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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–040 PDF 2008

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS: HOW

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S BUDGET

IMPACTS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, 

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 11, 2008

Serial No. 110–81

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor

(

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

John Kline, Minnesota 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

David Davis, Tennessee 

Timothy Walberg, Michigan 

[Vacancy]

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD,

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan, Chairman

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Danny K. Davis, Illinois 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Linda T. Sa ́nchez, California 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware, 

Ranking Minority Member 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Ric Keller, Florida 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana 

John R. ‘‘Randy’’ Kuhl, Jr., New York 

[Vacancy] 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on March 11, 2008 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Castle, Hon. Michael N., Senior Republican Member, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .......................... 4

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Kildee, Hon. Dale E., Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................................. 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Additional submissions: 

Letter from the National Coalition for Public Education ............... 42

Letter from the National School Boards Association ...................... 43

Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 42

Statement of Witnesses: 

Carroll, Michael J., chief of police, West Goshen Township Police Department ............................................................................................................... 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Gamble, LaDonna, interim project director, Bridges to the Future Before 

and Afterschool Program’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers . 8

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10

Kough, Theresa Vendrzyk, education associate, Delaware Department 

of Education, After School Programs .......................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

Little, Priscilla M., associate director, Harvard Family Research Project, 

on behalf of Harvard Family Research Project .......................................... 17

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19

(1)

AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS: HOW THE

BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S BUDGET 

IMPACTS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES 

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dale Kildee [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kildee, Kucinich, Davis of California, 

Payne, Sarbanes, Sestak, Hirono, Hare, Castle, Platts, and Kuhl. 

Staff present: Tylease Alli, Hearing Clerk; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Lloyd Horwich, Policy Advisor for Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education; Lamont Ivey, Staff Assistant, Education; Danielle Lee, 

Press/Outreach Assistant; Jill Morningstar, Education Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk; 

Rachel Racusen, Deputy Communications Director; Dray Thorne, 

Senior Systems Administrator; Margaret Young, Staff Assistant, 

Education; Stephanie Arras, Minority Legislative Assistant; James 

Bergeron, Minority Deputy Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Cameron Coursen, Minority Assistant Communications 

Director; Minority Chad Miller, Minority Professional Staff; Susan 

Ross, Minority Director of Education and Human Resources Policy; 

and Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General 

Counsel. 

Chairman KILDEE [presiding]. A quorum being present, the hearing of the subcommittee will come to order. 

Pursuant to Committee Rule 12A, any member may submit an 

opening statement in writing, which will be made part of the permanent record. 

I will now recognize myself, followed by Ranking Member Castle, 

for opening statements. 

I am very pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, 

the public and our witnesses to this hearing on After-School Programs: How the Bush Administration’s Budget Impacts Children 

and Families. 

2

I helped write this program back in 1994, when Dick Riley was 

secretary of education and the former governor of South Carolina. 

We had a lot of meetings at the White House at that time on this. 

It is a very important program, and it is a program that I have 

seen the productiveness throughout the country. So I appreciate all 

our witnesses being here this morning. 

There is no doubt in my mind in my 32 years that I have been 

in Congress that, without the expert testimony of people like yourself, we could not write the quality of legislation that we, hopefully, 

sometimes do. But with your input, we do improve the quality of 

the legislation. So I really appreciate your being here. 

Last year Congress increased funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, the federally supported after-school program, by $100 million. This has always had good congressional 

support. As I say, I started this in 1994, but when we did No Child 

Left Behind, John Boehner, who was chairman of the full committee at that time, worked very closely with us, and we included 

that. So this has always been a bipartisan program, and we have 

kept it that way through the years. 

This year these centers will provide services to more than 1.5 

million children and their families, and they are doing a good job. 

As we will hear today from Priscilla Little of the Harvard Family 

Research Project, research shows that good after-school programs 

including 21st Century Community Learning Centers improve academic, social and emotional outcomes, especially for low-income 

children. 

Chief Carroll, from Representative Sestak’s district, will tell us 

about the difference good programs are making in the lives of children in their communities by providing safe, nurturing environments after school. 

And I am especially proud that LaDonna Gamble, who directs 

the Bridges to the Future program for the Flint Community 

Schools in my hometown is here to tell us about their outstanding 

work. I had the pleasure of working for that school system for 8 

years. 

Ms. Gamble, I read in your testimony that one of the ways that 

you make learning fun for students is to teach them engineering 

principles by building catapults. As a former Latin teacher, I tried 

that but was not as successful as you, causing some damage in the 

classroom itself. 

It is beyond me why the president would propose not only to 

slash after-school funding by 26 percent, or $281 million, but also 

to turn the program into a voucher program. There is something 

about that end of Pennsylvania Avenue that vouchers seem to be 

a lure for many of the people who occupied that most expensive 

public housing in the country, the White House. 

By the administration’s own calculations, its proposal could result in more than 1 million fewer students receiving services. That 

is their calculation. I had hoped that the president’s final education 

budget would be an improvement over his previous ones, but it is 

hard to see anything positive about increases for Title 1 and special 

education that don’t even keep up with inflation or cuts to drug 

and violence prevention and after-school programs, eliminating 

3

educational technology and career and technical education, and divisive private-school and after-school voucher proposals. 

On that last point, I will quote Ms. Kough, our fourth witness, 

who I note was invited by the minority, who has always been very 

helpful in this program. She says, ‘‘The administration’s current 

proposal to convert the after-school program to a voucher system 

may force programs to close, which would result in more students 

with no place to go after school. The move to a voucher system 

would undermine existing public-private community and faithbased partnerships that are working well.’’

Fortunately, congressional support for after-school programs is 

bipartisan. In 2005, I joined with Representatives Lowey, Regula 

and Ros-Lehtinen to form the Afterschool Caucus to help build support for after-school programs. Today the caucus has nearly 80 

members, including my friend and Ranking Member Governor Castle. 

And earlier this month I joined with Representative Kuhl, a 

member of this subcommittee, to circulate a bipartisan letter to appropriators requesting a $250 million increase for after-school programs. 

So I do not fear for the future of this fine program but rather 

look forward to hearing our witnesses describe how well it has 

worked and how we can make it work better. 

I now yield to the ranking member of this subcommittee and my 

very dear friend for many, many years, Governor Castle, for his 

opening statement.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dale E. Kildee, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

I’m pleased to welcome my fellow subcommittee members, the public, and our witnesses, to this hearing on ‘‘After School Programs: How the Bush Administration’s 

Budget Impacts Children and Families.’’

Last year, Congress increased funding for 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers—the federally supported after school program—by $100 million. 

This year, those centers will provide services to more than 1.5 million children 

and their families. 

And, they’re doing a good job. 

As we will hear today from Priscilla Little, of the Harvard Family Research 

Project, research shows that good after school programs, including 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers, improve academic, social and emotional, and other 

outcomes—especially for low-income children. 

Chief Carroll, from Representative Sestak’s district, will tell us about the difference good programs are making in the lives of children and their communities 

by providing safe, nurturing environments after school. 

And, I’m especially proud that Ladonna Gamble, who directs the Bridges to the 

Future Program for the Flint community schools in my hometown, is here to tell 

us about their outstanding work. 

Ms. Gamble, I read in your testimony that one of the ways that you make learning fun for students is to teach them engineering principles by building catapults. 

As a former Latin teacher, I tried that myself, but was not as successful as you 

have been in that endeavor. 

It is beyond me, then, why the president would propose not only to slash after 

school funding by 26 percent or $281 million, but also to turn the program into a 

voucher program. 

By the administration’s own calculations, its proposal could result in more than 

one million fewer students receiving services. 

I had hoped that the president’s final education budget would be an improvement 

over his previous ones, but it is hard to see much positive about increases for Title 

I and special education that don’t even keep up with inflation, or cuts to drug and 

violence prevention and after school programs, eliminating education technology and 

4

career and technical education, and divisive private school and after school voucher 

proposals. 

On that last point, I will quote Ms. Kough, our fourth witness, who I would note 

was invited by the minority—‘‘the administration’s current proposal to convert the 

21st century community learning centers program to a voucher system may force 

programs to close, which would result in more students with no place to go after 

school. In addition, the move to a voucher system would undermine existing public, 

private, community, and faith-based partnerships that are working well.’’

Fortunately, congressional support for after school programs is bipartisan. 

In 2005, I joined with Representatives Lowey, Regula and Ros-Lehtinen to form 

the After School Caucus to help build support for after school programs. 

Today, the Caucus has nearly 80 members, including my friend and Ranking 

Member, Governor Castle. 

And, earlier this month, I joined with Representative Kuhl, a member of this subcommittee, to circulate a bipartisan letter to appropriators requesting a $250 million 

increase for after school programs. 

So, I do not fear for the future of this fine program, but rather look forward to 

hearing our witnesses describe how well it has worked and how we can make it 

work even better. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased, 

always, to work with you, and I am pleased to have a distinguished 

group of panelists here and many interested people, and I think 

this is an important subject. 

We are here today to examine 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which, as you know, provide a variety of important 

services, including education support, community service and other 

enriching activities to many students across the country. 

I would like to recognize, obviously, Ms. Theresa Kough of my 

state, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the 

changes made to the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

(CCLC) program under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act and the 

benefits of after-school programs. I hope we can discuss the ways 

in which the program is working to increase student achievement 

and how the program can be strengthened. 

As you know, when NCLB was signed into law, the administration of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 

was transferred from the United States Department of Education 

to individual state departments of education. 

Since 2002, states have awarded competitive grants to safe entities, such as school districts and local and national communitybased organizations, to offer an array of activities to complement 

regular academic programs to not only improve academic skills but 

also to provide social opportunities. 

In my home state of Delaware, Ms. Kough receives 25 21st CCLC 

programs, which operate in 55 sites throughout the state. As Ms. 

Kough will discuss in her testimony, the number of Delaware students enrolled in its 21st CCLC programs has grown substantially 

over the last several years. Delaware students in 21st CCLC programs have also made a number of academic gains in reading and 

mathematics. 

In Delaware and throughout the United States, the importance 

of after-school programs is apparent. Each afternoon millions of 

students around the nation leave school with no place to go because 

they lack affordable, accessible, after-school opportunities. In the 

hours when children are most likely to commit or be the victim of 

5

a crime, parents and caretakers, for a variety of reasons, are unable to arrange or afford a better alternative. 

21st CCLC programs give school-age children the option of using 

this time for growth and opportunity instead. In fact, according to 

the Afterschool Alliance, results of evaluations and teacher reports 

have revealed positive trends in behavior and achievement for students who regularly attend 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers. 

However, federal funding for 21st CCLC programs was never intended to merely keep students off the streets. Instead, the program is intended to provide meaningful educational opportunities. 

Although there are many positive outcomes associated with 

CCLC’s, the U.S. Department of Education reports, which evaluated CCLC after-school programs from 2001 and 2004, did not find 

significant improvements in academic achievement. 

Additionally, a third report from the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences found that, generally, the program had no impact on reading test scores or grades. 

I find these results to be problematic and hope to hear from the 

witnesses their suggestions for raising academic standards within 

this important program. 

Additionally, before considering the administration’s proposal to 

transform the program into an after-school and summer-school 

scholarship program, it is important that we consider ways in 

which the program can be improved to continue serving all deserving children while making strides toward closing the achievement 

gap. 

I believe strongly in the principles of No Child Left Behind and 

the programs which fall under No Child Left Behind. The importance of closing the achievement gap cannot be overstated, and I 

look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and their suggestions for doing so. 

Thank you, all, again. 

And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael N. Castle, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education 

Good Morning. We’re here today to examine 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers—which as you know—provide a variety of important services, including 

education, sports, community service and other enriching activities to many students around the country. 

I would also like to welcome our witnesses and thank all of you for being here 

to testify today. Specifically, I would like to recognize Ms. Theresa Kough. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the changes made to the 21st 

Century Community Learning Center (CCLC) program under the 2001 No Child 

Left Behind Act, the benefits of after school programs. I hope we can discuss the 

ways in which program is working to increase student achievement and how the 

program can be strengthened. 

As you know, when NCLB was signed into law, the administration of the 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers program was transferred from the United 

States Department of Education to individual state departments of education. 

Since 2002, states have awarded competitive grants to state entities such as 

school districts, and local and national community-based organizations to offer an 

array of activities to complement regular academic programs to not only improve 

academic skills, but also to provide social opportunities. 

In my home state of Delaware, Ms. Kough oversees twenty-five 21st CCLC programs which operate in 55 sites throughout the state. 

As Ms. Kough will discuss in her testimony, the number of Delaware students enrolled in its 21st CCLC programs has grown substantially over the last several 

6

years. Delaware students in 21st CCLC programs have also made a number of academic gains in reading and mathematics. 

In Delaware and throughout the United States, the importance of after school programs is apparent. Each afternoon millions of students around the nation leave 

school with no place to go because they lack affordable, accessible after school opportunities. In the hours when children are most likely to commit or be the victim of 

a crime, parents and caretakers, for a variety of reasons are unable to arrange or 

afford a better alternative. 

21st CCLC programs give school-aged children the option of using this time for 

growth and opportunity instead. In fact, according to the Afterschool Alliance, results of evaluations and teacher reports have revealed positive trends in behavior 

and achievement for students who regularly attend 21st Century Community Learning Centers. However, federal funding for 21st CCLC programs was never intended 

to merely keep students off the streets. Instead, the program is intended to provide 

meaningful educational opportunities. 

Although there are many positive outcomes associated with CCLCs, U.S. Department of Education reports which evaluated CCLC after school programs, from 2001 

and 2004, did not find significant improvements in academic achievement. Additionally, a third report from the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) found that generally, the program had no impact on reading 

test scores or grades. 

I find these results to be problematical and hope to hear from the witnesses their 

suggestions for raising academic standards within this important program. 

Additionally, before considering the Administration’s proposal to transform the 

program into an after school and summer school scholarship program, it is important that we consider ways in which the program can be improved to continue serving all deserving children while making strides towards closing the achievement 

gap. 

I believe strongly in the principles of No Child Left Behind and the programs 

which fall under NCLB. The importance of closing the achievement gap cannot be 

overstated and I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses their suggestions 

for doing so. Thank you all again—I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Without objection, all members will have 7 calendar days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. 

I would like now to introduce the very distinguished panel of witnesses here with us this morning. I am going to share the responsibility on that. 

I first will introduce LaDonna Gamble, who is the interim project 

director of the Flint Community Schools Bridges to the Future 

after-school program. In partnership with the Genesee Intermediate School District and the United Way of Genesee County, 

the program serves thousands of students at 109 schools, 37 in 

Flint, Michigan. 

Ms. Gamble attended the Flint Community Schools and holds degrees from the University of Michigan, where I have my Master’s 

degree, and Central Michigan University. 

I now yield to Admiral Sestak to introduce Chief Carroll. 

Admiral? 

Mr. SESTAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Castle. 

I am very pleased to introduce chief of police of West Goshen 

Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania, Chief Michael Carroll. 

He has had 41 years in Pennsylvania law enforcement and has 

quite a reputation, both on the national and international levels. 

In fact, he is presently serving as the vice president of the International Chiefs of Police Association, having served as president of 

three organizations before that: the Chester County Police Chiefs 

Association, the Police Chiefs Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. But what 

7

I am most proud of is the last 19 years he has served as chief of 

police of West Goshen. 

In particular, however, he is also an instructor at Delaware 

County’s police academy, and he also does guest lecturing at several other institutions, including the United States Naval Academy, 

and this is particularly hard since he is such an avid Notre Dame 

football fan. And last year, as everybody here watched the game, 

I am sure, Navy broke one of the longest losing streaks in the nation, and I hope you weren’t there that day at the academy lecturing. 

Chief Carroll is an active member of a program that I strongly 

support, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. I truly believe in this program because I spent my entire 36 or so years in the Navy serving 

with the youth of America. The average age on an aircraft carrier—

5,000 sailors—is 191⁄2. They are the youth of America. And we always knew, get them while they are young. And if you get it into 

the right cognitive reasoning, you will show them the right way, 

they will be mighty fine. 

This organization, in particular, is composed of police chiefs, 

prosecutors, sheriffs and violence survivors that examine what 

makes our youth likely to commit crime and focuses on prevention 

strategies, like high-quality early-education programs and afterschool programs. This is what we all would like to do: to get troubled kids back on the path toward personal achievement, to where 

we all benefit. 

He has recently been inducted into the International Police 

Chiefs Hall of Fame, and so I am really proud, today, Chief, to sit 

here and introduce you, and thank you for coming. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Admiral. 

Chief, there are certain bonds that tie people together. Interestingly enough, I see you served in the Honor Guard for President 

Kennedy’s funeral. I was in room 310 at Flint Central High School 

teaching Latin when I got word of President Kennedy’s assassination, and it was that week that I determined that I was going to 

run for public office, feeling that perhaps I could touch even more 

people in that arena. So those dates stand in both our memories 

in a very profound way. 

Priscilla Little is the associate director of the Harvard Family 

Research Project. She recently completed a summary of 10 years 

worth of research on after-school programs, which she will discuss 

with us today. 

Ms. Little serves on the advisory board of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory’s National Partnership for Quality Afterschool Learning, as well as other state after-school boards, 

and speaks nationally on research and evaluation of after-school 

programs. She holds degrees from Smith College and Tufts University. 

I now yield to the Ranking Member Governor Castle to introduce 

Ms. Kough. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will try to get through this introduction without mentioning 

what the University of Delaware did to Navy, Admiral Sestak, in 

this last football season just before that Notre Dame game. 

8

I would like to welcome Theresa Kough to today’s hearing. I have 

already talked about her a little bit. She is an education associate 

in the Delaware Department of Education. She is currently responsible for administering three major after-school programs in Delaware, including 21st Century Community Learning Centers, state 

Extra Time funding and Supplemental Educational Services. 

Before going with the Delaware Department of Education, she 

was with Newcastle County Vocational School District, and her 

work in score reform technology and the creation of a strong library 

program brought her to the Delaware Department of Education as 

the education associate responsible for school library programming. 

In 1999, Ms. Kough became the department’s director of the 

Technology, Management and Design workgroup, where she managed the implementation of the statewide pupil accounting system 

and the development of the department’s data warehouse. 

In her 30 years in education, Ms. Kough has always worked with 

after-school programming because of her strong belief in programming, which offers students and schools the opportunity to pursue 

new and different approaches to learning. 

Ms. Kough holds a Master’s degree in library and information 

systems from Drexel University, a Bachelor’s in Science degree 

from Shippensburg State University in elementary education with 

a concentration reading and library science. She has also pursued 

graduate work at the University of Pittsburgh and the University 

of Pennsylvania. 

Thank you, Ms. Kough, for being here today, and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony on 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Governor. 

Again, welcome to all our witnesses. 

For those of you who have not testified before this subcommittee 

before, I will explain our lighting system and the 5-minute rule. 

Everyone, including members, is limited to 5 minutes of presentation or questioning. The green light will be illuminated when you 

begin to speak, and when you see the yellow light, it means that 

you have one minute remaining. When you see the red light, it 

means that your time has expired and you need to conclude your 

testimony. There is no ejection seat, however, so you can finish 

your paragraph, at least your thought. 

Please be certain, as you testify, to turn on and speak into the 

microphone in front of you and turn it off when you are finished. 

We will now hear from our first witness, Ms. Gamble. 

Ms. Gamble? 

STATEMENT OF LADONNA GAMBLE, INTERIM PROJECT DIRECTOR, FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, BRIDGES TO THE 

FUTURE 

Ms. GAMBLE. Good morning. My name is LaDonna Gamble, and 

I am interim project director for Bridges to the Future before-and 

after-school program 21st Century Community Learning Centers in 

Flint, Michigan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. This is a first 

for me, but it is easier because my congressman, Representative 

9

Kildee, is here with us. Thank you for supporting the after-school 

program. 

I bring the perspective of someone who has seen after-school 

work miracles from several vantage points. I experienced it as a 

child growing up in Flint, which was the birthplace of community 

education. 

I have worked as a front-line staffer and administrator at an 

after-school site, and now I administer Flint’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers program. I see the difference after-school 

makes for children and families. 

So I am here today to respond from the field to the president’s 

proposal to revamp the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

initiative into a voucher program, as well as his proposed budget 

cut for after-school. I think both are very bad ideas and that it 

would have a disastrous effect on after-school programs in Flint, 

across Michigan and around the nation. 

More than that, they are bad ideas that distract us from what 

we really need to do, which is to increase funding to get it closer 

to the level authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, $2.5 

billion. 

Let me tell you a little bit about our program in Flint. Bridges 

to the Future serves all of Genesee County, serving more than 

17,000 children from kindergarten through ninth grade. 

Countywide Bridges has 109 sites. I oversee Bridges’ program in 

Flint, which includes 32 elementary schools and seven middle 

schools. On any given day, we have 4,000 children attend in Flint. 

We have two 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants 

currently in Flint, one that supports five of our middle schools and 

a second that funds five of our elementary schools. 

There are two basic components to our daily program. First, the 

students receive academic support, or what we call mind time. It 

includes lessons that reinforce what they learn during the school 

day, individual homework help and activities like chess that build 

math skills. Second, students enjoy enrichment activities, including 

visual arts, music, writing, choir and more. 

Our kids also get a healthy dose of science and technology. We 

offer a terrific Legolab and robotics program in the middle schools, 

courtesy of our 21st Century grant. The kids just love it. This 

weekend our middle school sites will participate in a science Olympiad competition at Mott Community College, competing with children across the region. They are building rockets and having so 

much fun preparing that they might not even notice all the engineering and science learning they are doing. 

Of course, we also make sure the kids get physical activity 

through sports, active play and more. 

Our summer programs are funded by 21st Century monies, and 

for the past 3 years, we have focused on fitness and nutrition. In 

addition to providing our kids with a nutritious snack, many of 

them rely on us for a healthy dinner. 

Our two major funding sources are the C. S. Mott Foundation 

grant to the United Way of Genesee County and a 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers grant. We work to raise other funds 

as well. But in Flint we don’t have that many options. It is not 

10

1965, and the automotive industry isn’t pouring money into our 

economy anymore. We need our grants. 

A recent third-party evaluation of the Bridges to the Future program found that more than 90 percent of parents say their children 

do better in school and learn new things as a result of the program. 

They also felt that their children were safer in Bridges. 

If Congress adopts the president’s budget cut, Michigan could 

lose about $8 million, down from its current funding of $37 million. 

On the ground that would mean about 8,000 children would lose 

after-school. 

In Michigan already there are many more grant applications 

than the 21st Century funds can support. Between 2004 and 2006 

the state could only fund 21 percent of the proposals it received. 

That is a lot of unmet demand for after-school, and cutting the 

budget would make matters worse. 

In Flint we already have waiting lists. A cut would exacerbate 

the problem, and a cut would harm our summer program or perhaps even cause it to fold. 

We are very grateful to the government and, particularly, to Congress for what you have done to make after-school programs available. Your after-school funding has created opportunities for millions of children across the nation. I thank you on behalf of those 

kids and families. 

But also on their behalf, I urge you to reject the president’s unwise proposal, and more than that, I urge you to remember that 

after-school pays incredible dividends today and in the future. 

So it is important that the president’s proposal be defeated, but 

it is also important that defeating it does not distract from the important work of expanding after-school activities for children and 

families nationwide by increasing 21st Century Community Learning Centers funding for next year. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Gamble follows:]

Prepared Statement of LaDonna Gamble, Interim Project Director, Bridges 

to the Future Before and Afterschool Program’s 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers 

Good morning. My name’s LaDonna Gamble, and I’m the Interim Project Director 

of the Bridges to the Future Before and Afterschool Program’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers in Flint, Michigan. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. This is a first for me, 

but it’s a lot easier because my Congressman, Representative Kildee is here today. 

It’s good to see you, sir. Thank you for your support for afterschool programs. It 

means so very much. 

I bring today the perspective of someone who has seen afterschool work its miracles from several vantage points. I’ve experienced it as a child growing up in Flint, 

the birthplace of community education. I’ve worked as a front line staffer and administrator at an afterschool site, working with children. And now I administer 

Flint’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs. I see what a difference 

afterschool makes in the lives of our children and their families. I know how crucial 

it is. 

So I’m here today to respond, as a voice from the field, to the President’s proposal 

to revamp the 21st Century Community Learning Centers initiative into a voucher 

program, as well as to his proposed budget cut for afterschool. I think both are very 

bad ideas that would have a disastrous effect on afterschool programs in Flint, 

across Michigan, and around the nation. 

More than that, I think they’re bad ideas that distract us from doing what we 

need to do for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) initiaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
11

tive, which is to increase funding to get it closer to the level authorized under the 

No Child Left Behind Act—$2.5 billion. 

Let me start by telling you about our program in Flint. The Bridges to the Future 

program spans all of Genesee County, serving more than 17,000 children, from kindergarten through 9th grade. County-wide, Bridges has 109 sites. I oversee the 

Bridges program in Flint, which includes programs in 32 elementary schools and 

five middle schools. On any given day, about 4,000 children attend Bridges programs in Flint. Total enrollment is larger, but for various reasons (illness, family 

matters, student choice, etc), perfect attendance is rare. 

We have two separate 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants in Flint, 

one that supports five of our seven middle school programs, and a second grant that 

funds five of our elementary programs. We’re also very fortunate to have the support of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, based in Flint, which, as you know, 

is a major supporter of afterschool. They give a very significant grant to our community partner, the United Way of Genesee County, which in turn supports the 

Bridges program in Flint and county-wide. 

Let me tell you what that funding supports. There are two basic components to 

our daily program. First, students receive academic support, or what we call ‘‘mind 

time.’’ And second is broad program of enrichment activities. 

‘‘Mind time’’ includes lessons reinforcing what students are learning during the 

regular school day, as well as group and individual help with homework. Mind Time 

can also include activities such as chess, which some studies have shown builds students’ math skills. We coordinate with our school day staff to make sure we’re on 

track with their curriculum, and to try to shore up any weaknesses that the teachers are seeing. 

Our enrichment activities include a wide range of things, and many of them involve our various community partners. Many of our activities involve the arts, and 

we have an invaluable partner in the Flint Cultural Center, which provides lessons 

and programs for our children that introduce them to the visual arts, music, writing 

and more. 

Our kids also get a healthy dose of science and technology. We offer a terrific Lego 

Lab and robotics program in middle schools, courtesy of our 21st CCLC grant. The 

kids just love it. It’s pretty popular with the adults, too, to tell the truth! 

We conduct a number of activities that were once part of the regular school day, 

but that between tight budgets and the focus on state assessment tests, were discontinued. So we have a choir program, and we train students for the spelling bee. This 

coming weekend, our middle school sites will participate in a Science Olympiad 

Competition, competing with children from across the county and the region. They 

are building rockets. There will be a trebuchet competition—those are the very large 

catapult-type devices that were the Peacekeeper Missiles of the Middle Ages. It will 

be a remarkable event, so much fun for the kids that they aren’t even noticing all 

the engineering and science learning they are doing to prepare! 

Of course, we also make sure the kids run around, and get physical activity 

through sports, active play and more. Our summer programs are funded by 21st 

CCLC, and for the past three years we have had a much needed focus on fitness 

and nutrition. In addition to providing our kids with a nutritious snack in the afternoon, many of them also rely on us for a healthy dinner after programming ends. 

That’s a very quick sketch of what we do. Our two major funding sources are the 

C.S. Mott Foundation grant to the United Way of Genesee County, and our 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers grants. We work to raise other funds and inkind donations as well. We do that program-wide and also site-by-site, as individual 

afterschool sites engage with local businesses and community organizations. But I 

want to make clear that in Flint, we don’t have all that many options. It’s not 1965, 

and the automotive industry isn’t pouring money into our local economy anymore. 

We need our grants. 

So on the budget cut, I feel as if we’ve had this conversation before. I think you 

all know that in 2003, the President proposed cutting the 21st CCLC initiative back 

by 40 percent. The public erupted. Parents, educators, business leaders, pretty much 

everybody with a stake in our children’s safety and education rose as one to object. 

Members of Congress heard from their constituents and decided to reject the President’s unwise proposal. 

Now it’s back. The numbers are different, and it’s got the additional bad idea of 

a voucher program attached to it, but it’s still a very large, and entirely unjustified, 

budget cut. 

The President’s proposal is at odds with any number of independent, scientific 

evaluations of afterschool programs. One very recent study that you might have 

heard of is the ‘‘Study of Promising Afterschool Programs,’’ by scholars Deborah 

Lowe Vandell and Kim Pierce of the University of California at Irvine, and ElizaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
12

beth Reisner of Policy Studies Associates. It showed that regular participation in 

high quality programs led to significant gains in test scores and work habits. 

And believe me, that’s just one of many, many studies that demonstrate with hard 

numbers what I would guess is also intuitive for all of us. If we spend time with 

kids, helping them with their studies, giving them incentive to come to school, engaging them in relationships with caring adults, making sure they’re safe in the 

afternoons, exposing them to new, horizon-expanding activities, getting them off the 

couch and onto the playing field * * * if we do all those things, good things happen 

for our kids. One of those good things is that they do better in school. And a number 

of studies show other positive impacts, including improved behavior, better fitness 

and less obesity, and less stress on working parents—which makes them better employees, and probably better parents! 

So it’s not by accident that you hear over and over again from parents and educators that afterschool works. It keeps kids safe, it inspires students to learn, and 

it helps working families. We say it because it’s what we see happening every day. 

A recent third-party evaluation of the Bridges to the Future program found that 

more than 90 percent of parents with kids in the program say their children do better in school and learn new things as a result of the program. They also overwhelmingly felt that their children were safer in Bridges. So while we’re always focused 

on improving what we do, we know what we’re doing is working. Now, in Michigan, estimates are that the state would lose about $8 million in grant monies from this plan, down from its current funding of $37 million. On the 

ground, that’d mean that more than 8,000 children would lose afterschool across the 

state. Nationwide, the estimate is that more than a quarter million children would 

lose afterschool. In Flint, we already have waiting lists of children wanting to be 

in our afterschool programs. A cut would only exacerbate the problem. 

I should also point out that in Michigan, there are many more grant applications 

submitted than can be funded by the 21st CCLC initiative. Between 2004 and 2006, 

the state could fund only 21 percent of the proposals it received. That’s a lot of 

unmet demand for afterschool, and cutting the budget would make matters worse. 

I can’t imagine that Michigan is unique in that respect. For example, from data 

gathered by the Afterschool Alliance, we know that the parents of at least 15 million 

children say they’d enroll their kids in an afterschool program if one were available 

to them. 

Now, what would this cut mean for the children of Flint, Michigan? It would depend, of course, on how Michigan decides to implement it, but it could be a disaster. 

The proposed cut, if enacted by Congress, would almost certainly mean that Michigan would make no new grants next year. So while a fifth or more of the state’s 

grants would expire, no new grants or renewals would go out to replace them. Quite 

simply, that’d mean fewer afterschool programs, fewer children safe, and fewer families served. 

The state might also elect to implement an across-the-board cutback, or perhaps 

a cutback for some of the grantees—those in their final year of multi-year grants, 

for example. That would hit us hard, because our elementary school 21st CCLC 

grant enters its final year this June. So conceivably, we could start the 2008-09 

school year, and then lose funding mid-stream. That’d be a disaster. 

Our summer program for kids would also suffer, perhaps have to fold. It’s entirely 

dependent on our 21st CCLC grant. 

None of those are good outcomes, and all of them cry out for rejecting this proposal. 

I want you to know that I’m very proud of the work we do at Bridges to the Future. I’m proud that our community has recognized the importance of afterschool in 

the lives of children and families. I’m proud of the work we’ve done to create a vibrant afterschool program. I’m proud of all the afterschool professionals who give 

their hearts, their brains, their energy, and their perseverance to afterschool every 

day. And I’m especially proud of our kids for taking part in programs that mix fun 

with learning, and meeting the adults more than half way. It’s a remarkable thing 

to see it all come together. 

And we’re very grateful to the federal government and, particularly to Members 

of Congress, for what you’ve done to make it possible. Without the 21st CCLC initiative, it’s hard to imagine that afterschool would have grown as much as it has over 

the last 10 years. Your support of afterschool funding has created opportunities for 

millions of children across the nation. So I thank you on behalf of those kids and 

their families. 

But also on their behalf, I urge you to reject this unwise proposal. And more than 

that, I urge you to make good on the letter and intent of the No Child Left Behind 

Act where it concerns afterschool. It mapped out a series of modest but steady increases in afterschool funding through Fiscal Year 2007, none of which came to 

13

pass. For 2008, you found funds for a modest increase, and believe me, parents and 

families noticed and appreciated it. That was a terrific down-payment on the expansion that is so critical to increasing and improving afterschool opportunities from 

coast to coast. 

So I ask you to stay on that path, by increasing funding this year as well. I know 

you have competing priorities. But afterschool pays such incredible dividends today 

and in the future, that I hope you’ll find space in the budget to increase funding. 

And I ask you to remember that converting 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers to a voucher program would completely undermine what we’re doing. It’d 

make funding precarious, because we wouldn’t know from semester to semester, 

maybe even month to month, what our funding base would be. We’re already struggling with uncertainty about funding. A voucher plan would only make it worse. 

Also, I’m not sure what it would accomplish. I presume the Administration wants 

to involve more community organizations in afterschool. But those organizations, including faith-based organizations, are already partners in afterschool programs 

across the nation. 

Another problem it would create has to do with sustained participation by children. Studies tell us that for afterschool to have its best impact, sustained and regular attendance is key. I worry that a voucher approach would work against that 

because it would encourage children and families to drop in and out of programs, 

taking funding with them. 

In short, I think the voucher proposal is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t 

exist. And in fact, I think it would create problems by destabilizing funding for existing programs, and undermining existing community partnerships. 

One other point I’d like to make very quickly on the voucher aspect of the proposal is that it would make it exponentially more difficult to get new afterschool 

programs off the ground. One of the very best ways to launch a program is with 

a 21st CCLC grant. It gives programs a multi-year funding base from the first day 

of the grant. There are other funding sources, of course, but not everywhere and 

they’re hard to come by. They’re especially hard to come by in Flint. And they’re 

incredibly scarce in rural communities. And of course, those difficult economic realities also make afterschool all the more important to the community. So I think that 

taking away the stability of the 21st CCLC grant would drain much of the energy 

out of the afterschool movement. It’s already incredibly difficult to get an afterschool 

program off the ground. The President’s proposal would make it that much harder. 

Along those same lines, we use our 21st CCLC grant to leverage other funding 

sources. Conversion to a voucher program would take that away from us, and hurt 

us in our pursuit of additional support. It would also be nearly impossible to devise 

a sustainability plan for afterschool programs, without knowing what kind of revenue to expect from voucher students. 

So both in terms of the cut, and in terms of the conversion to a voucher program, 

it’s important that the President’s proposal be defeated. But it’s also important that 

defeating it not distract us from the important work of expanding afterschool opportunities for children and families across the nation. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Gamble. 

Chief? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. CARROLL, CHIEF, WEST GOSHEN 

TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT 

Mr. CARROLL. Chairman Kildee, members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Michael Carroll. For 19 years I have been the chief 

of police of West Goshen Township in Chester County, Pennsylvania. I am currently the second vice president of the International 

Associations of Chiefs of Police. 

I am also a member of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, an organization of over 3,500 police chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs and violence 

survivors dedicated to examining the research on what works to 

keep kids from becoming criminals. 

When violence occurs, punishment is important and necessary, 

but we must also invest in prudent approaches that keep at-risk 

14

kids from committing crimes in the first place. The research and 

my experience in law enforcement shows that quality after-school 

programs do just that. 

When the school bell rings, millions of children and teens head 

to the street with neither constructive activities nor supervision by 

caring, responsible adults, and violent juvenile crime soars. Research from across the country consistently shows that on school 

days the hours from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. are also the peak hours 

when children are most likely to become victims of crime, be in 

automobile accidents, smoke, drink alcohol or use drugs. 

Fortunately, quality after-school programs can cut crime and 

transform the primetime for juvenile crime into hours of academic 

achievement, constructive recreation and community service. 

For example, in a study conducted in several U.S. cities, five 

housing projects with Boys and Girls Clubs were compared to five 

without Boys and Girls Clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and 

vandalism were the same, but by the time the study ended, the 

project without the programs had 50 percent more vandalism and 

scored 37 percent worse on drug activity. 

An evaluation of an antigang Boys’ and Girls’ Club approach 

found that the high-risk children and teens in these clubs showed 

decreases in several gang and delinquent behaviors. These youths 

also exhibited positive changes in their engagement or achievement 

in school. 

A study of the San Francisco Bayview Safe Haven after-school 

program found that, among kids with prior histories of arrest, 

those who did not participate in the programs were twice as likely 

to be arrested during the 6-month initial intervention period as 

program participants. Among kids with no prior histories of arrest, 

those who did not participate were three times as likely as participants to be arrested during the same intervention period. 

When we invest in what works, it has a big payoff. Professor 

Mark A. Cohen of Vanderbilt University estimates that for each 

high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime, the country 

saves up to $7 million. 

Despite the clear evidence that quality after-school programs can 

prevent crime and improve other youth outcomes, there remains a 

dramatic shortage of after-school programs. Fourteen million children are left unsupervised after school each year. Unfortunately, 

the fiscal year 2008 funding for this program—just over $1 billion—is far below the $2.5 billion authorized under the No Child 

Left Behind Act. 

Given the inadequacy of current federal funding for after-school 

programs, it was surprising and disturbing that the administration 

recently proposed a deep cut of $300 million for fiscal year 2009, 

a 27 percent cut. That is one out of every four kids now served who 

would be out on the streets after school. The proposed cut in funding for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 

would result in 300,000 fewer kids served by the program. 

Also troubling was a proposal that the program be reconstituted 

from funding for the establishment and support of quality afterschool programs in high-need communities to funding for payments 

for individual kids to pay for after-school activities. 

15

This proposal was troubling in two ways. Number one, it may 

lead to kids being relegated to lower-quality programs; and, two, 

without seed money to establish programs, many high-need communities won’t even have an after-school program so kids will lose 

out on after-school opportunities altogether. 

The proposed cut and restructuring are policy directions that 

would result in fewer after-school opportunities for at-risk youth 

and would make our communities and all of our citizens more vulnerable to crime with all of crime’s cost, both financial and human. 

Government’s most fundamental responsibility is to protect the 

public safety. I commend this subcommittee for drawing attention 

to the need to reject the administration’s proposal to cut the 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers program by $300 million, as 

well as its ill-advised proposal to voucherize the program. 

I urge Congress to, instead, substantially increase funding to 

support and expand quality after-school programs that offer kids 

constructive activities during the peak hours of juvenile crime, with 

new designated funding for middle and high school youths who now 

experience the greatest unmet need and are at greatest risk of perpetrating or being victims of crime. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]

Prepared Statement of Michael J. Carroll, Chief of Police, West Goshen 

Township Police Department 

Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Michael Carroll and I have served 

in various law enforcement positions in Chester County, Pennsylvania for forty-one 

years. For nineteen years, I have been Chief of West Goshen Township. I have previously served as President of the Chester County Police Chiefs Association, the Police Chiefs Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Chiefs 

of Police Association and I am currently the 2nd Vice President of the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police. I am also a member of FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN 

KIDS—an organization of over 3,500 police chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs and violence 

survivors dedicated to examining the research on what makes kids more likely to 

commit criminal offenses, and the most effective ways to ensure that, instead, they 

are on the path toward lives of personal achievement and positive community contributions. 

When violence occurs, punishment is important and necessary. But we must also 

invest in proven approaches that keep at-risk kids from committing crimes in the 

first place. The research, and my experience in law enforcement, show that quality 

afterschool programs do just that. 

When the school bell rings, millions of children and teens head to the street with 

neither constructive activities nor supervision by caring, responsible adults—and 

violent juvenile crime soars. Research from across the country consistently shows 

that on school days, the hours from 3 to 6 pm are also the peak hours when children 

are most likely to become victims of crime, be in an automobile accident, smoke, 

drink alcohol, or use drugs. 

Fortunately, quality afterschool programs can cut crime and transform the ‘‘prime 

time for juvenile crime’’ into hours of academic enrichment, constructive recreation 

and community service. For example, in a study conducted in several U.S. cities, 

five housing projects without Boys & Girls Clubs were compared to five receiving 

new clubs. At the beginning, drug activity and vandalism were the same. But by 

the time the study ended, the projects without the programs had 50 percent more 

vandalism and scored 37 percent worse on drug activity. More than fifty years of 

research findings show Boys & Girls Clubs can successfully reduce crime. A recent 

study showed that specially designed anti-gang Boys & Girls Club programs can effectively recruit and retain children who are at high risk of becoming involved in 

gangs, and even youths who are already in gangs. The evaluation of the anti-gang 

Boys & Girls Club programs found that the high-risk children and teens in these 

16

clubs showed decreases in several gang and delinquent behaviors. These youth also 

exhibited positive changes in their engagement or achievement in school.

A study of San Francisco’s Bayview Safe Haven afterschool program found that, 

among kids with prior histories of arrest, those who did not participate in the program were twice as likely to be arrested during the six-month initial intervention 

period as program participants. Among kids with no prior histories of arrest, those 

who did not participate were three times more likely than participants to be arrested during the same intervention period. 

Unfortunately, not all out-of-school-time programs will produce solid results. 

Quality matters. Turning children away from involvement in crime takes well-designed programs with adequate numbers of caring, well-trained staff. In addition, 

to have maximum crime-prevention results, programs must target kids in the most 

at-risk areas as the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program does. When we do invest in what works it has a big pay-off. Professor Mark 

A. Cohen, of Vanderbilt University, estimates that for each high-risk youth prevented from adopting a life of crime, the country saves up to $7 million. 

Despite the clear evidence that quality afterschool programs can prevent crime 

and improve other youth outcomes, there remains a dramatic shortage of afterschool programs. Fourteen million children are left unsupervised after school each 

year. 

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is the federal government’s principal afterschool program investment. Unfortunately, the program was 

reduced from $1 billion to $981 million in FY06, where it remained for FY07. For 

FY08, Congress provided an additional $100 million in funding, for a total of just 

over $1 billion—still far below the $2.5 billion authorized under the No Child Left 

Behind Act. 

Given the inadequacy of current federal funding for afterschool programs, it was 

surprising and disturbing that the Administration recently proposed a deep cut of 

$300 million for FY09—a 27% cut. That’s one out of every four kids now served who 

would be out on the streets after school. The proposed cut in funding for the 21st 

Century Community Learning Centers program would result in 300,000 fewer kids 

served by the program. Also troubling was a proposal that the program be reconstituted—from funding for the establishment and support of quality after school programs in high-need communities to funding for payments for individual kids to pay 

for after-school activities. This proposal is troubling in two ways: (1) it may lead to 

kids being relegated to lower quality programs, and (2) without seed money to establish programs, many high-need communities won’t even have an afterschool program, so kids will lose out on afterschool opportunities altogether. 

The proposed cut and restructuring are policy directions that would result in 

fewer afterschool opportunities for at-risk youth, and would make our communities 

and all our citizens more vulnerable to crime—with all of crime’s costs, both financial and human. 


car-2.eps
17

Instead, the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorization, now awaiting action in 

this Committee, provides an opportunity to expand and strengthen the 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers program. Although these programs are available to 

all grade levels, elementary school students are the group most frequently targeted 

for services by the centers. About half of the centers serve elementary school students exclusively, and at least two thirds of all centers serve some elementary students. Only 20 percent of the centers exclusively target middle school students and 

only 5 percent of centers exclusively target high school students. We recommend 

that new, increased resources be designated for after-school for at-risk middle and 

high school students who now experience the greatest unmet need—and are at 

greatest risk of perpetrating or being victims of crime. 

Government’s most fundamental responsibility is to protect the public safety. I 

commend the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education for drawing attention to the need to reject the 

Administration’s proposal to cut the 21st Century Community Learning Centers 

program by $300 million, as well as its ill-advised proposal to voucherize the program. I urge Congress to, instead, substantially increase funding to support and expand afterschool programs that offer kids constructive activities during the peak 

hours of juvenile crime. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Chief Carroll. 

Without objection, I will make a little comment on your testimony, which I very much appreciated. 

You mention the $2.5 billion authorization level, and most of the 

members up here have heard me say this for many years, but you 

raise a very good point. 

An authorization really tells what we think should be spent. An 

authorization is like a get-well card. If I have a friend who is ill, 

I will send my friend a get-well card that shows how I value my 

friend. What my friend really needs is the Blue Cross card to pay 

the bills. And the president’s Blue Cross card has been quite short 

of the get-well card. And Congress has always tried to add to that, 

but I think your point is very well taken—$2.5 billion does show 

how the Congress values this program, but we need to send that 

Blue Cross card, so I appreciate your point, Chief, very much. 

Ms. Little? 

STATEMENT OF PRISCILLA LITTLE, HARVARD FAMILY 

RESEARCH PROJECT 

Ms. LITTLE. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony 

at this important hearing on after-school programs at this critical 

juncture in their future. 

My name is Priscilla Little, and I am the associate director of the 

Harvard Family Research Project at the Harvard Graduate School 

of Education. 

I have spent the past 10 years of my work devoted to building 

the knowledge base for after-school, compiling literally hundreds of 

research and evaluation studies into a national database and helping people understand what they are telling us both about effective 

programming and how best to use research for policy and practice. 

I want to start with a very simple message: After-school programs are a critical component of children’s education and development, and, in part thanks to the 21st Century grants program, we 

have a good, solid evidence base on which to make this claim. 

The 21st Century grants program spawn new money, new programs and new research and evaluation studies. 

18

In addition to the studies conducted of 21st Century programs directly, many other evaluations that I have tracked, read and written about include programs which receive 21st Century funding as 

one of many blended funding sources they have used to leverage 

support. It is in this larger evidence base on which I base my testimony today. 

The studies I have chosen to illustrate my points all employed 

rigorous research designs that involve either a comparison or a control group, thus increasing the generalizability of the findings. 

Even though the 21st Century program began in the 20th century, it was aptly named as a program that could support the development of skills necessary for young people to support America’s 

effort to stay competitive in a 21st century global economy. 

Since its inception 10 years ago, we have learned a lot about the 

enormous potential after-school programs have to support a range 

of positive learning and developmental outcomes that can help 

young people succeed in schools, in their communities, in their jobs 

and in their future. 

Participation in well-implemented after-school programs can support academic achievement and school success. There is lots of research that says that. For example, a statewide evaluation of Louisiana’s 21st Century programs indicates that participants showed 

significant improvements over nonparticipants on the Iowa Tests of 

Basic Skills, particularly those who attended regularly. 

Similarly, newly released findings from the promising practices 

study included over 300 students participating in its programs nationwide, including some funded by 21st Century, and they found 

significant increases on standardized math scores. 

But to succeed in a global competitive economy, young people 

need to be equipped with a set of skills that go well beyond the 

three R’s. They need to become effective communicators, know how 

to develop and sustain relationships, solve problems and have a 

strong sense of self. 

Turning to the research, there is solid evidence that 21st Century and other after-school programs can do this. In a recent metaanalysis of 73 after-school programs, researchers found that participation in an after-school program could significantly improve students’ self-esteem. 

In addition to cutting crime, participation in after-school programs gets children and youth off the streets and under supervision and potentially prevents some very risky behaviors, such as 

drug and alcohol use and teen sex. 

After-school programs are viewed as one of many places that can 

tackle the growing problem of obesity among our nation’s children 

and youth. Startling new statistics reveal that by 2010 almost 50 

percent of America’s children will be obese, and, furthermore, almost two-thirds of American children—my children included—get 

little or no physical activity. 

An after-school programs can contribute to healthy lifestyles and 

increase knowledge about nutrition and exercise. A study of 600 elementary school children found that obesity prevalence was significantly lower among children who participated in a citywide afterschool initiative in the New Haven public schools. 

19

Now, do all after-school programs deliver on all these outcomes? 

Of course, not. First, different programs target different sets of 

skills, and it isn’t appropriate to think one program can do it all. 

Second, we have learned a lot from the research about specific 

factors that make a big difference in whether or not a program can 

get these outcomes. 

I am running short on time, so I am going to pick one that I 

think is the most critical to 21st Century, and I refer you to my 

written testimony. 

Learning doesn’t stop when the school bell rings. Supporting 

learning throughout the day, throughout the year and throughout 

a child’s life requires partnership, and this is an area where 21st 

Century programs are particularly strong. The typical 21st Century 

program has six community partners who contribute to the project 

by providing services and resources not directly funded by the program itself. These partners help improve quality, help engage children and youth through the community, and help 21st Century 

programs leverage additional resources for sustainability. 

In closing, I want to reiterate that we know a lot about what 

works for children and youth during the after-school hours, and I 

want to underscore the importance of 21st Century grants program 

as a core education and developmental support for our nation’s 

children. I encourage you to use the research I have presented and 

written about to make informed decisions about resource allocations and set reasonable expectations for participation in 21st Century programs. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Little follows:]

Prepared Statement of Priscilla M. Little, Associate Director, Harvard 

Family Research Project, on Behalf of Harvard Family Research Project 

Chairman Kildee and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony at this important hearing on after school programs. My 

name is Priscilla Little and I am the associate director of the Harvard Family Research Project at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. I have 

spent the past ten years of my work devoted to building the knowledge base for 

after school, compiling literally hundreds of research and evaluation studies into a 

national database and helping people understand what these studies are telling us 

about effective programming and how best to use research for policy and practice. 

I also sit on numerous evaluation advisory boards, including the technical working 

group for the 21st CCLC implementation study and the evaluation task force for the 

21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICs), the 

monitoring and evaluation tool used by all 21st CCLC programs. 

I want to start with a very simple message: After school programs are a critical 

component of children’s education and development and, in part thanks to the 21st 

CCLC grants program, we have a good solid evidence base to support this claim. 

The 21st CCLC grants program spawned new money, new programs, and new research and evaluation studies. In addition to the studies conducted of 21st CCLC 

programs directly, many other evaluations that I have tracked, read, and written 

about, like the TASC programs in New York and LAs BEST in Los Angeles include 

programs which receive 21st CCLC funding as one of many blended funding sources 

they have leveraged to support their work. And it is this larger evidence base on 

which I base my testimony to you today. The studies that I have chosen all employed rigorous research designs that involved either a comparison or control group, 

thus increasing the generalizability of the findings. 

Even though the 21st CCLC program began in the 20th century, it was aptly 

named as a program that could support the development of the skills necessary for 

young people to support America’s effort to stay competitive in a 21st century global 

economy. Since its inception 10 years ago we have learned a lot about the enormous 

potential after school programs have to support a range of positive learning and deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
20

velopmental outcomes, outcomes that can help young people succeed in school and 

in their community and prepare them for post secondary success, including attending college, getting competitive wage jobs, and being engaged community and family 

members. 

Participation in well implemented after school programs can support academic 

achievement and school success. It can result in: less disciplinary action; lower dropout rates; better academic performance in school, including better grades and test 

scores; greater on-time promotion; improved homework completion; and improved 

work habits. For example: • A statewide evaluation of Louisiana’s 21st CCLC programs revealed that participants showed significant improvements over nonparticipants on the Iowa Test of 

Basic Skills, particularly for those students who attended the programs regularly.1

• A two-year longitudinal Study of Promising After-School Programs examined 

the effects of participation in quality after school programs among almost 3,000 

youth in 35 elementary and middle school after school programs located in 14 cities 

and 8 states. New findings from that study indicate that elementary and middle 

school students who participated in high-quality after school programs, alone or in 

combination with other activities, across two years demonstrated significant gains 

in standardized math test scores, when compared to their peers who were regularly 

unsupervised after school. 

Further, regular participation in after school programs was associated with improvements in work habits and task persistence.2 A recent meta-analysis combined 

the results of 56 quasi-experimental and experimental studies of after school programs for at-risk youth and found that programs demonstrated positive effects on 

both reading and math achievement.3

Evaluations of the school-based TASC programs in New York, which emphasize 

academic enrichment, homework assistance, the arts, and recreation, have demonstrated that participants outperform similar nonparticipants on math test scores 

and high school Regents Examination scores, as well as high school credits earned 

and school attendance rates.4

Foundations, Inc. operates extended-day enrichment programs before school, after 

school, and during the summer. Its evaluation of 19 elementary school after school 

programs in three states found highly statistically significant improvements in both 

reading and math scores between pretest and posttest.5

Many research studies that I have reviewed go on to say that the most successful 

programs are ones that foster engagement in learning as a precursor to getting good 

academic results. For example: • Evaluations of Citizen Schools, which provides hands-on apprenticeships, academic skill-building activities, leadership skills development, and homework help 

found that participants outperformed comparable nonparticipants on many measures of academic success, such as selecting higher quality high schools, school attendance, promotion rates, lower suspension rates, and some measures of grades 

and test scores.6

• In addition to focused academic content, the TASC evaluation revealed that including a broad variety of enrichment activities, in addition to activities devoted to 

developing skill building and mastery, was one of the primary common features of 

high-performing programs.7

• A review of academic achievement programs conducted by Child Trends, as well 

as first year findings from an evaluation of 550 out-of-school time programs sponsored by New York City’s Department of Youth and Community Development 

(DYCD), conclude that developing a highly focused academic component aligned 

with academic goals may be important for producing good outcomes. However, an 

all-encompassing and exclusive focus on academics may be detrimental. In other 

words, the more multifaceted after school programs are likely to reap the biggest 

academic gains.8

• A meta-analysis of 93 studies of summer school programs found that they led 

to increases in participants’ knowledge and skills. In particular, programs aimed at 

remediation of learning deficiencies and programs focused on learning acceleration 

both produced positive impacts on youth’s knowledge and skills.9

It is important to note that the common thread among all these studies is not just 

that the programs intentionally tried to improve academic performance and therefore offered academic support, but that they combined it with other enrichment activities to achieve positive academic outcomes, and this is what many 21st CCLC 

programs strive to do. Extra time for academics by itself may be necessary but may 

not be sufficient to improve academic outcomes. Balancing academic support with 

a variety of engaging, fun, and structured extracurricular or cocurricular activities 

that promote youth development in a variety of real-world contexts appears to support and improve academic performance. 

21

But to succeed in a competitive global economy young people need to be equipped 

with a set of skills that goes beyond the 3 R’s * * * they need to become effective 

communicators, know how to develop and sustain relationships, solve problems, and 

have a strong sense of self. Turning to the research there is solid evidence that 21st 

CCLC and other after school programs can support a range of behavioral outcomes 

including: social and communication skills; relationships with others; self-confidence; development of initiative; and feelings and attitudes toward self and school. 

For example: 

• A random-assignment evaluation of the Go Grrrls program in Arizona, which 

provides girls with structured group sessions built around tasks considered critical 

for the healthy psychosocial development of early adolescent girls in contemporary 

society, found that the program improved girls’ body image, assertiveness, self-efficacy, self-liking, and competence.10

• The Siblings of Children With Developmental Disabilities After School Support 

Program, which combines group discussion, structured and unstructured recreation, 

and homework help, found positive impact on participants in outcome areas like 

lower depression, lower anxiety, and increased self-esteem.11

• Evaluations of mentoring programs also reveal that participation in programs 

primarily targeted at supporting student academic performance actually can significantly impact social/emotional development. For example, Across Ages pairs older 

mentors (age 55 and older) with middle school youth in and out of school, and teams 

the mentoring component with community service, a life skills curriculum, and family activities. An evaluation of Across Ages revealed that youth in the mentor group 

reported significantly higher self-control and self-confidence levels than youth who 

participated in other components but not mentoring.12

• In addition to these individual studies, a recent meta-analysis of over 70 after 

school programs that attempted to promote personal and social skills found that 

across studies, after school programs could improve youth self-esteem and self-confidence, particularly in programs with a strong intentional focus on improving social 

and personal skills.13 This is a particularly important finding: It speaks to the need 

for strong program design with an intentional focus on the desired outcomes, regardless of what those outcomes might be. 

The hours from 3 to 6 p.m. present several potential hazards to a young person’s 

development. These are the hours associated with the peak time for juvenile crime 

and juvenile victimization and the hours when teens ages 16—17 are most likely 

to be in or cause a car crash. Furthermore, based on a survey of 2,000 high school 

students that looked at the relationship between after school supervision and sexual 

activity, the American Academy of Pediatrics found that 56% of youth surveyed reported being home for 4 or more hours unsupervised after school. Youth who were 

unsupervised for 30 or more hours per week were more likely to be sexually active 

than those who were left alone for 5 hours a week or less. In addition, those left 

unsupervised for more than 5 hours per week had more sexually transmitted diseases, particularly among boys. 

Participation in after school programs gets children and youth off the streets and 

under supervision and potentially prevents some risky behaviors. Beyond a safe 

haven, research and evaluation studies have also demonstrated the positive impact 

of participation in after school programs on a range of prevention outcomes including: avoidance of drug and alcohol use, avoidance of sexual behaviors, and reduction 

in juvenile violence. For example: 

• The Children’s Aid Society Carrera Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program 

showed positive impacts on reducing pregnancies, teen sex, and boys’ marijuana 

usage.14

• Girls Inc.’s Friendly PEERsuasion program, which provides girls with a structured curriculum of fun activities focused on preventing substance use, found that 

participants showed positive benefits on outcomes such as delaying the onset of alcohol use and avoiding situations where alcohol was present.15

• Project Venture, which provides skill-building, community service, and leadership opportunities and outdoor experiential learning activities, reduced youth’s increasing substance use over time.16

• A longitudinal study of the effect of participation in LA’s BEST programs on 

juvenile crime tracked students from 1994 through 2003. It compared LA’s BEST 

participants to two matched groups of students who either attended LA’s BEST 

schools but not LA’s BEST programs, or attended schools that did not have an LA’s 

BEST program. Results indicate that participation in LA’s BEST was significantly 

related to lower incidences of juvenile crime. Researchers estimate that this translates into an average savings to society of $2.50 for every dollar invested in the program.17 While participation rates were a key factor in crime reduction (see discusVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
22

sion of participation below), this is powerful evidence of the potential long-term effects of and benefits to society from after school programs. 

Finally, after school programs are viewed as one of many places that can tackle 

the growing problem of obesity among our nation’s children and youth. Startling 

new statistics reveal that, by 2010, almost 50% of America’s children will be obese; 

furthermore, almost two thirds of American children get little or no physical activity. Can after school programs promise to reduce body mass index (the common 

measure for obesity)? Probably not, although some evaluations have demonstrated 

improvements on this measure. Similar to impact on academic achievement test 

scores, it takes more than a few hours a week of after school participation to move 

the needle on significant markers of change. But after school programs can contribute to healthy lifestyles and increased knowledge about nutrition and exercise. • An experimental study of the Girlfriends for KEEPS program in Minnesota, 

which includes fun skill-building activities and physical activity, showed benefits to 

girls’ intentions to maintain healthy behaviors, knowledge about proper diet practices, and preferences for physical activity.18

• The experimental study of the Cooke Middle School After School Recreation 

Program found increases in participants’ time spent on strength training activities.19

• The experimental study of the Medical College of Georgia’s FitKid program, 

which combines academic enrichment, healthy snacks, and physical activity, found 

that participants benefited from the program in terms of their percentage of body 

fat and cardiovascular fitness.20 The Yale Study of Children’s After School Time, a 

longitudinal study of over 650 youth at 25 after school programs in Connecticut, 

found that youth who participated in after school programs were more likely than 

nonparticipants to experience reductions in obesity, after accounting for a variety 

of differences between participants and nonparticipants. This was true even after 

controlling for youth’s initial BMI status at the beginning of the study, as well as 

demographic factors like poverty, race, and ethnicity.21

Now, do all after school programs deliver on all these outcomes? Of course not. 

First, different programs target different sets of skills and it isn’t appropriate to 

think one program can do it all. Second, we have learned a lot from the research 

about specific factors that make a big difference in whether or not a program can 

get these outcomes, and these map onto some key aspects of the 21st CCLC programs. 

First, the research I have conducted underscores a consistent pattern of winners 

and losers when it comes to access to after school opportunities, with middle and 

upper income children and youth getting access to and taking more advantage of 

enrichment outside of school.22 Specifically, children and youth whose families have 

higher incomes and more education: • are more likely to participate in after school activities. 

• do so with greater frequency during the week. 

• participate in a greater number of different activities within a week or a month 

• are more likely to participate in enrichment programs, while their disadvantaged peers are more likely to participate in tutoring programs, thus not reaping 

the benefits associated with enrichment experiences. 

These findings are particularly troublesome given the many studies and research 

syntheses—such as those from Child Trends, American Youth Policy Forum, and 

Harvard Family Research Project—which conclude that youth experience greater 

gains across a wide variety of outcomes if they participate with greater frequency 

(more days per week) in a more sustained manner (over a number of years).23

21sT CCLC investments help level the playing field by targeting low income and 

poorly performing schools to ensure that all children and youth have access to programs, not just those who can afford them. 

Second, as I said above, sustained and frequent participation in programs is important in getting good outcomes. The latest 21st CCLC PPICS data indicates that 

more mature programs are more likely to be able to deliver on quality (Learning 

Points Associates, 2007), which gets students participating more frequently, with 

higher levels of engagement, which then helps them reap maximum benefit from the 

participation. Other research studies confirm this. 

Following up on students with long-term involvement (at least four years) in the 

LA’s BEST program revealed that greater participation was significantly related to 

positive achievement on standardized tests of mathematics, reading, and language 

arts, when the influence of gender, ethnicity, income, and language status was controlled for.24

Teach Baltimore is a summer academic program that proactively addresses the 

problem of summer learning loss by helping students develop and practice literacy 

skills over the summer vacation in a safe and fun environment. A randomized threeVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
23

year field trial explored the effects of a multiyear summer school program in preventing summer learning losses and promoting longitudinal achievement growth. 

The total treatment group included 438 students from high-poverty schools. Results 

from the study indicate that students who participated at high levels for at least 

two of the three summers demonstrated statistically significant effects on learning 

across all three literacy domains that were tested.25

These findings underscore the importance of programs being able to count on sustainable, multi-year funding that enables them the maturity to get good results. 

Third, many new research studies indicate that program quality is inextricably 

tied to student outcomes, with low quality programming actually doing harm in 

terms of supporting students’ development26 (Vandell, Shumow, and Posner, 2005). 

Emerging research on after school program quality and its relationship to outcomes 

indicates that quality after school programs must do more than just ensure effective 

management practices and provide adequate physical and psychological safety. 

Quality after school programs also share the following features: appropriate supervision and structure, well-prepared staff; intentional programming with opportunities for autonomy and choice, and strong partnerships among the various settings 

in which program participants spend their day—schools, after school programs, and 

families. 

Unlike research on outcomes, research on after school program quality is largely 

descriptive, with only a handful of rigorously designed studies. Evidence regarding 

the characteristics of program quality is largely dependent on correlational studies 

and expert opinion. However, a small but powerful set of studies provides an emerging picture of some of the key elements of after school program quality and how 

they affect a range of developmental outcomes. 

• One of the primary conclusions of the Study of Promising After-School Programs was that children and youth benefit from an array of after school experiences 

which include quality after school programs as well as other structured school and 

community based activities supervised by adults. Specifically, researchers found 

that, in comparison to a less-supervised group, school-age children who frequently 

attended high-quality after school programs, alone and in combination with other 

supervised activities,27 displayed better work habits, task persistence, social skills, 

prosocial behaviors, and academic performance, and less aggressive behavior at the 

end of the school year.28

• In a similar vein, both a comparative case study of two urban after school programs and the Maryland Afterschool Community Grants Program evaluation found 

that low-quality programs had staff who engaged in very negative and punitive 

interactions with youth rather than engaging in supportive behavior and practicing 

positive behavior management techniques.29

• In their meta-analysis of 73 after school programs’ impacts, Durlak and 

Weisberg found that positive impacts on academic, prevention, and developmental 

outcomes were concentrated in the programs that utilized strategies characterized 

as sequenced (using a sequenced set of activities designed to achieve skill development objectives), active (using active forms of learning to help youth develop skills), 

focused (program components devoted to developing personal or social skills), and 

explicit (targeting of specific personal or social skills). Moreover, the researchers 

found that, as a group, programs missing any of these four characteristics did not 

achieve positive results. These findings point to the importance of targeting specific 

goals, and designing activities around those goals intentionally.30

21st CCLC programs are particularly well-poised to deliver quality programming. 

21st CCLC is an extremely competitive program which means that only the best, 

well-implemented programs receive funding. Also related to quality, there is a 3 percent set-aside for states to use for training, technical assistance, and evaluation and 

State Education Agencies use this to provide ongoing training and technical assistance on resources and tools to promote quality implementation and staff development. 

Finally, we all know that learning doesn’t stop when the school bell rings. Supporting learning throughout the day, throughout the year, and throughout a child’s 

life requires partnerships. Programs are more likely to exhibit high quality when 

they effectively develop, utilize, and leverage partnerships with a variety of stakeholders like families, schools, and communities. A few research examples illustrate 

my point: 

• A review of over 20 years of research on Boys & Girls Clubs found that programs benefited from partnerships with schools, probation and police officers, and 

community-based providers by gaining referrals and access to information on youth, 

such as school records. Strong partnerships can also provide programs with important resources, such as information, in-kind resources, and other sources of support 

24

that can make individual programs become more efficient in accomplishing their 

goals of benefiting youth.31

• In the Massachusetts Afterschool Research Study, researchers found that programs with stronger relationships with school teachers and principals were more 

successful at improving youth’s homework completion, homework effort, positive behavior, and initiative. This may be because positive relationships with schools can 

foster high-quality, engaging, and challenging activities and can also promote staff 

engagement.32

Developing partnerships is an area where 21st CCLC programs are strong. The 

typical 21st CCLC program has six community partners who contribute to the 

project by providing services and resources not directly funded by the program itself. 

These partners serve to improve program quality, help engage children and youth 

throughout the community, and help 21st CCLC programs leverage additional resources for sustainability 

In closing, I want to reiterate that we know a lot about what works for children 

and youth during the after school hours and underscore the importance of the 21st 

CCLC grants program as a core educational and developmental support for our nation’s children. I encourage you to use the research I have presented to make informed decisions about resource allocations, and set reasonable expectations for participation in 21st CCLC programs. 

Thank you. Priscilla M. Little 

ENDNOTES

1 Jenner, E. J., & Jenner, L. W. (2004). Academic outcomes in Louisiana’s 21st Century Community Learning Centers. Baton Rouge, LA: Policy & Research Group. 2 Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising practices. Irvine, CA: University of 

California and Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. Available at http://www.gse.uci.edu/

docs/PASP%20Final%20Report.pdf. 3Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. 

(2006). Out-ofschool time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of 

Educational Research, 76, 275—313. 4 Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Birmingham, J., & Welsh, M. (2001). Building quality and supporting expansion of After-School Projects: Evaluation results from the TASC After-School Program’s second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; White, R. N., Reisner, E. R., 

Welsh, M., & Russell, C. (2001). Patterns of student-level change linked to TASC participation, 

based on TASC projects in Year 2. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. 5Klein, S. P., & Bolus, R. (2002). 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. 6 Espino, J., Fabiano, L., & Pearson, L. M. (with Kirkwood K. P., Afolabi, K., & Pasatta, K.). 

(2004). Citizen Schools: Evidence from two student cohorts on the use of community resources 

to promote youth development. Phase II report of the Citizen Schools evaluation. Washington, 

DC: Policy Studies Associates; Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M., & Williams, I. J. (2005). Putting students on a pathway to academic and social success: Phase III findings of the Citizen Schools 

evaluation. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates; Fabiano, L., Pearson, L. M., Reisner, E. 

R., & Williams, I. J. (2006). Preparing students in the middle grades to succeed in high school: 

Findings from Phase IV of the Citizen Schools evaluation. Washington, D.C.: Policy Studies Associates. Available at http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/

Citizen%20Schools%20Phase%20IV%20Final%20Report—12-26-06.pdf. 7 Birmingham, J., Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Mielke, M. (2005). Shared features of 

high-performing after-school programs: A follow-up to the TASC evaluation. Washington, DC: 

Policy Studies Associates. 8 Redd, Z., Cochran, S., Hair, E., & Moore, K. (2002). Academic Achievement Programs and 

Youth Development: A Synthesis. Washington DC: Child Trends; Russell, C. A., Reisner, E. R., 

Pearson, L. M., Afolabi, K. P., Miller, T. D., & Mielke, M. B. (2006). Evaluation of DYCD’s Outof-School Time Initiative: Report on the first year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates. 

Available at http://www.policystudies.com/studies/youth/OST.html. 9 Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J. C., & Muhlenbruck, L. (2000). Making the most of 

summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of the Society for Research 

in Child Development, 65(1), 1—118. 10LeCroy, C. W. (2003). Experimental evaluation of ‘‘Go Grrrls.’’ Tucson, AZ: Author. 11Phillips, R. S. C. (1999). Intervention with siblings of children with developmental disabilities from economically disadvantaged families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 80(6), 569—577. 12Taylor, A., LoSciuto, L., Fox, M., & Hilbert, S. (1999). The mentoring factor: An evaluation 

of Across Ages. Intergenerational program research: Understanding what we have created. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. 13Durlak, R., & Weissberg, R. (2007). The Impact of After-School Programs That Promote Personal and Social Skills. Chicago: CASEL. 14Philliber, S., Kaye, J. W., & Herrling, S. (2001, May). The national evaluation of the Children’s Aid Society Carrera-Model Program to prevent teen pregnancy. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates. Available at http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/media/general/cas-Teen—

Pregnancy—Prevention.pdf; Philliber, S., Kaye, J. W., Herrling, S., & West, E. (2002). PreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
25

venting pregnancy and improving health care access among teenagers: An evaluation of the 

Children’s Aid Society—Carrera Model. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(5), 

244—251. Available at http://www.agiusa.org/pubs/journals/3424402.pdf. 15Weiss, F. L., & Nicholson, H. J. (1998). Friendly PEERsuasion against substance use: The 

Girls Incorporated model and evaluation. Drugs & Society, 12(1/2), 7—22. 16 Carter, S. L., Straits, K. J. E., & Hall, M. (2006, November). Project Venture: Evaluation 

of a positive, culture-based approach to substance abuse prevention with American Indian 

youth. Paper presented at the Symposium for Experiential Education Research, St. Paul, MN. 17 As described in Goldschmidt, P., Huang, D., & Chinen, M. (2007). The long-term effects of 

after-school programming on educational adjustment and juvenile crime: A study of the LA’s 

BEST after-school program. Los Angeles: UCLA/CRESST. Available at http://www.lasbest.org/

resourcecenter/LASBEST—DOJ—Study—Brief.pdf. 18Story, M., Sherwood, N. E., Himes, J. H., Davis, M., Jacobs, Jr., D. R., Cartwright, Y., et 

al. (2003). An after-school obesity prevention program for African-American girls: The Minnesota 

GEMS Pilot Study [Supplement 1]. Ethnicity & Disease, 13(1), 54—64. 19Lauver, S. C. (2002). Assessing the benefits of an after-school program for urban youth: An 

impact and process evaluation. Philadelphia: Author. 20 Yin, Z., Gutin, B., Johnson, M., Hanes, J., Jr., Moore, J. B., Cavnar, M., et al. (2005). An 

environmental approach to obesity prevention in children: Medical College of Georgia FitKid 

Project year 1 results. Obesity Research, 13, 2153—2161. 21Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). Afterschool program participation and the 

development of child obesity and peer acceptance. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 202—

215. Available at http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532480xads0904—3. 22This information is based on research conducted by Harvard Family Research Project on 

the contextual predictors of participation in out-of-school time. For a complete description of the 

study and its methodology, visit the HFRP website at http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/

projects/ost—participation.html 23 Redd, Cochran, Hair, & Moore, 2002; American Youth Policy Forum. (2006). Helping youth 

succeed through out-of-school time programs. Washington, DC: Author; Simpkins-Chaput, S., 

Little, P. M. D., & Weiss, H. B. (2004). Understanding and measuring attendance in out-ofschool time programs. Issues and Opportunities in Out-of-School Time Evaluation Brief No. 7. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project; Chaskin, R. J., & Baker, S. (2006). Negotiating among opportunity and constraint: The participation of young people in out-of-school-time 

activities. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children; Moore, K., & Zaff, J. F. (2002). Building 

a better teenager. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 24 Huang et al., 2007. 25 Borman, G., Dowling, N., Fairchild, R., Boulay, M., & Kaplan, J. (2006). The longitudinal 

achievement effects of multi-year summer school: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore Randomized Field Trial. Baltimore: Center for Summer Learning. 26 Vandell, D. L., Shumow, L., & Posner, J. (2005). After-school programs for low-income children: Differences in program quality. In J. Mahoney, J. Eccles, & R. Larson (Eds.), Organized 

activities as contexts for development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community 

programs (pp. 437—456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 27Programs were rated using the Promising Practices Rating Scale which assesses eight processes: 1) supportive relations with adults, 2) supportive relations with peers, 3) student engagement in activities, 4) opportunities for cognitive growth, 5) mastery orientation, 6) appropriate 

program structure, 7) setting chaos, and 8) staff overcontrol. 28 Vandell et al., 2006. 29 Vandell, D. L., Shumow, L., & Posner, J. (2005). After-school programs for low-income children: Differences in program quality. In J. Mahoney, J. Eccles, & R. Larson (Eds.), Organized 

activities as contexts for development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community 

programs (pp. 437—456). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; Gerstenblith, S., Soule, D., Gottfredson, D., 

Lu, S., Kellstrom, M., Womer, S., et al. (2005). After-school programs, antisocial behavior, and 

positive youth development: An exploration of the relationship between program implementation 

and changes in youth behavior. In J. Mahoney, J. Eccles, & R. Larson (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts for development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 457—477). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 30Durlak & Weissberg, 2007. 31 Arbreton, A. J. A., Sheldon, J., & Herrera, C. (2005). Beyond safe havens: A synthesis of 

research on the Boys & Girls Clubs. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. 32 Intercultural Center for Research in Education & National Institute on Out-of-School Time, 

2005. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Ms. Little. 

Ms. Kough? 

STATEMENT OF THERESA KOUGH, EDUCATION ASSOCIATE, 

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Ms. KOUGH. Hello. My name is Theresa Vendrzyk Kough, and I 

am the Delaware Department of Education’s director for afterschool programs. 

26

My testimony is going to take a bit of a different tactic than my 

other witnesses because I really think the power of 21st Century 

programs is a partnership that is being built up between schools 

and community-based organizations, and in my presentation I want 

to highlight the steps we take at the state education department 

to assure that academics are a part of 21st Century. 

In Delaware we view the 21st Century grant program as a tool 

to provide low-income and low-achieving students with rich learning experiences, which will impact academic achievement. 

One of the things we do is we provide technical assistance to potential grantees, and these technical assistance meetings are held 

before a competition. In the first technical assistance meeting, we 

discuss the 21st Century program, its goals and stress the importance of creating a strong partnership between a school and another agency and the importance of imbedding academic content 

within enrichment activity. 

In our second technical assistance meetings with potential grantees, we discuss the request for proposal and the use of JADA in 

forming a measuring grant goal. 

Then we try to select high-quality proposals. We provide training 

for our review team on the 21st Century program and goals and 

the importance, again, of funding programs that are going to be a 

strong relationship between schools and partnering agency. 

Then we have a site-visit component. If you are lucky enough to 

get a grant, you get a visit from Teresita Cuevas, who is our technical assistance coordinator. And Teresita also works with all of 

our site monitors and provides professional development for our 

grantees. And in her initial visit, she will review with the grantee 

what we are expecting of them, she will explain how we are going 

to monitor with the tools and explain the site-visit process. 

Our sites are visited at least twice a year—fall and spring—and 

once in the summer if you have a summer program. Each visit is 

a 3-hour minimum, and in addition to checking on things like safety, enrollment, we also monitor for lesson plans, we monitor for 

communication between the after-school program and the regular 

school program and the academic content being seen in the activities that the students are participating in. 

After we do that, a site report is issued to the main grant contact, the site coordinators and the school principal. We give the site 

report to the principals who have students in the after-school program. We have been doing this for about a year and a half, and 

the principals have been very positive about the feedback that they 

receive. A site report, too, can result in another visit from either 

Teresita or myself depending on what we see. 

Our final step in assuring quality in 21st Century programs, is 

our continuation application. Each year grantees must complete a 

continuation application and provide evidence on measurable goals, 

which include academic outcome. Failure to reach goals may result 

in a reduced funding, and our grantees have gotten very good at 

looking at where they want to be with their program. 

Our next step—this year what is happening in Delaware, Delaware has a unique student identifier, and so we are quite lucky 

with that. And this year what we are doing is all participating 

schools must tag the students receiving 21st Century services in 

27

our eSchoolPlus system, which is our statewide people accounting 

system. 

That tagging of students is going to allow us to populate a supplement education data cube within our warehouse. The data cube 

was created by a genius we have working for us, Dr. Qi Tao, and 

what Tawny and I are trying to do is look at for the first time what 

is happening to students across programs, not just in one out-ofschool situation. And so the data in this cube will be for Extra 

Time, Supplemental Education Services and the 21st Century. We 

hope to add to the growing research base that Priscilla is working 

on so hard. 

In conclusion, the strength of the current 21st Century program 

lies in the partnerships being created between schools and community-based organizations. The programs being created are stronger 

than either schools or community agencies could provide on their 

own, and a change in this funding, in my opinion, will have a negative effect on the quality and number of after-school programs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The statement of Ms. Kough follows:]

Prepared Statement of Theresa Vendrzyk Kough, Education Associate, 

Delaware Department of Education, After School Programs 

As Delaware’s Department of Education (DDOE) After School Program co-coordinator, I am honored to present testimony about the work we are doing in Delaware’s 

21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC). My testimony describes 

DDOE’s current monitoring initiative, our approach to accountability, and plans for 

continued improvement of our CCLC program. 

As the 21st CCLC state program officer, I take very seriously the monitoring, 

funding, and continuous improvement of our 25 programs operating in 55 sites 

throughout the state. The DDOE views the 21st CCLC grant program as a tool to 

provide students with rich learning experiences that will directly affect their academic achievement. DDOE is working hard with its 21st CCLC centers to ensure 

that center personnel are addressing its program goals of improving students’ performance on statewide assessments and offering services designed to reinforce and 

complement traditional academic programs. 

DDOE’s Current Monitoring Initiative 

Grantees’ Applications for Funding. 

The first step in developing centers that can meet our program goals is helping 

grantees understand how to respond to a DDOE-issued Request for Proposal (RFP). 

Delaware’s grantees include school districts, institutions of higher learning, and 

both local and nationally affiliated community based organizations. It is important 

that they realize, from the beginning of the grant process, that the DDOE will hold 

them accountable for the objectives they outline in their initial responses to an RFP. 

We help potential grantees apply for funding through technical assistance meetings, at least two of which occur prior to the release date of a new RFP. In particular, we provide instruction on the creation of goals and outcome statements, 

since a potential grantee must provide concrete goals, objectives, and milestones for 

a proposed program in the initial request for funding. We also include examples, 

such as the following taken from a current RFP: 

Goals, objectives and milestones are all outcomes. Your proposal should identify 

these three kinds of outcomes. Outcomes themselves are statements that tell how 

the project’s target population would improve. Every outcome should describe a 

change in a target population. In addition, they set standards of progress towards 

alleviating the problems identified in the needs assessment. Statements that describe strategies or management issues are not proper outcome statements.’’

An example of an outcome statement containing all the above elements: 

By June 2008, 70% of eighth graders in the two participating middle school sites 

who scored a 1 or 2 on the DSTP in the fifth grade will achieve a rating of 3 or 

more on the DSTP reading examination, a 20% increase over current levels. 

28

In addition, we encourage grantees to include local baseline data when constructing objectives for their programs and to use both local and state testing data 

as evidence of success. 

Selecting High-Quality Proposals. 

An independent panel comprised of persons with experience in such areas as outof-school programs, reading/language arts, mathematics, and strategies to improve 

the success of at-risk students or schools, reviews each response to a new 21st 

CCLC proposal. The review panel attends a training session prior to reviewing the 

applications, which emphasizes the importance of funding programs that represent 

strong relationships between schools and their partnering agencies that will help 

participating students succeed. 

Monitoring Program Performance. 

Site visits. DDOE, through a contract with the University of Delaware, continues 

to monitor and provide technical assistance to grantees after the initial grant 

award. This process begins with a visit by a technical assistance coordinator who 

outlines the grantees’ responsibilities, such as the creation of a sustainability plan, 

compliance with the Office of Child Care Licensing regulations, site-monitoring 

schedules, data collection and required attendance at 21st CCLC professional development sessions. 

Next site monitors, retired teachers with a broad base of experience and who receive training on the 21st CCLC program, make periodic site visits. Monitors visit 

all 21st CCLC sites operating a school-year program twice a year and those operating a school-year-plus-summer program three times per year. At least one visit 

is unannounced. Each monitor spends a minimum of three hours at each site and 

writes a report documenting the site visit, which is sent to the grant contact, principals of participating school, and site coordinators. In these three hours, monitors 

review enrollment numbers, overall safety, check-in and dismissal procedures, as 

well as document evidence of communication with participating students’ teachers, 

evidence of lesson planning and embedded academic activities within recreational 

pursuits. For example, at a current site that offers cooking lessons, the monitor 

looks for evidence that the program includes information on fractions. The technical 

assistance coordinator and I as state program director both review all site visit reports. They request clarification and/or a meeting with appropriate site personnel 

to resolve any problems noted in the report. Feedback, especially from school principals on the site-visit review process, has been positive. This process, which has 

evolved over the last several years, helps ensure that after-school and regular school 

activities are in alignment. 

Assessment Tools. Beginning this year, as part of our continued effort to build 

quality after-school programs, we require that grantees use a Self Assessment and 

Continuous Improvement tool which was adapted from the North Carolina Center 

for Afterschool Programs Established Standards of Excellence Self-Assessment Tool: 

K-12. This self-assessment tool groups the following eleven (11) characteristics, into 

four (4) key categories that are indicative of high-quality after-school programming: 

Program Management and Delivery 

Safe, Healthy, and Orderly Environment 

Qualified and Diverse Staff 

Opportunities to Learn in Diverse Environments 

Program Connections 

Positive Participant and Staff Interactions 

Active Family and Community Partnerships 

Consistent Participant Attendance 

Program Participants 

Greater Personal Responsibility 

Improved Academics Achievement 

Greater Creativity and Well-Being 

Program Finance and Growth 

Fiscal Planning and Management 

Sustainability 

Guidelines in the self-assessment tool help both new and experienced grantees 

plan and appraise their progress in providing the best programs possible for the 

children and families they serve. Our monitors also evaluate evidence of the use of 

the assessment tool in their site-visit reports. 

Application for Continued Support. 

The final step in our efforts to build programs that play a role in improving students’ academic performance is use of the Continuation Application. Delaware initially awards five-year 21st CCLC grants with full funding for the three years, folVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
29

lowed by a 25 percent reduction in year four, and a 50 percent reduction in year 

five. After the initial grant, award grantees must complete a Continuation Application annually. In the Continuation Application, each grantee must provide evidence 

of progress on the measurable goals and outcomes listed in the grant application. 

These goals and objectives include academic outcomes. 

Accountability 

Delaware’s Contract with RMC Research Corporation. 

To comply with federal legislation requiring comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of the state’s 21st CCLC programs, the DDOE gathers data related to each 

site. The state contracted with RMC Research Corporation to review this existing 

data and address questions related to program implementation and effectiveness. 

Conclusions RMC Evaluation. 

1. The Delaware 21st CCLC program is reaching out to the community. Between 

2003 and 2004, the number of centers grew more than 250 percent, from 18 to 46. 

Grantees grew more diversified, with an increased presence of local and nationallyaffiliated community-based organizations, in addition to school districts and institutions of higher education. All programs reported partnerships with public and private organizations, both for profit and not-for-profit, and including faith-based organizations. The program reached 123 schools ranging from preK to the ninth grade, 

including a growing number of charter schools. In the past school year, five of the 

17 charter schools in Delaware (29 percent) participated in the program. 

2. The program is serving large percentages of minorities and low-income students. In SY 2005-2006, 46 centers served 3,792 students and 933 adults. Of these 

48 percent were eligible for the free and reduced meal program (FARM), compared 

to 34 percent in the statewide student enrollment. Minority students comprised 45 

percent of the student enrollment statewide and 73 percent of the 21st CCLC students. However, students with disabilities were less likely to attend the centers 

(nine vs. 14 percent statewide). The 48 centers served mostly students at the elementary grade levels, with fewer than 10 percent in grades seven to nine. In response to this finding, the DDOE included competitive priority points for grantees 

proposing to serve middle and high school students in the recently concluded Cohort 

5-21st CCLC competition. Of the ten new grantees added after this competition; 

eight are serving middle and high school students. 

3. The program is providing academic support and a broad array of additional 

services for the youth. In the past school year, the 46 centers offered a total of 1,603 

hours a week (34.84 hr/week per program) of academic activities and support, in addition to 439 hours (9.54 hr/week per program) of additional activities. Frequently 

addressed academic contact areas included reading, mathematics, technology, and 

arts/music. Academic support included tutoring, mentoring, remedial education, and 

supplemental education. Most programs also offered recreation, cultural enrichment, 

health education, and drug and violence prevention activities. 

4. 21st CCLC participants are making academic gains. The analysis of results in 

the DSTP Reading and Mathematics suggest that 21st CCLC students improved 

scores at a rate that were consistent with average Delaware students, even though 

the program is serving large numbers of children and youth at-risk of academic failure. When compared with statewide averages, the 21st CCLC students have lower 

DSTP scores; yet, when compared to peers from the same schools, they showed 

stronger performances. A longitudinal analysis indicated that gains in DSTP mathematics scores of third-grade CCLC students were larger than the average gains for 

all Delaware students. 

Next Steps 

This year (2007-2008) all schools and/or districts, serving as either the lead or 

partnering agency in a 21st CCLC grant, must tag students receiving services 

through 21st CCLC programs in eSchool Plus, Delaware’s statewide pupil-accounting system. Tagging students’ unique identifiers to indicate that they are receiving 

CCLC services, will allow for analyses of these students over their entire school careers. Dr. Qi Tao, Education Associate in the Technology Management and Design 

workgroup, has designed a supplemental service data cube within DDOE’s data 

warehouse which will allow for the analysis of data across programs. In addition, 

we will be able to compare measures of attendance, disciplinary action, graduation, 

and DSTP proficiency of students who have received 21st CCLC services with those 

who have not received them 

30

Conclusion 

21st CCLC is a relatively new program. It will celebrate its tenth birthday this 

year. The program as it exists today has only been in operation since 2002. It has 

made great strides. I believe its main strength lies in building partnerships between 

the school and community-based organizations. This partnership has resulted in 

stronger and better programs than either the schools or agencies could create on 

their own. We know that all students need to participate in vibrant and exciting 

after school programming to learn to connect with the world beyond school. Currently, over 14 million students leave school at 3:00 pm or earlier, with nowhere 

to go. The administration’s current proposal to convert the 21st CCLC program to 

a voucher system may force programs to close, which would result in more students 

with no place to go after school. In addition, the move to a voucher system would 

undermine existing public, private, community, and faith-based partnerships that 

are working well. I think the 21st CCLC program, as it now exists, has earned the 

right to continue. It offers the best chance to offer seamless services to our children. 

Thank-you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any 

questions you may have. 

REFERENCES

DDOE 21st CCLC Recommended Self Assessment Tool. Available at; at: 

http://www.doe.state.de.us/programs/si/files/DE%2021st%20CCLC%20Self-Asessment%20Tool4categories.pdf 

21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System(PPICS). Available at: 

http://ppics.learningpt.org/ppics/index.asp. 

RMC research Corporation (2006). Delaware 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers: Evaluation Report (SY2003-0 04-SY2005-06). Available at: 

http://www.doe.state.de.us/programs/si/files/

Delaware%2021st%20Century%20Community%20Learning%20Centers%20Final%20Report.pdf 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Kough. Appreciate 

your testimony, the testimony of all of you. 

The Admiral serves in several committees down here now and 

has to go to another committee at this time, but he wanted to remain here, of course, to hear all your testimony, and I appreciate 

that very much. 

The rules of the committee adopted on January 24 give the chair 

the discretion in how to recognize members for questioning. It is 

my intention, as chair of this subcommittee, to recognize those 

members present at the beginning of the hearings in order of their 

seniority on this subcommittee. Members arriving after the hearing 

began will be recognized in order of appearance, and I recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Gamble, can you discuss the importance of after-school programs forming stable partnerships in the community? How would 

the president’s after-school voucher proposal impact the ability of 

high-quality programs to establish and maintain the stability necessary to foster those partnerships? 

Ms. GAMBLE. Well, first of all, I think the voucher program 

would take away a lot of stability we currently have, particularly 

in terms of regular student attendance in a particular after-school 

program. 

As far as the voucher program is concerned, I believe it would 

be quite difficult for us to sustain partnerships with a voucher program. We already have very good partnerships with—and if you 

are talking about a voucher program, where money could possibly 

go to those partners, it would just be self-defeating to have money 

going a lot of different areas. 

31

Chairman KILDEE. Also, could you comment on just about the 

importance of making learning fun for kids in the after-school programs? And I have been to certain programs, where the kids seem 

to be really happy to be there. They are learning, but it is a different process of learning and different environment of learning 

than you get in the traditional classroom. 

Can you discuss how—even for helping children academically—

it is important that these programs be designed so kids don’t see 

them just as an extension of the regular school day? 

Ms. GAMBLE. Sure. One of the first things we do is poll the students on what kinds of activities they would like. After that, it is 

our job to integrate academics into whatever they are asking for. 

Even if it is art, gym, nutrition, anything, we try to integrate academics into each of those subject matters. 

Some other things we might do is talk to teachers and administrators about what the needs are in that particular building. 

But on the top of the list, we always want to make sure the kids 

don’t know that they are learning, but we do want to be sort of an 

extension of the school day in terms of offering subject matter that 

is going to help those kids in the areas they need help in. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

Chief Carroll, you recommended that there be an increased focus 

on after-school programs for at-risk middle school and high school 

students. Could you elaborate on that? 

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. The older school children are more at risk 

for gang activity, they are more at risk for drug activity, and then 

they are more at risk for being victims of automobile accidents or 

other types of crime. That particular age group is least served in 

this process so we are recommending that funding be increased for 

middle and high school students so that can be corrected. 

Chairman KILDEE. So you would maintain the programs for the 

younger students but increase the participation by having more 

middle school and high school students involved in that. 

Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. That is correct. 

Chairman KILDEE. We do find almost weekly, if not more often, 

children in cars speeding home from school maiming themselves or 

killing themselves. 

Mr. CARROLL. In my particular area, we have a particular problem with that because our kids are of the economic status they can 

have cars. But even where the economic status is not that, what 

you have then is you have six or seven kids in the same car, and 

that, obviously, causes a different kind of problem. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Chief. 

Ms. Little, can you discuss how federal funding helps after-school 

programs access and leverage other funding and the impact that 

the president’s proposed cut would have on that ability? 

Ms. LITTLE. Sure. The programs that I look at through the evaluations I have seen and certainly through the work that we have 

done tracking indicates no program just gets any one funding 

stream. But what 21st Century does is provide some stable resources that can then be leveraged with other work. 

There is a study about to be released on the cost of quality programming that the Wallace Foundation supported and the finance 

project and public-private ventures did, and I encourage you to get 

32

your hands on it as soon as it comes out because what you will see 

is that programs have multiple funding streams and most of the 

ones in this had public dollars from 21st Century. These programs 

can’t survive without it. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

And, Ms. Kough, you mentioned the challenge of ensuring that 

students with disabilities attend after-school programs. Could you 

expand on that? 

Ms. KOUGH. Yes. One of the things that we had done when we 

did our initial look at which students and the state were getting 

services, we realized that the bulk was at elementary, and we had 

very few doing something for disability. So within our competition, 

what we do is we give priority points now for middle and high 

school programs and those with disabilities. We are in the middle 

of a competition as we speak, and one of our potential grantees is 

looking at a program that would serve children with disabilities. 

So we do a lot, again, in that preconference to talk about the 

children who aren’t being served and how people can partner to get 

programs for those students. So we are doing a lot with that kind 

of work. 

Chairman KILDEE. I am personally very happy with that. I am 

sure the governor is also, because he and I both have pushed the 

IDEA program. But that should be all kids with disabilities, and 

all programs should be included. 

Ms. KOUGH. Yes, one of our problems that we have had is some 

of the facilities, making sure that there are enough facilities available for children with disabilities. So that seems to have been a 

barrier, but we are moving forward. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize and yield to my friend the governor of Delaware, 

Mr. Castle. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

And I want to—sort of a general question about the educational 

component of what you are doing. 

It is my understanding, when this program merged into No Child 

Left Behind, part of what happened there was an increase in the 

educational component—academic component of these programs. 

And I am all for these programs. You don’t have to argue with me 

about the money needed or whatever it may be. But I am very concerned about making sure that we are improving the academic status of these kids as well, and I would be interested in your comments with respect to that. 

And I will start with you, Ms. Kough, if I can. Just looking at 

what you stated and what you wrote in your written testimony 

about the review of all this, which included academic activities and 

support, can you talk to us a little bit about the focus on that activity, either in terms of hours, time or methodology used to make 

sure there is an academic aspect to the after-school programs? 

Ms. KOUGH. I think so. First of all, I have been working with 

these programs now for 3 years, and as I said, when I really looked 

at the data to try to look at what was happening in the programs 

as I took things over, I, like you, Representative Castle, had a concern about what children were doing in these programs. Because 

33

I feel, if parents and children are investing time, they should be 

getting a lot out of it. 

So one of the things that we have done in Delaware is we have 

adapted North Carolina’s self-assessment tool because what we 

want to do is have our grantees take ownership of their program. 

And it is a formal process that we are doing professional development around, and one of the things they look at on a continuousimprovement model is what are we doing every day, and are there 

academic components? 

For instance, we have one middle school program where it has 

a big cooking component. The grantees looked at what they were 

doing in that and realized with things like the Afterschool Alliance 

toolkit that that cooking activity would be a really great place to 

deal with math issues. And so then we help facilitate those conversations between the after-school and the school to say, ‘‘Okay, 

these kids, where are they in fractions?’’

So I think, again, the power of 21st Century is that it allows 

those conversations to go on. But the big thing we are trying to do 

is get ownership for our grantees and give them the tools to do assessments of their own programs so that they are continually looking at what they are providing those students. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Gamble, you are on the ground in these programs. Tell us 

your understanding of the academic—you did a little bit in your 

testimony—but the academic component. 

Ms. GAMBLE. Sure. We address that in a number of different 

ways, but it is important that you do have constant conversations 

with the academic people in the school building. 

One good example of a way that we align ourselves with academics is in our summer program. We do a program called Don’t 

Sit Get Fit, which is a nutrition and fitness program. We actually 

have math teachers do the morning portion—the nutrition portion—and the kids are actually getting more math skills in the 

morning. Then in the afternoon they do the recreation piece. 

But I think it is very important that we stay on top of what is 

going on and with specific buildings because each building has its 

own needs. So we do a lot of looking at state-assessment tests, talking to staff in the buildings and making sure we are offering something that is going to help build the weaknesses in those particular 

buildings. 

Mr. CASTLE. Do you have any kind of a review system to determine if they are doing better academically? You may not have a 

comparison to other kids, but, I mean, you do it, but can you judge 

that you are actually doing better——

Ms. GAMBLE. Sure. Our external evaluator, which is Michigan 

State University Outreach & Partnerships, evaluates all the 

Bridges programs on a yearly basis, and we are starting to see 

some very positive results—and I can get that information to you 

if you like—in terms of how kids and their parents and teachers—

who we all survey—how they feel about the kids’ academics, and 

we are really starting to see positive results as a result of the 21st 

Century funding. 

Mr. CASTLE. Good. 

34

Chief Carroll and Ms. Little, I would like to sort of direct the 

same question in your roles as to how you see the academic component of these after-school programs, if you could——

Mr. CARROLL. Well, I think, Congressman, from a law enforcement point of view, this is a crime-prevention program in its best 

thought. You are not only teaching these kids academically, you are 

teaching them socially, you are teaching them community, placement, what they should be doing as far as sociability goes. And 

every bit of that that helps the child stay away from law enforcement is an amazing, positive step. 

If we don’t end up with them, that is only good, and this is a program that allows them to take their energy to a positive side and 

then to get some responsibility for their actions, which I can’t think 

of a downside to it. It seems to me that we are spending money 

on a program like this, or we are spending money later to build 

prisons, and this is much better than that. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

Ms. Little, do you have any comments on——

Ms. LITTLE. I will briefly. What the research clearly shouts out 

at you is the academic component is necessary but not sufficient if 

you want to get academic gain. Because what you want to do is 

have sound academics provided in a holistic approach, a developmental education approach, if you will. The enrichment activities 

that Ms. Gamble and Ms Kough were talking about combined with 

good sports, good arts, good rec, good health—and you name it—

you can do a number of combinations—but that is what is getting 

the good outcomes. The straight-up academic programs, you are not 

seeing as good outcomes as if you combine it with other activities. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. 

The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Little, perhaps you can answer this for me. Do all of the 

states have money from the 21st Century program? All 50 states? 

Do you know? 

Ms. LITTLE. I believe they do, but I actually don’t know the answer to that. Could I defer to someone else, or no? 

Ms. HIRONO. Is there someone else on the panel who can answer 

that question? 

Ms. KOUGH. Yes, I am sure they do. 

Ms. HIRONO. Ms. Kough? 

Ms. KOUGH. Yes, they do. 

Ms. HIRONO. Ms. Little, again, you have done a lot of research 

on the importance of quality after-school programs, and I am glad 

that there is a research basis for this, just as research now shows 

how important quality early education is to the students’ success 

in life. 

And I was wondering whether—I had earlier asked a question 

whether every state gets money from the 21st Century program because Hawaii—that is the state I represent—has an A Plus program that it put in place many—it preceded the 21st Century proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:09 Sep 16, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\110TH\ECESE\110-81\41040.TXT HBUD1 PsN: DICK
35

gram. And I wonder whether you have done any research on the 

efficacy of Hawaii’s after-school program? 

Ms. LITTLE. I am familiar with it. I am not aware of a statewide 

evaluation of it, but certainly it has a good reputation. And what 

I can say is that, what 21st Century has been very good with—

across the board the SEA’s have been very good about taking their 

3 percent set-aside and using it both for evaluation and quality-improvement efforts, which I think is why the 21st Century programs 

are as strong as they are today. 

Ms. HIRONO. And I am glad that all of you noted that what the 

21st Century program does is it creates partnerships all across the 

board, and the chief certainly talked about that. 

And as far as the president’s idea for moving toward a voucher 

program, would all of you agree that that is fixing a problem that 

is not broken? 

(All heads nod yes.) 

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t have a question, but I, first, want to just commend you 

and the ranking member for your focus on this very important 

issue and to all of our panelists for your work that in the end benefits the children of our nation. I think there is no more important 

priority here at home than giving that foundation to our children, 

our future leaders. 

And I especially want to highlight, as a fellow Pennsylvanian, to 

Chief Carroll for your service in uniform over many years and then 

also for you and your organization of really helping us in Washington understand the importance of these investments because, 

when we think of education-related or after-school programs, typically we don’t make that jump that we need to to crime prevention, 

juvenile delinquency prevention and that societal benefit that goes 

well beyond. And when my seniors back home say, ‘‘Well, why 

would we want to spend money on this?’’ I say, ‘‘Do you want your 

community to be safe, to have less crime?’’ Your organization, 

D.A.’s, chiefs of police, others that have helped make that point 

help us better understand as a society the importance of these investments. 

So, again, I commend all of you for your testimony here today 

and your work day in and day out on important issues that impact 

our children. 

And, again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership on the 

issue. 

Yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Again, I thank the gentleman for Pennsylvania for his hard work on this committee. 

The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Sarbanes. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing. It is extremely important, this issue, and the president’s budget is troubling—alarming really in terms of what the 

impact would be on after-school programs. 

36

I would like any of you who wish to to comment on the idea that 

after-school programming is a place where we can model new or old 

components of what a well-rounded educational program ought to 

be for our children. 

What I find interesting is that the place where now we are talking about, giving kids an opportunity to get some exercise, which 

is something that has been cut out. It is a place where some of the 

specials, for which there is less room because of the overfocus that 

some people feel on math and reading has led to kind of a crowding 

out. And whether it is summer programming or after-school programming, it strikes me that we are seeing there a kind of laboratory for things that ought to become part of the regular school day 

and the regular school year. 

And so I would like to get your thoughts on that, anybody who 

wants to jump in. 

Ms. KOUGH. I think all children deserve rich experiences, and 

what I always tell people, the filter I use is I want all children to 

have what my children were able to have. 

And we have a school in Delaware, a Charter school, Kuumba 

Academy—inner city—and what they have done with their 21st 

Century program is they have a total enrichment summer program 

only. And during that summer program, they take the children on 

field trips. They have a partnership with the Christiana Cultural 

Center to introduce them to art and music. 

And I think coming from a reading and elementary school background, those experiences that you don’t have—if you don’t have 

those, and you try to go to a test or relate to something in a book, 

they are needed. And I think, again, 21st Century is the place 

where so many of these activities can happen that, as you had said, 

Representative Sarbanes, can’t always happen at school, so I agree. 

Mr. SARBANES. There is a bill that I have introduced on this side 

called the No Child Left Inside Act, which is a play on words with 

No Child Left Behind, but basically the concept is to try to get children out of the classroom and into nature and into the environment. 

Looking at research which indicates that the amount of 

unstructured time that children spend outside every day is about 

4 minutes a day on average vs. about 4 or 5 hours of screen time—

including television, video games, Internet and so forth—on a daily 

basis, and so the idea of getting kids into different settings—field 

trips—you know, mixing it up to make it more interesting and 

make it more valuable for them is something that really appeals 

to me. 

Let me ask you this—let me flip a question around on you and 

ask you this: Which kids out there do not need after-school programs? 

Ms. LITTLE. I would like to take that one. All kids need afterschool programs, but sometimes it happens more naturally. So 

what we see in the research we have done at Harvard is there is 

a consistent pattern of winners and losers when it comes to afterschool opportunities. With middle-and upper-income kids, getting 

those opportunities naturally through better schools, through families, through extracurricular. And that is where, I think, is the 

beauty and strength of 21st Century is because they are targeting 

37

the kids who aren’t getting it anywhere else. They are trying to 

level the playing field. 

So the simple answer is everyone needs an after-school program. 

It is just some kids are getting it, and some kids aren’t. 

Mr. SARBANES. Great. Thank you. 

Chairman KILDEE. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Davis, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, all, for being here. 

I am sorry I missed some of the earlier remarks, but I wonder 

if you could link into a little more specifically community service 

learning and the extent to which after-school programs which engage students in that way. Is there research to identify that that 

does make a difference down the line in terms of choices that children make? Do we know anything more about that? 

Ms. LITTLE. I am happy to take that one first, and then maybe 

my colleagues would like to join in. 

Yes, we do know a fair amount about it. There are some very 

well-evaluated studies of apprenticeship models: the Citizens 

Schools program in Boston, the After School Matters program in 

Chicago, both of whom blend 21st Century funding with other 

funding. When the woman from Hawaii was asking about is A Plus 

evaluated, many folks get 21st Century money but don’t call themselves a 21st Century program. So it is hard to tease out when you 

say the ‘‘effects of a program,’’ so I just want to clarify that. 

What we know is that apprenticeship models, where you are getting young people out and about in a community doing community 

service, partnering and apprenticing with people working in a community, have enormous effects, particularly for middle and high 

school kids because it gives them a window into what their lives 

could be like. It gives them a sense that, ‘‘Oh, this is a career path 

for me,’’ or ‘‘You know what? That is not what I want to do. I want 

to do something else.’’ But it is an opportunity for them to experiment and get out, and we have very good research. 

It also helps keep them in high school. It improves greater ontime promotion from middle school to high school and more participation in college-level courses. 

Ms. GAMBLE. I would like to add also that, on a local level in 

Flint, one of the requirements in the Bridges program is for each 

site to have a youth advisory council, and that group—and it is 

open to any student. They don’t have to be your best students. But 

those kids are the ones that are given leadership roles. They are 

also given community service activities that they usually choose on 

their own. They can apply for grant money through United Way, 

money that is specifically set aside for youth advisory councils. So 

they get great experience seeking resources and asking for resources. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. I think, Ms. Gamble, if I could just 

go on. I am sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt, but we only have a 

few minutes, and I wanted to try and——

How then would this be affected by the president’s budget? Because I think one of the things that we don’t do very well is tell 

the story. We would probably have these cuts even if we told a good 

story, to be quite honest, because I think that in this atmosphere 

38

that we are experiencing right now, it is really not the efficacy of 

programs necessarily that we are looking at but other issues, other 

necessities that the administration feels in terms of other priorities 

that are being cut, quite unfortunately, I think, from our point of 

view. 

But I am just wondering whether—I have heard some very good 

stories in this regard, and I don’t know whether we should do a far 

better job in trying to get that message out. 

I wanted to also just follow up in another way with the link, and 

I think that you have talked about connecting this within the 

schools. I know the programs that I have seen that are very effective is where the teachers have a very strong role in providing feedback to the people that are providing the programs about the students and what is happening and how they are able to bring that 

experience back into the classroom. And, again, it worries me that 

we are—there is a very important story to tell here. How can we 

do that better? 

Ms. LITTLE. I think it is up to all of us to collect these stories 

and get them out. 

I think in terms of the voucher program specifically, there is no 

research that suggests that vouchers will improve programming, 

increase participation, increase access. There may be in 50 years, 

but there is no research to suggest that that will help the afterschool arena in the problems it already faces, which is there aren’t 

enough programs already. There is not enough funding already. Access to programs is problematic. We are still not reaching all the 

kids we need to reach. Vouchers aren’t the first solution that would 

come to my mind. 

Mrs. DAVIS OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hare. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I apologize if these questions were asked before, I came in 

late, and I hope you will bear with me. 

But my district in Illinois has 23 counties, and most of them are 

rural, and most people are aware of the lack of financial resources, 

but many are shocked to find out that there is a higher percentage 

of rural children that live in poverty when you compare that to 

children that live in nonrural areas. And, unfortunately, there are 

very few programs that provide academic enrichment in a safe and 

supervised environment. 

Ms. Gamble, in your testimony you briefly mentioned the scarcity 

and importance of after-school programs in the rural communities, 

and I wonder if you could touch on the need for those programs 

and the challenges that rural communities face? 

Also, how will drastic cuts to the 21st Century program and the 

shift from a grant program to a voucher program, in your opinion, 

impact rural communities? 

Ms. GAMBLE. Okay. As far as the rural population, we were just 

having that conversation in the backroom before we came in here 

because I had a discussion with one of my counterparts that heads 

up the rural 21st Century grant, and one of the questions I asked 

her was, ‘‘What are the issues for rural kids?’’ because I wanted to 

39

make sure I had that flavor in my presentation also. And she was 

saying that they get into the same kind of trouble at the same 

timeframe—3:00 to 6:00 P.M.—might be a different type of trouble, 

but they have the same issues as the urban kids. And, like you 

said, 21st Century is one of the few pots of money that are available for rural communities so it would really hurt them. 

And I am not sure about your second question? 

Mr. HARE. Well, are there any other programs that you would 

suggest or that we could try in the rural communities? And, you 

know, I guess let me just—instead of just additional resources, 

more money, what other measures do you think Congress could do 

to improve access to after-school programs in rural communities? 

I mean, are there any additional programs that you would support 

or think that we should support? And then, again, once you have 

the programs, you have to have access to them in the rural communities, people have to go quite a ways just to get from where they 

want to go to where the program is going to be. 

Ms. GAMBLE. Right. I think transportation would be a big issue 

in rural communities. Perhaps some type of program where the activities could come to the children, not necessarily where they live, 

but in areas where enough kids could come together in one place 

and have the partners come to them, as opposed to the kids trying 

to figure out how they are going to get to a certain place. 

But I don’t know of any particular pots of money or program that 

could serve in that capacity. But I just think we just need to be 

more creative. But the 21st Century money is a good anchor to 

begin with. 

Mr. HARE. Ms. Little, in my district there is a program called 

Homework Hangout, and it has done a wonderful job. The director 

of the program told me that, without the 21st Century funds, they 

would be forced to significantly reduce the number of staff for the 

tutoring services and would either have to be cut or eliminated and 

he would have to scale back on the number of hours. This is a program that is just incredibly effective, and I think, as the chief mentioned, we can pay now and invest now, or we can pay a tremendous price later. 

I am wondering—you know, you testified that research shows 

that programs need reliable, multiyear funding. And so, again, I 

would ask you, what would be the impact on the president’s proposal on these programs to develop that maturity? 

Ms. LITTLE. What we see really clearly is that a first-year program is arguably not going to be as well implemented as a thirdor fourth-year program. And what do I mean by well implemented? 

The kinks aren’t worked out. You know, it is like the first pancake 

off the griddle. It is not quite right. 

And as you move into maturity, what that buys for you is higher 

program quality. If you have better quality, kids are going to want 

to come so your participation goes up. Participation then feeds 

quality because, when you get to a certain size, professional development efforts kick in. 

So it is this symbiotic relationship between program quality and 

participation, but you are not going to get to the quality if you keep 

having to start a new program every year. It is the mature programs that we are seeing are doing a better job on the quality. 

40

Mr. HARE. Well, let me just thank you all. 

And, Chief, thank you. I think your remarks—again, you hit the 

nail on the head. People need to understand that, if we don’t do 

these programs, if we let them go by the wayside, eventually we 

will see what happens when we don’t fund these programs up, 

when we don’t expand them. 

And as you said, Ms. Gamble, I have people in my district—it is 

a huge district—23 counties. But young people, particularly in 

rural communities, have the same needs that the other kids have. 

And a lot of times they are sort of the—they are forgotten out 

there. 

So whatever we can do on our end to make sure that we get necessary funds, I think we need to do that. These programs work, 

and as I think my colleague Ms. Hirono mentioned, if it isn’t broke, 

why are we trying to fix it? 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Hare. Appreciate 

that very much. 

Governor Castle? 

Mr. CASTLE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I had one additional question, and I may not be 100 percent sure 

I know how to ask this so—answer as you please. 

But I am looking at the budget summary, and apparently in this year we are spending $1,081,000,000 on this program. 

My first question—and I would like to get the answer from anybody—maybe I can’t get it now from staff or whatever, but if somebody knows the answer of—or if any of you know it, I would love 

to hear it—of how much other money is put into these programs 

by foundations, United Way, states, perhaps local school districts 

or whatever? I don’t know if anyone has actually summarized that 

someplace or another, but I would be interested in what extra 

money is actually put into the programs. So that is one question 

that I have in general, which I can learn after the hearing if that 

is what it would take. 

And the other question I have—and I am going to ask this of 

you, Ms. Kough—is in Delaware, as I understand it, this is a—we 

take the federal money—the $1,081,000,000, and it is apportioned 

among the states in accordance with population or whatever. Of 

course, we are a small state. And then we have in Delaware separate grantees which are set up; is that correct? And what are their 

responsibilities in terms of how long they are going to get funding 

and what they have to do to sustain themselves, et cetera? 

Ms. KOUGH. 21st Century is a competitive grant program, and so 

when I said we were in the middle of a competition, we put out a 

request for proposal. In Delaware we give 5-year grants. The first 

3 years we are at full funding, the fourth year we give them a 25 

percent cut, and the fifth year we give them a 50 percent cut, and 

then they are to sustain. 

One of the biggest costs and barriers to sustaining, especially in 

rural areas, has been transportation. And one of the things, again, 

that has come from 21st Century—we have a site in Lake Forest, 

which is one of our rural areas, that developed a program, which 

I am not sure they would have had an after-school program if it 

hadn’t been for 21st Century. And what they did is they worked 

41

out that we have a community agency actually providing services 

at the school level, and then they have worked out a partnership 

with their transportation within the school to get the kids home. 

So what we do, again, is 5-year grants. At the end of the sixth 

year, they know they have to be self-sustaining. In that 5 years, 

we work with the business community and help them write a business plan, show them how to go after different money. So in Delaware, at least, they know that at the end of the fifth year, they are 

to be self-sustaining. 

This is our sixth competition. In the fourth round of competition, 

we did not grant any proposals because we didn’t think they were 

strong enough. Our Cohort 1 has now gone, and out of six, we have 

four sustaining. So I think that is pretty good——

Mr. CASTLE. So some have become self-sustaining, others don’t 

quite make it or whatever it may be? Okay. 

Ms. KOUGH. Right. I hope that answers your question. 

Mr. CASTLE. No, it does. And I appreciate it. 

And I would love to get the other answer at some point from 

some knowledgeable person here who has looked at all these budget figures. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KILDEE. Thank you, Governor. 

First of all, this has been an excellent panel. I have been very 

impressed, and the interaction among the panel has been very, 

very good. I think all of you recognize that all of you have something to contribute to our understanding and insight into this program, and we don’t always get that in these panels. Sometimes it 

is more argumentative out there. Here you have maybe a different 

nuance or a different approach, but I think you all recognize that 

all of you have something to contribute, and that has certainly benefited us. The governor and I were talking about that up here. So 

I deeply appreciate that. 

It is very interesting, too, Mr. Hare’s question about rural—that 

the gentlelady from Flint, Michigan, which is about as urban as 

you can get, having talked to someone in the Democratic anteroom, 

where we gather all our people—Democrat or Republican—before 

these meetings—was able to give a good response, and I think that 

is an indication that there is discussion among yourselves here and 

other places. But you recognize that all of you have something to 

contribute, and all of you have contributed to this. One of the best 

panels—I have been in Congress for 32 years—this is a very memorable panel, very, very helpful to us. 

Governor Castle talked about is other money available, is other 

money leveraged? And I know that Mr. Bill White—William 

White—head of the Mott Foundation in Flint, is a very compassionate person, very informed person, but he is very concerned, 

rather than just giving, investing in the future of kids. So he looks 

at things where he can really do the most to help with these dollars, and he looks at this type of program as something that is really worth that private investment too, and he comes from that world 

where he wants some return on that investment. So he and Governor Riley, by the way, were very, very good friends and worked 

very closely together during the 90s on this program. 

42

But, again, I can’t thank you enough. This panel has been very, 

very helpful to us. 

And as previously ordered, members will have 7 calendar days 

to submit additional materials for the hearing record. Any member 

who wishes to submit follow-up questions in writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority staff within the requisite time. 

And with great thanks and without objection, the hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in Congress 

From the State of California 

Every child deserves a safe place to go after school. The 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers provides millions of children with that safe place where they can 

do their homework, receive tutoring help, and play in a safe area away from the 

dangers of drugs and gangs. These after school sites also provide our nation’s poorest students with the extra help they need to succeed in life by expanding children’s 

access to tutoring and enrichment services. However, more than 14 million children 

who need after school services do not have access because there aren’t enough programs being funded. 

Now, more than ever, we need to help working families by providing safe places 

for children to go after school. Today, in about 65% of two-parent families, both parents work and 75% of all mothers are in the workplace. Not only do children need 

a safe place to go after school where they can learn and play, but working parents 

need to know their children are safe when they can’t be home to watch them. 

That is why the Administration’s proposal to cut funding to 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is such a misguided approach. If the proposed cut 

goes through, between 635,000 and over a million students would be forced out of 

after school programs. Already, 14 million children are not able to benefit from after 

school services because of lack of funding. This cut could add 1.1 million more children to this group of students who go home alone after school and not to a safe environment. Our children deserve better. That’s why we should block the Administration’s recommendation to cut funding and increase funding to these valuable programs so that no child has to go home alone. I look forward to working with my 

colleagues to ensure that 21st Century Community Learning Centers get the support they need to provide our nation’s neediest children with a safe place to learn 

and play after school. Thank you. 

[Additional submissions by Mr. Kildee follow:]

THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION, 

March 10, 2008. 

Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: A hearing is scheduled before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor to consider the federal afterschool 

initiative termed 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) strongly opposes programs that allow public 

money to be diverted to private schools through vouchers, and therefore urges you 

to oppose President Bush’s proposal to replace the current federal afterschool initiative, called 21st Century Community Learning Centers, with an unworkable voucher program with a catchy new name: 21st Century Learning Opportunities Scholarships. 

For approximately 1.5 million children, the 21st Century Community Learning 

Center program provides peace of mind, safety and inspires learning. Their value 

has been tested and proven. According to the U.S. Department of Education, nearly 

half the children who regularly attend these centers raise their grades in reading/

language arts and mathematics. Three-quarters complete more homework and participate more in class. In 26 statewide referenda from coast to coast through November 2007 millions of American voters have rejected school vouchers or their variants 

by an average margin of two to one. 

43

In contrast, the proposal for the so-called ‘‘learning opportunities scholarships’’ by 

the President is an unproven, ideologically driven voucher scheme that would permit federal funding of pervasively sectarian instruction and activities, and threaten 

the quality afterschool learning opportunities. 

NCPE has consistently opposed the funneling of public money to private and religious schools through such mechanisms. We strongly urge you to reject such private 

school proposals that have been set forth by the Administration. We thank you for 

your consideration of our views on this important issue. If you have any questions 

or would like additional information, please contact Mary Kusler at (703) 875-0733 

or MKusler@aasa.org. 

Sincerely, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS, 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION, 

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE, 

AMERICANS FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 

AMERICANS UNITED FOR THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, 

ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATIONAL SERVICE AGENCIES, 

BAPTIST JOINT COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, 

INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, 

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, 

NATIONAL RURAL EDUCATION ADVOCACY COALITION, 

NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, 

PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, 

SECULAR COALITION FOR AMERICA, 

UNION FOR REFORM JUDAISM, 

WOMEN OF REFORM JUDAISM. 

March 10, 2008. 

Hon. DALE E. KILDEE, Chairman; Hon. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Ranking Member, 

House Early Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN KILDEE AND RANKING MEMBER CASTLE: On behalf of the 95,000 

school board members who serve the nation’s 49 million students in our local public 

school districts, the National School Boards Association (NSBA) respectfully requests that this letter be entered into the record in conjunction with tomorrow’s 

hearing on the Administration’s FY2009 budget proposal regarding afterschool programs. 

NSBA is opposed to the plan put forward by the Administration to cut approximately $300 million from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program 

and to convert the program into a voucher experiment. Under the proposal, the remaining $800 million essentially would be given to individual parents to spend on 

afterschool programs at their discretion. 

Currently, states distribute grants competitively to afterschool programs, typically 

for a 3- to 5-year period, assisting organizations with planning and developing a 

long-term quality program with a reliable and stable funding stream. Almost 1.5 

million children benefit from the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, with nearly half the students demonstrating improvement in reading, language arts and math, and approximately three-quarters completing more homework 

and increasing class participation, according to the U.S. Department of Education. 

The Administration’s voucher plan would eliminate public accountability, undermine afterschool programs and jeopardize their quality by introducing a far more 

unstable and uncertain funding stream. Programs may not reasonably be able to 

budget for out years if the Administration’s voucher proposal were adopted. 

The plan is an attempt to incorporate the unproven, unpopular and unaccountable 

concept of vouchers into federal education policy. We urge the subcommittee to 

closely scrutinize and oppose this current proposal. 

44

Thank you for considering our views on this issue. If you have any questions or 

would like further information, please contact Marcus Egan, Director of Federal Affairs, at (703) 838-6707, or megan@nsba.org. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL A. RESNICK, Associate Executive Director, 

National School Boards Association. 

[Whereupon, at 11:22 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ