Helping Kids Connect: Participant and Staff Perspectiveson Facilitating Social Relationships in a Physical

Activity-Based Positive Youth Development Programfor Youth From Low-Income Families

Meghan H. McDonoughUniversity of Calgary

Sarah Ullrich-FrenchWashington State University

M. Lindley McDavidPurdue University

Physical activity-based positive youth development (PYD) programs are designed tonurture personal and social assets in youth, and in underserved populations, oftenprovide unique opportunities for physical activity and mentoring. Supportive relation-ships with peers and adults in such programs are associated with positive changes indevelopmental outcomes (Ullrich-French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012). In this casestudy, we examined youths’ and staff members’ perspectives on interpersonal relation-ships within a physical activity-based PYD program, their understanding of whatexperiences and interactions within the program help or hinder forming high-qualityrelationships, and their perspectives on how those relationships affect youth andtransfer to contexts outside of the PYD program. We interviewed 20 youth and 6program staff about their perspectives on social experiences in the PYD program, andconducted follow-up interviews with 10 youth participants 8 months later. We devel-oped a figure describing youth and staff perspectives of program context factors, andhow elements of interpersonal relationships among youth and between youth and staffaffect youth intra- and interpersonal assets, and transfer to community contexts such ashome, neighborhoods, and school. These findings provide insight into ways to promotepositive social relationships in PYD programs in ways that are meaningful to youth.

Keywords: friendship, peer acceptance, mentoring, low-income, case study

Youth from low-income families (i.e., livingclose to, or below, the poverty line) are atgreater risk than more affluent youth for poorerphysical and mental health, and behavioral out-comes (Goodman, Slap, & Huang, 2003;Votruba-Drzal, 2006). Youth programs that

serve this population have the potential to en-hance multiple dimensions of well-being. Posi-tive youth development (PYD) programs arebased on the premise that all people have thepotential for change, and that personal and so-cial assets can be learned (Benson, Scales,

Editor’s Note. Brett Smith served as the action editor forthis article.—MK

This article was published Online First October 5, 2017.Meghan H. McDonough, Faculty of Kinesiology, University

of Calgary; Sarah Ullrich-French, Department of EducationalLeadership, Sport Studies, and Educational/Counseling Psychol-ogy, Washington State University; M. Lindley McDavid, Eval-uation and Learning Research Center, Purdue University.

We thank William Harper, Bonnie Blankenship, and thestaff and participants of the positive youth development

program for their participation and support of this research;and Jaclyn Poliseo, Amanda Reynolds, Allison Riley, Tra-vis Dorsch, Jonathan DeFreese, Christopher Kapp, NickUllrich, Kaitlyn White, and Amanda Bates for their assis-tance with data collection and management. This projectwas supported by a Clifford Kinley Trust Grant fromPurdue University.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Meghan H. McDonough, Faculty of Kinesiology,University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary,AB, Canada T2N 1N4. E-mail: meghan.mcdonough@ucalgary.ca

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association2018, Vol. 7, No. 1, 13–29 2157-3905/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spy0000109

13

Hamilton, & Sesma, 2006). Physical activity isan excellent context for PYD programs because,when intentionally designed, physical activitycan provide an involved, interactive, emotional,and social context for teaching life skills (Bean& Forneris, 2016; Fraser-Thomas, Côté, &Deakin, 2005). PYD programs for youth fromlow-income families can help address barriersto physical activity faced by youth in this pop-ulation, who have fewer resources and are lesslikely to be active (Holt, Kingsley, Tink, &Scherer, 2011; Janssen, Boyce, Simpson, &Pickett, 2006). Research is needed examiningthe experiences of youth from low-income fam-ilies in PYD programs to develop interventiontechniques that meet their needs and foster well-being (Lerner et al., 2014).

Although there is not a unified theory ofPYD, most theories applied in this field empha-size social relationships and social contextualfactors as mechanisms of asset development(Benson et al., 2006; Bronfenbrenner & Morris,1998; Lerner, Johnson, & Buckingham, 2015;Snyder & Flay, 2012). From the perspective ofsocial ecological theory, individual characteris-tics, social relationships, social contextual fac-tors, and the larger culture reciprocally influ-ence each other and contribute to youthdevelopment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).This theory identifies different levels of thecontext as the individual’s intrapersonal expe-rience within a domain (microsystem); interper-sonal interactions, such as with program staffand peers (mesosystem); interactions amongothers in the context, such as staff interactionsand program structure (exosystem); and thelarger social context such as the larger commu-nity and culture (macrosystem). During latechildhood and early adolescence, interpersonalinteractions with significant adults and peers atthe mesosystem level provide competence in-formation, and relationships and feedback fromadults and peers contribute to self-perceptions(Harter, 2012). Peer acceptance and friendshipare important contributors to socioemotionaldevelopment (Hartup, 1996), and are associatedwith positive self-perceptions and physical ac-tivity participation (McDonough & Crocker,2005; Smith, 1999). Providing a supportive andcaring climate through the program social con-text at the exosystem level is also important forpromoting adaptive outcomes (Catalano, Ber-glund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004; Gould,

Flett, & Lauer, 2012; Holt, Sehn, Spence, Newton,& Ball, 2012). Considering youth social experi-ences within a social ecological theory lens canallow for consideration of interplay among fac-tors across each of these levels (Holt, Deal, &Smyth, 2016).

Consistent with theory, social connectionswith peers and adult staff in PYD programs canfoster personal and social assets in youth (Ben-son et al., 2006; Bond et al., 2007; Catalano etal., 2004; Gano-Overway et al., 2009; Rhodes,2004). Physical activity-based PYD programsprovide opportunities for involvement and in-teraction with peers and adults in a sociallyvalued context. There is evidence that if pro-grams are intentionally structured, and peer andadult relationships are positive, they can teachlife skills such as cooperation, teamwork, goalsetting, conflict resolution, and leadership(Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Holt & Neely,2012; Holt, Tamminen, Tink, & Black, 2009;Weiss, Smith, & Stuntz, 2008).

Peer and youth-staff relationship factors suchas belonging, peer acceptance, and staff in-volvement, structure, and emotional support ex-perienced during physical activity-based PYDprograms are positively associated with changesin physical and global self-worth, motivation,hope, psychological need satisfaction, and so-cial responsibility across the program period(McDavid, McDonough, Blankenship, & Le-Breton, 2017; McDonough, Ullrich-French, An-derson-Butcher, Amorose, & Riley, 2013; Ull-rich-French, McDonough, & Smith, 2012).Even programs as brief as four weeks have beenshown to be associated with gains in PYD out-comes over time (McDonough et al., 2013; Ull-rich-French et al., 2012). Gains made in hopeand self-esteem during brief (4–6 week) sum-mer PYD programs for youth from low-incomefamilies are maintained as long as 4–11 monthslater (Kirschman, Roberts, Shadlow, & Pelley,2010; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013).There is evidence that life skills such as respon-sibility and honesty intentionally taught insport-based PYD programs can transfer to othercontexts over time (Weiss, Bolter, & Kipp,2016), and that positive youth-staff relation-ships are associated with transfer to other con-texts such as school (Anderson-Butcher, Cash,Saltzburg, Midle, & Pace, 2004). However, re-search is needed that considers factors that maybe meaningful in transfer (Gould & Carson,

14 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

2008; Turnnidge, Côté, & Hancock, 2014), par-ticularly among youth from low-income fami-lies, who are a relatively understudied popula-tion.

Exposure to new opportunities for physicalactivity, inclusion, building confidence, andlearning life skills are elements of physical ac-tivity-based PYD programs that youth fromlow-income families value (Holt et al., 2013).Previous studies adopting a quantitative ap-proach have shown that characteristics of socialinteractions or the social context such as auton-omy support, relationship quality, and caringclimate predict psychosocial outcomes, demon-strating the importance of social relationshipswith this population in the PYD context (Gano-Overway et al., 2009; McDonough et al., 2013;Ullrich-French et al., 2012). Additional work isneeded on what youth perceive as ideal contex-tual conditions and interpersonal interactionsthat create positive relationships and social cli-mates and support transfer to other life contexts.Several qualitative studies have asked youthfrom low-income families about their experi-ences with and perceptions of the impact ofPYD programs. There is evidence that youth incompetitive sport, school-based, afterschool,and summer PYD settings perceive that theycan gain positive developmental outcomes fromparticipation in such programs, including posi-tive social relationships, life skills, prosocialbehaviors, and psychological outcomes (Bean,Whitley, & Gould, 2014; Holt et al., 2012;Meléndez & Martinek, 2015; Riciputi, Mc-Donough, & Ullrich-French, 2016).

Although previous studies have identifiedpeer and staff-youth relationships as being animportant outcome of participation and contrib-utor to building developmental assets, there isan outstanding need to ask youth what types ofsocial interactions or features of the programcontext support building those positive relation-ships with staff and other youth, and how theyaffect their experiences within the program andin other contexts. Youth living in poverty arerelatively underrepresented in the literature, andPYD programs are well positioned to make animpact on this population, who tend to be un-derserved in terms of physical activity and life-skills programs. Therefore, we were interestedin uncovering unique insights that youth in thispopulation can provide about their experiencewith the social context in PYD programs; a

qualitative case study approach was consideredappropriate. The purpose of this case study wasto examine youths’ and staff members’ perspec-tives on interpersonal relationships among peersand staff within a physical activity-based PYDprogram, their understanding of what experi-ences and interactions within the program helpor hinder forming high-quality relationships,and their perspectives on how those relation-ships affect their experiences within and outsideof the PYD program.

Method

Methodology

We used a youth-centered philosophy, whichemphasizes children as social actors who affectand are affected by their social and culturalcontext (Christensen & Prout, 2002), and casestudy methodology (Stake, 2005) to guide re-search design and analysis. The youth-centeredphilosophy informed the choice to focus pri-marily on youth perspectives by sampling youthin the program, and following them over time.Case studies focus on selected issues within abounded system that provides opportunity forlearning about a phenomenon. Case study isparticularly appropriate for this research ques-tion because it allows for idiographic examina-tion of the perspectives of multiple individualswithin a bounded context (Stake, 2005). As-pects of this case study were used for intrinsicprogram evaluation purposes (understandingthe effects of this particular program); however,the primary purpose was to provide insightinto the experience and outcomes of social re-lationship development within physical activi-ty-based PYD programs for low-income youth(Stake, 2005). The case study included consid-eration of the structure, history, physical setting,economic, and political context of the program;interviews with youth and staff in the program;and researcher interpretations of the emergentissues related to the research questions.

We adopted a pragmatist philosophical per-spective, which focuses on the nature of expe-rience (in contrast, e.g., with approaches thatfocus on the nature of reality), and holds thatactions and beliefs result from past experience,are influenced by the social context in whichthey occur, and the shared beliefs that resultfrom common experiences and worldviews

15RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

(Morgan, 2014). The focus on experience andaction in a personally meaningful social contextwas considered particularly appropriate for ex-amining youths’ experiences with and beliefsabout how actions and relationships in the PYDcontext affected outcomes, in a context in whichparticipants share similar experiences in theprogram, and with living in poverty. Qualitativedata with youth and staff were collected during(youth) or immediately following (staff) pro-gram time in private locations close to the pro-gram location.

The Context

The case was a physical activity-based PYDprogram serving youth from low-income fami-lies surrounding a large university in the Mid-western United States. The program is a formerNational Youth Sport Program, which was afederally funded summer sport-based day campserving youth from low-income familiesthroughout the United States from 1968 to2006. After federal funding was cut in 2006,this program continued to operate supported bylocal funding, and evolved into a comprehen-sive PYD program, incorporating physical skillsand integrated personal, social, and characterdevelopment lessons. The program aim is topromote hope and possibility by fosteringhealthy, active youth. The program curriculumis designed to address personal and social assetsand healthy living through all program activi-ties. The curriculum is structured aroundweekly character development themes promot-ing respect (acknowledging and valuing theworth of each person), care (showing genuineinterest in, and concern and compassion for,others), responsibility (being reliable, depend-able, and accountable for one’s own actions),and trust (believing in others to be reliable,responsible, caring, and respectful).

All staff members receive three days of train-ing preceding the program pertaining to staffduties, the character development curriculum,lesson planning, activity station orientation, andprogram operations (e.g., bus transportation,meal service, inclement weather, emergencyprocedures, attendance, payroll, equipment,etc.). Within those three days, seven hours arespent on the character development curriculumtraining and how to foster self-esteem and pos-itive social interactions. Staff were provided

with a handbook that further elaborated on thetraining and offered practical methods to imple-ment that training (e.g., games and discussionstarters). Curriculum training was designed anddelivered by the first and second authors, whoare sport and exercise psychology professorsand have experience with PYD curriculum de-sign, delivery, and evaluation, and a sport andexercise psychology graduate student researchassistant who was also a staff member of thecamp. The curriculum training included class-room instruction, discussion, lesson planning,games, and role-play addressing how to buildpositive relationships with youth, how to inte-grate the weekly character themes into lessonplans, and how to incorporate the character con-cepts during unstructured time, teachable mo-ments, and conflict resolution situations. Thesocial relationship and character training wasbased on principles of fostering a mastery cli-mate (Epstein, 1989), cooperative learning(Johnson & Johnson, 1990), meeting basic psy-chological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000), andpromoting PYD through games (Holt, Tammi-nen, & Jones, 2007). These principles were in-corporated into games, social problem-solvingscenarios, life skill activities, and conflict reso-lution techniques.

The program runs from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Monday through Friday for 20 weekdays in thesummer, with a 4-day long weekend at themidpoint. Access to the program along withbreakfast, lunch, snack, transportation, equip-ment, and some clothing (e.g., t-shirts, swim-suits) are provided to participants free of chargeto reduce economic barriers. The programserved 296 youth (148 male, 147 female, and 1not reported) age 9–16 (Mage � 11.56 years,SD � 1.61). Participants have diverse racial andethnic backgrounds (35.1% Latino/Latina,33.8% White, 18.6% Black, 9.8% Multi-Racial,2.0% Asian, .3% American Indian or AlaskaNative, and .3% not reported). To be eligible forthe program, youth must qualify for the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture free or re-duced price lunch program, which is availableto youth from families whose household incomedoes not exceed 185% of the poverty line basedon household size, which for a family of fourwas a maximum annual household income up to$37,000 USD.

Participants were organized into 20 age-grouped teams with 11–17 male and female

16 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

participants and one leader who is responsiblefor guiding their group throughout the day.Teams were paired by age (i.e., the two young-est groups were together, etc.), and those twoteams rotated through the various program ac-tivities each day together. Each activity stationwas staffed with at least one dedicated instruc-tor, and additional support staff and camp ad-ministration staff assist with program delivery,day-to-day challenges, and promoting the char-acter concepts. Seventy percent of the programtime was devoted to physical activities includ-ing soccer, judo, volleyball, fitness, cooperativegames, sharbade, basketball, swimming, andwalking for transportation between activity sta-tions. Mealtimes occupy 15% of program time,and 15% includes nonphysical activities such asart, computers/writing, health, and servicelearning. Character concepts were embeddedwithin all activities, including physical and non-physical activities, and through informal inter-actions during mealtimes and transitions be-tween stations.

Participants

Youth were purposively sampled to representthe range of ages, gender, ethnic backgrounds,and prior years of experience in the program,based on demographic information obtainedfrom camp records. One child was selectedfrom each of the 20 teams to participate in aninterview. Because the teams were gender-balanced and age-stratified, and traveled with anage-matched team, we sampled one male andone female from each of the odd- and even-numbered teams, respectively. Prior to the datacollection, a list was developed of two to fouryouth from each group who would be randomlyselected to be invited to participate, and thatwould result in a sample reflecting the age,gender, race/ethnicity, and program experiencebalance in the program, based on demographicinformation obtained from camp records. Basedon staff observations, we also aimed to sampleyouth who were relatively engaged, or havingpositive program experiences, and relativelydisengaged, or having more negative programexperiences. We sampled staff who representedthe various roles in the program by interviewingthree leaders, two station instructors, and onesupport staff.

Twenty youth (10 girls and 10 boys) and sixstaff from the PYD program were interviewedfor this study. The youth participants ranged inage from 9–16 years (Mage � 11.7 years, SD �1.75). Eight participants were White, eight wereLatino/a, two were Black, and two were ofAsian descent. Based on program eligibility cri-teria, all youth came from low-income house-holds. Prior participation in the PYD programranged from 0–4 years, with 12 participants intheir first year of participation. Of the six staffparticipants, two were White, one was Latina,two were Black, and one was of Asian descent.Five of the staff members had been working forthe program for at least two summers. Two ofthe staff participants had been youth partici-pants in former years. Three worked as groupleaders, two were station instructors, and oneworked as support staff with youth throughoutthe program. We did not collect staff age, but allwere young adults.

Procedures

The university’s institutional review boarddeemed this project exempt because it was partof a larger program evaluation (McDonoughet al., 2013; Riciputi et al., 2016; Ullrich-French & McDonough, 2013) including allparticipants, and data collection was part ofthe program activities. Data reported in thecurrent study had no overlap with the previ-ously published studies. Consistent with theapproved procedures, parents were verballyinformed about the program evaluation at thetime of program registration, and parents andparticipants had the opportunity to declineparticipation in the study. One semistructuredinterview was conducted with each of the 20youth and six staff on the 16th day of the20-day program. Youth interviews focused ontheir social relationships with staff and otherparticipants in the program, ways in whichprogram activities helped or hindered devel-oping relationships and feeling included, andhow they felt their relationships with peersand staff impacted their experiences withinthe program, and in other contexts in theirlives (at home, in their neighborhood, and atschool). Staff interviews addressed relation-ships with the youth in their care, relation-ships with other staff, feelings of inclusion inthe program, how the program affected inclu-

17RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

sion and exclusion among youth, and howthey thought their relationships with youthand staff personally affected them. Interviewswere conducted during program time ratherthan following program completion to reducebarriers to participation such as transportationand disruption to childcare arrangements, andprior to the last four days of the program toavoid disrupting other end-of-program activ-ities. But interviews were conducted towardthe end of the program, so youth and staff hadthe opportunity to experience the programand form relationships.

Eight months after the end of the program,attempts were made to contact the parents ofall 20 original youth participants by mail, tofollow up on their child’s perspectives regard-ing how participation and social relationshipsin the program impacted them during theschool year, when the program was not insession. Interviews included questions aboutsocial relationships with staff and other par-ticipants, experiences in the program thathelped or hindered developing relationshipsand feeling included, and how relationshipswith peers and staff impacted their experi-ences at home, in their neighborhood, and atschool.

Eleven parents or guardians contacted theresearchers to volunteer for the study, but oneparent ultimately decided not to have theirchild participate due to transportation barri-ers. The other 10 parents/guardians and youthprovided written consent/assent to participatein the follow-up interview, which were con-ducted after school at the local middle school.More male (n � 7) than female (n � 3) youthparticipated in the follow-up. Follow-up par-ticipants ranged in age from 9 –14, and fourwere Latino/a, four were White, and two wereof Asian descent. Six had been in their firstyear of participation in the PYD program atthe first interview (range � 0 –3 years of priorparticipation). For both the initial and fol-low-up interviews, several interviews had tobe conducted simultaneously to minimize dis-ruption to program and afterschool activities;therefore, the first author and five researchassistants each conducted six interviews. Allresearch assistants completed training on con-ducting qualitative interviews with the firstauthor, who has extensive experience withqualitative interviewing, and mock interviews

to practice with the interview guide for thisstudy. Interviews ranged from 17– 45 min,with most being in the mid to upper end ofthat range, and were audio recorded.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim by aresearch assistant, and an inductive thematicanalysis was conducted primarily by the leadauthor (Braun & Clarke, 2006). NVivo 10 soft-ware (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2014) wasused for data storage and organization. Eachinterview was checked for accuracy and in thefirst phase of analysis read in its entirety for itsoverall meaning, noting initial ideas. Second,initial codes were generated by inductivelyidentifying text containing ideas relevant to theresearch question, and labeling them to the keyidea expressed. This process of initial codingwas inductive. Although the authors were awareof theory related to the study, at the initialcoding stage, the aim was to identify all ideasrelevant to the research question that wereraised by the participants, and evidenced in thedata. Third, codes containing similar ideas weregrouped as themes, and higher-order categorieswere developed to group related themes andidentify connections among themes. A heuristicfigure, adopting the levels structure of the socialecological model, began to be developed duringthis phase to depict the themes and connectionsamong them. In the fourth phase, themes werereviewed by rereading the transcripts and exam-ining the data extracts, and codes and themescollapsed, grouped, or broken out into separatethemes as necessary to ensure themes were bothdistinct from each other and internally coherent.We also examined the list of themes and codes,and their relationships in the figure. In the fifthphase, we defined and named the themes andsubthemes. During this phase, we explicitlyconsidered the theoretical frameworks related toour research question, as the social ecologicalmodel provided a useful way to inform ourthematic map and how to conceptualize theinterrelationships among the individual, rela-tional, within-program context, and larger con-textual elements evident in our analyses. In thesixth phase, a description of the findings waswritten, illustrated by representative quotations.Although the six phases were sometimes itera-tive, and knowledge gained during analyses re-

18 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

quired returning to previous phases, the dataanalysis generally followed a progressionthrough these six phases.

To address rigor and study quality, we ad-opted a relativist approach to choose criteriaconsistent with the methodological approachand philosophical underpinnings of the study(Burke, 2016). Credibility was addressedthrough seeking to make a substantive contri-bution through providing a novel (youth andstaff) perspective by primarily samplingyouth participants, interviewing them overtime. We sought to provide comprehensiveevidence through providing multiple quota-tions and perspectives from participantsacross our sample throughout our report, whowere purposively sampled to provide diverseperspectives. We aimed to interpret and pres-ent findings that are internally coherent andcoherent with theory by including in our anal-ysis an explicit consideration of prior theory,and presenting our results in a form that ex-presses the connections among concepts. Fi-nally, we endeavored to enhance transparency

using the approach of critical friends (thecoauthors) to scrutinize interpretations madeduring analyses conducted primarily by thelead author (Smith & McGannon, 2017).

Results

Findings are depicted in Figure 1. In the text,category headings have been formatted to alignwith the figure such that the highest orderthemes are bold and capitalized (all caps in thefigure); first level subthemes are bold and itali-cized; second level subthemes are bold, itali-cized, and underlined; and lowest level codesare italicized. The inner oval contains youth andstaff perspectives on youth assets fostered inthe program, and affected by interpersonal re-lationships and program context. The middleoval depicts behaviors participants perceivedfostered or hindered building interpersonal re-lationships among youth and between youthand staff. The outer oval of Figure 1 depictselements of the program context, which, fromthe youth perspective and staff perspective, fa-

Figure 1. Figure depicting program context and relationship factors affecting youth assetsand transfer.

19RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

cilitated or hindered relationships and nurturedchange in youth. The space outside of the outercircle represents youth perspectives of the in-fluences of the program at the communitylevel, including perceived transfer to neighbor-hood, home, and school. An aim was to exam-ine how interpersonal relationships and pro-gram context affect youth assets and transferto the community level, so the results are de-scribed, with subthemes in italics, beginningwith the interpersonal relationships level,then the program context, youth assets, andfinally the community level. Quotations areidentified by the participant race/ethnicity, gen-der, age (youth) or position (staff), and in camp(T1) versus follow-up (T2) for youth.

Interpersonal Relationships

Among youth. The left side of the interper-sonal level in Figure 1 depicts factors identifiedby youth that made it easier to form peer rela-tionships in the program than they experiencedin other contexts. Several kids remarked that ahelpful peer characteristic was how nice thekids in the program were, and how the expec-tation that other kids would be nice helped themmake friends “They treat me real nicely, andthey’re not mean to me” (White female age 11T1). Some youth provided specific examples—

They are being nice to you, and they’re . . . telling yougood things about themselves and yourself. Inter-viewer: Can you give me an example? Youth: Um,[other child’s name], we were playing basketball onetime. And my ball, I shot the ball and it bounced offreal hard, and it went all the way over there. And he gotit for me. (Latino male age 10 T1)

The program provided opportunities to meetnew friends through being with other kids, andthrough techniques the staff used: “Like they’llpartner you up with people that you haven’tbeen partnered up with, and like some peoplethat you haven’t talked to, and so like thatmakes you get to know them” (Latina femaleage 11 T1). Staff noticed that kids cementedclose relationships quickly—

There’s a couple of kids on my team that I thought theyknew each other from school, but yesterday I found outthat a lot of them just met here at camp. And they actlike they’re best friends, they’ve been friends for years.And I’m like, I asked them where, like what schoolsthey went to. And I found out they’ve never met eachother before camp. So it’s definitely had a big effect onthem, on as far as, um forming friendships go. They’ve

gotten a lot closer these last four weeks. (Asian femaleleader)

Many kids noted that they not only had theopportunity to meet kids and form friendships,but that the kids they were bonding with didn’tget in trouble, and that would help them keepout of trouble themselves. “If I’m hangingaround my, like good people, which I am, like,I think it’ll have an effect on my life. Like, youknow, I’ll be a good person” (Latina female age11 T1).

At home, there’s like nobody to hang out with prettymuch. And here there is a bunch of people to hang outwith and makes friends with. But um, my mom gaveme some choices of people [in the neighborhood] tohang out with, because the rest of them are like bullies.And here you could choose whoever you want to, to bea friend. (White female age 13 T1)

Friendships were also easier to form whilekids were having fun together—

My friends, they um, talk to me, they play games withme, they play sports, and we have like a really goodtime. We, um, talk. And that’s, um, that’s most likelywhy I go to this camp, so my friends and I can playwith each other. (White male age 11 T1)

Helpful peer actions included that other kidsapproached them to initiate friendships, whichwas explicitly encouraged in the programthrough activities and lessons on how to intro-duce themselves. One participant described hownew friendships formed: “At first I didn’t knowthem. And they just started talking to me. Sothey, we become friends. And then we talked toeach other. And then, and then, we just startedplaying. And now we’re like best friends”(Latina female age 12 T1). Other kids generallynot putting each other down contrasted withother contexts in their lives, so the programhelped them build friendships: “I don’t getpicked on as much as, or like, a lot [as] fromschool. I don’t get made fun of as much” (La-tino male age 10 T1). Kids identified that theirfriendships grew closer when kids listened tothem, helped them, and stood up for them,things that many of them explicitly linked to theintentional character development lessons inte-grated into the program. Helping was com-monly noted as an example, and was particu-larly important if it led to kids being included inan activity: “I don’t really know how to swim,some people like volunteer to help me if theyknow how to swim like some campers, they like

20 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

sometimes help me, like float” (Asian male age10 T1).

Barriers to positive peer relationships in-cluded conflict, teasing, and forming cliques.

They were really snotty. And they acted like, theyacted like they were in the “in” crowd. Like they uh,they always stuck their nose up at you and they alwaysmade fun of you and called you rude names and stuff.(Latina female age 10 T1)

Conversely, some kids reported valuingcliques because they had in-group status: “Inmy group, I’m kinda like, I fit in pretty good.I’m kinda like the joker of the group, you know.I crack jokes and everything. And everybodysmiles, you know, eh. It’s, my group is cool andexclusive” (Black male age 16 T1). But almostall youth emphasized these negative experi-ences were infrequent: “Sometimes they mightlike not like my opinions and stuff. So that’sonly sometimes” (Asian male age 10 T1), or nota big deal, or they could only recall problemsthat did not personally involve them: “Some-times there’s fights and stuff, but I haven’tgotten in one” (Latina female age 10 T1). A fewyouth also found it difficult to make friendsbecause they felt like outsiders: “[My friend-ships] usually last a couple weeks. Plus, rarely,some of them actually last for the entire camp,for me anyways. I’ve seen people like together,but they knew each other before camp, I didn’tknow anyone before” (Asian male age 12 T2).

Between youth and staff. On the right sideof the interpersonal level in Figure 1, ways thatstaff facilitated peer relationships are shown.Several aspects of the instruction and learninginteractions among staff and youth were identi-fied as important for forming relationships.Teaching sport skills was discussed often byyouth, as physical activities provided opportu-nities for inclusion.

It was really fun. Interviewer: What was fun about it?Youth: That you were in sports and they were alwaysround tellin’ me how to do it and everything, if youdidn’t know how to do it. . . . Nobody was reallyperfect at everything. And everyone was learningsomething. (White male age 9 T2)

Similarly, teaching social skills gave kidstools to build friendships: “He, like, tells us toget along, and shake hands and just ask eachother questions about their life, what you like”(White male age 11 T1). Youth also noted theimportance of staff giving them the opportunity

to demonstrate the character themes of respect,caring, responsibility, and trust so they couldearn praise and feel closer to staff members.

Staff responses to youth that youth identifiedas important included receiving encouragementand praise. Youth also felt closer to staff whogave them choices: “I had to switch my group. . . I asked one of them and they agreed. ‘Ifyou’re not having a good time then we have todo something about that.’ That’s somethingpretty nice they did” (Asian male age 12 T1).Staff identified that being there for the kidswhen they had problems, and do so in a way thatmaintained a caring relationship, was a consid-erable responsibility, as staff helped problemsfrom the mundane to very serious—

A lot of them tell me about like personal things, like“oh my mom’s in the hospital,” or something with mygrandparents and can you help me. Can you teach meto put on a tampon and stuff. So, a lot of them, it’spretty close. . . . I do not just end my relationship now. . . Usually on the last day of camp I’ll give them myphone number, in case if they have problems during theschool year . . . and a lot of them end up like callingme. (Asian female leader)

Several staff members recounted having to bereceptive to kids through bouts of anger andmisbehavior, to understand what some kidswere going through, and to be able to moreeffectively help. In one example where a girlwas severely misbehaving—

I pulled her out of her group. And I was like you knowwhat, go ahead and scream, do what you need to do,but when you’re done it’s my turn . . . She yelled, Iyelled, we talked, so she missed an entire station. Andwe talked, I got to know her. Um, I found out that she’sin a group home, you know, she came from an abusivefamily . . . She’d never been to a camp like this . . .Once I took the time and talked to her and really got toknow her I, I, you know, she’s, she’s really a nice girl.She just has a lot of pent up anger. (Black femalesupport staff)

And many of the kids recognized and appre-ciated that the staff were there for them:“They’re the ones who can help you out ifyou’re in trouble or something. They, they keepa pretty good eye on everyone” (Asian male age12 T1).

Not all staff responses to youth were helpfulthough. When staff teased kids, kids sometimesfound this as alienating from the staff memberand from their peers because it gave other kidspotential ammunition to use against them. Forexample—

21RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

He always, like, calls me, like, he sometimes calls me[name of a TV character] and stuff like that. And I donot like it. He’s a team leader, and I do not really likeit when he calls me [the character’s name] . . . Like,[the other kids] sometimes think, they are also like,they are like, start laughing and stuff. (Asian male age10 T1)

Fostering a mentoring relationship betweenstaff and youth was very important. Both youthand staff participants overwhelmingly spoke ofthe importance of staff spending time with andincluding youth—

I get along with [my team leader] pretty good, youknow. We, we sometimes talk, you know what I’msaying, about anything and everything, you know.And, uh, he’s really cool to hang out with. Well, andthat’s, and I think that’s cool that he’s really cool too. . . He sometimes be a part too. He plays the gameswith us too. (Black male age 16 T1)

As one of the instructors explained—

I make a point of trying to talk with them individuallywhen they are in the class with me . . . I share my lifestories with them, my experiences and that tends toopen up the door for them to share and talk about theirexperiences. And I try to, whenever possible, sit downand work with them while they are working and thatusually creates the atmosphere of total conversation.(Black male instructor)

Staff perceived that acting as role models ofpositive relationships was important for helpingyouth build relationships.

It makes me evaluate the type of person I want to be orthe type of person I am. You know, and how I ap-proach people, how I come across, ‘cause I’m preach-ing to these campers, you need to be, you know, youneed to be careful of your body language, your man-nerisms, but the same goes for me too. (Black femalesupport staff)

How the staff dealt with problems throughdiscipline was also recognized by youth as be-ing important for helping them develop goodrelationships. Discipline was challenging formany staff members: “It’s kind of hard some-times for me like because I’m not really a strict,strict person so if somebody does get into trou-ble I’m like, I’m kind of shy. So I’ve gottenbetter with that” (Black male instructor). Butbeing able to keep control and minimize nega-tive behavior was highly valued by kids, andsomething they recognized as generally beingdone in the program—

Say somebody was like being rude that team leaderwould say “stop being mean and become friends.” Itworks kind of well. Like um at my old camp, a bunch

of people would be mean and here if a bunch of peoplebe mean, the team leaders do something about it and atmy old camp, like hardly nobody would do anythingabout it. (White female age 13 T1)

Dealing with problems with patience calmedthe kids, and diffused conflict: “They havemade me more mellow because of how theydon’t yell at you all the time. If you have a niceenvironment then you will be nicer yourself andmore mellow” (White male age 13 T1). Youthnoted that the conflict resolution strategiestaught by the staff improved their relation-ships—

[The staff are] always, like telling us to kind of, likeapologize to [kids we have hurt], or try to learn otherpeople’s names, or something like that. And then nextthing you know you are like hanging around them. It’scool. (Latina female age 11 T1)

Maintaining fairness was also important:“They treated everyone like they were thesame” (White male age 12 T1). But there weretimes when the staff’s behaviors hindered rela-tionships. In particular, kids felt alienated fromstaff who were unfair, or too lenient. “He goeseasy sometimes. He doesn’t like, if they keep ondoing it, he won’t give them a warning or any-thing” (White male age 9 T1).

Program Context

Youth perspective. The program structurecreated opportunities for participation, skill de-velopment, and self-expression that had a pos-itive impact on relationships. The program wasa safe space to be yourself. When asked whyshe felt like she fit in, one girl said, “BecauseI’m me. We all in our true ways. And it’s all justcool” (Black female age 12 T1). Most youth feltbetter about themselves when they had the op-portunity to learn or improve at physical activ-ities: “I’m actually better at sports than I think Iam” (White female age 11 T1). Learning sportskills was viewed as a social skill, as it in-creased opportunities to play with others: “Afew days ago when I couldn’t swim, all theother kids were playing in the deep end while Iwas in the shallow. And so now I can swim, soI get to do that” (Latina female age 10 T1). Theprogram had a rule that everyone had to partic-ipate, which improved inclusion. Requiring ev-eryone to participate reduced exclusion due tolack of skill.

22 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

When you want to play basketball and you knowyou’re not good at, you’re not very good at it, they letyou play anyway . . . It feels nice and makes you fit inpretty nice because usually I do not play that muchsports . . . People do not say that you’re a bad sport ornothing they just say you can keep trying and you’regood. (White male age 12 T1)

The key to effectively using this rule in apositive manner seemed to be focusing on sup-porting involvement rather than enforcing a ruleso that youth did not feel controlled: “Cooper-ative games is one, well, maybe because wehave to, or maybe they just want to. I have noidea, but I’m involved all the time and likesometimes, like that’s cool” (Asian male age 12T1).

Staff perspective. Support from the pro-gram administration that was integral in facili-tating relationships included training that im-proved staff skills and confidence in promotinga positive social environment. An instructorsaid “I really appreciate the manual, the trainingmanual. So it’s like, we went through the ex-pectations together as a group. So that’s likeeverybody started with a greater understanding,even if they haven’t been here before” (Blackmale instructor). A staff member whose respon-sibility it was to address discipline problemsexplained that it was helpful to have conflictresolution methods introduced in the trainingand to practice talking about them with the kidsbecause “When I actually sat down and talkedwith the campers, it was easy for them to [say],‘Well I feel this way, you know. Things aregoing, going on at home and I’m so frustrated,’or whatever” (Black female support staff).

Staff appreciated the care and autonomy sup-port they received from the program adminis-tration. A male instructor especially appreciatedthat he was asked to talk to community leaderswho toured the program: “I get to share mystory, and I get to share it with people whocome and want to find out about [the program].I, I’m encouraged to share my story about whatI am trying to do” (Black male instructor). Thissupport created a positive work climate, andmodeled how to be caring and autonomy sup-portive with the kids.

In terms of support from staff, the staff spokeabout how their treatment by the program ad-ministrators encouraged them to develop caringrelationships with other staff. One staff memberput together a box for staff to submit notes when

they noticed other staff doing something in linewith the character development themes—

We actually go out, like um, looking for things like,like [another staff member], helped out a camper to-day, he was being caring, so I’ll, I’ll, I’ll write it down.So it actually, we’re actually picking out other thingsso, the fact that we, like, put each others’ names inthere, they’re like, “Oh, you, you, you noticed” and itgets us like talking. (Asian female leader)

Staff emphasized that while their job wasoften exhausting and challenging, support fromyouth was rewarding. Staff witnessed kids im-proving and learned from the youth. “I’ve got acouple of kids that were in my group from lastyear. One who has really improved in swim-ming actually helps out some of the kids thatstruggle in swimming this year. He’s been morerespectful . . . this year” (White male leader). Astaff member who spent considerable time withyouth who struggled behaviorally recountedseveral inspiring examples of kids improving—

Some of the stories they tell you, you know, “I’mgetting along better with my siblings.” Or, you know,“If he or she makes me mad, I just walk away from it.”Or, you know, “I am trying out for this.” “I, I’m takingcare of my brothers and sisters.” So you, you hear a lotof stories. [One participant’s] foster mom has calledme a number of times, she said “I don’t know whatyou’re doing, but keep doing it, because she doesn’targue with her foster sisters as much anymore.” Shesays, “She does the chores, I do not have to get on herto do it, and she actually listens, be-, and before sheblows up.” (Black female support staff)

Youth Assets

Youth identified a variety of ways in whichfactors at the interpersonal relationships andprogram context levels contributed to intraper-sonal and interpersonal assets. Kids recognizedtheir motivation for physical activity improvedwhen they had other kids to be active with—

I just want to say that I like this camp. It is awesome.Interviewer: Can you give me an example of why it’sawesome? Youth: It has been the exercise, and Ineeded it . . . we do exercise with people and not justdo it by yourself. And I really, like, get encouraged bythem to, like, do more exercise. And yeah, I do moreexercise. (Latina female age 14 T1)

Many kids provided examples of how theirperceived competence and self-esteem im-proved as a result of being able to make friendsand have positive interactions with other kids:“I made some friends, and I liked that, becauseit makes me feel like I am a good kid” (Asian

23RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

male age 10 T2). “People don’t say that you’rea bad sport or nothing. They just say you cankeep trying and you’re good. It feels great,because, um, you can do anything like that”(White male age 12 T1).

Many youth found that the lessons on emo-tional control gave them skills and a new per-spective on their behavior and how to solveproblems—

If you’re like really mean they teach you a lesson. ‘Cuzit’s not that you’re mean, but it’s just that you get so-sojust mad. But you’re not mean. Although, and, thenyou, and then they just tell you to chill. And thenyou’re, you do not get mad. (Latina female age 12 T1)

The overall experience of being included byso many kids and supportive adults also led tokids identifying that they had become moreconfident and assertive: “It kind of made memore, uh energetic, friendlier, and all that kindof good stuff . . . I’m a friendlier person then Ithought. Like I thought I was really, really shyand timid. But apparently I’m not” (White maleage 13 T2).

The kids pointed out that the character skills(respect, caring, trust, responsibility) werefriendship skills. “[The other kids and staff]influenced me to be nicer and not, like stuck up.Yeah, I learned some more stuff to treat myfriends better. Um, like instead of talking all thetime, I can listen a few times. Like if I want tobutt in, I shouldn’t, and let them finish theirsentence or something” (White male age 9 T2).Being in a context in which a large number ofkids were intentionally being taught aboutfriendships and social skills helped several kidslearn to recognize what makes a good, and bad,friend. “I learned that you should be yourself.And not try to fit in with people that don’t, like,sort of like you for who you are . . . At camp,everybody accepted you for who you are . . . Inoticed a difference between those friends [andkids] at school, that they always talk stuff be-hind your back sometimes” (Latina female age14 T2).

The most commonly discussed asset wasfeeling included, wanted, and cared for. “I’mincluded in everything and it is just like we’reall included and having fun” (White female age10 T1). “When I came here, was here, I wastrying to interact with all the other campers, butum, I don’t know any of them, ‘cause I don’tknow any of them from my school, I only know

my cousins and they’re in different groups thanI am. And um, I’m starting to get, I’m starting tobe really good friends with some of them, threeof them. I think I’m doing great” (Latino maleage 10, T1). “Now I have more friends, and,um, some people I can talk to on the phone. Inever used to have any friends. Now I do”(Latina female age 10 T1).

Community

Many youth participants also discussed waysthat those experiences and skills transferred tohome, neighborhood, and school contexts,shown in the outer corners of Figure 1. Athome, kids identified that they got along betterwith parents and siblings, and helped out moreas a result of what they had experienced in theprogram, and assets they developed. For exam-ple, one White male (age 9, T1) explained howstaff and peers in the program role modeledresponsibility, and he applied this skill wheninteracting with his parents: “If my team leadertells someone to do something, they might notargue. So I can go home and not argue when myMom tells me to do something” (White maleage 9 T1). Other youth echoed his view aboutapplying social skills learned in the program athome with their families.

You get to take, get more along with your family andthings. ‘Cuz you learn things from here. Like when,like, if you were out to fight your family, and youdidn’t know nothing about this, to calm down andthings. Well, and here you learn things. Like you go upto them and say “sorry” and things, and you just do notwalk away. (Latina female age 12 T1)

Transfer to the neighborhood similarly em-phasized that friends from the program becamenew neighborhood friends. “Some of the kids[from the program] in my neighborhood, like ifthey’re outside and they have no one to hang outwith, either they come up to me if I don’t haveanybody else to hang out with, or I go up tothem. And it’s just like at camp” (White femaleage 13 T1). Furthermore, youth learned newsports they could play with other kids in theirneighborhoods, which allowed them to use theirsport and social skills to be more included.

I get to know more games and can play with my friendsoutside [of the program], not only at camp, but likeother stuff that people like . . . I like, like before weonly used to only play basketball but now that I learnedmore games from camp like share with my friends . . .

24 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

we learn, like, we like, gets me closer to my friends andstuff like that. (Asian male age 10 T1)

At school, friends from the program becamenew friends. “I have more friends than I actuallythought I did. Some of my friends actually go tomy school . . . We know we will get along. Wewon’t have to, like introduce ourselves againand do all that stuff again” (White female age10 T1). “Um, the kids at school hang around memore since I’ve went to [the program]. I havemore friends” (Latina female age 10 T2). Youthalso reported that they listened more to teachersand got in less trouble at school. “[I learned thatadults] have their limits. At camp, my leaderwas like, tied up every minute. I can notice thatin school too . . . I don’t ask, like too manyredundant questions in class or those kind ofthings again” (Asian male age 12 T2).

Discussion

This study examined youths’ and staff mem-bers’ perspectives on interpersonal relationshipsamong peers and staff within a physical activi-ty-based PYD program for youth from low-income families, participants’ understanding ofthe experiences and interactions that help orhinder forming high quality relationships in theprogram, and their understanding of the effectthose relationships have within and outside ofthe PYD program. Through this work, we aimedto make a contribution to the PYD literature byconsidering perspectives of participants fromlow-income families on potential social mech-anisms of development that they find meaning-ful. We also consider the findings from a socialecological perspective, identifying factors at alllevels, and the interplay among these factorsacross levels. The opportunities to learn physi-cal skills in a safe space was important. Theseskills allowed youth to participate in activitieswith peers, and make friends, in the programand other contexts, and such opportunities maynot be as readily available to youth from low-income families. The integration of the lifeskills curriculum throughout the program wasan important component of relationship-building for youth, as it provided them with aframework for understanding what a goodfriend is, skills and opportunities for formingpositive relationships (including through physi-cal activity), and friendships that could be main-tained beyond the program. The identification

by staff of the importance of the combination ofstaff training and support from caring and au-tonomy-supportive program administrators pro-vides an important perspective on how consid-ering the experiences and well-being of PYDstaff has important implications for the programcontext and youth outcomes. These conditionshelped create a safe and supportive culture inwhich youth could learn skills to initiate anddevelop relationships in the program and com-munity.

The role of physical activity and sport as avehicle for inclusion is important for manyyouth in this age-group, and may be particularlyvaluable for this low-income population. Phys-ical activity and sport are often important socialcontexts for youth. Sport and games are a sig-nificant part of school physical education, ex-tracurricular activities, recess, and neighbor-hood free play, and they are often a context forpeer interaction. Skill level can play a role inwhether youth are invited to play, if they aremeaningfully included, how peers respond (pos-itively or negatively) while playing, and in es-tablishing social status in peer groups (Chase &Dummer, 1992). Youth in late childhood andearly adolescence from low-income families of-ten have fewer opportunities to participate reg-ularly and become skilled in organized physicalactivity contexts (Eime, Charity, Harvey, &Payne, 2015). These deficits may lead to exclu-sion, widening the skill gap further. The oppor-tunity to receive instruction and gain skill gaveyouth a boost to be able to participate in phys-ical activities within the program, and in thecommunity. In this study, the role that partici-pating in fun, developmental physical activitiesand learning new sport skills played in peerrelationships was one of the most discussedelements translated to other contexts. The rulein the program that everyone had to participateis interesting, because such a rule could havebeen perceived as controlling, and had a nega-tive effect on motivation and well-being (Deci& Ryan, 2000). Instead, this rule was experi-enced as freeing for many children, who did nothave to decide whether to participate in physicalactivities or not, and did not face exclusion fromparticipation by their peers. This is an exampleof how choice is not synonymous with auton-omy: even rules that dictate behavior can beautonomy supportive if they contribute to meet-ing youths’ needs and are communicated in a

25RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

supportive, inclusive manner. Future research isneeded to examine the effects of such policieson motivation, and the effects of skill develop-ment opportunities on social relationship devel-opment in this population. Physical activity-based PYD programs may be well-suited tocreating these conditions, as they tend to haveconsiderable flexibility to implement policiesand education around participation and inclu-sion.

The integration of a character developmentcurriculum in physical activities offered in asafe and inclusive space was an important com-bination for social relationship development. Insport contexts in which there is no intentionaleffort to create a positive social climate, there isless evidence for youth asset development (Holtet al., 2012). The focus on what makes a goodfriend and creating opportunities to interactwith other youth who are also focusing on in-terpersonal skills may aid developing healthyrelationships. This education and social envi-ronment may be an important combination, par-ticularly for youth from low-income familieswho are particularly at risk for negative peerinfluences (Eamon, 2002), such as pressure tojoin gangs (Riciputi et al., 2016). Furthermore,these opportunities may be important for youthin late childhood and early adolescence, whenpeer relationships are becoming increasinglyimportant (Harter, 2012). Future research isneeded to examine how to best foster theserelationships in PYD programs across the latechildhood-early adolescent developmental pe-riod, and to examine effects on friendships overtime. In this environment, youth had opportuni-ties to meet new friends, develop high qualityfriendships, and learn to discern-and have moreoptions for developing friendships with youthwho are caring and respectful and do not get introuble. These features of peer relationships areassociated with well-being (Hartup, 1996).These mutually influential relationships amongchildren are also ways that youth positivelycontributed to creating the positive social con-text, an important outcome of effective PYDprograms, and one that is sometimes overlookedin this population (Lerner et al., 2015). Thisfinding provides further support that intention-ally integrating life skill development into phys-ical activities is an effective strategy for PYDprograms for this population (Bean & Forneris,2016; Holt & Neely, 2012).

An important contribution of this study is thefinding that staff valued receiving training inskills to integrate social, character, and lifeskills into their activities and interactions withthe youth, and manage and discipline theirgroups constructively; and that program admin-istrators were perceived as caring and autono-my-supportive toward staff. It is understandablethat most of the focus on PYD programs is onyouth but, supporting the skills, positive socialrelationships, and autonomy for staff likely af-fects how well they create positive climates foryouth (McDavid et al., 2017) and their ownleadership development (Kendellen, Camiré,Bean, & Forneris, 2016). Future research isneeded that considers the experiences of PYDstaff and implications for youth and staff out-comes.

The case study was delimited to data fromyouth and staff. The decision to not includeothers such as parents and teachers presentslimitations, particularly for examining transfer.Although all participants were able to addressthe interview questions, some youth were lim-ited in their capacity to provide detailed an-swers. Conducting the initial interviews prior tothe end of the program limited our ability tocapture experiences over the full duration of theprogram. Our ability to contact and interviewonly half of the youth participants at follow-up,and that the majority of those participants wereboys, limits the range of experiences repre-sented, particularly with respect to long-termtransfer. Maintaining contact with families overtime is challenging, as there is considerablemobility in this population, but we felt thatinterviewing those we could reach was worth-while. Finally, it would have been preferable tohave one person conduct all interviews andanalysis so one person experienced all of theinteractions with youth and was intimatelyaware of the subtleties of the conversations thatensued, but this was not possible due to pro-gram constraints.

Conclusions

The study provides insight into what youthfrom low-income families value and find usefulabout their social interactions in a physical ac-tivity-based PYD program. Interventions aremost effective when participants’ perspectives,needs, and contexts are carefully considered

26 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

(Sue, 2006). This study provides ideas for pro-gram elements that are meaningful to youth andaddress concerns of importance to them in ef-forts to promote asset development and transfer.It would be useful for PYD programs to con-sider the effect of the combination of physicalactivity opportunities, physical and social skilldevelopment, and intentionally integrating lifeskill lessons on youths’ experiences and out-comes in PYD programs. Furthermore, consid-ering skill development and support for PYDstaff is potentially important for both staff andyouth outcomes. The unique environment ofPYD programs with its focus on fun, but withintentional social and life skill lessons may cre-ate a culture and space for developing assets.Social interactions likely affect youth in waysthat they do not notice or are unable to identify,but the findings allow us to consider socialfactors that resonate, and that they see as mean-ingful for their own development.

References

Anderson-Butcher, D., Cash, S. J., Saltzburg, S.,Midle, T., & Pace, D. (2004). Institutions of youthdevelopment: The sigificance of supportive staff-youth relationships. Journal of Human Behavior inthe Social Environment, 9, 83–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J137v09n01_07

Bean, C., & Forneris, T. (2016). Examining the im-portance of intentionally structuring the youthsport context to facilitate positive youth develop-ment. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28,410 – 425. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2016.1164764

Bean, E., Whitley, M. A., & Gould, D. (2014). Ath-lete impressions of a character-based sports pro-gram for underserved youth. Journal of Sport Be-havior, 37, 3–23.

Benson, P. L., Scales, P. C., Hamilton, S. F., &Sesma, A. (2006). Positive youth development:Theory, research, and applications. In R. M. Lerner(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. The-oretical models of human development (6th ed.,pp. 894–941). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover,S., Bowes, G., & Patton, G. (2007). Social andschool connectedness in early secondary school aspredictors of late teenage substance use, mentalhealth, and academic outcomes. Journal of Ado-lescent Health, 40, 357.e9.e18894–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic anal-ysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy-

chology, 3, 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). Theecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. The-oretical models of human development (5th ed.,pp. 993–1028). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Burke, S. (2016). Rethinking ‘validity’ and ‘trust-worthiness’ in qualitative inquiry: How might wejudge the quality of qualitative research in sportand exercise sciences? In B. Smith & A. C.Sparkes (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitativeresearch in sport and exercise (pp. 330–339). NewYork, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M.,Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004). Positiveyouth development in the United States: Researchfindings on evaluations of positive youth develop-ment programs. Annals of the American Academyof Political and Social Science, 591, 98 –124.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260102

Chase, M. A., & Dummer, G. M. (1992). The role ofsports as a social status determinant for children.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63,418 – 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1992.10608764

Christensen, P., & Prout, A. (2002). Working withethical symmetry in social research with children.Childhood, 9, 477–497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009004007

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and“why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and theself-determination of behavior. Psychological In-quiry, 11, 227–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Eamon, M. K. (2002). Poverty, parenting, peer, andneighborhood influences on young adolescent an-tisocial behavior. Journal of Social Service Re-search, 28, 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J079v28n01_01

Eime, R. M., Charity, M. J., Harvey, J. T., & Payne,W. R. (2015). Participation in sport and physicalactivity: Associations with socio-economic statusand geographical remoteness. BMC Public Health,15, 434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1796-0

Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and studentmotivation: A developmental perspective. In C.Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivationin education, Vol. 3: Goals and cognitions (pp.259–295). Toronto, ON: Academic Press.

Fraser-Thomas, J. L., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005).Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster posi-tive youth development. Physical Education andSport Pedagogy, 10, 19–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334890

Gano-Overway, L. A., Newton, M., Magyar, T. M.,Fry, M. D., Kim, M. S., & Guivernau, M. R.

27RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

(2009). Influence of caring youth sport contexts onefficacy-related beliefs and social behaviors. De-velopmental Psychology, 45, 329–340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014067

Goodman, E., Slap, G. B., & Huang, B. (2003). Thepublic health impact of socioeconomic status onadolescent depression and obesity. American Jour-nal of Public Health, 93, 1844–1850. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.11.1844

Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills develop-ment through sport: Current status and future di-rections. International Review of Sport and Exer-cise Psychology, 1, 58 –78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509840701834573

Gould, D., Flett, R., & Lauer, L. (2012). The rela-tionship between psychosocial developmental andthe sports climate experienced by underservedyouth. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 80–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.005

Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self (2nded.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1996). The company they keep:Friendships and their developmental significance.Child Development, 67, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131681

Holt, N. L., Deal, C. J., & Smyth, C. (2016). Futuredirections for positive youth development throughsport. In N. L. Holt (Ed.), Positive youth develop-ment through sport (pp. 229–240). New York,NY: Routledge.

Holt, N. L., Kingsley, B. C., Tink, L. N., & Scherer,J. (2011). Benefits and challenges associated withsport participation by children and parents fromlow-income families. Psychology of Sport and Ex-ercise, 12, 490–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.007

Holt, N. L., McHugh, T.-L. F., Tink, L. N., Kingsley,B. C., Coppola, A. M., Neely, K. C., & McDonald,R. P. (2013). Developing sport-based after-schoolprogrammes using a participatory action researchapproach. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exerciseand Health, 5, 332–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2013.809377

Holt, N. L., & Neely, K. C. (2012). Positive youthdevelopment through sport: A review. Revista Ibe-roamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el De-porte, 6, 299–316.

Holt, N. L., Sehn, Z. L., Spence, J. C., Newton, A. S.,& Ball, G. D. C. (2012). Physical education andsport programs at an inner city school: Exploringpossibilities for positive youth development. Phys-ical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 17, 97–113.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2010.548062

Holt, N. L., Tamminen, K. A., & Jones, M. I. (2007).Promoting positive youth development throughteaching games in physical education. Physicaland Health Education, 8–13.

Holt, N. L., Tamminen, K. A., Tink, L. N., & Black,D. E. (2009). An interpretive analysis of life skillsassociated with sport participation. Qualitative Re-search in Sport and Exercise, 1, 160–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19398440902909017

Janssen, I., Boyce, W. F., Simpson, K., & Pickett, W.(2006). Influence of individual- and area-levelmeasures of socioeconomic status on obesity, un-healthy eating, and physical inactivity in Canadianadolescents. The American Journal of Clinical Nu-trition, 83, 139–145.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Coopera-tive learning and achievement. In S. Sharon (Ed.),Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.23–37). New York, NY: Praeger.

Kendellen, K., Camiré, M., Bean, C. N., & Forneris,T. (2016). Facilitators and barriers to leadershipdevelopment at a Canadian residential summercamp. Journal of Park and Recreation Adminis-tration, 34, 36 –50. http://dx.doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2016-V34-I4-6514

Kirschman, K. J. B., Roberts, M. C., Shadlow, J. O.,& Pelley, T. J. (2010). An evaluation of hopefollowing a summer camp for inner-city youth.Child & Youth Care Forum, 39, 385–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9119-1

Lerner, R. M., Johnson, S. K., & Buckingham, M. H.(2015). Relational developmental systems-basedtheories and the study of children and families:Lerner and Spanier (1978) revisited. Journal ofFamily Theory & Review, 7, 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12067

Lerner, R. M., Wang, J., Chase, P. A., Gutierrez,A. S., Harris, E. M., Rubin, R. O., & Yalin, C.(2014). Using relational developmental systemstheory to link program goals, activities, and out-comes: The sample case of the 4-H study of pos-itive youth development. New Directions for YouthDevelopment: Theory, Practice, Research, 2014,17–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20110

McDavid, L., McDonough, M. H., Blankenship,B. T., & LeBreton, J. M. (2017). A test of basicpsychological needs theory in a physical activity-based program for underserved youth. Journal ofSport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 29–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0038

McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2005).Sport participation motivation in young adolescentgirls: The role of friendship quality and self-concept. Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 76, 456–467.

McDonough, M. H., Ullrich-French, S., Anderson-Butcher, D., Amorose, A. J., & Riley, A. (2013).Social responsibility among low-income youth inphysical activity-based positive youth develop-ment programs: Scale development and associa-tions with social relationships. Journal of Applied

28 MCDONOUGH, ULLRICH-FRENCH, AND MCDAVID

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Sport Psychology, 25, 431–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.751563

Meléndez, A., & Martinek, T. (2015). Life afterproject effort: Applying values acquired in a re-sponsibility-based physical activity program [Vidadespués del “Proyecto Esfuerzo”: Aplicación delos valores adquiridos en un programa de actividadfísica basado en la responsabilidad]. Revista Inter-nacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 11, 258–280.http://dx.doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2015.04105

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Integrating qualitative andquantitative methods: A pragmatic approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2014). NVivo qualitativedata analysis software (Version 10) [ComputerSoftware].

Rhodes, J. E. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caringyouth-staff relationships in after-school settings.New Directions for Youth Development: Theory,Practice, Research, 2004, 145–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.75

Riciputi, S., McDonough, M. H., & Ullrich-French,S. (2016). Participant perceptions of character con-cepts in a physical activity-based positive youthdevelopment program. Journal of Sport & Exer-cise Psychology, 38, 481–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0061

Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationshipsand physical activity participation in early adoles-cence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,21, 329–350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.21.4.329

Smith, B., & McGannon, K. R. (2017). Developingrigor in qualitative research: Problems and oppor-tunities within sport and exercise psychology. In-ternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychol-ogy, 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357

Snyder, F. J., & Flay, B. R. (2012). Positive youthdevelopment. In P. M. Brown, M. W. Corrigan, &A. Higgins-D’Alessandro (Eds.), The handbook ofprosocial education. New York, NY: Rowman &Littlefield.

Stake, R. C. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage hand-book of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–446). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sue, S. (2006). Cultural competency: From philosphyto research and practice. Journal of Community Psy-chology, 34, 237–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20095

Turnnidge, J., Côté, J., & Hancock, D. J. (2014).Positive youth development from sport to life:Explicit or implicit transfer? Quest, 66, 203–217.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2013.867275

Ullrich-French, S., & McDonough, M. H. (2013).Correlates of long-term participation in a physicalactivity-based positive youth development pro-gram for low-income youth: Sustained involve-ment and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Ado-lescence, 36, 279–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.11.006

Ullrich-French, S., McDonough, M. H., & Smith,A. L. (2012). Social connection and psychologicaloutcomes in a physical activity-based youth devel-opment setting. Research Quarterly for Exerciseand Sport, 83, 431–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599878

Votruba-Drzal, E. (2006). Economic disparities inmiddle childhood development: Does income mat-ter? Developmental Psychology, 42, 1154–1167.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1154

Weiss, M. R., Bolter, N. D., & Kipp, L. E. (2016).Evaluation of the first tee in promoting positiveyouth development: Group comparisons and lon-gitudinal trends. Research Quarterly for Exerciseand Sport, 87, 271–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1172698

Weiss, M. R., Smith, A. L., & Stuntz, C. P. (2008).Moral development in sport and physical activity.In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology(3rd ed., pp. 187–210). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Received May 2, 2017Revision received August 8, 2017

Accepted August 8, 2017 �

29RELATIONSHIPS IN POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.