Background and Purpose: Out-of-school time (OST) programs, including those before school, after school, and in the summer, are an important space for young people to continue growing and developing outside of the school day (Durlak et al., 2009). OST programs must apply for funding to open their doors, and many funders require programs to use "evidence" to obtain funding, but funders do not always define what this word means. This can pose issues of inequity, because if professionals understand "evidence" differently than funders, they might face challenges in aligning their plans for evidence-use to funders expectations, and as a result might systematically receive less funding than other programs. Further, prominent sources of evidence, such as research and data, can reproduce harm onto historically marginalized groups of people when not generated and applied sensitively (Louçã, 2009; Zuberi, 2001; Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008), which raises concerns particularly as funders hold great influence for what counts as valid evidence. While evidence and its use has been robustly studied in the K-12 space (e.g., Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Farley-Ripple et al., 2022; Farrell et al, 2022), the OST context has unique scope and structure warranting consideration. Methods and Data: In this qualitative study, I conduct interviews with 16 OST professionals and review 16 documents for programmatic funding to critically examine how OST professionals conceptualize evidence and how this aligns or diverges to calls for evidence in funding sources. I additionally compare how conceptualizations of evidence vary by role of OST professional (practitioner versus capacity builder), and how calls for evidence vary by source of funding (governmental versus philanthropic). Findings: I find that many funders of OST programs use the term "evidence," but few define what this word means. When funders do define "evidence," their definition differs from how OST professionals conceptualize the term. Most OST professionals conceptualize evidence as "data," whereas funders define evidence as "research" when they do provide a definition. The types of evidence elevated (data, research, and professional expertise), align to those observed in K-12 education, however other findings, such as how conceptualizations vary by role of professional, must be interpreted regarding distinctions in the structure of the OST, as roles in OST vary from that in K-12 education. Both types of professionals (practitioners and capacity builders) elevated data as evidence, but capacity builders also often talked about research, whereas practitioners also often talked about anecdotal experiences. It was also found that funders oftentimes call for use of data in applications without using that term, which could contribute to a broader challenge in the field noted by interviewees that many professionals actively use evidence without realizing it. Additionally, several funding documents described practices that programs who receive funding must engage in aligning to research-based practices, without referencing the specific studies that have proven these practices to be effective. Professionals also acknowledged the disconnect between the evidence funders call for, and what is relevant to their practice. A few interviewees noted that this disconnect might be due to overarching challenges rooted is racism, sexism, and classism. Implications: The study offers novel, empirical insights into the types of information that OST professionals consider as "evidence" and the types of evidence that funders call for. The study underscores the importance of clarity in terminology. Funders might consider collaborating with OST professionals to ensure that the definitions of evidence align with how practitioners conceptualize it, thereby minimizing unnecessary burdens on programs applying for funding. This information can serve as a foundation for exploring how evidence in OST supports goals of equity and addresses historically paternalistic and racist practices permeating the field (Baldridge et al., 2024). With this information, funders can better consider and recognize the inequities that can arise with using each type of evidence without considering bias when calling for them in funding, so not to perpetuate harm within the field. Finally, this study offers important information on how evidence is conceptualized and aligned to funding in OST settings, which might inform how other social services for young people that rely on discretionary funding (such as youth justice, foster care, and early childhood) call for evidence in funding applications.