See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274170995

A Case for Expanded School-Community Partnerships in Support

of Positive Youth Development

Article  in  Children & Schools · July 2006

DOI: 10.1093/cs/28.3.155

CITATIONS READS

62 2,597

3 authors, including:

Dawn Anderson-Butcher
The Ohio State University
150 PUBLICATIONS   2,622 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

OCCMSI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dawn Anderson-Butcher on 12 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Case for Expanded
School–Community Partnerships in
Support of Positive Youth Development
Dawn Anderson-Butcher, E. Gwyn Stetler, and Theresa Midle

This article discusses the results of two studies exploring the status of partnerships between
schools and community organizations. In the first study, 90 teachers, administrators, and
support service staff reported that the most common type of partnership involved youth
development organizations, mental health providers, parents and residents, and the juvenile
justice sector. Respondents described the need for further partnership expansion with the
business sector, parents and residents, the juvenile justice sector, and youth development
organizations, particularly in relation to academic support, youth development, and prevention
and social service programming. Given the importance of youth development organizations in
supporting these program and service delivery needs, the second study surveyed 389 school
staff members working in schools that had out-of-school-time programs operating in their
communities. Results indicated that communication, coordination, and collaboration within
these partnerships were often limited in scope. The need for more expansive and strategic
school–community partnerships is discussed, particularly the role of the school social worker
in fostering these linkages and system designs.

KEY WORDS: collaboration; out-of-school-time programs; school–community

partnerships; youth development; school social work

P
artnerships between schools and other orga-
nizations are important to the alleviation of
nonacademic barriers to learning. Schools
in many communities are situated in the midst of a
potential resource bank of agency, familial, corpo-
rate, and faith-based support.Yet many schools are
uninformed regarding these neighborhood assets,
often struggling with how to serve students with
multiple needs and issues (Adelman & Taylor, 1998;
Heath & McLaughlin, 1996). If schools address these
complex issues single-handedly, they cut themselves
off from a collaborative supply of goods and ser-
vices that might potentially assist in addressing stu-
dent and family needs.
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
IN SCHOOLS
In the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-110), schools are under increasing
pressure to produce academically proficient students.
Many students, however, arrive at school with unmet
needs and challenges that limit their ability to
achieve. These nonacademic barriers to learning
include factors that are often outside the school’s
control. They include risk factors such as aggres-
sion, antisocial attitudes, poor peer relations, family
conflict and instability, and negative community
norms and disorganization (Anderson-Butcher,
2006; Doll & Lyon, 1998; Early &Vonk, 2001; Fraser,
1997; Lawson & Anderson-Butcher, 2001). Schools
must find ways to address these critical needs, as
well as develop assets or protective factors to nullify
their effects, if they are to be successful with their
academic missions.
In response, researchers, practitioners, and poli-
cymakers have called for the advancement of
school–community partnerships that address the
multiple, co-occurring needs of students and their
families (Anderson-Butcher, 2004; Anderson-
Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Doll & Lyon, 1998; Lawson

Anderson-Butcher
CCC Code: 1532-8759/06 $3.00et
©2006 /
al. National
School–Community Partnerships
Association of Social Workers in Support of Positive Youth Development 155

Full-service schools and other community
school models open school doors into the
evening and weekend hours, providing one-
stop shopping and a continuum of care for
youths and their families.
& Briar-Lawson, 1997; Taylor & Adelman, 1996).
As Doll and Lyon proposed, it is “essential for schools
and communities to align themselves in partner-
ships to foster resilience and capacity-building
among high-risk students. Neither system has the
resources to single handedly interrupt recurrent
cycles of risk” (p. 360). Schools and assorted com-
munity partners—including government agencies,
funders, parents and guardians, business partners,
community-based agencies, and others—must com-
municate, plan, assess, strategize, and mobilize to-
gether to enhance outcomes for youths (Ander-
son-Butcher & Ashton, 2004; Lawson & Barkdull,
2000).
Given this emergent partnership practice ap-
proach, new relationships among schools and vari-
ous entities have evolved across the country. To
highlight, school-linked and -based services coor-
dinate or co-locate social and health services with
schools, thus enhancing access to and continuity
among an array of supportive services for students
and families (Adelman & Taylor, 1997). Full-ser-
vice schools and other community school models
open school doors into the evening and weekend
hours, providing one-stop shopping and a con-
tinuum of care for youths and their families
through the incorporation of child care activities,
youth development activities, individual and fam-
ily counseling, education and support programs,
health care services, prevention programming, and
case management (Dryfoos, 1994). More recently,
policy for 21st Century Community Learning
Centers prioritizes school–community partnerships
that focus on enhancing academic achievement,
social competence, and family involvement and
learning through out-of-school-time (OST) aca-
demic enrichment activities, youth development
programming, and family literacy programs and
support (Anderson-Butcher, 2004).
Although there is much talk of partnerships, little
research to date has explored the extent to which
relationships between schools and other commu-
156
nity organizations truly exist. This is even more
apparent when we examine partnerships between
schools and youth development organizations. As
Peebles-Wilkins (2004) noted, little attention has
been given to the school system as a context for
youth development, particularly as it relates to build-
ing character and self-esteem, enhancing school
climate, and supporting the academic missions of
schools. Thus, partnerships between schools and
youth development organizations are currently
underdeveloped and undervalued, but they repre-
sent a potential way in which schools might build
additional capacities and supports (Anderson-
Butcher, 2002; Heath & McLaughlin, 1996).
We examined the status of collaborative part-
nerships between schools and various community
entities while simultaneously assessing the need for
expanded relationships and systems designs, par-
ticularly those involving youth development orga-
nizations. Study 1 overviews current school–com-
munity partnerships, out-of-school-time activity
offerings, and related service delivery needs. Re-
sults of this study point to the need for more stra-
tegic services in the area of youth development
programming (that is, mentoring, prevention, aca-
demic supports, and so forth). To build from this
finding, we designed Study 2 to more critically ex-
amine partnerships between schools and the youth
development organizations who traditionally pro-
vide these types of programs and services in com-
munities. Both studies are presented here together,
to provide a more in-depth examination of school–
community partnerships in relation to identified
school-driven program and service delivery needs.
The findings of each study complement the find-
ings of the other, and the synthesis of these findings
merits special attention.
METHOD AND RESULTS: STUDY 1
Respondents
Teachers, school administrators, and school support-
ive service personnel attending a statewide alterna-
tive education conference participated in the study.
Nearly half (n = 90) of all conference attendees
voluntarily participated, generating a 45 percent
response rate. Of these 90 individuals, 19 percent
were teachers, 46 percent were school administra-
tors, 5 percent were school social workers, 1 per-
cent were nurses, 2 percent were counselors, 7 per-
cent were mental health practitioners, 7 percent
held multiple roles, and 13 percent held other roles.
Children & Schools Volume 28, Number 3 July 2006
Nearly all of those surveyed (87 percent) had been
in their current job for more than one year, with
nearly half of those surveyed (44 percent) having
held their jobs for more than five years.
The individuals in the study worked in a variety
of environments: 40 percent served rural commu-
nities, 23 percent served urban communities, 23
percent served suburban communities, 11 percent
served multiple community types, and 3 percent
did not respond. Those surveyed held positions in
many different settings: 38 percent worked in main-
stream or traditional schools , 68 percent worked in
alternative day schools, 12 percent worked in non-
profit agencies outside of school, and 6 percent
worked in hospital or residential programs. They
worked with individuals of all ages: 18 percent
worked with prekindergarteners; 33 percent served
elementary-school students; 76 percent worked with
middle-school students; 90 percent served high-
school students; 7 percent worked with continuing
education students; and 7 percent served adults (note
that some participants served multiple population
groups).
parks and recreation organizations, youth develop-
ment organizations, the business sector, parents and
residents, universities and colleges, and the juvenile
justice sector. Respondents circled “yes” if they
believed they had significant partnerships; they left
the item blank if they did not. Then respondents
indicated their need for developing partnerships
with these organizations by marking “yes” if they
saw this as a need in their school community.
OST Activities. Respondents were provided with
an inventory list of many activities that might po-
tentially be offered in OST. They were instructed
to circle “yes” to indicate whether the school cur-
rently offered the activity and to circle “NEED” if
there was a current need for the activity. Three
domains of OST activities were assessed: academic-
type programs, prevention and social services, and
extracurricular activities (Table 1).
Findings
The most common partnerships described by these
participants were with mental health providers (82

Procedures
All conference attendees were asked to complete a Table 1: Current Offerings
survey assessing various types of partnerships and and Needs in Three Domains of
programs or services available and needed in their Out-of-School-Time (OST) Activities
schools. Surveys were voluntarily completed at the Currently Is There
end of a conference session. Upon completion, Offered a Current
participants placed the surveys in a box at the con- in OST Need?
Academic (%) (%)
ference registration desk. No personal identifiers
Reading literacy programs 43 30
were included on the surveys.
Tutoring 52 30
Proficiency preparation 52 24
Measures
Homework assistance 36 34
A brief survey was generated to assess the status of
Math enrichment 28 30
school–community partnerships and programs and
Science enrichment 16 32
services offered during OST at schools. Content
Technology and computer programs 42 29
validity was established by having five stakeholders
English as a second language supports 17 12
working in schools provide input into the develop-
Graduate equivalency degree programs 48 13
ment of the research questions. There were two
Adult literacy 35 15
parts to the survey. One explored the status of part-
Adult continuing education 32 14
nerships between schools and various organizations
Guidance counselor needs 24 32
located in the community.The other examined the
College or university programs
array of programs or services offered and needed at offering credit 39 15
the school during OST. School-to-work programs 41 30
Status of Partnerships. Respondents indicated Services for individuals with
the perceived level of partnership between their learning disabilities 36 19
schools and a number of different organizations in Expanded library hours 18 18
their communities. Example organizations included Employment counseling 10 46
mental health providers, local health departments, (continued)

Anderson-Butcher et al. / School–Community Partnerships in Support of Positive Youth Development 157

 Table 1: Continued (26 percent), medical providers (26 percent), parks
and recreation organizations (21 percent), and local
Currently Is There
Offered a Current settlement houses and community centers (5 per-
Prevention or in OST Need? cent).When asked to identify the organizations with
Social Service (%) (%)
which their school needed to develop better part-
Violence prevention 21 56
nerships, respondents listed the business sector (38
Character education 27 44
percent), parents and residents (36 percent), youth
Alcohol or drug counseling 34 44
development organizations (24 percent), and the
Cultural diversity activities 17 39
juvenile justice sector (24 percent). Few respon-
Health or wellness activities 25 39
dents indicated a need for partnership with faith-
Smoking cessation 27 39
based organizations (11 percent), libraries (6 per-
Alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention 25 39
cent), and settlement houses and community centers
Leadership clubs 27 29
(6 percent).
Social skills groups 18 53
Data revealed that many of the listed activities
Social work services 30 30
were not offered in OST, as at least one-third of
Nursing services 18 24
respondents indicated that they did not offer al-
Case management services 28 29
most all of the activities. The most common types
Parent support and education classes 17 49
of programs offered in OST involved extracurricular
School resource officers 20 27
activities such as drama, music, miscellaneous field
School transition supports 15 42
trips, and related fitness or recreational experiences.
Nutrition or health programs 15 24
For the most part, most of those surveyed did not
Child care supports 14 32
indicate a need for a certain activity if it was already
offered in OST.This was not necessarily true, how-
Currently Is There ever, for academic support activities. Many indi-
Offered a Current
Extracurricular in OST Need? cated an additional need for more programming in
and More (%) (%) this area, even though they reported that their
Music 43 18 schools already had tutoring, proficiency prepara-
Arts and crafts programs 27 28 tion, homework support, and technology program-
Drama activities 45 15 ming in OST. Finally, respondents described addi-
Intramural sports 27 33 tional needs in the areas of mentoring, employment
Fitness activities 36 33 counseling, support and placement, weekend and
Recreational activities 36 31 summer opportunities, and prevention and social
School dances and youth events 52 14 service needs (for example, violence prevention,
Youth development programs such social skills groups, parent support and education,
as scouts, 4-H 45 21
character education, alcohol and drug counseling,
Mentoring programs 24 46
and school transitional supports), thus calling for
Service learning activities 23 37
further programs and services related to youth de-
Community service clubs 21 34
velopment and primary prevention.
Miscellaneous field trips 39 24
Weekend activities for youths 14 45
METHOD AND RESULTS: STUDY 2
Before-school activities 10 29
As a significant interest in existing partnerships with
Summer programs 34 45
youth development organizations was identified in
Family nights or other community
events 24 38
study 1, we designed study 2 to explore the specific
degree of relationships existing between schools and
youth development organizations already provid-
ing programs and services in connection with
schools. This study allowed a more in-depth ex-
percent), the juvenile justice sector (69 percent), amination of the strength of current partnerships
youth development organizations (49 percent), and in this arena, providing more insight into the stra-
parents and residents (45 percent). Limited part- tegic, comprehensive nature of schools’ relation-
nerships occurred with faith-based organizations ships with youth development organizations.

158 Children & Schools Volume 28, Number 3 July 2006

Respondents
School staff (n = 389) from 19 schools in an urban
community in central Ohio participated. This was
a convenience sample of stakeholder participants
attending school faculty meetings. Of those sur-
veyed, 85 percent were women and 15 percent were
men.The sample was somewhat ethnically diverse:
72 percent white, 25 percent African American, 1
percent Hispanic, and 2 percent “other.” The ma-
jority of the participants were classroom teachers
(73 percent); however, the study also included ad-
ministrators (2 percent), paraprofessionals and aides
(3 percent), student support staff (6 percent), and
individuals in other roles (16 percent).
Procedures
As part of a larger evaluation project, school staff
in 19 schools serving youths enrolled in local youth
development programs were asked to participate.
Of these 19 schools, 14 had school-based programs
operating in their multipurpose rooms or gymna-
siums; five programs operated in recreation cen-
ters or faith-based organizations located in the sur-
rounding community. School staff were asked
during a monthly faculty–staff meeting to com-
plete a survey assessing their level of satisfaction
with the OST programs located in their neigh-
borhood. Approximately 68 percent of all school
staff present at these meetings completed the sur-
vey. Surveys took approximately 10 minutes to
complete. Once finished, participants returned the
surveys to the researcher. There were no personal
identifiers on the survey.
Measures
School–OST Connections. The degree of relation-
ship between schools and various OST programs
was assessed as one component of a larger inven-
tory exploring outcomes associated with partici-
pation in youth development programs. Two
subscales explored school–OST connections (one
assessing support for the program; the other exam-
ining connections to classrooms and curriculum).
The Support subscale was measured with nine items
designed to assess the nature of and the degree to
which the teachers and school staff encouraged
involvement in the OST program (α = .74). The
Classroom Connections subscale contained two
items assessing the degree to which activities of-
fered in the program were linked to the academic
content covered in schools (α = .90). All subscale
items (see Table 2) were developed by Anderson-
Butcher (2002). The response scale for all items
included NO! (1), no (2), yes (3), and YES! (4).

Table 2: Participant Responses on School–Out-of-School-Time Connections Subscales

% % Did Not
Answering Know Enough
Item M “Yes” or “YES!” to Answer
Support subscale
1. I have provided academic materials to the after-school program staff. 2.22 29.6 9.3
2. I ask students about what they are doing in the after-school program. 2.60 50.5 8.2
3. I encourage students to be involved in the after-school program. 3.17 75.9 4.7
4. The staff at the after-school program communicate with me about the
children or youth they serve. 2.41 39.0 8.6
5. I refer students and their families to the after-school program. 2.76 57.9 5
6. I know how to get a hold of a staff member in the after-school program.
I have a phone number for the staff. 2.45 41.4 8.7
7. I have observed the after-school program. 2.80 61.6 4.4
8. I teach in the after-school program at the school. 1.86 12.1 3.1
9. Staff at the after-school program attend faculty and other school support
meetings at our school. 2.57 36.6 26.2

Classroom Connections subscale

1. The activities at the after-school program build upon the curriculum
map of the school. 2.75 24.2 63.4
2. The activities at the after-school program build upon what I am doing
in the classrooms. 2.47 24.8 50.8

Anderson-Butcher et al. / School–Community Partnerships in Support of Positive Youth Development 159

Individuals could also indicate Don’t Know for
items about which they did not have enough in-
sight. Possible scores on each subscale ranged from
1 to 4.
In addition, school staff also responded to several
open-ended questions, for example,“What do you
like about the after-school program (that is, what
are its strengths)?” “How could the after-school
program improve?” and “In what ways could the
OST program staff be supportive of your work in
the classroom?”
Findings
Results indicate that many school staff members
were actively involved in supporting students’ in-
volvement in OST programs; for example, 76 per-
cent encouraged students to be involved; 51 per-
cent asked youths about what they do in the program
(Table 2). It was clear, however, that few strong link-
ages between school staff and these programs ex-
isted, particularly in relation to the connections
between these programs and what was happening
in teachers’ classrooms. For instance, many school
staff did not know enough about the programs to
answer items assessing the programs’ connections
to the classroom and curriculum; for example, more
than 50 percent of respondents did not know
enough to assess whether the programs built on
what they were doing in classrooms; 63 percent did
not know enough to assess whether the programs
built on the school’s curriculum map. Furthermore,
among those familiar with the programs, few re-
spondents (30 percent) provided materials to OST
program staff, and fewer than half (41 percent) knew
how to contact program staff.
Respondents did indicate the need for more
strategic linkages. For instance, many respondents
noted on open-ended items that they would like
the opportunity to share their classroom curricu-
lum with OST program staff so that program ac-
tivities would reinforce classroom lessons. More-
over, respondents noted that they would like to
meet regularly with program staff to discuss indi-
vidual youths’ progress and brainstorm specific
strategies for improvement.
Not only did these school staff members offer
ideas about how program staff could better sup-
port them in their classrooms, they also provided
suggestions for how they could support OST pro-
gram staff. They suggested, for example, that they
could personally learn more about a program by
160
asking their students about the program, by check-
ing on their students while they were at the pro-
gram, or by observing the program. Many respon-
dents explained further that once they knew
about OST activities, they might then incorpo-
rate OST lessons into their classroom instruction
and materials. Several staff members, however, men-
tioned that additional incentives, such as money
or credit toward licensure, would be required if they
were to be more involved in creating these stron-
ger linkages.
DISCUSSION
Findings from these two studies provide informa-
tion about current school–community partnerships,
OST activities, program and service delivery, and
coordinating system needs within schools. Initial
information from the first study was amplified by
the details provided in the second. Study 1 found
that strong partnerships exist between schools and
various community organizations, particularly be-
tween schools and youth development organiza-
tions, mental health providers, parents and residents,
and the juvenile justice sector. Additional needs for
partnerships with the business sector, parents and
residents, the juvenile justice sector, and youth de-
velopment organizations in support of academic
support, youth development, and prevention pro-
gramming were identified.
Many of the program and service delivery needs
identified in study 1 could be directly served by
youth development organizations, as well as offered
in OST. Findings from study 2 suggest, however,
that few real linkages between schools and youth
development organizations actually exist in schools
where school-based or -linked OST youth devel-
opment programs are already offered. When asked
about partnerships with these programs, many
school staff did not know enough about the pro-
grams to answer many of the questions. Of those
who were aware of the programs, only a small per-
centage had observed the program, provided re-
sources to the program, or knew how to contact a
program staff person. It was clear that although
schools may have had youth development organi-
zations operating in their communities, communi-
cation, coordination, and collaboration between
these two entities occurred only minimally.
Because findings suggest that few expansive and
innovative partnerships currently exist between
schools and community organizations or agencies,
Children & Schools Volume 28, Number 3 July 2006
and because there is a need for additional partner-
ships and programs and services aimed at support-
ing students, one might ask where we go from here.
Perhaps one starting point is for schools to begin
initially exploring what nonacademic barriers to
learning currently exist in their school community
while simultaneously mapping community re-
sources that link to these identified needs (for ex-
ample, Anderson-Butcher et al., 2004). Communi-
cation, coordination, and collaboration between
schools and these various community resources (for
example, youth development organizations) might
then be enhanced to more strategically address the
specific nonacademic barriers to learning that exist
within individual schools. In other words, schools
and local organizations would develop their rela-
tionships on the basis of some priority need area,
thus creating a common purpose and shared vision
for the partnership. This might in turn create the
desire for stronger connections as a result of the
buy-in and shared ownership created through a
focused planning and action-taking process.
For instance, our findings identified the need for
social skills groups and mentoring programs de-
signed to develop social competencies among stu-
dents. Resource mapping might find that several
organizations located in the community surround-
ing certain schools are already implementing these
types of programs (for example, Big Brothers/Big
Sisters, a local settlement house, or a community
mental health center).The schools might then work
more closely with these organizations to identify
and refer students most in need of these programs
and services and to directly channel targeted groups
into these school-linked services. Likewise, school
staff, group facilitators, individual mentors, and even
parents and residents might develop coordinating
systems that enhance regular communication and
planning around identified student needs and
growth areas, thus allowing students to receive more
consistent messages from all the adults they interact
with on a regular basis.
Another example is noteworthy. The need for
additional academic supports was identified, but
findings also showed that the academic programs
and services currently provided in OST were not
necessarily aligned with the curriculum and activi-
ties offered within classrooms. To improve these
connections, schools might work more intimately
with OST program staff to ensure that homework
and tutoring supports offered in OST more di-
Anderson-Butcher et al. / School–Community Partnerships in Support of Positive Youth Development
rectly support specific student needs identified by
classroom teachers. For instance, short-cycle assess-
ments examining student deficiencies might pro-
vide direction to OST program staff about what
specific competencies to focus on with students
enrolled in their tutoring programs, and reading
programs offered during the school day could be
implemented in the OST program. Likewise, re-
quired state core competencies could guide enrich-
ment activities within OST programs, providing
for the direct application, review, and synthesis of
materials students learn about during the school
day. In the end, when schools and the partnering
organizations providing these programs begin to
realize they have comparable missions (that is, both
are dedicated to the healthy development and
achievement of young people) and build on com-
mon ground and targeted needs, both the schools
and the organizations will excel and students in
turn will benefit.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL
SOCIAL WORKERS
These findings highlight the desire for more ex-
panded school–community partnerships, as well as
the need for more strategic referral systems, com-
munication networks, and sharing of resources and
curriculum materials within these partnerships.
Concerted efforts from schools, parents and guard-
ians, the business sector, faith-based organizations,
youth development organizations, and others are
essential.These strategic partnerships, however, also
require leadership and facilitation, which also im-
ply new and expanded roles for school social workers
within these strategic infrastructures. More specifi-
cally, the role of school social workers as school–
community coordinators is central to the success of
these partnerships, especially as school social work-
ers serve as leaders who build bridges across sys-
tems and connect the school with OST and the
local community. School social workers serving in
school–community coordinator roles might
• facilitate community needs and resource as-
sessment processes, leading efforts to identify
and address resultant gaps in services within
the school community.
• foster stronger linkages between school staff
and OST program staff by developing ways
in which these two entities might connect
and communicate on a more regular basis
161
 (for example, through expanded interagency
assistance teams).
• lead community coalitions composed of
school and community representatives that
focus on resource development, community-
wide planning, and overall school–commu-
nity mobilization efforts.
• operate family and community resource cen-
ters that serve as places in the school where
families may access programs and services;
community organizations may also provide
effective school-based social services.
• develop more expansive site-based prereferral,
teacher assistance, or individual assistance
teams that promote regular communication
and coordination among those working in
and outside of the school.
• create referral processes in schools that allow
for the early identification and linkage of stu-
dents to targeted supportive services provided
by individuals working in the school (that is,
school counselors or prevention workers) and
those working outside the school (that is,
community-based mental health workers or
trackers and mentors at youth organizations).
In essence, school social workers serving in
school–community coordinator roles create and
facilitate new integrative service delivery models.
They work across systems (that is, the school, the
social service sector, families, and community), as
well as across professions (that is, with teachers,
school psychologists, counselors, and the juvenile
justice sector). Social workers in these roles become
key players who promote coordination, serve as
connectors to programs and services and other re-
sources, provide leadership in community mobili-
zation and development efforts, and advocate for
those in need of additional supports and resources
(Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004).
There is a great need for this type of role in our
schools today.This means, however, that school so-
cial workers currently operating in schools might
have to expand their job descriptions to include
more of these priorities. Too often, school social
workers focus internally on the school, providing
individual and group counseling, behavioral man-
agement for targeted students, and crisis interven-
tion services (Anderson-Butcher & Newsome,
2001). Although these roles are important, invest-
ments in school–coordinator responsibilities would
162
better maximize the impact of the existing com-
munity resources and supports already present
within communities, allowing for the more effec-
tive and efficient delivery of programs and services
targeted to meet individual and aggregate needs
identified in school buildings. As such, social work
professionals serving as intermediaries facilitate these
enhanced school–community partnerships, creat-
ing additional synergy between the school and fam-
ily and community resources and supports. This
multicomponent focus, with organizational and
policy implications, might further enhance student
and school-level outcomes.
Dialogical, shared leadership that emphasizes
common goals, mutual influence, and open com-
munication can magnify the previously unmet po-
tential of schools, families, and communities. This
combination of inquiry, evaluation, and mobiliza-
tion positions participants for maximum leverage
of the collective resources available for students and
families (Argyris & Schön, 1996).
CONCLUSION
In this article, we identified several areas for the
development and expansion of school–community
partnerships, with many of these relationships po-
tentially being created between schools and youth
development organizations. As partnerships are ex-
panded, however, there is a need for more strategic
systems that connect and integrate what is happen-
ing during the school day with what is happening
in OST. School social workers serving in school–
community coordinator roles are pivotal to these
strategic partnerships, particularly as they facilitate
communication, coordination, and collaboration
between and among these various entities. These
systems designs, and the leadership roles within
them, are becoming more critical as poverty, family
structural changes, community disorganization, and
the prevalence of drugs and alcohol place today’s
students at a greater risk than ever of developing
social, emotional, and related behavioral problems
(Davis, 1999). Multifaceted school–community
partnerships with strategic school social work fa-
cilitation have never been more needed, and they
are absolutely critical for fostering student achieve-
ment and overall school success.
REFERENCES
Adelman, H., & Taylor, S. (1997). Toward a scale-up
model for replicating new approaches to schooling.
Children & Schools Volume 28, Number 3 July 2006
 Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8, Miami University, Institutes for Educational
197–230. Renewal.
Adelman, H., & Taylor, S. (1998). Reframing mental No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110, 115
health in schools and expanding school reform. Stat. 2678 (2002). (Title IV, Part B).
Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 135–152. Peebles-Wilkins, W. (2004).Youth development in schools
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2002). An evaluation report for the [Editorial]. Children & Schools, 26, 3–4.
Cap City Kids program: Phase two. Columbus: Center Taylor, H., & Adelman, L. (1996). Mental health in
for Learning Excellence, Ohio State University. schools. Adolescent Medicine, 7, 303–317.
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2004). Transforming schools into
21st Century Community Learning Centers [Trends
& Issues]. Children & Schools, 26, 248–252. Dawn Anderson-Butcher, PhD, LISW, is associate
Anderson-Butcher, D. (2006). The role of the educator in
early identification, referral and linkage. In R. J.
professor, College of Social Work, Ohio State University,
Waller (Ed.), Child and adolescent mental health issues 325D Stillman Hall, 1947 College Road, Columbus, OH
in the classroom (pp. 122-135). Thousand Oaks, CA: 43210-1162; e-mail: anderson-butcher.1@osu.edu. E.
Sage Publications. Gwyn Stetler, LICDC, is doctoral candidate and graduate
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative
models of collaboration to serve children, youths, lecturer, College of Social Work, Ohio State University, and
families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26, Methodist Theological School in Ohio. Theresa Midle,
39–53. LSW, MSW, is student and family liaison, Columbus
Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Bean, J., Boone, B.,
Kwiatkowski, A., Beitzell, M., et al. (2004). School for Girls, Columbus, OH.
Implementation guide: The Ohio Community Collabora-
Accepted February 8, 2006
tion Model for School Improvement. Columbus: Ohio
Department of Education.
Anderson-Butcher, D., & Newsome, S. (2001, May). The
role of research in the practice of school social work.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the
Ohio School Social Work Association, Columbus.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II:
Theory, method, and practice (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Davis, N. J. (1999). Resilience: Status of the research and
research-based programs. Rockville, MD: Substance
Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration,
Center for Mental Health Services.
Doll, B., & Lyon, M. A. (1998). Risk and resilience:
Implications for the delivery of educational and
mental health services in schools. School Psychology
Review, 27, 348–363.
Dryfoos, J. (1994). Full-service schools: A revolution in health
and social services for children, youth, and families. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Early, T. J., & Vonk, M. E. (2001). Effectiveness of school
social work from a risk and resilience perspective.
Children & Schools, 23, 9–31.
Fraser, M. (Ed.). (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood: An
ecological perspective. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). The best of
both worlds: Connecting schools and community
youth organizations for all-day, all-year learning. In
J. Cibulka & W. Kritek (Eds.), Coordination among
schools, families, and communities: Prospects for
educational reform (pp. 69–94). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Lawson, H. A., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2001). In the
best interests of the child:Youth development as a
child welfare support and resource. In A. L. Sallee,
H. A. Lawson, & K. Briar-Lawson (Eds.), Innovative
practice with vulnerable children and families (pp. 245–
265). Des Moines, IA: Eddie Bowers.
Lawson, H. A., & Barkdull, C. (2000). Gaining the
collaborative advantage and promoting systems and
cross-systems change. In A. Sallee, K. Briar-Lawson,
& H. Lawson (Eds.), New century practice with child
welfare families (pp. 245-270). Las Cruces, NM: Eddie
Bowers.
Lawson, H. A., & Briar-Lawson, K. (1997). Connecting the
dots: Progress toward the integration of school reform,
school-linked services, parent involvement, and community
schools. Oxford, OH: Danforth Foundation &

Anderson-Butcher et al. / School–Community Partnerships in Support of Positive Youth Development 163

View publication stats