1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Mentoring is most broadly defined as the one-to-one relationship between a pair
of unrelated individuals, usually of different ages, who come together so the more
experienced person, regardless of age, can share life experiences with the other (Karcher,
2005). A mentoring relationship can be formed in one of two ways according to Karcher:
naturally, where a youth is befriended or taken under the wing of a caring member of the
community; or through direct formal programming, where a program is created to service
an at-risk population within the community to address the mentee’s needs. Mentoring
programs have been adopted by many organizations including school districts, school
sites (including higher education) and non-profit organizations. Freedman (1993)
suggested that preliminary research has indicated that mentoring is a viable option to
prevent youth from engaging in risky behavior and is therefore considered by many to be
a form of violence and/or substance abuse prevention.
Although many young people participate in structured recreation, including after
school programs, very few recreation agencies, public or non-profit, offer mentoring
programs for youth. Le Menestrel and Perkins (2007) discussed the viability of creating
mentoring programs for the recreation profession as it continues to strive to follow youth
development principles when creating programming and Carson (1999) stated the
importance of volunteering in sustaining communities. With a need to serve both adults
and youth, a mentoring program can create a number of positive outcomes for all
2
participants (Freedman, 1993). Mentoring programs provide opportunities for both
participants in the role of mentor and mentee to grow and learn, resulting in a “double
impact” that is appealing to many organizations attempting to support constituents with
limited financial and community resources (Karcher, 2005).
While mentoring does require resources and staff time to be conducted
effectively, over time a mentoring program can become a fiscally conservative approach
to providing programming (McLearn and Colastanto, 1990) The right steps must be taken
in order for a program to become effective and have the ability to sustain in an ever
changing environment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the
1998 Juvenile Mentoring Program: Report to Congress outlined the favorable effects of
mentoring programs based on specific characteristics and guidelines that must be met in
order for the program to have positive results. Not every mentoring program will be
effective simply because it is a mentoring program. For a mentoring program to be
successful and effective, best practice elements must be utilized. According to Freedman
(1993), a best practice program is one that is consistently evaluated and shown to be
effective and can be replicated successfully. Freedman (1993) also discussed the
importance for organizations that provide mentoring programs to utilize best practices in
order to provide adequate support for their mentees and mentors.
Need for the Project
Extensive research has been done regarding the effects of mentoring in general.
However, few have focused on mentoring specifically in organizations outside the
3
education or non-profit arena (Rhodes, 2002). Given that the majority of young people
engage in structured or unstructured recreation, there is the potential for young people in
these settings to benefit from mentoring. To date, however, there has been little to no
research on mentoring in recreation settings to evaluate its impact.
Rhodes (2002) noted that the rapid expansion of mentoring programs with the
absence of sufficient guidelines have led programs to provide services without a
successful infrastructure. The guidelines of best practice and common characteristics
discussed by Rhodes (2002) and Freedman (1993) and laid out by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1998) suggest a program must include clear
guidelines, a formal programmatic structure and evaluation component to effectively
serve the youth and adults involved in the program. Rhodes (2002) stated that without
guidelines, it would be difficult for staff to create a best practice program that would
effectively address positive youth development with positive outcomes for both the
mentors and mentees. Although the benefits of mentoring are high and municipal parks
and recreation programs offer many structured youth-based programs, mentoring appears
to be low on the priority list.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs assessment within municipal
recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent
to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to
develop and implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist.
4
Definitions of Key Terms
To ensure a clear understanding of this project, terms used throughout include the
following:
Mentoring: a one-to-one relationship between a pair of unrelated individuals,
usually of different ages, who come together so the more experienced person, regardless
of age, can share life experiences with the other (Karcher, 2005; Freedman, 1993).
Mentor: the older of the two individuals in a mentoring relationship that can be
identified as a guide that can provide the mentee with a positive role model for the
specific purpose of guiding and supporting the mentee in areas of academic, social and
emotional development (Freedman, 1993).
Mentee: a protégé or young person in need of general life guidance and/or a role
model to talk to (Karcher, 2005).
Youth Development: a framework that shifts away from seeing youth as a
problem to seeing youth as a segment of the population that has much to offer and can
also benefit from adult support and guidance (Connell and Gambone,1999).
The purpose of this chapter was to provide an introduction to the project,
familiarize the reader with mentoring and how it relates to local municipal recreation
programs, as well as reasons for conducting research on this topic. Chapter two will focus
on a literature review of research regarding mentoring and youth development.
5
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs assessment within municipal
recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent
to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to
develop and implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist. This
chapter includes a review of research on mentoring; including the history, benefits and
elements of effective practice. In addition, this chapter also includes a review of research
on the history of youth development, the various strategies of youth development and
how they are utilized within municipal recreation programs and as they relate to
mentoring.
Professionals who work directly in youth development and researchers who study
it have found that there are fundamental principles of youth development which, if
employed, help young people to become competent, engaged, and responsible adults.
Research suggests that structured mentoring is directly related to the elements of the
youth development model. Many mentoring programs use this model to shape their
program. According to Kirshner (2007), successful youth development consists of five
practices: safety, relationship building, youth participation, community involvement, and
skill building. Programs that utilize youth development provide opportunities and support
to help participants gain the competencies and knowledge they need to meet the
increasing challenges they will face as they mature (Kirshner, 2007).
6
One must look at youth development to understand effective mentoring.
According to Connell and Gambone (1999), there is overwhelming evidence that the
presence of caring, supportive relationships between young people and adults is one of
the most critical factors in the healthy development of young people. By emphasizing the
importance of relationship building, mentoring programs can contribute to the important
developmental needs of young people. Most importantly, relationship building through
mentoring ensures young people have somewhere to turn when faced with difficult
decisions. Supportive relationships with both adults and peers are sources of emotional
support and guidance and contribute to better decision making, lower levels of stress,
higher academic achievement, healthier relationships and lower levels of drug and
alcohol use (Connell and Gambone, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) added that adults also
develop their own self-esteem, confidence, communication skills, and leadership skills by
supporting youth through mentoring. With this approach, adults and youth each bring
something to the relationship and each share a personal accomplishment.
Mentoring
Mentoring is most broadly defined as the one-to-one relationship between a pair
of unrelated individuals, usually of different ages, who come together so the more
experienced person can share life experiences with the other (Freedman, 1993). A
mentoring relationship can be formed in one of two ways: naturally, where a youth is
befriended or taken under the wing of a caring member of the community; or through
direct formal programming, where a program is created to service an at-risk population
7
within the community to address the mentee’s needs (Karcher, 2005).While it may seem
to some that mentoring is a new idea, it actually has quite an impressive history with
complex guiding principles to ensure effective programming. The following five subsections provide further details about the ideals of mentoring and an overview of the
guiding principles.
History of Mentoring
Mentoring and apprentice programs for training young men in various professions
have been around for centuries. However, structured, formal mentoring programs that
pair youth with adults are relatively new. Examples of mentoring date back to the story of
Homer’s Odyssey. In this story, the term “mentor” was introduced to the world. The
character Mentor coaches Odysseus’ son Telemachus, as he prepares to take care of his
family in his father’s absence. The mentored youth declares his appreciation for his
mentor when he tells him how important he has been in his life as a substitute father
(National Institute of Standards and Technology Pilot Mentoring Program, 2002). Of
course the fundamentals of mentoring do not look to replace a parent or guardian, but
instead seek to provide a positive relationship with a non-family member. The mentoring
trend continued during the Middle Ages when boys would serve as apprentices to a
master in a certain craft in order to learn a trade and become masters themselves. While
boys were working with assigned craftsmen, a close bond formed between the master and
the apprentice that would increase the quality of the craft being handed down to the next
generation (DuBois, et al, 2002).
8
In the United States during the nineteenth century, the Friendly Visiting campaign
recruited middle class women to work with poor and immigrant children throughout the
ever-growing cities of America (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
1998). With the increased number of immigrants arriving in the United States,
communities felt the need to assist these new arrivals. The recruited middle class women
were to provide assistance for immigrant families and youth on how to adjust to
American ways, traditions and customs. In 1904, the most well known mentoring
program was created. Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America was founded as a
successor to the Friendly Visitors, matching middle-class adults with poor and
disadvantaged youth. The mentoring program operated by Big Brother and Big Sisters of
America has evolved over time to include a well defined and specific program that
creates and sustains successful mentor/mentee pairs (DuBois, et al, 2002).
Mentoring Today
Mentoring gives youth the chance to have a role model and allows them to bond
with someone who is older than they are and can show the mentee options that may be
unknown before the relationship. Research suggests that at-risk youth who are involved
with at least one caring adult are more likely to be able to successfully negotiate a range
of negative influences including poverty, parental addiction, family mental illness, and
family discord than are their peers who are not involved in a similar relationship (Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998). An older, positive adult role
9
model can be a sounding board for youth to discuss their wants and desires, their goals
and ambitions in life and support positive decisions.
Many mentoring programs strive to increase a mentee’s self efficacy: the ability
to believe in themselves and their ability to make a positive decision. When mentees are
able to make good decisions and become self-sufficient, there is a greater likelihood that
they will become productive members of society. A mentor can support a mentee’s selfefficacy by listening and guiding the mentee by example (Spencer, 2006). Effective
mentoring programs strive to produce increased self-efficacy within the mentee, in order
to produce youth that will be successful in the future.
Need for Mentoring
Mentoring has been viewed in positively because of society’s need for
inexpensive ways to support young people. Young people often experience hardships that
make it difficult for them to maintain a positive relationship with adults in their lives.
Many are raised in single-family homes where one parent is the primary care giver and
are left alone because of the parent’s need to work to support the family (Rhodes, 2002).
More and more families are living in poverty without the benefit of health care and they
reside in neighborhoods where rates of substance abuse, crime and poverty are higher
than in middle income neighborhoods (Rhodes, 2002). These factors make it much more
difficult for youth to concentrate on school success and future endeavors (Taylor &
Bressler, 2000).
10
Another factor that illustrates the need for mentoring is the lack of school
bonding. Youth who have a low commitment to education are less inclined to participate
in school activities, attend class or strive to be successful in the classroom (Taylor &
Bressler, 2000). These youth do not feel a connection between themselves and their
school. Most times they have few school friends and do not participate in any extracurricular activities, sports or any other school related functions such as school dances.
Youth that show little or no school bonding are usually those that have behavioral
problems on school grounds. These youth participate in physical fights on school campus
or other negative activities (Spencer, 2006).
Many young people also have a negative self-image. They do not see their own
value and therefore do not strive to be successful in any of their endeavors (McLearn &
Colasanto, 1999). Some of them participate in unhealthy lifestyle choices such as alcohol
and drug use because they are isolated from school, friends and family and do not feel
they can perform at a high level with their schoolwork.
Even families with two parent households may not be able to attend to the needs
of their children. Sometimes, parents can be too busy to interact and support their
children (Hirsch, 2005). Adolescence is a prime time for youth to be introduced to an
older mentor. Parents, guardians or figures of authority are often viewed as the enemy
that cannot be trusted. An unrelated older friend can be the guide though life that a young
person needs (Freedman, 1993).
Mentoring offers youth the chance to become self-sufficient and productive
members of society. Providing basic opportunities and support will build on young
11
people’s strengths and will ultimately be more successful than intervening after a crisis
has occurred (Spencer, 2006). Mentoring programs offer youth an opportunity to connect
with an unrelated adult or older peer who can provide comfort and assistance with daily
problems and pressures that youth face on a daily basis.
Benefits of Mentoring
There are certain outcomes that all mentoring programs strive to achieve with
their mentee participants in order to be successful. For a mentoring program to be
successful, it must provide the youth with attributes that were either not present or fully
developed before the relationship.
The ultimate goal of many mentoring programs is the possibility of establishing
the bond between the mentor and mentee through the one to one process (Freedman,
1993). The establishment of this bond will help facilitate a relationship between the
mentor and the mentee. Part of building a bond between the mentor and the mentee
includes the existence of a warm, interpersonal relationship between the two (Rhodes,
2002). This relationship will allow the mentor and mentee to respect each other’s views
and goals and allow them to relate to each other with greater ease.
Once the bond between the mentor and mentee is established, it is assumed that
the mentor will broaden the horizon of the mentee by exposing her/him to new
conversation and exploring new ideas (Karcher, 2005; Spencer, 2006). The mentor
essentially becomes the mentee’s guide. As the relationship grows, in theory, so will the
conversations.
12
The outcome of providing youth with the knowledge that they can be successful
in life is a message that will bolster attempts by youth to strive for success (Hirsch,
2005). Together, the mentor and the mentee will set higher goals together such as higher
school attendance, higher grades in class, etc. in order to challenge each other to achieve
goals previously thought unattainable (Karcher, 2005). As goals are achieved, challenges
are increased, thereby supporting young people to become more intrinsically motivated
and ultimately to become more autonomous and independent. Assisting the mentee in
believing in their ability to set and achieve goals is important because it helps facilitate a
mentee’s belief in her/his self, a first step toward self-efficacy.
Another outcome of the mentoring relationship is the increased ability of both the
mentor and mentee to work together to make decisions or solve problems (DuBois, et al,
2002). Often it is the mentor’s duty to help guide the mentee through the steps that will
assist them in understanding what a certain decision will mean in terms of various
outcomes. Practicing decision-making skills gives both the mentor and mentee a sense of
empowerment (Karcher, 2005). It enables the mentee to have faith in her/his ability to
make good decisions that will positively affect their life.
Summary of Mentoring
A mentoring relationship can be formed in one of two ways: naturally, where a
youth is befriended or taken under the wing of a caring member of the community; or
through direct formal programming, where a program is created to service an at-risk
population within the community address the mentee’s needs (Karcher, 2005). Mentoring
13
has a long history with consistently effective outcomes. In the past 20 years, mentoring
has become more popular as a youth development strategy to assist youth in being more
resilient in terms of challenges they experience and to support them in being better
problem solvers, intrinsically motivated and more autonomous and independent.
Youth Development
According to Murphy (1974), relationships between our major social institutions
such as work, religion, family, education, and leisure have changed significantly since
1900. At the start of this era, leisure activities were typically family based. However,
society today has assumed a community-based role as most parents are working more and
relying on others to provide activities for their children. Within these community based
programs, including those within municipal recreation departments and districts, youth
development elements and strategies are being used to guide programming. Edginton and
Randall (2005) stated that if youth are not actively engaged, they are more likely to
participate in risky behaviors when they are unsupervised by adults. Fauth, Roth and
Brooks-Gunn (2007) said that research generally finds participation in unsupervised and
unconstructive activities during the after-school hours contributes to risky choices,
whereas, participation in supervised, organized activities leads to fewer problem
behaviors. Fauth, Roth and Brooks-Gunn (2007) added that many times, the structured
activities actually increase educational attainment and achievement. According to
Kirshner (2007), the elements of youth development consist of five practices: safety,
relationship building, youth participation, community involvement, and skill building.
14
The following six sub-sections will provide further details about these five practices and
the guiding principles of youth development.
Safety
Most programs generally define safety as physical safety which involves
minimizing dangers within the surrounding environment, providing adequate adult
supervision and being well prepared to address emergencies, such as fires, earthquakes
and medical crises. However, according to Connell and Gambone (1999) promoting a
sense of safety in a program serving young people goes beyond creating a physically safe
environment. A program can provide a safe physical environment and participants can
still view it as an unsafe place. For young people to experience a program as safe, they
must feel personally safe—both physically and emotionally. The experience of physical
safety means that young people feel safe from physical harm, confident that the
surrounding adults will protect them from harm and offer assistance if they are feeling
threatened—whether by their peers or other adults. Connell and Gambone (1999) defined
emotional safety as the experience of young people feeling secure that they will be valued
and accepted by the group; that they can participate fully without fear of teasing,
harassment or ostracism; and that racial and cultural differences between individuals are
embraced. Individual differences such as body type or differences in ability or interest are
also accepted and young people know they will be treated with respect. In an
environment that promotes emotional safety, young people feel safe to try and sometimes
fail because positive risk-taking is supported and mistakes are welcomed.
15
Langer (1989) suggested youth must feel safe and in control of their environment
to be mindful or engaged in learning. Making decisions, feeling in control, or
manipulating possible outcomes results in more engaged or mindful experience. Most of
the learning in programs outside of school occurs in a social environment, and therefore a
sense of safety is important. Connell and Gambone (1999) added young people are more
willing to take the risks necessary for learning and growth when they know their mistakes
will be accepted by the group. A sense of safety is also a prerequisite for building
positive relationships with adults and peers that help young people learn.
Relationship Building
Relationship building is the development of caring, supportive relationships
between adults and young people as well as among young people and their peers.
According to Connell and Gambone (1999), adults respect young people and treat them
with courtesy and care in a program that strives for effective youth development. In
addition, young people learn to treat each other with respect and develop a group identity
including all members (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Staff members know that building
positive, trusting relationships with young people is not a separate part of the work, but
rather an integral part of every activity and interaction. Connell and Gambone (1999)
added there is overwhelming evidence that the presence of caring, supportive
relationships between young people and adults is one of the most critical factors in the
healthy development of young people. By emphasizing the importance of relationship
building, programs can contribute to the important developmental needs of young people.
16
Through youth development, utilizing youth as resources and forming positive
relationships between youth and adults, leisure service professionals and educators can
better understand appropriate ways of helping young people become competent, engaged,
and responsible adults. Through learning by doing and connecting to community and
society as a whole, this task can be accomplished. Learning by doing requires youth
involvement or interaction with the activities in which they are participating. Involvement
in the planning of an activity and perceived control helps stimulate the need to know.
Langer (1989) suggested physical involvement through a small request stimulates a larger
“big picture” view of what is happening.
Most importantly, relationship building ensures young people have somewhere to
turn when faced with difficult decisions. Supportive relationships with both adults and
peers are sources of emotional support and guidance and contribute to better decision–
making, lower levels of stress, higher academic achievement, healthier relationships and
lower levels of drug and alcohol use (Connell and Gambone, 1999). Deci and Ryan
(1985) also asserted that adults develop their own self-esteem, confidence,
communication skills, and leadership skills by mentoring youth through their chosen
project. With this approach, adults and youth each bring something to the project and
share the personal accomplishment as well as a sense of doing something to benefit an
entire community.
17
Youth Participation
When programmers speak of youth participation, they are often referring to the
number of young people who participate in a program. However, Connell and Gambone
(1999) said simple participation is not enough and opportunities should be provided for
meaningful youth participation. If young people are engaged in meaningful participation,
they are empowered to be self-directed, make responsible choices about how to use their
leisure time and participate as group members when making decisions that influence the
larger program. Through opportunities such as learning group leadership skills and
assuming leadership roles, young people have opportunities to give back by contributing
to the program, other young people, or the larger community. According to Connell and
Gambone (1999), young people experience their participation as meaningful when they
report feeling a sense of belonging and ownership. In a program that fosters meaningful
youth participation, adults serve as mentors and facilitators to build the skills of the
young people. Fostering meaningful youth participation means providing opportunities
for problem solving, decision making, planning, goal setting, and helping others, and
involves adults sharing power in real ways with youth. In addition, program participants
are encouraged to take a lead role in the development of their goals and the program,
which includes making decisions about what they want to achieve, what activities are
included in the program, the length of the program and the environment and materials
necessary for successful implementation. In summary, meaningful youth participation
includes giving young people the opportunity to participate in decision making and to
develop and practice leadership in addition to experiencing a sense of belonging.
18
Community Involvement
Providing opportunities for community involvement can be obtained by offering
young people activities that increase knowledge of their communities and promote a
sense of positive belonging. Connell and Gambone (1999) define community knowledge
as learning about the community’s history, available resources and the diverse cultures it
represents. It may also include learning about real life community challenges.
Opportunities for community involvement allow young people to give back to others
through community service activities. For young people, according to Deci and Ryan
(1985), this means moving from the usual role of being helped to being someone who can
capably help others and promote change. For program leaders, providing opportunities
for community involvement requires finding ways to bring the community into programs.
This means creating opportunities for young people to meet community leaders and
residents, to explore the community and to research the problems faced by the
community and identify ways they can actively be a part of the solution.
Research on childhood resiliency and youth development, according to Connell
and Gambone (1999), as well as studies on the prevention of high risk behaviors,
according to Edginton and Randall (2005), affirms the importance of young people
feeling a connection to the community. Involvement in active and useful roles in service
to others is associated with higher self-esteem, enhances moral development, increased
political activism, and the ability to create and maintain complex social relationships.
Darling, Caldwell and Smith (2005) stated that community involvement can offer youth
the opportunity to learn about topics not usually a part of the school day curriculum. This
19
increases engagement in an outside-school program, especially when topics are selected
based on the youth’s own interests. When young people can make connections between
program activities and their own lives in the community, interest and motivation to
participate are enhanced (Connell and Gambone, 1999). In addition to an increased
appreciation of diversity, youth-led projects require that young people work together to
accomplish goals, encouraging the development of important life skills. Deci and Ryan
(1985) suggested these skills include communication, problem solving, decision making
and group collaboration. As groups experience success, young people form deeper bonds
with peers and the community. Perhaps most importantly, activities that involve service
to others allow for feelings of value based on contributions made. In addition to the
benefits of young people, according to Connell and Gambone (1999), adults and
community members often re-visit stereotypes of young people when they experience
positive interactions. Therefore, adults are more likely to hold a positive view of young
people and voice their support for important resources that benefit youth. Adults may
even decide to play a more active role in supporting the needs of young people.
Skill Building
Hogan and Gabrielsen (2003) suggested in a non-formal setting, self-directed
learners take control of both the outcome and the means of learning. Rodin, Schooler and
Schaie (1990) added that because they can choose the topic of study and the choice is
relevant to their future, youth often participate in activities because they are intrinsically
motivated. Samdahl (1988) referred to intrinsic motivation as self-motivation that can
20
strongly influence the outcome of one’s experience. Even as early as 1918, Kilpatrick
suggested intrinsic motivation leads to lifelong learning.
Csikszentmihalyi’s (1975) flow theory is closely tied to intrinsic motivation and
intrinsic reward. Developed from Csikszentmihalyi’s 1975 stimulus-response paradigm,
flow theory adds the component of mental control. The stimulus is the activity and the
reward is the flow experience. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) described flow as the harmony of
mind and body experienced through the loss of awareness of time. The theory of flow is
identified as the ratio or relationship between an individual’s skills and the challenge of
the activity. As skills improve, so should the challenge to maintain the flow experience.
According to Csikszentmihalyi (1975), the flow experience results in a sense of
discovery, higher level of performance, engrossed attention, perceived control, loss of a
sense of self, and intrinsic rewards. Flow experiences are goal-related, require skill or
action equal to one’s opportunity, and include a motion or action that becomes almost
effortless. Recently, flow has been applied to recreational experiences occurring in a
variety of settings (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Ultimately, learning experiences that are challenging and engaging mean young
people are motivated to learn because activities interest them and they have the chance to
stretch their skills, knowledge and abilities and internalize a sense of mastery and
competence. Connell and Gambone (1999) stated that providing such experiences for
young people is the best way to attract and sustain their participation within a program.
This is particularly true of adolescents, who typically have a higher level of choice over
their participation and can “vote with their feet” if they do not find programs engaging.
21
According to Connell and Gambone (1999), using a range of approaches to reach young
people with diverse learning styles will also help a program attract and sustain the
participation of young people who have not had success in traditional classroom settings.
As one feels more interested and successful as a learner, one’s confidence, enthusiasm
and interest in participating will grow and misbehavior will diminish.
Connell and Gambone (1999) provided a strategy for ensuring challenging and
engaging learning experiences, beginning with the importance of designing a learning
environment that is experienced as safe for taking risks and incorporates both diversity
and interests of young learners. Next, they stressed the importance of embedding learning
lessons in all program activities and drawing on instructional strategies that are especially
designed to engage young people as full participants. Lastly, Connell and Gambone
(1999) focused on the importance of providing feedback to youth, opportunities for their
own self-assessment, and ensuring they are recognized and celebrated for
accomplishments. Weisz (1990) concluded the self-directed learner is motivated by
choice, intrinsic reward, a sense of discovery, and a “flow” experience.
Joplin (1996) suggested new meaning or ideas come from making connections to
real-life experiences, and this information becomes available for recall at a future time. In
youth development, youth engage in self-discovery in an atmosphere where there are no
incorrect answers. Youth thrive in an atmosphere where they can learn at their own pace
and can evaluate themselves.
22
Summary of Youth Development
By adopting the youth development model and giving youth responsibility for
their own learning, educators and leisure service providers can foster lifelong interests
helping youth gain the skills necessary to become literate, intelligent beings. In addition,
knowledge of youth development will create a positive environment for youth, decrease
risky behaviors and aid in successful community building. According to Kirshner (2007)
and Connell and Gambone (1999), with careful knowledge and utilization of the five
practices of youth development (safety, relationship building, youth participation,
community involvement, and skill building), successful implementation can occur and
will most likely result in a positive educational and leisure experience encompassing both
the theories of flow and community engagement.
Mentoring programs generally incorporate the valuable elements of the youth
development model with proven results. Many organizations including school districts,
school sites (including higher education) and non-profit organizations have adopted
mentoring. However, one observation that exists is the apparent lack of mentoring within
municipal recreation programs, as evidenced by few programs being promoted. The
purpose of this chapter was to review literature about mentoring and youth development.
The first part of this chapter included a review of research on mentoring; providing a
history, benefits and how it should be done effectively. Second, this chapter provided a
review of research on the history of youth development, the various strategies of youth
development and how they are utilized within municipal recreation programs. The
23
following chapter will discuss the methods used to collect and analyze data for this
project.
24
Chapter 3
METHODS
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs assessment within municipal
recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent
to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to
develop and implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist. This
chapter includes a description of research design, sampling, data collection, and data
analysis procedures. In addition, a discussion of limitations encountered during the study
is included.
Research Design
This needs assessment was conducted in the spring of 2010 in the metropolitan
area of Sacramento, California. The participants were selected because of their positions
within a municipal parks and recreation department or district within the Sacramento
metropolitan area. An open-ended survey was created to collect qualitative data based on
the purpose of the project and review of the literature. An open-ended survey allows
participants to supply their own responses because of the lack of pre-selected choices
which allows for specific examples and possibility for new ideas and themes to emerge
that the researcher may have previously overlooked (Henderson & Bialeschki, 2002). The
survey method was used because of the wide geographical area being covered and the
need to obtain direct responses from the participants involved. Thomas, Nelson and
25
Silverman (2005) describe a survey as a way to secure information about present
practices, conditions and demographic data and may ask for opinions or knowledge. With
the goals in mind, a survey served as the best method for obtaining the desired
information from each participant. The participants were told in the beginning of the
study that they may be asked to participate in a follow-up interview in order to clarify
answers. Bourque and Fielder (2003) suggest that follow-up interviews coupled with
regular contact between the researcher and the participants will provide opportunities for
responses to be clarified.
In order to protect the participants, approval was granted by the Human Subjects
Institutional Review Board at California State University, Sacramento. A copy of the
approved consent form is included in Appendix A. Next, the researcher began outreach to
potential participants based on the criteria established.
Sampling
There were three sets of criteria used in identifying survey participants and
included: location within the Sacramento metropolitan area, knowledge of youth
programming currently offered within their agency and their position held within a
municipal recreation department or district. Patton (2002) defined criterion-based
sampling as the selection of participants who meet some pre-determined criteria. In
addition to criterion-based sampling, purposive selection was used when determining the
best participants for the survey. Purposive selection is described by Bourque and Fielder
(2003) as the strategy of purposely selecting identified participants who represent the
26
population being studied. Based on the specific criteria, 11 participants were identified to
be recruited for this study to represent their municipal parks and recreation department or
district. Participants were contacted first via phone where they were informed about the
study and asked if they were willing to participate. Of the 11 people who were contacted
and agreed to participate in the study, 9 returned the survey within three weeks of
receiving the packet. The remaining two were contacted again and did not respond.
The nine participants represented municipal recreation departments and districts
within the Sacramento metropolitan area ranging in size in terms of staff and youth
served annually from very small to the largest in the area. Of the nine participants, five
were female and four were male. All participants confirmed that the department or
district they represent does serve youth on an annual basis. The number of youth served
and the age ranges served within each department or district on an annual basis were
identified by participants as: 1,000 youth ages 3 through 17; 5,000 youth ages 3 through
15; 9,000 youth ages 3 through 17; 10,000 youth ages 3 through 18; 11,000 youth ages 4
through 18; 150,000 youth ages 3 through 17; 340,000 youth ages unidentified; 500,000
youth ages 2 through 16; and an unidentified number of youth ages 3 through 18.
Data Collection
Participants completed the survey on their own time and were requested to return
it within two weeks of receiving the packet. During the initial participant recruitment
phone call, individuals who agreed to participate were informed a packet would be
arriving in the mail within three days including a cover letter, physical copy of the
27
survey, consent form to be signed, and an addressed, stamped envelope to submit the
survey and consent form once they were completed. It was estimated that the survey and
signing the consent form would require between 20 to 30 minutes of the participant’s
time. Next, an e-mail was sent to all participants to confirm that the packets had been
sent. The e-mail also included more information about the study and served as a reminder
to complete the survey and consent form and return within two weeks of receiving the
packet.
When the participants received the packet, they were encouraged to read through
the cover letter which introduced the researcher and project. Borque and Fielder (2003)
stressed the importance of a well-written cover letter in order to solicit a positive
response from the participants and also tactfully appeal to the participant’s ego;
prompting a desire to participate and feeling of honor to have been asked. The cover
letter also reminded participants that their participation was voluntary and that they could
chose to withdraw their participation without penalty at any time. After one week had
passed and several surveys had been returned, an additional e-mail was sent to ask
participants if they could please complete and submit their survey if they were still
interested in participating in order for the project to continue. Green (1991) stated that the
second letter to participants can work for or against the researcher because the individuals
who responded originally had more favorable attitudes towards the topic and those who
did not originally respond may be less interested and the responses provided may be
invariably biased to reflect this. By the end of three weeks, 9 of the 11 surveys had been
28
returned. All nine participants who responded and were asked to sign the consent form
had done so.
The survey questions were designed to explore municipal recreation departments
and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent to which mentoring
programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to develop and
implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist. The questions are
included in Appendix B. At the conclusion of the survey, participants had an opportunity
to add anything they felt was not covered in the other open-ended questions. Additional
follow-up questions were optional for the researcher if there were any unclear responses
or additional ideas that needed to be explored. However, the responses were clear enough
and the opportunity was not given for the researcher to take advantage of this option.
Once all responses were received, the next step was to analyze the data.
Data Analysis
In order to analyze the data once it was collected, the methods used included
content analysis and constant comparative analysis. Open coding was used to develop
emerging themes and axial coding was used to establish relationships between the
themes. Using content analysis, the data were placed into a table and organized by each
unique response as it related to each of the survey questions by using word processing
software (Microsoft Word). Patton (2002) described content analysis as a method of
reducing the large volume of data while at the same time categorizing specific ideas in an
attempt to define the main themes and patterns. Before the data were placed in the table, a
29
pen was used to make notes in order to filter the usable data and separate it from anything
that was not pertinent to the study. The notes consisted of summarizing main points to
each response for all nine of the returned surveys. Once this was done, the researcher
printed a new copy of the table with responses to be analyzed.
Next, a constant comparative analysis approach was used to read the data in the
table and look for any emerging themes. According to Glaser (1965), this is a typical
method of analysis in qualitative research because it requires the researcher to take one
piece of data and compare it to all other pieces of data that are either similar or different.
During this process, the researcher began to look at what makes one survey response
different and/or similar to other responses. This method of analysis is inductive, as the
researcher was able to examine data critically and draw new meaning from the data rather
than a deductive approach which defines at the outset what will be found (Glaser, 1965).
The process of looking at each question and the individual responses for emerging
themes and identifying concepts is referred to as open coding (Patton, 2002). Once open
coding was complete, the researcher utilized axial coding to discover relationships
between the emerging themes (Patton, 2002). A highlighter and pen were used during this
process to make additional notes. In the end, multiple themes were identified. These
themes and the relationships between them will be discussed in later chapters. While the
research design was carefully thought out, some limitations became aware during the
process.
30
Limitations
Several limitations arose during the assessment process. First, participants of the
study were only from the Sacramento metropolitan region, therefore results may not be
generalizable to other regions. Second, the needs assessment only addressed formal,
structured and intentional mentoring programs and not mentoring relationships which
emerge naturally through relationships between adults and young people in an
organization. Additionally, the responses provided by participants such as types of
programming, number of youth served annually and the age ranges of program
participants could not be verified as accurate. Finally, the survey was not designed to
capture specific demographics of participants, including race.
This chapter included a discussion of the methods used in conducting a needs
assessment within municipal recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento
region in order to assess the extent to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies
and to assess an agency’s capacity to develop and implement a mentoring component if
one does not already exist. A description of research design, sampling, data collection,
and data analysis procedures were included in the discussion. Chapter four will discuss
the results of the survey and outline the main themes and relationships between themes
identified during data analysis.
31
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs assessment within municipal
recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent
to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to
develop and implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist. This
chapter will present the findings from the needs assessment. This chapter will outline the
main themes and relationships between them that were identified through analysis of the
data. Additionally, quotes from participants will be used to support the findings.
In analyzing the data, it appeared that no formal mentoring was offered at any of
the municipal recreation departments and districts. However, several participants said that
they believe what they offer for some of their youth participants could be considered
informal mentoring. Two overarching themes emerged to explain the absence of
structured mentoring programs. Specifically, the agency representatives explained that
they did not perceive that they had the capacity to create structured /formal mentoring
programs nor did it appear to be a priority for them based on their overall programming.
Three sub-themes also emerged to support the overarching themes. These include:
selective volunteer opportunities, prioritization of financial and staffing resources and the
need for more education and training about structured mentoring programs. Following a
brief profile of the municipal recreation departments or districts that participated in the
needs assessment, the overarching themes and sub-themes will be further discussed.
32
Organization Descriptions
Profiles of each of the participating municipal recreation departments or districts
were created based only on the information they provided. The descriptions include: a
summary of current youth programming, the approximate number and age range of youth
served annually, and the guiding principles used to shape youth programming.
Organization One
Organization One includes summer day camps, sports camps, special classes and
a wide variety of sports from basketball to swim lessons. This organization did not
disclose the number of youth served annually, but did indicate the ages served were 3
through 18. The participant described the guiding principles that shape youth
programming as “offering wholesome activities to stimulate body and mind while
keeping youth active and healthy.”
Organization Two
Organization Two provides school-age licensed care for 11,000 youth ages 4
through 18 on 23 elementary school campuses before, during and after school. Guiding
principles that shape youth programming were described as following licensure
regulations related to operating pre-school age care. Additionally, staff are trained in the
forty developmental assets.
33
Organization Three
Organization Three serves approximately 340,000 youth per year and did not
specify ages served. Opportunities consist of recreational, cultural, aquatics, music, and
arts programs offered as classes, clinics, leagues, and camps. The participant said they
followed guidelines of both the National Recreation and Park Association and the
California Parks and Recreation Society, although they did not clarify which guidelines
they were referring to. In addition, the participant said, “We also utilize principles from
such organizations as the Positive Coaching Alliance, National Alliance for Youth Sports
and resources provided by our local school district.”
Organization Four
Organization Four offers 5,000 youth ages 3 through 15 youth sports, before and
after school care and summer camps. All programs are designed for youth to have a
supportive, safe and active experience. Youth development strategies begin with
providing a safe place to learn, a sense of belonging, self-enrichment opportunities,
positive reinforcement, and character development.
Organization Five
Organization Five offers sports leagues, seasonal summer day camps, leisure
enrichment classes, after school recreation and care, and a junior leader program annually
to approximately 150,000 youth ages 3 through 17. Guiding principles include evaluation
and feedback from program participants, professional workshops and resources, adapting
34
to changes, and training from National Recreation and Park Association and California
Parks and Recreation Society.
Organization Six
Organization Six provides an abundance of sport activities, summer and holiday
day camps, after school programs, and aquatics to 9,000 youth ages 3 through 17
annually. The agency’s “Parks Master Plan” explicitly defines youth programming and
makes up the guiding principles. In addition, the department also responds to requests
and always looks for new opportunities.
Organization Seven
Organization Seven is described by the survey participant as an older community
where sixty percent of the population is over the age of thirty-five. Approximately 10,000
youth ages 3 through 18 are served each year. Youth programming consists of summer
day camps, holiday special events and festivals, leisure enrichment classes, and art. Staff
are relied on for guiding principles in addition to a youth board who oversee many of the
events and festivals.
Organization Eight
Organization Eight consists of before and after school programs, sports, field trips
and aquatics. The programs serve 1,000 youth ages 3 through 17 each year. Guiding
35
principles are developed from standards of professional organizations, such as the
California School Age Consortium and California Preschool Learning Foundation.
Organization Nine
Organization nine offers more than 500,000 youth ages 2 through 16 a variety of
introductory recreation programming including arts, sports, day camps, and child care.
Guiding principles that shape programs were identified as human development, health,
wellness, and fun.
Understanding the descriptions of each of the municipal recreation departments or
districts that participated in the survey is important because it is necessary to know the
types of programs offered in order to determine if there is anything similar to mentoring
already being conducted. The guiding principles also paint a picture of the reasoning
behind current programming and the priorities of programming within the agency. The
following is a discussion about the themes that emerged. Two overarching themes
emerged to explain the absence of mentoring programs. The two themes included
perceived capacity and program prioritization.
Perceived Capacity and Program Prioritization
Individually, each organization offered structured programs for youth of various
ages, but did not offer a formal, structured mentoring program. The issue of whether or
not an agency valued mentoring was not in question; rather, the absence of such
programs was due to the relationship between the agency’s perceived capacity to offer
36
such a program and the extent to which the agency identified such a program as a
priority. In other words, all of these agencies provide a variety of programs for youth –
they have the capacity to serve youth. But, in terms of formal, structured mentoring, they
did not perceive that this was a program that should be funded or prioritized at the same
level as other programs (e.g., sports). This was apparent when examining their
recruitment and use of adult volunteers. Adult volunteers were seemingly well utilized.
Responses provided evidence that adult volunteers are primarily utilized in sports related
programs and opportunities for volunteers outside of sports were rarely mentioned.
Additionally, the main obstacle to implementing a mentoring program was identified by
survey participants as the current capacity of financial and staffing resources being met.
However, despite the missing resources, participants concurred that with the proper
resources fulfilled and a better understanding of mentoring, they would gladly take on
such a program. The agencies perceived that they could not offer a mentoring program
until some of the issues explaining the lack of such a program had been addressed.
Therefore, the overarching themes of perceived capacity and program prioritization are
evidenced by three sub-themes: selective volunteer opportunities, prioritization of
financial and staffing resources and the need for more education and training about
structured mentoring programs. The following three sub-sections will include a
discussion of these issues, followed by a conclusion of the findings.
37
Selective Volunteer Opportunities
Generally, recreation programs rely on volunteers to support or direct a program.
Volunteer opportunities typically include working with youth in the following types of
activities or programs: sports, coaching, art, theatre arts, crafts, guest speaking,
maintenance, special events, and leading other clubs or activities. The participants’
responses provided information regarding the extent to which adult volunteers are
utilized and in what areas of programming they volunteer. Based on the responses of
participants, the majority of volunteer opportunities are centered on sports and more
specifically, coaching. Opportunities for volunteers outside of sports were rarely
mentioned. For example, one participant described volunteer opportunities as “coaching,
scorekeeping, officiating, and facility maintenance,” while another said, “We have
parents coaches for our sports programs.” Additionally, one participant added, “We use
adult volunteers for coaching all our youth sports leagues.” The frequency of adult
volunteers seems to be high in most organizations in relation to sports activities and
parents of youth involved in programs appear to make up a large number of the active
volunteers. One participant described the active volunteers as “mostly parents, not very
many other adults. Parents can coach or assist coaches and parents of swim team
members must help with meets, fundraising and social events.” In contrast, one
organization stated, “Parents use our program as day care and are often unable to help
out. We offer parents an opportunity to come in and share their occupation, talent, etc.
with the children but we only occasionally get a parent that does.” While selective
volunteer opportunities within recreation departments and districts were apparent,
38
participants focused on other obstacles to explain the absence of mentoring programs,
such as the lack of financial and staffing resources available.
Prioritization of Financial and Staffing Resources
In a time of budget cuts and layoffs, many may not even consider the idea of
creating a new program. The majority of participants interviewed said that the main
obstacle to implementing a mentoring program was related to finance. Specifically, they
said that they could not afford to hire a full-time staff person to focus on developing and
implementing a mentoring program. One participant said that, “If we had a staff person
that had enough knowledge and skill in mentoring programs, I would feel comfortable
proposing such a program at our district.” It was also stated that training for such a
program and the costs associated with it were not currently available. With a small staff
with large responsibilities, an additional program is not possible without additional
resources. The reflection of poor current economic times were present in multiple
responses as one participant said, “…timing with budget reductions and staff cuts isn’t
the best time to implement new programs.” One participant stated, “At this point I have a
full time recreation staff of three people. The four of us are pretty much maxed out with
tasks and projects, so until we are able to decrease the workload or hire more staff, I
don’t see us implementing such a program.” Another participant added, “We are a small
agency with limited staff to develop a program. Most mentoring is done informally
through contact with staff or coaches.” Another response offered in relation to the lack of
a mentoring program was “due to time and efforts to train volunteers.” One participant
39
said, “Mentoring is what parks and recreation people do. Besides creating, we teach.”
Most responses implied that participants have a good understanding of mentoring, while
certain responses implied the opposite. Understanding what mentoring is when done
effectively presents a challenge in itself as the lack of understanding is an obstacle on its
own.
Need for Education and Training about Structured Mentoring Programs
Training and further education about mentoring is needed by recreation staff in
order to consider creating such a program. Despite the missing financial and staffing
resources, participants concurred that with the proper resources fulfilled and a better
understanding of mentoring, they would gladly take on such a program. One participant
said, “I would always like to learn as much as possible to make the district I work for
better. Any ideas on mentoring would be helpful.” Another participant shared that the
agency they work for is always looking to be in new trends and practices, such as
mentoring. While primary reasons for not implementing this type of program currently
were resources including staff time and funding, if these needs were met all participants
agreed mentoring would be an effective program. However, training and education of
structured mentoring programs in necessary for success. One participant stated that
“support and resources are needed to implement mentoring including money and
training.” One participant admitted that the informal structure of what they consider
mentoring could be improved with proper training. Several participants discussed having
a pre-made program template offered to recreation programs in order to provide
40
mentoring. Specifically, one participant said, “I would be interested in reviewing a
program designed to help staff and volunteers mentor youth.” Another participant agreed,
showing interest in “the types of mentoring programs that are available.”
Conclusion
Two overarching themes emerged to explain the absence of mentoring programs.
The two themes included perceived capacity and program prioritization. The themes are
evidenced by three sub-themes: selective volunteer opportunities, prioritization of
financial and staffing resources and the need for more education and training about
structured mentoring programs. Together, these themes and the related issues explain the
absence of mentoring programs in recreation departments and districts within the
Sacramento region. The agencies perceived that they could not offer a mentoring
program until some of the issues explaining the lack of such a program had been
addressed. The next chapter will discuss the information found and how it can be used by
departments and districts to identify what it would take to bring mentoring into their
programming in the future and other ways this information may be of value to them. It
will also examine possible implications for future research and other uses for
practitioners.
41
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the project. This will include a
discussion about the information found and how it can be used by departments and
districts to identify what it would take to bring mentoring to their programming in the
future. A discussion of other ways this information may be of value to municipal
recreation departments and districts will also be included. Following the discussion will
be an explanation of possible implications for future research.
Mentoring is most broadly defined as the one-to-one relationship between a pair
of unrelated individuals, usually of different ages, who come together so the more
experienced person, regardless of age, can share life experiences with the other (Karcher,
2005). A mentoring relationship can be formed in one of two ways according to Karcher:
naturally, where a youth is befriended or taken under the wing of a caring member of the
community; or through direct formal programming, where a program is created to service
an at-risk population within the community to address the mentee’s needs. Although
many young people participate in structured recreation, including after school programs,
very few recreation agencies, public or non-profit, offer mentoring programs for youth.
Le Menestrel and Perkins (2007) discussed the viability of creating mentoring programs
for the recreation profession as it continues to strive to follow youth development
principles when creating programming and Carson (1999) stated the importance of
volunteering in sustaining communities. Mentoring is one option that can bridge these
42
two ideals into a real life, effective program. With a need to serve both adults and youth,
a mentoring program can create a number of positive outcomes for all participants
(Freedman, 1993). Mentoring programs provide opportunities for both participants in the
role of mentor and mentee to grow and learn, resulting in a “double impact” that is
appealing to many organizations attempting to support constituents with limited financial
and community resources (Karcher, 2005).
Extensive research has been done regarding the effects of mentoring in general.
However, few have focused on mentoring specifically in organizations outside the
education or non-profit arena (Rhodes, 2002). Without a great understanding of
mentoring as it relates to municipal recreation programs and without research to support
it, one can assume it would be difficult at this point to evaluate the effects of mentoring in
a municipal recreation setting or even whether these types of programs exist. This project
was perhaps a starting ground for future research on the subject of mentoring in
municipal recreation programming. Additionally, this project presents the need for future
research on the effectiveness of such programs on youth, utilizing volunteers in new
ways, and the necessity of reevaluating program prioritization to include programs other
than sports in regard to financial and staffing resources.
Discussion
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs assessment within municipal
recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento region in order to assess the extent
to which mentoring programs exist at these agencies and to assess an agency’s capacity to
43
develop and implement a mentoring component if one does not already exist. From the
survey results, the data revealed an absence of mentoring programs in municipal
recreation departments and districts. Two overarching themes emerged to explain the
absence of these programs. The two overarching themes included perceived capacity and
program prioritization. The themes are evidenced by three sub-themes: selective
volunteer opportunities, prioritization of financial and staffing resources and the need for
more education and training about structured mentoring programs. Together, these
themes and the related sub-themes explain the absence of mentoring programs in
recreation departments and districts within the Sacramento region. The agencies
perceived that they could not offer a mentoring program until some of the issues
explaining the lack of such a program had been addressed.
In addition to the low level at which mentoring was prioritized within an
organization, the apparent “maximum capacity” of programs had been reached in relation
to current financial and staffing resources, making it unable for such a program to exist at
this time. Survey responses provided evidence that adult volunteers are primarily utilized
in sports related program and opportunities for volunteers outside of sports were rarely
mentioned. Additionally, the main obstacle to implementing a mentoring program was
identified by survey participants as a current capacity of financial and staffing resources.
However, despite the missing resources, participants concurred that with the proper
resources fulfilled and a better understanding of mentoring, they would gladly take on
such a program.
44
Participant responses provided information regarding the extent to which adult
volunteers are utilized and what areas of programming they volunteer in. An interesting
observation is the selective volunteer opportunities presented by participants, identified
only in sports activities and coaching. Few other opportunities were mentioned. While it
is most likely that volunteer opportunities go beyond only sports or coaching, participants
primarily listed only these opportunities. The frequency of the number of volunteers
seems to be high in most organizations and parents of youth involved in programs appear
to make up a large number of the active volunteers. In general, mentors are considered
volunteers and the limited opportunities to volunteer outside of sports are only one of the
obstacles to bringing mentoring to recreation departments and districts. Mentoring should
be looked at as another way for adults and parents to volunteer in a structured setting.
This directly relates to the theme of program prioritization because there are missed
opportunities for recruiting additional adult volunteers with other interests who may bring
valuable skills to the agency and youth in the community. If prioritization were placed on
alternative programs, such as mentoring, youth would have mentors and the adult
volunteers would have an additional opportunity for giving back and self-fulfillment. In
regard to perceived capacity, volunteers do come at a cost as it requires staff time to
recruit, screen and manage. But perhaps this is a good investment to make as after
training and placement of volunteer mentors, stress could be taken off of staff and
volunteers could extend the program capacity and create new opportunities. While
participants referenced the current economic times frequently, the irony is that more
people have been laid off or participate in furlough days, giving more volunteers an
45
opportunity to get involved and make an impact. The current economic times are indeed a
challenge, but also may be part of the solution.
The key issue to implementing a mentoring program was the prioritization of
financial and staffing resources. Specifically, the challenge of hiring a full-time staff
person to focus on developing and implementing a mentoring program was discussed.
Another financial piece was the costs associated with training for such a program.
Recreation staff are already stretched thin and it appears now may not be a realistic time
to add an additional program without additional resources. However, this type of program
opens the door to new opportunities for funding and partnerships within the community.
In regard to program prioritization, it appears that mentoring has not been identified as a
priority in the municipal recreation setting. A fraction of the resources used for sports
programming could be shifted to create new opportunities for youth, volunteers and staff
development, directly related to the perceived capacity currently held by the participants.
Mentoring is a proven and effective strategy for implementing positive youth
development strategies and engaging youth in using free time constructively. Given that
the majority of young people engage in structured or unstructured recreation, there is the
potential for young people in these settings to benefit from mentoring. To date, there has
been little to no research on mentoring in recreation settings to evaluate its impact.
Perhaps the study of a pilot mentoring program in the municipal setting would prove that
mentoring can be just as effective as sports programming, if not more so. Bringing an
effective formal mentoring program to an agency will not happen without effort.
46
Understanding what mentoring looks like when done effectively presents a challenge in
itself as the lack of understanding is an obstacle on its own.
The third and final issue that emerged from the data in bringing mentoring to
municipal recreation was the need for more education and training about structured
mentoring programs. Training and technical assistance, which are available through nonprofit organizations, coalitions and government entities at little to no cost, would serve as
a good starting ground for recreation professionals to explore this type of programming.
With agreement that mentoring would be an effective program, participants concurred
that with the proper resources fulfilled they would gladly take on a mentoring program.
Three participants suggested a program be created that can easily be replicated with
guidance and steps to implementing such a program in municipal recreation; an
interesting idea. Several participants explained their rationale for believing they had a
mentoring component within their programs, but actually the programs were not formal
or structured in any way. While this suggests that mentoring is valued by individuals, the
prioritization of programs within agencies is not on mentoring, as evidenced by the
absence of funding. Perhaps if more recreation professionals better understood the value
of mentoring, this would not be the case. With the shift in priority, the current perceived
capacity may disappear if mentoring was valued. Perhaps the first step is to demonstrate
that mentoring is something of value within municipal recreation programs.
47
Implications for Research
Participants of the study were only from the Sacramento metropolitan region
which is a limited geographic location. Municipal parks and recreation departments and
districts are located all over the United States and beyond. Future research should look at
a larger geographic area to determine if mentoring is being utilized in other regions in
municipal recreation department and district settings and if not, additional reasons they
are not currently utilized. If there are recreations departments or districts that do have
mentoring programs, they should be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of such
programs in this setting and how the program can be shared with others.
Future research in this area might also include an exploration of the capacity of
municipal recreation programs to offer formal, structured mentoring and the ways in
which youth-based programs are prioritized vis-à-vis sports and alternative activities.
Additionally, volunteer opportunities in municipal recreation departments and districts
should be explored as the majority of opportunities appear to be in sports and coaching.
The study could focus on the relationship between the programs offered by an
organization and the types of volunteer opportunities that are made available to adult
volunteers.
Practitioners should seek out opportunities to learn more about implementing a
mentoring program by working with other community groups and conducting their own
research. This type of program may present new opportunities for funding and attract new
staff with different types of expertise. Perhaps a mentoring program template or
48
guidebook to creating such a program could be developed and tested in the recreation
setting.
Conclusion
While the findings highlight the fact that structured mentoring is currently absent
in municipal recreation departments and districts in the Sacramento metropolitan area, the
true entrepreneurial spirit of recreation professionals is ever present in their positive
outlook and willingness to explore new program options. With such success in non-profit
and education settings, bringing mentoring to parks and recreation is a viable possibility.
If made a priority, mentoring can be just as effective as structured sports programs in
municipal recreation. The current perceived capacity could disappear if mentoring were
understood as something of value to the community an organization serves, as well as the
reprioritization of resources within the agency itself to focus on alternative programs,
such as mentoring.
Limited volunteer opportunities and additional issues prohibiting a mentoring
program such as limited staff time, funding and training were reported as reasons for the
absence of mentoring programs. However, if the resources needed for mentoring such as
funding, additional staff time and training or technical assistance are met; the general
consensus is that mentoring in municipal recreation programming would be worth
exploring and potentially developing. Funding should be reprioritized to include
alternative programs, such as mentoring, to support youth and attract a larger number of
49
volunteers outside of sports. With such a program, organizations can serve both youth
and adult volunteers who wish to give back to their community.
Mentoring today is considered an effective program for youth in the education
and non-profit setting and a favorable past-time for many adult volunteers. With the right
resources and/or a shift in priority, the same can be said about a mentoring program in
recreation. Municipal recreation is a natural place for mentoring. After all, parks and
recreation programs build communities by providing opportunities for youth and adults.
An opportunity to benefit both parties through one program at the same time meets this
need, perhaps in a more cost effective way. As one participant said in their survey
response, “Mentoring is what recreation people do. Besides creating, we teach.”
Mentoring youth in parks and recreation is a new way forward.
50
APPENDIX A
Participant Consent Form
Consent to Participate in Research
“Mentoring in Parks and Recreation: A New Way Forward”
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
You are being asked to participate in research, which will be conducted by Matthew Cole
Forstedt, Graduate Student under the supervision of Dr. B. Dana Kivel in the Department
of Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration at California State University,
Sacramento. The purpose of the study is to determine the extent to which there are or are
not mentoring programs within municipal parks and recreation agencies in the
Sacramento metropolitan area.
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in a needs assessment survey about your current program
offerings and considerations of mentoring programs now and in the future. This survey
will last up to thirty minutes and will be offered in physical and electronic format to
ensure flexibility for participants. You may also be asked to participate in a one-on-one
follow up interview as needed utilizing the same questions from the original survey and
only with the intention of clarifying original responses. You may choose to not
participate by not answering or responding to any questions/topics you do not wish to
discuss and may withdraw at any point in the survey process.
RISK
This procedure is not associated with any known health or psychological risks. Any
discomfort that may occur is anticipated to be no more than what you may experience
during your daily life. You may choose to not participate in any questions/topics you do
not wish to discuss at any point in the survey process. At any time, you can ask any
questions you may have about this study, now or later.
BENEFITS
There are no direct benefits to you from participating in this study; however, this study
may be helpful when considering new types of programming in the future.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All results obtained in this study will be confidential. Information provided by you will
be reported by assigning a pseudonym. Records that identify you will be kept private and
will be destroyed upon completion of the research project. Any information that leaves
the university will have your name and address removed so that you cannot be recognized
by it. Any reported results from the study will use aggregate data that does not include
51
any identifiers that can be used to identify you. E-mail responses are not private. Your
responses will be kept confidential to the degree permitted by the technology used.
However, no absolute guarantees can be given for the confidentiality of electronic data.
COMPENSATION
You will not receive any compensation for participating in this research.
CONTACT INFORMATION
You are encouraged to request additional information, or have questions answered about
this study at any time. The Principal Investigator of this study is Matthew Cole Forstedt,
Graduate student at California State University, Sacramento and can be contacted at
(916) 708-8778 or via e-mail at tahoecole@yahoo.com or his advisor, Dr. B. Dana Kivel
who can be contacted at (916) 278-6429 or via email at bkivel@csus.edu.
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You are free to decide not to
participate, or to withdraw at a later time without consequence. The researcher may also
end your participation at any time only for the interview portion of the study. If you are
willing to participate in a potential follow-up interview, please provide preferred contact
information. By signing below, you are saying that you have read this page, understand
the risks involved in this research and agree to participate.
_______________________________
Signature of Participant
Date
______________________________
Signature of Researcher
Date
52
APPENDIX B
Survey Questions
Needs Assessment Survey
“Mentoring in Parks and Recreation: A New Way Forward”
1. Can you please describe your current youth programming?
2. Approximately how many youth does your department/district serve per year and what is
the age range of your participants?
3.
What guiding principles are used to shape and guide your youth programming (e.g.,
youth development strategies and principles, development assets, etc.)?
4. To what extent are parents involved in your youth programming?
5. To what extent are adult volunteers involved in your youth programming?
6. Is there an explicit mentoring component of your youth programming?
If so, how does it work – how are the adults recruited and how are they
paired up with youth?
If not, has there ever been one in existence within your programming?
7. If mentoring has not been a part of your programming, can you tell me why?
What would you need in order to add a mentoring program to your current
program offerings?
8. Would you be interested in learning more about mentoring? If yes, what?
9. If, based on question 8, you had what you needed to create a mentoring component, is
this something that you would consider in the future?
10. Do you have any other thoughts or comments about mentoring?
53
REFERENCES
Bourque, L.B., & Fielder, E.P. (2003). How to conduct in-person interviews for surveys
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carson, E. (1999). On defining and measuring volunteering in the United States and
abroad. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 17-42.
Connell, J.P. & Gambone, M.A. (1999). Youth development in community settings: A
community action framework. Unpublished manuscript, Philadelphia, PA.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:
Harper & Row Publishers.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Darling, N. (2005). Participation in extracurricular activities and adolescent
adjustment: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 34, 493–505.
Darling, N., Caldwell, L. L., & Smith, R. (2005). Participation in school-based
extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Leisure Research,
37, 51–76.
DuBois, D., et al. (2002). Mentoring in America: A snapshot of the current state of
mentoring. Alexandria, VA: Mentor.
Edginton, C., & Randall, S. (2005). Youth services: Strategies for programming.
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 76(9), 19-24.
54
Fauth, R., Roth, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Does the neighborhood context
alter the link between youth' s after-school time activities and developmental
outcomes? A multilevel analysis. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 760-777.
Freedman, M. (1993). The kindness of strangers: Adult mentors, urban youth and the new
voluntarism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis in social
Problems. Social Problems, (12)4, 436-445.
Green, K.E. (1991). Reluctant respondents: Differences between early, late, and
nonresponders to a mail survey. Journal of Experiential Education, 59, 268-276.
Henderson, K., & Bialeschki, D. (2002). Evaluating leisure services: Making enlightened
decisions. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Hirsch, B.J. (2005). A place to call home: After-school programs for urban youth. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hogan, J.A., & Gabrielsen, K.R. (2003). Substance abuse prevention: The intersections
of science and practice. San Francisco: Allyn and Bacon.
Joplin, L. (1995). Defining experiential education: Nine characteristics. In J. Kendall and
J. Hunt (eds.), The theory of experiential education (pp. 15-22). Boulder, CO.:
Association for Experiential Education.
Kaplan, M. (1991). Essays on leisure. Cranbury, NJ: Associate University Press.
Karcher, M.J. (2005). Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Kilpatrick, W. (1918). The project method. Teacher College Record 19, 319-55.
55
Kirshner, B. (2007). Youth activism as a context for learning and
development. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 367-379.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Minding matter: The consequence of mindlessness/mindfulness. In
L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 50-89). New
York: Academic Press.
Le Menestrel, S. & Perkins, D. (2007). An overview of how sports, out-of-school time,
and youth well-being can and do intersect. New Directions for Youth
Development, 2007(115), 13-25.
McLearn, K.T., & Colastanto, D. (1990). Mentoring matters: A national survey of adults
mentoring young people. Contemporary Issues in Mentoring, 1999(70), 32-45.
Murphy, J.F. (1974). Philosophical dimensions of leisure. Concepts of leisure:
Philosophical implications (pp 1-13). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
National Institute of Standards and Technology Pilot Mentoring Program, (2002).
Mentoring handbook. Washington: Gaithersburg.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998). Juvenile mentoring
program: Report to congress. Washington.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Rhodes, J.E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rodin, J., Schooler, C., & Schaie, K. W. (1990). Self-directedness: Cause and effects
throughout the life course. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56
Samdahl, D. M. (1988). A symbolic interactionist model of leisure: Theory and empirical
support. Leisure Science 1, 27-39.
Spencer, V.G. (2006). Teaching children with autism in the general classroom:
Strategies for effective inclusion and instruction in the general education
classroom. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Taylor, A.A. & Bressler, J. (2000). Mentoring across generations: Partnerships for
positive youth development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K., & Silverman, S.J. (2005). Research methods in physical
activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weisz, J. R. (1990). Development of control-related beliefs, goals, and styles in
childhood and adolescence: A clinical perspective. In J. Rodin, C. Schooler, and
K. W. Schaie (eds.), Self-directedness: Cause and effects throughout the life
course. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.