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."

Federal Stimulus Bill Brings Opportunities and Questions

After a contentious few weeks on capital hill, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 on February 17, 2009. The legislation provides for a combination of stimulus spending and tax cuts totaling $789 billion (according to some estimates, approximately 40% of the total is tax cuts). Speaking to reporters the day after the bill was signed, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick noted that the state will receive somewhere between $6 and $9 billion in federal money. Patrick also noted that the state has limited flexibility in how these funds are used because under the provisions of the bill funds will go to “specific programs with specific purposes.”

A variety of provisions in the bill will have either a direct or indirect impact on funding for afterschool and out-of-school time services for families in Massachusetts. While the details are still unclear, the key provisions for our field include:

1. $2 Billion for Child Care and Development Block Grants (CCDBG)—The CCDBG is one of the largest funding streams for childcare subsidies, such as vouchers. According to the Massachusetts Afterschool Partnership, MA will receive approximately $24 million in these funds. This represents a 23% increase in the FY2009 allocation, to be used within the next 2-3 years:
· Over $20 million in non-targeted CCDBG funds
· Nearly $2 million in non-targeted quality improvement funds
· Over $1 million in targeted quality improvement funds for infants and toddlers
2. $2.1 billion for Head Start and Early Head Start. The Department of Early Education and Care anticipate an additional $10.1 million for Massachusetts.
3. $13 Billion for Title 1 Funds—These funds are used to support programs that improve the academic opportunities for disadvantaged and underrepresented students, including both in-school and out-of-school programs.
· MA will likely receive over $208 million for Title 1 funding
4. The Workforce Investment Act grants that support job training services will receive $1.2 billion for youth job training programs and summer employment opportunities for youth. The WIA also includes $50 million for the YouthBuild program providing at-risk youth educational and occupational experience and credentials while building affordable housing.
· MA set to receive approximately $25 million for youth job services and summer job opportunities.
5. The AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA program will receive $160 million through the stimulus bill to support existing state and national grantees and to support AmeriCorps Volunteers, many of who provide staffing for afterschool programs.
6. $53.6 billion for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds—Included in these funds are $5 billion to be coordinated by the Department of Education through state grants and a $650 innovation fund. States will also receive approximately $40 billion in Education Blog Grants.
· MA will receive approximately $813 million for education spending. This funding is targeted to make up for cuts in k-12 funding since FY2008; to fund increases in education spending based on state funding formulas; and, to make up for funding cuts to higher education since FY2008.

We will continue to keep you updated as more details become clear about how these funds will be specifically allocated. It is crucial that we remain vocal and reach out to our state leaders to ensure that funding decisions provide the most critical supports for the children and youth of Massachusetts. For more information on the state's use of ARRA funds, visit www.mass.gov/recovery

On Message

"When does the protest start tomorrow?"

This question was asked of me by program staff when I picked up my kids from afterschool on Wednesday. It was the night before many of us gathered at the State House for Advocacy Day 2009. These OST educators were ready to bring hula-hoops and whistles to make a big noise in support of community-based organizations. While I encouraged them to come and be engaged in the dialogue with their colleagues, I had to explain that it is better thought of as an opportunity to network, speak to legislators and rally together than an opportunity to protest certain policies. The question, however, does highlight some simmering tension among providers who are being asked to do much more with fewer resources. How do we tap that energy to further sound policies for children and youth across a long budget process?

With the policy season in full swing, there is a heightened awareness of an issue that can be contentious and often fraught with difficult questions—MESSAGE. What is the proper frame to move an idea or goal forward? How important is it to control that message for maximum impact? The challenge for any coalition of diverse members is keeping people engaged around a shared goal while recognizing that people have diverse opinions on how to reach that goal. In fact, part of the value of coalitions is drawing on the varied perspectives of members and utilizing the best ideas available. Any attempts to inhibit open discussion in the name of political expediency will fail to mobilize people in the strongest possible way.

To keep this dialoge moving, I would like to offer two powerful ways of talking about the value of investing in youth programs:

Youth Programs Support Heathly Youth Development
An extensive body of research shows that quality youth programs support resiliency and build developmental assets in children and youth. By providing children key supports—safe and supportive environments, caring relationships, variety of interesting enrichment activities, flexible opportunities for skill building, opportunities for youth contribution and choice, and parental involvement—OST programs help youth become empowered, set acceptable boundaries, more engaged in their community and learning, and develop positive values, social competencies and self-identity. Research in youth development has long made the connection between the extent to which children have these assets and their resiliency—the skills and behaviors necessary to cope with life’s challenges.

Youth Development is Community Development
Investing in youth is investing in healthy communities. The research is clear. Young people who participate in quality youth development programs are more likely to be engaged in their communities, vote, maintain stable personal relationships, stay employed and have a postive outlook on life. Youth programs provide employment opportunities for young people in the community who can mentor others and provide a deeper connection to community life. Youth development programs also have an explicit role in helping youth transition from dependent child to productive adult. All of these are important, measurable benefits to communities.

As a community, we need to understand that there is an objective value to supporting youth programs that are linked to outcomes that are cumulative over time and can’t be easily measured through some point-in-time assessment. We also need to continue to advocate for the unique strengths and assets that these programs bring to partnerships and collaborations with other organizations so that their work is valued and respected and that partnerships yield the best results for our children and youth. Wouldn't we tap deeper creative energy by empowering youth programs to define their own expectations for quality services based on their understanding of community needs?

Outcomes and Assessment?

In developing a presentation on out-of-school outcomes and assessment, I was amazed at the number of tools out there to measure program quality or lead to other management outcomes. These tools are too numerous to get into an in-depth discussion here, but the larger issue raised is a good one: If we are measuring, who has the authority to determine what is measured? Another follow up question may be, is that authority final, or subject to change in two, three, four years and every two or more years after?

Damned Lies and Statistics by Joel Best is a well-known work poking a few holes in our use of numbers in shaping social programs or solving societal issues. The first case tackled in the book is that of a statistic used in 1994 that claimed that every year the number of "American children who have been gunned down has doubled." Taking aside that "children" by 1994 had expanded to include 21 years old (today "youth violence" seems to include 27 years old) the number of children "gunned down" would have by that year been 35 trillion since the source of that "fact" was from 1950 and even if one child had been gunned down, that number would have grown exponentially.

So, in our popular media we cannot trust 90% of the statistics %100 of the time and for many of us, this is not a new part of life. What is related, however, to our work and the use of numbers, is how were the numbers gathered in the first place and what tools shaped which outcomes or "facts" are elevated? These assessments and the outcomes they highlight are not just exercises, they are increasingly seen as a way to merit (read fund) a program. Take for example the 21st Century Learning Center process. Programs rushed to the initial funding, altered how they structured their programs and even how they interacted with children, and then when the reapplication process came due, how many met the criteria of "exemplary"? Fewer than the initial cohort of sites, and of those achieving "exemplary" status, it is no secret that funding ends in 2010 and that this program is perhaps a ghost of the past administration.

And, these 21st Century Learning Centers were but one example of a move for increased "outcomes" and more "standards" that applied across communities and programmatic forms. Who created those assessments, and what do they hold up as examples of a quality program. It appears that in this current "free market" of ideas, we still have competing interests and attitudes vying for the Nihil Obstat of funders, the Out-of-School field, and the formal educational community that impacts and shapes an increasing amount of childrens' time.

In researching the topic of outcomes and assessment in Out-of-School Time for a future BOSTnet Roundtable, there are many questions that are being raised. Do these current tools lead to quality? What are we measuring as "quality" and does this need to reflect individual programmatic goals or are there indeed larger "systems" in place?

We will see and in the mean time, caveat emptor.

Fragmentation: Is Youth Development a Field?

Working in the field of Youth Development the strongest characteristic of the profession is fragmentation.

Organizations and individual researchers write about the unique aspects of Youth Development and then create programs that continue NCLB-style academic formats or "follow the money" to further marry Youth Development to traditional models of school.

Various voices compete to create systems of credentialing, licensing, or "systematize" the work and expecting the field to "professionalize" according to collegiate models or other professions where compensation and the type of service differ greatly (a lawyer and a youth worker may both work hard, but they don't work the same).

Consultants, trainers, and certificate programs compete and sprout up and use models and frameworks that are often presented prematurely in the rush to take small pilots "to scale" and untested ideas "national."

Funders support work inconsistently and do not make long-term investments so that many Youth Development programs have to re-cast themselves every year or jump from one pilot to another never getting past the start-up stage.

Programs do not see themselves in the same work. Program providers don't identify with each other or collaborate for funding, focus, or message. The "field" of the youth worker has more vulnerabilities than it has assets.

This does not mean that the type of work need be unified into one system. What it may require, however, is for more youth workers to look beyond their population's needs, the mission of their organization, or agenda, and see that the work of Youth Development covers diverse programs, people, and approaches from inner city child care to suburban arts enrichment and outdoor exploration. It is an umbrella that should gather together various good quality people who work with youth to develop their social and emotional well being rather than it is today - fragmented and under threat as each individual organization and program vies with the next for scarce resources. We cannot blame the policy makers for crashing around from school to after-school, from private to public monies, they cannot know the work we do if we do not articulate it well.

Is it time for an Economic Youth Development Summit?

In recent years the Out-of-School field has grown to include diverse programming from urban after-school programs for school age children to theater, arts, and community service for all ages. However, fragmentation of funding, a host of competing forces to standardize diverse programmatic approaches and a push to formalize a work force that has traditionally been permeable and reliant on local talent all threaten the existence of an increasing number of programs that work with children and youth but do so in different ways that the established school system.

This shift - currently compounded by the economic climate - has created a high-level of stress in a field that is also experiencing an identity problem. Recent cuts to state budgets has strained public funding and private foundations are seeing their endowments shrink as more nonprofits turn to them for investments. OST programs are asked to form partnerships that may not honor their particular approach to youth development. They also do not ensure the sustainability of community-based organizations as increasing attention is given to school-based solutions and a "pipeline" mentality to education and learning.

The Out-of-School Time field is increasingly asked to adopt new school-based models as it is increasingly framed against the needs of the school system rather than looking at the potential of using these diverse programs to address social needs that are today and have traditionally been outside the keen of the governmental school system. There is a wider issue of youth development that may need to supersede the uncertain identity of "after-school" and "out-of-school." Many practitioners are looking toward new research on the importance of youth development and a more integrated "whole child" approach but are locked into language that places them in competition with or in a very unequal relationship with the current educational system.

BOSTnet is proposing an Economics of Youth Development Summit to bring together the diverse field as it stands today and look ahead to how these programs and organizations can survive in the future. The field of Youth Development must create dialogue as well as lead to new ways of elevating the work many organizations have developed after a century of practice.

Perhaps the outcome of this could be a stronger platform and an energized support network that honors social-emotional work, informal learning, and community development.

More Time (and Money) for Youth Development

For those of us who attended the recent conference on Expanded Learning Time sponsored by Massachusetts 2020, one message was made very clear. Schools need more time to foster high impact student learning. While I am not going to debate the rationale of that here, it did get me thinking about youth development.

My son entered Boston Public Schools in first grade and from that time has participated in a youth arts program for about 15 hours a week. This program has a very intentional mission to promote positive adult-child relationships, positive self-identity, creative expression and community/cultural awareness. It has a project-based structure that is based on 9-week classes that ends with a performance week where kids and parents enjoy the outcomes of every class. Each week my son gets to take extra classes on book making, video-production, theater and creative arts, tree-house design, swimming, basketball, etc. Over the course of a regular school year, he gets over 500 hours of informal learning and positive youth development. At the end of this year, he will have had more than 2100 extra hours of support, equal to 2 FULL YEARS OF SCHOOL.

The social and academic impact on my son has been amazing. The staff is dedicated to a vision of inspiring children and providing them the opportunity to explore who they are as individuals. They do this, often, through force of will. Like all programs they experience high staff turnover and are constantly struggling to find resources to pay salaries, rent and utilities. Staff are young and from the community, but all share a very creative outlook on life that they bring to the program and the children who take part. It is an inclusive program that often works with children that have both physical and cognitive disabilities, including turrets syndrome, ADHD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. They do this primarily through patience, family engagement, and an inherent sense of community responsibility because they do not receive additional support to work with special needs children. Yet, they are very successful. The program is licensed by the EEC to serve 45 children (K-5) and enrollment is generally about 50/50 between families with vouchers and families who pay tuition out-of-pocket.

Programs like this one are extraordinarily valuable to communities and youth. They provide the time and the kind of community-based support that fosters healthy youth development and academic success. If a child is fortunate enough to participate in these types of programs from the time they are in first grade until they graduate they will receive additional learning and enrichment equal to over 7 years of school. Now that is amazing!

While few of us would argue that many students and many schools can and will improve under an expanded learning time initiative, let us not forget the hundreds of youth development programs in the city of Boston that already do this work. Lets create new streams of funding to support these programs that are not tied to the education system and their incessant need for accountability. Lets understand that learning is a collective community value and responsibility and we need a mixed system that supports both schools and community-based organizations. There is an objective value in supporting safe, supportive and engaging opportunities for children and youth that are not tied to outcome measures dictated by tests or standards. As many of our current funding streams align more closely with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, programs that foster healthy youth development are becoming more vulnerable.