Providence, Rhode Island: In the late afternoon, fifth-grade students gather around tables of baking supplies in the school cafeteria, practicing their math skills by converting a cupcake recipe’s decimal measurements into fractions. They laugh as they calculate and mix the ingredients, cake flour dusting their hands and faces.
Omaha, Nebraska: More than an hour after the formal school day has ended, a group of elementary school-age children crowds inside a full-sized canoe in the middle of a classroom floor. They take turns “paddling” down imaginary rivers and calling out answers to a quiz on famous explorers.
Kansas City, Missouri: The bus comes to a stop and several urban high school students spill out its doors into the midday sun. They gather on the sidewalk with their teacher, then head toward a nearby museum and its exhibit of Egyptian artifacts dating to 3000 B.C.
Scenes like these play out regularly in cities, towns and rural communities across the United States, with young people participating in a variety of formal afterschool activities.
Youngsters can explore an array of options, including music, through afterschool programs. |
However, the need for such programs, particularly in low-income and underserved communities, routinely exceeds the available supply. Estimates in 2000 by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Urban Institute -- a nonpartisan policy research and educational nonprofit -- suggest that between seven million and 15 million children return to an empty house on any given school day. Studies have found that this can leave them at increased risk of becoming victims of crime or participating in dangerous behaviors.
Building partnerships and policies that are committed to the development, sustainability and replication of quality afterschool programs is the overall mission of the nation’s emerging statewide afterschool networks. In doing so, the networks -- through the support of Mott and other matching funds -- are working to ensure that school-age children have access to safe, enriching afterschool opportunities.
Mott support of 18 statewide networks has totaled $3.8 million since 2002, with the possibility of funding additional networks in the future. Grants provide funding to help launch or enhance statewide afterschool partnerships.
Additional grants to organizations in the Afterschool Technical Assistance Collaborative provide opportunities for the statewide networks to access capacity-building support to develop their existing strengths and overcome obstacles in funding, administering, supporting and sustaining afterschool programs. Collaborative members are the Afterschool Alliance, Council of Chief State School Officers, Finance Project, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governor’s Association, National League of Cities Inc. and University of South Carolina Education Foundation.
Grantmaking for the statewide afterschool networks reflects Mott’s belief that education -- including quality afterschool programs -- can be a steppingstone in the journey out of poverty. That belief is also evident in the $71 million in Mott support since 1998 for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) initiative.
Power Through Partnerships
The Foundation’s nearly 70-year history of funding and supporting school-community partnerships formed the backdrop for two requests for proposals by Mott (in 2002 and again in 2003) for the development of statewide afterschool networks. These networks offer the afterschool field opportunities for joint planning; sharing of resources and best practices; building bridges to and between federal, state, and local afterschool initiatives; and forging partnerships necessary to developing comprehensive statewide policies.
Debbie Bretag, executive director of the Illinois Center for Violence Prevention -- a Chicago-based nonprofit helping individuals, organizations and systems work toward the prevention of violence, and the coordinating agency for the Illinois Afterschool Partnership (IAP) -- notes that bringing together diverse representation has played a critical role in that network’s ability to move the state forward on issues related to afterschool. Among those issues are establishing a widely accepted definition of afterschool programming; identifying a set of appropriate outcomes for programs across the state; and streamlining funding processes -- including reporting requirements -- for providers.
“[The networks are] bringing providers into contact with organizations and agencies whom they might otherwise never meet, but who share their interest in the well-being of kids,” Bretag said. “The resource sharing and problem solving that come from that contact, as well as the growing number of people who continue coming to the table, really speak to the significance of the work.”
Terry Peterson, a senior fellow at the University of South Carolina Educational Foundation and former chair of the U.S. Department of Education's task force on accountability and school, says ATAC’s collaborative efforts also illustrate the opportunities arising from such unexpected partnerships. He says the expertise and experience brought by ATAC members help provide a complete package of technical assistance to the statewide networks, particularly in the public policy arena.
“Dealing with key policymakers -- the governor's office, the legislature, state superintendents’ offices, and mayors and city councils -- is a science in itself,” Peterson said. “[ATAC] knows policymaking and policymakers, and their collective expertise and collaboration is an unusual, powerful resource for the networks.”
Strengthening communities through partnerships is also a key focus of the Lawrence-based Kansas Enrichment Network (KEN), which is helping member organizations improve the lives of children participating in afterschool programs and their families.
Larry Dixon, associate superintendent of the Geary County Unified School District in Kansas, says the district began exploring ways to broaden its service to low-income students enrolled in local 21st CCLC programs in 2002. The resulting launch in 2003 of school-based job training programs, which are connecting parents of those students with area employers, was aided in large part through KEN membership.
“The network helped us bring together the resources of the community and our schools to increase parents’ employment, which is improving the home lives of our kids. This has increased our thinking about the many possible roles of afterschool programs and the power of local partnerships.”
Nan Harper, project director at KEN, notes that network representatives -- including the afterschool and education communities, social service organizations, juvenile justice agencies, libraries, businesses and faith-based groups -- have partnered in developing a two-year plan for solidifying grassroots support for afterschool programs in Kansas. The plan is expected to culminate in a call for supportive legislative action in 2005.
Harper says networks must work across the political spectrum, cultivating interest among mayors, governors and other policymakers to ensure that legislation on public education, particularly in tight economic times, is supportive of afterschool learning opportunities.
“When you look at the polling data, [afterschool] is really a mandate from the public; they have told us that they want more programs,” she said. “Now it is up to the networks and policymakers to say, ‘We’re going to invest the money needed to make sure that these programs are created and that they are done right.’”
Establishing a unified front can be a challenging process for the networks, whose members often have differing opinions on various afterschool-related issues. However, many in the field note that as key decisionmakers realize the common core of their missions, the networks’ overall strength and the potential to achieve real change both increase dramatically.
“These folks are fearless because they come to this with a passion for helping kids,” said Judy Samelson, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a nonprofit working to raise awareness of the importance of afterschool programs and advocating for quality, affordable programs for all children.
“Yes, they’re going to have their significant challenges, but through their shared interest in the future of the nation’s youth and their combined strengths and skills, ultimately they will come together and make things happen.”
(The Afterschool Alliance -- with offices in Washington, D.C., New York and Flint, Michigan -- was founded in 1999 by Mott, the U.S. Department of Education, J.C. Penney Company Inc., the Open Society Institute/The After-School Corporation, the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Creative Artists Agency Foundation. It works with a broad range of organizations and supporters that share the alliance’s vision of ensuring that all children have access to afterschool programs by 2010.)
Sustainable Infrastructure
Helping stakeholders secure the resources needed to develop new and sustain existing afterschool programs is another key goal of the statewide networks.
Advocates note that funding streams for afterschool often focus on the provision of existing services. Few allow opportunities to strengthen the field’s overall infrastructure or develop program quality. In addition, a tight economy across the nation in recent years has resulted in cuts to state and local education budgets, leaving many afterschool programs in danger of having to scale back, or even eliminate, services.
The California Afterschool Partnership (CAP) was founded in 1999 by the Sacramento-based Foundation Consortium for California’s Children and Youth (a coalition of 17 California foundations) and the California Department of Education. The governor’s Office of the Secretary for Education joined the partnership in 2001. The following year, California voters -- with the help of now-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger -- passed the Afterschool Safety and Education Act (Proposition 49), which is intended to channel $433 million of new state funding to afterschool programs, pending the anticipated recovery of the state budget in 2007.
CAP, which provides field support to more than 2,600 afterschool programs in California, is well acquainted with the challenge of helping providers that face financial uncertainty. Judy Chynoweth, executive director of the Foundation Consortium, says the network struggles daily to help programs blend diminishing pools of federal and state financial support, as well as build their capacity to leverage dollars from public and private sectors locally.
“Each program has to educate its community that funding for afterschool is an investment for the public good,” she said. “By marketing it in that way, they can begin to draw money from businesses and other local stakeholders. It is our job as a network to help sites gain the competencies to do just that.”
The transfer of funding and administration of the 21st CCLC initiative from the federal to the state level has caused apprehension among some in the field.
Terry Peterson, a senior fellow at the University of South Carolina Educational Foundation and former chair of the U.S. Department of Education's task force on accountability and school, says such feelings reflect concern over the capacity of states already stressed by diminished budgets to assume control of 21st CCLC finances and the necessity to keep these programs from becoming “lost” among state agencies’ many priorities and functions.
He says the growing number of statewide networks are helping turn such concern into opportunity by facilitating dialogue among those charged with administering the programs at the state level as well as agencies and organizations working on children’s issues, including afterschool.
“It provides a springboard to encourage those at the state level to start working broadly on afterschool and community connections, and thinking alongside the grassroots folks, bringing them into partnership on the issues of afterschool programs,” Peterson said. “That type of coalition-building is at the very heart of the afterschool movement at the state level, the local level and in between the two.”
Sharon Deich, program manager at the Finance Project -- a Washington D.C.-based organization that develops and disseminates information, tools and technical assistance on issues related to children, families and communities -- says the devolution of 21st CCLC funds and the states’ economic struggles provide key opportunities for the statewide networks to build awareness among policymakers and the public about the role of afterschool programs in strengthening school and student performance.
“The issue needs to be kept at the top of everyone’s radar screen,” Deich said. “If the statewide afterschool networks and local alliances have well-established policy agendas and well-planned funding requests in place when the economy improves, we will be much better positioned to move the field forward.”
Quality Issues
Supporting systems that ensure afterschool programs -- particularly in high-poverty communities -- are designed to meet the needs of the children they serve is also a top priority for the statewide networks. Most in the field believe that afterschool must serve a greater purpose than simply extending the traditional school day. Instead, programs should strive to complement existing education curriculums, support the academic performance of students, and create new and enriching experiences for children.
Some advocates note that this comprehensive approach to the personal, physical and academic development of children offers the greatest outcomes for children and the best chance for attracting future funding. However, others point out that, for many programs, continuing to build quality is a crucial, but daunting goal when they already are struggling financially to maintain existing services.
The statewide networks are helping address this “chicken and egg” quandary of program quality and economic stability by helping afterschool providers access the training, technical assistance and evaluation systems that nurture quality programmatic growth.
Colleen Jones, vice president of Public Funding and Program Development at Metropolitan Family Services -- a nonprofit offering numerous community-based programs for families in Chicago and surrounding suburbs -- says the Illinois network has had a significant impact on the development of quality afterschool programming in the state.
“[IAP] has helped funders and providers to develop a common language on the field of afterschool and to identify shared expectations about best practices and standards. It is so important that we work together with a shared understanding about what is good quality programming, and the network has helped make that happen.”
One quality development tool gaining interest and momentum in the field is the peer-to-peer mentorship model, which connects experts who run high quality afterschool programs to those in need of assistance.
In addition, Chynoweth says CAP launched in 2002 a Regional Learning Center (RLC) initiative, a collection of 14 afterschool programs that the network believes showcase high quality curriculums. This year the initiative will begin linking programs in need of assistance with an RLC, offering each the opportunity to explore promising practices.
Rhonda Lauer, CEO of Foundations Inc. -- a Moorestown, New Jersey-based nonprofit and Mott grantee that operates afterschool programs and conducts related research and technical assistance activities -- says such support systems are critical to helping providers develop and attain higher standards of program quality and success.
“We’ve learned that specific skills and knowledge can help turn a child-care provider into an afterschool educator. We know what folks need to make their programs work. Now it is our responsibility to get out there and help them do it.”
Nurturing growth
Ayeola Fortune, project director for the Washington D.C.-based Council of Chief State School Officers, says a far-reaching benefit of the formal statewide networks is the opportunity for each to learn from the experiences of others.
She notes that while each comes from a unique state perspective and operating environment, there are common issues that all the networks face, including the need to build effective partnerships, address issues of sustainability and strengthen program quality.
“The networks provide a forum in which members can explore strategies, commiserate on their concerns, and interact with national organizations working in the field,” Fortune said. “It also increases the visibility of their work and the partnerships they engage in, all of which is critical to building the future of the overall field.”
Harper agrees, noting that Kansas network members have gleaned valuable lessons from networks in California, Illinois and other states. She says the system has positioned the Kansas network to offer its own knowledge and experiences to the national afterschool movement.
“It’s a chance for the networks to put our needs and concerns on the table, discuss how we are -- or are not -- dealing with them, and find ways to help each other move forward in the field. That type of support is invaluable, because ultimately it allows us to create afterschool programs that offer genuine learning opportunities -- both in and out of the traditional school day -- for all children.”