Giving Forum Index | Archives | Subscribe | Advertise | Editorial Calendar |
|
|
|
|
|
Summer 2004 |
||||||||
|
New MCF Report Highlights Funding,
Service Challenges by Sylvia Lindman Funding for youth development has fallen sharply in Minnesota in the past two years, leaving thousands of young people without mentors, after-school programs, and prevention and intervention services. Funders and youth-serving nonprofits alike say that more youth are at risk of being ill-prepared for the challenges of adolescence and adulthood. A report released in May by the Minnesota Council on Foundations, "Supporting Minnesota's Youth: The State of the State's Youth Development Funding," documents what many youth advocates have suspected: That there are fewer opportunities for young people today than two years ago. "It reinforces the picture a lot of people have-that there is drastically reduced funding available for youth-focused programming, particularly from the government," says Lynn Haglin, vice president and KIDS PLUS director at the Northland Foundation in Duluth. The findings are based on interviews with 17 of the state's largest private youth development grantmakers and an analysis of 61 surveys completed by nonprofits between October 2003 and January 2004.
The report paints a bleak picture of the consequences of reduced funding. "There are fewer safe places for kids to go, and that means there are more opportunities for them to be victims on the streets and to get themselves into situations that aren't constructive," says Lisa Simer, community philanthropy officer at The Minneapolis Foundation, which helped fund the report along with the Cargill Foundation and The McKnight Foundation. Over the long term, she and other youth advocates say, society pays the price for kids who lack positive role models and positive outlets for their energy. "It's cheaper and better for everybody to put dollars in at the front end and give kids opportunities to succeed rather than treat them later" — for crime or substance abuse, for example — Simer says. Troubling as it is, the report is a welcome addition to the discussion of youth services in Minnesota. Youth advocates say they hope it will awaken the public, legislators and funders to the need for strong youth development programs. According to Bill King, MCF president, that was the Council's goal. The Council hoped "to contribute to a public conversation about how to strengthen the positive development of Minnesota's youth, and to help identify and advance ways in which nonprofits, grantmakers and other funders can work together to support youth development," King writes in the introduction. The research defines "youth" as children ages 8-18, and "youth development" as "organizations and programs that address the social, emotional and cognitive development of young people."
Only 12 percent of nonprofits believe their youth development programs are well-funded overall, and nearly two-thirds say they are receiving less money from the government. Nearly half report getting less funding from foundations and corporate grantmakers. The economic recession hit nonprofits doubly. Because it lowered tax revenues, governments scaled back. Because it cut into foundation endowments, funders reduced their support. In Minnesota, "unallotment" to balance budget deficits in 2003 and 2004 meant that even though money was earmarked for youth services during the budget process, and in some cases even though contracts had been signed, some funds never materialized. Government cuts hit especially hard, because government funding plays such a large role in many nonprofits' budgets — an average of 39 percent of the revenue for youth development nonprofits in the survey. Government support includes manpower as well as money. For example, in northern Minnesota, county employees and family support workers who had been doing frequent after-school activities with young people through the nonprofit organization R.E.A.C.H. (Recreational Experiences Achieving Community Harmony) were told to curtail those activities and use the time for casework instead. Eventually the county permitted them to do one R.E.A.C.H. activity a month. "That has cut out a big piece of what kids used to be able to do and has hurt the trust relationships they were building," says R.E.A.C.H. director Gayle Edwards. As for private funders, the economy is just one reason grant dollars for youth development declined 6.4 percent between 1999 and 2001. Some foundations have shifted their priorities away from direct services. The Minneapolis Foundation, for one, adopted a new approach about three years ago, focusing more on public policy and systems change. "A lot of organizations we had funded in the past didn't fit anymore," Simer says. She understands both sides of the argument. Many foundations have come to feel they can't put enough money into individual programs to make a difference. "But no one's picking it up," Simer adds, "and direct services still have to happen."
Twenty-five percent of nonprofits surveyed said that less funding means they are serving fewer youths. The survey revealed that more than 2,400 Minnesota youth served by just these nonprofits have been denied youth development programs and services they once received, but youth advocates say the total number for the state is many times this figure. Consider KIDS PLUS, a program developed and implemented by the Northland Foundation in 26 northeastern Minnesota communities to improve the well-being of children and youth by connecting young people with their communities. Reduced funding from state, federal and private sources has resulted in sharp cuts in programs and increases in fees that have affected more than a thousand children in these communities. Some examples: In Hibbing, the loss of a chemical health coordinator position deprives an estimated 200 youth of intervention programs. In Northome, 25 students a year used to receive scholarships to participate in after-school activities; now that money is gone. In Carlton, the disappearance of violence prevention funding, mentoring and peer leadership training affects all 350 students. "As a result of reduced program funding, there are fewer contact points for young people to be connected to caring adults," Haglin says. "The way our society is now, young people need more opportunities to make positive connections. Currently, the exact opposite is happening."
More than 90 percent of nonprofits cited one or more key ways in which declines in funding have reduced their ability to provide youth development programs and services during the past two years. Cuts are felt in reduced staff hours (43 percent of nonprofits have laid off staff), the elimination of programs and reduced service levels. In addition, staff are working harder, performing multiple roles and spending less time on program development and planning. Two years ago, the YWCA of St. Paul had to consolidate three programs specifically for girls and young women into one program because of limited funding, and recently it had to merge the consolidated program (Girls Life Empowerment and Awareness Program) into a co-ed program, although it still provides some gender-specific programming. "This was a tough decision for us," says Linda Garrett-Johnson, director of youth development at the St. Paul YWCA, "because research maintains that girls need separate time for themselves. They need a safe place to learn, free from the distraction of young men, where they can talk about issues relevant to them. We are fortunate to have program space which allows us to continue to provide this environment for our girls. While we continue to be grateful for funding that supports our gender-specific activities, for some reason," Garrett-Johnson says, "funding for girls is not always a number-one priority." What's more, nonprofits say there is little time or money for outreach. "The hard-to-reach are even less apt to be reached now because of reduced staff and the reduced ability of people to be out there connecting with kids," Haglin says.
Youth advocates cite increasing drug use and criminal behavior on the part of kids who have too much time on their hands and few adult role models. In communities throughout the state where youth programs are suffering, drug and methamphetamine use is rising, as are truancy rates, some grantmakers report. "Families on the line are falling through the cracks," Edwards says. "The repercussions will be costly, in money and wasted lives." Garrett-Johnson is sympathetic to government officials who are trying to stretch scarce resources, but she wonders whether the real cost-benefit ratios are understood. "We are trying to put the puzzle together — the puzzle is the dollar bill," she says. "Where are the pieces going to go? It's not an 'either/or,' it's an 'and.' As crime in the community increases, public safety becomes a top priority. If you're trying to keep communities safe, after-school programs play a significant role in doing this, which is an important, yet different role than prisons." As one funder notes, young people need opportunities to develop strong work habits, a sense of ethics and morality — the values that make them productive citizens and community members as adults. "I have great concern that today's youth are not going to have these opportunities to help them become healthy adults," Haglin says. "It's kind of scary."
Nonprofits have long complained that grantmakers are more inclined to fund particular programs and less willing to pay for the infrastructure — operating support, including salaries and overhead — that makes those programs possible. Seventy-eight percent of youth-serving nonprofits believe general operating dollars are the most critically underfunded type of support for youth development programming, according to the survey. Many said that receiving operating support would free up their time to develop better programs. "We need operating money," Edwards says frankly. "I'm the only employee here, so I'm doing everything for the program. I plan the activities, set everything up, negotiate special rates for facilities and office supplies, do the fundraising. We need another person." Volunteers don't make up the difference, nonprofit leaders say. Even if they are available, volunteers don't usually have the expertise of trained staff. And they are not as reliable because the organization is seldom their top priority.
This emerged as a key issue in the report. There are two possible reasons. First, Minnesota has the highest percentage in the nation of youth ages 10-12 who are home alone after school — 42 percent. Second, survey responses were affected by the state's 2003 unallotment process, which cut earmarked funds for after-school enrichment programs by 69 percent, and the governor's proposal to eliminate such funds in the 2004-2005 budget. The program has supplied about $10 million annually for about five years to collaborative groups around the state. But, says Chris Ganzlin, program officer at The McKnight Foundation. "the most important thing is that we've never had enough resources in youth development." Even so, the most recent round of cuts for after-school programming were particularly painful. "Most of the people engaged in this work are incredibly creative and resourceful," Ganzlin says. "They know how to maximize use of space, people, food, curriculum. They're experts. We finally had some resources that seemed sustainable — and it's doubly hard when they're eliminated because finally there had been some infrastructure." One sign of the times, Ganzlin reports: At The McKnight Foundation, of 36 grant proposals for out-of-school time in a recent funding cycle, at least one-third have waiting lists of kids not being served.
Youth advocates believe that after-school (or, more broadly, out-of-school) programs are good for communities in countless ways. "It impacts everyone, but I'm not sure everyone understands that," Garrett-Johnson says. "After-school programs are not add-ons," she continues. "For many of the families we serve, our after-school programs are part of the glue that holds the family together. These programs can provide a long-term, positive impact on our community. Families in more stress have to take more time off from work because a lot of parents are called to the schools for problems with children. For them to be employees who are able to concentrate on their work, these programs are key." While some communities have found ways to continue academic after-school programs, others, such as recreation and leadership, have gone by the wayside. "Every child doesn't need the same thing," Haglin says. "Having an array of services and opportunities is critical to help each child grow into their full potential." Simer notes another problem: "In many programs that continue to operate, the dollars that are there are targeted toward dealing with a specific issue, diagnosis or problem. So in order to provide young people with opportunities, you have to label them: A mental health issue, a chemical health issue and so on. We may be getting around it by doing that, but it creates a perception of young people as a series of problems that need to be fixed — that teenage is a malady you need to grow out of."
Without transportation, many young people can't take part in youth programs. It's often recommended that organizations share the substantial cost of a van that is unused part of the day. But that isn't as easy as it sounds, Garrett-Johnson says. Transportation logistics are so complex and collaboration can cause other problems, including confusion for families. The underfunding of family support is particularly challenging because such programming is integral to developing healthy youth. "We are not the parent and don't replace the parent — many children go home at the end of the day," Garrett-Johnson says. "Learning what strengthens the parent-child relationship and the family benefits the child in the end, and increases the likelihood that the child will be successful both in the school and the community."
With fewer foundations and less personal giving in Greater Minnesota, it is easy to assume that youth organizations outside the metro area are hurting more than urban organizations. But Edwards at R.E.A.C.H. has a different view of things. "Here in Carlton County we are really working on collaboration as the major mode of operation," Edwards says. "The end result is that there is less duplication of services, more families and youth are reached throughout the county, and the funds stretch further. There are differences between urban and rural costs. I believe that it probably evens out, all things considered."
Garrett-Johnson agrees, but cautions that requiring licensure or some other demonstration of competence from youth workers could be a mistake. What is important is to support organizations in a way that they can maintain their identity, uniqueness and high standards and train their staff well, she says. The lack of respect for youth work may be a byproduct of society's attitude toward young people in general. Simer recalls a 1997 survey, conducted by the Ad Council and Ronald McDonald House Charities, which reported that the majority of adults surveyed (61 percent) believe young people face a crisis in their values and morals, look at teenagers with misgiving, and view them as undisciplined, disrespectful and unfriendly. "We're saying we've got to fix this problem, rather than saying they have something to offer," Simer says. "Young people are already good, creative, intelligent, contributing members of society, and we need to support that."
As the report points out, funders and nonprofits don't see eye to eye on the issue of long-term funding. Grantmakers said they valued long-term relationships with grantees. But nonprofits feel they must spend too much time trying to raise money year after year. "If grants were made to cover longer periods of time, there would be greater demonstration of the results of a program's efforts to the community," Edwards says. "And if grants lasted longer than a year, more time could be used for program planning, development and implementation. Program planning and development is especially important during these changing times, when county and state services to families and youth are decreasing, leaving them increasingly out there on their own."
Many grantmakers say the field needs more research and best practices, as well as a sense of commitment. "We've got to rally the energy," Haglin says. "We really need to focus on advocacy for young people and must start carrying the message saying youth development programming benefits everyone, not just young people... I truly believe the investments we make in our young people will significantly benefit our communities." At the same time, some nonprofits express a need to stay focused on the young people they are serving, not some abstract principle. "We need best practices and standards that are flexible and adaptable to a variety of settings, and that are respectful of different cultural communities," Garrett-Johnson says. "But the bottom line is healthy kids and families. It's not about trying to prove research or best practices, it's about ensuring we are doing what will help create healthy communities."
The heartening news is that an effort is already under way to develop a statewide, long-range master plan for youth services. The Minnesota Out-of-School-Time Commission has recently published research about youth policy and is working on a plan to help create a more sustainable system of support. The commission — part of a loose coalition of private foundations, state agencies, schools, community education and higher education, organized by the University of Minnesota — is expected to present recommendations by the end of this year. Simer urges the field not to overlook the contributions youths themselves can make to the discussion. "One of things that's not being done well enough is actually engaging young people themselves in trying to figure out how to change this system," she says.
Adults tend to romanticize their childhoods and imagine they grew up without "youth development" and youth workers, Haglin says. "This is often a misconception," she adds. "I'll never forget a man in his 50s who came to a KIDS PLUS meeting about 10 years ago. He said, 'When I grew up and went to the skating rink there was a caretaker and all the kids knew him, and we had a teen center and went there for Friday night dances. This town does not have what I had available to me back in 1940s and early 1950s.'" Haglin points out another misconception as well — that only at-risk or low-income kids need youth development activities. "Everybody needs it," Haglin says. "There are some pretty needy kids at all levels of income. Society wants to get off the hook by saying, 'Oh, well, as long as we take care of the 20 percent that are most economically needy, we're fine.' I don't think that's the way it is anymore. If there are no available youth programs or activities, a lot of young people are home after school on their own. That is a great concern." Prospects for the near term remain uncertain. "My hope and
expectation is that we've weathered the worst of the recession and as
assets grow, resources will be available again," Ganzlin says.
|
||||||||
|
|
Home
| About MCF |
Grantseeking
in Minnesota |
What Is Grantmaking & Philanthropy?
| MCF Resources |
Trends
& Analysis |
Links of Interest |
Giving Forum Online |
What's
New |
Members Forum
privacy | terms of use | site map | search | questions or comments? contact MCF's webmaster
