(Journal of Coaching Education) On The Fields of The Motor City - Underserved Athletes' Perceptions of Their Coaches

Journal of Coaching Education
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the Fields of the Motor City: Underserved Athletes’ Perceptions of Their Coaches
Meredith Whitley, Ed.M., Eric Bean, Ph.D., & Daniel Gould, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Abstract
This study examines young athletes from an urban sport organization, looking at their overall
perceptions of their coaches, perceptions of the best and worst coaching actions, behaviors, and
attitudes, and how these varied between practice and game environments. Twenty-three athletes
(10 males, 13 females) between the ages of 10 and 18 years participated in semi-structured,
qualitative interviews. Content analysis of the interviews indicated that these young athletes
preferred a positive coaching orientation with a mastery-oriented environment, while the coaches
identified as the worst generally fostered an outcome-oriented environment with a negative
coaching orientation. These findings suggest that coaching educators should feel confident about
using the guidelines provided by Smith, Smoll, and colleagues (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979;
Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993) when working in
underserved settings with children and youth. The need for future research in this area is
discussed, along with future research directions on the link between youth developmental
outcomes, perceptions of coaching behaviors, and observed coaching behaviors.
Key Words: coaching, underserved children, underserved youth, youth sport
Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 97 of 125
A publication from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE), an association in
the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (AAHPERD)
1900 Association Drive • Reston, Virginia • 20191 • www.NASPEinfo.org • 703.476.3410
©2010 by NASPE. All Rights Reserved.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
On the Fields of the Motor City: Underserved Athletes’ Perceptions of Their Coaches
Research in the area of youth sports participation has focused on a number of factors that
influence youth development, including structure, peer influence, and coaching behaviors. It has
been shown that the actions, behaviors, and attitudes of youth sport coaches influence young
athletes in a number of ways (Smoll & Smith, 2002). Research conducted by Ron Smith and
Frank Smoll and their colleagues from the University of Washington has explored this area of
study for more than three decades (Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979;
Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett, 1993). These investigators discovered that coaches who were
more positive in their coaching and/or were taught to be more positive and encouraging
influenced their players quite differently compared with coaches who were not already positive
in their coaching and/or who did not receive this training. Athletes who played for the coaches
with this positive orientation reported higher levels of motivation, greater enjoyment in the sport,
and liked the coaches much more than the coaches without this positive orientation. It has also
been shown that this positive approach to coaching is associated with lower anxiety levels,
increased self-esteem, and lower attrition rates in young players (Smith et al. 1995; Smith et al.
1979; Smoll et al. 1993). Recently, Coatsworth and Conroy (2006) verified the findings of
Smith, Smoll, and their colleagues when they showed that coaches who were trained in
psychosocial and behavior principles had swimmers who exhibited higher levels of self-esteem.
The relationship was strongest for younger swimmers and for girls who began the program with
low self-esteem.
Investigators have also examined how coaching feedback, leadership styles, and
interpersonal behaviors influence the sport experiences of young athletes. Amorose and
Anderson-Butcher (2007), for instance, discovered that high school coaches exhibiting an
autonomy-supportive coaching style had athletes who were characterized by enhanced feelings
of self-determined behaviors (e.g., autonomy, effort, persistence). Interestingly, investigators
have shown that coaching feedback is not consistent across the athletes on each team, but can be
influenced by the expectancies of the coaches (Horn, 1985) and the skill level of the young
athletes (Allen & Howe, 1998). Along with the importance of feedback from the coaches, it has
been found that the structure of the coaching environment is tantamount to the athletes’
orientation. When coaches structure their coaching environment to focus on self-improvement
and mastery, young athletes report higher feelings of competence, greater effort, skill
improvement, and enhanced intrinsic motivation (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Theeboom, De
Knop, & Weiss, 1995). Recently, for instance, Smith, Smoll, and Cumming (2007) discovered
that coaches who took part in an intervention aimed at having them foster a mastery approach to
their coaching had athletes who reported decreased anxiety across their sports season, while
research by Cumming, Smoll, Smith, and Grossbard (2007) revealed that young athletes’
evaluations of their coaches and levels of enjoyment experienced were more strongly related to
coaching behaviors and motivational climate than to team win-loss record.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
While the science of youth coaching research has been very instructive, it is limited in
several critical areas. First, coaching science research has generally been limited to the head
coach as the sole research participant, with the perspectives of assistant coaches, athletes,
officials, administrators, and parents often being overlooked, despite their influence on the
coaching process (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004). This has led to calls for the use of an ecological
systems approach to study coaching within sports (Gilbert & Trudel, 2004), where effective
coaching is examined from different perspectives. Second, there is a scarcity of research on
minorities in coaching, with just a few studies on the experiences of immigrant coaches in
Canada (Erickson, Wilson, Horton, Young, & Cöté, 2007; Livingston, Tirone, Smith, & Miller,
2008; Wilson, Erickson, Horton, Young, & Cöté, 2007) and observations and interviews with
coaches from Detroit varying in their coaching experience levels within a character-based sport
program (Flett, Gould, Griffes, & Lauer, in press). Finally, the focus of many studies on
coaching and the coaching process have been with coaches who tend to work primarily with
white, middle class children and youth from suburban sport programs. At this time, few studies
have been conducted on young athletes of color and/or those from underserved communities,
which are areas in which residents have a shortage of personal services, including economic,
cultural, or linguistic barriers that influence their health and overall well-being (Health
Resources and Services Administration, 2011).
A number of researchers have found that racial background, socioeconomic status, and
cultural background can have an impact on a range of sporting issues (Coakley, 2001; Hutchison,
1987; Philipp, 1995), with ethnicity theory explaining the influence of ethnic, racial, and cultural
background (e.g., choice of sport) and marginality theory explaining the influence of
socioeconomic status (e.g., availability of time, financial resources, transportation resources)
(Paraschak & Tirone, 2008). There have been a number of studies that have looked at the effects
of small after-school sport and physical activity clubs designed to teach personal and social
responsibility to underserved youth (Hellison & Walsh, 2002), but most of these involved trained
physical educators and did not involve structured leagues and competitions. Therefore, a need
exists to learn about coaching children and youth of color in more traditional large-scale sport
programs and/or from underserved communities, as well as the coaches themselves who come
from these communities.
An important question is whether the same coaching strategies found in the traditional
youth sport literature are needed and/or effective in programs which serve a different population
of young athletes and coaches and work toward one distinct goal. Traditionally, youth sport
programs have focused solely on teaching sport skills, providing a safe and structured out-of-
school activity, developing fitness, hosting competitions, and providing enjoyment for young
people, so the coaching literature within youth sports has focused on these types of programs.
However, there have been an increasing number of sport programs that run traditional programs

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
but are placing primary emphasis on life skills and character development through their sport
programs. One such program is the Think Detroit Police (TDP) Athletic League.
TDP is a nonprofit organization located in Detroit, MI with a mission of building

character in young people. Athletic programs are its biggest effort, as TDP offers programs in 11
different sports, and with the help of 1,500 volunteers, serves nearly 10,000 children and youth
between 6 and 18 years of age. Moreover, TDP offers age and skill-appropriate opportunities for
all boys and girls, not just the highly skilled athletes.
While the specific demographics of the children and youth involved in TDP are not
available, the majority are thought to be underserved, as they reflect the neighborhoods in
Detroit, many of which are impoverished. For example, in 2008, Detroit was rated as the most
dangerous city in the United States (Forbes, 2009); it was also ranked as the city with the highest
unemployment (15.4%; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009), lowest income ($28,097; U. S. Census
Bureau, 2007), highest poverty (33.8%; U. S. Census Bureau, 2007), and lowest high school
graduation rates (24.9 percent; USA Today, 2008). As for the young participants within TDP, the
organization actually estimates that about half of their participants live in poverty (TDP, personal
communication, November 8, 2010).
TDP’s primary goal is to positively impact children and youth through sport
participation. This goal is sought through the promotion of positive character development; the
development of positive life skills, physical fitness, and healthy lifestyles; and helping young
people grow into healthy adults. This focus on positive youth development is purposeful in
nature, as TDP feels that this is not caught from mere participation in youth sports; positive
youth development must be fostered by competent caring adult leaders. For this reason, TDP has
developed its IMPACT coach/leader training program, which all coaches are required to
complete. This training program teaches coaches how to build relationships with young people,
helping to enhance the athletes’ self-esteem and self-worth while also becoming more effective
leaders and mentors to these young people. Additionally, the IMPACT program focuses on
equipping coaches with the knowledge and tools needed to develop five attributes in program
participants: (a) a sense of purpose and positive view of the future, (b) responsibility, (c)
integrity, (d) perseverance, and (e) compassion.
There is some information regarding the backgrounds of the coaches involved in TDP. It
has been found that 85% of the coaches working in the TDP program were African-American
and were an average of 37 years old (Murray, 2009). The majority of coaches (70%) had
completed at least some college, with 54% with a child in the program. In addition to their
coaching duties, 27% of the coaches also volunteered their time with other civic groups such as
the Boys and Girls Club, Boy and Girl Scouts, educational organizations, and religious
organizations.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article presents data from one of a series of studies that was conducted as part of a
larger external evaluation of TDP. As part of the external evaluation team, the investigators were
particularly interested in learning more about the coaches involved in the program. In addition to
surveying the coaches, there was a particular interest in learning what child and youth
participants thought about their coaches, as well as their TDP experiences at large. The
contention was that the athletes who were involved in the program could provide a unique,
valuable, and unbiased perspective about the coaches they had experience within the program.
This article reports the results of interviews with 23 children and youth, with a particular
emphasis on their perceptions of their coaches in TDP.
There was this interest in learning more about these young athletes’ perceptions of their
coaches because, in line with the youth development through sport literature (Petitpas, Van
Raalte, & Cornelius, 2006), TDP places primary importance on identifying coaches who are
committed to achieving the organization’s goals. However, past qualitative research conducted
with a small group of TDP coaches showed that some coaches felt that the best way to meet the
program’s goals was to use harsh coaching practices with a focus on yelling, punishment, and
criticism (Flett, Griffes, & Gould, 2009, September 18). In essence, some of these coaches
believed that toughening up their athletes was the best way to prepare them for life on the tough
streets of inner city Detroit. To gain a broader understanding of the coaching practices of TDP,
this study focused on the young athletes’ perceptions of their coaches, with a particular focus on
the differences in coaching behaviors between practices and games as well as the athletes’
perceptions of their best and worst coaches. Due to the paucity of scientific research in this area,
it was determined that qualitative interviews with young TDP athletes would be the most
instructive, as individual interviews allow for in-depth information from each participant and
probing by the interviewer on specific issues (Kvale, 1996; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).
Through individual interviews, the researchers were able to investigate the overarching goals of
this study, which were to understand the young athletes’ overall perceptions of their coaches,
what coaching actions, behaviors, and attitudes were perceived to be the best and the worst, and
how these coaching actions, behaviors, and attitudes varied between practice and game settings.
Method
Participants
Participant recruitment was facilitated by TDP staff members, who were informed of the
study purposes and inclusion criteria. Selected participants were required to have a minimum of
three years of experience as a TDP participant, although the majority of participants had at least
five years of experience. Once the participants were identified, the sample was reviewed and
reduced to form a representative sample, including gender, age, sport, and travel team versus
non-travel team experience, as TDP has leagues where the teams travel as well as leagues that do
not include traveling. Using this sample, each participant’s guardian was contacted via telephone

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
in order to describe the study and obtain permission to invite the child to participate in the study.
The final sample was chosen to give representation to the entire scope of ages as well as a broad
scope of the sports offered by TDP. The sample was comprised of 23 TDP sport participants (10
males, 13 females) between the ages of 10 and 18 years (M = 13.83, SD = 2.61), with all
participants identifying as African-American. This study was comprised of both children and
youth, as the United Nations has defined youth in quantitative terms of persons between the ages
of 15 and 24 (United Nations, 2004). These participants were active members of the TDP sport
league for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 11 years (M = 5.91, SD = 2.13), and a
variety of sports were represented, including basketball, football, track and field, soccer, and
softball. For those participants who attended public schools, the percentage of students eligible
for free or reduced-price meals at their respective schools was 55.9% of the overall student
population (there were four participants who attended private schools that did not have this
option).
Procedures
All interviews were conducted at one of two locations: the organization’s staff offices or
at a youth development activity center. The interviewer was a white male in his late 20s who had
training and previous experience conducting qualitative research. Upon arrival at the interview
location, the participants and guardians were reminded of the study purposes and procedures, and
the participants were informed of their confidentiality rights, the option of terminating the
interview, and the ability to refuse to answer specific questions. Consent forms were then signed
by the guardians while the participants signed informed assent forms, all of which signified their
voluntary participation in the study.
Each participant was interviewed for an average of 17 minutes. While this was a
relatively short amount of time, the interviewer felt it was the result of the participants’ ages
rather than a lack of interest or involvement in the process. More importantly, he felt that even in
the cases of the briefest interviews, the participants took the interviews seriously, were not afraid
to be critical of their coaches, and provided thoughtful, albeit sometimes brief, answers. All
interviews were conducted in private rooms with only the interviewer and the participant present
to ensure confidentiality, and each interview was audio-recorded.
Interview Guide
Consistent with the recommendations of Kvale (1996), a semi-structured interview guide

was utilized to ensure that all 23 participants were asked a set of core questions related to their
experience in the program. At the beginning of each interview, the investigator introduced
himself to each participant and then asked general questions about familiar topics in the
participant’s life, such as his or her school experience and favorite sport, in order to build rapport

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and help the young participant feel more comfortable in the interview setting. Following these
initial questions, the interviewer began to ask more focused questions, encouraging the
participants to elaborate with their responses, with the interviewer asking probing and
clarification questions; additionally, the interviewer explored specific issues that arose in the
interviews that were unique to each participant.
The construction of the interview guide began with an in-depth review of previous
literature on youth sport coaches (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979; Smith et al. 1995; Smoll et al.
1993), including coaching feedback (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007) and coaching
environments (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Theeboom et al. 1995). Additionally, the work of
Larson (2000) and Hellison (1995) in the field of positive youth development and life skills
development were reviewed. After reviewing previous youth sport literature, the researcher
developed the interview topics and questions with guidance from an expert in the field of youth
sports and an expert in the field of coaching education. The major components of the interview
that will be the focus of this manuscript were general impressions of TDP coaches, descriptions
of best and worst TDP coaches, and descriptions of coaches in practices and games.
Data Analysis
Given that the purpose of the study is exploratory in nature, the analysis procedures
focused on seeking patterns rather than creating or testing theories (Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2010). Audio-recordings of the 23 interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked for
accuracy by the investigator. Two members of the research team then studied the transcripts and
created summaries of each transcript for familiarization, following the suggestions of Kvale
(1996). Then, the two investigators independently performed a comprehensive inductive content
analysis using the constant comparative method (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994), examining key
themes within each interview (i.e., intratextually) and across interviews (i.e., intertextually).
Using inductive methodology, the investigators worked independently to identify individual
meaning units that emerged directly from the participants’ words, and then the investigators
reached consensus on each meaning unit. These meaning units were then grouped by the major
questions that were asked in the interviews. Once organized by question, the investigators
individually coded the meaning units into higher order themes and eventually into general
dimensions, again coming to consensus on each higher order theme and general dimension. At
each level of analysis, the two investigators followed an iterative consensus validation process,
and when disagreements emerged, the transcripts were re-read and discussed until consensus was
finally reached (Kvale, 1996). Additionally, a peer debrief was conducted with a third
investigator at the final stage of analysis, with a reliability check on the meaning units, higher
order themes, and general dimensions that had been identified. Overall, the trustworthiness and
validity of this study was enhanced through triangulation, with multiple coders for the raw

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
meaning units and themes, the process of iterative consensus validation, and the inclusion of a
peer review (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010).
Results
Throughout this results section, various general dimensions and higher order themes are
identified with numbers in parentheses immediately following the theme names. The first
number signifies the total number of participants who cited at least one raw meaning unit in the
general dimension or higher order theme, while the second number represents the total number
of raw meaning units included in the general dimension or higher order theme. As an example,
(5, 8) indicates that the higher order theme was cited by five different participants, with a total of
eight separate raw meaning units included in the theme. In terms of organization, the general
dimensions and higher order themes with the most number of citations and raw meaning units
are given the most attention, as compared to the general dimensions and higher order themes that
were not cited by as many participants and/or as frequently.1 While all comments of the
participants were deemed important, we used the frequency of comments made as one
benchmark of meaningfulness since our goal was to understand what participants generally felt
about the TDP program and its coaches. Additionally, for those participants who are quoted, the
gender and age of individual participants are noted in parentheses with the gender listed first and
the age listed second; so (F, 14) signifies a female who is 14 and (M, 17) signifies a male who is
17.
The inductive content analysis yielded 344 raw meaning units, which collapsed into 86
higher-order themes. These higher order themes were then organized into 23 general dimensions
and four miscellaneous sections, all of which were under five categories of general issues or
questions discussed. These five categories were general impressions of TDP coaches,
descriptions of best and worst coaches, and descriptions of coaches in practices and games.
Because of space limitations and the focus of this manuscript being on athletes’ perceptions of
more versus less effective coaches, only the data on descriptions of best and worst coaches and
coaches in practices and games will be presented here.
Descriptions of Best and Worst Coaches
Participants were asked to identify and describe the best and the worst TDP coaches that
they have had as TDP athletes. Along with a description of these coaches, the researcher probed
with follow-up questions that focused on the reasons why these coaches were selected as the
participants’ best or worst TDP coaches.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Best coaches
As outlined in Table 1, nine general dimensions emerged from the discussions

surrounding the best TDP coaches, along with a miscellaneous section that housed three raw
meaning units. Inspection of Table 1 also shows the higher-order themes comprising the general
dimension and an example meaning unit. The most frequently cited and/or interesting
dimensions are discussed below.
Table 1: Descriptions of Best Coaches
Example Raw
General Dimension Higher-Order Theme
Meaning Unit
Is a teacher of sport and life Teaches life/mental skills P14 – Coach teaches life
skills (11, 21) (5, 6) skills as well as sport skills
Teaches sport skills (5, 5) P22 – Best coach is a great
teacher of the game
Emphasizes and teaches P9 – Best coach
teamwork (2, 4) emphasized team over
individual
Provides instruction after a P18 – Best coach corrects
mistake or poor competition mistakes in
performance (2, 2) practice
Is a teacher (2, 2) P6 – Best coach is always
teaching
Other teacher qualities P17 – Best coaches keep
(2, 2) practices fresh and different
Is supportive and Is supportive and P20 – Best coach is very

encouraging (11, 19) encouraging (5, 6) encouraging
Doesn’t yell or get mad P16 – Best coach chooses
after mistakes/poor to talk about mistakes
performance (5, 6) instead of yelling
Provides support after P2 – After a mistake, best
mistakes/poor performances coach provides
(4, 5) encouragement

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Acknowledges success and P14 – Best coach
hard work (2, 2) encourages and
acknowledges successes
Has a welcome and open Is talkative and outgoing P11 – Best coach opens up
personality (11, 12) (4, 4) to everybody
Is relatable (3, 3) P17 – Best coach is
approachable to talk about
anything
Is generous (2, 2) P9 – Best coach is generous
Is fun (2, 2) P1 – Best coach fun and
funny
Develops positive personal Is like family (4, 5) P7 – Best coach is like

relationships with players family
(8, 10) Cares about player beyond P18 – Best coach has the
sports (3, 3) kids’ best interests in mind
Is patient (1, 2) P14 – Best coaches are
patient when teaching
Is strict but fair (8, 8) Is strict but fair (3, 3) P12 – Best coach was
challenging but fair
Provides consistent P23 – Best coach helps
treatment for all players every team member
(3, 3)
Balances freedom and P10 – Best coach gives
discipline (2, 2) players some freedom in
practice
Positively challenges all Is positively challenging P17 – Best coaches push

players (7, 8) (5, 6) the players to do more in
practice
Offers and gives rewards P20 – Best coach gave
(2, 2) rewards

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Is a role model (5, 6) Is motivating and inspiring P19 – Best coach inspired
(3, 3) athlete
Is a role model (2, 2) P16 – Best coach is a
motivating role model
Provides practical support Drives players to practice P21 – Best coach picks up
(4, 6) (2, 2) players if they need a ride
Brings food, money, and P24 – Best coach was nice
water (2, 2) and would bring food and
money to games
Other practical support P15 – Best coach offers
(2, 2) work opportunities to keep
kids out of trouble
Focuses on non-outcome Focuses on fun (3, 3) P8 – Best coach focused on

goals (3, 5) fun and not on competition
Other non-outcome goals P23 – Best coach helps
(2, 2) players make friends and
have fun
Miscellaneous (3, 3) P15 – Best coach exposed

players to different
experiences

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Coaches are teachers of sport and life skills. The general dimension that was cited most
often was the focus on teaching both sport and life skills by the best TDP coaches (11, 21). Six
higher-order themes supported this general dimension, including the provision of instructions
following a mistake or poor performance (2, 2) and the emphasis on teaching both sport and life
skills in TDP (5, 6). One participant reported, “she don’t just focus on basketball. We did talk
about other stuff” (F, 14). Throughout the study, it became clear that many participants saw their
coaches as teachers and mentors, as evidenced by this quote: “I think it’s the fact that when I
play tennis, he’s always getting me into more things and teaching me more things” (F, 11). A
second participant explained, “not only was it physicalness, he also taught us mentally” (M, 13).
Coaches are supportive and encouraging. Another general dimension that was cited
quite often was the support and encouragement that participants felt from the coaches (11, 19).
This general dimension was broken up into four higher order themes, including the provision of
support (4, 5) and the absence of anger following mistakes or poor performances (5, 6). One
participant noted:
“If I think I’m doing something wrong, he will just tell me. Or he will show me how to
do it right. And he don’t really yell that much. He just sit down with us or stand up and
talk to us, unlike the other coaches do.” (M, 16)
Another participant explained how the coach “teaches us, but he doesn’t get really really mad at
us when we do something wrong” (M, 13), while a third participant described a scene following
a poor performance in track:
“I remember one time I was mad…because I came in second, but I didn’t run a good
time. He’s like…“That’s okay. You can make it up another time. This is an important
meet, but you can’t beat yourself over it because the past is the past, and there isn’t
anything you can do about it now.” (F, 14)
In many of the interviews, it was also stressed that the best coaches were supportive and
encouraging towards all of the young athletes (5, 6). This level of support and encouragement
was evident in this participant’s story about her relationship with her coach:
“Well, my coach been with me since I was in sixth grade, and she’s been helping me
through a lot of stuff. When I need help, she always talk to me, even when I was down
and people were sayin’ I couldn’t do this in basketball, I wasn’t gonna be as good, I
wasn’t gonna make it to the college I wanted to go make it to this year. You know, telling
me that I could do and she been workin’ hard with me so…it lift me up a little bit when
she tell me stuff like that. So that’s what make me keep goin.” (F, 17)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Another participant described how the coaches are “mostly supportive. They help you with
whatever you need,” (F, 17).
Coaches are welcoming and have open personalities. The importance of a welcoming
and open personality for TDP coaches emerged through the content analysis of the raw meaning
units (11, 12). Within this general dimension, four higher order themes for the best TDP coaches
became apparent: talkative and outgoing (4, 4), generous (2, 2), relatable (3, 3), and fun (2, 2).
Within the higher order theme of being generous, one participant described her best TDP coach
in this way: “She has a really big heart, like she gives and gives and gives” (F, 13). Similarly,
another participant described her coach as being relatable to her players, explaining how “she’s
always there, you know, whenever I need help with anything, I can always count on her.
Whenever I need to talk to someone, if I can’t talk to my mom, I can go to her,” (F, 12). Still
another participant talked about how fun his coach was, explaining how his coach “made sure
everybody has fun” on his team (M, 10).
Additional general dimensions that emerged from the data included the provision of
practical support (4, 6), such as driving players to practice (2, 2) and supplying food and water
(2, 2), the development of positive personal relationships with players (8, 10), and the view of
the best TDP coaches as role models for their athletes (5, 6). The participants also highlighted the
fact that the best coaches positively challenged all of their players (7, 8) while maintaining a
strict and fair environment on the team (8, 8). These dimensions are included in Table 1.
Worst coaches
In addition to asking about the best coaches they had experienced in the program, the
respondents were also asked to describe their least liked coaches. Three general dimensions and
one miscellaneous dimension were identified from the content analysis.
There are no bad coaches. Interestingly, the majority of the participants reported that
they haven’t had any bad coaches (16, 16). One participant explained that “I really haven’t had
any bad coaches” (M, 18), while another participant stated that “I don’t think I never had a worst
coach” (F, 17). It should be noted, however, that while indicating they did not have any bad
coaches, some of these participants still talked about the qualities they did not like in bad
coaches in general or other coaches they have seen.
Coaches display negative emotions and actions. Coaches who were identified as the
worst TDP coaches by participants were found to display negative emotions and actions in their
role as TDP coaches (10, 19). This general dimension was the most prevalent in the discussions
surrounding the worst TDP coaches. These raw meaning units coalesced into four higher order
themes: yelling (9, 11), anger following players’ mistakes (3, 3), use of bad language (2, 2), and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
miscellaneous (2, 3). One participant explained that “the bad thing about him is he yells a lot” (F,
14), while another participant described her worst TDP coach in the following way:
“I understand that they want us to…be the best...but at the same time, I don’t want you to
push me to the point where it’s just like, “What are you talking about? Why are we doing
this?” It’s not questioning, but at the same time, why are you yelling at me so much to a
point where I don’t want to do it anymore?” (F, 15)
Another participant described this scenario: “…if we’re not running the right way, they would
yell at us…or the little kids would run out their lane, they would yell at them for that and tell
them to stay in they lane” (M, 16). Along with this overwhelmingly negative response to
coaches’ yelling in games and practices, participants also reported their disapproval of coaches
who became angry following mistakes and coaches who used bad language in front of the
players. One participant noted that her coach used “a lot of foul language…make you kind of
want to quit the team” (F, 16); yet another participant described how his coach “would always
cuss at us a lot and during halftime, he would take us all the way across the street for no reason
so he could just yell at us and cuss at us.” (M, 12).
While examining gender differences was not the focus of this investigation, it is
interesting to note that within this general dimension of negative emotions and actions, six
females cited this topic while only three male participants discussed this topic.
Coaches treat players unfairly. Another general dimension that emerged from the data
on the worst TDP coaches was the tendency for these coaches to treat players unfairly (3, 7).
Some of the participants discussed their frustration with favoritism (2, 2) and unequal treatment
from coaches (1, 2), which is evident in this description:
“He would talk to me, but I was a good player. They didn’t really have to talk to me, but
at other people, he would yell at. He was like two different people. So if somebody don’t
start, if they not doin’ their job, he’ll yell at ‘em. But the other person, he’ll just be calm
and talk, he’ll just talk to ‘em.” (M, 13)
Another participant described how his coach “treated players different…picking favorites and
not sitting certain kids even if they missed practices while sitting other kids if they missed a
practice” (M, 16).
Coaches are unfit to coach youth sports. The final general dimension that became
evident for the worst TDP coaches was the belief that these coaches were unfit to coach youth
sports (7, 10). The young participants spoke about the unrealistic expectations that were placed
on them (4, 4). One participant explained that his coach “expects too much sometimes, because

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
we have to do, we run half the track and then he’ll say get back up and do another” (F, 17).
Another higher order theme that fit into this general dimension was the coaches’ lack of sport
specific knowledge (3, 4). The participants felt that their worst TDP coaches did not understand
the sport that they were coaching as well as they should have, and this resulted in a poor learning
environment. In the words of one participant, the coach “was teaching us, but a lot of the stuff
was things I had already learned” (M, 13), while another participant described how “some of the
stuff he says, because he never ran, isn’t very useful” (F, 14).
Descriptions of Coaches in Practices and Games
When asked to describe their TDP coaches in practices and games, six general
dimensions emerged from the content analysis of the raw meaning units, along with a
miscellaneous section. Three of these dimensions and the miscellaneous section focused on TDP
coaches in practices specifically, while three general dimensions were indicative of TDP coaches
in games. Most of these will be discussed below, first focusing on practice themes followed by
game themes.
Practice descriptions
Coaches are motivating and encouraging. The general dimension that was cited the
most often by the participants regarding coaching behavior in practice was the use of motivation
and encouragement by the TDP coaches (15, 23). Higher order themes included the ability to
motivate players in different ways (3, 3) and the provision of encouragement in general (4, 4)
and specifically following a mistake (3, 3). One participant explained that “if you mess up…they
encourage you to do better” (F, 17), while a different participant described how the coaches
“cheer us on and tell us, ‘We can get it next time!’” (M, 12). Another participant described how
coaches would find different ways to help her learn from her mistakes in practices:
“They usually just teach us the right way to do it [following a mistake]. If we don’t get it,
then they have someone our age teach it to us. They might try a different approach, like
one of the teachers or coaches from a different age group might help us. Maybe they have
more experience in that little section. They have a lot of positive reinforcement.” (F, 13)
Along with overall encouragement and motivation, the coaches also challenged the players in a
positive and motivating way (7, 8). This unique blend of encouragement, motivation, and
challenge was encompassed in this quote:
“They always encourage us in practice, like if we make [a] mistake, then they’ll have us
try it over and over and then they’ll tell us what we did wrong and they’ll try to help us
know how to do it. And they push us hard, so they don’t let us quit. They keep pushin’ us
till we get it.” (F, 12)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
One participant described how “they pushed us, but if we couldn’t go, they wouldn’t get mad at
us” (M, 13), while another participant explained how “they’re really nice” and they “don’t yell at
you or anything” during practices (F, 10). An additional higher order theme that was cited by
several participants was the observation that TDP coaches were nice in practice (4, 5), with one
participant describing how his coach “gives him compliments on how I’m doing my workouts”
(M, 12).
Coaches provide a balanced structure. The participants also focused on the provision of
a balanced practice structure, which emerged as a general dimension within this overarching
category (10, 14). Coaches were found to be purposefully strict (5, 5), which was described as
strict coaching behavior that was purposeful and logical throughout the practice. However, the
balance between this strictness and overall fun also became evident through the interviews (3, 3).
According to one participant, “sometimes they’re strict and at other times, they’re fun. They’re
like friends, but they’re still adults and they still tell you what you should do and not” (F, 11).
Coaches create a learning environment. Another general dimension that emerged

through the content analysis of the data focused on the learning environment that was created by
TDP coaches in practices (10, 12). Along with basic encouragement following mistakes in
practice (as reported in the previous section), the participants explained how their coaches also
provided constructive feedback after mistakes (3, 4). According to one participant, “they give
constructive criticism, like to get me better and doin’ what I wanna do. So I take that as a good
perspective of pushin’ myself further and further” (F, 11).
The provision of technical and tactical instructions and game feedback in practices was
also reported by the participants (5, 5). For example, two participants highlighted the use of
constructive criticism and their appreciation of this coaching style: “For practices, he tells us a
lot of stuff, like what we’re doing wrong and right and helps us improve on the things we
weren’t doing well in the games” (M, 13). The second participant explained, “in practice the next
day [after a meet], …they’ll teach you what you did wrong and you’ll just make it better” (F,
14).
Game descriptions. When the focus shifted from coaching behavior in practices to
coaching behavior in game situations, three general dimensions became evident: being
supportive and encouraging (19, 24), focusing on development instead of outcome (12, 18), and
acting unprofessionally (5, 6).
Coaches are supportive and encouraging. In terms of supporting and encouraging

players, this was similar to the dimension that emerged surrounding coaching behavior in
practices. The participants highlighted the support and encouragement following mistakes in
games (8, 8) along with overall encouragement and support in performance contexts (5, 5).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
When asked about how coaches respond to a mistake in a game, one participant described this
scenario:
“They’ll pull me to the side, just to tell me, ‘Don’t be afraid, don’t be nervous or
whatever.’ If I was nervous, say, ‘Don’t be nervous. Just do this, you know how to play.
Don’t let it affect you. You’ll get it next time.’” (F, 17)
This appreciation of encouragement and support was echoed by another participant, explaining
that “if you make a mistake, it’s ok. You just go, they’ll encourage you, sayin’ ‘it’s ok. You can
do better next time’” (F, 11). Similarly, one participant explained how his coaches would react
following a mistake in basketball: “They would say just get back on defense and try it again. Or
they would just…be comforting. They wouldn’t…get too upset about it” (M, 13). As for the
overall environment during competition, five participants highlighted the importance of
encouragement and support from the coach, as demonstrated through this quote:
“She’ll be right there at the finish line for you. Say a kid do a long race and come in dead
last or something, you’ll have a whole bunch of people, you’ll have your whole team
screaming. You have all your coaches at the finish line waiting for you, and when you’re
done, they just pat you on the back, a whole bunch of applause, get you some water and
… make sure somebody take care of you.” (F, 14)
Another participant described how the coaches “just support you” (F, 10),
Coaches focus on development instead of outcome. Interestingly, the participants

highlighted the importance of coaches focusing on development during games instead of the
outcome (12, 18), with six higher order themes falling into this general dimension: constructive
feedback following mistakes (5, 5), autonomy to kids (4, 4), fair with playing time (2, 3),
challenging (2, 2), focus on fun (1, 2), and a miscellaneous bin with other ways to promote
development during games (2, 2). One participant described how the coaches were positive about
the games despite the outcome, focusing on player development and providing constructive
criticism. In her words:
“They’re positive about games if we win or lose. They are always positive. They say,
‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get it next time.’ Or like, ‘next time, just make sure you do
this and make sure you do that.’ Like during a game, when we come out, they’ll ask us
what we did that made us mess up or somethin’ like that. Then, they’ll talk to us so we
can do it better next time.” (F, 12)
Another participant explained how during the games, “when I make a mistake, I come out and
then go back in so I can learn from that mistake and the coaches tell me what I did wrong” (M,

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12). In the words of a third participant, the coaches “make sure in practice the next day…they’ll
teach you what you did wrong and you’ll just make it better” (F, 14).
For the participants who discussed the provision of autonomy to athletes during game
situations, it became clear that the young participants appreciated being given responsibility or
being asked for input by the coach:
“But in the games, he says that we’re going to get to the level to where our coach can’t
tell us what to do on the fields. So we’re going to have to learn how to do stuff. So at
halftime and stuff, he’s telling us what to do and when he subs us out, he tells us why.
But usually, he lets us help each other in play.” (M, 13)
This appreciation of valuing player input was highlighted by another participant as well: “We
always have a little meeting before the games, which I liked, and everybody gets to put in input
and everybody’s all pumped up” (F, 16).
It also became clear that the participants valued equal playing time, with one describing
how “during the games, the coaches were pretty, pretty cool. You know just about every game,
everyone was able to play” (M, 13). Yet another participant explained that “during games …
everybody get the same amount of playing time. It’s good” (F, 17).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to gain a greater understanding of young underserved
athletes’ perceptions of their coaches in TDP. Results from this study support previous youth
sport coaching research, even though the majority of the past research focused primarily on
white, middle class children and youth from suburban sport programs. Just as Smith, Smoll, and
colleagues have found that a positive coaching orientation is critical for youth sport coaches
(Smith et al. 1979; Smith et al. 1995; Smoll et al. 1993), the best coaches in the current study
were perceived to be supportive and encouraging, even when mistakes were made. In addition to
creating a welcoming and open environment, some of the participants discussed how the best
coaches were interested in developing personal relationships with their players, showing that
they cared about the athletes beyond the sport environment. A few participants even commented
on how their coaches were like family to them. These results mirror the findings of Jones,
Armour, and Potrac (2004) and Jones (2009), where the importance of caring in the coach-athlete
relationship was seen as critical in the development of the athlete. Without nurturing positive
relationships with the athletes that are based on mutual respect, Potrac, Jones, and Armour
(2002) have shown that a coach may not have as much “power” or influence on his or her
athletes, perhaps leading to a less effective coach both on and off the field. Conversely, the TDP
coaches identified as the worst coaches were seen to display negative emotions and actions that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
created a negative coaching orientation. These coaches were perceived as yelling more often,
using bad language, and becoming angry following mistakes in practices and especially during
competition. These findings suggest that the research of Smith, Smoll, and colleagues regarding
the impact of a positive coaching orientation on the athletes’ motivation, enjoyment, anxiety, and
self-esteem could be similar in the underserved setting. Although this was not examined in the
current study, a reasonable assumption could be that these underserved athletes would report
higher levels of motivation, more enjoyment, less anxiety, and greater self-esteem when playing
for a coach with a positive coaching orientation; the opposite can be assumed for coaches with a
negative coaching orientation. Therefore, coaching educators should feel confident about using
the guidelines provided by Smith, Smoll, and colleagues when working in underserved settings
with children and youth.
Along with these findings, previous literature has also highlighted the importance of a
mastery-oriented environment (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002; Theeboom et al. 1995), which
participants in this study seemed to favor as well. The participants saw their coaches as teachers
first and foremost, with the best TDP coaches teaching both sport skills and life skills, providing
instructions following mistakes, and focusing on non-outcome goals. Furthermore, the general
dimension cited by the most participants and with the greatest number of raw meaning units
revolved around coaches helping players improve their sport skills. This matches the findings of
Jones and colleagues (2003), who recorded how one elite soccer coach established a focused,
positive learning environment within his competitive soccer team that would foster growth and
development within his players. With such high regard for self-improvement, the participants
clearly valued a mastery-oriented environment over an outcome-oriented environment. This was
further supported in the discussions surrounding the worst TDP coaches, with participants
explaining their antipathy towards coaches who have unrealistic expectations of the players,
show anger and frustration following mistakes, and give more playing time to skilled players
compared with unskilled players. If the research of Halliburton and Weiss (2002) and Theboom
and colleagues (1995) are taken into account, it can be surmised that a mastery-oriented
environment could lead to reports of intrinsic motivation, feelings of competence, more effort,
and overall skill improvement.
One particularly interesting finding was the participants’ preference for coaches who
were positive, supportive, and encouraging while at the same time maintaining order by being
“strict” when it was needed and “pushing” athletes to work harder without being perceived as
overbearing. While this has not been extensively discussed in youth sport coaching literature, a
similar notion, labeled “optimal parental push,” has been identified in the sport parenting
literature (Lauer, Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010). Discussing how effective youth sport coaches
find this balance between support and control is something that coaching educators may want to
address in their coach training programs and that researchers may need to study further.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Limitations
The key limitation in this study was the requirement that participants travel to the
interview location. It is possible that this stipulation could have limited the true
representativeness of the sample, since participants who lived farther away and who may not
have the resources to travel to the interview location would not be included in this study.
Therefore, it is possible that the participants in this study were more likely to have parents or
guardians available to transport them to the interview site and, therefore, may not be considered
the most underserved program participants. However, compared with many sport programs, this
population still had a higher percentage of children and youth attending schools with significant
numbers of free and reduced lunches. It should also be noted that this study relied on participant
reports of their coaches’ actions. Actual coaching behaviors were not observed, nor were the
effects of coaching actions on key program outcomes examined, such as life skills development
and performance. Another limitation was the small sample size, which could limit the ability to
generalize these results. Finally, because this was a qualitative study of non-randomly sampled
children and youth, it is unknown if they accurately represent young people involved in TDP
programs.
Future Directions
The current findings suggest that underserved children and youth favor similar types of
coaching when compared with athletes who are from more privileged backgrounds. However,
there is a need to explore these findings with larger numbers of participants and in greater depth.
Additionally, researchers should investigate the link between youth developmental outcomes,
perceptions of coaching behaviors, and observed coaching behaviors. This study examines the
perceptions of coaching behaviors, but does not confirm that these perceptions are, in fact, the
actual coaching behaviors, nor does this investigation explore the youth development outcomes
that result from the different coaching behaviors.
An additional area for further research focuses on the process of selecting youth sport
coaches, especially those working with underserved children and youth, as it is possible that
these young athletes may have greater needs due to their higher levels of stress and lack of
resources. The critical question is whether every person should be allowed to coach or if there
needs to be a selection process that eliminates some potential youth sport coaches. Furthermore,
once individuals are selected to become youth sport coaches, what type of education is necessary
to prepare these individuals to be youth sport coaches? While this investigation suggests that the
coaching guidelines provided by previous literature is appropriate, such as the positive coaching
orientation by Smith, Smoll, and colleagues, the young participants also highlighted the character
and life skills support that many received from their coaches. Therefore, coaching education for
those working with underserved children and youth should include additional information on

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
character and life skills development, as this will prepare coaches to help create the external
assets surrounding their players while also fostering the development of their players’ internal
assets (Benson, Leffert, Scales, & Blyth, 1998). While the current investigation provides an
initial look into this area, these questions must be further explored as part of the research on sport
as an environment where character and life skills development is fostered in young people who
are living in underserved areas.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes’
perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 280-
299.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-
determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 8, 654-670.
Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., Scales, P. C., & Blyth, D. A. (1998). Beyond the “village” rhetoric:
Creating healthy communities for children and adolescents. Applied Developmental
Sciences, 2(3), 138-159.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/home.htm.
Coakley, J. (2001). Sport in society: Issues and controversies (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2006). Coaching training as a strategy for promoting youth
social development. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 128-144.
Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. (2007). Is winning everything?
The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentage in youth
sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 322-22
Erickson, K., Wilson, B., Horton, S., Young, B., & Cöté, J. (2007). Involving immigrants in
youth sport coaching: Part 1. A literature review and quantitative profile. International
Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2(4), 435-448.
Flett, M. R., Griffes, K. R., & Gould, D. (2009, September 18). Case studies of volunteer
coaches in the Think Detroit/PAL program for underserved youth. Presentation made at
the Association for Applied Sport Psychology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Flett, M. R., Gould, D., Griffes, K. R., & Lauer, L. (in press). The views of more versus less
experienced coaches in underserved communities. International Journal of Coaching
Science.
Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2004). Analysis of coaching science research published from 1970
– 2001. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(4), 388-399.
Greenburg, Z. (2009, April). America's most dangerous cities. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://forbes.com.
Halliburton, A. L., & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Sources of competence information and perceived
motivational climate among adolescent female gymnasts varying in skill level. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 396-419.
Health Resources and Services Administration. (2011). Shortage designation: Health
professional shortage areas & medically underserved areas/populations. Retrieved from
http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/shortage/
Hellison, D. (1995). Teaching responsibility through physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hellison, D., & Walsh, D. (2002). Responsibility-based youth program evaluation: Investigating
the investigations. Quest, 54, 292-307.
Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches feedback and changes in children’s perceptions of their physical
competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186.
Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, blacks, and Hispanics in Chicago’s
public parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 358-381.
Jones, R. L. (2009). Coaching as caring (the smiling gallery): Accessing hidden knowledge.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(4), 377-390.
Jones, R. L., Armour, K. M., & Potrac, P. (2003). Constructing expert knowledge: A case study
of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2), 13-229.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Larson, R. (2000). Toward psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist,
55, 170-183.
Lauer, L, Gould, D., Roman, N., & Pierce, M. (2010). How parents influence junior tennis
player’s development: Qualitative narratives. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4,
69-92.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Livingston, L. A., Tirone, S. C., Smith, E. L., & Miller, A. J. (2008). Participation in coaching by
Canadian immigrants: Individual accommodation and sport system receptivity.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(3), 403-415.
Maykut, P. S., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and
practical guide. London: Falmer Press.
Murray, K. E. (2009). An evaluation of the beliefs and attitudes of Think Detroit PAL volunteer
youth sport coaches. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
Paraschak, V., & Tirone, S. C. (2008). Race and ethnicity in Canadian sport. In J. Crossman
(Ed.), Canadian Sociology (2nd ed., pp. 79-98). Toronto: Nelson.
Petitpas, A. J., Cornelius, A. E., Van Raalte, J. L., & Jones, T. (2005). A framework for planning
youth sport programs that foster psychosocial development. The Sport Psychologist,
19(1), 63-80.
Philipp, S. F. (1995). Race and leisure constraints. Leisure Science, 17(2), 109-120.
Potrac, P., Jones, R., & Armour, K. (2002). ‘It’s all about getting respect‘: The coaching
behaviors of an expert English soccer coach. Sport, Education and Society, 7(2), 183-
202.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. P. (1995). Reduction of children’s sport performance
anxiety through social support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 125-142.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L. & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 29(1), 39-59.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L, & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-
behavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.
Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (2002). Coaching behavior research and interventions in youth
sports. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.). Children and youth in sport: A
biopsychological perspective (2nd ed., pp. 211-133). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing.
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-
esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 602-610.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. B. (2010). SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioral Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Theeboom, M., De Knop, P., & Weiss, M. R. (1995). Motivational climate, psychological
responses, and motor skill development in children's sport: A field-based intervention
study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 294-311.
Toppo, G. (2008, August 1). 'Crisis' graduation gap found between cities, suburbs. USA Today.
Retrieved from http://usatoday.com.
United Nations. (2004). World youth report 2003: The global situation of young people. New
York: United Nations.
U. S. Bureau of the Census. (2007). Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data from the 2007
American Community Survey. Bureau of the Census: Washington, DC.
Wilson, B., Erickson, K., Horton, S., Young, B., & Cöté, J. (2007). Engaging immigrants in
youth sport coaching: Part 2. A qualitative analysis of the barriers, facilitators and
motivators for involvement. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 2(4),
449-465.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Author notes
This study was part of a three-year external evaluation grant of the TDP program. Funding for
the project came from TDP and the foundations which support it.
Footnotes
1. Complete tables of the results of all analyses are available upon request from the first author.

(Journal of Coaching Education) On The Fields of The Motor City - Underserved Athletes' Perceptions of Their Coaches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Journal of Coaching Education) On The Fields of The Motor City - Underserved Athletes' Perceptions of Their Coaches

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Journal of Coaching Education) On The Fields of The Motor City - Underserved Athletes' Perceptions of Their Coaches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Coaching Education

Key Words: coaching, underserved children, underserved youth, youth sport

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 97 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 98 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 99 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

TDP is a nonprofit organization located in Detroit, MI with a mission of building

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 100 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 101 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Consistent with the recommendations of Kvale (1996), a semi-structured interview guide

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 102 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 103 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Descriptions of Best and Worst Coaches

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 104 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

As outlined in Table 1, nine general dimensions emerged from the discussions

Table 1: Descriptions of Best Coaches

Is supportive and Is supportive and P20 – Best coach is very

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 105 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Develops positive personal Is like family (4, 5) P7 – Best coach is like

Positively challenges all Is positively challenging P17 – Best coaches push

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 106 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Focuses on non-outcome Focuses on fun (3, 3) P8 – Best coach focused on

Miscellaneous (3, 3) P15 – Best coach exposed

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 107 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 108 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 109 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 110 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Descriptions of Coaches in Practices and Games

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 111 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Coaches create a learning environment. Another general dimension that emerged

Coaches are supportive and encouraging. In terms of supporting and encouraging

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 112 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Coaches focus on development instead of outcome. Interestingly, the participants

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 113 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 114 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 115 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 116 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC

Volume 4, Issue 3, December 2011 Page 117 of 125

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 01/26/21 11:51 PM UTC