White House Council for Community Solutions Meeting: Part 3

Uploaded by whitehouse on 03.06.2011

Michael Kempner: We've got a few more of those, too.
We're not done yet.
So, the -- all right, so I've got to go to the --
Is somebody else taking over the slides for me
because I'm incompetent?
The --
All right.
So we have -- we went and talked about this already and we talked
about this.
Again -- again, I mean, this is all redundant, again.
But I think it's, you know -- what works for us.
I mean, was the -- you know, again,
all these things you heard, easy to find, early intervention,
transportation, wrap-around services.
There is no one size fits all.
These kids have multiple issues.
And if you just treat one, you're treating none.
The -- you have to have the caring adult.
They actually, (unintelligible), they want accountability.
All of them sort of want a parent.
You know, they want someone to be accountable, too.
You know, it's like we hear about, you know,
kids want parents, not friends.
These kids want a parent.
And a network, which is -- really becomes their family.
Is there another video here, or is it the same one?
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: It's the same one.
Michael Kempner: Okay.
As Mimi said, one of the takeaways,
and it was just a nice thing we had, we had Councilman Bon with
us in Atlanta, and he actually, the next day went in and passed
a resolution in the city council to create an 800 number.
So at least there's one place that if you don't know where
to go, you can call this number.
Now, whether kids will use it, because I asked them, would
they use something like that, because, you know,
we're from the government and we're here to help.
They said, they might -- it wouldn't be their first place,
but if they had nowhere else to go and didn't know what to do,
they would absolutely pick it up.
And what's nice about it, it goes back to this idea of
collaboration, so there's going to be one central repository in
the City of Atlanta where if you need to find out what to do and
help yourself.
Another question is: How can we get the word out to people?
Mimi Box: And I think that's important too, that there --
even though there are national issues and maybe national
approaches, everyone's going to have to have a unique
local flavor.
You know, it's going to have to come from within the voices of
the youth in that community.
Michael Kempner: And the thing that they actually like the most --
that particularly having Jon there -- I mean,
obviously they liked having Jon there, I mean,
it was very exciting for them; they took pictures.
It was actually really emotional CC sessions.
But the thing that was most exciting to them besides the
listening was, that we were there to amplify their voices.
They don't think there's anybody there that cares.
So that's part of the listening.
But we were actually -- the press was there,
they were amplifying the voices and they were going
to take this back.
So this amplification of their voices actually was an important
theme throughout and ended up being one of the more
successful activities.
I don't know if any -- if you've seen all of the press,
but in each of the markets we have significant press on it.
Obviously, Jon was a great draw.
And again, I want to compliment him because I work with a lot of
celebrities, and some do this just to check the box.
And he doesn't do this to check the box; this is what he does.
And so it was a -- came across as sincere,
genuine and impactful.
So it was -- we looked forward -- we have one more to go --
and then adding this into the activities and the findings,
and then we'll talk this afternoon about, you know,
some of the technology and some of the communication tools that
we'll be using as the next step.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Thank you.
I think that it's a very good time for us to kind of go to the
-- what are the gaps?
What are the aha's and what are the gaps?
And so I had originally asked Leslie to kind of
do a full round-up.
But the beauty of what we've been doing here
is the redundancy in, you know -- I mean,
Scott said it beautifully which is that from what effectiveness
first found from the wisdom of the research to what capacity
found from the wisdom of communities to what Michael
reflected from the wisdom directly from the youth.
We are hearing many of the same things.
So I don't know who's running the slides right now,
but if Arthurine, if you would go to the recap slide of the
stakeholder outreach effort, slide 62 in our book.
I'll have Leslie very -- oh, sorry about that.
(audio gets louder)
I'll have Leslie briefly talk -- I think we have to figure out
what are the gaps here of who we have not reached yet that we
need to be sure -- of course we continue to be pupils through
the end of this.
But before we begin to lock in on our final recommendations
and actions, where are we?
Leslie Boissiere: Thank you, Patty.
And, again, a lot of what we've heard,
the good news is, we've had consistency between
the research, between the broad stakeholder engagement
and the youth.
And so, it will be very easy for me to quickly scroll through.
We have engaged -- Patty mentioned we've been at this
about 40 days and we've engaged over 250 stakeholders during
that process.
So we've sprinted over the past 40 days.
And some of it has been one-on-one interaction.
You heard a lot about the community based listening
that's taking place, direct conversations with youth.
We've done a number of webinars so we could cast our net as
widely as possible.
A lot of our focus has been around the philanthropic and
the youth serving organizations.
In the communities, I think we did a great job engaging a
number of business leaders, but I think there's a lot more work
to be done in terms of engaging business broadly and deeply,
with specific intangible outcomes in mind of where
we want that dialogue to go.
And I know Bobbi will spend some time this afternoon
talking about that.
And then, the other is the credentialing in education
institutions as well.
And really, the intersection between those two, I think,
is critical.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: So before we go further, let's pause and see what
others think are, like, from what we've heard in that amazing
listing of all the organizations and areas,
what are the other key gaps, not in the findings,
but in the groups that we have heard from --
I completely agree that we've got a lot of work to do in
business and credentialing.
John Bridgeland: I just -- I think what's been done in 40 days has
been extraordinary, so congratulations.
But, a couple of gaps I see.
One, if you look at census data, you see the powerful
relationship between youth and religious organizations
or faith-based groups.
And I feel like in terms of, you know,
Maurice probably has a social capital strategy in his head,
but as we're developing a business case, and Bobbi,
I thought you stated the different elements so
beautifully in terms of how to think about it and how to think
about employers, I hope we can develop a social capital
strategy of sorts; a social network strategy that also
includes these, you know, rich, faith-based institutions that
young people are intersecting with.
And in many communities, it's their only lifeline.
The other I would just mention, I was struck by the council
member in Atlanta and what he just organically,
authentically did in response to a need and the powerful need
that Michael and Jon and others lifted up.
So, I think a little deeper dive and maybe this will come in the
context of a review of the federal role.
But of policymakers, at the local level -- mayors,
council members, Norm Rice, of course with his background,
will have all sorts of insights.
But I think that seems to be a little bit of a gap that I hope
we can explore further.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Good, two good gaps.
And I know Maurice and I, lots of us have been talking about
some gaps that Maurice wants to highlight.
Maurice Miller: So, I mean it's tied to the same thing that John just brought up
which is that on the social capital side,
obviously, family, community -- (inaudible) -- family,
community, cultural community is really important.
Whether it's religious or whether it's tribal.
I know a (inaudible) Tribe has done a lot with their youth,
et cetera, et cetera.
And so I feel like we need to get more of those voices
in terms of family.
And particularly extended family.
I think there are a lot of youth that the parents have had a lot
of trouble.
In my family it was my sister.
But the uncles are still there.
Foster care has been doing much more in trying to find extended
family to help take care of youth using the Internet.
You know, so there's a lot of -- that technology can help.
So that's one area.
The other area I know I talked with Bobbi about which is about
80% of the jobs for low-income families come from small
business as opposed to corporations and that there's a
lot of entrepreneurship in these communities, again,
where the kids tend to work because they know somebody.
And those social networks and that type of entrepreneurs in
business creation, small business,
I think is something we want to include.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Good.
I want to caution people that as you identify gaps this
afternoon, we're going to identify your hands in the air
to help us fill those gaps.
It's very important, but, Scott --
Scott Cowen: That almost caused me to put my hand down.
That was not a motivator, Patty.
But one of the things we chatted about a little bit in capacity
that I think I've seen where there's a stakeholder gap is
with secondary education, K-12.
So we have higher education, but there's so much more that could
and should be done to create more flexibility in secondary
education and GED.
And I don't know if it warrants, you know,
a whole stakeholder group or some exploration, but --
because the higher education, unless you figure out somehow to
get a high school degree, the higher education doesn't become
very accessible at all.
And there seems to be some real opportunities and some great
examples of nontraditional ways to help students get GED and to
get a K-12 -- 9-12 education.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Jill, did you have something that you wanted to add
as a gap?
Jill Schumann: Yes, I wonder about organized labor,
about looking at unions and those kinds of onramps.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Good; and Mimi, did you have something you wanted to add
as a gap?
Mimi Box: Yes, two, actually.
Limitations, maybe, and existing programs or policies, you know,
Workforce Investment Act.
The youth expressed some concern that some of the
potential resources are unavailable to them because
of restrictive guidelines.
And the second would be to look at the systems maybe that
produced some of the -- or the return some youth into
this demographic.
Foster care systems, mental health systems,
educational systems and definitely the juvenile justice.
Many of the youth expressed some thought that if their probation
officer or counselors had information about access
to these programs, it would have been a lot easier for them to
find and access.
Paul Schmitz: I just wanted to add on to what both Bridge and
Maurice were talking about to say that I think in communities
also recognizing that a lot of small grassroots organizations
are the main touch point and often aren't the ones that the
larger foundations and organizations would bring
together in a community to talk.
And so I think just making sure that we're reaching to the
deeper level of organizations in a community,
also recognizing a lot of those organizations are most likely to
employ people from the neighborhood.
And so they're also one of the job creators for
those communities.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Kristin?
Kristin Richmond: Yes, I just wanted to mention something that
Jill and I were talking about last night that rang very true
which is this role of role modelship and strong voices
of success stories.
So we were saying time and time again we hear from folks in this
situation that the number one most inspiring thing that
encouraged them to succeed and pursue pathways was the story of
folks from their community, real tangible role models and folks
who they could relate to, talking about the relevance
piece that inspired them.
I can do it.
I see the role modelship.
I see a person just like me who's pursued
a successful track.
And I just want to make sure we think about how to capture those
voices and make them very, very, present in our strategy.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Successful peer.
Kristin Richmond: Successful peer.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Mentoring role model.
Kristin Richmond: Role modelship of people from communities.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Good. Byron.
Byron Auguste: I just want to underscore that and connect it to what
John Donahoe was saying earlier about these
peer-to-peer networks.
I think the observations about the different institutional
stakeholders are all right.
And those are very important, kind of, institutions --
bring social capital.
But the extent to which collaboration and networks
can now be person to person, that that could really work,
is just -- it's just a dramatic change from even ten years ago.
And so taking into account the fact that this role modeling is
so important, could we structure this in a way that these
programs are explicitly about -- you know,
success is not only getting yourself over -- success is
finding three more people and kind of bringing them with you
and just making that sort of institutionally part of how
these programs actually work and what success is defined,
and the pride that people feel in accomplishing this is the
pride in bringing others with them.
And enabling that with technology;
and it seems like we can have a whole different model of
collaboration, that it's very powerful multilevel marketing
type stuff that actually works, so...
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Michael.
Michael Kempner: And as a tail on that, I think one of the most
effective role models and one of the greatest groups to harness
for that peer-to-peer networking are --
this isn't the right term, but the graduates of these programs.
Because, you know, they're better because they've lived the
lives and they are identifiable, and I see, at least in our small
experience, how many of them want to give back,
just don't really know how to do it.
So harnessing those people as role models, as collaborators,
even (indiscernible) lead and create these communities.
If we gave some of these people the challenge,
you're going to own this community, here's the tools,
they'd make it almost their full-time job.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Paula, then Norm.
Paula Boggs: Yes, two gaps.
The first is relating to an important subgroup which is
the veteran which is garnering a lot of media attention right
now and is also a subgroup within our cohort that is
gaining a lot of attention by businesses across the country.
And so we, I would encourage us to find a way to tap into that
movement as part of our work.
And then the second is I -- in large measure,
I look at this as a supply and demand issue in the sense
of the supply is hopefully youth who are ready for work,
and then there's the demand side of the employer.
And in many respects, the employer is the customer.
And I think that we will be well served by thinking more
deeply around, you know, how to satisfy that customer need,
the employer need, because at the end of the day,
business is business.
And we've talked around and about the business case for
these issues, but, mostly through the (indiscernible) of
the youth, the supply end of it, which is important,
but there's also a demand.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Okay, very good. Norm.
Norman Rice: One of the things I think is going to be important
and I haven't figured it out yet but is the coordination between
government agencies that are delivering resources
for communities.
And what I mean by that is that at the end of the day if they
aren't going to change to meet the new demand and to be more
flexible, the same thing could happen over and over again,
choice neighborhoods, promise neighborhoods, choice cities,
all of these programs that are going up there have a direct
linkage to a disconnected youth and what we're doing,
but it has been integrated.
And until you get an integration of the whole constituency that
these programs have started to do you're going to miss it and
we're going to be wasting resources that we could
really be more effectively directing to this community,
issue of this community need.
We'll talk a little bit more this afternoon.
That's really got to be a major goal to change the domestic
agenda nationally to be more responsive.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Other gaps? Nancy?
Nancy Rubin: I want to just say what I heard.
The siloed funding and the inability to leverage and to
reward outcomes is something that everybody mentioned.
And so, one of the things suggested was holding an
inner-agency meeting to see if money could be repurposed
for outcomes in leveraging the opportunities that these
government groups are.
Norman Rice: Should be Congress, too.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: So again, gaps in our learning.
This afternoon we are going to begin to work on how to take
these learnings and consider the wide range of possibilities of
what we might propose to the President and the White House
that this group might do, but in terms of learnings,
both with our gaps and who we heard from,
who we should be listening -- be pupils of more than we have thus
far -- and/or did you have a learning along the way
that you think we didn't pull forward quite as well?
Diana Aviv: Yeah, as I do my work outside of this room there are lots of
places that I go where I come up against or become connected
with organizations that are youth serving organizations.
And I suspect that as this initiative begins to bubble
up that there are lots of people who are going to be interested
and that there needs to be a way for us to be able to draw
in this spontaneous desire to connect with this effort that
would bring us learning and content from entities
and places that we won't formally contact through
the convenings that we do.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: That's good.
We should put that on our list for this afternoon, whether that
is through a couple of scheduled webinars for all comers that are
more -- that are less one way out and more bring it in,
but other ways that we continue to learn in a smart way.
Steven Lerner: I think all of the experiences are great and all the
anecdotes are great.
But they're all urban.
And, you know, to the extent that we need to deal with
smaller communities or rural communities,
I think at this point that's a completely untouched group.
And I'm not expert enough to know how it differs,
but I think we really need to expand the horizon.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Very good.
Before locking in final recommendations --
and Bridge says -- and tribal lands.
Maurice Miller: The other thing I think that -- veterans,
returning veterans.
They tend to be in this age group that we're talking about.
They're young.
A lot of them, the choices were to go into the military because
there weren't job options.
Coming back, I think a lot of them end up really disconnected.
So it's something that we need to take into account in our
solutions, that it really also helps address their needs.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: That reinforces what Paula said.
It does seem like a very significant gap so far and
it reinforces one of Nancy's beliefs that not only is this
a group that wants to be more connected,
but it's also a constituency that could help be the role
models that we've been talking about of peers.
This was a very good effort.
Again, I think the last 60 days of us being pupils,
90 days of us getting ourselves organized and being pupils.
And already the concurrence that we have here about priorities is
very, very, helpful.
And we'll, again, as we begin to do our administrative session
and identify how to fill out our work plan for the coming weeks,
really move more deeply into the gaps and who will take
ownership for filling our knowledge in those gaps,
because as recommenders that we are, we need to do that.
But we did ask -- if you remember at our last session
we had an outside expert come and help bring wisdom into the
room about this growing effort and growing conversation around
collective impact.
This time, because we were going to spend our time in really
understanding the research, understanding from our listening
sessions the needs of youth and those who care about the issues
for youth and who can help solve --
be part of the solution for connecting youth.
We also wanted to bring in, this time,
one outside leader who could help listen this morning to
what we had to say and identify from his own perspective what he
heard and how it relates to what he does every day.
So, I think almost all of you have met him.
But for the purposes of our friends on Web streaming,
I want to stop again and introduce Dan Cardinali,
and Dan leads an organization that I find remarkable and I
know many of you find remarkable,
and that is Communities in Schools.
And I first became aware of it through Bill Milliken and
his wonderful and passionate advocacy for the organization
that he founded.
But Communities in Schools serves over one million of
the young people that we are talking about here,
but ideally, a step before they enter the important
grid that Byron and the effectiveness group put up.
And that while they are still in school,
Communities in Schools works very hard to bring all sectors
and all assets together to create that kind of holistic
solution that we've been talking about to keep youth in school.
So in talking -- in asking Dan to come here and give us his
perspective, I told him that I thought that rather than a
presentation we should have him answer three questions.
And the first question -- I get to do all three questions --
Then we will of course -- after he answers those,
we'll turn them to you for endless questions.
But the first question was: Through the lens of Communities
in Schools, what about -- what do you think about what we've
been talking about this morning, what we believe we have learned
through the research and through our own listening efforts?
And so why don't we just start with that question, Dan.
Dan Cardinali: Great; how much time do I have, again?
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Well, it's 11:01 and we're going to be 15 minutes,
but we want to ask you questions, too.
Dan Cardinali: Great. So, first of all thank you very, very, much.
It's a real pleasure and honor to be here.
It's also a little overwhelming and extremely encouraging.
The amount of work that's been covered in a short
order is quite remarkable.
And the level of both passion and rigor is unusual.
So thank you.
Some things I thought might on account of where this great
residence with my own experience and the experience of Community
in Schools are a number of things.
The first is just this philosophical notion,
that by going to those that are -- I actually don't have
a problem with the notion of disconnected
or marginalized youth.
Because they are.
So I think when you actually engage in a relationship where
there is a potential for solidarity and dialogue,
you actually see reality differently than when you don't.
And so I hear that as a theme in the group.
And I think that is kind of foundational for the
potential of making really good programmatic and system impact.
So from a philosophical point of view there is a tremendous joy,
kind of listening to this, and it has been what has sustained
our organization and allowed it to grow over 34 years.
Secondly, we have -- we work with about 1.3 of the most
disenfranchised youth in America in the K-12 space.
And some things that you've talked about are spot on to
what we are experiencing so there is a terrific validator
from our work of what you are doing.
A couple of things that I think are important.
And Maurice, I want to lead -- you made,
I think a central point that there are a set of broken
systems we call family or traditional community which
are endemic in poor communities particularly,
that are at the heart of kind of setting a kid off
into a tailspin.
And so we have a set of social structures, nonprofits,
government agencies, faith-based communities that in many ways
are trying to get at pieces of the corrective of that system.
And until we admit that their families are under siege in
America -- poor families, that we're not going to be able to
come up with a holistic approach is what I hear people
talking about.
So I just want to echo that very, very, very strongly.
Secondly, I want to put a plug in for two sets of institutions.
The first is, in America, there are 50 million, about roughly,
K-12 young people.
They're in -- 91% of them are in traditional public schools
every day.
So, I think to focus the work it is impossible not to say is
there something about the biggest platform in America
that we can do that can harness what we are learning here and
focus it into that system which puts a very, very,
powerful question around the relationship of positive youth
development, which is the pivot I guess a ways from a
disenfranchised notion, to education reform that sets up
other reform strategies.
So I really want to advocate that you all think about,
and I heard it a lot, but it didn't come out clearly for
me which is there is -- we know a fair amount about what
young people need from their individual needs,
their family needs and their community needs.
And we know that the single institution in every single
rural, urban and suburban community is a school.
So we are -- we are just missing an enormous opportunity,
if we aren't point and driving forward into that nexus and that
bring it together.
The other set of institutions are
the traditional and emerging youth serving organizations,
including the faith-based community.
How many boys and girls clubs are there in America?
Four thousand, right?
How many YMCA's?
How many communities in school?
There are these extraordinary existing networks that are
hungry to try and figure this stuff out.
So though I think at sometimes we can be addicted to what is
new and shiny there is an exquisite opportunity to
do the very hard work of engaging these sets of
institutions with these consistent learnings
that we are seeing.
And I heard a lot of that.
But I think it showed up a little bit, buried in there,
but existing networks and creating some coherency.
Now, the brutal facts for all of those are they're
locally controlled, and they are funded
in a horribly incoherent fashion.
And so I think there are ways to get at that,
and I saw collaboration at the core of this,
and there's a continuum that I subscribe to,
and it's -- this is just my take on the universe when it
comes to this.
The more disenfranchised a community is,
the more under siege an individual is,
the more structure she or he or that community needs,
predictability and foundation.
Because chaos is what is known, not stability.
And yet what we're talking about is an ability for a young person
to transition into being a viable citizen,
including a career and not just a job.
And parenthetically, when I hear the word career I think of hope
and aspirations for the future, and not just work.
That you can imagine having a family, having children,
being able to provide for them in kind of a stable,
middle class existence.
The other piece that came out, and it's an element of community
schools that we deeply believe, and so I will
call out the founder, we just every day we live this.
It is not programs that transform kids,
it is relationships.
And so a very quick analytic is if there are no stable adults in
kids' lives, nothing else is going to be effective.
It's a very kind of thin sliced way to get at some
of these problems.
And it helps you kind of equalize institutions.
Those we hear a lot in education reform the importance of teachers,
and the research shows that if there is one powerful relationship
over the course of a 12-year period for a
kid in the K through 12 space to have a teacher that she or
he bonds to, they have a high predictor of success.
That can be a youth worker that can be a church minister,
it doesn't really matter.
It means that there is an adult that knows this child's
story and carries their narrative and cares for it.
Once you have that in place, you can really put kind of mediocre
programming in and there still is a pretty high potential that
you're going to see success.
So I just, I want to echo that.
I heard that a lot, but I think you can't overemphasize that
point because it is by far what is missing in these communities.
Final thing I'll just say, these are the organizations,
these networks, and I'll talk about CIS in this case.
For the first 20 years of our work we spent most of our time
building an empire, right?
Scaling, figuring out how to do that.
And we paid an enormous opportunity cost by not
translating what we were learning into,
one, other youth serving organizations;
and more importantly, into the policy format,
the policy conversation.
And in the last five or eight years we have,
in -- had to get hard-won credibility to take the voices
and the experiences of the most disenfranchised kids and convert
them into policy changes.
I think there is a huge opportunity cost many
of us are paying, and the work of this group to make,
to put a clarion call to converting our work into
policy recommendations is critical.
Because it is in fact those communities that are seeing
what Norm I thought put out very, very directly.
For CIS we have 5,000 employees and 57,000 volunteers.
The majority of our employees are not funded to do what a five-year
longitudinal evaluation says produces results.
We are funded on the backs of mentoring programs or after
school programs or any other funding stream that we can get
our hands on, which means that we will then fundamentally
compromise our ability to be effective.
So when you talk about a policy environment and the way money
flows, actually militating against what we know to be
effective practice, it is a really big problem.
And that happens over and over again at the local,
state and national level.
Let me stop there.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: I think I need to open it up to other people's questions because
I think there are some big issues on the table
for us and that's why we wanted to hear from you.
So let me start by -- (low audio)
John Bridgeland: Brilliant. Thank you, Dan.
And if that could be the lens through which we look at the
role of the federal government, I think that could be transformational
in terms of the federal role, at least getting people who
are in charge of the federal thinking about it.
My question would be very specifically have there been
any specific examples of policy changes or things
that the federal government has done right over the last decade
that you have seen effect a sea change in how communities
and schools have been able to, as you said it,
catalyze relationship and move just away from a program or
building an empire or service delivery.
Dan Cardinali: Sure. There are a number of things.
I know you hit a couple of very different ones.
The first I think regardless of your opinions of No Child
Left Behind there is no doubt that the introduction of data
systems that led to a kind of accountability and transparency
smoked out the inequity of results in public education
in a way heretofore we have never seen before.
And that unleashed an anxiety across youth
serving organizations, public sector in general,
and specifically education, that has created, I think,
a tremendous opportunity for a number of things,
not the least of which is a recognition of the very things
you're all talking about here.
The set of other failed systems are directly
impacting the ability for public education to be successful.
So when you have a kid showing up, and we heard it today,
with all sorts of obstacles, she or he is unavailable for
the fabulous teacher who's trying to do the best job
she or he can, right?
So that has been amazing and a whole set of stuff around that.
That's number one.
This work around innovation and behind it is this notion
that evidence matters.
I will say, I live with a chronic disappointment that
as we've rolled out this evidence that, you know,
when we finished our longitudinal evaluation I
assumed that funders in the government would be beating
down our door, right?
Here's the only organization that lowers dropout rates and
improves graduation.
Didn't happen, right?
So it's, I think we're moving in the direction and that the
notion of scaling what is effective is incredibly
exciting and it's creating a whole strategy in communities.
It has a long way to go, but I've seen it in the
urban and rural environments.
John Bridgeland: That's good.
Dan Cardinali: The health care access to kids, huge.
I mean, I can go on and on.
Those would be the biggest things that affected us.
John Bridgeland: Thank you.
Michael Kempner: First of all, thank you.
That was absolutely terrific.
And my question is there are many organizations out there,
including your own, that are grappling with the issues that
we're talking about here today.
So as this White House Council, what is the
single most important thing in your mind that we can do?
What would be the outcome of our work that would have
the biggest impact to organizations like yourself?
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: He's in luck because that was going to be my third question,
and he knows it.
Michael Kempner: Sorry.
Speaker: He's had a chance to think about it.
Michael Kempner: Yeah.
Patty, you ask the question --
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: No, no, it's perfect, it's perfect, because I know that he,
I know that you were thinking about it.
Michael Kempner: Because, you know, it's actually a little bit frustrating to me
because the problem is so large.
You know, that where can we actually do something that
will have an impact versus just spreading an effort against so
many other things.
Dan Cardinali: This is how I think about that.
And it's probably a very simplistic answer.
I'll just use public education as a very,
it's a big number but it's one piece of the youth space.
Think of public education in the K through 12 space.
It's about a $550 to $600 billion a year industry.
The amount of private money that flows in any given year could be
anywhere from a billion to let's say 2.5 billion.
So very small fraction against the whole.
And yet those resources are what power the system.
And they determine so much of how what happens at the local,
state and national level.
So there is, I think it is, for me,
if there were systems changes that facilitated, for my lens,
the integration of positive youth development with education
reform you could transform the pipeline that is leading
to disenfranchised youth without a doubt.
So it's a hairy problem but it's a lot smaller space on
that continuum we talked about than wrestling with a lot of other stuff.
Michael Kempner: But my question then would be then what could this group
do to facilitate that?
Is it a series of policy recommendations?
Is it the bully pulpit we have to promote it?
I mean, given our ability as an organization,
what can we specifically do to help move that needle?
Dan Cardinali: So that -- I wondered if that was going to go,
the direction. So this is --
Michael Kempner: Sorry.
Between can't use the mouse and asking the wrong questions --
Dan Cardinali: Right. No, no, no, no.
So I'm not sure it's a very satisfactory answer,
but this is what I have, in the three days that Patty kind of
threw this question out to me.
Michael Kempner: You can also get back to us, by the way.
Dan Cardinali: I went round and round and I guess -- so this is because of
the way public education is structured, right?
Huge amounts of decisions and resource allocation happen at
the local and state level.
So it strikes me that creating compelling ideas with a policy
framework around that is the fastest accelerator.
So I think of Jim Collins when he talked about why he didn't
do a consulting firm, but he did a book.
And he said: You know, look, these ideas, you're not going
to get them all right, but if I get 60% of them out into
the marketplace it will create a kind of change that will then be
generative of new ideas and innovation.
So there's something about this positive youth development and
policy idea, and holding that out as kind of our
going to the moon that I think would unleash a kind
of an innovation and ennoble groups that are already dancing
around that issue.
It's the best I could come up, because then of course
I could give you 15,000 policy recommendations for No Child
Left Behind and the SEA, it's not really going to
make a difference at this point.
So that's -- I'm not sure it's very satisfactory.
Michael Kempner: No, I appreciate it.
Mr. Cardinali: It's the best I could come up.
Michael Kempner: Well, that, it was good.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Other questions for Dan?
Bobbi Silten: I have one, Patty.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Please, Bobbi.
Bobbi Silten: Dan, I think you said you had 5,000 paid professionals and
then 57,000 volunteers?
Is that what you said?
Given that it, put it with my corporate hat on,
given that corporations are a big source of volunteers,
what type of work are the volunteers doing to help
essentially scale your work, and then is that something
we should calculate into our corporate engagement?
Dan Cardinali: Yeah. It's a great question.
So I'm going to do an A and B answer because
I want to make a point.
When we talk about volunteers, what I strongly believe -- and
this may be controversial -- is that when you're dealing
with the most at risk you put the best professionals
in their lives.
So sending in volunteers alone to the most difficult
communities in America is irresponsible in my estimation.
So we believe by having an infrastructure in these
communities that is strong and robust that we're then able to
engage whatever the assets are in the community in terms of a
volunteer base, and like a doctor,
dosage them against a complex set of problems
in a holistic way.
So there's a, we often get approached by corporations,
they see 3400 public schools, they're like, terrific,
we've got this health curriculum,
can we get it out there.
And we're like, no, actually it's not gonna work.
What we really need to know is where your employees are
and are they willing to partner on boards,
partner with superintendents and principals and become a
comprehensive resource against a unique set of
presenting challenges.
So that's my challenge, actually, with the corporate community.
Stop coming up with your branded,
turnkey curriculum that a university produced
and start finding the infrastructures against
the problems that kids and families are facing,
and figure out, there are trends,
I don't want to reinvent the wheel, but, yeah,
probably not going to be the most effective way to
get it done.
Did that answer your question?
Bobbi Silten: Yes.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Nancy and then Diana.
Nancy Rubin: Two quick questions.
We've been talking about collaboratives.
Incentives -- excuse me, incentives for effective
realignment of resources within the collaborative framework.
Some say report cards, some say mayors' and
governors' initiatives.
What do you feel are the incentives if you have
collaboratives that work on this situation that
really drive progress?
Dan Cardinali: So we have 200 local affiliates that are set up in communities
specifically to build a network of collaborations
that then channel those resources into schools.
So what we have found is a couple of things.
One, good will.
I've rarely either been building communities in schools in a
community or gone to one where there aren't extraordinary
people wanting to make a difference in kids' lives.
And most of the time they're looking to channel that.
So that's either individual citizens,
or the myriad number of youth serving organizations.
The tricky thing is, one, that they have trouble getting into
schools where the kids are, and so by providing a platform and
incentive that they can actually have someone absorb that piece
of work, and get them in to schools; and two,
hook them up to the right kids that are going to be effective
for their program and are going to benefit from their program is
a huge incentive for folks to work with us.
The other data point, though, coming out of
this research is you can take two matched comparison schools,
both getting the same sets of folks coming in to the school
and the one that is actually integrating it,
statistically outperforms the ones that get the resources but
don't have someone coordinating them against kind of the overall
academic outcomes.
So what we have found is that by putting improved
attendance, behavior, academic performance, graduation rates,
lowering dropout rates and promotion rates as the common
set of goals, each of these organizations can
be incentivized to do their work really well.
So it may be a dental program wanting to get a certain number
of kids served.
If it's against these commonly held collaborative outcomes,
everybody wins.
And so you facilitate it to make it easy to get the kids and you
align the resources so they can produce common outcomes.
Does that answer your question?
You look perplexed.
Nancy Rubin: Not precisely, but I think what you said
was exceedingly important.
Dan Cardinali: What did I miss? I'm curious.
Nancy Rubin: In terms of, we always use the word sustainability,
and many collaboratives begin in a dynamic way and then after
a year or two they dissipate.
And now I'm really asking about the --
Dan Cardinali: How to sustain the collaboration?
Nancy Rubin: Yes, and whether you need a local mayor or governor
or the --
Dan Cardinali: You do. You do. So our -- let's just, to your point.
If you think about our work, our work is to take community
resources and bring them in to schools in a systemic way,
not just one school, but in a systemic way.
We're dependent, then, on superintendents and principals;
extremely volatile leaders in a community.
They turn over rather rapidly.
And yet we've been in communities for 30 years,
25 years.
How have we done that?
We've done that by ensuring that business community sits
on our board.
And there are institutional seats for these leaders that
rotate in and out.
But it is in fact the citizens that see ownership in the
success of their own schools, including parents that make
up these boards.
And oh, by the way, they've got to be people with means,
because the brutal fact, part of our work is a redistribution of
resources in a community.
And the folks that have the resources or the folks that
enable those resources to be unleashed are community
leaders that have credibility.
So that's how we sustain them.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Diana?
Diana Aviv: Dan, you've made a compelling case,
as you always do, for the importance of looking at
this population a little earlier on before they get to the point
that we're looking at them, namely when they're in schools.
And you've also made the argument,
very compelling two points.
That the school environment is a wonderful environment in which
we can reach out because there's a common connection,
there's a common space and place as opposed to going to
everybody's individual homes and all the rest of that.
There are other people -- and the other point you made very
strongly, which we all know, which draws me to my question,
is that individual relationships,
the one-on-one personal relationship is the most
important guiding force and predictor of the chances of
that child, young adult, succeeding and being able
to live a meaningful life.
There are lots of people out there in the world who would
make a similar case to start even earlier,
and suggest that if in fact we're talking about broken
families and broken relationships,
surely we should start at a much earlier stage with these
families and kids even before they go to school in order to
solve the problem we're trying to solve.
What do you say to that?
Dan Cardinali: So I would completely agree with that, right?
But if you look at the way funding is right now,
at least in the zero to 25 space,
it looks a lot like a skateboard rink.
So it starts off there's a preponderance, not enough,
of resources in the zero to K space,
and then as you go in to elementary school
it begins to drop off, and drops off through middle school
and high school, and often shoots back up in college.
So the point I always like to make in this is, like a parent,
when is the time you want to resource your child?
At 13? At 2? At 5? Of course not. Right?
It is early and right on through until she or he is ready to be a
fully arrived adult.
So the system isn't resourcing itself that way.
And so there's just a, there's a structural problem with the
way we are supporting kids.
My statement to the group to be provocative is I think as kids
become moral agents we begin to put the onus of their own
destiny and responsibility on them and we begin to discount
them as a result.
When kids are younger they're innocent and they aren't agents
of their own life, and by the time they're in college they're
successful and we resource them again.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Are there questions of Dan?
Otherwise I want to turn back to him and ask if we have any,
you know, that I originally started with a whole set of
questions but you all ask better questions than I do.
Are there any other thoughts that occur to you today about
gaps, about people and/or groups we should be talking about?
I'm trying to -- (inaudible) and say what,
or you were wonderfully patient to be a pupil --
Dan Cardinali: That's great.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Alongside our being a pupil today.
Anything else that you would have this group -- (low audio)
Dan Cardinali: The only thing that jumped out at me,
and we talked about rural, is there is,
the strategies in rural communities we have found
are actually quite different than what
works in urban environments.
So I suspect there is a subset of work around this that may
have to use a slightly different universe around.
So the concrete thing for us is when we're in urban environments
we can broker lots of existing volunteers and resources.
Obviously in rural communities there's
very little to broker, right?
The faith-based community is usually the biggest resource,
but a lot of times the only NGO in there is
basically running everything.
And so as you think about this work, it just,
the lack of resources and the future of rural communities I
think are going to play a big role.
Steven Lerner: Does that make them more or less successful,
if you have a single organization as opposed
to competing organizations?
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Remember to use your button.
Steven Lerner: Does that make them more successful because you have
a single organization coordinating or -- and you
don't have kind of conflicting organizations which you might
have in the larger areas?
Dan Cardinali: I don't know the answer to that question, honestly.
That's a great question.
I was just -- my experience is that we get similar results from
our third-party evaluation in urban and rural communities.
So I guess the answer is we get the same results.
The question is: Is it more effective or transformative
outside of just school results for that community --
Which is part of our work, which we don't capture.
I suspect in rural communities, places I've been to where we
were effective, the whole community is involved in
supporting the kids in a way that you don't see
in urban communities.
So that's a very profound change, I think. Yeah.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: So besides thanking Dan, we really do need to thank
Bill Milliken, who founded this important organization;
the 5,000 folks, the 57,000, and the superintendents and
principals who are making the time and the space and
the priority to ensure that this kind of effort
can really be successful, but congratulations on those results.
We don't know why people aren't showering you with money either.
But we'll see what; we'll see what collectively we can do
about that problem in general.
Dan Cardinali: Thank you. It wasn't a pitch.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: You can see why I thought that it would be fabulous
to have Dan here.
His personal leadership and insights are extraordinarily
important for all of us.
So before our web stream ends, I just want to do
one last introduction.
Joining us just now, just a few minutes ago, was Robert Velasco,
and Robert has stepped into the very important role of Acting
CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service.
And Robert, do you want to say just a few words besides
how did I get here?
Robert Velasco: I do. Thank you for that very warm introduction.
I'm very pleased to be with all of you here this morning.
There's a lot of energy at the corporation right now,
we're on the verge of initiating our National Conference in New
Orleans, and we think that's certainly emblematic of our
overall mission and strategic goals in terms of demonstrating
how volunteers in the service can really solve local problems
in local communities.
And so I hope all of you know that we are a partner here with
you in the very important work that you're doing,
and look forward to seeing the results of that work,
and look forward to supporting you in those endeavors that
you're undertaking.
I know that many of you will be at the National Conference over
the next couple of days and look forward to having some engaged
discussions with you there as well.
So thank you.
Chair Patricia Stonesifer: Well, thank you for making the time to
come here to be with us today.
We really do appreciate it.
Robert's got a long history of public service,
and it speaks well to the corporation that he was here
and eager and available.
I don't know about the eager part, I'll say eager.
And really prepared to lead, because as you know,
prepared to lead is one of our biggest challenges.
So let me just give a few final remarks before we close
this morning's session, and that is we have learned an enormous
amount, but we have to continue to learn what works from the
networks that are successful, from the stakeholders that
we've identified, from the ones we already have heard from but
also from the ones we've identified as gaps.
I think in particular we need to continue to learn from the youth
we want to serve so that as we go to serve the President and
as a Council, we are grounding those recommendations in what
the youths needs, the youths' opportunities and the families
that work with them.
And then I think we've all seen, and we need to spend time this
afternoon talking about the fact that at the end of the
day there's a lot of reason for hope but there's a failure of
capacity to address that hope, whether it is the resources of
winning organizations or simply the dollars
and the collaborations that need to come to the table to
make those scales.
So we've got some important discussions to have around
what can we do to recommend changes in capacity,
but also to leverage the capacity that exists in
a wiser way.
I know it's impossible to recap what we discussed this morning,
so I won't try, except to say we came in as pupils,
I think we're going out this morning still as pupils,
but wiser than we were.
So I thank you all for that, and I'll turn to our federal
officer to address the end of our public session.
Leslie Boissiere: Yes. So again thank you everyone who's here in the room and those
who are following us via web stream.
And with that we will adjourn the public session.