The at-risk youth recreation project - recreation and juvenile problems

Many members of our profession have long recognized the potential of park and recreation departments (PARDs) to be a primary community resource for alleviating societal problems associated with at-risk youth. 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-19th 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, we need scientific evaluations that show the impact of park and recreation services on the knowledge, attitudes and behaviors of at-risk youth. Ideally, these studies should be controlled, using treatment and control groups (where possible). Unlike simply counting participants, collecting testimonials and anecdote, or relying solely on participant surveys, controlled studies can provide scientifically legitimate evidence. This type of evidence 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. In order to be effective, 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 an NRPA-sponsored project, which was funded through the National Recreation Foundation (NRF). To start up the project, 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.

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.

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 pretest in their second phase.

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

Instrument and Evaluation

Handbook Development

Two major instruments have been developed. The Protective Factors Scale was developed to measure program outcomes in 10 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, to 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 more than 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 US and Canada was produced outlining programmatic philosophy, goals, program content, partnerships, and outcomes (Witt & Crompton, 1996). 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, 1996), and has been widely distributed by the Department of Juvenile Justice and NRPA.

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 longterm, 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, 1996, 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. We need to continue to accrue evidence that 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.

References

Baker, D. S. 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. (1996). Results of Houston Rockets Best Shot Program Evaluation. Texas A&M University: unpublished project report.

Witt, P.A. & Baker, D. (1996). 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. (1996). Programs that Work: Public Recreation in High Risk Environments. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.

Witt, P.A. & Crompton, J.L. (1996). 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.

COPYRIGHT 1997 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group