, ' ,,',,.

,/'

ExPAt{Drf{c THE PnoMrsE:An AcENDA FoR NoxscHool-HouRPnocnAMS FoR ETBvIBNTARy Scuool-AcBCsnnnBN rN Ar,lncHBNy Cou¡qry

,*j

frV^r'\i'

-?#

ïr

.r;*

\ 'i;.1.

}'rt ,',rÁ#,

t',itg

FOR

Er,pvrBNTARy ScHool-AcB CHn onEN IN

AllpcHENY CouxryProduced by the

University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Developmenta program of the University Center for Social and Urban Research

and funded byThe Forbes Fund with a grant from

The Howard Heinz Endowment

Jmu.lnY 2ooo

Jacqueline L. Dempsey, Ph.D.Anne E. Farber, Ph.D.Christina J. Groark, Ph.D.RobertB. McCall, Ph.D.Lucas O. Musewe, M.P.H.Elizabeth M. Stork, M.S.W.Maria Z. Townsend, Ph.D.

Project staffProject Coordinator, Focus Groups DirectorSurvey DirectorProject DirectorEditor, WriterGeo graphic Infomøtion Systems DirectorLiterature Reviewer and WriterDemographic Indicators Director

For more information, you may call or write to: The Forbes Fund,One PPG Place, 30th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, (412) 394-2603.

Acr¡TowLEDGMENTS

IVe wish to acknowledge the assistance of Darlene Hamilton, Jennifer Hyland, BobbeGrandey, and Janine Lesser of the YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh Child Care Partnerships

in providing information from their CareFinder Data Base.

rile also wish to acknowledge Robert Paserba of the Diocese of Pittsburgh CatholicSchools who collaborated with us in surveying the Diocese's elementary schools

in Allegheny County and Duane Ashley of the City of Pittsburgh Department of Parksand Recreation who coordinated the inventory of Citiparks programs for elementary

school age children.

In addition, Philip Parr and Jacqueline Territo of the Pittsburgh Public Schoolscollaborated with us in obtaining information on programs provided in their district's

elementary schools.

rüy'e also thank the staff of the after-school programs who responded to the survey andprovided information on their programs and the parents who gave of their time by

participating in the focus groups.

Tnnrp or CoNTENTs

Ol't,;Rl,ni\\',\Nr) St;ir,rir,r,,ul\, ..""."..". x

Iìrn,nrrut;s, CoNcr.ustoNS, ÂNt)

Illicoit,t iu ItNt)A1'r oNS .. "......... c o. o...... o..... ".... ".... s

The Need for Nonschool-Hour Services ..........6

Snapshot of Nonschool-Hour Programs inAllegheny County

Recommendations ..........15

I. Nonschool-Hour Programs

Community Advisory Committee ........ .....19

II. Maps Locating Children and Programs

in Allegheny County .................20

III. Bibliography ..............23

Parents of elementary schoor-aged children are faced with the challenge offinding safe and affordabre care for them during nonschool hours. withthe welfare-to-work initiative, many single t*th"r, are forced intoemployment, often at minimum wage. Finding and ananging child carecan be a daunting challenge. parents often rely on neighbors, familymembers, or center-based care, and use two or more care providers. Toooften, children are left in self-care. The unpublicized crisis ofcare foryoung children after school hours, during summer vacations, and duringsnow emergency cancellations, is rapidly increasing.

To better understand and document the curent status of nonschool_hourcare for elementary school-aged children residing in Allegheny county,The Forbes Fund commissioned the university oltittsuuigh office ofchild Development to conduct an environmental scan of the types andlocations of existing programs, demographic distribution of low-incomeand working families, the needs and preferences of parents, and what thenational literature has to say about quality after-schôor care. The researchwas guided by the following questions:

' what do children in this age group need during nonschool hours, andwhat kinds of services are currently available?

' where are the gaps between what programs offer and what parentswant, and between where children go to school and where programs arelocated?

' \vhat are the characteristics of successful after-school programs andhow do programs in Allegheny County compare?

' !o* are programs financed and what are the opportunities for futurefunding that we are not accessing?

An advisory committee of 2l practitioners, funders, school officials andgovernment representatives reviewed the research, analy zed the findings,and developed a set of recommendations that we believe will strengthenthe system of care for Allegheny County school children.

The following report offers a picture of the current status of nonschool_hour care and a blueprint for moving our community forward to build amore coherent, high-quality system of care. tt is thè hope of the advisory

committee and rhe Forbes Fund that the report will be used as a planningtool by foundations, program planners, school administrators, and socialagencies so that future investments, policy decisions, and program en-hancements can be made in a strategic fashion.

However, the findings and recommendations reflected in this report do notdo justice to the rich body of information compiled during the course ofresearch. As an additional source of technical assistance, the office ofchild Development has provided rhe Forbes Fund with a detailed data-base of neighborhood-by-neighborhood demographics, profiles of allsurveyed programs, and descriptions of funding opportunities. Thissource document and consultation by The Forbes Fund are available tofunders, community groups, individual agencies, and schools wishing toplan after-school care in communities within Allegheny county. For moreinformation on how The Forbes Fund can assist with local planninginterests, you may call or write to:

The Forbes FundOne PPG Place, 30'r'Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15222(4r2) 394-2603

The Board and staff of rhe Forbes Fund wish to extend our gratitude tomembers of the advisory committee, agency staff, and parents who partici-pated in collecting information and forging the final recommendations.special thanks are in order for the research team of the office of childDevelopment for compiling a comprehensive body of information and rheHeinz Endowments for underwriting the research and publication of thisreport.

This environmental scan should be a catalyst for setting a community-wide agenda that truly meets parents' needs and desires for safe, afford-able care for their children during nonschool time.

James DenovaFormer Executive DirectorThe Forbes Fund

BacxcnouND ¡,run NBBn

The hidden crisis. Beneath the exterior of a thriving, fully-employed pittsburghlies a hidden crisis. Specifically, the very factors of economic prosperity andsocial reform that have led increasing numbers of mothers, including low-incomeand single mothers, into the workforce have produced an unintended crisis ofnonschool-hour care in which parents must piece together an often-changing setof care arangements and miss work to deal with gaps and glitches in that care.For example , in a 1999 nationwide survey of I , 100 adult registered voterssponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favoredproviding after-school programs for children ,657o said there were not enoughsuch programs, and 857o believed parents had difficulty finding programs in theircommunities. Moreover, most parents resort to forms of care that are convenientand less expensive. Research demonstrates that these arrangements are morelikely to short-change their children and society in terms of poorer academicachievement and more behavior problems than would be the case if a system ofstructured, center-based, programmically and logistically seamless nonschool-hour care were available.

ffÊ

The children. This hidden crisis affects themajority of families of elementary school-agedchildren in Allegheny County. Specifically,two-thirds of elementary school-aged children- 73,000 children in the County - are estimatedto need some nonschool-hour care. Onlyapproximately l4%o of these children areenrolled in some structured center-basednonschool-hour program and only approxi-mately 277o of these programs are licensed.Therefore, the majority of children (86Vo)estimated to need nonschool-hour services -more than half of all elementary school-agedchildren in the County - are unaccounted for,apparently obtaining nonschool-hour care inhomes or in self-care. But recent researchshows that school-age children in such settings(as well as unstructured programs in centers)get less academic assistance, spend more timewatching TV, and engage in unsupervisedsocial activities. The result is they do pooreracademically and have more social, emotional,and discipline problems in school than childrenattending structured center care duringnonschool hours.

't l;t' ti..ì\' ì..

..lf"''(.

The economíc prosperìty and social reþrnts that haveled íncreasing numbers of motlrcrs - ittcluding singleand lotv-íttco¡ne worrten - ínto the workforce have alsoproduced an unìntended crísis of nonscltoolJtour care,

¡-..r:;J.

Low-income narents and children. The problem is worse for low-income parents, who are more likelyto work inegular hours when care is not available and to be less able to miss work when problems of carearise, and for their children, who are more likely to be left for reasons of convenience and cost in thoseforms of care that are less likely to promote academic success and appropriate social behavior.

Moreover, the number of low-income children needing care has increased because of increases in poverty ingeneral and increases in the number of low-income mothers, including single mothers, who must workbecause of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAIIÐ. Specifically, although the number ofelementary school-aged childrenin Allegheny County has not i

changed during the last decade,the number of low-incomechildren has increased toapproximately one-third of all;iå*äö:ihäääËäiri'fr1" ^òt ¡ Y¡cl

ilEl--srrcr_\movrngtomunlcrDalrnes _il å f][ Æ'ñf -

nonschool-hour care, but Geographíc targeting of nonschoolJtour services for low-ittcome clúldren is ineJfec-simply targeting services at tive, since pockets oÍ poverty exisl evat vithín nnre affluent tlistt'icts.

impoverished inner-cityneighborhoods is not sufficient, because some school districts outside the City and even elementaryschools within otherwise more affluent districts have pockets of poverty. As low-income childrencontinue to spread throughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes less effective andunfair, so other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted (e.g., subsidies or vouchers forindividual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programsavailable to all, etc.).

S¡,r¿psgor oF NoNscHoor, PRocRAMSIN ALLBGHENY Cou¡qly

A recent (1999) study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development ofnonschool-hour programs included a survey of programs and focus groups with parent participants inAllegheny County. Approximately 370 center-type programs were identified that wôuld (but not neces-sarily did) take school-age children during nonschool hours plus approximately 300 family and home-based care locations. Of the 139 center-based programs profiled in this survey, approximately one thirdwere operated by social service agencies, approximately one fourth by private schools (94Vo Catholicschools), 2l%o by other organizations (e.g., Citiparks), and l47o by religious groups. However, 4lfto ofprograms were located in (if not operated by) schools, the majority of which were Catholic schools.

ExpcurIVE OvBnvIEw AND SurvrwrARy. conr.

The findings of the survey led to the general conclusion that nonschool-hourservices in Allegleny county represent a collage of programs largely operatingindependently of the public schools and lacking any systematic financiil stabilityor coordinated management across sites and that parents are forced into a catch-as-catch-can mode of meeting the nonschool-hour care needs of their children. Follow-ing are highlights of these findings that pertain ro programming and finances.

Pnocnlu Issues

' Hours of operation. Nearly all programs (98vo) offer after-school care andmost have summer services, but parents complained that services were difficultto obtain on school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, snow days,and at odd hours beyond the typical 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Fridayschedule.

. Program activities. Focus groups involving 70 parents with children incenter programs in different areas of the county indicated that parents wantsupervised care in a safe environment delivered by trained, competent, caring,and stable staff who provide a program of activities that represent an informal

extension of school coupled with supervisedrecreational and social activities.

. Quality. The quality of programs in AlleghenyCounty is similar to the national average, but it isnot clear that this level of quality represents thestandard of practice that Allegheny Countycitizens and families desire.

. Public schools. The public schools play almost norole in operating nonschool-hour programs,although some programs operated by independentorganizations use school facilities.

Frrl¡Ncral aND ADMrNrsrRATrvE Issurs. Agency funding. Sixty-one percent of the

surveyed center-based programs charged parentsfees, and an estimated 79Vo of parents pay fullfees (approximately $2-$4/hour) as defined byprograms. Regulated programs primarily usepublic subsidies, while other programs provideparents discounts, sliding-fee scales, multiple-child discounts, and scholarships, with contribu-tions from private foundations and governmentprograms covering the difference between parentfees and costs. But gaps remain, since one-third

Nonscltool-ltour services ín Allegheny Cottrtty generallyoperate independently of the public scl¿ools and lackjinancialstabilíty and coordìnoted nønagement.

of the agencies surveyed said sufficient funding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical andmaterial resources the.y felt were needed and to hire and maintain staff. Avariety of gõvêrnment andp.n]3te funding is available but not used to the fullest extent because agencies a.eïnaùare of its avail-ability or.howto apply and because much funding is restricted to ceriain types of organizations (e.g.,public schools), specific types of children, or pariicular purposes.

' I.ow-income families. Full fees a.t.r1Teg-u]a-ted center-based programs would cost approximately$2'0-00 per year for only the first child, which i! !o.o ]qge a propo-rtion of total inconió for an entíy-level wage earner. Even families fiom the GAPS initiative (an employment retention program foiAllegheny County welfare recipients) receiving subsidies paid an áveiage of $ I . I I pef hour or$1,110 per year for only one child (many have more than õne child).

Further, low-income families face several special difficulties affording nonschool-hour services. Forinstance, the working poor are provided government subsidies only afler families below lBSVo ofpoverty are served and thus have no stable source ofsubsidized support. Also, future plans are to onlyrecommend license.d and regulated services to parents eligible for iùbsidies, which represent only asmall percenlage of the available options. In addition, etlliUitity for subsidies for individual familiescan change if employment status changes, meaning that sõme lów-income families are on-off-and-on-again in eligibility for subsidies, which representsã problem for both parent and agency. Clearly,nonschool-hour câre is too much for low-income families to pay and not enough tõ adiquately óu.tagency costs without public and private subsidies.

RpcounlBNDATIoNs

Based on the above findings and conclusions from this study, the Community Advisory Committee to thisstudy listed in Appendix I of this report makes the following recommendations:

A top-level After-School Commis.sion composed of respected and influential leaders representinggovernmext, the professions, and business should be créated to advance a public policy'agenda ailocal and State levels an_d create a plan for a comprehensive and coordinated' ryrt". that'eniures 5- 12-year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschool-hour services as needed.

The agenda for such a commission should include the foilowing issues:

9apaei-ty {uilding. The Commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschool-hour care in terms of space, staff, and funding and integrate such services intô a côordinatedsystem.

Progr-am Quality. The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices fornonschool-hour programming.

Tfaining and Technical Assistance. The Commission should consider the need for training, techni-cal assistance, and information that will support agencies, staff, and parents in creating sr¡õii asystem of nonschool-hour services.

Financial Supp-ort. The Commission should create a coordinated, centralized, and sustainablesystem ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch services.

PnoJBcr DpscnrprroN

The [Jniversity of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development, funded by TheForbes Fund with a grant from The Howard Heinz Endowment, conducted aneeds assessment and environmental scan of programs that provide nonschool-hour care for elementary school-age children residing in Allegheny County. A2l-person Community Advisory Committee (Appendix I) guided the project,reviewed findings, and generated policy recommendations. A full report isavailable from The Forbes Fund.

Definition of nonschool-hour programs. For the purpose of this project,nonschool-hour programs were those that served children enrolled in kindergar-ten through sixth grade (approximately 5 ttrough 12 years of age) during nonschool

hours, including before and after school, weekends,in-service days, school holidays and vacations, andthe summer recess plus programs providing care forsick children. The main purpose of such programs isto provide care and enrichment for school-age childrenwhen they are not in school primarily because theirparents are unavailable to care for them. Usually theseprograms are available to children at least two hours aday, four days a week. Therefore, they do not includemusic lessons, scouting, etc.

Project components. The Project had several majorcomponents:

. National literature review. The national litera-ture, including a national survey of nonschool-hourprograms conducted in 1991, as well as national andlocal policies and funding options were reviewed.

. Providersurvey and inventory. A survey of 139programs that provided nonschool-hour servicesplus information from the YWCA Child CarePartnerships database of 231 regulated or licensedchild care centers that serve school-age childrenprovided a snapshot and inventory of nonschool-hour programming in Allegheny County.

, Geographic mapping of children and services.The number of children approximately 5-12 yearsof age, especially low-income children, was

Researcl¿ shows that scltool-age chìldren in unstrucluredprogranrs get less academic assìslance, watch ntore lelevision,do poorer acadenically, and lnvc more problents ìn scltool thanchildren who receíve sln¿chtred center carc.

'..,* "''¡L':"ffi.r

_:.;;É:,: ;....l;;..t.. t-1.ii.rt..'.ì,,ii;1. l -ti ¡l-jí,il

determined from census data, school enrollments, and eligibility lists for free and reduced lunch andmapped onto available services to determine wherc gaps in services are most severe.

Parent perceptions and opinions. Eight focus groups with a total of 70 parents of children in centercare provided qualitative assessments ofparent needs, desires, and perceptions ofservices.

Recommendations. The Advisory Committee made policy recommendations after reviewing thefindings and conclusions ofthe report.

Tun Nnno FoR NoNSCHooL-Houn Spnvrclls

N¿,rtonal Nrso

' The need for nonschool-hour services is substantial and likely to increase in the future.

- A national survey found that 92Vo of City officials said that nonschool-hour care was the most pressingneed for children and families - more than housing, family stability, drug and alcohol abuse, educa--tion, crime, or welfare reform. And in a 1999 nationwide survey of l, 100 adult registered voterssponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favored proviáing after-schoolprograms for children, 65Vo said there were not enough such programs, and 857o believed parentshad difficulty finding programs in their communities.

- It is estimated that two-thirds of elementary school-aged children need some nonschool-hour services,andthe vast majority ofthese children are in unlicensed and unregulated services - nearly half arenot in any known, formal, consistent child care.

- Recent research shows that school-age children in unstructured programs in centers, homes, and ontheir own get lessacademic assistance,spend more timewatching TV, andengage in moreunsupervised socialactivities in suchcontexts than instructured center care,and the result is that

In et nationsl survey, 92 pcrcent ofCity officíals stated tlmt nonschool-hour care *,as lhe nost pressingneed for chiklre n and fanilies -nnrc pressing fltan housittg,ftrmily stability, drug antl alcoholabuse, education, crinrc, orwelfure reþrnt.

they do poorer academically and have more social, emotional, and disci-, pline problems in school.

- Most parents must piece together nonschool-hour care for their children-767o of school-age children with an employed mother (in l99l) had touse at Ieast two child care a¡rangements in a typical week - which mayinclude structured programs, lessons and sportô, relatives/neighbor care,and selfcare.

Tnn Nnnn rN ALLEcHENy Cou¡¡ry

' I1-{llegheny countyrll0rTzg children are enrolled in public and paro-chial elementary schools, almost one-third from tow-income families, and(assuming the national percent estimate of need) 23,000 chitdren areprojected to need some nonschool-hour child care. only approximately10,409 of these children (r$vo) are enrolled in some structúreä nonschool-hour program at a center or facility, 27c/o of which are in regulated or licensedprograms.

' Therefore, approximately 62rs9r children (g6vo onthose estimated toneed nonschool-hour services) are unaccounted for, presumably receivingsuch care in home care environments, with relativesãnd friends, or ¡" iàlicare. Research on child care indicates that these care environments, onaverage, are inferior in quality and benefit children less than organized,structured, regulated center care, and attendance of children at these unstruc-tured environments is associated with poorer academic performance and moresocial and behavioral problems in school.

' Approximately 37_0 center-type programs were identified that would (butnot necessarily {ipjake scho_ol-age children during nonschool hours plusapproximatety 300 family and home-based care locãtions. of the centãr-based programs respondinq to the survey, a third were operated by socialservice agencies, a quarter by private schools (94vo catholic schoäls), 2lvobyother organizations (e.g., citiparks), and l4voby religious groups. However,4lclo

-of the programs were located in (if not operated by¡ sðhoois, the majoriiy

of which were in catholic schoors. Thus, eveñ among ôenter-based progi"*ia great diversity of organizations operates such programs, not necessarit-y on

'

their own premises, with little organizationat paiteri across agencies orbetweenagenciesandschools'Map1inAppendixIIdisplayiinredthelocations of center-based programsln the sùivey and in gi""í tn" programs inthe Child Care Partnership.

' The number of child¡en in poverty in ailegheny county has increasedduring the last decade. of the 43 school ¿istrictõ, 35 (gl%) had an increasein the number of chilrtrel eligible for the National school Lúnch programbetween l99ll92 and 1998/99.

Low-income children are no longer_solely concentrated in the inner city but are progressivelymoving to municipalities outside the City of Pittsburgh. This trend is likely ro contiiue as the federalDepartment of Housing and Urban Development progressively dismantles public housing projects andencourages their residents to disburse throughout the metropolitan area.

Low-income children are located in three types of geographic locations:

- Neighborhoods in the City of Pittsburgh having high poverty rates -- including Fairywood, St.Clair, Terrace Village, Arlington Heights, Northview Heights, and Bedford Dwellings.

- School districts having high percentages of children eligible for the National School LunchProgram -- including Duquesne City (89Eo eligible), Wilkinsburg (8l%o),Sto-Rox (79%o),Clairton

Ç¡!y {4U"¡, City of Pittsburgh (6lVo), McKeesport City (56qò,Sieel Valley (52Vo),andWoodtandHills (517o). These districts, plus Penn Hills and West Mifflin, also represénr municipalities withmore than 100 children currently enrolled in TANF.

- Individual elementary schools with substantially higher percentages of children eligible forfree or reduced lunch than the overall rate in their districts -- including Franklin el07o ofenrolled children eligible) and Barrett (857o) both in Steel Valley School District, Veiona (67Vo) inRiverview District, Grandview (63Vo) in Highlands District, Pitcairn (557o) in Gateway District,Reserve (42Vo) and Marzolf (367o) both in Shaler Area Districr, Kerr (28Vo) in Fox Chãpel Distiict,and Hyde (27Vo) in Moon Area District.

Currentlyn school districts in the County having relatively high numbers or percentages ofchildren not served by existing nonschool-hour services incluãe the City of piìtsburgh (zl,zqqchildren or 77Vo not served), Woodland Hills (3,904 ,91Vo), Penn Hills (3,i14,9}Vo),NfcKeesportAtea(2,656,7\Vo),West Mifflin(2,040,99Vo), Steel Valley (1,576,99Vo),Wilkinsburg (1,184, 74Vo),Clairton City (657, 95Vo), and Duquesne City (589, gg7o).

The areas in which there is particular need for services relative to the number of low-incomechild¡en are represented graphically in Map 2 (for the City of Pittsburgh) and Map 3 (Munici-palities of Allegheny County) in Appendix II. The maps show in maroon and red shaãed areas thelocation of substantial numbers of low-income children as determined by school lunch enrollments, andthe locations of nonschool-hour programs in large green concentric ciicles (Child Care partnershipprograms) or red circles (from OCD's community survey). Red or maroon areas with small and/orfewer dots represent the areas of greatest disparity between needy populations and availability ofprograms as mentioned above.

The dispersion of poYerly throughout the County means that simply targeting services at impov-erished inner'city neighborhoods is not sufficient. As low-income õtrit¿reñ coniinue to spreadthroughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes more difficult, less effective, andunfair to those low-income children who do not live in areas of substantial concentration of poverty.Ultimately, other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted; for example, subsidies ór vouðhersfor individual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programsavailable to all, and perhaps other innovative approaches.

Srunpsuo't' otf N r lh,scl lt lol.-Ho r; l< Ilrrot; n,\ n,ts

r r..- A l,l,l,;t ;t Il,lNY Ct )t;^*'¡'y

An integration of the survey and focus group results paints the following pictureof nonschool-hour services in Allegheny County.

f)r q¡l'-l:

i-rì t¡ ll.ir,1,..iì,'4..¿ . -L'r

íüld.qùritlfi.inai;ilug

.\

PnocR¿na lssulis

Parent Desires

' Parents in the county with children in center programs want supervised carein a safe, structured environment; competent, trained, patieni, caring, andrespectful staffwith minimum turnover; and program activities that rõpresent an informal extension of school coupled with an additional emphasis onrecreational and social activities. Generally, nonschool-hour center-basedprograms in the county provided these services, but not always to theextent parents desired. specifically, parents vaìued prograrrs that offered:

IIr?nÑl¡

¡f rrlr ll

ã'

- Academic support activities,including checking to see what honte-work was assigned, encouraging orinsisting that homework be done,checking to see that homework isdone correctly, providing tutodngto assist students who may needacademic help, and offering trainingand access to computers. While mostprogratns said they provided such¿rctivities, parenl.s, especially low-income parent.s, felt the neecl forl.ìlore aggressive, comprehensiveservices in this area than theirchildren were currently receiving.

Oottrtl¡, put'(nls v,itlt cltildrc¡¡ in ccnlet.pro!:ru¡ni^ tt'urtl strp<'rvistd curc in tt suf o uttrlslntt:f ut ed ettvinttttncttl, t:otttpelcttI antl cu¡ -i tt g sl a.['1. u t t tl u L. t¡ t¡t l¡ i n u Í i o t t o.l' cd u r: u Í i t t t t u Iu<:lit'ilics tyillt rcL:rtalit¡nul qnd sociul oncs.

FP' '

Yo'l,, l'lt r It'

I

t

-\-

. ò¡. Ev.;þ\H'

-r.\\ù\

N,-rN\

- Enrichment activities, including field trips, cultural activities, and arts and culture. Again,programs attempted to provide this type ofactivity, but parents felt more could be done in thisdomain.

- Social and recreational activities, including unstructured social and recreational time, organizedgames, and individual and team sports. Parents felt most of these activities were provided 6y theirprograms, but more emphasis could be placed on team sports for girls.

Research shows that programs that provide structured, supervised services in these several areasare associated with better academic performance and fewer school behavior problems. But sadly,most children in the County do not attend such programs, so attention should be paid to creating moreprograms that can compete with the affordable and convenient alternatives of friends. relativès. andself-care.

Availabilitv of Services

' Nearly all programs (98Vo) in the survey offer after-school care and most (80Vo) have summerservices, but fewer programs offer before-school services (65Vo) and only 87o provided serviceson the weekend.

' While many programs accepted children with disabilities, no specialized services or activitieswere provided for them. This would discourage parents of children with serious sensory, physical, ormental disabilities from using such programs.

Mttny prugratrrs accep! cltiklren witlt tlisabilities but offer no special services or actívities fttr them.

. No program offered care for sick children.

. Parents complained that some services were difÍicult to obtain:

- At odd hours. Most services were open from approximately 7 am to 6 pm,and did not offer extended-hours or sèrvices for parents who work secondor third shifts. For example, one-third of low-income participants in thelocal GAPS program had jobs that required them to work weèkends,evenings, or nights when few services exist.

- On school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, and snow days aswell as when their children were sick. Regardless of anangements thatparents make individually for their children, nearly all need some form ofcare to cover some of these events, making it difficult for both parents andservices to accommodate occasional and often unanticipated mãximumdemands relative to service supply. Indeed, r2vo of GAps participants hadmissed an average of 17 hours of work during the last month alone becauseof child care problems.

- These limitations contribute to the catch-as-catch-can character ofobtaining nonschool-hour services, especially for low-income parents.A single mother entering the workforce, for example, cannot easiiy findcare to accept a second- or third-shift job, and many other parents mustscramble for other forms of care (i.e., "emergency") or take off from workto cover unanticipated snow days or to care for a sick child. These unex-pected absences do not help new TANF employees build an employmentrecord of reliability and conscientiousness. on the other hand, providerscannot be on duty 24 hours a day, so some accommodation between parentneeds and provider capability must be found.

' Substantial variation in attendance exists from child-to.child and time-to-time, making it difficult for parents to piece together a totar package ofservices and for agrncies to plan and maintain enrollments near capacity.\Mhile approximately half of the children attend four or five days per wèek

-

and relatively few attend only once per week, a substantial number of childrenattend organized services only part time, many preferring other forms of careat lower cost when available. At the same time, part-time and often unpredict-able attendance makes it difficult for agencies to plan, staff, and fund sèrvicesclose to their capacity.

Quality

' Programs in Allegheny county compare favorably in quarity with theaverage national program as assessed in 1991, but is this level ofquatity"ayerage" today and is 'raveraget' the standard of practice and seivice

-

that Allegheny County desires? Specifically, relative to the national average

1991, programs in Allegheny County in 1999:

Tend to have more older children enrolled in nonschool-hour programs, are more likely to offerdifferent activities for older children, and consequently place somewhat more emphasis onacademic support activities, enrichment, and tutoring.

- Shgw that approximately one-third of the directors of programs in the County have college degreesor higher, have a higher median of seven years experience in this field, and slightly morestafflavecollege degrees locally (28Eo) than nationally (2l%o).

- Have less staff turnover locally (2IVo) rhan nationally (35Vo).

- Have a staff:child ratio in the County (1:11) that is a bit poorer than the national average (l:9) but isat the professionally recommended minimum of l:10 for children less than 6 years and l:12 forchildren greater than 6 years of age.

' Thus, in Allegheny County, the quality of care in structured center-type environments is only"averager" and most children in the County attend nonschool-hour services that are not licensedor regulated and in which staff are not necessarily trained or credentialed. Moreover, a set ofrecommended practices specifically for nonschool-hour programs does not exist. Therefore, somesystems of standards, regulation, support for training, and subsidies and incentives for providers,agencies, and parents is likely necessary to raise the quality of nonschool-hour programming, center-based and otherwise, toward a standard of excellence.

FrnaNcHL AND Man¡,cnnnENT IssuES

Agency Funding

' Parent fees are the predominant form of financial support for agencies. Sixty-one percent of center-based programs charged parents fees, and an estimated 797o of parcnts pay full fees as defined by the agency.

- Subsidies are more common in programs serving low-income populations. Regulated pro-grams primarily use public subsidies, while other programs provide parents discounts, sliding-feescales, multiple-child discounts, and scholarships, with contributions from private foundations andgovernment covering the difference between parent fees and costs.

' Funding remains a problem for many agencies. One+hird of the agencies surveyqd said sufficientfunding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical and material resources they felt were needed andto hire and maintain staff.

' A variety of government and private funding is available, but not used to its fullest extent.

- Funding for nonschool-hour progrâms is available from a variety of federal agencies. Theseinclude the U.S. Department of Education (Title I, Safe Schools Act of 1994, Title VII, ReadingExcellence Act, 2lst Century Community Learning Centers), U.S. Department of Agriculture(Child and Adult Care Food Program, Cooperative Extension Services' Youth at RiJk Program),U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Bureau ofJustice Assistance), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Community School youth

services and supervision G_rant program, child care and DevelopmentFund), u.s. Department of Housing and urban Development (federal

' Enterprise and Empowerment Zones), etc.

- Funds are also available from the state of pennsylvania (child careworks, Youth Development Fund of the Department of community andEconomic Development).

- These funds are not used to their fullest extent. This is because theiravailability is not widely known; many providers are unaccustomed andinexperienced in applying for such fundl; and many funds are categorical,targeted, and can only be used by specific organizatiols for specific ffior"r.

Affordability

' While some subsidies for low-income families exist, they are not sufficientfor the need. Parent-q ar9 navins approximarely $2,00b priy.* for rhe firsrchild, which is l4.3vo of an averagé entry salary. even beÞs familiesreceiving subsidies- paid an average of $ i , I I 0 per year for only one child(many have more than one child).

' Low-income families^face several special difficulties affording nonschool-hour services, including:

- The working poor ( I 85zo -235vo of federal poverty guidelines) are providedgovernment subsidies only after families below lg5% of poveny areserved; therefore, they have no stable source ofsubsidized suppôrt fornonschool-hour programming.

- In the future, the commonwealth plans to recommend only licensed orregulated services to p¿rents receiving subsidies, which reþresent a smallpercentage of the available services. while this policy, if ènacted, wouldforce the use of presumably higher quality servióes, *iit tt er" be enoughsuch services available that are convenient enough for all low-incomefamilies to access?

- Eligibility for subsidies varies with employment status, meaning that somelow-income families are on-off-and-on-agâin in eligibiiity for súbsidies,which represents a problem for both pareñt and age-ncy.

-

Public Schools

' The¡ole-of public schools is minimal. Generally, they do not operaæregular, daily nonschool-hour programs (although othei agencies may operateprograms in public schools), and there is little cóordination betweennonschool-hour Programs, even those that emphasize academic assistance andenrichment, and the schools in terms of schoól workn homework, or thesupport of children with individual academic needs (although this is more

likely to occur when nonschool-hour programs arelocated in school buildings). While-some parentswant nonschool-hour programs in their neighbor_hood (if schoolsare distant) or prefer their ðhildrenha_ve a change of scene during the day, the lack ofschool involvement seems to waste theirgeographicdistribution, availability of space, financiá añd

-

administrative infrastructure, and the potential tocoordinate nonschool-hour academic Àupport andenrichment with school cunicula and seive theacademic needs of individual children. At a mini_mum, greater use of public and private schoolfacilities and coordination of acãdemic programsseems needed (the federal 2lst Century CommunityLearning Centers funding resource is ã start).

Administration and Management

. Administrativelyr local programs are man-aged and administered at a level roughly consis-tent with their averagesize (approximat-ely 30children). Specifically:

- 9nly half of the programs (52Vo) had a separatebudget for nonschool-hour services, presum_ably because such care was provided in alarger context of childcare services.

- Approximately half (55To) have financialrecords reviewed by an independentaccountant, internal financial manager, boardof directors, and/or other reviewer.

- Most directors (827o) are accountable to astaff supervisor or agency executivedirector, but only 8Vo reportto a board ofdirectors.

- The reported existing levels of managementwould likely need to be increased if theprograms are expanded or a more integratedsystem of services is adopted.

It is recommended thal a top-level Contmission of govenunenr,professional and business leaders be assentbled io"creote aplan ilnt enables cltíldren S to 12 years of age and tlrcítparents to access as needed a contprehensive, coortlinøtedsyste m of n o nscl¿ool-lt o u r s ervìc e s.

RBconrvtENDATroNS

Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, the Community AdvisoryCommittee to this study makes the following recommendations:

A topJevel After-School Commission composed of respected and influentialleaders representing government, the professions, and business should becreated to advance a public policy agenda at local and state levels and createa plan for a comprehensive and coordinated system that ensures that 5-12-year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschool-hour services as needed.

The agenda for such a Commission should include the following issues:

Canacitv Buildins

The commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschool-hour care in terms of space, staff,and funding and integrate suchservices into a coordinated system.Specifïcally:

. The Commission should deter-mine an estimate of the numberof children needing differentkinds and hours of care and thecapacity of schools and agenciesto provide it, and it shoulddetermine the extent of need forservices at odd hours and on"nonschool" days (e.g., in-service and snow days) as well asfor specialized services forchildren who are sick and forchildren with disabilities. Thegap between need and currentavailability of services shouldguide the capacity-building plan.

The top-level Conunissíon would a.eoleguidelines for recommended practìces fornonscltool-l¿our programs. These guíde-línes woultl ensure that suclt progranntíngís of high quality, respects pørerrtctl choices,ìncludes an appropríate mix of academicand socíal actívities, provides for account-abílíty and monílorìng - attd encouragesflexibìlìty of lrcurs for etnployees and theírcltíldren so that benefits front centerprogranuning can be nnximized.

' The agenda should emphasize creating an integrated system of services based on collaborations with mutualresponsibility among public and private schools on the one hand and community-based agencies on theother to provide a coordinated and seamless set of academic, social, and recreational seriices.

' The role of the public schools il tltit lystep should be explored with attention paid to helping schoolsassure the safety and security ofchildren during nonschoól hours, providing inôentives to schools tocover the increased co-st of and responsibility for such services, unä r"mouilg baniers to school-community agency collaborations in providing such services.

' { sqelial needs agenda.should be created, qerlap.s emphasizing collaboration with the County MentalHealth/lVlental Retardation Department, to deal wittl the financlal, staffing, training, programming, andtransportation issues of providing nonschool-hour services to children with-the entirðrãngã of disabïiities.

Program Quality

The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices for nonschool-hour programming.

' The recommended practices should aspire to the highest standards of quality rather than settling forbeing "average," and the standards shóuld emphasiãe a hierarchy of nóeds drut *ill provide thJgreatestgood for the greatest number of children.

' Recommended practices should be developed involving and respecting parents, recognizing that onesize does not fit all of the diverse parent añ¿ ctritd needi, and enìuring-tirat paréntal choice of serviceoptions is a key feature of the plan.

' Recommendedprogram activities should include an appropriate mix of academic support, enrichment,literacy and technological training, and structured and supêrvised social and recreatiäñal activities,which research indicates are related to better school perfórmance, deportment, and possibly social-emotional behavior.

' The plan should consider some system of accountability to the recommended practices that consists ofboth support and incentives for providers (e.g., training, credentialing, higher þer capita governmentpayments) and monitoring and sanctions that would encourage proviãers-to offer s"rvi"eã consistentwith the recommended practices.

' The Commission should exp]-gre ways to encourage both schools and employers to adjust current hoursand to provide greater flexibility so that parents cãn be responsible emptóyees and their children can benurtured educationally, vocationally, and socially.

Training and Technical Assistance

The Commission should consider the need for training, technical assistance, and information thatwill support agencies, staff, and parents in creating suih a system of nonschool-hour services.

' Technical assistance should be available to schools and agencies on how to develop, implement,finance, manage, and administer a nonschool-hour progra-rn and how to collaborató åffectively withother organizations to produce a coordinated and cómprehensive system of services.

' Training and technical assistance should be available to staffto develop a diverse set ofskills to

support children in what may be the most sensitive and individualistic period oftime during the day for sup-porting children's developmental, emotionai, social, andacademic needs. Also., such naining should increase the responsibility and skiústhat will make providing such services a viable, respected irofession.

' Parents should be provided assistance in identifying the specific needs of theirchildren, recognizing quality in programming and Jtarr ari¿ the benefitsq_uality produces for their children, and beinfaware of the alternatives andchoices for nonschool-hour services that are available.

' gn. component of such training and technical assistance might consist of aclearinghouse, perhaps incorporated into existing websites, ñat would adver-tise recommended practices to agencies and parJnts; proviáe parents aninventory of services organized by neighborhood; üif funding sources andrequirements for parent subsidies; provide agencies with infõrmation onfunding sources and how to access them, traiiing opportunities for staff, andtips on collaboration and management; ano provlde óommunities andpolicymakers with background informationbn resources and services that canbe used in planning.

Financial Support

The commission should create a coordinated, centralized, sustainable,system ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch sórvices.

' A centralized system, likely with a substantial government contribution, isneeded to meet the fina¡cial needs of agenciesãnd guarantee a sustainaLle,consistent, and comprehensive system õfservices. -

' A plan should be devised-that will promote startup funding for new agenciesoperating in under-served areas as well as consolidation oiservices iñover-served areas.

' The commission rlt"+-q urge policymakers to provide core funding that isbroader and more flexible than the highly-categorical and targetedlundingthat currently exists, and barriers to aõceising fãderal rnon"yihould be reducedand methods adopted that would allow programs to leverage federal dollars.

' The plan should recognize tliat low-income families are increasingly repre-sented in areas outside ofthe inner-city, so other strategies of targãting ässis_tance to low-income families must be considered (such-as subsidies oivouchersfor individual families, sliding fee scales, agency subsidies or reimbursements,universal programs).

These findings and recommendations are intended to stimulate and guide the creationof a strategic plan and its imprementation that will produce a cooidinated,comprehensive, g{ qtlalitysystem of nonschool-hõur care that will promote thedevelopment of Allegheny County,s children.

I Nonschool-Hour ProgramsCommunity Advisory Committee

il - Maps Locating Children andPrograms in Allegheny County

ilI - Bibliography

NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnavrs CouuuNrryAovrsony ConavlrrrpE

Ms. Judy AlverezArea ManagerKindercare

Mr. Duane AshleyDireclorDepartment of Parks and RecreationCity of Piusburgh

Mr. Gerry Balbier!!q g raln Officer for Education Pro gramsHeinz Endowments

Mrs. Carol Barrone-MartinExecutive DirectorLouise Child Care

Mr. Chip BurkeProgram DirectorGrable Foundation

Ms. Sheny ClearyDirectorChild Development CenterUniversity of Pittsburgh

Dr. James V. DenovaExecutive DirectorThe Forbes Fund

Mr. Jeny FriskS up e rvi s o r of Educ at ionShuman CenterAllegheny Intermediate Unit

Mr. Saleem GhubrilExecutive DirectorThé Pittsburgh Project

Ms. Annette GreenProgram OfficerPittsburgh Foundation

Ms. Amy HartVice PresidentUnited Way of Allegheny County

Ms. Jacqualynn JamesParentDuquesne Family Center

Ms. Enika Fearbry JonesYouth Policy ManagerOffice of the MavorCity of Pittsburgh

Ms. Lori Katchen,Children & Families Service

CoordiratorJewish Community Center

Mr. Bryce MaretzkiProgrant OfficerPittsburgh Partnership for

Neighborhood Development, Inc.

Dr. Karen MclntyrePresidentEducation Policy and Issues Center

Mr. Philip PanDirector of Plaruúng and

DevelopmentPittsburgh Board of Education

Dr. Robert PaserbaSuperintendentDiocese of Pittsburgh

Ms. Margaret PetruskaSenior Program Officer and Director

Children, Youth and FamiliesPrograms

Heinz Endowments

Ms. Laurie ShallerAssociate Executive DirectorOpen Doors/Youth Places

Dr. Margaret TyndallExecutive DirectorYWCA of Greater Pittsburgh

MAP 1:Loc¿,uon or Nonscuool-Houn PnocnaMs rN Ar,r,BcHsNy CouNryAND THE Clry or PlrrsnuRcH

Number ofPrograms perCensus Tþact

Community Survev

ooo

I lr-sr.-,

3 programs

2 programs

I program

Child Care Partnership

! ln.oe".-.

! 3p"og"u,n,

O 2programs

O I prograrn

o')\@

Administrative Boundaries

u schootDistr¡crs

ff ciryotPittsburghNeighborhoods

I I Municipalities

Apppxux IIMAP 2:Nunanpn on scuool Acn curlonp¡¡ (s -12 yns) BBlow povpnry Lnvnl(1990 CnNsus) nv NnteHBoRHooDS aNn LocarroN oF NoNscuoor-Houn pnocnarrasrN THE Crry on PlrrsnuRcu

NumberofPrograms perCensus Tþact

Community Survey

ooo

I eR"oe.r,n,

3 programs

2 progranrs

I program

Child Care Partnership

| 4 programs

| 2 programs

O I program

Number Below Poverty

I uo. col

I zoz-trsffil sz-zor

E7 (Mean)

l-l .s7

MAP 3:Nuwan or Scuool Acn Csu.nnBn (5 -12 Yns) Bl,lclnl,B ron Fnnn/REDUCED Luxcn(1997/98) sv Scuool. Dlslutcrs AND LocrrroN or NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnnnrsr¡r AllrcHENy CouNry

(Ð" J

t@Cr^ e

Numberof Programs perCensus Thact

Community Survey NumberEligible forFree/Reduced Lunch

Pittsburgh School District

EE¡ t6,7or

Other School District

@ 4progrâms

3 programs

2 programs

I program

chldcareParrnership E j;T;i;Ttl. ì 4so. e4o

tlflEI

(Þoo

oooo

4 programs

3 programs

2 programs

I program

480 (Mean)

20 - 479

Missing data

Municipality boundaries

AppnnrDrx III

BmUocRAPHY

Berndt, T.J. & Ladd, G.W. (Eds.) (1989).Peer relationships in chíld developmen. New York: Wiley.

The center for the Future of children. (1997). The Future of children(vol. 7).Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. (1998). Pollfinds ovet-whelming wpportþrafter-school enríchment programs to lceep kids safe and smart. News release,September 24. Flint, Michigan: Author.

child care Action campaign. (1992). Facts about the child care cr¿s¿s. NewYork: Author.

children's Defense Fund. (1989). A vision of America's future. washington,D.C.:Author.

Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate (199g,Feb.25). Non-school hout's: Mobilizing school and comtnunity resources.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Dwyer, K.M., Richardson, J.L., Danley, K.L., Hansen,1V.8., Sussman, S.y.,Brannon,8., Dent, C.W., Johnson, C.A.n Flay, B.R. (1990). Characteristics ofeighth-grade students who initiate selÊcare in elementary and junior high school.Pediatrícs, 86, 448-454.

Ebb, N. (1994). child care tradeoffs: states make painful choices. washingron,D.C.: Children's Defense Fund.

The Finance Project. (1995) Dollars and sense: Diverse perspectives on blockgrants and the personal responsibility ac¡. lvashington, D. c.: Institute forEducational Leadership.

Galambos, N.L. & Maggs, J.L. (1991). out-of-school care of young adolescentsand self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychologt, 27, 644-65 S.

Garmezy,N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse deveropmentaloutcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral scíentist,34,416-430.

Goffin, S.G. & Lombardi, J. (1988). Speaking out: early childhood advocacy.lWashington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Goyette-Ewing, M. (1995). Children's after school arrangements. Unpublished paper.

Green, H. (1995). The state of America's cities: Eleventh annual opinion surveyof munícipal elected oficiøls. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities.

Hartup, rW.W. (no date). Having friends, making friends, and keeping friends:Relationships as educational contexts. ERIC Digest, EDO-PS-92 -4, p.L -2.

Hofferth, S.L., Brayfield, 4., Deich, S.G., & Holcomb, P. (1991). The nationalchild care survey 1990.Washington, D.C.: NAEYC and the Department ofHealth and Human Services.

Kohlberg, L., LaCrosse,J., & Ricks, D. (1972). The predictability of adult mentalhealth from child behavior. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child psychologt (çry.1217-1284). New York: Wiley.

Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.4., Bates, J.E. (1998). The social ecology ofschool-age child-care. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychologt,lg,34l-360.

Miller, B.M. (1994) Out-of-school time: Effects on learning in the primarygrades. Report prepared for the Carnegie Corporation Task Force on Learning inthe Primary Grades. tù/ellesley, MA: School Age Child Care Project, WellesleyCollege Center for Research on Women.

Miller, 8.M., O'Connor, S., Sirignano, S.W, & Joshi, P. (1996). "I wish the kidsdidn't watch so much TV": Out-of-school time in three low-income communities.Wellesley, MA: rffellesley College Center for Research on Women.

Murphy, L.8., &, Moriarty, A.E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth: Fromirfancy to adolescence. New Haven: Yale University Press. r

National Commission on \Vorking Women of \iVider Opportunities for Women.(1989). úI/omen, work and child care. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. 4., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact ofafter-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderatedby parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment.Child Development, 70(3), 7 68-77 8.

Brcr,rocRAPHY

Pierce, K.M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children's adjustment in first grade classrooms. ChildD ev e I opment, 7 0(3), 7 5 6-7 67 .

Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1999). After-school activities and the develop-ment of low-income urban children: A longitudinal study. DevelopmentalPsychologlt, 35(3), 868-879.

Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children's after-school care:Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development,65,440-456.

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D.L. (1996). Quality of care in school-aged child-careprograms: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, andparent perspectives . Child Development, 67, 2434-2445.

School Age Child Care Project. (1992). School-age child-care. Wellesley, MA:Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.

School Age Child Care Project. (1997). Fact Sheet. National Institute on Out-of-School Time. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research onWomen.

Seligson, M., Genser,4., Gannett,E., & Gray, rü. (1983). School-age child care:a policy report. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child-Care Project, WellesleyCollege Center for Research on Women.

Seppanen, P.S., Love, J.M., deVries, D.K., Bernstein, L. (1993). National studyof beþre and after school progra¡ns. Final Report to the Office of Policy andPlanning, U.S. Department of Education. Portsmouth, NH: RMC ResearchCorporation .

.

Seppanen, P.S., deVries, D.K., & Seligson, M. (1993). National study of before-and after-school programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.

Sheley, J. (1984). Evaluation of the centralized, structured, after-school tutorial.Journal of Educational Research. 77, 213:217 .

Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: Anecological analysis. Developmental P sycholo gy, 22, 433 -439.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (1998). Safe and smart: Makingafte r- s cho ol hours w o rk for kids. Washington, DC. http ://www. ed. gov/pubs/SafeandSmarVintro.html

U.S. Department of Education (1997). Keeping schools open as communitylearning centers. \iVashington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/

U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1997). l(elfare reþrm: Implications ofincreased work participationþr child care. Report to the Committee on Labor &Human Resources, U.S. Senate. GAO/HEHS-97 -7 5.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). After-school care of school age children:December 1984. Cunent Population Reports (Special Studies Series No. 149),23.

Vandell, D.L. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of children's after-school environments. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Vandell, D.L. & Corasaniti, M.A. (1988). The relation between third-graders'after-school care and social, academic, and emotional functioning. Child Devel-opment, J9, 868-875.

Vandell, D.L. & Ramanan, J. (1991). Children of the national longitudinal surveyof youth: Choices in after-school care and child development. DevelopmentalPsychologt, 27 (4), 637 -643 .

Willer, 8., Hofferth, S.L., Kisker, E.E., Devine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar,E' &Glantz, F.B. (1991). The demand and supply of child care in 1990: JointJìndings

from the National Child Care Survey i,990 and A Profile of Child Care Seuings.

Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Zigler,E.F., & Lang, M.E. (1991). Child care choices: Balancing the needs ofchildren,families, and socier). New York: The Free Press.

The University of Pittsburgh is an ffirmative action, equal opportunity instítution.

/' .' 'Childlcn i¡r \llçghsiyÇ.