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 NikeGO After School Program provides after school physical activities to offer youth the opportunity to discover the joy of movement and the fun of physical activity. Its goal is to involve many youth, especially those that are hard to reach, and get them engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Start Date fall 2002
Scope national
Type after school
Location urban, suburban, rural
Setting community-based organization (Boys & Girls Clubs of America)
Participants elementary through high school students (ages 9–15)
Number of Sites/Grantees 31
Number Served over 1,000
Components Each club designed its own program with input from its 9–15-year-old clients. Club staff were trained to use the SPARK® (Sports, Play & Active Recreation for Kids)¹ active recreation curriculum and received the corresponding SPARK binder containing physical activities. Warm-up and cool-down activities typically occur both before and after the selected activity. Each activity is clearly described on a single sheet with organizational tips and teaching cues.

Each club also received funds from Nike to support their programmatic efforts ($25,000) and to obtain free Nike equipment and merchandise (up to $25,000) of their choosing. Clubs could choose a variety of such equipment and merchandise, such as team uniforms, basketballs, volleyballs, nets, and Nike products such as t-shirts, hats, lanyards, etc.

Clubs maintained an active recruitment plan to attract “inactive” youth to their programs. For example, funds were used to lower the membership fees or to initiate new activities that were intended to be more appealing or less threatening to inactive youth (i.e., less competitive activities).

Begun as a national pilot partnership between Nike and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the program has recently expanded to include an array of partnerships delivering programs in a variety of settings, such as city parks, summer playgrounds, and elementary and middle schools.

¹ Rosengard, P., McKenzie, T. L., Short, K., & Strelow, J. (2000). SPARK: Active Recreation, Ages 5–14. San Diego, CA: SDSU Foundation.
Funding Level $1,550,000 ($25,000 per club, plus $25,000 in retail goods—e.g., basketballs, nets, etc).
Funding Sources Nike, Inc.


Evaluation

Overview Program Evaluation Across the Nation Using Technology (PEANUT)© is NikeGo After School Programs' evaluation system, which uses research assistants from across the country for data collection and data processing. Research assistants submit their evaluation data to the primary evaluators through the use of email technology. This multiphase evaluation measures the effectiveness of the program in increasing the amount of youth's physical activity and the number of youth involved in such activity, including both process and impact measures. Phase 1 has been completed and was accomplished using a blend of qualitative and quantitative inquiry.
Evaluator Sarah Levin Martin, Ph.D., Maurice “Bud” Martin, Ph.D., Jim Grizzell, M.B.A., M.A.
Evaluations Profiled Phase 1: Program Evaluation Across the Nation Using Technology (PEANUT)© for the Evaluation of NikeGO
Evaluations Planned Phase 2 of the evaluation is currently underway and examines the recently expanded program. A cluster evaluation is planned to synthesize the findings.
Report Availability Levin, S. M., Martin, M., & Grizzell, J. (2003). Program Evaluation Across the Nation Using Technology (PEANUT)© for the evaluation of NikeGO. Unpublished manuscript.


Contacts

Evaluation Sarah Levin Martin, Ph.D.
c/o Physical Activity and Health Branch
Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
4770 Buford Hwy NE, Mailstop K-46
Atlanta, GA 30341-3717
Tel: 770-488-5413
Fax: 770-488-5473
Email: sjl2@cdc.gov
Program Molly White
Director of Community Affairs
Nike World Headquarters
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Tel: 800-344-6453
Email: molly.white@nike.com
Profile Updated May 11, 2004

Evaluation: Program Evaluation Across the Nation Using Technology (PEANUT)© for the Evaluation of NikeGO


Evaluation Description

Evaluation Purpose To determine whether the NikeGO After School Programs in Boys & Girls Clubs are attracting kids to be active and whether the programs engage kids in moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Evaluation Design Non-Experimental: PEANUT evolved from the need to evaluate the NikeGO After School Program on a limited budget. Since the funded Boys & Girls Clubs were spread across the nation, PEANUT provided a means of reaching all clubs equally. Research assistants (RAs) were hired from universities and colleges from across the country, and conducted site visits to each of the 31 Boys & Girls Clubs that had implemented the NikeGO program. These RAs were trained in scientific inquiry through the use of technology (e.g., video conferencing, conference calling, web-enhanced practice inquiry, and email). Once trained, the RAs collected data and submitted their findings to the evaluation team via email.

Clubs were rated on three areas: (1) activity level, (2) participation rate, and (3) implementation process. Activity was graded on the intensity of the activity (light, moderate, vigorous) and other factors including: (a) life long activity—the degree to which the skills and/or activity lent itself to continued participation beyond the programming; (b) frequency—the number of times the activities took place each week; (c) duration—the length of the activity sessions; and (d) timetable—the continuity of the programming. Participation rate was graded on the reach of the program (attendance rates) and the number of sedentary kids attracted (i.e., reaching youth who have not participated in physical activities in the past). Implementation process was graded on: (a) organizational capacity—the club's ability to run the program and (b) kid input—the degree to which the youth dictated the activities. Clubs were not compared to one another, but to a set standards; each received its own score. These standards were derived from the “call for proposals” put forth by Nike.

For scoring purposes, the reports adapted terminology from the game of horseshoes that was operationalized to match the expectations of the NikeGO After School Program:

Ringer – Evidence of greater than a passing grade for activity and participation (including all or nearly all subcategories) and at least a passing grade for implementation process

Leaner – Evidence of greater than a passing grade for activity or participation (including most subcategories) and at least a passing grade for implementation process

Shoe in Count – Evidence of a passing grade for at least one subcategory from each of the three areas

Almost – Weak evidence of passing in at least one of the three areas

Shoe out of Count – No evidence of passing in any of the three areas

Summary reports were made available to the clubs and to Nike so that they could be used to improve the program.
Data Collection Methods Interviews/Focus Groups: At each club, RAs interviewed both the person responsible for the grant administration (i.e., the executive director) and the leader of the NikeGO activities who dealt directly with participants. These two interviews were independent of one another, but used the same interview guide. The interviewees were asked about recruitment efforts, participation rates, successes and barriers to program implementation, and perceived program effects on the participants.

The RAs also interviewed two groups of three youth at each site (186 total youth across all sites). The youth represented the age range of participants (9–15 years), and to the degree possible, an array of athletic abilities. RAs selected youth for interviews following the observation (see below) with the help of the activity leader. Questions were posed to the middle-aged child first, then the youngest, then the oldest. This order was selected in an attempt to prevent the younger two children from mimicking the older child's response, and so that the youngest, and perhaps shyest child, was not asked first. Variation in order was encouraged as the dynamics dictated. The youth were asked about their perceptions of the program, how they would describe what they do in terms of activity level, and whether they had met anyone new since they began the program.

Observation: The RAs used the NikeGO Activity Observation form to record observations concerning NikeGO activities. The form captured a description of the activity, the number and gender of participants, the duration of the activity, a subjective judgment about the “fun factor” for the participants, and an estimation of the percent time that youth spent lying, sitting, standing, walking, or running to measure their level of physical activity.
Data Collection Timeframe The RAs visited the sites once in 2002 (soon after clubs received initial funding), and once in the early spring of 2003.


Findings:
Formative/Process Findings

Activity Implementation The clubs ran an array of programs, from yoga to canoeing, cycling, swimming, dancing, hiking, tennis, hockey, and more. Some clubs changed activities every month; others ran 10- to 12-week cycles of the same program. Activities such as dance and yoga seemed to attract less active kids. Offerings such as tennis or swimming were often a first opportunity for many of the youth to participate in such activities.

While the programs were funded for nine months, not all the program offerings were available during the funded period. Reasons for this included such issues as hiring and retaining appropriate staff, soliciting volunteers, or seasonal variation in attendance and availability of resources (e.g., ice for skating).

The degree to which participants were involved in selecting activities varied by club. For example, one club had great success in forming a youth advisory board that decided on the activities to run for the upcoming week. Other clubs gathered feedback from their clients prior to funding. Club activities were not always able to keep up with changes in the youth's interest. For example, in some cases kids decided on their activity in spring 2002 and the program did not start until fall; therefore kids' activity preferences may have changed by the time clubs started, and these clubs were not always prepared to alter their programming to match the current interests of the youth.
Program Context/Infrastructure Five clubs were categorized as Ringers. These were clubs that had a program that attracted a lot of kids, including kids that were usually left out of activities by their own choice or by their peers' discrimination. These clubs also had an active program that delivered a high dose of activity to the kids (frequency, intensity, and duration were all considered). Finally, to meet the Ringer criteria, clubs had to demonstrate an additional element in the implementation process that made the program successful, such as effective leadership or child involvement. Having an effective leader who worked enthusiastically with the youth seemed to be an essential feature to the Ringers. In addition, these clubs often provided extra opportunities beyond the usual club venue, such as dance demonstrations at local schools, or getting parents involved in the program.

Seven clubs were categorized as Leaners. These clubs had successful programs, but either did not reach a lot of kids, or did not deliver a high dose of activity with regard to frequency, intensity, or duration.

Thirteen clubs were categorized as Shoes in Count; they satisfactorily met grant requirements and were consistent in their engagement of youth. However, these programs delivered slightly less than the expected dose of activity and reached a smaller proportion of 9–15-year-old clients than expected.

Four clubs were categorized as Almost in that they nearly met the grant requirements. These clubs offered limited opportunities for youth to be active, either because of a short season (e.g., an 8-week program during the entire 8-month funding cycle) or because the program only reached a small percentage of the youth.

Two clubs were categorized as Shoes out of Count. These clubs did not deliver the NikeGO program to the kids in a manner sufficient to provide evidence of its existence. When the youth were interviewed and observed, there was no recognition of any NikeGO program, i.e., the existing club activities did not seem to change with the implementation of the NikeGO program, according to the youth.
Recruitment/Participation Observations and interviews revealed that the Nike name helped attract and retain participants. For example, many of the activity leaders reported that once the Nike clothing arrived (e.g., for the volleyball team), everyone wanted to participate.
Staffing/Training Observations and interviews revealed that having an enthusiastic leader contributed to the success of the program. RAs observed that these individuals engaged the youth in a way that improved their self-concepts.

Many of the program staff interviewed reported that the SPARK training taught them about the importance of inclusion of all of the participants and about keeping kids moving. The training seemingly enhanced programs, but not all the activity leaders were trained. In some programs, only administrators received training, and these staff members were often not the ones in direct contact with the youth.


Summative/Outcome Findings

Youth Development Interviews with the program staff and observations of the youth revealed that providing the opportunity to choose activities seemed to foster leadership skills.

Observations revealed that, for the clubs that used SPARK, this curriculum seemed to work to increase levels of physical activity across ages, sex, and ability.

Overall, evaluators deemed the program to be successful in meeting its goal of getting more kids more active.

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