2020 OST in KY Report

Out-of-School Time in Kentucky: Unmet Needs & Opportunities for the Future

December 2020

By Stephanie Barker and Tom Haggard

Introduction & Methodology

Quality out-of-school time (OST) programs are enriching and transforming the lives of children and youth across Kentucky. An extensive body of research has shown that OST programs help:

• Excite children about learning by providing enrichment opportunities in areas such as creative/performing arts and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics);
• Teach important workforce skills, such as teamwork, leadership, and critical thinking;
• Provide nutritious meals and opportunities to be physically active; and
• Reduce the likelihood that youth will engage in risky behaviors, such as committing a crime, using drugs, or becoming pregnant.¹

Despite these benefits, hundreds of thousands of children and youth across Kentucky are currently missing out, with disparities in access to such programs only widening as a result of COVID-19. Every few years, the Afterschool Alliance surveys parents in each of the 50 states to learn more about how school-age children and youth spend the hours between 3 and 6 p.m.—the hours after school ends and before working parents typically return home. The most recent iteration of this survey, conducted between January and March of 2020, found that in Kentucky:

• 78,912 children currently participate in an afterschool program, yet 280,552 would participate if one were available to them.
• While demand for afterschool is at an all-time high, participation has actually decreased for the first time in over a decade, largely due to growing cost and access barriers.
• On average, Kentucky families who pay for their child’s afterschool program spend $117.90 per week per child—up 21% from 2014.
• 85% of Kentucky parents agree that afterschool programs give working parents peace of mind.
• 81% of Kentucky parents agree that afterschool programs help working parents keep their jobs.
• 83% of Kentucky parents support public funding for afterschool programs.²

These problems have serious implications, not just for children and families, but for the economic future of Kentucky as a whole. Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living, both in Kentucky and across the U.S.³ As a result, more families than ever before find themselves in a situation in which both parents must work just to earn enough money to meet basic expenses, and this has in turn led to increased demand for quality OST programs in recent years. According to 2019 data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, both parents were employed in 64% of married-couple families with children.⁴ Families maintained by women without a spouse present were less likely to have an employed household member than families maintained by men without a spouse present.⁵ As a result, working families, particularly those maintained by women only, rely on quality OST time programs when it comes to being able to provide for their children—a situation that has worsened as a result of COVID-19.

More must be done to ensure that all children and youth in Kentucky are afforded the opportunity to participate in an OST program that will keep them safe and continue their learning when school is out. But effective solutions require robust data that allow stakeholders quickly and easily to:

• Understand Kentucky’s current OST landscape;
• Identify critical gaps in access; and
• Identify what community resources are available that can help close these gaps.

Part of the problem when it comes to quantifying any state’s OST landscape is the difficulty inherent in defining the OST space. As a result, researchers wishing to study this topic are immediately presented with several issues:

1. No common language currently exists that that clearly defines what makes an activity, experience, or program that occurs outside of school hours an “OST program.”  
2. No single data source exists that contains a comprehensive list of these programs.
3. Of the sources that do exist, there is little consistency in terms of what types of data are collected and how.

Through generous funding from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Mott Foundation, and with the help of numerous partners, in October 2020, KYOSA launched an online data mapping tool, called the KYOSA Data Explorer, which contains a vast array of data on Kentucky’s currently known OST population as well 40 community indicators available at multiple geographies, such as poverty, educational attainment, social needs, transportation access, computer and internet access, food insecurity, and more. A complete list of the data available through this new online mapping tool can be found in Appendix A.

To create this tool, KYOSA also consulted with numerous local OST experts and practitioners (i.e. “key stakeholders”), representing a wide range of programs, organizations, and agencies across Kentucky. These “key stakeholders” provided guidance and feedback throughout each phase of the project to ensure that data collected were accurate and comprehensive. To assemble as close to a comprehensive dataset of OST programs in Kentucky as is possible to achieve at present, statewide lists were collected from multiple sources then combined into a final “master list” once duplicates were removed. A complete summary of these data sources is provided in Appendix B.

Notably, however, these lists do not capture unregulated programs and programs that operate independently of the larger programs, organizations, and agencies listed in Appendix B, such as the Kentucky Division of Regulated Child Care and federally-funded 21^st CCLC program. They also do not capture programs that are operated solely by K-12 schools and school districts. To address this issue, KYOSA has added a form to its website that allows programs which fall outside these lists to share their information. Data collected via this form will then be combined with data pulled from the sources described in Appendix B and added to the KYOSA Data Explorer when an update is made. KYOSA plans to make its first update to the map in February 2021 in response to the quick changes being made to the OST landscape right now as a result of COVID-19. After this, updates will be made annually to coincide with back-to-school season.

To learn more about what these programs do and the students they serve, KYOSA developed an online survey questionnaire that was sent via email to each program director affiliated with the OST program sites captured in the statewide lists mentioned above. Topics included:

• Basic Information: program name, parent organization/agency, funding group (i.e. publicly funded or privately funded) site address, and county in which the site is located
• COVID-19 Status: current program status after “stay-at-home” orders were issued and plans after “stay-at-home” orders were lifted
• Program Details: ages/grades served, years in operation, program setting, program timing, total capacity, total enrollment, average daily attendance, total staff, and sources of funding
• Services & Barriers to Participation: programming offered, nutrition provided (i.e. meals, snacks, and beverages), transportation provided, and barriers to participation

Because not all respondents answered all questions, sample sizes are reported separately in the tables and figures that correspond to each particular survey question. Among publicly funded programs, sample sizes for each question ranged from 39 to 52, which represents anywhere from about one-quarter to one-third of the total population. However, among privately funded programs, sample sizes represent a much smaller portion of the total population. As a result, caution should be exercised when interpreting the percentages reported for this group, as they are less likely to be generalizable. A common system for data reporting for OST programs at the state level would allow improved validation of survey data in the future.

Despite these limitations, this report provides the first and most comprehensive picture-to-date of what Kentucky’s OST landscape looks like at the state, regional, and local levels. This allows diverse stakeholders to see and appreciate the excellent opportunities OST programs provide and the incredible work that goes into providing quality programming. They can also identify where gaps in access currently are across the state and begin to formulate data-driven solutions aimed at ensuring all children and youth throughout the Commonwealth have access to such programs that will keep them safe and learning when school is out. Finally, this information will aid in improving collaboration across this group of seemingly disjointed organizations, agencies, and sectors to improve upon services and address critical gaps in access.

Kentucky’s Current Out-of-School Time Landscape

Number & Types of Programs Statewide

Kentucky’s out-of-school time (OST) landscape is made up of a diverse set of programs run by a wide range of individuals, organizations, and agencies. Examples range from licensed school-age child care programs run by local YMCAs to federally-funded 21^st CCLCs to programs run by nonprofit organizations such as Save the Children and Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

Analysis of the datasets provided by the programs, organizations, and agencies listed in the previous section identified a total of at least 1,579 unique OST program sites located across 113 out of a total of 120 counties in Kentucky. This number includes all “active” OST program sites as of July 2020. In light of COVID-19, a program site was determined to be “active” if it either had an active license/certification through the Kentucky Division of Regulated Child Care or was included on site lists from the data sources listed in Appendix B at the time these datasets were pulled. As a result, this number does not necessarily reflect the total number of OST program sites that were serving students in person at that time. Furthermore, this number does not reflect any changes made to this landscape since these data were collected.

The current dataset disaggregates OST supply by program type in three different ways—by OST supply group, by fee group, and by funding group. Table 1 shows how Kentucky’s total estimated OST supply breaks down by OST supply group. Some sites fell under more than one category, and this overlap is accounted for in the final total.

Table 2 shows how Kentucky’s total estimated OST supply breaks down by funding group. Currently, Kentucky’s 21^st CCLCs are the only publicly funded OST programs in Kentucky, which are made possible through federal funding authorized through the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) each year. Through this initiative, each state receives funds based on its share of Title I funding for low-income students, and grants are awarded by state education agencies to enable local schools and community-based organizations to provide afterschool and summer learning programming to students attending high-poverty, low-performing schools. All 21^st CCLC programs must adhere to strict guidelines for things like hours during which they must operate and types of programming they must provide. However, as depicted in Table 2, publicly funded program sites (i.e. 21^st CCLC sites) represent just 10.1% of Kentucky’s total estimated OST supply.

In contrast, privately funded OST programs represent 89.9% of Kentucky’s total estimated OST supply. These programs are run by a wide range of individuals, organizations, and agencies, which may include but are not limited to community-based organizations (YMCAs, Parks & Recreation departments, Boys & Girls Clubs, faith-based organizations), private businesses, and other groups that may serve school-age children and youth with or without a license or certification from the Kentucky Division of Regulated Child Care

Table 3 shows how Kentucky’s OST supply breaks down by fee group. It is clear that the bulk of Kentucky’s current OST supply comprises fee-based programs, with 88.0% of all sites falling under this category. In comparison, just 12.0% of all sites KYOSA has identified so far fall under the non-fee-based category.

Geographic Distribution

Even when controlling for population size, the geographic distribution of Kentucky’s currently known OST supply remains highly uneven from county to county. Counties with the lowest rate of supply tend to be areas of the state that are rural, have high rates of poverty, and are located far away large population centers. But, public investment seems to be reversing this trend in a few counties.

To better identify gaps in access and potential areas of expansion, KYOSA partnered with PolicyMap to create a publicly accessible, interactive data mapping tool called the KYOSA Data Explorer, which allows users to explore the currently known supply of OST programs in Kentucky. This tool provides a wealth of information that policymakers, funders, school administrators, providers, families, and others involved in OST across the Commonwealth can use to answer important questions, such as:

• Does my area have an adequate supply of OST programs?
• What types of programming and services do these programs provide?
• Are disadvantaged populations able to access these programs?
• Where should we target investments to expand access to underserved communities and populations?

To create the tool, KYOSA worked with GIS specialists at PolicyMap to pinpoint (i.e. geocode) the locations of all youth-serving programs across Kentucky that were identified through statewide lists and met our definition of a formal OST program that serves school-age students. Aggregations of these points, which display on PolicyMap as shaded layers, were also created for the following geographies:

• Counties
• School districts
• Congressional districts (116^th)
• Lower state legislative districts
• Upper state legislative districts
• Local Workforce Areas (LWAs)
• Workforce Planning Regions (WPRs)

The data contained in this tool combines data collected by KYOSA on Kentucky’s known population of OST programs with a variety of other important indicators along the following categories: demographics, incomes and spending, quality of life, economy, education, housing, and health. Spatial data analysis revealed that the distribution of programs across Kentucky is highly uneven, even when controlling for school-age population size. Figures 1, 2, and 3 show how this supply is distributed by county overall and broken down by fee-group when displayed as a rate per 1,000 people aged 5-18.

Looking at Figure 1 alone, it is difficult to identify any clear patterns. However, a couple of trends are revealed in the maps (Figures 2 and 3) that break down the rate of supply by fee group. Tables 4 and 5 show exactly which counties from the overall and the non-fee-based rate maps rank highest. Comparing these two tables, there is a 50% match, with Leslie, Monroe, Cumberland, Whitley, and Bourbon County ranking in the top 10 across both tables. From these tables, it is evident that having a high rate of both non-fee-based and fee-based supply relative to school-age population size, particularly for rural counties with high poverty rates, is what is producing some of the variances seen in the overall map. Also evident in these two tables is the fact that access is improved significantly in rural, high-poverty areas when there is public investment in OST, as many of the counties with the highest non-fee-based OST supply rates are counties where there are a large number of 21^st CCLC sites. The rate of fee-based supply from county to county is more closely related to population size, with large urban centers having the highest rates of fee-based supply and rural areas located far away from these large urban centers having the lowest rates.

Additional maps showing how Kentucky’s current OST landscape overlays with a variety of key outcome measures related to incomes and spending, quality of life, economy, education, housing, and health are available in Appendix C.

Program Timing

Out-of-school time (OST) programs don’t just operate after school and over the summer. They also help keep kids safe and learning over weekends, holidays, or other school breaks—times when many parents without “typical 9-5-weekday-only” schedules must work.

While the most common times Kentucky OST programs operate are after school (92.9%), before school (59.5%), and during the summer (75.7%), many programs also operate over weekends, holidays, or other school breaks, with licensed/certified school-age child care programs being the most likely group to operate during these times. Figure 4 shows the complete breakdown of responses to our survey question about program timing.

Other data shared by these administering organizations or agencies showed that a number of programs, mostly those that are licensed/certified under the Kentucky Division of Regulated Child Care, even offer extended hours, meaning that they are open after 6 p.m. At the time data were collected, a total of 124 licensed/certified school-age child care programs in Kentucky offered extended hours, therefore providing a safe space for children whose parents must work later into the evening hours or even overnight.

Program Settings

Out-of-school time (OST) programs in Kentucky take place in a variety of settings, ranging from K-12 schools to community buildings to faith-based organizations and military bases.

Even though K-12 school was the most common setting among programs captured in our survey, it is important to point out that just because a program takes place within a school does not mean that it is operated by a school. Many different types of organizations operate OST programs inside school buildings. This makes sense given that most programs are designed with working parents in mind, who would not be able to provide transportation for a child to attend an off-site program during working hours. All 21^st CCLC programs that responded to our survey are housed within a K-12 school, and many nonprofits like Save the Children also operate afterschool programs inside a school. Even fee-based programs, such as YMCA school-age child care programs, contract with schools and school districts to provide OST care and programming in select school buildings.

Figure 5 shows how responses to our survey question about program settings break down among privately funded programs.

Grades Served

Out-of-school time (OST) programs typically focus on school-age youth. However, in Kentucky, the majority of programs are geared towards elementary school-age students, some programs serve children who have not yet started kindergarten, up to youth in middle and high school.

The majority of OST programs in Kentucky are geared towards elementary school-age students. Sharp declines in the availability of these programs are seen during transitions between elementary and middle school, and middle school and high school—as is the case in most other states as well. Figure 6 shows the complete breakdown of responses to our survey question about grades served.

Capacity, Enrollment, & Attendance

Many out-of-school time (OST) programs in Kentucky operate at or above capacity during a normal year. Now, as a result of COVID-19, these programs must grapple with new and ever-changing restrictions that further limit the number of students they can serve on site.

To estimate approximately what percent of programs were operating at or above capacity prior to COVID-19, KYOSA compared responses to survey questions that asked participants to report the maximum capacity and total enrollment for the program site for which they were completing the survey. Program sites were categorized as operating at or above capacity if their total enrollment or average daily attendance was greater than or equal to their stated maximum capacity.

A detailed summary of our analysis of the capacity, enrollment, and average daily attendance data reported by survey respondents is summarized in Table 6.

Of the respondents who reported both capacity and enrollment data, 41.2% in the publicly funded group and 35.4% in the privately funded group were found to have enrollments at or above capacity during the 2019-2020 school year. When taken in context with the average daily attendance reported by these same respondents, it appears that a number of sites likely enroll more students than attend on a daily basis. But, still 5.1% of respondents in the publicly funded group and 34.7% of respondents in the privately-funded group reported that, on average, the total number of students attending their program each day equaled or exceeded their stated capacity prior to COVID-19.

Quality

A large body of research confirms the positive effect out-of-school time (OST) programs have on improving outcomes for children and youth along a variety of measures. However, the quality of an OST program is fundamental to ensuring such outcomes.⁶

While this study was able to examine the current OST supply versus demand in Kentucky at the state, regional, and local levels, current data limitations do not make possible further analysis of how this supply breaks down in terms of overall program quality. At present, Kentucky has no formal system of assessing quality across all OST programs, largely due to the fact that until now, the individual programs that make up Kentucky’s OST landscape have remained unknown, scattered across a number of programs, organizations, and agencies all operating at different levels. Only one group, licensed/certified school-age child care, included a measure of quality in the datasets they shared. Furthermore, anecdotal reports from school-age providers about this rating system—Kentucky All STARS—suggest that this system was, by and large, designed with only early childhood programs in mind—a common finding across many states, even though licensed child care providers often serve school-age children in addition to children aged 0-5. As a result, further research is needed to understand whether the Kentucky All STARS rating system provides an accurate assessment of quality for school-age providers.

However, with the release of this report and statewide program map, KYOSA seeks to prioritize program quality by working with OST leaders across the state to develop a statewide quality assessment system that will in the future allow programs to conduct self-assessments, compare data across different types of programs, and develop plans for improvement.

Sources of Funding

While out-of-school time (OST) programs in Kentucky are funded through a variety of sources, the majority rely heavily on tuition and fees—a major barrier to participation, particularly among low-income families.

Based on responses to our survey, it is clear that most privately funded programs rely primarily on tuition and fees or CCAP funds, whereas publicly-funded programs are largely dependent on continued federal funding through the 21^st CCLC program. While both types of programs receive additional financial support from other sources, such as businesses, foundations, religious organizations, and individuals, the total amount of funding received through these sources represents only a small fraction of the total funding necessary for these programs to operate.

Figure 7 shows how funding for OST in Kentucky breaks down for each of these groups.

Programming Offered

Out-of-school time (OST) programs in Kentucky play an important role when it comes to making sure that children have a safe space to go when school is out, complete their homework each day, have access to tutoring when needed, develop important skills necessary to succeed in both career and life, and stay away from drugs and alcohol.

Figure 8 summarizes the types of programming and services OST programs in Kentucky provide to students in grades K-12 on a regular basis.

Meals & Transportation

In addition to the programming and services described in the previous section, many out-of-school time (OST) programs in Kentucky also provide meals and transportation to students who attend.

Meals

The majority of OST programs that participated in our survey provide free breakfast, lunch, snacks, and/or beverages to students who attend. Slightly less than half of these programs also offer dinner free of charge. The percent of programs offering free dinner, as opposed to breakfast and lunch, is likely smaller simply because dinner would only need to be served to students who stay past 6 p.m., but not all programs offer extended hours.

Figures 9 and 10 show how OST programs are helping to support the nutritional needs of children and youth across Kentucky.

Transportation

Compared to meals, fewer OST programs are able to provide transportation for students who attend, but many still do.

Figure 11 summarizes the breakdown of responses to our survey question about transportation.

COVID-19 Response

This project was designed and proposed before the COVID-19 pandemic began. Our original intention was and still is to provide stakeholders a comprehensive picture of the OST landscape in Kentucky, identify unmet needs and missed opportunities, and make recommendations about where we should go from here. But when COVID-19 hit, KYOSA added additional questions to its 2020 Kentucky OST Program Survey that would allow the network to understand just how programs across the Commonwealth have been affected by this ongoing crisis. Responses to these survey questions are summarized below.

Figure 12 shows the impact state-mandated school and child care closures had on OST programs in Kentucky, broken down by whether a program was publicly-funded or privately-funded.

Among closed programs that continued to serve enrolled students virtually, most were using social media and other online tools like Zoom and Google Meet to stay in touch with students and their families and provide assistance where needed. The most common types of virtual programming were enrichment activities and tutoring for students struggling with school assignments. Among closed programs that reported that they were unable to serve enrolled students virtually, the most common reasons given were that students did not have computer and/or internet access at home and a lack of staff capacity as a result of having to furlough employees because of lost revenue.

Publicly funded programs were clearly able to weather these closures much better than privately funded programs largely because they are not dependent on tuition and fees to cover staff salaries and other operating costs. When asked about their plans for reopening, 82.7% of publicly funded programs reported that they planned to reopen and continue services and programming as usual once restrictions were lifted, compared with just 61.1% of privately funded programs. Furthermore, 25.5% of privately funded programs compared with just 7.7 % of publicly funded programs stated that they would likely see a reduction of programming and services once allowed to reopen. A small percentage of both types of programs stated that they remained undecided about their plans for reopening. These findings are further summarized in Figure 13.

A recent survey conducted by the Afterschool Alliance also points to the difficulties privately funded programs have faced as a result of COVID-19. This survey found that programs that rely only on parent fees, like many of Kentucky’s privately-funded programs do, were almost twice as likely to be completely closed than programs overall and were 3.5 times less likely to offer virtual programming.⁷ These findings are especially concerning since privately funded programs make up nearly 90% of the estimated total OST supply in Kentucky. And if these programs close for good, working families will have fewer options than ever.

Barriers to Participation

While demand for out-of-school time (OST) programs is at an all-time high, an alarming number of children and youth across the Commonwealth continue to lack access.

Like many other states, Kentucky is not investing enough in OST, and this is negatively affecting progress towards larger state policy goals. Across Kentucky, several issues combine to limit access to OST programming: insufficient supply, transportation barriers, affordability, and insufficient public funding. These barriers are described in more detail in the following sections.

Insufficient Supply

Just before the pandemic hit, only 11% of children in Kentucky were participating in an out-of-school time (OST) program.² Yet, 45% of nonparticipating children would be enrolled in a program if one were available to them.⁵ At the national level, an alarming 42% of nonparticipating families report that OST programs are not available in their communities.¹

KYOSA has currently identified a total of 1,579 unique program sites in Kentucky that meet our definition of a formal OST program serving K-12 students. Combine that with an estimated total school enrollment in 2018 of 729,810 children, and the average program would need to accommodate over 200 school-age children per site to meet the current demand, without even taking into account factors such as affordability and geographic distribution.

Analysis of data collected from KYOSA’s 2020 Kentucky OST Program Survey also points to how current demand far exceeds capacity. Prior to COVID-19, the mean OST program capacity was 152 students among publicly funded programs and 98 students among privately funded programs. However, among privately funded programs, it is important to point out that this number is likely to be much lower due to the fact that capacity is not disaggregated by age group and many program sites serve children aged 0-5 in addition to school-age children during what would be considered OST hours. Additionally, nearly 60% of publicly funded programs and over 50% of privately-funded programs citied insufficient capacity as a barrier to participation. This reality leaves many of Kentucky’s most vulnerable children unsupervised at home or placed in unlicensed or unregulated settings when school is not in session, which may be detrimental to their overall development, health and well-being.

Transportation Issues

Many families face difficulties when it comes to providing transportation to and from out-of-school time (OST) program facilities. Nationally, 53% of parents of nonparticipant children report that their child/children do not have a safe way to get to and come home from program sites.¹⁵

The federally funded 21^st CCLC program, which operates just 160 sites in 52 out of 120 counties across the Commonwealth, is the only OST program in Kentucky mandated to provide transportation to students who need it in order to participate. However, among the 1,419 privately funded program sites KYOSA identified, just 529 (37.2%) currently provide some type of transportation to enrolled students. But because current data from available sources does not distinguish the type of transportation that is provided by each program (i.e. transportation to and from home/program site versus transportation for field trips), it is likely that far less than 37.2% of all privately funded programs provide transportation for attendance purposes.

To see where the areas of greatest need are, KYOSA used PolicyMap to create a map (see Figure 14 below) that shows the percent of households across each county with no vehicles available.

As expected, the counties that have the highest percentage of households with no vehicles also tend to be counties with high rates of concentrated or persistent poverty. Table 7 shows the 10 Kentucky counties with the least vehicle access, along with their total population, poverty rate, and persistent poverty status. Looking at this table, it is clear that more attention needs to be paid to transportation access as a barrier to participation, especially among low-income students in rural areas.

Affordability

Working parents who are unable to afford the high out-of-pocket cost associated with most privately funded out-of-school time (OST) programs are left with few options.

A 2019 report published by Child Care Aware® of America paints a disturbing picture of the current average price of different types of child care across each state. In addition to examining the average price of center-based child care for children aged 0-5, this study also looked at current average prices for school-age child care (i.e. before/after school and summer), providing different estimates for children and youth within different age groups.¹⁶ The researchers estimated that, based on current prices, the total charge to enroll one school-age child in center-based before/after school care during the school year plus full-time care over the summer is approximately $9,000 annually.¹⁷

Overall, Kentucky ranks 10^th in terms of having the least-affordable center-based care for school-aged children when compared with all other states and Washington, D.C.¹⁸ This fact is especially concerning in the context of COVID-19, with more families than ever looking to OST programs to meet the needs of their children as school takes place virtually. Table 8 compares how these costs stack up against other common annual expenditures for families living in Kentucky.

An example of how poverty plays a role in limiting access to child care, including OST programs, is found by looking specifically at how income compares to child care costs in Clay County, Kentucky, which has one of the highest rates of poverty in the state at 38.6%.¹¹ Each year the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) measures the income a family would need to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living based on local costs for essentials, such as housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, taxes, and other basic necessities, for every county in the U.S. across each of the 50 states. According to their most recent estimates, a two-parent, two-child family living in Clay county would need to earn at least $61,737 per year or $5,145 monthly to cover basic expenses, with child care still representing over 15% of the total monthly budget at this level of income.¹⁹ In stark contrast, the median household income in Clay County from 2014-2018 was only $26,250.²⁰

But these figures taken from Clay County are just one example of a widespread and long-standing problem in Kentucky. Across the state, 16 out of a total of 120 counties have poverty rates that exceed 30%.¹¹ In addition, out of the 386 persistent poverty counties in the U.S., 43 are located in Kentucky, with all 43 also classified as non-metro.¹⁰ Among children, the estimated poverty rate is 23%, measured at the state level.²¹  

So, what options are available for low-income families in Kentucky? The truth is, not many. Eighty-eight percent of all OST programs KYOSA identified as part of this project are fee-based programs, most of which operate under the Kentucky Division of Regulated Child Care. While over 80% of all licensed or certified programs accept CCAP funds, these funds are limited and only available to families that fall below 160% of the federal poverty level.²² To give a better idea of what this means in terms of eligibility, a family of four could not have a combined gross income greater than $3,280 per month or $39,360 annually to qualify for CCAP. As a result, many working families find themselves making too much to qualify for the program, but far too little to pay the equivalent of in-state tuition at a 4-year public university in Kentucky each year to enroll their child in an OST program. Of the fee-based programs that responded to our survey, many of which already accept CCAP, 76.9% stated that cost to parents was still barrier to participation, with over 45% reporting it was to a moderate or large extent.

Publicly funded OST programs like the federally funded 21^st CCLC program can help fill this gap, but current funding levels are too low to provide grants to all 916 Title I schools across Kentucky.²³ Other OST programs geared towards low-income families in Kentucky are those operated by Save the Children and Boys & Girls Clubs of America. But these programs, even when taken as a whole, only represent a small fraction of Kentucky’s total OST supply.

As a state that has been troubled historically by persistent poverty and educational under-attainment, more must be done in Kentucky to close these gaps, thereby ensuring that children and youth do not miss out simply because parents cannot pay.

Insufficient Public Funding

Current funding streams in Kentucky fall short when it comes to meeting current demand and ensuring access for disadvantaged populations.

In 2018, KDE received 113 21^st CCLC applications requesting a total of $13,450,000, but were only able to award grants to 33 applicants for a total of $4,300,000.²⁴ CCAP funds also fall short when it comes to providing access for low-income families. While approximately 17% of Kentucky families report receiving government assistance (i.e. CCAP funds) to help with the cost of their child’s OST program,¹ it is important to remember that eligible families can only use these funds if there is a licensed program that accepts CCAP in their area.

Currently, over half of all states in the U.S. have dedicated funded for OST.²⁵ Most of these states have also dedicated a portion of their CARES Act funding to help support the OST needs of children and youth,²⁶ especially as many schools have yet to fully reopen.²⁷ Sadly, Kentucky is not one of them. More must be done to make sure that Kentucky’s OST programs—and the children they serve—are not left out in the cold.

Unmet Needs & Missed Opportunities

An extensive body of research has documented the important role out-of-school time (OST) programs play across a number of key policy areas. But without access to these programs, children, families, and communities across Kentucky will continue to miss out on the broad range of opportunities associated with OST program participation.

This next section takes a look at the current research on the link between OST program participation and four key state and national policy goals:

1. Improving safety and preventing juvenile crime;
2. Ensuring college and career readiness,
3. Promoting a healthy lifestyle; and
4. Providing critical services in times of crisis.

While increasing investment in OST programming may seem counterintuitive, particularly during an ongoing global health and economic crisis, the research summarized in this next section shows just why improving access to OST is a key component to Kentucky being able to get parents back to work and rebuilding its economy in the aftermath of COVID-19.

Safety

Out-of-school time (OST) programs protect children and youth when school is out and help improve the safety of communities overall.

Children spend up to 80% of their time outside of school over the course of a year. In Kentucky, more than 18% of children remain unsupervised after school – that is, the hours between 3 and 6 p.m. – for an average of 7.34 hours per week.² When affordable, quality OST options are not available in a community, working parents must either rely on informal arrangements such as care provided by a friend or family member (if available), or leave their children unsupervised and at risk of being caught in dangerous situations and engaging in risky behaviors.

Figures 15 and 16 show the time of day that violent crimes and victimizations peak for juveniles. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the incidence of violent crimes committed by youth peaks in the hours immediately following the end of the school day, with more than one-fourth (28%) of all juvenile violent crimes taking place in the hours between 3:00 and 7:00 p.m.²⁸ In terms of victimization, juveniles are twice as likely to be violently victimized in the four hours between 3 and 7 p.m. than they are in the four hours between 8 p.m. and midnight.²⁹ Nearly 1 in every 5 (16.8%) violent crimes with juvenile victims occur between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on school days.⁵ Comparing school days to non-school days, the risk is 60% greater in the four hours after school than in the 8:00 p.m. to midnight period on non-school days.⁵

But violence and victimization are not the only factors that parents worry about when their children are unsupervised. Risky behaviors such as substance abuse and teen pregnancy also weigh heavily on parents’ minds. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) – a national survey conducted every 2 years to monitor the health-risk behaviors among youth and young adults—tracks the activities of young people in the U.S. that are related to the top causes of morbidity, mortality, and social problems among this demographic, which are use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs as well as sexual behaviors that can lead to unintended pregnancies. The YRBSS found that, in 2011, an estimated 1 in 10 youth ages 12 to 17 smoked cigarettes, more than 1 in 4 drank alcohol, and approximately 1 in 5 used illicit drugs.³⁰

In addition to tracking rates of cigarette, alcohol, and illicit drug use among youth and young adults, the YRBSS also looked at when students were likely to first begin experimenting with these things. Researchers found that, even before their 13^th birthday, 1 in 5 students had already had their first drink of alcohol, 1 in 10 had smoked their first whole cigarette, 8% had tried marijuana, and 6% had engaged in sex for the first time.⁵ Knowing that these behaviors tend to start in middle school or earlier is important, because these behaviors can be predictive of other behaviors later in life. These include positive ones like completing high school on time and going on to college, or negative ones such as engaging in criminal activity and abusing drugs and alcohol. A 2007 CDC report on middle school youth risk behavior confirms the long-term consequences of these risky behaviors if not addressed early – that these behaviors are often “established during youth and persist into adulthood.”³¹

OST programs can stop this cycle before it starts by targeting at-risk children and youth early on and providing programming that is responsive to the issues and challenges they face. While this study did not specifically evaluate the impact of OST programs on youth safety and violence prevention, studies conducted in other states have confirmed their positive effect. In Illinois, a study that looked at Chicago’s After School Matters program found that students who participated in the program took part in risky behaviors such as selling or using drugs and participating in gang-related activities at a much lower rate than matched non-participants.³² In addition, research on the Greater Wyoming Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) afterschool and summer learning program, which is funded in part by a 21^st CCLC grant,  found that the number of juvenile citations between 2000 (the year the program began) and 2017 dropped by 46% in Albany County (the county in which the program is located).³³

In addition to decreasing the likelihood that youth will engage in criminal activities and risky behaviors, OST programs also help youth learn about the dangers of alcohol, drugs, and other risky activities such as engaging in unprotected sex.³⁴ According to survey data we collected as part of this project, nearly 20% respondents overall stated that they offer activities on a regular basis related to substance abuse prevention and violence prevention, and 4.3% reported that they regularly offered activities directly related to pregnancy prevention. On top of these activities, 38% of programs reported that they provide mentoring to program participants, which also has been shown to have a positive effect on decreasing these types of risky youth behaviors.³⁵

While 85% of Kentucky parents agree that afterschool programs give working parents peace of mind and 83% support public funding for afterschool programs, just 11% of Kentucky children currently participate in such a program.¹ Yet, we know that at least 45% would be enrolled if one were available to them.⁵ As the above research demonstrates, quality OST programs are key strategy for addressing these problems. But, current gaps in access are limiting progress that can be made when it comes to keeping kids and communities safe across Kentucky.

College & Career Readiness

Out-of-school time (OST) programs build foundational skills, boost academic achievement, and improve college and career readiness, particularly among low-income and minority students.

In Kentucky, just 23.6% of people aged 25 and older have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 31.5% nationally.³⁶ Comparing against each of the 50 states, Kentucky ranks 47^th on this measure, just ahead of West Virginia, Arkansas, and Mississippi.⁵ While having a bachelor’s degree does not always guarantee economic prosperity, a large body of research has for years confirmed that college graduates tend to fare much better economically than those without a degree. According to new report from the College Board, individuals with bachelor’s degrees earn, on average, $400,000 more over the course of their lifetime than those with just a high school diploma.³⁷ Figure 17 shows how earnings increase with education. In addition, 18 of the 30 occupations the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects to grow the fastest between 2019 and 2029 require more than a high school diploma.³⁸

But too many students in Kentucky are graduating without the academic skills they need to go to and graduate from college. According to the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, approximately 1 in 3 Kentucky high school graduates are not ready to undertake college-level work in reading, writing, and mathematics.³⁹ Kentucky is one of 15 states that require all juniors to take the ACT exam, which makes it a useful proxy for college readiness. Among high school graduates who entered a public postsecondary degree program in Kentucky as a first-time, full-time student in 2018, just 84.5% who enrolled at a 4-year institution and 49.1% who enrolled at a KCTCS (Kentucky Community & Technical College System) institution met ACT readiness benchmarks (English = 18, math = 19, and reading = 20).⁵ Furthermore, just 9% of Black/African American high school graduates in Kentucky met three or more of the ACT’s national college readiness benchmarks, compared with 30% of white graduates during this same year.⁵

A large body of research has found that participating in a high-quality OST program can have a positive effect on school performance, particularly among certain populations, such as students of color, English language learners, low-income students, students from rural communities, students with disabilities and other special learning needs, and so on. For example, one large-scale study conducted with approximately 3,000 students, 85% of whom were Black/African American or Latinx, found that elementary school students who attended high-quality afterschool programs on a regular basis over a two-year period demonstrated significant gains in standardized math test scores, compared with their non-participant peers who were regularly unsupervised after school.⁴⁰ Another study—a longitudinal evaluation of LA’s Best that operates approximately 200 sites across Los Angeles, CA—found that students who participated in the program showed improved school-day attendance and were 20% less likely to drop out of school than non-participants.⁴¹ Subsequent research on LA’s Best has estimated that for every dollar invested in the program, the city of Los Angeles saves $2.50 in crime-related costs.⁴²

In addition to improving academic performance, OST programs also help children and youth build foundational skills, such as teamwork, communication, and critical thinking skills, which will prepare them for school, work, and life.⁴³ These skills are ranked as essential competencies by employers according to a 2019 Jobs Outlook survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.⁴⁴ In Kentucky, OST programs are already doing much to help children and youth build foundational skills. Analysis of responses to KYOSA’s 2020 Kentucky OST Program Survey revealed that:

• 75.6% of publicly funded respondents and 49.7% of privately funded respondents reported providing activities related to building life/personal skills;
• 73.2% of publicly funded respondents and 44.3% of privately funded respondents reported providing activities that support SEL;⁴⁵ and
• 75.6% of publicly funded respondents and 36.5% of privately funded respondents reported offering activities related to leadership skills.

Finally, OST programs are increasingly viewed as playing a critical role in helping shape the next generation of doctors, nurses, scientists, and statisticians. Numerous studies speak to the positive impacts that afterschool and summer STEM programs have in terms of helping students become interested in STEM and develop a wide variety of 21^st century skills like teamwork, problem-solving, and quantitative reasoning. For example, among graduating seniors who participated in EVOLUTIONS, an afterschool program at the Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, 88% reported an increase in communication skills, 82% reported an increase in their ability to work in teams, and 71% improved their writing skills.³⁵ In Texas, participants in the Girlstart After School program—a STEM program designed specifically for girls—outperformed non-participants on state math and science tests.⁴⁶

Increased public investment in OST ensures that all students, regardless of race, geography, or socioeconomic status, have access to opportunities that will excite them about learning and equip them with the skills necessary to be successful in college and beyond.

Health & Wellness

Out-of-school time (OST) programs help combat childhood hunger and promote healthy living by providing access to healthy meals and opportunities to get active.

Nearly 1 in 5 children in Kentucky struggle with hunger.⁴⁷ For some of these children, lunch at school may be the last healthy meal of the day. According to survey conducted in 2017 by No Kid Hungry, nearly 3 out of every 5 low-income parents said it was difficult to afford food for their children to eat after school.⁴⁸

Government programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) are unable to fully meet the needs of all children and families struggling with hunger. According to estimates provided by Feeding America for 2017, approximately 33.2% of all food insecure persons in Kentucky are not eligible for SNAP and other nutrition assistance programs.⁴⁹ The USDA defines food insecurity as “a lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all households.”⁵⁰ At the county level, some 39 counties—particularly those where the cost of living is greater—have at least 30% of their total population struggling with hunger yet not eligible for SNAP benefits.⁵¹ Among children, an estimated 30% percent of those who are food insecure are ineligible for free or reduced-price meals through the NSLP.⁵²

A landscape analysis conducted by Share Our Strength in June 2017 showed that Kentucky would need to serve 6.1 million additional summer meals, reach 21,000 more children during school breakfast, and serve 9.86 million additional meals after school to combat childhood hunger across the Commonwealth.⁴⁸ Kentucky’s OST programs are helping fill some of these gaps by providing access to healthy meals during times when school is not in session. But, state-dedicated funding for OST in Kentucky would these programs to provide even more free meals to food-insecure children.

Obesity⁵³ is another health and nutrition problem on which OST programs can make an impact. Nationally, an estimated 39.8% of all adults and 18.5% of children are obese.⁵⁴ According to a survey conducted in 2013 by the CDC, in Kentucky, just 12.4% of respondents reported eating 5 or more servings of fruit or vegetables per day.⁵⁵ In another CDC survey, just 16.8% of respondents reported meeting the CDC’s physical activity recommendations, which is 150 minutes aerobic exercise (or 75 equivalent minutes of vigorous activity) plus two muscle strengthening activities per week.⁵⁶ OST programs help reduce childhood obesity by providing additional opportunities for physical activity and access to fruits and vegetables – foods that are often in short supply in low-income households due to issues related to affordability and access.

Crisis Response

In response to COVID-19, out-of-school time (OST) programs everywhere have stepped up to provide critical supports to struggling children, families, and communities.

OST programs across the nation have been working overtime, finding new and innovative ways to support struggling families and meet the social, emotional, nutritional, and learning needs of children and youth during COVID-19. A recent survey conducted by the Afterschool Alliance points to the incredible work OST programs across the nation have done during this time. Overall, 70% of respondents reported that they were still serving students in some capacity, with 60% serving youth remotely, 48% serving or delivering meals or other resources to families, and 47% helping connect families with community resources. Among programs serving more than 75% of low-income students, these percentages are even higher. Furthermore, at the time of the survey, 61% of respondents reported that they were planning to still offer summer programming—either in person, virtual, or a combination of both.⁷

In Kentucky, programs have been innovating like never before to meet the needs of their students, families, and communities. Data gathered from KYOSA’s 2020 Kentucky OST Program Survey reveals the myriad ways programs across the state have been responding to this crisis. Of respondents able to continue serving students virtually, services ranged from providing Chromebooks and hotspots to offering online tutoring to students struggling with school assignments to enrichment activities focused on various topics such STEM, creative arts, and physical fitness. Other supplemental services included delivering meals and other necessary supplies to support the nutritional and learning needs of students while schools were closed. One 21^st CCLC program even found a way to help supply PPE (personal protective equipment) to healthcare workers in their community. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Grizzlies Beyond the Bell, a 21^st CCLC program at Spencer County Middle School, has been using their Maker Club’s newly purchased 3D printer to print PPE and other necessary items that have been difficult for schools and healthcare workers to come by. So far they have printed 150 s-hooks (used to reduce stress on ears), 15 face masks with filters, 6 face shields, and one “eye gaze board” for their district’s speech pathologist to use when working with nonverbal students.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The research is clear. Out-of-school time (OST) programs across Kentucky are keeping kids safe and healthy while boosting college and career readiness. In addition, OST offers states a sizeable return on investment. For every $1 invested each year in OST, states save at least $3 annually.⁵⁷

But accessibility and affordability currently stand in the way of Kentucky being able to capitalize on these benefits. In Kentucky, more than 280,000 children who want to participate in an OST program are currently without access.⁵⁸ Yet, 87% of parents support public funding for OST programs.⁵

So, what can be done to increase access to OST programs? KYOSA has outlined a set of recommendations aimed at addressing some of the most pressing issues described in this report.

Recommendations to Improve the OST Field Statewide

1: Increase public funding for OST programs. Insufficient supply and lack of affordability are two main barriers to increasing access to OST programs in Kentucky. In 2018, KDE received 113 21st CCLC applications requesting a total of $13,450,000, but was only able to award grants to 33 applicants for a total of $4,300,000. We also know that 21st CCLC-funded programs have been more likely to continue to serve students virtually through the pandemic and were better equipped to meet the needs of students and families when school resumed in person. Kentucky currently lacks any such public funding for OST programs. KYOSA will work with state legislators and key policymakers to inform them of the benefits of increased access to OST programs and work to bring more public funding to Kentucky.

2: Lift up the importance of using OST programs to train our future workforce. We know that the vast majority of the jobs in the future will require some form of post-secondary training or credential. OST programs stand ready to help fill this gap in the workforce pipeline. Through informal STEM learning, hands-on and engaging curriculum, and close connections to the community, OST programs can help businesses and employers ensure that students have the skills necessary to thrive in the 21st century economy. KYOSA will convene OST program leaders, business and community leaders, and leaders from public agencies to develop best-practice strategies that allow students to engage in high-quality career exploration and development.

3: Convene a cross-sector committee to align current systems of data collection to OST policy needs. Policymakers need high-quality data to make good decisions about how best to allocate funding and resources, but current data sources have significant gaps when it comes to answering important questions related to topics, such as participant demographics, program quality, total school-age capacity, and services provided. KYOSA will convene partners to address these data gaps and seek opportunities to use common data collection tools and practices.

4: Increase our focus on equity throughout the OST field in Kentucky. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are increasingly becoming priorities for organizations striving to intentionally embrace and promote diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives among their staff and foster better outcomes for the communities they serve. We must ensure that young Kentuckians, no matter their zip code, skin color, or socio-economic status, have access to high-quality OST programs to help them learn and thrive. KYOSA will work with state agency officials and local program providers to disaggregate data, identify equity gaps and develop strategies to close them.

5: Develop a comprehensive quality system for all OST programs throughout Kentucky. Many states across the country have a comprehensive system to rate the quality of OST programs, but this is lacking in Kentucky. While the state has an effective system to rate early childhood programs, the current Kentucky All STARS rating system is lacking when it comes to the specifics of school-age OST programs. In addition, the 21st CCLC program is not connected to a statewide school-age OST quality system. KYOSA will convene providers from across the spectrum to discuss ways we can develop an across-the-board quality rating system for school-age programs.

Appendix A: About the KYOSA Data Explorer

Appendix A includes an overview of the KYOSA Data Explorer—a publicly accessible data mapping tool that supports policymakers, providers, school administrators, community leaders, and families making decisions about OST in Kentucky. It also includes a data directory, which lists and provides a brief description of each of the 44 datasets and 14 boundaries in the tool.

The tool was created by PolicyMap, with support from the National Conference of Legislators (NCSL) and the C.S. Mott Foundation, and combines data on all currently known OST programs in Kentucky with a number of other important community indicators along various categories such, as demographics, incomes and spending, quality of life, education, and others. The tool can be used for research, planning, exploration, and investment decision-making.

To use the tool, users can start by selecting their location of interest by typing in an address or selecting a location such as a city, county, school district, or congressional district, from one of the drop-down menus. Zoom in and out of the map using the zoom bar located near the top left-hand corner of the tool. Data can be added to the map by clicking on the “New Map” button, located just above the location search bar, then selecting any of the available datasets. Multiple datasets and features can be added to the map simultaneously. Boundaries can also be added to define areas of interest. Users can print maps by clicking the button located in the top right-hand corner of the tool and selecting “print map.”

For complete instructions on how to use the tool, click here.

Points

Table A-1 contains a complete list of the point datasets available in the KYOSA Data Explorer. Point data are most commonly used to represent nonadjacent features and discrete data points, such as schools and libraries. All point data available in the KYOSA Data Explorer are geocoded to specific addresses.

Layers

Table A-2 contains a complete list of the layer datasets available in the KYOSA Data Explorer. Layer data are data that have been joined to a specific polygon feature, such as county, school district, Zip Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA), or Census tract. Layer data are color-coded on the map using either a thematic or numerically gradaded color scheme.

Boundaries

A list of boundaries available in the KYOSA Data Explorer is provided below.

Custom Kentucky Regions

• Appalachian Counties: Counties in Kentucky defined as "Appalachian" by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC): Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson, Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, Greenup, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, Metcalfe, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Nicholas, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Robertson, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, and Wolfe.
• Local Workforce Areas (LWAs): West Kentucky, Green River, South Central, Cumberlands, Lincoln Trail, Bluegrass, Kentuckiana Works, Northern Kentucky, Tenco, EKCEP.
• Workforce Planning Regions (WPRs): Central WPR (Lincoln Trail, Kentuckiana Works, Northern Kentucky, Bluegrass), East WPR (Tenco, EKCEP), South WPR (South Central, Cumberlands), West WPR (West Kentucky, Green River).

Other Boundaries

• States: No description necessary.
• Metro Areas (2013): One or more adjacent counties or county equivalents that have at least one urban area of at least 50,000 population, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of economic and social integration with the core as measured by commuting ties.
• Counties (2010): No description.
• Zip Codes: No description necessary.
• Zip Code Tabulation Area: ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) are generalized areal representations of United States Postal Service (USPS) ZIP Code service areas. U.S. Census Tracts (2010):  Small, relatively permanent U.S. Census statistical subdivisions of a county, which capture 4,000 inhabitants on average.
• Congressional Districts (116^th): The congressional districts for the 116th Congress (January 2019 to 2021) are the third Congressional Districts based on 2010 U.S. Census data.
• Upper State Legislative Districts: State legislative districts (SLD) are areas from which members are elected to state or equivalent entity legislatures. Upper State Legislative Districts are also known as Senate State Legislative Districts (Senate—SLDU).
• Lower State Legislative Districts: Lower State Legislative Districts are also known as House State Legislative Districts (House—SLDL).
• Community Development Block Grant Areas: Areas designated as Community Development Block Grant Areas.
• Designated Qualified Opportunity Zones: Areas designated as Qualified Opportunity Zones.

Appendix B: Out-of-School Time Data Sources

Appendix C: Additional Maps

The current list of known OST program sites in Kentucky stands at 1,579. All program sites are mapped at the exact location of each program site using a process called geocoding. KYOSA was able to successfully geocode 99.7% of all known program sites using the site addresses contained in the sources described in Appendix B. In some instances, more than one OST program occurs at the same location. In this situation, program sites are shown as a single point with a circle around it on the maps on the following pages.

All additional maps (viewed by clicking the button below) were produced by overlaying all known OST program locations (color-coded based on whether the program is fee-based or not) with key outcome measures (shown as shaded regions) along the following categories:

• Incomes & Spending
• Quality of Life
• Economy
• Housing
• Health

Most outcome measures are shaded at the county level so KYOSA could produce a list of “top 10” counties that scored the worst along each measure. This list is provided below each map and includes the county’s score along that outcome measure and rate of non-fee-based OST supply. The current rate of non-fee-based OST supply in Kentucky ranges from 0 across 66 counties to 3.59 in Leslie County, as measured as the number of non-fee-based OST program sites per 1,000 population aged 5-18 for each county. Counties with no non-fee-based programs are highlighted in red. However, for large metropolitan areas like Louisville and Lexington, it is important to point out that county aggregations often mask neighborhood variances. As a result, those interested in looking at gaps in OST access versus needs for these areas should use the KYOSA Data Explorer to analyze data on a more local level.

Appendix D: Exempt Child Care Settings

The following child care settings are currently exempt from licensure requirements in Kentucky:

1. Summer camps permitted by the cabinet as youth camps that serve school-age children;
2. Kindergarten through grade 12 in private schools while school is in session;
3. All programs and preschools regulated by the Kentucky Department of Education governed by KRS Chapter 157;
4. Summer programs operated by a religious organization that a child attends, no longer than two (2) weeks;
5. Child care provided while parents are on the premises, other than the employment and educational site of parents;
6. Child care programs operated by the armed services located on an armed forces base;
7. Child care provided by educational programs that include parental involvement with the care of the child and the development of parenting skills;
8. Facilities operated by a religious organization while religious services are being conducted;
9. A program providing instructional and educational programs that:
   1. Operates for a maximum of 20 hours per week; and
   2. A child attends for no more than 10 hours per week;
10. A child care center that meets requirements of KRS 199.896(19) or (20); and
11. An afterschool program, which is:
    1. A continuation of the school day during the academic year;
    2. Operated and staffed by an accredited private or public school under the purview of the Kentucky Department of Education; and
    3. Not participating in the Child Care Assistance Program in accordance with 922 KAR 2:160.

922 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:090

1. Afterschool Alliance. (2020). America After 3PM: Demand Grows, Opportunity Shrinks. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/AA3PM/
2. Afterschool Alliance. (2020). Kentucky After 3PM. Retrieved from  http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/AA3PM/
3. Economic Policy Institute (EPI). (2018, September 13). America’s Slow-Motion Wage Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/publication/americas-slow-motion-wage-crisis-four-decades-of-slow-and-unequal-growth-2/
4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2020, April 21). Employment Characteristics of Families—2019. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/famee.pdf
5. Ibid.
6. Auger, A., Pierce, K., Vandell, D.L. (2013, April). Participation in Out-of-School time Settings and Students Academic and Behavioral Outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from http://expandinglearning.org/research/vandell/resources/AERA_Promising_Programs_FINAL.pdf
7. Afterschool Alliance. (2020). Afterschool in the Time of COVID-19. Retrieved from http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Afterschool-COVID-19-Wave-1-Fact-Sheet.pdf
8. U.S. Census. Estimated population, between 2014-2018. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/8HttdQy. (27 September 2020)
9. Opportunity Nation. (n.d.). Map. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://opportunityindex.org.
10. CDFI Fund. Persistent poverty county status, according to CDI Fund, in 2017. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/r5BpBlt. (27 September 2020).
11. U.S. Census. Estimated percent of all people that are living in poverty as of 2014-2018. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/NMKSJHZ. (27 September 2020).
12. BLS. Unemployment rate in 2019. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/HkMbvjB. (27 September 2020).
13. U.S. Census. Estimated percent of people with at least a Bachelor’s degree, between 2014-2018. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/rjjcKSJ. (27 September 2020).
14. National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (NCES, CCD). Public Schools: Enrollment and Demographics (NCES), 2017-2018. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/h9bTgDZ. (27 September 2020).
15. Lauver, S., Little, P.M.D., & Weiss, H.B. (2004). Moving beyond the barriers: Attracting and sustaining youth participation in out-of-school time programs. Harvard Family Research Project, 6. Retrieved from https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/afterschool/resources/issuebrief6.html
16. Child Care Aware® of America. (2019). The U.S. and the High Price of Child Care: An Examination of a Broken System. Retrieved from https://www.childcareaware.org/our-issues/research/the-us-and-the-high-price-of-child-care-2019/
17. Child care Aware® of America. (2019). The U.S. and the High Price of Child Care: Appendices. Retrieved from https://www.childcareaware.org/our-issues/research/the-us-and-the-high-price-of-child-care-2019/
18. 1=least affordable and 51= most affordable. Rank is based on price of child care as a percentage of state median income for married-couple families. Income is based on single-parent and married-couple families with own children under the age of 18.
19. Economic Policy Institute (EPI). (2018, March). Family budgets in Clay County, KY. In Family Budget Calculator: Family Budget Fact Sheets. Retrieved from https://www.epi.org/resources/budget/budget-factsheets/#/1025
20. U.S. Census. Estimated median income of a household, between 2014-2018. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/pRvM22C. (27 September 2020).
21. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2020). 2020 Kids Count Profile: Kentucky. In 2020 State Data Profiles on Kids Well-Being. Retrieved from https://www.aecf.org/m/databook/2020KC_profile_KY.pdf
22. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Dept. for Community Based Services (DCBS). (2019, March). DCC-113 Facts about the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP). Retrieved from https://chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dcbs/dcc/Documents/dcc11319.pdf
23. Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). (2020, August 18). Kentucky Education Facts. Retrieved from https://education.ky.gov/comm/edfacts/Pages/default.aspx
24. Data provided by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE), Office of Continuous Improvement and Support, Division of School and Program Improvement.
25. Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont
26. Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont
27. Data provided by the Afterschool Alliance.
28. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03401.asp?qaDate=2016. Released on October 22, 2018.
29. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Available: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02203.asp?qaDate=2016. Released on October 22, 2018.
30. Eaton, D.K., et. al. (2012). “Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance – United States, 2011.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Calverton, MD. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6104a1.htm
31. Shanklin, S.L., et. al. (2007). 2005 Middle School Youth Risk Behavior Survey. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/yrbs/middleschool2005/pdf/YRBS_MS_05_fullreport.pdf
32. Hirsch, B.J., et. al. (2011). After-School Programs for High School Students: An Evaluation of After School Matters. Retrieved from http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/publications/19023555234df57ecd0d6c5.pdf
33. Council for Strong America. (2019, October). From Risk to Opportunity: Afterschool Programs Keep Kids Safe When Juvenile Crime Peaks. Retrieved from https://www.strongnation.org/articles/930-from-risk-to-opportunity-afterschool-programs-keep-kids-safe
34. Afterschool Alliance. (2011). Keeping Kids Safe and Supported In the Hours after School. Retrieved from http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/issue_briefs/issue_KeepingKidsSafe_65.pdf
35. Insert note here.
36. U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS). Estimated percent of people with at least a Bachelor’s degree, between 2014-2018. PolicyMap. http://www.policymap.com/our-data-directory.html#Census:%20Decennial%20Census%20and%20American%20Community%20Survey%20(ACS). (29 August 2020).
37. Ma, J., et.al. (2019). Education Pays 2019: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/education-pays-2019-full-report.pdf
38. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, September 1). Fastest Growing Occupations [Table]. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/fastest-growing-occupations.htm
39. Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). (2020, April). Kentucky’s Progress toward Postsecondary Strategic Agenda Goals. Retrieved from http://cpe.ky.gov/data/reports/2020progressreport.pdf
40. Vandell, D.L., Reisner, E.R., & Pierce, K.M. (2007). Outcomes Linked to High-Quality Afterschool Programs: Longitudinal Findings from the Study of Promising Afterschool Programs. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237263207_Outcomes_Linked_to_High-Quality_Afterschool_Programs_Longitudinal_Findings_from_the_Study_of_Promising_Afterschool_Programs
41. Huang, D., et.al. (2005). Keeping Kids in School: An LA’s BEST Example A Study Examining the Long-Term Impact of LA’s BEST on Students’ Dropout Rates. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA.
42. Goldschmidt, P. and Huang, D. (2007). The Long-Term Effects of After-School Programming on Educational Adjustment and Juvenile Crime: A Study of the LA’s BEST After-School Program. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA.
43. Afterschool Alliance. (2017). Building Workforce Skills in Afterschool. Retrieved from http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/issue_briefs/issue_workforce_readiness_70.pdf
44. National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2018, December 12). Employers Want to See these Attributes on Students’ Resumes. Retrieved from https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/employers-want-to-see-these-attributes-on-students-resumes/
45. What is social-emotional learning? According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), social-emotional learning (SEL) is “the process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions. More than two decades of research from multiple fields and sources—including student achievement, neuroscience, health, employment, psychology, classroom management, learning theory, economics, and the prevention of youth problem behaviors—has found that implementing SEL programming gets results. More about SEL impact can be found at https://casel.org/impact.
46. Harris, S. (2016). Strong Promise: Moving from Interest and Engagement in STEM to Real Academic Results: Evaluating Girlstart After School Participants’ Academic Performance. Austin, TX: Girlstart. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/girlstart/docs/strong_promise_girlstart_after_scho_863a7961051441
47. Feeding America. (n.d.). Child Food Insecurity in Kentucky. Retrieved from http://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2016/child/kentucky
48. KY Kids Eat. (2018, June 27). Childhood Hunger is a Problem in Kentucky. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://kykidseat.org/hunger-in-kentucky/
49. Feeding America. Estimated Percent of Food Insecure Persons Not Eligible for SNAP and Other Nutrition Programs in 2017. PolicyMap. http://www.policymap.com/our-data-directory.html#Feeding%20America. (25 September 2020)
50. USDA. (2020, September 9). Definitions of Food Security. Retrieved September 25, 2020, from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-food-security/
51. Feeding America. Estimated percent of food insecure children who are not eligible for free/reduced meals through the National School Lunch Program in 2017. PolicyMap. Permalink URL. (Date accessed).
52. Feeding America. Estimated percent of food insecure children who are not eligible for free/reduced meals through the National School Lunch Program in 2017. PolicyMap. http://www.policymap.com/our-data-directory.html#Feeding%20America. (25 September 2020).
53. In adults, obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) of greater than or equal to 30. In children, obesity is defined as a BMI of greater than or equal to the age- and sex-specific 95^th percentile of the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts.
54. Hales, C.M., Carroll, M.D., Fryar, C.D., & Ogden, C.L. (2017). Prevalence of Obesity among Adults and Youth: United States, 2015-2016. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf
55. CDC BRFSS. Estimated percent of adults reporting to eat five or more servings of fruit/vegetables per day in 2013. PolicyMap. https://plcy.mp/KLjvT37. (25 September 2020).
56. PolicyMap & CDC BRFSS. Estimated percent of adults reporting to meet physical activity recommendations in the past 30 days in 2017. PolicyMap. http://www.policymap.com/our-data-directory.html#CDC%20Behavioral%20Risk%20Factor%20Surveillance%20System. (25 September 2020).
57. Afterschool Alliance estimate based on findings from state-level return on investment studies conducted in states that include California, Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Vermont.
58. Afterschool Alliance. (2020). Kentucky After 3PM. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/ AA3PM/