Communities In Schools

The Communities In Schools national office increases public outreach and visibility for the organization; seeks legislative support and procures funding for national, state and local efforts to benefit students and families; supports state offices in capacity-building efforts; leads network evaluation activities to identify and promote best practices; it also ensures the continuation of the Communities In Schools "movement."

Working closely with the national office staff, Communities In Schools state office leaders spearhead CIS "movement" in their states. This provides training, technical assistance and capacity building. State offices support and help procure funding for local affiliates who work directly with kids.

At the local or "grassroots" level, Communities In Schools affiliates always works at the invitation of the school superintendent, and in partnership with public schools. CIS local affiliates collaborate with volunteers and community partners to work directly with students, providing programs and services which address the unique needs of a school district or student population.[3]

Communities In Schools identifies and delivers two levels of service to students. These services are designed to address the underlying risk factors for dropping out of school.

These are resources and services that are widely accessible to any students at a CIS school site. They are short-term interventions with durations of a few hours or days that build assets in the "Five Basics." They are provided or brokered on an as-needed or as-available basis. Students do not need to be enrolled in a specific CIS initiative to benefit from such resources and services, but simply need to be members of the school population at large. Some examples of Level One resources or services include providing clothing or school supplies, assemblies, events, career fairs, field trips, health screenings and grief counseling.

Unlike Level one, from which virtually any student in a school may benefit, Level Two resources and services are provided through well-defined CIS initiatives targeted at students and/or families with specific needs. These initiatives typically include some type of enrollment or assignment procedure. They are sustained interventions with durations of several weeks, months or an entire school year. Level Two services are usually designed to achieve one or more tracked outcomes such as improved academic performance, attendance or behavior. These outcomes are chosen based on a variety of assessments and teacher recommendations. Examples of such interventions include tutoring, mentoring, literary skills, case management, individual counseling, before- and after-school programs, community service and enrollment in an "academy" environment.[8]

In 2005, Communities In Schools was awarded a multiyear fourteen million dollar contract to conduct an evaluation of its national network and programming.[9] ICF International,[10] a global consulting and research firm, was contracted to conduct the five-year longitudinal study titled the National Evaluation of Communities In Schools. The study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the Communities In Schools model. It is based on an in-depth analysis of 1,776 schools served by CIS, a comparative analysis of outcomes from more than 1,200 CIS served and non-CIS served comparison schools, and comparative analysis of CIS served students and non-CIS served students alongside in-depth case studies of students. The study is being conducted in three phases:

The first year of the National Evaluation focused on collecting detailed information on the work of Communities In Schools in schools, providing a comprehensive picture of how the CIS model is implemented in thousands of schools across the country.

The second and third years of the National Evaluation have focused on determining the difference Communities In Schools makes at the school-level allowing for conclusions to be formed with respect to the correlation between effective implementation of the CIS model and school level results.

The fourth and fifth years of the National Evaluation consist of randomized control trials, comparing CIS served students and non-CIS served students in the same schools.[7] ICF will conduct experimental studies involving the random assignment of students to a treatment group or a control group. Through random assignment, researches are able to make the two groups as similar in composition as possible. By minimizing differences between the two groups, any difference in outcomes can be attributed to participation in the CIS program.

The first phase involved a survey of more than 1,500 schools served by Communities In Schools to determine the level of CIS implementation taking place at each school. Based on the survey results, the schools were given a score from 1-100, based on their degree of fidelity to core components of the CIS model. When scores were correlated with school-level outcomes, the cohort of sites scoring 70 or higher showed the most positive outcomes. This established the relationship between outcomes and the level of implementation of the CIS model. The group, referred to as "high implementing schools," represents 47 percent (710) of total sample sites. The remaining 808 sites, referred to as "partial implementing schools," implemented the CIS model to a lesser degree.

In the second phase, ICF sought to determine the extent to which positive student outcomes could be attributed to implementation of the Communities In Schools model. ICF conducted a quasi-experimental evaluation, matching 602 schools served by CIS against 602 comparison schools. Each school served by CIS was matched with a school not served by CIS based on eight characteristics of the schools: student attendance rates; percent of students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch; percent of students with special needs; school size; percentage of students designated as proficient in math; percentage of students designated as proficient in English/language arts; the racial and ethnic composition of the schools; and the "promoting power" of the schools ( a proxy for "dropout rate"). In 2008, ICF along with Communities In Schools released the initial results from Phase Two. The three key findings were:

1. Among dropout prevention programs using scientifically based evidence, the CIS model is one of a very few in the United States proven to keep students in school and is the only dropout prevention program in the nation with scientifically based evidence to prove that it increases graduation rates.

1. When implemented with high fidelity, the CIS model results in a higher percentage of students reaching proficiency in fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math.

1. Effective implementation of the CIS model correlates more strongly with positive school-level outcomes (i.e., dropout and graduation rates, achievement, etc.) than does the uncoordinated provision of service alone, resulting in notable improvements of school level outcomes in the context of the CIS model.[7]

As of 2007, randomized controlled trials are being conducted in CIS of Central Texas in Austin, Texas and in CIS of Jacksonville, Florida. Initial results from these studies are expected in 2009, with final results expected at the completion of the three-year period in 2010.[11]