BOSTnet Summer Series II

As part of BOSTnet's Summer Series, we reflect on the issues brought up in conversation or as part of the presentation. This meeting covered behavior, however, many aspects of staffing and program needs came up in group discussion. Summer is less then two weeks away. Whether the program is 5 weeks or up to 10 weeks, Summer presents certain challenges as well as opportunities - both for children and youth as well as for the program itself.

One very common aspect of summer programming is that many programs rely on this period to raise money. Some programs refer to the summer as their "cash cow" since fee-for-service is high and there are more families willing to pay. These sums often cover activities for summer and then work as a bridge fund in autumn until grants, contracts, and payments come in or a fund for the end of the academic year where funds have been spent and resources are few.

So there is an economic aspect of this service where summer subsidizes the academic year. There is another aspect where programs have to ramp up into full time services and work with children or youth who may be part of the academic year or may follow another configuration - such as several sites being consolidated into one site. This need for high enrollment as well as the reconfiguration can stress site directors as well as lead to a summer where activities are not always as organized or purposeful as as activities at the same program but during the academic calendar.

Summer is full of opportunities to grow program funds and deliver more in depth services as there is a longer day. Often this day is full of recreational activities - which are needed. However, there are often summer reading or other summer work that has been assigned by the school for completion by summer programs. Getting children and youth to work on academics was seen as a challenge as well as leading projects that made participants to resist because - and rightly so - they say "we're not in school!"

Summer programs can do learning, however, the group felt that if these activities needed to be fun and engaging - getting in field trips and special visitors. Summer time can be learning time, but a longer day does not mean longer activities. Children and youth still want to go swimming. And rightly so.

One member of the Summer Series group said that themes worked for the summer. These themes could change week by week rather than run for a month. This allows for staff to come up with activities easier as well as focusing the program on short-term goals since every week there is a "final show."

Whether summer time is catching up on school assigned reading, theme projects, or recreation, summer programs have a short span of time with their own challenges. This time is not just an expansion of the afterschool program, but has to look different - even if the staff and students are the same. Perhaps more work needs to be done in focusing this work and pulling out best practices for summer fun and learning.

BOSTnet Summer Series

The training was convened in the Boston Public Library. Participants come from all over the state of Massachusetts with a heavy representation of the city of Boston. Program range in type, age, and their focus, but all gathered to learn how to make their summer program engaging for children and youth. What is interesting is that the majority of participants have already run or been part of a summer program. So, what is new about summer?

Summer time programs are not just extensions of the school year program. They are often opportunities to do activities or create the type of learning environment that the school year time slot just does not afford. They may also be additionally challenging because staff are different and children or youth may also be there inconsistently, be new to the program or staff, and have a set idea of what they will or won't do in the summer. One pressure is on programs to perform more and have more clear goals and objectives - especially with the talk of "summer learning loss" and the need to provide children - primarily inner city or minority - with additional structured academic time. Some form of academic assistance may indeed be needed over the summer, however, summer school has been around for almost as long as there has been the public institution of school. What is difficult now is that programs thrive being fun and engaging places and do not have the desire or often capacity to transform their program from what it is today into a program that can be better managed and analysed centrally.

It seems that summer is itself almost like a project.

There is a beginning, middle, and end. The run is 8 - 10 weeks. There are learning goals. Those things that the director of the program really wants children or youth to experience or learn (from academics to social emotional skills). Then there is the final product. This can both be whatever is in the show at the end of the school year, but also the goals set by the director (perhaps with program staff) to answer the question, "what do we want children or youth to have done by summer's end?"

Now, we will go on to list all the many things we could do with children or youth over the summer. From that, we will look at creating a "doable" list that can fit on the schedule and which can be realistically done.

Summertime is a time for young people to break out of school, and take out their knowledge to solve problems or just experience the bumps, bites, and bruises of being a kid.

BOSTnet Quality Forum 2009

The Quality Forum, held at The Boston Foundation, was attended by over a hundred program staff, directors, administrators, board members, and funders. It is very telling that even with the financial crisis and all the pressure on organizations and their programs that quality matters. Not just doing the job. Beyond just "trying our best," each attendee seemed committed to making their program a quality service for the children and youth it was designed to serve.

What did this quality look like in the many diverse programs represented at the forum? It is hard to say. Outside of the forum and in many meetings leading up to it, we have heard program directors say they want more information on what children and youth need, what families think about their program, and ways to measure their impact not just for grant requirements, but to answer the questions, "how is my program doing" and "how do I know?" There are a great many program directors feeling stressed by demands for further and more in-depth assessments, reportage, and being held responsible for youth outcomes that they have little direct control over, such as in school attendance or performance. While the definitions of "quality" as a unified front continue to grow (when they do not ebb for lack of funding), staff at the program level continue to do their best to examine their programs and the needs of those they serve.

What was presented at the Quality Forum was not an attempt to promote a unified message around quality, but rather an examination of several views. The view of quality started with research. Dr. Gil Noam, Founder and Director of Program in Education, Afterschool & Resiliency (PEAR) presented a quality view that looked at programs addressing developmental needs of children and youth first and foremost in program design. Young children need different supports than older. The atmosphere of a middle school program needs to be social and active. Older youth need to choose activities and need to be motivated to attend rather than compelled or mandated. This work will soon be made more available to a wider audience but for the meantime, it shows that research is supporting the social-emotional power of out-of-school time as a unique environment for youth development.

BOSTnet presented its own research-based framework. This framework looks in depth at the environment and approach of programs. Based on BOSTnet's 21 years of work, this framework is very simple for those who have worked a long time in the field--almost too simple according to the evaluations returned. However, to those who are new to the field or those who continue to not understand the "story of out-of-school" this framework is accessible and demonstrates how the variables of the environment and the approach meet at the point of service to create a quality environment for youth. If this framework appears simple, the mechanics of making it happen are complex and take a great deal of work. The presentation and tools from the 2008 - 2009 field work were disseminated for use by other programs.

Corey Zimmerman, Director of Strategic Planning and Analysis of the Department of early Education and Care (EEC) presented the state's answer to quality through its developing system of quality improvement and program assessment that may be mandated as part of licencing requirements for school-age programs. The Quality Ratings and Improvement System (QRIS), is a "fast-spreading policy innovation because they align standards, supports to programs, and accountability efforts into one non-duplicative system." This effort appears to need a unified system to support it which the out-of-school time field has yet to develop (and often the field asks whether this should ever be developed). This innovation is perhaps useful to staff at programs but also is seen by many in the field as an unfunded mandate since some of the quality improvements don't appear to come attached to additional funding needed for staff time or other expenses. Of course, this is a work in progress, so we cannot point to the nature of the QRIS innovation nor its impact.

The final part of the day was a panel of directors. For Kids Only Afterschool (FKO) and Bird Street Community Center (BSCC) both discussed specific examples of quality in their organizations. For FKO the issue was investment in staff development and an allowance to work with staff at their particular stage in their career and educational growth. This meant a great deal of professional development where their time was paid for. This meant swing time to attend college courses or support to gain a certificate. A great deal of training was done internally so that the FKO approach was reinforced and outside trainers brought in for targeted work such as behavior or curriculum development. BSCC also invested in staff. BSCC worked hard to rais funds to increase the number of full time staff so that the positions and the work could be the primary focus of staff and the job as a career was feasible. Staff were supported internally and also provided professional development since now with the extra hours, program staff were paid for these trainings. Both these quality strategies focused on staff. Without good consistent and prepared staff, program quality would suffer. While many in the audience said their organizations could never cover the funding needed to provide such supports, it demonstrated that to achieve quality programming perhaps piecing a workforce together and expecting full time commitment at part time pay is not feasible.

In all, the Quality Forum presented a lot of information in too little time. This is also a sign of the times. Programs have reported less time to devote to outside meetings, conferences, even training. It was decided that it was better to fit in too much information - allowing learning points for everyone - rather than a brief survey of information surrounded by ample coffee breaks. Also, as another sign of the time, there was no catering budget.

We welcome further evaluation or response to our Quality Forum. There will be a more formal discussion of this event in the BOSTnet BUZZ, BOSTnet's e-newsletter.

Quality is "Job One"?

The days to the Quality Forum are short - the questions around "quality" as it relates to out-of-school time seem to grow. "Quality" is one of those terms that we hear a great many times - from corporations, from product salespeople, from former automotive giants. Whether "job one" or "continuous improvement" or "quality improvement" or other flashy catch phrases and academically or research supported systems, the question remains - what is a quality out-of-school program?

Also, built into this question is other question. Who asks for this "quality."

If "out-of-school time" is any program that works with children but is not run directly by public education employees then these program include more than "after-school" and reach into museums, summer camps, and enrichment programs - even if some part of these programs take place within the confines of a public school facility or during the hours of school and in collaboration with school teachers or officials. Out-of-school is an approach that transcends programmatic focus, mission, or population as it is a number of very diverse programs bringing ways of learning that may differ (not detract but differ) from the approach the public system is currently taking.

Perhaps, then, quality is different for different programs but can be measured if those measurements are directed to the focus of the program or the ability of staff to create the type of environment where children and youth are cared for and can learn - differently.

And who asks for quality? Yes, regulators, funders, parents, politicos, endorsers, and sundry other influences that have piled on to the backs of programs.

However, it is children and youth that ask for this. True, no seven year old will say, "can I have a quality program and how are you going to assess this so that I know both empirically and based on research drawn from data that was appropriately cleaned and triangulated that my youth outcomes improve based on my attendance" - which seems what many are asking site coordinators and program directors - but "What am I doing today?"

That's at the center of quality, a child or youth asking - "what am I doing today?" Right now, in the moment.

Our job is to make that "doing" fun, engaging, learning, positive, supportive, and safe.

Each one of these elements may be measured in great detail - what is "fun" how do we know when we are having "fun" - however, is that appropriate for a field where the work is not to answer philosophical conundrums but to provide a point-of-service.

How about measuring:

Children or youth participation by attendance of program
What days do children or youth come? When are they picked up? How much of the year or season do they stay? Do they also use the program for other times of the year?

Children or youth return rates
Do children and youth keep coming back?

Parent or family involvement
Do parents pick their children up early? Do they attend events or assist in the program?

Staff retention
Do staff work the duration of the program? Do they return again to work another season or year? When they leave, do they continue to work in a similar position or move on to a higher position?

Children or youth satisfaction
What do they say about the program? Do they feel stuck there or can't wait to attend?

Perhaps by focusing on measurements that are obtainable by programs, meaningful data can be gathered and program quality can be assessed not by a multitude of indicators, but by a finite number of contact points that can span programmatic type, approach, and environment.