A REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF THE

BRONX BOROUGH PRESIDENT

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

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión, Jr. October 2007

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

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

XII. Acknowledgments

2

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

3

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

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

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

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

1

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

4

 

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

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

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

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

5

23 Vocational: 38 Bronx high schools have no vocational out-of-school time programs. the federal government contributed $41.Funding Overview of New York City Out-of-School Time Programs       Approximately $203.22 Arts: 26 Bronx high schools have no arts.000 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.920.825. 21 Lack of Out-of-school time Programs at Bronx High Schools       Sports: 22 Bronx high schools have no Public School Athletic League (PSAL) sports teams.800 (not including New York City Department of Education) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City. 16 For the last fiscal year.269.1 million for out-of-school time programs.. the New York State government spent $52.000 on out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.17 The New York City Department of Youth and Community Development contributed $69.586.800 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. 29 16 17 Albert.based out-of-school time programs.731 Bronx high school youth are enrolled in either an Out of School Time (OST) program or a Beacon program compared to 27 71 Bronx high schools have no OST program for their students at their site. August 3.25 Community Service: 63 Bronx high schools have no fall community service outof-school time programs.20 In total.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative. The After School Corporation.18 In total.26 Lack of Out of School Time Programs for High School Age Youth    Only 11. Personal communication. 2007 Ibid 18 Ibid 19 Ibid 20 Ibid 21 Ibid 22 See Appendix A 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 25 Ibid 26 Ibid 27 See Appendix C 28 See Appendix B 6 .19 In total.24 Tutoring: 46 Bronx high schools have no tutoring-focused out-of-school time programs.28 27 Bronx high schools have no OST program for high school age youth with a ½ mile. private funding contributed $10. John P. the city agencies contributed a total of $99. Leadership: 7 Bronx high schools have no leadership and support out-of-school time programs.

Selected Recommendations New York City Department of Education (DOE) o Accountability Measures   DOE should ensure that School Report Cards includes relevant data on out-of-school time programs.  One very important factor that impacts the number of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth is the reduced amount of funding for high school youth in comparison to elementary and middle school youth. “Learning Environment Surveys: Citywide Results.  School Report Cards. Department of Education. the report found that the programs that did exist only served a small portion of the youth population in their zip codes. DOE should create the position of Deputy Chancellor for Out-ofSchool Time Programs and create an Office of Out-of-School Time Programs. teachers and parents think these out-of-school time programs are being run. o Reform 29 30 See Appendix B City of New York.” 2007 7 . a situation has been created to allow for large disparities in the quantity. in their current format.  The Learning Environment Survey would have benefited from adding questions on how effectively students. 30  Out-of-school time programs have fallen victim to the current complex system of public policy and funding in New York State government and in the US federal government. do not adequately judge the performance of principals and schools because they lack a comprehensive section about out-of-school time programming.  An average of 54% of middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any of these out-of-school time programs during last year in their school.Conclusions New York City Department of Education (DOE)  Without sufficient accountability measures for out-of-school time programs on school sites. variety and quality of out-of-school time programs at different schools.  Some youth are not served by OST out-of-school time programs because of programs are allowed to be outside of the targeted zip code are for service or the method for targeting where services are provided misses concentrations of youth. Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)  This report found that there were not enough programs at or near by schools for youth to access. Additionally.

o Management   DYCD needs to correct technical problems and inaccuracies with data collection in the OST Online Tracking System. DYCD should ensure that the geographical area served by an OST program is not too big.  Both DOE & DYCD should pool their financial resources and have better communication.  Lobby the federal government to increase authorized funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. DYCD should increase the number of OST programs at or near by schools for high school youth to access. DYCD and the city administration should lobby the federal and state government on funding issues. DYCD should increase the spending per student for high school youth in OST programs to ensure sufficient quality service.  New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) o High School Youth     DYCD should increase percentage of funds allocated at the high school level. Convene the leadership of the major New York State outof-school funding streams in to identify steps to integrate or better align existing programs across agencies and funding sources. DYCD should increase the capacity of OST and Beacon programs. 8 . DOE should design small schools so that they have sufficient space for out-of-school time programs. o Funding  DOE.

and Poverty In the Age of Welfare Reform. in very low. During the 2005-6 school year.4 million. 29% of the population in the Bronx is under 18 or approximately 406. and it is every child’s right to a first-rate education and a wealth of enrichment opportunities that make such a future possible.37 The deficiency in out-of-school time programs in Bronx schools is not only failing these youth. 2002.” Highbridge Horizon March 2006 <http://www.highbridgehorizon. It is also in the interest of society to invest in such resources to ensure a skilled. Each child possesses the potential to be a contributing member or leader of the next generation.371 Bronx high school youth. 9 . < http://quickfacts.income Bronx neighborhoods. but also neglecting the well being of our social and economic future. from 2002 to 2005.pdf> 36 Ibid. Earnings. Thus. According to the latest US Census data. Robin and Levitan. Corey.34 In recent years. the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests. and the pressing need for enrichment opportunities to engage youth during out-of-school time throughout the borough. Bureau of the Census. single mothers in New York City are increasing working full-time in low wage jobs with no vacation or sick time and little job security. The reform of extracurricular programming in our city could have positive consequences that reach far beyond those children and families immediately affected. there are thousands upon thousands of Bronx high school students who are unable to participate in even the most common types of programs that can be offered during free time before or after the school day.census.cssny. these figures suggest the shortages and inadequacies of these programs.gov/qfd/states/36/36005.31 In addition.” USA Quick Facts. they could lose their job for taking time off to attend to their children. An average of 54% of city middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any typical out-of-school time programs in their schools last year. January through December. Analysis of School Location Incident Data 37 New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Additionally.org/pubs/special/motherswork2002_08.35 This all adds up to a large youth population with limited adult supervision. single mother households account for nearly a third of Bronx households. Bronx schools and communities have noticeably suffered in recent years. educated workforce of tomorrow.com/news/mar06/parenting. Mark. Mother’s Work: Single Mothers’ Employment. Bronx schools had an average of 35% more major crimes than did schools of similar size throughout the city. In the absence of reform. the city’s largest out-of-school time program currently enrolls only 11. 36 Additionally.33 Significantly. “Giving ‘100 percent’ to parenting. 2005.32 When the large population of Bronx youth is taken into account. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC.000 of the total Bronx population of 1.html> 34 Spencer.htm> 35 Gluck.INTRODUCTION Today. 2005. A competitive economy capable of survival and success in the 21st century is inseparable from a quality education system. Citywide Learning Environment Survey See Appendix C 33 “Bronx County Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau. Community Service Society of New York. Aug. 31 32 Ibid. single females head more than half of the households. <http://www.

Poll Finds. and in turn a good education produces the skilled workforce necessary to power a competitive. Out of thirty-three quality of life issues in city neighborhoods. "Noise. Garbage Top Annoyances In City. Although spending on out-of-school time programs throughout Bronx schools reaches large sums and has increased in recent years. The 38 Weintraub. a 2006 poll of 612 New York City residents and neighborhood leaders conducted by Citizens for NYC found that New Yorkers see “lack of organized activities for youth” as the third most pressing issue in the city. Within this section. the same 2006 Citizens for NYC poll found that the “lack of organized activities for youth” was the number one quality of life issue in the Bronx. athletics and teamwork. this report will investigate the role the city plays in the delivery of these programs. the report will examine out-of-school time programs that take place in Bronx schools and at youth serving organizations. 10 . As a result. this report will make recommendations on how more youth could be served and out-of-school time programs better managed. it will document the benefits of out-of-school time programs. out-of-school time programs increase the likelihood of high school graduation. looking also at the role of the state and federal government. To that end." The New York Sun 13 July 2006 : 2. more of the public is recognizing the need to provide out-ofschool time programs for youth as a critical priority.38 Bronx Similar to citywide. allocation of this money remains disorganized and unequal. Studies also show that more youth would participate in school programs if they were available. growing economy. this report will look first in-depth at the rising concern about juvenile delinquency in the city and the Bronx. and community service. career exploration. There exists a clearly imbalanced distribution of funding and number of programs among different neighborhoods throughout the borough. Benjamin. Rigorous studies show that organized out-of-school time programs can reduce youth crime and violence.A vibrant economy provides the tax base to fund education. Consequently. this report will identify major factors contributing to the lack of effective out-of-school time programs. Next. Subsequently. Afterward. but boost academic success. Quality out-of-school time programs can provide Bronx high school youth with a safe environment in which the prime time for juvenile crime is transformed into golden hours of academic enrichment. BACKGROUND ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Public Concern About Juvenile Delinquency New York City Increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of the link between youth idleness and juvenile crime. Finally. This report was written to account for how the current system is working to deter juvenile delinquency in the Bronx and provide quality out-of-school time programs for Bronx high school age youth with.

6% spike between 2004 and 2005. New York Police Department. the trend of increasing juvenile delinquency paints a bleaker picture. In 2006. Nicholas. youth between the ages of 13 and 18 have committed 54. kidnapping. and burglaries among their top crime problem. and other theft-related offenses) committed by juveniles in New York City. a “juvenile offender” is youth between the ages of 13 and 15 who is criminally responsible for murder.” 41 Ibid 42 Sbordone. it is based on fact. there are numerous written examples of concerns about youth programs from Community Boards. burglary. Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications.same sentiment has been expressed on more local level across the borough.148 to 52. In the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs assessment. 39 40 Ibid. accounting for 74% of all juvenile crimes. City of New York 43 Ibid. City of New York. assault. this report looked at the large number of complaints about disorderly youth from Bronx residents over the last several years. “While crime is rampant everywhere throughout the city.266 reported cases of property crimes (includes larceny. 2002. Personal Communication.638 felony burglaries.720 out of 8. 11 . a larger percent of them being committed by youth.” Law Department. assaults. 2 July 2007 46 New York City Criminal Justice Agency.” 45 Pankratz.43 Between 2004 and 2006.The Bronx. During that same time period.39 11 out of 12 Bronx Community Boards indicated that funding for youth programs was an urgent need in their neighborhoods in the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs assessment. “Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes. 396 felony robberies and 27. District 3 Community Board wrote. Connie. January through December. Office of Management Analysis and Planning 44 Ibid.40 In this assessment.493. Analysis of 311 Service Requests. 42 Juvenile Delinquency New York City The growing concern about juvenile delinquency is more than just popular sentiment. or 55%) of the juvenile delinquent cases in New York City in 2006 were violent crimes. There were 5. City of New York. including a 26.46 According to state penal code. While much has been made publicly about decreasing crime rates in New York. Robbery and assault crimes made up the bulk of violent crimes in those five years. arson. arson. The number of youths arrested in New York City between the ages of 13 to 18 has increased from 44.571 between 2002 and 2006. “Community District Needs Fiscal Year 2008 . there was a significant increase in felony robbery arrests for juveniles. graffiti. “Juvenile Crime Stats – Family Court Division of Law Dept. the 42nd Precinct rates drug dealings. Department of Planning. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC.”41 As indication of the high of concern about juvenile delinquency.557 quality of life complaints between May 2004 and June 2007 from the Bronx residents to the 311 service requesting assistance from the New York Police Department concerning youth acting disorderly.45 Bronx The number of arrests of juvenile offender in the Bronx has risen each year between 2002 and 2005.44 Over half (4. there were 2.

these 473 arrests of Bronx youth in 2005 were 24. 5% were weapons crimes. The Bronx’s number of juvenile delinquent cases also appears to be getting worse. criminal possession or sale of a controlled substance or marijuana. There were also 208 sex offenses. Not only do Bronx youth commit crimes at a higher rate than youth of other boroughs. NYC Law Department 51 Analysis of Mayor’s Management Report’s section about NYPD from 2002 to 2007 12 . January through December. there were 25 youth convicted as juvenile offenders in the borough.rape or other sexual acts.Y. While the 2006 total of 1. sex offenses and other various crimes). Connie. Other increases occurred over this time period including weapons possession incidents (from 230 to 395). Section 18 Ibid.343 in 2006 (major crimes include murder. there has been an increase in juvenile delinquency in New York City high schools. the 1.123 cases).860 cases is lower than the previous year.257 to 4. burglary.47 From 2002 to 2005. a “juvenile delinquent” is a youth between the ages of 16 to 18 who commits a felony crime and is processed in adult court. misdemeanor assault. 10% were drug crimes.218) and other crimes (from 4. 22% were property crimes. it is still significantly higher than all other yearly totals since 2002. Significantly. the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests.576 cases) and 2005 (2. Between 2002 and 2005. According to the NYPD. State Penal Code. Juvenile Delinquency cases Referred to NYC Law Department 2002-2006.9% of total number of cases in the city. grand larceny and grand larceny auto). 2007 50 Pankratz. 1.2% of the 1. which is a strong indication of delinquent behavior. the number of arrests for major felonies in schools increased from 4. The number of juvenile delinquent cases have increased sharply every year between 2002 (1. In the Bronx.187 in 2002 to 1.198 in 2002 to 4. 49 Office of the Bronx District Attorney. 83 bomb threats and 3. The number of major crimes reported also increased over the same time period from 1.432 to 3. and 5% were various other crimes. and is processed in adult court. According to state penal code.842 in 2006. Personal Communication. robbery.659 – other crimes include arson. felony assault.354 harassment incidents in New York schools in 2006. rape. Bronx youth were 24% of the juvenile offender arrests for the city. 74 Bronx youth were also subsequently convicted as juvenile offenders.860 juvenile delinquent cases were violent crimes. disorderly conduct incidents (from 1. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC.953 juvenile offender arrests in New York City. Of the remaining 53% of crimes.060 (57%) of the 1. 51 This trend of increasing crime continued into 47 48 “Definition of ‘Juvenile Offender.’” Article 10 N. 2002. While the borough is again home to only 17% of the city’s population.860 juvenile delinquent cases in the Bronx in 2006 made up 21. a greater percentage of these offenses are violent crimes.49 The Bronx also accounts for more than its share of citywide juvenile delinquent crimes. In 2004 alone.50 Crime in Schools New York City In addition to problems in city neighborhoods. The number of truants returned to school rose between 2002 and 2006.48 While the borough is home to only 17% of the city’s population.

$48 million in fiscal year 2004.52 Bronx The Bronx high schools have had a high rate of juvenile delinquent behavior in schools between 2002 and 2006.458 incidents of the 7 major crimes. 579 juvenile arrests for 7 major felonies.9 million in fiscal year 2005.000 new juveniles).2007.53 During the 2005-6 school year.322 other criminal incidents. $51. During the 2005-6 school year. In 2006.58 Additionally.55 Juvenile Detention New York City As might be expected with the increased level of juvenile delinquency. The amount requested to spend on detention dropped off for fiscal year 2007. “Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes. IBO’s Programmatic Review of the 2007 Preliminary Budget: Department of Juvenile Justice. There were 21% more major felonies committed in schools in the first four months of FY 2007 than in the first four months of FY 2006. the Department of Juvenile Justice has increased its detention budget steadily between fiscal years 2003 and 2006. During the 2005-6 school year.57 This figure represents an increase of 721 return detainees from 2005. a 16. 43% of juvenile detainees were readmitted to detention facilities.” 57 Analysis of Mayor’s Management Report’s section about New York City Department of Juvenile Justice from 2002 to 2007 58 Ibid 59 City of New York.087 juvenile offenders admitted in 2002. Analysis of School Location Data 56 Ibid.2 million in fiscal year 2006 and $54.753 juvenile delinquents admitted to a secure facility. over 28. New York Police Department.3% increase in comparison with the 4.56 In 2006. $59.54 This discrepancy between Bronx schools and schools in the rest of the city can be seen even more clearly by focusing on a school-by-school basis.59 Bronx 52 53 54 Analysis of Mayor’s Management Report’s section about New York City Department of Education from 2002 to 2007 Ibid. there were: 3. In this same period. Between 2002 and 2006.169 truants returned to Bronx high schools between 2002 and 2006.187) of all major crimes in the city’s schools occurred in Bronx high schools.7% from 2005. year-by-year DJJ has spent $39. there were approximately 2.9 million in fiscal year 2003. there has been a corresponding rise in the number of youth going into city detention facilities. 5. a 61% increase in comparison with the 467 juveniles admitted in 2002. In 2006. there were 4. There have been a total of 113. Much of this increase took place in 2006 when the number of detained youth increased 13. there was a 20% increase in the total admission to detention facilities (nearly 1. Bronx schools had an average of 35% more major crimes than schools of similar size throughout the city. Independent Budget Office. 13 . Many detained youth were returned to detention centers for a second time.546 police incidents in Bronx high schools.5% (338 of 1. but remained higher than all previous levels. there were also 753 juveniles admitted to non-secure detention. and 5. Bronx schools also have a higher rate of major crimes in schools than any other borough. Office of Management Analysis and Planning Analysis of New York Police Department Incidents For Bronx High 2005-06 Annual School Report Supplement 55 Ibid.137 weapons possessions incidents. Starting in 2003. 1.389 disorderly conduct cases.9 million in fiscal year 2007.

While the number of districts represented has decreased since 2003. Department of Health and Human Services.hhs. Nicholas. 60 61 Ibid. The Bronx neighborhoods that were frequently listed the highest on admissions to juvenile detention facilities include: Soundview.gov/hsp/cyp/xstimuse.htm> . Risky Behavior and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data. 2 Aug 2007 <http://aspe.6% of youth admissions from 2003 to 2006 to detention centers despite the fact that the borough is home to only 17% of the City’s population. the total number of Bronx youth admitted has moved in the opposite direction. Of the 2. U. juvenile delinquency is a major cause for concern. Youth that spend no time in out-of-school time activities are 49 % more likely to have used drugs. Each year since 2003. many children hang out with their peers and are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. the Bronx is perennially overrepresented with least a third of the fifteen districts located in the borough. then the Bronx accounts for even more juvenile delinquents: four of the ten worst districts and 37% of the total number of juvenile delinquents on the 2006 list. 771 (32%) were from the Bronx.403 juvenile delinquents from fifteen citywide districts. Admissions to DJJ By CD FY 03-06 Ibid 62 Zill.61 CAUSES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Overview For many NYC residents. the Bronx accounted for 25.In an annual listing of the districts in the city with the highest number of youths admitted to the juvenile detention facilities from 2003 to 2006. it is crucial to examine and understand why certain youth exhibit delinquent behavior. Without a constructive environment during out-of-school time hours.S.60 In 2006. 14 . University Heights. Eastchester. five of the fifteen districts were located in the Bronx. which marked a small decrease from 2005’s extraordinarily high totals of juvenile delinquency). the data shows that increased juvenile delinquency in the Bronx can be traced to the greater instances of juvenile delinquency in the borough’s worst districts. and limited educational opportunities are at risk of developing delinquent tendencies. uninvolved parents. Bedford Park. the number of Bronx youth admitted to juvenile detention facilities in the list of the worst districts has increased (except from 2005 to 2006. Tremont. and Morris Heights. If we are to prevent the problem of juvenile delinquency.62 Studies have shown that rates of juvenile crime are at their highest in the hours right after school. If shortened to the ten worst districts. Youth with unsupervised free time. "Adolescent Time Use. Unsupervised Free Time Youth are given the opportunity to get into trouble with regular unsupervised free time. than those who spend 1-4 hours per week in out-of-school time activities. Specifically." 11 Sep 1995. 27 % more likely to have been arrested and 37 % more likely to have become teen parents. Significantly.

68 The schools that they attend have fewer resources to fund quality school programs. abusive behavior.html>.fightcrime. Cheryl L. Parents who are negative role models can severely impact the behavior of their children. Since academic achievement is considered one of the principal steppingstones toward success. Or Youth Enrichment and Achievement . Day-to-day interaction with peers and authority figures enables youth to incorporate necessary social skills.65 Parenting style is also a significant determinant of delinquent behavior in youth. 11 Mar 1999. California: Sage Publications.com/free-essays/2010. These youth are also more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior if their parents expose them to martial problems. youth learn to take responsibility for their own actions. or drug use66. since parents decide how much time their children spend unsupervised. 64 Rhoades . it is imperative to provide children with a constructive alternative during these hours so they are not given the time to engage in delinquent behaviors. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems 68 Ibid 15 . positive educational opportunities are not equally available to all youths. Conversely. Dominguez Hills. Youth in these schools lack stimulating programs and individual attention.63 Therefore. They also tend to be overcrowded. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: “The Breakdown of Families in America”. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: “The Breakdown of Families in America”. which means there is less individual attention for each child. Children from lower economic classes often experience a very different educational environment in comparison to middle-class children.67 Education increases a youth’s ability to think critically and make well-informed decisions. 2005.antiessays. Delinquency brings attention to youth neglected by their parents and provides them with approval from peers who respect delinquent behavior. Family Life Studies show that delinquent youth are more likely to have unhappy home lives than nondelinquent youth. Gus. 67 Ibid.org/reports/as2000. Role of Education Along with family factors. school environments play a critical role in shaping a youth’s sense of opportunity and self-worth. parents who are preoccupied with their own needs and negligent in their responsibilities usually do not supervise their children on a daily basis." 2000. Unfortunately.64 They may seek out attention by misbehaving in school or involving themselves in criminal activity outside of school. they may be less motivated to fully engage in school and may be less inclined to attend regularly.especially between 3 and 4 PM. 65 Ibid. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Supportive and nurturing parents motivate their children to strive for excellence inside and outside of school. "America’s Out-of-school time Choice:The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime.. educational experiences have a significant influence on juvenile development. Sanford.pdf >2. Through tasks such as completing homework assignments and taking tests. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. 66 Martin. Anti Essays. Youth learn how to interact with other people and society primarily from their parents. 63 Newman. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www.

16 . youth resort to delinquent behavior. "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges. Reduced Delinquent Behavior Participation of youth in out-of-school time activities has been proven to produce improvements in their social skills. we will seek to document the quantitative ways in which out-of-school time programs have proven to be beneficial. including their ability to maintain self-control.mass2020.doc> 73 Schools Alone are Not Enough. Mass Insight Education. Importantly.pdf>.73 69 Halpern. and extortion. 2002. The drug trade can be extremely dangerous.org/usr_doc/vol9no2Art8done. make constructive choices about their behavior and avoid fights. which play a large role in youth crime.72 One study found that teachers in a Manchester. parents. Studies have consistently shown that out-of-school time programs produce positive results. 70 Ibid.70 In addition. if youth grew up in an environment where gangs are prevalent. street gangs control a large portion of juvenile drug dealing.out-of-school timealliance. Massachusetts 2020 Education Opportunity. Since these youth are disengaged from school. violence. academic achievements are falling below nationwide standards and students are failing to acquire basic literary skills.69 The lack of responsibility in youth makes them prone to delinquent behavior. these youth are not motivated to create connections with teachers and other authority figures in school. Youth who are exposed to gang lifestyles and also have access drugs and weapons are at a high risk for becoming juvenile delinquents. Youth join gangs primarily for protection. 2. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems 72 “Out-of-school time Candidate Resource Kit 2004.(1999) 81-95. Gangs. money and status. youth are temped by the attraction of street gangs. Therefore. Oversight: Initiatives to Combat Gang Activity in New York City 71 Ibid. and is usually associated with guns. 31 July 2007 <http://www. In this section. Guns and Drugs Without support from family and school. In addition. Robert. Without motivation to achieve in school and guidance from authority figures. OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAM BENEFITS Overview Numerous studies have been done to document the wide-range of benefits of out-ofschool time programs to children.71 Youth who succumb to gangs often use drugs and deadly weapons as a method of solving problems.org/elections/candidate_kit. 02 Aug 2007 <http://www." When School Is Out 9.pdf>. students usually misbehave rather than incorporate proper academic or social skills into their norms of behavior.org/FinalMCASPaper. communities and taxpayers.When forced to attend. New Hampshire school reported nearly 50% of students in outof-school time programs had fewer behavioral problems and that 40% had learned to handle conflicts effectively. they may feel they have no other choice but to join.futureofchildren. they are lacking the guidance that they need to grow up into mature and educated adults. since they dislike school.” 2004 <www.

or for that mater. Out-of-school time programs have the flexibility to pursue topic areas that either align with the school day or that young people deem personally interesting and relevant. school day attendance for New York City students with lowest attendance increased by 4. White. U. For example. at the high school level.org/after_out. in a recent report it was found that 45% of one program’s nationwide participants improved their reading grades and 41% also improved their math grades.tascorp. 77 Russell.ed.Out-of-school time programs are beneficial to the community.pdf >.77 Similarly.out-of-school timealliance. Reisner.78 In one study." Out-of-school time Alliance. and Ullik Rouk and Richard N. This improvement can be linked to smaller child-to adult ratios. one Washington D. in New York. 31 July 2007 <http://www. For example. and Elizabeth R. as they provide a safehaven for kids to go to out-of-school time.” 4 Mar 2004 < http://www. 31 July 2007 <http://www. the Beacon program also found that increased academic enrichment out-of-school time resulted in fewer police reported juvenile crimes in one community.pdf>. taking them off the streets and out of harm’s way.org/about/mission/TASCsevenyear. only the topics that students study in school. out-of-school time programs 74 "Out-of-school time Keep Kids Safe" Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 7May2002 31 Jul 2007 <http://www.75 80% of Beacon students interviewed said that they found the program very helpful in helping them avoid drug use and 74% said that the program was very helpful in helping them avoid fighting.out-of-school timealliance.html>. In addition. indicating that would-be juvenile delinquents were taken off the streets.cfm>.pdf>. The Out-of-school time Corporation.S.gov/pubs/LearnCenters/benefits. 1997. 80 Ibid 17 . 79 Out-of-school time: No Longer an After Thought. program was credited with a 45% drop of juvenile crime in a nearby apartment complex.tascorp.org/issue_briefs/issue_safe_7." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 28Jul 2007 31 July 2007 <http://www. Dept.org/issue_briefs/issue_teach_recruit_28. In low-income communities. Out-of-school time programs do not need to stick to one topic. participation in one program in New York showed an increase in both math achievement and school attendance.4 days upon their participation in out-of-school time programs.pdf> 78 "Out-of-school time: A Powerful Path to Teacher Recruitment and Retention.C.76 Greater Academic Achievement and Better Attendance Records Participation in out-of-school time programs has been correlated with greater academic achievement and better school attendance records. and Jennifer C. 76 "Out-of-school time Outcomes.74 Similarly. the existence of arts and cultural programs can present the opportunity of a fulfilled learning experience. Christina A.out-of-school timealliance.79 High school level out-of-school time participants passed more Regents exams and earned more high school credits than non-participants. 75 Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers.org/files/1448_file_supporting_social_cognitive_middleschool_2005. 31 July 2007 <http://www. “Supporting Social and Cognitive Growth Among Disadvantaged Middle-Grades Students in TASC After-School Projects. of Education. Johnson.80 More Flexibility than School Classes One of the many advantages of out-of-school programs is that they are able to be more flexible in general than a normal school environment.

Sanford A.org/wi/2005/05/feature. William Christeson. 31 Jul 2007 <http://www. children spend less time watching television.. thereby decreasing their productivity and increasing employer costs. which is known to be the most frequent activity children engage in during non-school hours." 85 “Out-of-school time Alliance Backgrounder: Formal Evaluations of Out-of-school time Programs” < http://www.82 Within the same program." Workforce Innovations. Eli B. thus allowing them to focus on providing for their families. report that they make significantly more errors. Out-of-school time programs alleviate the stress of childcare experienced by parents.org/backgrounder. This is possible because out-ofschool time program schedules don’t need to be set in stone. out-of-school time programs improve the quality of life for school-aged children. In the same study. “Schools Alone are Not Enough” Newman. 18 . but they also have a positive impact on the lives of parents. turn down requests to work extra hours and miss meetings and deadlines at work. 57% of parents said their child’s participation in out-of-school time programs helped them manage their work schedule and another 60% said that they 81 82 83 Ibid Ibid.can also vary their schedule and number of activities. only 23% of participants dropped out of high school. 84 Ibid. high school students who participated in one out-of-school time program that ran throughout four large American cities were half as likely to drop out of high school and 2.out-of-school timealliance. it was concluded that parents who have greater concerns about their children’s out-of-school time arrangements.86 This lack of worry helps parents manage their lives more efficiently. Silverman. Obesity rates were significantly lower for children who participated in out-of-school time programs: 21% compared to 33% in nonparticipants.novaworks.85 Furthermore. compared to 50% of non-participants who dropped out. Out-of-school time programs have been proven to significantly improve the physical health of participants. "Out-of-school time Outcomes.83 Improved Physical Health When taking part in an out-of-school time program.84 By emphasizing physical activity through such things as group and/or individual sports. In one study. 80% of parents said that they were less worried about their children during out-of-school time hours when their children participated in out-of-school time programs. 2002. and Roger Rosenbaum. Reduced Stress to Parents Out-of-school time programs not only benefit the children they serve.doc> 86 "Guiding Our Youth: Education and Workforce Preparation.html>.81 Reduced Drop Out Rates and Grade Repetition Participation in out-of-school time programs has been linked to reduced in-grade retention and placement into special education. For example. “New York's Out-of-school time Choice: the Prime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement.” Fight Crime: Invest in Kids New York.5 times more likely to go on to higher education. both at work and at home. in another recent study.

students achieved an improved level of academic success after they learned to design spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations.org/ issue_briefs/issue_career_development. Most importantly.out-of-school timealliance. inviting them to performances." Editorial. Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York. the country saves $1. For a program set up in Michigan.500 per student in New York City.” 89 "Out-of-school time: A Natural Platform for Career Development. “Getting the Most from Out-of-school time: The Role of Out-of-school time Programs in a High-Stakes Learning Environment." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 19Aug 2004 31 Jul 2007 <www.oriented out-of-school time programs have proven to significantly improve academic performance in school. whereas it 87 88 Ibid Ibid. students achieved academic success after having internships at local businesses.88 Greater Youth Workforce/Career Development Out-of-school time programs can provide a great venue for workforce/career development for high school-age youth. Out-of-school time programs use parents as resources through which they can understand the challenges facing their youth participants and learn new ways of reaching them. 2007 91 "Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York .Troubled Kids. <http://www.7 million.92 Furthermore. It has been estimated that for each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime.90 Positive Returns for the Community and Taxpayers Out-of-school time programs have been proven to be beneficial to taxpayers as well as having a positive impact on our youth and our communities. After participating in a business-oriented program. Make a Job. out-of-school time staff have better access to parents and can serve as a communications bridge between parents and schools. 19 . learned the art of public speaking and worked with mentors.91 One analysis of an out-of-school time program found that it produced benefits to the public and its participants of $3 for every $1 spent. in 2002.doc>. 90 Vanderkam. 92 Ibid.fightcrime.missed less work. In addition. This can be done by speaking with parents at check-ins.php>. 83% of the students who participated passed standardized reading and math tests and 60% passed science tests and 65% passed writing tests." Troubled Kids. 87 Increased Parental Access and Involvement: Due to their hours. USA Today 05 Feb. Overall. participants increased their interest in attending college by 32% when compared to similar low-income student groups. without counting the benefits of reduced crime. "Get a Job? No. 47% of parents said that their child’s participation in outof-school time programs allowed them to attend classes or job training more readily and 45% said it helped them get a better job or perform better at their current job. Laura. putting together celebrations or even with a simple visit or phone call home.89 Similarly. New York's Out-of-school time Choice: the Prime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement. career. Out-of-school time programs are able to share with parents the positive experiences their youth are undergoing in their care. it was estimated that quality out-of-school time programs could be delivered at a cost of $1. in an entrepreneurship-focused program.org/ny/nyissue_troubled.

org/releases. In addition.94 The result of this greater focus on standardized tests can translate into “teaching to the test. leading to a more restrictive learning experience. Today.95 As a result of this focus.ppv. Dealing with At.costs an average of $130. which are more complicated to design. 2002. The other part of the problem is that students may also feel unsafe in their schools. Harold . The increase in juvenile crime has created a situation where students avoid spending extra time in school for their personal safety. out-ofschool time programming.” Crime Fighters Call For Increased Funding For Programs Prove to Cut Crime and Save Lives.com/~rgibson/Race-Assessment-Reform. they feel a greater pressure to find part-time jobs or join gangs to make money. there are additional obstacles to recruiting at-risk youth in high schools. and School Reform .97 For youth with fewer financial resources. Fight Crime Invest in Kids New York." Private/ Public Ventures Publications Apr.htm>.e. As the previous section on juvenile crime showed. 2001 1-22. many high school students take on out-of-school time jobs or care for younger siblings in order to help their families.usa. "Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders.96 As well.000 to incarcerate a juvenile in a secure facility in New York City. teaching students how to fill in the greatest number of answers correctly on tests and not much else. poor 93 “Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York – Press Releases.php?id=34> 94 Ibid. 96 Grossman. Karen Walker and Rebecca Raley. their larger amount of family responsibility. “Increasing Opportunities for Older Youth in Out-of-school time Programs. teachers are under pressure to have their students pass a number of standardized tests. 95 Berlak . such as a debate teams or school musicals. Academic Achievement.pipeline. IMPLEMENTING OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS School Stigma One of the challenges in recruiting students to participate in out-of-school time programs is their reluctance to spend any more time in school than required. 97 Ibid. namely.93 Some providers claim the cost has gone up since then.pdf> 10. < http://www. crime in New York City schools has been increasing in recent years and has become a more pervasive problem. the education experience for students can be unpleasant and make the school not a place they want to be.” 20 . In contrast." 10/18/00 09082007 <http://www. Difficulty Attracting Older Youth There are various challenges in attracting high school age youth to participate in out-ofschool time programming: the perception that they are too old for supervision. 03 Sep. students who are 1) behind in school. " Race. high school age youth require more complex programming. and the programs’ often lack of age appropriate activities. many teenagers lack motivation to seek out positive after school alternatives. One part of this problem lies in the classroom environment. “Getting the Mout-of-school time From Out-of-school time: The Role of Out-of-school time Programs in a High-Stakes Learning Environment”.org/ppv/publications/assets/120_publication.fightcrime.Risk Youth On top of the challenges already mentioned. Due of the impression that they are too old for constant supervision.” i. 02 Aug 2007 <http://www. Jean Baldwin.

familyimpactseminars. As a result. This restricts the improvements on the facilities because few people are willing to invest in short-term or shared space. Recruitment is difficult because they are already a challenge to engage during mandatory school time. many of the non-school locations that suffer from limited space cannot provide quality programs. Many community centers have inadequate square footage. 2) lacking support at home. Utilizing School Buildings Aside from participants and staff. Some jobs with out-of-school-time programs can be part-time and low. Foremost. which makes recruiting participants easier.102 Although there are many 98 99 Ibid. students cannot sustain crucial relationships with supportive adults. prone toward detention. "Why Should We Care About Out-of-school time Care?.98 It is very hard to recruit youth with academic or behavioral problems to out-of-school time programs. 100 Ibid. churches that provide out-of-school time programs are usually minimally funded and also use shared space. libraries. As a result.org/s_mifis01c04. the school provides access to the student body. disadvantaged youth suffer because they don’t have the same resources and motivation as others. and 3) from families with less financial resources are harder to recruit.attenders." 101 Ibid 102 Ibid. Therefore. School buildings provide gyms. a significant obstacle is finding adequate and affordable space for out-of-school time programs. the quality of outof-school time programs can be severely hindered. programs such as dance or pottery need adequate space and facilities to function properly. “Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders. In general." (1999). The Future of Children. In addition. which are hard to find elsewhere. by some estimates. short-term leases.paying. Non-School Buildings The ownership. Moreover. "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges. auditoriums and computer labs.” 21 .” Larner .101 Therefore.100 In addition. School Buildings It seems the most viable option is to host the programs in a school building. a program located in a school has legitimacy to parents who may be uncomfortable sending their children elsewhere. Mary . “Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders. 2 Aug 2007 <http://www. staff turnover can hovers around 40% per year. the facilities are beneficial for all different types of activities. or use shared or borrowed space.pdf> 32. For example. Finding and Keeping Good Staff Another challenge often hindering out-of-school time programs is finding and retaining staff. this low pay can discourage qualified professionals from working at these out-ofschool time programs. size and facilities of a program location determine the program size and can permit or prevent certain activities.99 Without a continuous and growing bond with staff members.

103 Therefore. the New York City Department of Education spent $10 million in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. it also be challenging to find appropriate space in school facilities for out-of-school time programs. state and federal government. there are obstacles that hinder using school facilities for out-of-school time programs. As a result. Significantly. According to one estimate.positive aspects. This report was unable to determine the sum total of how much the New York City Department of Education spent on out-of-school time programs in school facilities. many parents are unable to pick up their children due to their busy schedules. Additionally.825. In addition. Transportation Transportation is another technical issue that must be addressed since it affects the hours of programming. who is able to participate and the cost of the program.104 Depending on where youth live.800 (not including New York City Department of Education) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City. as there is no complete available accounting of this spending. Busing out-of-school time hours is costly and in limited supply.105 Adequate transportation needs to be provided in order for out-of-school time programs to run successfully. the funding amounts are broken down by the city.106 In the following paragraphs. the number and type of activities offered is limited. many parents feel uncomfortable with their children coming home from school alone or after dark. out-of-school time programs make sure to get the support of principals to use their school space. as well as private foundations. FUNDING OF NYC OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS There are many financial resources from the city. However.2 103 104 Ibid Ibid 105 Ibid 106 Ibid. the New York City Department of Youth and Community Development contributed $69. which are poured into out-of-school time programs in New York City. state. Even when youth live within walking distance of school or can take public transportation. Principals.1 million for out-ofschool time programs. They are afraid of damage to school property and have limited funding to spend on maintenance and repair of facilities and equipment. who are responsible for the integrity of their school building. This report analyzed all the different types of funding streams in fiscal year 2007 to determine that approximately $203. a lack of adequate transportation may impede their participation in outof-school time programs. can be reluctant to let programs use school facilities. City Funds For the last fiscal year. federal level and private funds. Many school buildings are over crowded and have very limited space on a daily basis. The After School Corporation 22 . the city agencies contributed a total of $99.

107 State Funds In total. New York State government spent $52.000 on the Attendance Improvement and Dropout program. 109 Private Funds In total.based organizations and parents contributed $6. In addition.111 107 108 109 Ibid Ibid Ibid 110 Ibid 111 D’Angelo. New York State Education Department spent $13.108 Federal Funds In total. $15.million for the Out-of-School Time initiative and $19.1 million on the Extended Day/Violence Prevention program in New York City. Of this total.056.030. US Department of Health and Human Services and the Corporation for National and Community Service. private funding contributed $10. community. Of that money.teachnow.000 to out-of-school time programs in New York City. “Why Do Fellows Stick Around?” < http://www.org/Why%20Do%20Fellows%20Stick%20Around.000 was contributed by foundations.000 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City. The Corporation for National and Community Service also spent $1.000 children attending classes taught by nearly 80. In addition. Three federal agencies were responsible for the spending: the US Department of Education.500.9 million for the Beacons initiative.110 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION The New York City Department of Education (DOE) operates the largest school system in the United States.586. the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families spent $1. corporations and individuals to outof-school time programs in New York City.420.8 million on the Academic Intervention Services program and $19.000.5 million of the Child Care and Development Fund program in New York City. Two state agencies were responsible for the spending: the New York State Education Department and the New York State Office of Child and Family Services.920.269. In addition.000 teachers in approximately 1. the New York State Office of Child and Family Services spent $13 million on the Advantage After School program in New York City. Amy and Peter Sipe. $4. with over 1.800 to out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.000 on out-of-school time programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.100.800 on the AmeriCorps programs in New York City.400 public schools.pdf > 23 . the federal government contributed $41. US Department of Education spent $35 million on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and $4.000 on the Supplementary Education Services in New York City. Of that state money.

and as such are now given greater decisionmaking power over their budgets." Gotham Gazette Feb 2003 <http://www. programming. 113 City of New York.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/PSO/default.nyc.400 principals have now chosen a “school support organization” to work with their schools.113 These networks are helping to restructure each school. allowing schools to use more funds to pay for teachers.nyc.htm > July 27. Within each Region. 3 or 4 Community School Districts and is led by a Regional Superintendent. Schools were able to choose from three types of School Support Organizations: Empowerment Support Organization: Schools could have signed up for guidance and support through a network of their peers. Department of Education. Department of Education.” < http://schools. and are paying these groups out of the school’s budget.nyc. Instead of the traditional model in which principals work directly for a superintendent. These LSOs focus on instruction. “Partnership Support Organizations. Community. < http://schools.gothamgazette. like Fordham University in the Bronx. or specific services that they think are best for their students.htm > July 27. each of the city’s more than 1. This reorganization eliminated the prior regional school system. youth development. “Learning Support Organizations. the Regional Superintendent supervised approximately 10 to 12 Local Instructional Superintendents (“LISes”). Each geographic Region contained 2. 2007 114 City of New York. Jessica. fair student funding. scheduling.htm > July 27. school empowerment.gov/default. the school system was organized into 10 Regions across the city – each of which includes approximately 140 schools. Leadership. "Shaking Up the School System. like a non-profit or a university. each organized around a different instructional focus. Department of Education. “Empowerment Support Organization Profile.116 112 Wolff. and professional development through the Integrated Curriculum and Instruction. coaches.aspx > April 18. Under the new structure.115 Partnership Support Organizations: Schools could have chosen an external partnership.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/ESO/ESO+Profile. and Knowledge Network LSOs.” < http://schools.112 Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has now changed the school structure and implemented a new school system to focus on the following four areas: increased accountability.114 Learning Support Organizations: Schools could have selected among four support models.com/article//20030207/6/276>. each of whom had supervisory responsibility for a network of about 10 to 12 schools and principals. targeting specific needs. 2007 115 City of New York. and provide opportunities for students by giving them access to better facilities and connections to mentors and internships. which will support their institutions.” Http://schools. 2007 24 . 2007 116 City of New York. each school receives greater individualized support and supervision.School Structure Up until last year. run by top DOE education leaders. and teacher excellence. help the faculty by acting as consultants for leadership and curriculum development. Department of Education.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/LSO/default. These PSOs.

Small Schools Initiative In response to the problem of overcrowding in the schools. and finally the Federal government ($1. Budget The DOE will receive $16.edu. such as a university. The most money for the NYC schools comes from the State ($7. Department of Education. and a budget of $15. federal funding accounted for just over $39 million of the DOE’s spending on out-of-school time programs.87 billion). and approximately 88 of those are “small schools.nyc. In 2007.” Press Release: November 17.118 Currently. the youth are given more personal attention and specialized curriculum. often within the existing physical space of the previous large schools.2 billion). arts. calls for the formation of several smaller. such as technology. state government. with US Department of Education spending $35 million on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and $4. state funding accounted in 2007 117 City of New York. youth development agency.97 billion for the 2008 Fiscal Year. Department of Education. “Expense Revenue Contract: Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2008. 2004. more personable high schools. Department of Education. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein launched an initiative to establish 200 “small schools” across the city by 2007 to replace the current large schools in which violence and misbehavior are rampant. Press Release: March 11. Small Secondary Schools and Created in Partnership with Leading Education and Community Organizations. 118 City of New York. “Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein Announce the Opening of 60 New. there are 100 high schools in the Bronx. raising the total to 157 across the City.” www. size and partnerships.120 The Department of Education worked with a budget of $14. In addition. “Mayor Bloomberg And Chancellor Klein Announce Opening Of 52 Small Secondary Schools This September” Press Release: February 1. 119 City of New York. < http://www. which the DOE hopes will have a significant effect on school crime rates and academic success.gov/mayor > 25 . or health sciences. This initiative. 2005. “Directory of the New York City Public High Schools 2007-2008” 120 City of New York. “Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announce $24 million in private support for expansion of secondary school initiatives.000 on the Supplementary Education Services. city funds/ individual school budgets and private funding. The majority of schools have been created in collaboration with an intermediary organization. Office of Management and Budget.”119 Small schools are distinguished by their program focuses.7 billion in the fiscal year 2006. then the City ($7. 2005.nycenet. 52 new small secondary schools (38 of them high schools) were integrated into the DOE system.” June 2007 121 City of New York. Foundations are another important source of funding for New York schools: $24 million was donated in 2005 alone to further initiatives for secondary schools.89 billion). Office of the Mayor. Most small schools have themes. which reinforce and complement the academic program. established in March 2004.13 billion from last year’s budget.121 Funding for Out-of-School Time Programs The DOE pays for out-of-school time programs in school facilities with funding from the federal government. an increase of $1. In September 2006.056. non-profit or other educational organization.117 By breaking down the larger student populations into smaller schools (all enrolling fewer than 500 students).84 billion for the fiscal year 2007.

middle. lowperforming schools. the State budget was passed.000 in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. These contracts expired in June 2007.9 million of DOE spending on out-of-school time programs.000. there would not be a Request for Proposal (RFP). In 2002.000 students or 67 of the Centers affected by potential closing were in New York City.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative on programs in school facilities and DYCD’s $19.124 The 207 out-of-school time program closings were only the first cohort of programs that could possibly close in the next few years.122 DOE loss of funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) In February 2007. DYCD spent 60% of $69. 126 122 123 Ibid.4 million. Lewis A. In addition. Specifically.5 million in aid to the “first cohort” Centers. creating pressuring for the 207 Centers to close. April 18.S. after a competitive RFP. is set to close in June 2008. 21st CCLC federal funding for the state was cut from $98. “the first cohort” were granted five-year contracts to finance the Centers.. The third cohort with 222 programs and a total value of $42 million will end in June 2009. 60% of the 34. City Council. providing development and academic enrichment programs in poor. The State Education Department has stated that the funding shortage is not expected to affect future RFPs for the other cohorts as long as federal funding is maintained at a sufficient level. $15. 2007 124 Ibid 125 Ibid 126 Ibid 26 . and high schools.for $47. which have an annual value of $40. The second cohort. Today. Department of Education. According to one estimate. In April 2007.8 million on the Academic Intervention Services program and $19.125 Created by 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act with the leadership of US President Bill Clinton in 1997. awarding $7. the New York City Department of Education spent $10. due to lack of funds.9 million for the Beacons initiative were all spent on programs in school facilities.000 on the Attendance Improvement and Dropout program. The After School Corporation Fidler. these Centers serve students in elementary. as had been expected.000.123 The main contributors to this state funding crisis were the problematic management of funds on the part of the State Education Department. the 21st CCLC initiatives are nationwide out-of-school time programs.9 million in 2004 to $90 million in 2006. Committee on Youth Services. the State Education Department notified 207 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) programs throughout the state that. This funding was less than a quarter of the $31 million needed to operate these Centers for one year.1 million on the Extended Day/Violence Prevention program. City of New York. consisting of 246 programs. the New York State Education Department spent $13. as well as insufficient federal funding to the State from the U.

S. < http://www. U. In 2002. the 21st Century Community Learning Center initiative was placed as a part of the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB). 131 In 2007. Out of that amount. It was determined that the units of appropriation/budget codes from the 2007 adopted budget did not provide a detailed accounting of how DOE actually used its money on out-of-school time programs. the numbers in the Galaxy budget include discretionary money appropriated to principals in their school budgets that they use for out-of-school time 127 128 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.ed.” Independent Budget Office. Department of Education. a detailed accounting was sought on how DOE used its money on out-of-school time programs. Bush.html > 130 Ibid 131 Summary of Discretionary Funds. Since high school spending is so low. 130 Thus. George. Although funding for the implementation of the NCLB act has been steadily increasing over the years.S.S.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg55. The Galaxy budget is based on DOE's internal accounting system. funding for the initiative was $1 billion.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/summary/edlite-section1. Committee on Youth Services. President Bush made a budget request of $56 billion for 2008 fiscal year. and that only 281.ed. 2007 129 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Summary. Significantly.pdf > 133 Sweeting. 17 Aug 2007 27 . 129 For 2008. this estimate of high school spending was determined to be not an accurate accounting of the real expenditures. Department of Education. U. which was passed in 2001. President Bush is requesting $24.Under US President George W. City of New York.4 billion for the implementation of the NCLB Act.html > Ibid. only $981. Personal Communication. this report used the DOE’s Galaxy budget to get better estimate of spending for high schools. April 18. The Galaxy budget allows for a more comprehensive view of spending from individual school budgets.S. when the NCLB Act was passed into law. rather than the city's units of appropriation/budget code.180.pdf > 132 Appropriations for Programs Authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2007). Department of Education.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/08eseachange. 132 DOE Spending on Out-of-School Time Programs In the research for this report. the NCLB Act accounts for one half the US Department of Education budget. which is a decline of nearly $19 million. For the US Department of Education as a whole. state education agencies were charged with the responsibility of distributing federal funds to eligible applicants. U.ed.133 Instead.731 was spent on out-of-school time programs (called before/ out-of-school time programs in the budget) in fiscal year 2007. <http://www.5 billion. 127 With the reauthorization of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act by the 2001 NCLB Act. “RE: FY 2008 DOE after-school budget. As an example.000 allotted for the 21st CCLC initiative. the 2007 adopted budget indicates that $53. the city budget shows that $65.128 The NCLB Act’s original budget was $22. 21st CCLC funding has been on the decline.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/08bylevel.968. < http://www. < http://www.851 was spent on high school out-of-school time programs. U.895. which provides for a much finer allocation of spending between categories or programs. Department of Education.ed.273 was spent on elementary and middle out-of-school time programs.

” Department of Education. In the Bronx.135 In sum.45 on out-of-school time programs (which is referred to in the Galaxy budget as before/out-of-school time programs).411. lists of PSAL and intramural sports teams. “ 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools” 28 .” “Artistic. Personal Communication. or on Saturdays. 136 Sampat." School Based Expenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005 Citywide By Funding Source. A significant amount of data was obtained from a book that is given to 8th grade students to use in deciding which high school to attend.79 on out-of-school time programs for their students. All information collected was incorporated into a spreadsheet where it could be sorted and analyzed.503. lists of extracurricular activities categorized as either “Academic. Vocational training programs were designated as programs that provide practical experience for the working world.048. but comprised of information that is provided by the high schools themselves.8% and individual Bronx high schools spent 4. vocational. The following information was taken from this book: a list of schools to be open during the 2007-08 school year. using a range of sources. Tutoring programs were in the form of professional or peer-tutoring. out-of-school time. it was necessary to gather information across a variety of variables. the Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools citywide spent $70. and could be offered before school.102.134 This money appropriated to principals comes from city funds.programs. Community service programs were ones that engaged students in some 134 135 Ibid "The New York City Department of Education School Based Expenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005.” but any theory-based activities were not. state operating aid.76 on out-of-school time programs.” This book is assembled by the Department of Education. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 also showed that the average high school in the city spent $193.137 For the purposes of the report. 12 Sep 2007 137 Ibid. 20 Sep 2007 <http://www.” “Leadership and Support. This book is entitled 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. NYC Department of Education.3% of their school budgets on out-of-school time programs. To that end.nycenet. the Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools spent $18. 136 Methodology In undertaking an analysis for this report on the state of out-of-school time programs in Bronx public high schools.644. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 also showed that individual high schools citywide spent 9. three additional categories were created: “tutoring. state and private grants.” or “Clubs.684. and community service programs”. Hemant. City of New York.edu/offices/d_chanc_oper/budget/exp01/y2004_2005/function. and federal. while also counted under their original headings. their addresses and the sizes of their student bodies. Internships and business and engineering programs were considered “vocational.asp?R=5>.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07. it was determined that it was necessary to create additional categories of programs. were identified based on their titles to constitute additional categories. “HS . Summer programs were not included in this category. These programs.90 and average high school in the Bronx spent $183.

139 Graduation rates. and in 91% of schools the majority of current students are eligible to receive free lunch. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 29 . 317 leadership and support programs. the Department of Education compiles a report on the performance of each New York City public high school. join the military. 143 In the 2005-06 academic year an average of $11. or are still enrolled in school were provided by the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report. to seek employment. dropped out. For those 58. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 142 Ibid. Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 143 Ibid.sort of civic involvement. and among those graduates less than half planned to attend a 4year college. 270 academic programs. (Three programs were counted in more than one category: “vocational training programs. tutoring. academic.)145 138 139 140 Ibid Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 – 2006 for Bronx High Schools 141 Ibid. The information obtained from the 2005-06 school year report cards is the following: the New York City geographic regions and districts of the schools.144 The New York City Department of Education (DOE) categorizes out-of-school time programs as the following: sports. and 51 community service programs. but more than 40% of students failed the English or Math A Regents. 584 clubs.” and “community service programs” come from other categories. leadership and support. the percentage of current and incoming students who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. the amount of spending per student. there are 2. More than 3. whether that be to attend 4-year colleges. attendance rates.138 At the end of each school year. 455 students. whether it be volunteering around the neighborhood or tutoring local elementary school children. This study further divided programs into community service. 455 kids. and vocational training.140 Findings Before discussing data on Bronx out-of-school time programs. 2year colleges. the percent of school space used. or clubs.083 PSAL sports teams.200 high school students dropped out of school in the Bronx in the 2005-2006 school year. 142 The average graduation rate is 50%. The Bronx is home to 100 public high schools (excluding charter schools) that serve a total of 58.749 programs: 1. New York State Regents Examinations scores.” “tutoring programs. Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 145 Ibid. 313 art programs. and graduating students’ future plans. 112 vocational training programs. including the percentages of students who received Regents or local diplomas. the number of criminal and police incidents. it is important to examine the demographics of Bronx high schools. the ethnic backgrounds of students. 179 non-PSAL sports teams. or other known or unknown plans. These activities were either organized by adults or by the students themselves.962 was directly spent on each student. artistic. Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 – 2006 for Bronx High Schools 144 Ibid. 75 tutoring programs. 141 Nearly all (98%) of the schools are made up of a majority of black and Hispanic students.

skiing. 26 Bronx high schools do not offer any artistic out-of-school time programs. 7 Bronx high schools do not offer any leadership and support programs. meaning that 2. Currently.457 students are not able to participate in academic enrichment activities following the school day. student government. 14 schools do not offer any academic out-of-school time programs. This means that 1. or even a love of food. and peer education. Currently. or a combination of the two.149 Club Programs Clubs allow students to explore topics that are often not addressed in a school environment. meaning that 5.825 students are unable to broaden their horizons. However.Academic Programs Academic programs include debate.146 Sports Programs Bronx high schools are given the option to offer Public School Athletic League sports. intramural sports. 22 schools do not offer any Public School Athletic League sports teams. meaning that 1. 26 schools do not offer any intramural sports and 7 schools do not offer any sports programs at all. more than 12.147 Artistic Programs Artistic programs provide drama. music and dance activities.850 Bronx high school students do not have access to arts-based out-ofschool time programs at their high schools. different languages.148 Leadership and Support Programs Leadership and support programs can include community service-based programs. this includes a number of things such as photography. they can be environments that help to foster leadership and interpersonal skills. student council. honor societies. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 30 . there are 6 schools in the Bronx with no clubs. moot court. Since students run many clubs working with a school adviser. These types of programs are an especially important resource for high school students looking for a creative outlet.150 146 147 Ibid Ibid 148 Ibid 149 Ibid 150 Ibid.706 students are not able to participate in activities designed to create and enhance leadership skills. chess and sat prep activities. mock trial.841 kids are not able to participate in any school-sponsored athletic program.

152 Tutoring Programs Tutoring can be offered to students in several forms: assistance offered by other students.986 city high school students. there are 97 high schools for 82. In Queens.809 students that offer 1. For the 299. resulting in more than 31. compared to the Bronx. there are 100 high schools for 58. meaning that more than 19.154 Out-Of-School Time Programs in City High Schools Out-of-school time programs in all five boroughs were analyzed from the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools to put into perspective the situation in the Bronx.588 students that offer 2.395 students that offer 2. leaving 39. in the Bronx.155 Brooklyn lacks the most out-of-school time programs.749 out-of-school time programs.584 out-of-school time school programs.Vocational Training Programs For students who will be looking for jobs immediately after graduation. however. across the different categories. Overall. there are 87 high schools for 61. it should be noted that there is a shortage of 151 152 Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 – 2006 for Bronx High Schools Ibid. there are 61 high schools for 79.374 out-of-school time programs. there are 9 high schools for 17.151 Significantly.000 kids without the tools they may need to succeed academically. or by teachers. out-of-school time. A number of school-sponsored community service programs ask high school students to help elementary school students in subjects like reading. In Manhattan. or on Saturdays.674 outof-school time programs.739 students that offer 2. uninvolved students. In Brooklyn.455 students that offer 2. In Staten Island. and tutoring made available before classes.117 out-of-school time programs.126 out-of-school time programs. there are 354 high schools in the city that offer 17. 38 schools offer no vocational programs. 153 Community Service Programs Community service out-of-school time programs give students an opportunity to make a difference in areas they care about. Finally. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 153 Ibid 154 Ibid 155 Ibid 31 . Vocational training is crucial for the nearly 3. 63 Bronx high schools do not give their students access to any kind of community service programs. 46 Bronx high schools do not offer any form of tutoring.500 potentially.650 kids are at risk from graduating high school with no job training.292 kids that drop out each year of high school in the Bronx. vocational training out-of-school time programs provide practical experience for the working world through work skills training and internships.

2.152 in funding. There are also 32 city high schools without clubs. “HS .159 and $17.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 32 . In addition.168 So while the two boroughs have a comparable average number of programs in each school. In Staten Island.of. At least 136 city high schools do not offer any intramural sports programs.167 Significantly. Finally. the Bronx has a total of 101 schools. 2. there is a difference of over $66. there are 76 city high schools without artistic programs. “HS .098 in funding. the number of out-of-school.166 The average amount each school spent in fiscal year 2007 on all of its out-of-school time programs in Manhattan was $248.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 161 Ibid.school time programs in many city high schools. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 169 Ibid. the Manhattan schools spend 27% more on each program.374 out-of-school time programs.000 per school.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 167 Ibid 168 Ibid. there are a total of 61 schools. “HS .157 and $2. there are 72 high schools in the city that do not have any Public School Athletic League (PSAL) sports teams. there are a total of 9 schools. Significantly.165 and $18. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 160 Ibid.158 In Brooklyn. there are 46 city high schools without any academic programs. 2.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 165 Ibid.126 out-of-school time programs. 164 Lastly. For instance. high schools in these two boroughs offer a comparable average number of out-of-school time programs.crucial out. Out-of-school Time Programs at a Westchester High School The lack of sufficient out-of-school time programs is even more evident in the Bronx when you compare the richness and breadth of such programs and activities available to 156 157 Ibid Ibid 158 Ibid.195 in funding. Manhattan high schools have a greater amount of funding to support their out-of-school time programs.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 159 Ibid.749 out-of-school time programs. which leads to more and better quality programs for their high school youth.156 Comparison of DOE Funding by Borough For this report. there are a total of 88 schools.665.316 in funding.542.After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07” 163 Ibid. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 164 Ibid.time programs in school facilities was compared to the total amount of DOE funding in each borough to determine whether funding was evenly spent.770 in Bronx high schools. there are a total of 98 schools.161 and $9.182.840.169 As a result. 1. “HS .583.760 in funding. 160 In Queens.162 In Manhattan. “HS . In short.358.117 out-of-school time programs. with Manhattan high schools offering 26 and Bronx high schools offering 27. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 166 Ibid. Data was used from the Galaxy budget and the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools.163 and $21.674 out-of-school time programs. there are 19 city high schools without any type of leadership programs. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 162 Ibid. 2. “HS . compared to $181.

" 02 Aug 2007. and six school-wide publications.480 students in grades 9-12. Coordinator of School Activities. Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 173 Public School Review on New York City Public Schools.publicschoolreview. Yet. < http://www.youth at schools in the Westchester suburbs. Four of the nine extracurricular programs are academic in nature. For instance.174 Urban schools also consistently lack physical space to house out-of-school activities. Department of Youth and Community Development. the average expenditure per student in the 2005. DYCD has programs which provide adults and families with education opportunities and naturalization services. 12 “Entertainment Clubs”.027 gap divides spending per urban and suburban pupils. this one school boasts an impressive 74 extracurricular student organizations. it offers a total of only 18 out-ofschool time programs for all its students. December 1999 <http://www. With 1. The mission of the DYCD is to provide safe care for children. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 172 Ibid.org/unlevelplayingfields_ii. compared to suburban schools that are frequently newer and larger. many suburban schools actually employ Student Activities Coordinators whose sole undertaking is to oversee all student organizations and clubs. three are leadership and support. November 2005 < http://www. Facilities.htm> 176 “NYC Department Of Youth And Community Development..176 170 Carol Scheffler. Significantly.pdkintl.mamkschools.” July 2002 < http://www.172 compared to Mamaroneck’s $20.586. “Unlevel Playing Fields II: An Update on District of Columbia High School Athletic Programs.Gov/Html/Dycd/>. Most significantly. These are salaries that urban schools are often unable to fund.175 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Overview The Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) works to provide programming for youth and families.171 The root of the staggering disparities between out-of-school time programs in these two settings seems to be due to unequal funding. It has nine extracurricular programs and nine sports teams. Dodge High School enrolls 1. Mamaroneck High School of Westchester County offers a total of 106 out-of-school time programs. while also incorporating education that encourages skills that will lead to community involvement and economic stability. there was a $12. Mamaroneck High School Guide to Clubs.” Phi Delta Kappan. and two have an artistic focus.org/kappan/kcro9912.559. and Funding. 33 . In addition.pdf > 171 Ibid.“Urban Schools: Forced to Fail. These figures are in addition to the school’s 32 sports teams. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Nyc.parentsunited4dc.173 Thus. 11 “Athletic Clubs”.com/school_ov/school_id/55876 > 174 Parents United for the DC Public Schools.459 enrolled students in grades 9-12. Additionally. composed of 15 “Academic Clubs”.170 A school of comparable size to Mamaroneck High in the Bronx. Emeral A. 30 “Service Clubs”.htm> 175 Crosby.2006 school year at the Grace Dodge High School was $8. the Grace H.org/mhs/programs/clubs/Club%20Brochure%20fall%202005-spring%2006. each organization has its very own faculty advisor.

178 Federal and state funding are 23. OST is also supported through partnerships with The Clark Foundation. City funds will make up 73.7 million federal. and $7.cccnewyork. with $88 million coming from the city. The 2008 Adopted budget includes a Council restoration of $4 million in city funds for Beacon programs. 13 October 2007 180 Independent Budget Office. The budget for 2008 increases funding for OST in DYCD’s budget by combining an allocation of new resources to the program ($22.Contracts & Budget The DYCD functions through the 2. July 2007.4% and 3. 3 Aug 2007 179 Miller. The OST program also has several partnerships for funding.4%. City of New York. The City Of New York.800 from AmeriCorps program of the Corporation of National and Community Service. which include $1.3 million for 2008 and $30. This includes 458 youth programs citywide.pdf." Children's Impact Analysis Fiscal Year 2008 Adopted Budget For New York City." 2007. Andrew. 178 "Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2008: Expense Revenue Contract.000 from the state. the adopted budget included a Mayoral add of $1. respectively.000 OST slots to year round slots. the 177 "IAFY08Adopted.177 The adopted budget for 2008 is $388 million.000 school opening fee required by DOE.5 million from the Child Care and Development Fund of the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration of Child Services and $1. $700. and $10 million coming from New York State. Personal Communication.org/publications/IAFY08Adopted. Citizens' Committee For Children.3 million beginning in 2009) with money transferred from ACS to DYCD ($10 million in 2008 and $14 million in 2009 through 2011).7 million in intra-city funds from ACS. <http://www.1 million for Beacon programs includes $7. The Wallace Foundation is providing a five-year $12 million grant. and on weekends and school holidays. of the agency’s 2008 budget. In 2007.pdf>. “IBO’s Programmatic Review of the 2007 Preliminary Budget: Department of Youth and Community Development” March 2006 34 .2%.106 contracts it has with community-based organizations in neighborhoods throughout New York City. The funding includes $108 million for OST contracts and $46. 181 DYCD receives federal funds for OST and Beacon programs.500 children in programs operated by DYCD. the OST budget will increase to $121 million. OST/ Beacon Programs Budget The fiscal year 2008 budget for OST contracts is $108 million. in the evening.180 The $10 million from ACS is to provide services to 3. This is to ensure that each of the programs will be able to pay the $50.4 million to address a shortfall in OST slots for youth on the Lower East Side. In fiscal year 2009. “Additional Info. “IBO’s Reestimate Of The Mayor’s Preliminary Budget For 2008 And Financial Plan Through 2011” 181 Independent Budget Office. in East Harlem and the Bronx.1 million for the Beacon Program.030. State funding for OST and Beacon programs consists of $13 million for the Advantage After-School program from New York State Office of Child and Family Services.179 The 2008 adopted budget includes a Mayoral add of $32 million in city tax levy to support the creation of 10. $10 million coming from intra-city funds (mostly ACS). The $46.” Department of Youth and Community Development. OST programs and Beacon program community centers address the needs of children who require parental supervision out-of-school time.000 OST slots for elementary schools and to convert 5.

Policy Studies Associates." 29 June 2007.000 children will enroll in 2007-2008 school year. In each borough. Department Of Youth and Community Development.Nyc. sports and recreational activities.000 elementary. Office Of The Mayor. New York Nonprofit Press. budget allocations will be divided on a 60%/40% basis between “high need” zip codes and all other zip codes.Html>.Nyc. 24.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20051020.185 During the 2006-2007 school year. middle and high school students. DYCD allocated slots according to a formula that prioritized fifty-eight zip codes focusing on high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing five demographic variables: youth population. Department Of Youth And Community Development. which includes a broad spectrum of more than 1. 35. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.1%.000.Partnership for After-school Education. and the number of single parent families with related children under 18.186 Presently." Department Of Youth and Community Development. 22. Staten Island. Office Of The Mayor. Manhattan. and not in the labor force.Nyc. 30% to middle school OST programs and 10% to high school OST programs. Queens." 12 Oct 2006. However.000 young people in the 2007-2008 school year for a total of 75. Inc. and other City agencies. 187 Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report: February 2007 188 "New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development Celebrates One-Year Anniversary Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative..Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20051020.188 Government entities and their related affiliates.190 The DYCD RFP allocates funding by borough as follows: Bronx. 4. these entities may participate in OST programs through linkages or subcontracting agreements with organizations awarded OST contracts.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/Services-Ost. 13.Html>. are not eligible to receive a contract award under the OST program. Fred. including but not limited to public libraries.184 OST programs form the core of New York City's youth programming. and will grow to serve another 10.3%. OST operated in 182 "Mayor Bloomberg Announces The Launch Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative. the DYCD Out-of-School Time (OST) Programs for Youth is the largest out-of-school time initiative in the nation. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www.". 185 "Mayor Bloomberg Announces The Launch Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative. not high school graduates.400 City-funded out-of-school time programs in total." 20 Oct 2005.182 Out of School Time Program Description Launched in 2005 by Mayor Bloomberg183. there are approximately 550 OST contracts187 that are operated by approximately 200 community organizations.Nyc.4%. It is anticipated that more than 92. 183 "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP. OST programs served more than 65. "DYCD Issues $140 Million OST Expansion RFP.9%. youth poverty rate.3%." 190 Ibid 191 Ibid 35 . public schools.191 In its first year.Html>. 22 Dec 2004 184 "New York City’s Out-Of-School Time (OST) Programs For Youth. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www. the Citizen's Committee for Children and the Fund for the City of New York.. "Out-Of-School Time Programs for Youth RFP. rate of youth ages 16-19 years who are not in school.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/News20061012. Provided at no cost to families. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www." 20 Oct 2005.189 DYCD has set a goal that approximately 60% of available funding will be allocated to elementary school OST programs. 189 Ibid. 186 Scaglione. number of English Language Learner students in public schools. the City’s OST programs offer a balanced mix of academic support. the arts and cultural experiences.Html>. Brooklyn.

Personal Communication. libraries.139 unique zip codes. City of New York. Additional resources are coming from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the Department of Cultural Affairs. during school holidays and vacation periods. "IAFY08Adopted. There is 192 Russel. 194 Miller. settlement houses. religious centers. Department of Youth and Community Development. and federal community development block grant dollars. 36 weeks during the school year at 15 hours per week and 20 school holidays at 10 hours per day.193 Significantly. Evaluation of the Out-Of-School Time Initative: Report on the First Year. School Partnership Memorandum. Andrew. service providers. 13 October 2007 195 Ibid. and Kolajo P. Discussion of OST Funding. Beacon Community Centers operate a minimum of six days and 42 hours a week in the afternoons and evenings.197 There are currently 80 Beacon programs that serve 180.195 The OST RFP calls for a minimum of 1. “Out-Of-School Time Initiative Request-For-Proposals Concept Paper” 197 “New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development: New York City Beacons Initiative. December 2006 193 City of New York. community centers. The Beacon program relies on a partnership between the community-based organizations and principals. Pearson. Inc. Miller and Monica B.Org/Php/Orgs. 60% of programs were opened in 58 high-need zip codes in the City. Reisner. and Elizabeth R.” Participant input in program activities and design are encouraged. in the evenings and on weekends.pdf. Beacons are funded through city tax levy dollars. 192 The OST system depends on interagency coordination to reach every area in the city. public housing and parks facilities. and Tiffany D. Policy Studies Associates. state children and family services dollars. The maximum price per participant is $2. Department of Youth and Community Development.140 program hours during the course of the year – eight weeks during the summer at 50 hours per week.194 Other programs are located in New York City Housing Authority facilities. especially with the Department of Education. "New York City Department Of Youth And Community Development Celebrates One-Year Anniversary Of Out-Of-School Time Initiative. before and out-of-school time. Mielke.Edutopia. offering a range of activities and services to participants of all ages. including security and healthy snacks. parents. Proposers are “encouraged to provide cash contributions from private sources” which would be used “to enhance program services. in Parks and Recreation facilities and in Public Libraries. In addition. Christina A. school boards. Government. cultural organizations. and youth and community leaders to develop and manage the centers.Php?Id=ORG_305576> 198 Ibid." 36 . 60% of DYCD spending on OST also programs goes to programs in school facilities. and during the summer. the initiative is supported by technical assistance provided by the Youth Development Institute (YDI) of the Fund for the City of New York." 196 Ibid.” <Http://Www. and private funders are partners in ensuring an accountable and sustainable OST system. Overall. The DOE is hosting approximately 60% of all OST programs (as of 2005) in approximately 515 DOE facilities and will contribute a range of services. and Lee M. 198 Although they are administered by DYCD. on weekends.000 clients. educators. OST programs are located in schools.196 Beacon Program Beacons are community centers located in public school buildings.800. Afolabi.

747 in funding from DYCD. there are 45 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 5.Html>.760 in funding from DYCD. offering a range of activities and services to participants of all ages. there are 34 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 4. Each Beacon Program works collaboratively with the host school and the community. community representatives. In the Bronx.Cfm?Fuseaction=Page. there are 60 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 7.Viewpage&Pageid=267>. before and out-of-school time.Org/Index.199 Beacons are community centers located in public school buildings. health care professionals.788.792. Career Awareness/School To Work Transition.325 in funding from DYCD.202 In New York City.091 participants and receive $9. local merchants.626. In Queens. In the Bronx. in the evenings and on weekends.581 participants and receive $3.507 participants and receive $43. Community Building and Recreation.Pathwaystooutcomes. 201 OST and Beacon Programs for High School Youth by Borough In New York City. community advisory councils.at lease one Beacon program operative in each of the 32 local school districts in NYC and several in the city’s poorest neighborhoods. Individual Beacons are managed by community-based organizations and work collaboratively with their host schools. "The Beacon Program. In Queens. there are 27 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 11. there are 13 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 5. there are 22 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll 199 "The Beacon Program.515 in funding from DYCD. In Manhattan.215 in funding from DYCD. 656 participants and receive $2.656 participants and receive $6.205. law enforcement personnel and representatives of other community-based organizations. substance abuse prevention and/or treatment providers." Department Of Youth And Community Development.747 participants and receive $15. there are 13 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 1. In Staten Island.955 in funding from DYCD.Nyc." Department Of Youth And Community Development.686. and engages a Community Advisory Council comprising parents.Gov/Html/Dycd/Html/Services Out-of-school time-Beacon. there are 80 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 43." 200 202 37 .411 participants and receive $437. 201 Ibid. there are 14 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 6.363 in funding from DYCD. 200 Each Beacon addresses the needs of youth by offering a range of asset-based activities in five (5) core areas recognized as important for healthy youth development: Academic Enhancement. there are 41 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 4.852 in funding from DYCD. youth.870. Life Skills. and a wide range of neighborhood organizations and institutions. 828 participants and receive $11. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www. In Manhattan.160 in funding from DYCD. 3 Aug 2007 <Http://Www. In Brooklyn.224. In Brooklyn.461. "Pathways Mapping Initiative: Expanded Neighborhood Resources.665 in funding from DYCD. there are 193 OST programs for high school age youth that enroll 23.596 participants and receive $2.584 participants and receive $2. school personnel.608.

Peace and Diversity Academy.208 71 Bronx public high schools have no OST programs on-site.386 in funding from DYCD.target areas. Lehman HS.499. The neighborhood with the highest unmet need was Unionport/Soundview with 4.43 miles to get to the nearest OST program. First. the finding is that nearly 47. Subsequently. there are still many children in the Bronx who are not receiving these services. Students at Herbert H. Using Geographic Information System software. and the Renaissance HS for Musical Theatre and Technology at 3000 East Tremont Ave.approximately 9. have to travel 1. In 2005.871 in funding from DYCD.455 youth enrolled in Bronx public high schools. Bronx OST programs for high school age youth were also mapped out and compared to the locations of Bronx high schools to determine the proximity of programs to schools. Keeping Track of New York City’s Children 207 Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes 208 Location and Proximity to Schools Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx 38 .180. In the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority in the Bronx for OST programs. 2005 Ibid.207 Looking at both target and non. Additionally. 63 of the 71 203 204 205 Citizens’ Committee For Children.204 There are 58. 205 Presently.271. Next. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools 206 Ibid. 27 Bronx public high schools have no OST program with a ½ mile. two targeted zip codes have no OST program at all (10457 & 10472) and two targeted zip codes have only 1 OST program each (10468 & 10453). several analyses were performed for this report. this program enrollment data was compared by zip code to census data on Bronx high school enrollment. a map was prepared that overlaid Bronx neighborhoods to Bronx zip codes to see what neighborhoods corresponded to each zip code. 8 zip codes only have 1 OST program each. data was gathered about the enrollment and the locations of Bronx OST and Beacon programs for high school age youth.740 participants and receive $2.371 high school youth enrolled in either an OST program or a Beacon program in the entire borough of the Bronx.571 participants and receive $10. In Staten Island.084 Bronx high school students are not involved in any OST or Beacon program. the zip code locations of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth were compared to DYCD’s prioritized zip codes that were determined to be high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing demographic variables. 206 In deducting the number of youth in programs to youth in enrolled in high schools.139. Additionally. the estimated Unmet Need for Out of School Time Services for Youths ages 14-19 in the Bronx was 32. Keeping Track of New York City’s Children. Findings While it appears that funding for Out-of-School Time services has risen in the past few years. There are many areas in the Bronx where there are very few Beacon or OST programs. there are 4 Beacon programs for high school age youth that enroll approximately 1.203 Methodology In order to determine how effectively the Bronx OST and Beacons are working. there are currently only 11.

Without sufficient accountability measures for out-of-school time programs on school sites. While students’ test scores are probably one of the most important measures of a school. there are 726 youth enrolled in OST and Beacon programs versus 6. school scheduling and hiring. students’ participation in quality out-of-school time programs should also be considered a very important measure of a school’s success because of the programs proven records of improving academic outcomes.444 Bronx youth enrolled in high schools. Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes Analysis of High School Enrollment Data and OST/ Beacon Programs Enrollment Data 39 . Out-of-school time programs serve the same children within the school system and can produce significant academic and other benefits. the accountability measures for out-of-school time programs should fall under similar scrutiny. In 10453(Morris Heights). meaning that there is a potential unmeet need for 6. there would be more efforts made and resources provided to increase out-of-school time programs dramatically and ensure that there would be an equitable distribution of programs. In 10456 (Morrisania). many Bronx high schools lack out-of-school time programs that could contribute to the academic success and personal development of students.Bronx high schools with no OST program at their site are also in zip codes that DYCD targeted as high priority. 209 210 Ibid.210 CONCLUSIONS New York City Department of Education (DOE) One of the key components of the DOE Children First Reforms has been to increase the power of principals and at the same time. Over the last few years. teacher development. hold them accountable for the state of their school. This has encouraged focusing a majority of the accountability measures on classes. principals have gained greater authority over budgets.447 Bronx youth enrolled in high schools. a situation has been created to allow for large disparities in the quantity. programs and academic initiatives that take place during the school day. Consequently. there are 819 youth enrolled in OST and Beacon programs versus 6. It is critical that key accountability standards be re-defined to include out-ofschool time programs to ensure their expansion in public high schools. If this were the case.628 slots for programs. meaning that there is a potential unmeet need for 5. educational programming. variety and quality of out-of-school time programs at different schools.209 The Bronx zip codes with the highest unmeet need for OST and Beacon programs slots are 10453 (Morris Heights) & 10456 (Morrisania). This increased accountability for Principals has largely meant holding them accountable for the academic success of their students on various State test scores. The same measures of accountability being introduced through the Children First initiatives should be applied to the measurements of success of out-of-school time programs. Thus.051 slots for programs.

a track team and a boy’s basketball team. 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement 214 Ibid. which includes statistics on the percentage of students involved in criminal activity. such as total number of programs. there is no information about the capacity of individual programs or the amount of students they service. which mentions programs that augment the school’s regular academic curriculum. it is hard to judge whether New York City public high schools are providing adequate programming.2006 School Report Cards (or Progress Reports) and the recent 2007 Learning Environment Survey. instead of providing a comprehensive list of all that are offered or providing any performance data about the programs. duration of participant attendance etc. the percentage of recent immigrants. Banana Kelly High School does not mention other activities that it provides for its students. information is lacking about how many times a week programs meet and daily attendance of students. “Our students participate in Building with Books. the Report Cards could be used to ascertain the quantity and quality of outof-school time programs. 211 212 Ibid. Without an in-depth and comprehensive explanation of a school’s extracurricular activities.211 The Report Card includes an Extracurricular Activities section. There is a section describing the student body. In addition. such as Conflict Mediation and an Audiovisual club that were provided in the 2007-2008 Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. and demographic characteristics of all 9th and 10th graders. Significantly. which provides information about SATs and student’s plans after graduation. Banana Kelley High School states. Use of School Report Cards A standard DOE School Report Card includes a Principal's Statement and School Mission Statement. Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools Ibid 213 Banana Kelly High School. which provide a brief overview of the school. The school characteristics section provides information about teacher experience.214 Moreover. the names of all the programs. This report analyzed these two documents to determine what consideration they gave to outof-school time programs. is all that is required to describe the school’s entire out-of-school time curriculum. after reviewing numerous Bronx high school Report Cards. 212 For example. It includes a large chart that shows the percentage of students who passed each regents examination offered by NY State. which is very typical of current Bronx high school Report Cards. average daily attendance in programs. Community Support and Parent/School Support sections emphasize external assistance given to the school. it is evident that most high schools use the Extracurricular Activities section only to list a few programs they supply. However. A fifth of the report is comprised of the section that analyzes student’s regents examinations. average spending per student. and school capacity.”213 This one sentence. such as the PTA or outside partnerships with colleges.The two key measures of the state of schools are the annual 2005. The last part of the school report is called Other Indicators. 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools 40 .

Using mostly multiple choice. engagement and expectations. that the School Report Cards. parents were also given 10 improvements they could choose as most important." . course work and the supportive nature of school staff. . principals and school leaders and the overall quality of materials in their classrooms. If we are to accept the Report Card as a critique of high schools and principals. 44% percent of teachers.” Students were surveyed 215 216 217 Andreatta. do not adequately judge the performance of principals and schools because they lack a comprehensive section about out-of-school time programming. who were made up of parents.html>. In addition. The results of the survey are going to 10% of each school’s grades in the 2006-7 Progress Report (or School Report Card). Julie. activities. “agree/disagree” type questions. the survey looked to find out information on school safety. Parents were asked about their satisfaction with classes and programs offered by their schools and the quality of communication with their children’s teachers. “It’s Your Chance To Grade City Schools. 2007 <http://www. 2007 : 6 Ibid.bronto.219 The plan for the survey is to give the parents’ answers the most weight. Department of Education. "Open the Bright Green Envelope: Take the Learning Environment Survey!.com/public/?q=message_preview&fn=Key&type=tracking&id=&link=bqewoistmqvcxxgbmahcyomfclhebnh>. Teachers were asked about the mindset of other teachers." The New York Times 01 May. which would come in the form of questionnaires designed to determine the state of the city’s schools. 587. DOE must add to accountability measures of extracurricular activities/ out-ofschool time programs in individual schools to Report Cards. Use of Learning Environment Survey In May of 2007.Call For Responses. 219 "Children First Survey . NYC HOLD.218 The goal of the survey was to bring more accountability to schools and see which schools were succeeding and using the collected information to create a better learning environment. school quality. Upon completion of the survey this September.nychold. communication. In specific. Starting this year. and 65% of middle and high school students responded. such as “more teacher training” and “smaller classes. Chancellor Joel Klein announced efforts to enhance School Report Cards and provide in-depth details about individual school performance. Dan. however. . which was deigned to be used for Report Cards that will grade school graded on an A through F scale. $2 million was then spent on the survey as a part of the Children First Initiative. 41 .” The New York Post 01 May 2007: 2 Bosman. in their current format.” 218 . 2007 <http://app. Students and Teachers Sought.215 It should be noted. the Report Cards will include letter grades for each school’s performance and be used to judge the principal’s effectiveness." .com/cf-survey-02. and will even be used to give each school specific information on how they can improve their learning environment.217 These participants were asked respond to what the administration called “key prerequisites to learning” – safety. "Views of Parents. 26% of parents responded.216 The survey sought to include 1. 04 Aug.Recently. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announced the creation of the Learning Environment Survey for middle and high schools. 04 Aug.8 million participants. “It’s Your Chance To Grade City Schools. teachers and sixth –to – twelfth grade students. 000 participants had responded to provide significant information on attitudes towards schools.

In the distinct surveys. whether they felt safe. This is in contrast with school safety questions. and what types of subjects were taught to them. which of the following activities did you participate in either before or after-school time or during free periods?” which could be answered with responses such as “school sports teams or clubs” or “tutoring/enrichment services. For instance. The NYSAN tool was created to help out-of-school time programs identify their needs for improvement.” 223 New York State After School Network. teachers and parents. Youth Participation/Engagement. April 31.” Similarly.”222 In general.223 While these sections go very in-depth in looking at out-of-school time programs. there are only three questions asked all together in the surveys regarding outof-school time programs in city schools. Program Sustainability/Growth. questions about the Administration/ Organization of out-of-school time programs to get feedback from effectively students. the school survey failed to ask many questions about accountability. “Program Quality Self-Assessment Tool Planning for Ongoing Program Improvement” 42 . Programming/Activities. 15 on the Student survey and 11 on the Parent’s survey. This tool includes questions on the following sections: Environment/Climate. and students are 67 questions. parents are only asked “My child participates in the following school activities before or after-school” which could also be answered with responses such as “team sports or clubs” or “tutoring/enrichment services." City of New York. it becomes apparent that questions about out-of-school time programs accounted for a very small portion. "Open the Bright Green Envelope: Take the Learning Environment Survey!. which had 22 on the Teacher’s survey. Parent/Family/Community Partnerships.” Likewise. teachers are asked 73 questions. In comparing various categories of questions in the distinct surveys for student. teachers are “Which of the following courses or activities are available to students at your school – and when are they available during the day?” that could be answered “Offered before or after-school or during free periods” with subjects such as “sports teams or clubs. when asked what single significant improvement schools 220 221 Ibid.220 One significant gap in the survey was out-of-school time activities. parents are asked 42 questions. “Learning Environment Survey. Relationships. First.221 The only out-of-school time question asked to the students was “During this school year. parent and teacher surveys.” Department of Education. 2007 222 Ibid. such as those found in the New York State After-school Network’s (NYSAN) quality self-assessment (QSA) tool. Staffing/Professional Development. safety and leadership in regards to out-of-school time programs. the Learning Environment Survey would have benefited from just adding questions from one section. While the three surveys have a total of 182 questions. The sections of the NYSAN QSA Tool seek to provide an in-depth picture of what aspects are expected in high-quality out-of-school time programs. In regards to the responses to Learning Environment Surveys. “Learning Environment Survey. Measuring Outcomes/Evaluation and Linkages Between Day and After-school time.on the type of adult presence in their schools. Administration/Organization. this report found two areas of significant concern that point to the need for better accountability by DOE of out-ofschool time programs.

225 These percentages serve to document that. For instance. 43 .” during this school year. When the schools capacity is lowered. The creation of new smaller schools does not mean the creation of new school buildings. Stretched beyond capacity by the small schools movement. indicates that parents feel that the increase in out-of-school time programs is critically important for the schools that their children attend. 19% of parents indicated that they though that schools should have more or better enrichment programs. students are sent to other schools exacerbating the other schools issues of overcrowded classrooms. school sports teams or clubs. 41% of students said that they were not offered tutoring/enrichment activities. Design of Small Schools Over the past few years. and were able to rate their participation in these activities: art. The need for office spaces lowers the schools student capacity.224 This response. This philosophy is exalted by many in the education profession as a way for schools to provide more personal attention to students and increase graduation rates. this approach has not gone without criticism. some schools are forced to stagger their student's entry times. the Department of Education has pursued a policy of breaking down larger schools into smaller ones. This fact that these programs were not offered indicates these activities may not have even been available at their schools. music. Second. Out-of-school time enrichment programs are often considered essential to the education of New York City students. critics claim breaking down larger schools into smaller ones has exacerbated overcrowding in the cities public schools. and 37% of students said that they were not offered school sports teams or clubs. most notably. Many critics say that this processes in inefficient. theater. Learning Environment Surveys: Citywide Results. hundreds of thousands of middle and high school students in New York City that were not offered to participate in various out-of-school time programs at their schools. In particular. as more schools require more administrative positions and office space. some of whom claim it is the most important issue to parents. some students in one school start late in the morning/ early afternoon and do not get out of school until as late as six o'clock. Lower class sizes has been high on the agenda for many advocates of change in the City's public school system. and tutoring/ enrichment activities. rather larger schools are broken down into many smaller schools and each school shares their building's facilities. 224 225 Ibid.could make. during last year. computer skills/ technology. Citywide Learning Environment Survey Ibid. students were asked. Yet. an average of 54% of middle and high school students indicated that they were not offered any of these out-of-school time programs during last year in their school. which of the following activities did you participate in either before or out-of-school time or during free time”. second only to smaller class size in ranking. In response. 55% of students said that they were not offered music. These students are left without time for out-of-school time enrichment programs. foreign language. dance. The effects of overcrowding may go beyond the school day.

Stevenson High School. DYCD OST programs should be where they are most urgently needed. High School of World Cultures. In fact. Bronx High School For Medical Science.750 out-of-school time programs serving 58. Such disparities from one neighborhood to the next are indicative of a lack of communication between the DOE and the DYCD. 71 of these 100 high schools do not have a DYCD OST program on site.Without space or time to host these programs. these two departments must improve communication and cooperation. Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools 44 . Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools Ibid. Adlai E. Federal and State Funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers This fall. Yet. one high school with a DYCD OST program on site offers a total of 50 out-of-school time programs. There are an estimate 2. pooling their resources would doubtless prove more efficient. Kennedy High School. Samuel Gompers Career and Technical Education 226 227 Ibid. Fordham High School for the Arts.228 It is crucial that the DYCD and DOE work together in determining which schools and neighborhoods exhibit a greater need for OST programs. Smith Career and Technical Education High School. including programs at High School For Excellence. not one of which is a DYCD OST program. the few programs that do exist are unequally distributed among neighborhoods.455 students in 100 high schools throughout the Bronx. In order for the discrepancies among opportunities offered to different communities to be leveled. Urban Assembly School For Careers in Sports. Alfred E. and can satisfy the financial needs of only a limited number of schools each. some Bronx high schools have as few as seven out-of-school programs on site. Walton High School. 17 Bronx high schools face the possible closings of numerous out-of-school time programs. John F. Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools 228 Ibid. and organized communication would facilitate a more balanced distribution among neighborhoods.227 Since the DYCD does not have the money to fund programs in every Bronx high school.226 This means a majority of the 2. While these two departments have albeit modest funds to support out-of-school programs. DYCD OST programs exist in Bronx high schools that have an average of 33 out-of-school time programs each. Meanwhile. Both departments have a limited budget for spending on out-of-school time programs. Evander Childs High School. The residual effect of the small school movement may actually create an environment that is counterproductive to the creation and expansion of out-of-school time programs Coordination between DOE and DYCD In addition to general shortages in the number of out-of-school time programs offered in Bronx high schools.749 total out-of-school time programs are likely to be funded by the DOE. Christopher Columbus High School. due to the cuts in state and federal funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs. principals may not be able to create new enrichment programs or even maintain their current ones.

which have an annual value of $40. 2007 http://www. At present. only exacerbating the impact of insufficient federal funds. Different 229 230 City of New York. as President Bush is seeking to re-authorize and seek additional funding for it in this coming federal fiscal year. preventing the closure of programs. “Bronx Extracurricular. Amanda. Health Opportunities High School. Rotherham. John.” Christian Science Monitor. Federal The federal funding issue for 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative.230 The debate in Congress on the NCLB Act will decide the future of the 21st CCLC initiative. the federal government obviously needs to provide enough money to fully fund this next cohort. At present. Monroe Academy For Business/Law and Monroe Academy For Visual Arts. “Next Round Begins for No Child Left Behind. The After School Corporation. an RFP will be issued for this second cohort. If NCLB was funded at the amount authorized by Congress in 2002.233 To prevent another shortfall of money by the state. 2007 233 Albert.5 million children would have been available to access by out-of-school time programs.4 million.High School. Many have argued that there needs to be realistic federal funding for the 21st CCLC initiative for the next five years. Committee on Youth Services. Significantly. January 08.htm?doc_id=463709 231 Paulson. the system is fragmented across multiple state agencies that lack efficient communication and use of resources. “President Bush’s Lifeless Effort on No Child Left Behind. In November. 2007 45 . the state government could have better controlled the effects of federal shortcomings. Bronx Coalition Community High School. State The New York State Education Department has stated that the funding shortage last year for the 21st CCLC initiative is not expected to affect future RFPs for the other cohorts.232 The second cohort. is set to close in June 2008. 2007 232 Ibid. is a pressing issue. However.org/analysis/analysis_show. as a part of the NCLB Act. there is a great debate among members of the Congress on the NCLB Act. Personal Communication. Not only should it cover the money for the second cohort.” Personal Communication Carey. an additional 1. A coordinated statewide system would better serve a greater number of students with higher quality out-of-school time programs. Had the state system been more efficiently structured. as long as federal funding continues to be issued in its current amounts. This report recommends that New York City government lobby for increased investments in 21st CCLC as covered by the law. October 12. April 18.231 New York City government officials should lobby aggressively to get funding for the 21st CCLC back to its highest previous level. but it should have some funds to cover all the programs that lost funding last year. The cuts in federal funding for this initiative have greatly affected many communities in the country.educationsector. Department of Education. Kevin and Andrew J. this RFP needs to cover a minimum of the second cohort.229 These programs have fallen victim to the current complex system of public policy and funding for out-of-school time programs in New York State government and in the US federal government. consisting of 246 programs. the disjointed state government system for out-of-school time programs is inefficiently divided across various programs and agencies.” February 6.

which also oversees the 21st CCLC programs. According to the OST Request-for Proposals (RFP). 30% for middle school. the report found that the programs that did exist only served a small portion of the youth population in their zip codes. “It’s Time for Statewide Coordination in After-School Programming.037. As mentioned previously section on DYCD.991). ” New York Nonprofit Press. and 10% for high school.350) and increased funding by 67% (from $10. The Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Program is administered by OCFS and then passed along to county youth bureaus. DYCD increased the number of Bronx OST participants slots by 43% (from 10. and establish standard cost models that would encourage programs to scale up. If standardized requirements put into place. Under such a system. ” 236 Ibid. Funding Between 2006 and 2007. less money would be wasted on the governmental administration of programs.772. 235 Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD) This report first sought to determine if how effectively these Out of School Time (OST) programs and the Beacon community centers programs were serving Bronx high school age youth. this report found that there were not enough programs at or near by schools for youth to access. and Bronx 234 Friedman. and increase the number of children they serve for the amount of funding they receive. School-Age Child Care. 237 This funding formula has translated into less programs and enrollment for Bronx high school youth. “It’s Time for Statewide Coordination in After-School Programming.234 A cohesive state system of out-of-school time programs would allow for uniform program standards and a universal application and funding process across agencies. the Department of Labor manages the Workforce Investment Act funds for high schools. Lucy.9 million. funding for OST programs was allocated according to the following percentages: 60% for elementary. Additionally.95 million. In 2007 for the largest area of OST funding (Option 1). one very important factor that still impacts the number of Bronx OST programs for high school age youth is the reduced amount of funding for high school youth in comparison to elementary and middle school youth. and Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention funds.661 to $16. Additionally. “Additional Info” 237 Ibid. then conflicting funding and reporting requirements would no longer be an issue facing staff of out-of-school time programs.002 to 14. This report now seeks to determine whether these disparities might have been created by DYCD policies and practices." 46 . The Extended School Day program is operated under the State Education Department.divisions of the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) administer the Advantage After School program. and more would be spent on students and the services provided to them.236 Even with these increases. it would prove more feasible to track the effectiveness of out-of-school time programs. Bronx elementary out-of-school time programs received $8. July/ August 2007 235 Ibid. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP. Bronx middle out-of-school time programs received $4. With a better coordinated system.

474 high school students enrolled in 24 Bronx OST programs. As a result. OST Programs and Enrollment Data. May.244 As a result." 244 Ibid 245 Ibid. Inc. and $2. the maximum price per participant for high school youth is only $540 compared with $1. compared with only 31% of middle-grades participants and only 29% of high school participants. Analysis of OST Programs in the Bronx DYCD Target Zip Codes 47 . 63 of the 71 Bronx high schools with no OST program at their site are also in the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority for OST programs in the borough. Out-of-school time providers have also documented concern that the current price per student for high school youth is insufficient for quality service. January 29.. Additionally. advocates have said that 238 239 240 Chin. 50% of 2005-2006 participants who attended an elementary OST program enrolled in the same OST program in 2006-2007.000 for elementary school students. 5. 2007 Ibid.243 Yet. retention rates were higher in elementary grades programs than in programs serving older youth. 2007 243 Ibid.239 According to the OST RFP. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP.245 Additionally. the out-of-school time programs sites can be located outside of the target zip codes. Committee on Youth Services.240 Providers have found that the money afforded for high school youth per participant is far too little to meet the demands their contracts with DYCD.300 for middle school youth. 2007 Ibid.238 Significantly. in the zip codes that DYCD has targeted as high priority in the Bronx for OST programs. research has shown that money and programs must be sustained over time from elementary school to high school for programs to effectively engage and impact youth. Reisner. "Out-Of-School Time Programs For Youth RFP." 241 Pearson.high out-of-school time programs received $1. Lee M and Christina A. Retention rates have been especially lacking for high school youth.404 elementary school students enrolled in 36 Bronx OST programs. Russell and Elizabeth R. there were 6. 2005-06 to 2006-07. Policy Studies Associates.241 Targeting Some youth are not served by OST out-of-school time programs because of programs are allowed to be outside of the targeted zip code are for service or the method for targeting where services are provided misses concentrations of youth. Evaluation of the OST Programs For Youth: Patterns of Youth Retention in OST Programs. two targeted zip codes have no OST program at all (10457 & 10472) and two targeted zip codes have only 1 OST program each (10468 & 10453).519 middle school students enrolled in 31 Bronx OST programs.242 DYCD allocated slots OST out-of-school time programs according to a formula that prioritized fifty-eight zip codes focusing on high-need areas pinpointed by analyzing five demographic variables. according to the OST program for high school youth. Committee on Youth Services.39 million. and 3. Within Option I for the OST Programs. NYC Department of Youth and Community Development. June 2007 242 Ibid. but are expected to serve youth residing in target zip codes. Retention The ability to retain youth is directly connected to the amount of funding that is received by a program. January 29.

which is used by DYCD for accountability measures of OST programs. January 29.246 Tracking System The OST Online Tracking System.250 246 247 Ibid. it would be much easier to determine which programs are worth continuing funding and which ones can be reduced or cut. First.248 Advocates and providers believe that the OST Online system should allow for more flexibility with respect to the way attendance data is entered for these programs because high school participants have more freedom than elementary students. 2007 249 Ibid 250 Ibid. OST providers have reported that the OST Online system is frequently down and inaccessible due to technical problems. “Additional Info” 48 .pockets of youth escape the zip code method of ranking areas to determine levels of “need” for out-of-school time program slots. making it harder to comply with DYCD reporting requirements. If there was data available based on attendance for specific activities. DYCD is working to improve the OST Online system by having the Partnership for After School Education provide comprehensive technical assistance.247 Additionally. program attendance may not accurately reflect the effectiveness of a given program. 2007 Ibid. Committee on Youth Services. These problems are especially significant since future funding is connected to these reporting requirements. The OST data focuses on the numbers and percents of youth present in the program for the length of a given day and not on activity specific attendance. DYCD has confirmed there have been technical issues experienced by about half of their providers. “Additional Info” 248 Ibid. has proved to be problematic to use.249 Currently. Committee on Youth Services. In response. providers are concerned that the OST Online system currently does not provide an accurate picture of program performance for high school programs. While they have made numerous upgrades to the OST Online system in response to provider feedback. As a result. advocates and providers have called for increased funding to expand existing OST programs and to create new programs in high need areas. some providers still report problems. January 29.

they have a Director of the Office of Extended Learning Opportunity (OELO).RECOMMENDATIONS New York City Department of Education (DOE)  DOE should make out-of-school time programs a top priority for reforms and take measures to hold out-of-school time programs on their facilities accountable: o Accountability Measures  DOE should ensure that School Report Cards includes relevant data on out-of-school time programs: such as total number of programs at schools. who is in charge of coordinating Chicago’s out-of-school time efforts between public schools. 251   o Reform  Both DOE & DYCD have limited budgets for spending on out-ofschool time programs. the annual amount of students served." Office Of Extended Learning Opportunities. and whether programs are achieving stated goals. middle and high schools. Chicago Public Schools. 08 Sep 2007 <http://cpsout-of-school time. DOE should make sure that any assessments of how well schools are being managed by principals. DOE should create the position of Deputy Chancellor for Out-ofSchool Time Programs and create an Office of Out-of-School Time Programs to create greater oversight and management of outof-school time programs that take place in school facilities. include an in-depth look at out-of-school time programs. In this way. out-of-school time providers and private parties interested in improving Chicago’s out-of-school time situation. 49 . such as the Learning Environment Survey.  In the Chicago Public School System. The OELO oversees and administers out-of-school time programs serving almost 200. 251 "CPS Out-of-school time Programs. the names of all the programs. these agencies can better spread out their money for out-of-school time programs in more schools.000 students in 548 elementary.html>.org/home. and should pool their financial resources and have better communication. the average daily attendance in programs.

DYCD and the city administration should lobby the federal and state government on funding issues for out-of-school time programs. DYCD should increase the capacity of OST and Beacon programs that now serve a small portion of the youth enrolled in high school in their zip codes. o State Government  Lobby the state government to significantly increase investments in the current set of state funding streams for out-of-school time programs. o Both Federal and State Government  Work to convene the leadership of the major state and federal outof-school time funding streams in New York State to identify steps to integrate or better align existing programs across agencies and funding sources.  DOE should design small schools so that they have sufficient space for out-of-school time programs. DOE. o Federal Government  Lobby the federal government to increase authorized funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.    Management 50 . New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)  DYCD needs to make high school youth a real priority and improve management practices. o High School Youth  The DYCD’s OST funding formula needs to change to increase the number of programs for high school youth. DYCD should increase percentage of funds allocated at the high school level. DYCD should increase the number of OST programs at or near by schools for high school youth to access. DYCD should increase the spending per student for high school youth in OST programs to ensure sufficient quality service.

DYCD should ensure that the geographical area served by an OST program is not too big. OST programs should serve primarily youth in their zip codes. 51 .  DYCD needs to correct technical problems and inaccuracies with data collection in the OST Online Tracking System.

Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson. Correction Association. Fight Crime New York.OFFICE OF THE BRONX BOROUGH PRESIDENT Adolfo Carrion. Franklin Communications Director Anne Fenton Director of Education and Youth Services Jesse Mojica Research Analyst David Colon Policy Research Associate Kirk Vanacore Public Policy Interns Alex Baum Alex Killian Amelia Crowley Andrea Schiferl Farah Rahaman Isabel Rivera Jeremy Liao Joe Troyen Schwartz Luc Alicea Margaret Marron Molly Cue Sara Green Nichole Wrinn With assistance from: After-School All-Stars of New York. New York City Council Member Lewis A. New York City Department of Juvenile Justice. Neighborhood Family Services Coalition. Robert Bowne Foundation. andThe After School Corporation 52 . New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications. Sports and Arts in Schools Foundation. New York City Department of Youth and Community Development. PREPARED BY: Director of Policy Noah A. New York State Afterschool Network. Jr. Fidler. New York City Law Department. Erikson Institute for Graduate Study in Child Development at the University of Chicago. New York City Department of Education.