4

OST Programs and Participation

As stated in the Blue Book, a program represents a number of elements and decisions that together constitute a program setting (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2002). Some of these 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. This chapter provides an overview of scholarship that describes out-of-school-time (OST) programs and activities across a wide spectrum of settings. We first summarize the landscape of OST programs serving the nation’s children and youth and how these programs vary across multiple dimensions. We cover the topics that programs address, how they are structured, and how they operate.

The chapter then presents demographic information about participation in OST programs across the U.S. population of children and youth and examines trends over time, as well as demand for and participation within programs. We discuss key factors that can affect program participation—including enrollment, attendance, and engagement. Understanding who is participating, who wants to participate, and why they may not be is a precursor to identifying strategies for increasing participation and ensuring access to high-quality OST opportunities for all.

THE LANDSCAPE OF OST PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES

Diversity is a defining feature of OST programs in that they address a broad range of topics of interest to children and youth. Some entities

offer science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) and STEAM (STEM + art) programs. For instance, most cities have programs that specifically teach young people to code. Academic-focused programs provide homework support, mentoring, and sometimes supplemental academic learning (e.g., online math programs). Some programs define themselves mostly as safe hangout, drop-in spaces. Others specialize in art, including visual arts, music, dance, drama, new media, and literary arts. There are programs designed to support affiliate groups, such as those for LGBTQ+ youth, and others that engage young people in youth organizing and activism. Still other programs defy categorization—the boat-building apprentice program of the Seaport Foundation in Alexandria, Virginia,¹ for example. Some programs are centered on youth voice and leadership, such as the Neutral Zone in Ann Arbor, Michigan,² and meditation programs, such as the Mindfulness Teen Retreats, operated by Inward Bound.³ Youth programs are as diverse as the variety of things that can be learned, and while the field has not yet landed on a standard way to categorize them, researchers are working to do so, as explained in the sections below.

OST programs and activities occur within a variety of settings, including school-based OST programs, national programs with regional affiliates (e.g., YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs of America), independent grassroots organizations, cultural institutions (e.g., museums, libraries), municipal agencies (e.g., youth detention centers, parks and recreation centers), residential group homes, faith-based spaces, and outreach programs focused on essential needs (e.g., for unhoused youth; Baldridge et al., 2021). Figure 4-1 depicts this variation across sectors and provider types and indicates some of the typical program focus areas across those sectors and settings. The sections below summarize programs’ focus, location, and structure, painting a picture of the broad landscape of OST programs serving children and youth in the United States.

Variations by Focus

OST activities vary according to their primary focus and the type of programming offered to participants. In a review of 246 studies, Neild et al. (2019) studied primarily both multicomponent and academic OST programs. Multicomponent programs can be further differentiated to include a focus on career and/or leadership development or on social supports, such as case management and increased family involvement. Other programs, according to Neild et al. (2019), can be grouped into arts, sports,

___________________

¹ https://alexandriaseaport.org/apprentice-program

² https://www.neutral-zone.org

³ https://inwardboundmind.org

STEM, physical activity and healthy living, and school-sponsored extracurricular activities. Other scholars organize the focus areas similarly; for example, McCombs et al. (2017) used three broad categories to organize OST programs: multipurpose, academic programs, and specialty programs.

Multicomponent or multipurpose programs provide a variety of academic and nonacademic activities for children and youth. Their activities may include homework help, enrichment activities, recreation, and snacks, and may be led by school teachers, youth development practitioners, library staff, museum staff, or informal educators. As mentioned, some multicomponent programs focus on career and leadership development—for example, the Leaders of Tomorrow Program in Clarkston, Georgia, engaged predominantly refugee and immigrant young people with a leadership program co-created with youth participants (Clarkston Community Center, n.d.). The program included a strong focus on community engagement, with youth working on a community project during their time in the program. For example, youth participants developed a student government and a parent–teacher association for their school. Participants also had access to speakers who discussed career readiness, leadership roles, and workforce readiness. Leaders of Tomorrow had a podcast (Clarkston Talks), a summer camp at the local community center, and wraparound services for children, youth, and families, such as a full food pantry.⁴

Academic programs include summer learning programs, tutoring, or enrichment. In these programs, youth development workers may provide enrichment and recreation, but most of the time is dedicated to academic instruction provided by certified teachers. For example, Community Lodgings (n.d.) is a community-based organization in Alexandria, Virginia, that offers transitional housing for families experiencing homelessness and affordable long-term housing for families with lower incomes. Community Lodgings also offers an OST program with year-round academic support to local children and youth, partnering with the Alexandria City Public Schools to ensure their activities correspond with what participants are learning in school. The program is supported by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) grant. In addition to academic support, it provides daily meals, recreation, and mentorship.⁵

Specialty programs have a particular focus such as art, music, drama, sports, technology, or leadership development. These programs are often taught by someone with content expertise, sometimes include a fee, and primarily seek to help children and youth develop specific skills. Specialty programs may focus on STEM (e.g., 4-H Robotics program,⁶ Girls Who

___________________

⁴ Public information-gathering session, April 18, 2024.

⁵ Public information-gathering session, February 8, 2024.

⁶ https://4-h.org/programs/robotics

Code⁷), civic engagement (e.g., Citizen Schools⁸), or arts (e.g., Life Pieces to Masterpieces⁹). The program Guitars Over Guns (n.d.), for example, offers arts education and mentorship for young people from vulnerable communities across the country, with the help of professional musicians and artists. Participants meet with their musician or artist mentors two days per week for two hours, with a goal of preparing four ensemble performances over the course of a year.¹⁰

Variations by Location

OST programs exist across the United States in a variety of urban, suburban, mixed-rural, and rural settings. Urban areas have the highest concentration of OST programs, likely because of population density and access to such resources as program providers, partners, and transportation. A 2016 Afterschool Alliance survey estimated that 13% of children and youth in rural areas participate in OST programs, while 25% of children and youth in urban areas participate (Fischer, 2019). Young people in rural areas are more likely to participate in jurisdiction-run programs (such as a parks and recreation department) or 4-H than their urban counterparts (Fischer, 2019).

Location can influence the size of a program’s resources and how it shapes its activities. Local programs are likely to form goals that respond to and prioritize community needs. For example, a program may offer arts clubs if those courses have been deprioritized in schools; another program may form a climbing club if it is located near natural climbing areas. Local programs may be part of community-based organizations, school districts, city parks and recreation centers, museums, faith-based organizations, zoos, botanical gardens, aquariums, scout groups, and citizen science programs, among others. Most take place in a single setting, but some rotate daily or weekly among locations.

While state or national programs, such as Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Scouts, and the Cooperative Extensions 4-H program, typically have steady sources of funding and structure and privilege implementation of program models and national requirements, nonaffiliated local programs may experience challenges in accessing resources and evaluation services to assess their impact on participants. Chapter 7 discusses funding sources at federal, state, and local levels.

___________________

⁷ https://girlswhocode.com

⁸ https://www.citizenschools.org

⁹ https://lifepieces.org

¹⁰ Public information-gathering session, April 18, 2024.

Variations by Structure

OST programs vary by structure—namely, who offers the program and when it is offered (e.g., before school, summertime, weekly). Many schools offer OST programs, with sports or music extracurricular activities. Some schools also offer specialty clubs, such as science and chess clubs. As mentioned above, national organizations that offer OST programs include Boys & Girls Clubs of America or the YMCA. Other entities offering OST programs include small nonprofits, libraries, content-specific organizations (e.g., art museums), and universities (e.g., Center for Education Integrating Science, Mathematics, and Computing [CEISMC]¹¹ at Georgia Tech). A 2020 survey of over 3,000 parents identified programs that their children participated in during the school year (see Table 4-1).

Smaller municipalities, which tend to have limited resources, often facilitate OST programs through their parks and recreation departments or libraries. Many cities are expanding and enhancing more traditional forms of OST programs—moving from conventional sports-centric models to more holistic programming frameworks, for example. Some cities provide OST

TABLE 4-1 Out-of-School-Time (OST) Programs That Parents Reported Their Children Participate in, 2020

SOURCE: Afterschool Alliance, 2020a.

___________________

¹¹ https://www.ceismc.gatech.edu/ng

programming through a comprehensive, OST-specific department (e.g., the City of Tempe, Arizona [n.d.], Kid Zone Enrichment Program). The Kid Zone Enrichment Program was founded in 1986 and currently serves approximately 1,300 children from preschool to age 8 years at 15 school-based program sites. The City of Tempe uses approximately $5 million in general funds to support the program’s annual budget, with supplemental funds provided by the State Department of Economic Security and participant registration fees. The Kid Zone Enrichment Program sits within the Community Health and Human Services Department, under the office of Education, Career and Family Services; it receives strong support from the mayor, city manager, and city council (Stockman, 2024).

OST programs may take place before school, after school, and/or during the summer. Most meet on a regular basis throughout the year, but some meet for only part of the year.¹² For example, a theater-based program might meet for rehearsals and performance, then not meet again until it is time to prepare for the next performance. Programs may meet every weekday (e.g., 21st CCLC) or at regular intervals (e.g., a dance class that meets weekly). A meta-analyses of OST programs conducted by Lauer et al. (2006) indicates that temporal variations of OST programs do not influence their effectiveness. Before-school programs, such as those offered by the YMCA, may offer academic support, free play, games, or physical activities (Black et al., 2015; Cradock et al., 2019; Whooten et al., 2018). Some provide breakfast. Many OST programs that operate during the school year also operate camps during the summer—both day and resident camps. Summer programs are described more fully in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consensus report, Shaping Summertime Experiences (2019). Some programs use external and/or internally developed curriculum to teach activities, while other programs offer leisure activities or co-create curriculum with youth (e.g., Thiebault & Witt, 2014).

The following sections shift from talking about the landscape of OST programs to what is known about the demographics of children and youth attending those programs across the United States, trends in participation over time, key factors affecting their participation, and opportunities to increase participation.

___________________

¹² While this report is focused on structured programming that is attended with regularity, some organizations or youth centers provide “drop-in” programming for children and youth, which offers flexibility to those who may experience challenges in attending regularly or who do not want to commit to a structured program (Chechak et al., 2019). Prior research points to challenges posed to unstructured programs, including negative developmental outcomes (Mahoney et al., 2004).

DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT OF PARTICIPATION IN OST PROGRAMS

Understanding the current state of youth participation in OST programs, as defined in this report,¹³ is challenging given that few sources of population-level data on participation exist. Even more challenging is isolating the data to understand variation in OST participation by subgroups.

The nationally representative reports from Afterschool Alliance’s America After 3PM (AA3) survey provide the most comprehensive dataset on youth participation in OST programs and therefore serve as the basis for the committee’s assessment. It is important to note that the survey assesses participation across all OST programs serving all children and youth, not only programs serving primarily those from low-income households. AA3 surveys¹⁴ randomly selected adults who live in the United States and are the parent or guardian of a school-age child who lives in their household. In the most recent AA3 study (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b), over 30,000 households were surveyed with questions about the ways in which their child or children are cared for in the hours after school, participation in organized activities and summer experiences, and household demographics. For consistency with this report, this chapter uses the term OST programs; however, AA3 used afterschool programs, which it defined as (Afterschool Alliance, 2020a)

In this section, the committee first recaps participation rates from AA3 surveys among children and youth in the United States by race and ethnicity, household income, grade level, and community type, as well as demand for programs. Then the committee looks at the makeup of participants within programs. Data reported here are based on results from the 2020 survey. Survey results from 2004, 2009, and 2014 are included to illustrate trends over time. The committee also offers the most recent data, from an Afterschool Alliance survey conducted in the summer of 2022; however, it

___________________

¹³ The committee defines OST programs as structured school- and community-based programs offered outside of school hours that are not part of the school curriculum and that occur with regular frequency. These include programs offered before school, after school, on weekends, or during the summer.

¹⁴ The survey used a blend of national consumer panels, with the goal of completing at least 200 interviews in every state and Washington, DC. In states where this goal could not be reached using online panels, supplementary telephone interviews were conducted.

is important to note that the 2022 survey utilizes a considerably smaller sample size than past surveys (N = ~1,500) and therefore should be interpreted with caution.

Demographics of OST Participation Among All U.S. Children and Youth

For 10 years, child and youth participation in OST programs in the United States steadily increased, with approximately 11% (6.5 million) of school-age children and youth participating in 2004 to 18% (10.2 million) in 2014. In 2020 (prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic), participation in OST programs declined to 14% (7.8 million) of the overall school-age population (see Figure 4-2). Analysis of a smaller sample of households in 2022 indicates that participation rates have further declined, which suggests impacts of COVID-19, but research utilizing larger and more representative sample sizes would offer a more accurate assessment. Despite the limitations of the 2022 analyses, the recent drop in participation warrants further examination to understand potential drivers.

Participation by Race and Ethnicity

According to data from the Afterschool Alliance, participation rates among all White children and youth in the United States has remained constant since 2004; however, participation in OST programs among Black, Hispanic, and Asian youth decreased notably between 2014 and 2020 (see Figure 4-3). A sharp decline among Hispanic children and youth participation is evident. According to Afterschool Alliance (2020b, 2022), Black and Hispanic families have high unmet demand (60% for Hispanic children and 54% for Black children); additionally, Black and Hispanic parents disproportionately report experiencing barriers to entry such as programs being too expensive, unavailable in their communities, or lacking safe and reliable transportation options for their children, which will be discussed later in the chapter.

Participation by Household Income

According to data from Afterschool Alliance (2020b), participation among children from higher-income families has increased since 2009 but fluctuated among those from low-income households, with an overall decline from 2014 to 2020. Of the 7.8 million children and youth overall in OST programs in 2020, 2.7 million were from low-income households (see Figure 4-4A). Figure 4-4B further breaks down participation rates among children and youth from low-income households in 2020 by race and ethnicity, showing that Black and Asian children and youth

from low-income households are more likely to participate than White and Hispanic youth from low-income households (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b, 2024). Results from the AA3 survey indicate that unmet demand for afterschool programs has grown to roughly 24.6 million young people as of 2020 (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b), with about 11 million children from low-income families reporting that they would participate in an afterschool program if they had access to one (Afterschool Alliance, 2024).

Participation by Grade Level

Data from the AA3 survey show fluctuations in OST program participation by grade level since 2009. Between 2009 and 2014, participation rates increased across children and youth in elementary, middle, and high school with decreases across grade levels noted between 2014 and 2020 (see Figure 4-5). Unmet demand remains the highest among children in grades K–5 at 56%, with grades 6–8 at 47% and 9–12 at 36%; all three groups have experienced an increase in demand since 2009 (Afterschool Alliance, n.d.).

By Region and Community Type

Across the United States, participation in OST programs has decreased between 2014 and 2020, despite minimal changes in overall child

and youth population numbers. Georgia, Indiana, Wyoming, and Idaho saw the smallest decline in participation, while the biggest drops in participation occurred in Washington, DC; Rhode Island; Maine; and Nevada. Trends in participation from 2004 to 2020 by locale show decreases among children and youth living in urban and rural neighborhoods, while those in suburban neighborhoods remained steady (see Figure 4-6). Afterschool Alliance (2021b) reports that unmet demand in rural areas has been on the rise, jumping from 39% in 2009 to 47% in 2020. Within rural communities, unmet demand is yet higher among low-income and Black, Latino, as well as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (often shortened to AANHPI) children all reporting demand higher than the rural average.

Demographics of Participants Within OST Programs

The makeup of children and youth within OST programs provides additional information when trying to understand participation trends,

particularly among children and youth from marginalized¹⁵ backgrounds. Table 4-2 presents the profile of OST participants by select demographic characteristics. As noted above, data from the 2022 survey have been included but need to be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size. Data from the Afterschool Alliance (2024) describe the following trends:

• Within programs, most participants are White, of elementary school age, and from households with higher incomes. Between 2014 and 2022, the composition of participants shifted, with Black and Hispanic children and youth composing a growing percentage of OST participants.

___________________

¹⁵ 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.

TABLE 4-2 Out-of-School-Time Program Participants by Select Demographics

* Very small sample size.

NOTES: 2022 survey data were nationally representative, but the sample size was significantly smaller than in previous years—the study surveyed 1,489 adults in the United States who were the parent or guardian of a school-age child who lives in their household. Grayed out boxes denote that data were not available.

SOURCE: Data were commissioned from the Afterschool Alliance and provided to the committee in July 2024.

• Within programs, the sharpest decline among participants between 2014 and 2020 was among children and youth from low-income backgrounds. In 2014, 45% of participants were reported to be from low-income families, compared with 34% in 2020, despite steady increases in participation among children and youth from low-income backgrounds between 2009 and 2014.
• Within programs, the racial composition of participants from low-income families mirrors the composition of overall participants, with the majority of youth from low-income communities being White.
• Within programs, across both urban and suburban settings, low-income families compose a smaller percentage of participants. Among those participants in rural settings, the distribution of children from low- and high-income families is more similar.

In addition, Afterschool Alliance (2024) reports that, in 2020, approximately 19% of participants identified as having some form of special need (self-defined) or as having a specific physical, emotional, or learning disability.¹⁶ The 2020 AA3 survey asked participants about primary language and cultural identification; 10% of Hispanic OST participants reported speaking primarily Spanish at home (Afterschool Alliance, 2024). Data on immigrant and refugee status are not available. Data on multiracial youth within OST programs are also not available.

UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATION IN OST PROGRAMS

Current survey data illustrated above shows that between 2014 and 2020 participation in OST among children and youth has declined, with over one-third of those participating coming from low-income households. Participation among Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations declined but remained constant for White children and youth, and among low-income households, Black and Asian children and youth are more likely to participate than White and Hispanic youth. Participation rates also decreased across grade levels with high school–age participants continuing to participate in lower rates than elementary- and middle school–age participants. Finally, participation among children and youth living in urban and rural neighborhoods declined, while those in suburban neighborhoods remained steady (Afterschool Alliance, 2024).

Although on the surface participation in an OST program may seem to be a simple factor (i.e., Did a child attend or not?), participation is complex.

___________________

¹⁶ Respondents were asked, “Has your ___ grader been identified as a student with special needs, or diagnosed with a specific physical, emotional or learning disability?”

Participation includes intensity (how often young people attend), duration (how long they attend), breadth (the degree to which they participate in multiple types and number of activities), and engagement (how involved they are when attending a program; Bohnert et al., 2010). Participation in an OST program affects a young person’s experiences within the program and developmental outcomes, which will be discussed further in Chapters 6 and 7. This section offers information to better understand what factors affect participation rates.

Although literature has established a distinct gap in OST program participation by income (Snellman et al., 2015), the reasons for this gap are less agreed upon (Bennett et al., 2012). Parents with low incomes report that they would like their children to be involved in OST programming but that they can experience significant barriers to entry, often shaped by society-level systems such as government policy, that wealthier families do not face. These barriers include, but are not limited to, atypical parental work schedules, knowledge of available programs, program fees, and concerns regarding neighborhood safety (Vandell et al., 2019). Beyond barriers, children and youth and their caregivers take into account other considerations when deciding whether or not to participate in OST programs. Understanding both barriers and other considerations can support the development of strategies to promote participation. The following sections delve into these issues, first looking at pathways to entering programs.

Onramps to OST Participation

Parents and Guardians Decide

Parents and guardians are largely the ones deciding whether to enroll their children in OST programs and in which type of programs. Parents find and select OST programs in a number of ways (see Figure 4-7). In a study by Learning Heroes (2021), parents reported that the two most common ways to find a program were speaking to other parents or children who participate in the program and seeking out information from the program itself. The factors shaping these decisions are discussed in greater detail later in the chapter.

Children and Youth Decide

As children and youth get older, they become increasingly likely to be the main decision-makers in their attendance, making choices on their own from a larger selection of specialized extracurricular activities (Akiva et al., 2014).

Juvenile Courts Decide with Parents and Guardians

For young people with risk of or prior juvenile justice system involvement, enrollment in OST programs can be a voluntary choice made by their parents or guardians (Miller et al., 2012). Placement into an OST program may also be recommended by a juvenile judge after adjudication or other disposition of a juvenile court case (Afterschool Alliance, 2020c). This is based on the juvenile justice system notion of parens patriae—the court is viewed as a “parent” that can make decisions and recommendations for a young person with juvenile justice system involvement (Feld, 2017).

There is limited evidence regarding how children and youth within the juvenile justice system are placed into OST programs, but OST programs have historically been viewed as an important component of services for this population (Bodilly & Beckett, 2005; Leone et al., 2002; Peter, 2002). The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act’s 2018 reauthorization specifically mentioned nondetention options (e.g., training programs, OST programs) as including delinquency prevention programs or as replacement options for juvenile facility detention (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2018). Finally, OST programs have been viewed as potentially helpful in addressing a variety of post-release and transition needs for children and youth reentering their home communities after juvenile justice system involvement; OST programs can support social skill development, provide in-depth training for skills, and support the development of consistent one-on-one mentoring schedules with invested professionals (Youth.gov, n.d.).

Key Factors Affecting Enrollment and Participation

As the majority of OST programs for children and youth are attended voluntarily, the question of why individuals join and continue to attend is prominent. Individual-, program-, and system-level factors affect OST program participation as the following section illustrates, describing often-cited factors shaping decision-making around and access to OST programs, which can contribute to differences across subgroup participation.

In considering these factors, it is important to remember that the reasons behind enrollment, the challenges that families and young people face to program participation, and the potential ways to alleviate these challenges depend on each family’s situations and contexts. For example, some programming requires parent involvement for younger children, whereas older youth may be managing attendance independently and may exert a stronger voice in what they do outside school. Additionally, while a barrier to attendance may be present in urban, suburban, and rural contexts, such as lack of transportation, the underlying reasons that make it a barrier and the opportunities to address the barrier may be quite different based on the setting.

Program Availability, Program Location, and Transportation

Data from the Afterschool Alliance (2020b) reveal that Black and Hispanic parents from low-income households cite (1) the availability of programs in a community, (2) their proximity to the neighborhoods where youth live, and (3) the availability of safe transportation to and from programming as important reasons for their decision not to enroll their child in an OST program; they report these issues more often than White parents from low-income households (p. 32). Parents living in areas of concentrated poverty were also more likely than their higher-income counterparts to report lack of safe transportation (51% vs. 39%; Afterschool Alliance, 2020b).

The availability of free transportation facilitates attendance (Kamrath, 2019), whereas a lack of transportation and the associated safety issues (e.g., having to walk or take public transportation in the dark) hinder attendance (Maljak et al., 2014). As reported by Clarke et al. (2023), nationally, 17% of youth (age 14 to 17) have been indirectly exposed to community violence, and the risk of multiple exposures increases significantly among young people living in urban areas, where violent crime is concentrated in low-resource neighborhoods. Urbanicity plays a role in access to public transportation, but even for youth in urban areas with access to public buses or trains, transportation costs and safety may still hinder their use. In many communities, public transportation options may be scarce or unreliable, making it challenging for children and youth to travel to and from OST program sites. In rural areas, 40% of residents in the United States have no public transit options (Brown & Stommes, 2004). Box 4-1 expands on rural settings.

Transportation challenges are ever present in rural communities, but, as described by Lindsay (2020), can be compounded for many individuals with disabilities. As Archer (2021) points out, although these barriers to accessing society’s resources and opportunities are due to racialized marginalization, they are often compounded by economic inequality. The author finds that Black, Latine, and Native American youth are far less likely to have access to reliable public transportation because of the impacts of historical and present-day discriminatory transportation policies (Archer, 2021).

Program Costs and Family Resources

Many OST programs require fees for participation to cover operating costs (e.g., salaries and benefits, facilities). A survey of Pennsylvania-based OST providers found that more than one-third of OST programs received 75% of their funding from parents (Joint State Government Commission, 2021). In parent surveys, program costs remain a key concern, with 57% of parents reporting that the cost of OST programs was an important factor in their decision not to enroll their child (Afterschool Alliance, 2022, p. 3). Fees can make programs inaccessible to families from low-income households, contributing to the gap in participation seen between families with low and higher incomes. Parents with higher incomes spend more money on goods and services aimed at enriching the experiences of their children (Duncan & Murnane, 2011). AA3 data show that higher-income families spend more than five times as much on those opportunities than families in the lowest income bracket (~$3,600 per year and ~$700 per year, respectively [Afterschool Alliance, 2020b]).

Families with low incomes may also have to prioritize where they apply their resources; they may require older children to stay at home to supervise younger siblings at times or may have to manage financial resources for OST activities across multiple children. Families may have to make difficult decisions on which activities to support for which children or decisions between an activity for one child versus the family overall (Ramos Carranza & Simpkins, 2023). Families may be encouraged to enroll their children in programs if all their children could attend one program, which would alleviate the responsibility of older siblings to take care of younger siblings and reduce transportation problems for parents who need to pick up multiple children at the end of the day (Cornelli Sanderson & Richards, 2010).

A 2012 study conducted qualitative interviews of 51 parents at two urban middle schools and observed class differences in activity participation that were consistent with prior studies: the middle-class children participated in the most activities and the working-class children participated in the least, on average (Bennett et al., 2012). The parents’ responses

revealed that although children from both groups participated in in-school activities at similar rates, their OST activity participation differed greatly: working-class children’s participation was largely centered around school and religious activities, with almost no reported participation in activities that middle-class children attended (e.g., private music lessons, summer programs at universities). This led researchers to suggest that financial constraints and other barriers to entry may lead working-class families to turn primarily to social institutions in their neighborhoods, such as schools and churches, to find activities for their children (Bennett et al., 2012).

Family Involvement

As mentioned in Chapter 3, family involvement in OST programs can mean many things (e.g., buying equipment, volunteering, managing schedules) and can support increased youth participation in OST programs. In one of the committee’s public sessions,¹⁷ a program leader shared:

Parent leadership is an intrinsic part of some activities. In 2015, the Pew Research Center (2015) conducted a national survey of 2,000 parents—nearly one-third of respondents reported coaching their child in a sport over the course of the previous year, particularly fathers and parents of children over age 13. Elsewhere, it was found that most parents with a daughter in the Girl Scouts of America were involved with the program in some way and that they were largely responsible for the Girl Scout Cookie sales operations, the organization’s largest fundraising activity (Girl Scout Research Institute, 2012; Vandell et al., 2019).

In 2007, researchers examined retention patterns in a New York City OST initiative that included programs serving children and youth in grades K–12 in both school-based and center settings (Pearson et al., 2007). They found that family outreach was associated with higher participant retention and that programs with higher retention rates were more likely to have a parent liaison—a volunteer or staff member serving as a go-between for program and families. Of the largest program option, 53% of programs

___________________

¹⁷ Public information-gathering session, February 8, 2024.

with high rates of youth reenrollment in 2006–2007 had a parent liaison in the first year of the initiative, compared with 39% of programs with medium retention and 31% of programs with low retention (Pearson et al., 2007). Researchers found that this trend was especially noticeable in programs run through community centers (Pearson et al., 2007).

Program Awareness

Child, youth, and family awareness about programs can be a barrier to OST enrollment (Cornelli Sanderson & Richards, 2010). Parents and caregivers may not be aware of the existence of OST programs because information about these programs is not reaching them, possibly because of language barriers or because the information is not coming through channels they frequently use or trust. For example, in their study of Mexican-origin families, Simpkins et al. (2013) found that parents viewed the church as a familiar and trusted institution where their children attend religious classes, and they preferred their children engage in church-based activities. The majority of parents received information directly from the church regarding activities, whereas other activities were often filtered through their children (Simpkins et al., 2013).

OST programs may struggle with visibility within the community, possibly because of a lack of physical presence in the community or insufficient advertising in places where families gather, such as community centers or local events. For example, if information is shared primarily through school channels and a parent does not regularly check school notices or newsletters, they may miss out on learning about available programs. Relatedly, OST programs may not have direct channels to children, youth, and families to make them aware of program availability.

Even if families are aware of OST options for their children, they may not be familiar with what these programs entail. For example, Simpkins et al. (2013) report that immigrant families may be unfamiliar with OST activities if they come from an area where these kinds of activities were not available or if they differed from those in the United States (e.g., different expectations, location).

Family Perceptions and Values

Families overwhelmingly see the value of high-quality OST programs for their children, with 94% of parents reporting being satisfied with the OST program their child attends (Afterschool Alliance, 2020a). Parents are more likely to enroll their children in OST activities if they believe these activities will benefit their child. Benefits include (1) providing an alternative to spending time unsupervised with peers or doing sedentary activities,

(2) giving children the freedom to follow their interests and improving skills they already showed aptitude for, (3) offering opportunities for personal development and academic enrichment, and (4) socialization with peers and strengthened family relationships (Barnett & Weber, 2008; Vandell et al., 2019). Data from AA3 surveys show that parents believe OST programs provide time for kids to engage with their peers and reduce unproductive screen time, get kids more excited about learning, and reduce the likelihood that they will use drugs or engage in other risky behaviors (Afterschool Alliance, 2020a). The benefits of participation extend to parents as well. When asked about supports they receive from programs, 78% of parents with a child enrolled in an OST program report that programs help them keep their jobs, and 71% say that programs allow them to build their skills through classes or workshops offered (Doleh, 2021).

Researchers have also reported both the similarities and differences between what parents from different income brackets say they prioritize. When asked about their feelings regarding children’s participation in structured activities, parents from working class and middle class households from the Bennet et al. (2012) study introduced earlier, cited reasons for enrolling their children in an activity: common to both groups were a child’s interest and opportunities for personal development, academic knowledge, keeping active, and socialization. However, middle-class parents also reported a desire to customize children’s activities, wanting to ensure that children were enrolled in programs that meshed well with their abilities and interests. Working-class parents, on the other hand, cited safety and opportunities for social mobility as reasons that activities were beneficial for children (Bennett et al., 2012).

These activities also provide benefits that certain groups consider valuable. For example, Latine families cited respeto and familismo as benefits their children could gain from participating in activities, while Asian families cited family support, and European American families cited competition and effort (Barnett & Weber, 2008; Lin et al., 2018; Vandell et al., 2019).

Lareau (2003) found that families, particularly families with limited resources, were unlikely to support children’s participation if activities were not valued. AA3 data show that half of parents without a child in an OST program report that they feel these programs would expose their child to negative influences, experiences, and values. This concern is greater among Hispanic and Black parents (Afterschool Alliance, 2020a).

Family perceptions may determine whether an adolescent participates in an activity and the quality of their participation (Ramos Carranza & Simpkins, 2023). In their study of Mexican-origin families, Ramos Carranza and Simpkins (2023) report that parents perceived the commitment required by organized activities (in terms of time and resources) as constraining their ability to participate in other culturally valued activities, such as spending time together as a family and attending church. Additionally, Simpkins et al. (2013)

found that the majority of Mexican-origin youth interviewed in their study expressed a desire for a program environment that allowed them to speak both English and Spanish; however, their parents did not see the language gap as a barrier since their children were bilingual.

Participant Interests and Motivations

Across studies, scholars have found that attendance is facilitated by the availability of desired and fun activities, the presence of friends, a desire for a safe space where participants could avoid trouble, and the availability of snacks (Akiva & Horner, 2016; Fuller et al., 2013; Hicks et al., 2022; Kamrath, 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Maljak et al., 2014).

Motivations to attend specialty programs can also connect to the type of program. For example, in a study of eight youth activism programs, Akiva et al. (2017) found that youth were drawn to both youth–adult relationships and the topic of youth activism, alongside the belongingness and sanctuary of the program. In a series of studies focused on a girls’ physical activity program and affiliated body image curriculum (Abraczinskas & Zarrett, 2020; Marttinen et al., 2020; Meza & Marttinen, 2019; Simon et al., 2021), the creation of a gender-specific environment and activities appeared important for facilitating comfort and, therefore, engagement in the program. Similarly, specific pedagogies were reported as facilitating youth engagement:

• a narrative approach to STEM education for girls (Pinkard et al., 2017);
• an afterschool math program for Latine youth that uses a curriculum linking math and social and emotional learning skills to other contexts, as well as to participants’ personal values (Yu et al., 2021);
• projects that connect to the larger sociopolitical context (Vakil, 2014); and
• digital technology programs for urban youth (Thompson & Diaz, 2012).

Chapter 6 offers more discussion of the experiences of children and youth within OST programs and how this may affect their participation.

Moreover, evidence from Baldridge et al. (2024) and Williams and Deutsch (2016) shows that racism and discrimination may hinder young people’s motivation, sense of belonging, and positive developmental outcomes. In a study of programs whose participants were Mexican-origin children, Ettekal et al. (2020) found that staff included stereotypical cultural activities as an approach to integrate cultural awareness into programs; however, youth and parents perceived a cultural misalignment that led to dropping out of activities.

In an ethnographic study of OST programs serving immigrant youth with a range of ethnic and language backgrounds in San Franciso, California, Gast et al. (2017) found that funding mandates, capacity issues, and the increasingly broad range of youth served limited the programs’ ability to support native-language usage, so they adopted English-only policies. Additionally, Gast et al. (2017) report that while staff sought to support and empower immigrant youth, English-language learners were often left on the sidelines and had limited opportunities to develop social capital in OST programs.

Program Timing and Competing Activities

As shown in Figure 4-5 (earlier in this chapter), as youth get older, they are less likely to participate in OST activities (see Box 4-2 for more discussion of unsupervised time). Adolescents may forego participation in programs for a variety of reasons—competition from other activities, including extracurricular activities (e.g., sports), obligations such as mandated tutoring, care responsibilities for family members, dislike of the people running the programs, or lack of parental permission (Borden et al., 2005; Hicks et al., 2022; Kim et al., 2019; Maljak et al., 2014; Perkins et al., 2007). Another competing activity for older youth, especially those from low-income families, is employment. For youth from low-income households, employment is often motivated by the need to help with household expenses, whereas more affluent youth usually work to purchase luxury goods (Purtell & McLoyd, 2013).

PROMISING STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING OST PARTICIPATION

Local intermediaries and municipalities, operating as coordinators, funders, and systems builders, are uniquely situated to positively influence participation in OST programs. The following sections describe efforts by these entities, as well as programs themselves, such as using data and mapping to improve availability and accessibility of programs and addressing challenges around transportation that can result from systemic barriers to access to OST programming for children and youth. In some instances, intermediaries have addressed access and opportunity issues by meaningfully involving youth and families in the process.

Using Data to Address Access Gaps

Many intermediaries use data primarily for compliance purposes (e.g., meeting minimum quality standards). However, more robust systems allow

for data to be collected and analyzed in ways that attend to more specific community needs (e.g., identifying and addressing program deserts in high-poverty communities). Some local intermediaries use geographic information system technology to identify service gaps. Municipalities will conduct landscape analyses of varying degrees of complexity to identify these challenges and opportunities. At a macro level, many municipal agencies map their OST programs, allowing them to know where programs exist and where they do not—where there are OST oases and where there are deserts (Sayin & Calma, 2023). More detailed data may include where certain types of programs (e.g., STEM) are concentrated, allowing agencies to identify barriers to access.

More complex uses of data include analysis across linked datasets—for example, to layer juvenile crime, housing, and community health statistics. In their most developed forms, municipal OST coordinating entities utilize individual-level statistics to yield more nuanced information about specific individuals’ needs and related program outcomes.

The City of Baltimore, Maryland, uses data from several city departments to produce a robust picture of the city’s OST system, including impacts of the system on community and municipality-wide health and well-being (Spooner, 2011). The coordinating entity—the Family League of Baltimore—receives and analyzes data from OST programs, the Baltimore City Public Schools, the Baltimore City Police department, and various human service agencies. This aggregation of data allows the City to assess the degree to which OST programs support a variety of citywide goals, such as reducing juvenile crime and the teen pregnancy rate and increasing the number of youth who complete high school on time. Although most mapping efforts appear to be done at the state level and leverage existing relationships with research organizations (e.g., California), other local intermediaries map their program locations for similar purposes.

Recognizing the complex nature of collecting and reporting on the vast amounts of data collected, some intermediaries and municipalities have created dashboards and reports that make interpreting data more accessible. These dashboards often include program type, age served, and location (Gamse et al., 2019). For example, the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma, has developed a publicly available interactive map for stakeholders to identify where programs are (and are not; The Opp Project, n.d.).¹⁸ Similarly, the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (n.d.), has developed a program locator tool to identify programs in different neighborhoods. Additionally, promising data on school–OST partnerships indicate the potential for cross-sector collaboration on establishing best practices for collecting and using data to address access and opportunity barriers. However, the committee did not assess the degree to which these partnerships already exist.

___________________

¹⁸ https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/justine.gramling/viz/shared/74X2YT4HZ

Increasing Access to Safe and Reliable Transportation

“There is a whole list of barriers that would keep a parent from being able to access a program. [. . .] So, transportation has been an important part of who we are since our founding,” shared one program leader in a public session with the committee.¹⁹ Dedicated funding for programs to cover transportation costs can support program participation. Funders often have restrictions around the use of funds for this purpose (see Chapter 8). Local intermediaries and cities can also provide this type of funding; for example, the City of Philadelphia provides funding to programs specifically for transportation to and from program locations. Some municipalities have enacted policies that have positively impacted young people’s ability to access public transportation services. For example, Tulsa Transit partners with Tulsa Public Schools (n.d.) to provide high school students free transportation on public transit lines, in part to increase access to OST programs. Similarly, the City of Sacramento, California, through its RydeFreeRT program, provides free public transportation for young people through grade 12. Transportation initiatives in cities around the country may close gaps in access to OST programs.

Youth in rural communities are also challenged by the lack of safe, reliable transportation to and from program sites (Afterschool Alliance, 2021b). This is largely due to lack of funding to support adequate transportation infrastructure and services. Though not directly related to OST, a number of rural communities are piloting services to reduce transportation gaps that may positively impact access to OST programs for these youth. Often supported by grants from federal and state governments, such as the Rural and Tribal Assistance Pilot Program, rural communities are implementing and evaluating “on-demand micro-transit” programs, which may be more cost effective and responsive to community need. Unlike private ridesharing companies, these (largely) nonprofit organizations work with small towns and cities to provide transportation to residents. For example, Wilson, North Carolina, a city of about 50,000 people located 50 miles east of Raleigh, has partnered with RIDE to provide low-cost ($1.50/ride) transportation for seniors and residents with disabilities. These direct-to-consumer services could be expanded to include transportation for youth to and from OST programs (North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2023; Rural Health Information Hub, n.d.; Sherfinski, 2022).

Reducing or Eliminating Program Costs

Local intermediaries have implemented policies for reducing or eliminating program fees for low-income households. These policies include

___________________

¹⁹ This public session took place on February 8, 2024.

(1) scholarships; (2) sliding pay scales based on family income or the concentration of poverty in the neighborhood in which they live; (3) stipends for older youth to participate; and (4) where possible, making program participation free for families with low incomes. For example, through a mix of both public and private support totaling over $55 million in 2017, the City of Philadelphia provided funding to OST program providers, allowing them to offer free programming (Hartmann et al., 2017). Similarly, the Providence After School Alliance (PASA), a local OST intermediary in Rhode Island, braids funding sources in part to ensure that youth from low-income communities can participate in OST activities (see Chapter 8 for more discussion of braiding funds). Many programs supported by PASA utilize scholarships or provide free programming to eligible participants. The Digital Harbor Foundation in Baltimore employs a “pay what you can” model so their program has no fixed cost, which allows for a wide range of participation.

Incentivizing Participation

As youth get older, OST programs compete against paid employment for their time. A mixed-methods study of OST programs in six U.S. cities—Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio; New York, New York; Providence, Rhode Island; San Francisco, California; and Washington, DC—found that participation incentives can matter for attendance, engagement, and retention, and that different types of incentives matter in different ways to older youth in urban areas (Deschenes et al., 2010). Reported incentives commonly included field trips, jobs, and school credit. Other incentives were food, grocery store gift cards, movie tickets, bus passes, and clothes. In interviews, OST providers stated that incentives offered a way to encourage participation by supplying youth in high-poverty areas with basic needs. Compensating youth from low-income households is a strategy programs can employ so youth do not have to choose between supporting household income and participating in enriching OST experiences (Young, 2023). Providing stipends can reduce differences in OST participation between higher-income and lower-income families by reducing financial barriers. Programs that offer youth stipends see higher demand rates and incentivize youth participation and engagement (Murray et al., 2021). Cities can offer stipends or encourage compensation at the programs in their communities. For example, the Seattle Youth Employment Program, run by the City of Seattle, Washington (n.d.), offers participation stipends to youth ages 16–24 from low-income backgrounds who receive job skills training and internship placement through the program. Stipends, especially those that can be competitive with wages, is a costly program component and can be challenging for underresourced or small program providers, which can in

turn limit available program slots (Murray et al., 2021). However, dedicated investments in these kinds of incentives at the federal and state levels and by private funders can promote OST participation for youth from marginalized backgrounds.

Increasing Program Awareness

Some cities are actively considering how to connect families with existing OST programs. For example, in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, The Children’s Trust, and Jewish Community Services of South Florida collaborated to establish a helpline for families to find OST options. Families can call 211 or visit its website. The helpline is free of charge and available 24 hours a day, with information in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and “most every other language” spoken in Miami-Dade County, according to organizers (WLRN, 2023).

In public sessions,²⁰ the committee heard from program leaders on outreach strategies they have employed to increase enrollment. Many program leaders talked about sending program staff to schools to recruit youth, a strategy employed by Sitar Arts Center, an organization providing arts-based programming in Washington, DC. Program staff of the Virginia-based Urban League of Hampton Roads go into settings where children and youth are most likely to be comfortable, such as meeting with them during lunch to talk about the program.

Building trust and rapport with children and youth was a common theme heard among program leaders to increase program awareness and increase access to young people in the community. Staff of the Leaders of Tomorrow Program at the Clarkston Community Center in Georgia volunteer at the local high school in order to develop relationships with youth who may be interested in joining the program. The University of Arizona’s Tribal Extension Program, which is part of 4-H, is youth created and works closely with the Hopi tribe, the community being served. Volunteers from the community are screened and vetted and then charged with leading the programs. All of the children, youth, teachers, and project leaders are from the community. Lastly, Momentum Bike Clubs, based in South Carolina, is a program focused on fostering positive mentoring and relationships to children and youth in grades 6–12 through cycling; the director shared that the program partners with a school, where teachers serve as mentors and

___________________

²⁰ These public sessions took place on October 19, 2023, February 8, 2024, and April 18, 2024. More information about these sessions and the participating organizations can be found at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/promoting-learning-and-development-in-k-12-out-of-school-time-settings-for-low-income-and-marginalized-children-and-youth#sectionPastEvents

can recruit children and youth into the program. This approach benefits both the program and participants—participants develop stronger relationships with their teachers, who learn about challenges the children and youth may be facing at home.

PASA also relies on recruitment strategies based on making direct personal contact with youth. Recruitment fairs inform youth and families about program options. Staff conduct targeted phone outreach to recruit participants and send reminders about sessions to increase participation once young people are enrolled (Kotloff, 2010).

Centering Youth and Community in Policy and Programming

Intermediaries can address opportunity gaps by centering youth and communities in systems-building efforts. Adopting participatory approaches to increase access and opportunity, OST intermediaries may convene youth in a council or create standing youth and community board positions to promote power-sharing in decision-making. For example, there is a small but growing movement among states and school districts to have students serve as board members, albeit some without voting power. As of 2021, 31 states allow local boards to have student representatives with 7 allowing the elected members to vote (Roberts-Grmela, 2024). Additionally, some school districts have begun paying student board members to eliminate financial barriers to participation for low-income youth (Velez, 2025). This strategy to foster shared leadership could be adopted by municipalities with child or youth offices or intermediaries managing OST programs. Deschenes et al. (2010) provide empirical evidence on approaches that align with participatory decision-making practices which could be adopted to increase participation in OST. Among others, these practices include a high number of leadership opportunities and youth council/decision-making groups. Similarly, youth can be engaged directly in more discreet initiatives aimed at increasing access to OST (Deschenes et al., 2010). Box 4-3 illustrates examples of successfully engaging youth to improve data collection, program awareness, and program opportunities.

CONCLUSION

A defining feature of OST programs is their multiplicity. They vary across multiple dimensions, without a standard organizing categorization. Who offers programs, the kinds of activities offered, their geographic location, and whether they serve meals are all dimensions that paint a picture of the broad landscape of OST programs serving children and youth in the United States; these dimensions also affect participation in OST programs. The variance is beneficial because it allows programs to meet participants’

and communities’ unique needs. However, existing data do not provide an accurate map of programs across the country, especially those that serve children and youth from low-income households, including the types of programs and where they are situated, which can help to identify gaps in service.

Despite high levels of satisfaction with OST programs among parents and a decade of steadily increasing participation, 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 (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b). Of the 7.8 million, 2.7 million were from low-income households (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b). The data reported in this chapter provide some indication of the profile of OST participation; but these data are limited, and the picture of participation for children and youth from marginalized backgrounds in OST programs is far from clear, which hinders not only program design but also the ability to secure funding for those most in need.

Moreover, the ability to discern participation across subpopulations is challenging. Interpretations based on a single demographic dimension mask critical differences among subgroups of children and youth. Given the increased awareness that the impact of multiple social determinants is cumulative (Braveman et al., 2011), it is imperative that OST participation data are collected in a way that permits examination at the intersections of such demographics, in order to truly understand OST programming participation, gaps, and needs. The gaps in data around OST participation present an opportunity to improve data collection. For example, in rural areas, communities may rely on partnerships with universities or nonprofit organizations to address gaps in resources and information. These opportunities are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.

While OST participation has declined, unmet demand has continued to rise, increasing to 24.6 million children in 2020. Unmet demand is highest among Black and Hispanic populations, suggesting that barriers to participation in OST are not evenly distributed. According to survey data, program cost, lack of safe reliable transportation, and program awareness and availability remain key challenges to accessing OST programming (Afterschool Alliance, 2020b). State and local intermediaries, municipalities, and programs have implemented policies and strategies that have shown promise for tackling these challenges.

Given the increasing unmet demand, critical approaches to addressing barriers to participation in OST may be more successful than traditional approaches to policymaking and system-building, which often exclude people from marginalized communities. Debates about what constitutes evidence and who should be involved in policymaking continue to evolve, but individual programs and intermediaries have demonstrated the capacity to collaborate with youth and communities to close gaps in participation in OST.

Conclusion 4-1: Systematic information of out-of-school-time 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 for children and youth.

Conclusion 4-2: Understanding out-of-school-time (OST) program participation among children and youth in the United States necessitates examining participation at the intersections of multiple demographics. However, there are no population-level data on OST participation for some groups of children and youth, such as young people with chronic health conditions, disabilities, and special needs, and young people experiencing homelessness, involved with the juvenile justice system, or from immigrant families. Data on intersections of marginalization are also lacking.

Conclusion 4-3: 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 youth. While participation has declined, unmet demand has continued to rise. 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.

REFERENCES

___________________

²¹ The Wallace Foundation commissioned the paper OST Sector Typology, by Bianca J. Baldridge and Deepa S. Vasudevan, alongside research assistants Virginia Downing (University of Wisconsin–Madison), Pablo Aquiles-Sanchez (University of Wisconsin–Madison), and Edom Tesfa (Harvard University). An updated version for an academic journal is in progress by the authors.

This page intentionally left blank.