Youth Spaces and Places: Case Studies of Two Teen Clubs
Henderson is with the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (CB #3185 Evergreen, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3185) and King is with Community Partnerships; Raleigh, NC. The data collection for this article was made possible through collaboration with the At-Risk Youth Recreation Consortium funded partially with a subcontract with Texas A & M University through the National Recreation and Park Association. The authors would like to thank the following individuals associated with the Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department who were involved in various stages of the data collection: Mike Loveman, Bill Webster, Kathryn Spatz, Lisa Baaske, Carol Walborn, Nate Davis, and Andre Boyton. The authors would also like to acknowledge the work done by the peer interviewer, Lauren Bern.
Executive Summary
Recreation programmers seem to know quite a bit about what young people need, but we know less about what youth want and how social spaces and places provide a context for identity development. Leisure programmers and researchers have not paid enough attention to the importance of geography or space as contributors to the recreation experience. The purpose of this paper was to explore how young people attached meanings to publicly supported recreation opportunities designated as teen spaces. We describe some of the dimensions of the cultural and social geography of youth leisure based on case studies done in two publicly funded teen clubs in a southeastern university community. These case studies were used to obtain data helpful to understand young people’s interests and needs and how teen clubs, as leisure spaces, were viewed. One teen club existed at a multipurpose recreation center and functioned as a meeting place for doing and planning recreation activities at a specific time during the week. The second teen club was run partially as a non-profit youth group but with programming oversight by the park and recreation department during set afternoon hours and weekends. Both teen clubs studied were effective in attracting young people, but issues existed at each about organizational structure and youth culture. A major issue was the need to rationalize the allocation of public physical spaces for both structured and relatively unstructured leisure. Although the concept of space has concrete boundaries, the sense of place for young people relates to perceptually and socially produced dimensions (Mowl & Towner, 1995; Tuan, 1977). Recommendations based on these case studies may be useful to teen club recreation programmers and to individuals interested in research and evaluation related to structured and unstructured leisure opportunities as well as the geography of youth culture. Among the suggestions offered were: further explore how sense of place is essential to consider in youth programming, examine how unstructured time and relaxed leisure spaces may be a way to engage youth in other more structured recreation activities, and use a variety of data sources including the possibilities of peer interviewers to collect data. If recreation spaces are to be "places" imbued with meanings, teen programmers may need to better balance the need for relaxed leisure as part of a structured environment. Although unstructured leisure does not appear to be as developmentally important as structured activities, it may be important and useful for some groups of young people. Further research needs to be undertaken to determine how teen programming can be efficacious with the focus on meaningful and safe places for youth development to occur.
Keywords: teen clubs, teen centers, social space, programming, case studies.
Leisure programmers and researchers seldom examine the importance of geography and space as contributors to the recreation experience. When space is considered, many leisure professionals focus on the use of space for structured recreation activities. What enables public or private space to become a site for leisure? Further, how are these sites used as opportunities for empowerment or as sites of resistance for young people or adults? Much has been written about children’s cognition, competence, behavior, attachment to place, and access to/use of space, but little attention has been paid to youth’s perceptions of how space is, or should be, structured (Valentine, Skelton, & Chambers, 1998). The notion of space has often been treated coincidentally rather than as central to how young people strucutre their lives. In addition, the connections between space, organizational structure, and youth social identity have not been fully examined. Although recreation programmers seem to know quite a bit about what young people need, they know less about what youth want and how social spaces and places provide a context for organizational structure and social identity development.
Teen clubs and teen centers are not a new phenomenon. Kraus (1997) described the "cellar clubs" that existed in the 1930's. These clubs were youth-organized social and recreational spaces that sprang up spontaneously and often had ethnic and racial ties. These cellar clubs made use of vacant stores, cellars, and building lofts and were places where young people were able to find meeting places free of adult supervision and interference. Since that time, many forms of teen clubs have emerged. They are often assumed to be a panacea for addressing youth problems in communities. Although structured teen clubs have many benefits, they generally seem to have varying degrees of success.
After reviewing the literature, we found little previous research specifically about public or non-profit spaces such as teen centers or teen clubs. We did find, however, an obvious link regarding how to apply adolescent developmental theory to recreation and leisure services (e.g., Shinew, Norman, & Baldwin, 1997; Witt & Crompton, 1996a). The history of youth culture has generally had elements of finding one’s personal identity as well as elements of inclusion and exclusion defined by belonging and group identification (Heatherington, 1998). What meanings do young people find in teen spaces? Further, how do recreation programmers working with young people use spaces to provide meaningful places that offer both structured and unstructured formats to address the needs and interests of young people?
The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to describe some of the dimensions of the cultural and social geography of youth leisure based on case studies done in two teen clubs in a southeastern university community. Both teen clubs were effective in attracting young people, but issues existed at each about organizational structure and youth culture. A major issues was the need to rationalize the allocation of public physical spaces for both structured and relatively unstructured leisure.
Background
Shinew et al. (1997) concluded in their conceptual paper about early adolescent development that leisure activities can play an instrumental role if certain key components exist, such as quality programming, caring and supportive adults, and quality social interactions. Implicit to those components is the influence that environments have on young people. The Carnegie Council (1992) found that when young people were asked how they would describe the ideal youth center, they articulated the need for a safe and protected environment where they could be themselves, along with staff that listens and respects them, and interesting programs that are in-depth and challenging. Little is known, however, about how young people seek to utilize space, their sense of place, and the influence that geography of youth culture has on using or subverting the significance of structured leisure space. The agency that youth have within public spaces is often limited because of issues of adult control.
Space is a container where sub-culture takes place for young people (Ruddick, 1998). Although the terms are used somewhat interchangeably, space usually refers to concrete boundaries such as the walls of a teen center. Place is perceptually and socially produced by individuals who establish some type of identification with a space or an environment (Tuan, 1977). The space, however, is more than the physical setting because it also influences individuals’ emotions. Some spaces give one a sense of personal power while other spaces evoke insecurity or insignificance. Greenman (1988, p. 17) suggested that "many of us live and move, and have our being in spaces that never become places." The challenge to recreation providers is to create spaces that enable youth to have a sense of place where they can maintain their social identity.
Several researchers have examined young people’s time use. In early adolescence, young people generally move from a structured childhood to freedom and autonomy. Unfortunately, young people spend a relatively small amount of their leisure time in activities that are adult directed or supervised. "Hanging around" or "hanging out" was a common theme found in the literature about youth (e.g., Bembry & Tufono, 1996; Kleiber, Larson, & Csikszentmihalyi, 1986; Larson & Richards, 1991; Larson & Kleiber, 1992; McMeeking & Purkayastha, 1995; Van Roosmalen & Krahn, 1996; Valentine et al., 1998). Larson and Richards (1991) found that youth reported they were bored 27% of the time. Larson (1998) and colleagues (Larson & Kleiber, 1992) indicated that a large percentage of Western adolescents’ time is spent in activities with peers, mainly talking and hanging out. McMeeking and Purkayastha (1995) suggested that "nowhere to go, nothing to do" (p. 366) is a universal belief held by adolescents. Kleiber et al. (1986) referred to two types of youth leisure: relaxed and transitional. Transitional leisure occurs most often in sports, games, artwork, and hobbies and provides a subjective experience within a context of effort and demand. Relaxed leisure, typically associated with socializing, watching television, and listening to music, provides pleasure without high personal demands. Although relaxed is not as developmentally important, it appears to be important to teens. Hanging out is an embodiment of relaxed leisure.
Regardless of whether recreation programmers are working with "high risk" youth or consider that all young people are potentially at risk (Witt & Crompton, 1996a), recreation seems to have a role to play in providing spaces and places for young people. As Allen, Stevens, and Harwell (1996) implored, however, recreation experiences are not inherently good but must be specifically structured to achieve maximum benefits. Providing good space is the result of asking questions to establish goals and thinking through the important feelings and behaviors that are articulated (Greenman, 1988). Thus, to examine how teen programming through clubs and centers might be seen as a way to address youth recreation needs within a safe space, an evaluation research project was undertaken using a case study approach.
Methods
Our research used a case study approach, which consisted of an analytic description of a group or individual observed over a given period of time (Howe & Keller, 1988). Evaluation research or program evaluation was also undertaken to assess and evaluate the impact of the teen clubs (Henderson, 1995). Data were collected using multiple sources of information, also known as triangulation, to try to measure how and why something occurs (Yin, 1984). We were not necessarily interested in generalizing these data to other situations, but we wanted to use the empirical data to uncover issues about spaces and places that recreation programmers in this community, as well as elsewhere, might want to consider. In addition, we hoped that some of this insight would provide a starting point for further research about the efficacy and structure of recreation spaces used by young people.
For the case studies, we examined two teen clubs in a small southeastern United States city. The two sites offered two different approaches to their use of space: a multipurpose approach (MP) where the teen club was one of many activities occurring in the space, and a single service approach (SS) where the space was designated almost exclusively for the use of the teen club. Both teen groups operated to different degrees under the auspices of the park and recreation department.
The MP teen club was in a multipurpose recreation center funded by and under the direction of staff from the park and recreation department. The after school teen club used the recreation center as a meeting place for doing and planning recreation activities at a specific time during the week. At other times, the space at the recreation center was available to young people whenever it was not used for other recreation programs. It was not designated, except during club meetings, as a "teen only" space. A basketball court outside the recreation center was a space claimed by the young people after school since it was always available to individuals whether they participated formally in the "club" or not. The club met once a week and had other activities they planned for the weekends such as going to the state fair, raising funds at a street fair, and holding dances. The recreation center’s assistant director and volunteers in the community provided the adult leadership for the MP club.
The SS teen club was run partially as a non-profit youth group but with programming oversight and program funding provided by the park and recreation department during set afternoon hours. A Teen Council, under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce, oversaw the use of the space. It was set up in the basement of a government building on a main thoroughfare of the city. This center might be likened to a "hole in the wall." The space, without any windows, was about one-third the size of a basketball court and was partitioned into one large room and two smaller rooms. Young people had painted murals on the walls and old cushy furniture was abundant throughout the space. The room was wired with a sound system and music chosen by the teens was playing every weekday. Two pool tables were also located in the center. Most of the time no other use was made for the basement area except for teen events. The center was open every weekday from 4:00-7:00 PM and bands played in the center almost every Friday and Saturday night. Outside the center was a public square. A staff member from the department coordinated the programs and a part-time paid leader was in attendance whenever the SS club was open.
The MP club was in a primarily Black neighborhood and the SS teen center was approximately a mile away in the downtown business area and attracted mostly white young people. The MP teen club served younger teens (ages 12-15 years old) while the SS teen club served slightly older individuals (15-18 years old). Both boys and girls were involved with each club although girls were more active and visible in both groups.
The MP teen club was observed during the fall of 1997. One of the authors served as a participant leader observer in the club and also interviewed current and past members of the group. Past members were identified using a snowball technique from the current members. Nine interviews were conducted in addition to field notes made while participating in teen activities for two months. The SS teen center was examined during the spring of 1998 with the same graduate student observing at the center and coordinating interviews using a peer interviewing process. Nine peer conducted interviews were secured. In addition, field notes were used and discussions were held on numerous occasions with the park and recreation staff member and part-time leaders.
For both sets of data collection, guiding questions that provided a starting place for the interviews with young people included:
Why do you (or did you) come to the center/club?
What would you be doing if you were not at the center/club?
What changes would you like to see made in the program?
Where else do you go after school when you do not come to the center/club?
Why do some of your friends not come to the center/club?
How would you describe the people who come to this center/club?
The peer interviewing process was unique to this study as one method of data collection and we wanted to test it as a possible method for data collection. Valentine et al. (1998) described how young people are often marginalized within the wider society and it is crucial that they should be able to play a part, if they wish, in the discussion of research findings. For example, Farrell, Peguero, Lindsey, and White (1988) suggested that any possible solution to the high school dropout problem had to entail programs based on perceptions of the students rather than just on educational theory. Farrell and the three high school students who were listed as co-authors designed, conducted, and interpreted their project to examine why young people dropped out of high school. We used a modified version of their approach. We invited two teens (one male and one female, based on the staff's recommendations) to be interviewers. We offered $5 per completed audio-taped interview that addressed most of the interview guide questions and included a signed participant and parental consent form. We provided a tape recorder, tapes, and training about the project and how to logistically conduct the interviews. After the first interview, we met with the peer interviewer to discuss how to get more information through the use of probes. One of the interviewers failed to follow through, but the female interviewer completed nine interviews. Due to time limitations we did not actively involve this individual with data analysis; however, informal discussions with the teen interviewer contributed to data interpretation.
Data from all interviews were transcribed verbatim. Field notes were typed and coded by the researchers. Each researcher kept "notes on notes" throughout the year long study (Henderson, 1991). The researchers met weekly during the project to discuss the data and formulate emerging themes. Once the context surrounding space and organizational structure emerged, data were analyzed independently by both researchers through a process of constant comparison to develop emerging themes. The analyses were then combined to further refine the themes. Member checks were conducted with interviewees when possible, and with recreation department staff to verify the findings.
The case studies provided a means to gain information about young people’s lives in the community, their perception of the teen clubs in which they were involved, and ideas about teen spaces and places. Although the two settings differed, we wanted to identify the common denominators that young people were seeking in youth spaces. Although we came to some conclusions, we think the value of our research lies in the questions that we raised for future exploration. Our findings also support the emerging literature about issues surrounding space and place that ought to be considered in programming for young people in a variety of settings.
The Meanings of Teen Club Spaces
Not surprisingly, the major reason teens came to the teen clubs was to "hang out." Implicit in this motive was that young people wanted a safe place where they could get together and relax. They did not care much about what was in the space, but they wanted a place that "felt like them." One young woman said that the SS club was "home" for her. Another young person came to the SS center "to find other people who are bored and stuff so we can be bored together." Individuals came because their friends came. One girl at the MP club said, "It wasn’t like it was planned or anything, like, I would ask someone if they were going to be at the center tomorrow. If you walked through there and saw someone you would just start talking." Another response by several individuals from both groups was "there’s nothing better to do."
Some of teens, however, suggested that the teen clubs were better than other alternatives. Several of the young people recognized that if they were not at the center, they would be doing the same things at home--listening to music, watching TV, or talking (on the phone rather than in person) to their friends. Others, however, indicated that their alternatives were to hang out elsewhere (including on the street or at other people’s homes). One young woman indicated that one day when she did not go to the teen club, she went with a friend to a house in the neighborhood where police came with their drug sniffing dog.
Being at the teen clubs enabled the young people to do things with others and to share in a group identity. Thus, the teen clubs were seen as a place where "hanging out" with one’s friends was allowed. As indicated in the literature review, hanging around or hanging out is a common theme found in literature about youth. This "activity" is something youth like to do to a great extent because it gives them a chance to talk and interact with their friends, but "hanging around" for some youth could also be due to a lack of other things to do. Valentine et al. (1998) also suggested that hanging around is one form of youth resistance, both conscious and unconscious, to adult power. Clearly the teen clubs provided an alternative to hanging around in places that might be less desirable. "Hanging out," whether adults liked it or not, was the epitome of leisure and relaxation for many adolescents. Interestingly, what teens said regarding their wanting this unstructured time and space contrasted with their realization that they did not know what might be other options.
Issues Raised
In the process of this study, recreation programming issues about spaces and places emerged that might be addressed by other communities, including structure, participation, appropriate teen behavior, and spatial and symbolic reflections of youth culture. Ideas concerning quality programming and adult leadership were inherent in these issues, but this analysis focuses directly on space, a sense of place, and the structuring of recreation opportunities.
Structured or Unstructured
Hanging out appears to require little structure, and yet it may require more conscious planning than recreation programmers think. For example, a common response to what young people said they wanted to do at the teen club was evident in this young person’s comment, "play pool, hang out with friends...whatever goes." This young person indicated that she liked everything that happened at the SS club but our observation showed that few organized activities occurred. Another young person who came to the MP club said, "So I can be around some friends having some fun at the center, just chillin’." Another young man said he liked "slouching" at the SS club. The peer interviewer defined slouching to the researchers as:
..."sitting on a piece of furniture and trying to touch as many pieces of furniture as possible and you get more points if somebody brings you things. [You get] Slouching points."
One young woman said that her friends did not go to the MP club because "I guess they just like to hang out" and they did not perceive the MP center as a place for that possibility. The MP club was activity based with no designated space set aside for relaxed leisure.
Having consistent and structured hours of operation was another organizational issue raised by the young people. The fact that the young people at the SS club knew that the center was open every day after school and every Friday and Saturday night was important to its success. Teens could just drop in and see what was going on. The center was always available to "hang out" and they did not have to remember that it was Tuesday or the first Friday of the month when something was happening. The MP teen club met on a somewhat regular basis with information about the activities spread by "word of mouth" at the basketball court outside the MP center. When the weather was nice, that court served as a form of a drop-in center that was always available even if the space in the building was not available for youth activities.
The interesting question to answer is how to "program" a space to facilitate "hanging out, chillin’, and slouching." These notions are not commonly valued recreation activities recommended by public parks and recreation programmers and administrators. Thus, the challenge is how to structure a space so it is perceived by young people as a place for unstructured activities. What the teens told us about hanging out, however, was also contradictory. Several said they preferred to "hang out" rather than participate in structured activities. On the other hand, hanging out also resulted in them feeling like they were "bored together" with their friends. Being bored was a shared identity that was not necessarily perceived as negative. The young people seemed to want a structured program in the sense that regularity existed in time open and space available, but also they wanted opportunities for unstructured activities to occur inside that place.
Who Participates
When we asked the young people who the clubs were for, most remarked that they were "for everyone." The teens, however, were quick to point out that certain groups did not come or would not be interested. The young people indicated that some people did not come to a particular teen program due to the way the club was perceived. For example, one of the SS teens said that "J-Crew captains" and "preppy people" did not hang out. One of the problems that can occur in teen clubs is the adoption of the center by one group of youth to the exclusion of others. This problem was evident in the interviews with young people at both clubs. One of the apparent differences that we noted between teens of today and teens of 15 years ago or more was the great variety of music that exists, and how it serves to unite some teens and yet divide others. The young people told us that if one kind of music was offered, it attracted a certain crowd. That same music alienated another group. Young people in both the groups could identify that certain age, race, and "musical interest" groups were more likely to participate than others.
Not surprisingly, the ages of young people who participated regularly were also important. The young teens did not mind older youth being at the center, but the reverse did not seem to be true. Participants who had dropped out of the MP teen club often said it was due to the younger ages of the participants. One young woman who no longer came to the MP club stated, "But now it’s like people are my little sister’s age and you just don’t relate to them."
Because of the segregated history of this southern community, African Americans were concentrated in one area of the town and the two teen clubs were generally racially segregated. None of the teens addressed this issue directly, and none of the staff interviewed mentioned it as a particular problem. In addition, the interests of the young people seemed to result in race segregation rather than discrimination. Philipp (1998) suggested that peer groups are not randomly assembled but represent shared values, backgrounds, and interests. These peer groups also provide informational and normative influence. Although the SS and MP clubs were racially different, the aspects of what the young people thought about teen clubs were not inherently different. As Philipp suggested, few researchers (including us) have examined the meaning of race as a factor in teen programming.
Having music and getting bands to come to both centers was the centerpiece of much of the teen programming. Recruiting more young people to participate in other activities was done by having a band perform. The SS club had a band just about every weekend and those were the nights that the place was overflowing with teens. One SS teen said that his attendance was determined by "whether a band is playing here or not." Whenever the MP teens had a dance, they indicated that the involvement in their group increased greatly both before and after the event.
The larger question that seemed to exist concerned how teen clubs are structured so peer groups can share their interests and assert influence without excluding individuals because of such characteristics as age, race, or musical interests. Neither the teens nor the staff in our study had any useful insights about this concern.
Acceptable Teen Behavior
The differences between what the teens wanted and what was appropriate, legal, and financially feasible for a tax supported or a non-profit agency were sometimes difficult to reconcile. Smoking was one of those issues. One thing the young people liked about the SS club was that they could smoke outside in what was "public space." The area outside the MP club was municipal recreation center property and smoking was not allowed. It did not "look" appropriate. A number of teens wanted smoking to be allowed in the centers. The smoking issue was obviously a difficult and controversial dilemma to resolve.
Teen behavior at the club space also related to other issues like language. Teens said they wanted to be able to "express themselves" with their language. They were not always sure why some of the rules related to using language appropriately that did not include cursing. A contradiction seemed to exist at times between the teens feeling they wanted a space where they could "be themselves" and being forced to obey adult rules of conduct. Some of the young people did not seem to feel as much ownership of a place where they had to censor their language or other types of behavior.
Perceptions about appropriate and acceptable behavior for young people did not appear the same for youth, recreation leaders, and parents. When asked, the teens could identify changes they wanted to see in the "rules" of the clubs. The reality was that by "adult" rules and standards, these changes were not possible. We perceived some of the desires of the teens, such as wanting to smoke at the clubs, as rebellions against adult authority. We also saw their failure to agree to abide by the rules of appropriate behavior as a "reason" for not coming to the teen clubs on a regular basis. The dilemmas regarding who determines appropriate behavior for the space seemed to be a point of negotiation in both teen clubs.
Spatial and Symbolic Reflections of Youth Culture
The activities in which the young people engaged did not seem to be nearly as important as the spatial and symbolic environment where they hung out. Greenman (1988) described how many spaces have little meaning until individuals feel some connection to them. The environment where young people felt comfortable included what was inside and outside the building space that housed the teen club. The recreation center where the MP group met was a typical recreation center. Nothing about it particularly invited young people. The young people at the MP club, however, saw the basketball court outside the building as uniquely their space. One young woman described it in this way:
Well, mostly we just sat outside. We would just sit and watch people play basketball until it started getting late and time for everybody to go home. We just had a lot of fun--we just had to make fun.
The SS club, on the other hand, was perceived as belonging to the teens who came there because it embodied their cultural symbols through the murals on the walls and the decor of the room. How to make a recreation space multipurpose and still appeal to teens was a difficult issue. The young people at the SS club indicated that they found significance in the environment that "belonged" to them.
Discussion
Although both of the MP and SS programs were effective in getting young people involved, issues arose that might also be problematic in other communities as well. Not the least of these problems was the need to rationalize the allocation of space for relatively unstructured leisure for young people. Some directions can be found from this work that may be useful to teen programmers and to individuals interested in research and evaluation related to structured and unstructured leisure opportunities for youth. The issues raised here and by others (e.g., Shinew et al., 1997; Witt & Crompton, 1996b) reflect the ongoing need to apply basic principles of assessment, leadership, programming, and partnerships to teen programming. Combining developmental practices as well as striving to offer the programs that teens find appealing is the challenge (Shinew et al., 1997).
Our data showed how sense of place is essential to consider in youth programming. By place we meant a space where young people in a local area appreciate emotional identity and feel safe with particular groups and activities. At the teen clubs, the actual recreation activity had little to do with how the participants felt as much as did the environment in which it occurred. Wearing (1996) defined leisure as time, activity, experience, or space. Although she was referring to the gendered nature of space, this concept also seemed to apply to issues of age and teen situations. Leisure space was where the young people could find safety, be with their friends, and feel less bounded by societal traditions. As McMeeking and Purkayastha (1995) also found, free spaces for leisure were integral to youth’s growing need for independence. Leisure spaces in the form of teen clubs were places where presumed traditional expectations were resisted. Young people did not want adult regulatory forms of surveillance (Valentine et al., 1998) unless it was done in a supportive manner. For example, at the SS center, "slouching" was allowed. The teen clubs were places where the young people wanted and felt control of their own autonomy. This concept was evident particularly with young people at the SS club. They had painted the walls to be dark with psychedelic looking murals in various places. The overstuffed chairs were worn and comfortable. The SS participants believed that the center belonged to "just people who hang out." Enabling young people to feel they have "ownership" of a program is an important principle in establishing a sense of place (e.g., Bembry & Tufono, 1996).
The need for unstructured time and space for some teens was also evident. Young people said they really wanted to be able to hang out at the teen clubs, but by being there they made themselves open to other recreation possibilities. Providing the right balance between unstructured, relaxed, "hanging out" space and structured activities while still enabling teens to feel a sense of place is difficult. In the context of accountability and Benefits Based Management (Allen et al., 1996), however, "hanging out," is not always seen by adults as a meaningful recreation programming format. A major goal of recreation agencies is to document that something good is happening as a result of programming efforts. To many adults, however, unstructured or relaxed leisure often holds little perceived value. Having fun talking with one’s friends in a safe environment is not typically a form of recreation programming that we consider, and yet it is important and can be beneficial for teens as well as other groups (e.g., older adults, young mothers, people in addiction recovery). This form of recreation can have important outcomes if being at the teen center is preferable to being in an unsupervised place doing something that might be socially inappropriate. Therefore, recreation programmers may want to work with young people to design centers and clubs that enable the "hanging out" function. Once an audience exists at the center or within the club, possibilities for other programs that appeal to young people may occur.
Finally, we want to comment on the use of peer interviewers. Using either an adult or a young person as the interviewer both seemed to work. We obtained good information from the peer interviews, although in the future we would do more training for the young person who did the interviews. Time did not allow us to involve the teen interviewer in the interpretation of the data, but she commented on the tapes and we had informal discussion with her that were helpful as we interpreted the data. She was able to get the signed consent forms and schedule the interviews in a way that took less time than if we had done it. Respondents seemed to answer honestly, but sometimes their language required that the interviewer give us an explanation of what they meant. Teens may not have been as honest if one of the researchers had done the interview. Issues of ethics and power in research are important to consider in working with young people (Valentine et al., 1998). A peer interviewer seemed useful in getting teens to talk about their perceptions and desires. Overall, we found this peer interviewing strategy to have possibilities and we would use it again with more training at the front end and more involvement of peer interviewers throughout the process of data analysis.
If recreation spaces are to be "places" imbued with meanings, teen programmers may need to better balance the need for "relaxed leisure" as part of a structured environment. Although unstructured leisure does not appear to be as developmentally important as structured activities, it may be important and useful for some groups of young people. When undertaking teen programming, principles related to what young people want, and the variety of recreation program structures that exist, must be kept in mind. Further research needs to be undertaken to determine how teen programming can be efficacious with the focus on meaningful and safe places carefully considered.
References
Allen, L.R., Stevens, B., & Harwell, R. (1996). Benefits-based management activity planning model for youth in at-risk environments. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 10-19.
Bembry, R., & Tufono, A. (1996). The real deal: The evolution of Seattle, Washington’s at-risk youth program. In P. Witt & J. Crompton (Eds.), Programs that work for at-risk youth (pp. 81-94). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in nonschool hours. Final Report. New York: Author.
Farrell, E., Peguero, G., Lindsey, R., & White, R. (1988). Giving voice to high school students: Pressure and boredom, ‘ya know what I’m sayin’? American Educational Research Journal, 25(4), 489-502.
Greenman, J. (1988). Caring spaces, learning places. Children’s environments that work. Redmond, WA: Exchange Press Inc.
Heatherington, K. (1998). Vanloads of uproarious humanity: New age travellers and the utopics of the countryside. In T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds.), Cool places: Geographies of youth cultures (pp. 328-342). London: Routledge.
Henderson, K.A. (1991). Dimensions of choice. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Henderson, K.A. with Bialeschki, M.D.(1995). Evaluating leisure services: Making enlightened decisions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Howe, C.Z., & Keller, M.J. (1988). The use of triangulation as an evaluation technique: Illustrations from regional symposia in therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 22(1), 36-45.
Kleiber, D., Larson, R., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1986). The experience of leisure in adolescence. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(3), 169-176.
Kraus, R. (1997). Recreation and leisure in a modern society. Menlo Park, CA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1991). Boredom in the middle school years: Blaming schools verses blaming students. American Journal of Education, 99, 418-443.
Larson, R. (July, 1998). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. University of Illinois: unpublished paper.
McMeeking, D., & Purkayastha, B. (1995). "I can’t have my mom running me everywhere": Adolescents, leisure, and accessibility. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4), 360-378.
Mowl, G., & Towner, J. (1995). Women, gender, leisure and place: Towards a more "humanistic" geography of women’s leisure. Leisure Studies, 14, 102-116.
Philipp, S.F. (1998). Race and gender differences in adolescent peer group approval of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 214-232.
Ruddick, S. (1998). Modernism and resistance: How "homeless" youth subcultures make a difference. In T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds.), Cool places: Geographies of youth cultures (pp. 343-360). London: Routledge.
Shinew, K.J., Norman, K.A., & Baldwin, C.K. (1997). Early adolescents and their leisure time: Implications for leisure service agencies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(2), 61-83.
Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Valentine, G., Skelton, T., & Chambers, D. (1998). Cool places: An introduction to youth and youth cultures. In T. Skelton & G. Valentine (Eds.), Cool places: Geographies of youth cultures (pp. 1-32). London: Routledge.
Van Roosmalen, E., & Krahn, H. (1996). Boundaries of youth. Youth & Society, 28, 3-39.
Wearing, B. (1996). Gender: The pain and pleasure of difference. Melbourne, Australia: Addison Wesley Longman Australia Pty Limited.
Witt, P.A., & Crompton, J.L. (1996a). The at-risk youth recreation project. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 1-9.
Witt, P. A., & Crompton J.L. (Eds.). (1996b). Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.