How Public Systems Can Strengthen Community Service Providers

A recent­ly released report from the Cen­ter for the Study of Social Pol­i­cy (CSSP) high­lights the chal­lenges encoun­tered by com­mu­ni­ty-based pro­grams that serve cul­tur­al­ly diverse fam­i­lies. Fund­ed by the Annie E. Casey Foun­da­tion, Cul­ture Is Heal­ing: Remov­ing the Bar­ri­ers Fac­ing Providers of Cul­tur­al­ly Respon­sive Ser­vices, pro­pos­es con­crete pol­i­cy rec­om­men­da­tions to address obsta­cles to the avail­abil­i­ty, financ­ing and sus­tain­abil­i­ty of these programs. 

“Com­mu­ni­ty-based providers have led the way on devel­op­ing cul­tur­al­ly respon­sive pro­grams that increase engage­ment, reten­tion and pos­i­tive out­comes for par­tic­i­pants,” says Sarah Bradach, a pro­gram asso­ciate in the Foundation’s Evi­dence-Based Prac­tice Group. ​“Draw­ing on the wis­dom of these providers, CSSP’s report makes rec­om­men­da­tions for pol­i­cy­mak­ers to unlock the trans­for­ma­tive poten­tial of these pro­grams to advance youth and fam­i­ly well-being in com­mu­ni­ties of color.”

Fund­ing and Bureau­crat­ic Barriers

“As ser­vice providers imple­ment much-need­ed pro­grams that respect com­mu­ni­ty-defined evi­dence of what works, they face numer­ous bar­ri­ers to suc­cess,” says Esi Hutch­ful, a senior pol­i­cy ana­lyst at CSSP and author of Cul­ture Is Heal­ing.

Gov­ern­ment fund­ing often over­looks the val­ue of cul­tur­al­ly-based ser­vices designed by and for spe­cif­ic com­mu­ni­ties. The report cites the Fam­i­ly First Pre­ven­tion Ser­vices Act as an exam­ple. It pri­or­i­tizes spe­cif­ic ​“evi­dence-based” pro­grams over cul­tur­al­ly rel­e­vant approach­es proven effec­tive by com­mu­ni­ties them­selves. This focus on quan­ti­ta­tive data can be detri­men­tal to fam­i­lies of col­or, as their needs may not be reflect­ed in tra­di­tion­al met­rics. When ser­vices are cre­at­ed with­out atten­tion to cul­ture and iden­ti­ty, research sug­gests that they can be less effec­tive at best and harm­ful at worst. In con­trast, pro­grams that do pay atten­tion to cul­tur­al needs can be more effec­tive than those that do not.

Sim­i­lar­ly, bureau­crat­ic red tape in gov­ern­ment con­tracts hurts com­mu­ni­ty ser­vice providers. They face moun­tains of paper­work for pro­pos­als and report­ing, tak­ing staff away from their work. Long delays in reim­burse­ment force them to take on high-inter­est loans, cre­at­ing a finan­cial burden.

Cul­ture Is Heal­ing Recommendations

To bet­ter sup­port cul­tur­al­ly respon­sive ser­vice providers and the com­mu­ni­ties they serve, the report rec­om­mends sev­er­al actions that fed­er­al, state and local pol­i­cy­mak­ers can take. They include:

• Expand­ing eval­u­a­tion meth­ods to be more inclu­sive of cul­tur­al­ly respon­sive pro­grams by incor­po­rat­ing com­mu­ni­ty-defined stan­dards of evidence.
• Part­ner­ing with com­mu­ni­ty mem­bers who have expe­ri­ence with pub­lic sys­tems to co-design eval­u­a­tions and engag­ing them to help define and iden­ti­fy promis­ing practices.
• Estab­lish­ing time frames for reim­burse­ment, so providers do not have to wait months or even years to be paid for their services.
• Review­ing gov­ern­ment con­tract­ing process­es. The cur­rent nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of ​“evi­dence-based prac­tice” as well as bur­den­some admin­is­tra­tive require­ments cre­ate bar­ri­ers to pro­vid­ing cul­tur­al­ly respon­sive services.

Cul­ture Is Heal­ing cites a promis­ing exam­ple from New York City as a con­trast to the often-dif­fi­cult rela­tion­ships between com­mu­ni­ty-based ser­vice providers and fun­ders. New York City’s Return­able Grant Fund offers non­prof­its await­ing city con­tracts an inter­est-free loan against their out­stand­ing grant to cov­er up to three months of expens­es. One provider in New York spoke high­ly of this fund, which allows that orga­ni­za­tion to stay afloat as it awaits reimbursement.