BXBPAfterSchoolReportfinal

8/4/2019 BXBPAfterSchoolReportfinal

1/52

A REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF THE

BRONX BOROUGH PRESIDENT

Fighting for Youth ProgramsA study of the need for effective out-of-school

time programs for Bronx high school students

Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrin, Jr.

October 2007


2/52

2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary Page 3

II. Introduction Page 9

III. Background on Juvenile Delinquency Page 10

IV. Causes of Juvenile Delinquency Page 14

V. Out-of-School Time Program Benefits Page 16

VI. Implementing Out-of-School Time Programs Page 20

VII. Funding of NYC Out-Of-School Time Programs Page 22

VIII. NYC Department of Education Page 23

IX. NYC Department of Youth & Page 33

Community Development

X. Conclusions Page 39

XI. Recommendations Page 49

XII. Acknowledgments Page 52


3/52

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There is a real crisis in the lack of out-of-school time programs in the Bronx. There aremany 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, theburdens placed on already overburdened families, and the fact that so many youngsters inneed of help are left by themselves to stay out of trouble. The system in place is noteffectively helping working families, children in need or keeping Bronx neighborhoodstrouble free.

These are the key findings of a report, prepared by the Office of the Bronx BoroughPresident. In absence of these needed programs, the Bronx is missing out on amultifaceted 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, onweekend and holidays, providing one more support for high school age youths.

Out-of-school time programs are particularly needed in the Bronx because of theboroughs large youth population and the number of working single mothers unable totake charge of their children. Indeed, many working single parents believe that theiryoungsters need the structure and supervision that out-of-school time programs canprovide. So, too, community leaders want to see more of these programs because they areconcerned 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 injuvenile detention facilities in growing numbers. It is also a fact that juvenile delinquencyis a complex problem that cannot be dealt with solely by setting up more and better afterschool programs.

However, as the report points out, out-of-school time programs can reduce delinquentbehavior and provide a variety of benefits. The report also examines the way that theseout-of-school time programs work and notes that providers of out-of-school timeprograms 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 CityDepartment of Education lacks effective accountability and transparency measures thatwould encourage resources for a greater number of effective programs on schoolfacilities. Furthermore, the Department of Youth and Community Development lacks theneeded policies and management practices that would increase the number of programs ina variety of areas in the borough.


4/52

4

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-timein 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 lifeissue in the Bronx according to a 2006 Citizen for NYC survey of boroughs

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 complaintsfrom the Bronx residents to the 311 service requesting assistance from the NewYork Police Department concerning youth acting disorderly.5

Rise in Juvenile Crime

From 2002 to 2005, the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose33% from 317 to 473 arrests.6

The number of juvenile delinquent cases increased sharply every year between2002 (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 schoolsbetween 2002 and 2006. In this same period, there were: 3,137 weaponspossessions 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. 2 Spencer, Corey. Giving 100 percent to parenting. Highbridge Horizon March 20063 Gluck, Robin and Levitan, Mark. Mothers Work: Single Mothers Employment, Earnings, and Poverty In the Age of Welfare

Reform. Aug. 2002. Community Service Society of New York. 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, 20076 NYC Criminal Justice Agency: Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January throughDecember, 2002.7 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Delinquency cases Referred to NYC Law Department 2002-2006. Law Department, City of New York


5/52

5

major felonies; 1,458 incidents of the 7 major crimes; and 5,322 other criminalincidents.8

During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools have an average of 35% moremajor 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 citys

schools occurred in Bronx high schools.10

Rise in Juvenile Detention

From 2003 to 2006, Bronx youth accounted for 25.6% of youth admissions tolocal juvenile detention centers, despite the fact that the borough is home to only17% of the citys population.11

From 2003 to 2006, the Bronx neighborhoods consistently accounted for a thirdof the fifteen neighborhoods with highest rates of youths admitted to juveniledetention 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 tohave used drugs, 27 % more likely to have been arrested and 37 % more likely tohave become teen parents, than those who spend 1-4 hours per week in out-of-school time activities.13

Out-Of-School Time Program Benefits

For example, one Washington D.C. program was credited with a 45% drop ofjuvenile crime in a nearby apartment complex.

14

Similarly, in a recent report, it was found that 45% of participants in an nationout-of-school time program improved their reading grades and 41% alsoimproved their math grades.15

Implementing Out-of-School Time Programs

One of the challenges in recruiting students to participate in out-of-school timeprograms is their reluctance to spend any more time in school than required.

There are various challenges in attracting teenagers to participate in out-of-schooltime programming: the perception that they are too old for supervision, a largeramount 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 toRequest for Information9 Analysis of School Location Incident Data for Bronx High Schools in the 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement10 Ibid11 Miller, Andrew, Department of Juvenile Justice, City of New York, Admissions to DJJ By CD FY 03-06, 200712 Ibid13 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 .14 "Out-of-school time Keep Kids Safe" Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 7May2002 31 Jul 2007 .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 .


6/52

6

Funding Overview of New York City Out-of-School Time Programs

Approximately $203,825,800 (not including New York City Department ofEducation) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City.16

For the last fiscal year, the city agencies contributed a total of $99.1 million for

out-of-school time programs.17

The New York City Department of Youth and Community Developmentcontributed $69.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative.18

In total, the New York State government spent $52,269,000 on out-of-schooltime programs in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.19

In total, the federal government contributed $41,586,800 to out-of-school timeprograms in fiscal year 2007 in New York City.20

In total, private funding contributed $10,920,000 to out-of-school time programsin fiscal year 2007 in New York City. 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.22

Arts: 26 Bronx high schools have no arts- based out-of-school time programs.

Leadership: 7 Bronx high schools have no leadership and support out-of-schooltime programs.23

Vocational: 38 Bronx high schools have no vocational out-of-school timeprograms.24

Tutoring: 46 Bronx high schools have no tutoring-focused out-of-school timeprograms.25

Community Service: 63 Bronx high schools have no fall community service out-

of-school time programs.26

Lack of Out of School Time Programs for High School Age Youth

Only 11,731 Bronx high school youth are enrolled in either an Out of SchoolTime (OST) program or a Beacon program compared to 27

71 Bronx high schools have no OST program for their students at their site.28

27 Bronx high schools have no OST program for high school age youth with a mile. 29

16 Albert, John P., The After School Corporation. Personal communication, August 3, 200717 Ibid18 Ibid19 Ibid20 Ibid21 Ibid22 See Appendix A23 Ibid24 Ibid25 Ibid26 Ibid27 See Appendix C28 See Appendix B


7/52

7

Conclusions

New York City Department of Education (DOE)

Without sufficient accountability measures for out-of-school time programs onschool sites, a situation has been created to allow for large disparities in the

quantity, variety and quality of out-of-school time programs at different schools. School Report Cards, in their current format, do not adequately judge the

performance of principals and schools because they lack a comprehensive sectionabout out-of-school time programming.

The Learning Environment Survey would have benefited from adding questionson how effectively students, teachers and parents think these out-of-school timeprograms are being run.

An average of 54% of middle and high school students indicated that they werenot offered any of these out-of-school time programs during last year in theirschool. 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 federalgovernment.

Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

This report found that there were not enough programs at or near by schools foryouth to access. Additionally, the report found that the programs that did existonly served a small portion of the youth population in their zip codes.

One very important factor that impacts the number of Bronx OST programs forhigh school age youth is the reduced amount of funding for high school youth incomparison to elementary and middle school youth.

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 themethod for targeting where services are provided misses concentrations of youth.

Selected Recommendations

New York City Department of Education (DOE)

o Accountability Measures

DOE should ensure that School Report Cards includes relevantdata on out-of-school time programs.

DOE should create the position of Deputy Chancellor for Out-of-School Time Programs and create an Office of Out-of-SchoolTime Programs.

o Reform

29 See Appendix B30 City of New York, Department of Education, Learning Environment Surveys: Citywide Results, 2007


8/52

8

Both DOE & DYCD should pool their financial resources and havebetter communication.

DOE should design small schools so that they have sufficient space

for out-of-school time programs.

o Funding

DOE, DYCD and the city administration should lobby the federaland state government on funding issues.

Lobby the federal government to increase authorizedfunding for the 21st Century Community Learning CentersProgram.

Convene the leadership of the major New York State out-of-school funding streams in to identify steps to integrate orbetter align existing programs across agencies and fundingsources.

New York City Department of Youth and Community Development (DYCD)

o High School Youth

DYCD should increase percentage of funds allocated at the highschool level.

DYCD should increase the spending per student for high schoolyouth in OST programs to ensure sufficient quality service.

DYCD should increase the number of OST programs at or near byschools for high school youth to access.

DYCD should increase the capacity of OST and Beacon programs.

o Management

DYCD needs to correct technical problems and inaccuracies withdata collection in the OST Online Tracking System.

DYCD should ensure that the geographical area served by an OSTprogram is not too big.


9/52

9

INTRODUCTION

Today, there are thousands upon thousands of Bronx high school students who are unableto participate in even the most common types of programs that can be offered during freetime before or after the school day. An average of 54% of city middle and high school

students indicated that they were not offered any typical out-of-school time programs intheir schools last year.31 In addition, the citys largest out-of-school time programcurrently enrolls only 11,371 Bronx high school youth.

32When the large population of

Bronx youth is taken into account, these figures suggest the shortages and inadequaciesof these programs.

According to the latest US Census data, 29% of the population in the Bronx is under 18or approximately 406,000 of the total Bronx population of 1.4 million.33 Significantly,single mother households account for nearly a third of Bronx households. Additionally, invery low- income Bronx neighborhoods, single females head more than half of thehouseholds.34 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. Thus, theycould lose their job for taking time off to attend to their children.

35

This all adds up to a large youth population with limited adult supervision, and thepressing need for enrichment opportunities to engage youth during out-of-school timethroughout the borough.

In the absence of reform, Bronx schools and communities have noticeably suffered inrecent years. During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools had an average of 35% moremajor crimes than did schools of similar size throughout the city. 36 Additionally, from2002 to 2005, the number of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to

473 arrests.37

The deficiency in out-of-school time programs in Bronx schools is not only failing theseyouth, but also neglecting the well being of our social and economic future. The reformof extracurricular programming in our city could have positive consequences that reachfar beyond those children and families immediately affected. Each child possesses thepotential to be a contributing member or leader of the next generation, and it is everychilds right to a first-rate education and a wealth of enrichment opportunities that makesuch a future possible. It is also in the interest of society to invest in such resources toensure a skilled, educated workforce of tomorrow. A competitive economy capable ofsurvival and success in the 21st century is inseparable from a quality education system.

31 Ibid, Citywide Learning Environment Survey32 See Appendix C33 Bronx County Quick Facts from the US Census Bureau. USA Quick Facts. 2005. Bureau of the Census. 34 Spencer, Corey. Giving 100 percent to parenting. Highbridge Horizon March 200635 Gluck, Robin and Levitan, Mark. Mothers Work: Single Mothers Employment, Earnings, and Poverty In the Age of Welfare

Reform. Aug. 2002. Community Service Society of New York. 36 Ibid, Analysis of School Location Incident Data37 New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC,

January through December, 2005.


10/52

10

A vibrant economy provides the tax base to fund education, and in turn a good educationproduces the skilled workforce necessary to power a competitive, growing economy.

Quality out-of-school time programs can provide Bronx high school youth with a safeenvironment in which the prime time for juvenile crime is transformed into golden hours

of academic enrichment, athletics and teamwork, career exploration, and communityservice. Rigorous studies show that organized out-of-school time programs can reduceyouth crime and violence, but boost academic success. Consequently, out-of-school timeprograms increase the likelihood of high school graduation. Studies also show that moreyouth would participate in school programs if they were available. Although spending onout-of-school time programs throughout Bronx schools reaches large sums and hasincreased in recent years, allocation of this money remains disorganized and unequal.There exists a clearly imbalanced distribution of funding and number of programs amongdifferent neighborhoods throughout the borough.

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 Bronxhigh school age youth with. To that end, this report will look first in-depth at the risingconcern about juvenile delinquency in the city and the Bronx. Next, it will document thebenefits of out-of-school time programs. Subsequently, this report will investigate therole the city plays in the delivery of these programs, looking also at the role of the stateand federal government. Within this section, the report will examine out-of-school timeprograms that take place in Bronx schools and at youth serving organizations. Afterward,this report will identify major factors contributing to the lack of effective out-of-schooltime programs. Finally, this report will make recommendations on how more youthcould be served and out-of-school time programs better managed.

BACKGROUND ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCYPublic Concern About Juvenile Delinquency

New York City

Increasing numbers of people are becoming aware of the link between youth idleness andjuvenile crime. As a result, more of the public is recognizing the need to provide out-of-school time programs for youth as a critical priority. Out of thirty-three quality of lifeissues in city neighborhoods, a 2006 poll of 612 New York City residents andneighborhood 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.

38

Bronx

Similar to citywide, the same 2006 Citizens for NYC poll found that the lack oforganized activities for youth was the number one quality of life issue in the Bronx. The

38 Weintraub, Benjamin. "Noise, Garbage Top Annoyances In City, Poll Finds." The New York Sun 13 July 2006 : 2.


11/52

11

same sentiment has been expressed on more local level across the borough.39 11 out of12 Bronx Community Boards indicated that funding for youth programs was an urgentneed in their neighborhoods in the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs assessment.

40

In this assessment, there are numerous written examples of concerns about youthprograms from Community Boards. In the Fiscal 2008 Community District Needs

assessment, District 3 Community Board wrote, While crime is rampant everywherethroughout the city, the 42nd Precinct rates drug dealings, assaults, and burglaries amongtheir top crime problem; a larger percent of them being committed by youth.41

As indication of the high of concern about juvenile delinquency, this report looked at thelarge number of complaints about disorderly youth from Bronx residents over the lastseveral years. There were 5,557 quality of life complaints between May 2004 and June2007 from the Bronx residents to the 311 service requesting assistance from the NewYork Police Department concerning youth acting disorderly. 42

Juvenile Delinquency

New York City

The growing concern about juvenile delinquency is more than just popular sentiment; it isbased on fact. While much has been made publicly about decreasing crime rates in NewYork, the trend of increasing juvenile delinquency paints a bleaker picture. The numberof youths arrested in New York City between the ages of 13 to 18 has increased from44,148 to 52,571 between 2002 and 2006. Robbery and assault crimes made up the bulkof violent crimes in those five years, accounting for 74% of all juvenile crimes. Duringthat same time period, youth between the ages of 13 and 18 have committed 54, 396felony robberies and 27,638 felony burglaries.43 Between 2004 and 2006, there was asignificant increase in felony robbery arrests for juveniles, including a 26.6% spikebetween 2004 and 2005.44 Over half (4,720 out of 8,493, or 55%) of the juveniledelinquent cases in New York City in 2006 were violent crimes. In 2006, there were2,266 reported cases of property crimes (includes larceny, burglary, arson, graffiti, andother theft-related offenses) committed by juveniles in New York City.45

Bronx

The number of arrests of juvenile offender in the Bronx has risen each year between 2002and 2005.46 According to state penal code, a juvenile offender is youth between theages of 13 and 15 who is criminally responsible for murder, kidnapping, arson, assault,

39 Ibid.40 City of New York, Department of Planning. Community District Needs Fiscal Year 2008 - The Bronx.41 Ibid42 Sbordone, Nicholas, Analysis of 311 Service Requests, Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications. City of

New York43 Ibid, New York Police Department. Office of Management Analysis and Planning44 Ibid. Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes.45 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Crime Stats Family Court Division of Law Dept. Law Department. City of New York, PersonalCommunication. 2 July 200746 New York City Criminal Justice Agency. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC,

January through December, 2002.


12/52

12

rape or other sexual acts, and is processed in adult court.47 From 2002 to 2005, thenumber of juvenile offender arrests in the Bronx rose 33% from 317 to 473 arrests.Significantly, these 473 arrests of Bronx youth in 2005 were 24.2% of the 1,953 juvenileoffender arrests in New York City.48 While the borough is home to only 17% of thecitys population, Bronx youth were 24% of the juvenile offender arrests for the city.

Between 2002 and 2005, 74 Bronx youth were also subsequently convicted as juvenileoffenders. In 2004 alone, there were 25 youth convicted as juvenile offenders in theborough.49

The Bronx also accounts for more than its share of citywide juvenile delinquent crimes.According to state penal code, a juvenile delinquent is a youth between the ages of 16to 18 who commits a felony crime and is processed in adult court. While the borough isagain home to only 17% of the citys population, the 1,860 juvenile delinquent cases inthe Bronx in 2006 made up 21.9% of total number of cases in the city. Not only doBronx youth commit crimes at a higher rate than youth of other boroughs, a greaterpercentage of these offenses are violent crimes. In the Bronx, 1,060 (57%) of the 1,860

juvenile delinquent cases were violent crimes. Of the remaining 53% of crimes, 22%were property crimes, 10% were drug crimes, 5% were weapons crimes, and 5% werevarious other crimes. The Bronxs number of juvenile delinquent cases also appears to begetting worse. The number of juvenile delinquent cases have increased sharply everyyear between 2002 (1,576 cases) and 2005 (2,123 cases). While the 2006 total of 1,860cases is lower than the previous year, it is still significantly higher than all other yearlytotals since 2002.50

Crime in Schools

New York City

In addition to problems in city neighborhoods, there has been an increase in juveniledelinquency in New York City high schools. The number of truants returned to schoolrose between 2002 and 2006, which is a strong indication of delinquent behavior.According to the NYPD, the number of arrests for major felonies in schools increasedfrom 4,198 in 2002 to 4,842 in 2006. The number of major crimes reported alsoincreased over the same time period from 1,187 in 2002 to 1,343 in 2006 (major crimesinclude murder, rape, robbery, felony assault, burglary, grand larceny and grand larcenyauto). Other increases occurred over this time period including weapons possessionincidents (from 230 to 395), disorderly conduct incidents (from 1,432 to 3,218) and othercrimes (from 4,257 to 4,659 other crimes include arson, misdemeanor assault, criminalpossession or sale of a controlled substance or marijuana, sex offenses and other variouscrimes). There were also 208 sex offenses, 83 bomb threats and 3,354 harassmentincidents in New York schools in 2006. 51 This trend of increasing crime continued into

47 Definition of Juvenile Offender. Article 10 N.Y. State Penal Code, Section 1848 Ibid, Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in NYC, January through December, 2002.49 Office of the Bronx District Attorney, Personal Communication, 200750 Pankratz, Connie. Juvenile Delinquency cases Referred to NYC Law Department 2002-2006. NYC Law Department51 Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about NYPD from 2002 to 2007


13/52

13

2007. There were 21% more major felonies committed in schools in the first four monthsof FY 2007 than in the first four months of FY 2006.52

Bronx

The Bronx high schools have had a high rate of juvenile delinquent behavior in schoolsbetween 2002 and 2006. There have been a total of 113,169 truants returned to Bronxhigh schools between 2002 and 2006. In this same period, there were: 3,137 weaponspossessions incidents; 5,389 disorderly conduct cases; 579 juvenile arrests for 7 majorfelonies; 1,458 incidents of the 7 major crimes; and 5,322 other criminal incidents.

53

During the 2005-6 school year, there were approximately 2,546 police incidents in Bronxhigh schools. Bronx schools also have a higher rate of major crimes in schools than anyother borough. During the 2005-6 school year, over 28.5% (338 of 1,187) of all majorcrimes in the citys schools occurred in Bronx high schools.54 This discrepancy betweenBronx schools and schools in the rest of the city can be seen even more clearly byfocusing on a school-by-school basis. During the 2005-6 school year, Bronx schools had

an average of 35% more major crimes than schools of similar size throughout the city.

55

Juvenile Detention

New York City

As might be expected with the increased level of juvenile delinquency, there has been acorresponding rise in the number of youth going into city detention facilities. Between2002 and 2006, there was a 20% increase in the total admission to detention facilities(nearly 1,000 new juveniles). Much of this increase took place in 2006 when the numberof detained youth increased 13.7% from 2005.56 In 2006, there were 4,753 juvenile

delinquents admitted to a secure facility, a 16.3% increase in comparison with the 4,087juvenile offenders admitted in 2002. In 2006, there were also 753 juveniles admitted tonon-secure detention, a 61% increase in comparison with the 467 juveniles admitted in2002. Many detained youth were returned to detention centers for a second time. In2006, 43% of juvenile detainees were readmitted to detention facilities.57 This figurerepresents an increase of 721 return detainees from 2005.58 Additionally, the Departmentof Juvenile Justice has increased its detention budget steadily between fiscal years 2003and 2006. The amount requested to spend on detention dropped off for fiscal year 2007,but remained higher than all previous levels. Starting in 2003, year-by-year DJJ hasspent $39.9 million in fiscal year 2003, $48 million in fiscal year 2004, $51.9 million infiscal year 2005, $59.2 million in fiscal year 2006 and $54.9 million in fiscal year 2007.59

Bronx

52 Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about New York City Department of Education from 2002 to 200753 Ibid, New York Police Department. Office of Management Analysis and Planning54 Analysis of New York Police Department Incidents For Bronx High 2005-06 Annual School Report Supplement55 Ibid. Analysis of School Location Data56 Ibid. Rise in Juvenile Felony Robberies Could Presage Increase in Other Crimes.57 Analysis of Mayors Management Reports section about New York City Department of Juvenile Justice from 2002 to 200758 Ibid59 City of New York, Independent Budget Office. IBOs Programmatic Review of the 2007 Preliminary Budget: Department of

Juvenile Justice.


14/52

14

In an annual listing of the districts in the city with the highest number of youths admittedto the juvenile detention facilities from 2003 to 2006, the Bronx is perennially over-represented with least a third of the fifteen districts located in the borough. Specifically,the Bronx accounted for 25.6% of youth admissions from 2003 to 2006 to detention

centers despite the fact that the borough is home to only 17% of the Citys population.Significantly, the data shows that increased juvenile delinquency in the Bronx can betraced to the greater instances of juvenile delinquency in the boroughs worst districts.The Bronx neighborhoods that were frequently listed the highest on admissions tojuvenile detention facilities include: Soundview, University Heights, Tremont, BedfordPark, Eastchester, and Morris Heights.60

In 2006, five of the fifteen districts were located in the Bronx. Of the 2,403 juveniledelinquents from fifteen citywide districts, 771 (32%) were from the Bronx. If shortenedto the ten worst districts, 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. While the number of districts represented has decreased since 2003, the totalnumber of Bronx youth admitted has moved in the opposite direction. Each year since2003, the number of Bronx youth admitted to juvenile detention facilities in the list of theworst districts has increased (except from 2005 to 2006, which marked a small decreasefrom 2005s extraordinarily high totals of juvenile delinquency).61

CAUSES OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Overview

For many NYC residents, juvenile delinquency is a major cause for concern. Youth with

unsupervised free time, uninvolved parents, and limited educational opportunities are atrisk of developing delinquent tendencies. If we are to prevent the problem of juveniledelinquency, it is crucial to examine and understand why certain youth exhibit delinquentbehavior.

Unsupervised Free Time

Youth are given the opportunity to get into trouble with regular unsupervised free time.Without a constructive environment during out-of-school time hours, many children hangout with their peers and are more likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. Youth that spendno 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, thanthose who spend 1-4 hours per week in out-of-school time activities.62 Studies haveshown that rates of juvenile crime are at their highest in the hours right after school,

60 Ibid, Admissions to DJJ By CD FY 03-0661 Ibid62 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 .


15/52

15

especially between 3 and 4 PM.63 Therefore, it is imperative to provide children with aconstructive alternative during these hours so they are not given the time to engage indelinquent behaviors.

Family Life

Studies show that delinquent youth are more likely to have unhappy home lives than non-delinquent youth.64 They may seek out attention by misbehaving in school or involvingthemselves in criminal activity outside of school. Delinquency brings attention to youthneglected by their parents and provides them with approval from peers who respectdelinquent behavior.65 Parenting style is also a significant determinant of delinquentbehavior in youth, since parents decide how much time their children spendunsupervised. Youth learn how to interact with other people and society primarily fromtheir parents. Supportive and nurturing parents motivate their children to strive forexcellence inside and outside of school. Conversely, parents who are preoccupied withtheir own needs and negligent in their responsibilities usually do not supervise their

children on a daily basis. Parents who are negative role models can severely impact thebehavior of their children. These youth are also more likely to exhibit delinquentbehavior if their parents expose them to martial problems, abusive behavior, or druguse66.

Role of Education

Along with family factors, educational experiences have a significant influence onjuvenile development. Since academic achievement is considered one of the principalsteppingstones toward success, school environments play a critical role in shaping ayouths sense of opportunity and self-worth.67 Education increases a youths ability tothink critically and make well-informed decisions. Through tasks such as completinghomework assignments and taking tests, youth learn to take responsibility for their ownactions. Day-to-day interaction with peers and authority figures enables youth toincorporate necessary social skills.

Unfortunately, positive educational opportunities are not equally available to all youths.Children from lower economic classes often experience a very different educationalenvironment in comparison to middle-class children.68 The schools that they attend havefewer resources to fund quality school programs. They also tend to be overcrowded,which means there is less individual attention for each child. Youth in these schools lackstimulating programs and individual attention; they may be less motivated to fully engagein school and may be less inclined to attend regularly.

63 Newman, Sanford. "Americas Out-of-school time Choice:The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime, Or Youth Enrichment and

Achievement ." 2000. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. 2 Aug 2007 2.64 Rhoades , Cheryl L.. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: The Breakdown of Families in America. 11 Mar 1999. Anti Essays. 2 Aug2007 .65 Ibid. "Causes of Juvenile Deliqunecy: The Breakdown of Families in America.66 Martin, Gus. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems. Dominguez Hills, California: Sage Publications, 2005.67 Ibid. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems68 Ibid


16/52

16

When forced to attend, students usually misbehave rather than incorporate properacademic or social skills into their norms of behavior. Since these youth are disengagedfrom school, academic achievements are falling below nationwide standards and studentsare failing to acquire basic literary skills.69 The lack of responsibility in youth makesthem prone to delinquent behavior. In addition, since they dislike school, these youth are

not motivated to create connections with teachers and other authority figures in school.Therefore, they are lacking the guidance that they need to grow up into mature andeducated adults. Without motivation to achieve in school and guidance from authorityfigures, youth resort to delinquent behavior.

Gangs, Guns and Drugs

Without support from family and school, youth are temped by the attraction of streetgangs, which play a large role in youth crime. Youth join gangs primarily for protection,money and status.70 In addition, if youth grew up in an environment where gangs areprevalent, they may feel they have no other choice but to join. Importantly, street gangs

control a large portion of juvenile drug dealing. The drug trade can be extremelydangerous, and is usually associated with guns, violence, and extortion.71 Youth whosuccumb to gangs often use drugs and deadly weapons as a method of solving problems.Youth who are exposed to gang lifestyles and also have access drugs and weapons are ata high risk for becoming juvenile delinquents.

OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAM BENEFITS

Overview

Numerous studies have been done to document the wide-range of benefits of out-of-

school time programs to children, parents, communities and taxpayers. Studies haveconsistently shown that out-of-school time programs produce positive results. In thissection, we will seek to document the quantitative ways in which out-of-school timeprograms have proven to be beneficial.

Reduced Delinquent Behavior

Participation of youth in out-of-school time activities has been proven to produceimprovements in their social skills, including their ability to maintain self-control, makeconstructive choices about their behavior and avoid fights.72 One study found thatteachers in a Manchester, New Hampshire school reported nearly 50% of students in out-

of-school time programs had fewer behavioral problems and that 40% had learned tohandle conflicts effectively.73

69 Halpern, Robert. "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges." When School Is Out 9.2.(1999) 81-95. 02 Aug 2007 .70 Ibid. Oversight: Initiatives to Combat Gang Activity in New York City71 Ibid. Juvenile Justice: Process and Systems72Out-of-school time Candidate Resource Kit 2004. 2004 73 Schools Alone are Not Enough. Mass Insight Education. Massachusetts 2020 Education Opportunity, 2002. 31 July 2007

.


17/52

17

Out-of-school time programs are beneficial to the community, as they provide a safe-haven for kids to go to out-of-school time, taking them off the streets and out of harmsway. For example, one Washington D.C. program was credited with a 45% drop ofjuvenile crime in a nearby apartment complex.74

Similarly, in New York, the Beacon program also found that increased academicenrichment out-of-school time resulted in fewer police reported juvenile crimes in onecommunity; indicating that would-be juvenile delinquents were taken off the streets.7580% of Beacon students interviewed said that they found the program very helpful inhelping them avoid drug use and 74% said that the program was very helpful in helpingthem avoid fighting.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. This improvement can be linked tosmaller child-to adult ratios. For example, participation in one program in New Yorkshowed an increase in both math achievement and school attendance.77 Similarly, in arecent report it was found that 45% of one programs nationwide participants improvedtheir reading grades and 41% also improved their math grades.78 In one study, at the highschool level, school day attendance for New York City students with lowest attendanceincreased by 4.4 days upon their participation in out-of-school time programs.79 Highschool level out-of-school time participants passed more Regents exams and earned morehigh school credits than non-participants.80

More Flexibility than School Classes

One of the many advantages of out-of-school programs is that they are able to be moreflexible in general than a normal school environment. Out-of-school time programs donot need to stick to one topic, or for that mater, only the topics that students study inschool. Out-of-school time programs have the flexibility to pursue topic areas that eitheralign with the school day or that young people deem personally interesting and relevant.In low-income communities, the existence of arts and cultural programs can present theopportunity of a fulfilled learning experience. In addition, out-of-school time programs

74 "Out-of-school time Keep Kids Safe" Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 7May2002 31 Jul 2007 .75 Keeping Schools Open as Community Learning Centers. U.S. Dept. of Education, 1997. 31 July 2007.76 "Out-of-school time Outcomes." Out-of-school time Alliance. 31 July 2007 .77 Russell, Christina A, and Elizabeth R. Reisner, and Jennifer C. Johnson, and Ullik Rouk and Richard N. White. Supporting Social

and Cognitive Growth Among Disadvantaged Middle-Grades Students in TASC After-School Projects. 4 Mar 2004 78 "Out-of-school time: A Powerful Path to Teacher Recruitment and Retention." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 28Jul 2007 31

July 2007 .79 Out-of-school time: No Longer an After Thought. The Out-of-school time Corporation. 31 July 2007.80 Ibid


18/52

18

can also vary their schedule and number of activities. This is possible because out-of-school time program schedules dont need to be set in stone.81

Reduced Drop Out Rates and Grade Repetition

Participation in out-of-school time programs has been linked to reduced in-graderetention and placement into special education. For example, high school students whoparticipated in one out-of-school time program that ran throughout four large Americancities were half as likely to drop out of high school and 2.5 times more likely to go on tohigher education.

82Within the same program, only 23% of participants dropped out of

high school, compared to 50% of non-participants who dropped out.83

Improved Physical Health

When taking part in an out-of-school time program, children spend less time watchingtelevision, which is known to be the most frequent activity children engage in during

non-school hours. Out-of-school time programs have been proven to significantlyimprove the physical health of participants. Obesity rates were significantly lower forchildren who participated in out-of-school time programs: 21% compared to 33% in non-participants.84 By emphasizing physical activity through such things as group and/orindividual sports, out-of-school time programs improve the quality of life for school-agedchildren.

Reduced Stress to Parents

Out-of-school time programs not only benefit the children they serve, but they also havea positive impact on the lives of parents. Out-of-school time programs alleviate the stress

of childcare experienced by parents, thus allowing them to focus on providing for theirfamilies. In one study, 80% of parents said that they were less worried about theirchildren during out-of-school time hours when their children participated in out-of-schooltime programs.85 Furthermore, in another recent study, it was concluded that parents whohave greater concerns about their childrens out-of-school time arrangements, report thatthey make significantly more errors, turn down requests to work extra hours and missmeetings and deadlines at work, thereby decreasing their productivity and increasingemployer costs.86

This lack of worry helps parents manage their lives more efficiently, both at work and athome. In the same study, 57% of parents said their childs participation in out-of-schooltime programs helped them manage their work schedule and another 60% said that they

81 Ibid82 Ibid, Schools Alone are Not Enough83 Newman, Sanford A., Eli B. Silverman, William Christeson, and Roger Rosenbaum. New York's Out-of-school time Choice: thePrime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids New York, 2002.84 Ibid. "Out-of-school time Outcomes."85 Out-of-school time Alliance Backgrounder: Formal Evaluations of Out-of-school time Programs < http://www.out-of-schooltimealliance.org/backgrounder.doc>86 "Guiding Our Youth: Education and Workforce Preparation." Workforce Innovations. 31 Jul 2007

.


19/52

19

missed less work. In addition, 47% of parents said that their childs participation in out-of-school time programs allowed them to attend classes or job training more readily and45% said it helped them get a better job or perform better at their current job.

87

Increased Parental Access and Involvement:

Due to their hours, out-of-school time staff have better access to parents and can serve asa communications bridge between parents and schools. Out-of-school time programs areable to share with parents the positive experiences their youth are undergoing in theircare. This can be done by speaking with parents at check-ins, inviting them toperformances, putting together celebrations or even with a simple visit or phone callhome. Out-of-school time programs use parents as resources through which they canunderstand the challenges facing their youth participants and learn new ways of reachingthem.88

Greater Youth Workforce/Career Development

Out-of-school time programs can provide a great venue for workforce/careerdevelopment for high school-age youth. Most importantly, career- oriented out-of-schooltime programs have proven to significantly improve academic performance in school.After participating in a business-oriented program, students achieved academic successafter having internships at local businesses. For a program set up in Michigan, 83% of thestudents who participated passed standardized reading and math tests and 60% passedscience tests and 65% passed writing tests.89 Similarly, in an entrepreneurship-focusedprogram, students achieved an improved level of academic success after they learned todesign spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations, learned the art of public speaking andworked with mentors. Overall, participants increased their interest in attending college

by 32% when compared to similar low-income student groups.

90

Positive Returns for the Community and Taxpayers

Out-of-school time programs have been proven to be beneficial to taxpayers as well ashaving a positive impact on our youth and our communities. It has been estimated thatfor each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime, the country saves $1.7million.91 One analysis of an out-of-school time program found that it produced benefitsto the public and its participants of $3 for every $1 spent, without counting the benefits ofreduced crime.92 Furthermore, in 2002, it was estimated that quality out-of-school timeprograms could be delivered at a cost of $1,500 per student in New York City, whereas it

87 Ibid88 Ibid, Getting the Most from Out-of-school time: The Role of Out-of-school time Programs in a High-Stakes Learning

Environment.89 "Out-of-school time: A Natural Platform for Career Development." Out-of-school time Alert Issue Brief 19Aug 2004 31 Jul 2007.90 Vanderkam, Laura. "Get a Job? No, Make a Job." Editorial. USA Today 05 Feb. 200791 "Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York - Troubled Kids." Troubled Kids. Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York..92 Ibid. New York's Out-of-school time Choice: the Prime Time for Juvenile Crime or Youth Enrichment and Achievement.


20/52

20

costs an average of $130,000 to incarcerate a juvenile in a secure facility in New YorkCity.93 Some providers claim the cost has gone up since then.

IMPLEMENTING OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS

School Stigma

One of the challenges in recruiting students to participate in out-of-school time programsis their reluctance to spend any more time in school than required. One part of thisproblem lies in the classroom environment. Today, teachers are under pressure to havetheir students pass a number of standardized tests, leading to a more restrictive learningexperience.94 The result of this greater focus on standardized tests can translate intoteaching to the test, i.e. teaching students how to fill in the greatest number of answerscorrectly on tests and not much else.

95As a result of this focus, the education experience

for students can be unpleasant and make the school not a place they want to be. The otherpart of the problem is that students may also feel unsafe in their schools. As the previous

section on juvenile crime showed, crime in New York City schools has been increasing inrecent years and has become a more pervasive problem. The increase in juvenile crimehas created a situation where students avoid spending extra time in school for theirpersonal safety.

Difficulty Attracting Older Youth

There are various challenges in attracting high school age youth to participate in out-of-school time programming: the perception that they are too old for supervision; theirlarger amount of family responsibility; and the programs often lack of age appropriateactivities. Due of the impression that they are too old for constant supervision, many

teenagers lack motivation to seek out positive after school alternatives, namely, out-of-school time programming.96 As well, many high school students take on out-of-schooltime jobs or care for younger siblings in order to help their families.97 For youth withfewer financial resources, they feel a greater pressure to find part-time jobs or join gangsto make money. In addition, high school age youth require more complex programming,such as a debate teams or school musicals, which are more complicated to design.

Dealing with At- Risk Youth

On top of the challenges already mentioned, there are additional obstacles to recruitingat-risk youth in high schools. In contrast, students who are 1) behind in school, poor

93 Fight Crime Invest In Kids New York Press Releases. Crime Fighters Call For Increased Funding For Programs Prove to CutCrime and Save Lives. Fight Crime Invest in Kids New York. 03 Sep. 2002. < http://www.fightcrime.org/releases.php?id=34>94 Ibid. 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.95 Berlak , Harold . " Race, Academic Achievement, and School Reform ." 10/18/00 09082007.96 Grossman, Jean Baldwin, Karen Walker and Rebecca Raley. "Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs:Lessons for Policymakers and Funders." Private/ Public Ventures Publications Apr, 2001 1-22. 02 Aug 2007 10.97 Ibid. Increasing Opportunities for Older Youth in Out-of-school time Programs.


21/52

21

attenders, prone toward detention, 2) lacking support at home, and 3) from families withless financial resources are harder to recruit.98 It is very hard to recruit youth withacademic or behavioral problems to out-of-school time programs. Recruitment is difficultbecause they are already a challenge to engage during mandatory school time. In general,disadvantaged youth suffer because they dont have the same resources and motivation as

others.

Finding and Keeping Good Staff

Another challenge often hindering out-of-school time programs is finding and retainingstaff. Some jobs with out-of-school-time programs can be part-time and low- paying. Asa result, this low pay can discourage qualified professionals from working at these out-of-school time programs. As a result, by some estimates, staff turnover can hovers around40% per year.99 Without a continuous and growing bond with staff members, studentscannot sustain crucial relationships with supportive adults. Therefore, the quality of out-of-school time programs can be severely hindered.

Utilizing School Buildings

Aside from participants and staff, a significant obstacle is finding adequate andaffordable space for out-of-school time programs.

Non-School Buildings

The ownership, size and facilities of a program location determine the program size andcan permit or prevent certain activities. For example, programs such as dance or potteryneed adequate space and facilities to function properly. Many community centers haveinadequate square footage, short-term leases, or use shared or borrowed space. Thisrestricts the improvements on the facilities because few people are willing to invest inshort-term or shared space.100 In addition, churches that provide out-of-school timeprograms are usually minimally funded and also use shared space.101 Therefore, many ofthe non-school locations that suffer from limited space cannot provide quality programs.

School Buildings

It seems the most viable option is to host the programs in a school building. Foremost,the facilities are beneficial for all different types of activities. School buildings providegyms, libraries, auditoriums and computer labs, which are hard to find elsewhere.Moreover, the school provides access to the student body, which makes recruitingparticipants easier. In addition, a program located in a school has legitimacy to parentswho may be uncomfortable sending their children elsewhere.102 Although there are many

98 Ibid. Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders.99 Larner , Mary . "Why Should We Care About Out-of-school time Care?." (1999). The Future of Children. 2 Aug 2007

32.100 Ibid, "Out-of-school time Programs for Low-Income Children: Promise and Challenges."101 Ibid102 Ibid, Challenges and Opportunities in Out-of-school time Programs: Lessons for Policymakers and Funders.


22/52

22

positive aspects, there are obstacles that hinder using school facilities for out-of-schooltime programs. Many school buildings are over crowded and have very limited space ona daily basis. As a result, the number and type of activities offered is limited.Significantly, out-of-school time programs make sure to get the support of principals touse their school space. Principals, who are responsible for the integrity of their school

building, can be reluctant to let programs use school facilities. They are afraid of damageto school property and have limited funding to spend on maintenance and repair offacilities and equipment.103 Therefore, it also be challenging to find appropriate space inschool facilities for out-of-school time programs.

Transportation

Transportation is another technical issue that must be addressed since it affects the hoursof programming, who is able to participate and the cost of the program.104 Depending onwhere youth live, a lack of adequate transportation may impede their participation in out-of-school time programs. Busing out-of-school time hours is costly and in limited

supply. In addition, many parents are unable to pick up their children due to their busyschedules. Even when youth live within walking distance of school or can take publictransportation, many parents feel uncomfortable with their children coming home fromschool alone or after dark.105 Adequate transportation needs to be provided in order forout-of-school time programs to run successfully.

FUNDING OF NYC OUT-OF-SCHOOL TIME PROGRAMS

There are many financial resources from the city, state and federal government, as well asprivate foundations, which are poured into out-of-school time programs in New YorkCity. This report analyzed all the different types of funding streams in fiscal year 2007 to

determine that approximately $203,825,800 (not including New York City Department ofEducation) was spent on out-of-school time programs in New York City.106 In thefollowing paragraphs, the funding amounts are broken down by the city, state, federallevel and private funds.

City Funds

For the last fiscal year, the city agencies contributed a total of $99.1 million for out-of-school time programs. This report was unable to determine the sum total of how muchthe New York City Department of Education spent on out-of-school time programs inschool facilities, as there is no complete available accounting of this spending. However,

According to one estimate, the New York City Department of Education spent $10million in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. Additionally, theNew York City Department of Youth and Community Development contributed $69.2

103 Ibid104 Ibid105 Ibid106 Ibid. The After School Corporation


23/52

23

million for the Out-of-School Time initiative and $19.9 million for the Beaconsinitiative.107

State Funds

In total, New York State government spent $52,269,000 on out-of-school time programsin fiscal year 2007 in New York City. Two state agencies were responsible for thespending: the New York State Education Department and the New York State Office ofChild and Family Services. Of that state money, New York State Education Departmentspent $13,000,000 on the Attendance Improvement and Dropout program, $15.8 millionon the Academic Intervention Services program and $19.1 million on the ExtendedDay/Violence Prevention program in New York City. In addition, the New York StateOffice of Child and Family Services spent $13 million on the Advantage After Schoolprogram in New York City.108

Federal Funds

In total, the federal government contributed $41,586,800 to out-of-school time programsin fiscal year 2007 in New York City. Three federal agencies were responsible for thespending: the US Department of Education, US Department of Health and HumanServices and the Corporation for National and Community Service. Of this total, USDepartment of Education spent $35 million on the 21st Century Community LearningCenters initiative and $4,056,000 on the Supplementary Education Services in New YorkCity. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration forChildren and Families spent $1.5 million of the Child Care and Development Fundprogram in New York City. The Corporation for National and Community Service alsospent $1,030,800 on the AmeriCorps programs in New York City.109

Private Funds

In total, private funding contributed $10,920,000 to out-of-school time programs in fiscalyear 2007 in New York City. Of that money, community- based organizations andparents contributed $6,500,000 to out-of-school time programs in New York City. Inaddition, $4,420,000 was contributed by foundations, corporations and individuals to out-of-school time programs in New York City.110

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The New York City Department of Education (DOE) operates the largest school systemin the United States, with over 1,100,000 children attending classes taught by nearly80,000 teachers in approximately 1,400 public schools.111

107 Ibid108 Ibid109 Ibid110 Ibid111 DAngelo, Amy and Peter Sipe. Why Do Fellows Stick Around? < http://www.teach-

now.org/Why%20Do%20Fellows%20Stick%20Around.pdf >


24/52

24

School Structure

Up until last year, the school system was organized into 10 Regions across the city eachof which includes approximately 140 schools. Each geographic Region contained 2, 3 or4 Community School Districts and is led by a Regional Superintendent. Within each

Region, the Regional Superintendent supervised approximately 10 to 12 LocalInstructional Superintendents (LISes), each of whom had supervisory responsibility fora network of about 10 to 12 schools and principals.112

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has now changed the school structure and implemented anew school system to focus on the following four areas: increased accountability, schoolempowerment, fair student funding, and teacher excellence. This reorganizationeliminated the prior regional school system. Instead of the traditional model in whichprincipals work directly for a superintendent, each of the citys more than 1,400principals have now chosen a school support organization to work with their schools,and are paying these groups out of the schools budget. Under the new structure, each

school receives greater individualized support and supervision.

113

These networks arehelping to restructure each school, targeting specific needs.

Schools were able to choose from three types of School Support Organizations:

Empowerment Support Organization: Schools could have signed up for guidance andsupport through a network of their peers, and as such are now given greater decision-making power over their budgets, allowing schools to use more funds to pay for teachers,coaches, or specific services that they think are best for their students.114

Learning Support Organizations: Schools could have selected among four supportmodels, run by top DOE education leaders, each organized around a differentinstructional focus. These LSOs focus on instruction, programming, scheduling, youthdevelopment, and professional development through the Integrated Curriculum andInstruction, Community, Leadership, and Knowledge Network LSOs.115

Partnership Support Organizations: Schools could have chosen an externalpartnership, like a non-profit or a university, which will support their institutions. ThesePSOs, like Fordham University in the Bronx, help the faculty by acting as consultants forleadership and curriculum development, and provide opportunities for students by givingthem access to better facilities and connections to mentors and internships.116

112 Wolff, Jessica. "Shaking Up the School System." Gotham Gazette Feb 2003.113 City of New York, Department of Education, < http://schools.nyc.gov/default.aspx > April 18, 2007114 City of New York, Department of Education, Empowerment Support Organization Profile.Http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/ESO/ESO+Profile.htm > July 27,2007115 City of New York, Department of Education, Learning Support Organizations.< http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/LSO/default.htm > July 27, 2007116 City of New York, Department of Education, Partnership Support Organizations.

< http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/ChildrenFirst/PublicSchoolEmpowerment/SupportOrganizations/PSO/default.htm > July 27, 2007


25/52

25

Small Schools Initiative

In response to the problem of overcrowding in the schools, Mayor Bloomberg andChancellor Klein launched an initiative to establish 200 small schools across the cityby 2007 to replace the current large schools in which violence and misbehavior are

rampant. This initiative, established in March 2004, calls for the formation of severalsmaller, more personable high schools, often within the existing physical space of theprevious large schools.117 By breaking down the larger student populations into smallerschools (all enrolling fewer than 500 students), the youth are given more personalattention and specialized curriculum, which the DOE hopes will have a significant effecton school crime rates and academic success.

In September 2006, 52 new small secondary schools (38 of them high schools) wereintegrated into the DOE system, raising the total to 157 across the City.118 Currently,there are 100 high schools in the Bronx, and approximately 88 of those are smallschools.119 Small schools are distinguished by their program focuses, size and

partnerships. Most small schools have themes, such as technology, arts, or healthsciences, which reinforce and complement the academic program. The majority ofschools have been created in collaboration with an intermediary organization, such as auniversity, youth development agency, non-profit or other educational organization.

Budget

The DOE will receive $16.97 billion for the 2008 Fiscal Year, an increase of $1.13billion from last years budget. The most money for the NYC schools comes from theState ($7.87 billion), then the City ($7.2 billion), and finally the Federal government($1.89 billion).120 The Department of Education worked with a budget of $14.7 billion inthe fiscal year 2006, and a budget of $15.84 billion for the fiscal year 2007.Foundations are another important source of funding for New York schools: $24 millionwas donated in 2005 alone to further initiatives for secondary schools.121

Funding for Out-of-School Time Programs

The DOE pays for out-of-school time programs in school facilities with funding from thefederal government, state government, city funds/ individual school budgets and privatefunding. In 2007, federal funding accounted for just over $39 million of the DOEsspending on out-of-school time programs, with US Department of Education spending$35 million on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative and $4,056,000on the Supplementary Education Services. In addition, state funding accounted in 2007

117 City of New York, Department of Education, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein Announce the Opening of 60 New, SmallSecondary Schools and Created in Partnership with Leading Education and Community Organizations. www.nycenet.edu. PressRelease: March 11, 2004.118 City of New York, Department of Education. Mayor Bloomberg And Chancellor Klein Announce Opening Of 52 SmallSecondary Schools This September Press Release: February 1, 2005.119 City of New York, Department of Education, Directory of the New York City Public High Schools 2007-2008120 City of New York, Office of Management and Budget, Expense Revenue Contract: Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2008. June2007121 City of New York, Office of the Mayor, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein announce $24 million in private support for

expansion of secondary school initiatives. Press Release: November 17, 2005. < http://www.nyc.gov/mayor >


26/52

26

for $47.9 million of DOE spending on out-of-school time programs. Specifically, theNew York State Education Department spent $13,000,000 on the AttendanceImprovement and Dropout program, $15.8 million on the Academic Intervention Servicesprogram and $19.1 million on the Extended Day/Violence Prevention program.According to one estimate, the New York City Department of Education spent

$10,000,000 in cash and in-kind on out-of-school time programs in 2007. In addition,DYCD spent 60% of $69.2 million for the Out-of-School Time initiative on programs inschool facilities and DYCDs $19.9 million for the Beacons initiative were all spent onprograms in school facilities.122

DOE loss of funding for 21st

Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)

In February 2007, the State Education Department notified 207 21st

Century CommunityLearning Center (21st CCLC) programs throughout the state that, due to lack of funds,there would not be a Request for Proposal (RFP), as had been expected. In 2002, after acompetitive RFP, the first cohort were granted five-year contracts to finance the

Centers. In April 2007, the State budget was passed, awarding $7.5 million in aid to thefirst cohort Centers. This funding was less than a quarter of the $31 million needed tooperate these Centers for one year. These contracts expired in June 2007, creatingpressuring for the 207 Centers to close. 60% of the 34,000 students or 67 of the Centersaffected by potential closing were in New York City.123

The main contributors to this state funding crisis were the problematic management offunds on the part of the State Education Department, as well as insufficient federalfunding to the State from the U.S. Department of Education. 21st CCLC federal fundingfor the state was cut from $98.9 million in 2004 to $90 million in 2006.124

The 207 out-of-school time program closings were only the first cohort of programs thatcould possibly close in the next few years. The second cohort, consisting of 246programs, which have an annual value of $40.4 million, is set to close in June 2008. Thethird cohort with 222 programs and a total value of $42 million will end in June 2009.The State Education Department has stated that the funding shortage is not expected toaffect future RFPs for the other cohorts as long as federal funding is maintained at asufficient level.125

Created by 21st Century Community Learning Centers Act with the leadership of USPresident Bill Clinton in 1997, the 21st CCLC initiatives are nationwide out-of-schooltime programs. Today, these Centers serve students in elementary, middle, and highschools, providing development and academic enrichment programs in poor, low-performing schools. 126

122 Ibid. The After School Corporation123 Fidler, Lewis A., Committee on Youth Services, City Council, City of New York, April 18, 2007124 Ibid125 Ibid126 Ibid


27/52

27

Under US President George W. Bush, the 21st Century Community Learning Centerinitiative was placed as a part of the No Child Left Behind act (NCLB), which waspassed in 2001.

127With the reauthorization of the 21

stCentury Community Learning

Centers Act by the 2001 NCLB Act, state education agencies were charged with theresponsibility of distributing federal funds to eligible applicants.128 The NCLB Actsoriginal budget was $22.5 billion.

129

For 2008, President Bush is requesting $24.4billion for the implementation of the NCLB Act. For the US Department of Education asa whole, President Bush made a budget request of $56 billion for 2008 fiscal year. 130Thus, the NCLB Act accounts for one half the US Department of Education budget.

Although funding for the implementation of the NCLB act has been steadily increasingover the years, 21st CCLC funding has been on the decline. In 2002, when the NCLB Actwas passed into law, funding for the initiative was $1 billion.

131In 2007, only

$981,180,000 allotted for the 21st CCLC initiative, which is a decline of nearly $19million. 132

DOE Spending on Out-of-School Time Programs

In the research for this report, a detailed accounting was sought on how DOE used itsmoney on out-of-school time programs. It was determined that the units ofappropriation/budget codes from the 2007 adopted budget did not provide a detailedaccounting of how DOE actually used its money on out-of-school time programs. As anexample, the city budget shows that $65,895,731 was spent on out-of-school timeprograms (called before/ out-of-school time programs in the budget) in fiscal year 2007.Out of that amount, the 2007 adopted budget indicates that $53,968,273 was spent onelementary and middle out-of-school time programs; and that only 281,851 was spent onhigh school out-of-school time programs. Since high school spending is so low, thisestimate of high school spending was determined to be not an accurate accounting of thereal expenditures.133

Instead, this report used the DOEs Galaxy budget to get better estimate of spending forhigh schools. The Galaxy budget allows for a more comprehensive view of spendingfrom individual school budgets. The Galaxy budget is based on DOE's internalaccounting system, rather than the city's units of appropriation/budget code, whichprovides for a much finer allocation of spending between categories or programs.Significantly, the numbers in the Galaxy budget include discretionary moneyappropriated to principals in their school budgets that they use for out-of-school time

127 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S. Department of Education, < http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg55.html >128 Ibid, Committee on Youth Services, April 18, 2007129 Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Summary, U.S. Department of Education,130 Ibid131 Summary of Discretionary Funds, U.S. Department of Education, 132 Appropriations for Programs Authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (2007), U.S. Department of Education, 133 Sweeting, George. RE: FY 2008 DOE after-school budget. Independent Budget Office, City of New York, Personal

Communication, 17 Aug 2007


28/52

28

programs.134 This money appropriated to principals comes from city funds; stateoperating aid; and federal, state and private grants.135

In sum, the Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools citywidespent $70,048,411.45 on out-of-school time programs (which is referred to in the Galaxy

budget as before/out-of-school time programs). In the Bronx, the Galaxy budget forfiscal 2007 showed that individual high schools spent $18,684,644.76 on out-of-schooltime programs. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 also showed that individual highschools citywide spent 9.8% and individual Bronx high schools spent 4.3% of theirschool budgets on out-of-school time programs. The Galaxy budget for fiscal 2007 alsoshowed that the average high school in the city spent $193,503.90 and average highschool in the Bronx spent $183,102.79 on out-of-school time programs for their students.136

Methodology

In undertaking an analysis for this report on the state of out-of-school time programs inBronx public high schools, it was necessary to gather information across a variety ofvariables, using a range of sources. All information collected was incorporated into aspreadsheet where it could be sorted and analyzed.

A significant amount of data was obtained from a book that is given to 8th grade studentsto use in deciding which high school to attend. This book is entitled 2007-2008Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. The following information wastaken from this book: a list of schools to be open during the 2007-08 school year, theiraddresses and the sizes of their student bodies; lists of PSAL and intramural sports teams;lists of extracurricular activities categorized as either Academic, Artistic,Leadership and Support, or Clubs. This book is assembled by the Department ofEducation, but comprised of information that is provided by the high schoolsthemselves.137

For the purposes of the report, it was determined that it was necessary to create additionalcategories of programs. To that end, three additional categories were created: tutoring,vocational, and community service programs. These programs, while also countedunder their original headings, were identified based on their titles to constitute additionalcategories. Vocational training programs were designated as programs that providepractical experience for the working world. Internships and business and engineeringprograms were considered vocational, but any theory-based activities were not.Tutoring programs were in the form of professional or peer-tutoring, and could be offeredbefore school, out-of-school time, or on Saturdays. Summer programs were not includedin this category. Community service programs were ones that engaged students in some

134 Ibid135 "The New York City Department of Education School Based Expenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005." School BasedExpenditure Reports School Year 2004-2005 Citywide By Funding Source. NYC Department of Education. 20 Sep 2007

.136 Sampat, Hemant, HS - After school program budget by school for FY06 and FY07, Department of Education, City of NewYork, Personal Communication, 12 Sep 2007137 Ibid, 2007-2008 Directory Of the New York City Public High Schools


29/52

29

sort of civic involvement, whether it be volunteering around the neighborhood or tutoringlocal elementary school children. These activities were either organized by adults or bythe students themselves.

138

At the end of each school year, the Department of Education compiles a report on the

performance of each New York City public high school. The information obtained fromthe 2005-06 school year report cards is the following: the New York City geographicregions and districts of the schools, attendance rates, the number of criminal and policeincidents, New York State Regents Examinations scores, the amount of spending perstudent, the ethnic backgrounds of students, the percentage of current and incomingstudents who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, the percent of school spaceused, and graduating students future plans, whether that be to attend 4-year colleges, 2-year colleges, join the military, to seek employment, or other known or unknownplans.139 Graduation rates, including the percentages of students who received Regents orlocal diplomas, dropped out, or are still enrolled in school were provided by the NewYork State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report.140

Findings

Before discussing data on Bronx out-of-school time programs, it is important to examinethe demographics of Bronx high schools. The Bronx is home to 100 public high schools(excluding charter schools) that serve a total of 58, 455 kids. 141 Nearly all (98%) of theschools are made up of a majority of black and Hispanic students, and in 91% of schoolsthe majority of current students are eligible to receive free lunch. 142 The averagegraduation rate is 50%, and among those graduates less than half planned to attend a 4-year college. More than 3,200 high school students dropped out of school in the Bronx inthe 2005-2006 school year. 143 In the 2005-06 academic year an average of $11,962 wasdirectly spent on each student, but more than 40% of students failed the English or MathA Regents.144

The New York City Department of Education (DOE) categorizes out-of-school timeprograms as the following: sports, artistic, leadership and support, academic, or clubs.This study further divided programs into community service, tutoring, and vocationaltraining. For those 58, 455 students, there are 2,749 programs: 1,083 PSAL sports teams,317 leadership and support programs, 313 art programs, 270 academic programs, 179non-PSAL sports teams, 584 clubs, 112 vocational training programs, 75 tutoringprograms, and 51 community service programs. (Three programs were counted in morethan one category: vocational training programs, tutoring programs, and communityservice programs come from other categories.)145

138 Ibid139 Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools140 Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx High Schools141 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools142 Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools143 Ibid, Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx HighSchools144 Ibid, Analysis of 2005-2006 Annual School Report Supplement for Bronx High Schools145 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools


30/52

30

Academic Programs

Academic programs include debate, mock trial, moot court, honor societies, chess and satprep activities. 14 schools do not offer any academic out-of-school time programs,meaning that 5,457 students are not able to participate in academic enrichment activitiesfollowing the school day.146

Sports Programs

Bronx high schools are given the option to offer Public School Athletic League sports,intramural sports, or a combination of the two. However, 22 schools do not offer anyPublic School Athletic League sports teams, 26 schools do not offer any intramural sportsand 7 schools do not offer any sports programs at all. This means that 1,841 kids are notable to participate in any school-sponsored athletic program.147

Artistic Programs

Artistic programs provide drama, music and dance activities. These types of programs arean especially important resource for high school students looking for a creative outlet. 26Bronx high schools do not offer any artistic out-of-school time programs. Currently,more than 12,850 Bronx high school students do not have access to arts-based out-of-school time programs at their high schools.148

Leadership and Support Programs

Leadership and support programs can include community service-based programs,student government, student council, and peer education. 7 Bronx high schools do not

offer any leadership and support programs, meaning that 1,706 students are not able toparticipate in activities designed to create and enhance leadership skills.149

Club Programs

Clubs allow students to explore topics that are often not addressed in a schoolenvironment; this includes a number of things such as photography, skiing, differentlanguages, or even a love of food. Since students run many clubs working with a schooladviser, they can be environments that help to foster leadership and interpersonal skills.Currently, there are 6 schools in the Bronx with no clubs, meaning that 2,825 students areunable to broaden their horizons.150

146 Ibid147 Ibid148 Ibid149 Ibid150 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools


31/52

31

Vocational Training Programs

For students who will be looking for jobs immediately after graduation, vocational

training out-of-school time programs provide practical experience for the working worldthrough work skills training and internships. Vocational training is crucial for the nearly3,292 kids that drop out each year of high school in the Bronx.151 Significantly, 38schools offer no vocational programs, meaning that more than 19,650 kids are at riskfrom graduating high school with no job training. 152

Tutoring Programs

Tutoring can be offered to students in several forms: assistance offered by other students,or by teachers, and tutoring made available before classes, out-of-school time, or onSaturdays. 46 Bronx high schools do not offer any form of tutoring, leaving 39,000 kids

without the tools they may need to succeed academically.153

Community Service Programs

Community service out-of-school time programs give students an opportunity to make adifference in areas they care about. A number of school-sponsored community serviceprograms ask high school students to help elementary school students in subjects likereading. 63 Bronx high schools do not give their students access to any kind ofcommunity service programs, resulting in more than 31,500 potentially, uninvolvedstudents.154

Out-Of-School Time Programs in City High Schools

Out-of-school time programs in all five boroughs were analyzed from the 2007-2008Directory of the New York City Public High Schools to put into perspective the situationin the Bronx. For the 299,986 city high school students, there are 354 high schools in thecity that offer 17,584 out-of-school time school programs. In Manhattan, there are 87high schools for 61,395 students that offer 2,374 out-of-school time programs. InQueens, there are 61 high schools for 79,739 students that offer 2,117 out-of-school timeprograms. In Brooklyn, there are 97 high schools for 82,588 students that offer 2,674 out-of-school time programs. In Staten Island, there are 9 high schools for 17,809 studentsthat offer 1,126 out-of-school time programs. Finally, in the Bronx, there are 100 high

schools for 58,455 students that offer 2,749 out-of-school time programs.

155

Brooklyn lacks the most out-of-school time programs, across the different categories,compared to the Bronx. Overall, however, it should be noted that there is a shortage of

151 Analysis of the New York State District Report Card Comprehensive Information Report 2005 2006 for Bronx High Schools152 Ibid, Analysis of 2007-2008 Directory of New York City Public High Schools153 Ibid154 Ibid155 Ibid


32/52

32

crucial out- of- school time programs in many city high schools. For instance, there are72 high schools in the city that do not have any Public School Athletic League (PSAL)sports teams. At least 136 city high schools do not offer any intramural sports programs.In addition, there are 19 city high schools without any type of leadership programs.Significantly, there are 76 city high schools without artistic programs. There are also 32

city high schools without clubs. Finally, there are 46 city high schools without anyacademic programs.156

Comparison of DOE Funding by Borough

For this report, the number of out-of-schooltime programs in school facilities wascompared to the total amount of DOE funding in each borough to determine whetherfunding was evenly spent. Data was used from the Galaxy budget and the 2007-2008Directory of the New York City Public High Schools. In Staten Island, there are a totalof 9 schools; 1,126 out-of-school time programs;157 and $2,542,195 in funding.158 InBrooklyn, there are a total of 98 schools; 2,674 out-of-school time programs;159 and

$17,583,152 in funding.

160

In Queens, there are a total of 61 schools; 2,117 out-of-schooltime programs;161 and $9,665,316 in funding.162 In Manhattan, there are a total of 88schools; 2,374 out-of-school time programs;163 and $21,840,098 in funding.164 Lastly, theBronx has a total of 101 schools; 2,749 out-of-school time programs;

165and $18,358,760

in funding.166

The average amount each school spent in fiscal year 2007 on all of its out-of-school timeprograms in Manhattan was $248,182, compared to $181,770 in Bronx high schools. Inshort, there is a difference of over $66,000 per school.167 Significantly, high schools inthese two boroughs offer a comparable average number of out-of-school time programs,with Manhattan high schools offering 26 and Bronx high schools offering 27.168 Sowhile the two boroughs have a comparable average number of programs in each school,the Manhattan schools spend 27% more on each program.169 As a result, Manhattan highschools have a greater amount of funding to support their out-of-school time programs,which leads to more and better quality programs for their high school youth.

Out-of-school Time Programs at a Westchester High School

The lack of

BXBPAfterSchoolReportfinal

Documents

Transcript of BXBPAfterSchoolReportfinal