Last Friday, Nessa, a single mother of three special-needs children, entered the school building where I work as an Assistant Principal. With two small boys at her side and an infant sleeping peacefully in her stroller, Nessa explained to me that she must remain constantly vigilant in the shelter where she currently resides because her oldest, a six-year-old autistic boy, is a 'runner'. She and her children have lived in the shelter for several months, following the arrest of her eldest son's father for assaulting her. Nessa planned her day around a visit to the local food bank, an appointment with a legal aid office, and a housing workshop after school hours. Every day is a struggle to meet the basic needs of her family, and Nessa often feels overwhelmed.
Nessa's story is not unique. In both rural and urban areas, low-income families often juggle multiple challenges, from securing affordable housing to accessing essential services such as dental and vision care. Municipal governments have a crucial role to play in providing wrap-around services that ease these burdens, building trust with underserved communities and allowing parents to focus on supporting their children's education.
The Need for Wrap-Around Services
Wrap-around services, which can include health care, housing workshops, legal aid, and access to food and clothing banks, are essential for families like Nessa's. Many schools, like several schools in NYC (including the elementary school in Williamsburg, Brooklyn where I currently work, partner with local businesses, organizations, and government agencies to provide students and families services in the school building, including mobile vision and dental services as well as adult literacy programs. These programs and services alleviate the pressure of meeting basic survival needs, allowing parents to concentrate more on nurturing their children's educational journey. Studies have shown that when parents are less stressed about survival, they can more effectively support their children's education, leading to better student outcomes (Belfield and Levin, 2007).
Building Trust with Underserved Communities
Providing wrap-around services also fosters trust between families and institutions. Parents who have had negative experiences with institutions may be hesitant to engage with schools or other community organizations. By meeting families' needs and demonstrating a genuine commitment to their well-being, municipal agencies and governments can mitigate this skepticism and build stronger relationships with the communities they serve (Dryfoos, 1994).
Implementation in Urban and Rural Areas
Despite the clear benefits of wrap-around services, implementation can be challenging. In urban areas like New York City, the high cost of living and the sheer number of families in need can strain resources. Conversely, in rural areas, families may live far from service providers, making access difficult. Despite these challenges, municipal governments must prioritize wrap-around services. They can do this by partnering with non-profit organizations, leveraging federal and state funding, and drawing on community resources (Moffitt, 2015).
A Call to Action
Providing wrap-around services to underserved communities is not just the responsibility of municipal governments—it is the responsibility of us all. Everyone, from individual citizens to large corporations, can play a part. We can volunteer our time, donate resources, or advocate for policies that support these essential services. As we help families like Nessa's meet their basic needs, we not only strengthen our communities, but we also invest in our collective future.
Assisted by AI
Photo by Kristina Tripkovic on Unsplash
References:
Belfield, Clive R., and Henry M. Levin. "The Price We Pay: Economic and Social Consequences of Inadequate Education." Brookings Institution Press, 2007.
Dryfoos, Joy G. "Schools as Places for Health, Mental Health, and Social Services." Teachers College Record 94, no. 3 (1994): 540-567.
Moffitt, Robert A. "The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. Welfare System." Demography 52, no. 3 (2015): 729-749.