FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

There were several concepts that frame the evaluation of the gIRL program developed to increase retention for marginalized girls in sport at MLSE LP. In particular, we deemed the program to be effective in participants identifying their willingness and desire to continue sport participation. Below, we discuss the themes that were generated by exploring how Marra’s (2015) elements appeared in this program as well as how they are essential to creating effective SFD programming that encourages participation retention. The ability to adapt shaped by choice refers to the concept of adaptation, interconnected relations and role modelling which explore the complex interdependencies in LP programming, and self-organizing: the individual role was understood as the capacity of individuals to participate in and contribute to programming.

The Ability to Adapt Shaped by Choice

Based on participants’ discussion of their perception of the program, choice became a key pillar to adapt. Using Marra’s (2015) theory, adaptation referred to agents who can learn self-organization and co-evolve with their environments where order and progress can emerge naturally from interactions within complex adaptive systems. In response to RQ₁, we found that choice was an important aspect of programming that offered the potential of staff having the opportunity to revamp weekly discussions after engaging with girls’ wants and needs in the program. This further included building sport confidence when playing amongst boys, developing life skills that build off each other and implementing suggestions they receive from girls about programming were labelled as adaptation. This was seen through this staff member’s response,

…when it comes to creating aspects of a program, it’s important to have discussions between the coaches and participants, especially when it comes to those older girls, have discussions surrounding the rules of the program and the content of the program, so we can get a compromise so they aren’t just blindly following rules but there’s a sense of okay, you have some input into the program into the rule making so it’s not just what we want but also what you want. Which kind of gives them some incentive to follow the rules.

Participants viewed having input as an important aspect of programming in both structure and activities. This sentiment is echoed by Hull et al. (2021), that designing and delivering programming is complex and multi-faceted. There is an increased need for choice and the integration of social elements as continued participation is influenced by factors such as fun, friends, and self-efficacy (Hull et al., 2021). Eime et al. (2020) highlighted that choice components have been found to produce strong intervention effects on behaviors for adolescent girls. The staff member’s comment above indicates consistency with Allison et al.’s (2017) work that when participants are consulted, they may increasingly engage because they also had a stake in the program design.

After reviewing the transcripts, the staff’s acknowledgement of pivoting during program became evident. We interpreted this as actions or outcomes that could be enacted naturally throughout the sessions rather than program leaders adopting a more rigid, structured delivery. This was highlighted in the RA observational and reflexive notes that participants appeared to be most excited for the open-gym and more flexible “free time” point of the program. Girls could decide which activities they wanted to partake in, which often involved activities that were not part of the structured programming, like rock climbing. Additionally, participants in the staff focus group mentioned the value of adapting and pivoting during activities to keep girls engaged. This included incorporating more fun-focused aspects into the sport skill that was being taught such as practicing dribbling and shooting a basketball while playing free throw games. Concomitantly, the gIRL participants also explained their desire for more variety in the sports offered and that MLSE LP focused mainly on basketball. Instead, the girls wanted to have more sporting activities brought in like gymnastics, rugby, and tennis. Flexibility throughout programming promotes organic interaction. Raw (2020) outlined that different social and environmental factors can influence participation for historically oppressed communities. Program structure is particularly salient in this context as focusing on the needs of participants can encourage engagement rather than an extremely rigid design.

Examples of participant adaptation included gIRL participants sharing how they feel about playing sports with boys, how they feel about the life skills taught and how they feel about developing sport skills. For example, one youth participant said, “playing with the boys is really annoying but coming to MLSE and teaching us social competence and other stuff it shows me to never give up.” Girls in the program expressed their discontentment when participating with boys on other nights that are not girls-only. Instead, they prefer to have dedicated activities to shift the gendered power dynamics as well as have the opportunities to participate and feel comfortable doing so. Empowerment can be multi-levelled and it is important here to recognize the different ways in which shifts occur, even if they are not explicitly expressed (Seal, 2020). In this context, when dedicated programming is offered, girls feel they can play sports and learn life skills without the fear of gendered power dynamics. For this reason, the gIRL program and the LP dedicating a weekly evening is important because it provides participants with the opportunity to play in a way that they may not get to during co-ed programming throughout the week.

Opportunities to adapt through the program were present in several program features. Some participants, both youth and staff, were critical of some of the life skills taught. Many youth participants enjoyed discussions on life skill development and its integration throughout programming, but they also identified related elements that would be valuable to include. A core pillar of the life skills discussed within programming included grit. When girls were asked weekly by coaches about grit, the idea of improving your skill set and to keep trying after failing at an activity were discussed. The coaches tried to define grit in a similar way to how the girls described it, but a concrete or formal definition was never given to explain grit (hence answers from girls were repeated every week with no differentiation of scenarios). All participants in the focus groups agreed grit was overly discussed and that repetition negatively impacted both the program and focus of girls during discussions. Moreover, girls and staff members shared thoughts on discussions in programming and revealed the topics they would like to learn about in more depth, such as confidence, social competence, and communication skills. Discussing other community aspects aside from sport was additionally expressed as an interest from a participant, “it’s important to learn about other peoples’ cultures too” (youth participant).

The commentary that implied the need for further life skill development was also interpreted as learning opportunities for both youth participants and program designers. For example,

maybe not even focusing on one life skill but asking them which life skill they thought they showed that day. So, it’s forcing them to remember other skills too, such as social competence or whatever. They have the capacity to remember them, we just have to ask and prioritize it (staff participant).

The programming structure does prioritize life skills and social competencies in which participants may engage in discussions related to them. This is particularly valuable for the population the SFD facility serves as it encourages girls to take the life skills taught in programming into their communities and personal lives. Seal (2020) outlined that unique sessions, such as the gIRL life skill workshops, can facilitate consciousness-raising experiences for participants and promote critical thinking. Therefore, it is worth considering further how life skills and social competencies are built into program design.

Youth participants and staff members developed recommended improvements to highlight ideas within this theme. One improvement noted was,

I think there should be an aspect to every program or a program in itself where people can enroll into or sign up themselves where we enforce that life skill and really get in-depth in it, how they can show it, and do activities that are centered around showing that life skill (staff participant).

This recommendation focused on having more structured life skill development. Previous studies have discussed the transferring of life skills learned in sport programming to other settings (Whitley et al., 2019). The findings here support the ongoing need for SFD program staff to design and implement curricula with opportunities to practice life skills outside intervention contexts.

Interconnected Relations and Role Modelling

Participants valued dedicated girls’ programming on the certain days this was done so they may engage with individuals like them and have opportunities to participate in ways they may not be capable of on other nights when boys attend the SFD facility. To address RQ₂, interdependencies focused on social norms and institutions that can affect actors operating in delimited contexts as well as social groups and organizations in broader environments. The social norms we found included, 1) gender social norms such as how girls engage in sports with boys, 2) the way participants act with female coaches versus male coaches, 3) behavioral differences amongst age groups, and 4) the participants’ views of cultural norms.

It is important to note here that the girls in this program may also participate in other co-ed programming, but these findings were discussed in relation to the girl-only programming. A gender behavioral norm that was mentioned by a youth participant was “when you’re playing with boys, like playing anything, they don’t pass you [the] ball.” Participants collectively agreed that they preferred girls’ night compared to other activities with mixed genders. The girls felt that they did not enjoy participating in other programming as much because of the lack of opportunities and interpersonal factors related to gender norms. This is consistent with Eime et al. (2020), as boys can often dominate the activities or games and fail to engage with the girls. This is also problematic as Zarrett et al., (2020) argued that negative experiences with both coaches and other program participants are more likely to cause drop out among girls. These factors additionally lead to a decrease in sport enjoyment for girls (Rowe et al., 2018) thus, dedicated programming has been a way to promote participation for individuals in this community.

We explored the various interdependencies within MLSE LP’s gIRL program from several lenses. The first was to understand the relationships among the different levels of staff and volunteer leaders as they related to direction and support to deliver the programming. These interdependencies often influenced the sports chosen in programming and underscore the power dynamics between coaches. For example, one experience revealed,

…in general, I feel that the dynamic between leads and assistants could be improved. It does show in programming, because people, coaches that are usually taking the lead and they don’t allow the assistants to step in and help out, but they do to a minimal (staff participant).

Power dynamics between staff were commonly discussed among those who participated in the focus group. They noted that often, only a few coaches would lead programming, and others would not actively contribute, simply serving as supervisors rather than engaging in the activities. Conversely, some staff and volunteers explained that they wanted to lead activities but were not given the opportunity as one “head” coach did most of the facilitation. It was interesting that this topic was brought up in the discussion as that lead individual was not present on the night of the focus group. This further indicates that there are power relations among the staff that contributes to coaches’ capacity to facilitate programming. Literature on the dynamics between SFD programming staff is limited, therefore further attention should focus on how role parameters are developed and how to improve relationships among leaders with respect to program delivery.

Similarly, our sub-theme “connection related to embedded power” related to the topic of power dynamics in which we looked at comments linked to how girls behave with female and male coaches. Power dynamics also referred to hierarchical levels of staff and who could have the most power and authority to implement changes in programming. As stated by a staff participant,

I feel that the guy coaches do have more authority, they use their voices more than us female coaches. So, us as women, we don’t have to yell as much on Mondays [gIRL programming]. The guys enforce it [rules] more [on other program nights], and yes, I can see how it can be a weakness for us.

Despite the opportunities for female coaches to have girls-only programming to lead, the residual gender imbalance remains in how participants engage. Thus, further consideration should explore how gender inequity continues to exist within various levels of sport, including resources like training and development for coaches (Eime et al., 2020). This is particularly relevant as coaches have a significant influence on participant experience and the likelihood of them staying engaged in sport (Zarrett et al., 2020). As such, a greater emphasis should be in the investment of time and resources into strategic coaching education like how to specifically coach girls and unique approaches to girl-centered programming.

Gender influences were prominent in all focus groups and here, we focused on gender norms and the girls’ personal experiences in sport. We explored the concept of connection related to gender to highlight challenges that staff have experienced and quotes pertaining to gender differences among sport coaches. For instance, one staff member said that “you see more guys on staff, which means more authority of course,” which emphasized the social roles adopted by coaches during sport programming at the MLSE LP. Another staff member explained,

She [youth participant] doesn’t take us seriously and that she used an example of the guy coaches, like they would yell at them [participants] or talk to them. When he speaks to them, they listen because he makes them run suicides, but she can’t take us seriously, people who aren’t strict but try to be strict.

Some staff members described their perceptions of the difference in how participants responded to them compared to male coaches and that there were discrepancies in behaviors between co-ed and girls-only programming. Many female staff for the gIRL program noted these changes in engagement to which Eime et al. (2020) argued can be a common challenge as male-dominated cultures often perpetuate barriers for women, extending to leaders as well. In this case, the female coaches discussed having difficulty with gaining authority because when participants also attend co-ed programming at MLSE LP, the male coaches are perceived as stricter and more respected. Thus, the embedded social culture in both broader society and within the facility itself poses increased challenges for female staff to facilitate effective programming. Linked to the concept of self-organization (Marra, 2015), in this context, participant experiences involve simultaneously breaking away from norms and perpetuating norms at the same time.

Societal gender norms included boys being more vocal in sports, and how this can discourage females from participating in sports. “I don’t like playing because when the boys say that you don’t know how to play, I know how to play” (youth participant). Consistent among participants was the frustration of traditional gender norms in which discourse pertains to girls’ lack of competence in sport. Female-oriented programming promotes empowerment by challenging conventional binaries and allows girls to develop skills through inclusive participation (LaVoi, 2018; Seal, 2020). Fostering new perceptions of gender roles and sport can enhance confidence and self-esteem and promote engagement in these safe spaces. Moreover, individuals at the executive level in SFD facilities need to consider how female staff are supported, feel capable to assert their leadership roles and feel confident in their leadership abilities in programming. With these considerations, self-organization (Marra, 2015) could be enhanced and effectiveness within the program may be more closely aligned with pillars of “ready for school, ready for work” (MLSE LP, 2023).

The topic of diversity was included as an interdependency and revealed how girls felt more comfortable with coaches who came from similar backgrounds as them (i.e., being Black), and girls revealed this as an influence for sport participation: “I look up to the Black staff here, ’cause, they’re like me, funny and they relate to us” (gIRL participant). Participants expressed the importance of representation and relatability among staff. In SFD programming that services marginalized communities, it is highly valuable to have leaders reflect the backgrounds of participants as it promotes empowerment to see others like them in leadership roles and contributes to building trust from shared understandings and experiences (Stronach & Maxwell, 2020). Race was seen as an influence for many girls in programming as coaches who shared the same ethnicities and race as participants were seen to be more influential on the girls’ participation levels (Kraft et al., 2022). The girls indicated they liked having Black staff as they felt included and more comfortable in those settings and labelled them as role models. One youth participant said that she looks up to the Black staff because they are more like her and left her “feeling accepted.” Leaders representing various intersectional backgrounds serve as positive role models for participants (Maxwell & Stronach, 2020).

Self-Organizing: The Individual Role

Everyone involved in the program plays an integral role in the group dynamic and contributes to how the program runs each week. When one key individual such as a participant or coach does not attend, the programming looks incredibly different. Responses analyzed as self-organization referred to items that showed how people interrelate, are influenced by others, and how they can most effectively complete tasks given available resources and contexts (Marra, 2015). This is important because within a program evaluation, if program elements look different with different leaders, this may alter the ability of the program to meet objectives. Therefore, this inconsistency is important for MLSE LP senior staff to consider. This included positive and negative cases where girls and coaches interrelated due to diversity and age, the influence of role models, girls’ behaviors during programming and how repetitive lessons throughout the program cycle influenced disengagement.

The continuous participation was a benefit for participants in some cases, however, repetition was noted as an issue. For example, one gIRL participant indicated,

I mean the life skill, we got like how many months, 6 months? Like once a month we can do it. But when we stop every time like 20 minutes before, just to explain a little thing and giving shoutouts or whatever, it’s just taking off our time playing the game we actually enjoy.

The girls would rather keep playing: “shoutouts are good too, you can boost other people’s self-esteem and sometimes it can be a little bit annoying because if you have a long day, you have to sit there, and just hear some people talk” (gIRL participant). Embedding life skills into program design is important to both participants and facility management (Whitley et al., 2019). Here, participants noted the value of life skills within programming, but when too repetitive, it would cause disengagement. Continued evaluation on the implementation of such program features is therefore salient to ensure that the program is effectively highlighting those life skills and not causing adverse effects.

In connection, role models were generated as a sub-theme of self-organization, and explored who girls look up to most and how they chose those individuals thus, addressing RQ₃. Focus groups revealed that they look up to their friends, coaches, family members who are high-performing athletes, and other females. One youth participant labelled her friends as important role models, “some of my friends that play sports because, they kind of teach me a lot and it’s a role model because they teach me stuff.” Support from peer groups is an important factor to enjoyment and continued participation in physical activity throughout life (Eime et al., 2015; Scheerder et al., 2007). When girls are supported and encouraged by their friends both in programming and outside of the SFD facility context, they may feel more empowered to join activities and continuously participate in them.

Similarly, a gIRL participant stated, “my sister because she plays in the Olympics for Women’s Rugby. So, I just think she is a role model.” In both focus groups, the social norm of high-performance athletes being seen as role models was discussed and linked to sport development.

I look up to my brother because he plays soccer and he’s going into the TFC [Toronto Football Club] Academy and like, I want to play for the TFC too and I look up to him and his skills and how he plays (gIRL participant).

Having positive role models is important for participants to continue engaging in sport activities. Participants may also be increasingly motivated if those whom they look up to are family, friends or other peers they feel connected to, including shared backgrounds or social identities (Stronach & Maxwell, 2020).

Sport competency development focused on answering RQ₄, that related to building sport-specific skills and emphasizing the idea of being good at sports (i.e., becoming athletes). Since the girls each had varying sport abilities, there were several references to the idea of fun-focused programming. In addition to skill development, many girls continued to want to play sports as they found them fun, interactive, and helped improve physical and mental health. “I want to continue playing sports when I’m older because, sports are fun, and they keep you active” (gIRL participant). Furthermore, they expressed playing sports as a “fun hobby” (youth participant). Universally, participants agreed that engaging in programming taught them the importance of living healthy lifestyles and expressed their interest in continuing to be physically active as they mature. SFD programming can promote lifelong participation for marginalized populations by providing access and teaching the skills necessary to continue at different life stages (Newland et al., 2020). It is therefore critical that programming offers enjoyable activities and teaches participants fundamental skills that they may take into their adult lives (Hull et al., 2021).

In Marra’s (2015) terms of self-organization, in which we focused on situations where girls were not actively participating or activities and behaviors that hindered girls’ engagement, we created the sub-theme of program disengagement. For example, “when someone’s doing something funny, it just, I just end up looking at that instead of paying attention” (gIRL participant). The propensity of literature pertaining to disengagement in girls’ sport programming is limited. The majority of research focuses on how to promote participation but lacks the recognition of behavioral aspects that impede engagement in activities. RAs observed disengagement throughout the program cycle and noted that when friends gravitated towards each other during programming, side conversations often occurred which distracted girls from actively participating or contributing to the activity. Here, motivation to participate through participant input in the design of rules and structure could serve as a mechanism to mitigate these behaviors.

Moreover, it is important to consider how and why girls may be disengaging. The structured nature of the program should be considered. The discussion of questions about disengagement was emphasized by staff sharing that,

…a lot of the old, like 13/14 girls aren’t engaged, so a lot of the times they’ll come in, see what we’re doing and if it’s boring then they’ll leave. So, I feel like even though the gIRL program is 11-14, it’s a lot more of the 11–12-year old’s, it’s only one or two girls that are 13 or 14, so that would be one of the weaknesses (staff participant).

Throughout the focus group, program staff indicated they were aware of girls disengaging but were unsure how to solve this. For instance, it was discussed that as girls got older, they would become less interested in attending programming at LP such that several of the older girls would leave the facility to meet up with friends or older siblings at the mall. As a strategy to attempt to mitigate this behavior, the LP staff tried to offer different types of activities in programming and asked participants what they want to do so that they are less persuaded to leave. This finding is consistent with the literature on the challenges to sport retention among adolescent girls (Newland et al., 2020). As other social factors become prominent in their lives, participants may feel less inclined to attend programming (Sherry & Rowe, 2020). This notion extends the nuances of participation decline or dropout, revealing factors other than previous research has discussed, such as girls losing interest in activities offered because programming does not appeal to their wants or needs (LaVoi, 2018; McGovern, 2021).