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.

Reverse Logic

So, the education reform "rocking chair" continues to rock. The newly created Education Secretariat, under the leadership of Paul Reville, is proposing an expansion of the MCAS tests. As more and more business leaders are bemoaning the lack of 21st century skills, including problem solving, critical thinking, collaboration and communications, the state is looking for ways to create a testing regimen to analyze these skills. These would potentially lead to MCAS tests that include lab work, oral presentations, and team-based activities. (In the spirit of full disclosure, BOSTnet advocated for a much broader evaluative framework for students in Massachusetts in a report on Expanded Learning Time and Out-of-School Time in 2007).

This movement is a backlash against the current MCAS system that many believe have pushed Massachusetts to the forefront of academic achievement. These successes, however, have their price and have not quelled concerns over post-graduation "readiness." As Gary Gottlieb, president of Brigham & Women's Hospital stated, "even highly educated people are not able to express themselves and convey the knowledge they have." Or, as Paul Toner of the Massachusetts Teachers Association argues, "we have to have kids do things, as opposed to just sitting and studying things."

Critics of the proposals who are more concerned with maintaining high standards and school accountability, such as the Center for School Reform at the Pioneer Institute, are troubled by the plan. The center's director, Jamie Gass, argues "what we are seeing here is an incremental dismantling of education reform that has made Massachusetts the highest-performing state in the country." Gass continues to note, "Many of the skills are unmeasurable and ill-defined."

It seems that 15 years of education reform have created clear results. The focus on a more narrowly defined academic curriculum has elevated Massachusetts as a beacon of academic success nationwide. But, this focus has diminished schools' ability to foster skills that are valued in society--critical thinking, teamwork, creative problem solving and engagement. More disturbing, this focus has failed to engage and lift the academic achievement of many of our underrepresented residents. And, as a recent report notes, even those students that do graduate and go on to higher education in urban areas such as Boston, few complete their coursework and earn a degree.

Perhaps most concerning about this is the emphasis on evaluating these skills as opposed to teaching them. There is a very real debate that needs to take place on whether or not schools are best equipped to foster these skills when they already have the very difficult and important job of educating youth in core subject areas, such as math, literacy, science and social studies. The current response is to extend the school day, but is the most cost effective and appropriate strategy? Significantly, it is precisely these types of skills that the out-of-school time field is best at providing. OST programs that follow a youth development framework can provide high-quality informal learning and relationship-based programming that builds resiliency and developmental assets that are the foundation of 21st century skills. Unfortunately, federal and state funding for these programs tend to lock them into models child care or academic remediation.

Perhaps it is time that we unleash the creative energy of the OST field to work with children and youth in a way that is true to its potential. Good youth development should not be reserved for the children of parents who can afford to pay tuition to OST programs. And state and federally funded OST programs should not be charged with supporting the academic outcomes that schools are responsible for achieving. Gass is correct is saying that these skills are ill-defined and difficult to measure. Investing in quality OST programs is an investment in outcomes that are cumulative over time. Assessing quality on short-term measures that are linked to school-driven outcomes does not serve the field or, more importantly, children and youth.

It is time that OST leaders and providers step up to create a vision for the field that addresses the problems that are so clearly in front of us.

OST--Are we a Profession?

We often hear how afterschool and out-of-school time is a distinct field within the nonprofit sector. But what does this mean? Clearly, the expansion of both private and public funding over the past 10 years, new academic research on the value of OST participation, and the movement toward a more structured system of professional development all point to some professional recognition. However, as Louis Menand writes in his book The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (2001):

Professionialism means disciplinary autonomy. A field of study (or any line of work) is a profession when its practitioners are answerable for the content of their work only to fellow practitioners, and not to persons outside the field.

Can we honestly say this is the case with OST? The volume of research that highlights the value of OST and a distinct developmental setting for healthy youth development is impressive. Yet, so often we find programs that are set up to provide academic services or extended day supports for children and youth in struggling schools. This has as much to do with funding streams for OST programs as it does for providing the best services for students. The problem is that when these systems are created, practitioners find that they are less answerable to the OST field as they are to the formal education systems' desire for academic outcomes.

Over the past year in Massachusetts advocates for afterschool and OST have struggled to answer the question, "Is afterschool part of the education system?" The fact that this question is yet unresolved points to the fact that as a field, OST needs to strengthen its identity. OST clearly can be part of an education system. Informal learning, relationship-building, intentional activities and fun all have a place in the education and development of a child over time. Unfortunately, OST professionals and researchers do not have a place at the table when curriculum frameworks are created the way that science, math and english professionals do.

The problem is not linking schools and afterschools. In fact, there is evidence that a lot of good can come from integrating a child's learning experiences across multiple contexts in their day. The problem is when programming is structured around educational remediation rather than the expectations and goals of youth development. Within the formal education system, the fields of science, math and english retain their professional autonomy. It does not seem out of line to think that youth development should also maintain a level of professional autonomy to work with children and youth in ways the field recognizes as valuable.

Doing More With Less?

Our programs are increasingly asked to do more with less. Again, after the Governor of MA announced the "9C cuts" (post budget cuts that are part of the state office's executive privilege), already lean programs are asked to "be creative." This is a strange request - but then, what have we come to take as normal? We put bumper stickers on our cars that exclaim, imagination a world where education has limitless funding and the Air Force has to have a bake sale to buy an F15! We tell our friends we wish for that to happen - but then we snicker people who try to make that happen saying they don't know how the world works. Perhaps deep down we don't want that to happen. We seem to ensure that for every 42.3 cents that go to the military that only 4.4 cents go to education, training, and social services not just one year, but each year. Do we not control over our priorities? Are these things the way that are because people actually want them that way? Perhaps we need to spend a moment and really reflect on the world that we really want not by our words alone, but by our actions and those of our extended networks. With our programs vying for those 4 cents (shared by schools, training, and social services, what are our proper investments and how does OST play a role in making those investments rather than responding time and again to cuts?

Investing in Out-of-School programs is usually cast as charity money - that old worn social services mantel that the inner cities are limitless slums and the people within them desperate and only able to provide their children with chaos and uncertainty for which OST programs are solutions to crisis after crisis. We need to rethink OST's role as neither an add-on to school nor only about intervention in cycles of abuse and poverty, but as investment in local economies. This investment is for today, and not for a distant future. This investment produces meaningful employment for young adults and integrated learning for children, the kind found less and less in Public Schools and increasingly the privilege of a private (voucher, charter, parochial, home) school.

"Children are our future" is a cliche we traditionally sell for investment in these programs. Today, we need less "future" outcomes and more delivered to our economy right now through meaningful jobs for our young adults, community foundations for working families, and quality learning environments where children get the privilege of get to have a childhood that is not tested or drilled.

Out of School Time programs can provide:
Meaningful employment for young adults
Learning experiences that move beyond homework and synthetic seamless days
Serving as micro economic redevelopment of a block or street
Making a low income area more attractive to families
Responding to community needs
Being able to influence school and community relationships

These are some potential ways programs can position themselves is they so choose to. The 9C cuts may be only the beginning of our economic hardships. The OST field must look now and really consider, what world do we want to belong to? We are already being asked by our policy makers to be more creative and true, many programs can survive or limp along using tried and true methods of funding and description of services. However, are we taking some of our own advice and "reaching for the stars"?

Perhaps it is time we answered that call with some actual creativity.

New Directions in Youth Policy

At the invitation of PPV, BOSTnet was able to attend the New Directions in Youth Policy event October 7th, 2008 in New York City. Held at the Ford Foundation (supporter of PPV), a large building reminiscent of the now-distant era of Cold War philanthropy, the agenda was dominated by the discussion of the economy. Not as you would expect the economy at hand - the financial meltdown that is occurring now and which may last for years - but the economy of youth as workers. This loss in employed youth is not a new trend, the result of video games and youtube, but a hollowing out of our economy over the past thirty years. It was proposed that young people who work at 17 are more likely to work at 18 and so on. They develop habits of mind as well as need to work in situations that get them in contact with people different from themselves - and the back room of McDonald's does not offer that socio-economic as well as skill set diversity.

Andrew Sum, Director of the Center for Labor Studies at Northeastern University and a professor at the same institution painted a bleak picture of the landscape of young people in this country. According to the data on youth, young people are struggling to achieve economic and social stability. They are failing to sustain long-term personal relationships beneficial to the economic well being of children. They are failing to learn common job skills. Life expectancy and fertility are increasingly correlated to income level in ways that haven't been since in this country.

Andrew Sum proposed that this was the result of several administrations not taking youth employment seriously and allowing the industrial economy to be replaced with, what Wilbur Toss, an older businessman interviewed on NPR's Marketplace recently said out service economy was a sham. That we cannot build the sort of level of prosperity we are accustomed to by "flipping burgers, selling scraps of papers, or suing each other." This loss of employment with low barriers to entry (not requiring degrees and certifications) that connected young people to a world of work was not the inevitability of "globalization" but a lack of policies that protected our workforce and nurtured our native economy.

This was also not an issue with recessions apparently, since the only time where the numbers of employed youth increased was for a few years during the late 1990s. Youth in the labor market have been facing trouble whether the economy is robust or recession and the past eight years have been dismal. One issue is a loss of job usually held by young people to undocumented workers. Another issue is that adult workers are increasingly needing to fill jobs once held by teens. (Not spoken about but of note is the expansion of elderly in the workforce - such as at Walmarts and the like). For teens and young adults who still want to work, few of these jobs expose young workers to skilled people, train them in marketable skills, or pay them a wage they can live on. This, Andrew Sum argues, has led to an across the board decline in living standard that is not left behind when this generation grows up but leads to a lifetime of underemployment of unemployment. Sum noted a rise in unstable single parent homes, increasing numbers of children born to proportional to the lack of income, and lower life expectancies - especially for native-born minorities.

The presentation was compelling, as it was dismal news, especially to a room of people who had worked in philanthropy for thirty years or more. However, within this great problem there is great opportunity for Out-of-School programs. More than reaching out to teach more children in need and to compensate for the shortcomings of young parents unable to provide for their off spring, Out-of-School programs can serve as a place of meaningful employment for young people and job creation so that these young workers can learn meaningful skills as they provide needed labor to programs that cannot afford to pay high wages and yet need qualified and quality people.

What are the costs of Out-of-School programs? What are some ways to maximize their benefit to communities, especially low income communities? There is usually a coordinator/director and then "direct-service" or line staff. Those Direct Service staff are paid perhaps $8.25 - $11 per hour and in some areas or programs as much as $20 per hour. The major and constant issue with staffing is employee turn over and (at least prior to the melt down) many programs have constant trouble attracting staff at all. Staff come in, work a few months and leave. In New York State these after-school employees were considered "migrant workers" the same as farm help. Very telling. This is a labor issue, and an issue of compensation but also an issue of who is the appropriate workforce. If compensation is raised too much, it may put the programs out of business since overhead will outstrip resources. If a constant drum beat is on professionalization with its certificates, degrees, and career ladders, will that actually prevent the creation of a viable workforce? Young people need meaningful employment. Out-of-School programs need low-cost quality staff for direct service. Looking at a particular segment of the population as these workers would allow for more refined approach to training and development.

Out-of-School programs, if intentionally done, can learn to market to that workforce outreach, training and technical assistance, and provide dual services - one to children and youth development, the other to economic development of communities and the youth who need to learn how to work as they learn how to do that work. (The US military looks towards a particular age group and skill level, why not OST?). Youth learn marketable skills working at an out-of-school program they may not folding shirts or waiting for the buzzer of the fry-o-later to sound. They learn critical thinking skills, problem solving, and perhaps project management if their program has a project-based learning focus. Many young people may themselves want to go into youth work as a career. Many will see adults with skills they can learn from. Trainings are no longer cattle calls trying to reach out to diverse skills and competencies (how many OST trainings include teachers of 10 years and 16 year old high school students?) but can focus on a certain level and develop and refine a language to speak to that level. Staff turn over need not be seen as a bad thing, if the staff last for the academic year. In this way, the turn over is build into the system rather than fought against. A battle that cannot be won by increasing moral, raising a low wage a few cents, printed certificates, or top heavy college degree programs.

Perhaps after-school and OST programs can serve as that job that made a difference as the programs are to make a difference to children. We need to use this crises in youth employment and see the opportunities OST can provide. Perhaps rather than another set of competencies we need come up with who we see actually doing this work now, and in the years to come.