Linking and Learning:

Lessons for Afterschool from Early Childhood

System-Building Efforts

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau

October 2006

ppqp

Human Services’ Child Care Bureau awards CCDF grants to states, territories, and tribes. With 

nearly half of the children receiving services being of school or kindergarten age, CCDF provi

significant funding for afterschool care in a variety of settings. The majority of CCDF dollars are u

provide subsidies to eligible low-income children under age 13. A portion of CCDF funding is also 

for quality improvement initiatives, such as professional development and technical assistance

the goal of building the capacity of states to deliver quality services including programs before and 

school, during summers, and on school holidays.

To support state efforts to provide quality afterschool opportunities, the Child Care Bureau aw

a technical assistance contract on out-of-school time to The Finance Project and its partner, The Na

Governors Association Center for Best Practices. The Afterschool Investments project provides tec

assistance to Child Care and Development Fund grantees and other state and local leaders who su

afterschool efforts. The goals of the project include:

■ Identifying ways that states and communities are using Child Care and Development Fund

(CCDF) subsidy and quality dollars to support out-of-school time programs, and sharing

these practices and approaches with other states;

■ Identifying administrative and implementation issues related to CCDF investments in out-of-s

time programs, and providing information and context (about barriers, problems, opportuniti

as well as practical tools that will help CCDF administrators make decisions; and

■ Identifying other major programs and sectors that are potential partners for CCDF in support

out-of-school time programs, and providing models, strategies, and tools for coordination wit

other programs and sectors.

To meet these goals, the Afterschool Investments Project:

■ Develops state profiles of afterschool resources, policies, and issues;

■ Creates tools and materials to support the development and sustainability of afterschool effo

and

■ Provides technical assistance at meetings and conferences around building state collaboratio

for afterschool.

For more information about the project or to submit a request for technical assistance or inform

contact The Finance Project at (202) 587-1000 or by email at afterschool@financeproject.org, o

http://www.nccic.org/afterschool.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau
4

Introduction

During the 20th century, child care progressed from an act of charity, to a work support, to a

educational opportunity for children.1 Accompanying this evolution was an emerging consensu

about the value of quality care for young children. The evolution of care for school-age children 

more recent. It emerged as a national policy issue toward the end of the 20th century, driven b

steady increases in maternal labor force participation, an ambitious education reform agenda, an

a rise in juvenile crime during the hours after school. The need for structured activities after schoo

captured the attention of parents and policymakers alike, creating a consensus about the value o

afterschool2 programs. A 2003 poll of registered voters showed:

■ 94 percent agree that there should be some type of organized activity or place for childre

and teens to go after school every day that provides opportunities for them to learn; and 

■ three in five say they are willing to pay more in taxes if the money is guaranteed to fund

afterschool programs.3

The rapid growth of afterschool care is a testament to the individuals working in these program

and those who have professionalized the field of caring for children of all ages. In state- and city

wide afterschool network meetings, participants often acknowledge the wisdom and success o

early childhood practitioners in developing systems of support and recognize that thos

experiences can help guide afterschool system-building efforts. Members of the afterschoo

field are looking for ways to extend and connect with the progress made in supporting qualit

early care and education initiatives, understanding that afterschool programs can be a strateg

for sustaining the investments made in children before they enter school. 

1 Joan Lombardi. Time to Care (Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 2003), p. 29.

2 In this paper, the care of children from birth to school entry is referred to as early care and education. 

The care of school-age children when they are not in school is referred to as afterschool care. This term

includes programs that occur before school and during the summer and holidays.

3 Press Release. Americans Want Children Safe, Supervised, With Opportunities to Learn after School Day Ends

(Washington, D.C.: Afterschool Alliance, October 29, 2003). 
4 This paper reflects the wisdom of Helen Blank, Lindy Buch, Gail Daughtry, Barbara Gebhard, Grace

Hardy, Woody Sue Herlein, Joan Lombardi, Anne Mitchell, Nina Sazer O’Donnell, Elyse Rosenblum,

Susan Russell, and Tonya Russell.

■ Building support among parents and policymakers.

These lessons, grounded in experiences developing systems for early care and education, can h

inform and support similar processes for the afterschool field. While this paper draws from the wisd

of leaders in the field of early care and education, there are many successful afterschool initiat

already putting these lessons into action, and their examples appear throughout the paper as w

Degrees of Difference

At the most basic level, the needs of infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children are sim

to school-age children. Regardless of age, children need care from nurturing adults who h

appropriate training; they need programs that meet health and safety standards as well as a

appropriate standards of quality; and they need stimulating environments that engage th

Parents also have similar needs, regardless of their children’s ages. Parents need choices ab

whom to entrust with the care of their children, and they need to be active partners in provid

that care. High-quality child care for younger and older children supports the dual goals of allowi

parents to go to work, and promoting healthy child and youth development. 

Early childhood and afterschool programs not only fulfill similar needs for children and parent

they also face similar challenges. Both types of programs struggle with funding, service delivery

staffing, and customer satisfaction, but the degree of difficulty is often greater for afterschoo

programs. The following list highlights some of the challenges faced by programs serving both

age groups, identifying fundamental differences between caring for children from birth to age

six—and those that are school-age.

1. Diverse Funding Streams. Managing multiple funding streams is a challenge for both

early care and afterschool programs. Some funding streams serve both age groups, such

as the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) and Title I. In 2005, approximately onethird of the $5 billion CCDF went to school-age children. However, those who care for

young children have other large sources of money to draw from. Head Start focuses
6

5 W. Steven Barnett, Jason Hustedt, Kenneth Robin, and Karen Schulman, The State of Preschool (Rutgers, NJ:

National Institute for Early Education Research, 2006)

choose a community- or school-based setting. Both early care and afterschool programs re

on diverse delivery systems, but afterschool program settings are even more varied than ear

care setting. Parents searching for care for their young children can generally find a list o

providers through the local child care licensing agency, a child care resource and referral service

or their own informal network of family, friends, and neighbors. Afterschool programs offer 

wider variety of options for parents and are less likely to be identified through a resource an

referral service or a local licensing agency. The decentralized nature of afterschool program

presents an even greater challenge for parents considering their options, as well as for developin

standards of quality, establishing licensing criteria, and developing a professional developmen

system to train staff.

3. Staffing. Both early childhood and afterschool programs struggle to recruit and retain staf

Qualified staff is scarce because wages are low and professional development systems ar

sporadic, inadequate, and/or lack sufficient incentives for staff to seek higher credential

However, the part-time nature of afterschool positions makes it even more difficult to cultivat

a stable, professional workforce. Most afterschool programs complement the school day an

provide only part-time work opportunities for afterschool staff. Some of these programs operat

on school holiday and/or during the summer, others do not. Where early care and educatio

programs generally allow full-time work opportunities for staff by providing a full-day program

or combining two half-day programs, the erratic schedules of afterschool programs great

complicate efforts to develop a qualified and stable work force.

4. Developmental Age Span. Early childhood programs span five to six years of child developmen

while afterschool programs can span ten years or more. Afterschool programs face greate

challenges in providing activities that are developmentally appropriate for a wider age spa

and in coordinating programming—both with schools and with other afterschool programs—

to supplement and strengthen child development. They also vary in the comprehensivenes

of their program content. The early childhood field promotes a comprehensive approac

to child development, including social and emotional health, physical developmen

communication, creative expression, and cognitive development. Some afterschoo
Lessons from Early Care and Education Systems Building

Despite the degrees of difference between caring for young children and caring for school-

children, there are lessons that the afterschool field can learn from the pioneers of early childh

system-building. The following lessons summarize the wisdom of early childhood leaders, man

whom also work on afterschool policy. The first four lessons focus on building an infrastructur

support the afterschool system. The infrastructure coordinates funding, professional developm

administration, and evaluation to provide the highest quality afterschool programs. Lessons 

through seven highlight the importance of research and data in raising the quality of programs 

making the case for future investment. The remaining lessons teach the importance of communica

with parents, the public, and policymakers to raise awareness about afterschool and build sup

for a system of high-quality afterschool programs.

These lessons are valuable for anyone working to improve the care and education of childr

regardless of age. Some afterschool programs, as well as state and city afterschool networks, ha

already embraced these lessons; others are just beginning to figure out how to connect the t

fields. Whenever possible, the lessons below include examples of afterschool initiatives that a

turning lessons into action.
8

Building Infrastructure

Lesson 1: Invest in Infrastructure 

Just as the structure of a building helps it stand, the infrastructure of a system allows it to functio

effectively. Building effective infrastructure requires tireless coordination among the providers o

care and the people or personnel that administer the programs. The structural results will vary from

state to state depending on the specific resources and needs of the community, but there are sever

tips for improving the chances of success. The Build Initiative of the Early Childhood Funde

Collaborative works with nine states, each of which takes a different path for building systems. The

experiences yield the following wisdom:

■ Build on local strengths—Do not start from scratch; build on the strengths of the state o

community. For example, if the state or community has a viable early childhood system

building effort, it may make sense to join this effort and expand it to include older childre

Alternatively, if the school district provides the most stability, efforts could focus on expandin

the school’s mission to include afterschool care. 

■ Seize opportunities—Look for windows of opportunity, such as one-time funding sources, 

local champion, or a hot local issue, and use them to bring attention to the need for afte

school programs. More attention and resources help build momentum, which is essential fo

sustaining interest in building the infrastructure.

■ Focus on sustainability from the beginning—Pursue strategies to ensure that effor

continue beyond the immediate opportunity. Such strategies include codifying th

infrastructure in legislation or regulations, cultivating sustainable funding sources, an

building grassroots support that will continue over the long run. 

Fortunately, there are public and private funders who understand the importance o

infrastructure development. For instance, The Maternal and Child Health Bureau in the U.S

Department of Health and Human Services funds every state to develop early childhoo

comprehensive systems of care. There are also several public and private sources of fundin

focused on afterschool infrastructure. (see Funding Sources for Building Infrastructure 
6 NIOST, AED. Strategic Plan: Building a Skilled and Stable Out-of-School Time Workforce, September 2003,

http://www.niost.org/about/stategic_plan_building_skilled.pdf.

Lesson 2: Invest in Staff Development 

In both early childhood and afterschool programs, a central ingredient to quality is staff. In 2003,

the National Institute on Out-of-School Time (NIOST) and the Academy for Educational

Development (AED) Center for Youth Development and Policy Research published the 

recommendations of a broad-based advisory committee on the afterschool workforce. The

number one recommendation was to “determine a national set of standards for out-of-school

time workers, create training and career development opportunities and a set of compensation

benchmarks.”6 Efforts to promote a professional development system for afterschool can

learn from and build upon early care and education professional development systems.

the process of implementing their plans to create the infrastructure necessary to provid

coordinated, comprehensive early childhood care. For more information, see 

http://www.state-eccs.org/index.htm.

Funding Sources for Building Infrastructure in Afterschool

■ The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Child Care Bureau provides 

technical assistance to afterschool programs through the Afterschool Investments Project

(http://nccic.org/afterschool).

■ The U.S. Department of Education was a founding partner of the Afterschool Alliance

(http://www.afterschoolalliance.org) and is helping to build the infrastructure with the 

21st Century Community Learning Centers national activities resources

(http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html).

■ The C.S. Mott Foundation is funding 31 states to build statewide infrastructures for 

afterschool programs (http://www.statewideafterschoolnetworks.net).

■ The W.T. Grant Foundation is funding the development of evaluation and quality 

assessment tools that will strengthen the research base for afterschool programs

(http://www.wtgrantfoundation.org).
10

that path must be rewarded with higher compensation. The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Proje

provides one example of how to do this. 

T.E.A.C.H.

The T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Project is a coordinated system of college scholarships tied

to increased education, compensation, and retention. Twenty-four states now participate in this

program, which rewards staff who improve their education with a stipend or increased wage.

Almost 20,000 child care professionals were awarded a T.E.A.C.H. scholarship in FY 04–05. The

result is more educated staff and lower turnover rates. When professional development is tied

to a career ladder and compensation, it stabilizes the field and enhances the quality of the care

providers. For more information, see www.childcareservices.org.

According to the National Institute on Out-of-school

Time, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New

Jersey are working on professional development

opportunities tied to a career ladder for afterschool

staff. All four of these efforts build on the professional

development system established for early care and

education professionals.8 For example, California’s

career lattice allows students to “swap” courses on

early childhood development for courses focused on

school-age children. Upon completion, they receive

the same credential (a Child Development Permit) but

have a school-age emphasis.

7 To view the framework, go to: http://nccic.org/poptopics/pdsystem.html

8 For more information, search for career lattice examples at the NIOST clearinghouse,

http://www.niost.org/clearinghouse/index.html.
q

standards. Their goal is to create explicit linkages between the two sets of standards, which c

streamline administrative functions such as monitoring, and/or to provide incentives for qua

improvements. For more information, see Promoting Quality in Afterschool Through State C

Care Regulations at http://www.nccic.org/afterschool/childcareregs.pdf.

Kansas. The Kansas Enrichment Network is working to develop statewide standards, model

and/or curricula for afterschool programs that meet the needs of three state departments an

the Kansas Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. 

Louisiana. The Louisiana Departments of Education and Social Services have drafted a

interagency memorandum of understanding (MOU) to develop new regulations for program

funded by education, child care, social services, and other state resources. The MOU will hel

facilitate discussions on program licensing regulations and quality standards for all state

supported afterschool programs.

Michigan. The Michigan State Board of Education finalized model standards for Out-of-Schoo

Time (OST) programs in 2003. They are designed to assist schools and other organizations 

developing and evaluating high-quality, comprehensive, out-of-school-time programs fo

elementary and middle schools. These standards are a guide; they are not intended to provid

a quality rating for parents or policymakers. To read the standards, go to: 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/OST_Standards_43292_7.pdf
12

Arkansas. In 1999, the Arkansas legislature decided to increase funding for child care subsidies

and not direct money to improving the quality of programs. Arguing that both aspects of child

care needed funding, a coalition of early education stakeholders vowed to find a way to fund

both. During the next legislative session, the coalition succeeded in securing 11 percent of the

state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds for child care, as well as a three

percent excise tax on beer. The combination of the two victories increased funds for quality and

ensured a stable source of funding for the future.

Wyoming. The state-level Wyoming Youth Development Collaborative created the 21st

Century State Incentive Grant (21st Century SIG) by aligning the overlapping goals of four 

funding streams. Spearheaded by the state Departments of Education and Health, 21st Century

SIG combines 21st Century Community Learning Center funds, the governor’s allocation for 

the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, a federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration State Incentive Grant, and state tobacco settlement dollars. In 2005, 

26 Wyoming communities have created community collaboratives and community advisory

boards to oversee and coordinate these and other relevant funding sources at the local 

level. As a result, communities can collaborate across systems to build a continuum of

care during nonschool hours. For more information, go to http://sad.state.wy.us/21SIG or

http://www.nccic.org/afterschool/PDFDocs/WY.pdf.

California. Voters passed two ballot initiatives to generate additional revenues for early 

childhood and afterschool programs. In 1998, Proposition 10 raised the tax on cigarettes and

dedicated the revenue for comprehensive birth to five services. In 2002, Proposition 49 required

the state legislature to earmark state general revenues of up to $550 million per year for new

or expanded afterschool programs. 
Building an Evidence Base

Lesson 5: Encourage Rigorous, High-Profile Evaluations 

The early childhood field benefits from multiple, longitudinal evaluations that demonstrate 

high-quality early childhood intervention programs improve child outcomes. These results inc

between 20 and 40 years of data on small-scale programs such as the Perry Preschool 

Abecedarian programs, and large-scale programs such as the Parent Child Centers in the Chic

Public Schools. This research base plays a critical role in informing policymakers about the im

tance of quality early care and education.

The afterschool field lacks a similar longitudinal research base. Afterschool programs are m

diverse than early childhood programs, and children typically spend much shorter amounts of t

in afterschool programs. The wider range of programs and smaller dose of participation m

evaluation more complicated, but not impossible. The W.T. Grant foundation recognizes the ne

to advance evaluation practices by funding evaluations of afterschool programs and building 

capacity of scholars to design and execute precise and credible evaluation designs in youth-relat

fields. One grantee is the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, which is engaged in 

multi-year project to link program and youth worker practices with youth outcomes. The Harva

Family Research Project (HFRP) also received funding from W.T. Grant to do a quantitative stud

of the individual and contextual predictors of participation in afterschool activities. Over the nex

several years, new investments in afterschool research may yield the same types of evaluation

data that are available for the early childhood field.

Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Database

The The Harvard Family Research Project’s Out-of-School Time Program Evaluation Databas

catalogues available evaluations of afterschool programs. The database provides a systemat

way to look at the different approaches to evaluation, allowing evaluators to learn from on

another. The database also includes syntheses of evaluation elements, such as an inventory o

the instruments and assessments that programs are using in their evaluations. To access th

database, go to http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/evaldatabase.html.
14

9 A copy of the framework is available at 

http://www.publicengagement.com/framework/images/framework_61505.pdf.

The National School Readiness Indicators Initiativ

uses data to tell the story about the importance o

early childhood development. During a three-yea

period, 17 state teams worked to develop their ow

state-level indicators to track results for children from

birth through age eight. The goal of the initiative wa

to inform public policy decisions and track progres

in improving outcomes for young children. The 1

states came to agreement on a set of core indicato

that they hope will build national awareness an

mobilize support for early education.

The afterschool field will benefit from more agreement about which data to collect, more accurac

in data collection, and more evidence to support the value of afterschool programs. While there ar

some examples of effective uses of data at the state level, the field could benefit from building 

national consensus around how to tell the story about the afterschool hours using data. The Mo

Foundation’s Moving Toward Success: Framework for After-School Programs can serve as 

foundation for building this consensus. The framework links goals to program elements to intende

outcomes, with many examples of data sources and performance indicators. The framework 

organized around four primary goals: academic and other learning, social and emotional learning

health and safety, and community engagement.9

Rhode Island. While it is difficult to prove that better data leads to better policy, Rhode Island’s

experience is compelling. Focused attention on data related to access to prenatal care, infant

mortality, and child lead poisoning led to increased funding in these areas. By tracking data

over time, Rhode Island Kids Count, through its National School Readiness Indicators Initiative,

showed that the incidence of these problems decreased with increased funding. For more 

information on Rhode Island and the National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, go to

www.GettingReady.org.
10 White, Aaron, M. (accessed November, 2005) Substance use and the adolescent brain: An overview with a

focus on alcohol. Topics in Alcohol Research, available at:

http://www.duke.edu/~amwhite/Adolescence/index.html.

11 Giedd J, Blumenthal J, Jeffries N, Castllanos F, Liu H, Zijdenbos A, Paus T, Evans A, Rapoport, J (1999)

Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neurosci 2:861863.

Lesson 7: Raise the Profile of Adolescent Brain Development Research

In the 1990s, colorful images of infant brain scans captured widespread attention and convin

policymakers, parents, and the general public that the first three years are a period of signific

growth and development. Many organizations and program providers used this new researc

argue for more funding and better quality for early care and education programs. 

But brain development does not stop when children turn

three, nor does it stop when school ends at 3:00 P.M.

The biological and cognitive changes that occur

between the ages of 10 and 20 are as dramatic and

important as those of early childhood.10 Research on

the developing brain has the potential to be equally

effective in educating the public about the importance

of providing quality programs during the school-age

years. Using the same brain scan technology, research

shows that during the transition from childhood to

adulthood (approximately the second decade of life),

the brain remains structurally different from an adult

brain.11 As a result of this difference, a child’s brain

relies more on emotion than on the rational evaluation

of consequences when making decisions. The fact that

children can be impulsive and emotional is not new, but

increasing public awareness of the biological basis for

this behavior may increase public support for afterschool programs that keep children connected to adults

into their adolescent years. 
16

There's been a great deal of emphasis in the 1990s on the critical importance of the first three

years. I certainly applaud those efforts. But what happens sometimes when an area is emphasized

so much is other areas are forgotten. And even though the first three years are important, so

are the next 16. And [during] the ages between three and 16, there's still enormous dynamic

activity happening in brain biology. I think that that might have been somewhat overlooked with

the emphasis on the early years.

—Dr. Jay Giedd, National Institutes of Health, in an interview for PBS Frontline.12

12 In an interview for PBS Frontline. For a transcript, go to

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/interviews/giedd.html.
Building Support Among Policymakers and Parents

Lesson 8: Make Quality Transparent to Parents and Policymakers

Everyone wants quality, but not all parents and policymakers know what quality care looks like. 

early childhood field teaches the importance of having clear symbols of quality that parents 

policymakers can see and understand. Licensing, professional development, and program stand

are the building blocks of quality. They establish a framework that allows child care agencies 

policymakers to monitor improvements in quality, to encourage self-assessment, and to rew

better quality with higher subsidy reimbursement rates or other forms of recognition. In an atte

to make quality more transparent to policymakers and parents, 13 states have established statew

quality ratings systems that define a continuum of quality and rate programs along this continuu

Everyone can understand that a four-star quality rating is better than a two-star rating with

having to understand how the program environment, staff education, and content of the curricu

produced that rating. 

Before the afterschool field can develop easily understandable symbols of quality, there must 

agreement on the building blocks of quality—licensing, professional development, and standard

Some states use the definitions adopted by the child care field, and include school-age child ca

programs in their quality ratings scale. Of the 13 states with established ratings systems, s

include school-age child care. Afterschool programs could build on this foundation, or create 

complementary ratings system that reflects the dimensions of quality that are specific to caring

for older children.

13 For more information on quality rating systems, see the National Child Care Information Center’s

“Statewide Quality Rating Systems (QRS) Standards/Criteria: Web Sites” at

http://nccic.org/poptopics/qrs-criteria-websites.pdf.

North Carolina. The STARS quality ratings system creates public awareness and demand fo

quality child care by communicating quality in a five-star system. Every licensed child care settin

must display its star rating (one is low, five is high). In 1999, most children in center-based chil

care attended one- and two-star child care centers, and very few four- and five-star program

existed. In 2005, only 10 percent were in one- and two-star programs, and 45 percent were i

four- and five-star programs. By establishing an easily recognizable symbol of quality, the stat

created parental demand for quality and changed the supply of quality child care programs. 
18

State and local early childhood initiatives are developing their own brand names to define the

work. Branding helps communicate core services and approaches shared by a wide array o

programs. Branding also makes the effort distinctive and easily recognizable. North Carolina

Smart Start program has national name recognition as a community-based effort to promote ear

care and education. Smart Start means different things in different counties, but everyon

understands it is an effort to give every child a smart start in life. Other examples include California

First Five, Kentucky’s KIDS Now, and South Carolina’s First Steps to School Readiness. Afterschoo

initiatives can also benefit from branding their work. It helps both parents and policymake

understand what is being offered, when, and at what level of quality. 

North Carolina. Smart Start is a comprehensive public-private initiative helping all children

under six enter school healthy and prepared for success. It looks different in every community.

Some communities focus on access to child care, others on professional development, and 

others on support services such as dental health and parent education. Despite such diversity,

Smart Start has national name recognition as an effort to promote high-quality early care and

education for all children in the state. For more information, see http://www.smartstart-nc.org.

New Hampshire. One example of a successful afterschool brand is PlusTime New Hampshire.

PlusTime casts a wide, inclusive net for a diverse array of afterschool programs, and then works

to both build the quality of the field and educate policymakers on the value of these programs.

For more information, see www.plustime.org.
pqp

and may be more effective in securing additional funding. And just as coordination within 

fields of early care and afterschool can be effective, coordination between the two has ev

greater potential.

Colorado. In the 1998 legislative session, a proposal to expand the state child care subsid

program led representatives of statewide membership organizations working to improve child car

to come together for an early childhood summit. The stakeholders resolved their differences i

private, and produced a set of principles that they would use when talking to policymake

about their proposal. Their summit was so effective that they now meet monthly, with mor

frequent meetings when they need to reconsider their priorities and clarify their message. 

they cannot reach a consensus, individual organizations are required to talk about their position

and strategies so that each is aware of the other’s position. Representatives from state agencie

are included in the summits for their technical expertise, but are not voting members. For mor

information: http://www.coloradoaeyc.org/summitmission.htm

Washington. In addition to competing with each other, afterschool organizations often compet

with early childhood and other children’s organizations for recognition. In Washington

organizations and individuals promoting afterschool joined forces with their counterparts i

early care and education to create a statewide coalition. School’s Out Washington, a statewid

afterschool advocate and intermediary, is a member of The Collaborative, a statewide coalitio

of organizations and individuals from child care, Head Start, state pre-kindergarten, afterschoo

resource and referral, and union organizations. Members of The Collaborative work together o

setting an agenda, testifying before the legislature, meeting quarterly with state agency leade

to learn about current issues, and distributing newsletters to inform and engage constituent

School’s Out Washington benefits by leveraging a strong voice for its issues and by raisin

awareness among members about the need for and value of afterschool programs. For mor

information: http://www.schoolsoutwashington.org
spending for pre-kindergarten grew from $190 million to $2.8 billion, and the number of state

funding prekindergarten programs grew from 28 to 42.14 President Bush’s Good Start, Gro

Smart initiative asks all states to adopt voluntary guidelines on literacy, language, pre-readin

skills, and numeracy activities for children ages three to five, and align these guidelines with th

state’s K-12 standards. 

Afterschool programs can also benefit by measuring their effectiveness in terms of education

outcomes. Many programs already provide homework help, tutoring services, and/or remedi

education activities, while others seek to improve attitudes toward education and learning by allowin

youth to explore new areas that complement the school day. The 2002 No Child Left Behind (NCLB

law opened the door for extending learning into the afterschool hours by strengthening th

academic components of the 21st Century Community Learning Center Program (21CCLC). Othe

NCLB programs, including Title I, Supplemental Educational Services, and Safe and Drug-Fre

Schools, can also be used during the afterschool hours to enhance and support school-da

success.15 By aligning or linking with educational goals, school-age programs can sustain an

strengthen the educational foundation that early care and education programs build.

20

14 A. Mitchell, Prekindergarten Programs in the States: Trends and Issues (Climax, N.Y.: Early Childhood Policy

Research, 2001). Available at: http://www.nccic.org/pubs/prekinderprogtrends.pdf; W. Steven Barnett, et al.,

The State of Preschool (Rutgers, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2005).

15 For more information, see Finding Funding: A Guide to Federal Sources for Out-of-School Time and

Community School Initiatives, by Heather Clapp Padgette (Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project,

January 2003) 

Nebraska. The Lincoln, Nebraska Community Learning Center Network has worked to show

how its afterschool programs improve learning during the school day. Regular program 

evaluations include school achievement, attendance, and behavioral changes. Documenting

success has led to further engagement of school staff and additional resources for afterschool

programs. For more information, see http://www.lincolnclc.org.
qy pppp, pg

already embracing these lessons and benefiting from the path that was paved before them. 

Acknowledgements

The idea for this paper was conceived by staff at The Finance Project (TFP) and the Nati

Governors Association Center for Best Practice (NGA) through their Afterschool Investment con

with the Child Care Bureau in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administra

for Children and Families. Dionne Dobbins at TFP, and Elizabeth Wright at NGA provided signifi

guidance and comments on the purpose and content of the paper. The lessons represent 

collective wisdom of national experts in early care and education who shared their insights du

extensive interviews. The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of: Helen Blank, L

Buch, Gail Daughtry, Barbara Gebhard, Grace Hardy, Woody Sue Herlein, Joan Lombardi, A

Mitchell, Nina Sazer O’Donnell, Elyse Rosenblum, Susan Russell, and Tonya Russell.
Contact us:

email afterschool@financeproject.org

web www.nccic.org/afterschool

The Finance Project

1401 New York Ave.,NW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20005

phone 202 628 4200

web www.financeproject.org

National Governors Association

Center for Best Practices

444 North Capitol, NW

Washington, DC 20001-1512

phone 202 624 5300

web www.nga.org

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Child Care Bureau