Examines Wallace-supported efforts in five cities to build systems to improve the quality and accessibility of after-school, summer, and other out-of-school time programs. Concludes that the fledgling systems hold some promise. Also describes challenges.

Outlines the MOST Initiative's approach to building a community-based, collaborative out-of-school time system in Boston, Chicago, and Seattle. Illustrates how each city interpreted the MOST process and provides a sampling of their activities.

Summarizes discussions and recommendations from a September 2008 conference on integrating science and technology education into afterschool, weekend, and summer programs. Includes papers on strategies, funding, collaborations, and evaluation.

Looks at the kinds of data U.S. cities are gathering and analyzing in their efforts to build citywide systems that make high-quality after-school programs more available to children, how they collect it, and how they put it to use.

Illustrates how test-score gaps between poor and middle-class children widen over the early years due to differences in summer learning. Discusses how various summer programs could support academic success and gives policy and research recommendations.

Includes tip sheets on using data to improve accountability, map needs and supply, enhance programs, and strengthen advocacy efforts and data-sharing strategies to better inform city agencies, program providers, intermediary organizations, and others.

With high school reform now a front-burner issue, districts and communities cannot afford to have high school after-school on the back burner. In this commentary, we focus on how and why the high school reform and after-school movements need to be woven together to produce a solid system of learning opportunities and developmental supports designed to help all young people prepare for the future.

Thanks to growing interest in the subject of youth program quality, many tools are now available to help organizations and systems assess and improve quality. Given the size and diversity of the youth-serving sector, it is unrealistic to expect that any one tool or process will fit all programs or circumstances. This report compares the purpose, history, structure, methodology, content and technical properties of nine different program observation tools.