0
Report
Community:
Jun 27, 2022
A robust research base indicates the importance of high quality early care and education in relation to a host of long term health, education, and employment outcomes. The concept of “quality” in these programs has been the focus of much attention and resources, particularly over the last decade. Most states have established definitions of quality through quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) and allocated accompanying resources to support early care and education providers to progress toward higher levels of quality. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, definitions of “quality” have been sorely lacking attention to equity and to the unique experiences that disproportionately affect children from historically marginalized communities.
This report addresses a fundamental content flaw in QRISs by operationalizing equity indicators. These indicators are grounded and organized by the CEP’s 14 priorities to advance equity in early care and education systems, published in a 2020 report, in partnership with eight national organizations. States can use these indicators to inform QRIS redesign efforts to advance equity and improve transparency for families.
Authored by: The Children's Equity Project (CEP)
Topics: Advocacy, CLPHA, Communications, Homelessness, Housing, Legislation & Policy, Metrics, Racial inequalities, Research, Supportive housing, Sustainability
Shared by Karina George
Karina George posted a
on Jun 27, 2022
The Children's Equity Project (CEP)
A robust research base indicates the importance of high quality early care and education in relation to a host of long term health, education, and employment outcomes. The concept of “quality” in these programs has been the focus of much attention and resources, particularly over the last decade.
0
Report
Community:
Nov 15, 2017
Federal, state, and local policies focused on neighborhood improvement have long emphasized the need for community organizations to share information, coordinate activities, and collaborate in the delivery of services. These partnerships build “community capacity,” as a way of promoting local problem solving and community well-being over the longer term. But, there has been only limited research on which patterns of neighborhood networks are most conducive to implementing effective collective work. This report uses social network analysis, drawing from a network survey, and extensive field research to ask how specific patterns of partnership promote better-implemented collaborations that in turn can successfully inform public policy.
The findings in this report have a qualitative, observable component, making it possible for funders to identify neighborhoods with advantageous structural supports before choosing to invest in that location, and for practitioners to support certain patterns of community activity.
Authored by: David M. Greenberg for MDRC
Topics: Communications, Community development, Data sharing, Legislation & Policy, Partnerships
Shared by Housing Is
Housing Is posted a
on Oct 15, 2020
David M. Greenberg for MDRC
Federal, state, and local policies focused on neighborhood improvement have long emphasized the need for community organizations to share information, coordinate activities, and collaborate in the delivery of services.
