Connecting the Dots: Data Use in Afterschool Systems

Children and Youth;Education and Literacy

Connecting the Dots: Data Use in Afterschool Systems

Afterschool programs are seen as a way to keep low-income children safe and to foster the skills needed to succeed in school and life. Many cities are creating afterschool systems to ensure that such programs are high-quality and widely available. One way to do so is to ensure afterschool systems develop and maintain a data system.This interim report presents early findings from a study of how afterschool systems build their capacity to understand and improve their practices through their data systems. It examines afterschool data systems in nine cities that are part of The Wallace Foundation’s Next Generation Afterschool System-Building initiative, a multi-year effort to strengthen systems that support access to and participation in high-quality afterschool programs for low-income youth. The cities are Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., Fort Worth, Texas, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jacksonville, Fla.,Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint Paul, Minn.To date, research on data use in afterschool systems has focused more on the implementation of technology than on what it takes to develop and sustain effective data use. This study found that the factors that either enabled or hampered the use of data in afterschool systems—such as norms and routines, partner relationships, leadership and coordination, and technical knowledge—had as much to do with the people and process components of the systems as with the technology.Strategies that appear to contribute to success include:

  •     Starting small. A number of cities intentionally started with a limited set of goals for data collection and use, and/or a limited set of providers piloting a new data system, with plans to scale up gradually.
  •     Ongoing training. Stakeholders learned that high staff turnover required ongoing introductory trainings to help new hires use management information systems and data. Providing coaching and developing manuals also helped to mitigate the effects of turnover and to further the development of more experienced and engaged staff.
  •     Outside help. Systems varied in how they used the expertise of outside research partners. Some cities identified a research partner who participated in all phases of the development of their data systems. Others used the relationship primarily to help analyze and report data collected by providers. Still others did not engage external research partner, but identified internal staff to support the system. In any of these scenarios, dedicated staffers with skills in data analytics were key.

 

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Minnesota / Ramsey County / St. Paul;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland / Baltimore;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Tarrant County / Fort Worth;North America / United States (Western) / Colorado / Denver County;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee / Davidson County / Nashville;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Michigan / (Western) / Kent County / Grand Rapids;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville

Connecting the Dots: Data Use in Afterschool Systems

Children and Youth;Education and Literacy

Connecting the Dots: Data Use in Afterschool Systems

Afterschool programs are seen as a way to keep low-income children safe and to foster the skills needed to succeed in school and life. Many cities are creating afterschool systems to ensure that such programs are high-quality and widely available. One way to do so is to ensure afterschool systems develop and maintain a data system.This interim report presents early findings from a study of how afterschool systems build their capacity to understand and improve their practices through their data systems. It examines afterschool data systems in nine cities that are part of The Wallace Foundation’s Next Generation Afterschool System-Building initiative, a multi-year effort to strengthen systems that support access to and participation in high-quality afterschool programs for low-income youth. The cities are Baltimore, Md., Denver, Colo., Fort Worth, Texas, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jacksonville, Fla.,Louisville, Ky., Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, Pa., and Saint Paul, Minn.To date, research on data use in afterschool systems has focused more on the implementation of technology than on what it takes to develop and sustain effective data use. This study found that the factors that either enabled or hampered the use of data in afterschool systems—such as norms and routines, partner relationships, leadership and coordination, and technical knowledge—had as much to do with the people and process components of the systems as with the technology.Strategies that appear to contribute to success include:

  •     Starting small. A number of cities intentionally started with a limited set of goals for data collection and use, and/or a limited set of providers piloting a new data system, with plans to scale up gradually.
  •     Ongoing training. Stakeholders learned that high staff turnover required ongoing introductory trainings to help new hires use management information systems and data. Providing coaching and developing manuals also helped to mitigate the effects of turnover and to further the development of more experienced and engaged staff.
  •     Outside help. Systems varied in how they used the expertise of outside research partners. Some cities identified a research partner who participated in all phases of the development of their data systems. Others used the relationship primarily to help analyze and report data collected by providers. Still others did not engage external research partner, but identified internal staff to support the system. In any of these scenarios, dedicated staffers with skills in data analytics were key.

 

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Minnesota / Ramsey County / St. Paul;North America / United States (Southern) / Florida / Duval County / Jacksonville;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland / Baltimore;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas / Tarrant County / Fort Worth;North America / United States (Western) / Colorado / Denver County;North America / United States (Northeastern) / Pennsylvania / Philadelphia County / Philadelphia;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee / Davidson County / Nashville;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Michigan / (Western) / Kent County / Grand Rapids;North America / United States (Southern) / Kentucky / Jefferson County / Louisville

Early Social-Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship Between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness

Children and Youth;Education and Literacy;Health

Early Social-Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship Between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness

A new 20-year study shows a link between children's social skills in kindergarten and their well-being in early adulthood.

Researchers from Pennsylvania State and Duke Universities analyzed what happened to nearly 800 kindergarteners from four locations after their teachers measured their social competency skills in 1991. The children were evaluated on a range of social behaviors, such as whether they resolve peer problems, listen to others, share materials, cooperate, and are helpful. Each student then received a composite score representing his or her overall level of positive social skills/behavior, on a scale from ("not at all") to 4 ("very well"). The research team monitored these students and the positive and negative milestones each obtained until they turned 25.

Using a variety of data sources, including official records; reports from parents; and self-reporting by the participants, researchers recorded whether the students obtained high school diplomas, college degrees, and full-time jobs. They also kept track of whether students developed a criminal record or substance abuse problems, among other negative outcomes.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee;North America / United States (Western) / Washington / King County / Seattle;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee / Davidson County / Nashville;North America / United States (Southern) / North Carolina / Durham County / Durham

In-Depth Portfolio Assessment: Shelby County Schools, Memphis, TN

Education and Literacy

In-Depth Portfolio Assessment: Shelby County Schools, Memphis, TN

The 2013 merger of Memphis City Schools (with 103,000 students) and Shelby County Schools (with 47,000 students) was the largest school district consolidation in American history. In its first year of operation, the new Shelby County Schools (SCS) commissioned CRPE researchers to perform a critical review of the district's readiness to implement a portfolio strategy for managing its schools. Based on interviews with internal and external stakeholders and analysis against model system progress, this report outlines CRPE's baseline measurement of where SCS stands in relation to the seven main components of the portfolio strategy. The report also provides suggestions for how SCS can seek progress over the next year, and track progress or decline at future intervals.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Shelby County

Blurring Boundaries: Transforming Place, Policies, and Partnerships for Postsecondary Education Attainment in Metropolitan Areas

Education and Literacy;Race and Ethnicity

Blurring Boundaries: Transforming Place, Policies, and Partnerships for Postsecondary Education Attainment in Metropolitan Areas

By 2020, more than six out of 10 U.S. jobs will require postsecondary training. Despite a slight increase in college attainment nationally in recent years, the fastest-growing minority groups are being left behind. Only 25 and 18 percent of Blacks and Hispanics, respectively, hold at least an associate's degree, compared with 39 percent of Whites. Without substantial increases in educational attainment, particularly for our nation's already underserved groups, the United States will have a difficult time developing a robust economy.

Home to 65 percent of Americans, and a majority of all African Americans and Hispanics (74 and 79 percent, respectively), the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) can play a strong role in developing this nation's workforce. In fact, to reach a national attainment target that meets our workforce needs, more than half of college degrees could be generated from the these cities. The majority of degrees needed among African-American and Hispanic adults could also be produced in MSAs.

Clearly, investing in and organizing around the potential of metropolitan areas is critical, and the stakes have never been higher. Yet the current funding climate requires strategic public and private partnerships to invest in education innovation and human capital development in order to have the most robust impact on sustainable national growth. For this study, the Institute for Higher Education (IHEP) sought to follow up on its previous work examining MSA educational attainment rates by further exploring policies that either inhibit or facilitate degree production, and identifying metropolitan-level, cross-section collaborations that help local leaders contribute to national completion goals.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Southern) / District of Columbia / Washington;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland / Baltimore;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee / Shelby County / Memphis;North America / United States (Western) / Nebraska / Douglas County / Omaha

Evaluating Teachers More Strategically: Using Performance Results to Streamline Evaluation Systems

Education and Literacy, Employment and Labor

Evaluating Teachers More Strategically: Using Performance Results to Streamline Evaluation Systems

According to this issue brief, to improve the feedback new teachers receive districts must rethink feedback as a complex system of many parts, rather than simply a series of isolated conversations between principals and teachers. This paper is designed to guide districts through this process, helping them recognize the interconnected factors at the district, school, and classroom level that shape the nature of feedback.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee

Getting Better at Teacher Preparation and State Accountability

Education and Literacy

Getting Better at Teacher Preparation and State Accountability

Profiles the goals, activities, implementation, and challenges of the twelve states that won Race to the Top federal funds to improve teacher quality and preparation program accountability; analyzes their strategies; and makes policy recommendations.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Delaware, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York, North America-United States (Southern)-North Carolina, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee, North America-United States (Western)-Hawaii, North America-United States (Southwestern)-New Mexico-Bernalillo County-Albuquerque, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Fulton County-Atlanta, North America-United States (Southern)-Maryland-Baltimore, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts-Suffolk County-Boston, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Connecticut-Fairfield County-Bridgeport, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Illinois-Cook County-Chicago, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Hamilton County-Cincinnati, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Ohio-Cuyahoga County-Cleveland, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Dallas County-Dallas, North America-United States (Western)-Colorado-Denver County-Denver, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Michigan-Wayne County-Detroit, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Texas-Harris County-Houston, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Indiana-Marion County-Indianapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Florida-Duval County-Jacksonville, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Missouri-Jackson County-Kansas City, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Nebraska-Lancaster County-Lincoln, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-Long Island, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Los Angeles, North America-United States (Southern)-Kentucky-Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government-Louisville, North America-United States (Southern)-Georgia-Bibb County-Macon, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Shelby County-Memphis, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Hennepin County-Minneapolis, North America-United States (Southern)-Tennessee-Davidson County-Nashville, North America-United States (Southern)-Louisiana-Orleans Parish-New Orleans, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-New York County-New York City, North America-United States (Western)-Nebraska-Douglas County-Omaha, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-Palo Alto, North America-United States (Western)-California-Los Angeles County-Pasadena, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Philadelphia County-Philadelphia, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Pennsylvania-Allegheny County-Pittsburgh, North America-United States (Northwestern)-Oregon-Multnomah County-Portland, North America-United States (Northeastern)-Rhode Island-Providence County-Providence, North America-United States (Western)-California-Sacramento County-Sacramento, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Diego County-San Diego, North America-United States (Western)-California-San Francisco County-San Francisco, North America-United States (Western)-California-Santa Clara County-San Jose, North America-United States (Midwestern)-Minnesota-Ramsey County-St. Paul, North America-United States (Northeastern)-New Jersey-Mercer County-Trenton, North America-United States (Southwestern)-Arizona-Pima County-Tucson, North America-United States (Western)-Washington-King County-Seattle, North America-United States (Southern)-District of Columbia-Washington

The Productivity Push

Education and Literacy

The Productivity Push

Profiles Arizona's efforts to raise higher education productivity -- delivering quality education to more students at lower cost -- via partnerships between community colleges and state universities. Lists initiatives in other grantee states.

August 1970

Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Indiana;North America / United States (Southern) / Maryland;North America / United States (Southern) / Tennessee;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Arizona;North America / United States (Southwestern) / Texas;North America / United States (Midwestern) / Ohio;North America / United States (Western) / Montana

See More Reports

Go to IssueLab