Building a Sustainable Youth Support System: Insights from Service Providers Working with Out-of-School Youth in South Korea

Abstract

This study aims to explore the experiences and perceptions of service providers working in direct contact with out-of-school youth to identify ways to build a more sustainable and responsive support system within the community. Individual and group interviews were conducted with eight service providers, including a team leader and five directors from public out-of-school support institutions, as well as two schoolteachers from the Board of Education, who were experienced in assisting dropout students. Reflexive thematic analysis of the interview data revealed four key themes: connecting youth to the community system, diversifying programs, minimizing disparities, and increasing societal awareness of out-of-school youth. These findings highlight how various needs and access to opportunities can be provided to all youths, regardless of their school enrollment. The study underscores the importance of shared responsibility in building an inclusive, community-based approach. It also emphasizes the necessity of cross-sector and inter-ministerial collaboration to reduce structural barriers and promote equitable learning opportunities. By centering the voices of practitioners, this study contributes to the broader discourse on building a sustainable community in which out-of-school youth can receive opportunities and resources to thrive as healthy contributing members of the community.

1. Introduction

School has traditionally been the primary institution that cultivates the development of children and adolescents. It is a place not only for academic study but also for self-discovery, building relationships, exploring the world, and growing into healthy and engaged citizens. To serve this purpose, schools offer systematically designed curricula and provide a safe environment for learning and growth. Learning within the school setting is an essential part of the developmental process for children and adolescents.

However, schools worldwide continue to struggle with retaining all students within the educational system. According to the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report 2024, over 250 million children and adolescents were out of school [1]. Previous studies have identified multiple factors that impact youth to discontinue their education, including sociodemographic risks such as income, race, and gender [2], financial crises that inhibit youth from paying tuition [3], lack of parental involvement [4], or lack of school engagement [2,5]. Since out-of-school youth are generally more exposed to unsupervised risks, they may face more challenges. For instance, studies have examined the problematic behaviors and risks that out-of-school youth face, such as smoking [6], substance abuse [7], HIV infections [8], and other health-related issues [9]. Sheikh et al. [3] also found a concerning result that many of the youth were not involved in any productive activities after dropping out of school. In Europe, concerns are increasing for those not in education, employment, or training, referred to as NEETs (Not in Education, Employment, or Training), and studies have tried to identify personal and environmental factors causing NEETs [10,11] and to re-engage these youths [12].

Therefore, while it is important to prevent school dropouts, it is also essential to sufficiently protect and support youth who have already left the formal education system. There is growing attention to supporting out-of-school youth in South Korea. Previously, the major focus was on preventing school dropouts and helping out-of-school youth return to school [13], which reflects the high emphasis on school education in Korea. For instance, the Ministry of Education established the Mandatory Deliberation Program in 2014, a proactive intervention designed to provide students with official time off from school to contemplate before deciding to drop out, aiming to prevent hasty decisions to leave school [14].

Despite the various policies and programs being implemented to reduce school dropout rates, the number of out-of-school youth remains unchanged [15]. The dropout rate exhibited slight fluctuations between 2010 and 2019, ranging from 0.8% to 1.1%, before declining to 0.6% in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it rose again to 0.8% in 2021 and 1.0% in 2022 [16]. Also, there is an increasing number of youths with migrant backgrounds who are leaving the education system because they have a difficult time adapting to the school environment [15]. Such phenomena raise questions about whether standardized formal education is a one-size-fits-all system [17].

Recent studies have begun to emphasize the strengths of out-of-school youth, such as their resilience and self-esteem [18], highlighting how the youth overcome challenges and create meaning in life outside the school boundaries [19]. Other studies investigated ways to better support out-of-school youth through effective collaboration of various government-operated support centers [20,21]. Programs such as YouthBuild in the US also focus on providing opportunities for learning, job-related skills, reconnection, and well-being to unemployed and uneducated young people [22]. Free Schools in Japan are alternative educational institutions for young people who have left the formal education system; they respect children and adolescents’ decisions to drop out, and support their autonomy in making independent choices [23]. These approaches reflect the need to consider alternative pathways for youth to gain the knowledge, skills, and civic competencies needed to thrive within the community, rather than focusing on bringing them back to school.

To provide comprehensive support to out-of-school youth in Korea, the Act on the Support for Out-of-School Youth was enacted in 2014. Under the Act, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family established the Out-of-School Youth Support Center (hereinafter the Support Center), commonly referred to as the Dream Center. These Support Centers are local government-operating institutes that offer a wide range of services for out-of-school youth, including learning opportunities, counseling services, vocational training, and healthcare support [24]. As of 2024, 222 Centers are operating across 230 administrative districts nationwide [24]. A qualitative study conducted by Kim and colleagues [25] found that youth who joined the Support Center reported general satisfaction with the various experiences provided by the Center, stating that the programs helped them make plans for their careers, gain a sense of achievement, and overcome seclusion and isolation.

Nevertheless, only about 60% of out-of-school youth join the Support Center [15], and the number of youths receiving this support has decreased from 2022 to 2024 [26]. To help out-of-school youth navigate life outside the school walls, it is inevitable that they receive public protection, care, and necessary support. However, there have not been enough studies examining why the number of recipients of the Support Center services is decreasing, and how these support services can be improved to reach more youths. Therefore, it would be meaningful to capture the voices of service providers working in the field to identify the blind spots in the current support system and discover ways to improve community-based support.

There have been limited studies targeting the service providers at the Support Center with a primary focus on their work environment. For instance, Shin and Choi [27] conducted surveys and in-depth interviews with those working at the Support Centers and found that for effective operation of the support system, they would foremost need to secure the budget and manpower, strengthen the welfare system for the workers, establish a flexible work system, and improve expertise via continuous education. Won, Jeong, and Kang [28] focused on investigating ways to prevent workers’ burnout at the individual and institutional levels so that workers can better support out-of-school youth. These previous studies primarily focused on providing support to workers, enabling them to assist the youths in turn. However, no research has explored experiences and perceptions of service providers in the field to discover feasible ways to provide sustainable support for out-of-school youth.

Hence, this study aimed to explore service providers’ experiences and perceptions to identify shortcomings in the current system and gain insights into what is needed to address perceived blind spots, based on which ways to build a more sustainable and responsive support system for the youth can be discovered. The research question of the study was, “What are the challenges the service providers experience when operating the current support system for out-of-school youth, and what improvements can be made to build a better support system within the community?”. For this purpose, individual and group interviews were conducted with service providers, such as team leaders, directors, and school counseling teachers, who directly work with out-of-school youth. The interviews were analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis method by Braun and Clarke [29] to explore themes and patterns of the service providers’ experiences and perceptions.

2. Background

2.1. Out-of-School Youth in Korea

Youth who leave the school system have often been labeled with terms carrying negative connotations, such as dropouts or school refusers, implying that they are problematic individuals who have failed to adapt to formal education or are forced to leave school involuntarily due to their deviance [30]. However, with the enactment of the Out-of-School Youth Support Act in 2014, a clearer definition of out-of-school youth was established, marking the beginning of a more comprehensive, society-wide discussion on ways to support them effectively.

Out-of-school youth refers to school-aged adolescents who are not attending school. According to the Out-of-School Youth Support Act, out-of-school youth include those who are absent from elementary or middle school, which is mandatory education in Korea, for more than three months, and those who have been dismissed or expelled from, dropped out of, or refused to advance to high school. As of 2022, the dropout rate by school level stood at 0.7% for elementary and middle schools, while the rate for high schools was significantly higher at 1.9%, with dropout rates increasing each year [31].

There are various reasons why youth decide to leave school, reflecting a range of individual, familial, and systemic factors [5,14,32]. The reasons for school dropouts include challenges such as a rigid and uniform education system, difficulty adjusting to school, an entrance exam-oriented education structure, the psychological burden associated with exam preparation, discriminatory experiences in relationships with teachers, family issues, and conflicts with peers [33]. Common to these factors is the interplay of influences from individuals, families, schools, peer groups, and the broader community [30,34]. Notably, dropping out is rarely caused by a single factor but is instead the result of a combination of two or more risk factors [5,32].

Among the various influences, many studies highlight the significant role of school-related factors in shaping dropout rates [30]. Dissatisfaction with the exam-oriented education system, the overwhelming burden of studying, and challenges in adjusting to school life are consistently identified as major reasons for high school dropouts.

In the 2021 Survey of Out-of-School Youth [35], out-of-school youth were asked to select three main reasons for discontinuing their school education, with the most common response being “because there is no point in attending school” (37.2%), followed by “to learn what I want to learn elsewhere” (29.6%), “due to psychological or mental health issues” (23.0%), “to prepare for the general equivalency diploma (hereinafter GED)” (19.6%), and “because I do not want to study” (18.6%). Notably, the proportion of students leaving school for the reason “to learn what I want to learn elsewhere” increased from 23.4% in 2018 to 29.6% in 2021, indicating a rise in voluntary withdrawals.

After leaving the formal school system, out-of-school youth experienced diverse pathways related to academic and career preparation. Some encountered discrimination, prejudice, and even labor rights violations in their part-time jobs simply because of their out-of-school status [36]. Others, with the support of family members, counselors, and mentors, are prepared to re-enter school [37]. Meanwhile, many out-of-school youths actively pursued alternative routes, such as preparing for the GED, driven by dissatisfaction with the traditional school system and a desire to gain independence [19]. These experiences highlight the resilience of out-of-school youth as they navigate complex social barriers and seek meaningful opportunities beyond conventional schooling, demonstrating diverse strategies for personal growth and self-sufficiency.

2.2. Korean Policy for Out-of-School Youth Support

In Korea, policies to support out-of-school youth are largely divided between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. The Ministry of Education oversees school education, mainly focusing on retaining students in schools, while the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family supports out-of-school youth within the community.

The Ministry of Education began developing dropout prevention measures in the 1990s [38]. In 2009, the Comprehensive School Safety Net System was established to prevent students from dropping out of high school, and in 2014, the Mandatory Deliberation Program was implemented to proactively help students make informed decisions about leaving school [14]. The system was designed to prevent students from making hasty and impulsive decisions about leaving school by providing various opportunities for their consideration, such as a cooling-off period from school, information about out-of-school support services, career development exercises, extracurricular activities, and counseling services. However, since schools hold the stance that students should remain within their walls, the Mandatory Deliberation Program focuses on preventing dropouts. Adolescents who chose to leave school reported that participating in the Mandatory Deliberation Program did not prepare them to adjust to or navigate life in the community after leaving school [14].

The Ministry of Education has made an effort to support out-of-school youth to continue their learning. In 2016, the Ministry of Education announced the Plan to Secure Safety and to Support Learning of Out-of-School Youth in the Compulsory Education Stage. Since elementary and middle school education is compulsory in Korea, it is the State’s responsibility to make sure that all children and adolescents receive learning opportunities that are equivalent to mandatory education. Based on this plan, the Ministry of Education stated that it would support systems, programs, and budgets for out-of-school youth to continue their learning outside of school. However, while the Ministry of Education focuses on managing alternative schools and GED, it does not support the various forms of learning that out-of-school youth require.

The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family is primarily responsible for supporting out-of-school youth. It operates Support Centers nationwide, offering various services such as counseling, GED-related education, work experiences, vocational training, employment preparation, and self-reliance support for out-of-school youth [24]. The Support Centers serve as a central institution for supporting out-of-school youth in Korea, offering a comprehensive array of services to facilitate their continued learning, personal development, and social integration after leaving the formal education system. These services help out-of-school youth build social belonging and self-esteem, laying a foundation for their growth as healthy, contributing members of society. Additionally, the Support Centers help youth set career goals and develop practical skills, thereby empowering them to pursue further educational opportunities or new career pathways.

Additionally, other organizations run by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family offer valuable resources for out-of-school youth, such as the Youth Counseling and Welfare Institute, offering comprehensive services such as counseling, emergency rescue, and medical support to all youth; Vocational Training Schools, which focus on practical work training; and Youth Shelters for runaway youth. In the 2021 survey, out-of-school youth reported the highest level of awareness of the Support Centers among other support organizations [35], highlighting the significant role these centers play. Previous studies have also found that support from the Support Centers has positive effects on out-of-school youth, helping them develop a sense of belonging, engage in different relationships, enhance their self-efficacy, and prepare for their career paths [19].

Although the Support Centers play a crucial role as a community-based support system for out-of-school youth, their resources and manpower are limited, making it difficult to provide tailored support [27]. The youth receiving services from these centers vary widely in age, developmental needs, level of education, socioeconomic status, and other factors. Addressing these various needs and providing customized services depend heavily on the capabilities of individual workers at the centers, leading to excessive workload and burnout of workers [28]. Even with the workers’ hard effort, it may not be enough to ensure that youth receive sufficient learning opportunities that they need to grow into healthy, contributing members of the community, as the Support Centers are not systematized educational institutions like schools. Hence, studies have argued for collaboration between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family to establish an integrated support system that provides more comprehensive support [14,39].

To establish a realistic and practical inter-ministry collaborative system, it is essential to assess the current status and identify specific areas requiring integration. Determining the needs in the field and capturing the voices of service providers by examining their experiences with these challenges will yield a more accurate understanding to inform future collaborations among ministries and prevent ambiguous and ineffective policies. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the experiences and perceptions of service providers to pinpoint the challenges they encounter when supporting out-of-school youth and gain insight into how to provide sustainable support for these youths.

2.3. Out-of-School Youth Support and Social Sustainability

Supporting out-of-school youth within the community can be viewed from the perspective of social sustainability. Although there is no single, clear definition of social sustainability [40,41], it can be understood as fostering an inclusive and equitable community in which social equity, social interaction and networks, well-being, and access to basic resources are ensured for all members [40]. Social sustainability concerns not only the collective functioning of society to cultivate a harmonious and inclusive environment, but also the enhancement of individuals’ quality of life [42].

In urban and community contexts, social sustainability is closely related to equitable access to resources, services, and facilities, as well as meaningful social participation [40,43]. While previous studies have discussed social sustainability regarding environmental and climate changes [41], cities in developing countries [44], or urban planning [45], factors associated with social sustainability are particularly relevant when addressing the needs of out-of-school youths. Community-based support systems align with offering localized, responsive services that promote social inclusion, reduce barriers to participation, and strengthen social networks.

Specifically, various factors, such as education and training, health, quality of life and well-being, safety, sense of community and belonging, are associated with social sustainability [40]. Considering that out-of-school youth often find no meaning in school education [35], are exposed to health-related issues [9], do not often engage in productive activities [3], and face stigmatization in the community, being viewed as problematic youth [30], helping these youths connect to the community support system and provide access to resources and services to meet their needs can enhance not just the individual well-being but also sustainability of the community. Support for out-of-school youth can contribute to the long-term resilience and cohesion of communities by empowering young people who might otherwise be excluded from the formal education system. Thus, integrating community-based youth support within the framework of social sustainability offers a pathway to creating more equitable and enduring social environments.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

The current study was conducted as a part of the Comprehensive Support Plan for the Protection and Growth of Children and Adolescents, a commissioned research project initiated by the Social Cooperation Policy Division under the Ministry of Education in 2022. Individual and group interviews were conducted with participants who work in direct contact with the out-of-school youth, either in support centers or at school. The interviews were intended to comprehend how participants experience and perceive the current support system for out-of-school youth and to identify the challenges they encounter so that ways to enhance the system can be discussed. A group interview is a form of collecting data in small groups on a specific topic [46]. Fontana and Frey [47] noted that while many studies refer to group interviews as focus group interviews (FGI), there are various ways of group interviews, with FGI being one of them. A group interview can be effective in that it stimulates the participants by helping them recall their experiences and produce extensive and in-depth data [39]. Hence, the group interview method was chosen to elicit a broad range of experiences from participants. The collected data were analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis method [29,48].

3.2. Participants

Participants in the study included one team leader from the Youth Counseling and Welfare Institute, where out-of-school youth support services are delivered; five directors of the regional Support Centers, who not only oversee and manage the delivery of services but also directly engage in providing interventions to youths individually or in groups; and two school counseling teachers who have experience working with dropout students in different school settings as well as in the Board of Education. The five directors represented Support Centers from five different cities across Korea to capture potential regional variations. Additionally, each Center supports a diverse range of children and adolescents in their teens and early twenties, helping them receive services such as psychological counseling, career exploration, vocational training, job placement, GED preparation, and small group classes with learning materials equivalent to school curricula.

Each participant was contacted by the first author based on their professionalism in working with out-of-school youth. A letter explaining the research was sent via email, and the participants voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face or online due to the pandemic-related quarantine measures. Before the interview, the authors acquired written consent from the participants for their voluntary participation. The characteristics of the participants are provided in

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.

No	Participant	Gender	Affiliation	Position	Interview Style
1	A	Female	Youth Counseling and Welfare Institute	Team Leader	Online Individual Interview
2	B	Female	Support Center	Director	Online Group Interview
3	C	Female	Support Center	Director
4	D	Female	Support Center	Director
5	E	Female	Support Center	Director
6	F	Female	Support Center	Director
7	G	Female	Office of Education	School Counseling Teacher	Face-to-Face Group Interview
8	H	Male	Office of Education	School Counseling Teacher

.

3.3. Data Collection

To conduct the interview, the authors generated open-ended questions to explore the themes regarding the research questions. The major questions used in the interview were as follows: “What programs and support do you provide for out-of-school youth?”; “What are your experiences when implementing the programs and support?”; “Are there any challenges or blind spots occurring under the current support system, and if so, what are the causes?”; and “What are the measures to prevent or supplement the blind spots in the current support system?”. Additional prompting questions, such as those about specific information (e.g., “Tell me more about the program.”), experiences (e.g., “How did you respond in that situation?”), or perceptions (e.g., “What do you think would have been helpful?), were asked based on participants’ responses.

For data collection, purposive sampling was used to capture a diverse range of experiences and perceptions from the service providers. Participants were selected iteratively as themes began to emerge, guiding the subsequent data collection. For the current study, the initial interview was conducted with the team leader in charge of out-of-youth support services at a Youth Counseling and Welfare Institute, a local government agency providing comprehensive youth services. Based on the initial codes and themes identified in the first interview, the authors decided to conduct a group interview with the directors of the regional Support Centers to gain insight into their experiences and perceptions in delivering tailored services to youth and to investigate any regional differences or disparities. During the interview with the directors, the importance of school involvement was consistently emphasized. To incorporate the schools’ perspective, a second group interview was conducted with school counseling teachers who had experience working with students who had dropped out of school.

All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. The data were collected from 11 November 2022 to 16 January 2023. The first individual interview lasted 60 min, and the group interviews each lasted 120 min. The transcriptions and findings of the initial analysis were sent to each participant via email, inviting them to review the data and provide any additional comments or feedback.

3.4. Analytic Procedure

The data collected from individual and focus group interviews were analyzed using the reflexive thematic analysis method by Braun and Clarke [29,48]. Thematic analysis is useful for identifying patterns in collected data and exploring research topics in depth from various angles [29]. Reflexive thematic analysis involves an inductive process of analysis by which researchers derive themes from the data [48]. Moreover, the analysis acknowledges the subjectivity of researchers, allowing them to engage in the interpretative process [48]. Therefore, it is an effective method for deriving recurring themes and patterns from the varying perspectives on the support system for out-of-school youth. The analysis process followed the six steps suggested by Braun and Clarke [29]. First, the authors read the collected data repeatedly to become familiar with the data. Second, each author generated initial codes for the interview data. Saldaña [49] suggested that sentences or even paragraphs can become the unit of coding when meaning or context may be lost in the line-by-line coding. Thus, the authors coded lines, sentences, or paragraphs to capture the context of the participants’ responses sufficiently. The initial codes generated by the authors were compared, discussed, and modified or deleted when necessary. This process was conducted to encompass authors’ understanding of the data from different academic backgrounds, namely counseling, education administration, and psychology. Codes capture a specific observation or facet of the data [48], and example codes of the present study included “students do not have enough information”, “parents are not fully aware of the Centers”, and “information about the Centers is not delivered to all teachers”. Third, related codes were integrated to generate potential themes. These codes reflected the underlying issue reported by participants, such as “lacking access to information about the Centers”. Fourth, the preliminary themes were reviewed to ensure they accurately represented the coded data. At this stage, the authors refined the themes to reflect a more solution-oriented perspective. That is, we shifted from highlighting system shortcomings to identifying what is needed for improvements. For instance, “lacking access to information about the Centers” was reframed as “informing about the out-of-school support system”. The relationships between themes were also explored, resulting in a thematic map that illustrated the connections among themes and sub-themes. Fifth, the names of the themes and sub-themes were examined and finalized. Sixth, the analysis process was checked, and the final manuscript was prepared.

3.5. Trustworthiness

Guba [50] provided four criteria to ensure the trustworthiness of the qualitative data analysis, including truth value, applicability, and consistency. To ensure truth value, the transcriptions and findings of the analysis were sent to the participants for review. The participants were asked to review the data to check whether the codes and themes were appropriately capturing their experiences and whether they wanted to make any modifications. Seven participants replied that the results were appropriate. For applicability and consistency, the research process and the findings were examined by a senior researcher at the National Youth Policy Institute, who has conducted numerous qualitative studies on out-of-school youth.

4. Results and Findings

The analysis revealed four themes and ten sub-themes regarding ways to improve the community-based support system for out-of-school youth (see Figure 1).

4.1. Connecting Youth to the Community System

The most significant area that needs improvement in the field is systematically connecting youth to community systems when they leave the school system. All participants emphasized that before adolescents leave the school system, it is critical that they gain awareness and obtain necessary information about the public institutions to which they can connect. Accurate information helps adolescents make appropriate decisions regarding dropping out of school and receive the necessary support promptly to adapt to the community. However, due to a lack of information about the community support system and systematic management of contact information, participants found it difficult to reach out to out-of-school youth and provide the services.

4.1.1. Informing About the Out-of-School Support System

To connect adolescents to the community support system safely after they decide to leave school, all participants asserted the importance of informing about community-based services to the school, parents or guardians, and the adolescents. Most of all, school is where adolescents can obtain firsthand information about out-of-school support systems. Although schools are currently introducing the Support Centers in the community to adolescents who have decided to drop out of school, the mere introduction is not enough to provide sufficient information. From the participants’ experience, out-of-school youth often report that they had never heard of the Center before and wish they could have known about the Center earlier.

Some school members, such as teachers and principals, have negative perceptions of the Support Centers and were “reluctant to explain about the Center to students because they fear that when the Center is promoted, more students would drop out of school” (Participants A, D, E). Hence, participants voiced that there should be regular information sessions for principals and teachers so that they have an accurate understanding of the Support Centers.

When I introduce the Center to principals, I often see an adverse attitude. I think that there is still a dominant, negative perception in schools toward utilizing community organizations, especially those outside the school system.

(Participant C)

When I was working in school, it was very difficult to access information on the community support centers for out-of-school youth… Teachers should gain awareness that there is a place where our students could go outside the school

(Participant H)

It is also important for parents or guardians to be aware of the community services. Many of the out-of-school youth, especially those in immediate need of support and help, are often neglected due to a lack of awareness and information. Thus, proactive intervention for parents and guardians is necessary to provide sufficient information in advance about community services. Parents and guardians should recognize that even if their child leaves the school system, they can still be connected to community-based public support.

Being able to maintain contact with parents or guardians is important because even if the youth do not join the community system right away, the parents or guardians can contact us when their child really needs the services.

(Participant D)

While most adolescents get support from their parents or guardians regarding their transition from school to the community, some adolescents are left on their own to make decisions due to various circumstances, such as child abuse or the economic conditions of the family. Hence, adolescents who decide to leave the school system should also know the kind of support and opportunities they can receive outside the school walls. Participants recalled numerous incidents when they tried contacting out-of-school adolescents, but the call was never received, or the call ended up as a one-time contact because the adolescents were not fully informed about the support system, making it difficult to get them connected.

Adolescents think that the Support Center is just a place operated by some individuals or the private sector. They misunderstand and do not want to get connected to the Centers.

(Participant A)

Adolescents leaving the school system need public support to continue their learning and plan for their future. Therefore, it would be imperative to provide accurate information to adolescents and their parents or guardians, as well as school personnel.

4.1.2. Managing Youth’s Contact Information

For youth who leave school to be connected to the public support system outside school, personal information, such as contact information, must be transferred from schools to Support Centers promptly. Since elementary and middle school education is the statutory mandate in Korea, students’ information is automatically transferred to the regional Support Center under Article 15(4) of the Act of Support for Out-of-School Youth when students decide to discontinue their school education. However, participants reported that there are many cases in which the contact information provided by the schools was inaccurate.

I once called a contact number I received from school, and it turns out the child had passed away years ago. The school transferred the contact information of a deceased student, and I called the number. That was a very troubling experience for me.

(Participant E)

Even when schools manage accurate information on the school system, the process of transferring the information to the Support Center is not systematically managed. There is no manual, so the information transfer is largely dependent on when and how school officials handle their work. Information may get lost during this transfer process.

My child dropped out of high school. I went to school with him to fill out the documents, had an interview with the teachers, and asked to be connected to the Support Center right away. However, the information was not transferred for almost a year. I called the school, but it was difficult even to find the person in charge. No one knew who was in charge of handling the work. Instead of transferring information each time a dropout occurs, the school collects the information for some time and processes it at once, at their convenience. During this time gap, dropout youth get lost. It seems like the connection isn’t working quickly and directly.

(Participant F)

Participants do recognize the difficulties in managing accurate contact information, mainly because students do not update their personal information before leaving school, or they do not consent to transferring their information.

I got yelled at by some kids because they had not consented to transferring their contact information, but the Department of Education just transferred it to us [the Center] anyway. The transferred information is either inaccurate or not consented to. Hence, it is up to us to find ways to seek out these youths

(Participant B)

According to the participants, information management is one of the most important factors in linking youth to the community support system. Hence, a proactive attitude on the part of the school and the community systems seems necessary.

4.1.3. Providing Follow-Up for Dropout Youth

Some adolescents have a clear plan for their life after leaving school; some decide to prepare for the college entrance exam, some start their ventures, and some go abroad for advanced study. However, there are many cases where adolescents are exhausted from school life and feel too lethargic to do anything. Rather than joining the community system immediately, these adolescents take “about three months of transition time to rest and recharge” (Participants A, D, E, H) before actively doing anything. During the transition time, the youth are often reluctant to receive the services from the Center because the services and the service providers are still unfamiliar to them. Participants opined that it would be efficient for schools to maintain contact with adolescents during the transition time to facilitate a smoother connection to the Center.

If schools were to follow up on an adolescent who had dropped out of school for at least two or three months, simply by asking, ‘How are you doing now?’ it would be helpful for the kid. In about three months, the kid will have sorted out his/her thoughts and plans. If someone were to check in at that time, wouldn’t the kid be able to join the Center more receptively?

(Participant D)

I think teachers can check in with dropout students for three to six months. If the kid is not connected to the community services by then, the school can help them get connected. Then we can save kids from slipping through.

(Participant H)

To provide follow-up management for students who decide to drop out of school, participants suggest forming a school dropout committee. Rather than entrusting the follow-up management of students who leave school to a specific person at school, it would be necessary to establish a committee and manage the adolescents according to the given circumstances of each school.

4.2. Diversifying Programs

Once the out-of-school youth are connected to the Support Centers, they are at least under the safety net of the public protective system, minimizing the risks that they may face outside the school walls. However, participants asserted that the focus of the services should not merely be reducing the risks but also providing various services to help these adolescents flourish in their community.

4.2.1. Addressing Multicultural Considerations

Although foreign and multicultural youth are not classified as a separate type of out-of-school youth, field reports state that multicultural youth often leave the school system due to difficulties related to cultural differences and adaptation. It appears that the dropout rate of multicultural students is continuously decreasing [51]. However, many multicultural out-of-school youths still need support, and customized programs for them are lacking. There have been discussions about establishing education and support for multicultural youth [52], but these discussions are limited to support within the school system.

We don’t have many programs for immigrant adolescents. These adolescents cannot speak Korean well, so in many cases, they have a hard time adjusting to school and end up dropping out. They come to the Center and stay with us for a long time because they have no other place to go. It is embarrassing to admit it, but we are unable to provide specific programs for these foreigners or multicultural youth.

(Participant E)

According to participants, the number of immigrants and multicultural youth is growing in Korea, so additional support measures are needed to better assist them in the community.

4.2.2. Catering to Diverse Developmental Needs

There are different types of out-of-school youth, classified by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family [15]: continuing studies type, not-working type, working type, delinquent type, and reclusive loner type. While these different types of youth would require different types of support, the programs for out-of-school youth are not classified as such. Moreover, other personal needs must be met for adolescents to develop. Participants opined that there should be more customized programs to meet the different needs of adolescents coming to the Support Center.

Some adolescents say that they are leaving school to progress to higher education, but if you look closely, they are leaving school because they have relational problems. We need to provide customized services for them.

(Participant A)

Although it is said that the Support Center has programs for all types of youth, the performance of the Center is evaluated mainly on two indicators: the number of adolescents returning to school or making an entry into society by getting a job…At the Center, we do a lot of work to motivate the youth. It takes a lot of time and energy. But we are pressured to have these kids achieve something right away. The non-working or reclusive type of youth can fall into the blind spot because there is no system to help them.

(Participant F)

Participants report that a lot of out-of-school youth need long-term psychosocial support. Hence, instead of focusing on making quick academic or career achievements, focusing on individual needs and providing tailored service would be necessary.

4.3. Minimizing Disparities

Currently, the infrastructure for out-of-school youth support is well-established in Korea, but the level and scope of support vary significantly across regions. Since support is directly related to the budget, a comprehensive review of the support criteria by the local government would be beyond the scope of this study. Yet, participants noted the impact of these regional disparities on the level of support for the youth. Moreover, the out-of-school support was far restricted compared to the in-school services, and participants voiced that efforts are needed to minimize such disparities.

4.3.1. Allocating Resources Across Regions

Participants who are directors of the Support Centers experience regional disparities regarding support. There are regions where only minimal education expenses are supported, while in other areas, adolescents can participate in any club activities, pursue their hobbies, get a part-time job, do an internship, and do various other things.

We try to discover private resources in the region; otherwise, the support becomes very difficult. We go to different workplaces and ask them to join us in our program.

(Participant A)

The benefits adolescents receive vary depending on where they drop out of school. This is a huge discrimination. There is inequity between students in school and youth outside of school, and then there is inequity between regions.

(Participant B)

There may be various reasons for such an imbalance in support, but one of the causes that participants identified was the decreasing number of out-of-school youth in rural areas. The school-age population in general is decreasing, and in areas other than the metropolitan area, the youth population is decreasing significantly; accordingly, the number of out-of-school youth is also decreasing. Yet, one adolescent needs as much support as any other person, regardless of whether he or she is in school or not. That is why participants voice that local government should assess the needs of out-of-school youth and provide necessary resources to reduce the regional disparities.

There are so many things a kid needs. In the case of teenagers who are about to enter adulthood, there is a lot of support needed…I think there is relatively less interest (in out-of-school youth) because there are not many of them.

(Participant A)

4.3.2. Bridging Gaps Between In- and Out-of-School Youth

According to the National Audit Press Release [53], the cost of public education per student attending school in 2019 was about 12 million won ($12,000), while the cost of public education per out-of-school youth was only about 600,000 won ($600). The public education expenses per student have consistently increased, reaching $15,858 in 2021 [43], but there is no further report on expenses for out-of-school youth. Considering the right to education stipulated in Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea and the education tax paid by citizens, it is necessary to support out-of-school youth with the same level of education as students. One way to reduce such disparities, as opined by participants, was to share the programs that the Department of Education provides for students.

The Ministry of Education invested a huge budget to develop a Career Exploration Program, but it is only for students. In the Support Center, there are only two or three employers, at most five to six. It is a tremendous amount of work for such a small number of service providers to discover, recruit, and connect with various occupations to suit the needs of various adolescents. If the Ministry of Education provides the Career Exploration Program to teenagers outside of school, wouldn’t that be good for the whole country in the long run?

(Participant D)

While participants acknowledged that career exploration opportunities could be better supported by the Ministry of Education, they emphasized that the Support Centers are better equipped to offer programs for students struggling to adjust to school life. They proposed collaborative initiatives such as operating Alternative Classrooms, an activity-based classroom designed for students experiencing school maladjustment, and providing counseling services.

The Alternative Classroom program is similar to the programs operated by the Support Center. If schools and Centers work together, students and out-of-school youth can meet and work together to create positive synergy.

(Participant H)

Running an Alternative Classroom can be overwhelming for teachers, but since Support Centers are more systematic in running programs, I think it will be helpful if we join together.

(Participant G)

The Support Centers provide high-quality intervention to adolescents. Through these interventions at the Center, adolescents gain stability and strength, and some even decide to go back to school. This Center has become a safe place for them, and so, I hope more adolescents experience the Center. We can help students continue their studies at school or get new information about community services.

(Participant F)

4.4. Increasing Societal Awareness of Out-of-School Youth

Participants argue that out-of-school youth are the next generation who should receive the same care and protection as students in schools. However, the Support Centers should not be the only entity that cares for them. It is the role of the whole society to raise the next generation together.

4.4.1. Changing Perceptions About Out-of-School Youth

Most of all, it would be important to change how society, the schools, and the adolescents themselves view out-of-school youth. Traditionally, out-of-school youth were viewed as delinquents and problems of society, but efforts are needed to change such a view.

For a long time, people perceived that leaving school meant doing something wrong. So, the kids didn’t talk about it, and the parents didn’t ask for anything. But now that the Support Centers are established, the interest in out-of-school youth has increased, while the awareness has improved. Now that I think about it, these issues of finding blind spots are now being recognized.

(Participant B)

Do you think the kids really wanted to leave school? I don’t think so. What the kids really wanted was to be accepted in the school, have fun, play with their friends, and live as students. But there is invisible pressure, and there are kids who have no choice but to leave. Every one of these kids is so precious.

(Participant C)

Even though many out-of-school youths experience troubles at school, regarding academic performance, adaptation, or relationships, they find new meaning and motivation outside the school. Hence, leaving school can be viewed as a new route or a new opportunity for some kids.

We recently had a kid who had a really hard time at school and had multiple suicide attempts. We told the mother, “School is not important now, let’s save your child first.” Then we got her connected to the counseling service at the Center, and she started working as a barista as well. Now, she often goes to the bridge, where a lot of kids commit suicide, to help them. She told me that she is truly living now outside of school and that she is so grateful that she wants to tell her story to other kids who want to end their lives. It was a rewarding experience. We saved one kid, and she brings such a huge ripple effect.

(Participant C)

4.4.2. Acknowledging Out-of-School Learning Opportunities

Participants point out that the out-of-school support system is often evaluated based on the rate of students returning to school. Such a criterion is based on the notion that prioritizes school education. While formal, standardized school education is important, out-of-school youth also learn and grow outside schools, and society should acknowledge the process and experience of learning outside the school and provide the necessary support.

Adolescents learn not only in school but also outside of school. They study to earn a general equivalency diploma or continue learning in various ways. But currently, such learning is not being recognized as education.

(Participant F)

Participants B, C, and E also emphasized the need to provide opportunities for out-of-school youth to have access to the textbooks used in schools. Currently, it is very difficult for the Centers or the individual out-of-school youth to have access to the school textbooks because they are reserved by the schools. However, even if youth leave school, they are curious about what their peers are learning. Just because they stopped going to school does not mean they want to stop learning, and having textbooks encourages them to continue learning.

Some kids want to see the textbooks. Our education system has standardized textbooks for each grade, and out-of-school youth have the desire to have them. Whether they thoroughly read textbooks or not, they want to have an idea of whether some subjects are appropriate for their level.

(Participant B)

4.4.3. Establishing Inter-Ministerial Collaboration

Youth who leave the school system must also be managed within the public system. In particular, there is a need to recognize that out-of-school adolescents have the same right to education. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a system for collaboration between different ministries.

Our Support Center once formed an MOU with the local Office of Education, the Counseling and Welfare Institute, and the Police. We signed an agreement to take good care of our youth, and the Board of Education was in charge, but nothing happened afterward. I think it will be more efficient if the Ministry of Education implements a systematic project for ministries to work together.

(Participant E)

Also, it should be recognized that out-of-school youth are still under public protection. Oftentimes, adolescents and their parents, teachers and schools, and the community think that once you leave the school system, you are on your own. However, the Support Center is under the public domain, operated by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, which means that out-of-school youth are subject to public benefits, just as students in the school system are.

The adolescents are out of the public education system, but they are and should be managed within the public system…We usually think in a dichotomous way: students are under the Ministry of Education, and youth outside of school are under the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. However, they are all just adolescents in our country.

(Participant F)

As Participant F emphasized, all adolescents, whether in or out of school, represent the next generation growing up in our country and deserve equal access to learning opportunities and resources. Therefore, ministries should collaborate to ensure that all adolescents have the support they need to develop into healthy, contributing citizens.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings and Implications

The current study explored the experiences and perceptions of service providers who are at the forefront of supporting out-of-school youth. To establish an in-depth understanding of the ways to build a more cohesive and sustainable support system, interviews were conducted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Four themes emerged from the data analysis, namely connecting youth to the community system, diversifying programs, minimizing disparities, and increasing societal awareness of out-of-school youth.

First, finding ways to connect youth to the community system was one of the primary foci emphasized by the participants. Although Korea has well-established policies, laws, and nationwide institutions to support out-of-school youth, service providers in the field voiced that it is difficult to connect youths to services because they lack accurate information about the community-based services, and the legal system prevents the smooth transfer of contact information. Also, youths who decide to leave school are often burnt out and hesitant to connect with unfamiliar institutions or start anew immediately. These limitations may explain why only about 60% of the out-of-school youth join the Support Centers, and others are missing out on the essential services that they deserve [15]. This is critical because even if the Support Centers are designed to provide tailored services for out-of-school youth, it would be meaningless if youth do not know how to connect to these Centers. Once the youth get connected, the Support Centers serve as a stepping stone for a fresh start, helping them regain a sense of belonging, reignite their dreams, and resume their studies [19]. Moreover, since community-based services are specifically designed for these youth, they can receive empathy, respect, and non-judgmental support, which are essential to motivate them to engage in future education or employment [54]. Youth having a sense of connectedness to caring adults was found to be associated with positive behaviors in social, academic, and health-related areas, indicating that connectedness functions as a protective factor against various risks [55]. Moreover, social interactions, as well as a sense of community and belonging, are factors related to social sustainability [40]. Hence, connecting out-of-school youth to the community-based Support Centers would be the first step in helping them navigate through life after leaving school. The findings of the current study may provide insight for policymakers devising more practical solutions to reach out to out-of-school youth and promote collaboration between the Centers and schools to help youth make a smooth transition from school to community.

Second, diversifying programs to meet the multifaceted needs of out-of-school youth was identified as a necessary step forward. Tailoring activities to meet individual needs and offering opportunities for choice and reflection can enhance motivation, encouraging youths to further their education or gain employment [54]. Hence, developing customized programs for different developmental needs and tasks would benefit out-of-school youth. While providing opportunities for academic advancement or career development is important, programs to enhance youth’s psychosocial development and well-being are also necessary. The result of the current study indicates that many youths reported having relationship difficulties at school, and previous studies have also found anxiety to be closely related to school refusal [56]. Therefore, programs for psychosocial development should be considered.

Moreover, more support for out-of-school youth with multicultural backgrounds should be provided. In Korea, the families of youth with immigrant backgrounds often experience marginalization, which leads to a lack of economic, cultural, and social capital [57]. Although multicultural education is expanding in schools, it is still insufficient in reducing the existing power dynamics between the majority and minority cultures, and sometimes even serves to perpetuate the perspective of the dominant group [58]. When systematic multicultural education in schools is insufficient to support multicultural youth in their adjustment, the limited resources and staffing at Support Centers are unlikely to meet their diverse needs effectively. Furthermore, school belongingness, including interactions with peers and teachers and intergroup acceptance, was found to be a strong protective factor for immigrant youth against bullying [56], indicating that building a safe, cohesive community for immigrant youth is essential in helping them fight against bias and bullying. However, out-of-school youth with immigrant backgrounds may find it difficult to build that sense of belongingness outside the school walls because they do not have that peer community. Thus far, the language barrier is one of the most immediate challenges in providing support to multicultural out-of-school youth, and as a start, developing programs to reduce the barrier would be beneficial, as language teaching and learning in multicultural education is effective [59]. Without culturally responsive and language-accessible programs in Support Centers, these youths are at risk of further exclusion. Developing inclusive programming that fosters belonging and intergroup acceptance is thus central to advancing educational equity. Therefore, further investigation is needed to understand the various needs of out-of-school youth from different cultural backgrounds, including their experiences of marginalization and lack of belonging, and to develop community-based programs that foster acceptance and support. Such efforts will lead to building a sustainable community that provides a harmonious environment for culturally and socially diverse groups to promote their quality of life [42].

Third, the study found disparities in the support provided by Centers across different regions, as well as inequities between services available to students and those offered to out-of-school youth. It is evident that the allocated budget varies depending on the size and population of the region, and that schools require an incomparable amount of budget and manpower to operate the large-scale formal education system. Yet, it is important to recognize that every adolescent deserves equal support to thrive, regardless of their place of residence or school attendance. The findings of the current study suggest that collaborations among regional Centers and between Centers and schools could help reduce such disparities. Smaller regions could join forces to provide shared support for their youth, while schools and Centers could work together to develop programs and share ideas to improve support for all. Since community-based youth organizations and afterschool programs are an effective way to reduce inequality [60], such collaboration could help out-of-school youth gain essential support for their academic, career, and life success. Moreover, since out-of-school youth often face social stigma and career barriers [61], reducing disparities between them and in-school peers may help alleviate these challenges.

Finally, both directors in the community system and teachers in the formal education system agreed that collaboration between ministries is essential to raising healthy and happy youth, whether they are in or out of school. While it is important to find ways to help students complete their formal education, such as supporting the development of core competencies to prevent school failure [62], it is equally vital to recognize that formal education may not be right for all youth, and that they can thrive outside school with appropriate support. Under the current policy, one of the biggest barriers would be that the support systems are fragmented, with school-based youth overseen by the Ministry of Education and out-of-school youth falling under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, thereby hindering the continuity and integration of services. However, all youth have the same right to education and the right to receive equitable learning opportunities and support regardless of whether they are attending school. Accordingly, the findings of this study are significant in that they discovered ways for service providers affiliated with different ministries to collaborate, thereby identifying potential areas for future inter-ministerial cooperation. It would be necessary to establish an inter-ministerial collaborative system rather than having a single ministry support out-of-school youth.

This study has significant implications at the international level, as the challenges and strategies identified resonate with those in other countries. Programs such as NEET initiatives in Europe [63,64], YouthBuild in the U.S. [22], and Free Schools in Japan [23] share similar goals of reducing stigma, closing systemic gaps, and providing tailored support. Additionally, the current study’s emphasis on the resilience and potentiality of out-of-school youth contributes to the discourse on positive youth development, demonstrating the importance of inclusive support systems that can enhance factors related to social sustainability.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of designing community-based education support systems that are cohesive, inclusive, equitable, and sustainable. Strengthening connections between youth and support systems, diversifying programs, addressing regional imbalances, and fostering inter-ministerial collaboration are essential steps in ensuring equitable opportunities for all adolescents. Through these efforts, societies can better equip all youth to navigate their paths, overcome barriers, and achieve meaningful personal and professional growth.

5.2. Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

This study has several limitations to be addressed. First, this study focused on the experiences and perceptions of service providers; to develop a more holistic understanding of the support system, future research needs to center the voices of the youth themselves. As primary recipients of these services, out-of-school youth offer critical insights into the effectiveness, accessibility, and relevance of the current system. Including their perspectives can ensure that policies and practices are more responsive to their actual needs. The second limitation is the number of participants in the study. Although the current study used a qualitative research method to explore the experiences and perceptions of participants, capturing the voices of participants from various contexts could provide a more thorough understanding of the phenomenon. Therefore, future studies should consider including more participants who can share their accounts of supporting out-of-school youth. Third, the study conducted both individual and group interviews. The initial individual interview provided an overview of the current situation, while the group interviews facilitated diverse viewpoints on the challenges encountered by the participants. Although the group interviews were effective in triggering past experiences, with participants sharing valuable insights based on their expertise, more structured focus group interviews with a larger group of participants may be beneficial in the future to foster new ideas for collaborative efforts to support out-of-school youth. Fourth, this study centers on the context of Korea, where academic pressure is intense and stigma surrounding out-of-school status remains high. Expanding this research to examine how different cultural and contextual systems perceive and support out-of-school youth would be invaluable. Supporting the next generation is a shared responsibility, requiring collaborative efforts to generate innovative approaches to help all youth grow.

6. Conclusions

The current study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of service providers who work directly with out-of-school youth, offering critical insights into how community-based support systems can be made more sustainable and responsive. The analysis derived four themes from participants’ accounts: connecting youth to the community system, diversifying programs, minimizing disparities, and increasing societal awareness of out-of-school youth.

This study contributed to the discourse on out-of-school youth support. Specifically, it shed light on how Korean policies and support systems for out-of-school youth are implemented and experienced by the service providers who work directly with these adolescents. The study identified existing gaps and shortcomings in current approaches, suggesting potential measures to address these disparities. Based on the insights captured from the experiences and perceptions of the participants, the study emphasized that it is our shared responsibility to support various needs of out-of-school youth, just as we support students studying at schools. Particularly, this study tried to capture the voices of service providers in the community as well as school counseling teachers from the formal education system, and discovered their shared experiences and perceptions. The results of the current study may offer new possibilities for collaboration among different agencies. Moreover, inter-ministry collaborations are needed to minimize any blind spots and reach out to youth to help them learn and thrive. Improving community-based services is expected to lead to fostering a more sustainable community in the long run, in which all youth can develop into healthy members of society.