Moving beyond the walls: the need for youth outreach programs - Research Update

Youth-serving agencies, such as park and recreation departments, have comprehensive potential to promote positive youth development, yet they are often ignored in public policy debate (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1994). This is primarily due to their lack of political clout and marginalized images of their importance and worth among taxpayers and decision-makers (Crompton, 1999). However, park and recreation departments can be a primary community resource for youth prevention and intervention programs. In fact, the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1994) found that community leaders held unanimously positive opinions of the value that youth recreation provided. However, even where such programs exist, attracting and involving youth with the highest needs on a consistent basis can be problematic. Therefore, park and recreation departments need to follow the lead of our community recreation founders and work in an outreach capacity directly with youth in their communities.

Moving Beyond the Walls: The Need for Youth Outreach Programs

Some park and recreation departments have recognized that their programs are not meeting the needs of certain youth. In some cities this has led to the development of initiatives that specifically target youth who are not drawn to more traditional recreation programs. There is a growing movement to move youth workers into communities where they can work directly with youth, rather than waiting for youth to take the initiative to go to a fixed program site (Witt & Baker, 1999). This direct-contact method is driven by the recognition of a need for a more individualized approach to youth who feel alienated by more traditional programs. Often this outreach approach necessitates staff taking on a mentoring role, a common characteristic of outreach programs.

Schools and other youth-serving organizations have typically been structured around serving specific groups. As the history of the park and recreation movement illustrates, youth work in its modern guise emerged as a movement designed to fill the perception of a dangerous void created by unsupervised free time. Although this need drove the proliferation of youth-serving organizations during the early part of the 20th century, many people were convinced that these services were only reaching a small percentage of working-class youth, while many others remained involved in undesirable behavior.

Thus, alongside mainstream programs, a renewed focus to find ways of engaging youth who were not attracted to traditional services emerged. As a result, innovative programs designed to engage "dangerous and threatening youth" materialized, particularly programs that engaged youth on their own territory, on the street and other places where they congregated (Jeff, 1997).

Potential for Disconnection

Although the importance of formal youth-serving institutions such as park and recreation departments cannot be underestimated, disconnection is a common phenomenon particularly among youth from lower-class communities. There are a number of barriers that preclude youth participation in programs. Jones (1980) found that even if youth were involved with a youth-serving organization, participation was sporadic. He found two interesting reasons behind this. First, youth clubs sometimes found it too great a challenge to deal with testing and disruptive behavior displayed by participants. In other cases he found that non-participation resulted from a lack of confidence on the part of the youth themselves. This led to youth exhibiting passivity and an unwillingness to cross new thresholds and try new experiences.

Hendry (1991) argued that non-participation in structured recreation organizations is often the result of organizations being too tame, too over-organized, or too much like school to appeal to some youth. Thus, while "conforming youth" may continue to be attracted to these organizations and the adults who run them, other youth may find these organizations unappealing or irrelevant. For example, some research has found that adolescents were not involved in formal recreation activities because they were too aligned with school organization and structure (Hendry & Simpson, 1977). Thus, because the nature of the program was too reminiscent of school or because programs took place in school, youth were put off.

Hendry (1991) also argued that there is a possibility that (subconsciously) adults outside the family structure, who are often middle-class professionals espousing similar values, frequently attract children who match their characteristics and may unwittingly deter kids who are different. A Search Institute study (Saito, Benson, Blyth & Sharma, 1995) found that the four main factors that contributed to non-participation were: a lack of interesting programs, transportation problems, lack of knowledge and the cost of programs offered. Thus, despite the presence and availability of valuable youth-development resources in communities, certain youth may be disconnected from them resulting in predictable negative consequences.

Wilson (1996) pinpoints two forms of disconnection from community resources. The first, deliberate isolation, occurs when families deliberately isolate themselves from institutions and individuals within mainstream society. The second, unintentional isolation, occurs when families lack contact with institutions and individuals within mainstream society. The consequences for children in these socially isolated situations are that they are often socialized by adults who lack the skills, experiences and resources conducive to healthy child development. Further, in these neighborhoods, peer group cultures play a much greater role in shaping adolescent behavior, including detrimentally unhealthy behaviors such as sexual encounters, drug use, gang involvement and alcohol consumption (Wilson, 1996).

Thus, although youth programs and opportunities available for individuals from economically deprived neighborhoods exist (such as school-based afterschool enrichment programs, recreation center drop-in programs, sports leagues set up by recreation centers or other independent youth organizations, such as Boys & Girls Clubs among others), there are still youth who remain disconnected from services offered in their community.

Revisiting the Importance of Outreach: Some Key Components

Three key components of successful youth-outreach program are the importance of relationships, the recognition of the importance of human resources, and the importance of being grounded in the context of the community.

The Importance of Relationships in Outreach Programs

It is important to allow staff to develop deeper relationships with youth than in more mainstream programs. Many youth that outreach programs target have very unstable lives. For example, in studies of certain Roving Leader programs (e.g., Baker & Witt, 2000; Bocarro, 2001; Crompton & Witt, 1997), participants were residentially unstable, often moving at a whim to stay with another family member or friend or moving with their family to another residence. Both McIntyre (2000) and Newman (1999) noted that these circumstances necessitate that programs must be flexible in order to deal with the stresses created by the high mobility of these youth.

Residential instability also has an impact on a child's trust. Changing schools and moving to different areas entails different people coming in and out of one's life. McIntyre (2000) argued that this state of uncertainty could result in youth finding it hard to develop intimate relationships. Difficulty in developing supportive networks of friends can lead to additional stress.

Recently there has been a growth in mentoring research and literature suggesting that mentors can be an effective intervention for vulnerable children (Rhodes, Haiget & Briggs, 1999). Some research with vulnerable adolescents suggests that relationships with caring adults can make a difference in their lives (Cowen & Work, 1988; Werner & Smith, 1992). Other studies have shown that youth who have attained personal, academic or professional success despite growing up in impoverished and difficult circumstances have attributed that success to the influence of an informal mentor or role model (Anderson, 1991; Freedman, 1993; Levine & Nidiffer, 1996). Advocates of these mentor support systems also point to the psychological, social, academic and career understanding these relationships provide (Rhodes & Davis, 1996). Underlying characteristics of successful mentors include the mentor "being there" when the child is in need, a mentor who believes in and cares deeply about the child, a mentor who inspires the child to do his or her best, and the child knowing the mentor has influenced the choices he or she makes (c.f. studies cited in Rhodes & Davis, 1996). The role of adult mentors appears to be a promising and popular development in youth outreach programs; this is especially true in programs where youth workers recognize the need to better serve under-represented youth.

Recognition of the Importance of Human Resources

Building upon the notion of relationships is the realization that the most important outreach-program resource is the staff. While new facilities and equipment are important, recreation or community centers cannot be effective without high-quality, dedicated staff to operate them. Thus, a long-term investment in staff employed in outreach programs and mainstream facilities is crucial. Indeed, research on mentoring programs has shown that the quality of the mentor significantly influences success rates (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992; Royse, 1998; Slicker & Palmer, 1993).

Hiring and keeping quality staff is a challenge. Because staff attracted to work in youth outreach programs is usually intrinsically motivated by the prospect of genuinely making a difference in the lives of kids, there is a danger of taking them for granted. Thus they are often given little support, supervision or training opportunities, which collectively result in a high rate of attrition.

Thompson (1999) discussed the importance of administrators understanding the inherent stresses of the job such as the relative isolation, the long hours, the lack of status and professional identification and the constant struggle to do the right thing in the right way. She suggested that a greater attentiveness to staff needs by administrators could prevent burnout and reduce attrition rates.

The Importance of Being Grounded in the Context of the Community

The importance of establishing outreach programs around a community's needs should not be underestimated. This needs-based approach is often in contrast to some other programs that target kids from low-income communities. Often, these programs enroll youth in specific activities with predesigned goals, without staff having much (if any) prior connection with the participants.

The importance of being grounded in community context is an issue often overlooked by program designers. For example, McKnight and Kretzmann (cited in Lerner, 1995) noted that low-income neighborhoods are often characterized by negative neighborhood characteristics (e.g., slum housing, crime rates and drug abuse) without examining assets that already exist such as cultural and religious organizations, citizen associations and other youth programs. Initiatives that overlook these assets and focus solely on a community's problems may be susceptible to wasting resources and duplicating services already established.

One of the most difficult issues facing recreation service providers is that the needs of most youth do not come in neat, easily-identifiable packages. For example, Dryfoos (1990) noted that high-risk behaviors are often interrelated and are hard to address individually. Indeed, many youth who come from tough inner city environments face a larger number of difficult issues. As Brice-Heath and McLaughlin (1993) pointed out, a youth's identity is often tied up in a mesh of different issues such as in the character of the community, the resources offered in the community, their family, and their friends. Furthermore, youths' needs are often interrelated. Outreach programs are often in an ideal situation to take a more multi-faceted approach that allows multiple agencies (working in partnership) to connect youth (and sometimes their families) to resources in their community. McLaughlin (1993) found successful programs that connected youth to the larger society, and provided resources to graduate successfully into adulthood, were not single-issue, single-purpose institutions. They had been successful in constructing themselves around the multiple needs of the individuals they attempted to serve.

As park and recreation professionals, we often place a high value on our programs being able to foster positive adolescent development. However, if youth feel a strong sense of disconnection to community programs and resources, then we need to find creative ways to engage this population. Outreach programs, through a more direct, relational approach, appear to offer a promising medium to achieve this goal. Although this approach necessitates working more intensely with a smaller number of youth, the potential for engaging "hard to reach" youth appears to be promising.

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: IMPLEMENTING AN OUTREACH PROGRAM IN YOUR COMMUNITY

The under-utilization of services among certain youth in both urban and rural communities has resulted in some park and recreation departments revisiting the notion of outreach. Although outreach programs are effective in serving under-represented youth, they are often demanding to implement and maintain over a long period. However, as the needs of communities and constituents become increasingly diverse, an outreach component can reach individuals whose needs are not being met by services and programs currently offered.

How to Use this Information

Research supports the use of several strategies when implementing outreach youth programs:

1. Outreach programs should be grounded in the needs of the community. Thus, programs should spend an initial period identifying community needs through discussion with community stakeholders rather than basing the program's goals on assumptions. This initial period also serves as an excellent time to develop a directory and network of important community resources.

2. Holistic programming should also be stressed. Often, outreach programs are not just dealing with the child in one context but several contexts. Thus, programming may take place in schools, in the neighborhood, in recreation centers, at a child's house, etc. Programming may also involve interaction with other individuals who are part of that child's social world such as other family members, teachers, counselors, etc.

3. Outreach programs should recognize the importance of relationship-based programming, where the focus is on developing relationships during an activity, rather than the activity itself. Outreach programs should also recognize the importance of consistency and commitment in building these relationships because often the individuals they serve have experienced different people coming in and out of their lives. Furthermore, long-term sustainability is critical for outreach programs that place so much emphasis on relationship development.

4. Outreach program staff needs to be multi-faceted and flexible, always being prepared for the unexpected. A program that does not take this approach will have limited impact on kids that have multiple issues affecting them.

5. Outreach programs need to collaborate with other agencies and should avoid being a separate entity. This is particularly important as the goat of outreach programs is often to act as a resource and to connect disconnected and isolated individuals to established programs and agencies. Collaboration can also help extend the range of programming that is offered as well as provide a means to filter youth into programs later in their development.

The author is aware of the following recreation and parks departments that currently have roving leader type programs:

Arlington, Va., Parks and Recreation Department, 703-228-5210

Austin Parks and Recreation Department, 512-480-3011

BREC (Baton Rouge Park and Recreation Department), 225-272-9200

Washington, DC Parks and Recreation Department, 202-673-7665

Detroit Recreation Department, 313-224-1123

San Antonio Parks and Recreation Department, 210-207-3000

References

Anderson, E. (1991). Neighborhood Effects on Teenage Pregnancy. In C. Jencks & P.E. Peterson (Eds.), The Urban Underclass (pp. 375-398). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Baker, J. E., & Witt, P. A. (2000) Backstreet Beacons: Austin's Roving Leaders. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(1), 87-105.

Bocarro, J. N. (2001). Mobile Beacons: Roving Leaders and the Communities they Serve. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

Brice-Heath, S. & McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Identity and Inner City Youth. In S. Brice-Heath & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Identity & Inner City Youth: Beyond Ethnicity & Gender (pp. 1-12). New York: Teachers College Press.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1994). A Matter of Time: Risk and Opportunity in the Out of School Hours. New York: Carnegie Cooperation of New York.

Cowen, E. L. & Work, W. (1988). Resilient Children, Psychological Wellness, and Primary Prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 591-607.

Crompton, J.L. (1999). Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Crompton, J.L., & Witt, P.A. (1997). The Roving Leader Program in San Antonio. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15(2), 84-92.

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

Freedman, M. (1993). The Kindness of Strangers: Adult Mentors, Urban Youth and the New Volunteerism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hamilton, S. F. & Hamilton, M. A. (1992, March). Mentoring Programs: Promise and Paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, 546-550.

Hendry, L. B. (1991). Learning from Leisure: Teaching Social Skills to Adolescents in Leisure Contexts. In S. Hamilton, S. (Ed.), Unrelated Adults in Adolescents' Lives (pp. 54-63). Ithaca, NY: Western Societies paper.

Hendry, L. B. & Simpson, D. O. (1977). One Centre: Two Subcultures. Scottish Education Studies, 9, 112-121.

Jeff, T. (1997). Changing their Ways: Youth Work and `Underclass Theory'. In R. McDonald (Ed.), Youth, "The Underclass" and Social Exclusion (pp. 153-166). London: Routledge.

Jones, R. (1980). Neighborhood Work with Adolescents. In R. Jones & C. Pritchard (Eds.), Social Work with Adolescents (pp. 165-185). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). America's Youth in Crisis: Challenges and Options for Programsand Policies. London: Sage Publications.

Levine, A. & Nidiffer, J. (1996). Beating the Odds: How the Poor Get to College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McIntyre, A. (2000). Inner-City Kids: Adolescents Confront Life and Violence in an Urban Community. New York: New York University Press.

McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). Embedded Identities: Enabling Balance in Urban Contexts. In S. Brice-Heath & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Identity & Inner City Youth: Beyond Ethnicity & Gender (pp. 36-68). New York: Teachers College Press.

Newman, K. S. (1999). No Shame in my Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City. New York: Alfred Knopf and The Russell Sage Foundation.

Rhodes, J.E., Haight, W.L. & Briggs, E.C. (1999). The Influence of Mentoring on the Peer Relationships of Foster Youth in Relative and Nonrelative Care. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9 (2), 185-201.

Rhodes, J. E. & Davis, A. A. (1996). Supportive Ties between Nonparent Adults and Urban Adolescent Girls. In B.J.R. Leadbeater & N. Way (Eds.), Urban Girls: Resisting Stereotypes, Creating Identities (pp. 213-225). New York: New York University Press.

Royse, D. (1998). Mentoring High-risk Minority Youth: Evaluation of the Brothers Project. Adolescence, 33(129), 145-158.

Saito, R. N., Benson, P. L., Blyth, D. A., Sharma, A. R. (1995). Places to Grow: Perspectives on Youth Development Opportunities for Sevento 14-Year-Old Minneapolis Youth. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

Slicker, E. K. & Palmer, D. J. (1993). Mentoring At-Risk High School Students: Evaluation of a School-Based Program. The School Counselor, 40, 327-334.

Thompson, J. K. (1999). Caring on the Streets: A Study of Detached Youth Workers. Binghampton, NY: The Haworth Press.

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the Odds: High-Risk Children from Birth to Adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). Jobless Ghettos and the Social Outcome of Youngsters. In P. Moen, G.H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives in the Ecology of Human Development (pp. 527-543). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Witt, P. A., & Baker, J. E. (1999, March). Make a R.E.A.L. Difference. Parks and Recreation, 70-80.

Witt, P. A., Crompton, J. L. & Baker, J. E. (1999). Taking it to the Streets. Trends, 35(4), 41-45.

Jason Bocarro, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Recreation, Management & Policy Department at the University of New Hampshire. His research interests include the impact of specific recreation and outdoor youth programs, and characteristics of relationships and mentoring in youth recreation programs.

Research Update is edited by Cheryl A. Estes, Ph.D., assistant professor in recreation and leisure studies at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.

COPYRIGHT 2002 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group