California's After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids on Track and Out of Trouble by THINK Together

Californiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s After-School Commitment Keeping kids on track and out of trouble

Introduction by: Sheriff Clay Parker Tehama county President, California State Sheriffsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Association police Chief Susan E. Manheimer San mateo President, California Police Chiefs Association district attorney Gary Lieberstein Napa county President, California District Attorneys Association Harriet Salarno President & Chair, Crime Victims United of California

A Report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California

EXECUTIVE COMM

ITTEE

Hundreds of Police Ch iefs, Sheriffs, District Attor neys, other Law Enforcement Le aders, and Violence Survivors Pre venting Crime and Violence

Sheriff Leroy Baca Los Angeles Coun

Sheriff Robert T. Do

yle

Marin County

Sheriff Curtis J. Hil

Dear California Rea ders:    Sheriff Clay Parke The 400 sheriffs, po r lice chiefs, district Tehama County  attorneys and crim INVEST IN KIDS Califo e survivors who le rnia are determine ad FIGHT CRIME:  d to put dangerou Sheriff Donny Yo kn ow  th er e is no punishment ungblood s c riminals behind bar  af ter  th s.  We also  e f ac t that can undo the a We are committed Kern County  to taking a hard lo gony crime leaves i ok at the evidence n its wake.   from becoming in  about what really volved in crime.  Chief Jerry Dyer  works to keep kids     Fresno Research has long s hown the after‐sch Chief William La ool hours are the “p other dangerous be nsdowne rime time” for juv ha viors.  We know on enile crime and  San Diego e out of four studen after school.  With  no responsible ad ts is regularly left h ult ome alone  s p resent to mentor t in positive activiti Chief Susan Manh es, it’s no wonder s hese children and eimer  en o m gage them  an   y g et  into trouble.  San Mateo Quality after‐scho ol programs can fill  Chief Camerino these hours with sa Sanchez promote learning an fe, constructive ac d keep kids on trac Santa Barbara tivities that  k and out of troub alternatives to gang le.  They provide p s, drugs and crime.  ositive    Chief Paul Walte rs Th is report highlights  Santa Ana California’s ground breaking commitm California invests m ent to after‐schoo ore state funding i Hon. Bonnie Duma l programs.   nis n a fte inv r‐school programs t District Attorney, es tm en t is  co San Diego Coun nc en tra han any other stat ted  in schools in low‐ ty e; its  and state dollars a income neighborho re being leveraged t ods with the greate Hon. Kamala D. o a ttr st needs;  ea ac ch t t  ye en ar.  s of millions in loc Harris District Attorney, al dollars and resou San Francisco   rces  County Still, California’s aft er‐school needs are  considerable.  Eve thousands of low‐ Hon. Tony Rackau n with this substan ckas income schools ha District Attorney, tial investment,  ve been turned aw Orange County many existing prog ay due to insufficien rams are forced to m t f unding, and  ain en tai ough spaces for all t n long waiting lists  Hon. Michael A. he students in need because they do n Ramos ot have  .    District Attorney, San Bernardino Years of research a County nd experience, as w ell as plain common after‐school progra  sense, compel this  ms are a crucial w Hon. Gerald T. Sh verdict: quality  ea pon against crime,  ea Ca lif or nia District Attorney, ’s continuing, stro an d our public safety San Luis Obispo ng leadership on af  depends on  co mm ter un ‐sc iti ho es ol programs.  Keepin  safe in the critical h County ours after the schoo g kids and  afford to break.  l bell rings is one co mmitment we can Mr. Griffin Dix, Ph   D. ’t  Violence Preventio n Consultant We urge policyma kers across Califor nia to continue to m a high priority.  Ms. Alexandra Ma ake access to after‐s tteuccichool programs    Perkins The Joseph Matte ucci Foundation Sincerely,  for Youth No San Benito Coun

n-Violence

ATTORNEY GENE RAL Hon. Edmund G. Brown Jr. CHAIRMAN EMER ITUS Chief Burnham Ma tthews (Ret.) - Alameda

STATE DIRECTOR Barrie Becker, J.D

Sheriff Clay Parker           Tehama County          President, CA State    Sheriffs’ Associatio n

Chief Susan E. Man   heimer  San Mateo Police D epartment  President, CA Polic e Chiefs Associatio n

Hon. Gary Lieberste     in      Napa County Distric   t Attorney    President, CA Distr   ict Attorneys Assoc iation  211 Sutter Street, Sui

te 401  San Franci

sco, CA 94108  Pho

Harriet Salarno  President & Chair   Crime Victims Unit ed ne (415) 762-8270

of California

 Fax (415) 762-82

71  www.fightcrime

.org/ca

Acknowledgements

California’s After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids on Track and Out of Trouble A Report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California gratefully acknowledges the support of its funders and of those who contributed time and expertise to the research and production of this report. Major funding for Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California is provided by: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation • The California Wellness Foundation • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation • Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund • The James Irvine Foundation • The Walter S. Johnson Foundation • The California Endowment Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California is part of the national Fight Crime: Invest in Kids organization and is supported by taxdeductible contributions from foundations, individuals and corporations. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California does not receive any funds from federal, state or local governments. This report was authored by Brian Lee. The following staff members of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids contributed to the production of this report: Michael Klein, Jennifer Ortega, Barrie Becker, William Christeson, and Soren Messner-Zidell. Special thanks to Jeff Davis and Shawn DeArmond of the California Afterschool Network, Jenel Prenovost of THINK Together, Cathy Barankin of the California State Alliance of YMCAs, and the members of the After School Report Advisory Committee: Steven Amick, Executive Director, League of California Afterschool Providers; Lindsay Callahan, Executive Director, Central Valley Afterschool Foundation; Steve Fowler, Partner, FowlerHoffman; Erin Gabel, Legislative Director, Assemblymember Tom Torlakson; K. J. Lavoie, Government Relations Director, Boys & Girls Clubs of America; John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education; Sandra McBrayer, Chief Executive Officer, The Children’s Initiative; Cathie Mostovoy, Chief Executive Officer, Woodcraft Rangers; Sandra Naughton, Senior Planner & Policy Analyst, San Francisco Department of Children, Youth and their Families; Normandie Nigh, Executive Director, A World Fit for Kids!; Jennifer Peck, Executive Director, Bay Area Partnership for Children and Youth; Andee Press-Dawson, Executive Director, California Afterschool Network; Carla Sanger, President & Chief Executive Officer, LA’s BEST; Allen Fernandez Smith, Executive Director, California School-Age Consortium; and Samantha Tran, Associate Director, Education, Children Now. Publication design by Michael Klein.

California’s After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids on Track and Out of Trouble executive summary California is the nation’s leader in supporting after–school programs. Through primarily state funding and substantial support from the federal government, it offers safe, constructive activities to hundreds of thousands of students, from kindergarten through high school. Research shows that after-school programs can help crack down on the “prime time” for violent juvenile crime. The single most likely hour on school days for a juvenile to commit a violent crime—homicide, rape, robbery or assault—is between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. The after-school hours are also the prime time for kids to become the victims of violence. Afterschool programs offer constructive alternatives to gangs, drugs, and crime, and also can help improve school-day attendance, increase academic achievement, and boost graduation rates.

Statewide Successes California has made a groundbreaking commitment to afterschool programs, with support from law enforcement, business leaders, educators, doctors, and taxpayer rights organizations, as well policymakers across party lines. California’s after-school successes include: • State and federally-funded after-school programs provide safe and enriching activities for more than 400,000 students each day at more than 4,200 elementary, middle and high schools in nearly every county statewide. •

California leads the nation in after-school funding. The state invests over three times more in after-school programs than the remaining 49 states combined.

•

The vast majority—96 percent—of state and federal afterschool funding goes to programs aimed at students from low-income families, who have the greatest need for safe, productive and educational after-school settings.

of participating students are able to go to work because they do not have to stay at home to care for a child.

Crime Prevention & Dropout Prevention There also have been promising developments for students: • Building on decades of strong outcomes from Boys & Girls Clubs across the nation, comparable youth who did not participate in the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme were three times more likely to be arrested than those who chose to participate in the program. •

After-school credit reclamation classes at Blair High School in Pasadena more than doubled the number of on-time graduates.

•

After three charter schools in South Central Los Angeles implemented THINK Together’s after-school program for the majority of their students, twice as many students scored at proficient or above on English and math standardized tests.

Many Still Unserved Still, California falls short of meeting the after-school needs of students and families. • Nearly 2,000 schools in low-income neighborhoods are still without state or federal after-school programs. •

Many interested schools have been turned away due to lack of funding. In the last round of competitive applications for federal funds, demand was more than eight times higher than the amount of available funding.

•

More than half of state-funded programs surveyed reported waiting lists, leaving behind thousands of kids.

•

Schools have leveraged state after-school funding to raise more than $1 billion in cash and in-kind matching funds since the state program was founded in 1998.

In order to keep kids on track and out of trouble, California must remain committed to supporting after-school programs, especially in low-income communities.

•

After-school programs help keep more Californians working. There are at least 20,000 after-school workers employed with state and federal dollars, and many parents

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California is a bipartisan, non-profit, anti-crime organization led by 400 police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys, and violence survivors.

Table of Contents Chapter 1: California’s After-School Successes.............................................................................................1 Over 400,000 Students Served Daily at Over 4,200 Programs Largest State Program in the Nation Serving the Most At-Risk, High-Need Children and Families $1 Billion Raised in Matching Funds More Californians Working Increased Collaboration between Schools and Communities Many New High School Programs

Chapter 2: After-School Programs Benefit Students and Communities.........................................................5 Cracking Down on the “Prime Time for Juvenile Crime” Dropout Prevention & Graduation Improved School Attendance Increased Academic Achievement

Chapter 3: Challenges to After-School Expansion in California....................................................................9 Many Children and Youth Still Unserved Underfunding Jeopardizes Program Quality Challenges Associated with Unprecedented Expansion and Quick Start-Up Budget Cuts

Conclusion and Recommendations..........................................................................................................12 Appendix A: State- and Federally-Funded After-School Programs by County.............................................13 Appendix B: Waiting List Data..................................................................................................................15 Endnotes..................................................................................................................................................16

1 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

Chapter 1: California’s After-School Successes California is the nation’s leader in supporting after–school programs. Through primarily state funding, substantial support from the federal government, as well as matching private dollars, it offers safe, constructive activities to hundreds of thousands of students, from kindergarten through high school. California’s after-school record reflects a strong commitment by California voters and policymakers. Starting in 1998, the State Legislature created and consistently increased funding for the state-funded After School Education and Safety (ASES) program. In 2002 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a private citizen, championed Proposition 49 to substantially expand the program. California voters overwhelmingly approved the initiative, even in the wake of a then $24 billion budget shortfall.1 In 2006, the State Legislature and the Governor united to enact critical reforms to the program as Proposition 49’s expansion took effect.2

health and cost-saving benefits that after-school programs offer. For example, Proposition 49 was endorsed by more than 120 sheriffs, police chiefs and district attorneys, and by business leaders, teachers, doctors, seniors, religious leaders, and conservative taxpayer groups. Endorsing organizations included the California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, California Teachers Association, California State PTA, California State Sheriffs’ Association, California District Attorneys Association, California Medical Association, AARP, California Church Impact, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, and California Taxpayers Association.3 Thanks to this broad support, the California Department of Education’s administration of the program, and afterschool providers across the state, California’s groundbreaking commitment to after-school programs has yielded many significant accomplishments.

Over 400,000 Students Served Daily at Over 4,200 Programs

There has been wide bipartisan support for the program. The authors of the legislation creating the state program were Democrats, and it was signed into law by a Republican Governor. Proposition 49 was endorsed by 50 legislators, including the then Assembly Speaker and Senate and Assembly Republican Leaders, as well as 75 Mayors from both parties. In addition to this political backing, an unprecedented range of constituencies have supported California’s after-school efforts, due to the potential crime-prevention, academic, workforce,

State and federally-funded after-school programs provide safe and enriching activities for more than 400,000 students each day at more than 4,200 elementary, middle and high schools in nearly every county statewide.4 The rise of publicly-funded after-school programs in California has been dramatic. Before 1998, California had no statefunded after-school program and the federal government

(in Millions)

*+,-,./ 0is1 in 23,31 ,n4 5141+,l 6n71s3-1n3 in 891+ 2/:ool  State ASES

$700

Federal 21st Century for CA

$600   $500

Prop. 49 approved  by CA voters

First Federal  21st Century  grants in CA

Prop. 49 funding  increase takes eﬀect

$400   $300

Establishment  of State aQerR school prgram

$200   $100   $0   1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007  (& beyond)

B.S. Dept. of EducaGon & California Dept. of EducaGonI 2009

2 fight crime: invest in kids California

What are the state- and federally-funded after-school programs? The state-funded After School Education and Safety (“ASES”) program and federally-funded 21st Century Community Learning Centers (“21st Century”) offer complementary programs both administered by the California Department of Education. Both serve elementary and middle school students. Both require educational and enrichment components and a minimum number of hours and days of operation. Both fund programs based on the number of students projected to be served, at $7.50 per student per day. The key difference between ASES and 21st Century is that ASES provides longerterm funding: individual ASES programs will be funded indefinitely as long as

provided just $1 million nationally for the federal after-school program, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (“21st Century”), none of which went to California.5

they meet attendance and other goals, while 21st Century provides only fiveyear grants to programs that may compete for renewal.11 Part of California’s federal 21st Century funding is reserved for high schools through the 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (“ASSETs”) program, which was created by state statute in 2002. Administered by the state, ASSETs offers more flexibility in terms of program hours and funding formulas than do the elementary and middle school programs.12

over 500 additional schools that do not receive state funding. California received its first share of 21st Century funding—$4 million—in 1998, and its share has increased to approximately $130 million per year.9

In 1998, California created a statefunded after-school program.6 Since then, California has consistently increased state funding for afterschool programs, growing from an initial commitment of $50 million for approximately 600 schools to now $550 million annually—for over 3,700 schools—for the state’s ASES program.7 Investment also skyrocketed at the federal level. Funding for the 21st Century program jumped from $1 million to $1 billion nationwide in just five years.8 California’s share of 21st Century funding has grown to complement the state’s investment, expanding the size of over 400 state-funded programs and reaching

Largest State Program in the Nation California’s large-scale commitment to after-school programs is particularly noteworthy, given that it is one of fewer than a dozen states with a dedicated state-funded after-school program.

Overall, California invests over three times more in after-school programs than the remaining 49 states combined.10

Serving the Most At-Risk, High-Need Children and Families The vast majority—96 percent—of ASES and 21st Century funding goes to programs aimed at students from low-income families. The 21st Century program expressly targets elementary, middle and high schools serving those students, and the ASES program always

01li2o3ni1 415 647 819on:5 ;13<756 =>73?@A4ool BnC756D7n6  $550 Million

California  $86 Million

New York

FY 2009‐10 funding

Illinois

$16 Million

Tennessee

$15 Million

Georgia

$14 Million

New Jersey

$11 Million

Connec7cu9

$5 Million

Massac;use<s

$2 Million

New Mexico

$1 Million

Kansas

$400,000

!"#$%&'"()*&+,--$."#)*&!"/#0&1)/"2,-)*&30,"*&)-4&5).0,-6#"-&$2,7,-)#$4&)8$/9.:0""2&;/"6/)7.&,-&<==>?& FGersc;ool FllianceH 2009

3 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

has prioritized schools with a high percentage of low-income students.13 Low-income children and youth are particularly at risk of becoming involved in crime, as well as being stuck at the bottom of the achievement gap.14 While Proposition 49, as enacted, would have directed much of its new funding to “universal” grants for all elementary and middle schools, Senate Bill 638 (Torlakson) rewrote ASES funding priorities in 2006 to ensure that the increased funding was concentrated on schools serving low-income families.

1*'2&345678()**+&96:;2'&9*&2*&<*=7>;(*?5&8()**+'&

institutions of higher education, government agencies, foundations, community-based organizations, local businesses, and individual donors. LA’s BEST, for example, which serves 28,000 students at 180 state- and federally-funded after-school programs, has raised $20 million in private donations to support these programs.17 Donald Bren and The Irvine Company committed over $10 million to THINK Together, which offers state- and federally-funded programs for 20,000 students at 187 sites throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties.18 Programs often access funding from local, state and federal governments. For example, many rely on federally-funded AmeriCorps volunteers to help staff program sites.19

@;)1>(621;$%&'(()%$/17'$ABCBD$ #!%7$@42786ED$(6$#!%7$@42786E$ ABBCF%$G6;27%$

!"#$%&'()**+'& ,-./0& .(/012&(34$%&'(()%$ *+5,$(6$3(64$%789427%$ :;6<&1:;<2=$12$>4946;)$ %&'(()$34;)%$:6(=6;3-$ ?(7$)(/012&(34$%&'(()%$

!"#$%&'(()%$ *+,-$

@;)1>(621;$AH46%&'(()$?47/(6I$J$@;)1>(621;$K4:7L$(>$C98&;<(2D$#5!5$

As a result, all of the approximately 2,000 new after-school programs funded through Proposition 49 in 2006-2007 are for schools with at least 40 percent or more of students participating in the federal free or reduced-cost school meals program.15 Under federal law, 40 percent participation in the school meals program is the threshold to be considered a “Title I” school: Title I is the federal program that targets aid to schools with a high percentage of students from low-income families.

Programs often combine contributions from several sources. For example, A World Fit For Kids! launched the Snack Shack, a booth showcasing a diverse array of fresh fruits and vegetables. The Snack Shack offers hands-on nutrition education for students and parents who, as they come to pick up their children from the after-school programs, have the opportunity to taste and purchase the produce at a minimal cost, far below grocery store prices. The shack itself was built with a grant from Kaiser; the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank donates some of the food; and A World Fit For Kids! covers the expense of transporting the food as an in-kind contribution. A World Fit For Kids! operates 11 state-funded programs in the Los Angeles area.20 Since the founding of the ASES program in 1998, more than $1 billion has been raised in cash and in-kind matching funds.21

$1 Billion Raised in Matching Funds

More Californians Working

Schools can use state or federal after-school dollars to leverage additional resources. ASES requires it: Local schools and communities must match 33 cents for every state dollar.16 Matches may be cash or in-kind contributions, and come from school districts themselves (usually the lead agency for ASES grants) or from a variety of partners, including cities,

After-school programs also help keep more Californians working. There are at least 20,000 after-school workers employed with state and federal dollars.22 Moreover, many parents of participating students are able to go to work because they do not have to stay at home to care for a child. Many of these families cannot afford the thousands of dollars

4 fight crime: invest in kids California

often needed to pay for private care, leaving them nowhere to turn without publicly-funded after-school programs.23 They generally do not have access to subsidized child care, given that more than 45,000 school-age children are stuck on waiting lists for subsidized care, which many struggling families do not even qualify for.24

Increased Collaboration between Schools and Communities After-school programs offer many opportunities for collaboration between schools and their communities. Many programs offer community service or bring in community members to provide specific programming. A large number of school districts turn to communitybased organizations to operate the programs. For example, Boys & Girls Clubs work in partnership with 75 school

districts to operate 375 ASES and 21st Century programs, both at schools and at the clubs themselves. This represents over $38 million in state and federal grants.25 After-school programs also strengthen collaborations between communities and institutions of higher learning by offering college students the opportunity to work in after-school programs and pursue a dedicated career path in this field. Throughout California, institutions of higher learning are operating local after-school workforce development programs.26

Many New High School Programs The expansion of ASES, which supports elementary and middle schools, opened the door to redirect more federal 21st Century funding to programs serving

high school students. From a crimeprevention perspective, investments in high school after-school programs are crucial because older students are more likely to engage in crime and other problem behaviors.27 When the state’s high school after-school program—the 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (“ASSETs”)—was introduced, it received only 6 percent of federal funding, which was $2.5 million for 16 programs. As new state funding reached thousands of elementary and middle schools through Proposition 49, Senate Bill 638 increased the high school share of 21st Century to 50 percent. Currently, there are over 350 ASSETs programs, receiving approximately $81 million annually to serve approximately 60,000 students.28

Susana Saldana, 15 – Boys & Girls Club of Sonoma Valley The first time 15-year-old Susana Saldana remembers police coming to her home she was just five. Her older sister was in a gang and was being pressured to run away from her parents. The police also started visiting often, at least once a year, because Susana’s dad was an alcoholic. Not long after the first visit by the police, Susana’s parents were concerned for their daughter’s future. Able to speak only a little English and unable to help with her schoolwork, they enrolled her in the Boys & Girls Club of Sonoma Valley. In middle school, Susana quit attending the Club to hang out more with her friends—some of whom were hanging out in the streets, doing nothing, while others were in gangs and breaking the law. “I was starting to get into trouble and my grades were going down badly,” she said of that period.

Though pressured to join a gang, Susana said that knowing the Boys & Girls Club would always be there for her gave her strength. She spoke with a mentor at the Club, who helped her realize there was no need to join a gang and that she had to make the right decision for herself and others, too. Shortly after, she rejoined the Boys & Girls Club and got the guidance and homework help she needed to get back on track. She has also had opportunities to participate in prevention programs, such as the SMART program (Skills Mastery and Resistance Training), which teaches young girls about growing up—things Susana’s parents didn’t talk to her about, such as peer pressure, sex, and when and how to “say no”. With the help of the Boys & Girls Club of Sonoma Valley, Susana is on course to graduate from high school and pursue college or a career path. Susana said of her future, “What I really want to do is become a cop… I realized [during those early visits] that police officers were there to help me and I know that there are families who don’t get the help they need from law enforcement. I decided then that I could help others by becoming a police officer.”

5 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

Chapter 2: After-School Programs Benefit Students and Communities

more young Californians grow up to be productive adults who steer clear of crime.

California’s commitment to developing a broad after-school system is based on years of research confirming the benefits of high-quality after-school programs. According to the Harvard Family Research Project, “a decade of research and evaluation studies, as well as large-scale, rigorously-conducted syntheses of many research and evaluation studies, confirms that children and youth who participate in after school programs can reap a host of academic, social, prevention, and health benefits.” The Harvard researchers found “powerful evidence” demonstrating the effectiveness of after-school programs that achieve sustained participation, offer quality programming and feature strong partnerships.29

Research involving California programs reinforces the benefits that after-school programs can provide.

Cracking Down on the “Prime Time for Juvenile Crime” For those on the front lines fighting crime, the most compelling benefit of after-school programs is their ability to prevent crime. When the school bell rings, turning millions of children and teens out on the street, violent juvenile crime suddenly soars. In California, the peak hours on school days for violent juvenile crime are from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The single most likely hour on school days for a juvenile to commit a violent crime— homicide, rape, robbery or assault—is between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.33 The after-school hours are also the prime time for kids to become victims of violence, as well as smoke, drink, use drugs, or be involved in a car crash.34 After-school programs offer constructive alternatives to gangs, drugs, and crime.

After-school programs can make a difference in a variety of ways. They can keep kids off the street and away from negative peer influences. They can prevent kids from falling behind academically and keep them on track to graduation through tutoring and homework assistance. They can keep students engaged and excited to come to school, by offering career skills, community service opportunities, and enriching activities like music, dance and theater that are increasingly Developing ways to attract at-risk students into after-school squeezed out of the regular school day. They can help keep programs, and to effectively coach them on how to avoid students healthier through recreation and good nutrition. They can promote positive youth development by providing strong Violent Juvenile Crime Soars When the School Bell Rings  relationships with adults, a sense of 12%  3‐4 p.m.  belonging, leadership opportunities, and 10%  Percent of violent juvenile crime  other developmental assets associated with occuring each hour on school days  an increased likelihood of succeeding in 8%  school and avoiding problem behaviors.30 6%

m.  a. 3‐4

a.m .  12 ‐1

9‐1

0 p

p. m. 6‐7

p. m.

p.m ‐1  12

3‐4

m.  a. 9‐1 0

0%  6‐7

Effective after-school programs also can help reduce the costs of failure. Juvenile crime costs California $8.9 billion per year,31 and dropouts alone cost California over $46 billion annually in crime costs, welfare expenditures, reduced earnings, and lost taxes.32 After-school programs can help reduce these costs by ensuring that

Cata from large Dalifornia ciEesF 1999‐2000 and 2000‐2001 school years

6 fight crime: invest in kids California

troubling behaviors, can be challenging, but the Boys & Girls Clubs have shown they can deliver. Studies going back over 50 years show Boys & Girls Clubs can successfully reduce crime. For example, in a study conducted in several U.S. cities, five housing projects without Boys & Girls Clubs were compared to five projects receiving new clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and vandalism were the same. But by the time the study ended, the projects without the programs had 50 percent more vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on a combined measure of drug activity.35 Many Boys & Girls Clubs operate in California. A study of Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme yielded promising crime-prevention

results. Comparable youth who did not participate in the Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme Clubs were three times more likely to be arrested than those who chose to participate in the program.36 The Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme offer 12 state-funded, and several separatelyfunded, after-school programs.37 Among kids with prior histories of arrest, those who did not participate in San Francisco’s Bayview Safe Haven afterschool program were twice as likely to be arrested during the six-month initial intervention period as program participants. Among kids with no prior histories of arrest, those who did not participate were three times more likely than participants to be arrested during the same intervention period.38

Dropout Prevention & Graduation After-school programs, even starting as early as elementary school, can help improve dropout and graduation rates. This is important from a crime-fighting perspective, because rigorous research has established a strong link between high school graduation and reduced crime. High school dropouts are three and one-half times more likely than high school graduates to be arrested and over eight times more likely to be in jail or prison.39 A UCLA study found that students who did not attend LA’s BEST elementary school after-school programs were, years later, 20 percent more likely to drop out than LA’s BEST students who participated for three or more years.40

Linda, 22 – Pro-Youth HEART (Visalia) The youngest daughter of fieldworkers, 22-year-old Linda grew up in a community plagued by gangs, guns and violence. By age 10, Linda’s older brothers were getting into trouble while her parents were working long hours without anyone to help take care of her. Constantly worried that without supervision, Linda would end up on the streets, her parents enrolled her in the Pro-Youth HEART (Homework, Enrichment, Acceleration, Recreation, Teamwork) afterschool program.

Reinforcing her new perspective, Linda participated in several programs offered at HEART including a run-walk marathon and outdoor reading time. She admits, “I wasn’t much of a reader. I didn’t like reading.” But the programs piqued Linda’s interests and she has since run a full marathon, and has continued reading on her own. “I have started collecting the books that I’ve read throughout the years,” Linda proudly exclaimed, “so now I have my own book collection.”

By 6th grade, many of Linda’s friends were hanging out with gangs and getting into trouble after school. Linda was hesitant to participate in the HEART program because she was afraid she would be picked on, and thought she didn’t need a “babysitter”.

The Pro-Youth HEART after-school program opened Linda’s eyes to different opportunities out in the world. Without the program, Linda believes she would have ended up on the same troubled path as her brothers. Linda is now teaching her own classes at HEART, where she is giving back what she received. “I try to talk to my students and let them know that they have a life ahead and to make good choices,” she said of her class. “I haven’t made it far yet into where I want to be as far as teaching, but I’m getting there, and they can do it too. They can achieve their dreams.”

As she reluctantly attended, Linda began making more friends, and felt more comfortable at HEART. There she met a teacher who changed everything. “She changed the way I saw things. Like the negative view that I had about the whole society,” Linda said. “She told me that not everything had to be like that. I could choose what I wanted to do and I didn’t need bad people around me to be successful in life.”

7 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

According to school officials at Blair High School in Pasadena, after-school credit reclamation classes have more than doubled the number of on-time graduates.41 Students can earn up to five credits if they successfully complete 60 hours of study in their individual core subjects during the after-school hours. This program is federally-funded. Ninety-four percent of high school students completing A World Fit For Kids!’ internship and mentoring program have graduated from high school, primarily from a high school with a 50 percent overall graduation rate. These students are trained and hired as interns to coach and guide elementary school students in physical activity-based after-school programs.42

the after-school program in eighth grade.46 While this study was of a program in Boston, Citizen Schools operates eight state- and federally-funded programs in California.47

Increased Academic Achievement After-school programs can increase academic achievement by, for example, offering tutoring and other academic assistance, reinforcing school-day lessons, and getting students more engaged in learning.

()*+,$(-./01/2$341--56$7-895/$(/60$34-2/6$:;<$ 382=:66$7>602>40$?@/2:./$ G9569"+(?E(H+IJ9"+&(*+(.(K'*5+95(H6'??$&( :9&L"#(G5?M6%9"+(?5(7N?89(?"(H+*+9(:9&+(

A comprehensive study of California’s ASSETs program found that program participants passed the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) at a significantly higher rate than similar students not in the program.43 Passage of the CAHSEE is required to graduate from high school in California.

Improved School Attendance After-school programs also can boost school-day attendance. Students may be less likely to skip school when after-school programs help them stay caught up on their homework and excited about going to school. After-school participants from 80 state- and federally-funded after-school programs in the Central Valley improved their school-day attendance by nearly three weeks (14 days).44 According to researchers at the University of California at Irvine, students who had been absent more than 26 days in the prior year increased their attendance more than three weeks (17 days) after participating in ASES programs.45 Middle-school participants in the Citizen Schools after-school program attended school over two weeks (11 days) more than comparable students. They also were more likely to attend high school regularly, even though it was just a middle school program. For example, in the 11th grade, participants attended school 13 more days than those who did not attend

!"#$%&'(

)*+'(

4%&+5%6+(7895*#9(

%'#$ &&#$ ,-1/0( ,-3/0(

,-./0(

,.2/0(

!%#$

!"#$

D9E?59( :;<=>(:?#9+'95(

7F95( :;<=>(:?#9+'95(

D9E?59( :;<=>(:?#9+'95(

7F95( :;<=>(:?#9+'95( :;<=>(:?#9+'95@(ABBC(

At three charter schools in South Central Los Angeles, THINK Together began providing after-school programs to 60 percent of the students. In the pre-THINK Together academic year (2007-2008), only 23 percent of students scored at proficient or above in English, compared to a 37 percent rate districtwide, and only 25 percent scored at proficient or above in math, compared to 43 percent district-wide. Once THINK Together was implemented in 2008-2009, twice as many students scored at proficient or above on the English and math tests, resulting in higher proficiency rates in the charter schools than across the district. These improvements are reflected in the 2009 Academic Performance Index scores, on which these three schools had among the biggest increases in the Los Angeles Unified School District.48

8 fight crime: invest in kids California

UC Irvine researchers found that ASES students in the lowest performing quartile on standardized tests advanced out of the lowest quartile at greater rates than the general student population.49 After-school programs can especially benefit children learning to master English. At 80 state- and federallyfunded after-school programs in the Central Valley, English language learners who participated were more than three times as likely to be reclassified as fluent in English as students in the region overall.50 Research also has indicated a link between after-school programs and a reduced risk that students will be held back to repeat a grade in school—a key early warning sign for dropping out.51 Research from UC Irvine indicates that

students in ASES were held back less than similar non-participating students.52 Of course, not all after-school programs will produce solid results. Quality matters. Turning children away from involvement in crime and toward academic success takes well-designed programs with adequate numbers of caring, well-trained staff. In addition, programs are not all designed with the same goals in mind. Some programs may focus more on, for example, academics, physical fitness or crime prevention and as a result may be more likely to have certain impacts than others. California recognizes the unique goals of individual programs by permitting programs to choose some of the outcomes for which they will be held accountable.53

In order to identify which after-school programs are succeeding and which are not, ongoing evaluation is crucial. One way to facilitate evaluation of publiclyfunded after-school programs would be to integrate individualized data regarding participation in after-school programs into the state’s longitudinal student database, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System, which tracks the performance of individual students over time.

Orlando S., 16 – Woodcraft Rangers (Los Angeles) Sixteen-year-old Orlando S. is a sophomore at a Los Angeles-area high school, but three days a week he returns to his former middle school. Instead of hanging out with his high school buddies, he gives back to a program that helped turn his life around. “I was heading in the wrong path, hanging out with the wrong people,” Orlando said of his pre-teen years. “I was defiant to my teachers, I was destructive to everybody,” he said. Tagging, stealing and fighting are what he used to do for “fun.” Recognizing the need for Orlando to redirect his energy toward more positive activities, his sixth-grade English teacher told him about an after-school program called Woodcraft Rangers. The DJ class offered through the program appealed to Orlando because he was interested in music and the class used professional equipment. Orlando and his friends in the program even started a breakdancing club and a lowrider bike club within the Woodcraft Rangers program. Serving more than 18,000 kids in high-need areas around Los Angeles County, Woodcraft Rangers provides structured activities that incorporate “disguised learning” experiences to enhance students’

educational success and their attitudes toward school. “I started forgetting about the gangs and peer pressure,” Orlando said. “DJing has really helped me. I’m self-employed now, I earn $200 to $300 on weekends and I help my family out.” Orlando’s program mentors played a key role in helping him get back on the right track. He says his middle school principal, his teachers and his parents had given up on him, but his mentors put him through peer mediation and anger management counseling. At the end of his first year in the program, he says he was doing more positive activities than negative activities: “I wasn’t only helping myself, I was helping other kids.” “I think if all the gangbangers out there had something to do, they wouldn’t be gangbanging,” he said. “They’re going to want to make money in the future.“ Orlando has his eye on the future and plans to attend college. “First I want to study music,” he said, “and then I want to do architecture and design and customize cars.”

9 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

Chapter 3: Challenges to After-School Expansion in California Successful expansion of after-school programs in California has faced, and will continue to face, several challenges.

Even where programs exist, there are often long waiting lists of interested students that programs do not have space for. ASES and 21st Century grants are generally intended to serve at most 83 students daily at elementary schools, and 111 students at middle schools—even though across California the average elementary school enrollment is 546 students and middle schools enroll on average 843 students.59

Many Children and Youth Still Unserved There are still many children and youth who are in need of after-school programs, but are left unserved. In fact, even with investments in thousands of programs statewide, there are still nearly 2.000 schools in low-income neighborhoods in California without state- or federally-funded programs.54 According to a 2009 survey, only 19 percent of K-12 students in California participate in public or private after-school programs, while 24 percent of students are left unsupervised after school on average eight hours per week. Based on the findings of the survey, parents of approximately 2 million California students say they would be likely to enroll their children in after-school programs if they were available.55 The need for more after-school programs is reinforced by the high demand for after-school funding, which still far exceeds the supply of state and federal funding. For example, nearly 2,000 schools, seeking approximately $200 million in state after-school funding, were turned away in 2006-2007 due to insufficient funding.56 More recently, in the latest round of federal 21st Century funding for elementary and middle schools, demand totaled eight times more than the amount of available funding, with $140 million worth of applications while only $16 million in grants were available.57 The federal government’s failure to fully fund the 21st Century program exacerbates this problem: the No Child Left Behind Act authorized funding to reach $2.5 billion by 2007, but actual funding remains less than half that level (nearly $1.2 billion).58

Many Low-Income Schools Receive No State or Federal After-School Funding 10 HighestNeed Counties

Unfunded LowIncome Schools

Los Angeles San Bernardino Kern Riverside Sacramento San Diego Orange San Joaquin Alameda Fresno

405 190 111 107 94 91 75 56 55 53

California Afterschool Network & California Dept. of Education, 2010

A 2009 survey of over 1,100 state-funded programs found that more than half—nearly 600 programs—had waiting lists. Almost 13,000 students were being denied access to state after-school programs.60 The number of students on waiting lists is likely far more, given that these figures represent fewer than one-third of all ASES programs.

Underfunding Jeopardizes Program Quality California has taken several important steps to promote program quality. These include: the California Department of Education’s development of a system of regional support and technical assistance and a state resource center of peerreviewed after-school materials; the introduction of the California Afterschool Network’s quality self-assessment tool;

10 fight crime: invest in kids California

and philanthropic support for building the capacity of technical assistance providers and tackling the challenge of building a qualified workforce.61 However, quality can suffer if programs do not have sufficient resources to hire and retain qualified staff. The ASES and 21st Century programs determine grant levels on student attendance, based on the rate of $7.50 per student per day (while ASES also requires a $2.50 cash or in-kind match). It can be very challenging to support a quality program based on that rate. One study estimated that a quality program costs on average $24 per student per day—far more than California’s $7.50 rate.62

In addition, California’s daily rate is fixed: unlike state education spending generally, it is not designed to accommodate increased costs over time. Through Proposition 98, state education funding generally grows to keep pace with the cost of living, usually enabling most—nine out of every ten—statefunded education programs to receive annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs).63 ASES, however, is one of the small number of state-funded education programs that does not receive a COLA, which will make it increasingly difficult for programs to be able to afford to pay enough to attract and retain qualified staff.

Challenges Associated with Unprecedented Expansion and Quick Start-Up While most programs have fully utilized their state funding and attracted plenty of students, some programs initially faced problems utilizing all of the funding allocated to them and/or attracting as many students as they intended. These bumps in the road were not surprising given the sheer number of new programs—approximately 2,000 starting from scratch with new funding in 20062007—and the fact that it can take time to design and grow a program.

Javier Diaz, 31 – THINK Together (Costa Mesa & Orange) Ten years after entering one of THINK Together’s original after-school programs at age 15, Javier Diaz decided to pay it forward and became the site coordinator of a THINK Together program as part of a journey that has lead to a Master’s Degree in Education and work as a community liaison in the Laguna Beach Unified School District. Javier grew up in Costa Mesa, in a neighborhood rife with poverty, drugs and violence. THINK Together operated a teen center there that Javier says was “different and exciting” in a neighborhood that did not offer many options. “My relatives were involved in gangs and drugs,” Javier said. “I didn’t want to get involved in that, and THINK Together opened up different possibilities.” He attended the teen center three to four days each week after school, throughout high school. Through a variety of field trips, THINK Together gave Javier his first opportunities to travel outside of his Costa Mesa neighborhood. It also gave him the opportunity to take on responsibilities and “have a voice.” As the elected President of the teen center, he helped recruit many friends and family members. The program “made me feel part of something,” he said.

THINK Together also helped give him direction. “I never used to pay too much attention to school or education or higher education until I came [to THINK Together],” Javier said. Here, “it was something they encouraged.” “After experiencing first-hand several drive-by shootings and then just realizing there’s something else out there—that there are people trying to help you like THINK Together—that’s what made me want to get out of that lifestyle,” he said. Without THINK Together, Javier said he probably would have ended up in jail, like some of his uncles and cousins. After graduating from high school and serving in the U.S. Marines, he returned to THINK Together first as a volunteer and then, from 2003 through 2007, as a site coordinator at a learning center in the City of Orange. Javier says he related to the students and accepted them for who they are: “Instead of a mentality of saving them, I offered a mentality of helping guide them.” Now 31, Javier has graduated from Cal State Fullerton, earned a Masters degree in Education from Loyola Marymount University, and now is working on his teaching credential. He currently is a community liaison for the Laguna Beach Unified School District doing outreach to Spanish-speaking families and he plans to become a high school history teacher.

11 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

Moreover, the growing pains associated with these challenges have been overstated. Although new programs resulting from the significant program expansion in 2006-2007 did not receive their awards until the second semester of the school year, few dollars were left unspent. Initial estimates suggested that there would be as much as $400 million in unspent funds in the first two years of new programs,64 but in the end the amount left unspent was a total of $70 to $80 million—less than 8 percent of after-school funding over the two years.65 ,-./*0%1)2%34-25678))(%9:*0'*;% <';8=%>'.-?%&)2-%=8/*%3@/'(/A(-%9:*0'*;% !"#$%&'((')*% 2101-&#+34*.+51).6-7+86)0$)9+8(-+5&#$8(-)$&+ 1#1:1).&-7+&)0+:$00#1+*%;((#*+$)+3<<=+

!"+%&'((')*%%

!""#$%&'()*+

,-&).*+&/&-010+ 5&#$8(-)$&+>1".?+(8+@06%&'()A+3<<=+

The unspent funding that did exist still served a valuable purpose: thanks to legislation enacted in 2008, these dollars were redirected to help address the state’s budget shortfall.66 Some programs did fall short of their original attendance goals. Senate Bill 638 anticipated that possibility and instructed the Department of Education to reduce grants for programs with lower-than-expected attendance. As a result, some ASES funding will be redirected to new programs that have not yet received any funding. Approximately $50 million will be available for new grants starting in 2010.67

Budget Cuts ASES has been spared budget cuts thanks to Proposition 49’s funding guarantee.68 After-school programs, however, have not been immune from budget cuts. In 2009, the state eliminated the Extended Day/Latchkey program, a $30 million yearround, before-school, after-school and summertime child care

subsidy program for low-income working families of school-age children.69 Local budget troubles also have forced many school districts and local governments to cut locally-funded after-school programs.70 In fact, a UCLA survey found that nearly half of school principals reported reducing or eliminating after-school programs during the recent economic downturn.71 Yet due to grant maximums and limited funding, ASES and 21st Century are not able to accommodate the increased after-school, before-school and year-round needs that have resulted. Local budget cuts also may make it difficult for some statefunded ASES programs to raise required matching funds. Several ASES programs already have indicated that they may need to shut down given a lack of matching funds.72

12 fight crime: invest in kids California

Conclusion and Recommendations The law enforcement leaders and crime survivors of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California call on policymakers to prevent crime by protecting and increasing access to quality after-school programs. Specifically, state and federal policymakers should: •

Protect and, as the economy recovers, increase state and federal investments in the After School Education and Safety and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs.

•

Support program quality by regularly increasing the per student daily rate for programs. This would more effectively link state after-school funding to Proposition 98 education spending, which generally increases to keep pace with the cost of living.

•

Support ongoing evaluation of after-school programs by incorporating after-school program participation into the state’s longitudinal student database, the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System.

California has emerged as the nation’s after-school leader. It must remain committed to after-school programs. The safety of its communities—and the future for Californians—is at stake.

Appendix CALIFORNIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

Appendix A: State- and Federally-Funded After-School Programs by County LOW-INCOME SCHOOLS

TOTAL SCHOOLS OVERALL

WITH AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM (%)

STUDENT CAPACITY

STATE & FEDERAL INVESTMENT

WITH AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS (%)

NO AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS (%)

365

192 (53%)

22,244

$30,069,678

175 (76%)

55 (24%)

Alpine

1 (100%)

Amador

0 (0%)

Butte

42 (57%)

4,791

Calaveras

4 (24%)

333

Colusa

10 (63%)

617

Contra Costa

257

Del Norte

El Dorado

COUNTIES

Alameda

0 (0%)

5 (100%)

39 (67%)

19 (33%)

$449,834

3 (33%)

6 (67%)

$834,372

10 (67%)

5 (33%)

79 (31%)

10,501

$14,194,269

77 (68%)

37 (32%)

7 (64%)

755

$1,020,100

7 (64%)

4 (36%)

9 (17%)

510

$685,587

8 (44%)

10 (56%)

Fresno

287

193 (67%)

25,051

$33,853,619

186 (78%)

53 (22%)

Glenn

12 (71%)

774

$1,044,425

9 (60%)

6 (40%)

Humboldt

27 (42%)

1,736

$2,344,297

25 (52%)

23 (48%)

Imperial

24 (41%)

2,259

$3,049,444

24 (44%)

31 (56%)

Inyo

0 (0%)

8 (100%)

Kern

240

81 (34%)

7,941

$10,733,087

80 (42%)

111 (58%)

Kings

31 (60%)

2,964

$4,010,667

28 (67%)

14 (33%)

Lake

7 (28%)

281

$379,350

7 (33%)

14 (67%)

7 (33%)

282

1970

1142 (58%)

143,601

Madera

30 (56%)

2,345

Marin

11 (19%)

Mariposa

4 (40%)

Mendocino

Merced

Modoc

Lassen Los Angeles

$48,600 $6,466,643

7 (44%)

9 (56%)

1119 (73%)

405 (27%)

$3,168,210

29 (71%)

12 (29%)

966

$1,308,506

11 (50%)

205

$276,750

4 (50%)

23 (59%)

1,685

$2,276,850

21 (57%)

16 (43%)

49 (56%)

3,989

$5,393,611

48 (59%)

34 (41%)

10 (83%)

362

$488,550

10 (83%)

2 (17%)

$381,525 $194,013,916

Mono

3 (33%)

135

$182,250

3 (38%)

5 (62%)

Monterey

54 (55%)

6,128

$8,274,946

38 (48%)

41 (52%)

Napa

18 (47%)

1,780

$2,404,600

17 (89%)

2 (11%)

Nevada

5 (15%)

198

Orange

580

230 (40%)

25,522

Placer

106

8 (8%)

672

Plumas

4 (44%)

139

Riverside

452

220 (49%)

21,502

Sacramento

360

178 (49%)

17,648

San Benito

6 (33%)

485

San Bernardino

504

227 (45%)

22,193

San Diego

681

366 (54%)

San Francisco

112

91 (81%)

San Joaquin

195

San Luis Obispo

5 (71%)

2 (29%)

228 (75%)

75 (25%)

$909,000

8 (38%)

13 (62%)

$188,475

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

$29,058,598

217 (67%)

107 (33%)

$23,856,642

172 (65%)

94 (35%)

$267,213 $34,485,920

6 (43%)

8 (57%)

$29,987,213

227 (54%)

190 (46%)

43,221

$58,366,840

332 (78%)

91 (22%)

13,285

$17,935,967

83 (89%)

10 (11%)

99 (51%)

10,890

$14,712,446

95 (63%)

56 (37%)

20 (32%)

1,478

$1,993,938

11 (42%)

15 (58%)

$656,438

14 fight crime: invest in kids California

TOTAL SCHOOLS OVERALL

WITH AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM (%)

STUDENT CAPACITY

San Mateo

158

48 (30%)

4,873

Santa Barbara

108

34 (31%)

2,633

Santa Clara

365

139 (38%)

Santa Cruz

24 (33%)

Shasta

39 (63%)

COUNTIES

LOW-INCOME SCHOOLS WITH AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS (%)

NO AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS (%)

$6,580,055

48 (72%)

19 (28%)

$3,554,639

32 (51%)

31 (49%)

14,545

$19,664,743

136 (77%)

40 (23%)

6,053

$8,169,754

23 (70%)

10 (30%)

3,249

$4,391,380

35 (73%)

13 (27%)

STATE & FEDERAL INVESTMENT

Sierra

0 (0%)

1 (100%)

Siskiyou

24 (67%)

1,186

$1,602,315

24 (71%)

10 (29%)

Solano

34 (35%)

3,185

$4,302,192

33 (61%)

21 (39%)

Sonoma

144

36 (25%)

3,436

$4,647,185

36 (57%)

27 (43%)

Stanislaus

163

93 (57%)

10,568

$14,276,725

87 (66%)

45 (34%)

Sutter

14 (37%)

1,272

$1,718,738

13 (42%)

18 (58%)

Tehama

31 (89%)

1,714

$2,313,813

28 (85%)

5 (15%)

Trinity

7 (78%)

424

$572,400

7 (78%)

2 (22%)

Tulare

157

100 (64%)

12,165

$16,428,452

97 (66%)

51 (34%)

Tuolumne

5 (24%)

669

$903,200

4 (31%)

9 (69%)

Ventura

192

64 (33%)

5,559

$7,507,897

63 (63%)

37 (37%)

Yolo

21 (39%)

2,011

$2,714,728

18 (51%)

17 (49%)

Yuba

17 (49%)

1,164

$1,575,412

16 (59%)

11 (41%)

8,824

4,254 (48%)

474,210

4,072 (67%)

1,971 (33%)

STATEWIDE

$640,696,004

Calculation of the number of unduplicated schools with programs was based on an analysis by the California Afterschool Network relying on a list of K-12 schools with ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants provided by the California Department of Education for 2009-2010. Local data generally includes K-12 schools with enrollment of at least 50 students, in order to keep the estimate of unfunded schools relatively conservative, although a few schools with lower enrollment do in fact have ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants. This is based on the assumption that programs generally need at least $30,000 to be able to hire staff to operate a functioning after-school program, and schools with fewer than 50 students may find it difficult to attract enough students after school to warrant a $30,000 grant. Based on the existing rate of $7.50 per student per day, a program would need to attract approximately 22 students daily to merit a $30,000 grant. Accordingly, a school with at least 50 students enrolled could receive a $30,000 grant by attracting less than half of its students after school. See Steven Amick, Executive Director, League of California Afterschool Providers, San Diego, CA. Personal communication on January 5, 2010; Senate Bill 898 (Ashburn). (2010). Retrieved on February 11, 2010 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/ sb_0851-0900/sb_898_bill_20100126_introduced.pdf (proposing $30,000 minimum grant) Among schools with enrollment lower than 50 students, only those few with ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants are included. Low-income schools are schools with 40 percent or more students participating in the federal school meals programs, consistent with the federal definition of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Title Iâ&#x20AC;? schools. This data comes from: California Department of Education. (n.d.). Free/Reduced Meals Program & CalWORKS Data Files, 2008. Retrieved on February 5, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sh/cw/filesafdc.asp These data do not reflect grants that are expected to be awarded out of approximately $50 million in ASES dollars freed up due to lower-than-expected attendance in some programs. This funding will go to new grants beginning in 2010-2011 and perhaps to increased grants, up to the grant maximum, for some existing programs, which could begin prior to 2010-2011. Data are current as of March 11, 2010, and will be updated as necessary at: http://fightcrime.org/state/california/news/california-leads-nation-after-school-investment

15 CALIFORNIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Appendix B: Waiting list data

PROGRAM

COUNTY

ASES SITES

ASES SITES WITH WAITLISTS

NUMBER OF KIDS ON WAITLIST

CORAL Long Beach YMCA

Los Angeles

10 (100%)

10+

LA Unified School District

Los Angeles

480

200 (42%)

3,000

Rio Hondo Education Consortium

Los Angeles

2 (11%)

200

Woodcraft Rangers

Los Angeles

9 (90%)

209

Orange

10 (23%)

Anaheim YMCA

Orange

35 (71%)

1,500

Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles

181

156 (86%)

4,944

Boys & Girls Club of Garden Grove THINK Together

Riverside

3 (100%)

Boys & Girls Club of Redlands

San Bernardino

2 (100%)

141

City of Fontana

San Bernardino

20 (67%)

457

San Diego

3 (75%)

100

Ventura

12 (100%)

600

843

462 (55%)

11,281

COUNTY

ASES SITES

ASES SITES WITH WAITLISTS

NUMBER OF KIDS ON WAITLIST

Boys & Girls Club of Cathedral City

Boys & Girls Club of San Marcos Boys & Girls Club of Oxnard & Port Hueneme

Southern California Totals CENTRAL VALLEY PROGRAM

Merced

27 (87%)

450

San Joaquin

7 (41%)

100+

Stanislaus

9 (50%)

Boys & Girls Club of The Sequioas

Tulare

0 (0%)

ProYouth-HEART

Tulare

12 (50%)

150

Tulare County Office of Education

Tulare

20 (91%)

200+

119

75 (63%)

970

COUNTY

ASES SITES

ASES SITES WITH WAITLISTS

NUMBER OF KIDS ON WAITLIST

Mendocino County Office of Education

Mendocino

102

few (n/a)

n/a

Alum Rock Union Unified School District

Santa Clara

10 (37%)

200+

Merced County Office of Education San Joaquin County Office of Education Modesto City Schools

Central Valley Totals BAY AREA & NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PROGRAM

Santa Clara

5 (100%)

100

Santa Clara, San Mateo

36 (84%)

400

Sonoma

0 (0%)

Bay Area & Northern California Totals

180

51 (28%)

700

California Statewide Totals

1,142

588 (51%)

12,951

Boys & Girls Club of Silicon Valley YMCA of Silicon Valley Boys & Girls Club of Sonoma Valley

In Fall 2009, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California distributed surveys to members of the League of California Afterschool Providers, which represents more than 50 of the largest publicly-funded providers in the state, and to all Boys & Girls Clubs and YMCAs with ASES programs. In addition to the 23 after-school providers listed above, five additional providers (all subcontractors) completed the survey, but in order to avoid duplication their waiting list data is not being considered because their data was already reported by their grantee agency. Among the 23 providers, Woodcraft Rangers and YMCA of the Silicon Valley reported data for more programs than listed above, but to avoid duplication, data about Woodcraft Rangers programs in the Los Angeles Unified School District and YMCA programs in the Alum Rock Union Unified School District are only reflected in the district totals.

Endnotes fight crime: invest in kids California

1 California Secretary of State. (n.d.). Statement of Vote: 2002 General Election. Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ sov/2002_general/contents.htm (57% to 43%); California Department of Finance. California State Budget Highlights: 2002-03. (2002). Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2002-03/documents/State_Budget_Highlights02-03.pdf 2 Senate Bill 638 (Torlakson), enacted in 2006, made several important changes to the state after-school program to more effectively attract applicants, promote program quality, increase efficiency, and target low-income communities. These included: increasing the per student daily funding rate from $5 to $7.50; increasing the size of universal grants from $50,000 to $112,500 for elementary schools and to $150,000 for middle schools; and shifting from a reimbursement model to a direct grant model. 3 Citizens for Afterschool Programs. (n.d.). Vote yes on Proposition 49. Retrieved on December 2, 2009 from http://digital.library.ucla.edu/ websites/2002_998_059/index.htm 4 Approximately 335,000 students were served daily by the ASES program in 2008-2009, based on attendance reports. John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on November 23, 2009. Actual attendance is not yet available for 21st Century programs. 21st Century estimates are based on projected attendance from program providers: 21st Century programs are expected to serve up to 51,000 elementary and middle school students and 60,000 high school students. As of March 11, 2010, there are 3,745 ASES programs, including 421 funded by both ASES and 21st Century. There are 169 elementary and middle school programs and approximately 350 high school programs funded by 21st Century alone. There are programs in 55 of California’s 58 counties. These data do not reflect grants that are expected to be awarded in 2010 out of approximately $50 million in ASES dollars freed up due to lower-than-expected attendance in some programs. This funding will go to new grants beginning in 2010-2011 and perhaps to increased grants, up to the grant maximum, for some existing programs, which could begin prior to 20102011. These data are from an analysis by the California Afterschool Network relying on a list of schools with ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants provided by the California Department of Education for 2009-2010. Data on the number of programs, funding level, and student capacity—by region, county, school district, school, and legislative district—are available from the California Afterschool Network at http://www.afterschoolnetwork.org/ca_landscape 5 AB 326 (Ortiz) was a precursor to the state-funded program. Enacted in 1997, it allocated $3.5 million from federal child care funds to establish schoolbased before- and after-school programs. For annual federal 21st Century after-school funding, see: McCallion, G. (2003). 21st century community learning centers in P.L. 107-110: background and funding. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved on January 26, 2010 from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs3830/m1/ For a list of all early 21st Century grantees in California, starting in FY 1998, see: U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Archived Information: All 21st CCLC grantees. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/CCLC/all_grantees.html?all_states=Select+All+St ates%2FTerritories 6 Originally the After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program, the state program was enacted in 1998 through three companion bills, AB 1428 (Ortiz), AB 2284 (Torlakson), and SB 1756 (Lockyer). In 2001, AB 6 (Cardenas) renamed it the Before and After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program. In 2002, Proposition 49 renamed it the After School Education and Safety Act. 7 State after-school funding increased from $50 million in 1998-1999 to $85 million in 1999-2000 and $117.5 million in 2001-2002, fell to $113.2 million (through a midyear cut) in 2002-2003, and increased to $121.6 million in 2003-2004 and then to $550 million when Proposition 49’s increase took effect in 2006-2007. California Afterschool Network. (n.d.). Mapping the California after school landscape. Retrieved on February 8, 2010 from http:// www.afterschoolnetwork.org/ca_landscape; Senate Bill 160 (Peace). (1999). Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/ sen/sb_0151-0200/sb_160_bill_19990629_chaptered.pdf; California Department of Finance, State of California. (2001). 2001–02 Final budget summary. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/osp/GovernorsBudget/pdf/2001-02budsum.pdf; Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2. (April 8, 2003). Agenda. Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c2/hearing/2003/2-04082003. doc; Senate Bill x1 16 (Chesbro). (2003). Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sbx1_18_ bill_20030318_chaptered.pdf; California Department of Finance, State of California. (2003). 2003–04 Final budget summary. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/osp/GovernorsBudget/pdf/2003-04fbudsum.pdf The initial $50 million funded programs at 614 schools. The number of schools funded with $550 million is not greater because the increase in funding was accompanied by an increase in the per student daily rate and maximum grant levels per program. 8 In 1997, 21st Century funding nationally was $1 million; by 2002, it was $1 billion. McCallion, G. (2003). 21st century community learning centers in P.L. 107-110: background and funding. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved on January 26, 2010 from http://digital.library.unt.edu/ ark:/67531/metacrs3830/m1/. 9 U.S. Department of Education. (2009). ESEA Title I grant to local educational agencies. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/sthistbypr01to07.pdf; U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Fiscal Year 2009-FY 2011 President’s budget state tables for the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on February11, 2010 from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/ statetables/11stbyprogram.pdf This federal funding is used primarily for after-school programs, although a fraction of the funding is directed toward before-school, vacation and summer programs. 10 Earle, A. (2009). Roadmap to Afterschool for All: Examining current investments and mapping future needs. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http:// www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/45/89/f0.pdf; Janelle Cousino, Consultant, FowlerHoffman, Washington,

17 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT

D.C. Personal communication on November 9, 2009. 11 Other differences include: ASES requires a 33 percent cash or in-kind match. 21st Century does not require a match. Under ASES, only a school district, county office of education or local government may be the fiscal agent. Under 21st Century any organization, including a community-based organization, may act as fiscal agent. 21st Century alone provides additional, limited direct grants—for “direct access” and “family literacy”—that are not based on the number of students served. ASES prioritizes funding for after-school programs before any new funding for before-school or summer programs will be available. 21st Century does not prioritize after-school over before-school or summer programs. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 8482-8484.6 (ASES), 8484.7-8484.9 (21st Century). Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 12 Cal. Educ. Code §§ 8420-8428 (ASSETs), 8482-8484.6 (ASES), 8484.7-8484.9 (21st Century). Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://leginfo.ca.gov/ calaw.html 13 Under ASES, priority for grants goes to programs with at least 50 percent of students participating in the federal school meals program. Cal. Educ. Code § 8482.5. Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 14 See, e.g., EPE Research Center. (September 10, 2004). Achievement Gap. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/ achievement-gap/ 15 John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on July 17, 2009. In addition to the new programs, the increased state funding in 2006-2007 also was used to provide long-term state support for approximately 1,000 federallyfunded grants that would have expired if they continued to rely on federal funding. 16 Until 2006, when grant levels were based on a $5 per student daily rate, a 50 percent match ($2.50) was required. When SB 638 increased the per student rate to $7.50, it kept the match at $2.50, which corresponds to the new 33 percent match requirement. 17 Carla Sanger, President and Chief Executive Officer, LA’s BEST, Los Angeles, CA. Personal communication on November 23, 2009; LA’s BEST. What we do. (n.d.). Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.lasbest.org/what/ 18 Larry Tenney, Senior Communications and Marketing Counsel, THINK Together, Santa Ana, CA. Personal communication on September 21, 2009; Jenel Prenovost, Director of Evaluation, THINK Together, Santa Ana, CA. Personal communication on January 8, 2010; THINK Together. About THINK Together — THINK Together Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.thinktogether.org/facts.htm 19 In the California Afterschool Network’s survey of over 120 primarily ASES and 21st Century providers, 14 percent reported that they utilize AmeriCorps volunteers. John Jones, Web Developer, California Afterschool Network, Davis, CA. Personal Communication on June 11, 2009. 20 Normandie Nigh, Executive Director, A World Fit For Kids!, Los Angeles, CA. Personal communication on December 4, 2009. 21 From 1998-99 through 2005-2006, the 50 percent match yielded at least $380 million in contributions. From 2006-2007 through the end of 2009, the 33 percent match yielded at least $630 million in contributions. 22 Based on minimum requirement of 1:20 staff-to-student ratio in programs required for most programs. 23 The annual cost of private child care (after school, before school and summer) for a school-age child in California was approximately $5,000 in 2008. National Association of Child Care Resource & Referral Agencies. (2009). Parents and the high price of child care: 2009 update. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved on February 17, 2010 from http://www.naccrra.org/publications/naccrra-publications/publications/665-0410_PriceReport_FINAL_051409.kv.pdf 24 Child Development Division. (2009). Status report on implementation of county centralized eligibility lists. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved on February 8, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ci/celreports.asp Only families earning 75 percent of less of the State Median Income level are eligible for state child care subsidies. As a result, a family of three is only eligible for subsidies if its income is less than $47,125, but it is estimated that a same-sized family needs approximately $60,000 to meet its basic needs. Administration of Children and Families. (2009). California State median income for FFY 2008/2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved on November 9, 2009 from http://liheap.ncat.org/profiles/povertytables/FY2009/casmi.htm; California Budget Project. (2007). Making ends meet: How much does it cost to raise a family in California. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved on November 9, 2009 from http://cbp.org/pdfs/2007/0710_ mem_003.pdf (single working parent with two children) 25 K.J. Lavoie, Government Relations Director, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on October 1, 2009. 26 For example, through the Urban Teacher Fellowship Program, Los Angeles Harbor College, El Camino College, Los Angeles City College and Cal State Dominguez Hills help train and place after-school workers. South Bay Center for Counseling, Community and Economic Development. (2009). Urban Teacher Fellowship. El Segundo, CA: Author. Retrieved on December 17, 2009 from http://www.sbaycenter.com/teacherpath.php 27 State of California Department of Justice. (n.d.). California Criminal Justice Profile 2007. Table 19. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://stats.doj. ca.gov/cjsc_stats/prof07/index.htm (four out of five juvenile arrests are of high-school age youth, ages 14-17); California Department of Education (Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office) & WestEd. (n.d.). California healthy kids survey: Technical report aggregated California data, 2006-2007 & 2007-2008 Secondary. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://www.wested.org/chks/pdf/CA_Upper_0608_tr.pdf (63% of 11th graders have drunk alcohol vs. 24% of 7th graders; and 36% of 11th graders used marijuana vs. 9% of 7th graders). 28 Data on the number of ASSETs programs, funding level, and student capacity—by region, county, school district, school, and legislative district—are available from the California Afterschool Network at http://www.afterschoolnetwork.org/ca_landscape Although California’s 21st Century allocation is close to $130 million, due to unspent funding being rolled over from previous years there is approximately $160 million in 21st Century funding, approximately half of which is allocated to high school programs.

18 fight crime: invest in kids California 29 Little, P., Wimer, C., & Weiss, H. (2008). After school programs in the 21st Century: Their potential and what it takes to achieve it. Executive Summary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/ after-school-programs-in-the-21st-century-their-potential-and-what-it-takes-to-achieve-it 30 Search Institute. (2009). The power of assets. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Retrieved on November 14, 2009 from http://www.search-institute.org/research/ assets/assetpower 31 Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2009). High School Dropouts and the Economic Losses from Juvenile Crime in California. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm 32 Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2009). High School Dropouts and the Economic Losses from Juvenile Crime in California. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project, University of California at Santa Barbara. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm 33 Based on total incidents of violent juvenile crime (where the suspect was a juvenile) on school days reported to police for school years September 1999— May 2000 and September 2000—May 2001. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids contacted all 14 cities with populations over 200,000 and obtained this data from Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, and San Jose. 34 Snyder, H. & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Rice, T., Southern California Injury Prevention Research Center, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles. Personal communication on July 2000; Richardson, J.L., Dwyer, K., McGuigan, K., Hansen, W.B., Dent, C., Johnson, C.A. (1989). Substance use among eighth-grade students who take care of themselves after school. Pediatrics, 84(3), 556-566 35 Schinke, S. P., Orlandi, M. A., & Cole, K. C. (1992). Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing developments: Prevention services for youth at risk. Journal of Community Psychology, OSAP Special Report, 118-128; see also Brown, R.C. (1956). A Boys’ Club and Delinquency: A study of the statistical incidence of juvenile delinquency in three areas in Louisville Kentucky. New York: New York University Press. 36 Damooei, J. (2008). Economic impact of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme on the community. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.positiveplace4kids.org/aboutus/Economic_Impact_Report_Final.pdf 37 Tim Blaylock, Chief Professional Officer, Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme, Oxnard, CA. Personal communication on July 16, 2009. 38 LaFrance, S., Twersky, F., Latham, N., Foley, E., Bott, C., & Lee, L. (2001). A safe place for healthy youth development: A comprehensive evaluation of the Bayview Safe Haven. San Francisco, CA: BTW Consultants & LaFrance Associates. 39 Catterall, J.S. (1985). On the social cost of dropping out. Stanford, CA: Center for Education Research; Bridgeland, J.M., DiIulio, J.J., & Morison, K.B. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, D.C.: Civic Enterprises. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.civicenterprises. net/pdfs/thesilentepidemic3-06.pdf 40 Huang, D., Kim, K.S., Marshall, A., & Perez, P. (2005). Keeping kids in school: An LA’s BEST example. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.lasbest.org/what/publications/ Keeping_Kids_in_School_Exec_Sum.pdf; Denise Huang, Project Director/Senior Researcher, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles. Personal communication on November 10, 2009. 41 Bill Fennessy, Site Coordinator, BlairLEARNS Afterschool Program, Pasadena, CA. Personal communication on July 16, 2009. Of 155 on-time graduates in 2009, 84 relied on after-school credit recovery programs. 42 Normandie Nigh, Executive Director, A World Fit For Kids!, Los Angeles, CA. Personal communication on October 26, 2009. Evaluation conducted by Kaiser Group Inc. 43 Hipps, J. & Diaz, M. (2007). California’s 21st Century High School After School Safety and Enrichment for Teens (ASSETs) program. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/assets_interim_report.pdf 44 Newhouse, C. (2008). Afterschool programs in the Central Valley benefit children and youth: Evaluation results from the 2006-2007 school year. Clovis, CA: Central Valley Afterschool Foundation. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://centralvalleyafterschool.org/documents/CVAFFinalReport5-7-08.pdf 45 University of California, Irvine. (2002). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999-2001. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ba/as/execsummary.asp#fn1 46 Vile, J.D., Arcaira, E. & Reisner, E.R. (2009). Progress toward high school graduation: Citizen Schools’ youth outcomes in Boston. Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.citizenschools.org/uploads/PSA%20Phase%20VI%20Progress%20toward%20 HS%20Graduation%2020090819.pdf; Pearson, L.M., Vile, J.D. & Reisner, E.R. (2008). Establishing a foundation for progress toward high school graduation. Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.citizenschools.org/uploads/PSA%20CS%20Phase%20V%20 Report.pdf 47 Nancy Taylor. California Executive Director, Citizen Schools, Redwood City, CA. Personal Communication on November 5, 2008. 48 Randy Barth, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, THINK Together, Santa Ana, CA. Personal communication on September 24, 2009; Jenel Prenovost, Director of Evaluation, THINK Together, Santa Ana, CA. Personal communication on December 7, 2009. 44 percent of the Celerity charter school students scored proficient or above in English and 57 percent on math in 2009, compared to 41 percent district-wide on English and 46 percent on math. Among the three charter schools, Nascent’s API score increased 112 points, Dyad’s 119 points, and Troika’s 279 points. District-wide, API scores increased only 13 points. 49 University of California, Irvine. (2002). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999-2001. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ba/as/execsummary.asp#fn1 50 Newhouse, C. (2008). Afterschool programs in the Central Valley benefit children and youth: Evaluation results from the 2006-2007 school year. Clovis,

19 CALIFORNIA’S AFTER-SCHOOL COMMITMENT CA: Central Valley Afterschool Foundation. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://centralvalleyafterschool.org/documents/CVAFFinalReport5-7-08.pdf 51 S.R. Jimerson et al. (2002). Exploring the association between grade retention and dropout: a longitudinal study examining socio-emotional, behavioral, and achievement characteristics of retained students. The California School Psychologist. (2002). Vol. 7, 51-62. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://education. ucsb.edu/jimerson/retention/CSP_RetentionDropout2002.pdf 52 University of California, Irvine. (2002). Evaluation of California’s After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program: 1999-2001. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ba/as/execsummary.asp#fn1 53 Cal. Educ. Code § 8484. Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html To measure program effectiveness for purposes of determining whether grants are renewed, the state considers school-day and program attendance, and, at the discretion of individual grantees, one or more of the following: positive behavioral changes, standardized test scores, homework completion, skill development, or additional measures developed by the Department of Education. 54 There are 6,009 K-12 schools in California with 40 percent or more students participating in the federal school meals programs, only counting schools with enrollments of at least 50 students. California Department of Education. (n.d.). Free/Reduced Meals Program & CalWORKS Data Files, 2008. Retrieved on February 5, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sh/cw/filesafdc.asp Among those schools, 4,038 have ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants with 40 percent or more students participating in the federal school meals programs, based on an analysis by the California Afterschool Network relying on a list of schools with ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants provided by the California Department of Education in February 2010. This leaves a total of 1,971 low-income schools without ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs programs. To keep the estimate of unfunded low-income schools relatively conservative, schools with enrollments under 50 students were not included, based on the assumption that programs generally need at least $30,000 to hire staff to operate a functioning after-school program, and schools with fewer than 50 students may find it difficult to attract enough students after school to warrant a $30,000 grant. Based on the existing rate of $7.50 per student per day, a program would need to attract approximately 22 students daily to merit a $30,000 grant. Accordingly, a school with at least 50 students enrolled could receive a $30,000 grant by attracting less than half of its students after school. See Steven Amick, Executive Director, League of California Afterschool Providers, San Diego, CA. Personal communication on January 5, 2010; Senate Bill 898 (Ashburn). (2010). Retrieved on February 11, 2010 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/ sb_0851-0900/sb_898_bill_20100126_introduced.pdf (proposing $30,000 minimum grant) Still, in some circumstances it may be possible to operate a smaller program. In fact, there are 38 schools (including 34 low-income schools) with ASES, 21st Century or ASSETs grants that have enrollments under 50 students. 55 Afterschool Alliance. (2009). California after 3 PM. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on November 6, 2009 from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/ documents/AA3PM_2009/AA3_Factsheet_CA_2009.pdf The 2 million students represent 36 percent of students not already participating in after-school programs. 56 John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on July 17, 2009. 57 John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on July 17, 2009. 58 U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Pub. Law No. 107-110. Section 4206. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www2. ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf 59 Average school enrollment for grades K-5 elementary schools and grades 6-8 middle schools was calculated based on enrollment data from: California Department of Education. (2008). Free/Reduced Meals Program Date Files. Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sh/cw/filesafdc.asp. The maximum “universal” ASES grants are $112,500 for elementary schools and $150,000 for middle schools. Large schools are eligible for additional ASES funding, and some schools awarded grants prior to Proposition 49 do have larger grants. Over the short term, however, absent a substantial increase in ASES funding, it is unlikely that additional large schools will receive more than the universal maximum: universal grants for schools still without programs are a higher priority than large school increases and there are many schools without programs that would be likely to apply. 60 In Fall 2009, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids distributed surveys to members of the League of California Afterschool Providers, which represents more than 50 of the largest publicly-funded providers in the state, and to all Boys & Girls Clubs and YMCAs with ASES programs. 23 after-school providers completed the survey, representing 1,142 ASES-funded programs, of which 588 reported having waiting lists including 12,951 students overall. Five additional providers (all subcontractors) completed the survey, but in order to avoid duplication their waiting list data is not being considered because their data was already reported by their grantee agency. 61 California Department of Education. (n.d.). Regional after school technical assistance system. Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ ba/cp/cclcregntwrk.asp; California After School Resource Center. (n.d.). About the Center. Retrieved on January 11, 2010 from http://www.californiaafterschool. org/c/@41YkYVSqz4M7Q/Pages/about.html?nocache@1; California Afterschool Network & California Department of Education. (2009). California after-school program quality self-assessment tool. Sacramento: Authors. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://www.afterschoolnetwork.org/files/QSATool.pdf; The David & Lucile Packard Foundation. (n.d.). Recent activities in the after-school subprogram. Retrieved on January 12, 2010 from http://www.packard.org/ genericDetails.aspx?RootCatID=3&CategoryID=161&ItemID=3630&isFromModule=1 62 Grossman, J.B., Lind, C., Hayes, C., McMaken, K., & Gersick, A. (2009). The cost of quality out-of-school-time programs. Philadelphia: Public/ Private Ventures. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/AreasOfContinuingInterest/ PhilanthropicIssues/Documents/The-Cost-of-Quality-OST-Programs.pdf 63 EdSource. (2008). The Governor’s Budget for 2008–09 Proposes Historic Cuts for Education. Mountain View, CA: Author. Retrieved on February 3, 2010 from http://lassenuhsd.schoolfusion.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/980820/File/Budget%20Info/budget0809analysis.pdf?sessionid=fb33a1eb06756be99

20 fight crime: invest in kids California 5187d08f94bc057 64 Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #1. (April 22, 2007). Agenda. (Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that between $150 million and $400 million will be available for reversion). 65 John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on July 17, 2009; Senate Appropriations Committee. (August 27, 2009). Bill analysis: AB 983 (“According to the Department of Education, 197 providers were unable to expend all of their grant awards in the 2007-08 fiscal year, resulting in $32 million of funds available…”); Assembly Budget Committee. (2008). Summary of Governor’s proposed December 2008-09 budget adjustments. Sacramento, CA: California State Assembly. Retrieved on January 25, 2010 from http://www.assembly.ca.gov/ defaulttext.asp (“The 2008-09 budget used anticipated one-time savings from the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program to fund CalWORKs however the ASES savings did not materialize”). Programs were assisted by the fact that they received an extra six months to spend their first year’s allocation, although, by focusing first on exhausting all prior year funds in the second year, some programs as a result may have ended up with unspent second year funds. 66 Cal. Educ. Code § 8483.51. Retrieved on February 10, 2010 from http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html 67 The estimate of available, freed-up funding is based on the fact that the California Afterschool Network identified $489 million in 2009-2010 ASES grants, after some grants had been reduced due to lower-than-expected attendance. The difference between ASES’ annual funding level of $550 million and $489 million (minus $8.25 million set aside for technical assistance, etc.) is over $52 million. Much of this freed-up funding is likely to go unused in 2009-2010 and revert to help address the state’s budget shortfall. For more information, see note 70, infra. 68 Even though Proposition 49 does require proportional cuts in certain bad budget years, recent budget years have not qualified for proportional cuts due in part to unusual circumstances. The Proposition 49 language triggering proportionate cuts applies when there is a year-to-year cut in Proposition 98 education funding in a “Test 3” year. (Minimum guaranteed funding for Proposition 98 is based on whether a given year is deemed a Test 1, Test 2 or Test 3 year, the determination of which is based on several factors, including revenues collected and changes in the cost of living.) Proposition 49’s proportionate cuts do not apply in a Proposition 98 “Test 1” year, which 2008-2009 appears to have been, or when Proposition 98 is suspended. It was unusual for Test 1 to apply in a difficult budget year. Still, ASES appears likely to face an indirect cut in 2009-2010 due to the prolonged uncertainty over whether proportionate cuts would be required, given uncertainty over whether 2008-2009 had been a Test 3 year that would have triggered proportionate cuts or a Test 1 year, which would not have triggered cuts. This uncertainty delayed the application process for new grants out of freed-up funds in 2009-2010. Applications were released in late December 2009. As a result, new soon-to-be-awarded ASES grants will not be implemented until the 2010-2011 fiscal year (while any freed-up funds awarded to increase the size of existing programs may begin in 2009-2010). John Malloy, Administrator, After School Programs Office, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA. Personal communication on January 25, 2010. Consequently, tens of millions of dollars in 2009-2010 ASES funding are likely to go unused and revert to help address the state’s budget shortfall. 69 California Department of Education. (July 31, 2009). Termination of extended day care program (latchkey). Retrieved on February 8, 2010 from http:// www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/cd/finallatchkey.asp 70 THINK Together’s after-school programs at two of the three Celerity charter schools showing impressive gains on English and math standardized tests lost funding due to budget cuts. Jenel Prenovost, Director of Evaluation, THINK Together, Santa Ana, CA. Personal communication on January 8, 2010. See also: After-school program cuts in Salinas area lead to gang fears. (August 1, 2009). The Salinas Californian; Bellflower approves tight budget with cuts. (June 23, 2009). (Long Beach) Press-Telegram; Galt Boys and Girls Club to close in April, official says. (March 19, 2009). Sacramento Bee; SB’s Operation Phoenix Center East slated to close. (March 10, 2009). San Bernardino Sun; After-school program lops off 200 kids. (March 7, 2009). (San Jose) Mercury News. 71 Rogers, J., Fanelli, S., Freelon, R., Medina, D., Bertrand, M., Del Razo, M. (2010). Educational Opportunities in Hard Times: The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Public Schools and Working Families. Los Angeles: UCLA IDEA, UC/ACCORD. Retrieved on February 2, 2010 from http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/ educational-opportunity-report/files-and-documents/Ed%20Op%20in%20Hard%20Times.pdf The survey of a representative sample of 87 elementary, middle and high school principals was conducted in the summer of 2009: 48 percent reported that after-school programs had been cut or eliminated. 72 Senate Education Committee. (2009). Bill analysis: AB 434. Retrieved on November 11, 2009 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ ab_0401-0450/ab_434_cfa_20090707_140350_sen_comm.html (“Staff understands that the California Department of Education (CDE) has been unofficially notified by some After School Education (ASES) providers that they may close programs because they can no longer meet the local match requirements (the poor economy has reportedly hampered local fundraising efforts)”)

211 Sutter Street, Suite 401 San Francisco, CA 94108 Tel 415.762.8270 Fax 415.762.8271