Milwaukee’s Community
Development Block Grant
Connecting Youth Services
and Economic Development
Nina Carlson
Julie Fitzgerald
Kevin Murphy
Bethany Shore
Prepared for the City of Milwaukee
Budget and Management Division, Department of Administration
Workshop in Public Affairs, Domestic Issues
Public Affairs 869
Spring 2007
Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs
University of Wisconsin – Madison
©2007 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
All rights reserved.
For additional copies:
Publications Office
La Follette School of Public Affairs
1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706
www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workshops.html
The Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs is a
nonpartisan teaching and research department of the University of
Wisconsin–Madison. The school takes no stand on policy issues;
opinions expressed in these pages reflect the views of the authors.
Table of Contents
Figures & Tables.................................................................................................... iv
Foreword ................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgments................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary ............................................................................................... ix
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
Status Quo: Rationale for CDGA-Sponsored Youth Services Grants ................ 2
Research Question #1:Is CDGA Youth Services Funding
Used Effectively?.................................................................................................... 4
Measurement Criteria.......................................................................................... 4
Reporting and Monitoring Systems Quality ....................................................... 4
Recommendations for Improving CDGA Grantee
Performance Measurement ............................................................................... 10
Goal Achievement ............................................................................................ 14
Research Question #2: How Can Milwaukee Link
Youth Services Programming to Economic Development? ................................. 20
Introduction....................................................................................................... 20
Effectiveness of Youth Services Programs for Economic Outcomes............... 20
Analysis of Milwaukee Data............................................................................. 24
Recommendation: Take a Broader Perspective on Economic Development ... 27
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 28
References............................................................................................................. 30
Appendix A: Grant Application and Award Process........................................... 37
Appendix B: CDGA Monitoring Procedures ...................................................... 39
Appendix C: Selected Current CDGA Grantee Outcome
Indicator Measuresand Data Sources, and Corresponding
Suggested Outcome Indicator Measures and Data Sources,
by Service Provision Category ...................................................... 41
Appendix D: Recent Trends in CDBG Funding.................................................. 44
Appendix E: Oakland, California........................................................................ 45
Appendix F: Youth Services Programming Categories...................................... 46
Appendix G: List of 2006 Grantees, Amount Received
and Number of Youth Served ........................................................ 47
Appendix H: Successful Intensive Youth Programs ........................................... 51
iii
Figures & Tables
Figure 1: 2006 CDGA Services Allocations by Type of Program ...................... 16
Figure 2: Per Youth Expenditures by Program Type .......................................... 25
Figure 3: Total CDBG Appropriations in Real Dollars, 2003-2008:
Steady Decline in Available Funds ...................................................... 44
Table 1: Carnegie Youth Characteristics and Corresponding
CDGA Program Categories.................................................................. 15
Table 2: CDGA-Sponsored Youth Programming by Category.......................... 15
Table 3: Summary of Recommendations ........................................................... 29
iv
Foreword
This report, which analyzes the delivery of Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) resources in the area of Youth Services in the City of Milwaukee,
is the product of a collaboration between the Robert M. La Follette School of
Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, the City of Milwaukee
Budget and Management Division, Department of Administration and City of
Milwaukee’s Community Development Grants Administration (CDGA). Our
objective is to provide graduate students at La Follette the opportunity to improve
their policy analysis skills while contributing to the capacity of the City of
Milwaukee to effectively provide public services.
The La Follette School offers a two-year graduate program leading to a master’s
degree in public affairs. Students study policy analysis and public management,
and pursue a concentration in a public policy area of their choice. They spend the
first year and a half taking courses that provide them with the tools needed to
analyze public policies. The authors of this report are all enrolled in Public Affairs
869, Workshop in Public Affairs, Domestic Issues. Although acquiring a set of
policy analysis skills is important, there is no substitute for doing policy analysis
as a means of learning policy analysis. Public Affairs 869 provides graduate
students that opportunity.
The students were assigned to one of several project teams. Two additional
groups worked with the City of Milwaukee Budget and Management Division.
Other teams worked with the Wisconsin Joint Legislative Council or the
Wisconsin departments of Revenue, Administration, or Health and Family
Services. The topic of this report—evaluating the effectiveness of Milwaukee’s
use of Community Development Block Grant funding for youth programming—
was chosen by Mark Nicolini, the budget director of the City of Milwaukee, in
consultation with his staff.
This report does not provide the final word on the complex issues the authors
address. The graduate student authors are, after all, generally new to policy
analysis, and the topic they have addressed is complex. Nevertheless, much has
been accomplished, and I trust that the students have learned a great deal, and that
Mayor Barrett and the staff of the City’s Budget and Management Division will
profit from the evaluation.
Like many large cities, Milwaukee faces an environment with consistent demand
for CDBG services, but limited and declining resources to provide such programs.
Given these constraints, the CDGA has to consider how to make the most of
funding. This report dealt with this issue in two ways. First, it evaluated the provision of current services. Through analysis of CDGA records, site visits, and analysis
of social science research, the team concluded that the Youth Services spending is
v
generally targeted in areas that have a proven connection to positive youth outcomes. However, in anticipation of increasing demands for accountability in this
area, the research team suggested specific ways to improve the quality of performance reporting. Second, the research team examined whether more Youth
Services resources could be better spent on economic development programs.
Through an analysis of current spending and a review of relevant social science
research, the research team found that many traditional economic development
programs, such as job training, do not have a strong track record in generating
positive economic outcomes. Other forms of youth programming such as educational and recreational programs appear to have stronger connections with economic outcomes. This suggests no pressing need for new types of programming and
that the CDGA adopt a broader understanding of economic development to
incorporate much current programming.
This report would not have been possible without the support and encouragement
of Budget Director Mark Nicolini and Eric Pearson, who served as the project
coordinator for the Budget and Management Division and solicited ideas for
policy analysis from the Budget Office staff and coordinated the efforts of staff
in support of the project. CDGA staff Steven Mahan, Hettie White, and Matthew
Balistrieri provided practical guidance in helping the authors understand how
CDGB funding was allocated.
The report also benefited greatly from the active support of the staff of the
La Follette School. Terry Shelton, the La Follette outreach director, along with
Kari Reynolds, Mary Mead, and Gregory Lynch, contributed logistic and practical
support for the project. Karen Faster, La Follette publications director, edited the
report and shouldered the task of producing the final bound document.
I am very grateful to Wilbur R. Voigt whose generous gift to the La Follette
School supports the La Follette School public affairs workshop projects.
With his support, we are able to finance the production of the final reports,
plus other expenses associated with the projects.
By involving La Follette students in one of the tough issues faced by the City
of Milwaukee, I hope the students not only have learned a great deal about doing
policy analysis but also have gained an appreciation of the complexities and
challenges facing city government in Wisconsin and elsewhere. I also hope that this
report will contribute to the work of the Division of Budget and Management and
the CDGA in their efforts to provide services to the young citizens of Milwaukee.
Donald Moynihan
May 1, 2007
vi
Acknowledgments
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all those who contributed
significant time and effort to this project. This includes Steven Mahan,
Hettie White, and Matthew Balistrieri of the City of Milwaukee’s Community
Development Grants Administration, Department of Administration; Eric Pearson
of the City of Milwaukee’s Budget and Management Division, Department of
Administration; and Professor Donald Moynihan of the Robert M. La Follette
School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We would
also like to thank Karen Faster, publications director at the La Follette School
of Public Affairs, for her support and assistance.
vii
viii
Executive Summary
Milwaukee’s youth face a multitude of barriers to adequate development. Poor
educational achievement and high rates of poverty, drug use, violence, and teen
pregnancy all forecast a troubled future for Milwaukee’s youth and for the city
at large. To combat these negative influences on youth development, the City of
Milwaukee’s Community Development Grants Administration (CDGA) allocates
almost $2 million each year in federal Community Development Block Grant
funding to community organizations that provide programming for youth. These
Youth Services grants provide recreational, educational, civic engagement, job
training, and crime prevention programming to Milwaukee’s poorest young people.
The Milwaukee Budget Office asked us to review CDGA’s Youth Services grant
process to determine the effectiveness of Youth Services grants and to explore the
possibility of better linking Youth Services programming to economic development. Based on extensive literature reviews, analysis of CDGA files, interviews
with CDGA staff, and site visits to three Youth Services grantees, we have
concluded that:
1. though CDGA’s Youth Services grantees provide quality
programming, the agency should adjust its reporting and
monitoring systems to yield better performance data to reflect
these efforts, and
2. a shift of more money toward youth job training and placement
would not result in stronger economic development outcomes
relative to other uses of those resources.
To answer our first research question—Is CDGA Youth Services funding used
effectively?—we considered two measurement criteria: the quality of CDGA
reporting and monitoring systems and goal achievement. In the course of our analysis, we realized that our ability to fully determine the effectiveness of Youth
Services grants depended on the nature and quality of the performance data
required by CDGA and provided by grantees. Our review of CDGA’s reporting
and monitoring systems revealed varying levels of grantee knowledge regarding
the basics of performance management; CDGA reporting requirements that,
though consistent with federal requirements, could be improved; and a need
for closer communication between CDGA and grantees in developing, tracking,
and reporting program outcomes. As a result, we recommend:
• CDGA should host a mandatory annual grantee training session
on developing and measuring valid program outcomes,
• CDGA should strengthen its reporting requirements by mandating that grantees track and report all benefits they claim to
produce, and
• CDGA should implement a more interactive monitoring system
to assist grantees struggling with CDGA reporting requirements.
ix
If implemented, we believe these recommendations, which we consider
to be administratively feasible, would yield higher quality performance
data that CDGA could use to make more informed funding decisions.
Despite the aforementioned limitations of CDGA’s reporting and monitoring
system, we used existing grantee performance data and social science literature
to consider goal achievement. First, we broke down by program category the 36
organizations that received grants in 2006. The five program categories included
education, crime prevention/personal development, civic engagement, economic
development, and recreation. In terms of program type, CDGA funds a disproportionately high number of crime prevention/personal development programs, with
education and economic development programs receiving the fewest grants. In
terms of funding, recreation programs receive a disproportionately large share
(44 percent) of Youth Services funding, with the other four categories receiving
roughly equal shares. Despite these imbalances, on the whole we believe CDGA
funding allocations effectively target the barriers to adequate youth development
in Milwaukee and they contribute to achieving CDGA’s stated goals of reducing
crime, increasing economic opportunity, and improving quality of life. The vast
majority of funding supports activities that social science research shows to
produce positive outcomes.
To answer our second research question—Can Youth Services programming be
better linked to economic development?—we consulted social science research
regarding the economic benefits of different types of youth programming. We
also outlined the tradeoffs associated with shifting more Youth Services funding
to such traditional economic development programming as job training and
placement for youth. Our research suggests that, though CDGA may feel pressure
from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to emphasize
economic development as a funding priority, redirecting more Youth Services
funding toward job training and placement would be misdirected, because
existing research on such programs has found that these programs offer only
marginal economic benefits compared to other program types. Instead, we
recommend CDGA employ a broader definition of economic development,
one that encompasses all types of programs that have empirically demonstrable
effects on positive economic activity. Such programs include education
programming—especially programs that intervene early—and after-school
recreational and community service programs that foster positive habits and
attitudes that are rewarded later in the labor market. Our analysis of alternative
funding strategies indicates that CDGA’s current funding strategy is likely
to yield the greatest long-term economic benefits for the city of Milwaukee
and its youth.
x
Introduction
Each year, the Milwaukee Community Development Grants Administration
(CDGA) receives federal funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. CDGA uses its CDBG funds in efforts to:
• reduce crime
• increase property values
• increase economic vitality, and
• improve quality of life
CDGA sets aside approximately 10 percent of its CDBG dollars to fund Youth
Services programming aimed at combating the challenges facing Milwaukee’s
youth population. These challenges include high rates of poverty, poor educational achievement, and high rates of risky, anti-social behaviors such as violence,
drug use and unsafe sexual activity.
CDGA contracts with community organizations that provide youth services.
Through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, CDGA reviews grant applications
and makes funding recommendations to Milwaukee’s Common Council. The
Common Council makes all final funding decisions. In 2006, the Common Council
awarded 36 grants totaling $1.7 million to 27 Youth Services providers (Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006e).1 For detailed
information on the grant application and award process, see Appendix A.
The Milwaukee Budget Office asked our team to explore the current Youth
Services funding process, to determine the effectiveness of Youth Services
grants, and to research the possibility of linking Youth Services programming
to economic development. Based on Milwaukee’s requests, this report will seek
to answer two critical research questions. First, are CDGA’s Youth Services
grants effective? More specifically, are grantees meeting CDGA goals and
addressing the aforementioned barriers to positive youth development? Also, does
CDGA possess the reporting and monitoring systems needed to accurately gauge
a grant’s effectiveness? Second, we consider whether—and if so, how—Youth
Services grants can be better linked with economic and workforce development.
We will explore which types of youth programming provide a link between youth
and economic development, suggest ways CDGA could encourage such programming, and outline the tradeoffs of shifting more funding to economic and
workforce development programming for youth.
1
Some grantees have multiple locations and reported their outcomes in one report. For instance,
six locations of the Boys and Girls Club received grants, but all locations pooled their information
and submitted one year-end narrative report. We evaluated the Boys and Girls club as a single
grantee. However, in other cases, an organization that received several grants for different
locations reported separate outcomes for each location, such as the YMCA. In these cases,
we evaluate each location as its own entity.
1
Methods
To conduct our analysis, we reviewed CDGA files, interviewed staff and
conducted site visits. Prior to our research, most grantee performance files
existed only on paper. Our analysis aggregated and put into electronic format
much of the descriptive performance data collected by CDGA. To perform
our analyses we used CDGA data from 2006.
Key Terms
CDGA defines youth as Milwaukee citizens from ages 5 to 25 (personal communication, February 14, 2007). This broad definition of youth, coupled with a
similarly wide variety of potential youth programs, results in an extremely broad
definition of Youth Services. This reality will be important to consider when
exploring methods of linking Youth Services to economic development.
HUD defines economic development as “creating and maintaining jobs”
(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006). While accurate,
this definition is limited in its use for classifying the types of programs that can
foster positive economic activity. We will explore a broader definition of
economic development later in the analysis.
Status Quo: Rationale for CDGA-Sponsored Youth Services Grants
A multitude of barriers to adequate youth development exist today in Milwaukee.
According to Milwaukee’s 3-5 Year Consolidated Plan (Community Development
Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006a), the City has identified a number
of youth issues that need attention. These issues include education, teen pregnancy,
substance abuse, violence, juvenile delinquency, unemployment, and environmental
conditions. The following statistics demonstrate the rationale for governmentsponsored youth programming in a high-poverty city such as Milwaukee.
Poverty
Twenty-one percent of Milwaukee families earned incomes below the federal poverty line in 2005, more than double the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.).
Thirty-eight percent of Milwaukee children lived below the poverty line, which is
also more than double the national average (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Lee, 2006).
Education
According to data collected from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction,
Milwaukee Public Schools students fall well below the state average on a number
of important education indicators. On the 2005 Wisconsin Concepts and Knowledge Exam, the percentage of Milwaukee Public Schools eighth-graders scoring
“minimal” and “basic” was two times the state average, and only 12 percent of
these students scored “advanced,” compared to 40 percent statewide (Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction, 2005). Such substantial disparities in academic
achievement persist throughout high school. For example, relative to other
2
Wisconsin school districts, far fewer Milwaukee juniors and seniors take the
ACT, and those that do score four points lower than their Wisconsin peers.2
In addition, Milwaukee Public Schools has five times as many habitually truant
students and expels more than twice as many students compared to other districts
statewide (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, n.d.). Finally, Milwaukee
students participate in extra-curricular activities at just half the rate of other
Wisconsin high school students.
Risky Behavior
In addition to the poor education indicators, Milwaukee high school students
exhibit high rates of risky behaviors. Sixty percent have engaged in sexual
intercourse, 52 percent have smoked marijuana, 37 percent and 19 percent have
consumed alcohol and carried a weapon, respectively, in the last month, and
17 percent have contemplated suicide in the last year (Center for Urban Initiatives
and Research—University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2003a). The sexual intercourse, weapon, and marijuana indicators all exceed the national average (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention., U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2004).
Milwaukee middle school students also engage in risky behavior at high rates.
Twenty-nine percent have engaged in sexual intercourse, 30 percent have carried
a weapon, 24 percent have contemplated suicide, 49 percent have consumed
alcohol at least once, and 21 percent have tried marijuana (Center for Urban
Initiatives and Research – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2003b).
To combat these impediments to youth development, CDGA offers grants
to organizations that provide educational, recreational, civic engagement, job
training, and crime prevention programs. Research questions 1 and 2 discuss
these programs in detail. Research question 1 also outlines the current
performance reporting mechanism in place.
2
Considering that the best possible score on the ACT is a 36, the 4-point difference between the
Milwaukee Public Schools and the state average is substantial.
3
Research Question #1:Is CDGA Youth Services
Funding Used Effectively?
Since Milwaukee devotes nearly $2 million of its CDBG funding to Youth
Services, city officials want to determine whether CDGA-sponsored youth
programs target barriers to youth development and whether they meet the City’s
goals to reduce crime, increase economic vitality, and improve quality of life.
Measurement Criteria
To answer the first research question, our team developed two criteria—goal
achievement and quality of reporting and monitoring systems—by which we
can evaluate the success of CDGA grants. We examine the existing data
to identify links and disconnects between current programming and CDGA
goals. We also explore whether CDGA data reporting and monitoring systems
could be improved so that these systems yield more meaningful data.
Reporting and Monitoring Systems Quality
We reviewed CDGA’s reporting and monitoring systems to determine whether:
1) grantees provide CDGA with valid measures of intended
outcomes in their performance measurement reports;
2) the grantee provides quality data from a reliable source
when reporting its outcome(s); and
3) CDGA penalizes grantees who do not comply with CDGA
reporting requirements.
Goal Achievement
To judge goal achievement, we coupled academic research on the benefits
of youth programming with data available through CDGA’s reporting and
monitoring systems. We measured goal achievement by whether:
1) CDGA allocation decisions align with the challenges
facing Milwaukee youth and CDGA’s goals of reducing
crime, increasing economic vitality, and improving
quality of life; and
2) the grantee met its goal for number of youth served.
Reporting and Monitoring Systems Quality
In this section, we provide a description of the data that CDGA requires of its
grantees, the data that CDGA must submit to HUD, and CDGA’s monitoring
processes. This allows us to assess the effectiveness of CDGA’s current
reporting and monitoring processes.
4
Data CDGA Requires of Grantees
Once a youth services organization secures a grant, CDGA requires it to submit
a number of reports each year. These reports include:
• Outcome & Activity Measurement Workplan;
• Monthly Activity Reports;
• Six-Month Performance Measurement Report; and
• Year-End Performance Measurement Report.
The Outcome & Activity Measurement Workplan, submitted at the beginning
of each year, must outline all program outcomes that the grantee plans to measure
during the year. The grantee must identify outcome measures, a data source,
and a data collection method. CDGA requires grantees to track and provide
data for at least one program outcome. These tracking requirements constitute
an outcome-based reporting method (Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006c). Grantee outcomes and CDGA outcome
tracking requirements are the focus of Research Question 1.
The second required report, the Monthly Activity Report, documents the
projected and actual number of youth served in the month. CDGA requires
supporting documentation, such as attendance sheets, to substantiate program
attendance. By the end of the year, each grantee should have submitted 12
monthly activity reports to CDGA (Community Development Grants
Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006b).
The next required report is the Six-Month Performance Measurement Report;
this report should contain a mid-year activity summary to document the number
of youth served in the first half of the year and should present at least one
outcome measurement. In the six-month report, grantees must provide a narrative
of program activities and outcomes. As part of this narrative, grantees must
explain the connection between the measured outcome and CDGA goals
(Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006d).
The final report requirement for grantees is the Year End Performance Measurement Report. This report is identical to the six-month report, but it documents the
entire year’s activities and outcomes (Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006f).
Data HUD Requires of CDGA
As a condition of receiving federal funds, CDGA must submit compliance reports
to HUD, which requires a demographic breakout of youth served that includes
race, gender, and income. It also requires the total amount of funding given
to each grantee. CDGA submits this data to HUD using an online database,
known as the Integrated Disbursement & Information System.
5
In addition to these, CDGA submits an annual narrative report, called the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report. This report documents the
ways in which Milwaukee grantees meet short- and long-term HUD and CDGA
goals.3 In all, CDGA collects and submits more data than HUD requires.
HUD has recently instituted new performance measures for municipalities that
receive federal funds. HUD does not require individual agencies to track multiple
outcomes; rather HUD requires that municipalities report their overall progress in
meeting the municipality’s chosen long-term outcomes. To meet this goal, CDGA
requires that agencies track a minimum of one key outcome. CDGA aggregates
outcomes of all funded activities (regardless of category) to determine the
effectiveness in meeting long-term outcomes to reduce crime, increase
property values, increase economic vitality and improve quality of life.
CDGA Monitoring
CDGA monitors compliance with each grantee’s contractual agreement and
sponsors voluntary training sessions conducted by the Milwaukee Nonprofit
Center, which provides technical assistance, such as training on management,
financial operations, and board and staff development.
CDGA staff use the six-month and year-end reports submitted by grantees to determine: 1) whether the program met its goals for youth served and 2) how closely the
program activities and outcomes comport with CDGA goals. CDGA references
these reports when organizations request funding again in subsequent years.
As a condition of payment, agencies are required to submit monthly financial
and programmatic reports. CDGA grants-monitoring staff review these reports
to determine that submitted costs are eligible and that the funded activity is being
performed to a satisfactory level. The City Comptroller’s office conducts annual
financial audits of funded groups and monitors the timeliness of expenditures.
In addition to financial monitoring, CDGA staff maintain contact with agencies
and provide technical assistance to groups where needed. Informal and formal site
visits are conducted to ensure compliance with program requirements. Risk assessments and in-house desk audits are performed annually of all funded agencies.
When CDGA grant monitors conduct site visits, they comply with HUD requirements (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, n.d.), that include:
• File review, verification, and documentation of performance data;
• Interviews with key staff, program clients, and subcontractors;
• Physical inspections (if appropriate); and,
• Entrance and exit conferences with program staff.
For more detailed information on CDGA monitoring procedures, see Appendix B.
3
HUD requires jurisdictions receiving CDBG grants to submit five-year consolidated plans, which detail
long-term goals, as well as Annual Action Reports, which break the five-year plan into annual increments. Therefore, Milwaukee’s consolidated plan contains goals for 2005-2009 and the 2007 action plan.
6
Best Practices in Reporting and Monitoring Systems Quality
Before analyzing Milwaukee’s current reporting and monitoring systems, we first
conducted a literature review in the area of performance measurement. In doing
so, we identified best practices in the field and adopted these best practices as a
benchmark against which we could compare CDGA grantee performance measurement. The main areas of interest for our literature review were distinguishing
among components of the measurement process and the usage of quality data
sources. The text below outlines our benchmark for best practices in each of these
areas; we will compare Milwaukee’s current reporting and monitoring systems
quality against these criteria. Our benchmarks and resulting recommendations
do not reflect HUD requirements. Rather they summarize best practices that the
performance measurement literature discusses. As stated earlier, CDGA already
exceeds HUD reporting requirements.
There are four main steps to effective measurement. The first is to track program
inputs. Inputs refer to the resources devoted to a program, such as funding or staff
time (Urban Institute, 2003). We did not focus our analysis on program inputs, but
impact data can be used to determine whether inputs are efficient, for instance
whether the staff time expended is proportional to the outcome achieved.
The second step in measuring a program is to track organizational outputs.
Outputs are the direct results of the funded program, and include things such as
number of participants served, number of community service hours completed,
or number of people attending an event (United Way of America, 1996). Outputs
measure volume of results, rather than the quality or impact of results. It can be
difficult to distinguish between outputs and outcomes, which are the next step in
performance measurement. Our analysis will show that CDGA grantees confuse
outputs and outcomes regularly when they report program results to the CDGA.
The third and fourth steps in the program measurement process relate to measuring program outcomes. Outcomes, as opposed to outputs, are the benefits participants receive as a result of their program participation. There are two measurable
stages of outcomes. The first stage is the intermediate outcome. Intermediate outcomes are benefits participants receive, but which lead eventually to a larger or
more general benefit; intermediate outcomes are not the end goal of the program.
Completing a job training program can be considered an intermediate outcome,
because it shows that participants have not only attended and that they received
the information and skills the program taught. The final measurement stage is to
track end outcomes. In contrast to intermediate outcomes, an end outcome is the
benefit to or consequence for participants as a result of the intermediate outcome.
Continuing with the job training example, obtaining a job as a result of completing job training would constitute an end outcome. Other examples of end outcomes include demonstrated changes in skill levels, behaviors, attitudes, or
values (United Way of America, 1996).
7
To accurately report the intermediate or end outcomes caused by a program,
organizations must verify their claims using quality data sources. According
to the academic literature on data reporting, the following are considered quality
data sources (Thomas, 2005):
• program records and statistics
• client questionnaires and surveys
• formal testing
• trained observer ratings
• qualitative measures
Examples of how CDGA can use these data sources appear in the following pages
and in Appendix C.
Analysis of Milwaukee Data and Comparison to Best Practices
To compare Milwaukee’s current performance measurement system to the
best practices outlined above, our team first conducted a qualitative analysis of
current CDGA grantee outcome indicators and data sources. Grantees provide this
information in the Outcome & Activity Measurement Workplan that they submit
to CDGA at the beginning of each grant year. These plans are designed to show
which outcomes the group will measure over the course of the year. Next, we
compared the reported measures and sources against the current best practices
standards. Where an outcome measure or data source did not meet the standards
of good outcome measurement, we suggested a possible measurement or source
alternative, which would bring the organization into compliance with the standards of good outcome measurement. These suggestions represent only one way
in which the organization might validly measure and track outcomes, but we
endeavored to make suggestions that were feasible to implement. In many cases,
this meant that we suggested surveys of program participants to assess attitudes or
behaviors. With survey data, there will always be questions of reliability, but this
approach is preferable to simple participation measures and is significantly easier
to implement than more sophisticated approaches to performance measurement.
Representative examples from each Milwaukee service provision category are
presented in Appendix C.
In summary, of the 30 distinct organizations funded by the CDGA in 2006 (some
organizations reported all locations as one), 20 of these groups are providing at
least one valid intermediate or end outcome in their outcome work plan. The other
10 organizations did not provide at least one valid outcome measure. Twentythree of the 30 organizations outlined at least one valid data source on their
outcome work plans (even though an outcome might not have been correctly
identified), while seven outlined no valid data sources for outcome measurement.
These counts do not mean that the organization outlined valid measures or data
sources for every outcome it identified; it means they did so for a minimum of
one outcome. These data indicate that a majority of organizations grasp the
concept of good outcome development and reporting, and are at least partially
successful in developing outcomes and using good data sources. However,
8
almost every organization could benefit from additional assistance in developing
indicators to measure the intended outcomes of their programming.
A summary of the outcome indicators and data sources provided by grantees
from each programming category appears below.
Civic Engagement
Civic engagement groups commonly reported outcome indicators stating that a
certain number or percentage of youth in the program participated in volunteer or
civic projects. Many groups monitored this participation through sign-in sheets,
and cited the sign-in sheets as their data source. Collecting these data is valuable,
and CDGA should continue its current practice of requiring participation data for
community service projects. However, to take an additional step and gather
outcome data, CDGA could ask grantees to report the direct impacts resulting
from the volunteer work. One CDGA grantee that already takes this step reported
changes in youth behaviors as a result of their programming and backed this claim
up using a pre- and post-program survey design. An additional suggestion for
groups seeking to find a simple way to document civic project outcomes would be
to take photos before and after the project that show physical changes to a park or
neighborhood after a volunteer cleanup.
Economic Development
In general, economic development programs outlined clear outcome indicators
for their program participants. However, some programs struggled to measure
their outcomes in a way that demonstrated how these skills affected the students’
future economic outcomes. In one case, for instance, a group noted in a narrative
report that several students had formed their own businesses after taking the
courses, but never gave this as a program goal or an outcome. In another case,
a program set as its outcome to teach students a variety of job skills, including
customer service and television production skills. However, the grantee did not
provide an appropriate measure for skill acquisition and did not report valid
outcomes measures. Either example would serve well as a valid outcome
measure; the grantees struggled to find an appropriate measurement system
or data source.
Education
The education programs did an excellent job of identifying clear outcome indicators and using solid data sources to measure their indicators. For education
programs, the most applicable best practice is to measure outcomes that show
a change in participants’ skills, situation, or status (Urban Institute and Center
for What Works, 2006), and the CDGA education grantees did this by measuring
higher graduation rates, better grades, or achieved academic goals. They reported
specific data using the best data sources available, such as pre- and post-surveys
and school system data.
9
Crime Prevention/Personal Development
A popular method for measuring outcomes in the crime prevention and personal
development category was to use longitudinal tracking by staff or parents, and
pre- and post-surveys. In most cases, grantees used these tools to measure personal outcomes and behavioral changes for students, such as less aggressive
behavior and avoiding pregnancy. Both the outcome indicators and data sources
were valid in this case. Among those groups not meeting best practices standards
for outcome measurement, only participation data generally was reported.
Recreation
Many recreation groups used participation as their outcome indicator and cited
tracking of participation as a data source and an outcome. These grantees often
failed to link this participation to a demonstrable benefit to youth or the community. Therefore, these groups are measuring what we defined previously
as program outputs. By contrast, recreation grantees that successfully measured
end outcomes linked youth participation to broader community outcomes such
as reduced crime. Measuring the resulting community impacts is ideal, as many
recreation programs link their programming to keeping youth off the streets and
out of trouble. However, since some organizations may find it difficult to track
crime data for their participants, we suggest that at a minimum, recreation
grantees interview youth participants about how the activities have benefited
them, compile these data, and report the various benefits as program outcomes.
Recommendations for Improving CDGA Grantee Performance
Measurement
Measuring the benefits of any social service provisions often proves difficult
(Romzek & Johnston, 2005; Behn & Kant, 1999; Lynn, Heinrich, & Hill, 2000),
and we commend CDGA on its efforts to collect these data. Government and
nonprofit groups across the nation struggle to gather information that highlights
the impact of their programming but given the growing importance of accountability in government, CDGA should continue to encourage effective outcome
measurement to maintain federal funding.
After analyzing current CDGA grantee data, our team has developed three
recommendations for CDGA to strengthen its reporting and monitoring
processes. We recommend:
• hosting a mandatory grantee training session,
• strengthening reporting requirements, and
• implementing a more interactive monitoring system.
CDGA could implement each recommendation independently of the others,
but by implementing all three CDGA would achieve a standardized and
comprehensive monitoring process that adheres to best practices in the
performance measurement field. By implementing these recommendations,
CDGA will far exceed HUD reporting requirements. This extra effort should
aid CDGA in making the case to maintain its current funding level in an
10
environment where federal CDBG dollars are tight. (See Appendix D for a brief
discussion of the trend in national CDBG funding.) We feel confident that CDGA
has the current resources to move toward our recommendations for establishing a
more performance-based relationship with grantees.
Grantee Training Session
Our first recommendation is that CDGA implement a mandatory grantee training
session for developing and measuring valid outcomes. Many grantees struggle to
report valid outcomes or identify quality data sources. As a result, grantees are not
providing CDGA with meaningful information that demonstrates the good work
they do. Especially for smaller groups that lack technical expertise, this noncompliance may simply be the result of their unfamiliarity with proper performance
measurement. CDGA provides the Milwaukee Nonprofit Center with a grant that
covers technical assistance and grantee trainings on outcome measurement. However, this training is not mandatory. By doing the training itself and by making it a
contractual requirement, CDGA will gain more control over the training content.
CDGA staff will have more opportunities to meet with their grantees in person.
CDGA should use its training session to combat any confusion or lack of knowledge concerning outcome measurement. As a program model for training, we
recommend the CDGA use a training process similar to the one used in Oakland,
California. For more information on how Oakland integrates mandatory training
into its request-for-proposals process, see Appendix E.
By requiring all grantees to complete a training session on outcome measurement
and reporting, the CDGA will ensure that every grantee has the information to
create and track appropriate outcome measures. We recommend that the CDGA
include the following elements in its training session:
• require grantee attendance as a contractual term;
• provide concrete examples of goals, outcomes, and data
sources; and,
• follow up training with informational materials that outline
definitions of terms and examples of valid outcomes and data
sources.
Our team feels that by relying on previous research, CDGA can provide this
training in-house. Two helpful resources CDGA staff can reference as they
prepare the training session are the United Way’s Measuring Program Outcomes:
A Practical Approach (1996) and Harry Hatry and Joseph Wholey’s Performance
Measurement (1999), which are widely cited as quality resources on outcomebased measurement.
11
Strengthen Grantee Reporting Requirements
Once CDGA implements a training program to inform grantees about
performance measurement, we recommend that it strengthen grantee reporting
requirements. Currently, grantees may cite multiple outcomes and indicators for
their programming in their required initial outcome work plan, but they are only
required to choose one of these outcomes to monitor over the year. As a result,
26 organizations developed multiple indicators, but by year’s end only two of
these 26 organizations reported on every indicator they identified in their work
plan. By requiring only one outcome measurement, CDGA creates an incentive
for grantees to choose the simplest outcome to monitor and to avoid measurement
of more complex outcomes. In fact, frequently monitoring many indicators of
performance is an effective way to strengthen performance measurement (Behn
& Kant, 1999). We believe that if an organization claims that its programming
achieves three outcomes for Milwaukee youth and receives grant money based on
these claims, then the group should monitor and report on each of these outcomes.
The result of such a requirement will be to force grantees to limit their claims to
areas where they believe they can offer measurable results. This will likely reduce
the number of goals identified by the grantees, but also increase the amount of
valid performance data reported.
Implement a More Interactive Monitoring System
Our final recommendation is to develop a more interactive monitoring system
between CDGA and its grantees. CDGA’s standards for grantee reporting are
laid out in each grantee’s contract. However, our data analysis indicates that some
groups could develop stronger outcome goals and utilize more effective outcome
measures. When organizations turn in work plans at the beginning of the grant
year that do not identify the most valid outcomes or data sources, CDGA staff—
who are familiar with all the granted programs—often make allowances for
groups based on what they have observed during site visits or from previous
years’ monitoring activities. If CDGA staff members feel that the organization is
doing good work for youth, they often do not follow up to ensure that a stricter
standard of outcome measurement is enforced (personal communication, February
2, 2007). Favoring groups with a proven track record is an effective way to improve performance contracting (Behn & Kant, 1999), but CDGA can improve
performance requirements and monitoring practices.
In the case that some grantees still are unable to develop and measure outcomes,
the youth services grant monitor could guide them through the reporting process.
This would entail the grant monitor looking at each grantee’s outcome work plan.
The monitor would follow up with the grantee until both parties are satisfied with
the outcome measures developed and that the organization has the capacity to
measure these outcomes. This type of collaborative effort would allow CDGA to
continue fostering good relationships with grantees, ensure effective outcome
measures, and improve CDGA’s performance management (Behn & Kant, 1999).
12
In addition to increased consultation, CDGA should visit each grantee at least
once a year. CDGA’s current strategy focuses site visits only on programs that
seem to be struggling and in need of extra attention. This strategy appears valid,
and we recommend that CDGA continue to prioritize site visits according to need.
However, with a more interactive relationship with each grantee, a site visit for
every organization would provide an additional perspective on the successes and
struggles of each grantee.
Because CDGA collects such a wide variety of data from its grantees in paper
form only, we recommend that it establish procedures to record performance data
electronically and report this data to the public on the CDGA website. Reporting
performance data electronically would make these data much more accessible to
the public and would help CDGA highlight the good work performed by Youth
Services grantees. Also, by recording performance data electronically as well as
on paper, CDGA would be able to easily track grantee effectiveness over time,
and would therefore be able to more easily consult past performance data when
determining grant allocations. Overall, recording performance data electronically
and posting them online would make CDGA’s monitoring and reporting processes
more transparent and user-friendly, allowing both the public and CDGA staff to
make the optimal use of this information.
Summary of Recommendations
CDGA does a good job of maintaining relationships with their grantees, and
these personal relationships allow CDGA to understand their grantees’ successes,
even when these successes are not documented formally through performance
measurement. We witnessed examples of successful programming when we
accompanied a CDGA grant monitor on tours of three grantee programs. We
believe that Youth Services programming has positive impacts on the youth
of Milwaukee and that funding for youth services should continue. However,
the current political climate emphasizes accountability, and it is therefore critical
that CDGA assist its grantees in demonstrating formally the good work that we
already know they perform.
Incorporating mandatory performance measurement training into the grantee
contract likely will alleviate some of the struggles grantees have with reporting
measurable outcomes. Strengthening grantee reporting requirements will help
grantees to substantiate the positive outcomes they cause in the community.
Finally, a more interactive monitoring relationship between CDGA grant monitors
and grantees, including more site visits and highly accessible public information,
will help grantees navigate the more stringent reporting requirements and help
CDGA staff better supervise their grant recipients.
Once CDGA has implemented the recommendations outlined above, it will
better be able to ascertain which grantees are most effective at creating positive
outcomes for youth. Therefore, in the long run, we recommend CDGA more
heavily incorporate its performance data into decision-making, rewarding those
13
organizations that perform best and penalizing those that are less effective. While
doing this, CDGA and the Common Council should recognize that organizational
sizes and capacities differ, meaning that larger organizations will always appear to
have larger impacts. Nevertheless, the recommendations we outline should assist
CDGA and the Common Council in allocating funding to organizations doing the
best work for the youth of Milwaukee.
We recognize that the recommendations we list here will require more time on the
part of CDGA to both create and run training sessions, as well as to conduct more
site visits. However, we feel confident that CDGA’s current resources can accommodate these changes, and that the agency will not incur significant additional
costs to implement our recommendations. For CDGA grantees to alter their outcome measurements may also take additional time and effort. However, since
grantees already are required to turn in outcome reports, our recommendations
do not create new reporting requirements but rather alter the content of what is
reported. Therefore, while the content of the relationship between CDGA and
its grantees will change, the additional support grantees will receive in reporting
good outcomes will alleviate major transaction costs for grantees.
Goal Achievement
Given the limitations of CDGA’s reporting and monitoring systems, we cannot
determine the precise degree to which CDGA’s Youth Services grantees are
meeting the agency’s goals of reducing crime, improving economic vitality,
and improving quality of life. We can, however, use existing data and academic
research to make some inferences.
Programming Types
To begin our analysis of goal achievement, first we categorized grantees
by the services they provide. This allowed us to identify trends in programming,
including program frequency, number of youth served, and grant allocations by
category. We used the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development’s five
characteristics of successful youth development as the basis for our five
categories (1989). Table 1 below lists Carnegie’s five characteristics of
successful youth development and our five corresponding categories.4
4
We combined two categories (healthy/caring and ethical) and added a recreation category
to reflect the program structures we observed in Milwaukee.
14
Table 1:
Carnegie Youth Characteristics
and Corresponding CDGA Program Categories
Corresponding
Program Category
Education
Crime prevention/personal
development
Civic engagement
Economic development
Recreation
Carnegie Youth Characteristics
Intellectually reflective
Healthy/caring and ethical
individual
Good citizen
En route to meaningful work
Healthy
The above categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, participating in
a basketball league may both provide recreation and reduce a youth’s likelihood
to commit a crime; similarly, participating in a leadership development program
may improve one’s academic achievement and increase leadership skills. Because
of these spillover effects and because many organizations provide multiple types
of programming, we allowed grantees to fall in a maximum of two categories.
For more information on the individual categories, see Appendix F.
For each of these program categories, we compiled descriptive statistics on
the number of programs and on the share of total Youth Services grant funding.
These statistics allowed us to consider whether Youth Services grant allocations
effectively target the barriers to youth development. Next, we reviewed the yearend reports of all Youth Services grantees to determine if the individual groups
and CDGA as a whole met their goals for number of youth served.
Grant Decisions and Goals: Do They Correspond?
Table 2 illustrates the usage of CDGA Youth Services grants by programming
category. In 2006, most CDGA-funded organizations focused on fostering healthy
lifestyles and personal development. Far fewer organizations focused primarily on
education and economic development. Many of the programs provide some
education-related activities, such as homework help or tutoring, even if education
is not the primary focus of the program.
Table 2:
CDGA-Sponsored
Youth Programming by Category
Number
of Programs
4
Category of Program
Education
Crime Prevention/Personal
Development
Civic Engagement
Economic Development
Recreation
20
8
4
7
15
Figure 1 illustrates the usage of Youth Services funding by program category.
Of the $1.7 million allocated to youth services programs, the largest share—
approximately 44 percent—went to recreation programs. The four other types
of programming received approximately equal shares of the remaining funds.
Figure 1:
2006 CDGA Services Allocations by Type of Program
Funding emphasizes recreation programming, with all other
programming types approximately equal in funding distribution
Education
11%
Civic Engagement
16%
Economic
Development
13%
Crime Prevention/
Personal
Development
16%
Recreation
44%
Source: Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006e)
Note:
For purposes of this distribution, we assumed that if a grantee fell into two
programming categories, that their grant was used equally to fund each
category. Therefore the grantee’s total grant allocation was divided in half,
with 50 percent going toward each category.
Despite the allocation imbalances in terms of both the number of grants and
the share of funding across categories, on the whole the data suggest that CDGA
allocation decisions comport with the agency’s goals of reducing crime, increasing
economic vitality, and improving quality of life. They also appear to target the
aforementioned barriers to positive youth development. Our experiences during
site visits to the United Community Center, the Modjeska Youth Theatre Company,
and the YMCA-Holton Center confirm this finding. At each of these organizations,
the link between each organization’s programming—boxing, mentoring, and financial literacy at UCC; youth musical productions at Modjeska; and recreational
“safe-haven” opportunities at YMCA—and CDGA’s goals were clear.
Rather than rely simply on our statistical analysis of CDGA data and handful
of site visits, we also consulted social science research on the benefits of youth
programming. The following literature review further confirms our belief that
current CDGA grantees are combating the barriers to positive youth development
16
and helping achieve CDGA’s goals of reducing crime, increasing economic
vitality, and improving quality of life.
Education
The benefits of education programming are well documented in research (Mayesky,
1980; Sheley, 1984; Hock, Pulvers, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2001; Baker, Gersten,
& Keating, 2000; Bray, 2001; Vinulan, 2005; Lauer, Akiba, Wilkerson, Apthorp,
Snow, & Martin-Glenn, 2006; Mastro, Jalloh, Watson, 2006). Evidence suggests
that low-income students are in need of out-of school-time programs that have
educational components that can supplement what they learn during the school
day (Borman & D’Agostino, 1996; Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, & Muhlenbruck,
2000). Students in a variety of out-of school-time education programs improve
their reading and math abilities (Afterschool Alliance, 2004). Participants in the
Boys and Girls Club’s Project Learn have shown to increase their grade point
average and school attendance through participation in the program (Schlinke,
Cole, & Poulin, 2000). Another evaluation has found that out-of school-time
programs can increase participating students’ achievement by as much as onetenth of a standard deviation compared to those who do not participate (MidContinent Research for Education and Learning, 2004). Arts education programs
also improve academic achievement (American Music Conference, 2004). Milwaukee already funds programs that emphasize arts education through things such
as theater and poetry, which have been proven to indirectly affect economic outcomes (Jackson, 1980; Johnson & O’Neill, 1984; Bolton, 1989; Goldberg &
Phillips, 1992; Courtney, 1993; Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky, 1993; Darby & Catterall,
1994; Rauscher, Shaw & Ky, 1995; Rauscher, Shaw, Levine, Wright, Dennis &
Newcomb, 1997; Catterall, 1998; Eisner, 1999; Korn & Associates, 2005).
Crime Prevention/Personal Development, Recreation, & Civic Engagement
Many types of programs provide substantial positive outcomes for youth. There is
also evidence that programs need not focus strictly on academic activities to boost
academic achievement and performance (Eccles & Templeton, 2002). We next
outline the more specific outcomes of the types of programs that fit into the crime
prevention/personal development, recreation, and civic engagement categories.
Because research on these types of programs is not mutually exclusive, we will
address these three types of programs together. This information will illustrate
the importance of a variety of youth services programming in improving
education and, ultimately, many other outcomes for youth.
In general, youth who regularly attend out-of-school time programs that focus on
recreation and personal development have better school attendance, higher grades,
better peer relations and emotional adjustment, and lower incidences of drug use,
alcohol use, and pregnancy than those who do not attend after school programs
(U.S. Department of Education, 2000). Fashola (2002) notes the importance of
out-of school-time programming in providing diverse experiences and improving
socialization. In particular, low-income children are more in need of after-school
17
programming and derive more benefits from it than do their higher income
counterparts (Cosden, Morrison, Albanese, & Macias, 2001; Miller, 2003).
Evidence suggests that these programs have lasting impacts. A 17-year evaluation
that followed more than 1,000 sixth graders from Michigan schools found that
those who participated in out-of-school activities had higher levels of achievement in college (Galley, 2000). Also, a 2001 YMCA survey found that nearly
80 percent of extracurricular activity participants had higher grades than their
nonparticipating counterparts (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.). The same survey
found that teens who did not participate in out-of school-time programs were
nearly three times more likely to skip classes, use drugs and alcohol, and engage
in sexual activity. Additionally, providing mentoring and multilevel intervention
(i.e., focusing on community connections and education, among other things)
to at-risk youth has been an effective way to reduce drug and alcohol abuse,
improve self-esteem, raise academic achievement, and improve social skills
(Moody, Childs, & Sepples 2003). Finally, youth who do not engage in extracurricular programs are 37 percent more likely to become teen parents than their
counterparts (Westat, 1995). As noted, Milwaukee allocates a disproportionate
share of its funding to recreation programs. Therefore, CDGA-sponsored recreation programs likely have similar positive impacts on Milwaukee’s youth as
those programs described in the academic research, as do those that fall under
the personal development and civic engagement categories.
In addition to these individual benefits, evidence shows that after-school
programs improve neighborhood quality of life and reduce crime. Most juvenile
crime occurs between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m. (Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2003).
However, the U.S. Department of Justice found that supervised physical activity—like that in Milwaukee’s recreation programs—might deter youth from
committing crimes (Catalano, Loeber, & McKinney, 1999). Out-of schooltime programs that stress physical activity can also build confidence and
improve educational outcomes. For example, youth in out-of school-time
programs at YMCA and Boys and Girls Club sites have shown evidence
of improved judgment, which reduces the likelihood that they will become
offenders (Afterschool Alliance, 2002). In a study that compared 10 housing
projects, five with Boys and Girls Clubs and five without Boys and Girls Clubs,
results showed that there was 30 percent less drug activity in the communities
that had clubs (Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, 2000).
Programs that emphasize community service and therefore civic engagement
have positive proven outcomes as well. Students who volunteer have an improved
sense of social responsibility and a higher concern for others’ welfare (Steinberg
& Levine, 1990; Hedin & Conrad, 1980). In addition to these impacts, volunteering helps students develop their sense of identity, increase their self esteem, improve their intrinsic work values, and view their communities as more important
relative to non-volunteering students (Yates & Youniss, 1996; Johnson, Beebe,
18
Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998). These benefits have important external effects
for the community as a whole.
Because many CDGA grantees seek to reduce crime and improve neighborhood
quality of life, emphasizing healthy out-of school-time alternatives focused on
crime prevention/personal development, recreation, and civic engagement is
vital to achieving these goals.
Number of Youth Served
In 2006, CDGA Youth Services grantees served roughly 35,000 unduplicated
youth, 10,000 above CDGA’s goal for the year (Community Development
Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006a, 2006b). A review of CDGA
monitoring records indicates that the vast majority of grantees—31 of 36—met
or exceeded their goals for number of youth served. Only four grantees did not
meet their goal, with two falling just barely short. One group failed to set a goal
and file monthly activity reports. Five grantees roughly doubled their goal of
number served, suggesting that perhaps CDGA staff could work more closely
with some groups to set more realistic expectations. On the whole, however,
CDGA and its grantees perform well with regard to setting, monitoring, and
meeting their goals for number of youth served (Community Development
Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006a). For a grantee-by-grantee
listing of projected and actual number of youth served, see Appendix G.
19
Research Question #2:
How Can Milwaukee Link Youth Services
Programming to Economic Development?
While the number and types of youth programs funded by CDGA appear to mesh
with the agency’s goals, the imbalances toward health lifestyles/personal development and recreation programming may come at the expense of more rigorous
“skill-building” education and economic development programs. Research
question 2 considers the efficacy, feasibility, and consequences of providing
more funding for rigorous education and economic development programs.
Introduction
HUD funding trends indicate that future CDBG allocations may be more focused
on housing and economic development rather than the category of Public Services,
which the activity of Youth Services falls under (personal communication, April
13, 2007). Other program types funded by CDGA have a clear link between the
services provided and economic development. However, for Youth Services this
link is less clear. CDGA is also feeling pressure from HUD to fund projects that
have measurable, positive outcomes (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 2007b). This section considers whether CDGA should attempt
to appease HUD’s desire for more economic development programming by
shifting more Youth Services funding toward job training and placement.
Using academic research, we report on the effectiveness of economic development programs for youth, and compare these outcomes to those achieved by other
programming. This enables us to determine whether shifting CDGA Youth Services funding more heavily toward traditional economic development programs,
such as job training and placement, will yield greater benefits for Milwaukee
youth. We recommend types of programs that CDGA should fund to achieve
positive economic development outcomes. We also discuss the tradeoffs that
would result from moving toward more economic development programs
versus maintaining current funding priorities.
Effectiveness of Youth Services Programs for Economic Outcomes
In this section, we will address common youth economic development programs,
as well as the economic development impacts of general youth services programs.
Early Intervention
The importance of education and human capital development in determining
economic outcomes is proven and clear (Weisbrod, 1962; Bowman, 1963;
Blaug, 1966; Corazzini, 1967; Schultz, 1971; Mincer, 1974; Schultz, 1981;
Cohn & Geske, 1990; Becker, 1993). Youth from economically disadvantaged
backgrounds have lower levels of academic achievement than their higher
income counterparts. Investing in disadvantaged youth during early childhood
20
is an effective way to improve their future economic outcomes. All else equal,
early human capital investments produce far higher returns than later ones. While
this research has traditionally focused on early childhood programming, such as
Head Start and the Perry Preschool Project, more recent research has indicated
that taking a more comprehensive view of child development is necessary to
improving the economic and life outcomes of impoverished youth (Carneiro
& Heckman, 2003). These findings are consistent with other research that has
indicated that expanding after school programs for school-age children may have
important consequences for their human capital development and labor market
outcomes later in life (Aizer, 2004).
Intervening early is important because 1) learning and skill development depends
on capacities developed earlier in life and 2) early intervention reduces the cost
of interventions later in life. Therefore, one of the most efficient approaches to
strengthening the future workforce is to invest in the environments of disadvantaged children during the early childhood years (Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron,
& Shonkoff, 2006).
As mentioned above, a variety of programs—including non-education programs
—provide substantial positive outcomes for youth. This is important because noncognitive or behavioral outcomes are important indicators of success in the labor
market (Heckman, Hsee, & Rubinstein, 2001). We outline the more specific
outcomes of various types of extracurricular programming. This information
illustrates the importance of a variety of youth services programming in
improving education and, ultimately, economic outcomes for youth.
School-Age Programming
As described in Research Question 1, many types of out-of school-time programs
have positive, proven outcomes for youth, disadvantaged youth in particular.
Participants in out-of school-time programs benefit from increased educational,
cognitive, and behavioral outcomes that are associated with economic success
(U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
We have established that Milwaukee allocates a disproportionate share of
its funding to recreation programs. CDGA-sponsored recreation programs
are likely to have similar positive impacts on Milwaukee’s youth as those
programs described in Research Question 1, such as improved academic
performance, improved cognitive skills, and better self esteem. Therefore,
CDGA’s emphasis on recreation programming appears justified even
from an economic development perspective.
Preparation for Post-Secondary Education
Personal development activities, such as mentoring programs, are one technique
to increase a student’s likelihood of obtaining post-secondary education. Research
suggests that well executed mentoring programs do not necessarily raise cognitive
abilities, but they have been shown to raise the level of non-cognitive abilities that
21
are important for college and workforce success such as drive, motivation, and
self-esteem. Quality programs have low student-mentor ratios and often provide
financial incentives for participation (Heckman & Lochner, 2000). Programs
focused on at-risk, high school age children have been found to increase the
rate at which these students attend college. Some have resulted in a 20 percent
increase in college attendance rates compared to similar students who did not
have mentors (Grossman & Johnson, 1998). Research also suggests that students
who are in leadership roles in high school are more likely to attend college and
have higher wages than their counterparts (Kuhn & Weinberger, 2005).
Extracurricular activities are also important in determining whether a student
attends college. Pro-social (church or community service/volunteering), team
sports, performing arts, school involvement and academic activities have all
been linked to higher post-secondary attendance levels for participants (Eccles,
Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003). However the same research suggests that some
activities, such as sports participation, increase the likelihood of participation
in risky behaviors such as drinking. Consistent involvement also seems to matter.
A recent study reveals that 70 percent of those who participated regularly in
extracurricular activities between eighth and 12th grade went on to obtain some
level of college education, compared to 16% of those who did not participate
and 48 percent of those who participated occasionally (Zaff, Moore, Papillo,
& Williams, 2003). Most all of the CDGA-funded youth services activities
can be classified as extra-curricular. Also, the range of youth served by CDGA
grants varies from elementary to post-secondary age groups. The availability
of programs for a variety of age groups provides the prospect for the continuous
involvement that researchers suggest is important.
Finally, workforce participation in high school is a good indicator of whether
a student will attend college. Some studies suggest that working actually lowers a
students GPA, attendance rates, and post-secondary achievement. However, these
studies fail to recognize that students who work while in high school often do so
to gain economic benefits for their families. These students are visibly different
than those who work for personal development (Paternoster, Bushway, Brame,
& Apel, 2003). The following characteristics of student workers exemplify this
point. A student who never works while in high school is less likely than those
who do work to go on to college. Those who work many hours are less likely to
go to college and are more likely to drop out than students who work a limited
number of hours. Thus, job placement programs for teenagers should be careful
to maintain a balanced number of work hours while recognizing the motivation
behind the students’ employment (Redd, Brooks, & McGarvy, 2001).
While college attendance is not traditionally seen as a form of economic development, conventional wisdom suggests that obtaining a college degree should have a
large impact on a person’s economic outcomes. Census data reinforces this idea.
Those with associate’s degrees make approximately 22 percent more than those
with a high school degree or equivalent, and those with a bachelor’s degree
22
earn about 70 percent more than those with just a high school diploma or
equivalent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). Therefore, programs that are successful
at encouraging youth to continue their education beyond high school should have
success at increasing economic outcomes for the youth they serve.
A number of Milwaukee Youth Services grant recipients foster mentor relationships and encourage college attendance for high school students. Also, several
CDGA funded programs encourage youth workforce participation. Research
suggests that this type of programming is positively linked to post-secondary
educational achievement, which has a large influence on future economic
outcomes.
Economic and Workforce Development
An Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development review of labor
market training programs suggests that, in developed nations, there is little
measurable benefit for youth (Martin & Grubb, 2001). Even the effectiveness
of Job Corps, one of the United States’ most well-known training programs, has
been called into question. Job Corps offers complete wrap-around services for
youth, helps students obtain their GEDs and assists in job placement. However,
only 2 percent of Job Corps participants obtain a two- or four-year degree during
the program, which often lasts three to four years. This program is extremely
expensive, and only sometimes passes the cost-benefit test (Carneiro & Heckman,
2003). Finally, public sector training programs like Job Corps have been shown
to affect earnings and employment, but no effects on wages. This is because the
largest outcome obtained from participation is employment, generally for groups
of previously unemployed individuals. While this is certainly a notable outcome,
it rarely alleviates poverty for participants (LaLonde, 1995).
Career and vocational training programs also show mixed effects on crime
reduction, economic vitality, and quality of life. Additionally, programs that
have demonstrated positive effects generally see them deteriorate over time,
and/or have potential selection biases (Kellerman, Fuqua-Whitley, Rivara, &
Mercy, 1998). Furthermore, job/skill specific training programs do not prepare
students for fluctuations in the labor market. They have also been criticized
for deemphasizing the importance of education (Neumark & Allen, 2003).
Apprenticeship programs, another common way to provide vocational trade
skills to youth, are also not very successful. Weak labor unions, the lack of a
national infrastructure in certification, as well as a lack of concurrent educational
training makes U.S. apprenticeship programs much less successful than those
found in European nations. That said, such programs have been shown to affects
wages. In fact, job specific training for youth has been shown to have as much
of an impact on wages as an extra year of schooling. However, this effect is
generally only realized until the youth changes jobs (Lynch, 1993.)
Although economic development programs alone have not proven to have a strong
impact on economic outcomes, research suggests that the soft skills learned as a
result of participation are helpful (LaLonde, 2003). Students can learn interper-
23
sonal, time management, and communication skills that can yield better employment opportunities and positively affect family and peer groups. And while some
research suggests that negative aspects are associated with participation in job
and career training programs, such as increased criminal intent or subsequent low
wages, this phenomenon may in part be caused by pre-existing differences in the
types of students who enroll in such programs (Paternoster, et al., 2003). It would
be negligent to assume a causal relationship between program participation and
student characteristics, especially if the programs provide some of the previously
mentioned soft skills.
Qualitative research on work-based learning through career, vocational, or
cooperative School-to-Work programs suggests that student participation is
linked to better outcomes in the workplace. These outcomes include:
• a better understanding of the collaborative nature of the work
environment;
• a greater ability solve problems;
• a greater understanding of why certain skills are important
and how they apply to the workplace; and
• higher wages and employment rates.
However, this research also suggests that students who participate and excel in
such programs are less likely to see the need for higher education as a result of
their success in the workplace and thus are less likely to obtain a four-year degree
(Griffith, 2001). Vocational training for youth can have positive effects on wages.
However, this effect is only realized if the student is able to find employment in
the specific field in which he was trained. Fewer than half of students who obtain
vocational training obtain jobs in areas that they were trained (Bishop, 1988).
A small number of Milwaukee grantees focus on economic development. The
services they provide range from job placement assistance and summer employment opportunities to computer training, skill development and entrepreneurship.
Some programs teach specific job skills such as screen printing or video production, while others focus on interview techniques and résumé writing. These program types, seen at the Center for Teaching Entrepreneurship and the Northcott
Neighborhood House, are similar to those found in our research. As such, we
expect similar outcomes as indicated in our review of the literature.
Analysis of Milwaukee Data
Four CDGA grantees focus on economic development in their programming
(see Table 2). In addition, Figure 1 shows that grantees providing economic
development programming receive only 13 percent of CDBG funding. These
baseline statistics provide CDGA a starting point in deciding whether to shift
their funding priorities more toward economic development. In addition, eight
CDBG-funded youth services organizations provide some sort of economic
development services, but they do not use CDBG funds to do so.
24
An analysis of CDGA data suggests that economic development programs
in Milwaukee are more expensive per student than other categories of
programming. Figure 2 presents expenditures by program type.
Figure 2:
Per Youth Expenditures by Program Type
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
tion
uca
d
E
nom
Eco
ic D
ent
m
p
lo
eve
ion
eat
r
c
Re
ic
Civ
ent
m
e
gag
En
al
son
r
e
P
on/
D
ent
m
p
lo
eve
ti
ven
e
r
P
me
Cri
Source: Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006g.
CDGA-sponsored economic development programs spent about $121 per youth,
compared to about $50 per youth for education programs and $42 per youth for
crime prevention/personal development programming. Recreation programming
costs roughly $30 per youth. Keeping the status quo in mind, economic development programs reach fewer youth than other programming types. Fewer than 700
Milwaukee youth are served by economic development programs. This may in
part be due to how expensive it is to administer such programs effectively.
As outlined, education is a successful way to increase the economic outcomes of
youth. While per-youth education spending is less expensive than economic development spending, it is substantially higher than other program types. In addition,
similar to economic development programming, education programs do not reach
a majority of the youth served. In fact, fewer than 2,000 youth participated in
education programming in 2006 out of more than 35,000 total youth served.
Policy Options
The four economic development programs funded by the CDGA include a mix
of career development and educational programming. If CDGA funding for Youth
25
Services remains constant, but the agency wants to focus on economic
development, it has three choices:
• increase the number/size of grants to organizations
that provide job or career training;
• increase number/size of grants that focus on
preparing students for post secondary education; or
• maintain current funding levels for each program type.
Policy Option One: Focus on Job Training
The first option would require Milwaukee to cut funding in other program categories to increase funding for career and job training programs. As noted earlier,
research suggests that these programs are less successful than others at providing
long-term benefits. While the perceived link to economic development is intuitive,
long-term benefits have proven difficult to establish. While this shift in funding,
on its face, would address the trend to emphasize economic development, it
would be difficult to meet the goal of increasing measurable, positive outcomes.
Policy Option Two: Focus on Post-Secondary Education
The second policy option for Milwaukee would increase funding for education
programs. Only four programs focus specifically on education, and these programs are not solely devoted to high school-age students. This option would meet
HUD’s economic development goals while also meeting the goal of increased
positive outcomes. However, this is a less direct approach to economic development and may be more difficult to categorize as economic development. The
content of such programs would have to be considered in ways that would make
it feasible to categorize as economic development. This would include focusing
funding on educational programming that uses mentors to work with middle
and high school students as well as providing information and support for
college application processes, tutoring, and work opportunities.
Policy Option Three: Status Quo
Finally, Milwaukee could maintain its current funding structure without encouraging a specific program type. This would allow youth to take advantage of programs
that do not necessarily have a distinct connection to economic development but do
have general positive long-term outcomes for youth. This option also maintains
the accessibility of programming for all age groups, an important component for
continuous participation throughout a youth’s development. There are caveats
to this suggestion. First, the link to economic development is less clear. Second,
measurement of outcomes for many of the current programs is difficult. However,
by implementing the outcome measurement recommendations made earlier in
this report, CDGA could present solid evidence of its grantees’ effectiveness
in reducing crime, increasing economic vitality, and improving quality of life.
26
Recommendation:
Take a Broader Perspective on Economic Development
Empirical research suggests that intervening early in the lives of children from
disadvantaged backgrounds is the best way to improve their future outcomes.
Continuing this intervention with a variety of programs that target youth of all
ages likely will have important spillover effects that improve individual and
community economic development. Therefore, while many of the youth services
programs that Milwaukee funds are not strictly focused on economic development, they nonetheless offer programming that is proven to improve educational
and non-cognitive skills, which are vital for success in the labor market. In summary, early intervention programs improve long-term economic outcomes, as do
programs that focus on preparation for post-secondary education. (For examples
of two intensive programs that intervene early and throughout youth, and foster
post-secondary education, see Appendix H.) By contrast, empirical research
suggests that more traditional economic development programs, in the form of job
training or workforce development, have a smaller effect on economic outcomes.
While the decision regarding whether to move more funding toward traditional
economic development programming is ultimately a political decision, we can
offer some advice on which types of youth programs are the strongest long-term
supporters of economic development. Cumulatively, the research suggests that if
the City of Milwaukee is interested in economic development outcomes, it would
be a mistake to more heavily fund classic job training programs at the expense
of other program types. We certainly do not mean to detract from the importance
of job training or workforce development programs, especially for those students
who are unlikely to attend college. However, we argue for a more comprehensive
approach to youth development.
As such, the City should consider a broader understanding of economic
development consistent with what we have outlined here. This broader
perspective would emphasize the proven importance of early intervention
and educational programs that ultimately have a stronger track record in terms
of economic outcomes. Milwaukee could maintain its current funding structure
and feel confident that programs similar to the ones they are funding have been
shown to have positive long-term outcomes for youth.
27
Conclusion
The City of Milwaukee’s Budget Office asked us to answer two critical questions
regarding its Youth Services grants. First, are the grants used effectively? And
second, can CDGA better link the grants to economic development? A summary
of our recommendations in response to these two questions appears in Table 3.
To answer the first question, we analyzed CDGA data and social science research,
and we conclude that CDGA’s grant allocations effectively target the barriers to
positive youth development. They also correspond with CDGA’s larger goals of
reducing crime, increasing economic vitality, and improving quality of life. However, in answering the first research question, we concluded that CDGA should
adjust its reporting and monitoring systems to yield performance data that would
better measure the effectiveness of its grantees’ programs. To this end, we recommend that CDGA host a mandatory annual grantee training session on developing
and measuring valid program outcomes, that it strengthen its reporting requirements by mandating that grantees track and report the benefits they claim to
produce, and that it implement a more interactive monitoring system to assist
grantees struggling with CDGA reporting requirements. If employed, these
recommendations would greatly improve the utility of grantee reporting data—
data CDGA relies on when making the next year’s funding decisions.
For our second research question—whether CDGA can better link its Youth
Services grants to economic development—we considered three policy options:
providing more Youth Services funding for job training and placement, providing
more Youth Services funding for education, and maintaining CDGA’s current
mix of programming. To determine the best policy option, we again consulted
social science research on the benefits of various types of youth programming.
Our literature review yielded a counterintuitive yet critical finding: that there is
little evidence that job training and placement programs for youth produce longterm economic benefits, and that crime prevention, recreation, civic, and especially education programming—programs with a less obvious link to economic
development—do in fact foster positive economic outcomes. In short, research
supports a broader definition of economic development programming, one that
extends well beyond traditional job training and placement. In addition, these
findings suggest that CDGA’s current mix of education, recreation, civic, crime
prevention, and job training programming is already well linked to economic
development and that altering that mix, especially in the direction of job training,
would be a mistake. As such, we recommend that CDGA maintain its current
combination of programming.
28
Table 3:
Summary of Recommendations
Research Question
RQ 1: Is CDGA Youth
Service funding used
effectively?
*Funding appears to be
targeted in correct
areas, but definitive
judgments require
improvements in
performance
monitoring system.
RQ 2: How can
Milwaukee link Youth
Services programming
to economic
development?
Recommendations
Implement mandatory
grantee training
session.
Impacts of Recommendations
• Grantees have information needed to
develop and track appropriate outcome
measures
• Increased time required of CDGA staff
to develop and provide training session
• Increased time required of grantees to
attend training session
Develop a more
interactive monitoring
system.
• Better supervision of grantees
• Better outcome and performance
information
• Grantees have better understanding of
and assistance in meeting contractual
obligations
• Ensures that groups can showcase the
positive contributions that they make to
the community.
Make grantee
performance data
available to the public
in electronic form.
• Increased time required to develop
electronic system.
• More transparency
• Ensures that groups can showcase the
positive contributions that they make
to the community
• Offers grantees and potential applicants
examples of outcomes and
measurement options
Take a broader
perspective on
economic development.
• Maintain current funding structure
• Improved education and non-cognitive
skill development
• Variety of programs that reach a broad
youth constituency
• De-emphasize programs that focus job
training and employ a strict definition
of economic development
*CDGA’s current mix
programming is
already well linked to
economic development
and it would be a
mistake to alter the
mix.
29
References
Afterschool Alliance. (2004, September). Evaluations backgrounder. Accessed
online March 21, 2007 from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/
documents/Evaluations_Academic_0904.pdf
Afterschool Alliance. (2002, May). Afterschool alert issue brief no. 7. Accessed March
21, 2007 from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_fit.doc
Afterschool Alliance. (n.d). Afterschool programs: Making a difference in
America’s communities. Accessed online March 16, 2007 from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/after_out.cfm.
Aizer, A. (2004). Home alone: Supervision after school and child behavior. Journal
of Public Economics Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1835–1848.
American Music Conference. (2004). Research briefs. Accessed online March 16,
2007 from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Evaluations_
Academic _0904.pdf
Arete Corporation. (2001). I Have a Dream: The Impacts. Prepared for the I
Have a Dream Foundation. Accessed April 29, 2007 from
http://www.ihad.org/reports/AreteSummary_2001.pdf
Baker, S., Gersten R., and Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year
longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal
training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494-519.
Becker, Gary S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with
special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Behn, R. and Kant, P.A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of
performance contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review,
22, 470-489
Bishop, John. (1988). Occupational training in high school: When does it pay off?
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University
Working Paper #88-09.
Blaug, M. (1966). Economics of education: A selected annotated bibliography.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Bolton, G. (1989). Drama as Education. London: Longman.
Borman, G., and D’Agostino, J. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A metaanalysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18, 309-326.
Bowman, M.J. (1963). Education shortage and excess. Canadian Journal of
Economics and Political Science, 29, 449-461.
Bray, M. (2001). Out-of-school supplementary tutoring. Childhood Education, 77,
360-367.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning Points:
Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century: The Report of the Task
Force on the Education of Youth Adolescents. Author: Washington, D.C.
30
Carneiro, P., and Heckman, J.J. (2003). Human capital policy. Inequality in
America: What role for human capital policies? pp. 77-208. In J.J. Heckman
and A. Krueger (Eds.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Catalano, R.F., Loeber, R., and McKinney, K.C. (1999, October). School and
Community Interventions to Prevent Serious and Violent Offending.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Catterall, J.S. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement?
A response to Eisner. Art Education, 51, 6-11.
Center for Urban Initiatives and Research – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
(2003a, October). 2003 MPS Youth Risk Behavior Survey, High School
Report. Milwaukee Public Schools. Accessed online March 28, 2007 from
http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/wpo/03_HS_YRBS.pdf
Center for Urban Initiatives and Research – University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
(2003b, October). 2003 MPS Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Middle School
Report. Milwaukee Public Schools. Accessed online March 28, 2007 from
http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/wpo/03_MS_YRBS.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. (2004, May).Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United
States, 2003. Accessed online February 9, 2007 from
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5302a1.htm
City of Oakland. (2006, July 31). Request for Proposals. Accessed online April
19, 2007, from http://www.oaklandnet.com/government/hcd/cdbg
/docs/2007-09%20packet.pdf
Cohn, E. and Geske, T.G. (1990). The Economics of Education (3rd ed.). New
York: Pergamon.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2007).
Year 2007 Funding Recommendations, Entitlement Funds. Unpublished
report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006a).
2006 CAPER - Youth Services. Received from CDGA staff via email on
March 2, 2007.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006b).
Monthly Activity Report. From Youth Services Program Files for 2006.
Unpublished report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006c).
Outcome and Measurement Activity Workplan. From Youth Services
Program Files for 2006. Unpublished report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006d).
Six Month Performance Measurement Report. From Youth Services
Program Files for 2006. Unpublished report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006e). Year
2006 Funding Recommendations, Entitlement Funds. Unpublished report.
31
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006f).
Year End Performance Measurement Report. From Youth Services
Program Files for 2006. Unpublished report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2006g).
Youth Services Program Files for 2006.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (2005). Year
2005 Funding Recommendations, Entitlement Funds. Unpublished report.
Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee. (n.d.).
CDGA Desk Review Checklist. Unpublished form.
Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J.C., and Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making
the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 65, 1-118.
Corazzini, A.J. (1967). When should vocational education begin? The Journal of
Human Resources 2, 41-50.
Cosden, M., Morrison, G., Albanese, A.L., and Macias, S. (2001). When
homework is not home work: After-school programs for homework
assistance. Educational Psychologist 36, 211-221.
Courtney, R. (1993). Drama and intel1igence: A cognitive theory. Montreal:
McGill/Queens University.
Darby, J.T., and Catterall, J.S. (1994). The arts and learning. Teachers College
Record, 96, 299-328.
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B., and Lee, C.H. (2006, August). Income, poverty,
and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2005. U.S. Census
Bureau. Accessed online from http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60231.pdf.
Eccles, Jacquelynne, Barber, Bonnie, Stone, Margaret, and Hunt, James. (2003).
Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social
Issues. 59:4, 865-889.
Eccles, J., and Templeton, J. (2002). Extracurricular and other after-school
activities for youth. Review of Research in Education, 26, 113-180.
Eisner, E.W. (1999). Getting down to basics in arts education. Journal of
Aesthetic Education, 33, 145-159.
Fashola, O. (2002). Building Effective Afterschool Programs. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin.
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2003, October). America’s After-School Choice:
Juvenile Crime or Safe Learning Time. Accessed March 21, 2007 from
http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/asTwoPager.pdf
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. (2000). America’s After-School Choice. Accessed
online March 21, 2007 from http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/as2000.pdf
Galley, M. (2000). Extra benefits tied to extracurriculars. Education Week,
October 18, 2000. Accessed March 21, 2007 from http://www.edweek.
org/ew/articles/2000/10/18/07extra.h20.html?qs=Extra+Benefits+Tied+to
+Extracurriculars
32
Goldberg, M.R., and Phillips, A. (Eds.) (1992). Arts as education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Review. Reprint Series No. 24.
Griffith, James. (2001). An approach to evaluating school-to-work initiatives:
Post-secondary activities of high school graduates of work-based learning.
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53, 37 – 60.
Grossman, J.B., and Johnson, A. (1998). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring
programs. In J.B. Grossman, ed., Contemporary Issues in Mentoring.
Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. pp.25-47.
Hatry, Harry, and Wholey, Joseph. (1999). Performance Measurement: Getting
Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Heckman, J.J., Hsee, J., and Rubinstein, Y. (2001). The GED is a “mixed signal”:
The effect of cognitive and noncognitive skills on human capital and labor
market outcomes. Mimeo: University of Chicago.
Heckman, J.J., and Lochner, L. (2000). Rethinking education and training policy:
Understanding the sources of skill formation in a modern economy, in S.
Danziger and J. Waldfogel (eds.), Securing the future: Investing in
children from birth to adulthood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hedin, D., and Conrad, D. (1980). Study proves hypothesis—and more. Synergist,
9, 8-14.
Hock, M.F., Pulvers, K.A., Deshler, D.D., and Schumaker, J.B. (2001). The
effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic performance
of at-risk students and students with LD. Remedial and Special Education,
22, 172-186.
Jackson, T. (1980). Learning through theatre. Manchester, England: Manchester
University.
Johnson, L., and O’Neill, C. (Eds.). (1984). Dorothy Heathcote: The collected
writings on education and drama. London: Hutchinson.
Johnson, M.K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J.T., and Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism
in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 8, 309-332.
Kellerman, A., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Rivara, F., and Mercy, J. (1998). Preventing
youth violence: What works? Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 271-92.
Knudsen, E.I., Heckman, J.J., Cameron, J.L., and Shonkoff, J.P. (2006).
Economic, neurological, and behavioral perspectives on building
America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences on the United States of America, 103, 10155-10162. Accessed
online April 19, 2007 from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/27/10155
Korn, R., and Associates. (2005). Teaching Literacy Through Art. New York:
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Accessed online April 14, 2007 from
http://www.learningthroughart.org/LTA_research_full_report.pdf
Kuhn, Peter, and Weinberger, Katherine. (2005). Leadership skills and wages.
Journal of Labor Economics, 23, 395-436.
33
LaLonde, R.J. (1995). The promise of public-sector sponsored training programs.
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 149-168.
LaLonde, R.J. (2003). Employment and training programs. In Moffitt, Robert, A.,
(ed.), Means tested transfer programs in the United States. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
Lauer, P.A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S.B., Apthorp, H.S., Snow, D. and MartinGlenn, M. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of
effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275-313.
Lynch, Lisa. (1993). Policy forum: Economic aspects of youth training in
industrialized nations. The Economic Journal, 103, 1292-1302.
Lynn, L.E., Heinrich C.J., and Hill. C.J. (2000). Studying governance and public
management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 10, 233-261.
Martin, J., and Grubb, D. (2001). What works and for whom: A review of OECD
countries’ experiences with active labor market policies. Swedish
Economic Policy Review, 8, 9-56.
Mastro, E., Jalloh, M.G., and Watson, F. (2006). Come on back: Enhancing youth
development through school/community collaboration. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 12, S60–S64.
Mayesky, M.E. (1980). A study of academic effectiveness in a public school
daycare program. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 284-285.
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning. (2004, January). The
Effectiveness of Out-of-School-Time Strategies in Assisting Low-Achieving
Students in Reading and Mathematics: A Research Synthesis. Accessed
online March 21, 2007 from http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/
SchoolImprovementReform/5032RR_RSOSTeffectiveness.pdf
Miller, B.M. (2003). Critical hours: Afterschool programs and educational
success. Quincy, MA: Nellie Mae Education Foundation. Accessed online
April 14, 2007 from http://www.nmefdn.org/uploads/Critical_Hours.pdf
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia
University.
Moody, K.A., Childs, J.C., and Sepples, S.B. (2003). Intervening with at-risk
youth: Evaluation of the youth empowerment and support program.
Pediatric Nursing, 29, 263-270.
Neumark, D., and Allen, A. (2003). What do we know about the effects of
education to work? Journal of Vocational Education Research, 28.
Paternoster, R., Bushway, S., Brame, R., and Apel, R. (2003). The effect of
teenage Employment on delinquency and problem behaviors. Social
Forces, 82, 297-335.
Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G.L., and Ky, N. (1995). Listening to Mozart enhances temporal
reasoning: Towards a neurological basis. Neuroscience Letters, 185, 44-7.
Rauscher, F.H., Shaw, G. L., and Ky, N. (1993). Music and spatial task
performance. Neurological Research., 19, 2-8.
34
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., Levine, L.J., Wright, E., Dennis, W., and
Newcomb, R. (1997). Music training causes long-term enhancement
of preschool children’s spatial-temporal reasoning. Neurological
Research, 19, 2-8.
Redd, Z., Brooks, J., and McGarvy, A. (2001, December). Background for
community level work on educational adjustment in adolescence: Reviewing
the literature on contributing factors. Child Trends, prepared for the Knight
Foundation. Accessed online March 21, 2007 from http://www.
childtrends.org/what_works/youth_development/doc/KEducation.pdf
Romzek, Barbara S., and Johnston, Jocelyn M. (2005). State social services
contracting: Exploring determinants of effective contract accountability.
Public Administration Review, 65, 436-449.
Schlinke, S.P., Cole, K.C., and Poulin, S.R. (2000). Enhancing the educational
achievement of at-risk youth. Prevention Science, 1, 51–60.
Schultz, T.W. (1981). Investing in people: The economics of population quality.
Los Angeles: University of California.
Schultz, T.W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and
research. New York: The Free Press.
Sheley, J. (1984). Evaluation of the centralized, structured after-school tutorial.
Journal of Educational Research, 77, 213-217.
Steinberg, L., and Levine, A. (1990). You and your adolescent. New York: Harper
and Row.
Thomas, J.C. (2005). Outcomes assessment and program evaluation. In Herman,
Robert D. and Associates. (eds.) The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit
leadership and management, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tough, Paul. (2004, June 4). The Harlem Project. The New York Times. Accessed
online April 29, 2007 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.
html?sec=health&res=9507E7D91030F933A15755C0A9629C8B63
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring outcomes: a practical approach. Author.
Urban Institute. (2003). Key steps in outcome measurement. Accessed online March
12, 2007 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310776_KeySteps.pdf
Urban Institute and Center for What Works. (2006). Building a common outcome
framework to measure nonprofit performance. Accessed online March 14, 2007
from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411404_Nonprofit_Performance.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Median earnings by educational attainment and sex.
2005 American Community Survey. Accessed online March 23, 2007
from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&mt_name=ACS_2005_EST_G2000_B20004
U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Fact sheet, Milwaukee, WI. Author. Accessed online
February 9, 2007 from
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.
35
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). 21st century community learning centers:
providing quality afterschool learning opportunities for America’s
families. Accessed March 17, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov
/pubs/Providing_Quality_Afterschool_Learning/index.html
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007a, March 12).
Community Planning and Development Appropriations Budget. Accessed
online March 25, 2007 from
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/#cdbg
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2007b, February 5). Bush
administration proposes $35.2 billion HUD budget in 2008. HUD News
Release 07-008. Accessed online March 22, 2007 from
http://www.hud.gov/news/release.cfm?content=pr07-008.cfm
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2006). Economic
Development. Accessed online April 19, 2007 from
http://www.hud.gov/economicdevelopment/index.cfm
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Monitoring Desk
Guide. From program files of the Community Development Grants
Administration, City of Milwaukee.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. (2007, January 26). Detailed Information
on the Community Development Block Grant (Formula) Assessment.
Accessed online March 25, 2007 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10001161.2003.html
Vinulan, M.H. (2005). After-school programs alter lives of at-risk youth. Parks
and Recreation, 40.
Weisbrod, B.A. (1962). Education and investment in human capital. Journal of
Political Economy, 70, 106-123.
Westat, Inc. (1995, September). Adolescent time use, risky behavior and
outcomes: an analysis of national data. Accessed March 21, 2007 from
http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_pregnancy_11.pdf.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2005, November). Wisconsin
Student Assessment System. Accessed online February 9, 2007 from
http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/wsas/districtwkce.asp
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (n.d). School Performance Report,
2003-2004. Accessed online February 9, 2007 from
http://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/spr/
Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). Community service and political-moral identity
in adolescents. Journal on Adolescents, 6, 271-284.
Zaff, Jonathon, Moore, Kristin, Papillo, Angela, and Williams, Stephanie. (2003).
Implications of extracurricular activity participation during adolescence on
positive outcomes. Journal of Adolescent Research. 18:6, 599-630.
36
Appendix A:
Grant Application and Award Process
Request-for-Proposal Process
The City of Milwaukee utilizes an RFP process to review and then recommend
to the Milwaukee Common Council applications for grant funding. CDGA runs
two RFP cycles during the year, the entitlement and reprogramming cycles.
Entitlement grants represent the maximum amount of funding an organization
can receive through CDGA’s reimbursement process.5 At the end of the year,
CDGA uses the reprogramming cycle—a streamlined version of the entitlement
cycle—to distribute any unspent entitlement funds. Typically, less than 5 percent
of entitlement funds go unspent.
CDGA makes entitlement grant recommendations based on two components of an
organization’s grant application: the program narrative, which is worth 60 points,
and the experience narrative, which is worth 40 points. The program narrative
outlines the clientele the organization intends to serve, the service delivery
methods it will employ, and the short- and long-term outcomes it seeks to
achieve. CDGA staff members score program narratives based on how well the
programs target the CDGA goals of reducing crime, increasing property values,
increasing economic vitality, and improving quality of life. The experience narrative outlines the experience of both the organization and its staff in delivering
youth programming. Using final point totals as their guide, CDGA then makes
its funding recommendations to the Common Council.
Common Council Grant Allocations
The recommendations CDGA makes to the Milwaukee Common Council are not
final. Council members have the authority to adjust each applicant’s funding
allocation at their discretion. During this process, aldermen can raise or lower
recommended funding levels or recommend new organizations for funding.
The Milwaukee Common Council is the official oversight body for the use and
allocation of federal entitlement funds and has the authority to adjust awards.
The recommendations by CDGA staff are advisory to the Common Council.
According to CDGA data and discussions with CDGA staff, in past years
Common Council members often deviated from CDGA’s funding recommendations. For example, in 2005 CDGA recommended that Execute Media receive no
Youth Services funding, but the Common Council allocated $32,000 to the group
(Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2005).
To allocate funding for Execute Media (and a handful of other organizations that
received funding despite a CDGA recommendation of $0), the Common Council
5
CDGA does not disburse grants in lump sums. Instead, grantees must petition CDGA for
reimbursement of expenses. CDGA provides or denies reimbursement based on eligible costs
related to the funded activity.
37
reduced the grants of 15 organizations, some by as much as $20,000
(Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2005).
Although Common Council members can and do alter CDGA grant
recommendations, these special allocations have decreased in the last two
allocation cycles. In 2006, the Common Council followed all CDGA grant
recommendations, and in 2007 they altered only three of 56 Youth Services
recommendations (Community Development Grants Administration, City
of Milwaukee, 2007).
38
Appendix B: CDGA Monitoring Procedures
In Milwaukee, Youth Services grantees work with the CDGA grant monitor
for Youth Services programs. The grant monitor is responsible for facilitating
the CDGA contract monitoring process, which includes outcome management,
monthly activity reports, and six-month and year-end outcome narratives.
The CDGA grant monitor is responsible for ensuring that grantees have
established valid outcome goals. Given the challenges that some organizations
encounter in establishing suitable outcome goals and methods for measuring
them, this can become difficult and time-consuming.
Grantees must provide monthly activity reports to the CDGA. These reports track
the projected and actual numbers of youth served during each month. Grantees are
required to include back-up documentation, such as sign-in sheets to corroborate
the actual number of youth served.
The next monitoring requirement includes the outcome narratives that grantees
provide at the six-month and one-year mark. In these narratives, grantees must
detail how and how well their program is achieving its intended outcomes. Some
examples of evidence used in these narratives are survey results regarding attitude
toward academic achievement, crime data for the area surrounding the program
site, and number of participants.
The final component of the grant monitoring process is the site visit. CDGA
grant monitors attempt to visit programs before the next funding allocation cycle
begins. Because of resource limitations, grant monitors prioritize the organizations most in need of monitoring. To do this, grant monitors conduct desk reviews
of organization files prior to actually scheduling any visits. This process requires
monitors to use a standardized checklist to evaluate agency administration and
staffing. The same Desk Review Checklist form is used for all CDBG funded
programs. Each question receives a “Yes” or “No” response; if the response is
“Yes” the grant monitor must also note that corrective action is needed (Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, n.d.). There
is also an area for additional comments for each question.
The Desk Review Checklist requires grant monitors to answer objective and
subjective questions based upon information in organization files. There are
three general categories of questions: general administrative, record keeping,
and program performance.
The first category of questions relates to general program administration.
Grant monitors first review general administrative aspects of the program,
such as whether there are regularly scheduled office hours and if there is a
program manager on-site. They then determine if there is adequate and qualified
39
staff for the funded activities, whether grant-funded positions are paid at least
$7.00 per hour, and whether there is minimal staff turnover in the program.
The checklist also includes questions regarding record keeping. These questions
focus on the presence of project activity and cost reports that are complete,
accurate, and timely. Monitors must note if the program maintains proper records
regarding client eligibility for the program. Additionally, some programs maintain
individual client files; if this is the case, the grant monitor must note it on the
checklist. Finally, grant monitors must note if there are vendor subcontractor
contracts on file in the CDGA office.
Lastly, grant monitors evaluate program performance indicators. These include
whether activities are reaching appropriate client groups and how accurately
groups report their performance.
As noted above, results of the Desk Review Checklist determine which
organizations grant monitors visit first. Priority organizations include: those
having the most difficulty with administrative requirements such as budgets and
cost reports, those that have failed to submit compliance reports, those with high
staff turnover, and those that are newly funded. CDGA notifies grant recipients
prior to conducting a formal site visit and outlines the monitoring activities that
will occur during the visit.
40
Appendix C: Selected Current CDGA Grantee Outcome Indicator Measures
and Data Sources, and Corresponding Suggested Outcome Indicator Measures
and Data Sources, by Service Provision Category
Service Provision
Category
Current Outcome Indicator
Measures
Current Tracking
Method/Data Source
50% of consistent participants
report sense of responsibility to
help others
In-house youth risk
behavior survey conducted
at 0, 6, and 12 months of
program participation
Civic Engagement
Students (in total) complete
1,300 hours of neighborhood
service per session
Student attendance taken at
beginning and end of each
service session
41
Suggested Outcome
Indicator Measures
Same as current measure,
but explicitly link
outcome to a level of
improvement from month
0 to 12.
Students will clean five
parks, clean 10 locations
of graffiti, and will turn
one vacant lot into a
playground during 1,300
hours of neighborhood
service
Suggested Tracking Method/Data
Source
Same as current data source
Take before and after photos of
locations to be cleaned; supplement
these photos with text describing the
project. Conduct pre and post
surveys with students about their
feelings regarding their
neighborhood, or their attitudes
regarding the importance of
volunteerism.
Service Provision
Category
Current Outcome Indicator
Measures
Current Tracking
Method/Data Source
Suggested Outcome
Indicator Measures
Develop customer service skills
Student information sheet
recording student’s interests
Same as current measure,
but specify percentage of
participants who will
achieve this outcome
Participants can create business
cards and fliers on the computer
Staff collect youth
portfolios with examples of
created business cards and
fliers
Same as current measure,
but specify percentage of
participants who will
achieve this outcome
Pre-and post-survey of youth to
determine their starting and end skill
levels; this measure can be
supplemented with examples from
youth portfolios
Same as current measure
Same as current data source
Same as current measure
Same as current data source
Same as current measure
Same as current data source
Economic
Development
30 participants are placed in
jobs and keep their job for 45
or more days
Education
50 percent of students achieve
the goals in their individualized
education programs
90% of participants will
graduate from high school
In-house job placement
database records
employment and
termination history
Comparison with student’s
individualized education
programs and report cards
Student/parent interviews
and contact with student’s
school
42
Suggested Tracking Method/Data
Source
Conduct exit surveys with
participants asking how much, on a
scale of 1-10, they feel their
customer service skills have
improved, or track the number of
participants who obtain work in
customer service after completing
the program
Service Provision
Category
Current Outcome Indicator
Measures
75% of youth demonstrate
physically/socially acceptable
behavior
Crime
Prevention/Personal
Development
Recreation
275 youth engaged in recreation
and creative arts during the after
school program
80 percent of participants will
not get pregnant or father a
child, will demonstrate self
discipline, problem-solving
skills, and not engage in risky
behaviors
85 percent of members will
avoid criminal activity as a
result of participation
130 young adults will
participate. All participants will
sign pledges agreeing to be
violence free and refrain from
negative activities and criminal
behavior for the summer of
2006
Current Tracking
Method/Data Source
Decreased number of verbal
and physical aggression
incidents per youth
observed by staff and
parents; staff track number
of times each student is
asked to leave the group
Program attendance sheets
and youth registration forms
Suggested Outcome
Indicator Measures
Same as current measure
Measure changes in
participant behaviors or
self esteem attitudes
Suggested Tracking Method/Data
Source
Staff keeps logs of all physical and
verbal aggression incidents; staff
administers baseline and follow-up
survey with parents regarding
student behavior
Survey program participants to
ascertain changes in their beliefs
about themselves or changes in their
behaviors
Pre- and post-program
attitudinal survey and
parent surveys
Same as current measure
Same as current data source but
make sure to follow up on all
aspects of outcome indicator
including number who avoided
pregnancy
Data share agreement with
Youth Court; Youth Court
records
Same as current measure
Same as current data source
Sign-in sheets for
attendance and signed nonviolence pledges
130 participants will
remain violence free and
will refrain from negative
activities and criminal
behavior for the summer
of 2006
If possible, use court records to
track whether participants upheld
their pledges. If court data are not
available, survey participants on
their attitudes toward violence, or
use self-reported data regarding
challenges they encounter in
resisting violence
Source: Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006c.
43
Appendix D: Recent Trends in CDBG Funding
Grantees are competing for a fixed—and, in many recent years, declining—
amount of funds. Figure 3 illustrates the decline in appropriations for CDBG
in recent years.
Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2007, the CDBG saw a 14 percent
decline in real dollars, with the Bush administration proposing substantially
greater cuts for fiscal year 2008.
Figure 3:
Total CDBG Appropriations in Real Dollars,
2003-2008: Steady Decline in Available Funds
6
$4.90
$ billions
5
$4.93
$4.70
$4.18
$4.22
4
$2.68
3
2
1
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
(proposed)
Fiscal Year
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2007a, and U.S. Office of Management
and Budget, 2007.
44
Appendix E: Oakland, California
The City of Oakland, California, focuses its CDBG Public Services funding
on programs that serve youth. Oakland follows a biennial budget cycle for its
CDBG funding allocations. The Community and Economic Development
Agency (CEDA) initiates and coordinates the request-for-proposal (RFP) cycle
that includes two sets of mandatory orientation meetings for all applicants and
grantees. The first mandatory meeting occurs prior to the application process,
and it trains representatives from prospective programs on the entire application
process, including definition of outcome goals (City of Oakland, 2006).
After the City Council offers final funding recommendations, the agencies
recommended for funding are required to attend a second mandatory orientation
meeting. This training outlines contract procedures and guidelines, and it includes
a discussion of documents that must be completed prior to development of the
contracts. Agencies representatives must attend this orientation before any
contracts are finalized and funds released (City of Oakland, 2006).
Oakland’s actual RFP is similar to Milwaukee’s, in that it requires applicants to
describe their proposed program’s administration, budget, and outcomes.
However, unlike in Milwaukee, Oakland’s RFPs are not evaluated on a point
scale. Additionally, the outcome worksheet in Oakland’s RFP appears clearer than
that in Milwaukee’s RFP. The Performance Measures Worksheet itself contains
four pages of definitions, which, in combination with the mandatory trainings,
seek to ensure that funded organizations are consistent and accurate in their
outcome goals and measures. The instructions also provide examples of outcome
goals, program process and outcome objectives, and data collection methods,
sources, and processing. Applicants are required to specify precisely where they
will obtain any data they intend to use and how they will process it (City of
Oakland, 2006). Therefore, Oakland seems to have a very strong outcome
worksheet and to provide extensive technical assistance to its grantees.
45
Appendix F:
Youth Services Programming Categories
We used the five characteristics of successful youth development crafted by
the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989) as the basis for
organizing the individual program types for Milwaukee that we outline below.
These categories are not mutually exclusive, and each Youth Services program
was placed into the one or two categories that best identified its focus.
Education
This category includes programs that have an intrinsic goal to increase educational attainment, academic achievement, and/or literacy skills. Examples include
GED programs, writing workshops, intense tutoring and mentoring, and English
as a second language classes. A program is not categorized as educational by
simply providing homework help or computer access. While these are valid
and important program characteristics, they do not constitute educational
programming.
Crime Prevention and Personal Development
This category includes programs that aim to prevent crime, reduce teen pregnancy, and develop leadership skills. Also included are those that help to reduce
substance abuse and behavioral problems. Many programs fall into this category,
including those that provide a safe haven and adult supervision for youth after
school and during evenings and weekends.
Civic Engagement
Programs that can be categorized as providing civic engagement services are
those that focus primarily on volunteering and community service. Programs that
educate the community on social and political issues also fall into this category.
Community service or education must be the foundation of programming.
Economic Development
An economic development program focuses on job training and placement.
The program must impart specific and marketable skills to recipients. This could
include résumé writing, interview preparation, and job search and placement
assistance. The program might also offer job-specific skill development such
as construction training, screen printing, or administrative skills through classes,
internships or apprenticeships. Again, this programming must comprise a large
portion of the organizations activities.
Recreation
Recreational programs are those that provide sports, arts and crafts, theater or
other similar activities to participants. These programs exist primarily to provide
fun, safe, and creative outlets for youth. Programming may include field trips,
summer or winter camps, dances, parades, or other community events.
46
Appendix G: List of 2006 Grantees, Amount Received and Number of Youth Served
Type of Program
Organization/ Program
Grant
Allocation
Goal #
Served
Actual
# Served
Agape Community
Center
$ 29,000
460
451
Boys & Girls Club (all)
$ 241,000
3,230
7,506
Career Youth
Development
$ 24,000
300
305
x
Center for Teaching
Entrepreneurship
$ 24,000
100
158
x
Children’s Outing
Association (all)
$ 172,000
1,660
1,822
Esperanza Unida
$ 24,000
unknown
unknown
x
Hmong American
Friendship Association
$ 24,000
125
229
x
Hope House of
Milwaukee
$ 19,000
115
115
Howard Fuller
$ 34,000
150
406
Education
Economic
Development
Recreation
Civic
Engagement
Crime
Prevention/
Personal
Development
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
47
Type of Program
Crime
Prevention/
Personal
Development
Organization/ Program
Grant
Allocation
Goal #
Served
Actual
# Served
Journey House
$ 50,000
1,197
1,197
Latino Community
Center
$ 104,000
2,864
2,864
Merrill Park
Neighborhood
Association
$ 39,000
200
239
Milwaukee Christian
Center (all)
$ 75,000
640
742
Milwaukee LGBT
Community Center
$ 24,000
375
557
Modjeska Youth Theatre
$ 24,000
152
152
Neighborhood House
$ 34,000
600
1,143
Northcott Neighborhood
House
$ 49,000
88
113
x
x
Pearls for Teen Girls
$ 24,000
215
388
x
x
Education
Economic
Development
Recreation
Civic
Engagement
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
48
Type of Program
Civic
Engagement
Crime
Prevention/
Personal
Development
x
x
Organization/ Program
Grant
Allocation
Goal #
Served
Actual
# Served
Residential Living
Services/Neu-Life
Community Resource
Center
$ 24,000
275
272
Rosalie Manor
Community and Family
Services
$ 24,000
30
49
Running Rebels
$ 73,000
635
772
Safe and Sound
$ 295,669
2,291
3,959
Teen Approach
$ 24,000
95
84
United Community
Center
$ 100,000
580
814
x
x
Walker’s Point Center for
the Arts
$ 25,000
650
688
x
x
Woodland Pattern
$ 25,000
200
290
x
YMCA Holton Center
$ 55,000
900
506
x
Education
Economic
Development
Recreation
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
49
Type of Program
Organization/ Program
Grant
Allocation
Goal #
Served
Actual
# Served
YMCA Northside
$ 54,000
550
618
YMCA Parklawn
$ 25,000
480
581
19,157
27,020
TOTAL
$1,738,669
Education
Economic
Development
Recreation
Civic
Engagement
Crime
Prevention/
Personal
Development
x
x
5
4
Source: Numerical data are from the Community Development Grants Administration, City of Milwaukee, 2006g.
The authors of this report devised the remainder of the category matrix.
50
7
8
20
Appendix H: Successful Intensive Youth Programs
The I Have a Dream Foundation and Harlem Children’s Zone are great examples
of programs that provide wraparound services that remain in place throughout the
child’s school years. By providing continual services, these programs improve
the lives and educational outcomes of disadvantaged youth.
The I Have a Dream Foundation (IHAD) promises post-secondary education
to entire classes or grades of students in specific schools and neighborhoods.
This national, all-inclusive program creates entire communities of students
who have the opportunity to continue their education after high school. The model
uses existing community agencies to provide tutoring, mentoring, and family
counseling. Classrooms are adopted by an IHAD sponsor as early as elementary
school. An analysis of IHAD programs has found that “Dreamers” often graduate
high school at rates twice that of their peers. Dreamers also have shown to have
a greater resistance to peer pressure and criminal activity, increased academic
performance and a higher probability of attending post-secondary education
(Arete Corporation, 2001).
The Harlem Children’s Zone is similar to but more inclusive than the I Have a
Dream program. Started in 1990s by a mid-size Harlem non-profit, the program
addresses poverty, low levels of educational attainment, and ill-health found in
surrounding neighborhoods. The premise is simple. Entire neighborhoods are
“adopted,” and children receive all social services that they may need from birth
to college. Health care and parenting education is taught to young mothers.
Students receive tutoring and do community service. Entire neighborhoods
participate, making students and parents accountable and interactive with one
another. In poverty-stricken urban areas, this is uncommon (Tough, 2004). Like
IHAD, the Harlem Children’s Zone relies heavily on synthesizing existing social
services. This seems to be a trademark of successful programs in inner-city
neighborhoods.
51