Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good

THE GOOD LIFE

Guidebook
For Impact Measurement

THE GOOD LIFE

Guidebook
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

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Introduction | 5

Close-up on:
The Good Life
CEO and Founder, John Belluomini, takes the stage
What began as the personal mission of the we have focused on 4 main areas found to limit
Center 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 social
at reinvigorating communities by focusing on the responsibility. With the help of LifeSTEPS, we
people 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 to
as 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 collaborative
Reflecting on the positive interventions he partnerships and the knowledge they have
received from teachers in school, John began shared with us that have enabled us to
his research on the cause and effects of what envision the future of sustainable financial and
keeps communities in intense poverty and healthy community development practices.
what helps create more stable middle-class We understand the interconnected nature of
environments. After over 3 years of research, the issues supporting poverty. We are here to
we are now releasing this guidebook to share collaborate and share resources so that we may
our findings and perpetuate a more holistic all study, evolve and enhance what truly makes
approach in community rehabilitation: focus on communities thrive; the people.
the people first.
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. Here you
will find our research
summarized and
our methodology for
impact measurement
outlined.
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
evaluations
Outcome Evaluations Criteria
The charts in this section describe the thought process behind
Center for the Greater Good’s Outcome Evaluations Criteria.
The first step toward measuring outcomes is to identify a broad
problem. Broad problems (such as Economic Instability, Poor
Education, or Deteriorating Health) typically have multiple
causes and require a variety of interventions.
Our process breaks each broad problem into sub-concerns and
identifies a positive outcome for participants. Through research
and strategic partnerships, Center for the Greater Good has
identified one or more interventions for each sub-concern.
We intend to use the identified interventions to communicate
with social service providers the best methods for impacting
residents in a meaningful and measurable fashion. Measurement
indicators provide insight on the progress of interventions and
feedback on how to move forward.

MethoDology
Our process behind developing our Outcomes Evaluations
Criteria began with countless hours of research and numerous
interviews with housing developers, social service providers, on-
site resident coordinators and other field experts. We eventually
identified four main concerns which act as barriers to ending
transgenerational poverty. After identifying the concerns, we
created an information matrix of sub-concerns cross-referenced
with our database of articles; this allowed us to identify indicators
which have been linked to the concerns.
Through a year long collaboration with leading national and
regional non-profit social service providers we have identified
interventions to address each of the indicators we set out to
study.

“Real
change
can be
achieved!”
-Christoph Gabler, Senior Vice President, AEGON

9


YOUR COMMUNITY’S

ECONOMIC
STABILITY
Concerns associated with the
individual economic household
stability effect the community
including youth, adults and
seniors.

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Section 1 | 11

Primary Concern: Economic Stability

Sub Concern: Alleviating Poverty
Primary Impact Current Conditions Service Intervention
Children ü The number of unemployed persons Crisis prevention;
increased 60% from 2008-2009. Less affluent partnering with local
Adults 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 to
Community quarters of all households with incomes below agencies.
ü the poverty line spend over 50% of their
Primary Outcome incomes on rent, eliminating funds for fresh
food, utilities, medical care or childcare. About
Families and individuals
26% of renters spent more than half of their
stabilized/successfully
pre-tax incomes on rent and utilities in 2009.
housed.

Sub Concern: Barriers to Home Ownership
Children Low-income residents saddled with low Credit counseling; financial
ü savings, poor credit and lacking the literacy and family savings
Adults
ü understanding of the pathway to home courses; home ownership
Seniors ownership. educational courses.

Community

Primary Outcome
Increased income, improved credit scores, readiness for home purchase through increased
savings and contributions to IRA’s.

Sub Concern: Limited Mobility Options
Children 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 available
Seniors ü or has limited service.
Community ü
Primary Outcome
Increased income and educational achievement.


Sub Concern: Poor Socioeconomic Success
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
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.


Three quarters of all impoverished
households spend over 50% of
their incomes on rent.
-National Alliance to End Homelessness

L
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 care
defined as spending over 50% of one’s housing programs today. and transportation at an adequate level

I
income on shelter. A variety of factors ndividuals on the lowest rungs of the after paying for housing.

D
contribute to the disproportionate cost income ladder suffer the most from isproportionate housing costs
of housing. Personal choice might be a high housing costs. Whereas most mainly contribute to suppressing
component, 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 consequences

I
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 of
1968 Housing and Urban Development are more likely to be severely housing low-income individuals are doomed to
Act established the rent threshold of 25 cost-burdened. Michael Stone coined follow in their parents’ footsteps.

The national
poverty rate is
the highest it
has been for
the last 11 years.
-2010 US Census

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Reports | 17

Financial Freedom
Many low-income communities have social services provided on site. However, most of these
services do not reach full effectiveness as they are often underfunded and lack real outcome
measurements. These services are sustained mainly on periodic grants, which means services are
typically 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-profits
encounter. 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 able
to supply reliable cash flow for the organizations we work with; allowing them to serve the community
rather 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 WORKS
Center for the Greater Good’s Continuum Fund supplies low cost capital to community development
projects. 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 the
project, 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 rather
than spending time and resources applying for grants.


Life Skills and Entrepreneurship
Life Skills and Entrepreneurship are key to breaking the cycle of poverty. In low-income community
developments, 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 often
overlooked 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 help
break the cycle of poverty. Through hands-on learning programs we can provide the necessary skills
and training on how to create, run and prosper from running one’s own business. The tools for both
personal and financial growth go hand-in-hand - benefiting the entire community.

LIFE SKILLS
The issues we all deal with in life are diverse, and so to are the skills we need to navigate through
our path everyday. Life skills are a key component to an individual’s success in life; promoting a
greater sense of competence, usefulness, power, and sense of belonging. Ranging from practical
skills to communication, the broad scope of life skill programs offered is truly dependent on the
specifics of each community. It is here that we support the essential elements true to everyone’s
lives: decision making and values clarification.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Center for Greater Good recognizes the research and policy work of the Kauffman Foundation on
the subject of entrepreneurship. The foundation’s efforts to advance education, training and grants
to support this subject are invaluable. Education prepares one to become an entrepreneur, and
the economic system gives a person the opportunity to be one. Entrepreneurship not only breaks
individuals out of the cycle of poverty, but also promotes job creation, and solves many economic
and social services concerns. We support entrepreneurial opportunity and foster potential through
education and training programs.


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.


Primary Concern: Education

Sub Concern: Low Educational Attainment
Children ü A 1995 longitudinal study revealed that Early childhood education;
poor children who did not attend after- after-school programs
Adults 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 Outcome
Reduced grade retention rate, improved rate of high school completion, better scholastic placement
and more years of completed education or vocational training. Lower rates of suspension, juvenile
arrest, and violent arrests. Improved physical and psychological health.

Low-income
six times more
out of high

students are
likely to drop
school.
-National High School Center

23


Sub Concern: Household Overcrowding
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
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.


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 Work

E
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 $74,602
concerns of education and indicators of out of high school all together; both of upon completion of a master’s degree.

I
student success, one must consider the which will cause a student to achieve n order to be a financially successful
entirety 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 school
such as over-crowded living conditions, inevitable next step for impoverished as a child, it is neccessary to have a
lack of study space, chronic illnessess, children is to continue on the path of stable home environment. Through
or reduced parental support can affect trans generational poverty in adulthood. strategic interventions early in life, low-

T
whether or not a child is successful in he U.S. Census Bureau reports income children will eventually become
school. 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 children
should have
the basic
nutrition
they need
to learn and
grow and
to pursue
their
dreams.” -Michelle Obama


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.


Primary Concern: Health

Sub Concern: Housing Conditions
Children Because of the great number of Relocation counseling;
ü hours spent inside the house, household maintenance
Adults housing conditions are key factor in education.
ü determining physical and mental health.
Seniors
ü Overcrowding, poor repair, or health
Community 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 Outcome
Improved health, IQ and lifetime earnings.

Sub Concern: Senior Physical and Psychological Health
Children Seniors particularly rely on a fragile Transportation to health
arrangement of paid and unpaid help to services; medical house
Adults
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 Outcome
Increased independence for seniors. Improved medication and health management. Reduced
burden on family members for transportation to medical services. Reduced hospital and
emergency services visits. Reduced social isolation improves psychological health. Improved
fitness.

“Our
neighborhoods
are literally
making us fat.”
-Susan H. Babey, PhD, Senior Research Scientist

31


Sub Concern: Personal Safety
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
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
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.


Tobacco users who die
prematurely deprive their families
of income, raise the cost of
health care and hinder economic
development.
-World Health Organization

D 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 including
in 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, the
According to a 2008 Gallup survey, become smokers than children who degredation of health and eventual
34% 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 best
contrast, only 22% of individuals who more burdened by the consequences ouotcome is to educate the children to
make $30,000 more are smokers; this of second hand smoke. prevent them from becoming smokers

N
number is consistent with the worldwide ot only are low-income earners in the first place, but measures must
average. As income reaches $90,000 more likely to become smokers, also be taken to free current users
per year, the number of smokers drops but they are also less equipped of their addiction so they can live
to 13%. to deal with the effects of smoking due longer, healthier lives with less health
to lack of quality healthcare and less expenses.


“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 Research

Sub Concern: Wellness and Fitness
Children There are direct links between income level Health fairs, resident
ü and health. A child’s health decreases activity programs; health
Adults 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 poor
Community health when his or her parents have not
ü completed high school, compared to children
Primary Outcome of parents with at least one college degree.
Increased access to
health services and
information. Seniors age
in place.

Sub Concern: Nutrition and Food Security
Children ü Three fourths of all households with Nutritional courses for
incomes below the poverty line spend school-age children; grocery
Adults ü over 50% of their incomes on rent, delivery to seniors; on-site
Seniors eliminating funds for fresh food, utilities, food banks; food co-ops.
ü medical care or childcare.
Community

Primary Outcome
Improved health. Increased fresh food access and options, especially for seniors. Healthier fast
foods choices more consumption of whole grain foods, fruits and vegetables. Children more willing
to try new foods.


The Cost of Obesity

It is no surprise that poor nutrition has become increasingly common in the United States; it is a fact
that can be observed in the general population through obesity. What may come as a surprise is
the true cost of obesity, the underlying causes and the alarming rate at which it affects low-income
individuals when compared to their higher income counterparts. Weight-related medical costs are
estimated to have reached $147 billion in 2008 (that’s 9.1 percent of all medical spending) and show
no signs of subsiding. 1 Besides the obvious mobility disadvantage to being obese, it is known to
cause a series of physical and psychological ailments including: diabetes, heart disease, high blood
pressure, asthma, depression and anxiety. These are in addition to the social discrimination and the
stigma one faces as an overweight or obese member of society.2
The effects of obesity are lethal, and together cause an estimated 300,000 deaths per year in
the United States.3 According to the National Institute of Health, obesity and being overweight
are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States.4 Low-income individuals
face a hardship when dealing with health issues because of their general lack of access to quality
health care, combined with a shortage of expendable income for medical expenditures and
higher deductibles. To make matters worse, low-income individuals are at higher risk of becoming
overweight or obese due to community infrastructure deficits such as the limited availability of fairly
priced produce and safe outdoor parks. In a 2010 study of more than 6,000 adults, BMI and income
were found to have an inverse relationship. Those with lower incomes were statistically more likely
to have higher BMIs and vice versa.5 According to a 2007 national study of 40,000 children, children
from lower income households had more than two times higher odds of being obese than children
from higher income households.6 Rates of severe obesity were also 1.7 times higher among low-
income children and adolescents nationwide.7
The mission for Center for the Greater Good is to eradicate poverty and create healthy communities
through innovative financial investments and distinctive strategies for community enhancement.
We have identified the following as contributing factors to the alarming poor health in low-income
communities:
-- 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 of
the problem. Improved nutrition leading to reduced obesity is just one of the many ways in which we
are realizing our vision for healthy, stable communities in the United States.

Poor Nutrition in Low-Income Communities
Arguably, the main cause of disproportionate obesity in low-income communities in the United States
is limited access to resources such as healthy, affordable foods. The lack of high quality community
infrastructure in low-income areas, including full-service grocery stores and farmer’s markets8, fuel
1 “Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity « Food Research & Action Center.” Food Research & Action Center. Web. 15 Nov. 2011. <http://
frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/what-are-the-consequences-of-adult-overweight-and-obesity/>.
2 Consequences of Adult Overweight and Obesity
3 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.
<http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/>.
6 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity
7 Relationship Between Poverty and Overweight or Obesity
8 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.com

this disparity. Residents are sometimes forced to shop for groceries in convenience stores and
other 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 are
often higher cost and lower quality than similar items in larger stores.10 Due to the high cost and low
quality of produce and dairy products at small grocery stores, households with limited resources are
sometimes forced to rely on cheaper, more densely caloric, non-perishable low-nutrition foods (such
as products containing processed sugar, refined grains and added fats) in order to minimize cost and
maximize caloric density.11 A 2009 study examining neighborhood disparities in food access found
that, “neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience
stores tend to have healthier diets and reduced risk for obesity.”12
Low-income neighborhoods not only lack affordable sources of quality nutritious foods, they
commonly contain disproportionate amount of fast food restaurants (sometimes twice as many)13
which 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 teens
reported eating fast food on the previous day, compared with 37 percent of more affluent teens.”14
The scarcity of fresh, affordable, nutritious food makes it difficult for an individual with restricted
income and limited transportation to maintain a healthy diet. Unfortunately, nutrition is only half the
battle 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. In
middle and upper class communities, it is easy to take for granted the presence of parks, trees, bike
paths and quality recreational facilities because they are abundantly available. In both urban and
rural 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 just
some of the factors driving individuals away from public parks. Such conditions make it difficult for
them to lead active lives16, and in turn contribute to obesity.17 With parks in a state of disrepair and
the absence of bike paths, people end up spending more time engaging in sedentary activities such
as reading, watching TV, playing video games and using the computer.18 An excess of sedentary
activities 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 before
transitioning into adulthood. The same UCLA study also found that, “56 percent of low-income teens
watch more than two hours of television per day, compared with 46 percent of more affluent teens.”19
Some might argue a sedentary after school lifestyle is not alarming for a teen, especially if he or
she attends public school with mandated Physical Education classes; but schools in low-income
communities have been reported to have less recess and lower-impact PE classes than other

9 Beaulac , 2009
schools.20 In fact, of low-income teens surveyed, nearly one fifth of them admitted to not getting at
10 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.
<yaleruddcenter.org>.
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 Journal

13 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. <http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/obesity-among-california-s-low-72532.aspx>.
14 Driscoll, Gwendolyn
15 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
www.npc.umich.edu/news/events/food-access/index.php

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.

20 Barros et al., 2009; UCLA Center to Eliminate Health Disparities, 2009.


least 60 minutes of physical activity per week, as recommended by the Federal Dietary Guidelines
for Americans.21 Schools in low-income communities are often underfunded and do not offer the
variety of after school sports opportunities as one would find at an affluent school. Barely one third of
low-income teens were reported to be active participants in school sports teams, when almost half of
affluent teens do participate.22
The combination of poor quality food and sedentary lifestyles is leading to an epidemic of obesity in
low-income communities, causing children to become overweight and obese at an alarming rate. As
the children become teenagers and later adults, they lack the tools and education to help their own
children achieve a higher level of physical health.
Promoting Nutrition and Exercise for ResidentS
Center 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 offer
developer incentives for the creation of community support services and other improvements. One
of our strategies is to invest in community infrastructure. The current tax credit system encourages
the development of low-income housing in prime locations, walking distance to destinations such
as grocery stores, transit, parks and gyms. Housing ends up being built in prime locations, often
in middle to upper class communities, which is great for those areas and the residents of the
building. The trouble is, the system does nothing to improve communities that do not already have
the infrastructure in place. Center for the Greater Good invests in all kinds of community beneficial
projects such as: providing low cost commercial rental facilities for small businesses, and incentives
to bring grocery stores and other retailers to neighborhoods. After all, sometimes all it takes is one
project to fuel the revitalization of an entire area. Instead of moving people to areas with better
infrastructure already in place, we analyze market studies and resident input surverys to dictate
what the current infrastructure is lacking; this way, we know the project we invest in is going to be
successful. By bringing a neighborhood a grocery store, we are not only offering access to improved
nutrition; we are also giving citizens the opportunity to be employed at the grocery store. This
creates 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 offer
bus passes to residents. Access to transit, in some cases, eliminates the need for a resident to own
a car; saving time and money for the resident, and reducing the strain on roads due to wear, tear
and traffic. Transit passes also allow residents to travel to grocery stores and recreation facilities
if 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 their
facility, offering residents the most convenient, safe and cost effective access to the physical activity
everybody needs in order to live a healthy life.
The most important solution to the issue of deteriorating health in low-income communities due to
poor nutrition and lack of exercise is education. People cannot be expected to change their habits
if 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 improved
nutrition in our residents is the existence of a community garden. A community garden is an
education tool disguised as a hobby. It can be tended to and enjoyed by residents of all ages, and
the food grown can be used in community meals. Residents can take pride in their own ability to
grow and cook healthy foods.



Education and Access to Infrastructure are key to Breaking
the Cycle of Poor Nutrition
The obesity epidemic in the United States is a growing concern in all communities, but low-income
communities produce a disproportionate percentage of overweight and obese individuals. “Our
neighborhoods are literally making us fat,” said Susan H. Babey, one of the authors of UCLA’s policy
brief. “We need better strategies and more thoughtful urban planning if we are going to make our
towns and cities livable, not just places where we live.”23 Fortunately, Center for the Greater Good
offers an innovative financial model for community revitalization projects, bundled with community
support services to ensure success.


BMI and
income have
an inverse
relationship.
- Food Research & Action Center

43


Resident Health, Practices and Materiality
The correlation between building materials and occupant health has become undeniable over the
past twenty years. As time goes on, it is clear the lower income population in the United States
bears the brunt of the damage. On average, Americans spend 90% of their time indoors.1 Besides
the obvious health benefits of spending time outdoors (such as natural Vitamin D exposure, mood
enhancement, and outdoor exercise), too much time inside can be dangerous if one occupies a
space with poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ). According to the Environmental Protection Agency, indoor
levels of pollutants may be two to five times higher, and occasionally more than 100 times higher, than
outdoor levels.2 Exposure to indoor air pollutants has been linked to life threatening diseases, the
most common of which is asthma. One in five people have asthma. Every day, asthma in the United
States 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.3
The annual cost of asthma in the United States is estimated to be nearly $18 billion, $10 billion of
which is the direct cost of hospitalization.4 With healthcare costs as high as they are, those who are
truly 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 compared
to 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-risk
environments,” said Ying-Ying Meng, a Senior Research Scientist with the UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research. “That disparity also burdens our health system with costly emergency care and
hospitalizations 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 through
appropriate medical care and avoidance of triggers.”6 The Center for the Greater Good is dedicated
to solving the problem of poor health in communities, instead of simply treating the condition. We
have spent countless hours alongside our developer partners identifying the best practices in
community development building design, with the objective of reducing the effects of asthma and
other health concerns caused by poor IAQ.

The Air we Breathe is Slowly Poisoning Us
It is easy to identify the source of poor IAQ in buildings and to recognize how pollutants affect
the residents’ overall quality of life; the difficult part is eliminating them. Sources of indoor air
pollution may include: combustion sources; building materials and furnishings; household cleaning,
maintenance, personal care, and hobby products; central heating and cooling systems and
humidification devices; and outdoor sources such as radon, pesticides, and outdoor air pollution.7
The 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.8
Moving forward, there are strategies to improving IAQ that have the potential to decrease the

1 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 Story
3 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America - Information About Asthma, Allergies, Food Allergies and More! Web. 13 Nov.
2011. <http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8>.
4 Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
5 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.
ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=71>.
6 Asthma Disproportionately Affects Low-income Populations
7 “Indoor Air Home | Air.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 13 Nov. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/>.
8 Asthma Prevalence, Health Care Use and Mortality: United States, 2003-05, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/
hestats/ashtma03-05/asthma03-05.htm


burden of asthma and other preventable health concerns for communities; the greatest challenge is
completing renovation and demolition of existing structures without releasing harmful chemicals and
dust particles into the air and soil.

Best Practices in Healthy Building Design and Construction
The Center for the Greater Good works with foundations and investors to build communities in a
financially innovative way with innovation extending to every aspect of the projects we fund. We
strive for buildings that are designed with the resident’s health in mind. Our Best Practices in design
are focused around passive methods for improved materiality, increased natural light and improved
air circulation. The Center for the Greater Good encourages developers to invest in natural, durable
building materials that do not off gas. Ideal building materials contain recycled content; come from
natural, plentiful or renewable sources; have a resource-efficient manufacturing process; are locally
available; are salvaged, refurbished or remanufactured; are recyclable or reusable; durable; are
low or non toxic; output minimal chemical emissions; have a low VOC assembly; are moisture
resistant; and are healthfully maintained. We encourage developers to design buildings with
maximum indoor exposure to natural light as part of our commitment to further improve resident
health 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 also
stress the importance of fresh air. Air circulation removes stale air and dissipates pollutants. Filtering
mechanically 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 also
encourage the healthiest possible strategies of construction, maintenance and eventual demolition.
Our developer partners work with only the highest quality construction firms to ensure two concepts
on 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 with
the purpose of improving building efficiency and occupant health (such as the use of new materials
and construction methods) require special installation. It is important that time and care be taken
during the strategy implementation process to ensure the building functions as planned. The best
practices for building construction, renovation and demolition must also be followed to preserve IAQ
by reducing the release of contaminates into the air. Examples of practices include: the isolation of
construction 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 occupied
areas to prevent the migration of air contaminants; and maintenance of an adequate unoccupied
buffer zone around the work areas to allow for construction or renovation traffic.

Improve the Quality of the Air, Improve the Quality of the Life
Asthma affects one out of five Americans, but it affects the low-income population at a far higher
rate, partially due to hazardous living conditions. Society will benefit from a reduction in asthma
among the low income population because it can recover some of the $18 Billion spent annually
on asthma treatment. Individuals and society will also benefit financially by missing work less due
to asthma symptoms. Children living an asthma free life will develop more active lifestyles and
miss school less often. The Center for the Greater Good, alongside our developer partners and
foundations, 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. <http://www.onegreenplanet.org/lifestyle/natural-lighting/>.


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.


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 Schoolgrounds

I
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 peer
a decent living to support his or her the Office of Justice Programs, children relations.” Children from these homes
family, some resort to illegal activities growing up among the chaos of illegal are also more likely to follow in their
to bring money into the household. activity exhibit disorderly behavior parents’ footsteps, engaging in criminal
Though 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 social
children growing up in an unstable skills.”

o
household are almost immeasurable. bserving illegal activities in the

I
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 parent
households
experience high
stress due to
lower income
and lack of
support.
- Child Welfare Information Gateway

52 | Section 1 | Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

Primary Concern: Social Responsibility

Sub Concern: Crime
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
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
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
services
Core & enhanced services
The Outcomes Evaluations Criteria document from Section 1
identifies the issues we seek to solve by offering on-site services
in the communities we are involved in. This section, the Core and
Enhanced Programs, is more specific about available programs
and the measurable indicators associated with each program.
The listed programs are divided into two main categories and
two sub-categories. The main categories are Family Housing and
Senior Housing, because they are typically housed in separate
locations and the residents have distinct needs. The sub-
categories are Core Programs and Enhanced Programs. Core
Programs are typical services which are already in place at many
housing facilities. Enhanced services are innovative solutions
which involve community interaction to solve the problem.

METHODOLOGY
Our process for creating the Core and Enhanced Programs List
included taking all the priority interventions and classifying them
into the four categories previously listed. With the help of Project
Access, LifeSTEPS, and Success Measures, we matched each
intervention with every affected indicator and significant research
data.
The evaluation method we created is different than the methods
already being implemented throughout the industry because it
utilizes a variety of data collection methods and types. We not
only record how many residents are receiving each service, but
we also analyze resident surveys and factual data, such as death
rate or change in GPA.

“We are a
constantly
maturing
species!“
-Terry Mollner, Chair, Trusteeship Institute, Inc.

55


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.


Concern: Education
Core Services
Intervention 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 books

Enhanced Services
ESL Classes Number of residents attending

Number of residents completing

Improvement in communication skills


Concern: Health
Core Services

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


Number of nutrition related health issues

Self-reported health improvement

Healthy Cooking Classes Number of residents attending


Drug and Alcohol Awareness Number of residents attending

Substance abuse rate

Fitness Classes Number of residents regularly attending

Obesity rates


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


Health Clinic On-Site Number of residents served


Transportation 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 reduction

Enhanced Services
Health Adult Day Care Number of residents served

Self-reported physical and mental health

Who says you
can’t change
your stripes? 61


Concern: Economic Stability
Core Services

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
Linkages to Discounts Number of residents served

Number of partner businesses

Mediation Services Number of residents served


Percent of cases successfully resolved

Supportive Housing Number of residents served


Number of ER visits

Guardianship Services Number of residents served

Partnerships 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


Concern: Social Obligation
Core Services

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


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.


Concern: Social Obligation
Core Services
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



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


Concern: Education
Core Services
Early Childhood Education Number of children attending


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


High school graduation rate

Grade retention rate

Computer Training Computer skill level


Unemployment rate

School Supplies Number of children with supplies

Summer Enrichment Programs Number of children/youth attending

Substance abuse

Vandalism rate


Community Library Access to books

Child Care Stress levels of single employed parents

Parent access to education and employment


Student Career Programs Percent admittance to community colleges and universities

High school graduation rate

Standardized test scores

GED Classes GEDs attained



Enhanced Services
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 percent
of American
babies born into
poor families
will be poor for
at least half their
childhoods. -Urban Institute, 2010


Concern: Health
Core Services
Health Referrals Number of residents referred

Health and Wellness Classes Self-reported health improvement

Obesity rate


Number of ER visits


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


Drug and Alcohol Awareness Number of residents attending

Substance abuse rate

Fitness Classes Number of residents regularly attending

Obesity rates


Community Gardens Self-reported diet improvement

Community pride

Health Fairs Number of residents attending



Transportation-Van Pools 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 and stress reduction


Concern: Economic Stability
Core Services
Resident Advocacy Number of residents served

Resolution Success Rate

Job Skills Training Unemployment rate


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


Home-Ownership Education Number of residents attending and completing

Number of residents that purchase homes

Enhanced Services
Linkages to Discounts Number of residents served

Number of partner businesses

Medication Services Number of residents served


Partners with Local Retailers Number of residents served


Number of graduates employed after 1 year

Supportive Housing Number of residents served


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


Measurements and Outcomes
Center for the Greater Good has done over a thousand hours of research into best practices
and programs to develop a comprehensive set of outcomes under categories such as Health,
Education, Economic Stability and Social Responsibility. Outcomes range from reducing eviction
rates, increasing education levels, improving overall health to increasing a sense of community,
green outcomes and encouraging entrepreneurship. Our approach ensures that measurements are
based on outcomes rather than the typical approach of simply measuring impact by attendance at
scheduled programming.
In collaboration with seasoned social service providers, we have created a list of interventions for
each desired outcome. Also, for each desired outcome, we have created a list of affected indicators
to be measured. The interventions are categorized into two menus - Core Programs and Enhanced
Programs.

True Impact
While we do track attendance, our measurements are designed to measure the effectiveness of
the programs. Each of the outcomes are mapped with specific indicators to assess the true impact
and effectiveness of the social services. For example, in the case of an after-school program, math
scores, reading scores, report cards (GPA), vandalism rates, substance abuse rates, juvenile arrest
rates, high school graduation rates, and grade retention rates are measured.

Accountability
Based on the metrics, progress towards outcomes can be accurately assessed. In case a particular
social service program does not show significant progress towards the desired outcomes, the
program can be re-analyzed, reinforced with additional resources, or replaced by another more
effective program. This keeps the providers accountable for ensuring the efficiency and efficacy of
the programs they provide.

Transparency
Measurements also serve the purpose of making the outcomes of any community completely
transparent. Technology tools coupled with scientific data analysis will be used to provide regular
progress reporting to foundations and investors.
In addition to providing these reports, Center for the Greater Good will also make the process of
creating the integrated social service plan, as well as the resulting measurements, publicly available
so that the model can be replicated in other communities.


The Continuum Fund

Abolishing Poverty Throughout a Lifetime
Many philanthropic ventures focus on a specific solution to a problem. However, when applied to
the problem of poverty, this way of thinking is flawed. There is not a singular reason for poverty
and therefore no singular solution. This is why Center for the Greater Good purposes addressing
people’s needs throughout their life, from birth to old age; the entire continuum. Our goal is to supply
people with the tools needed to live a life well above the poverty line and caters to the specific
challenges unique to each individual.

Housing
Supportive 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. In
addition to providing housing, supportive housing is closely tied to the services that help people work
through substance abuse, addiction/alcoholism, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, and other obstacles to
living a successful life.
Public Housing – Very Low Income. This program helps the individuals at the borderline of
homelessness. People often turn to illegal and dangerous activities in order to survive, by providing
public housing we are able to keep families moving up and out of poverty. With the burden of paying
rent reduced, individuals are able to focus employment and obtaining the life skills necessary to
break the binds of poverty.
Section 8 Housing – Income Ranges. This program provides vouchers to low-income individuals
or families so they can afford safe and decent housing in the private sector. This subsidized program
requires 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, as
long as it is at or below the ‘market average’ as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD).
Senior Housing – Income Ranges. This category of housing is designed for seniors of many
income levels, especially those living on a fixed income. Senior housing is commonly equipped with
social services in the category of health and community involvement.
Low-Income Student Housing – Low Income. The purpose of this program is to open the
opportunity of higher education to people with a wider range of incomes and situations than the
current market. Low-income families typically face a barrier to entry when seeking to obtain self
sufficiency due to a lack of education; leading to limited career progression potential. Low-income
student housing is designed to meet the needs of individuals with or without families who seek to
further their education.
Workforce Housing– Low Income. This program serves to bridge the gap between dependence
and self sufficiency. Aimed at helping families and individuals with low cost housing when their
incomes do not support the most basic of needs. Through this program, tenants are obligated to pay
30% of the given rent themselves. This ensures that families have a safe and healthy environment
despite 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 this
point that we see people living self sufficient lives supported by themselves.


Health
Our goal is to maximize health throughout the entirety of each person’s life by focusing on the
following areas:
-- Prenatal Care
-- Mental Health
-- Nutrition, Malnutrition, Asthma and Obesity
-- Cancer
-- End of Life Care/Funeral Services

Education
Poverty and poor education are a vicious circle. We encourage learning at every level by utilizing
these programs:
-- Early Childhood Education
-- GED Assistance
-- Job Training
-- College Prep
-- Income Development
It is a fact, that in order for families to be self sufficient and remain above the line of poverty, income
has to increase. Our health and education programs heavily influence a person’s ability to earn
income, but that does not guarantee employment. To combat this, we equip individuals with the
specific 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 Placement
There is no “one-size fits all” for eradicating poverty, but when housing, health, education, and
income are addressed we will see improvements across the board. We aim to enable families and
individuals to take more than a step away from poverty, we want them to keep moving and improving
their lives until they are completely above the poverty line, which is why we choose to focus on the
full continuum of factors related to poverty. Through the combination of all of our programs, we can
help people throughout the entire process, and in time, we will see poverty in the United States
destroyed.

THE CONTINUUM FUND

Extremely
Low Income

Supportive Housing is The purpose of Public Section 8 Housing
Supportive 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.


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 Housing
Workforce 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.


Citizens First Housing

Starting on the ground
At Center for the Greater Good, our social service plans are based on the premise that each
community has a unique set of needs. While there are many needs in common, we hold that the
specific set of services appropriate for a particular community is unique. We build communities from
the inside out, rather than from the outside in. A pre-packaged social services plan is not effective
or wise. Creating an integrated social services plan based on the input from the community is far
more effective at creating lasting change. Our process incorporates participation from residents,
coordinators, and foundations in the creation of the integrated social services framework tailored to
each community.

Thorough needs assessment
The process starts with a thorough assessment of the neighborhood and residents by the community
coordinator. The coordinator identifies the demographics of the residents, existing facilities available,
and problems within the neighborhood.

Information, Education and Resident Feedback
A community is only as strong as the residents who comprise it. We engage all members of the
communities we work in through the use of surveys, tenant meetings and our outcomes evaluation
software. Residents participant in the planing process of programs offered by working with the
Community Coordinators in evaluating the area’s needs assessments and working together in
creating proactive plans for success in their communities.

Input from Foundations
The Coordinator then considers all assessment information at hand, works with Center for the
Greater Good and representatives from foundations to create the integrated social service plan
specific to each community. Outcome evaluation tools developed by Center for the Greater Good are
made available to the coordinator in order to ensure the effectiveness of the integrated social service
plans, allow them to track indicators, set goals and support periodic progress reports towards goals
to investors and other interested parties.

Accountability of services
Outcome indicators not only track progress towards goals, but also serve as feedback to the
process. If the feedback shows that some goals will not be met, the program will be reanalyzed and
measures will be taken to adjust the services offered. Some possible measures are providing more
resources, changing one or more programs responsible for the driving indicators, or selecting a
service 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 Assess

COLLA- Coor-
BORATE dinate

Report Evaluate

87

Together, we
can make a
better future for
the 46,200,000
impoverished
Americans.

89


Community Opportunity
Community Coordinators play a vital role in bringing the community together and serve as the
link between resources and residents. For residents to learn about and take full advantage of the
provided resources, they require the assistance of a trusted and dedicated coordinator.

Community Coordinators
To ensure the effectiveness of each community, choosing the right community coordinator is
important. 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 funding
Community Coordinators are funded permanently and predictably through cash flow generated by
the project rather than relying on grants. This allows the Community Coordinator to focus on and
serve the community’s residents.

Budget for Outreach
Community Coordinators play a vital role in bringing all the community resources together and
making 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, small
businesses and residents.

Case management and Integrated services
Serving as the first point contact, the Community Coordinator is available to residents with any
problem – simple or complex. They work with the resident to address their issue with an appropriate
integrated solution.
By collaborating with public agencies and non-profits, Community Coordinators accomplish far
more than they would on their own. In addition to managing the administration of programs, the
Coordinators also track and measure the progress and efficacy of programs. Using the Outcome
Evaluations Criteria, they will be designing and revising programs in order to meet and exceed
program goals.


Open Space
Community development projects supported by the Center for the Greater Good’s The Continuum
Fund undergo a rigorous due diligence to determine that they will achieve the goals and
requirements for significant social impact. While the provision of social services is often treated as
a check-the-box requirement or delivered as an underfunded set of interventions, Center for the
Greater Good has established groundbreaking criteria and standards for environmental and social
impact 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, promoting
collaboration and innovation.
Open space coupled with healthy surroundings not only improves both the physical and
mental health of residents, but also creates a strong sense of community. Thus, open space is
indispensable in creating a healthy and happy community.

Contact
Phone
208 859 7057

Computer
Contact@CenterGG.com
www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

Address
410 East State Street
Eagle, ID 83616

Disclaimer
This guidebook is provided for information purposes only. The Center
for the Greater Good has released this research in order to promote a
greater public understanding of the issues addressed by “CGG” in its
ongoing assessment of poverty in the United States and its relation to best
practices in the housing and social services industries. All the information
in this guidebook is published in good faith and for general information
purpose only. We do not make any warranties about the completeness,
reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the
information in this guidebook is strictly at your own risk and Center for the
Greater Good will not be liable for any losses and damages in connection
with the use of our research. Although Center for the Greater Good has
made every effort to ensure that the information in this guidebook was
correct at press time, “CGG” does not assume and hereby disclaim any
liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors
or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence,
accident, or any other cause.

Neither this guidebook, nor any opinion expressed herein, should be
construed as an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to acquire any
securities or other investments mentioned herein. The company accepts
no liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from the
use 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 CATEGORIZED

Senior Resident Services
Port, Cynthia L., Sheryl Zimmerman, Christianna S. Williams, Debra Dobbs, John S. Preisser, and
Sharon Wallace Williams. 2005. “Families Filling the Gap: Comparing Family Involvement for Assisted
Living and Nursing Home Residents With Dementia,” The Gerontologist 45 (1): 87–95.
Toseland, Ronald, and Tamara Smith. 2001. Supporting Caregivers Through Education and Training. A
technical assistance monograph prepared for the National Family Caregiver Support Program Initiative
of the U.S. Administration on Aging.
Knight, Bob G., Steven M. Lutzky, and Felice Macofsky-Urban. 1993. “A Meta-Analytic Review of
Interventions for Caregiver Distress: Recommendations for Future Research,” The Gerontologist 33
(2): 240–248
Pillemer, Karl, Jill Suitor, Charles R. Henderson, Rhoda Meador, Leslie Schultz, Julie Robison, and
Carol Hegeman. 2003. “A Cooperative Communication Intervention for Nursing Home Staff and Family
Members 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 of
Policy 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 and
disabled persons in public housing
David Greenberg Nandita Verma Keri-Nicole Dillman Robert Chaskin FEBRUARY 2010. Creating a
Platform for Sustained Neighborhood Improvement INTERIM FINDINGS FROM CHICAGO’S NEW
COMMUNITIES PROGRAM
Gitlin, Laura, Karen Reever, Marie P. Dennis, Esther Mathieu, and Walter W. Hauck. 2006. “Enhancing
Quality of Life of Families Who Use Adult Day Services: Short- and Long-Term Effects of the Adult Day
Services Plus Program,” The Gerontologist 46 (5): 630–639.

Nutrition
Family Living Programs Impact Report: Nutrition Education Program Reaches Low-Income Families
Across the State
The Reinvestment Fund, 2008. The majority of supermarket jobs are part-time (84 percent of jobs
analyzed in the study). The Reinvestment Fund. The Economic Impacts of Supermarkets on their
Surrounding Communities, Philadelphia, PA
Lavin, M. “Supermarket Access and Consumer Well-Being: The Case of Pathmark in Harlem.”
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management 33, no.5 (2005): 388-398
Pristin, T. “Harlem’s Pathmark Anchors a Commercial Revival on 125th Street,” The New York Times,
November 13, 1999
Sarah Treuhaft, Allison Karpyn. PolicyLink, The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food and
Why It Matters

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 97

Mobility
United Ways Impact Report
CLC - Investing in Multifamily Excellence, Neighborwork
Supporting National Advancement and Local Achievement in Resident Services. LLC Neighborworks
Wood, 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 Haig
Friedman, Jennifer Raymond, Kimberly Puhala, Tatjana Meschede, Julia Tripp, Mandira Kala, June
2007
Strategies for Preventing Homelessness U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office
of Policy Development and Research, Burt and Pearson 2005

Job Skills
RealInvestmentsRealResults.pdf
Youthbuild
King County’s Job Initiative
Connection To Work Case Study
United Way Funded Workforce Programs
Richmond Build
Overall Strategy Youth, Reentry, Green Jobs
The Bayfair Employment Training Academy (BETA) program

After School Programs
James,W. & Wabaunsee, R. (1995). At-risk students: Drug prevention through afterschool/latchkey
programs?, 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 skill
development, 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 process
findings: 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 afterschool
care 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 and
Raising Academic Performance in the Nation’s Youth. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin.

98 | Sources Cited | Center for Greater Good | www.CenterforGreaterGood.com

Johnson, 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-risk
students, Texas Researcher (Vol. 3, pp. 111-130).
Campbell, P. B., Storo, J. & Acerbo, K. (1995). Math, Science, Sports, and Empowerment: Girls
Incorporated 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: Southwest
and West Regional Education Laboratory.
Heath, S. B. & Soep, E. (1998).Youth development and the arts in non-school hours, Grantmakers in
the Arts Newsletter (Vol. 9, pp. 9-17).
Baker, E. L. & Gribbons, B. (1998). Evaluating the Long-term Impact of After School Programs: Applying
New Methodologies to Assess the Effects of LA’s BEST on Student Performance. Los Angeles: University
of California.
Kahne, J., Nagaoka,A., O’Brien, J., Quinn,T., & Thandiede, K. (1999). School and after-school programs
as contexts for youth development. In M. C.Wang & W. L. Boyd (Eds.), Improving Results for Children
and 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 beneficial
effects 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 urban
children: A longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 868-879).
Riley, D., Steinberg, J.,Todd, C., Junge, S., & McClain, I. (1994). Preventing Problem Behaviors and
Raising 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 and
children’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’s
adjustment 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-H
Clubs 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 Live
in High-crime Neighborhoods? Paper presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research in
Child Development,Albuquerque, NM.
Vandell, D. L. & Pierce, K. M. (1997). Safe Haven Program Evaluation (1995-96). Madison,WI: Madison
Metropolitan School District.
Carlisi,A. M. (1996). The 3:00 Project Program Evaluation. Decatur, GA: Georgia School-Age Care
Association.
Huang, D., Gribbons, B., Kim, K. S., Lee, C., & Baker, E. L. (2000). A Decade of Results:The Impact of
the 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 the
21st 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.

www.CenterforGreaterGood.com | Center for Greater Good | Sources Cited | 99

Huang, D. (2001). An after-school evaluation system for middle and high school programs,National
Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin (Vol. 85, pp. 45-61).
Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster,W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of
youth 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 STARS
program. Los Angeles, CA:WestEd.
Baker, D. & Witt, P.A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school recreation programs, Journal
of Park and Recreation Administration (Vol. 14, pp. 23-44).
Hamilton, L. S. & Klein, S. P. (1998). Achievement test score gains among participants in the Foundations
School Age Enrichment Program (pp. 1-16). Unpublished manuscript.
Hamilton, L. S., Le,V. & Klein, S. P. (1999). Foundations School-Age Enrichment Program: Evaluation
of Student Achievement. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
Integrating Community Technology and Community Building: Early Results from the Camfield Estates-
MIT Creating Community Connections Project

Pre School
Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 19. Monographs of
the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Number Eight
Longitudinal Results of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by D.P. Weikart, D.J Deloria, S.A. Lawser,
& R. Wiegerink
Home Teaching with Mothers & Infants: The Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infact Education Project – An Experiment
by D.Z. Lambie, J.T. Bond, & D.P.Weikart
The Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results through fourth grade by
D.P. Weikart, J.T. Bond, & J.T. McNeil
The Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum Demonstration Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results by
D.P. Weikart, A.S. Epstein, L.J.Scheinhart, &J.T. Bond
An Economic Analysis of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project by C.U. Weber, P.W. Foster, & D.P.
Weikart
The Ypsilanti-Carnegie Infant Education Project: Longitudinal Follow-up by A.S. Epstein & D.P. Weikart
Young Children Grow up: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through Age 15 by
L.J. Scheinhart & D.P. Weikart
Changed 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.Weikart
Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood, Intervention on Adult Health and Well-being. A 19-Year
Follow-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, PhD
Long-term Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest A
15-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

Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good

Recently uploaded

Good Life Guidebook by Center for the Greater Good