The Future of Youth Development: Building Systems and Strengthening Programs (2025)
Chapter: Front Matter
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the Wallace Foundation (20220067). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
Support for the work of the Board on Children, Youth, and Families is provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (81141).
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72185-1
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27833
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025938467
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.
The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. The Future of Youth Development: Building Systems and Strengthening Programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27833.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON PROMOTING LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN K–12 OUT OF SCHOOL TIME SETTINGS FOR LOW INCOME AND MARGINALIZED CHILDREN AND YOUTH
DEBORAH A. MORONEY (Chair), American Institutes for Research
THOMAS AKIVA, University of Pittsburgh School of Education
JULIE A. BALDWIN, Northern Arizona University
HORATIO BLACKMAN, National Urban League
DALTON CONLEY, Princeton University, NBER & New York Genome Center
RYAN J. GAGNON, Clemson University
SUSANNA LOEB, Stanford University (as of November 2023)
HELEN J. MALONE, Institute for Educational Leadership
FE MONCLOA, University of California, Cooperative Extension (emeritus)
JENNIFER M. RINEHART, Afterschool Alliance
GERARD ROBINSON, University of Virginia
SANDRA SIMPKINS, University of California, Irvine
EMILIE P. SMITH, Michigan State University
NATASHA M. STRASSFELD, The University of Texas at Austin
MAYUMI WILLGERODT, University of Washington School of Nursing
Study Staff
PRIYANKA NALAMADA, Study Director
REBEKAH HUTTON, Senior Program Officer
MEREDITH YOUNG, Associate Program Officer
MAYA REDDI, Research Associate (as of December 2023)
ELONAY KEFLEZGHI, Senior Program Assistant
EMILY P. BACKES, Deputy Board Director
BOARD ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES
JONATHAN TODRES (Chair), Georgia State University College of Law
TAMMY CHANG, University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine
DEBRA FURR-HOLDEN, New York University, School of Global Public Health
ANDREA GONZALEZ, McMaster University, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences
NIA J. HEARD-GARRIS, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine
NANCY E. HILL, Harvard University, Graduate School of Education
CHARLES HOMER, Harvard University, Department of Pediatrics
MARGARET KUKLINSKI, University of Washington, School of Social Work
MICHAEL C. LU, The University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health
STEPHEN W. PATRICK, Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health
JENNY S. RADESKY, University of Michigan Medical School
STEPHEN T. RUSSELL, The University of Texas at Austin, School of Human Ecology
JANE WALDFOGEL, Columbia University, School of Social Work
JOANNA LEE WILLIAMS, Search Institute
Staff
NATACHA BLAIN, Senior Board Director
EMILY P. BACKES, Deputy Board Director
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report, nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by KENNETH A. DODGE, Public Policy and Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, and JEANNE BROOKS-GUNN, Child Development, Teachers College, Columbia University.
They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
This report would not have been possible without the contributions of many people. First, we thank the sponsor of this study—the Wallace Foundation. We would also like to thank the following organizations and individuals for their support of the mission of the Board on Children, Youth, and Families: The Burke Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, the New Venture Fund, the Renaissance Charitable/RCF Giving Fund, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, David V. B. Britt, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Tammy Chang, Greg J. Duncan, Daniel Menelly, Sherry Glied, Andrea Gonzalez, Nia Heard-Garris, Nancy Hill, Charles J. Homer, Kay Johnson, Margaret Kuklinski, Michael Lu, Velma McBride Murry, Linda A. Nelson, Stephen Patrick, Jenny Radesky, Stephen Russell, Nisha Sachdev, Jonathan Todres, Jane Waldfogel, Joanna Williams, and Barbara L. Wolfe.
The committee and project staff would also like to express their gratitude to the numerous experts and consultants who contributed to the development of the report. We thank the Mathematica and Youth-Nex teams for conducting extensive literature reviews: Linda Rosenberg, Krista O’Connell, Nancy L. Deutsch, Jessica V. Forrester, Ashlee L. Sjogren, and Dana Sox.
We also thank Jennifer Saunders for her writing contributions. We thank the researchers who prepared commissioned papers or memos for the committee: Arielle Lentz, Jill Young, Marlo Reeves, Tammy Kolbe, Kathleen Traphagen, Rebecca Goldberg, Nikki Yamashiro, Brandis Stockman, Bianca Baldridge, and Deepa Vasudevan. Many individuals volunteered significant time and effort to address and educate the committee during our public information-gathering sessions. Their willingness to share their perspectives, research, and personal experiences was essential to the committee’s work.
We thank Michael Funk, Kinyatta Trice, Jennifer Skuza, Denice Williams, Anna Harutyunyan, Melissa Sadorf, Gina Warner, Kim Robinson, Jessica Donner, Andrew Blickle, Charles Haywood, Katherine Wiley, Andrew Coy, Rob Smith, Tavaghn Monts, Fauzia Ibrahim, Walker Moseley, Eileen Cavanaugh, Genesis Griffin, Susan Sekaquaptewa, Sheronda Witter, and Philip Steigman. We also thank these young people for sharing their candid reflections on their time in out-of-school-time programming: Eve Dowdell, Issa Ouarid, Jevah Hubbard-Dance, Kayleen Diaz, Langston Thompson, Lenox Thompson, Donyel Marbley, Karen Nguyen, Jay’len Tyson, Su’anma Davis, and Madelyn Hinkelman.
The committee thanks the numerous National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) staff for their support over the study process. We thank the staff members who worked directly with the committee: Priyanka Nalamada, Emily Backes, Rebekah Hutton, Maya Reddi, and Elonay Keflezghi, as well as Meredith Young. Throughout the project, Natacha Blain, director of the Board on Children, Youth, and Families, provided valuable oversight and guidance.
The committee is also grateful to Javed Khan, Elise Mialou, Pamella Atayi, Faye Hillman, and Lisa Alston for their administrative and financial assistance on this project; to Kirsten Sampson Snyder, Douglas Sprunger, and Kimberly Halperin, who shepherded the report through the review and the production process and assisted with its communication and dissemination; to Clair Woolley and Bea Porter for their assistance with the production of the final report; and to Anne Marie Houppert and Christopher Lao-Scott, in the National Academies research library, for their assistance with literature searches.
Finally, special thanks go to the members of the committee, who dedicated extensive time, expertise, and energy to drafting the report, and to the committee chair, Deborah Moroney, for her expert leadership in guiding the committee.
THEORETICAL MODELS SPECIFIC TO OST SETTINGS
APPLYING A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE TO OST
THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES IN SUPPORT OF OST SYSTEMS
THE ROLE OF PHILANTHROPY IN SUPPORT OF OST SYSTEMS
4 OST Programs and Participation
THE LANDSCAPE OF OST PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT OF PARTICIPATION IN OST PROGRAMS
Demographics of OST Participation Among All U.S. Children and Youth
Demographics of Participants Within OST Programs
UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATION IN OST PROGRAMS
Key Factors Affecting Enrollment and Participation
Increasing Access to Safe and Reliable Transportation
Reducing or Eliminating Program Costs
Centering Youth and Community in Policy and Programming
PROFILE OF THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT WORKFORCE
RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND ADVANCEMENT OF STAFF IN OST SETTINGS
Visibility, Recognition, and Respect
Opportunities for Professional Development
Organizational Constraints and Culture
OPPORTUNITIES TO STRENGTHEN THE WORKFORCE TRAJECTORY FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PRACTITIONERS
Further Data Collection and Research on the OST Workforce
6 OST Implementation: Program Quality and Experiences
Cost of High-Quality OST Programs
OST EXPERIENCES: WHAT HAPPENS INSIDE OST PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES IN SUPPORT OF PROGRAM QUALITY
Management Information Systems
7 Effectiveness and Outcomes of OST Programs
CONSIDERING PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS: WHEN, HOW, AND FOR WHOM
METHODOLOGY FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW
OUTCOMES FOR POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT
Graduation and Educational Attainment
OUTCOMES FOR VIOLENCE PREVENTION, SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION, AND MITIGATION OF OTHER RISK BEHAVIORS
OUTCOMES FOR PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
OUTCOMES FOR FAMILY AND PEER RELATIONSHIPS
8 Current OST Funding and Policies
Other Roles of the Federal Government
State-Level Funding and Policies Shaping OST
THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES IN SUPPORTING FUNDING AND POLICY
PHILANTHROPIC FUNDING AND SUPPORT
Investing in Public–Private Partnerships
Investing in Field Advancement
Future Directions in Philanthropy for OST Programs
WHAT DOES THE CURRENT FUNDING AND POLICY LANDSCAPE MEAN AT THE PROGRAM LEVEL?
9 Ensuring High-Quality OST Opportunities for All Children and Youth
GOAL 1: SUPPORT THE FUNDING STABILITY OF OST PROGRAMS
GOAL 3: ADVANCE PROGRAM QUALITY EFFORTS TO FOSTER ENRICHING, SAFE, AND SUPPORTIVE OST SETTINGS
GOAL 6: IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF OST PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND OUTCOMES
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROGRAM LEADERS
Data Collection and Evaluation
Program Quality and Program Practices
Appendix A Detailed Study Tables Supporting Chapter 7
Appendix B American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
S-1 Outcomes: Overall Takeaways
1-2 Relevant National Academies Reports
1-3 Key Terms Used in the Report
2-1 Healing-Centered Engagement
3-1 Million Girls Moonshot: A STEM-Focused OST Initiative Applying a Systems Approach
3-2 Examples of City Intermediary Organizations
3-3 Every Hour Counts: A National Network of Intermediary Organizations for System-Level Impact
3-4 Philanthropic Funding Types Supporting OST Systems and Settings
4-1 Considerations, Barriers, and Demand Around OST Programs Among Rural Families
4-2 Unsupervised Time—An Alternative to OST Participation
4-3 Youth-Centered Approaches to Supporting Participation in OST Programs
5-1 Professional Development Approaches for Youth Development Practitioners
5-2 Examples of Higher Education Degree and Training Programs
6-1 Young People’s Experiences in OST Programs
7-1 Common Research Methods in Evaluating OST Programs and Activities
7-2 Outcomes Affected Positively by OST Programs and Activities
7-3 Outcomes for Social and Emotional Learning: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-4 Outcomes for Youth Identity and Culture: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-5 Outcomes for Civic Engagement: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-6 Outcomes for Academic Success: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-9 Outcomes for Physical and Mental Health: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-10 Outcomes for Family and Peer Relationships: Summary of Studies Reviewed
7-11 Long-Term Outcomes: Summary of Studies Reviewed
8-1 Federal Pandemic-Related Relief Funds Supporting OST Programs
8-2 Examples of Securing Dedicated State-Level Funding for OST
8-3 Governance Models for Local OST Intermediaries
9-1 Research Needs for Building Evidence on OST Program Effectiveness and Outcomes
B-1 State Education Agency Afterschool and Summer Set-Aside Spending
FIGURES
1-1 Timeline of major contemporary events and investments in the youth development field, 1993–2024
2-2 Lerner & Lerner updated thriving model
2-3 University of Chicago Consortium on School Research developmental framework
2-4 Depiction of bioecological theory
2-5 Developmental ecological model
2-6 PARC (programs, activities, relationships, and culture) model
2-7 PARC (programs, activities, relationships, and culture) extension model
2-8 Harvard Family Research Project model of participation
2-9 Model of routine activity theory
2-10 The QuEST (quality, engagement, skill, and transfer) model
3-1 OST system within a learning and development ecosystem
4-1 Landscape of out-of-school-time (OST) settings, programs, and activities
4-5 Changes in participation in out-of-school-time activities by grade level since 2009
4-7 Parents choose out-of-school-time programs through multiple pathways
8-1 Primary funding sources for out-of-school-time programs by OST providers, 2023
8-2 Complexity and considerations of out-of-school-time (OST) program funding
TABLES
3-1 Coordination Functions of OST Intermediary Organizations
4-1 Out-of-School-Time (OST) Programs That Parents Reported Their Children Participate in, 2020
4-2 Out-of-School-Time Program Participants by Select Demographics
5-1 Select Characteristics of Respondents to the Power of Us Workforce Survey
6-1 Features of Positive Developmental Settings—Annotated
8-2 State Revenue Sources Directed to Out-of-School-Time (OST) Programs
Preface
It has been more than 20 years since the publication of Community Programs to Promote Youth Development (a.k.a. the Blue Book). Since then, other seminal studies have explored, described, and elevated the youth development field and out-of-school-time (OST) programs. My professional career trajectory has in part followed this history, starting out as a participant in a community drop-in center in the 1980s to my role as a researcher in the youth development field to now having the honor of chairing this esteemed committee. It has been more than 20 years since I attended my first national field conference and recognized that my job in a local community-based program in Chicago was a part of a much larger national movement. I acknowledge and celebrate how much has changed in those 20-plus years.
The youth development field has seen the evolution of intermediaries and other cross-sector partnerships in support of strong programs and program access, and the rise of the quality movement and related measures, standards, and practices. As a result, we have seen the rise of a stronger, more unified workforce and aligned supports, despite the ever-complicated funding landscape. In this study, the committee endeavored to explore, describe, and elevate the landscape, evidence, and narratives that depict today’s OST experience.
Program participation has increased, but not for all children and youth. There remains a strong unmet demand for programs from families with marginalized backgrounds, for those in rural settings, and lower participation overall among teens. Much of the early research on youth development, including the Blue Book, was focused on programs for teens. Yet, today teens make up, as far as we know, the smallest portion of program
participants. Did progress in the field (the idea that structure and regular participation are a priority) make programs less appropriate and appealing for teens today? Access to programs for teens is one of the unfulfilled promises of the youth development field at a time when it can be most beneficial. Recently, the surgeon general informed us that youth mental health is in a state of crisis. More young people today are disconnected from school or work, and we know that this only scratches the surface of what teens are going through as they weather today’s sociopolitical climate with heightened access to a plethora of information and conflict. The committee describes the landscape of program participation and demand; we need to know more about the children and youth who are not showing up for programs so we can do more to promote access to high-quality opportunities for all.
We have weathered high-stakes evaluation with often misaligned outcomes during an era of accountability and then celebrated the recognition of the role of the field in supporting participants in their learning and development. . . while still scurrying to measure how well programs were supporting the slipperiest of outcomes. We know more about what works in some programs for some participants, but because of the diversity of field-driven offerings, we do not quite have our arms around a shared logic model for programs, nonetheless a shared nomenclature. And that may be the crux of youth development: in our celebration of the grassroots, culturally responsive, and locally derived programs, we are hesitant to come to agreement on who we are and what we do to a point where we can then concretely understand how we are doing on behalf of the children, youth, families, and communities we serve.
On the other hand, families with means to pay for services and programs (care, arts, sports, and clubs) simply agree that it is a good idea for children and youth to be cared for, form positive relationships, learn something new, have fun, prepare for their future, and spark their interests. Is it necessary for us to dissect subsidized programs differently, and to what end, and at whose expense? It is certainly reasonable to assess how well public dollars are spent, but to do that we can look toward implementation quality and the diversity and richness of program offerings and let programs off the hook for moving the needle on everything. I commend the committee for grappling with the basis of evidence, and it is clear that while we need agreed-upon evidence on the relationship between systems-level supports and program implementation, and between program experiences and youth outcomes to understand what works for whom, we need to take the onus off individual programs to repeatedly prove their worth. If the committee’s microcosm of an experience in exploring the plethora of varied evidence is an indicator of the wide-ranging discourse needed to come to consensus on the basis of evidence in OST, then we have important work to do on a shared research agenda.
Intermediaries and other cross-sector partnerships built to foster cross-sector alignment were not new 20-plus years ago but were recognized and invested in as potential backbone entities for the youth development field in the absence of other public, more formal mechanisms. They remain the invisible and sometimes unsung hero in the field holding the reigns of quality, professional development, funding, and measurement for cadres of programs in a locale. Yet these intermediaries are subject to tenuous funding stability, and often their success hinges on leadership connections and political prowess—it is scary for a backbone to be strong on flimsy funding. The committee describes the many roles intermediaries play in the field, and we need to ensure we can move to stable support for intermediaries to sustain their integral role.
Trends in professional learning, possibilities for a shared labor category, definitions of core competencies, and general recognition of the importance of the youth development workforce have come a long way in the last 20 years, while some challenges remain the same, particularly for early career entrants and part-time workers. Youth development professionals report they enter and stay in the field because of their passion and sense of mission, yet passion and mission are not enough to recruit and sustain a workforce to meet the unmet demands for programs. Today, youth work practitioner pay and benefits is more on par with other service professionals than it may have been in the past, especially for those in leadership; yet service professionals (e.g., childcare workers) as a whole do not make a livable wage. The committee describes the current landscape of youth development professional pathways based on current data, which should be updated regularly so we can continue to inform policy on this essential workforce.
Support for programs and funding has grown, but not on par with demand or inflation. For a field so fundamental to child and youth experience and supportive of families, its existence remains precarious and, to be a little dramatic, at the whim of one foundation board meeting or election. Despite some hallmark federal funding and decades-long investments by a small group of foundations, funding remains precarious for something that is in the fabric of youth experience. The youth development field can and should be coordinated centrally and woven into the nation’s safety net, yet it remains supported in a disjointed manner with unheralded champions to manage coordination at all levels. The committee describes this complex policy and funding landscape at every level with recommendations to streamline processes to alleviate the onus on individual programs or systems.
It was an honor and a privilege to work shoulder to shoulder with committee members; our stellar National Academies team, including the unflappable Priyanka Nalamada; and our contributors to present the landscape of evidence in OST. In many ways, we have made great strides from
defining the field to defining what works in the field to support children, youth, and their families on their pathway to thriving. But there is more to do. Based on our experience with the many individuals on the committee, our contributors, and those experts who we heard from at public sessions, I am confident we have the right champions, researchers, and policymakers for the job.
On behalf of the National Academies and its Board on Children, Youth, and Families, we thank the Wallace Foundation for sponsoring this study and share great hopes that this report will inform momentum in the field as did the Blue Book more than 20 years ago.
Deborah A. Moroney, Chair
Committee on Promoting Learning and Development in K–12 Out of School Time
Settings for Low Income and Marginalized Children and Youth
April 2025
Acronyms and Abbreviations
| 21st CCLC | 21st Century Community Learning Centers |
| AA3 | America After 3PM |
| AANHPI | Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander |
| AAP | American Academy of Pediatrics |
| AASA | The School Superintendents Association |
| ACT | “Active by Choice Today” |
| Add Health | National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health |
| AIR | American Institutes for Research |
| AISL | Advancing Informal STEM Learning |
| APT | Assessment of Afterschool Program Practices Tool |
| ARP | American Rescue Plan |
| ASES | After School Education and Safety Program |
| ASM | After School Matters |
| BMI | body mass index |
| CBOs | community-based organizations |
| CCDBG | Child Care and Development Block Grant |
| CCDF | Child Care and Development Fund |
| CDBG | Community Development Block Grant |
| CDC | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
| COMPASS | Community of Many Providing After School Success |
| CRS | Congressional Research Service |
| DoD | U.S. Department of Defense |
| DOL | U.S. Department of Labor |
| ED | U.S. Department of Education |
| ELO | expanded learning opportunities |
| ELO-P | Expanded Learning Opportunities Program |
| EPI | Evidence for Program Improvement |
| ESEA | Elementary and Secondary Education Act |
| ESSA | Every Student Succeeds Act |
| ESSER | Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund |
| FERPA | Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act |
| FRPL | free or reduced-price lunch |
| FSCS | Full-Service Community Schools |
| HHS | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services |
| IEPs | Individualized Education Programs |
| IES | Institute of Education Sciences |
| IOM | Institute of Medicine |
| IROP | Imani Rites of Passage |
| ITEST | Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers |
| IWGYP | Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs |
| JJDPA | Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act |
| MVPA | moderate-to-vigorous physical activity |
| NAA | National AfterSchool Association |
| NELS | National Education Longitudinal Study |
| NICHD | National Institute of Child Health and Human Development |
| NIFA | National Institute of Food and Agriculture |
| NLC | National League of Cities |
| NPSS | National Partnership for Student Success |
| NRC | National Research Council |
| NSF | National Science Foundation |
| OCFS | Office of Children and Family Services |
| OJJDP | Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention |
| OST | out-of-school-time |
| O2L | Out 2 Learn |
| PARC | programs, activities, relationships, and culture |
| PASA | Providence Afterschool Alliance |
| PASL | peer-assisted social learning |
| PAX GBG | PAX Good Behavior Game |
| PD | professional development |
| PTSD | post-traumatic stress disorder |
| PVEST | phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory |
| PYD | positive youth development |
| QIN | Quinault Indian Nation |
| QIS | quality improvement systems |
| QuEST | quality, engagement, skill, and transfer |
| RCT | randomized controlled trial |
| REL | Regional Educational Laboratory Program |
| RFPs | request for proposals |
| SAC | School Age Center |
| SAN | state afterschool network |
| SBP | School Breakfast Program |
| SEA | state education agency |
| SEL | social and emotional learning |
| SIBS | Siblings are Special |
| SJYD | social justice youth development |
| STEAM | science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics |
| STEM | science, technology, engineering, and mathematics |
| STEPs | Strategies-To-Enhance-Practice |
| SYEP | Summer Youth Employment Program |
| TANF | Temporary Assistance for Needy Families |
| UCS | Unified Champion Schools |
| USDA | U.S. Department of Agriculture |
| VISTA | Volunteers in Service to America |
| WIOA | Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act |
| YLP | Youth Leaders Project |
| Youth PQA | Youth Program Quality Assessment |
| YPAR | youth participatory action research |
| YRBS | Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System |
This page intentionally left blank.
