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).