Skip over navigation

Journal Issue: When School Is Out Volume 9 Number 2 Fall 1999

After-School Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges
Authors: Robert Halpern

Endnotes

  1. The author is principal investigator of the evaluation of MOST, undertaken by the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago. Data from Boston, Chicago, and Seattle cited in this article were collected by the author, Julie Spielberger, and Sylvan Robb. See Halpern, R., Spielberger, J., and Robb, S. Evaluation of MOST (Making the Most of Out-of-School Time) Initiative: Interim report. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, August 1998.
  2. Seppanen, P., deVries, D., and Seligson, M. National study of before- and after-school programs. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
  3. Long, S., and Clark, S. The new child care block grant: State funding choices and their implications. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, December 1998.
  4. Herr, T., and Halpern, R. Kids match: Addressing the challenges of linking inner-city children to activities supporting healthy development. Chicago: Project Match, Erikson Institute, 1993.
  5. Seligson, M., and Marx, F. When school is out in New York City. New York: Community Service Society, 1989.
  6. Survey findings from: Queralt, M., and Witte, A. Influences on neighborhood supply of child care in Massachusetts. Social Service Review (March 1998)72:16–45. See also, Partnership for Family Involvement in Education. Family involvement in education: A snapshot of out-of-school time. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. See also, U.S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty in the United States: 1990. Current population reports. Consumer income series. P-60, No. 175. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991. See also, Brayfield, A., Deich, S., and Hofferth, S. Caring for children in low-income families: Sub-study of the National Child Care Study. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1990. See also, Hedlin, D., Hannes, K., Saito, R., et al. Summary of the family's view of after-school time. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Center for Youth Development and Research, 1986.
  7. Programs differed in their activity structures and hours of service, and in how they counted children served. Some data referred to potential numbers served, some to actual numbers enrolled, some to attendance. Some institutions counted the same child two or three times, if the child enrolled for different sessions.
  8. One study found that 18% of the slots in a fairly representative sample of child care programs were for school-age children. See Helburn, S., Culkin, M., Morris, J., et al. Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child care centers. Denver: University of Colorado at Denver, 1995, p. 8.
  9. A survey of a representative sample of 24 (of 88) local libraries in Chicago, as part of the MOST evaluation, found that they each "served" an average of 60 children per day; a few actually had more than 100 children show up after school each day. Data from Seattle suggest that libraries there serve an average of 45 children a day, again with wide variation. See note no. 1, Halpern, Spielberger, and Robb, chapter 2.
  10. National Center for Educational Statistics. The condition of education, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1993, p. 122.
  11. Programs typically are exempt from child care licensing requirements if their declared purpose is educational or tutorial. In some states or cities, church-run programs are exempt from licensing, as are programs operated by public systems—schools, park districts, libraries—on the assumption that the sponsoring system will monitor quality. The mixed nature of today's after-school programs, often administered by collaborations between public and private agencies, is bound to make licensing issues more complicated in the future.
  12. Barker, G. A case study of the after-school action program in Chicago's Uptown-Edgewater Community. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1998.
  13. See Kirst, M., and Kelley, C. Collaboration to improve education and children's services. In School-community connections. L. Rigsby, M. Reynolds, and M. Wang, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995, pp. 21-43. There is a long legacy of distrust of community-based institutions among school administrators and wariness toward schools within the after-school and youth-serving community. Issues of administrative control contribute to this legacy. Schools perceive a lack of reliability and fiscal accountability among community-based agencies; community agency staff believe that school system leaders are reluctant to share power and resources, or to sustain equitable relationships, with other child-serving institutions. If new forms of collaboration are to work, each side will have to acknowledge and leave room for the legitimacy of the other's mission and worldview.
  14. Halpern, R. The role of after-school programs in the lives of inner-city children. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1990.
  15. Pierce, K., Ham, J., and Vandell, D. Experiences in after-school programs and children's adjustment at school and at home. Child Development (1999) 70:756–67.
  16. Vandell, D., Shumow, L., and Posner, J. Children's after-school programs: Promoting resiliency or vulnerability. In H. McCubbin, A. Thompson, J. Futrell, and L. McCubbin, eds. Promoting resiliency in families and children at risk: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, in press.
  17. See note no. 2, Seppanen, deVries, and Seligson, pp. 75-76.
  18. Cahill, M., Perry, J., Wright, M., and Rice, A. A documentation report on the New York City Beacons initiative. New York: The Youth Development Institute, Fund for the City of New York, December 1993.
  19. See note no. 2, Seppanen, deVries, and Seligson, p. 82.
  20. School-age care in California: Addressing the needs of children, families, and society. Irvine, CA: Department of Education, University of California at Irvine, 1996, p. 1.
  21. The study, part of the evaluation of the MOST initiative, is described in full in the forthcoming final evaluation report on the initiative.
  22. See note no. 2, Seppanen, deVries, and Seligson, p. 52.
  23. Data collected from the authorities who administer the child care subsidy system in Boston and Chicago suggest that perhaps 10% of all low-income children who participate in after-school programs receive subsidies. That percentage is consistent with data from New York City.
  24. In Chicago, for instance, United Way funds covered slightly less than $1 million of a total $15 million spent by Chicago United Way member agencies for after-school programs in 1997. Personal communication with Doug Zapotosny and Alice Lee, United Way staff members. Calculations made at the request of the author.
  25. National School-Age Care Alliance. Standards for quality school-age care. Boston: National School-Age Care Alliance, 1998.
  26. Petrie, P. School-age care and the school: Recent European developments. In Children, research, and policy. B. Bernstein and J. Brannen, eds. London: Taylor and Francis, 1996, pp. 220–40.
  27. Reasons for reducing recess include the perceived need for more learning time; fear of lawsuits; fear of "unsavory characters lurking at the edges of playgrounds"; state requirements for safety and drug instruction, which compete with recess for discretionary time; and not least, a belief among minority parents and educators that today's children are "crying out for more structure, not less." Johnson, D. Many schools putting an end to child's play. New York Times. April 7, 1998, at A1, A16.
  28. Miller, B., and Marx, F. After-school arrangements in middle childhood: A review of the literature. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child Care Project, 1990. See also, Schwartz, W. After-school programs for urban youth. In ERIC/CUE Digest no. 114. New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, October 1996.