In her previous book, Within Our Reach, renowned Harvard social analyst Lisbeth Schorr examined pilot social programs that were successful in helping disadvantaged youth and families. But as those cutting-edge programs were expanded, the very qualities that had made them initially successful were jettisoned, and less than half of them ultimately survived. As a result, these groundbreaking programs never made a dent on the national or statewide level.
Lisbeth Schorr has spent the past seven years researching and identifying large-scale programs across the country that are promising to reduce, on a community- or citywide level, child abuse, school failure, teenage pregnancy, and welfare dependence. From reformed social service agencies in Missouri, Michigan, and Los Angeles to "idiosyncratic" public schools in New York City, she shows how private and public bureaucracies are successfully nurturing programs that are flexible and responsive to the community, that have set clear, long-term goals, and that permit staff to exercise individual judgment in helping the disadvantaged. She shows how what works in small-scale pilot social programs can be adapted on a large scale to transform whole inner-city neighborhoods and reshape America.
On the heels of the federal government's dismantling of welfare guarantees, Common Purpose offers a welcome antidote to our current sense of national despair, and concrete proof that America's social institutions can be made to work to assure that all the nation's children develop the tools to share in the American dream.
Another book I mostly browsed. The author first identifies the problem of successful, small-scale social programs breaking down with large-scale implementation. She enumerates the factors which enable success on a large scale, and discusses why those factors are so rarely present. Bottom line, communities and governments need to invest more in social programs for them to have any benefit. Big surprise! The rest of the book seems like a fragmented and muddled discussion of how to get there, with no clear recommendations.
The one assertion that I found surprising -- although maybe it shouldn't have been -- is that a small, successful program which does not serve the entire community is more desirable than a program that attempts to serve everyone, but does so poorly or not at all. Obviously, there are grey areas, but it was interesting to read someone advocating on the side of serving less people, albeit to give better service. That does make some sense to me.
Of course, the ultimate issue looms as large as ever -- we need more money in social programs! Unfortunately, this book didn't appear to offer much direction in getting there.
Interesting premise (some do-gooder programs really do work), but sounds too much like she shapes interpretations to fit what she thinks is the answer. Too fuzzy. A little long. Lots of case studies to stare at. Reasonably well-written