergency drills
    • 68 | Section 2 | Center for Greater Good | Concern: Education Core Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Early Childhood Education Number of children attending Reading scores of students Percent of children prepared to begin elementary school After-School Tutoring Number of children/youth attending Math scores Reading scores Report cards-GPA Vandalism rate Substance abuse Number of juvenile arrests High school graduation rate Grade retention rate Computer Training Computer skill level Number of residents achieving employment Unemployment rate School Supplies Number of children with supplies Summer Enrichment Programs Number of children/youth attending Substance abuse Vandalism rate Number of juvenile arrests Community Library Access to books Child Care Stress levels of single employed parents Parent access to education and employment
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 69 Student Career Programs Percent admittance to community colleges and universities High school graduation rate Standardized test scores GED Classes GEDs attained Math scores of students Reading scores of studentsEnhanced ServicesIntervention Indicators with Outcomes ESL Classes Number of residents attending Number of residents completing Self-reported improvement in communication skills Scholarships Number of requests Number of residents served Success rate to further education
    • 49 percentof Americanbabies born intopoor familieswill be poor forat least half theirchildhoods. -Urban Institute, 2010
    • 71
    • 72 | Section 2 | Center for Greater Good | Concern: Health Core Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Health Referrals Number of residents referred Health and Wellness Classes Self-reported health improvement Obesity rate Number of hospital visits Number of ER visits Self-reported diet improvement Youth Obesity Prevention Obesity rate Diabetes rate Health Insurance Education Number of resident with health insurance Household Maintenance Cleanliness of residence Nutritional Courses Self-reported diet improvement Number of nutrition related health issues Healthy Cooking Classes Number of residents attending Self-reported diet improvement Drug and Alcohol Awareness Number of residents attending Substance abuse rate Fitness Classes Number of residents regularly attending Obesity rates Self-reported health improvement Community Gardens Self-reported diet improvement Community pride Health Fairs Number of residents attending Self-reported health improvement
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 73 Transportation-Van Pools Number of residents transportedFood Banks and Donations Number of residents servedFresh Fruit and Vegetables Self-reported diet improvement Counseling Number of residents served Self-reported improvement and stress reduction
    • 74 | Section 2 | Center for Greater Good | Concern: Economic Stability Core Services Intervention Indicators with Outcomes Resident Advocacy Number of residents served Resolution Success Rate Job Skills Training Unemployment rate Number of residents achieving employment Income gains Percent and age of trainees that find jobs Number of residents employed after 1 year Job Fairs Number of residents attending Unemployment rate Income gains Eviction Prevention Eviction rate Temporary Cash Assistance Number of residents served Number of residents attending mandatory counseling Percent repayment Financial Literacy Classes Number of residents attending Default rates Credit scores Savings rate Financial literacy Entrepreneurship Courses Number of residents completing Number of businesses started Number of businesses that are having concerns Partners with Local Retailers Number of partners
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 2 | 75 Home-Ownership Education Number of residents attending and completing Number of residents that purchase homesEnhanced ServicesIntervention Indicators with Outcomes Linkages to Discounts Number of residents served Number of partner businesses Medication Services Number of residents served Percent of cases successfully resolved Partners with Local Retailers Number of residents served Percent of cases successfully resolved Number of graduates employed after 1 year Supportive Housing Number of residents served Number of hospital visits Number of ER visits Partnerships with Local Stores Number of residents receiving products Van Pools or Bus Vouchers Number of residents served Percent increase in access to education and employment Interpretation Services Number of residents served
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 77Measurements and OutcomesCenter for the Greater Good has done over a thousand hours of research into best practicesand programs to develop a comprehensive set of outcomes under categories such as Health,Education, Economic Stability and Social Responsibility. Outcomes range from reducing evictionrates, increasing education levels, improving overall health to increasing a sense of community,green outcomes and encouraging entrepreneurship. Our approach ensures that measurements arebased on outcomes rather than the typical approach of simply measuring impact by attendance atscheduled programming.In collaboration with seasoned social service providers, we have created a list of interventions foreach desired outcome. Also, for each desired outcome, we have created a list of affected indicatorsto be measured. The interventions are categorized into two menus - Core Programs and EnhancedPrograms.True ImpactWhile we do track attendance, our measurements are designed to measure the effectiveness ofthe programs. Each of the outcomes are mapped with specific indicators to assess the true impactand effectiveness of the social services. For example, in the case of an after-school program, mathscores, reading scores, report cards (GPA), vandalism rates, substance abuse rates, juvenile arrestrates, high school graduation rates, and grade retention rates are measured.AccountabilityBased on the metrics, progress towards outcomes can be accurately assessed. In case a particularsocial service program does not show significant progress towards the desired outcomes, theprogram can be re-analyzed, reinforced with additional resources, or replaced by another moreeffective program. This keeps the providers accountable for ensuring the efficiency and efficacy ofthe programs they provide.TransparencyMeasurements also serve the purpose of making the outcomes of any community completelytransparent. Technology tools coupled with scientific data analysis will be used to provide regularprogress reporting to foundations and investors.In addition to providing these reports, Center for the Greater Good will also make the process ofcreating the integrated social service plan, as well as the resulting measurements, publicly availableso that the model can be replicated in other communities.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 79The Continuum FundAbolishing Poverty Throughout a LifetimeMany philanthropic ventures focus on a specific solution to a problem. However, when applied tothe problem of poverty, this way of thinking is flawed. There is not a singular reason for povertyand therefore no singular solution. This is why Center for the Greater Good purposes addressingpeople’s needs throughout their life, from birth to old age; the entire continuum. Our goal is to supplypeople with the tools needed to live a life well above the poverty line and caters to the specificchallenges unique to each individual.HousingSupportive Housing – Extremely Low Income. The goal of this program is to assist the homeless.Getting into a safe and healthy environment is the first step towards breaking the binds of poverty. Inaddition to providing housing, supportive housing is closely tied to the services that help people workthrough substance abuse, addiction/alcoholism, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and other obstacles toliving a successful life.Public Housing – Very Low Income. This program helps the individuals at the borderline ofhomelessness. People often turn to illegal and dangerous activities in order to survive, by providingpublic housing we are able to keep families moving up and out of poverty. With the burden of payingrent reduced, individuals are able to focus employment and obtaining the life skills necessary tobreak the binds of poverty.Section 8 Housing – Income Ranges. This program provides vouchers to low-income individualsor families so they can afford safe and decent housing in the private sector. This subsidized programrequires participants to contribute no more than 30 percent of their income to housing expenses(rent and utilities). The participant is allowed to choose his or her own housing environment, aslong as it is at or below the ‘market average’ as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD).Senior Housing – Income Ranges. This category of housing is designed for seniors of manyincome levels, especially those living on a fixed income. Senior housing is commonly equipped withsocial services in the category of health and community involvement.Low-Income Student Housing – Low Income. The purpose of this program is to open theopportunity of higher education to people with a wider range of incomes and situations than thecurrent market. Low-income families typically face a barrier to entry when seeking to obtain selfsufficiency due to a lack of education; leading to limited career progression potential. Low-incomestudent housing is designed to meet the needs of individuals with or without families who seek tofurther their education.Workforce Housing– Low Income. This program serves to bridge the gap between dependenceand self sufficiency. Aimed at helping families and individuals with low cost housing when theirincomes do not support the most basic of needs. Through this program, tenants are obligated to pay30% of the given rent themselves. This ensures that families have a safe and healthy environmentdespite the fact that they could not afford it entirely on their own.Market Rate – Average or Above Average Income. This is the ultimate goal. By improving health,education, and income we strive to have every individual move into market rate housing. It is at thispoint that we see people living self sufficient lives supported by themselves.
    • 80 | Reports |Center for Greater Good |
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 81HealthOur goal is to maximize health throughout the entirety of each person’s life by focusing on thefollowing areas: -- Prenatal Care -- Mental Health -- Nutrition, Malnutrition, Asthma and Obesity -- Cancer -- End of Life Care/Funeral ServicesEducationPoverty and poor education are a vicious circle. We encourage learning at every level by utilizingthese programs: -- Early Childhood Education -- GED Assistance -- Job Training -- College Prep -- Income DevelopmentIt is a fact, that in order for families to be self sufficient and remain above the line of poverty, incomehas to increase. Our health and education programs heavily influence a person’s ability to earnincome, but that does not guarantee employment. To combat this, we equip individuals with thespecific tools to move up in the work force and provide opportunities for adequate employment.Examples of programs that focus on employment are: -- General Education -- Degree/Certificate Assistance -- Interview Skills/Career Skills -- Job Preparation -- Networking Opportunities -- Job PlacementThere is no “one-size fits all” for eradicating poverty, but when housing, health, education, andincome are addressed we will see improvements across the board. We aim to enable families andindividuals to take more than a step away from poverty, we want them to keep moving and improvingtheir lives until they are completely above the poverty line, which is why we choose to focus on thefull continuum of factors related to poverty. Through the combination of all of our programs, we canhelp people throughout the entire process, and in time, we will see poverty in the United Statesdestroyed.
    • THE CONTINUUM FUND Extremely Low Income Supportive Housing is The purpose of Public Section 8 HousingSupportive Housing Public Housing Section 8 Housing a temporary solution Housing is to provide vouchers allow recipients to homelessness. Its stability to individuals to receive assistance, purpose is to provide and families who are at keeping the freedom safety to high risk risk of homelessness to choose their own individuals and to help or were formerly housing. Freedom them find permanent homeless. Residents lets recipients focus housing. Services include are reintroduced into on friends, family and encouraged sobriety and society and interventions increasing their income. severe mental health are used to inspire them interventions. to pursue financial self sufficiency.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Section 3 | 83 Low-Income Senior Senior Housing Housing is designed to allow seniors to age in place and live out their lives in a healthy and productive fashion. Above Average Income Workforce Housing helps Low-Income Student Market Rate HousingWorkforce Housing student Housing Market Rate Housing low wage employees live Housing is designed to is the goal for all in the neighborhoods support children, families residents housed by the they work in, cutting and individuals who Continuum Fund. Once commute time and cost, wish to pursue higher they achieve financial improving the quality of education. Services focus self-sufficiency, residents life for individuals and on meeting students’ are educated, happy, families. The time and needs and increases the sober and involved in the money saved allows our likelihood of completing community. Residents no the recipients to take school. longer need supportive full advantage of the services. interventions offered to them.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 85Citizens First HousingStarting on the groundAt Center for the Greater Good, our social service plans are based on the premise that eachcommunity has a unique set of needs. While there are many needs in common, we hold that thespecific set of services appropriate for a particular community is unique. We build communities fromthe inside out, rather than from the outside in. A pre-packaged social services plan is not effectiveor wise. Creating an integrated social services plan based on the input from the community is farmore effective at creating lasting change. Our process incorporates participation from residents,coordinators, and foundations in the creation of the integrated social services framework tailored toeach community.Thorough needs assessmentThe process starts with a thorough assessment of the neighborhood and residents by the communitycoordinator. The coordinator identifies the demographics of the residents, existing facilities available,and problems within the neighborhood.Information, Education and Resident FeedbackA community is only as strong as the residents who comprise it. We engage all members of thecommunities we work in through the use of surveys, tenant meetings and our outcomes evaluationsoftware. Residents participant in the planing process of programs offered by working with theCommunity Coordinators in evaluating the area’s needs assessments and working together increating proactive plans for success in their communities.Input from FoundationsThe Coordinator then considers all assessment information at hand, works with Center for theGreater Good and representatives from foundations to create the integrated social service planspecific to each community. Outcome evaluation tools developed by Center for the Greater Good aremade available to the coordinator in order to ensure the effectiveness of the integrated social serviceplans, allow them to track indicators, set goals and support periodic progress reports towards goalsto investors and other interested parties.Accountability of servicesOutcome indicators not only track progress towards goals, but also serve as feedback to theprocess. If the feedback shows that some goals will not be met, the program will be reanalyzed andmeasures will be taken to adjust the services offered. Some possible measures are providing moreresources, changing one or more programs responsible for the driving indicators, or selecting aservice provider to offer services more effectively.
    • THE CONTINUUM FUND CGG INNOVATION IN Social SERVICES Starting on the Ground Our social service plans are based on a framework where there is not a one-size-fits all set of services. Our services are developed individually for each community. Each community is unique, so the integrated social services offered should also be a unique combination based on the community’s needs. The chart on page 87 describes our unique method for social services delivery; it is how we insure constant effectiveness through Outcome Evauations Criteria. The steps are as follows: -- Step 1: Assess the Situation. Before prescribing a cure, it is important to diagnose the problem. -- Step 2: Non-profit and Resident Education. We educate the involved parties about the problem we diagnose, and solutions which have been effective in the past. -- Step 3: Non-profit and Resident Collaboration. As a team, we work with involved parties to help them identify the solution that is right for their particular community. -- Step 4: Coordinator Execution. The Coordinator creates a detailed assessment for each individual, provides access to the appropriate programs, removes barriers that might impede success and maintains contact with the Residents. -- Step 5: Tracking, Measuring and Evaluating. Using the methods described in Section 1, we track the success of the programs. -- Step 6: Report. We report our findings to all involved parties. After the reports are published, we return to step 1 and re- assess the situation.
    • Educate AssessCOLLA- Coor-BORATE dinateReport Evaluate 87
    • Together, we can make abetter future for the 46,200,000 impoverished Americans. 89
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 91Community OpportunityCommunity Coordinators play a vital role in bringing the community together and serve as thelink between resources and residents. For residents to learn about and take full advantage of theprovided resources, they require the assistance of a trusted and dedicated coordinator.Community CoordinatorsTo ensure the effectiveness of each community, choosing the right community coordinator isimportant. The following criteria are minimum requirements for our Community Coordinators: -- Available for full time employment. -- A minimum of 2 years of experience in community coordination. -- Strong background in case management. -- A history of empathy and passion to make a difference.Permanent fundingCommunity Coordinators are funded permanently and predictably through cash flow generated bythe project rather than relying on grants. This allows the Community Coordinator to focus on andserve the community’s residents.Budget for OutreachCommunity Coordinators play a vital role in bringing all the community resources together andmaking it available for the residents to use to the fullest potential. In addition to their salary,funding for use by the Community Coordinator will be available through the Continuum Fund.The Community Coordinator will use the available funding to bring together the non-profits, smallbusinesses and residents.Case management and Integrated servicesServing as the first point contact, the Community Coordinator is available to residents with anyproblem – simple or complex. They work with the resident to address their issue with an appropriateintegrated solution.By collaborating with public agencies and non-profits, Community Coordinators accomplish farmore than they would on their own. In addition to managing the administration of programs, theCoordinators also track and measure the progress and efficacy of programs. Using the OutcomeEvaluations Criteria, they will be designing and revising programs in order to meet and exceedprogram goals.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 93Open SpaceCommunity development projects supported by the Center for the Greater Good’s The ContinuumFund undergo a rigorous due diligence to determine that they will achieve the goals andrequirements for significant social impact. While the provision of social services is often treated asa check-the-box requirement or delivered as an underfunded set of interventions, Center for theGreater Good has established groundbreaking criteria and standards for environmental and socialimpact that create true change in the lives of the residents. -- Each community is evaluated from a physical and social perspective and is required to demonstrate the following minimum standards: -- Inclusion of a community facility meeting minimum space requirements and design features – 3,000 square feet per 100 units with a minimum size 2,500 square feet. -- Community buildings constructed using high quality building materials that do not off- gas; -- Indoor facilities that connect to outdoor community space in order to create an uninterrupted flow of community activities. -- Optimize the community physical and psychological benefits by having direct access to natural sunlight and fresh air. -- The facilities should be designed for maximum accessibility, beyond ADA standards, to foster a true sense of togetherness within the community – which includes members of all abilities and mobility levels. -- The facilities should be designed to house a variety of activities in the most space- efficient way possible through the use of flexible design.Sufficient space for service providers also enables the facilities to act as an incubator, promotingcollaboration and innovation.Open space coupled with healthy surroundings not only improves both the physical andmental health of residents, but also creates a strong sense of community. Thus, open space isindispensable in creating a healthy and happy community.
    • Contact Phone 208 859 7057 Computer Address 410 East State Street Eagle, ID 83616 DisclaimerThis guidebook is provided for information purposes only. The Centerfor the Greater Good has released this research in order to promote agreater public understanding of the issues addressed by “CGG” in itsongoing assessment of poverty in the United States and its relation to bestpractices in the housing and social services industries. All the informationin this guidebook is published in good faith and for general informationpurpose only. We do not make any warranties about the completeness,reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon theinformation in this guidebook is strictly at your own risk and Center for theGreater Good will not be liable for any losses and damages in connectionwith the use of our research. Although Center for the Greater Good hasmade every effort to ensure that the information in this guidebook wascorrect at press time, “CGG” does not assume and hereby disclaim anyliability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errorsor omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence,accident, or any other cause.Neither this guidebook, nor any opinion expressed herein, should beconstrued as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to acquire anysecurities or other investments mentioned herein. The company acceptsno liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from theuse of this guidebook or its contents. This guidebook may be reproduced,distributed or printed by any recipient for any purpose.All rights reserved © 2012 Center for the Greater Good.
    • SOURCES CITED AND CATEGORIZEDSenior Resident ServicesPort, Cynthia L., Sheryl Zimmerman, Christianna S. Williams, Debra Dobbs, John S. Preisser, andSharon Wallace Williams. 2005. “Families Filling the Gap: Comparing Family Involvement for AssistedLiving and Nursing Home Residents With Dementia,” The Gerontologist 45 (1): 87–95.Toseland, Ronald, and Tamara Smith. 2001. Supporting Caregivers Through Education and Training. Atechnical assistance monograph prepared for the National Family Caregiver Support Program Initiativeof the U.S. Administration on Aging.Knight, Bob G., Steven M. Lutzky, and Felice Macofsky-Urban. 1993. “A Meta-Analytic Review ofInterventions for Caregiver Distress: Recommendations for Future Research,” The Gerontologist 33(2): 240–248Pillemer, Karl, Jill Suitor, Charles R. Henderson, Rhoda Meador, Leslie Schultz, Julie Robison, andCarol Hegeman. 2003. “A Cooperative Communication Intervention for Nursing Home Staff and FamilyMembers of Residents,” The Gerontologist 43 (Special Issue II): 96–106.Naylor, M. et al. (1999). Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospitalized elders.Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 613-620.KRA Corporation. (1996). Evaluation of the Service Coordinator Program. Prepared for the Office ofPolicy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.Collin Siu 2009 Impacts of nutrition and human services interventions on the health of elderly anddisabled persons in public housingDavid Greenberg Nandita Verma Keri-Nicole Dillman Robert Chaskin FEBRUARY 2010. Creating aPlatform for Sustained Neighborhood Improvement INTERIM FINDINGS FROM CHICAGO’S NEWCOMMUNITIES PROGRAMGitlin, Laura, Karen Reever, Marie P. Dennis, Esther Mathieu, and Walter W. Hauck. 2006. “EnhancingQuality of Life of Families Who Use Adult Day Services: Short- and Long-Term Effects of the Adult DayServices Plus Program,” The Gerontologist 46 (5): 630–639.NutritionFamily Living Programs Impact Report: Nutrition Education Program Reaches Low-Income FamiliesAcross the StateThe Reinvestment Fund, 2008. The majority of supermarket jobs are part-time (84 percent of jobsanalyzed in the study). The Reinvestment Fund. The Economic Impacts of Supermarkets on theirSurrounding Communities, Philadelphia, PALavin, M. “Supermarket Access and Consumer Well-Being: The Case of Pathmark in Harlem.”International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 33, no.5 (2005): 388-398Pristin, T. “Harlem’s Pathmark Anchors a Commercial Revival on 125th Street,” The New York Times,November 13, 1999Sarah Treuhaft, Allison Karpyn. PolicyLink, The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food andWhy It Matters
    • | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 97MobilityUnited Ways Impact ReportCLC - Investing in Multifamily Excellence, NeighborworkSupporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC NeighborworksWood, Michelle, Jennifer Turnham, and Gregory Mills. 2008. Housing Affordability and Family Well-Being: Results from the Housing Voucher Evaluation. Housing Policy Debate 19(2).Preventing Homelessness and Promoting Housing Stability: A Comparative Analysis Donna HaigFriedman, Jennifer Raymond, Kimberly Puhala, Tatjana Meschede, Julia Tripp, Mandira Kala, June2007Strategies for Preventing Homelessness U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Officeof Policy Development and Research, Burt and Pearson 2005Job SkillsRealInvestmentsRealResults.pdfYouthbuildKing County’s Job InitiativeConnection To Work Case StudyUnited Way Funded Workforce ProgramsRichmond BuildSupporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC NeighborworksOverall Strategy Youth, Reentry, Green JobsThe Bayfair Employment Training Academy (BETA) programAfter School ProgramsJames,W. & Wabaunsee, R. (1995). At-risk students: Drug prevention through afterschool/latchkeyprograms?, Drugs: Education, Prevention, Policy (Vol. 2, pp. 65-75).Jones, M. B. & Offord, D. R. (1989). Reduction of antisocial behavior in poor children by nonschool skilldevelopment, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Vol. 30, pp. 737- 750).Schinke, S. P., Cole, K. C. & Poulin, S. R. (1998). Research report:Thirty month data and processfindings: Evaluation on educational enhancement program of Boys and Girls Clubs of America (pp.1-31).Schinke, S. P., Orlandi, M.A. & Cole, K. C. (1992). Boys and girls clubs in public housing developments:Prevention services for youth at risk, Journal of Community Psychology (OSAP Special Issue, pp. 118-128)Warren, C., Feist, M. & Nevarez, N. (2002). A Place to Grow: Evaluation of the New York City Beacons.New York City:Academy for Educational Development.Richardson, J. L., Radzisewska, B., Dent, C.W. & Flay, B. R. (1993). Relationship between afterschoolcare of adolescents and substance use, risk taking, depressed mood, and academic achievement,Pediatrics (Vol. 92, pp. 32-38).Riley, D., Steinberg, J.,Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing Problem Behaviors andRaising Academic Performance in the Nation’s Youth. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.
    • 98 | Sources Cited | Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.comJohnson, L. J., Zorn, D.,Williams, J., & Smith, J. (1999). 1998-99 School Year Program Evaluation:Urban School Initiative School Age Child Care Expansion. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.Cardenas, J.A. (1992).The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout prevention strategies for at-riskstudents, Texas Researcher (Vol. 3, pp. 111-130).Campbell, P. B., Storo, J. & Acerbo, K. (1995). Math, Science, Sports, and Empowerment: GirlsIncorporated Replication and Expansion of the Eureka! Model, Executive Summary. Groton, MA:Campbell-Kibler Associates.Fleming-McCormick,T. & Tushnet, N. (1996). 4-H After School Activity Program. Los Angeles: Southwestand West Regional Education Laboratory.Heath, S. B. & Soep, E. (1998).Youth development and the arts in non-school hours, Grantmakers inthe Arts Newsletter (Vol. 9, pp. 9-17).Baker, E. L. & Gribbons, B. (1998). Evaluating the Long-term Impact of After School Programs: ApplyingNew Methodologies to Assess the Effects of LA’s BEST on Student Performance. Los Angeles: Universityof California.Kahne, J., Nagaoka,A., O’Brien, J., Quinn,T., & Thandiede, K. (1999). School and after-school programsas contexts for youth development. In M. C.Wang & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Improving Results for Childrenand Families: Linking Collaborative Services With School Reform Efforts. Oakland, CA: Mills College.Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children’s after-school care:Are there beneficialeffects of after-school programs? Child Development (Vol. 65, pp. 440-456).Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1999).After-school activities and the development of lowincome urbanchildren: A longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 868-879).Riley, D., Steinberg, J.,Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing Problem Behaviors andRaising Academic Performance in the Nation’s Youth. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.Marshall, N., Coll, C. G., Marx, F., McCartney, K., Keefe, N., & Ruh, J. (1997). After-school time andchildren’s behavioral adjustment, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (Vol. 43, pp. 497-514).Pierce, K. M., Hamm, J.V. & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children’sadjustment in first-grade classrooms, Child Development (Vol. 70, pp. 756- 767).Rodriguez, E., Hirschl,T. A., Mead, J. P., & Groggin, S. E. (1999). Understanding the Difference 4-HClubs Make in the Lives of New York Youth: How 4-H Contributes to Positive Youth Development.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Vandell, D. L. & Pierce, K. M. (1999, April 14). Can After-school Programs Benefit Children Who Livein High-crime Neighborhoods? Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research inChild Development,Albuquerque, NM.Vandell, D. L. & Pierce, K. M. (1997). Safe Haven Program Evaluation (1995-96). Madison,WI: MadisonMetropolitan School District.Carlisi,A. M. (1996). The 3:00 Project Program Evaluation. Decatur, GA: Georgia School-Age CareAssociation.Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). A Decade of Results:The Impact ofthe LA’s Best After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance.Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.U.S. Department of Education. (2003). When Schools Stay Open Late:The National Evaluation of the21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.Washington, DC: author.Brooks, P. E. (1995). Longitudinal Study of LA’s BEST After School Education and Enrichment Program,1992-1994. Los Angeles.
    • | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 99Huang, D. (2001). An after-school evaluation system for middle and high school programs,NationalAssociation of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (Vol. 85, pp. 45-61).Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster,W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis ofyouth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Vol. 8, pp. 423-459).Schlegel, C. (2003). Citizen Schools: Evaluation summary. In B. M. Miller (Ed.). Boston, MA.Schwager, M., Garcia, E., Sifuentes, M., & Tushnet, N. (1997). Evaluation of the Los Angeles STARSprogram. Los Angeles, CA:WestEd.Baker, D. & Witt, P.A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school recreation programs, Journalof Park and Recreation Administration (Vol. 14, pp. 23-44).Hamilton, L. S. & Klein, S. P. (1998). Achievement test score gains among participants in the FoundationsSchool Age Enrichment Program (pp. 1-16). Unpublished manuscript.Hamilton, L. S., Le,V. & Klein, S. P. (1999). Foundations School-Age Enrichment Program: Evaluationof Student Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.Supporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC NeighborworksIntegrating Community Technology and Community Building: Early Results from the Camfield Estates-MIT Creating Community Connections ProjectPre SchoolChanged Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 19. Monographs ofthe High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Number EightLongitudinal Results of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by D.P. Weikart, D.J Deloria, S.A. Lawser,& R. WiegerinkHome Teaching with Mothers & Infants: The Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infact Education Project – An Experimentby D.Z. Lambie, J.T. Bond, & D.P.WeikartThe Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade byD.P. Weikart, J.T. Bond, & J.T. McNeilThe Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum Demonstration Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results byD.P. Weikart, A.S. Epstein, L.J.Scheinhart, &J.T. BondAn Economic Analysis of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by C.U. Weber, P.W. Foster, & D.P.WeikartThe Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infant Education Project: Longitudinal Follow-up by A.S. Epstein & D.P. WeikartYoung Children Grow up: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 15 byL.J. Scheinhart & D.P. WeikartChanged Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 19 by J.R. Berrueta-Clement, L.J. Scheinhart, W.S. Barnett, A.S. Epstein, & D.P.WeikartEffects of a School-Based, Early Childhood, Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being. A 19-YearFollow-up of Low-Income Families Arthur J. Reynolds, PhD; Judy A. Temple, PhD; Suh-Ruu Ou, PhD;Dylan L. Robertson, PhD; Joshua P. Mersky, PhD; James W. Topitzes, PhD; Michael D. Niles, PhDLong-term Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest A15-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public Schools Arthur J. Reynolds, PhD Judy A. Temple,PhD Dylan L. Robertson Emily A. Mann, MSSW EARLY EDUCATIONAL