The State of afterschool

The Rise of America’s Afterschool Program

​The past decade has featured a steady increase in afterschool programs, as more students take advantage of the opportunities and educational activities that these programs have to offer. This increase was highlighted in the recent edition of the America After 3pm study, a decade of data chronicling how children spend the hours between 3 and 6 p.m. Since 2004, the Afterschool Alliance has facilitated the study, which has provided an extensive account of afterschool participation at both a national and state level. While also detailing the level of parent satisfaction with afterschool programs; barriers to participation; and disparities in both by income, race, ethnicity and community type.1

 
 
National Participation in Afterschool Programs

2014
10.2 million children (18%)

2009
8.4 million children (15%)

2004
6.5 million children (11%)

 
 
                                        
The findings indicated that overall participation in afterschool programs increased by nearly 60 percent over the past 10 years, with nearly 4 million more children in afterschool programs. This spike in participation is fostered by the great benefits associated with consistent participation in afterschool programs. Auger, Pierce & Vandell’s research outlines the benefits, as well as consequences linked to unstructured afterschool time with peers.2  

This spike in participation includes high levels of parent satisfaction. In 2014, 89 percent of parents are satisfied with their afterschool program, a similar rate to the 89 percent documented in 2009 and the 91 percent in 2004. These high levels of satisfaction also feature a steady increase in the parental beliefs about the quality of afterschool programs. For instance, satisfaction with the quality of care increased nine points, from 79 percent in 2009 to 88 percent in 2014; satisfaction with homework assistance increased 16 points, from 64 percent in 2009 to 80 percent in 2014.
Despite the sizeable gains in afterschool participation and program quality, the number of children unsupervised during afterschool hours remains high. In 2014, 11.3 million children were without supervision between the hours of 3 and 6 p.m. The total was down from 2009 and 2004 figures, but 1 in 5 children still do not have someone to care for them after school.3  
 
Unsupervised During Afterschool Hours

2014
11.3 million children

2009
15.1 million children

2004
14.3 million children

 
 
 
The unsupervised figures are accentuated by the unmet demand for afterschool programs, a figure that continues to rise throughout America. In 2004, the parents of 15.3 million children indicated that they would enroll their child in an afterschool program if one were available, but in 2014 that number increased to 19.4 million children. Consequently, this unmet demand underscores the troubling trend of limited availability and access to after school programs - for every child in an afterschool program, approximately two more children would be enrolled if a program were available to them.

The impact of the limited availability and accessibility is felt most by working parents, an impact that was also documented in the America After 3pm study. When parents with a child in an afterschool program were asked if afterschool programs helped working parents keep their jobs, 83 percent of parents agreed, with 55 percent completely agreed, and only 3 percent of parents disagreed. These figures included 85 percent of these parents agreeing that afterschool programs give working parents a peace of mind about their children when they are at work. Peace of mind is a growing need among the parents that struggle with the expansion of American work week.
This expansion was recently spotlighted by a Gallup study that indicated adults working full time in United States are working an average of 47 hours per week. The seven hour expansion is almost a full workday longer than what the standard five -day, 40-hour work week use to entail. The expansion includes half of all full-time workers indicating that they typically work more than 40 hours, and nearly 40 percent working more than 50 hours. Another factor in the expansion is individuals’ taking on more than one job, with 12% of full time workers have two jobs and 1% having three or more.4 The expansion of the American work week coincides with the expansion afterschool participation. Since these programs give parents a peace of mind knowing that their kids are safe and staying out of trouble.     

 
State of the State
America After 3PM also revealed that 115,540 children (15%) in Louisiana participate in an afterschool program, and 91% of Louisiana’s parents satisfied with their child’s afterschool program. Louisiana’s satisfaction rate was two points above the national average and 79% of Louisiana parents agree that afterschool programs help reduce the likelihood of youth engaging in risky behaviors, such as committing a crime or using drugs. However, 147,333 of Louisiana’s school‐age children (19%) are alone and unsupervised during the afterschool hours.5  
19 % of Louisiana children were unsupervised afterschool in 2014     for an average of 5.7 hours per week.

The unsupervised percentage is underscored by the crime statistics displayed in Crime in Louisiana 2012. The publication is a product of the Louisiana Uniform Crime Reporting Program, a joint publication of the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement, the Administration of Criminal Justice, and the Louisiana Sheriff’s Association. The report features a variety of tables and charts that exhibit where Louisiana ranks compared to the rest of the states in the nation. These rankings are based on crime rates not complete numbers of actual crimes.6
Louisiana’s National Crime Rankings
National Crime Index Totals

2010
Rank
2010 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2011
Rank
2011 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2012
Rank
2012 Crime Rate
per 100,000

4
4,002.1
3
4,238.5
4
4,037.5

 
Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Totals

2010
Rank
2010 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2011
Rank
2011 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2012
Rank
2012 Crime Rate
per 100,000

1
11.0
1
11.1
1
10.8

 
Larceny and Theft Totals

2010
Rank
2010 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2011
Rank
2011 Crime Rate
per 100,000
2012
Rank
2012 Crime Rate
per 100,000

5
2,425.8
2
2,473.9
2
2,435.7

 
Even though these totals include all juvenile and adult crimes, a comparison of the 2009 and 2013 reports demonstrate significant increases in a variety of juvenile crime categories. Crime in Louisiana 2013 does not include national crime index totals, but the publication does include in Louisiana’s juvenile crime statistics.  These statistics are compared with the juvenile crime statistics presented Crime in Louisiana 2009.7,8  
Juvenile Crime in Louisiana
Under 18
Total All
Classes1
Violent
Crime2
Property Crime3
 
Rape4 
Aggravated
Assault

2010
16,582
1,438
4,336
34
1,167

2013
16,666
1,122
4,274
65
867

                      
Under 18
Other
  Assaults5
 
Burglary
Motor Vehicle Theft
 
Arson
Weapons;
Carrying

2010
3,159
855
145
31
233

2013
3,337
854
234
36
266

 
Under 18
Sex
Offenses6
Drug Abuse Violations
 
Gambling
 
Drunkenness
Disorderly
Conduct

2010
86
1,480
8
21
1,765

2013
129
1,603
47
35
2,168

      1 Does not include traffic arrests.
                         2 Violent crimes are offenses of murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
3 Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
4 The rape figures are an aggregate total of the data submitted using the revised and legacy Crime Report Definitions.
5 Other assaults are unlawful physical attacks where neither the offender nor the victim displays a weapon.
6 Sex offense figures in this table exclude forcible rape and prostitution.
Despite reductions in total number of violent crimes and property crimes, the comparison presents significant increases in an array of juvenile crime categories, including disorderly conduct, drug abuse violations, gambling, motor vehicle theft, rape, other assaults, sex offenses, and weapon charges. These statistics highlight the growing demand for quality afterschool programs, since these programs address the peak period for juvenile crime.
According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), juvenile violent crime peaks between the 4-hour time period of 3pm – 7pm. This trend is displayed below in the OJJDP’s graph, which consists of law enforcement data from 35 states and the District of Columbia. The OJJDP explains that the peak period is limited to the 180 days of the school year, while the juvenile curfew period of 8 hours is every day of the year - four times greater than the juvenile crime period presented. Therefore, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the peak period is 5 times the rate of the curfew period (inclusive of both school and non-school days).9 

Juvenile crime reduction has always been a target of afterschool programs, a goal that pervaded the report - Safe and Smart:  Making the After-School Hours Work for Kids (1998). The report was jointly authored by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice, and indicated that children are less likely to commit crimes or to be victimized in communities through participation in comprehensive afterschool programs. The report added that school-age children and teens who are unsupervised during the hours after school are far more likely to use alcohol, drugs, and tobacco; engage in criminal and other high-risk behaviors; receive poor grades; display more behavior problems; and drop out of school than those children who have the opportunity to benefit from high quality afterschool programs.10   
Safe and Smart also addressed the budding anxiety of American parents, worrying about whether their children are safe, and whether they are susceptible to drugs and crime afterschool.  The anxiety was similar to the current trend, with the expansion of the American work week fostering afterschool angst among working families. The nation’s working patterns drastically changed between the 1970s and 1990s, and these changes cultivated a growing support for afterschool, which culminated in the creation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act (21st CCLC).
21st CCLC
 The federal grant program was initiated in 1994 by a group of Republican congressman: Senators Jim Jeffords of Vermont and Orrin Hatch of Utah; and Representatives Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin and William Goodling of Pennsylvania. The 21st CCLC initially appropriated $750,000 for federal grants that open up schools for broader use in the communities including “projects that benefit the educational, health, social service, cultural and recreational needs of a rural or inner city community” (as cited in Philips, 2010, p. 28). Four years later, President Clinton announced a fivefold expansion of the 21st CCLC, declaring that he would request $200 million for the program in his budget for the next five years.11    
In 2001, the federal budget for the 21st CLCC was $845.6 million and the bipartisan support continued under President Bush, with his authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The act was a centerpiece of his educational agenda, and authorized annual increases of $250 million over the next six years, eventually reaching a funding level of $2.5 billion. NCLB also opened up the grant process to include community based and faith based organizations, while placing a greater emphasis on improving student achievement.12  
Today, the 21st CCLC is the only federal funding source dedicated solely to after-school programs. The program currently provides 1.15 billion in after school funding, but President Obama recently proposed a $167 million cut.13 Despite the successful gains in academic and behavioral outcomes for youth in afterschool programs, funding for Louisiana’s afterschool programs are often neglected to fill budget holes or redirect state funding. Ironically, afterschool programs offer cost effective solutions to many of the adolescent problems that plague the state’s budget, including grade retention and juvenile detention costs.
Cost Benefit Analysis
According to the Louisiana Center for Children's Rights, the state’s juvenile prisons spend $419 a day to hold a youth in secure custody. This is a staggering figure when compared to the daily afterschool cost of $9 per participant – One week in juvenile detention is more than one year in a quality afterschool program. Another fiscal component involves a retention rate that continues to plaque Louisiana’s education system. Nearly 15% of students who enter Louisiana high schools drop out, with each student costing the state $10,500 a year in grade retention. Yet quality afterschool school programs address the root of these problems at a fraction of the cost - $1,500 per year.
According to John Hopkins University, students with the greatest risk for academic failure show significant gains in afterschool programs. These gains include increases in school attendance and reductions in behavior incidents and suspension, primary factors that contribute to the drop-out rate and grade retention costs, and their research contends that two-thirds of the achievement gap between lower- and higher-income youth can be explained by unequal access to afterschool opportunities. The achievement gap also features a variety of other costs that encompass the strong return on investment for afterschool programs.

 
These costs are outlined on the following page and combine for a $9 dollar return on every dollar invested in afterschool program.17 These cost effective solutions are fostered by data-driven programs, a quality based framework that is championed by the Louisiana Center for Afterschool Leaning (LACAL). The organization facilitates a statewide network that is focused on improving afterschool programs through quality standards and measurements tools. Both have been focal points of the Louisiana Program Quality Initiative (LAPQI), a collaboration between LACAL, the Dallas Afterschool Network and the Louisiana Department of Education.
In 2014, the LAPQI established a quality improvement system designed around the nation’s best practices for afterschool. The quality framework supported is through of coaching, training, curriculum and other resources. These resources include the LAPQI tool kit, which prescribes a series of benchmarks for each best practice. The LAPQI has infused Louisiana’s afterschool community with high-quality materials, and the initiative is an essential part of the policy recommendations outlined in the following section.  
Recommendations
​
More Participation and More Achievement
            Currently, 325,780 kids in Louisiana are eligible to participate in a 21st CCLC program, but just 22,316 students attend a 21st CCLC program. Participation is often hindered by the cost per child, as 21st CLCC programs struggle with the required cost of $1,500 per participant. However, many of Louisiana’s high quality programs offer a variety academic enrichment that requires additional funding. LACAL is working with these quality based programs to leverage additional resources, which stimulates afterschool participation and academic achievement. Municipal coalitions are essential part of the strategy, with collaborations recently established in Alexandria, Baton Rouge, Monroe, and Shreveport.   
A Stronger Field
The after school field is filled with people that have an intuitive sense for helping kids overcome their disadvantages. The field is also plagued by high staff retention rates, with programs having few resources to support development of these key staff members. LACAL is working with Louisiana Tech University to establish a professional credential system. The twelve credit credential includes four colleges course designed for those interested in working in after-school programs with school-age children.  The credential program will start in the fall of 2016 and open Louisiana’s program directors’ minds to the range of best practices for afterschool hours.
Broader Support for the Concept
            After school is more than a time to nurture the intellectual, physical, and social/emotional development of Louisiana’s youth. A quality afterschool program is a cost effective solution to the staggering costs of juvenile detention and grade retention. This cost-benefit analysis nurtured the development of a quality afterschool program in Pineville, Louisiana. In 2010, the city invested $75,000 for starting an afterschool program at the Pineville Youth Center. The project was led by Mayor Clarence Fields, who championed the cost-benefit perspective of afterschool programs. Today, the program has expanded well beyond initial investment and offers a variety of academic enrichment opportunities to 94 students from the Pineville area. Cost-benefit analysis is the focus of most mayors in Louisiana, and afterschool programs offer a variety of solutions that might peak that might peak their interest.   
Protecting Existing Resources
LACAL is working to establish after-programming as something Louisiana policymakers should seriously consider by creating a model for effective and affordable programs, evaluating them rigorously, and advocating for them tirelessly. U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy is one these policymakers and his leadership recently preserved the dedicated funding for the 21st CLCC. Last year, the 21st CLCC funding requirements were removed from the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  The legislation would have created problems funding issues similar to the ones documented the CBPP, including the possibility of 21st CLCC funding being redirected to fill budget holes in the Louisiana government.
Nevertheless, Senator Cassidy worked with Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and the funding requirements for 21st CLCC were put back into the reauthorization. This vote was a huge victory for Louisiana’s children and families, since the 21st CLCC is the only source of government funding for afterschool programs in the state. LACAL is working with other policymakers to protect the investment in 21st CCLC programs. An investment that supports working families and ensures children from  low‐performing schools have access to a safe and supervised space, while also keeping kids involved in interest‐driven academic enrichment activities that put them on the road to become lifelong learners.
 
End Notes

1. Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand. Washington, D.C.
   
2. Auger, A., Pierce, K. M., and Vandell, D. L. (April, 2013).  Participation in Out of School Settings and Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
3. Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand. Washington, D.C.
   
4. Saad, L. (2014). The "40-Hour" Workweek Is Actually Longer -- by Seven Hours. Gallup: Washington, D.C.
5. Afterschool Alliance. (2014). America After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand. Washington, D.C.
6. Louisiana Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2014). Crime in Louisiana 2012. Baton Rouge, LA.
7. Louisiana Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2012). Crime in Louisiana 2010. Baton Rouge, LA.
8. Louisiana Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2015). Crime in Louisiana 2013. Baton Rouge, LA.
   
9. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Washington, D.C.
   
10. U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice (1998). Safe and Smart:  Making the After-School Hours Work for Kids. Washington, D.C.
    
11. 11.  Phillips, S. F. (2010). "Honoring 15 years of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program." Afterschool Matters, 28.
    
12. Gayl, C. L. (2010). After School Programs: Expanding Access and Ensuring Quality. Progressive Policy Institute: Washington, D.C.
    
13. Barr, S. (February 10, 2016). “Leading After-school Group Disappointed by Obama Budget” Youth today.
    
14. Fashola, O. K. (2015). Review of Extended-Day and After-School Programs and Thier Effectiveness. John Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD