Children, Youth and Family Consortium

Merriam Park Community Services and Hallie Q. Brown, Inc.
Longitudinal Evaluation -- Summary of Findings
June 1996

The Early Intervention Program is worth continuing and expanding. The annual evaluations, the five year evaluation, and the longitudinal study reinforce the findings of each other and show that the Early Intervention Program has proven its value. The longitudinal data show that children in the EIP do better at graduation than children in the comparison group. The longitudinal study and the anecdotal information agree that there is cumulative value when children spend multiple years in the program and have good EIP attendance. These children show better school-attendance rates, less credit loss, and fewer criminal offenses than similar children from the comparison group. The longitudinal study confirms the annual evaluations and provides an additional glimpse of what would be possible with a larger sample of students, using tighter controls, and done over a longer period of time.

The longitudinal evaluation was intentionally limited in years and scope. The evaluation was to show the program's results now, while they still have relevance to the real world. The study period was for five years in order to provide data soon enough to be of value. In that time, the percentage of EIP students who had reached graduation age and could be matched with the comparison group was small. Lack of funds for doing the evaluation was another limitation. No funds were provided specifically for the longitudinal evaluation. It was done at little cost, with volunteer contributions from every entity. All partner agencies in the evaluation have donated time, files, and facilities because of their commitment to provide a preliminary view of the program's effect and potential. In spite of these limitations the longitudinal data show that the program is worthwhile.

The Early Intervention Program has now operated for eight years with a selection of first through sixth grade children at Longfellow Humanities Magnet School. Some of these children now have reached high-school graduation age. The following findings from longitudinal data give a glimpse of the results of this early intervention in their lives. These data show graduation and dropout rates of youth and their criminal activity, if any, at the time of graduation and show similar data for the comparison group. These data are explained more completely in the text and addendum.

Although a limited study, strong tendencies appear from the data to recommend continuing the program, expanding it, and funding a broader and more rigorous longitudinal study. At low to almost no cost, this longitudinal evaluation provides enough information to show tendencies in long-term results on the lives of youth. A more conclusive study is warranted. Expanding the program by increasing the number of students and the number of years, along with a rigorous evaluation to compare participating student results with a control group at completion of high school would provide more conclusive information about the benefits of this low-cost intervention.

Generally, the more years a child participated in the EIP, the better were the results.
The more years a student participated the better their school attendance became. During each year teachers noted that some students with otherwise high absentee rates would attend regularly on the day of their group meeting.
Students in the EIP were much less likely to drop out of school than were students in the comparison group. Only 7.5% of first-year EIP students dropped out of school in contrast to 18.8% of the comparison group for that year.
Students in the EIP were less likely than students in the comparison group to drop out of a course. Credit loss was 17.4% in the EIP and almost 21% in the comparison group.
The percentage of misdemeanor and felony convictions was the lowest (19%) for the EIP students who attended 10 or more sessions. Convictions were highest for the comparison group (35%).
About twice as many males as females participated in the program. More males dropped out. Those who attended the greatest number of sessions were female. Students did not drop out of the program and stay at Longfellow School. Many males left the program because of larger issues in their lives such as school and family changes, etc.
There is value in this snapshot view. This sample shows what an expanded program could accomplish and what a rigorous longitudinal study could provide. With the experience gathered from this program and with a larger sample of students over a longer period of time, a more detailed study of outcomes would likely demonstrate more conclusive evidence.
The cost, generally about $1,000 per year per child, is small when measured against an otherwise possible lack of success in life due to incomplete education, fewer social skills, a victim approach to living, crime convictions, and too few caring and skilled adults over time. In dollar comparisons, 30-40 children could participate in the EIP with what it would cost to contain one prisoner for a year or maintain one unemployed adult.
The total number of students who had participated in the program at the time of this study was 253. The number of students who had reached graduation age and who had participated in the program over a period of years was very small. To follow data on all of the participating children through their high-school graduation age would take the study well beyond the year 2000.
Program continuity over time is important. Producing and measuring results regarding people is a long, uncertain, and complex process. It takes several years to establish and implement all the dimensions of a new program and to build the understanding, trust, and relationships necessary to have all aspects of the program reach a high level of effectiveness.
In doing the longitudinal study, we were pleased and encouraged by the genuine interest, generosity, cooperation, and commitment on the part of staff everywhere at all levels. People were willing to give access to information and wanted to find something out even though the data were not always easy to access. Their hope, in all disciplines, was that this thread of data would give information of value and add to the early nurturing of children.

This evaluation report summarizes the findings from longitudinal data on participating students and restates some of the findings and conclusions from the earlier annual evaluations. It explains the evaluation process and the intent and structure of the Early Intervention Program (EIP). Comments are included from persons involved in the EIP along with closing comments about the overall effect of the program and its potential for the future. The longitudinal data support all the previous findings and bring additional support to the conclusion that this program is effective and inexpensive and should be continued, expanded, and replicated at additional schools.

The Early Intervention Program began at Longfellow Humanities Magnet School in the 1988 school year as an expansion and enhancement of a successful "Friendship Group" program which was begun at Longfellow School in 1973. The McKnight Foundation has been the major funder and has supported some portion of the program for the last eight years, thereby demonstrating its ongoing commitment to helping children learn and practice successful interdependence and to learn increasing levels of responsibility for themselves.

During the summer of 1995, work on completion of the longitudinal evaluation was begun. A report of the information from partnering agencies was completed in the fall, and is included in full as an appendix to this report. This evaluation report is the final outcome of the entire longitudinal study and includes selected information from the annual evaluation reports which were done each year. The annual evaluation reports are on file at Merriam Park Community Center and at the McKnight Foundation.

Completing a longitudinal evaluation was a primary goal of the planning team right from the beginning of the idea for the Early Intervention Program, and it was part of the early conversations with the McKnight Foundation. At the initiation of the program in 1988, meetings were held with agency representatives who were excited about the possible information that longitudinal study could bring. Included were Joan Fabian, Director, Ramsey County Community Corrections, and Thel Kocher, then Director of Testing, Evaluation, and Information Services, St. Paul School District. Steps were taken to establish data trails and agency agreements, so that a longitudinal evaluation could be done at a later date, anticipated to be in five years.

No funds were committed directly, though, for either the data collection or storage for the longitudinal evaluation. Expectations for its completion were based on future funding or volunteer commitments. Partner organizations were contacted to request their commitment to long-term data collection and eventual access to that data. Agreements came from the School District's evaluation staff and the principals and social workers at the comparison schools. Representatives of the Saint Paul division of Public Health and Ramsey County Community Corrections assured the team that certain data could be recovered from their regular files after five years of program operation.

Data Collection -- Arrangements were made with two similar schools to select annually an equal number of students with characteristics matching those students enrolled in the Early Intervention Program. This would be the comparison group. The school social workers were the persons responsible for compiling the annual lists of student names and identification numbers. To insure confidentiality, no information was compiled at the school level on the comparison group students except for the names, grade level, and "CIF" number. All comparison group information was forwarded directly to the School District's evaluation staff and kept in their files until the longitudinal evaluation was underway.

At Merriam Park Community Center, individual data cards were designed, updated manually, and maintained on each child that spent any time in the EIP. The recorded data in the EIP master file included name, student identification number, address, age, years in the EIP and attendance figures, grade level in school, etc. Evaluation reports were completed annually from more detailed records kept in the EIP files.

In the spring of 1995, a request was made through the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) for an intern to research the longitudinal information, compare data, and determine the significance of the findings. After several interviews, Kristin Blum was hired. Kristin was completing her Master of Arts in Public Affairs with a concentration in social policy and policy analysis through the Humphrey Institute. She began compiling the evaluation information in June, 1995. The following agency representatives were contacted and agreed to assist: Irene McAfee, Director of Evaluation, Information and Student Services, St. Paul School District; and James Hayes, Director, Juvenile Division, Ramsey County Community Corrections. The interest, enthusiasm, and cooperation of these professionals was heartening and most appreciated.

Data privacy concerns and the process of acquiring and compiling the data were the most difficult issues to resolve. Although we had no need for individual data and wanted to insure data privacy, we did need to aggregate data from individual records. Reviewing these individual files was time consuming and labor intensive. In some situations, it was impractical to retrieve data from computerized records or simply not possible. Some data were retrieved from computerized records and downloaded to disks; some were copied manually. In other situations, the computerized data to be retrieved was not recorded or stored in a manner suitable for our needs or the data was not yet recorded on computer at all. Manual retrieval was often the most practical way to compile the information.

When reviewing the information on the students in the comparison groups, it was found that for all but the first year they had been selected at random rather than being selected based on similarity of behavior characteristics. For that reason, and because only students participating in the first year of the program were now of graduation age and old enough to display longitudinal outcomes, many of the comparisons about behavior are done only with the students selected for the first year of the program.

Number of Students Participating -- From October 1988 through May 1995, a total of 259 students were registered in the Early Intervention Program at Longfellow Humanities Magnet School. Of those students, twenty-four participated in the program for fewer than ten sessions. These students are included in the "total" figures, but not in the "selected totals." Six registered but never participated in the groups; they received assistance individually and are not included at all in the comparisons.

By race, overall, the Longfellow group was 35% white, 55% African American, 4% Hispanic, 3% Asian/Pacific, and 3% Native American. The comparison group was 41% white, 58% African American, and 1% Hispanic.

Attendance Patterns -- According to anecdotal information collected each year for the annual evaluations, attendance improved for children who were in the EIP, especially on the day that their group met. Even students with very poor attendance records would be at school on the day their group was meeting. The data appear to bear this out according to the following percentages showing a generally increasing and positive effect on attendance.

Number of Sessions Attended -- In the Appendix, table two displays results by the number of sessions attended. These data begin to show the effects of a long-term intervention. It is important, because it indicates that ongoing interventions appear to make cumulative positive change in the attitudes and resultant behaviors of children. Unanswered questions are: What causes a child to stay in the program? Why do some children drop out? Is it the most dysfunctional who leave? If so, what intervention would be more helpful for them? The percentage of males who continue in the program decreases each year. Of 124 students who attended only 1-22 sessions, 71% were male; of the four who attended 111-133 sessions, 75% were female. What modifications would better serve the male students?

Some children drop out of their group because family disruptions cause them to change schools and they must leave the program. This is especially true for most of the children who attended few sessions. If the program were available in all schools, those children could stay connected even though they change schools. For some other children, the intervention makes an almost immediate difference in their lives and they do not continue because they can move forward successfully without it (newcomers to the school, for instance).

Statistics are discouraging for those registrants who attended fewer than 10 sessions. Their school attendance rates were 11% lower than the average, credit loss was greater, and all categories of offense were more than double those of the student group attending more than 10 sessions. Of these students, 63% were male, and 63% were African American, not necessarily the same persons.

The Effect on School Drop-outs -- The first criteria in order for children to learn is that the children get to school and continue to come. The EIP appears to have had a very positive effect on children who are likely to drop out of school. For the 253 students who participated in the EIP, only 5.5% dropped out of school and only 7.5% of the first year students. In the comparison group of 69 students, 18.8% dropped out of school.

Credit Loss -- For the older students, grades were reviewed from fourth grade to the present. To arrive at the credits lost, grades N (no pass) or I (incomplete) were tallied and then divided by the total number of courses taken. It appears that students in the EIP were more likely to complete their course commitments.

Delinquency and Convictions -- One premise to be tested during the EIP was that delinquent behavior would decrease. Ramsey County Juvenile records were searched for all children in the EIP and comparison group. Three offense categories are shown here: misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and felony. In those cases where the same name appeared in more than one category, only the most serious category was recorded. The percentage of offenses is lowest in both totals showing EIP participants over all years of the program. When those students who attended fewer than ten EIP sessions are removed from the total, the comparison for this selected group is more dramatic -- a 19% conviction rate for the program participants, compared to a 35% conviction rate in the comparison group.

Misdemeanor 25 (10%) 19 (08%) 12 (14%) 9 (11%) 3 (04%)
Gr. Misdemeanor 0 0 0 0 8 (12%)

Effects of Age -- The student's age could be an unresearched factor in the conviction data shown. Students who were in the first year of the program have a higher average age than that of the group as a whole and have had more years to make behavior choices. The average age of each group is as follows.

Years in the program. -- The number of years a child participates in the program has an effect on the child's development, and the variation in years in the program probably affects the findings upon graduation. Those children who were in sixth grade during the first year of the program had only one year in which to be influenced by the program. This may show in the data, since both total-program percentages (total enrolled and selected total) are lower than any of the first year percentages. In the 1992-93 school year, five of the eleven children had been in the program for five or more years. The sixth graders who entered the program in 1988 were of graduation age during the 1994-1995 school year. The number of sixth grade students who have been enrolled in the EIP for each of the first five years are as follows, along with their normally expected graduation year.

Predictors of Delinquency -- The indicators looked at in this study are recognized in all fields of child development as early determinants of troubled behaviors throughout life. A recently released study of delinquents under 10 in Hennepin County, Minnesota, lists six early predictors of future delinquency. Among these are: (1) Age at first contact with police 4-9 years of age, (2) Abuse, neglect and/or violence in the home, (3) Particular family characteristics, (4) Criminal or delinquent histories of parents or siblings, (5) Poor school attendance, school failure, and (6) Absence of positive supportive relationships or connections with adults and peers (italics mine). This analysis confirms what school professionals report: that troubled children can be identified early and, without supportive intervention, often do become troubled adults. The EIP alters these conditions in a positive way.

No one program is going to be the magic button to fix all our social ills. Each building block that is in place in a community helps to stabilize and strengthen it. The EIP is an asset-building block. The EIP and similar programs work with, support, and build on the assets of individuals, rather than focus on weaknesses. The theory is that, together, the effect of these changes on individuals will help to create a healthier person and total community. Cumulative and consistent testimony from parents, teachers, children, and social workers over the seven years of evaluation confirms that this outcome is happening. Some of their comments, repeated over the years, can be summarized under the following categories.

Changes in child behaviors improve parent and family relationships and patterns.

The EIP provides an orientation to the school culture for new students and families.

Parent/child participation in family events builds and enhances the larger community.

Children as Teachers -- Children are effective teachers of children. The immediate spread of "Power Ranger" behaviors throughout the student body a few years ago -- even among children who don't watch television -- demonstrates how totally and quickly children can and do learn from each other. Early Intervention skills, taught to a select group of children, have had a positive and multiplying effect over time within their larger zone of relationships. Once new behaviors are learned and found to be effective, these children use them with other children, parents, and teachers and, thereby, role-model healthier ways of relating. By this sharing, the children improve their lives and their surroundings.

The Home-School Bridge -- The social workers provide an important link between parent and school and help to create a bridge for children whose parents remain disconnected from the school, possibly because of negative feelings about their own school experiences. Because the social workers are employed by the community centers, rather than the school, some parents are more open to talking and meeting with them. Through their one-to-one contact with both parents and children, the bonds between parents and children and between parents and the school community are strengthened. The social workers are available to parents and help them with special problems, teach parenting skills, and assist parents to be involved in their child's learning, through mailings, telephone contacts, teacher conferences, open houses, and at-home visits during the year.

Building a Village -- Although not the program's primary purpose, one underlying value of the EIP has come from the quality of its community-building partnership -- among the school's administration, two community centers, the City's Division of Parks and Recreation, the classroom teachers, school social-workers and support staff, the parents, and the children, themselves. This "community" of persons from each of these sectors has provided support to the program and to the children. The children in the EIP represent approximately 20% of the student body. These are children who have demonstrated that they need help learning and using appropriate social behaviors. As they have learned new perspectives and behaviors, they, in turn and at their own level, have provided support back into all these systems through their improved modeling, sensitivity, and influence on others -- students, teachers, and parents. Children will gladly contribute what it is that they have available to give.

A similar dynamic has happened among parents, teachers, social workers, and administrative staff. The EIP social workers have enhanced the quality of the school's culture simply by being in the school, operating the program in the school, and modeling child-supportive behaviors. Basic attitudes and behaviors of cooperation, communication, support, and understanding have improved throughout the school, in part because of interaction with the social workers and the children in the program.

Adapting to a New Home -- Children entering a new school from another location, especially another city, often need some counseling about the differences in norms and expectations in their new community. What is acceptable or even responsible for one's survival in another community may be dysfunctional in this community. Similar to an adult moving to another country, these children need information about how to behave in their new culture, or they will make blunders that are embarrassing or threatening, type them as "problems," and hinder their success. Usually, no one talks directly about these differences or their impact. Everyone is frustrated by the results when such norms clash. Self-image and effectiveness suffer. Anecdotal data, provided through volunteered responses over the years, has described how the EIP helped children adapt to this new culture, and that newly-arrived children and parents had easier and more successful transitions because of their involvement with the EIP.

Community Events -- Community-building has happened, too, through social events that include the whole family. The Fun Nights -- pizza or chicken and bingo, roller-skating parties, ball games, theater events -- have brought members of many families together for a fun evening. Through the course of the evening, families interact with other families in supportive ways. Some family members have few if any other such safe and fun experiences in their day-to-day routine. Once experienced, families tend to return and to encourage other families to attend also. Community-building happens, family by family, year by year.

Trust -- Trust is a first criteria to have in place before learning can happen. Trust builds over time. Increasingly, over the seven years of the evaluation, teachers, students, and parents learned to understand the goals of the program, saw results in students, understood the value of the process, and got to know the social workers. Incrementally, an increased level of trust was built and communication improved.

Repetition -- There appears to be a correlation between the number of years a child spends in the program and the visibility of positive results. Repetition is necessary to learning, in general. The more years a child was exposed to the EIP, the better were the results. Even though, statistically, the sample of children who were enrolled in the program for all six years of their elementary education was too small to document this statement with significant statistical evidence, a trend appears. This is not at all surprising, given what is known and documented about resiliency in children and the need for at least one supportive and consistent adult over time in their lives for healthy child development. If the program were expanded to, say, five or six schools and continued for a ten-year period, along with a pre-established evaluation strategy, these trends could be verified statistically.

The Early Intervention Program has had a positive effect on the lives of many children and their families. Even the limited data collected about this small sample of students point to this conclusion. Although the actual number of children with multiple years of exposure is small, and no conclusive results can be drawn from them, the data clearly point in the direction of improvement, whether looked at annually or longitudinally and quantitatively or anecdotally.

The significant conclusion is that this program has the potential to make a positive difference for children whose young lives are very difficult. For very low cost and little intervention, children's lives have been improved, each year and over all the years of the program. Families have become more functional; disruptive behaviors in the home, school, and classroom have been lessened. Teachers have been supported and the classroom environment improved through the relationships built among the social workers, students, families, community centers and teachers. The program has helped teachers return to a more effective level in the classroom, knowing that another nearby professional person cares about the success of their students and by helping with the dysfunction that, otherwise, they would have to handle alone.

Although not documented conclusively here, the effects of the intervention are likely to be lasting over time. Other studies show that once a person is aware of a more satisfying way of behaving and can use those skills to meet their needs, they are unlikely to give it up. The child and family members have gained new insights and learned new skills that they can carry forward throughout their lives and, in turn, teach to others either directly or through role modeling. Currently, there is no example of what the effects could be if the program were carried into the middle and high school years. There is an immediate opportunity here, though, for the Saint Paul Schools and/or Ramsey County Human Services to test the program on a much larger scale and over a longer period of time, with a more complete longitudinal data-collection plan and process in place prior to beginning an expanded program.

Prevention -- The public's emphasis on prevention is growing as people become more aware of and frustrated with the pervasiveness of negative behaviors in our society, especially in our children. The increasing costs of punishment and containment are exploding beyond our willingness to pay. Dissatisfaction with current policy shows up everywhere, no matter which side of the policy one is on. George Will commented in his syndicated column, that America has 519 persons imprisoned per 100,000 citizens, compared to 36 in Japan. At incarceration costs of $20,000 to $70,000 annually, prevention becomes more appealing. If preventive actions at an early age can be shown to make a difference, now is the time to put them to the test. The EIP is a program worth testing on a larger scale and over a longer term. The structure of the Early Intervention Program is more than just prevention. It is asset building. It identifies and focuses on the strengths that each child has and can use to affect his or her life positively. Those strengths are then supported and reinforced as new skills are learned, awareness about themselves and others is expanded, and new insights about relationships and interdependency are gained. Living from this approach helps to create a successful person, no matter what their circumstances.

Replication -- A pilot replication project was conducted during the 1993-1994 school year at two additional grade-school sites in the St. Paul School District within the service areas of the participating community agencies. The effort was conducted to determine how easily an Early Intervention Program could be transferred and implemented at a new site.

The EIP replication project was welcomed by the two paired schools, Maxfield and Galtier. They, too, had a significant number of children experiencing similar social and emotional difficulties that presented obstacles to their success in school. Because the need was there and there was some familiarity with the EIP, the service was welcomed immediately.

The program came to the schools highly recommended by the Longfellow Humanities Magnet principal, social worker, and staff. This allowed for the trust that had been established at Longfellow School to transfer to the new sites. This trust allowed the staff at the new schools to quickly rely on EIP staff to implement their program. After children were referred and parent permission was obtained, groups were established and run in each school. About fifteen children participated in this pilot replication.

When a similar, demonstrable need exists at a new site, this program is readily welcomed.

Replication at new sites can be achieved with relative ease when the trust already established at the original site is conveyed to the new site.

This is a promising finding. The EIP, although fundamentally a local, community-based effort, is readily capable of replication at any location.

The Early Intervention Program now has eight years of successful experience at Longfellow Humanities Magnet School. This is valuable experience on which to draw for developing similar programs in other locations. There is a willingness and a potential for program replication. Staff at other schools know that the need is great among their students and are open to being involved in developing the program for their children and families when they understand the goals and operation of the Early Intervention Program.

The EIP is no longer a new idea. It is a tried method of positive intervention in the lives of children, their families, their classrooms, and their school. It can be an integral and primary part of a child's learning experience, not simply an add-on to the academic experience or the teachers' responsibilities. Lack of reliable, long-term funding is the only deterrent to program expansion and to continuation. The McKnight Foundation has supported the EIP continuously for eight years, funding it initially under its Aid to Families in Poverty Program, and has funded the preliminary investigation into possible replication. The Greater Saint Paul Area United Way funding has supported the program continuously. Ongoing tax-based funding, most likely from the Saint Paul School District or Ramsey County, would be necessary to continue the EIP at a fully effective level and to replicate it elsewhere.

It is to the advantage of the public, the schools, and the social service agencies to ensure that all elementary age children are being trained early and assisted in the development of healthy social skills and personal attitudes about themselves and others, in addition to their academic training. This learning has not been the primary focus of the classroom curriculum, nor does it need to be. For those children who need it, help can be experienced in a community setting in interactive collaboration with the schools and parents. Then, those newly learned skills can be brought by the student to the classroom, the home, and the community. The community-based EIP model does this well.

Either now or later, society will eventually have to deal with the behaviors of these children. The humane and cost-effective approach is to work with them, now, at the youngest level possible. There are many program models across the country which have similar goals. Some are operated totally within the school administration, some are totally independent of the local schools. EIP provides a community- and family-building partnership model.

The lives of many of these children are troubled and complicated beyond the experience of most adults. They deal with teachers and family members who may not understand their circumstances and some who may not support their changes toward healthier behaviors. Some of these children have almost insurmountable issues to resolve regarding conflicting values and loyalties in their lives outside of their intervention group. Some children in a group, even at this elementary-school age, may have to face the challenge of growing and behaving at a level beyond the social and emotional age of their parents.

The cost of this intervention is small -- an average of $1,000 per year per child -- when compared to interventions later in the person's life. Rather than being an added cost and responsibility plugged into an already overloaded school district curriculum and budget, a funding partnership could be built. Human service and crime prevention funds would be very appropriate for this early intervention program to reduce social problems, violence, and criminal behaviors. Ramsey County court records show that for the 250 children with eight or more arrests, on average their first arrest was age eight, for many it was age five or six. The cost to keep one child in juvenile corrections for one year is reported in the same document as being between $43,000 and 63,000 per year. Keeping one child from a first arrest and then out of the system could pay for 50 children to participate in the EIP.

Programs that work best at preventing juvenile delinquency have one common element, according to Ramsey County Sheriff, Bob Fletcher, in the same report. "The child must develop a relationship with a significant adult role model whom they believe is concerned for their needs and who practices and demonstrates positive values." The EIP provides this adult and experience for some children and, with funding, could provide it for many more.

What people say about the EIP -- Each year the program has been basically the same -- the mechanics of the program, the number and grade-level of the students served, the ethnicity mix of the participants, the number of parents and teachers involved, and the test scores of the students all have remained relatively stable. Upon closer comparison, however, positive attitudes and effects have multiplied bit-by-little-bit, throughout the school, the households, and the children. All have become more empowered. This is a community construction project -- constructing more resilient people who build on each other's growth and development. Here's a sample of what they say.

The teachers said, "All children want to be in EIP. EIP needs more people, more time, more one-to-one with kids. We're fortunate to have the program in our school. It should be available in all schools. Social needs are greater. Family needs are greater. Growing up is harder. Please keep the program."

The principal said, "Over the years, school and EIP staff have learned to work together and to provide the sanest environment possible for all children. The EIP is ahead of its time. The idea is beginning to be talked about elsewhere and accepted. It is strength-focused and builds resiliency. "At-risk" and other negative labels are discouraged. It is individually and developmentally based."

The parents said, "Because it helped my child, it helped me. Very good program. He passes it along to other kids and adults. It helped me with communicating and trusting. He's made lots of growth. Says he 'belongs.' Esteem and grades went way up. Now seeks peer friendships. Learned to admit when he was wrong. Reads well, swears less. Opened up. Validates me as a parent. A great year. Helpful, YES!!."

The children said, "I learned skills which helped me talk about my feelings. We can talk about our feelings. I'm more aware of what is going on with me and others. It's a safe place to practice feelings. It helps me deal with my anger. We get to draw pictures. We get Family Fun nights and pizza."

Comments such as these, made over a period of years, point out the disruptive lives and frustrations that some young children face and the limited examples and skills they have for understanding and dealing with these emotions in positive ways. This gets in the way of their personal development and their education. The EIP helps children deal with their lives. It is cost-effective. It builds trust and community. The children are partners in helping to reconnect parents, neighborhoods, and schools through the known and trusted local community center. The partnership approach is effective. Adequate time and funding is essential.

Ongoing Outcomes -- Single and/or working parents, especially, commented on the importance of a male role model, lasting relationships over a multi-year period, and a positive "family-like" setting for their children which included adults and peers in a shared experience.

The most common improvements in child behavior were noted in areas of attentiveness, listening, staying with task, and less blaming of others. Site Based Management also had a positive effect on parent and teacher involvement. Each year showed more integration of the ways in which parents can be involved in the school and teachers can have more understanding of and empathy for each child's home situation.

Our schools still touch the lives of each and every child, and, like it or not, none of our children can be taught the three "R's" until they are secure in their personal environment and sense of who they are. Right now, moment by moment they are growing up. Children are sharply aware of the behavior of their parents and teachers. When parents are directly involved in their school lives, children usually make more improvement. When teachers show interest in the child's life as a whole, the child's behavior improves. Studies are finding and empirical data supports that children can be very resilient through terrible traumas when they get understanding and support from at least one significant person in their lives, even someone other than a parent. For some children, the social workers can be that person.

Effective communication is essential for the problem-solving and teamwork needed in today's world and workforce, regardless of the job. Without the extended or large family setting of a few generations ago, and with the segmented workplace and community, it is hard for children or adults to learn and practice multi-generational and interactive skills. EIP groups teach, in a team setting, the skills of inquiry, reflection, handling change, critical thinking, communication, interaction, negotiation, and collaboration -- all necessary for a fully functioning child or adult in today's society.

Many adults, educated in yesterday's schools, are under-equipped to deal effectively with the changing, complex, and interactive world in which they find themselves. Today's world is not the world in which they grew up nor the world of their expectations; frequently it is experienced as worse. Paths to improvement are unclear or appear thwarted for them and for some children. Insecurity, stress, and frustration run awry, leaving observant and dependent children fearful and confused with no clear strategy or trust level for finding a nurturing mentor or healthy peer group to show new possibilities.

Disruptive Lives -- Some children have participated in the EIP for five years. Five years for a child is a long time, for these children about half their life. We have taken a more in-depth, individualized look at these children. Some have shown marked improvement. Some have not. What has this taught us to question about the value of the EIP and the development of our children? We have learned that disruptions in the flow of life are constant and commonplace with many of these children, and that they continue throughout their lives. When added to the normal personality and awareness changes in the development of a child, and complicated by social changes and hormonal changes, it is difficult to separate out cause and effect. Children need support ongoingly during their developmental years. Here are examples of some of the disruptions in the development of these children.

In some children, something traumatic goes on as they prepare to leave one school and move on to another level in their lives. Preparing for seventh grade and an unknown environment impacts negatively on the behaviors of some sixth graders, especially those who do not have healthy social skills, who do not feel secure in the rest of their lives, or for whom change is usually experienced as negative, threatening, and out of their control.

School professionals have found that the disruptions previously associated with adolescence are impacting children at an even earlier age -- ages eleven and twelve, while children are still in the primary grades. These physical and mental changes can cause disruptions in any child's academic and social relationships in the school setting, at home and in the community.

For some children, where crises are less frequent or severe, a program like the EIP can intervene for a brief time, a year or less, and aid dramatically in making their transition a positive one. Some children have an "ah-ha" experience early in the program and make significant changes almost immediately. Some one-time traumas where early intervention may provide dramatic results include: family relocation, starting a new school mid-year, a death or illness in the family, loss of a job or income in the family, parent remarriage or relationship, adoption, foster-care placement, or observation of violence.

For other children, their personal lives are in constant, ongoing crisis. Crises ebb and flow, overlap, continue, and alter but are never totally resolved. Normal daily living for these children is traumatic. For some children, the EIP is their lifeline to a more sane world. This or another lifeline needs to continue in their lives year after year. Trust of adults is often lacking in these children and needs to be built over time through continued relationships. It may take a couple of years before true trust is established and a couple of years more to effect any change in the child or their family. Building trust with the parents may take even longer. To be most effective, a program has to exist for a long and continuous time period.

Unrealistic Expectations -- Records show that a number of the children identified for the Early Intervention Program entered school with much higher than average expectations and with much lower than average social maturity. On a test scale of 1-100, some children registered in the 80s and 90s on their expectations of school and as low as 1 and 2 on their social maturity. With such a disparity in their hopes for school and in their complete lack of social skills to obtain the benefits of school, it not difficult to understand why these once enthusiastic children might very quickly identify themselves as failures and their hopes as unattainable. Without intervention, these children have little chance to catch up.

Much more research would have to be done, both in detail level and sample size, to determine the truth of this hypothesis. When one considers that many of the children enrolled in the EIP come to school from dysfunctional families where nurturing and healthy social interaction may be limited, it is no wonder that these children would show such heightened expectation at first, followed by extreme disappointment.

Both the principal and teachers have mentioned during interviews with them, the disheartening observations they have made of children coming to kindergarten for the first time, their eyes and bodies alive with enthusiasm, hope, and excitement, only to look dull and depressed after just a few weeks in school. Once these children compare themselves to the experience and abilities of the rest of the class, as all children do, they find themselves severely lacking and begin to withdraw or act out in inappropriate ways. Without early and caring intervention, their learning spiral leads downward beginning at kindergarten.

The basic component of the program is its small group sessions. The Early Intervention Program works with small groups of students outside of their daily classroom activities. Here, grade-school children who are demonstrating inappropriate social and attitudinal behaviors are helped to develop healthy problem-solving skills. Shortly after the beginning of the school year, teachers target first through sixth grade "at risk" children in their classrooms for participation. Permission of parents is required before children can participate. Some parents refuse. In small-group settings, through games and dialogue at an age-appropriate level, children and adults share in an inquiry that helps children learn healthy ways of relating to problems in their lives. Each year, an average of ten small groups have met weekly under the leadership and intervention of two skilled social worker teams.

The two participating community centers and the school are well established and respected in the neighborhood and beyond. For many generations there has been local community involvement and a sense of ownership with all of these public facilities. Since 1973, Merriam Park and Hallie Q. Brown community centers have operated a similar interracial, but less intensive, small group assistance program for community children, using one male/female social-worker team. These "Friendship Groups" proved very popular and helpful to the 40-or-so children who participated each year. Through the McKnight Foundation grant, the program was expanded to include 90 children annually. The program curriculum was structured to use stronger behavior-modification methods and clarification of values about attitudinal and behavioral alternatives. The second male/female team of two skilled social workers was added to handle the doubled number of participants.

The Goal -- This program is structured to bring lifelong behavioral change in children, by helping them learn ways to clarify their values, the very way they look at life and themselves, by accepting what they can't change, and by giving them new problem-solving tools with which to build their lives so they can operate at a higher level of peak performance. Their worlds and the world around them will continue to change. The tools provided help them make good choices in a life of change, and to choose a course toward personal growth and healthy development no matter how unstable their environment may be.

The Model -- The program model is based on continuous reflection, insight, and skill-building for the children and adults. Each year the percentage of children in the school who need help with such skill-building has risen, not declined. Each year the program has been better understood by all parties involved and has become more effective. Modifications have been made each year based on the evaluation outcomes, the experiences of those involved, and their reflections on the changing circumstances. The community center identity helps the program reach and involve certain parents more effectively than a school employee could, and the cost is less than it would be for additional school staff positions.

The persons who lead the groups are experienced social workers who work in the community and skillfully coach the children into supportive relationships where positive learning and healthy interdependence can be experienced. These coaches are adult role models, sometimes the only adults who take time regularly to listen to and talk seriously and intimately with these children. The adult-child relationships built here often continue over a number of years. For some highly challenged children, the same coaching relationship has spanned all their elementary-school years.

For its members, the EIP provides an activity and a positive identity of their very own. They have been specially selected to participate. Other children have special activities: scouts, band, choir, church, etc.; these students have EIP. They belong to something; they can keep what they get from it for themselves and they can share it with others when they choose. (During the annual evaluations, adults stated that these children share generously with their parents, siblings, peers, and teachers).

The basic premise and format have remained substantially the same throughout its existence. Each year the benefits become more obvious, as more of the people involved (students, teachers, parents, social workers) understand the program. The effects of the activities have a cascading effect. When the attitudes or behaviors of one person change, his or her new ways of relating to others changes the other person's behavior, too. Given time, these cumulative changes have become obvious within the school-wide culture.

Financial Support -- The McKnight Foundation has been the primary source of financial support, funding the EIP initially under its Aid to Families in Poverty Program. McKnight also funded the preliminary investigation into possible replication. The Greater Saint Paul Area United Way has supported the program continuously through agency and project funding. Additional financial support has been provided by the following agencies.

Numerous other individuals and community organizations have supported portions of the program, either by direct funding or by their contributions of time, supplies, or services. Each contribution, no matter how small, has added to the quality the EIP and to its accessibility to children and their families.

Longitudinal Study Background -- The students in the comparison group were selected from schools with similar student characteristics. Arrangements for data collection were made with the school district, Saint Paul Public Health, and Ramsey County Community Corrections. These data were to be compiled, aggregated, and formatted while retaining student confidentiality. The behaviors that were chosen originally to be researched included:

Changes in course grades was not a category included in the original plan because the program was not focused on showing significant improvements in academic course work. Information on credit loss is included, however. Teen pregnancy/birth records were not searched because of time considerations. Chemical use/dependency data also was not easily accessible in any useful form for this evaluation. Additional explanation and information is available in the Appendix which follows. The Appendix contains the full report by Kristin Blum, intern, who completed all of the longitudinal, quantitative data collection and compilation. She is commended here for her work on and commitment to this project.

Descriptive Statistics	Longfellow total enrolled (n-253)	Longfellow selected (n=229)	Longfellow 1st year tot. (n=89)	Longfellow 1st year sel. (n=80)	Comparison 1st year (n=69)
Average Age	14	13	15	15	16
Gender
Male	166 (66%)	151 (66%)	67 (75%)	60 (75%)	48 (68%)
Female	87 (34%)	78 (34%)	22 (25%)	20 (25%)	23 (33%)
Race
Caucasian	89 (35%)	38 (35%)	38 (43%)	35 (44%)	28 (41%)
African American	140 (55%)	125 (55%)	44 (49%)	39 (49%)	40 (58%)
Hispanic	9 ( 4%)	8 ( 4%)	4 ( 4%)	3 ( 4%)	1 ( 1%)
Asian/Pacific Isls.	8 ( 3%)	8 ( 4%)	0	0	0
Native American	7 ( 3%)	7 ( 3%)	3 ( 3%)	3 ( 4%)	0
Outcomes
Attendance	90.6%	91.0%	89.5%	90.2%	87.8%
Highest Offense
Status (truancy, runaway, etc.)	7 ( 3%)	5 ( 2%)	4 ( 5%)	4 ( 5%)	1 ( 1%)
Convictions
Misdemeanor	25 (10%)	19 ( 8%)	12 (14%)	9 (11%)	3 (4%)
Gross Misdemeanor	0	0	0	0	8 (12%)
Felony	30 (12%)	24 (11%)	16 (18%)	13 (16%)	13 (19%)
Total With Conviction(s)	55 (22%)	43 (19%)	28 (32%)	22 (27%)	24 (35%)
Credit Loss	(n=124) 17.2%		(n=69) 17.4%		(n=55) 20.98%

Category	Longfellow total enrolled (n-253)	Longfellow selected (n=229)	Longfellow 1st year tot. (n=89)	Longfellow 1st year sel. (n=80)	Comparison 1st year (n=69)
Average Age	14	13	15	15	16
Attendance	90.6%	91.0%	89.5%	90.2%	87.8%
Highest Offense
Misdemeanor	25/10%	19/08%	12/14%	9/11%	3/04%
Gr. Misdemeanor	0	0	0	0	8/12%
Felony	30/12%	24/11%	16/18%	13/16%	13/19%
Total Conviction(s)	55/22%	43/19%	28/32%	22/27%	24/35%	20.98%

EARLY INTERVENTION POVERTY PREVENTION PROGRAM 1988-1995

EARLY INTERVENTION POVERTY PREVENTION PROGRAM
1988-1995