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

Parks & Recreation, Jan, 2005 by Julie K.S. Sprouse, Sandra Wolf Klitzing, Mary Parr

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.