You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.

www.HFRP.org

The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.

Terms of Use ▼

Program Description

Overview The Grand Slam Program (GSP) is a joint program of the Athens Recreation and Parks Department, the Athens Police, and other area agencies to provide recreation opportunities for low-income youth (most of whom live in public housing) in Athens, Georgia, during high crime summer weekend evening periods. GSP’s mission is to offer recreational and educational activities for preteen and teenage youth based on the assumption that when youth have something constructive to do, they are less likely to engage in unlawful activities. The program’s two primary goals are the provision of a safe environment and high attendance by disadvantaged and hard-to-reach youth.
Start Date 1990
Scope local
Type summer/vacation, weekend
Location urban
Setting other (public park)
Participants elementary through high school students (ages 9–18)
Number of Sites/Grantees one
Number Served over 1,000 total (1990); over 500 per evening (1998)
Components Under the leadership of the Athens Recreation and Parks Department, recreational and educational activities were offered during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays on eight consecutive summer weekends. GSP participants had access to a gymnasium, two outside basketball courts, four tennis courts, two athletic fields (one softball, one football/soccer), an outdoor trampoline area, a game room, and park walkways. GSP operated a camp-like environment with a program director and about 26 counselors. The program sometimes held special events, such as attending University of Georgia football games or bringing in community leaders, outside artists, or representatives from community organizations as guest speakers.

The program format consisted of:

Team meetings: Teams of roughly 25 students met each night with counselors, or “team leaders,” who were trained in building youth assets and protective factors. These team leaders and meetings were meant to productively utilize the time before the program began and heighten the impact of “interested and caring adults.”

Assembly: Youth gathered to hear the program director outline program rules and expectations and make announcements about program events every evening following team meetings. Team meetings and Assembly began each night as youth arrived (anywhere from 7:00 p.m. to 7:45 p.m.) and concluded at approximately 8:00 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.

Recreation activities: Each evening youth chose from among the available activities, which included basketball, flag football, swimming, video games, tennis, jump rope, and art instruction. Recreation time typically lasted from 8:00 p.m. to 9:15 p.m.

Dance: Youth were free to mingle and dance each night from approximately 9:30 to 10:50 each evening under the supervision of counselors.
Funding Level Not available
Funding Sources City of Athens, Athens Housing Authority, and State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources


Evaluation

Overview A 3-year evaluation sought to understand program implementation and overall effectiveness.
Evaluators Douglas Kleiber and Lynne Cory, Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Georgia
Evaluations Profiled Grand Slam Evaluation Project Final Report
Evaluations Planned Not available
Report Availability Kleiber, D., & Cory, L. (2000). Grand Slam Evaluation Project final report. Athens, GA: Author. Available at: rptsweb.tamu.edu/faculty/witt/consort.htm


Contacts

Evaluation Douglas A. Kleiber, Professor and Head
Dept. Recreation and Leisure Studies
300 River Road
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602-3655
Tel: 706-542-5064
Email: dkleiber@arches.uga.edu
Program Aaron Heard
Community Services Specialist
Athens/Clarke County Leisure Services
P.O. Box 1868
Athens, Georgia 30603-1868
Tel: 706-613-3625
Email: info@athensclarkecounty.com
Profile Updated April 28, 2006

Evaluation: Grand Slam Evaluation Project Final Report


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To examine the following questions: (a) Did GSP attract and serve a large number of low income middle school-age youth? (b)Was the program environment safe? (c) Did crime rates change during the period that GSP was offered? (d) What did children find most attractive about the program? (d) What part of the program was most educational/instructive to participants? (f) What psychological or social assets (e.g., ability to get along with others, establishing relationships with caring adults) were produced through program participation? (g) What program impact, if any, was there on participants’ self-perceptions? (h) Did the program have any negative effects on participants? (i) How might any program benefits be enhanced? and (j) Did the formation of teams and utilization of team leaders as role models enhance GSP’s impact on protective factors, especially related to youth’s sense of having relationships with interested and caring adults?
Evaluation Design Quasi-Experimental and Non-Experimental: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from participants and staff. Pretest/posttest data were available for 62 youth. In addition, the four neighborhoods from which GSP participants were drawn were compared to non-GSP neighborhoods for community-level crime outcomes.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: Focus groups, which lasted 45 minutes, were conducted with approximately 30 youth who were each offered ten dollars as an incentive. In addition, interviews were conducted with three counselors prior to the end of GSP. Both interviews and focus groups consisted of questions related to program implementation and effectiveness. Focus group questions also asked about youth’s perceptions of the program.

Secondary Source/Data Review: Official crime statistics (by time of arrest: 1:30 p.m. to 6:29 p.m., 6:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and 11:31 p.m. to 4:30 a.m.) were compiled by the Athens Police Department and collected by the evaluators for the period from 1995 to 1999. Census data collected by program staff were also obtained.

Surveys/Questionnaires: Student surveys were administered at the start and completion of the program in 1999. Items assessed participants’ perceptions of themselves (pretest and posttest—e.g., ability to work with others, ability to work out conflicts), perceptions of the program (posttest only), and frequency of participation.
Data Collection Timeframe Data were collected in the summer of 1999.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Program Context/Infrastructure Girls were less likely than boys to indicate feeling safe in the program (p <. 05).
Recruitment/Participation Evaluators estimated that between 500 and 750 youth attended the program on a typical evening.

Posttest respondents reported attending an average of 10 nights of GSP in 1999.

The majority of participants were 11–14 year olds.

Estimates indicated that approximately 65% of participants came from public housing centers (i.e., the targeted lower income areas).
Satisfaction Posttest data for 1999 indicated that participants generally liked the activities, the counselors, learning new things, and the raffle prizes, with average satisfaction ratings ranging from “neutral” (3) to “much” (4) on a five-point scale (where 1 = “not at all” and 5 = “very much”). Participants liked being with friends and the music and dancing, with average satisfaction ratings ranging from “much” (4) to “very much” (5). The teams were the least well-liked aspect of the program (mean = 3.25).

Girls were more likely than boys to say that they liked the counselors (p < .05), being with friends (p < .01), and the music and dancing (p < .05). Girls were also more likely to report that the counselors knew (p < .05), cared about (p < .01), and taught (p < .05) them.

Younger youth were significantly more likely than older youth to like the activities (p < .01), learning new things (p < .05), the prizes (p < .01), and the teams (p < .05).

More frequent program attendees were significantly more likely than less frequent attendees to report liking the counselors (p < .05), being with friends (p < .01), and learning new things (p < .05).

Youth who reported that more counselors knew their names were significantly more likely to report liking the counselors and being with friends (p < .05 for both).

Focus group data provided additional evidence that participants liked program activities and counselors and, more generally, that they liked the program overall.

Focus groups raised concerns about the discipline/rewards system, criticizing the staff’s authoritarian discipline style, particularly the practice of denying privileges to an entire group when only a few participants caused problems, as well as suggesting more rewards for individuals exhibiting positive behavior.

Focus groups raised concerns about fighting and how it caused disruption and raised the sense of fear and unpredictability; raffles and prizes, suggesting more personal prizes such as CDs, games, and toys rather than household items like fans and popcorn poppers; and snacks, suggesting more or different foods such as pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs, and ice cream.
Staffing/Training Interviews revealed that counselors had several years of experience with the program and were familiar with the participants from previous years with GSP and from other community settings. One counselor noted that the counselors with the most potential were those who were not afraid of the participants, had experience working with youth, and loved working with them.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Community Development Overall crime-rate drops during GSP program hours were more prevalent in non-GSP neighborhoods than in GSP neighborhoods, although total juvenile crime arrests in GSP neighborhoods dropped more in the hours after the program ended than in non-GSP neighborhoods. A similar pattern by hours was found for juvenile crime arrests for assault.

Juvenile disturbing the peace arrests increased in both GSP and non-GSP neighborhoods throughout the evening hours but increased to a greater extent in the after hours in the non-GSP neighborhoods.

For juvenile larceny arrests, similar drops were found in all time periods for both GSP and non-GSP neighborhoods.
Youth Development The only significant change in youth’s perceptions of protective factors from pretest to posttest was a significant decrease in awareness of conventional behavior models.

Those youth who valued the program for allowing them to be with friends showed significantly larger gains in sense of belonging and ability to work with others than youth who did not value the program for this reason (p < .05).

Those youth who were less likely to value the program for allowing them to learn new things showed significantly larger increases in controls for deviant behavior (i.e., compliance and self-control, p < .05) than those youth who did value the program for this reason.

© 2016 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College
Published by Harvard Family Research Project