Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community

APPDEV-00774; No of Pages 9 Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community Jonathan F. Zaff a,⁎, Elizabeth Pufall Jones b, Katie Aasland b, Alice E. Donlan b, Emily S. Lin b, Jennifer Elise Prescott b, Alexandra Baker b a b America's Promise Alliance Tufts University a r t i c l e i n f o Available online xxxx Keywords: Comprehensive community initiatives Alignment Community needs Family needs a b s t r a c t Youth-focused comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) exist to create the conditions so all young people may have the developmental supports needed to thrive. Research shows alignment is a key ingredient for meaningful change in a community. The current study discusses the theoretical basis for the importance of alignment, and provides a method to measure alignment of perceived needs in the community using semistructured interview data. Our results suggest a method of using the perceptions of multiple stakeholders to reveal that there are alignments and misalignments across the levels of a community. Direct service providers (DSP) and families had the most alignment, while the least alignment was between the CCI leadership and families. Further, DSP and families stressed basic needs (such as needing to pay bills and buy food, or needing transportation), while CCI leadership stressed the need for the creation and/or implementation of academic programmatic efforts to ensure positive developmental outcomes. © 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. Comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) have been promoted over the past 30 years as entities that can bring together sectors and individuals to address complex problems that are believed to be immune to single interventions (e.g., Wolff, 2001). A key assumption of CCIs is that all facets of the community are interconnected and important to achieving positive change within the community (Kubisch, 2010). CCIs assess, design, and implement policies and programs that leverage the capacity of the community, and have traditionally targeted issues related to public health, social welfare, housing, education, and community development (Kubisch, 2010). In particular, CCIs focused on young people are positioned to coordinate efforts, resources, and funding across organizations to cultivate human, institutional, and social capital (together considered community capacity) that a community would need to resolve the needs of their young people (Chaskin, 2001). Community capacity has been shown to improve the available developmental supports and positive developmental outcomes for young people (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Unfortunately, relatively few youth-focused CCIs have been effective at attaining communitylevel impacts (see Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001; Kubisch, 2010; Roussos & Fawcett, 2000 for reviews). However, community-level impacts have been found when CCIs are aligned across the levels of a community, with the vision and programmatic strategies of each level aligning with the strategies and implementation of actions and programs; and in turn, those actions and ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: jonz@americaspromise.org (J.F. Zaff). programs aligning with the children and youth who are the focus of the efforts (e.g., Auspos, 2010; Hawkins et al., 2008; Spoth, Guyll, Redmond, Greenberg, & Feinberg, 2011). In this paper, we explore the degree to which three CCI's visions and perceived needs of the community are aligned with the needs identified by direct service providers, and youth and their families in the communities. To complement and extend the current literature, we present an in-depth examination of alignment of vision and perceived needs across levels of a community system. In our introduction, we discuss theory that supports the notion that misalignment creates roadblocks for success whereas alignment facilitates opportunities. Then we use cross-case qualitative analyses (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to explore alignment and misalignment within three communities, and finally propose ways to improve alignment within CCIs. Consistent with Relational Developmental Systems Theories that emphasize the importance of person ← → multiple-context relations (RDST; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Lerner, 2012; Overton, 2013), alignment within and across levels of a community system should lead to a higher likelihood of achieving positive developmental outcomes (Brandtstädter, 1998; Zaff & Smerdon, 2009). However, CCIs do not often meet the ideal of alignment within and across levels, and instead show a lack of alignment or even misalignment across the levels of the community (e.g., among decision-makers, practitioners, and the families and youth at the center of the CCI's work; Auspos, 2010). Thus, we propose that one reason for modest or null effects of CCIs on youth outcomes is a lack of alignment. For the purposes of this study, we define alignment as sharing the same or complementary perceived http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 0193-3973/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc. Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 2 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx community needs and how these needs will be met, across multiple levels of the community (e.g., community leaders, business leaders, parents, and youth). The link between alignment of vision and action within and across levels of a community and impact has been explicit (e.g., Auspos, 2010; Nowell, 2010; White & Wehlage, 1995) or implicit in numerous studies of CCIs (e.g., Fagan, Hanson, Hawkins, & Arthur, 2009). Auspos (2010) has discussed alignment in vision among members of collaborative units in numerous CCIs, and White and Wehlage (1995) found that there is often a lack of alignment between the decisions being made by the collaborative unit and the implementers of those decisions. In particular, Nowell (2010) found that misalignment across community collaborative stakeholders negatively impacted a collaboration's efforts to combat domestic violence. However, little research has been conducted on how to assess alignment. Therefore, we present an in-depth example of one way to assess alignment within three different communities. Our proposition that alignment is an essential ingredient for effective CCIs is based on RDST (e.g., Overton, 2013), previous research and evaluations of CCIs (e.g., Auspos, 2010; Nowell, 2010), and frameworks that have been developed for the functioning of CCIs (e.g., Foster-Fishman et al., 2001; Lasker, Weiss, & Miller, 2001). We start with the recognition that development is defined as the relation between an individual and her or his context (Lerner, 2012) and that individuals are embedded within multiple contexts or layers within their ecology (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Youths' ecologies extend from proximal relationships with other people (e.g., parents, teachers, youth workers, other adults in their communities), and organizations within which young people learn and grow (e.g., schools, faith-based institutions, youth development organizations), to more distal factors, such as public policies, economic conditions, and cultural norms (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Importantly, consistent with the tenets of RDST, all of these factors are part of an interconnected system, such that each piece influences other pieces and simultaneously influences the individual. In turn, the individual also exerts influence on the layers of the ecology that surrounds her (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). When applied to the lived experiences of youth, we call this system a youth system. When there is alignment among the contexts within the system and the individual strengths and needs of the individual (an ideal which we call a supportive youth system), the hypothesized results are adaptive developmental regulations for the individual and for the ecology around the individual (Brandtstädter, 1998); that is, a supportive youth system leading to benefits for the young person as well as benefits for the surrounding community. Extending this idea one step further, we propose that alignment within and across levels of the eco-system will facilitate the optimization of the youth system (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Alignment within a given level of a system is necessary but not sufficient for alignment across the entire system. For example, research has continually shown that it is important to have member agreement and alignment on vision and how to reach that vision within a collaborative body (e.g., Auspos, 2010). However, less work has focused on the importance of alignment across levels of the system (e.g., shared vision and goals among collaborative members, direct service providers, and families). Two CCI models provide illustrative examples of how to encourage cross-level alignment: Communities that Care (CTC) and PROSPER. The CTC community change system is a community collaborative model that focuses on identifying community needs, aligning relationships and contexts, choosing proven prevention programs, and implementing those programs with fidelity (Hawkins, Catalano, & Arthur, 2002). In addition to on-the-ground efforts to create alignment across contexts, the CTC process has explicit protocols in place to emphasize alignment. For instance, a core component of the CTC process is that key partners learn about (and ultimately internalize) the social development model. This model informs the community's selection and implementation of prevention programs and provides a frame through which to consider the creation of supportive conditions for youth in the community. In addition, the CTC staff conducts a needs assessment that is used to target the needs of the youth in the community. That is, instead of assuming that the council knows intuitively what issues youth in the community confront, the council surveys a representative sample of youth and asks them directly. CTC also explicitly encourages alignment across contexts through facilitating and emphasizing strong school-community relationships (Fagan et al., 2009). These core CTC components (coupled with choosing “proven” programs that address community needs and implementing the programs with fidelity) have resulted in significant and substantive impacts on reductions in incidence of alcohol, cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and overall acts of delinquency (Hawkins et al., 2008). The mechanisms for alignment for CTC are similar in the PROSPER model, a university–researcher–community partnership model designed to facilitate the effective delivery of prevention and intervention programs in schools and within families. A core component of this model is the Prevention Coordinator, who aligns the work of a community council with the needs of the community. A long-term impact study of PROSPER has shown substantive impacts on child, parent, and family outcomes, including drug and alcohol use, among others (Redmond et al., 2009). Others who have studied single-site CCIs have documented similar processes for understanding the needs (and strengths) of a community, developing strategies, and obtaining buy-in from program providers, practitioners, parents, and young people (e.g., Anderson-Butcher et al., 2008; Bringle, Officer, Grim, & Hatcher, 2009). These examples of successful collaborations impacting youth outcomes suggest alignment is integral. Researchers can also look to examples of unsuccessful initiatives to learn about the dangers of misalignment. For example, in the late 1980s and early 1990s the Annie E. Casey Foundation funded the New Futures Initiative, a five-city effort designed to improve the conditions within a community and support the community's young people. However, the initiative did not result in positive outcomes for youth, and teen pregnancy rates (a primary focus of the effort) increased during the program's tenure. In addition, it is questionable whether any structural changes (e.g., to policy or organizational capacity) implemented by the program were sustained over time (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1995). White and Wehlage (1995) concluded that there was misalignment between the vision of policymakers and the experiences of on-the-ground practitioners who worked with young people every day. They posited that desired change would occur if areas of misalignments became aligned. For example, a city agency that incorporates the lived experience of the youth in their community into policy changes would be more likely to have an impact on youth (White & Wehlage, 1995). In the case of The New Futures Initiative, those making the decisions and planning solutions tended to be senior-level officials in agencies and organizations, instead of a group of individuals who represented all aspects of a community. We propose that a major reason for the lack of youth-level effects from most collaborative work is the misalignment across levels of the CCI. Specifically, we suggest that a lack of alignment across collaborative entities, agencies, practitioners (e.g., executive-level and direct service providers), youth, and their families will limit the impact on community capacity and on social outcomes. The focus of the present study is to describe a method for assessing alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, including the CCI, those working directly with youth (i.e., direct service providers; DSP), and the youth and their families themselves. We focus on CCIs that have already been formed, have the same goal (all youth graduating from high school ready for college and/or career), and have agreed, as a community, to work together. We do not assess the connection of alignment to specific outcomes, but rather examine the alignment itself. Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Method This paper uses data from a larger, longitudinal, mixed-methods study of how communities come together to support young people. Data were collected at three levels of a community using multiple methods designed to elicit the most information from each level of the community: (1) CCI leadership (two sets of annual key respondent interviews with members of the CCI leadership); (2) direct service providers (two rounds of focus groups); and (3) youth and their caregivers (three semi-annual interviews with caregiver-youth dyads, in each community). Participants Participants were drawn from a longitudinal study focused on three urban communities that have an existing CCI focused on increasing the educational attainment of their children and youth. The communities are similar in terms of having a high rate of poverty and a large racial and ethnic minority population. However, there were differences (which we describe below) across the communities in terms of their demographic composition, as well as how each defined their area of intervention. Similar methods for recruitment were used in each community, with each level of the CCI requiring a different method used for recruitment (i.e., CCI leadership, direct service providers and Youth and Caregiver dyads). Here, we describe each community context and the participants from that community. Community A Community A is a mid-sized southern city, where the CCI defined a 120 contiguous block target area for intervention. Within these 120 blocks, 51.3% of families live below the federal poverty level, and 69% are families with children 18 years-old or younger living below the poverty level (United States Census Bureau, 2010; see Table 1). In this community, 60.3% are unemployed or not in the labor force, and 31.5% are only high school graduates or equivalent (United States Census Bureau, 2010). In this city as a whole, violent crime is 725.9 instances per 100,000 people in the city in 2012 (United States Department of Justice, 2012). The majority of youth in the schools located within this Table 1 Community demographics. Demographics Community A B C 8.10% 1.90% 3.00% Single male with own children Single female with 16.50% 11.40% 16.20% own children Education Less than 9th grade 18.60% 5.00% 11.50% No diploma (9–12) 20.40% 10.30% 8.40% High school 31.50% 25.10% 25.70% graduate/equivalent Place of birth Foreign born 12.70% 5.60% 38.00% Language English only 71.80% 90.20% 42.80% School Sex Male 50.03% 51.04% 49.87% Female 49.97% 49.72% 50.13% Race/ethnicity Hispanic 27.30% 10.11% 45.03% Black 65.01% 73.07% 13.81% White 5.03% 18.18% 32.07% Other 2.66% 5.37% 9.09% Free and reduced-price lunch 76.07% 80.23% 74.09% eligible Economic Income b poverty level 51.30% 21.80% 22.70% With children under 69.00% 32.90% 35.50% 18 years Employment Population Unemployed 12.40% 7.30% 5.30% 16+ Not in labor force 47.90% 37.40% 27.50% Violent Per 100,000 2010 706.90 754.20 324.70 Crime 2011 738.20 792.00 370.00 2012 725.90 815.20 348.40 Personal Family structure 3 120 block area that the CCI targets are African American, and the majority of the student population receives free or reduced-price lunch (between 68.4% and 89.5%) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). In Community A, we interviewed 18 caregiver and youth dyads; the majority of caregivers (n = 17) and youth (n = 10) were female (see Table 2). The mean caregiver age was 42.12 (SD = 11.23) and the mean age for youth was 12.37 (SD = .92) at the time of our first interview. Fifteen families described themselves as Black and the other three Latino. Dyads were recruited using a variety of methods including posting flyers within the 120-block area and outreach from CCI members. Through our relationship and regular meetings with the CCI leadership, we were able to conduct interviews with 7 members of the leadership and focus groups with 36 DSPs. Community B Community B is a large urban city in the south. The CCI in this community focuses on the entire city as its targeted area of intervention. In this city, 21.8% of families live below the federal poverty level, and 32.9% are families with children 18 years-old or younger living below the poverty level (United States Census Bureau, 2010; see Table 1). In this city 44.8% are unemployed or not in the labor force, and 25.1% are only high school graduates or equivalent (United States Census Bureau, 2010). Further, violent crime was 815.2 instances per 100,000 people in the city during 2012 (United States Department of Justice, 2012). The majority of youth in the schools in this city are African American (73.07%), and the majority of the student population receives free or reduced-priced lunch (80.23%) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). In Community B, we interviewed 15 caregiver and youth dyads; the majority of caregivers (n = 14) and youth (n = 9) were female (see Table 2). The mean caregiver age was 40 (SD = 6.47) and the mean age for youth was 12.1 (SD = 1.06) at the time of our first interview. The majority of families (n = 13) described themselves as Black. Dyads were recruited using a variety of methods including posting flyers in schools and through the outreach of CCI members. Through our relationship and regular meetings with the CCI leadership, we were able to conduct interviews with 10 members of the leadership and focus groups with 31 DSPs. Community C Community C is a small urban community in the northeast. The CCI chose a specific public housing development within the city as their targeted intervention area. This housing development lies within a census tract where 22.7% of families live below the federal poverty level, and 35.5% are families with children 18 years-old or younger (United States Census Bureau, 2010; see Table 1). In this area 32.8% are unemployed or not in the labor force, and only 25.7% are high school graduates or equivalent (United States Census Bureau, 2010). In this census tract area, only 42.8% of the population use English as the primary language at home (United States Census Bureau, 2010). Further, violent crime is 348.4 instances per 100,000 people in the city overall during 2012 (United States Department of Justice, 2012). The majority of youth attending schools central to the housing development are Hispanic (45.03%), followed by White (32.07%), and Black (13.81%). The majority of the student population received free or reducedpriced lunch (74.09%). In Community C, over the course of the longitudinal study we interviewed 19 caregiver and youth dyads; all of the caregivers were female and the majority of youth were male (n = 9) (see Table 2). The mean caregiver age was 41.64 (SD = 6.97) and the mean age for youth was 12.54 (SD = 1.50) at the time of our first interview. Six families described themselves as Black, 7 as Latino, and 5 as White. Dyads were recruited using a variety of methods including posting flyers in schools and throughout the housing development, CCI member outreach, and with assistance from community informants. Through our relationship, and regular meetings with the CCI leadership, we were Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 4 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Table 2 Participant demographics. Participant type Youth/caregiver dyads Demographic Sex (F/M) Age (SD) Marital STATUS Education Employment Housing status Race/ethnicity Grade Community Youth Caregiver Youth Caregiver Married Single Divorced Cohabitation Widowed Separated High school or less Some college Associates degree Technical school Bachelors degree Graduate school Employed Unemployed — looking Unemployed — not looking Retired Rent Own African-American/Black Latino/Hispanic White Other 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th Collaborative leadershipa Direct service providersa a A B C 18 10/8 17/1 12.37 (.92) 42.12 (11.23) 2 4 1 1 1 – 4 4 – – – – 4 2 1 1 7 1 15 3 – – – 14 3 1 – 7 36 15 9/6 14/1 12.1 (1.06) 40 (6.47) 7 5 3 – – – 2 4 1 – 3 5 11 3 1 – 7 8 13 1 – 1 – 5 6 4 1 10 31 19 8/9 19/0 12.54 (1.5) 41.64 (6.97) 7 3 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 2 – 4 2 8 – 19 – 6 7 5 1 2 3 8 3 – 8 28 Demographic data were not collected for collaborative leadership or direct service providers. able to recruit and conduct interviews with 8 members of the leadership and focus groups with 28 DSPs. Materials To examine alignment across levels of the CCIs, and to explore similarities and differences in alignment among the respective CCIs, we conducted a cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). For this analysis we completed meta-matrices (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which are complex visualizations of qualitative data that allow a researcher to infer meaning and analyze themes. To complete these meta-matrices enabling cross-case comparisons, we condensed data (Miles & Huberman, 1994) from a variety of measures across the various levels of the CCI (i.e., the CCI leadership, direct service provider, and youth and caregivers). Below we describe the measures we used to collect the data, the procedures we used to collect data, and the specific selection of data we used for our current analysis. CCI leadership interview The questions for the key respondent interviews with members of the CCI leadership focused on their perceptions and attitudes about the youth and families they serve, their organization, and the structures and processes of the CCI. The interviews were semi-structured, so while there was a list of questions developed to understand these aspects of the CCI, interviewers were given the flexibility of asking follow up probes, or skipping over questions, dependent upon the respondent's answers. Direct service provider (DSP) Focus Groups The DSP focus group questions explored the direct service provider's experiences and work with families in their service community. Questions focused on their perceptions and attitudes about the youth and families they serve, the structures and processes at play in their various organizations, their specific work with youth and families, their perceived impact of this work, and what they believed was necessary to truly have an impact on the lives of families in their service community. We also asked questions so that we could understand their knowledge of the CCI in the community and the impact that the CCI had on their direct service work. Youth and caregiver interviews The focus of these interviews was to assess youth and caregivers' abilities to navigate and negotiate their communities to access the opportunities and resources they need to thrive academically, socially, and civically. The interviews were semi-structured so that while we developed a set group of questions to understand these aspects of their life experiences, interviewers were given the flexibility of asking follow up probes, or skipping over questions, dependent upon the respondent's answers. Procedure Procedure for CCI leadership interviews Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with executive members of the CCI boards/leadership committees in the respective communities at the beginning of the first and second year of our threeyear longitudinal study (Winter 2011 and Winter 2012 respectively). Members of the boards were recruited through the lead conveners, and we had samples of at least four board members in each community. The size and composition of the boards changed over the course of the year, and as a result we were not always able to follow-up with the same board members. However, the sample was refreshed with new Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx members of the board (see Table 2 for sample sizes). Interviews lasted 45 min to 1 h and were conducted in a private setting of the participant's choosing. For the current analysis, we engaged in an iterative coding process using the data from both executive member interviews with regards to what they identified as the needs and concerns of families in the community, and how and if the CCI was working to address the needs and concerns in the community. Given the iterative nature of the coding process, we describe the coding process fully in our analysis and results section. Procedure for direct service provider focus groups Through a partnership with the lead convener in each of the communities, we identified a set of organizations that would be most relevant to have their staff represented in the focus groups (i.e. the organizations had some form of affiliation with the CCI in the community). Once identified, we emailed the directors at each of the organizations indicating the purpose of the study, and asking them to nominate at least three exemplar DSPs from their organization to participate. We then contacted these DSPs and asked them to participate in a 45 minute focus group to discuss their work with families in their respective communities. Focus groups were conducted in public venues that were often in a central location and offered convenient parking and accessibility to public transportation (e.g., a school or community center located in the CCI footprint). Focus groups were audio taped, and the audio files were then coded in Atlas.ti 6. Focus groups were conducted twice during the course of our three-year study, at the beginning of the first year of the study (Winter 2011) and the beginning of the second year in the study (Winter 2012). For the current analysis, we engaged in an iterative coding process using the data from both focus groups with regards to the needs and concerns of families in the community as identified by DSPs. The iterative coding process is explained in our analysis. Procedure for youth and caregiver interviews Interviews were conducted semi-annually for three years (Spring of 2011–Spring of 2014) by graduate students for a total of six interviews per family. Whenever possible, the same graduate student conducted the interviews with the same caregiver/youth dyads in subsequent rounds, so that a rapport could be built between the participants and the researcher. Youth and caregiver interviews were conducted separately, and in private whenever possible. Interviews were conducted in the participants' home, or any other location where they felt comfortable and able to speak candidly about their life experiences. Youth interviews typically lasted 30 to 45 min, and caregiver interviews typically lasted 45 min to 1 h. All interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed for coding. For the current analysis, we engaged in an iterative coding process using rounds 1, 2, and 3 interviews (i.e., the Spring of 2011–Winter 2012, which was the same time period during which the collaborative leadership interviews and DSP focus groups were collected,) examining the needs and concerns identified by the dyads. The iterative coding process is explained in our analysis. Analysis and results We conducted a cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to examine alignment across levels of the CCIs, and to explore similarities and differences between the respective CCIs. For this analysis, each level of the CCI was considered a case (e.g., CCI leadership in Community A, DSP Community A, and Families Community A), and the variables analyzed were the needs of the community identified at each level (e.g., safety). To explore commonalities across levels within each CCI, as well as across levels between the CCIs, we developed metamatrices allowing us to stack cases so that we could look for common themes among the needs variables. We then partitioned (by exact 5 need) and clustered (type of need and by community) the data regarding participants' perceived needs (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Alignment of identified needs We used an iterative process for data analysis whereby coding continually informed our analysis and findings; each iteration of coding informed how we partitioned and clustered our codes for further analysis and the refinement of our findings. Each round of data (CCI leadership interviews, and DSP focus groups, and youth and caregiver interviews) was coded and analyzed by one post-doctoral fellow and five graduate students. Although our initial analyses focused on emerging themes within each level of the CCI, we noticed several prevalent themes that illustrated issues of alignment among the different levels. For example, in these initial stages of our analysis, we noticed very few DSPs knew about the CCIs in their communities. Looking closer, we noticed differing theories of change across levels of the systems (e.g., there was no shared vision for what different actors in the community wanted for their young people). Indeed, the theory of change for each participant group was informed by their varying backgrounds, and by what they thought would be best for accomplishing levers of success. Further, these conversations inevitably revolved around the perceived pervasive needs in the communities (e.g., financial assistance). Thus, we returned to our data in order to partition the needs of community members identified by our participants, and then cluster them by types, looking at how and if the perceived needs at each level of the CCI aligned with the others. Given that coding schemes and interview structures for these initial analyses varied across our participant groups, we developed a consistent method by which to extract needs from the interviews. The postdoctoral scholar and one graduate student from the research team returned to the interviews, coding schemes, coding memos, and written analyses, combining and condensing these components to derive a single structure by which to understand the identified needs of youth and families at each level of the community.1 Using this structure, we conducted our analysis examining the needs identified by each level in a given community for the first 1.5 years of data (i.e., 2 annual interviews with CCI leadership, 2 annual focus groups with direct service providers, and 3 semi-annual interviews with youth/caregiver dyads), constantly returning to the data to understand how each level (the CCI leadership, direct service providers, and the youth and caregivers) defined and addressed (or proposed to address) the need. We then tabulated the needs in meta-matrices, which allowed us to stack cases so that we could look for common themes among the needs variables, partitioning (by need) and clustering (by type of need and community) the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to illustrate how the needs aligned within each community, and if we noticed similarities across communities. To show how we arrived at the summary of alignment, we provide an illustrative case, depicting the overarching needs indicated for Community A, and how each level of the community discussed or defined the need (see Table 3). Exact needs could be defined in several different ways within any given type. For example, a financial need may be defined as a need for money to pay for a basic need, the need for adequate employment, and/or the need to fund enrichment opportunities for the youth. For this analysis, each definition of a need was regarded as an instance for possible alignment. Using the example above, financial was a type of need that was partitioned in the three above-defined ways, each of which is considered one instance. For example, instance 14 in Community A is agreed upon by all three levels of the CCI, thus indicating that the CCI leadership, DSPs and Families all agree that there is a need for a centralized source of information about resources in the community. This process of analysis showed that, overall, our communities lacked alignment, which we believe critical to understanding the impact of collaborative efforts on child and youth outcomes. After 1 The coding scheme is available from the corresponding author by request. Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 6 Need Parental Involvement Instance Level CCI DSP 1 Need to educate parents on parenting — parenting training 2 One off involvement techniques such as block parties and Kaboom builds, community dinners Also more sustained efforts such as parent advocates Need to help the parents be able to meet the needs of their children on their own — need to educate the parents so that they can break the cycle of poverty Need more than one off involvement like just coming to see your child in a play Need parent advocates to help parents navigate the school system Need more proactive involvement in the school rather than reactive Children need the same academic resources and building blocks as their peers 3 4 Academic 5 6 Safety Financial A need for early education that isn't siloed from other programming/schooling Need for tutoring — building out tutoring programs both in and outside of the school 7 8 9 Effective Communication 11 12 13 14 Enrichment Food 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Need tutoring/help after school Need structurally safe homes Need less violence in the community — drive by shootings No effective/affordable transportation 10 Need a one stop shop for opportunities — Benefit Bank to find out about financial, medical and enrichment resources Caregiver Struggle with meeting the day to day needs – paying the electrical bill – which inhibits involvement and long term planning Violence stems from poverty/we need to get rid of poverty Need to build trust among the families and providers Mobility hinders ability to get in touch with youth and families effectively and consistently Need to centralize information about resources at the school Need transportation to programs (cannot afford/provide own transportation due to financial hardship) Need free or help paying for programs because we cannot afford day to day needs much less enrichment opportunities Need better communication regarding opportunities/resources in the community Need for interpreters because of language barriers A pipeline of services Need a community center Need for more playgrounds/safe outdoor recreation space Need after school enrichment opportunities like art, music, sports and drama Need to be able to put food on the table Need to feed the children before you can teach the children Need more healthy food options in the community and at school School needs to provide food packs for the youth J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 Table 3 Alignment meta-matrix for community A. J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx Table 4 Frequency of agreement between levels of the community. Agreement Community CCI-DSP only DSP-Caregiver only CCI-Caregiver only CCI-DSP-Caregiver Total A B C 4/23 (17.39) 2/23 (8.69) 1/23 (4.35) 1/23 (4.35) 0/17 (0.00) 6/17 (35.29) 2/17 (11.76) 1/17 (5.88) 1/15 (6.66) 4/15 (26.66) 1/15 (6.66) 0/15 (0.0) 5/55 (9.09) 12/55 (21.81) 4/55 (7.27) 2/55 (3.63) developing an overall picture of alignment, we returned to the tables to further examine experiences of alignment within each community. Adding up all of the definitions across the three communities, there are a total of 55 instances on which levels of the CCI could potentially agree (Community A = 23, Community B = 17, and Community C = 15). Reading across each individual table indicates where and how CCI levels agreed on any given need definition (see Table 4). From our analysis, overall we found alignment in 23 out of the total possible 55 instances between at least two levels of the community. Two out of the 23 instances were aligned across all three levels (CCI, DSP and Youth-Caregiver). The most alignment occurred between DSP and Caregivers, which might be expected since the DSP in our study work directly with families in the communities. Agreement was lowest between CCI leadership and Caregivers, showing a possible disconnect between what families say they need to support their children and what the CCI eventually implements. Even if the CCI leadership focuses on a need that they uncover through careful analysis of the community, they might not have buy-in from Caregivers; thus reducing the likelihood that families will engage with the CCI-led initiatives. We found that Community B had the greatest alignment, with at least two levels agreeing on 9 out of a possible 17 instances of need definitions (see Table 4). This agreement occurred primarily between the DSPs and Caregivers (n = 6) and secondarily between the CCI leadership and Caregivers (n = 2); these included one instance where a need was defined in the same manner across all three levels of the community (i.e., parents need to be involved in the education process to ensure academic success). This was also the only instance where the CCI in Community B agreed with how the DSPs defined a need. Alternatively, while Community A had 8 agreements out of a possible 23 instances, the majority of agreements were between CCI executives and DSPs. From our analysis, we also were able to see which level of the community had the highest frequency of agreement with the other levels. Across the communities, we found that the DSP (19 out of 55 instances) and Caregiver levels (18 out of 55 instances) had more agreement with another level than the CCI leadership (11 out of 55). Frequency of agreement also varied by community. Community B had agreement among more than half of the instances (9 out of 17), while Community C (6 out of 15) and Community A (8 out of 23) had rates of agreement that were at 40% or below. We also found that 40% of needs expressed were unique needs; that is, needs that were expressed by only one of the levels of the community (see Table 5). The DSP level had the highest rate of unique needs, with fully one half of their expressed needs being unique. Caregivers and CCI leadership not only expressed fewer needs overall, but also expressed a lower rate of unique needs. Further, the ways needs were discussed varied by level. DSPs and Families were aligned in how they spoke regarding needs, focusing Table 5 Frequency (%) of “unique” needs by party. Party CCI DSP Caregiver Total Community Total A B C 1/7 (14.28) 11/18 (61.11) 3/7 (42.85) 15/32 (46.87) 2/5 (40.00) 5/12 (41.66) 1/10 (10.00) 8/27 (29.62) 3/5 (60.00) 3/8 (37.50) 3/8 (37.50) 9/21 (42.85) 6/17 (35.29) 19/38 (50.00) 7/25 (28.00) 32/80 (40.00) 7 primarily on the daily challenges that youth face and act as barriers to success (e.g., not having a consistent caring adult in the home, not enough food on the table, violence outside their front door, and parents unemployed, incarcerated, or having to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet). On the other hand, CCI leadership members discussed the structures the CCI needs, or the actions they need to take, in order to meet the needs of youth and families (e.g., how the CCI struggles to build the internal structures necessary to facilitate collaboration among members). For example, in Communities A and C, both the DSPs and the Families discussed how there is a need for affordable transportation in their cities. Both indicated that if youth and parents had reliable modes of transportation they would be able to engage in more of the activities and afterschool programs in the community. Both Caregivers and DSPs indicated that transportation would facilitate parents acquiring and retaining employment. However, facilitating or funding transportation in the community was not discussed by any of the CCI leadership in these two communities. Similarly, CCI leadership in both Community A and C mention a need for “wraparound” services or a “pipeline” of services. However, both the DSPs and families in these communities felt that meeting the basic needs of the families is necessary before creating a wraparound service structure. Discussion Youth-focused comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs) have the potential to achieve community-level impacts that individual organizations would not be able to accomplish alone (Lasker & Weiss, 2003; Wolff, 2001). Because they are typically comprised of organizations from multiple sectors within a community, CCIs are positioned to create the conditions so that all young people have the developmental supports they need to thrive; whether academically, socioemotionally, vocationally, or civically. However, since CCIs were promoted 30 years ago as the “answer” to social and economic problems in communities, few CCIs have successfully achieved the impacts that they were purported to achieve (Auspos, 2010; Foster-Fishman et al., 2001). One reason for the lack of success stories can be traced to a lack of alignment within and across levels of a community (e.g., the vision for the CCI; the needs perceived by the collaborative unit, direct service providers, and families; the actions that are conceived, implemented, and experienced). Studies of successful (Hawkins et al., 2008; Redmond et al., 2009) and unsuccessful CCIs (Auspos, 2010; White & Wehlage, 1995) have found alignment to be a key ingredient. Although some insights into the expression of alignment have been derived from previous studies (e.g., Fagan et al., 2009), much still needs to be learned about where alignments and misalignments can occur within a community. The current study was designed to look deeply into the inevitable nuances in perceived needs for each level of the community (i.e., CCI, direct service providers, and young people and their families) to provide a method for examining alignment. Our results suggest that there are alignments and misalignments across the levels of a community collaborative. We found that DSPs and families had the most alignment in perceived needs. Because of the scope of their work, DSPs usually interact with young people and their families multiple days per week and often are skilled at understanding what is occurring in their young people's lives (Rhodes, 2004). However, youth development workers are not necessarily skilled at navigating the decision-making roles of a CCI (e.g., Borden & Perkins, 2006). Therefore, if the collaborative entity does not intentionally create opportunities for DSPs to be a part of the strategic planning and decision-making processes, their perspectives (and as our results suggest, the perspectives of the young people and families who they serve) will be missing from the collaboration's discussions. The potential of youth when they are included in community decisions has precedence; when they are considered to be assets and given opportunities to be included in the workings of the community, young people can create Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 8 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx positive change (Checkoway & Richards-Schuster, 2006; Zeldin & Topitzes, 2002). In the case of the three CCIs that were the focus of this study, none included DSPs or families in the decision-making process; at least during the first year of their work. Another way to consider alignment is by the expression of unique needs; that is, needs that are only expressed by one level of the community. Having many unique needs could be an indication of misalignment, since these would be needs that no one else across the other levels recognizes as important. In addition, one could suppose that an increase in the number of unique needs would be related to an increase in the frustration of the level of the community with the unique needs. For example, if the DSP continually voice concern about a set of needs to which no one else pays attention, then the DSP would most likely become disengaged from the CCI process. There is an indication that not including the voices of DSPs and families in the planning may have contributed to the misalignment across the levels of the systems in the three communities. No matter the strategies being developed by the collaborative entity or the programs to be implemented, an outstanding question is whether parents and their children will engage with programs and services that they do not necessarily believe are in sync with what their perceived needs are (e.g., a CCI opening a new tutoring center in the area when parents might say that they need better transportation to access social services). Limitations and future directions This study used the first wave of data from a longitudinal study of CCIs. The current study presents only a snapshot into the work of youth-focused CCIs; in this case, CCIs that were in the early stages of their existence. Because the current study is not longitudinal, we were unable to assess whether alignment persisted over time. Understanding whether there was more cross-level alignment over time and examining why there was more (or less) alignment would be an important next step. Initial analyses of Wave 2 from our study suggested that the collaborative entities were being more responsive to the perceived needs of community members.2 The reason for this responsiveness appeared to be the result of the CCIs gaining their footing over the course of a year, having a better system in place to elicit feedback from the community, and simply being based in the community for another year. This preliminary work suggests longitudinal analyses would provide insights into how CCIs develop. In addition, although we were able to assess perceived needs at each level of the community, our sampling did not include every member of the collaborative entity, nor a representative sample of DSPs (we relied on nominations by the executive directors of the organizations from where the DSPs came). Considering the diverse paths of DSPs, including more than full-time, full-time, part-time, and volunteers, and the diversity of roles that DSPs have within an organization, it is difficult to construct a representative sample. We believe that our nomination methodology, though not perfect, still provides valid perspectives from the DSP level of each community. Similarly, we erred on depth over breadth with our sample of families. The families were recruited with assistance from the collaborative entity and most likely represent the middle of the distribution of families living within those communities. That is, the families expressed difficulties that might be expected for any family, especially families living in an economically disadvantaged community. However, they most likely did not represent families at the highest risk for their children experiencing negative outcomes (e.g., poor academic outcomes), nor did they represent families that were exemplars for their ability to thrive. Future research that includes the perspectives of the two tails of the distribution could provide additional insights into how all families perceive their needs and the needs of their children. 2 Analysis available by request from the corresponding author. Finally, assessing the predicted link between alignment and effecting change on desired developmental outcomes is a rich avenue for future research. The current study provides a model for assessing alignment, and we hope that future researchers will use this model as a starting place to continue to understand the ways in which alignment increases the odds of CCI success over time. Conclusion Based on strong developmental theory, we believe that alignment of vision, goals, and actions across levels of a CCI will improve the effectiveness of that CCI, and bring positive change to communities. However, in our analyses we found that in three established CCIs, there was significant room for improvement in alignment across levels. In particular, we suggest that CCI leadership bring more families, DSPs and other community members into their planning sessions to ensure more perspectives are heard. CCIs have the potential to enact community-level change, but only if they are aligned to the meet the true needs of the community. References Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Flaspohler, P., Boone, B., & Kwiatkowski, A. (2008). Community collaboration to improve schools: Introducing a new model from Ohio. Children & Schools, 30(3), 161–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cs/30.3.161. Annie E. Casey Foundation (1995). The eye of the storm: Ten years on the front lines of new futures. Baltimore, MD: Author. Auspos, P. (2010). Internal alignment in community change efforts. Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of community change efforts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 52–62. Borden, L. M., & Perkins, D. F. (2006). Community youth development professionals: Providing the necessary supports in the United States. Child & Youth Care Forum, 35(2), 101–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-005-9005-4. Brandtstädter, J. (1998). Action perspectives on human development. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed.). Theoretical models of human development, Vol. 1. (pp. 807–863). New York: Wiley. Bringle, R. G., Officer, S. D., Grim, J., & Hatcher, J. A. (2009). George Washington community high school: Analysis of a partnership network. New Directions for Youth Development, 122, 41–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.305. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.). Theoretical models of human development, Vol. 1. (pp. 79.3–79.828). Hoboken: Wiley. Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs, 36, 291–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10780870122184876. Checkoway, B., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2006). Youth participation for educational reform in low-income communities of color. In P. Noguera, J. Cammarota, & S. Ginwright (Eds.), Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America's youth (pp. 319–332). London: Routledge. Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (2009). Translational research in action: Implementation of the communities that care prevention system in 12 communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(7), 809–829. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20332. Foster-Fishman, P. G., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 214–261 (Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1010378613583). Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Arthur, M. W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27(6), 951–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0306-4603(02)00298-8. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Egan, E., Brown, E. C., Abbott, R. D., et al. (2008). Testing communities that care: The rationale, design and behavioral baseline equivalence of the community youth development study. Prevention Science, 9(3), 178–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0092-y. Kubisch, A. (2010). Overview of community change efforts, 1990–2010. Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges from two decades of community change efforts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute, 8–50. Lasker, R. D., & Weiss, E. S. (2003). Creating partnership synergy: The critical role of community stakeholders. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 26(1/2), 119–139 (Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200027026/ FBD87FEE969E4EEAPQ/4?accountid=14434). Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.00203. Lerner, R. M. (2012). Developmental science: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6, 29–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/DEV-2012-12102. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Children and youth in neighborhood contexts. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 27–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8721.01216. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002 J.F. Zaff et al. / Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology xxx (2015) xxx–xxx National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Search for public schools. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/index.asp Nowell, B. (2010). Out of synch and unaware? Exploring the effects of problem frame alignment and discordance in community collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 91–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup006. Overton, W. F. (2013). Competence and procedures: Constraints on the development of logical reasoning. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), Reasoning, necessity, and logic: Developmental perspectives (pp. 1–30). Psychology Press. Redmond, C., Spoth, R. L., Shin, C., Schainker, L. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M. (2009). Long-term protective factor outcomes of evidence-based interventions implemented by community teams through a community–university partnership. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 30(5), 513–530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10935-009-0189-5. Rhodes, J. E. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth–staff relationships in after-school settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 101, 145–161. http://dx. doi.org/10.1002/yd.75. Roussos, E. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369–402. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369. Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Redmond, C., Greenberg, M., & Feinberg, M. (2011). Six-year sustainability of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community– 9 university partnerships: The PROSPER study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(3–4), 412–425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9430-5. United States Census Bureau (2010). Profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010. Available from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/ pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1 United States Department of Justice (2012). Uniform crime reporting statistics. Available from http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/ White, J. A., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Community collaboration: If it is such a good idea, why is it so hard to do? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), 23–38 (Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164268). Wolff, T. (2001). A practitioner's guide to successful coalitions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 173–191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010366310857. Zaff, J. F., & Smerdon, B. (2009). Putting children front and center: Building coordinated social policy for America's children. Applied Developmental Science, 13(3), 105–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888690903041469. Zeldin, S., & Topitzes, D. (2002). Neighborhood experiences, community connection, and positive beliefs about adolescents among urban adults and youth. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(6), 647–669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1002. Please cite this article as: Zaff, J.F., et al., Alignment of perceived needs across levels of a community, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2015.02.002