View PDF - Heinz Endowments

ExPAt{Drf{c THE PnoMrsE:
An AcENDA FoR NoxscHool-HouR
PnocnAMS FoR ETBvIBNTARy Scuool-AcB
CsnnnBN rN Ar,lncHBNy Cou¡qry
,*j
.r;*
-?#
V^r
'\i'
}'rt ,',rÁ#,
fr
\
'i;.1.
ïr
t
',itg
, ' ,,',,.
,/'

FOR
Er,pvrBNTARy ScHool-AcB CHn onEN IN
AllpcHENY Couxry
Produced by the
University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development
a program of the University Center for Social and Urban Research
and funded by
The Forbes Fund with a grant from
The Howard Heinz Endowment
Jmu.lnY 2ooo
Jacqueline L. Dempsey, Ph.D.
Anne E. Farber, Ph.D.
Christina J. Groark, Ph.D.
RobertB. McCall, Ph.D.
Lucas O. Musewe, M.P.H.
Elizabeth M. Stork, M.S.W.
Maria Z. Townsend, Ph.D.
Project staff
Project Coordinator, Focus Groups Director
Survey Director
Project Director
Editor, Writer
Geo graphic Infomøtion Systems Director
Literature Reviewer and Writer
Demographic Indicators Director
For more information, you may call or write to: The Forbes Fund,
One PPG Place, 30th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, (412) 394-2603.
Acr¡TowLEDGMENTS
IVe wish to acknowledge the assistance of Darlene Hamilton, Jennifer Hyland, Bobbe
Grandey, and Janine Lesser of the YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh Child Care Partnerships
in providing information from their CareFinder Data Base.
rile also wish to acknowledge Robert Paserba of the Diocese of Pittsburgh Catholic
Schools who collaborated with us in surveying the Diocese's elementary schools
in Allegheny County and Duane Ashley of the City of Pittsburgh Department of Parks
and Recreation who coordinated the inventory of Citiparks programs for elementary
school age children.
In addition, Philip Parr and Jacqueline Territo of the Pittsburgh Public Schools
collaborated with us in obtaining information on programs provided in their district's
elementary schools.
rüy'e also thank the staff of the after-school programs who responded to the survey and
provided information on their programs and the parents who gave of their time by
participating in the focus groups.

Tnnrp or CoNTENTs
Ol't,;Rl,ni\\',\Nr) St;ir,rir,r,,ul\, ..""."..". x
Iìrn,nrrut;s, CoNcr.ustoNS, ÂNt)
Illicoit,t iu ItNt)A1'r oNS ..
"......... c o. o...... o..... ".... ".... s
The Need for Nonschool-Hour Services ..........6
Snapshot of Nonschool-Hour Programs in
Allegheny County
Recommendations ..........15
I. Nonschool-Hour Programs
Community Advisory Committee ........ .....19
II. Maps Locating Children and Programs
in Allegheny County .................20
III. Bibliography ..............23

Parents of elementary schoor-aged children are faced with the challenge of
finding safe and affordabre care for them during nonschool hours. with
the welfare-to-work initiative, many single t*th"r, are forced into
employment, often at minimum wage. Finding and ananging child care
can be a daunting challenge. parents often rely on neighbors, family
members, or center-based care, and use two or more care providers. Too
often, children are left in self-care. The unpublicized crisis ofcare for
young children after school hours, during summer vacations, and during
snow emergency cancellations, is rapidly increasing.
To better understand and document the curent status of nonschool_hour
care for elementary school-aged children residing in Allegheny county,
The Forbes Fund commissioned the university oltittsuuigh office of
child Development to conduct an environmental scan of the types and
locations of existing programs, demographic distribution of low-income
and working families, the needs and preferences of parents, and what the
national literature has to say about quality after-schôor care. The research
was guided by the following questions:
' what do children in this age group need during nonschool hours, and
what kinds of services are currently available?
' where are the gaps between what programs offer and what parents
want, and between where children go to school and where programs are
located?
' \vhat are the characteristics of successful after-school programs and
how do programs in Allegheny County compare?
' !o* are programs financed and what are the opportunities for future
funding that we are not accessing?
An advisory committee of 2l practitioners, funders, school officials and
government representatives reviewed the research, analy zed the findings,
and developed a set of recommendations that we believe will strengthen
the system of care for Allegheny County school children.
The following report offers a picture of the current status of nonschool_
hour care and a blueprint for moving our community forward to build a
more coherent, high-quality system of care. tt is thè hope of the advisory

committee and rhe Forbes Fund that the report will be used as a planning
tool by foundations, program planners, school administrators, and social
agencies so that future investments, policy decisions, and program enhancements
can be made in a strategic fashion.
However, the findings and recommendations reflected in this report do not
do justice to the rich body of information compiled during the course of
research. As an additional source of technical assistance, the office of
child Development has provided rhe Forbes Fund with a detailed database
of neighborhood-by-neighborhood demographics, profiles of all
surveyed programs, and descriptions of funding opportunities. This
source document and consultation by The Forbes Fund are available to
funders, community groups, individual agencies, and schools wishing to
plan after-school care in communities within Allegheny county. For more
information on how The Forbes Fund can assist with local planning
interests, you may call or write to:
The Forbes Fund
One PPG Place, 30'r'Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(4r2) 394-2603
The Board and staff of rhe Forbes Fund wish to extend our gratitude to
members of the advisory committee, agency staff, and parents who participated
in collecting information and forging the final recommendations.
special thanks are in order for the research team of the office of child
Development for compiling a comprehensive body of information and rhe
Heinz Endowments for underwriting the research and publication of this
report.
This environmental scan should be a catalyst for setting a communitywide
agenda that truly meets parents' needs and desires for safe, affordable
care for their children during nonschool time.
James Denova
Former Executive Director
The Forbes Fund

BacxcnouND ¡,run NBBn
The hidden crisis. Beneath the exterior of a thriving, fully-employed pittsburgh
lies a hidden crisis. Specifically, the very factors of economic prosperity and
social reform that have led increasing numbers of mothers, including low-income
and single mothers, into the workforce have produced an unintended crisis of
nonschool-hour care in which parents must piece together an often-changing set
of care arangements and miss work to deal with gaps and glitches in that care.
For example , in a 1999 nationwide survey of I , 100 adult registered voters
sponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favored
providing after-school programs for children ,657o said there were not enough
such programs, and 857o believed parents had difficulty finding programs in their
communities. Moreover, most parents resort to forms of care that are convenient
and less expensive. Research demonstrates that these arrangements are more
likely to short-change their children and society in terms of poorer academic
achievement and more behavior problems than would be the case if a system of
structured, center-based, programmically and logistically seamless nonschoolhour
care were available.
't l;t' t
i..ì\' ì..
..lf"
''(.
ffÊ
The children. This hidden crisis affects the
majority of families of elementary school-aged
children in Allegheny County. Specifically,
two-thirds of elementary school-aged children
- 73,000 children in the County - are estimated
to need some nonschool-hour care. Only
approximately l4%o of these children are
enrolled in some structured center-based
nonschool-hour program and only approximately
277o of these programs are licensed.
Therefore, the majority of children (86Vo)
estimated to need nonschool-hour services
more
-
than half of all elementary school-aged
children in the County - are unaccounted for,
apparently obtaining nonschool-hour care in
homes or in self-care. But recent research
shows that school-age children in such settings
(as well as unstructured programs in centers)
get less academic assistance, spend more time
watching TV, and engage in unsupervised
social activities. The result is they do poorer
academically and have more social, emotional,
and discipline problems in school than children
attending structured center care during
nonschool hours.
¡-..r:;J.
The economíc prosperìty and social reþrnts that have
led íncreasing numbers of motlrcrs - ittcluding single
and lotv-íttco¡ne worrten - ínto the workforce have also
produced an unìntended crísis of nonscltoolJtour care,

Low-income narents and children. The problem is worse for low-income parents, who are more likely
to work inegular hours when care is not available and to be less able to miss work when problems of care
arise, and for their children, who are more likely to be left for reasons of convenience and cost in those
forms of care that are less likely to promote academic success and appropriate social behavior.
Moreover, the number of low-income children needing care has increased because of increases in poverty in
general and increases in the number of low-income mothers, including single mothers, who must work
because of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAIIÐ. Specifically, although the number of
elementary school-aged children
in Allegheny County has not
i
changed during the last decade,
the number of low-income
children has increased to
approximately one-third of all
;iå*äö:ihäääËäiri'fr1"
^òt ¡ Y¡cl
srrcr_\movrngtomunlcrDalrnes _il
ilEl--
å f][ Æ'ñf -
nonschool-hour care, but Geographíc targeting of nonschoolJtour services for low-ittcome clúldren is ineJfecsimply
targeting services at tive, since pockets oÍ poverty exisl evat vithín nnre affluent tlistt'icts.
impoverished inner-city
neighborhoods is not sufficient, because some school districts outside the City and even elementary
schools within otherwise more affluent districts have pockets of poverty. As low-income children
continue to spread throughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes less effective and
unfair, so other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted (e.g., subsidies or vouchers for
individual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programs
available to all, etc.).
S¡,r¿psgor oF NoNscHoor, PRocRAMS
IN ALLBGHENY Cou¡qly
A recent (1999) study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development of
nonschool-hour programs included a survey of programs and focus groups with parent participants in
Allegheny County. Approximately 370 center-type programs were identified that wôuld (but not necessarily
did) take school-age children during nonschool hours plus approximately 300 family and homebased
care locations. Of the 139 center-based programs profiled in this survey, approximately one third
were operated by social service agencies, approximately one fourth by private schools (94Vo Catholic
schools), 2l%o by other organizations (e.g., Citiparks), and l47o by religious groups. However, 4lfto of
programs were located in (if not operated by) schools, the majority of which were Catholic schools.

ExpcurIVE OvBnvIEw AND SurvrwrARy. conr.
The findings of the survey led to the general conclusion that nonschool-hour
services in Allegleny county represent a collage of programs largely operating
independently of the public schools and lacking any systematic financiil stability
or coordinated management across sites and that parents are forced into a catch-ascatch-can
mode of meeting the nonschool-hour care needs of their children. Following
are highlights of these findings that pertain ro programming and finances.
Pnocnlu Issues
' Hours of operation. Nearly all programs (98vo) offer after-school care and
most have summer services, but parents complained that services were difficult
to obtain on school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, snow days,
and at odd hours beyond the typical 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday
schedule.
. Program activities. Focus groups involving 70 parents with children in
center programs in different areas of the county indicated that parents want
supervised care in a safe environment delivered by trained, competent, caring,
and stable staff who provide a program of activities that represent an informal
extension of school coupled with supervised
recreational and social activities.
. Quality. The quality of programs in Allegheny
County is similar to the national average, but it is
not clear that this level of quality represents the
standard of practice that Allegheny County
citizens and families desire.
. Public schools. The public schools play almost no
role in operating nonschool-hour programs,
although some programs operated by independent
organizations use school facilities.
Frrl¡Ncral aND ADMrNrsrRATrvE Issurs
. Agency funding. Sixty-one percent of the
surveyed center-based programs charged parents
fees, and an estimated 79Vo of parents pay full
fees (approximately $2-$4/hour) as defined by
programs. Regulated programs primarily use
public subsidies, while other programs provide
parents discounts, sliding-fee scales, multiplechild
discounts, and scholarships, with contributions
from private foundations and government
programs covering the difference between parent
fees and costs. But gaps remain, since one-third
Nonscltool-ltour services ín Allegheny Cottrtty generally
operate independently of the public scl¿ools and lackjinancial
stabilíty and coordìnoted nønagement.

of the agencies surveyed said sufficient funding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical and
material resources the.y felt were needed and to hire and maintain staff. Avariety of gõvêrnment and
p.n]3te funding is available but not used to the fullest extent because agencies a.eïnaùare of its availability
or.howto apply and because much funding is restricted to ceriain types of organizations (e.g.,
public schools), specific types of children, or pariicular purposes.
' I.ow-income families. Full fees a.t.r1Teg-u]a-ted center-based programs would cost approximately
$2'0-00 per year for only the first child, which i! !o.o ]qge
a propo-rtion of total inconió for an entíylevel
wage earner. Even families fiom the GAPS initiative (an employment retention program foi
Allegheny County welfare recipients) receiving subsidies paid an áveiage of $ I . I I pef hour or
$1,110 per year for only one child (many have more than õne child).
Further, low-income families face several special difficulties affording nonschool-hour services. For
instance, the working poor are provided government subsidies only afler families below lBSVo of
poverty are served and thus have no stable source ofsubsidized support. Also, future plans are to only
recommend license.d and regulated services to parents eligible for iùbsidies, which represent only a
small percenlage of the available options. In addition, etlliUitity for subsidies for individual families
can change if employment status changes, meaning that sõme lów-income families are on-off-and-onagain
in eligibility for subsidies, which representsã problem for both parent and agency. Clearly,
nonschool-hour câre is too much for low-income families to pay and not enough tõ adiquately óu.t
agency costs without public and private subsidies.
RpcounlBNDATIoNs
Based on the above findings and conclusions from this study, the Community Advisory Committee to this
study listed in Appendix I of this report makes the following recommendations:
A top-level After-School Commis.sion composed of respected and influential leaders representing
governmext, the professions, and business should be créated to advance a public policy'agenda ai
local and State levels an_d create a plan for a comprehensive and coordinated' ryrt". that'eniures 5- 12-
year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschool-hour services as needed.
The agenda for such a commission should include the foilowing issues:
9apaei-ty {uilding. The Commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschoolhour
care in terms of space, staff, and funding and integrate such services intô a côordinated
system.
Progr-am Quality. The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices for
nonschool-hour programming.
Tfaining and Technical Assistance. The Commission should consider the need for training, technical
assistance, and information that will support agencies, staff, and parents in creating sr¡õii a
system of nonschool-hour services.
Financial Supp-ort. The Commission should create a coordinated, centralized, and sustainable
system ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch services.

PnoJBcr DpscnrprroN
The [Jniversity of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development, funded by The
Forbes Fund with a grant from The Howard Heinz Endowment, conducted a
needs assessment and environmental scan of programs that provide nonschoolhour
care for elementary school-age children residing in Allegheny County. A
2l-person Community Advisory Committee (Appendix I) guided the project,
reviewed findings, and generated policy recommendations. A full report is
available from The Forbes Fund.
Definition of nonschool-hour programs. For the purpose of this project,
nonschool-hour programs were those that served children enrolled in kindergarten
through sixth grade (approximately 5 ttrough 12 years of age) during nonschool
hours, including before and after school, weekends,
in-service days, school holidays and vacations, and
the summer recess plus programs providing care for
sick children. The main purpose of such programs is
to provide care and enrichment for school-age children
when they are not in school primarily because their
parents are unavailable to care for them. Usually these
programs are available to children at least two hours a
day, four days a week. Therefore, they do not include
music lessons, scouting, etc.
'..,*
"''¡L':
"ffi.r
Project components. The Project had several major
components:
. National literature review. The national literature,
including a national survey of nonschool-hour
programs conducted in 1991, as well as national and
local policies and funding options were reviewed.
. Providersurvey and inventory. A survey of 139
programs that provided nonschool-hour services
plus information from the YWCA Child Care
Partnerships database of 231 regulated or licensed
child care centers that serve school-age children
provided a snapshot and inventory of nonschoolhour
programming in Allegheny County.
, Geographic mapping of children and services.
The number of children approximately 5-12 years
of age, especially low-income children, was
Researcl¿ shows that scltool-age chìldren in unstruclured
progranrs get less academic assìslance, watch ntore lelevision,
do poorer acadenically, and lnvc more problents ìn scltool than
children who receíve sln¿chtred center carc.

_:.;;É:,: ;...
.l;;..t.. t-1.
ii.rt..'.ì,,
ii;1. l -ti ¡l-jí,il
determined from census data, school enrollments, and eligibility lists for free and reduced lunch and
mapped onto available services to determine wherc gaps in services are most severe.
Parent perceptions and opinions. Eight focus groups with a total of 70 parents of children in center
care provided qualitative assessments ofparent needs, desires, and perceptions ofservices.
Recommendations. The Advisory Committee made policy recommendations after reviewing the
findings and conclusions ofthe report.
Tun Nnno FoR NoNSCHooL-Houn Spnvrclls
N¿,rtonal Nrso
'
The need for nonschool-hour services is substantial and likely to increase in the future.
- A national survey found that 92Vo of City officials said that nonschool-hour care was the most pressing
need for children and families - more than housing, family stability, drug and alcohol abuse, educa--
tion, crime, or welfare reform. And in a 1999 nationwide survey of l, 100 adult registered voters
sponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favored proviáing after-school
programs for children, 65Vo said there were not enough such programs, and 857o believed parents
had difficulty finding programs in their communities.
- It is estimated that two-thirds of elementary school-aged children need some nonschool-hour services,
andthe vast majority ofthese children are in unlicensed and unregulated services - nearly half are
not in any known, formal, consistent child care.
-
Recent research shows that school-age children in unstructured programs in centers, homes, and on
their own get less
academic assistance,
spend more time
watching TV, and
engage in more
unsupervised social
activities in such
contexts than in
structured center care,
and the result is that
In et nationsl survey, 92 pcrcent of
City officíals stated tlmt nonschoolhour
care *,as lhe nost pressing
need for chiklre n and fanilies -
nnrc pressing fltan housittg,
ftrmily stability, drug antl alcohol
abuse, education, crinrc, or
welfure reþrnt.

,
they do poorer academically and have more social, emotional, and discipline
problems in school.
- Most parents must piece together nonschool-hour care for their children
-767o of school-age children with an employed mother (in l99l) had to
use at Ieast two child care a¡rangements in a typical week - which may
include structured programs, lessons and sportô, relatives/neighbor care,
and selfcare.
Tnn Nnnn rN ALLEcHENy Cou¡¡ry
' I1-{llegheny countyrll0rTzg children are enrolled in public and parochial
elementary schools, almost one-third from tow-income families, and
(assuming the national percent estimate of need) 23,000 chitdren are
projected to need some nonschool-hour child care. only approximately
10,409 of these children (r$vo) are enrolled in some structúreä nonschoolhour
program at a center or facility, 27c/o of which are in regulated or licensed
programs.
' Therefore, approximately 62rs9r children (g6vo onthose estimated to
need nonschool-hour services) are unaccounted for, presumably receiving
such care in home care environments, with relativesãnd friends, or ¡" iàli
care. Research on child care indicates that these care environments, on
average, are inferior in quality and benefit children less than organized,
structured, regulated center care, and attendance of children at these unstructured
environments is associated with poorer academic performance and more
social and behavioral problems in school.
' Approximately 37_0 center-type programs were identified that would (but
not necessarily
{ipjake scho_ol-age children during nonschool hours plus
approximatety 300 family and home-based care locãtions. of the centãrbased
programs respondinq to the survey, a third were operated by social
service agencies, a quarter by private schools (94vo catholic schoäls), 2lvoby
other organizations (e.g., citiparks), and l4voby religious groups. However,
4lclo -of
the programs were located in (if not operated by¡ sðhoois, the majoriiy
of which were in catholic schoors. Thus, eveñ among ôenter-based progi"*i
a great diversity of organizations operates such programs, not necessarit-y on '
their own premises, with little organizationat paiteri across agencies or
betweenagenciesandschools'Map1inAppendixIIdisplayiinredthe
locations of center-based programsln the sùivey and in gi""í tn" programs in
the Child Care Partnership.
' The number of child¡en in poverty in ailegheny county has increased
during the last decade. of the 43 school ¿istrictõ, 35 (gl%) had an increase
in the number of chilrtrel eligible for the National school Lúnch program
between l99ll92 and 1998/99.

Low-income children are no longer_solely concentrated in the inner city but are progressively
moving to municipalities outside the City of Pittsburgh. This trend is likely ro contiiue as the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development progressively dismantles public housing projects and
encourages their residents to disburse throughout the metropolitan area.
Low-income children are located in three types of geographic locations:
- Neighborhoods in the City of Pittsburgh having high poverty rates -- including Fairywood, St.
Clair, Terrace Village, Arlington Heights, Northview Heights, and Bedford Dwellings.
- School districts having high percentages of children eligible for the National School Lunch
Program -- including Duquesne City (89Eo eligible), Wilkinsburg (8l%o),Sto-Rox (79%o),Clairton
Ç¡!y {4U"¡, City of Pittsburgh (6lVo), McKeesport City (56qò,Sieel Valley (52Vo),andWoodtand
Hills (517o). These districts, plus Penn Hills and West Mifflin, also represénr municipalities with
more than 100 children currently enrolled in TANF.
- Individual elementary schools with substantially higher percentages of children eligible for
free or reduced lunch than the overall rate in their districts -- including Franklin el07o of
enrolled children eligible) and Barrett (857o) both in Steel Valley School District, Veiona (67Vo) in
Riverview District, Grandview (63Vo) in Highlands District, Pitcairn (557o) in Gateway District,
Reserve (42Vo) and Marzolf (367o) both in Shaler Area Districr, Kerr (28Vo) in Fox Chãpel Distiict,
and Hyde (27Vo) in Moon Area District.
Currentlyn school districts in the County having relatively high numbers or percentages of
children not served by existing nonschool-hour services incluãe the City of piìtsburgh (zl,zqq
children or 77Vo not served), Woodland Hills (3,904 ,91Vo), Penn Hills (3,i14,9}Vo),NfcKeesport
Atea(2,656,7\Vo),West Mifflin(2,040,99Vo), Steel Valley (1,576,99Vo),Wilkinsburg (1,184, 74Vo),
Clairton City (657, 95Vo), and Duquesne City (589, gg7o).
The areas in which there is particular need for services relative to the number of low-income
child¡en are represented graphically in Map 2 (for the City of Pittsburgh) and Map 3 (Municipalities
of Allegheny County) in Appendix II. The maps show in maroon and red shaãed areas the
location of substantial numbers of low-income children as determined by school lunch enrollments, and
the locations of nonschool-hour programs in large green concentric ciicles (Child Care partnership
programs) or red circles (from OCD's community survey). Red or maroon areas with small and/or
fewer dots represent the areas of greatest disparity between needy populations and availability of
programs as mentioned above.
The dispersion of poYerly throughout the County means that simply targeting services at impoverished
inner'city neighborhoods is not sufficient. As low-income õtrit¿reñ coniinue to spread
throughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes more difficult, less effective, and
unfair to those low-income children who do not live in areas of substantial concentration of poverty.
Ultimately, other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted; for example, subsidies ór vouðhers
for individual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programs
available to all, and perhaps other innovative approaches.

Srunpsuo't' otf N r lh,scl lt lol.-Ho r; l< Ilrrot; n,\ n,ts
r r..- A l,l,l,;t ;t Il,lNY Ct )t;^*'¡'y
An integration of the survey and focus group results paints the following picture
of nonschool-hour services in Allegheny County.
f)r q¡l'-l:
i-rì t¡ ll.ir,1,..iì,
'4..¿ . -L'r
íüld.qùritl
fi.inai;ilug
.\
PnocR¿na lssulis
Parent Desires
'
Parents in the county with children in center programs want supervised care
in a safe, structured environment; competent, trained, patieni, caring, and
respectful staffwith minimum turnover; and program activities that rõpre
sent an informal extension of school coupled with an additional emphasis on
recreational and social activities. Generally, nonschool-hour center-based
programs in the county provided these services, but not always to the
extent parents desired. specifically, parents vaìued prograrrs that offered:
II
r?nÑl¡
FP' '
Yo'l
,, l
'lt r I
It'
t
-\-
¡f rr
lr ll
ã'
-
Academic support activities,
including checking to see what hontework
was assigned, encouraging or
insisting that homework be done,
checking to see that homework is
done correctly, providing tutodng
to assist students who may need
academic help, and offering training
and access to computers. While most
progratns said they provided such
¿rctivities, parenl.s, especially lowincome
parent.s, felt the neecl for
l.ìlore aggressive, comprehensive
services in this area than their
children were currently receiving.
. ò¡. Ev.
;þ\H'
Oottrtl¡, put'(nls v,itlt cltildrc¡¡ in ccnlet.
pro!:ru¡ni^ tt'urtl strp

- Enrichment activities, including field trips, cultural activities, and arts and culture. Again,
programs attempted to provide this type ofactivity, but parents felt more could be done in this
domain.
- Social and recreational activities, including unstructured social and recreational time, organized
games, and individual and team sports. Parents felt most of these activities were provided 6y their
programs, but more emphasis could be placed on team sports for girls.
Research shows that programs that provide structured, supervised services in these several areas
are associated with better academic performance and fewer school behavior problems. But sadly,
most children in the County do not attend such programs, so attention should be paid to creating more
programs that can compete with the affordable and convenient alternatives of friends. relativès. and
self-care.
Availabilitv of Services
' Nearly all programs (98Vo) in the survey offer after-school care and most (80Vo) have summer
services, but fewer programs offer before-school services (65Vo) and only 87o provided services
on the weekend.
'
While many programs accepted children with disabilities, no specialized services or activities
were provided for them. This would discourage parents of children with serious sensory, physical, or
mental disabilities from using such programs.
Mttny prugratrrs accep! cltiklren witlt tlisabilities but offer no special services or actívities fttr them.

. No program offered care for sick children.
. Parents complained that some services were difÍicult to obtain:
- At odd hours. Most services were open from approximately 7 am to 6 pm,
and did not offer extended-hours or sèrvices for parents who work second
or third shifts. For example, one-third of low-income participants in the
local GAPS program had jobs that required them to work weèkends,
evenings, or nights when few services exist.
- On school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, and snow days as
well as when their children were sick. Regardless of anangements that
parents make individually for their children, nearly all need some form of
care to cover some of these events, making it difficult for both parents and
services to accommodate occasional and often unanticipated mãximum
demands relative to service supply. Indeed, r2vo of GAps participants had
missed an average of 17 hours of work during the last month alone because
of child care problems.
- These limitations contribute to the catch-as-catch-can character of
obtaining nonschool-hour services, especially for low-income parents.
A single mother entering the workforce, for example, cannot easiiy find
care to accept a second- or third-shift job, and many other parents must
scramble for other forms of care (i.e., "emergency") or take off from work
to cover unanticipated snow days or to care for a sick child. These unexpected
absences do not help new TANF employees build an employment
record of reliability and conscientiousness. on the other hand, providers
cannot be on duty 24 hours a day, so some accommodation between parent
needs and provider capability must be found.
' Substantial variation in attendance exists from child-to.child and time-totime,
making it difficult for parents to piece together a totar package of
services and for agrncies to plan and maintain enrollments near capacity.
\Mhile approximately half of the children attend four or five days per wèek -
and relatively few attend only once per week, a substantial number of children
attend organized services only part time, many preferring other forms of care
at lower cost when available. At the same time, part-time and often unpredictable
attendance makes it difficult for agencies to plan, staff, and fund sèrvices
close to their capacity.
Quality
'
Programs in Allegheny county compare favorably in quarity with the
average national program as assessed in 1991, but is this level ofquatity
"ayerage" today and is 'raveraget' the standard of practice and seivice -
that Allegheny County desires? Specifically, relative to the national average

1991, programs in Allegheny County in 1999:
Tend to have more older children enrolled in nonschool-hour programs, are more likely to offer
different activities for older children, and consequently place somewhat more emphasis on
academic support activities, enrichment, and tutoring.
- Shgw that approximately one-third of the directors of programs in the County have college degrees
or higher, have a higher median of seven years experience in this field, and slightly morestafflave
college degrees locally (28Eo) than nationally (2l%o).
- Have less staff turnover locally (2IVo) rhan nationally (35Vo).
- Have a staff:child ratio in the County (1:11) that is a bit poorer than the national average (l:9) but is
at the professionally recommended minimum of l:10 for children less than 6 years and l:12 for
children greater than 6 years of age.
'
Thus, in Allegheny County, the quality of care in structured center-type environments is only
"averager" and most children in the County attend nonschool-hour services that are not licensed
or regulated and in which staff are not necessarily trained or credentialed. Moreover, a set of
recommended practices specifically for nonschool-hour programs does not exist. Therefore, some
systems of standards, regulation, support for training, and subsidies and incentives for providers,
agencies, and parents is likely necessary to raise the quality of nonschool-hour programming, centerbased
and otherwise, toward a standard of excellence.
FrnaNcHL AND Man¡,cnnnENT IssuES
Agency Funding
'
Parent fees are the predominant form of financial support for agencies. Sixty-one percent of centerbased
programs charged parents fees, and an estimated 797o of parcnts pay full fees as defined by the agency.
- Subsidies are more common in programs serving low-income populations. Regulated programs
primarily use public subsidies, while other programs provide parents discounts, sliding-fee
scales, multiple-child discounts, and scholarships, with contributions from private foundations and
government covering the difference between parent fees and costs.
'
'
Funding remains a problem for many agencies. One+hird of the agencies surveyqd said sufficient
funding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical and material resources they felt were needed and
to hire and maintain staff.
A variety of government and private funding is available, but not used to its fullest extent.
- Funding for nonschool-hour progrâms is available from a variety of federal agencies. These
include the U.S. Department of Education (Title I, Safe Schools Act of 1994, Title VII, Reading
Excellence Act, 2lst Century Community Learning Centers), U.S. Department of Agriculture
(Child and Adult Care Food Program, Cooperative Extension Services' Youth at RiJk Program),
U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Bureau of
Justice Assistance), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Community School youth

services and supervision G_rant program, child care and Development
Fund), u.s. Department of Housing and urban Development (federal
' Enterprise and Empowerment Zones), etc.
- Funds are also available from the state of pennsylvania (child care
works, Youth Development Fund of the Department of community and
Economic Development).
- These funds are not used to their fullest extent. This is because their
availability is not widely known; many providers are unaccustomed and
inexperienced in applying for such fundl; and many funds are categorical,
targeted, and can only be used by specific organizatiols for specific ffior"r.
Affordability
'
'
While some subsidies for low-income families exist, they are not sufficient
for the need. Parent-q ar9 navins approximarely $2,00b priy.* for rhe firsr
child, which is l4.3vo of an averagé entry salary. even beÞs families
receiving subsidies- paid an average of $ i , I I 0 per year for only one child
(many have more than one child).
Low-income families^face several special difficulties affording nonschoolhour
services, including:
- The working poor ( I 85zo -235vo of federal poverty guidelines) are provided
government subsidies only after families below lg5% of poveny are
served; therefore, they have no stable source ofsubsidized suppôrt for
nonschool-hour programming.
- In the future, the commonwealth plans to recommend only licensed or
regulated services to p¿rents receiving subsidies, which reþresent a small
percentage of the available services. while this policy, if ènacted, would
force the use of presumably higher quality servióes, *iit tt er" be enough
such services available that are convenient enough for all low-income
families to access?
- Eligibility for subsidies varies with employment status, meaning that some
low-income families are on-off-and-on-agâin in eligibiiity for súbsidies,
which represents a problem for both pareñt and age-ncy. -
Public Schools
'
The¡ole-of public schools is minimal. Generally, they do not operaæ
regular, daily nonschool-hour programs (although othei agencies may operate
programs in public schools), and there is little cóordination between
nonschool-hour Programs, even those that emphasize academic assistance and
enrichment, and the schools in terms of schoól workn homework, or the
support of children with individual academic needs (although this is more

likely to occur when nonschool-hour programs are
located in school buildings). While-some parents
want nonschool-hour programs in their neighbor_
hood (if schoolsare distant) or prefer their ðhildren
ha_ve a change of scene during the day, the lack of
school involvement seems to waste theirgeographic
distribution, availability of space, financiá añd -
administrative infrastructure, and the potential to
coordinate nonschool-hour academic Àupport and
enrichment with school cunicula and seive the
academic needs of individual children. At a mini_
mum, greater use of public and private school
facilities and coordination of acãdemic programs
seems needed (the federal 2lst Century Community
Learning Centers funding resource is ã start).
Administration and Management
. Administrativelyr local programs are managed
and administered at a level roughly consistent
with their averagesize (approximat-ely 30
children). Specifically:
- 9nly
half of the programs (52Vo) had a separate
budget for nonschool-hour services, presum_
ably because such care was provided in a
larger context of childcare services.
- Approximately half (55To) have financial
records reviewed by an independent
accountant, internal financial manager, board
of directors, and/or other reviewer.
- Most directors (827o) are accountable to a
staff supervisor or agency executive
director, but only 8Vo reportto a board of
directors.
-
The reported existing levels of management
would likely need to be increased if the
programs are expanded or a more integrated
system of services is adopted.
It is recommended thal a top-level Contmission of govenunenr,
professional and business leaders be assentbled io"creote a
plan ilnt enables cltíldren S to 12 years of age and tlrcít
parents to access as needed a contprehensive, coortlinøted
syste m of n o nscl¿ool-lt o u r s ervìc e s.

RBconrvtENDATroNS
Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, the Community Advisory
Committee to this study makes the following recommendations:
A topJevel After-School Commission composed of respected and influential
leaders representing government, the professions, and business should be
created to advance a public policy agenda at local and state levels and create
a plan for a comprehensive and coordinated system that ensures that 5-12-
year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschoolhour
services as needed.
The agenda for such a Commission should include the following issues:
Canacitv Buildins
The commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschoolhour
care in terms of space, staff,
and funding and integrate such
services into a coordinated system.
Specifïcally:
. The Commission should determine
an estimate of the number
of children needing different
kinds and hours of care and the
capacity of schools and agencies
to provide it, and it should
determine the extent of need for
services at odd hours and on
"nonschool" days (e.g., inservice
and snow days) as well as
for specialized services for
children who are sick and for
children with disabilities. The
gap between need and current
availability of services should
guide the capacity-building plan.
The top-level Conunissíon would a.eole
guidelines for recommended practìces for
nonscltool-l¿our programs. These guídelínes
woultl ensure that suclt progranntíng
ís of high quality, respects pørerrtctl choices,
ìncludes an appropríate mix of academic
and socíal actívities, provides for accountabílíty
and monílorìng attd encourages
flexibìlìty of lrcurs -
for etnployees and theír
cltíldren so that benefits front center
progranuning can be nnximized.

'
The agenda should emphasize creating an integrated system of services based on collaborations with mutual
responsibility among public and private schools on the one hand and community-based agencies on the
other to provide a coordinated and seamless set of academic, social, and recreational seriices.
' The role of the public schools il tltit lystep
should be explored with attention paid to helping schools
assure the safety and security ofchildren during nonschoól hours, providing inôentives to schools to
cover the increased co-st of and responsibility for such services, unä r"mouilg baniers to schoolcommunity
agency collaborations in providing such services.
' { sqelial needs agenda.should be created, qerlap.s emphasizing collaboration with the County Mental
Health/lVlental Retardation Department, to deal wittl the financlal, staffing, training, programming, and
transportation issues of providing nonschool-hour services to children with-the entirðrãngã of disabïiities.
Program Quality
The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices for nonschool-hour programming.
'
'
The recommended practices should aspire to the highest standards of quality rather than settling for
being "average," and the standards shóuld emphasiãe a hierarchy of nóeds drut *ill provide thJgreatest
good for the greatest number of children.
Recommended practices should be developed involving and respecting parents, recognizing that one
size does not fit all of the diverse parent añ¿ ctritd needi, and enìuring-tirat paréntal choice of service
options is a key feature of the plan.
' Recommendedprogram activities should include an appropriate mix of academic support, enrichment,
literacy and technological training, and structured and supêrvised social and recreatiäñal activities,
which research indicates are related to better school perfórmance, deportment, and possibly socialemotional
behavior.
'
'
The plan should consider some system of accountability to the recommended practices that consists of
both support and incentives for providers (e.g., training, credentialing, higher þer capita government
payments) and monitoring and sanctions that would encourage proviãers-to offer s"rvi"eã consistent
with the recommended practices.
The Commission should exp]-gre ways to encourage both schools and employers to adjust current hours
and to provide greater flexibility so that parents cãn be responsible emptóyees and their children can be
nurtured educationally, vocationally, and socially.
Training and Technical Assistance
The Commission should consider the need for training, technical assistance, and information that
will support agencies, staff, and parents in creating suih a system of nonschool-hour services.
'
'
Technical assistance should be available to schools and agencies on how to develop, implement,
finance, manage, and administer a nonschool-hour progra-rn and how to collaborató åffectively with
other organizations to produce a coordinated and cómprehensive system of services.
Training and technical assistance should be available to staffto develop a diverse set ofskills to

support children in what may be the most sensitive and individualistic period of
time during the day for sup-porting children's developmental, emotionai, social, and
academic needs. Also., such naining should increase the responsibility and skiús
that will make providing such services a viable, respected irofession.
'
Parents should be provided assistance in identifying the specific needs of their
children, recognizing quality in programming and Jtarr ari¿ the benefits
q_uality produces for their children, and beinfaware of the alternatives and
choices for nonschool-hour services that are available.
' gn. component of such training and technical assistance might consist of a
clearinghouse, perhaps incorporated into existing websites, ñat would advertise
recommended practices to agencies and parJnts; proviáe parents an
inventory of services organized by neighborhood; üif funding sources and
requirements for parent subsidies; provide agencies with infõrmation on
funding sources and how to access them, traiiing opportunities for staff, and
tips on collaboration and management; ano provlde óommunities and
policymakers with background informationbn resources and services that can
be used in planning.
Financial Support
The commission should create a coordinated, centralized, sustainable,
system ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch sórvices.
' A centralized system, likely with a substantial government contribution, is
needed to meet the fina¡cial needs of agenciesãnd guarantee a sustainaLle,
consistent, and comprehensive system õfservices. -
' A plan should be devised-that will promote startup funding for new agencies
operating in under-served areas as well as consolidation oiservices iñoverserved
areas.
' The commission rlt"+-q urge policymakers to provide core funding that is
broader and more flexible than the highly-categorical and targetedlunding
that currently exists, and barriers to aõceising fãderal rnon"yihould be reduced
and methods adopted that would allow programs to leverage federal dollars.
'
The plan should recognize tliat low-income families are increasingly represented
in areas outside ofthe inner-city, so other strategies of targãting ässis_
tance to low-income families must be considered (such-as subsidies oivouchers
for individual families, sliding fee scales, agency subsidies or reimbursements,
universal programs).
These findings and recommendations are intended to stimulate and guide the creation
of a strategic plan and its imprementation that will produce a cooidinated,
comprehensive, g{ qtlalitysystem of nonschool-hõur care that will promote the
development of Allegheny County,s children.

I
Nonschool-Hour Programs
Community Advisory Committee
il - Maps Locating Children and
Programs in Allegheny County
ilI - Bibliography

NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnavrs CouuuNrry
Aovrsony ConavlrrrpE
Ms. Judy Alverez
Area Manager
Kindercare
Mr. Duane Ashley
Direclor
Department of Parks and Recreation
City of Piusburgh
Mr. Gerry Balbier
!!q g raln Officer for Education Pro grams
Heinz Endowments
Mrs. Carol Barrone-Martin
Executive Director
Louise Child Care
Mr. Chip Burke
Program Director
Grable Foundation
Ms. Sheny Cleary
Director
Child Development Center
University of Pittsburgh
Dr. James V. Denova
Executive Director
The Forbes Fund
Mr. Jeny Frisk
S up e rvi s o r of Educ at ion
Shuman Center
Allegheny Intermediate Unit
Mr. Saleem Ghubril
Executive Director
Thé Pittsburgh Project
Ms. Annette Green
Program Officer
Pittsburgh Foundation
Ms. Amy Hart
Vice President
United Way of Allegheny County
Ms. Jacqualynn James
Parent
Duquesne Family Center
Ms. Enika Fearbry Jones
Youth Policy Manager
Office of the Mavor
City of Pittsburgh
Ms. Lori Katchen,
Children & Families Service
Coordirator
Jewish Community Center
Mr. Bryce Maretzki
Progrant Officer
Pittsburgh Partnership for
Neighborhood Development, Inc.
Dr. Karen Mclntyre
President
Education Policy and Issues Center
Mr. Philip Pan
Director of Plaruúng and
Development
Pittsburgh Board of Education
Dr. Robert Paserba
Superintendent
Diocese of Pittsburgh
Ms. Margaret Petruska
Senior Program Officer and Director
Children, Youth and Families
Programs
Heinz Endowments
Ms. Laurie Shaller
Associate Executive Director
Open Doors/Youth Places
Dr. Margaret Tyndall
Executive Director
YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh

MAP 1:
Loc¿,uon or Nonscuool-Houn PnocnaMs rN Ar,r,BcHsNy CouNry
AND THE Clry or PlrrsnuRcH
o')
\@
Number of
Programs per
Census Tþact
Community Survev
I lr-sr.-,
o
oo
3 programs
2 programs
I program
Child Care Partnership
!
ln.oe".-.
!
3p"og"u,n,
O 2programs
O I prograrn
Administrative Boundaries
u
ff
I
schootDistr¡crs
ciryotPittsburghNeighborhoods
I Municipalities

Apppxux II
MAP 2:
Nunanpn on scuool Acn curlonp¡¡ (s -12 yns) BBlow povpnry Lnvnl
(1990 CnNsus) nv NnteHBoRHooDS aNn LocarroN oF NoNscuoor-Houn pnocnarras
rN THE Crry on PlrrsnuRcu
Numberof
Programs per
Census Tþact
Community Survey
I
eR"oe.r,n,
o
oo
3 programs
2 progranrs
I program
Child Care Partnership
|
2 programs
|
O I program
4 programs
Number Below Poverty
uo. col
I zoz-trs
ffil sz-zor
E7 (Mean)
l-l .s7

MAP 3:
Nuwan or Scuool Acn Csu.nnBn (5 -12 Yns) Bl,lclnl,B ron Fnnn/REDUCED Luxcn
(1997/98) sv Scuool. Dlslutcrs AND LocrrroN or NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnnnrs
r¡r AllrcHENy CouNry
(Ð" J
t@
Cr^ e
Number
of Programs per
Census Thact
Community Survey
@ 4progrâms
(Þ
oo
o
3 programs
2 programs
I program
chldcareParrnership
o
oo
4 programs
3 programs
2 programs
I program
Number
Eligible for
Free/Reduced Lunch
Pittsburgh School District
EE¡ t6,7or
Other School District
j;T;i;Tt
E
l. ì 4so. e4o
tl
fl
EI
480 (Mean)
20 - 479
Missing data
Municipality boundaries

AppnnrDrx III
BmUocRAPHY
Berndt, T.J. & Ladd, G.W. (Eds.) (1989).
Peer relationships in chíld developmen. New York: Wiley.
The center for the Future of children. (1997). The Future of children(vol. 7).
Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. (1998). Pollfinds ovet-whelming wpportþr
after-school enríchment programs to lceep kids safe and smart. News release,
September 24. Flint, Michigan: Author.
child care Action campaign. (1992). Facts about the child care cr¿s¿s. New
York: Author.
children's Defense Fund. (1989). A vision of America's future. washington,
D.C.:Author.
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate (199g,
Feb.25). Non-school hout's: Mobilizing school and comtnunity resources.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dwyer, K.M., Richardson, J.L., Danley, K.L., Hansen,1V.8., Sussman, S.y.,
Brannon,8., Dent, C.W., Johnson, C.A.n Flay, B.R. (1990). Characteristics of
eighth-grade students who initiate selÊcare in elementary and junior high school.
Pediatrícs, 86, 448-454.
Ebb, N. (1994). child care tradeoffs: states make painful choices. washingron,
D.C.: Children's Defense Fund.
The Finance Project. (1995) Dollars and sense: Diverse perspectives on block
grants and the personal responsibility ac¡. lvashington, D. c.: Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Galambos, N.L. & Maggs, J.L. (1991). out-of-school care of young adolescents
and self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychologt, 27, 644-65 S.
Garmezy,N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse deveropmental
outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral scíentist,34,416-430.

Goffin, S.G. & Lombardi, J. (1988). Speaking out: early childhood advocacy.
lWashington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Goyette-Ewing, M. (1995). Children's after school arrangements. Unpublished paper.
Green, H. (1995). The state of America's cities: Eleventh annual opinion survey
of munícipal elected oficiøls. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities.
Hartup, rW.W. (no date). Having friends, making friends, and keeping friends:
Relationships as educational contexts. ERIC Digest, EDO-PS-92 -4, p.L -2.
Hofferth, S.L., Brayfield, 4., Deich, S.G., & Holcomb, P. (1991). The national
child care survey 1990.Washington, D.C.: NAEYC and the Department of
Health and Human Services.
Kohlberg, L., LaCrosse,J., & Ricks, D. (1972). The predictability of adult mental
health from child behavior. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child psychologt (çry.
1217-1284). New York: Wiley.
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.4., Bates, J.E. (1998). The social ecology of
school-age child-care. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychologt,lg,34l-360.
Miller, B.M. (1994) Out-of-school time: Effects on learning in the primary
grades. Report prepared for the Carnegie Corporation Task Force on Learning in
the Primary Grades. tù/ellesley, MA: School Age Child Care Project, Wellesley
College Center for Research on Women.
Miller, 8.M., O'Connor, S., Sirignano, S.W, & Joshi, P. (1996). "I wish the kids
didn't watch so much TV": Out-of-school time in three low-income communities.
Wellesley, MA: rffellesley College Center for Research on Women.
Murphy, L.8., &, Moriarty, A.E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth: From
irfancy to adolescence. New Haven: Yale University Press. r
National Commission on \Vorking Women of \iVider Opportunities for Women.
(1989). úI/omen, work and child care. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. 4., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of
after-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated
by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment.
Child Development, 70(3), 7 68-77 8.

Brcr,rocRAPHY
Pierce, K.M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in afterschool
programs and children's adjustment in first grade classrooms. Child
D ev e I opment, 7 0(3), 7 5 6-7 67 .
Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1999). After-school activities and the development
of low-income urban children: A longitudinal study. Developmental
Psychologlt, 35(3), 868-879.
Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children's after-school care:
Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development,65,
440-456.
Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D.L. (1996). Quality of care in school-aged child-care
programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and
parent perspectives . Child Development, 67, 2434-2445.
School Age Child Care Project. (1992). School-age child-care. Wellesley, MA:
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
School Age Child Care Project. (1997). Fact Sheet. National Institute on Out-of-
School Time. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on
Women.
Seligson, M., Genser,4., Gannett,E., & Gray, rü. (1983). School-age child care:
a policy report. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child-Care Project, Wellesley
College Center for Research on Women.
Seppanen, P.S., Love, J.M., deVries, D.K., Bernstein, L. (1993). National study
of beþre and after school progra¡ns. Final Report to the Office of Policy and
Planning, U.S. Department of Education. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research
Corporation .
.
Seppanen, P.S., deVries, D.K., & Seligson, M. (1993). National study of beforeand
after-school programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.
Sheley, J. (1984). Evaluation of the centralized, structured, after-school tutorial.
Journal of Educational Research. 77, 213:217 .
Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: An
ecological analysis. Developmental P sycholo gy, 22, 433 -439.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (1998). Safe and smart: Making
afte r- s cho ol hours w o rk for kids. Washington, DC. http ://www. ed. gov/pubs/
SafeandSmarVintro.html
U.S. Department of Education (1997). Keeping schools open as community
learning centers. \iVashington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1997). l(elfare reþrm: Implications of
increased work participationþr child care. Report to the Committee on Labor &
Human Resources, U.S. Senate. GAO/HEHS-97 -7 5.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). After-school care of school age children:
December 1984. Cunent Population Reports (Special Studies Series No. 149),23.
Vandell, D.L. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of children's afterschool
environments. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Vandell, D.L. & Corasaniti, M.A. (1988). The relation between third-graders'
after-school care and social, academic, and emotional functioning. Child Development,
J9, 868-875.
Vandell, D.L. & Ramanan, J. (1991). Children of the national longitudinal survey
of youth: Choices in after-school care and child development. Developmental
Psychologt, 27 (4), 637 -643 .
Willer, 8., Hofferth, S.L., Kisker, E.E., Devine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar,E' &
Glantz, F.B. (1991). The demand and supply of child care in 1990: JointJìndings
from the National Child Care Survey i,990 and A Profile of Child Care Seuings.
Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Zigler,E.F., & Lang, M.E. (1991). Child care choices: Balancing the needs of
children,families, and socier). New York: The Free Press.
The University of Pittsburgh is an ffirmative action, equal opportunity instítution.
/' .' 'Childlcn i¡r \llçghsiyÇ.