Readiness for Quality Ratings Varies among Milwaukee Afterschool

VOLUME 100, NUMBER 4
OCTOBER 2012
Readiness for Quality Ratings Varies among Milwaukee Afterschool
Programs
Milwaukee’s afterschool programs vary considerably in terms of their attitudes about,
understanding of, and readiness for new state quality ratings. As of July 2012, all child care and
afterschool programs serving school-age children receiving state child care subsidies are required to
participate in YoungStar, the state’s quality rating and improvement system. The Public Policy Forum
surveyed 64 programs across Milwaukee in June 2012, finding that a significant number were uncertain
or pessimistic about YoungStar’s potential impacts on quality (Chart 1). In addition, less than half of
survey respondents felt certain they would participate in YoungStar. School-age programs located in
group child care centers were much more likely to indicate they would certainly participate than schoolbased programs.
When asked about specific elements of quality reflected in the YoungStar rating system, more than
half of all programs reported having many of these characteristics, including tracking student outcomes
and conducting self-assessments of program quality. Programs most likely to have these types of
quality characteristics were 21st Century Community Learning Centers; school-based programs located
in private schools were least likely to have many of these quality characteristics.
Barriers to improving quality that were identified by survey respondents included the costs of
training staff, a lack of training opportunities for staff, and pressure to keep costs down. These survey
results provide a descriptive snapshot of afterschool programming in Milwaukee that should be useful
for state administrators and policymakers charged with implementing and evaluating the new quality
rating system, as it appears
Chart 1: In your
the disparate nature of the
opinion, how likely is it
afterschool system in
Certainly
Not
that the application of
Milwaukee may not lend
13%
sure/no
the YoungStar quality
itself to a “one-size fits all”
answer
rating and
approach to quality
40%
improvement system
improvement.
At least
to school-age
somwhat
afterschool programs
likely
32%
will improve the
Not likely
quality of the program
15%
at this site?
Public Policy Forum
633 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 406
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
414.276.8240
www.publicpolicyforum.org
Research by:
Anneliese Dickman, Research Director
Joe Peterangelo, Researcher
Research funded by:
The Argosy Foundation
The Herzfeld Foundation
LISC Milwaukee
JP Morgan Chase Foundation
2
Data and methodology

The 21-question survey was conducted online
from June to August 2012. A mailing list of 431
probable afterschool programs/providers in the
City of Milwaukee was compiled from nine
sources:

21st Century Community Learning Centers,
Milwaukee Public Schools

School-based afterschool camps,
Milwaukee Public Schools

Group child care centers serving schoolage children, 4Cs for Children, Milwaukee

Group child care centers serving schoolage children receiving state child care
subsidies, Wisconsin Department of
Children and Families (DCF)

Private schools participating in the
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program
indicating afterschool hours, Public Policy
Forum

Charter schools, City of Milwaukee

Charter schools, University of WisconsinMilwaukee

Boys and Girls Clubs, Boys and Girls Clubs
of Milwaukee
Non-school agencies participating in the
National School Lunch and Child and Adult
Care Food Programs, Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction (DPI)
All charter schools were included to capture as
many school-based programs in addition to MPS
as possible. Private schools previously indicating
to the Forum that afterschool activities are
offered were included for that reason as well.
To ensure representativeness of stand-alone
and other programs operating outside of school
buildings, we included all group child care centers
who indicated to either 4Cs or DCF that they could
serve school-age children, as well as all Boys and
Girls Clubs and agencies serving federally-funded
afterschool meals.
Because this multi-year research project is
focused on afterschool programs that serve
students every day for multiple hours after school
throughout the school year, we did not attempt to
survey programs that are known to not operate
daily, operate only in summer, or not operate for
the entire school year. In addition, we excluded
family child care providers from the survey
sample.
Because of the length and complexity of the
survey, administering the survey instrument
online was determined to be most cost-effective.
Unfortunately, email addresses were not available
from all sources; thus, each potential afterschool
Table 1: Survey response rate and representativeness
Total
21st Century CLC
School-based program
Child care center
Stand alone afterschool program
Other program types
Boys and Girls Clubs
MPS school-based
Charter school-based
Private school-based
Sample
Count
Distribution
64
25
39%
21
33%
13
20%
5
8%
19
29
3
11
30%
45%
5%
17%
Mailing list
Count
Distribution
431
51
12%
up to 94
22%
up to 262
61%
up to 24
6%
39
117
11
38
9%
27%
3%
9%
Response rate
15%
49%
22%
5%
21%
49%
25%
27%
29%
3
program was mailed a large postcard via U.S. Post
asking them to visit the survey website to
participate in the survey. Each postcard recipient
was assigned a survey ID number, which he or she
was asked to enter into the website to ensure only
one survey response was received from each
program site.
The 64 responses received equal an overall
response rate of 15%. This somewhat low
response may be due to the timing of the survey
late in the school year when programs may have
been winding down, a possible lack of internet
access at some sites, and/or a significant number
of sites on the mailing list not actually offering a
school-age afterschool program. Thus, the true
representativeness of the survey sample is
difficult to measure, as non-response may or may
not reflect a site’s status as lacking an afterschool
program.
Table 1 shows the breakdown of various
types of programs reflected in the survey sample
as compared to the mailing list of potential
programs. The distribution of responses across
program types is fairly representative of the
mailing list, although 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (CLCs) are over-represented.
The distribution of the sample by zip code is also
representative of the mailing list geographically
(see Map on page 13).
Table 2: Survey representativeness of students
Total
21st Century CLC
7610
5262
PPF
estimated
total
Response
enrollment
rate
43402
22922
Chart 2 shows the distribution of 21st
Century CLCs and school-based programs in the
survey sample by the type of school/sponsor site.
Note that although many 21st Century
Community Learning Centers are sited in school
buildings, for the purposes of this report we treat
them as a unique program type and do not
categorize them as “school-based.” Chart 3 shows
the total enrollment by program type.
Chart 2: Program sites represented in sample
Stand-alone program
5
Child care center
10
Public school in partnership
with a community agency
28
Public or charter school
Private secular school
5
2
Private religious school
Table 2 shows the response rate as
determined by enrollment. The programs
Sample
school-age
enrollment
responding to the survey enroll nearly one-fifth of
the children we estimate to participate in
afterschool programs in Milwaukee. For schoolbased programs and 21st Century Community
Learning Centers added together, the survey
captures responses from programs representing
one-fourth of all children in the city thought to
attend.
10
Chart 3: Survey sample total enrollment by
program type
5262
18%
23%
1422
School-based
program
1422
4127
34%
Child care center
826
16353
5%
Note: Calculation of estimated enrollment can be found in an
earlier PPF report, “Afterschool in Milwaukee: Is it child care?”
July 2012.
826
100
21st Century
CLC
Group child
care
School-based Stand-alone
program
program
4
On average, programs reported that about half
of their students attend all of the time (five days
per week) and 22% attend more than half the
time (four days per week), indicating that chronic
absences occur among a small portion of students,
but that student engagement still could be
problematic in many programs (Chart 6).
There are variances in these patterns by
program type and by age group, however. Chart
7 on the following page shows that among the
preschool age group (four-year-old
Kindergarten), school-based and 21st Century
CLCs had higher attendance rates than group
child care. Among elementary students, the
reverse was true. At the middle school age, very
few group child care centers in the survey
enrolled significant numbers of children and the
attendance rates at the other programs were
lowest for this age group, reflecting the fact that
these students are old enough to be more
independent and are more likely to make choices
about where and how they spend their time after
school.
4000
Enrollment
3500
Capacity
3000
Attendance
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Preschool
Elementary
school
Middle school High school
Chart 5: Average program enrollment, capacity,
and attendance, by age group
100
86 83
Enrollment
80
60
40
Capacity
59
Attendance
39
24 27 21
34
22
23 25
20
18
0
Preschool
Elementary
school
Middle school
High school
Chart 6: Attendance pattern at average program
all of the
time, 52%
0
20
half of
the time
or less,
9%
more
than half
the time,
22%
40
60
Percent attending
80
sporadically,
5%
Many programs can thus enroll over capacity
because attendance is less than enrollment. Chart
4 shows the total capacity of survey respondents
compared to total enrollment and total
attendance. The overall pattern holds true for
individual programs, as well, as shown in Chart 5,
representing the average program serving each
age group.
4500
Total count
Research has shown that regular attendance in
afterschool programs is more effective in
improving student outcomes than sporadic
attendance. In fact, several studies use average
daily attendance as a proxy measure for quality.
The nature of serving school-age students makes
it difficult, however, to ensure all enrolled
children are in attendance each day. Students
also participating in school sports teams or arts
performance groups may have conflicts after
school, for example. In addition, older students
who are not in need of child care may or may not
choose to attend a program on a given day.
Chart 4: Total enrollment, capacity, and
attendance, by age group
Average count
Enrollment, capacity, and attendance
100
5
Chart 7: Average enrollment, capacity, and attendance by age group and program type
140
Average Attendance
Average Capacity
Average Enrollment
Average Capacity
20
Average Attendance
40
Average Enrollment
60
Average Attendance
80
Average Capacity
Average count
100
Average Enrollment
120
0
21st Century Group child School-based 21st Century Group child School-based 21st Century Group child School-based
Community care center program Community care center program Community care center program
Learning
Learning
Learning
Center
Center
Center
Elementary School
Middle School
With the exception of the 21st Century CLCs,
very few programs reported maintaining a
waiting list for enrollment (Chart 8). The 21st
Century CLCs operate somewhat differently from
other programs in this survey in this regard
because of their funding structure, which
necessitates a waiting list for some programs. See
page 11 for more on program revenue.
Chart 8: Programs maintaining wait lists
The majority of programs reported they can
serve special needs students. Table 3 provides a
breakdown by program type. School-based
programs in private schools and stand-alone
programs were much less likely to accommodate
student with special needs than other types of
programs.
Most programs (62%) also reported offering
an afternoon snack and 42% offer an afternoon
meal/dinner. Of the 25 programs operating in the
morning, 64% offer breakfast.
23%
Total
Stand-alone
School-based program
0%
5%
Group child care
20%
21st Century CLC
Program offerings
Of the 45 respondents answering a question
about program schedules, all reported having
afternoon programs and 25 reported having
morning programs as well. Six of the respondents
do not operate on Friday afternoons, five of which
are 21st Century CLCs. Thus, most respondents
make programming available five days per week.
Preschool
44%
Table 3: Programs serving special needs
students
Total
65%
21st Century Community Learning Center
Group child care center
75%
89%
School-based program-public school
86%
School-based program-private school
Stand-alone school-age program
14%
0%
Table 4: Number of programs offering
transportation
Transportation to program from home (a.m.)
4
Transportation to school (a.m.)
6
Transportation to program from school (p.m.)
7
Transportation home from program (p.m.)
9
6
Table 5: Activities and opportunities offered
Percent answering “yes”
Academic support/tutoring/homework
help
Recreation/structured physical activity
Social development activities
Field trips
Visual and performing arts education/
enrichment
Leadership opportunities/skills
development
Mentoring
Community service projects
STEM learning/projects
Career and college preparation
Other
21st
School- SchoolStandCentury
based
based
alone
Community Group program- program- schoolLearning child care public
private
age
Center
center
school
school program
Total
100%
100%
85%
80%
78%
100%
89%
89%
100%
100%
57%
57%
100%
40%
60%
20%
100%
67%
33%
0%
93%
89%
73%
64%
80%
22%
86%
0%
67%
58%
80%
55%
70%
44%
33%
22%
43%
57%
29%
40%
40%
20%
33%
33%
33%
58%
47%
44%
45%
40%
10%
11%
22%
11%
29%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
33%
27%
24%
9%
Forty-two programs provided information on
transportation, with most indicating they offer no
transportation (Table 4). Five 21st Century CLCs
and four child care centers provide transportation
home from the program in the evening. All other
transportation benefits are offered only by child
care centers.
With regard to specific activities offered to
students, nearly all programs (93%) provide
academic support, tutoring, and/or homework
help (Table 5). As for other activities, there was
some variance across program types. For
example, while all 21st Century CLCs, child care
centers, and public school-based programs offer
physical activities, less than half of private schoolbased programs do. Private school-based
programs also were much less likely to offer arts
programming or field trips. Across all program
types, few offer STEM activities (science,
technology, engineering, and math) or college/
career preparation.
None of the programs responding to the
survey indicated a specialization in a particular
activity to the exclusion of all other activities.
Program quality
Program quality is made up of process quality,
which cannot be measured directly without
observing the interactions of program staff and
students; and structural quality, which is revealed
by program characteristics that research has
shown indicate the capacity for process quality.
Structural quality indicators measure whether a
program has the types of policies and
organizational structures in place to help deliver
activities and experiences to benefit child
development and student outcomes. YoungStar is
intended to measure both structural quality and
process quality for most programs.
Accreditation is one structural quality
indicator recognized in the YoungStar rating
system. Twenty-five survey respondents
reported they are accredited or working on
accreditation, while 14 reported they are not
accredited and 19 were unsure of their
accreditation status. Of those accredited or
working toward accreditation, 17 reported
relationships with national accrediting bodies of
the type recognized by YoungStar. The others
cited accreditation by agencies that do not
7
actually accredit child care or afterschool
programs. Some of these agencies, such as
Wisconsin Religious and Independent Schools
Accreditation (WRISA), accredit schools, which
may indicate that a program is located in or
operated by an accredited school, but which also
indicates some confusion about the type of
accreditation recognized by YoungStar.
Other quality indicators recognized in
YoungStar include tracking and monitoring data
on student outcomes and creating and keeping
portfolios of student work done as part of the
program. Chart 9 shows that over half of
programs surveyed reported tracking and
monitoring student outcomes for at least some
students, while less than a third said they create
student portfolios. Another 13% indicated they
are planning to create student portfolios in the
future, however.
YoungStar also awards points to programs
conducting self-assessments, which 65% of
respondents reported doing. When asked how
they perform the assessments, most (54%)
reported utilizing a commercial or other
assessment tool. The other programs reported
conducting staff and/or parent surveys or other
means of assessing performance. Programs most
likely to conduct assessments using an
assessment tool recommended by YoungStar are
21st Century CLCs and group child care centers.
Chart 9: Programs monitoring student
outcomes and creating student portfolios
Yes
Yes, for some
Student
outcomes
Portfolios
Plan to in the future
46%
7% 20%
No
17%
13%
33%
57%
4%
4%
Over half (55%) of respondents reported their
staff are familiar with The Registry, which is the
agency that tracks child care and afterschool staff
credentials in Wisconsin. The state now requires
program staff to register their credentials with
The Registry as part of the YoungStar rating
system. Programs not familiar with The Registry
tended to be school-based programs in private
schools.
Only three programs reported being unaware
of YoungStar one month prior to its
implementation in school-age programs: one
school-based program in a private religious
school, one in a public school, and one stand-alone
program run by a religious organization. This
high level of awareness may be related to so many
programs having structural quality elements in
place.
Chart 9: Number of programs having relationship with day school(s)
No regular contact with day school(s)
8
Yes, co-host events for families or staff
21
Yes, employ school staff as program staff
23
Yes, attend school events or meetings
23
Yes, exchange data with school(s) regarding individual
students
Yes, meet with school teachers to complement learning in
school day
Trans
portat
Not sure
30
25
Number of programs
Trans
8
YoungStar cannot capture all indicators of
quality, however, and it does not evaluate the
nature of a program’s relationship to the school(s)
its students attend. Research has shown this
relationship can play a large role in the program’s
success in improving student academic outcomes
and persistence in school.
When asked about their relationship with
students’ day schools, only eight programs
reported they have no regular contact with the
school(s); however, 22 programs did not answer
the question, which may indicate that many more
do not have relationships with the day schools
(Chart 9). Seven of the eight programs reporting
no contact were group child care centers, which
may serve children from dozens of schools.
The most common type of relationship
reported was exchanging student-level data with
the school, which was reported by 21st Century
CLCs and school-based programs. These are also
the two types of programs most likely to have
reported meeting regularly with teachers and
employing school staff as program staff. These
programs may have an easier time establishing
these relationships because they are located in
the school building.
Chart 10: Total staff in sample, by program type
250
Full-time
200
Part-time
150
100
50
0
21st Century
Community
Learning Center
Group child
care center
School-based
program
Stand-alone
program
programs that lacked many of these structural
quality characteristics tended to be stand-alone or
located at private schools.
Program staff
Considering all structural quality indicators
investigated, slightly more than half of the survey
respondents appeared ready to participate in
YoungStar at the time of the survey. The
Closely related to program quality are
program staffing issues. Afterschool programs
utilize more part-time staff than full-time, due to
the short time children are present. Chart 10
illustrates this, with only group child care centers
having significant numbers of full-time staff, as
they also provide a full day of care for younger
children. On average, the programs that are not
child care centers employed two full-time staff
persons per site and four part-time staff
members.
Table 6: Thinking of past staff members who have left your school-age program, what have been
their reasons for leaving?
Percent agreeing
Wages too low
Insufficient hours
Changing careers
Going back to school
Not a long-term career choice
Lack of health benefits
Lack of transportation
Stress of job
Left to work for other school age program
21st Century
Community
Learning Center
Schoolbased
program
40%
48%
52%
44%
44%
20%
8%
20%
12%
24%
19%
33%
24%
29%
14%
0%
10%
10%
Group
Stand-alone
child care school-age
center
program
69%
15%
54%
31%
38%
38%
8%
31%
15%
40%
20%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
20%
20%
9
Table 7: Would staff benefit from additional training?
Percent agreeing
21st Century
Community
Learning
Center
Schoolbased
program
Group child
care center
Stand-alone
school-age
program
48%
52%
48%
44%
56%
48%
44%
60%
36%
29%
5%
19%
19%
29%
29%
33%
48%
19%
31%
69%
38%
31%
54%
54%
69%
69%
62%
40%
20%
20%
40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%
36%
14%
46%
40%
52%
29%
69%
40%
Health and safety practices
Education and care of children with special needs
Working with families
Math skills
Literacy skills (reading, writing)
Arts skills (arts and crafts, music, theater, dance)
Helping children get along with others
Behavior management/discipline
Measuring students' academic progress
Measuring students' social/developmental
progress
Classroom/group management and organization
Because of the part-time nature of most
afterschool program jobs, staff turnover is to be
expected. While we did not ask about turnover
rates, we did ask why staff who have left a
program have done so. Table 6 shows that issues
related to wages, hours, and the suitability of
afterschool programming as a career were
common reasons for staff to leave.
When asked to name the type of training that
would be most beneficial to their staff, of the 27
open-ended responses, over half (55%) referred
to managing children’s behavior, managing the
group/classroom, or helping children get along
with others. Just five programs mentioned
academic-type skills such as measuring students’
progress.
Staff turnover can negatively affect quality if it
hinders the development of stable relationships
between staff and students, and also if new staff
members are not well-prepared. Therefore, we
asked about the need for more staff training in
specific skills. Whether or not staff would benefit
from additional training in certain areas was seen
differently across program types. Interestingly,
the programs most likely to report having many
structural quality indicators in place were also
most likely to agree that their staff could benefit
from more training. Table 7 shows that in
several instances, more than half of the 21st
Century CLCs and group child care centers see a
need for more training, but in no instances do
more than half of school-based or stand-alone
programs see such a need.
Further differences among program types are
seen when providers are asked about training
opportunities, as shown in Charts 11-13. Group
child care centers were most likely to assist staff
in obtaining training, either by paying for training
costs, paying for time spent in training, or offering
training in house. School-based programs were
least likely to offer internal training, while 21st
Century CLCs were most likely to do so. CLCs also
were more likely to pay staff for their time spent
in training.
Looking at these three charts as a whole,
however, it is clear that with the exception of 21st
Century CLCs and group child care centers, the
majority of programs do not assist their staff to
receive more training either by helping to defray
the costs or offering internal training programs.
10
Chart 11: Does your program pay for training
expenses...for staff to attend training
opportunities offered by outside agencies?
Paid in part
Paid in full
Stand-alone school-age
program
20%
20%
31%
Group child care center
38%
5%
School-based program
29%
21st Century Community
Learning Center
8%
24%
Chart 12: Does your program pay for staff time
to attend training opportunities offered by
outside agencies or educational institutions?
At part wages
At full wages
Stand-alone school-age
program
20%
20%
8%
Group child care center
5%
School-based program
21st Century Community
Learning Center
46%
24%
0%
40%
Chart 13: Does your program offer internal
training opportunities?
Off site
On site
Stand-alone school-age
program
40%
40%
Group child care center
38%
School-based program
21st Century Community
Learning Center
54%
19%
19%
56%
64%
Program revenues
It can be expensive for afterschool programs
to provide high-quality programming and a welltrained workforce. In Milwaukee, there are
several fee models used by afterschool programs
to generate operating revenue. Group child care
centers charge parents a fee, which can be
subsidized by the state for low-income families.
School-based programs also charge a fee, which
may or may not be eligible for a subsidy,
depending on the program. The same is true for
stand-alone afterschool programs.
There is a different model for 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, which receive
federal funds via the school district. These
programs receive up to $90,000 per site, which
allow them to provide services free of charge in
many cases. (If a CLC student would otherwise be
eligible for a state child care subsidy, however,
then the CLC may choose to work with the family
to access those state funds.) This funding
difference is why CLCs were more likely to report
waiting lists—if they do not charge a fee to
participate, they are limited in the number of
children they can serve.
When we asked survey respondents whether
they charge a fee, all group child care centers and
school-based programs that responded indicated
that they do so. Half of the 21st Century CLCs that
responded indicated they charge a fee. The single
stand-alone program to answer the question also
charges a fee.
Moreover, survey respondents estimated that
43% of all student fees are paid entirely by the
students’ families, while another 35% are paid by
state subsidy and 10% by other aid, grants, or
scholarships. The relative mix of revenues varies
by program type, as shown in Table 8. The fact
that school-based programs and stand-alone
programs rely on parent-paid fees may help
explain their relative lack of structural quality
indicators—cost pressures can limit quality. This
dynamic is further discussed in the next section.
11
Table 8: Please estimate the percentage of school-aged students (grades K5 - 12) enrolled in your
before- or after-school program at this site whose fees are fully paid for:
Average percent
Private pay
State subsidy
Other aid/scholarship
31%
17%
70%
100%
19%
61%
10%
0%
14%
4%
0%
0%
21st Century Community Learning Center
Group child care center
School-based program
Stand-alone school-age program
Barriers to quality improvements
The picture painted by the survey results is
one of a mixed level of quality among afterschool
providers across the city. Certain types of
providers, such as 21st Century CLCs, seem more
ready to make the quality improvements
policymakers are seeking from YoungStar. Yet,
even among those providers, up to half reported
not having established many structural quality
characteristics.
While the participation of afterschool
programs in YoungStar will help parents, schools,
and the community at large better understand
where the strengths and weaknesses of those
programs, participating in YoungStar does not
guarantee that a program will be able to move up
the rating scale over time.
In order to help state administrators and
policymakers understand some of the barriers to
making quality improvements, we asked
programs about their challenges. Tables 9 and
10 show that many programs experience
challenges in making program improvement and
obtaining training for staff.
Parental involvement was cited as a challenge
for over half of 21st Century CLCs and group
child care centers, and nearly half of schoolbased programs. This is a concern, because
parental involvement commonly is seen as
necessary to ensure students have regular
attendance and reinforce skills and other
learning at home. The next most-frequently cited
challenges were collecting fees, which directly
impacts quality if revenues are negatively
impacted, and keeping costs down, with reflects
the need for programs to balance investment in
quality with parental affordability or, in the case
of many 21st Century CLCs, to work within a
fixed budget.
Caring for students with special needs also
was seen as a challenge by most programs.
Further research is needed to better understand
the extent to which students with special needs
are being well-served in afterschool programs.
On a positive note, most programs felt they are
able to provide a variety of engaging activities to
students and are meeting the expectations of
their school/community partners or of their
agency/school district.
With regard to staff training, affordability was
reported to be a challenge for most programs, as
was a lack of relevant training opportunities. It
appears many programs also are challenged by
the fact that staff may not be interested in
obtaining more training (Table 10).
Conclusion
This survey was designed to better
understand the quality status of afterschool
programs in Milwaukee, as well as to paint a
picture of the types of programs available to
students across the city. We find a disparate
system of programs in many different settings,
with about half of all programs lacking certain
quality indicators. As the implementation of
YoungStar moves forward, we will be monitoring
the quality ratings, both to measure quality
improvements over time, and to gauge the
impact of this increased focus on quality on the
range of programs available in Milwaukee.
12
Table 9: Is your school age program currently experiencing challenges in any of the following
areas?
21st Century
Community
Learning Center
Schoolbased
program
Group child
care center
Providing a variety of engaging activities
44%
24%
38%
Student discipline/behavior
Caring for students with special needs
Parental involvement
Facilities
Finding/retaining qualified program staff
56%
56%
60%
36%
48%
29%
38%
43%
29%
43%
46%
62%
69%
31%
54%
Keeping costs down
56%
29%
62%
Collecting fees/generating other financial support
Equipment
Transportation
Technical assistance in meeting regulations or making
improvements
Meeting expectations of program partners
60%
60%
44%
38%
38%
10%
62%
54%
31%
52%
20%
43%
10%
54%
23%
Meeting expectations of central agency administration
36%
24%
23%
Percent responding “minor” or “major” challenge
Table 10: Are any of the following items challenges for your school age program staff when trying
to obtain training?
Percent responding “minor” or “major” challenge
Cannot afford training fees
Staff not paid for time spent in training
Staff not interested in training beyond the required hours
Lack of relevant training opportunities
Training is too elementary
Lack of funding for substitutes to replace those attending
training
Internet access for online courses or seminars
21st Century
Community
Learning Center
52%
16%
48%
56%
20%
Schoolbased
program
29%
14%
38%
29%
14%
Group child
care center
69%
54%
54%
69%
38%
52%
40%
24%
19%
62%
54%
13
Map: Geographic distribution of survey respondents