
Education and Literacy;Nonprofits and Philanthropy
In 2013, the state of California passed sweeping changes in the way it funds public schools. New legislation shifted $50 billion from a convoluted, very ineffective and inequitable system to a new system, called the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), by which funds flow more equitably to school districts.
This unprecedented change in education finance didn't happen overnight. It came only after copious research from leading academic institutions, mobilization by dozens of advocacy organizations, leadership from key elected officials, and the support of private philanthropy. This is a case study of the role of philanthropy in providing resources and support for the development of statewide policy for the benefit of students.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Western)-California

Education and Literacy;Immigration
This report examines the ways in which local educational institutions, legal service providers, and immigrant youth advocates have responded to the first phase of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Based on extensive interviews with stakeholders in seven states -- California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Texas -- the report identifies initiatives undertaken by educational institutions and other community stakeholders to support DACA youth's education and training success, and examine the impact of deferred action on grantees' academic and career pursuits. It provides examples of promising practices, additional challenges, and key takeaways at the high school, postsecondary, and adult education levels, as well as an exploration of the nature and scope of DACA legal outreach initiatives.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Illinois;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida;North America / United States (Southern) / Georgia;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas;North America / United States (Western) / California

Education and Literacy;Prison and Judicial Reform
This report begins with a background on the higher education and criminal justice systems in California. This background section highlights the vocabulary and common pathways for each system, and provides a primer on California community colleges. Part II explains why California needs this initiative. Part III presents the landscape of existing college programs dedicated to criminal justice-involved populations in the community and in jails and prisons. This landscape identifies promising strategies and sites of innovation across the state, as well as current challenges to sustaining and expanding these programs. Part IV lays out concrete recommendations California should take to realize the vision of expanding high-quality college opportunities for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. It includes guidelines for developing high-quality, sustainable programs, building and strengthening partnerships, and shaping the policy landscape, both by using existing opportunities and by advocating for specific legislative and policy changes. Profiles of current college students and graduates with criminal records divide the sections and offer first-hand accounts of the joys and challenges of a college experience.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Western) / California

California has taken the first steps down an historic path that fundamentally alters how its public schools are financed, education decisions are made, and traditionally underserved students' needs are met. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), passed with bipartisan legislative support and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on July 1, 2013, represents the most comprehensive transformation of California's school funding system in 40 years.
The LCFF significantly loosens the reins of state control over education. It all but eliminates categorical funding streams, subsituting a base of funding for all distraicts and adding dollars for low-income students, English language learners, and foster youth. The new system empowers school districts to determine how to allocate their dollars to best meet the needs of their students. Finally, by requiring all districts to engage parents and other education stakeholders in decisions about how to spend newly flexible funds, the LCFF represents a remarkable experiment in local democracy.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Western)-California

Arts and Culture;Education and Literacy
Highlights:
* 58 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni took up residence in the city within 5 years of the date of their last attendance. Of the regions compared in this report, only New York City has a greater portion of its arts-school alumni taking up residence in the city within 5 years, at 66 percent.
* 51 percent of Chicago arts-school alumni were out-of-state applicants who came to Chicago and were still living in the city within five years of their last date of attendance. This is the second highest portion of out-of-state applicants taking up residence in the city of their alma mater. New York City's rate was highest at 54 percent.
* Of arts-school alumni who searched for work, 38 percent of those attending school in Chicago obtained work prior to leaving their institution; 85 percent obtained work within a year. Alumni from other regions had similar experiences.
*50 percent of Chicago's alumni reported that their first job or work experience was "closely related" to their arts-school training. However, alumni from institutions in Los Angeles County, Cleveland/Columbus and New York City reported higher rates of their first work experience being closely related to their arts training.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Illinois / Chicago Metropolitan Area;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Middlesex County / Cambridge;North America / United States (Western) / California / Los Angeles County;North America / United States (Western) / California (San Francisco Bay Area);North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Cuyahoga County / Cleveland;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio / Franklin County / Columbus;North America / United States (Northeastern) / New York / New York County / New York City

Arts and Culture;Education and Literacy
There have been remarkable advances in arts education, both in and out of schools, over the last fifteen years, despite a difficult policy environment. Teaching artists, the hybrid professionals that link the arts to education and community life, are the creative resource behind much of this innovation. Their best efforts are redefining the roles the arts play in public education. Their work is central to arts organizations' strategies for civic engagement and diverse audiences. Excellent research has shown that arts education is instrumental to the social, emotional, and cognitive development of thousands of young people. But little is known about teaching artists. The Teaching Artists Research Project (TARP) deepens our understanding of world of teaching artists through studies in twelve communities, and it will inform policy designed to make their work sustainable, more effective, and more meaningful.
A dozen study sites were selected where funding was available to support exploration of the local conditions and dynamics in arts education: Boston, Seattle, Providence, and eight California communities (San Francisco/Alameda County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Humboldt County). A thorough literature review was conducted, and NORC conducted stakeholder meetings and focus groups, identified key issues and began designing a multi-methods study that would include surveys for both artists and program managers as well as in-depth interviews of stakeholders -- teaching artists, program managers, school officials, classroom teachers and arts specialists, principals, funders, and arts educators in a wide variety of venues.
There are no professional associations and no accreditation for teaching artists, so a great deal of time was spent building a sample of teaching artists and program managers in every study site. The survey instrument was developed and tested, and then fielded on-line in the study sites sequentially, beginning in Chicago, and ending with the southern California sites. To assure a reliable response rate, online surveys were supplemented by a telephone survey. Lists of potential key informants were accumulated for each site, and interviewers were recruited, hired, and trained in each site. Most of the interviewers were teaching artists themselves, and many had significant field knowledge and familiarity with the landscape of arts education in their community. The surveys collected data on some fundamental questions:
- Who are teaching artists?
- Where do they work? Under what terms and conditions?
- What sort of education have they had?
- How are they hired and what qualifications do employers look for?
- How much do they make?
- How much experience do they have?
- What drew them to the field? What pushes them out?
- What are their goals?
Qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents and key informants delved deeply into the dynamics and policies that drive arts education, the curricula and pedagogy teaching artists bring to the work, and personal histories of some artists. The interviews gathered more detailed information on the local character of teaching artist communities, in-depth descriptions and narratives of teaching artists' experiences, and followed up on items or issues that arose in preliminary analysis of the quantitative survey data. These conversations illuminated the work teaching artists believe is their best and identified the kinds of structural and organizational supports that enable work at the highest level. The interview process explored key areas with the artists, such as how to best develop their capacities, understand the dynamics between their artistic and educational practice, and how to keep them engaged in the field. Another critical topic explored during these conversations was how higher education can make a more meaningful and strategic contribution toward preparing young artists to work in the field.
The TARP report includes serious reflection on the conditions and policies that have affected arts education in schools, particularly over the last thirty years, a period of intense school reform efforts and consistent erosion of arts education for students. The report includes new and important qualitative data about teaching artists, documenting their educational background, economic status, the conditions in which they work, and their goals as artists and educators. It also includes new insights about how learning in the arts is associated with learning in general, illuminating findings from other studies that have suggested a powerful connection between arts education and positive outcomes for students in a wide range of domains.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Illinois / Cook County / Chicago;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Western) / California;North America / United States (Western) / Washington / King County / Seattle;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Rhode Island / Providence County / Providence

Arts and Culture;Education and Literacy
There have been remarkable advances in arts education, both in and out of schools, over the last fifteen years, despite a difficult policy environment. Teaching artists, the hybrid professionals that link the arts to education and community life, are the creative resource behind much of this innovation. Their best efforts are redefining the roles the arts play in public education. Their work is central to arts organizations' strategies for civic engagement and diverse audiences. Excellent research has shown that arts education is instrumental to the social, emotional, and cognitive development of thousands of young people. But little is known about teaching artists. The Teaching Artists Research Project (TARP) deepens our understanding of world of teaching artists through studies in twelve communities, and it will inform policy designed to make their work sustainable, more effective, and more meaningful.
A dozen study sites were selected where funding was available to support exploration of the local conditions and dynamics in arts education: Boston, Seattle, Providence, and eight California communities (San Francisco/Alameda County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Bakersfield, San Bernardino, Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Humboldt County). A thorough literature review was conducted, and NORC conducted stakeholder meetings and focus groups, identified key issues and began designing a multi-methods study that would include surveys for both artists and program managers as well as in-depth interviews of stakeholders -- teaching artists, program managers, school officials, classroom teachers and arts specialists, principals, funders, and arts educators in a wide variety of venues.
There are no professional associations and no accreditation for teaching artists, so a great deal of time was spent building a sample of teaching artists and program managers in every study site. The survey instrument was developed and tested, and then fielded on-line in the study sites sequentially, beginning in Chicago, and ending with the southern California sites. To assure a reliable response rate, online surveys were supplemented by a telephone survey. Lists of potential key informants were accumulated for each site, and interviewers were recruited, hired, and trained in each site. Most of the interviewers were teaching artists themselves, and many had significant field knowledge and familiarity with the landscape of arts education in their community. The surveys collected data on some fundamental questions:
- Who are teaching artists?
- Where do they work? Under what terms and conditions?
- What sort of education have they had?
- How are they hired and what qualifications do employers look for?
- How much do they make?
- How much experience do they have?
- What drew them to the field? What pushes them out?
- What are their goals?
Qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents and key informants delved deeply into the dynamics and policies that drive arts education, the curricula and pedagogy teaching artists bring to the work, and personal histories of some artists. The interviews gathered more detailed information on the local character of teaching artist communities, in-depth descriptions and narratives of teaching artists' experiences, and followed up on items or issues that arose in preliminary analysis of the quantitative survey data. These conversations illuminated the work teaching artists believe is their best and identified the kinds of structural and organizational supports that enable work at the highest level. The interview process explored key areas with the artists, such as how to best develop their capacities, understand the dynamics between their artistic and educational practice, and how to keep them engaged in the field. Another critical topic explored during these conversations was how higher education can make a more meaningful and strategic contribution toward preparing young artists to work in the field.
The TARP report includes serious reflection on the conditions and policies that have affected arts education in schools, particularly over the last thirty years, a period of intense school reform efforts and consistent erosion of arts education for students. The report includes new and important qualitative data about teaching artists, documenting their educational background, economic status, the conditions in which they work, and their goals as artists and educators. It also includes new insights about how learning in the arts is associated with learning in general, illuminating findings from other studies that have suggested a powerful connection between arts education and positive outcomes for students in a wide range of domains.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Illinois / Cook County / Chicago;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Massachusetts / Suffolk County / Boston;North America / United States (Western) / California;North America / United States (Western) / Washington / King County / Seattle;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Rhode Island / Providence County / Providence

Children and Youth;Education and Literacy
As longtime funders of efforts to promote educational opportunity for current and former foster youth, the Walter S. Johnson Foundation (WSJF) and Stuart Foundation have been in the forefront of efforts to replicate successful models of campus support programs for former foster youth at public institutions of higher education in the Bay Area and Northern California. This paper was commissioned to help the funders determine what additional investments could be made to help additional campuses implement support programs and to move the field toward a "tipping point" where temporary philanthropic support for a relatively small number of demonstration programs begins to be replaced by on-going public support for the widespread replication of CSPs throughout the state's public institutions of higher education. This paper examines the challenges and barriers faced by campuses that seek to replicate campus support programs for foster youth, determine what campuses need for effective replication, and the most useful ways in which support could be delivered. In also includes a potential design for a campus support program initiative and makes recommendations for the type of intermediary needed to manage the initiative.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Western) / California