On Monday, September 28, the American Youth Policy Forum hosted a panel on "Increasing Investment in Afterschool: The Role of Statewide Afterschool Networks." On the panel were Jeff Cole from Beyond School Bells and the Nebraska Children and Families Foundation, Michelle Doucette Cunningham of the Connecticut Afterschool Network, and Joe Davis of the Florida Afterschool Network. Each presenter discussed the initiatives in their state to support coordinated efforts toward gaining and sustaining investments in afterschool, summer and expanded learning programming.
A main message: state policy works best when it conforms to the culture of a particular state. Cunningham mentioned that Connecticut, while a small state, has 166 separate school systems each overseen by town governance rather than aggregated at the county level. Cole stated that Nebraska is unique in many ways, including its unicameral state legislature. Davis highlighted that Florida is one of a select number of states with Children’s Councils funded through a separate stream of local taxpayer dollars.
Despite variations among their states, all presenters saw designated state funding for afterschool as a major policy goal. Connecticut has established a funding stream which began as a $100,000 single line item and has grown to $5.3 million for state funded afterschool programs. Florida has established a first state funded pilot afterschool project with $200,000 of recurring funds. Nebraska has secured a state funding source of $175,000 through its state lottery.
Communication, developing advocates, partnerships, and career readiness emerged as key themes. Florida uses a simple 6-1-5 message to extoll the potential of afterschool: students have 6,000 waking hours a year, 1,000 of which are spent in school, leaving 5,000 hours where there is a potential for positive impacts. Nebraska collaborates with public television to spread the word. Connecticut coordinates with stakeholders to create a unified policy goal and unified message to take on one piece of the policy puzzle at a time.
In advocacy, panelists stressed reaching different people differently. Legislative champions could be used to encourage other champions. Business owners often require a different approach than parents or local school boards or philanthropists. Florida used Washington State’s model of creating a panel of champions as supporters. All panelists believed that site visits to high-quality programs were among the best ways to create better advocates among all groups, including legislators and parents who would then be able to recognize the potential of the afterschool space for their children and communities.
Partnerships with other community stakeholders were widespread across the states. Examples included partnerships with community colleges on literacy guides; with state colleges on college and career readiness and social and emotional learning; and with NASA, 4-H, and the NOYCE Foundation on STEM education.
The question and answer period focused largely on quality, accountability and data. Connecticut budgets 4 percent of afterschool programming for data collection and technical assistance. It also uses state assigned student IDs and a process of parent approval to track student progress in afterschool. Florida has created its own quality standards, gold level practices, and core competencies for practitioners. Nebraska has developed its own accountability system, A QuESTT, and is looking towards developing student IDs and using shared data agreements to track student growth. States tended to agree that 21st Century Community Learning Center funded programs currently set the standards for quality, but make up only a small percentage of programs.