Programming for the future: parks, recreation and youth development.

From its inception, the parks and recreation movement has aimed to provide more than activities designed simply to keep kids off the streets and occupied. Interest in this instrumental role of recreation has fluctuated, but over the past decade there has been a resurgence in interest in developing youth recreation programs with broader purposes.

In 1994, NRPA published Beyond Fun and Games: Emerging Roles of Public Recreation. The book highlighted 19 programmatic responses by park and recreation departments to the emerging focus on providing recreation services for youth. A central premise of the volume was that recreation settings could play an instrumental role in meeting the developmental needs of youth. Now, we have developed 16 additional case studies illustrating best practices in providing recreation service for youths. Our work has been published by NRPA; see the box on p. 67 for more information. This article summarizes themes emerging from this latest group of case studies and shows progress in conceptualizing and developing youth programs since we last published similar work in 1996.

The Rationale for Services

The development of youth recreation programs has been spurred by four main factors.

Changing demographics: In our major cities, the proportion of African-Americans, Hispanics and immigrants has increased substantially, inevitably creating tensions and challenges of assimilation within communities. The situation is exacerbated by the high rates of unemployment among young people and the relatively large number of families living below the poverty level. Communities want to use recreation programs to help with assimilation and enhancing cultural diversity

Concerns about negative youth behaviors: During the late 1980s and early 1990s, many cities reported substantial increases in drug use and violent crime among youth, accelerated school dropout rates and increased rates of teen pregnancy While declines in these negative trends have occurred in the last few years, the rates are still unacceptably high. Local residents and political leaders have looked for youth development programs to be part of the solution to these problems.

Growth in number of latchkey children: Problems associated with a lack of adult supervision at home are pervasive across communities because of the number of two wage-earner families and the number of single-parent households. If children aren't directed into constructive activities outside the home, then they're likely to spend after-school time watching television or playing video games, or out on the streets, where they may be susceptible to peer pressure to engage in inappropriate or negative activities. Accordingly, there has been a groundswell among parks and recreation departments in the number of after-school, summer and late-night programs for children.

Concerns about educational attainment: In the 1990s, many states established mandatory standardized tests designed to assess students' abilities in basic subjects. Educators and education policy makers have come under considerable pressure to demonstrate improvements. While the primary focus is on improving the quality of education within the school day, there has been growing recognition that after-school recreation programs can contribute to meeting this goal.

Youth Involvement

If youth programs are going to deliver the outcomes that communities seek, they must be interesting enough to young people to attract their participation. Those who have been exposed to the "action" and "excitement" of illicit activities require challenging, interesting programs to retain their interest. For all youth, avoiding boredom by finding constructive and interesting things to do can be a challenge.

Too often, youths believe that adults plan for them, rather than with them. Recreation personnel sometimes forget that it's the journey, rather than the activity itself, that's most rewarding. Many agencies have empowered youth by having them take ownership and responsibility for programs. There has been a shift from centralized top-down decision making by recreation professionals to decentralized, youth-centered decision making.

Parks and recreation departments have increasingly been involved in sponsoring and planning youth summits and encouraging youth participation in community-wide task forces. The typical charge to these forums is to solicit broad community input to identify all dimensions of the problem, recommend actions to alleviate the problem, and coordinate and mobilize community resources. The summits have helped communities move from identifying problems to creating and organizing programs designed to ameliorate the problems.

The Evolving Mission

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, most agencies defined their at-risk youth services mission as engaging the children in "fun and games" so as to keep them off the streets and out of trouble. Most communities recognized that parks and recreation departments had the best distribution system available for addressing youth issues. However, expectations often were limited to opening facilities and hiring minimum wage, part-time employees to "babysit" youths and the facility. This goal of removing the potential for anti-social behavior by diverting them into positive activities elsewhere is of limited value because it's time-bounded. That is, during the large amounts of time when they're not engaged in these diversionary activities, the youths' proclivity for anti-social behavior remains.

As programs have matured, and stakeholders have acquired a more sophisticated understanding of the potential of youth programming, the mission has evolved. The focus has become youth development that encompasses both amelioration of problem behaviors and helping youth increase pro-social attitudes and behaviors. As one researcher puts it, the new paradigm requires developing a "common vision of success at the end of adolescence; in particular, the ability of youth to find rewarding and remunerative employment, form a lasting and qualifying partnership, and become contributors in their communities."

Parks and recreation departments are increasingly adopting the Developmental Assets Model or the Protective Factors/Resiliency Model to define their role in the overall youth development framework and identify the components of high-quality programs. Among the components are:

* A sense of safety, but one accompanied by challenging and interesting activities.

* A sense of belonging.

* Supportive relationships with adults.

* Involvement in decision making and opportunities for leadership.

* Involvement in community.

Programs designed with these components in mind focus on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, rather than merely keeping youths occupied. The case studies that we assembled demonstrate the advantages of moving beyond a casual approach to programming to one that involves intentionality: What do we want to have happen, and how are we going to make it happen?

Ultimately, parks and recreation departments that cling to the fun-and-games orientation will fail to position themselves as relevant to community efforts to develop a system of youth services and realize the funding support that exists for recreation services.

Collaborations and Partnerships

To accomplish these instrumental goals, recreational professionals have been required to adopt different modes of operation, and acquire a new knowledge base and new skills. Parks and recreation departments' programs frequently include after-school tutoring, community service, job training, leadership development, health education and developing social skills. Unfortunately, existing staff often aren't equipped to direct such programs.

In many cases, parks and recreation departments have assumed leadership in coordinating community youth services. They seek to supply services on a residual basis, filling niches not available from other suppliers. Park and recreation personnel invariably have extensive networks that can be mobilized to meet youth needs, so they're able to bring youth development agencies together to develop a community-wide service plan. Perhaps the most frequently cited aphorism in youth development is the African proverb, "It takes a whole village to raise a child." Parks and recreation departments must be perceived to be part of the village. According to the director of Portland Parks and Recreation, "This is the chance for us to demonstrate the full value of who we are and what we can do. Society needs help with its youth, and we have a piece of the solution. While retaining our uniqueness and autonomy we in the field of recreation, who share the same values and goals, can accomplish more by working together than we can on our own."

One of the priority issues in youth development is finding young people a place in the community where they have ownership and responsibility, feel welcome and safe, and can socialize, obtain information and receive services. While community centers cater to a sector of youth, many youths want more autonomy and independence from adult-like facilities, and there has been an increased call for separate spaces in which youths can hang out.

This broadened approach to distribution of services is often accompanied by parks' and recreations departments' roles shifting from being direct providers to becoming facilitators. Adopting the facilitator role requires agencies to serve as enabling agents and take on the tasks of coordination, referral and technical assistance.

Outreach Programs

Recreation doesn't stop at the center door. Outreach services extend the reach of youth development programs beyond youths who go to agency facilities to those who aren't comfortable in institutional settings. Through outreach efforts, an agency reaches out and assists through personal contacts citizens who are systematically excluded from, unaware of or unreceptive to an agency's service or those of related agencies.

Outreach is manifested through two different, but related, service delivery vehicles. First is the mobile recreation center, which provides a flexible and adaptable medium for delivering services. Mobile centers can be scheduled for the evening or daytime, for long or short periods, on a continuous or onetime basis, and can carry equipment for a wide range of programs. The concept springs from the century-long tradition of motorized public libraries providing service to areas of a community that are beyond the recognized service zones of branch libraries.

The second form of outreach is roving leader programs, which are even less facility-dependent than mobile facilities. The premise undergirding these programs is that youth workers who "roam" a neighborhood in which they're based will be able to connect with disaffected youths. Often, workers live in the areas where they work, giving them credibility with and a better understanding of these youths.

Four elements of roving leader programs have been identified that differentiate them from other service vehicles. First, services are based on problems in young people's lives as opposed to a specific program activity. Therefore, services are available to youths who have the greatest need rather than those who have paid a fee or joined a given group. Second, programs are heavily dependent on the relationship between youth and staff. Third, contact occurs in the community, not in an institutional setting. This element is important, because most institutions have formal standards that guide youth leaders in client selection and service, which may eliminate some youth from participating. Finally, the services provided by roving leaders aren't initially requested by youths. The leader is required to reach out and take steps to alleviate any fear, suspicion or hostility that might exist. All of these outreach principles stress the importance of the personal relationship developed between staff and youth.

Staffing that Works

Adults supply the scaffolding necessary to enable youths to navigate from childhood to adulthood. Like emerging buildings, youths need support during "construction and development." As they become better able to stand on their own, the scaffolding can be reduced and, eventually, withdrawn. Throughout the case studies, the key role of adults is consistently recognized in facilitating and guiding youth input into planning, organizing and leading programs, and in mentoring. A diversified staff (on the basis of race, gender, age and education) is desirable. An ethnically diverse staff that includes people from different service backgrounds (recreation, arts, education, social work, criminal justice, psychology, etc) is likely to be more comprehensive and responsive in its approach to youth development. As one expert in the field puts it, the most effective adults are those who "work in partnership with young people, who see themselves as supportive friends and advocates, in contrast to adults motivated to save, reform or rescue young people from their circumstances." The caring adults may be parents or volunteers from the community, but the central responsibility is likely to reside with parks and recreation youth workers.

Recognizing that the most important factor in reaching adulthood is a positive relationship with a caring adult, many parks and recreation departments are replacing part-time jobs with full-time adult leadership positions. Full-time positions enable staff to develop a stronger rapport with youth, result in reduced staff turnover (thereby increasing the likelihood of sustained mentoring relationships) and provide time for relationships to be established with complementary youth service organizations.

Training staff remains a challenge to most agencies, because there's often no budget for it. Nevertheless, the cases show that some parks and recreation departments strive to provide training in such areas as mentoring skills and group facilitation, community development, youth development principles, understanding the broader youth development system, financing and acquiring resources, and marketing. Training should occur before a service is initiated and on an ongoing basis so that the knowledge base is consistently enhanced.

Because they contain an educational enrichment component and have academic attainment goals, many after-school programs employ teachers. This creates a reimbursement conundrum, because teachers typically are compensated at their professional salary rate for these additional duties, while recreation leaders doing similar work typically receive $6 to $8 per hour. This disparity, combined with the emotional intensity of the work and the difficult nature of the clientele, often results in high staff turnover and a disruption of mentoring relationships. Low levels of remuneration are endemic in youth development work. Even when high-quality staff are recruited who enjoy the job, retaining them for an extended period of time can be difficult.

Resource Support

External funds are usually short-term, relatively unstable and often designated for tightly defined programs. Thus, they should be regarded as temporary resources that provide an opportunity to pilot test programs and to demonstrate to elected officials that programs have positive outcomes that make them worthy of support from the city's general fund. In some cases, this has occurred, and programs have become a line-item in the general fund.

However, too often this evolution of funding from temporary to permanent sources hasn't occurred, even when effective outcomes have been demonstrated and strikingly favorable benefit-cost analyses shown. The impact of lack of continuity on youth is likely to be traumatic. It reinforces prevailing cynicism with "the system," and engenders a distrust that may preclude any future involvement with mentors and programs. The withdrawal of funding when trust and a mentoring relationship have been established becomes another broken promise in their lives.

Outreach programs tend to be especially vulnerable to budget cutbacks because, at such times, there's a tendency for cities to give priority to operating programs emanating from physical facilities. There's a sunk capital cos. that residents have invested in facilities, and their return on this visible investment isn't forthcoming if funds for operating them aren't made available. In contrast, there are no tangible facility assets that aren't being used if the outreach programs are cut. Hence, from a political perspective, cutting outreach programs is frequently viewed as a more palatable and expedient solution to budget cuts than reducing staff levels at facilities.

Evaluation of Program Outcomes

Evaluation is key to continued funding and to guiding managers' continuous-improvement efforts. Elected officials are likely to require evidence of a program's success before appropriating public tax dollars for its continuation. At the beginning of the 1990s, parks and recreation departments' evaluation efforts focused almost exclusively on measuring attendance, service quality and user satisfaction. However, the forces driving the funding support for youth programs are concerned with outcomes, such as what happened to given youths as a result of their experiences, or what return the community received on its investment in the program.

We have evaluated dozens of youth development programs in the past decade. At the beginning of the work, our effort was directed exclusively towards measuring outcomes. Two points quickly became apparent that caused a review of this modus operandi. First, improvements in desired outcomes were dependent upon the design and structure of the program. Second, the extent to which desired outcomes were attained could be measured only if they had been specified in measurable terms when the program was launched. Properly formulated objectives serve as guidelines for designing a program. Structured, attainable objectives offer an incentive for improvement if they're effectively communicated and understood by staff.

Final Thoughts

Parks and recreation departments are one of the key components of a community's investment in youth. Through these settings, young people acquire developmental assets while being encouraged to be assets to their communities--activity involvement can yield contact with caring adults, and youth leadership creates innovation in programming and facilities and helps young people shape the future of their communities.

Community-based initiatives, such as those undertaken by park and recreation departments, need to be engaging enough to hold youths' attention and provide meaningful ways for youths to avoid boredom and be involved in constructive activities. Enabling and valuing the contributions of young people is critical to keeping them involved. Agencies work best when they partner with other community resources to foster a supportive network of youth development supports and opportunities.

RELATED ARTICLE

Best Practices in Youth Development in Public Park and Recreation Settings, by Peter Witt, Ph.D., and John Compton, Ph.D., is available for purchase through NRPA's Publication Office. The 280-page book contains 16 new case studies of recreation programs that contribute to youth development. It's a follow-up to NRPA's 1996 book Public Recreation in High Risk Environments: Programs that Work. NRPA members pay $24.50; nonmembers, $35. Visit www.nrpa.org or call 703-858-2190 to order.

Peter Witt, Ph.D., holds the Elda K. Bradberry Recreation and Youth Development Endowed Chair in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences at Texas A&M University. John Compton, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor in the same department.