Browsing by Author "Owen, Jenni"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Open Access An on-campus community grocery store: A social purpose business model for Paul Quinn College(2013-04-19) Vanderburgh-Wertz, DarrowEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Paul Quinn College (PQC) has a vision for becoming an engine for economic and social change in the community, transforming the lives of residents in PQC’s under-resourced neighborhood while providing invaluable learning experiences for PQC students. To start, Paul Quinn College wants to focus on addressing the neighborhood’s most basic need – access to healthy food. A small historically black college in Dallas, TX, Paul Quinn College (PQC) is located in a food desert neighborhood – a low-income community with low access to fresh fruits and vegetables. PQC has already begun to address the community’s need for healthy food by starting the WE Over Me Farm on campus, but Michael Sorrel, President of PQC, wants to do more. To develop a strategy for creating healthy food access, PQC asked me to answer the following policy question. 1.1 Policy question (Section 2) How should Paul Quinn College create a social purpose business for healthy food access that spurs sustainable economic development in the surrounding under-resourced community? 1.2 Recommendations (Section 8) To create access to healthy food, spur community economic development, and provide educational opportunities to PQC students, I recommend that PQC pursue a small, limited-assortment format grocery store with an auxiliary business to supplement the grocery store’s revenue. I recommend that PQC build an 8,000 square-foot full-service store on the proposed on-campus site. Such a store is large enough to offer a full array of products and achieve some economies of scale in its sourcing. To capture the portion of the immediate market necessary to become financially viable, the PQC store should use its social mission to distinguish itself from its competitors, making itself a store of and for the community in the following ways. • PQC should focus on offering those products that are not available at nearby stores – fresh produce, quality dry goods, and healthy prepared food. • PQC should build a commercial kitchen into the grocery store to prepare quality food for a full-service deli. • Sourcing, where possible, from local producers will distinguish the PQC store from its competitors as well as increase the store’s beneficial impact on the local economy and the natural environment. • The PQC store should hire local residents, pay living wages, and offer benefits. • To gain traction in the community and develop customer loyalty, PQC should offer quality customer service and health education services, such as nutrition education. • To help ensure profitability, the PQC store should have an auxiliary business with higher profit margins, such as a catering business, a rentable commercial kitchen space, or socially responsible retail financial services. 1.3 Methodology (Section 3 and Appendix B) My strategy for answering the policy question included the following four major components. 1. Background research and a review of the relevant literature. (Section 4) 2. A grocery store market study of PQC’s neighborhood. (Section 5) 3. Case studies of related businesses and organizations. (Section 6) 4. Grocery store income statement under different scenarios. (Section 7) 1.4 Market study and financial analysis findings (Sections 5 and 7) As shown in Table 1.1, Highland Hills is much lower income than the United States as a whole with only $24,000 in median household income compared to $50,000 nationally. Area households spend about half as much on food for home consumption (food bought in a grocery store) than the national average and in total the neighborhood spends over $14 million each year on food at home. As shown in Table 1.2, residents within a 5-minute drive of PQC and not within a five-minute drive of a full-service grocery store spend about $8.2 million on groceries. Residents spend only $300,000 within this community, leaving $7.9 million in potential local revenue. With an 8,000 square-foot store, PQC would need to capture 35% of this surplus to generate typical grocery store revenue. To achieve $2.8 million in sales, each area household would need to spend about $18 per week at the PQC store.Item Open Access Developing and Scaling-Up Summer Programming in East Durham(2012-04-20) Howley, JuliaExecutive Summary The vision of East Durham Children’s Initiative (EDCI) is for all children and youth in the Initiative’s focus area to successfully graduate high school, ready for college or a career. Providing high-quality summer learning opportunities is a critical component of reaching this goal. In light of this focus, the policy challenge for this project is: how should the East Durham Children’s Initiative develop its summer programming for all students at Y.E. Smith Elementary School and, in the future, for all elementary-age students in the Initiative’s focus area? I offer proposed action items for how EDCI can develop its summer programming and potentially scale it up for all elementary-age students in the EDCI focus area. Methodology To address this policy challenge, I conduct literature reviews of best practices in summer programs, parental engagement, and scaling-up programs. I also examine six evidence-based summer learning programs, using data collected by targeted interviews with program personnel. I analyze these programs based on four criteria to supplement the best-practice literature. Next, I analyze the issue of scaling-up a summer learning program to include all students at Y.E. Smith Elementary and in the EDCI focus area by evaluating four action options. Research on Summer Learning Loss and Programs Research indicates that summer learning loss disproportionately affects low-income students and that these losses contribute significantly to the achievement gap between low-income students and their more advantaged peers. Y.E. Smith Elementary, in EDCI’s focus area, has a consistently high percent of low-income students (around 92 percent), the group most adversely affected by summer learning loss. Evidence shows that high-quality summer programs can prevent learning loss and increase academic skills, while lack of access to these programs can harm academic achievement, increase obesity, and hinder social development. Components of Effective Summer Programs A synthesis of the available research, analysis of six effective summer learning programs, and targeted interviews reveal eight characteristics of high-quality summer learning programs. These eight characteristics inform the EDCI-specific proposed action items. 1. Purpose 2. Finance and Sustainability 3. Advanced, collaborative planning 4. Staff 5. Parental Engagement 6. Focus on learning 7. Program culture 8. Rigorous evaluation Scaling-Up EDCI identified scaling-up summer programs as a policy challenge and goal to have all elementary-age children in the EDCI focus area attend enriching summer programs. Although scaling-up has multiple uses, it is generally defined as replicating a successful practice on a larger scale (with more students, across more schools, or both). For EDCI, the challenge is to scale-up an opportunity to attend a high-quality summer program and to bring best practices to scale in summer programs, not necessarily scaling-up a specific program. Research and my interviews suggest five best practices. A program scale-up would ideally contain all these components, but research suggests that the first four are critical to success. 1. Detailed, but flexible planning 2. Incremental Progress 3. Sufficient Resources 4. Dynamic Leadership 5. Support Networks Proposed Action Items This project’s proposed action items for EDCI are stated directly as next steps; however EDCI’s leadership will ultimately determine the appropriate course of action for the summer program. My proposed actions items for EDCI fall into four categories based on their importance to EDCI and feasibility: action items EDCI already uses fully or partially, action items for immediate implementation, actions items for future implementation, and long-term action items for scaling-up. I offer timeframe guidelines for each category, which are an estimate of when it seems to be feasible for EDCI to implement the items. However, timelines for implementation of these action items likely require a formal discussion within the EDCI leadership. The action items for immediate implementation are listed here. A complete list of the proposed action items is available on pages 53 – 55 of this project. Research suggests that EDCI should engage in these action items, which seem feasible by the end of the 2012 calendar year: 1. Create an inventory of summer program options in Durham (utilizing the services of a volunteer or summer intern if available). 2. Disseminate information from this inventory to “non-targeted” Y.E. Smith students. 3. Ensure that the EDCI evaluator, Duke’s Center for Child and Family Policy, has adequate time and information to plan a rigorous evaluation including data collection for the next summer. 4. Develop a mission statement for this summer program jointly, with relevant stakeholders, which aligns with EDCI’s overall mission. 5. Set specific, rigorous, and feasible goals for student achievement each summer. 6. Calculate a true cost for the current program at Y.E. Smith, including in-kind donations, facility, transportation, and meals. 7. Monitor the four key components of cost-effectiveness: enrollment, quantity, quality, and price of resources. The attached document provides a detailed discussion of the research, analysis, and proposed action items highlighted here.Item Open Access Fixing the Form: Improving Individualized Education Programs in North Carolina(2013-04-17) Ireland, ElizabethExecutive Summary Policy Problem: Special education services for children in North Carolina schools are highly dependent upon the development of individualized education programs, or IEPs. In fact, without an IEP in place, a North Carolina student will not receive special education services. As the statewide agency tasked with providing special education, the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) publishes a model form for school districts (also known as local education agencies or LEAs) to use when they develop IEPs. This project considers how the form used to prepare IEPs, known as the DEC 4, can be changed to improve the substantive special education services that will be provided for North Carolina children. This project is premised on the notion that improved parental understanding of the form will help parents, as advocates for their children, ensure that children receive better services. Policy Question: How can the DEC 4, the form used to develop individualized education programs in North Carolina, be revised to better help parents understand the DEC 4? Policy Recommendations: There are two sets of recommendations in this project. First, I include recommendations for how to change the DEC 4, which are presented in order of feasibility. A more complete analysis of these recommendations can be found on pages 16 – 27 of this report. (1) Add instructions to the DEC 4. (2) Add numbers or letters before all items on the DEC 4. (3) Add legal citations to the DEC 4. (4) Add a text box and change the wording of the item on page 7. (5) Change the wording of all items on the DEC 4 so they are worded as questions, not statements. Next, I propose four strategies for changing the DEC 4. For maximum impact, these strategies should be implemented in the order in which they are presented in this report. A more complete analysis of these recommendations can be found on pages 25 - 30. (1) ACS must identify the best lead actor for this project, ideally a parent or group of parents. (2) The lead actor should reach out to three specific children’s rights organizations and DPI to garner support for the project. (3) Consider using one LEA as a pilot” for DEC 4 revisions. (4) When this project concludes, work next on the DEC 5. Summary of Methodology and Criteria for Analysis: To determine how the DEC 4 could be improved, I conducted three types of research: (1) legal research (2) research on survey design (3) qualitative interviews and surveys The legal research consisted of an analysis of state and federal statutes and regulations about special education. The survey design research focused on best practices in structuring or writing questions so that they are easily understandable. The qualitative interviews included phone or in-person interviews with five parents, two teachers, and one director of special education, as well as attorneys who represent parents and children in special education matters in North Carolina. Although this sample was small and selected by professional contacts, the conversations were consistent with findings from research on survey design and survey comprehensibility. I also sent an electronic survey to a variety of organizations and individuals in North Carolina that represent four critical groups: teachers, parents, school administrators, and school psychologists. 238 people completed the survey. The survey did not track respondents’ geographic region of North Carolina or income level; however, the respondents represented a range of North Carolinians who interact with children. To develop the recommendations for changes to the DEC 4, I considered four criteria: (1) whether the recommendation would be supported or approved by multiple groups of stakeholders (2) how responsive the recommendation was to parental concerns (3) the legality of the recommendation (4) how much the recommendation would cost DPI, the organization that creates the state model IEP form Explanation of Results: To make the DEC 4 more understandable, ACS should encourage DPI to modify the DEC 4 to make it more user-friendly. Parents, teachers, school personnel, and parent advocates all comment that the DEC 4 is confusing and lacks clarity, even for school administrators that use the form regularly. The five recommendations concerning the DEC 4 will all help ensure that the form is more easily understandable for parents, as the advocate for children in IEP meetings and the focal group for ACS. However, these recommendations are also supported by other groups of stakeholders, such as teachers and school personnel, which will help ACS make a stronger case than if the changes were supported by parents alone. Presumably, making the form more understandable will then improve the substance of services for North Carolina children. Since ACS is not DPI and does not control the DEC 4, this report also includes strategies to help ACS encourage DPI to change the form. These strategies are built on the assumption that a collaborative effort among a diverse group of organizations will encourage DPI to make these changes faster than if ACS acts alone.Item Open Access Promising Strategies for Partnership: Can Durham district and charter schools collaborate to improve opportunities for all children?(2014-04-21) Thigpen, MaganThis report examines collaborative actions that Durham Public Schools (DPS), charter schools and other stakeholders can take to promote equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities for all of Durham’s students. The report proposes that Durham’s education leaders convene a taskforce of stakeholders to jointly consider how collaborative action between the school district and area charter schools could improve educational outcomes for all of Durham’s children. The proposed taskforce would include a wide range of perspectives including DPS, Durham charter schools, non-profit organizations, local political action committees and parents. Led by a neutral facilitator, the taskforce would form subcommittees to study key topics that are of interest and concern among Durham’s education community. By the end of the 10-month taskforce, each subcommittee would have a set of recommendations for actions that could be taken at DPS, charter schools and across Durham to strengthen schools and serve all kids. Many proposed actions would likely involve collaborative effort from DPS and some (or all) Durham charter schools. By collaborating, this group could aspire to move away from historic divisions and tensions between the school district and charter schools. Engaging in a taskforce also positions leaders to maximize operational efficiencies and enhance knowledge across schools by sharing expertise and engaging in mutual learning and problem solving. This effort could demonstrate to the community that DPS and charter schools are committed, above all else, to working together for the betterment of educational opportunities for all of Durham’s children. The documents that make up the report can serve as tools for Durham’s education leaders. This report is comprised of four related documents that can collectively serve as tools for leaders if they embark on collaborative work between the district and charters. The documents in this report include: 1. A one-page call to action that provides context on the current dynamic between DPS and charter schools and demonstrates the potential for change that could be brought from collaborative efforts. 2. A three-page strategy document that provides a high-level overview of how a taskforce could help progress Durham’s education landscape. 3. A taskforce action-plan that outlines steps for creating a taskforce, recommended elements of a taskforce and a discussion of the proposed taskforce subcommittees. 4. Analysis of potential collaborative actions that could be used as a resource for a taskforce to consider the benefits, challenges and feasibility of various efforts. To complement the key documents, this report also includes: • Three case studies that illustrate how varying components of these recommendations have taken shape in other cities around the nation. • A literature review that surveys the available research and best practices on interactions between school districts and charter schools and how they have worked collaboratively in other cities around the nation. • A history of charter schools in NC from 1996 to the present that can serve as a primer on additional context and history on the issues related to these recommendations. The report strives to serve the needs of Durham’s education leaders and stakeholders. This report aims to take a neutral perspective on the dynamics of DPS and area charter schools and sourced a wide range of perspectives, locally and nationally, to inform the recommendations. The Chair of the Durham Board of Education, Heidi Carter, and Board of Education member, Natalie Beyer, served as the clients for this project. However, the recommendations are aimed at challenges that face the entire Durham community and which require action from a wide range of actors. Therefore, these documents are framed to address and serve the broad community of Durham’s education leaders and stakeholders.Item Open Access Strong Leaders for North Carolina Schools: School Principal Preparation Programs(2015-05-04) Hagan, KatherineBEST NC expressed interest in learning more about the options currently available for principal preparation in North Carolina and how the organization (BEST NC) should proceed to ensure that North Carolina has high-quality principal preparation programs. This research provides BEST NC with an overview of the 13 Masters of School Administration (MSA) programs within the UNC system.Item Open Access The Support for People Community Programs Evaluation Project(2014-04-25) Childers, DarrylPOLICY QUESTION How should Triangle Community Foundation (TCF) evaluate effectiveness of the strategy implemented through the Support for People portion of its discretionary grantmaking, and how should that evaluation be implemented? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Triangle Community Foundation (TCF) is located in Durham, NC and serves a four county area. TCF assets of more than $175 million are spread among over 750 funds. The Foundation awards grants to nonprofit organizations that total about $14 million a year. The amount that is available for the Foundation’s discretionary grantmaking, however, is less than $1 million a year. TCF has created a Fund for the Triangle, meant to attract donors to give more to the Foundation’s discretionary grantmaking efforts, with the rationale that these dollars will be used in a more strategic way. In order to support the claim of the discretionary grantmaking being a way to have a more strategic impact on the community, the Foundation needs a way to evaluate and continually improve the effectiveness of this new approach. Additionally, given that discretionary grantmaking still has a limited pool of resources to draw from, it is even more important that TCF’s staff is able to maximize the impact of their grants. Based on interviews with experts in the field and TCF stakeholders, including Foundation staff, board members, and grantees, the researcher was able to identify an evaluation framework [pgs. 19] that will support the Foundation’s strategic plan. These interviews also provided insight into the challenges and benefits of evaluation that the researcher should consider in designing the framework [pg. 11]. These efforts resulted in an evaluation vision and framework for the Foundation’s discretionary grantmaking activities. This vision [pg.18] and framework are aligned with the values of the TCF strategic plan, and encourage positive funder-grantee relationships, and continuous learning on the part of all stakeholders. The framework begins with the recommendation that TCF staff create a theory of change for the discretionary grantmaking, and present that theory of change to grantees in one-on-one meetings or to the entire cohort in a group presentation. If the Foundation chooses to present the theory of change in one-on-one meetings, TCF staff could use the opportunity to complete the next step in the framework, getting feedback from current grantees individually. The framework continues by following the timeline of the current grant cycle, providing the vital information (the evaluation question, data collection method, main activities, person(s) responsible, date to be completed, and frequency) needed to complete each step. Each step of the framework is described in more detail in the pages that follow the framework tables [pgs. 21]. This vision and framework represent a first step of evaluation planning for the new grantmaking approach. The dates in the timeline, for example, will need to be adjusted as more information is available. Other parts of the vision and framework will also need to be adjusted and improved upon as the Foundation moves forward and learns from its grantmaking activities.