9

Ensuring High-Quality OST Opportunities for All Children and Youth

In this report, the committee reviewed the evidence on out-of-school-time (OST) programs across settings for children and youth from low-income households, while considering other factors that may intersect with economic stress to marginalize¹ young people. The committee reported findings across four key areas: (1) characterizing the array of OST programs; (2) evaluating the strength and limitations of the evidence on the effectiveness of OST programs in promoting learning, development, and well-being; (3) outlining improvements to existing policies and regulations to increase program access and quality; and (4) laying out a research agenda that would strengthen the OST evidence base. In addressing these areas, the report compiles information surrounding OST settings—what programs and experiences look like, what shapes and supports programs, and in what ways programs affect young people.

Whether OST programs positively impact the outcomes of children and youth from low-income households is an important consideration that researchers in the youth development field continue to examine. In the previous chapters the committee’s goal was to capture the breadth of evidence around this question based on a variety of research methods to identify links between OST settings and a range of developmental outcomes.

___________________

¹ In a scoping review of 50 years of research, Fluit et al. (2024) synthesized an integrated definition of marginalization as “a multifaceted concept referring to a context-dependent social process of ‘othering,’ where certain individuals or groups are systematically excluded based on societal norms and values, as well as the resulting experiences of disadvantage” (p. 1). The authors note that both the process and outcomes of marginalization can vary significantly across contexts (Fluit et al., 2024). See Box 1-3 in Chapter 1.

The committee found that OST programs and activities are effective in supporting positive youth development, but effects vary. This variation is due in part to young people’s needs, participation, and unique experiences in programs, which are affected by the programs themselves but also by the sectors and systems within the larger OST ecosystem. Less clear is whether certain activities are more effective, whether activities indeed do have larger effects on certain outcomes, or whether the preponderance of evidence varies by the methods used in the research.

While additional research is needed to fully appraise when OST activities matter, how they matter, for whom, and under what conditions, decades of research and practice point to OST programs playing a critical role in child and youth development as a bridge between school, home, and community and a place for personal growth, relationship-building, learning, skill-building, and career exploration. For children and youth from affluent families, these experiences are part of their normal life course, and children and youth from low-income households are eager for these opportunities—data show that 11 million children and youth from low-income households would enroll in a program if one were available.

Importantly, public interest and investment in OST programs arose in large part from a historical need for structured safe spaces for children and youth after the school day that would allow parents and caregivers to work and for young people to have productive spaces to form meaningful relationships. OST programs continue to meet this need today. Research shows that parents overwhelmingly view OST programs as helping working families keep their jobs or work more hours, a view that may be more prominent among low-income families, where parents are more likely to be in service occupations with less flexible schedules (Afterschool Alliance, 2022; Douglas-Hall & Chan, 2007; Harknett et al., 2020). There is also a general consensus that OST opportunities for adolescents are preferable to other less-productive or unsafe and unstructured activities teens have access to, and that OST programs remain a critical, ongoing connector to school participation.

In its review of the evidence, the committee found that effectiveness of programs is linked to youth participation and engagement and the quality of programming. Providing high-quality OST experiences for all children and youth requires strong OST systems and organizational capacity, a stable and well-trained workforce, and high-quality programming that is responsive to the needs of the populations being served. Current funding levels and support structures are insufficient for meeting these requirements and for meeting the demand for OST programs.

The committee’s conclusions pave the way for a blueprint for efforts to better ensure high-quality OST opportunities for all children and youth, recognizing (1) the role OST programs play in supporting parental and

caregiver work, (2) the gap in access between affluent and low-income families, and (3) the overall positive association of high-quality programs on youth development. The committee’s recommendations—presented below—are based in the goal of improving OST opportunities for children and youth, specifically improving the availability, accessibility, and quality of OST experiences for children and youth from low-income and marginalized backgrounds. Research on program effects can support these efforts, building an understanding of what, when, and for whom programs work effectively, ultimately maximizing programs’ positive impact by tailoring them to meet the needs of participants. The committee’s recommendations are organized across six goals: (1) support the funding stability of OST programs; (2) increase support for intermediary organizations to strengthen the organizational capacity of OST programs; (3) advance program quality efforts to foster enriching, safe, and supportive OST settings; (4) build stable, supportive environments and career pathways for youth development practitioners; (5) improve understanding of the landscape of OST programs and participation, OST staff development, program quality efforts, and OST systems; and (6) improve understanding of OST program effectiveness and outcomes.

GOAL 1: SUPPORT THE FUNDING STABILITY OF OST PROGRAMS

As discussed in Chapter 8, funding for OST programs comes from many sources, including families, private philanthropic foundations, and the government. Programs serving children and youth from low-income households are more likely than those from higher-income households to be funded through federal, state, and local grants. The federal government alone oversees 87 programs that support OST in direct and indirect ways. These investments are often designed for a specific purpose aligned with health, education, housing, food security, or workforce development and administered through a designated agency. However, with one in three requests for 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) funds declined because of lack of funding, state, local, philanthropic, and individual families are left to cover a significant portion of costs associated with OST programs.

At the same time, unmet demand for OST programs continues to grow—approximately 24.6 million children and youth would participate if programs were available (Afterschool Alliance, 2020), including more than 11 million from low-income households (Afterschool Alliance, 2024). A number of reasons may explain why demand for programs is not being met, including limited number of programs in a given area or available spots in existing programs, program costs exceeding what families can afford to pay, or lack of awareness about the programs available to them.

As summarized in Chapter 8, while public investment in children and youth from low-income households has grown over the past two decades, these investments are often designed for a specific purpose (e.g., health, education, housing, food security, workforce development) and administered through a designated agency. This has created both a fragmented and incremental portfolio of funding for children, youth, and families. With federal dollars often distributed using a formula across all 50 states, territories, and tribal communities, the dollars rarely stretch to meet the needs of children and youth, and many eligible families remain unserved (Conclusion 8-1).

The public and private systems of variable eligibility and the competitive nature of grants have led to issues of sustainability. For instance, in philanthropy the design of funding terms has increasingly favored shorter funding cycles of 1–3 years, alignment with foundations’ strategic directions, emphasis on innovation over sustainability, and foci on specific populations. Additionally, funders commonly set restrictions on indirect costs (e.g., administrative or operating costs), often below the grantees’ actual indirect rates, which can hinder the organization’s sustainability in the long run (McCray & Enright, 2016). Even the most successful programs could struggle to sustain their work if one of their funding sources discontinues (e.g., a federal discretionary grant is cut by Congress for the next fiscal year, a state changes its funding formula for its grant, a philanthropic funder changes its strategy and focus).

To fill gaps in their budgets, OST programs are left to piece together other sources of support that require more staff time and resources, challenging underresourced programs to do more with less and further widening the funding gap between smaller, grassroots organizations that may serve children and youth from low-income and marginalized backgrounds and well-established organizations with greater capacity to apply and adhere to complex grant applications and requirements.

The siloed, short-term, and restrictive nature of funding leads to increased administrative burdens and concerns around sustainability for programs. This means OST providers must constantly research, compete for, and comply with onerous accountability measures across their funding portfolio, as well as respond to funding priorities over strategic implementation of the program’s mission, instead of focusing on delivering high-quality programming that responds to the needs of children, youth, and families (Conclusion 8-2). Greater access to consistent technical assistance and professional development resources can support programs in their capacity and skills to fundraise, implement, comply with, and sustain funding at the program level. When grants do permit access to technical assistance and professional development, OST programs benefit (Conclusion 8-3).

Recommendation 1-1: Federal, state, local, and philanthropic funders should support the funding stability of out-of-school-time programs, by providing long-term, flexible funding that allows for general program support, as well as funding for staff compensation, indirect costs (i.e., administrative or operating costs), and robust evaluation. Longer-term, more flexible funding allows programs to be responsive to and best elevate the assets and meet the needs of children and youth by reducing concerns around program sustainability. Allowing the use of funds for building program capacity, such as staff compensation and professional development, which supports the growth and retention of talent to design, run, and sustain high-quality programs.

In contending with restrictive funding, some programs blend and braid funds—a practice in which two or more funding streams are used in a coordinated fashion to support a single initiative—to provide comprehensive support for children and youth in their communities (Children’s Funding Project, 2023). For example, Washington’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction allocated $500,000 in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) III funds to Altera, a nonprofit that runs OST programs for low-income, Hispanic and Native American students, and those from rural or low-income backgrounds, in grades preK–12 across Washington State. Altera used these funds to develop a curriculum grounded in place-based, asset-based, student-centered learning to increase students’ kindergarten and high school readiness; improve school-day attendance; and boost participants’ English, math, and science scores. The organization also used ESSER funds to run afterschool and summer programming in the Soap Lake and Hoquiam school districts with this curriculum. It included learning support, such as tutoring and mentoring, enrichment, and social and emotional learning programs. In September 2023, Altera received a 21st CCLC grant to continue programming at the Hoquiam School District. Through their work, made possible by ESSER funds, Altera developed a strong partnership with the Education Department of the Quinault Indian Nation (QIN), as Hoquiam School District boundaries overlap QIN reservation lands, and will use Quinault’s tribe-specific curricula, collaborating with the tribe to add new lessons over time. Federal and state agencies can make braiding of funds easier by reviewing and adjusting how their requirements might restrict which funds can be used for what purposes.

Another approach that is gaining traction is the centralization and administration of federal funding streams with one state agency, office, or division. For example, in New York State, various afterschool programs were aligned under the state’s Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) in 2023.

Regulatory changes moved the Empire State After-School² program administration from the State Education Department to OCFS to allow for stronger coordination and alignment with the Advantage After School Program³ and the Learning and Enrichment After-school Program Supports program.⁴

To promote solutions such as these, the committee offers a number of implementation considerations in the recommendations that follow.

Recommendation 1-2: Federal, state, local funders should increase coordination across funding streams and implement greater cross-sector and interagency partnership to alleviate the administrative burden on out-of-school-time programs in researching and competing for grants, and in complying with grant requirements. Reducing administrative burden on program staff can enable them to focus efforts on growing programs and improving program impact.

Specific actions could include the following:

• Federal agencies funding OST programming—such as the Department of Education (ED), Department of Labor (DOL), and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—could change, update, and/or better align the rules and nonregulatory guidance related to braiding of funding to facilitate utilization of funding sources in tandem with one another. For example, programs funded with Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funds, under HHS, are currently required to charge a fee to parents, while 21st CCLC discourages and, in some states prohibits, fees—making it impossible for programs to accept both types of funding.
• State agencies that administer formula and block grants (e.g., HHS, ED, Department of Housing and Urban Development) and/or state funding streams could adopt policies that permit and support braiding of funding for OST programs.
• State and local organizations (e.g., municipalities, state and local intermediaries, state affiliates of national youth-serving organizations) could collaborate to alleviate the burden on programs to apply for and receive funding by utilizing common monitoring metrics, quality improvement systems, and funding applications. At minimum, these organizations could utilize a common core of questions for funding applications across funding streams (e.g., CCDBG, Youth Build, 21st CCLC, and state funding streams).

___________________

² https://www.newburghschools.org/page.php?page=127

³ https://data.ny.gov/Human-Services/Advantage-After-School-Program/ae9a-zs4q/about_data

⁴ https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/childcare/leaps-after-school.php

• State agencies could consolidate the administration of funding streams for OST programs and activities under one agency, office, or division. For example, the California Office of Expanded Learning currently oversees three ongoing funding streams for Expanded Learning programs in the state, including the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program (originally established by the Proposition 49 ballot initiative), 21st CCLC, and the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program. Moving the administration of all funding streams that support OST programming under the umbrella of a single state agency would allow for coordination of funding that would optimize efficient use of funds.
• Federal agencies (e.g., ED, DOL, HHS, and Department of Justice) could expand public–private partnerships that bolster and inform federal efforts in OST.

In Chapters 4, 6, and 7, the committee highlights ways in which youth, families, and communities are being involved in the design, implementation, and evaluation of OST programs (e.g., youth–adult partnerships, participatory action research). Program providers and the communities they serve know the local context, histories, and strengths of participants. The committee encourages extending meaningful collaboration with these groups to include the sphere of funding.

Recommendation 1-3: Federal, state, local, and philanthropic funders should define funding priorities that align with priorities in the youth development field and are responsive to the needs and interests of participants, families, communities, and youth development practitioners; funders should engage these groups in designing funding opportunities and application requirements.

Children and youth cannot benefit from OST programs if they do not participate. As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of factors affect participation, including barriers to access. Parents consistently name safe and reliable transportation to and from OST programs as a key barrier to OST involvement. Another challenge to participation is the competition that OST programs face against paid jobs as youth age. This is particularly salient for youth from low-income households, where compensation from OST programs can mean they do not have to choose between supporting household income and participating in enriching OST experiences. Other important factors that can facilitate engagement in programs are increasing awareness of programs and including activities that are both responsive and linked to participants’ cultural backgrounds, identities, and personal interests. Funding that allows programs to address these issues can increase OST participation.

Recommendation 1-4: Federal, state, local, and philanthropic funders should reduce access and opportunity gaps for all children and youth by providing dedicated funding, including funding for cross-sector partnerships, to help providers address common barriers to participation in out-of-school-time programs. Funding can be used to provide transportation, offer financial incentives (e.g., stipends, gift cards, transit cards), provide culturally relevant offerings, and conduct intense and focused outreach to support participation.

Specific actions could include the following:

• Federal and state agencies could establish grant programs dedicated to supporting transportation and reducing program fees for OST providers serving low-income families. For example, the ASES Frontier Transportation Grant, offered through California’s Department of Education, provides supplemental funding for existing grantees that have transportation needs due to their OST program site being located in hard-to-reach rural areas.
• State-level transportation departments could partner with OST programs to develop affordable transit options, such as shuttle services or subsidized fares.
• Local governments and community organizations could conduct needs assessments to identify specific barriers and implement tailored solutions, such as sliding scale fees or outreach campaigns to raise program awareness.

GOAL 2: INCREASE SUPPORT FOR INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS TO STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY OF OST PROGRAMS

As discussed in Chapter 3, OST programs exist in a complex ecosystem. Rather than having one clear anchor institution or delivery mechanism, city and state intermediaries⁵ have emerged to act as coordinating bodies across systems, to work with and shape OST ecosystems. Intermediaries serve as a practical connection between the overall aims of the funding and policy systems and the technical and operational abilities of individual service providers (Collaborative for Building After-School Systems, 2007). Intermediaries, such as state afterschool networks, local OST intermediaries, and children’s cabinets, serve a critical function in coordinating, funding, and collecting data on OST systems, and in providing technical assistance

___________________

⁵ An OST intermediary is an organization or agency that oversees the OST system policies and strategies, and coordinates resources, money, and expertise.

to local OST programs, activities, and related services (Conclusion 3-1). Specifically, the work of an intermediary includes increasing quality, sustainability, and availability of OST programs; providing governance support to OST programs; convening local organizations and brokering relationships; enlisting funding support; serving as professional development coordinator or provider; providing data analysis and evaluation frameworks; and acting as an advocate. Intermediaries often desire to establish partnerships with school districts and other municipal agencies to strengthen this work; however, lack of interest or awareness from government partners can hinder this effort.

Ultimately, the work of intermediaries and other coordinating entities is vital not only in reducing the burdens OST programs face, but also in providing the resources for programs to strengthen their capacity to serve youth fully. However, OST programs do not have a uniform federal, state, or local organizing structure to ensure funding, standards for quality practice, or a prepared workforce with pipelines for growth. In many ways, the early funding for intermediaries and other coordinating entities enabled an organizing framework for OST systems. But this funding remains precarious because of the lack of legislated resources for intermediaries and other cross-sector efforts. The committee offers recommendations to formalize support for intermediaries, acknowledging that while intermediary organizations are a promising approach for facilitating coordination and bolstering organizational capacity, more research is needed on the tangible effects of intermediary supports on OST outcomes (Conclusion 3-1, continued).

Recommendation 2-1: The federal government and state agencies should provide dedicated, sustained support for entities that coordinate and support out-of-school-time (OST) programs, including city- and state-level intermediaries to improve infrastructure for program availability, accessibility, and quality. Philanthropic funders should coordinate and collaborate to direct investments to grow and sustain local and regional OST intermediaries to fill any gaps left by federal and state funding.

Greater investments, including resources, would allow intermediaries, or other coordinating entities

• To identify unmet community needs impacting the availability and accessibility of OST programs and strategize to address those needs;
• To work with funders to ensure they are providing sufficient funding and minimizing onerous grant application and reporting requirements;

• To assist community-based organizations in accessing funding and complying with funder proposal and reporting requirements;
• To assist community-based organizations in accessing or offering professional development opportunities for their program staff;
• To enable programs to collect and use data for quality improvement and evaluation by establishing data systems and accountability measures; and
• To facilitate partnerships (e.g., to strengthen access, program offerings, staff capacity building opportunities, funding) between OST programs with other programs, individuals, and entities across sectors, including but not limited to schools, municipal agencies, local businesses, workforce programs, and initiatives. Facilitating a partnership among stakeholders includes identifying roles, staffing the network, and establishing communication and decision-making protocols.

Recommendation 2-3: When allocating formula or grant dollars for out-of-school-time (OST) programs to state or local education agencies, public funders should prioritize or incentivize partnerships with local intermediaries who can provide OST system-level supports, such as grant allocation and monitoring, and the integration of quality improvement systems.

Recommendation 2-4: In states or locales where no coordinating body currently exists, government offices or jurisdictions should form or support coordinating bodies, such as intermediaries or children’s cabinets or their equivalent, which would work across youth-serving entities.

Recommendation 2-5: Local intermediaries should continually identify gaps in access to out-of-school-time (OST) programs and related barriers at the neighborhood level (e.g., through needs-based assessments and mapping tools) to increase program participation. Specifically, local intermediaries should

• Identify reasons behind noted access gaps and barriers—whether they are due to program availability, affordability, staffing, transportation, participants’ health-related needs, or other issues.
• Provide guidance to OST programs on strategies for increasing program participation. For example, offer guidance on implementing program fee structures (e.g., sliding scale payment structures) to address cost barriers.

• Establish cross-sector partnerships that promote engagement within communities to address barriers to participation. For example, intermediaries can establish partnerships between school districts and transportation departments to decrease transportation-related barriers by providing youth with free or reduced-price transit fares that extend beyond the school day and allow them to attend OST programs. Cross-sector partnerships are typically enacted with larger, well-funded organizations and agencies. The youth development field can support and create mechanisms for smaller local entities to partner with or be part of broad cross-sector partnerships to fulfill the promise of broader uptake of universal participation in OST programs.
• Facilitate connections between youth and families and supportive community services. For example, intermediaries could connect families with counseling services, legal assistance for immigration or refugee status, nutrition education, or parenting classes.

GOAL 3: ADVANCE PROGRAM QUALITY EFFORTS TO FOSTER ENRICHING, SAFE, AND SUPPORTIVE OST SETTINGS

As discussed in Chapter 6, the quality of OST programs, regardless of their subject or type, affects youth motivation to attend, engage in, and learn in OST programs. Program quality has been defined in multiple ways but generally includes aspects of the physical space, psychological safety, structure, adult–youth interaction, and the provision of optimal learning opportunities that support growth and development. Program quality is operationalized in various ways, reflecting differences in practices and desired outcomes among OST programs; this variation also reflects evolutions in prioritizing specific themes of quality.

Most current quality approaches take a universal standard approach that assumes that a practice affects all youth in similar ways. However, individual youth may experience programs in ways that differ from other youth or the average, and, in most cases. In many cases, these approaches are not explicit about barriers that drive gaps in access and opportunity. Future research will need to integrate these principles into definitions and measurement of quality.

Since publication of the Blue Book (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2002), a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research has shown that adopting culturally sustaining practices and critical pedagogies, building supportive relationships with program peers and staff, honoring youth–adult partnership, and intentionally cultivating a positive and inclusive program climate are key features of positive developmental settings and contribute to program quality (Conclusion 6-1).

While higher program quality is associated with better child and youth outcomes, more research is needed to explore associations between specific indicators of quality and outcomes, and to provide additional guidance for focusing on or prioritizing elements of quality to improve outcomes for all children and youth (Conclusion 6-2).

Program quality initiatives are now common and often led by OST intermediaries. They collect a variety of data to evaluate and improve program quality and overall OST system health. Data collected and analyzed provide agencies with information to make informed policy and practice decisions to support high-quality programming. More advanced data systems have allowed for data to be used beyond basic accountability to support continuous improvement or program quality. Municipalities and programs encounter challenges to collecting data, in particular accessing school-related data.⁶ However, local intermediaries can enter into agreements with OST providers, school districts, and other community partners to share data. These agreements are central to a robust data system, specifying who is formally part of the OST system and who can access and use the data.

Still important gaps remain in the adoption of program quality initiatives at the state and local levels. Processes are needed for reviewing and updating program quality initiatives that reflect evidence-based practices and evolving community strengths and needs, in order to continually adjust and thereby better meet the needs of children and youth. The youth development field is underresourced in data use and analysis, with organizations often lacking staff capacity, infrastructure, and knowledge to do this work well. Evidence-based approaches to use data for continuous improvement can include emerging strategies derived from the field based on peer learning, which at times may be more feasible and appropriate. The committee encourages dedicated support to advance program quality efforts, as well as actions intermediaries can take to improve their work.

Recommendation 3-1: Public and private funders should support the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives and the provision of ongoing technical assistance to advance program quality efforts, including supporting efforts for intermediaries to build capacity for program providers to collect, analyze, and use data for continuous improvement.

___________________

⁶ The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 2011) requires programs to obtain parental consent to access data. FERPA is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable U.S. Department of Education program.

Recommendation 3-2: Local intermediaries should set a schedule and process for reviewing and updating program quality initiatives, associated assessment tool(s), and aligned supports (e.g., data systems, professional development opportunities) for out-of-school-time programs, reflective of evidence-based practices and research, as well as evolving community strengths and needs.

Recommendation 3-3: Intermediaries should support cross-sector collaboration with school districts, local universities, and municipal agencies to share and analyze data to support continuous improvement of program quality. This collaboration should include clearly articulated data-sharing agreements that allow for bidirectional data-sharing; public reporting of nonsensitive, deidentified data; and data systems that include information on youth development measures.

GOAL 4: BUILD STABLE, SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS AND CAREER PATHWAYS FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PRACTITIONERS

As discussed in Chapter 5, youth development practitioners are adult educators, mentors, and advocates who support young people’s social, academic, and personal development. Within OST programs, they are critical for both maintaining the structure of the program and fostering positive outcomes for children and youth. However, as described above, the youth development field is both reliant on and susceptible to changes in funders’ priorities and trends—this impacts wages, professional advancement, and sustained employability. Youth development practitioners thus face challenges in their professional and personal lives, including low pay, promotion ceilings, housing and food insecurity, and inadequate benefits. Youth development practitioners often hold multiple roles, such as event planning, meal preparation, and grant writing, and some may absorb family-like responsibility for their youth participants, such as being first responders in emergencies or advocates at school and court. Rarely do they have adequate training or support in these areas. These challenges can make it difficult to recruit and retain staff and lead to exits from the field entirely. This in turn creates a void in staffing and increases program waiting lists, leaving young people without access to OST programs.

Youth development practitioners face a number of challenges that can influence retention, such as lack of recognition and respect, low wages, job stress, and limited training and professional development). Addressing the challenges contributing to staff attrition in OST programs requires organizational commitment and capacity. Especially for programs serving primarily children and youth from low-income households that rely on public

funding, commitment and capacity often depend on system-level support structures and funding (Conclusion 5-1).

Some youth development practitioners receive opportunities for professional development through organizational training or intermediary organizations. However, staff members are often limited to what their organizations can afford, so for staff working with lower-resourced community organizations accessing educational opportunities can be difficult. More professional development opportunities through education and training (e.g., through postsecondary degrees, certificates, and organization-led trainings) for individuals interested in or currently serving in youth development can help build the OST workforce pipeline and strengthen career trajectories, which ultimately strengthens program quality (Conclusion 5-2).

Recommendation 4-1: State entities, agencies, and other regional funders, including philanthropic funders, should strengthen support for youth development practitioners in out-of-school-time (OST) settings so OST intermediaries and providers can create opportunities to prepare and increase professional pathways for the OST workforce.

Specific actions could include

• Leveraging existing federal, state, and local training programs to train youth development practitioners;
• Employing innovative models, such as apprenticeship programs and service corps, to prepare youth development practitioners and serve as a recruitment pipeline;
• Incentivizing or strongly encouraging the use of grant dollars to provide livable wages and benefits for youth development practitioners; and
• Allocating funding and providing technical assistance to support evidence-informed models of professional development.

In building pipelines for the OST workforce, higher education is a key sector within the OST ecosystem, as discussed in Chapters 3 and 5. Higher education offers formal degree and certification programs that can build the capacity of youth development practitioners. Higher education can also partner with other organizations to expose college students to OST experiences through internships or summer jobs. While the committee did not identify a need for youth development practitioners to complete formal education requirements to effectively support children and youth in OST settings, it recognizes that individuals are seeking opportunities and pathways that would support their preparation and advancement. Providing these kinds of opportunities can improve staff recruitment and retention in OST programs.

Recommendation 4-2: Colleges and universities should provide more opportunities for students to pursue their interests in the youth development field, including exposure to practical experiences and relevant coursework.

Despite the reliance on the capabilities, talents, and supervision provided by youth development practitioners in OST programming, unified public codification, external recognition, or consistent structural support for this workforce has not occurred. While national and local efforts to elevate the status of youth development practitioners have increased in recent years, recognizing and improving job quality for this workforce is essential to advancing youth development practitioners, and for program quality and access overall. Formalizing national population-level data collection of youth development practitioners can provide a more accurate number and understanding of these staff, which can support policy-level improvements for the OST workforce (Conclusion 5-3).

Recommendation 4-3: The Office of Management and Budget should establish and maintain a standard occupational classification for youth development practitioners to build evidence on the workforce supporting out-of-school-time programs.

A federal standard occupational classification would allow for accurate and comprehensive collection, calculation, and dissemination of data on OST practitioners, including working conditions, salary ranges, qualifications, employment, and paid hours. These data would increase understanding of the state of the OST workforce, including how many OST staff receive benefits, are supported by organized labor, and earn a living wage. Greater understanding would, for example, allow federal, state, and local actors to advocate for livable wages to attract and retain staff and make a stronger case for full-time positions.

GOAL 5: IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANDSCAPE OF OST PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION, OST STAFF DEVELOPMENT, PROGRAM QUALITY EFFORTS, AND OST SYSTEMS

As discussed in Chapter 4, a review of the landscape of OST programs showed their multiplicity across a number of dimensions—who offers programs, the kinds of activities offered, and their geographic location, among others—reflecting the range of participant, family, and community needs. However, existing data do not provide an accurate map of programs serving children and youth from low-income households; systematic information of

OST programming at the national level, including the type of programming, location, and populations served, is needed to offer a clearer understanding of the availability and accessibility of programs for children and youth (Conclusion 4-1).

The committee also found that overall, comprehensive demographic data on OST participation among all youth are limited. First, there are no population-level data on OST participation for some groups of children and youth, such as those with chronic health conditions, disabilities, and special needs, and those experiencing homelessness, involved with the juvenile justice system, or from immigrant families. Second, children and youth do not exist within one demographic category but there are few to no data offering a picture of OST participation across intersections of race/ethnicity, disability, income, community type, etc. (Conclusion 4-2). Understanding trends in OST program participation among children and youth in the United States necessitates examining participation at the intersections of multiple demographics (e.g., income and race). The limited available data indicate that, despite steady increases in participation among children and youth in the early 2000s, participation rates declined between 2014 and 2020, especially among Black, Hispanic, and Asian young people. While participation has declined, unmet demand has continued to rise (growing to roughly 24.6 million young people in 2020). Population-level or nationally representative data that report on participation at intersecting demographics, although not currently available, are critical to document and explore reasons for these trends (Conclusion 4-3). The lack of data limited the committee’s ability to precisely grasp participation rates among children and youth from marginalized backgrounds.

The lack of extensive data collection in the field of OST impacts researchers’ and program leaders’ ability to better understand a variety of OST learner-centered objectives (e.g., gaining greater information regarding program quality, program measures, program attendance [Russell & Little, 2011]). Moreover, it hampers understanding of the reach of progress or breadth of access and opportunity gaps for all children and youth. The committee encourages new and continued support for national-level data collection efforts on OST programs and the workforce, akin to federal support for data collection on early childhood programs, to inform future research, policy, and practice.

Recommendation 5-1: Federal agencies should utilize existing research or support new or existing research and/or survey efforts to continually monitor supply of and demand for out-of-school-time (OST) programs and the experiences of the OST workforce, and to identify which young

people are and are not being served in OST programs, in order to inform future federal policy and funding to meet the needs of children and youth from marginalized backgrounds.

Recommendation 5-2: Federal, state, and local government agencies that sponsor surveys and collect data on children and youth should, intentionally and explicitly, collect data on participation in out-of-school-time programs, including data that allow for examination of intersecting demographics. Agencies should engage with youth development experts and youth-serving organizations to consider how best to collect data and shape survey questions. Data collected should be made publicly available.

The following are examples where such improved data collection could occur at the federal level:

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could include a question about OST participation in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBS). State administrators of YRBS could opt to include the existing afterschool question that was added to the CDC’s optional questions list in 2024.
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could conduct a national longitudinal study akin to the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies Program, with an open dataset, and collect OST workforce data, including turnover and mobility.
• Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education (ED), HHS, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could collaborate to make data on federally funded OST programs publicly available (e.g., 4-H participation data, 21 Annual Performance Reporting System) to populate a national, interagency database.
• Federal agencies could create additional core longitudinal survey questions on OST data (e.g., National Longitudinal Transition Study; ED’s Civil Rights Data Collection) to capture more information on program providers; community-based organization participation; participants’ race/ethnicity, disability, income level, and disability classification status; dosage of participation; and the existence of fee-free or sliding scale programs and Title I school eligibility.

Furthermore, in its examination of the evidence, the committee identified gaps and needs for future research to improve understanding of the landscape of OST programs and participation, OST staff development, program quality efforts, and OST systems. These research needs are outlined in Table 9-1.

TABLE 9-1 Selected Research Needs in the Youth Development Field

GOAL 6: IMPROVE UNDERSTANDING OF OST PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS AND OUTCOMES

Policymakers at all levels—federal, state, and local—rely on a body of evidence to inform their decisions on both new programs and funding levels of existing investments. Although policymakers consider a range of evidence, longitudinal studies, as well as randomized controlled trials, can carry more weight in determining the need and/or effectiveness of an intervention considered for funding. Funding research is critically important to advancing the youth development field. The federal government can support research in various ways, including by (1) continuing to fund

the Interagency Working Group on Youth programs to set priorities on youth research and offer shared metrics and/or roadmaps, (2) continuing to fund agencies and associated clearinghouses, (3) authorizing use of funds for evidence-generating activities, and (4) offering set-aside allocations that require federal grantees to budget for internal and/or external evaluations.

While the OST evidence base remains young, it has grown over the past two decades, thanks to both public and private investments in research and evaluation. As discussed in Chapter 7, OST programs can support positive youth development, but existing literature is unable to delineate whether certain activities are more effective, whether activities have larger effects on certain outcomes, or whether the activity effects depend, at least in part, on the alignment of the activity content and the area of development.

The committee also found that

• OST settings provide a place for the social and emotional development of children and youth, provided they are well designed and offer high-quality experiences that intentionally support these areas of development. OST settings can provide a place that is responsive to youth where all participants feel a sense of belonging and affirms their sense of self. Children and youth report that these programs and activities help them develop responsibility, positive work ethics, social skills, and interest in civic activities (Conclusion 7-1).
• OST programs are not easily poised to affect intransient, hard-to-change outcomes such as test scores and grades, which require continuous and effective teaching and are heavily influenced by schools. Though there are programs and experiences offered by dedicated and motivated staff that exhibit effects on some outcomes, these programs vary in access to social and economic resources, including the ability to engage well-trained staff, sensitive to the culture and backgrounds of the students they serve. OST staff are often paraprofessionals with varying degrees of educational and professional experience, who are expected to attain some of the outcomes that are difficult for the most expert of educators. Some OST programs and experiences have been shown to foster interest and engagement in specific academic domains and socioemotional skills that help youth succeed at school, which over the long term may lead to better educational outcomes, such as attendance and graduation (Conclusion 7-2);

• Not all OST programs are expected to demonstrate positive effects on all outcomes. OST programs are most likely to affect outcomes that they intentionally support through the content and provision of developmental opportunities (Conclusion 7-3).

Given the multiplicity of OST programming, the field relies on a robust evidence base of quantitative and qualitative measures and meaning-making to advance the field. However, significant gaps in the evidence base remain that, if addressed, could progress understanding of the effectiveness and outcomes of OST programming for all children and youth (see Box 9-1). More focused systematic longitudinal rigorous quantitative and qualitative research is needed to understand what specific types of programs, experiences, approaches, and characteristics of OST programs are linked to positive outcomes across learning, development, and well-being for which specific children and youth, families, and communities. Research and evaluation of OST programs need to move beyond comparing those who do and do not attend to understanding which quality features and experiences in which activities are associated with youth development for whom, taking into account both activity-level factors (e.g., the content or quality of the activity) and youth-level factors (e.g., engagement in the activity and youth’s current functioning and circumstances; Conclusion 7-4).

Recommendation 6-1: Federal, state, local, and philanthropic funders should support research that examines a wide variety of outcomes based on the goals of out-of-school-time programs. Funders should support large-scale, systematic experiments (i.e., randomized controlled trials) to assess the efficacy of specific program designs and of specific program quality features, examining a wide range of short- and long-term outcomes, and other rigorous quantitative (e.g., matched longitudinal quasi-experimental designs, natural experimental approaches, alternative designs) and rigorous qualitative research (e.g., case studies, ethnographies, mixed methods) that include measures of participation, program duration, program quality, and implementation.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR PROGRAM LEADERS

In public information-gathering sessions, the committee heard the challenges that OST program providers face in providing optimal experiences for the children and youth they serve. Paramount to these challenges is insufficient funding and the siloed, short-term, and restrictive nature of existing funding, as discussed above. These issues place heavy administrative burdens on OST providers—significant time, energy, and resources are spent researching and competing for funding to build funding portfolios and

comply with varying accountability measures. Given these challenges, the committee purposefully avoided directing recommendations to programs themselves and directed them instead to the federal, state, and local actors, including philanthropies, that scaffold programs. The committee hopes the recommendations it has offered will provide programs with sufficient support and resources, so program leaders are able to ensure high-quality programming for all children and youth. The committee offers program leaders guidance based on its review of the evidence. These considerations are outlined below and are predicated on the assumption that sufficient support is available.

Staff Development

Well-funded and supported programs could provide staff and managers with paid professional development opportunities that span all levels (beginner to advanced professionals) to ensure program quality, including but not limited to compliance training, training in programmatic approaches (e.g., arts, advancing youth development), and opportunities to build new knowledge and skills in both introductory and advanced topics. Skills training important for OST staff may include trainers’ interpersonal skills, sensitivity to students’ developmental abilities and cultural backgrounds, and the importance of helping children and youth translate their newly developed skills to daily routines.

Data Collection and Evaluation

Well-funded and supported programs could collect and utilize data to support research, evaluation, and quality improvement, such as

• Data on who they are serving, attendance, issues of access, youth adjustment, and program quality;
• Data on the range of outcomes that goes beyond academic achievement, such as program attendance, school engagement, and mental well-being; and
• Data to support evaluation of program components (e.g., what experiences, what aspects of quality) that are associated with immediate and long-term outcomes.

Program Quality and Program Practices

Well-funded and supported programs could adopt and reflect program quality measures that are aligned with the latest research and reflect the variety of programmatic goals and outcomes, as well as support ongoing

development and innovation in understanding and improving program quality through continuous improvement processes.

Well-funded and supported programs could increase implementation of linguistically and culturally relevant learning practices and strengths-based approaches that are responsive to the needs of children, youth, families, and communities, such as recognizing participants’ language and heritage in ways that foster positive youth identities, and revise programming based on these practices, inclusive of participants’ voices.

Well-funded and supported programs could provide developmentally appropriate opportunities for youth to continue to participate and grow by taking on new responsibilities and roles over years. To support program attendance, youth development, program engagement, and program quality, programs could foster intentional and sustained collaboration with families and with other programs, schools, and other community groups that are central to children’s, youth’s, and families’ lives.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.