View PDF - Heinz Endowments
View PDF - Heinz Endowments
View PDF - Heinz Endowments
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ExPAt{Drf{c THE PnoMrsE:<br />
An AcENDA FoR NoxscHool-HouR<br />
PnocnAMS FoR ETBvIBNTARy Scuool-AcB<br />
CsnnnBN rN Ar,lncHBNy Cou¡qry<br />
,*j<br />
.r;*<br />
-?#<br />
V^r<br />
'\i'<br />
}'rt ,',rÁ#,<br />
fr<br />
\<br />
'i;.1.<br />
ïr<br />
t<br />
',itg<br />
, ' ,,',,.<br />
,/'
FOR<br />
Er,pvrBNTARy ScHool-AcB CHn onEN IN<br />
AllpcHENY Couxry<br />
Produced by the<br />
University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development<br />
a program of the University Center for Social and Urban Research<br />
and funded by<br />
The Forbes Fund with a grant from<br />
The Howard <strong>Heinz</strong> Endowment<br />
Jmu.lnY 2ooo<br />
Jacqueline L. Dempsey, Ph.D.<br />
Anne E. Farber, Ph.D.<br />
Christina J. Groark, Ph.D.<br />
RobertB. McCall, Ph.D.<br />
Lucas O. Musewe, M.P.H.<br />
Elizabeth M. Stork, M.S.W.<br />
Maria Z. Townsend, Ph.D.<br />
Project staff<br />
Project Coordinator, Focus Groups Director<br />
Survey Director<br />
Project Director<br />
Editor, Writer<br />
Geo graphic Infomøtion Systems Director<br />
Literature Reviewer and Writer<br />
Demographic Indicators Director<br />
For more information, you may call or write to: The Forbes Fund,<br />
One PPG Place, 30th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, (412) 394-2603.<br />
Acr¡TowLEDGMENTS<br />
IVe wish to acknowledge the assistance of Darlene Hamilton, Jennifer Hyland, Bobbe<br />
Grandey, and Janine Lesser of the YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh Child Care Partnerships<br />
in providing information from their CareFinder Data Base.<br />
rile also wish to acknowledge Robert Paserba of the Diocese of Pittsburgh Catholic<br />
Schools who collaborated with us in surveying the Diocese's elementary schools<br />
in Allegheny County and Duane Ashley of the City of Pittsburgh Department of Parks<br />
and Recreation who coordinated the inventory of Citiparks programs for elementary<br />
school age children.<br />
In addition, Philip Parr and Jacqueline Territo of the Pittsburgh Public Schools<br />
collaborated with us in obtaining information on programs provided in their district's<br />
elementary schools.<br />
rüy'e also thank the staff of the after-school programs who responded to the survey and<br />
provided information on their programs and the parents who gave of their time by<br />
participating in the focus groups.
Tnnrp or CoNTENTs<br />
Ol't,;Rl,ni\\',\Nr) St;ir,rir,r,,ul\, ..""."..". x<br />
Iìrn,nrrut;s, CoNcr.ustoNS, ÂNt)<br />
Illicoit,t iu ItNt)A1'r oNS ..<br />
"......... c o. o...... o..... ".... ".... s<br />
The Need for Nonschool-Hour Services ..........6<br />
Snapshot of Nonschool-Hour Programs in<br />
Allegheny County<br />
Recommendations ..........15<br />
I. Nonschool-Hour Programs<br />
Community Advisory Committee ........ .....19<br />
II. Maps Locating Children and Programs<br />
in Allegheny County .................20<br />
III. Bibliography ..............23
Parents of elementary schoor-aged children are faced with the challenge of<br />
finding safe and affordabre care for them during nonschool hours. with<br />
the welfare-to-work initiative, many single t*th"r, are forced into<br />
employment, often at minimum wage. Finding and ananging child care<br />
can be a daunting challenge. parents often rely on neighbors, family<br />
members, or center-based care, and use two or more care providers. Too<br />
often, children are left in self-care. The unpublicized crisis ofcare for<br />
young children after school hours, during summer vacations, and during<br />
snow emergency cancellations, is rapidly increasing.<br />
To better understand and document the curent status of nonschool_hour<br />
care for elementary school-aged children residing in Allegheny county,<br />
The Forbes Fund commissioned the university oltittsuuigh office of<br />
child Development to conduct an environmental scan of the types and<br />
locations of existing programs, demographic distribution of low-income<br />
and working families, the needs and preferences of parents, and what the<br />
national literature has to say about quality after-schôor care. The research<br />
was guided by the following questions:<br />
' what do children in this age group need during nonschool hours, and<br />
what kinds of services are currently available?<br />
' where are the gaps between what programs offer and what parents<br />
want, and between where children go to school and where programs are<br />
located?<br />
' \vhat are the characteristics of successful after-school programs and<br />
how do programs in Allegheny County compare?<br />
' !o* are programs financed and what are the opportunities for future<br />
funding that we are not accessing?<br />
An advisory committee of 2l practitioners, funders, school officials and<br />
government representatives reviewed the research, analy zed the findings,<br />
and developed a set of recommendations that we believe will strengthen<br />
the system of care for Allegheny County school children.<br />
The following report offers a picture of the current status of nonschool_<br />
hour care and a blueprint for moving our community forward to build a<br />
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<br />
tool by foundations, program planners, school administrators, and social<br />
agencies so that future investments, policy decisions, and program enhancements<br />
can be made in a strategic fashion.<br />
However, the findings and recommendations reflected in this report do not<br />
do justice to the rich body of information compiled during the course of<br />
research. As an additional source of technical assistance, the office of<br />
child Development has provided rhe Forbes Fund with a detailed database<br />
of neighborhood-by-neighborhood demographics, profiles of all<br />
surveyed programs, and descriptions of funding opportunities. This<br />
source document and consultation by The Forbes Fund are available to<br />
funders, community groups, individual agencies, and schools wishing to<br />
plan after-school care in communities within Allegheny county. For more<br />
information on how The Forbes Fund can assist with local planning<br />
interests, you may call or write to:<br />
The Forbes Fund<br />
One PPG Place, 30'r'Floor<br />
Pittsburgh, PA 15222<br />
(4r2) 394-2603<br />
The Board and staff of rhe Forbes Fund wish to extend our gratitude to<br />
members of the advisory committee, agency staff, and parents who participated<br />
in collecting information and forging the final recommendations.<br />
special thanks are in order for the research team of the office of child<br />
Development for compiling a comprehensive body of information and rhe<br />
<strong>Heinz</strong> <strong>Endowments</strong> for underwriting the research and publication of this<br />
report.<br />
This environmental scan should be a catalyst for setting a communitywide<br />
agenda that truly meets parents' needs and desires for safe, affordable<br />
care for their children during nonschool time.<br />
James Denova<br />
Former Executive Director<br />
The Forbes Fund
BacxcnouND ¡,run NBBn<br />
The hidden crisis. Beneath the exterior of a thriving, fully-employed pittsburgh<br />
lies a hidden crisis. Specifically, the very factors of economic prosperity and<br />
social reform that have led increasing numbers of mothers, including low-income<br />
and single mothers, into the workforce have produced an unintended crisis of<br />
nonschool-hour care in which parents must piece together an often-changing set<br />
of care arangements and miss work to deal with gaps and glitches in that care.<br />
For example , in a 1999 nationwide survey of I , 100 adult registered voters<br />
sponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favored<br />
providing after-school programs for children ,657o said there were not enough<br />
such programs, and 857o believed parents had difficulty finding programs in their<br />
communities. Moreover, most parents resort to forms of care that are convenient<br />
and less expensive. Research demonstrates that these arrangements are more<br />
likely to short-change their children and society in terms of poorer academic<br />
achievement and more behavior problems than would be the case if a system of<br />
structured, center-based, programmically and logistically seamless nonschoolhour<br />
care were available.<br />
't l;t' t<br />
i..ì\' ì..<br />
..lf"<br />
''(.<br />
ffÊ<br />
The children. This hidden crisis affects the<br />
majority of families of elementary school-aged<br />
children in Allegheny County. Specifically,<br />
two-thirds of elementary school-aged children<br />
- 73,000 children in the County - are estimated<br />
to need some nonschool-hour care. Only<br />
approximately l4%o of these children are<br />
enrolled in some structured center-based<br />
nonschool-hour program and only approximately<br />
277o of these programs are licensed.<br />
Therefore, the majority of children (86Vo)<br />
estimated to need nonschool-hour services<br />
more<br />
-<br />
than half of all elementary school-aged<br />
children in the County - are unaccounted for,<br />
apparently obtaining nonschool-hour care in<br />
homes or in self-care. But recent research<br />
shows that school-age children in such settings<br />
(as well as unstructured programs in centers)<br />
get less academic assistance, spend more time<br />
watching TV, and engage in unsupervised<br />
social activities. The result is they do poorer<br />
academically and have more social, emotional,<br />
and discipline problems in school than children<br />
attending structured center care during<br />
nonschool hours.<br />
¡-..r:;J.<br />
The economíc prosperìty and social reþrnts that have<br />
led íncreasing numbers of motlrcrs - ittcluding single<br />
and lotv-íttco¡ne worrten - ínto the workforce have also<br />
produced an unìntended crísis of nonscltoolJtour care,
Low-income narents and children. The problem is worse for low-income parents, who are more likely<br />
to work inegular hours when care is not available and to be less able to miss work when problems of care<br />
arise, and for their children, who are more likely to be left for reasons of convenience and cost in those<br />
forms of care that are less likely to promote academic success and appropriate social behavior.<br />
Moreover, the number of low-income children needing care has increased because of increases in poverty in<br />
general and increases in the number of low-income mothers, including single mothers, who must work<br />
because of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAIIÐ. Specifically, although the number of<br />
elementary school-aged children<br />
in Allegheny County has not<br />
i<br />
changed during the last decade,<br />
the number of low-income<br />
children has increased to<br />
approximately one-third of all<br />
;iå*äö:ihäääËäiri'fr1"<br />
^òt ¡ Y¡cl<br />
srrcr_\movrngtomunlcrDalrnes _il<br />
ilEl--<br />
å f][ Æ'ñf -<br />
nonschool-hour care, but Geographíc targeting of nonschoolJtour services for low-ittcome clúldren is ineJfecsimply<br />
targeting services at tive, since pockets oÍ poverty exisl evat vithín nnre affluent tlistt'icts.<br />
impoverished inner-city<br />
neighborhoods is not sufficient, because some school districts outside the City and even elementary<br />
schools within otherwise more affluent districts have pockets of poverty. As low-income children<br />
continue to spread throughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes less effective and<br />
unfair, so other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted (e.g., subsidies or vouchers for<br />
individual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programs<br />
available to all, etc.).<br />
S¡,r¿psgor oF NoNscHoor, PRocRAMS<br />
IN ALLBGHENY Cou¡qly<br />
A recent (1999) study conducted by the University of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development of<br />
nonschool-hour programs included a survey of programs and focus groups with parent participants in<br />
Allegheny County. Approximately 370 center-type programs were identified that wôuld (but not necessarily<br />
did) take school-age children during nonschool hours plus approximately 300 family and homebased<br />
care locations. Of the 139 center-based programs profiled in this survey, approximately one third<br />
were operated by social service agencies, approximately one fourth by private schools (94Vo Catholic<br />
schools), 2l%o by other organizations (e.g., Citiparks), and l47o by religious groups. However, 4lfto of<br />
programs were located in (if not operated by) schools, the majority of which were Catholic schools.
ExpcurIVE OvBnvIEw AND SurvrwrARy. conr.<br />
The findings of the survey led to the general conclusion that nonschool-hour<br />
services in Allegleny county represent a collage of programs largely operating<br />
independently of the public schools and lacking any systematic financiil stability<br />
or coordinated management across sites and that parents are forced into a catch-ascatch-can<br />
mode of meeting the nonschool-hour care needs of their children. Following<br />
are highlights of these findings that pertain ro programming and finances.<br />
Pnocnlu Issues<br />
' Hours of operation. Nearly all programs (98vo) offer after-school care and<br />
most have summer services, but parents complained that services were difficult<br />
to obtain on school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, snow days,<br />
and at odd hours beyond the typical 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Friday<br />
schedule.<br />
. Program activities. Focus groups involving 70 parents with children in<br />
center programs in different areas of the county indicated that parents want<br />
supervised care in a safe environment delivered by trained, competent, caring,<br />
and stable staff who provide a program of activities that represent an informal<br />
extension of school coupled with supervised<br />
recreational and social activities.<br />
. Quality. The quality of programs in Allegheny<br />
County is similar to the national average, but it is<br />
not clear that this level of quality represents the<br />
standard of practice that Allegheny County<br />
citizens and families desire.<br />
. Public schools. The public schools play almost no<br />
role in operating nonschool-hour programs,<br />
although some programs operated by independent<br />
organizations use school facilities.<br />
Frrl¡Ncral aND ADMrNrsrRATrvE Issurs<br />
. Agency funding. Sixty-one percent of the<br />
surveyed center-based programs charged parents<br />
fees, and an estimated 79Vo of parents pay full<br />
fees (approximately $2-$4/hour) as defined by<br />
programs. Regulated programs primarily use<br />
public subsidies, while other programs provide<br />
parents discounts, sliding-fee scales, multiplechild<br />
discounts, and scholarships, with contributions<br />
from private foundations and government<br />
programs covering the difference between parent<br />
fees and costs. But gaps remain, since one-third<br />
Nonscltool-ltour services ín Allegheny Cottrtty generally<br />
operate independently of the public scl¿ools and lackjinancial<br />
stabilíty and coordìnoted nønagement.
of the agencies surveyed said sufficient funding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical and<br />
material resources the.y felt were needed and to hire and maintain staff. Avariety of gõvêrnment and<br />
p.n]3te funding is available but not used to the fullest extent because agencies a.eïnaùare of its availability<br />
or.howto apply and because much funding is restricted to ceriain types of organizations (e.g.,<br />
public schools), specific types of children, or pariicular purposes.<br />
' I.ow-income families. Full fees a.t.r1Teg-u]a-ted center-based programs would cost approximately<br />
$2'0-00 per year for only the first child, which i! !o.o ]qge<br />
a propo-rtion of total inconió for an entíylevel<br />
wage earner. Even families fiom the GAPS initiative (an employment retention program foi<br />
Allegheny County welfare recipients) receiving subsidies paid an áveiage of $ I . I I pef hour or<br />
$1,110 per year for only one child (many have more than õne child).<br />
Further, low-income families face several special difficulties affording nonschool-hour services. For<br />
instance, the working poor are provided government subsidies only afler families below lBSVo of<br />
poverty are served and thus have no stable source ofsubsidized support. Also, future plans are to only<br />
recommend license.d and regulated services to parents eligible for iùbsidies, which represent only a<br />
small percenlage of the available options. In addition, etlliUitity for subsidies for individual families<br />
can change if employment status changes, meaning that sõme lów-income families are on-off-and-onagain<br />
in eligibility for subsidies, which representsã problem for both parent and agency. Clearly,<br />
nonschool-hour câre is too much for low-income families to pay and not enough tõ adiquately óu.t<br />
agency costs without public and private subsidies.<br />
RpcounlBNDATIoNs<br />
Based on the above findings and conclusions from this study, the Community Advisory Committee to this<br />
study listed in Appendix I of this report makes the following recommendations:<br />
A top-level After-School Commis.sion composed of respected and influential leaders representing<br />
governmext, the professions, and business should be créated to advance a public policy'agenda ai<br />
local and State levels an_d create a plan for a comprehensive and coordinated' ryrt". that'eniures 5- 12-<br />
year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschool-hour services as needed.<br />
The agenda for such a commission should include the foilowing issues:<br />
9apaei-ty {uilding. The Commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschoolhour<br />
care in terms of space, staff, and funding and integrate such services intô a côordinated<br />
system.<br />
Progr-am Quality. The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices for<br />
nonschool-hour programming.<br />
Tfaining and Technical Assistance. The Commission should consider the need for training, technical<br />
assistance, and information that will support agencies, staff, and parents in creating sr¡õii a<br />
system of nonschool-hour services.<br />
Financial Supp-ort. The Commission should create a coordinated, centralized, and sustainable<br />
system ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch services.
PnoJBcr DpscnrprroN<br />
The [Jniversity of Pittsburgh Office of Child Development, funded by The<br />
Forbes Fund with a grant from The Howard <strong>Heinz</strong> Endowment, conducted a<br />
needs assessment and environmental scan of programs that provide nonschoolhour<br />
care for elementary school-age children residing in Allegheny County. A<br />
2l-person Community Advisory Committee (Appendix I) guided the project,<br />
reviewed findings, and generated policy recommendations. A full report is<br />
available from The Forbes Fund.<br />
Definition of nonschool-hour programs. For the purpose of this project,<br />
nonschool-hour programs were those that served children enrolled in kindergarten<br />
through sixth grade (approximately 5 ttrough 12 years of age) during nonschool<br />
hours, including before and after school, weekends,<br />
in-service days, school holidays and vacations, and<br />
the summer recess plus programs providing care for<br />
sick children. The main purpose of such programs is<br />
to provide care and enrichment for school-age children<br />
when they are not in school primarily because their<br />
parents are unavailable to care for them. Usually these<br />
programs are available to children at least two hours a<br />
day, four days a week. Therefore, they do not include<br />
music lessons, scouting, etc.<br />
'..,*<br />
"''¡L':<br />
"ffi.r<br />
Project components. The Project had several major<br />
components:<br />
. National literature review. The national literature,<br />
including a national survey of nonschool-hour<br />
programs conducted in 1991, as well as national and<br />
local policies and funding options were reviewed.<br />
. Providersurvey and inventory. A survey of 139<br />
programs that provided nonschool-hour services<br />
plus information from the YWCA Child Care<br />
Partnerships database of 231 regulated or licensed<br />
child care centers that serve school-age children<br />
provided a snapshot and inventory of nonschoolhour<br />
programming in Allegheny County.<br />
, Geographic mapping of children and services.<br />
The number of children approximately 5-12 years<br />
of age, especially low-income children, was<br />
Researcl¿ shows that scltool-age chìldren in unstruclured<br />
progranrs get less academic assìslance, watch ntore lelevision,<br />
do poorer acadenically, and lnvc more problents ìn scltool than<br />
children who receíve sln¿chtred center carc.
_:.;;É:,: ;...<br />
.l;;..t.. t-1.<br />
ii.rt..'.ì,,<br />
ii;1. l -ti ¡l-jí,il<br />
determined from census data, school enrollments, and eligibility lists for free and reduced lunch and<br />
mapped onto available services to determine wherc gaps in services are most severe.<br />
Parent perceptions and opinions. Eight focus groups with a total of 70 parents of children in center<br />
care provided qualitative assessments ofparent needs, desires, and perceptions ofservices.<br />
Recommendations. The Advisory Committee made policy recommendations after reviewing the<br />
findings and conclusions ofthe report.<br />
Tun Nnno FoR NoNSCHooL-Houn Spnvrclls<br />
N¿,rtonal Nrso<br />
'<br />
The need for nonschool-hour services is substantial and likely to increase in the future.<br />
- A national survey found that 92Vo of City officials said that nonschool-hour care was the most pressing<br />
need for children and families - more than housing, family stability, drug and alcohol abuse, educa--<br />
tion, crime, or welfare reform. And in a 1999 nationwide survey of l, 100 adult registered voters<br />
sponsored by the Mott Foundation and J. C. Penney, nine out of ten favored proviáing after-school<br />
programs for children, 65Vo said there were not enough such programs, and 857o believed parents<br />
had difficulty finding programs in their communities.<br />
- It is estimated that two-thirds of elementary school-aged children need some nonschool-hour services,<br />
andthe vast majority ofthese children are in unlicensed and unregulated services - nearly half are<br />
not in any known, formal, consistent child care.<br />
-<br />
Recent research shows that school-age children in unstructured programs in centers, homes, and on<br />
their own get less<br />
academic assistance,<br />
spend more time<br />
watching TV, and<br />
engage in more<br />
unsupervised social<br />
activities in such<br />
contexts than in<br />
structured center care,<br />
and the result is that<br />
In et nationsl survey, 92 pcrcent of<br />
City officíals stated tlmt nonschoolhour<br />
care *,as lhe nost pressing<br />
need for chiklre n and fanilies -<br />
nnrc pressing fltan housittg,<br />
ftrmily stability, drug antl alcohol<br />
abuse, education, crinrc, or<br />
welfure reþrnt.
,<br />
they do poorer academically and have more social, emotional, and discipline<br />
problems in school.<br />
- Most parents must piece together nonschool-hour care for their children<br />
-767o of school-age children with an employed mother (in l99l) had to<br />
use at Ieast two child care a¡rangements in a typical week - which may<br />
include structured programs, lessons and sportô, relatives/neighbor care,<br />
and selfcare.<br />
Tnn Nnnn rN ALLEcHENy Cou¡¡ry<br />
' I1-{llegheny countyrll0rTzg children are enrolled in public and parochial<br />
elementary schools, almost one-third from tow-income families, and<br />
(assuming the national percent estimate of need) 23,000 chitdren are<br />
projected to need some nonschool-hour child care. only approximately<br />
10,409 of these children (r$vo) are enrolled in some structúreä nonschoolhour<br />
program at a center or facility, 27c/o of which are in regulated or licensed<br />
programs.<br />
' Therefore, approximately 62rs9r children (g6vo onthose estimated to<br />
need nonschool-hour services) are unaccounted for, presumably receiving<br />
such care in home care environments, with relativesãnd friends, or ¡" iàli<br />
care. Research on child care indicates that these care environments, on<br />
average, are inferior in quality and benefit children less than organized,<br />
structured, regulated center care, and attendance of children at these unstructured<br />
environments is associated with poorer academic performance and more<br />
social and behavioral problems in school.<br />
' Approximately 37_0 center-type programs were identified that would (but<br />
not necessarily<br />
{ipjake scho_ol-age children during nonschool hours plus<br />
approximatety 300 family and home-based care locãtions. of the centãrbased<br />
programs respondinq to the survey, a third were operated by social<br />
service agencies, a quarter by private schools (94vo catholic schoäls), 2lvoby<br />
other organizations (e.g., citiparks), and l4voby religious groups. However,<br />
4lclo -of<br />
the programs were located in (if not operated by¡ sðhoois, the majoriiy<br />
of which were in catholic schoors. Thus, eveñ among ôenter-based progi"*i<br />
a great diversity of organizations operates such programs, not necessarit-y on '<br />
their own premises, with little organizationat paiteri across agencies or<br />
betweenagenciesandschools'Map1inAppendixIIdisplayiinredthe<br />
locations of center-based programsln the sùivey and in gi""í tn" programs in<br />
the Child Care Partnership.<br />
' The number of child¡en in poverty in ailegheny county has increased<br />
during the last decade. of the 43 school ¿istrictõ, 35 (gl%) had an increase<br />
in the number of chilrtrel eligible for the National school Lúnch program<br />
between l99ll92 and 1998/99.
Low-income children are no longer_solely concentrated in the inner city but are progressively<br />
moving to municipalities outside the City of Pittsburgh. This trend is likely ro contiiue as the federal<br />
Department of Housing and Urban Development progressively dismantles public housing projects and<br />
encourages their residents to disburse throughout the metropolitan area.<br />
Low-income children are located in three types of geographic locations:<br />
- Neighborhoods in the City of Pittsburgh having high poverty rates -- including Fairywood, St.<br />
Clair, Terrace Village, Arlington Heights, Northview Heights, and Bedford Dwellings.<br />
- School districts having high percentages of children eligible for the National School Lunch<br />
Program -- including Duquesne City (89Eo eligible), Wilkinsburg (8l%o),Sto-Rox (79%o),Clairton<br />
Ç¡!y {4U"¡, City of Pittsburgh (6lVo), McKeesport City (56qò,Sieel Valley (52Vo),andWoodtand<br />
Hills (517o). These districts, plus Penn Hills and West Mifflin, also represénr municipalities with<br />
more than 100 children currently enrolled in TANF.<br />
- Individual elementary schools with substantially higher percentages of children eligible for<br />
free or reduced lunch than the overall rate in their districts -- including Franklin el07o of<br />
enrolled children eligible) and Barrett (857o) both in Steel Valley School District, Veiona (67Vo) in<br />
Riverview District, Grandview (63Vo) in Highlands District, Pitcairn (557o) in Gateway District,<br />
Reserve (42Vo) and Marzolf (367o) both in Shaler Area Districr, Kerr (28Vo) in Fox Chãpel Distiict,<br />
and Hyde (27Vo) in Moon Area District.<br />
Currentlyn school districts in the County having relatively high numbers or percentages of<br />
children not served by existing nonschool-hour services incluãe the City of piìtsburgh (zl,zqq<br />
children or 77Vo not served), Woodland Hills (3,904 ,91Vo), Penn Hills (3,i14,9}Vo),NfcKeesport<br />
Atea(2,656,7\Vo),West Mifflin(2,040,99Vo), Steel Valley (1,576,99Vo),Wilkinsburg (1,184, 74Vo),<br />
Clairton City (657, 95Vo), and Duquesne City (589, gg7o).<br />
The areas in which there is particular need for services relative to the number of low-income<br />
child¡en are represented graphically in Map 2 (for the City of Pittsburgh) and Map 3 (Municipalities<br />
of Allegheny County) in Appendix II. The maps show in maroon and red shaãed areas the<br />
location of substantial numbers of low-income children as determined by school lunch enrollments, and<br />
the locations of nonschool-hour programs in large green concentric ciicles (Child Care partnership<br />
programs) or red circles (from OCD's community survey). Red or maroon areas with small and/or<br />
fewer dots represent the areas of greatest disparity between needy populations and availability of<br />
programs as mentioned above.<br />
The dispersion of poYerly throughout the County means that simply targeting services at impoverished<br />
inner'city neighborhoods is not sufficient. As low-income õtrit¿reñ coniinue to spread<br />
throughout the County, geographic targeting of services becomes more difficult, less effective, and<br />
unfair to those low-income children who do not live in areas of substantial concentration of poverty.<br />
Ultimately, other strategies of targeting assistance must be adopted; for example, subsidies ór vouðhers<br />
for individual families, sliding-fee scales and agency subsidies or reimbursements, universal programs<br />
available to all, and perhaps other innovative approaches.
Srunpsuo't' otf N r lh,scl lt lol.-Ho r; l< Ilrrot; n,\ n,ts<br />
r r..- A l,l,l,;t ;t Il,lNY Ct )t;^*'¡'y<br />
An integration of the survey and focus group results paints the following picture<br />
of nonschool-hour services in Allegheny County.<br />
f)r q¡l'-l:<br />
i-rì t¡ ll.ir,1,..iì,<br />
'4..¿ . -L'r<br />
íüld.qùritl<br />
fi.inai;ilug<br />
.\<br />
PnocR¿na lssulis<br />
Parent Desires<br />
'<br />
Parents in the county with children in center programs want supervised care<br />
in a safe, structured environment; competent, trained, patieni, caring, and<br />
respectful staffwith minimum turnover; and program activities that rõpre<br />
sent an informal extension of school coupled with an additional emphasis on<br />
recreational and social activities. Generally, nonschool-hour center-based<br />
programs in the county provided these services, but not always to the<br />
extent parents desired. specifically, parents vaìued prograrrs that offered:<br />
II<br />
r?nÑl¡<br />
FP' '<br />
Yo'l<br />
,, l<br />
'lt r I<br />
It'<br />
t<br />
-\-<br />
¡f rr<br />
lr ll<br />
ã'<br />
-<br />
Academic support activities,<br />
including checking to see what hontework<br />
was assigned, encouraging or<br />
insisting that homework be done,<br />
checking to see that homework is<br />
done correctly, providing tutodng<br />
to assist students who may need<br />
academic help, and offering training<br />
and access to computers. While most<br />
progratns said they provided such<br />
¿rctivities, parenl.s, especially lowincome<br />
parent.s, felt the neecl for<br />
l.ìlore aggressive, comprehensive<br />
services in this area than their<br />
children were currently receiving.<br />
. ò¡. Ev.<br />
;þ\H'<br />
Oottrtl¡, put'(nls v,itlt cltildrc¡¡ in ccnlet.<br />
pro!:ru¡ni^ tt'urtl strp
- Enrichment activities, including field trips, cultural activities, and arts and culture. Again,<br />
programs attempted to provide this type ofactivity, but parents felt more could be done in this<br />
domain.<br />
- Social and recreational activities, including unstructured social and recreational time, organized<br />
games, and individual and team sports. Parents felt most of these activities were provided 6y their<br />
programs, but more emphasis could be placed on team sports for girls.<br />
Research shows that programs that provide structured, supervised services in these several areas<br />
are associated with better academic performance and fewer school behavior problems. But sadly,<br />
most children in the County do not attend such programs, so attention should be paid to creating more<br />
programs that can compete with the affordable and convenient alternatives of friends. relativès. and<br />
self-care.<br />
Availabilitv of Services<br />
' Nearly all programs (98Vo) in the survey offer after-school care and most (80Vo) have summer<br />
services, but fewer programs offer before-school services (65Vo) and only 87o provided services<br />
on the weekend.<br />
'<br />
While many programs accepted children with disabilities, no specialized services or activities<br />
were provided for them. This would discourage parents of children with serious sensory, physical, or<br />
mental disabilities from using such programs.<br />
Mttny prugratrrs accep! cltiklren witlt tlisabilities but offer no special services or actívities fttr them.
. No program offered care for sick children.<br />
. Parents complained that some services were difÍicult to obtain:<br />
- At odd hours. Most services were open from approximately 7 am to 6 pm,<br />
and did not offer extended-hours or sèrvices for parents who work second<br />
or third shifts. For example, one-third of low-income participants in the<br />
local GAPS program had jobs that required them to work weèkends,<br />
evenings, or nights when few services exist.<br />
- On school holidays, in-service days, school vacations, and snow days as<br />
well as when their children were sick. Regardless of anangements that<br />
parents make individually for their children, nearly all need some form of<br />
care to cover some of these events, making it difficult for both parents and<br />
services to accommodate occasional and often unanticipated mãximum<br />
demands relative to service supply. Indeed, r2vo of GAps participants had<br />
missed an average of 17 hours of work during the last month alone because<br />
of child care problems.<br />
- These limitations contribute to the catch-as-catch-can character of<br />
obtaining nonschool-hour services, especially for low-income parents.<br />
A single mother entering the workforce, for example, cannot easiiy find<br />
care to accept a second- or third-shift job, and many other parents must<br />
scramble for other forms of care (i.e., "emergency") or take off from work<br />
to cover unanticipated snow days or to care for a sick child. These unexpected<br />
absences do not help new TANF employees build an employment<br />
record of reliability and conscientiousness. on the other hand, providers<br />
cannot be on duty 24 hours a day, so some accommodation between parent<br />
needs and provider capability must be found.<br />
' Substantial variation in attendance exists from child-to.child and time-totime,<br />
making it difficult for parents to piece together a totar package of<br />
services and for agrncies to plan and maintain enrollments near capacity.<br />
\Mhile approximately half of the children attend four or five days per wèek -<br />
and relatively few attend only once per week, a substantial number of children<br />
attend organized services only part time, many preferring other forms of care<br />
at lower cost when available. At the same time, part-time and often unpredictable<br />
attendance makes it difficult for agencies to plan, staff, and fund sèrvices<br />
close to their capacity.<br />
Quality<br />
'<br />
Programs in Allegheny county compare favorably in quarity with the<br />
average national program as assessed in 1991, but is this level ofquatity<br />
"ayerage" today and is 'raveraget' the standard of practice and seivice -<br />
that Allegheny County desires? Specifically, relative to the national average
1991, programs in Allegheny County in 1999:<br />
Tend to have more older children enrolled in nonschool-hour programs, are more likely to offer<br />
different activities for older children, and consequently place somewhat more emphasis on<br />
academic support activities, enrichment, and tutoring.<br />
- Shgw that approximately one-third of the directors of programs in the County have college degrees<br />
or higher, have a higher median of seven years experience in this field, and slightly morestafflave<br />
college degrees locally (28Eo) than nationally (2l%o).<br />
- Have less staff turnover locally (2IVo) rhan nationally (35Vo).<br />
- Have a staff:child ratio in the County (1:11) that is a bit poorer than the national average (l:9) but is<br />
at the professionally recommended minimum of l:10 for children less than 6 years and l:12 for<br />
children greater than 6 years of age.<br />
'<br />
Thus, in Allegheny County, the quality of care in structured center-type environments is only<br />
"averager" and most children in the County attend nonschool-hour services that are not licensed<br />
or regulated and in which staff are not necessarily trained or credentialed. Moreover, a set of<br />
recommended practices specifically for nonschool-hour programs does not exist. Therefore, some<br />
systems of standards, regulation, support for training, and subsidies and incentives for providers,<br />
agencies, and parents is likely necessary to raise the quality of nonschool-hour programming, centerbased<br />
and otherwise, toward a standard of excellence.<br />
FrnaNcHL AND Man¡,cnnnENT IssuES<br />
Agency Funding<br />
'<br />
Parent fees are the predominant form of financial support for agencies. Sixty-one percent of centerbased<br />
programs charged parents fees, and an estimated 797o of parcnts pay full fees as defined by the agency.<br />
- Subsidies are more common in programs serving low-income populations. Regulated programs<br />
primarily use public subsidies, while other programs provide parents discounts, sliding-fee<br />
scales, multiple-child discounts, and scholarships, with contributions from private foundations and<br />
government covering the difference between parent fees and costs.<br />
'<br />
'<br />
Funding remains a problem for many agencies. One+hird of the agencies surveyqd said sufficient<br />
funding was difficult to obtain to provide the physical and material resources they felt were needed and<br />
to hire and maintain staff.<br />
A variety of government and private funding is available, but not used to its fullest extent.<br />
- Funding for nonschool-hour progrâms is available from a variety of federal agencies. These<br />
include the U.S. Department of Education (Title I, Safe Schools Act of 1994, Title VII, Reading<br />
Excellence Act, 2lst Century Community Learning Centers), U.S. Department of Agriculture<br />
(Child and Adult Care Food Program, Cooperative Extension Services' Youth at RiJk Program),<br />
U.S. Department of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Bureau of<br />
Justice Assistance), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Community School youth
services and supervision G_rant program, child care and Development<br />
Fund), u.s. Department of Housing and urban Development (federal<br />
' Enterprise and Empowerment Zones), etc.<br />
- Funds are also available from the state of pennsylvania (child care<br />
works, Youth Development Fund of the Department of community and<br />
Economic Development).<br />
- These funds are not used to their fullest extent. This is because their<br />
availability is not widely known; many providers are unaccustomed and<br />
inexperienced in applying for such fundl; and many funds are categorical,<br />
targeted, and can only be used by specific organizatiols for specific ffior"r.<br />
Affordability<br />
'<br />
'<br />
While some subsidies for low-income families exist, they are not sufficient<br />
for the need. Parent-q ar9 navins approximarely $2,00b priy.* for rhe firsr<br />
child, which is l4.3vo of an averagé entry salary. even beÞs families<br />
receiving subsidies- paid an average of $ i , I I 0 per year for only one child<br />
(many have more than one child).<br />
Low-income families^face several special difficulties affording nonschoolhour<br />
services, including:<br />
- The working poor ( I 85zo -235vo of federal poverty guidelines) are provided<br />
government subsidies only after families below lg5% of poveny are<br />
served; therefore, they have no stable source ofsubsidized suppôrt for<br />
nonschool-hour programming.<br />
- In the future, the commonwealth plans to recommend only licensed or<br />
regulated services to p¿rents receiving subsidies, which reþresent a small<br />
percentage of the available services. while this policy, if ènacted, would<br />
force the use of presumably higher quality servióes, *iit tt er" be enough<br />
such services available that are convenient enough for all low-income<br />
families to access?<br />
- Eligibility for subsidies varies with employment status, meaning that some<br />
low-income families are on-off-and-on-agâin in eligibiiity for súbsidies,<br />
which represents a problem for both pareñt and age-ncy. -<br />
Public Schools<br />
'<br />
The¡ole-of public schools is minimal. Generally, they do not operaæ<br />
regular, daily nonschool-hour programs (although othei agencies may operate<br />
programs in public schools), and there is little cóordination between<br />
nonschool-hour Programs, even those that emphasize academic assistance and<br />
enrichment, and the schools in terms of schoól workn homework, or the<br />
support of children with individual academic needs (although this is more
likely to occur when nonschool-hour programs are<br />
located in school buildings). While-some parents<br />
want nonschool-hour programs in their neighbor_<br />
hood (if schoolsare distant) or prefer their ðhildren<br />
ha_ve a change of scene during the day, the lack of<br />
school involvement seems to waste theirgeographic<br />
distribution, availability of space, financiá añd -<br />
administrative infrastructure, and the potential to<br />
coordinate nonschool-hour academic Àupport and<br />
enrichment with school cunicula and seive the<br />
academic needs of individual children. At a mini_<br />
mum, greater use of public and private school<br />
facilities and coordination of acãdemic programs<br />
seems needed (the federal 2lst Century Community<br />
Learning Centers funding resource is ã start).<br />
Administration and Management<br />
. Administrativelyr local programs are managed<br />
and administered at a level roughly consistent<br />
with their averagesize (approximat-ely 30<br />
children). Specifically:<br />
- 9nly<br />
half of the programs (52Vo) had a separate<br />
budget for nonschool-hour services, presum_<br />
ably because such care was provided in a<br />
larger context of childcare services.<br />
- Approximately half (55To) have financial<br />
records reviewed by an independent<br />
accountant, internal financial manager, board<br />
of directors, and/or other reviewer.<br />
- Most directors (827o) are accountable to a<br />
staff supervisor or agency executive<br />
director, but only 8Vo reportto a board of<br />
directors.<br />
-<br />
The reported existing levels of management<br />
would likely need to be increased if the<br />
programs are expanded or a more integrated<br />
system of services is adopted.<br />
It is recommended thal a top-level Contmission of govenunenr,<br />
professional and business leaders be assentbled io"creote a<br />
plan ilnt enables cltíldren S to 12 years of age and tlrcít<br />
parents to access as needed a contprehensive, coortlinøted<br />
syste m of n o nscl¿ool-lt o u r s ervìc e s.
RBconrvtENDATroNS<br />
Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, the Community Advisory<br />
Committee to this study makes the following recommendations:<br />
A topJevel After-School Commission composed of respected and influential<br />
leaders representing government, the professions, and business should be<br />
created to advance a public policy agenda at local and state levels and create<br />
a plan for a comprehensive and coordinated system that ensures that 5-12-<br />
year-old children, including those with disabilities, have access to nonschoolhour<br />
services as needed.<br />
The agenda for such a Commission should include the following issues:<br />
Canacitv Buildins<br />
The commission should develop a plan to increase the capacity of nonschoolhour<br />
care in terms of space, staff,<br />
and funding and integrate such<br />
services into a coordinated system.<br />
Specifïcally:<br />
. The Commission should determine<br />
an estimate of the number<br />
of children needing different<br />
kinds and hours of care and the<br />
capacity of schools and agencies<br />
to provide it, and it should<br />
determine the extent of need for<br />
services at odd hours and on<br />
"nonschool" days (e.g., inservice<br />
and snow days) as well as<br />
for specialized services for<br />
children who are sick and for<br />
children with disabilities. The<br />
gap between need and current<br />
availability of services should<br />
guide the capacity-building plan.<br />
The top-level Conunissíon would a.eole<br />
guidelines for recommended practìces for<br />
nonscltool-l¿our programs. These guídelínes<br />
woultl ensure that suclt progranntíng<br />
ís of high quality, respects pørerrtctl choices,<br />
ìncludes an appropríate mix of academic<br />
and socíal actívities, provides for accountabílíty<br />
and monílorìng attd encourages<br />
flexibìlìty of lrcurs -<br />
for etnployees and theír<br />
cltíldren so that benefits front center<br />
progranuning can be nnximized.
'<br />
The agenda should emphasize creating an integrated system of services based on collaborations with mutual<br />
responsibility among public and private schools on the one hand and community-based agencies on the<br />
other to provide a coordinated and seamless set of academic, social, and recreational seriices.<br />
' The role of the public schools il tltit lystep<br />
should be explored with attention paid to helping schools<br />
assure the safety and security ofchildren during nonschoól hours, providing inôentives to schools to<br />
cover the increased co-st of and responsibility for such services, unä r"mouilg baniers to schoolcommunity<br />
agency collaborations in providing such services.<br />
' { sqelial needs agenda.should be created, qerlap.s emphasizing collaboration with the County Mental<br />
Health/lVlental Retardation Department, to deal wittl the financlal, staffing, training, programming, and<br />
transportation issues of providing nonschool-hour services to children with-the entirðrãngã of disabïiities.<br />
Program Quality<br />
The Commission should create guidelines for recommended practices for nonschool-hour programming.<br />
'<br />
'<br />
The recommended practices should aspire to the highest standards of quality rather than settling for<br />
being "average," and the standards shóuld emphasiãe a hierarchy of nóeds drut *ill provide thJgreatest<br />
good for the greatest number of children.<br />
Recommended practices should be developed involving and respecting parents, recognizing that one<br />
size does not fit all of the diverse parent añ¿ ctritd needi, and enìuring-tirat paréntal choice of service<br />
options is a key feature of the plan.<br />
' Recommendedprogram activities should include an appropriate mix of academic support, enrichment,<br />
literacy and technological training, and structured and supêrvised social and recreatiäñal activities,<br />
which research indicates are related to better school perfórmance, deportment, and possibly socialemotional<br />
behavior.<br />
'<br />
'<br />
The plan should consider some system of accountability to the recommended practices that consists of<br />
both support and incentives for providers (e.g., training, credentialing, higher þer capita government<br />
payments) and monitoring and sanctions that would encourage proviãers-to offer s"rvi"eã consistent<br />
with the recommended practices.<br />
The Commission should exp]-gre ways to encourage both schools and employers to adjust current hours<br />
and to provide greater flexibility so that parents cãn be responsible emptóyees and their children can be<br />
nurtured educationally, vocationally, and socially.<br />
Training and Technical Assistance<br />
The Commission should consider the need for training, technical assistance, and information that<br />
will support agencies, staff, and parents in creating suih a system of nonschool-hour services.<br />
'<br />
'<br />
Technical assistance should be available to schools and agencies on how to develop, implement,<br />
finance, manage, and administer a nonschool-hour progra-rn and how to collaborató åffectively with<br />
other organizations to produce a coordinated and cómprehensive system of services.<br />
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<br />
time during the day for sup-porting children's developmental, emotionai, social, and<br />
academic needs. Also., such naining should increase the responsibility and skiús<br />
that will make providing such services a viable, respected irofession.<br />
'<br />
Parents should be provided assistance in identifying the specific needs of their<br />
children, recognizing quality in programming and Jtarr ari¿ the benefits<br />
q_uality produces for their children, and beinfaware of the alternatives and<br />
choices for nonschool-hour services that are available.<br />
' gn. component of such training and technical assistance might consist of a<br />
clearinghouse, perhaps incorporated into existing websites, ñat would advertise<br />
recommended practices to agencies and parJnts; proviáe parents an<br />
inventory of services organized by neighborhood; üif funding sources and<br />
requirements for parent subsidies; provide agencies with infõrmation on<br />
funding sources and how to access them, traiiing opportunities for staff, and<br />
tips on collaboration and management; ano provlde óommunities and<br />
policymakers with background informationbn resources and services that can<br />
be used in planning.<br />
Financial Support<br />
The commission should create a coordinated, centralized, sustainable,<br />
system ofcore funding for the general operation ofsuch sórvices.<br />
' A centralized system, likely with a substantial government contribution, is<br />
needed to meet the fina¡cial needs of agenciesãnd guarantee a sustainaLle,<br />
consistent, and comprehensive system õfservices. -<br />
' A plan should be devised-that will promote startup funding for new agencies<br />
operating in under-served areas as well as consolidation oiservices iñoverserved<br />
areas.<br />
' The commission rlt"+-q urge policymakers to provide core funding that is<br />
broader and more flexible than the highly-categorical and targetedlunding<br />
that currently exists, and barriers to aõceising fãderal rnon"yihould be reduced<br />
and methods adopted that would allow programs to leverage federal dollars.<br />
'<br />
The plan should recognize tliat low-income families are increasingly represented<br />
in areas outside ofthe inner-city, so other strategies of targãting ässis_<br />
tance to low-income families must be considered (such-as subsidies oivouchers<br />
for individual families, sliding fee scales, agency subsidies or reimbursements,<br />
universal programs).<br />
These findings and recommendations are intended to stimulate and guide the creation<br />
of a strategic plan and its imprementation that will produce a cooidinated,<br />
comprehensive, g{ qtlalitysystem of nonschool-hõur care that will promote the<br />
development of Allegheny County,s children.
I<br />
Nonschool-Hour Programs<br />
Community Advisory Committee<br />
il - Maps Locating Children and<br />
Programs in Allegheny County<br />
ilI - Bibliography
NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnavrs CouuuNrry<br />
Aovrsony ConavlrrrpE<br />
Ms. Judy Alverez<br />
Area Manager<br />
Kindercare<br />
Mr. Duane Ashley<br />
Direclor<br />
Department of Parks and Recreation<br />
City of Piusburgh<br />
Mr. Gerry Balbier<br />
!!q g raln Officer for Education Pro grams<br />
<strong>Heinz</strong> <strong>Endowments</strong><br />
Mrs. Carol Barrone-Martin<br />
Executive Director<br />
Louise Child Care<br />
Mr. Chip Burke<br />
Program Director<br />
Grable Foundation<br />
Ms. Sheny Cleary<br />
Director<br />
Child Development Center<br />
University of Pittsburgh<br />
Dr. James V. Denova<br />
Executive Director<br />
The Forbes Fund<br />
Mr. Jeny Frisk<br />
S up e rvi s o r of Educ at ion<br />
Shuman Center<br />
Allegheny Intermediate Unit<br />
Mr. Saleem Ghubril<br />
Executive Director<br />
Thé Pittsburgh Project<br />
Ms. Annette Green<br />
Program Officer<br />
Pittsburgh Foundation<br />
Ms. Amy Hart<br />
Vice President<br />
United Way of Allegheny County<br />
Ms. Jacqualynn James<br />
Parent<br />
Duquesne Family Center<br />
Ms. Enika Fearbry Jones<br />
Youth Policy Manager<br />
Office of the Mavor<br />
City of Pittsburgh<br />
Ms. Lori Katchen,<br />
Children & Families Service<br />
Coordirator<br />
Jewish Community Center<br />
Mr. Bryce Maretzki<br />
Progrant Officer<br />
Pittsburgh Partnership for<br />
Neighborhood Development, Inc.<br />
Dr. Karen Mclntyre<br />
President<br />
Education Policy and Issues Center<br />
Mr. Philip Pan<br />
Director of Plaruúng and<br />
Development<br />
Pittsburgh Board of Education<br />
Dr. Robert Paserba<br />
Superintendent<br />
Diocese of Pittsburgh<br />
Ms. Margaret Petruska<br />
Senior Program Officer and Director<br />
Children, Youth and Families<br />
Programs<br />
<strong>Heinz</strong> <strong>Endowments</strong><br />
Ms. Laurie Shaller<br />
Associate Executive Director<br />
Open Doors/Youth Places<br />
Dr. Margaret Tyndall<br />
Executive Director<br />
YWCA of Greater Pittsburgh
MAP 1:<br />
Loc¿,uon or Nonscuool-Houn PnocnaMs rN Ar,r,BcHsNy CouNry<br />
AND THE Clry or PlrrsnuRcH<br />
o')<br />
\@<br />
Number of<br />
Programs per<br />
Census Tþact<br />
Community Survev<br />
I lr-sr.-,<br />
o<br />
oo<br />
3 programs<br />
2 programs<br />
I program<br />
Child Care Partnership<br />
!<br />
ln.oe".-.<br />
!<br />
3p"og"u,n,<br />
O 2programs<br />
O I prograrn<br />
Administrative Boundaries<br />
u<br />
ff<br />
I<br />
schootDistr¡crs<br />
ciryotPittsburghNeighborhoods<br />
I Municipalities
Apppxux II<br />
MAP 2:<br />
Nunanpn on scuool Acn curlonp¡¡ (s -12 yns) BBlow povpnry Lnvnl<br />
(1990 CnNsus) nv NnteHBoRHooDS aNn LocarroN oF NoNscuoor-Houn pnocnarras<br />
rN THE Crry on PlrrsnuRcu<br />
Numberof<br />
Programs per<br />
Census Tþact<br />
Community Survey<br />
I<br />
eR"oe.r,n,<br />
o<br />
oo<br />
3 programs<br />
2 progranrs<br />
I program<br />
Child Care Partnership<br />
|<br />
2 programs<br />
|<br />
O I program<br />
4 programs<br />
Number Below Poverty<br />
uo. col<br />
I zoz-trs<br />
ffil sz-zor<br />
E7 (Mean)<br />
l-l .s7
MAP 3:<br />
Nuwan or Scuool Acn Csu.nnBn (5 -12 Yns) Bl,lclnl,B ron Fnnn/REDUCED Luxcn<br />
(1997/98) sv Scuool. Dlslutcrs AND LocrrroN or NoNscnoor,-Houn Pnocnnnrs<br />
r¡r AllrcHENy CouNry<br />
(Ð" J<br />
t@<br />
Cr^ e<br />
Number<br />
of Programs per<br />
Census Thact<br />
Community Survey<br />
@ 4progrâms<br />
(Þ<br />
oo<br />
o<br />
3 programs<br />
2 programs<br />
I program<br />
chldcareParrnership<br />
o<br />
oo<br />
4 programs<br />
3 programs<br />
2 programs<br />
I program<br />
Number<br />
Eligible for<br />
Free/Reduced Lunch<br />
Pittsburgh School District<br />
EE¡ t6,7or<br />
Other School District<br />
j;T;i;Tt<br />
E<br />
l. ì 4so. e4o<br />
tl<br />
fl<br />
EI<br />
480 (Mean)<br />
20 - 479<br />
Missing data<br />
Municipality boundaries
AppnnrDrx III<br />
BmUocRAPHY<br />
Berndt, T.J. & Ladd, G.W. (Eds.) (1989).<br />
Peer relationships in chíld developmen. New York: Wiley.<br />
The center for the Future of children. (1997). The Future of children(vol. 7).<br />
Los Altos, CA: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.<br />
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. (1998). Pollfinds ovet-whelming wpportþr<br />
after-school enríchment programs to lceep kids safe and smart. News release,<br />
September 24. Flint, Michigan: Author.<br />
child care Action campaign. (1992). Facts about the child care cr¿s¿s. New<br />
York: Author.<br />
children's Defense Fund. (1989). A vision of America's future. washington,<br />
D.C.:Author.<br />
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate (199g,<br />
Feb.25). Non-school hout's: Mobilizing school and comtnunity resources.<br />
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.<br />
Dwyer, K.M., Richardson, J.L., Danley, K.L., Hansen,1V.8., Sussman, S.y.,<br />
Brannon,8., Dent, C.W., Johnson, C.A.n Flay, B.R. (1990). Characteristics of<br />
eighth-grade students who initiate selÊcare in elementary and junior high school.<br />
Pediatrícs, 86, 448-454.<br />
Ebb, N. (1994). child care tradeoffs: states make painful choices. washingron,<br />
D.C.: Children's Defense Fund.<br />
The Finance Project. (1995) Dollars and sense: Diverse perspectives on block<br />
grants and the personal responsibility ac¡. lvashington, D. c.: Institute for<br />
Educational Leadership.<br />
Galambos, N.L. & Maggs, J.L. (1991). out-of-school care of young adolescents<br />
and self-reported behavior. Developmental Psychologt, 27, 644-65 S.<br />
Garmezy,N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse deveropmental<br />
outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral scíentist,34,416-430.
Goffin, S.G. & Lombardi, J. (1988). Speaking out: early childhood advocacy.<br />
lWashington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.<br />
Goyette-Ewing, M. (1995). Children's after school arrangements. Unpublished paper.<br />
Green, H. (1995). The state of America's cities: Eleventh annual opinion survey<br />
of munícipal elected oficiøls. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities.<br />
Hartup, rW.W. (no date). Having friends, making friends, and keeping friends:<br />
Relationships as educational contexts. ERIC Digest, EDO-PS-92 -4, p.L -2.<br />
Hofferth, S.L., Brayfield, 4., Deich, S.G., & Holcomb, P. (1991). The national<br />
child care survey 1990.Washington, D.C.: NAEYC and the Department of<br />
Health and Human Services.<br />
Kohlberg, L., LaCrosse,J., & Ricks, D. (1972). The predictability of adult mental<br />
health from child behavior. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child psychologt (çry.<br />
1217-1284). New York: Wiley.<br />
Laird, R.D., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.4., Bates, J.E. (1998). The social ecology of<br />
school-age child-care. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychologt,lg,34l-360.<br />
Miller, B.M. (1994) Out-of-school time: Effects on learning in the primary<br />
grades. Report prepared for the Carnegie Corporation Task Force on Learning in<br />
the Primary Grades. tù/ellesley, MA: School Age Child Care Project, Wellesley<br />
College Center for Research on Women.<br />
Miller, 8.M., O'Connor, S., Sirignano, S.W, & Joshi, P. (1996). "I wish the kids<br />
didn't watch so much TV": Out-of-school time in three low-income communities.<br />
Wellesley, MA: rffellesley College Center for Research on Women.<br />
Murphy, L.8., &, Moriarty, A.E. (1976). Vulnerability, coping and growth: From<br />
irfancy to adolescence. New Haven: Yale University Press. r<br />
National Commission on \Vorking Women of \iVider Opportunities for Women.<br />
(1989). úI/omen, work and child care. Washington, D.C.: Author.<br />
Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. 4., & Meece, D. W. (1999). The impact of<br />
after-school peer contact on early adolescent externalizing problems is moderated<br />
by parental monitoring, perceived neighborhood safety, and prior adjustment.<br />
Child Development, 70(3), 7 68-77 8.
Brcr,rocRAPHY<br />
Pierce, K.M., Hamm, J. V., & Vandell, D. L. (1999). Experiences in afterschool<br />
programs and children's adjustment in first grade classrooms. Child<br />
D ev e I opment, 7 0(3), 7 5 6-7 67 .<br />
Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1999). After-school activities and the development<br />
of low-income urban children: A longitudinal study. Developmental<br />
Psychologlt, 35(3), 868-879.<br />
Posner, J. K. & Vandell, D. L. (1994). Low-income children's after-school care:<br />
Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development,65,<br />
440-456.<br />
Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D.L. (1996). Quality of care in school-aged child-care<br />
programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child perspectives, and<br />
parent perspectives . Child Development, 67, 2434-2445.<br />
School Age Child Care Project. (1992). School-age child-care. Wellesley, MA:<br />
Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.<br />
School Age Child Care Project. (1997). Fact Sheet. National Institute on Out-of-<br />
School Time. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on<br />
Women.<br />
Seligson, M., Genser,4., Gannett,E., & Gray, rü. (1983). School-age child care:<br />
a policy report. Wellesley, MA: School-Age Child-Care Project, Wellesley<br />
College Center for Research on Women.<br />
Seppanen, P.S., Love, J.M., deVries, D.K., Bernstein, L. (1993). National study<br />
of beþre and after school progra¡ns. Final Report to the Office of Policy and<br />
Planning, U.S. Department of Education. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research<br />
Corporation .<br />
.<br />
Seppanen, P.S., deVries, D.K., & Seligson, M. (1993). National study of beforeand<br />
after-school programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.<br />
Sheley, J. (1984). Evaluation of the centralized, structured, after-school tutorial.<br />
Journal of Educational Research. 77, 213:217 .<br />
Steinberg, L. (1986). Latchkey children and susceptibility to peer pressure: An<br />
ecological analysis. Developmental P sycholo gy, 22, 433 -439.
U.S. Departments of Education and Justice (1998). Safe and smart: Making<br />
afte r- s cho ol hours w o rk for kids. Washington, DC. http ://www. ed. gov/pubs/<br />
SafeandSmarVintro.html<br />
U.S. Department of Education (1997). Keeping schools open as community<br />
learning centers. \iVashington, DC. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/<br />
U.S. Government Accounting Office. (1997). l(elfare reþrm: Implications of<br />
increased work participationþr child care. Report to the Committee on Labor &<br />
Human Resources, U.S. Senate. GAO/HEHS-97 -7 5.<br />
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1987). After-school care of school age children:<br />
December 1984. Cunent Population Reports (Special Studies Series No. 149),23.<br />
Vandell, D.L. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement of children's afterschool<br />
environments. Madison: University of Wisconsin.<br />
Vandell, D.L. & Corasaniti, M.A. (1988). The relation between third-graders'<br />
after-school care and social, academic, and emotional functioning. Child Development,<br />
J9, 868-875.<br />
Vandell, D.L. & Ramanan, J. (1991). Children of the national longitudinal survey<br />
of youth: Choices in after-school care and child development. Developmental<br />
Psychologt, 27 (4), 637 -643 .<br />
Willer, 8., Hofferth, S.L., Kisker, E.E., Devine-Hawkins, P., Farquhar,E' &<br />
Glantz, F.B. (1991). The demand and supply of child care in 1990: JointJìndings<br />
from the National Child Care Survey i,990 and A Profile of Child Care Seuings.<br />
Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.<br />
Zigler,E.F., & Lang, M.E. (1991). Child care choices: Balancing the needs of<br />
children,families, and socier). New York: The Free Press.<br />
The University of Pittsburgh is an ffirmative action, equal opportunity instítution.<br />
/' .' 'Childlcn i¡r \llçghsiyÇ.