Finding New Funds for Out-of-School Youth
A Forum — June 13, 1997
According to Gruber, one of the difficulties faced by practitioners and policymakers is that many cities and communities view out-of-school youth differently than in-school youth. In-school youth are often expected to attain higher academic standards and attend college, while out-of-school youth are considered successful if they pass the GED, participate in skill-specific short-term training and obtain a low-paying, low-skill entry level job. While often the source of this bias, local communities also present the greatest potential to change the current mindset. At the local level, it is easier to build a coalition of supporters as there are fewer political and bureaucratic barriers to overcome than at the state or federal level.
In addition, fiscal support is more readily available at the local level, largely through Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funds--the mechanism by which schools are funded based on student attendance figures. Although most people consider these funds, which generally range from $1,500 to $4,100 per student per year, only available for in-school children and youth, a recent study by the National Conference of State Legislatures determined that there are no barriers in any state for this money to "follow" young people still within in compulsory school attendance age to alternative education settings. As a result, these funds can be channeled into programs which re-enroll out-of-school youth in adult education or other training programs.
Local superintendent support is required to use these funds for out-of-school youth. Few superintendents oppose the strategy, however, since it simply provides additional funds for out-of-school youth rather than taking existing resources away from the school system. Portland, Oregon, for example recently re-enrolled 3,000 out-of-school youth into adult education programs at a cost of $12 million, only $150,000 of which came from JTPA. The remainder was supported by ADA.
ADA funds, however, are not the only source of new funds for programs serving out-of-school youth. Some cities have used federal housing and juvenile justice funds for their programs. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has $2 to $3 million in grants available for out-of-school youth employment and training programs. According to Gruber, many programs have incorporated an educational component into their curriculum. Similarly, juvenile justice prevention programs have been expanded to serve the educational as well as employment and training needs of its participants. In one program, "Reclaim Ohio," over $120 million has been spent on crime prevention rather than incarceration.
Support has also come from welfare and welfare-to-work programs, as many welfare recipients for young mothers who have dropped out of high school. Other cities have explored the use of Pell grants to develop programs that help out-of-school youth pass the GED, then attend college. According to Gruber, "Pell has not been seen as a resource because postsecondary education has not been seen as an option. This could be a great base for support."
Programs have also engaged employers to help link education and training to the needs of the local workforce. The most effective programs have encouraged employers to provide funds to programs, which in turn supply the firms with trained workers. Others have expanded the program-employer partnership to include community colleges, which are becoming more involved in broader economic development initiatives. These efforts provide additional funds and create more comprehensive workforce preparation programs with clear pathways to postsecondary education and high-quality careers.
Gruber also outlined a number of ways the federal government can assist practitioners seeking funds to serve out-of-school youth. While there are many "streams" of funds (Departments of Labor, Education, Justice, etc), the grants they provide are largely separate from one another. A coordination of efforts would be more efficient. The federal government could also encourage communities to explore the opportunities described above, such as ADA, Pell grants and welfare programs. Finally, the government could create a network of technical assistance providers qualified to assist in program development and fundraising activities.
Gruber concluded by noting that while there are many positive signs for programs serving out-of-school youth, most institutions are not aware of the range of funding possibilities available. At the same time, there is no "system" responsible for these individuals. As Gruber stated, there is no "U.S. Department of Out-of-School Youth" which is responsible for the many young people who drop out of high school.
There are, however, bright spots on the horizon. The innovative work of cities and communities shows that there is funding available for the nation's out-of-school youth. If used effectively, these funds can create even wider opportunities for these young people, such as preparing them for college or creating new career options.