![[NCCIC header image]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090109091221im_/http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/assets/images/template/baby.jpg "Image of baby")
![[NCCIC Header Image]](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090109091221im_/http://nccic.acf.hhs.gov/assets/images/template/children_right.jpg "Image of seven children, including school-age children and a toddler")
Issue 29—Summer 2005
Administration Focuses on Positive Youth Development
Contents
- Administration Focuses on Positive Youth Development
- After-School Programs that Promote Positive Youth Development
- Youth Development Ideas and Approaches
- Child Care and Youth Development: Considerations from Research
- Building and Sustaining Citywide After-School Initiatives
- Youth Development in Practice
- Staffing and Professional Development in Programs Serving School-Age Children
- Afterschool Alliance's Lights On Afterschool! Event Rallies Communities across the United States
- The National Center for Education Statistics Provides Data on After-School Care
- California's After-School Program: Fighting Crime by Investing in Kids
- States with Separate Center School-Age Care Licensing Regulations
- Positive Youth Development Programs Thrive at the Department of Defense
- Selected Resources on Positive Youth Development
Administration Focuses on Positive Youth Development
Positive youth development is one of several key national priorities defined by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). Rather than tie positive youth development to a set of activities or program type, ACF's Family and Youth Services Bureau defines positive youth development as "an approach toward all youth that builds on their assets and their potential and helps counter the problems that may affect them." Key elements of this approach include:
- Providing youth with safe and supportive environments;
- Fostering relationships between young people and caring adults who can mentor and guide them;
- Creating opportunities for youth to pursue their interests and discover their strengths;
- Supporting youth in developing their knowledge and skills in a variety of ways, including studying, tutoring, sports, the arts, vocational education, and service awareness;
- Engaging youth as active partners and leaders who can help move communities forward;
- Offering opportunities for youth to demonstrate that they care about others and about society;
- Promoting healthy lifestyles and teaching positive patterns of social interaction; and
- Providing a safety net in times of need.
The positive youth development approach emphasizes fully preparing young people to succeed and contribute now and as adults, rather than focusing simply on ensuring that young people are not engaged in risky behaviors. Nonetheless, reducing risk and avoiding problems are often outcomes of developmentally focused programs.
In this issue of the Child Care Bulletin, leaders in the child care, out-of-school time, and youth development fields take a look at how the positive youth development approach intersects with quality child care and out-of-school time programs. This newsletter provides an overview of positive youth development, discussions of Federal, State, and local initiatives designed to support this approach, a summary of research on the topic, articles from organizations working to ensure that young people have greater access to out-of-school time programs, and information about the Child Care Bureau-funded technical assistance initiative, The Afterschool Investments Project.
After-School Programs that Promote Positive Youth Development
By Sharon Deich and Cheryl Hayes, The Finance Project
Young people are developing in an increasingly complex and risky world. Millions of young people grow up in communities that offer them little support for healthy development. Many receive little or no adult guidance, and many face the threat of physical harm in their own neighborhoods. Youth are maturing at earlier ages, and many are engaging in risky behaviors at younger ages. The demands on youth have also increased. For example, to be successful in an information-based economy, adolescents now must acquire different and expanded sets of skills than they needed in earlier eras.
Youth development programs support young people in meeting the challenges of adolescence and adulthood through activities and experiences that help them to become socially, morally, emotionally, physically, and cognitively competent. Effective programs integrate the needs and resources of family, peers, and communities; and they enhance adult and youth interaction through activities such as mentoring, workbased learning, and community service. The positive youth development approach is a dramatic departure from the after-school programming of the past, which principally aimed to "keep kids off the streets."
Over the past decade, a growing body of research has highlighted the importance of supports and opportunities for healthy youth development. In addition to fundamental literacy and numeracy competencies, this includes helping young people develop social skills, independent decision-making abilities, career aspirations, and a "sense of self."
Out-of-school time (OST) programs offer important opportunities to support positive youth development. The following examples illustrate how youth development strategies are being employed by a growing number of publicly funded initiatives.
Federal Programs
At the Federal level, the following programs demonstrate a broad commitment to youth development in agencies that range from Education and Health and Human Services to Justice and Agriculture.
Department of Health and Human Services
- Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF): CCDF provides child care subsidies to low-income children. CCDF also supports initiatives to build the supply and quality of programs for preschoolers and school-age children alike. Many States use these flexible "quality" dollars to train providers, including after-school providers, to develop and implement curricula that embrace a range of enriching activities to support the intellectual, social, and emotional growth of children and youth.
- Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF): TANF provides supports and services for low-income families transitioning from welfare to work. Given the broad mandate of the program, many States have used a portion of their TANF allocation to support OST programs to keep children safe while parents work and to prevent teen pregnancy. In Illinois, for example, TANF funded the Teen Reach program, an after-school youth development initiative. The program has been so successful that it is now operating Statewide and is a part of the State budget.
Department of Education
- 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21CCLC): The 21CCLC program is the largest Federal investment solely focused on OST with more than 6,800 urban and rural programs now receiving support. This block grant program requires schools and community organizations to work together to deliver literacy education, recreational and cultural programs, parenting education, schoolbased nutrition, health programs, child care, and technology education. In many of these programs, especially those focused on middle and high school students, youth are engaged in designing, implementing, and evaluating the local programs.
- Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative: This program provides discretionary grant funding to partnerships that include local education agencies, local mental health authorities, local law enforcement agencies, juvenile justice officials, family members, and students to support programs to promote healthy development and prevent violent behavior. With its core mission of involving youth in positive activities, Safe Schools/Healthy Students is a model youth development effort.
Department of Justice
- Weed and Seed: This program aims to "weed out" violent crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods and "seed" the community through social and economic revitalization. Funds are often used for programs that provide a "safe haven" for youth and discourage gang activity through participation in alternative activities that support healthy growth and development. According to the Department of Justice, there were more than 270 recognized sites in 2004.
Corporation for National and Community Service
- AmeriCorps: This community program provides service-learning opportunities for youth, including service in OST programs in low-income and disadvantaged communities. Young people benefit from participating in civic activities, and OST programs benefit from the staff support received from program volunteers.
Department of Agriculture
- Cooperative Extension Service-4-H Youth Development Program: This program has provided youth development opportunities for more than 100 years. Today it supports youth activities, including OST programs in rural and urban communities.
State and Local Programs
Many States and localities have also created new OST programs that reflect an emphasis on youth development. Some of these programs are funded with block grants from the Federal government, and others are funded with State and city funds.
- In New Mexico, the Human Services Department, in conjunction with the Public Education Department, allocates a portion of Federal TANF block grant funds to the School Age Care and Family Support Program. The program, which totaled $2.4 million in Fiscal Year 2003, provides academic enrichment and arts and recreation activities to students ages 5 to 8 whose parents are in the New Mexico Works/TANF program. Started in 1999, the program serves more than 3,000 students at 70 sites before and after school and during summers and holidays.
- After School Alabama, an initiative started by the Governor's
Office, provides technical assistance to community
groups and organizations in Alabama that seek to
maintain or establish quality extra learning opportunities
for students. This program provides staff development
to enhance learning opportunities outside of the classroom.
After School Alabama has counted approximately
600 programs, and provides technical assistance to
those who seek it on a first-come, first-served basis.
Cities, too, are taking steps to increase the availability and quality of OST programs. Supported by a combination of public and private-sector resources, cities including Baltimore, Boston, Denver, New York, San Diego, and Spokane, Washington, are working to create universal municipal after-school care systems that embrace youth development principles and philosophies. - In Sacramento, after-school programming is at the top of the mayor's agenda. In several recent community meetings, the public also highlighted after-school programs as a priority. Sacramento's comprehensive approach has brought together a new coalition of advocates that includes youth service providers, child care workers, school officials, and others to tie together a range of services that support academic achievement and school safety and reduce juvenile crime and teen pregnancy.
- In metropolitan Kansas City, which serves approximately
73,000 children and youth through school-based
and other OST programs, policy-makers and program developers
are striving to infuse positive youth development
approaches and principles into after-school programs. Fueled
in large part by an investment of Federal child care
dollars and other public and private investments, the Local
Investment Commission is seeking to create a citywide
comprehensive after-school program.
These examples demonstrate the broad commitment of the government at all levels to after-school programming and the positive youth development approach. Private funders, including the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The Wallace Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have also made significant contributions to these efforts.
| For additional information, contact The Finance Project at 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005; Phone: 202-587-1000; Fax: 202-628-4205; or on the Web at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/ost/. |
Youth Development Ideas and Approaches
By Karen Pittman, Alicia Wilson-Ahlstrom, and Nicole Yohalem, The Forum for Youth Investment
| The goal of an assets-based approach is to locate and work with resources and capacities that already exist in a given community. This differs from a needs-based approach, which focuses on what communities need and seeks to connect them with outside resources. |
The term "youth development" is used in many ways, but it is used primarily to describe a developmental stage-the complex period occurring roughly during the second decade of life. It also describes an assets-based approach to working with young people and a specific set of programs or organizations, primarily those focused on supporting youth during the non-school hours. Youth development principles and practices, however, are relevant in any setting that works with young people. Likewise, youth development principles and practices align closely with developmentally appropriate practices for working with young children. Behind the various uses of the term "youth development" is a set of linked ideas about the who, what, when, where, why, and how of development. Together, these ideas describe a deliberate approach to working with young people that many people and organizations have described. Most, if not all, share a commitment to push beyond current thinking about what outcomes, inputs, settings, strategies, and actors are needed to help young people address problems, build skills, and pursue opportunities for learning, work, and contribution. Many of these ideas can be summed up as follows:
|
||
|
- Problem free is not fully prepared. We cannot afford to define what we want for young people solely in terms of what we do not want them to do-for example, staying out of trouble, off drugs, and off the streets. We should be as articulate about the attitudes, skills, behaviors, and values we want young people to have as we are about those we hope they avoid (see Figure 1).
- Fully prepared is not fully engaged. Young people do not wait until adulthood to engage in work, family, community, and a range of other settings. Just as it is not enough to define all our goals for young people in terms of problems avoided, it is not enough to say that we want young people "ready by 21." Our hopes for young people should include active engagement in the here and now.
- Academic competence, while critical, is not enough. Cognitive development is absolutely essential for full preparation. But in the drive for academic achievement, other key areas of development can be overlooked. Understanding the connections between them, we must demonstrate respect for development in a range of key domains-vocational, social, physical, civic, and emotional (see "Basic Functional Areas"-Figure 2).
- Competence itself, while critical, is not enough. We have to underscore that competence (skills, knowledge, behaviors) is only one measure of success. Young people can be good at certain tasks and know a great deal, but still lack what it takes to be good citizens, workers, family members, and human beings. Confidence, character, connection, and contribution are key outcomes-along with competence-that affect young people's overall ability to function (see "Desired Outcomes"-Figure 2).
- Services alone are not enough. Young people need affordable, accessible care and services (e.g., health and transportation), safe and stable environments, and high-quality instruction and training. But they also need supports-relationships and networks that provide nurturing, standards, and guidance. And they need opportunities to learn, earn, and contribute by trying new roles, mastering challenges, and actively participating in family and community (see "Key Inputs"-Figure 2).
- Programs alone are not enough. Young people do
not grow up in programs. They grow up in families and
communities composed of a range of formal and informal
settings for learning and development. Programs
are critical, but they are offered within a broader context
of intentional and natural supports or barriers found in
multiple settings. This means creating pathways that link
experiences and settings that might otherwise seem disconnected
into part of a single developmental process.
The National Research Council (NRC) placed an important seal of approval on the ideas and practices described above, which advocates and practitioners have been talking about and implementing for years. Its volume titled Community Programs to Promote Youth Development (2002) provides a tremendous boost to discussions about what young people need and the characteristics of settings that support their positive development.
The NRC authors undertook a thorough, interdisciplinary synthesis of the literature about what specific characteristics-regardless of setting-support the development of social and personal assets in young people. NRC's list of features, gleaning the best of what is known from a cluster of related fields, mirrors and expands on our list of key inputs (see text box below).
Applying Positive Development Features across Age Ranges
Both 6-year-olds and 16-year-olds benefit from and thrive in environments that support these features. The key to effective practice lies in making these features age-appropriate when implemented along the developmental continuum. For example, the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation demonstrates how the same basic approach to supporting learning and development plays out across age ranges. And a Michigan-based program illustrates how active learning can take place when young people are given the opportunity to produce music.
High/Scope's learning framework breaks down key elements of effective practice at the program implementation level. The elements of choice, active learning, intentional group structuring, encouragement, and a learning cycle called plan-do-review form the fabric of the approach for preschoolers, elementary-age children, and older youth. The concept of "age-appropriateness" lies not in a major reorganization of this framework, but rather in implementing these strategies in developmentally responsive ways as young people mature. For example, active learning-a core practice in High/Scope's framework-is applied in programs for young children and teens. In an early childhood setting, children may hear a story about going camping. Afterward, the children have an opportunity to learn and think more about the subject by exploring a real tent and camping supplies that have been set up in the room. The children make up their own stories about camping that they tell to their peers or adults.
|
The Neutral Zone, a youth program in Ann Arbor, Michigan, provides opportunities for active learning through Youth Owned Records (YOR), a music production program for teens. In YOR, teens are responsible for the music, technical work, production, and promotion of the label and CDs produced through the center. They work alongside adults in the industry to gain skills and to improve and maintain the quality of what they produce, learning about all aspects of the music industry while gaining specific skills in particular areas of interest. At both ends of the spectrum, the principles of active learning are in place-hands-on activities, adult support for learning, interest-based inquiry and exploration, knowledge development, and tangible outcomes or products.
While the links between child development and youth development are evident, policy does not always consistently follow. As youth development advocates, we need to embrace early and sustained investments in young people. Recognizing the synergy in the work we do across the ages is a critical step in achieving alignment and strengthening supports for children and youth.
References
Council of Chief State School Officers & The Forum for Youth Investment.
(2001). Students continually learning: A report of presentations, student voices
and state actions. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
The National Research Council & The Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community
programs to promote youth development (J. Eccles & J.A. Gootman,
Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Tolman, J., Pittman, K., Yohalem, N., Thomases, J., & Trammel, M. (2002).
Moving an out-of-school agenda: Lessons and challenges across cities. Takoma
Park, MD: The Forum for Youth Investment.
| For additional information, contact The Forum for Youth Investment at The Cady-Lee House, 7064 Eastern Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20012; Phone: 202-207-3333; Fax: 202-207-3329; E-mail: youth@forumforyouthinvestment.org; or on the Web at http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org. |
Child Care and Youth Development: Considerations from Research
Child Care & Early Education Research Connections
In the United States, nearly three-quarters of mothers of school-age children are employed full time. In the last decade, attention has turned increasingly to the programmatic needs of older school-age children, especially those with working parents. At the heart of this shift is the recognition that children nearing adolescence have distinct developmental capacities, vulnerabilities, and needs. Accordingly, efforts are underway to understand developmental processes that define the transition from childhood to adolescence and to develop more effective ways to support young people in their growth toward social, ethical, emotional, physical, and cognitive competence.
There are many research issues in this arena, beginning with how to describe the boundaries between school-age child care and youth development programs. The goals of child care programs that serve children in the early elementary years often overlap with those of programs designed for older youth. Individual programs may be included under either category or both, depending on how terms are defined. Where does "early childhood" leave off and "youth development" begin? Many experts argue that there should not be a clear division in programming based on these distinctions. Rather, it is important to look carefully at the characteristics of particular programs and ages of children being served because the needs of a 6-year-old are very different from those of a 9-year-old, a 12-year-old, or a 15-year-old. Social, economic, and cultural factors also play a role.
Good Programs Make a Difference in Youth Development
Experts emphasize that programs for middle school children must take into account their particular needs. Young teens must cope simultaneously with physical, cognitive, and emotional changes, and they have a growing need for room to make decisions as they prepare for their future independence.
Can after-school programs help them? A number of programs that serve children when they are not in school have been evaluated in recent years. According to a 1999 edition of the Future of Children journal, "young teens who attend after-school activities achieve higher grades in school and engage in less risky behavior. Because these programs are voluntary, however, participants are likely to be among the more motivated youngsters in a given population" (The Center for the Future of Children, 1999).
Research and evaluation studies that include experimental designs can help isolate the effects of a program by randomly assigning children to engage in a program or not, thereby randomly distributing the influence of other variables such as bias due to children's selective participation or motivation to learn. A number of recent research efforts have looked across program evaluations to summarize their results. Although many research studies look across programs for both younger and older adolescents and do not necessarily discuss program outcomes related for middle school children, they do conclude that programs for youth can facilitate positive youth outcomes. For instance, in a review of program evaluations, the National Academy of Sciences reports that these outcomes include "motivation, academic performance, self-esteem, problem-solving abilities, positive health decisions, interpersonal skills, and parent-child relationships" as well as a decrease in a wide range of problem behaviors (The National Research Council & The Institute of Medicine, 2002).
In 2002, Child Trends synthesized findings from 12 experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of programs, with seven of them serving elementary and middle school students (Redd, Cochran, Hair, & Moore, 2002). While the particular focus of the synthesis was on the effect of these programs on school achievement, many of the programs were designed with the broader goal of enhancing youth development. The authors concluded that "programs can improve educational outcomes for young people who participate in them, although there is great variability across programs and outcomes." The Child Trends synthesis indicated that a few programs also yielded improved social and emotional development, health, and self-sufficiency as well, but these results were much more mixed.
Other research has produced mixed results as well. First-year findings of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers national evaluation indicated that "while 21st-Century after-school centers changed where and with whom students spent some of their after-school time and increased parental involvement, they had limited influence on academic performance, no influence on feelings of safety or on the number of 'latchkey' children and some negative influences on behavior" (Dynarski et al., 2003). Though generally consistent with first-year findings, findings in the second year differed in some respects. For middle school students, second-year evidence on negative behavior was mixed, while elementary school children showed no negative influences on behavior and felt safer (Dynarski, James-Burdumy, Moore, Rosenberg, Deke, & Mansfield, 2004).
As with child care programs serving other age groups, the quality of a particular program is key to enhancing positive outcomes. While many of the evaluations indicate the overall program's effects on children, they have been much less useful for identifying the particular program components that are most effective. The National Research Council (see pp. 4-5) summed up common features of programs that result in positive outcomes (The National Research Council & The Institute of Medicine, 2002).
In addition, to shed light on model practices, a group of RAND Corporation researchers systematically assessed all published research literature to identify model practices for after-school care (RAND, 2001). They reinforced the understanding that hiring and retaining educated staff, and providing adequate compensation and training appeared to be important. Among the many program components that the literature indicated were important, those with the strongest research support included ensuring that the program was flexible, establishing and maintaining a favorable emotional climate, and providing a sufficient variety of activities. The researchers also stressed the importance of involving families, communitybased organizations, and volunteers.
Other evaluations have examined issues in program implementation or point to possible outcomes for children and youth that might be supported by future research. For example, the Harvard Family Research Project's Out of School Time Program Evaluation Database (see p. 13) provides information about evaluation work of both large and small out-of-school time programs and initiatives.
Many Older Children Do Not Attend Programs
Although it appears that a program with the "right" mix of program design, trained staff, intensity, and duration may enhance the development of older children-particularly their academic achievement-it is important to remember that many children ages 10-12 do not regularly attend after-school programs. Data from the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF) suggest that about 11 percent of children ages 10-12 with employed parents regularly attend programs before and/or after school, while the remaining rely on a mix of family child care, babysitters, relatives, parents, and self-care. Data from America After 3 PM (see p. 12), a nationally representative household survey commissioned by the Afterschool Alliance, tell a similar story. During the 2002-2003 school year, only 6 percent of children grades 6 through 8 and 3 percent of children grades 9 through 12 regularly attended programs at a school or center from 3 to 6 p.m. For grades 1 through 5, 15 percent of children attended (Afterschool Alliance, 2004). However, when school is out in the summer, the percentage of children ages 10-12 in organized programs rises to 34 percent (Capizzano, Adelman, & Stagner, 2002).
Given the labor force trends of parents with school-age children and the increasing awareness of the distinct developmental capacities of these youth, researchers will continue to explore the distinction between "early childhood" and "youth development," identify "what works," and report on the impact of out-of-school time programs.
References
Afterschool Alliance. (2004). America After 3 PM: A household survey on
afterschool in America; Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
Capizzano, J., Adelman, S., & Stagner, M. (2002). What happens when the school
year is over? The use and costs of child care for school-age children during the
summer months. Occasional Paper, 58. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
The Center for the Future of Children. (1999). When school is out. The Future
of Children, 9(2). Los Altos, CA: David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Dynarski, M., et al. (2003). When schools stay open late: The national
evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program; First
year findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Dynarski, M., James-Burdumy, S., Moore, M., Rosenberg, L., Deke, J., &
Mansfield, W. (2004). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation
of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program; New findings.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
The National Research Council & The Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community
programs to promote youth development (J. Eccles & J.A. Gootman,
Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
RAND Corporation. (2001). Evaluating after-school care. Labor and Population
Program Research Brief. (RAND Publication No. RB2505). California: Author.
Redd, Z., Cochran, S., Hair, E., & Moore, K. (2002). Academic achievement
programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
| For additional information, e-mail the Child Care & Early Education Research Connections at contact@childcareresearch.org; or visit the Web at www.childcareresearch.org/. |
As part of its efforts to improve public education, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation has a committed interest in ensuring the availability of school-based, school-linked, quality after-school programs that meet the needs of low-income and hard-to-reach populations. Mott's grantmaking reflects the belief that an infrastructure that provides immediate and ongoing access to high-quality training, technical assistance, and mentorship and that links organizations in a well-designed Statewide network of resource and public support, is key to the growth and sustainability of high-quality, after-school programs rooted in school-community partnerships.
To encourage the development of this infrastructure, the Mott Foundation has provided funding to 25 States that are working to put in place Statewide after-school networks that bring together the elements of a comprehensive infrastructure. Mott support has totaled $5.8 million since 2002. Funding for additional networks is possible. States that were awarded grants include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington.
Mott has also funded a national technical assistance team known as the After-School Technical Assistance Collaborative (ATAC). Members of ATAC include the National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National League of Cities, the Afterschool Alliance, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and The Finance Project, along with the Collaborative Communications Group. ATAC is working with the State teams to provide support on an as-needed basis.
For additional information, contact An-Me Chung, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, at achung@mott.org.
Building and Sustaining Citywide After-School Initiatives
Experiences from the Cross-Cities Network After-School Initiatives
By Georgia Hall, Ph.D., Research Scientist, National Institute on Out-of-School Time, Wellesley Centers for Women
The Cross-Cities Network for Leaders of Citywide After-School Initiatives, facilitated by the National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST), brought together leaders from citywide after-school initiatives representing 19 major cities across the United States. The three primary goals of the project were to: (1) increase the capacity and knowledge of high-level leaders; (2) improve the effectiveness of citywide after-school initiatives; and (3) contribute to the development of a coherent vision for the field at the national level.
|
Each of the 19 Cross-Cities Network Citywide After- School Initiatives (CCN) has faced similar challenges of determining governance, defining goals, maintaining quality and scaling up, and planning for sustainability. Research by The Forum for Youth Investment (FYI) provides a framework for thinking about these and other challenges faced by cities building out-of-school time systems: (1) ensuring the quality and continuity of programs; (2) maintaining sufficient capacity and resources; and (3) developing a climate that supports action and investment. The first challenge involves creating a strong base of programs with high-quality learning opportunities. The second challenge is ensuring that adequate resources and investments in capacity, including human, organizational, and physical infrastructure are made in order to support quality programming. The third challenge entails creating a supportive climate for action-the leadership, accountability, and vision that make investments possible (FYI, 2002). |
Quality and Continuity of Programs
Quality speaks to the ability of programs to deliver particular developmental inputs which result in positive outcomes for participants (FYI, 2002). Part of building quality is knowing quality. Before embarking on its journey of creating after-school programs, The After-School Corporation (TASC) leaders were very careful to recognize and incorporate the positive experiences of several organizations that historically provided out-of-school time opportunities to children and youth in New York City. TASC also developed a particular model for programming which has helped it retain a level of quality control. Similarly, Beyond the Bell in Los Angeles looked to its Youth Services program, started in 1945, to anchor its reconstituted and expanded model for after-school programming. In fact, many of the CCN citywide initiatives contract with local community-based organizations (CBOs) to manage programs, thereby taking advantage of many CBOs' longevity and expertise in youth development practices.
Several different approaches have been taken to sustain quality. The Out-of-School Time Task Force in Denver developed two products related to quality assurance-written guidelines for programs and a lessons learned manual from the San Francisco Beacons. Beyond the Bell has been engaged in discussion around developing a set of citywide program standards. The San Francisco Beacons, with guidance from the Community Network for Youth Development, institutionalized a "theory of change" process which promotes regular engagement in program analysis and uses results to improve the quality of program inputs.
Continuity involves linking children and youth in afterschool programs to the range of other supports and opportunities available through the broader resources of the community. The citywide after-school initiatives supported through community education departments such as in St. Louis and Denver are examples of this outreach. Neighborhood Centers in Denver and Community Learning Centers in St. Louis function as support centers providing access to the network of individuals, agencies, and institutions that can collectively address the needs of the community. In the same way, the San Francisco Beacons serve as gathering places for the entire community, and provide a continuum of support across a range of needs-health, recreation, adult education-not just limited to after-school programming for a select age of youth.
Sufficient Capacity and Resources
In order to support high-quality programming, sufficient investment in capacity is required. Building capacity for citywide initiatives includes building a welltrained, stable workforce, promoting standards, and strong organization management. San Diego "6 to 6" uses its program monitoring system to support training and technical assistance. Trainings are tailored to the program and provider needs as illuminated during the monitoring process. TASC works with multiple providers to deliver a full curriculum of trainings specifically designed for different levels of staff. Many of the citywide initiatives have implemented comprehensive plans to support the professional development of out-of-school time and youth development staff. These plans have been undertaken with the realization that stable staff, continuity in caring adult relationships, and quality program inputs are essential for creating and sustaining meaningful youth experiences.
Many of the citywide initiatives distinguish certain models for programming/program structure, some to a greater degree than others. These models might incorporate the National Afterschool Association standards or others crafted through task forces, school/city collaborations, etc. San Diego "6 to 6" establishes a baseline of program requirements through its contractual agreement with the provider agencies. The Community Councils at each Community Learning Center in St. Louis have input into program and resource decisions, as do school principals. In Denver and in Los Angeles, citywide discussions have taken place with the vision to create citywide standards and outcome goals. Establishing citywide standards can guide the allocation of funds, promote consistency, create goals for staffing and program development, and stimulate strategic planning. It is a critical step toward sustaining high-quality programs.
Citywide initiatives are administered through a variety of governance structures such as offices of the school department, municipal offices, and capacity building intermediary or self-standing organizations. What does seem critical, whichever model is chosen, is that the governance structure be a magnet for collaboration. Citywide initiative leaders over and over again point to the necessity and value of partnership-to accomplish tasks, broaden support, and to increase and sustain resources.
Resource challenges at the city level involve support for staff development and training, facilities enhancement, program expansion, transportation and access, governance, and financial stability. After-school leaders have made significant efforts to secure the future of after-school opportunities in their cities. Boston 2:00-to-6:00, TASC, San Francisco Beacons, and Project Lift-Off have all played a role in developing substantial public and private financial partnerships to support the development and continuation of out-of-school time opportunities. Other initiatives, including Beyond the Bell, St. Louis Community Education, San Diego "6 to 6," and Denver Community Education, have made the case for continued support from the public school system or municipal budget.
Climate That Supports Action and Investment
A climate that supports action and investment is stimulated by sustained demand, strong leadership, accountability systems, and a shared vision of success (FYI, 2002). Project Lift-Off conducted a community-wide needs assessment to uncover gaps in service and to determine community needs. Follow-up included community meetings, youth forums, and phone surveys. Through this work, Project Lift-Off was able to engage a critical mass of youth and families to begin mobilizing support for real change. Rousing vocal demand and increasing public awareness of the need for after-school opportunities is key. Even more important is capturing it in numbers and stories.
Securing the support of a strong and vocal leader can significantly impact the success of a citywide afterschool initiative. Mayor Menino in Boston and Mayor Golding in San Diego played critical roles in prioritizing after-school opportunities on the city agenda. Highlevel leadership within school administration, as in Beyond the Bell, creates new avenues for advocacy and connections that otherwise may be inaccessible.
A handful of the initiatives including the Beacons, TASC, and San Diego "6 to 6" have implemented evaluation structures/processes, including independent evaluators to benchmark development. Data are collected on operations, enrollment, participation, curriculum and activities, staffing, and the impact on youth outcomes. The results are overwhelmingly positive. The value of such information can be immeasurable-as it is publicly disseminated to build support for the initiative's mission.
Lastly, the initiatives profiled here began with a vision. For some like TASC and the San Francisco Beacons, the vision was gifted from a caring foundation or collaboration of individuals seeking to make a difference. Municipal leaders or school administration directly changed initiatives such as in Beyond the Bell and St. Louis Community Education. Leaders in all the initiatives have remained passionate about their vision to provide positive supports and opportunities in out-of-school time to their city's children and youth despite numerous setbacks-and that has afforded them a much-improved position to face many challenges.
Acknowledgement: This article is based on the paper Building and Sustaining Citywide Afterschool Initiatives: Experiences of the Cross-Cities Network Citywide Afterschool Initiatives by Georgia Hall and Brooke Harvey, which was published by National Institute on Out-of-School Time in November 2002.
Reference
The Forum for Youth Investment. (2002). Learning opportunities for
children and youth: Expanding commitments. Washington, DC: Author.
| For additional information, contact NIOST, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481; Phone: 781-283-2547; E-mail: niost@wellesley.edu; or visit the Web at http://www.niost.org/. |
Youth Development in Practice
By Suzanne M. LeMenestrel, Ph.D., Consultant, and Eric Kilbride, Senior Program Officer, Academy for Educational Development (AED) Center for Youth Development and Policy Research
The AED Center for Youth Development and Policy Research (the Center) defines youth development as “the ongoing process in which all youth are engaged in attempting to meet their basic personal and social needs to be safe, feel cared for, be valued, be useful and be spiritually grounded; and to build skills and competencies that allow them to function and contribute in their daily lives” (Pittman, O’Brien, & Kimball, 1993).
The following Center projects move youth development principles into practice at the local level by collecting data, disseminating promising practices, and building capacity:
- Community Youth Mapping is a process in which youth become key stakeholders in planning, collecting, entering, analyzing, and disseminating data on places to go and things to do for youth, children, and families. Community YouthMapping is funded through a combination of local community grants and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. By design, Community YouthMapping is intended to be the cornerstone of a community’s information infrastructure. By participating in the Community YouthMapping process, youth develop employment and leadership skills.
- The Promising Practices in Afterschool System, funded by a grant from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, is an effort to find and share things that are working in after-school programs. The Center, in association with an advisory panel of after-school program experts and representatives from six regional and national organizations, developed a process through which promising after-school practices can be identified, recognized, and disseminated to after-school program directors and others with a stake in providing quality programs to children and youth.
Promising practices have indicators or evidence of positive results. In addition, key stakeholders have determined that these practices are contributing to the quality of programming and the well-being of children, youth, families, and communities. Promising practices address many positive social, emotional, cognitive, physical, and cultural outcomes and are culturally, developmentally, age, and gender-appropriate for the population(s) of children and youth being served. The Center sponsored the first nationwide call for promising practices in the winter of 2002, and has since designated more than 100 practices as promising. - Transformational Education, also funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, is focused on building capacity for community-based alternative schools and educational programs. Transformational Education (TED) is “a comprehensive educational approach that creates an environment which appreciates the strengths and talents and develops the potential of adolescents by responding to the needs of young adults who are not well-served by traditional public schools” (Smith & Thomas, 2001). TED schools are characterized by their ability to integrate youth development strategies and educational practices to engage, challenge, and support youth. TED schools have the following key features:
- High and comprehensive standards;
- Relevant and diverse learning opportunities;
- Personalized and flexible learning environment
- Supports and services for effective learning; and
- Opportunities to make a contribution (Smith & Thompson, 2001).
References
Pittman, K., O’Brien, R. O., & Kimball, M. (1993). Youth development and resiliency
research: Making connections to substance abuse prevention (p. 8).
Washington, DC: AED Center for Youth Development and Policy Research.
Smith, S. M., & Thomas, J. (2001). CBO schools: Profiles in transformational education
(p. 23). Washington, DC: AED Center for Youth Development and Policy Research.
| For additional information, contact the AED Center for Youth Development and Policy Research, Phone: 202-884-8267; E-mail cyd@aed.org; or visit http://www.aed.org/CentersandExperts/acentyouth.cfm on the Web. |
| Resources from the AED Center for Youth Development and Policy Research The Center has developed and hosts three Web sites related to the projects described above: Promising Practices in Afterschool System: http://www.afterschool.org Community YouthMapping: http://www.communityyouthmapping.org/Youth/ Transformational Education: http://www.tedweb.org |
Staffing and Professional Development in
Programs Serving School-Age Children
Quality school-age care is directly linked to consistent, well-trained, and supported staff. Yet, as the case in providing care and education for all ages, school-age programs struggle to recruit, train, and retain staff. In school-age programs, staffing struggles are further complicated by a reliance on volunteers, varying schedules, short program hours, and a lack formal and informal preparation and training opportunities specific to the out-of-school care of youth. Since many school-age programs are part-time enterprises, the pool of applicants is narrow and incentives to stay are limited. Research indicates that turnover of direct service providers may surpass 40 percent each year (California Department of Education, 1996).
Many efforts underway at national, State, and local levels seek to address school-age staffing issues. The National AfterSchool Association has developed standards school-age care. Increasingly, States are developing specific core competencies for staff in school-age programs. In 2001, 22 States reported that they were developing school-age care credentials, and 12 States had already implemented such credentials (Wheelock College Institute for Leadership and Career Initiatives, 2002).
States, counties, and cities have advocated for wage supplements, mentoring and apprenticeship programs, scholarships and loans, and funding for education and training. Examples of such initiatives include:
- Health insurance initiatives developed by Rhode Island and Michigan;
- Washington State’s model of the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Project for professional development scholarships specific to school-age providers;
- The Chicago Department of Human Services’ partnership with the Making the Most of Out-of-School-Time Initiative, through which technical assistance, training, peer support, and stipends are provided to reach a common set of program standards in nine pilot programs;
- The Professional Advancement for School-Age Staff project’s work in Massachusetts on a comprehensive career development system for school-age staff, including core competencies specific to school-age caregivers, an online practitioner training database, and a registry of trainers; and
- The Minnesota School-Age Care Professional Development Project’s Statewide needs assessment and collaboration with other State training project to develop more informal and formal training opportunities for the State’s diverse out-of-school-time staff.
A future edition of the Child Care Bulletin will focus on professional development across child care ages and settings.
References
California Department of Education. (1996). School-age care in California:
Addressing the needs of children, families, and society. Irvine, CA: California
Department of Education.
Wheelock College Institute for Leadership and Career Initiatives. (2002) Report
on 2001 Early Childhood/School-Age Career Development Survey. Boston,
MA: Author.
Child Care Bureau Funds Afterschool Investments Project
The Afterschool Investments project provides technical assistance to Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) grantees and other State and local leaders supporting after-school efforts. Project publications include a brief on coordination between CCDF and the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, a visioning tool for after-school partnerships, and a tool to estimate the supply and demand for after-school programs. The project has also published after-school profiles for each State. Contractors are The Finance Project in partnership with The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. For more information, contact The Afterschool Investments Project, 1401 New York Ave NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20005; Phone: 202-628-4200; E-mail: afterschool@financeproject.org; or on the Web at http://nccic.org/afterschool. |
Afterschool Alliance’s Lights On Afterschool! Event
Rallies Communities across the United States
“Afterschool is key to kids’ success” was the rallying cry from Fairbanks to Fort Lauderdale as supporters from all walks of life joined the fifth annual Lights On Afterschool! celebration on October 14, 2004. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once again served as National Chair of Lights On Afterschool!, kicked off the national celebration with a rally in Los Angeles. A diverse group of more than 150 education, civic, arts, government, and other groups also publicly supported Lights On Afterschool! 2004. Among them were the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Education, as well as a number of the nation’s leading after-school providers—After-School All-Stars, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 4-H Afterschool, Junior Achievement, and YMCA of the USA.
Around the country, lawmakers, community and business leaders, athletes, creative artists, and religious leaders voiced their support for the after-school programs that keep kids safe, help working families, and inspire children to learn. In 2004, more than 7,000 rallies across the nation celebrated the benefits of after-school programs. Celebrations were held in all 50 States as well as at U.S. military installations in Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. It is estimated that more than 750,000 individuals participated in the day’s festivities, which were marked in Washington, DC, by approval of House and Senate Resolutions supporting the Lights On Afterschool! and its goals.
In conjunction with Lights On Afterschool!, Junior Achievement and Harris Interactive released a new poll of 1,142 youths between the ages of 8 and 18. The after-school activities that interested young people included sports, art and music, working with computers, earning how to run a business, spending time with mentors, and learning about various careers.
Lights On Afterschool! is a project of the Afterschool Alliance, a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that all children have access to after-school programs by 2010. It was first launched in October 2000, when more than 1,200 events were held across the country. n 2005, the sixth annual Lights On Afterschool! be held on October 20th.
For more information about the Afterschool Alliance Lights On Afterschool! event, visit www.afterschoolalliance.org/loa_2004/index.cfm .
|
Strong Public Support for After-School
Programs America After 3 PM, a recent poll commissioned by the Afterschool Alliance, indicates that public support for after-school programming is widespread and based on clear understanding of the benefits for children and communities in successful after-school programs. The poll reached 1,000 self-described, definite voters nationwide on November 1–2, 2004. Voters perceive a variety of benefits from after-school
programs and identify a number of areas in which after-school
can play either an extremely or very important
role. Two-thirds or more agree that after-school programs
are important to building safe, strong communities
by providing supervised, enriching environments for
children and teens. Further, they believe that after-school
plays a crucial role in reducing the high school drop-out
rate by keeping high school youth interested in school.
|
| For additional information, contact the Afterschool Alliance, 1616 H Street NW, Suite 820, Washington, DC 20006; Phone: 202-347-1002; E-mail: info@afterschoolalliance.org; or on the Web at http://www.afterschoolalliance.org. |
The National Center for Education Statistics
Provides Data on After-School Care
Results from the 2001 Before- and After-School Programs and Activities Survey—a nationally representative
study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)—indicate that 50 percent of children
grades K–8 had regularly scheduled, nonparental, after-school arrangements. Nineteen percent of children
attended a center- or school-based program, 17 percent were cared for by a relative, 13 percent were in selfcare,
7 percent participated in after-school activities during the times when parents were away, and 6 percent
were cared for by a nonrelative (see Figure 1). Children’s activities in after-school programs varied by type of
care. However, overall results indicated that many children were engaged in education-related activities in all
types of after-school care (see Figure 2).
| Figure 1: Percent of Children Grades K–8 Participating in Types of After-School Arrangements |
|---|
 |
Note: Type of arrangement includes those that were regularly scheduled once a month; however, “activities used for supervision” includes those that occurred at least once a week. Some children are included in more than one type; and home-schooled children are not included.
|
| Figure 2: Percent of Children Grades K–8 Participating in Various After-School Arrangement Activities |
|---|
 |
| Note: Parents reported up to three activities their child(ren) spent time doing, including only those activities that were regularly scheduled at least once each month. Home-schooled children were excluded. |
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Before- and after-school care, programs, and activities of children in kindergarten through eighth grade: 2001 (NCES 2004-008), by B. Kleiner, M.J. Nolin, & C. Chapman. Washington, DC: Author.
| For additional information, contact the National Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006; Phone: 202-502-7300; or visit http://nces.ed.gov/. The 2004 Before- and After-School Care report is available online at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004008.pdf. |
Database of After-School Initiatives Focuses on Evaluation The Harvard Family Research Project Out-of-School Time (OST) Program Evaluation Database contains profiles
of OST initiative and program evaluations. Users can search this Web-based tool for profiles of national, State,
and local programs and initiatives by key criteria, including type, funding source, and program location. This resource
is available on the Web at http://gseweb.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/evaldatabase.html. |
California’s After-School Program:
Fighting Crime by Investing in Kids
By Barrie Becker, California State Director, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California
|
“I’d rather send kids to an after-school program than to jail. After-school programs are the —Jan Scully, District Attorney, Sacramento, CA |
Sacramento District Attorney Jan Scully, along with more than 2,000 law enforcement leaders nationwide,know from experience that after-school programs help prevent juvenile crime. Those on the front lines of the fight against crime understand that it is essential to provide resources for programs that get kids off the street and on the right track.
Findings showing that after-school programs cut youth crime are highlighted in a 2001 report from Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California—a nonprofit, anti-crime organization led by more than 300 California sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys, and crime survivors. It is the State office of the national Fight Crime: Invest in Kids organization of more than 2,000 law enforcement officials and crime survivors.
The report, titled California’s After-School Choice: Juvenile Crime or Safe Learning Time, brings together evidence from California and around the nation illustrating that the after-school hours are the peak time for young people to get involved in crime and other risky behaviors. The report also shows that quality after-school programs reduce crime, improve behavior, and increase academic achievement, and that affordable after-school programs are out of reach for the vast majority of the California children who need them the most.
Police statistics from California’s largest cities show that on school days, the prime time for violent juvenile crime is from 2 to 6 p.m. The single most likely hour of the school day for a juvenile to commit a violent crime is between 3 and 4 p.m. The after-school hours are also the prime time for kids to use drugs, alcohol, and tobacco.
By providing children with constructive activities and adult supervision in the after-school hours, after-school programs can reduce crime and violence, cut drug use and truancy, and improve behavior. A study of afterschool programs in 12 high-risk California communities found that, among participating kids, vandalism and stealing dropped by two-thirds, violent acts and carrying a concealed weapon fell by more than half, and arrests and being picked up by the police were cut in half.
Quality after-school programs are also associated with improved academic achievement, improved work habits, and declines in dropout rates. A University of California at Irvine evaluation of the State’s after-school program found significant gains in standardized test scores by students actively participating in the program.
These students moved out of the lowest performing quartile on the SAT-9 reading test at almost three times the rate of students not enrolled in the program and moved out of the bottom quartile on the SAT-9 math test at almost twice the rate of other students.
The report notes that the impact of after-school programs on reducing crime and producing other positive results depends on the quality of the program. Program design, implementation, and staffing will, in large part, determine the effectiveness of the program.
Quality programs involve positive staff-child relationships, sufficient numbers of well-trained and adequately compensated staff, engaging programming that is attractive to children and families, and a capacity to respond to the individual needs of each child.
Investments in after-school programs, especially for children most at risk of sliding into delinquency or becoming victims of crime, pay for themselves—not only in lives saved but also in dollars saved. For example, the Quantum Opportunities program, in which randomly selected high school freshmen from families receiving welfare in four cities participated in an intensive after-school enrichment program, produced benefits to recipients and the public of more than $3 for every dollar spent.
UC Irvine found that California’s after-school program could result in savings equal to or greater than the cost of the program itself. These include savings from less “holding back” of students to repeat grades in school and savings from fewer students needing to enroll in summer school to avoid grade repetition. Despite a weak fiscal situation, California has made great strides in the right direction. In 2002, the State increased funding for its after-school program by $4 million and began a Federally funded, $2.5 million after-school program for high school students.
| For additional information, contact Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California, 2910 Telegraph Avenue, Ste 300, Oakland, CA 94609; Phone: 510-836-2050; E-mail: info@calfightcrime.org; or visit http://www.fightcrime.org/ca/index.php. The Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California’s after-school report is available on the Web at http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/ca-as.pdf. |
States with Separate Center School-Age Care
Licensing Regulations
As States revise their child care licensing regulations, rules reflecting new research are often included.
States address the developmental needs and care of school-age children in three primary ways: in a separate
set of regulations; in specific supplemental sections of center or family child care regulations; or embedded
throughout generic regulations. Thirteen States (CA, HI, IN, KS, NY, ND, OK, RI, SD, TN, VT, WA, and WI) have
separate licensing regulations for center programs that care for school-age children. These States’ regulations
include standards related to the positive development of school-age youth. The following are selected examples
from the program/activity sections of such school-age care regulations for three of these States.
|
South Dakota
|
|
New York
Hawaii| Compiled by Sarah LeMoine, National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC), from licensing regulations posted on the National
Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care’s Web site: http://nrc.uchsc.edu, August 2004. For more information, contact NCCIC at 10530 Rosehaven Street, Suite 400, Fairfax, VA 22030; Phone: 800-616-2242; Fax: 800-716-2242; TTY: 800-516-2242; E-mail: info@nccic.org; or visit http://nccic.org on the Web. |
Positive Youth Development Programs Thrive
at the Department of Defense
By Karen Morgan, Program Analyst, Department of Defense
The Department of Defense (DoD) has a long history of providing positive youth programs that focus on alternative activities for youth during out-of-school hours. Military Youth Programs are proud of this tradition. Today, DoD continues to be committed to youth by providing consistent guidance and stable dynamic programs in more than 350 youth programs worldwide. DoD promotes positive youth development by designing programs to recognize the achievements of youth and by developing partnerships that offer variety of resources.
Generally, military teens are said to mirror teens in the civilian sector. However, military life imposes unique demands on family members—especially teens—that are different from their civilian counterparts. Military assignments often require families to be relocated far away from family support networks. Military families move on average every 2.9 years, whereas civilian families move every 5.8 years. Relocation impacts both family finances and a sense of belonging and security. Relocation also requires youth to re-establish peer support systems and make new friends during a very difficult stage in their development. The most common sources of stress for military adolescents include moving to a new home or school, sibling problems, making new friends, loss of close relationships, and personal health problems.
The DoD positive youth development program prepares young people to meet the challenges of adolescence and adulthood through a coordinated, progressive series of activities and experiences that help them become socially, emotionally, physically, and cognitively competent. Rather than seeing young people as problems, this positive development approach views young people instead as resources and builds on their strengths and capabilities. In an effort to enhance the resources available to military youth, DoD has established a number of partnerships to support positive youth development throughout the military services. DoD is focusing on more programs and services for youth of Reservist, National Guard, and geographically separated family members—especially during times of increased mobilization and contingency situations. Partnerships include, but are not limited to, the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 4-H Clubs, Armed Services YMCA, Youth Service America, and National Youth Sports Associations.
The following initiatives support some of the ongoing efforts to develop, plan, implement, and improve positive youth development programs for military teens worldwide. These initiatives maximize the ability serve more young people and provide information resources to their families and to the DoD community.
Boys & Girls Clubs of America
Boys & Girls Clubs of America’s partnership with the military began during the Persian Gulf crisis in 1991 by supporting children and youth of parents deployed overseas. This affiliation aids programs in building character through everyday leadership and guidance. Youth join together in wholesome recreation and companionship. Trained professional staff provide positive adult mentors and role models. Nationally recognized programs help youth succeed in school, stay healthy, learn important life skills, pursue interests in the arts and sports, and explore vocational choices.
Military Teens on the Move
Research shows that frequent relocation deprives youth of the stable support systems they need to develop healthy attitudes and behaviors. Recognizing this need, DoD launched a program to assist adolescents during family relocations. The Military Teens on the Move (MTOM) Web site was launched in 1998, and it was redesigned and updated in 2003 as a way to improve and enhance adolescent relocation support regardless of where youth live. This user-friendly Web site, for youth ages 6–18, contains a wide array of resources for children and youth and provides a positive youth support system through a wealth of relocation information and outreach support. MTOM addresses major challenges that teens face today, including keeping connected to friends and family and ways to integrate quickly into new schools and communities. The MTOM Web site is located at: http://dod.mil/mtom.
Annual National Youth Service Day
In an effort to reach out and collaborate with other
positive national youth serving organizations, DoD has
partnered with other Federal
agencies in support of the 17th
Annual National Youth Service
Day (April 15–17, 2005). National
Youth Service Day is a pivotal
event that records and celebrates
the contributions youth
make to their communities. DoD
and military youth programs will
join more than 90 organizations supporting youth on
a life-long path of service and civic engagement and
will educate the pubic, media, and military leadership
about the role youth can play as community leaders.
Online Military Children and Youth Resources The Military Children & Youth Web site, developed
by the Military Resource Family Center, provides |
| For more information, contact Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military Community and Family Policy, 4000 Defense Pentagon - Room 2E319, Washington, DC 20301-4000; or on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/mcfp.html. |
Selected Resources on Positive Youth Development
| The following selected Federal agencies and national organizations provide useful information about positive youth development. |
Federal Agencies
21st Century Community Learning Centers Program (21st CCLC)U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20202
800-USA-LEARN
Web: http://www.ed.gov/21stcclc/
Afterschool.gov
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Web: http://www.afterschool.gov/
The Afterschool Investments Project
A Project of the Child Care Bureau, ACF
The Finance Project
1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
202-628-4200
Web: http://nccic.org/afterschool
National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth (NCFY)
Family and Youth Services Bureau
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
P.O. Box 13505
Silver Spring, MD 20911-3505
301-608-8098
Web: http://www.ncfy.com
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP)
U.S. Department of Justice
810 Seventh Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
202-307-5911
Web: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/
YouthInfo
Family and Youth Services Bureau
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Web: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/youthinfo/
index.htm
National Organizations
Afterschool Alliance
1616 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
202-347-1002
Web: http://www.afterschoolalliance.org
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Mott Foundation Building
503 S. Saginaw Street, Suite 1200
Flint, MI 48502-1851
810-238-5651
Web: http://www.mott.org
Coalition of Community Foundations for Youth
(CCFY)
15639 Leavenworth Road
Basehor, KS 66007-9768
800-292-6149
Web: http://www.ccfy.org
Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)
One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001-1431
202-336-7000
Web: http://www.ccsso.org/
Fight Crime: Invest in Kids
2000 P Street NW, Suite 240
Washington, DC 20036
202-776-0027
Web: http://www.fightcrime.org
The Finance Project
1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
202-587-1000
Web: http://www.financeproject.org
Forum for Youth Investment
The Cady-Lee House
7064 Eastern Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20012
202-207-3333
Web: http://www.forumforyouthinvestment.org
National AfterSchool Association (NAA)
Formerly the National School-Age Care Alliance (NSACA)
1137 Washington Street
Dorchester, MA 02124
617-298-5012
Web: http://www.naaweb.org
National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST)
Wellesley Centers for Women
106 Central Street
Wellesley, MA 02481
781-283-2547
Web: http://www.niost.org/
National Youth Development Information Center
(NYDIC)
An initiative of the National Collaboration for Youth
1319 F Street NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20004
877-NYDIC-4-U
Web: http://www.nydic.org
Out-of-School Time Learning and Development
Project
Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP)
Harvard Graduate School of Education
3 Garden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
617-495-9108
Web: http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/
afterschool/about.html
Public/Private Ventures (P/PV)
Extended-Service Schools Initiative (ESS)
2000 Market Street, Suite 600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-557-4400
Web: http://www.ppv.org/
Urban Institute
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-833-7200
Web: http://www.urban.org/
| The following selected publications provide useful information about positive youth development. |
Publications
Afterschool Alliance Backgrounder: Formal Evaluations
of the Academic Impact of Afterschool
Programs (September 2004)
Afterschool Alliance
Web: http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/
Evaluations_Academic_0904.pdf
Before- and After-School Care, Programs, and Activities
of Children in Kindergarten through Eighth
Grade: 2001 (April 2004)
Brian Kleiner, Mary Jo Nolin, & Chris Chapman
National Center for Education Statistics
Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004008.pdf
The Effectiveness of Out-of-School-Time Strategies
in Assisting Low-Achieving Students in Reading and
Mathematics: A Research Synthesis (January 2004)
Patricia A. Lauer, Motoko Akiba, Stephanie B.
Wilkerson, Helen S. Apthorp, David Snow, &
Mya
Martin-Glenn
Mid-continent for Research Education and Learning
Regional Educational Laboratory
Web: http://www.mcrel.org/PDF/SchoolImprovementReform/5032RR_
RSOSTeffectiveness.pdf
Finding Funding: A Guide to Federal Sources for
Out-of-School Time and Community School
Initiatives (January 2003)
Heather Clapp Padgette
The Finance Project
Web: http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/FundingGuide2003.pdf
“Finding Resources to Support Rural Out-of-
School Time Initiatives” (February 2003), Strategy
Brief, Volume 4, Issue 1
The Finance Project
Web: http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/ruralost.pdf
The Impact of After-School Programs: Interpreting
the Results of Four Recent Evaluations
(January 2004)
Thomas J. Kane
William T. Grant Foundation
Web: http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org/usr_doc/Afterschool_
paper.pdf
Making the Case: A Fact Sheet on Children and
Youth in Out-of-School Time (January 2004)
National Institute on Out-of-School Time
Web: http://www.niost.org/publications/Factsheet_2004.pdf
Multiple Choices After School: Findings from the
Extended-Service Schools Initiative (June 2002)
Jean Baldwin Grossman, Marilyn L. Price, Veronica
Fellerath, Linda Z. Jucovy, Lauren J. Kotloff, Rebecca
Raley, & Karen E. Walker
Public/Private Ventures
Web: http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/116_
publication.pdf
National Resource Organizations with a Focus on
Youth Development (August 2003)
National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth
Web: http://www.ncfy.com/ydorgs2.htm
“Out of School Research Meets After-School
Policy” (October 2002), Out-of-School Time Policy
Commentary Issue 1
The Forum for Youth Investment
Web: http://www.forumfyi.org/Files//ostpc1.pdf
Positive Youth Development Fact Sheet (August 2003)
National Clearinghouse on Families & Youth
Web: http://www.ncfy.com/ydfactsh.htm
Toward a Blueprint for Youth: Making Positive Youth
Development a National Priority (November 2002)
Family and Youth Services Bureau
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Web: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/youthinfo/blueprint.htm
Understanding Youth Development: Promoting
Positive Pathways of Growth (January 1997)
CSR, Inc., for the Family and Youth Services
Bureau, Administration for Children and Families,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Web: http://www.ncfy.com/pubs/undyouth.htm
What Happens When the School Year is Over?
The Use and Costs of Child Care for School-Age
Children During the Summer Months (2002)
Jeffrey Capizzano, Sarah Adelman, & Matthew Stagner
The Urban Institute
Web: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310497_OP58.pdf
When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation
of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Program; First Year Findings (2003)
Mark Dynarski, et al.
Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/21cent/firstyear/index.html
When Schools Stay Open Late: The National Evaluation
of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Program; New Findings (October 2004)
Mark Dynarski, Susanne James-Burdumy, Mary Moore,
Linda Rosenberg, John Deke, & Wendy Mansfield
Web: >http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/
PDFs/21stnewfindings.pdf
This page is being maintained on the NCCIC web site for historical purposes. As a result, not all information may be current.
10530 Rosehaven St., Suite 400 • Fairfax, VA 22030 | Phone: (800) 616-2242 • Fax: (800) 716-2242 • TTY: (800) 516-2242
NCCIC is a service of the Child Care Bureau (CCB), Office of Family Assistance (OFA), Administration for Children and Families(ACF), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services