Roadmap to Afterschool for All Examining Current Investments and Mapping Future Needs Afterschool Alliance

Basics of Afterschool  Parents of 28 million kids work outside the home.  14.3 million, or 25%, of the country’s K-12 youth take care of themselves after school.  3 to 6 p.m. are the most dangerous hours for kids.  Juvenile crime soars  Peak hours for drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and sex  Lack of physical activity/obesity  Parents of 15 million children would sign up for an afterschool program – if one were available.

Public Support  Nearly nine in ten voters (89 percent) say that, given the dangers young people face today, afterschool programs are important  3 in 4 voters agree programs are an absolute necessity  76% agree that newly elected officials in Congress and state and local officials should increase funding for afterschool Source: Afterschool Alliance Poll conducted by Lake, Snell, Perry & Associates, Inc., November 2008

Benefits of Quality Afterschool Programs  Improved Test Scores and Grades  21 st CCLC participants nationwide - 43% improved reading scores, 42% improved math scores  Promising Programs study – big gains in test scores, work habits  Improved School Attendance, Engagement in Learning  More likely to come to school, stay in school and graduate  Los Angeles program reduced drop out rate by 20%  Improved Social and Emotional Behavior  Lower truancy, drug use, violence, teen pregnancy  Develop leadership, critical thinking, self-confidence, teamwork  Improved Health and Wellness  Structured physical activities, healthy snacks help prevent weight gain tied to inactivity after school and during summer

What We Knew Going Into This  21 st Century Community Learning Centers $50 million increase for FY09  NCLB authorized $2.5 billion  Other sources of afterschool money: CCDBG, Safe and Drug Free Schools, OJJDP, SES, Department of Agriculture FY Amount Appropriated Amount Authorized in NCLB 2002$1 billion$1.25 billion 2003$993.5M$1.5 billion 2004$991M$1.75 billion 2005$991M$2 billion 2006$981M$2.25 billion 2007$981M$2.5 billion 2008$1.08 B$2.5 billion 2009$1.13 B$2.5 billion Federal Funding Picture

State Funding for Afterschool  CA – $550 million to K-8 Afterschool Education and Safety (ASES) Programs in FY08  RI – FY08 Funding Analysis suggests $50.9 spent by public agencies  GA – $14 million to school- and community- based afterschool programs through TANF, renewed for FY09, plus $20.3 million in TANF funds reallocated to child care.  NJ – $14.5 million in state funds to NJ After 3 PM in FY09  TN – $12.5 million unclaimed lottery funds (LEAP)  OH – $10 million in TANF funds to support afterschool programs in targeted communities  NY – $9.4 million through a mix of state and TANF funds  MA – $5.5 million in state funding in 2008, up from $2 million in 2007  MN – $5+ million over two years  CT – $4.4 million in Dept of Ed and Dept of Social Services funds (combined)  WA – $3 million over 2 years for programs, professional development and technical assistance  IA -- $900,000 for programs from the Healthy Iowans Tobacco Trust

Local Systems Baltimore’s After School Strategy Total: $7.5M (providers required to provide 20% cash match, totaling an additional $1.5M) Public: 100% City: 85% (Baltimore City Public Schools, Baltimore City general operating) State: 9% (Maryland After School Opportunity Fund) Federal: 6% (OJJDP) Prime Time Palm Beach County Total: $5.2 M Public: 72%, source: Children’s Services Council Private Foundations: 28% Providence After School Alliance Total: $2.9M Public: 50% City: 27% (School district, City of Providence) Federal: 23% (21st Community Learning Center) Private: 50% NYC – Of the public funds for afterschool City: 66% Federal 26% (21 st CCLC, USDA & SES) State : 8%

Private Funders  Corporate Voices After School White Paper that found that American companies invested $136.6 million in 2005 to local afterschool programs.  In Rhode Island, private funders invested almost $14 million in expanded learning opportunities  While several foundations support afterschool programs, there is no compilation of how much foundations are investing in afterschool

Roadmap to Afterschool For All

Roadmap Project Overview With funding from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Afterschool Alliance commissioned a scientific study to assess the current investment in afterschool programs from the public sector, parents, foundations and business, and to estimate the added investment necessary at each level to provide quality afterschool for all.

Roadmap Project Goals  Better understand current funding for afterschool;  Create a funding roadmap that will help sustain and expand quality afterschool programs;  Inform a long-term legislative agenda at every level; and  Create real benchmarks for measuring progress.

Methodology of the Study Multiple Stage Sampling  50 School Districts, stratified by income and then selected using PPS  Developed sampling frame of afterschool programs in 50 districts  Telephone interviews with 537 programs from the 50 districts – goal was 10 from each district, but some districts had fewer than 10 programs  Secondary analysis: tracking federal, state, philanthropic and corporate funding with afterschool as an allowable use

Definition For this survey, afterschool programs are defined as programs that:  serve school-age children,  occur before or after school (but may also occur at other times like weekends and in the summer),  operate approximately 12 or more hours/week and  are not single-activity focused (e.g., not only tutoring or sports).

Survey Instrument  Administered by phone  Asked programs basic descriptive info  How many kids served  Hours of operation  Types of activities  Funding information  Repeated same series of questions for all funding sources

Findings – Basic Descriptive Info  Long running programs – more than half in operation for 10+ years  Most operate 5 days a week for at least 3 hours a day and in summer  Students participate regularly  Mostly elementary students  School is most common location, but some programs in schools are run by non-profits or for-profits  48% of programs report serving at least 40% free or reduced price lunch students.

Indicators of Quality  Median child to staff ratio is 11:1  For 87% of programs, a majority of enrolled students participate regularly (at least 60% of the time)  Staff Qualifications  Site Coordinators/Directors 95% have had previous experience with youth, 41% are certified teachers, 83% have a 2- or 4-year degree  Staff In one-third of the programs, at least some of the staff were certified teachers. In half of the programs, some or all of the staff had a 2 or 4 year degree. In virtually all of the programs (94%) at least some of the staff had previous experience with youth.

Findings Activities offered by programs serving all age groups:  Tutoring/Academics/Homework help: 98%  Recreation and sports: 93%  Health education : 88%  Life/Personal skills: 88%  Creative arts: 84%  Family involvement: 76%  Mentoring: 74%  Leadership skills: 72%  Community service: 70%

Findings Activities – Among older youth programs only:  Career Development: 51%  College application assistance: 47%  Substance abuse prevention: 47%  Violence prevention 41%  Pregnancy prevention: 34%

Findings – Funding Sources Funding SourcePercentage of programs accessing funding source Percentage of total budget from each source Tuition, Fees83%76.3% Federal Grants28%11.0% State Grants11%3.1% Local Grants13%2.4% Businesses12%0.8% Foundations12%2.5% Religious5%0.2% Individual Donors23%1.9% Other Sources9%1.8% Non-Monetary Donations36%N/A

Funding differences by program characteristics Program funding differs depending on whether or not programs serve low-income children:  69% of programs with at least 40% of enrollees receiving free or reduced-price lunches (low-income) receive funding from parental tuition compared to 96% of other programs  43% of low-income serving programs receive funding from Federal grants compared to 15% of other programs. Low-income programs are also much more likely to receive state and local grants and more likely to receive almost any other type of funding. Program funding differs by how long they’ve been in operation  Long-standing programs more likely to receive funding from parents and less likely to receive public funds, foundation grants, and in-kind donations. Long standing programs are also less likely to serve low-income kids. Program funding differs by size/enrollment  Smaller programs are more likely to receive tuition and less likely to receive public funds, funds from businesses, foundations, donors, and other sources, and in-kind donations.

Cost Estimate Consistent with other Cost Research  By dividing total cost by enrollment, average cost per student per year is $3190 (includes summer for most programs)  January 2009 report by P/PV and Finance Project, commissioned by The Wallace Foundation found average cost per enrollee to be $3366 for ES/MS and $2670 for HS (includes summer program).  Rhode Island Cost Analysis found average cost to be $2,097 for school year plus $636 per student per summer = $2733  Center for Summer Learning – average cost of summer program $1295

Cost by Funding Source By dividing program budget by enrollment, average cost per student per year is $3190 Funding SourcePercentage of total funding Average contribution per child Tuition, Fees76.3%$2, Federal Grants11%$ State Grants3.1%$98.89 Local Grants2.4%$76.56 Businesses.8%$25.52 Foundations2.5%$79.75 Religious.2%$6.38 Individual Donors1.9%$60.61 Other Sources1.8%$57.42

Simplest Possible Projection Funding Source Current funding levels for 6.5 million kids Additional Funding Needed to Provide Afterschool for 15.3 million kids Total for 21.8 million kids Tuition, Fees 15,820,805,00037,239,741,00053,060,546,000 Federal Grants 2,280,850,0005,368,770,0007,649,620,000 State Grants 642,785,0001,513,017,0002,155,802,000 Local Grants 497,640,0001,171,368,0001,669,008,000 Businesses 165,880,000390,456,000556,336,000 Foundations 518,375,0001,220,175,0001,738,550,000 Religious 41,470,00097,614,000139,084,000 Individual Donors 393,965,000927,333,0001,321,298,000 Other Sources 373,230,000878,526,0001,251,756,000 Total 20,735,000,00048,807,000,00069,542,000,000

Need a new route to get to Afterschool for All We need a roadmap that establishes concrete objectives for achieving, in the not too distant future, afterschool for all students. This roadmap must:  Account for the economic reality that some parents are unable to afford fees, while others can.  Recognize the important role of multiple funding sources – governments at all levels, philanthropic support, businesses, parent fees.  Account for a broad range of programs from a variety of sponsors, reflecting rich diversity of American communities.  Focus on approaches that sustain successful quality programs, while allowing innovative new programs to develop.

Roadmap to Afterschool For All – Federal Aid Targeted to Most At-Risk Roadmap to Afterschool for All Funding Source Funding Need to Reach Afterschool for All Percentage of Total Cost Tuition and fees30,898,557, % Federal grant17,935,775, % State grant5,054,627, % Local grant3,913,260, % Business1,304,420, % Foundation4,076,312, % Religious326,105, % Individuals3,097,997, % Other2,934,945, % Totals69,542,000,000100%

How Roadmap Compares to Current Funding Roadmap to Afterschool for All Funding Source Current Investment Roadmap to Afterschool for All Change in Actual Dollar Amount: Current to Roadmap Tuition and fees15,820,805,00030,898,557, Federal Grant2,280,850,00017,935,775, State Grant642,785,0005,054,627, Local Grant497,640,0003,913,260, Business165,880,0001,304,420, Foundation518,375,0004,076,312, Religious41,470,000326,105, Individuals393,965,0003,097,997, Other373,230,0002,934,945, Totals20,735,000,00069,542,000,

How Current & Roadmap Funding Levels Compare Current Funding Levels Roadmap to Afterschool For All Funding Levels

Takeaway Messages  Clear that parents are carrying most of the costs – need to increase investments by other sectors  Federal targeting appears effective, but not sufficient  About one-third (32%) of programs reported that their expenses exceeded their revenues, indicating that more funding is needed

Takeaway Messages  In these economic times, federal role is especially important  $2.5 billion for 21 st CCLC is good place to start. 21 st CCLC funds leverage other funds and benefit from in- kind support  1/4 of CCDBG funding supports school age kids – An increase of CCDBG by $1 billion will help more parents afford their share  Fund STEP UP  Promote use of stimulus dollars to support afterschool and summer  All other sectors increase investments proportionate to federal increase

Closing Thoughts  Critical Time  An investment in afterschool programs is an investment in the next generation,  Unless we put the afternoon hours to good use, we lose a real opportunity  Now more than ever, we need to increase the investment in quality afterschool programs from all sectors.  The Roadmap to Afterschool for All is designed to point the way – but the real test of America’s commitment to its children will be whether we travel down the road this report maps out.