Measuring the impact of youth sports programs is a multifaceted challenge, demanding clear outcome goals to guide evaluation, improvement, and funding efforts. The significance of establishing these goals cannot be overstated, as they not only enhance program evaluation but also contribute to day-to-day improvements. This article delves into the complexities of measuring impact in youth sports, emphasizing the diverse theoretical perspectives and measurement tools while highlighting the importance of stakeholder input.
Positive youth development (PYD) stands out as a widely embraced framework for gauging the impact of community sport programs. The PYD approach, focusing on optimal youth functioning, positive outcomes, and assets, contrasts with deficit-based approaches that emphasize the absence of negative behaviors (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Clear outcome goals aligned with PYD principles have been shown to yield more positive results than generic leadership programs (Bean & Forneris, 2016).
While PYD offers a comprehensive framework, its operationalization and measurement vary. Two prevalent approaches include developmental assets, comprising 40 positive assets, and Lerner’s 5 Cs—character, confidence, connection, caring, and competence (Lerner, 2007). Developmental assets, though beneficial, pose practical challenges for many community sport organizations due to their extensive nature (Gabriel et al., 2011). Lerner’s 5 Cs, though simplifying the concept, lacks a standardized measurement protocol, introducing complexity into assessments (MacDonald et al., 2012; Geldhof et al., 2014). Recent research even suggests that focusing on 4 Cs may offer a more precise approach (Vierimaa et al., 2012).
In addition to PYD indicators, researchers have explored various constructs to measure the impact of community sport programs. These include the Positive Youth Development Inventory (PYDI) by Bean and Forneris (2016), the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPRS) model (Cryan & Martinek, 2017; Whitley et al., 2016), basic needs support (Bean et al., 2016), program structure (Flett et al., 2012), and life skill development (Cronin & Allen, 2017).
Holt et al.’s (2017) qualitative meta-study further illuminates PYD in sport by emphasizing the PYD climate, life skills, and life skills transfer. However, it falls short of providing clear guidance on which aspects of the model to prioritize in evaluations.
One critical concern in the evaluation landscape is the potential disconnect between universal assessments and the specific contexts of individual programs. The importance of PYD outcomes in an international sport-for-development program may differ from those in a local sport event or community sport program (Schulenkorf, 2016; Taks et al., 2014; Parent & Harvey, 2017). Moreover, the gendered context of sports should not be overlooked, as assessment tools may inadvertently perpetuate hegemonic masculine ideals of success (Rauscher & Cooky, 2016).
Despite the multitude of options for measuring impact, many evaluation studies face criticism for lacking stakeholder input, making multiple theoretical choices, and neglecting contextual nuances (Chen, 2018). To address these concerns, this study aims to examine the desired outcomes of a community sport program through the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. By incorporating the input of those directly involved or affected, the research seeks to establish agreed-upon measures that truly reflect the impact of youth sports programs within specific community contexts.
Read the full article by Dr. Legg in The Purpose of sport: perspectives of players, coaches, parents, and administrators