Multiple Perspectives on Junior Giants: Volunteer Coaches’, Team Parents’, and Caregivers’ Perceptions of Program Impact and Intentions to Return

Abstract

This mixed methods study explored perspectives from volunteer coaches and team parents involved in one sport-based youth development program, Junior Giants. The purpose was to (a) compare multiple perspectives on program impact and (b) investigate processes behind program impact and intentions to return. The sample (N = 11,638) included 1541 volunteer coaches, 861 team parents, and 9236 caregivers who completed an online survey assessing perceptions of players’ character development, antibullying, and league organization. Coaches and team parents also responded quantitatively and qualitatively about attending the initial training, use of practice plans, and intentions to return. Coaches reported significantly higher perceptions of participant change in character development and antibullying compared to caregivers (effect sizes were small), and team parents’ perceptions were not significantly different from coaches or caregivers. Perceptions of program outcomes did not differ by sport type (baseball v. softball), binary gender, age, or years in Junior Giants. For process variables, coaches were significantly more likely to attend the training and use the practice plans than team parents (small effects). Several themes emerged from open-ended questions, including not attending the initial team meeting due to schedule conflicts or signing up late to coach, not using practice plans due to limited time or needing modifications, and not intending to return due to child aging out or time commitment. Results suggest Junior Giants is perceived to have a positive impact and offer advice for supporting volunteers in sport-based youth development programs.

1. Introduction

Sport-based youth development programs differ from traditional sport programs by having specific goals focused on social emotional competencies, as well as explicit strategies for teaching these life skills to participants (Petitpas et al., 2005; Weiss, 2024). Evaluation research of such programs is needed to confirm whether their goals are being achieved, and high-quality evaluation studies have shown that programs can positively influence youths’ socioemotional competencies (Bruner et al., 2024). Volunteers are often central to the delivery of sport-based youth development programs, whether that be as coaches or team parents, and must be provided with training and resources to effectively work toward the social-emotional and physical goals of these programs. In this way, the experiences and perspectives of volunteer coaches and team parents become central to understanding program impact. The overarching purpose of the present study was to explore perspectives from volunteer coaches and team parents involved in one sport-based youth development program, Junior Giants, and add to the growing evaluation research on sport-based youth development programs.

Coaches are key in facilitating the developmental outcomes of sport-based youth development programs (see Newman et al., 2023, for a scoping review), particularly in socially vulnerable populations (Newman et al., 2020). Coaches have provided their perceptions of program impact, reinforcing their perspective is valuable to include (e.g., Maw et al., 2025; Weiss et al., 2013, 2019). An important caveat to understand is that many of these programs rely on volunteer coaches, many of whom have children in the programs, to deliver this important curriculum. Research has identified several reasons why parents are motivated to volunteer to coach for youth sport organizations. Busser and Carruthers (2010) sampled volunteer youth soccer coaches, 90% of whom had a child on their team, and found that almost all reported wanting to foster positive values among youth through their coaching. Kerins et al. (2017) interviewed 11 parent coaches about their motivations for volunteering to coach their child’s soccer team. Results showed that these parents volunteered to spend time with and help their child, but also to help other children and contribute to the broader community. Parents also noted how they saw the bigger picture in that the lessons they were teaching on the field would translate to life lessons that could be used outside of sport.

While cost-effective to have parents as volunteers, parent coaches do not come without their challenges, and retention of volunteer youth sport coaches is an enduring issue (Baxter & Misener, 2022). Previous studies show that parents who coach their own children experience a variety of benefits (e.g., pride in child’s achievements, quality time) as well as costs (e.g., differential treatment, greater pressure and expectations) (Weiss & Fretwell, 2005). Volunteer coaches often come with no or limited experience coaching the sport, let alone knowing how to deliver life skills and sports skills lessons simultaneously, so training is needed to support them in their role. However, attending trainings and receiving coach education may be too much of a burden for volunteers who are already donating their time to coach (Wiersma & Sherman, 2005). Having properly trained coaches, volunteer or otherwise, who have the resources and knowledge to deliver a sport-based youth development curriculum is vital to ensuring that the program can achieve its youth development goals. Understanding how volunteer coaches interact with and perceive program training and resources can shed light on the effectiveness of its program, as well as clarify why these volunteers may or may not continue.

Another important volunteer role for parents is that of team parent. Recent data from the Aspen Institute’s 2024 National Youth Sports Parent Survey showed that 43% of parents reported that “team parent” was one of the roles they volunteered for, compared to 14.5% saying they volunteer to coach (Aspen Institute, 2025). A formal definition of “team parent” is challenging to find but Messner and Bozada-Deas (2009) provide excellent context in their multi-year qualitative investigation of gendered roles in two large youth sport organizations. They noted, “All of the ‘team parents’ (often called ‘team moms’)—parent volunteers who did the behind-the-scenes work of phone-calling, organizing weekly snack schedules and team parties, collecting money for gifts for the coaches, and so on—were women” (p. 50). These team parents, the majority of whom are moms, play an important role in helping facilitate their child’s and other children’s sport experiences, but data on their own experiences is limited. Previous studies have included perspectives from caregivers on the impact of sport-based youth development programs (Riley & Anderson-Butcher, 2012; Scheadler et al., 2025; Weiss et al., 2021). Yet, to our knowledge, no studies have included perspectives from team parents in terms of what they think about program impact as well as their own intentions to continue volunteering as a team parent.

Coaches and team parents are significant adults within sport-based positive youth development programs, and opportunities for youth to form supportive relationships with caring adults is one of several important elements of effective programs (Gootman & Eccles, 2002; Weiss & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2009). Other elements, as outlined by Gootman and Eccles (2002), include opportunities to learn physical, psychological, and social life skills; participating in a climate that is mastery-focused and physically and psychologically safe; and opportunities for belonging and connection. Evaluation research is key to determining whether these elements are effectively implemented in sport-based positive youth development (PYD) programs. Patton’s (2012) utilization-focused model of evaluation emphasizes the importance of involving intended users of the program/data into the evaluation planning process; program evaluators should continually think about how the evaluation data may be used and interpreted by intended users and collaborate to facilitate and enhance use of the data. Assessing processes that explain key outcomes is an important way to obtain data with useful practical implications. For example, an evaluation of Girls on the Run (GOTR) showed that participants in GOTR scored significantly higher on life skills transfer than girls in sport or physical education, and the researchers attributed this to the intentional life skills curriculum, coach training, and an environment that is safe and supportive (Weiss et al., 2019, 2020, 2021).

Junior Giants, the flagship program of the Giants Community Fund, recently celebrated its 30th anniversary year (Giants Community Fund, 2025). The program provides free baseball and softball instruction, as well as weekly games, annually during an 8-week summer session. With the more inclusive programs such as Little League International (i.e., non-club or elite/travel ball) typically ending their regular seasons in May, Junior Giants fills a summer void for youth ages 5–14 in the areas that represent the San Francisco Giants footprint (north to Medford, Oregon; east to Reno, Nevada; south to Lompoc, California).

The co-educational program, aligned with a positive youth development approach, has both maintained consistency over the years with curriculum and also remained flexible in addressing pressing societal issues. Character development efforts are grounded in the foundational building blocks of confidence, integrity, leadership, and teamwork. The program curriculum supports youth making healthy choices with nutrition and physical activity and addresses the problem of summer reading loss with their Round the Bases Reading Program. Violence prevention and anti-bullying measures were added in response to that growing problem, and after a successful award-winning Junior Giants @ Home program during the global pandemic, an increased effort was made to address social emotional learning. Notably, curricular efforts are delivered by trained volunteer coaches and team parents who are supported by the Junior Giants Ambassadors. The volunteer coaches handle all baseball/softball instruction and administer the curriculum with support from volunteer team parents who assume more team administrative roles, such as assisting with curriculum efforts (i.e., handling the curriculum packet for the coach, distributing giveaways, etc.), maintaining order in the dugout, handling the post-game beverages & snacks, etc. For the Ambassadors, this cadre of trained university undergraduate or graduate students was formed in 2012 as a means of assisting Junior Giants leagues with the effective delivery of the program at the approximately 80–85 leagues that are administered annually. The Ambassadors program is supported by AmeriCorps.

Junior Giants coach training is supported by the Positive Coaching Alliance with training and resources. Each league requires attendance at an introductory meeting (branded as the First Pitch meeting), where coaches and team parents are briefed on the youth development approach employed by the Junior Giants. Many leagues also employ voluntary coaching clinics for both baseball and softball instruction. In addition, the Junior Giants staff provides an online training resource entitled Junior Giants University. Once the 8-week season starts, coaches and team parents are provided with practice plan material designed to enhance their delivery of the weekly curriculum-driven module. Coaches and team parents have access to the Junior Giants app that allows them to engage in pre-planning for practices and games. On site, they also receive hard copy packets with the same information. These include step-by-step practice plans as well as tips on how best to integrate the positive youth development curriculum, A Word of the Week further helps to center the instruction. Junior Giants Ambassadors are on site for most league practices and games.

Previous research (Bolter et al., 2024) showed that caregivers of Junior Giants’ program participants overwhelmingly perceived a positive impact on their child in terms of social emotional growth and life skill learning. Evidence of potential program impact can be strengthened by gathering multiple perspectives, such as coaches of the teams and also team parents (Weiss, 2024). The purpose of the current study was to first determine whether coaches and team parents also perceived a positive program impact and how their perspectives compare to those of caregivers. Specifically, we explored whether perceived impact on character development, anti-bullying, and league organization/communication differed based on role (coach, team parent, caregiver), age group, gender, and years in the program. We also sought to investigate the processes behind program impact by examining the extent to which coaches and team parents used the training and resources provided by Junior Giants. Finally, we quantitatively assessed coaches’ and team parents’ intentions to return to the program, as well as qualitatively explored reasons for potentially not continuing in their roles. This study has several strengths: it is a large-scale evaluation of a real-world program which provides data that key stakeholders can use (Patton, 2012); the large sample size enables transferability of the data to similar programs; mixed methods allow qualitative data to provide context with which to interpret quantitative data; and inclusion of caregivers, team parents, and coaches allow for comparison/corroboration of perspectives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The total sample (N = 11,638) included 1541 volunteer coaches, 861 team parents, and 9236 caregivers (see

Table 1. Demographics Characteristics for All Participants.

Variable	Total N = 11,638	Volunteer Coach n = 1541	Team Parent n = 861	Caregiver n = 9236
Activity Type
Baseball	9700 (83.3%)	1298 (84.2%)	702 (81.5%)	7700 (83.4%)
Softball	1938 (16.7%)	243 (15.8%)	159 (18.5%)	1536 (16.6%)
Gender a
Male	7139 (61.3%)	917 (59.5%)	182 (21.2%)	6040 (65.4%)
Female	4418 (38.0%)	607 (39.4%)	670 (77.8%)	3141 (34.0%)
Non-binary	10 (0.1%)	6 (0.4%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (0.0%)
Prefer not to answer	71 (0.6%)	11 (0.7)	9 (1.0%)	51 (0.6%)
Age coached/ age of child
5–6-year-olds	3444 (29.6%)	462 (30.0%)	283 (29.2%)	2699 (29.2%)
7–9-year-olds	5175 (44.5%)	704 (45.7%)	379 (44.0%)	4092 (44.3%)
10–13-year-olds	3019 (25.9%)	375 (24.3%)	199 (23.1%)	2445 (26.5%)
Years in Junior Giants
First Year	7284 (62.6%)	947 (61.5%)	640 (74.3%)	5697 (61.7%)
Second Year	2715 (23.3%)	333 (21.6%)	133 (15.4%)	2249 (24.4%)
Third Year	818 (7.0%)	103 (6.7%)	41 (4.8%)	674 (7.3%)
4 or More Years	7.5% (7.1%)	158 (10.2%)	47 (5.5%)	616 (6.6%)

^a Coach and team parent self-reported gender; caregiver reported gender of child.

). Most coaches and team parents (>80%) represented baseball compared to softball and the majority were in their first year in their role. Similarly, 83.4% of caregivers said their kids played on a baseball team and were in their first year (61.7%) or second year (24.4%). About half of coaches and team parents worked with 7–9-year-old age groups, with the rest split between 5–6-year-old age groups and 10–13-year-old age groups. Caregivers reported their children were between 5–6 years old (29.2%), 7–9 years old (44.3%), and 10–13 years old (26.5%). About 2/3rds of caregivers identified their child as male, a 1/3 identified their child as female, with a very small number reporting their child as non-binary or preferred not to answer. The majority of coaches (59.5%) identified as male, while most team parents (77.8%) identified as female.

2.2. Measures

The measures were created by program administrators and collaborating researchers for the purpose of evaluating Junior Giants and were reliably used in a previous study (Bolter et al., 2024). These measures were consistent with expected outcomes of sport-based PYD programs that have been studied previously (e.g., Lerner’s 5Cs, Benson’s developmental assets).

2.2.1. Four Bases of Character Development

Parents/caregivers were given four questions to assess each of the four bases of character development (confidence, character, teamwork, leadership). Parents/caregivers were asked to rate the level of change they had witnessed in their child and responded on a 5-point scale (significant negative change, negative change, no change, positive change, significant positive change). Coaches and team parents were provided the same response options but asked to indicate the level of change they had witnessed collectively on their teams. The scale showed good internal reliability in a previous study α = 0.90 (Bolter et al., 2024).

2.2.2. Anti-Bullying

Caregivers responded to three items measuring anti-bullying attitudes and behaviors taught in the program. They were asked on a 5-point scale (significant negative change to significant positive change) the level of change they noticed in their child (a) being willing to stand up for other kids, (b) showing respect for others, and (c) knowing what to say or do when seeing bullying. Coaches and team parents answered the same three items but responded with the level of change they noticed collectively on their team. The scale showed good internal reliability (α = 0.90) in a previous study with caregivers (Bolter et al., 2024).

2.2.3. League Communication and Organization

All participants were asked two items about their level of satisfaction with (a) communication from and (b) organization of the league they or their child participated in on a 5-point scale (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied). These items were averaged into one scale and showed internal reliability (α = 0.87) in a previous study (Bolter et al., 2024).

2.2.4. Training Attendance and Curriculum Use

Coaches and team parents were asked two questions about the training and curriculum with response options of yes or no: “Did you attend your league’s coach/team parent meeting before the season to go over the league philosophy?” and “Did you use the Practice Plans throughout the season to assist with the programs that go beyond baseball/softball?” For those who responded no to either question, they were asked an open-ended follow-up question to explain why not. Coaches and team parents were also asked the effectiveness of the character development curriculum: “How effective are the Word of the Week discussion questions in helping you teach the weekly lesson?” and selected from a 5-point scale of responses very effective, effective, slightly effective, not effective, I did not use them.

2.2.5. Intentions to Return

Coaches and team parents were asked, “Do you plan to be a coach or team parent next year?” and responded yes, undecided, or no. For those who indicated no, they were provided open-ended space to explain why not.

2.3. Procedure

This study was first approved by a university’s Institutional Review Board. At the end of the 2023 summer season of Junior Giants, all caregivers, coaches, and team parents were sent an invitation to participate in the study and provided a link for an online survey through Alchemer. There were two versions of the survey: one for caregivers and one for coaches and team parents. This study focused on quantitative questions that overlapped between all three groups, and qualitative responses from only coaches and team parents. The first page of the survey included the consent form and participants consented by continuing onto the second page. The survey was professionally translated into Spanish and participants selected to complete the survey in English or Spanish. Some adults occupied multiple roles in the program (e.g., caregiver and coach) and were allowed to take both surveys but were instructed to answer each survey specific to each role. At the end of the survey, coaches and team parents were provided a link to request tickets to a San Francisco Giants game or be entered into a sweepstakes to win San Francisco Giants memorabilia.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data were initially screened for missing values and normality, with values of skewness (<|3|) and kurtosis (<|8|) considered acceptable. Means and standard deviations were calculated for all continuous variables, while frequencies and percentages calculated for all categorical variables. Reliabilities were calculated for all scales, with alpha > 0.70 considered acceptable, and correlations were run among all variables. Because Junior Giants is organized by leagues, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine the amount of variance explained at the league level compared to the individual level. The ICC was 0.05, indicating only 5% of the variance in the outcome variables was due to league-level differences, so analyses were conducted at the individual level.

A MANOVA was completed with role (coach, team parent, caregiver), age group (5–6-year-olds, 7–9-year-olds, 10–13-year-olds), binary gender (male, female), years in program (First year, Second year, Three or more years) as independent predictors of three dependent variables (four bases of character development, anti-bullying, league organization/communication). Box’s Test of Equality of Variance Matrices was significant, Box’s M = 1239.69, F(504, 59,364.53) = 2.31, (p < 0.001) so Pillai’s Trace was used as the test statistic. For any significant pairwise contrasts, Cohen’s d and a corresponding confidence interval were reported and interpreted as small (d ≥ 0.20), medium (d ≥ 0.50), and large (d ≥ 0.80) (Cohen, 1988). Two logistic regressions were completed—one for attended training and one for use of practice plans—with role (coach, team parent), age group (5–6-year-olds, 7–9-year-olds, 10–13-year-olds), binary gender (male, female), years in program (First year, Second year, Three or more years,) as independent predictors. Odds ratios (OR) were considered small if OR > 1.5, medium if OR > 3.0, and large if OR > 5.0 (Chen et al., 2010). A Chi square analysis was completed to determine if intentions to return differed by role, with adjusted residuals >|1.96| considered statistically significant deviations from expected cell counts.

Thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2016) was used to analyze three open-ended questions. Responses from coaches were first analyzed separately from team parents and then compared to identify similar and distinct themes between the groups. During Phase 1: Familiarization and Phase 2: Coding, four researchers (including the first author) independently read through and coded all responses from coaches and team parents. During subsequent phases 3–5 (Theme Development, Refining, Naming), the researchers met multiple times to discuss codes and generate themes, which were then sent to the second author to review independently and provide recommendations, in writing and through follow-up conversations. All researchers provided input on the final themes and names and deemed them to be cohesive and distinct. Analyses were considered rigorous as they included multiple researchers with varying levels of methodological training, positions of power, and practical coaching and playing experiences, each of whom contributed uniquely to the interpretation of the data (Smith & McGannon, 2018). Moreover, as opposed to seeking inter-rater reliability, researchers worked as critical friends and offered numerous points for reflection through conversation.

3. Results

3.1. Quantitative Results

Initial analyses revealed an extremely small amount of missing data (less than 0.1%) so mean imputation was used to replace missing values. Normality was established for all continuous variables through acceptable values for skewness and kurtosis, and all scale reliabilities exceeded acceptable criteria (alpha > 0.70). Mean scores indicated that coaches, team parents, and caregivers reported positive changes in youth participants in terms of the four bases of character development and anti-bullying behavior, as well as satisfaction with the communication and organization in their league (see

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Continuous Variables.

Variable	Total N = 11,638	Volunteer Coach n = 1541	Team Parent n = 861	Caregiver n = 9236
Four Bases of Character Development	M = 4.18 SD = 0.56	M = 4.32 SD = 0.52	M = 4.26 SD = 0.53	M = 4.14 SD = 0.56
Anti Bullying	M = 4.04 SD = 0.59	M = 4.25 SD = 0.57	M = 4.23 SD = 0.58	M = 4.04 SD = 0.59
League Satisfaction	M = 4.22 SD = 0.82	M = 4.25 SD = 0.83	M = 4.26 SD = 0.83	M = 4.21 SD = 0.82

). Most coaches and team parents attended their league’s initial meeting, used the practice plans provided, utilized the weekly WOW lessons, and intended to return to the program the next year (see

Table 3. Training, Curriculum Use, and Intentions to Return.

Variable	Volunteer Coach n = 1541	Team Parent n = 861
Attend League Meeting?	Yes = 1235 (80.1%) No = 306 (19.9%)	Yes = 594 (69.0%) No = 267 (31.0%)
Use Practice Plans?	Yes = 1447 (93.9%) No = 94 (6.1%)	Yes = 771 (85.9%) No = 90 (10.5%)
Effectiveness of WOW Lessons	Used WOW lessons = 1429 (92.7%) Did not use WOW lessons = 112 (7.3%) M = 3.36 (0.70)	Used WOW lessons = 761 (88.4%) Did not use WOW lessons = 100 (11.6%) M = 3.40 (0.69)
Intentions to Return	Yes = 1418 (91.3%) No = 135 (8.7%)	Yes = 783 (90.6%) No = 81 (5.6%)

). For those who used the WOW curriculum, they felt the lessons were effective.

Multivariate tests revealed a significant main effect of role, Pillai’s Trace = 0.002, F(6, 22,902) = 4.34, p < 0.001, η² = 0.001, indicating that perceptions of program impact significantly differed by role and specifically for the four bases of character development (p < 0.001) and antibullying (p < 0.001). Coaches reported significantly higher perceptions of change in character development (p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.33 [0.27, 0.38]). and antibullying compared to caregivers (p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.36 [0.30, 0.41]). Team parents’ perceptions were not significantly different from coaches or caregivers. Main effects for league organization/communication, as well as all interaction effects for all dependent variables, were non-significant (p > 0.05), indicating that perceptions of program outcomes did not differ by sport type, binary gender, age, or years in Junior Giants.

Binary logistic regression analyses were statistically significant for attending league meeting (X²(7) = 63.31, p < 0.001), explaining less than 4% of the variance (Nagelkerke R² = 3.9%) and correctly classifying 76.0% of the cases. Coaches were significantly more likely to attend the training than team parents (OR = 1.78, p < 0.001), and coaches and team parents who were in their third or more years with Junior Giants were significantly less likely to attend (OR = 0.488, p < 0.001) compared to those in their first year. Regression analyses were also statistically significant for using practice plans (X²(7) = 16.89, p = 0.018), explaining less than 2% of the variance (Nagelkerke R² = 1.7%) and correctly classifying 92.4% of the cases. Coaches were significantly more likely to use the practice plans compared to team parents (OR = 1.92, p < 0.001). Gender, age, or sport type did not predict whether coaches or team parents attended the training or used the practice plans. Chi square analyses revealed no significant difference (p = 0.573) among coaches’ (91.3%) and team parents’ (90.6%) intentions to return to the program.

3.2. Qualitative Findings

While most coaches and team parents said “yes” to attending the meeting and using the practice plans and intentions to return, those who said “no” had an opportunity to elaborate on why not. Below is a description of emergent themes and example quotations.

3.2.1. Attend Initial Meeting

Four themes emerged for why coaches and team parents did not attend their league’s initial training meeting: Signed Up Late, Wasn’t Aware of the Meeting, Had a Scheduling Conflict, Was a Repeat Volunteer.

Signed Up Late

Coaches and team parents did not attend their league’s meeting because they signed up for their role after the meeting had already taken place and/or the season had begun. While some simply said they signed up late, others explained that they volunteered after the meeting because they realized their child’s team needed more help. One coach said, “I didn’t think I’d be coaching, it wasn’t until it was obvious that they really needed help that I signed up,” while another wrote, “I stepped in for a coach who didn’t show up for week one.” A team parent similarly said, “I was not yet a team parent. I was selected after the season started when the previous team parent dropped,” and another noted, “Became a team parent after the season started and after the meeting bc there was a significant need for help.” For some, even though they missed the meeting and signed up late, they were still able to get the information afterward by watching a recording or getting the information from other coaches and team parents who had attended. A coach said, “I wasn’t a coach at first, but watched the videos.”

Was Not Aware of the Meeting

Several coaches and team parents wrote they did not attend the meeting because they did not know about it. One team parent said, “Didn’t know there was such meeting,” while another said, “This was our first year with jr giants, didn’t know how things worked.”

Had a Scheduling Conflict

Coaches and team parents indicated work as the most common scheduling conflict, with many only responding with “work”, “had to work”, or as one team parent said, “My work schedule would not allow it.” Similar to those who signed up late, some were still able to access the information by watching the recording or communicating with other coaches, as one team parent said, “I was not available on the day it occurred due to work but was able to connect w/the team coaches about what info was discussed”. The other repeated scheduling conflict response was vacation, with coaches/team parents responding “out of town” as their reason for missing the meeting.

Was a Repeat Volunteer

Some coaches and team parents did not attend the league meeting because they had already attended in previous years. One coach said, “I’ve done it 2 times before,” with another writing, “Already had other plans. But attended last year.” One coach elaborated, “Have previous experience with league rules and regulations. I think newer coaches and parents need to be involved in the first meeting as it is very important for new parents to ask their questions.” One coach explained they did not attend because it was, “Same information the past 2 years.”

3.2.2. Use Practice Plans

For coaches only, three themes emerged for why they did not use the practice plans provided (Modified Plans Provided, Didn’t Have Enough Time, Developed Own Practice Plans). A fourth theme emerged for both coaches and team parents: Other Coach Ran Practice.

Modified Plans Provided

Coaches changed the practice plans provided in response to the needs, skill levels, and interests of the players they coached. One coach explained, “I found that my players were all in different levels. Thus, a one-size plan was not going to work”, while another said they, “adjusted depending on athletes.” One coach shared, “I did the first session, but realized my kids were way behind on skill set… My kids could not throw, let alone catch… So I cannot say I don’t use them, I tweak them.” One coach elaborated on how they made successful adjustments,

Sometimes the expectations set by the plans were unrealistic for our age group. For instance, I noticed my players respond slower during transitions, so I had to limit the number of activities we did each practice. They all had a great time because I adapted everything to suit their needs and attention span.

Didn’t Have Enough Time

Coaches expressed that time limited their ability to use the practice plans provided. For some, they did not receive the plans early enough to review them before practice, with one coach commenting, “We did not get the practice plan until right before or sometimes even during the actual practice time with the kids… it’s impossible to read through it and be able to teach it on the spot.” Another coach felt similarly, “I don’t have time to read, digest and teach the extra stuff contained in the practice plans in that short amount of time because I have the practice to run.”

Others felt the practices themselves were too short to implement everything outlined. A coach commented, “It was hit or miss. I would print them out but there is a lot to cover in 1 h and the kids have short attention span” while another wrote, “Time was limited and the kids wanted to have batting practice whenever time permitted.” One coach explained in detail the time constraints,

Plans built around 90-min practice time, but we were given less than 60 min a week to teach players about how to work as a team, encourage others, the fundamentals of baseball, etc. Not enough time to get through material and teach kids about baseball especially when we started out with 14–18 kids on each team, leaving just 2–3 min instruction time with each kid.

Developed Own Practice Plans

Some coaches preferred to develop their own plans rather than use the ones provided by Junior Giants. One coach said, “I have been a coach in other sports for years. I also played baseball as a kid. I had my own game plan.” Another coach said, “I’ve played softball for 30 years and have been teaching for 12 years. So I designed my own practice plans after assessing the kids.” These coaches felt they did not need the plans because they had previous coaching experience. One coach wrote, “We had our own practice plans, as seasoned coaches” while another commented, “I have coached for 20 years and my style differs from what was recommended.”

Other Coach Ran Practice

Coaches who did not use the practice plans stated that they were an assistant or fulfilled a supporting role during practice. One coach stated, “The practice drills were determined by either a program lead or more experienced coach,” while another noted, “I was assistant coach, not the main coach. The main coach had practice plans already in place that I helped execute.” Some team parents felt similarly, with one noting, “I’m not the coach so just went with what the coaches were doing to help out.” Other team parents were never given the practice plans and did not see it as part of their role.

3.2.3. Intentions to Return

To illustrate the reasons for not intending to return to the program, four themes represented both coaches and team parents (Child Aged Out/No Longer Interested, Not Competitive Enough, Frustrated with League Communication and Organization, Too Much of a Commitment), while two themes were representative of only coaches’ perspectives (Lack of Commitment from Parents and Players, Wanted Coaches Who Are More Qualified and Not Parents).

Child Aged Out/No Longer Interested

Coaches and team parents both expressed that they would not return to Junior Giants because of their child’s interests or age. One coach explained, “My son is no longer interested in the sport”, while another said, “I don’t think my son likes baseball very much. If he decides to play, then I will volunteer again.” Other explained that their child would simply be too old to continue participating. A team parent wrote, “My child has aged out of the league. I would like to return if they expanded the age range past 13.”

Not Competitive Enough

Coaches and team parents reported they would not return to Junior Giants but instead opt for a more competitive baseball experience. One coach commented, “The level of skill isn’t challenging enough for my son, so we won’t be back next year but maybe when he’s older.” A team parent expressed how it wasn’t competitive enough in the sense that the rules of baseball were not followed during play. They wrote, “I want my boys to have the experience of playing baseball where they can keep score, experience striking out, and practice fielding real balls to get outs.” One coach contemplated his family’s return, “I’m honestly not sure. We are already a part of Little League and although we like the little bit of extra baseball, the non-competitive nature may not be best for my kids.”

Frustrated with League Communication and Organization

Some coaches and team parents intended not to return due to the lack of communication and organization. They cited issues related to not having enough volunteers, not receiving equipment/jerseys, and having poor field conditions, among others. One coach stated, “Very unorganized, teams didn’t know which jersey to wear, fields were double booked or miscommunicated, ambassadors did not answer emails or calls.” Others elaborated on how communication was particularly challenging for them. One coach said, “The League in my city is unorganized. There was a severe lack of communication. It felt like everything was thrown together very last minute.” A team parent reinforced, “The communication this year was very poor… Very bad management this year.”

Too Much of a Commitment

Coaches and team parents shared that they would not return to the program because it was too much of a commitment, especially with a limited number of parent volunteers. One coach wrote, “Very difficult to do this and work,” while another commented, “Too hard with no other help. It takes a lot of time.” A team parent shared, “Not enough parent involvement or willing volunteers. Volunteers spread too thin with more children on the team than anticipated.” Some expressed how they felt obligated to volunteer because there were no others who would. One team parent wrote, “I stepped up because no one else would and it was somewhat difficult.” Another coach shared the pressure they felt,

It was impossible for us to take a vacation during the summer when we committed to coaching. We would like to take a summer vacation next year. No other parents on our team stepped up to help, so we couldn’t miss a practice or game.

Some coaches and team parents said they had too many commitments already and hoped to take a break while other parents stepped up to help. One coach stated, “I am overcommitted and want to cut down on my extracurricular responsibilities.” One coach commented, “I have coached every year for the past 5 years and I would like to enjoy just be a spectator to watch my kids play before they age out,” while a team parent wrote, “Take a break, let someone else participate.” Another coach simply put that they, “Want to sit back and watch.”

Lack of Commitment from Parents and Players

A few coaches expressed how the lack of commitment from parents and players contributed to their intention to not return. One coach said, “There were too many no-shows. It’s great that the program is free, but that leads to many participants signing up who are not committed to their teams.” Another coach elaborated, “There were a lot of absences during practice and games… I understand life is busy and things happen, but… I don’t think it’s fair to those who show up ready to play if the other teammates are not participating.” One coach wrote, “Many of the kids did not show up to practices and games and the parents weren’t really into it either” while a team parent shared, “A lot of time commitment but not enough players on team.”

Wanted Coaches Who Are More Qualified and Not Parents

A few coaches did not want to return because they did not feel qualified in their roles. One coach wrote, “I am not especially gifted or interested in coaching a baseball team. I was willing to do it because there were no other coaches, and someone needed to step up.” They shared that they felt they needed to volunteer but that having more experienced coaches would be better. A coach said they might return, “Possible as a last resort. I am still not too familiar with baseball, and I would like the kids/children to learn from the most experienced player.” Another coach reasoned, “My kids will be more advanced, and I think a more experienced coach would be helpful.” Other coaches noted that part of the reason they felt ineffective was because they were also a parent of a child on the team. One coach commented, “My child does not listen to us so he’s not learning.” Another coach elaborated, “I did it so my daughter would actually play. I don’t want to be her crutch going forward. She likes baseball now she says. So I want to see her get out there and do it without Daddy holding her hand.”

4. Discussion

This study investigated the perceived impact of a sport-based youth development program from the perspective of important adults involved in the program—the coaches, team parents, and caregivers. Results showed favorable and consistent perceptions of program impact across all three groups, suggesting Junior Giants is having a positive impact on youth participants in terms of their social emotional competencies. This study clarified some of the processes (e.g., trainings, use of practice plans) that help explain why the program may be effective. Rigor in program evaluation research can be achieved in several ways (e.g., comparison group, retention follow-up), and this study embodied rigorous methodology by aligning the outcome measures with the curriculum, using mixed methods, and including perspectives from multiple important adults with a large sample size (Weiss, 2024). We added to the growing body of literature focused on evaluating sport-based youth development programs (Bruner et al., 2024), both in terms of understanding program impact as well as the processes that can explain promising findings.

Building upon results from caregivers of Junior Giants participants (Bolter et al., 2024), quantitative results showed that coaches and team parents perceived a similarly positive program impact in terms of participants’ character development (confidence, character, teamwork, leadership) and antibullying abilities. Other physical activity-based PYD programs have reported positive impact on outcomes similar those in our study. For example, youth in The First Tee compared favorably to youth in other activities on self-reported confidence, integrity, responsibility, honesty, judgment, and perseverance, which are core values in the program (Weiss et al., 2016). In our study, coaches and team parents perceived positive change in their athletes on the four bases of character, which aligns with the program curriculum. Interestingly, perceptions from coaches regarding their team were significantly higher than those of caregivers regarding their own children, which is consistent with previous research. Coaches have been shown to overestimate their own behaviors in previous studies, for example rating their own use of teaching and reinforcement higher than their athletes perceived (e.g., Bolter et al., 2018). Consistent with Bolter et al. (2018)’s interpretation, coaches in Junior Giants may similarly be overinflating their reported implementation of specific character-building behaviors. It is important to note that the effect sizes for these differences in our findings were very small, and not very practically meaningful, given all perspectives converged on a positive impact. It is also notable that perspectives from team parents were included, which, to our knowledge, has not been done in previous studies.

Our large sample size and planned analyses allowed us to confirm that quantitative perceptions of program impact did not differ by the type of activity (softball vs. baseball), binary gender, age, or years experience with the program. These analyses were necessary given our sample varied in these variables, with the majority of participants being involved in baseball, and included more male coaches, female team parents, and caregivers of boys. In their review of research on sport-based interventions for youth, Bruner et al. (2024) found that only 20% of studies included potential confounding variables (e.g., age, gender) in their analyses. Our data contribute to filling this gap in the literature by considering program impact in terms of these varying demographics, and are favorable in showing that important adults from different backgrounds and experiences are all perceiving a positive impact of the program.

This study also explored the why behind program impact and revealed a very positive picture of program implementation. That is, most coaches and team parents reported attending their league’s beginning of the season training, using the practice plans provided, and feeling the lessons were effective. These data point to fidelity in the implementation of the program, whereby the coaches and team parents are being trained on the curricular objectives and report using these strategies (Patton, 2012). Coaches were significantly more likely to attend the training and use the practice plans compared to team parents, which makes sense given the coaches’ role is to run the practices. However, qualitative data suggested at least some team parents assist with practices, and they should also receive the same training and access to practice plans to maximize implementation fidelity. Analyses also revealed that age, gender, and sport type did not differentiate those who attended the training and used the practice plans. These positive findings mean that coaches and team parents of boys’ or girls’ teams, older or younger players, and those participating in baseball or softball were equally likely to be trained, increasing the probability that all kids in the program will have a coach or team parent that understands how the program should be implemented.

Qualitative data provide additional context about fidelity. For the small percentage of coaches and team parents who missed the training, they were able to still receive the information afterward, either from another coach or by watching a recording. This option allows for as many coaches and team parents to have access to the information and increases the chances that they will implement the program as designed. While most coaches reported using the practice plans, some reported that they modified the plans, while others reported using their own plans. According to Patton (2012), evaluating fidelity means to “assess adherence to the core blueprint specifications of how a model program is supposed to be implemented” (p. 197). These data suggest only a small number of coaches are not following the blueprint for implementation, and these modifications to the practice plans may not be consistent with the program’s curricular goals.

Another important aspect of this study was to understand the intentions of these volunteer coaches and team parents to return to the program the following year. Some responses were consistent with previous work on retention in sport-based youth development program, as well as with a previous study on the Junior Giants and caregivers’ intentions to return (Bolter et al., 2024). Similar to caregivers’ reasons, our sample of coaches and team parents would not return to the program because of their child’s participation (e.g., no longer interested in baseball, wanted a more competitive experience). Research shows that a primary reason why parents volunteer is because their child is involved in the sport and stop volunteering once their child is no longer playing (Baxter & Misener, 2022). While this reasoning is understandable, programs must account for this expected turnover and gear their trainings and resources for the many new volunteers, as well as the smaller number of returning ones.

While these themes for not wanting to return focused primarily on their child, analyses also revealed themes from coaches and team parents that specifically focused on their experiences in their roles. Poor communication and organization were noted, which is also consistent with previous responses from a few Junior Giants’ caregivers (Bolter et al., 2024). Previous studies have also shown that one of the challenges volunteer parent coaches face is frustration with the league’s organization. In Kerins et al. (2017), parent-coaches said they were frustrated with the league’s effort and organization, especially when the league officials were paid for their roles while the parents were volunteers. Harman and Doherty (2014) explored the psychological contract of volunteer youth sport coaches by interviewing 22 participants about their expectations for what the youth sport organization would provide for them, as well as what they perceived was expected of them in return. These coaches expected the administration to provide fundamental resources (scheduling of games and practices, uniforms) and club administration (organization, registration, structure). This study highlighted that parents may come with their preconceived ideas about what the organization should do and may feel as though the contract is broken when the organization does not meet their expectations, ultimately affecting their willingness to continue volunteering.

Some coaches and team parents feeling as though the volunteer commitment was too much is also consistent with previous studies. Legg et al. (2015) found that parents felt a stronger sense of community when they invested time in their child’s sport experiences, but that sense of community was weaker when they perceived their involvement to be an obligation and that they did not have a choice. These obligations were exacerbated by feeling as though no other parents were willing to step up and the work was left to only a few parents. In their study that included focus groups with 55 parents about their involvement in youth sports, Wiersma and Fifer (2008) found that some parents commented on how commitment among the parents on each team was not even, and that a few parents were tasked with doing the majority of the work while others were unable or unwilling to contribute. Interestingly, Busser and Carruthers (2010) found that only 12% of their sample of parent-coaches reported they volunteered because no one else would, mimicking the small number of coaches and team parents in our study who felt similarly.

Results included findings unique to coaches about why they did not want to return in their volunteer role; for example, the lack of commitment from parents and players was especially challenging for a few coaches and team parents and has been identified in previous studies. In a sample of 492 volunteer youth sport coaches, Feltz et al. (2009) showed that lower perceptions of support from parents and athletes were correlated with lower perceived coaching efficacy related to motivation and character-building. In other words, volunteer coaches felt less confident in their abilities to motivate and teach character to athletes when they also felt as though they were not supported by parents and athletes. In our sample, parent coaches also felt the complicated nature of their role, echoing findings from previous work on parent-coaches (Weiss & Fretwell, 2005). Perhaps for some of the parent-coaches in our study who reported not wanting to return, the costs outweighed the benefits.

4.1. Limitations and Future Research

Limitations of the present study point to opportunities for future studies. While there was a large sample of coaches and team parents included, a total of 4410 volunteers participated in Junior Giants in 2023, so our sample represents 54.5% of the population. This return rate is quite good relative to documented return rates (Wu et al., 2022) but gathering perspectives from even more coaches and team parents would provide additional clarity on program impact and fidelity of implementation. To address this potential bias, we spent time highlighting the qualitative responses from coaches and team parents who did not attend the training or use the practice plans, and who did not intend to return to the program, as those perspectives may be representative of some stakeholders who did not complete the survey. Data collected on implementation primarily relied on yes/no questions about whether coaches and team parents attended the training and used the practice plans. However, more detail is needed, such as which practice plans were most effective, how often practice plans were used, and which information from the training was most helpful. In addition to self-reports, observations of coaches could reveal additional detail about how practice plans are used and curricular lessons delivered. Future studies should include questions about how coaches and team parents interacted with and used the training and materials provided, as well as more objective observations of coaches’ implementation.

While the quantitative measures used in this study were created for evaluation purposes and showed content validity and internal consistency, more rigorous tests for validity would strengthen the justification of their use. Existing valid and reliable measures may be considered in future studies that assess the same social emotional learning outcomes to capitalize on previous psychometric validations. It should also be noted that the measures addressed multiple levels of impact, such that the coaches and team parents reported on team-level change while caregivers reported on individual-level change. Directly comparing different levels of change may confound the conclusions from the data. Also, coaches and team parents were allowed to complete the survey for each role they occupied, allowing for some participants to fill out the survey multiple times. While this strategy supports the ecological validity in that coaches and team parents fulfill multiple roles as a reality of the program, the data cannot be assumed to be completely independent and should be interpreted with this context in mind.

Our qualitative analyses followed Braun et al.’s (2016) thematic analysis and resulted in 12 themes across three categories. Given that the qualitative data came from open-ended online survey questions and did not reflect prolonged engagement or multiple methods of data collection, the themes could be considered underdeveloped (Braun et al., 2019). Follow-up investigations should focus on ways to more deeply capture the essence and spread of meaning behind coaches’ and team parents’ perspectives on their volunteer experiences, perhaps through interviews or focus groups.

Additional demographic data about coaches and team parents would be valuable to include in future studies. Each volunteer’s socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic identity, and years of previous coaching or volunteer experience may change that person’s interest, availability, and motivation for their role. Moreover, our sample of team parents was 78% women, similar to other studies examining this role (Messner & Bozada-Deas, 2009), so future studies might investigate what gendered factors influence caregivers to volunteer as a team parent rather than a coach. While the present study clarified many of the reasons coaches and team parents planned on not returning to their roles, no information was obtained about why coaches and team parents intended to return. Previous research has documented several reasons why volunteers, including parents, return to their roles (e.g., Busser & Carruthers, 2010; Kerins et al., 2017), and it would be interesting to see if those reasons align with the volunteers in Junior Giants specifically. Moreover, this information would contribute to the literature on retention for volunteers in sport-based youth development programs, beyond what is known about retention for volunteers in traditional youth sport programs.

4.2. Practical Applications

Findings offer ideas for reinforcing and improving upon the implementation of Junior Giants and other sport-based youth development programs, as well as strengthening retention of volunteers. Given that some coaches and team parents were unaware of the training and practice plans or were unable to attend, coaches and team parents need to be aware of and have access to trainings and practice plans, as well as have maximum flexibility for getting the information alternatively. All leagues should provide a recording of the meeting or encourage them to get the information from other coaches. Additional website access could include a link for, “In case you missed it” since some coaches and team parents volunteer after the season starts. Plus, if repeat volunteers are meant to attend the training and use the practice plans each year, that should be clarified. Perhaps chunking the training into sections (e.g., new volunteers vs. all volunteers) or explicitly stating which aspects of the training and practice plans have changed would motivate returning volunteers to engage.

It is possible that the volunteer coaches need more support for their roles, given that some said they would not return because they did not feel support from parents or even the players. Research has shown that paid coaches have better support networks compared to unpaid coaches (Potts et al., 2019) so finding ways for volunteer coaches to support each other (e.g., paired mentors with returning vs. new coaches, encouraging multiple coaches per team, mid-season debriefs and socializing opportunities) may be quite valuable. Indeed, Baxter and Misener (2022) cite mentoring and social support programs for volunteer coaches as a viable option for increasing retention.

Based on feedback from coaches about their use of the practice plans, it would be valuable to revisit the plans in terms of their feasibility. An assessment of the developmental appropriateness of the drills and life lessons, as well as the practicality of fitting that information into a one-hour practice session, would benefit coaches who may feel overwhelmed by the current plans. It may also be beneficial to include specific ideas for practice modifications that coaches can make to accommodate players’ interests and ability levels without deterring from the goals of the program.

5. Conclusions

More evaluation research focused on sport-based youth development programs is needed, and this study contributes to the growing number of studies that offer data-based evidence of program effectiveness. This study not only clarified whether program impact was perceived but also highlighted the processes that can explain program effectiveness. While this study focused on one program, Junior Giants, the findings may be transferrable to other programs with similar structures and goals. Our large sample size, mixed method approach, and inclusion of multiple stakeholders answers the call of scholars advocating for more rigorous evaluation studies (Bruner et al., 2024; Weiss, 2024). Moreover, our findings provide insight into the volunteer-based ecosystem of sport-based youth development programming and help clarify the nuanced experiences of being a volunteer coach or team parent. With Patton’s (2012) utilization-focused evaluation in mind, this research will most immediately benefit Junior Giants program administrators, as well as the parent volunteers and children who participate.