Introduction

Afternoon is a dangerous time for American teenagers. Research has found that the after-school hours -- from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. -- are the peak period for experimentation with drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and sex. It is also the peak period for juvenile crime. It should come as no surprise, then, that other research has found that adult-supervised after-school programs can dramatically cut those risks. That alone would be a powerful argument in favor of after-school programs, even if it were the only one. But it is far from the only argument in their favor. In fact, it is just one of many examples of why after-school programs deserve robust national support -- not just for the benefit of at-risk teenagers, but also for children in need of academic enrichment and extracurricular opportunities, and (not least) for their working parents.

Not all of the research on after-school programs is so glowing, but policymakers debating this issue should remember that our national commitment to after-school programs is only 10 years old. Now is the time to study these programs and build on what works. We should not be discouraged with the uneven outcomes to date, or use those outcomes as justification to shut down funding.

Elected officials should recognize that the public firmly supports after-school programs. Arnold Schwarzenegger earned his political credibility in California by championing an after-school ballot initiative, after all. And similar programs have won widespread popularity in Boston and elsewhere. A recent survey found that Americans, across all demographic and party lines, view after-school programs as a vital part of their communities. Voters also want government to provide more funding and support for them.

This widespread expectation that children should have the opportunity to participate in after-school programs coincides with growing concerns among middle-class parents about the precarious balance between work and family, and an increasingly intense society-wide focus on boosting academic achievement for all K-12 students. Struggling students often need extra help to master challenging material in school, and educators have been developing promising after-school programs that can help them. The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which rightly holds schools accountable for ensuring that students meet high standards, makes providing additional learning opportunities all the more important.

Yet, despite the obvious promise of after-school programs on all of these fronts, funding and support for them remains tenuous -- particularly with the Bush administration. In fact, despite the multiple benefits of after-school programs, the president's fiscal 2004 budget proposed a 40 percent cut in their funding, and his current fiscal 2005 budget request freezes funding for after-school programs even as states, school districts, and schools are in the midst of implementing NCLB.

This paper examines the federal government's role in after-school programs, surveys current research on them, and offers recommendations to expand access and improve the quality of after-school programs. Those recommendations include:

• Providing the resources to meet the growing demand for after-school services from parents and struggling schools;
• Rigorously assessing the quality of after-school programs;
• Using research to ensure that after-school programs are effective; and
• Targeting resources to the highest need communities first.