Youth Today: An Unbalanced Proposition

By Karen Pittman, February 1999

President Clinton’s recent proposal to up the funding for 21st Century Schools is probably one of the youth development field’s best wins in a long time. He wants to add $400 million next year for after-school programming, for a total of $600 million. That would help provide an estimated 1 million students with after-school academic and non-academic supports and opportunities. The Youth Development Block Grant Act – which failed to win passage in the 104th Congress – was slotted for $891 million. So why aren’t youth workers cheering?

At one level we are. Any youth dollars slated for non-punitive programming is a win these days. But there is reason for concern. My reaction after hearing the President’s announcement was akin to the feeling you get when someone gives you a big gift that is only sort of what you asked for. You can’t return it. You have to be grateful. Most significantly, you know you’ve been checked off on the giver’s tally sheet. No other big gifts or favors will come your way soon.

Last August, in a column on eroding youth entitlements, I referenced the new after-school funding and urged that we not “blow this chance” by focusing the debate on who runs the programs and who controls the dollars. I called instead for the launch of “a missive public education campaign that gets young people and parents across this country defining and demanding what and how much they need, and how and where they want it delivered.”

I can’t stand by that advice today. We desperately need a public education campaign. But we also need an aggressive short-term strategy that keeps the youth service field from losing ground. We have to focus on who runs the programs and who controls the dollars because that determines who defines the strategies and program content. By and large, schools are barely giving lip service to the call to collaborate with CBOs. That CBOs will reap few of the benefits of these dollars is unfortunate, even unconscionable, given the fact that these very organizations logged in decades of quiet commitment (on scant budgets) to non-school hour youth development before the public tap opened. But who gets the money is not the real issue.

The real concern is that without the expertise of CBOs, children will reap few new benefits. Done poorly, after-school programming may close some doors, temporarily lock out violence, sex and drugs from 3 to 6 P.M. But it will open few new ones, offering little not already offered during the school day. Done well, after-school education opens doors for children and adolescents ready to test their skills, extend their knowledge, exercise their bodies and imaginations and understand their communities.

The real question is not, “Why shouldn’t after-school education programs be linked to and led by schools?” Schools have the students, the mandate, the public funding, the staffing, the infrastructure and the public’s eye. The patchwork of community organizations and programs does not have the same captive audience, mandate, funding base, certified staffing, infrastructure or public visibility.

The real question is, “How can this role help schools stretch rather than solidify their approach to learning and development?” $600 million is a heck of a fulcrum. Positioned correctly, it could leverage change by balancing the power between CBOs and schools so that missions, visions, strategies and resources could complement, if not combine, to help lift children’s bodies, minds and spirits. Positioned badly, it becomes new dead weight that CBOs have to push against to get inside.

The new funding has been positioned badly, dispersed to the schools with neither mandate nor incentives to involve others. With the recent White House announcement, the money has been yoked with the responsibility of redressing the gaps caused by social promotion. With this new funding, the gates to the fortress may actually be closing. But CBOs need to get inside. They are the Trojan Horse of school reform, bringing tough questions and complementary expertise inside the beleaguered public school fortress.
_______________
Pittman, K. (1999, February). "An Unbalanced Proposition." Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment. A version of this article appears in Youth Today.

Karen Pittman is executive director of the Forum for Youth Investment.