The past five years have seen a ground swell in public attention and public policy aimed at increasing the availability of after-school programs for children and young teens during the "risk" hours when safety, supervision and homework are of top concern. Popularly called "after-school," these programs represent a new and growing variation on the broader group of out-of-school time programs and opportunities that have been around for decades -- programs ranging from youth orchestras to soccer leagues that reach children and older teens. What does research tell us about after-school programs? What outcomes are realistic? What practices are essential? What changes are measurable? How does the call for scientifically-based research fit into the picture? In the first of a series of policy briefs focused on out-of-school time issues, Deborah Vandell, a leading researcher on after-school programs, gives a walking tour of the research. Kerry Mazzoni, California Secretary of Education, shares her perspectives on how research influences policy.

This commentary examines the issue of youth participation in out-of-school time programs from two perspectives. It begins broadly and with a youth-centered lens, by asking how children and youth spend their discretionary time and how time use patterns relate to outcomes. After painting a picture of the full out-of-school time landscape, it looks specifically at structured program participation and provide at least partial answers to some basic questions: Who participates? How much? Why or why not? To close, it draws on the information collected to reflect on policy issues related to participation.

While significant progress has occurred over the past several years in terms of expanding both the quantity and quality of after-school opportunities, the ambitious idea of "after-school for all" remains a distant goal. In this commentary we push beyond some of the basic numbers to take a close look at questions related to access and equity, in order to both surface tensions and share concrete recommendations for addressing concerns at the policy and program levels. To do so we draw heavily new data from California Tomorrow and a handful of other reports and studies. We also talked with Delia Pompa, executive director of the National Association for Bilingual Education; Amy Scharf and Laurie Olsen of California Tomorrow; and Jennifer Peck from the Bay Area Partnership. Is there equal access to after-school programs? Is there equity in after-school programs? How can program planners and policymakers address access and equity challenges?

The aim of this report is to share insights from the California experience with advocates, program operators, and state agency, school and political officials in other states who are contemplating an expansion of afterschool programs.

This report is the result of a desire by the William T. Grant Foundation to capture a unique process and opportunity -- the planning for the largest expansion of state-funded afterschool programs in the nation's history.

This report covers the time period from summer 2005 to late summer 2006 when legislation sets the stage for the implementation of Proposition 49, which funds afterschool programs for elementary and middle school students.

The information for this report was collected principally in three ways:

1) Documents generated during the planning process.

2) Observations during meetings of two key groups.

• The Design Team: This group was comprised of state agency officials, program operators, advocates and employees of a consulting firm. This team produced 19 recommendations on how to implement Proposition 49.
• The Before & After School Advisory Committee: This committee was created by the California legislature. One of its roles is to review the work of the Design Team and make recommendations to state agencies, the governor and the legislature on how to implement Proposition 49.

3) Interviews with 15 people involved in the process. These people were chosen to serve as archetypes because their point of view represents large numbers of stakeholders.

This report addresses two major issues that drove the planning for the rollout of Proposition 49.

The first is the extraordinary expansion of a state-funded program. The number of sites would increase from 1,700 to 4,000; an additional 16,000 new afterschool staffers would be needed.

The second issue revolves around the decision by a consortium of foundations to pay for a private consulting firm to work with state agencies, advocates and program operators to create a master plan. This yeasty mix -- nonprofits, business and bureaucracy -- created predictable cultural challenges when the main sectors of American working life team up to tackle a big job.

Real answers to what worked in the planning process and what didn't will begin to reveal themselves once Proposition 49 is fully implemented. At that point, one will be able to see which parts of the plan were implemented and how well those plans succeeded in the delivery of afterschool programs.

This commentary explores the relationship between mentoring and after-school, two fields that have garnered significant policy attention and momentum over the past several years. The question is not which makes more sense -- mentoring or after-school -- but how can we utilize both strategies to increase the likelihood that young people have the supports they need to thrive.