Youth at risk: recreation and prevention: park and recreation departments can positively benefit at-risk youth.

Increasing numbers of youth are considered to be "at risk." The U.S. Census Bureau in 2000 reported the youth population was 71.6 million (Lugaila, 2003). Projections note that up to 50 percent of the youth population is at risk (Dryfoos, 1990; Lugaila, 2003). In response to this alarming statistic, many programs have been developed to meet the needs of youth at risk (Lugaila, 2003). National organizations like the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention focused on the development of prevention programs, or programs that seek to change behaviors that threaten the ability of youth to develop into healthy and productive adults (Satcher, 2001). Youth is also a focus of Healthy People 2010, which is the national prevention agenda for the next 10 years (Howard, Russoniello, & Rogers, 2004). Numerous goals relating to youth, and the factors that place youth at risk are included in this agenda (e.g., decreased use of alcohol and illicit drugs, decreased violence, increased physical activity, decrease obesity) (Healthy People, n.d.).

Recreation programs have also begun to address the growing concerns of youth at risk. This is because recreation can do more than just fill youths' non-obligated hours. Recreation opportunities can give them a chance to discover healthy interests and strengthen leadership skills in safe environments. Recreation and leisure also provide opportunities for youth to positively socialize with peers and to relieve stress. Because recreation tends to be enjoyable, it can be used as a "hook" to attract youth to prevention programs and redirect "unproductive" times when youth can get into trouble (Witt & Crompton, 1996a).

In the late 1980s, park and recreation departments (PARDs) began to design programs for youth at risk (West & Crompton, 2001). For a long time PARDs thought their programs had the potential to be both prevention and intervention, or that recreation programs could prevent youth from getting into trouble and could intervene or modify behaviors like criminal activity, violence or substance abuse (Witt & Crompton, 1996a). Even though that was the prevailing theory, little was actually known about the programs provided by PARDs or the outcomes of those programs (Scott, Witt, & Foss, 1996; Witt & Crompton, 1996a, 1996b).

Because so little was known about PARDs' programs, a national profile of programs that addressed the needs of youth at risk was developed by Schultz, Crompton and Witt (1995). After surveying 38 programs, 55 percent of the respondents indicated they provided programs for youth at risk; and of that number, 61 percent offered programs that separated youth at risk from general programs and the other 39 percent offered programs where youth at risk were not separated.

The results showed that 28 percent of the agencies offered programs before 1987, 51 percent began programs in 1989-1991, and 41 percent began targeting youth at risk after 1991. The types of children and youth served by those responding to the study included the following: "(a) potential youth at risk (67 percent), (b) at risk children and youth (21 percent), (c) juvenile delinquents (10 percent), and (d) chronic delinquents (2 per cent)" (Schultz et al., 1995, p. 9). The results indicated that PARDs were primarily involved with prevention programs rather than intervention programs. Additionally, youth were involved in recreation programs long before troubled behaviors were exhibited (Schultz et al., 1995).

Outcomes of Recreation Prevention Programs

A National Consortium on Recreation and Youth Development was formed because of the growing need to provide effective programs for youth at risk. The consortium consisted of 12 universities and was supported by NRPA. Funding for the consortium was through the National Recreation Foundation. One focus of the consortium was the facilitation of studies that explored programs for youth at risk and the identification of outcomes from these programs. Although this line of inquiry started in 1993, the research in this area is still relatively limited in number (National Consortium on Recreation and Youth Development, n.d.). Research studies have explored the effectiveness of recreation programs for youth at risk in Boys and Girls Clubs (e.g., Carruthers & Busser, 2000; King, Valerius, & Collins, 1998), after school programs (e.g., Baker & Witt, 1996; Rearick & Caldwell, n.d.; Scott et al., 1996), teen centers (e.g., Ellis & Caldwell, n.d.), adventure programs (e.g., West & Crompton, 2001), and others (e.g., Everett, Caldwell, & McChesney, 2002; Lobo & Olson, 2000). Most of the programs that were evaluated were prevention programs. The studies showed that overall, the programs had positive outcomes.

Scott et al. (1996) evaluated a preventive after-school program for youth at risk. The parents involved with the program identified major reasons--such as having an alternative to the youth being at home alone and having a structured program that was goal-oriented--for wanting their youth involved with the program. Other after-school programs the parents had encountered were not goal-oriented. The study also found the program acted as a buffer for the youth by providing positive role models that helped them feel accepted. Through involvement in the program, the youth increased their ability to resolve conflict and to work positively with others. Scott et al. indicated that caring adult leaders were a main characteristic of this successful program. There were, however, some limitations to the program, including the cost of the program and the selective criteria for acceptance. In addition, parents actively sought to send their children to the program, but many youth considered to be at risk do not have parents who seek out opportunities for their children.

Carruthers and Busser (2000) conducted an outcome study on a preventive recreation program in a Boys and Girls Club. Data was collected through participant observations at the program's facilities, and through interviews with program staff, club members and parents. The study showed that as a result of being in the program, the youth developed leadership skills that increased their self-esteem and perception of competence. The youth were able to get along and stay out of trouble. Carruthers and Busser indicated these positive outcomes were directly connected with the club and recreation program that provided a nurturing environment for the youth. The club became a second home for many of the youth, and the staff became like family members who were positive role models that provided guidance and advice. Overall, involvement in the club and the recreation program provided the youth with a sense of belonging, safety, and having their basic needs met.

Focus on specific risk behaviors, like substance abuse, led some recreation programs to collaborate with social service providers (e.g., social workers, school personnel) to deliver prevention programs. In one instance, a Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse collaborated with a Boys and Girls Club and developed a substance abuse program that was designed to prevent or reduce substance use for youth, ages 11 to 17 years old (King et al., 1998). A curriculum-based prevention program called Horizons was utilized, which included six hours of educational information on substance use. This initial section looked at physical, mental and social aspects of using.

The second section was divided into six units (four hours each): (a) self-esteem; (b) communication; (c) managing stress; (d) relationships; (e) decision-making; and (f) alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. A family education program was offered to provide general education on substance use and chemical dependency, identify signs of using, family roles, community resources, raising a drug-free child and other related issues. This part of the program included parents, siblings, teachers/school personnel, and friends/peers of the youth.

Finally, referral and follow-up services were provided for additional support for individuals, family and community. The cost was free for the participants since the program was funded through a grant. King et al. noted that while recreation programs enhance self-esteem, physical activity and development of skills, "without providing knowledge and skills to enhance protective factors and counter the risk factors that are so pervasive in these adolescents' lives, the full benefit of the recreation program may not be realized (p. 93)."

Program Leadership

As noted by Carruthers and Busser (2000), Scott et al. (1996) and Witt and Crompton (1996c), program leadership may be one of the most essential ingredients in providing successful recreation programs for youth at risk. Carruthers and Busser noted that agency supervisors will need to ensure that direct staff be leaders, and have the correct knowledge to make programming successful. The authors recommended that direct staff have the ability to provide age-appropriate activities and the social space necessary to meet the needs and skills of the youth. The staff will also need relationship skills, the ability to develop outcome-oriented programs and experience in youth-serving agencies prior to working with youth at risk.

Other authors have also identified competencies and characteristics needed for staff working in PARDs' youth at risk programs. Bembry (1998) noted that recreation providers working with youth at risk should understand neighborhood behaviors, build relationships with community leaders, feel empathy for youth and relate to youth. Bembry also identified characteristics like enthusiasm, leadership, motivation, caring for the program and participants, follow-through and consistency. In addition, programmers must be able to assess the participants' level of risk prior to implementing programs. There are three levels of risk (low-risk, at-risk and high-risk). Programs and activities should be designed to match the individual's needs in response to each of these levels of risk such as: (a) maintenance programs designed to address youth with a normal level of risk, (b) prevention programs designed for youth facing higher levels of risk, and (c) intervention programs focused on decreasing levels of harmful risks (Bembry, 1998).

The case studies by Witt and Crompton showed that leaders need different skills today in dealing with youth than were needed in the past to provide prevention programs. Carruthers and Busser (2000) indicated that universities might need to develop or revise curricula in order for students to learn the skills needed to provide appropriate and effective prevention programs for youth at risk. In fact, Witt and Crompton noted:

   With limited resources, recreation and
   park agencies have to make choices. Prevention
   programs seek to pro-actively
   change the behavior of at-risk individuals,
   rather than undertake reactionary
   efforts after children have dropped out
   of school, started using drugs or become
   involved with the legal system. These
   programs may be more feasible to implement
   than intervention programs,
   which frequently require resources and
   expertise beyond those available to many
   recreation and park systems (p. 10).

The research shows that PARDs are demonstrating success in providing prevention programs for some youth at risk. Youth at risk, however, often present complex problems and behaviors that present challenges to traditional park and recreation professionals (Witt & Crompton, 1996a, 1996c). The importance of collaborating with social service professionals on complex issues like substance abuse was noted by King et al. (1998).

Therapeutic recreation (TR) professionals may be an even stronger source of support for PARDs in dealing with youth at risk. In fact, some PARDs have begun to collaborate with TR professionals who work in special recreation associations (SRAs) (Brown & Sevcik, 1999). TR professionals in SRAs are actively involved in including teens in park district programs by designing behavior modification plans. In addition to including youth at risk in PARDs programs, SRAs are also providing prevention and intervention programs for youth who have learning disorders, drug and alcohol addictions, conduct disorders, emotional problems, behavior disorders and other problems.

The Surgeon General's Report (Satcher, 2001) noted that although there is a great need to have effective programs for youth at risk, there may be an even greater need for appropriately trained staff to design and deliver these programs, especially for youth with multiple problems or disabilities. A review of the literature shows that PARDs' programs have successfully facilitated positive outcomes for youth with normal or slightly higher levels of risk (cf., Bembry, 1998). These outcomes correlate to the goals set forth in the national agenda, Healthy People 2010. PARDs' programs, however, seem to have a more difficult time working with youth who are at the higher levels of risk or who have more challenging behaviors. This problem provides an exciting potential for collaboration between recreators who work in PARDs and therapeutic recreation professionals.

References

Baker, B., & Witt, P. A. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two-after school programs for youth at-risk. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 66-81.

Bembry, R. (1998). A youth development strategy: Principles to practice in re-creation for the 21st century. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(2), 15-34.

Brown, L. J., & Sevcik, K. (1999). TR for youth at risk. Illinois Parks and Recreation, 20(4), 31-33.

Caldwell, L. L. (2001). Reflections on therapeutic recreation and youth: Possibilities for broadening horizons. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 35(4), 279-288.

Carruthers, C. P., & Busser, J. A. (2000). A qualitative study of boys and girls club program leaders, club members, and parents. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(1), 50-67.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk. Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, J., & Caldwell, L. L. (n.d.). Increasing youth voice through participation in a recreation based teen center. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from National Consortium on Recreation and Youth Development Web site: http://rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/witt/consort.htm

Everett, C., Caldwell, J., & McChesney, J. C. (2002). Successful programs for at-risk youth. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 73(9), 38-43.

Healthy People 2010. (n.d.) Retrieved October 26, 2004, from http://healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/uih_bw/uih_4.htm

Howard, D., Russoniello, C., & Rogers, D. (2004). Healthy People 2010 and therapeutic recreation: Professional opportunities to promote public health. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 38(2), 116-132.

King, T. C., Valerius, L., & Collins, J. R. (1998). A collaborative substance abuse prevention and intervention program for at risk adolescents. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 81-94.

Klitzing, S. (2002). Collaboration between general recreation and therapeutic recreation professionals: The best practice for successful inclusion. Parks and Recreation, 60-65.

Lobo, F., & Olson, E. (2000). Leisure services and children at-risk: Against all odds. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(1), 5-18.

Lugaila, T. A. (2003). A child's day: 2000 (selected indicators of child well-being). U. S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration (pp. 70-89). Retrieved March 11, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf

National Consortium on Recreation and Youth Development. (n.d.) Retrieved February 17, 2004, from http.//rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/witt/consort.htm

Rearick, J., & Caldwell, L. L. (n. d.). Evaluation of an after-school program affiliated with the central Blair county recreation and park commission. Retrieved February 17, 2004, from National Consortium on Recreation and Youth Development Web site: http.//rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/witt/consort.htm

Satcher, D. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general. Retrieved December 14, 2002, from http:/www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence.html

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

Scott, D., Witt, P. A., & Foss, M G. (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), 41-59.

West, S. T., & Crompton, J. L. (2001). A review of the impact of adventure programs on at-risk youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(2), 113-140.

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.

Witt, P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1996c). Major themes emerging from the case studies. In P. A. Witt & J. L. Crompton (Eds.). Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future (pp. 7-33). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

RELATED ARTICLE: research into action: prevention programs for youth at risk.

Overview

Youth at risk is a growing population. National organizations have focused on the development of prevention programs, or programs that seek to change behaviors that threaten the ability of youth to develop into healthy, productive adults (Satcher, 2001).

Recreation has also addressed this social issue by implementing programs that target youth from getting into trouble. While the literature shows that park and recreation departments have facilitated positive outcomes for youth, more research is needed to understand how best to provide prevention programs for youth at risk.

Impact

Recreation has great potential for combating the growing number of youth at risk, and to provide valuable services to keep youth from getting into, or further into, trouble. Emphasis on prevention programs also places recreation directly in line with our nation's agenda, Healthy People 2010.

Research Application Ideas

Some specific ideas for recreation programmers and researchers include:

* Hire staff with expertise in youth development and youth at risk, and/or train existing staff who work with youth at risk. Successful outcomes require staff to have competencies that will help design and implement goal-oriented prevention programs that address the risk levels of youth.

* Collaboration between general recreation and therapeutic recreation professionals should be encouraged, so that the needs of high-risk youth with challenging behaviors or problems can be met. Just as collaboration is critical for successful inclusion of people with disabilities into park district programs (Klitzing, 2002), it may also be important for providing appropriate prevention programs for youth at risk.

* Identify competencies needed for PARDs' staff to provide prevention programs for youth at risk. Academic curricula can then be evaluated to ensure these competencies are being taught.

* Design prevention programs for youth at risk that are based on the initiatives delineated in our nation's agenda, Healthy People 2010. PARDs should track the outcomes of these programs and communicate these outcomes to state and national agencies that are monitoring the success of the agenda. Addressing these national initiatives can have a profound effect on the overall quality of life of youth in our communities. It can also demonstrate the social relevance of PARDs' programs.

Julie K. S. Sprouse, M.S., is a case manager at Fayette Companies Human Service Center. Sandra Wolf Klitzing, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the School of Kinesiology and Recreation at Illinois State University. The content for the column is based on Sprouse's (2004) master's thesis completed at Illinois State University under the direction of Dr. Klitzing.