Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs ...jgrossma/reports/challenges0401.pdf4...

Jean Baldwin GrossmanKaren WalkerRebecca Raley

Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs:

Lessons for Policymakers and FundersApril 2001

2 Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders

Introduction 3

Introduction As schools focus more intensively on preparing students with the academic skills necessary for successin the information age, attention is increasinglyturning to the experiences of children and youthin their out-of-school time. After-school, weekendand summer programs offer many opportunities tocomplement and enhance the academic learningthat takes place in school. These programs arepromising strategies for engaging children andyouth in a variety of positive social, recreationaland academic activities.

Unfortunately, while the need for enrichment oppor-tunities exists everywhere, their availability is notuniversal. Too many poor youth do not have accessto youth-serving organizations like Ys, Boys & GirlsClubs and Scouts. There may be none located intheir neighborhoods; parents are concerned abouttheir children’s safety getting to and from the organi-zations; or families cannot afford the program’s fees.In contrast, all young people have access to schoolsand, for the most part, parents are familiar with theschools and comfortable sending their children tothem. Keeping schools open longer and transformingtheir facilities into youth and community centersexpands the benefit derived from investment inthese public buildings.

Recognizing these advantages, many newly emergingyouth development programs are arising in schools,especially in poorer neighborhoods. Indeed, school-based, after-school programs are increasingly becom-ing the solution policymakers suggest for all sorts ofyouth problems—poor academic achievement, gangparticipation, violence and drug use. Federal spend-ing alone for school-based, after-school programs hasgone from $40 million in 1997 to a proposed $850million in 2001.1

Policymakers, funders and the public, however, mustbalance their optimism about the programs’ poten-tial with the realities of what they might ultimatelyachieve. Locating these programs in schools bringsmany strengths; but, as the experience of at least onebroad-based initiative is demonstrating, it also bringsunique challenges that should be taken into consid-eration as programs are planned and funded. Thisbrief report describes program realities and discussesissues that policymakers need to think through whenshaping their after-school initiatives.


Information in the report is drawn from early findingsof the multi-year evaluation of the Extended-ServiceSchools (ESS) Adaptation Initiative. Funded by theWallace-Reader’s Digest Funds (WRDF) and conductedby Public/Private Ventures and the ManpowerDemonstration Research Corporation, the evaluationis examining approximately 60 after-school programsin 17 cities around the country.2 With support fromWRDF, each city is adapting one of four nationallyrecognized extended-service school models. Whileeach model is unique, they are all intended to offerhigh-quality youth development programs in schoolbuildings through a partnership between a localschool district and a community-based organization(CBO) and/or a university. (See the appendix for adescription of the models.)

ESS’s design intentionally embodies both model andcity-level variations so the initiative and its accompa-nying evaluation can examine after-school programsin very different contexts. At the same time, the designoffers an opportunity to identify the underlying issuesinvolved in providing these programs, whatever themodel and the local contexts in which they operate.This report focuses on three formidable challengesthat have occurred with consistency across programs,regardless of the city where they are located or the after-school model they are implementing. It is organized around these key questions:

• What challenges arise in connection with programs’ access to school space?

• What challenges arise concerning participation—are programs reaching the children and youthwho could most benefit from them?

• What challenges arise with regard to transportation?

The following pages examine these issues, their under-lying causes and the implications for social policy.3

Space and Programming 5

Space and Programming Location in a school building provides a program withseveral important advantages. First, the facilities areappropriate for a wide range of activities. Gyms,libraries, auditoriums and computer labs all provideunique equipment and space difficult to find else-where. Second, the school provides coordinators withready access to potential participants, namely thestudent body. Third, the school offers the programlegitimacy to parents who might hesitate to allow theirchildren to participate in programs elsewhere.

But using schools as a venue for after-school programsis not as easy as it would appear—and for severalconcrete reasons.

The current notion that school buildings are under-used resources, open for only six or seven hoursduring the school day and not at all in the summer,is too simplistic.

At least some parts of school buildings are oftenheavily used after hours: teachers prepare for theirnext day’s classes and provide extra help to selectedstudents; students use the libraries and computerlabs to complete their assignments; sports teamspractice; outside organizations (such as Scouts or pri-vate day-care providers) use the facilities. Even in thesummers, the buildings are used—primarily for sum-mer school programs that have become much moreprevalent in reaction to the current movement toimprove academic achievement. The result is thatafter-school programs often have to compete forspace, particularly the gym or computer labs.

The availability of appropriate space is critical to thecharacter of the program: it fundamentally affects thetype and quality of activities that can be offered. Forexample, many activities require open, multi-purposeclassrooms that can accommodate activities like aero-bics or karate. Traditional classrooms crowded withdesks are ill-suited for this purpose. But having accessto a single multi-purpose room, such as the cafeteria,does not solve the problem because it is difficult torun several concurrent activities—for example, home-work help, story time and a dance class—in just one ofthese rooms. The number and type of activities is thusconstrained by the availability of appropriate space.Exacerbating the problem is the fact that multi-pur-pose and special rooms are often already in consider-able demand in schools; and, as newcomers to theschool, some programs found they were the first to bedenied even a scheduled use if the school had a last-minute request from a teacher for the room.


In some of the ESS sites, space limitations are also, inpart, a result of already overcrowded conditions in theschools. For example, one middle school was built toaccommodate 450 students but has a current enroll-ment of 800. Similarly, an elementary school with thecapacity for 360 students has an enrollment of 900.Obviously, school facilities and equipment are alreadybeing heavily used and there is little available space toshare with the program.

In those schools that do have space to share, goodrelationships with key school personnel (principals,teachers and custodians) were at the heart of gainingaccess to the space. While schools and CBO staff typi-cally shared a similar set of goals for the after-schoolprograms, there were practical gaps in the level oftrust. Program staff often recognized the need to bepatient in developing their relationships with schoolstaff. Coordinators gained the trust of key teachers byresponding quickly to complaints and helping themout when they needed assistance (for example, withan after-school event or with supplies) and even bypaying them to provide services. Some programs dis-covered that involving school principals in the hiringof ESS school coordinators and choosing staff whowere already known to the school smoothed commu-nication issues and facilitated access to space. In mostcases, access to school space increased over time, asschools grew more comfortable with the programs andprogram staff. Yet, each time a new principal came onboard, trust had to be re-established.

Limited resources for maintaining the school’s physicalfacilities and equipment lead administrators to limitthe building’s use.

Heavily used and overcrowded school buildings areonly part of the explanation of why space availability isa challenge for all the ESS programs. Principals areheld responsible for the physical integrity of theschool plant and, thus, are hesitant to let the programuse school facilities unless they feel confident thatschool property will be respected. Limited in theirresources to finance the maintenance and replace-ment of school facilities and equipment, they com-monly feel the need to restrict and monitor use ofsuch special rooms as computer labs, libraries, audito-riums and gyms with newly coated floors.

Everything depreciates with use—cars, equipment,schools. Given the tight budgets that most principalsoperate under, it is not surprising that there is tensionbetween schools and program coordinators aroundthe use of the building, student behavior in after-school activities, and maintenance issues. For the mostpart, coordinators are able to keep the rate of facilitydeterioration at a level comparable to the usualschool-day strain; but when facilities and equipmentare used, they inevitably wear out and break. Breakagemeans that school-day students, as well as after-schoolparticipants, have to do with less. Having to buy orrepair a computer means that some other purchasehas to be foregone. Program staff often believe thatthe tensions are created by school distrust of the pro-gram, but our study strongly suggests that the funda-mental issue is not one of turf or control, but ofresources. More public funds are needed to maintainschool facilities if they are to be open for longer hoursand used more intensively. Turf and control issues doarise but can be resolved over time as trust builds. Theresource issue will not go away without the public’sgreater awareness and support.

Increased custodial costs are a related issue. While thescheduling of room cleaning might, on the surface,seem to be a readily solvable logistical detail, it in factemerged as a significant issue for programs. If a pro-gram uses space that would otherwise not be in useevery day, or uses it for more hours, the school facesextra cleaning demands. In addition, since programsoperate outside of normal school hours, the scheduleof cleaning must shift, and that often involves over-time costs. Each ESS collaborative has to determinehow these costs will be shared. This, in turn, affectsprogramming. In trying to minimize extra costs,school coordinators may curtail activities earlier thanthey want to or not offer adult activities in the evening(when more adults could attend) so as to have roomsempty for cleaning during the hours that custodiansnormally work.

Across the sites, programs and schools dealt in similarways with the increased cleaning demands. They triedto coordinate the programs’ use of space with custo-dians’ cleaning schedules. Often, they attempted tostretch resources, having the custodians clean morein the same number of hours. At one school, custodialstaff stayed an additional unpaid hour to support the needs of the ESS program. Many ESS staff also

Space and Programming 7

informally took on cleaning responsibilities. As wasthe case with securing access to school space, findingsolutions to the problem of additional cleaningdepended on developing strong working relation-ships with school staff—particularly custodians andprincipals. However, over time, issues of liability and compliance with custodial union rules will haveto be addressed.

In the larger context of implementing after-schoolprograms, the most pressing issue is ensuring thatschools can sustain the increased wear and tear ontheir facilities’ infrastructures. As programs andschools face the challenge of locating additional fundsto cover custodians’ longer work days and other costsassociated with upkeep and repair, policymakers mustrecognize that meeting maintenance needs is centralto sustaining programs.

Who Participates? 9

Who Participates? Located in poor neighborhoods, the ESS programs arereaching thousands of racially and ethnically diverselow-income children. In fact, even in their first year ofoperations, programs in most of the schools served ahundred or more students. Over time, demand forthe programs should increase as they establish strongreputations among parents and teachers at the schools,and growing numbers of word-of-mouth referralscomplement the approaches to recruitment that pro-grams are currently using.

As sites recruit students, the overriding challenge theyare confronting is transportation; that challenge is dis-cussed in the next section. This section looks at twomore specific issues about which children and youthare participating in the programs.

Targeted efforts are needed to attract the most disadvantaged students.

Preliminary data suggest that while the ESS programsreach thousands of children who live in disadvantagedcircumstances, additional effort is needed to attractthe most disadvantaged students. In any new programwith open enrollment, less needy children and theirfamilies are typically the ones who first learn about itand enroll. This also appears to be true in ESS. This isnot to suggest that many needy students did not apply.However, the early enrolling children are somewhatless likely than their respective student bodies to comefrom low-income families. While three-quarters of theESS school populations qualify for free- or reduced-priced lunch, only two-thirds (66%) of the programenrollees qualify. Similarly, the programs seem lessable to draw in children from single-parent homes.While 37 percent of the students in these schools livewith only one parent, 26 percent of the enrollees arefrom single-parent families.

According to a number of the program coordinators,many of the early enrollees were students who wereprobably more assertive and more involved in schooland other activities. They also noted that parentswho were most involved with their children were theones who responded to the enrollment opportunity.Coordinators indicated that their programs were lesssuccessful in recruiting students who are behind inschool, poor attenders, prone toward detention, lack-ing support at home, and from non-English-speakingand poor families. As one said, “I feel like we’re pro-viding services to many needy kids, but I would like toserve more highly at-risk students.”


Referrals from principals, teachers and student supportteams were the most common means through whichprograms attempted to recruit such at-risk youth. Atthe same time, several sites developed targeted recruit-ment strategies designed to be less stigmatizing thanreferrals. For example, one program held registrationin public housing and low-income apartment units.In several other programs, staff made targeted homevisits or delivered brochures (translated into otherlanguages, where necessary) to specific parents’ doors.Program staff often mentioned that sending informa-tion home with youth did not guarantee that parentswould see it; direct contact proved to be important.They felt that if parents knew about the array ofactivities the after-school program provided, theywould encourage their children to enroll.

In some cases, a barrier to recruiting the most at-riskyouth was students’ dislike of school. To address thisissue and encourage the participation of poorly per-forming students, some programs stressed theirassociation with a youth-serving organization. Byhaving a strong Boys & Girls Club or YWCA identity,the programs hoped that students who were uncom-fortable or unhappy in school would be more likelyto participate. It is too early to say whether thisassumption is accurate; students and staff spoke ofyouth being attracted by particular activities (such asa climbing wall or basketball) or by a particular staffmember, rather than by an organization.

Older children are less attracted to after-schoolprograms than are elementary school children.

In addition to providing children with enrichmentopportunities, a key motivating factor behind the pol-icy interest in after-school programs is the increasingneed for school-aged child care. Apart from the 1970s,there have never been as many 5- to 14-year-olds in theUnited States as there are currently.4 More of thesechildren live with only one parent, and more of theirmothers work than ever before. As societal norms andpolicies stress the importance of employment, thedemand for school-aged child care has ballooned.

Almost all adults agree that elementary school childrenneed adult supervision, but it is no less important formiddle school youth. Young people aged 10 to 14 areoften seen as old enough to stay on their own forshort periods of time, but they are also old enoughto get into serious trouble. Unfortunately, these olderchildren are much less likely to participate in super-vised after-school programs, whether they take placeat youth-serving organizations or at their schools.

ESS program staff found it to be significantly easier torecruit elementary school children than middle- andhigh-school students, who almost always have busierschedules, increased responsibilities and greaterfreedom. Among the early enrollees, 30 percent werein grade three or lower, 45 percent were in gradesfour to six, 23 percent were in grades seven or eight,and only 2 percent were in grade nine or higher. Inaddition, according to program coordinators, theelementary-aged children who enrolled attendedmore frequently; older youth’s attendance seemedmuch more inconsistent.

Coordinators devised several creative programmingideas to attract teens and have them participate consis-tently enough that the program might make a positivedifference in their lives. One middle school programdecided to begin charging an activity fee in the hopethat it would build youth’s commitment to attend.Other programs found that teens enjoyed organizingand participating in special events such as communityservice neighborhood clean-ups; running their ownclubs; and working with younger youth as tutors,mentors or ESS staff. Offering teen programs withflexible open-door policies, along with opportunitiesfor leadership and loosely guided autonomy seemedmost effective. Two of the high school programs thatoffered student-run teen clubs gave students theresponsibility to develop their own club names,rules and activities. Older youth were also drawn to programs that assisted them with job readinessand placement.

Transportation 11

Transportation Transportation appears to be the most complex andformidable of the challenges faced by school-based,after-school programs. It affects the hours of pro-gramming, who is able to participate and the costof the program.

Programs’ inability to provide transportation home isa major barrier to participation for a large proportionof students.

Programs operating in schools where a majority of thestudents live within safe walking distance are at a con-siderable advantage when it comes to recruiting par-ticipants. Yet the nature of urban schools makes thelikelihood of this rare. School busing is a fact of lifefor many urban students, either because of desegrega-tion mandates or because of the mismatch betweenheavily youth-populated neighborhoods and thelocation of schools.

Given the limited supply of buses and drivers, as wellas their cost, there is a dearth of busing after hours.The consequences of inadequate transportation aresubstantial. Youth who live beyond walking distancefrom the school and lack adults who can pick them upsimply cannot participate in the programs. In one ESScity, where 90 to 95 percent of the student populationrelies on busing, many youth face the possibility ofbeing left out; but the situation has proven to beequally problematic in cities where only 25 percent orfewer of the students rely on busing. And in schoolsthat were able to provide busing for some students,the number of seats available on those buses limitedthe number of children the program could recruit—one site, for example, had to keep enrollment to 150students a day although more students would haveparticipated had transportation home been available.Even when the children live within what might seemto be walking distance from the school, many parentsfeel uncomfortable, with good reason, about havingthem walk home alone in the dark at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.

ESS coordinators and program partners consistentlyhighlighted their concerns about the challenges oftransportation. They were particularly concernedbecause students who require after-hours busing—busing that is not available—are frequently those whocould most benefit from the added support the pro-grams offer. Those are often children whose parentswork evening shifts and can neither arrange a pick upnor help with school work at home. We speculate thatthese are also frequently children of lower-income andsingle-parent families.


The immediacy of the transportation issue pressedprograms to try to quickly develop solutions. In thebest of circumstances, school districts were able tooffer monetary or in-kind support for late busing. Inone city, the school district already had late busing inoperation for other school activities, which they thenextended to ESS youth. In another city, the principallobbied the district for a year to provide late busing; itfinally agreed, with the stipulation that buses leave theschool before 5:00 p.m. In a third city, the ESS summerprogram strategically dovetailed with summer schoolclasses so that summer school students who stayed forESS could return home on school district-fundedbuses. Through this arrangement, the summer pro-gram was able to serve a large group of youth, but ithad a major drawback: students not enrolled in sum-mer school were unable to participate in ESS activities.

The cost of transportation significantly increasesprograms’ need for resources.

Paying for additional busing is expensive and, inalmost all of the ESS sites, sufficient funding was notallotted to this service during the planning stages. Inonly one city was availability of transportation consid-ered as schools were selected to become sites. In therest of the cities, it emerged as a growing concern forwhich programs were largely under-prepared.

One program estimated the real costs of transporta-tion to be three times what was originally budgeted.Another program calculated the costs of after-schoolbusing to be $50,000 for the school year. Such daunt-ing expenses contributed to one principal’s proposalto the management team that the school make theESS program a mandatory part of the school day, so the school district would have to pay for busing.(The proposal was not accepted.) Coordinatorsexpressed frustration at the unwieldiness of the prob-lem. As one noted, “If you want to keep people afterschool longer and later, you have to consider howthey’re going to get home. If there isn’t any moneyto get people home, are we just spinning our wheels?”

In many cases, school districts found there was littlethey could do to ease the transportation problem.Either budgets were already stretched and money wasunavailable, or there were restrictions on how transitmoney could be spent. In one city, for example, theschool district gave transportation funding only toacademic programs, and ESS was considered non-academic. A number of the ESS sites considered usingpublic transportation, but only one actually went thisroute. While the expense is less formidable thanschool busing, it still involves additional cost. However,the main reasons that programs are reluctant to usepublic transportation is their concern about safety,particularly for elementary school students.

Given the substantial costs of providing buses andthe significant effects that lack of busing has on par-ticipation, transportation is a continuing and urgentchallenge for ESS programs. Without secured ways totransport bus-dependent youth to and from activities,school-based, after-school, weekend and summer pro-grams become less viable. And as programs continueto work toward creative solutions to their transporta-tion difficulties, the evidence suggests that long-termsolutions rest in the capacity of cities and schooldistricts to shoulder the financial responsibility.

As cities think about how to implement school-based,after-school programs, the implications of varioustransportation options need to be weighed. Programscan serve only the school’s students, and buses cantransport them home at the end of the day’s program-ming. Or, the school-based, after-school programs canact like a neighborhood center and recruit onlyneighborhood youth, including those who do notattend the given school.

The two options have both advantages and disadvan-tages. Recruiting is easier if the target population goesto the school in which the program is held. Parentsand children are familiar and comfortable with thebuilding, and recruitment can be done during theschool day. But paying for transportation is expensive.Even if resources (in-kind or financial) exist to payfor it, the program’s costs rise. From a social policyperspective, these higher costs must be weighedagainst the program’s benefits.

Transportation 13

On the other hand, programs that target only neigh-borhood youth must conduct considerably more out-reach to inform the parents and children who do notattend that school about the programs’ opportunities.5

In addition, school personnel are less likely to be assupportive of the program if the majority of partici-pants attend other schools; we observed that bothteachers and principals are most invested in meetingtheir students’ needs. And, finally, neighborhood-based programs may still have to wrestle with the issueof getting children home after dark, even if they liveclose to the school. Thus, while the transportationcosts will probably be smaller, the recruiting costs willincrease, and not all of the transportation-relatedproblems will disappear.

Conclusion 15

Conclusion School-based, after-school programs are promisingstrategies for engaging children and youth in a varietyof positive social, recreational and academic activities.The programs hold the potential of providing youngpeople with opportunities to develop the skills, rolesand relationships essential to their ultimate successwhile also sheltering them during a time of vulnera-bility. Locating such programs in schools is particularlysensible in low-income communities where thereare few other available resources that children and their parents can use for educational andrecreational purposes.

As often happens with promising interventions, peoplehave very high and broad aspirations for after-schoolprograms. Some hope they will provide children andyouth with the basic life skills they need to succeedin school and as adults—such as social competence,anger management, persistence, responsibility, lead-ership, entrepreneurship and civic engagement. Stillothers hope they will reduce neighborhood crimeand increase schools’ and children’s ability toachieve higher academic standards. Policymakersand funders, however, must balance optimism aboutthe programs’ potential with some degree of caution.It is important to keep in mind that the programs facevery real challenges in finding adequate resources—especially the space to house them and the trans-portation needed to take participants home.

Expectations for after-school programs should also betempered by well-established knowledge about whatyouth programs can and cannot achieve and underwhat circumstances. As the ESS evaluation continues,we will be collecting evidence on the effectiveness ofthe programs; but based on what we have learned thusfar, we can begin to speculate on their likely effects.

One expectation is that school-based, after-school pro-grams will increase children’s academic performance.Academic activities are a substantial part (about 40percent of program hours) of all the ESS programs,regardless of which model is being adapted. The aca-demic support directly expands children’s learningopportunities, while the program’s non-academicactivities help meet some of their other needs,enabling them to be more attentive learners duringthe school day. Yet, obtaining academic impacts will bean uphill battle for programs because the acquisitionof basic skills like reading and math is a cumulativeprocess that takes time and requires consistent effort.Many of the programs have opted to serve more chil-dren less intensively (programming one or two days a


week for each age group) rather than fewer childrenmore intensively (three to five days a week). Less fre-quent participation lessens the likelihood of positiveimpacts. In addition, mobility is often quite high inlow-income neighborhoods, and many of the enrolleesleave the program too soon to benefit. Finally, evenif a program does intensively serve its participants,it is unlikely that, at current levels of funding, itwill dramatically increase a school’s overall testscores, because the proportion of students in aschool who attend these programs is now relativelysmall. However, academic impacts may be achievablefor students who attend frequently for an extendedperiod of time.

Many people hope that school-based, after-school pro-grams will reduce youth crime and victimization. ESS’seffect on crime is not likely to live up to advocates’dreams, but may still be positive. Most serious juvenilecrime is committed by older youth, who, at least cur-rently, are less likely to attend after-school programs.Neighborhood delinquency and vandalism, however,may decline because they are perpetrated by youngerchildren. Several principals mentioned lower rates ofvandalism since their ESS program had begun. Inaddition, by providing a supervised, safe, after-schoolenvironment, programs may result in a lower rate ofvictimization among younger children.

Another commonly cited benefit is that after-schoolprograms will provide children with opportunities touse their time constructively. We observed that theprograms did actively attract and engage thousandsof children and youth who have few other positiveoptions for filling their after-school time. Participantsin the programs spoke warmly about the staff, animportant indicator of program quality. While theevaluation is still in the process of closely examiningstudents’ experiences in the programs, we can specu-late that they are providing frequent participants withmeaningful adult relationships, opportunities to inter-act with their peers, and the chance to learn new skillsand refine old ones.

While this discussion may be sobering for some, it ismeant to focus attention on the real benefits after-school programs can have. We have long known thatchildren and youth need to have access to develop-mental opportunities over the course of their child-hood and adolescence. We also know that ongoingadult support makes a difference in their lives. After-school programs can offer these benefits. In addition,valuable cross-pollination may occur by locating youthprogramming in schools. Schools are inherently devel-opmental: they meet children and youth where theyare and, through a series of increasingly challengingactivities, encourage them to reach higher levels ofachievement. Locating after-school programs inschools may, thus, encourage youth programs toemphasize the importance of stretching youth.Conversely, schools may also be positively affectedwhen teachers see other talents and behaviors intheir students.

Since Fall 1999, when data collection for this reportended, we have continued to examine how the pro-grams are evolving. They have all grown stronger andmany are now serving more children. Over the nextfew years, we will explore the costs of implementingand sustaining the programs and the ways in whichthey affect the lives of the children and youth who participate.

Endnotes 17

Endnotes1 In addition to this federal initiative—the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers—state and local governments have beenexpanding their investment in after-school initiatives. For example,in school year 1999, New York increased funding for AdvantageSchools after-school programs from $500,000 to $10 million.Kentucky now spends $37 million on extended-school services.Maryland’s legislature recently passed an After School OpportunityFund of $10 million. Wisconsin provides $20 million for after-schoolprograms. Bills before the Pennsylvania legislature propose toallocate $15 million for after-school programs. At the local level,in 1998 the Soros Foundation established The After SchoolCorporation in New York City to increase the number and qualityof after-school programs; as of Winter 2000, over 100 programswere funded. In 1998, Boston’s mayor launched his “2:00 to 6:00Initiative” that now funds after-school programs in 57 schools.Chicago’s Lighthouse provides after-school services to 363 elementary schools.

2 While, for simplicity, we refer to these services and activities asafter-school programs, they also include before-school program-ming, summer programs, during-school programs, and weekendand holiday activities. In addition, special educational and recre-ational programs are run for adults. Several programs also providea limited array of social services to students, their parents andcommunity members. However, after-school activities are by farthe most prevalent type of programming offered.

3 Data used in this report were collected from late 1998 to late 1999,a period covering the first year of operations for most of the pro-grams. The data come from interviews with program staff, activityproviders, leaders in the efforts to implement the initiative, localfunders and school district personnel; observations of activities foryouth; surveys of ESS school coordinators; and early enrollmentfigures. For a full discussion of the ESS sites’ planning and earlyimplementation period, see Extended-Service Schools: PuttingProgramming in Place. Karen Walker, Jean Baldwin Grossman and Rebecca Raley, with Glee Holton and Veronica Fellerath.Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures and Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation. December 2000 (available on our websiteat www.ppv.org). The ESS evaluation is scheduled to end in early 2002.

4 See “America’s Schoolchildren: Past, Present, and Future.” Elise Cappella and Mary Larner. The Future of Children: When Schoolis Out, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall 1999.

5 Evidence emerging from the evaluation of the San FranciscoBeacons Initiative suggests an additional challenge in recruitingparticipants for school-based programs that are meant to drawfrom the entire neighborhood, not just the school’s students. Thelevel of the host school affects which children will participate. Theevaluation is finding that middle schools appear to be the mostsuccessful at drawing participants from all age groups—about halfof the children who participate in programs in those locationsare middle school students, with the other half being equally dis-tributed between elementary and high school students. (Reportto be published in 2001. Karen Walker and Amy Arbreton,Public/Private Ventures.)

Appendix 19

Bridges to Success

Originally implemented in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Mission: To increase the educational success of students bybetter meeting the non-educational needs of children andtheir families through a partnership of education, humanservice and community service delivery systems, with along-range vision of establishing schools as “lifelonglearning centers” and focal points of their communities.

Activities: Vary according to site, but each site has an over-arching goal of promoting positive youth developmentduring non-school hours. Activities include educationalenrichment, career development, arts and culture, life-skills, counseling, case management, health and mentalhealth services, and recreation.

Governance: The Local United Way agency acts as leadorganization and fiscal agent. A local governance structuremade up of United Way, school district, social service andcommunity representatives develops citywide program-ming strategies and oversees implementation. School-levelcouncils assess the needs and assets of the community, anddesign and implement program interventions. The coun-cils include a program coordinator, school principal andother school staff, parents, students and local partners.

Community Schools

Originally implemented in elementary and middle schoolsin the Washington Heights section of New York City.

Mission: “Educational excellence, combined with neededhuman services, delivered through school, parent andcommunity partnerships.” “Seamless integration of school-day activities with extended-day programs.”

Activities: A wide range of youth development programsduring the school day and in non-school hours. Socialservices, such as on-site clinics, legal assistance and casemanagement, are also provided. Parent education is animportant component of the Community Schools.

Governance: Co-management of school facilities by theschool and a community-based organization. Managementstaff from the CBO have space in the school administrativeoffices so they can interact frequently with school principals.

Additional characteristics of the ESS national adaptation:Local universities play a key role in technical assistance andplanning. An oversight committee, consisting of universitystaff, executive staff from key CBOs, and school districtstaff, provide general policy and management oversight.In addition, each school should have a school-level deci-sion-making body that includes parents and other com-munity representation.

Appendix: The Extended-Service School Models

The Extended-Service Schools (ESS) Initiative was launchedin 1997 by the Wallace-Reader’s Digest Funds to create 60extended-service schools in 17 cities across the country.Each city is adapting one of four nationally recognizedmodels that have been successfully developed and imple-mented in other communities in the U.S. The models are:

1. The Beacon, a collaboration of a school and a com-munity-based organization (CBO).

2. Bridges to Success, a collaboration of a school, sev-eral CBOs and a local United Way.

3. Community Schools, a collaboration of a school, aCBO and a university.

4. West Philadelphia Improvement Corporation (WEPIC),a collaboration of a school and a university.

The Beacon

Originally implemented in New York City Public Schools,primarily in middle schools.

Mission: To develop and operate school-based communitycenters; to create “safe havens” for youth and families in poor neighborhoods; to promote youth developmentand resiliency.

Activities: A diverse array of youth development activitiesin five core areas: education, recreation and enrichment,career development, leadership development, and health.Activities take place during non-school hours and empha-size several factors important to youth resiliency: caringadult relationships, engaging activities, high expectations,youth’s opportunity to make a contribution, and continuity.

Governance: Each Beacon Center has a lead agency thatmanages all activities at the school. A local organizationprovides technical assistance in organizational developmentas well as youth development practices. An oversight commit-tee, consisting of school district staff and executive staff fromkey CBOs, provides general policy and management over-sight. Each school has a school-level decision-making bodythat includes parents and other community representation.


West Philadelphia Improvement Corporation (WEPIC)

Originally implemented in Philadelphia.

Mission: A school-based school and community revitalizationprogram to produce comprehensive, university-assistedcommunity schools that serve, educate and activate allmembers of the community, revitalizing the curriculumthrough a community-oriented, real-world, problem-solving approach.

Activities: Academically based community service, such asgraduate and undergraduate interns working in schools toprovide educational assistance and mentoring to youth.

Governance: School principals and staff play key decision-making roles, such as deciding what substantive areas willbe addressed through the initiative. Community councilsprovide guidance on program content.

Public/Private Ventures is a nationalnonprofit organization whose mission is to improve the effectiveness of socialpolicies, programs and community initia-tives, especially as they affect youth andyoung adults. In carrying out this mission,P/PV works with philanthropies, the pub-lic and business sectors, and nonprofitorganizations.

Board of DirectorsSiobhan Nicolau, Chair

PresidentHispanic Policy

Development ProjectAmalia V. Betanzos

PresidentWildcat Service

CorporationYvonne Chan

PrincipalVaughn Learning Center

Mitchell S. FromsteinChairman EmeritosManpower, Inc.

Susan FuhrmanDean, Graduate School of

EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Christine L. James-BrownPresidentUnited Way of Southeastern

PennsylvaniaMatthew McGuire

Telesis CorporationMichael P. Morley

Senior Vice PresidentEastman Kodak Company

Jeremy NowakChief Executive OfficerThe Reinvestment Fund

Marion PinesSenior FellowInstitute for Policy StudiesJohns Hopkins University

Isabel Carter StewartExecutive DirectorChicago Foundation for

WomenCay Stratton

DirectorDepartment for Education

and Employment,London U.K.

Marta TiendaProfessor of SociologyPrinceton University

Gary WalkerPresidentPublic/Private Ventures

William Julius WilsonLewis P. and Linda L.

Geyser UniversityProfessor

Harvard University

Public/Private Ventures

2000 Market StreetSuite 600Philadelphia, PA 19103Tel: 215-557-4400Fax: 215-557-4469Url: http://www.ppv.org

Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs:

Lessons for Policymakers and Funders

Jean Baldwin GrossmanKaren WalkerRebecca Raley

April 2001

Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs ...jgrossma/reports/challenges0401.pdf4...

Documents

Transcript of Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs ...jgrossma/reports/challenges0401.pdf4...