Advancing the Social Work Grand Challenges through Sport: Innovations from the Lifesports Intervention

Background and Purpose: Sport-based positive youth development (SBPYD) programs are important social settings that contribute to the Social Work Grand Challenge of ensuring healthy development for all youth. LiFEsports is a nationally recognized model that prepares socially vulnerable youth for leadership and life through sport. Over 800 youth of color and those experiencing the effects of poverty are served each year in LiFEsports summer camps and clinics. These programs also serve as laboratories for innovation, providing a context for research on best practices in SBPYD programming. During this presentation, an overview of the LiFEsports model will be provided, describing specifically the program components found to contribute to the development of social and sport competencies. Presenters will also summarize new research, including findings from a randomized control trial and two qualitative studies exploring program mechanisms and outcomes from the perspectives of young adults who participated in LiFEsports as children and parents/caregivers.

Methods: The 4-week LiFEsports intervention was recently studied using a randomized two-treatment two-period crossover design. In total, 120 youth participants were assigned to one of two conditions – Intervention Session 1 or Intervention Session 2. Notably, Intervention Session 2 served as the control group when exploring the experimental effects of the SBPYD program on youths’ social and physical health outcomes. Baseline, pre-, and post-intervention measures include indicators such as the Test of Gross Motor Development [TGMD-3] (Webster et al., 2017), the Social Skills Improvement Scale [SSIS] (Gresham & Elliott, 1990), and a measure of youths’ perceived sport-specific abilities (Sport Specific Ability; Amorose, 2022). Additionally, researchers interviewed youth and families formerly involved in LiFEsports. Fourteen young adults and 19 parents/caregivers of former participants participated in the study. Thematic analyses were used to explore how life skills learned continued to be used in different settings, such as at work, during personal health behavior practices, and at school, more than five years post-program participation.

Results: Results demonstrated how youth participating in Intervention Session 1 demonstrated significant and positive growth in their parent-reported social skills (p<0.05) as compared to those in the control group. Furthermore, youth who scored in the 10^th percentile on the TGMD-3 at pre-test moved into the 50^th percentile for their gender and age after participating in the SBPYD program. Qualitative results identified facilitators of transfer were noted by past participants and parents/caregivers, including factors such as peer, staff, and family support, involvement in other PYD contexts allowing for practice, and program characteristics such as quality instruction, high expectations, and accountability structures. The importance of dosage and continued involvement during later adolescence was stressed by both groups.

Conclusion and Implications: The LiFEsports intervention continues to demonstrate an impact on youth, especially those from socially vulnerable backgrounds. As social workers aim to address the Grand Challenge of ensuring the healthy development of all youth, they must be aware of evidence-based SBPYD and the underlying mechanisms that facilitate learning and growth among socially vulnerable youth. Lessons learned related to implementing LiFEsports can guide schools and communities in facilitating positive social change through sport.