Afterschool for All: California’s Launch of Proposition 49

A Forum — June 15, 2007

This forum examined how other states could benefit from lessons learned in California during the approval, planning, and implementation of the largest expansion of state-funded afterschool programs in the nation’s history. 

The discussion was based primarily on a report commissioned by the William T. Grant Foundation and published in June 2007, California’s Afterschool Expansion: The planning for implementation of Proposition 49 and considerations for planners in other states. This report chronicles the planning process for Proposition 49 and is available online at www.wtgrantfdn.org.

In previous years, California set aside $120 million per year to assist afterschool and similar out-of-school time programs, such as summer programs. But the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reported in 2004 that the old law was poorly conceived and implemented, resulting in between 20 and 30 percent of the funds going unclaimed.

Approval. In 2002, California’s voters raised the annual funding amount for afterschool programs to $550 million through Proposition 49, the After School Education and Safety Program Act. Passed with 56 percent of the vote, the proposition mandated that the payouts from the state’s general fund begin when state revenue had risen enough so that the extra funding would not require a tax increase.  

Planning. By 2005, it was apparent that the state’s rapidly growing economy would soon produce enough revenue for the funds to begin to flow. State officials revised the state’s much-criticized afterschool law, so that it could be used to implement Proposition 49. They were influenced by a planning process involving officials from several state agencies, advocates, program operators and the Boston Consulting Group, a management consulting firm. That non-partisan process was created and funded by a coalition of philanthropies led by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Implementation. The Democratic-controlled Senate and Assembly passed the revised afterschool law (S.B. 638) on August 30-31, 2006; Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law on September 21, and the California Department of Education sent requests for proposals to schools four days later. After some initial snafus, all $550 million was committed by April 2007, though the start of many local programs has been delayed until this coming September. Funds per child were raised by 50 percent. The number of programs with state funding more than doubled, and included more than 95 percent of the elementary and middle schools in which at least half of the children were from families poor enough to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

Joseph Ames, the author of the William T. Grant report and also Principal at Ames & Associates in Irvine, CA, said at the forum that when he researched and wrote the Grant report, he concluded that anyone planning a similar expansion of afterschool programs in another state should consider four strategies. They were:

• Support Advocacy with Research. The research and analysis done by the private consulting firm raised the quality of the deliberations of the planners and advocates on the design team formed by the foundations. By examining which schools did or did not have afterschool programs, and seeking the reasons, the firm’s analysts helped assure that the planners of the new afterschool law had evidence-backed knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the old one.
• Utilize Expertise and Recognize Limitations. The outside advice from the private firm’s number-crunchers and management had to be complemented by the inside expertise in the context, history, and facilitation of afterschool programs brought to the table by providers, advocates, and agency representatives.
• Form Strategic Partnerships and Get Early Buy-In. Advocates had to seek deeper relationships with organizations outside the education establishment, such as those in juvenile justice, workforce development, and public health. The presenters noted that state education departments may not necessarily be the most appropriate home for programs that could benefit from blending several public funding streams. In states like California, where different parts of state government are controlled by different parties, none should be left out.
• Support Quality. Defining, creating and sustaining quality programs requires technical assistance for local sponsors, workforce development for afterschool staff, and accountability based on a consensus on metrics that will show whether a program is successful.

Steve Fowler of San Rafael, Calif., a former Nebraska state legislator and a Partner in the FowlerHoffman outreach and communications consulting firm, said California’s experience with Proposition 49 showed that maintaining bipartisan support for afterschool programs requires the use of multiple arguments. Some citizens are impressed by research showing that afterschool programs keep children safe, support working families, and inspire children to learn. Others make judgments by the reputation of existing afterschool programs, which was high in the state. Law enforcement officials stress that out-of-school time programs keep children under adult supervision during hours that juvenile crime traditionally peaks in the streets. Fiscal conservatives, if assured (as they were in California) that expansion would be paid out of growth, rather than higher taxes, respond to arguments that afterschool spending can reduce other social costs, such as dropout rates, joblessness, incarceration, and medical expenditures.

Jennifer Peck, executive director of the Bay Area Partnership for Children and Youth, spelled out the changes that advocates obtained in the state’s afterschool funding law.    The improvements included switching from attendance-based reimbursement to upfront grants, and raising the state subsidy of $5 per child per day to $7.50, while lowering the   local match to one-third, or $2.50. The application process was streamlined, and low-income schools and communities were given priority in obtaining afterschool funds. Instead of using test scores as quality measures, the state will now require local programs to report trends in program attendance and school-day attendance, and allow them to use other optional outcome measures, such as test scores, homework completion, or behavior change, as desired.

Moreover, the explosion in state aid for afterschool programs at elementary and middle schools freed up so much of the state’s federal money that high schools this year are receiving 50 percent of the $120 million that California receives for its 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, a substantial increase from the six percent that high schools received in the past.

Peck said the biggest implementation challenges are hiring and school-afterschool coordination. Local programs are scrambling to find and train the 16,000 new afterschool workers, although the pay isn’t high, and the new law requires one employee with the equivalent of a two-year associate’s degree for every 20 children enrolled. The coordination is required because most of the grants go to schools, and most schools subcontract all or part of their afterschool initiatives to community based organizations. The schools and subcontractors must coordinate their use of space and, ideally, would ensure that the afterschool program complements the school’s curriculum.

Looking ahead, Peck said, “Professional development and technical assistance are critical. [The legislature] set some [funding] aside for that, but it wasn’t enough. Also, we would like better coordination between afterschool programs and teacher training programs and [Title I tutoring] services, which don’t have much incentive to talk to one another at this time.”

Questions and Answers

Answering questions from congressional, executive branch, and nonprofit staff members, Peck said she expects state policymakers to see how well the new law works before committing any funds above the $550 million mandate. Fowler differed, saying that concern about gang violence might lead to more support for afterschool programs.

Peck said none of the additional $428 million is being used for summer programs, because all the funds were committed for the grants for 180-day school-year programs, which had top priority. The law does not contain detailed rules for subcontracting, or for parental involvement. The panelists agreed this needs work.

They also agreed that legal restrictions often force afterschool programs to choose between state and federal funds, rather than using both types.  Bob Stonehill, an audience member who managed the 21st Century program at the U.S. Department of Education before becoming Chief Program Officer at Learning Point Associates earlier this year, explained why. Stonehill said a sponsoring school that uses several types of public funding might run afoul of a federal law that says federal funds must “supplement, not supplant” state funds. He said California avoids that problem by encouraging high schools to use monies from the federal program and elementary and middle schools to use state funds.

Resources

Ames, Joseph (2007, June). California’s Afterschool Expansion: The planning for implementation of Proposition 49 and considerations for planners in other states.  New York. William T. Grant Foundation.

PowerPoint Presentation (2007, June 15)

American Youth Policy Forum (2007, June). Strengthening Afterschool for Older Youth through Policy and Practice: A policy brief. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

NEW! California Adolescent Nutrition and Fitness (CANFit) Program (October 2007).The After School Landscape in California: Opportunities of the After School Education and Safety Program Act: This policy brief provides an overview of current after school developments in California and the opportunities and challenges they create for those who provide physical activity and nutrition programs for youth.

Speaker Bios

Joseph Ames          

Joe Ames is the principal of Ames & Associates, based in Irvine, California. He works with foundations, consortia, and companies on issues of collaboration, communications, and executive development. He is the author of California’s Afterschool Expansion: The planning for implementation of Proposition 49 and considerations for planners in other states, which was funded by the William T. Grant Foundation. His journalistic background includes more than 25 years of political and business reporting and editing. At the Miami Herald, he was part of the team that won a Pulitzer Prize for Community Service. For 10 years he was an editor at the Orange County Register before moving into his present position. He is a graduate of the University of Iowa.

Steve Fowler

Steve Fowler is a partner in FowlerHoffman, an outreach and communications consulting firm with offices in Washington, DC and California. He has worked with state and national public education campaigns on afterschool for over a decade. During the 1970s Steve served in the Nebraska Legislature. He currently lives in Richmond, California.

Jennifer Peck

Jennifer joined Bay Area Partnership for Children and Youth in 2001, focusing on designing and implementing the organization’s efforts to finance and build after school programs in the region’s poorest communities. Since taking on the role of Executive Director in 2003, she has grown the Partnership’s scope to include a more comprehensive menu of support for Bay Area organizations serving children and youth; and she has also built the Partnership’s role as an effective advocacy organization. In 2006, she led policy development on Senate Bill 638, which dramatically reformed California’s afterschool funding to better serve the highest need communities. Prior to her position with the Partnership, Jennifer spent eight years as an appointee of President Bill Clinton at the U.S. Department of Education, working to implement a range of initiatives including student loan reform, School-to-Work, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Jennifer has a Bachelor’s degree in Sociology and Women’s Studies from Colgate University in Hamilton, New York.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org