harlem children's zone

there's an interesting op-ed int he nytimes by david brooks (yes, david brooks) about the harlem miracle, spearheaded by jeffrey canada, that is really changing a whole community for the better. http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html

i saw canada speak in sf 2 years ago and it was truly inspiring. but what struck me so much about his vision is exactly the kind of vision brooks distains as "paternalistic". the children's zone is just that - a zone. canada recognized that you couldn't fix sick kids in a sick community. you had to fix the community. parents attend "parent college", they send their kids to charter schools run by the zone, and their kids attend afterschool programs run by the zone. it's a huge enterprise - one that encompasses all aspects of the community. it's also hugely expensive. canada has raised millions to support the effort, and it takes millions on an annual basis to run.

brooks points to a study that touts the effectiveness of the zone's charter schools (middle through high), but the real crux of the program is its huge scope. it's an incredible model. and incredible show of one man and one community's will. brooks recommends that other cities follow. i agree that they should. but who is going to pay for it? and how does a project like harlem children's zone fare in a depressed economy?

i think that harlem children's zone is a model to follow, but i am careful to make such recommendations. there is a danger in the nonprofit model and the private/public parnterships that sometimes support nonprofits. a project like this can have incredible, long-term positive effects. how are we committed as a community to making sure that it continues to become an instituation?