A Good System for Children and Youth

Too often the discussions around what constitutes a comprehensive system of out-of-school time supports for children and youth revolves around data collection, accountability measures, and quality rating systems. It is important that we shift this dialogue to focus more squarely on the needs of youth, the needs of families and the needs of communities. Data and outcome measures should be a part of a system, but they should be secondary to what are really at the core of a good system for children and youth--quality youth programs and quality youth workers.

Recently, the deep structural problems with the Massachusetts state budget have become more clear. These problems, moreover, transcend the immediate and growing budget deficit that is necessitating deep and lasting cuts to critical state services. At a recent forum at The Boston Foundation, Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University and Michael Goodman of the University of Massachusetts illuminated a variety of issues that will continue to impact the state budget process in the coming years.

Between January 2008 and January 2009, Massachusetts lost about 72,000 jobs, 68,000 in the last quarter alone. The projections of the Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy are anticipating a total of about 150,000 job loses for the state before the environment improves. Driven by an increasingly tight job market and high housing prices, Massachusetts lost over 300,000 people since 2000, further reducing revenues coming into the state. Most people leaving are between 24 and 54 years old, meaning that we are a rapidly aging population that will require more expensive services in the near future. Currently, over 40% of the state budget goes to debt service and pensions, and this could rise to nearly 70% by 2018 if we do not address these problems. Moreover, the cost of state services is rapidly rising while the ability of the public to access those services and recieve value is shrinking.

As Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo has recent stated, the federal stimulus bill will not address these problems. They are too deep for the flow of stimulus money to do anything more than fill some of the gaps until that money runs out in the next two years. What does all this mean for the children and youth of the Commonwealth?

The economists and others at the forum advocated for investments in two key areas: people and place. In the view of the group we need to invest aggressively in the skills and health of the people who stay in Massachusetts and in the quality of life here. Quality environments for children and youth to learn, have fun, and develop into productive, engaged citizens are critical to the future viability of the state. Investments in youth programs stimulate economic growth in communities in a way that investing in large education systems do not. Community-based youth programs are small businesses that are traditionally the key drivers of economic growth in our country. These programs not only provide children and families valuable supports, but also provide employment opportunities for local youth and adults and a pathway not only to future employement opportunities but also higher education. They also improve the quality of life for so many residents who both need child care options and want to provide their children with enriching informal learning and positive socialization.

A good system for children and youth adds value to our communities and to our state. In includes innovative schools and innovative youth programs that are not necessarily aligned or seamless, but complimentary. A good system for children and youth would drive more resources into improving program quality and developing an effective workforce than into data systems and processes that do not address needs. A good system for children and youth recognize that outcomes are a shared responsiblity and cumulative over time. If we invest in education and healthy youth development in a way that values the diversity of supports children and youth need we will begin to see results. And these results will be more than academic achievement, they will be healthier communities, high graduation rates, lower crime rates, employment opportunities and the chance to have a voice in civic life.

A colleague who has worked with youth in Boston for many decades perhaps said it best when he noted that a good system must start with the goal "to make every minute we spend with children a good minute."

Doing More With Less?

Our programs are increasingly asked to do more with less. Again, after the Governor of MA announced the "9C cuts" (post budget cuts that are part of the state office's executive privilege), already lean programs are asked to "be creative." This is a strange request - but then, what have we come to take as normal? We put bumper stickers on our cars that exclaim, imagination a world where education has limitless funding and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy an F15! We tell our friends we wish for that to happen - but then we snicker people who try to make that happen saying they don't know how the world works. Perhaps deep down we don't want that to happen. We seem to ensure that for every 42.3 cents that go to the military that only 4.4 cents go to education, training, and social services not just one year, but each year. Do we not control over our priorities? Are these things the way that are because people actually want them that way? Perhaps we need to spend a moment and really reflect on the world that we really want not by our words alone, but by our actions and those of our extended networks. With our programs vying for those 4 cents (shared by schools, training, and social services, what are our proper investments and how does OST play a role in making those investments rather than responding time and again to cuts?

Investing in Out-of-School programs is usually cast as charity money - that old worn social services mantel that the inner cities are limitless slums and the people within them desperate and only able to provide their children with chaos and uncertainty for which OST programs are solutions to crisis after crisis. We need to rethink OST's role as neither an add-on to school nor only about intervention in cycles of abuse and poverty, but as investment in local economies. This investment is for today, and not for a distant future. This investment produces meaningful employment for young adults and integrated learning for children, the kind found less and less in Public Schools and increasingly the privilege of a private (voucher, charter, parochial, home) school.

"Children are our future" is a cliche we traditionally sell for investment in these programs. Today, we need less "future" outcomes and more delivered to our economy right now through meaningful jobs for our young adults, community foundations for working families, and quality learning environments where children get the privilege of get to have a childhood that is not tested or drilled.

Out of School Time programs can provide:
Meaningful employment for young adults
Learning experiences that move beyond homework and synthetic seamless days
Serving as micro economic redevelopment of a block or street
Making a low income area more attractive to families
Responding to community needs
Being able to influence school and community relationships

These are some potential ways programs can position themselves is they so choose to. The 9C cuts may be only the beginning of our economic hardships. The OST field must look now and really consider, what world do we want to belong to? We are already being asked by our policy makers to be more creative and true, many programs can survive or limp along using tried and true methods of funding and description of services. However, are we taking some of our own advice and "reaching for the stars"?

Perhaps it is time we answered that call with some actual creativity.

New Directions in Youth Policy

At the invitation of PPV, BOSTnet was able to attend the New Directions in Youth Policy event October 7th, 2008 in New York City. Held at the Ford Foundation (supporter of PPV), a large building reminiscent of the now-distant era of Cold War philanthropy, the agenda was dominated by the discussion of the economy. Not as you would expect the economy at hand - the financial meltdown that is occurring now and which may last for years - but the economy of youth as workers. This loss in employed youth is not a new trend, the result of video games and youtube, but a hollowing out of our economy over the past thirty years. It was proposed that young people who work at 17 are more likely to work at 18 and so on. They develop habits of mind as well as need to work in situations that get them in contact with people different from themselves - and the back room of McDonald's does not offer that socio-economic as well as skill set diversity.

Andrew Sum, Director of the Center for Labor Studies at Northeastern University and a professor at the same institution painted a bleak picture of the landscape of young people in this country. According to the data on youth, young people are struggling to achieve economic and social stability. They are failing to sustain long-term personal relationships beneficial to the economic well being of children. They are failing to learn common job skills. Life expectancy and fertility are increasingly correlated to income level in ways that haven't been since in this country.

Andrew Sum proposed that this was the result of several administrations not taking youth employment seriously and allowing the industrial economy to be replaced with, what Wilbur Toss, an older businessman interviewed on NPR's Marketplace recently said out service economy was a sham. That we cannot build the sort of level of prosperity we are accustomed to by "flipping burgers, selling scraps of papers, or suing each other." This loss of employment with low barriers to entry (not requiring degrees and certifications) that connected young people to a world of work was not the inevitability of "globalization" but a lack of policies that protected our workforce and nurtured our native economy.

This was also not an issue with recessions apparently, since the only time where the numbers of employed youth increased was for a few years during the late 1990s. Youth in the labor market have been facing trouble whether the economy is robust or recession and the past eight years have been dismal. One issue is a loss of job usually held by young people to undocumented workers. Another issue is that adult workers are increasingly needing to fill jobs once held by teens. (Not spoken about but of note is the expansion of elderly in the workforce - such as at Walmarts and the like). For teens and young adults who still want to work, few of these jobs expose young workers to skilled people, train them in marketable skills, or pay them a wage they can live on. This, Andrew Sum argues, has led to an across the board decline in living standard that is not left behind when this generation grows up but leads to a lifetime of underemployment of unemployment. Sum noted a rise in unstable single parent homes, increasing numbers of children born to proportional to the lack of income, and lower life expectancies - especially for native-born minorities.

The presentation was compelling, as it was dismal news, especially to a room of people who had worked in philanthropy for thirty years or more. However, within this great problem there is great opportunity for Out-of-School programs. More than reaching out to teach more children in need and to compensate for the shortcomings of young parents unable to provide for their off spring, Out-of-School programs can serve as a place of meaningful employment for young people and job creation so that these young workers can learn meaningful skills as they provide needed labor to programs that cannot afford to pay high wages and yet need qualified and quality people.

What are the costs of Out-of-School programs? What are some ways to maximize their benefit to communities, especially low income communities? There is usually a coordinator/director and then "direct-service" or line staff. Those Direct Service staff are paid perhaps $8.25 - $11 per hour and in some areas or programs as much as $20 per hour. The major and constant issue with staffing is employee turn over and (at least prior to the melt down) many programs have constant trouble attracting staff at all. Staff come in, work a few months and leave. In New York State these after-school employees were considered "migrant workers" the same as farm help. Very telling. This is a labor issue, and an issue of compensation but also an issue of who is the appropriate workforce. If compensation is raised too much, it may put the programs out of business since overhead will outstrip resources. If a constant drum beat is on professionalization with its certificates, degrees, and career ladders, will that actually prevent the creation of a viable workforce? Young people need meaningful employment. Out-of-School programs need low-cost quality staff for direct service. Looking at a particular segment of the population as these workers would allow for more refined approach to training and development.

Out-of-School programs, if intentionally done, can learn to market to that workforce outreach, training and technical assistance, and provide dual services - one to children and youth development, the other to economic development of communities and the youth who need to learn how to work as they learn how to do that work. (The US military looks towards a particular age group and skill level, why not OST?). Youth learn marketable skills working at an out-of-school program they may not folding shirts or waiting for the buzzer of the fry-o-later to sound. They learn critical thinking skills, problem solving, and perhaps project management if their program has a project-based learning focus. Many young people may themselves want to go into youth work as a career. Many will see adults with skills they can learn from. Trainings are no longer cattle calls trying to reach out to diverse skills and competencies (how many OST trainings include teachers of 10 years and 16 year old high school students?) but can focus on a certain level and develop and refine a language to speak to that level. Staff turn over need not be seen as a bad thing, if the staff last for the academic year. In this way, the turn over is build into the system rather than fought against. A battle that cannot be won by increasing moral, raising a low wage a few cents, printed certificates, or top heavy college degree programs.

Perhaps after-school and OST programs can serve as that job that made a difference as the programs are to make a difference to children. We need to use this crises in youth employment and see the opportunities OST can provide. Perhaps rather than another set of competencies we need come up with who we see actually doing this work now, and in the years to come.