Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

Participation in a summer sport-based youth development program fordisadvantaged youth: Getting the parent perspective

Allison Riley ⁎, Dawn Anderson-ButcherCollege of Social Work, The Ohio State University

⁎ Corresponding author at: College of Social Work, ThCollege Rd., Columbus, OH, 43210, United States. Tel.: +688 5578.

E-mail address: riley.410@osu.edu (A. Riley).

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.008

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 November 2011Received in revised form 15 March 2012Accepted 23 March 2012Available online 30 March 2012

Keywords:Youth developmentSportMechanismsSummer programs

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of low-income youth participation in a summer sport-based positive youth development (PYD) program on individual, parent, family, and community leveloutcomes. Specific mechanisms that contribute to program outcomes also were explored. Ten parents ofyouth participating in a summer sport-based PYD program were interviewed using a semi-structuredinterview guide. Parents identified key outcomes at the individual, parent, family and community level, suchas youth biopsychosocial development and positive changes in affect, parents' peace of mind due to childinvolvement, improved family interactions, youth involvement in prosocial activities, and communityinteraction/support. Key mechanisms contributing to these outcomes point to the importance of programcharacteristics such as the qualities and roles of counselors, incorporation of lessons for sport and life,opportunities for peer/family interactions, program structure, and the provision of resources. Findingsprovide qualitative evidence of the value of sport-based PYD summer programs, as well as point to importantmechanisms that may guide program design in this emergent field of practice.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Youth development organizations provide positive youth devel-opment (PYD) programming and resources for youth and families.Participation in these PYD programs promotes healthy development,while also addressing risk factors and preventing problem behaviors(Anderson-Butcher, Stetler, & Midle, 2006; Anthony, Alter, & Jenson,2009; Delgado, 2002; Peebles-Wilkins, 2004). More specifically,reviews and meta-analyses exploring the outcomes linked to participa-tion in these programs indicate that involvement is related to enhancedacademic achievement, school attendance and school engagement; lesssubstance use and delinquency; enhanced social competence; andincreased mental health (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins,2002; Durlak & Weissberg, 2007; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Lauer et al.,2006; Roth, Brook-Gunn, Murray, & Foster, 1998). The need for theseprograms is especially high in neighborhoods characterized by disadvan-tage and marginalization, as opportunities for prosocial involvement arelimited and exposure to risks is often greater (Frasier, Kirby, &Smokowski, 2004; Halpern, 2002; Lauer et al., 2006).

e Ohio State University 1947 N.1 614 292 6934; fax: +1 614

rights reserved.

1.1. Sport-based youth development programs

One relevant context for PYD is the sport setting. Sport-based PYDprograms seek to integrate sport and positive youth developmentprinciples (Gould & Carson, 2008; Hellison, 2003a, 2003b). Severalstudies suggest these programs make meaningful contributions topositive youth outcomes such as enhanced life and social skills, moraldevelopment, goal-related skills, and personal values (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2012; Brunelle, Danish, & Forneris, 2007; Cecchini,Montero, Alonso, Izquierdo, & Contreras, 2007; Papacharisis, Goudas,Danish, & Theodorakis, 2005). Only a few studies employ qualitativemethodologies to gain descriptive information around youth experi-ences in sport-based PYD programs (DeBusk & Hellison, 1989; Hellison& Cutforth, 1997; Martinek, Schilling, & Johnson, 2001). Others usepost-test measures of social and personal responsibility (Hellison &Walsh, 2002; Hellison & Wright, 2003; Newton, Watson, Kim, &Beacham, 2006). While these studies suggest that participation insport-based PYD programs leads to the enhancement of someindividual level protective factors, research fails to identify thereduction of risk and enhancement of protective factors at multiplesystems levels. In addition, there is little evidence in the literature thatidentifies the specific mechanisms that underlie the positive outcomesresulting from participation in these types of programs (Anderson-Butcher & Cash, 2010; Anderson-Butcher, Newsome, & Ferrari, 2003;Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Gould & Carson, 2008; Petitpas,Cornelius, Can Raalte, & Jones, 2005). Overall, it is unclear for whom theprograms work and under what conditions (Eccles et al., 2003).

Table 1Primary and Secondary Objectives of the LiFE Sports Camp (Anderson-Butcher et al.,2011).

PrimaryObjectives

• Increase social competence among youth participants

• Increase self-control, effort, teamwork, and socialresponsibility

• Youth will demonstrate a sense of belonging and connection tothe program and its staff

SecondaryObjectives

• Increase participants' perceptions of athletic competence• Increase participants' exposure to university/college life andinterest in pursuing a higher education

• Increase participants' commitment to lifelong fitness andhealthy nutrition

• Refer participants to other youth organizations and opportu-nities in Columbus

1368 A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

1.2. Summer PYD program

One setting often understudied is summer-based PYD programs.Camps provide opportunities for fostering positive behavioral outcomes,and values-based, pro-social, and/or social-competency programmingwithin the camp setting is connected to positive academic outcomes(Catalano et al., 2002; Martinek, McLaughlin, & Schilling, 1999; Martinek& Perez, 2005; Thurber, Scanlin, Scheuler, & Henderson, 2007). A fewstudies examine summer sport-based youth development programs, butthe outcomes are limited to primarily individual competence-relatedoutcomes (i.e. Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010; Anderson-Butcher et al.,2012; Newton et al., 2006). It is important to examine the broaderimpacts of these summer programs because the provision of theprograms during the summertime may increase the impact on risk andprotective factors at multiple levels. This may be especially true for youthfrom disadvantaged circumstances (Lauer et al., 2006). Parents whostruggle to provide the necessary supervision and monitoring because ofjob requirements and a lack of resources to pay for other sources ofchildcare may find relief in these programs during out-of-school time(Halpern, 2002). Similarly, communities have been concerned about theunstructured time of youth for decades (Halpern, 2002). They fear thatthis unsupervised time spent in the streets leads to negative outcomes foryouth and communities. Therefore, providing programming duringunstructured time may be especially impactful for youth from disadvan-taged backgrounds. While it would seem that summer sport-based PYDprogramming would be of value for youth from disadvantagedcircumstances, there is limited research supporting this claim.

The present study begins to address some of the gaps identified inthe literature. More specifically, this study utilizes qualitativemethods to gain a greater depth and breadth of understanding ofparent perceptions of the impact of a sport-based summer PYD campfor youth from disadvantaged backgrounds. The research is guided bya grounded theory approach. The parent perspective is studied, as theparental role in shaping the lives of youth is critical, parents are withtheir children daily, and parents often connect youth with resourcesoutside of the home (Henderson, Whitaker, Bialeschki, Scanlin, &Thurber, 2007). Parents also have different perspectives of patterns ofinteractions within their families and, unlike youth care workers orprogram staff, parents often see their children and families in avariety of different contexts (Maccoby & Martin, 1983). Additionally,youth may not see a change in themselves as a result of theirparticipation in programming, but parents may have a more objectiveview of this change (Henderson et al., 2007). Finally, few campevaluations have gained this important perspective.

There are two primary aims. First, the study explores parentperceptions of the impact of youth participation in a summer sport-based youth development program on individual, parent, family andcommunity-level outcomes. Second, we explore the specific mecha-nisms underlying the connection between involvement and out-comes from a parent perspective.

2. Method

2.1. Context for the study

A sport-based PYD program provided for over six hundred youthages 9 to 16 on the campus of the Ohio State University (OSU) servedas the context for this study. Learning in Fitness and Education (LiFE)Sports is a university-wide Initiative at OSU that focuses on research,teaching/learning, and service/outreach (OSU Department ofAthletics & College of Social Work, 2010; Wade-Mdivanian, Riley,Davis, Roth, & Anderson-Butcher, 2010). The context studied here isthe summer sports-based PYD program, LiFE Sports Summer Camp,which is central to the entire broad initiative. The majority of LiFESports Camp participants are African American youth from lowincome families (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010). The program runs

from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily for nineteen days during the summermonths, and is free for participants. Youth are provided bustransportation to and from the program from locations throughoutthe city; and receive breakfast and a hot lunch. At the beginning of theprogram, each participant is placed in a group with a counselor andapproximately twenty youth his/her own age. During the program,participants have the opportunity to engage with their groupcounselors, as well as recreation and education leaders. The sport-based PYD program staff is comprised of teachers and otherindividuals from the community, as well as university students andstudent-athletes. All program staff participate in a one day stafftraining prior to the first day of camp, which focuses on safety,curriculum, and positive youth development principles (Riley, Wade-Mdivanian, Davis, Roth, & Anderson-Butcher, 2011).

The LiFE Sports Camp is grounded in best practices for sport-basedand PYD programming (Anderson-Butcher, Riley, Iachini, Wade-Mdivanian, & Davis, 2011). For instance, the program is intentionallydesigned to promote social competence, specific social skills and asense of belonging and connectedness (Catalano et al., 2002; Lerner etal., 2005). The LiFE Sports model builds on Hellison's (2003a)Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model, whichfocuses on the development of respect, participation and effort, self-direction, and caring in the physical activity context. Please seeAnderson-Butcher, Wade-Mdivanian, and Riley (2009) for a morecomprehensive description of the development of the LiFE Sportsmodel. The specific objectives of the program are outlined in Table 1.

Given these objectives, the sport-based PYD program is comprised ofmultiple components. Youth participate in three sport activities and oneeducation activity, which are focused on developing a specific aspect ofsocial competence. Each day youth participate in play-based educationtargeting one of four social skills known to contribute to socialcompetence: self-control, effort, teamwork and social responsibility. Inaddition to these skills being the focus of the education component of theprogram, they are also infused into the rest of the program by counselorsand recreation leaders (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2009; Anderson-Butcheret al., 2011; Riley, Wade-Mdivanian, & Anderson-Butcher, 2011). Fig. 1provides the conceptual framework for the LiFE Sports Camp. For moreinformation about the LiFE Sports Initiative and summer camp, pleasevisit www.osulifesports.org.

2.2. Participants

Parents with a child involved in the sport-based PYD program inboth the summer of 2009 and 2010 were recruited for the study.Interviews were conducted during the second and third week of the2010 program. Several inclusion criteria were used to select thesample for the study. Specifically, parents were asked to participate if1) 2009 was their child's first year participating, 2) their childreceived free or reduced lunch at school (used to identify individuals

19 Day LiFE Sports Camp

SocialCompetence

Education (1 hr./day)

Sport Enhancedwith Social

CompetenceInstruction (3 hr./

day)

Self-Control

SocialResponsibility

Teamwork

Effort

SocialCompetence

Healthy YouthDevelopment &

Overall Child Well-Being

Primary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework for the LiFE Sports Camp.

1369A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

from low income families), and 3) they had a child who was ten totwelve years-of-age during the 2009 sport-based PYD program.

There were 57 parents who met the inclusion criteria. Uponidentifying the pool of possible participants, the researcher used arandom number generator to randomly select 20 participants to contactabout the study. Parents who expressed interest in participating wereasked to identify a convenient time and location tomeet for the interview.None of the parents contacted refused to participate in the study. Giventhe limited time frame and difficulty of scheduling interviews with theparent population of interest, we were able to conduct 10 interviews.After conducting three pilot interviews and ten additional interviews forthe study, no new significant information was emerging from the data.Parents were given a twenty dollar gift card if they agreed to participate.

Ten parents of program participants were interviewed. One parentwas male. Nine parents were African American and one was Caucasian.Six of the parents were single parents and six of the parents wereemployed at the time of the study. Ages of participants ranged from 31to 58. The ages of the children of the ten parents interviewed rangedfrom eleven to thirteen (5 eleven year-olds, 2 twelve year-olds, and 3thirteen year-olds). The majority of the children were female (n=7).

2.3. Interviews

Data were collected through individual face-to-face interviews withparents, as this method allows researchers to gain insight intophenomena that could not be easily observed (Darlington & Scott,2002). A semi-structured, as well as piloted (Krueger, 1998), interviewguide was used during the interviews. Ten interviews were conductedwith parents. Upon responding to general demographic questions,parents were asked questions that explored the impact of the sport-based PYD program through an ecological lens. As is common in agrounded theory approach, theoretical ideaswere used to inform, but notconstrain the research (Padgett, 2008). More specifically, questionsfocused on outcomes for youth participants, parents, family systems andthe neighborhood/community. Sample questions include: “In what ways,if any, has your child's participation in [the program] impacted him/her?”and “What changes, if any, have you noticed in your family as a result ofyour child participating in [the program]?” Similar questions were askedfor each systems level of interest. Prompts also were used to gainunderstanding about the parents' perceptions of the mechanismsunderlying program impacts. For instance, after parents identified anoutcome they were asked what it is about [the program] that led to theidentified outcomes. In this way, researchers were able to linkmechanisms and outcomes. Probes were used throughout the interviews

to clarify statements and further assess outcomes and mechanisms. Eachinterview lasted approximately thirty minutes.

2.4. Data analysis

The interviews were recorded with audio-recording technology andtranscribed verbatim. Nameswere changed during data entry to protectthe identity of the parents. Atlas-ti qualitative software was utilized fordata management and facilitation of data analysis (Muhr, 1996).

A grounded theory approach was used to guide data analysis, asresearchers allowed the codes and themes to emerge from the data(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Sensitizing concepts originating in existingtheory and research were used to inform, but not drive, the emergentfindings (Bruce, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). First, open coding wasused to label chunks of raw data representing the two study aims. Thenfocused coding was used to narrow down open codes representingprogram impacts by combining codes with similar properties anddimensions. Axial coding was used to begin to develop a hierarchy ofcodes and concepts (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Padgett, 2008). Drawingfrom research around risk and protective factors, axial coding beganwithclustering codes into categories of impact at the individual, parent, family,and community/neighborhood levels. Focused and axial coding werethen completed for the codes representing the mechanisms contributingto program impacts. Mechanisms also were connected with specificprogram impacts at this point.

Several strategies were used to enhance the rigor and trustworthinessof the study including constant comparison and negative case analysis(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Padgett, 2008). In addition, the researcher usedmemos and an audit trail to justify and document decisions that weremade during the analysis. Peer debriefing and support also were used todecrease the possibility of researcher bias clouding the analysis. Theresearcher discussed analysis and emerging codes and themes with acolleague in another discipline. The colleague provided feedback andguidance in relation to the analysis process. In addition to this peerdebriefing process, a reliability check was performed by a peer reviewer.The peer-reviewer was provided with ten percent of the coded raw dataquotes and the comprehensive list of higher-order themes, sub-themesand lower-order themes. The peer-reviewerwas then asked tomatch thecodes with the categories and subcategories that the first researcherpulled from the data. The researcher and peer reviewer then met todiscuss the analysis and reach a consensus. Finally, a member check wasused to confirm the results of the analysis (Barker & Pistrang, 2005).Morespecifically, a parent participant was providedwith the list of themes andsubthemes and asked to comment on the accuracy and thoroughness of

Table 2Impact on Individual Level Risk and Protective Factors.

Number ofRespondents(n=10)

Frequencyof Responses

INDIVIDUAL IMPACTS 10 287

Biopsychosocial Development 10 109• Changes in Peer Interactions 9 40o Made more friends 7 12o More social 5 8o Brought child out of shell/more outgoing 3 6o Increased time spent with peers outside of

program3 5

o More assertive “when it comes to being aroundother kids and making friends”

2 3

o More vocal 2 2o Carried friendships into school, easing school

transition1 3

o More open with meeting peers 1 1• Developed Social Skills 7 31o Increased ability to deal with/adapt to

different people3 5

o Increased ability to handle conflict 2 8o Increased communication skills 2 3o Learned teamwork 2 3o Social skills were reinforced 2 3o Increased ability to relate to others 2 2o Learned to be respectful 1 3o Enhanced general social skills 1 2o Increased effort 1 1o Learned to be a leader 1 1

• Developed Personal Skills 6 24o “Taking more responsibility for self and

own actions”3 8

o Increased level of maturity 2 6o Increased initiative 2 3o Learned discipline 2 2o Gained skills for life 2 2o Learned to take direction 1 2o Learned values 1 1

• Physical Development 9 14o Learned sport skills 4 6o Lost weight 4 5o Increased physical endurance/strength 2 2o Helped regulate health issues 1 1

Provided Opportunities to Broaden Horizon 10 97• Opportunity to Broaden Horizon in General 10 35o Opportunity to participate and experience all

different kinds of sports and activities6 9

o Opportunity to learn/try things didn't thinkyou could do/would not have attempted

5 11

o Opportunity to see and experience new things 5 7o Opened young person up to different things 2 2o Helped young person see there is life outside

of what they see in the neighborhoods1 6

• Exposure to College 10 10o Opportunity to be exposed to college and

college life8 8

o Provided something to work towards 2 2• Opportunities for Peer Relationships/Interactions 9 24o Opportunity to meet and interact with people

you don't know9 15

o Opportunity to be around friends and otherpeers

4 7

o Exposure to negative influences of friends 2 2• Opportunity for positive use of discretionary time 6 13o Young person not sitting around “idle” 5 7o Keeps young person out of trouble 4 4o Something for young person to do 2 2

• Opportunity to be active 6 6• Opportunity to interact with adults at program 3 4• Provided an outlet to everyday life 2 5Enhanced Affect, Behaviors, Cognitions 10 73• Enhanced Affect 10 36o Provided fun/enjoyment 9 13o Excited to attend program 5 7o Increased excitement about college/desire to

go to college5 6

1370 A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

the findings. The parent was in agreement that the results wererepresentative of her experience.

3. Results

3.1. Study aim one

Upon analysis, 446 raw data quotes representing the impact ofchild participation in the sport-based PYD program emerged from thedata. These quotes were organized into 13 higher-order themes, 42sub-themes, and 54 lower order themes. The following provides anoutline of higher-order themes, sub-themes and lower-order themes.Direct quotes are provided in the text to help illustrate the individualconcepts. While all of the themes and subthemes are included in thetables, only themes that were mentioned by four or more parents willbe discussed in the text to showcase the major themes.

3.1.1. Impact on individual level risk and protective factorsThe 287 quotes representing individual level impacts were

grouped into five higher-order themes, 16 sub-themes, and 54lower-order themes (see Table 2).

3.1.1.1. Biopsychosocial development. All ten parents discussed the rolethat the sport-based PYD program played in their child's biopsycho-social development. Specifically, parents described changes in theirchild's peer interactions from the beginning to the end of the program.For instance, Cassy said, “Yeah, I think he has made a lot of friendsover there.” In addition, several parents described their child as being“more social” through their participation in the program. Parents alsoindicated that their children developed social skills. Alicia put it thisway, “They teach you communication skills, how to work as a team…

it seems the kids are learning that.” Parents also said that theirchildren developed personal skills over the course of the program. Tohighlight, one parent said, “they teach you…how to be responsible,how to come into being a little adult and having to be responsible foryour actions while you're away from your parents. It seems the kidsare learning that.” In addition, parents indicated that their children'sinvolvement in the sport-based PYD program had an impact on theirphysical development, through the learning of sport skills such asswimming. One mom said “he was like ‘mom, I really know how toswim now’…he was really excited because he learned how to swim.”

3.1.1.2. Provided opportunities to broaden horizon. All ten parentsindicated that their child was impacted by their participation in theprogram because they were provided opportunities. The 97 quotes inthis higher-order theme were organized into seven sub-themes.

Parents indicated that their child had an opportunity to broadenhis/her horizons in general during the program. For instance, parentsstated that youth participants had the opportunity to learn things ortry things that they did not think they could do or would not haveattempted. One parent stated, “I mean definitely the opportunity totry all of the different sports. I don't know that he would have everattempted, but once he did, he learned that he liked it.”

Given that the program took place on a college campus, parentstalked about youth being exposed to college through their participa-tion in the program. One parent expressed the opportunity to beexposed to college and college life and also the idea that the programprovided something for her child to work towards in this way: “Well Ithink it's helpful to introduce him to the college campus and it kind ofputs that in his mind and gets him excited about going himself, giveshim something to work towards.”

Parents highlighted the fact that their child had some sort ofopportunity for peer relationships and interactions during the program.A parent said, “The interacting and meeting different people that hewouldn't necessarily meet, like somebody from this side of town thathe wouldn't normally come into contact with.” Parents also indicated

Table 2 (continued)

Number ofRespondents(n=10)

Frequencyof Responses

INDIVIDUAL IMPACTS 10 287

o Increased love for/interest in sports 3 6o Provided something to look forward to 3 4

• Change in Beliefs about Self 9 22o Increased confidence 5 7o Started thinking about college 4 4o Increased perceptions of athletic competence 3 3o Increased self-esteem 2 2o Began to see college as a reality/within grasp 2 6

• Increased Positive Behaviors 5 15o Increased activity level during program 4 10o Increased activity level after program 3 5

Positive impact in general 2 3• Positive impact all the way around 2 2• Positively influenced in general 1 1Prepared for real world/future 1 4

Table 3Impact on Parent, Family, and Community Level Risk and Protective Factors.

Number ofRespondents(n=10)

Frequency ofResponses

PARENT IMPACTS 10 86

Peace of Mind Due To Child Involvement 10 63• Parent can be worry-free 7 21• Relief of parent responsibilities 7 12• Financial relief 7 12• Parent confidence in program 2 6• More relaxed 1 1Changes in Affect Due To Child Involvement 7 10• Parent happiness 4 5• Parent appreciation 2 3• Parent concern 2 2Parent Commitment to the Program 3 9Parent Personal Growth 2 4• Parent more health conscious 1 3• Parent opened up to new things 1 1

FAMILY IMPACTS 8 32

Family Communication/Interactions 8 32• Increased communication/interactions amongfamily members

6 8

• Child more open to communicate with parent 4 7• Enhanced communication/interactions amongfamily members

4 7

• Increased parent/child communication 3 5• Parent/child communication about issues atcamp

3 5

COMMUNITY IMPACTS 10 41

Youth from Community Involved in ProsocialActivities

7 30

• Community youth have something constructiveto do

5 6

• Kids are off the streets 5 6• Less opportunity for youth to be “causing trouble” 5 6• Reduction in number of idle youth 4 6• Resource for youth during summer months 3 5• Quieter in community 1 1Community Interactions/Support 3 6• Community support of youth involvement 1 2• Increased interaction/communication amongindividuals in community

3 4

Other• Opportunity for youth to meet different people 2 3• Transfer of social skills to community 1 1• Youth in community provided resources 1 1

1371A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

that their children had the opportunity to be around friends and otherpeers. Further, parents described how their child was impactedbecause they had the opportunity to use their discretionary time in aconstructive and positivemanner. For example, Sherise stated “it giveshim something to do instead of just sitting on the couch loafing.” Afew parents also discussed the importance of interactions with adultsat program, provision of an outlet to everyday life, and theopportunity to be physically active.

3.1.1.3. Enhanced affect, behaviors, and cognitions. The third higher-ordertheme that emerged from the data related to enhanced affect,behaviors, and cognitions among youth as a result of their participationin the program. Overall, 73 quotes representing enhanced affect,behaviors, and cognitions were categorized into three subthemes andtwelve lower-order themes.

Parents reported that their child's participation led to enhancedaffect. For instance, one parent spoke about the fact that it would be astruggle to get her son to attend the program if he was not having fun.Nine parents indicated that their children had enhanced thoughtsabout themselves and what they could do as a result of participating inthe program. Parents indicated that their children had increasedconfidence, perceptions of athletic competence and self-esteem. Thisis evidenced through Latonya's thoughts: “So she knows that now shecan go almost into anything that she's not familiar with andaccomplish it.” In addition, parents indicated that their childrenbegan to not only start thinking about college, but also see college assomething that was a reality for them. Additionally, parents describedan increase in positive behaviors such as their child's level of activityduring and outside of the program. For example, Robin reported:“he's way more active.” This idea of children being more active insideand outside of the program was often contrasted with a moresedentary lifestyle.

3.1.2. Impact on parent level risk and protective factorsThe impacts of child participation in the sport-based PYD program

on parents were represented in 86 quotes, which were organized intofour higher-order themes and ten sub-themes (see Table 3).

3.1.2.1. Peace of mind due to child involvement. All ten parentsdescribed how they had a peace of mind as a result of their child'sinvolvement in the program. Parents described how they did not haveto worry and could be stress-free while there child was participatingin the program. As an example, Danielle said “I can send him and Idon't have to worry about what he's doing…when it started I was justat ease, it puts your mind at ease.” Parents also indicated that the factthat the sport-based PYD program was free for their children

provided them financial relief. James put it this way: “That's moneywe get to keep in and go towards bills instead of having to takemoney out to pay for them to go to camp.”

3.1.2.2. Changes in affect due to child involvement. Seven parentsdescribed a change in their own affect which was due to their child'sparticipation in the program. Parents described how their child'sinvolvement in the program made them feel. This can be highlightedby Tish's thoughts, “I'm really happy with the program. I'm happywith how the kids feel about it, the things they come home and say.”

3.1.3. Impact on family level risk and protective factorsParents also described how their child's participation had an

impact on their family. Overall, 32 quotes representing family impactwere organized into one higher-order theme and five sub-themes(Table 3).

3.1.3.1. Family communication/interactions. Eight parents indicated theimpact that the sport-based PYD program had on their family'scommunication and interactions. The quotes were organized into five

Table 4Mechanisms and Impacts of a Sport-Based PYD Program.

Individual impacts Parent impacts Family impactsCommunity

impacts

Biophysical

development

Provided opportunities

to broaden horizons

Enhanced affect,

behavior and

cognitions

Parent peace of

mind

Family

communications/

interactions

Youth

involvement in

prosocial activities

Mechanisms Ch

an

ge

s in

pe

er

inte

ract

ion

s

De

ve

lop

ed

so

cia

l sk

ills

De

ve

lop

ed

pe

rso

na

l sk

ills

Ph

ysi

cal

de

ve

lop

me

nt

Op

po

rtu

nit

y t

o b

road

en

ho

rizo

ns

in g

en

era

l

Ex

po

sure

to

co

lle

ge

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

pe

er

rela

tio

nsh

ips/

inte

ract

ion

s

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

po

siti

ve

use

of

dis

cre

tio

na

ry t

ime

En

ha

nce

d A

ffe

ct

Ch

an

ge

s in

be

lie

fs a

bo

ut

self

Incr

ea

sed

po

siti

ve

be

ha

vio

r

Pa

ren

t ca

n b

e w

orr

y f

ree

Fin

an

cia

l re

lie

f

Incr

ea

sed

co

mm

un

ica

tio

n/

inte

ract

ion

s a

mo

ng

fa

mil

y m

em

be

rs

Ch

ild

mo

re o

pe

n t

o t

alk

to

pa

ren

t

En

ha

nce

d c

om

mu

nic

ati

on

/

inte

ract

ion

s a

mo

ng

fa

mil

y m

em

be

rs

Co

mm

un

ity

yo

uth

:

con

stru

ctiv

e a

ctiv

itie

s

Kid

s a

re “

off

th

e s

tre

et”

Less

op

po

rtu

nit

y f

or

yo

uth

to b

e “

cau

sin

g t

rou

ble

”

Counselor is encouraging ●Quality counselors ● ●Adults to interact with ● ●Care about youth ●Positive role models ●Personable and outgoing ●Involvement with campers ●Kids like counselor ●Student status at OSU ●

Qu

ali

tie

s &

ro

les

of

cou

nse

lors

Provide supervision ●Teaches life skills ● ● ● ●Learning in general ●Teaches sports ●Teaches positive ways to have fun ● ●Reinforces lessons learned at home ●Given more responsibility ●Career day ●Peer models of physical activity ●Le

sso

ns

spo

rt &

lif

e

Encouraged to be a leader ●In groups with peers ● ● ●Exposure to “kids from all over” ● ● ●Opportunities to interact with peers ● ●Being around youth with same interests ●

Op

po

rtu

nit

y f

or

pe

er/

fa

mil

y

inte

ract

ion

s

Opportunity for interaction among family members

●

“You don’t get to pick” activities ●Exposure to a variety of experiences ● ● ●Program keeps youth active ● ● ● ● ● ● ●Program takes place at OSU/is affiliated with OSU

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Structured programming ● ●Str

uct

ure

of

pro

gra

m

Physically safe environment ● ● ● ●Fun/Enjoyment ● ● ● ● ●Challenging experience ● ● ●Opportunity to experience new things ●

Fu

n a

nd

ch

all

en

gin

g

Gives them more to talk about ● ● ● ●

Free camp ● ●Meals provided ● ●

Re

sou

rce

s

Transportation ● ●

Youth are doing something productive ● ● ● ●

Something to do during summer months ● ●

Youth are not sitting around idle ●Program to go to ● ● ●P

osi

tiv

e u

se o

f d

iscr

eti

on

ary

ti

me

Parents know where kids are ●

Re

lie

f o

f p

are

nt

resp

on

sib

ilit

ies

1372 A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

sub-themes. Parents discussed how their children's participation ledto an increase in family interactions and communication. In additionto that, parents talked said the sport-based PYD enhanced familycommunication and interaction. For instance, Tish said:

I think it helps out with communication between them and youknow, sometimes, there's that negative communication, so this ispositive, cause they have more to talk about or you know they'll

discuss what they're doing for the week and who did what inwhatever sports they were doing, when they go to education,what they have for lunch, so it opens up the lines of communi-cation with them.

Parents also expressed that their children were more open tocommunicate with them during the program.

1373A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

3.1.4. Impact on community/neighborhood level risk and protectivefactors

The 36 quotes that emerged around community/neighborhoodimpacts were categorized into three higher-order themes and tensub-themes (see Table 3).

3.1.4.1. Youth from community involved in prosocial activities. Sevenparents talked about community impacts in terms of youth from thecommunity being involved in prosocial activities. This higher-orderthemewas organized into five sub-themes. Specifically parents indicatedthat the program provided something positive for youth to do with theirtime. Given that youthwere involved in these positive experiences, theseparents noted that there was less idle time for youth to spend in theneighborhoods. Parents indicated that this had a positive impact on theirneighborhood and community. In addition, parents conveyed that youthparticipation in the program kept them off the streets. For example,Sherise said “It keeps kids his age and older off the streets, when theycould be getting in trouble or something it gives them something to do.”

Overall, parents identified the impacts of their child's participationin the sport-based PYD program on multiple systems levels. Not onlydid they indicate individual level outcomes such as biopsychosocialdevelopment and the provision of opportunities, but they alsoidentified parent, family, and community level outcomes such aspeace of mind, family interactions and communication and theinvolvement of community youth in prosocial activities.

3.2. Study Aim Two

Several factors emerged as mechanisms leading to individual,parent, family and neighborhood/community level outcomes. Asmentioned above, when parents identify specific outcomes during theinterviews they were also asked to indicate the specific mechanismsthat they thought contributed to the outcomes. The researcherslinked mechanisms with specific outcomes during the coding process.Table 4 shows the higher-order themes and sub-themes, as well asoutcomes connected with the sub-themes. Please note that outcomeswere only included in the table if they were identified more than fourtimes. We chose to present the material in this way to draw attentionto the mechanisms predicting the most salient impacts. Themechanisms that emerged from the analysis were organized intoeight different higher-order themes.

3.2.1. Qualities and roles of counselorsDuring the interviews, parents mentioned certain qualities about

and roles of counselors that led to the positive impacts theydescribed. A few parents mentioned that their child had a counselorthat was encouraging. They indicated that this encouragement helpedincrease both their child's confidence and self-esteem. Parents alsomentioned that they could be worry-free because their child waswith counselors who care about youth, are personable and outgoingand who provide supervision. For example, Robin said that her childparticipating in the program led to her being worry-free. When askedwhat it was about the program that contributed to this outcome shesaid “Oh, it's the people, when I met the counselors…you can tell theyhave a general care for what the kids are doing, and they're not justthere to get paid, but they're actually there to help the kids.”

3.2.2. Lessons for sport and lifeParents talked about their children being taught skills and lessons

for both sport and life. Several parents mentioned the life skills/“education piece” of the sport-based PYD program. They indicatedthat this aspect of the program contributed to kids being off thestreets and out of trouble. One parent also mentioned the life skills/education piece when asked what it was about the program that ledto her son's increased ability to handle conflict: “Well probablymostly the education piece. I really like what you guys do there. It's

helpful for them I think that had a lot to do with it.” In addition toteaching life skills, parents also talked about the program teachingsport skills. This was linked to the youth participants learning sportsskills, which led to increased perceptions of athletic competence andconfidence. One parent even mentioned that this new confidence ledto increased activity outside of the program.

3.2.3. Opportunities for peer/family interactionsWhen parents were asked to connect mechanisms with impacts,

they often discussed the opportunities that the program provided forpeer and family interactions. For instance, parents indicated that theirchild being place in a group with peers led to an increased ability todeal with/adapt to different people and also an increased ability torelate to others. They also said the sport-based PYD program exposedtheir children to “kids from all over.” Among other things, this wasconnected to making more friends and an opportunity to meet andinteract with people the youth did not know before the program. Forinstance, Latonya said “there are kids from all over [the city] and theyare bound to go there and meet somebody that they know, but thenthey are going to meet some that they don't know, so that helps” Oneparent also talked about how the opportunity to meet new friends ledto making friends, and in turn indirectly impacting the ease of herdaughter's school transition.

3.2.4. Structure of programThe structure of the program also was significant, as parents

expressed several mechanisms within this higher-order theme.Parents often mentioned how the program keeps youth active. Theylinked this with the youth losing weight, increasing their activitylevels, an improvement in child behavior and keeping kids off thestreets. One parent also mentioned how the active nature of theprogram led to her child being better behaved at home. This in turnwas connected with enhanced communication and interactionsamong family members. Robin described it this way: “He's calmerwhen he does get home…because when… you're doing things andyour active, you don't have as much time to get into trouble …so ifsomebody's constantly running him, he's not running as hard whenhe gets home.” She went on to describe how he does not harass hissister in the evening. Thus the program indirectly impacted thequality of family interactions.

Parents also discussed the program taking place at a largeuniversity and being affiliated with a large university. They indicatedthat this was a mechanism for getting youth to think about college,keeping kids off the street, and increasing youth excitement aboutgoing to college. For instance, Cassy said “I think [exposure to college]has done that for Jordan…it has made him think about college, he'snever done that before.” Another mechanism that emerged wasexposure to a variety of experiences. This mechanism was directlylinked to a few program impacts such as learning sport skills. In turn,learning sport skills was linked to changes in beliefs about the self,such as increased perceptions of athletic competence and self-esteem.Alicia's words highlight the direct and indirect impacts of exposure toa variety of experiences: I think that the camp gives them a variety ofstuff to do … volleyball, basketball, baseball, swimming. So this is allthe stuff they get to do…now they're learning how to do that andthey feel good about themselves.”

Several parents talked about the physically safe environment atthe sport-based PYD program as an antecedent of kids being off thestreets and parents being worry-free. Victoria put it this way: “So youknow, I go to work, I don't have to worry about it and that's huge,that's huge for a working mom not to be concerned and know thattheir child is somewhere safe.”

3.2.5. ResourcesThe resources provided to youth and families through the

program also were highlighted as mechanisms for several individual,

1374 A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

parent, family and community level outcomes. Parents said they hadfinancial relief because the program was free. They also talked aboutrelief from some parent responsibilities because their children wereprovided meals and transportation. Robin stated: “the wholetransportation being provided and the fact that they get to eatlunch…it's like a stress off of me, it's something else I don't have toworry about.”

3.2.6. Fun and challengingParents expressed that the program was both a fun and

challenging experience for their children. They indicated that thefun and enjoyment that their children experienced allowed them tobe worry-free and also happy. The fact that the program was fun foryouth was also connected to youth being excited to go to theprogram. In addition, parents mentioned the challenging nature ofthe program as a mechanism for increased perceptions of athleticcompetence and opportunities to learn and try things they did notthink they could do or would not have attempted. Many parents alsotalked about the program giving youth more to talk about. This wasconnected to enhanced and increased communication and interac-tions among family members. One parent also discussed how herchild experiencing new things indirectly impacted her. This mother'schild had the opportunity to experience new things, which openedthe child up to new things, and in turn opened the parent up to newthings.

3.2.7. Positive use of discretionary timeMany parents discussed the positive use of discretionary time as a

mechanism for program impacts. One program impact that was oftenconnected with mechanisms falling in this higher-order theme wasparents being able to be worry-free. Parents indicated a sense of reliefbecause the program gave youth a place to go to and gave themsomething productive to do. For instance, James said “it was reassuring tome in my mind that they weren't just sitting around home doingnothing.” A few parents also specified that the timing of the programwasimportant, as it gave thempeace ofmind knowing that their children hadsomething to do during the summer months.

3.2.8. Experiencing negative situations at the programWhile most of the parents discussed the positive impacts of the

program, several parents talked about negative situations that occurred atthe program. When parents talked about negative situations at theprogram, they also discussed how those negative experiences led toincreased communication with their child about the negative situation.For example, Cassy explained her experience thisway “he did have afightthe other day and I had to talk to him and explain to him that's not why Ihave him there.”Most of the time parents talked about the resolution thatwas reached around the particular issue occurring at the program.

Even though parents did not see the specific structure and layoutof the sports-based PYD program on a daily basis, they were able totrace program impacts back to many different mechanisms. Theywere even able to connect mechanisms to impacts at the individual,parent, family and community level. The implications of thesefindings and the results of study aims one will be delved into furtherin the discussion.

3.3. Other findings

In addition to identifying parent perceptions of the mechanismsand outcomes associated with disadvantaged youth participation inthe sport-based PYD program, one other finding emerged during theinterviews. Specifically, parents discussed the individual, parent,family, and community level outcomes they felt were particularlyimportant for them given their disadvantaged circumstances. Forinstants, parents indicated that given their unique situation therechild had the opportunity to participate and experience all different

kinds of sports and activities, as well as the opportunity to see andexperience new things. As Sherise said:

He's like ya you know this soccer slash lacrosse field, slashsomething else he said, and I'm like ‘what do you know aboutlacrosse?’ And I said ‘that is so good,’ lacrosse, what little black kidyou know that knows about lacrosse? I'm serious, they're exposedto different things and I appreciate that, cause I feel like that isextremely important. There are so many kids, urban, AfricanAmerican, or even low, middle-class, low income families that thekids never get to go anywhere.

In addition, concepts within the exposure to college sub-theme, aswell as opportunities for positive use of discretionary time, increasesin youth excitement about college and desire to go to college, andchange in beliefs about self, specifically regarding the view of collegeas a reality or even thinking about college, were also seen as uniquecontributions given the lack of opportunities provided to many of theyouth in the program.

Both parent financial relief and the sense of being worry-free wereidentified as unique outcomes given the disadvantaged circumstances ofthe participants. Sherice made two insightful remarks:

Because of my unique situation, I'm comfortable and I'm nothaving to worry about having to pay for camp, someone else inanother situation may not want to take them or send them to [theprogram] maybe wants or can pay four or five hundred dollars forthe summer, you know, cause maybe in summer, depending onthe camp, may not even do as much as Samual does, you know, soI love it, we need it, it impacts our family because we're broke,We're Broke!

In addition, she described how her family would be impacted ifshe had to pay for camp: “We could never go out to dinner, we couldnever go to the movies, they would never have new shoes, so ya, Icould totally take them, but they would have nothing else, it's justmore feasible this way.”

The provision of resources during the summer months wasidentified as a unique outcome. As Latonya expressed: “There'ssome kids that would never ever see or have those resources in thesummer. Now during the school year they are pretty much coveredbecause they are in school.” One parent also discussed how thecommunity was impacted because it provided youth from around thecommunity with important resources such as supervision and food.This was also identified as a unique outcome because it describes howyouth without resources are being supported.

Thus, parents were able to shed light on the mechanisms thatcontribute to the child, parent, family and community level outcomesthey mentioned during the interviews, and a few of these werespecifically were highlighted as important given their uniquesituation.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to gain a greater depth and breadthof understanding of the impact of youth participation in summersport-based youth development programs on individuals, parents,families, and communities, particularly those from disadvantagedcircumstances. The researcher also sought to uncover the mecha-nisms that contribute to specific program outcomes as identified byparents.

4.1. Individual, parent, family, and community level outcomes

Findings document the importance parents place on their children'sinvolvement in PYD programs, especially the value of participation forindividual, parent, family, and community level outcomes. The impacts

1375A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

of the sport-based PYD program on individual level factors appeared tobe the most salient in parents' minds. This makes sense because youthexperience the most direct impact given their daily involvement withthe program. Also not surprising is the fact that parents mentionedbiopsychosocial development as the primary individual level impact.First, this particular sport-based PYD program was structured to utilizesport as a vehicle for the development of social competence (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2009). Thus, parents confirmed that the program had theintended impact on individual development. Also, the few studies thathave examined the impacts of sport-based PYD programs suggest thatyouth gain social and personal skills as a result of participation(Anderson-Butcher et al., 2012; Hellison, 2003a, 2003b; Papacharisis etal., 2005).

When parents were asked about the impacts of the program on thempersonally as a parent, their first response was often that they were notimpacted as a parent. Then, without being prompted by the interviewer,they would provide a list of ways that they were impacted as a parent. Infact, every parent mentioned at least one way that their life had beendirectly or indirectly impacted by the program. While parents couldreadily provide a list of ways their child was impacted, they had to reflecta little longer before identifying ways they were impacted. possiblybecause many of them were impacted indirectly through their child'sparticipation.

Parent also mentioned the impact on several family level risk andprotective factors. According to the frequency with which parentsidentified family level outcomes, it appears as though the programhad the least amount of impact on family level factors. The numbersmay be misleading, however. There are several possible reasons forthis finding. First, one primary higher-order theme emerged inrelation to family level impacts: family communication and interac-tion. While this may have been very important to some parents, theydid not dwell on it and mention the same outcome multiple times.Another explanation is that many parents who did not mentionfamily level impacts said that there was not a lot of room forimprovement. They indicated that the relationships within theirfamily were already strong and “close knit.” Thus, some of thecommon family risk factors facing youth such as child maltreatmentand family conflict may not be relevant for all participants within thisparticular sample.

The most salient community level outcome that these parentsmentioned was the idea that youth from the community were involvedin prosocial activities. When asked about the impact of the program on aparent's neighborhood and community, many immediately respondedthat the program keeps kids off the streets. With kids off the streets theymay not be exposed to as many neighborhood stressors. This is critical asone common environmental risk factor includes exposure to neighbor-hood stressors (see Fraser, 2004 for a review). Overall, these findingsshowcase the impact of child participation in a summer sport-basedyouth development program on individual, parent, family and commu-nity level risk and protective factors.

4.2. Mechanisms

In addition to gathering information about outcomes at differentsystems levels, this study also sought to better understand the “black box”of programming (Harachi, Abbott, Catalono, Haggerty, & Fleming, 1999).Several mechanisms emerged that are known to be key design principlesfor programs (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2011). First, parents indicated thatthe sport-based PYD program provided lessons for sport and life. Thisdraws attention to the role of the sport context. Similarly, parentsidentified specific outcomes that are attached to a physical activitycontext such as increased sport skill and physical activity. Anothermechanism that parents identified is opportunity for peer and familyinteractions, as well as certain qualities and roles of counselors.

Consistent with key program strategies known in the literature, theseparents also identified the value of the challenging, fun nature of the

program. Several other factors related to the structure of the programalsowere seen as mechanisms for program impacts. The provision ofresources also emerged as an important mechanism for this population.It is interesting tonote that twomechanisms thatwereprimarily linked tocommunity and parent level outcomes were positive use of discretionarytime and physical safety. Overall, parents' perceptions of themechanismsat play in this sport-based youth development program were consistentwith the key design principles that have been highlighted in past research(Anderson-Butcher et al., 2011). In addition, many of the mechanismswere attached to outcomes across multiple systems. Together thesefindings have important implications for the social work and PYD field.

4.3. Implications

The findings of this study have implications for individualsworking with youth and families, particularly those from disadvan-taged circumstances. Given the potential for sport-based PYD pro-grams to address risk factors and enhance protective factors atmultiple levels, it is critical that these programs continue to be fundedthrough local, state, and federal funding streams. In addition, sport-based PYD programs should be offered to youth from disadvantagedcircumstances who often have limited access to these types ofopportunities. Finally, a specific effort should be made to provideprogramming during the summer months when resources areminimal and parents often struggle to provide enriching opportuni-ties for youth.

The results of this study also have implications for youthdevelopment program designers as they outline key programcomponents. Specifically, there should be a focus on the qualitiesand roles of the program staff, opportunities for peer and familyinteractions, focus on the structure of the program, provision ofvaluable resources, fun and challenging in nature and a focus onproviding something positive for youth to do during discretionarytime, such as after school or during the summer months. If programleaders utilize these strategies, the findings of this study suggest thatoutcomes will emerge at the individual, parent, family and commu-nity level.

4.4. Limitations and future research

Although these findings extend research in youth development,there are several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, onlyten individuals were interviewed for this study. After conductingthree pilot interviews and the ten interviews presented here, theresearchers felt saturation had been met and made the decision tolimit the sample to ten interviews. Clearly this is still a limitationbecause gaining the perspective of a greater number of diverseparents would add to the richness of the data. Also, this study onlyprovided the voice of parents. While parents provide a uniqueperspective, they did not experience the day-to-day structure of thesport-based PYD program. They are provided a detailed description ofthe daily activities in the camp during a parent meeting and areinvited to several events during the program. Parents may drawinformation from conversations with their children, but they alsohave first-hand experiences with the program to reference. Gainingthe perspective of both parents and youth would provide a morecomprehensive picture of the mechanisms and outcomes of theprogram. The use of qualitative methods may be seen as both alimitation and strength of this study. While the methodology limitedthe number of voices that could be heard in this study, theresearchers were able to gain a depth of knowledge that could notbe achieved through quantitative measure.

Both the findings of this study and limitations highlight the needfor future research in this area. First, the structural weakness of thisstudy should be addressed. While the authors were able to drawlinkages between some mechanisms and program outcomes, efforts

1376 A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

should be made to bring more clarity to these connections. This couldspecifically be addressed through interviews with staff and youth inthe program. In addition, the information gathered here can be usedto improve the LiFE Sports program. This will provide opportunitiesto test the mechanisms that emerged from the interviews in morerigorous research designs. Continuing to build on this line of researchwill contribute to our knowledge and understanding of intentionalprogramming in PYD programs. Additional next steps include re-searchers expanding this line of inquiry to multiple programs to confirmthe results of this study. In the future, the findings of this study could beused to inform the development of quantitative measures, which willultimately allow researchers to examine impacts across a broad range ofprograms.

Future work should also include triangulation of respondents byincluding program participants and youth care workers. This wouldprovide several viewpoints and amore comprehensive viewof the impactof sport-based youth development programs. Staff members and youtharemore engaged in the day to day experiences surrounding the programand therefore may have a different view of the mechanisms and impactsof the program. Finally, future research should address the long-termimpact of sport-based youth development programs. It is clear that theseprograms have the opportunity to address risk and enhance protectivefactors over the course of the program, but these impacts need to beexamined over time. This will help researchers and practitioners betterunderstand the role of these programs in the long-term development ofyouth and families.

5. Conclusion

Overall, the breadth of themes that emerged through the analysisextends the understanding of the impact of sport-based youthdevelopment programs. This new knowledge can be used to enhancesummer sports-based youth development programs, particularlythose serving youth from disadvantaged circumstances. The findingsmay also have relevance to broader youth development program-ming, as the mechanisms contributing to key outcomes identifiedhere are useful for programs offered in other settings.

References

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Cash, S. (2010). Participation in Boys & Girls Clubs,vulnerability, and problem behaviors. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(5),672–678.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Iachini, A., Boester, A., Wade-Mdivanian, R., Davis, J., & Amorose,A. J. (2010, March). Exploring the effectiveness of OSU's National Youth SportProgram. Poster presented at the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,Recreation and Dance National Conference, Indianapolis, IN.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Ferrari, T. (2003). Participation in Boys andGirls Clubs and relationships to youth outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology,1(31), 39–55.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Riley, A., Iachini, A., Wade-Mdivanian, R., & Davis, J. (2011).Sport and youth development. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia ofAdolescence. New York: Springer.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Stetler, G., & Midle, T. (2006). Collaborative partnerships inschools: A case for youth development. Children and Schools, 3(28), 155–163.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Wade-Mdivanian, R., & Riley, A. (2009). Learning in Fitness andEducation (LiFE) Sports educational leader curriculum. Columbus, OH, USA: Collegeof Social Work, Ohio State University.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Wade-Mdivanian, R., Riley, A., Amorose, A., Iachini, A., & Davis, J.(2012). 2011 Ohio State University LiFE Sports program annual evaluation report.Columbus, OH, USA.

Anthony, E. K., Alter, C. F., & Jenson, J. M. (2009). Development of a risk and resilience-based out-of-school time program for children and youth. Social Work, 54(1),45–55.

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism:Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Commu-nity Psychology, 35(3/4), 201–212.

Brunelle, J., Danish, S. J., & Forneris, T. (2007). The impact of a sport-based life skillprogram on adolescent prosocial values. Applied Developmental Science, 11(1),43–55.

Bruce, C. D. (2007). Questions arising about emergence, data collection, and itsinteraction with analysis in a grounded theory study. International Journal ofQualitative Methods, 6(1), 51–68.

Catalano, R., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positiveyouth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations ofpositive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(15).

Cecchini, J. A., Montero, J., Alonso, A., Izquierdo, M., & Contreras, O. (2007). Effects ofpersonal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged youths. European Journal of Sport Science, 7(4), 203–211.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Darlington, Y., & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Stories from the field.Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

DeBusk, M., & Hellison, D. (1989). Implementing physical education self-responsibilitymodel for delinquency-prone youth. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 8(2),104–112.

Delgado, M. (2002). New frontiers for youth in the twenty-first century: Revitalizing andbroadening youth development. New York: Columbia University Press.

Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). The impact of after-school programs thatpromote personal and social skills. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from. http://www.CASEL.org

Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities andadolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 865–889.

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youthdevelopment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Fraser, M. W. (2004). The ecology of childhood: A multisystems perspective. In M. W.Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 1–12).(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Frasier, M. W., Kirby, L. D., & Smokowski, P. R. (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood.In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective(pp. 13–66). (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: current statusand future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1),58–78.

Halpern, R. (2002). A different kind of child development institution: The history ofafter-school programs for low-income children. Teachers College Record, 104(2),178–211.

Harachi, R., Abbott, R., Catalono, R., Haggerty, K., & Fleming, C. (1999). Opening theblack box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation andtheory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(1), 711–731.

Hellison, D. R. (2003). Teaching responsibility through physical activity (2nd edition).Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. R. (2003). Teaching personal and social responsibility in physicaleducation. In S. J. Silverman, & C. D. Enis (Eds.), Students learning in physicaleducation: Applying research to enhance instruction. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hellison, D. R., & Cutforth, N. J. (1997). Extended day programs for urban children and youth:From theory to practice. In H. Walberg, O. Reyes, & R. Weissberg (Eds.), Children andyouth: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 223–249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hellison, D. R., & Walsh, D. (2002). Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation:Investigating the investigations. Quest, 54, 292–307.

Hellison, D. R., & Wright, P. (2003). Retention in an urban extended day program: Aprocess-based assessment. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 369–381.

Henderson, K. A., Whitaker, L. S., Bialeschki, M. D., Scanlin, M. M., & Thurber, C. (2007).Summer camp experiences: Parental perceptions of youth development outcomes.Journal of Family Issues, 28, 987–1007.

Krueger, R. A. (1998). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilderson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L.

(2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-riskstudents. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–312.

Lerner, R., Lerner, J. V., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., Gestsdottir, S., et al. (2005).Positive youth development, participation in community youth developmentprograms, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: Findings fromthe first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. Journal of EarlyAdolescence, 25(1), 17–71.

Maccoby, E. E., &Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-childinteraction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.) & E.M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101).New York: Wiley.

Martinek, T. J., McLaughlin, D., & Schilling, T. (1999). Project Effort: Teachingresponsibility beyond the gym. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, andDance, 70(6), 59–65.

Martinek, T. J., & Perez, L. M. R. (2005). Promoting positive youth development througha values-based sport program. International Journal of Sport Science, 1(1), 1–13.

Martinek, T., Schilling, T., & Johnson, D. (2001). Transferring personal and socialresponsibility of underserved youth to the classroom. The Urban Review, 33, 29–45.

Muhr, T. (1996). Atlas-Ti: The Knowledge Workbench. [Computer software]. CA: ScolariPublications.

Newton, M., Watson, D. L., Kim, M., & Beacham, A. O. (2006). Understanding motivationof underserved youth in physical activity settings. Young Society, 37, 348–371.

Ohio State University (OSU) Department of Athletics & College of Social Work (2010).Learning in Fitness and Education (LiFE) Sports: Initiative business plan. OH:Columbus.

Padgett, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Papacharisis, V. P., Goudas, M., Danish, S. J., & Theodorakis, Y. (2005). The effectivenessof teaching a life skills program in a sport context. Journal of Applied SportPsychology, 17(3), 247–254.

Peebles-Wilkins, W. (2004). Youth development in schools [Editorial]. Children andSchools, 26, 3–4.

1377A. Riley, D. Anderson-Butcher / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1367–1377

Petitpas, A., Cornelius, A., Can Raalte, J., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planningyouth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist,19, 63–80.

Riley, A., Wade-Mdivanian, R., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2011, January). Examining theoutcomes of a summer sport-based youth development program for disadvantaged youth.Poster presented at the Society for Social Work Research Conference. Tampa, FL.

Riley, A., Wade-Mdivanian, R., Davis, J., Roth, B., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2011, June).LiFE Sports Staff Orientation. Presented at LiFE Sports Staff Training. Columbus, OH.

Roth, J., Brook-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents:Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research onAdolescence, 8, 423–459.

Thurber, C. A., Scanlin, M. M., Scheuler, L., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Youth developmentoutcomes of the camp experience: Evidence for multidimensional growth. YouthAdolescence, 36, 241–254.

Wade-Mdivanian, R., Riley, A., Davis, J., Roth, B., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2010,October). Building a sustainable outreach agenda around the "One University"concept. Poster presented at 2010 National Outreach Scholarship Conference.Raleigh, NC.