Laserfiche WebLink
14. <br /> Program Evaluation <br /> Almost no information about the measurement of success appears in the <br /> description of the initiatives described in Tables 1.1.,1.2 and the appendices. In <br /> the literature, the question of evaluation is very often just skimmed over or not <br /> mentioned at all (Witt, Compton, and Baker,1995). <br /> There are several reasons for the lack of solid outcomes information. <br /> Cyndi Hansel, Legislative Associate and Children's Policy Coordinator at the <br /> National Parks and Recreation Association, recently pointed out that "many <br /> recreation-based programs targeting crime tend to be recent. Therefore, very <br /> 40often their evaluation hasn't started yet or is in process" (Hansel, personal <br /> communication, 1995). Secondly, research in the area of community <br /> recreation services for at-risk youth has been very limited (Smith, 1991). As <br /> Smith (1991) noted, even when some research is carried out, study findings are <br /> sometimes not reported. Jones' 1991 study of the effects of teenagers' <br /> participation in a summer day camp program on youth living in two public <br /> housing projects-- which demonstrated the positive benefits of programs in <br /> terms of increased self-esteem, physical self-image improvement, and <br /> decreased anxiety--was not published (Smith, 1991). <br /> Even when measures of effectiveness seemo <br /> t statistically link positive <br /> results, such as a change of behavior of the participants in a Nashville. <br /> • Tennessee program (Grant and Bufford, 1994), a substantial reduction in <br />