Addressing Local Needs: Longitudinal Assessment of the Full-Service Community Schools Model In a Rural School District

Background and Purpose: Schools in rural settings have unique needs. The full-service community schools (FSCS) model is an evidence-based approach that addresses systemic needs within local contexts by focusing on four pillars: (1) integrated student supports, (2) expanded and enriched learning opportunities, (3) active family and community engagement, and (4) collaborative leadership practices. This longitudinal study evaluated the impact of the FSCS model on school outcomes in one rural school district.

Methods: Two elementary schools (ES1 & ES2) in one rural Appalachian school district implemented the FSCS model in Fall 2023. To evaluate longitudinal impacts (Y1 2024; Y2 2025), qualitative data were collected through interviews, and quantitative data were collected using CAYCI-SES surveys (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2020). Over two years, semi-structured interviews asked stakeholders (Y1 n = 14; Y2 n = 15) about the impact of the model, and CAYCI-SES surveys assessed constructs like school climate and parent/caregiver engagement. CAYCI-SES surveys students (Y1 n = 235; Y2 n = 234), parents/caregivers (Y1 n = 45; Y2 n = 65), and teachers/staff (Y1 n = 69; Y2 n = 77). Qualitative data were analyzed thematically with open coding, and quantitative data were analyzed by assessing change scores on survey items over time.

Results: Findings revealed growth across each FSCS pillar. Integrated student supports improved, as evidenced by qualitative themes: improved holistic support for academic and non-academic needs and access to mental and behavioral health resources. Quantitatively, students reported greater support for learning, with more students reporting getting help from their teachers when they have problems (ES1: +7.4% change; ES2: +9.9% change).

The FSCS model also expanded and enriched learning time and opportunities. Interviews identified increased coordinated community partner engagement as enriching learning for students, as evidenced by enhanced learning enrichment and greater workforce development themes. Similarly, quantitative data from teachers/staff in ES2 revealed increased partnerships with community organizations to offer students additional opportunities (+6.7% change). Students in the two schools also reported increased participation in activities outside of school, including playing sports (ES1: +4.2% change) and playing musical instruments (ES2: +3.7%).

Stakeholders reported greater family and community engagement. Interview data reveal strengthened family-school-community partnerships, strengthened community collaborations, and increased community involvement. In Year 2, increased family engagement emerged as a new theme. Quantitatively, parents/caregivers reported having more time and energy to attend special events at the school (ES1: +12.8% change; ES2: +9.5% change), further highlighting increased family engagement.

Qualitative data also reveal more collaborative leadership practices through increased capacity of FSCS coordinators and sustainability for trauma-informed care. Quantitatively, ES2 teachers/staff reported feeling more supported by the school (+13.8% change), suggesting that strengthened leadership improves school climate.

Conclusions and Implications: Our findings show the FSCS model is supportive of needs in rural contexts, as evidenced by our robust longitudinal data. This is promising for school social workers (SSWs), as systems-level interventions may support complex person-in-environment demands and improve school climate. FSCS balances meeting the school community where they are while being grounded in four tangible pillars to help guide SSW practice.