EASTON Foundations 2011-2012 National Archery in the Schools Program (NASP): Report June, 2012 --- Submitted to the Easton Foundations Van Nuys, CA
NASP FINAL REPORT 2 STUDY BACKGROUND Easton Foundations continue to support archery through a variety of groups. Over the last several years, Easton has provided in excess of $260,000 to various youth programs, youth clubs, and camps. These efforts continue to expand the visibility of archery and help to improve the development of new (and elite) archers across the country. The NASP program, in particular, is designed to teach International Style target archery in physical education classes (i.e., 4 th -12 th grades). The core content of the program covers the history of archery, safety, technique, equipment, mental concentration, core strengthening physical fitness, and self-improvement. Before presenting the 2-week archery course, teachers undergo an 8-hour National Archery in the Schools Program Basic Archery Instructor Training Program. By the end of the program, it is anticipated that each student will gain an appreciation, knowledge and skill in the sport of archery that will spur interest and continued participation in the sport. RESEARCH METHOD The primary method of data collection was an online questionnaire using an email list sent out by = NASP, as well as a link to the questionnaire posted on the NASP website/facebook page. The initial round of data collection was complete between September, 2011-November, 2011, and a follow-up push was complete from December, 2011-February, 2012. Due to lack of control of the email list by the researchers, it is unknown how many individuals actually received the questionnaire link. However, N=1734 questionnaires were opened and viewed, while started and N=1236 were completed. A number of individuals included their email address for follow-up, which (if granted) will occur each year to track if and how participation changes for these individuals. Further, followup focus groups or interviews will be conducted with purposefully selected NASP participants. A secondary, qualitative (i.e., focus group) data collection was also performed to add richness to the questionnaire data and help the researchers better triangulate the results. Online Questionnaire Results EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS o The online questionnaire was started by N=1734 individuals with N=1236 ultimately completing the request. This suggests a response rate of 71.28% regarding those who opened the questionnaire and those who chose to complete it. The additional support and push from both NASP and Easton Foundations to increase the response rate certainly enhanced the number of completed questionnaires. N=498 individuals started but did not complete the online questionnaire. If this research continues in subsequent years, this suggests that an adjustment to questionnaire content and length is needed. o Of those who completed the questionnaire, 46% (n=494) were boys and 54% (n=581) were girls. This equal gender representation of boys and girls is notable. The remaining questionnaire respondents did not indicate a gender.
NASP FINAL REPORT 3 o The participants were from: Kentucky (n=190), Hawaii (n=139), Michigan (n=133), Pennsylvania (n=137), South Carolina (n=93), Missouri (n=68), Minnesota (n=62), Ohio (n=55), Virginia (n=39), Iowa (n=41), Georgia (n=28), Florida (n=26), and Oklahoma (n=26). It was exciting to see that 39 States and 1 Province were represented in the data. It appears the NASP program has made an impact across North America. o Approximately 40% (n=483) of the respondents participated in an archery competition in the last two years. A list of competitions was provided by the respondents. o Questionnaire participants indicated they often participated in archery for FUN (3.69 out of 5.00 on the scale) and for COMPETITION (3.47 out of 5.00 on the scale). Opportunities for both recreational and competitive archery were valued by these individuals. It is important for NASP to combine the rigor of competitive practice with the fun of recreational shooting to ensure the needs of all archers are met. o Baseball, football, and choir proportionately represented the highest direct competition for the participants extracurricular time. These responses were listed for both those who participate in archery and those who do not. Depending on feasibility, creating collaborations/partnerships with these sports/activities may enhance archery participant retention. o Participants generally saw archery in their school (95%) and on television (50%). Interestingly, 63% of the respondents had not visited the NASP website for information on archery. Clearly, NASP is helping to provide young students exposure to archery in their schools. Given the connection to archery through television, it may be worthwhile to bridge commercial/sponsorship time with local area channels. The online presence of archery could be a potential avenue to attract interest from a younger generation that is connected via the internet. At this time, the NASP website does not appear to be an effective communication tool (i.e., at least for young archers). o Over the past year, participants stated they had watched archery never, rarely, or sometimes ; however, it is promising to note that a large number of participants stated they may or intend to watch archery in the future. After participating in NASP, it appears that the intent to watch archery increased. It is important to follow-up next year with these participants to see if that intent has translated into action. Providing students with areas for archery programming (i.e., available on television and through web streaming) may be a useful tool to further catalyze interest in the sport. o Approximately n=1000 participants indicated that they liked or loved the NASP program. The n=46 individuals that did not like the program indicated that archery was boring,
NASP FINAL REPORT 4 archery was expensive, they didn t know where to participate in archery, and that other sports were more attractive as the reasons for not liking the program. o When asked to describe what they liked about the program, the most common responses were: the program in their school was fun, it allowed everyone to participate (unlike sports like basketball which exclude players), and can get together with friends. Similar responses were given for why participants liked the sport of archery itself. o When asked what the participants did not like about archery, the most common comments were: Cost of Participating, Lack of Local Competitions, and Lack of Local Clubs. Finding ways to reduce the initial cost of archery equipment for beginning archers, and the cost of traveling to competitions, may entice participants to remain involved. The Impact of Archery o Of the participants, 46% (n=569) owned archery equipment. Forty-four percent (n=198) purchased the equipment prior to NASP and 56% (n=251) purchased the equipment after NASP. Through additional correlational statistics, results indicated that when an individual participant liked or loved NASP they were somewhat more likely to have purchased equipment after the program. o Participants primarily purchased Easton, Genesis, and Hoyt products; with the majority of product being bows and arrows. It is clear that NASP students who participated in this questionnaire were persuaded to purchase archery equipment as a result of NASP participation. Companies like Easton, Genesis, and Hoyt can capitalize through sponsorships or perhaps supplying sample bows and arrows for students to try. This is particularly relevant since one comment regarding what students did not like about archery after the program was the cost of the sport. o The propensity to visit their local archery club after NASP was lower than their purchase of equipment. Seventy-five percent (75%; n=833) of participants indicated that they had NOT visited their local club. However, of those who had visited their club (25%, n=279), 97% indicated that they would go back to the club. Through additional correlational statistics, results indicated that when an individual liked or loved NASP they were significantly more likely to have visited their local archery club after the program. Greater connection/linkages between NASP and local area clubs (e.g., JOAD) may help potential archers locate their nearest training facility. Lack of knowledge regarding where they could shoot in their local area was also indicated as reason for not continuing
NASP FINAL REPORT 5 archery in the post-program participation phase. It appears that once they located their local area club, participants were pleased with the facility and intend to go back. o Since participating in NASP, 18% (N=200) of the participants purchased a hunting license. The largest correlation between archery and hunting was the increased interest in Other Forms of Shooting after NASP participation. A follow-up email was sent to the N=200 individuals who indicated they purchased hunting licenses since NASP. These individuals were asked, Was the NASP program directly responsible for the purchase of your hunting license? Of the N=200, only N=34 responses were received. Twenty-five (n=25) indicated that No (i.e., NASP was not the reason). Rather hunting by family and friends was the impetus for the purchase. The remaining nine (n=9) individuals indicated that Yes (i.e., NASP was the cause for the hunting license purchase). Through additional correlational statistics, results indicated that when an individual participant liked or loved NASP they were somewhat more likely to have purchased a hunting license after the program. o 82% did not know who ran their state s Fish and Wildlife association. o 90% did not know who ran their State Archery Association. These two associations could be promoted through education sessions during the NASP program to heighten awareness of other archery, shooting, and hunting opportunities. Focus Group Summary A focus group is a form of qualitative research where a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes towards a product, service, concept, advertisement, idea, program, etc. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants freely and openly talk with other group members. For NASP, we conducted 4 focus groups to allow for a richer interpretation of the quantitative (i.e., questionnaire) data and to inform the larger understanding of the breadth and depth of NASP. Sample: N=28 (17 boys; 11 girls) Grade Range: 6 12 Time: 28 34 minutes each
NASP FINAL REPORT 6 Group Group Composition #1 (NASP Conference) High School (boys / girls) #2 (NASP Conference) Middle School (girls) #3 (NASP Conference) Middle School (boys) #4 (Phoenixville Middle School, PA) Grade 6 (boys / girls) Questions gauged the relative influence of NASP and knowledge of archery: Overall, participants enjoyed the program, stating that: fun, teamwork, sharing, participation in a non-traditional activity, different forms of competition, and the individual nature of the program were particularly appealing. In terms of improving the program, the groups mentioned that more than 2 weeks should be devoted to archery and the program being after school (or before school in the case of Phoenixville) was a possible inhibitor to full student participation. Also, students mentioned that 3-D targets should be made available to the schools. o NASP should not only strive to grow the program by adding new schools but also assist schools, who have been involved in the program, by providing new equipment, instruction, and incentives for continued participation and involvement. o Also, the use of 3-D targets could catalyze interest in hunting and be a viable segue to bolstering an interest transition. When asked if they would continue archery after NASP, overwhelming responses from the KY groups were Yes. However, when the same question was posed to the Phoenixville group, the responses were mixed (e.g., availability, expensive, little knowledge of other places to shoot were all notable barriers). Many of the PA respondents felt that a lack of opportunities for continuing archery could be a primary inhibitor. The limitation is that the KY groups consisted of highly skilled, identified, successful, team archers while the PA group was a group of student (i.e., school-based) participants. o Most of the participants did mention that hunting was a primary catalyst for their continued participation in archery. However, recreational shooting would still be an outlet for continued participation. But, beyond school, continuation was not known. When asked about prior knowledge of archery before NASP, the majority of the responses indicated that some knowledge existed. This knowledge was primarily derived from parents and relatives that hunt. However, NASP was a catalyst that reinforced their interest
NASP FINAL REPORT 7 in archery. Clearly, an advantage could be gained by marketing the program to younger generations of students. In trying to establish a link between NASP and fish and wildlife agencies, it was apparent that (currently) little links exist. The vast majority of responses indicated that NASP coaches simply teach archery basics (and the associated curriculum) and make little effort to help students connect with external agencies. o We suggest that in order to grow archery and better establish this link, guest speakers and programmatic changes to incorporate more information for students should be integrated. When asked how well the students knew their local archery club, responses were again mixed. For the KY group, all the participants knew about the local club but not all of them used the club. For the PA group, several of the respondents knew about the local archery club but only one of the female respondents actually used the local club. o We suggest that coaches and parents be educated about the local clubs (i.e., perhaps through various partnership opportunities) to extend the breadth of archery among populations (beyond just the competitive) to inculcate recreational participant interest. Finally, when asked about family involvement in archery, many respondents noted that family influence was either a primary enabler or deterrent for continued participation. For the enablers, this was indicated by other family members being involved with hunting but not particularly bow hunting. The deterrent theme manifested because many family members did not hunt or shoot in any other capacities. o We suggest that having a parent s day or some other form of access to NASP would likely help the parents better understand archery and perhaps gain deeper insights into the benefits and long-term participation opportunities available.
NASP FINAL REPORT 8 In-Depth NASP Discussion Exemplary FG Quotes: 1. What do you like about NASP? o The program is fun and it helps you meet new kids and participate in an activity that everyone can do I think I can do it my whole life o I really enjoy the team competition but also the competition with myself I mean, I can get better each time I shoot and that s pretty cool o I see it as a sense of community with my teammates. Kind of like other team sports but this is more informal and more fun o I like the physical part of archery. The first time, I could barely get the string back or the arrow to the target but then I got better and felt like I was stronger 2. What would make you like NASP better? o More 3-D targets I like shooting the animals o More time in school. We only shoot for a few weeks and I really would like to do it more. Also, putting it in the PE class during school would be cool o I wish I knew more about going hunting. I think since I am getting better, I might enjoy going hunting. Maybe my teachers could bring in some hunters to talk about to get us more interested 3. Will you continue archery after NASP? Why? o Yes, I love it and love the competitions o Probably, I mean, if there are competitions, other than that, I don t think I will just shoot for fun o I don t know because I know that NASP is only in the middle school and I won t be able to do it in high school o Probably not, since my parents don t hunt or shoot and they are not really that into me doing it o Maybe, if I knew where to shoot
NASP FINAL REPORT 9 4. If you re not going to continue archery after NASP, why not? o I don t know where to shoot arrows and I don t really hunt so I don t know o The equipment is expensive and my parents don t do it o Maybe, I mean if I knew where and how to keep doing it, all I know is that it is fun but we only do it for a little while in school. Maybe if it were a sport in high school, I might try and keep doing it 5. Has participation in NASP caused you to be interested in other shooting sports? If so, which sports? o Not really. I don t really like hunting and my family is against it. Maybe if there were more competition where I could see my friends and meet other students, then maybe o No, I mean that they [the coach] only concentrate on the rules and basic stuff with shooting. They don t talk about other things. 6. What was your previous interest/knowledge of archery before NASP? o None really. I mean, I knew about bows and arrows from like moves and stuff but I never knew that I would do it in school. It is pretty cool that we get to do it o I knew about shooting because my dad hunts but I didn t know that you could do it just for fun and not have to hunt o I didn t have any interest but now I do. Well, I guess that I am only interested because it is something to do other than just mess around before school. We don t do it for long during the year, so maybe if it were longer than I could be more into it 7. Did NASP increase your interest/knowledge of Fish and Wildlife? o No, they don t really talk about that. I only know because I am a hunter and already knew where and how to get my license o No, but it would be a good idea to talk about during the NAAP program o Yes, because I got better at shooting and wanted to try hunting I like hinting now o No, only because it is short and the teacher only talked about the basic archery stuff. I don t think my teacher hunts so he was not interested