Supervisors hear wide‑ranging estimates on cost, capacity of “After School for All” plan

San Francisco — San Francisco Unified School District and city staff told the Board of Supervisors’ Rules Committee on June 11 that the city lacks enough school‑site after‑school slots to serve an estimated 10,253 K–5 students who are not currently enrolled but could want a program.

Associate Superintendent Kevin Truitt told supervisors the district serves 15,752 of 26,005 elementary school students in after‑school programs, leaving 10,253 children unserved and 34 schools with waiting lists. He outlined current funding that combines federal grants, district funds and city contributions and warned that some grants are time‑limited and must be renewed.

The most immediate fiscal question is how much it would cost to provide after‑school seats at every school for families that want them. Neli (Melly) Lau Smith, executive director of school partnerships, presented three modeling scenarios. Using SFUSD’s Excel after‑school grant averages produces an annual cost estimate of about $16.5 million to cover the additional students. Using early‑education (EED) program ratios and costings yields a higher estimate of about $30.6 million a year. A midpoint approach produced an intermediate estimate of roughly $19 million annually.

Why the spread? Lau Smith and Truitt said the unit cost varies with staffing ratios and program design: Excel programs typically operate at a staff‑to‑student ratio near 1:20 and average roughly $1,615 per student, while early‑education programs use smaller ratios (closer to 1:14) and cost closer to $2,994 per student. Truitt said the district’s combined after‑school spending described in the presentation totaled about $21 million and that, under current funding, the district covers about 11,291 students at approximately $1,860 per pupil.

Grant instability is part of the funding challenge. Truitt noted that ACES and 21st Century grants are multi‑year awards that require reapplication and eligibility thresholds tied to free‑and‑reduced‑price lunch rates, so those revenues are not guaranteed every year. City staff and SFUSD representatives estimated roughly $9.2 million in grant revenue and about $5 million in DCYF matching funds in the current mix.

To reduce the local funding gap, staff discussed an equitable family co‑pay model. Lau Smith said a simple scenario in which 40% of non‑eligible families paid half the Excel per‑student cost would generate about $8.1 million annually and could reduce the district’s unfunded share, but she emphasized that co‑pay uptake is an uncertain assumption.

Supervisors pressed repeatedly on program quality and equity. Several asked how after‑school work is aligned with school‑day academic goals and whether quality supports and evaluation are sufficient. Truitt and Lau Smith said the district and the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families (DCYF) have coaching, technical assistance and annual quality action plans tied to school goals; they noted site principals help identify priority students for limited seats.

Public commenters urged caution about co‑pays and stressed equity concerns. Parent and provider testimony warned that an $800 annual co‑pay (the example used in the presentation) would be unaffordable for many working families and that after‑school should be accessible without creating new financial barriers. Several community speakers also urged preserving community‑based providers and ensuring culturally responsive programming.

Procedural outcome: after public comment, the committee unanimously moved to file the item for the record so staff and supervisors could continue work on implementation details.

The SFUSD and DCYF officials present said they will continue refining cost models, complete parent surveys and run needs assessments to better estimate demand and design a phased approach that balances quality, equity and fiscal constraints.