Some of the most powerful classrooms don’t have desks or whiteboards. They echo with laughter in gyms, hum with creativity in art studios, and buzz with possibility in community centers. They’re places where young people engage in meaningful activities, build relationships, develop essential life skills, and feel like they belong there after the final school bell of the day rings. They’re out-of-school-time (OST) programs, and they are a crucial component of child and youth development.
OST programs serve as a bridge between school, community, and home, whether before or after school, on weekends, or during the summer. A recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) examines the impact and effectiveness of these programs, underscoring just how vital they are to young people’s learning and development beyond the school day.
“Youth development is a field that takes an assets- or strengths-based approach to partnering with and supporting children and youth,” says Deborah Moroney, vice president of American Institutes for Research and chair of the National Academies committee that oversaw the research and production of the report. “At its core, it’s about creating safe and supportive environments, fostering positive relationships, and providing opportunities for meaningful learning and experiences.”
More than two decades ago, NASEM published Community Programs for Youth Development (the “Blue Book”), a foundational report on the role and state of OST programming throughout the country. Since then, OST programs have grown and evolved significantly, as has the research and evidence base. The new NASEM report provides an updated look at OST programming in the U.S. It examines the effectiveness of OST programs, identifies access and quality improvements, and outlines a future research agenda for the youth development field.
We will only do better by young people if we coordinate supports and services in places across systems, and that was just crystal clear through the research.
— Deborah Moroney
“The original Blue Book drew from many adjacent fields, but in this version, we had to be selective due to the breadth of research produced in the last 20 plus years,” Moroney says. “There is still more to do, but the field has grown tremendously.”
Thomas Akiva, professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Education and chair of the department of Health and Human Development, who helped author the recent report, noted that the 2002 report rested largely on developmental psychology research that wasn't specific to afterschool or out-of-school-time learning.
“Now, there are a lot of researchers like myself who focus most of their efforts on understanding youth programs,” he says.
Moroney and Akiva say this growth reflects a broader shift: youth development is now recognized as an interconnected system rather than a set of isolated programs. Programs are part of broader ecosystems of support—schools, families, communities, and organizations—that must work together for young people to thrive.
“People and programs are a lot more connected now,” Akiva says. “They talk to each other. They know about their strengths and other program strengths.”
That growing sense of connection underscores one of the new NASEM report’s central findings: that youth development depends on alignment across systems, sectors, and supports.
“The report makes it clear that youth learning and development does not happen in a vacuum,” Moroney says. “We will only do better by young people if we coordinate supports and services in places across systems, and that was just crystal clear through the research.”
Youth Development Is About Systems
Out-of-school-time intermediaries are key actors supporting the OST ecosystem, and they have evolved greatly in the last two decades. Moroney often compares them to school district offices because they play a similar coordinating role, helping programs with resources, training, data, and policy support. But unlike school districts, the OST field doesn’t have a built-in, publicly-funded system to do this work.
Moroney and Akiva both refer to intermediaries as “invisible heroes.” These backbone organizations—sometimes housed in mayor’s offices, nonprofits, or universities—coordinate funding, offer professional development, connect local partners, and help programs sustain their work. Today, almost all major cities have at least one city afterschool intermediary, something that didn’t exist fifteen or twenty years ago.
“They are the invisible infrastructure that makes everything work,” Akiva says. “Intermediaries go a long way in helping the field advance in professionalism. They're in this middle space where they're doing really important connective work. They are the connective tissue.”
Moroney agrees: “To me, they're the invisible heroes of out-of-school time youth development because they fill this valuable coordinating role that isn't fulfilled through public dollars currently.”
Funding is often unstable, and intermediaries’ success often hinges on leadership connections and political prowess. The authors of the report call for more reliable, long-term support to keep them strong.
Just as strong systems rely on stable intermediaries, they also depend on a supported and sustainable workforce. Intermediaries often help set quality standards for programs and coordinate the professional development that equips staff to meet those expectations. Youth development practitioners are central to the workforce, and according to the report, OST programs benefit when these staff are creative, well-trained, skilled at building relationships, and capable of making long-term commitments to programs.
“The practitioners are the keystone species,” Akiva says. “If they’re healthy, the whole system is healthy.”
The practitioners are the keystone species. If they’re healthy, the whole system is healthy.
— Thomas Akiva
Professionalizing the Youth Field Workforce
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.
Findings from The Power of Us: The Youth Fields Workforce, another study released this year and co-authored by Moroney, reinforce this picture. Among more than 7,000 respondents working in youth-serving roles, over 60 percent said their sense of purpose and commitment led them to join the youth field. They are drawn to and stay in youth fields because they enjoy working with youth, find it fulfilling, and have a personal connection to the communities, places, and experiences of the young people they support. However, low pay and limited benefits remain major barriers: 69 percent said better compensation is a top aspect they would change about their job. Nearly half said they experience stress and burnout.
High staff turnover is a well-known challenge in youth programs. When staff leave, programs lose capacity, meaning fewer spots for youth, less consistency, and more time spent hiring instead of improving programs.
“If someone tells their grandmother they work in youth development, she’ll say, ‘That’s nice. What are you going to do next?’” Akiva jokes. “It’s still not widely seen as a career, even though it is a great one.”
Both Moroney and Akiva emphasize the need for stronger career pathways and more coherent systems for training and compensation. This could include giving students more chances to explore youth development as a career through hands-on experiences and relevant college or training programs. It could also include formally recognizing youth development as a profession by creating an official job classification, which would help improve pay, benefit, and workforce data.
But even the most dedicated practitioners can only do so much without stable funding and public investment to sustain their work.
“We need society to better understand the value of youth programs and the value of keeping them strong,” Akiva says. “Because they do things that no other institutions in the country do.”
A Growing and Maturing Sector
High-quality out-of-school-time programs play a vital role in children’s development by offering safe, supportive spaces where students can continue to learn, grow, and thrive after the school day. However, despite the rising demand among parents for afterschool programs, these opportunities remain out of reach for many families. According to recent data from the Afterschool Alliance, parents of almost 30 million kids—more than half the country’s school-age youth—want afterschool programs for their children. Yet over 75 percent of these children do not have access to programming.
The need for afterschool programs is greatest among children living in low- and middle-income communities. While funding for these programs has expanded over the past two decades, it remains fragmented, inconsistent, and unable to keep up with growing demand.
“Youth development programs are under threat financially,” Akiva says. “With funding streams constantly shifting, it’s difficult for youth programs to plan for the future or count on stable support. Most already face unstable funding structures, and the current instability makes it even tougher.”
Moroney says supporting young people’s growth outside of school is always essential, but it’s especially critical now, as many children and families face increased isolation and disconnection. She notes that, much like when the youth development field first emerged, we’re again in a moment when young people need more opportunities for safety, connection, and meaningful experiences to help them thrive.
For both Moroney and Akiva, the future of youth development depends on stronger coordination among program providers, intermediaries, policymakers, researchers, and communities.
“Evidence has brought us this far,” Moroney says. “To keep moving forward, we have to stay focused on what works, for whom, and under what conditions—and keep learning alongside the young people we serve.”
