The At-Risk Youth Recreation Project

Peter A. Witt
John L. Crompton
August, 1996

A version of this paper was published as: Witt, P.A. & Crompton, J.L. (1996). The at-risk youth recreation project.  Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 1-9.

Abstract

 

This article describes results of a project funded by the National Recreation Foundation through the National Recreation and Park Association. It's purposes were (1) to increase the amount of evidence available about the impact of park and recreation programs on at-risk youth; (2) to develop instrumentation and improve methodologies for undertaking systematic evaluations of these programs; and (3) to develop information about the current status of park and recreation programs for at-risk youth.

 

KEYWORDS: At-risk youth, recreation programs, evaluation, protective factors

Peter A. Witt is Professor and Head and John L. Crompton is a Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University.

 

Introduction

 

The potential of park and recreation departments (PARDs) to be a primary community resource for alleviating societal problems associated with at-risk youth has long been recognized by many in this field. Professionals and academics (and many members of the public) believe that PARDs are uniquely positioned to address this issue for at least three reasons:

* First, recreation centers and park areas (where many gangs and deviant youth congregate) are widely distributed across communities, and thus can be used as service centers for dealing with gang and youth related problems.

* Second, PARD personnel are experienced in establishing empathetic relationships with their clients.

 

* Third, recreation activities are inherently appealing to large segments of youth in general, including at-risk youth, and thus offer a vehicle for assessing and positively influencing pro-social behavior (Witt & Crompton, 1996).

Although these attributes suggest that PARDs are likely to be a primary community resource for addressing the needs and problems of at-risk youth, the best results are likely to be forthcoming when an holistic approach is used that involves cooperation with other community service agencies (e.g., police, health, education, social services, etc.) in developing a successful prevention or intervention strategy (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1992; Witt & Crompton, 1996).

 

Advocates have long evangelized about the prevention or intervention potential of recreation and park programs. Much of the early public leisure provision in the mid-nineteenth century was stimulated by a desire to alleviate delinquent behavior (Cross, 1990). Similarly, there is a long tradition of using what might be termed "pseudo-scientific evidence" to demonstrate the efficacy of these efforts. For example, in 1910, the chief planner for the city of Chicago observed, "Police records show an extraordinary decrease of youthful crimes in the neighborhood of playground parks" (Lewis, 1923). However, advocacy, anecdotes, and pseudo-scientific evidence are of decreasing effectiveness in today's political arenas.

 

Can recreation and park services effectively contribute to alleviating problems associated with at-risk youth? As professionals with knowledge of successes elsewhere and our own first-hand experience we respond "yes." Unfortunately, in many communities, most people respond "no" or "not sure." The reason for the difference in view is explained by the concept of positioning.

 

Positioning refers to perceptions of the role of recreation and park services in the minds of elected officials, decision-makers, and citizens. The position which prevails in many of their minds is that recreation and park services are a "soft" alternative which pampers youth and has no ameliorating effect on their behavior. At best these activities temporarily divert their attention and "keep them off the streets" so they are not engaged in deviant behavior during that time period, but their program involvement has no lasting impact.

 

Those who hold this prevailing perspective believe that society is better served if these youth are subjected to "hard-nosed" treatment by law enforcement agencies. Thus, in contrast to recreation and park agencies, police departments are centrally positioned in these people's minds as the primary, and often exclusive, resource for alleviating the problem.

 

These positions explain why there is more funding support for law enforcement programs than recreation and park programs. They suggest that resource support for recreation and park programs developed for at-risk youth, will only be forthcoming when the field is repositioned in people's minds so, like law enforcement, it is perceived to be central to preventing or alleviating disruptive or deviant behavior by youth.

 

To better position park and recreation programs as useful vehicles for prevention and intervention efforts for at-risk youth, scientific evaluations are needed which show the impact of park and recreation services on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of at-risk youth. Ideally, controlled studies using treatment and control groups (where possible) should be undertaken. Unlike simply counting the number of participants, collecting testimonials and anecdotal evidence, or relying solely on post-program participant satisfaction surveys, controlled studies can provide scientifically legitimate evidence which is less challengeable by stakeholders, such as legislatures, bureaucrats in charge of directing federal and state funding for at-risk youth, other human service professionals, and the public at large. These types of evaluations have to be carefully planned at the outset. They assess the impact of a recreation program on youths' psychological and social state, and/or on their behavior. To this point, relatively few examples of this type of evaluation have been undertaken by PARDs.

 

Over the past three years, good progress has been made in evaluating outcomes of PARD at-risk youth programs that move beyond counting participants, collecting testimonials, and measuring participant or other stakeholder satisfaction with services. Most of these studies have been part of a National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) sponsored project, which was funded through the National Recreation Foundation (NRF). An initial grant to Texas A&M University (TAMU) was leveraged by involving partners at three other universities, Arizona State University West, Clemson University, and The Pennsylvania State University. Each of the universities involved in the project has completed or has in progress at least one study of outcomes associated with a local park and recreation program. In addition to the NRPA/NRF funding, each of the projects has received either direct or in-kind support from the PARDs with which they have worked and in some cases additional support from foundation sources. Several articles in this special issue have resulted from these project efforts (Baker & Witt, 1996; Scott, Witt, & Foss, 1996; Wright, 1996). Other articles and reports will be forthcoming. ¹

 

In the past three years, considerable effort has been invested in resolving difficult methodological issues and developing instruments to measure outcome changes. This has resulted in several scientific studies which have shown positive outcomes. The number of studies is still relatively small, since much investment had to be made in the basic methodological and instrument development process. The immediate challenge over the next three year period is to multiply the number of studies. The field's credibility in this area depends on reporting findings from a threshold number of studies -- say 20-30 -- which show positive outcomes. The studies reported in this issue of JPRA and currently in progress are a down payment on that goal.

 

In addition to the evaluation studies, the overall project has initiated and/or been involved in a number of other efforts designed to stimulate a better understanding of current PARD efforts to serve the needs of at-risk youth. A brief overview of evaluation studies completed or in progress along with a description of some of the other project activities follows.

 

Project Outcomes

 

Evaluation Studies

Nine separate evaluation studies have been completed or are in progress (Figure 1). The majority of these study designs embraced pre-post methodologies and control groups. Two of the post-test only studies are being expanded and will incorporate a pre-test in their second phase.

Figure 1

Summary of Evaluation Studies Completed or In-Progress (*)

* Study in progress; ** Follow-up pre-post study in progress; *** Study planned Summer, 1997.

In addition, we have been collecting evaluations of program outcomes conducted by PARDs. Most of these results demonstrate decreases in crime rates attributable due to the initiation of park and recreation programs. Examples of some of these studies are included in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Crime Statistics Changes Due to Recreation Program Initiation

(Witt & Crompton, 1996b)

* Cincinnati, Ohio, reported a 31% decrease in crime incidents in the first six months after the Winton Hills prevention programs began.

 

* Commerce, California, compared gang related assaults in their city with neighboring East Los Angeles to demonstrate program effectiveness. In East Los Angeles there were 140 gang related assaults and 11 homicides in 1993 compared to seven gang related assaults and zero homicides in Commerce.

 

* Kansas City, Missouri, reported a 25% decrease in the rate of juvenile apprehensions compared to the previous year in the areas abutting centers in which Midnight Basketball programs were offered.

 

* In Fort Worth, Texas, crime statistics supplied by the Police Department indicated in a one mile radius of the community centers where the midnight basketball was provided, crime dropped 28%. At five other community centers where these programs did not exist, crime rose an average of 39%.

 

Instrument and Evaluation Handbook Development

 

Two major instruments have been developed. The Protective Factors Scale was developed to measure program outcomes in ten areas related to developing knowledge, attitudes and behavior necessary to develop resilient youth who can avoid risk-related behaviors (Witt, Baker, & Scott). The Program Quality Review was developed to enable program leaders to determine participants' and other stakeholders' evaluation of program components, and identify information which will help improve program quality (Witt & Baker, 1996).

 

In addition, an evaluation handbook has been drafted and is currently being reviewed by park and recreation professionals. The handbook, which will be published by NRPA, contains instruments, formats and guidance on how to administer them. It is intended to facilitate practitioners conducting their own evaluations.

 

At-Risk Youth Program Status

 

A number of efforts have been undertaken to catalog and disseminate information concerning the efforts of PARDs to provide programs for at-risk youth. The Texas A&M project team was involved with the Academy of Park and Recreation Administration, NRPA, and key professionals from PARDs across the United States and Canada in the sponsorship of a number of interactive colloquia. The initiative was launched with a national colloquium held in 1995 in Fort Worth, Texas, on "Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth." Momentum from this effort resulted in a series of eight regional colloquia held across the United States and one in Canada in the spring of 1996 with a total attendance of over 1000.

 

To help catalog and disseminate information about the efforts of PARDs to provide recreation programs for at-risk youth, a group of case studies of park and recreation programs from across the U.S. and Canada was produced outlining programmatic philosophy, goals, program content, partnerships, and outcomes (Witt & Crompton, 1996b). The information from these cases has been used to generate a list of program elements which have been identified as central to "programs that work" (See figure 3; Witt & Crompton, 1996). An abbreviated version of these cases targeted at legislators, media and other non-professional stakeholders has also been produced (Witt & Crompton, 1996a), and has been widely distributed by the Department of Juvenile Justice and NRPA.

Figure 3

Features of Successful Recreation Programs for At-Risk Youth

 

(The list is incomplete and suggestions for additions, modifications and clarifications are invited).

 

The following are some basic elements of successful programs that have been gleaned from the literature, case studies presented at national and regional conferences, and discussions with recreation program providers.

 

Assessment of Underlying Community Issues

 

* Teen pregnancy

* School dropouts

* Delinquency

* Drug and alcohol abuse

* Poverty

* Perceived lack of opportunity

* Lack of safe places to play

 

Role of Recreation

 

* Recreation as a "hook," the means of attracting youth to programs

* Provide a safe environment for youth to interact

* Deal with "unproductive" time within which youth can get into trouble

 

Long Term Goals and Specific Objectives

 

* Focus on early identification and intervention

* Give major emphasis to prevention

* Target those most in need

* Programs should be purposive

* Programs need to have clearly articulated goals

* Parents and youth should be active agents in program design and planning

 

Constraints

 

* Make programs accessible (e.g., insure adequate transportation)

* Provide appropriate equipment and safe environment

* Provide opportunity for participants to learn appropriate activity and social skills

 

Program Content

 

* Programs should be comprehensive and/or part of a comprehensive system of services

* Create programs that are culturally appropriate

* Provide opportunities for positive social relationships with peers and adults

* Avoid one-shot programs

* Make provisions for transportation

* Serve children on site when appropriate (e.g., public housing)

 

Program Process

 

* Provide opportunities for mentoring

* Provide intensive and individualized attention

* Programs should be responsive (kid-centered)

* Participation incentives should be relevant to youth served

* Rules and behavioral expectations clear and respected by youth

 

Resources

 

* Pricing: fees, scholarships

* Leverage available funds through collaborative efforts with other agencies in development

and delivery of services

* "Who gets the credit is less important than getting the job done"

* Work to develop ongoing base-level funding,

i.e., not all services contingent on soft money (permanence)

 

Staffing

 

* Provide pre- and in-service staff training

* Develop procedures and incentives for retaining quality staff

(e.g., implement good system for advancement and pay)

* Create appropriate administrative structures

* Generate volunteers

 

Promotion

 

* Develop mechanisms for promoting services to participants and stakeholders

* Use catchy acronyms

 

Evaluation

 

* Document program success via testimonials, surveys, outcome measures,

comprehensive evaluations

* Involve stakeholders and participants in program evaluation process

* Use evaluation information to fine tune program content, process and leadership

* Develop mechanisms for disseminating outcome information to stakeholders

A national survey of PARDs (N = 621 responding agencies) was completed detailing the status of PARD programs for at-risk youth (Schultz, Crompton, & Witt, 1995). Information from the survey also was used to prepare an NRPA published networking guide listing PARDs that offer programs for at-risk youth (Schultz, Crompton, Witt, & Kurk, 1995). In addition, a team of Arizona State University West researchers have completed a survey of senior administrators in cities of 100,000+ and have identified the major issues they perceived municipal governments will face in dealing with at-risk youth over the next decade, and responses needed to deal with them (Montiel, Hultsman & Martin, 1996).

 

Concluding Remarks

 

Without significant coordinated intervention by PARDs and other governmental and community organizations, the negative consequences for both at-risk youth and society in general will continue to increase. With juvenile arrests for crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and theft still at unacceptable levels, elected officials in many communities are faced with the political necessity to undertake prevention and intervention programs. With juvenile drug use, alcohol abuse, and teen pregnancies at unacceptable levels, significant cost effective actions are being sought. However, given the increased call for accountability at all levels of government, services developed to help deal with these issues must provide meaningful evidence of their efficacy. Most recreation agencies have limited fiscal and qualified human resources to do good evaluations. In addition to providing a body of scientific evidence, this project will better equip practitioners to undertake their own evaluations in the future.

 

Evidence from evaluation studies should also help when arguing for maintaining or improving program funding. As David Fisher, Executive Director of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, reminds us, recreation programs for at-risk youth need to be supported by long-term base-budget city funding rather than relying on short-term grants and special purpose funding.

We will undertake a disservice to our clients, who already are beset by part-time parents and part-time education, by offering part-time programs. To be effective, programs must be consistent, constant and sustainable. Otherwise I believe we simply feed the loop of failing to fulfill our promises. (Witt & Crompton, 1996b, p. 24).

If PARDs are to realize their potential leadership in alleviating the consequences of youth being at-risk (prevention programs) and intervening and modifying behaviors such as drug abuse and criminal activity (intervention programs), possible program impact has to be scientifically demonstrated. Although there is a widespread belief among recreation professionals, professionals in other fields, and elected municipal officials that recreation services can be a powerful force for both prevention and intervention, full support of PARD efforts will not be forthcoming without solid evaluative efforts.

 

We have begun to scientifically demonstrate positive outcomes associated with providing recreation programs for at-risk youth, but a larger set of studies is needed to achieve the threshold volume which will make the cumulative evidence convincing. Evidence needs to continue to accrue which documents positive outcomes in a wider range of programs and contexts provided by park and recreation agencies, and in relation to the range of problems that park and recreation programs seek to alleviate.

 

Endnotes

 

¹The following individuals have provided the leadership for the overall project: Texas A&M University (Peter Witt, John Crompton, David Scott, and Dwayne Baker), Arizona State University (John Hultsman), Clemson University (Larry Allen, Rick Harwell, and Paul Wright), and The Pennsylvania State University (Linda Caldwell and Geof Godbey). Funding from foundations has come from the Hogg Foundation, Pittsburgh Foundation, and the Sid Richardson Foundation). PARDs involved in the project have included those in Austin, TX; Dallas, TX; Fort Worth, TX; Houston, TX; Johnston City, SC; Pittsburgh, PA; and Phoenix, AZ.

 

 

References

 

Baker, D. & Witt, P. A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school programs for

at-risk youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 60-81.

 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunities in the

nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

 

Cross, G. (1990). A social history of leisure since 1600. State College, PA: Venture

Publishing.

 

Montiel, M., Hultsman, J. & Martin, J. (1996). A foundation for youth policy: Perspectives of

administrators of large cities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 20-40.

Lewis, N. P. (1923). The planning of the modern city. (2nd ed.) New York, NY: John

Wiley.

 

Schultz, L., Crompton, J. L., & Witt, P. A. (1995). A national profile of recreation services for at-risk children and youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13(3), 1-25.

Schultz, L. Crompton, J. L., Witt, P. A., & Kurk, L. (1995). A guide to recreation and park agencies that offer programs for at-risk youth. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Scott, D., Witt, P.A., & Foss, M. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of the Dougherty Arts Center's Creativity Club on children at-risk. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 41-60.

Witt, P. A. & Baker, D. (1995). Results of Fort Worth Youth Sports Program evaluation.

Texas A&M University: unpublished project report.

Witt, P. A., & Baker, D. (1996a). Results of Houston Rockets Best Shot Program evaluation. Texas A&M University: unpublished project report.

Witt, P. A. & Baker, D. (1996b). Program Quality Review. Texas A&M University: unpublished instrument.

Witt, P. A., Baker, D., & Scott, D. (1996). Protective Factors Scale. Texas A&M University: unpublished instrument.

Witt, P. A. & Crompton, J. L. (1996a). Programs that work: Public recreation in high risk environments. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Witt, P. A. & Crompton, J. L. (1996b). Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Wright, P. (1996). Project Stride: A unique intervention program for at-risk youth. Unpublished manuscript, Clemson University.

PREVIOUS LEVEL FACULTY LISTING RPTS MAIN PAGE

Go to top