Future of After-School Program in Doubt

Surplus funds from a federal Community Development Block Grant will most likely close a $300,000 budget gap in the LA’s BEST after-school program this year, but future funding for the acclaimed program remains in doubt.

LA’s BEST (Better Educated Students for Tomorrow) officials met with representatives from a variety of city agencies Wednesday at a special meeting of the City Council’s Arts, Health and Humanities Committee to address the program’s budget shortfall and begin what Councilman Mike Feuer promised would be a comprehensive review of the city’s after-school programs.

Asked by Feuer to identify possible funding sources, Karen Kalfayan, a representative of the city’s chief administrative officer, said money is available to cover the current shortfall from savings in the federal block grant.

“That will work this year, but there is no guarantee in the future,” Kalfayan said.

First conceived during the Tom Bradley administration, LA’s BEST currently provides academic and recreational activities at 24 LAUSD elementary campuses in neighborhoods deemed most vulnerable to drugs, gangs and crime.

At a cost of about $600 per student per year, the program serves 5,000 district students. It faces an unprecedented budget shortfall next year as funding from the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, which has covered the bulk of LA’s BEST’s operating budget, is due to dry up with the end of the fiscal year June 30.

“We have been successful in breaking down the notion that inner-city students don’t want structure and the notion that they won’t sign up for academic programs,” said Carla Sanger, who has headed the program since its inception. “Most importantly we have demonstrated a capacity to reconnect neighborhoods to schools.”

Feuer, who convened the meeting, said it was imperative to keep the program afloat.

“We want to ensure that there will be a truly comprehensive array of after-school activities at our schools,” Feuer said. “We cannot afford to let LA’s BEST go without adequate funding. It would be scandalous to do so.”