VOICES FROM THE FIELD - Systems Trump Programs - A Case for Agency Support in Afterschool

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Stanley

A case-driven essay examines why afterschool programs rated “excellent” depend on agency systems and funder accountability, not solely on the program director’s effort. Through a practitioner research inquiry, it analyzes field scenarios where hiring and budgeting decisions stall and staff lose momentum. Drawing on interviews and site observations, it contrasts program-excellence criteria like “buy-in” and holistic programming with DYCD’s rating approach that evaluates service-level implementation while largely overlooking agency headquarters.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Why Agency Support Is Crucial

What Makes a Program “Excellent”

Field Scenario and Accountability Questions

Evidence from DYCD Ratings and Site Visits

VO ICES FROM THE FIELD “Systems Trump Programs” A Case for Agency Support in Afterschool Alexandria Hodgkins At a training by one of New York City’s main afterschool funders, the presenter introduced common scenarios in the ﬁeld. My group’s scenario read something like this: Liz just started as director of an afterschool program. She is excited to start a new arts program and wants to hire teaching artists. When she asks her human resource manager to explain the hiring process, he tells her to ask her supervisor. Her supervisor tells Liz to e-mail a coworker. Liz sends the e-mail but never hears back. Liz asks her supervisor for the program budget but is told she is not allowed to see it. She asks how much she is allowed to spend on instructors. No one seems to be sure. After a few months of this, Liz is getting discouraged and losing her ambition. What should Liz do? People in my group said the situation resonated with them. As they gave suggestions on how Liz could move forward, I was stuck on more basic questions: “Why is this acceptable? Why isn’t Liz’s agency accountable for supporting its afterschool program?” In the large-group discussion, a program manager from the funder sponsoring the training said she sees situations like Liz’s all the time. That raised another basic question: “If our funders know this is a problem in the ﬁeld, why aren’t they doing anything to prevent it?” When I started my inquiry for the National Institute on Out-of-School Time’s Afterschool Matters Practitioner Research Fellowship, I wanted to investigate afterschool programs that had been rated “excellent” by funders. I wanted to understand what excellent programs look like and how they get that way. I had a hidden assumption: that success rests solely—or maybe just mostly—on the shoulders ofthe person on the ground running the show: the program director. ALEXANDRIA HODGKINS has eight years of youth work experience as a program director, teaching artist, and trainer. She began her journey in youth work while serving in the Peace Corps in Panama. She was a fellow in the Afterschool Matters Practitioner Research Fellowship of the National Institute on Out-of-School Time. She currently works as a consultant in New York City. However, as the year of inquiry wore on, an unforeseen theme kept popping up. It became more and more clear to me that, if you want to run an excellent program, you need support from your agency or organization, which in turn needs support from program funders. In other words, “systems trump programs”(Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman,& Wallace, 2005) . This essay explores what I learned during that year. My aim is to help program directors who have found themselves in Liz’s shoes: They want to run high-quality programs, but they make little headway because they have little A light went off in my head: This can’t be a coincidence. These agencies must have good systems and be helping their programs to succeed. I started to realize that the program director isn’t the only one who lays the groundwork for success; the agency is important as well. some that were not. However, I received surveys from only two of the programs rated excellent—not enough to go on. In this essay, therefore, I report only on my interview with a DYCD program manager and my visit to a highly rated site, during which I interviewed four staff members including the program director. When I interviewed program staff, the things they said would make a program excellent had little to do with the six categories on which DYCD rates programs. My respondents kept bringing up criteria such as “buy-in” and holistic programming. For example, when asked what makes programs excel- support from their agencies. Besides offering program directors some ideas on how to cope with this situation, I also want to implore agencies to take ownership of their programs and to beg funders to hold agencies—and themselves—accountable. What Makes a Program “E

FAQs

What scenario motivates the essay’s central argument?

Liz’s afterschool program struggles because hiring and budgeting guidance is inconsistent: she is redirected up the chain, receives no response, and is denied visibility into budgets. The essay uses this experience to question why the system allows such barriers to persist.

How does the author define what “excellent” programs look like?

The author investigates programs labeled “excellent” by DYCD to identify what drives success. She finds that buy-in and support structures within agencies are recurring themes, even when those factors are not fully reflected in DYCD’s rating tools.

What does DYCD evaluate when rating program sites?

DYCD grades sites using administrative records, participation rates, and two annual site visits. Observations and interviews cover six categories focused on the service point, including effective staffing, relationships, and program content, while the agency itself is not directly evaluated.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Stanley