Relationship-based Programming - Leisure Information Network

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Fall 2003

Volume 21, Number 753 pp. 75-96

Relationship-based Programming: The Key To Successful Youth Development In Recreation Settings Jason Bocarro Peter A. Witt

ABSTRACT: Research and policy (e.g., Carnegie Council, 1992) have shown the importance and benefit of programs that supplement the education system, particularly among children living in high-risk environments. These programs have traditionally used an activity-based approach where the activity is central to the program’s design. This article presents the concept of relationship-based programming, a perspective that places a greater emphasis on the ability to build and solidify a healthy relationship between a youth worker and participants using the program or activity as a medium. The authors present this issue based upon three years of case studies and a year-long ethnographic study, which examined the impact of a Roving Leader youth outreach program run by a Park and Recreation Department. The program was designed to serve youth identified as “hard to reach” and whom other community resources were not serving. A critical component of the program was the importance of the relationships established between leaders and participants as opposed to the activities in which they participated. Several elements were critical to this process: being multi-faceted and flexible, involved and able to make connections, consistent, compassionate, empathetic, and patient. Taking a relationshipbased approach has considerable implications for youth program designers as they attempt to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse youth population. KEYWORDS: Youth development, mentoring, relationship-based programming, ethnographic research, outreach programs AUTHORS: Jason Bocarro is an assistant professor in the Recreation, Management & Policy Department at the University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03324. E-mail: [email protected]. Peter Witt is a professor and holder of the Bradberry Recreation and Development Chair, Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences Department at Texas A&M University. This study was supported by a research grant from the Sequor Foundation. Dr. David Scott, editor of the Journal of Leisure Research, served as the guest editor for this article.

The kids, Robert and I had just spent an hour laughing and joking on top of the South Rim in Big Bend National Park while watching the sun set. After making sure that the kids were back in their tents, we sat down and had a chat about the program and where trips like this fit into its goals. “You see, it’s not really about the activities we do. Sure they’re great and the kids learn. But it’s

76

really about the quality time you spend with them, that’s how you develop relationships. You find out so much about them. I mean look at the conversation we had with Colin just now and Vanessa yesterday. It’s all about quality time spent with them.” I sat down and thought about what he meant and why Robert was so successful at developing strong ties to kids that other adults had described as “impossible” or “hard core.” Field Notes (08/01/00) Introduction Over the last several decades, there has been interest in understanding why some youth living in high-risk environments grow up to lead productive lives despite the adverse conditions that surround them (e.g., Freedman, 1993; Furstenburg, 1993; Furstenberg, 2000). Several models, including protective factors (Jessor, 1991) and developmental assets (Benson, 1997), have been developed to help account for this resilience. Prominent factors in these models have been the impact of external support networks of friends, teachers, and participation in school and community programs. A number of researchers have discussed the benefits of supportive relationships in youth programs (Dryfoos, 1990; McLaughlin, Irby, & Langman, 1994; Morrow & Styles 1995; Werner, 1987). Werner (1994) found that relationships developed in youth programs often provide support for youth whose home lives are unstable. McLaughlin, Irby, and Langman’s (1994) ethnographic study of neighborhood-based organizations found that exemplary programs that nurtured and engaged inner-city youth contained “wizards,” adults and program leaders who succeeded where others had not. In all cases these outcomes were due to the relationships between youth and the “wizards,” and, in almost every instance, relationships were developed and sustained through non-school time and formal and nonstructured recreation experiences. Halpern, Barker, and Mollard (2000) found that strong relationships between youth and youth workers were critical to a youth worker’s success. Their examination of neighborhood youth programs in a Latino neighborhood in Chicago found that staff who had strong relationships with youth in after-school program settings were able to modify their approach as needed because they had a greater knowledge of youths’ backgrounds and the issues they faced. Thus, leaders could combine “harder,” more direct behavior expectations with other approaches depending upon the youth and their circumstances. In studies of mentoring programs such as Big Brother, Big Sisters researchers have also recognized the importance of relationships, with recreation settings often serving as the milieu for developing and sustaining these relationships. Herrera, Sipe and McClanahan (2000) found that over 90 percent of mentors felt “close” to their mentees, and which provided mentees with committed, strong support. Strong relationships between mentor and mentee were more likely to positively impact youths’ lives

77

(Grossman & Johnson, 1999). Scales and Leffert (1999) have found that the presence of positive relationships with adults was correlated with lower rates of substance use and exposure to violence for youth. They also found that strong relationships with adults resulted in stronger connections to school and increased academic performance. Positive relationships with non-family adults have been seen as critical since young people currently experience 10-12 hours less parental contact per week than in 1960 (Scales & Leffert, 1999). Relationship-Based Programming All of these studies point to the importance of relationships between youth and adults as a critical component of youth recreation programs. Relationship-based programming differs from the traditional activitybased perspective. Relationship-based programs move beyond keeping youth involved in activities, entertained, and off the streets by attempting to build strong ties between the youth worker and the youth. Gilligan (1999) suggested that, while recreation activities can provide an enjoyable and satisfying outlet for youth living without a family support system, these activities also enable access to supportive relationships. In his study of children “in care,” Gilligan showed how the benefits accrued through participating in a variety of recreation activities were maintained due to the involvement and presence of a non-family adult role model. Relationship-based programming is grounded in Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1988). Infants instinctively exhibit care-needing behaviors, which in turn, prompt care-giving responses from relevant adults (e.g., family members). When the caregivers respond in a reliable, appropriate, and positive manner, a foundation for healthy development is created. However, if care-giving is unreliable or inappropriate, children will feel insecure, resulting in the development of defenses, avoidance, and ambivalence (Bell, 2002). Despite advocacy of relationship-based programming, there are few studies that have significantly examined the consequences of implementing such an approach. In one of the few studies that have examined the consequences of relationship-based programming, Scales and Leffert (1999) found youth programs that deliberately focus on developing a nurturing adult-youth relationship are more successful in keeping youth involved. Relationships occurred because youth workers actively fostered them as opposed to just letting them happen. McLaughlin (2000) posits that promotion of relationships with adults may be one of the most important characteristics of highly successful and valued programs. However, in order to develop relationships, youth workers need to exhibit certain characteristics and qualities. Leader Characteristics The “wizards,” identified by McLaughlin, Irby, and Langman (1994) shared five broad characteristics: (i) they saw genuine potential in youth, not pathology; (ii) they were youth-centered; (iii) they were confident in

78

their own abilities to make a difference; (iv) they felt an obligation to give back to their community or society; and (v) they displayed unyielding authenticity in all their interactions. Morrow and Styles (1995) also found that the type of relationship developed between Big Brother/Big Sister mentors and mentees had a significant impact on outcomes. Two categories of relationships were developed. First, developmental relationships emerged when mentors devoted themselves to establishing a strong connection to youth before addressing other goals. Mentors also placed value on maintaining these relationships. Second, prescriptive relationships developed when mentors had pre-conceived goals that framed the context of the relationship. These mentors were often reluctant to adjust their expectations of the youth, which led to frustrations for both mentor and mentee. Developmental relationships tended to last longer, be more fulfilling, and have a more positive impact (Morrow & Styles, 1995). To add to existing knowledge of the impact and importance of relationships developed between youth workers and youth in recreation settings, a study of a Roving Leader outreach program was undertaken. This park and recreation department sponsored program was designed to incorporate a relationship-based perspective, by working with youth who were disconnected from the community and not taking advantage of its resources (Baker & Witt, 2000; Bocarro & Witt, 2002; Witt, Crompton & Baker, 1999). The study had two primary goals: 1) to extend understanding of the mentoring role of non-parent adults; 2) to provide a contextual understanding of the relationships that occur between adults and leaders, including how staff develop personal relationships with youth, their families, and the community. Study Questions and Method To achieve a greater understanding of relationships between adults and youth, Herrera, Sipe and McClanahan (2000) suggested that more intensive qualitative work needs to be conducted to examine the nature of relationships and how they are cultivated. Qualitative approaches are increasingly valued in the youth development field as researchers seek a greater depth of understanding in adolescent development (Galambro & Leadbetter, 2000). The critical determinant of the research method to use is to match the methodological approach with the research question and study’s purpose (Figuiera-McDonough, 1998). Since this research sought to extend the understanding of relationships between Roving Leaders (RLs) and participants and to gain a greater insight into the meaning of these relationships, a qualitative framework was deemed appropriate. Case studies of selected children involved in the program were undertaken beginning in spring, 1998. Beginning in November, 1999, the investigator (first author) spent time visiting with program staff (November 1999 to March 2000) and then working full-time as a RL (March to November, 2000). As MacLeod

79

(1995) points out, the best fieldwork often surfaces when the researcher is immersed in the community and his or her personal life becomes inextricably bound up with the research. However, although the investigator had daily responsibilities with the program, he tried to spend more time observing than actually “working,” by remaining on the periphery whenever decision-making or leadership issues arose. At the beginning of the study in the field, the investigator tried to experience the everyday life of a RL, by visiting the neighborhoods, schools, and housing projects in which staff worked. He attended RL, neighborhood, and school meetings and participated in staff trainings to gain a better understanding of the context and demands of the program. He also became involved with projects such as a mentoring program run by a local church and a program that provided youth with outdoor experiences. As he became more comfortable in the community and more familiar with the people who lived there, the investigator identified individuals to interview to learn more about the mechanics and impact of the Roving Leader program. Interviews were of two types: formal tape-recorded sessions and informal sessions that were recorded manually, either during the interview or soon after. Tape-recorded interviews were preferred because they allowed the investigator to concentrate on asking questions rather than manually recording responses. However, in some cases, only notes were taken because participants felt uneasy and possibly intimidated by the presence of a tape recorder. Sometimes insightful discussions spontaneously emerged during everyday interactions, which made it either impossible or inappropriate to use a tape recorder. These informal interviews forced the investigator to rely on memory when recording information. At the first available opportunity, summary notes were made and typed. Seventy-two tape-recorded and 31 informal interviews with Roving Leaders, parents, youth, and community members were completed. Two specific research questions guided the study: 1) What are the characteristics and impacts of the relationships developed within the Roving Leader program and how are these relationships developed and maintained? 2) What are the advantages of utilizing a relationship-based perspective over an activity-based perspective? Throughout the process the researchers attempted to address issues of researcher bias and how to allow for different representations and voices to be heard. Lincoln and Denzin (1994) discussed the importance of recognizing that different perspectives are needed to achieve a deeper understanding of the phenomena alongside research that is grounded in reflexive fieldwork. Indeed, in an era where American ethnography is so embedded in American culture, Denzin (1997) argued that reflexive research should be mandatory where the researcher constantly scrutinizes the process through internal dialogue and detachment. The reflexive ethnographer attempts to actively construct representations of his or her field experiences alongside how these questions came about, thus giving the audience the opportunity to evaluate subjects as “situated actors” (Hertz, 1997).

80

The authors attempted to address some of these criticisms through incorporating different voices throughout the process (e.g., the voices of parents, teachers, Roving Leaders, and the youth) as well as through triangulation of methods. As much as possible, they attempted to make the experience as reflexive as possible, by addressing critical questions such as “what do I know?” and “how do I know it?” (Hertz, 1997). The periods of detachment (away from the field) also allowed the investigator to reflect upon experiences and provided invaluable time to critically assess the data being gathered. Relationship-Based Programming in Practice A Park and Recreation Department (PARD) in the Southwest sponsored the Roving Leader program. The program evolved from recognition that many youth were not involved in positive or productive activities after school and during the summer. They did not take advantage of the structured and drop-in programs available at the PARD’s recreation centers or those offered by private or non-profit agencies. Even if youth had wanted to attend a recreation center, some areas of the city lacked facilities and no city funds were available to build them. In some cases, recreation centers were too distant for children to walk or bike to safely, or getting there involved crossing dangerous intersections or gang territories. By bringing recreation activities to youth and taking them on a variety of field trips, RLs hoped to keep youth off the streets and out of trouble, and also to serve as positive role models to encourage excellence in school, family, and personal relationships. The RL program initially targeted four areas of the city, which were chosen based on poverty levels, public housing locations and crime and school drop-out rates. Five additional areas were subsequently added when the city council increased the program’s budget. A RL supervisor and at least one assistant were assigned to each area. Each area had a van that facilitated the RLs moving around the area and transporting youth to activities. Although the program targeted youth between 12-18 years, there were participants as young as six and old as 20 who were part of the program. Approximately 80-100 participants were served in each of the nine areas. Of these, 25-30 constituted a core group in each area. The RL program enabled staff to work with youth on a more in-depth level than was possible in the typical activity-based recreation program. The relationships that developed because of this approach enabled youth to have more “say” in what they needed from the program, a vital component identified by youth development professionals (e.g., Bembry, 1998, Pittman, Irby & Ferber, 2000). As Loretta [one participant] told the investigator, A lot of programs, it’d be like they’ll tell you what to do, like they’ll tell you “oh you have to go and do that.” But this program’s like, they give you things, they tell you what they’re doin’ and then you can suggest stuff.

81

Relationship development was what distinguished this program from other efforts undertaken by PARD to work with youth in the community. Eric, one of the RLs, described how he had seen the program and its staff help parents get jobs and housing and access rehabilitative programs, in addition to helping youth: After I got into the area you find that they want to talk. They have issues. Their parents, who are also kids, have issues, and you really get into these people’s lives. You’re doing more, everything from helping them look for a job and things like that you know. The structure of the program moved beyond simply providing activities to a focus on using the power of recreation so that they were able to develop relationships which in turn, allowed them to deal with other issues in their participants’ lives. Successfully building relationships was time consuming and required the RLs to become involved in different facets of a child’s life. RLs needed to realize they were not simply there to play and entertain kids, but to develop relationships. One RL described how he was invested in making contact and interacting with kids and the community, as opposed to running programs: You have to be on site. You have to be in contact with these kids. The key word is contact. You have to be there. I don’t even think that I’m program oriented. I like to think it’s program oriented in one sense, but my objective is more mentoring. If I mentor you, I’m going to be with you whether we’re doing nothing or we’re doing something. And I think that has to be consistent and interaction should be constant. In another instance, a teenage African-American participant begged to go on a fishing trip organized by a RL. However, once they got to the lake, she did not participate, but made it clear she had gone on the trip to “hang out” with the RL. As Robert [one of the RLs] continually stressed, the most important aspect of the program was the quality time spent in the van, during home visits, or informally hanging out. For example, on one trip to an indoor climbing gym, Robert and the investigator took Roving Leader participants and kids who regularly attended a local recreation center. Four other recreation center staff accompanied them. When they got to the gym, the rest of the staff sat away from the kids, chatting among themselves, while Robert and the investigator climbed, belayed and interacted with the kids. On the drive back Robert had developed enough rapport through our hands-on involvement that many of the non-RLs kids interacted with us rather than the recreation center staff. One of the recreation center supervisors was initially skeptical of the relationship-based approach, but came to see its value. She saw the necessity of programs being constructed to help build connections that increased the

82

probability of making a difference in a child’s life. Without this approach, she felt that kids would simply view youth workers as another adult, simply trying to keep kids busy. As she pointed out: When you’re just someone who’s providing transportation to a program here and there, a snack once in a while, you’re not really making your connection with those kids; I think that they feel that. They don’t feel they’re a part of something. They feel like, “why should I listen to you?” And you know, “who are you to me?” You have to become somewhat involved in what is going on with them in order to understand where they’re coming from, and in order to make a difference to help teach them to be better individuals. Building relationships took time and patience and required a lot of individual attention, which often the family, school and community could not provide. For example, Loretta, a teenage Hispanic girl lived with her grandmother. Loretta’s mother, an alcoholic who had been incarcerated on a number of occasions, came in and out of her life, and was in and out of drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Loretta was continually in trouble at school. Most of her academic problems were due to behavior issues that led to her being suspended from school. After one suspension, her grandmother asked the RL if she could pick Loretta up. As the RL explained: I went to go pick her up. I just talked to her. I drove from her house to the Dawson office and in that time period, you know, I did the same exact thing a teacher could have done. She’s a good kid, doesn’t fail anything, and participates at school, so all of a sudden she’s lashing out at teachers and getting angry with them, and talking back. So what is that? A teacher could have said, “what is making you mad?” No one took the time; they just suspended her and sent her home. And the time period from her house to Dawson all I said is, “sometimes when you’re mad at people we take it out on others, like if you’re mad at me you take it out on your mom. Or if you’re mad at the teacher you take it out on your mom. If you’re mad at your mom, you take it out on the teacher.” All I said was that. The next minute she broke down and said, “you know I’m mad at my mom. She drinks too much. We don’t have our own home. We have to live with my grandparents. My mom can’t keep a job ‘cause she goes to work drunk.” That’s all it took, a little conversation. I came in early because Robert [this RLs’ supervisor] said, “Carol can you come in early and pick up Loretta and spend some quality time with her?” That’s all it was. The Consequences of Adopting a Relationship-Based Perspective Adopting a relationship-based programming perspective was one of the key characteristics of the Roving Leader program and an approach that youth workers are beginning to realize is crucial when working with youth

83

living in high-risk environments. To successfully build relationships was time consuming and required the Roving Leader to become involved in different facets of a child’s life. It also necessitated that the Roving Leader realized that they were not simply there to play and entertain kids. A number of elements emerged which allowed them to adopt a more relationship-based perspective, each of which is described below. Helping with school-related issues. Through a relationship-based approach, RLs had the opportunity to help with school-related, personal, and family issues. RLs were also able to build relationships with extended family members. Children staying in school and graduating has value for both the individual and society. An educated workforce creates a strong economy (c.f., Goldberg, 2000; Lewis, Stone, Shipley, & Madzer, 1998). A male high school dropout earns $260,000 less than a high school graduate and contributes $78,000 less in taxes over his lifetime. For females, the comparable figures are $200,000 and $60,000. Each added year of secondary education reduces the probability of public welfare dependency by 35% (Lerner, 1995). Some of the RLs formed strong partnerships with school counselors and local schools and acted as liaisons between youth who had already dropped out or were about to drop out of school. Consider the example of Jose Ramirez in Figure 1. Figure 1: Jose Ramirez Jose was an extremely intelligent 17-year-old Hispanic male, who lives at home with his mom, dad, and younger brother.He had lived in different public housing complexes, and had attended three different high schools in less than 18 months. Both he and his sister eventually dropped out of high school and Jose began working full-time. Jose spent a year enrolled in a Charter School while working but that didn’t work out either and he dropped out again. “I hated it there…It was hard, because I thought it was gonna be good but I went there for like one year, the first year, it was totally different. The kids that enlisted were fighting and cussing and the teachers never could teach so you couldn’t never learn nothing and so I dropped out of there.” Jose resumed working and was soon offered a full-time night job with benefits with a computer company. However, he recognized the importance of obtaining his high school diploma before the beginning of the next school year. “I figured that I needed to hurry up and get my high school diploma ‘cause I’m going to be 18 already in October and so I want to graduate this year. And basically I feel like I just need to get it over with. I understand that a high school diploma is an important thing.” As Harriett Romo pointed out in her account of trying to re-enroll a friend’s son in a school in Austin (see Romo & Falbo, 1996, p. 164), negotiating the high school system can be very confusing, particularly for a family with little education, such as Jose’s. Once Jose made the decision to go back, the RL took him to the high school with his mother and helped him enroll. Jose found the traditional school setting hard and, despite a lot of support from the RL, he quit after three months. A few weeks after dropping out, the courts decided to fine him for not going to school. The RL testified on his behalf in court and stopped the situation from becoming worse by clearly explaining all the circumstances. The court decided the best path for Jose would be to attend a GED program on the other side of town. Currently, Jose has saved enough money to buy a car and is able to get himself to the program. The GED option seems to be working well for him.

84

RLs intervened in many instances to prevent situations from reaching extreme proportions. Through their programming and their relationships with the schools, RLs reminded youth of the importance of education. Reminders were reinforced by the RLs making regular school visits, talking to teachers, and sitting in on classes. When a relationship was established, both the youth and teachers appreciated the extra support the leader provided. One particular leader ate lunch at school at least one day a week, sometimes visiting up to three schools in a single day. These regular visits helped him build relationships with the faculty and staff at the school so he could be better prepared to help youth with whom he was working. The kids see me as kind of like checking up on them, but they really like it. They like you to sit down at the table with them and talk with their friends and stuff like that. That’s probably one of the best things, being involved with what’s going on in the school and the kids are more apt to share with you what’s going on in the school or sit down with you and do homework if you know what their schedule is and you know they should be bringing books home. They’ll lie to you and say, “No I don’t have homework.” But I’m able to say, “I was just at school today and I spoke with your teacher and I know that you are studying the colonies and you are having a test. Where’s your books?” The respect that the RLs gained through their contacts with the schools also helped develop the RL’s relationship with the child. As one RL, who was extremely visible in the schools, explained, The respect I have in the community with these kids is I would be able to go into the schools and help monitor it a little better because when I’m there, the kids know what to expect and what not to expect. And during the time that I was at schools, I was getting more attention than the hall monitors ‘cause they know after school you’re going to have to deal with me. See after school those teachers ain’t gonna see these kids until the next day. So they know to straighten up when they see me at their school. The relationships built in the schools facilitated the relationship-based programming approach. Even if children were not doing well educationally, the hours many of them were there and the relationships with peers they formed at school contributed to their development. Knowing what was occurring at school helped solidify relationships. Building relationships with extended family. Helping youth with personal and family issues and building relationships with extended family members is a critical part of relationship-based programming. Effective RLs were able to build meaningful relationships by acting as a resource when difficult personal and family issues emerged.

85

Helping youth overcome tough personal issues built trust between the child and the RLs. Sometimes, small windows of opportunity opened which allowed relationships between leaders and youth to develop. In Figure 2, the example of Shante emphasizes how a RL used one of these opportunities to establish trust. Figure 2 Shante Shante, a 13-year-old African-American female, lived in one of the local housing authority projects in a single-parent home.She was the second oldest of six children and often assumed the role of parent in the household.When Belinda (a RL) first met Shante, she noted how she seemed cold, rarely smiled, and had a hard exterior. Belinda felt that Shante was ready to explode. She was upset at what she saw going on around her housing project and had seen a lot of family fighting, drug transactions, family members arrested, and other negative activities. Shante’s mom had been in and out of jail several times during the time Shante was in the Roving Leader program. Belinda noted that Shante was often left alone for long periods due to her mother’s absence. On one occasion, Shante called Belinda at home because she had not seen her mother in a while. She had not eaten that day and there was no food in the house. Belinda brought some food to Shante and when Belinda arrived, Shante broke down and told Belinda how much she loved her. Shante was particularly close to Belinda after that. Belinda referred to her as “my baby.” Over the next year Belinda broke down much of Shante’s harshness and built a good relationship with her. Since that incident, Belinda pointed out that Shante’s attitude changed and “she smiles a whole lot more.”When the RL in her area first met her she had a bad attitude and was mean to both the RL and other kids. She would get angry and into fights if something happened that she did not like. Shante continued her improvement.Even Belinda’s relationship with Shante’s mother improved. As Belinda explained: “One day at the Millennium [a local sports complex] we were doing bowling and her mamma brought Shante down there and she pulled me to the side and she said, ‘I just want to thank you for working with my daughter. I’ve seen she’s grown up a lot and she’s matured a whole lot.’ And she said thank you. For real. But it was like Golly, I can’t believe she said that.” Both Belinda and Shante’s mother felt that the program had a significant impact on Shante, probably more than for most kids. Shante told Belinda that she did not know what she would be doing without the program. Another RL who worked in Shante’s area pointed out that “the key point is the trust that we have built up with Shante.If you have no trust then you don’t get the participation.”

Successful relationship-based programming required developing rapport with members of the child’s immediate and extended family. Knowledge gained through these contacts helped determine the approach a RL took when developing programmatic activities for a particular child. Having a good relationship with family members led to some members of the extended family also using the program as a resource. When the RLs successfully developed relationships with parents, they could act as a resource to the family and help solve problems that were affecting all family members. For example, one family got evicted from their home. The mother, a single Hispanic woman with no education, found it difficult to get a job to pay the rent. The RL got the family on the public housing list. However, the family spent two months during the hot Texas summer living in a tent in a friend’s back yard. During that time, the oldest

86

of the boys began having discipline problems at school. But when public housing eventually became available, his behavior improved. In another case, the RL was able to help a participant by helping his mother. The child’s mother had a serious drug problem. The RL was able to refer her to agencies that could help her get off the drugs which, in turn, improved the child’s situation. Building relationships and trust with parents was difficult, time consuming, and required a considerable amount of face-to-face contact. In other activity-based programs, contact with the family is often minimal and most of the communication is through letters taken home by the child or by telephone. Face-to-face contact was more effective and, in certain cases, the only way to achieve relationships with extended family members. Building trust with families sometimes entailed doing things outside the RL’s job description. For example, one RL who worked closely with a 13-year-old African-American participant (Kenny) felt that, at times, he became a surrogate parent for the boy. Kenny, whose mother and father were both in jail, lived with his grandmother in very impoverished conditions. The RL helped the grandmother with her social security forms and did basic home maintenance work. Another key element in building these relationships was the genuine care for youth the RLs exhibited. As one mother explained: It took me a while for me to trust them. ‘Cause I was going to every game. I was there at every game; I was riding with ‘em in the van. Or we was walking home together. And I guess the more I hung around and seen the different things that Robert and Jackie [RLs] did with them it made me trust them more, to put my trust, because I’m not very trusting, I’m very quick to say “no.” I had to actually really see for myself. The way they do stuff with the children, the way they interact with the kids, made me feel comfortable with them with my kids. They made me feel good because I could tell they wouldn’t hurt the kids. I could tell that the way they talk to ‘em, the way they, you know, they stay, interact with the kids, it was all good. You know I didn’t have a problem with it. And I got to the point where I could trust them with picking up my kids. However, when a relationship with extended family members could not be established, participation and program influence were severely impacted. One RL presented an example where his relationship with another participant’s (Rufus’s) mother was not good, leading to his mother barring further contact. Prior to that, the RL felt that the program was having a positive impact on Rufus’s life (Figure 3). Key Attributes of Relationship-Based Programming From observing and working with the RLs, four RL characteristics were identified that made relationship-based programming successful in

87 Figure 3 Rufus Rufus was a 15-year-old Hispanic male who had two older siblings (18 and 20 years old).He had participated in the program since January 1999.His biological father was convicted of a triple homicide and was executed in January 2000. The media graphically portrayed the murder, which was brutal and involved a corrections officer, his girlfriend, and his daughter. This had an extremely negative impact on Rufus and he began doing a lot of drugs (mainly marijuana). After the execution, Rufus began lashing out and rebelling. During the trial and execution, he talked to Richard [the RL] about what was going on. The situation was always being discussed at home among family members. The RL felt that, when Rufus was with him, Rufus was okay but when he was with his friends, there were problems.However, the RL had a big falling out with the mother and stepfather because they thought the RL had kept Rufus out too late.While on a field trip, the RL had to take another participant to the hospital, which delayed him getting Rufus home. Rufus’s mother did not check her messages and by the time the RL got him home, she appeared drunk and confrontational. She forbade the RL to have any future contact with Rufus. The RL persuaded her to discuss the situation. However, the stepfather threatened the RL, so he left. Before the RL lost contact, Rufus was diagnosed with a learning disability. The RLs had been helping him both in and out of school. However, after this incident, it was hard for the RL to have any contact with Rufus. The RLs did find out that Rufus’ grades slipped, he failed more than one class in the 9th grade, and he was still smoking marijuana.

recreation settings. These included the ability to be multi-faceted and flexible, involved and committed, constant and consistent, and compassionate, empathetic, and patient. Multi-faceted and flexible. Staff had to be multi-faceted and flexible, prepared for unexpected situations and able to deal with last-minute changes. This could be a challenge. As an area supervisor explained: You need to be a person who can be flexible in his work schedule, because in the Roving Leader there’s nothing that’s set on the dayto-day basis. The whole thing can just start happening at the spur of the moment and you’ve got to be able to be flexible to adjust to it. The benefits of being able to program spontaneously could be rewarding. For example, one night Robert [one of the RLs] and the investigator had planned three home visits with families in one of the housing projects in his area. As they headed to one of the houses, Robert spotted Jerry standing outside his house holding a football. Jerry used to be part of the program but the RL had not seen him in six months. Robert asked Jerry if he wanted to play some touch football. Jerry was delighted and soon two other kids joined in. They ended up playing for about an hour before Jerry’s sister called him in. Robert handed him and the two other children new registration cards and told Jerry to page him the next day. Although they did not have time to finish our visits, that unplanned encounter got Jerry back into the program.

88

Many of the kids faced constantly changing issues, so the RLs never knew what issues they might face on any given day. One day, the investigator remarked how tough it was to interact positively all day with a participant and yet be faced with the same child the next day that would treat you as though no previous interaction had taken place. A prominent community member, who collaborated strongly with the Roving Leader program, pointed out that youth were not going to follow rules as intently as youth from South River (a high income affluent part of the city): These kids that we’re working with, you always have to be on your toes, you always have to expect someone to do something that you are not expecting, or to say something that you wouldn’t normally hear. Because they’re all different, you know, they have seen more, they have experienced more, and their behavior is different from kids elsewhere. Not saying that it’s worse than others, but it is different. And their attitudes and the way they see things and the way they deal with things is a lot different than the way other kids do that don’t live in public housing. As well as being flexible, a relationship-oriented youth worker needs to play a number of different roles ranging from coach, to mentor to teacher to friend: You have to wear so many hats. You have to counsel kids. You’ve got to listen to them. A lot of times the kids come and they have so many problems. We think we have problems as adults but these kids, they come and they’re so young with so many issues that we were never be concerned with when we were growing up. We were just allowed to be kids. They are put in situations every day that make them grow up faster than what we ever had to do and they’ve seen so much that I didn’t see until I was older. Being hands-on. One of the keys to developing relationships was the ability to facilitate relationships with kids. Some of the key characteristics of RLs who could do this were the ability to be playful, young at heart, energetic, and to demonstrate enthusiasm. They relied more on personal resources than on extrinsic resources (such as basketball courts, computers, and other physical objects). For example, one of the recreation center supervisors who had worked with a number of RLs compared the difference between a kid coming to the recreation center and signing up for an activity and a RL who had to work the streets and to make contact with kids. She noted that the best RLs were staff that could build connections with the kids, which eventually led to “teachable moments.” RLs saw this as a crucial aspect of their job. As one pointed out, “You gotta be willing to be a kid at heart. If you can’t be a kid and get out and play with them, then you can’t do this job.” The interactions between RLs and youth and the recreation staff and youth were markedly different. RLs interacted and participated in activities,

89

whereas the recreation staff were on the periphery, mainly undertaking the role of disciplinarian. When the RL was not present, the recreation center staff felt they could not control these youth. The RLs, because of their enhanced relationships with youth also recognized the necessity, and were able to establish disciplinary boundaries. The consequences of not drawing boundaries usually resulted in a loss of respect. One RL in particular was not good at drawing boundaries and undertaking a disciplinarian role when needed. This had extremely negative consequences. Shaun [RL] never drew the line that he was in charge. And that’s why I think sometimes they run over him or sometimes they would still do the bad things. They would still spit at the window and flip people off and throw eggs at cars with Shaun there because they didn’t respect him. He didn’t establish himself as well as he could have with the kids. Being hands-on could be extremely productive. One RL likened it to the Pied Piper. RLs who were good at their job got followed everywhere. This did not necessarily entail being good at participating in all activities, just a willingness to be involved. For instance, some RLs could not swim, and did not particularly like the water, but were still willing to go in the water when they took their kids swimming. One park and recreation employee noted the consequences of not taking a hands-on approach. They’ll be shortchanged, that’s for sure. I mean, well you take it for granted. Here I come, pick you up, “what do you want to do? Alright let’s go do that.” We go do it. And I sit and you go do whatever. “Okay, time to go home. Come on, get back in the van, let’s go.” I mean what kind of relationship is that? I mean one has to be interested in what they’re doing. A recreation supervisor described some of the consequences that she had seen as a result of leaders not taking a hands-on approach. The weaker RLs have trouble being hands-on. They have the mentality of “let’s just take the kids to this program, let’s take them to that program, let’s take them”, instead of actually providing some hands-on role modeling. And while taking them different places is in itself sometimes good in that new experiences create things, I think that creates more of a separation, where the kids think, “oh well this program’s gonna end sometime, this is just another adult who’s just here for a short time.” Commitment and consistency. Being committed to making a difference is another critical aspect of relationship-based programming. Continuing to work with kids on whom others had given up is important. Too often, the reaction faced by youth involved in the Roving Leader program was that they were troublemakers who needed too much individual attention. These

90

settings were focused on the “collective good,” rather than the needs of particular individuals. If one child was negatively impacting the environment, dismissing the problematic child was perceived to be the best option, even if there was nowhere else for that child to go. Some youth in the program were deliberately obstreperous in order to test certain staff. For example, Vanessa consistently used bad language and was aggressive with new staff. She explained that this was her way of testing them. Thus, being consistent was critical to earning and maintaining a child’s trust and respect. It was essential that RLs avoided breaking appointments or promises to youth. One RL pointed out what happened when the leaders were inconsistent. When a RL doesn’t show up on time he’s failed and he’s gonna lose confidence from that kid. It’s very important because a lot of these kids have had so much of that happen to them in their lives and that’s what they expect from everybody. A good RL never misses an appointment with a kid. The day you miss an appointment with a kid, you’ve proven to the child that you cannot be trusted. And that is the number-one fear that these kids have. They’ve been disappointed all their lives. They’ve been lied to. That’s why they’re where they’re at. Not eating lunch at school with a child or not making an arranged home visit is damaging to a relationship. As two community members pointed out, the kids in the area had grown up in a climate where they were used to adults coming in and out of their lives and breaking promises. They think ,“Oh well you’re just gonna be around for so long” and they kinda get tired of it. They’re like, “well you’re just gonna leave anyway.” I think, we see a lot of that in kids these days. And so they wonder how long are you going to stay around? And I think they’re used to seeing that, at home with parents that kinda come and go and with teachers that are just concerned about their class period kind of thing. So I think it’s hard for kids to really make good strong bonds and have good role models. Providing consistency established the platform on which a trusting relationship could be built. One of the most consistent RLs, Deshaun, lived by this rule. Deshaun was known as a disciplinarian and a bit gruff, but had built a strong rapport with a group of teenage boys in his area. He felt that some staff were consistent when things went well in a child’s life, but when circumstances became more demanding, they pulled back. Deshaun’s philosophy was that commitment demanded a RL to be present through both good and bad times. As he pointed out: “A good RL is when the kids see your presence, and you can hang out at the park and talk about what happened at school but either way they know you’ll be committed to them.”

91

Consistency also led to respect. As Deshaun noted, when respect was earned, youth listened more intently. When you have respect then at least they have got one person regardless of whether that person is an RL or teacher that if they say “Shit or goddam,” I’m going to say “STOP!” and they’ll stop. Deshaun’s relationship with the teenagers had been built over a period of time. Most of them liked the fact that they knew what to expect from him and that he would follow through on commitments. Commitment was displayed by other RLs through the extraordinary lengths they went to when working with youth. For example, two RLs were trying to get summer jobs for a group of older teenage boys. As Michael [RL] explained, these kids came from families that did not push them to do things necessary to be successful, such as participating in a job fare. Persistence and patience were required to open doors for these kids. The RLs made an extra effort to help these teens undertake the steps necessary to get a job with the city for the summer. Often the teens were unmotivated to fill in a job application form and many did not know how to fill in forms correctly. Few people were available to help them. The city required the teens to fill in all the forms correctly at home and then go downtown, with a parent or guardian, to hand the forms in. This procedure frustrated the RLs who realized that few of the parents would make any effort to go downtown, thereby making it impossible for youth to get the jobs. As Michael pointed out, We can’t even get parents to walk down the street to watch their kid play a basketball game, so what makes the city think parents will make a special trip downtown? Michael decided to help the kids fill out the application and get parents to sign them. He then, personally took the forms downtown. However, with the deadline fast approaching, not one of the kids had filled out the form correctly. Over the next week, the RL came in early and worked with kids and parents to get the forms properly filled out. This entailed multiple trips to schools to photocopy school IDs and social security cards, as well as home visits and visits to parents’/guardians’ places of work to get forms signed. The more dedicated RLs often worked longer hours than that for which they were paid. Many thought nothing of driving kids across town to an extended relative’s house, paying for food or clothing that might be needed (sometimes out of their own pocket), or allowing youth to call them at home late at night if they had a problem. Being available to participants outside of “normal” work hours was an indicator of their commitment to making a difference. One Housing Authority employee, who regularly interacted with the RLs, was amazed at their dedication and commitment, particularly when they gave kids their home or pager numbers. She noted how different this was compared to workers from many other youth-serving agencies.

92

RLs who did not have this commitment tended to have less meaningful relationships with their kids. One area supervisor described them as staff that came in, did their eight hours, got very little accomplished, and made little impact. For example, one RL described “bad” RLs as those who would “just go and do their job and no more.” Compassion, empathy and patience. Being compassionate, empathetic, and patient was also critical to building relationships among youth, their families and the RLs. This required the RLs to be non-judgmental of actions of which they did not approve, forgiving, and willing to deal with problems, even when change took a long time. One RL discussed how he worked on building relationships with his group of boys, rather than simply worrying about how badly they were doing at school. By stressing academics, he felt he was jumping from A to D, bypassing B and C. Thus, some youth were dealing with so many extraneous issues that focusing on why they were getting a bad grade in an English class would have had no relevance to whether they were being evicted. He was particularly adept at recognizing the issues youth were facing, and discussed the need to take things slowly, however frustrating this might become: I think of myself as a positive influence, but hopefully I’m not necessarily another person in their face trying to beat it over their head that this is the way it’s supposed to be or that type of thing, but just to approach things with a little more patience. Not to just hit them with, “this is how it is, this is what you’re going to do, and this is how it’s best.” I mean just more of the approach of just being able to come down to their level and let them take it as slow as they need to or at a pace that they think is comfortable. This approach required RLs to be non-judgmental. Robert felt this approach worked for him and had a longer-lasting impact. He pointed out that when he started working with the youth in his area, they had a certain way of acting. If he had worked to change them too quickly, it would not have worked. My kids really have bad mouths. Every other word is “bitch” or “fuck” or something like that. The way I deal with that is that when that kid respects you, he or she is going to catch themselves and say, “Oh I’m sorry Mister or I’m sorry Miss” or something. That’s what you want. You don’t want to be so much about rules that they are like, “Oh you’re just another one of those guys out there trying to change me.” You want them to come about on their own terms to respect you and to respect what you are trying to do for them and that’s the point that I’m at with a lot of the kids.

93

Conclusions Useful insights concerning relationship development in recreation settings emerged from this study. For example, there is often a tendency to place too much emphasis on facilities and activities. However, it is not the facilities and activities, that attract and help youth. More powerful are the relationships that recreation professionals, teachers, coaches, and other youth development professionals develop with children. The study demonstrated that several elements are necessary for an outreach program to be successful. RLs who made the most impact were able to attract, recruit and build relationships with youth who were not part of structured programs. The opportunities they offered helped keep the kids away from negative influences such as crime, drugs, and gang-related activity, as well as develop positive life skills and promote the importance of staying in school. Using a relationship-based approach is important when working with individuals who are disillusioned and uninvolved with services in their communities. Creating meaningful relationships within programs seems obvious. Although Hendry (1991) and Larson (1994) have suggested that developing close relationships with an unrelated adult through out-ofschool time programs can be a critical factor in protecting youth from difficult circumstances, this rarely seems to happen. For example, when asked for individuals who had positively impacted them, teenagers rarely mentioned youth workers from programs in which they participated (Blyth, Hill & Thiel, 1982). Lerner (1995) suggested that, although these programs bring adolescents in contact with adults, relationships are rarely close and positive. Several characteristics of successful leaders in a relationship-based programming model emerged from this study. These included the ability to be multi-faceted and flexible; involved and able to make connections, consistent, compassionate, empathetic, and patient. Developing these abilities through pre-service and in-service training is critical. One of the toughest issues facing recreation workers is that the needs of most youth are not easily identifiable or separable. 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 large number of difficult issues. Brice-Heath and McLaughlin (1993) pointed out that the availability of resources and their family and friends influence a youth’s identity. Programs that take a multifaceted approach have a better chance of being successful in these circumstances. In this case, RLs who were successful in using the power of recreation settings to build relationships were those who were immersed in the community and used a multi-faceted approach, consisting of one-onone time, home and school visits, and recreation opportunities. They were also successful in connecting youth to other community resources. This is consistent with McLaughlin’s (1993) observation that successful programs can construct themselves to meet the multiple needs of the individuals they serve.

94

Some parents were in as much need of the support as their children. By helping a family deal with a difficult issue, the RLs were also dealing with the child’s problem. Munsch and Wampler (1993) found that families in high-risk environments were often “rendered powerless” as a support system for their children because they faced many of the same issues as their kids. Blechman’s (1992) research suggested that single mothers with highrisk children may benefit more from mentoring type programs than their children. This was due to mother becoming empowered, which gave them the confidence to exert more influence over their children. Residential instability, a consistent issue among many of the kids, had an impact on a child’s trust. Changing schools and moving to different areas entails people coming in and out of their lives. McIntyre (2000) argued that this state of uncertainty could result in youth finding it hard to develop intimate relationships and lead to additional stress. Policy-makers suggest that a low staff/youth ratio is conducive to relationship development and will result in greater positive impacts. However, fiscal constraints that face many recreation programs too often prevent this approach from being implemented. A greater understanding of the value of a relationship-based approach will enable funders, recreation practitioners, and policy-makers to facilitate programs to reach their full potential. An emphasis on relationship-based programming may also help overcome the propensity in many recreation settings to use larger numbers of participants as the main criteria of success. The relationship-based model deals with youth in context and attempts to identify and understand their issues from a multi-dimensional perspective. This approach requires more dedication and time on the part of staff, and a commitment by policy-makers to move away from short-term programs that define success by the number of children served. Recreation settings can be powerful tools for involving kids in relationships that can make a major difference in their lives. References Baker, J., & Witt, P.A. (2000). Backstreet Beacons: Austin’s Roving Leaders. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18(1), 87-105. Bell, M. (2002). Promoting children’s rights through the use of relationship. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 1-11. Bembry, R. (1998). A youth development strategy: Principles to practice in Recreation for the 21st Century. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(2), 15-34. Benson, P. L. (1997). All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caring and responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher. Blechman, E. A. (1992) Mentors for high-risk minority youth: From effective communication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 160-169. Blyth, D., Hill, J., & Thiel, K. (1982). Early adolescents’ significant others: Grade and gender differences in perceived relationships with familial and nonfamilial adults and young people. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 425-450.

95 Bocarro, J., & Witt, P.A. (2002). Reaching out/reaching in: the long-term challenges and issues of outreach programs. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20(3), 65-80. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss - Vol. 2: Separation: anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical implications of attachment theory. London: Routledge. 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 (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the out of school hours. New York: Carnegie Cooperation of New York. Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press. Figueira-McDonough, J. (1998). Environment and interpretation: Voices of young people in poor inner-city neighborhoods. Youth & Society, 30(2), 123163. Freedman, M. (1993). The kindness of strangers: Adult mentors, urban youth and the new volunteerism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Furstenberg, F. (1993). How families manage risk and opportunity in dangerous neighborhoods. In W. J. Wilson (Ed.), Sociology and the public agenda (pp. 231-258). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Furstenberg, F. (2000). Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press Galambos, N. L., & Leabeater, B. J. (2000). Trends in adolescent research for the new millenniumInternational Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3),289294. Gilligan, R. (1999). Enhancing the resilience of children and young people in public care by mentoring their talents and interests. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 187-196. Goldberg, M. F. (2000). Committed to high-quality education for all children: An interview with Hugh Price. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 604-606. Grossman, J. B., & Johnson, A. W. (1999). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring programs. In J. B. Grossman (Ed.), Contemporary issues in mentoring. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Halpern, R., Barker, G., & Mollard, W. (2000). Youth programs as alternative spaces to be: A study of neighborhood youth programs in Chicago’s West Town. Youth & Society, 31 (4), 469-506. 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. Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Mentoring school-age children: Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12, 597-605. Larson, R. (1994). Youth organizations, hobbies, and sports as developmental contexts. In R. K. Silberseisen, & E. Todt (Eds.), Adolescence in context: The interplay of family, school, peers, and work in adjustment (pp. 46-65). New York: Springer

96 Verlag. Lerner, R. M. (1995). America’s youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies. London: Sage Publications. Lewis, T., Stone, J., Shipley, W. & Madzer, S. (1998). The transition from school to work: An examination of the literature. Youth & Society, 29(3), 259-292. Macleod, J. (1995). Ain’t no makin’ it. Oxford: Westview Press Inc. 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. McLaughlin, M.W. (2000). Community counts: How youth organizations matter for youth development. Washington, D. C.: Public Education Network. McLaughlin, M.W., Irby, M. A., & Langman, J. (1994). Urban Sanctuaries: Neighborhood organizations in the lives and futures of inner-city youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Morrow, K. V., & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings: a study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/ Private Ventures. Munsch, J., & Wampler, R. S. (1993). Ethnic differences in early adolescents’ coping with school stress. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 633-646. Pittman, K., Irby, M., & Ferber, T. (2000). Unfinished business: Further reflections on a decade of promoting youth development. In Public/Private Ventures (Ed.), Youth Development: Issues, Challenges and Directions. Public/ Private Ventures: Philadelphia. Romo, H. D., & Falbo, T. (1996). Latino high school graduation: Defying the odds. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Scales, P. C., & Leffert, N. (1999). Developmental assets: A synthesis of the scientific research on adolescent development. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. Werner, E. B. (1987). Vulnerability and resiliency in children at risk for delinquent: A longitudinal study from birth to young adulthood. In J. D. Burchill & S. N. (Eds.), The prevention of delinquent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Werner, E. E. (1994). Overcoming the odds. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 131-136. Witt, P. A., Crompton, J. L., & Baker, J. E. (1999, Fall). Taking it to the streets: Roving Leader Programs, Trends, 35(4).