THE COMPLEXITY OF LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION-A PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDY 

FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY:  

 

By 

Derrick Jones Lopez 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A DISSERTATION 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements  

for the degree of 

 

Education Policy—Doctor of Philosophy 

 

 2019 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY:  

THE COMPLEXITY OF LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION-A PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDY 

 

By 

Derrick Jones Lopez 

This dissertation case study explicates the construct of “policy implementation 

process tools” as integral to the work of implementing the Promise Neighborhood Initiative.  

Policy implementation process tools reify and fortify the relationships necessary for local 

implementation of federal policy among collaborative partners.  This dissertation proposes 

three classes of process tools that operate within the ecology of policy implementation: 

Formal Ecology Process Tools; Operational Ecology Process Tools; and Relational Ecology 

Process Tools. The case study evidence suggests that the investment in partnership efforts 

to improve educational outcomes can bear fruit when process tools are identified and 

strategically employed.  These “tools” embody the relationship currencies of “time”, “turf” 

and “trust,” the cultivation of which are essential to the furtherance of partnership 

development in collaborative policy implementation. When properly designed and 

deployed, these “tools” can effectively navigate educational policy implementation 

barriers/challenges and mediate the complexity of federal policy implementation in place-

based initiatives. Accordingly, federal policymakers should allocate funding and specifically 

identify resources (both fiscal and human capital) dedicated to the development and 

deployment of “policy implementation process tools” when seeking to implement federal 

policy in the local context.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright by 
DERRICK JONES LOPEZ 
2019

 

 

This dissertation is dedicated to my family. 

This dissertation is a demonstration of my faith in God for His provision in my life. 

This dissertation is also a testament to the values instilled at “114 E. Stephenson Street” 

and the enduring legacy of Jesse and Marie Jones. 

 

iv

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

 

In 2005, as I contemplated the pursuit of the Doctor of Philosophy in Education Policy, I 

contacted Michigan State University, and Dr. Michael Sedlak agreed to meet with me.  Since that 

meeting, Dr. Sedlak has served as my proverbial shepherd throughout this entire fourteen-year 

endeavor.  In his role as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and the Coordinator of the 

Education Policy Program, he has undoubtedly done the same for countless students, and for 

his mentorship and guidance, I am grateful. Along the path, I must also acknowledge several 

members of the “Spartan” Academy who have been critical to my development as a scholar and 

professional. Dr. Christopher Dunbar, a mentor and role model to countless Spartans now in 

the Academy, served as my first dissertation chair. Dr. John Yun served as my final dissertation 

chair alongside Dr. Muhammad Khalifa (now at the University of Minnesota) and Dr. Sonya 

Gunnings-Moton. Two other Spartans, Dr. Bryan Beverly and Dr. Brian Boggs, also provided me 

with encouragement, guidance and support through the final stages of this dissertation 

process.  I also acknowledge Dr. Chukwunyere Okezie, my mentor at Marygrove College in the 

GRIOT Program, for his inspiration to even begin the doctoral process. 

While working in Pittsburgh, PA, several professors played pivotal roles in the 

continuance of my doctoral studies at the University of Pittsburgh. They were Dr. Alan Lesgold, 

Dr. William Bickel and Dr. Jennifer Russell.  I also acknowledge and thank Dr. John Wallace, Jr. 

and Aliya Durham for the opportunity to lead the Homewood Children’s Village in Pittsburgh, 

PA and my first-hand experience with the challenges of planning and implementing a Promise 

Neighborhood. That experience inspired my desire to study this subject for my dissertation. 

 
 

v

 

 

Along the journey, I have gleaned key insights from educational leaders regarding the 

importance of engaging parents and families and mobilizing community partners in our quest 

to educate our children. They include Pastor Kenneth Styles, S.J., from whom I learned the craft 

of teaching; Pastor Gwendolyn Grays, from whom I gleaned the tools of faith and persistence; 

Superintendent Dr. Theresa Saunders in Highland Park, MI; Superintendent Dr. Tresa Zumsteg 

in Berkley, MI; and Superintendent Mark Roosevelt in Pittsburgh, PA. Further deepening my 

commitment to and expanding my lens regarding the importance of the work of community 

and family engagement in a meaningful way was my work in Southfield Public Schools with the 

Family Leadership Design Collaborative of the University of Washington, where Dr. Ann 

Ishimaru and Dr. Megan Bang served as co-Principal Investigators.  

Finally, I personally thank my family, both blood and extended, for their abiding love 

and support throughout this process: my wife of a quarter century, Lisa Hudgins-Lopez; my 

children, Timothy, Lamarr, Adaiah, Nehemiah, Micah; my spiritual sons, Nathan Saunders and 

Mark Thornhill; my grandchildren, each of whom now occupies a new space in my head and 

heart because of this study; my brother and fellow Spartan Daniel Solammon; my Michigan 

siblings Grant and Stephanie Davis; and all of my supportive colleagues, with a shout-out to 

Polly Siecinski and Daryl Beebe who have served alongside me, prayed with me and supported 

me in many positions throughout my professional journey. With love and continuing reverence, 

I thank my mother, the late Shirley Ann Jones, for instilling in me the discipline to study hard; 

my late grandparents, Jesse L. and Marie H. Jones, for embodying and thereby modeling for me 

the faith to persevere, and the entire Jones Family, particularly those aunts and uncles, who 

both spoiled me and raised me to think that there was nothing that I could not achieve.  This 

dissertation is a testament to the values of “114 E. Stephenson Street” and tenacity of the entire 

Jones Clan!

 
 

vi

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ ix 
 

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x 
 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 
 

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................. 7 

A. The History of Title 1: An Analysis of the Federal Policy that spawned the 
Promise Neighborhood Initiative ............................................................................................... 7 
1954-1965: Emergence of Federal Educational Policy ................................................................................. 9 
1965-1968: War on Poverty and “Compensatory Education” ................................................................. 11 
1968-1980: Politics of Entitlement and Rise of the US Department of Education .......................... 14 
1980-1992: Constriction of Federal Resources and Local Control ........................................................ 15 
1992-2000: Codification of “Standards Movement” and Discretionary Funding ............................. 16 
2001-2008: The Accountability Era .................................................................................................................... 18 
2009-2015: Accountability and Expanding the Concept of a Local Education Agency ................. 19 
B. The Promise Neighborhood Initiative is an Amalgam of the Educate America Act 
Of 1995 and the Harlem Children’s Zone ............................................................................... 24 
C. Historical Policy Context: “School” as the Unit of Analysis .......................................... 26 
Schools are “Only” Part of the Developmental Ecology of Children ....................................................... 28 
Advocating for Policy Accountability Beyond Schools ................................................................................ 32 
D. Educational Policy Analysis Should Embrace the Lens Of “Ecology” ....................... 35 
E. Educational Policy and Implementation Research ........................................................ 36 
An Explication of Honig’s “Policy”: Intent and Instruments...................................................................... 38 
An Explication of Honig’s “People”: Educational Policy Targets ............................................................. 41 
An Explication of Honig’s “Place”: The Local Context and Collaboration ............................................ 45 

 

CHAPTER THREE: DISSERTATION QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY ........ 54 
A. Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 54 
B. Philosophical Underpinning of the Research Study ...................................................... 57 
C. Researcher Interest ................................................................................................................... 57 
D. Case Study Participants- United Promise Neighborhood (UPN) Site Description 
and Key Informants ........................................................................................................................ 59 
E. Data Sources ................................................................................................................................. 63 
E.1. Document Review .............................................................................................................................................. 63 
E.2.  Key Informant Interviews and Site Visit Observations ..................................................................... 65 
F.  Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 69 
G. Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 71

 

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR: PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ...... 73 
A. Harlem Children’s Zone-Policy Prototype for The Principle of Local Control ..... 74 
B. Traditional Policy Implementation Challenges in The Context of the Promise 
Neighborhood Initiative ............................................................................................................... 79 
C. The UPN Mediates Traditional Policy Implementation Challenges and Explicates 
“Tools” for Policy Implementation ........................................................................................... 85 
Establishing The UPN-Early Childhood Collaborative (UPN-ECC) ......................................................... 89 
Partnering with The Unified School District ................................................................................................. 105 
Cultivating UPN Out-Of-School Time Program Partnerships ................................................................ 116 
Convening the UPN-Social Service Collaborative ....................................................................................... 125 
Creating UPN Direct Service Programs ........................................................................................................... 130 

 

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, EXPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS ............... 146 
A. CASE STUDY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 146 
B. EXPLICATION OF "POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS TOOLS" .......................... 149 
Formal Ecology Process Tools ............................................................................................................................ 150 
Operational Ecology Process Tools .................................................................................................................. 153 
Relational Ecology Process Tools ...................................................................................................................... 155 
C. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY ................................................................... 159 
Promise Neighborhood Implications: Investing in the Ecology of Youth Development ............ 159 
Case Study Implications: Investing in “Policy Implementation Process Tools” ............................. 160 

 

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 163 
APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ......................................................... 164 
APPENDIX B: CODING W/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES ..................................................... 166 
APPENDIX C: CODING W/BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ................................................. 169 
APPENDIX D: CODING W/IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES .......................................... 173 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 177 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

 
 
TABLE 1:  EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY………………………………….…………… 8 
 
TABLE 2:  DISSERTATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY ECOLOGY……..………38 
 
TABLE 3:  COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HCZ AND THE PN…………………..………………………..75 
 
TABLE 4:  PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLEMENTATION GRANTEES…………...………….…...81 
 
TABLE 5:  KINDS OF PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANTEE ORGANIZATIONS ………………. 82

 
 

ix

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

 
 
FIGURE 1: ESEA OF 1965 COMPETING POLICY PRINCIPLES  …….…………..……………….………23 
 
FIGURE 2:  POLICY EVOLUTION OF THE LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY …………..…….………...24 
 
FIGURE 3:  PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY ECOLOGY  ……………………..………………….…..25 
 
FIGURE 4: BRONFENBRENNER-ECOLOGY OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT  …….....…………….….31 
 
FIGURE 5: HIMMELMAN’S COLLABORATION CONTINUUM ……………………………………………49 
 
FIGURE 6: UPN INITIATIVES ON THE PARTNERSHIP CONTINUUM………………………………158

 
 

x

 

 

 
 

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, then Candidate Barack Obama cited the 

Harlem Children’s Zone as an all-encompassing, all hands-on deck, anti-poverty effort that 

is saving a generation of children in a neighborhood where they were never supposed to 

have a chance. Specifically, Senator Obama stated: 

The philosophy behind the project is simple:  If poverty is a disease that infects an 
entire community in the form of unemployment and violence, failing schools, and 
broken homes, then we just can’t treat those symptoms in isolation. We have to heal 
the entire community and we have to focus on what actually works. … 
You don’t just sign up for this program. You’re actively recruited for it because the 
idea is that if everyone is involved and no one slips through the cracks, then you 
really can change the entire community (Tough, 2008, pp. 265-266; Obama, 2008).   
  

Senator Obama made a verbal commitment to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone in 

twenty cities across the country. 

Senator Obama’s promise manifested itself in the Promise Neighborhood Initiative 

through the United States Department of Education (USED) upon his becoming President of 

the United States.   The USED summarizes the Promise Neighborhood Initiative in the 

following manner:  

[T]he vision of the program is that all children and youth growing up in Promise 
Neighborhoods have access to great schools and strong systems of family and 
community support that will prepare them to attain an excellent education and 
successfully transition to college and a career. The purpose of Promise 
Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational and developmental 
outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to 
transform those communities by— 

1.  Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible entities that are focused on 
achieving results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood; 

2.  Building a complete continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both educational 
programs and family and community supports, with great schools at the center;  

3.  Integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are 

implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies; 

 
 

1 

 

 

4.  Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to sustain 

and scale up proven, effective solutions across the broader region beyond the 
initial neighborhood; and 

5.  Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program and 
about the relationship between particular strategies in Promise Neighborhoods 
and student outcomes, including through a rigorous evaluation of the program. 
(U.S. Department of Education, 2012). 

 A cursory examination of the Promise Neighborhood (PN or PN Initiative) vision and 

purpose statement reveals an extremely complex place-based initiative.  In its stated vision 

and purpose, the policy seeks to improve the educational and developmental outcomes of 

children and youth in distressed communities by transforming the communities in which 

they live. To accomplish this multi-faceted objective, schools are not the primary focus of 

this initiative. Rather, the policy seeks to mobilize many and varied institutions of youth 

development to support children and families. The institutions, which are the primary 

targets of the policy, include, but are not limited to local educational agencies (i.e. schools 

and school districts); state and local agencies; social service agencies; colleges and 

universities; community and not-for-profit organizations; and other potential public and 

private partners. As with most federal education policy, the policy construct is distant from 

the locus of implementation, thereby lending itself to modification by local implementers, 

which seek to understand and navigate the policy at the local level.  Moreover, these 

entities historically have operated in silos to accomplish the stated goals and objectives of 

their respective organizations which are likely incongruous and disparate.  In direct 

contravention to the way local stakeholders generally operate, however, the policy posits 

the willingness, capacity, and ability of these multiple organizations and individuals to 

coalesce around and partner to work towards the stated policy objectives and goals.   

 
 

2 

 

 

This dissertation examines the tension between the policy ideal, which presages the 

collaboration of many local agencies and organizations, and their historical operation in the 

context of a single Promise Neighborhood as it seeks to implement the PN Initiative. This 

study aligns with the fifth prong of the PN vision statement, which seeks to learn about the 

impact of the PN Initiative and improve its implementation over time. Of note, in 2014, the 

U.S. Governmental Accounting Office conducted a study of the PN Initiative to determine 

the efficacy of funding this place-based initiative, specifically examining:  

(1) the extent to which [USED’s] strategy for awarding grants aligns with program 
goals, if at all; (2) how [USED] aligns Promise Neighborhoods efforts with other 
related programs; (3) how [USED] evaluates grantees’ efforts; and (4) the extent to 
which Promise Neighborhoods grants have enabled collaboration at the local level, if 
at all, and the results of such collaboration (GAO-14-432, p. 2). 
 

Additionally, in 2015, Mathematica Policy Research Institute produced a report, a case 

study of five Promise Neighborhoods. The report stated its goals and conclusions as 

follows:  

The goal of this study was to gather in-depth information about the five selected 
Promise Neighborhoods including organizational structure, the components of the 
pipelines, and the lessons learned during initial implementation efforts. This report 
summarizes the information we learned about each Promise Neighborhood in site 
profiles . . . and examines cross- cutting themes to provide Promise Neighborhoods 
grantees and stakeholders with a picture of the early implementation challenges 
and successes that may guide future efforts (Husley, 2015, p. A-3). 

Unlike the GAO endeavor, this dissertation explicitly does not seek to evaluate the quality 

of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative or the efficacy of expenditures and resources 

associated therewith. This dissertation does, however, seek to expand the lens of the 

Mathematica study, by delving more deeply into implementation challenges and practices 

of one PN Implementation site, situating the PN Initiative within its broader historical 

context and its policy ecology (Weaver-Hightower, 2008), posing the following research 

 
 

3 

 

 

question: to what process challenges or barriers must policy targets attend when charged 

with collaborating to implement this and similar federal policy constructs in local 

communities?   

To frame this question, the Literature Review of Chapter 2 begins with the history of 

the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1964 (ESEA) and its subsequent reauthorizations 

through 2012.  This historical lens establishes that the PN Initiative may be the first 

promulgated federal K-12 educational policy to explicitly seek collaboration with and 

among entities outside of the local educational agency (i.e. the school or school district) to 

act to improve student outcomes. Moreover, because the policy explicitly recognizes that 

the ecology of a student’s existence impacts his/her individual growth and development, 

this section of the dissertation explores the concept of a student’s ecology as first espoused 

in the Coleman Report of 1966 and explicated in Bronfenbrenner’s ecology of human 

development theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).  Finally, the literature review adopts the 

“ecology” metaphor for analyzing the implementation of this policy (Weaver-Hightower, 

2008); utilizes Honig’s policy analysis framework, which examines the “policy”, the “place” 

and the “people” (Honig, 2006); and expounds upon each aspect of Honig’s framework 

with pertinent research (Green, 1983; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; McDonnell, 2004; Hall & 

McGinty, 1997; McLaughlin, 1991; Lipsky, 1980; Smylie & Evans, 2006; Graddy & Chen, 

2006; Jang & Feoick, 2006; McLaughlin, 2006; Erickson,1987; Himmelman, 1991; 

Huxham,1996; Guo & Acar, 2005;  Sowa, 2009; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; and Mashek & 

Nanfito, 2015). The utilization of the more expansive policy ecology lens allowed this 

dissertation to view, disentangle and understand the complex organizational and relational 

dynamics that are in operation within the subject of this case study. 

 
 

4 

 

 

To investigate the PN Initiative, Chapter 3 of this dissertation discusses the 

methodology utilized.  The dissertation utilizes a theory-building case study protocol 

examining the implementation of the Promise Neighborhood policy at a local site where 

both a planning and implementation grants were awarded (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989). 

This dissertation is a qualitative study, employing traditional observation, interview and 

document review techniques in a selected PN site. The dissertation did not simply seek to 

describe the PN as is done in traditional qualitative research, (Geertz, 1973); but rather the 

dissertation sought to identify the barriers or challenges that were faced during the 

implementation of the policy and then build a theory regarding the processes within which 

policymakers must invest to effectively navigate those barriers and implement a federal 

policy at the local level.  The chapter also provides a description of the subject PN site.  The 

chapter then discusses the methods used to code and analyze the data that was collected.  

The final two chapters of this dissertation provide the analysis of the case study and 

a “theory of the case” for policymakers to consider as they promulgate place-based 

initiatives.  Chapter 4 first examines the Harlem Children’s Zone (the HCZ) as the model for 

the PN Initiative to glean operational and organizational practices that may be of assistance 

to PN sites. The first part of the analysis concludes that the HCZ is not a replicable 

prototype for the collaborative model envisioned by the PN Policy because each of the 

systems operate wholly within one governance structure that drives a singular, tightly 

coupled mission. The salient portion of the case study analysis then examines the subject 

PN site as it sought to shift from operation in silos into a more collaborative structure. This 

analysis distills the case study data and is organized according to the local initiatives that 

were undertaken by the PN site. With each local initiative, the dissertation first frames the 

 
 

5 

 

 

barriers that present themselves during implementation. Following the identification of 

those challenges, each section then describes the strategies and tools that this PN site 

employed to address the challenges and barriers that were present.  Chapter 5 of this 

dissertation then constructs the theory of the case, explicating how policy targets might 

strategically employ process implementation tools to lower those barriers and navigate 

those challenges.  In sum, this dissertation proposes a process implementation framework 

for policymakers moving forward from which policymakers may work to ensure more 

meaningful implementation at the local level. 

 
 

6 

 

 

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 

 
 
 

A Promise Neighborhood creates, by its very construct, a multi-faceted public-

private collaboration designed to improve educational outcomes.  First, this literature 

review explicates the evolution of federal educational policy post Brown v. Board of 

Education.  The review then summarizes relevant educational policy implementation 

research. Finally, the literature review explores the factors that impact collaboration of 

local organizations, which seek to implement a governmental policy.  

A. The History of Title 1: An Analysis of the Federal Policy that spawned the 
Promise Neighborhood Initiative 
 

Prior to the 1950s, education policy was left largely to local communities.  The 

decision in Brown v. the Board of Education (1954) opened the doors for federal 

intervention into local educational policy and practice. Since that time, each branch of the 

federal government, often prompted by political events, has delved into local educational 

policy to meet evolving national priorities.  

The scope of this dissertation focuses upon one aspect of federal educational policy: 

the legislative evolution of Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

(ESEA). As the precursor to the Promise Neighborhood Initiative, the ESEA encompasses 

the federal government’s attempt to support local educational agencies in solving the issue 

of educating children identified as low income and disadvantaged in the K-12 arena.  As a 

part of this dissertation, the researcher created Table 1 as a summary reference for the 

evolution of federal educational pronouncements germane to the study.    

 
 

7 

 

TABLE 1: EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL EDUCATION POLICY 
 

Select Evolution of Federal Legislative 
Education Policy 
 

1954 

1964 

1965 

1966 

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress called 
for a study of inequality of opportunity in 
education “by reason of race, color religion or 
national origin.” 
Congress passes the Elementary and 
Secondary School Act (ESEA) codifying the 
principle of “compensatory education.” 
 

 

Select Federal Judicial and Political Education 
Policy Pronouncements 
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS 
reversed the “separate but equal” doctrine in 
education in a unanimous decision.  
President Lyndon Johnson catalyzed the idea of 
“compensatory education” with the War on 
Poverty and the commissioning the “Report on 
Educational Opportunity” 
Commissioner of Education Frances Keppel 
espoused the principle of compensatory education. 

The Coleman Report is published indicating that 
the family and socio-economic background of a 
child impacts his/her learning in school.   
Differences within schools were more apparent 
than differences between schools.  
President Richard Nixon denounced the 
effectiveness of compensatory education programs 
and lamented, “it is time to realize that every time 
we invest a billion dollars in a compensatory 
program, we raise the hopes of millions of our 
disadvantaged citizens, whose hopes are more 
than likely to be dashed.”  
 

President Jimmy Carter establishes the 
Department of Education and the Cabinet Position 
of the Secretary of Education. 

President Ronald Reagan articulated the intention 
to disband the USED, reiterating the importance of 
local control.  

Secretary of Education Terrell Bell publishes A 
Nation At Risk, which indicated that the United 
States was lagging behind other countries in 
educational attainment in mathematics and 
science, emphasizing the need for a national 
educational dialogue.  
Secretary of Education William Bennett began 
hortatory advocacy for all curricula to be rooted in 
a national base of “core knowledge”.  
 

President George H.W. Bush convenes governors 
and the “Goals 2000” project with Arkansas 
Governor Bill Clinton 

1971 

Congress reauthorizes the ESEA allowing “pull 
out” services for targeted individual students. 

1978 

1979 

Congress reauthorizes the ESEA allowing 
“Whole School” services and support allowed 
to transform to achieve greater impact 
 

1981 

1983 

Congress reauthorizes the ESEA as the 
Education Consolidation and Improvement Act 
of 1981 (ECIA), changing the categorical 
funding formula to a “block grant,” ostensibly 
giving LEAs more flexibility to release funds.  
 
 

1986 
 

 

1988  ECIA becomes ESEA with new authorization, 

and State levers where eased to improve 
accountability for Title 1.  
“America 2000” standards advocated by state 
governors stalled in Congress. 

1989 

 
 

8 

 

 

President Bill Clinton appoints Secretary of 
Education Richard Riley to shepherd “Goals 2000” 
standards movement. 
President Bill Clinton used the hortatory policy 
instrument to promote the “standards movement”. 

President George W. Bush used the hortatory 
policy instrument to develop a bi-partisan coalition 
that was increasingly frustrated with the lack of 
results for the expenditure of Title 1 funds, 
spawning the “accountability movement” 
 
President Barack Obama relaxes NCLB mandates 
through waivers and incentivizes states and local 
communities to define standards and supports for 
individual student success through a matrix of 
state supports. 

TABLE 1 (Cont’d) 
1992 

 

1994  Educate America Act of 1994 codified “Goals 

1994 

2001 

2000” proposing aspirational goals for 
students in the United States alongside the 
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 
Congress reauthorizes the ESEA, as the 
Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. 
Adequate yearly progress is introduced. Safe 
and Drug Free Schools, Professional 
Development for Teachers, and Technology 
Improvements appear in ESEA. US Secretary of 
Education given more “discretion” in the 
allocation of federal resources into programs 
to accomplish the standards adopted in the 
Educate America Act. 
Congress reauthorizes the ESEA, as the No 
Child Left Behind Act; tied receipt of Title 1 
funds to performance and accountability on 
tests administered by the states; schools could 
be reorganized, closed, or reopened as charter 
schools to better meet the needs of students.  

2009  Race to the Top and Promise Neighborhood 

Initiative are promulgated by the USED 
through Title 1.  
 
Congress passes the Every Student Succeeds 
Act as a reauthorization of ESEA. The 
reauthorization codified the flexibility of state 
and local organizations to meet the strict 
requirements of NCLB in exchange for 
comprehensive state accountability plans.  

2015 

 

1954-1965: Emergence of Federal Educational Policy 
 

 Ground zero for the involvement of the federal government in educational policy is 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954).  In the mid-to-late 1950s, it was in the perceived 

national interest to eliminate race as a justification for “separate but equal” educational 

facilities. In 1954, Chief Justice Warren wrote in the unanimous landmark ruling for the U. 

S. Supreme Court that schools were to be desegregated with “all deliberate speed.”   

Alongside this ruling, in response to world events (i.e. the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet 

Union in 1956), the Executive Branch began to use the bully pulpit to advocate for US 

 
 

9 

 

 

exceptionality in education.  President John F. Kennedy began his race to the moon in the 

1960s. Yet, the Brown decision and its aftermath had unearthed an inequitable educational 

system, whose outcomes stood in stark contrast to what one might consider exceptional.  

The many and varied local educational systems across the country were not preparing 

black children and poor children to enter the evolving world with the skills and talents 

necessary to assert American pre-eminence. With this as a backdrop, President Lyndon 

Johnson proclaimed the “war on poverty”, and the US Congress reluctantly moved into 

education policy with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which called for the study of racial 

inequality in schools.  

 

Political ideologies questioned the need for any federal involvement in local schools. 

Yet, it fell to Commissioner Francis Keppel, US Educational Commissioner from 1962-1965, 

to resolve the three prevalent, intersecting, political concerns of the day—race, religion, 

and resource allocation—to garner the political support to pass any federal educational 

legislation. With regard to race, Johnson’s war on poverty sparked fear by southerners that 

integration policy was going to be forced upon them. Many southern states openly did not 

comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the requirement that funds not be 

used in segregated schools. With the inclusion of a “local control” provision southern 

Democrats would support the legislation.  A second barrier involving the allocation of 

resources to religious schools was resolved with a provision that disadvantaged and poor 

children who attend parochial schools would be eligible to receive allocated resources. 

Finally, with regard to general resource allocation, nearly every congressional district had 

children who fit the category of poor and/or disadvantaged. Resources allocated according 

to census tracks would ensure that all congressional districts would benefit from this 

 
 

10

 

 

legislation. With the political landscape pacified, the Congress moved in the area of 

educational policy. Moreover, this political compromise, codified in the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), established both the historical linkage between 

the politics of and the policy of education when a branch of the federal government 

promulgates education policy and the tension between the federal government and local 

control when it comes to such policy.  

1965-1968: War on Poverty and “Compensatory Education” 
 
 

The idea of “compensatory education” underpins the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).  Kantor (1991) argues that ESEA was the first piece of 

legislation that committed the federal government to the goal of “full educational 

opportunity” for all of its citizens, with an explicit focus upon the low income and 

disadvantaged children of our nation.  Moreover, the law assumes the locus of the 

disadvantage rests with the individual as opposed to the overall economic or employment 

system that may contribute to the disadvantage. This belief assumes that with additional 

supports children and families can change their economic outlook (Kantor, 1991).  

Accordingly, the Congress chose to “compensate” for the disadvantage with fiscal support 

to the local educational agency charged with educating the children. 

 

ESEA provided the modern foundation of federal education policy. Section 201 of 

the Act states in pertinent part:  

…Congress hereby declares it to be the policy of the United States to provide 
financial assistance (as set forth in this title) to local educational agencies serving 
areas with concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and 
improve their educational programs by various means (including preschool 
programs) which contribute particularly to meeting the special educational needs of 
educationally deprived children.    

 

 
 

11

 

 

From its inception, the drafters of federal policy balanced the resultant policy with the 

maxim of local control, a mantra that continues to dominate our educational landscape. 

Congress specifically circumscribed the federal government’s power to control the policy of 

local educational agencies. Section 604 of the ESEA specifically provides:  

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, 
agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, 
supervision, or control over the curriculum, programs of instruction, administration, 
or personnel of any educational institution or school system, or over the selection of 
library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials 
by any educational institution or school system. 

 
Federal K-12 policy was largely relegated to incentivizing state and local actors to 

implement policy pronouncements with the carrot or stick of financial investment in the 

“poor” and “disadvantaged” within local communities. The mix of policy instruments with 

which they have acted variously possess the character of mandates, inducements, capacity 

building, and system-changers (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987), but they are only activated 

when the local educational agency (LEA) embraces the primary inducement, which 

generally takes the form of a financial incentive to receive financial support from the 

federal government to support its poor and disadvantaged students.   

Underpinning the “local control” congressional limitation is the belief that local 

stakeholders are perceptively better able to identify issues that they face, develop 

solutions, and resolve barriers to local policy implementation. Moreover, the entities 

through which Congress chose to act in the ESEA are significant for purposes of our 

analysis. Congress created a system within which it awarded grants to states, which, in turn 

made grants to counties and local education agencies (LEAs). Eligibility criteria were 

rooted in census data at the county or school district level.  As agents of the state, LEAs 

developed project plans for approval by the state, and grant awards flowed directly to 

 
 

12

 

 

those plans.  Yet, the principle challenge to federal policy implementation remains the 

complexity of the context or “ecology” within which the target (i.e. disadvantaged children) 

exists, and that ecology intersects dynamically with the policy pronouncement (Weaver-

Hightower, 2008). 

 

Since the passage of ESEA, three political questions ostensibly animate the federal 

K-12 policy environment: 

•  For what purpose (intent) should we expend federal resources to support local 

schools, a responsibility that predominately lay with state and local government?  

•  Who (the implementer) should be charged with allocation of those resources on the 

ground?  

•  On what (target) should we expend the resources that we allocate?  

 
At any given point in the history of Title 1, how the questions are answered continues to 

depend on the fiscal policy and the attendant educational hortatory policy pronouncements 

from the executive branch in power.  Each executive determines the policy tools that are 

employed and seemingly circumscribes the target of K-12 policy for each administration. 

 

Within the Johnson Administration, the Coleman Report of 1966, commissioned by 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, confirmed the need for compensatory education programs and 

the principles embodied in Title 1 of the ESEA. Coleman summed up the major conclusions 

of the report: “Altogether, the sources of inequality of educational opportunity appear to be 

first in the home itself and the cultural influences immediately surrounding the home; then 

they lie in the schools’ ineffectiveness to free achievement from the impact of the home, 

and in the schools’ homogeneity which perpetuated the social influences of the home and 

its environment” (Coleman, 1966, pp. 73-74). 

 

The question of “who should allocate the identified Title 1 resources on the ground” 

and “what the target of the allocation should be” have become the two questions for each 

 
 

13

 

 

subsequent authorization of the ESEA.  While the target remains the same, the institutions 

charged with educating our children, in other words the defined “policy ecology” and the 

deployment of policy instruments, differs depending upon the emphasis of the ideology and 

rhetoric of the fiscal policy of the administration.  However, with each successive 

administrative attempt to implement a given policy, the nuanced target within the ecology 

has morphed depending upon (1) the ecology question that is targeted by the 

administration in power  (i.e. what and should be targeted to achieve the results that we 

seek); and (2) the discretion given by Congress to implement programs at the federal and 

state level. 

1968-1980: Politics of Entitlement and Rise of the US Department of Education 

 
President Richard Nixon bemoaned the idea of compensatory education and the 

amount of federal money being spent in this area arguing that it unrealistically raises the 

specter of their ability to move out of poverty (Jeffrey, 1978, p. 143-44).  Yet, the status quo 

remained during his administration, and Title 1 and the idea of compensatory education 

became an entrenched federal entitlement program with its reauthorization in 1971, with a 

few reporting and compliance conditions to more effectively target low-income children.  

 

During the administration of President Jimmy Carter, the rise of collective 

bargaining in education elevated educational issues in the political sphere. The construct of 

ESEA remained the same, and the political capital of the labor movement led the Carter 

Administration to establish the United States Department of Education (USED), with its 

leader elevated to a position in the cabinet of the President of the United States.  With the 

high-profile appointment of a Secretary of Education (the “Secretary”), the nation was 

introduced to a “face” for federal educational policymaking, tipping the ESEA codified 

 
 

14

 

 

balance of “local control” to the federal government. Accordingly, the agenda that the 

Secretary moves to guide educational policy for the executive branch has animated the 

political landscape and subsequent Congressional authorizations of the ESEA since that 

time. 

1980-1992: Constriction of Federal Resources and Local Control 
 
  

 With his election, President Ronald Reagan promulgated the belief that the federal 

incursion into education had grown too large. Accordingly, the Reagan administration 

sought to constrict the number of resources available for education policy, thereby 

reducing the importance of the construct of compensatory education and elevating the 

construct of local control. Congress reauthorized the ESEA as the Education Consolidation 

and Improvement Act of 1981 (ECIA) and changed the categorical funding formula to a 

“block grant” administered by the USED to states and local educational agencies (LEAs). 

The block grant would give LEAs and counties more flexibility to release funds.  The ECIA 

revisited the belief that the federal government should be involved in education policy. To 

that end, his Administration attempted to roll back the entitlement and reduce the 

aggregate amount of federal educational funding. Additionally, the government would 

elevate local control by allocating the resources in discretionary block grants to states for 

programming purposes (Stallings, 2002). 

 

Of note, the Reagan administration initially sought to eliminate the USED and the 

cabinet position of Secretary, and yet the effort was felled by Secretary Terrell Bell’s 

publication of the report “A Nation at Risk” in 1983. In sum, the report warned that America 

was falling behind other industrial nations in educating our youth. With the need for the 

United States to remain competitive in mathematics and science on the world stage, a role 

 
 

15

 

 

for the federal government in education policy remained. Prompted by the report’s 

findings, Reagan’s second Secretary of Education, William Bennett, used the hortatory 

policy instrument or his “bully pulpit” to advocate for stronger academic standards and a 

national core curriculum. Yet, while this was the political backdrop, in 1988, the ECIA was 

reauthorized as the ESEA, continuing the move to have states take a more prominent role 

in educational policy (Stallings, 2002). 

 

The administration of President George H. W. Bush continued the momentum to 

adopt academic standards for the nation, as a whole. The “America 2000” project, however, 

was stalled in Congress in 1989, leading the president to convene the governors of the 50 

states and establish the “Goals 2000” Initiative.   While no additional federal policy 

initiatives arose from this convening, the belief that states should take a more prominent 

role in educational policy through the utilization of higher academic “standards” emerged. 

1992-2000: Codification of “Standards Movement” and Discretionary Funding 

   

With the election of President William Jefferson Clinton, the idea of compensatory 

education was supplemented with, and ostensibly supplanted by, the construct of higher 

academic standards for all students, purposefully linking educational policy to economic 

policy in America.  The Goals 2000 Initiative, which began as a movement for states to drive 

educational policy, became law in 1994 as the Educate America Act of 1994 in conjunction 

with the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. Eight aspirational, national goals were 

codified in Section 102 of the Educate America Act of 1994:  

1.  All children will start school ready to learn. 
2.  The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.  
3.  All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in 

challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, 

 
 

16

 

 

civics and government, economics, the arts, history and geography, and every school in 
America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be 
prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our 
nation’s modern economy. 

4.  United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. 
5.  Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary 
to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  

6.  Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence and the unauthorized 

presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to 
learning.  

7.  The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement 

of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed 
to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.  

8.  Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and 
participation in promoting the social, emotional and academic growth of children.  

 
Alongside these goals, the School to Work Act of 1994 required the states to coordinate 

“school to work” plans with the educational reforms planned, with Goals 2000 objectives 

and with other federally funded programs, including the ESEA, Carl D. Perkins Vocational 

and Applied Technology Education Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the 

Job Training Partnership Act.  

 

With the Educate America Act of 1994 in place, Congress reauthorized the ESEA as 

the “Improving America’s Schools Act of 1995” (IASA) with the explicit goal of assisting 

disadvantaged children meet high standards. The codification of the “standards-based” 

movement was the first of its kind, where, in exchange for Title 1 grants, states and LEAs 

must submit school improvement plans that establish high performance standards in 

mathematics and English language arts or reading for all students; professional 

development strategies for teachers; and strategies for the coordination of services among 

Title 1 students and ways to identify children who are most in need of services. The IASA 

also introduced the concept of “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for schools and districts, 

and progress towards AYP was to be aligned to performance on content-based assessments 

 
 

17

 

 

where higher order thinking skills and understanding were to be demonstrated. These 

assessments were to be administered between grades 3 and 5; between grades 6 and 9; 

and between grades 10 and 12.  Results on these assessments also must be disaggregated 

by gender, race, limited English proficiency, migrant status, disability and socio-economic 

status.  LEAs were also required to develop parent involvement policies and include 

parents in planning decisions.   

 

The IASA also espoused a markedly different fiscal structure and policy, permitting 

more money to be distributed in the discretion of the “Secretary” for programs and services 

to support disadvantaged communities. Among other things, funding was provided for 

professional development; technology for education; safe and drug free schools and 

communities; bi-lingual education; educating Native American populations, and innovative 

education program strategies, including the exploration of charter schools. As a fiscal 

policy, this represented a sea change from the original conception of directly targeting 

disadvantaged students through compensatory education that began in the ESEA of 1965 

and remained through each of its subsequent authorizations.  The explicit charge to 

develop and have students meet explicit academic standards became the educational policy 

of this nation; and the Secretary was to allocate resources to states and LEAs to incentivize 

higher academic performance for the nation’s children, not to compensate for 

disadvantage, but to elevate their academic performance and work readiness because it 

was in the national interest.  

2001-2008: The Accountability Era  
 

Entitled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the next reauthorization of the 

ESEA was signed into law by President George W. Bush in early 2002.  Of note, while 

 
 

18

 

 

previous iterations of the ESEA utilized inducements as the primary policy instrument, 

NCLB ushered in the era of accountability with a series of mandates. First, annual testing 

must occur for all students in grades 3 through 8 in both reading and mathematics. 

Additionally, states must make adequate yearly progress towards bringing all students up 

to the “proficient” level on state tests by the year 2014. Moreover, states were required to 

issue school and district report cards beginning in 2002-03 showing student achievement 

data by subgroup and the progress that was being made towards the targets set. Failure to 

make AYP would result in progressive sanctions and “corrective” action that may include 

the loss of funding and possible governance changes (i.e. becoming a charter school). By 

2005-06, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school had to be “highly 

qualified” to teach his/her subject matter, and Title 1 paraprofessionals must demonstrate 

documented qualifications, also.   

 

NCLB also altered the Title 1 funding formula seeking to target funding towards 

those districts with higher concentrations of poor children, while giving greater flexibility 

to states and districts regarding how they may spend their federal monies to accomplish 

stated objectives. Note also that NCLB placed the philosophy of the “market” economy for 

educational choices on the educational landscape.  Codified within the NCLB, those schools 

that successfully educate students will remain open, and those who fail to meet the 

standards should be closed, restructured, or re-open as charter schools under new 

governance and management structures  

2009-2015: Accountability and Expanding the Concept of a Local Education Agency 
 

Within the administration of President Barack Obama, the United States Department 

of Education shifted educational policy in very significant ways. Loath to re-authorize the 

 
 

19

 

 

mandated policies of NCLB, the Obama Administration made two educational policy 

practice shifts in their signature initiatives: “Race to the Top” and “Promise 

Neighborhoods.”  

While the principal policy instrument in NCLB is that of a mandate (i.e. one that is 

intended to produce compliance), the policy instrument that lay at the core of Race to the 

Top is that of an inducement (i.e. one in which the transfer of money or resources 

incentivizes action).  By way of explanation, for all schools that are identified in the lowest 

5% of achievement in a state, a state could apply for federal monies to adopt one of four 

models of reform with increasing levels of change: transformation-involving change in 

leadership and curriculum; turnaround-involving change in leadership and teaching staff; 

chartering-involving change in governance; and closure of the school (Race to the Top 

Program, Executive Summary, 2009).  In short, if the state in partnership with the school 

district adopted one of the models of reform, the state was eligible to receive monies to 

support the transformation from the federal government. The Race to the Top model 

remained focused upon the “school” and what happens therein as the unit of analysis.  

The second policy instrument, the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative (“Promise 

Neighborhood” or PN), was a marked departure from the “school” as the locus of change in 

the lives of children and expanded the concept of what a local educational agency is.  As 

summarized by the USED:  

[T]he vision of the program is that all children and youth growing up in Promise 
Neighborhoods have access to great schools and strong systems of family and 
community support that will prepare them to attain an excellent education and 
successfully transition to college and a career. The purpose of Promise 
Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational and developmental 
outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to 
transform those communities by— 

 
 

20

 

 

1.  Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible entities that are focused on 
achieving results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood; 

2.  Building a complete continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both 

educational programs and family and community supports, with great 
schools at the center;  

3.  Integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are 

implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies; 

4.  Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to 

sustain and scale up proven, effective solutions across the broader region 
beyond the initial neighborhood; and 

5.  Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program 

and about the relationship between particular strategies in Promise 
Neighborhoods and student outcomes, including through a rigorous 
evaluation of the program. 

In 2010, the Promise Neighborhoods program awarded one-year grants to support 
the development of a plan to implement a Promise Neighborhood in 21 
communities across the country that included the core features described above. At 
the conclusion of the planning grant period, grantees should have a feasible plan to 
implement a continuum of solutions that will significantly improve results for 
children in the community being served. 

In 2011, the Department awarded a second round of planning grants and a first 
round of implementation grants. The five implementation grants and 15 planning grants 
will reach an additional 16 communities throughout the United States in order to help 
revitalize disadvantaged neighborhoods. Promise Neighborhoods is now in 18 states and 
the District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). 

The Promise Neighborhood Initiative is ostensibly the first federal educational policy to 

explicitly recognize the findings of the Coleman Report of 1966 and the Bronfenbrenner 

framework by seeking to catalyze the “ecology” of a student to improve his/her student 

outcomes.  The complex interactions and relationships among the actors in identified 

Promise Neighborhoods and their local “ecology” as they seek to implement the federal 

policy is the subject of this dissertation.  

In December 2012, the Department awarded 15 additional planning grants and 

selected seven additional sites for implementation awards. Of note is the expansion of the 

definition of an LEA.  An entity that is “focused on achieving results for children and youth 

 
 

21

 

 

throughout an entire neighborhood” became a de facto LEA and is therefore eligible to 

apply to the Secretary for the grant. The “neighborhood” of children becomes the locus of 

support with a focus upon integrating programs and breaking down inter-agency silos to 

support children by creating a “continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both educational 

programs and family and community supports, with great schools at the center.”  

Each successive reauthorization of the ESEA reflects the balance of the two 

competing principles present since the inception of the ESEA:  equality of educational 

opportunity and the principle of local control of educational programming and interests.  

See Figure 1. The actual federal policy pronouncements in K-12 education track the 

hortatory worldview of the administration in power, and yet the foundational ecology of K-

12 federal educational policy pronouncement remains constant.  Past educational policy is 

a prime determinant in how an administration metes out its policy objectives and 

structures the policy legislation.  In each instance, the policy tools adopted sought to 

accomplish the articulated objectives, and the tools utilized emanate from the view of who 

should administer and monitor the entitlement and who should develop the attendant 

programming for the entitlement. Thus, the assumption that federal educational policy is 

made anew with each presidential administration is not borne out by this historical 

analysis.  

Additionally, the hortatory politics of the day and the accompanying policy path are 

inextricably linked.  In some policy environments, hortatory politics are reactive to the 

conditions on the ground and the chosen policy instruments reflect those conditions.  The 

Johnson and Reagan administrations were reacting to the course of world events and the 

view of the United States within the world writ large. Our educational standing had been  

 
 

22

 

FIGURE 1: ESEA OF 1965 COMPETING POLICY PRINCIPLES 

 

Principle: 

Local Control 

of 

Educational 
Programming

Principle: 

Equality of 
Educational 
Opportunity

Federal K-12 

Educational Policy

 

questioned in the first instance because of the advancement of technology in the Cold War 

Soviet Union and the perception of the world that we treated some our citizens as second 

class. With regard to the Reagan Administration, “A Nation at Risk” spoke to the declining 

stature of the American student on the world stage. Each required a political and policy 

response.  While they may have had other objectives, the events of the day largely drove 

their world-view and thus their educational policy objectives.   

Furthermore, and germane to this study, the importance of the local educational 

agency (LEAs) within federal policy implementation has evolved and expanded in recent 

policy and practice. With the first iterations of the ESEA, LEAs were entities that occupy 

traditional educational roles, i.e. schools and attendant state and local agencies. More 

recent federal educational policy initiatives, espoused by the Clinton and Obama 

administrations, recognize those traditional organizations, while expanding the definition 

to include other local organizations and stakeholders who can partner with schools to 

assist them in meeting the emergent and critical needs of children, their families and 

 
 

23

 

individual communities.  This more expansive policy view of LEAs makes possible the very 

construct of a Promise Neighborhood. See Figure 2.  

FIGURE 2: POLICY EVOLUTION OF THE LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCY 

TITLE I OF ESEA 

(1965)

Compensatory Education (1965-1993)

• State Approval of Title 1 programming
• Reporting Requirements To States for 

Categorical Funds Improve Overtime

• Increase in State Discretion over use of funds 

increase (1981 and 1988)

Standards Based Education 
(1994)

• Codification of Goals 2000 and 

Adequate Yearly Progress

• Increased Discretion of Secretary 

of Education 

Accountability Movement (2001-PRESENT)

• NCLB (2001) Testing and Adequate Yearly Progress
• Increased State Oversight through annual testing
• RTTP (2009) State Competition to meet national 

standards

Local Education Agency Expansion (2011- PRESENT)

• Promise Neighborhoods (2011-Present)
• Expansion of the definition of an LEA to accomplish the 

 

tenets of Goals 2000

 

 

 
B. The Promise Neighborhood Initiative is an Amalgam of the Educate America Act Of 
1995 and the Harlem Children’s Zone 
 
 

The foregoing history demonstrates that federal educational policy generally builds 

upon policy pronouncements of previous administrations, and an analysis of PN shows that 

this initiative is largely the same. The PN is essentially an amalgam of fifty years of federal 

educational policy.  A close look at the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) shows that the HCZ is 

the hortatory embodiment of the best educational practices codified in the Educate America 

Act of 1994, making its utility in advancing the PN educational policy extremely convenient 

(See Figure 3). 

 
 

24

 

FIGURE 3: PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY ECOLOGY 

PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY  

FORMATION ECOLOGY 

 

Educate    America    Act    

Harlem    Children’s    Zone    

of    1994    

•  All Children Ready for Kindergarten (Con nuum of 

services from Birth- 5) 

Every school in the United 
States will be free of drugs, 
violence and the unauthorized 
presence of firearms and 
alcohol and will offer a 
disciplined environment 
conducive to learning.  (Title VII) 
(Students feel safe at school 
and in their community) 

 

• 

 

 

NOT INCLUDED: 
United States will be first in the world in mathema cs 
and science achievement.   

*All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated 
competency over challenging subject ma er including English, 
mathema cs, science, foreign languages, civics and government, 
economics, the arts, history, and geography and every school in 
America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds 
well, so they may be prepared for responsible ci zenship, 
further learning, and produc ve employment in our na on's 
modern economy. 

 

 

 

Proficiencies in Core Subjects* (Students are 
Proficient in Core Subjects) 

The high school gradua on rate will increase to at 
least 90 percent. (Youth Graduate from High 
School) 

Every adult American will be literate and will 
possess the knowledge and skills necessary to 
compete in a global economy and exercise the 
rights and responsibili es of ci zenship; Office of 
College Success. (High school graduates obtain a 
Post Secondary Degree, Cer ficate or Training) 

Every school will promote partnerships that will 
increase parental involvement and par cipa on 
in promo ng the social emo onal and academic 
growth of children (Families and communi es 
support learning) 

• 

 

• 

 

• 

 

• 

 

• 

• 

• 

Place based-Community Pride 
(Students Live in Stable 
Communi es) 

Con nuum of Services Birth through 
College/Career 

Fi h Grade Ins tute and Academic 
Case Management (Transi on from 
Middle to High School) 

•  Health Ini a ves (Students are 

healthy) 

 

Students have access to 21st Century Learning 
 

25

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

On substantive policy grounds, the PN builds upon the history and practice of the ESEA 

through its 1995 reauthorization. Of particular importance, the 1995 IASA increased the 

discretion afforded to the Secretary of Education to innovate and fund programs to 

accomplish the goals of the ESEA and the Educate America Act.  Many organizations in 

many cities across the nation have been established for the expressed purpose of 

accomplishing one or more of these goals. Utilizing the principles codified in the Educate 

America Act and the practices of the Harlem Children’s Zone, this literature review 

illustrates the policy ecology from which the Promise Neighborhood Initiative was formed. 

C. Historical Policy Context: “School” as the Unit of Analysis 
 

Following the decision in Brown v. the Board of Education, the U.S. Congress in the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 called for a study of inequality of opportunity in education “by 

reason of race, color, religion or national origin.”  The “Equality of Educational Opportunity 

Report” of 1966 (the Coleman Report) involved 600,000 children in 4,000 schools across 

the nation.  James Coleman, for whom the Coleman Report was named, hypothesized that 

funding disparities between schools that were predominately white and those that were 

predominately black would be the central explanation for the achievement gap.  However, 

his findings published in an extensive report were somewhat different.   

The Coleman Report discovered that spending on education was roughly the same 

between black and white schools (Kahlenberg, 2001, p. 55).  Instead, a family’s socio-

economic status was a better predictor of student success.  Additionally, the report 

asserted that more important than social class was whether a student went to school with 

middle-class peers. That effect, he surmised, was an advantage above and beyond 

individual family circumstances (Kahlenberg, 2001, pp. 55-56).  

 
 

26

 

 

The Coleman Report concluded, “the social composition of the student body is more highly 

related to achievement, independent of the student’s own social background, than is any 

school factor” (Coleman, 1966, p. 325).   In summary, while schooling and school practices 

significantly impact student achievement, the 1966 publication found that families and 

peers must be taken into account when measuring achievement within schools and the 

effect of a school setting, correctly foreshadowing the premise that investment solely 

within schools cannot completely rehabilitate the student’s academic challenges (Gamoran 

& Long, 2006).  

While a simplistic application of the findings of the Coleman Report, policymakers 

historically have elevated schools as the de facto primary institution of youth development 

almost to the exclusion of others.  Economist Eric Hanushek observed: “While family inputs 

to education are indeed extremely important, the differential impacts of schools and 

teachers receive more attention when viewed from a policy viewpoint. That reflects simply 

that the characteristics of schools are generally more easily manipulated than “what goes 

on in the family” (Hanushek, 2003).  Thus, for the past four decades, policymakers and 

advocates within the judicial system have dedicated countless resources towards schools 

as the primary controller of student achievement, assuming that within an integrated, 

middle class school, all students would have an equal opportunity to learn and develop 

(Orfield, 1996).  Whether it was the proliferation of school de-segregation rulings; funding 

for Head Start and early childhood education; advocacy for smaller class sizes; improving 

teacher quality; or the focus on improving “school choice,” schools were and have been the 

locus of policymaking.  The expenditures made within a school or classroom have 

continually been made the focal point for alleviating low achievement. Yet, low 

 
 

27

 

 

achievement is better associated with the family and community conditions of poor and 

minority children (Hanushek, 2003).   

With each successive reauthorization of the ESEA of 1965 through the NCLB of 

2002, schools became further entrenched as the target of federal education policy. For 

student achievement, the accountability framework at the federal policy level required 

states, as a condition of receiving federal funds, to adopt standards that measure individual 

school performance in meeting the needs of students. Education reform policy has 

spawned a cottage industry with schools as their focus. While within the lineage of the 

ESEA, however, the Promise Neighborhood Initiative is a substantive policy departure from 

the traditional accountability framework attributed to schools, thereby necessitating a 

different more inclusive, analytical framework and lens.  

Schools are “Only” Part of the Developmental Ecology of Children 
 

The Coleman Report lends itself to a broader conception of inputs to capture the 

dynamics that inform the educational achievement of individual students (Rothstein, 

2004). Policymakers have historically defined the following as educational “inputs” for 

students: family background, peer effects, innate ability, school environment, and 

expenditures as a number of unquantifiable, yet salient conditions that either bolster or 

adversely affect student ability (Apple, 1993). Each of these inputs has other sub-effects 

embedded within them. For example, family background would include socio-economic 

status, race, and whether parents or other family members attended college.  With respect 

to schooling, inputs have been identified in terms of expenditures per pupil. Teacher 

compensation, teacher-pupil ratios, and teacher education and experience (generally 

embedded in adopted lane and step salary scales) make up the majority of those school 

 
 

28

 

 

inputs (Hanushek, 2003). Other inputs may include expenditures to improve or maintain 

the school environment, i.e. capital improvements; the value that community and peers 

place on education; and community programs and other civic endeavors that seek to 

support overall child development (Anyon, 1997; Lareau, 2000). 

More than a quarter century ago, Urie Bronfenbrenner, a co-founder of the national 

Head Start program, proposed a lens of ecology through which the growth and 

development of a young child may be viewed (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 16). He asserted 

that the development of a child occurs within the context of the many systems that he/she 

navigates throughout his life. A child interacts within, is transformed by, and may even 

transform the various settings and people with which he/she comes into contact.  In short, 

it is the dynamic “ecology” of his/her experience within which his/her development should 

be measured. Bronfenbrenner observed that in many pre-1979 cases, researchers sought 

to remove the subjects from the environment in which they sit and place them in a 

controlled setting, often ignoring the impact of the controlled setting on the subject.  He 

states further: 

Seldom is attention paid to the person’s behavior in more than one setting or to the 
way in which relations between settings can affect what happens within them. 
Rarest of all is the recognition that environmental events and conditions outside any 
immediate setting containing the person can have a profound influence on behavior 
and development within the setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 18) . 
 

Accordingly, Bronfenbrenner framed his well-known theory, the Ecology of Human 

Development. In more expansive terms, he defined it as “the scientific study of the 

progressive, mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the 

changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this 

 
 

29

 

 

process is affected by relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which 

the settings are embedded” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21).    

Within this definition, the person is recognized as growing and dynamic, 

progressively being shaped by and reshaping the environments and persons with whom 

he/she interacts. Thus, there is reciprocity in what is the basic unit of analysis, the 

“microsystem.”    The simplest example of a microsystem would be the home of an 

individual child and his/her familial relationships. In terms of formal education, the school 

would be another example.  Overlapping and intersecting with home and school, the 

context of community (both the relational and physical environment) and peer interactions 

represent other microsystems that the individual must navigate. Within each microsystem, 

the individual engages the setting through activities, roles, and interpersonal relationships.  

It is this engagement that facilitates or retards an individual’s growth and development 

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, pp. 21-25). 

Note also that among the various microsystems that each individual engages, there 

is dynamic interaction.  Bronfenbrenner conceptualizes the interplay among them as a 

“mesosystem.” An example of a mesosystem would be the relationship between a child’s 

development at home and their achievement in the formal school setting. (Bronfenbrenner, 

1979, pp. 18-42)   While not germane to the specific dissertation question posed here, 

many educational studies have been devoted to the mesosystem of home/school construct 

during the past two decades (Lareau, 2000; Lareau, 2003; Hart & Risley, 1995; Ogbu, 2003; 

Heath, 1982; Hart & Risley, 1995). Additionally, many social science studies have examined 

the effects of community and peers on child development and/or academic achievement 

 
 

30

 

 

(Honig, Kahne, & McLaughlin, 2001; Phelan, Davidson, & Yu, 1998; Veliz-Ibanez & 

Greenberg, 1988). 

Finally, an individual may even be influenced by occurrences external to his direct 

engagement, which Bronfenbrenner refers as an “exosystem” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 

25).  The exosystem may be a parent or guardian’s workplace or decision making of a 

legislative body, such as the school board or other authority that sets educational policy. 

The individual child may never formally engage this setting, but the interactions of the 

adults in this system, albeit external to the child’s physical reality, necessarily impacts the 

roles, relationships and activities within which the child engages.  

FIGURE 4. BRONFENBRENNER- ECOLOGY OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 

 

 The overlapping conceptual framework of systems, micro-, meso- and exo-, which 

 

the individual navigates, is termed the “macrosystem” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26). 

 
 

31

 

 

Bronfenbrenner posits that it is the sum total of the experiences of a child as he/she 

interacts with and/or moves among these various settings that determines his/her growth 

and development. Bronfenbrenner further notes that it is the individual’s perception of the 

defined ecology, not an “objective” reality, which forms the person.  While an individual’s 

subjective perception may be difficult to scientifically acquire and empirically quantify, it is 

the individual’s subjective view of the roles, activities and relationships that catalyzes 

individual growth.  Thus, Bronfenbrenner defines human development as a “process 

through which the growing person acquires a more extended, differentiated, and valid 

conception of the ecological environment, and becomes motivated and able to engage in 

activities that reveal the properties to sustain, or restructure that environment at levels of 

similar or greater complexity in form and content” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 27). 

This dissertation study sees this ecological framework as foundational to the 

operation of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative in the local context.  The lens of human 

ecology might have focused researchers and policymakers who have reviewed this seminal 

work on the many dimensions of human development that inform the growth and 

development of young people. With this theoretical lens as a backdrop, a policymaker 

might examine systems that embody the possibility of mobilizing the entire ecology of a 

child. In short, growing each of the systems that a child must navigate to become a 

productive human being may produce more substantive, long-term outcomes (Rothstein, 

2004).  

Advocating for Policy Accountability Beyond Schools 
 

Many researchers and policymakers have argued for a conceptual broadening of our 

lens to more accurately reflect the level and kinds of inputs that inform the education of a 

 
 

32

 

 

given student (Ogbu, 2008; Rothstein, 2004; Lareau, 2003).  In his collaborative work, A 

Report Card on Comprehensive Equity: Racial Gaps in the Nation’s Youth Outcomes, 

Rothstein, et al. argues for the adoption of a broader set of outputs or performance criteria 

in a “report card” that will measure America’s progress in narrowing the performance gap 

in eight areas. They include: (1) basic academic skills; (2) critical thinking and problem 

solving; (3) social skills and work ethic; (4) readiness for citizenship and community 

responsibility; (5) foundation for lifelong health; (6) foundation of lifelong emotional 

health; (7) appreciation of the arts and literature; and (8) preparation for skilled work, for 

those youth not destined for academic college (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2008, p. 2).  

On their face, these student outcomes cannot rest solely with schools.  Rather, they are also 

rooted in the institutions of family, peers, and community, defined in the broadest of terms, 

economically, socially, and politically.  Rothstein, et al. states their hope is to spark a 

national dialogue among organizations and members of our community concerned with 

child welfare and education, which will ultimately provide a mechanism that will lead to 

policy making initiatives that better serve children (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2008).  

In this proposed policymaking environment, Rothstein makes it clear that schools would 

not, and should not, be the only entities for which measures of accountability would be 

expected. 

Rothstein asserts that besides schools, many “institutions of youth development” 

play significant roles in the education of young people.  Reifying the Coleman Report’s 

conclusions, Rothstein categorizes these institutions in terms of family resources, 

community influences and norm-setters, and peers, each group informing the child’s 

readiness, willingness, and ability to perform in school.  Family social capital is variously 

 
 

33

 

 

defined as the intra-familial relationships and resources that contribute to children’s 

academic growth through these relationships (Putnam, 1993; Smylie & Evans, 2006).  

Familial inputs include parent educational background, which may affect expectations of 

student performance; material resources that support student learning; parenting styles, 

beliefs and philosophies; and even the number of siblings that a student may have. 

Community inputs involve the resources of communities in which families live and the 

transmission mechanisms by which communities influence students’ academic 

performance. Among countless other things, this may include the number of libraries and 

volumes of books per child in a community; the influence of business leaders and the local 

economy; and cultural and philanthropic events and activities within the community that 

inform the life of the child. Finally, Rothstein opines that in the absence of family or 

community influences, or if either or both are considerably weak, peer groups can create 

their own social capital, which may be hostile to schools and their educational mission. 

Note that James Coleman’s research, during the last decade of his life, also documented the 

profound effect that peers now have upon the aspirations of young people, and its greater 

impact in light of the devolution of the family structure and its waning influence in the lives 

of many children (Kahlenberg, 2001).  Accordingly, this dynamic interplay of the groups 

with Rothstein’s framework informs the academic performance and social adjustment of 

children.  

Many of these institutions may have a measurable effect on the social and 

educational lives of our children and have funding streams that are within the 

discretionary ambit of policymakers (Lareau, 2003). Who and what entities should and can 

be held accountable for the education of our children could potentially ignite a firestorm of 

 
 

34

 

 

discussions around parents’ right, race and class, and state and federal entitlements.  It is 

this explosive question that policymakers are loath to approach because they cannot seem 

to get their arms around them (Hanushek, 2003).  Policymakers hold the purse strings of 

the entities that provide services to families at the lower end of the economic spectrum.  In 

addition to schools, several youth development institutions have a firm place in an 

accountability matrix for student performance, including but not limited to parents; local 

school boards; state and local agencies charged with implementing health, housing and 

nutrition policy; cultural organizations; and the state board of education. Educational 

researchers should illuminate how they might impact critical areas of performance in the 

lives of children and then suggest ways in which policymakers, at the federal, state and 

local levels, can incentivize and/or seek to hold each responsible for the growth and 

development of our children.  Yet, schools and education within the four walls of school 

continue to remain the focus of research in education. 

D. Educational Policy Analysis Should Embrace the Lens Of “Ecology” 
 

The foregoing discussion illustrates that viewing educational policy through a lens 

of ecology is useful and provides structural support for analyzing a federal policy in the 

context of local implementation.  Weaver-Hightower argues that the traditional, structural 

view of analyzing a problem and the proposed policy solution “grossly misjudges the 

complexity and grittiness, the false starts, the unabashed greed, and the crashing failures of 

some policy formation and implementation” (Weaver-Hightower, 2008, p. 153).  In stark 

contrast, utilizing an “ecology metaphor helps us to conceptualize policy processes as 

complex, interdependent, and intensely political” (p. 154).  This analytical frame is not 

espousing a shallow use of the term ecology.  For purposes of this Promise Neighborhood 

 
 

35

 

 

case study, ecological framing advocates for a substantive analysis of the policy that 

captures the roles and motives of policy actors and their interdependent and multi-faceted 

relationships. It further scrutinizes the dynamic environments and social and institutional 

structures within which the policy is proposed. Finally, it provides a prism through which 

the manifold relationships, norms and processes, which affect policy implementation, can 

be examined. In sum, policy as “the authoritative allocation of values” is necessarily 

mediated through a complex web of various persons, relationships, contexts, and 

processes, and might thereby most efficaciously be analyzed within an “ecology” 

framework (Weaver-Hightower, pp. 154-158). 

E. Educational Policy and Implementation Research 
 

Through the Promise Neighborhood Initiative, the USED sought to replicate what is 

essentially a local contextual initiative in various cities across this country.  However, the 

implementation of federal policy is mediated through various lenses at the local level, 

resulting in potential differences in processes and outcomes. Theoretical, contextual and 

conceptual lens of implementation each inform our analysis.  

 

The complexity of policy implementation has generated voluminous scholarship in 

the past three decades prompted by the desire to understand why policy succeeds or fails 

(Honig, 2006).  Honig argues that previous discussions of implementation research 

postulate that the “policy,” the “people” and the “place” each have multiple dimensions that 

must be considered when one analyzes the implementation of the educational policy in 

question. The analysis of the “policy” includes identifying the goals of the policy, the targets 

of the given policy, and the tools that have been utilized to implement the policy.  As for the 

“people” involved in the implementation, the researcher must not only look to the formal 

 
 

36

 

 

policy target (i.e. the persons with which the policy seeks to formally engage), but also 

those informally targeted by the implementation, though not formally named; the 

professionals with whom both the formal and informal targets must engage; the formal 

associations and communities within which the targets interact; and the policy makers at 

each level of implementation from those who promulgated the policy to the formal 

implementers. Finally, Honig recognizes that “place” or context matters.  As with policy and 

people, the analysis of place is multi-faceted in that it includes the context of the agency 

and/or place where implementation unfolds; the institutional and contemporary history of 

the focal agency; and their interplay with the dynamics of the geographic location within 

which the implementation of the policy takes place (Honig, 2006, pp. 14-19). A new 

emphasis in the research has been placed on the “how and why interaction among these 

dimensions shape implementation in particular ways” (Honig, 2006, p. 14).   In sum, Honig 

argues that “these three dimensions of implementation—policy, people, and place—come 

together to form a conception of implementation as a highly contingent and situated 

process,” which has prompted researchers to move from a static to a more dynamic 

analysis of the implementation of educational policy (p. 19). 

 

While Honig’s framework is foundational for our discussion, this framework resides 

within a constellation of education policy implementation research that now recognizes 

interagency collaboration as essential supports for schools and their communities to 

improve student outcomes and achievement (Fusarelli, 2008). The balance of this 

literature review will explain the conceptual framework utilized by this dissertation. 

 
 

37

 

 

TABLE 2: DISSERTATION CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY ECOLOGY 

Policy Ecology -Weaver-Hightower (2008) 

Policy 

•  Locus of Policy Making 

(Green, 1983) 

•  Instruments of Policy 

(McDonnell and Elmore, 
1987; McDonnell, 2004)  
•  Intent of Policy (Hall & 

Policy Analysis -Honig (2006) 
People 
•  Street- Level 

Place 
•  Local political dynamics 

Bureaucrat (Lipsky, 
1980) 

•  Mutual Adaptation 
(McLaughlin, 1991) 

•  Social Capital (Smylie 

(McLaughlin, 2006; Fusarelli, 
2008) 

•  Legitimacy, Identity and 

Economic Interest 
(Erickson, 1987) 

McGinty, 1997) 

and Evans, 2006) 

•  Collaboration Dynamics 

 

•  Non-Profit 

Organizations (Graddy 
and Chen, 2006; Jang 
and Feoick, 2006) 

 

(Himmelman, 1991; Huxham, 
1996; Guo & Acar, 2005; 
Sowa, 2009; Gazley & 
Brudney, 2007; Mashek & 
Nanfito, 2015) 

 
An Explication of Honig’s “Policy”: Intent and Instruments 
 

Green (1983) posits a general theory that public policy should deal with macro-

values optimally to resolve a conflict between different ideals all of which must be accepted 

but which, taken together, cannot all be maximized.  Thus, a policymaker generally seeks to 

minimize the harm done to the particular individual or entity because the targeted 

issue/challenge that present itself is nested within a set of mutually incompatible ideals. 

(Green, 1983).  McLaughlin illustrates this phenomenon in educational policy when she 

observed that analyses of policy implementation are complicated by the linkages and/or 

disconnect between “macro” and “micro” lenses brought by the policymaker and the 

implementer.  For example, from a macro-analytical standpoint, educational policies are 

conceived and intended to operate at the “level of the system, and they stress regularities of 

process and organizational structures as stable outlines of the policy process.” In stark 

contrast, educational policies actually “operate at the individual level,” in micro-analyses, 

where capacity and willingness to implement the policy are central to the actual 

effectiveness of the policy (McLaughlin M. , 2005, pp. 194-195). 

 
 

38

 

 

1.  Transmission of Policymaker Intent 

 
 

Hall and McGinty (1997) suggest a central concept in policymaking is the 

“transformation of intention” across the policy process. Intention is mediated through 

organizational contexts and conventions; linkages between and among multiple sites and 

phases of the policy process; a mobilization of resources; and the accompanying dynamic 

and multi-faceted conceptualization of power. These interactions are the interstitial 

framework for the dimensions of implementation (policy, people, and place) that Honig 

articulates (Hall & McGinty, 1997).   For example, in the context of implementing legislation 

to authorize charter schools, one researcher examined how policymakers can circumscribe 

events to foster a high fidelity of implementation (Garn, 1999).  Arizona legislators enacted 

a law envisioning schools that would be relatively free of school regulation and 

bureaucracy and be held accountable through the market. To accomplish this mechanism, 

the chair of the House Education Committee resigned to become the appointed Arizona 

Superintendent for Public Instruction, creating a champion for the law. Moreover, the law 

explicitly divested authority to regulate charter schools from the Arizona State Department 

of Education and invested it in a new charter school board appointed by the pro-charter 

Governor.  The law also intentionally did not provide significant resources to any agency to 

oversee the implementation of charter schools, ensuring limited bureaucratic red tape. 

Finally, the state provided a series of trainings for “recruited” local implementers to start 

charter schools (Garn, 1999).  Fidelity to implementation rarely occurs in such a seamless 

fashion. Seldom are policymakers able to tightly couple persons, events, and circumstances 

to mete out their policy intent/objectives as they were able to do in the above illustration 

 
 

39

 

 

2.   Utilization of Policy Instruments 

 

Policy instruments are the “basic building blocks of public policy” (McDonnell, 2004). 

Generally, policies combine a variety of instruments- one dominant and other ancillary 

mechanisms-to supplement or enhance the primary one.  McDonnell posits that 

policymakers choose one of four alternative policy instruments depending upon the 

intention of the policy and its targeted population.  

•  Mandates impose rules on targets and are intended to produce compliance.  

• 

Inducements provide money and other tangible payoffs on the condition that 

targets perform specified actions.  

•  Capacity-building policies provide money and/or resources that will be used to 

invest in needed skills and valued goods.  

•  System-changing policies alter authority or decision-making practices among 

existing institutional arrangements because the current arrangement of 

resources has not produced the desired results.  

The focus on policy instruments provides a useful lens from which to view a given policy 

and its stated goals (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987). 

McDonnell argues that a fifth type of policy, hortatory, is necessarily linked to other 

policy instruments to gain a foothold in the targeted arena and to facilitate policy longevity 

(McDonnell, 2004).   Hortatory policymaking relies on persuasion, a symbolic tool that is 

designed to change behavior, though it imposes no tangible consequences on them. This 

instrument seeks to directly impact people’s behavior by operating on their minds and 

their perceptions of the world, rather than through rewards and punishments or through 

clearly delineated permissions or prohibitions. For example, the pronouncement that all 

 
 

40

 

 

children should be educated to enter college is hortatory in nature. A set of values and 

preferences are embedded within the statement, and in essence, the value or the 

information is the policy. Ideas and information substitute for tangible rewards and 

sanctions assumptions. To be effective, hortatory policies must be understandable to the 

target audience; the values embedded motivate and prompt targets to respond. In theory, 

any costs of hortatory policies are borne by the target audience, and ideally, the targets' 

response is consistent with policy goals. 

Each of the policy instruments identified in this theoretical framework is present in 

the Promise Neighborhood Initiative.  This cursory observation results because of the many 

and varied targets that are envisioned in the policy framework. This case study will explore 

and analyze how these instruments manifest themselves as the Promise Neighborhood 

policy is executed. 

An Explication of Honig’s “People”: Educational Policy Targets 
 

The nexus between legislative intent and project outcomes generally occupy the 

research agenda for implementation of federally supported projects. As illustrated in the 

Arizona legislation discussed above, research is focused upon the realization of 

policymaker intent and not the range of actions and consequences, both intended and 

unintended, which occur at the local policy level. The context of implementation outcomes 

and sustainability of the results both matter.  Additionally, the extent to which 

organizational knowledge and capacity, both collectively and individually, have grown 

throughout the implementation of the initiative or policy is a measure of implementation. 

As the policy is implemented, “mutual adaptation” can occur where the adaptation of a 

project and institutional settings change as a result of the strategies adopted for 

 
 

41

 

 

implementation (McLaughlin M. , 1991). In sum, McLaughlin persuasively argues that 

implementation researchers should not only be concerned with project level outcomes, but 

also with “individual and system capacity developed to sustain, extend, and deepen a 

successful initiative” once the timeline for implementation has passed (McLaughlin M. , 

2006, pp. 218-219). A discussion of the policy targets and their context is, therefore, 

germane to this case study.  

McLaughlin expounds upon the “people” that carry out the policy at the local level. 

The “people” entities under discussion include both organizational and individual 

stakeholders. Specifically, the implementation of a policy depends upon capacity and the 

will of the local entity. The term “capacity” references the presence of “local expertise” 

around the issue that has been targeted; the institutional “norms, values and practices” of 

the implementer; and the presence of “resources” that will enable the policy 

pronouncement. The will of the implementer refers variously to the motivation and 

attitudes of the institution or individual to implement the policy and the management style 

of the implementer (McLaughlin M. , 2005).  

1.  Schools and School Systems 

 

Lipsky introduced the idea of the “street-level” bureaucrat (Lipsky, 1980). As a 

practical matter, individuals charged with carrying out new educational legislation 

understandably and correctly seek appropriate responses, clarity in objectives and 

priorities, and certainty of support.  When either of these matters is in doubt, local 

implementers, generally school personnel, respond in the context of their roles.  While not, 

for the most part, motivated by a desire to compromise, school personnel are notoriously 

independent actors and seek to implement a policy in a way that ultimately balances the 

 
 

42

 

 

new demands placed by the policy against locally available resources and prevalent local 

attitudes towards the policy.  The patterns of responses developed by educators to the 

multiple demands placed upon them effectively constitute the policy delivered under the 

new law at the “street-level.” What often results in schools and school systems is a 

significant modification of the policy, which may comply with the letter of the policy, while 

not achieving the outcomes sought.   

2.  Individuals 

 

Smylie and Evans (2006) contribute to our analysis by examining the extent to 

which local implementers or actors affect the implementation of policy initiatives, 

exercising their “social capital.”  They describe “social capital” as the “intangible and 

abstract resources derived from interactions among individuals and the social structures 

that frame them” (Smylie & Evans, 2006, p. 189; Coleman, 1988). Social capital as a 

construct is produced through social interaction; promotes certain behaviors within social 

structures; and once accumulated, can be utilized to accomplish shared goals and 

objectives.  Components of social capital include social trust; channels of communication; 

and norms, expectations, and sanctions. “Social trust” is achieved when members of the 

group perceive that others are acting consistent with and moving towards agreed upon 

understandings and commitments. That trust can be eroded when the converse is true, and 

yet social trust “lays the foundation for collective activity, mutual assistance and joint 

accountability”  (Smylie & Evans, 2006, p. 189).  “Channels of communication” facilitate the 

flow of information among individuals with whom one has established this social contract, 

which in turn influences individual and collective behavior (p. 190).   Finally, “norms, 

expectations, and sanctions” within a group facilitate and/or constrain individual or group 

 
 

43

 

 

actions and behaviors, reducing the likelihood of deviant behavior undermining shared 

goals and objectives (p. 191).   

Understanding the existence and/or substantive use of social capital within targeted 

social structures must be a part of policy implementation analysis. Within the inquiry, the 

researcher must tease out the complex interactions of the “people” who are often the direct 

or indirect targets of policy initiatives and the “place” within which the policy is to be 

implemented.  To what degree is the social structure accessible to others by examining the 

presence or absence of shared norms, collective sanctions, mutual obligations, and 

interdependence? How strong are the relations among group members in terms of 

experience, emotional intensity, intimacy, mutual confiding and reciprocity? Each query 

deepens our understanding of the degree to which the policy will take root and therefore 

produce the changes intended by the policymakers (Smylie & Evans, 2006, pp. 191-193). 

3.     Non-Profit and Local Organizations 

 

Graddy & Chen (2006) argue that the government has increased its utilization of 

non-profit service providers over the last two decades to accomplish objectives that it 

cannot as a bureaucracy. Public funds engage these agencies for increased efficiency, 

flexibility and innovation. Moreover, these arrangements often have the advantage of local 

adaptation and enhanced community impact. Additionally, they argue that these 

arrangements also increase the community capacity to address local issues (Graddy & 

Chen, 2006).  As the government agency contracts with a non-profit organization, the non-

profit begins to take on the role of a quasi-governmental agency when they encourage or 

mandate the creation of a community-based network of service providers where they 

require a “meaningful exchange of resources and some degree of joint decision making 

 
 

44

 

 

among the partners” (p. 534).  Integrated, leveraged service delivery, client benefits, and 

stronger partners through increased capacity are often the goals of these arrangements. 

Ideally, with one point of contact, the public agency and its effectiveness promotes 

accountability to the overall collaboration and its overall work development plans, 

decreasing transaction costs for the network of policy implementers.  

 

Jang & Feoick (2007) suggest that when local governments engage nonprofits, their 

funding of non-profits permits them to acquire special expertise and talents to address 

emergent social problems and maintain the flexibility to change and adapt programs and 

budget where needed. The dependency of the non-profit on the government funding may 

limit their ability to be flexible and nimble when addressing issues because of the strings 

that often attach the funding.  Moreover, to obtain the desired outcomes, the need for more 

government oversight and involvement in the collaboration may increase the transaction 

costs (Jang & Feoick, 2007). 

An Explication of Honig’s “Place”: The Local Context and Collaboration 
 

Embracing the Honig (2006) framework, McLaughlin argues that additional 

“contextual” elements must come with the analysis. First, the researcher must frame the 

policy problem (i.e. the issues that the policy seeks to address affects both policy design 

and implementation).  As stated previously, embedded here are the values, beliefs, and 

ideology of those who promulgate the policy and their desired outcomes.  While 

implementation research would not necessarily evaluate those underlying principles, they 

nonetheless impact those targeted for implementation (McLaughlin M. , 2006, pp. 210-11).  

Secondly, the implementation of a policy is dependent upon and therefore varies across 

“implementing systems and sites.”  Implementation cannot be decontextualized from an 

 
 

45

 

 

agency’s capacity, internal administrative structures, and its norms of action (pp. 212-13).  

Moreover, expanding on Honig’s discussion of people, McLaughlin affirms the principle that 

individual “actors” within organizations matter.  Specifically, those involved in the 

implementation of a policy engage in a “process of sense making that implicates an 

implementer’s knowledge base, prior understanding, and beliefs about the best course of 

action” (p. 215). Embedded within this process of sense making are institutional norms, 

values and beliefs that can oppose and/or embrace those of the policy maker with 

consequential implications for implementation.  

1.  Discerning the Local Context 

 

As an explication of “place,” McLaughlin’s discussion of the context of policy 

implementation is a critical addition to the Honig framework, unpacking ideas of “political 

power” and “politics” in policy implementation. Former notions of policy implementation 

as “structurally deterministic” (i.e. the idea what the policy maker pronounces will be 

implemented) have given way to more nuanced thinking that policy implementation is 

reciprocal and not unidirectional.  Policy implementation is not a discrete or linear, 

process, but rather plays out as a series of negotiations that acknowledges the dynamic 

interplay of power as it is distributed among the various actors.  Clarity of goals and 

principles are at the core of the determinist view of policy; yet many researchers postulate 

that the promulgation of general policy principles recognizes the local politics of 

implementation and may result in better fidelity to the intent of the policymakers 

(McLaughlin M. , 2006, pp. 215-218). 

To further unpack Honig’s notion of place, Erickson’s discussion of policy 

implementation as a political process in which “issues of institutional and personal 

 
 

46

 

 

legitimacy, identity, and economic interest are central” is also instructive (Erickson, 1987, 

p. 341).  Legitimacy as a construct involves respect for authority, both internally and 

externally.  Internal legitimacy emanates from the relational norms of the targeted social 

structure, and the current norms of the targeted population will interact in concert with 

and/or in opposition to the external policy.  Is the policymaking authority deemed 

“legitimate” to impose its values and beliefs upon the target population?   Moreover, does 

the implementing group trust that their collective and individual “identity” will be 

preserved and/or enhanced by adopting the policy? If the policy ignores and discounts the 

existential realities of the targeted social structure, it will likely be resisted or opposed, 

making implementation more difficult. Finally, will the policy advance the interests of the 

target social structure? Assent to the exercise of policy authority is more likely if there is no 

discontinuity of interests (McLaughlin M. , 2006; McDonnell, 2004). 

2.  Recognizing Historical Tensions Among Local Organizations  

 

As Rothstein (2004) observed, schools, while they operate at the heart of 

communities, are not the only institution of youth development. Fusarelli (2008) further 

notes the development of a “variety of specialized private and public agencies” to provide 

assistance for at-risk children and their families (Fusarelli, 2008, p. 350).  The coordination 

of those services among agencies remains a challenge because of four primary tensions:  

•  Disparate visions for the proper role of schooling, i.e. should schools fulfill a 

social role, or should they focus solely on their academic purposes?  

•  Should “laypeople” have a role in service provision, or should the work be 

relegated to professionals?  

•  Of what should the “safety net” consist, i.e. what should be the balance of 

public and private resources? 

•  Should the goal of these coordinated services be efficiency or the “equality of 

opportunity or outcome” for those being served? (Fusarelli, 2008, p. 358). 

 

 
 

47

 

 

Fusarelli (2008) concludes this discussion by noting that the “assumption is that 

collaboration between schools and community agencies will result in more efficient and 

effective services, especially if the collaborations are prevention oriented. Collaboration 

between schools and other agencies may be more efficient and effective; however, other 

subtle and complex organizational dilemmas such as issues over control, communication 

and power can develop” (Fusarelli, 2008, p. 359) (citations omitted). 

3. Observing the Collaboration Continuum 

 

 The scholarship on collaboration spawned by Himmelman (1991) suggests the work 

among with and between local organizations adds another level of complexity that is 

germane to this dissertation case study.  Himmelman (1991) persuasively argues that, 

when organizations work together to accomplish an identified task or goal, there is often a 

conflation of the terms networking, cooperating, coordinating, and collaborating.  

Himmelman’s framework asserts that when seeking to accomplish a common goal, the 

work of potential partners moves along a continuum of relational work from “networking” 

to “cooperating” to “coordinating” to the most involved relational work, “collaborating.”  

The deepening of work along the continuum is stratified by the degree of interaction 

among four factors: (1) exchanging information for mutual benefit; (2) altering activities to 

achieve a common purpose; (3) sharing resources to achieve a common purpose; and (4) 

enhancing the capacity of another to achieve a common purpose.  Himmelman further 

asserts that the quality of the relationship between organizations seeking to achieve a task 

hinges upon three dependent variables: time invested in the partnership work; the trust 

cultivated amongst the actors; and the turf that each occupies and actively seeks to share.  

This literature review illustrates those relationships in Figure 5 (Himmelman, 1991). 

 
 

48

 

FIGURE 5: HIMMELMAN’S COLLABORATION CONTINUUM  

Trust

Time

Turf

Kind of Working 

Partnership

Coordinating

•Exchanging 

Information for 
mutual benefit

•Altering Activities

Networking

•Exchanging 

Information for 
mutual benefit

Cooperating

•Exchanging 

Information for 
mutual benefit

•Altering Activities
•Sharing resources

Collaborating

•Exchanging 

Information for 
mutual benefit

•Altering Activities
•Sharing resources
•Enhancing the 

capacity of another

 

 

Huxham (1996) further argues that, while not a panacea, some issues literally 

require collaboration to achieve desired outcomes.  Yet, Huxham acknowledges that 

individual organizational dynamics lead to complex interactions among the partner 

organizations and their respective actors. By their very construct, separate organizations 

have distinct professional languages, cultures and procedures for accomplishing their 

individual missions. As organizations seek to work together, utilizing their respective 

frameworks, disconnect occurs and assumptions are made regarding courses of action that 

have to be explained.  Organizational goodwill and commitment to development of a strong 

 
 

49

 

 

working relationship are critical to the accomplishment of shared objectives, and yet 

miscommunication may lead to unwarranted assumptions that lead to a perceived 

imbalance in power. Time is needed to develop a shared language for the work that is to 

take place, to cultivate the logistics for that work, and to develop the trust needed to work 

towards the common goal. These dynamics need to be managed to optimize the outcomes 

that one seeks. 

Moreover, Huxham (1996) discusses the many and varied rationales or dimensions 

that an organization employs for entering a collaboration.  An organization may seek to 

partner because it furthers the greater good, a moral dimension. By contrast, an 

organization may see partnering with others as a necessity for completion of a task or for 

funding, connoting a dimension of practicality and instrumentality.  Additionally, 

organizations may engage in joint projects to alter existing power relationships or to effect 

substantive systems change, as they move towards accomplishing a shared end. Other 

methods of addressing organizational conflict through collaboration, both implicit and 

explicit barriers towards a task-based outcome, may also be present.  Finally, the depth of 

the shared goals of the collaboration (i.e. the importance of the substantive task that the 

collaboration seeks to accomplish) is in play. Note, the more complex the substantive task, 

the challenges of the collaborative may increase exponentially (Huxham, 1996). These 

dimensions operate within the proposed collaboration as netting that will either (1) 

interstitially bind the organizations together as they move collectively towards a shared 

outcome or (2) expose disconnects that are part and parcel of the distinct missions that 

each organization has espoused since their inception.  

 
 

50

 

 

Collaboration among non-profit organizations has spawned its own body of 

research that involves both capacity and will. One oft-cited study articulated the following 

motivations for collaborations by nonprofits: resource sufficiency; institutional pressures; 

and the network effect (Guo & Acar, 2005). Resource dependency/scarcity motivates 

collaborations in certain sectors as they seek to navigate turbulent financial conditions. In 

those circumstances, the level of collaboration is balanced against the level of autonomy 

that the non-profit is willing to compromise. Moreover, institutional pressures to 

collaborate may be brought by a legal mandate; a governmental funding stream; and/or the 

professional network within which the organization resides. Finally, within the non-profit 

network, relationships may occur that foster linkages among organizations that provide 

similar services. Guo & Acar (2005) specifically note that it is difficult for some professional 

bodies to collaborate, i.e. health professionals and educators, because they are often 

“socialized to believe that their work should not be changed by anyone other than their 

own professional bodies” (p. 348).   

A second study posits that non-profit collaboration occurs because of potential 

benefits that accrue to the organizations in terms of improved service to clients and 

improvements within your organization (Sowa, 2009). For clients, the collaboration closes 

a gap in services that recipients need. With regard to the overall organizational 

improvement, the collaboration can foster organizational survival (in the context of 

resources); enhance institutional legitimacy within the service area; and/or enhance the 

organization’s competitive advantage among service providers.  

A third research study adds to the non-profit collaboration analysis discussing the 

difficulties that occur when public entities seek to collaborate with non-profit 

 
 

51

 

 

organizations (Gazley & Brudney, 2007). The three principle challenges that manifest 

themselves include: (1) time to manage the partnership and its attendant obligations; (2) 

the quality of the inter-sector relationships and the need to nurture them and address 

logistical concerns; and (3) the management of the actual competition and resultant 

conflicts in the same service area that may result when public and private partnerships 

arise. 

Mashek & Nanfito (2015) offer further insight as to how organizations may move 

through the collaboration continuum on the ground.  They first explain that “collaboration 

is a working relationship in which you and your organization actively strive to help your 

partner organization become increasingly proficient at their stated objectives while 

simultaneously honoring and achieving your own” (p. 13).  Moreover, the researchers note 

that collaboration is “an iterative, non-linear process.” Specifically, Mashek & Nanfito 

(2015) argue that to operationalize Himmelman’s collaboration continuum requires the 

identification and sharing of turf and the fostering of trust. In broad strokes, sharing turf 

requires sharing results, risks, responsibilities, resources and rewards.  To foster trust 

allows participants to develop the capacity to feel professionally and emotionally risky to 

be vulnerable enough to work together in a public manner; to show our work before it is 

finished; to allow others to work collaboratively on it, or even see it, before it is “polished” 

to our satisfaction; to let down our guard; to believe others hold our needs and interests in 

mind; to release control; and to invite others to re-work our contributions and to insert 

their work into its place.  

Mashek & Nanfito (2015) further suggest that evolving partners employ a toolkit of 

practical approaches that are transparent, easily articulated and result in concrete 

 
 

52

 

 

outcomes within the collaboration process. Within the toolkit are processes to move the 

collaboration forward. This involves the strategic utilization of time and the development 

of relationships by cultivating structures of communication, project management and 

accountability. While outcomes are not the focus of this dissertation, this dissertation 

posits that it is the level of collaboration as demonstrated in the deployment of various 

strategies and the utilization of processes that will ultimately determine the effectiveness 

of the programming implemented within each Promise Neighborhood. 

 
 

53

 

 

CHAPTER THREE: DISSERTATION QUESTION AND METHODOLOGY 

 
 

This chapter discusses the methodology undertaken within this dissertation. In a 

qualitative study, the expectation is that the researcher explains the rationale for 

undertaking the study; explicate the philosophy behind the study; communicate how the 

subjects for the study were identified; provide a description of the data collected and the 

method by which it was collected; and discuss how the data was analyzed and interpreted 

(Williams & Morrow, 2009).  Accordingly, the chapter is organized with the subject matter 

headings recommended by Morrow (2005) where she discusses how a researcher may 

enhance the “quality and trustworthiness” of a qualitative research study (Morrow, 2005, p 

259-260).  

 

A. Research Design 
 

This dissertation poses the following research question: To what process challenges 

or barriers must policy targets attend when charged with collaborating to implement this and 

similar federal policy constructs in local communities?  In 2015, a Mathematica Policy 

Research Institute study of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative (Hulsey, 2015) posed the 

following questions with the attendant, resultant emergent themes:  

1.  How do Promise Neighborhoods build the infrastructure to support and sustain a 

pipeline of programs for children from birth through college and career? 
 
 
•  Expand the capacity of the lead agency 
•  Partnering with service providers covering the range of expertise needed to 

complete a comprehensive cradle-to-career continuum of solutions.  

•  Building shared data systems for learning, continuous improvement and 

shared accountability. 

•  Establishing staffing structures that connect pipeline components and 

facilitate communication 

 
 

54

 

 

Identifying and braiding funding sources into the cradle-to-career continuum 
of solutions 

• 

 

2.a. How does the resulting system work on the ground? 

•  Early childhood offerings range from new centers to supports for existing 

caregivers. 

•  Supports for K-12 education provide academic and enrichment opportunities 

during and outside regular school hours.  

•  Targeted programs primarily for high school students support transition to 

college/career. 

•  Promise Neighborhoods offer a variety of family and community supports. 
 

2.b. What are the take-up rates of high-quality services and schools? 
 

•  Virtually all students who attend partner schools are touched by Promise 

Neighborhood services to some extent.  

•  Programs for younger children and adults tend to serve smaller numbers of 

participants. 

•  Differences in take-up rates across sites and activities are driven by a 

combination of program capacity and participant interest.  

 

3.a. Are Promise Neighborhoods meeting their partnership and service coordination 
goals? 

•  Structural achievements include developing partnerships and programs to 

support children along the cradle-to-career continuum of solutions. 

•  Promise Neighborhoods report some progress toward student results. 
•  Continued assessment of progress is needed. 
 

3.b. What barriers and facilitators do they face? 

•  Lack of experience building a cradle-to-career continuum of solutions 
•  Varying levels of commitment and flexibility among stakeholders 
•  Staff and partner turnover 
•  Unrealistic expectations 

3.c.  What is needed to create a positive climate for successful partnerships and 
achievement of Promise Neighborhoods’ goals?  

•  A robust results framework with shared accountability 
•  Strong interpersonal and institutional relationships 
•  Flexible, patient, and sustainable capital 

 
 

55

 

 

While the Mathematica study names cross-sector barriers to implementation and identifies 

a set of conditions necessary for partnerships to be successful, the study only cursorily 

discusses the set of organizational and personal dynamics that may be present in the local 

context that may promote or inhibit the success of the PN Initiative. The processes by 

which a PN develops its infrastructure, cultivates its human capital, and navigates the set of 

complex relationships are critical indicators of that success, and these organizational 

practices or “process implications” are the subject of this dissertation.   

 

 

What are the process implications to which organizations/groups/individuals must 

attend when partnering to implement federal policy in local communities?  This 

dissertation seeks to examine how the dynamic and fluid interactions, with and among 

these dimensions, chart the course for federal policy implementation at the local level.  

To answer the question, the dissertation utilizes a theory-building case study 

protocol examining the implementation of the Promise Neighborhood policy at a local site 

where both a planning and implementation grants were awarded (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 

1989). This dissertation is a qualitative study in a selected PN site and seeks to describe the 

PN site as is done in traditional qualitative research (Geertz, 1973). Combining these two 

qualitative approaches within the study, the dissertation seeks to accomplish to both (1) 

identify the barriers or challenges that were faced during the implementation of the policy 

and (2) build a theory regarding the processes within which policymakers must invest to 

assist local actors to effectively navigate those barriers and implement a federal policy at 

the local level. To accomplish this task, the case study triangulates the following traditional 

data collection techniques: document review, interviews, and observations.  

 
 

56

 

 

B. Philosophical Underpinning of the Research Study 
 

The PN Initiative explicitly seeks to mobilize those institutions, organizations and 

individuals within the student’s ecology as was first suggested in the Coleman Report of 

1966 and the ecology of human development theory espoused by Bronfenbrenner 

(Coleman, 1966; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to improve developmental outcomes.  Beginning 

with the premise that the PN Initiative recognizes that the ecology of a student’s existence 

impacts his/her individual growth and development and, thereby, the student’s academic 

performance, this dissertation therefore adopts the “ecology” metaphor for analyzing the 

implementation of this policy, embracing Weaver-Hightower’s construct of a policy ecology 

(Weaver-Hightower, 2008); utilizes Honig’s policy analysis framework, which examines the 

“policy”, the “place” and the “people” (Honig, 2006); and explicates each aspect of Honig’s 

framework with pertinent research (Green, 1983; McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; McDonnell, 

2004; Hall and McGinty, 1997; McLaughlin, 1991; Lipsky, 1980; Smylie & Evans, 2006; 

Graddy & Chen, 2006; Jang & Feoick, 2006; McLaughlin, 2006; Erickson, 1987; Himmelman, 

1991; Huxham, 1996; Guo & Acar, 2005;  Sowa, 2009; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; and Mashek 

& Nanfito, 2015). The utilization of the more expansive policy ecology lens allows the 

dissertation to view, disentangle and understand the complex organizational and relational 

dynamics that are in operation within the subject of this case study.  

C. Researcher Interest  
 

The writer of this dissertation is an educator and a former leader of a non-profit 

organization that applied for both the Promise Neighborhood Planning and 

Implementation Grants.  Formerly a licensed member of the State Bar of Michigan, I had 

 
 

57

 

 

served several years as a teacher, principal, central office administrator in public, private 

and parochial schools within the state of Michigan.  

In August of 2007, I was recruited to the Pittsburgh Public Schools to redesign the 

entire secondary school framework as the Chief of High School Reform. The infrastructure 

for the district was built for 45,000 students, and the Pittsburgh Public Schools at that point 

had shrunk to approximately 22,000 students. Moreover, the secondary schools 

demonstrated poor academic achievement.  This role required me to engage with 

community stakeholders and policy makers (local, state and federal) to develop a five-year 

plan for the redesign within the NCLB Framework, and the Obama Administration Race-to-

the-Top requirements, and the proposed Promise Neighborhood Initiative.  

In 2011, I transitioned into the role of the first President/CEO of the Homewood 

Children’s Village, which was formed for the explicit purpose of implementing the PN 

Initiative. Homewood is a neighborhood within the city of Pittsburgh that serves the city’s 

most disadvantaged children. The planning and implementation of a Promise 

Neighborhood at the local level became my day-to-day work within the Homewood 

Children’s Village, and the substance of action research with community partners, including 

among others, the University of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Pittsburgh 

Association for the Education of Young Children, and local community service agencies 

with funding secured primarily the RK Mellon Foundation (Wallace & Lopez, 2012). The 

Homewood Children’s Village was unsuccessful in obtaining either a planning or 

implementation grant for a Promise Neighborhood from the USDOE.  I held the position for 

3.5 years and returned to Michigan to work in the public-school system as a central office 

administrator in February 2015.  

 
 

58

 

 

 

 

Upon my return to Michigan, I served as an Assistant Superintendent for Instruction 

and School Performance in Southfield, MI, and in August 2018, I began serving in the role of 

Superintendent of Flint Community Schools.  The work of the Flint Community Schools 

currently employs the Community Schools Model, which attempts to mobilize and navigate 

the community partnerships to improve the developmental and academic outcomes of 

students akin to the vision and mission statement of the Promise Neighborhood program.  

 

 

In sum, within each of my most recent professional roles, I have sought and engaged 

partnerships with outside entities and agencies to assist with the work of the school 

district and the individual schools, therein. While the proposed frameworks within this 

methodology seek to minimize the potential biases of the writer, the lens, perspectives, and 

the framing of the questions herein will likely be influenced by these experiences.  

D. Case Study Participants- United Promise Neighborhood (UPN) Site 
Description and Key Informants 
 

I attempted to conduct interviews with the USED personnel regarding the PN 

Initiative. Program Officers declined the interview request and directed the researcher to 

the Promise Neighborhood website link on the USED webpage.   

I conducted initial interviews by telephone to obtain background information from 

which to develop the interview protocols for key informants. The first interview was with 

personnel from PolicyLink, the official technical assistance arm for Promise Neighborhoods 

with the USED.  The PolicyLink Director further framed the study, suggesting PN sites that 

may be suitable for the inquiry of this dissertation. From this interview, I made a formal 

request of three of the eleven Promise Implementation sites to participate in this study. 

Two of the three sites formally declined participation.  The second telephone interview 

 
 

59

 

 

occurred with the PN Director of the selected Promise Neighborhood site to learn about the 

PN organizational structure and components. I audiotaped and transcribed the 

approximately 60 minute-interview.  

 

The case study is therefore situated within a single PN site that received both a 

planning grant and an implementation grant. For purposes of this dissertation, the inquiry 

seeks to understand how the set of policy targets in this one PN site employed strategies to 

navigate the policy instruments at work. Throughout this dissertation, the research site will 

be referred to as the United Promise Neighborhood (UPN), and the lead agency of the UPN 

will be referred to as the Regional United Coalition. This site description consists of profiles 

of the UPN and its lead agency and a description of roles of the personnel of the lead agency 

and the school district served by the UPN.   

Regional United Coalition (Regional Coalition) possesses a rich history of serving the 

community that became the locus of the UPN. An early exploration of the Harlem Children’s 

Zone by the leadership of the Regional Coalition occurred prior to the Obama 

Administration’s promulgation of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative.  On at least two 

occasions, a leadership team from the Regional Coalition visited the Harlem Children’s 

Zone to view its programs and to assess the utility of the program delivery model for their 

region. Of particular interest to the leadership was the creation of a cradle-to-college 

pipeline for the children of the region and the intersection of education and the health and 

well-being of students in that pipeline. 

Committed to replicating the programming of the Harlem Children’s Zone, the 

Regional Coalition began a feasibility study within their region to identify an area of service 

for the potential partnership. The work of completing the feasibility study involved 

 
 

60

 

 

identifying public, private and foundation partners and a school community for the 

prospective work. The Regional Coalition utilized the demographic data of a nationally 

renowned organization to identify a geographic location that, while not physically similar 

to the served by the Harlem Children’s Zone, the community’s composition possessed 

similar characteristics to those served by the prototype organization. Following the 

feasibility study the United Promise Neighborhood was created.  

United Promise Neighborhood (hereinafter “UPN”) began its work prior to the first 

round of USED request for planning grant proposals for a Promise Neighborhood.  The UPN 

was one of the nine recipients who received both a planning and implementation grant. 

Following the receipt of the Planning Grant, the UPN leveraged their award to apply for a 

grant from a national foundation with a focus upon early childhood education, an area 

identified as critical to the establishment of a “cradle-to-college” pipeline. The three-year 

grant from the national foundation funded the work of an early childhood collaborative. By 

demonstrating facility with the early childhood work, effectively utilizing the planning 

grant, and exhibiting a commitment to the community served by the UPN, the Regional 

Coalition successfully applied and received a Promise Implementation Grant award for five 

additional years of work as the UPN. 

UPN Organizational Staffing consists of traditional roles that are needed to lead, 

administer, monitor, and develop programming of PN sites. Interviews and observations of 

the UPN by the researcher involved the following key members of the UPN Staff. Note that 

titles within the UPN have also been changed for purposes of this dissertation. 

•  The UPN Director led the day-to-day operation of the UPN, working with key staff 

members; managing the relationships with the leaders of the key partnering 

 
 

61

 

 

agencies, and acted as the principal liaison with the lead agency, the Regional United 

Coalition.  Narrative and transcript references for this person will be UPN Director 

(UPN Dir.). 

•  Three UPN Assistant Directors variously led the work for the driving constructs of 

the UPN, which include: Education, Community Education, Outreach, and Research. 

For these persons, narrative and transcript references will include the following 

descriptors: Assistant Director I (Asst. Dir. I); Assistant Director II (Asst. Dir. II) and 

Assistant Director III (Asst. Dir. III).  

•  Three Project Directors worked on discrete projects within the UPN in these areas. 

For these persons, narrative and transcript references will include the following 

descriptors:  Early Childhood Collaborative Project Director (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir.); 

School District Project Director (UPN Schools Proj. Dir.); and Community Relations 

Project Director (Comm. Rel. Proj. Dir.). As their titles suggest, they engage variously 

in the following work: 

o  Early childhood program delivery, program design, service coordination and 

access;  

o  Educational service program delivery, service and coordination; and  

o  Parent outreach, program delivery, service and coordination. 

• 

 Six UPN Coordinators engaged in the day-to-day facilitation, programming and data 

collection work of the UPN. For these persons, narrative and transcript references 

will include the following: Social Service Collaborative Coordinator (UPN-SSC 

Coord.); Out-of-School Time Program Coordinator (Out-of-School Coord.); 

Community Education Coordinator (Comm. Ed. Coord.); UPN Parent Liaison (UPN 

 
 

62

 

 

Parent Liaison); Data Coordinator I (Data Coord. I); and Data Coordinator II (Data 

Coord. II) The work in which these personnel engage include but is not limited to 

the following:  

•  Data Collection for each of the programs and services within the UPN; 

•  Out-of-School Time program delivery, service, coordination and access; and 

•  Social service organization and community education outreach, program 

delivery, service coordination, and access. 

The School District (hereinafter “Unified School District”) was required to undertake 

a reconstitution and reorganization during the time within which the UPN was organized 

and awarded the Promise Neighborhood Implementation Grant. Despite the state-

mandated reorganization, the original schools within the PN Application remain the ones 

served by the UPN. Interviews took place with three school personnel key informants who 

work directly with the UPN: 

•  School District Liaison 

•  School Principal 

•  School District Turnaround Specialist 

E. Data Sources 

E.1. Document Review 

The first step in the data collection involved an extensive document review.  Each of 

the document analyses provides the necessary context to build a theory regarding the 

process challenges that occur when implementing a federal policy within the local context.  

Specifically, I engaged in the following: 

 
 

63

 

 

1.  A historical review of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and 

its subsequent reauthorizations through the development of the Promise Neighborhood 

Initiative.  While formally a part of the literature review, this history grounds the PN 

Initiative within its proper policy context and suggests avenues of inquiry for interviews of 

key informants.  

2.  A review of the Promise Neighborhood policy and attendant documents coupled 

with a historical review of the prototype for the Promise Neighborhood, the Harlem 

Children’s Zone.  A comparison of the actual written policy with the prototype seeks to 

enrich our collective understanding of the overarching goals, design and targets. More 

specifically, this portion of the analysis will assist in understanding the leverage points that 

the policy sought to activate in the local context, while possibly providing a lens into the 

challenges of implementation.  

3.  A review of the selected Promise Neighborhood Implementation Grant 

recipients. A review of the current PN recipients included each of the successful Promise 

Neighborhood Implementation grant applications, current organizational charts, 

memoranda of understanding, websites, and PN Annual Performance Reports. By 

understanding the organizations to which PN Implementation Grants were awarded, this 

brief analysis seeks to provide a lens into the policy tools that the USED sought to utilize 

when awarding the grants and the targets of the policy.   From this review, I also developed 

a list of potential key informants that are present across many Promise Neighborhoods and 

produced a wide range of possible questions that may be posed to key informants as they 

seek to implement the PN Initiative.  

 
 

64

 

 

4. A review of studies and articles of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative. While 

many articles regarding the PN in the local context exist, I acknowledge the following two 

studies that impacted the formation of the research question and subsequent study: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014, May). Promise Neighborhoods Grants 
(Publication No. GAO-14-432). Retrieved from GAO Reports Main Page via GPO Access 
database: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html 
 
Hulsey, L., Esposito, A., Boiler, K., and Osborn, S. (2015). Promise Neighborhood Case 
Studies. Mathematica Policy Research. https://mathematica-mpr.com/our-publications-
and-findings/publications/promise-neighborhoods-case-studies-final-report. 
 

The review of these studies grounded my selection of key informants for interviews and 

onsite observations. 

E.2.  Key Informant Interviews and Site Visit Observations 

 

I conducted a site visit to the selected PN site, which is the subject of this case study.  

An initial telephone interview occurred with the Site Director in which I utilized the 

interview protocol for key informants and arranged the site visit.  During the five-day site 

visit, I conducted sixteen (16) additional individual interviews and two observations.  One 

additional group stakeholder interview with three parents/guardians served by the UPN 

also took place to provide an additional lens in the context of the work. It is important to 

note that this group interview took place with parents only and no UPN personnel were 

present.  

Rooted in the document review of Promise Neighborhood Implementation Grant 

recipients, key informants were selected based upon their roles and their involvement in 

the PN Site. As a part of the interview protocol, the informants were told that their answers 

would be confidential and coded under an anonymous identifier. All informants also were 

told that upon publication of this dissertation, the subject PN site would not be identified, 

 
 

65

 

 

and they would only be identified as a part of a class of interviewees.  For example, each 

Assistant Director, Project Director or Project Coordinator would be given a number and 

general descriptor to further protect the integrity and truthfulness of their answers.  

For the interview protocol, I developed open-ended questions from which each key 

informant can expound upon their understanding of the history of the PN site, the roles 

that they played within the PN site and their individual organizational interactions and 

experiences. Each of the interviews was audiotaped in a computer program so that each 

could be transcribed for coding. I obtained verbal consent for the audiotaping and 

utilization of the information elicited from the interview as a part of the interview protocol. 

The length of the interviews ranged from 30 to 60 minutes depending on the length of the 

answers.  Data from the interviews inform the qualitative case study analysis in Chapter 4.  

Interviews with members of the Principal Organization in Promise Neighborhood-
Primary Areas of Inquiry: (See Appendix A Interview Protocol) 

•  What prompted your community to apply for a Promise Neighborhood grant?  What 

were you seeking to accomplish?  

•  Who are the driving partners, i.e. organizations, and persons behind the push that 

you have described?  

•  Can you describe your working relationship with each of these collaborating 

organizations prior to the successful PN application?  

•  How are you organized to accomplish the objective that you've identified in your 

application then? How often did you meet? How often do you interact?  Describe 

those interactions.  

66

 

 

 
 

 

•  This dissertation is about process, as opposed to outcomes, and how organizations 

navigate the working relationships that you have right now. The next couple of 

questions will be about how you believed that you were able to move organizations 

towards that common goal. 

o 

 Describe the relationship that was the most easily navigated, meaning the 

organization or person with whom you had the least challenges. Describe 

that relationship. To what do you attribute the success of the working 

relationship? 

o  Describe the relationship that is or was challenging. To what do you attribute 

the challenges that presented themselves?  

•  Describe a coordinated goal or activity that you have had to pull off amongst the 

team, and how that went from start to finish. 

o  Potential Follow-Up: Did any part of the goal/activity that you have 

described achieve less than the desired results. If so, what might be some of 

the reasons that this project would not obtain some of its desired outcomes?  

Interviews with School District Personnel in Promise Neighborhood Application-
Primary Lines of Inquiry:  

•  Describe your interaction with each of the PN Partners. How often do you 

communicate and in what means? With which partner(s) do you have the best 

working relationship? To what do you attribute the success of the working 

relationship? 

67

 

 

 
 

 

•  Explain how the primary mission of your organization works with the goals and 

objectives of the Promise Neighborhood. What happens when those missions 

conflict?  

•  Describe a coordinated activity that has been developed by the PN. What were the 

main challenges to the work?  

•  Describe any benefits and challenges to your participation in the PN.  

Site Visit Observations 

 

Several meeting observations occurred during the site visit. Of note, the UPN work 

in the area of early childhood began early in the formation of the UPN. This longevity and 

depth of this work offers a critical lens into the implementation of the Promise 

Neighborhood policy on the ground over time. The purpose here is to observe the Promise 

Neighborhood in action, examining specifically the quality of their interactions. 

Accordingly, I observed several interactions in the work of early childhood within the UPN. 

These observations included:   

•  Preparation for a UPN meeting with stakeholders across the early childhood 

spectrum with outside facilitators  

•  Facilitation of a full-day UPN meeting with stakeholders across the early childhood 

spectrum 

I also observed a full-day training for UPN staff and program partners, in which 

participants were trained to organize, develop and facilitate better meetings for partners 

and constituent stakeholders. 

 
 

68

 

 

F.  Data Analysis 

F.1. Data Collection 

 

I (the “writer”) conducted all interviews and observations contained herein. Each of 

the interviews utilized in the analysis were audio-recorded by the writer to ensure the 

accuracy of their content and transcribed by a transcription service. The writer further 

reviewed the transcriptions for their accuracy by listening and verifying the transcribed 

content. The writer coded the data utilizing protocols enumerated in “The Coding Manual 

for Qualitative Researchers” (Saldana, 2009). Additionally, the writer also utilized the 

computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, ATLAS.ti (Friese, 2019; Friese, 2014).  

Twenty documents, eighteen (18) interviews and two observations, were 

transcribed and coded during the course of the case study. Following the initial manual 

coding and CAQDAS coding, 81 codes were identified within the transcripts. The codes 

were distilled into several major categories centered upon constructs contained within the 

independent variables.  The categories explicated both the barriers and/or challenges that 

the PN site faced and the strategies that they utilized to lower those barriers and navigate 

the challenges as they sought to implement the PN in the local context. From this analysis, 

themes emerged, and the writer built the theory of the case and the findings of this 

dissertation. 

F.2. Case Study Variables and Emergent Themes 

 

Within this policy, the constructs of time, turf, and trust serve as the currencies of 

exchange for partnership with and among organizations and individuals. This dissertation 

employs them as the independent variables within the case study.   An independent variable 

can be variously defined as what is being measured in the study to determine how it affects 

 
 

69

 

the outcome (Huck, 2008). An explication of these currencies provides the framework for 

the lines of inquiry for the dissertation and the resultant roadmap for the themes that 

result therefrom. What follows is further explication of these variables:  

•  Time to manage the partnership 

 

•  How often do you interact as a partnership to manage the partnership 

and its attendant obligations?  

•  Of what does that interaction consist: planning and duration of meetings; 

conference and/or individual calls; and planning and implementation of 

PN, programs, activities and events. 

•  Trust involves the quality of the relationships and the need to nurture and 

address logistical concerns 

•  What is the reputation and longevity of the partnering organization(s) in 

the community that they serve? 

•  What is the mission of the collaborating organizations? What is the 

mission of the partnership? Where do they intersect? Is there a 

mechanism for resolving an issue when a conflict arises between the 

purpose of the partnership and the varying purposes of the individual 

contributing organizations?  

•  Turf variously involves the management of the actual competition and resultant 

conflicts in the same service area 

•  What is the process for exchange of information?  

•  How have you set goals and objectives across organizations?  

 
 

70

 

 

•  How have your organizational activities changed or been integrated since 

the PN has been established?  

•  How do you allocate and share resources within the grant and in addition 

to the grant?   

•  Are there tangible ways that your organizations have benefited from the 

partnership?  (Himmelman, 1991; Huxham, 1996).   

Smylie & Evans (2004) further inform these constructs with the notion of social capital, an 

intangible and abstract resource, derived from interactions among individuals and the 

social structures that frame them.  In sum, each of these conceptual frames informs the 

level of organizational partnership or “collaboration” that the Promise Neighborhood case 

study site attained and the process challenges contained therein. Moreover, Mashek & 

Nanfito (2015) prompt us to think about a “toolkit” that might be used to enhance each of 

these independent variables for organizations to effectively work together. 

 

G. Limitations 
 

Note this dissertation study sought to involve the United States Department of 

Education directly in the inquiry, and USED personnel expressly declined the opportunity 

to be interviewed for this study, referring the writer to the website for official information 

regarding the application, selection, and designation of Promise Neighborhoods.  An 

inquiry to PolicyLink, the designated technical assistance arm for selected Promise 

Neighborhood planning and implementation sites, resulted in a cursory discussion of the 

PN Policy, and referrals to several PN Sites as possible case study sites for this dissertation 

study.  Upon repeated written and telephone inquiry to those suggested PN sites regarding 

 
 

71

 

 

their participation, a further limitation was imposed upon the study with the explicit 

refusal of all but one proposed site to engage in the study because of an expressed fear that 

the qualitative process inquiry would stray into a discussion of the efficacy of program 

selection and the quality of program implementation at their respective sites. Thus, the 

generalizability of the findings must be tested in the context of other sites.  

 
 

72

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR: PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 

 
 

This chapter situates this dissertation case study within the broader context of the 

Promise Neighborhood Initiative. Section A of the Chapter begins with a comparison 

between the Promise Neighborhood construct and its prototype, the Harlem Children’s 

Zone (HCZ).  This comparison argues that while the HCZ is ostensibly a model for local, 

place-based initiatives, the organization generally operates outside of the constraints of 

federal policy implementation and the dictates thereof.   

Section B of the Chapter then frames the PN Initiative within the local context and 

the dissertation conceptual framework: the “policy ecology” (Weaver-Hightower, 2008). To 

grasp the ecology of the policy, the analysis discretely isolates and explicates the “policy” 

itself; the “people” it targets; and the “place” where the policy is embedded (Honig, 2006). 

By way of explanation, a review of the Promise Neighborhood Implementation grant 

recipients suggests that the complexity of the policy itself presented challenges to 

implementation at the local level (Green, 1983; Honig, 2006). First, the goals of the “policy” 

are manifold and woven together in multiple instruments (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; 

McDonnell, 2004; Hall & McGinty, 1997). Secondly, the “people” or the targets of the policy 

are required to partner to accomplish those interwoven and intersecting goals; and the 

primary implementer, or a lead agency, is presumed to have the capacity to bring these 

varied entities and organizations together (Lipsky, 1980; McLaughlin, 1991; Smylie & 

Evans, 2006; Graddy & Chen, 2006; Jang & Feoick, 2006). Finally, and most importantly, the 

chapter analysis focuses upon the dynamics of “place,” and the complex intersection of 

politics, identity, economic interests and forming partnerships to accomplish the goals of 

the policy (McLaughlin, 2006; Fusarelli, 2008; Erickson, 1987; Himmelman, 1991; Huxham, 

 
 

73

 

 

1996; Guo & Acar, 2005; Sowa, 2009; Gazley & Brudney, 2007; Mashek & Nanfito, 2015). 

The analysis here turns to the data collected during interviews with key informants; site 

visits and observations.  

Finally, Section C of the Chapter provides an analysis of the dynamics of “place,” 

organizing and presenting the data collected according to the primary initiatives that have 

been undertaken by the United Promise Neighborhood (UPN).  The data analysis first 

establishes the UPN as the primary mediator of federal policy at the local level and then 

confirms the UPN’s primary initiatives as follows:  

•  The UPN Early Childhood Collaborative (UPN-ECC) 

•  The UPN Unified School District Partnership 

•  The UPN Out-of-School Time Partnerships 

•  The UPN Social Service Collaborative (UPN-SSC) 

•  The UPN Direct Services 

For each of the UPN initiatives, the dissertation utilizes the collected data to identify and 

describe the challenges and/or barriers that exist in the context of the UPN initiative. The 

analysis then employs the information gleaned from key informant interviews to illustrate 

how the subject-site identified and employed strategies to mediate and/or mitigate the 

challenges that arose.  In short, the analysis of these qualitative data points elucidates the 

dynamics of place within the dissertation and explicates the complexity of local 

implementation of this federal policy.  

A. Harlem Children’s Zone-Policy Prototype for The Principle of Local Control 
 

The Promise Neighborhood Initiative maximizes the idea of local control by 

expanding the concept of what entities might receive federal funding to implement the 

 
 

74

 

 

goals and objectives of federal policy.  Arguably, the federal government is best able to 

make macro policy pronouncements, i.e. Equality of Educational Opportunity (Green 1983). 

However, the foregoing analysis suggests that federal policy incursion into local control 

deepens as discretionary choices have been expressly authorized by statute.  With the PN 

Initiative, the USED attempts to replicate a local model for other similarly situated 

communities. The local contextual initiative of the Harlem Children’s Zone was seemingly 

an ideal model for advocating deeper vertical and horizontal partnerships with the local 

educational agency, promoting the overarching federal policy targeting low income and 

disadvantaged youth.  Yet, the case study, as summarized in Table 3 below, suggests that 

the HCZ model itself possesses material and operational distinctions with the PN policy as 

envisioned. 

TABLE 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE HCZ AND PN 
 
Harlem Children’s Zone 
An autonomous governing body with 
fundraising resources that accrues to 
one entity with a singular mission, 
values and norms 
An autonomous administration within 
one Agency 
Charter School within the Agency with 
no labor agreements 

Identified goals that are tightly coupled 
to the mission and practices of the 
organization 

 

 

Promise Neighborhood Initiative 
Many agencies with separate governing 
bodies and separate, missions, visions, 
values and funding sources that support 
separate missions, values and norms  
Collaborative Administration w/Lead 
Agency among many separate agencies 
Traditional and/or charter schools, some 
with traditional collective bargaining 
agreements  
Identified goals within a series of 
Memoranda of Understandings that are 
loosely coupled to the mission and 
practices of several organizations acting 
in concert 

The Rheedlin Center for Children and Families birthed the Harlem Children’s Zone 

in the late 1990s. Following his ascension to Executive Director of the Rheedlin Center, 

 
 

75

 

 

Geoffrey Canada noted that while the many different programs of the center had utility 

within the Harlem community, the programs had disparate goals and disparate outcomes. 

As the leader of an agency that provided a series of social services to families in Harlem, 

Canada sought to put Annette Lareau’s theory of “concerted cultivation” into action to 

effectively meet the needs of those children (Lareau, 2003). 

To put Canada’s work in context, Harlem was once widely known as the “Black 

Mecca,” the place where many immigrants of African-descent moved when they entered 

America. The Harlem community was the epicenter of the Marcus Garvey movement and 

remained the home of other black progressives during the first two-thirds of the 20th 

century.  During the 1970s and 1980s, like other urban areas, Harlem experienced an 

exodus of middle and working class African-Americans to more affluent suburbs of New 

York City.  In Whatever it Takes, William Julius Wilson describes the present condition of 

Harlem in these terms: 

[The presence of middle-class families once provided] mainstream role models that 
help keep alive the perception that education is meaningful, that steady employment 
is a viable alternative to welfare, and that family stability is the norm, not the 
exception… [There is a resultant] ripple effect resulting in an exponential increase in 
forms of social dislocation. (Tough, 2008, p. 31)  
 

It is these social conditions that result from an isolation of a community and concentration 

of poverty that Canada sought to alleviate.  

The vehicle for the alleviation of these social conditions is the Harlem Children’s 

Zone. Prompted by the negative suppositions regarding African-American intellect of 

Murray in the “Bell Curve” and the widespread belief that social services lead to learned 

helplessness and generational poverty, Canada was determined to use the resources at his 

disposal to break the negative cycle (Tough, 2008, pp. 33-37). Reflecting upon the 

 
 

76

 

 

resources that he provided for his family as a member of the middle class, Canada actively 

sought out research regarding upward mobility and middle-class practices. Studying the 

work of Hart & Risley (1995), regarding parenting, literacy and achievement, and Lareau 

(2003), regarding middle class parenting, Canada developed what he terms a conveyor belt 

of services for the children in a carefully defined, but expanding portion of the Harlem 

community (Tough, 2008, pp. 41-52).  

 

 The HCZ’s conveyor belt of services is designed to care for children from birth 

through college. The network of family services includes: 

•  Early Childhood Programs that include parenting programs (Baby College 

and Three-Year-Old Journey) and a preschool program (Harlem Gems) 
where children learn basic skills in several languages.  

•  The Beacon Schools, which are public school charters that educate children 
from kindergarten through grade eight. The goal is to serve these students 
through high school. 

•  Case Management and Partnership with Secondary Schools. The HCZ 

employs full-time social workers and psychologists who partner with the 
public schools to work with students and families within the designated 
zone. 

•  After School Programs, for students at all grade levels. The HCZ employs a 

full-time staff that works on arts and educational programs, fitness and 
nutrition, general wellness, employment and work skills, college preparation 
and success. (Tough, 2008)  
 

The HCZ works with upwards of 15,000 children each year, and, as of 2015, has an 

annual budget of approximately $100 million. Funding for the organization comes from a 

combination of private donations, board of director contributions, and governmental 

agency funding. While the PN Initiative seeks to replicate this model in urban areas across 

the country, the results of the model have not been rigorously evaluated or studied by an 

outside agency.  In fact, Paul Tough’s portrayal of the effort in Whatever it Takes (2008) 

provides only a narrative account of the efforts.  Note that if one measure of the model is 

 
 

77

 

 

student achievement at the Beacon Schools, however, there has been some promise shown 

with test scores on the rigorous New York State assessments improving each successive 

year.  Only a portion of the children served by the HCZ, however, can attend the charter 

schools because of limited space. Given the range of services that the HCZ provides, it is 

likely that school success is only one data point, as the HCZ’s mission seeks to transform 

the quality of life of the children in a variety of quality of life areas.  

Whether the model will be successful over time remains to be seen and is not the 

subject of this dissertation, but the model is rooted in the latest research and stands as an 

example for building a nexus between schools and the communities in which they sit 

(Blank, 1999; Sanders, 2006; James-Burdumy, et al., 2005).  Moreover, this service delivery 

model comports with economist Richard Rothstein’s prompt to us to “ask the right 

questions” regarding the needs of the children that we seek to serve (Rothstein, 2004; 

Rothstein, 2000). Finally, the HCZ model, by its very construct and in concert with Lareau’s 

theory of concerted cultivation, seeks to enlist the services of many institutions of youth 

development to educate our youth, expanding the definition of youth well-being (Rothstein, 

Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2008). 

The prototype HCZ has many autonomous characteristics. A singular governing 

board sets the policy and raises the annual resources for the HCZ. This governing body 

raises among its Board Members, a veritable who’s who of the New York political, financial, 

and executive establishments, fully one-third of the $100 million required to operate the 

HCZ.  The Board also sets policy that aligns with the day-to-day practices of the HCZ, 

permitting the agency to literally do “whatever it takes” to impact the life of a child that it 

seeks to serve.  Moreover, the HCZ is the singular agency, which operates both the charter 

 
 

78

 

 

schools and the programs that comprise the cradle to college continuum of services for the 

HCZ.  For many students that it serves, this permits the tight coupling of goals, practices, 

and outcomes that are the hallmark of the HCZ.  Each one of these identified descriptors of 

this local, contextual initiative is difficult to replicate in any other context, making its utility 

as the prototype for a federal program a challenge.  

B. Traditional Policy Implementation Challenges in The Context of the Promise 
Neighborhood Initiative  
 

Green (1983) posits that the adoption of public policy initiatives generally focus 

upon macro-values and optimally seek to resolve a conflict between different ideals, values, 

and goals all of which must be accepted but which, taken together, cannot all be maximized.  

The goal of policy in this sense is to bring about change in accordance with the adopted 

policy. Additionally, McLaughlin (1990), as a part of the espoused change agent theory, 

persuasively argues that there are systems barriers and policy barriers that operate from a 

macro level that impact the change sought when a policy is implemented.  McLaughlin 

illustrates this phenomenon when she observes that analyses of policy implementation are 

complicated by the linkages and/or disconnect between “macro” and “micro” lenses 

brought by the policymaker and the implementer.  By way of explanation, at the macro-

level, the policymaker constructs a policy with a goals and targets in mind that embodies a 

principle, value or norm to be upheld. At the micro level, as the policy is implemented, 

however, mutual adaptation between the policy, as intended, and the target or policy actors 

occurs. The frame of reference from which the target operates is the key to how the 

implementation starts and the level of change that occurs as a result of the policy.   

 
 

79

 

 

As stated above, evaluating outcomes of the PN is not the focus of the dissertation. 

Rather, this dissertation seeks to identify the barriers to implementation and suggest how 

one might navigate those barriers to move towards a productive outcome. In my analysis, 

the case study implicates the deployment of various process implementation tools in the 

success of the collaboration and the ultimate effectiveness of the programming and 

proposes a framework for engaging in this work moving forward.  Accordingly, the balance 

of this dissertation case study analysis seeks to identify the implications and/or barriers 

that the policy instrument faced within the policy context and ecology of the case study and 

then builds a theory around which a policymaker might navigate those barriers and 

operationalize process tools to overcome those challenges.   

1. Complexity of the Policy-Tension between Federal Policy and Local Control. 

The vision statement of the Promise Neighborhood Initiative reads in pertinent part:  

The purpose of Promise Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational and 
developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, and 
to transform those communities by— 

Identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible entities that are focused on 

1. 
achieving results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood; 

The USED awarded three rounds of Promise Neighborhood Grants between 2010 and 

2012. The FY2010 awards were for one-year planning grants for 21 sites, award amounts 

up to $500,000. During FY 2011, the USED awarded 15 additional planning grants and five 

implementation grants. Four of the five Promise Neighborhood Implementation Grant 

award recipients had received planning grants the previous year. In FY2012, the USED 

awarded an additional 10 planning grants and seven implementation grants, with six of the 

seven having been planning grant sites.  See Table 4. Also as shown in Table 5, the case 

study reviewed each of the awarded Promise Neighborhood Implementation grants and 

 
 

80

 

categorized the recipients into three broad categories: social service agencies; community 

development organizations, and colleges and universities.   

TABLE 4: PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLEMENTATION GRANTEES 

 

Lead Applicant 

City 

FY 

Award 

Planning 
Grant  

Westminster 
Foundation 
Northside 
Achievement Zone 
Berea College 

United Way of San 
Antonio and Bexar 
County 
California State 
University, East Bay 
Foundation 
Dudley Street 
Neighborhood 
Initiative 
South Bay 
Community 
Services 
Texas Tech 
University College 
of Education 
DC Promise 
Neighborhood 
Initiative 
Delta Health 
Alliance, Inc. 
Youth Policy 
Institute 

Promise  
Neighborhood 
Buffalo Promise 
Neighborhood 
Northside 
Achievement Zone 
Improving Rural 
Appalachian 
Schools 
San Antonio 
Eastside Promise  
Neighborhood 
Hayward Promise 
Neighborhood 

Dudley Street 
Neighborhood 
Initiative 
Chula Vista 
Promise 
Neighborhood 
East Lubbock 
Promise 
Neighborhood 
Five Promises for 
Two Generations 
(DCPNI) 
Indianola Promise 
Community 
Los Angeles 
Promise 
Neighborhood 
Mission Promise 
Neighborhood 

 

 
 

Buffalo, NY 

2011 

$1,499,500  Yes 

(2010) 

Minneapolis, 
MN 
Booneville, 
Manchester
/McKee, KY 
San Antonio, 
TX 

Hayward, 
CA 

Boston and 
Roxbury, 
MA 
Chula Vista, 
CA 

2011  $5,664,925  No 

2011  $5,993,546  Yes 

(2010) 

2011  $4,364, 141  Yes 

(2010) 

2011  $3,964,289  Yes 

(2010) 

2012  $1,485,001  Yes 

(2010) 

2012  $4,998,609  Yes 

(2011) 

Lubbock, TX  2012  $3,263,789  No 

Washington, 
DC 

Indianola, 
MS 
Los Angeles, 
CA 

2012  $1,967,748  Yes 

(2010) 

2012  $5,997,093  Yes 

(2010) 

2012  $6,000,000  Yes 

(2010) 

2012  $6,000,000  Yes 

(2011) 

Mission Economic 
Development 
Agency 

San 
Francisco, 
CA 

81

 

A common feature in the selection of most of the grant recipients was the demonstration of 

capacity to develop, administer and monitor programs akin to a local governmental entity. 

Note the DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative appears to be the only organization that was 

created for the express purpose establishing a Promise Neighborhood. 

 

TABLE 5: KINDS OF PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANTEE ORGANIZATIONS 
Category 
Social Service Agencies 

Community Development 
Organizations 

College and Universities  

Grant Award Recipients 
United Way of San Antonio (2011) 
South Bay Community Services (2011) 
Delta Health Alliance (2012) 
Westminster Foundation (2011) 
Northside Achievement Zone (2011) 
Mission Economic Development Agency (2012) 
DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative (2012)* 
Dudley Street Neighborhood (2012) 
Youth Policy Institute (2012) 
California State University at Hayward (2011) 
Berea College (2011) 
Texas Tech University (2011) 

 

Additionally, ten of the twelve Promise Neighborhood Implementation Grant 

recipients had previously received a Planning Grant to build the capacity of the 

organization prior to the receipt of a larger federal application. Jang and Feoick (2007) 

suggest that when local governments engage nonprofits, their funding of non-profits 

permits them to acquire special expertise and talents to address emergent social problems 

and maintain the flexibility to change and adapt programs and budget where needed.  Akin 

to the former Rheedlin Center, the forerunner of the Harlem Children’s Zone prototype, 

each of the grant recipients embodied a historical presence in the communities that they 

sought to serve and possessed an affinity for and a demonstrated facility with the societal 

issues germane to that community.  In other words, each entity demonstrated that they 

possessed “social capital” in their local context, and they each conveyed within their 

 
 

82

 

 

successful applications the ability to convene and cultivate partners into the work of a 

Promise Neighborhood.  In sum, each organization was deemed a worthy steward or 

fiduciary of the resources necessary to implement the federal policy at a local level, and in 

function, and I submit became a “quasi-governmental” entity.  

Moreover, as Graddy and Chen (2006) assert, to realize the overarching goals of the 

policy and to continue the balance of local control in the expenditure of ESEA Title funding, a 

local non-profit organization was likely more efficient and flexible, embodying the ability to 

adapt to the local context and thereby have an enhanced community impact.  By way of 

explanation, while the PN grant is allocated to invest in needed skills and valued goods, it 

simultaneously seeks to elicit a tangible payoff in the conditions of the site where they are 

awarded.  Additionally, the Promise Neighborhood application required a comprehensive 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be executed by each of the partners to the grant to 

“encourage or mandate the creation of a community-based network of service providers 

where they encourage a ‘meaningful exchange of resources and some degree of joint decision 

making among the partners” (Graddy & Chen, 2006, p. 534).  

2. Complexity of the “Place”: The Challenges of Collaboration. The Promise 

Neighborhood policy by its very construct is a place-based initiative, which adds a level of 

complexity for implementation.   The success of the policy does not simply rest with one 

targeted organization, one school, or one school district, but rather depends on 

collaboration among partnering organizations that have differing norms, values and 

cultures, invoking the ecology of the site of implementation (Weaver-Hightower, 2008).  

The Promise Neighborhood policy targets various entities as a part of the ecology. To 

actualize the pipeline of services that is modeled in the prototype Harlem Children’s Zone, 

 
 

83

 

 

each application identified various partners. Successful applicants generally included, but 

are not limited to, the following partners: school(s) or a school system; early childhood 

agencies; social service agencies; neighborhood associations; community programs and 

partnerships for youth; and parent(s) or parent empowerment organizations. Each of these 

entities is a “target” of the policy. Thus, the Promise Neighborhood construct necessarily 

implicates several levels of what Weaver-Hightower terms the policy ecology. At the 

simplest level, the policy ecology consists of the “place” where the policy is implemented on 

the ground. At the most complex level, an analysis would involve each of the relationships 

that are at play in the place-based initiative.  It is the interplay of those relationships from 

which the complexity of the implementation emanates. 

3. Complexity of the “People”: The Perception by the Target. The Promise 

Neighborhood Initiative appears to employ an amalgam of policy instruments, and, as a 

result, its implementation will likely face considerable challenges at the local-level.   As 

described in the historical analysis of the ESEA in this chapter, it is critically important to 

note the policy instruments at work in the Promise Neighborhood (McDonnell and Elmore, 

1987).  While the Obama administration’s promotion of the Promise Neighborhood was 

initially “hortatory” in nature, the policy itself has an ambitious goal of “systems change” to 

support children and improve educational outcome by mobilizing each of the stakeholders 

that impact the academic growth of the children in a pipeline from cradle through college 

and career.  System changing policies alter authority or decision-making practices among 

existing institutional arrangements because the current arrangement of resources has not 

produced the desired results.  The schools within a designated Promise Neighborhood are 

often underperforming and require additional external fiscal, organizational and human 

 
 

84

 

 

resources to support the children educated therein.  To accomplish those ends, this 

dissertation argues that the Promise Neighborhood policy in operation braids the goal of 

“systems change” to the traditional policy instruments of “capacity-building,” 

“inducement,” and “mandate” to accomplish its ends (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987).  In 

light of the disparate targets of the policy, this case study observed each of the policy 

instruments at work among the various policy targets.   

Moreover, this dissertation posits that the targets of the policy received the policy 

instruments in ways that comport with their traditional roles. For example, as the primary 

target of most federal education policy, the dissertation argues that the school district 

viewed the federal policy pronouncement as a mandate and initially maintained 

implementation barriers consistent with the analysis of Lipsky’s street-level bureaucrat.  

Additionally, the case study illustrates that state and local agencies, which typically braid 

services to administer early childhood programs, were persuaded or “induced” to partner 

to build their capacity to provide more services for children from birth to age 5.  Finally, 

because parents, primary caregivers and local community and service organizations are 

not generally regulated by a federal policy, the resultant policy likely serves only as an 

inducement to participate in the work of the Promise Neighborhood.  Accordingly, the 

policy instruments as they encountered the “people” on the ground increased the 

complexity of implementation.   

C. The UPN Mediates Traditional Policy Implementation Challenges and 
Explicates “Tools” for Policy Implementation 
 

The UPN serves as primary implementer of the PN Initiative in this case study.  

From the point of its conception and establishment by the Regional Coalition, the UPN has 

 
 

85

 

 

been designed to translate the policy into action in their local community. Prior to the 

formal existence of the PN Initiative, the CEO of the Regional Coalition vigorously pursued 

an interest in the programming of the Harlem Children’s Zone.  Several key informants 

variously described this interest as follows:  

 

. . . the CEO that we have . . . came to the [Regional Coalition] in 2006. Prior to her 
coming to [the Regional Coalition], she was a [leader of a prominent state university] 
where she had a large focus . . .[on] health outcomes. . . Our interest was purely driven 
by the vision of our CEO leadership, initially, and being able to galvanize the 
community, decision makers and stakeholders around this goal. Then beginning to 
have some success with the acquisition of the resources to begin this work with the 
planning grant, with [foundation] funding, and the implementation grant (UPN Dir., p. 
4) 

The history and the story around the prompting is . . . our CEO. She had some 
information, relationship, research, exploration around Promise Neighborhoods for a 
couple of years. When she became the CEO of the [Regional Coalition], she invited a 
group of [community] leaders to the table and told them about Promise 
Neighborhoods (Asst. Dir. II, p. 2) 

Back in ‘08  . . . a white paper was developed based on these 20 things that Obama 
talked about in his campaign. Our leadership went in that direction. They took Board 
members and influential people from out of the community to visit the Harlem 
Children's Zone. … 
A lot of influential people . . . business and then bank presidents. Some business sector 
is represented, yet the superintendent at that time also visited. We had our former CEO 
of [Regional Coalition], who also was a former superintendent…. It was just an array of 
people. I think they made two or three trips.  (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir., p. 3) 
 
As a local non-profit organization, the Regional Coalition became an awardee of the 

PN Implementation grant by demonstrating the capacity to be more efficient and flexible 

and embodying the ability to adapt to the local context and thereby have an enhanced 

community impact (Graddy & Chen, 2006). This dissertation postulates that the UPN 

becomes a pivotal mechanism through which the Regional Coalition operationalizes the 

work of the Promise Neighborhood planning and implementation grants. 

 
 

86

 

 

In interviews with the leadership of the UPN, the Regional Coalition was variously 

characterized as the “backbone organization” (Hulsey, 2015, p. 11). The UPN Director 

expounded upon this characterization:  ... the backbone organization . . . has the human 

capital, the resources, the staff that possess the talent and skills to employ this type of 

approach.  Prior to the construct of a “Promise Neighborhood” making it into the 

programmatic pipeline of the USED, Regional Coalition leadership utilized its 

organizational resources to travel to the prototype Harlem Children’s Zone to view the 

model and study the various programs embedded therein.  They invested organizational 

capital to mobilize regional leaders in education, government, business and industry 

around the idea of replicating the Harlem Children’s Zone in their region. This mobilization 

led to a successful grant application with a national foundation to develop the early 

childhood portion of the pipeline. Moreover, the Regional Coalition then parlayed this 

burgeoning work into a successful application for a Promise Neighborhood planning grant. 

Note, that while Planning Grants for the Promise Neighborhoods from the United States 

Department of Education were $500,000, these resources were supplemented and 

deployed by the Regional Coalition through the UPN to demonstrate the capacity to receive, 

manage and deploy resources if a larger Promise Neighborhood implementation grant was 

awarded.  

Upon the award of the implementation grant, the UPN became a mediator of the 

federal policy in the local community. Like the traditional street-level bureaucrat identified 

by Lipsky (1980), the very selection as a PN implementation site imbues the local 

organization with the ability to translate the policy into action at the local level.  As a part of 

the application, the policy pronouncement requires an executed formal memorandum of 

 
 

87

 

 

understanding with the partners that the grantee will engage. This formalized agreement 

activates the policy ecology (Weaver-Hightower 2008) and the various policy instruments 

(McDonnell and Elmore 1987) to which each partner will be subject. 

The UPN therefore acts as the convener of organizations with disparate goals and 

objectives. Prior to the UPN, many organizations worked on projects within the community.  

Prior to the planning grant and the award, we didn't have a common goal and we 
didn't have the resources to actually start engaging the community at large around 
things that everybody wants but in a collective fashion where you start. 

Like who has the money to pull these people together? What's their incentive? You ask, 
everybody wants the chance to go to college. Nobody wants a chance to fail, to not be 
healthy, not to go to school. But who has the resources? 

Who has the capacity to pull everybody that plays a role in that together, and what do 
you offer them as an incentive to stay at the table and to not, as someone naturally 
would do, reset back into your day-to-day obligations without sticking in just for the 
good of the cause? (UPN Dir., p. 9)  

As reported by nearly every informant, the organizations that ran community projects 

seldom coordinated with other organizations and did not routinely engage one another in a 

concerted fashion. An Assistant Director opined, “Unless [Regional Coalition] continues to 

serve as a convener, I'm concerned that people won't meet, get to know each other, develop 

these partnerships and relationships, and want to develop the desire to work together 

around a shared result.” (Asst. Dir. II, p. 18) 

This analysis suggests that UPN embodies the “process” implementation role sought 

in the Promise Neighborhood policy pronouncement. While state agencies have historically 

played the role of monitoring implementation of federal policy at the local level (See Table 

1 and Figure 2), this designated mediator or process implementer carves out a new role in 

federal educational policy to mitigate against local communities and their tendency to 

modify policies as street-level bureaucrats.  In sum and substance, the UPN may be 

 
 

88

 

 

conceived as the primary “process tool” for implementation of the Promise Neighborhood 

policy. 

Establishing The UPN-Early Childhood Collaborative (UPN-ECC) 
 

Engagement of community members around the ideas of the Harlem Children’s 

Zone began shortly after the exploration of the Promise Neighborhood by the Regional 

Coalition.  Leverage points for the work included engagement of neighborhood associations 

and the leveraging of key resources in state funded programs for early childhood 

education. One UPN informant spoke about the poignant memory of the Baby College, the 

work of supporting children from birth to age 5, in the Harlem Children’s Zone and the 

need to replicate that within the UPN.  

The Promise Neighborhood policy contemplated the work of the UPN-ECC in its 

vision statement, which reads in pertinent part:  

The purpose of Promise Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational and 
developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, 
and to transform those communities by— 
. . . 

 

2.  Building a complete continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both educational 
programs and family and community supports, with great schools at the center;  

3.  Integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are 

implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies; . . .  

 Within the day-to-day operation of early childhood programs, local entities often seek to 

braid services to maximize the utility of funding streams from federal, state and local 

sources. Accordingly, the Regional Coalition sought to leverage state and federal resources 

to launch the early portion of the cradle to college pipeline.  At the time of the site visit for 

this study, the work of the UPN-ECC was the most mature work within the UPN.  Thus, the 

 
 

89

 

case study explication of additional “process implementation tools” and their utility begins 

 

with the UPN-ECC. 

UPN-ECC Barriers to Implementation 
 

To establish the UPN-ECC, the Regional Coalition was charged with successfully 

navigating several implementation barriers.  

1. 

 The Early Childhood Programming Landscape. Head Start and Early Head 

Start programs are federally funded programs from the US Department of Health and 

Human Services.  Children are served in these two programs from birth to age 5.  Although 

funded by the federal government, the programs are administered and licensed by state 

and local agencies, which may include agencies that are within county or city government, 

private agencies or local educational agencies. Moreover, most states fund early childhood 

programs that co-exist alongside these local programs, while also licensing and monitoring 

private child care centers to engage in the work of early learning for children and families. 

In sum, a variety of entities must play well in the proverbial sandbox to achieve the 

purpose stated in the PN vision. 

2. 

Limited Time and Capacity.  Agencies are focused upon meeting the goals 

and metrics that are required for the continuation of their individual programs. While the 

funding proposal often has outcomes embedded within them, a good deal of time is spent 

moving through what are organizational challenges, institutional barriers and finding the 

group’s way forward.  Potential partners initially are motivated to join the grant for varying 

reasons.  Balancing organizational capacity and will to remain engaged may depend on 

resource sufficiency, institutional pressures and the network effect (Guo & Acar, 2005); the 

potential improved services for their clients (Sowa, 2009); and/or the time to manage the 

 
 

90

 

 

partnership, inter-sector relationships; and actual competition and resultant conflicts in 

the same service area (Gazley & Brudney, 2007).  Along the way, a realization occurs. 

When you receive these proposals after you've gotten a grant you're like, "Did we write 
this?" How do we make this happen? It was us sitting down and unpacking that and 
then knowing what worked best. There were a couple fall-out work partners that they 
didn't move forward because they didn't want to play in our sandbox. We had to play 
with that then, and we found new partners that wanted to play. (Asst. Dir. II, p. 7-8) 
 

This process part of the work is often overlooked when a grant proposal is awarded.   

3. 

Limited Resources. Accountability metrics and goals are associated with the 

various funding streams. From streams of accountability emanate silos of operation since 

each of the agencies that is funded report on their progress towards their goals and 

metrics. Of note are those entities licensed by the state to deliver early childhood services. 

These agencies are often charged with achieving early childhood developmental outcomes, 

while simultaneously running a small business to make ends meet for their households.  

The UPN-ECC Project Director described this phenomenon in the following manner:  

You talked about the subsidies and finding funding ...That's their biggest challenge, is 
funding. That's their biggest challenge, because a couple years ago, before the state 
started diversifying how they were spending their child care subsidy money. It was 
going straight to the childcare center, doing their own quality improvement, to do 
their own PD.  Then the state removed those funds and lessened the amount of subsidy 
that they received. One of my childcare centers opened, and said she was making 
$60,000 a month to now she's making 19. They aren't savvy business owners. Another 
piece we're bringing to the fold is a whole business management piece. We have a 
business manager come on board. They'll be helping with their books. We'll be there to 
support them financially as it relates to funding, and in seeking more funding for the 
child care centers, but funding is just the issue with them because for so long they have 
not had adequate funding. That's what I would say. (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir.  Page 12-13) 

The UPN as the Primary Process Tool 
 

Developing the capacity to begin this work began with the receipt of the PN 

planning grant and support from a private foundation.  

 
 

91

 

 

With that planning grant, we described how we would build a cradle to career 
pipeline, and the identification of the existing resources, the existing service providers, 
and where there were gaps in the service and how we might fill those gaps, and how 
we would align and weave together all the stakeholders so that there was a real 
continuum that met the prenatal through college completion goals. . . .  

After being awarded the planning grant, we subsequently applied to [a national] 
Foundation for funding to allow us to build the front end of that pipeline. [The 
Foundation] awarded a four-year $5 million grant. .  .  .to build that front end of 
pipeline tailoring to children and their families from ages zero to eight. (UPN Dir., p. 3)  

One UPN Assistant Director described the synergies with these agencies in the following 

manner:  

The state agencies, believe it or not, were the easiest to navigate, because the 
partnerships that we have fit within some of the work that they are already doing. For 
us, it was a matter of tapping into those resources, so that we're able to provide the 
services that we identify for our families. 

Naturally, if someone is already providing something, then it would be an easier entry 
way into that kind of relationship. Again, the state services were the easiest to 
navigate, because it's an extension of their work, and we're just simply utilizing 
resources but doing so in a more comprehensive way so that they know who we are, 
what our goals and missions are, and they just make that process easier to navigate. 
Again, it's because we're not making a huge ask of them. (Asst. Dir. I, p. 6) 

The foregoing statement suggests that the policy instruments in operation here are 

“inducement’ and “capacity building” (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987).   A second UPN-

Assistant Director characterized the work of the UPN-ECC in the following manner: 

I feel like with the [UPN-ECC] pipeline that...We put a lot of work into the early piece of 
the pipeline, it took a lot of time and that's where we're seeing our greatest outcome. 
(Asst. Dir. II, p. 8)  
 

This coordination of this work by the UPN has been critical to the establishment of the 

social capital that the organization has now developed and foundational to other UPN 

Initiatives. Moreover, it provides further evidence that the UPN serves as the primary 

process tool for implementation of the PN Initiative in their local community.  

 
 

92

 

 

Convening as a “process tool” 
 

The Regional Coalition began the work of the UPN-ECC in 2011 by convening the 

myriad organizations that set policy for and funded child-care in the region and the several 

organizations in the community who actually provided child-care services to the children 

and families. This formal working relationship of the UPN-ECC began following the receipt 

of a substantial grant from the national foundation to build the pipeline from birth to age 8.  

What we focused on there was building an early education collaborative. Working 
across stakeholders that consisted of child care providers, a health care sector, [State] 
Department of Health, [State] Department of Education, Head Start, the public school 
district, parents-establishing PTOs at the elementary schools (UPN Dir.  p. 3) 

While we were conducting the [Foundation] work, we were working with the 
Children's Defense Fund. We were working with Head Start. We were working with 
[the] Family Medical Clinic, with the public library, with the City. . . folks generally 
being certified in ..[early childhood programming]. (UPN Dir. p. 7) 

This initial work as the convener of policymakers and childcare providers was critical in 

breaking down the silos that can traditionally emerge with the provision of childcare. One 

UPN Assistant Director described the individual lens of each entity prior to the UPN-ECC in 

this statement: “This is my program, these are my children, this is what I’m doing, and 

these are my outcomes.” (Asst. Dir. II, p. 7) This comports with the challenges identified in 

change-theory espoused by McLaughlin (1991). 

In this case study, the convener, the Regional Coalition and the UPC, utilized the 

hortatory policy instrument (McDonnell 2004) persuading competing organizations from 

the same sector into a working relationship to invest, in the primary policy instrument, 

systemic change. Implicated here is the theory that the act of convening organizations may 

be a catalytic policy process implementation tool to embed a federal policy at the local 

level.  

 
 

93

 

 

Meeting as a “process tool” 
 

Within UPN-ECC, regularly scheduled monthly meetings operationalized 

Himmelman’s (1991) collaboration constructs: time, trust, and turf.  Because time is a 

commodity, the meetings must bring value to the participants. One Assistant Director 

described the process as follows: 

When you have been accustomed to working by yourself, you can go fast by yourself. 
But we found you can go farther together. We met once a month and a lot of it was 
about relationship building at that point, getting to know each other, getting to 
understand each other, know exactly what each other's program was doing because a 
lot of us weren't part of the proposal development. (Asst. Dir. II, p. 7) 

To facilitate each meeting, the UPN-ECC also utilized a training tool developed in 

partnership with the Anne E. Casey Foundation.  The researcher observed a day-long 

training where myriad stakeholders from with the UPN, the school district and community 

partners to practice and perfect the meeting strategy, “results-based facilitation.” The goal 

of the training was to simulate the development of a meeting agenda for each member 

present to normalize this process tool within the work of the UPN. This facilitation is 

designed to be time-bound and work on three “R”s –relationships, resources and results.  

With regard to cultivating relationships, the goal is to enter each meeting with an 

agenda check-in. The check-in is designed to bring the participants into the room, where 

members are asked a few key questions: how are they doing; what would make the 

meeting a good meeting today; and what outcome do they seek from the gathering.  The 

‘check-in” process is open-ended, allowing members of the group to express whatever is 

top-of-mind, while also focusing the group on the task at hand. This cultivates relationships 

in that the meeting facilitator and the group are tuned into the needs of individual 

participants, and they can seek to actively address their needs.  

 
 

94

 

 

The second R, “resources,” is remarkably practical in its construct. This R first seeks 

to identify “who” is in the “container” or room for the meeting. The persons in the room are 

the resources with which the group will work, and they are valued as such. This R is also 

key because it identifies who is not in the room but may need to be for the purposes of the 

discussion and resolution of the project or problem that is in the space.  Finally, the 

participants identify what other tangible, fiscal, managerial or operational resources are 

needed to keep their individual and collective commitments to the goal identified. It is 

often the lack of available resources that present a barrier to fulfillment of the individual 

commitments of those gathered. 

The third R, “results” is very intentional in the meeting construct. What meeting 

participants are seeking to gain from the meeting is made explicit in the check-in. The 

expectations explicitly build upon commitments made in the prior meeting by the meeting 

participants, i.e. were the things that each “resource” or participant committed to 

accomplished since the last meeting. If not, what were the barriers to keeping that 

commitment and how might the group assist the participant in meeting that commitment 

moving forward. During the meeting, additional commitments are explored, keeping the 

purpose for their gathering in mind. Finally, the group concludes the meeting with 

commitment statements for the next meeting, which include what each participant is 

committed to doing and when the next meeting will occur.  The theory because the goal is 

stated; the resources that are needed to meet that commitment are identified; and various 

individual commitments to moving towards attainment of the goal are explicit, the goal is 

more apt to be attainable. Accordingly, for local implementation of policy, this case study 

 
 

95

 

 

implicates “meeting” is a policy process tool, generally, and results-based facilitation is a 

specific form of this process tool.  

Shared Goals, Aligning Resources and Accountability as a “process tool” 
 

Early in the work of the UPN, the UPN-ECC was convened to decide upon a shared 

goal.  While meeting with the group, the UPN was gathering data from the state assessment 

on kindergarten readiness for the children served by the UPN. The internal UPN team 

discovered that two separate assessments placed the readiness rate at about nineteen 

percent (19%) and twenty-four percent (24%), respectively.  The UPN decided that their 

focus for one year would be to develop the will, support, and capacity to move the 

kindergarten readiness needle to forty percent (40%). 

The UPN Director recounted one large meeting that involved stakeholders from 

across the spectrum. The meeting began with a data gallery walk which included college 

attendance and high school completion rates; standardized test scores at the high school, 

middle and elementary school level; and other community impact and demographic data. 

As a collective, those in attendance were able to discern that the work of college readiness 

began in early childhood practice. In accordance with that discovery, they agreed upon the 

aspirational goal of preparing 40% of the students to pass a kindergarten readiness 

benchmark. The UPN Director recalls the process of building the collective will and 

capacity to meet this goal in the following manner:  

This really specific thing that we ended up doing through this process was getting all 
of our childcare partners to use the common assessment to determine where their 
three- and four-year olds were performing on an academic basis, while using these 
things across the board. 

 
 

96

 

 

We couldn't really tell what one assessment meant for the other one, and some of them 
weren't using assessment at all. We purchased and began to conduct training and 
supplies to the childcare centers a common assessment. 

In addition to that, we purchased and trained them on a common curriculum that was 
aligned with the Head Start curriculum. We purchased the common screener. Some of 
these things required resources. You've got to have money to get these products for 
childcare centers that are...their business is first and foremost, but they care about how 
their children leave their facilities. Certainly, you have to provide for them.  

The rest of it was strategizing. How do we align our efforts in strategies so that we are 
really complementing each other so at the next level, the next two years from now, our 
efforts are realized in success?… 

[In the first year, we] reached 52 percent of our entering kindergarteners as being 
deemed ready for kindergarten at the 40th percentile, so we surpassed our goal. 

This collective approach, this results-based approach, by focusing on outcome and our 
population-level results, but then breaking it down so that you can make everybody's 
contribution back to the goal, and making sure that they're accountable, they're 
committed, and they're using data to drive decisions to determine how you can make 
big course corrective actions.   (UPN Dir.  p. 12-13) 

This description illustrates how the UPN worked through each of Himmelman’s 

collaboration structures: time, turf and trust. As Mashek & Nanfito (2015) note, turf 

requires sharing results, risks, responsibilities, resources and rewards.  The collective will 

to define the landscape upon which one operates is a critical first step in collaboration. 

Thus, the common goal of kindergarten readiness across organizations and the community-

at-large by its very construct is a sharing of turf.  Moreover, it takes a significant amount of 

time to understand and meet the needs of the various partners as they seek to accomplish 

this goal. Resource sufficiency (i.e., the identification, availability and facility with those 

resources) must be dealt with to ensure that each partner is equipped to accomplish the 

goal (Guo & Acar, 2005).  Finally, trust is developed and reinforced as the convening 

organization provides the necessary resources, training and support to achieve the goal. 

Once the goal has been achieved a feeling of trust is reinforced as participants affirm their 

 
 

97

 

 

collective responsibility and chart a new course towards the next objective.  The foregoing 

discussion implicates “shared accountability towards a common goal” as a process 

implementation tool. 

Professional Learning and Technical Assistance as “process tools” 
 
 

Professional learning is a process tool through which an organization seeks to gain 

facility with the challenges that present themselves while implementing a program or 

policy. At the macro, or theoretical, level, the UPN participated in the cohort of other PN 

Implementation grantees with PolicyLink. The role of PolicyLink as the convener of the 

grantees was identified by the USED as a substantive tool to provide expertise and 

technical assistance to accomplish the goals that each grantee embedded in their PN 

application. At the micro, practical level, the professional learning sought and utilized by 

the grantee organization and each of the partners to move the work forward is of critical 

importance. As described later in the dissertation, the researcher observed the training for 

Results Based Facilitation Framework meeting protocols in which nearly every member of 

the UPN staff and key staff in UPN partners were participants. The theory behind training 

each stakeholder is that, as the meeting protocol becomes ubiquitous, and each member of 

UPN staff and partners gains facility with the meeting protocol, positive collaborative 

results will be fostered.  

 

Additionally, the researcher observed the UPN participants in the second phase of 

“Scale, Scope, and Sustainability” of the Anne E. Casey Foundation or S3 Framework 

training during the site visit. The overarching S3 Framework in the context of the UPN-ECC 

is as follows: 

 
 

98

 

 

•  Scope: creating a seamless pipeline of services to ensure every child becomes a 

productive adult.  

•  Scale: expand the successful work to create change at a greater population level. 

What we are working on in this group  

•  Sustainability: stakeholders will continue to maintain, support and implement 

effective practices that yield results.  
 

As the work of the UPN-ECC proceeds and each of the grants that fund the work move 

towards expiration, this work must be embedded to ensure that the work progresses 

during the grant cycle and has changed practices substantively enough to be sustained 

beyond the grant cycle, either sustaining the work through existing resources and/or 

leveraging new resources to continue the work. 

Furthermore, each of the individual initiatives within the UPN required some 

technical assistance for the work to proceed. As the UPN-ECC moved towards 

accomplishing the shared goal of kindergarten readiness, one Assistant Director spoke of 

how the work proceeded:  

We work with them to provide TA in training for our childcare centers. 
Helping to build their capacity. Just recently we were able to align curriculums and 
assessments across Early Ed.  We're all utilizing the same curriculum, same 
assessment. This was something new for our childcare centers, because our childcare 
centers have not used any type of formal instruction. 
 
We were able to purchase the curriculum and the assessment tool for them, provide 
them the training and the development and the TA because it took a lot of hand-
holding to get them to start utilizing their new intervention and the assessment and to 
collect data. They had not been collecting data other than taking role.  (Asst. Dir. II, p. 
5) 

 
The street-level bureaucrat is often maligned for not implementing the policy as intended 

because of his/her own preferences and institutional barriers erected at the local level 

(Lipsky, 1980).  While that may be true in the aggregate, a flawed assumption underlay 

most policy pronouncements: the targets of the policy understand the policy 

 
 

99

 

 

pronouncement and can implement the work as intended by the policy maker. The practice 

identified by the Assistant Director speaks to building the capacity of the targets to 

understand the policy, to provide the necessary resources for implementation and to see 

that policy pronouncement through to the intended end. The foregoing discussion suggests 

that the provision of support for the UPN and other Promise Neighborhood grantees 

through PolicyLink for the implementation of the PN grant is spot on.  However, 

professional learning and technical assistance for the policy actors at the local level should 

not be overlooked as a necessary policy implementation process tool.   

Resource Availability as a “process tool”  
 

While the UPN-ECC worked with institutional partners to develop shared goals, to 

align resources and develop a shared accountability, they sought to bring alongside them 

the many community child-care providers. Many of these childcare centers have funding as 

their core business challenge. Accordingly, the availability of funding to support and 

enhance their core programs elevated their incentive to partner with the UPN-ECC.   Guo & 

Acar (2005) argue that a non-profit organization’s will and capacity to partner depend on 

resource sufficiency, institutional pressures and the network effects.  Each of these 

pressures are reportedly present in the context of early childhood programming in the 

state due to forces independent of the UPN. A convergence of interests may obscure which 

policy instruments, capacity building and/or inducement, are at play here.  Yet, this 

observation suggests that resource availability may serve as a “process implementation 

tool”, independent of shared goals, alignment and accountability, because partners have an 

incentive to partner with and to maintain that partnership for their own financial viability 

and long-term stability.   

 
 

100

 

 

Observation – The “Process Tools” In Action 
 

The work of the UPN-ECC resulted in the awarding of a subsequent grant from the 

US Department of Education to expand the work of the UPN to the broader surrounding 

county.   At the time of the researcher’s visit, the work was beginning in earnest, described 

by the UPN-ECC Project Director in the following way:  

[We received] an Early Head Start Child Care Partnership Grant. . .  What this does for 
the Promise Neighborhood is expand early childhood slots into child care centers. It's a 
partnership with Early Head Start and childcare centers. We're basically putting the 
Head Start model in childcare centers throughout [the] County.  It aligns to the work 
we're doing with [UPN]. It basically talks about scope and scale. Scope and scale, we're 
scaling out into the county. We've worked for four, maybe five years with childcare 
providers. This is the next footing.  Over the last year, we bought curriculum to work 
through our . . . partnership with TA and Technical Assistance with five child care 
centers. . .  
 
Basically, they have worked statewide training TA to child care centers . . .This new 
grant I'm partnering, I'm on right now, expands that county-wide arc, and provide 
more slots for children, early Head Start. (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir., p. 1-2) 
 

During the site visit, the researcher observed the gathering where members of the UPN-

ECC strategized and planned alongside an expanded group of participants to scale the work 

of the UPN-ECC to the County in which the UPN-ECC sits. The gathering took place at the 

facility of one of the UPN community partners.  More than twenty participants attended the 

convening. They included representatives from state, county, and local governmental 

agencies, local childcare providers, school district employees, and members of both the 

leadership and staff of the UPN. The researcher observed the planning session for the 

meeting. The goal of the meeting was to gain buy-in from the participants utilizing the 

Results-Based Facilitation in four key areas: developing “promise schools,” dual enrollment 

(in various programs for early childhood students), curriculum and resource development, 

 
 

101

 

 

and developing percentile goals.  UPN Personnel were strategically given facilitator roles to 

move and guide each smaller group towards actionable next steps.  

 On the day of the meeting, the Director of the UPN gave the following opening call to 

action: 

Are you tired of bad data?  We have some good data to share today. Everything that 
we do today is towards driving us towards a plan for action. We have the right people 
in the room. We have had the right people in the room. We have some momentum. 
Look at the graph. It indicates in broad terms that we are moving in the right 
direction. You all are responsible for this momentum. Today we will move towards 
what we do next? Have action commitments. Fulfilling those commitments. Checking 
back in. Working towards new goals. We last met in December. We started to continue 
Kindergarten readiness and making it a countywide strategy. (Early Childhood 
Collaborative Meeting Observation Meeting Notes, p. 1) 

 
Exhorting the participants in this call to action, the UPN Director utilizes the hortatory 

policy instrument to call for “systems’ change” within the county regarding early childhood 

education.  Note that the UPN Director strategically opened the meeting focusing those in 

attendance on the task at hand, improving outcomes for children. He spoke about the work 

that had gone on before; the relationships that had been established; the successes that had 

occurred to date and their collective work and responsibility that took place to attain those 

successes. Then, he spoke about the task of expanding that work to more children, and that 

the people, or resources, to accomplish those tasks were present in the room.  In short, as 

the leader of the UPN, the Director opened the second meeting, and it was clear that this 

“convening” served as one of the process tools for implementation of this part of the policy.  

As the day progressed, the work of the meeting followed the framework of Results Based 

Facilitation and the three “Rs”- Relationships, Resources and Results. The day progressed 

through the RBF protocol in two segments: the morning working group, which built upon 

the commitments of the prior meeting, and the afternoon group as discussed above.  

 
 

102

 

 

Regarding relationships, the groups were placed at tables from their working groups in the 

previous December launch meeting. The four groups were: Promise School Community; 

Dual Enrollment; Curriculum Alignment; and Data.  After the first part of the working 

session, the group was informed that they would be moved into working groups for the 

work moving forward that involved:  

•  Moving 4 year olds (to kindergarten readiness) in 2016 
•  Moving 3 year olds (to kindergarten readiness) in 2017 
 

Recall from the UPN Director’s call to action, that the participants were told that the 

“resources were in the room”, i.e. each participant was a necessary part of the whole 

needed to accomplish the objectives of the day.  Finally, the desired “results” posted were 

as follows: 

• 

Identifying the factors that need to be addressed to hit our 2016-17 targets.  

•  Agree on strategies what will work. 
•  Decode how much we need to do and how well we need to do it. 
•  Make action commitments.  

 
Following the daylong observation, the researcher interviewed the UPN-ECC Project 

 

Director for the UPN-Early Head Start Partnership Grant. The UPN-ECC Project Director 

described her work in launching this initiative in the following manner:  

First, I would say we meet monthly with our original project manager from Head Start. 
That's how we get the overall structure at organization to us. As a . . . leadership team we 
meet biweekly. I meet weekly with implementation planner . . . who's helping us design 
and develop these. I have weekly staff meetings with my supervisor. . . . My team has just 
been hired, and we will have weekly meetings with her.. . . I think my end-stage plan we 
start talking about at least weekly team meetings with the team, my management level 
team, and then having the team to meet in their own structure, or their own system so to 
support the work that their coordinators and the other people with them. (UPN-ECC Proj. 
Dir., p. 5-6). 
 
Even going to this new work, I'm working on with childcare centers and I know their 
hesitation. This is a lot for them, so I have to think about that going into this work that 

 
 

103

 

 

they're not used to people coming in. They're not used to a lot of hands in what they're 
doing. This transparency, they've never had it before. They're not very trusting. 
 
I know going into the next couple months, even though I've been working with some of the 
partners, it's building that trust and making sure they trust my staff, and trust what we're 
doing, and knowing that we'll be there to walk with them to the next step, because the 
state's about to release new standards for child care. They don't even know the new 
standards, like we hadn't seen anything. (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir. p. 8).  
 

Note that as the UPN-ECC seeks to expand the early childhood work to the county, the 

Project Director is looking to lessons learned from the previous four years of local 

community work, understanding strategically how she should structure her team, develop 

their work plans, and meet with the targets of the work. These are the leverage points, 

illustrating the process implementation tools that must be utilized to work through 

identified challenges.  

Personnel Deployment as a “process tool” 
 

The UPN-ECC Project Director made one additional point worth noting in this 

discussion and that weaves itself into the work of the case study. When referring to key 

personnel hired for the work, the UPN-ECC Project Director made the following 

observation:  

We have to develop a relationship. We had to hire someone that they trusted. We hired 
our TA provider. She was actually at the meeting earlier this morning.  . . . She was a 
former elementary school principal, respected in the community. She was the first 
kindergarten teacher that [the community] had. She had early education roots. 
It was more of, "We want this person. We know this person can deliver." We 
handpicked that TA because we knew the climate that they were going to go in. I asked 
the question. . .and this was part of the interview . . . "What happens if you walk into 
the center and the cook canceled, and teacher absent, what would you do?" She said, 
"I'd just help the kitchen, or I'd go in the classroom and let the owner go into the 
kitchen." 
 
We needed someone that was open-minded, and knew the kind of challenges, and was 
able to jump in and not judge. We picked that person so we knew going forward we 
wanted someone strong, that they trusted, they respected in her role, in her former 

 
 

104

 

 

role, and had the knowledge to help and coach them. She knew kindergarten, but we 
had to train a little bit more on the early education system, which she grasped very 
fast. (UPN-ECC Proj. Dir.  p. 9-10) 

 

The word “relationships” weaves its way through the work of the UPN. This description of 

the person that was charged with leading the work of the UPN-ECC underscores the 

significance of “social capital” as the UPN sought to foster trust among the persons that it 

served. Note that the person did not possess the exact skills needed for the work, but 

rather, she was someone who had the capacity to develop the requisite skills associated 

with the position. More importantly, this person was familiar to the community and 

possessed the gravitas and the empathic nature necessary to engage the targets where they 

were to meet the immediate need, while also fostering the change necessary as embedded 

within the policy.  

In summary, the observation and follow-up meeting with the UPN-ECC Project 

Director added further evidence to the evolving theory of the case study: “convening,” 

“shared goals, aligning resources and accountability,” and “meeting” are process 

implementation tools. Additionally, strategically deployed staff and technical assistance by 

the UPN staff are likely required to see the work through to successful completion.  

Partnering with The Unified School District 

 

For both the planning and implementation grants, the Promise Neighborhood 

initiative requires a partnership with a local educational agency.  The PN “vision of the 

program is that all children and youth growing up in Promise Neighborhoods have access 

to great schools and strong systems of family and community support that will prepare 

them to attain an excellent education and successfully transition to college and a career.”  

 
 

105

 

 

Leaders of the local city school district had been a part of the initial trips to the Harlem 

Children’s Zone with the Regional Coalition, and therefore the local city school district, the 

Unified School District, was the named partner.  

Emanating from the USED and Title 1, the Promise Neighborhood Initiative makes 

school districts one of the primary targets of this federal policy.  School districts as targets 

of federal and state policy seek to comply with such policies to avoid the removal of 

funding should compliance not occur. Thus, school districts generally perceive the policy 

instrument as a “mandate” (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987).    Coupled with the need to 

comply with state mandates that often have disparate goals from entities with which it 

seeks to partner, the work of a local school district may seem untenable.  Because the very 

construct of Title 1 embodies the tension between federal interests and local control (See 

Figure 1), many federal mandates are subject to the narrative of the street-level bureaucrat 

(Lipsky, 1980) and its attendant challenges. This case study uncovered several such 

challenges as the UPN and Unified School District sought to work together.   

UPN-Unified School District Barriers to Implementation 

 

Barriers to implementation of the PN grant may have been the most pronounced as 

the UPN sought to partner with the Unified School District. During the site visit, the 

researcher asked each member of the UPN staff to describe the “least navigable 

relationship” that they encountered in the UPN work. There was near unanimity among 

UPN staff that the working relationship with the school district was the most challenging in 

practice. Interviews with Key Informants from the Unified District School affirmed the 

presence of the following three challenges, and yet there was optimism regarding how they 

had begun to identify, navigate and move through them.  

 
 

106

 

 

1. Disparate Accountability Structures.  Over the course of the affiliation, the 

Unified School District had undergone significant change at the behest of the state 

department of education. When the Promise Neighborhood application began, the local city 

school district was under state conservatorship, and the state appointed conservator 

reportedly required the participation of the local city school district in the project. At that 

point, the Unified School District consisted of four schools; an elementary building serving 

grades K-2; an elementary building, serving grades 3-6; a middle school and a high school. 

At the time of the site visit, within the last year, the local city school district had been 

consolidated into a larger county wide Unified School District under a new leadership 

structure and new school board, whose breadth was the entire county in which the city is 

situated and serving approximately double the number of students and a total of thirteen 

schools.  One UPN Assistant Director described the transformation as follows:  Yes, 

consolidation. New superintendent, new school board, new Common Core state standards. It 

was a big year last year. (Asst. Dir. III, p. 8)   While the district leadership was adapting to 

the new structure of the Unified School District, the work of the UPN did not change in that 

UPN resources and support continued to target the original four schools.  A UPN Assistant 

Director offered the following insight into the challenge:  

The one that is, perhaps, the most challenging to navigate would be, in some ways, the 
school district, simply because we have the [State] Department of Education that gives 
broader oversight. In some ways, it was more difficult to navigate because they look to 
[State] Department of Education for their directions and their instructions around 
providing quality education for our students.  

. . . but we have learned lessons and, had to kind of retool our thinking so that we, 
again, are providing the sort of support to them that fits within their goals, that lead 
up to the alignment of those [state] goals, rather than trying to create a separate 
system, and which one they're having to fit within [State Department of Education}, 
and then fit within [the Unified Promise Neighborhood]. (Asst. Dir. I, p. 6-7)  

 
 

107

 

 

As the UPN Assistant Director notes above, this case study suggests something had to be 

done within the UPN processes of engagement to mitigate these concerns. 

2. Lack of Communication. During the first two years of the UPN, the Unified 

School District appointed a district liaison to work directly with the UPN to coordinate 

resources. All communication by the UPN was mediated through the district liaison to the 

school district and school personnel. This arrangement is typical of school district 

partnerships with outside agencies and theoretically opens a decision-making channel 

between the two organizations. As reported by several key informants, however, this 

arrangement created a bottleneck for information in the liaison and fostered a lack of 

communication and frustration within the fledgling partnership.  

Things weren't being communicated, or they were being communicated three months 
after the fact . . . 

I would have said, "This is an abusive relationship on both ends." (laughter) We both 
felt hurt by the relationship because we weren't speaking to each other. We were 
speaking through intermediaries (Asst. Dir. III, p. 7). 

3. Differing Perspectives and Beliefs. The alignment of goals and strategies 

remains a significant challenge between the two entities, which broadly have the same goal 

of improving student outcomes. Yet, from an institutional perspective, these organizations 

have different ideas regarding the kinds of resources and the utility of those resources to 

accomplish defined objectives. As a prefatory matter, the facility with the availability of and 

the utility of student data arose as a sticking point. The new Unified District School Liaison 

spoke about the struggle in this way: 

Now, the down side is this. Sometimes we don't like to hear, we don't like the way the 
data looks because we're offended by it. Sometimes we just get offended by what we 
see. Another thing, sometimes the communication that should be between the two 
entities is not always there. (School District Liaison, p. 5) 

 
 

108

 

One UPN Assistant Director acknowledged this struggle and spoke about how they actively 

work to educate one another about their respective work.   

 

It's an awkward space, and I acknowledge that. They admit that they don't have the 
capacity to look at everything that we’re able to look at. At the beginning when I first 
started there was one principal who looked in and would ask for stuff all the time. But 
I also think that some people are also like, "Who is she...it's our data we're looking at it, 
too," and then to come in to say, "We have this cut score that we know within this 
significance that..." 

You just have to sit them down and explain everything, because they just want to 
understand it. These people are really smart. As long as you can explain it to them and 
articulate it, which is my responsibility, usually they're very receptive of it. Just to send 
them something without any explanation or assume that they understand I think can 
upset them.  The whole point of sharing it was so that we could make this actionable 
and implementation on the ground is lost because of the way that you share the 
information. That goes for everything when sharing results on our programs. (Asst. 
Dir. III, p. 10) 

One additional example involved the availability and installation of Literacy Fellows 

to provide direct reading instruction for struggling students.  Rooted in what the UPN saw 

as best practice, the UPN would provide the resource and suggest how it would be used.  

School district personnel, however, cast a different lens on the available resource.  A 

Unified School District Principal described his struggle with working through the Literacy 

Fellow initiative in the following exchange:  

[Hiring Literacy Fellows] was a great idea. . . . When they came to us with that thought, 
we identified things for them, first, that we needed to work with. We kind of got heads 
butting there, where they wanted to pick the students that they wanted to work with.  I 
had an issue with that. My superintendent had an issue with that, but eventually she 
caved in and said, "Go ahead and pick." They wanted to pick the lowest students, at the 
bottom, because they didn't want to work with students that are retained. I had issues 
with that part of it, because I'm big in, you need to work with who you need. . . . 

It started rocky because they wanted to do one thing, and we wanted to do something 
different, as well.  It became just a clash of how we wanted to best use the service. It 
was one of those things, I don't know if it was pride in the way or whatever, but on the 
school's end, we felt like we need to be telling you who to work with. On their end, they 

 
 

109

 

 

were looking more at data, and having clean data, and wanting to be able to show 
impact. . . . 
 
There's different things. I think there was a little bit of distrust, and I think there's still 
some distrust. Sometimes we wonder, sometimes the question is, is this about children, 
or is it about getting another grant to get funded sometimes? That was some of the 
initial feeling, but then it just became, "Let's just get students moving." That's where 
we had some compromise, and that's cool, to compromise, to step back and just say, 
"You want to work with the lower student, the easier student, OK. Let's roll with it.” 
(School Principal, p. 9-10) 

Leadership Directive as a “process tool”  
 

Four months prior to the researcher’s site visit, a watershed moment for the 

partnership occurred when the UPN invited the new Unified School District Superintendent 

and school principals to a conference in Washington, DC to the first formal training for 

“Scale, Scope and Sustainability,” convened by the USED and PolicyLink. Several key 

informants reported that, at this conference, the UPN Director shared the work that the 

UPN sought to accomplish alongside the school district.  The newly appointed 

Superintendent, in turn, candidly shared the institutional challenges that the district faced 

and the concerns, feelings, and thoughts that the district had regarding the UPN. The result 

of that conversation was a commitment to work differently in the partnership. One 

Assistant Director recalled:  

[A]fter that conversation, we started implementing in two weeks. .  . . We had been 
having these other conversations and letters and correspondence, but just being able 
to sit down and be like, "This is both people being able to just put it out there. Here are 
my concerns," and then be able to move forward, It was helpful that there was a safe 
space to talk that wasn't in the school district or (in the city). Sometimes that's better. 
(Asst. Dir. III, p. 12) 

 

The foregoing description of the evolving relationship between the Unified School District 

and the UPN suggests that a directive from organizational leadership may be critical to the 

work of implementation. Note that for more than two years, the two organizations had a 

 
 

110

 

 

formal working partnership on paper. They were signatories to the formal memorandum of 

understanding that is required for Promise Neighborhood applicants. As noted in the 

analysis, the UPN provided staff members, devised programming and contributed many 

ancillary resources with the school district during that time as it described in the Promise 

Neighborhood application to meet its stated objectives.  In stark contrast, while providing a 

liaison for the partnership, the school district conducted business in fidelity to the state 

department of education requirements as it sought to improve its fiscal health and 

academic standing. The substantive work of the two organizations had not moved beyond 

the formality of a liaison until this critical conversation and leadership decision. This 

suggests that the leadership of partnering organizations must both commit formally to the 

proposition that this collective work is worth engaging and direct that organizational 

structures be modified to pursue the established ends. In change-agent theory, McLaughlin 

(1991) might characterize this shift as the beginning of “mutual adaptation” of their frames 

of reference, where the UPN was previously acting with the policy in mind and the school 

district was acting out of their own professional lens and objectives.  Accordingly, this 

process implementation tool, a directive and/or commitment of leadership, may be a 

necessary precursor to substantive, meaningful policy work between partners who have 

disparate accountability structures and goals.  

Meeting as a “process tool” 
 

The meeting of the minds of the UPN Director and the Superintendent of the Unified 

School District sparked new energy in the partnership, and that energy was 

operationalized in monthly Results-Based Facilitation (RBF) meetings.  At the time of the 

site visit, a UPN Project Director described the evolving meeting process as follows:  

 
 

111

 

 

We have regularly scheduled meetings. On their side, the principals are there. The 
assistant principals are also invited. Sometimes they're there. Sometimes they're not. 
Our new liaison . . . is there. Whatever coaches work at that particular school site, they 
are invited. Any project managers on [the UPN] side that have projects inside, that 
work inside that particular school, they are there. [The UPN Director] is usually there. 
[A UPN Assistant Director is] there . . . and our data team is there. (UPN-Schools Proj. 
Dir., p.5- 6) 

We do a results-based agenda. . . . We try to stick to the hour, and it is strictly to align. 
Now, we're taking goal by goal.  [The agenda} pretty much stays the same every time, 
because we're going through each school goal.  But what programs are [UPN] 
programs, are there that can help, or are working in alignment with a particular goal. 
Also, the next step is to flesh out, where are the gaps? Where are we not working well 
together? Whether it's lack of knowledge, or whatever . . . At these meetings, they're 
really finding out what programs are out there, and what they do. (UPN-Schools Proj. 
Dir., p. 7-8) 

Moreover, a change in the communication protocols fostered a better relationship among 

the persons charged with doing the day-to-day work is described as follows: 

Now we're able to speak directly with the principal. They're able to communicate what 
their concerns are to us. We learned so much being able to talk to them one-on-one, 
what their frustrations were. Stuff like that can build, and then resentment builds, and 
then getting simple things done becomes difficult on both ends. 

Being able to talk to each other, and get all that out on the front end, and agree to 
move forward from there was really helpful. Now we're able to meet monthly. The 
same way we meet with our projects every month, we're able to meet with the 
principal and his staff or her staff. We've been doing that since October. Realizing that 
the principals didn't know what programs were being implemented because no one 
was communicating to them has been able to help us establish a relationship with the 
school. You can make so much more of a difference if you know your programs are 
being implemented right on the ground. (Asst. Dir. III p. 7)  

School District Personnel describe the progression and utility of the meetings similarly as 

they talk about more substantive and meaningful issues and attempt to align programs and 

objectives across organizations. School personnel still view the meetings from the lens of 

what is helpful most to the school in meeting its state objectives. 

The meetings, to start the year off, were just kind of pointless, at first, to me. They just 
were to say, "We did it. We're going to look at all the programs, chart them out, and 

 
 

112

 

 

talk about what our programs were doing." It's kind of a surface level. It's only until 
we started digging in what your program is, what students are going through, is when 
we started looking at, "OK, we don't even have many students going in this program. 
We don't have many here or there. What are you doing to them to get them?" 

That's where I think, I would say around December is when we started to have more 
effect. We were coming to the table. This is what we need to have happen here. When 
we leave, we leave with an action plan, and then we go from there. That's how it's 
flipped a little bit now, in that we are having just actionable conversations. It's not so 
much talking to clouds. (School Principal, p. 7) 

Several key informants reported that the most recent monthly meetings have spawned 

more frequent communication outside of the normal meeting times around the myriad 

programs that the UPN offers to students and families as a part of the partnership.  Thus, 

“meeting” again presents itself as a process implementation tool that is essential to the 

movement of the work as the organizations seek to move along the collaboration 

continuum (Himmelman, 1991). 

Shared Goals, Aligning Resources and Accountability as a “process tool” 

 

How the UPN and the Unified School District jointly navigate the setting of goals and 

deployment of school resources has evolved over time. An example would be the placement 

of academic coaches in school buildings, which has morphed through a period of 

dysfunction into a more normative period of cooperation. While the UPN provides funding 

for six academic coaches within the four schools, the coaches are district employees and 

under the direct supervision of the principal of each school. In theory, the coaching model 

places content experts in alongside classroom teachers as embedded peer-to-peer 

professional learning for teachers to transform teacher practice. In day-to-day practice, 

however, the prevailing needs of the school district often take precedent. A UPN Assistant 

Director described the challenge as follows:  

 
 

113

 

 

The coaches have to spend a lot of time in classroom management mode because we 
are constantly losing teachers that are being replaced by new teachers, and so the rich 
work that they should be able to do is sometimes confined to the small body of work 
that is important. 

At the same time, if we are honest about the nature of the beast, if we didn't have to 
deal with things like classroom management, our coaches being pulled in multiple 
directions, then perhaps we could have had this grand program. (Asst. Dir. I, p. 8-9)  

In the following extended response, the Unified School District Liaison openly 

acknowledged the competing challenges between the objectives of the UPN and the 

immediate needs that present themselves in each school.  

I think sometimes the best example would be our coaches. Our coaches, their success is 
determined by how well our students do on [local] and state assessments. . . [T]here 
was a big problem with how they were spending their day.  The district wanted to do 
some things that just didn't match anything on [the UPN’s design]. We've had to work 
through that process and work through that end. . .  

I had to have a conversation with the district, with the superintendent, with the 
principals, with the curriculum director who was asking them to do things that just 
didn't go, so I helped protect their time so that they can spend more time with teachers 
and not doing the administrative or clerical type activities, you know. 

I attribute the challenges to the district simply having a need, and thinking coaches 
are already in the classroom so they can do this. Not saying the employees aren’t 
protecting their coaching time, just knowing that there's something that they needed 
done, and it's being done in the classroom, so why can't they do it? (School District 
Liaison, Page 8-9) 
 
Both the UPN Schools Project Manager and the Unified School District Liaison noted 

a shift in the management structure of the instructional coaches had begun.  This shift 

started with frequent communication, meeting bi-weekly with one another.  While they 

both spoke about their formal individual meetings with the coaches, the two began to 

jointly facilitate professional learning meetings for the coaches, sharing a Results Based 

Facilitation agenda. The UPN Schools Project Director described that first endeavor as 

follows:  

 
 

114

 

 

Instead of her running the coaches meeting in January, she allowed me to do it. We 
meet biweekly, or are supposed to. I developed a number line, from 1 to 10, and did a 
results-based agenda. We kept it within an hour, and asked the coaches for the 
teachers they serve. Then at the bottom, underneath the action commitment was, how 
are they going to go about making that change? Were they going to model? Were they 
going to debrief with the teacher? Were they going to hold a PLC? How were they 
going to have that change occur? . . .  

We redid the check-in question, redid the call to action, and basically we're going to 
build on the successes you've seen, or you've made in the last two or three weeks. Then 
we're going to see where are your obstacles, and as a group, work on strategies where 
maybe they can continue the work, and overcome those strategies. It's going to be 
more moving forward, and trying to build on successes they've had, rather than all the 
things that I feel like they're doing wrong. (UPN Schools Proj. Dir., p. 12-13) 

In a separate interview, the United School District Liaison described the same interaction in 

the following manner: 

Basically we revamped so that the assignments to fit the needs of the district and 
[UPN] because we're looking at data. . . . 

In January, we started talking with our coaches about being more deliberate. They've 
identified teachers. They've identified the teachers that need their assistance. They 
have their target teachers. We need to target specific teachers. We need to look at 
their weaknesses, and we need to work on those weaknesses. . . 

Any meeting I have with the coaches, I've been having these kind of conversations. 
[She] and I are there as a team.. . . That way there are no hidden agendas, and there 
are no sidebar conversations, and everybody's on the same page. I like it and I don't 
mind working with someone else.  (School District Liaison, p. 10-12) 

The challenges associated with the sharing of resources, alignment of goals and the 

attendant accountability is very present in the evolving partnership between the UPN and 

the Unified School District.  Following the catalytic conversation between organizational 

leaders, the organizational personnel settled in to the work.  This case study illustrates the 

hallmark of change agency, “mutual adaptation” (McLaughlin, 1991).  The operational 

structures (i.e., meetings and alignment of goals) demonstrably work when engaged by 

personnel from both organizations. Accordingly, the context of this partnership affirms the 

 
 

115

 

 

development of shared resources, aligned goals and accountability as process 

implementation tools.  However, the case study illustrates that relationships between 

individuals across organizations continue to evolve. In short, position-ship within each of 

the organizations, i.e. the formal roles that they play, have not yet given way to the 

relationships that bear the fruit of true collaboration. 

Cultivating UPN Out-Of-School Time Program Partnerships 
 
 

With regard to soliciting and nurturing partnerships that inure to the benefit of 

students and families in PN communities, the PN mission and vision statement states in 

pertinent part:  

 
The purpose of Promise Neighborhoods is to significantly improve the educational 
and developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed 
communities, and to transform those communities by—;  
. . . 
 
3.   Integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are 
implemented effectively and efficiently across agencies; 
 
4.   Developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to sustain 
and scale up proven, effective solutions across the broader region beyond the initial 
neighborhood;   

To achieve this purpose statement, the UPN cultivates out-of-school time partnerships with 

local non-profits and seeks to create a social service collaborative among social service 

agencies that bring services to children and families within the community served by the 

UPN. (See Convening the UPN- Social Service Collaborative below.) 

Cultivating out-of-school partnerships to enhance the learning progression of 

students is also an area of primary interest in recent scholarship (Lareau, 2003; Rothstein 

2004).  Lareau variously refers to the act of scheduling productive out-of-school activities 

 
 

116

 

 

as “concerted cultivation” where parents/guardians seek to stimulate the development of 

both their children’s cognitive and social skills (Lareau, 2003). In that posture, the UPN 

mobilized various community partners to accomplish one of the major objectives of the 

Promise Neighborhood Initiative, activating the ecology within which children are 

educated.  To that end, the UPN developed an infrastructure to engage students outside of 

school with partners in several areas.  Among them were out-of-school programs in the 

arts and music; mentoring; and after school and summer camps.  

 

The USED envisioned that the Promise Neighborhood policy would target non-profit 

community service providers. Data from this study suggests that the UPN also occupied the 

role of a quasi-governmental entity, where it served as a proxy for the USED in awarding 

grants to local agencies and organizations to accomplish the objectives in its Promise 

Neighborhood application.  As the UPN engaged partnerships in this area, their work 

differed significantly from their work in the early childhood arena and the school district in 

light of one key factor: the UPN serves as a primary funder for these partners. Accordingly, 

this analysis suggests that a combination of “inducement” and “capacity building” policy 

instruments are most likely in operation here (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987).  Moreover, 

the following analysis suggests that the positional embodiment of this role created the 

expectation that the recipients of the UPN grants would be more willing to implement the 

process implementation tools required by the UPN.  

UPN-Out of School Time Partnerships Barriers 
 

As a part of the interview protocol, the researcher asked informants to identify the 

partners with whom the UPN worked to carry out the mission of the organization. Among 

the partners that were named are: 

 
 

117

 

 

•  The CITY ARTS CENTER - A local organization named for a local prominent 

artist, which has sponsored after school cultural programs in the community for 
many years.  

•  THE COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT CENTER- A local organization that has 
conducted after-school enrichment programs and summer camps in recent 
years.  

•  THE REGIONAL ARTS COALITION- An artist’s group who works with the CITY 

ARTS CENTER to expand arts programming for students after-school and during 
the summer.  

 

1.  Limited Time to Plan and Execute. One UPN Assistant Director reflected upon 

the emerging relationships that are required to move the work of the Promise 

Neighborhood forward in this way.  

 
I feel like with the [cradle to college] pipeline that...We put a lot of work into the early 
piece of the pipeline. It took a lot of time and that's where we're seeing our greatest 
outcome. I don't think we've had the same type of focus and intentionality as we did 
with the early piece of the pipeline. When we received the Promise Neighborhood 
implementation grant, . . . it was a five-year grant. I don't feel we were as intentional 
about developing those partnerships and looking at those systems around the rest of 
the piece of the pipeline as we did around earlier. Another challenge is I don't think we 
focused enough on sustaining practices from the beginning and system changes from 
the beginning. We're starting to infuse some of that into our work now and it keeps me 
awake at night as it's too late. (Asst. Dir. II, p. 8-9)  
 

This case study site visit took place in year three of the five-year Promise Neighborhood 

Implementation grant, and the UPN was seeking to utilize the lessons learned from the 

UPN-ECC work and expand the work to other areas of the UPN project.  Time, however, is 

one of the key commodities in the implementation of a project, and the pressures to 

accelerate their work to obtain substantive results in the timeframe were real and palpable.  

2. Organizational Capacity and Resource Sufficiency. As a non-profit 

organization contemplates whether to engage and/or remain within a partnership, there 

are a variety of motivators.  Balancing organizational capacity and will to remain engaged 

may depend on resource sufficiency, institutional pressures and the network effect (Guo & 

 
 

118

 

 

Acar (2005); the potential improved services for their clients (Sowa, 2009); and/or the 

time to manage the partnership, inter-sector relationships; and actual competition and 

resultant conflicts in the same service area (Gazley & Brudney, 2007). This research 

suggests that the availability of resources, which consist of both financial and human 

capital, directly affect an organization’s ability to provide services for clients.  The intricate 

balance of competing issues may be outweighed by the need to secure resources.  Thus, a 

subtle, but albeit real, financial coercion to remain in a partnership and to participate in the 

requirements of the granting organization may tip the scale.  

 

Several key informants linked resource sufficiency and organizational capacity 

directly to participation in the UPN.  

[The City Arts Center] is who we piloted this accountability system with at the 
beginning. First of all there's a relationship between the managing staff here and the 
implementers at the partner site. That's one. Two, we're paying them their salary. 
[laughter] so they have to show up at these meetings. They don't have to. It's pretty 
clear to everyone where the relationship is in terms of power, is what I want to say. 
That's how it started. Now we're meeting with partners, who we don't give a lot of 
money to, but we have some stake in the result, and they bought into the process, and 
it actually makes sense to them. Now we're not doing it because of a power structure. 
(Asst. Dir. III, p. 6) 

The local community based after-school programs like [The Community Empowerment 
Center Project],- I'd say that they -- from where I work and the programs I look at -- I 
think they're the ones who do the most direct services with kids. . . . We fund them, but 
they're already an after-school program. . . . They have a lot of kids. They do after 
school programs. They also do summer camps, and they have our summer camps. I 
think there are eight summer camps, and I could have that number off because it shifts 
every year. (Data Coord. I, p. 4) 

I think there was a working relationship. With [Community Empowerment Center], I 
can say for certain there's been a working relationship since [they have] been around. 
[The Community Empowerment Center] was founded by someone who worked at the 
[City Arts Center] and may have wanted to do a summer camp and after(cid:1)school 
program. The [Community Empowerment Center] had been doing it for a few years.  
Just last year we decided to step in and fund for her after-school program based on the 
results that she had had. (Out-of-School Coord. p. 3) 
 

 
 

119

 

 

The UPN staff openly acknowledged that they were aware of the power dynamic that 

funding has on their partners and their willingness to engage in meetings and 

accountability reporting because of the availability of UPN resources. Each informant 

quickly noted, however, that power wielded must be accompanied by the UPN’s capacity to 

build the partners’ systems for sustainability. A UPN Program Coordinator even opined that 

one partner would rather not engage with him, but nonetheless does so because of the 

resources available. These discussions with key informants suggest that resource 

availability may be serving both as a primary motivator to engage and as a coercive 

incentive to continue in a partnership when local non-profit organizations are seeking to 

provide programs and services for children.  

3. Interpersonal Relationships and Organization Dynamics.  Within 

partnerships, the personal relationships fostered within the partnering organizations also 

play a role in the day-to-day work. People run organizations and their substantive 

interactions are critical to the success of organizational partnerships. In the following 

extended response, an informant described one such dynamic between the Community 

Empowerment Center and the UPN.  

[The Community Empowerment Center] is probably the only project where it is 
managed by multiple people. To give you a little background, … [their Director] who 
runs [the program] was in summer camp for a long time and [one of my colleagues] 
manages the summer camps. When [the project] became something we were looking 
to fund year-round, it never got all given to one person. The summer camps were still 
[my colleagues]. She has a relationship with [my colleague] and the after-school 
program is mine.   What's problematic about their relationship is one, there's all the 
history of them two working together.  They're like, "I don't have that history. I don't 
even expect to have that history." Most of the time, I know, and it doesn't go said but I 
know that she would rather be working with him. That's a bunch of personal stuff that 
does inform a lot of process. (emphasis added) 
 
As far as what makes the process so difficult is that because of how our summer camps 
are set up, our summer camps are set up with the reasonable expectation that the 

 
 

120

 

 

people that we're funding during the summer, they don't have a working capital. They 
don't have a lot of infrastructure that are normal, like year-round partners have and 
they don't have near as much capacity as our year-round partners have.  . . .The 
problem [comes when] you say, "All right, I want to do a college field trip," and you 
invoice us. We can't take the invoice until after the trip has actually taken place, but 
for you, you need to pay for it before it happens. It’s honestly a position that I 
understand. The problem is as a project manager, it doesn't matter how I understand 
the position. 
. . . 
As far as having those questions and trying to navigate, how do we work around the 
fact that someone has not had to do this stuff before?  (Out of School Coord., p. 7-9)  
 

The programs administered in this partnership have far greater reach in the UPN because 

of the sheer number of students who participate in the after-school and summer 

programming. Yet, there are organizational and personal dynamics that present a 

challenge. The primary organizational dynamic appears to emanate from the lack of 

capacity of the Community Empowerment Center to engage in the various planning and 

reporting requirements that come with the UPN funding their programs. Resource 

sufficiency (Guo & Acar, 2005) and the time to manage the partnership (Gazley & Brudney, 

2007) are both institutional challenges here. Yet, the UPN Project Manager, at once, 

recognizes these challenges, and feels that the requirements of the funding for their 

program must be met.  More poignantly, however, a UPN Project Manager verbally 

identifies the social capital in operation here, and how that dynamic is indeed a “process” 

challenge. For the project manager, however, this acknowledgement is sublimated to the 

organizational structure that has been put into place by the UPN.  

OBSERVATION: Meeting-“Results-Based Facilitation” as a “process tool” 
 
 

During the site visit, the researcher observed a Results-Based Facilitation (RBF) 

training conducted by the Anne E. Casey Foundation. RBF was variously defined as 

“achieving results and accountability for results.”  Accordingly, RBF practice operates from 

 
 

121

 

 

the basic premise that if the facilitator and participants “enter into a meeting with results in 

mind and leave with actions and commitments in hand, your meeting is successful.”  As 

explained by an RBF Trainer, the salient elements of an RBF meeting are as follows:  

•  RESULTS AGENDA: A results agenda includes the primary task of the meeting and 

the length of the meeting to set the expectations of the participants through focusing 
on the three “R’s”- Relationships, Resources and Results. 

•  THE CONTAINER: This construct refers to knowing “who is in the room” and each 

participant having clarity about “why” he/she is in the room to allow each 
participant to participate fully.   

•  CHECK IN: Each meeting begins with a check-in that has each participant explain to 
each other why they are present; what their expectation of a good meeting will be; 
and how they will be accountable to each other and to the work of the meeting. Note 
that a given participant may operate in various roles or levels during the meeting. 
By way of explanation, one person may frame his lens at the systems level; feel 
committed to a given meeting objective at the personal level, and work to obtain the 
objective because of his/her position at the “role” or managerial level.  

•  ACCOUNTABILITY CONVERSATION: The beginning of the meeting dialogue will 

reveal what progress has been made on previous action commitments made at prior 
meetings and/or in other formal exchanges.  

•  MEETING WORK: The middle dialogue that takes place throughout the meeting is 

the work of the work of the meeting, where conversations shift the focus of the work 
from talk to action 

•  COMMITMENTS: The concluding dialogue of the RBF Meeting enlists commitments 

from the participants in the Container for the work that will move forward.   

•  CHECKOUT: The conclusion of the meeting is very important to have clarity moving 
forward regarding next steps. This is the closing dialogue that underscores the next 
steps that must be taken; ensures commitment to those next steps; and sets the time 
for the next meeting.  
 
To that end, the goal of this daylong training explicitly referred back to the 

  

overarching goal of the UPN:  All young people [will] experience educational success and 

are prepared for college and careers.  During their time together, each of the participants 

was charged with the following:  

•  Design a Meeting that he/she will lead 
•  Respond to Interrupt Coaching during the feedback loop (e.g. “You might want to try 

this question.”) 

•  Practice Normalizing Accountability 

 
 

122

 

 

•  Prepare for tomorrow’s meeting with County-Wide partners (with regard to the 

UPN ECC) 

•  Commit to applying the RBF Skills – Practice, Practice, Practice 

 
One facilitator opined, “When leaders can embed in their work, the practice of running 

effective meetings, they can more efficiently execute their work.”  (RBF Training Meeting 

Notes, p. 1)  

 

Each of the approximately twenty (20) stakeholders from across the UPN 

programming and partners proceeded through six facilitated tasks to design an upcoming 

RBF meeting. Present were UPN senior staff; UPN project managers for the various 

partnerships; and members of the Unified School District.   This training and foregoing 

discussion specifically reifies that both “meetings,” in general, and the construct of an “RBF 

Meeting,” specifically, serve as process implementation tools, and are viewed by the UPN as 

key to obtaining greater results in the final two years of the Promise Implementation Grant 

with and among each of its partners.  

Shared Goals, Aligning Resources, and Accountability as a “process tool” 
 
 

Community non-profit organizations, by their very design, rely upon grant funding 

and private donations to carry out their missions. As they implement programming, aligned 

with their mission, there is a need to demonstrate outcomes. In the era of accountability, 

these generally small and lean organizations may struggle with the sometimes-onerous 

reporting requirements of the grant making organization.  In sum, shekels have shackles.  

 

The UPN has engaged these organizations not simply from a resource allocation 

perspective, but also from a capacity building perspective. As noted above, RBF meetings 

with these partners seek to operationalize and normalize regular accountability 

conversations.  

 
 

123

 

 

But, I think over the past year, or so, and past couple of months, we've been able to get 
partners to the level where they're seeing [accountability] as something that they can 
actually use to improve their programming, which has been part of the system...  

I think they're starting to see that. Seeing the accountability meaning, because the 
people take ownership of things, and try to look at it as ways that they can actually 
improve the programming. They didn't start like that. That was something that we 
eventually worked towards by having these accountability meetings on regular basis. 
Partner staff, I think, are more inclined now to look at it as something that's positive 
and something that they can work at and work towards. (UPN Data Coord. II, p. 6) 

The observation by this UPN staffer suggests that the RBF meetings operate to strengthen 

the relationships within the UPN, and shared commitment evolves therefrom.  It also 

appears that the RBF protocol has a multiplying effect in cultivating the partnerships 

envisioned by the PN Initiative 

Social Capital as a “process tool” 
 

The presence of social capital between the organizational directors and project 

managers also fosters trust among those that implement the programs. Social capital as a 

construct is produced through social interaction; promotes certain behaviors within social 

structures; and once accumulated, can be utilized to accomplish shared goals and 

objectives (Smylie & Evans, 2006).  The existence of a strong relationship creates an 

environment for an exchange of ideas and resources that ultimately benefit those who 

administer the program, deliver the services to children, and seek shared accountability.  A 

UPN Project Manager describes the current relationship with the Regional Arts Coalition in 

the following manner: 

Probably the most easily navigable relationship was our relationship with the 
[Regional Arts Coalition].  Their director . . . is an artist, [and she] works directly with 
our instructors for our art programs.  She's also a part of the accountability process, 
where she comes to those monthly meetings and hears about what's working what's 
not working, and we go from there. She has a relationship, prior existing relationship, 
with [two members of the UPN leadership team].  . . . 

 
 

124

 

 

As far as how the relationship works and what makes it work so easily is that their 
investment is purely at a level of getting a good product to students. It's not as tricky 
as depending solely on us as a funding base or needing us to slap their wrist or 
whatever. . . .  
 
We're saying that, "Is it OK for me to come in and sit in on your staff meeting?" They 
usually give that ability to us because they know that when I sit in on their staff 
meeting, I'm not trying to play the "Got You" game or I'm not looking for things to go 
wrong. I'm looking for ways that I can help them. I'm looking for what they may say or 
what they may need that can't be fully expressed in a bigger staff meeting because we 
don't necessarily have the time to go through it.  For me, working with them has been 
the cleanest process because when I step into the room with their staff, we're all ready 
knowing that . . . what I say does not come from a place of, "Oh, I'm trying to find a way 
to take funds away," or I'm trying to find a way for me to say, "This program isn't 
working. Let's shut it down." It is, "Let's make this the best program so that we can 
highlight." (Out of School Coord. p. 5-6) 

 
With the Regional Arts Coalition, there is a more collaborative relationship. Per the 

description, social capital and the trust associated therewith is emerging as the two entities 

have worked and continue to develop a shared vision of what the arts program should 

consist of, with the articulated goal of improved program delivery for the student 

participants (Sowa, 2009).  While glimpses of this type of relationship appear in both the 

UPN-Early Childhood Collaborative work and the School District Partnership, social capital 

and its cultivation emerged poignantly as a process implementation tool in the work of 

establishing and strengthening UPN Out-of-School Time Partnerships.  

Convening the UPN-Social Service Collaborative 
 
 

The UPN also embarked upon the development of a “social service collaborative” 

(UPN-SSC). One UPN Director defined the UPN-SSC in the following manner: 

This is really bringing in all stakeholders who have an interest in cradle(cid:1)to(cid:1)career 
work. As part of the social service collaborative, you have many different sectors. You 
have not only education, but you have health care, you have government, you have 
faith(cid:1)based community.  All of these different stakeholders are really in partnership 
with one another to provide the best possible service for our families, and so that's one 
way that we're able to engage partners. (Asst. Dir. I, p. 5)  

 
 

125

 

 

Note, this overarching framework was contemplated by the Promise Neighborhood grant, 

but unlike the agencies in the early childhood arena, each of the entities has disparate 

goals, objectives and foci.  While working towards an overarching goal of systems change, 

the Promise Neighborhood policy instrument in operation here is likely an “inducement” to 

collaborate given the disparate missions and goals identified above (McDonnell and 

Elmore, 1987). 

Within the organizational structure of the UPN, there is a Project Coordinator 

assigned to organize and develop a social service collaborative. The UPN-SSC Project 

Coordinator’s job is two-fold. The first is to identify resources that are available to families 

from local, state and federal agencies, and serve as a one-stop shop for families who need 

referrals to those agencies. The UPN-SSC Project Coordinator describes this part of her 

position in this way:  

The idea behind my being hired was because I have experience with community 
mental health. I worked for the Department of Homeland Security. I kind of have a full 
gamut of social experiences to bring, so I would know probably what resources to tap 
into. . . . When I came on board...social workers know that you need resources for 
families. We were going to do direct services to families, so we really needed resources 
that weren't provided. We wouldn't have funds here, so I had to identify resources.  
(UPN-SSC Coord., p. 2) 
 

The second, while connected but more expansive, role that the UPN-SSC Project 

Coordinator plays involves the more complex role of engaging and convening the members 

of UPN-SSC to formalize their work and partnership.  

UPN-SSC Barriers and Challenges to Implementation 
 
 

The challenges of non-profit collaboration identified by Gazley & Brudney (2007) 

appear to each be in operation as the UPN seeks to engage social service partners. Among 

the partners engaged by the UPN are organizations from the health, education, government 

 
 

126

 

 

and the faith communities, each with a different mission and vision.  The complexity of 

“inter-sector relationships” (i.e. across professional practice and disciplines) and the ability 

to arrive at a shared goal while fulfilling the disparate missions of the differing 

organizations is significantly more complex than the unifying goal of the UPN Early 

Childhood Collaborative: “arriving at school kindergarten ready.”  There also appeared not 

to be enough time to manage the partnership given the high demand and needs each 

organization has in each of their distinct areas.  Finally, within and among the members of 

the social service group, there is actual competition for clients in the same service area, 

resulting in conflicts in service provision and available resources.   

1.  History of Working in Silos. One goal of the PN initiative is to break down the 

silos that exist between agencies and to foster collaboration among organizations that have 

previously not worked together. When the researcher inquired about the working 

relationship among those agencies who participate in the UPN-SSC, prior to the existence of 

the UPN, the UPN-SSC Program Coordinator responded with the following: 

Prior to that, these agencies that I named were working in isolation. Part of the social 
services collaborative work was to get people out of isolation and into the planning and 
workings of things, to break down those silos and to educate ourselves on what services 
we provide. We were working in silos. We don’t know what people are doing and if we 
are duplicating services. (UPN-SSC Coord., p. 4) 

For the UPN, the data suggests that this challenge is palpable and is inextricably linked to 

other two identified challenges. 

 

2.  Opting-Out of Participation. Local non-profits who work in various arenas 

have been invited to participate in the work of the UPN-SSC during the first three years of 

the implementation grant. Some have joined the UPN partnership and later opted out. 

Others have simply chosen not to participate. The UPN-SSC Coordinator lamented about 

 
 

127

 

 

the failure of one invitee to participate and the efforts that she had made to foster 

expansive participation.  

I've always wanted the [Community Job Placement Program to participate]. They've 
worked with us, and we refer people over there, but I'd like them to come to the table, 
to the meeting. I can't get them to come to the meeting. I think it's because he is new 
and he is trying to get his footing, the director is.  We would even take a representative. 
Someone that knows him. [laughs] I've even tried to go that route. [laughs] To tell him 
we'd love to have him come and just talk to us about some things that he’s got going 
on. ..  That's very important. This economy is horrible, [laughs] and employment is 
really one of our major resources. I'd love for him to come and talk about...they have a 
lot going on. We want to hear from him or someone. 

Researcher:  So you think that’s because he's new...or why do you think he hasn't 
come? 

I think that he's just busy. I didn't mention that we have tried to have the meeting on 
lunchtime, make them during lunch. That way, they don't take away from people's 
busy day. [laughs] I don't know. I'm not sure. That's just my scenario, he's just too busy. 
It may not be important to him. That could be true, too, but I don't want to think that 
is it. You understand? [laughs] (UPN-SSC Coord. p. 7-8) 

3. 

Limited Participation.    According to Himmelman (1991), the work of 

collaboration requires the sharing of time, trust and turf.  With this initial investment of 

human and fiscal capital by an organization into a partnership, the work of the individual 

organization may be compromised.  In this exchange with the UPN-SSC, this tension seems 

to be present as the work of the collaborative evolves.  

We had a community outreach, social resource fair (cid:1)(cid:1) social and health, because we 
had health agencies there, as well, that come to the meeting. It began trying to get 
little committees, little ad(cid:1)hoc committees to do different things. It kind of ended up 
with me, because I facilitate, doing most of it, like designing the flyers and seeing 
what information we would do.. . .  

What I did, I asked all the agencies (cid:1)(cid:1) because we were expecting maybe 300 
community people to come out (cid:1)(cid:1) if they had information they needed to get out or if 
they had applications for certain things, like food stamps, called SNAP.  Some clients 
have problems with economic assistance, if they had an application that people could 
fill out on the spot, or contact information, whatever.  Just bring something that lets 
people know who you are and what resources you can provide for them. We had about 

 
 

128

 

 

20 vendors show up, and it was excellent. . . Everybody was so cooperative. The only 
challenge I can remember is someone else helping with the work. I thought that the 
collaborative should spearhead it. Even though we've talked about it, at every meeting 
coming up to it, we didn't get the ad(cid:1)hoc committees to just, "You do this. You do this. 
You do this."  I kind of started picking up the water. [laughs] Putting out the brochures, 
setting up the table. All they did was what they brought to do, which was OK. (UPN-SSC 
Coord. p. 8-9) 

Convening as a “process tool” 
 

At the time of the Site Visit, the UPN was working diligently to move the UPN Social 

Service Collaborative along the continuum of collaboration (Himmelman (1991).   The 

work as described by several members of the UPN staff was critical to supporting families 

and students in the UPN.  Yet, the description of the evolving partnerships within the UPN-

SSC Collaborative had not moved beyond Himmelman’s “networking” stage.  The UPN-SSC 

Project Coordinator describes their effort to bring the twenty or so agencies that have been 

identified for the work as follows:  

We try to meet once a month, and what we do is highlight an agency. They come in and 
they talk about what services they provide. They update us on anything new that they 
have. We network and pass cards around.  It was informal up until last year. We 
started planning on MOUs between the agencies (cid:1)(cid:1) so we can tighten that grip (cid:1)(cid:1) 
getting a mission statement together. That's our work for this year. Our projected 
work this year is to complete that, get a mission statement and MOUs with each other, 
set up a listserv so that we can talk in between meetings and do that networking we 
need to track it. 
I'm sure that you know that we have to provide data on all our programs. All of it is 
research and we need to keep a record of what we're doing. We're tightening that up 
now. (UPN-SSC Coord. p. 5-8) 

UPN personnel spoke about the ideal situation in which the members of the UPN-SSC 

would engage in the regular practice of sharing information and resources, identification of 

gaps and coordinating service provision for the clients (Sowa, 2009).  To that end, during 

the previous year, the UPN Project Manager organized a community and social resource 

fair in which the members of the UPN-SSC and other community partners participated. The 

 
 

129

 

 

UPN Project Manager at once called the fair “excellent,” and yet lamented that participating 

members of the UPN-SSC did not engage in the planning process or the event itself as 

vigorously as she would have hoped or expected. In short, the evolving and inconsistent 

membership of the UPN-SSC had not moved in practice beyond the simple sharing of 

programmatic information among the group, the first stage of partnership.  While the 

conceptual framework of the UPN-Social Service Collaborative is inspirational in terms of 

what it may potentially provide for students and families served by the UPN, this case study 

observation and interviews suggest that it remains aspirational in operation.  The 

continued utilization of the process tool of “convening” by the UPN seems critical to any 

future movement of this work.  

Creating UPN Direct Service Programs 
 

As noted in the foregoing analysis, the Promise Neighborhood Implementation grant 

empowers grantee organizations to enlist partner organizations to deliver services to 

individuals and families to improve student outcomes. The grant also contemplates that the 

UPN, as the grantee organization, would deliver direct services and programs alongside 

their partner organizations.  Notably, in the area of direct service provision, the work of the 

UPN did not vary much from the organizations that it partnered with to deliver services. 

While the UPN developed internal accountability structures for their programming, this 

portion of the analysis moves from Himmelman’s framework for collaboration into the 

organizational utility of policy instruments to encourage individual persons to participate 

in UPN programming.  

In offering targeted programs and services to children, families and community 

organizations, this case study revealed that the UPN relied upon the “hortatory” and 

 
 

130

 

 

“inducement” policy instruments (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987; McDonnell, 2004). As the 

backbone organization, the UPN used the “hortatory” policy instrument to brand the 

organization as a service provider throughout the community.  Secondarily, the 

organization used the policy “inducement” instrument to incentivize neighborhood 

associations, families, and individual children to participate in the programs, activities and 

services.  Therefore, UPN implementation strategies had to be intentional as they 

endeavored to identify the pressing needs of the individuals within the community that 

they sought to serve. 

UPN Direct Service Programs Barriers and Challenges 

 

Several barriers or challenges to community participation were unearthed during 

the course of the site visit and interviews with key informants.  While organizational and 

institutional barriers are often the focus of scholarship on program implementation, the 

challenges of direct service provision explicated herein, while intensely personal, are 

poignant and require contemplation when policies are implemented in the local context. 

1. Failure of Previous Programs and Initiatives. As organizations seek to 

implement programs in communities that have had historical challenges, past failures of 

programs color how program targets receive renewed efforts to improve community and 

individual circumstances.  The UPN faced these dynamics as they sought to mobilize 

community around their efforts.  

These type of communities ... Like, organizations come in all the time. People see 
organizations come in, promise all these things, and then leave a couple of years later 
once the grants are done. I think that that was a major barrier that [the UPN] had to 
overcome. (UPN Data Coord. II. page 7) 

You have to have a willingness to accept the outside help. Sometimes people 
are wary, because you get other agencies sometimes that come in, and don't 

 
 

131

 

 

do the job they're supposed to do.  When you get somebody come in, let 
everybody down, they're like, "Oh, these people just like the people that was 
here a year ago, or two years ago, five years ago. They came, and they gave us 
false hope. They gave us all these promises, and my child is in the same spot he 
was beforehand." 

Along with that the parents, the other agencies, the community has to accept 
the help. If I'm here trying to help you guys, meet me halfway. You've got to 
meet me halfway. I can't do it all myself. Now I can pitch it to you. I could pitch 
it to you left, right, up, down, any way you want me to, but you've got to come 
on. (UPN Comm. Ed. Coord. p. 14) 

 

2. Unmet Familial Challenges.  The students and families targeted by the strategies 

of the PN Initiative are often in crisis. Their current circumstances are often overwhelming 

to them, so much so, they are proverbially drinking life through a fire hose.  While the 

programs that the UPN offers may be a part of the solution for travails that families face, 

the primary targets are not willing and/or available to receive the assistance offered as 

they seek to navigate life’s challenging circumstances. This extended response by the UPN 

Parent Liaison describes how she entered her role with these challenges in mind.  

Coming in, I had to first earn people's trust, find out what they need, give them what 
they want, and then give them what they need too.. . .I spent the first half of the year, 
and my strategy was to build trust, figure out what the community needs, and figure 
how I'm going to deliver it to them in a way that's respectful to them, respectful to me, 
and legal. [laughs] That was the first-year strategy. I promise you, my hours were 
ridiculous. (UPN Parent Liaison, p. 10) 

I get a lot of personal calls from parents, devastated families saying, "I can't make it." I 
always have an ear, I get a lot of, ".  . . I just need a ride over here, can you help me?" I 
don't mark that, I don't put that in as travel time, nope, that's people time, and I just 
charge it to the game. That’s what the kids tell me. [laughs] 
 
A lot of kids will flag me down and say, "Can I get a ride over here?" That's part of 
building trust, and building people, what people in the community should be doing.  
 
From there coming to the business part is, I got to do my job, and that's the follow up. 
Put it in writing, which I'm still learning, I'm not [a database] queen, but put it in 
writing, balancing it out it out, and still doing this over here.  That's hard, it is ongoing, 
it does not stop. And you learn, when this place is gone, I still can't turn this off, the 

 
 

132

 

 

relationships that I've built. That's why I'm learning how to help them help themselves. 
That's my Neighborhood Community Association… little things. Help us help ourselves, 
which means that, if you are going to give us something, tell us what we got to do to 
earn it, so the next time we know how to earn it again. That's exactly what I'm doing 
with the families . . .  (UPN Parent Liaison, p. 14)  
 
3.  Family/Community Norms and Expectations.  Members of the UPN 

community have a history of failure when it comes to student achievement. Test scores and 

numbers fail to capture the depth of the personal and familial challenges that are present. 

This extended response contains the personal narrative of the UPN Parent Liaison and 

begins to bring some of this into focus.  

Perfect example…. I had these grand dreams when I was little. She supported all them. 
"Do it. You can do it."  When I got to high school, I'm the second person to go to college 
in my family of five. My youngest sister stopped school in the fifth grade because it was 
hard. That's normal around here, because it was hard. She was being bullied there was 
a lot of that stuff going on. My oldest sister finished. My brother stopped short of 11th. 
My other brother stopped short of eighth grade. That's normal. This is one family. 
Within that family, I never failed.  I always passed. I had sisters and brothers who 
failed. They would be upset with me because I wasn't failing... 

One sister who was overweight, who had a literacy problem and my mama couldn't see 
because she stopped short of school too, so she couldn't see that. All she saw was the 
part where her baby was hurt. That's all she cared about, how to stop the hurt. "She 
don't want to go to school no more? Ain't got to." 

My brothers, my mama got five children, five different fathers, so instantly when the 
struggle came, my brothers became the backbone. That's like what you've got to do, 
and if you aren't doing it... You come from school and your mama and your sister over 
there hungry," you got to stop. You got to work, so he was working. My big brother was 
like my daddy. It's confusing, but I got a daddy. (UPN Parent Liaison, p. 11) 

The UPN Parent Liaison also embodies and empathizes with the aspirational challenge that 

she faces as she seeks to motivate parents to strive for something greater for their children.  

Now, I graduate high school, big month in a black family the day your child graduates. 
Come to a high school graduation, it's like they got a doctorate. Head Start is, too. Most 
people realize that's the last time a child will graduate here. That's why it's important 
that they graduate Head Start, and they wear their diploma, and they wear their hat 
and their suit. You've got to understand the concept. 

 
 

133

 

 

Part of the reason why they stop midway through middle school, where they don't call 
it a graduation, they call it a...even Head Start stopped it. It's called a transition now, 
which is wonderful, because it keeps parents from thinking, "My child graduated" then 
you go to middle school to high school. Keep them from thinking, "My child graduated." 
The child hasn't. Then when they need to change the high school from graduation to 
repurposing or something, [laughs] to where college is the main focus. Cause that’s our 
goal.  (UPN Parent Liaison, p. 11-12) 

These familial conditions are deeply rooted in the community that the UPN seeks to change. 

For policymakers to affect system’s change as the Promise Neighborhood Initiative states 

within its purpose, these concerns and barriers must be given voice and attention.  

Social Capital as a “process” tool 

 

Researchers have variously described “social capital” as the “intangible and abstract 

resources derived from interactions among individuals and the social structures that frame 

them” (Smylie & Evans, 2006, p. 189). Social capital as a construct is produced through 

social interaction; promotes certain behaviors within social structures; and once 

accumulated, can be utilized to accomplish shared goals and objectives.  Components of 

social capital include social trust; channels of communication; and norms, expectations, and 

sanctions. “Social trust” is achieved when members of the group perceive that others are 

acting consistent with and moving towards agreed upon understandings and commitments. 

This “lays the foundation for collective activity, mutual assistance and joint accountability.”  

“Channels of communication” facilitate the flow of information among individuals with 

whom one has established this social contract, which in turn influences individual and 

collective behavior.  Finally, “norms, expectations, and sanctions” within a group facilitate 

and/or constrain individual or group actions and behaviors, reducing the likelihood of 

deviant behavior undermining shared goals and objectives (Smylie & Evans, 2006, pp. 189-

191). 

 
 

134

 

 

Developing Social Capital within Community 
 

The UPN first sought to build social capital with the community by working with a 

local neighborhood to identify projects that would indicate a physical commitment to the 

area.  In consultation with the group, the decision was made to build a playground to 

represent the physical investment of the UPN in the community.  One UPN Assistant 

Director described the evolving engagement as follows:  

When [UPN] first started as a planning Promise Neighborhood in 2009, [we engaged] 
the poorest district . . . There were six ladies that were identified at that time that were 
called street leaders, and they helped the “UPN” get a footprint in that area. We've also 
asked them, “What is it that you would like to see in your community that's not there 
that you think could improve your community? They said a park. So hence, the 
KaBOOM! Park build that you've probably heard about. They helped to recruit people 
for the park build. They were part of the park build. Children helped designed the park, 
so they took ownership of it. They said that the day on the park build. . . there were 
about four or five hundred folks there to help to build the park. These ladies were 
offered leadership development . . . and they formed their own neighborhood 
association.  (Asst. Dir. II, p. 12) 

Of note, the UPN replicated this model in other local communities, and there are now five 

neighborhood associations. In conjunction with the UPN, several of these associations have 

obtained non-profit status, engage in community beautification projects, hold mini-summer 

camps, and conduct community events promoting literacy and health initiatives that are an 

important part of the work of the UPN.   

This case study suggests that the UPN intentionally worked to activate the ecology 

of the place to develop social capital with and among the constituents within the 

community.  Recall Honig (2006) argues that the analysis of place is multi-faceted in that it 

includes the context of the agency and/or place where implementation unfolds; the 

institutional and contemporary history of the focal agency; and their interplay with the 

dynamics of the geographic location within which the implementation of the policy takes 

 
 

135

 

 

place (Honig, 2006, pp. 14-19). Weaver-Hightower (2009) further explicates the idea of 

place to the local “ecology “ which captures the roles and motives of policy actors; their 

interdependent and multi-faceted relationships; the dynamic environments and social and 

institutional structures within which the policy is proposed; and the manifold and active 

processes which affect policy implementation (p. 154). The work of the UPN seeks to build 

its social capital through engaging community around its perceived needs, as they move 

towards the objective of improving student outcomes. The UPN is an active catalyst in this 

work strategically leveraging emerging structures to develop social trust within the 

community.   It appears, as the UPN Director opined in his interview, that the A KaBOOM! 

Playground represented the physical investment in the community by the Regional 

Coalition and the UPN, and a tangible indication that there would be a “sustained effort to 

improve educational outcomes for their community.” (UPN Dir. p. 3)  

Cultivating Social Capital within Community 
 

The UPN has also deftly embedded itself alongside community members as a 

problem-solving entity.  The in-school mentoring program as described in this extended 

response by a UPN Assistant Director serves as just one example of this work:   

The relationships that I found that were more easily navigable, I would say would be 
with community members when they had a buy-in into the decisions that impacted 
their lives. Let me give you a typical example. The . . . mentoring program that I talked 
about, that program was not developed by [Regional Coalition or the UPN].. . . It's not 
an evidence(cid:1)based model even though it has some evidence(cid:1)based practices.  [The 
former state conservator, who is also] a community organizer, so he was really big on 
bringing the community into the school. . . . The conservator developed these 
community engagement groups for each school. There were four, so four schools. 

. . . Each month we would have a community engagement meeting. . . .At one of the 
meetings, he broke us down into our groups and he gave us the charge. Said, "I want 
you to develop an idea for your school." 

 
 

136

 

 

. . .  Each principal was part of their group. [Our principal said], "I have a lot of 
children who are at risk." He said, "They need mentors.". . .  We focused on mentoring. 
From that little sitting it was decided, "OK, we want to have a mentoring program and 
most of us sitting around the table, we were going to be mentors." 

We are going to start, and this is powerful. You have to listen to this. . . .from that 
particular meeting, we set community engagement meetings ourselves. We didn't need 
a conservator to tell us anymore. 

We all decided we'd be mentors. At that time there were about 22 of us, from around 
the table, with the principal, assistant principal, community members. We decided that 
we would pilot this, make it small, pilot it from March to May. 
 
Each one of us would be a mentor, and let's just see how it works. We developed our 
policy. We had a policy committee. . . .  We researched policies and handbooks and 
mentor applications and mentee profiles, and everything we needed to get started. [We 
developed a] logo. Presented it back to the group, they loved it and we were ready to 
get started. We filled out the applications. [The Principal referred] the 22 children that 
we needed. We paired them up based on profiles. We started visiting our children once 
for a week for at least an hour. (Asst. Dir. II, p. 9-11) 

During the five years since the inception of the mentoring program, the program has grown 

to more than 100 mentors across two schools within the Unified School District. Each 

mentor stays assigned to his/her mentee as the child progresses through their educational 

program. They meet informally once each week.  Progress is monitored by a facilitator, 

whose job is to recruit, conduct background checks, assign and document the contact 

between the mentor and mentee. The mentors have one primary objective to connect with 

and develop a relationship with the students. While meeting that objective, the mentor 

then follows up with teachers about their academic progress, and the UPN tracks the 

progress of the students as one outcome.  While recognizing that improved academic 

progress had been made for the mentees, the key informant was quick to note that this 

progress may be subordinate to the primary role that they serve as a kind, caring, listening 

adult ear for the young person to whom they are assigned. As a concluding thought on this 

program, the UPN Assistant Director offered the following observation: 

 
 

137

 

 

That has been also our strongest relationship with the community because this is 
something that the community designed, developed. It's something that's sustainable 
because regardless of whatever, you get staff, you get people who care about children 
and is going to continue being there for children. (Asst. Dir. II, p. 12) 
 

For this portion of the analysis, it is striking to note that the members of the UPN 

organization don’t simply seek to convene groups, fund programs, and organize the work 

to accomplish a goal. Each member of the organization that was interviewed and observed 

exhibited a palpable commitment to the community that they chose to serve. Through this 

commitment to the work, UPN actively cultivated social capital, developed social trust; 

opened and maintained channels of communication; and set norms and expectations 

alongside the community members with whom they work. As exhibited in the example, 

they are personally engaged in the work as participants in the program. They are 

professionally engaged offering expertise regarding the work as it unfolds.   More 

importantly, they are personally and professionally accountable for the success of the 

programs, in word and in deed, and not simply dispassionate by-standers or evaluators.  In 

sum, members of the UPN embody “social capital” as they implement the Promise 

Neighborhood program in their local community, thereby suggesting “cultivating social 

capital” as a process implementation tool for the PN Initiative.  

Enhancing Social Capital with the Family  
 

Although not widely known for this proposition, the Coleman Report of 1966 lends 

itself to a broader conception of inputs to capture the dynamics that inform the educational 

achievement of individual students. In part, a student’s family possesses funds of 

knowledge that independently impact student achievement beyond the educational 

construct of school. Rothstein (2004) expounded upon this by persuasively arguing that 

 
 

138

 

 

asserting that besides schools, many “institutions of youth development” play significant 

roles in the education of young people.  Buttressing the Coleman Report’s conclusions, 

Rothstein categorizes these institutions in terms of family resources, community influences 

and norm-setters, and peers, each group informing the child’s readiness, willingness, and 

ability to perform in school.  Family social capital is variously defined as the intra-familial 

relationships and resources that contribute to children’s academic growth through these 

relationships. Familial inputs include parent educational background, which may affect 

expectations of student performance; material resources that support student learning; 

parenting styles, beliefs and philosophies; and even the number of siblings that a student 

may have. Community inputs involve the resources of communities in which families live 

and the transmission mechanisms by which communities influence students’ academic 

performance. Among countless other things, this may include the number of libraries and 

volumes of books per child in a community; the influence of business leaders and the local 

economy; and cultural and philanthropic events and activities within the community that 

inform the life of the child.  

Lareau (2003) further posits in her research that parenting of children often follows 

two distinct pathways. First, she asserts middle class parenting can be characterized by 

“concerted cultivation,” where parents actively foster and assess their children’s talents, 

opinion and skills, by scheduling activities commensurate to their abilities and reasoning 

with them. Conversely, the children of working-class or poor parents demonstrate progress 

through the “accomplishment of natural growth,” where children’s development is 

“unfolding spontaneously” and in the natural order. The process of schooling provides a 

 
 

139

 

 

direct match to the former, while simultaneously marginalizing and devaluing the latter 

(Lareau, 2003, pp. 237-238). 

 

The UPN seeks to enhance family social capital to both reinforce familial inputs to 

benefit the children that it seeks to serve and foster a match with the culture and 

expectations of school.  As noted above, UPN engages in this work through other agencies, 

but they also have strategically developed roles within the organization to connect with 

parents and families in myriad ways.  A UPN Parent Liaison engages and brings 

programming to parents/families, directly. Additionally, one UPN Program Coordinator, 

links parents directly to services through a team of facilitators who interact regularly with 

parents/families. Moreover, the UPN Community Relations Project Director actively enlists 

community service providers to enroll parents/families in reading and financial literacy 

programs.  

 

 As she seeks to organize her work, the UPN Parent Liaison has a working group that 

actively seeks input and to plan parent engagement events.  She works with both an 

advisory group of about twenty-four parents in an open group that meets once a month to 

plan and/or develop a focus for their work.  They plan breakout sessions for parents and 

discuss strategies for getting them to the meeting.  The UPN Parent Liaison also works with 

other school-based parent liaisons assigned to school buildings served by the UPN and she 

articulated an overarching philosophy that coincides for their collective work.   

I learned the best approach when you're trying to help people is asking what they 
want. Then you tackle that, and then you offer what you want to give them and hope 
they take it. [laughs]  With the parent liaisons, I've been going to the schools. This 
includes the principals. I tell them what I have to offer and ask them what they need 
and see if we can't merge the two.  (UPN Parent Liaison, p. 5)  

 

 
 

140

 

 

The researcher interviewed a group of parents who were recipients of the services offered 

by the UPN. Regarding how she became connected to the services of the UPN, one parent 

stated:  

I didn't go to [the Parent Liaison]. She came to me, just like you said. She made me 
comfortable. Said, "Well maybe you need to do this and maybe you need to do that or 
you know what? ...  You know we're going to work together." (Community Stakeholder 
Interview, Parent 1, p. 12)  
 

This exchange from the researcher’s parent group interview seemingly encapsulated and 

confirmed that this approach has borne some fruit. Note that this group interview took 

place in the absence of any UPN personnel.  

Researcher: Why are you able to receive that sort of advice from [the UPN] when most 
times you wouldn't receive it? 
 
[Mom]:  Well it's the way she came to me with it. She put me in a comfort zone. She 
made me feel... She didn't make me feel like well I was a bad parent. She didn't make 
me feel like I was a wrong parent. She just made me see that there some things you 
need to work on and it's how she talked to me like you're talking. Before I came here, I 
was like, "I don't know what to expect from him." [laughter] [crosstalk] ...  
 
You see how your tone and your voice? You just make me feel like I'm at home talking 
to a friend and that's how they made me feel. They make me feel like I'm with a friend I 
been knowing forever.  When they put me in that position, I just feel like I can just let 
loose and I can observe and take what they're trying to tell me and once that happens. 
I can see where my faults at and it also helps me. (Community Stakeholder Interview, 
Parent 2 p. 11) 

 
Both affable and matter of fact are the two descriptors that come to mind when the 

researcher reflected upon the interview of the UPN Parent Liaison. Her work was most 

illustrative of the challenges that the UPN faces in mobilizing the community ecology to 

support children and families. The UPN Parent Liaison offered these poignant, concluding 

comments about programs and their goal of assisting members in the community.  

If you want to know how a movie is gonna be, if it's going to be good or bad, you 
wouldn't necessarily go to the finished product, you will go to the taping. Tell them 
sometimes they need to come in the community and sit at a table, because you learn to 

 
 

141

 

 

eat with them. You learn more about people sitting at a table eating with them than 
you would learn by watching them eat. 

 ...The end product is always packaged, shiny, nice and cute but the grind.  And these 
people have a very delicate task because even though its still business, its still people, 
and people saying it. You’re in people's lives everyday,. . . , the paraeducators, you in 
people’s homes, you know them.   

When you walk in the house, they ain’t got to tell you if they broke. They ain’t got to 
tell you if they struggling, if they hungry. You walk in somebody's house, and they got 
roaches. It's not their choice. That's a deficit right there. They need something, and 
whatever they need...The fact that they have bugs in the house, the other part is taking 
it over.  You can walk into somebody's house and see the meter out and the lights is 
out. "She never lets me in her house. I wonder why?" Cause the lights out, baby. You 
walk in a house, and it's cold. It's not how they wanting it to be. Because the gas is off. 
[laughs]  

Then, you go right in. You have to accommodate yourself and not be uncomfortable. 
We are adapting in an adjustful (sic), stretching, folding, bending, smiling. We don't 
want to be crying people up in here. [laughs] Honestly it's not the money why we do 
what we do. It's not much. It's because we want to be here more. I want to be here 

My program I have no incentives, none. Everything I'm getting parents is community. 
That's getting people to buy into what I bought into...First, I got to buy into. I believed 
this community is grand. When I go in a room, it's my job to make you believe that. 
believe in whatever you have. You help me, so you help others believe what we believe 
in. I told you what you believe. [laughs] Now, we're going to figure out how to make 
these people believe, so next time the asker becomes the helper. It's like that. (UPN 
Parent Liaison, page 21-22) 

 

With its UPN Parent Liaison work, the UPN is seeking to merge the social capital that 

is within the family (Rothstein, 2004) with the social capital needed for success in schools. 

The interviews with the UPN Lead Parent Liaison illustrate how difficult this work 

portends to be as she describes her parents’ attempts to meet their basic needs according 

to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Notably, this case study reveals that this work is “human 

capital” and time intensive.  As discussed in the group parent interview, the UPN Parent 

Liaison must make personal connections with families and comfort them through the 

developing relationship. Without this bridge, families may choose to avoid the 

 
 

142

 

 

programming that is offered by the UPN.  While the task is challenging, the investment in 

the liaison is essential, and suggests that their attempt to mediate the differences between 

family and school is an essential variation of the social capital process implementation tool 

and critical to the success of the work that the UPN undertakes.  

Personnel deployment as a “process tool” 

 

As the interviews for this case study proceeded, the researcher began to note that 

most of the UPN personnel had local or regional ties to the community that they were 

serving.  Project Directors, Coordinators and/or Managers graduated from the regional 

university. Many of those persons were acquainted with one another and within the 

community in previous roles that they held. Those ties seemed to be most meaningful in 

the two roles where the UPN sought to engage children and families with programs and 

direct services: UPN Lead Parent Liaison and the UPN Community Relations Project 

Director whose primary responsibility was to connect parents to programs and services.    

The UPN Community Relations Project Director is a person who has deep 

connections to the UPN community as exhibited by an exchange with the researcher. One of 

the questions in the interview protocol asks an informant to describe the relationship that 

was the most “easily navigable” in the Promise Neighborhood. The Community Relations 

Project Director was the only informant to respond that the school district was the easiest 

to navigate. Incredulous, I asked her to elaborate. She responded as follows:    

Yes, because I've been working with the schools for years.  Well, my background is 
really mental health. I worked 10 years before I came into [Regional Coalition] 
projects, but every program that I've managed was with the schools. For example, I 
work with all 74 private, public, and parochial school districts in the [regional] 
counties. . . . Because of my work over here, the work over here is a lot easier because I 
already have the connections. [I already] have rapport with people in authority in each 

 
 

143

 

 

one and then in the region, because I went to [the Regional University]. Most of the 
people when we start going around the [region], most of them went to [the Regional 
University] that's in education. So nine times out of ten, I went to school with them, so I 
can still pretend that I went to school with her. I already have relationships with a lot 
of the people in the education entity.  (UPN Comm. Rel. Proj. Dir.  p. 7-8.) 

Under her leadership, the UPN Community Relations Project Manager has sought to 

replicate those relationships among the associates that she supervises and empower them 

to connect families to resources. Each associate has a caseload of no more than thirty-five 

families with whom they correspond regularly, through text or telephone calls, through 

home visits, and in programs that have been designed to meet their needs. These 

meaningful relationships are at the core of their work, and she spoke proudly about one 

success story: 

Good example, one of the people that was hired last week has come on as [a UPN 
associate], was actually one of our. . . families.  That's awesome. I even might say, I love 
it," because she went through the system. She used all our . . . services and now she's 
[an UPN associate]. She can link people to those things. To me that's a testament of 
what we're doing because it shows that it works. The system works. You can actually 
empower people where they can actually come up, and they could begin to be the one 
to help link other people to services. (UPN Comm. Rel. Proj. Dir., p. 6) 

 

Similarly, as demonstrated in the previous section, the UPN Parent Liaison organically 

displayed her understanding of the community that she serves, in part by sharing intimate 

details of her own story.  The UPN Parent Liaison’s lived experience allowed her to enter 

the arena with both empathy and sympathy.  She intimately understands the struggles of 

the families that she and her team are seeking to engage. The engagement work is 

laborious and requires a person to enter the space with a non-judgmental, service-oriented 

mindset.  

As the UPN sought to engage children, families, and community members in their 

programming, those engagements centered upon establishing meaningful relationships.   

 
 

144

 

 

UPN leadership was aware of the need to staff their organization with people with whom 

the local community would relate and to whom they would respond positively.  The 

deployment of human capital is a critical piece of the human services arena. This and other 

work that was on display within the UPN case study confirms that “personnel deployment” 

serves as a process implementation tool.  

 
 

145

 

 

CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, EXPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS 

 

A. CASE STUDY FINDINGS 
 

This dissertation is a case study designed to provide a different lens from which one 

might evaluate what is necessary to implement a complex federal policy in a local context.  

Since the passage of the ESEA, policy makers have worked to balance the levers of federal 

policy with that of local control.  The case study explored how that tension might be 

bridged in the implementation of the policy construct of the Promise Neighborhood Policy.  

Prong 5 of the vision statement of the Promise Neighborhood policy states one objective as 

“Learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program and about the 

relationship between particular strategies in Promise Neighborhoods and student 

outcomes, including through a rigorous evaluation of the program.” Specifically, this 

dissertation expands the perspective from which prong 5 may be viewed to encompass the 

“processes” to which policy implementers must attend.  

The dissertation utilizes a policy analysis framework, the foundation of which is 

rooted in Honig (2006), to analyze the Promise Neighborhood Initiative. While Honig’s 

framework is foundational for our discussion, this framework resides within a 

constellation of education policy implementation research that now recognizes interagency 

collaboration as essential supports for schools and their communities to improve student 

outcomes and achievement (Fusarelli, 2008).  (See the exposition of this framework in 

Figure 2 and the Literature Review of Chapter 2.) In short, the analytical framework calls 

for examining three aspects of the policy:  the composition of the actual “policy”-itself: the 

“people” that it seeks to target and the “place” of implementation.”  

 
 

146

 

 

With regard to the policy, the dissertation first tracked the origins of the policy, 

which rests in the history of the ESEA as it has evolved in its various iterations. This 

historical analysis tracked the Promise Neighborhood policy to the Educate America Act of 

1994, a piece of legislation designed to codify elements of the Goals 2000 initiative.  The 

development of the Harlem Children’s Zone, the prototype for the Promise Neighborhood 

Initiative, was roughly contemporaneous to this codification, and the model contains many 

of the elements of the Educate America Act.  Yet, the case study found that because the 

strategies and core initiatives funded by the HCZ are governed by one, well-funded 

organization, it does not necessarily have to attend to challenges that are present when the 

paradigm shifts to require collaboration among various organizations and local school 

districts to deliver services to children and families.   

With respect to the “place,” the Promise Neighborhood Initiative is a federal 

educational policy that explicitly seeks to catalyze the ecology of a student to improve 

his/her development outcomes and academic performance (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The 

complex interactions and relationships among the actors in identified Promise 

Neighborhoods and their local “ecology” as they seek to implement the federal policy 

provides the lens through which the findings of this dissertation can be viewed.  One UPN 

Assistant Director encapsulated the researcher’s interest in the Promise Neighborhood 

policy as follows:  

Yeah, and that's what makes Promise Neighborhoods way more interesting than a lot 
of Federal initiatives. It's not just you implementing a program on the ground, but 
really building alignment between partners. It's more about system alignment than 
implementing a project, which is the actual very difficulty of doing this work. It's easy 
to find the evidence based programs, and what is supposed to get your results.  But if 
they're not being implemented, and you don't have that accountability system with 
your partners, then it's just money being spent. (Asst. Dir. III, page 13) 

 
 

147

 

 

With respect to the “people,” the case study moved into an analysis of the policy 

instruments (McDonnell and Elmore, 1987) and their targets at the local level.  The 

operation of the policy instruments at a particular site necessitated an examination of the 

ecology of the place (Weaver-Hightower, 2009) and an examination of the interactions of 

the various actors within the context of the place along a partnership continuum 

(Himmelman, 1991).   

The work of this dissertation speaks to the utility of the ecological lens and 

advocates for a substantive analysis of educational policy that captures the roles and 

motives of policy actors; their interdependent and multi-faceted relationships; the dynamic 

environments and social and institutional structures within which the policy is proposed; 

and the manifold and active processes which affect policy implementation. In sum, policy as 

“the authoritative allocation of values” is necessarily mediated through a complex web of 

various persons, relationships, contexts, and processes, and might thereby most 

efficaciously be analyzed within an “ecology” framework (Weaver-Hightower, 2008, pp. 

154-158). Accordingly, this case study examined the ecology of the interactions of the 

institutional structures and the persons therein. 

The case study explored the ecology of the UPN and analyzed its work through the 

lens of each of the major projects that it undertook pursuant to the PN implementation 

grant. Specifically, the dissertation explored the following UPN Initiatives:  

•  UPN-Early Childhood Collaborative;  
•  UPN School District Partnership;  
•  UPN Out-of-School Time Partnerships;  
•  UPN Social Service Collaborative; and  
•  UPN Direct Service Programs.  

 

 
 

148

 

 

Within this exploration, the dissertation unearthed barriers and challenges to 

implementation that are rooted in the independent variables of the Himmelman (1991) 

collaboration framework: time, turf, and trust.  The challenges associated with “time” cut 

across many of the UPN projects and manifested themselves in:  

•  Limited Time and Capacity- UPN Early Childhood Collaborative 
•  Limited Time to Plan and Execute-UPN Out-of-School Time Programs 
•  Opting-Out of Participation- UPN Social Service Collaborative 
•  Manifested Unmet Familial Challenges-UPN Direct Service Programs 

 

The “turf” barriers were represented in all projects: 

•  The Complexity of Programming - UPN Early Childhood Collaborative 
•  Limited Resources (fiscal and human capital) – UPN Early Childhood 

Collaborative 

•  Disparate Accountability Structures- Unified School District Partnership 
•  Differing Perspectives and Beliefs- Unified School District Partnership 
•  Organizational Capacity and Resource Sufficiency- UPN Out-Of-School Time 

Partnerships 

•  History of Program Silos and Limited Participation – UPN Social Service 

Collaborative 

•  Family/Community Norms and Expectations- UPN Direct Service Programs 

 

The “trust” challenges were present in most of the UPN projects and showed up in a variety 

of ways. Among them: 

•  Lack of Communication – Unified School District Partnership 
• 

Interpersonal Relationships and Organizational Dynamics - Out-of-School 
Time Partnerships 

•  Failure of Previous Programs and Initiatives-UPN Direct Service 

Programming.  

 

B. EXPLICATION OF “POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS TOOLS” 
 

While the barriers and challenges were indeed present, the researcher discovered 

that during the implementation of the policy and its embedded policy instruments, the UPN 

deployed various strategies and/or tools to move the targets along the continuum of 

 
 

149

 

 

collaboration to mediate these identified challenges and barriers. Thus, the case study 

explicates the need for policy implementation “process” tools to activate collaborative 

structures to implement the Promise Neighborhood policy.   Through the utilization of 

these process implementation tools, UPN program initiatives moved along Himmelman’s 

Partnership Continuum (Himmelman, 1991). Therefore, this dissertation proposes three 

classes of these process implementation tools:  

•  Formal Ecology Process Tools 
•  Operational Ecology Process Tools  
•  Relational Ecology Process Tools 

 

Formal Ecology Process Tools 

 
Formal Ecology Process Tools are foundational and positional to the partnerships 

within the UPN.  This dissertation described three such catalytic tools that emanate from 

formal authority thereby giving license for and/or spawning action.  

1. 

Formal Agreement and Authority as a process tool. As the grantee 

organization, the UPN through its affiliation with Regional Coalition embodies the “primary 

process tool.” Variously described as the backbone agency, the UPN became a quasi-

governmental entity from which its formal authority emanated. As the primary signatory 

on the memorandum of understanding executed in both the Promise Neighborhood 

planning and implementation grants application, the Regional Coalition positioned the UPN 

in the explicit role of combating and thereby mitigating the adverse policy effects of 

Lipsky’s street-level bureaucrat as the new policy implementation ecology was formed.  

2. 

Convening as a process tool. As the organization with which the grant 

resides, the UPN convenes or gathers potential stakeholders and partners to engage in the 

work of the Promise Neighborhood.  This process tool began its operation with the first 

 
 

150

 

 

trips that the Regional Coalition took to visit the prototype Harlem Children’s Zone prior to 

the inception of the UPN. It further operated to galvanize the neighborhood association to 

build the KaBOOM! Playground. During the formal operation of the UPN, the convening 

process tool is best illustrated in the work of the UPN-Early Childhood Collaborative. With 

fiscal resources obtained from a private foundation, the work of the UPN-ECC began with a 

large meeting of community stakeholders, agencies and childcare providers within which a 

shared goal of growing 40% of the children under 4 years old to meet kindergarten 

readiness benchmarks was developed. Utilizing the fiscal resources in hand and mobilizing 

state and local agencies and partners within the Promise Neighborhood area, the UPN 

developed an executed a plan, identifying and deploying the necessary resources resulting 

in the group surpassing the stated goal.  Note that each of the currencies of collaboration, 

time, turf, and trust, were in full operation in the UPN-ECC. With respect to “time,” the work 

of the UPN-ECC was the most mature in that the work had proceeded for five years at the 

time of the case study. The organizations shared “turf” in the setting of a shared goal, 

utilizing financial resources to purchase the necessary curricular tools and deploying 

personnel from the several agencies for technical assistance and professional learning to 

accomplish the goal. Finally, the surpassing of the shared goal cultivated “trust,” so much so 

that at the time of the site visit, the work had been so successful that the work was being 

scaled up to the county within which the UPN sits. 

The dissertation also illustrated the convening process implementation tool in the 

work of the UPN Social Service Collaborative. The data showed that the UPN-SCC had not 

moved significantly along the collaboration continuum. The currencies of collaboration had 

been limited to that point to monthly meetings that had variable attendance in which the 

 
 

151

 

 

participants shared organizational information. One shared activity, a community fair, did 

occur. However, the UPN-SCC coordinator noted that the task of planning and executing the 

event largely rested with UPN personnel. Additionally, two informants acknowledged that, 

while the UPN-SCC had been meeting, the collective group would be working to develop 

shared goals and a memorandum of understanding for their collective work in the coming 

year.  

3. 

Leadership as a process tool. The UPN thereafter convened the many and 

varied partners to the United Promise Neighborhood.  Most importantly, as difficult and 

very challenging issues of implementation emerged, UPN leadership developed the gravitas 

to navigate those issues to move the implementation work forward. Of note here is the 

work of the UPN with the School District. By most accounts of key informants, the work 

with the school district had gone through a tumultuous three years with significant changes 

in governance and leadership within the School District. In the year of the case study, 

however, several key informants spoke of a watershed moment when the new 

superintendent of the school district and the UPN Director met and mutually agreed to 

proceed and move the partnership forward.  Personnel from both the school district and 

UPN now refer to the catalyzing conversation when they are faced with a communication 

and/or programming challenge.  The relative team members understand the will and 

desire of the leadership to move forward, and they move in the direction to resolve the 

attendant conflict. Moreover, the leadership of both organizations reify this commitment to 

problem solve when such challenges arise. Note that each of the currencies of 

collaboration, time, trust, and turf, are buttressed by the leadership posture in this 

instance. 

 
 

152

 

 

Operational Ecology Process Tools 
 

Operational Ecology Process Tools are intentional, practical and procedural. As 

these process tools are effectively utilized and drawn upon within the UPN, the tools 

become increasingly familiar and meaningful to the participants as the policy actors work 

within and across all initiatives, moving the UPN along the collaboration continuum.  

1. 

Meetings as a process tool.  Within this case study, “meetings” emerged as the 

primary operational process tool. During the site visit, I observed a training in the Results-

Based Facilitation (RBF) protocol that was attended by the entire UPN staff.  The RBF 

protocol embodies each of the three currencies of collaboration: time, trust and turf.  With 

the RBF protocol, the meetings occur at least monthly, and the participants limit the 

meeting to one hour. All key informants spoke to the value of spending time together to 

improve communication and the understanding of the UPN program offerings, proposals, 

and implementation. With regard to turf, the RBF protocol follows an agenda that requires 

action commitments of the parties within the room. The meetings begin with a discussion 

regarding whether the action commitments made at the previous meeting were attained. 

The remainder of the meeting proceeds in accordance with the responses received. By way 

of explanation, if the commitments were not met, problem solving occurs regarding the 

barriers to their attainment. If the commitments were met, the next steps are identified by 

the participants, with a discussion of anticipated challenges so that they might be 

mitigated. Ideally, as the participants in the RBF meetings fulfill their action commitments, 

trust is fostered and grown, enhancing the collaboration posture.  

2. 

Shared, goals, aligning resources and accountability as a process tool.  The 

case study illustrated the process of developing “shared goals, aligning resources and 

 
 

153

 

 

accountability” as a process implementation tool. The establishment and development of 

the UPN Early Childhood Collaborative and its shared goal of kindergarten readiness was 

both a catalyzing and a driving force.  The attainment of that first-year benchmark laid the 

groundwork for the expansion of the UPN-ECC work to the larger county.  This process 

implementation tool was in its infancy in some of the UPN work with the School District, 

where UPN personnel and School District personnel where finding common ground in the 

utility of human resources and programming. As illustrated within the case study, this 

process implementation tool primarily embodies the collaboration currency of “turf.” Note, 

however, that time is required to develop this process implementation tool, and trust is 

fostered as the organizations and individuals work to achieve the goal. 

3. 

  Resource Availability as a process tool. The case study illustrates that the 

UPN actively seeks and deploys fiscal and human capital to accomplish its objectives. The 

UPN successfully obtained grants from public and private sources to accomplish both the 

goals and objectives enumerated in their PN application and the evolving needs of the 

constituents of the UPN. Of note, the UPN obtained funding from a private foundation to 

start the UPN-ECC; deployed those resources to accomplish the shared goal of kindergarten 

readiness; and leveraged that resource to obtain a federal grant to expand the work of the 

UPN-ECC beyond the boundaries of the current Promise Neighborhood. Moreover, in 

concert with research regarding the participation of non-profits in partnership endeavors, 

key informants stated that “resource availability,” or funding, may be a driving 

consideration of at least two community agencies as they engage the UPN accountability 

strategies. Resource availability with and among collaborative partners is the sharing of 

turf and fosters trust along the collaboration continuum.  

 
 

154

 

 

4. 

Professional Learning and Technical Assistance as process tools. The UPN 

invested continually in “professional learning” and deployed “technical assistance”. While 

Results-Based Facilitation was the primary meeting tool utilized, I observed a day long 

training for UPN personnel to increase the efficacy of the practice.  Moreover, UPN 

personnel spoke continually about the need to learn more about their individual practice 

and the need to provide technical assistance to their partners to increase the effectiveness 

of the UPN across all initiatives. This investment in the currency of time appears critical to 

the success of the local initiative.  

5. 

Personnel Deployment as a process tool.  Several hires within the UPN 

suggest that intentionality with respect to “personnel deployment” to maximize the 

prospect of engaging targets to the policy.  While seeking out expertise in each of their key 

initiatives, the UPN sought to hire and build the capacity of individuals from the local 

community. Of note, the Community Relations Project Director has many ties within the 

community that were leveraged by the UPN. Moreover, the UPN Parent Liaison’s personal 

history embodies the role in which she serves. Trust is the primary currency of 

collaboration that is leveraged with this process implementation tool.  

Relational Ecology Process Tools  
 

Relational Ecology Process Tools evolve within the interactions of the partners of 

the UPN.  Rooted in the construct of social capital, the work may be less quantifiable and 

yet, this case study suggests activating these tools have a tangible and palpable effect on the 

targets of the PN policy, thereby furthering the objective implementation of the PN 

Initiative. 

 
 

155

 

 

1. 

Social Capital as a process tool.   Social capital as a construct is produced 

through social interaction; promotes certain behaviors within social structures; and once 

accumulated, can be utilized to accomplish shared goals and objectives. Components of 

social capital include social trust; channels of communication; and norms, expectations, and 

sanctions (Smylie & Evans, 2006). As an organization and over time, the UPN intentionally 

and purposefully (1) developed, (2) cultivated, and (3) enhanced social capital within the 

community.  The researcher’s interactions with the myriad stakeholders within the 

community throughout the site visit demonstrated and the attendant data illustrated that 

that the UPN now possesses a certain cache within the larger community. At its inception, 

the UPN intentionally engaged the community in dialogue regarding its desires, resulting in 

the KaBOOM! Playground build. They then grew or cultivated that social capital as they 

developed the UPN Early Childhood Collaborative and engaged community organizations in 

UPN Out-of-School programming. Notably, a mentoring program was organically grown 

from an idea within the community, and yet the UPN funded the program’s development, 

continuance and expansion. As a relational process tool, the presence of social capital as a 

vehicle for building trust cannot be overstated. While not lending itself to actual 

quantification, the presence of social capital deepens the trust necessary for meaningful 

collaboration among partners.  

2. 

Personnel Deployment as a process tool.  This study also suggests that 

personnel deployment operates as a relational process tool. As stated above, the UPN 

intentionally employs staff from the local community and builds their capacity to do the 

work. When the UPN-ECC sought to hire someone for the work of providing technical 

assistance to child-care providers within the community, they chose a former educator who 

 
 

156

 

 

had an established reputation within the educational community (i.e. possessed social 

capital) to engage home and child care providers in the work of kindergarten readiness. 

Additionally, the UPN actively seeks to replicate the relationships that have been fostered 

by the UPN Project Director for Community Engagement and the UPN Parent Liaison to 

spread its reach to the parents of the children served by the UPN. This relational process 

tool elevates the currency of trust within the collaboration continuum.   

3. 

Personal Relationships as a process tool.   One aspect of social capital is 

“social trust,” which is achieved when members of the group perceive that others are acting 

consistent with and moving towards agreed upon understandings and commitments. This 

“lays the foundation for collective activity, mutual assistance and joint accountability” 

(Smylie & Evans, 2006).  When coupled with “personnel deployment,” the case study 

illustrated that this aspect of social capital increased both the quantity and quality of 

relationships within the UPN.  The data collected indicate that the roles of each member of 

the UPN staff were designed to foster personal relationships that will lead to stronger 

collaborative relationships. Those who seek to cultivate key organizational relationships 

with UPN partners include the UPN leadership. The data showed that each member of the 

team intentionally worked to foster a sense of collective mission and efficacy to improve 

their collaborative efforts.  With regard to the work of growing personal relationships with 

the students, families and neighborhood associations served by the UPN, the UPN Parent 

Liaison poignantly embodies social trust, as she identifies with and seeks to nurture 

personal relationships in every way that she can conceive.  While difficult to quantify 

empirically, the intentionality with respect to the development of personal relationships is 

an essential process implementation tool within the UPN. 

 
 

157

 

 

Policy implementation process tools reify and fortify the relationships necessary for 

local implementation of federal policy. As illustrated in Figure 6 within this case study, the 

utilization of and facility with these tools move the work of the initiative along the 

partnership continuum towards full collaboration.   Moreover, with respect to the delivery 

of “direct services” to children and families, the case study poignantly speaks to the 

compelling notion of unquantifiable, yet verifiable relational tools as the bridge or mediator 

of local trust. Cultivating social capital with and among the persons that an organization 

seeks to serve is critical to understanding the perspectives, dynamics and specific needs 

within the local community. The value of this work cannot be overstated, and nor can 

shortcuts be employed to achieve the objectives that the policy seeks.  

FIGURE 6: UPN INITIATIVES ON THE PARTNERSHIP CONTINUUM 

 

 
 

158

 

 

C. IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL POLICY 

Promise Neighborhood Implications: Investing in the Ecology of Youth Development 
 

While not the primary focus of this dissertation, the Promise Neighborhood 

Initiative as promulgated and the conclusions of this case study suggest that policymakers 

should continue to invest in the various institutions that form the ecology of human 

development for our children (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).  Policymakers have historically 

defined the following as educational “inputs” for students: family background, peer effects, 

innate ability, school environment, and expenditures as a number of unquantifiable, yet 

salient conditions that either bolster or adversely affect student ability (Apple, 1993).  

Employing a simplistic application of the findings of the Coleman Report of 1966, 

policymakers historically have elevated schools as the de facto primary institution of youth 

development almost to the exclusion of others.  Economist Eric Hanushek observed: “While 

family inputs to education are indeed extremely important, the differential impacts of 

schools and teachers receive more attention when viewed from a policy viewpoint. That 

reflects simply that the characteristics of schools are generally more easily manipulated 

than ‘what goes on in the family” (Hanushek, 2003). 

The Promise Neighborhood Initiative lends itself to a broader conception of inputs 

to capture the dynamics that inform the educational achievement of individual students 

(Rothstein, 2004). Many researchers and policymakers have argued for a conceptual 

broadening of our lens to more accurately reflect the level and kinds of inputs that inform 

the education of a given student (Ogbu, 2008; Rothstein, 2004; Lareau, 2003).  Rothstein 

asserts that besides schools, many “institutions of youth development” play significant 

roles in the education of young people (Rothstein, 2004). Many of these institutions may 

 
 

159

 

 

have a measurable effect on the social and educational lives of our children and have 

funding streams that are within the discretionary ambit of policymakers (Lareau, 2003). 

Who and what entities should be empowered and thereafter held accountable for the 

education of our children could potentially ignite a firestorm of discussions around 

parents’ right, race and class, and state and federal entitlements.  It is this explosive 

question that policymakers are loath to approach because they cannot seem to get their 

arms around them (Hanushek, 2003).  Policymakers hold the purse strings of the entities 

that provide services to families at the lower end of the economic spectrum.  In addition to 

schools, several youth development institutions have a firm place in an accountability 

matrix for student performance, including but not limited to parents; local school boards; 

state and local agencies charged with implementing health, housing and nutrition policy; 

cultural organizations; and the state boards of education. Educational researchers should 

seek to illuminate how each of these entities impact critical areas of performance in the 

lives of children and then suggest ways in which policymakers, at the federal, state and 

local levels, can incentivize and/or seek to hold each responsible for the growth and 

development of our children.   

Case Study Implications: Investing in “Policy Implementation Process Tools” 
 

This dissertation case study explicates the construct of “policy implementation 

process tools” as integral to the work of implementing the Promise Neighborhood 

Initiative.   As with most single case studies, the generalizability of findings presents a 

research challenge.  This case study, however, illustrates the need for policymakers to 

consider policy implementation “process” tools and invest in the construct as they chart a 

 
 

160

 

 

course for successful educational policy implementation in the context of local 
communities.  

As demonstrated within this case study, policy implementation process tools reify 

and fortify the relationships necessary for local implementation of federal policy among 

collaborative partners.  This dissertation proposes three classes of process tools that 

operate within the ecology of policy implementation:  

•  Formal Ecology Process Tools 
•  Operational Ecology Process Tools  
•  Relational Ecology Process Tools 

 

Formal Ecology Process Tools are foundational and positional to the partnerships. These 

tools are catalytic tools and emanate from formal authority thereby giving license for 

and/or spawning action. Operational Ecology Process Tools are intentional, practical and 

procedural. As these process tools are effectively deployed, the tools become increasingly 

familiar and meaningful to the participants as the policy targets or actors work within and 

across all initiatives, moving the work along the partnership continuum towards 

collaboration. Relational Ecology Process Tools evolve within the interactions of the 

various partners as they seek to work together.  Rooted in the construct of social capital, 

the work may be less quantifiable and yet, this case study suggests activating these tools 

have a tangible and demonstrable effect on the targets of the policy and the potential 

success of local implementation. 

The case study evidence suggests that the investment in partnership efforts to 

improve educational outcomes can bear fruit when process tools are identified and 

strategically employed.  These “tools” embody the relationship currencies of “time”, “turf” 

and “trust,” the cultivation of which are essential to the furtherance of partnership 

 
 

161

 

 

development in collaborative policy implementation.  As the case study data further posits, 

a primary process tool, a quasi-governmental entity or delegable organization, should be 

imbued with the authority to engage potential partners and must develop the capacity to 

employ the process tools successfully.  

 In sum, policy implementation “process tools,” when properly designed and 

deployed, can effectively navigate educational policy implementation barriers/challenges 

and mediate the complexity of federal policy implementation in place-based initiatives. 

Accordingly, federal policymakers should allocate funding that specifically identifies 

resources (fiscal and human) dedicated to the development and deployment of policy 

implementation “process tools” when seeking to implement federal policy in the local 

context.  

 
 

162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 
 

163

 

 

APPENDIX A: CASE STUDY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 

 
I'm Derrick Lopez, a candidate for a PhD at Michigan State University. I conduct this 
interview as a part of my dissertation study entitled, "Federal Education Policy, the 
Emerging Complexity of Local Implementation, a Promise Neighborhood Case Study." 
 
The interview protocol calls for the audio taping of this interview to ensure an accurate 
record of the responses for purposes of data collection. Are you OK with me audio taping 
this? 

The responses that you provide will be coded under anonymous identifier for purposes of 
review and publication of the following dissertation. It is my hope that this assurance will 
result in candid responses to the questions posed. 

If at any point you are uncomfortable answering a question, in a whole or in part, please do 
not hesitate to let me know, and we will move on to the next question. 

The questions will take about 35 minutes to an hour, depending upon your responses. I 
look forward to hearing your responses. Are we good to go? 

Question 1: Can I have your name and title? Briefly describe your role in the Promise 
Neighborhood with which you are affiliated. What role did you play with the [Regional 
Coalition], if any prior to the [United Promise Neighborhood] being formed?  

Question 2:  Do you know what prompted your community to apply for a Promise 
Neighborhood Grant?  

Question 3: Aside from the [Regional Coalition], who are the partners with whom you 
work that provide the direct services to the children of the [United Promise Neighborhood].  
Describe their role. 

Question 4: At fairly high level, please describe any benefits and challenges to your 
participation in the [UPN]. 

This dissertation is about process, as opposed to outcomes, and how organizations navigate 
the working relationship that you have right now. The next couple of questions will be 
about how you believed that you were able to move organizations towards that common 
goal. 

Question 5: Was there a working relationship with each of these collaborating 
organizations prior to the successful PN application, if any? 

Question 6: Describe your interaction with each of the PN Partners. How often do you 
communicate and in what means? With which partner(s) do you have the best working 
relationship? To what do you attribute the success of the working relationship? 

 
 

164

 

 

Question 7: Explain how the primary mission of your organization works with the goals 
and objectives of the Promise Neighborhood. Do those objectives ever come into conflict? 
Explain how the conflict is resolved. 

Question 8: Please describe a coordinated goal or activity that you have had to pull off with 
the [UPN] team and how that went from start to finish. 

Did any part of the goal/activity that you have described achieve less than the desired 
results? If so, what might be some of the reasons that this project would not obtain some of 
its desired outcomes?  

 

CONCLUSIONS. That concludes the formal portion of the interview.  

We've been talking about _____ 

I thank you for your time 

 I'm going to conclude now. Do you have any questions of me? 

 

Again, thank you for your time.  

 
 

165

 

APPENDIX B: CODING W/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 

 

PN 

TARGETS 
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

APPENDIX B: CODING W/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 
Barrier: Lack of systems/accountability 
Barrier: Negative Perspective 
Barrier: No previous relationship 
Barrier: Poor communication 
Barrier:  Lack of Capacity and Time to Implement 
Barrier: Disparate belief systems 
Barrier: Disparate missions 
Barrier: planning time is limited 
Barrier: Position-ship 
Barrier: Program Silo 
Lack of Trust 
Lack of Trust: Failure to follow through 
Lack of Trust: Failure to understand 
Lack of Trust: Instability of relationships 
Lack of Trust: Poor Communication 
Relationship: Growth 
Relationship: As a bridge builder 
Relationship: common data understanding 
Relationship: communication improvement 
Relationship: developing common goals 
Relationship: personnel deployment 
Relationship: reciprocal knowledge 
Relationship: Social Capital 
Relationship: Teaching 
Relationship: As a catalyst 
Relationship: commitment to a group effort 
Relationship: Formalizing agreement 
Relationship: transactional 
Strategy -Scale, Scale Scope and Sustainability 
Time: long term commitment 
Time: discussion of challenge and issue: Identification 
Time: discussion of challenge and issue: Assessment 
Time: Gathering 
Time: meeting 
Time: productive use 

 

 
 

166

 

INDEPENDENT 

VARIABLES 

Time  Trust  Turf 
X 
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
  
X 
  
  
  
  
X 
  
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 

  
  
  
X 
X 
  
  
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
  
  
  
  
  

 

INDEPENDENT 

VARIABLES 

Time 

X 
X 
  
  
  
X 
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
X 
  

  

  
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
  

 Trust  Turf 
X 
X 
  
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

  
  
X 
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
X 
  

  

  
X 
  
  
  

X 
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
  
  

X 
X 
X 
  
  
X 
X 
  

PN 

TARGETS 
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  
  
  
  
  

X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
  

 

 

 
 

APPENDIX B: CODING W/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 
Time: training 
Time: conference 
Trust: Belief Follows Action 
Trust: Meet a Need 
Accountability: another regulated entity 
Accountability: Process in RBF Described 
Accountability: Program goals 
Accountability: Quality Review System with the state 
Accountability: State Standards 
Goal: Build a cradle to career pipelines 
Goal: how we would align and weave together all the 
stakeholders so that there was a real continuum, 
prenatal through college completion 
Goal: Ideation as a process goal 
Goal: Identify Existing and/or implemented programs 
Goal: Identify Partners Goal 
Goal: PN Goal General 
Goal: Process Goal 
Goal: Program Goal 
Goal: Identification of the existing resources, the 
existing service providers, and where there were gaps 
in the service and how we might fill those gaps 
Leadership as a catalyst for action 
Partnership Continuum: Collaborating 
Partnership Continuum: Cooperating 
Partnership Continuum: Coordinating 
Partnership Continuum: Networking 

PN-Target Initiative: Early Childhood Collaborative 
PN-Target Initiative: Parent/Community Engagement 
PN-Target Initiative: School District Partnership 
PN-Target Initiative: Social Service Collaborative 
Policy Actor: General 
Policy Actor: Quasi-Governmental Agency 
Program: Alignment of existing resources 
Purpose of the Study 

 

167

 

 

 
 
APPENDIX B: CODING W/INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 
Resources: Funding 
Resources: Funding: Relationship Builder 
Resources: Professional Learning and Training 
Resources: Scarcity 
Resources: Staff Capacity 
Strategy: Results Based Facilitation 
Targets: People 
Targets: Place 
Targets: Policy 

PN 

TARGETS 

INDEPENDENT 

VARIABLES 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 

Time 

 Trust  Turf 

  
X 
X 
  
  
X 
  
  
 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
 

 

 
 

168

 

APPENDIX C: CODING WITH 
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES 
Barrier: Lack of 
systems/accountability 
Barrier: Negative Perspective 
Barrier: No previous 
relationship 
Barrier: Poor communication 
Barrier:  Lack of Capacity and 
Time to Implement 
Barrier: Disparate belief systems 
Barrier: Disparate missions 
Barrier: planning time is limited 
Barrier: Position-ship 
Barrier: Program Silo 
Lack of Trust 
Lack of Trust: Failure to follow 
through 
Lack of Trust: Failure to 
understand 
Lack of Trust: Instability of 
relationships 
Lack of Trust: Poor 
Communication 
Relationship: Growth 
Relationship: As a bridge builder 
Relationship: common data 
understanding 

 

 
 

APPENDIX C: CODING W/BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES 

THEMES  

BARRIERS TO 
IMPLEMENTATION 

DISPARATE 
ACCOUNTABILITY 

TIME AS A 
COMMODITY 

RESOURCES AS 
A COMMODITY 

RELATIONSHIPS AS 
A COMMODITY 

 

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  
X 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

  
  

  

X 

  

  

  

  

X 
X 
  
  
X 
  

  

  

X 

X 

  
  

  

169

 

APPENDIX C: CODING WITH 
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES 

Relationship: communication 
improvement 
Relationship: developing 
common goals 
Relationship: personnel 
deployment 
Relationship: reciprocal 
knowledge 
Relationship: Social Capital 
Relationship: Teaching 
Relationship: As a catalyst 
Relationship: commitment to a 
group effort 
Relationship: Formalizing 
agreement 
Relationship: transactional 
Strategy –Scale, Scale Scope and 
Sustainability 
Time: long term commitment 
Time: discussion of challenge 
and issue: Identification 
Time: discussion of challenge 
and issue: Assessment 
Time: Gathering 
Time: meeting 
Time: productive use 
Time: training 
Time: conference 

 

 
 

BARRIERS TO 

DISPARATE 

TIME AS A 

IMPLEMENTATION 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

COMMODITY 

RESOURCES AS 
A COMMODITY 

RELATIONSHIPS AS 

A COMMODITY 

THEMES  

 

  

  

  

  

  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  

170

 

  

  

  

  

  
  
  

  

  

  

  

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

  

  

X 

X 

  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  
  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

  

X 

  

  

  
  
  
  
  

APPENDIX C: CODING WITH 
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES 

Trust: Belief Follows Action 

Trust: Meet a Need 
Accountability: another 
regulated entity 
Accountability: Process in RBF 
Described 
Accountability: Program goals 
Accountability: Quality Review 
System with the state 
Accountability: State Standards 
Goal: Build a cradle to career 
pipelines 
Goal: How we would align and 
weave together all the 
stakeholders so that there was a 
real continuum, prenatal 
through college completion 
Goal: Ideation as a process goal 
Goal: Identify Existing and/or 
implemented programs 
Goal: Identify Partners Goal 
Goal: PN Goal General 
Goal: Process Goal 
Goal: Program Goal 
Goal: Identification of the 
existing resources, the existing 
service providers, and where 
there were gaps in the service 
and how we might fill those gaps 

 

 
 

THEMES  

 

BARRIERS TO 

DISPARATE 

TIME AS A 

IMPLEMENTATION 

ACCOUNTABILITY 

COMMODITY 

RESOURCES AS 
A COMMODITY 

RELATIONSHIPS AS 

A COMMODITY 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  

  

  

X 

  

X 

X 

X 

X  

 X 

 X 

 X 

 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 

 X 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  

  

X 

  

  

  

  

  

X  

 X 

 X 

 X 

 X 
 X 
 X 
 X 

 X 

X 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
  

  

171

 

APPENDIX C: CODING WITH 
BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES 
Resources: Professional 
Learning and Training 
Resources: Scarcity 
Resources: Staff Capacity 
Strategy: Results Based 
Facilitation 
Targets: People 
Targets: Place 
Targets: Policy 

BARRIERS TO 
IMPLEMENTATION 

DISPARATE 
ACCOUNTABILITY 

TIME AS A 
COMMODITY 

RESOURCES AS 
A COMMODITY 

RELATIONSHIPS AS 
A COMMODITY 

THEMES  

 

  

X 
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  
  

X 

X 
X 

X 

  
  
  

  

  
  

  

  
  
  

 
 

172

 

APPENDIX D: CODING W/IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 

 

APPENDIX D: CODING WITH IMPLEMENTATION 
STRATEGIES 
  
Barrier: Lack of systems/accountability 
Barrier: Negative Perspective 
Barrier: No previous relationship 
Barrier: Poor communication 
Barrier:  Lack of Capacity and Time to Implement 
Barrier: Disparate belief systems 
Barrier: Disparate missions 
Barrier: planning time is limited 
Barrier: Position-ship 
Barrier: Program Silo 
Lack of Trust 
Lack of Trust: Failure to follow through 
Lack of Trust: Failure to understand 
Lack of Trust: Instability of relationships 
Lack of Trust: Poor Communication 
Relationship: Growth 
Relationship: As a bridge builder 
Relationship: common data understanding 
Relationship: communication improvement 
Relationship: developing common goals 
Relationship: personnel deployment 
Relationship: reciprocal knowledge 
Relationship: Social Capital 

COLLABORATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

 

  

COLLABORATION 
CONTINUUM 

PN FORMAL 
STRATEGIES 

PN 
OPERATIONAL 
STRATEGIES 

PN 
RELATIONAL 
STRATEGIES  

  
  
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
  
  
  
X 
  
X 
X 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
X 

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
X 

 
 

173

 

APPENDIX D: CODING WITH IMPLEMENTATION 

STRATEGIES 

  
Relationship: Teaching 
Relationship: As a catalyst 
Relationship: commitment to a group effort 
Relationship: Formalizing agreement 
Relationship: transactional 
Strategy -Scale, Scale Scope and Sustainability 
Time: long term commitment 
Time: discussion of challenge and issue: 
Identification 
Time: discussion of challenge and issue: 
Assessment 
Time: Gathering 
Time: meeting 
Time: productive use 
Time: training 
Time: conference 
Trust: Belief Follows Action 
Trust: Meet a Need 
Accountability: another regulated entity 
Accountability: Process in RBF Described 
Accountability: Program goals 
Accountability: Quality Review System with the 
state 

 

COLLABORATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

 

COLLABORATION 
CONTINUUM 

PN FORMAL 
STRATEGIES 

  

PN 
OPERATIONAL 
STRATEGIES 

PN 
RELATIONAL 
STRATEGIES  

X 
  
X 
X 
  
X 
  

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
 
 
 

 

  
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
 
 
 
X 

 

X 
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
 
 
 
X 
X 

 

X 
X 
X 
  
  
  
X 

X 

  

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
 
 
 

 

174

 

 

 

 
 

APPENDIX D: CODING WITH IMPLEMENTATION 

STRATEGIES 

  
Accountability: State Standards 
Goal: Build a cradle to career pipelines 
Goal: How we would align and weave together all 
the stakeholders so that there was a real 
continuum, prenatal through college completion. 
Goal: Ideation as a process goal 
Goal: Identify Existing and/or implemented 
programs 
Goal: Identify Partners Goal 
Goal: PN Goal General 
Goal: Process Goal 
Goal: Program Goal 
Goal: the identification of the existing resources, the 
existing service providers, and where there were 
gaps in the service and how we might fill those gaps 
Leadership as a catalyst for action 
Partnership Continuum: Collaborating 
Partnership Continuum: Cooperating 
Partnership Continuum: Coordinating 
Partnership Continuum: Networking 
PN-Target Initiative: Early Childhood Education 
Collaborative 
PN-Target Initiative: Parent and Community 
Engagement 

 

COLLABORATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

 

COLLABORATION 
CONTINUUM 

PN FORMAL 
STRATEGIES 

  

PN 
OPERATIONAL 
STRATEGIES 

PN 
RELATIONAL 
STRATEGIES  

  
  

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

  
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
  
X 
  

  

X 
 
 
 
 

X 

X 

  
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
  
X 

X 

 
X 
X 
X 
 

X 

X 

  
  

  

  

  

  
  
X 
  

  

 
 
 
 
 

X 

X 

175

 

 

 
 

APPENDIX D: CODING WITH IMPLEMENTATION 

STRATEGIES 

  
PN-Target Initiative: School District Partnership 
PN-Target Initiative: Social Service Collaborative 
Policy Actor: General 
Policy Actor: Quasi-Governmental Agency 
Program: Alignment of existing resources 
Purpose of the Study 
Resources: Funding 
Resources: Funding: Relationship Builder 
Resources: Professional Learning and Training 
Resources: Scarcity 
Resources: Staff Capacity 
Strategy: Results Based Facilitation 
Targets: People 
Targets: Place 
Targets: Policy 

 

COLLABORATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 

 

COLLABORATION 
CONTINUUM 

PN FORMAL 
STRATEGIES 

  

PN 
OPERATIONAL 
STRATEGIES 

PN 
RELATIONAL 
STRATEGIES  

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
  
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
  
  

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
  
X 
  
  
  
X 
  
  
  
  

X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
  
X 
X 
  
X 
X 
  
  
  

X  
X 
  
  
  
  
  
X 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

176

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

177

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 
 
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform. New 

York: Teachers College Press. 

 
Apple, M. (1993). The Politics of Official Knowledge: Does a National Curriculum Make 

Sense? Teacher's College Record , 95, 222-241. 

 
Askins, B. (1984) "The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act: Some Changes in 

Federal Funding of Elementary and Secondary School Programs." Texas Tech Journal 
of Education 11(3), 205-19. 

 
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Developement, Experiments by Nature and 

Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). 
 
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of    

Sociology , S95-S120. 

 
Coleman, J., Campbell, E. Q., McPartland, F., Mood, A. M., & Weinfeld, F. D. (1966). Equality     

of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. 

 
Dodge, K., Putallaz, M., & Malone, D. (2002). Coming of Age: The Department of 

Education. The Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 674-676.  

 
Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981, H.R. 3941, 97th Cong.  
 
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015). 
 
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of 

Management Review , 532-550. 

 
Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and School Success: The Politics and Culture of 

Educational Achievement. Anthropology and Education Quarterly , 18 (4), 335-356. 

 
Friese, S. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. (2nd Ed.) London: Sage 

Publication. 

 
Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. (3rd Ed.) London: Sage 

Publication. 

 
Fusarelli, B. (2008). "The Politics of Coordinated Services for Children: Interinstitutional 

Relations and Social Justice." In Cooper, B., Cibulka, J. , & Fusarelli, L. (Eds), 
Handbook of Education Politics and Policy (pp. 351-371). Abingdon: Routledge. 

 
 

178

 

 

Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006, December). Equality of Educational Opportunity: A  40-

Year Retrospective. Madison, Wisconsin, United States. 

 
Garn, G. (1999). Solving the Policy Implemenntation Problem: The Case of Arizona Charter 

Schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives , 7 (26), 129-147. 

 
Gazley, B., & Brudney, J. (2007). The Purpose (and Perils) of Government-Nonprofit 

Partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 36 (3), 389-415. 

 
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Toward and Interpretive Theory of Culture. The 

Interpretation of Cultures (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books. 

 
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. No. 103-227, H.R. 1804, 103rd Cong. (1994).  
 
Graddy, E. A., & Chen, B. (2006). Influences on the Size and Scope of Networks for Social 

Service Delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 16 (4), 533-
552. 

 
Green, T. (1983). In e. a. Excellence, L. Shulman, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching    

and Policy (pp. 318-341). New York: Longman. 

 
Grossman, A. S., & Curran, D. F. (2004). Harlem Children's Zone, The: Driving Performance 

with Measurement and Evaluation. Harvard Business Review. 

 
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding Collaboration Among Nonprofit Organizations: 

Combining Resource Dependency, Institutional, and Network Perspectives.   
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 34 (5), 340-361. 

 
Hall, P., & McGinty, P. (1997). Policy as the Transformation of Intentions: Producing  

Program From Statute. The Sociological Quarterly , 439-467. 

 
Hanna, J. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Act -40 Years Later. 

http:www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819.html. 

 
Hanushek, E. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. Economic Journal , 113, 

F64-F69. 

 
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young 

American Children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 

 
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School. In  

B. A. Levinson, Schooling the Symbolic Animal: Social and Cultural Dimensions in 
Education (pp. 169-189). Lanham, MA: Roman & Littlefield. 

 
Heise, Michael, "Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The Federalization and Legalization of 

Educational Policy" (1994). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 693. 

 
 

179

 

 

Honig, M. (2006). Complexity and Policy Implementation: Challenges and Opportunities in 

the Field. In M. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: 
Confronting Complexity. Albany, NY: State University Press of New York. 

 
Honig, M., Kahne, J., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2001). School-community connections: 

Strengthening opportunity to learn and opportunity to teach. In V. Richardson, 
Handbook of Research on Teaching (4th ed., pp. 998-1028). Washington: American 
Educational Research Association. 

 
Huck, S. (2008). Reading Research and Statistics (5th Ed). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 
 
Hulsey, L., Esposito, A., Boiler, K., and Osborn, S. (2015). Promise Neighborhood Case 

Studies. Mathematica Policy Research. https://mathematica-mpr.com/our-
publications-and-findings/publications/promise-neighborhoods-case-studies-final-
report. 

 
Huxham, C. (Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage. 
 
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382, H.R. 6, 103rd  Cong. 
 
Jang, H. S., & Feiock, R. (2007). Public versus Private Funding of Nonprofit Organizations: 
Implications for Collaboration. Public Performance & Management Review , 31 (2), 
174-190. 

 
Jeffrey, J. (1978). Education for Children of the Poor. A Study of the Origins and 

Implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Columbus: 
Ohio State University Press.  

 
Kahlenberg, R. D. (2001). Learning from James Coleman. Public Interest (Summer), 54-72. 
 
Kantor, H. (1991). “Education, Social Reform, and the State: ESEA and Federal Education 

Policy in the 1960s.” American Journal of Education, 100 (1), 47–83. 

 
Lareau, A. (2000). Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary 

Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 

 
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods-Class, Race, and Family Life. Los Angeles: University of 

California Press, Ltd. 

 
Lipsky, M. (1980). Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in  

Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 

 
Mashek, D. & Nanfito, M. (2015). People, Tools, and Processes that Build Collaborative 

Capacity. 10.13140/RG.2.1.1628.8084. 

 
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. 

 
 

180

 

 

McDonnell, L. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the Federal Role in Education: Evolution or 

Revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19-38.  

 
McDonnell, L. (2004). Persuasion as policy instrument. In Politics, Persuasion, and 

Educational Testing (pp. 23-45). Boston: Harvard College Press. 

 
McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. (1987). Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments. 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 9 (2), 133-152. 

 
McLaughlin, M. (2006). Implementation Research in Education: Lessons Learned, Lingering 

Questions and New Opportunities. In M. Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education 
Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity (pp. 209-228). Albany, NY: State 
University of New York Press. 

 
McLaughlin, M. (2005). Listening and Learning from the Field: Tales of Policy 

Implementation and Situated Practice. In A. Lieberman (Ed.), The Roots of  
Educational Change (pp. 58-72). Brussels, Netherlands. 

 
McLaughlin, M. (1991). The Rand Change Agent Study: Ten Years Later. In A. Odden (Ed.), 

Education Policy Implementation (pp. 143-156). Albany: State University of New   
York Press. 

 
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research in Counseling 

Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250-260.  

 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, H.R. 1, 107th Cong. (2002). 
 
Ogbu, J. (2008). Minority Status, Oppositional Culture, and Schooling. New York: Routledge. 
 
Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic 

Disengagement. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

 
Ogbu, J. (1992). Understanding Cultural Diversity and Learning. Educational Researcher ,    

21, 5-14+24. 

 
Orfield, G. (1996). Turning back to segregation. In G. Orfield, & S. E. Eaton, Dismantling 

desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education (pp. 1-22). New  
York: The New Press. 

 
Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Yu, H. C. (1998). Adolescent Worlds: Negotiating Family, Peers, 

and School. Albany: SUNY Press. 

 
Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in 

Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

 

 
 

181

 

 

 (2009). Race to the Top Program, Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Education. 

 
Reauthorizing ESEA: Making Research Relevant: Educator Effectiveness: A Pocket Guide. 

2011. ProQuest. Web. 5 March 2014. 

 
Riley, R. (2002). Education Reform through Standards and Partnerships, 1993-2000. The 

Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 700-707.  

 
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and Schools: Using Social, Economic, and Educational Reform to 

Close the Black-White Achievement Gap . Washington, D.C. : Economic Policy   
Institute. 

 
Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. J. (2008). A Report Card on Comprehensive Equity: 

Racial Gaps in the Nation’s Youth Outcomes. Washington DC: Economic Policy 
Institute. 

 
Saldana, J. (2009).  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA; Sage 

Publications. 

 
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-239, H.R. 2884, 103rd Cong.  
 
 
Smylie, M. A., & Evans, A. E. (2006). Social Capital and the Problem of Implementation. In M. 

Honig (Ed.), New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting 
Complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

 
Sowa, J. (2009). The Collaboration Decision in Nonprofit Organization: Views from the Front 

Line. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 38 (6), 1003-1025. 

 
Stallings, D. (2002). A Brief History of the U.S. Department of Education, 1979-2002. The 

Phi Delta Kappan, 83(9), 677-683.  

 
Thomas, J. & Brady, K. (2005). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act at 40: Equity, 

Accountability, and the Evolving Federal Role in Public Education. Review of 
Research in Education, vol. 29, pp. 51–67.  

 
Tough, P. (2008). Whatever It Takes. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 
 
United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk : 
the imperative for educational reform : a report to the Nation and the Secretary of 
Education, United States Department of Education. 

 
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2014, May). Promise Neighborhoods Grants 

(Publication No. GAO-14-432). Retrieved from GAO Reports Main Page via GPO 
Access database: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gaoreports/index.html 

 
 

182

 

 

 
U.S. Department of Education. (2012, January 27). Retrieved March 12, 2012, from 

www.ed.gov: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html. 

 
Veliz-Ibanez, C. G., & Greenberg, J. B. (1988). Formation and Transmission of Funds of 
Knowledge among U.S.-Mexican Households. In B. A. Levinson, Schooling the   
Symbolic Animal: Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education (pp. 202-222).   
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 

 
Wallace, J. & Lopez, D. (2012) The Homewood Children’s Village: A Child-Centered Next 

Generation Comprehensive Community Initiative In Emejulu, A. (ed.) Community 
Development in The Steel City (31-39) Edinburgh: Community Development Journal 
Ltd.  

 
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2008). An Ecology Metaphor for Educational Policy Analysis: A Call 

for Complexity. Educational Researcher , 37 (3), 153-167. 

 
Williams, E. N. & Morrow, S. L. (2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research. A 

pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research, 19  (4-5), 576-582. 

 
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research (Fourth ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 
 
 

 
 

183