1
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Beyond Original Intent: Exploring Universal Out of School Time Programs as Youth
Social Policy
In recent years, advocacy and policymaking around offering out-of-school time (OST)
programs for school aged students in K-12 has increased. Out-of-school time programs seek to
offer youth opportunities for learning, enrichment and social engagement outside of the
traditional classroom setting. Proponents for these programs would argue that the push for
initiatives and policies that support these programs are driven by a need to support the social,
emotional and educational development of young people fostering a more holistic approach to
their well-being. As such, however, developing policies in support of these programs begs the
question of whether they philosophically align with the constitutional framer’s original intent.
Significant to law and policy doctrine, original intent refers to the process of interpreting
laws and policies based on the intentions of their creators (Frohen & Carey, 2016). “As a
consequence, Berger argues, the intention of the framers should control interpretation because it
is only by examining their ‘original intent’ that the interpreter can discover the normative
meaning of the Constitution” (Powel, 1985). In Unifying Original Intent and Original Public
Meaning (2019), McGinnis & Rappaport contend that original intent in its purest form is “the
intended meaning of a provision rather than the results that the authors hoped the provision
would produce... it is the uptake the author intends the audience to derive from his words (1382-
1383). Original intent and social policy initiatives are arguably at odds as social policy calls for
acknowledgement of the ever-evolving landscape of societal needs thus complicating its
relationship to original intent. How can original intent be maintained when the original context
no longer exists? Exploring social policies, particularly those pertaining to youth requires
increased involvement which some may consider government overreach (Hamburger, 2014).
2
BEYOND ORG INTNET
This paper seeks to understand how the philosophical challenges posed by social policy
frameworks that call for increased out-of-school time (OST) youth initiatives diverge from the
original intent of the framers.
The tension between tradition and evolution, continuity and change lie at the center of
this exploration. According to Warren (1988), shifts in many social policies and educational
systems stem from specific historical contexts shaped by cultural and societal norms prevalent at
that time. For example, policies regarding the desegregation of schools stemmed from the Civil
Rights movement and the societal push for equitable access to schools for all children. The social
pressures of that time brought about policy changes like that in Brown v Board of Education
(1954). These policy changes and implementations reflected the needs and aspirations of their
respective times and illuminated the chief thoughts and attitudes regarding education, youth
development and social welfare. Concerning education, Warren (1988) also asserts that the
original intent of public schools was to ensure the existence of “institutions of civic education”
that prepare students to be active members of society. As society evolves, demands of equity,
inclusion and adaptability conflict with markers of original intent.
The insurgence of OST programs and social policies centering K-12 students are
arguably a direct result of the evolving needs and expectations of modern society. Society today
can be identified by three pillars: rapid technological growth, economic unpredictability and
social inequities. Additionally, appreciation and recognition of ensuring youth have access to
diverse learning experiences, social and emotional supports, and the development of soft and
hard skills outside of school has increased (Sarampote et al., 2004). The continued growth of
OST youth programs and youth social policies beg questions about their philosophical coherence
with original intent concepts. How much do these initiatives align with the foundational
3
BEYOND ORG INTNET
principles and objectives of existing policies? Do they challenge or reinterpret traditional notions
of education, youth development and social welfare? What are the implications of these
philosophical tensions for the design, implementation and evaluation of youth social policy
initiatives?
Through examining these questions, this paper seeks to deepen our understanding of the
complexities between tradition and innovation concerning youth social policies and out-of-
school time policies. Analyzing the philosophical challenges posed by a call for increased OST
youth programs and youth social policies allows for further understanding surrounding the
tensions between original intent and contemporary calls for enhanced youth development and
social justice policies.
What is Social Policy
In their work “Governance and Social Policy” (2003), Daly identifies social policy as
possessing a wide perspective of government actions and interventions intended to address social
issues, promote social welfare and improve individual and communal quality of life. He
continues to assert that social policy reflects modern societal values, priorities and commitments
to social justice and equity (Daly, 2003). Social policy frameworks demand that policies exist
and target children, youth and young adults as a unique group possessing their own needs,
challenges and experiences (Sarampote et al., 2004).
Youth social polices expand an array of areas including education, healthcare,
employment, housing, juvenile justice and family planning, each having its unique impact on
young people today. As such, specific interventions must be implemented to serve this
demographic, be it equitable and quality education and healthcare practices, increasing support
4
BEYOND ORG INTNET
for youth experiencing houselessness or promoting civic engagement. Youth development
initiatives include supporting youth in their transition from childhood to adolescence to
adulthood, making it a key component of youth social policy initiatives. Ginwright (2005) argues
that family dynamics, socioeconomic status, peer relationships, education and access to resources
are the factors that influence youth wellbeing. As such, policies and programs do and should
continue to promote the enhancement of these factors.
Many would argue that education is at the center of youth social policies and plays a
significant role in youth development and the opportunities afforded. Education policies should
seek to provide equitable access to quality education for all, irrespective of circumstances or
origins (Grossman, et al., 2001). These educational policies should consider the resource
disparities in schools from underserved communities versus those in more affluent communities,
seeking to improve school infrastructure and teacher quality, increased access to early childhood
education initiatives and enhanced support for students with diverse learning needs (Grossman,
et al., 2001). Additionally, social policies supporting youth development must consider lifelong
learning and workforce development that contribute to producing contributing members of
society (Grossman, et al., 2001).
Today, there has been a rise in recognizing the importance of a holistic approach to youth
social policies including addressing the nuances of the cross impact of various policy domains
including education and housing practices. For example, neighborhood segregation rooted in
racist housing practices leads to segregated schools resulting in under resourced and ill-equipped
schools for some youth (Siegel-Hawley et al., 2020). The implementation and evaluation of
policies and programs must be examined in a holistic context to adequately serve today’s youth.
5
BEYOND ORG INTNET
As such, this integrative approach to policy practices presents a complex paradox within the
political sphere as many policy domains remain siloed.
Original Intent and Social Policy
The constant evolution of societal needs presents a complicated relationship between
original intent and youth social policies. Original intent refers to interpreting laws and polices
based on the intentions of those who created them (Strang, 2019). Youth social policies address
the rights and needs of children and adolescents (Shepherd et al., 2003). In a contemporary
context, the intersection of these two spaces highlights tensions between historical practices and
contemporary societal needs.
Original intent focuses on interpreting the United States Constitution and its amendments
by discerning the original framers’ intent behind specific principles (Frohen, et al., 2016).
Constitutional integralists believe that adhering to the original intent maintains the legitimacy of
the constitution and ensures stability and cohesion in interpreting fundamental rights for all
(Higgs, 2012). Contentions arise, however, when attempting to apply an originalist framework to
a modern context that the constitutional framers could not have anticipated nor considered in
their initial framework. The complexities from houselessness to LGBTQIA+ rights were not
fathomable by the original framers presenting the unique challenge of using original intent to
explore these concepts. As such, many issues concerning youth social policy needs are not
explicitly stated nor addressed in the United States Constitution despite being integral to the
development of young people. This begs the question of how original intent can be applied to
areas such as education, healthcare and juvenile justice. This reality calls for an evolution in
policy and requires policymakers to consider contemporary issues and modern contexts in
establishing new laws and policies that affect today’s youth. Terbeek (2021) highlights how the
6
BEYOND ORG INTNET
evolution of public opinion has influenced an exploration of the Fourteenth Amendment that
considers education and juvenile justice under the Equal Protection Clause.
The convergence of constitutional interpretations and youth social policies call for an
exploration and interrogation of policies through the lens of contemporary contexts and issues
plaguing youth today and again in later generations requiring a fluidity and evolution of sorts.
While the framers may have only considered marriage to be between a man and a woman,
specifically a white man and white woman, the time has revealed a societal shift in the
perception of marriage including interracial and same sex couples. As a result, the Supreme
Court had to consider modern society in the rulings of both Loving v Virginia (1967) and
Obergefell v Hodges (2015) which legalized interracial and same-sex marriages, respectively.
Likewise, Brown v Board of Education (1954) reflects a societal shift in perspective concerning
school segregation laws reversing Plessy v Ferguson (1896) which mandated that separate but
equal was legal. Addressing concerns that impact youth development outcomes require
innovative approaches that extend past strict commitment to original intent (Terbeek, 2021).
Contemporary issues plaguing youth call for a reframing of strict adherence to originalist
practices. While valuable, constitutional original intent in conjunction with youth social policy
initiatives requires a nuanced approach. As such, policymakers must navigate this intersection
and strike a balance between original intent and societal evolution. Doing so can assist
policymakers and stakeholders in cultivating a symbiotic relationship between the integral
practices of original intent and the evolving needs of an ever-changing society.
Analysis
OST Programs and Social Policy
7
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Afterschool or out-of-school time programs play a substantial role in social policy as they
are often developed to support the social, emotional, cultural and academic well-being of young
people. These programs possess many structured activities and services provided for children
and adolescents outside traditional school settings and regular school hours. OST programs have
become a focal point in social policy initiatives aimed at promoting equitable opportunities to
young people through specifically addressing their needs and challenges (Sarampote et al.,
2004). Opportunities provided by these programs include academic, recreational, cultural and
social activities intended to support educational experiences, enhance positive youth
development and institute safety measures to protect youth (Grossman, et al., 2001). Likewise,
OST programs have been proven to reduce the risk of delinquency, substance abuse and support
academic advancement while simultaneously developing social emotional skills (Grossman, et
al., 2001).
Living, economic and educational disparities lie at the heart of social policies concerning
youth and require addressing the ways these disparities impact underserved and marginalized
communities (Grossman et al., 2001). Youth who come from low-income families are less likely
to engage in extracurricular activities than those coming from affluent backgrounds, increasing
the gaps prevalent between the two communities (Frumin, 2023). Out-of-school time programs
present ways to mitigate these disparities by providing resources and opportunities that
intentionally target students from low-income communities while supporting families through
providing free childcare outside of school hours (Frumin, 2023). Out-of-school time programs
also indirectly aid in cultivating safer communities and enhancing child development by keeping
children and adolescents off the street. These programs help reduce truancy, juvenile crimes and
gang violence by providing supervision for youth (Ginwright et al., 2005). As stakeholders and
8
BEYOND ORG INTNET
policymakers consider efforts that support youth social policy initiatives, it is vital that they
intentionally invest in out-of-school time programs for all students, irrespective of their
socioeconomic backgrounds, education or familial circumstances.
Universal Out of School Time Amendment Act of 2023
Increased advocacy and support for the out-of-school time programs that promote youth
development has culminated in the introduction of the Universal Out-of-School Time
Amendment Act of 2023. The introduction of the Universal OST Amendment Act (2023) marks
a landmark initiative intended to expand access to high-quality programming for children and
adolescents in Washington, DC (Frumin, 2023). It proposes a number of measures intended to
support the expansion of sustainable OST programs through the DC metro area and represents a
catalyst for the continued expansion of OST programs across the United States. The primary
provision of this proposal is to ensure equitable access regardless of socioeconomic status, foster
positive youth development and mitigate risky behaviors among youth (Durlak et al., 2022).
The Universal OST Amendment Act (2023) calls for the invocation of collaborative
measures between stakeholders, policymakers, government agencies, families and schools to best
support the intricate development of young people. While integral to the fabric of the greater
Washington, DC area, this amendment lays the framework for repetition in other cities across the
United States on the basis that all students benefit from the implementation of OST programs.
This policy, if accepted and implemented, represents a major milestone in youth social policy
practices. At this juncture, should this amendment move forward, policymakers must ensure that
they maintain the integral components of OST programs which include prioritizing equity and
inclusion while focusing on the specific needs and aspirations of young people.
9
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Implications of Original Intent
The United States Constitution does not specifically address education, leaving much of
educational policy practices being interpreted through the lens of each individual state and what
it deems important. The Universal Out-of-School Time Amendment Act (2023) challenges
states’ rights regarding education by calling for government involvement in universal OST
programs. The intricacy of this policy proposal is its relationship to the traditional education
system and whether government interference with its implementation encroaches on states’
rights to do as they please with their education standards. The expansion of government
involvement in providing OST programs highlights evolving societal perspective on the
importance of holistic development including academic achievement and social emotional
development.
This conversation requires a reevaluation of constitutional interpretations concerning
education, welfare and government responsibilities. By way of original intent, integralists could
argue that the government should not be involved in the universality of this proposal as the
framers did not explicitly address issues of education or youth social policies and yet, today’s
society calls for it. This proposed amendment embodies an ongoing conversation between
tradition and innovation begging the question of how far the government can get involved before
stepping on the ledge of governmental overreach. As with most social policies, in social policies
concerning youth, the needs and desires of the people frame the conversation and establish the
lens by which policymakers are asked to consider their stance. Policymakers navigating review
and implementation of this amendment are tasked with maintaining respect for historical policy
intents with the nuanced flexibility required to meet the current needs of today’s youth.
10
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Conclusion
The philosophical challenges presented by contemporary social policy frameworks,
specifically those that advocate for increased out-of-school time youth initiatives call for a
significant shift away from the framers’ original intent. The constitutional framers envisioned a
nation with limited governmental interference which contradicts the societal pushes for universal
initiatives in OST policies. Concurrently, the call for expanded OST programs presents a varied
interpretation of governmental responsibilities encouraging a holistic and proactive role in youth
development outcomes. This evolution highlights a philosophical shift from minimal government
interaction to active government involvement in policies that enhance the well-being of youth
outside of the traditional school setting. The introduction of the Universal Out of School Time
Amendment Act (2023) represents a transition in the value society places on holistic
development through academics, social and emotional endeavors. As such, the divergence away
from strict, purist adherence to constitutional interpretations to a contemporary perspective
considering shifts in society’s valuations lends itself to a dynamic relationship between historical
intents and modernity.
11
BEYOND ORG INTNET
References
Daly, M. (2003). Governance and Social Policy. Journal of Social Policy. 32(1). 113-128.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279402006840
Durlak, J. A., Mahoney, J. L., & Boyle, A. E. (2022). What we know, and what we need to find
out about universal, school-based social and emotional learning programs for children
and adolescents: A review of meta-analyses and directions for future research.
Psychological Bulletin, 148(11-12), 765–782. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000383
Frohnen, B. P. & Carey, G. W. (2016). Constitutional Morality and the Rise of Quasi-Law.
Harvard University Press.
Frumin, M. (2023). Councilmember Matt Frumin introduces Bill to establish universal out-of-
school time. Universal Out of School Time Amendment Act of 2023.
https://mattfruminward3.com/ost/
Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2005). Youth, Social Justice, and Communities:
Toward a theory of Urban Youth Policy. JSTOR. 32(3). 24-40.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/29768319
Grossman, J. B., Walker, K., & Raley, R. (2001). Challenges and opportunities in after-school
programs: Lessons for policymakers and funders. Educational Resources Information
Center. 2-20 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED454360.pdf
Hamburger, P. (2014). Is Administrative Law Unlawful? University of Chicago Press
Higgs, R. (2012). Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American
Government. Independent Institute.
12
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Hollister, R. G. (2003). The growth in after-school programs and their impact. Educational
Resources Information Center. 2-36 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474873.pdf
McGinnis, J. O. & Rappaport, M. B. (2019). Unifying original intent and original public
meaning. Northwestern University Law Review. 113(6). 1371-1418
ttps://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol113/iss6/4
Powell, H. J. (1985). The original understanding of original intent. Harvard Law Review. 98(5).
885-948. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1340880
Sarampote, N. C., Bassett, H. H., & Winsler, A. (2004). After-school care: Child outcomes and
recommendations for research and policy. Child and Youth Care Forum. 33. 329-348.
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CCAR.0000043039.79476.e9
Siegel-Hawley, G., Taylor, K., Bridges, K., Frankenberg, E., Castro, A., Williams, S., & Haden,
S. (2020). School segregation by boundary line in Virginia: Scope, significance and state
policy solutions. Center for Education and Civil Rights.
https://cecr.ed.psu.edu/sites/default/files/School_Segregation_by_Boundary_Line_in_Vir
ginia_Nov_2020.pdf
Shepherd, Z., Linda, C., & Calvert, M. (2003). Toward an understanding of youth in community
governance: Policy priorities and research direction. Society for Research in Child
Development. 17(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595513
Strang, Lee J. (2019) A brief history of originalism in American constitutional interpretation.
Originalism’s promise: A natural law account of the American Constitution. Cambridge
University Press. 9-42. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108688093.002
13
BEYOND ORG INTNET
Terbeek, C. (2021). “Clocks must always be turned back”: Brown v Board of Education and the
racial origins of constitutional originalism. American Political Science Review. 115(3).
821-834. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000095
Warren, D. (1988). Original intents: Public schools as civic education. Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
27(4). 243-249. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477007
