Every afternoon in Texas, the end of the school day creates a daily scramble for families. 5 out of 6 parents say they want after-school care, but cannot access it.

The demand for after-school programs is not theoretical.

In about 70% of Texas families with children ages 6 to 17, all available parents are working. This forces painful trade-offs between employment, supervision, and student safety at the very hours when children are most vulnerable to learning loss and disengagement.

At the same time, parents who secure a spot overwhelmingly say the programs work. 3 in 4 parents rate their child’s after-school program as “excellent” or “very good”, reflecting the support these programs provide in improving attendance, supporting academic growth, and offering stability during after-school hours. Lack of this support system is reflected in juvenile crime risk, which rises to 18% between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on school days.

If families need and value after-school programs and evidence supports their impact, the question facing Texas is why access remains so limited.

The answer is capacity, driven primarily by unstable funding and workforce shortages.

For years, after-school programs in Texas have relied heavily on federal 21st Century Community Learning Centers funding, administered through the Texas Afterschool Centers on Education (ACE). In parallel, Texas also used $125 million in COVID recovery funds over roughly three years, averaging over $40 million annually, to expand after-school access.

That funding structure has tightened significantly.

COVID recovery funds expired in September 2024. At the same time, Texas ACE dollars have fallen from $97 million in 2020-21 to $57 million in 2023-24, resulting in a 40% reduction in the size of the funding pot.

What now remains is $5 million for the biennium by the state for community-based or nonprofit-run after-school programs and $57 million for districts through ACE.

As district-run programs scale back or shut down, nonprofit providers and districts are expected to absorb growing demand with just $59 million annually, a pale substitute for the roughly $140 million annually, once provided through ACE and COVID recovery funds. The result: programs close and families are turned away.

But money does not cut itself. Programs are run by people, and when funding tightens, staffing is the first thing to break.

Across the after-school sector, 87% of program leaders report serious concern about staffing shortages, driven by staff burnout, competition with higher wages in other industries, and the inability to offer more hours. When programs cannot retain staff, they cap enrollment, shorten schedules, or suspend services entirely.

Texas has reached a point where after-school can no longer be treated as an optional add-on. The state has shown it can invest at scale when priorities are clear, including recent multibillion-dollar investments in public education.

Extending that commitment beyond the final bell is not a conceptual leap. It is the next logical step if Texas wants learning, attendance, and family stability to hold through the full day.

The first requirement is funding stability beyond a single grant window, through multi-year grant cycles with predictable renewals that allow districts and community partners to plan, hire, and retain staff.

But funding alone will not solve the capacity gap. So the second requirement is an intentional staffing strategy that reflects how after-school programs actually operate.

One part of that strategy is organizing the pre-existing civic capacity of Texas. College students, retirees, and community members are willing to contribute, and a statewide volunteer corps designed specifically for K–12 and after-school settings could channel this capacity into tutoring, mentoring, and enrichment roles under professional supervision.

Nonprofits already operate this way at a smaller scale, and programs such as ASPIRE show that when volunteers are intentionally placed and supported by educators, programs can expand without sacrificing quality.

A second part of the staffing strategy is better aligning after-school programs with the pipeline of future educators.

Each year, thousands of teacher candidates complete clinical placements or paid internships in K-12 as part of certification requirements. Allowing these candidates to contribute to supervised after-school education would strengthen staffing during the hours of greatest need, while giving future teachers structured practice in after-school settings.

The choice before Texas is straightforward. After-school programs can remain secondary supports, or they can be treated as essential educational infrastructure, backed by the funding and workforce required to sustain them. For hundreds of thousands of students, that choice will shape what happens after the final bell.

Kusuma Buddhiraju is the Associate Director of Policy Research and Thought Leadership at Sewa International USA, with over a decade of experience in economic policy, public education finance, and institutional reform.

Published on: The Fulcrum
https://thefulcrum.us/education/after-school-program-funding-texas
Written by: Kusuma Buddhiraju

When the Guadalupe River broke its banks across Kerr County, the water carried off not only homes but many fragmented memories: a stuffed bear, a baby shoe, and family photos blurred beyond recognition. Within days, volunteers began piecing those fragments back together through a ‘Texas Flood Lost & Found’ network, reuniting survivors with what little could be recovered.

Within two weeks, more than 14,000 volunteers from different nonprofits showed up to help the survivors of the Hill Country floods. The same spirit defined Texas’s response to Harvey in 2017, when the state, along with its nonprofits, led one of the largest rescue operations in U.S. history.

From local food pantries to national relief networks, nonprofits have become the connective tissue of America’s disaster response. In those first hours, it feels like the whole country moves together. But when the cameras go dark, the rhythm breaks. The second act of the disaster- the long, uneven work of recovery, and the even harder task of preparing for the next storm- is the one we struggle to sustain.

Housing recovery after Harvey stretched 8 years. The same pattern appears in mental recovery. Nearly 3 in 10 disaster survivors face stress or anxiety across the U.S., yet only one receives counseling after a year, even when the need persists. And while communities rebuild, preparedness often slips back into the background. Many Americans still lack a household emergency plan, know little about evacuation routes, or have never participated in a community preparedness drill.

These gaps don't reflect a lack of will; they reveal the limits of a system that is built to respond, but not always to sustain. As emergency operations wind down and public attention shifts elsewhere, nonprofits continue showing up through recovery and preparedness. They "add value by acting fast, filling gaps, and advocating for vulnerable groups who are often forgotten when needs are overwhelming,"in words of Stephan Kline, who is CEO of NECHAMA - Jewish Response to Disaster.

After the Kerr County floods, one such nonprofit, Hill Country MHDD Centers, became a lifeline for survivors by opening a free emotional support hub. Counselors from the same town sat with families in grief, offering comfort that continues today for anyone still finding their way back to normalcy.

Another nonprofit, West Street Recovery, helped communities rebuild physically. After Winter Storm Uri, it began converting ordinary houses into ‘hub homes,’ equipped with solar panels and battery systems to keep power running.

Extending that spirit of preparedness, Sewa USA has taken readiness into the heart of communities. Through its unique AmeriCorps partnership, it has trained more than 12,000 people through community preparedness in disaster safety, mental health, and environmental awareness.

Yet across most communities, such efforts remain exceptions, not infrastructure. The systems that scale nonprofits during response weaken once emergencies fade. To close that gap, nonprofits need structure and scale to keep the collaboration alive and strengthen two essentials between disasters: sustained rebuilding and community readiness.

A first step is building on what already works. ‘Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters’ (VOAD) and Long-Term Recovery Groups (LTRGs) already unite hundreds of nonprofits for disaster response and recovery. But public attention, volunteers, and donations often decline rapidly after the response phase.

These LTRGs could evolve into a permanent ‘Resilience Division’, keeping the same coordination tables while also sustaining funding streams and volunteer engagement for continuity by maintaining a verified public portal where donors and volunteers can directly support trusted nonprofits.

These portals could keep recovery visible long after the response phase, sharing progress updates, photos, and stories that show how rebuilding actually unfolds on the ground.

Beyond recovery, these Divisions would also expand their mandate to preparedness. They would keep the network active through quarterly preparedness training hosted by member nonprofits in their own communities and annual reviews of lessons learned from past disasters.

Together, these systems would give nonprofits the structure to lead and sustain America’s disaster management. One where nonprofits preserve trust and relationships, and systems provide scale and authority.

Gitesh Desai is the former president of Sewa International USA’s Houston chapter and led large-scale volunteer rescue, relief, and recovery efforts during Hurricane Harvey.

Published on: The Fulcrum
https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legislation/nonprofits-disaster-management-resilience
Written by: Gitesh Desai

Every afternoon, thousands of California students are turned away from Expanded Learning Programs (ELPs), not because they don’t want them, but because there’s no room for them. This is despite California spending more than $650 million annually on ELPs, the largest investment of any state in the nation.

California has established a comprehensive ecosystem of support to provide high-need students with supportive spaces to learn, grow, and thrive, through state-run programs, including the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELO-P), After School Education and Safety (ASES), the federally funded 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC), and the ELPs run by hundreds of non-profits independently of government-run programs.

Nevertheless, the statewide academic performance still trails behind national averages. The reason? Many students still can’t access ELPs, as demand is outpacing supply. A 2024 survey by Afterschool Alliance found that 53% of California’s ELPs have waitlists, and not all interested students can get access to ELPs.

At the heart of this access problem is a fragmented and confusing system. California’s three ELPs, ELO-P, ASES, and 21st CCLC, serve underserved students in K-6, K-9, and K-12, respectively. All three share the same vision and mostly serve the same student groups, but operate in separate silos, as also highlighted by Legislative Analyst’s Office. Funding streams overlap, planning happens in isolation, and data systems don’t communicate. This leads to redundant efforts in some areas and service gaps in others.

This fragmentation doesn’t stop with government programs. Many California nonprofits deliver ELPs, offering programs tailored to local needs. These organizations are excluded from the planning and execution systems, despite serving the same students with the same goals. We’ve experienced this firsthand through our ASPIRE after-school program.

And until now, California had no centralized system to even know who was participating in which program. With the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) expected to be rolled out in 2025-26, at least the enrollment and attendance data from all three major programs will be recorded. But CALPADS still won’t include nonprofit-run programs that are run independently of publicly funded ELPs. And even within the formal system, key metrics like learning gains, mental progress, or staffing numbers won’t be recorded. Without this, the state can’t fully evaluate what’s working, what needs to remain, or how to improve.

And while data or better coordination between systems could address some issues, low wages, often just $11–$18/hour, make after-school roles in ELPs less competitive than entry-level jobs in retail or food service. “Finding and retaining enough high-quality staff to truly engage and inspire students continues to be a pressing issue,” notes Michele Reid, Expanded Learning Director at Visalia USD. And without enough personnel, programs are forced to limit enrollment or maintain waitlists to maintain a 1:20 staff-to-student ratio mandated by the government ELPs.

To unlock the promise of expanded learning, California must address these core issues. Here’s how we can make it work:

First, the state must streamline its three major ELPs and the ones offered by non-profits by adopting a unified state framework that aligns planning, execution, and compliance across these programs. School districts should be encouraged to place funding under a single structure, supported by clear guidance from the Department of Education. A coordinated approach by the school districts to include non-profits in planning and execution to expand the reach would additionally maximize ELPs’ impact.

The state should also expand CALPADS to track program outcomes, staffing levels, and ensure that nonprofit-run programs, even those running independently of the government ELPs, are included in statewide reporting. Making this information publicly accessible through a transparent and user-friendly dashboard would enable policy-making, smarter planning, and real accountability.

Finally, for staffing shortages, while raising wages may seem like the obvious fix, there are alternative pathways, too, which California should explore. The state should consider building a statewide volunteer corps, tapping into civic-minded college students and community members to help close the staffing gap. Programs like ASPIRE, run by Sewa International, have shown how trained volunteers can support students effectively while deepening the community’s connection to education.

Every underserved student deserves a safe, enriching place to go after school. Expanded learning works, and we have the funding. Now we need bold reforms to put that money to work for everyone.

Rakhi Israni is the Founder of Excel Test and VP of Government & Public Relations at Sewa International, with 30+ years of mentoring students and supporting initiatives like Sewa’s ASPIRE program

Published on: Capitol Weekly
https://capitolweekly.net/why-californias-expanded-learning-programs-are-falling-short/
Written by: Rakhi Israni