A REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF THE

BRONX BOROUGH PRESIDENT

Fighting for Youth Programs

A study of the need for effective out-of-school time programs for Bronx high school students

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrin, Jr. October 2007

Table of Contents
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Executive Summary Introduction Background on Juvenile Delinquency Causes of Juvenile Delinquency Out-of-School Time Program Benefits Implementing Out-of-School Time Programs Page 3 Page 9 Page 10 Page 14 Page 16 Page 20 Page 22 Page 23 Page 33 Page 39 Page 49 Page 52

VII. Funding of NYC Out-Of-School Time Programs VIII. NYC Department of Education IX. X. XI. NYC Department of Youth & Community Development Conclusions Recommendations

XII. Acknowledgments

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is a real crisis in the lack of out-of-school time programs in the Bronx. There are many high schools that do not offer enough before or after school programs. In addition, there are many Bronx neighborhoods that either lack these programs or the ones that they have do not come close to serving the needs of vast numbers of high school youth. The results of this gap are staggering in terms of the loss of youngsters potential, the burdens placed on already overburdened families, and the fact that so many youngsters in need of help are left by themselves to stay out of trouble. The system in place is not effectively helping working families, children in need or keeping Bronx neighborhoods trouble free. These are the key findings of a report, prepared by the Office of the Bronx Borough President. In absence of these needed programs, the Bronx is missing out on a multifaceted approach that could help reverse the increasing rate of juvenile delinquency in the borough. Out-of-school time programs operate in the afternoon, at night, on weekend and holidays, providing one more support for high school age youths. Out-of-school time programs are particularly needed in the Bronx because of the boroughs large youth population and the number of working single mothers unable to take charge of their children. Indeed, many working single parents believe that their youngsters need the structure and supervision that out-of-school time programs can provide. So, too, community leaders want to see more of these programs because they are concerned about troubled youths throughout the borough. Their concerns are very real and very legitimate. Figures show that Bronx youth are increasingly involved in neighborhood street crimes, school crimes, and placed in juvenile detention facilities in growing numbers. It is also a fact that juvenile delinquency is a complex problem that cannot be dealt with solely by setting up more and better after school programs. However, as the report points out, out-of-school time programs can reduce delinquent behavior and provide a variety of benefits. The report also examines the way that these out-of-school time programs work and notes that providers of out-of-school time programs must overcome numerous challenges to be effective. What are some solutions? The report concludes that Bronx neighborhoods do not have sufficient numbers of quality out-of-school time programs because the New York City Department of Education lacks effective accountability and transparency measures that would encourage resources for a greater number of effective programs on school facilities. Furthermore, the Department of Youth and Community Development lacks the needed policies and management practices that would increase the number of programs in a variety of areas in the borough.

Selected Findings Large Unsupervised Youth Population in the Bronx 29% of the population in the Bronx is under the age of 18 or approximately 406,000 young people.1 Single mother households account for nearly a third of Bronx households.2 In recent years, single mothers in New York City are increasing working full-time in low wage jobs with no vacation or sick time and little job security.3

Funding for Youth Programs urged by Community The lack of organized activities for youth was the number one quality of life issue in the Bronx according to a 2006 Citizen for NYC survey of boroughs residents and community leaders.4

Constituent Calls to 311 about Disorderly Youth Between May 2004 and June 2007, there were 5,557 quality of life complaints from the Bronx residents to the 311 service requesting assistance from the New York Police Department concerning youth acting disorderly. 5

Rise in Juvenile Crime From 2002 to 2005, the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests.6 The number of juvenile delinquent cases increased sharply every year between 2002 (1,576 cases) and 2005 (2,123 cases).7 Rise in Juvenile Crime in Schools There have been a total of 113,169 truants returned to Bronx high schools between 2002 and 2006. In this same period, there were: 3,137 weapons possessions incidents; 5,389 disorderly conduct cases; 579 juvenile arrests for 7

Bronx County Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau. USA Quick Facts. 2005. Bureau of the Census. < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36005.html> Spencer, Corey. Giving 100 percent to parenting. Highbridge Horizon March 2006 <http://www.highbridgehorizon.com/news/mar06/parenting.htm> 3 Gluck, Robin and Levitan, Mark. Mothers Work: Single Mothers Employment, Earnings, and Poverty In the Age of Welfare Reform. Aug. 2002. Community Service Society of New York. <http://www.cssny.org/pubs/special/motherswork2002_08.pdf> 4 Weintraub, Benjamin. "Noise, Garbage Top Annoyances In City, Poll Finds." The New York Sun 13 July 2006 : 2. 5 Sbordone, Nicholas, Breakouts for Disorderly Youth, Department of Information Technology and Telecommunication, City of New York, 2007 6 NYC Criminal Justice Agency: Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January through December, 2002. 7 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Delinquency cases Referred to NYC Law Department 2002-2006. Law Department, City of New York
2

major felonies; 1,458 incidents of the 7 major crimes; and 5,322 other criminal incidents.8 During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools have an average of 35% more major crimes than do schools of similar size throughout the city.9 In the same period, over 28.5% (338 of 1,187) of all major crimes in the citys schools occurred in Bronx high schools.10

Rise in Juvenile Detention From 2003 to 2006, Bronx youth accounted for 25.6% of youth admissions to local juvenile detention centers, despite the fact that the borough is home to only 17% of the citys population.11 From 2003 to 2006, the Bronx neighborhoods consistently accounted for a third of the fifteen neighborhoods with highest rates of youths admitted to juvenile detention facilities. 12

Causes of Juvenile Delinquency Youth with unsupervised free time, uninvolved parents, and limited educational opportunities are at risk of developing delinquent tendencies. Youth that spend no time in out-of-school time activities are 49 % more likely to have used drugs, 27 % more likely to have been arrested and 37 % more likely to have become teen parents, than those who spend 1-4 hours per week in out-ofschool time activities.13 Out-Of-School Time Program Benefits For example, one Washington D.C. program was credited with a 45% drop of juvenile crime in a nearby apartment complex.14 Similarly, in a recent report, it was found that 45% of participants in an nation out-of-school time program improved their reading grades and 41% also improved their math grades.15 Implementing Out-of-School Time Programs One of the challenges in recruiting students to participate in out-of-school time programs is their reluctance to spend any more time in school than required. There are various challenges in attracting teenagers to participate in out-of-school time programming: the perception that they are too old for supervision, a larger amount of responsibility and a lack of age appropriate activities.
8

Gerrish, John. City of New York. New York Police Department. Office of Management Analysis and Planning. Letter Response to Request for Information Analysis of School Location Incident Data for Bronx High Schools in the 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement 10 Ibid 11 Miller, Andrew, Department of Juvenile Justice, City of New York, Admissions to DJJ By CD FY 03-06, 2007 12 Ibid 13 Zill, Nicholas. "Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data." 11 Sep 1995. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2 Aug 2007 <http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xstimuse.htm> . 14 "Out-of-school time Keep Kids Safe" Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 7May2002 31 Jul 2007 <http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_safe_7.pdf >. 15 "Out-of-school time: A Powerful Path to Teacher Recruitment and Retention." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 28Jul 2007 31 July 2007 <http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_teach_recruit_28.pdf>.
9

Funding Overview of New York City Out-of-School Time Programs Approximately $203,825,800 (not including New York City Department of Education) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City. 16 For the last fiscal year, the city agencies contributed a total of $99.1 million for out-of-school time programs.17 The New York City Department of Youth and Community Development contributed $69.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative.18 In total, the New York State government spent $52,269,000 on out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.19 In total, the federal government contributed $41,586,800 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.20 In total, private funding contributed $10,920,000 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. 21

Lack of Out-of-school time Programs at Bronx High Schools Sports: 22 Bronx high schools have no Public School Athletic League (PSAL) sports teams.22 Arts: 26 Bronx high schools have no arts- based out-of-school time programs. Leadership: 7 Bronx high schools have no leadership and support out-of-school time programs.23 Vocational: 38 Bronx high schools have no vocational out-of-school time programs.24 Tutoring: 46 Bronx high schools have no tutoring-focused out-of-school time programs.25 Community Service: 63 Bronx high schools have no fall community service outof-school time programs.26

Lack of Out of School Time Programs for High School Age Youth Only 11,731 Bronx high school youth are enrolled in either an Out of School Time (OST) program or a Beacon program compared to 27 71 Bronx high schools have no OST program for their students at their site.28 27 Bronx high schools have no OST program for high school age youth with a mile. 29

16 17

Albert, John P., The After School Corporation. Personal communication, August 3, 2007 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 Ibid 22 See Appendix A 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 25 Ibid 26 Ibid 27 See Appendix C 28 See Appendix B

Conclusions New York City Department of Education (DOE) Without sufficient accountability measures for out-of-school time programs on school sites, a situation has been created to allow for large disparities in the quantity, variety and quality of out-of-school time programs at different schools. School Report Cards, in their current format, do not adequately judge the performance of principals and schools because they lack a comprehensive section about out-of-school time programming. The Learning Environment Survey would have benefited from adding questions on how effectively students, teachers and parents think these out-of-school time programs are being run. An average of 54% of middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any of these out-of-school time programs during last year in their school. 30 Out-of-school time programs have fallen victim to the current complex system of public policy and funding in New York State government and in the US federal government. Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) This report found that there were not enough programs at or near by schools for youth to access. Additionally, the report found that the programs that did exist only served a small portion of the youth population in their zip codes. One very important factor that impacts the number of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth is the reduced amount of funding for high school youth in comparison to elementary and middle school youth. Some youth are not served by OST out-of-school time programs because of programs are allowed to be outside of the targeted zip code are for service or the method for targeting where services are provided misses concentrations of youth. Selected Recommendations New York City Department of Education (DOE) o Accountability Measures DOE should ensure that School Report Cards includes relevant data on out-of-school time programs. DOE should create the position of Deputy Chancellor for Out-ofSchool Time Programs and create an Office of Out-of-School Time Programs.

o Reform
29 30

See Appendix B City of New York, Department of Education, Learning Environment Surveys: Citywide Results, 2007

Both DOE & DYCD should pool their financial resources and have better communication. DOE should design small schools so that they have sufficient space for out-of-school time programs.

o Funding DOE, DYCD and the city administration should lobby the federal and state government on funding issues. Lobby the federal government to increase authorized funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. Convene the leadership of the major New York State outof-school funding streams in to identify steps to integrate or better align existing programs across agencies and funding sources.

New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) o High School Youth DYCD should increase percentage of funds allocated at the high school level. DYCD should increase the spending per student for high school youth in OST programs to ensure sufficient quality service. DYCD should increase the number of OST programs at or near by schools for high school youth to access. DYCD should increase the capacity of OST and Beacon programs.

o Management DYCD needs to correct technical problems and inaccuracies with data collection in the OST Online Tracking System. DYCD should ensure that the geographical area served by an OST program is not too big.

INTRODUCTION
Today, there are thousands upon thousands of Bronx high school students who are unable to participate in even the most common types of programs that can be offered during free time before or after the school day. An average of 54% of city middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any typical out-of-school time programs in their schools last year.31 In addition, the citys largest out-of-school time program currently enrolls only 11,371 Bronx high school youth.32 When the large population of Bronx youth is taken into account, these figures suggest the shortages and inadequacies of these programs. According to the latest US Census data, 29% of the population in the Bronx is under 18 or approximately 406,000 of the total Bronx population of 1.4 million.33 Significantly, single mother households account for nearly a third of Bronx households. Additionally, in very low- income Bronx neighborhoods, single females head more than half of the households.34 In recent years, single mothers in New York City are increasing working full-time in low wage jobs with no vacation or sick time and little job security. Thus, they could lose their job for taking time off to attend to their children.35 This all adds up to a large youth population with limited adult supervision, and the pressing need for enrichment opportunities to engage youth during out-of-school time throughout the borough. In the absence of reform, Bronx schools and communities have noticeably suffered in recent years. During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools had an average of 35% more major crimes than did schools of similar size throughout the city. 36 Additionally, from 2002 to 2005, the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests.37 The deficiency in out-of-school time programs in Bronx schools is not only failing these youth, but also neglecting the well being of our social and economic future. The reform of extracurricular programming in our city could have positive consequences that reach far beyond those children and families immediately affected. Each child possesses the potential to be a contributing member or leader of the next generation, and it is every childs right to a first-rate education and a wealth of enrichment opportunities that make such a future possible. It is also in the interest of society to invest in such resources to ensure a skilled, educated workforce of tomorrow. A competitive economy capable of survival and success in the 21st century is inseparable from a quality education system.
31 32

Ibid, Citywide Learning Environment Survey See Appendix C 33 Bronx County Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau. USA Quick Facts. 2005. Bureau of the Census. < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36005.html> 34 Spencer, Corey. Giving 100 percent to parenting. Highbridge Horizon March 2006 <http://www.highbridgehorizon.com/news/mar06/parenting.htm> 35 Gluck, Robin and Levitan, Mark. Mothers Work: Single Mothers Employment, Earnings, and Poverty In the Age of Welfare Reform. Aug. 2002. Community Service Society of New York. <http://www.cssny.org/pubs/special/motherswork2002_08.pdf> 36 Ibid, Analysis of School Location Incident Data 37 New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January through December, 2005.

A vibrant economy provides the tax base to fund education, and in turn a good education produces the skilled workforce necessary to power a competitive, growing economy. Quality out-of-school time programs can provide Bronx high school youth with a safe environment in which the prime time for juvenile crime is transformed into golden hours of academic enrichment, athletics and teamwork, career exploration, and community service. Rigorous studies show that organized out-of-school time programs can reduce youth crime and violence, but boost academic success. Consequently, out-of-school time programs increase the likelihood of high school graduation. Studies also show that more youth would participate in school programs if they were available. Although spending on out-of-school time programs throughout Bronx schools reaches large sums and has increased in recent years, allocation of this money remains disorganized and unequal. There exists a clearly imbalanced distribution of funding and number of programs among different neighborhoods throughout the borough. This report was written to account for how the current system is working to deter juvenile delinquency in the Bronx and provide quality out-of-school time programs for Bronx high school age youth with. To that end, this report will look first in-depth at the rising concern about juvenile delinquency in the city and the Bronx. Next, it will document the benefits of out-of-school time programs. Subsequently, this report will investigate the role the city plays in the delivery of these programs, looking also at the role of the state and federal government. Within this section, the report will examine out-of-school time programs that take place in Bronx schools and at youth serving organizations. Afterward, this report will identify major factors contributing to the lack of effective out-of-school time programs. Finally, this report will make recommendations on how more youth could be served and out-of-school time programs better managed.

BACKGROUND ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Public Concern About Juvenile Delinquency New York City Increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of the link between youth idleness and juvenile crime. As a result, more of the public is recognizing the need to provide out-ofschool time programs for youth as a critical priority. Out of thirty-three quality of life issues in city neighborhoods, a 2006 poll of 612 New York City residents and neighborhood leaders conducted by Citizens for NYC found that New Yorkers see lack of organized activities for youth as the third most pressing issue in the city.38 Bronx Similar to citywide, the same 2006 Citizens for NYC poll found that the lack of organized activities for youth was the number one quality of life issue in the Bronx. The
38

Weintraub, Benjamin. "Noise, Garbage Top Annoyances In City, Poll Finds." The New York Sun 13 July 2006 : 2.

10

same sentiment has been expressed on more local level across the borough.39 11 out of 12 Bronx Community Boards indicated that funding for youth programs was an urgent need in their neighborhoods in the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs assessment.40 In this assessment, there are numerous written examples of concerns about youth programs from Community Boards. In the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs assessment, District 3 Community Board wrote, While crime is rampant everywhere throughout the city, the 42nd Precinct rates drug dealings, assaults, and burglaries among their top crime problem; a larger percent of them being committed by youth.41 As indication of the high of concern about juvenile delinquency, this report looked at the large number of complaints about disorderly youth from Bronx residents over the last several years. There were 5,557 quality of life complaints between May 2004 and June 2007 from the Bronx residents to the 311 service requesting assistance from the New York Police Department concerning youth acting disorderly. 42 Juvenile Delinquency New York City The growing concern about juvenile delinquency is more than just popular sentiment; it is based on fact. While much has been made publicly about decreasing crime rates in New York, the trend of increasing juvenile delinquency paints a bleaker picture. The number of youths arrested in New York City between the ages of 13 to 18 has increased from 44,148 to 52,571 between 2002 and 2006. Robbery and assault crimes made up the bulk of violent crimes in those five years, accounting for 74% of all juvenile crimes. During that same time period, youth between the ages of 13 and 18 have committed 54, 396 felony robberies and 27,638 felony burglaries.43 Between 2004 and 2006, there was a significant increase in felony robbery arrests for juveniles, including a 26.6% spike between 2004 and 2005.44 Over half (4,720 out of 8,493, or 55%) of the juvenile delinquent cases in New York City in 2006 were violent crimes. In 2006, there were 2,266 reported cases of property crimes (includes larceny, burglary, arson, graffiti, and other theft-related offenses) committed by juveniles in New York City.45 Bronx The number of arrests of juvenile offender in the Bronx has risen each year between 2002 and 2005.46 According to state penal code, a juvenile offender is youth between the ages of 13 and 15 who is criminally responsible for murder, kidnapping, arson, assault,
39 40

Ibid. City of New York, Department of Planning. Community District Needs Fiscal Year 2008 - The Bronx. 41 Ibid 42 Sbordone, Nicholas, Analysis of 311 Service Requests, Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. City of New York 43 Ibid, New York Police Department. Office of Management Analysis and Planning 44 Ibid. Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes. 45 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Crime Stats Family Court Division of Law Dept. Law Department. City of New York, Personal Communication. 2 July 2007 46 New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January through December, 2002.

11

rape or other sexual acts, and is processed in adult court.47 From 2002 to 2005, the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests. Significantly, these 473 arrests of Bronx youth in 2005 were 24.2% of the 1,953 juvenile offender arrests in New York City.48 While the borough is home to only 17% of the citys population, Bronx youth were 24% of the juvenile offender arrests for the city. Between 2002 and 2005, 74 Bronx youth were also subsequently convicted as juvenile offenders. In 2004 alone, there were 25 youth convicted as juvenile offenders in the borough.49 The Bronx also accounts for more than its share of citywide juvenile delinquent crimes. According to state penal code, a juvenile delinquent is a youth between the ages of 16 to 18 who commits a felony crime and is processed in adult court. While the borough is again home to only 17% of the citys population, the 1,860 juvenile delinquent cases in the Bronx in 2006 made up 21.9% of total number of cases in the city. Not only do Bronx youth commit crimes at a higher rate than youth of other boroughs, a greater percentage of these offenses are violent crimes. In the Bronx, 1,060 (57%) of the 1,860 juvenile delinquent cases were violent crimes. Of the remaining 53% of crimes, 22% were property crimes, 10% were drug crimes, 5% were weapons crimes, and 5% were various other crimes. The Bronxs number of juvenile delinquent cases also appears to be getting worse. The number of juvenile delinquent cases have increased sharply every year between 2002 (1,576 cases) and 2005 (2,123 cases). While the 2006 total of 1,860 cases is lower than the previous year, it is still significantly higher than all other yearly totals since 2002.50 Crime in Schools New York City In addition to problems in city neighborhoods, there has been an increase in juvenile delinquency in New York City high schools. The number of truants returned to school rose between 2002 and 2006, which is a strong indication of delinquent behavior. According to the NYPD, the number of arrests for major felonies in schools increased from 4,198 in 2002 to 4,842 in 2006. The number of major crimes reported also increased over the same time period from 1,187 in 2002 to 1,343 in 2006 (major crimes include murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny and grand larceny auto). Other increases occurred over this time period including weapons possession incidents (from 230 to 395), disorderly conduct incidents (from 1,432 to 3,218) and other crimes (from 4,257 to 4,659 other crimes include arson, misdemeanor assault, criminal possession or sale of a controlled substance or marijuana, sex offenses and other various crimes). There were also 208 sex offenses, 83 bomb threats and 3,354 harassment incidents in New York schools in 2006. 51 This trend of increasing crime continued into

47 48

Definition of Juvenile Offender. Article 10 N.Y. State Penal Code, Section 18 Ibid, Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January through December, 2002. 49 Office of the Bronx District Attorney, Personal Communication, 2007 50 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Delinquency cases Referred to NYC Law Department 2002-2006. NYC Law Department 51 Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about NYPD from 2002 to 2007

12

2007. There were 21% more major felonies committed in schools in the first four months of FY 2007 than in the first four months of FY 2006.52 Bronx The Bronx high schools have had a high rate of juvenile delinquent behavior in schools between 2002 and 2006. There have been a total of 113,169 truants returned to Bronx high schools between 2002 and 2006. In this same period, there were: 3,137 weapons possessions incidents; 5,389 disorderly conduct cases; 579 juvenile arrests for 7 major felonies; 1,458 incidents of the 7 major crimes; and 5,322 other criminal incidents.53 During the 2005-6 school year, there were approximately 2,546 police incidents in Bronx high schools. Bronx schools also have a higher rate of major crimes in schools than any other borough. During the 2005-6 school year, over 28.5% (338 of 1,187) of all major crimes in the citys schools occurred in Bronx high schools.54 This discrepancy between Bronx schools and schools in the rest of the city can be seen even more clearly by focusing on a school-by-school basis. During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools had an average of 35% more major crimes than schools of similar size throughout the city.55 Juvenile Detention New York City As might be expected with the increased level of juvenile delinquency, there has been a corresponding rise in the number of youth going into city detention facilities. Between 2002 and 2006, there was a 20% increase in the total admission to detention facilities (nearly 1,000 new juveniles). Much of this increase took place in 2006 when the number of detained youth increased 13.7% from 2005.56 In 2006, there were 4,753 juvenile delinquents admitted to a secure facility, a 16.3% increase in comparison with the 4,087 juvenile offenders admitted in 2002. In 2006, there were also 753 juveniles admitted to non-secure detention, a 61% increase in comparison with the 467 juveniles admitted in 2002. Many detained youth were returned to detention centers for a second time. In 2006, 43% of juvenile detainees were readmitted to detention facilities.57 This figure represents an increase of 721 return detainees from 2005.58 Additionally, the Department of Juvenile Justice has increased its detention budget steadily between fiscal years 2003 and 2006. The amount requested to spend on detention dropped off for fiscal year 2007, but remained higher than all previous levels. Starting in 2003, year-by-year DJJ has spent $39.9 million in fiscal year 2003, $48 million in fiscal year 2004, $51.9 million in fiscal year 2005, $59.2 million in fiscal year 2006 and $54.9 million in fiscal year 2007.59 Bronx
52 53 54

Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about New York City Department of Education from 2002 to 2007 Ibid, New York Police Department. Office of Management Analysis and Planning Analysis of New York Police Department Incidents For Bronx High 2005-06 Annual School Report Supplement 55 Ibid. Analysis of School Location Data 56 Ibid. Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes. 57 Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about New York City Department of Juvenile Justice from 2002 to 2007 58 Ibid 59 City of New York, Independent Budget Office. IBOs Programmatic Review of the 2007 Preliminary Budget: Department of Juvenile Justice.

13

In an annual listing of the districts in the city with the highest number of youths admitted to the juvenile detention facilities from 2003 to 2006, the Bronx is perennially overrepresented with least a third of the fifteen districts located in the borough. Specifically, the Bronx accounted for 25.6% of youth admissions from 2003 to 2006 to detention centers despite the fact that the borough is home to only 17% of the Citys population. Significantly, the data shows that increased juvenile delinquency in the Bronx can be traced to the greater instances of juvenile delinquency in the boroughs worst districts. The Bronx neighborhoods that were frequently listed the highest on admissions to juvenile detention facilities include: Soundview, University Heights, Tremont, Bedford Park, Eastchester, and Morris Heights.60 In 2006, five of the fifteen districts were located in the Bronx. Of the 2,403 juvenile delinquents from fifteen citywide districts, 771 (32%) were from the Bronx. If shortened to the ten worst districts, then the Bronx accounts for even more juvenile delinquents: four of the ten worst districts and 37% of the total number of juvenile delinquents on the 2006 list. While the number of districts represented has decreased since 2003, the total number of Bronx youth admitted has moved in the opposite direction. Each year since 2003, the number of Bronx youth admitted to juvenile detention facilities in the list of the worst districts has increased (except from 2005 to 2006, which marked a small decrease from 2005s extraordinarily high totals of juvenile delinquency).61

CAUSES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Overview For many NYC residents, juvenile delinquency is a major cause for concern. Youth with unsupervised free time, uninvolved parents, and limited educational opportunities are at risk of developing delinquent tendencies. If we are to prevent the problem of juvenile delinquency, it is crucial to examine and understand why certain youth exhibit delinquent behavior. Unsupervised Free Time Youth are given the opportunity to get into trouble with regular unsupervised free time. Without a constructive environment during out-of-school time hours, many children hang out with their peers and are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. Youth that spend no time in out-of-school time activities are 49 % more likely to have used drugs, 27 % more likely to have been arrested and 37 % more likely to have become teen parents, than those who spend 1-4 hours per week in out-of-school time activities.62 Studies have shown that rates of juvenile crime are at their highest in the hours right after school,

60 61

Ibid, Admissions to DJJ By CD FY 03-06 Ibid 62 Zill, Nicholas. "Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data." 11 Sep 1995. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2 Aug 2007 <http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/xstimuse.htm> .

14

especially between 3 and 4 PM.63 Therefore, it is imperative to provide children with a constructive alternative during these hours so they are not given the time to engage in delinquent behaviors. Family Life Studies show that delinquent youth are more likely to have unhappy home lives than nondelinquent youth.64 They may seek out attention by misbehaving in school or involving themselves in criminal activity outside of school. Delinquency brings attention to youth neglected by their parents and provides them with approval from peers who respect delinquent behavior.65 Parenting style is also a significant determinant of delinquent behavior in youth, since parents decide how much time their children spend unsupervised. Youth learn how to interact with other people and society primarily from their parents. Supportive and nurturing parents motivate their children to strive for excellence inside and outside of school. Conversely, parents who are preoccupied with their own needs and negligent in their responsibilities usually do not supervise their children on a daily basis. Parents who are negative role models can severely impact the behavior of their children. These youth are also more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior if their parents expose them to martial problems, abusive behavior, or drug use66. Role of Education Along with family factors, educational experiences have a significant influence on juvenile development. Since academic achievement is considered one of the principal steppingstones toward success, school environments play a critical role in shaping a youths sense of opportunity and self-worth.67 Education increases a youths ability to think critically and make well-informed decisions. Through tasks such as completing homework assignments and taking tests, youth learn to take responsibility for their own actions. Day-to-day interaction with peers and authority figures enables youth to incorporate necessary social skills. Unfortunately, positive educational opportunities are not equally available to all youths. Children from lower economic classes often experience a very different educational environment in comparison to middle-class children.68 The schools that they attend have fewer resources to fund quality school programs. They also tend to be overcrowded, which means there is less individual attention for each child. Youth in these schools lack stimulating programs and individual attention; they may be less motivated to fully engage in school and may be less inclined to attend regularly.

63

Newman, Sanford. "Americas Out-of-school time Choice:The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime, Or Youth Enrichment and Achievement ." 2000. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www.fightcrime.org/reports/as2000.pdf >2. 64 Rhoades , Cheryl L.. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: The Breakdown of Families in America. 11 Mar 1999. Anti Essays. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/2010.html>. 65 Ibid. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: The Breakdown of Families in America. 66 Martin, Gus. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Dominguez Hills, California: Sage Publications, 2005. 67 Ibid. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems 68 Ibid

15

When forced to attend, students usually misbehave rather than incorporate proper academic or social skills into their norms of behavior. Since these youth are disengaged from school, academic achievements are falling below nationwide standards and students are failing to acquire basic literary skills.69 The lack of responsibility in youth makes them prone to delinquent behavior. In addition, since they dislike school, these youth are not motivated to create connections with teachers and other authority figures in school. Therefore, they are lacking the guidance that they need to grow up into mature and educated adults. Without motivation to achieve in school and guidance from authority figures, youth resort to delinquent behavior. Gangs, Guns and Drugs Without support from family and school, youth are temped by the attraction of street gangs, which play a large role in youth crime. Youth join gangs primarily for protection, money and status.70 In addition, if youth grew up in an environment where gangs are prevalent, they may feel they have no other choice but to join. Importantly, street gangs control a large portion of juvenile drug dealing. The drug trade can be extremely dangerous, and is usually associated with guns, violence, and extortion.71 Youth who succumb to gangs often use drugs and deadly weapons as a method of solving problems. Youth who are exposed to gang lifestyles and also have access drugs and weapons are at a high risk for becoming juvenile delinquents.

OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAM BENEFITS

Overview Numerous studies have been done to document the wide-range of benefits of out-ofschool time programs to children, parents, communities and taxpayers. Studies have consistently shown that out-of-school time programs produce positive results. In this section, we will seek to document the quantitative ways in which out-of-school time programs have proven to be beneficial. Reduced Delinquent Behavior Participation of youth in out-of-school time activities has been proven to produce improvements in their social skills, including their ability to maintain self-control, make constructive choices about their behavior and avoid fights.72 One study found that teachers in a Manchester, New Hampshire school reported nearly 50% of students in outof-school time programs had fewer behavioral problems and that 40% had learned to handle conflicts effectively.73
69

Halpern, Robert. "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges." When School Is Out 9. 2.(1999) 81-95. 02 Aug 2007 <http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol9no2Art8done.pdf>. 70 Ibid. Oversight: Initiatives to Combat Gang Activity in New York City 71 Ibid. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems 72 Out-of-school time Candidate Resource Kit 2004. 2004 <www.out-of-school timealliance.org/elections/candidate_kit.doc> 73 Schools Alone are Not Enough. Mass Insight Education. Massachusetts 2020 Education Opportunity, 2002. 31 July 2007 <http://www.mass2020.org/FinalMCASPaper.pdf>.

16

Out-of-school time programs are beneficial to the community, as they provide a safehaven for kids to go to out-of-school time, taking them off the streets and out of harms way. For example, one Washington D.C. program was credited with a 45% drop of juvenile crime in a nearby apartment complex.74 Similarly, in New York, the Beacon program also found that increased academic enrichment out-of-school time resulted in fewer police reported juvenile crimes in one community; indicating that would-be juvenile delinquents were taken off the streets.75 80% of Beacon students interviewed said that they found the program very helpful in helping them avoid drug use and 74% said that the program was very helpful in helping them avoid fighting.76 Greater Academic Achievement and Better Attendance Records Participation in out-of-school time programs has been correlated with greater academic achievement and better school attendance records. This improvement can be linked to smaller child-to adult ratios. For example, participation in one program in New York showed an increase in both math achievement and school attendance.77 Similarly, in a recent report it was found that 45% of one programs nationwide participants improved their reading grades and 41% also improved their math grades.78 In one study, at the high school level, school day attendance for New York City students with lowest attendance increased by 4.4 days upon their participation in out-of-school time programs.79 High school level out-of-school time participants passed more Regents exams and earned more high school credits than non-participants.80 More Flexibility than School Classes One of the many advantages of out-of-school programs is that they are able to be more flexible in general than a normal school environment. Out-of-school time programs do not need to stick to one topic, or for that mater, only the topics that students study in school. Out-of-school time programs have the flexibility to pursue topic areas that either align with the school day or that young people deem personally interesting and relevant. In low-income communities, the existence of arts and cultural programs can present the opportunity of a fulfilled learning experience. In addition, out-of-school time programs

74

"Out-of-school time Keep Kids Safe" Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 7May2002 31 Jul 2007 <http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_safe_7.pdf >. 75 Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers. U.S. Dept. of Education, 1997. 31 July 2007 <http://www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/benefits.html>. 76 "Out-of-school time Outcomes." Out-of-school time Alliance. 31 July 2007 <http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/after_out.cfm>. 77 Russell, Christina A, and Elizabeth R. Reisner, and Jennifer C. Johnson, and Ullik Rouk and Richard N. White. Supporting Social and Cognitive Growth Among Disadvantaged Middle-Grades Students in TASC After-School Projects. 4 Mar 2004 < http://www.tascorp.org/files/1448_file_supporting_social_cognitive_middleschool_2005.pdf> 78 "Out-of-school time: A Powerful Path to Teacher Recruitment and Retention." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 28Jul 2007 31 July 2007 <http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/issue_briefs/issue_teach_recruit_28.pdf>. 79 Out-of-school time: No Longer an After Thought. The Out-of-school time Corporation. 31 July 2007 <http://www.tascorp.org/about/mission/TASCsevenyear.pdf>. 80 Ibid

17

can also vary their schedule and number of activities. This is possible because out-ofschool time program schedules dont need to be set in stone.81 Reduced Drop Out Rates and Grade Repetition Participation in out-of-school time programs has been linked to reduced in-grade retention and placement into special education. For example, high school students who participated in one out-of-school time program that ran throughout four large American cities were half as likely to drop out of high school and 2.5 times more likely to go on to higher education.82 Within the same program, only 23% of participants dropped out of high school, compared to 50% of non-participants who dropped out.83 Improved Physical Health When taking part in an out-of-school time program, children spend less time watching television, which is known to be the most frequent activity children engage in during non-school hours. Out-of-school time programs have been proven to significantly improve the physical health of participants. Obesity rates were significantly lower for children who participated in out-of-school time programs: 21% compared to 33% in nonparticipants.84 By emphasizing physical activity through such things as group and/or individual sports, out-of-school time programs improve the quality of life for school-aged children. Reduced Stress to Parents Out-of-school time programs not only benefit the children they serve, but they also have a positive impact on the lives of parents. Out-of-school time programs alleviate the stress of childcare experienced by parents, thus allowing them to focus on providing for their families. In one study, 80% of parents said that they were less worried about their children during out-of-school time hours when their children participated in out-of-school time programs.85 Furthermore, in another recent study, it was concluded that parents who have greater concerns about their childrens out-of-school time arrangements, report that they make significantly more errors, turn down requests to work extra hours and miss meetings and deadlines at work, thereby decreasing their productivity and increasing employer costs.86 This lack of worry helps parents manage their lives more efficiently, both at work and at home. In the same study, 57% of parents said their childs participation in out-of-school time programs helped them manage their work schedule and another 60% said that they
81 82 83

Ibid Ibid, Schools Alone are Not Enough Newman, Sanford A., Eli B. Silverman, William Christeson, and Roger Rosenbaum. New York's Out-of-school time Choice: the Prime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids New York, 2002. 84 Ibid. "Out-of-school time Outcomes." 85 Out-of-school time Alliance Backgrounder: Formal Evaluations of Out-of-school time Programs < http://www.out-of-school timealliance.org/backgrounder.doc> 86 "Guiding Our Youth: Education and Workforce Preparation." Workforce Innovations. 31 Jul 2007 <http://www.novaworks.org/wi/2005/05/feature.html>.

18

missed less work. In addition, 47% of parents said that their childs participation in outof-school time programs allowed them to attend classes or job training more readily and 45% said it helped them get a better job or perform better at their current job. 87 Increased Parental Access and Involvement: Due to their hours, out-of-school time staff have better access to parents and can serve as a communications bridge between parents and schools. Out-of-school time programs are able to share with parents the positive experiences their youth are undergoing in their care. This can be done by speaking with parents at check-ins, inviting them to performances, putting together celebrations or even with a simple visit or phone call home. Out-of-school time programs use parents as resources through which they can understand the challenges facing their youth participants and learn new ways of reaching them.88 Greater Youth Workforce/Career Development Out-of-school time programs can provide a great venue for workforce/career development for high school-age youth. Most importantly, career- oriented out-of-school time programs have proven to significantly improve academic performance in school. After participating in a business-oriented program, students achieved academic success after having internships at local businesses. For a program set up in Michigan, 83% of the students who participated passed standardized reading and math tests and 60% passed science tests and 65% passed writing tests.89 Similarly, in an entrepreneurship-focused program, students achieved an improved level of academic success after they learned to design spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations, learned the art of public speaking and worked with mentors. Overall, participants increased their interest in attending college by 32% when compared to similar low-income student groups.90 Positive Returns for the Community and Taxpayers Out-of-school time programs have been proven to be beneficial to taxpayers as well as having a positive impact on our youth and our communities. It has been estimated that for each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime, the country saves $1.7 million.91 One analysis of an out-of-school time program found that it produced benefits to the public and its participants of $3 for every $1 spent, without counting the benefits of reduced crime.92 Furthermore, in 2002, it was estimated that quality out-of-school time programs could be delivered at a cost of $1,500 per student in New York City, whereas it

87 88

Ibid Ibid, Getting the Most from Out-of-school time: The Role of Out-of-school time Programs in a High-Stakes Learning Environment. 89 "Out-of-school time: A Natural Platform for Career Development." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 19Aug 2004 31 Jul 2007 <www.out-of-school timealliance.org/ issue_briefs/issue_career_development.doc>. 90 Vanderkam, Laura. "Get a Job? No, Make a Job." Editorial. USA Today 05 Feb. 2007 91 "Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York - Troubled Kids." Troubled Kids. Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York. <http://www.fightcrime.org/ny/nyissue_troubled.php>. 92 Ibid. New York's Out-of-school time Choice: the Prime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement.

19

costs an average of $130,000 to incarcerate a juvenile in a secure facility in New York City.93 Some providers claim the cost has gone up since then.

IMPLEMENTING OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS

School Stigma One of the challenges in recruiting students to participate in out-of-school time programs is their reluctance to spend any more time in school than required. One part of this problem lies in the classroom environment. Today, teachers are under pressure to have their students pass a number of standardized tests, leading to a more restrictive learning experience.94 The result of this greater focus on standardized tests can translate into teaching to the test, i.e. teaching students how to fill in the greatest number of answers correctly on tests and not much else.95 As a result of this focus, the education experience for students can be unpleasant and make the school not a place they want to be. The other part of the problem is that students may also feel unsafe in their schools. As the previous section on juvenile crime showed, crime in New York City schools has been increasing in recent years and has become a more pervasive problem. The increase in juvenile crime has created a situation where students avoid spending extra time in school for their personal safety. Difficulty Attracting Older Youth There are various challenges in attracting high school age youth to participate in out-ofschool time programming: the perception that they are too old for supervision; their larger amount of family responsibility; and the programs often lack of age appropriate activities. Due of the impression that they are too old for constant supervision, many teenagers lack motivation to seek out positive after school alternatives, namely, out-ofschool time programming.96 As well, many high school students take on out-of-school time jobs or care for younger siblings in order to help their families.97 For youth with fewer financial resources, they feel a greater pressure to find part-time jobs or join gangs to make money. In addition, high school age youth require more complex programming, such as a debate teams or school musicals, which are more complicated to design. Dealing with At- Risk Youth On top of the challenges already mentioned, there are additional obstacles to recruiting at-risk youth in high schools. In contrast, students who are 1) behind in school, poor
93

Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York Press Releases. Crime Fighters Call For Increased Funding For Programs Prove to Cut Crime and Save Lives. Fight Crime Invest in Kids New York. 03 Sep. 2002. < http://www.fightcrime.org/releases.php?id=34> 94 Ibid. Getting the Mout-of-school time From Out-of-school time: The Role of Out-of-school time Programs in a High-Stakes Learning Environment. 95 Berlak , Harold . " Race, Academic Achievement, and School Reform ." 10/18/00 09082007 <http://www.usa.pipeline.com/~rgibson/Race-Assessment-Reform.htm>. 96 Grossman, Jean Baldwin, Karen Walker and Rebecca Raley. "Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders." Private/ Public Ventures Publications Apr, 2001 1-22. 02 Aug 2007 <http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/120_publication.pdf> 10. 97 Ibid. Increasing Opportunities for Older Youth in Out-of-school time Programs.

20

attenders, prone toward detention, 2) lacking support at home, and 3) from families with less financial resources are harder to recruit.98 It is very hard to recruit youth with academic or behavioral problems to out-of-school time programs. Recruitment is difficult because they are already a challenge to engage during mandatory school time. In general, disadvantaged youth suffer because they dont have the same resources and motivation as others. Finding and Keeping Good Staff Another challenge often hindering out-of-school time programs is finding and retaining staff. Some jobs with out-of-school-time programs can be part-time and low- paying. As a result, this low pay can discourage qualified professionals from working at these out-ofschool time programs. As a result, by some estimates, staff turnover can hovers around 40% per year.99 Without a continuous and growing bond with staff members, students cannot sustain crucial relationships with supportive adults. Therefore, the quality of outof-school time programs can be severely hindered. Utilizing School Buildings Aside from participants and staff, a significant obstacle is finding adequate and affordable space for out-of-school time programs. Non-School Buildings The ownership, size and facilities of a program location determine the program size and can permit or prevent certain activities. For example, programs such as dance or pottery need adequate space and facilities to function properly. Many community centers have inadequate square footage, short-term leases, or use shared or borrowed space. This restricts the improvements on the facilities because few people are willing to invest in short-term or shared space.100 In addition, churches that provide out-of-school time programs are usually minimally funded and also use shared space.101 Therefore, many of the non-school locations that suffer from limited space cannot provide quality programs. School Buildings It seems the most viable option is to host the programs in a school building. Foremost, the facilities are beneficial for all different types of activities. School buildings provide gyms, libraries, auditoriums and computer labs, which are hard to find elsewhere. Moreover, the school provides access to the student body, which makes recruiting participants easier. In addition, a program located in a school has legitimacy to parents who may be uncomfortable sending their children elsewhere.102 Although there are many
98 99

Ibid. Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders. Larner , Mary . "Why Should We Care About Out-of-school time Care?." (1999). The Future of Children. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_mifis01c04.pdf> 32. 100 Ibid, "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges." 101 Ibid 102 Ibid, Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders.

21

positive aspects, there are obstacles that hinder using school facilities for out-of-school time programs. Many school buildings are over crowded and have very limited space on a daily basis. As a result, the number and type of activities offered is limited. Significantly, out-of-school time programs make sure to get the support of principals to use their school space. Principals, who are responsible for the integrity of their school building, can be reluctant to let programs use school facilities. They are afraid of damage to school property and have limited funding to spend on maintenance and repair of facilities and equipment.103 Therefore, it also be challenging to find appropriate space in school facilities for out-of-school time programs. Transportation Transportation is another technical issue that must be addressed since it affects the hours of programming, who is able to participate and the cost of the program.104 Depending on where youth live, a lack of adequate transportation may impede their participation in outof-school time programs. Busing out-of-school time hours is costly and in limited supply. In addition, many parents are unable to pick up their children due to their busy schedules. Even when youth live within walking distance of school or can take public transportation, many parents feel uncomfortable with their children coming home from school alone or after dark.105 Adequate transportation needs to be provided in order for out-of-school time programs to run successfully.

FUNDING OF NYC OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS

There are many financial resources from the city, state and federal government, as well as private foundations, which are poured into out-of-school time programs in New York City. This report analyzed all the different types of funding streams in fiscal year 2007 to determine that approximately $203,825,800 (not including New York City Department of Education) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City.106 In the following paragraphs, the funding amounts are broken down by the city, state, federal level and private funds. City Funds For the last fiscal year, the city agencies contributed a total of $99.1 million for out-ofschool time programs. This report was unable to determine the sum total of how much the New York City Department of Education spent on out-of-school time programs in school facilities, as there is no complete available accounting of this spending. However, According to one estimate, the New York City Department of Education spent $10 million in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. Additionally, the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development contributed $69.2

103 104

Ibid Ibid 105 Ibid 106 Ibid. The After School Corporation

22

million for the Out-of-School Time initiative and $19.9 million for the Beacons initiative.107 State Funds In total, New York State government spent $52,269,000 on out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. Two state agencies were responsible for the spending: the New York State Education Department and the New York State Office of Child and Family Services. Of that state money, New York State Education Department spent $13,000,000 on the Attendance Improvement and Dropout program, $15.8 million on the Academic Intervention Services program and $19.1 million on the Extended Day/Violence Prevention program in New York City. In addition, the New York State Office of Child and Family Services spent $13 million on the Advantage After School program in New York City.108 Federal Funds In total, the federal government contributed $41,586,800 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. Three federal agencies were responsible for the spending: the US Department of Education, US Department of Health and Human Services and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this total, US Department of Education spent $35 million on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and $4,056,000 on the Supplementary Education Services in New York City. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families spent $1.5 million of the Child Care and Development Fund program in New York City. The Corporation for National and Community Service also spent $1,030,800 on the AmeriCorps programs in New York City. 109 Private Funds In total, private funding contributed $10,920,000 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. Of that money, community- based organizations and parents contributed $6,500,000 to out-of-school time programs in New York City. In addition, $4,420,000 was contributed by foundations, corporations and individuals to outof-school time programs in New York City.110

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The New York City Department of Education (DOE) operates the largest school system in the United States, with over 1,100,000 children attending classes taught by nearly 80,000 teachers in approximately 1,400 public schools.111
107 108 109

Ibid Ibid Ibid 110 Ibid 111 DAngelo, Amy and Peter Sipe. Why Do Fellows Stick Around? < http://www.teachnow.org/Why%20Do%20Fellows%20Stick%20Around.pdf >

23

School Structure Up until last year, the school system was organized into 10 Regions across the city each of which includes approximately 140 schools. Each geographic Region contained 2, 3 or 4 Community School Districts and is led by a Regional Superintendent. Within each Region, the Regional Superintendent supervised approximately 10 to 12 Local Instructional Superintendents (LISes), each of whom had supervisory responsibility for a network of about 10 to 12 schools and principals.112 Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has now changed the school structure and implemented a new school system to focus on the following four areas: increased accountability, school empowerment, fair student funding, and teacher excellence. This reorganization eliminated the prior regional school system. Instead of the traditional model in which principals work directly for a superintendent, each of the citys more than 1,400 principals have now chosen a school support organization to work with their schools, and are paying these groups out of the schools budget. Under the new structure, each school receives greater individualized support and supervision.113 These networks are helping to restructure each school, targeting specific needs. Schools were able to choose from three types of School Support Organizations: Empowerment Support Organization: Schools could have signed up for guidance and support through a network of their peers, and as such are now given greater decisionmaking power over their budgets, allowing schools to use more funds to pay for teachers, coaches, or specific services that they think are best for their students.114 Learning Support Organizations: Schools could have selected among four support models, run by top DOE education leaders, each organized around a different instructional focus. These LSOs focus on instruction, programming, scheduling, youth development, and professional development through the Integrated Curriculum and Instruction, Community, Leadership, and Knowledge Network LSOs.115 Partnership Support Organizations: Schools could have chosen an external partnership, like a non-profit or a university, which will support their institutions. These PSOs, like Fordham University in the Bronx, help the faculty by acting as consultants for leadership and curriculum development, and provide opportunities for students by giving them access to better facilities and connections to mentors and internships.116

112

Wolff, Jessica. "Shaking Up the School System." Gotham Gazette Feb 2003 <http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20030207/6/276>. 113 City of New York, Department of Education, < http://schools.nyc.gov/default.aspx > April 18, 2007 114 City of New York, Department of Education, Empowerment Support Organization Profile. Http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/ESO/ESO+Profile.htm > July 27, 2007 115 City of New York, Department of Education, Learning Support Organizations. < http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/LSO/default.htm > July 27, 2007 116 City of New York, Department of Education, Partnership Support Organizations. < http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/PSO/default.htm > July 27, 2007

24

Small Schools Initiative In response to the problem of overcrowding in the schools, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein launched an initiative to establish 200 small schools across the city by 2007 to replace the current large schools in which violence and misbehavior are rampant. This initiative, established in March 2004, calls for the formation of several smaller, more personable high schools, often within the existing physical space of the previous large schools.117 By breaking down the larger student populations into smaller schools (all enrolling fewer than 500 students), the youth are given more personal attention and specialized curriculum, which the DOE hopes will have a significant effect on school crime rates and academic success. In September 2006, 52 new small secondary schools (38 of them high schools) were integrated into the DOE system, raising the total to 157 across the City.118 Currently, there are 100 high schools in the Bronx, and approximately 88 of those are small schools.119 Small schools are distinguished by their program focuses, size and partnerships. Most small schools have themes, such as technology, arts, or health sciences, which reinforce and complement the academic program. The majority of schools have been created in collaboration with an intermediary organization, such as a university, youth development agency, non-profit or other educational organization. Budget The DOE will receive $16.97 billion for the 2008 Fiscal Year, an increase of $1.13 billion from last years budget. The most money for the NYC schools comes from the State ($7.87 billion), then the City ($7.2 billion), and finally the Federal government ($1.89 billion).120 The Department of Education worked with a budget of $14.7 billion in the fiscal year 2006, and a budget of $15.84 billion for the fiscal year 2007. Foundations are another important source of funding for New York schools: $24 million was donated in 2005 alone to further initiatives for secondary schools.121 Funding for Out-of-School Time Programs The DOE pays for out-of-school time programs in school facilities with funding from the federal government, state government, city funds/ individual school budgets and private funding. In 2007, federal funding accounted for just over $39 million of the DOEs spending on out-of-school time programs, with US Department of Education spending $35 million on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and $4,056,000 on the Supplementary Education Services. In addition, state funding accounted in 2007
117

City of New York, Department of Education, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein Announce the Opening of 60 New, Small Secondary Schools and Created in Partnership with Leading Education and Community Organizations. www.nycenet.edu. Press Release: March 11, 2004. 118 City of New York, Department of Education. Mayor Bloomberg And Chancellor Klein Announce Opening Of 52 Small Secondary Schools This September Press Release: February 1, 2005. 119 City of New York, Department of Education, Directory of the New York City Public High Schools 2007-2008 120 City of New York, Office of Management and Budget, Expense Revenue Contract: Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2008. June 2007 121 City of New York, Office of the Mayor, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announce $24 million in private support for expansion of secondary school initiatives. Press Release: November 17, 2005. < http://www.nyc.gov/mayor >

25

for $47.9 million of DOE spending on out-of-school time programs. Specifically, the New York State Education Department spent $13,000,000 on the Attendance Improvement and Dropout program, $15.8 million on the Academic Intervention Services program and $19.1 million on the Extended Day/Violence Prevention program. According to one estimate, the New York City Department of Education spent $10,000,000 in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. In addition, DYCD spent 60% of $69.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative on programs in school facilities and DYCDs $19.9 million for the Beacons initiative were all spent on programs in school facilities.122 DOE loss of funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) In February 2007, the State Education Department notified 207 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) programs throughout the state that, due to lack of funds, there would not be a Request for Proposal (RFP), as had been expected. In 2002, after a competitive RFP, the first cohort were granted five-year contracts to finance the Centers. In April 2007, the State budget was passed, awarding $7.5 million in aid to the first cohort Centers. This funding was less than a quarter of the $31 million needed to operate these Centers for one year. These contracts expired in June 2007, creating pressuring for the 207 Centers to close. 60% of the 34,000 students or 67 of the Centers affected by potential closing were in New York City.123 The main contributors to this state funding crisis were the problematic management of funds on the part of the State Education Department, as well as insufficient federal funding to the State from the U.S. Department of Education. 21st CCLC federal funding for the state was cut from $98.9 million in 2004 to $90 million in 2006.124 The 207 out-of-school time program closings were only the first cohort of programs that could possibly close in the next few years. The second cohort, consisting of 246 programs, which have an annual value of $40.4 million, is set to close in June 2008. The third cohort with 222 programs and a total value of $42 million will end in June 2009. The State Education Department has stated that the funding shortage is not expected to affect future RFPs for the other cohorts as long as federal funding is maintained at a sufficient level.125 Created by 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act with the leadership of US President Bill Clinton in 1997, the 21st CCLC initiatives are nationwide out-of-school time programs. Today, these Centers serve students in elementary, middle, and high schools, providing development and academic enrichment programs in poor, lowperforming schools. 126

122 123

Ibid. The After School Corporation Fidler, Lewis A., Committee on Youth Services, City Council, City of New York, April 18, 2007 124 Ibid 125 Ibid 126 Ibid

26

Under US President George W. Bush, the 21st Century Community Learning Center initiative was placed as a part of the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB), which was passed in 2001. 127 With the reauthorization of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act by the 2001 NCLB Act, state education agencies were charged with the responsibility of distributing federal funds to eligible applicants.128 The NCLB Acts original budget was $22.5 billion. 129 For 2008, President Bush is requesting $24.4 billion for the implementation of the NCLB Act. For the US Department of Education as a whole, President Bush made a budget request of $56 billion for 2008 fiscal year. 130 Thus, the NCLB Act accounts for one half the US Department of Education budget. Although funding for the implementation of the NCLB act has been steadily increasing over the years, 21st CCLC funding has been on the decline. In 2002, when the NCLB Act was passed into law, funding for the initiative was $1 billion. 131 In 2007, only $981,180,000 allotted for the 21st CCLC initiative, which is a decline of nearly $19 million. 132 DOE Spending on Out-of-School Time Programs In the research for this report, a detailed accounting was sought on how DOE used its money on out-of-school time programs. It was determined that the units of appropriation/budget codes from the 2007 adopted budget did not provide a detailed accounting of how DOE actually used its money on out-of-school time programs. As an example, the city budget shows that $65,895,731 was spent on out-of-school time programs (called before/ out-of-school time programs in the budget) in fiscal year 2007. Out of that amount, the 2007 adopted budget indicates that $53,968,273 was spent on elementary and middle out-of-school time programs; and that only 281,851 was spent on high school out-of-school time programs. Since high school spending is so low, this estimate of high school spending was determined to be not an accurate accounting of the real expenditures.133 Instead, this report used the DOEs Galaxy budget to get better estimate of spending for high schools. The Galaxy budget allows for a more comprehensive view of spending from individual school budgets. The Galaxy budget is based on DOE's internal accounting system, rather than the city's units of appropriation/budget code, which provides for a much finer allocation of spending between categories or programs. Significantly, the numbers in the Galaxy budget include discretionary money appropriated to principals in their school budgets that they use for out-of-school time

127 128

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S. Department of Education, < http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg55.html > Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, April 18, 2007 129 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Summary, U.S. Department of Education, <http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/summary/edlite-section1.html > 130 Ibid 131 Summary of Discretionary Funds, U.S. Department of Education, < http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/08bylevel.pdf > 132 Appropriations for Programs Authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2007), U.S. Department of Education, < http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/08eseachange.pdf > 133 Sweeting, George. RE: FY 2008 DOE after-school budget. Independent Budget Office, City of New York, Personal Communication, 17 Aug 2007

27

programs.134 This money appropriated to principals comes from city funds; state operating aid; and federal, state and private grants.135 In sum, the Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools citywide spent $70,048,411.45 on out-of-school time programs (which is referred to in the Galaxy budget as before/out-of-school time programs). In the Bronx, the Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools spent $18,684,644.76 on out-of-school time programs. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 also showed that individual high schools citywide spent 9.8% and individual Bronx high schools spent 4.3% of their school budgets on out-of-school time programs. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 also showed that the average high school in the city spent $193,503.90 and average high school in the Bronx spent $183,102.79 on out-of-school time programs for their students.

136

Methodology In undertaking an analysis for this report on the state of out-of-school time programs in Bronx public high schools, it was necessary to gather information across a variety of variables, using a range of sources. All information collected was incorporated into a spreadsheet where it could be sorted and analyzed. A significant amount of data was obtained from a book that is given to 8th grade students to use in deciding which high school to attend. This book is entitled 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. The following information was taken from this book: a list of schools to be open during the 2007-08 school year, their addresses and the sizes of their student bodies; lists of PSAL and intramural sports teams; lists of extracurricular activities categorized as either Academic, Artistic, Leadership and Support, or Clubs. This book is assembled by the Department of Education, but comprised of information that is provided by the high schools themselves.137 For the purposes of the report, it was determined that it was necessary to create additional categories of programs. To that end, three additional categories were created: tutoring, vocational, and community service programs. These programs, while also counted under their original headings, were identified based on their titles to constitute additional categories. Vocational training programs were designated as programs that provide practical experience for the working world. Internships and business and engineering programs were considered vocational, but any theory-based activities were not. Tutoring programs were in the form of professional or peer-tutoring, and could be offered before school, out-of-school time, or on Saturdays. Summer programs were not included in this category. Community service programs were ones that engaged students in some
134 135

Ibid "The New York City Department of Education School Based Expenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005." School Based Expenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005 Citywide By Funding Source. NYC Department of Education. 20 Sep 2007 <http://www.nycenet.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/exp01/y2004_2005/function.asp?R=5>. 136 Sampat, Hemant, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07, Department of Education, City of New York, Personal Communication, 12 Sep 2007 137 Ibid, 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools

28

sort of civic involvement, whether it be volunteering around the neighborhood or tutoring local elementary school children. These activities were either organized by adults or by the students themselves.138 At the end of each school year, the Department of Education compiles a report on the performance of each New York City public high school. The information obtained from the 2005-06 school year report cards is the following: the New York City geographic regions and districts of the schools, attendance rates, the number of criminal and police incidents, New York State Regents Examinations scores, the amount of spending per student, the ethnic backgrounds of students, the percentage of current and incoming students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, the percent of school space used, and graduating students future plans, whether that be to attend 4-year colleges, 2year colleges, join the military, to seek employment, or other known or unknown plans.139 Graduation rates, including the percentages of students who received Regents or local diplomas, dropped out, or are still enrolled in school were provided by the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report.140 Findings Before discussing data on Bronx out-of-school time programs, it is important to examine the demographics of Bronx high schools. The Bronx is home to 100 public high schools (excluding charter schools) that serve a total of 58, 455 kids. 141 Nearly all (98%) of the schools are made up of a majority of black and Hispanic students, and in 91% of schools the majority of current students are eligible to receive free lunch. 142 The average graduation rate is 50%, and among those graduates less than half planned to attend a 4year college. More than 3,200 high school students dropped out of school in the Bronx in the 2005-2006 school year. 143 In the 2005-06 academic year an average of $11,962 was directly spent on each student, but more than 40% of students failed the English or Math A Regents.144 The New York City Department of Education (DOE) categorizes out-of-school time programs as the following: sports, artistic, leadership and support, academic, or clubs. This study further divided programs into community service, tutoring, and vocational training. For those 58, 455 students, there are 2,749 programs: 1,083 PSAL sports teams, 317 leadership and support programs, 313 art programs, 270 academic programs, 179 non-PSAL sports teams, 584 clubs, 112 vocational training programs, 75 tutoring programs, and 51 community service programs. (Three programs were counted in more than one category: vocational training programs, tutoring programs, and community service programs come from other categories.)145
138 139 140

Ibid Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx High Schools 141 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 142 Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 143 Ibid, Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx High Schools 144 Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 145 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools

29

Academic Programs Academic programs include debate, mock trial, moot court, honor societies, chess and sat prep activities. 14 schools do not offer any academic out-of-school time programs, meaning that 5,457 students are not able to participate in academic enrichment activities following the school day.146 Sports Programs Bronx high schools are given the option to offer Public School Athletic League sports, intramural sports, or a combination of the two. However, 22 schools do not offer any Public School Athletic League sports teams, 26 schools do not offer any intramural sports and 7 schools do not offer any sports programs at all. This means that 1,841 kids are not able to participate in any school-sponsored athletic program.147 Artistic Programs Artistic programs provide drama, music and dance activities. These types of programs are an especially important resource for high school students looking for a creative outlet. 26 Bronx high schools do not offer any artistic out-of-school time programs. Currently, more than 12,850 Bronx high school students do not have access to arts-based out-ofschool time programs at their high schools.148 Leadership and Support Programs Leadership and support programs can include community service-based programs, student government, student council, and peer education. 7 Bronx high schools do not offer any leadership and support programs, meaning that 1,706 students are not able to participate in activities designed to create and enhance leadership skills.149 Club Programs Clubs allow students to explore topics that are often not addressed in a school environment; this includes a number of things such as photography, skiing, different languages, or even a love of food. Since students run many clubs working with a school adviser, they can be environments that help to foster leadership and interpersonal skills. Currently, there are 6 schools in the Bronx with no clubs, meaning that 2,825 students are unable to broaden their horizons.150

146 147

Ibid Ibid 148 Ibid 149 Ibid 150 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools

30

Vocational Training Programs For students who will be looking for jobs immediately after graduation, vocational training out-of-school time programs provide practical experience for the working world through work skills training and internships. Vocational training is crucial for the nearly 3,292 kids that drop out each year of high school in the Bronx.151 Significantly, 38 schools offer no vocational programs, meaning that more than 19,650 kids are at risk from graduating high school with no job training. 152 Tutoring Programs Tutoring can be offered to students in several forms: assistance offered by other students, or by teachers, and tutoring made available before classes, out-of-school time, or on Saturdays. 46 Bronx high schools do not offer any form of tutoring, leaving 39,000 kids without the tools they may need to succeed academically. 153 Community Service Programs Community service out-of-school time programs give students an opportunity to make a difference in areas they care about. A number of school-sponsored community service programs ask high school students to help elementary school students in subjects like reading. 63 Bronx high schools do not give their students access to any kind of community service programs, resulting in more than 31,500 potentially, uninvolved students.154 Out-Of-School Time Programs in City High Schools Out-of-school time programs in all five boroughs were analyzed from the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools to put into perspective the situation in the Bronx. For the 299,986 city high school students, there are 354 high schools in the city that offer 17,584 out-of-school time school programs. In Manhattan, there are 87 high schools for 61,395 students that offer 2,374 out-of-school time programs. In Queens, there are 61 high schools for 79,739 students that offer 2,117 out-of-school time programs. In Brooklyn, there are 97 high schools for 82,588 students that offer 2,674 outof-school time programs. In Staten Island, there are 9 high schools for 17,809 students that offer 1,126 out-of-school time programs. Finally, in the Bronx, there are 100 high schools for 58,455 students that offer 2,749 out-of-school time programs.155 Brooklyn lacks the most out-of-school time programs, across the different categories, compared to the Bronx. Overall, however, it should be noted that there is a shortage of
151 152

Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx High Schools Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 153 Ibid 154 Ibid 155 Ibid

31

crucial out- of- school time programs in many city high schools. For instance, there are 72 high schools in the city that do not have any Public School Athletic League (PSAL) sports teams. At least 136 city high schools do not offer any intramural sports programs. In addition, there are 19 city high schools without any type of leadership programs. Significantly, there are 76 city high schools without artistic programs. There are also 32 city high schools without clubs. Finally, there are 46 city high schools without any academic programs.156 Comparison of DOE Funding by Borough For this report, the number of out-of-school- time programs in school facilities was compared to the total amount of DOE funding in each borough to determine whether funding was evenly spent. Data was used from the Galaxy budget and the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. In Staten Island, there are a total of 9 schools; 1,126 out-of-school time programs;157 and $2,542,195 in funding.158 In Brooklyn, there are a total of 98 schools; 2,674 out-of-school time programs;159 and $17,583,152 in funding. 160 In Queens, there are a total of 61 schools; 2,117 out-of-school time programs;161 and $9,665,316 in funding.162 In Manhattan, there are a total of 88 schools; 2,374 out-of-school time programs;163 and $21,840,098 in funding. 164 Lastly, the Bronx has a total of 101 schools; 2,749 out-of-school time programs;165 and $18,358,760 in funding.166 The average amount each school spent in fiscal year 2007 on all of its out-of-school time programs in Manhattan was $248,182, compared to $181,770 in Bronx high schools. In short, there is a difference of over $66,000 per school.167 Significantly, high schools in these two boroughs offer a comparable average number of out-of-school time programs, with Manhattan high schools offering 26 and Bronx high schools offering 27.168 So while the two boroughs have a comparable average number of programs in each school, the Manhattan schools spend 27% more on each program.169 As a result, Manhattan high schools have a greater amount of funding to support their out-of-school time programs, which leads to more and better quality programs for their high school youth. Out-of-school Time Programs at a Westchester High School The lack of sufficient out-of-school time programs is even more evident in the Bronx when you compare the richness and breadth of such programs and activities available to
156 157

Ibid Ibid 158 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07 159 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 160 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07 161 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 162 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07 163 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 164 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07 165 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 166 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07 167 Ibid 168 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 169 Ibid, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07

32

youth at schools in the Westchester suburbs. For instance, Mamaroneck High School of Westchester County offers a total of 106 out-of-school time programs. With 1,459 enrolled students in grades 9-12, this one school boasts an impressive 74 extracurricular student organizations, composed of 15 Academic Clubs, 11 Athletic Clubs, 12 Entertainment Clubs, 30 Service Clubs, and six school-wide publications. Significantly, each organization has its very own faculty advisor. These figures are in addition to the schools 32 sports teams.170 A school of comparable size to Mamaroneck High in the Bronx, the Grace H. Dodge High School enrolls 1,480 students in grades 9-12. Yet, it offers a total of only 18 out-ofschool time programs for all its students. It has nine extracurricular programs and nine sports teams. Four of the nine extracurricular programs are academic in nature, three are leadership and support, and two have an artistic focus.171 The root of the staggering disparities between out-of-school time programs in these two settings seems to be due to unequal funding. Most significantly, the average expenditure per student in the 2005- 2006 school year at the Grace Dodge High School was $8,559,172 compared to Mamaronecks $20,586.173 Thus, there was a $12,027 gap divides spending per urban and suburban pupils. Additionally, many suburban schools actually employ Student Activities Coordinators whose sole undertaking is to oversee all student organizations and clubs. These are salaries that urban schools are often unable to fund.174 Urban schools also consistently lack physical space to house out-of-school activities, compared to suburban schools that are frequently newer and larger.175

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Overview The Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) works to provide programming for youth and families. The mission of the DYCD is to provide safe care for children, while also incorporating education that encourages skills that will lead to community involvement and economic stability. In addition, DYCD has programs which provide adults and families with education opportunities and naturalization services.176

170

Carol Scheffler, Coordinator of School Activities, Mamaroneck High School Guide to Clubs, November 2005 < http://www.mamkschools.org/mhs/programs/clubs/Club%20Brochure%20fall%202005-spring%2006.pdf > 171 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 172 Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 173 Public School Review on New York City Public Schools, < http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/55876 > 174 Parents United for the DC Public Schools, Unlevel Playing Fields II: An Update on District of Columbia High School Athletic Programs, Facilities, and Funding, July 2002 < http://www.parentsunited4dc.org/unlevelplayingfields_ii.htm> 175 Crosby, Emeral A.,Urban Schools: Forced to Fail, Phi Delta Kappan, December 1999 <http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kcro9912.htm> 176 NYC Department Of Youth And Community Development." 02 Aug 2007. Department of Youth and Community Development. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/>.

33

Contracts & Budget The DYCD functions through the 2,106 contracts it has with community-based organizations in neighborhoods throughout New York City. This includes 458 youth programs citywide.177 The adopted budget for 2008 is $388 million.178 Federal and state funding are 23.4% and 3.4%, respectively, of the agencys 2008 budget. City funds will make up 73.2%. The funding includes $108 million for OST contracts and $46.1 million for the Beacon Program. OST programs and Beacon program community centers address the needs of children who require parental supervision out-of-school time, in the evening, and on weekends and school holidays. OST/ Beacon Programs Budget The fiscal year 2008 budget for OST contracts is $108 million, with $88 million coming from the city, $10 million coming from intra-city funds (mostly ACS), and $10 million coming from New York State. In fiscal year 2009, the OST budget will increase to $121 million.179 The 2008 adopted budget includes a Mayoral add of $32 million in city tax levy to support the creation of 10,000 OST slots for elementary schools and to convert 5,000 OST slots to year round slots. The budget for 2008 increases funding for OST in DYCDs budget by combining an allocation of new resources to the program ($22.3 million for 2008 and $30.3 million beginning in 2009) with money transferred from ACS to DYCD ($10 million in 2008 and $14 million in 2009 through 2011).180 The $10 million from ACS is to provide services to 3,500 children in programs operated by DYCD. In 2007, the adopted budget included a Mayoral add of $1.4 million to address a shortfall in OST slots for youth on the Lower East Side, in East Harlem and the Bronx. The $46.1 million for Beacon programs includes $7.7 million in intra-city funds from ACS, $700,000 from the state, and $7.7 million federal. The 2008 Adopted budget includes a Council restoration of $4 million in city funds for Beacon programs. This is to ensure that each of the programs will be able to pay the $50,000 school opening fee required by DOE. 181 DYCD receives federal funds for OST and Beacon programs, which include $1.5 million from the Child Care and Development Fund of the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration of Child Services and $1,030,800 from AmeriCorps program of the Corporation of National and Community Service. State funding for OST and Beacon programs consists of $13 million for the Advantage After-School program from New York State Office of Child and Family Services. The OST program also has several partnerships for funding. The Wallace Foundation is providing a five-year $12 million grant. OST is also supported through partnerships with The Clark Foundation, the
177

"IAFY08Adopted.pdf." Children's Impact Analysis Fiscal Year 2008 Adopted Budget For New York City. July 2007. Citizens' Committee For Children. <http://www.cccnewyork.org/publications/IAFY08Adopted.pdf>. 178 "Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2008: Expense Revenue Contract." 2007. The City Of New York. 3 Aug 2007 179 Miller, Andrew, Additional Info, Department of Youth and Community Development, City of New York, Personal Communication, 13 October 2007 180 Independent Budget Office, IBOs Reestimate Of The Mayors Preliminary Budget For 2008 And Financial Plan Through 2011 181 Independent Budget Office, IBOs Programmatic Review of the 2007 Preliminary Budget: Department of Youth and Community Development March 2006

34

Partnership for After-school Education, Policy Studies Associates, Inc., the Citizen's Committee for Children and the Fund for the City of New York.182 Out of School Time Program Description Launched in 2005 by Mayor Bloomberg183, the DYCD Out-of-School Time (OST) Programs for Youth is the largest out-of-school time initiative in the nation. Provided at no cost to families, the Citys OST programs offer a balanced mix of academic support, sports and recreational activities, the arts and cultural experiences.184 OST programs form the core of New York City's youth programming, which includes a broad spectrum of more than 1,400 City-funded out-of-school time programs in total.185 During the 2006-2007 school year, OST programs served more than 65,000 elementary, middle and high school students, and will grow to serve another 10,000 young people in the 2007-2008 school year for a total of 75,000. It is anticipated that more than 92,000 children will enroll in 2007-2008 school year.186 Presently, there are approximately 550 OST contracts187 that are operated by approximately 200 community organizations.188 Government entities and their related affiliates, including but not limited to public libraries, public schools, and other City agencies, are not eligible to receive a contract award under the OST program. However, these entities may participate in OST programs through linkages or subcontracting agreements with organizations awarded OST contracts.189 DYCD has set a goal that approximately 60% of available funding will be allocated to elementary school OST programs, 30% to middle school OST programs and 10% to high school OST programs.190 The DYCD RFP allocates funding by borough as follows: Bronx, 24.3%; Brooklyn, 35.1%; Manhattan, 13.4%; Queens, 22.3%; Staten Island, 4.9%. In each borough, budget allocations will be divided on a 60%/40% basis between high need zip codes and all other zip codes. DYCD allocated slots according to a formula that prioritized fifty-eight zip codes focusing on high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing five demographic variables: youth population; youth poverty rate; rate of youth ages 16-19 years who are not in school, not high school graduates, and not in the labor force; number of English Language Learner students in public schools; and the number of single parent families with related children under 18.191 In its first year, OST operated in

182

"Mayor Bloomberg Announces The Launch Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative." 20 Oct 2005. Office Of The Mayor. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20051020.Html>. 183 "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP.". Department Of Youth and Community Development. 22 Dec 2004 184 "New York Citys Out-Of-School Time (OST) Programs For Youth." Department Of Youth and Community Development. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/Services-Ost.Html>. 185 "Mayor Bloomberg Announces The Launch Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative." 20 Oct 2005. Office Of The Mayor. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20051020.Html>. 186 Scaglione, Fred. "DYCD Issues $140 Million OST Expansion RFP." 29 June 2007. New York Nonprofit Press. 187 Preliminary Mayors Management Report: February 2007 188 "New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development Celebrates One-Year Anniversary Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative." 12 Oct 2006., Department Of Youth And Community Development. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20061012.Html>. 189 Ibid. "Out-Of-School Time Programs for Youth RFP." 190 Ibid 191 Ibid

35

139 unique zip codes. 60% of programs were opened in 58 high-need zip codes in the City. 192 The OST system depends on interagency coordination to reach every area in the city, especially with the Department of Education. The DOE is hosting approximately 60% of all OST programs (as of 2005) in approximately 515 DOE facilities and will contribute a range of services, including security and healthy snacks.193 Significantly, 60% of DYCD spending on OST also programs goes to programs in school facilities.194 Other programs are located in New York City Housing Authority facilities, in Parks and Recreation facilities and in Public Libraries. Additional resources are coming from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Cultural Affairs. Overall, OST programs are located in schools, community centers, settlement houses, religious centers, cultural organizations, libraries, public housing and parks facilities.195 The OST RFP calls for a minimum of 1,140 program hours during the course of the year eight weeks during the summer at 50 hours per week; 36 weeks during the school year at 15 hours per week and 20 school holidays at 10 hours per day. The maximum price per participant is $2,800. Proposers are encouraged to provide cash contributions from private sources which would be used to enhance program services. Participant input in program activities and design are encouraged. Government, service providers, and private funders are partners in ensuring an accountable and sustainable OST system.196 Beacon Program Beacons are community centers located in public school buildings, offering a range of activities and services to participants of all ages, before and out-of-school time, in the evenings and on weekends. The Beacon program relies on a partnership between the community-based organizations and principals, educators, school boards, parents, and youth and community leaders to develop and manage the centers.197 There are currently 80 Beacon programs that serve 180,000 clients. 198 Although they are administered by DYCD, Beacons are funded through city tax levy dollars, state children and family services dollars, and federal community development block grant dollars. In addition, the initiative is supported by technical assistance provided by the Youth Development Institute (YDI) of the Fund for the City of New York. Beacon Community Centers operate a minimum of six days and 42 hours a week in the afternoons and evenings, on weekends, during school holidays and vacation periods, and during the summer. There is

192

Russel, Christina A, and Elizabeth R. Reisner, and Lee M. Pearson, and Kolajo P. Afolabi, and Tiffany D. Miller and Monica B. Mielke, Evaluation of the Out-Of-School Time Initative: Report on the First Year. Policy Studies Associates, Inc. December 2006 193 City of New York, Department of Youth and Community Development. School Partnership Memorandum. 194 Miller, Andrew, Discussion of OST Funding, Department of Youth and Community Development, City of New York, Personal Communication, 13 October 2007 195 Ibid. "New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development Celebrates One-Year Anniversary Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative." 196 Ibid. Out-Of-School Time Initiative Request-For-Proposals Concept Paper 197 New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development: New York City Beacons Initiative. <Http://Www.Edutopia.Org/Php/Orgs.Php?Id=ORG_305576> 198 Ibid. "IAFY08Adopted.pdf."

36

at lease one Beacon program operative in each of the 32 local school districts in NYC and several in the citys poorest neighborhoods.199 Beacons are community centers located in public school buildings, offering a range of activities and services to participants of all ages, before and out-of-school time, in the evenings and on weekends. Individual Beacons are managed by community-based organizations and work collaboratively with their host schools, community advisory councils, and a wide range of neighborhood organizations and institutions. 200 Each Beacon addresses the needs of youth by offering a range of asset-based activities in five (5) core areas recognized as important for healthy youth development: Academic Enhancement, Career Awareness/School To Work Transition, Life Skills, Community Building and Recreation. Each Beacon Program works collaboratively with the host school and the community, and engages a Community Advisory Council comprising parents, youth, school personnel, community representatives, local merchants, health care professionals, substance abuse prevention and/or treatment providers, law enforcement personnel and representatives of other community-based organizations. 201 OST and Beacon Programs for High School Youth by Borough In New York City, there are 193 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 23, 828 participants and receive $11,686,747 in funding from DYCD. In the Bronx, there are 45 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 5, 656 participants and receive $2,626,760 in funding from DYCD. In Brooklyn, there are 60 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 7,581 participants and receive $3,608,665 in funding from DYCD. In Manhattan, there are 41 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 4,596 participants and receive $2,788,852 in funding from DYCD. In Queens, there are 34 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 4,584 participants and receive $2,224,955 in funding from DYCD. In Staten Island, there are 13 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 1,411 participants and receive $437,515 in funding from DYCD.202 In New York City, there are 80 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 43,507 participants and receive $43,870,160 in funding from DYCD. In the Bronx, there are 13 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 5,656 participants and receive $6,792,363 in funding from DYCD. In Brooklyn, there are 27 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 11,747 participants and receive $15,205,325 in funding from DYCD. In Manhattan, there are 14 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 6,091 participants and receive $9,461,215 in funding from DYCD. In Queens, there are 22 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll
199

"The Beacon Program." Department Of Youth And Community Development. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Nyc.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/Services Out-of-school time-Beacon.Html>. "Pathways Mapping Initiative: Expanded Neighborhood Resources." Department Of Youth And Community Development. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.Pathwaystooutcomes.Org/Index.Cfm?Fuseaction=Page.Viewpage&Pageid=267>. 201 Ibid. "The Beacon Program."
200 202

37

approximately 9,571 participants and receive $10,139,386 in funding from DYCD. In Staten Island, there are 4 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 1,740 participants and receive $2,271,871 in funding from DYCD.203 Methodology In order to determine how effectively the Bronx OST and Beacons are working, several analyses were performed for this report. First, data was gathered about the enrollment and the locations of Bronx OST and Beacon programs for high school age youth. Next, this program enrollment data was compared by zip code to census data on Bronx high school enrollment. Subsequently, a map was prepared that overlaid Bronx neighborhoods to Bronx zip codes to see what neighborhoods corresponded to each zip code. Using Geographic Information System software, Bronx OST programs for high school age youth were also mapped out and compared to the locations of Bronx high schools to determine the proximity of programs to schools. Additionally, the zip code locations of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth were compared to DYCDs prioritized zip codes that were determined to be high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing demographic variables. Findings While it appears that funding for Out-of-School Time services has risen in the past few years, there are still many children in the Bronx who are not receiving these services. In 2005, the estimated Unmet Need for Out of School Time Services for Youths ages 14-19 in the Bronx was 32,499. The neighborhood with the highest unmet need was Unionport/Soundview with 4,180.204 There are 58,455 youth enrolled in Bronx public high schools. 205 Presently, there are currently only 11,371 high school youth enrolled in either an OST program or a Beacon program in the entire borough of the Bronx. 206 In deducting the number of youth in programs to youth in enrolled in high schools, the finding is that nearly 47,084 Bronx high school students are not involved in any OST or Beacon program. There are many areas in the Bronx where there are very few Beacon or OST programs. In the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority in the Bronx for OST programs, two targeted zip codes have no OST program at all (10457 & 10472) and two targeted zip codes have only 1 OST program each (10468 & 10453).207 Looking at both target and non- target areas, 8 zip codes only have 1 OST program each. 27 Bronx public high schools have no OST program with a mile. Students at Herbert H. Lehman HS, Peace and Diversity Academy, and the Renaissance HS for Musical Theatre and Technology at 3000 East Tremont Ave. have to travel 1.43 miles to get to the nearest OST program.208 71 Bronx public high schools have no OST programs on-site. Additionally, 63 of the 71
203 204 205

Citizens Committee For Children, Keeping Track of New York Citys Children. 2005 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 206 Ibid, Keeping Track of New York Citys Children 207 Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes 208 Location and Proximity to Schools Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx

38

Bronx high schools with no OST program at their site are also in zip codes that DYCD targeted as high priority.209 The Bronx zip codes with the highest unmeet need for OST and Beacon programs slots are 10453 (Morris Heights) & 10456 (Morrisania). In 10453(Morris Heights), there are 726 youth enrolled in OST and Beacon programs versus 6,444 Bronx youth enrolled in high schools, meaning that there is a potential unmeet need for 6,051 slots for programs. In 10456 (Morrisania), there are 819 youth enrolled in OST and Beacon programs versus 6,447 Bronx youth enrolled in high schools, meaning that there is a potential unmeet need for 5,628 slots for programs.210 CONCLUSIONS New York City Department of Education (DOE) One of the key components of the DOE Children First Reforms has been to increase the power of principals and at the same time, hold them accountable for the state of their school. Over the last few years, principals have gained greater authority over budgets, educational programming, teacher development, school scheduling and hiring. This increased accountability for Principals has largely meant holding them accountable for the academic success of their students on various State test scores. This has encouraged focusing a majority of the accountability measures on classes, programs and academic initiatives that take place during the school day. The same measures of accountability being introduced through the Children First initiatives should be applied to the measurements of success of out-of-school time programs. While students test scores are probably one of the most important measures of a school, students participation in quality out-of-school time programs should also be considered a very important measure of a schools success because of the programs proven records of improving academic outcomes. Without sufficient accountability measures for out-of-school time programs on school sites, a situation has been created to allow for large disparities in the quantity, variety and quality of out-of-school time programs at different schools. Consequently, many Bronx high schools lack out-of-school time programs that could contribute to the academic success and personal development of students. Out-of-school time programs serve the same children within the school system and can produce significant academic and other benefits. Thus, the accountability measures for out-of-school time programs should fall under similar scrutiny. If this were the case, there would be more efforts made and resources provided to increase out-of-school time programs dramatically and ensure that there would be an equitable distribution of programs. It is critical that key accountability standards be re-defined to include out-ofschool time programs to ensure their expansion in public high schools.
209 210

Ibid, Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes Analysis of High School Enrollment Data and OST/ Beacon Programs Enrollment Data

39

The two key measures of the state of schools are the annual 2005- 2006 School Report Cards (or Progress Reports) and the recent 2007 Learning Environment Survey. This report analyzed these two documents to determine what consideration they gave to outof-school time programs. Use of School Report Cards A standard DOE School Report Card includes a Principal's Statement and School Mission Statement, which provide a brief overview of the school. Community Support and Parent/School Support sections emphasize external assistance given to the school, such as the PTA or outside partnerships with colleges. There is a section describing the student body, which includes statistics on the percentage of students involved in criminal activity, the percentage of recent immigrants, and demographic characteristics of all 9th and 10th graders. The school characteristics section provides information about teacher experience, average spending per student, and school capacity. A fifth of the report is comprised of the section that analyzes students regents examinations. It includes a large chart that shows the percentage of students who passed each regents examination offered by NY State. The last part of the school report is called Other Indicators, which provides information about SATs and students plans after graduation.211 The Report Card includes an Extracurricular Activities section, which mentions programs that augment the schools regular academic curriculum. However, after reviewing numerous Bronx high school Report Cards, it is evident that most high schools use the Extracurricular Activities section only to list a few programs they supply, instead of providing a comprehensive list of all that are offered or providing any performance data about the programs. 212 For example, Banana Kelley High School states, Our students participate in Building with Books, a track team and a boys basketball team.213 This one sentence, which is very typical of current Bronx high school Report Cards, is all that is required to describe the schools entire out-of-school time curriculum. Banana Kelly High School does not mention other activities that it provides for its students, such as Conflict Mediation and an Audiovisual club that were provided in the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools.214 Moreover, information is lacking about how many times a week programs meet and daily attendance of students. In addition, there is no information about the capacity of individual programs or the amount of students they service. Significantly, the Report Cards could be used to ascertain the quantity and quality of outof-school time programs; such as total number of programs, the names of all the programs, average daily attendance in programs, duration of participant attendance etc. Without an in-depth and comprehensive explanation of a schools extracurricular activities, it is hard to judge whether New York City public high schools are providing adequate programming.
211 212

Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools Ibid 213 Banana Kelly High School, 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement 214 Ibid. 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools

40

Recently, Chancellor Joel Klein announced efforts to enhance School Report Cards and provide in-depth details about individual school performance. Starting this year, the Report Cards will include letter grades for each schools performance and be used to judge the principals effectiveness.215 It should be noted, however, that the School Report Cards, in their current format, do not adequately judge the performance of principals and schools because they lack a comprehensive section about out-of-school time programming. If we are to accept the Report Card as a critique of high schools and principals, DOE must add to accountability measures of extracurricular activities/ out-ofschool time programs in individual schools to Report Cards. Use of Learning Environment Survey In May of 2007, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announced the creation of the Learning Environment Survey for middle and high schools, which would come in the form of questionnaires designed to determine the state of the citys schools. $2 million was then spent on the survey as a part of the Children First Initiative, which was deigned to be used for Report Cards that will grade school graded on an A through F scale.216 The survey sought to include 1.8 million participants, who were made up of parents, teachers and sixth to twelfth grade students. Upon completion of the survey this September, 587, 000 participants had responded to provide significant information on attitudes towards schools. In specific, 26% of parents responded; 44% percent of teachers; and 65% of middle and high school students responded.217 These participants were asked respond to what the administration called key prerequisites to learning safety, communication, engagement and expectations.218 The goal of the survey was to bring more accountability to schools and see which schools were succeeding and using the collected information to create a better learning environment. The results of the survey are going to 10% of each schools grades in the 2006-7 Progress Report (or School Report Card), and will even be used to give each school specific information on how they can improve their learning environment.219 The plan for the survey is to give the parents answers the most weight. Using mostly multiple choice, agree/disagree type questions, the survey looked to find out information on school safety, school quality, activities, course work and the supportive nature of school staff. Teachers were asked about the mindset of other teachers, principals and school leaders and the overall quality of materials in their classrooms. Parents were asked about their satisfaction with classes and programs offered by their schools and the quality of communication with their childrens teachers. In addition, parents were also given 10 improvements they could choose as most important, such as more teacher training and smaller classes. Students were surveyed
215 216 217

Andreatta, Dan. Its Your Chance To Grade City Schools. The New York Post 01 May 2007: 2 Bosman, Julie. "Views of Parents, Students and Teachers Sought." The New York Times 01 May. 2007 : 6 Ibid. Its Your Chance To Grade City Schools. 218 . "Open the Bright Green Envelope: Take the Learning Environment Survey!." . . Department of Education. 04 Aug. 2007 <http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=message_preview&fn=Key&type=tracking&id=&link=bqewoistmqvcxxgbmahcyomfclhebnh>. 219 "Children First Survey - Call For Responses." . . NYC HOLD. 04 Aug. 2007 <http://www.nychold.com/cf-survey-02.html>.

41

on the type of adult presence in their schools, whether they felt safe, and what types of subjects were taught to them.220 One significant gap in the survey was out-of-school time activities. In comparing various categories of questions in the distinct surveys for student, parent and teacher surveys, it becomes apparent that questions about out-of-school time programs accounted for a very small portion. In the distinct surveys, parents are asked 42 questions, teachers are asked 73 questions, and students are 67 questions. While the three surveys have a total of 182 questions, there are only three questions asked all together in the surveys regarding outof-school time programs in city schools. This is in contrast with school safety questions, which had 22 on the Teachers survey, 15 on the Student survey and 11 on the Parents survey.221 The only out-of-school time question asked to the students was During this school year, which of the following activities did you participate in either before or after-school time or during free periods? which could be answered with responses such as school sports teams or clubs or tutoring/enrichment services. Similarly, parents are only asked My child participates in the following school activities before or after-school which could also be answered with responses such as team sports or clubs or tutoring/enrichment services. Likewise, teachers are Which of the following courses or activities are available to students at your school and when are they available during the day? that could be answered Offered before or after-school or during free periods with subjects such as sports teams or clubs.222 In general, the school survey failed to ask many questions about accountability, safety and leadership in regards to out-of-school time programs, such as those found in the New York State After-school Networks (NYSAN) quality self-assessment (QSA) tool. The NYSAN tool was created to help out-of-school time programs identify their needs for improvement. The sections of the NYSAN QSA Tool seek to provide an in-depth picture of what aspects are expected in high-quality out-of-school time programs. This tool includes questions on the following sections: Environment/Climate, Administration/Organization, Relationships, Staffing/Professional Development, Programming/Activities, Youth Participation/Engagement, Parent/Family/Community Partnerships, Program Sustainability/Growth, Measuring Outcomes/Evaluation and Linkages Between Day and After-school time.223 While these sections go very in-depth in looking at out-of-school time programs, the Learning Environment Survey would have benefited from just adding questions from one section. For instance, questions about the Administration/ Organization of out-of-school time programs to get feedback from effectively students, teachers and parents. In regards to the responses to Learning Environment Surveys, this report found two areas of significant concern that point to the need for better accountability by DOE of out-ofschool time programs. First, when asked what single significant improvement schools
220 221

Ibid. "Open the Bright Green Envelope: Take the Learning Environment Survey!." City of New York, Learning Environment Survey. Department of Education, April 31, 2007 222 Ibid. Learning Environment Survey. 223 New York State After School Network, Program Quality Self-Assessment Tool Planning for Ongoing Program Improvement

42

could make, 19% of parents indicated that they though that schools should have more or better enrichment programs.224 This response, second only to smaller class size in ranking, indicates that parents feel that the increase in out-of-school time programs is critically important for the schools that their children attend. Second, students were asked, during this school year, which of the following activities did you participate in either before or out-of-school time or during free time, and were able to rate their participation in these activities: art, music, dance, theater, foreign language, computer skills/ technology, school sports teams or clubs, and tutoring/ enrichment activities. In response, an average of 54% of middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any of these out-of-school time programs during last year in their school. In particular, 41% of students said that they were not offered tutoring/enrichment activities; 55% of students said that they were not offered music; and 37% of students said that they were not offered school sports teams or clubs.225 These percentages serve to document that, during last year, hundreds of thousands of middle and high school students in New York City that were not offered to participate in various out-of-school time programs at their schools. This fact that these programs were not offered indicates these activities may not have even been available at their schools. Design of Small Schools Over the past few years, the Department of Education has pursued a policy of breaking down larger schools into smaller ones. This philosophy is exalted by many in the education profession as a way for schools to provide more personal attention to students and increase graduation rates. Lower class sizes has been high on the agenda for many advocates of change in the City's public school system, some of whom claim it is the most important issue to parents. Yet, this approach has not gone without criticism; most notably, critics claim breaking down larger schools into smaller ones has exacerbated overcrowding in the cities public schools. The creation of new smaller schools does not mean the creation of new school buildings; rather larger schools are broken down into many smaller schools and each school shares their building's facilities. Many critics say that this processes in inefficient, as more schools require more administrative positions and office space. The need for office spaces lowers the schools student capacity. When the schools capacity is lowered, students are sent to other schools exacerbating the other schools issues of overcrowded classrooms. The effects of overcrowding may go beyond the school day. Out-of-school time enrichment programs are often considered essential to the education of New York City students. Stretched beyond capacity by the small schools movement, some schools are forced to stagger their student's entry times. For instance, some students in one school start late in the morning/ early afternoon and do not get out of school until as late as six o'clock. These students are left without time for out-of-school time enrichment programs.
224 225

Ibid. Citywide Learning Environment Survey Ibid. Learning Environment Surveys: Citywide Results.

43

Without space or time to host these programs, principals may not be able to create new enrichment programs or even maintain their current ones. The residual effect of the small school movement may actually create an environment that is counterproductive to the creation and expansion of out-of-school time programs Coordination between DOE and DYCD In addition to general shortages in the number of out-of-school time programs offered in Bronx high schools, the few programs that do exist are unequally distributed among neighborhoods. Such disparities from one neighborhood to the next are indicative of a lack of communication between the DOE and the DYCD. Both departments have a limited budget for spending on out-of-school time programs, and can satisfy the financial needs of only a limited number of schools each. While these two departments have albeit modest funds to support out-of-school programs, pooling their resources would doubtless prove more efficient, and organized communication would facilitate a more balanced distribution among neighborhoods. There are an estimate 2,750 out-of-school time programs serving 58,455 students in 100 high schools throughout the Bronx. 71 of these 100 high schools do not have a DYCD OST program on site.226 This means a majority of the 2,749 total out-of-school time programs are likely to be funded by the DOE.227 Since the DYCD does not have the money to fund programs in every Bronx high school, DYCD OST programs should be where they are most urgently needed. Yet, DYCD OST programs exist in Bronx high schools that have an average of 33 out-of-school time programs each. In fact, one high school with a DYCD OST program on site offers a total of 50 out-of-school time programs. Meanwhile, some Bronx high schools have as few as seven out-of-school programs on site, not one of which is a DYCD OST program.228 It is crucial that the DYCD and DOE work together in determining which schools and neighborhoods exhibit a greater need for OST programs. In order for the discrepancies among opportunities offered to different communities to be leveled, these two departments must improve communication and cooperation. Federal and State Funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers This fall, due to the cuts in state and federal funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs, 17 Bronx high schools face the possible closings of numerous out-of-school time programs; including programs at High School For Excellence, Bronx High School For Medical Science, Christopher Columbus High School, Evander Childs High School, Walton High School, Fordham High School for the Arts, Adlai E. Stevenson High School, John F. Kennedy High School, Urban Assembly School For Careers in Sports, High School of World Cultures, Alfred E. Smith Career and Technical Education High School, Samuel Gompers Career and Technical Education
226 227

Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 228 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools

44

High School, Health Opportunities High School, Bronx Coalition Community High School, Monroe Academy For Business/Law and Monroe Academy For Visual Arts.229 These programs have fallen victim to the current complex system of public policy and funding for out-of-school time programs in New York State government and in the US federal government. Federal The federal funding issue for 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative, as a part of the NCLB Act, is a pressing issue. The cuts in federal funding for this initiative have greatly affected many communities in the country. At present, there is a great debate among members of the Congress on the NCLB Act, as President Bush is seeking to re-authorize and seek additional funding for it in this coming federal fiscal year.230 The debate in Congress on the NCLB Act will decide the future of the 21st CCLC initiative. Many have argued that there needs to be realistic federal funding for the 21st CCLC initiative for the next five years.231 New York City government officials should lobby aggressively to get funding for the 21st CCLC back to its highest previous level. If NCLB was funded at the amount authorized by Congress in 2002, an additional 1.5 million children would have been available to access by out-of-school time programs. This report recommends that New York City government lobby for increased investments in 21st CCLC as covered by the law. State The New York State Education Department has stated that the funding shortage last year for the 21st CCLC initiative is not expected to affect future RFPs for the other cohorts, as long as federal funding continues to be issued in its current amounts.232 The second cohort, consisting of 246 programs, which have an annual value of $40.4 million, is set to close in June 2008. In November, an RFP will be issued for this second cohort. Significantly, this RFP needs to cover a minimum of the second cohort. Not only should it cover the money for the second cohort, but it should have some funds to cover all the programs that lost funding last year.233 To prevent another shortfall of money by the state, the federal government obviously needs to provide enough money to fully fund this next cohort. However, the disjointed state government system for out-of-school time programs is inefficiently divided across various programs and agencies, only exacerbating the impact of insufficient federal funds. Had the state system been more efficiently structured, the state government could have better controlled the effects of federal shortcomings, preventing the closure of programs. A coordinated statewide system would better serve a greater number of students with higher quality out-of-school time programs. At present, the system is fragmented across multiple state agencies that lack efficient communication and use of resources. Different
229 230

City of New York, Department of Education, Bronx Extracurricular, Personal Communication Carey, Kevin and Andrew J. Rotherham, President Bushs Lifeless Effort on No Child Left Behind, February 6, 2007 http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=463709 231 Paulson, Amanda, Next Round Begins for No Child Left Behind, Christian Science Monitor, January 08, 2007 232 Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, April 18, 2007 233 Albert, John, The After School Corporation, Personal Communication, October 12, 2007

45

divisions of the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) administer the Advantage After School program, School-Age Child Care, and Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention funds. The Extended School Day program is operated under the State Education Department, which also oversees the 21st CCLC programs. The Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Program is administered by OCFS and then passed along to county youth bureaus. Additionally, the Department of Labor manages the Workforce Investment Act funds for high schools.234 A cohesive state system of out-of-school time programs would allow for uniform program standards and a universal application and funding process across agencies. With a better coordinated system, less money would be wasted on the governmental administration of programs, and more would be spent on students and the services provided to them. If standardized requirements put into place, then conflicting funding and reporting requirements would no longer be an issue facing staff of out-of-school time programs. Under such a system, it would prove more feasible to track the effectiveness of out-of-school time programs, and establish standard cost models that would encourage programs to scale up, and increase the number of children they serve for the amount of funding they receive. 235 Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) This report first sought to determine if how effectively these Out of School Time (OST) programs and the Beacon community centers programs were serving Bronx high school age youth. As mentioned previously section on DYCD, this report found that there were not enough programs at or near by schools for youth to access. Additionally, the report found that the programs that did exist only served a small portion of the youth population in their zip codes. This report now seeks to determine whether these disparities might have been created by DYCD policies and practices. Funding Between 2006 and 2007, DYCD increased the number of Bronx OST participants slots by 43% (from 10,002 to 14,350) and increased funding by 67% (from $10,037,661 to $16,772,991).236 Even with these increases, one very important factor that still impacts the number of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth is the reduced amount of funding for high school youth in comparison to elementary and middle school youth. According to the OST Request-for Proposals (RFP), funding for OST programs was allocated according to the following percentages: 60% for elementary, 30% for middle school, and 10% for high school. 237 This funding formula has translated into less programs and enrollment for Bronx high school youth. In 2007 for the largest area of OST funding (Option 1), Bronx elementary out-of-school time programs received $8.9 million, Bronx middle out-of-school time programs received $4.95 million, and Bronx
234

Friedman, Lucy, Its Time for Statewide Coordination in After-School Programming, New York Nonprofit Press, July/ August 2007 235 Ibid, Its Time for Statewide Coordination in After-School Programming, 236 Ibid, Additional Info 237 Ibid. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP."

46

high out-of-school time programs received $1.39 million. As a result, there were 6,404 elementary school students enrolled in 36 Bronx OST programs; 5,519 middle school students enrolled in 31 Bronx OST programs; and 3,474 high school students enrolled in 24 Bronx OST programs.238 Significantly, research has shown that money and programs must be sustained over time from elementary school to high school for programs to effectively engage and impact youth. Out-of-school time providers have also documented concern that the current price per student for high school youth is insufficient for quality service.239 According to the OST RFP, the maximum price per participant for high school youth is only $540 compared with $1,300 for middle school youth, and $2,000 for elementary school students.240 Providers have found that the money afforded for high school youth per participant is far too little to meet the demands their contracts with DYCD. Retention The ability to retain youth is directly connected to the amount of funding that is received by a program. Retention rates have been especially lacking for high school youth. Within Option I for the OST Programs, retention rates were higher in elementary grades programs than in programs serving older youth. 50% of 2005-2006 participants who attended an elementary OST program enrolled in the same OST program in 2006-2007, compared with only 31% of middle-grades participants and only 29% of high school participants.241 Targeting Some youth are not served by OST out-of-school time programs because of programs are allowed to be outside of the targeted zip code are for service or the method for targeting where services are provided misses concentrations of youth.242 DYCD allocated slots OST out-of-school time programs according to a formula that prioritized fifty-eight zip codes focusing on high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing five demographic variables.243 Yet, according to the OST program for high school youth, the out-of-school time programs sites can be located outside of the target zip codes, but are expected to serve youth residing in target zip codes.244 As a result, in the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority in the Bronx for OST programs, two targeted zip codes have no OST program at all (10457 & 10472) and two targeted zip codes have only 1 OST program each (10468 & 10453). Additionally, 63 of the 71 Bronx high schools with no OST program at their site are also in the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority for OST programs in the borough.245 Additionally, advocates have said that
238 239 240

Chin, May. OST Programs and Enrollment Data. NYC Department of Youth and Community Development. 2007 Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, January 29, 2007 Ibid. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP." 241 Pearson, Lee M and Christina A. Russell and Elizabeth R. Reisner. Evaluation of the OST Programs For Youth: Patterns of Youth Retention in OST Programs, 2005-06 to 2006-07. Policy Studies Associates, Inc.. June 2007 242 Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, January 29, 2007 243 Ibid. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP." 244 Ibid 245 Ibid, Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes

47

pockets of youth escape the zip code method of ranking areas to determine levels of need for out-of-school time program slots. In response, advocates and providers have called for increased funding to expand existing OST programs and to create new programs in high need areas.246 Tracking System The OST Online Tracking System, which is used by DYCD for accountability measures of OST programs, has proved to be problematic to use. First, OST providers have reported that the OST Online system is frequently down and inaccessible due to technical problems, making it harder to comply with DYCD reporting requirements. DYCD has confirmed there have been technical issues experienced by about half of their providers.247 Additionally, providers are concerned that the OST Online system currently does not provide an accurate picture of program performance for high school programs.248 Advocates and providers believe that the OST Online system should allow for more flexibility with respect to the way attendance data is entered for these programs because high school participants have more freedom than elementary students. The OST data focuses on the numbers and percents of youth present in the program for the length of a given day and not on activity specific attendance. As a result, program attendance may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of a given program. If there was data available based on attendance for specific activities, it would be much easier to determine which programs are worth continuing funding and which ones can be reduced or cut. These problems are especially significant since future funding is connected to these reporting requirements.249 Currently, DYCD is working to improve the OST Online system by having the Partnership for After School Education provide comprehensive technical assistance. While they have made numerous upgrades to the OST Online system in response to provider feedback, some providers still report problems.250

246 247

Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, January 29, 2007 Ibid, Additional Info 248 Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, January 29, 2007 249 Ibid 250 Ibid, Additional Info

48

RECOMMENDATIONS New York City Department of Education (DOE) DOE should make out-of-school time programs a top priority for reforms and take measures to hold out-of-school time programs on their facilities accountable: o Accountability Measures DOE should ensure that School Report Cards includes relevant data on out-of-school time programs: such as total number of programs at schools, the names of all the programs; the average daily attendance in programs; the annual amount of students served; and whether programs are achieving stated goals. DOE should make sure that any assessments of how well schools are being managed by principals, such as the Learning Environment Survey, include an in-depth look at out-of-school time programs. DOE should create the position of Deputy Chancellor for Out-ofSchool Time Programs and create an Office of Out-of-School Time Programs to create greater oversight and management of outof-school time programs that take place in school facilities. In the Chicago Public School System, they have a Director of the Office of Extended Learning Opportunity (OELO), who is in charge of coordinating Chicagos out-of-school time efforts between public schools, out-of-school time providers and private parties interested in improving Chicagos out-of-school time situation. The OELO oversees and administers out-of-school time programs serving almost 200,000 students in 548 elementary, middle and high schools. 251

o Reform Both DOE & DYCD have limited budgets for spending on out-ofschool time programs, and should pool their financial resources and have better communication. In this way, these agencies can better spread out their money for out-of-school time programs in more schools.

251

"CPS Out-of-school time Programs." Office Of Extended Learning Opportunities. Chicago Public Schools. 08 Sep 2007 <http://cpsout-of-school time.org/home.html>.

49

DOE should design small schools so that they have sufficient space for out-of-school time programs.

DOE, DYCD and the city administration should lobby the federal and state government on funding issues for out-of-school time programs. o Federal Government Lobby the federal government to increase authorized funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.

o State Government Lobby the state government to significantly increase investments in the current set of state funding streams for out-of-school time programs.

o Both Federal and State Government Work to convene the leadership of the major state and federal outof-school time funding streams in New York State to identify steps to integrate or better align existing programs across agencies and funding sources.

New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) DYCD needs to make high school youth a real priority and improve management practices. o High School Youth The DYCDs OST funding formula needs to change to increase the number of programs for high school youth. DYCD should increase percentage of funds allocated at the high school level. DYCD should increase the spending per student for high school youth in OST programs to ensure sufficient quality service. DYCD should increase the number of OST programs at or near by schools for high school youth to access. DYCD should increase the capacity of OST and Beacon programs that now serve a small portion of the youth enrolled in high school in their zip codes.

Management

50

DYCD needs to correct technical problems and inaccuracies with data collection in the OST Online Tracking System. DYCD should ensure that the geographical area served by an OST program is not too big. OST programs should serve primarily youth in their zip codes.

51

OFFICE OF THE BRONX BOROUGH PRESIDENT

Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
PREPARED BY: Director of Policy Noah A. Franklin Communications Director Anne Fenton Director of Education and Youth Services Jesse Mojica Research Analyst David Colon Policy Research Associate Kirk Vanacore Public Policy Interns Alex Baum Alex Killian Amelia Crowley Andrea Schiferl Farah Rahaman Isabel Rivera Jeremy Liao Joe Troyen Schwartz Luc Alicea Margaret Marron Molly Cue Sara Green Nichole Wrinn With assistance from: After-School All-Stars of New York, Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson, Correction Association, Erikson Institute for Graduate Study in Child Development at the University of Chicago, Fight Crime New York, Neighborhood Family Services Coalition, New York City Department of Education, New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, New York City Council Member Lewis A. Fidler, New York City Department of Juvenile Justice, New York City Law Department, New York City Department of Youth and Community Development, New York State Afterschool Network, Robert Bowne Foundation, Sports and Arts in Schools Foundation, andThe After School Corporation

52