Promise Neighborhoods

 

Contents

Collaboration Overview ......................... 1

Collaboration Purpose........................... 2

About the Collaboration......................... 3

Collaboration Structure at the 

Federal Level......................................... 5

Collaboration Structure at the Local 

Level ...................................................... 7

Promising Practices at the Federal 

Level ...................................................... 9

Promising Practices at the Federal 

Level .................................................... 13

Lessons Learned................................. 15

Accomplishments ................................ 16

Resources ........................................... 16

Collaboration Overview

The Promise Neighborhoods program is a place-based approach 

focused on addressing generational family and community 

poverty by ensuring quality educational opportunities and 

providing a range of supports for children, youth, families, and 

communities. 

The program provides examples of interagency collaboration at 

the federal level, intra-agency collaboration within the 

Department of Education, and local level collaborations at 

grantee sites across the country. 

The collaboration structure includes the following elements:

Federal level— 

 Coordinated efforts across Department of Education 

programs

 Coordinated efforts across federal agencies and involvement 

in the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative 

(NRI)

 Coordinated technical assistance support for grantees

Local level— 

 Established partnerships with a range of entities

 Multiple levels of management, including a project director 

and advisory board

 Funding from public, private, and federal sources

 Tracking progress through longitudinal databases and other 

mechanisms

Promising practices include the following:

Federal level— 

 Modeling other federal level collaborations

 Building on past experience with federal level collaboration

 Integrating Promise Neighborhoods work with other federal 

initiatives
 Having multiple mechanisms for ongoing and regular communication

 Reliance on data to assess the success of the work

Local level—

 Involving the communities in planning and implementation

 Conducting a needs assessment to understand the context of communities

 Putting a plan in place before implementation

Promise Neighborhoods programs have faced challenges at the federal and local level and 

learned the following lessons:

 Recognition of complex and varied work is essential for managing multiple unique 

grantees.

 Development of a longitudinal data system and sharing data can pose a challenge.

 Communities need support to create sustained financial resources, community 

engagement, and partnerships.

Collaboration Purpose

The vision of the Promise Neighborhoods program is that all children and youth growing up in 

Promise Neighborhoods have access to great schools and strong systems of family and 

community support in order to prepare them to attain an excellent education and be college 

and career ready. The Promise Neighborhoods program aims to significantly improve the 

educational and developmental outcomes of children and youth in the nation’s most distressed 

communities, and to transform those communities by

 identifying and increasing the capacity of eligible entities that are focused on achieving 

results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood;

 building a complete continuum of cradle-to-career solutions of both educational programs 

and family and community supports, with great schools at the center;

 integrating programs and breaking down agency “silos” so that solutions are implemented 

effectively and efficiently across agencies;

 developing the local infrastructure of systems and resources needed to sustain and scale 

up proven, effective solutions across the broader region beyond the initial neighborhood; 

and

 learning about the overall impact of the Promise Neighborhoods program and about the 

relationship between particular strategies in Promise Neighborhoods and student 

outcomes, through rigorous evaluation.1

1 U.S. Department of Education (2012). Promise Neighborhoods: Program description. Retrieved from 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/index.html#description

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 2

 
About the Collaboration

The Promise Neighborhoods grant program was established in 2010 under the legislative 

authority of the Fund for the Improvement of Education Program (FIE) and is administered 

through the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) within the Department of Education 

(ED). The program builds on the experience of initiatives such as the Harlem Children’s Zone 

and is the realization of President Obama’s vision for taking an all-hands-on-deck approach to 

addressing generational family and community poverty.

There are two types of Promise Neighborhood grants—planning and implementation.

Planning Grants

The Promise Neighborhoods planning grants focus on understanding the needs in a targeted 

geographic area and developing a sound structure and plan to implement a continuum of 

supports that address the identified needs in that neighborhood. The planning phase includes 

the following components:

 Conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and segmentation of children and youth in 

the neighborhood.

 Develop a plan to deliver a continuum of solutions with the potential to drive results. This 

includes building community support for, and involvement in, the development of the plan.

 Establish effective partnerships both to provide solutions along the continuum and to 

commit resources to sustain and scale up what works.

 Plan, build, adapt, or expand a longitudinal data system that will provide information that 

the grantee will use for learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.

 Participate in a community of practice.2

Implementation Grants 

The Promise Neighborhoods implementation grants support eligible organizations in carrying 

out plans to create a continuum of solutions that will significantly improve the educational and 

developmental outcomes of children and youth in a target neighborhood. The implementation 

phase includes the following components:

 Implement a continuum of solutions that addresses neighborhood challenges, as identified 

through a needs assessment and segmentation analysis, and that will improve results for 

children and youth in the neighborhood.

 Continue to build and strengthen partnerships that will provide solutions along the 

continuum of solutions and that will commit resources to sustain and scale up what works.

 Collect data on indicators at least annually, and use and improve a longitudinal data system 

for learning, continuous improvement, and accountability.

2,3 U.S. Department of Education (2012). Applications for new awards; Promise Neighborhoods program—

planning grant competition. Federal Register, 77(77), 23690-23704. Retrieved from 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-20/pdf/2012-9595.pdf

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 3

 
 Demonstrate progress on goals for improving systems, such as making changes in policies 

and organizations, and by leveraging resources to sustain and scale up what works.

 Participate in a community of practice.3

Organizations that are eligible for Promise Neighborhood grants include nonprofit 

organizations (this may include faith-based nonprofit organizations);4 institutions of higher 

education;5 and Indian tribes. Learn more about eligibility for Promise Neighborhood grants on 

ED’s website.

For both planning and implementation grants, a Promise Neighborhood is defined as both a 

place and a strategy. Promise Neighborhoods are places or distressed neighborhoods that are 

characterized by

 inadequate access to high-quality early learning programs and services;

 struggling schools;

 low high-school and college graduation rates;

 high rates of unemployment;

 high rates of crime; and

 indicators of poor health.

The program is also a strategy for addressing the issues that these communities face through 

a continuum of cradle-to-career solutions. Great schools are at the center of this effort. Other 

essential components of this effort include

 a focus on identifying and building the capacity of eligible organizations;

 high-quality early learning programs;

 interventions and services that support multiple domains of early learning for children from 

birth through third grade; and

 ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms that are linked to improved 

educational outcomes for children and youth in preschool through the 12th grade.

While not requirements, Promise Neighborhoods also aim to contribute to broader neighborhood 

revitalization strategies by breaking down public agency silos, addressing regulatory and policy 

barriers, and leveraging and integrating existing investments in the community.

In 2010, the Promise Neighborhoods program awarded one-year grants to eligible entities in 

21 communities across the country. In 2011, the Department of Education awarded a second 

round of planning grants and a first round of implementation grants. The five implementation 

grants and 15 planning grants will reach an additional 16 communities throughout the United 

States. As of the spring of 2012, the Promise Neighborhoods program is in 18 states and the 

District of Columbia.

4 Nonprofit organizations that meet the definition of a nonprofit under 34 CFR 77.1(c).

5 Institutions of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 4

 
Collaboration Structure at the Federal Level

The federal level Promise Neighborhoods structure models the importance of working with a 

variety of partners to implement and manage a complex program. The federal collaboration is 

supported by the following:

Coordinated efforts across Department of Education (ED) programs 

The Promise Neighborhoods program supports intra-agency collaboration by bringing together 

strategies from programs across ED. For example, one of the competitive priorities included in 

the Promise Neighborhood application is a Comprehensive Early Learning Network. In the 2011 

competition the majority of planning and implementation applicants responded to this 

competitive priority. This connection with early learning work was supported through 

collaboration with the Race to the Top early learning challenge fund. A workgroup of staff tasked 

on both initiatives met weekly as the notice inviting applications for 2011 was developed.

Race to the Top – District (RTT–D) integrates many place-based principles through a 

Competitive Preference Priority for cradle-to-career results, resource alignment, and integrated 

services. The RTT-D competitive preference priority focuses on an applicant’s partnerships to 

identify and improve results from cradle to career; its strategy to target resources to improve 

the results and integrate education and other services; and plan to build the capacity of school 

staff and families to take this approach, from identifying needs and assets to routinely 

assessing implementation progress. Whereas the Promise Neighborhoods program expects 

strong partnerships with schools and districts in a place-based strategy, RTT-D will support 

districts in taking a more central leadership role in place-based solutions to improve student 

achievement. The Promise Neighborhoods program also works with the Investing in Innovation 

grants, the Office of Safe and Healthy Students, and other ED programs to support the 

multifaceted aspects of the Promise Neighborhoods program.

ED recently released a report describing the key elements of a place-based theory of action 

and how the Department is implementing place-based strategies, including the Promise 

Neighborhoods program. The report, titled “Impact In Place: A Progress Report on the 

Department of Education’s Place-Based Strategy,” assesses the progress that has been made 

as a result of the Department’s place-based approach. It also describes how communities 

around the country have adopted a place-based model to direct resources more effectively. 

The report highlights the unique role of federal agencies in catalyzing place-based approaches 

and the value proposition of a place-based strategy in the education sector. Learn more and 

read the entire report on ED’s website.

Coordinated efforts across federal agencies and involvement in the White 

House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI)

In addition to ED, a number of federal agencies support place-based programs, including 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The White House NRI was established to 

coordinate work at the neighborhood level across agencies, to understand the intersections 

between the place-based programs being developed (e.g., Choice Neighborhoods, Promise 

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 5
Neighborhoods), to build capacity at the neighborhood level, and to identify and share best 

practices.

The NRI includes the following:

 The White House Domestic Policy Council

 The White House Office of Urban Affairs

 HUD

 ED

 DOJ

 HHS

 The Department of the Treasury

Coordinating funding applications is one mechanism that has been used to coordinate placebased programs. For example, the Promise Neighborhoods planning and implementation 

applications included a competitive preference for neighborhoods that were the subject of an 

affordable housing transformation pursuant to a Choice Neighborhoods or HOPE IV grant 

during Fiscal Year 2009 or later years. The Choice Neighborhoods planning grant application 

also included a set-aside for organizations receiving a Promise Neighborhoods planning grant. 

As of Spring 2012, there are six Promise Neighborhoods grantees that also have a Choice 

Neighborhood grant—Little Rock, AR; Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; Tulsa, OK; 

and San Antonio, TX. 

Another example of coordination stemming from the NRI work is the establishment of an 

interagency agreement through which DOJ transferred $1.6 million to the Promise 

Neighborhoods program to fund Public Safety Enhancements among the 2011 Promise 

Neighborhoods implementation grantees. These funds will be distributed to the grantees as 

award supplements. DOJ and ED jointly hosted an interactive technical assistance webinar 

session to answer questions from grantees interested in applying for the supplementary funds. 

The agencies will also work together to review proposals, make awards, and guide grantees in 

the implementation of their Public Safety Enhancements.

In addition, the NRI aims to learn what works for community-owned revitalization and develop 

best practices, elicit feedback from communities and experts on how federal government 

agencies can work better together at the community level, and assess how policies and 

programs can be aligned and integrated (e.g., through common metrics, definitions, and 

monitoring) to help streamline work at the local level.

The coordination and integration of programs at the federal level helps to model the 

collaborative work needed at the local level in order to plan for, implement and manage 

Promise Neighborhoods.

Coordinated Technical Assistance support for grantees 

OII supports Promise Neighborhoods grantees through contracts with a number of technical 

assistance providers. These include the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP), Applied 

Engineering Management (AEM), and the Urban Institute.

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 6
 CSSP, along with partners including the Promise Neighborhoods Institute (PNI)6

, provides 

grantees with programmatic technical assistance. Its focus is on building the capacity of 

grantees to successfully plan for and implement cradle-to-career strategies.

 AEM provides implementation grantees with training and technical assistance to use 

GRADS 360, an interactive web-based performance management tool. 

 The Urban Institute, through a contract with the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development (OPEPD) within ED, provides technical assistance to the grantees around 

data collection and longitudinal data systems, key facets of the Promise Neighborhoods 

work. 

ED believes that this integrated system of support focused on results will help grantees 

achieve optimal results for their target neighborhoods and the children and families residing 

within them.

Collaboration Structure at the Local Level

The infrastructure and organization of individual grantees vary substantially based on the 

needs of the community and the organization leading the grant. Some examples of the 

structures that support grantee work include the following:

Established partnerships with a range of entities

The partners involved in Promise Neighborhood programs vary substantially from one grantee 

to another, but may include local governments, local education agencies, foundations, 

community-based organizations, and universities.

For example, the Promise Neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, includes partnerships with:

 Belmont Housing Resources for Western New York

 Bennett High School

 Bethel Head Start

 Buffalo Promise Neighborhood Steering Committee

 Buffalo Public Schools

 Buffalo Urban League

 Catholic Charities of Buffalo

 City of Buffalo

 Community Health Center of Buffalo

 Council Member Bonnie E. Russell

6 The Promise Neighborhoods Institute (PNI) is an independent, foundation-supported nonprofit comprised of 

PolicyLink, the Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), and the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP). PNI offers 

tools, information, and strategies to assist any community (not limited to grantees) interested in establishing a 

Promise Neighborhood as its members plan, identify quality approaches, build partnerships, and assess needs.

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 7

 
 Council Member Demone A. Smith

 EPIC (Every Person Influences Children)

 Highgate Heights School

 Jeremiah Partnership

 John R. Oishei Foundation

 M&T Bank

 Read to Succeed Buffalo

 United Way of Buffalo and Erie County

 University of Buffalo

 Westminster Community Charter School

 Westminster Foundation7

Partnerships are cemented by establishing Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). These 

MOUs clarify a shared vision and theory of change that underlie the collaborative work and the 

roles and expectations of the partners involved.

Multiple levels of management, including a project director and advisory 

board 

To manage the collaboration between stakeholders and partners, grantees establish a 

governance structure that identifies roles and responsibilities, facilitates decision-making, and 

holds partners accountable. An advisory board is established to provide guidance and direction 

to the overall program and manage objectives.

The Berea College Promise Neighborhood, a rural Promise Neighborhood, in Clay, Jackson, 

and Owsley Counties (Kentucky) has a management board that contains the following 

representatives:

 Berea College

 Save the Children

 East Kentucky Child Care

 Cumberland Valley District Health Department

 Jackson County Schools

 Clay County Schools

 Owsley County Schools

 Three youth (age 16-24)

 Three parent representatives with students in public schools in the counties

7 Buffalo Promise Neighborhood. (2011). Buffalo Promise Neighborhood asset report. Retrieved from 

http://buffalopromiseneighborhood.org/public/files/BuffaloPromiseNeighborhood%20Assets.pdf

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 8

 
 Three teachers or early child care providers

 Three business representatives

 Three representatives of providers serving within area8

In addition to the advisory board, grantees have a project director who is typically responsible 

for the day-to-day management of the project. Grantees may also set up working groups to 

lead the design and implementation of specific components of their work and establish teams 

for leading data and evaluation efforts (and/or bring on a local evaluator), fundraising efforts, 

and community engagement.

Funding from public, private, and federal sources 

One of the conditions of the Promise Neighborhoods grants is that grantees must also obtain 

matching funds or in-kind donations from one or more entities in the public or private sector. 

Planning grantees must match at least 50 percent of their grant award (those working in Tribal 

or rural communities must match at least 25 percent of their grant award). Implementation 

grantees must match at least 100 percent of their grant award (those working in Tribal or rural 

communities must match at least 50 percent of the grant award).

Tracking progress through longitudinal databases and other mechanisms 

Grantees track progress and communicate with ED program officers through various 

mechanisms including:

 the GRADS 360 performance management tool;

 longitudinal databases;

 Annual Performance Reports; and

 Regular check-in calls.

This ensures that technical assistance and support can be provided as needed, and 

challenges and successes can be shared.

Promising Practices at the Federal Level

The following are examples of practices that have helped the Promise Neighborhoods program 

to be successful in working collaboratively and achieving results at the federal level.

Modeling collaboration at the federal level

Through inter- and intra-agency collaboration, the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) 

has been able to model the importance of establishing partnerships, working together, 

integrating efforts, and collaborating to support multifaceted programs.

8 U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Berea College Promise Neighborhood Proposal. Retrieved from 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/2011/u215n110015narrative.pdf

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 9

 
Building on past experience with federal level collaboration

OII and others in the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) have built on 

previous knowledge and partnerships as they develop new programs and work together at the 

federal level. For example, the Promise Neighborhoods program was able to draw on the 

experience of the Safe Schools Healthy Students grant program (SS/HS) and the Coordinating 

Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (the Council) which have supported 

cross agency collaboration and communication for many years.

SS/HS is a collaborative grant program supported by the U.S. Departments of Education (ED), 

Health and Human Services (HHS), and Justice. The initiative seeks to develop real-world 

knowledge about what works best to promote safe and healthy environments in which 

America's children can learn and develop. Since 1999, more than 276 urban, rural, suburban, 

and tribal school districts-in collaboration with local mental health and juvenile justice 

providers-have received grants using a single application process.

The Council, as restructured by the 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act, is comprised of nine ex officio members and nine non-federal members who 

are juvenile justice practitioners. The ex officio members are the Attorney General; the 

secretaries of HHS, Labor, ED, and Housing and Urban Development; the administrator of the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; the director of the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy; the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community 

Service; and the assistant secretary, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of 

Homeland Security. The president may designate other key federal officials with significant 

decision-making authority to serve on the Council.

The Promise Neighborhoods program has built off relationships established by these 

interagency partnerships, the member experiences of individuals who participated in these 

programs and who continue to participate in interagency work and on the NRI, and reports 

developed by the collaborations detailing their experiences and history. The Promise 

Neighborhoods program was therefore able to continue strong interagency partnerships and 

utilize knowledge about how federal interagency groups have been established and 

maintained.

Integrating Promise Neighborhoods work with other federal initiatives

The Promise Neighborhoods program has been able to benefit from the work of the NRI. Two 

example of collaborative efforts spurred from the NRI are the connections between Promise 

Neighborhoods and Choice Neighborhoods in the cities of San Antonio and Atlanta. These 

communities both received Choice Neighborhoods and Promise Neighborhoods planning 

grants.

In the City of Atlanta, the Choice Neighborhoods planning grant helps revitalize its University 

Homes public housing development, while the Promise Neighborhood grant utilizes the 

expertise of historically black colleges and universities in Atlanta to provide educational 

opportunities to children living in the University Center neighborhood.

In San Antonio, both the Choice and Promise Neighborhoods grants serve the Wheatley 

Courts public housing complex and the surrounding Eastside neighborhood. The Choice 

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 10
Neighborhoods project focuses on revitalizing the public housing development while the 

Promise Neighborhoods project focuses on improving the schools. At the federal level, these 

programs were designed and envisioned together in order to complement each other. At the 

local level, these programs have committed themselves to working together by integrating their 

advisory boards, planning processes, and community engagement efforts.

The NRI has also helped some grantees make a connection between Promise Neighborhoods 

and the Strong Cities, Strong Communities initiative led by the White House Council on Strong 

Cities, Strong Communities. Two Promise Neighborhood planning grantees, Fresno, California 

and Detroit, Michigan, are working to integrate their Promise Neighborhood efforts with the 

Strong Cities, Strong Communities initiative, a new interagency pilot initiative that aims to 

strengthen neighborhoods, towns, cities, and regions around the country by strengthening the 

capacity of local governments to develop and execute their economic vision and strategies. 

Having multiple mechanisms for ongoing and regular communication

Connecting communities and helping them learn from each other is central to the Promise 

Neighborhoods program. Grantees, technical assistance (TA) providers, and OII regularly 

communicate through a number of mechanisms. This includes annual conferences that bring 

together program officers, OII leadership, grantees, and TA providers, and facilitate information 

sharing and networking. OII program officers also hold regular calls with grantees and are able 

to stay aware of grantee progress, challenges, and technical assistance needs through the 

GRADS 360 performance management tool and annual performance reports.

In addition, a central design element of the Promise Neighborhoods program is establishing 

communities of practice among the grantees and the broader field of practitioners. Doing this 

enables the grantees, as well as organizations across the country interested in the program 

and strategy, to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other regarding their projects. 

Reliance on data to assess the success of the work 

While the Promise Neighborhoods program is still in the early stages of implementation, since 

its inception in 2010 there has been a strong focus on data collection so that longitudinal (longterm) data outcomes can be tracked. Some data on Promise Neighborhood grantees and 

applicants that is sourced from applications submitted for the program can be found at 

http://www.data.gov/education/datasets/ed-grants-promise-neighborhoods-fund. ED requires 

grantees to collect data on program indicators for academic results and family and community 

support results. Grantees may also collect data on any unique project indicators they have 

developed. Some examples of the required program indicators and the results that they intend 

to measure include:

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 11
Educational Indicators and Results9

Indicator or Data Collected Result Data is Intended to Measure

Number and percent of children, from birth to 

kindergarten entry, participating in center-based or formal 

home-based early learning settings or programs, which 

may include Early Head Start, Head Start, child care, or 

preschool

Children enter kindergarten ready to 

succeed in school

Number and percent of students at or above grade level 

according to state mathematics and reading or language 

arts assessments in at least the grades required by the 

ESEA (3rd through 8th and once in high school)

Students are proficient in core academic 

subjects

Attendance rate of students in 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th grade Students successfully transition from 

middle school grades to high school

Graduation rate Youth graduate from high school

Number and percent of Promise Neighborhood students 

who graduate with a regular high school diploma, and 

obtain postsecondary degrees, vocational certificates, or 

other industry-recognized certifications or credentials 

without the need for remediation

High school graduates obtain a 

postsecondary degree, certification, or 

credential

Family and Community Support Indicators and Results10

Indicator or Data Collected Result Data is Intended to Measure

Number and percent of children who participate in at least 

60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity daily

Students are healthy

Number and percent of children who consume five or 

more servings of fruits and vegetables daily

Programs can select a third indicator of interest

Number and percent of students who feel safe at school 

and traveling to and from school, as measured by a school 

climate needs assessment

Students feel safe at school and in their 

community

Programs can select a second indicator of interest

Student mobility rate Students live in stable communities

Programs can select a second indicator of interest

For children birth to kindergarten entry, the number and 

percent of parents or family members who report that they 

read to their child three or more times a week

Families and community members 

support learning in Promise Neighborhood 

schools

9,10 U.S. Department of Education (2012). Applications for new awards; Promise Neighborhoods program—

planning grant competition. Federal Register, 77(77), 23690-23704. Retrieved from 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-04-20/pdf/2012-9595.pdf

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 12

 
Indicator or Data Collected Result Data is Intended to Measure

For children in kindergarten through the eighth grade, the 

number and percent of parents or family members who 

report encouraging their child to read books outside of 

school

For children in the ninth through twelfth grades, the 

number and percent of parents or family members who 

report talking with their child about the importance of 

college and career

Programs can select a fourth indicator of interest

Number and percent of students who have school and 

home access (and percent of the day they have access) to 

a broadband Internet connection and a connected 

computing device

Students have access to 21st century 

learning tools

Note: For some of the results, programs are able to select additional indicators of interest to supplement those 

provided by ED.

Promising Practices at the Federal Level

The following are examples of practices that have helped communities implementing the 

Promise Neighborhoods program at the local level.

Involving the communities in planning and implementation

Promise Neighborhoods grantees benefit substantially from involving the communities they 

serve in the planning and implementation of the Promise Neighborhoods project. Some 

examples include the following:

 Designating students, parents, teachers, and/or community residents as members of the 

program advisory board, working groups, and/or other bodies established to steer 

components of the Promise Neighborhoods work

 Gathering resident input on neighborhood needs and assets through surveys, focus 

groups, and town hall meetings

 Sharing findings from data collected and soliciting feedback from the community as part of 

the needs assessment and the drafting of the implementation plans

 Hosting social events to bring the community together and cultivate a sense of shared 

ownership of, and excitement around, the Promise Neighborhoods work

One Promise Neighborhoods implementation grantee, the Northside Achievement Zone, uses 

“connectors” or trained neighborhood leaders who work one-on-one with families to connect 

them to the resources and supports that they need.

By involving communities, grantees ensure that the supports being planned or implemented 

match the needs of the community and ensure that the communities, families, youth, and 

children being served have buy-in for the work that is being done.

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 13
Conduct a needs assessment and asset mapping to understand the context 

of communities

Planning grantees are asked to conduct needs assessments and segmentation analyses to 

identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas on which to target their efforts. See Whatever It 

Takes: Athens-Clarke County Promise Neighborhood Initiative for an example of the benefits 

of needs assessment. Within its Promise Neighborhoods planning grant, the community 

conducted a needs assessment focused on family engagement, specifically, how much time 

families spend reading to their children. By going door-to-door throughout the community, the 

grantees uncovered the effects of generational poverty. For example, when one woman was 

asked whether she read to her child she responded that she didn’t. When looking for the 

underlying reason for this, they discovered that she didn’t know how to read. They were able to 

connect her to an adult literacy program at a local community college. As a result, she was 

able to set goals both for herself and her child. By setting high expectations for the community 

and determining the actual reasons behind community member actions, the grantees were 

able to recognize where efforts needed to be targeted and ensured that no one in the 

community was overlooked. Also, see examples of reports developed from the Buffalo Promise 

Neighborhood needs assessment and asset mapping.

Putting a plan in place before implementing and focusing efforts on 

building organizational capacity

The grant program is structured so that grantees develop a clear plan before attempting to 

implement supports or reforms. This may be through a Promise Neighborhood planning grant 

or other strategic planning methods. Creating a strong plan prior to implementation allows 

grantees to build capacity and community buy-in and ensures that they have an infrastructure 

in place to support implementation. It also provides time to identify indicators of success and 

set challenging but achievable targets to guide program planning and implementation and 

ensure accountability among all partners. By establishing a clear plan that delineates 

responsibilities, the collaborations are able to hold partners accountable for meeting the goals 

of the collaborative effort. The Comprehensive Neighborhood Revitalization Plan for the 

Hayward Promise Neighborhood was developed through a Promise Neighborhood planning 

grant funded by ED. The plan is now being used as a framework for a 2011 Promise 

Neighborhood Implementation Grant.

The Promise Neighborhood program includes a focus on identifying and increasing the 

capacity of eligible organizations. Promise Neighborhood grantees use funding to support the 

capacity building effort by developing administrative capacity including their management team 

and project director, developing longitudinal data systems to support ongoing data-based 

decision making, investing resources in managing partnerships, and developing and 

integrating multiple funding sources. TA providers help grantees understand their 

organizational leadership’s strengths and weaknesses. The TA providers offer support by 

defining a culture of accountability in the lead agency, partner organizations, and community 

as a whole; developing systems of support and accountability for front-line workers, managers, 

and leaders in the organizations that will deliver the continuum of solutions; defining the 

leadership characteristics, qualities, and skills needed for their approach to succeed.

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 14
Lessons Learned

Learn more about the lessons learned through the Promise Neighborhoods program at the 

local and federal level. 

Recognition of complex and varied work is essential for managing multiple 

unique grantees

The Promise Neighborhoods initiative aims to address distressed neighborhoods facing a 

range of risk factors, and strives to take a comprehensive approach to finding supports to help 

children, youth, families, and communities.

As place-based programs, Promise Neighborhoods are unique and varied in their approaches. 

Promise Neighborhoods grantees include both rural and urban locations, and are led by 

established universities with already-developed strong infrastructures, and by smaller nonprofit organizations that rely more heavily on strong partnerships and community involvement, 

among other entities. At the federal level, the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) 

recognizes the unique aspects of each Promise Neighborhood and uses a variety of 

approaches to support these programs. This includes establishing communities of practice so 

grantees can learn from each other and others in the field, supporting multiple technical 

assistance providers with a range of expertise to address challenges faced by grantees, and 

close ongoing communication between project officers and grantees to understand their 

unique needs.

Developing a longitudinal data system and sharing data can pose challenges

Establishing a data system and sharing data between partners to support youth, families, and 

communities from cradle to career is a central part of the Promise Neighborhoods project, but 

it can be challenging. To make data-based decisions and assess progress it is important to 

have individually identified student-level data, but federal privacy regulations can make this 

difficult. Developing longitudinal data-systems that have the ability to track these students over 

time also poses technical as well as practical challenges. While Promise Neighborhood 

grantees recognize these challenges, they also recognize the importance of data and are all 

actively making plans for and doing the work needed to advance this activity with the guidance 

and support of various technical assistance providers. 

One grantee, Northside Achievement Zone, was able to address the challenge of sharing data 

by having each family sign an agreement that allows its child’s data to be shared in a secure 

way across partners. Other grantees are working on ways to use technology to protect the 

identities of children in the program, while still capturing important information on the outcome 

indicators of interest.

Communities need support to create sustained financial resources, 

community engagement, and partnerships

While Promise Neighborhood programs have seen success with integrating multiple funding 

sources, establishing buy-in in their community, and establishing strong connections with 

partners, these efforts have also been challenging. To be sustainable and successful in 

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 15
planning and implementation, grantees must continuously work to establish financial 

resources, generate community engagement, and maintain partnerships. As they work through 

these challenges, grantees have been able to reach out to their project officers at ED and the 

network of technical assistance providers enlisted to support their efforts and ensure they have 

the ongoing capacity to carry out their work.

Accomplishments

While data is a central element of the Promise Neighborhoods initiative, programs are still 

early in implementation and limited outcome data are available. Some early accomplishments 

include:

 Increased federal investment over time within an austere budget climate 

• FY10: $10M (all planning)

• FY11: $30M ($22M – implementation; $6.5M – planning; $1.5M – national activities)

• FY12: $60M (TBD, must be obligated by 12/31/12)

 Positive community feedback and increased coordination of various stakeholders and 

community sectors at the neighborhood level

Resources 

Promise Neighborhoods - ED.gov

 Resources

 Impact in Place: A Progress Report on the Department of Education’s Place-Based 

Strategy (Word document)

 Creating Pathways to Opportunity (PDF, 45 pages)

 Legislation, Regulations, and Guidance

 Awards

 FAQs

 Applicant Data

Promise Neighborhoods Institute

Promise Neighborhoods Research Consortium

Promise Neighborhoods Resources – The Bridgespan Group

U.S. Department of Education Blog

White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative

 One-pager (PDF, 7 pages)

 Building Neighborhoods of Opportunity – White House Neighborhood Revitalization 

Report (July 2011)

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 16
The Urban Institute

 How to Evaluate Choice and Promise Neighborhoods

 Bringing Promise to Washington, DC: The DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative 

 DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Supporting Cradle-to-College Success 

 DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative: Needs Assessment and Segmentation Analysis 

Promise Neighborhoods Collaboration Profile Page | 17