One of the disturbing aspects of the charter industry is the proliferation of corporate charter chains. Like Walmart, the corporate charters are not part of the local community. They do not answer to an elected board. “Ownership” is far away. If the corporation is dissatisfied with results, it will shut down and move elsewhere.
This article is not about schools per se, but it speaks to the same issues.
DAILY SLANT: Let’s support “locally grown” social services
By Nancy Wackstein
There is no trend more significant in today’s food and restaurant culture than “local.” There is a growing consensus that being a “locavore” and eating food grown, raised or produced locally – usually within 100 miles of the point of consumption – is good for local economies, good for health and good for the environment by reducing fuel consumption associated with transportation.
I would argue that it’s time to reorient New York City social services delivery back toward a locavore model as well: locally delivered, locally staffed, locally supported when possible – maybe even produced within one mile of the consumer! As with the food supply, there was a time not long ago when residents of a particular neighborhood knew their local social service agency and community center, whether a settlement house, a Y or a storefront information center. People looking for assistance did not have to travel out of their neighborhoods to get the help they needed, or to socialize, learn or simply have fun together. Nor did they want to.
Clearly, social services were locally sourced! And here, too, the benefits were obvious: familiarity and comfort, proximity and reduced travel time and continuity, sometimes over
generations.
A report released in 2015 by United Neighborhood Houses reinforced the importance of this local approach. The 3,000 settlement house participants who were surveyed reported a greater sense of “belonging” and “embeddedness” through participation at their local agency. In a huge impersonal city like New York, can anything be more important than creating and nourishing a sense of belonging? Through their local organizations, these participants also learned more about their own neighborhoods and how to help improve their communities by working together with neighbors they met there … “building community.”
However, as with the food industry, over the last few decades, “progress” and “modernity” overtook the social services sector. Nonprofit agencies were exhorted to model themselves on corporations: the only path to sustainability was through growth, and more growth. And a prevailing ideology emerged: scale automatically equals efficiency.
Agencies were urged to consolidate and merge so more people could be served and larger catchment areas covered, sometimes even borough-wide and citywide. Underpinning the growth and consolidation trend was often the belief that there just were just too many nonprofit providers resulting in redundant programming and overlapping areas of service – inefficiencies.
Trends in city government funding embraced and supported this ideology. Contracts for services began to privilege larger and larger social service providers in the name of efficiency.
Requests for proposals were designed to identify agencies that could serve larger geographic areas containing larger numbers of people. Why contract with 90 different smaller nonprofits when you could contract with five larger ones?
Wouldn’t doing so save the the taxpayers money?
“Progress” has brought us to 2016 New York, where ever-larger nonprofits dominate the landscape of social services delivery. Such agencies typically are the only ones who can produce the scale that government contracts increasingly require: the number of
individuals served, the geographic areas covered, the outcome data. And larger agencies typically are the only ones who can negotiate successfully with third-party payers like managed care companies for Medicaid funded services, signifying their ability to survive in the new reimbursement environment.
Have we created our own agribusiness right here in New York City that will inevitably drive out the family farms? And if so, what has been lost if we have? Will it even matter to consumers?
What is lost is that many local organizations with deep ties to their communities have been left out of the picture, denied the opportunity to compete for city and state contracts because they are too small or serve a particular niche population. Many newer organizations focused on a particular neighborhood or population simply can’t compete for contracts when these are conceptualized and structured by government agencies to serve vast citywide populations and areas. I believe this will matter tremendously to consumers because if these organizations fail to thrive, the people in those neighborhoods, and the communities themselves will be depleted.
In the food industry, when the niche producers began to disappear, our food became generic, homogenized and even flavorless. (Ever tasted those winter tomatoes?) The “local” movement then developed as a response to over-centralization, outsized scale and sameness.
If we don’t want local organizations with unique competencies and strong neighborhood ties to go the way of family farms, I believe it’s time to rethink service delivery. Yes, New
York City is huge, but it also is a city of unique neighborhoods that should and could be enriched by locally based and locally determined services.
Let’s not lose the niche, targeted services that respond to local needs. Let’s not lose the programs that grew up in neighborhoods because that’s what the neighbors said they wanted.
Let’s not make residents have to leave their neighborhoods to get help. Let’s invest in the “place-based” services that we know have always worked. By doing so, we will strengthen both individuals and communities.
I’ll eat to that!
Nancy Wackstein is the director of community engagement and partnerships at Fordham University and the former executive director of United Neighborhood Houses. This article was originally published by New York Nonprofit Media.

Thank you, Diane.
Couldn’t agree with you more: “One of the disturbing aspects of the charter industry is the proliferation of corporate charter chains. Like Walmart, the corporate charters are not part of the local community. They do not answer to an elected board. “Ownership” is far away. If the corporation is dissatisfied with results, it will shut down and move elsewhere.”
Our communities are falling apart re: schools. I think this is one of the major influencers re: the horridness of what is going on in education via the FEDs. If our communities are destroyed, then it is for sure “WINNER TAKE ALL” mentality takes over. So, my take is: The DEFORMERS really want to destroy our communities.
When I saw poor families lining up to see if their children will win the LOTTO to “Chartersville” Schools, I was appalled.
Well, seems we are NOW competing to get an education in this country, which is totally SICK.
LikeLike
Agree, but there are fewer places that have or can sustain these characteristics–
“Let’s not lose the niche, targeted services that respond to local needs. Let’s not lose the programs that grew up in neighborhoods because that’s what the neighbors said they wanted.
Let’s not make residents have to leave their neighborhoods to get help. Let’s invest in the “place-based” services that we know have always worked. By doing so, we will strengthen both individuals and communities.”
Major changes in the larger landscape, economy, and demographics have damaged this concept of a “neighborhood.” Neighborhoods were reinvented in those post WWII boom times–superhighways, concentrated shopping centers, major changes in employment, suburban development, car-centric communities.
The idea of a neighborhood as a community where people reside for a long time, really know their neighbors, have place-based services within a mile or two of “home” certainly has nostalgic appeal, but it is becoming harder to find.
My own neighborhood just lost a family owned hardware, 30 years, wonderful service. The owner lost business to the exodus of small manufacturers in the area, the entry of a chain hardware and presence of a nearby big box “depots” for building and hardware.
For a time I lived in an urban community were the gasoline station was also the local banking center, food store, gathering point to hustle a one-day construction job, rest stop for people scavenging metal to sell for pocket change, center of eternal hope for winning a lottery. It was, and is, functioning as a community center–of sorts, but free of local fare other than a pickles and packaged snacks from still active local companies.
This to say that social class has a lot to do with how neighborhoods are constructed and construed.
LikeLike
Outsourcing in education has a very attractive feature for the chief beneficiaries and enforcers of corporate education reform:
Any problem, trivial or great, can be blamed on the incompetence of local managers and admins. Hence responsibility gets shifted away from those actually making decisions to those carrying them out.
Of course, it becomes even more toxic at the classroom level, where increasingly less and less time is spent on genuine learning and teaching in favor of—or service to—the scripted narrow delivery of eduproducts. Yet who takes the fall for doing their best—no matter how onerous and useless the task—under circumstances far beyond their control? Teachers and other public school staff.
Time to pin responsibility (and consequences for same) on those that determine the what, who, where and how of teaching and learning.
Of course, there will be bleats of “we’re being swarmed!” but that’s a topic for another day…
😎
LikeLike
Careful with this. The latest model of the privatization zombie that the charter operators are pushing here is “Community schools”, a la Harlem Children’s Zone.
“Mom and Pop” charter schools are just another ruse to smoothly promote the privatization agenda.
To further the food analogy – It’s not eating local, it’s eating the locals. .
LikeLike
Excellent point. Also ratings of the kind at greatschools.org
LikeLike
Sometimes schools through charters are intentionally outsourced in order to change a local neighborhood. In many cities developers work with charters to gentrify prime real estate by setting up selective charters in areas they want to develop. They don’t intend to improve the neighborhood with existing residents. They want to move out the residents to make way for expensive new housing that will then be sold to affluent people, not the local residents. Locals will move away when their child attends a cheap charter on the other side of town. This is how they reinvent, also destroy, a neighborhood with a profit motive.
LikeLike
Ms. Wackstein’s argument in support of decentralization misses a major point: the reason these NGOs exist is because the pre-existing centralized public welfare system has been woefully underfunded! From my perspective the problem isn’t centralization per se. It makes sense to have school districts— and public welfare systems— centralized so that business and administrative functions can be provided in a streamlined fashion. But in this day and age, it also makes sense for schools, welfare agencies, and public health agencies to break down barriers and coordinate the delivery of services to families raising children in poverty.
Over a decade ago I wrote an article that was published in Education Week called “A Homeland Security Security Bill for Education” that described how the coordination of centralized government funded agencies might provide more support for special needs and poverty-stricken students than the current model of functional silos sealed by confidentiality. We don’t need more NGOs or consolidated NGOs any more than we need more charter schools or charter chains. We need more robust funding for public agencies that provide health and human services and more coordination among the agencies that do so. https://waynegersen.com/2016/05/02/starve-the-beast-feed-the-angels-the-government-must-be-bled-dry-to-help-the-privatizers/
LikeLike
” They do not answer to an elected board. ”
A friendly reminder: neither do traditional public NYC DOE neighborhood schools. I understand how it might be difficult to remember this: for some strange reason once Bloomberg left office, we stopped hearing so much from the various advocates and interest groups about the evils of mayoral control.
I don’t know if Ms. Wackstein is aware that teachers and principals at many DOE schools do not live in the neighborhoods in which they work, or even in New York City, period (about 40%). A residency requirement would be bitterly opposed by the teachers, firefighters, police, and sanitation unions. This is just one obstacle to the “locavore” concept.
New York City provides a lot of resources for people in need. The problem is that the delivery mechanism is incredibly inefficient. Maybe it would be better not to hire more people (local or otherwise) to provide services, but to give people who need services cash. Some interesting research here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2016/04/28-family-support-or-school-readiness-whitehurst/family-support2.pdf
LikeLike