Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for ...

Challenges and Opportunities in
After-School Programs:
Lessons for Policymakers and Funders
April 2001
Jean Baldwin Grossman
Karen Walker
Rebecca Raley

---

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 success
in the information age, attention is increasingly
turning to the experiences of children and youth
in their out-of-school time. After-school, weekend
and summer programs offer many opportunities to
complement and enhance the academic learning
that takes place in school. These programs are
promising strategies for engaging children and
youth in a variety of positive social, recreational
and academic activities.
Unfortunately, while the need for enrichment oppor-
tunities exists everywhere, their availability is not
universal. Too many poor youth do not have access
to youth-serving organizations like Ys, Boys & Girls
Clubs and Scouts. There may be none located in
their neighborhoods; parents are concerned about
their 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 schools
and, for the most part, parents are familiar with the
schools and comfortable sending their children to
them. Keeping schools open longer and transforming
their facilities into youth and community centers
expands the benefit derived from investment in
these public buildings.
Recognizing these advantages, many newly emerging
youth 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 of
youth problems—poor academic achievement, gang
participation, violence and drug use. Federal spend-
ing alone for school-based, after-school programs has
gone from $40 million in 1997 to a proposed $850
million in 2001.1
Policymakers, funders and the public, however, must
balance their optimism about the programs’ poten-
tial with the realities of what they might ultimately
achieve. Locating these programs in schools brings
many strengths; but, as the experience of at least one
broad-based initiative is demonstrating, it also brings
unique challenges that should be taken into consid-
eration as programs are planned and funded. This
brief report describes program realities and discusses
issues that policymakers need to think through when
shaping their after-school initiatives.

---

4
Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders
Information in the report is drawn from early findings
of the multi-year evaluation of the Extended-Service
Schools (ESS) Adaptation Initiative. Funded by the
Wallace-Reader’s Digest Funds (WRDF) and conducted
by Public/Private Ventures and the Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, the evaluation
is examining approximately 60 after-school programs
in 17 cities around the country.2 With support from
WRDF, each city is adapting one of four nationally
recognized extended-service school models. While
each model is unique, they are all intended to offer
high-quality youth development programs in school
buildings through a partnership between a local
school district and a community-based organization
(CBO) and/or a university. (See the appendix for a
description of the models.)
ESS’s design intentionally embodies both model and
city-level variations so the initiative and its accompa-
nying evaluation can examine after-school programs
in very different contexts. At the same time, the design
offers an opportunity to identify the underlying issues
involved in providing these programs, whatever the
model and the local contexts in which they operate.
This report focuses on three formidable challenges
that 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 youth
who 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 with
several important advantages. First, the facilities are
appropriate for a wide range of activities. Gyms,
libraries, auditoriums and computer labs all provide
unique equipment and space difficult to find else-
where. Second, the school provides coordinators with
ready access to potential participants, namely the
student body. Third, the school offers the program
legitimacy to parents who might hesitate to allow their
children to participate in programs elsewhere.
But using schools as a venue for after-school programs
is not as easy as it would appear—and for several
concrete reasons.
The current notion that school buildings are under-
used resources, open for only six or seven hours
during the school day and not at all in the summer,
is too simplistic.
At least some parts of school buildings are often
heavily used after hours: teachers prepare for their
next day’s classes and provide extra help to selected
students; students use the libraries and computer
labs to complete their assignments; sports teams
practice; outside organizations (such as Scouts or pri-
vate day-care providers) use the facilities. Even in the
summers, the buildings are used—primarily for sum-
mer school programs that have become much more
prevalent in reaction to the current movement to
improve academic achievement. The result is that
after-school programs often have to compete for
space, particularly the gym or computer labs.
The availability of appropriate space is critical to the
character of the program: it fundamentally affects the
type and quality of activities that can be offered. For
example, many activities require open, multi-purpose
classrooms that can accommodate activities like aero-
bics or karate. Traditional classrooms crowded with
desks are ill-suited for this purpose. But having access
to a single multi-purpose room, such as the cafeteria,
does not solve the problem because it is difficult to
run several concurrent activities—for example, home-
work help, story time and a dance class—in just one of
these rooms. The number and type of activities is thus
constrained 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 the
school, some programs found they were the first to be
denied even a scheduled use if the school had a last-
minute request from a teacher for the room.

---

6
Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders
In some of the ESS sites, space limitations are also, in
Everything depreciates with use—cars, equipment,
part, a result of already overcrowded conditions in the
schools. Given the tight budgets that most principals
schools. For example, one middle school was built to
operate under, it is not surprising that there is tension
accommodate 450 students but has a current enroll-
between schools and program coordinators around
ment of 800. Similarly, an elementary school with the
the use of the building, student behavior in after-
capacity for 360 students has an enrollment of 900.
school activities, and maintenance issues. For the most
Obviously, school facilities and equipment are already
part, coordinators are able to keep the rate of facility
being heavily used and there is little available space to
deterioration at a level comparable to the usual
share with the program.
school-day strain; but when facilities and equipment
are used, they inevitably wear out and break. Breakage
In those schools that do have space to share, good
means that school-day students, as well as after-school
relationships with key school personnel (principals,
participants, have to do with less. Having to buy or
teachers and custodians) were at the heart of gaining
repair a computer means that some other purchase
access to the space. While schools and CBO staff typi-
has to be foregone. Program staff often believe that
cally shared a similar set of goals for the after-school
the tensions are created by school distrust of the pro-
programs, there were practical gaps in the level of
gram, but our study strongly suggests that the funda-
trust. Program staff often recognized the need to be
mental issue is not one of turf or control, but of
patient in developing their relationships with school
resources. More public funds are needed to maintain
staff. Coordinators gained the trust of key teachers by
school facilities if they are to be open for longer hours
responding quickly to complaints and helping them
and used more intensively. Turf and control issues do
out when they needed assistance (for example, with
arise but can be resolved over time as trust builds. The
an after-school event or with supplies) and even by
resource issue will not go away without the public’s
paying them to provide services. Some programs dis-
greater awareness and support.
covered that involving school principals in the hiring
of ESS school coordinators and choosing staff who
Increased custodial costs are a related issue. While the
were already known to the school smoothed commu-
scheduling of room cleaning might, on the surface,
nication issues and facilitated access to space. In most
seem to be a readily solvable logistical detail, it in fact
cases, access to school space increased over time, as
emerged as a significant issue for programs. If a pro-
schools grew more comfortable with the programs and
gram uses space that would otherwise not be in use
program staff. Yet, each time a new principal came on
every day, or uses it for more hours, the school faces
board, trust had to be re-established.
extra cleaning demands. In addition, since programs
operate outside of normal school hours, the schedule
Limited resources for maintaining the school’s physical
of cleaning must shift, and that often involves over-
facilities and equipment lead administrators to limit
time costs. Each ESS collaborative has to determine
the building’s use.
how these costs will be shared. This, in turn, affects
programming. In trying to minimize extra costs,
Heavily used and overcrowded school buildings are
school coordinators may curtail activities earlier than
only part of the explanation of why space availability is
they want to or not offer adult activities in the evening
a challenge for all the ESS programs. Principals are
(when more adults could attend) so as to have rooms
held responsible for the physical integrity of the
empty for cleaning during the hours that custodians
school plant and, thus, are hesitant to let the program
normally work.
use school facilities unless they feel confident that
school property will be respected. Limited in their
Across the sites, programs and schools dealt in similar
resources to finance the maintenance and replace-
ways with the increased cleaning demands. They tried
ment of school facilities and equipment, they com-
to coordinate the programs’ use of space with custo-
monly feel the need to restrict and monitor use of
dians’ cleaning schedules. Often, they attempted to
such special rooms as computer labs, libraries, audito-
stretch resources, having the custodians clean more
riums and gyms with newly coated floors.
in the same number of hours. At one school, custodial
staff 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 was
the case with securing access to school space, finding
solutions to the problem of additional cleaning
depended on developing strong working relation-
ships with school staff—particularly custodians and
principals. However, over time, issues of liability
and compliance with custodial union rules will have
to be addressed.
In the larger context of implementing after-school
programs, the most pressing issue is ensuring that
schools can sustain the increased wear and tear on
their facilities’ infrastructures. As programs and
schools face the challenge of locating additional funds
to cover custodians’ longer work days and other costs
associated with upkeep and repair, policymakers must
recognize that meeting maintenance needs is central
to sustaining programs.

---

8
Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders

---

Who Participates?
9
Who Participates?
Located in poor neighborhoods, the ESS programs are
reaching thousands of racially and ethnically diverse
low-income children. In fact, even in their first year of
operations, programs in most of the schools served a
hundred or more students. Over time, demand for
the programs should increase as they establish strong
reputations among parents and teachers at the schools,
and growing numbers of word-of-mouth referrals
complement the approaches to recruitment that pro-
grams are currently using.
As sites recruit students, the overriding challenge they
are confronting is transportation; that challenge is dis-
cussed in the next section. This section looks at two
more specific issues about which children and youth
are participating in the programs.
Targeted efforts are needed to attract the most
disadvantaged students.
Preliminary data suggest that while the ESS programs
reach thousands of children who live in disadvantaged
circumstances, additional effort is needed to attract
the most disadvantaged students. In any new program
with open enrollment, less needy children and their
families are typically the ones who first learn about it
and enroll. This also appears to be true in ESS. This is
not to suggest that many needy students did not apply.
However, the early enrolling children are somewhat
less likely than their respective student bodies to come
from low-income families. While three-quarters of the
ESS school populations qualify for free- or reduced-
priced lunch, only two-thirds (66%) of the program
enrollees qualify. Similarly, the programs seem less
able to draw in children from single-parent homes.
While 37 percent of the students in these schools live
with only one parent, 26 percent of the enrollees are
from single-parent families.
According to a number of the program coordinators,
many of the early enrollees were students who were
probably more assertive and more involved in school
and other activities. They also noted that parents
who were most involved with their children were the
ones who responded to the enrollment opportunity.
Coordinators indicated that their programs were less
successful in recruiting students who are behind in
school, poor attenders, prone toward detention, lack-
ing support at home, and from non-English-speaking
and poor families. As one said, “I feel like we’re pro-
viding services to many needy kids, but I would like to
serve more highly at-risk students.”

---

10
Challenges and Opportunities in After-School Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders
Referrals from principals, teachers and student support
Almost all adults agree that elementary school children
teams were the most common means through which
need adult supervision, but it is no less important for
programs attempted to recruit such at-risk youth. At
middle school youth. Young people aged 10 to 14 are
the same time, several sites developed targeted recruit-
often seen as old enough to stay on their own for
ment strategies designed to be less stigmatizing than
short periods of time, but they are also old enough
referrals. For example, one program held registration
to get into serious trouble. Unfortunately, these older
in public housing and low-income apartment units.
children are much less likely to participate in super-
In several other programs, staff made targeted home
vised after-school programs, whether they take place
visits or delivered brochures (translated into other
at youth-serving organizations or at their schools.
languages, where necessary) to specific parents’ doors.
Program staff often mentioned that sending informa-
ESS program staff found it to be significantly easier to
tion home with youth did not guarantee that parents
recruit elementary school children than middle- and
would see it; direct contact proved to be important.
high-school students, who almost always have busier
They felt that if parents knew about the array of
schedules, increased responsibilities and greater
activities the after-school program provided, they
freedom. Among the early enrollees, 30 percent were
would encourage their children to enroll.
in grade three or lower, 45 percent were in grades
four to six, 23 percent were in grades seven or eight,
In some cases, a barrier to recruiting the most at-risk
and only 2 percent were in grade nine or higher. In
youth was students’ dislike of school. To address this
addition, according to program coordinators, the
issue and encourage the participation of poorly per-
elementary-aged children who enrolled attended
forming students, some programs stressed their
more frequently; older youth’s attendance seemed
association with a youth-serving organization. By
much more inconsistent.
having a strong Boys & Girls Club or YWCA identity,
the programs hoped that students who were uncom-
Coordinators devised several creative programming
fortable or unhappy in school would be more likely
ideas to attract teens and have them participate consis-
to participate. It is too early to say whether this
tently enough that the program might make a positive
assumption is accurate; students and staff spoke of
difference in their lives. One middle school program
youth being attracted by particular activities (such as
decided to begin charging an activity fee in the hope
a climbing wall or basketball) or by a particular staff
that it would build youth’s commitment to attend.
member, rather than by an organization.
Other programs found that teens enjoyed organizing
and participating in special events such as community
Older children are less attracted to after-school
service neighborhood clean-ups; running their own
programs than are elementary school children.
clubs; and working with younger youth as tutors,
mentors or ESS staff. Offering teen programs with
In addition to providing children with enrichment
flexible open-door policies, along with opportunities
opportunities, a key motivating factor behind the pol-
for leadership and loosely guided autonomy seemed
icy interest in after-school programs is the increasing
most effective. Two of the high school programs that
need for school-aged child care. Apart from the 1970s,
offered student-run teen clubs gave students the
there have never been as many 5- to 14-year-olds in the
responsibility to develop their own club names,
United States as there are currently.4 More of these
rules and activities. Older youth were also drawn
children live with only one parent, and more of their
to programs that assisted them with job readiness
mothers work than ever before. As societal norms and
and placement.
policies stress the importance of employment, the
demand for school-aged child care has ballooned.

---