Re‐engaging disaffected youth through physical activity programmes

Abstract

It is a cherished belief within physical education and sport communities that participation in sport/physical activity has the potential to offer young people a range of physical, psychological and social benefits. More recently in the UK, this belief has become prominent in government policies that, among other things, are seeking to re‐engage disaffected young people in order to increase their life chances and minimise the impact of anti‐social behaviours upon others. Yet, the link between physical activity interventions and developing pro‐social behaviours is not straightforward, and there is a lack of credible research evidence to support many of the claims made for physical activity to or to inform decisions about effective intervention design. This paper reviews key literature, focusing particularly on disaffected young people and physical activity interventions in the school context, and identifies six key issues that, we would argue, warrant consideration when planning physical activity programmes to re‐engage disaffected young people. In particular, it is argued that the unprecedented levels of public and private funding available for physical activity related programmes in the UK, and the high expectations placed upon them to deliver specific measurable outcomes, mean that the need for credible monitoring and evaluation is pressing.

Positive youth development and physical activity/sport interventions: mechanisms leading to sustained impact

“…This is endorsed within the 618 existing sport/physical activity literature (DfES, 2004;Sandford, Armour & Warmington, 2006). In 619 these programmes, teachers were given the freedom to appraise the activity on offer and to select pupils 620 they felt would 'benefit'.…”

“…Researchers agree 140 that further systematic, longitudinal evaluation research is needed in order to shed light on these 141 mechanisms and processes (e.g. Long & Sanderson, 2001;Sandford, Armour & Warmington, 2006). In 142 providing research evidence from the evaluation of two UK-based programmes intended to promote 143 positive youth development through physical activities, and drawing out common themes, it is hoped 144 that this paper can go some way toward addressing these questions.…”

“…Certainly, within the UK, Despite strong convictions regarding the potential of physical activity/sport participation to reap 713 benefits for young people, there has, however, been a relative lack of detailed information regarding the 714 mechanisms by which physical activity/sport interventions lead to positive outcomes (Coalter, 2000;715 Bailey, 2005;Sandford et al, 2006). The data reported in this paper offer some interesting insights into 716 these mechanisms but, more importantly, into the complex ways in which they interact to maximise the 717 potential of sport/physical activity interventions.…”

Review: A systematic review of the impact of physical activity programmes on social and emotional well‐being in at‐risk youth

“…Disaffection is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that may manifest itself in different ways including disengagement from mainstream activities, disruptive or antisocial behaviour and involvement in criminal activity (Sandford, Armour, & Warmington, 2006). Disaffection may lead to social isolation and partly explain the low levels of participation in structured physical activity programmes observed among atrisk youth (Burton & Marshall, 2005;Duncan, Duncan, Strycker, & Chaumeton, 2002).…”

“…Skill-based programmes are generally targeted towards younger children and are focused on the development of motor skills. Although there is debate as to what sport programmes actually achieve (Sandford et al, 2006), they do provide youth with an opportunity to accrue health benefits through physical exertion, develop prosocial behaviours through positive interactions with others and achieve skill mastery (Robinson, Rudisill, & Goodway, 2009). Several reviews have espoused the potential benefits of sport and skill-based interventions for atrisk youth (Fraser-Thomas et al, 2005;Martinek & Hellison, 1997;Sandford et al, 2006); however, their conclusions have been based on limited evidence from empirical studies.…”