In the early days of building what would become the nation’s largest afterschool system, access to school buildings in New York City was far from guaranteed. Custodian engineers, empowered by a 1975 agreement with the city, controlled schools after hours—setting their own rates and often keeping youth programs out entirely.
“So many people didn't have a clue of how challenging, how difficult, how impossible it was to be in the public schools after three o'clock in the old days,” says Sister Paulette LoMonaco, an early pioneer in this work.
To eliminate that barrier would be “essential to meaningful school reform,” according to a 1988 New York Times op-ed. And that was just one of the challenges these early pioneers faced in building New York City’s afterschool system.
LoMonaco and her colleague and friend, Jane Quinn, have been leading figures in youth development, philanthropy, and social service for more than five decades. Quinn’s work has ranged from direct service with children and families to research and advocacy at organizations such as the Juvenile Protective Association of Chicago, Girls Clubs of America, Carnegie Corporation of New York, The Wallace Foundation, and Children’s Aid. LoMonaco led Good Shepherd Services for 40 years, serving more than 30,000 young people and their families in comprehensive, community-based programs across New York City.
Though both women have retired, their passion for the work they dedicated decades to continues. This shared commitment led them to co-author a new report exploring the evolution of New York City’s afterschool system. Released earlier this year, From Stumbling Blocks to Building Blocks: A History of Afterschool in New York City explores the evolution of New York City’s afterschool system and features voices from 30 key players in policy, research, advocacy, and practice.
Understanding the history is helpful to understand just how important these programs are for young people—and why they are important to strengthen and sustain. A recent report by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, The Future of Youth Development Building Systems and Strengthening Programs, provides an in-depth look into the current state of out-of-school time programming in the U.S. and how it has evolved over the last two decades. It states that programs help develop responsibility, positive work ethics, social skills, and interest in civic activities. They provide structured environments outside the traditional school day for young people to engage in meaningful activities, build relationships, and help develop essential life skills. High-quality programs and activities, the report states, require strong systems and organizational capacity to maintain.
The Early Days
Out-of-school-time programs have a long tradition in the United States, dating back at least to the 1880s, when philanthropic settlement houses supported immigrant families in urban centers with voluntary services like English classes and healthcare. In the early 20th century, as child labor laws and mandatory schooling took hold, these programs shifted toward childcare for working-class families—often to keep children safe from the dangers of the streets.
From 1930 to 1950, the structure of out-of-school programs remained mostly unchanged, but the Great Depression and World War II influenced their role. Private organizations stepped in to replace school services cut by local governments and meet basic needs, and limited federal support began. Since many parents were working or deployed, programs focused on child care, but after the war, government involvement declined and private providers resumed the primary role.
From 1936 to 1971, the All-Day Neighborhood Schools (ADNS) program operated as a partnership between the New York City Board of Education and local philanthropists. This pilot program was created to extend the school day and expand resources available to children and parents across fourteen public schools in the city. It had key components such as: recreational clubs in the school building from three to five o’clock in the afternoon, extra teachers during the day, social workers in each school, and parent or community engagement.
Additionally, the Board of Education sponsored a robust system of school-based recreation programs from the 1950s through the mid 1970s. Offerings included afterschool sports, supervised play, and evening programs for older youth also organized around sports. LoMonaco herself had been a participant in an afterschool jewelry-making program at P.S. 145 in the 1950s. These programs were staffed primarily by Board of Education teachers who were paid on a per-session basis and were eliminated in the mid-1970s due to the fiscal crisis.
Although the breadth and magnitude differed significantly from today’s citywide system, some elements such as homework help, sports, and recreation are mirrored in present-day programs.
Today, New York City’s system–the Comprehensive Afterschool System of NYC (COMPASS) Program–comprises over 890 programs serving young people enrolled in grades K-12. Through its network of providers, COMPASS offers high-quality programs that balance academics, recreation, enrichment, and cultural activities to support and strengthen the overall development of youth. COMPASS NYC's middle school model, School's Out New York City (SONYC), serves as a pathway to success for youth in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Structured like clubs, the model offers young people a choice in how they spend their time; provides rigorous instruction in sports and arts; and requires youth leadership through service.
We could be at the school all day working with kids, working with teachers, with families, but come three o'clock, we had to leave.
— Sister Paulette LoMonaco
Unique Advantages—and Challenges—in NYC
New York City has a rich group of nonprofits that provide services in the community. According to LoMonaco and Quinn’s report, the city’s 46,214 nonprofit organizations collectively contribute $77.7 billion to the economy, representing 9.4 percent of the City’s total value of all goods and services produced. In addition, they account for 18 percent of all New York City workers.
“I don’t think it’s mirrored in a lot of other cities,” Quinn says. “In working on the design of what is now the largest system of afterschool in the country, the city government really recognized that they had an asset in the nonprofits that had this rich history and a lot of expertise, particularly a lot of expertise working in the very lowest income communities in the city.”
A substantial portion of the out-of-school-time system relies on school-community partnerships, a decision that was strategic in several respects, according to Quinn and LoMonaco. The city recognized the knowledge and skills that youth organizations could add to schools; they strengthened schools’ connections to their communities; they broadened the number and diversity of adult relationships that youth could access; and they provided youth development skills and pathways to employment for young people.
As in other cities, the pioneers who drove this work were nonprofit leaders, public officials, academics, community activists, and others. Unique to New York was the growing tension between the youth advocates and the custodian engineers’ union, Local 891 of the International Union of Operating Engineers.
“In 1975 during the fiscal crisis in New York City, the then-board of education, in lieu of giving the custodians a pay raise, gave them keys to the schools after three o’clock,” Quinn says.
Through this sweet heart deal, custodian engineers had complete power over what happened in schools after 3:00 p.m. They could charge and set rates for opening and service fees—and they could keep the proceeds for themselves.
LoMonaco helped form the Neighborhood Family Services Coalition in 1981 with other youth-serving organizations across the city that were experiencing the same problem.
“We could be at the school all day working with kids, working with teachers, with families, but come three o'clock, we had to leave,” LoMonaco recalls. “The choice was you pay the school custodians a fee to remain in the schools, or you leave. Every school had its own custodian with its own rules of how much and what it entitled you to, and it was a nightmare, and it really impacted on our ability to provide comprehensive services to some very vulnerable children.”
The Coalition worked for 15 years to educate policymakers and generate public support for change.
“We wrote reports. We did advocacy. We took kids to Albany. We lobbied the city council. It was a full fledged effort,” LoMonaco says.
She recalls that some members of the Coalition were threatened for trying to interfere with the custodians’ agreement. The report states specifically that veteran educator and civic leader Stan Litow received death threats at night on his phone. Geoff Canada and the late Richard Murphy of the Rheedlen Center for Children and Families both recalled multiple instances of harassment and feeling scared and intimidated.
I think it's important for people to know that the road is not always smooth when you're trying to work effectively with young people and their families in a community. You have to be willing sometimes to put yourself out there and take risks.
— Sister Paulette LoMonaco
A 1992 report prepared by the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District detailed how the set-up generated big problems for anyone wanting to use public school facilities during nonschool hours. A separate New York Times article detailed how the custodians were “operating under so few controls that they managed second careers on school time, fabricated ghost employees on their payrolls and hired helpers with criminal records.”
The issue became so big that 60 Minutes aired an exposé, which helped give decisionmakers the push needed to have the union’s contract dismantled. In 1995, Mayor Giuliani threatened Local 891 with the privatization of custodian engineer positions in the city’s public schools, and through collective bargaining, the union agreed to substantial changes to their contract.
This helped open the door to a much more amicable working relationship between the custodian engineers’ union and community partners. The advocates for out-of-school-time programming and the people who run the school buildings were finally able to align their interests and find ways to work together.
“I think the future generations will have different struggles,” LoMonaco says. “Maybe they won't have to fight the school custodians, but I think it's important for people to know that the road is not always smooth when you're trying to work effectively with young people and their families in a community. You have to be willing sometimes to put yourself out there and take risks.”
Unexpected Allies
The pioneers of New York City’s afterschool system came across many “unexpected allies” during their years of building the system. One of those was 60 Minutes, which helped get the custodian engineer’s contract modified. Additionally, every mayor of New York—Democrat and Republican—has had some role to play in the systems building work in New York City.
The Fight Crime: Invest in Kids initiative of the early 1990s highlights how allies can work nationwide. There a group of police chiefs from around the country pushed for more funding for early childhood and afterschool programs. Their support helped youth advocates persuade the Clinton administration to start the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program, which is still the largest public investment in afterschool programs in the U.S.
“I thought, wow this is really unusual,” Quinn says. “The advocacy with law enforcement was one of the forces that made a difference. That is, to my thinking, a great example of what an unexpected ally looks like.”
Partnerships and Impactful Changes
In addition to those unexpected allies, the pioneers maintained some partnerships that were not so unexpected. In 2005, New York City’s mayor Michael Bloomberg created the Out-of-School Time Initiative (OST), which provided leadership directly from City Hall. Wallace and other private funders provided substantial support for the planning process.
From the beginning, foundations and corporations have played an important role in financing in the creation and continuity of the afterschool system throughout the city. This is still true today as municipal funding for afterschool continues to be a big challenge.
The role of private funders is important to lift up, Quinn says, because they play a part in innovation, research, evaluation, and professional development. The Pinkerton Foundation, New York Community Trust, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Wallace are among several of the national and local foundations that played a critical role in the development of New York City’s afterschool movement.
“The public-private partnership aspect of this is central to the success so far,” Quinn says.
Over the last several decades, there has been an increase in the level of public funding for out-of-school-time programs, which a recent survey by the Afterschool Alliance found is very important to parents both nationally and across political party lines. In New York specifically, the survey cited that 88 percent of parents support public funding for afterschool.
Afterschool is an important contributor to the economy in New York City because good, consistently funded afterschool programs allow parents to work.
— Jane Quinn
“Several organizations got behind the idea that afterschool was not just nice, but necessary,” Quinn says. “Afterschool is an important contributor to the economy in New York City because good, consistently funded afterschool programs allow parents to work.”
In addition, the level of training and expertise in the out-of-school-time sector in New York has also increased, and LoMonaco says she doesn’t know whether the same level of expertise exists in other places. “These afterschool programs don’t just do babysitting or homework help,” she says. “They teach, they train, they prepare young people for leadership roles in their own communities, and that’s a very important element.”
Through this expertise and training, New York City has built what LoMonaco and Quinn call “ladders of leadership” into its system. “Some of the young people that were once participants in our afterschool programs are now leaders within the agencies,” LoMonaco says.
Lessons for Other Cities
Drawing from their decades of experience, Quinn and LoMonaco spoke about several key takeaways for other cities aiming to replicate New York’s success. The two emphasized just how important it is to have a good working relationship between the Department of Education and the agency running the afterschool program. In New York City, the close partnership and collaboration between the Department of Youth and Community Development and the Department of Education was crucial to the success of the system. Working together can help lessons learned during the school day be reinforced in afterschool programs and vice versa.
“We need one another,” LoMonaco says. “Developing sound, solid relationships with the school staff is really important. There had to be a big change of mind to realize that both the education system and the afterschool system were all here for the same reason, to work with young people and to help them be successful in life. That wasn't always easy.”
New York City’s afterschool-building effort also demonstrated that the relentless role of advocates makes a big difference.
Developing sound, solid relationships with the school staff is really important. There had to be a big change of mind to realize that both the education system and the afterschool system were all here for the same reason, to work with young people and to help them be successful in life.
— Sister Paulette LoMonaco
“The courageous advocacy of a substantial group of people who worked across agency lines made a huge difference and is really part of the system,” Quinn says. “It's important that we have a group of people and a group of organizations that are looking at the whole picture and are making sure that we're moving it in the right direction.”
Another lesson: don’t underestimate the level of investment needed to build and sustain the quality of direct programming. In New York City, the investments in evaluation, strategic planning, professional development, capacity building, and market research to understand what families and communities need and value made a big difference.
“I think in the case of New York City, the market research that was done really demonstrated how important afterschool programs are for working parents, and how important that is in relation to the city’s whole economy,” Quinn says. “I think the overall advice we would have is to look at other cities that have built systems and think about what the components of their system are that have made it successful.”
The Work is Never Done
While New York City’s afterschool system has achieved great success, Quinn and LoMonaco stress that the work is far from over. They remain committed to ensuring every child who needs afterschool has access to it.
“We're on the road to creating universal access to afterschool, which would mean that every family that wants to enroll their child in an afterschool program within their neighborhood would have access to such a program,” Quinn says. “We're not there yet. I think that there is a need for the continuing advocacy on the part of all people who care about this issue.”
Though there are certainly some more stumbling blocks the city will encounter ahead, both Quinn and LoMonaco look at the next generation of afterschool leaders as a bright spot.
“At a recent Partnership for After School Education (PASE) event, I looked at three generations of youth workers, and I looked at one of the most diverse crowds of people I have seen in a long time,” Quinn says. “Diverse in race, diverse in age, diverse in gender, diverse in every way.”
“There's nothing more rewarding than realizing that you are helping to grow the next generation of leaders,” LoMonaco adds.
The system these pioneers helped build is more important than ever. Like in New York City, the field of youth development as a whole has grown and evolved significantly over the past few decades, as has the research and evidence base. Out-of-school-time programs have become increasingly varied in their settings, programming, and the demographics of children and youth served. There has been greater consideration of cultural responsiveness that has shifted what program quality looks like.
But many still argue that current funding levels and support structures fall short of what is necessary to build strong OST systems, support a stable workforce, and deliver high-quality programming that is responsive to the needs of the populations being served. Even more concerning, afterschool funding is currently at risk nationwide. Greater investment and policy coordination are more crucial than ever to expand access and improve program quality. Young people need champions like LoMonaco and Quinn today just as much as in the early days of afterschool–both in New York City and across the country.
