The Future of Youth Development: Building Systems and Strengthening Programs (2025)
Chapter: Summary
Summary1
Out-of-school-time (OST) programs are a part of the broader field of youth development.2 Situated at the intersection of child and youth development, education, workforce, human services, and community development, the youth development field serves as a bridge between school, community, and home, whether before or after school, on weekends, in the summer, or during school breaks. As a field, it encompasses the broad range of programs and settings where young people spend their time outside of school and the actors and systems that support them. The terms OST and youth development programs are sometimes used interchangeably; however, OST speaks to the time programs can happen and youth development speaks to the approach.
In 2002, the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine released a foundational report for the field of youth development: Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Commonly referred to today as the “Blue Book,” that report reviewed the evidence available at the time on positive youth development, identifying the personal and social assets young people need to succeed, the settings that foster these assets, and
___________________
1 This chapter does not include references. Citations to support the text and conclusions herein are provided in following chapters of the report.
2 Youth development, sometimes known as positive youth development, is “an intentional, prosocial approach that engages youth within their communities, schools, organizations, peer groups, and families in a manner that is productive and constructive; recognizes, utilizes, and enhances young people’s strengths; and promotes positive outcomes for young people by providing opportunities, fostering positive relationships, and furnishing the support needed to build on their leadership strengths” (see Chapter 1).
youth programs that could serve as models for communities. This report serves to update the 2002 Blue Book: to recognize the growth, robustness, and complexity of the youth development field and consider ways in which OST programs can better serve the needs of all children and youth.
At the request of the Wallace Foundation, the National Academies established an ad hoc committee of experts—with backgrounds in public policy, child and adolescent development, developmental psychology, sociology, population health, juvenile justice, economics, research and evaluation, and program design and delivery—to conduct a consensus study on the learning and development of young people from low-income households in OST settings across grades K–12. The committee was asked to review the evidence across four key areas for this population: (1) characterizing the array of OST activities; (2) evaluating the strength and limitations of the evidence on the effectiveness of OST activities 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 reviewing the available evidence, the committee was directed to consider the intersections between economic stress and other factors that have operated historically to marginalize young people.3
In addressing its task, the committee found that the field of youth development has seen a number of changes in the past two decades: (1) OST programs and activities have become increasingly varied in their settings and programming, and in the children and youth served; (2) a greater consideration of the unique needs and identities of children and youth has changed how the field understands high-quality programming; and (3) public and private funding and support for programs has increased, as has demand for these programs. These changes emphasize that, while the contexts—including the state of children and youth across the nation—have changed since the Blue Book was written, the value and interest in OST programs as positive developmental settings remain strong.
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN OST SETTINGS
Developmental and ecological theories are commonly used to guide researchers and practitioners in the youth development field in their consideration of learning and human development—including how time spent in OST settings can shape young people’s growth, the factors within these
___________________
3 In a scoping review of 50 years of research, Fluit et al. 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.” The authors note that both the process and outcomes of marginalization can vary significantly across contexts. See “Key Terms Used in the Report” in Chapter 1.
settings that might be influential, and how these settings interact with other parts of their lives. These theories have then been applied to establish OST program tools and trainings that are used to support program quality. The theory of positive youth development is most associated with OST programs, offering approaches that recognize and emphasize young people’s strengths, their circumstances and relationships, and their individual agency. In recent decades, scholars have increasingly considered the role of social position, culture, and access to resources to understand the unique experiences of children and youth from a range of backgrounds. These conceptualizations examine the ways in which social and community forces influence opportunities and outcomes.
These theories have also led to greater understanding that OST programs are part of a larger ecosystem of multiple, overlapping systems that shape the creation of OST programs, access to these programs, and ultimately the experiences they provide for children and youth. Applying a systems view to OST programs allows consideration of all the factors that shape outcomes for children and youth, rather than focusing on why particular children and youth do not succeed. It provides an alternative to individually focused frameworks, which can involve deficit views in which children, youth, and families are held accountable for individual outcomes, despite society-level systems such as culture, law, and government that affect those outcomes.
Within this ecosystem are subsystems and sectors, such as families, education, and transportation, that serve as entry points for implementors, funders, researchers, and others to improve programs. Key actors supporting the OST ecosystem include intermediaries; these are coordinating entities, commonly local OST nonprofit organizations and state OST networks, that facilitate the OST ecosystem and manage networks of program providers. 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 to local OST programs, activities, and related services (Conclusion 3-1).
OST PROGRAMS AND PARTICIPATION
OST programs vary across multiple dimensions. Some dimensions represent deliberate choices made, such as a program’s focus, curriculum, and level of structure; others result from external factors such as location, level of resources, and governance. There is no standard organizing categorization of programs that is routinely used in the field, but rather these dimensions paint a picture of the broad landscape of OST programs serving children and youth in the United States. This variance is beneficial because it allows programs to meet participants’ and communities’ unique needs.
Despite high levels of satisfaction with OST programs among parents and a decade of steadily increasing participation in the early 2000s, the limited available data indicate that the number of children and youth participating in OST programs declined between 2014 and 2020 to 14% (7.8 million) of the overall school-age population, with the largest decreases among Black, Hispanic, and Asian youth.4 Moreover, of the 7.8 million youth participating in OST programs in 2020, 2.7 million were from low-income households. While OST participation has declined, unmet demand has continued to rise, increasing to 24.6 million children in 2020. According to survey data, 11 million children from low-income households would participate in programs if they were available to them, suggesting that barriers to participation in OST are not evenly distributed (Conclusion 4-3). Families with low incomes most often cite program costs, safe and reliable transportation, program awareness, and program availability as barriers. State and local intermediaries, municipalities, and programs have implemented promising strategies for reducing barriers and supporting participation, such as providing stipends to older youth to attend programs.
Available data provide some indication of the profile of OST participation, but these data are limited. Systematic information on OST programming at a 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 (Conclusion 4-1). Moreover, population-level or nationally representative data that report on participation at intersecting demographics are critical to document and explore reasons for participation trends (Conclusion 4-3). Data on intersections of marginalization are lacking, and no population-level data on OST participation exist 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 (Conclusion 4-2). The gaps in available data around OST programs and participation present an opportunity for greater investment in data collection and assessment, which can inform program design and help target resources to those groups most in need.
OST WORKFORCE
The quality and competency of the workforce supporting OST programs are important elements of program quality, contributing to young people’s level of engagement in programs and the impact of programs on
___________________
4 Data are from the America After 3PM survey, the only national survey of afterschool activities. See Chapter 4.
their outcomes (Conclusion 5-2). Youth development practitioners—the adult leaders who guide children and youth through social, educational, and personal development within informal educational spaces—are central to this workforce. OST programs benefit when these staff are creative, well trained, skilled at building relationships, and capable of making long-term commitments to programs. There is great variation in the roles of this profession, in the responsibilities they take on, and the educational and experiential paths they take to join the field. This heterogeneity has helped the field remain flexible, innovative, and inclusive.
While research shows they are committed to their work and the youth they serve, 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. Staff turnover is an often-cited problem in this field, as it impacts program access and quality—lower staffing levels mean less capacity, fewer program spots for children and youth, and more time spent on hiring instead of on developing programs. 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).
Moreover, the quality and competency of the workforce supporting OST programs are important elements of program quality, contributing to young people’s level of engagement in programs and the impact of programs on their outcomes. 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 will strengthen program quality (Conclusion 5-2).
Estimates from the early 2000s suggest that there were between 2 million and 4 million frontline youth services workers in the United States, but there are neither population-level data nor formal federal occupational classifications for these workers. Without a federally recognized occupational code and formalized apprenticeship designations, there are no wage protections, which has prompted both public and private funders of OST programs to often (unintentionally) underestimate the needs of staff, from allowable use of dollars for staff compensation, to indirect rate restrictions on talent development and retention. Ultimately, more work—including system-level supports and resources, professional development opportunities, and population-level data collection—is needed not only to recognize these professionals but to support their growth and strengthen career trajectories (Conclusion 5-3).
OST PROGRAM QUALITY AND EXPERIENCES
The past two decades have seen the rise of the program quality movement in OST systems and the emergence of quality improvement initiatives, which youth development practitioners use to systematically examine and improve aspects of their programs. Program quality has been defined in many ways, but generally includes aspects of the physical space, psychological safety, structure, adult–youth interaction, and learning opportunities. Variation in program quality helps to account for differences in effectiveness; the youth development field has focused increasingly on improving the quality of both program design and implementation to best meet the needs of participants. Developing program curricula that are culturally responsive and co-created with youth are common program practices that the committee identified from the qualitative literature, which are critical additions to the features of developmental settings that have emerged since the Blue Book.
Although studies connect OST outcomes and quality, additional 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). Furthermore, most current quality approaches take a universal approach that is not explicit about barriers that drive access and opportunity gaps. Research that examines how critical approaches to positive youth development can be more intentionally integrated into programs is needed, as are thoughtful critiques of the dominant quality approaches.
EFFECTIVENESS AND OUTCOMES OF OST PROGRAMS
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 can feel a sense of belonging and affirm 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). However, 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. Notwithstanding, some OST programs and experiences have been shown to foster interest and engagement in specific academic domains and social and emotional 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).
Box S-1 presents the committee’s overall takeaways from the literature assessing outcomes of OST programs. Not all OST programs are expected
BOX S-1
Outcomes: Overall Takeaways
Social and Emotional Learning Outcomes
- Persistence: Experimental findings suggest that OST programs that choose activities aimed at improving skills and motivation have the potential to improve persistence. However, the number of studies on these relations is quite small. More work is needed to understand under what circumstances (e.g., for which types of activities, what activity experiences) and for whom participation in these activities might help build persistence.
- Sense of Responsibility: Qualitative research suggests that adolescents and parents think that one of the benefits of participating in organized OST activities is developing a stronger sense of responsibility. More quantitative studies need to examine the generalizability of these development processes, as the effects are larger for certain adolescents, and some activities seem more effective than others.
- Work Habits: Correlational studies suggest that organized OST activities are associated with a young person’s work habits and that these skills can help them excel academically. However, the results suggest that these associations may vary by activity type, quality, and developmental period. More work is needed to understand what developmental experiences within OST activities help strengthen young people’s work habits.
- Self-Control and Emotion-Regulation Skills: Research using experimental designs and programs that serve adolescents who are struggling present mixed findings in terms of the extent to which participating in programs is associated with changes in their self-control. Qualitative studies in childhood and adolescence provide some guidance on staff practices that may be associated with adolescents’ emotion-regulation skills, including creating positive norms and having positive relationships with participants. These results might provide insight into why the findings on participation or time spent in activities are mixed.
- Prosocial Behavior: The pattern of associations between a young person’s organized OST activities and their prosocial behavior is mixed when researchers measure activities simply in terms of whether youth participated in activities or how much time they spent in activities. The research suggests that OST activities have the potential to promote prosocial behavior among diverse young people, but that potential depends on activity quality and content, and participants’ experiences in the setting. Though prosocial behavior might happen more often in specific types of OST activities, it might be more fruitful to consider which experiences within activities (e.g., behavioral expectations/norms, relationships), and the extent to which activities highlight prosocial behavior as part of OST programming, might be associated with a young person’s prosocial behavior.
Youth Identity and Culture
- The research on youth identity and culture draws upon a variety of research approaches, including correlational work, quasi-experiments, rigorous randomized designs, and mixed quantitative and qualitative designs that describe both effects and processes of how programs might prove helpful. Research demonstrates that programs in which children and youth feel safe and supported and that intentionally include culturally informed programming attuned to the contexts of their lives can result in more positive perceptions of their social identities, values of respect, and cooperation. These results are related to increased caring, connection, and competence; improved academic achievement; and reduced risk for violence and substance use.
Civic Engagement
- Volunteering and Community Service: Several correlational studies suggest that participating in activities, particularly activities focused on volunteering or community service, during adolescence is associated with volunteering later in adolescence and early adulthood.
- Political Engagement: Although adolescents’ OST activity participation is not consistently associated with their voting behavior, more recent work suggests that OST activities can inspire participants to learn about political issues and can support confidence to influence those issues. Some studies suggest that the extent to which activities promote participants’ sociopolitical development depends on the extent to which these issues are a core component of the OST program and mission of the activity. Understanding how the activity is structured (e.g., centering youth voice, sharing decision-making) may help illuminate why some activities may be better positioned to promote individuals’ sociopolitical development.
Outcomes for Academic Success
- With some exceptions, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies note that the OST activities they explored did not have positive effects on test scores or school grades—the academic outcomes most connected to classroom experiences. The studies showed that OST activities tend to have more positive effects on other important academic outcomes, such as attendance, high school graduation, and college attendance. OST programs that showed positive effects in these studies were typically intensive, including many hours of participation and targeted programming.
Violence Prevention, Substance Use Prevention, and Mitigation of Other Risk Behaviors
- Experimental studies across multiple city programs found that these programs consistently reduced involvement in the criminal justice system and led to improvements in a range of positive youth development
- outcomes. Overall, the relationship between OST program participation and prevention of violence, substance abuse, and/or other risk behaviors is mixed, as varied as the programs themselves, and is affected by the mitigating variables in the studies (e.g., depth and breadth of participation, skill development, peer influence).
Outcomes for Physical and Mental Health
- Physical Health: OST programs that include a physical health component have demonstrated somewhat mixed results, but some studies have demonstrated effectiveness in improving physical outcomes of interest for children and youth. Limitations to the current studies include the heterogeneity of the programming and target audiences, as well as limited detail provided about the research design and types of intervention activities. School-level randomization and multiple assessments are necessary to better understand the effectiveness of OST interventions for improving physical health. Future studies need to provide more comprehensive assessments of physical activity and the utility of a physical activity program to promote activity both within and outside of the program.
- Mental Health: There is relatively little concrete evidence about how OST programs relate to the mental health of children and youth, especially pertaining to internalizing behaviors such as depression and anxiety. Yet, there is some indirect indication that OST programs might impact outcomes that relate to mental health. For example, some studies included social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes, and the programs under study demonstrated favorable effects in the domains of problem behaviors, positive youth development, relationships, and beliefs, all of which could be correlated with mental health outcomes.
Outcomes for Family and Peer Relationships
- To date, no studies separate out the effects of differential selection into participation and the treatment effects of participating in OST activities on family and peer relationships; this is an area where high-quality experimental or quasi-experimental evidence is greatly needed.
Long-Term Outcomes
- Several studies use nationally representative, longitudinal datasets, such as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, and the National Education Longitudinal Study, to examine observable associations between program participation and longer-term outcomes. More randomized trials are needed, particularly for children and youth from marginalized backgrounds, to determine long-term outcomes for young people who participate in OST programs.
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).
To better understand which outcomes an activity affects, research and evaluation of OST programs need to move beyond studies that seek to reach general conclusions about whether OST programs are effective by comparing those who do and do not attend these programs to understanding which quality features and experiences in which activities are associated with youth development and for whom—taking into account both activity- and youth-level factors. Future research can capitalize on the strengths of multiple methods to provide a deeper understanding of what specific types of programs, experiences, approaches, and characteristics of OST program quality are linked to positive outcomes across learning, development, and well-being, and for which specific children and youth, families, and communities (Conclusion 7-4).
CURRENT OST FUNDING AND POLICIES
In the United States, the landscape of funding for OST programs is fragmented; programs are paid for through a number of financing mechanisms, including program fees paid by families, public funding (federal, state, and local), and private funding (philanthropic and other investments). For children and youth from low-income households, public and philanthropic assistance are vital to their participation in these programs.
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 U.S. 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).
To fill gaps in their budgets, OST programs are left to search for other sources of support, resulting in increased burden on OST providers in researching, competing for, and complying with onerous accountability measures across their funding portfolio; at times, funders demand contrary requirements. Complex grant application processes make it challenging for OST programs to develop a sustained funding portfolio, with particular hardship on smaller, rural, underresourced programs. These dynamics widen the funding gap between small grassroots organizations, which often serve children and youth from low-income and marginalized backgrounds, and well-established organizations with greater capacity to apply and adhere to grant requirements. Concerned about the sustainability of their funding,
OST providers often operate from a scarcity mindset, shaping their programs in response to available funding opportunities rather than in response to strategic implementation of their organization’s mission (Conclusion 8-2).
Intermediaries play a critical role in providing timely supports so programs can continuously improve, implement innovative practices, utilize data-informed systems, and better compete for funding. However, public and private funding streams can restrict use of funds for such activities; at times, this leaves intermediaries underfunded, overstretched, and may result in OST programs lacking access to supports. While some states and local governments have improved coordination and increased alignment across funding streams by blending or braiding funds to increase sustainability, the capacity and opportunity for such practices to take place at the program or organizational level are limited. 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 (Conclusion 8-3).
ENSURING HIGH-QUALITY OST OPPORTUNITIES
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 youth development as a bridge between school, home, and community and as a place for personal growth, relationship-building, learning, skill-building, and career exploration. For children and youth from affluent families, these experiences are often part of their normal life course, and children and youth from low-income households are eager for these opportunities—as mentioned above, data show 11 million children and youth from low-income households would enroll in a program if one were available.
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 children and youth from low-income and marginalized backgrounds 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 led it to develop a blueprint for efforts to better ensure high-quality OST opportunities, recognizing the role OST programs play in supporting parental and caregiver work, the gap in access between affluent and low-income families, and the overall positive association of high-quality programs on youth development. 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. Goals 5 and 6 reflect the committee’s consensus that 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. A complete list of the full recommendations and specific considerations for implementation are included in Chapter 9.
GOAL 1: Support the funding stability of OST programs.
- Provide general program support for staff compensation, indirect costs (i.e., administrative or operating costs), and robust evaluation over the long term (Recommendation 1-1).
- Increase coordination across funding streams and implement greater cross-sector and interagency partnership to alleviate the administrative burden on OST programs in researching and competing for grants and complying with grant requirements (Recommendation 1-2).
- 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; engage these groups in designing funding opportunities and application requirements (Recommendation 1-3).
- Reduce access burdens for children and youth from low-income and marginalized backgrounds by helping providers address common barriers to participation in OST programs (Recommendations 1-4).
GOAL 2: Increase support for intermediary organizations to strengthen the organizational capacity of OST programs.
- Support entities that coordinate and support OST programs, including city- and state-level intermediaries, to improve infrastructure for program availability, accessibility, and quality (Recommendation 2-1).
- Prioritize or incentivize partnerships with local intermediaries that can provide OST system-level supports, such as grant allocation
- and monitoring and integration of quality improvement systems (Recommendation 2-2).
- Where no coordinating body currently exists, form or support coordinating bodies, such as intermediaries or children’s cabinets or their equivalent, which would work across entities serving children and youth (Recommendation 2-3).
- Continually identify gaps in access to OST programs and related barriers at the neighborhood level (e.g., through needs-based assessments and mapping tools) to increase program participation (Recommendation 2-4).
GOAL 3: Advance program quality efforts to foster enriching, safe, and supportive OST settings.
- Support the development and implementation of quality improvement initiatives and provide ongoing technical assistance to advance program quality efforts (Recommendation 3-1).
- Set a schedule and process for reviewing and updating program quality initiatives, associated assessment tool(s), and aligned supports for OST programs, reflective of evidence-based practices and research, as well as evolving community strengths and needs (Recommendation 3-2).
- Support cross-sector collaboration with school districts, local universities, and municipal agencies to share and analyze data to support continuous improvement of program quality (Recommendation 3-3).
GOAL 4: Build stable, supportive environments and career pathways for youth development practitioners.
- Create opportunities to prepare and increase professional pathways for the OST workforce (Recommendation 4-1).
- Provide more opportunities for students to pursue their interests in the youth development field, including exposure to practical experiences and relevant coursework (Recommendation 4-2).
- Establish a standard occupational classification for youth development practitioners (Recommendation 4-3).
GOAL 5: Improve understanding of the landscape of OST programs and participation, OST staff development, program quality efforts, and OST systems.
- Continually monitor supply of and demand for OST programs, monitor experiences of the youth development workforce, and identify which young people are and are not being served in OST programs (Recommendation 5-1).
- Collect data on participation in OST programs, including data that allow for examination of intersecting demographics (Recommendation 5-2).
GOAL 6: Improve understanding of OST program effectiveness and outcomes.
- Assess the efficacy of specific program designs and features. Examine a wide range of short- and long-term outcomes and other rigorous quantitative and rigorous qualitative research that includes measures of participation, program duration, program quality, and implementation (Recommendation 6-1).
