Youth-and Community-Driven Policies and Services
San Francisco and Oakland, CA
An American Youth Policy Forum Field Trip — October 20-23, 2002
The American Youth Policy Forum field trip offered an opportunity to learn about a range of youth development programs, including Beacon Centers serving [children] and youth in the after-school hours, and the Bay area’s active youth leadership movement, including Service and Conservation Corps featuring education, service and workforce development opportunities for older youth.
Implementing a Vision of Children and Youth Services in San Francisco
To provide field trip participants with the local context of support for youth programming, staff of the James Irvine Foundation convened a panel from the San Francisco youth-serving community comprised of youth advocates, technical assistance and service providers, youth leaders and a representative of the public school system. Featured were public/private partnerships, the work of the Coleman Advocates in helping to bring about a tax set-aside for youth programs, the San Francisco Youth Commission, and the Children’s Amendment or legislative blueprint for the work of the San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families (DCYF) . Panelists discussed how community organizations and community leaders work together to influence policymakers and system leaders to establish the climate and commitment to youth and to raise the on-going resources to support this commitment.
The panel included:
- Margaret Brodkin, Executive Director, Coleman Advocates, whose mission is to serve as a voice for children in San Francisco, making resources available to children and their families;
- Cedric Yap, Deputy Director, Department of Children, Youth and Their Families
- Sam Piha, Director for Community and School Partnerships, Community Network for Youth Development (CNYD), a youth development intermediary, and managing director of the San Francisco Beacon Initiative (1996-2001);
- Sue Ethridge, CNYD Executive Director;
- Tanene Alison, San Francisco Youth Commission; and
- Susan Kagahiro, San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) and DCYF.
According to Margaret Brodkin, San Francisco has a strong support structure for youth programming which few cities have successfully replicated. The first key element is the political will to create a framework. However, the real instrument for social reform must come from individuals within the community with an independent voice that provides a constant drumbeat to organize the community around children and youth issues. There must also be a stable funding stream.
Brodkin spoke about S.F. efforts to generate funding at the local level to support out-of-school and after-school programming. With the passage of Proposition 13, the California tax initiative that severely limited the capacity of all education organizations to raise revenues for educational programming, San Francisco resorted to a variety of funding strategies (including developer impact fees and park bonds) to fund out-of-school and after school programs. The most significant strategy was a Children’s Fund that was passed as a ballot initiative by voters in 1991 and renewed overwhelmingly in 2001. This fund, now known as the Children’s Amendment generates financial resources for over 200 different programs and serves approximately 25,000 children with some duplication. It is a major source of funding for after school programs and has transformed the services that are available to the city’s children.
Under this initiative, the city government automatically sets aside 3 percent of property tax revenue for services for children. Brodkin argued that one of the biggest advantages associated with this approach to raising funds is that it is no longer necessary to engage in annual budget battles to fund children’s programs. This initiative and the money that it has produced illustrates the potential power of elections and the political process in generating funding for youth programs. The recent reauthorization of the initiative was incredibly popular with the public and provided some leverage with politicians who might otherwise have resisted spending for youth. The initiative was also useful because supporters were able to use the money to leverage more money from other sources including private foundations, and state and federal government. One of the challenges, however, has been to create a whole new infrastructure for planning children’s services and determining how to allocate the funding. There have also been some challenges associated with implementation, such as establishing necessary and appropriate accountability, oversight and training procedures.
Cedric Yap provided a demographic view of this extremely diverse racial and ethnic community and described the work of the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF). San Francisco is both a city and a county with one unified school district. This is a progressive city, rich in philanthropic organizations that have helped the policy and system change process. The number of families in the city is shrinking primarily because of the lack of affordable housing and quality public schools. Approximately one-third of the city’s young people attend private schools which increases the financial burden on families living in the city.
Yap praised Coleman Advocates for their help in creating the Youth Commission and indicated that because of the work of members of the community, such as Coleman Advocates and CNYD, there is no longer a conversation among policymakers and practitioners about whether youth development is the proper framework to provide quality youth programs. People better understand the benefits of investment in youth and how prevention efforts are more cost effective in the long run vs. intervention or suppression efforts.
The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families is a city department which funds 144 community-based organizations, is a facilitator of numerous citywide initiatives, and coordinates strategic planning among agencies. The focus is on prevention efforts for 0-18 year-olds.
An example of a current collaborative effort is that DCYF is partnering with the Private Industry Council (PIC) and the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) to develop quality standards around workforce preparedness programs so that businesses know what to expect from a young person after they have gone through a DCYF or PIC funded program. DCYF facilitated collaboration among the Department of Public Health and the SFUSD to put wellness centers in targeted high schools. . DCYF leverages contributions from the Children’s Fund to support the SafeStart initiative to minimize the impact that exposure to violence has on children ages 0 – 6, and to assure collaboration among community-based organizations and government agencies. DCYF, the PIC and SFUSD jointly fund a Youth Employment Mapping project undertaken to understand how to improve deployment of resources, create better policies and quality programs, and set expected outcomes for young people.
San Francisco is attempting to decrease juvenile gang activity. DCYF was instrumental in convening the community and other city agencies and law enforcement to develop a citywide plan to reduce gang involvement. Funding decisions are based on hard data. For example, 50% of all juvenile gang crime happens in two neighborhoods. It is now possible to focus funding and collaboration with specific neighborhood CBOs and citizen groups. (For more information on DCYF activities visit www.dcyf.org or www.sfchildren.org)
Tanene Alison, Chair of the San Francisco Youth Commission, described the Commission’s work. The Youth Commission includes 17 youth between the ages of 12-24. Each city Supervisor appoints one young person to the Commission. Commissioners are appointed for one-year terms, though they can be reappointed. Alison is in her third term.
The role of the Commission has been written into the city’s Charter: to advise the Mayor and Board of Supervisors on legislative issues impacting children and youth. The Commission conducts hearings on emerging issues (examples cited included the prohibition against skate boarding in parks, the issue of policemen in the schools), writes reports and conducts press conferences on youth-related issues.
Tanene cited a number of examples where the Commission has weighed in on public policy initiatives. The Commission conducted an investigation into the efficacy of a Boot Camp proposed by the Governor. After a successful teach-in to advocacy groups was held, the proposal was dropped. The Commission also surveys youth, identifying issues that should be addressed and works to get resolutions on the city ballot. She indicated that youth homelessness is a big issue which they are monitoring; also, the Commission worked to increase funds for youth who have aged out of foster care. A current project involves organizing a mock vote in an attempt to overcome younger voter apathy. Not only does this interest the youngsters in politics, but it also gives public officials a gauge on how the upcoming generation of voters is going to vote and what issues interest them. Politicians can now raise issues in which the youth show marked interest.
Susan Kagehiro represented the San Francisco Unified School District. She stressed the importance of parental and community involvement and partnerships in developing strong after school programs. According to Kagehiro, the key challenge is to build and maintain the capacity of these partnerships.
Currently, there are 72 after-school programs in the 120-school district. In order to better sustain and build on the programs, SFUSD has layered their funding streams, taking what already exists, building upon the program, and learning from what has been done before. The school district focuses on academic achievement and making school a better place, acknowledging that academic achievement is not just the responsibility of the school district but also the entire city. Creating school to community partnerships expands capacity and increases opportunities for student learning. The future of San Francisco is being built on what has been done in the past, not by creating new systems, but rather one system that is integrated.
Sam Piha and Sue Ethridge discussed the goals of the Community Network for Youth Development (CNYD). Ethridge spoke about the evolution of the San Francisco Beacon Initiative and efforts to develop a comprehensive model that could coordinate myriad San Francisco youth programs and infuse them with a youth development focus. She traced the initiative back 12 years when representatives from a number of foundations came together to talk about youth development and to align their vision. This group visited the New York City Beacons and developed into a broader base group with the school district, DCYF, Department of Parks and Recreation, Juvenile Justice and community youth agency leaders.
The San Francisco Initiative is modeled after the New York City Beacons which:
- serve all neighborhood youth and their families
- are place-based with the school as the place
- are school-based but neighborhood run
- act as a neighborhood center
- offer a broad array of programs and choices for young people and adults
- require a public/private partnership
The San Francisco Initiative differs from the New York City model in that the public schools are full partners, contributing in-kind space and resources, and multiple CBOs are engaged in the delivery of programs.
In 1995, CNYD joined the Initiative as an intermediary helping with technical assistance, regulations and other necessary arrangements. In 1996, the first four sites opened. Ethridge described the experience as “Like driving a train while laying the track.” Currently, there is one Beacon in each of the eight highest need areas of the city. Each center receives $300,000 to $350,000 in core funding for basic programming and staff. These funds are to be used to leverage additional funding streams.
The San Francisco Beacon Initiative is a public/private partnership between the city and other stakeholders to develop comprehensive, youth-centered programs and strengthen community support of children and youth. There are currently eight Beacon Centers, which transform school sites into community centers after school, during summers, and on the weekends and have a common goal to provide all San Francisco youth with a safe place to go, caring adults, constructive activities, and opportunities for meaningful community involvement. Each site has different programming according to the needs and resources of the surrounding community. “The Centers . . . offer a broad range of challenging and enriching youth development opportunities in education, career development, arts and recreation, leadership, and health. Neighborhood adults benefit from English and computer lessons, community events, and parent support groups.” Walker, IK.E., Arbreton, A.J.A. October 2001. Working Together to Build Beacon Centers in San Francisco: Evaluation Findings from 1998-2000.
The governance structure for the San Francisco Beacon Initiative consists of a Steering Committee comprised of representatives of the school district, the Mayor’s Office, private funders, and CNYD, which oversees Beacon development and quality. The Steering Committee coordinates Beacon core funding, oversees a comprehensive evaluation, and streamlines and unifies grant and data collection and reporting requirements.
Beacon Centers
Field trip participants were given the opportunity to visit a Beacon center—either the Community Bridges Beacon at Everett Middle School or the Richmond Village Beacon at George Washington High School.
Community Bridges Beacon at Everrett Middle School
Field trip participants met with Robert Haas, principal of Everrett Middle School and representatives of St. John’s Educational Thresholds, the lead CBO for Community Bridges Beacon Center at Everrett Middle School. St. John’s is not a faith-based group; it is non-profit and non-sectarian.
Everett Middle School serves 650 students in grades 6 through 8. Approximately 60 percent are Latinos, 20 percent African American, and the remainder is Filipino, Chinese and other ethnic groups. This is also an English Language Learning school for newcomers to the U.S. The majority of students qualify for free or reduced lunch and the school is in the Academic Performance Index [1] (on a scale of 1-10). One of the challenges at the school is high teacher and administrator turnover (Haas has only been in his position for two months). There have been six different principals in the last five years. He views the Beacon Center as providing a layer of richness, continuity and a way of getting the community vested in the school.
The Beacon, established in 1999, provides an opportunity for greater attention to the needs of the young people. Providers are in close dialogue with regular school day staff and make referrals to appropriate agencies and services. Staff works to align and support the school curriculum. Because the center is supported by strong CBO programs with high visibility in the school, community resources are corralled and provide an expanded system of support and enrichment for students and community members. Hass cited the importance of having inter-generational mentoring programs involving high school students, peers and community volunteers.
For children and youth (650 served), the Beacon curriculum includes:
- education activities—e.g., help with elementary reading and Algebra, computer class, an after-school learning academy, study hall, health (Girl’s Take Charge, Youth Learning to Overcome Criminalization, Talking Circles);
- arts and recreation—e.g., Urban Artworks, Magical Creations, soccer, Un Poco Loco Drum & Dance Ensemble, Tahitian Dance, Graffiti Arts, poetry, photography;
- career experiences--school-to-career and entrepreneurship;
- leadership—e.g., Youth Leadership Council, Changemakers, Students Leaders Against Sexual Harassment, Kid Power, BOSS Summer Interns.
Among offerings for family and adults (230 served annually) are: English as a Second Language, ASLA Salsa Volunteers, computer classes, Eskrima Martial Arts, Childwatch, and Atomic Tae Kwando. Additionally, members of the community (over 3,000 annually) participate in community and cultural events, such as Hip Hop Appreciation Week, Haunted House, Family Literacy Night and Theater Academy. The technology lab and media technology are available to the community, and a Beacon case manager is funded by the juvenile services department. The community learns about Beacon programs through word of mouth and flyers distributed throughout the community, including the local elementary schools.
In addition to CBO staff, the center uses paraprofessionals from the school for many activities, as opposed to the regular teaching staff. The philosophy guiding programming is to match offerings to youth interests, so effort is made to make programming as flexible and youth-centered as possible. Also, volunteers are provided through the Experience Corps (a city-supported stipend program), Vista and AmeriCorps. Training is provided for adult and youth volunteers.
Beacon staff were not satisfied with the after-school snack program provided through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and so are supplementing this effort with donations from the Food Bank.
Field trip participants visited a number of activities taking place, including the Drop Zone which is open from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. It is a large room outfitted with comfortable furniture, a boom box—a place to “hang” safely with peers. The room is staffed with a young AmeriCorps volunteer who helps young people organize and implement activities such as stilt walking, juggling and discussion sessions.
According to St. John’s Educational Thresholds, the CBO has an annual budget of $1.4 million and the budget for the Beacon is $740,000. Of this amount, $108,000 comes from state after-school funds, $50,000 is provided from a city agency for case management, and $360,000 is core funding from DCYF. Between $5,000 and $25,000 is received from private foundations. These funds help to leverage other funds, such as the Community Challenge Grant and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Approximately 20 Beacon Center partners provide in-kind donations to make the range and depth of programming possible. Still, a great deal of fundraising is constantly required. Invariably, funding sources have different expectations, requirements and inflexible support structures.
Richmond Village Beacon at Washington High School
During the tour of the Richmond Village Beacon at Washington High School, time was spent in a roundtable discussion with students, school personnel, and leaders learning about the origins of the Beacon center and about the role of the Beacon in the lives of the young people and their families.
The lead agency or CBO for the Beacon site is the Richmond District Neighborhood Center. In 1980, the Center opened and operated with no paid staff for three years. Initially, the Neighborhood Center provided private music lessons to disadvantaged children on a sliding scale fee.
Ten years ago, the Richmond District received Children’s Fund money. The District formed a collaborative program that provided school-based programming and focused on programming in the arts through a partnership with the Richmond District, the YMCA and SFUSD. When discussions were taking place regarding where to locate the next Beacon to come on line, Washington High School, though it was also unusual to have a Beacon at a high school, was considered an ideal site. Currently, the Beacon offers over 50 programs, including computer, yoga and self-defense classes, video production. There are parenting groups, youth clubs (Black Student Union, Latino Club, Young Men’s and Young Women’s clubs), a college and career center, and health and leadership activities. Over 1000 people are served, including students, families and community members.
The young people at the roundtable discussion reported that the Beacon and school provide an outlet for individual and group student expression. Students have formed clubs that reflect the diversity within their cultural experiences. For example, the Gay and Straight Alliance allows young people to come together and hold functions where they can safely interact and intermingle. African American students who believed their voices were not being heard and who felt left out of school activities, despite the availability of diverse cultural programming, formed their own student union. A teacher that worked with the African American student union showed samples of student oral history projects that linked their family lives to those of the Black Panthers.
Beacon leaders reported that youth who attend the Beacon programs spend 8-10 hours a week in programming. The Beacon program also pays for college students to interact with and provide services to high school students. When a program leader was asked about teacher support, he responded: “Teachers are pretty involved with the Beacon program and really work hand in hand with the Beacon staff.” One of the problems that Beacon site leaders mentioned was a lack of office space.
The list of core and private funders for the Richmond Village Beacon parallels that of the Community Bridges Beacon; however, the center partners and leveraged funding sources differ in keeping with the focus of the respective programming.
Education Reform, Service and Career Preparation
Visits to the East Bay Conservation Corps in Oakland and the San Francisco Conservation Corps offered two very different visions of how community-based organizations approach the delivery of education and service opportunities.
East Bay Conservation Corps (EBCC)
The visit to EBCC provided an opportunity to visit a charter school, to meet with the executive director of the EBCC, and view corps participants in education and service activities. The EBCC is a multi-program organization that promotes youth development through environmental stewardship and community service. The EBCC has been in the forefront of service-learning programs and curriculum development. The EBCC charter school promotes academic achievement through a service-learning approach that integrates service, civic and spiritual development, and creative expression across a full range of academic subjects.
After a brief tour of parts of the Corps’ headquarters, visionary Executive Director Joanna Lennon described her personal and organizational odyssey at EBCC stretching over 19 years. From a corps of young adults focused on environmental improvement and providing employment for out-of-school youth, EBCC evolved into a new and comprehensive model of public education, beginning from kindergarten and stretching incrementally to at least high school-age level academic and youth development. (See discussion of the EBCC Charter School below).
Founded in 1983, the Corps built on the work of the California Conservation Corps. Aided by the California Bottle Bill, which grants local conservation corps 10 percent of the state’s proceeds from recyclables. EBCC’s recycling program is now self-supporting and able to direct funds to the Corps’ other educational programs. The AYPF group later visited the large recycling center where commodities are picked up by the Corps from many clients, including corporations and colleges.
Corps members may earn the GED or an Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) Diploma, both supported (in part) by ADA funds on the theory of public funds following the student who is not enrolled in a traditional public school classroom. Most impressive, Lennon reported that EBCC diplomas represent academic achievement averaging 12.9 years, as contrasted with the more typical American level of only 9 to 10 years.
The Corps today is composed largely of African American and Latino youth with a mix of other ethnicities. A highly motivated and committed staff includes many graduates of the Corps’ experience. EBCC also includes one of the largest AmeriCorps Programs in the state and second largest in the US, with 110 AmeriCorps members providing literacy tutoring as well as health and garden programs at OUSD elementary, middle and alternative school sites.
Lennon’s own development led her to conclude that schools can’t change unless teachers change the way they have traditionally taught. In service-learning, she found a powerful methodology for enhancing academic learning, personal development and civic engagement. Thus, service-learning is an integral part of every part of EBCC’s daily life and mission.
Next, Lennon and her colleagues spent three years in intensive consultation with the community before opening a public charter school, in 2001 currently enrolling 140 students from K-grade 5. Their rationale, in brief, why wait to age 17 to instill the habits and ethics of service when such values are readily developed in childhood?
In sum, EBCC struck our AYPF visitors as not only dynamic and of high quality, but unique in offering a practical and attainable model of education in its most comprehensive form, from early childhood into the transition years of young adulthood. Highly developed spiritual literacy and civic engagement are the essential ingredients and the overriding goals of the EBCC family of carefully integrated “programs.”
EBCC Charter School. A much-too-brief visit to the recently launched Elementary level of the EBCC Charter School (leased from a Catholic church with renovations largely contributed by a major construction company) was led by Head of Elementary School John Oubre. A former staffer at the Eagle Rock School in Estes Park, CO. Oubre struck many of us as a visionary educator in-sync with the philosophy espoused by EBCC’s Executive Director Joanna Lennon.
The school was opened in 2001 after three years of intensive planning with national leaders and key EBCC staff to articulate a clear framework; including an explicit mission and guiding principles for the school in K-5 classes, a maximum of 20 students per classroom. The school’s enrollment is 42% African American, 26% multi-racial parentage, 15% Caucasian, 7% Latino, 5% Asian and 5% other. The cost per pupil, according to Lennon, is about $10,000 of which only $4,500 comes from Oakland USD ADA funds. A number of volunteers assist in the classroom as tutors and teacher assistants. Regular teachers (200 persons applied for and 75 were interviewed for only eight new slots) have at least a B.A. degree and a teaching credential. In addition, there are three Teacher Interns who are working full-time at the school through EBCC’s partnership with the University of San Francisco Multiple Subject Credential/MAT Program.
The School’s mission and guiding principles are clearly articulated to guide and develop “A Community of Learners.” These goals and principles include: achieving academic and artistic excellence; civic literacy, i.e., values, ethics and spiritual development necessary to thoughtful citizenship in a pluralistic democracy; service as a way of learning; participation in the life of the school and community through stewardship of the environment; and creative partnerships with the community to sustain public education. Parental support is reported as exceptionally strong with 85% of parents participating in school events.
The Institute for Citizenship Education and Teacher Preparation. As the EBCC developed new programs to serve increasingly younger students, it recognized the clear value of – and immediate need for – civic education at an early age. Based on this realization, in 1998, EBCC convened a team of national leaders in the fields of citizenship and civic participation, service-learning and education reform, public and private education, ethics and theology, and research and evaluation and developed The East Bay Conservation Corps Charter School Framework. The framework, which emerged out of a three-year collaborative planning process, serves as the foundation for the school’s educational model. The Institute, which also developed out of the original planning team convened in 1998, aims to unite practice and research to inform a national agenda for reforming public education through promoting civic education. Its work is currently focused on four primary projects:
- Curriculum Development
- Teacher Preparation and Professional Development
- Research and Evaluation
- Public Policy and Dissemination
The Institute conducts this work through the Charter School, which serves as a demonstration site. In partnership with the school’s faculty and staff, the Institute facilitates the development of curriculum, assessments and school practices to share broadly with practitioners and policymakers. (For more information, see www.eastbaycorps.org/k_4.htm)
San Francisco Conservation Corps
The San Francisco Conservation Corps (SFCC) is a non-profit employment and academic training organization serving young people ages 12-24. Established in 1983 by former Mayor, now U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, the superintendent of public schools, union officials and a local judge, the SFCC was one of the first urban youth corps in the nation. Since then, SFCC has engaged over 2,000 participants in more than three million hours of community service.
The Corps is sited at the Presidio of San Francisco, one of the U.S.A.’s greatest natural and cultural treasures. The Presidio has been transformed from a military base to a national park.
Corps members participate in community service and training, education, career development and receive wrap-around support services to offset barriers that may affect their success, such as the need for housing or substance abuse counseling. New corps members undergo a four-day orientation for academic assessment and to become acquainted with the field sites. They receive bus tokens, lunch and a $50 stipend if they complete the orientation. The program is open-enrollment and open-exit, meaning youth enter as slots become available and leave when they have completed their goals. The Corps enrolls about 130 youth annually with an average stay of seven months.
The Corps runs an ECO Center for the community, a recycling outreach program, and a Youth in Action program conducted by adult corps members for approximately 100 middle and high school students designed to encourage civic involvement, attachment to school, and education about the environment.
Typically, field supervisors oversee 8 to 10 youth ages 18-26 years in service work, providing landscape maintenance at the Presidio and at other sites including the airport; installing playground structures in low-income areas of San Francisco and bike racks throughout the city. There has been an attempt to develop an internship with the Presidio Trust to give youth skills in irrigation and landscaping. Initially, corps members are paid $6.75 per hour; they progress to $7 after one month with a good evaluation; and eventually to as much as $8.75 per hour. They work four days a week developing their job and academic skills, leadership abilities and environmental awareness by completing outreach, conservation and community service projects throughout the city. Simultaneously, they participate in academic programs, such as high school diploma preparation, environmental and restoration classes, personal and professional development coaching and computer literacy training.
Approximately 99 % of Corps members are from extremely low-income families. This is typically their first experience with employment and, for some, a significant alternative to gang involvement. The average reading and writing levels of entering Corps members is between 6th and 8th grade.
According to Ann Cochrane, SFCC Executive Director, low levels of literacy are a problem even among high school graduates. Because many eligible youth have children and young siblings, the need for child care is another challenge to participation. Approximately 75 % of corps members are Latino and the remainder is African American. The fact that many are English Language Learners creates a particular challenge for implementing the academic component. Between 30 and 40% of Corps members drop out within the first 30 days. After that time, it is likely that they will persist through to attaining their goals.
For the last five years, the Corps has been a satellite of a charter school which has allowed SFCC to not only offer the GED, but a high school diploma as well in addition to career development, internships and support in transitioning into postsecondary education. According to Cochrane, the beauty of the corps model is that it takes public municipal funding for community service and workforce development activities and “gives these young people the opportunity to learn and apply their learning to almost everything.”
Cochrane serves on the local Workforce Investment Board and is the Youth Council chair. When asked about the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), she indicated that San Francisco was late in implementing the WIA and is still struggling to figure out how to make the one-stops work and create a seamless system.
The Corps has a variety of funding sources including contracts and fee for service work, AmeriCorps, the Presidio Trust, and HUD block grant funds from the Mayor’s office.
WIA funds allow for more youth to be served. Average daily attendance (ADA) funds to the charter school component support the education program. According to Cochrane, the gap in funding is for wrap-around services (e.g., for social workers). Also, needed is a transition program over and above the work and education program—at least a 30-day period to focus on what’s next, obstacles and life issues. She stressed that, “Youth need more time to get ready to leave. The problem with WIA: it requires follow up without providing real funds.”
Implementing Education and Community Services in Oakland
Joanna Lennon convened a panel of Oakland policymakers and youth advocates to provide field trip participants with an overview of education and community services for young people and how youth-centered programming can be enhanced. A frank discussion ensued among the field trip participants, several of whom are Congressional staff and federal employees, and local representatives explored three themes: (1) external factors—social, political and economic—that influence their work, (2) the type of environment required to support youth-centered programming, and (3) policy recommendations.
The panel consisted of:
- Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent, Oakland Unified School District
- Jose Martinez, Assistant Superintendent, School Reform Oakland Unified School District
- Patti Yancey, University of San Francisco, School of Education
- Desley Brooks, Oakland City Council Member, District 6
- Devone Boggan, Executive Director of The Mentoring Center
- Rosemary Cameron, Assistant General Manager of Public Affairs, East Bay Park Regional Director
- Dawn Valdez, Dawn D. Valadez Consulting
- Tom Mead, the donor-builder of charter school
1. External Factors
Among the external factors affecting their work, panelists cited legislation and the political process, parental expectations, a public that is fearful of youth, the turfism displayed by adult organizations when youth intrude into their spheres of work, and tensions that result when concerns for accountability, creativity and autonomy meet.
Yanes and Chaconas discussed the impact that legislation has on their work and the education of children. According to Yanes, in the current climate of standards-based performance, teachers cannot be creative in educating young people. Teachers are forced to develop lesson plans largely based on the content of standardized test that students must pass. According to Yancy, “There has to be a space created where teachers can be both creative and maintain standards. The policy that has been created now is too restrictive and forces the loss of creativity.”
Chaconas indicated that the forces on public education are critical and voiced concern with politicians who set laws thinking that they understand what the problem is with education. According to Chaconas, “Accountability has been taken out of the hands of teachers and administrators and based on the preconceived notions of non-educators with an urgency to ‘fix’ the problem.” Martinez indicated that the focus of his work in school reform is transformational, but he is caught in the middle of huge pressures brought on by mandates regarding accountability, high school exit exams and the expectations and demands of parents. Both agreed that by the time federal and state policies get to the local level, they have been subjected to many political pressures; therefore local implementation can have a different focus than what was originally envisioned.
Cameron, speaking from another agency view, discussed the importance of getting buy-in from adult organizations when promoting youth efforts. She indicated that the East Bay region park system is one of the largest in the United States. The partnership with EBCC brings added value to the park system’s work, helping to realize their mission. Initially, unionized labor was fearful of this arrangement with the Corps and it was important to get them on board. Now they are very supportive.
Brooks, speaking from the vantage point of an elected official, noted that many adults fear young people, especially young people of color. Needed is a set of family structured community standards that show how we think about and value youth.
2. The type of environment required to support youth-centered programming
Panelists agreed that it is important to put youth at the center of public policy discussions and to give them leadership roles. It is important to create conditions where young people can thrive and coherent policies that support their success.
According to one panelist, “Positive youth development happens one youth and one relationship at a time.” It is therefore important to remove disincentives in the system that work against the development of small schools and student-centered environments. In Oakland, nine new small schools have been developed in collaboration with CBOs with a youth-centered focus, but asked, “Why has it been so hard to create these schools?” The dearth of these types of schools was attributed to having to fight through layers of isolated and individual policies as well as the low ADA in California which makes it difficult for a small school to be successful. The alternative is the economy of scale that comes with large high schools which is off-set by the costs related to high dropout rates, youth court involvement and incarceration.
Valdez stressed that as advocates and youth-serving practitioners, “We have to do a much better job of defining what are the assets and needs of young people more clearly. Young people have the answers to these questions. We must ask them and help convey their message.”
Panelists agreed that their work could be enhanced if legislators followed up what happens after funding has been granted to an agency. Legislators need to find out what kind of youth outcomes the funded agency is producing. There should be documentation of success of previous grants required for continuation of funding. There should also be more research focused on qualitative goals and outcomes instead of just quantitative findings. There also needs to be greater diversity in who is at the table making decisions for young people. Thomas Mead, a business owner, concluded this discussion remarking that private companies must get involved working with youth and agencies serving youth. The tendency is for businesses to not get involved. However, business may give great assistance to youth by offering internships to prepare them for future employment.
Panelists recommended that policy be developed based on the assumptions that you trust the people to whom legislation is directed. There has to be a trust that parents, teachers, and students can design their own schools and know what works for their young people. There also has to be a balance between accountability and responsibility. Policymakers have to visit places that are working and reflect this knowledge in legislation. Other recommendations for helping to create and support youth-centered programming included:
- Elevate the profession of youth work and provide better professional development.
- Recognize and support the costs associated with youth-centered programming through appropriate policies.
- Make education more relevant to young people and do not insult or underestimate their intelligence.
- Listen to youth and to the beneficiaries of youth policy. Ask them: Are policies and legislation meeting their needs? Also open up the decision making process to allow for more inclusive participation in the conversation.
- Trust youth-serving providers at the local level to come up with positive outcomes while allowing them to be creative in their work.
- Create better systems to help young people, including those who have been incarcerated, to develop and prosper.
- Purge the system of barriers that work against change.
- Educate students in what it means to be a citizen in a democracy—“Some don’t
even know what a democracy is.”
Visit to Delancey Street Restaurant
The final stop for the field trip was to the Delancey Street Restaurant where the group met with Gerald Miller, Executive Assistant to the Director of the Delancey Street Foundation.
The Delancey Street restaurant is not your normal restaurant. It is completely staffed by recovering addicts and ex-convicts who work in exchange for rehabilitation services and their housing. After an average of four years (a minimum stay of two years), residents gain an academic education, three marketable skills, accountability and responsibility, dignity and integrity. There is a 177 unit apartment building above the restaurant for residents. Three million dollars in earnings from the restaurant goes back to operating the building. The San Francisco site also has a moving company—the largest independent moving company in northern California.
The Delancey Street Foundation is doing similar things in sites around the country, training people in vocations in hopes that the value of work and earning a decent living will help them readjust to society, once they are drug-and crime-free. The Foundation boasts that in their 30-year history, they have pioneered new models of education, pathways out of violence, programs out of homelessness, and entrepreneurial pathways out of poverty.
Conclusion
Field trip participants learned of the key requirements for establishing and maintaining support for the youth community: (1) strong leadership for supporting young people and families and listening to youth voices; (2) strong commitment to sustain projects for young people; and it helps to have, (3) rich community assets and partnerships.
Participants were especially impressed with the “legislative effort to make youth a priority,” including the “youth commission and how the young people of San Francisco are involved with putting policy into action.” One participant noted that “In San Francisco, the conversation has devolved into ‘where do we invest in our youth’ as opposed to ‘should we invest in our youth.’” Another noted that “the best way to get a community involved [in youth development] is to have them invest in it—physically, emotionally AND financially. It was interesting to hear that they have decided to tax themselves in order to provide a better place for youth to grow up.” While greatly impressed with the advocacy work and sequence of events that led up to the passage of the Children’s Amendment, one participant was “Unsure if the ability to drive policy through activism represents a trend or an anomaly.”
Participants learned a great deal about Beacons Centers and their relationship to the host school and the neighborhood. Among observations offered:
- “Before the trip I didn’t know about Beacons. It was great to be introduced to this wonderful program. The idea of having a neighborhood facility in schools is a good one—involving parents and keeping kids safe while they have fun and learn. The whole notion of ‘going to school’ has changed.”
- “The Beacons have a strong track record of success in forming public-private partnerships at the community level, being a stable entity in the community, and working closely with the local school(s).”
- “What was most striking here was that the Beacon was the only stable entity within the school. With a revolving door principal and high teacher turnover, the school has significant challenges. The ability of the Beacon staff to craft and adapt their program based on student need and input is to be commented. There is a focused initiative to bring parents into the school environment and get them involved in their children’s education.”
- This visit was an eye-opener. It is apparent that this is a great program helping kids.”
The work of Service and Conservations Corps as well as the workings of alternative education and “second chance” programs were also new to a number of field trip participants. Among the comments received:
- “I was overwhelmed by the fact that opportunities were given to individuals with social and cultural challenges to give back to the community in a positive way.”
- “There is a need for such programs that focus on youth that do not succeed in the traditional classroom situation. Additionally, the good citizenship part of the program is an important aspect of the program.”
- “I had only a superficial knowledge of the corps before this trip. The corps efforts and successes are impressive and deserve to be replicated in other areas throughout the country.”
- “Increased my knowledge significantly—although I’ve worked on the federal authorizations—I’ve never before visited a Conservation Corps program—just other National Service type activities. Great to see these programs can work in different environments.”
- I now have a better idea of what the Corps is about and how they integrate vocational/academics into their program.
Contact Information
DeVone L. Boggan, Executive Director
The Mentoring Center
1221 Preservation Park Way, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94612
Tel. 510-891-0427
Fax 510-891-0492
dboggan@mentor.org
www.mentor.org
Margaret Brodkin, Executive Director
Coleman Advocates
2601 Mission Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tel. 415-642-1048
Fax 415-642-1591
mbrodkin@colemanadvocates.org
Rosemary Cameron, Assistant General Manager Public Affairs
East Bay Regional Park District
2950 Peralta Oaks Court
P.O. Box 5381
Oakland, CA 94605-0381
Tel. 510-544-2003
Fax 510-569-1417
rcameron@ebparks.org
Dennis Chaconas, Superintendent of Schools
Oakland Unified School District
1025 Second Avenue
Oakland, CA 94606
Ann Cochrane, Executive Director
San Francisco Conservation Corps
Building 102
Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel. 415-928-SFCC (-7322)
Fax 415-928-7330
acochrane@sfcc.org
Sue Eldridge, Executive Director
Community Network for Youth Development
657 Mission Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel. 415-495-0622
Fax 415-495-0666
sue@cnyd.org
Amy Hendrix
San Francisco Conservation Corps
The Persidio
1163 Gorgas Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94129
Tel. 415.561.2637
Susan Kagehiro, Coordinator
City-Sponsored Programs and County Services
San Francisco Unified School District
555 Franklin Street, Room 311
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel. 415-522-6738
Fax 415-522-6792
skagehi@poet.sfusd.edu
Joanna Lennon, Executive Director
East Bay Conservation Corps
1021 Third Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel. 510-992-7800
Fax 510-992-7952
jlennon@ebcc-school.org
Jose A. Martinez, Assistant Superintendent
School Reform
Oakland Unified School District
1025 Second Avenue
Oakland, CA 94606
Tel. 510-879-8200
Fax 510-879-8800
josem@ousd.k12.ca.us
Thomas D. Mead, Vice President
Webcor Builders
951 Mariners Island Blvd., 7th Floor
San Mateo, CA 94404
Tel. 650-349-2727
Fax 650-524-6456
tom@webcor.com
www.webcor.com
Gerald Miller, Executive Assistant to the Director
Delancey Street Board
600 Embarcadero
San Francisco, Calif. 94107
Tel. 415-957-9800
Fax 415- 512-5186
Stephanie Muller, Board of Directors
Delancey Street Board
600 Embarcadero
San Francisco, Calif. 94107
Tel. 415-957-9800
Fax 415- 512-5186
John Oubre, Principal of EBCC Charter School
Deputy Executive Director of East Bay Conservation Corps
1086 Alcatraz Ave.
Oakland, CA 94608
Tel. 510-420-8153
joubre@ebcc-school.org
Darin Ow-Wing, Executive Director
Community Educational Services
80 Fresno Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
Tel. 415-982-0615
darin@ceesf.org
Sam Phia, Director
Community and School Partnerships
Community Network for Youth Development
657 Mission Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel. 415-495-0622
Fax 415-495-0666
sam@cnyd.org
Michael Smith, Program Director
East Bay Conservation Corps
1021 Third Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel. 510-992-7800
Fax 510-992-7952
msmith@ebcc-school.org
Dawn D. Valadez, Consultant
Dawn D. Valadez Consulting
360 Hollister Court
San Leandro, CA 94577
Tel. 510-326-0309
Fax 510-635-6258
claridad@pacbell.net
Patty Yancey, Director
Arts and Education Collaborative
University of San Francisco
School of Education
2130 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94117-1071
Tel. 415-422-5891
Fax 415-422-5526
yancey@usfca.edu
Cedric Chua Yap, Deputy Director
Department of Children, Youth and Their Families
City and County of San Francisco
1390 Market Street
Suite 900
Tel. 415-554-9519
Fax 415-554-8965
cedric@dcyf.org
[1] “City of San Francisco, CA: Improving Youth Development Opportunities Increases School Safety.” 1999. Best Practices Database. Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Mayors. http://www.usmayors.org/USCM/best_practices/bp98/09_1998_Preventing_School_Violence. Retrieved 3/26/03
[2] One-stops are a part of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 to combine as many federal jobs-related programs as possible under a "one-stop" roof and to give prospective employees more autonomy and better opportunities. One-stops are places where any job seeker can go to find a library of resources, workshops and individual services.
[3] Over 10,000 formerly illiterate people have received GEDs; over 1,000 have graduated with a diploma from their State Accredited Postsecondary Vocational Academy; 30 students have received an accredited BA from their own chartered college campus; and 31 students have graduated from their four-year old charter public high school for youth involved in the juvenile justice system.