by Andrew Hahn, Brandeis University

Public policy is important to Community Youth Development practitioners for three simple reasons. First, community voice is rarely a strong factor in policy development and reform. We need it! Second, policy gives life to programs--but the rules and contracting methods involved often structure program designs and practices in unintended and undesirable ways. And third, policy, while no guarantee, offers the promise of sustainability.

While Community Youth Development practitioners know all this, there is a disconnect in their day-to-day work. We typically hear observations like the following from program managers:

I don't know how or don't have the resources to get involved in policy development or reform. I am not sure it is even my job...

This disconnect is so troubling that a number of efforts are underway to raise community voices in policy development, monitoring, and reform efforts, and to find ways to make more accessible policy information of direct interest to Community Youth Development activists.

Here at the Center for Youth and Communities/Institute for Sustainable Development we are working on several projects to address these challenges. A project underway with PolicyLink in Oakland, California will create a sourcebook and web site for community builders where we will provide detailed policy information written for and directed to this population.

The remainder of this article discusses two significant policy development initiatives: the enacted federal 21st Century Learning Centers and the proposed Younger Americans Act. Both illustrate the fact that critical policy issues are often missed and do not attract enough interest and debate on the frontlines of youth work.

Policy Issues in After School Programming
President Bush has made after-school programming for American teens a high priority in these early days of his administration. With most crime and teen sex occurring between 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., who would dispute the need for safe havens and learning opportunities in the non-school hours? The vast majority of Americans indicate in polls that they support public spending for youth development.

Given this consensus, what could get messed up in policy terms? A lot--yet there is little awareness and monitoring of these challenges.

Buried within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is funding for a popular initiative that provides less than 10 percent of American school districts with opportunities to develop after-school programs. When Congress debates the reauthorization of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (this year's spending is $846 million, of which $205 million will be for 400 new grants), the first question will be: Who should get the dollars? Republicans think some should go to community and faith-based programs, believing that this is where the energy and creativity of empowered citizens can play out without government interference. Currently, however, only school districts, not community groups, get the dollars through a national competitive grants program. One issue is whether to change the rules, as suggested by the White House, to allow direct funding of community and faith-based groups.

Then there is the issue of which kind of community groups are eligible for funding, and this is where it gets interesting. There is a choice between the large downtown youth serving agencies--with pools and high-level citizen boards--and the little storefront organizations, which often have the deepest ties to youth at greatest risk. The big groups can meet procurement standards. The little ones have a hard time with health and safety standards, keeping solid fiscal controls, and collecting information on what the programs actually do and accomplish. As for the faith groups, there is the same bifurcation; some are savvy government contractors and others are in the basements of churches with virtually no infrastructure in place to meet government standards. Should policymakers let up on standards to accommodate these small groups? Make exceptions? Remain wedded to competitive procurement models? These are important policy issues.

Another policy dilemma is whether school districts with teens most in need should receive the funds, or whether the grants competition should switch to a formula-funded initiative in which every school district in the nation gets something, however puny.

Should the focus [of the 21st Century Learning Center] be tied directly to anti-crime and anti-drug abuse practices, as proposed by the Bush administration? Or should the emphasis [be] on homework and learning, as American teachers have urged?

Does the five-part programmatic/strategy framework used in the preamble of the proposed [Younger Americans] Act--i.e., ongoing relationships, safe places, services for healthy lifestyles, marketable skills and community service--work for Community Youth Development experts?

Program strategy. Does the five-part programmatic/strategy framework used in the preamble of the proposed Act--i.e., ongoing relationships, safe places, services for healthy lifestyles, marketable skills and community service--work for Community Youth Development experts? Does an emphasis on "character development" in the preamble to the proposed Act signal flaws in young people or is it an effective rallying cry?

Fund distribution. Funds are allocated by a state's proportion of 10- to 19-year-olds, and the proportion of school youth of the same ages participating in free and reduced lunch programs. This formula determines federal dollars to the state as well as state and federal dollars (after a match) sent on to local planning regions. After the state holds back 3 percent of funds for state planning and special initiatives, 97 percent is then distributed to every state region, rich or poor. Each will get something based on youth population calculations, but high poverty regions will get more depending on their utilization of the nutrition benefit. Once local regional planning entities have their allocation, at least 30 percent of funds must target populations of youth in greatest need.

These targeting provisions reflect what some analysts have called "targeting within universalism." But does it make sense for all areas to get some of the limited funds, even if the weighting means smaller grants, when some areas have greater needs? Some people argue yes, because all youth are in need of positive youth development opportunities. Others say yes, because this is the price to pay to get resources to low-income areas--since the program will likely have more political "cover." Still others believe such targeting is wasteful and inequitable given the concentration of poverty in the United States. What do you think?

Performance-based contracts. Many of us wonder if small organizations with deep community ties will be able to hold their own in the bidding and performance-oriented system that requires tangible outcomes to be met and documented as part of the contracts. If faith-based groups are made eligible to receive funds, is the "church-state" issue of any consequence in your community?

The population of 10- to19-year-olds in the United States is predicted to jump to 44 million in two decades, the highest level in our history. That's a stunning about-face after a 25-year decline. We will need real policies that speak to the real needs of real programs. Youth workers must bring their voice to debates around central policy issues such as those described in this article. Weigh in and bring a true Community Youth Development perspective to the policy world!


Author

(back to top)