Fragmentation: Is Youth Development a Field?

Working in the field of Youth Development the strongest characteristic of the profession is fragmentation.

Organizations and individual researchers write about the unique aspects of Youth Development and then create programs that continue NCLB-style academic formats or "follow the money" to further marry Youth Development to traditional models of school.

Various voices compete to create systems of credentialing, licensing, or "systematize" the work and expecting the field to "professionalize" according to collegiate models or other professions where compensation and the type of service differ greatly (a lawyer and a youth worker may both work hard, but they don't work the same).

Consultants, trainers, and certificate programs compete and sprout up and use models and frameworks that are often presented prematurely in the rush to take small pilots "to scale" and untested ideas "national."

Funders support work inconsistently and do not make long-term investments so that many Youth Development programs have to re-cast themselves every year or jump from one pilot to another never getting past the start-up stage.

Programs do not see themselves in the same work. Program providers don't identify with each other or collaborate for funding, focus, or message. The "field" of the youth worker has more vulnerabilities than it has assets.

This does not mean that the type of work need be unified into one system. What it may require, however, is for more youth workers to look beyond their population's needs, the mission of their organization, or agenda, and see that the work of Youth Development covers diverse programs, people, and approaches from inner city child care to suburban arts enrichment and outdoor exploration. It is an umbrella that should gather together various good quality people who work with youth to develop their social and emotional well being rather than it is today - fragmented and under threat as each individual organization and program vies with the next for scarce resources. We cannot blame the policy makers for crashing around from school to after-school, from private to public monies, they cannot know the work we do if we do not articulate it well.

Is it time for an Economic Youth Development Summit?

In recent years the Out-of-School field has grown to include diverse programming from urban after-school programs for school age children to theater, arts, and community service for all ages. However, fragmentation of funding, a host of competing forces to standardize diverse programmatic approaches and a push to formalize a work force that has traditionally been permeable and reliant on local talent all threaten the existence of an increasing number of programs that work with children and youth but do so in different ways that the established school system.

This shift - currently compounded by the economic climate - has created a high-level of stress in a field that is also experiencing an identity problem. Recent cuts to state budgets has strained public funding and private foundations are seeing their endowments shrink as more nonprofits turn to them for investments. OST programs are asked to form partnerships that may not honor their particular approach to youth development. They also do not ensure the sustainability of community-based organizations as increasing attention is given to school-based solutions and a "pipeline" mentality to education and learning.

The Out-of-School Time field is increasingly asked to adopt new school-based models as it is increasingly framed against the needs of the school system rather than looking at the potential of using these diverse programs to address social needs that are today and have traditionally been outside the keen of the governmental school system. There is a wider issue of youth development that may need to supersede the uncertain identity of "after-school" and "out-of-school." Many practitioners are looking toward new research on the importance of youth development and a more integrated "whole child" approach but are locked into language that places them in competition with or in a very unequal relationship with the current educational system.

BOSTnet is proposing an Economics of Youth Development Summit to bring together the diverse field as it stands today and look ahead to how these programs and organizations can survive in the future. The field of Youth Development must create dialogue as well as lead to new ways of elevating the work many organizations have developed after a century of practice.

Perhaps the outcome of this could be a stronger platform and an energized support network that honors social-emotional work, informal learning, and community development.

More Time (and Money) for Youth Development

For those of us who attended the recent conference on Expanded Learning Time sponsored by Massachusetts 2020, one message was made very clear. Schools need more time to foster high impact student learning. While I am not going to debate the rationale of that here, it did get me thinking about youth development.

My son entered Boston Public Schools in first grade and from that time has participated in a youth arts program for about 15 hours a week. This program has a very intentional mission to promote positive adult-child relationships, positive self-identity, creative expression and community/cultural awareness. It has a project-based structure that is based on 9-week classes that ends with a performance week where kids and parents enjoy the outcomes of every class. Each week my son gets to take extra classes on book making, video-production, theater and creative arts, tree-house design, swimming, basketball, etc. Over the course of a regular school year, he gets over 500 hours of informal learning and positive youth development. At the end of this year, he will have had more than 2100 extra hours of support, equal to 2 FULL YEARS OF SCHOOL.

The social and academic impact on my son has been amazing. The staff is dedicated to a vision of inspiring children and providing them the opportunity to explore who they are as individuals. They do this, often, through force of will. Like all programs they experience high staff turnover and are constantly struggling to find resources to pay salaries, rent and utilities. Staff are young and from the community, but all share a very creative outlook on life that they bring to the program and the children who take part. It is an inclusive program that often works with children that have both physical and cognitive disabilities, including turrets syndrome, ADHD, and obsessive-compulsive disorders. They do this primarily through patience, family engagement, and an inherent sense of community responsibility because they do not receive additional support to work with special needs children. Yet, they are very successful. The program is licensed by the EEC to serve 45 children (K-5) and enrollment is generally about 50/50 between families with vouchers and families who pay tuition out-of-pocket.

Programs like this one are extraordinarily valuable to communities and youth. They provide the time and the kind of community-based support that fosters healthy youth development and academic success. If a child is fortunate enough to participate in these types of programs from the time they are in first grade until they graduate they will receive additional learning and enrichment equal to over 7 years of school. Now that is amazing!

While few of us would argue that many students and many schools can and will improve under an expanded learning time initiative, let us not forget the hundreds of youth development programs in the city of Boston that already do this work. Lets create new streams of funding to support these programs that are not tied to the education system and their incessant need for accountability. Lets understand that learning is a collective community value and responsibility and we need a mixed system that supports both schools and community-based organizations. There is an objective value in supporting safe, supportive and engaging opportunities for children and youth that are not tied to outcome measures dictated by tests or standards. As many of our current funding streams align more closely with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, programs that foster healthy youth development are becoming more vulnerable.