Abstract
In this study, we qualitatively explored the perspectives of Asian American program leaders who designed and oversaw community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents. We focused on the developmental goals prioritized by these programs and the strategies program leaders found helpful in mitigating challenges they faced. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with seven Asian American program leaders (43% female; 86% U.S.-born) managing community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents located in the Southern California county. Thematic analysis, using both inductive and deductive approaches, identified key themes regarding how program leaders considered and prioritized certain developmental goals and needs for Asian American adolescents in their programs and navigated program challenges. Findings suggest that programs supported Asian American adolescent development by fostering: (1) community-centered skills and (2) adolescents’ individual skills and well-being. Leaders addressed challenges such as meeting diverse developmental needs and culture of the adolescents and managing workforce and funding precarity through community support and leveraging staff strengths. Insights from this study offer practitioners a guideline to design and implement practices that leverage community strengths and advance equity for Asian American adolescents.
Keywords
Introduction
Asian Americans are one of the most diverse and fastest-growing racial groups in the U.S. (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021), yet they are often homogenized under the model minority stereotype. This narrative emphasizes academic success while obscuring systemic challenges and within-group diversity (Ngo & Lee, 2007; N. Tran et al., 2018). As a result, Asian Americans are frequently excluded from educational policy discussions, reinforcing the misconception that they do not need culturally responsive support (Iftikar & Museus, 2018). In reality, Asian American adolescents face unique barriers, including racial invisibility, pressure to conform to stereotype-driven expectations, and psychological stress tied to both societal narratives and community expectations of high achievement (Mistry et al., 2016; Ngo & Lee, 2007; N. Tran et al., 2018; Walton & Truong, 2023). These challenges underscore the need for developmental settings that are responsive to Asian American adolescents’ diverse lived experiences, evolving identities, and sociocultural and intergenerational contexts (Simpkins et al., 2017).
Organized after-school programs are widely recognized for promoting positive adolescent development (Mahoney et al., 2005; Vandell et al., 2015). These programs are most effective when they incorporate high-quality, culturally responsive program practices that intentionally support adolescents’ developmental needs and culture (Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Community-based after-school programs, in particular, have been known for providing affirming developmental spaces for adolescents of color, including Asian American adolescents (Chang & Shih, 2023). Although research highlights how these programs support some specific developmental needs of Asian American adolescents (e.g., ethnic-racial identity exploration), less is known about how leaders of these programs are responsive to the developmental needs of Asian American adolescents and how they overcome the challenges they face in offering these programs (Y. Liu et al., 2018; Nguyen & Quinn, 2018).
To address this gap, the present study qualitatively explored the perspectives of Asian American program leaders who designed and oversaw community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents. By focusing on the developmental goals programs prioritize, the challenges they encounter, and the strategies they use to address those challenges, this research provides insight into how program leaders design and implement culturally responsive programming to support the development of Asian American adolescents.
Community-Based After-School Programs and Asian American Adolescent Development
Community-based after-school programs are adult-led, recurring, structured activities offered outside of school hours (e.g., after school or weekends) through community-based organizations (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine [NASEM], 2025). Historically, organized after-school programs were founded in the early 1900s due to increased concerns over the time youth spent unsupervised on the streets outside of school (Durlak et al., 2010; Halpern, 2002). Early out-of-school spaces engaged adolescents in workforce development and social integration activities (particularly for European immigrant youth), often reflecting White, middle-class ideals about normative youth development (Baldridge et al., 2024; Halpern, 2002). Alongside this broader historical context, communities of color in the United States have developed their own community-based after-school programs to counteract the racial hostility adolescents may encounter in schools and other institutional settings, while also affirming their cultural identities and sense of belonging (Ginwright, 2010; McKenzie, 2008; Ngo, 2017).
Asian American communities have relied on community-based after-school programs (e.g., Cho et al., 1997; S. J. Lee, 2022; Maloof et al., 2006; Ngo, 2017) as well as co-ethnic heritage language schools (e.g., M. Zhou & Kim, 2006; M. Zhou & Li, 2003). Both types of community settings have historically supplemented traditional schooling by providing academic support, fostering connections to their ethnic-racial heritage, and cultivating critical citizenship skills, though they differ in purpose and structure (S. J. Lee, 2022; Paik et al., 2017; M. Zhou & Kim, 2006). Community-based after-school programs often deliver a broad range of activities (e.g., arts, performance art, health-based, learning about cultural histories) tailored to the needs of local communities and grounded in adolescents’ lived experiences (Paik et al., 2017), whereas heritage language schools primarily focus on linguistic maintenance and using cultural content to support language development (J. S. Lee & Wu, 2021; Song, 2021). Some heritage language schools operate as for-profit institutions, placing them within distinct funding systems and organizational structures (Song, 2021; M. Zhou & Li, 2003). Given these differences, the current study focuses on community-based after-school programs, which are designed to support a wider set of developmental goals for Asian American adolescents.
Despite the long history of community programs serving Asian American adolescents, research on these programs and Asian Americans remains sparse (Boyer & Tracz, 2014; Vandell et al., 2007)—likely due in part to persistent assumptions and pervasive stereotypes about Asian Americans’ academic success (S. J. Lee et al., 2017). However, evidence suggests that community-based after-school programs designed for Asian American adolescents can effectively foster adolescents’ connections to their cultural heritage and promote ethnic-racial identity exploration (Chang & Shih, 2023; Paik et al., 2017; T. T. Tran & Bifuh-Ambe, 2021; Wu et al., 2019). In order to support these programs for Asian American adolescents, we need insight from the people who lead existing programs to understand their goals, the challenges, and the strategies they use to be responsive to these issues.
Culturally Responsive Program Practices for Asian American Adolescents
Theories of organized after-school activities posit that program effectiveness depends on the extent to which programs are high-quality, including being responsive to adolescents’ developmental needs and culture (NASEM, 2025; Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Culture, defined here as the beliefs, values, traditions, and behaviors that shape how individuals navigate their social environments, plays a central role in determining how adolescents experience and benefit from programs (Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016).
Although early definitions of program quality were framed around universal developmental needs (e.g., Eccles & Gootman, 2002), activity scholars recently have argued that culturally responsive practices, which include practices that are responsive to adolescents’ individual needs and lived experiences, are a foundational dimension of program quality (NASEM, 2025; Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Culturally responsive programs integrate adolescents’ cultural values into program norms, facilitate opportunities for adolescents to engage with culturally meaningful program content, and cultivate a sense of belonging rooted in shared cultural heritage (Simpkins et al., 2017)—all of which are theorized to strengthen the impact of learning spaces on adolescents’ learning and development (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). Programs that are not responsive risk reinforcing cultural dissonance, marginalization, and disengagement (Ettekal et al., 2020; A. R. Lin et al., 2016; Ma et al., 2020).
Mistry et al. (2016) Integrated Conceptual Framework provides a foundation for understanding key developmental processes for Asian American adolescents that program leaders might need to consider to ensure their program is culturally responsive. The framework emphasizes that Asian American adolescents’ development is shaped by their immigration histories and social stratification, and it describes processes in regard to four central domains of Asian American adolescents’ development. First, identity development encompasses the formation of hybrid, hyphenated, or otherwise multilayered identities as adolescents navigate cultural expectations, racialization, and being positioned as “foreign” (Mistry et al., 2016). Second, adolescents’ mental health and well-being are impacted by experiences of racism and discrimination, the stresses of acculturation, and cultural meanings of well-being, including how distress may be communicated or embodied in the adolescents’ cultural context (Mistry et al., 2016). Third, Asian American adolescents’ academic development is situated within sociocultural expectations, such as immigrant family aspirations, structural opportunity barriers, and racialized narratives (e.g., model minority stereotype) about Asian American achievement (Mistry et al., 2016). Fourth, cultural and language brokering refers to the ways Asian American adolescents mediate language and cultural knowledge for family members, shaping intergenerational relationships, cultural connection, and their sense of responsibility within their families and communities (Mistry et al., 2016). Taken together, these developmental domains underscore that Asian American adolescent development is deeply embedded within sociocultural, racialized, and intergenerational contexts.
Community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents have been documented to respond to these four developmental demands through their programming (M. Lin, 2022; Nguyen & Quinn, 2018; Pheng & Xiong, 2022). Prior research has shown that such programs engage youth in discussions of racialization and identity (S. J. Lee, 2022; M. Lin, 2022), create opportunities for adolescents to bridge generational gaps through civic or leadership activities (Wong, 2010), and foster emotional and psychological safety through shared lived experiences among staff and peers (e.g., discussions on intergenerational conflict or navigating bi-cultural identity; Ngo et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019). These practices illustrate how culturally responsive programming can operate to support the development of Asian American adolescents.
Challenges in Overseeing Culturally Responsive Programs for Asian American Adolescents
Culturally responsive programming is important to ensure that programs effectively support Asian American adolescents. However, providing culturally responsive programs is a complex and nuanced process, as programs operate within broader structural constraints while also responding to the needs of the adolescents they serve.
Some challenges plague a variety of programs across the country. Organized after-school programs nationwide face funding instability due to fragmented financing systems, creating administrative strain and leaving programs vulnerable when grants expire (Deich et al., 2018; NASEM, 2025). These structural challenges contribute to workforce instability (i.e., high turnover, role ambiguity, and limited access to training; NASEM, 2025), which can leave staff feeling underprepared to address culture-related incidents (e.g., discrimination) or facilitate discussions on systemic injustices (Gutiérrez et al., 2017; Skelley et al., 2022). Programs must also balance competing stakeholder expectations (NASEM, 2025), particularly pressures to prioritize measurable academic outcomes (e.g., federally funded 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program; Baldridge et al., 2024), which can conflict with culturally responsive practices that center adolescents’ agency, relational engagement, and identity development (Fusco et al., 2013; NASEM, 2025).
In addition to these challenges programs face nationwide, programs serving Asian American adolescents may need to navigate adolescents’ diverse cultural orientations, developmental needs, and sociopolitical contexts (Mistry et al., 2016; Mistry & Kiyama, 2021). Asian Americans comprise more than 20 ethnic groups with varied immigration histories and socioeconomic conditions, alongside shared racialized experiences such as pressures stemming from the model minority stereotype, which may shape how program goals are set and enacted (Mistry & Kiyama, 2021; Paik et al., 2017). Addressing these complexities requires culturally responsive curricula, intentional staff preparation, and supportive relational environments, underscoring why program leaders must tailor their developmental goals and culturally responsive practices to the diverse needs and priorities of their local Asian American community (S. J. Lee, 2022; M. Lin, 2022; Ngo, 2017; Ngo et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019).
Programs serving Asian American adolescents also navigate tensions between adolescent preferences and family expectations, creating both opportunities and challenges for bridging intergenerational perspectives (Y. Liu et al., 2018; Mistry et al., 2016; T. Yu et al., 2025). For instance, Ngo (2017) documented that Hmong adolescents often wanted to participate in after-school programs when their parents preferred they remain at home, reflecting broader intergenerational and cultural conflicts. Programs that recognize and intentionally bridge these perspectives—by engaging both families and adolescents in decision-making—are better positioned to maintain participation and ensure culturally responsive programming (Simpkins et al., 2017).
Finally, programs must also avoid the perpetuation of dominant narratives, including deficit-based racialized ideologies (Mistry & Kiyama, 2021). Research shows that even well-intentioned programs may inadvertently reinforce anti-Blackness or deficit ideologies (Baldridge et al., 2017; Kwon, 2013; Nygreen, 2017; Park, 2023). For example, Park’s (2023) study on a Korean language school revealed how well-intentioned efforts to instill ethnic pride inadvertently reinforced anti-Blackness and neoliberal ideals tied to dominant narratives. Scholars suggest that it is beneficial for programs to incorporate a racial justice-oriented framework that prioritizes adolescents’ agency, self-efficacy, and empowerment while actively challenging systemic racism (Gay, 2013; Howard, 2010).
In sum, program leaders may face numerous challenges that they need to overcome to provide culturally responsive programming for Asian American adolescents. We, as a field, can learn from existing program leaders on the strategies they already use to address them.
Current Study
Despite the growing recognition of the importance of culturally responsive programming for Asian American adolescents, questions remain on how leaders of community-based after-school programs design and implement such programs while balancing structural constraints and community needs. Existing research has primarily centered the experiences of adolescent participants and frontline staff, leaving program leaders’ perspectives understudied, even though leaders are vital to the development, longevity, and success of programs (California AfterSchool Network, 2015; NASEM, 2025). Given that limited budgets and staff turnover are two of the most common challenges, program leaders are uniquely positioned to offer insight into the structural, logistical, and strategic decisions that shape program design, sustainability, and responsiveness to community needs and the adolescents they serve (NASEM, 2025). In contrast, many frontline staff who work directly with adolescents only work with a specific age group or program component and are not privy to vital issues of running a program, such as budgetary issues and staff turnover (California AfterSchool Network, 2015). Program leaders, therefore, play a critical role in determining how culturally responsive programming is conceptualized, supported, and sustained.
The present study qualitatively explored how Asian American program leaders designed and implemented community-based after-school programs for Asian American adolescents. Specifically, we focused on the developmental goals prioritized by these programs and the challenges they encountered. By centering the perspectives of program leaders, this study contributes to understanding how culturally responsive practices can be embedded in programming to support Asian American adolescent development while navigating the complexities of culture as well as structural and operational demands. We aimed to address two research questions: (1) What do program leaders see as the developmental goals and culturally responsive practices that guide their programs for Asian American adolescents? (2) How do program leaders mitigate the challenges they encounter in overseeing these programs?
Method
Research Design and Participants
The present study utilized purposive sampling to recruit Asian American program leaders who met two main criteria: (1) identifying as an Asian American based on the definition set by the U.S. Census Bureau (2020): “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (e.g., Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam),” and (2) having experience designing and overseeing community-based after-school programs for Asian American adolescents in a large county in Southern California. This county was selected as the site of data collection due to its substantial Asian American population. As context, California accounts for one-third of the Asian American population in the U.S. and has the second-largest population of Asian/Asian Americans in the country (Budiman & Ruiz, 2021). Furthermore, within California, this specific county has one of the most diverse and densely populated Asian American ethnic communities in Southern California, with Asian Americans comprising 22.6% of its 3.17 million residents (AAPI Data, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Snowball sampling and reputational case selection (i.e., key participants recommended experts in the community; Miles et al., 2014) facilitated recruitment, ensuring the inclusion of individuals holding influential roles within the Asian American community.
Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with seven Asian American program leaders (43% female; 86% U.S.-born) who managed seven of the 11 community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents located in the Southern California county. To identify eligible programs, the first author conducted web-based searches to locate community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents in the county. After compiling an initial list, the first author consulted undergraduate students who grew up in the area, professors from the Asian American Studies department, and local Asian American school teachers to identify additional programs. In addition, the first author asked program directors with whom she had prior professional relationships whether there were any programs not captured through the web search. Programs were included if they (a) operated out of a community-based organization predominately serving Asian American adolescents in the Southern California County, and (b) offered structured, reoccurring programming to these adolescents. Based on this search, 11 programs were identified, and their program directors were contacted via email. Of those contacted, seven program leaders from seven programs agreed to participate.
The seven community-based after-school programs included in this study served middle to high school adolescents, with six out of seven programs having a cultural focus (see Table 1). Although the programs differed in program focus and participant age groups, program leaders typically spoke about “adolescents” collectively in the interviews. Program leaders were defined as individuals holding decision-making or supervisory roles within their community-based organization and the programs serving adolescents, including a program manager, program director, program coordinator, or youth development manager (NASEM, 2025). Though their specific title varied across organizations, all program leaders were directly responsible for program design, implementation, and oversight, which aligned with our study’s focus on leadership perspectives. In this study, we conceptualize culture at two levels. At the adolescent level, culture reflects the beliefs, values, traditions, and behaviors that shape how adolescents navigate their social environments (Simpkins et al., 2017; Williams & Deutsch, 2016). At the organizational level, organizational culture refers to the shared values, community commitments, and guiding principles that program leaders draw upon when designing and implementing programming. Program leaders interpret and respond to adolescents’ culture while simultaneously shaping the organizational culture that frames program goals and practices (Simpkins et al., 2017). Of the seven program leaders, 86% participated in organized after-school programs themselves in high school in the United States, and all participants have the experience of designing and overseeing community-based after-school programs (ranging from one to more than 10 programs). Although several leaders had experience working in other programs, during the interviews, they were asked to focus specifically on the program they were currently running. Participants reflected a range of East and Southeast Asian backgrounds. In Table 1, we provide a brief overview of the Asian American program leaders and the programs they oversaw. Although the sample size was relatively small, these seven participants represented the majority of community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents in the county.
Program Leader Demographic Characteristics and Program Descriptions.
Note. Besides Sophia, all participants were U.S. born.
F = female, M = male, NB = non-binary.
Highest level of degree obtained: BA = Bachelor’s degree from a 4-year college, MA = Master’s degree.
This is the length of involvement the program leaders have had with the community-based organization that serves the organized after-school program that they oversee as program leaders.
Cultural programs included program content tailored to the Asian American experience, such as workshops and discussions on Asian American-related (e.g., intergenerational conflict) and teachings on traditional practices from specific Asian American ethnic groups.
Interview Procedures
Semi-structured qualitative interviews with the seven program leaders were conducted in the spring and summer of 2024. Interviews were conducted by the first author and generally lasted between 45 and 90 min. All program leaders were interviewed in English, and the audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms were used in all of the interview data. Each program leader received a $10 honorarium for participating in the interviews.
The semi-structured interview script contained multiple open-ended questions that were developed based on existing literature (e.g., Simpkins et al., 2017) and conversations with the research team. The first section of the interview included general questions regarding the organization the program leader was currently running (e.g., “Could you give me a brief description of the organization you work with?”). The second section focused on questions asking about program leaders’ experiences designing and overseeing organized after-school activities serving Asian American adolescents (e.g., “What was the motivation behind providing these activities at [name of organization]?”). This section included questions aimed at answering research question one (e.g., “In your opinion, what are the key developmental goals and needs of the Asian American youth in the community, and how did your activities address these needs?”). The third section of the interview addressed research question two and asked about the challenges program leaders encountered in designing and overseeing these activities for Asian American adolescents (e.g., “Did you and your organization face challenges in designing activities for Asian American youth who participate in the activities?”). The final fourth section of the interview included questions about the future directions of community-based after-school programs serving Asian American adolescents in the Southern California County (e.g., “Looking back on your experience, what improvements or changes would you incorporate in future activities to promote the positive development of the Asian American youth you serve?”). A complete list of the interview questions can be found in Supplemental Appendix A.
In addition to the semi-structured interviews, program leaders’ demographic information (e.g., gender, nativity status, and highest level of education obtained) was collected via a post-interview survey (see Supplemental Appendix B).
Coding and Analysis
The interview data were qualitatively coded through multiple interactive stages using both inductive and deductive coding approaches to identify patterns and themes in the data (Saldaña, 2016). To assist in data analysis, features in the qualitative coding software called Dedoose Version 9.0.107, and Microsoft Excel spreadsheets were used. Coding and analysis of the interviews occurred using the strategies described below.
In the first stage of coding, the first author read through a subsample of interviews (i.e., four out of seven interviews) in their entirety and placed particular attention on responses related to each research question. Inductive and deductive approaches were used, where codes were based on the data using in vivo (i.e., verbatim words or phrases from program leaders) and descriptive (i.e., words or phrases that summarize a topic based on prior literature) coding techniques (Saldaña, 2016). During the inductive phase, the first author identified preliminary codes directly from the program leaders’ responses, attending to patterns and meanings reflected in their language and perspectives (e.g., resilience, flexibility). For the deductive phase, Simpkins et al.’s (2017) framework of designing culturally responsive organized after-school programs, Mistry et al.’s (2016) integrated framework on Asian American adolescent development, and previous literature on the management of community-based after-school programs (e.g., Paik et al., 2017) were referenced to refine the codes. This first stage of coding yielded a coding framework focused on (a) what leaders saw as the developmental goals and needs they needed to prioritize and the strategies they implemented to realize their goals for Asian American adolescents, and (b) challenges programs faced and the strategies they felt helped address these challenges.
In the second stage of coding, the preliminary coding framework was applied to code all seven program leader interviews. The coding framework was revised based on coding the remaining data, reviewing written memos of the coding process, previous literature, and discussions with the research team. The purpose of this stage was to create a stronger coding framework that captured the unique perspectives of all program leaders in the study. To ensure consensus and agreement on the finalized coding framework, inter-rater reliability checks were conducted between the first author and two undergraduate research assistants. Both assistants identified as female and majors in Educational Sciences; one minored in Asian American Studies. One assistant identified as Vietnamese American and grew up in the Southern California County where the data were collected, and the other assistant identified as Chinese and grew up in eastern China before coming to the United States for undergraduate studies. The research assistants independently coded excerpts (20%) from all seven interviews, yielding an average Cohen’s kappa coefficient of k = 0.82 (k = 0.84 and 0.80, respectively).
In the third and final stage of coding, broader themes were created by consulting the coding framework, interview data, previous literature, and written memos. The themes were based on the common patterns we found across the codes from the previous coding stage. The goal was to create themes that best captured the ways in which program leaders considered and prioritized certain developmental goals and needs for Asian American adolescents in their programs, the challenges programs faced, and the strategies that helped address these challenges (Ryan & Bernard, 2003).
Positionality
Acknowledging our positionality and reflecting on how our experiences shape our approach to the present study is important. The first author identifies as Asian and Japanese, with a bicultural background from growing up in both the U.S. and Japan, which strongly informs her interest in how community-based after-school programs provide structural support for Asian American adolescents’ positive development. Additionally, her experience as an instructor in out-of-school settings, particularly those serving Asian and Asian American adolescents, further influences her approach to the current data. The second author is a White woman raised in California, whose family has been in the U.S. for more than three generations. She has conducted research on adolescents’ organized activity participation and the role of family involvement, including with Latine populations, for over 20 years.
Results
Addressing Developmental Goals Relevant to Asian American Adolescents
To address our first research question, we identified two overarching themes that reflect the developmental goals prioritized by program leaders: (a) fostering skills centering community connections and (b) fostering adolescents’ individual skills and well-being.
Centering Community Connections
Six program leaders underscored the importance of fostering Asian American adolescents’ sense of belonging both within their community and their broader ethnic group and facilitating meaningful opportunities for engagement. Emily described her program as one that “came as a response to a lot of the AAPI hate that we were seeing post-COVID,” explaining that it aimed to combine “community advocacy, community formations, addressing AAPI hate and Asian American Studies.” Even in areas with high concentrations of Asian American peers and adults, program leaders emphasized that programs offered unique, dedicated spaces for connection, identity exploration, and cultural reflection. As Jason observed, Sometimes in schools or in other settings, it can be very challenging for students to have an honest space to explore . . . about identity or really trying to figure out what it is that they hope to change in their community . . . one that they can kind of connect to their own lives and see themselves as a part of.
Program leaders thus envisioned their programs serving as mediators between adolescents and their communities and hoped to spark adolescents’ interest in community advocacy, particularly as they navigated parental expectations such as pursuing college and careers in STEM.
To achieve these aims of bridging Asian American adolescents to their Asian American communities, program leaders focused on two developmental goals: (1) building connections to an Asian American identity and (2) fostering civic engagement and advocacy. Through culturally responsive approaches that brought community histories and perspectives into adolescents’ everyday experiences, programs encouraged participants to link their lived experiences with broader themes of belonging and civic engagement.
Building Connections to an Asian American Identity
Program leaders emphasized the importance of creating a sense of community and nurturing adolescents’ connections to their cultural heritage, including their relationship with their parents. Jason explained that his students “had a lot of interest to learn about the local [ethnic enclave] history . . . something they really haven't had the opportunity to explore, really talk about whether it's with their family or in schools.” Emily similarly noted that many families in her program sought “a way to bridge that intergenerational gap of understanding and experience.” Having personally experienced participating in community-based after-school programs that shaped his own ethnic identity, Ryan highlighted the broader importance of these efforts: “Our community is really looking to hold on to our cultural heritage and keep our community together. . . . even second-generation Japanese Americans are moving further down the generational line, the more Americanized our community gets, . . . we need programs to keep us rooted.”
To help build adolescents’ Asian American identity, program leaders expressed integrating local histories, teaching traditional cultural practices (e.g., language or art), and facilitating conversations between adolescents and their immigrant parents within their program curricula. Program leaders implemented these goals through hands-on, experiential approaches. Sophia’s program, for instance, tailored its services to bridge generational gaps: “We have the American-born younger team, and then we really understand the struggles and the cultural barriers of these immigrants. So our program would tailor to the need and also be very culturally sensitive and appropriate.” Emily’s program likewise sought to “offer students different lenses to see Asian American studies, . . . offer them life skills along the way . . . that are maybe more applicable to their everyday lives.” She further noted her program’s intergenerational activities improved family relationships with parents reporting that they “can actually have a good conversation with them [adolescents] where it's not just screaming and fighting and arguing”
Jason’s program incorporated Vietnamese language practices to help adolescents “use [the language] in a more daily context,” while Maya’s program helped students critically examine social issues related to Asian American adolescents, such as the model minority stereotype. Jason also described incorporating creative projects —“figure out what represents Little Saigon, drawing out an imagined community” — which aimed to encourage adolescents to imagine their place within their ethnic community’s future. Together, program leaders enacted these strategies to encourage adolescents to cultivate cultural pride, navigate intergenerational differences, and see their heritage as integral to their sense of self.
Fostering Civic Engagement and Advocacy
Program leaders raised awareness of community issues and aimed to foster adolescent leadership through advocacy work. Programs encouraged adolescents to “create the changes they hope to see” and recognize their collective agency, as Jason explained: They see for themselves that [they] have power in agency as young people to work together to figure out how we want to make our futures better for our families, for ourselves, for whether that’s our school community, their church or temple community, or their club community.
Program leaders aimed to help adolescents broaden their perspectives beyond academic success and view community engagement as a form of self-development. Emily noted that while many Asian American adolescents are encouraged to pursue STEM careers, she wanted her program to remind them that “there is stuff beyond college, beyond STEM, beyond their job . . . to come back and find ways to work within the community in whatever capacity they can.” Similarly, Eric reflected on the academic pressures faced by Asian American youth, particularly those from immigrant families: There can still definitely be a good amount of families, still have a more academic mindset . . . still be more pressure that's placed on the youth and students to excel in school to get into a good college and all of that.
They believed that community involvement “adds another dimension” to adolescents’ development, beyond school or sports, by “broadening what they’re exposed to” and helping them “grow as individuals.”
Programs intentionally reframed traditional academic pressures by promoting civic learning through service and discussions. Maya described how their “activism projects” encouraged adolescents to research topics such as healthcare and educational equity and connect them to their own cultural and familial experiences, including access to healthcare shaped by immigrant family dynamics. Sophia’s program combined volunteer service, such as “food bank, homeless shelter, or fundraising activities for cancer-care,” with guest lectures on Asian American activism. David’s program provided a certification on citizenship and society that allowed adolescents to have open discussions on race and inclusion, which he found deeply meaningful for the adolescents: Some of them [adolescents] will say it’s actually their favorite activity, which is kind of amazing because it just tells you that they can really get a lot out of becoming aware of this side of life as they become adults.
Eric viewed his program as an “investment” in the community’s future: We saw them [adolescents] in a very unique position where the time that we're investing into them now can help shape and build them into future adults and community members that are equipped to and willing to engage with and participate in their community.
His program offered adolescents volunteer opportunities to support organizational events, such as resource fairs and community celebrations, helping them represent their community organization alongside adult staff. Finally, in addition to service and discussions on civic engagement, Jason emphasized the importance of community building as a foundation for deeper engagement in these activities: We really started with a lot of community building efforts and to set the foundation to be able to engage with difficult conversations throughout the program. Having time for them to have space, . . . to have that community building outside of just presentation activities.
By combining these strategies, programs created spaces where adolescents could explore their identities, build connections to their communities, and develop skills for civic engagement.
Fostering Adolescents’ Individual Skills and Well-Being
Beyond centering community, six program leaders mentioned their programs aimed to provide adolescents with opportunities to “learn something new every time” and develop life skills that extend beyond academic achievement; skills instructors themselves wished they had acquired during adolescence. This theme reflected two key developmental goals: (1) cultivating leadership and initiative, and (2) fostering career skills and professionalism. Across programs, flexibility in adapting program structures—such as modifying instruction styles and schedules—emerged as a central strategy for engaging adolescents and encouraging skill development.
Leadership and Initiative
Program leaders emphasized cultivating leadership and initiative by encouraging adolescents to take responsibility for their actions and decisions. A common strategy involved shifting accountability from parents to adolescents, requiring them to independently manage tasks such as attendance and communication with program staff. For instance, Eric’s program required adolescents to complete applications and communicate directly with staff, encouraging a sense of ownership and autonomy. They explained, “The youth have to check their email, schedule an interview. . . and all logistical details are only sent to the youth.” Drawing on their own formative experiences in similar programs, Eric believed this model not only built independence but helped adolescents “learn to take initiative.”
David acknowledged that although adolescent-led structures could be “inefficient” for adults, they had developmental value, noting that “a lot of intangible skill sets they probably would not have experienced and developed otherwise.” His program created opportunities for older adolescents to take on leadership roles and mentor their younger peers, encouraging collaboration, accountability, and confidence.
By providing structured yet flexible environments, programs supported adolescents’ growth as emerging leaders. Jason echoed this focus on development and wellness, noting that giving adolescents responsibility for managing their own participation, such as notifying staff when they were sick or had family obligations, offered an opportunity for “their own growth and their own sense of wellness to be able to prioritize that.”
Career Skills and Professionalism
In addition to fostering leadership, program leaders incorporated career-oriented and life-skills training based on adolescents’ interests and developmental needs. Maya’s program integrated wellness into career development, recognizing the interconnectedness of personal well-being and professional success. She explained, “Wellness relates [to career development]; everything intersects in a way. And so we try to help with the holistic wellbeing of our students.” Similarly, Eric’s program offered mentorship and workshops on stress and mental health-related college and careers to remind adolescents that “academics are important but not just the only thing.”
Emily described connecting adolescents with fellow Asian American college mentors to teach professional skills, such as “how to write a proper email” or “how to address job interviews when someone’s making maybe stereotypical comments based on how you look.” David observed that these efforts produced visible results: “By the time that they're [adolescents] 13, 14 years old, they're writing very proper, courteous emails . . . adults are always blown away with the style and content.”
When supporting skill-building for adolescents, program leaders emphasized the importance of engaging content and accessible instruction. For instance, Ryan’s program prioritized enjoyment and flexibility over rigid practices to make learning more appealing. Jason and Maya incorporated self-reflection activities to help adolescents approach their participation with greater intentionality. Sophia restructured meetings into smaller groups to create more intimate, engaging interactions because she felt “smaller is more engaging.” By cultivating leadership, initiative, professional skills, and wellness, these program leaders aimed to provide adolescents with a strong, well-rounded foundation to thrive academically, professionally, and personally.
Supportive Strategies Program Leaders Used to Mitigate Challenges
Given programs’ need to navigate multiple challenges (NASEM, 2025), our second research question sought to identify supportive strategies program leaders used to address challenges they faced in responding to the needs of Asian American adolescents. Program leaders expressed two key challenges: (a) workforce and funding precarity, and (b) supporting adolescent engagement by meeting their diverse needs and competing with multiple demands. These distinct challenges are interconnected as limited resources often exacerbate difficulties in meeting adolescents’ needs and sustaining engagement. Program leaders identified two supportive strategies—receiving support from community members and leveraging staff strengths—as instrumental in maintaining their programs.
Workforce and Funding Precarity
Like many programs around the country (NASEM, 2025), five program leaders described workforce and funding precarity as one of the most significant barriers to maintaining consistent operations and long-term sustainability. Many programs operated with small, overextended teams, limiting their capacity to grow and evolve while providing high-quality program content to adolescents. Eric described these constraints, explaining that “developing the program longer term . . . securing funding, securing your staff, making sure you and your team have the capacity to support the amount of growth you want to do with the program.” Sophia discussed the personal sacrifices required to sustain her program, emphasizing the instability caused by unpredictable funding streams: “It’s a good program, but it takes a lot of sacrifices.” She noted the difficulty of securing funds for adolescent programs focused on leadership development: “We've been funded for community mental health education for adults, for seniors . . . But programs like [youth] leadership training or youth training [in general], . . . we need to exhaust our own resources.” Eric echoed this challenge, explaining that even when programs worked with agencies or government institutions to secure grants, “most of the funds [were] restricted to certain purposes,” leaving gaps between available resources and the evolving needs of the community.
To address these challenges, program leaders emphasized the importance of community partnerships, collaborative networks, and resilience. Sophia highlighted how partnerships with nearby universities not only helped secure funding but also created opportunities for joint research and data collection aligned with the partnering university’s interests. “It's really good that we'll have academic or other organizational partnerships,” she explained. “We have been approached by different professors and academic experts for collaboration. . . . they will also share the funding with us to some degree.” These university-community partnerships were mutually beneficial, combining research expertise with community-based program knowledge.
Maya echoed the importance of collaboration among organizations serving Asian American communities, emphasizing, “At the end of the day, even though we're different organizations, we all have a mission to help everyone out.” Eric similarly described how the history and network of Asian American community-based organizations in the Southern California county strengthened their collective capacity: One of our strengths . . . is the connections we've built with other similar agencies . . . If someone comes to us with an issue that we don't have direct resources for, chances are we know who might or vice versa.
Program leaders also underscored the role of parents’, volunteers’, and staff’s adaptability in sustaining programs despite resource limitations. David noted that “Parents are pretty involved. They help organize a lot of the activities themselves.” Emily emphasized her team’s flexibility and commitment to accessibility: “We never really want to turn away students . . . if students have transportation issues to get to the program, we try to find ways to accommodate those things that maybe students don't really have control over.” Similarly, Sophia reflected on her and her staff’s resilience, grounded in collective responsibility to persist and sustain operations for nearly a decade despite limited budgets: We’ve been able to run [the program] for nine years. There's a lot of resilience in myself and our team to be able to make that through with the very low budget and then be impactful programs. The program is very well received . . . we end up having waiting list
Finally, several program leaders noted that their dual role as both facilitators and community members further strengthened their capacity to navigate these structural challenges. As Eric described, Our staff, our volunteers, all serve the community, but also live in the community that we serve. I think that's a very powerful strength . . . being able to work with the community that we ourselves are part of and be able to advocate for that community.
Together, these efforts illustrate how Asian American serving community-based after-school programs sustain their work not only through external partnerships and resourcefulness but also through deep cultural alignment and collective commitment to their communities.
Supporting Adolescent Engagement
Six program leaders expressed facing challenges in maintaining adolescent engagement, both in terms of consistent participation and meaningful engagement with program content. These challenges often stemmed from balancing the diverse developmental needs of adolescents with their competing academic and extracurricular demands. The sections below describe the strategies program leaders used to address these challenges.
Meeting Diverse Needs
Program leaders reported the difficulty of accommodating the wide-ranging developmental stages, academic abilities, and cultural backgrounds of their adolescent participants. Programs serving high school students, such as Emily’s, often need to address differences in maturity and skill levels among participants. She explained, “Their maturity is different, the way they think is different, their writing skills are different, their reading skills are different. And so the first thing that we think of is we always test out how feasible is this.”
To meet adolescents’ diverse needs, programs actively sought input from adolescents to tailor program content. Emily described how her program established a student advisory board to test ideas: We have a sample pool of students on the student advisory board, and . . . these students come from a variety of backgrounds. We run a lot of these activities by them before any program that we do, and we try to get them to meet with the instructors.
Sophia, David, and Jason also surveyed adolescents during each session to assess what was working and what was not. This approach allowed programs to improve while “centering this idea of . . . we really care about you as people first and then as program participants.” Furthermore, Ryan emphasized the importance of questioning program relevance to the adolescents they serve: “How rooted is your program in what kids actually want? How entertaining is your program?” This practice reflects the program’s commitment to creating culturally responsive and developmentally appropriate activities.
As another strategy, Maya valued vulnerability and self-reflection in encouraging adolescent engagement, particularly for complex topics like social justice: “Self-reflecting what your [program staff’s] strengths and areas of improvement are and being honest with that. . . . If you’re [program staff are] vulnerable and you [program staff] establish a safe space . . . students will open up as well.” Creating supportive environments where adolescents could engage at their own pace helped address these engagement barriers. Maya added, “It’s not like they don’t want to participate, they just don’t know how to explain what they went through, or they just are scared to talk about it.”
Juggling Competing Demands
Program leaders also reported the difficulty of managing the competing demands on adolescents’ time. Many adolescents in these programs balanced multiple extracurricular activities alongside rigorous academic expectations, which sometimes led families to view these programs as secondary. Emily noted that programs were often treated as “an afterthought” rather than as integral to adolescent development. Convincing families of program value could be difficult. Sophia shared how families often prioritized academic pursuits, such as SAT preparation, over participation in her program, even when adolescents expressed a strong desire to remain involved.
To address this challenge, program leaders framed their programs as complementary to adolescents’ academic and personal growth. Emily explained the importance of demonstrating that programs offered skills that adolescents “might not be able to get in school.” By working with parents and positioning activities as vital to development, programs aimed to align their efforts with family and community values. Through these strategies, program leaders demonstrated that addressing adolescent engagement requires ongoing adaptation, culturally responsive practices, and intentional alignment with participants’ needs and community values.
Discussion
Despite recognizing the role of community-based after-school programs supporting Asian American adolescent development (e.g., M. Lin, 2022; Ngo et al., 2023; Paik et al., 2017), there remains limited research on how program leaders navigate the process of addressing the cultural and developmental needs of Asian American adolescents in their programs (Y. Liu et al., 2018; Nguyen & Quinn, 2018). This study qualitatively explored the perspectives of Asian American program leaders, addressing two questions: (1) What do program leaders see as the developmental goals and culturally responsive practices that guide their programs for Asian American adolescents? (2) How do program leaders mitigate the challenges they encounter in overseeing these programs?
Centering Community and Fostering Adolescent Skills
In relation to our first research question, the developmental goals that program leaders prioritized in their programs aligned closely with the four developmental domains emphasized in Mistry et al.’s (2016) integrated conceptual framework: identity development, mental health and well-being, academic development, and cultural/language brokering (intergenerational relationships). Program leaders noted that their decisions about program goals were motivated by a desire to address challenges stemming from invisibility, pressures often created by the model minority stereotype, and intergenerational dynamics, needs leaders said were highlighted both by adolescents themselves and informed by their own personal experiences. At the same time, our findings extend Mistry et al.’s (2016) framework by illustrating how leaders moved beyond these four developmental domains to incorporate career skills and professionalism as core developmental goals for their adolescents. Leaders viewed these competencies as important in helping Asian American adolescents prepare for environments beyond secondary school. This emphasis on career skills and professionalism reflects leaders’ concerns about the strong focus on academic achievement among Asian American adolescents, which can overshadow the development of leadership, professional skills, and holistic preparation for adulthood (Mistry & Kiyama, 2021). These findings highlight both the relevance of Mistry et al.’s (2016) framework and the ways the programs in this study address broader sociocultural and developmental challenges facing Asian American adolescents.
A notable strength of the program leaders in this study was their ability to draw on personal experiences as Asian Americans and as community members to provide an “honest space” where adolescents could explore their cultural identities, build awareness of civic engagement, and develop leadership and professional skills. This aligns with prior research showing that staff who share ethnic-racial backgrounds and lived experiences as adolescents may be more equipped to provide mentorship, cultural understanding, and emotional safety to adolescents (Ngo et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2019). The focus on leadership and professional skills is especially noteworthy considering Asian Americans remain underrepresented in managerial and leadership positions, largely due to systemic barriers but also in part because traditional leadership development relies on Western mainstream practices (Sy et al., 2017). The programs in our study serve as early developmental spaces where Asian American adolescents can begin to acquire both general leadership skills (e.g., taking initiative, communicating with adults) and culturally informed strategies for navigating professional expectations and interpersonal dynamics shaped by adolescents’ social and cultural backgrounds (e.g., addressing stereotypes or bias in interviews, connecting wellness to career trajectories). Although emphasizing these developmental outcomes can make it difficult for programs to secure funding (NASEM, 2025), given that many funders prioritize measurable academic outcomes, program leaders still prioritize these goals, recognizing their critical importance for Asian American adolescents’ holistic growth alongside the learning experiences they receive at schools or at other extracurricular activities.
Furthermore, programs in this study served Asian American adolescents in predominantly Asian neighborhoods and schools. Even within these contexts, there remained a need for a separate learning space dedicated to offering adolescents access to learn about their cultural heritage and develop professional skills. This aligns with Mistry and Kiyama (2021), who argue the importance of developmental contexts where Asian American adolescents can navigate and make meaning of their marginalization and invisibility even in ethnic-racial majority contexts. Similarly, Ngo and Chandara (2021) describe how organized after-school programs for Hmong adolescents functioned as a “third space,” enabling them to critically engage with their Asian American identities, challenge stereotypes, and reclaim cultural narratives about Hmong Americans. Consistent with this literature, findings from this study suggest programs can help adolescents reconcile conflicts between cultural environments and bridge multiple worlds (Cooper et al., 2002), underscoring the continued importance of these programs as alternative learning spaces that support adolescents alongside school and family.
Addressing Challenges Through Program Strengths
Our second research question aimed to understand how program leaders addressed the challenges they encountered in designing and implementing culturally responsive programming for Asian American adolescents. Community-based after-school programs nationwide face longstanding structural challenges that impact their capacity to deliver consistent high-quality programming (NASEM, 2025). The programs in our study reflected these broader patterns as leaders described funding and workforce precarity that resulted in small, overstretched staff teams and limited organizational infrastructure. Several program leaders also emphasized the scarcity of grants that support goals such as youth leadership and culturally responsive programming—gaps that echo the larger narratives of Asian American invisibility (Mistry & Kiyama, 2021) and the limited public investment in their holistic development (Iftikar & Museus, 2018).
At the same time, program leaders also navigated challenges pertinent to serving Asian American adolescents within these structural constraints. Consistent with literature highlighting the heterogeneous lived experiences of Asian American adolescents (Mistry et al., 2016; Mistry & Kiyama, 2021), program leaders described difficulties tailoring program content to adolescents’ diverse developmental levels, as well as facilitating vulnerable conversations such as social justice. Programs also faced challenges sustaining adolescents’ participation in their programs amid competing academic and extracurricular demands. Program leaders noted that families of these adolescents often prioritized academically-oriented activities such as SAT preparation over their programs, which focused on non-academic domains such as identity and civic engagement. This pattern aligns with the literature stating that Asian American adolescents often navigate heightened academic expectations (Mistry et al., 2016), which, in this case, led to the deprioritization of activities that families perceive as less beneficial. Thus, although fluctuations in adolescent engagement are common issues nationwide (NASEM, 2025), the convergence of cultural, familial, and structural pressures may render this issue particularly pronounced within programs serving Asian American adolescents.
Community support emerged as a key strength in addressing these challenges. Programs leveraged relationships with families, local organizations, and volunteers to sustain operations and enhance cultural responsiveness, which aligns with the recommendation of collaborating and integrating the strengths of family and community efforts (Akiva et al., 2023; Simpkins et al., 2017). These networks of support not only helped alleviate funding and work precarity but also strengthened programs’ ability to connect with the communities they served. Connecting with families often required adapting the language and framing of program goals so that adolescents could continue to participate in programs. As one program leader noted, it was important to show families that their programs added value to adolescents’ development and skills they may not be able to obtain at school. By working with parents and positioning program activities as integral to adolescents’ holistic development, programs sought to align their efforts with family and community values. Furthermore, the expertise and commitment of program staff played a pivotal role in overcoming engagement-related challenges. Program staff, often drawing from their lived experiences, used culturally tailored strategies to foster a sense of belonging among adolescents and adapt programming to meet their needs. The strategy of leveraging program staff’s sociocultural assets is an immense strength program staff bring to the table (Soto-Lara et al., 2026).
Overall, these findings underscore the importance of building strong community networks, collaborating with families, and investing in skilled staff to ensure the sustainability of culturally responsive programming. By addressing systemic barriers such as funding instability while intentionally aligning program goals with family and community values, programs can better navigate the complexities of serving Asian American adolescents and supporting their positive development.
Implications for Practice and Policy
The findings from this study highlight actionable strategies and considerations for practitioners and policymakers aiming to support the positive development of Asian American adolescents. First, community partnerships emerged as a crucial strategy for supporting adolescent development and addressing program sustainability challenges. Programs leveraged community relationships to create experiential learning opportunities and to develop sessions that aligned with adolescents’ developmental and civic goals. Despite the common tendency for adolescent-serving organizations to compete for limited resources (Deich et al., 2018; NASEM, 2025), program leaders in this study highlighted how partnerships can help share resources and provide mutual support during times of need (Akiva et al., 2023). As mentioned in our findings, university-community partnerships are one promising resource for program sustainability, including professional development for staff, access to volunteers, and funding opportunities through university grants (Mahoney et al., 2010).
Partnerships, however, cannot fully compensate for the broader financial and structural instability programs face, underscoring the need for systemic policy changes. Although federal investments in after-school programs have increased in recent years (e.g., 21st Century Community Learning Centers), they reach only about 3% of the total public school student population and primarily support elementary school-aged children, leaving adolescent programs underfunded (Afterschool Alliance, 2023). Funding systems are also fragile; for example, over 1.4 million students across approximately 10,000 sites were affected when the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant announcements were delayed in summer 2025 (Helminski, 2025). Although funds were eventually released, the delay created uncertainty in program budgets, staffing, and access. In addition, evolving federal and state funding priorities may further constrain the ability of community-based programs to sustain culturally responsive programming, particularly when programs have limited capacity to rapidly adapt to changing funding priorities and requirements. Stable funding mechanisms, such as multiyear grants and capacity-building investments, can help ensure the long-term sustainability of community-based organizations.
Adaptability and flexibility in program structure emerged as key features in addressing the diverse developmental needs and culture of adolescents. Being less institutionalized, community-based after-school programs are often able to adjust schedules, roles, and programming based on the adolescents they serve (Deutsch & Jones, 2008; Halpern, 2002; McGovern et al., 2020). However, flexibility must be paired with intentional strategies to ensure meaningful support (Gutiérrez et al., 2017). Professional development that equips staff to recognize and respond to the unique challenges faced by Asian American adolescents, such as navigating cultural identity and belonging, is important (Mistry et al., 2016; Mistry & Kiyama, 2021). Informal strategies, such as staff seeking guidance from experienced colleagues and gathering feedback from participating adolescents, can also help address cultural considerations (Soto-Lara et al., 2026).
Finally, these programs play an especially important role in the post-pandemic context, where Asian American communities have faced heightened mental health challenges and racialized stress (Chen et al., 2021). At the same time, there has been growing momentum to support the positive development of Asian American adolescents (e.g., Atkin et al., 2024; J. L. Liu et al., 2024). As demonstrated in our findings, these programs prioritize developmental goals that extend beyond those emphasized in schools, such as fostering community connections and professional skills, and serve as safe spaces where adolescents can explore complex cultural and personal topics, including their histories and identities. Thus, community-based after-school programs are uniquely positioned to help Asian American adolescents navigate these challenges by creating empowering environments that promote both healing and resilience.
Limitations and Future Directions
Though this study provides valuable insights, several limitations are worth noting to guide future research. First, the relatively small number of programs included in this study limits its scope. In particular, perspectives from other out-of-school community contexts, such as language schools, Saturday schools, and cultural immersion summer camps, were not included in this study due to their distinct program structures, curricula, and program duration compared to community-based after-school programs (S. J. Lee et al., 2017; Richmond et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). These settings have also been shown to positively impact Asian American adolescents’ connection to their ethnic-racial cultural heritage and overall development and warrant further investigation on their unique and cumulative contributions to positive youth development for Asian American adolescents (J. S. Lee & Wu, 2021; Song, 2021; M. Zhou & Li, 2003).
This study was also conducted in a geographic region with a substantial Asian American population (AAPI Data, 2018; U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Programs located in areas with smaller or less visible Asian American communities may face unique challenges, such as combating social isolation, addressing racial discrimination, or fostering a sense of community under different circumstances. Future research should investigate how the goals, challenges, and strategies of programs differ in such underrepresented regions, offering a broader perspective on supporting Asian American adolescents across diverse demographic contexts.
Finally, this study focused on the perspectives of program leaders; it is equally important to include the voices of adolescent participants. Understanding adolescents’ perceptions of the challenges they face and the support they receive will help provide a more nuanced view of program dynamics. Future research should explore perspectives of various stakeholders to better understand how activity-level factors, such as staffing composition, program resources, and community partnerships, influence both staff and adolescent experiences. By addressing these gaps, scholars can further inform the development of sustainable, culturally responsive programs tailored to the needs of Asian American adolescents.
Conclusion
By centering community and fostering Asian American adolescents’ individual skills and well-being, leaders of community-based after-school programs aimed to address developmental needs often unmet in traditional educational settings. Insights from this study offer practitioners guidance for designing and implementing practices that leverage community strengths and support the holistic development of Asian American adolescents. Sustained investment in these programs, along with a deeper understanding of their practices, can contribute to more equitable opportunities for Asian American adolescents.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-jar-10.1177_07435584261467748 – Supplemental material for Culturally Responsive Programming for Asian American Adolescents: Insights from Community-Based Program Leaders
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jar-10.1177_07435584261467748 for Culturally Responsive Programming for Asian American Adolescents: Insights from Community-Based Program Leaders by Fuko Kiyama and Sandra D. Simpkins in Journal of Adolescent Research
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Linxin Liu and Lucia Thien Do for their assistance with coding for this study.
Ethical Considerations
This study was determined to qualify for Exempt Self-Determination under HRP Policy 12 at the University of California, Irvine. The determination has been registered with the Human Research Protections (HRP), and UCI IRB review was not required.
Consent to Participate
In line with ethical research standards, informed verbal consent was obtained from all participants, participation was voluntary, and data were collected and reported in a manner that ensured confidentiality and minimized potential risk.
Author Contributions
The first author was responsible for overseeing the manuscript throughout the entire publication process. Contributions included conceptualizing and designing the study, organizing the manuscript structure and coauthor contributions, completing and interpreting the analyses, and drafting the manuscript. The second author played a substantial supporting role in the development of the manuscript. Her contributions included providing detailed feedback on the analysis phase and manuscript drafts.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The manuscript was supported by the University of California, Irvine, Graduate Dean’s Dissertation Fellowship and Deborah Lowe Vandell Research Award awarded to the first author.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability
Data is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
