Three realities emerging from recent research indicate that we must focus on low-income children before they enter school: (a) poverty among young children is becoming more intense; (b) poverty, along with other risk factors, such as chronic neighborhood violence and the high stresses of urban life, places young children at great risk of negative outcomes; and (c) early intervention with children and their families can mitigate the effects of poverty and other risk factors and can improve learning outcomes.

Much of the intervention research focuses on preschool-age children, but a new generation of inquiry that focuses on infants and toddlers indicates that intensive child development and early education interventions that begin in infancy can result in significantly improved academic and developmental outcomes. Additionally, research evidence indicates that the strongest interventions include comprehensive frameworks that focus on both the child and the family, combined with efforts aimed at changing community risk factors. Unfortunately, access to such programs is limited, especially the quality programs available to low-income families.

In fact, even within the type of program, there is great variation from state to state in the specific characteristics of the supported program, eligibility criteria, and access to training. Single strategy approaches (parenting, child care alone, pre-kindergarten programs without a family component) are giving way to more complex, interrelated, and comprehensive efforts designed to meet both child-centered and family-centered needs .

The common perception of urban centers is that they are communities without resources, affected by poverty and neglect. However, urban communities also have a wealth of resources available, including academic institutions, cultural centers, shopping malls, and health and human service agencies. The real problem is that the resources and services available in urban communities are not linked and are often highly fragmented.

Various public and private collaborations have emerged and been successful in serving families living in severely disadvantaged circumstances, including the school district’s Family Centers, which integrate and coordinate education, parenting, counseling, and health resources. for children, youth and their families through school-related services.

The following are critical to establishing and maintaining successful partnerships:

– Financing. Lack of funding is the most frequently attributed obstacle to any community development program and is often used as an excuse to avoid change and maintain the status quo. However, proper planning and better budget oversight can often overcome this barrier, and collaboration between self-serving agencies and people can save even more substantial administrative and operational costs. Although the initial costs to integrate and coordinate services between public and private entities can be high, these costs do not compare to the long-term savings of simplified programs that were once doubled between agencies.

– Data integration. Modern computer technology makes it possible to share, accumulate and integrate data efficiently, which in turn enables agencies to work with clients more effectively. Again, the initial costs are not compared to the long-term savings due to this type of investment.

– Lawn / Interest. Each contributing member should have a clear understanding of his / her role as well as his / her expectations in the association. In addition, there must be mutual trust and commitment between the partners.

– Regulation. Bureaucratic legislation has often killed excellent visions. Policies must be tailored to the needs of local communities and can be worked with or created anew. Consolidation of health, human and social government functions, for example, may allow the new service agency to adhere to a single set of regulations, while using public funds to create comprehensive coordination of services.

– Leadership. The passionate and personal application of superior leadership to project priorities is critical to the success of these efforts. Leaders must also be able to share their visions with other key community stakeholders and establish consensus among all stakeholders.

Given the growing population of urban children under the age of six in the United States living in families at or below the poverty line and the movement toward comprehensive strategies to address their pressing needs, there are four special design and implementation themes for initiatives. involving young interns. -children and families of the city.

– First, program strategies must respond to the harsh realities of living in poverty while being consistent with the principles of adult and child learning and development. Strategies should be based on strengths, rather than based on a philosophy of deficit, while acknowledging the very difficult issues families face that make daily survival a problem.

– The second imperative that also arises from the realities of life in the city center is the need to focus not only on children and families, but also on neighborhood problems. Linking or creating forums to mobilize action, such as Head Start’s long-standing approach to family engagement, creates opportunities for families to address neighborhood and community issues. Strategies that develop the leadership capacity of family members involved in the program, through participation in all aspects of program activities (including participation in research projects, governance, etc.), also ensure a broader approach that includes neighborhood problems.

– A third imperative for inner-city initiatives is to deliberately create strategies to return income to the community, whether through job creation in individual programs, linkages with broader community development mechanisms, or other approaches. Empowerment Zones and Business Communities seem particularly helpful in developing some of these strategies because reinvestment and community development are central to their mission.

– A fourth imperative is to pay particular attention to creating a system of support and services for young children and families, not just a series of programs and case managers on a program-by-program basis. This requires building a broad community network, including, for example, community leaders, families, Head Start teachers, informal care providers, baby wellness clinic staff, managed care providers, and court personnel. Such community networks should address more technical service integration issues and serve as a link to larger community forums to address economic issues and monitor the impacts of refoulement and changes in well-being at the most local neighborhood level. These imperatives can guide current opportunities to design “street smart” interventions for young children and their families.