U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–459 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–134

INVESTMENT IN AFTER-SCHOOL

PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

MAY 13, 2003—WASHINGTON, DC

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND

EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

TED STEVENS, Alaska

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

Professional Staff

BETTILOU TAYLOR

JIM SOURWINE

MARK LAISCH

SUDIP SHRIKANT PARIKH

CANDICE ROGERS

ELLEN MURRAY (Minority)

ERIK FATEMI (Minority)

ADRIENNE HALLETT (Minority)

Administrative Support

CAROLE GEAGLEY
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Opening statement of Senator Arlen Specter ........................................................ 1

Statement of Hon. William D. Hansen, Deputy Secretary, Department of

Education .............................................................................................................. 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from California .................. 17

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Statement of Arnold Schwarzenegger, national chairman, National Innercity Games Foundation ........................................................................................ 23

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30

Statement of Hon. John DeStefano, Jr., mayor, New Haven, CT ....................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Statement of Harvey Sprafka, chief of police, Knoxville, IA ................................ 38

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40

Statement of Steven Kinlock, student, the Preparatory Charter School for

Mathematics, Science, Technology, and Careers, Philadelphia, PA ................ 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43

Statement of Madison White, student, Massillon Public Schools, Massillon,

OH ......................................................................................................................... 44

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45

(1)

INVESTMENT IN AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES,

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 10:40 a.m., in room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senator Specter.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER

Senator SPECTER. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor,

Health, Human Services, and Education will now proceed.

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

Our hearing this morning is to consider the budget request by

the Department of Education for fiscal year 2004 for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program. The request by the

Department is for $600 million, which is a very sharp reduction of

last year’s appropriation, which was $993 million. This is a program which serves approximately 1,300,000 students in 1,400 communities throughout the United States. It provides a wide variety

of educational experiences and has generally been regarded to be

a highly effective program until the Department of Education this

year has cited what they conclude to be, quote, ‘‘disappointing initial findings from a rigorous evaluation.’’ In light of this conclusion,

albeit preliminary, the subcommittee concluded that it would be

important to have a hearing and go into this issue in some detail.

We have respect, obviously, for what the administration has to

say, but constitutionally the responsibility for the appropriations

process rests with the Congress, and it begins with this subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Department of Education.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. HANSEN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

ACCOMPANIED BY RUSS WHITEHURST, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Senator SPECTER. Our first witness is Deputy Secretary Bill Hansen, who has had that position since May of 2001. Prior to that appointment, he was president and chief executive officer of the Education Financial Council. He has a bachelor’s degree from George

Mason University. He’s accompanied by Mr. Russ Whitehurst, who
2

is the director of the Institute of Education Sciences at the Department of Education.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Hansen. Our subcommittee rule on

testimony is 5 minutes, and we ask witnesses to adhere to that to

the extent possible. Some people think that 5 minutes is brief. We

recently had a memorial service for Ambassador Walter

Annenberg, and the speakers included President Ford, Secretary of

State Colin Powell, and myself, and we were limited to 3 minutes.

So I want you to know what a generous allocation 5 minutes is.

Secretary Hansen, the floor is yours. You may proceed.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And everything I have

to say, I will say in 5 minutes here.

Thank you for the invitation to be before your subcommittee this

morning, and I am grateful that the name card is here on the

table, so that nobody is going to mistake me for a major Hollywood

star. But I have seen what happens when Mr. Schwarzenegger

walks into a building. When he came to meet with Secretary Paige

at the Department, we practically had to call the fire marshal in

to clear the hallways.

Senator SPECTER. Excuse me, is he one of the students involved

in this testimony?

Mr. HANSEN. That is right.

Senator SPECTER. I am surprised to hear your star is Mr.

Schwarzenegger, as opposed to the students, but proceed.

Mr. HANSEN. But everybody wanted to grab a glimpse of him,

and I must also say I have testified dozens of times on Capitol Hill,

and this is the first time my children have come to see me, so they

are not here for me.

Anyway, Mr. Schwarzenegger does have many fans, and it is not

just those who flock to the theaters to see his films. Many of his

biggest fans are the schoolchildren all across America, who have

found him a good friend and an inspiration, and a strong advocate

on their behalf. And in this mission, he has strong allies in President Bush, Secretary Paige, and all of us at the Department of

Education.

AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM—ASPIRING YOUTH

As Houston school superintendent, Secretary Paige helped

launch an after-school program called Aspiring Youth that blended

both academics and the athletic focus that Mr. Schwarzenegger’s

Inner City Games Foundation produces. I am also pleased to have

with me today—behind me, Texas Juvenile Court Judge Eric

Andell, who led that program when he was in Houston. Judge

Andell now heads the Department of Education’s Office of Safe and

Drug-Free Schools.

President Bush and Secretary Paige believe in the bright potential of every child, and I know you do, and the subcommittee does,

as well, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the bipartisan support of many

here in Congress, the President last year signed the most sweeping

reform of Federal education policy in over three decades, the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This new law lays out a loud and

clear message that every child can learn, no matter what their

background, where they live, or how much money their parents

earn.
3

21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS FUNDING

An important part of this effort is the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers Program that calls for safe and caring places for

children to go to after school lets out, where they can make quality

use of their time by getting help with homework or playing sports

or studying. We backed that commitment with significant funding,

$1 billion last year, and $993.5 million this year.

Our commitment to children, great as it is, is also matched by

our commitment to use hard-earned taxpayer dollars more wisely.

And President Bush and Secretary Paige have been very clear on

this point. Our focus is the child. We will fund only what works to

help children. We will not pour limited resources into programs

that fail their mission.

MATHEMATICA STUDY OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

So you can imagine our concern, Mr. Chairman, when some troubling findings turned up in a rigorous evaluation by Mathematica

Policy Research of the 21st Century After School Program. The

study found that many of the after-school providers did not improve academic performance, did not decrease delinquent behavior,

and did not make students feel safer.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Clearly, this was not our definition of success, so we made the

decision to reduce funding for this program in our 2004 budget request to $600 million and spend those resources on proven effective

programs where they have demonstrated results. In particular, the

Title I program for educationally and economically disadvantaged

children, and also special education for children with disabilities.

The President’s budget request for both of these programs received

a billion-dollar increase representing our priorities.

But to help ensure future success, we are also taking action steps

to ensure that the billion dollars we are spending this fiscal year

and what Congress appropriates for 2004 will be driven towards results for children.

AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS SUMMIT

Let me just highlight a couple of our initiatives that we are

working on. Next month, the Department will co-host a summit

with Mr. Schwarzenegger that will bring together experts, afterschool providers, educators, and parents to talk about what it takes

to create a quality after-school program. And, I must say, when

Secretary Paige met with Mr. Schwarzenegger in Palo Alto several

months ago, this was Arnold’s suggestion, and it was a wonderful

idea. We are looking forward to working with him on it as we move

into the summer months.

MODEL PROGRAMS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Second, the Department is about to begin researching the effectiveness of some promising after-school models that have come to

our attention. And, finally, we are providing technical assistance to

many new applicants for State grant funds to help strengthen their

programs.
4

ADMINISTRATION COMMITMENT TO QUALITY AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

This administration is totally committed to quality after-school

programs that will provide a safer place for more young people to

grow and learn, away from the temptations and dangers of the

streets. It is a goal that we share with Mr. Schwarzenegger.

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and also

your distinguished colleagues on this subcommittee, to accomplish

these noble goals on behalf of America’s children.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I would also just like to conclude by saying that we very much

look forward to, as this Committee and as this Congress maps out

their budget resolution and their priorities for the upcoming appropriations process, working with you as we prioritize where our

funding levels should go. We look forward to working with you in

that capacity.

Mr. Chairman, thanks again for the opportunity to be with you

this morning.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. HANSEN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to

discuss the benefits of after-school programs in the context of the Department of

Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. The Administration supports the development of local after-school programs, and believes they play

an important role in many communities. The Administration also supports the 21st

Century Community Learning Centers program, but has taken three important factors into consideration in setting forth its 2004 budget proposal for this program.

First, the recent rigorous evaluation of this Federal program indicates, among

other things, that grantees are not having a positive impact on students’ achievement. This Administration is dedicated to funding programs that work, and this rigorous evaluation, initiated by the Clinton Administration, indicates this Federal program has shortcomings.

Second, this Federal program is undergoing a significant, legislatively directed

change. Congress established that the Federal Government shift 21st Century grant

funding from Washington-selected grantees to those selected by States. Third, the

program has grown rapidly with little consideration of its effectiveness. In light of

these three factors, the Administration believes the most responsible use of Federal

funds would be to fund the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program at

$600 million in 2004.

Today I will place 21st Century funding in the context of the President’s 2004

budget. Then I will go into more detail about the specific evaluation findings that

led us to believe that this is a good time to reconsider and improve our support for

after-school and other extended learning programs.

EDUCATION IS A MAJOR DISCRETIONARY BUDGET PRIORITY

As you know, earlier this year we celebrated the first anniversary of the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001, which President Bush signed into law on January 8, 2002.

State officials, administrators, and teachers across the country now are working

hard to strengthen their accountability systems, identify research-based strategies

for improving student achievement, and offer new choices to parents whose children

attend low-performing schools.

The President’s budget seeks $53.1 billion for Department of Education programs

in 2004. That represents more than a 25-percent increase since 2001, and a 130-

percent increase in Federal education funding since fiscal year 1996. Key increases

for the cornerstones of the Federal role in education include:

—$12.4 billion for Title I, a 41-percent increase since the passage of No Child Left

Behind;

—$9.5 billion for IDEA grants to states, a 50-percent increase since he was elected; and

—$12.7 billion for Pell grants, for a record 4.9 million students.
5

The challenge for the President is balancing all of the priorities within and outside education in a responsible budget. The President believes that the limited sums

of available Federal funds should be concentrated on programs that have the greatest impact; impact derives from programs that are effective and demonstrate results-in other words, programs that are accountable. This discipline is more difficult

in light of the competing demands of the war on terrorism and efforts to restore economic growth.

REALLOCATING SCARCE RESOURCES

Program accountability links to resource allocation. The 2004 budget proposes the elimination of funding for 45 education programs totaling $1.5 billion, and reduces

funds for other programs to focus on higher priority activities. In making such decisions we considered the history of the program, recent legislative changes, and program effectiveness. Each of these factors contributed to our decision on the 21st

Century Community Learning Centers program. First, program funding had grown very rapidly, from just $1 million in fiscal year 1996 to $1 billion in fiscal year 2002. This rapid growth was due in large part to

the program’s presumed contribution to improving academic achievement, particularly for students in low-performing schools.

Second, the No Child Left Behind Act changed the program from a federally administered competitive grant program to a State formula-grant program under

which States will make competitive awards. Since all previously awarded projects

will conclude during fiscal year 2003, all of the $600 million requested for 2004

would be available to States for new awards during a natural transition year. The

requested level actually represents a slight increase over the amount that States

will have in 2003 for sub-State awards. The remaining $400 million is for federally

administered continuation grants that will end in 2003.

Third, recent evaluation findings strongly suggested that the 21st Century program was not having the desired impact on student achievement. Nor was it effective in achieving other goals, such as reducing delinquent behavior. For all of these

reasons, and in combination with the tremendous challenges involved in the implementation of the NCLB Act, we made difficult choices and funded programs that

benefit our greatest needs most effectively-Title I, Special Education, and Pell

Grants.

EVALUATION FINDINGS SUGGEST A NEED FOR PROGRAM CHANGES

To gain a better sense of future program directions for 21st Century Community

Learning Centers, I think it helps to take a closer look at our initial evaluation findings. This evaluation, which was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,

uses far more rigorous methodologies than other studies cited in the after-school

program literature. The research design included random selection of elementarylevel program participants and matched comparison groups for middle school participants. While no single study can ever provide a final or complete picture of the

effectiveness of a program, good budgeting in times of scarce resources demands

that decisions be made on the best available evidence. This study, which is the

strongest to date in the after-school literature, points out very basic shortcomings

in the current Federal program: —Content.—After-school programs should emphasize and result in improved academic achievement. Those funded under the 21st Century program do not. Children’s reading scores did not improve. They did not perform better on homework or other assignments. —Behavior.—The Federal program had no positive impact on delinquent behavior.

In fact, program participants in federally funded programs were slightly more

likely to have sold drugs or smoked marijuana than non-participants.

—Safety.—The program did not make students feel safer, with program participants actually suffering greater property damage than non-participants.

—Participation.—Put simply, participation was weak. Children in federally funded programs attended just two days a week, on average, and more frequent participation in the program did not lead to better outcomes.

Current investments in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program

have not paid off. We believe the program’s implementation should be reformed, and

in light of the transition to State grants, we believe there should be a reallocation

of a portion of the funds supporting previous rapid growth.

KEY CHANGES ARE UNDER WAY

With the transition of the 21st Century program to a State-administered competitive grant program, we are taking a number of steps to improve program quality
6

and outcomes. These include: (1) developing model after-school programs based on

sound theory and scientific evidence; (2) new research to test the effectiveness of

various interventions; (3) improving the availability of research findings and effective after-school practices through our What Works Clearinghouse; and 4) expanding

technical assistance at both the State and local levels.

For example, the Department is helping to establish networks of State and local

program coordinators so they can share best practices and effective approaches. The

Department will continue its practice of convening annual summer grantee institutes in which States and local grantees share ideas on building programs that include high-quality academic instruction.

The Department also plans to work with States to implement successfully the

statutory requirement that States establish performance indicators and measures

for 21st Century projects to help ensure that this is truly a performance-based program. For example, we plan to issue guidance providing a model of a performancebased competitive grant system that States could use to guide their efforts to comply

with the statute. Such a model would help States quantify and monitor the value

of academic achievement, behavior and safety performance, and student participation levels linked to recipients of the new State grants.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, Congress and the President share the same goals with this program: supporting local after-school programs that provide a safe environment for

students that improve their academic and social outcomes. And we agree that federally funded programs should be rigorously evaluated for their performance under

those goals. In light of the evidence, the President believes the best avenue to reach

those goals in 2004 will be for the Department of Education to implement the reforms that I have mentioned, and to support this program at the level requested

in the President’s budget.

EVALUATION OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Hansen.

This is the first of three studies? Is that correct?

Mr. HANSEN. It is.

Senator SPECTER. When are the other two studies going to be

completed?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, we have an ongoing study, the first reports of which occurred in the publication that is referenced in Mr.

Hansen’s testimony. The second wave of that study is being analyzed now, and the results should be available within 6 to 12

months, if not sooner.

Senator SPECTER. And how about the third phase?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am not aware of a third phase, Senator. I

will have to check on that and get back to you.

[The information follows:]

REPORTS FROM 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS EVALUATION

The current study of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program includes three reports. The first report was recently released (February 2003) and includes implementation and impact findings from the first year of data collection

from the Department’s study. The second report will include implementation and

impact findings from the second year of data collection from the study and is projected to be available within the next 6 months. The third report is a synthesis report.

21ST CENTURY LEARNING CENTERS EVALUATION

Senator SPECTER. Well, is there a third phase?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am saying I am not aware of the third phase

of that——
7

Mr. HANSEN. We do have program evaluation monies that we are

working with and national activities funds that we are contemplating using for some further look into the program.

Mr. WHITEHURST. What we have——

Senator SPECTER. And what, specifically, is the ‘‘further look into

the program’’?

Mr. WHITEHURST. What we have decided to do with evaluation

money for the after-school program going forward is to try to identify and develop programs that are likely to be more effective in addressing safety needs and academic needs for children, to demonstrate that those programs are effective, if, in fact, they are, and,

then to disseminate those programs widely.

Senator SPECTER. Well——

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the third report you are referencing is going to be a combination of the first two reports. It is

going to be a summary report. It will not have new research or new

data. It will be a summary report.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

Senator SPECTER. Well, the question, the initial question, which

comes to my mind is why such a drastic reduction, when these are

only preliminary findings and you have a second survey which is

in process which you have not analyzed? To take it from $900-million-plus and reduce it to $600 million really is an enormous reduction. It may really gut the program in many respects. Why is it

sound to do that before your studies are complete?

CHANGE FROM DISCRETIONARY TO STATE GRANT FUNDING

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, the information we received from

the studies also aligned with the changing of this program. This

program, from 1997 up until last year, was a discretionary grant

program. The applications came into the Department, and we funded them based on the quality of those applications. In the No Child

Left Behind Act, the program was changed to a State grant program. And 2003, our current funding year, will be the last year of

funding for all of those discretionary grants that we had given out

before. So it is also what you might call a natural turnoff time in

the way that the program is operated under the new reauthorized

law.

CHANGES IN PROGRAM OPERATION

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Hansen, I do not understand that at all.

What is the relevancy of whether it is a discretionary program or

a State grant program on the question as to how well it is working?

Mr. HANSEN. Because of the way that the program has worked

before—under the previous statutory construction—we do not believe, and I do not think Congress believed, that the program was

designed effectively, and that is why the changes were made in the

No Child Left Behind law.

Senator SPECTER. Well, now just a minute. Speak for yourself; do

not speak for Congress. Do not tell this subcommittee what Congress thinks unless you have some factual basis for it. Do you?
8

Mr. HANSEN. There were changes that were made in the reauthorization of the program that now require that States run these

competitions and that also open up the program not just to school

districts, but to other community-based providers and faith-based

providers and nonprofit organizations.

Senator SPECTER. Well, there are frequently changes in reauthorization which do not bear on a determination that the program is

ineffective. Do you have something specific from the reauthorization legislation which supports your statement that there is a congressional conclusion that the program was ineffective?

Mr. HANSEN. I did not say that Congress said it was ineffective.

They made changes to strengthen the program and change the direction of the program.

Senator SPECTER. No, you said that the Congress as well as the

administration—adopted language to the effect of being disappointed in the program, not satisfied with it.

Mr. HANSEN. They made changes in the program, in the 2001 reauthorization of the program.

Senator SPECTER. Well, aside from the changes, do you have any

basis for saying that Congress was dissatisfied with the program?

Mr. HANSEN. We do not, sir.

TRANSITION TO STATE-ADMINISTERED PROGRAM

Senator SPECTER. Well, when you talked about a change from

discretionary funding to State grants, how is that relevant on the

quality of the program?

Mr. HANSEN. We think that the way that the States are going

to work with these grants, also the changes that were made in the

reauthorization include a provision that States also have to focus

the after-school programs on schools that are identified as needing

improvement, and this is, we think, a better targeting of those

school districts, to the schools within those school districts, that

need the monies targeted for the after-school program.

Senator SPECTER. Well, if you are talking about targeting, that

could be the object of a discretionary program, as well, could it not?

Mr. HANSEN. Absolutely.

Senator SPECTER. So I still do not understand the relevancy of

your distinction between discretionary and State grants.

Mr. HANSEN. We think this gives States more control and more

authority over how to spend their funds, and also by aligning the

way that they are going to be approving the applications at the

local district level to make sure that they are targeting those

schools that are in need of improvement.

Senator SPECTER. But does that say anything about the inadequacy or failure of the discretionary program?

Mr. HANSEN. No, sir.

PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT FINDINGS IN EVALUATION

Senator SPECTER. The studies show that, as summarized, that

there was more parental involvement in the program. Is that an

accurate conclusion from your preliminary studies?

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, sir.
9

MATH PERFORMANCE FINDINGS IN EVALUATION

Senator SPECTER. And it showed that math scores were at least

slightly higher?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, but we had very small numbers of children who were tested in math. But your conclusion is correct; math

scores were slightly higher.

Senator SPECTER. And that African American and Hispanic middle-school students had better grades, had less absenteeism and

tardiness?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Those subgroups did better than other groups

in the after-school program.

Senator SPECTER. Is it not pretty important how it impacted on

the Hispanic and African American students where there is customarily a greater concern about the quality of education?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We think that the subgroup analysis is very

interesting and suggests an avenue to proceed, in terms of designing new programs. Clearly, there are subgroups that are likely to

benefit. How one could structure a program so that it is particularly appealing to those subgroups and serves their needs would be

an avenue for future development and research.

MATHEMATICA STUDY OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Senator SPECTER. Well, does not it also support the conclusion

that it is a good program?

Mr. WHITEHURST. It is very difficult to go in after the fact, analyze for subgroups, and be sure that the effects would be the same

as they are generalized to programs at large. This study, the study

you are referring to, the Mathematica study, is a very carefully designed study in the context of typical research and education evaluation. It, for one thing, involved a randomization, which is very

rare in education research. It also involved, at the middle-school

level, a carefully matched comparison group. So it is one of the

stronger studies we have available in the whole of the education

evaluation literature, and it spoke generally to weak effects—no increases in reading scores, a slight increase in the possibility of drug

involvement at the middle-school level—some positive effects, some

negative effects; added up, all small in both directions and an overall sense that the program is simply not accomplishing what everyone hopes it would accomplish, at least in those sites that were

studied.

Senator SPECTER. Well, you have moved from the area where

there had been improvement to your generalization of dissatisfaction. And your last answer identifies the difficulties of evaluation.

And that is why, frankly, I am surprised that, when your studies

are incomplete, you come in and want to reduce it from $933 million to $600 million. Your last answer articulates the difficulty of

making an evaluation. And the evaluation is incomplete.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Well, my comments are intended to indicate

that this is one of the strongest evaluations that exists in the education literature. There are a number of policy decisions that could

be made with respect to a particular evaluation outcome. This

study does not compel a budget reduction, but it is a very strong
10

study, and I am here to speak to the qualities of the study and not

to the budget decision.

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Hansen or Mr. Whitehurst—we had heard

you were not going to testify, Mr. Whitehurst, but we are glad to

have you testify.

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you, sir.

BENEFIT-TO-COST FINDINGS IN TWO AFTER-SCHOOL STUDIES

Senator SPECTER. Are you familiar with the Washington State

Institute for Public Policy, which found that after-school programs

can yield a benefit-to-cost ratio to taxpayers and crime victims of

$1.87 to $5.29 for every dollar spent?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am aware of that conclusion, yes, sir.

Senator SPECTER. And the Rose Institute study finds that quality

after-school programs can reduce costs related to welfare, crime,

and education, remedial services, and grade repetition, for an average net benefit of between $79,000-plus to $119,000-plus per participant?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, sir, I am aware of that conclusion.

CENTER FOR THE STUDY AND PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

Senator SPECTER. And are you aware of the studies, without detailing each of them, which have concluded that after-school programs assist students in achieving in school—most notably the conclusion drawn by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am aware of a number of studies that examine many of the——

Senator SPECTER. How about the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence? That is the question.

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am not sure of which study that is. I have

probably read it, but I am not sure, Senator.

Senator SPECTER. Well, would you take a look at it and tell us

what——

Mr. WHITEHURST. I would be pleased——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. You think of it?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I would be pleased to.

[The information follows:]

ANALYSIS OF THE BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY STUDY OF THE AFTER-SCHOOL QUANTUM OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM, AS COMMENTED ON BY THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY AND

PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE

Below is the Department’s brief analysis of the Brandeis University study, which

is the basis for the comments by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. The Center’s statement on the Brandeis study’s findings is followed by the

Department’s analysis of the study.

STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘Participation in the Quantum Opportunities Program led to higher rates of graduation: 63 percent of participants graduated high school compared to 42 percent of

the control group.’’——Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence references a summary of a

report by three researchers from Brandeis University of the Quantum Opportunities

Program (QOP).
11

—The finding is from a study of a program that offers more expensive, different

services from those offered through after-school programs.—QOP was a small

demonstration program operating with approximately two and a half times the

funding per student than a 21st CCLC program. It also paid cash incentives to

participants for various accomplishments and to staff based on student participation hours.

—Methodological problems with the study.—Although originally the study was a

random assignment design, the study appeared to include follow-up information

only for a subset of the originally selected study participants who remained in

the program (Hahn, Andrew, Tom Leavitt, and Paul Aaron. ‘‘Evaluation of the

Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP). Did the Program Work? A Report of

the Post Secondary Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of the QOP Program

(1989–93).’’ Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School, Center

for Human Resources, 1994: p. 2). Not following the full sample of study participants invalidates the random assignment design. To the extent that program

participants who benefit less from the program are more likely to be those who

dropped out of the program, the estimated benefits from this study are exaggerated.

DISCUSSION OF TWO AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM BENEFIT-COST STUDIES CONDUCTED BY

THE WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY, AND THE ROSE INSTITUTE

In addition, the Department has included a brief analysis of the two studies conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, and the Rose Institute—

discussed during the hearing—which looked at the cost-effectiveness of after-school

programs. Both of these benefit-cost analysis studies are either based on studies

that are not of after-school programs or of studies where long-term follow-ups of

services provided were so long ago—the early 1940s or early 1960s—that their relevance to today’s programs is at least questionable (the Perry Preschool study and

the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study). A brief description and discussion of the

two cited benefit-cost analysis studies follows:

STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘The Washington State Institute for Public Policy finds that effective after-school

programs can yield a benefit-to-cost ratio to taxpayers and crime victims of $1.87

to $5.29 for every dollar spent.’’——The Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Discussion and Analysis

The calculated benefit-to-cost ratios cited here are based on evaluation studies of

three programs—the Quantum Opportunities Program, the Big Brothers/Big Sisters

program, and the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, as well as the estimates of

cost implications based on the criminal justice system operating in Washington

State.

—Estimates are based on programs that offer different services from those offered

by after-school programs.—The Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) is an

intensive comprehensive service program including mentoring for youth. The

other two are mentoring programs. In contrast, after-school programs are offered in group settings with typical student to staff ratios of 10:1. Therefore,

attributing the benefits found in these studies to typical after-school programs

is likely to misstate the likely benefits of after-school programs.

—Estimates only compare one program to another.—The intention of the report

was to provide relative costs and benefits of various programs. The authors caution about using such results as actual dollar benefits—‘‘it is probably more useful to compare [the] results from one program to another, rather than solely focusing on the absolute value of any particular benefit-to-cost ratio.’’ (Aos, Steve,

Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. ‘‘The Comparative Costs and

Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Version 4.0.’’ Olympia, WA: Washington

State Institute for Public Policy, 2001: p. 3).

STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘The Rose Institute finds that quality after-school programs can reduce costs related to welfare, crime, and education (remediation services and grade repetition)

for an average net benefit of between $79,484 and $119,427 per participant.’’——

Rose Institute
12

Discussion and Analysis

The calculated benefit-to-cost ratios cited here are primarily based on two evaluation studies—the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP) and the Perry Preschool

Project.

—Estimates are based on programs that offer different services from those offered

through after-school programs. QOP was a demonstration program providing intensive services to a small number of high school students. The Perry Preschool

project provided a high quality active preschool environment for 3 to 4 year

olds.

—Imprecise benefit estimates. Most of the estimated benefits in this report originate from estimated increased lifetime income and estimated benefits associated

with estimated reduced crime—both of which are difficult to estimate with

much precision or credibility.

ACADEMIC GAINS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

Senator SPECTER. How about the study by Gansk & Associates

reporting gains in standardized test scores and reading and math

were greater for students participating in after-school programs

than for comparable students according to a study of 19 elementary

schools in five States? Are you familiar with that study?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I do not have that one in front of me. I would

have to check, again, to give you my reaction to it.

Senator SPECTER. Does not come to mind.

Mr. WHITEHURST. It does not come to mind, sir.

LA’S BEST AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. And how about the UCLA Center for

the Study of Evaluation? In the initial year of study, LA’s BEST

students began with the math achievement scores that were significantly lower than nonparticipants. After long-term participation

in the after-school programs, these students increased their test

scores to be comparable to their peers. Familiar with that one?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am very aware of that study, yes, sir.

Senator SPECTER. Is there some defect in that study that would

lead you to disagree with its conclusion?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Most of the studies that have addressed afterschool programs are flawed in the following respect.

Senator SPECTER. Well, I do not want to hear about most.

Mr. WHITEHURST. I will talk to you about this one then, as an

example——

Senator SPECTER. That is what I would like to hear.

Mr. WHITEHURST [continuing]. As an example of a flaw that is

present in many of the studies like this.

Senator SPECTER. Well, now——

Mr. WHITEHURST. The flaw——

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. I am interested in this study——

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am responding to the question, sir.

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. And if you could respond to flaws

in it, as to this study.

DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM OUTCOMES OF EVALUATION SUBSETS

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am glad to respond simply to this study then,

Senator.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you.

Mr. WHITEHURST. The problem with the L.A.’s BEST study is

that it examines the differences between children who were long-
13

term participants in the after-school program and compares the

findings for those children with children at large in the district or

children who were similar to children who entered the program in

the initial years. So there is a comparison between a small subset

of children, who chose, either because of their own interests or the

interests of their parents, to participate over an extended period of

time, over a period of years, with the outcomes of children who

never volunteered for an after-school program and did not participate. It is a very awkward and potentially misleading comparison.

If you, Senator, were out looking for a diet program—you would

not need one; I might add—and I asked the diet program how participants in the program do, and the diet program said: ‘‘Well,

those people who participate in our program for 5 years lose a lot

of weight.’’ That would not, for me, be a compelling comparison. I

would like to know how people, in general, the typical customer of

that program, performs.

That is the question that has to be asked for after-school programs. How does the average, the typical, child who enrolled in the

program do compared to similar children who did not enroll, and

that comparison is not present in the L.A. BEST program.

Senator SPECTER. Would that critique apply to your studies?

Mr. WHITEHURST. No, it would not.

MATHEMATICA, INC. FINDINGS ON TARDINESS AND MATH SCORES

Senator SPECTER. Are you familiar with the study of

Mathematica, Inc., which concluded that after participating in a

21st Century Community Learning Center programs, its black and

Hispanic students reduced tardiness to class and increased math

scores compared to nonparticipants?

Mr. WHITEHURST. Yes, I am aware of that.

Senator SPECTER. Do you disagree with those conclusions?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I do not disagree with the conclusions. The

conclusions——

Senator SPECTER. Is there some problem——

Mr. WHITEHURST [continuing]. Are there——

Senator SPECTER. Is there some problem with that study?

Mr. WHITEHURST. The problem is the subgroup analysis. There

was no directly comparable group among the nonparticipants. So it

is a very promising finding. It is not a conclusive finding.

Senator SPECTER. It is a very what?

Mr. WHITEHURST. A very promising finding, something we certainly need to follow up on.

Senator SPECTER. Would you do that?

Mr. WHITEHURST. We are planning on doing that, yes, sir.

Senator SPECTER. Uh-huh. If you have enough subgroups, Mr.

Whitehurst, do you not have a pretty solid basis for a generalized

conclusion?

Mr. WHITEHURST. If you have enough subgroups, you have a

pretty good basis for a finding that some of those subgroups do better than other of the subgroups, and that is the problem with the

subgroup analysis. Once you start——

Senator SPECTER. Well, but if you had——

Mr. WHITEHURST [continuing]. Going in and trying to look for

findings in particular subgroups, you are likely to find them for
14

some of those groups, and it is very difficult to know whether that

would replicate. That is why it is a very interesting and encouraging finding that we are very intent on following up.

NRC FINDINGS AND SCHOOL-SPONSORED ACTIVITIES PARTICIPATION

Senator SPECTER. Are you familiar with the National Research

Council, which found students who reported spending no time in

school-sponsored activities after school versus students spending 1

to 4 hours in such activities were 57 percent more likely to have

dropped out before reaching 12th grade?

Mr. WHITEHURST. I am aware of that, Senator. It would probably

be the same finding for participation in sports or music or anything

else. Kids who choose to participate in activities compared to those

who do not are likely to finish school, do better in terms of grades,

and a number of other factors, which represents differences in the

motivation and background and interest of children who are voluntary participants versus children who do not avail themselves of

opportunities that are present at school.

Senator SPECTER. Well, the subcommittee would like you to give

us an analysis of those programs without further questioning at

this time——

Mr. WHITEHURST. Thank you, I would be pleased to do that.

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. And compare them to the studies

which you have undertaken.

[The information follows:]

ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS OF SIX STUDIES ON AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Overall, we find that the studies cited at the Congressional hearing on May 13,

2003, do not provide scientifically based evidence of effectiveness of after-school programs. First, some of the cited studies are not of after-school programs. Second,

most of the studies did not use scientifically rigorous methods and thus the results

cannot be reliably attributed to participation in the program. Other factors, such as

student or family background characteristics, could result in the outcome differences

between participants and non-participants. In some cases, the researchers of the

original reports openly discussed the limitations of the methods they used, cautioning readers about placing too much weight on the findings.

Below is the Department’s response to Senator Specter’s request to provide a brief

analysis of a list of study findings on after-school programs.

1. STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘Gains in standardized test scores in reading and math were greater for students

participating in after-school programs than for comparable students, according to a

study of 19 elementary schools in five states.’’——Gansk & Associates

Discussion and Analysis

The statement refers to a report on the Foundations After-School Enrichment Program (Klein, Stephen, and Roger Bolus. ‘‘Improvements in Math and Reading Scores

of Students Who Did and Did Not Participate in the Foundations After School Enrichment Program During the 2001–2002 School Year.’’ Santa Monica, CA: GANSK

& Associates, 2002).

—Study design is not scientifically rigorous.—The authors calculate test score

gains for a small number of program participants and nonparticipants at the

same schools in five counties in which this program operates. The study design

is seriously flawed constructing an inappropriate group of students for comparison. Since the unsophisticated analyses fail to account for potentially important

differences between participants and non-participants (e.g., initial test score differences and likely motivational differences since the non-participants elected

not to participate in the program even though it was available), the findings

cannot be attributed to participation in the program.
15

2. STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘In the initial year of study, LA’s BEST students began with math achievement

scores that were significantly lower than non-participants. After long-term participation in the after-school program, these students increased their test scores to be

comparable to their peers.’’——UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation

Discussion and Analysis

This is an evaluation of a single program, LA’s BEST after-school program, with

two reports conducted by the Center for the Study of Evaluation at the University

of California at Los Angeles (Brooks, Pauline E., Cynthia M. Mojica, and Robert E.

Land. ‘‘Final Evaluation Report. Longitudinal Study of LA’s BEST After School Education and Enrichment Program, 1992–94.’’ Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study

of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 1995;

Huang, Denise, Barry Gribbons, Kyung Sung Kim, Charlotte Lee, and Eva L. Baker.

‘‘A Decade of Results: The Impact of the LA’s BEST After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance.’’ Los Angeles, CA:

UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, 2000).

—Study design is not scientifically rigorous.—The 1995 study compares a select

sample of 130 students: a nonrandom sample of program participants with 66

students who participated in the program for less than 3 months and left the

program. The 2000 study compares a group (an unspecified number) of program

participants with those who elected not to participate in the program (even

though it was available to them). Constructing groups for comparison in these

manners results in likely group differences that are unmeasurable and thus unable to be taken into consideration in the analyses. Therefore, the findings in

both reports cannot be attributed to participation in the program.

—Study findings are mixed and incomplete.—Both reports, but particularly the

more recent report, lack proper documentation (e.g., response rates, sample size,

full reporting of findings, and details of analysis techniques) that is routinely

reported in high-quality research. In the 1995 report, the findings were sensitive to estimation method (LA’s BEST participants scored lower than the comparison group when one method was used, and an alternative method showed

opposite findings). The first method ‘‘controlled for length of time the students

attended the program and statistically adjusted the before program’ performances of both groups of students... this analysis yielded little in the way of

encouraging results. The only significant effects were associated with ethnicity

and gender’’ (Brooks et al. 1995:13). With this method, LA’s BEST students had

lower grades than the control group in all areas. The second method ‘‘controlled

for initial differences by eliminating outliers’—students who had unusually high

or low performances—from both groups’’ (Brooks et al. 1995:14). With this

method, LA’s BEST students had higher grades than the control group in all

areas.

3. STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘After participating in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program,

black and Hispanic students reduced tardiness to class and increased math scores

compared to non-participants.’’—Mathematica, Inc.

Discussion and Analysis

This is one select finding from the Department’s evaluation of the 21st CCLC program conducted by Mathematica Policy Research. As mentioned at the hearing, this

is a promising subgroup finding among many other findings for the program that

indicate, on average, the program fails to demonstrate effectiveness. Due to the nature of statistics, given enough different outcomes, it is possible to find one or two

findings or a single subgroup that is statistically significant. It is impossible at this

point without further data and additional studies to know the importance and reliability of this finding.

4. STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘Students who reported spending no time in a school-sponsored activity (after

school) versus students spending 4 hours in such activities were 57 percent more

likely to have dropped out before reaching the 12th grade.’’——National Research

Council
16

Discussion and Analysis

This finding is based on analyses of the National Educational Longitudinal Study

(NELS) a longitudinal survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (Zill, Nicholas, Christine W. Nord, and Laura S. Loomis. ‘‘Adolescent Time

Use, Risky Behavior, and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data.’’ Rockville, MD:

Westat, 1995).

—Finding not related to after-school programs.—This finding is based on sophisticated analytical techniques to investigate high school student responses to the

question: ‘‘In a typical week, how much total time do you spend on all

SCHOOL-SPONSORED extracurricular activities.’’ Inclusion of activities such

as band, orchestra, and organized sports clearly indicates that responses were

not necessarily referencing after-school programs.

—Study also includes negative findings.—Although the statement highlights a

positive finding, the study also found that students who participated in particular extracurricular activities actually increased their chances that they

would engage in certain risky behaviors.

5. REPORTED SOURCE

Sacramento START program—two reports by Minicucci Associates—(Minicucci,

Catherine. ‘‘Students Today Achieving Results for Tomorrow: Evaluation Report for

START 1999/2000.’’ Sacramento, CA: Minicucci Associates, August 2001. Minicucci,

Catherine. ‘‘Students Today Achieving Results for Tomorrow: Evaluation Report for

START 2000/2001.’’ Minicucci Associates, Sacramento, California. October 2001.)

Discussion and Analysis

The evaluation compared data on program participants for which there was test

score data for the school years 1999–2000 and 1998–99.

—Study design is not scientifically rigorous.—All analyses are based only on program participants. With such a design, it is impossible to determine whether

program participants fared better or worse than they would have without the

program. Because students generally improve their academic proficiency with

an additional year of schooling, any gain in test scores could reflect normal

progress.

—Reported findings are mixed.—Reported results indicated that participant math

scores increased while participant reading scores declined between the two

school years.

6. STATEMENT AND REPORTED SOURCE

‘‘Participation in the Quantum Opportunities Program led to higher rates of graduation: 63 percent of participants graduated high school compared to 42 percent of

the control group.’’——Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

Discussion and Analysis

The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence references a summary of a

report by three researchers from Brandeis University of the Quantum Opportunities

Program (QOP).

—The finding is from a study of a program that offers more expensive, different

services from those offered through after-school programs.—QOP was a small

demonstration program operating with approximately two and a half times the

funding per student than a 21st CCLC program. It also paid cash incentives to

participants for various accomplishments and to staff based on student participation hours.

—Methodological problems with the study.—Although originally the study was a

random assignment design, the study appeared to include follow-up information

only for a subset of the originally selected study participants who remained in

the program (Hahn, Andrew, Tom Leavitt, and Paul Aaron. ‘‘Evaluation of the

Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP). Did the Program Work? A Report of

the Post Secondary Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of the QOP Program

(1989–93).’’ Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School, Center

for Human Resources, 1994: p. 2). Not following the full sample of study participants invalidates the random assignment design. To the extent that program

participants who benefit less from the program are more likely to be those who

dropped out of the program, the estimated benefits from this study are exaggerated.

Senator SPECTER. Okay, thank you very much.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17

Senator SPECTER. The subcommittee would now be pleased to

hear from Senator Barbara Boxer.

Good morning, Senator Boxer.

Senator BOXER. Good morning, Senator.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you for joining us.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CALIFORNIA

Senator BOXER. It is wonderful to be here with you.

Senator SPECTER. We are going to turn on the lights for you, like

we do for everybody, if——

Senator BOXER. Yes, that is fine.

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. That is satisfactory.

Senator BOXER. I will not—I will endeavor to stick within the

time. If I go over, it will be a mini-go-over.

So let me, first of all, thank you for the last 7 years, you have

been working with me and others in a bipartisan way. I want to

start off by thanking you, because for the last 7 years you have

worked with me and others in a bipartisan way to make afterschool something that we do here, that we do well here, and that

we can assist the States and the local school districts in doing.

I want to just—because I was so interested in the first panel and

your questioning of them, I wanted to ask if I might put in the

record an executive summary of a report that was done on the Sacramento START Program, just the executive summary.

Senator SPECTER. Certainly, without objection, it will be made a

part of the record.

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information follows:]

SUPPORTING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: EVALUATION REPORT FOR START 2000/2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The is a summary of the 2000/2001 evaluation of the START after school program,

an innovative regional after school program operated by the City of Sacramento in

collaboration with the County of Sacramento and six area school districts. The evaluation includes findings on student learning and attendance, findings from student

interviews, and results of staff focus groups. The evaluation team would like to express its appreciation to the school district staff who assisted in the gathering of

the information on student learning and attendance needed for this report.

Highlights Include

—Student learning gains in math (3 NCE points) with higher gains for English

—Language Learners (4 NCE points)

—Slight decline in reading (1 NCE point) for all students and English speakers

and no change in reading for English Language Learners

—Attendance improvement for students who missed 10 or more days of school in

the previous year: 4.7 fewer absent days in the year they were in START compared to the previous year

—Steady gain in math achievement over two years for students followed for two

years

—Improved attendance for students in the program for two years with improved

attendance evident in the first year of START continued into the second year.

2.2 fewer days absent over two years. For problem attenders there was a two

year decline in days missed of school of 6.2 days

Background

START was founded in 1995 with 18 elementary schools in five districts. In 2000/

2001, the program involved six school districts and 32 elementary schools. START

programs on school sites served 3,820 students in grades 1–6 in 2000/2001. The

total number of participants by site range from 52 to 359 students, with an average
18

of 119 students. Participating elementary schools serve low income neighborhoods.

The City of Sacramento Department of Neighborhood Services serves as the fiscal

agent for the program, employs and trains staff, and prepares reports to funders.

The schools and districts provide space for the program on elementary school campuses, collaborate on curriculum planning and support the program financially with

matching funds.

In the 2000/2001 school year, the following districts participated in Sacramento

START. The number of elementary schools in the program within each district are

in parentheses: Del Paso Heights School District (1), Elk Grove Unified School District (1), Natomas School District (2), North Sacramento School District (4), Rio

Linda Union School District (3) and Sacramento City Unified School District (21).

Evaluation

Methods

The evaluation consultant selected 1,200 students in grades 3 through 6 who had

participated at least 30 days in START in February and March of 2001. State requirements for evaluation call for a comparison between student achievement and

attendance in the program year (2000/2001) compared to the previous year (1999/

2000)The evaluators researched school district records and found that 748 of these

students had complete SAT9 testing information for spring 2000 and spring 2001

and 705 students had complete attendance information for the 1999/2000 and 2000/

2001 school years. The evaluation group in 2000/2001 included 227 students who

were included in last year’s evaluation for the 1999/2000 report, Achieving Results.

A separate analysis of results for these 227 students enabled the evaluation to examine the impact of START on students who remain in the program two consecutive

years. The state also asks local programs to administer four interview question to

students as they begin the program and at the end of the program. These four questions about student behavior and connection to school are also used in the federal

government’s 21st Century Learning Community evaluation of federally funded

after school programs.

Preparing the 2000/2001 evaluation report was a collaborative effort between the

evauation team, school district staff, and START staff. During the process, the

school district staff expressed a desire for additional analyses by district and school

and potential for comparison groups of non participating START students. The extent of district staff involvement and engagement with the evaluation has grown

over the past six months as Minicucci Associates have prepared two evaluation reports for the program under state guidelines. District preferences and desires for enhancements for the evaluation analysis have become more prominent in the 2000/

2001 study and will become even more apparent in the 2001/2002 evaluation next

fall.

Findings

The 748 students in the evaluation group were more female (54 percent) than

male (44 percent). (For 2 percent of sample students, gender was unknown.) Younger students were more heavily represented that upper grade students in the program. Third graders comprised 30 percent of the students, fourth graders were 33

percent, 24 percent were in the fifth grade and 13 percent were in the sixth grade.

Ethnically, the students were diverse with 29 percent Hispanic, 27 percent African

American, 23 percent Asian, 15 percent White and the remaining 1 percent other.

For 5 percent of sample students, ethnicity information was not available. Slightly

over one third of the students (34 percent) were English Language Learners and

spoke a language other than English. Major languages represented included: Spanish (45 percent), Hmong (31 percent), Hindi (7 percent), Mien (5 percent) and Chinese (5 percent) (both Mandarin and Cantonese.)

1. Student Learning Outcomes on SAT9

Overall, the average results on SAT9 reading for the 748 students showed a 1

point decline between 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. In math there was a 3 NCE point

gain. Both changes were statistically significant. English Language Learners remained stead in math with no gain or loss in NCE points in spring 2001. English

speakers lost 1 NCE point in reading. In math, English Language Learners gained

4 NCE points compared to English speakers who gained 2 NCE points. These findings are similar to those in the 1999/2000 report on START: English Language

Learners make greater achievement test gains and all students do better in math

than in reading on the standardized tests.

The state requests districts to examine growth in learning for students in the bottom 25 percentile rank or quartile. For reading, 37 percent of START students were

in the bottom quartile in 1999/2000 and 20 percent of those students moved up to
19

a higher achievement level out of the 25th percentile rank in spring 2001. In math,

30 percent were in the bottom quartile in 1999/2000 and 42 percent of those students moved up in spring 2001 to higher quartiles in math achievement. Overall,

there were 2 percent more students in the bottom quartile in reading in spring 2001

than in spring 2000. In math, there were 31 percent of students in the bottom quartile in spring 2000 and 24 percent in spring 2001, a drop of 7 percentage points.

English Language Learners showed a 1 percent drop in the proportion scoring in

the lowest quartile in reading and a 10 percent drop in the lowest quartile in math.

English speakers showed a 3 percentage point gain in the lowest quartile in reading

and a 6 percent drop in the lowest quartile in math between spring 2000 and spring

2001.

Turning to the group of 227 returning START students who were in last year’s

report, they showed steady gains in math while continuing to struggle in reading.

In reading, the students declined 2 NCE points between spring 1999 and spring

2001. In math, the students gained 4 NCE points between spring 1999 and spring

2001. Low performing students in this group did slightly better than the 748 evaluation group students as a whole. In the spring of 2000, 38 percent of the returning

group was in the lowest reading quartile and 28 percent was in the lowest math

quartile. When the students were tested in the spring of 2001, 22 percent moving

out of the lowest performing cartel in reading and 45 percent moving out of the lowest quartile in math.

2. Student Attendance

Students in START in the 2000/2001 school year showed a small improvement in

overall school attendance compared to the 1999/2000 school year: from 5.5 days

missed to 5.4 days missed for 0.1 fewer absent days. In missing fewer than 10 days

of school, these children can be characterized overall as good attenders. Students

who had been problem attenders in the previous year, missing 10 or more days of

school showed a dramatic gain in attendance and a reduction in days absent, dropping from 14.8 days absent to 10.1 days, a reduction of 4.7 days absent. These children got five more days of instruction in the year they particpated in START.

The group of 227 returning START students showed improved attendance in the

first year they were in START and that that improvement continued into the second

year. These students missed 7.3 days in 1998/1999, 5 days in 1999/2000 and 5.1

days in 2000/2001 or a two year drop in days absent of 2.2 days. The problem

attenders missing 10 or more days of school went from 15.9 days absent in 1998/

99 to 9.8 days to 9.7 days absent in 2000/2001. Their two year drop in days absent

was 6.2 days. These results suggest that students who continue in START sustain

their improved attendance over a two year period. By attending more days in school,

these children have more opportunity to learn academic content.

3. Student Interviews

Students in federal and state funded after school programs are asked four questions at the start and end of the program. A total of 76 responses to the pre and

post questions for participants in START were gathered, about 10 percent of the

achievement test sample for 2000/2001. The children are asked: ‘‘In the past 30 days

—How often have you wanted to go to school?

—How often have you studied for a test?

—How often have you felt unsafe at school?

—How often has your mom, dad or guardian talked to you about school or homework?’’

In general, the pre-tests show that the START students like going to school, about

two thirds of them reported studying hard for a test in the past month, almost 60

percent report never feeling unsafe at school and 45 percent speak with their parent

or guardian daily about school. On the post test, the proportion of children wanting

to go to school dropped, as did the proportion reporting they studied hard for a test

in the past month. About the same number as on the pre-test reported feeling safe

always at school on the post test. A higher proportion, over half, reported speaking

daily with their parent or guardian about school on the post test.

4. Focus Groups With START Staff

The evaluation team conducted end-of-the-year reflection discussions with 25 Site

Directors and 5 Regional Directors in May 2001. Staff related their pride in START

as a safe alternative for children after school, providing reliable after school care

for parents to enable them to work. This is particularly helpful for families coming

off of welfare. Milestones in the 2000/2001 school year included: involving high

school students as tutors and mentors in a science program, participation in 4H Cooperative Extension enrichment activities, UC Davis ‘‘Steps to College’’ program at

eight START sites, the Grant High School art and garden project at four START
20

schools and a special nutrition program at eleven START sites. START also participated in the Sacramento County Fair ‘‘Chicken in the Egg’’ contest in which student

efforts resulted in 47 blue ribbons for the program.

Site Directors report that many of the children they work with in START need

support services: basic needs like food and clothing, social services or health services. They also report that students come into the program often are tired and in

need of some fun, a snack and a break. They feel the kids need a break to unwind

so it is very hard to launch immediately into academic program content with them

when they start the after school program.

The largest challenges for Site Directors and Regional Directors is turnover in

Program Leaders. The need to train new Program Leaders during the school year

is time consuming for Site Directors. All staff voiced the belief that consistent, well

trained after school program staff is key to ensuring a high quality program. Many

Site Directors were previously Program Leaders or school aides so they bring valuable experience to their assignment in START. Successful strategies for training

staff include shadowing experienced START staff, observing skilled classroom teachers during the school day and having classroom teachers observe the new hires and

offer suggestions. Site Directors and Regional Directors feel that a lower staff/child

ratio (lower than the current 20:1) and higher hourly pay would be desirable. A key

requirement of START is the need to collaboratively share classroom space with

teachers at each site. In about half of the schools, staff report that the relationships

have been carefully worked out. In the other half, the challenge continues of trying

to operate a program in space that is used during the day by the regular faculty

of the school. START staff felt that regular communication between the START staff

and the school faculty would help bridge the gap.

START staff feel pressure to advance academic learning of students, particularly

in literacy. Students want, more music and art which is often lacking in the regular

school day. Staff expressed frustration with the pressure to stress reading with students who crave enrichment and fun. The challenge is how to make reading fun and

worthwhile for students.

START staff offered a number of concrete suggestions for strengthening the program, including adding more enrichment opportunities and field trips. Site directors

would like a parent volunteer component integrated into the program. Site Directors

appreciated the opportunity to reflect together and requested that this discussion

opportunity be repeated on a regular basis. Quarterly reflection discussions will be

continued in the 2001/2002 school year with evaluation team members facilitating

the discussion.

‘‘In established START sites, students tell their teachers what they’re doing in

START, their homework gets completed and the teachers learn the value of the program directly from the children.’’—— Site Director

‘‘Get college students to be Program Leaders in START, especially those who want

to be teachers. START could be a laboratory for people who want to work with

kids.’’——Site Director

THE SACRAMENTO START PROGRAM

Senator BOXER. That was outsourced to a group called Minicucci

Associates, and they did this report. And without going into too

much time on the findings, they said, ‘‘START fosters enthusiasm

for learning by engaging children in fun, literacy-focused activities

in a safe and caring environment. START expands the school day

and supports district goals.’’ And then they actually quantify the

increase in learning, Mr. Chairman, compared to the kids who do

not go, which was one of the things, criteria, that was laid out

here. So thank you for allowing me to do that.

I want to start off by showing you an ad that ran in yesterday’s

New York Times and USA Today and all over the country, ‘‘It is

3 p.m. Do you know where your kids are?’’ I have to just go up so

I get this right. The Office of National Drug Control Policy, which

is an arm of this administration, and what a wonderful ad this is,

I might say. It really caught my attention, and I think everybody

who would see it, on a big, you know, newspaper page, blank except for that. And it goes into saying how kids can get in trouble.
21

So it seems like an anomaly to me, Mr. Chairman, that while the

administration is working hard to give this message to parents,

how important it is they know where their kids are; on the other

hand, we are looking at deep cuts in after-school. And I wanted to

point that out, because I think those two things are contradictory.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

I also just wanted to quickly show you the numbers. I know you

know them, but for the record, make it really simple as to where

we are, with your help, again on a bipartisan basis, and I was able

to write the authorization bill with Senator Ensign, who has a very

compelling story about his life as a kid and the fact that he did not

have a dad in the home and that he got in a lot of trouble as a

kid and that he feels very strongly that our children need to be protected and need to be accounted for. And he teamed up with me,

and we were able to get so much support. And we are up to the

billion-dollar level this year. The Bush proposal, as you noted,

would take this down a huge amount, 40 percent. That means the

number of children kicked out of the program, 570,000. So, I mean,

if you hold up, again, that first chart, Liz—thank you for being

such a wonderful helper—we are going to have 570,000 kids, if we

do not do something about that number, who are now unaccounted

for. It makes things worse.

Now, the next chart I wanted to show you is where we should

be under the Leave No Child Left Behind Act, which our President

signed and we all, so many of us, supported. Under that bill, we

should be, in 2004, at 1.75 billion. And, again, taking that where

it is, it will wind up—if we were to fully fund it, we would be taking care of a 1,600,000 more children.

It is a pretty stark cut, and I think that your questioning, which

I followed closely, and your prodding, was essentially this is a pretty deep cut when we do not really have the final studies.

And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to place my

entire statement in the record, and I am going to——

Senator SPECTER. Without objection, it will be made a part of the

record.

Senator BOXER [continuing]. And I am going to try to finish this

in 1 or 2 minutes at the most.

L.A.’S BEST AND SACRAMENTO START: AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

I have gone all over the State to look at these programs, from

L.A.’s BEST to Sacramento START. Those are very large programs.

There are also smaller programs. And I have seen the kids, and I

see the look in their faces, and I talk to their parents. And I know

what these programs have meant to these families. Our studies

show the kids do better. But you know what, Mr. Chairman? You

can see. You can see it when you look at the kids, how good they

feel about themselves and how motivated they are to do their

homework, because they have support there.

I have here two stories. I only have time to read one. And this

is a young man from L.A.’s BEST. Let me make sure I get the right

story. As a first-grader at Langdon Elementary School in North

Hills, Mauricio faced the strong possibility that his lifestyle would

be one of gangs, crimes, drugs, and violence. Instead, he became
22

one of the first participants in L.A.’s BEST after-school program

when he was in the first grade. Through L.A.’s BEST, Mauricio

came into contact with police officers, tutors, and others, who gave

them an alternative to gang life. Mauricio continued to be a part

of L.A.’s BEST by working at the Langdon site all through high

school. He said: ‘‘I saw a lot of young people doing drugs and crime

and dying when I was growing up. But today I am the first member of my family to attend college.’’ And after graduation he plans

to become a teacher because: ‘‘Young people need someone to look

up to and someone to help them. I want to give them what people

gave to me.’’

So we can talk numbers, and we should, and we must, and we

have to, but this is real. And I know when I talked to you about

this, you really said to me: ‘‘Senator, I want to work with you on

this.’’ I hope, Mr. Chairman, through your efforts and that of Senator Harkin and other Members of the Committee, that we can

take a stand for our children.

PREPARED STATEMENT

And my final word is this. In the 1970s, I had little kids, and

I started to work part-time, and I realized there was no after-school

program. We worked, we set up an after-school program in the

Kentfield Unified School District in a suburban area. It is still

going strong today, and the people think it is just the best. It is

a sliding scale, because some people can afford to pay more than

others. Bottom line, it works for our children, and that is what our

country is really all about.

I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your leadership on

this.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be here today.

I would first like to bring to your attention an advertisement printed in the New

York Times yesterday. One arm of the federal government, the Administration’s Office of National Drug Control Policy agrees that afterschool programs keep kids safe

and away from drugs. A full-page advertisement from the Drug Control Policy Office

states that ‘‘kids involved in after school activities are less likely to use drugs.’’

Meanwhile, based on one study on afterschool programs conducted for the Department of Education, the President’s Budget has proposed a $400 million cut to afterschool programs because the President concluded that afterschool programs do not

work .

If Congress goes along with the Administration’s proposed funding cut, 570,000

kids already in programs will be turned out onto the streets. This deep, unprecedented cut would leave lots of children behind after school—not just leave them behind, but leave them home alone or leave them to join a gang.

However, this is not even the full story. In 2001, I teamed up with Senator John

Ensign in offering an amendment to the No Child Left Behind bill to authorize

funding for afterschool programs. It passed the Senate 60–39—the first afterschool

amendment ever to pass the Senate on a roll call vote.

As enacted, authorized funding for afterschool programs increases $250 million

each year until it reaches $2.5 billion by 2007. This would cover 4 million kids.

By not funding afterschool programs at the level promised—$1.75 billion—1.6 million children will be left behind [Chart 3]. We cannot let this happen. A bipartisan

letter that I circulated—signed by 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans—was recently

sent to you Mr. Chairman, urging full funding of afterschool programs.

The federal afterschool program is vital to so many children and families across

America. I would like take a moment to share just two stories of the millions of stories.
23

As a first grader at Langdon Elementary School in North Hills, Mauricio faced

the strong possibility that his lifestyle would be one of gangs, crime, drugs and violence. Instead, he became one of the first participants in LA’s BEST afterschool program when he was in the first grade. Through LA’s BEST, Mauricio came into contact with police officers, tutors and others who gave him an alternative to gang life.

Mauricio continued to be a part of LA’s Best by working at the Langdon site all

through high school. Mauricio said, ‘‘I saw a lot of young people doing drugs and

crime and dying [when I was growing up] but today, I am the first member of my

family to attend college.’’ After graduation from college, Mauricio plans to be a

teacher because ‘‘young people need someone to look up to and someone to help

them-I want to give them what people gave to me.’’

A second story: Jerry had received several written warnings for his behavior during the regular school day. During a parent conference, it was discovered that problems existed at home, too. Jerry was ‘‘hanging’’ with gang members and beginning

to act like them—and he was only 10-years old. Rallying their resources, his concerned parents began to work with the LA’s Best site coordinator and school staff

to ensure close supervision of Jerry while he was on the playground (where his gang

member friends would be looking for him). Family counseling and increased emphasis on academics were also part of the plan. Soon Jerry was involved in computer

and geometry classes, the science club and the LA’s Best sports program, where he

led his teams to several tournaments. LA’s Best kept Jerry off the streets and out

of a gang.

But it’s more than these 2 examples. Dozens of respected, independent studies—

some of them going into great depth and conducted over many years—confirm that

afterschool programs keep children safe, reduce crime and drug use, and improve

academic performance.

For example, an evaluation of the Sacramento START afterschool program compared students who participated in afterschool programs and those who did not.

Among students who were low performing in reading and writing on state tests,

those who participated in afterschool programs improved their scores 3 times greater than those who did not participate.

Mr. Chairman, I have visited some 20 afterschool programs all around California,

from LA’s Best to Sacramento Start, to programs in San Diego and San Francisco,

among many others. I have talked with students, parents, and instructors to understand how to give every child the best quality experiences after the school bell rings.

When doing so, it is obvious how important afterschool programs are to keeping our

children safe, keeping them out of gangs, and keeping them off drugs.

As the Senate begins working on this year’s appropriations bills, I hope that you

will get us back on track to fully funding afterschool programs.

Finally, I would like to mention another Californian who has become a tireless

advocate for afterschool programs. Since accepting the National Chair of ‘‘Lights on

Afterschool’’ in 2001, Arnold Swartzeneggar has brought attention to the importance

of afterschool programs throughout California and across country. I am so pleased

to see him here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer, for your

devotion to this very important cause. We appreciate your testimony.

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF SECOND-PANEL WITNESSES

We will now turn to our second panel, Mr. Arnold

Schwarzenegger, Mayor John DeStefano, Mr. Harvey Sprafka, Mr.

Steven Kinlock, and Ms. Madison White. If you would all come forward.

STATEMENT OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL INNER-CITY GAMES FOUNDATION

Senator SPECTER. As you are being seated, I will introduce our

first witness, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has appeared in

many blockbuster films, including The Terminator, True Lies, Kindergarten Cop, Twins, won numerous body-building awards from

Mr. Europe, Junior, to Mr. World, three times winner of the Mr.
24

Universe competition, and an unprecedented seven-time Mr. Olympia champion. During President Bush’s administration, he has

served as chairman of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness

and Sports. He is the founder and national chairman of the InnerCity Games Foundation, which is currently operating a program

called Arnold’s All Stars, an after-school program offering academic, recreational, and cultural enrichment programs for middle

schools in California. He received his business degree from the University of Wisconsin.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, thank you for your leadership in this field,

and thank you for joining us today. And thank you for drawing this

big crowd.

Mr. SCHWARZENEGGER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee, it is

an honor to be here today to discuss one of my greatest passions,

improving the lives of children. That is the reason that I am here

today, to advocate for continued funding of the 21st Century Learning Grant Program.

There are many problems in the world today. And given enough

time and my Terminator-like determination, I might be able to

tackle them all. Nevertheless, I have chosen to focus my time and

energy for the past quarter century on our children, because they

are, quite literally, our future.

Ronald Reagan so eloquently told us, ‘‘America is the shining city

on the hill. Welcome all who enter to follow their dreams.’’ There

is no greater American dream than to hope that our children will

live a better life. A better life for our children can only happen with

a good education, and educating our children should not stop at 3

p.m. when the school bell rings. For millions of American children,

this is exactly what happens.

Law enforcement, teachers, parents, and students know that between 3 and 6 p.m. is the danger zone for our kids. This is the time

when our children are most likely to become victims of violent

crimes, more likely to use drugs, abuse tobacco and alcohol, get

pregnant, or commit violent crimes themselves.

I was lucky growing up. I had two parents who kept me on the

straight and narrow 24 hours a day. Every day when I came home,

my mother was there to greet me at the door. She sat down with

me, helped me with my homework, made me read out loud until

I got every word just right. Only after my homework was finished

I could go outside, where my dad or a coach would take over my

instruction and take me skiing, sledding, ice skating, or work on

my ice-curling techniques or soccer kick or whatever sport was in

season.

The bottom line is that there was someone there for me 24 hours

a day, coaching me, teaching me, mentoring me, telling me that

they loved me, and always reminding me that I can turn any

dream that I have into reality. It was this foundation that built my

self-confidence, enabled me to achieve so much in my life.

When I came to America in 1968, I had empty pockets, but I was

full of dreams, desire, and determination. I believed that I could accomplish anything I set my mind to, a belief that has strengthened

with time.
25

I became the world champion 13 times over. I have made dozens

of successful movies, grossing billions of dollars worldwide. I became successful in real estate and in the business world. I took

English classes at night until I spoke and wrote well enough to

earn a bachelor degree.

I make these points not to share with you my life’s accomplishments, but, more importantly, to make the point that none of this,

absolutely none of this, would have been possible without the foundation built by caring parents, coaches, and other adults early in

my life. Because of my experience, I had every reason to believe

that what I had been told all my life was true, that America is the

greatest country in the world and that America is the land where

dreams can come true. I always said, ‘‘If a little farm boy like me

from Austria can make it in this country, then anyone can make

it.’’

PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND SPORTS

Then I had an experience that would change my point of view

forever. In 1990, I was appointed by President George Bush as

chairman of the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and

Sports. I visited schools in all 50 States, pumping up the kids to

get them off the couch and to get them into fitness and sports activities, and all the time spreading the word that winners stay

away from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Our fitness program was a

huge success.

NEED FOR AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

But while I was promoting fitness, I saw something that was disturbing to me. I saw, in the inner cities, too many children who

seemed to have no aspiration, no dreams, and no hope. They were

involved with gangs and drugs, spending their afternoons hanging

around the street corner, shopping malls, video arcades, often getting into serious trouble. I realized how wrong I was when I said,

‘‘Everyone in America can turn their dreams into reality.’’ In fact,

I used to say, ‘‘Everyone should pull themselves up by their own

bootstraps.’’ Only I had to learn that not everyone had boots.

Many of our children are not getting the same foundation I did

as a child. Half of the American children come from a working single parent and from a family where both parents work outside the

home. Millions of children are left unsupervised when the bell

rings, ending the school day. This takes its toll on our children, our

neighborhoods, and on the moral fabric of our country.

If our children are our future, our future is in jeopardy every

afternoon between 3 and 6 p.m., when unsupervised children are

roaming the streets.

But it does not have to be this way. After-school programs can

reduce crime, make our streets safer, and improve the lives of our

most vulnerable children. I have seen it work all over this country.

CREATION OF INNER-CITY GAMES FOUNDATION

I do not believe in talk. I believe in action. And so in 1991, with

the help of Danny Hernandez and the Los Angeles Hollenbeck

Youth Center, we started providing after-school programs for thou-
26

sands of children in Los Angeles. As a matter of fact, the program

was so successful that, nearly 10 years ago, I decided to take it national and we created the Inner-City Games Foundation, which has

reached almost 200,000 children in 15 different cities in this country.

ARNOLD’S ALL-STARS

A couple of years ago, we decided to target at-risk junior-highschool students and started Arnold’s All-Stars, a model after-school

program co-chaired by Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo that is operating successfully in some of

the most disadvantaged middle schools in Los Angeles County right

now.

PROPOSITION 49—CALIFORNIA COMPREHENSIVE AFTER-SCHOOL

PROGRAM

But as Columbine and other school shootings across the Nation

have shown us, troubled children come from all socioeconomic backgrounds. Every public school that chooses should have the resources to offer their unsupervised students a safe, educationally

enriching place to go to after school.

With that goal in mind, last year I sponsored Proposition 49, a

California statewide ballot initiative that the voters passed overwhelmingly. I am proud to report to you today that California is

the first State in the Nation to make it possible for every public

elementary and middle school to provide a comprehensive afterschool program.

The support that we have received for the initiative was unprecedented. We received tremendous support from across the political

spectrum. Hundreds of elected officials endorsed our initiative, including Republicans such as former Governor and United States

Senator Pete Wilson and Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte,

and also Democrats such as San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and

Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Over 80 organizations representing

nearly 6 million members joined together to support California’s

children—groups as diverse as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the National Tax Limitation Committee, and the California

Taxpayers Association, as well as the California Teachers Association, the California AARP, and the California PTA, and nearly

every law enforcement organization in the State—endorsed our

proposition, which just goes to show you, when it comes to children,

there is no room for partisan politics.

I agree with President Kennedy, who said, ‘‘Children are the

world’s most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.’’

FINDINGS OF STUDIES OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

There are many studies from across this country, which I have

footnoted in my comments. These reports, sponsored by universities

and organizations, looked at various after-school programs and

clearly demonstrated that children that participate in after-school

programs are more likely to stay in school and graduate, get higher

grades, and go on to higher education, improve their test scores,

avoid gang membership, as well as stay away from violent and
27

dangerous behavior. For example, studies show that students who

did not join an after-school program were six times more likely to

get a criminal conviction than kids in the same school who participated in after-school programs. According to a study by the University of Southern California, being unsupervised after school doubles

the risk an eighth grader will smoke, drink, or abuse drugs.

But crime prevention is not the only benefit. Studies show that

students who participate in after-school programs were half as likely to drop out of high school, and 21⁄2 times more likely to go on

to further their education.

COST EFFECTIVENESS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

After-school programs are cost effective. If run correctly, they actually save taxpayers dollars. I consider myself fiscally conservative. Simply throwing taxpayer dollars at a problem is not the solution. The facts show that investing in after-school programs

makes good financial common sense.

A recent study by the Rose Institute on State and local Government at California’s Claremont McKenna College found that for

every dollar invested in an after-school program by the State of

California, taxpayers saved three dollars by reducing juvenile arrests, incarceration, grade repetition, and other costs to society. It

costs the State of California under $1,000 a year to provide a comprehensive after-school program for a child, but over $49,000 a year

to incarcerate a juvenile offender in the California Youth Authority

and over a million dollars a year in direct and indirect costs if a

juvenile becomes a career criminal. Simply put, we can invest in

our children now, or we can pay for it a much higher price later

on.

The benefits of after-school programs are clear. And, frankly, you

do not need a stack of academic studies to come to that conclusion.

Just ask any parent, teacher, or law enforcement official in your

State, and they will tell you that a child who participates in afterschool programs do better in school and stay out of trouble.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

I know that, for most of you here today, I am repeating what you

already know and believe about after-school programs. President

Bush and you, in Congress, have shown your tremendous commitment to children by passing the No Child Left Behind Act and for

making significant investment in the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers and other federally funded after-school programs

over the last several years. Clearly, you and your colleagues have

recognized the benefits of after-school programs. I am confident

that your recognition of this opportunity and your continued commitment to provide Federal funding for after-school programs will,

in the full light of history, prove to be a pivotal decision for our Nation.

Current funding for the 21st Century Learning Centers provide

over 1.2 million kids in 6,800 centers with educationally enriching

and youth-development activities. And thanks to the changes made

by the No Child Left Behind Act, after-school programs have even

greater flexibility because community-based organization can now

run programs.
28

RESPONSE TO MATHEMATICA, INC. EVALUATION FINDINGS

Recently, some of you may have heard about the first installment

of the 3-year study on the progress of the 21st Century Community

Learning Program. The study found that some of the after-school

programs need improvement. I and others in the after-school community would agree with some of those findings. But it would be

a big mistake—and let me reiterate, a big mistake—to use that

study as a justification to reduce current funding levels for afterschool programs. Instead of cutting back the funding for afterschool programs, we should begin to work together to focus on finding ways to improve them—such as participation.

IMPROVING AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

We need to make sure that kids want to join and want to stay

in an after-school program. These programs are not mandatory, so

kids are reluctant to join an after-school program they perceive as

an extension of the school day. My experience is that we must offer

programs that interest kids, not just give them study hall or Government-sponsored babysitting. If we hope to have after-school programs help with grades and behavior, we must first get the child

to participate in the program.

We must also train after-school program providers to include the

children in the decisionmaking process so that they feel some ownership. At my Arnold’s All-Stars after-school program, for instance,

the kids chose the name of the program, designed the logo and the

T-shirt, and played a role in deciding what types of activities we

offer. And, to date, we have had almost no dropouts, and we have

had a long waiting list for kids that want to join.

CONTENT

A comprehensive after-school program should include academics,

homework assistance, reading, computer classes, and language

skills, et cetera. But a quality program must include much more.

It should also offer enriching activities, such as drama, music,

physical fitness and other experiences that build self-esteem, maturity, and social responsibility. Offering a variety of activities and

experiences might give the child that one spark that excites them

about learning and encourages them to do better in their studies.

The last is accountability. How do you judge if an after-school

program is a success? Today, there are only vague standards of

measurement. The No Child Left Behind Act directs States to develop performance indicators by which an after-school program can

be evaluated. But many States have yet to develop them, or use

vague standards and need some additional guidance. 21st Century

after-school program providers are eager for clear standards so that

they can judge the success of their programs. Therefore, we must

work together to institute standards by which a successful afterschool program can be evaluated.

I, for one, believe that after-school programs should be

judged——

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Schwarzenegger, may I inquire as to how

much longer you will need?

Mr. SCHWARZENEGGER. One minute. Thank you, Senator.
29

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, 21ST CENTURY AFTER-SCHOOL SUMMIT

I, for one, believe that after-school programs should be judged

not just on how they impact the child, but also how they impact

the parents, our schools, our neighborhoods, our workforce, and our

society. Without such standards, we cannot truly judge the success

of the 21st Century Program or any other after-school program,

and it is understandable that the Federal Government is having

trouble determining if our tax dollars are being spent wisely.

The good is, is there are a large number of people and organizations in this country with a great deal of expertise on how to create

and run successful after-school programs. And I can tell you that

those people and organizations are eager to share their experiences

with anyone that is willing to listen.

In that regard, I am pleased to announce to you today that I am

joining the United States Department of Education to organize a

No Child Left Behind, 21st Century After-School Summit to be

held at the Department of Education on June 5 and 6. At that summit, we will bring together the Nation’s leaders, experts, afterschool program providers, teachers, principals, and law-enforcement officials, and professional evaluators to share their experiences and knowledge on how to build a comprehensive after-school

program.

For many Americans, the family dynamics have changed dramatically since I was a child. Having a mom and a dad home every

afternoon working on homework with their children or kicking the

soccer ball around is just not a possibility.

The one thing that has not changed are the benefits of adult supervision that it can bring for the child’s life, whether at home or

at a well-run after-school program.

In many ways, I embody the American dream. An immigrant

farm boy who has come to this country with no money and speaking very little English. Yet I realized every dream that I dared

reach for. My new dream is that every child in America has the

same chance I had.

After-school programs work. Test scores go up, crime rates go

down, and taxpayers save money. Most importantly, after-school

programs offer America’s children the chance to realize their

dreams in this land of opportunity.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, for the vision and support that you have provided for

after-school programs and for this opportunity to testify before your

subcommittee. I look forward to our continued working together to

make certain that no child in America is left behind. And remember, when it is time for the committee to consider funding for afterschool programs in the next budget cycle, you can count on one

thing: I will be back.

Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]
30

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor to be

here today to discuss one of my greatest passions—improving the lives of children.

That is the reason I am here today to advocate for continued funding of the 21st

Century Learning Grant Program.

There are many problems in the world today, and given enough time and my Terminator like determination, I might be able to tackle them all. Nevertheless, I have

chosen to focus my time and energy for the past quarter century on our children

because they are quite literally our future.

Ronald Reagan so eloquently told us, America is the Shining City on the Hill—

Welcoming all who enter to follow their dreams.

There is no greater American dream than the hope that our children will live a

better life. A better life for our children can only happen with a good education and

educating our children should not stop at 3:00 p.m. when the school bell rings.

For millions of America’s children this is exactly what happens.

Law enforcement, teachers, parents and students know that 3–6 p.m. is the ‘‘danger zone’’ for our kids. This is the time when our children are most likely to become

victims of violent crime, more likely to use drugs, abuse tobacco and alcohol, get

pregnant, or commit violent crimes themselves.

I was lucky growing up. I had two parents who kept me on the straight and narrow 24 hours a day. Every day when I came home, my mother was there to greet

me at the door. She sat with me, helping me with my homework, making me read

out loud until I got every word just right.

Only after my homework was finished, could I go outside where my dad or a coach

would take over my instruction and take me skiing, sledding or work on my icecurling technique or soccer kick or whatever sport was in season.

The bottom line is that there was someone there for me 24 hours a day, coaching

me, teaching me, mentoring me, telling me they loved me, telling me that I could

achieve anything I set my mind to, that if I worked hard enough I could turn any

dream into reality.

It was this foundation that built my self confidence and enabled be me to achieve

so much in my life.

When I came to America in 1968, I had empty pockets but I was full of dreams,

desires and determination. I believed I could accomplish anything I set my mind

to—a belief that has strengthened with time.

I became the world bodybuilding champion 13 times over. I have made dozens of

successful movies, grossing billions of dollars worldwide, I became successful in the

real estate and business world, I took English classes at night until I could speak

and write well enough to earn my Bachelor’s degree.

I make these points, not to share with you my life’s accomplishments, but more

importantly to make the point that none of this—NONE OF THIS—would have

been possible without the foundation built by caring parents, coaches and other

adults early in my life.

Because of my experience, I had every reason to believe that what I had been told

all my life was true: America is the land of opportunity, the place where dreams

come true. I always said, ‘‘If a farm boy from Austria can make it, anyone can make

it in this country.’’

Then I had an experience that would change my point of view forever. In 1990,

I was appointed by President George Bush as Chairman of the President’s Council

on Physical Fitness and Sports.

I visited schools in all fifty states, pumping up the kids to get them off the couch

and get them into sports and fitness all the time spreading the word that winners

stay away from drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Our fitness program was a huge success,

but I saw something that was very disturbing to me.

I saw too many children who seemed to have no aspirations, no dreams and no

hope. They were involved with gangs and drugs, spending their afternoons hanging

around on the street corner, shopping malls and video arcades, often getting into

trouble.

I realized how wrong I was when I said everyone in America can turn their dream

into reality.

In fact, I used to say, ‘‘Everybody should pull themselves up by their bootstraps

just like I did.’’ What I learned is not everybody has boots. Many of our children

are not getting the same foundation I did as a child.

Half of America’s children come from a working single parent or from a family

where both parents work outside the home.

Millions of children are left unsupervised when the bell rings ending the school

day. This takes its toll on our children, our neighborhoods and on the moral fabric
31

of our Country. If our children are our future, our future is in jeopardy every afternoon between 3 and 6 p.m. when unsupervised children roam the streets.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. After school programs can reduce crime, make

our streets safer and improve the lives of our most vulnerable children. I have seen

it work all over this country.

I don’t believe in talk, I believe in action and with the help of Danny Hernandez

and the Los Angeles Hollenbeck Center we started providing after school programs

for thousands of children in Los Angeles.

The program was so successful that nearly 10 years ago, I decided to take it national and we created the ‘‘Inner City Games Foundation’’ which has reached almost

200,000 children in 15 cities nationwide.

A couple of years ago we decided to target at risk junior high students and I started ‘‘Arnold’s All Stars’’, a model after school program co-chaired by Los Angeles

Mayor Jim Hahn and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo that is operating successfully

in some of the most disadvantaged middle schools in Los Angeles County.

But, as Columbine and other school shootings across the nation have shown us,

troubled children come from all socio-economic backgrounds.

Every public school that chooses should have the resources to offer their unsupervised students, a safe, educationally enriching place to go after school.

With that goal in mind, last year I sponsored Proposition 49, a California statewide ballot initiative that the voters passed overwhelmingly. I am proud to report

to you today that California is the first state in the nation to make it possible for

every public elementary and middle school to provide a comprehensive after school

program.

The support we received for the initiative was unprecedented! We received tremendous support from across the political spectrum. Hundreds of elected officials

endorsed our initiative including Republicans such as Former Governor, and United

States Senator Pete Wilson and Senate Republican Leader Jim Brulte, to Democrats

such as San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Over 80 organizations, representing nearly 6 million members joined together to

support California’s children; groups as diverse as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, the National Tax Limitation Committee and the California Taxpayers Association, as well as the California Teachers Association, the California AARP and

the California PTA and nearly every law enforcement organization in the state endorsed our proposition.

Which just goes to show you: When it comes to children, there is no room for partisan politics. I agree with, President Kennedy who said, ‘‘Children are the world’s

most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.’’

There are many studies from across the country, which I have footnoted in my

comments. These reports sponsored by universities and organizations looked at various after school programs and clearly demonstrate that children that participate in

after school programs are more likely to stay in school and graduate, get higher

grades and go on to higher education, improve their test scores, avoid gang membership as well as stay away from violent and dangerous behavior.

For example, studies show that students who did not join an after school program

were six times more likely to get a criminal conviction than kids in the same school

who participated in an after school program.

According to a study by the University of Southern California, being unsupervised

after school doubles the risk an eight grader will smoke, drink or abuse drugs.

But crime prevention is only one benefit. Studies show that students who participate in after school programs were half as likely to drop out of high school, and two

and a half times more likely to go on to further education.

After school programs are cost effective, if run correctly, they actually save taxpayer dollars. I consider myself a fiscal conservative. Simply throwing taxpayer dollars at a problem is not the solution. The facts show that investing in after school

programs makes good financial common sense.

A recent study by the Rose Institute on State and Local Government at California’s Claremont McKenna College, found that for every $1 invested in after school

programs by the State of California, taxpayers save $3 by reducing juvenile arrests,

incarceration, grade repetition, and other costs to society.

It costs the State of California under $1,000 a year to provide a comprehensive

after school program for a child, but over $49,000 a year to incarcerate a juvenile

offender in the California Youth Authority and over a million dollars in direct and

indirect costs if juveniles become career criminals. Simply put, we can invest in our

children now, or we can pay a much higher price later on.

The benefits of after school programs are clear—and frankly, you don’t need a

stack of academic studies to come to that conclusion. Just ask any parent, teacher,
32

or police officer in your state and they will tell you that children who participate

in after school programs do better in school and stay out of trouble.

I know that for most of you here today, I am repeating what you already know

and believe about after school programs. President Bush and you in Congress

showed your tremendous commitment to children by passing the ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act’’ and for making a significant investment in the ‘‘21st Century Community

Learning Centers’’ and other federally funded after school programs over the last

several years. Clearly, you and your colleagues have recognized the benefits of after

school programs.

I am confident that your recognition of this opportunity and your continued commitment to providing federal funding for after school programs will, in the full light

of history, prove to be a pivotal decision for our nation.

Current funding for 21st Century Learning Centers programs provide over 1.2

million kids in 6,800 centers with educational enrichment and youth development

activities. And thanks to changes made by the ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ act, after

school programs have even greater flexibility because community-based organizations can now run programs.

Recently, some of you may have heard about the first installment of a three-year

study on the progress of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.

The study found that some after school programs need improvement. I, and others

in the after school community, would agree with some of those findings.

But it would be a mistake to use that study as justification to reduce current

funding levels for after school programs. Instead of cutting back the funding for

after school programs, we should begin to work together to focus on finding ways

to improve them, such as:

Participation.—We need to make sure kids want to join, and want to stay in an

after school program. These programs are not mandatory, so kids are reluctant to

join an after school program they perceive as an extension of the school day.

My experience is that we must offer programs that interest kids, not just give

them study hall or government-sponsored babysitting. If we hope to have after

school programs help with grades and behavior, we must first get the child to participate in the program.

We must also train after school program providers to include the children in the

decision making process so that they feel some ownership. At my ‘‘Arnolds All Stars’’

after school program for instance, the kids chose the name of the program, designed

their logo and t-shirts, and played a role in deciding what types of activities we

offer. To date, we have had almost no dropouts and a have a waiting list for children

who would like to join.

Content.—A comprehensive after school program should include academics; homework assistance, reading, computer classes, and language skills, etc. But a quality

program must include much more. It should also offer enriching activities such as

drama, music, physical fitness, computer classes, and other experiences that build

self-esteem, maturity, and social responsibility. Offering a variety of activities and

experiences might give a child that one spark that excites them about learning and

encourages them to do better in their studies.

Accountability.—How do you judge if an after school program is a success? Today,

there are only vague standards of measurement. The ‘‘No Child Left Behind Act’’

directs states to develop ‘‘performance indicators’’ by which an after school program

can be evaluated. But many states have not yet developed them or use vague standards and need some additional guidance.

21st Century after school program providers are eager for clear standards so they

can judge the success of their programs. Therefore, we must work together to institute standards by which a successful after school program can be evaluated.

I for one believe that after school programs should be judged not just on how they

impact the child, but also how they impact parents, our schools, our neighborhoods,

our workforce, and our society.

Without such standards, we cannot truly judge the success of the 21st Century

Program, or any after school program, and it is understandable that the federal government is having trouble determining if our tax dollars are being spent wisely.

The good news is that there are a large number of people and organizations in

this country with a great deal of expertise on how to create and run a successful

after school program. And I can tell you that those people and organizations are

eager to share their experiences with anyone that will listen.

In that regard, I am pleased to announce to you today that I am joining with the

United States Department of Education to organize a ‘‘No Child Left Behind, 21st

Century After School Summit’’ to be held at the Department of Education on June

5 and 6.
33

At that Summit, we will bring together the nation’s leading experts, after school

program providers, teachers, principals, parents, law enforcement officials, and professional evaluators to share their experiences and knowledge on how to build a

comprehensive, fun, and academically enriching after school program that encourages student participation. In addition, we will establish performance and accountability standards.

For many Americans the family dynamic has changed dramatically since I was

a child. Having a mom or dad at home every afternoon working on homework with

their children or kicking the soccer ball around is just not a possibility.

The one thing that has not changed in the past forty years are the benefits adult

supervision can bring to a child’s life, whether at home or at a well run after school

program.

In many ways, I embody the American dream: an immigrant farm boy who came

to this country with no money and speaking very little English. Yet, I realized every

dream I dared reach for. My new dream is that every child in America has the same

chance I had.

After school programs work. Test scores go up, crime rates go down and taxpayers

save money. Most importantly, after school programs offer America’s children the

chance to realize their dreams in this land of opportunity.

Thank you once again Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the vision

and support you have provided for after school programs and for this opportunity

to testify before your Subcommittee. I look forward to our continued work together

to make certain that no child in America is left behind. And remember, when it’s

time for the Committee to consider funding for after school programs in the next

budget cycle you can count on one thing—I’ll be back.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

EVALUATIONS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Policy Studies Associates, Inc. ‘‘What Have We Learned From TASC’s First Three

Years: An Evaluation of the TASC After-School Program’’ December 2002

Pennsylvania State University Prevention Research Center ‘‘Generacion Diez:

After-school Learning Program for Migrant Children Upper Adams School District’’

Evaluation Report: September 17, 2002

SCISN (School Community Integrated Services Network) Evaluation Committee

‘‘Milwaukee Public Schools 21st Century Community Learning Centers 2001–02’’

UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation ‘‘A Decade of Results: The Impact of

the LA’s BEST After School Enrichment Program on Subsequent Student Achievement and Performance’’ June 2000

St. John’s University ‘‘Outcomes Assessment Report of the 2001 Summer NY ICG

Camp-US Program’’

Educational Research Services, Inc. ‘‘South Florida Inner-City Games (SGICG)

After-School Program Evaluation’’ Final Report for the 2001–2002 School Year, July,

2002

FORMER SENATOR RUSSELL LONG

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Schwarzenegger,

for those very passionate and profound remarks.

We do not have some Senators here today because they are attending the funeral of former Senator Russell Long, which is being

held this morning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SHRIVER FAMILY

With Mr. Schwarzenegger’s testimony, I would like to recognize

the presence of his wife, Ms. Maria Shriver, and her mother, Mrs.

Eunice Shriver, and Sargent Shriver, former director of the Peace

Corps and nominee for the vice presidency in 1972 on the Democratic ticket. Thank you for joining us.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DeSTEFANO, JR., MAYOR, NEW HAVEN, CT

Senator SPECTER. Our next witness is Mayor John DeStefano, in

his fifth term as mayor of New Haven, CT, and president of the

National League of Cities. He has a master’s degree in public ad-
34

ministration from the University of Connecticut, where he also

earned his undergraduate degree in political science. Thank you for

joining us, Mayor DeStefano, and we look forward to your testimony.

Mr. DESTEFANO. Mr. Chairman, thanks for doing this. Thanks

for what you have been doing and for giving kids the opportunity

to keep doing it.

I am proud to be here as mayor of New Haven, president of the

National League of Cities, representing 18,000 cities and towns.

More important to me, however, are 5,000 New Haven publicschool children who will be attending after-school community learning centers later today, part of nearly 1.3 million children nationally.

Now, I am not just the mayor and president of the League; I am

also a member of the school board in New Haven. I appoint the

school board. It is part of my city budget. One of my boys graduated from the school district last year. My other boy is a junior

in high school. Both participated in the public school’s after-school

program.

Now, I learned something growing up in New Haven, and that

was to believe in a level playing field, the idea that we should all

get the chance to finish the race. But we all know, those that have

been around awhile, that not everybody starts the race at the same

place. The fact is, most of my poor learners who graduate from one

of my eight high schools were poor learners in kindergarten. They

started out behind, and we spent the next 12 years trying to catch

them out.

Another thing that I have seen that is clear is that when kids’

circles extend from their immediate family and from their church

to broader communities of neighborhood and schools, lights begin

to go out in some of their eyes, and there emerges a certain predictability about what is going to happen in those kids’ lives, or, I

should say, what is not going to happen. After-school programming

is a choice for America to make, whose meaning in these lives of

kids cannot be understated, and I see it every day in my community.

ACCESS TO AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

Federal after-school programming is only part of the story, and

I appreciated Mr. Whitehurst’s points about motivation, background, and interest of kids. In point of fact, the largest issue is

access for kids to these kinds of programs.

Most of us have rich environments. I have eight high schools.

Last Thursday, I was in a meeting, and the track team, the girls’

track team, from one of them arrived at my office unannounced.

And, of course, I interrupted what I was doing. The issue there

was, these were kids who believed in themselves, in each other,

and what they were doing, and they felt something about themselves that was powerful and good.

Three years ago, the city started a Junior ROTC program, something I thought never would have been possible, in our northeastern city 10 years ago. To see 150 kids in their colors, different

colors than gang colors, standing up is truly powerful.
35

COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

Community learning centers are part of our landscape, as well,

whether it is the Davis Street 21st Century Marching Band, third

and fifth graders in Connecticut’s only elementary-school marching

band, or really what we spend most of our time doing, after-school

tutorials. Seventy-six percent of our programs focus directly on literacy and math skills, being able to compete academically on State

standardized testing. Forty percent of our kids come from households where English is the second language. Among our largest cohort of kids, 80 percent report improvement in achievement, turning in their homework on time, participating in class. Eighty-eight

percent reported improvement in attendance. Eight-five percent reported improvement in behavior. I appreciate studies. I like studies. I am telling you it has happened.

THE KNUCKLEHEAD-HARD HEAD PROGRAM

Now, there are other choices for after-school activity. There is the

Knucklehead-Hardhead Program. New Haven has experienced,

over the last decade, a 55 percent reduction in crime. Last year, in

2002, we had the lowest number of murders since 1960. However,

last week, in one of my quietest neighborhoods, teenagers were involved in a shooting. One of them was a high school student. It

happened, gee, guess at what time? 3:15. You want to know what

time high school lets out in New Haven? 2:35. That is the Knucklehead-Hardhead choice that we are presented in the absence of

these kinds of programs. I would also point out that recently New

Haven was denied a 21st Century grant due to a lack of funding.

I would say three things to you. I think America depends upon

a balance, and that balance is a set of obligations and protections

we extend to one another and that there is a connection between

the past and the present in this country, and between the present

and the future, and that we who are Americans, in large measure,

are shaping the future by what we do today, what we believe today,

and what we aspire to be for tomorrow.

You know, every road I travel on in this country was paved by

someone else, not me. The flight I took to get here to Washington

was through facilities paid for by people I do not know. I like to

think that when I went to the University of Connecticut, I paid for

my own tuition. But you know what? So did every other taxpayer

in the State of Connecticut share in paying that tuition for me. In

my honest moments, I know where I came from, I know whose

shoulders I stand on, and I know that any of us who ever got anywhere are standing on a lot of those shoulders.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET SUPPORT FOR 21ST CENTURY LEARNING

CENTERS

The second thing I know is that this is part of the Federal Government’s job, because it is everybody’s job to care about these kids

and what they do. I am particularly concerned about the part of

this program that sends the money to the State, 45 of the 50

States, running about $80 billion in budget deficits, doing things

like Connecticut is doing, which is shifting the burden of financing
36

local education, and we all know lots of other things, to localities,

eliminating choices for these kids.

Finally, I will say this is—on behalf of the National League of

Cities and the mayor and I want to say it clearly, I urge the Congress to support the 21st Century Community Learning Centers at

the levels authorized in No Child Left Behind. Many of us who run

the school district are concerned about the expectations of No Child

Left Behind being unable to be reconciled with the funding that is

being provided. That is the choice. Knuckleheads or academic warriors, hardheads or musicians; talk or leadership.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and the

other members of the panel’s leadership on this issue.

Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN DESTEFANO

Good Morning Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Harkin and members of the

Subcommittee. I am John DeStefano, Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut. Today, I

am pleased to be here as the President of the National League of Cities.

The National League of Cities represents 18,000 cities and towns and over

140,000 local elected officials. NLC represents all cities regardless of size from New

York City to Bee Cave, Texas. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today

about the importance of Afterschool programs to the overall success and growth of

a community.

Let me begin by highlighting a few key points about our position on and approach

to afterschool programs:

—Local leaders play a critical role in coordinating afterschool programs.

—The National League of Cities is committed to providing support and guidance

to city officials in carrying out that role through it Institute on Youth, Education, and Families.

—All kids should have access to quality afterschool programming.

—A continued federal financial commitment to supporting quality afterschool programs is essential.

AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY

Later this afternoon, 1.3 million students will leave their academic classrooms to

afterschool programs. The afterschool program will provide these children with a

safe, nurturing atmosphere with adult supervision. Students will participate in a

broad array of activities all intended to advance the student’s academic achievement, enhance socialization skills and contribute to a positive lifestyle.

Mathematic and science education activities, tutoring services and ESL education

programs are predominant in communities struggling for academic success. Communities with high drop-out rates and truancy problems sponsor programs intended to

keep kids in school, off-drugs and motivated towards academic achievement. To enhance a student’s self esteem and stimulate his or her creativity and desire to learn,

afterschool programs offer cultural enrichment activities such as drama, art and

music lessons. Mentoring and parent involvement activities are typical components

of afterschool programs.

A solid, well-managed and sufficiently funded afterschool program can provide numerous benefits to a city. Programs not only improve a child’s academic achievement, but also keep that child safe and off the streets from 3–6 PM when most juvenile crime takes place. Afterschool programs are essential to working families with

child care needs. According to a recent report by the Afterschool Alliance ‘‘Closing

the Door on Afterschool Programs: An Analysis of How the Proposed Cut to the 21st

Century Community Learning Centers Program Will Affect Children and Families

in Every State’’ afterschool participants get better grades, attend school more and

behave better. The report also notes that students who spend no time in extracurricular activities are 49 percent more likely to use drugs and 37 percent more

likely to become teen parents than those who spend one to four hours per week in

extracurricular activities.
37

The U.S. Department of Labor reports that the parents of more than 28 million

school-age children work outside of the home. Often a low-income, single parent

struggling to make ends meet is the head of a family in need of afterschool services.

The National League of Cities believes that all working parents deserve to have the

piece of mind of knowing their children are being cared for in a safe, nurturing and

motivating environment during afterschool hours.

Better-educated kids, hard-working parents and safe streets contribute to a community’s success and vitality. Funding for afterschool programs is an investment in

the city or town’s future and can assist in reducing local expenditures. Youngsters

will be involved in a productive activity that discourages risky behavior such as

drug abuse, sexual activity and petty crime. A city that is child friendly will experience greater investment and growth. Businesses are more likely to move into a community that has a track record of providing exemplary services to all its citizens,

especially the younger ones.

The cost savings to a city will make a difference as juvenile crime rates plummet

and demands on the local police force and the public safety system are alleviated.

Fewer teen girls will become moms and therefore will complete high school and possibly go on to post-secondary education. Savings will be realized in welfare and social service programs and benefits will be derived from a more educated workforce.

NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES COMMITMENT TO CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

The National League of Cities (NLC) recognizes that municipal officials can and

do play an integral role in local efforts to promote and coordinate programs and

services that benefit children and working families. The NLC Institute for Youth,

Education, and Families (YEF Institute) was launched in January 2000 as a special

place to strengthen the capacity of municipal leaders to enhance the lives of children, youth, and families.

The YEF Institute seeks to support and build upon the many roles that local

elected officials and municipal governments can play to improve the outcomes for

children and families. The YEF Institute focuses on five core program areas:

—Education

—Youth Development

—Early Childhood Development

—Safety of Children and Youth

—Family Economic Security

One of the Institute’s education projects focuses on the afterschool time needs of

children and youth. The goal of the Municipal Leadership for Expanded Learning

Opportunities project is to increase the availability and improve the quality of expanded learning opportunities for children and youth in urban communities. The

centerpiece of the project’s activities is an intensive, 30-month technical assistance

effort to help eight cities develop and implement strategies for expanding learning

opportunities during the non-school hours within their communities. The eight cities

are: (1) Charlotte, North Carolina; (2) Fort Worth, Texas; (3) Fresno, California; (4)

Grand Rapids, Michigan; (5) Indianapolis, Indiana; (6) Lincoln, Nebraska; (7) Spokane, Washington; and (8) Washington, DC.

There are three objectives for this project:

—Provide support to cities to deepen and enhance the involvement of municipal

leaders around expanded learning opportunities during the afterschool hours;

—Broaden awareness among municipal officials of the diverse roles they can play

to stimulate and support expanded learning opportunities;

—Develop a range of publications and related materials to assist municipal leaders as they seek to improve the afterschool programs in their communities.

FEDERAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT TO AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS

The National League of Cities calls upon the Federal government to continue its

partnership with the states and local governments in providing quality afterschool

programs through the U.S. Department of Education’s 21st Century Community

Learning Centers initiative (21st CCLC). 21st Century funds provide communities

a solid foundation to build and expand successful afterschool programs.

As you know the No Child Left Behind Act authorized funding for 21st CCLC

through 2007. However, the funding levels have remained stagnant and have not

been supported in the 2002 and 2003 appropriations bill. If Congress appropriated

$1.5 billion as authorized for 2003, an estimated 2.1 million children will have been

able to participate in afterschool. Unfortunately, only an estimated 1.4 million afterschool slots were available this year because Congress provided only $993.5 million,

leaving too many children without a secure place to continue learning when the

school bell rings.
38

Most devastating to states and cities is the Administration’s proposal to slash the

funding for 21st Century Community Learning Center program budget by 40 percent in the fiscal year 2004 budget. If this proposal is enacted, approximately 550,

000 students nationwide will lose access to afterschool programs. The authorized

level for 2004 is $1.75 billion, which would provide afterschool slots for 2.5 million

kids.

Presently, in my State of Connecticut 14, 343 children are enrolled in afterschool

programs supported by 21st CCLC funds. If the Administration’s proposal goes into

effect only 8481 students will be able to participate, leaving 5862 Connecticut

youngsters behind. Recently, New Haven Public Schools were denied a 21st Century

Grant due to a lack of sufficient funding. Our current afterschool grant runs out

in May of 2004.

Due to the success and popularity of afterschool programs demand has outpaced

the supply. Among 32 states reporting 2002 grant data, 76 percent of applicants

funding requests were denied. A total of $192.9 million in funds were allocated to

these states, but there were a total of $793.3 million in requests from communities

that want afterschool funding.

Mr. Chairman, along with the real need for quality afterschool programs, there

is widespread public support for funding of afterschool programs. The 2002 Nationwide Poll of Registered Voters on Afterschool Programs found that nine in ten voters

(90 percent) believe that there is a need for some type of organized activity where

children can go after school everyday that provides opportunities to learn. More

than 70 percent of voters believe afterschool programs are an absolute necessity for

their communities.

It is clear that an overwhelming number of Americans support funding for Afterschool.

CONCLUSION

A continued federal commitment to Afterschool programs will help continue to

build on current afterschool successes. This is a long-term investment with longterm pay-offs. Local governments are committed to provide quality afterschool services in their communities and we ask the committee to fully fund 21st Century Community Learning Centers at $1.75 billion as authorized in ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’.

Thank you.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mayor. I might note

parenthetically that I spent 3 enjoyable years in your city.

STATEMENT OF HARVEY SPRAFKA, CHIEF OF POLICE, KNOXVILLE, IA

Senator SPECTER. Our next witness is Chief Harvey Sprafka of

the Knoxville, IA, Police Department, held that position in the department since 1975, and chief since 1995, bachelor’s degree from

Moorhead State College in Minnesota, and a 1973 graduate of the

Brown Institute, and a 1983 graduate of the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy.

Thank you for joining us, Chief, and we look forward to your testimony.

May I say to the students who are standing back there, there are

chairs here if you want to come up and sit along the side. You get

a better view of Mr. Schwarzenegger if you come up here.

Those of you who run out of chairs along the side, can sit—come

on up, come on up—can sit in the Senator seats.

You may proceed, Chief.

Mr. SPRAFKA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to

testify today about the important decision you must make in determining the fiscal year 2004 appropriation level for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school program.

Mr. Chairman, I will summarize my more lengthy written statement and ask that it be included in the hearing record.

Senator SPECTER. Your full statement will be made a part of the

record, without objection.
39

Mr. SPRAFKA. My name is Harvey Sprafka. I have been in law

enforcement since 1975, and I have spent the past 8 years as the

chief of police in Knoxville, IA.

FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS

I am here today on behalf of more than 2,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, and victims of violence who are members of the

organization Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. Our mission is to take a

hard-nosed look at the research that shows what really works to

keep kids from becoming criminals.

First of all, we believe there is no substitute for tough law enforcement. But those of us in the front line also know that we will

never be able to arrest and prosecute and imprison our way out of

the problem of crime. And once a crime has been committed, we

cannot undo the agony felt by the crime victim, nor repair that victim’s shattered life. We can save lives, hardship, and money by investing in programs that give the kids the right start in life.

When the school day ends, turning millions of kids out onto the

streets with neither constructive activities, nor adult supervision,

violent juvenile crime soars. Again, the prime time for violent juvenile crime is from 3 to 6 p.m. These are also the peak hours on

school days for innocent kids to become victims of crime and at-risk

behaviors. In one study, high school freshmen were randomly selected from welfare families to participate in the Quantum Opportunities 4-year after-school and graduation incentive program. Six

years later, boys left out of the program average six times more

criminal convictions than those in the program. Every $1 invested

in this program has produced $3 in benefits to Government and the

recipients. That does not even count the savings that result from

a lowered crime rate. Numerous other studies show similar reductions in delinquency and cost savings, as well as improved academic achievement.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 21ST CCLC PROGRAM BUDGET PROPOSAL

As you know, there is a proposal to cut the funding for the 21st

Century Community Learning Centers Program by 40 percent next

year. The reason for this cut was a recent study of the program’s

first few years showing it is in need of some improvement. But it

does not make sense to cut funding for after-school programs after

the findings of just one preliminary study. The study, which did

show academic improvement for African American and Hispanic

students, should instead be used as a tool to help improve the quality and accountability of after-school programs.

So what we need to do is look at the after-school models that

have had very positive research results, like Quantum Opportunities, and work to replicate those models through the 21st Century

Community Learning Centers program. Fight Crime: Invest in

Kids is ready and willing to work with this subcommittee on any

appropriations bill or report language for fiscal year 2004 needed

to make that happen.
40

BENEFITS OF AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

As I mentioned earlier, I have been in law enforcement for 28

years. Sixteen of those years, I served as Knoxville’s school liaison

officer working with school children in grades K through 12. Since

1993, the Knoxville VA Child Care Center and the Knoxville Community District have jointly operated a before- and after-school program.

Two of my three grandchildren participate in the after-school

program, and a third grandchild attends the VA Child Care Center’s daycare program.

It has been my experience that most children who commit delinquent acts are left unsupervised during after-school hours. That is

frequently when we receive reports of vandalism, thefts, and disorderly conduct.

That is not just my view. Polling shows law enforcement leaders

around the country understand that investments in after-school

programs really do make a difference, and national and State law

enforcement associations have passed resolutions supporting investments in after-school activities.

In recent years, Congress has also realized the need for afterschool programs, increasing funding significantly. For that, I thank

you. But it is not enough. On a regular basis, more than 10 million

children and teens are unsupervised after school. Last year, 75 percent of the funds requested for the 21st Century Community

Learning Centers grants had to be turned down due to a lack of

funds. Instead of cutting funding for after-school programs, Congress should be finding a way to bring the 21st Century closer to

the level of $1.75 billion promised just last year in the No Child

Left Behind Act. Every day that we fail to invest adequately in

quality after-school programs, we increase the risk that you or

someone you love will fall victim to violence.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our choice is quite simple. We can either send our children to

after-school programs that will teach them good values and skills,

or we can entrust them to the after-school teachings of someone

like Jerry Springer, violent video games, or, worse yet, the streets.

Thank you, once again, for this opportunity.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARVEY SPRAFKA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity

to testify today about the important decision you must make in determining the fiscal year 2004 Appropriations level for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers after-school program.

My name is Harvey Sprafka. I’ve been in law enforcement since 1975, and I’ve

spent the past 8 years as the chief of police in Knoxville, Iowa. I am also a member

of the anti-crime group Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, which is made up of more than

2,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors and victims of violence from across the

country who have come together to take a hard-nosed look at the research about

what really works to keep kids from becoming criminals.

There is no substitute for tough law enforcement. But once a crime has been committed, we can’t undo the agony felt by the crime victim or repair that victim’s shattered life. Those of us on the front line in the fight against crime understand that

we’ll never be able to just arrest, try and imprison our way out of the crime prob-
41

lem. We can save lives, hardship—and money—by investing in programs that give

kids the right start in life.

The members of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids have come together to issue a ‘‘School

and Youth Violence Prevention Plan’’ that lays out four types of programs that research proves—and law enforcement knows—can greatly reduce crime. The plan

calls for more investments in quality after-school programs, quality preschool and

child care programs, services that effectively treat and prevent child abuse and neglect, and activities that get troubled kids back on track before it’s too late.

I am here today to talk about the first of those points—after-school programs.

In the hour after the school bell rings, violent juvenile crime soars and the prime

time for juvenile crime begins. The peak hours for such crime are from 3:00 to 6:00

p.m. These are also the weekday hours during which children are most likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, have sex, smoke, drink alcohol,

or use drugs.

After-school programs can cut crime immediately by keeping kids safe and out of

trouble during these dangerous hours. They can also cut later crime by helping participants develop the values and skills they need to become good, contributing citizens. For example, in one study, students whose families were on welfare were randomly divided into two groups when they started high school. One group was enrolled in the Quantum Opportunities after-school program, which provided tutoring,

mentoring, recreation, and community service programs and some monetary incentives to keep attendance up. The second group was left out of the program. When

studied two years after the four-year program ended, the group of boys left out of

the program had six times more convictions for crimes than those boys provided

with the program.

In addition to saving lives, after-school programs save money. The Quantum Op- portunities Program produced benefits to the public of more than $3 for every dollar

spent on it, without even counting the savings from reductions in crime. Numerous

other studies show similar reductions in delinquency and cost-savings, as well as

improved academic achievement.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is critical to helping

communities across the country offer after-school activities to young people. As you

know, there is a proposal to cut funding for the 21st Century Community Learning

Centers program by 40 percent next year. The reason for this cut was a recent study

of the program’s first few years showing it is in need of some improvement. But it

doesn’t make sense to cut funding for after-school programs after the findings of just

one preliminary study. We know that quality after-school programs can significantly

reduce the chances that a child will commit a crime now or in the future. The new

21st Century Community Learning Centers study, which did show academic improvement for African-American and Hispanic students, should be used as a tool to

help improve the quality and accountability of after-school programs.

One area for improvement highlighted by the study is the ability of programs to

attract and retain students for regular participation. It seems that many of the programs were spending a large portion of the afternoon in what is basically a study

hall. Kids don’t want to go to more school at the end of the regular school day. Fun

activities—not study halls—can lure kids into a program and enable them to participate in activities that will make them safer, healthier, more academically successful,

and less likely to become criminals.

So, what we need to do is look at the after-school models that have had very positive research results (like Quantum Opportunities) and work to replicate those models through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. Fight Crime:

Invest in Kids stands ready to work with this Subcommittee on any appropriations

bill or report language for fiscal year 2004 needed to make that happen.

As mentioned earlier, I have been in law enforcement for 28 years. Sixteen of

those years I served as Knoxville’s School Liaison Officer, now commonly known as

School Resource Officer. In that position I worked with school children in grades K–

12. Also during that time I investigated all reported cases of child sex abuse and

child abuse for the Knoxville Police Department.

Since 1993 the Knoxville VA Child Care Center and the Knoxville Community

School District have jointly operated a Before and After School Program. Two of my

three grandchildren participate in the after-school program and a third grandchild

attends the VA Child Care Center’s day care program.

It has been my experience that most children who commit delinquent acts are left

unsupervised during after-school hours. That is frequently when we receive reports

of vandalism, thefts, and disorderly conduct.

This is not just my view: Law enforcement understands that investments in afterschool programs really do make a difference. Dozens of state and national law enforcement associations have adopted resolutions highlighting the crime-fighting im-
42

portance of after-school programs, including the National Sheriffs Association, the

Major Cities Chiefs, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Fraternal

Order of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General and the National District Attorneys Association, as well as the Iowa Police Executive Forum, the Iowa

State Sheriffs’ and Deputies’ Association, and the Iowa County Attorneys Association.

This overwhelming support is demonstrated in polls of law enforcement officials.

A nationwide poll of police chiefs, sheriffs and prosecutors conducted by George

Mason University professors last year showed that 85 percent of those polled believed that expanding after-school programs and educational child care would greatly reduce youth crime and violence.

The law enforcement leaders were also asked which of the following strategies

they thought was most effective in reducing youth violence: (1) providing more afterschool programs and educational child care; (2) prosecuting more juveniles as adults;

(3) hiring more police officers to investigate juvenile crime; or (4) installing more

metal detectors and surveillance cameras in schools.

Expanding after-school and educational child care was picked as the top choice

by more than four to one over any other option. In fact, more law enforcement leaders chose ‘‘expanding after-school programs and educational child care’’ as ‘‘most effective’’ in reducing crime than chose the other three strategies combined.

In recent years Congress has also realized the need for after-school programs, increasing funding significantly. For that I thank you. But it isn’t enough. On a regular basis, more than 10 million children and teens are unsupervised after school.

Last year, 75 percent of the funds requested for 21st Century Community Learning

Centers grants had to be turned down due to a lack of funds.

Instead of cutting funding for after-school programs, Congress should be finding

a way to bring the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program closer to

the level of $1.75 billion promised just last year in the No Child Left Behind Act.

Every day that we fail to invest adequately in quality after-school programs, we increase the risk that you or someone you love will fall victim to violence.

Our choice is simple: we can either send our children to after-school programs

that will teach them good values and skills, or we can entrust them to the afterschool teachings of Jerry Springer, violent video games, or worse yet, the streets.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the crime-prevention benefits of after-school programs. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Chief Sprafka, for your

testimony.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN KINLOCK, STUDENT, THE PREPARATORY

CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY,

AND CAREERS, PHILADELPHIA, PA

Senator SPECTER. We turn now to Mr. Steven Kinlock, a 12thgrade student at Preparatory Charter School for Math, Science,

and Technology in Philadelphia. He has served on the yearbook

committee, was team manager for men’s basketball, and vice president of the student council.

Thank you for joining us, Mr. Kinlock, and we look forward to

your testimony.

Mr. KINLOCK. Thank you for having me.

Good afternoon, Chairman Specter and subcommittee. My name

is Steven Kinlock. I am a senior at the Preparatory Charter High

School of Mathematics, Science, Technology, and Careers in Philadelphia, PA.

My school has been the proud recipient of a 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant. 21st Century grants funds have allowed me numerous opportunities that I never could have experienced at any other high school. As a senior, I attended the Community College of Philadelphia and took four college-credit courses.

This proved to be an invaluable experience for me, for I feel that

I am now far better equipped to make the transition from high

school to college.
43

During my 4 years at Prep Charter, our 21st Century program

allowed me to receive SAT preparation and even paid the fees for

taking the test. I cannot begin to measure the value of the afterschool tutoring and mentoring programs I have enjoyed for these

past 4 years.

As of this date, I have been accepted to 10 colleges and universities, including the Fashion Institute of Technology, Morgan State

University, Virginia State University, Widener University, Virginia

Union State University, Voorhees University, Indiana University of

Pennsylvania, Paine University, California University of Pennsylvania, and Penn State University.

Years ago, I would never have dreamed I would actually have the

dilemma of choosing which college to attend. I truly believe that I

could not have achieved this level in my high school academic career were it not for the after-school support and nurturing environment provided to me by the 21st Century Program sponsored by

Foundations, Incorporated, and Prep Charter High.

My grades and test scores saw a steady increase. I received assistance with my homework and worked on academic content crucial to my day-in-school success. High standards remained the

same, but the after-school hands-on approach was a great style for

enhancing my learning experiences.

These after-school programs have provided many of my friends

and me with meaningful academic cultural activities, have kept us

off the streets, and have given us a positive direction in life.

Through the support of these programs, we have come to believe

we can do it, we can succeed.

PREPARED STATEMENT

On behalf of Prep Charter students and all the children who participate in the 21st Century Learning Program, I thank you and

ask for your continued support and funding. This is a program that

makes a difference.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN KINLOCK

Good morning Senator Specter and Members of the Subcommittee on After-School

Programs.

My name is Steven Kinlock. I am a senior at the Preparatory Charter High School

of Mathematics, Science, Technology, and Careers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

My school has been the proud recipient of a 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant. Twenty-first Century grant funds have allowed me numerous opportunities that I never could have experienced at any other school. As a senior, I attended

the Community College of Philadelphia and took four college credit courses. This

proved to be an invaluable experience for me for I feel that I am far better equipped

to make the transition from high school to college.

During my four years at Prep Charter, our 21st Century program allowed me to

receive S.A.T. preparation, and even paid my fees for taking the test. I cannot begin

to measure the value of the after-school tutoring and mentoring programs I have

enjoyed for these past four years.

As of this date, I have been accepted to ten colleges and universities, including

the Fashion Institute of Technology, Morgan State University, Virginia State University, Widener University, Virginia Union State University, Voorhees University,

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Paine University, California University of

Pennsylvania, and Penn State University.

Years ago, I would never have dreamed that I would actually have the dilemma

of choosing WHICH college to attend. I truly believe that I could not have achieved

this level in my high school academic career were it not for the after-school support
44

and nurturing environment provided to me by the 21st Century program sponsored

by FOUNDATIONS, Inc. and Prep Charter High.

My grades and test scores saw a steady increase. I received assistance with my

homework and worked on academic content crucial to my day-school success. High

standards remained the same but the after-school, hands-on approach was a great

style for enhancing my learning experiences.

These after-school programs have provided many of my friends and me with

meaningful academic and cultural activities, have kept us off the streets, and have

given us a positive direction in life. Through the support of these programs, we have

come to believe that WE CAN DO IT!!! WE CAN SUCCEED!!

On behalf of all Prep Charter students and all of the children who participate in

21st Century Learning Programs, I thank you and ask for your continued support

and funding. This IS a program that makes a difference.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Kinlock, for those

very cogent words.

STATEMENT OF MADISON WHITE, STUDENT, MASSILLON PUBLIC

SCHOOLS, MASSILLON, OH

Senator SPECTER. Our final witness is Ms. Madison White,

fourth-grade student at York Elementary School in Massillon, OH.

She attends the Tigers Den 21st Century Community Learning

Center program every day after school.

Thank you for joining us, Ms. White, and we look forward to your

testimony.

Ms. WHITE. Hello, my name is Madison White. I am 9 years old,

from Massillon, OH.

First, I would like to thank you for allowing me to come to Washington, DC, to speak to you about my very important everyday life.

I would like to tell you how important the 21st Century afterschool program has been to me, as a student. It allows me to have

many educational opportunities that I might not have. For example, I get to go to Six Flags Amusement Park to learn about physics. Last summer, I went to Stan Hywet Hall and Gardens in

Akron, Ohio, and learned about Stan Hywet and why he was an

important person in Akron’s history. The program also helps me

with my homework. Whenever I have trouble, I know there is always a teacher who will help me, and all I have to do is ask.

The activities are fun, too. We tie dye T-shirts. We make flubber,

and we do experiments with dry ice.

I have made many friends in the after-school program, and I

know that a lot of them would be home alone if they did not have

the after-school program. If they were home alone, they might get

into trouble by doing things they were not supposed to do. The

after-school program gives them someplace to go until their parents

get home.

When we first moved to Massillon, my mother enrolled me and

my three brothers in the program so she could work extra hours

so we could have money for extra things. If my mom had to put

us in daycare, we would not be able to afford anything other than

bills.

The first summer we were in the program, Ms. Joseph, the program coordinator, talked my mom into having me tested for the

gifted program. Now I can do work at the sixth-or seventh-grade

level. Because of this, I now get A’s and B’s and not C’s.

My brother, Chas, has also benefitted from this program. He was

going to fail first grade, because his reading and math skills were

so low. His teacher told my mom to enroll him in the summer 21st
45

Century program, because they would help him with reading. Then

the staff of the 21st Century program told my mom about another

reading program. Now Chas is in second grade, and he can read

as well as his classmates.

Another thing I like about the after-school program is we eat dinner before we go home. Then my mom does not have to cook and

she can spend more time with me and my brothers.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The after-school program is very important to me and my family.

I am asking you not to cut the funding for after-school programs,

because other children should have the same opportunities that I

had. We are your future, so whatever we put into our community

now will help us all later.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MADISON WHITE

Hi, my name is Madison White and I am in the 4th grade at York Elementary

School in Massillon, Ohio.

I go to the Tiger’s Den 21st Century Community Learning Center program everyday afterschool. I like it because I get to do and learn lots of fun stuff.

Everyday when we get there we get free time for thirty minutes, and we get a

snack. When we have free time we can do lots of different things. We can play

games, draw, or read quietly. My favorite thing to do when I get there is play games

with my friends.

After that we have homework time. That helps me a lot. Like the other day when

I was doing my multiplication problems for math, and the teacher checked it over,

and found out I forgot to put a zero on the end. So the next day I got the question

right because my afterschool teacher checked my homework.

After homework time we either play games or get to learn about fun things. Right

now we’re learning about what makes weather, like it rains, because of all the gases

and water in the air. And a few weeks ago we were learning about our senses, and

when we learned about taste we got to taste lots of different kinds of food, and then

when we learned about touch, we put our hands in bags, and felt lots of different

materials.

We also get to do arts and crafts sometimes. We get to make cool stuff. Like the

other week, we made tie-dyed socks, and this week we’re making flowers out of coffee cans for our moms for Mother’s Day.

My favorite part of afterschool is when they read us stories. I like it because I

can picture the stories in my head. Reading is my favorite subject at school.

Also, I like it because I get to see my friend’s afterschool, and also the teachers

are really nice.

We get to do Girls Scouts every Friday too, and my little brothers do Boy Scouts.

They go to Tiger’s Den too.

I’ve been going to the afterschool program since I was in 2nd grade, and it has

helped me a lot. When I first got there I used to do my homework faster than the

other kids. The afterschool teacher told me I was really smart, and told my mom

to get me tested to see how smart I was. And then after I got tested and it showed

I was really smart, the teachers at my regular school put me in the gifted program.

They said I might even get to graduate from high school early and go to college

early too.

Also, because my little brother goes to Tiger’s Den 21st CCLC he didn’t have to

stay back. He almost failed first grade, but since he started going to afterschool, and

the teachers helped him so much with his reading he didn’t have to stay back.

I like Tiger’s Den because if me and my brothers and my friends didn’t have it,

we would have to go home alone afterschool and we wouldn’t get to do all this fun

stuff.

CLOSING REMARKS

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you very much, Madison, for that

very eloquent statement, especially for someone who is 9 years old.
46

I think you are a good advertisement for the quality and efficiency

and importance of after-school programs.

Thank you, Mr. Steven Kinlock, for your testimony. Very impressive to be admitted to 10 universities. Have you made up your

mind as to which one you are going to choose?

Mr. KINLOCK. No.

Senator SPECTER. Well, it sounds to me like you have great

choices.

Chief, thank you for coming. I know Senator Harkin would have

wanted to have been here to give you a special Iowa welcome, but

he simply could not be here. And it is very important for the chiefs

of police to be activists on crime-prevention programs, big part of

the job. I focused on that very heavily when I was DA of Philadelphia. I think it is very, very important.

Mayor, you come from a unique city. New Haven is one of the

great cities in America, and thank you for coming to testify on behalf of the National League. And we hear what you have to say,

and your Knuckleheads-Hardheads are good focus points.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, you are a model, beyond any question. You

have a lot of fans. You have even added two new Senators to the

roles of the U.S. Senate.

Anybody have anything they would like to say in conclusion?

I think we have heard very, very impressive testimony. You have

very, very solid Committee support here. Our only difficulty, candidly, is when the Administration comes in with a lower figure, and

the figures are somewhere else. It means, that in order to reinstate

the funds for this program, we have to take monies from somewhere else. And that is hard on a subcommittee which funds

healthcare and other education projects and worker safety.

But I think the points have been made very, very emphatically

here today, and we will give very, very careful consideration to

your testimony.

Mr. Schwarzenegger, when you attend the summit, I expect you

to have quite a few things to say to the Department of Education.

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Thank you all very much for being here. That concludes our

hearing.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, Tuesday, May 13, the hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to

the call of the Chair.]

Æ