Wallace Blog Search Results

Search Blogs by Keyword

Ensuring Access to Out-of-School-Time Programs and Using Federal Funds to Pay for It

1412

Ask people about the book they remember most clearly, a movie script they could recite, or the weirdest song they can sing along to, and chances are they’ll name something from their adolescence. The tween and early teen years, for better or worse, can stick with us throughout our lives, determining who we are, where we feel we belong and where we want to be when we grow up.How can today’s adults help young people use these crucial years to become healthy, productive, and empathetic adults of tomorrow? One way is to offer meaningful and enriching out-of-school activities that provide safe spaces to experiment with new experiences, new interests, and new ways of relating to the world. Unfortunately, many young people lack access to such activities. <a href="http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/AA3PM/">A 2020 survey conducted by the Afterschool Alliance</a> found that there were 24.6 million children in the U.S. who were not enrolled in out-of-school-time programs but would be if such programs were available to them. For every child enrolled in out-of-school programs, according to the same survey, there were three who would attend if they could. Access is especially limited for youth from low-income backgrounds, many of whom may most need afterschool support while parents or guardians work multiple jobs to make ends meet. <a href="https://www.childtrends.org/publications/participation-in-out-of-school-time-activities-and-programs">According to a 2014 Child Trends survey</a>, 72.7 percent of households with incomes more than twice the federal poverty level enrolled children in out-of-school activities. For households making less than that, the number fell to just 43.9 percent, a 29-point difference. <img src="/News-and-Media/Blog/PublishingImages/Pages/ensuring-access-to-out-of-school-time-programs-and-using-federal-funds-to-pay-for-it/Federal-funds-for-OST-ch.jpg" alt="Federal-funds-for-OST-ch.jpg" style="margin:5px;" /> Decades of Wallace experience suggest that a focus on systems—the coordinated efforts of entities such as departments of education, school boards, philanthropies, nonprofit groups, and intermediary organizations—could help change this picture and expand access to quality out-of-school-time programs. Efforts in cities around the country, including <a href="/knowledge-center/Pages/building-an-effective-social-and-emotional-learning-committe-dallas-vol2-pt3.aspx">Dallas</a>, <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/expanding-social-and-emotional-learning-boston-vol2-pt2.aspx">Boston</a> and <a href="/knowledge-center/Pages/learning-to-focus-on-adult-sel-first-tulsa-vol2-pt7.aspx">Tulsa</a>, point to elements of systems that could help more young people access the programs they need, including:<div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">An entity to coordinate the work of different groups and the resources available to them </div><div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Clear standards of quality</div><div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Data systems that keep track of who has access to out-of-school-time programs, populations that may be excluded from them, the quality of services these programs provide, and opportunities to improve them</div><div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Committed leadership from prominent officials such as mayors and county executives</div>Wallace has <a href="/knowledge-center/after-school/pages/default.aspx">several resources available</a> to help cities develop such systems. Among them are guides to:<div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Help <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/from-access-to-equity-making-out-of-school-time-spaces-meaningful-for-teens-from-marginalized-communities.aspx">ensure equity</a> in out-of-school-time programs </div><div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Use <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/framework-for-measurement-continuous-improvement-and-equitable-systems.aspx">data to assess their effectiveness</a></div><div class="wf-Element-BlueBullet">Identify<a href="/knowledge-center/pages/federal-funding-guide-for-summer-and-afterschool.aspx"> federal funding opportunities</a>, made available through the American Rescue Plan of 2021, that could help pay for the development of these systems</div>

Wallace editorial team

2023-03-21T04:00:00Z

Your source for research and ideas to expand high quality learning and enrichment opportunities. Supporting: School Leadership, After School, Summer and Extended Learning Time, Arts Education and Building Audiences for the Arts.

3/21/2023 4:40:28 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Ensuring Access to Out-of-School-Time Programs and Using Federal Funds to Pay for It Resources to help develop and cover

293

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

What Can Young People Teach Us About Out-of-School Time?

193

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

“It's so important to think about the part that youth can play in shaping what an out-of-school-time or an afterschool program looks like.” That’s what Shelby Drayton had to say about the importance of including young people in out-of-school-time (OST) planning in Episode One of our new podcast series, <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/beyond-the-classroom-podcast.aspx">Beyond the Classroom</a>. Drayton is a senior program manager for UP Partnership, a San Antonio-based nonprofit that convenes partners in Bexar County to provide healing, access, and voice to local youth. The podcast series explores findings from a <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/youth-perspectives-on-designing-equitable-out-of-school-time-programs.aspx">recent Wallace-commissioned, student-designed study </a>which surfaced young people’s insights into how to improve out-of-school-time programs. Topics discussed range from how to make programs accessible and welcoming to supporting youth workers. Read on to learn more about each of the three episodes and the guests, or start listening <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/beyond-the-classroom-podcast.aspx">here</a>. <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/making-out-of-school-time-programs-more-accessible-epidode-1.aspx">Episode 1: Making Out-of-School-Time Programs More Accessible</a> Student researchers and OST practitioners discuss some of the most common barriers to participation in OST programs and what can be done to address them.Guests: Shelby Drayton, Senior Manager, UP Partnership Connor Flick, Student, Gatton Academy High School, KentuckyHost: Spandana Pavuluri, Student, duPont Manual High School, Kentucky <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/creating-programs-where-everyone-belongs-episode-2.aspx">Episode 2: Creating Programs Where Everyone Belongs</a> Student and adult researchers discuss various strategies for building a sense of belonging and inclusion in OST spaces, beginning with centering the youth voice in the program’s design.Guests: Spandana Pavuluri, Student, duPont Manual High School, Kentucky Syeda Tabassum, Student, Macaulay Honors College, New York Daniela DiGiacomo, Assistant Professor, University of Kentucky School of Information Science Sam Mejias, Associate Professor of Social Justice and Community Engagement, Parsons School of Design - The New School Host: Connor Flick, Student, Gatton Academy High School, Kentucky <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/professionalization-and-precarity-of-the-workforce-episode-3.aspx?_ga=2.241407618.1275959992.1678288819-1225651268.1678288819">Episode 3: Professionalization and Precarity of the Workforce</a> Researchers and practitioners discuss strategies for more effectively recruiting and retaining skilled youth workers. Guests: Bianca Baldridge, Associate Professor of Education, Harvard University Vanessa Roberts, Executive Director, Project VOYCE Deepa Vasudevan, Researcher, Human Services: Youth, Family, & Community Development, American Institutes for Research Sarai Hertz-Velázquez, Student, Wellesley College Host: Ben Kirshner, Professor and Program Chair of Learning Sciences and Human Development, University of Colorado BoulderListen wherever you get your podcasts.

Andrea Ruggirello

114

2023-03-14T04:00:00Z

Beyond the Classroom podcast digs into findings from a student-led study on improving out-of-school-time programs

3/14/2023 4:00:12 AM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / What Can Young People Teach Us About Out-of-School Time "Beyond the Classroom" podcast digs into findings from a student-led

520

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

What Young People Want from Afterschool Programs

42608

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

<a href="/knowledge-center/pages/the-value-of-out-of-school-time-programs.aspx?_ga=2.116943174.1727170393.1677083209-1728090683.1676648512">Research has shown</a> that out-of-school-time programs are generally effective at producing the benefits for young people that they set out to provide–whether academic gains, enriching experiences, or homework help. But while there are numerous sources of federal and state funds available for afterschool and summer programs, they have seen consistently low rates of student participation. Take, for instance, the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides over $1 billion in funding annually for afterschool and summer programs for children in grades K through 12. Nearly half of the regular participants in the 21st CCLC programs attend fewer than 30 days a year.We know this because of a <a href="https://www.proquest.com/openview/7459d0266b83629b887ac324b4f8307c/1.pdf?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y" target="_blank">recent analysis</a> of the current 21st CCLC policy by Jane Quinn, a venerable figure in the world of out-of-school-time. <a href="https://www.childrensaidnyc.org/impact/stories/jane-quinn-leader-and-advocate-community-schools" target="_blank">An expert in afterschool and OST, she has more than five decades of experience</a> in the sector, having working as a social and youth worker for organizations including the Juvenile Protective Association of Chicago, Girls Clubs of America, Children’s Aid—and as program director here at Wallace for seven years in the 1990s.Quinn is also, at age 78, a newly minted Ph.D. In fact, her findings about the low participation rate in out-of-school-time programs emerged from her dissertation for a doctoral program in urban education at the CUNY Graduate Center. In her thesis, Quinn analyzes the strengths and shortcomings of the current 21st CCLC policy. She argues that the challenge of meager participation can be addressed by “listening to the voices of young people and responding to their desire for engagement and challenge in out-of-school time programs.” We sat down with her to learn more about this and other key findings in the study. Her responses have been edited for length and clarity. Wallace Foundation: Your study found that nearly half of regular participants in the 21st CCLC programs attend fewer than 30 days a year. Why do you think attendance is so low, and what can be done to improve it? Jane Quinn: According to the U.S. Department of Education’s data–specifically, their Annual Performance Reports on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers–fully 45 percent of students deemed to be “regular participants” in these programs across the country were reported to attend fewer than 30 days a year.  This number is problematic for several reasons, including the fact that we know from <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/the-value-of-out-of-school-time-programs.aspx?_ga=2.116943174.1727170393.1677083209-1728090683.1676648512">prior research</a> that “dosage makes a difference,” meaning that higher program attendance has been shown to produce better outcomes. When we combine this information about low attendance rates with US DOE [Department of Education] data about the content of 21st CCLC programs, we can begin to surmise why these rates might be so low. The Annual Performance Reports show that two of the three most frequently offered programs in 21st Century Community Learning Centers are homework help and tutoring, suggesting that many of the programs have largely become “more school” and are operating in ways that are not consistent with what young people say they want to do during their non-school hours. Homework help is offered five times more frequently than mentoring–something young people do want–and tutoring is offered four times more frequently than leadership development. WF: Why is enrichment so important, and why do you think it is so overlooked?JQ: In the context of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers policy and program, enrichment should be considered important because it is central to the Congressionally mandated purpose of the program. However, the legislation never defines what is meant by enrichment, which has led to multiple interpretations, many of which seem off base to me. In the context of what we know about young people’s development, enrichment is critical because it starts with student interests and focuses on engaging young people in their own learning. Why is it overlooked in many schools and afterschool programs? Because most people don’t understand what the term means, and some have never seen high-quality enrichment in practice. Enrichment involves both pedagogy and program content. According to Professor Joseph Renzulli and his University of Connecticut colleagues, enrichment as a pedagogy consists of four elements: it is based on student interest; it uses authentic methodologies, such as project-based learning; it addresses issues that have no existing solution or “right” answer; and it results in culminating activities that allow young people to demonstrate what they have learned. This kind of pedagogy can be applied to a nearly endless array of content. The experts I interviewed had no problem naming the kinds of programming that they viewed as enrichment: book clubs, chess, debate, music, drama, dance, visual arts, robotics, computer programming, community service, sports, mentoring, and leadership development, among others. I believe that kids shouldn't have to be born rich to have access to enrichment. WF: Can you describe some characteristics of a good enrichment program?   JQ: Joseph Renzulli says that good enrichment programs are characterized by engagement, enjoyment, and enthusiasm. Many years ago, before I became acquainted with his work, I wrote a column for YouthToday, in which I described a similar set of characteristics. Mine were engagement, exposure, and experience. By exposure, I meant that afterschool and youth development programs can introduce young people to new relationships that build their social capital, to new ideas that enlarge their sense of the world around them, and to new opportunities that feed their aspirations. More affluent children and youth tend to have these kinds of experiences built into their academic and at-home environments. I believe that kids shouldn’t have to be born rich to have access to enrichment.  WF: What are some ways the quality of the programs can be improved, and how should quality be measured?JQ: When conducting my dissertation research, I was rather astonished to find that the federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers legislation and guidance said almost nothing about program quality, despite the great advancements over the past 25 years in the field’s definition of best practices. The field has produced well-documented guides, rooted in research, about the program factors that are associated with the achievement of positive results. In addition, we now have several quality assessment tools that program operators can use to examine and strengthen their own practice. One of the best tools, in my view, is the <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/vuFuC4x463i48x3cOFbHx?domain=forumfyi.org/" target="_blank">Youth Program Quality Assessment</a>, supported by the Weikart Center.  When assessing program quality, we want to look at a range of factors, including program content, health and safety, staff qualifications, youth voice and choice, and interpersonal relationships, including peer-to-peer and adult-youth interactions. WF: You were involved in the community schools movement from the early days. Can you reflect on where it was back then and how it has evolved?JQ: Well, I wasn’t there in the really early days—that would have been at the turn of the 20th century when John Dewey, the renowned educational philosopher, wrote a monograph entitled Schools as Social Centers (1902). He had the right idea then, and his work has influenced several generations of community school leaders. In 1998, John Rogers, a UCLA education professor, wrote a seminal paper on the history of community schooling in America, documenting that the current generation of community schools is the fourth such iteration of the work to foster strong relationships between schools and their local communities. My involvement in this current generation of community schooling includes two phases. First was my work as a program director at Wallace in the mid- to late-1990s, which helped to create the <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/findings-from-the-extended-service-schools-initiative.aspx">Extended-Service Schools</a> Initiative. And second, was my 18-year tenure as director of the National Center for Community Schools, a program of Children’s Aid. In my view, all of these early investments contributed substantially to the current community schools movement, which is demonstrating success in informing federal, state, and local education policy and in responding to the documented needs of students and families in what is now being referred to as the post-COVID environment. More than 100 districts nationwide have adopted community schools as a preferred reform strategy, and Congress recently authorized an additional $75 million for the USDOE’s Full-Service Community Schools program, which will provide incentives for additional districts to adopt this strategy. The first and most important is clarifying what is meant by enrichment WF: What do you think policymakers should consider if they were to reimagine the 21st Century Community Learning Centers?JQ: My research offers 10 lessons for strengthening the 21st CCLC policy and program. The first and most important is clarifying what is meant by enrichment —an element that distinguishes this program from other federal initiatives that focus on remediation and compensatory approaches. A related lesson is finding ways to address the participation rate problem. My sense is that, if programs were required and supported to offer genuine enrichment, rather than a steady diet of homework help and tutoring, young people would make it their businessto participate. And, in turn, outcomes would improve because young people would be engaged in activities of their own choosing.  Another consideration would be how to encourage the creation of authentic partnerships between schools and such community resources as youth development agencies, arts organizations, and science museums. And, since 21st Century funding is one of the few sources of public support for summer programming, the authors of federal guidance could consider placing more emphasis on encouraging and enabling providers to include summer enrichment in their 21st Century-funded programs. Policymakers should seize the opportunity provided by COVID’s disruptions of the educational landscape by re-envisioning the enrichment role of out-of-school-time programs in the lives of America’s children and youth.

Jenna Doleh

2023-02-24T05:00:00Z

An expert on out-of-school-time argues for focusing on vital enrichment programs rather than on homework help or tutoring

2/23/2023 8:37:56 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / What Young People Want from Afterschool Programs An expert on out-of-school-time argues for focusing on vital enrichment

678

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Study Seeks to Understand Adults Working with Young People Outside of School

42559

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

Millions of professionals and volunteers work with young people every day in the many settings where they play, learn and grow outside of the school day. To learn more about these youth-serving professionals, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) is conducting a study, with support from Wallace. The study includes a national survey called the <a href="https://powerofussurvey.org/">Power of Us Workforce Survey</a>, in which the results are intended to ultimately better support the youth workforce and inform policy, practice and further research.In this Q&A, Deborah Moroney, a vice president at AIR, and Ann Stone, senior research officer at Wallace, reflect on this work. This post originally appeared on the <a href="https://workforce-matters.org/">Workforce Matters</a> website and is reprinted with their permission.The Wallace Foundation: What is the Youth Fields Workforce Study? Deborah: The U.S. Department of Education has challenged educators to <a href="https://engageeverystudent.org/">engage every student</a>. But who are the adults who are allies to, support and foster learning and development outside of the school day? While we know that those who work in youth fields play an important role, we lack the broader knowledge, context and holistic understanding of these individuals’ experiences and career pathways. The Youth Fields Workforce Study is a nationwide effort to fill that knowledge gap and gain critical insights into the people who make up these fields, where they work, what they do and what supports they need to continue engaging in transformative work with young people. WF: Why did the Wallace Foundation decide to invest in the Youth Fields Workforce Study? Ann: Over the years, we’ve heard anecdotal evidence that staffing has been a consistent challenge for out-of-school time programs. The COVID-19 pandemic, and the associated labor shortage it caused, only made things worse. For example, a <a href="http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Afterschool-COVID-19-Wave-6-Brief.pdf">survey by the Afterschool Alliance</a> found that the top two concerns among afterschool providers were finding staff to hire or staffing shortages and maintaining staff levels through health concerns and safety protocols.Given this, we felt it was important to learn more from the field itself about the state of the workforce. The challenge is not a trivial one. Skilled staff are crucial to fostering the <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/the-value-of-out-of-school-time-programs.aspx">many benefits </a>that afterschool and summer programs can provide young people—including new skills, exposure to new experiences, academic gains, awareness of career options, and life skills like persistence. These benefits vary, based on how programs are designed. But no matter what kind of program, we know that staff are central to creating positive relationships with young people, setting the climate, and sharing special expertise. Hardworking, well-trained staff play a key role in quality, and quality plays a key role in outcomes, so it’s important that this vital workforce is better understood—and supported. WF: What do you hope to learn from the results of the Youth Fields Workforce Study? Ann: The study is unusual in how thoroughly it seeks to incorporate views from those actually in the workforce. It will offer a window into who makes up the workforce, their career pathways, how they see their expertise and training needs, thoughts on job mobility, and retention. In capturing the lived experience of the staff who are forming relationships with youth, teaching skills and setting the climate, this study by AIR will not only help the field understand the challenge—but also suggest solutions. For example, understanding what motivates staff to stay in this field could be used to help attract new staff. This information should be especially useful since the pandemic, along with the influx of federal funding, have elevated the importance of afterschool and summer programming. Deborah: There are real and practical uses for the survey findings, which is timely because we know that this field is not immune to <a href="https://www.edweek.org/leadership/afterschool-programs-are-low-on-staff-leaving-students-unsupervised-and-underserved/2022/03">shifts in the labor market</a>. Our partners tell us they will use the survey data to make the case to expand access to programs for youth, prioritize professional development supports, and develop career pathways for adults. But we need the information first, and we need your help! If you are part of the youth fields workforce, share your story by taking the survey. If you support the youth fields workforce, help us spread the word by sharing the survey with your networks. The more people who complete the survey, the more we will know about the adults in the youth fields workforce, and the more we can all do to support them as they support all youth to thrive

Jenna Doleh

2022-12-08T05:00:00Z

12/12/2022 3:55:00 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Study Seeks to Understand Adults Working with Young People Outside of School Millions of professionals and volunteers work

974

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Creating a More Equitable—and Welcoming—Afterschool Ecosystem

23740

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

One of the best parts of my job as director of research at Wallace is to interact with some of the country’s leading scholars and researchers studying our areas of work: the arts, education leadership and youth development. These folks are so committed to and insightful about their respective fields. It’s maybe no surprise that many of them worked as teachers, youth workers, artists and the like, before entering the research world, and that this is partly what drives their passion. Since I joined the foundation in late 2019, we have awarded 36 research grants, large and small, to 33 researchers, 14 of whom were first-time Wallace grantees. I thought it would be interesting (and fun!) to start an occasional series of interviews with some of them, as we publish their findings on the Wallace website. Kicking off the series with me is Bianca Baldridge, an associate professor of education at Harvard University. Bianca is <a href="https://www.gse.harvard.edu/faculty/bianca-baldridge" target="_blank">a national expert</a> in out-of-school-time programming (OST), with a particular interest in the youth workforce. In 2020-2021, we commissioned Bianca, along with a group of her colleagues, to produce a rapid evidence review intended to inform Wallace’s future work in youth development. High level takeaways from that study are summarized in this <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/from-access-to-equity-making-out-of-school-time-spaces-meaningful-for-teens-from-marginalized-communities.aspx?_ga=2.110720197.1937604982.1650308769-375849283.1649958955">research brief</a>. In addition to a lit review and interviews with experts, their study involved a YPAR (youth participatory action research) project, where a group of older students designed and conducted a research study of their peers involved in afterschool programs, that you can read about <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/youth-perspectives-on-designing-equitable-out-of-school-time-programs.aspx">here</a>. This work also led to a series of podcasts, where youth researchers discuss key issues related to their experiences in afterschool programs and which will be released later this spring.This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Bronwyn: How did you come to focus on out-of-school-time? Bianca:  I came to this work because I was a participant in youth-work programs as a middle school student and started engaging in youth work as a staff member in high school.  As much as I loved these programs—as a participant and a staff member—and as important as they were in shaping my development, as a Black girl growing up in south-central Los Angeles, I was also troubled by the way programs were making assumptions about who I was. They tended to position themselves as saving me, and that kind of deficit positioning of me, which I consciously felt, was a problem. But I didn’t have the language to name it until I got to college and graduate school and began to study African American Studies and sociology. I started to see how my experiences, and the organizations themselves, had been shaped by the social and political context around them—the broader structures of power like race, class and social-economic policies. Bronwyn: Over the last several years the OST field has started to more explicitly name the “ecological dimensions” of learning and development—in other words, looking beyond the program to understand how it is situated within a broader context, and how that context shapes what is possible. But the social and political dimensions of that ecology are not often articulated. The focus is more on spaces and places and practices. Bianca: I’m glad you said that. Families matter, communities, neighborhoods, all of that matters.  And if those things matter, then within that ecosystem what’s happening? How do we not name those things?  Bronwyn: That attention to the broader structures of power that shape and constrain possibilities is what we call “a critical lens” in the research world. How do you bring that lens to the study of OST? Bianca: Afterschool spaces are important sites of learning and development, particularly for minoritized communities and communities that are multiply oppressed. My research agenda has been to think about how young people experience these programs: Black and Latinx young people or racially minoritized people in general. To understand the role of relationships within the programs—among youth, youth workers and staff members. And to try to legitimize and create scholarship that highlights the pedagogy as well as the philosophies of youth workers, as legitimate pedagogues and educators within the educational landscape.  Bronwyn: Can you say more about what you mean about youth worker pedagogy? Bianca: I find that youth workers often have a true pedagogy in the sense that they have a philosophical sort of understanding about teaching, about learning, about youth development, about engagement with young people, and you can see that in practice in how they actually engage. So how they teach, how they cultivate relationships and connect with young people and their families, how they spark interest and ideas and a love of learning that is not just about academics, but also just about the world in general. Bronwyn: It sounds like you’ve seen them recognizing the totality of the young person? Bianca: Yes. Youth workers can support youth academically, emotionally, socially and politically. They are really significant to “whole child” development. Youth workers are often placed in the position where they are supporting young people through their lives in school, neighborhoods and their families. Young people’s identities are complex and youth workers can be instrumental in nurturing all of who a young person is and who they are becoming. Bronwyn: There has been a lot of research on how social policies and structures affect teachers and schooling, but less on how they impact youth development or afterschool and summer programs. I know you’re currently writing a book about this. Bianca: Yes, my current research is thinking about how displacement and gentrification can lead to school closures or rezoning, which in turn can impact community organizations that have been committed to Black liberation or youth development within Black communities. Part of the premise for me is that community organizations in many ways can be the backbone of neighborhoods and communities, and I’m really struck with the question of what happens when afterschool programs can’t afford high rents. What happens when they’re moved out of neighborhoods, what happens to programming for young people? Where do they go? Where will they hang out, what will they do? For youth organizations that are committed to sociopolitical development or critical consciousness, I’m really interested in what they do and how they’re making sense of these transitions and displacement, and how they’re able to maintain a social justice, youth development approach in their work through this change. My new book links Black youth workers to the legacy and traditions of organizers like Ella Baker or Septima Clark, and projects how youth workers approach preparing young people to make sense of the world around them and to navigate a racially hostile, anti-Black world. It also addresses how they navigate anti-Blackness within their profession. How are they simultaneously taking care of themselves and also helping young people to negotiate the same social and political forces? Bronwyn: Your work has made me think a lot about how much our vision of the best out-of-school-time programs depends on youth workers who are profoundly giving: Giving love, giving respect, giving vision, giving support. But it’s not like there’s a bottomless well of giving if the system is not giving back to them. Your work highlights how the structures that suppress wages, limit benefits and sometimes tokenize youth workers can work to undermine the whole vision for what young people can gain from out of school time. Bianca: Yes. Because the burnout and the turnover are real. And youth workers are everywhere:  detention centers, museums, libraries, housing programs, afterschool organizations. I believe that programs and organizations, however they look, need to be able to meet the needs of the young people in their communities. But we need to think about the youth workers, or the people who care for young people, and find systems and structures that support them.  Bronwyn: The research you and your colleagues did for Wallace, and the research of the youth themselves, really got to how essential building a positive and inclusive context is, and that job is ultimately left to youth workers to create those conditions. Bianca: What blew us away was hearing directly from the youth about how students feel in those programs. They talked about feeling like things were cliquish or tokenistic. This goes back to what do these programs look like, what do they feel like, how are they organized, how are they structured? Not just anybody can run an inclusive OST program, not just anybody should run a program. I think allowing young people to share their firsthand experiences is just always, always, always sobering. Bronwyn: I totally agree. There’s been a lot of work done on the kinds of things you need to have in place for assessing or building towards quality programs, but it is outside-in, and not inside-out, in terms of what it actually feels like to be in that space.  Bianca: Yes. And I definitely want to be able to talk about the resistance and the triumphs and the celebrations, the ways in which organizations, youth workers and young people are able to navigate structures outside and inside of the programs. But I think it’s important to name those structures that can oppress and get in the way of the possible. We have to be able to name and understand them to be able to overcome them.

Bronwyn Bevan

100

2022-04-21T04:00:00Z

Expert in afterschool programming ponders how we can better support youth workers and the young people they serve

4/21/2022 3:01:25 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Creating a More Equitable—and Welcoming—Afterschool Ecosystem Expert in afterschool programming ponders how we can better

2023

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

School-Community Collaborations Fuel Afterschool Success in California

42544

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

WF: The pandemic has had a significant impact on the out-of-school time sector. What gives you hope and what keeps you up at night? JP: In a state where afterschool programs are heavily run through schools, that meant so many kids lost access to these essential services while schools were shut down last year. Our providers around the state were the ones that were opening up learning hubs for homeless kids, for English learners, for kids whose parents had no choice but to be at work. All of the difficult circumstances we know that kids went through, our folks stepped in to make sure kids got their meals, Wi-Fi devices and, in many cases, they just found places and ways to serve kids creatively. We and our partners documented and communicated a lot about these amazing efforts and our field got some overdue recognition. The big investments we are seeing now are partly a result of what people saw our field do during the pandemic, but it was also a result of decades of hard work by leaders in our field that positioned us for this moment. <img src="/News-and-Media/Blog/PublishingImages/Pages/School-Community-Collaborations-Fuel-Afterschool-Success-in-California/BACR-photo_IMG_3227.jpg" alt="BACR-photo_IMG_3227.jpg" class="wf-Image-Left" style="margin:5px;width:269px;height:359px;" />In California, for example, on top of the <a href="/News-and-Media/Blog/pages/american-rescue-plan-five-things-state-and-district-leaders-need-to-know-now.aspx">federal investment</a> last spring, the state put in $4.6 billion in emergency COVID money just for expanded learning. Our half-a-billion-dollar investment in afterschool previously was by far the largest in the nation and now $4.6 billion was being pumped into this system, plus the federal money, and now even more state money that’s meant to be ongoing. I never thought I'd see a day when we got so much more investment than we even asked for. But we now have the opposite challenge, which is that there's so much money coming into the system all at once that there's little capacity to implement it effectively. We are very focused right now on trying to influence how  implementation happens based on everything we know from research and experience about quality, impactful program delivery. We are also very focused on documentation and storytelling. We must be constantly telling the story to policy leaders about the difference this investment can make for kids, so that we have a chance to sustain it over time. WF: If you could wave a magic wand and make one policy change to impact students and youth, what would it be? JP: One thing that remains a gap that I hope is going to shift, is how we're supporting our community-based program providers. In California, the massive investment of expanded learning funds is all going through school systems, so schools are responsible for implementing programs. I understand the instinct around that by our state leaders because we want these services, supports and opportunities to be aligned with educational outcomes. However, it creates a power dynamic around the resources that plays out in ways that aren't necessarily beneficial to implementing quality programs at the local level. In some places, our community-based organizations have much more experience and expertise at delivering high-quality expanded learning than our school systems do. Yet, it's up to the whims of the district around whether they're going to bring in a community-based partner and how much they're going to pay them or honor them for their time and work. I want to see a portion of this investment going directly to support our community-based sector. And then, aligned with that in policy, I want to see more teeth around what is currently an encouragement of districts to collaborate with communities in this work. Current policy articulates that community partnerships are important; it tells school districts that they should be including community organizations of all kinds in their planning and implementation which is a great step, but there’s no requirement. That's something else I think needs to change. Photos courtesy of Boys & Girls Clubs of Sonoma-Marin and Bay Area Community Resources

Jenna Tomasello

122

2022-02-09T05:00:00Z

Founder of influential nonprofit reflects on two decades of partnership and policymaking on behalf of children

3/14/2022 4:19:00 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / School-Community Collaborations Fuel Afterschool Success in California Founder of influential nonprofit reflects on two

1626

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Staffing is Top Concern for Afterschool Providers

42553

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

Staffing shortages across the United States from healthcare to the airline industry have made headlines over the past few months. In fact, 4.3 million workers quit their jobs in December, according to the Labor Department’s latest <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm" target="_blank">Job Openings and Labor Turnover </a> <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">report</a>. Unfortunately, afterschool programs are no exception to this latest trend. According to a <a href="http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Afterschool-COVID-19-Wave-6-Brief.pdf" target="_blank">new survey</a> by the Afterschool Alliance, afterschool programs and providers say staffing is the most pressing challenge they’re currently facing. The survey, conducted by Edge Research between November 1 and December 13, 2021, states the top two concerns among the 1,043 afterschool providers surveyed are finding staff to hire/staffing shortages and maintaining staff levels through health concerns and safety protocols. Eighty-seven percent of respondents say they are concerned about this, and more than half—51 percent—say that they are extremely concerned. These numbers are up 20 percentage points from a similar survey conducted in the spring of 2021.  “Combatting staff burnout is a priority for us,” one of the survey respondents said. “We  are doing as much as we can to be supportive, both financially and by providing emotional support for staff. Keeping full-time staff engaged and encouraged has been a challenge. Keeping good part-time staff engaged and focused has proven even more difficult.”Many of the providers surveyed connect the staffing challenges to their inability to serve more students, additional staff stress and burnout, and concerns about program costs. For instance, the survey found that 54 percent of programs that are physically open say that they have a waitlist, an increase from 37 percent in the spring 2021 survey. In addition, among respondents who report an increase in program costs, 83 percent say that staffing costs contributed to their program’s higher weekly cost-per-child.To address the staffing issues, 71 percent of respondents report that their program has undertaken at least one course of action to attract and retain staff: <ul><li>53 percent are increasing salaries </li><li> 32 percent are providing additional professional development opportunities </li><li> 18 percent are offering free childcare for staff </li><li> 15 percent are offering sign-on bonuses </li><li> 10 percent are offering more paid time off </li><li> 5 percent are offering increased benefits </li></ul>On the plus side, <a href="/News-and-Media/Blog/pages/american-rescue-plan-five-things-state-and-district-leaders-need-to-know-now.aspx">COVID relief dollars are able to help program providers</a> address their current issues with staffing. Among respondents who report that their program received new funding for fall 2021 programming, 47 percent say the new funding helped support staff recruitment efforts.The Afterschool Alliance has also developed a <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RebwjpCkpiPP2SU2yksrHQJ8rm1gTRCOgUoBu5aTroc/edit" target="_blank">staff recruitment toolkit</a> to help providers recruit staff for afterschool programs. Photo credit: Photographer Webber J. Charles, Breakthrough Miami

Wallace editorial team

2022-02-03T05:00:00Z

New survey findings provide stark picture of staffing shortages in afterschool programs and how this is affecting children

3/3/2022 3:40:44 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Staffing is Top Concern for Afterschool Providers New survey findings provide stark picture of staffing shortages in

694

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Getting the Most Out of Data Collection for Out-of-School-Time Systems

23772

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

Collect reliable data, mine it for insights and act wisely on the information: That’s a recipe for continuous improvement for any organization. Out-of-school-time intermediaries, the organizations that oversee communitywide systems of afterschool, summer and other out-of-school-time (OST) programs, recognize the value of effective data analysis. But deciding what data to collect, how to collect it and, most importantly, how to use it to drive improvement can be overwhelming. A new tool—<a href="/knowledge-center/pages/framework-for-measurement-continuous-improvement-and-equitable-systems.aspx">Putting Data to Work for Young People: A Framework for Measurement, Continuous Improvement, and Equitable Systems</a>—aims to help. The tool updates an earlier version from 2014 and was developed by <a href="https://www.everyhourcounts.org/" target="_blank">Every Hour Counts</a>, a national coalition of citywide OST organizations that seeks to increase access to high-quality learning opportunities, particularly for underserved students. The framework itself consists of 11 desired outcomes for an OST system at the systemic, programatic and youth level. Each outcome features a set of indicators to measure progress toward it and the types of data to collect along the way. The data-collection efforts of three OST intermediaries—<a href="https://www.bostonbeyond.org/" target="_blank">Boston After School & Beyond</a>, <a href="https://www.mypasa.org/" target="_blank">Providence After School Alliance</a>, and <a href="https://www.sprocketssaintpaul.org/" target="_blank">Sprockets in St. Paul</a> —informed the updated tool, as well as an accompanying guide written by RAND Corp. researchers Jennifer Sloan McCombs and Anamarie A. Whitaker, who led an evaluation of how the intermediaries used the framework. Recently The Wallace Blog spoke with McCombs and Jessica Donner, executive director of Every Hour Counts, about the framework and the experiences of the intermediaries. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. How did you determine the updated framework’s 11 outcomes and the related data indicators? Donner: The selection of outcomes was driven by the on-the-ground experiences of the three intermediaries, the Every Hour Counts network, the knowledge brought to bear on the project by research partners and the existing literature on effective practice. The data indicators were developed by RAND based on their research expertise, the experience of the three intermediaries and RAND’s criteria to minimize burden on providers, intermediaries, staff and students, and efficiency for data collection and utility. This framework builds on prior iterations, specifically one developed with American Institutes for Research in 2014. What did you learn from the three intermediaries as they used the 2014 framework? Donner: We worked with these intermediaries because they had the bandwidth and expertise to hit the ground running with the framework. What we learned is that even highly accomplished intermediaries face tremendous challenges with data collection and use—staff capacity, research expertise, how to narrow down a host of outcomes and indicators to measure those outcomes. Where did they start? We had this framework, but the process was very overwhelming. We undertook the framework update and intentionally designed a tool that would make the data collection and use process more digestible, such as tips for staging the work and previewing a menu of options. We also infused racial equity questions throughout the framework. These questions are especially critical now as communities grapple with missed learning opportunities, particularly for students of color. The updated tool helps communities be efficient, effective and strategic with data, all in the service of high-quality programs for young people, particularly those who lack access due to structural inequities. That’s what we’ve always been about—recognizing inequities in opportunities and forwarding that agenda. What did the intermediaries find were the framework’s key benefits? McCombs: The core benefit was that the framework focused system leaders on data use, not just data collection. It really provides a roadmap to assess and align the goals and activities of an OST system and how to measure the outputs of those activities—not just for the sake of measuring progress toward goals, but also to drive systems improvement. Systems are constantly evolving. Very often, they get bogged down collecting data that once had a clear purpose but is now no longer utilized. In some cases, using the framework led the intermediaries to measure less but utilize more. It’s a bit like cleaning out your closet. Letting go of something you haven’t worn in a long time makes room for something else. Not using data that’s collected is a waste of resources and an opportunity cost for other activities. There’s also the burden of data collection on programs and youth. It’s very important that everything that systems ask of programs and youth has value that can be communicated back to them. What are the toughest challenges for effective data collection and analysis? McCombs: One challenge for OST systems leaders is the development of data systems and protocols that allow for the collection and safe storage of accurate data. This is easily forgotten by people who don’t have a background in research or data science. It’s not intuitive. To help system leaders overcome this, we wrote <a href="/knowledge-center/pages/putting-data-to-work-for-young-people.aspx">Putting Data to Work for Young People: A Ten-Step Guide for Expanded Learning Intermediaries</a> in 2019. OST systems also don’t tend to be robustly funded. System leaders have to make choices on a continuous basis about where to invest monetary and human capital resources. And that leads to difficult decisions. I don’t know any OST system that’s able to do everything it wants.           In addition to using surveys and management information systems, the framework suggests low-budget options for gathering data, such as interviews with program leaders and youth representatives. Was this deliberate? McCombs: It was an intentional choice. The goal of the framework is for systems to collect data that they can use to inform decision making. Some indicators are very expensive and time-consuming to measure well. But systems don’t have to measure everything that they do. There are other mechanisms that give people an opportunity to reflect on their work in a way that can drive future activities. System leaders can use touchpoints with community stakeholders to learn the extent to which their work is meeting the intended objectives. Some activities, like talking with youth council representatives, have benefits beyond measuring progress toward a particular goal. They build voices into the system and improve equity. Donner: When Jennifer and the team at RAND worked with the three intermediaries, they steered them toward open-source, free and accessible data-collection tools so they wouldn’t face a funding cliff later. They were realistic with their recommendations so systems would not need a massive grant to sustain their data collection work. McCombs: Because we’re researchers, I think people expected that we would push them to measure more and at the highest level of rigor for everything. That was not our approach. We really wanted to help them build processes that were sustainable and that they could implement themselves over time. The sample worksheets in the guide suggest that OST intermediaries don’t need to measure everything to track progress and make informed decisions. How can they make smart choices about the data they do collect and analyze? McCombs: It's far better to measure three things reliably and use it to drive improvement, than to measure 10 things not particularly well and not have the capacity to use any of it. As system leaders go through the framework and want to measure this and this and this, they should really think about where they can derive the greatest value and what they have the capacity to accomplish well. What pieces of data are highest leverage? How can they make the most out of every data point so that stakeholders can make decisions that advance goals and continuous improvement processes? We encourage system leaders to ask themselves: what do you have the capacity to collect, store, analyze and use right now? How did the framework help the three intermediaries improve their data efforts? And how will it continue to be used in the field? McCombs: Intermediaries in the study used the framework in many different ways. As small examples, Sprockets [in St. Paul] used data to more explicitly communicate with various stakeholders, including community members, funders, and policymakers. For Boston After School & Beyond, the framework propelled how it communicates data with programs in its network, and therefore, how programs utilize data themselves for their own improvement. Providence Afterschool Alliance really took stock of the data they needed, the data they didn’t, and how to share data back to providers. Donner: Every Hour Counts is forming a learning community with a cohort of city organizations who will work intentionally with the tool over the next year to use data to drive improvement. Intermediaries come in many shapes and sizes, but there is a common through line of the importance of system indicators, program indicators and youth indicators, which all intersect with each other. The framework is designed to meet communities wherever they are in the process. We’re eager to see how it helps them move from point A to B.

Jennifer Gill

2021-10-06T04:00:00Z

afterschool systems; cities; citywide systems; research; education research; OST

10/7/2021 7:42:38 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Getting the Most Out of Data Collection for Out-of-School-Time Systems Developers of OST assessment tools discuss how to

894

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

How Can Research Help Design More Effective Youth Programs?

42456

Nonprofits that work with young people are always looking for ways to assess their effectiveness, and randomized controlled trials—which randomly place eligible young people into “treatment” and “control” groups to draw comparisons between them—are generally considered the most rigorous approach. Implementation studies, by contrast, examine how an effort is carried out, pinpointing strengths and weaknesses in operations. In tandem, randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, and implementation studies can help organizations answer two major questions: What is the impact of our work? What can we do to improve?   As informative as such studies can be, they are also challenging to pull off and act on. Just ask Lynsey Wood Jeffries, CEO of Washington, D.C.-based <a href="https://higherachievement.org/">Higher Achievement</a>, one of the organizations that took part in Wallace’s now-concluded <a href="/knowledge-center/after-school/pages/expanded-learning.aspx">expanded learning effort</a>. Higher Achievement, which provides academically focused afterschool programs for more than 1,000 middle schoolers in the D.C. metro area, Baltimore and Richmond, Va., has participated in two RCTs, the most recent one accompanied by an implementation study.The first RCT, which was partially funded by Wallace and ran from 2006 to 2013, showed statistically significant effects for Higher Achievement students—known as “scholars” within the program—on math and reading test scores and in high school placement and family engagement. The second, completed last year (also with some Wallace support), found positive results, too, with the implementation study revealing some program delivery issues to be addressed in order for Higher Achievement to reach its full potential. (Readers can find the research and more information <a href="https://higherachievement.org/impact/">here</a>.) The organization was in the process of making changes when COVID-19 hit and turned everything upside down, but as the pandemic eases, the hope is to use the findings to help pave the path forward. This is part two of our interview with Jeffries. See the first post on <a href="/News-and-Media/Blog/pages/creating-safe-spaces-for-young-people-during-the-pandemic.aspx">running an afterschool program during a pandemic</a>. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Why did you decide to participate in the second RCT, especially having already done one? There were two main reasons. One is that the first study only focused on what has been our home base in the D.C. metro area. So, it showed statistically significant positive impacts on academics for D.C. and also Alexandria, Virginia. But since that study was conducted, we have expanded to other locations, and our effectiveness hadn't been empirically proven in those places. That was important to understand. A number of programs may be able to show impacts in their home base, but replicating that through all the complications that come with expansion is a next level of efficacy. Second, it was suggested to us that the way to be most competitive for the major federal <a href="https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-inaugural-education-innovation-and-research-competition">i3 grant</a> we ultimately won was to offer an RCT. It's the highest level of evidence and worth the most points on the application. Were there risks versus rewards that you had to weigh in making the decision to go ahead with the second RCT?We very carefully considered it because we knew from past experience the strains an RCT puts on the community and the organization.The reward is that if you win the dollars you can learn a lot and serve more students. Our grant application was about adapting our academic mentoring to help accelerate learning towards Common Core standards. That's something we wouldn’t have been able to do, at least not at the intensity we wanted, without a multi-million-dollar investment. Were there any results of either the RCT or the implementation study that caught you by surprise?The positive effect size for report card grades was greater in this second study than it was for test scores in a previous study. And that level of confidence did surprise me frankly, because I’ve lived and breathed Higher Achievement every day for many years now, and it's been messy. It hasn't just been a simple expansion process. There have been lots of questions along the way, adaptations to local communities, staffing changes, and more. So, to see that positive effect size for our scholars was encouraging. You mentioned the strain an RCT can put on community relationships and the organization itself. What does that look like?Only accepting 50 percent of the students you recruit strains community relationships; it strains relationships with families and scholars most importantly but also with schools. It also fatigues the staff, who have to interview twice as many students as we can serve. They get to know the students and their families, knowing that we have to turn away half of them.Here’s are example of how an RCT can distort perceptions in the community: I'll never forget talking to a middle schooler who had applied for our program but was assigned to the control group. She said, "Oh, yeah, I know Higher Achievement. It's that group that pays you $100 to take a test on a Saturday." [As part of the first RCT] we did pay students to take this test, and so that’s what we were to her.Additionally, when you’re recruiting for an RCT, you have to cast twice as wide a net [because you need a sufficient number of students in both the treatment and control groups]. Because there was such a push for a larger sample, the interview process for Higher Achievement became pro forma, and our retention rate ended up dipping because the overall level of commitment of the scholars and families recruited for the RCT was lower than it would be otherwise. And both studies showed that we don't have statistically significant effects until scholars get through the second year. So, when scholar retention dips, you're distorting the program. Did you approach the second RCT differently in terms of recruitment or communications to try to avoid or address that potential for strain?We were very cognizant of our school relationships the second time. Principals really value the service we provide, which makes it quite hard for them to agree to a study, knowing half the students won’t actually get the benefit of that service. So, we gave each of our principals three to five wild cards for particular students they wanted to be exempt from the lottery process in order to make sure that they got into the program. That hurt our sample size because those students couldn’t be part of the study, but it helped preserve the school relationships. We also deepened training for the staff interviewing potential scholars, which helped a bit with retention. How did Higher Achievement go about putting the research findings into practice? In order to make changes at the program level, were there also changes that had to be made at the administrative level? The implementation study was really helpful, and I'm so grateful we were able to bring in $300,000 in additional support from Venture Philanthropy Partners [a D.C.-based philanthropy] to support it. One of the things we took away from the implementation study was that there was more heterogeneity in our program delivery than we desired. We knew that internally, but to read it from these external researchers made us pause, consider the implications, and develop a new approach—Higher Achievement 2.0. Higher Achievement 2.0 consisted of a refined program model and staffing structure to support it. We shifted our organizational chart pretty dramatically. Previously, program implementation was managed by the local executive directors [with a program director for each city and directors of individual centers within each city reporting to the executive director]. Program research, evaluation and design were under a chief strategy officer, who was not in a direct reporting line with the program implementation. It wasn't seamless, and it led to inconsistencies in program delivery. The big change we made was to create a new position, a central chief program officer who manages both the R&D department, which we now call the center support team, and the local program directors, with the center directors reporting to those program directors. What that does functionally is lift the local center directors a full step or two or three, depending on the city, up in the organization chart and in the decision-making process [because they no longer report to a local executive director or deputy director]. Everything we're doing as an organization is much closer to the ground. What were the main changes at the program level as a result of the implementation study?One of the key takeaways from the implementation research was that our Summer Academy, which was a six-week, 40-hours-a-week program, was important for culture building but the academic instruction wasn’t consistently high quality or driving scholar retention or academic outcomes. That prompted us to take a very different approach to summer and to make afterschool the centerpiece of what we do. The plan was to focus on college-preparatory high school placement and to expand afterschool by seven weeks and go from three to four days a week. That’s a big change in how we operate, which we were just beginning to actualize in January 2020. Then COVID hit, and we had to pivot to a virtual, streamlined program, but now we’re exploring how to go back to a version of Higher Achievement 2.0 post-COVID.High school placement has always been part of Higher Achievement’s model, but we elevated it to be our anchor indicator, so all the other performance indicators need to lead back to high school readiness and placement. While our direct service ends in eighth grade, we have long-term intended impacts of 100 percent on-time high school graduation and 65 percent post-secondary credential attainment. [Therefore], the biggest lever we can pull is helping our scholars choose a great fit for high school and making sure they’re prepared to get into those schools. Instead of running programs in the summer, we are referring scholars to other strong programs and spending much more time on family engagement in the summer to support high school placement. This starts in fifth grade, with increasingly robust conversations year after year about report cards and test scores and what different high school options can mean for career paths and post-secondary goals. We are building our scholars’ and families’ navigational capital. That discipline is being more uniformly implemented across our sites; it had been very scattered in the past. The other thing we set out to do, which has been delayed because all our design capacity has been re-routed to virtual learning, is to build out a ninth-grade transition program. We know how important ninth grade is; the research is undeniable. The individual data from our scholars says sometimes it goes smoothly and in other cases it's really rocky. Students who’ve been placed in a competitive high school may shift later because they didn't feel welcome or supported in that school. What challenges have you faced as you’ve gone about making these big changes? Were there any obstacles in translating the decisions of your leadership team into action?The biggest obstacle is COVID. We haven't been able to put much of our plan into action in the way intended. The other obstacle we’ve faced is what any change faces: emotional and intellectual ties to the way things have always been done. I was one of the staff members who had a great emotional attachment to our Summer Academy.There are rituals that have been a part of our Summer Academy that are beloved rites of passage for young people. We are building these rites of passage, college trips and other culture-building aspects of Summer Academy into our Afterschool Academy. That way, we can focus in the summer on intentionally engaging our scholars and families to prepare them for college-preparatory high schools and increase our overall organizational sustainability and effectiveness. What advice would you give to an organization that’s considering participating in an RCT and implementation study or other major research of this kind?Proceed with caution. Before undertaking an RCT, review the studies that already exist in the field and learn from those to increase the effectiveness of your program. Let’s not reinvent the wheel here. If you do decide to proceed with an RCT, be really clear on what your model is and is not. And then be prepared to add temporary capacity during the study, particularly for recruitment, program observation and support. It takes a lot of internal and external communication to preserve relationships while also having a valid RCT. There's a larger field question about equity—who is able to raise the money to actually conduct these very extensive and expensive studies? It tends to be white-led organizations and philanthropic dollars tend to consolidate to support those proven programs. Too few nonprofits have been proven effective with RCTs—for a host of reasons, including that these studies are cost-prohibitive for most organizations and that they strain community relations. And most RCT-proven models are difficult and expensive to scale.However, just because an organization has not been proven effective with an RCT should not mean that it is prohibited from attracting game-changing investment.  If there were a more rigorous way for organizations to truly demonstrate being evidenced-based (not just a well-written and research-cited proposal paragraph), perhaps there would be a way to bring more community-based solutions to scale. With that approach, we could begin to solve challenges at the magnitude that they exist.

Wallace editorial team

2021-03-31T04:00:00Z

An afterschool program CEO reflects on the risks and rewards of intensive program evaluations

4/5/2021 8:18:58 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / How Can Research Help Design More Effective Youth Programs An afterschool program CEO reflects on the risks and rewards of

630

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Survey of Large Cities Shows Afterschool Systems Have Staying Power

42565

GP0|#b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211;L0|#0b804f37e-c5dd-4433-a644-37b51bb2e211|Afterschool;GTSet|#a1e8653d-64cb-48e0-8015-b5826f8c5b61

Over the past two decades, we at Wallace have learned a lot about how afterschool systems work and how cities can go about building them. One thing we still didn’t know, however, was whether cities would be able to sustain their efforts to coordinate the work of out-of-school-time providers, government agencies and others over a period of years. Now, a new report by the nonprofit human development organization FHI 360 offers some answers.<a href="/knowledge-center/pages/stability-and-change-in-afterschool-systems-2013-2020-a-follow-up-study-of-afterschool-coordination-in-large-cities.aspx">Stability and Change in Afterschool Systems, 2013-2020</a> is a follow-up to an earlier study of 100 large U.S. cities, of which 77 were found to be engaged in some aspects of afterschool coordination. For the current report, the authors were able to contact 67 of those 77 cities. They also followed up with 50 cities that weren’t coordinating afterschool programs in 2013 and found a knowledgeable contact in 34 of them. The report provides a snapshot of the state of afterschool coordination just before COVID-19 hit, causing the devastating closure of schools and afterschool programs. We recently had an email exchange with the lead authors, Ivan Charner, formerly of FHI 360 and Linda Simkin, senior consultant on the project, about what they found in their research and what the implications might be for cities looking to restore their afterschool services in the wake of the pandemic. Their responses have been edited for length and clarity. What do you consider the key findings of this research?We discovered that more than three-quarters of the 75 cities coordinating afterschool programs in 2013 were still coordinating in 2020. [Two of the original 77 cities were left out of the study for methodological reasons.] In addition, 14 cities that were not coordinating in 2013 had adopted some coordination strategies.  Our study of the cities that sustained coordination between 2013 and 2020 explored the extent to which they had the three key components [of an afterschool system]: a coordinating entity, a common data system and a set of quality standards or a quality framework. Overall, there was an increase in the proportion of cities with all three components (from 29 percent in 2013 to 40 percent in 2020). There was a decrease in the percentage of cities with a coordinating entity but increases in the percentage with a common data system or a set of quality standards, or both. Not surprisingly, funding was an important factor in whether or not cities had these components. Seventy-one percent of the cities that sustained their systems experienced either stable funding or increased funding over the past five years. A much higher percentage of cities reporting funding increases had all three coordination components compared to cities where funding remained the same or decreased. Increased funding was highly correlated with the presence of quality standards or a quality framework, in particular. The commitment of a city or county leader to afterschool coordination was also important, as it was in 2013. Eighty percent of the cities that were still coordinating in 2020 characterized their current leaders as moderately or highly committed to afterschool coordination. There was a significant association between a high or moderate level of commitment and having a common data system in 2020.You found that at least three-quarters of the cities that were doing afterschool coordination in 2013 sustained their systems. What about the ones that didn’t? Were you able to identify possible reasons these cities dropped their systems? A review of data collected for the 2013 study suggests that in some of these cities afterschool coordination was not firmly established (eight had one or none of the key coordination components). Another reason was turnover in city leadership, which brought with it changing priorities that resulted in decreases in funding for, and commitment of leadership to, afterschool coordination. In two cities, systematic afterschool coordination became part of broader collective impact initiatives. You found that more afterschool systems had a common data system and a quality framework or set of quality standards in 2020 than in 2013, but fewer had a designated entity responsible for coordination. What do you make of these changes, particularly the latter?Our finding that fewer cities had a designated coordinating entity in 2020 than in 2013 was surprising. Our survey question listed eight options covering different governance structures and organizational homes, so we’re fairly confident that the question wasn’t misinterpreted. We can only speculate about reasons for the change. It’s been suggested that mature systems may no longer see the need for a coordinating entity, which may be expensive to maintain. A coordinating entity such as a foundation or a United Way may have changed priorities, and systems may have collectively decided to operate without one, distributing leadership tasks among partners. Or cities may have been in the process of replacing the coordinating entity. This is one of those instances in which researchers generally call for further inquiry.While it wasn’t within the scope of this study to investigate reasons for the increase in data systems and quality standards, we can speculate about why this occurred. More than half the cities that sustained their systems experienced increased funding, and that probably facilitated the development of both data systems and quality standards. One possibility is that, with the growing emphasis on accountability in the education and nonprofit sectors, funders may be calling for more supporting data. It’s also possible that cities or school systems decided to incorporate afterschool data into their own systems. It’s interesting to note that some respondents in cities without data systems were investigating them. As for quality standards and assessment tools, we learned from anecdotal reports that cities had adopted templates and received training offered by outside vendors or state or regional afterschool networks, more so than came to our attention in 2013. In the context of the pandemic and the racial justice movement, what do you hope that cities will take away from this report? The findings of this study present a picture of progress in afterschool coordination before the full impact of the challenges caused by the pandemic and the reckoning with social injustice and inequality. We’ve since learned that systems have renewed their commitment to ensuring the growing numbers of children and youth living in marginalized communities have access to high quality afterschool and summer programming that meets their social-emotional needs. Statewide out-of-school-time organizations and others have rapidly gathered and disseminated resources and tools to aid the response of afterschool providers and coordinating entities. Some intermediary organizations have shifted to meeting immediate needs, while others have found opportunities to partner more deeply with education leaders and policymakers to help plan ways to reconfigure and rebuild afterschool services.This study gives us reason to believe that cities with coordinated afterschool programs will be in a strong position to weather these times because of their shared vision, collective wisdom, standards of quality, and ability to collect and use data to assess need and plan for the future. Not surprisingly, funding and city leadership continue to be important facilitators for building robust systems, and respondents in both new and emerging systems expressed a desire for resources related to these and other topics.

Wallace editorial team

2021-03-11T05:00:00Z

3/11/2021 4:49:54 PM

The Wallace Foundation / News and Media / Wallace Blog / Survey of Large Cities Shows Afterschool Systems Have Staying Power Authors of new report discuss why cities that

860

https://www.wallacefoundation.org/News-and-Media/Blog/Pages/Forms/AllItems.aspx

html

False

aspx

Wallace Blog Search Results

Tag Cloud

Tweets

Search Entire Site

Search Our Knowledge Center