Austin officials outline expansion plans for after‑school and out‑of‑school programs, cite staffing and data gaps

Austin officials and partners on the joint AISD‑city‑county subcommittee on Wednesday described plans to expand after‑school and out‑of‑school‑time (OST) programming across Austin, and flagged staffing shortages, limited data on the true unmet need and potential tax relief for childcare providers.

The district’s Third Base after‑school program is in a multi‑year expansion that will grow offerings on elementary campuses in three phases. City Parks and Recreation officials described their after‑school, summer and teen programs, and Travis County staff said the county is working to build a system to better measure demand. Subcommittee members discussed the need to map programs and participants so the city, county and district can target funding and workforce pipelines.

The expansion plan from Austin ISD’s Third Base program aims to increase campus coverage over three school years. Jeremy Martorell, director of the AISD Third Base after‑school program, told the subcommittee: “Phase 1 will occur during the 23‑24 school year … at 24 locations. Phase 2 … is gonna expand to 16 more locations. And then in phase 3 … we will expand to 38 locations.” Martorell said the program is tuition‑based and that the current tuition is $275 per month. He told board members the program received a childcare relief fund grant in prior years that helped preserve revenue while expanding services.

Officials said staffing is the primary bottleneck. Martorell said the program targets a staffing ratio of “1 to 18,” and that the district is recruiting part‑time hourly staff while full‑time director positions are filled. He said at some campuses space is also a limiting factor; for example, he said Lee Elementary serves “over a 100 students” and “there's close to 60 students … on that wait list.” The district’s packet notes a systemwide wait list of about 325 for current offerings.

Commissioner Trevillion pressed for specifics on the workforce pipeline and training, asking for a clear path to prepare entry‑level staff. Trevillion asked, “What are the parameters for preparing someone for an entry level into childcare … with whom in order to train somebody?” Martorell said entry‑level hires must be at least 18 and have a high school diploma or be in a career‑prep program at a high school.

City Parks and Recreation Director Kimberly McNeely described the department’s after‑school and summer portfolio and how the city subsidizes costs. McNeely said the city’s average after‑school cost is $140 per week, with a reduced cost of $70 per week for families who meet certain criteria and additional scholarship tiers for qualifying households. For summer camp she said the base rate is $560 per week with similar subsidy options. McNeely described quality assessment measures the department uses, including the Youth Program Quality (YPQ) assessment and locally adopted standards of care that mirror state licensing ratios and staff qualifications.

Travis County planner Sarah Stone said county staff are trying to build systems to capture who is being served and where. “What we’re finding is that we don’t have the systems within the city or the county to capture those numbers,” Stone said, adding county staff are compiling registration lists and TEA (Title I) program inventories but that multiple funding streams and program types complicate a single count. Stone noted the county is tracking summer programs and ‘‘expanded learning’’ in addition to after‑school care.

Subcommittee members urged a coordinated asset map across AISD, the city and county. Council Member Allison Alter said the group should “identify all of the things that are being done, where they’re being effective, and then where there are gaps so that we can expand in places where successful programs need resources.” Members discussed using simple modeling assumptions — for example, putting a projected participation rate (AISD noted many campuses have roughly 8–10% after‑school participation; Lee Elementary was cited as an outlier at 20–23%) against campus enrollments — to derive a starting estimate of unmet need.

Funding and policy steps were also reviewed. Alter reported the City of Austin adopted a state ballot measure, referred to in the meeting as Proposition 2, to allow a 100 percent property‑tax exemption for qualifying childcare providers; she said Travis County adopted a similar exemption. She noted providers must apply to the Travis Central Appraisal District and meet eligibility requirements. Commissioner Bridget Shea emphasized a landlord affidavit requirement when the exemption is claimed for a rental facility so savings are passed to the childcare operator.

Participants stressed program quality while expanding access. Martorell said the AISD program is a licensed provider able to accept tuition assistance from workforce solutions, City of Austin programs, Child Care Aware, Austin Community College and its own financial aid program. McNeely said the city’s recreation programs conduct YPQ assessments and deliver staff training tied to those observations.

Leaders also discussed summer capacity: Martorell said AISD expanded summer camp capacity from about 100 students to 400 this summer and increased the number of weeks offered from seven to ten; two camps were full with wait lists at the time of the meeting. The city reported roughly 720 summer spaces in recreation‑center programs and about 720 available across summer camp sites, while also reporting the city served roughly 1,400 individuals with financial aid across OST offerings and distributed about 90,000 meals through program sites.

Next steps the subcommittee discussed included directing staff to produce an asset map and high‑level unmet‑need estimate for Austin (city and county), drilling into workforce pipelines and compensation levels for after‑school staff, and evaluating approaches to expand tax‑exemption or direct subsidy options for family‑based providers. Several members said they wanted follow‑up data in time for the next meeting on June 10.

The item was for discussion; no new ordinance or funding action was taken at the meeting. The subcommittee approved the prior meeting minutes at the start of the session and moved on to subsequent agenda items.