Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development [1 ed.] 9781443888486, 9781443885447

Citation preview

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development Edited by

Kay Biscomb, Richard Medcalf and Gerald Griggs

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development Edited by Kay Biscomb, Richard Medcalf and Gerald Griggs This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Kay Biscomb, Richard Medcalf, Gerald Griggs and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8544-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8544-7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures .........................................................................vii Foreword ................................................................................................. viii Preface ......................................................................................................... x List of Abbreviations .................................................................................. xi Chapter One ................................................................................................. 1 Opportunity through Sport Richard Medcalf and Kay Biscomb Chapter Two ................................................................................................ 9 “I’m sure that it does filter through to some degree but I wouldn’t say that I’ve ever noticed it”: Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment Janine Partington and Stephen Robson Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 25 The Value of Education through Sport: A Case Study of the Use of Sport in Disadvantaged Communities Simon Kirkland, Jobeth Bastable and Lisa West Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 38 Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management? Jane Booth Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 53 Engaging Students in University Sport: Successes and Challenges from the Deliverers’ Perspective Julie Brunton and Jim McKenna

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 70 An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use and its Influence on their Physical Activity Barbara Bútor, Mihály Zsiros, Ágnes Kokovay and Zsuzsa Galloway Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 83 Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer Jade Jackson Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 104 “Nobody Knew What to Do”: Local Indifference and National Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved Marc Keech and Jo Buckley Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 119 Small is Beautiful? Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development Barbara Bell Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 138 Community Development through Sport and Sports Development in the Community: A Legacy Opportunity for All Geoff Thompson Contributors ............................................................................................. 154 Index ........................................................................................................ 160

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1 - Sampling frame .......................................................................... 14 Table 2 - Partnerships in sport development delivery ............................... 27 Table 3 - Outputs achieved ........................................................................ 33 Table 4 - Eight reasons for failure and eight stages for change ................. 45 Table 5 - Leverage activities for benefits ................................................ 127 Table 6: Thematic analysis ...................................................................... 127 Table 7- Areas and factors for potential social impact of sport ............... 149 Table 8 - Categories of Olympic and Commonwealth sports with “very high” and “high” potential for social impact ............................ 150

Figure 1- Activities Hungarian participants are engaged in ...................... 74 Figure 2 - Activities UK participants are engaged in ................................ 75 Figure 3 - When participants took up the activity they partake in. ............ 75 Figure 4 - Frequency of activity ................................................................ 76 Figure 5 - What affects your participation? ............................................... 77 Figure 6 - Where do you gather information about options available?...... 79 Figure 7 - PGTC model for CE ............................................................... 131

FOREWORD

It gives me great pleasure to introduce this publication, which represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work by colleagues at the University of Wolverhampton in hosting the 2014 European Sports Development Network (ESDN) conference. The ESDN’s vision is to help to create an environment where sports policies, programs and practices are positively influenced by innovative, research-informed insight and collaborations between academics and practitioners. Inspired by this vision, our goal is to grow our reputation and profile as a credible academic and professional network. This involves working collaboratively with UK and European partners in the following areas: x Knowledge exchange and critical debate x Constructive challenge of traditional thinking, boundaries, and practice x Offering innovative ideas and solutions x Collaborative research projects and funding bids x Providing a regular program of conferences, seminars and events x Facilitating learning from best practice x Developing new learning and teaching resources, programs and initiatives x Acting as a consultative and advisory body as and when required x Networking, advocacy and influencing The papers contained herein closely reflect the remit and purpose of the ESDN in that they come from a variety of academics and sport practitioners. We place equal value on both constituencies - our primary concern is that these relationships are genuinely collaborative, mutually beneficial, and that, over time, they provide a catalyst for positive change by influencing both policy and practice.

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

ix

There are many interesting insights contained within this publication I invite you to consider them carefully and reflect upon the possible implications for your own professional practice. Chris Cutforth Chair, European Sports Development Network

PREFACE

The European Sport Development Network has held annual conferences since 2009. In 2014, the University of Wolverhampton hosted “ESDN2014 – Opportunity through Sport”. This book reflects a small selection of the contents of that conference. Hosted by the University’s Institute of Sport, ESDN2014 reflected the work of all stakeholders working in the field of sports development, and thus importantly was delivered in partnership with the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the Black Country BeActive Partnership, and Sport4Life UK. The conference adopted the theme of ‘opportunity through sport’, to reflect the nature and breadth of outcomes which are possible through active participation in sport and in recognition of the University of Wolverhampton being considered as the ‘University of Opportunity’. Twenty-four papers were presented in themed sessions, ranging from policy and practice, community, health, and legacy. Contributions were made from academics, practitioners, policy makers, and senior managers from the third sector. The keynote address was given by Ruth Holdaway, CEO of Women in Sport, who presented data demonstrating the complexity of the factors that influence women’s and girls’ participation in sport. The conference was concluded by a Sport and Recreation Alliance panel discussion entitled ‘A sporting manifesto for 2015’, which considered the political landscape of sport, in mind of the upcoming General Election in the United Kingdom. You can find more information about the conference at its website, www.wlv.ac.uk/esdn2014, or by searching on Twitter for #ESDN2014. Dr Richard Medcalf ESDN2014 Conference Chair

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

APSE – Association of Public Service Excellence AUP – Active Universities Partnership BCC – Black Country Consortium BCiM – The Black County in Motion BICCS – Birmingham Inner City Coaching Scheme CASE – Culture and Sport Evidence Program CCPR – Central Council for Physical Recreation CE – Cheshire East CIC – Community Interest Company CMO – From Pawson & Tilley’s (1997) theory of ‘Realistic Evaluation’ where: C (context) + M (mechanism) = O (outcome) and which suggests that causal outcomes follow from mechanisms acting in context. CONCACAF – Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football CRB – Criminal Records Bureau CSNs – Community Sports Networks CSD – Community Sport Development CWG – Commonwealth Games DCMS – Department for Culture, Media and Sport DfE – Department for Education DfES – Department for Education and Science ESDN – European Sport Development Network E-V-R – environment – values - resources FC – Football Club FE – Further Education FIFA - Fédération Internationale de Football Association FRSA – Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce GB – Great Britain HE – Higher Education HEAT – Health Economics Assessment Tool HESPSS - Higher Education Sport Participation and Satisfaction Survey HQ – Head quarters HU – Hungary

xii

List of Abbreviations

ICT – Information communications technology ID – Identification IOC – International Olympic Committee IT – Information technology KPI – Key performance indicator LA – Los Angeles LEAP – Legacy Evaluation Action Plan LOCOG – London Olympic Organising Committee LSC – Learning and Skills Council MBA – Master Business Administration MBC – Metropolitan Borough Council MBE – Member of the British Empire MMU – Manchester Metropolitan University MMUC/CE – Manchester Metropolitan University Consortium/Cheshire East MMUCE – Manchester Metropolitan University Cheshire East MP – Member of Parliament MSAR – Moss Side Amateur Reserves NGB – National Governing Body NW – North West NWDA – North West Development Agency OBE – Order of the British Empire PA – Physical activity PAT 10 – Policy in Action Team 10 PDM – Partnership Development Manager PE – Physical education PESS – Physical Education and School Sport PESSCL – Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links strategy PESSYP – PE and Sport Strategy for Young People PESTLE – Political, economic, social, technological, legal, economic PFA – Professional Footballers Association PGTC – Pre Games Training Camps PhD – Doctor of Philosophy PLT – Primary Link Teacher RFU – Rugby Football Union Rt. Hon. – Right Honourable SDO – Sport Development Officer SE – Sport England SSCo – School Sport Co-ordinator SSPs – School Sport Partnerships SSS – Sport Science Support

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

STEEPLE – Social, technological, economic, environmental, political, legal, ethical SZIE - Szent István Egyetem UCLAN – University of Central Lancashire UEFA – Union of European Football Associations UK – United Kingdom UN – United Nations UN NGO – United Nations Non-Governmental Organisation UoW – University of Wolverhampton VSO – Voluntary Service Overseas WHO – World Health Organisation YST – Youth Sport Trust

xiii

CHAPTER ONE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH SPORT RICHARD MEDCALF AND KAY BISCOMB

What is Sport Development? Sport can create opportunities It is not uncommon to hear evangelical accounts of the perceived positive outcomes of participation in sport. Sport is often deemed to provide the opportunity for friendship, challenge, and betterment. In addition to the many therapeutic individual outcomes of participation in sport (in any number of domains (physical, social, affective, cognitive)), it has long been apparent that sport can stimulate outcomes beyond the individual. Sport can be a vehicle to achieve social good (see Collins 2010). Engagement in sport is often seen as a catalyst for opportunities for communities to interact and for nations to meet. Sport is now commonly considered to have the potential to make a contribution to a range of wider social objectives. However, participation in sport does not happen in a social vacuum. In the same way that we can cite many positive outcomes that are possible through engagement with sport, we must also acknowledge the potential for negative experiences in and through sport. Sport’s social and commercial power makes it a potentially potent force, both for good and for bad (Jarvie and Thornton 2012, 4).

Sport can divide us Sport celebrates the mastery of an opponent, and the exertion of effort. Consequently, it can provoke conflict amongst both individuals and communities. There are innumerable occasions that evidence how sport can construct barriers between individuals and communities, and thus can

2

Chapter One

often cause a challenge to our relationships. Engagement in sport can exacerbate social tensions and divide communities (see, for example, Sugden and Bairner 2007). Sport often offers a reward for assertion and aggression in a way that many would find uncomfortable. It is frequently the very nature of sport that stops some people from participating. There is often a polemic response to sport that is indicative of the way in which engagement in sporting activities ranges from those who are impassioned activists for sport, to those who choose not to engage on any level. ‘Sport’ is a contested term which can mean different things to different people. The nature of sport, and the values which are inherent within participation, are reflective of the rich and varied experiences which participation can bring. In either respect, sport transcends our lives; participation in sport is most commonly a bi-product of very many relationships. ‘Sport development’ is a contested term, with little consensus about its precise nature and purpose (Bramham and Hylton 2008). The conceptualisation of the term has changed over time, and the way in which this descriptor is used continues to evolve. Since the birth of sport development in the 1970s/80s, a variety of models and/or conceptual frameworks have been used by different organisations in different contexts. The European Sport Development Network has adopted a broad and inclusive conceptualisation that recognises the contributions of physical activity and health professionals, as well as the disciplines of policy and management. There is broad agreement that sport development is an umbrella term, which captures many different forms of sport promotion; ranging from opportunities that are as varied as developing fundamental movement skills in young people, to the way in which sport is used to bridge divides created by gang cultures in inner city environments. Ultimately, sport development is concerned with getting more people to play sport, for various reasons and in various ways. “Those engaging in sports development must be in the business of devising better and more effective ways of promoting interest, participation or performance in sport” (Bramham and Hylton 2008, 4)

The term sport development is a very difficult one to define, as it may apply to the breadth of conceptual theory through policy to actual work being undertaken (Houlihan and White 2002). It should be noted that the authors within this book use the term sport development in a number of

Opportunity through Sport

3

possible ways, but in the majority of cases it refers to the work that is being undertaken in our communities. The authors within this book can be categorised as falling into two camps: those whose focus centres on the development of sport (such as Bell, Keech, Brunton, Galloway, Booth and Partington), in contrast to those whose work is more aligned to development through sport (Kirkland, Jackson and Thompson) (Houlihan and White 2002). In some cases, the concept of sport development is applied to existing structures, such as universities, school sport partnerships and pre-games training camps, and as such, adopts the models of sport development which are promoted by organisations like Sport England and the International Olympic Committee (see Brunton, Keech and Bell). In other cases, sport development is considered in terms of the outreach work undertaken by practitioners (see Kirkland et al.), and even in some cases reflects the relationship between sport development and the lived experience (see Booth and Thompson). The range of this application of sport development to the examples within the book illustrates the breadth of the term and the lack of consensus in our collective use.

Landmarks in Sport Development Sport policy is now a “politically salient, cross departmental policy area” (Philpotts et al. 2008, 269) which governments are now commonly using as an “extremely malleable resource to achieve a wide variety of domestic and international goals” (Houlihan and Green 2009, 3). The way in which sport policy has an influence upon many parts of Government is testament to the fact that sport is pervasive in our lives. It features in our upbringing, our education, our families, and our friendships. For many people, participation in sport is a central tenant to their identity. For some it is not – hence the perceived need for sport development. Political involvement from the central government in sport policy and legislation was traditionally characterised by a laissez-faire approach, with early involvement extending only to permissive legislation. Changes in this approach can be seen from the late 1950s, with the appointment of the Wolfenden Committee (1957) and its subsequent report (CCPR 1960), consideration of a Minister for Sport, and finally a separation from the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) into the Sports Council by 1972. This was the first meaningful recognition of sport development at a governmental level, and marked the onset of a model of sport development that was aimed primarily on “sport for all”, and then on facility provision. It is noted that the first official use of the term emerged in 1965 with the

4

Chapter One

early discourse about the establishment of the Sports Council (Houlihan and White 2002). Once these had been developed and built, notions of sport development expanded beyond the physical environment into the challenge of existing power relations, and principles of addressing the needs of target groups emerged in the early 1980s. The initial target groups identified by the Sports Council were women, young people and the older community (50+) during a time when the shift was moving towards viewing sport as a tool in addressing power imbalances. Moves within the 1990s demonstrated that sport could be viewed as a mechanism for greater social good, with the promotion of sport in neighbourhood renewal (PAT 10 1999) and the prevention of criminal behaviour, such as the Positive Futures program, funded by the Home Office. The most recent shift, occurring in the light of contemporary local government cuts, has seen sport development become more likely to be delivered in partnership through a variety of agencies working collaboratively. Traditionally, sport development schemes were built with the intention of ensuring a greater provision for sport and increasing participation and engagement for all parts of society. The development of coaching and ancillary processes were vital to this. Coalter (2007) describes such an approach as ‘sport plus’ – with an emphasis on traditional sport development objectives of long-term participation in sport. More commonly seen in contemporary sport development is the focus upon outcomes that are separate to pure sporting benefits. Coalter (2007) gives this the label of ‘plus sport’ where sport is seen as a diversionary tool – sport acts as the hook to support the delivery of desired personal and political outcomes. Participation in sport through sport development activities is commonly now often built around (and justified by) a form of community or social benefit. “It is clear that while ‘sport’ may be particularly helpful in attracting young people considered vulnerable or ‘at risk’ of committing crime and using illegal drugs, the provision of sport on its own is not sufficient to achieve the desired outcomes of the program” (Bloyce and Smith 2010, 94)

Social, educational or health goals are frequently the focus of sport development schemes - the processes associated with sport are a useful mechanism (i.e. team building) and immediate outcomes (for example increased self-esteem or short-term behaviour change) are key. It is these supposed outcomes that warrant the necessary funding, often from the public sector purse.

Opportunity through Sport

5

This creates a challenge. Western austerity measures that are the result of the most recent global financial crises have commonly resulted in a reduction in disposable income. A dilution of public sector provision of leisure services (and thus sports development) further exacerbates this reduction in opportunity, and is driving people towards spending more of their leisure time in the home environment. In terms of sport development provision, the state is doing less than ever to provide opportunities for all of society. The investment of public funds requires a research informed acknowledgement of effectiveness that is sometimes lacking from the complex social process of participation in sport. In spite of this challenge, “there remains an increased emphasis on outcomes and effectiveness, and an aspiration to base policy and practice on robust evidence” (Coalter 2007, 1). To maintain the political and social will for sport requires a persuasive justification of its merits and outcomes. Measuring outcomes and impact in sport is inherently fraught with challenge. The drive towards insight in sport development (the way in which actions are informed by knowledge of outcomes) is attempting to redress this issue.

Current Issues in Sport Development The external constraints placed upon the sports industry (and the world of sport development) create challenge and restrict opportunity. The landscape of sport, and the position of sport development within this, is changing. The rise of consumerism and a market-led economy are driving patterns of participation more than ever before. The experience economy drives our participation (or lack thereof) in sport, and, as such, our consumption of sport is changing with structural, political, financial, and operational implications. The drivers of change in the sports industry are many and varied, ranging from our increasingly hypokinetic lifestyles and the technology contained within them, to shifts in population demographics and the changing intergenerational participatory processes which result. Our changing leisure habits are reflective of changes to wider society – young people are now socialised into sporting experiences that are a world away from those of twenty years ago. On-going social change and changing social interactions are causing a shift in our engagement with sport. The chapters that follow in this book touch upon many of these issues. They are all written from the perspective of either academic researchers or applied practitioners working in sport development in line with the aims of

6

Chapter One

ESDN of providing a common forum to bring together research and practice. Four chapters are written from the applied practitioner perspective, five chapters emerge from academic research and one chapter is a hybrid of PhD research located within a county sports partnership. The importance of the sports club in development issues is examined in chapter two, by Janine Partington and Stephen Robson. This academic piece of research provides an update on the current situation of sports clubs, especially in terms of their partnerships with external organisations and influences with external factors. It illustrates, not surprisingly, that larger clubs are in a better position to be able to respond to their environment, whilst smaller clubs may have more critical issues, such as membership, to deal with. In chapter three, Simon Kirkland and his colleagues from Sport Structures examine three different sports programs aimed at hard to reach communities. These programs, delivered over a tenyear period within the West Midlands region, were designed to address employment issues, and their results demonstrate that between 27% and 55.7% of the participants went on into employment post-engagement with the programs. In chapter four, Jane Booth explores the difficult concept of sustainability in sports development from a practitioner perspective. In this chapter, she combines the theoretical perspective from Kurt Lewin (1940s) with her own experiences of being a coaching manager within a governing body to question the paradox of truly sustainable sports development and its impact on the role of the SDO. We see a different style of writing in this chapter, as Jane adopts a combination of the traditional academic voice alongside a more personal narrative interweaving an autoethnographic stance with her analysis. Involving and attracting university students into sport programs is different to the wider traditional community for sports development interventions. In chapter five, Julie Brunton and Jim McKenna undertake empirical research with those in an SDO role within a university setting. They identify the enablers and inhibitors of university sport, specifically in the Active Universities Project within one region of the North of England. Following on the university theme, chapter six investigates the ways in which sports and non-sports students gather digital information. Through an analysis of the ways in which university homepages direct students to physical activity Zsuzsa Galloway and her international colleagues from Hungary suggest that the information located on university homepages is a

Opportunity through Sport

7

key source of information for students who use it to inform their choices of physical activity. In chapter seven, Jade Jackson discusses the impact of the volunteer on the delivery of sport and physical activity interventions. Undertaking research within a County Sports Partnership, she explores the concept of hard to reach communities, their significant role in developing sport for a health agenda in some of the deprived areas in the West Midlands, and the challenges faced by volunteers in that project. In chapter eight, Marc Keech and Jo Buckley present another empirical study based on their research, covering the impact of the dissolution of the School Sport Partnerships (SSPs). Using a case study from one medium-sized town which had overlapping SSPs borders, this chapter examines the experience of loss from the changes and comments on the distrust, uncertainty, loss of communication between school levels and the coalition disregard for the PE and sport partnership working established by the previous government. Barbara Bell’s evaluation of the legacy of a pre-games training camp for visiting Oceania teams for London 2012 appears in chapter nine. Using data collected via interviews with a range of participants involved in the training camp, the results indicate that relationships between the visitors and local clubs and communities were positive during the visit, and helped to enhance perceptions of Olympic links. Beyond the visit, however, it has been difficult to sustain these relationships in any meaningful way. Following on the Olympic theme, in the final chapter, chapter ten, Geoff Thompson presents his overview of the three case studies from his experiences: Manchester 2002, London 2012, and Soccerwise, also based in Manchester. His report provides a historical overview of his work in sport development through the establishment of the Youth Charter. The world of sport development is continually faced with changing political landscapes that over time result in a cyclical approach to sports policy and resourcing. Such change is a challenge for a sport development industry which is constantly in a state of flux. There is a constant need to devise better and more effective ways of promoting interest, participation, or performance in sport. We hope that the contents of this book provide the framework for critical thought regarding sport development in its current guise, and its future direction of travel.

8

Chapter One

References Bloyce, Daniel., and Andy Smith. 2010. Sport Development and Policy – an introduction. London: Routledge. Bramham, Peter., and Kevin Hylton. 2008. “Introduction”. In Sports Development: policy, process and practice (Second Edition), edited by Peter Branham, Kevin Hylton and Dave Jackson, 1-9. London: Routledge CCPR. 1960. Sport and the community - the report of the Wolfenden committee on sport 1960. London: CCPR Coalter, Fred. 2007. A wider social role for sport; who’s keeping the score? London: Routledge Collins, Mike. 2010. “From ‘sport for good’ to ‘sport for sport’s sake’ – not a good move for sports development in England?” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2(3):367-379 Houlihan, Barry., and Mick Green. 2009. “Modernisation and sport: The reform of Sport England and UK Sport”. Public Administration 87(3): 678–698. Houlihan, Barry., and Anita White. 2002. The politics of sport development. The development of sport or the development through sport. London: Routledge. Jarvie, Grant., and James Thornton. 2012. Sport, Culture and Society; an introduction (second edition). London: Routledge PAT 10. 1999. National strategy for neighbourhood renewal: Policy in Action Team Audit: Report of the Policy in Action Team 10 Contribution of Sport and the Arts. London: DCMS Phillpots, Lesley., Jonathan Grix., and Tom Quarmby. 2010. “Centralised grassroots sport policy and new governance: a case study of county sports partnerships in the UK – unpacking the paradox”. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46(3):265-281 Sugden, J. and Bairner, A. (2007). “Ma, there’s a helicopter on the pitch!” Sport, Leisure, and the State in Northern Ireland. In ‘The Sports Studies Reader’ (edited by Tomlinson, A.), pp. 130-135, London: Routledge

CHAPTER TWO “I’M SURE THAT IT DOES FILTER THROUGH TO SOME DEGREE BUT I WOULDN’T SAY THAT I’VE EVER NOTICED IT”: VOLUNTARY SPORTS CLUBS AND THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT JANINE PARTINGTON AND STEPHEN ROBSON

Introduction Substantial research has been undertaken in recent years on voluntary sports clubs in terms of their structure, scope, and governance arrangements (for example, Nichols et al. 2005; Taylor, Barrett and Nichols 2009; May, Harris and Collins 2013), the main challenges they face in terms of maintaining the day-to-day functions of the organisation and their role as policy implementers (for example Harris, Mori and Collins 2009; Nichols 2013). There has also been a growing focus on how sports organisations analyse and manage their external environments (Slack and Parent 2006; King 2013). This is increasingly important to voluntary sports clubs in light of shifting policy objectives and the accompanying focus on legacy, as well as the impact of broader public sector cuts and the economic downturn on themselves and their key partners. Houlihan (2013) contends that the setting of strategic goals and coordination of resources, along with managing the organisation’s relationship with its environment, are the two key elements of successful management. As such, for voluntary sports clubs to function effectively, they need to have an awareness of factors outside the boundaries of the club that could impact on the achievement of their objectives. As Houlihan (2013, 17) argues, factors in the external environment will affect “all organisations, whether they are in the public, not for profit or commercial sectors”, and irrespective of their size.

10

Chapter Two

It is also an apt time to consider the impact of broader social and cultural factors on the work of voluntary sports clubs. For those clubs that have been established for a number of years, the social environment in which they operate will have changed significantly, both in terms of demographics (for example increasing ethnic diversity), rising levels of inequality and changing cultural trends (for example the shift in popularity from 11-a-side football to smaller-sized versions of the game). This piece of research sought to provide insight into how voluntary sports clubs respond to changes in their external environments, with a specific focus on the impact of political, economic, and social factors, and the impact on the way that clubs operate. Research undertaken by Thibault, Frisby and Kikulis (1999) found that a common response to political, economic and social pressures amongst sports organisations was to form partnerships and create resource dependencies, something that is very much evident in the sport development arena. In addition, Slack and Parent (2006) highlight alternative responses, including changing the internal structures of organisations and creating a niche for the organisation to operate in, in order to differentiate it from competitors. Drawing upon semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of voluntary sports clubs in the North of England, and utilising strategic management theories of organisation-environment relations, this research examines the current management issues facing clubs, specifically focusing on how they identify and respond to opportunities and threats from the external environment.

The external environment for sports organisations Everything that surrounds a system (such as a sports organisation) can be considered part of its external environment (Palmer and Hartley 2012). This system can be influenced by a range of phenomena or elements in its environment, and whilst some of these elements may seem inconsequential today, they could be significant in future years. Henry (2011) discusses the concept of discontinuities, fractures and tipping points; crises that can have a fundamental effect on the organisation’s prosperity and even survival. These are often foreshadowed by weak signals – early and often vague indications of changes to come (Holopainen and Toivonen 2012). The test of a good manager is to be able to read the environment and to understand how the elements may impact upon the organisation, tuning into weak signals as early as possible in order not to get caught out. As Tucker and Sullivan (2013) and many others remind us, organisations in

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

11

the broader sport development domain have not always kept abreast of the changes occurring around them. Voluntary sector sports clubs are no less susceptible to the caprices of the external environment than the sportswear manufacturers, international federations, and others we are perhaps more accustomed to reading about in sport management literature. Slack and Parent (2006, 5) define a sport organisation as: … a social entity involved in the sport industry; it is goal-directed, with a consciously structured activity system and relatively identifiable boundaries

This is all encompassing and highlights the inextricable link between the internal and external organisational environments. Thus it is necessary to consider the nature of the external forces that those leading sports clubs cannot directly control, but cannot afford to ignore. Amongst many others, Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) offer a model of the wider forces that impact upon the organisation, stressing their interrelatedness. There are numerous competing versions of this model, but they overlap appreciably. PESTLE (see, for instance, Johnson, Whittington and Scholes 2011) is possibly the most popular characterisation of the external environment, focusing on the political, economic, social, technological, legal/legislative, and environmental/physical forces acting upon the organisation. Political changes, for instance, at local and national level, can have a significant bearing on the future of the voluntary sports club. The reader will be familiar with the political decision to remove funding for School Sport Partnerships (Conn 2013), and the resulting impact upon school-club links. To use Henry’s nomenclature, this was a discontinuity that very few had foreseen, but it provided a clue as to the future direction of the 2010-2015 Con-Lib coalition government. Factors in the PESTLE model are not mutually exclusive; for example, a number of voluntary sports clubs face the threat of losing discretionary rate relief (GOV.UK 2014) as local authorities ponder swinging budget reductions. Taken together, therefore, changes in the external environment lead to opportunities and threats, making it essential that managers, or, in the case of this research, those with management responsibilities within voluntary sports clubs, analyse their environments carefully in order to anticipate and, where possible, influence environmental change (Johnson, Whittington and Scholes 2011). The next section examines best practice in

12

Chapter Two

scanning the external environment and managing relations with this complex and challenging realm.

Managing interactions with the external environment For Pitt and Koufopoulos (2012), the ability to imagine or predict possible futures, and subsequently reduce uncertainty, is a pivotal aspect of the strategic manager’s toolkit. Environmental scanning can help to identify and predict changes in the environment, such as Henry’s (2011) discontinuities or tipping points. If performed effectively, such analysis can provide an organisation with a competitive advantage (seizing upon opportunities), or avert possible disaster (staving off threats). Sports organisations’ strategic thinking and planning can be refined to maximise opportunities and minimise threats. The aforementioned PESTLE model or one of its variants such as STEEPLE (social, technological, economic, environmental, political, legal and ethical) (see Tucker and Sullivan 2013) provides a framework for a comprehensive assessment of the current and future state of what is “out there”. A common misconception amongst public and voluntary sector sport organisations is that such an analysis should only be conducted at the finding out phase of a strategy cycle. Such a PESTLE exercise, perhaps undertaken on a three-or five-yearly basis, is extremely time-and resource-intensive. It also provides a snapshot in time of something that, as has been discussed, is ever-changing. If the PESTLE analysis is not regularly updated, it quickly loses its currency. The current study sought to appreciate sports clubs’ use of environmental analysis, however informal, and regardless of whether it was understood as an activity captured in academic literature. Just as important as monitoring the external environment is the voluntary sector sports club’s ability to make use of the information. Literature emphasises the inseparability of the link between internal (e.g. culture, structure, resources), and external environments (see, for instance Thompson and Martin’s (2010) E-V-R congruence model). Discoveries of weak signals might precipitate internal changes as a means of gearing up for external fluctuations. Reeves and Deimler (2011, 137-8) remind us of the importance of adaptation, with regard to the notion of competitive advantage: In order to adapt, a company must have its antennae tuned to signals of change from the external environment, decode them, and quickly act to refine or reinvent its business model and even reshape the information landscape of its industry.

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

13

Officials of many voluntary sports clubs might struggle to identify with terms such as company, business model and industry (although we argue that these terms have corollaries in the voluntary sport sector) but they will certainly be familiar with the notion of adapt and survive. Literature offers us numerous theoretical models relating to organisation-environment relations. Contingency theory (that managers should organise as a response to the demands of the environment) is one of the principal disciplines, and includes institutional theory, population ecology and resource dependence (see, for instance, Hatch and Cunliffe 2006). In institutional theory, organisations shape their outward appearances to suit external demands. The institutional environment represents the shared values of society, to which organisations must conform in order to legitimise the organisation. The current study strove to establish whether sports clubs were engaged in this kind of behaviour, and if so, at what cost to their traditions and identities. The population ecology perspective characterises organisations as competing in a limited resource pool, and will be instinctively familiar to those managing sports clubs. A Darwinian survival of the fittest state is proposed, and ecological niches are examined. We were interested to learn how acutely aware sports clubs were of the resource pools available to them, and to what extent were they in any condition to compete? Finally, resource dependence extends this analogy and assumes that organisations are controlled by their environments. The level of dependency can be assessed and smart managers in resource-hungry organisations can seek to develop counter-dependencies. For example, were sports clubs exploiting their unique ability to deliver funding bodies’ mass participation and talent development objectives? Of course, detecting the aforementioned weak signals that signpost changes in the environment might be an unattainable luxury for the majority of the volunteer workforce engaged in delivering the bulk of grassroots sport in England (Sport England 2014b). This is an iterative activity requiring constant attention. It was therefore of interest to explore the realities of looking outward at all when one’s time is already subject to multiple demands, let alone being able to meaningfully reconfigure the sports club to address opportunities and threats. The next section outlines the methodological approach taken to addressing these questions.

Chapter Two

14

Methodological approach The research was undertaken by conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with senior representatives of voluntary sports clubs from the North of England. The geographical boundaries of the study were chosen due to the researchers’ past and present professional links across this area. This provided benefits in terms of access to the research setting, but more importantly for this study, a good understanding of the external environment in which clubs were operating (for example local politics and demographics). Clubs were chosen based on their fit within a sampling framework created for the study that aimed to reflect the diversity of voluntary sports clubs that exist across England. For the purposes of this study, a definition of a voluntary sports club was identified, using a combination of Slack and Parent’s (2006, 5) characterisation of a sports organisation, and the work of Nichols (2013), who identifies sports clubs as membership associations run by volunteers, ranging from single competitive teams to those clubs with multiple teams. He also highlights differences between formal, semi-formal and informal clubs. As such, the sampling frame used for this study attempted to secure involvement from clubs representing this range of typologies, as shown in figure one below. In addition to those criteria represented on the frame, efforts were made to ensure that the clubs represented different sports and were drawn from different areas across the North of England (in total, the study utilised clubs from eight different local authority areas). Table 1 - sampling frame New club (established within the last five years)

Established club (in existence for over five years)

Mainstream / traditional sport

Girls’ football club Rugby league club Athletics club Netball club

Tennis club Junior football club Swimming club Cricket club Hockey club

Minority sport

Handball club Badminton club Table tennis club BMX club

Archery club Rowing club Cycling club Gymnastics club

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

15

A semi-structured interview lasting approximately 45 minutes was conducted and recorded with a senior representative from each club (for example the chair or the secretary). Semi-structured interviews were used in order to allow the collection of rich data on each club's interactions with the external environment, and to provide the flexibility to investigate emerging themes and topics of interest. As Long (2013) argues, despite offering the potential to involve more subjects, questionnaires are often too rigid to provide this flexibility, and would not have enabled the level of detail needed to assess each club’s awareness of political, economic and social influences, or how they dealt with them. Once conducted, each interview was transcribed, and then analysed in a two-stage process. The first stage involved identifying examples of opportunities and threats accommodated within the PESTLE framework introduced earlier in this paper. The second stage involved looking at how clubs managed these opportunities and threats (for example looking for examples of resource dependencies).

Findings Clubs and their external environments: overview Subsequent sections of the paper give a more detailed insight into the political, economic and social facets of PESTLE. Here, we briefly examine voluntary sports clubs’ overall approach to interactions with the external environment. As alluded to earlier, the study generated the unsurprising finding that most officials do not scan the external environment, but some had an awareness of how factors within it could impact on their clubs. Perhaps self-evidently, clubs were at an advantage that had officials with professional roles that brought them into contact with PESTLE factors, especially the political arena. A large, junior football club led by a physical education teacher was able to keep one step ahead of the competition in terms of aligning club activities, with governing body policy and strategy. Likewise, a council officer involved in housing policy and strategy in a neighbouring district was in a position of influence in a sizeable cricket club, and therefore able to anticipate developments and circumvent what was seen as minimal local authority support. In crude terms, larger clubs (in terms of volunteer and committee infrastructure) do take action to maximise opportunities in the microenvironment, the immediate sector within which they operate (see Hatch

16

Chapter Two

and Cunliffe 2006). Internal reconfiguration is likewise driven by more local circumstances. For example the chair of the large girls’ football club stated: As it stands, I couldn’t be more happy with the structure that we’ve finally got in place, people overseeing certain sections and me only dealing with four or five people, rather than a hundred and five people on a daily or a weekly basis…

This was precipitated by the club growing (in terms of number of teams) at a faster rate than it was able to keep pace with. The internal reorganisation was predominantly designed to maintain core business, with limited attention to enhancing the club’s strategic fit with its wider environment. Other clubs are often oblivious to the potential impact of changes in the macro (external) environment (and very slow to react to them). In many cases, key contemporary policy developments such as the London 2012 legacy aspiration and the government’s Creating a Sporting Habit for Life (DCMS 2012) campaign are not seen as important or relevant on the ground. The feeling of being left to one’s own devices was prevalent, especially amongst smaller clubs with less structured relationships with national governing bodies. Additionally there is little evidence of clubs taking specific action to minimise threats in either the micro or macro environment, for instance, identifying discontinuities and weak signals (Henry 2011). Again the smaller clubs are particularly exposed to change and uncertainty. Ultimately, clubs that stumbled upon opportunities made some of the greatest gains encountered in the research. Sull (2005 124) suggests that this readiness to seize upon opportunities can be thought of as “active waiting”.

Political factors Generic PESTLE analysis examines macro-political issues, as well as local concerns. UK central government is now run according to fixed-term parliaments of five years’ duration (Parliament UK 2014) whilst the local government political cycle is one of four years. In larger local authorities, elections are held every two years, with half of the seats contested per election. Consequently, the political landscape is ever shifting, and tensions are evident between national policy determined by one political group, and local priorities established by another. Thus sports clubs reported that public sector cuts and the accompanying changes to sport

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

17

policy presented the greatest politically derived challenges. For instance, a tennis club official reported that the club’s stiffest challenge of recent times was the loss of the local School Sport Partnership, and the resulting damage to the district support network. The findings of this small study hint at bewilderment with national sport policy and a sense that government and community sport delivery mechanisms are largely detached. As one club chairperson noted: I’m sure that [national policy] does filter through to some degree, but I wouldn’t say that I’ve ever noticed it. Clubs’ responses to political challenges reveal impressive levels of creativity and entrepreneurialism that might be described as political savvy. Some have adopted a commercial approach, for example selling coaching services to schools (primary schools in particular often find it difficult to deliver the physical education curriculum from within). Others talked of applying for and securing quality standards such as Clubmark, stating it gets you recognised and you get a lot of support [from the national governing body]… invitations to ‘think-tanks’ and to seminars and workshops. The tennis club demonstrated political opportunism when the local authority was seeking to divest itself of an empty plot of land across the street from the club’s headquarters: So we put in and just said ‘Look, if nobody else wants the site can we have it for tennis?’ and we were actually successful in that, so we’ve got four courts across the road on a 50-year peppercorn rent, so that’s excellent for us.

The same club has influenced the local, political process to its advantage: We were instrumental in starting what we call the… Tennis Action Group, which basically brings together the local council, the schools, the national governing body, the two clubs that we’ve got in town, the 6th Form College and… College of Further Education, and we have meetings on that about every six weeks, and we pull together tennis programs…

This entrepreneurial behaviour connects to the central tenets of population ecology, with clubs looking for a competitive advantage (Porter 2008), and ways of differentiating themselves from competitors in order to attract resources. Given the vagaries of the broader political system, it seems unlikely that the overwhelming majority of sports clubs will be able to detect weak signals and prepare meaningfully for major shocks from the

18

Chapter Two

external environment, so controlling the controllable at a local level will continue to be the expedient way to proceed.

Economic factors Unsurprisingly, one of the main threats identified by most clubs was a reduction in the availability of funding and grants from key partner organisations such as local authorities and governing bodies. Several clubs also expressed concern at the rising cost of facility hire (particularly those clubs who did not own their own premises and were reliant on leases from local authorities or other organisations). The chair and secretary of a small badminton club provided an illustration of how cuts to public services have started to have a knock-on impact on voluntary sports clubs. In this case, the sport development team within their local authority had been forced to charge voluntary sports clubs for the support of a sport development officer, and the cost of hiring courts within local authority facilities had increased significantly: I feel as if the biggest challenge is going to be the cost of the courts… because it’s getting more and more expensive… We are struggling to finance it.

Other clubs talked about similar knock-on impacts of the public sector cuts, such as a decrease in quality of the facilities they leased or hired from local authorities, for example the chairman of the junior football club stated you are playing on pitches that are mud-heaps because the council cannot afford to maintain them. Most clubs affected in this way appeared determined not to pass on rising costs to their members, with several adopting entrepreneurial approaches to raising funds to pay for these increases in costs instead. The chairman of a swimming club described the establishment of a schools’ swimming program (building on opportunities offered by swimming being part of the national curriculum for physical education), in order to cover running costs for their facility (an ex-local authority swimming pool) and the employment of a full-time swimming coach. In addition, the secretary of the archery club described the development of a highly lucrative have a go program that was fully booked until March 2015 as being pivotal in enabling the club to expand and improve its facilities. As stated earlier, Reeves and Deimler (2011) argue that the ability to be ‘adaptable’ in terms of responding to threats and opportunities in the external environment can provide a competitive advantage. There are also clear links to the theory of population ecology and its survival of the fittest idea. In the case of the swimming and archery

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

19

clubs, by building capacity within the club (for example, training volunteers to become coaches) they had been able to take action to put their clubs in a position to adapt to, and capitalise upon opportunities. This was not true for all voluntary sports clubs, with several of the smaller clubs such as the badminton club lacking the infrastructure to enable them to be this proactive. For example, the badminton club had been approached by Badminton England to get involved in its No Strings and Essentials programs, but had been forced to turn down these opportunities due to lack of personnel and time. Another common response from clubs feeling financial pressure was to seek strategic alliances and partnerships that created mutual resource dependencies. Wicker et al. (2013) argue that the creation of counterdependencies between clubs is becoming increasingly commonplace as a way of insulating clubs from some of the uncertainty of the external environment. For example, the handball club had developed a very close relationship with its local authority, and England Handball. The club had brought all the partners together to form an alliance, resulting in the club accessing Sportivate funding and becoming involved in the redevelopment of one of the local authority's flagship sports centres (including negotiating the inclusion of a full-sized handball court in the plans): Through negotiation with… sports development we are now at [the] Sports Centre in the town centre… Moving forward [the town’s] got… exciting plans happening with a brand new facility that’s going to be built… Handball’s going to be one of their focus sports and they’ve embraced the club… The club will be able to operate from there… It’s really exciting because it’s going to be a full-size handball court… [the local authority] actually changed the plans for the venue [to incorporate the handball court].

Slack and Parent (2006) argue that, by engaging in resource transactions, an organisation can reduce its vulnerability to environmental changes, but at the same time reduce its own autonomy as it becomes tied to that other organisation. Whilst some clubs were uncomfortable with such close relations (especially with governing bodies) others embraced them wholeheartedly and saw multiple benefits, such as those described by the handball club. This way of working relates to boundary spanning, which Robson (2008, cited in Simpson and Partington 2013, 159) describes as the “transfer of information between organisations”. In several clubs it was possible to identify a specific committee member who had performed this task. As the representative from the girls’ football club

20

Chapter Two

stated, it’s just building links and networking as much as you really can and trying to keep friendly with as many people as you can.

Social factors Johnson, Whittington and Scholes (2011, 50) argue that it is important for organisations to recognise key drivers for change that are “environmental factors likely to have a high impact on the success or failure of a strategy.” As many academic studies have highlighted, most sports clubs are dependent on volunteers in terms of the day-to-day operations of the club (Nichols et al. 2006; Harris, Mori and Collins 2009; May, Harris and Collins 2013; Nichols 2013). Traditionally, clubs have drawn volunteers from amongst their memberships and from parents of junior members. The data suggests that this tradition could be changing. Whilst most clubs agreed that attracting volunteers had been a challenge, several interviewees spoke of members (and especially parents) viewing the clubs as extended babysitting services. As one club representative stated: “If I’m honest about the way teams interact and parents interact it tends to be quite detached.” Another stated: “Sometimes you look at the parents… they bring their kids [and then] go and do their shopping.” This is redolent of a broader societal shift towards a service-based, consumerist society (Pitt and Koufopoulous 2012), and is likely to have a significant impact on sports clubs, both in terms of volunteer recruitment and additional pressures to provide value for money. Whilst there was much frustration amongst the clubs about this issue, there was evidence that several of the larger clubs (i.e. those with bigger infrastructures) had started to take action to address the threat that this presented. One of the more common responses was to appoint a social secretary to the club committee to develop additional activities to add to the core activities of training and playing matches. For the junior football club, this meant encouraging parents to buy in to the club ethos and develop a stronger affinity to the club beyond seeing it as a service. The club created counter-dependency with a local bowling club to hire its clubhouse after training and matches in order to provide a social space for members. Another club set out to build camaraderie between members by running world food tours to local restaurants every month: People get to know each other. I mean, it is a club at the end of the day; that’s what it’s about.

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

21

The netball club had taken a more radical approach. As a result of declining membership numbers, the club decided to change its name and secure a professional alliance with the local professional rugby league team. This not only improved the status of the club locally (by being associated with such a popular mainstream sport), but also secured the involvement of the professional rugby league players who attend social events and occasionally even the netball club’s training sessions. For many clubs having additional selling points, such as a strong social offer, was vital for future survival, and afforded them a competitive advantage over other clubs in the same geographical area. Making changes to the internal structure of an organisation links strongly to the work of Skille (2011) and broader ideas around isomorphism. This element of institutional theory discusses organisations making changes to their internal structures to match what they perceive to be the demands of the environment, or to mimic what similar organisations are doing. Slack and Parent (2006, 164) argue that by conforming to the expectations of the environment, a club can help to establish itself as a legitimate entity, which will contribute to its long-term effectiveness.

Conclusion The findings of the study will be explored in greater depth elsewhere, but it is apparent from this overview that issues exist surrounding sports clubs’ interactions with the external environment that will be of interest to national governing bodies and others in club support roles. None of the outcomes are particularly counterintuitive, but the extent to which different types of club are able to address external opportunities and threats is exposed. Larger clubs with greater (human, economic and material) resources at their disposal are able to respond quicker, hence adapting more effectively to changes in the external environment. Smaller clubs are more likely to be too constrained by the operational concerns of staying open to concern themselves with faint murmurs of possible future challenges emanating from the external environment. National governing bodies of sport, for instance, might like to consider at a strategic level how they can better generate and cascade knowledge relating to macroenvironmental developments to the farthest reaches of the club infrastructure, upon which they are so dependent for the delivery of their Whole Sport Plans (Sport England 2014a). It is also clear that generic strategic management theory (plus good practice from other, relatable settings) holds as-yet untapped possibilities

22

Chapter Two

for the management of English sports clubs. The remit of this paper does not accommodate more in-depth application of contingency theory, for example, to our sports club data set, but it is our strongly-held view that new dimensions to our understanding of the management challenges faced by sports clubs will be unveiled as a result of such an undertaking. Future inquiry might entail management researchers working more directly with sports club officials to produce environmental scans such as PESTLE and evaluate their worth. This could be overlaid with an examination of some of the interpersonal, social processes that determine officials’ ability to interact effectively with their clubs’ micro and macro environments. The capacity of clubs to succeed in these arenas is driven by the ability of their officials to do so. Social capital (see, for instance Coalter 2007; Nicholson and Hoye 2008) springs to mind as a potentially fruitful theme for future study. Notwithstanding the benefits of further academic scrutiny, the medium-term prospects for sports clubs are of more turbulence and uncertainty. Those who hold dear the contribution of sport to UK society will do well to help insulate sports clubs against the inevitable shocks provided by the external environment.

References Coalter, Fred. 2007. “Sports Clubs, Social Capital and Social Regeneration: ‘ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes?” Sport in Society 10(4): 537–559. Conn, David. 2013. “A Lame Olympic Legacy for School Sport.” The Guardian, March 16 Accessed October 19, 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/mar/16/schoolsport-lame-legacy-olympics. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 2012. Creating a Sporting Habit for Life: a new youth sport strategy. London: DCMS. GOV.UK. 2014. “Business Rates Relief.” Accessed October 19, 2014. https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief/charitable-raterelief. Harris, Spencer, Kate Mori, and Mike Collins. 2009. “Great expectations: the role of voluntary sports clubs as policy implementers.” Voluntas International Journal 20(4):405-423. Hatch, Mary J., and Ann Cunliffe. 2006. Organization Theory: Modern, symbolic-interpretative and postmodern perspectives. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Henry, Anthony E. 2011. Understanding Strategic Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Voluntary Sports Clubs and the External Environment

23

Holopainen, Mari, and Marja Toivonen. 2012. “Weak Signals: Ansoff today.” Futures. 44:198-205. Houlihan, Barry. 2013. “Commercial, political, social and cultural factors impacting on the management of high performance sport.” In Managing High Performance Sport, edited by Popi Sotiriadou and Veerie De Bosscher, 17-29. Abingdon: Routledge. Johnson, Gerry, Richard Whittington, and Kevan Scholes. 2011. Exploring Strategy: Texts and cases. Ninth edition. Harlow: Prentice-Hall Europe. King, Neil. 2013. ““Sport for All” in a financial crisis: survival and adaptation in competing organisational models of local authority sports services.” World Leisure Journal 1-14. Long, Jonathan. 2013. “Researching and evaluating sport development.” In Sport Development: Policy, process and practice, edited by Kevin Hylton 272-297. Third edition. Abingdon: Routledge. May, Thomas, Spencer Harris, and Mike Collins. 2013. “Implementing community sport policy: understanding the variety of voluntary club types and their attitudes to policy.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 5(3):397-419. Nichols, Geoff. 2013. “Voluntary sports clubs and sport development.” In Sport Development: Policy, process and practice, edited by Kevin Hylton, 213-230. Third edition. Abingdon: Routledge. Nicholson, Matthew, and Russell Hoye. eds. 2008. Sport and Social Capital. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Palmer, Adrian, and Bob Hartley. 2012. The Business Environment. Seventh edition. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Parliament UK. 2014 “Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 - Commons Library Standard Note.” Accessed October 19, 2014. http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/briefingpapers/SN06111/fixedterm-parliaments-act-2011. Pitt, Martyn R., and Dimitrios Koufopoulos. 2012. Essentials of Strategic Management. London: Sage. Porter, Michael. 2008. “The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review, January: 78-93. Reeves, Martin, and Mike Deimler. 2011. “Adaptability: the new competitive advantage.” Harvard Business Review July-August: 135141. Simpson, Kirstie, and Janine Partington. 2013. “Strategic Partnerships.” In Strategic Sport Development, edited by Stephen Robson, Kirstie Simpson and Lee Tucker. 148-176. Abingdon: Routledge.

24

Chapter Two

Skille, Eivind A. 2011. “Change and Isomorphism - a case study of translation processes in a Norwegian sports club.” Sport Management Review 14:79–88. Slack, Trevor, and Milena, M. Parent. 2006. Understanding Sports Organizations. Second edition. Champaign: Human Kinetics. Sport England. 2014a. “Sports We Invest In.” Accessed October 19, 2014. https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/national-work/nationalgoverning-bodies/sports-we-invest-in/. Sport England. 2014b. “Volunteers.” Accessed October 14, 2014. http://archive.sportengland.org/support__advice/volunteers.aspx. Sull, Donald. 2005. “Strategy as Active Waiting.” Harvard Business Review September: 120-129. Taylor, Peter D., David Barrett, and Geoff Nichols. 2009. Survey of Sports Clubs. London: CCPR. Thibault, Lucie, Wendy Frisby, and Lisa M. Kikulis. 1999. “Interorganizational Linkages in the Delivery of Local Leisure Services in Canada: Responding to Economic, Political and Social Pressures.” Managing Leisure. 4/3 July: 124-141. Thompson, John, and Frank Martin. 2010. Strategic Management: awareness and change. Third edition. London: Cengage. Tucker, Lee, and Matt Sullivan. 2013. “The External Environment.” In Strategic Sport Development, edited by Stephen Robson, Kirstie Simpson, and Lee Tucker. 51-73. Abingdon: Routledge Wicker, Pamela, Steven Vos, Jeron Scheerder, and Christoph Breuer. 2013. “The Link Between Resource Problems and Interorganisational Relationships: a quantitative study of Western European sports clubs.” Managing Leisure, 18: 31–45.

CHAPTER THREE THE VALUE OF EDUCATION THROUGH SPORT: A CASE STUDY OF THE USE OF SPORT IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES SIMON KIRKLAND, JOBETH BASTABLE AND LISA WEST

Sport Structures was established in 2002 as a sports consultancy seeking to work with organisations at a national and local level to address the inequalities in sport and employment. The initial approach was to support governing bodies of sport and other national bodies in developing policies and actions to address inequalities for people in disadvantaged areas. After consideration however, a different approach was taken, through practical delivery, using sport to develop people and give them the opportunity to gain employment or positive voluntary experiences. Disadvantaged and deprived are common terms for describing areas, both in the UK and globally, which have acute social problems. These problems stem from increases in population density, high rates of poor health and disease, high levels of multiculturalism and immigration, and poor education attainment, which leads to unemployment and state “hand out” dependence (Collins and Kay 2003). Putnam (2000) and Jarvie (2006) identify that sport can be a driver for social development and urban regeneration, and as a result, social inclusion policy in the UK puts significant pressure on sport to address these inequalities. Sport Structures’ approach was based on the accepted thinking that sport is seen as something positive, unlike the perceived monotony of school academic subjects such as maths and science, it is exciting, different and easy. This means that in educational attainment programs, sport has often been used as the carrot to get those from disadvantaged communities to engage with formal education programs. It must be noted,

Chapter Three

26

however, that some academics still argue against the social benefits of sport. Coalter (2008, 48) said: “Sport in any simple sense rarely achieves the variety of desired outcomes attributed to it”, and that “issues of process and context are key to understanding its developmental potential.” In early 2003, Sport Structures supported Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (MBC) Youth, Community, and Sport and Leisure departments, as well as the children’s fund in the delivery of a holiday activities program. It was partially funded through the neighbourhood renewal fund. Sandwell was then, and still is, one of the most deprived boroughs in the UK (Office of National Statistics 2010). The program was delivered in each of the holiday periods across the year. Within these programs, it was established that only 30% of the coaches and leaders were from Sandwell itself. This was identified as being of negative economic benefit to the borough. From this, Sport Structures started with the basic premise that sport can be used to address social disadvantage, and that employment-led programs could not only support the improvement of quality of life through sporting activity, but also address low levels of employment in the borough. Sport Structures has since then utilised a number of delivery models to achieve the overall objective of improving the quality of life through gaining employment or positive volunteering either within or outside of sport. This article explores the delivery partner mechanism and the impact of three specific programs: (1) (2) (3)

Pathways to employment (2002-2009) Coaching Communities (2004-2009) Inspiration 2012 (2010-2012)

The delivery partner/mechanism All three of the case study programs identified below have been delivered by Sport Structures Education Community Interest Company (CIC), as a not-for-profit organisation it was identified as the best vehicle for delivery, as well as seeking and gaining funds. The aim of the CIC is “to develop opportunities for people, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds to be employed and volunteer in sports activities and coaching.” Partnerships were essential for the delivery of all projects and a range of sport, and more importantly non-sport partners were embraced. These include:

The Value of Education through Sport

27

Table 2 - partnerships in sport development delivery Traditional sports partners National governing bodies of sport County Sport Partnerships Local authorities Leisure trusts Sports clubs

Non-traditional sporting partners Job Centre Plus Housing associations and trusts Employment and training providers in the skills sector Prince’s Trust YMCA Refugee charities Volunteer centres Probation service

The programs Pathway to Employment (2002-2009) Pathway to Employment was a program that was set up to address unemployment and improve employability skills throughout the Black Country (West Midlands during 2007-2008). The vision was to: “Tackle unemployment and improve basic skills needs and employability, by enabling residents of the Black Country to gain qualifications to access education and employment opportunities in the sport and active recreation sector”. The program was predominantly supported by the West Midlands Development Agency and partnership funding from a range of sources. The program secured over £500,000 worth of investment. The program directly supported and addressed a number of the issues, namely; the need to ensure clear routes into academic, vocational and work based learning, the importance of measuring ‘hard to reach’ groups in the labour market, and the need to give opportunity to those with low skills who lack the platform for employability that basic skills provide. Sport is not specifically mentioned in the Black Country Workforce Development Strategy, but the program contributed to: (1) learning packages and programs that tackle the lack of employability, personal and soft skills of new entrants, and (2) packages of support for the volunteer workforce to improve skills, productivity and mentoring. As a result, the Pathways to Employment project won the Coaching Intervention of the Year at the 2008 UK Coaching Awards, the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE) Healthy Activities

28

Chapter Three

award, and was highly commended in both the UK-wide Regeneration and Renewal, and the Sustaining Communities Awards. It was identified as an exemplar project for promoting sports employment within the region, and directly contributed to three strategic objectives: x Improving the skills of the workforce, x Developing tomorrow’s workforce, and x Developing volunteer and seasonal staff. This third objective is achieved by tapping into new potential pools of labour to ensure that the sector has sufficiently skilled people to fill the anticipated forecast in employment. Developing soft skills such as communication, leadership and team working that were lacking in the current workforce was also a vital part of the project. Pathways to Employment was initiated and coordinated by the Economic Regeneration Department of Sandwell MBC, and split into a network of projects to tackle the objectives in their own particular way. These were initiated in two phases: Phase one x Dance Mentoring - Self-employed Dance teacher x Personal Social Health Education - West Bromwich Albion community trust x Pre-Volunteer Scheme – Birmingham City Council x Transitions through Sport – Black Country Connexions x Birmingham Inner City Coaching Scheme (BICCS) – Pertemps x Positive Mentoring – Ugly Bug World Phase two x Equaliser – Sport Structures x Coaching Communities – Sport Structures. The outcomes of this project are explained later in the chapter.

Coaching Communities (2004-2009) As the Pathways to Employment program evolved, it identified the need for a more formal approach to the use of coach education, as well as the outcomes of the holiday activity program. Seed money from the

The Value of Education through Sport

29

Pathways to employment program was found for the Coaching Communities program to be funded with Sport Structures taking the lead. During the life of the project it sought and gained funds from a number of sources, including Working Neighbourhood Funds, Streetgames, and Sport England - Recruit into Coaching, Sport Leaders and most significantly, the Sport England Community Investment Fund. Overall, £724,357 was generated to support the implementation. The project outcomes and outputs are described later in the document, and it won the 2008 “Coaching Intervention of the Year” award at the national sports coaching awards. The program was developed for unemployed learners to have a program of activity that consisted of: x x x x

Sports Coach UK workshops in safeguarding, coaching children First Aid Level 1 coach education course or Sports Leaders Voluntary placement

The program recruited people who were unemployed or referred to the program from a range of partners. The program received probation service referrals, including from individuals whose records, through the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checking process, clearly indicated significant offences. These were managed in a way to make sure that the learner was supported in the rehabilitation from offending, but also made sure the environment was safe for coaching.

Inspiration 2012 (2010-2012) The Aim of the London Olympic and Paralympic games was to recruit 70,000 volunteers, 10% of whom would be unemployed. The 2012 inspiration program was established in August 2009 by a West Midlands consortium led by Wolverhampton College and funded through £2 million from the European Social Fund through the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Learning and Skills Council’s vision for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games was to create a legacy of learning, skills and employment, with tangible and sustainable outcomes for individuals, employers, and communities. This program’s overall aim was to encourage individuals, who were inactive, unemployed, or socially excluded, to gain new skills, engage in their communities, raise their

Chapter Three

30

aspirations, and move nearer to the job market. This program set out to progress individuals into volunteering, sports-related coaching and employment, or onto other employability programs, through the acquisition of suitable skills. This included the development of employability and interpersonal skills, and allowed individuals to become community champions, providing assistance and focus for potential sport and leisure activities. Sport Structures delivered two of the three strands of the program. Strand one, known as ‘Personal Best’ (the Pre-Volunteer Program), provided an accredited level one qualification in event volunteering. The successful completion of this program enabled the individual to be added to the volunteer database for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Strand two, the coaching program, offered a level one sports coaching or leadership qualification. This strand was linked with the Coaching Communities program to enable learners who successfully completed this qualification to take the opportunity to progress onto the level two Sports Leaders UK award. Alternatively, specific national governing body coaching qualifications were also made available as part of a qualification pathway.

Delivery mechanisms of the three programs Though all three programs were different, they all employed a similar delivery mechanism in order to establish the program’s aims. Key features of delivery were: x Suitability of venues x Identifying local referral agencies x Identify the potential A range of processes was developed to effectively engage disadvantaged communities. The Coaching Communities and Inspiration 2012 programs established a ten-stage process for program delivery: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Initial engagement - source and book venue for program delivery Register course with awarding body Engagement with referral partners Recruitment in geographical area and creation of monitoring paperwork Induction session

The Value of Education through Sport

31

6. 7. 8. 9.

Delivery of qualifications Support and monitor the individual participants Volunteering Awards event, next step club, (employer fair) exit interview, and sign-posting to further education, training or into employment 10. Employment, training or education, and on-going tracking of participants Securing a venue was the first challenge, as people from disadvantaged communities often have a poor view of educational establishments and have difficulty in accessing their own transport due to the participant’s lack of funds, this was found in previous projects, such as Pathways to Employment and the award winning Coaching Communities Program. Therefore public transport links had to be good, and venues also had to be inclusive and non-threatening. When this was established, courses were registered with the awarding body. From this, local community referral agencies were approached based on research about the role of a positive relationship with non-sport partners to ensure a strategic approach to recruitment. Sport Structures developed the mantra that people are not hard to reach but they are hard to engage. As a result, there was a need to identify and build partnerships to recruit learners from a variety of sources to meet the program KPIs (key performance indicators), and to ensure that the recruitment process was inclusive. It was important that a systematic recruitment process was implemented, which involved liaising with numerous sectors, as identified above. For all three programs, it was essential to emphasise in the first instance that, by providing potential coaches, leaders and volunteers to the programs, it could inadvertently assist the referral agency to meet their own KPIs, as well as enabling the program to meet its KPIs. This can only be of benefit to both parties, and is an example of successful partnership working to enhance the offer to local communities. For both the Coaching Communities and Inspiration 2012 programs, once learners were recruited, they were inducted onto the programs. The induction followed a process whereby a needs analysis was undertaken to ensure that specific support for the individual was made available. Once inducted, qualifications were delivered following a learning program, tailored to the strategic need of the program. Most importantly, the programs had to be exciting enough to retain the learners, and to ensure qualification attainment. On completion, all learners were sign-posted to

32

Chapter Three

further qualifications, jobs, or training opportunities. Support for the learners did not end once the program had been completed; learners were monitored for up to two years after the completion of the programs. Programs were monitored and evaluated in line with the funders needs. This included: an individual learner record, an individual learning plan, and evidence of progression in employment and/or voluntary work.

Success factors for all three programs The success of each of these programs can be measured through a series of important inputs: x Positive leadership and management x Joining recruitment with delivery x Planning and supporting learner progression

Positive leadership and management Each project was managed centrally by a project manager, who was not only adaptable, but also able to work in different areas and manage high-level stakeholder and funders. A typical year of the inspiration 2012 program delivered up to ten cohorts in ten different disadvantaged communities, this meant that each cohort had its own needs and needed to be managed in line with the cultural needs of their specific community.

Joining recruitment with delivery Sport Structures took care to select key staff who were multi-skilled in being able to recruit and deliver the program. This was highlighted in the Inspiration 2012 evaluation, undertaken by CSK Strategies (2011) “…at Sports Structures, all aspects of program delivery were integrated, with the same staff responsible for recruitment, delivery and student support. This worked well and other providers wished in retrospect that they had followed this model.” “A number of providers e.g. Sports Structures had dedicated staff for the project, other projects said that, in retrospect, they should have appointed one person to co-ordinate the whole project and be responsible for all aspects of it, including the contract administration and the curriculum development.”

The Value of Education through Sport

33

Planning and supporting learners Flexibility was the key to learner progression success. Programs were set up so that there was individual one-to-one support for each participant, which truly took into account the need and expectation of each individual learner. Cohorts were not delivered to a “one size fits all” approach, but instead tailored to the community, the group, and then to the individual themselves, to ensure all learners completed the programs and were labour/voluntary market ready. The projects did not want to stand still, as a result, success emerged from the ability to challenge conventional approaches, just because “this is the way that we have always done it” did not mean that individual programs were delivered in this way. It is difficult to estimate the time allocated to individuals, as this varied so considerably. However the principle was to establish learning plans for each learner to plan their route to successful completion.

Outputs Table 3 - outputs achieved Sport Pathways to employment N %

Coaching Communities N %

Inspiration 2012 N %

3,105

100.0%

920

94.0%

333

92.0%

877

28.0%

584

63.5%

155

50.1%

Progressed into employment

122

3.9%

123

13.4%

52

15.1%

Progressed into employment 6+ months

160

5.2%

113

12.2%

13

3.8%

Achieved a sport based/or event based qualification* Progressed into voluntary work or experience

*Level 1 award in preparation for event volunteering, level 1 in community sports leaders, level 1/2 NGB sports coaching qualification.

34

Chapter Three

The results from the program speak for themselves: over 90% of the program’s cohorts achieved some sort of volunteering or sports-based qualification, between 28% and 63% progressed into voluntary work, 3.9% to 15.1% progressed into employment, and 3.8% to 12.2% were in employment after at least six months. Though some of these numbers appear low, without intervention it is estimated by the Black Country intelligence team that only 17% would achieve a qualification, 9% would have undertaken voluntary work, and as little 1% would have achieved employment.

Discussion It is clear that none of the three programs are sports development programs in the traditional sense, as they do not place significance on the person taking up a sport or winning medals. Instead, the programs use sport as a catalyst for changing their attitudes to their education and the broader issues that affect them. They all provide methods for building community participation, citizenship, and providing pathways to educational and employment opportunities, which in turn increase the employment options of the community (Crabbe et al. 2006). However, what organisations are best placed to deliver these social outcomes? The three examples discussed use Sport Structures Education CIC as a private provider and their contact with over 100 community referral organisations. The synergy between an education program and traditional sports clubs, where local clubs have a similar ethos, is where positive social outcomes could be achieved. Yet Coalter (2007) warns that this agenda on the voluntary sector could be detrimental to their own sports participation goals and their own on-going club viability. Disadvantaged communities have been particularly difficult to engage, partly because of policy makers, and because they may hold the expectation that “they should come to us” (Lowther et al. 2002). However, these programs show that community-based initiatives, where the learning outcomes are taken to the community rather than the other way around, deliver success in both output and outcome terms. Another example from Crabbe et al. (2006) state that projects need to be set free to work in this field of work in order to engage with and inspire those people who have been most alienated by the mainstream approach.

The Value of Education through Sport

35

Trust is key to social inclusion and educational programs within sport, in that learning programs must be established in a safe and familiar place, before cultural or physical boundaries may be challenged (Coalter 2007). The fragmentation of community networks and a low level of trust in government initiatives, along with the learner’s previous potentially and negative educational experiences, make it hard to gain the trust of some (Purdue 2001). The cost of transport, access and locality need to be considered when implementing a program of this type, as well as the “type of person”, and their background/history. Furthermore, the program needs to meet community needs by being people-focused. Social capital needs to be considered; those that are left out of society are frequently described as working class or youth (Coalter 2007). Hall (1999) believes that movement to another locality increased by economic restructuring in turn erodes social capital and reduces levels of social trust as a result. The three programs show that the community and learners do buy into the program that is local and focussed on them. The potential distrust or negativity towards education can be further broken down within program policy and style of delivery. It is evident that an integrated, coordinated policy approach that recognises the role of central government, local government, community organisations, and traditional voluntary sectors in the provision of sportsbased social intervention programs can produce positive results. It is also apparent that joined up referral agencies working together that foster diversity in partners also contribute to the long-term viability, funding, and community engagement. However, as Crabbe et al. (2006, 19) state, “it is the adoption of the personal social development model, which is sacred to the sport-based inclusion programs rather than sport”. A major barrier is the access to consistent sources of funds for these kinds of program. The three programs have accessed over 12 different funding streams. At present, the evidence base for successful education based programs using sport still remains largely anecdotal. This is due to monitoring and evaluation that fits the funders’ needs and requirements, but does not stand up to academic rigour. In addition, little research exists to establish the benefits of a coach working within his or her community to increase both sports participation and social capital. How to monitor and evaluate outcomes often comes with its own connotations. Crabbe et al. (2006), cite a number of reasons for this, including a belief in sport, lack

36

Chapter Three

of concern regarding measurement and the difficulty in measuring causal relations. To conclude, sport does have the ability to be the catalyst for change. The three examples highlight clear criteria in using sport education to help those from deprived communities to gain positive employment and volunteer outcomes. The key factors are: x Programs need to be designed with regard to local infrastructure, people, revenue, and local networks (Vail 2007) x Sport-based education programs need to be placed in a local area and at an address that is in response to individual and community needs x Monitoring and evaluation should form a part of the program conception and implementation x Positive community referral networks and agencies can be a future development for consideration, which can assist in maximising program success.

References Coalter, Fred. 2007. “Sports clubs, social capital and social regeneration: ill-defined interventions with hard to follow outcomes”. Sport in Society 10:537-559. —. 2008. “Sport-in-development: Development for and through Sport?”. In Sport and Social Capital edited by Matthew Nicholson and Russell Hoye, 39-68. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Collins, Mike., and Tess Kay. 2003. Sport and Social Exclusion. London: Routledge. Crabbe, Tim. 2008. “Avoiding the Numbers Game: Social Theory Policy and Sport’s Role in the Art of Relationship Building”. In Sport and Social Capital edited by Matthew Nicholson and Russell Hoye, 21-38. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann Crabbe, Tim., Gavin Bailey., Tony Blackshaw., Adam Brown., Clare Choak., Ben Gidley., Gavin Mellor., Kath O’Connor., Imogen Slater., and Donna Woodhouse. 2006. Knowing the Score. Positive Futures Case Study Research: Final Report. England: Home Office. CSK Strategies Limited (2011) Evaluation of Inspiration 2012 Hall, Peter. 1999, “Social capital in Britain”, British Journal of Politics 29:417-461. Jarvie, Grant. 2006. Sport, Culture and Society. London: Routledge.

The Value of Education through Sport

37

Lowther, Matthew, Nanette Mutrie., and Marian Scott. (2002). “Promoting physical activity in a socially and economically deprived community: a 12 month randomized control trial of fitness assessment and exercise consultation”. Journal of sport science 20(2):577-588 Office for National Statistics. 2010. Neighbourhood statistics, LSOA, IMD main index, http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ [assessed 18.08.2014] Purdue, Derrick. 2001. “Neighbourhood governance: leadership, trust and social capital”. Urban Studies 38(12):2211-2224 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster Vail, Susan. 2007. “Community development and sports participation”. Journal of Sport Management 21:571-596

CHAPTER FOUR SUSTAINABLE SPORTS DEVELOPMENT ...OR EFFECTIVE CHANGE MANAGEMENT? JANE BOOTH

Introduction The sports development sector continues to debate the notion of sustainability within programs and systems. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Thompson 1996) defines sustainability as “development that conserves an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources” and “that can be sustained”. With a continued heavy reliance on external funding at all levels of sport, from high performance to grassroots; national governing body, to county sports partnership, to local club, the quest for genuinely sustainable sports development continues to challenge all those employed within this sector. Growing pressure on sport as a whole confounds the challenge of professionalising at all levels, from individuals and occupations, to organisations, through to policy makers (Dowling et al. 2014). Interestingly, there is also a paradox created by the notion of sustainable sports development for those employed within the sector. Creating sustainability in a project means that the required practices should become embedded within existing systems and structures, which arguably reduces the need for the employed officer. Does this impact upon the search for sustainability? Drawing on theory (largely from the work of Lewin) and practice (from the perspective of a manager challenged with embedding a sustainable coaching system across Great Britain and Ireland), this article aims to demonstrate how an enhanced understanding of change management theory can help to analyse and address this paradox.

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

39

Reflecting particularly on the early work of Kurt Lewin (1940s) and his field theory, this article will illustrate how an understanding of the theory and practice of change can support practitioners to develop realistic and sustainable sports development approaches. The key to this article is that it captures and reflects upon the realities of working in the ever-changing landscape of sport from a golf coaching perspective, across Great Britain and Ireland. This is not a traditionally academic paper, rather a story of real-life that articulates how an appreciation and understanding of change, the theory of change and the practice of managing change can help to challenge the paradoxical notion of sustainable sports development. The voice within this paper flips between the usual style of a traditional academic paper and a more personal first person account. This deliberate shift has been included for two primary reasons – firstly, to offer a perspective that talks to practitioners in everyday language, and secondly to highlight an example where an understanding of theory is helping to develop an on-going practical approach... but that ultimately it is the practice that matters. Switching between the two voices throughout this paper provides a simple way of separating out the theory aspects from the practical story. Based on an on-going PhD study examining change in coaching systems in the UK, this article offers an alternative view, and aims to provoke thought amongst sports development practitioners as to how they might look at doing things differently in order to really create genuine success in the sporting sector.

The value of a case The driver behind a case study is the desire to understand what has occurred in a single case and why it has occurred in that way, with the purpose of an in-depth case study being to provide the rich description that Geertz (1993), describes within the bounds of qualitative research. The case study does have value as a research choice. It allows the researcher to describe, analyse deeply, and explain the choices made (Ellis 2004), and also to provide the basis from which theory can be refined, further studies identified, and options and expectations reviewed (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, 435-450). However, it is important to recognise that data gathered

40

Chapter Four

from a case study can only be attributed to that particular study, and that each case is unique. In conducting this form of research it is important for the researcher to avoid the temptation to generalise in the pursuit of common theory, as this may detract from the overall value of the study. The individual case study is a valid choice for the researcher with an individual, intrinsic interest in their subject (Gratton and Jones 2004) and, as highlighted by Armour and Macdonald (2012, 204), “their appeal lies in offering contextually grounded, holistic, and detailed accounts of phenomena”, which in turn enables the researcher to describe and explain a particular case or situation. It is within these bounds that this article is written. Using this one case, of the process of change in golf coaching within Great Britain and Ireland from the perspective of a key change agent, the intention is to describe how a greater understanding of theory has influenced the application of practice within a sports development context. Clearly this is only one view and one way of working. However, given that the research value of the case study is recognised, there is a relevance and purpose to this article; providing, that is, the reader understands the context within which this study is presented.

My story Sport is my passion. Sport is my hobby. Sport is my work. I have been a sports and coaching development practitioner for nearly twenty years, and in that time have experienced working in a local authority, an active sports partnership, a county sports partnership, a national agency, and within a sports governing body context. I have seen national strategies come and go, and lived through an ever-growing number of interventions, programs, and initiatives. These range from ‘Sport for All’ to ‘Champion Coaching’, ‘TOP Play’ to ‘Active Sports’, ‘Coaching Matters’ to ‘The UK Coaching Framework’. My current role is as Head of Coaching Systems for The Professional Golfers’ Association, where my main responsibility is to lead the evolution of the ‘right coach, right place, right time’ vision for golf coaching across Great Britain and Ireland. This includes the strategic management of the culture change demanded by the drive to achieve the successful development of a sustainable, world-leading coaching system.

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

41

Having been in post for a couple of years, seven years ago I decided that I needed to look for a new direction; I needed to open another avenue for my personal development. So I decided to undertake an MBA via distance learning. All my working experience had been in sport, and I needed something to challenge me personally and perhaps make me more employable in another sector. My theory at the time was that an MBA would open up doors into a different industry, a different career. I saw my future somewhere other than sport as I felt that I had reached the ceiling of my career on my current path. However, through my MBA studies, I discovered a real interest in change and the management of change. I started seeing my current role through a different lens and found new ways to view on-going challenges and issues. I discovered a new perspective and, through my on-going studies, discovered alternative ways of thinking and of doing. I began to realise that the vision we had shaped for golf, that placed coaching at the heart of golfing culture for participants of all ages and stages, had to be viewed as a long-term, arguably generational, change program if we were ever truly to achieve the dream that we had set ourselves. As a result, I began to try different approaches to every aspect of my role, and ended up renewing my passion for sport and being a part of the sports and coaching development sector. I caught the research bug and have maintained my interest in change by undertaking a PhD on a part-time basis, alongside my day job. The ability to combine practice with theory in what I consider to be a largescale, long-term action research project is fascinating... and most importantly is yielding interesting results and genuinely positive impact through behavioural change. This article is a reflection of this combined practice/theory approach, with the practice aspect being the most important element. The theory sections of this article are written in the traditional academic writing style, with the practice element being reflected through an auto-ethnographic, narrative style account. The intention? To offer a different perspective, to encourage a different way of thinking, to demonstrate the powerful potential when theory and practice combine, to stimulate debate, to prompt creativity and innovation, and to share a story.

42

Chapter Four

The context for change The notions of change, managing change, and, perhaps most frequently, culture change, appear to have gained a prevalent place in the language of the sports development practitioner in recent years. The need to change the culture of a sport, the culture of sporting behaviour, or the culture of a coaching system has become more pressing as the social and physical value of physical activity has become more widely recognised, yet active participation in some sports still appears to be declining (Active People Survey–Sport England 2005–to date). The subsequent increase in pressure on governing bodies of sport to recruit and retain sports participants from national agencies is reflected by increasing emphasis from these external investors (mainly the national sports councils) on impact measures and expected return on investment. Conversations throughout sporting organisations consider the development of long-term strategies for change, yet available funding support and associated development programs operate on three or five year cycles. As a result, strategic plans are often based on a three or five year time period, which arguably is considered long-term in the sporting world, where fouryear Olympic cycles dominate the high performance arena. Success largely continues to be measured in numbers: of participants, of qualified coaches, of medals, of facilities, all of which are relatively easy to count. However, if contemplating genuine long-term change, real success needs to be considered in terms of outcomes, of impact, and of behaviour change. Change is not a modern phenomenon, nor is the desire to ‘manage change’ using a planned approach. Lewin (1947a, 13) reasoned that: “Change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in amount and type of change exist”

Lewin pioneered four inter-related themes that he believed underpinned the ability to understand and influence planned change. Researching throughout the challenging times around World War II, Lewin introduced field theory, group dynamics, action research and the 3-step model as individual elements of a more unified approach to planned change. Within his studies on Group Dynamics (1947a; 1947b), Lewin proposed that the contrasting positions of social change and social stability should be analysed together to understand group life. This is the basis of

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

43

‘Field Theory’, which recognises the complex relationships between individuals and group behaviour, and the ‘field’ within which they exist. Lewin believed that individual behaviour is influenced by forces that exist within the group environment (field), and that shifts in individual or group behaviour resulted from changes within the group environment or ‘field’ (1943 and 1947a). When considering the process of change, the principle of ‘field theory’ suggests that the key to understanding or explaining change lies in developing an appreciation of the link between behaviour change and conditions present in the field (environment) at the time of that change. Whilst some doubt has been cast in more recent times regarding the relevance of Lewin’s work to modern change efforts, for example Dent and Goldberg (1999); Marshak (1993), Burnes (2004, 977) re-asserts that ‘rather than being out-dated or redundant, Lewin’s approach is still relevant to the modern world’. Fullan (2011, 15) offers a practical application of Lewin’s field theory in creating sustainable change when he reflects on a Save the Children project in Vietnam, although interestingly Fullan does not reference Lewin. The project identified areas within an otherwise malnourished area, where children were better nourished than others. By examining the behaviours that were demonstrated by mothers in the more successful areas, the project managers were able to identify three key ‘success’ factors to which the improved nourishment could be directly attributed. These success factors, discovered from practice rather than theory, were then translated into a project that achieved significant success, and most importantly, long-term behaviour change. Consider this in a sports development context: sports development practitioners often work to develop and implement specific plans or ‘interventions’ that seek to encourage sporting participation in areas of decline or inequality, a popular example being the recruitment of more women into sport. Using Lewin’s field theory, it could be argued that the best way to understand and explain current issues is to examine the link between behaviour change (i.e. women playing regular sport) and the conditions present in the field (particular sporting environment) at the time of that change. In other words, before developing a new intervention, consider where the behaviour change has happened, and seek to understand why. New programs or interventions can then focus on re-creating the environmental conditions (field) that led to the desired behaviour change, rather than the

44

Chapter Four

more ‘traditional’ approach for sports that usually involves the creation of a specific coaching program or alternative offer, designed to attract more of the desired target group into sporting participation. Framing the problem in a different way arguably encourages individuals to think in a different way, and perhaps as a result, the solutions will be different.

The complexity of change When reviewing the literature relating to the nature and scope of change, it is very possible to get lost in the complexity of the terms and different frameworks on offer. The literature examining change is wideranging and covers a vast spectrum of theories that view change from a variety of different perspectives. It is possible to unearth endless definitions and categorisations of change, the focus of which depends upon the perspective adopted by the individual attempting to define the concept of conducting a particular study. Authors such as Grundy (1993), Dunphy and Stace (1993), Nadler and Tushman (1989), Robbins (2001) and Senge (2006) have all considered change in the context of ‘planned’ versus ‘unplanned’. Terms such as ‘first order’, ‘second order’, ‘tuning’, ‘re-creation’, ‘adaption’, ‘anticipatory’, ‘reactive’, ‘incremental’, ‘frame-bending’ and ‘frame-breaking’ are used within endless models to depict the scale of change, the size of change, the extent to which it affects the ‘frame’ of an organisation, and whether the change affects the whole organisation or simply one component. It is also important to consider the question of luck and whether it is actually possible to accredit change of any kind directly to specific interventions. In reality, then, it is little wonder that understanding and affecting any level of long-term, sustainable, behavioural or cultural change is incredibly difficult. Just as there are a number of different ways to categorise change, there are a significant number of approaches and models for managing and implementing change, as explained by Senior and Fleming (2006, 310336) in their section on systematic approaches to change. Many of these models have been designed as practical management tools that can be used by leaders and managers to implement change and to do so effectively. Each approach or model is grounded in one or more change theories, and offers its own perspective and framework for managing successful change programs. Lewin developed the ‘three-step’ model for planned change, based on his experience and research in the 1940s and, since this early

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

45

model, the market for ‘change models’ has grown significantly. Many subsequent models build on Lewin’s early work (for example Lippitt, Watson and Westley’s Phases of Change Theory, 1958) and Lewin’s influence in the field of change can be widely observed, if not always clearly referenced. One well-known and more recent example of a change management tool for managers is Kotter’s ‘eight-stage process of creating major change’ that was first brought to public attention in 1995. This model is built on the basis that Kotter believes, based on his observation of various transformation efforts, that there are eight reasons why a change process will fail. He then uses these eight common errors to subsequently suggest an eight-stage process to aid managers attempting to instigate a change initiative. These reasons and stages are summarised in figure 2, which has been adapted from Kotter’s book Leading Change (1996). Table 4 - Eight reasons for failure and eight stages for change Eight common errors within change Allowing too much complacency Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition Underestimating the power of vision Under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or even 100 or 1,000) Permitting obstacles to block the new vision Failing to create short-term wins Declaring victory too soon Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture

Eight stages of creating major change Establishing a sense of urgency Creating the guiding coalition Developing a vision and strategy Communicating the change vision Empowering broad-based action Generating short-term wins Consolidating gains and producing more change Anchoring new changes in the culture

Adapted from Kotter (1996), Leading Change

The eight errors listed in figure 1 are, according to Kotter, the most common errors witnessed in change programs where the anticipated

Chapter Four

46

change has not occurred, or has not been anywhere near as successful as initially desired. Kotter (1996, 4) goes as far as to suggest that: “In too many situations, the improvements have been disappointing and the carnage has been appalling, with wasted resources and burned out, scared, or frustrated employees.”

Kotter proposes his model as a practical guide to leading major change that summarises the necessary steps producing successful change of any scale. Emphasis is placed on the importance of sequence within any change process and that any change process usually involves a number of small-scale projects within a larger change project. Kotter suggests that errors commonly occur when organisations attempt to ‘jump ahead’ in the sequence of change and try to achieve too much too quickly. Kotter identifies that more and more organisations are subject to the almost constant pressure to change in order to survive in the evolving global landscape. The resulting challenge for organisations is that change is inevitable; we operate in a business landscape where stability is no longer the norm (Kotter 1996, 15), with most credible evidence suggesting that the rate of environment change is set to continue to increase in the future. It can therefore be surmised that helping individuals to better understand the process of change will be increasingly important in today’s global marketplace. Kotter believes that his eight-stage model offers individuals the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of how successful change occurs, what steps are involved, and the potential pitfalls of any change effort. It is not the intention of this article to present a review of the plethora of models for change in existence, it is rather to offer a summary of the key themes that emerge from a number of popular models for change that have been reviewed as part of the broader PhD study that has informed this piece of work. For reference purposes, the models considered in the broader study were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Lewin’s Three-Step Change Model (1940’s) Lippitt, Watson and Westley’s Phases of Change Theory (1958) Greiner’s Change Process Model (1967) Harris’s Five-Phase Model (1975) McKinsey 7S Model (1980) (Waterman et al, 1980) Fullan’s Change Themes (1993) Kotter’s Eight Stage Process (1996)

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

47

The first common theme emerging from the models is that change requires an initial impetus or stimulus. Kotter (1996) perhaps best summarises this with his proposal that something is needed that creates a ‘sense of urgency’ in order for change to be stimulated. The themes of leadership, shared power, problem solving, collective vision (goals/objectives), the need to embed change and the length of time change programs take to succeed are all evident throughout the literature reviewed. It is also important to note that the authors of all the change models considered recognise that change is a complex and dynamic process, created by the inter-relationship between several factors. Waterman et al. (1980) identify the hard and soft elements of an organisation and build their framework on the basis that each element has varying and ever-shifting influence on the change process. Fullan uses Senge’s (1990) description that organisations are ‘dynamically complex’ to establish the vast scale of any change process. Mullins (1999, 821) notes that change is an “inescapable part of both social and organisational life”. This echoes Lewin’s early research that leads us to believe that life within groups of people is never without change (1947a; 1947b). Perhaps, then, the first important step in understanding the process of change is to become aware that change is a continual process that happens every day in all aspects of personal, social and organisational life. For the sports development fraternity, this is arguably the starting point required within this alternative approach. Practitioners and sporting organisations are talking about change, but do they really understand the dynamically complex nature and scope of change and what it really means to manage change? Given the obvious complexity of change, another consideration for the industry as a whole must surely centre on the skills, capabilities and competencies of sports development professionals, and look at whether these individuals are really fully equipped to drive and lead long-term major scale sporting change programs.

The reality of change My interest in the concept of change has undoubtedly provided me with a different lens through which to view my role. My learning journey challenged me to think differently and has opened up new ways of working that led me to reconsider the ways in which I managed my areas of responsibility. I began to think about my work in the context of change

48

Chapter Four

and see my role as that of a change agent, tasked with developing and implementing a long-term change program. Lewin’s field theory helped me to understand that behaviour change is inextricably linked to environment, his three-step model allowed me to see that change can be planned and managed, McKinsey’s model showed me the complexities of change, Kotter made me see that real change never happens in three years! Instead of seeing my job as a series of separate elements that were delivered in isolation, I recognised the need to view the whole and understand how each element was connected. I stopped defining success by the delivery of individual activities and started believing that real success could only be defined in terms of impact and behavioural change. But all this took time! And to be honest it is only now when I look back on actions and progress that I am able to fully understand the influence that my theoretical understanding of change has had on my day job. Yes, I now frame my role as that of a manager, responsible for a long-term change program that requires behavioural change on a grand scale before ultimate success can be achieved, but it took time to fully appreciate this. Equally, it has not been an easy shift to make and has happened very gradually, but now reflecting on progress, it is possible to identify all of the common themes identified from the seven selected change models throughout the on-going work. So, what have I learned from my experience? Firstly, and arguably most significantly, I have learned that major change takes time; it cannot be achieved in three, or even five, years. I have discovered that the first step along the way has to be the development of an understanding of how change can be initiated, and recognition that it is possible to employ a planned approach to managing change. However, I have also learned that change is never simple and it is certainly not easy. The management of any large-scale change program is challenging, complex, exciting, frustrating, interesting, and can ultimately be rewarding. And it most definitely takes time. A practical approach that helped me to appreciate the long-term nature of change was to utilise the logic model approach to planning. In their simplest format, logic models provide a practical mechanism by which to better understand the relationship between actions and results. Working with a company specialising in research, my thinking was challenged and I was encouraged to see that many current success measures were in fact just activities, rather than long-term impact. I was challenged to appreciate

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

49

that implementing a new coach education qualification was simply an activity, and should not really be viewed as the end measure of success. Equally, though, counting the number of newly qualified coaches was purely an output, and even evaluating the difference that this new coach education qualification made to coach behaviour was only a medium-term outcome. The real difference came when I began to appreciate that the influence that the altered coach behaviour (resulting from a coach education program) had on a sports participant was the long-term impact that really demonstrated the success of the program. I was helped to frame the problem differently, which in turn has led to different solutions. There is no doubt in my mind that the current culture of short-term funding has a heavy influence on the approach adopted by sports development practitioners. Investors want to see a return in their investment within the timeframe of the award that leads to an approach that links funding with activities such as programs or initiatives that can be delivered in this period of time. The world I operate within talks of initiatives and offers that more often than not centre around coaching programs and new resources, the reported success measures talk of numbers of participants and numbers of coaches and/or volunteers recruited. Once the funding cycle comes to an end, new interventions are developed with similar target numbers: will this approach ever really deliver sustainable behaviour change? Instead of seeing the activity as the end outcome, the logic model approach offers a way by which individuals and organisations can see beyond initial activity and begin to understand that outputs are only a step along the longer journey. By understanding that the ultimate outcome is a specified behaviour or culture change, (and defining what that change really is), then the logic model approach can help to articulate the various steps along the way that are required to embed that change. By adopting a long-term approach to planning, conversations with funding agencies can focus on how the next three or five years will contribute to the long-term end goal... rather than being the end goal. But remember, change is constant, so on-going review of the process is essential! Practitioners need not be afraid of changing things along the way if the desired outputs/outcomes are not being achieved.

50

Chapter Four

In my world, seven years on, there is a building case to demonstrate that the desired cultural change is happening. There are some excellent examples of how coaching behaviours have changed, and some fantastic case studies that evidence the positive impact of great coaching on the recruitment and retention of golfers in changing club environments. However, the job is not done, the story is not complete. As Lewin (1947a, 13) reasoned, “change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change”. The change effort, therefore, will continue for many years to come, and may never in fact be fully achieved, as the golfing landscape will continue to evolve. Equally, the knowledge and experience of the professionals and practitioners such as me operating within the field will continue to grow, as will our understanding of our context and business, and this will allow us to keep driving things forward in the pursuit of our desired long-term impact.

Conclusion As highlighted in the introduction, the quest for genuinely sustainable sports development continues to challenge all those employed within the growing sector of sports development. With sports participation rates continuing to decline across some areas, it could be argued that the sector is further away than ever before from a solution to this well-defined problem. This article seeks to begin to make the case for an alternative approach to sports development that draws on the theory of change and the practice of change management. It argues that by adopting a different perspective and viewing sports development as the implementation of a change program that leads to sustained behavioural change in the desired field, it is possible to achieve positive impact for a wide cross-section of the sporting landscape. Framing problems in a different context and understanding some principles of change can lead to the discovery of different solutions, which may ultimately contribute to long-term behavioural or cultural change. A key first step in this alternative approach is that sports development practitioners must recognise that they are in fact responsible for managing and implementing large-scale change programs. The challenge then is to create a shared vision for the future that provides direction and purpose for all concerned. If sports development practitioners are then able to apply some key concepts from the field of change theory and change management, the myth of sustainable sports development may become a reality. Through appropriate leadership, consistent communication, shared

Sustainable Sports Development ...or Effective Change Management?

51

problem solving and a little good fortune, it is possible to embed genuine cultural and behavioural change. By taking guidance from theories such as Lewin’s ‘Field Theory’ and management tools such as Kotter’s ‘eightphase change model’, sports development can become sustainable. Perhaps, then, the paradox created by the notion of sustainable sports development for those employed within the sector becomes null and void if the practice of sports development is viewed through the perspective of change? In his work, Lewin adopts the perspective that life within groups of people is never without change. If life is never without change, then arguably there will always be the need for change to be managed. From a sports perspective, this alternative approach, therefore, perhaps cements the future of the sports development practitioner... if they have the relevant skills, capabilities and competence to lead and manage successful longterm change.

References Armour, Kathy, and Doune Macdonald (Eds.). 2012. Research Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. Abingdon: Routledge. Burnes, Bernard. 2004. “Kurt Lewin and the Planned Approach to Change: A Re-appraisal”. Journal of Management Studies 41(6):9771002 Dent, Eric B. and Susan G Goldberg. 1999. “Challenging Resistance to Change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 35:25-41 Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.). 2000. Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd ed). London: Sage Publications Ltd. Dowling, Mathew, Edwards, J. and Washington, M. 2014. “Understanding the concept of professionalisation in sport management research”. Sports Management Review 17(4):520-529 Dunphy, Dexter., and Doug Stace. 1993. “The Strategic Management of Corporate Change”. Human Relations 46(8):905-920 Ellis, Carolyn. 2004. The Ethnographic I: A methodological novel about autoethnography. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Fullan, Michael. 1993. Change Forces; Probing the Depths of Education Reform. London: The Falmer Press. —. 2011. Change Leader: Learning to Do What Matters Most. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Geertz, Clifford. 1993. The Interpretation of Culture. London: Fontana Gratton, Chris., and Ian Jones. 2004. Research Methods for Sport Studies. London: Routledge

52

Chapter Four

Greiner, Larry E. 1967. “Patterns of Organisation Change”. Harvard Business Review 45(3):119-130 Grundy, Tony. 1993. Implementing Strategic Change: A Practical Guide for Business. London: Kogan Page Harris, Ben M. 1975. Supervisory behaviour in education (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Kotter, John P. 1995. “Leading Change”. Harvard Business Review March-April:59-67 —. 1996. Leading Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press Lewin, Kurt. 1943 “Defining the ‘field at a given time’”. In Field Theory in Social Science, edited by Cartwright, Dorwin. (ed.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. —. 1947a. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change”. Human Relations 1:5-41 —. 1947b. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics II: Channels of Group Life; Social Planning and Action Research”. Human Relations 1:143-153 Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson., and Bruce Westley. 1958. The Dynamics of Planned Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Marshak, Robert J. 1993. “Lewin Meets Confucius: A Review of the OD Model of Change”. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 29:393-415 Mullins, Laurie J. 1999. Management and Organisational Behaviour (5th ed). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Nadler, David A., and Michael L Tushman. 1989. “Organisational Frame Bending: Principles for Managing Re-orientation”. The Academy of Management Executive Vol. III (3):194-204 Robbins, Stephen P. 2001. Organisational Behaviour (9th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Senge, Peter. 2006. The Fifth Discipline. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday. Senior, Barbara., and Jocelyn Fleming. 2006. Organisational Change (3rd ed). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Thompson, Della. (ed.) 1996. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 9th ed. London: Oxford University Press Waterman Jnr., Robert H., Thomas J. Peters., and Julien R. Phillips. 1980. “Structure is not organisation”. Business Horizons 23 (3):14-26

CHAPTER FIVE ENGAGING STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY SPORT: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES FROM THE DELIVERERS’ PERSPECTIVE JULIE BRUNTON AND JIM MCKENNA

Introduction The rationale of physical activity (PA) for health is well documented (WHO 2010). Sport England, one of the leading bodies for sport in England, has set out a strategy to increase sports participation in 14-25 year olds (Sport England 2012). This group is heavily engaged with the higher education sector, and sport is an important mode of PA for many of these institutes, not least because many have good facilities and infrastructure (Sport England 2014). However, not all universities are the same, nor are their student constituencies alike. While many students are physically active, the staff of sport faculties/departments in many universities are often keen to use sport to help support student physical activity. Importantly, this approach meets the students’ agenda; 84% of university students said that “they were keen to do more sport or PA over the next 12 months than they currently do” (Sport England 2014, 16). The challenge for higher education lies in converting these positive intentions into actual involvement, as only “26% thought they would definitely do more” (Sport England 2014, 16) Much is already known about the barriers, constraints and determinants of sport and PA participation in university students (Hashim 2012; Romaguera, Tauler, Bennassar, Pericas, Moreno, Martineq and Aguilo 2011; Shifman, Moss, D’Andrade, Eichel and Forrester 2012; and Sport England 2014). However, little of this evidence helps to engage more of the inactive students. To illustrate this problem, once-a-week participation in sport at universities in England increased by 2% 2011-12 (55%-57%),

54

Chapter Five

but in universities involved in the Active Universities Project (AUP) between 2012-14 there was no increase (Sport England 2014). As an indication of the scale of unmet need, 57% of the student population met the once-a-week criterion, whereas 84% were being keen to do more sport or PA. In addition, 33% of the surveyed students in England do no sport at all; women, Black and Asian students, older students and those with a disability were most likely to not participate (Sport England 2014). This chapter discusses the key successes and challenges in engaging more students in sport from the deliverers’ perspective. Behaviour change theory is considered to help generate further meaning and value from the findings.

Interventions and the application of behaviour change theory This evidence confirms the pressing need to understand how best universities can engage more students in sport. While there are many different programs and approaches, little of this has been developed with an overt concern to operationalize current behaviour change and evaluation theory. The most powerful of these theories are important because they offer levers for change that practitioners can both deploy and evaluate. Without a consistent basis for comparing what works, and what does not, there is much waste in terms of resource and potential loss of efficiency of working. This may also be a familiar picture around the world. Thinking specifically about how best to engage more students in sport, the review of Richards, Hilson, Thorogood and Foster (2013, 20) concluded that a multi-component intervention with a tailored approach was most effective. Bullough (2012) also stressed the value of targeting, especially through market segmentation based on demographic and social variables. However, with truncated annual cycles and highly structured terms or semesters, sport delivery typically focuses on the tried-and-tested provision that can often favour provision for competitive sport. While this obviously satisfies sport advocates, it rarely reflects considered planning that also recruits new student audiences with no history of sport involvement. Behaviour change theories and models are used to understand the reasons why people change their behaviour. There are a myriad of theories that need to be better understood by practitioners to deliver more effective

Engaging Students in University Sport

55

interventions. With concerns for finance, much like the issues affecting public health, it is important that programs are both effective and costeffective, that way lies sustainability (Fineberg 2012). The theories most commonly used to plan interventions, where this does occur, are the social cognitive theories, Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975) and Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 1988), Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska and DiClimente 1983) and the Health Action Process Approach (Schwarzer 1992). Many of these theories integrate similar notions, such as self-efficacy, suggesting that there are universal concerns in behaviour change. Since sport provision has few domain-specific models or frameworks, this chapter focuses on elements drawn from the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Transtheoretical Model, as both are commonly used with university/college students (Cardinal, Lee, Kim, Lee, Li and Si 2009; Conroy, Elavsky, Doerksen and Maher 2013).

Approach The research was based on drawing a purposive sample, generated by inviting all those involved in the delivery and management of the Sport England AUP within one region in the North of England. Representatives from seven out of a possible ten universities participated within a focus group approach; they represented a majority of universities from this region, and included paid staff in sports development. Focus groups were also run with student Sport Activators: those volunteering to help engage more students in sport. In addition, notes were recorded over the project period from meetings with the deliverers, observations and conversations with Sport Activators and Sports Development staff in their role. The aim was to generate a shared view around two key research questions: (i) the successes/enablers, and (ii) the inhibitors/issues, for involving inactive and semi-active students in sport. Verbatim transcripts and field notes were analysed via a process of coding, unitising data to form categories and themes using a constant comparative method, in addition to intra-method triangulation, producing key themes. Behaviour change theory helped to explain the data around students' engagement and inhibitors in sport. The key role of the deliverers in this project was to engage more inactive and semi-active students in sport, meaning that the focus was not on competitive student sport. For Sport England, non-active students are those who did no sport in the last 28 days (Sport England 2014); their next 'more active' measure refers to 'any participation', defined as "participation in a session of at least 30 minutes of sport on one or more of

56

Chapter Five

the previous 28 days" (Sport England 2014, 8); we refer here to these students as 'semi-active'. Sport England aims to engage more students in sport once a week (Sport England 2014). All universities were required to measure the total number of students who participated within the 3-year project period ('participants'), and calculate the number of times students attended ('throughput' or 'attendances'). However, neither measure directly linked the percentages of students in the different levels of engagement to the projects of interest here, even though each university in the AUP supported the Higher Education Sport Participation and Satisfaction Survey (HESPSS). In Year 3, the HESPSS was deployed to all 55 enrolled universities (Sport England 2014), and this indicated the broader impact of the AUP, including a oncea-week measure. Given its salient characteristics, the resulting data is unsuitable for drawing firm conclusions with regards to particular university intervention effects. With these shortcomings, measurement and evaluation remains a priority in any university sport-based intervention.

What helped to engage students in university sport? To achieve the sporting targets, each university in this research employed 1-3 full-time Sport Development Officers or equivalent roles, between 16 to 155 volunteers and 4-58 coaches, depending on the university, which ranged from approximately 3,500 to 33,000 students. Alongside considerations of whether the size of the workforce was sufficient for need, a key concern was the low number of students who did more than one session of sport during the 3-year period. The findings of this research showed that there were two overarching themes that helped to engage students in sport: (i) make it known, and (ii) listen and work together.

Make it Known This theme has a number of interlinked elements that reflect a powerful underlying need to make student sport better known to inactive students. However deliverers went about this issue, the key successes were linked by students needing to know about sport. The methods are detailed below. Recruit through other students Inactive students are often not aware of what is on offer for them. Much of the problem here lies with the promotional methods used to reach

Engaging Students in University Sport

57

these previously unreached students. Posters and leaflets were not considered especially helpful, whereas having unpaid students recruit other students into the programs was. Recruiting enthusiastic volunteers to help with the AUPs was popular; often these volunteers were sports degree students who were keen to enhance their employability skills and experience: “Where we are lucky is that we have got a really large cohort of sports students… so when we are looking for volunteers and coaches and referees and co-ordinators in sport we have that pool of 3,000 students who want to do that as part of their course.” (University 5)

Overall, word-of-mouth was the most successful recruitment approach, which was particularly noted for the international students. This aligns with the theoretical notion of subjective norms (perceptions about what others in your social network are doing), endorsements from similar others appeared to be a powerful motivator for inactive students. When probing the Sport Activators about recruitment, it was the personal contact that overcame many of the barriers to student engagement. The use of student sport activators enabled peers to ask questions that helped to allay fears or spark interest in attending a sports session. By having a peer approaching another, it allowed students to check and overcome their concerns, particularly when they had low confidence about even the idea of sport participation. Personal contact also helped students to respond to questions and concerns in ways not possible through other promotional methods. Unintentionally, this method enabled the deliverers to achieve consciousness raising, by not only increasing awareness but also by providing feedback and interpretations to help move people towards action. The potential inhibitor here, and an area for further development, is to address the potential limitations of recruiting sport activators who were seen as sporty students. This provides a potential conflict for reaching inactive students who may not see themselves as sporty. Whilst this had not yet been achieved, the deliverers recognised the need to recruit a diversified group of sport activators, rather than simply relying on sports degree students.

58

Chapter Five

Sales Promotion Tools Sales promotion tools (universally known as ‘stash’) were well liked by activators and potential participants, as illustrated: Freebies and fancy dress has been a great success for us (university 1). Free t-shirts, club passes and trophies are well established as helping in developing a longerterm relationship with customers (Kotzler 2011), and this was regarded as universally effective. There was a sense that this also helped students to make a positive, albeit initial, association with involvement in sport. Positive attitudes, in this case about sport, represent a key predictor of intention, which can then be converted into try-outs, or even fuller commitments; this sequence was seen to operate in many recruits. Targeting Student Groups There was some evidence of universities trying to target students, although only with international students. For example, international students were especially impacted by word-of-mouth communication delivered by another international student acting as a recruiter: I think the biggest thing is word of mouth through the international students (university 3). Matching sport activators with the same target group was seen as important. That is, international student activators targeting international students, inactive activators with inactive students, and so on. Shifman, Moss, D’Andrade, Eichel and Forrester (2012, 2) concluded that university departments needed to collaborate to “foster awareness, promote the benefits of participation, and assist international students in overcoming these constraints to participating in intramural sports”. Differentiation of the student community was widely endorsed in reflections. Yes no respondents reported implementing this approach. Consistent with this, recently in the UK, the student union at Loughborough University (Loughborough Students’ Union 2014) promoted their services to a number of different student tribes in their community. These groups have been identified using expressive labels including: party people, leading lights, conscious carers, flow-goers, and academic individualists. Their aim was to offer services that ensure a greater quantity and quality of engagement with these groups, with an eye on optimising overall student experience. Other work has identified that distinctive types of university may require different approaches. For example, Reay, Crozier and Clayton (2010) identified the highly distinctive social and behavioural norms associated with the ‘northern’, ‘midland’ and ‘southern’ universities (the

Engaging Students in University Sport

59

typology is irrespective of geographical location). Considering this alongside targeting of specific student groups and using a social marketing approach in discussion with the target group can only help. Running Events Universities reported great success through events that increase attendance: “We literally have all kinds of racquet sports going on in a big venue. You can have badminton nets, you can have short tennis nets, and you can have mini squash; you can play ‘Round the World’ with table tennis. We have run three of those and we have had about 150 people along to the racqueta-thons” (university 2).

Other approaches targeted two events at the start of each semester to raise awareness among first year students that was regarded as helping them to develop positive attitudes in sport with those new to sport. To add interest to these participation events, recruiting professional players (sports celebrities) to attend, and even take part for a short time, helped to raise attendance and participation. This was easiest where universities had links with professional players, perhaps as alumni. This shows the importance of personal contacts among program staff. Other successful approaches encouraged students to turn up in fancy dress, offered the chance to receive free National Governing Body (NGB) materials and other items, and (ironically) to win trophies: “We had a Touch Rugby Tournament. Everyone came dressed up. It was brilliant. We got a couple of free t-shirts from the RFU [Rugby Football Union], club passes, trophies. Students seem to go mad for the trophies, which has been really great. It kind of takes away that competitive element as well. It gives a more social theme” (university 1).

The downside here was that there was little evidence of the success of these events in keeping students in sport. Here, the key message for deliverers is to use events that (i) build positive feelings, (ii) make small changes in attitude, and (iii) remain in reach of new participants. Social, Fun and Alternative Activities All the deliverers agreed that the most popular activities highlighted the social and fun elements, leaving competition aside. This was

Chapter Five

60

considered particularly important for first year students who are often isolated from their home-based social networks. For them, sociable activities provided important opportunities to develop new friendships. The importance in developing a sense of belonging and perceived sense of campus community through sport has been reported elsewhere (Elkins, Forrester and Noël-Elkins 2011). This is hardly surprising; Bell et al. (2014, 35) report that: “The student’s peer group is the single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years”. The focus of the activity is therefore important, delivering alternative activities rather than traditional sports was important for attracting the inactive and semi-active students: “For us it is the variety, the number of different sessions we can run and different sessions like cardio tennis… people are really buying into it really well” (university 3). Make it Easy Deliverers acknowledge the need to plan around, or work within, the competing demands on students’ time, which includes study, paid work, volunteering and a range of social activities. The internal timetabling of these activities was important, the academic timetable was regarded as one of the key factors that can either inhibit or facilitate participation. It was felt that working with the students and academic staff would help, although no-one reported doing this consistently. This level of collaboration was needed to timetable sport activities at times that would enable most students to be free to attend. One way that helped to adapt to the unpredictability inherent to many students’ lifestyles was to provide programs to attract students who preferred to just play. Students often favoured activities that were easy to do, required little formal preparation regarding equipment, needed neither sign-up nor membership, and, ironically, that were easy to forget about. The offer of just play was endorsed universally for its effectiveness in attracting more students. No strings was seen to be very powerful: “People that turn up to just play sessions, no strings badminton, they just want to do different bits and bobs, depending on what they are feeling like that week” (university 3).

The daily variations in student life can also help to explain the preference to just play, alongside current thinking on the impact of daily process analysis of intentions. Conroy, Elavsky, Doderksen and Maher (2013, 493) found that “daily changes in intentions, perceptions of limited

Engaging Students in University Sport

61

time available, and weekend status predicted day-to-day changes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity”. The concept of time also is a critical factor where research repeatedly shows that perceptions of time – availability, priorities and so on – were a barrier to participation across different age groups and settings (Casper, Bocarro, Kanters and Floyd 2011). However, given that time has many connotations - perceived and real (Casper et al. 2011) - further qualitative research into students’ perspectives around such barriers/constraints may be helpful for better programming (Sport England 2013a). This work will be especially beneficial where it includes, or focuses upon, the lives of inactive students.

Listen and Work Together The second theme that helped to engage students in sport emerged by the strength of feeling expressed in contributions. The importance of listening to students about their preferences and difficulties in participation was regularly reinforced, as was the value of working together with both internal and external partners. Colleagues from the AUP reported that students’ unions, sports clubs, and external sports organisations (to universities), for example National Governing Bodies (NGBs) of Sport and County Sports Partnerships, and students, were key partners in supporting increased sports participation. With the range of potential bodies working to promote student sport, efficiency is enhanced by alignment around common targets. Heath et al. (2012) noted that policies and environmental supports were particularly important for adult participation where health agencies partner and coordinate efforts with several other organisations. Developing relationships with students’ union staff was highlighted as highly important. This activated a uniform approach to the promotion of sport engagement to all students: “It is not uncommon to have a bit of politics between the students’ union and sports side of things, and the established staff. For me, the closeness of the relationship has led to the forming of a joint strategy for sport” (university 1)

While responsibility for promoting just play activities often sat within the role of a university sport development officer, participants felt very strongly that it was necessary to work closely with the students’ union body. Equally, all of the universities worked with NGBs, finding these relationships mutually beneficial:

62

Chapter Five “We kind of worked with the NGBs that we knew were committed to driving our programs. Without them, some of the programs would not have got off the ground” (university 3).

One university set up a sport participation committee to have students involved in sport at this level and to have their ‘voice’ represented: “One of the roles that myself and the Student Participation Officer want to do is to have a sport participation committee, so that participation representatives will sit within each college to further ‘plug’ what we are doing throughout university” (university 1).

Listening to student feedback provided through media was considered to be important for making subtle and timely refinements to existing provision, as commented: “We adapt and tweak things in line with what the students want more than what I think they want” (university 1).

Issues and inhibitors with university sport participation Three key themes summarised the inhibitors to participation: access and availability, marketing and social media, and monitoring and evaluation, as detailed below.

Access and Availability Some universities found it challenging to attract new, rather than returning, participants to their sessions. With a concern to optimise facility use, staff typically highlighted the need to reach sufficient numbers of those students who do not normally attend sports sessions: “We are only getting 8 or 9 people along to the sessions, but it is the same people coming back” (university 2). Others found it difficult to find ways that would convert a one-off attendance into a more regular commitment. For some students, and notwithstanding the positive aspiration within AUP, access remained an issue. Provision was made against the academic timetable: It is the time of the sessions. They are all before 5 o’clock in the evening so, apart from Friday, a lot of students are still on timetable (university 6). In every university, the availability of sports facilities was an issue exacerbated by the academic program taking precedence; sports facilities

Engaging Students in University Sport

63

were required as exam rooms, for curriculum teaching or, for some, for house recruitment days. In response, one university invested in roll out badminton courts to help increase the capacity for practical space. Other universities used external facilities, including external gyms, swimming pools, golf courses, and areas for cycling off-campus. This highlights the need to have easy access to facilities and to remove such barriers where possible. The need for students to have an “ease of playing” was highlighted within the Sport England (2013a) survey, where students rated this as very important, shown by 60% and 63% scoring it between 8-10/10. This correlates with research by Bauman et al. (2012), which also put perceived access to recreation facilities as the most consistent environmental correlation, which is shown further here. Hashim (2012) found with regard to international students that ‘convenient facilities, ‘time’, and ‘information regarding available activities’ were the most inhibiting factors for international students for participation in sport. This was also reiterated by Shifman, Moss, D’Andrade, Eichel and Forrester (2012). Ulla and Perez-Fortis (2009) also noted the competing interests on student time, pressures with being a student and the increasing pressures students face due to engagement in academic activities, left many students feeling that they had neither the time nor the motivation for PA. Working with, and being fully aware of, the university structures, is needed to optimise access for all students. The timetabling of academic sessions, placements or teaching practice and students returning home at weekends, were all identified as preventing students from attending sessions. This further highlighted the need for targeting student programs and types of students, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Marketing and Social Media Although marketing was often helpful, at other times it consistently inhibited students from engaging in university sport. Problems stemmed from getting the right marketing activity and identity. University 7 struggled to get their publicity produced by their marketing department who were, instead, focusing on recruitment, rather than sport promotions. This is likely to reflect changes and pressures in the UK university sector. University 1 found similar difficulties: “Our marketing department has shrunk after loads of re-structures and everything, so sport is not a priority for them. It is all about recruitment,

64

Chapter Five especially with the international students and postgraduates.” (University 1)

This university also wanted to change their branding to be more noticeable, whilst also getting the branding right, as stated by university 6: “The name of the participation program is the other thing that has been a problem for me. So the whole re-branding for September is something we are going to be looking at doing to make students more aware of what they can get involved in.” (University 6)

Recognising the importance of less formal networking approaches, some university staff felt that they did not know enough about social media to keep on top of it. A number of contributors noted this as a key contemporary challenge. However, there were some universities that used them more successfully, with the aid of getting the activators or coaches to update the sites: “I get a lot of my coaches to do this - Facebook pages and Facebook groups, and they do tweet accounts for specific sessions. That kind of takes it away from you” (university 3).

This illustrated a training need to help increase confidence and competence in marketing via social media. Heath et al. (2012) identified the value of such training for developing successful interventions, especially those delivered in partnership with community organisations. It may be realistic for university deliverers to draw on their own students to train staff in social media applications. While the adequacy of attempts to promote university sport might be assumed, these findings support other work, suggesting a general lack of attention in this area. Tsigilis, Masmanidis and Koustelios (2009, 74) summarised: “To increase student participation in their programs, they should seek more effective strategies to promote them.”

Monitoring and Evaluation Although it was a requirement for funding through AUP, monitoring and evaluation was an issue for all universities: I know everyone has problems with this… in terms of making sure we get accurate throughput and participation figures (university 1). For most, it was an unfamiliar activity. One difficulty was the reliance on the paper format (as opposed to

Engaging Students in University Sport

65

electronic) data collection; often the nominated evaluators – typically inexperienced students - failed to collect the data. Technical and reliability issues were also common. One deliverer experimented with having automatic card readers to measure attendance, only latterly recognising that the system could not register off-site activities, such as cycling, swimming, athletics and golf. Another was trialling a new system through an iPad, but then recognised the need for several iPads to cover each sport, which added an unforeseen expense to the project. These were all issues related to running new projects; they provide valuable lessons for subsequent implementation. These issues highlight that deliverers are under-prepared to meet the increasing demand that they provide robust evidence of return on investment and/of value for money. To establish the contributions that such projects can make to student experience, and to ensure sustained investment, it is important that program staff take very seriously support for rigorous evaluation methods that withstand academic scrutiny. Fostering stronger links to academic departments within their own institution could provide much of this resource.

Conclusion There are no known systematic evaluations of theoretically-based multi-level interventions for university sports participation. The England, AUP, researched here, is no different. This study focused on the deliverers’ perspective on what would (i) engage more inactive students in sport, and (ii) inhibit these students from this engagement. It is hoped that the findings will help provide practice based lessons about extending the reach to a wider population of students. The results need to be understood in light of the limitations inherent to our approach. It is possible, for example, that any reported success resulted from simply appealing to the ‘low-hanging fruit’ of positively intentioned groups. By implication, this suggests that the more hard-to-reach groups may have been left unreached. Equally, the approaches that were advocated may indicate the preferences of the deliverers for what they already knew how to do. Finally, because focus groups are affected by social pressure, they may not offer the best way to identify radical approaches, even if they had been attempted, or approaches that run counter to established ways of working.

66

Chapter Five

The findings of this research suggest that multi-level intervention approaches are effective in engaging more students in sport. For these deliverers, this success stemmed from two main themes: Make it Known and Listen and Work Together. However, it is not clear which of these elements is more potent than any other. The issues that inhibit student engagement in sport – access and availability, marketing and social media, monitoring and evaluation – could be better addressed by campaigns and individual approaches, alongside tackling environmental and policy constraints. The issues that inhibit student engagement in sport (access and availability, marketing and social media, and monitoring and evaluation) could be better addressed by campaigns and individual approaches, alongside tackling environmental and policy constraints. Lessons can be learnt about the value of using student peers to recruit other students into sport and using inactive students as role models to reach more within the same target market. Matching student sport activators to student target groups also seems to be effective; this builds on ‘alikeness’. Other benefits were shown by the use of stash or sales promotion to help create positive attitudes and to build on this to extend the reach to more students. Reach is also extended by using targeted interventions through market segmentation, which may identify distinctive student ‘tribes’. Equally, focussing on activities that are easy to do, that require no commitment and that are highly social activities will be important. Indeed, prioritising social aspirations may also be important, allowing sport participation to be a beneficial ‘spin-off’. Specific events definitely raised one-off attendance; more work is needed to identify effective follow up and maintenance initiatives. Targeted promotional campaigns aimed at particular student groups such as females, students living off-site, international students, and other communities of inactive students, could benefit from activating strategies that change knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in sport. This could be achieved by using targeted messages about sport, and reinforcing key constructs from behaviour change theory. In addition, (i) environmental factors that ensure adequate sports provision, (ii) working through the university organisational structures and (iii) engaging ‘real’ students to help other students to engage, were considered as key elements in effective sports development. It is essential to better understand the sub-cultures of any student community and to develop a fuller appreciation of what can be done to

Engaging Students in University Sport

67

appeal to their interests around sports participation. Work needs to be done so that more students prioritise more of the many versions of sport within their working week and lifestyle, rather than towards the bottom of a list of other preferred activities (Sport England 2013a). Equally, placing a high value on one-off attendances needs to be reconsidered to include better recruitment and maintenance strategies post-event. Listening to what students want and ‘working together’ with both internal and external agents who can both inhibit and enable sport are central to operationalizing this idea. Equally, providing a diet of alternative activities to traditional sports were said to be more important. Gym; running or jogging; aerobics/fitness classes; cycling; weight training; football/futsal; and water-based activities (swimming, diving, synchro and water polo) were the most popular student sport activities with Sport England’s National Survey (Sport England 2013b), and are important in overcoming pre-existing attitudes about traditional sport. This research aims to stimulate further research into university student sports participation and intervention evaluation. It provides suggestions for university sports deliverers and sports development policy makers to help inform future practice. In addition to the themes identified, the key delivery concerns are to establish i) the extent of the reach, ii) adherence to the programs, and iii) evidence of impact. With this, the sufficiency of resource needs to be sufficiently addressed. It is recommended that future sport-based interventions are underpinned by multi-level correlates, determinants and behaviour change theory, and are informed by a systematic review of this population for sport. As Bauman et al. (2012, 268) state: “The greatest challenge for this field will be translation of research into public health action”. To this end, and beyond the contribution of this chapter to providing practice-based evidence, monitoring and evaluation in Sports Development needs to bring together academic faculties/departments to develop an effective model of evidencebased practice.

References Ajzen, Icek. 1988. Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bauman, Adrian E., Rodrigo S. Reis., James F. Sallis,. Jonathan C. Wells,. Ruth J. F. Loos., and Brian W. Martin. 2012. “Physical Activity 2. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not?” Lancet 380:258-71.

68

Chapter Five

Bell, Brent J., Michael A., Gass., Christopher S. Nafziger., and David J. Starbuck. 2014. “The State of knowledge of Outdoor Orientation Programs: Current Practices, Research, and Theory.” Journal of Experiential Education 37 (1):31-45. Bullough, Steve J. 2012. “A new look at the latent demand for sport and its potential to deliver a positive legacy for London 2012.” International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(1):39-54. Cardinal, Bradley J., Jong-Young, Lee., Young-Ho, Kim., Hyo,. Lee., KinKit, Li., and Qi, Si. 2009. “Behavioral, Demographic, Psychosocial, and Sociocultural Concomitants of Stage of Change for Physical Activity Behavior in a Mixed-Culture Sample.” American Journal of Health Promotion 23(4):274-278. Casper, Jonathan M., Jason N, Bocarro, Michael A. Kanters, and Myron F. Floyd. 2011. “ ‘Just Let Me Play!’ – Understanding Constraints That Limit Adolescent Sport Participation.” Journal of Physical Activity and Health 8 (1):S32-S39. Conroy, David E., Steriani. Elavsky., Shawna E. Doerksen., and Jaclyn P. Maher. 2013. “A Daily Process Analysis of Intentions and Physical Activity in College Students.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 35:493-502. Elkins, Daniel J., Scott A. Forrester., and Amelia V. Noël-Elkins. 2011. “The Contribution of Campus Recreational Sports Participation to Perceived Sense of Campus Community.” Recreational Sports Journal 35: 24-34. Fineberg, Harvey. V. 2012. Shattuck Lecture. “A successful and sustainable health system - how to get there from here.” New England Journal of Medicine 366 (11):1020-1027. Fishbein, Martin. and Icek. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Don Mills, New York, US: Addison-Wesley. Hashim, Hairul. A. 2012. “Perceived Barriers to Recreation Sport Participation in University Students: A Comparison between International and Local Students in the United States”. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 20(1):197-203. Heath, Gregory W., Diana C. Parra., Olga L. Sarmiento., Lars B. Andersen., Neville Owen., Shifalika Goenka., Felipe Montes., and Ross C. Brownson. 2012. “Physical Activity 3. Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world.” Lancet 380:272-281. Kotzler, Philip. 2011. Principles of Marketing. New Jersey, US: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Engaging Students in University Sport

69

Loughborough Student Union. 2014. Loughborough Students Tribes. Accessed October 14. http://www.lsu.co.uk/tribes.html. Prochaska, James., and Carlo. C. DiClemente, 1983. “Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51:390-395. Reay, Diane., Gill Crozier., and John Clayton. 2010. ''Fitting in' or 'standing out': working-class students in UK higher education'”. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1):107-124 Richards, Justin., Melvyn Hillsdon., Margaret Thorogood,. and Charles Foster,. 2013. “Face-to-face interventions for promoting physical activity (Review).” The Cochrane Library Issue 9. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Romaguera, Dora., Pedro Tauler., Miquel Bennassar., Jordi Pericas., Carolos Moreno,. Sonia Martineq., and Antoni Aguilo. 2011. “Determinants and patterns of physical activity practice among Spanish university students.” Journal of Sports Sciences 29(9):989997. Schwarzer, Ralf. 1992. Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviours: Theoretical approaches and a new model. In Selfefficacy: Thought control of action edited by Schwarzer, Ralf., 217242. Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Shifman, Robbie., Katelyn Moss,. Giselle D’Andrade,. Jessica Eichel,. and Scott Forrester. 2012. “A Comparison of Constraints to Participation in Intramural Sports Between International and Non-International Students.” Recreational Sports Journal 36:2-12. Sport England. 2012. Creating a Sporting Habit for Life. Sport England: England. —. 2013a. Higher Education Sport Participation and Satisfaction Survey. National Report. Year Two. TNS BMRB: England. —. 2013b. Active People Survey. Sport England. —. 2014. Higher Education Sport Participation and Satisfaction Survey. National Report. Year Three. TNS BMRB: England. Tsigilis, Nikolaos., Theophilos Masmanidis., and Athanasios Koustelios,. 2009. “University Students’ Satisfaction and Effectiveness of Campus Recreation Programs”. Recreational Sports Journal 33:65–77. Ulla Diez, S. M., and Adriana Perez-Fortis. 2009. “Socio-demographic predictors of health behaviors in Mexican college students.” Health Promotion International 25:85–93. World Health Organization (WHO). 2010. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: WHO.

CHAPTER SIX AN INVESTIGATION OF STUDENT’S INTERNET USE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THEIR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BARBARA BÚTOR, MIHÁLY ZSIROS, ÁGNES KOKOVAY AND ZSUZSA GALLOWAY

Context This research project grew out of preliminary data collection for a PhD project examining students’ access to sporting information on university webpages, and their physical activity levels. The proposed PhD project is an online intervention, designed to increase student awareness of, and participation in, organised physical activity and exercise sessions. This study examines some of the parameters for the proposed intervention in two universities, one in Hungary and one in the UK. Findings of this study may provide relevant information for sport development officers to support their efforts in increasing participation and distributing information.

Theoretical background World Health Organisation (WHO) statistics show a decline in Hungarian and GB health indicators (2012). The Hungarian population is inactive, obesity is on the increase, and physical activity levels are on a decline, despite widespread knowledge that physical activity has health benefits. Regular physical activity decreases risk of heart and circulatory disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and being overweight (Kiss 2003). There are also psychological benefits, including decreasing stress and depression, and increasing confidence (Pluhár, Kresztes and Pikó 2004). It could therefore be suggested that university sport (including competitive and recreational opportunities) is important for students’ physical and

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

71

psychological development. This is further supported by Mihailova Kaminska and Bernane (2012), whose research examined correlations between physical activity and health-related fitness in students. Based on self-reported activity, and exercise engagement and health-related physical testing, their research has concluded that physical activity positively correlates with muscle mass and cardiorespiratory fitness parameters and negatively with body fat. They also concluded that physical activity significantly affects body composition, grip strength, and aerobic capacity. In Irwin’s (2007) study, 35% of university students maintained the recommended activity levels over a month. Irwin’s research used a questionnaire, participants self-reported physical activity engagement once at the beginning and again after a month. Of greater concern is the fact that only 35% of students were active enough to meet recommended guidelines over a month. As insufficient physical activity may lead to serious health concerns, Irwin suggests that interventions are needed to improve activity maintenance of students. Higher education institutions should therefore provide opportunities for regular physical activity and exercise, and ensure that these opportunities and interventions offered are communicated to students and are accessible. Current WHO recommendations for adults aged 18-64 is at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, or at least 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week, or an equivalent combination of moderate and vigorous-intensity activity (WHO 2014). As WHO data shows, 31.1% of adult population is inactive worldwide, with inactivity levels higher in higher income countries than lower income ones (Hallal et al. 2012); strategies have been developed to raise awareness and increase physical activity levels. In response, various interventions have been designed, promoted and tested to identify ways of increasing physical activity levels of all of the population. A large number of individuals use the Internet to gather health related information, and these numbers are increasing (Davies et al. 2012). There is research evidence that Internet based physical activity interventions can be effective (Bosak, Yates and Pozehl 2009, Davies et al. 2012). These messages are publicised in various ways - print, audio, and digital - to meet the needs of the wider population, and often in bite-size, easy to access options as well, to suit apparent habits of online readers. The number of households owning computers and connected to the Internet is continually increasing. It is an accepted fact that the Internet is the main source of information for most of the younger generation, the digital natives (Tari 2011). The expressions ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net

72

Chapter Six

generation’ refer to the generation born roughly between 1980 and 1994 because of their familiarity with, and reliance on, information technology – although in everyday use it is used more broadly by younger generations. It is generally assumed that they are familiar with IT and connected in their everyday life, however, Bennett, Maton, and Kervin (2008) argue that there is limited research evidence to support presumptions about digital natives. Kvavik’s (2005 in Oblinger and Oblinger 2005) research examining over 4,000 students’ use of technology found that a signicant proportion of students had lower level skills than might be expected of digital natives. There is evidence, however, that their search habits and focus are different to older generations (Zimerman 2012). To ensure that information reaches students, we should know their search habits and adapt delivery of information to suit their preferences and abilities. Our research aimed to discover how students at a Hungarian and an English university use the Internet for general use and for gathering information regarding physical activity.

Methods Ethical approval for the study was granted by Semmelweis University, Hungary. Participants in the research were first year university students at Szent István Egyetem (SZIE), Hungary (n=200), and at the University of Wolverhampton (UoW), UK (n=40). Students in Hungary were studying non-sport related courses, but as part of their studies at this university, one physical education (PE) session a week is mandatory in the first year. Students can choose between various activities: aerobics, football, yoga, volleyball, tennis, basketball, and strength and conditioning. Students in the UK were studying a sport course (coaching), but there is no mandatory physical education at this university. Participants completed a survey questionnaire designed by the primary researcher and their research supervisor. Questions were grouped into four categories, such as demographics, sporting/physical activity related questions, ICT/Internet use, and the use of university website. The questionnaire was designed to enable the primary researcher to collect baseline data for an intervention study, to examine whether changes in webpage design could encourage engagement with organised sport and activity sessions. As the current research is an off shoot of that one, not all questions were equally relevant, their questions were not analysed.

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

73

Demographic questions identify gender, age group and socio-economic characteristics. These become predictor factors for other categories. Questions relating to sporting habits enable researchers to assess participants’ motivation and engagement, and will again be predictor factors for some questions and a baseline for the intervention study. Questions regarding ICT and Internet use inform researchers of generic habits of participants, while the last group of questions provide valuable data, specifically related to whether and how participants use university pages for finding information, and as a source of information for availability of sport and exercise sessions. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. The small number of participants and unequal numbers between participant groups does not allow for generalisation or a strong comparison or correlations to be developed, however, being an exploratory data collection, this study did not aim to do either.

Discussion of findings The purpose of this research was to discover first year university students’ Internet use habits, including gathering information for physical activity, their engagement in organised physical activity, and whether online information on available physical activity sessions would influence their activity.

Demographics Participants were aged 18-44, with 4 participants (1.7%) falling in the 40-44 age range. Within the Hungarian group, the gender split was 50.5% male 49.5% female, however, only 20% of the participants studying at the UK institution were female. Most live in urban areas (80% HU and 87% UK), and have completed A level (or equivalent) as their highest qualification. Demographic data confirmed that the majority (95%) of the participants were born after 1980, the suggested generation for digital natives. Further data regarding computer and Internet use confirmed that our participant group could be classed as digital natives as described by Zimerman (2012).

Chapter Six

74

Sporting and exercise habits The second set of questions, regarding participants’ physical activity, revealed that 60% of Hungarian and 87.5% of English participants reported being active, with an additional 7.5% of English participants indicating minimal level of activity. Participants engage in a wide range of organised activities and undertake some activities on their own. Activities range from aerobics, to football and weight lifting. Figure 1 displays the range of activities Hungarian students engage in, while figure 2 contains the same data for UK participants.

Figure 1- Activities Hungarian participants are engaged in

wrestling

wakeboard

ultimate frisbee

taekwondo

swimming

sailing

kick-box

rhythmic gymnastics

karate

handball

gym

football

folla

everything

body building

athletics

basketball

rock and roll

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

75

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

Figure 2 - Activities UK participants are engaged in

When asked when they took up the activity they engage in, a similar proportion of participants reported having started their activity in primary school in both groups, but there were some differences between the two participant groups in secondary school and university, as shown in figure 3. This could be the result of differences in the participant groups, the courses studies, or university regulations. 60 50 40 30

HU

20

UK

10 0 primary school secondary school

university

Figure 3 - When participants took up the activity they partake in.

Chapter Six

76

Participants were also asked about the frequency of their activity/exercise. The most frequent answer was 2-3 times a week, followed by daily for UK participants, and once a week for HU participants (figure 4). This could also be the result of the differences mentioned above. 60 50 40 30

HU

20

UK

10 0 1x

2-3x

daily

other

Figure 4 - Frequency of activity

The final question in this section enquired about factors affecting students’ participation (figure 5). Whereas most Hungarian students chose their activity for easy accessibility, UK students chose low cost activities. It is a surprising result considering the economical difference between the two countries, although there may be various contributing factors that will be discussed.

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

77

HU UK

Figure 5 - What affects your participation?

As this study is an initial step towards an intervention study that focuses on increasing awareness of opportunities offered by the university, the questions did not expand to the entire range of what is considered physical activity. As a result, claims cannot be made as to whether WHO physical activity guidelines are met by this group of participants. It is noticeable, however, that there was a much higher percentage of UK participants who engage in physical activity daily compared to the HU participant group. This is a notable difference, especially as a government initiative to introduce daily physical education to primary and secondary schools has also been extended to university students having to take 2-4 units of PE during their studies in Hungary. Universities have autonomy in how this is included in their regulations; SZIE students have to take PE for the first year of their studies. Some conclusions can be drawn about tendencies in participation, as 42.5% of Hungarian participants partake in sessions organised by the institution and an additional 20% in club sessions, which may be a result of the national initiative, but does still indicate that there is still about a third of the sample who do not engage in mandatory sessions. In comparison, only 48.6% of UK participants take part in club sessions and 51.4% engage in activities on their own; there may be a need to investigate these differences further. Examining not only where but what activity participants partake in becomes relevant. The set of questions regarding what activity, when participants started and what influenced their decision needs to be looked at as a complex unit.

Chapter Six

78

There is a relatively equal distribution of when Hungarian participants took up the activity they partake in, which may appear somewhat surprising in itself, however, when considering the fact that 51% take part in activities within their institution and 24% in a club, the reason for such balance may be in the fact that they are able to continue core sports/activities such as football and fitness that they may have started earlier, but many (29.2%) may opt to take up something offered at the institution because of ease of access; 83% of Hungarian participants stated that as an influence on their choice; by far the most influential aspect. The data shows a slightly different picture within the UK sample. Over half the group took up their activity in secondary school, mostly due to the influence of friends or parents, compared to 17.8% at university. The greatest influences at this stage appear to be low cost (43.6%) alongside ease of access (33.3%). There is an almost equal split between club participation and individual activities in this sample group. If all these factors are considered in the context of the specific university, and this particular sample, a very high proportion of whom are local to the university and live at home, the picture becomes complete. Exercising on one’s own may be the most cost effective and accessible (such as running, weights, cycling). Secondary school age would be the optimal time for becoming part of a club at the influence of friends and due to the structure of clubs in the UK. These already established routines would not have to be broken when living at home while studying at a local university. This would also explain the fact that participants’ choice was not affected by information on the Internet; they would use it to check details of sessions available. .

Computer and Internet use The third set of questions regarded computer and Internet use. All Hungarian participants and all but one English participant own a computer and can access the Internet on that device. All Hungarian participants also stated that they spend two or more hours online per day, along with 60% of English participants. Answers also indicate that participants use the Internet to study, search for information, browse and for entertainment. When looking for information, both groups use the Internet primarily (figure 6). The second most frequently used source of information is leaflets or advertisement, with very few students using the local paper or other sources to find information.

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

79

HU UK

ads, leaflets local paper

internet

other

Figure 6 - Where do you gather information about options available?

All but one student owns a computer, and students tend to use them to access the Internet. Most of the participants also spend extended periods (two or more hours) online each day. This is a significant increase from 25 hours a week reported by Kvavik (2005) and may be linked with recent advances in information technology, making accessing the Internet increasingly easy and convenient, as well as the increasing amount of information now available online. Participants appear to be comfortable and competent using the Internet to gather information on various areas of life. The most frequently identified use of the Internet is for communication, closely followed by study purposes. The next biggest uses are information gathering and surfing; reported by only a slightly smaller percentage of participants, while only a relatively small proportion of participants use the Internet to play games. The range of activities and even distribution again confirms that this group of participants is connected, and has the skills to use IT. Kvavik’s (2005) argument that they may not have the level of skill expected may be reflected in the fact that while they spend a lot of time online, when searching for information, participants will spend very little time locating the information. This research did not follow the question up that would allow a more supported comparison and discussion of this element. It is, however an important aspect when considering how to present and distribute information regarding sporting opportunities. The most frequently used source of information is the Internet, but while participants use the Internet to find

80

Chapter Six

out what options are available (facilities, types of sessions, cost) this does not appear to influence their choice of activity. Participants’ answers appear to indicate that they know what they want to do, what they are looking for when, and how they could take part in that activity, and importantly, they want to find this information quickly.

Use of university webpages The fourth group of questions enquired about participants’ use of the university webpages. The first question revealed that all participants visit their university’s website. They look for a range of information regarding various areas of university life. Most look for study material, followed by news and information and lastly some look for university services. Students visit the current students menu point most frequently, followed by departmental/school pages, and finally the search bar. The final two questions asked specifically about sporting information on the university’s webpages. Participants were asked whether they would want to have accurate information on the webpages and whether they would take advantage of these offerings. The response by Hungarian participants to both questions was 100% yes, with 89.5% UK participants saying they would also consider these options. This appears to be contradictory to the data in figure 4, however, this question is not restricted to participants’ choice of activity, it may simply be a more convenient or cost efficient session within the sport or activity they already practice. This may help increase physical activity levels by ensuring students are aware of all options offered at the institution. The two most frequently listed reasons for choosing an activity were ease of access and low cost, universities may be able to fulfil both of these criteria, but would certainly be able to provide better access by providing relevant information if it was made available on frequently visited pages and was easy to find so little time needs to be spent searching for information.

Conclusion The purpose of this research was to discover first year university students’ Internet use habits, including gathering information for physical activity, their engagement in organised physical activity, and whether online information on available physical activity sessions would influence their activity.

An Investigation of Student’s Internet Use

81

Data reveals that almost all participants (99.6%) own a computer, use it daily and use the Internet for many aspects of their lives, including personal, work, and study purposes. A key source of university related information is their university’s website, which they visit frequently and for various reasons and uses. The most visited pages are the current student pages, as these contain specific information catering to the students. Data also reveals that while most participants are physically active to some extent, overall, only 20% of participants participate in activities daily. Participants in the Hungarian sample take part in activities less frequently, despite some national strategies for increasing participation. Finally, all participants want to have access to relevant and accurate information regarding physical activity opportunities on the university’s website, and almost all said that having this information would affect their physical activity choices. Based on participants’ Internet use and search habits, this information should be presented in an easy to find location, such as student pages. This data indicates that to meet student preferences, information regarding sporting opportunities should be made available online, on university webpages. Both the location and content of this information is important to achieve higher student participation rates.

References Bennett, Sue., Karl Maton., and Lisa Kervin,. 2008. “The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence”. British Journal of Educational Technology 39(5):775-786 Bosak, Kelly A., Bernice Yates., and Bunny Pozehl,. 2009. “Feasibility of an Internet Physical Activity Intervention”. Western journal of nursing research [online] 31(5):648-661 DOI: 10.1177/0193945909333889 Davies, Cally., John Spence., Corneel Vandelanotte., Christina Caperchione., and Kerry Mummery. 2012. “Meta-analysis of Internetdelivered interventions to increase physical activity levels”. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity [online], 9(1):52-52 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-52 Hallal, Pedro C., Lars Bo Andersen., Fiona. C Bull,. Regina Guthold., and William Haskell. 2012. “Physical activity 1: Global physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects”. The Lancet 380(9838):247-257. Available at:

82

Chapter Six

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1029876248?accountid=14685 Irwin, Jennifer D. 2007. “The prevalence of physical activity maintenance in a sample of university students: a longitudinal study”. Journal of American college health: J of ACH [online], 56(1):37-41 DOI: 10.3200/JACH.56.1.37-42 Kiss, Éva Zs. 2003. “Fizikai aktivitás-Fittség-Prevenció”. Budapesti Népegészség 241-247. Kvavik, Robert, B. (2005). Convenience, communication, and control: How students use technology. In Educating the net generation edited by Diana G Oblinger,. and James, L. Oblinger, 7.1–7.20. Boulder, CO:EDUCAUSE. Mihailova, Anna, Irena Kaminska., and Anda Bernane. 2012 Physical activity in physiotherapy and physical education high school students. 4th International Interdisciplinary Scientific Conference SOCIETY, HEALTH, WELFARE [online] RƯga StradiƼš University, Riga 22–23 November. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20141000025 Pluhár, Zsuzsanna., Noémi Kresztes., and Bettina Pikó. 2004. “A rendszeres fizikai aktivitás és a pszichoszomatikus tünetek kapcsolata általános iskolások körében”. Sportorvosi Szemle 4:285-300. Tari, Annamária. 2011. Z generáció. Tercium Kiadó, Budapest. WHO. 2012. World health statistics. [online] Available at:

—. 2014. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health [online] Available at:

Zimerman, Martin. 2012. “Digital natives, searching behavior and the library”. New Library World [online], 113(3):174-201 Available at:

CHAPTER SEVEN COMMUNITY LED SPORT INTERVENTION AND THE IMPACT OF THE VOLUNTEER JADE JACKSON

Introduction This chapter provides an exploration into the relationship between the impact of volunteerism, sport development within lower socio-economic communities, and health inequalities. This forms part of research evaluating a community sports development intervention within the West Midlands, pertaining mostly to the Black Country area, covering the Boroughs of Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, and the city of Wolverhampton. Subsequent to statistics and insight, it has highlighted significant health and social inequalities within this area, with current insight studies within this area, along with Sport England’s Active People Survey (2013), suggesting that approximately 500,000 adults are inactive (0x30mins) and many are classified as overweight or obese (Dudley 27.8%, Sandwell 25.4%, Walsall 30.4% and Wolverhampton 28.5%). The premise of the Black Country in Motion (BCiM) initiative is to provide community sport, led by the community, using volunteers to increase sport participation, thus reducing health and social inequalities. Further to the objective of deploying community volunteers to deliver sport and physical activity, the BCiM project further aims to encourage physically inactive people within these communities to engage in 1x30 minutes of physical activity per week, with a target of 3,000 minutes over three years. The geographical areas (Black Country in Motion Zones) for these community led activities, have been determined as being the areas with predominantly high health, educational, and socio-economical inequalities, and also due to their population profile, the potential for participation to grow.

84

Chapter Seven

BCiM is a three year Sport England funded pilot project, through its “Get Healthy, Get into Sport” funding stream, and is managed by Black Country Consortium Limited (the partnership and development agency that is also the County Sports Partnership). BCC Ltd fund Wolves Community Trust to employ the two project activators who deliver the program, and the University of Wolverhampton for a BCiM Project Research program. The project is reaching the end of its first year delivery (January 2015) and research program. The purpose of this chapter to explore volunteerism within ‘hard to reach’ communities, investigate the traditional relationship volunteering has upon community and sport development, and explore the impact this has, using developing findings from research so far. The exploration into the sport and health agendas, which are evidently influential on sport and social policy (Coalter 2005; Gratton and Henry 2001), will be explored, with the objective of identifying the impact such policy has upon community and sport development. Furthermore, as notions of social capital pertaining to volunteering and social action are fundamental to such policy discourse and rhetoric (Morgan 2013; Such 2012), consideration into this as a model for volunteering within areas of social deprivation will be developed. Having identified trends, motivations and profiles within volunteering, the aim of this chapter is to develop relationships between volunteerism and sport development within ‘hard to reach’ communities, drawing on emergent findings from the BCiM initiative. Therefore, this chapter will provide a preliminary perspective of the social barriers and challenges faced when implementing volunteer opportunities in sport in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Through the exploration of volunteering experiences, this chapter aims to identify the aims and expectations of the volunteers who have participated as part of the BCiM program. Identifying volunteer motivations, prospective opportunities for social mobility and volunteer disengagement/engagement will be explored, with the premise of developing notions pertaining to challenges and barriers within the volunteering milieu.

Sport and Health Policy Agendas The benefits that sport and physical activity have upon health have been significantly explored throughout literature (Bouchard, et al. 2006; Stensel and Hardman 2008; Blair and Powell 2014), with a plethora of

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

85

research and literature highlighting that sport and physical activity reduce heart disease, diabetes, and obesity, to name a few, and more emphasis has been placed upon sport with regards to political health agendas. With the economic challenges faced by the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, it is evident that early intervention through sport agenda is somewhat favoured (Such 2012). Supporting this, Gratton and Taylor (2004) develop such notions by identifying the economic value of sport upon health and how physical activity can significantly reduce health costs, both upon the economy and for the individual. Subsequently, the introduction of economic assessment tools relating to health within sport development, such as HEAT (the Health Economic Assessment Tool), will in principle calculate money saved as a result to individuals not accessing health provision due to early intervention (WHO 2008). Drawing on current movements within public health, emphasis is put upon increasing physical activity, with the objective of reducing economic pressures in health services, thus supporting notions of such developments in the economic assessment (Public Health England 2014). Therefore, with extant literature outlining the distinct relationship between sport and health, policy agendas have thus subsequently influenced the sport development milieu (Morgan 2013). Over the last political decade, volunteering and social action had provided a distinct thread throughout sport policy. Although volunteering in sport has a rich history in the development of amateur sports, leisure and community sporting clubs (Doherty 2006), it is suggested that voluntary action within the sports sector has become a significant and common occurrence within sport policy. As highlighted by Kay and Bradbury (2009), active citizenship, volunteerism, and social action as political agenda was a development of the social inclusion agenda of New Labour. The premise of this intended to incorporate sport into ambitious policies, aiming to reduce social exclusion, criminality, engage the disaffected, and create educational and employment opportunities (Blackshaw and Long 2005). With this, the development of the voluntary and third sectors involvement in the sport sector became an integral part in the delivery of community sport interventions (Coalter 2005). Social action policy such as PAT 10 (DCMS 1999) aimed to use sport and the arts to positively impact upon health, education and crime, through the implementation of sport action zones in areas of high social and economic deprivation (Wheatley 2007). It was within this that the community volunteer provided an invaluable asset to creating an effective and sustainable infrastructure to challenge social inequality. Within policy such as Creating a Sporting Habit for Life

86

Chapter Seven

(DCMS 2012), sport is high on the governmental agenda for differentiated reasons, from significant emphasis on health and social improvement, and issues surrounding obesity in Britain, to increasing focus on world-class events, with a further focus on London’s 2012 Olympics (DCMS 2005). Within the current sporting policy Creating a Sporting Habit for Life, volunteering in the sport milieu as a long-standing influence in the continued participation of school leavers is highlighted (Morgan 2013). However, subsequent to the idealised notions following the London 2012 Olympic legacy, the economic climate within Britain inevitably continues to impact community and sport development. Within such times of austerity, the voluntary and third sectors play an essential part in the coalition government’s Big Society policy (Evans 2011). Therefore, as the threat of recession and objectives of spiralling expenditure deficit, the Big Society vision attempts to engage communities in confronting issues around them, using the voluntary and third sector (Lowndes and Pratchett 2011; Evans 2011). With what could be deemed as ideological aims to rebuild a broken civil society (Such 2012), Big Society aims to construct the socially responsible and active citizen, with the rebalancing of welfare towards greater private and voluntary sector involvement (Wiggin 2011; Lister and Bennett 2011, Ellison 2011). Throughout politics, media and academia, the Big Society policy has been significantly contested, with many arguing that Big Society is primarily a distraction from social and welfare cuts. However with its retention of neo-liberalist ideology, Big Society fundamentally identifies with notions of civic and social cohesion (Such 2012). Subsequently, these principles pertain to three core ideologies, which are: 1) empowering communities by localism, 2) opening up public services by contracting more commercial and third sector organisations, and 3) promoting social action through volunteering and philanthropy (Taylor, et al. 2012, HM Government 2010). Pertaining to the sport development of the previous years, policy has taken a significant step towards decentralisation, away from a top down big government directive, towards smaller/local governments. It could be suggested that through such neo-liberalist ideology, the implementation of the Big Society offers a further decentralisation of sport and community development (Morgan 2013). Pertaining to these ideals, it therefore falls upon the community and local people to have greater onus upon their communities, through the use of the third and voluntary sectors to deliver more welfare and health services within their communities.

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

87

Volunteering in Sport Sport and community development and volunteering thus provide a somewhat idealistic synergetic relationship within current sport and health agendas. However, the conceptualisation of some academic literature exploring volunteer demographics and motivations suggests how the engagement of harder to reach communities into sport volunteering is challenging in itself (Scott 2011; Blackshaw and Long 2005; Eley and Kirk 2002). While there are varying statistics when exploring volunteering within the UK, it has been suggested that between 2012-2013, 44% of adults formally volunteered (Institute for Volunteering Research 2014a), of which sport approximates to one quarter of all voluntary action within the United Kingdom (Delaney and Keaney 2005; Doherty and Misner 2008; Nichols 2013; Harris et al. 2009). Paradoxically, drawing on statistics from the governmental Community Life Survey and research conducted, it is suggested that 74% of people volunteer within their communities (Cabinet Office 2013). Although the Active People Survey’s primary focus is participation in sport, 2005/2006 saw the introduction of questions relating to sport volunteering. The Active People Survey (2013) suggests that 7.4% of adults in the Black Country volunteer, compared to a national average of 12% in England. In accordance to this research, Sport England (2009) suggest there are variations in the ages of those who volunteer, however it predominantly highlights that volunteers are more likely to be of white ethnicity. Those who are economically inactive are least likely to volunteer and, not regarding motivations for voluntary action, students and those who are in the four highest socioeconomic classes are increasingly likely to volunteer. To develop this further, the Culture and Sport Evidence program (CASE) (2011) identifies that those with better health are more likely to volunteer in the sport milieu, and more specifically, higher levels of volunteering were associated within areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation. Therefore suggesting a specific profile of the sport volunteer who actively engages in civic and voluntary action within their communities. However, surveys identifying volunteering statistics vary somewhat, as methods, sample sizes, survey administration, and questions differ. Therefore, such surveys are not comparable, particularly when identifying volunteering rates (Nichols 2005; Nichols et al. 2012). Citizenship surveys have not asked specific questions about sport and exercise volunteering,

88

Chapter Seven

however subsequent literature has demonstrated that in times of austerity, volunteering experiences a downward trend (Taylor, et al. 2012). However, in 2009/2010 those who participated in voluntary action were fewer than in 2007/2008 (Communities and Local Government 2010, cited in Taylor et al. 2012). Furthermore, in accordance with statistics generated by the Institute for Volunteering Research (2014b), there was a decline of 30% in volunteering between 1997 and 2007, and a further decline of 7% between 2007 and 2013. While there are significant difficulties in gaining an accurate estimate, both statistics and literature highlight the importance of the voluntary sector within sport (Nichols and Shepherd 2006, Walseth 2007; Cuskelly, et al. 2006). Furthermore, the importance of volunteering is additionally supported, with The Institute for Volunteering Research (2014b) suggesting that the voluntary sector alone contributes £22.7 billion to the economy on a yearly basis. However, it is paradoxically highlighted by Scott (2011) that during times of recession and social austerity, volunteering decreases. Pertaining to the approach adopted by Hogget and Bishop (1986 cited in Nichols et al. 2012), Nichols (2001) draws on the distinction between the ‘economic’ and ‘socio-cultural’ measurements of the ‘value’ of the voluntary sector. However in doing so, Nichols deduces that the voluntary sector cannot be accountable for providing a service that is in essence compared to that of a paid service. Subsequently, the coalition government views this austere moment as a transfer of ownership of welfare services from public bodies to voluntary or third sector organisations (Alcock 2010). Evans (2011) and Stott (2011) dually explore the premise of such ideology as potentially able to provide cheaper alternatives to providing sport and leisure services, whilst facilitating potential opportunities for citizens to develop their social capital through community activism. Developing this further, Scott (2011) suggests that provision of services will fundamentally be provided by a combination of private sector investment and civic engagement through necessity.

Volunteerism, Motivations and Social Capital Statistical research exploring the principle motivations of volunteering vary in outcome, however literature highlights dominant motives are either altruistic or instrumentally self-focused in nature. Prior to the social inclusion agenda of the 1990s, traditional motives for volunteering have developed notions for which sport clubs have been the premise, and in which altruistic intentions have directed research (Bosserman 1992;

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

89

Lockstone-Binney et al. 2010). Drawing on data collated by the Institute of Volunteering research (2014a), statistics suggest that 53% of volunteers participate in volunteering to benefit their communities, with 27% volunteering to gain qualifications and improve employability. However, Such (2012) identifies that within the leisure milieu, research points towards long-term growth of individualisation with regards to self-focused motivations with a distinct reduction in altruism. With the directive of policy aiming at the development of social mobility through volunteering/social capital acquisition, it could be suggested that such changes in volunteering motives may fundamentally change (Haworth and Veal 2004 cited in Such 2012). It is through a contextualisation of Putman’s (2000) Bowling Alone, (which has subsequently proved to be influential in sport policy and development practice), that a plethora of studies into social policy and sport development have highlighted that volunteering opportunities within sport development in essence increase opportunities to increase social capital. Although Putman’s interpretations of Bourdieu’s notions of capital have been somewhat critiqued (Evers 2003; Portes and Landolt 2000), they remain the premise for policy and social agenda. Contrasting Bourdieu’s concept of capital being something in which the individual develops via social networks, Putman’s notions are significantly community centric, with ideals pertaining increasingly to civic engagement and societal development (Walseth 2007). Primarily, Bourdieu’s theories of capital are in essence notions of bridging networks between those of different socioeconomic habitus. For Putman, modern social capital is defined between ‘bridging capital’, in which the social mobility is gained through network development, and ‘bonding capital’, in which communities are able to develop social cohesion (Morgan 2013). Furthermore it could be suggested that Putman’s notions surrounding sport and social capital are somewhat evident when applied to volunteering in sport and the Big Society. However the distinct differences of these theoretical ideologies within the development of capital are deemed as either/or when defining social capital, it therefore seems necessary to include them when exploring sociological theory within sport and volunteerism literature. For Walseth (2007), there are distinct differences when exploring notions of bridging and bonding capital within sport and community development intervention. Morgan (2013) suggests that austerity has removed the principle ideals of social capital investment from that of education and

90

Chapter Seven

social mobility to that of contributing to communities. Furthermore, Nicholson and Hoye (2008) suggest that there is a somewhat idealised assumption that engagement in volunteerism will create social mobility, and that the premise of today’s social capital is essentially driven by notions of active citizenship. Developing upon the work of Morgan (2013) further, it is suggested that the acquisition and power of social capital is thus dependent upon the socio-economic status of those residing in an individual network. With a plethora of literature exploring sport and social capital, its use in sport/social policy and implementation in sporting strategies provides a somewhat positivistic ideal, pertaining to social action and social mobility. Developing upon the work of Coalter (2007), Nichols et al. (2012) explore the notions of social capital being an objective or outcome within policy documentation, however it continues to have a vague lack of precision in its measurement and meaning of ‘in sports role in its development’ (Coalter 2007, 49-50).

Barriers, Demographics and Deficits As previously highlighted, the traditional profile/demographics for the community sport volunteer suggest volunteering attracts those with a higher socioeconomic standing, and with expendable leisure time (Stebbins 2001). The notion of volunteering for leisure is subsequently reflected in the work of academics such as Rojek (1995), Stebbins (2001 2013), and Nichols (2005), who have identified some notions of volunteering as being a leisure activity in which volunteers choose volunteering in its own right. However, it is apparent that these volunteers are not those targeted in such sport and community development interventions, specifically pertaining to social and health agendas or policy. As policy and strategies currently aim to increase participation in volunteering, the identification of barriers to volunteering and disengagement within this sector must be developed, with extant literature highlighting that time is identified as a primary reason for disengagement from volunteering (Blackshaw and Long 2005). This is further supported by the statistical data from CASE (2011) that suggests that reasons for disengagement within areas of social deprivation are due to the increase of work and family commitments, and therefore disposable leisure time for volunteering is significantly reduced. Previous research has sought to

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

91

explain the difficulties in recruiting volunteers as being due to the demands increasingly placed on them (Cuskelly 2004; Nichols et al. 2005; Sharpe 2006). Drawing on subsequent volunteering disengagement research, it has been highlighted that significant barriers also included bureaucratic concerns. The notions of a volunteer deficit within sporting interventions are highlighted in the work of Pattie and Johnson (2011), who explore the emergence of a volunteer deficit due to insufficient numbers of volunteer recruits. Such notions are proved correct when exploring the sport makers policy initiative for 2011-2013, which aimed to recruit, train, and deploy 40,000 volunteers nationally into sport. However this target was not reached, with a significant shortfall in the targeted sport makers being recruited and/or deployed. Developing this further, Taylor et al. (2012) suggest that Big Society may exacerbate equity issues, due to policy being concentrated on volunteer recruitment from cost effective segments of society, as they have more inclination to partake in civic action. Therefore contradicting the Big Society policy aims of creating social inclusion and building social capital within lower socioeconomic communities, which further leads to a volunteer deficit.

Volunteering in The Black Country in Motion This chapter is based on the emergent findings from research conducted by the University of Wolverhampton, who are contracted by BCC Ltd to undertake the evaluation of the program and add to the evidence base regarding how sport can effectively support inactive people in being active. This is a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with five participants at the initial stage of the program who are or have been engaged in volunteering within this community sport intervention. The research participants are aged between 19 and 52, both male and female, of diverse ethnicity and from different areas within the Black Country. All participants attended volunteering and coaching training and then went on to deliver sport/physical activity within their own community or within communities close to where they lived. All participants were interviewed using semi-structured interviews, and participants were chosen for interview subject to involvement in the BCiM project. Fundamental to the research evaluating volunteerism in the BCiM project, the primary objectives of the interviews conducted were to identify experiences, impact, and expectations of volunteering, alongside

92

Chapter Seven

the volunteer’s personal aims and motivations for engaging in this community sports intervention. The premise of this was to, in essence, explore the journey each volunteer undertakes through the engagement of community sport volunteering. It is the aim of the researcher to conduct further follow-up interviews with the research participants, to explore possible personal development and social capital acquisition from their involvement with the BCiM project. An additional strand to this investigation is to identify why volunteers disengage from sport development interventions, and to explore the challenges they may encounter. A dualistic thematic analysis has been used as an inductive process, during which themes from literature and pre-determined objectives of personal experiences, expectations and aimed achievements of the participants were developed. Drawing on literature explored, further development of themes aimed to specifically identify notions of social capital acquisition, and the interviewees’ personal development was explored. Responses from participants were recorded, transcribed and subsequently coded into areas of exploration, focusing primarily on their experiences of volunteering in this community led sports intervention.

Emergent Findings Volunteer Experiences The following provides a preliminary exploration identifying the volunteer’s experiences, expectations, and aimed achievements, and volunteer engagement/disengagement within the BCiM. The premise of this is to identify the positive and challenging aspects experienced by volunteers, and to highlight how these barriers to volunteering participation were personified and in some cases overcome. Volunteer recruitment for the BCiM fell within three categories: individuals who approached the project, community groups who approached or were approached, and partnership groups. Therefore, previous volunteering experiences varied, however this suggests that the volunteers were already actively engaged within their communities. However, for the interviewees, only one had previously volunteered within their community in a sporting capacity. Thus, the process of volunteering induction, coach training, and delivery was evidentially a new experience for the majority of volunteers. Participant experiences varied, and this is further evident in

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

93

that currently three out of the five research participants are actively engaged in the voluntary process in the BCiM. For all participants, confidence provided a distinct theme throughout the interviews, and was significantly evident during the process of training within their sport/physical activity and delivery. As highlighted by participant 1 [P1], participant 3 [P3] and participant 4 [P4], completing the training for the sports/physical activities to be delivered was a daunting process, and confidence was a significant challenge. “I hadn’t ever done anything sporty before, I didn’t even like doing PE at school, so starting this was something new. I was really worried I wouldn’t know what to do, let alone how to actually teach it” [P3] “I was really nervous and didn’t think I would be able to do it (the training course)… I’ve definitely got more confidence now” [P4]

Participants 3 and 4 develop this further by discussing their training experiences for their physical activity of ‘Exercise to Music’, and it is evident that this was a challenging experience for the volunteers, due to the contents of the course. The participants outline how the course’s theoretical assessment pertained to an extensive anatomy and physiology exam, which participant 3 had to re-sit. “I really struggled (be)‘cause I’m dyslexic and couldn’t get my head around the names of your body” [P3]

When asked how the participant felt regarding this experience they went on to say: “It really knocked my confidence and made me think I couldn’t do it, but once I’d passed the test again I felt a lot better… ” [P3] “I just didn’t feel confident in doing it… I suppose it’s given me more confidence now I’ve actually done it, but it was hard to do sport in front of people I know… it’s kind of embarrassing to start with” [P2]

It was also highlighted within the interviews that the completion of paperwork was a challenging process for participants 1, 2, 3 and 4, specifically participants 1 and 3, who in the interview discussed significant literacy difficulties that impeded their completion of paperwork. Furthermore, within the research process, volunteers are additionally asked to assist participants in the completion of a questionnaire to gauge physical

94

Chapter Seven

activity prior to starting the intervention. This has posed an additional challenge, in which volunteers and participants will continue to receive support throughout the data collection process. Additional literacy challenges encountered by the volunteers were highlighted by participants 3 and 4, as the community organisation they are affiliated with attempted to develop their activity further and explore avenues for additional funding. Within the course of this process, the participants were given documentation in order to access potential funding for additional equipment. Participant 3 highlights the difficulties encountered: “When we looked at getting more equipment we were given a lot of paperwork and as a group we found it a bit hard, the words used in it weren’t that easy to follow. It caused a lot of arguments between us…” [P3]

The barriers that these volunteers encountered with regards to paperwork and bureaucracy not only highlight the significant educational inequalities within the communities involved, but further suggest additional support/training is required with regards to the sustainability of this specific intervention.

Expectations and achievements The premise for the consideration of the volunteer’s aims was primarily to extend the fundamental narrative, exploring their journey within the BCiM. This would be developed further through subsequent follow-up interviews. However, for the purpose of this chapter, aimed achievements will be explored with the notion of investigating aspects of motivation, opportunity for social mobility, and increases in social capital. Although motivation for volunteering was not explored in significant depth, it became evident that two distinct types of volunteers were identified in this group: those motivated by altruism, social benefits and enthusiasm, and those motivated by interest and increased employability. Literature surrounding volunteer motivation has explored the notion of volunteering to develop employability as prevalent within the sport development milieu (Engelberg, et al. 2013; Nichols and King 1998). As highlighted by Stebbins (2001), by offering time and gratuitous services, volunteers thus hope to gain employment through their experience within similar lines of work.

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

95

“… Doing this has inspired me to look into a career in sport and I’ve even started applying for jobs in sport” [P1]

For participant 5, expectations and aimed achievements from the BCiM entailed opportunity for future employment within the sports sector. As this participant had previously volunteered within sports, this had provided a subsequent opportunity for them to obtain further qualifications, thus increasing employability. “I thought this (The Black Country in Motion project) was a good way to get a job in sport and get qualifications…” [P5]

Additional notions of aimed achievements were that of bringing the community together and providing opportunities for people to access additional provisions in sport and physical activity. When participants were asked what they aimed to achieve from their experience in the BCiM, working cohesively within their communities was a common theme: “Things like this (Black Country in Motion) are important to help people get into sport… it has got us together as a community” [P4] “I wanted to work with people in my community, this sort of sport would help a lot of people here, and once they know that this could help them get qualified, it could help them get jobs” [P3] “My main motivation was to work in my community and help others to get healthy and enjoy sport” [P1]

It is evident from this data that volunteer motivations for partaking in the BCiM varied from the traditional altruistic motivations of contributing to their communities, to a more individualised motive of self-development. Further developing upon motivations by partaking in community action is the exploration of volunteer engagement within such sport development interventions. As extant literature has explored volunteering motivations, further literature has highlighted reasons for the engagement and/or disengagement of volunteers.

Engagement and Disengagement As previously discussed, an additional strand of analysis into the engagement and disengagement of participants will be explored throughout the evaluation of this program. The subsequent engagement and retention of volunteers in the BCiM project is a continual process, and

96

Chapter Seven

therefore this cannot be comprehensively explored at this point, however disengagement of volunteers has been explored. As previously stated, two participants interviewed had disengaged in the project, and the reasons for this varied. Participants’ reasons for disengagement fell into these categories: lack of time and other commitments, lack of motivation, and lack of interest in the activities from the community. Participants 2 and 5 stated difficulties in volunteering “fitting it in with work and family”, and that other commitments limited their time. This is reflective of a plethora of literature surrounding disengagement from voluntary involvement (Lockstone-Binning, et al. 2010; Warner, et al. 2011). However, upon further questioning, participant 2 additionally added that they did not feel confident enough to deliver physical activity. “I’ve never done anything like this before, and if I’m honest I was really worried. Even though I was doing it with another person I just didn’t feel confident enough to do it.” [P2]

In contrast to participant 2, participant 5 additionally identified that a lack of motivation in this specific project was a motive for disengagement. Participant 5 expressed keen interest in sport and had volunteered previously in the sport sector. Having identified a motive of personal development and explored opportunities for future employment, participant 5 had outlined a distinct lack of interest from the local community resulted in a personal lack of motivation. “I’ve done work in sport before and wanted to gain more experience to make me more employable, but it just wasn’t what I thought it would be… after 2 sessions I just lost interest… No one turned up, so I just thought it wasn’t for me” [P5]

Conceptualising Pearce’s (1993 cited in Nichols et al. 2005) comparative study provides the opportunity to suggest that volunteering is in essence a leisure activity, and therefore that voluntary work should be a ‘satisfying leisure experience’ for the volunteer, and thus the continuation of volunteerism is dependent upon this (p.158).

Conclusion This chapter has begun to outline some emerging findings from a larger research study and primarily identify challenges faced by volunteers partaking in community sport development projects within areas of high

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

97

social and educational deprivation. Although this is a preliminary study, themes have emerged, through a review of literature and interviews, that highlight the challenges faced with volunteer engagement, retention, and sustainability within hard to reach communities. Consideration of the volunteer’s personal development and wellbeing provide a fundamental basis for analysis. It was within this that it became evident that each of the volunteers experienced an increase in confidence and, in some instances, a better engagement within the community groups they worked with. It was evident that the volunteer’s experiences within the BCiM significantly provided the volunteer with opportunities to increase social capital. Although social capital is viewed as a positive outcome, in the instances highlighted in this chapter, social capital acquisition is predominantly that of bonding capital. From this analysis, it could be suggested that this form of capital pertains to that of bonding capital, and is thus reflective of that explored by Walseth (2007). Such capital acquisition can be seen as fundamental to social cohesion, paradoxically it could additionally be perceived as somewhat exclusive for those external to that community group. Pertaining to the fundamental ethos of Putman’s (2000) notions of societal and personal development, the acquisition of social capital is a fundamental objective for many community sport development interventions. It could be suggested that sport in this context is viewed as a successful vessel for communities with high socioeconomic deprivation to become socially cohesive, and in essence an avenue for the implementation of further political agendas. As highlighted by Nichols, et al. (2005) new practices within the voluntary sector in sport are needed with regards to NGBs and volunteer accountability for funding sporting programs. Developing this further, it is evident that these changes in acquiring funding are still a challenge in some community-based, voluntary sport settings. It has been explored how in areas of high social and economic deprivation, educational inequalities challenge volunteers in the acquisition of qualifications, alongside the somewhat bureaucratic process fundamental to the sport/physical activity provision involved in such projects and volunteering. It could be further suggested that such challenges for volunteers can further challenge volunteer retention and thus sustainability of sporting projects within hard to reach communities. Through the conceptualisation of the work by Pattie et al. (2004), volunteering in sport may be affected by changes in the

98

Chapter Seven

private and public sector, or alternatively the change in the nature of social engagement and citizenship. Consolidation and the shift from informal to formal volunteering proves to be an additional challenge, as highlighted by the bureaucracy surrounding the implementation of policy, application of funding, and recruitment of community members. Due to educational inequalities, volunteers have encountered difficulties in completing the qualifications required. It is with this in mind that it is suggested that volunteers encountering literacy challenges are supported and primarily provided with opportunities to develop their skills. Reflecting upon the literature explored, it could be suggested that through political intervention and austerity, delivery of sport provision falls within that of the private and voluntary sectors, which is somewhat reflected in social policy, through agendas such as Big Society (Scott, 2011). Although there is significant emphasis on current movements towards a greater delivery in these sports sectors, it increasingly highlights the neo-liberalist ideology of current government. As highlighted by Morgan (2013), influences of policy and neo-liberalist objectives significantly impact upon the pressures of the voluntary sector. It is this voluntary sector that is becoming a primary source of sport provision within communities of high socioeconomic deprivation, specifically due to private sector cuts. As previously stated, this is not a comprehensive study, however it is evident through the support of literature and experiences of this sample group that the retention and sustainability of sport provision in such communities are a challenge. This is fundamentally highlighted in the challenges volunteers with educational inequalities experience in the acquisition of funding, and the subsequent bureaucracy encountered within the voluntary sports sector. With the decline of the public sector, voluntary sector sport provision will in essence become the provider for sport and physical activity for communities with high socioeconomic inequalities. As suggested by many authors exploring volunteerism in community sport development, changes to the approach, implementation, and sustainability of volunteers are required during times of social austerity and neo-liberalist states.

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

99

References Alcock, Pete., 2010. Building the Big Society: a new policy environment for the third sector in England, Voluntary Sector review 1(3):379-389 Blackshaw, Tony and Jonathon Long. 2005 “What’s the big idea? A critical exploration of the concept of social capital and its incorporation into leisure policy discourse”. Leisure Studies 24:239-258 Blair, Stephen., and Kenneth Powell. 2014. “The evolution of the physical activity field”. The Physical Activity Movement 85(7):8-12 Bouchard, Claude., Steven Blair., and William Haskell. 2006. Physical Activity and Health. (Eds), 2nd Edition. Leeds: Human Kinetics Cabinet Office. 2013. Community Life Survey [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-life-survey [Accessed 6th September 2014] Case: the culture and sport evidence program. 2011. Understanding he drivers of volunteering in culture and sport: analysis of taking part survey. [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d ata/file/137988/Drivers_of_volunteering_August2011.pdf [accessed 19th November 2014] Coalter, Fred. 2005. A Wider Social role for Sport: Who’s Keeping the Score. London: Routledge Collins, Mike. 2010. “From ‘Sport for good’ to ‘sport for sports sake’ – not a good move for sports development in England”? International Journal of Sport policy and politics 2(3):367-379 Cuskelly, Graham., Tracy Taylor., Russell Hoye., and Simon Darcy. 2006. “Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention: A Human resource management approach”. Sport Management Review 9:141163 DCMS. 1999. Policy Action Team 10 [online] http://www.sportdevelopment.info/index.php/subjects/48-policy/67report-of-the-policy-action-team-10-the-contribution-of-sport-and-thearts [Accessed: 5th September 2014] —. 2005. Creating a lasting legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/creating-a-lasting-legacyfrom-the-2012-olympic-and-paralympic-games [Accessed: 30th August 2014] —. 2012. Creating a sporting habit for life- A new sports strategy [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/creating-asporting-habit-for-life-a-new-youth-sport-strategy

100

Chapter Seven

[Accessed: 6th September 2014] Delaney, Liam. and Emily Keaney. 2005. Sport and social capital in the United Kingdom: Statistical evidence from national and international survey data. London: Institute for Public Policy Research Doherty, Alison. 2006. “Sport Volunteerism: An Introduction to the Special Issue”. Sport Management Review 9:105-109 Doherty, Alison and Katie Misener. 2008. Community Sport Networks. In Sport and Social Capital edited by Matthew Nicholson and Russell Hoye, 113-142. London: Butterworth-Heinnemann Eley Diann., and David Kirk. 2002. “Developing citizenship through Sport: The impact of a sport based volunteer program on youth sport leaders”. Sport, Education and Society 7(2):151-166 Ellison, Nick. 2011. The Conservative party and the ‘Big Society’. In Social Policy review 23: Analysis and debate in social policy Chris Holden., Kilkey Majella., and Ramia Gaby, 45-63. Engelberg, Terry., Dwight Zakus., James Skinner., and Alastair Campbell. 2013. “Defining and measuring dimensionality and targets of the commitment of sport volunteers”. Journal of Sport Management 26:192-206 Evans, Kathy. 2011. “‘Big Society’ in the UK: a policy review”. Children and Society 25:164-171 Evers, Adelbert., 2003. “Social Capital and Civic Commitment: On Putman’s Way of Understanding”. Social Policy and Society 2(1):1321 Gratton, Chris., and Ian Henry. 2001. Sport in the City: the role of sport in economic and social regeneration. London: Routledge Harris, Spencer., Kate Mori., and Mike Collins. 2009. “Great expectations: voluntary sport clubs and their role in delivering national policy for English sport”. International journal of Voluntary and non-profit organisations 20:405-425 HM Government. 2010. Taking Part [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/taking-part#documents [accessed 6th September 2014] Institute for Volunteering Research. (2014a). Who gives time now? Patterns of participation in volunteering [online] http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-VolunteeringResearch/Migrated-Resources/Documents/G/Final_Giving_Time.pdf [Accessed 26th August 2014] Institute for Volunteering Research. (2014b) Volunteering Stats [online] http://www.ivr.org.uk/ivr-volunteering-stats [Accessed 26th August 2014]

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

101

Kay, Tess. and Steven Bradbury. 2009. “Youth Sport Volunteering: developing social capital?”. Sport, Education and Society 14(1):121140 Lister, Ruth. and Fran Bennett. 2011. “The new “champion of progressive ideals”? Cameron’s Conservative Party: Poverty, family policy and welfare reform”. Renewal 18:1-2 Lockstone-Binney, Leonie., Kristen Holmes., Karen Smith., and Tom Baum. 2010. “Volunteers and Volunteering in Leisure: Social science perspectives”. Leisure Studies 29(4):435-455 Lowndes, Vivien and Lawrence Pratchett. 2011. “Local Governance Under the Coalition Government: Austerity, Localism and the ‘Big Society’”. Local Government Studies 38(1):21-40 Morgan, Haydn. 2013. “Sport Volunteering, active citizenship and social capital enhancement: what role in ‘the Big Society’?”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 5(3):381-395 Nichols, Geoff., Peter Taylor., Matthew James., Kirsten Holmes., Lindsey King., and Richard Garrett. 2005. “Pressures on the UK voluntary sector”. International Journal of Voluntary and non-profit organisations 16(1):33-50 Nihols, Geoff. 2006. Research into sport volunteers: reviewing the questions, voluntary action [online] http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-VolunteeringResearch/VA-Documents/VA8_1/article4_nichols.pdf [Accessed 29 August 2014] Nichols, Geoff. and Lindsey King. 1998. “The Changing Motivations and frustrations facing volunteers in youth programs: A study of the guide association of the United Kingdom”. Journal of Applied Recreation Research 23(3):243-262 Nichols, Geoff. 2005 Issues arising from Sport England’s Survey of Volunteers in Sport 2002-3. In Volunteers in Sports Clubs edited by Geoff Nichols and Mike Collins, . Brighton: Leisure Studies Association Nichols, Geoff. and Micheal Shepherd. 2006. “Volunteering in sport: the use of ratio analysis to analyse volunteering and participation”. Managing Leisure 11(40):205-216 Nichols, Geoff., Richard Tacon., and Alison Muir. 2012. “Sports Clubs’ Volunteers: Bonding and Bridging out?” Sociology 47(2):350-367 Nichols, G., Tacon, R. and Muir A. 2012. Sports Clubs’ volunteers: Bonding and Bridging out? Sociology 47(2):350-367 Nicholson, Matthew., and Russell Hoye. 2008. Sport and Social Capital. London: Butterworth-Heinnemann

102

Chapter Seven

Pattie, Charles., and Ron Johnson. 2011. “How Big is the Big Society?” Parliamentary Affairs, 1-22 Pattie, Charles., Partrick Seyd., and Paul Whitely. 2004. Citizenship in Britain: values, participation and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Nichols, et al, (2005) Pressures on the UK voluntary sector, International Journal of Voluntary and non-profit organisations, 16(1), 33-50F Portes, Alejandro., and Patricia Landolt. 2000. “Social Capital: promise and pitfalls of its role in development”. Journal of Latin American Studies 32:529-547 Public Health England. 2014. Developing a national physical activity approach [online] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/development-of-anational-physical-activity-approach [Accessed 18th November 2014] Putman, Richard. 2000. Bowling Alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster Rojek, Chris. 1995 Decentring Leisure: Rethinking leisure theory. London: Sage publications Scott, Matthew. 2011. “Reflections on ‘the Big Society’”. Community Development Journal 46(1):132-137 Sport England. 2013. Active People Survey 7. London: Sport England Stebbins, Robert. 2001. Volunteering – Mainstream and Marginal: preserving the leisure experience. In Leisure Volunteering: Marginal or Inclusive edited by Margaret Graham and Malcolm Foley, . Brighton: Leisure Studies Association —. 2013. “Unpaid work of Love: defining the work-leisure axis of volunteering” Leisure Studies 32(3):339-345 Stensel, David., and Adrianne Hardman. 2008. Physical Activity and Health: The Evidence Explained. London: Routledge Stott, Marina. 2011 Introduction: Big Society in Context. In The Big Society challenge edited by Marina Stott, 27-35. Thetford: Keystone Development Trust Publications Such, Liz. 2012. “Little leisure in the Big Society”. Leisure Studies 32(1):89-107 Taylor, Peter., Thanos Panagouleas., and Geoff Nichols. 2012 “Determinants of sports volunteering and sports volunteer time in England”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 4(2):201220 Walseth, Kristen. 2007. “Bridging and Bonding social capital in sport experiences of young women with an immigrant background”. Sport, Education and Society 13(1):1-17

Community Led Sport Intervention and the Impact of the Volunteer

103

Warner, Stacey., Marlene Dixon,. and Laurence Chalip. 2012. “The impact of formal versus informal sport: mapping the differences in sense of community”. Journal of Community Psychology 40(8):983-1003 Wheatley, Margaret. 2007. Finding our Way: Leadership for an uncertain time. Berrett-Koehler World Health Organisation (WHO). 2008 Physical Activity and what works [online] http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/whatworks/en/ [accessed 25th August 2014] Wiggan, Jay. 2011 Something old and blue or red, bold and new? Welfare reform and the coalition government. In Social policy review 23: Analysis and debate in social policy edited by Chris Holden, Kiley Majella and Ramia Gaby, . Bristol: Policy Press

CHAPTER EIGHT “NOBODY KNEW WHAT TO DO”: LOCAL INDIFFERENCE AND NATIONAL NEGLECT AFTER THE SCHOOL SPORT PARTNERSHIP WAS DISSOLVED MARC KEECH AND JO BUCKLEY

Introduction After a decade of Labour investment in the Physical Education and School Sport (PESS) policy landscape, the coalition government, in 2010, reduced funding for PESS structures from £162 million per year to £62 million, and introduced a one-day physical education release teacher role up to 2013. For those working with young people, the success of London 2012 highlighted the practicalities of leaving a legacy of participation, particularly with reference to the dissolution of the School Sport Partnerships (SSPs) in 2010. The coalition government’s participation legacy plans were articulated in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) strategy Creating a Sporting Habit for Life (2012), which focused on improving school-club links, charged national governing bodies (NGBs) with focusing activities on young people aged 14-25 and the national ‘school games’ program (DCMS 2012). This strategy, like others before it, emphasises the need for organisations to work together to achieve sporting outcomes, but provides nothing new except for its language. The DCMS stated that: “Sport England will work with schools, colleges and universities, as well as local county sports partnerships, the national governing bodies for sport, local authorities, and the voluntary sector – the people who know sport and young people best – to improve the sporting offer that we make available to them”. (DCMS 2012, 3)

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 105

The impact of policy change within the structure and funding of youth sport provided the rationale for embarking on this research. Through a single case study approach, the chapter explores the impact of (non-) collaboration on youth sport outcomes and, secondly, considers the potential capacity of local infrastructure to respond to legacy policies. The case study offers a focus on a moment that happened. In some areas, the will to keep the structure of the SSPs going was evident, but not in the town identified here. When SSPs dissolved, there was a local feeling that everyone looked to each other, as if to say, “Well, who is going to do what?” It was at this moment that the views and feelings of those involved were captured. Using a case study of a medium-sized town with overlapping boundaries from previous SSP networks, this paper presents actual understanding of what has been lost through the dissolution of a single SSP. There are four findings: first, distrust and insight, from the physical education profession into the uncertain future of networks and partnerships which were established; second, even more uncertainty about how to develop and evaluate participation by young people; third, the loss of secondary and primary school sport communication; and fourth, the disregard of the physical education and sport policy partnerships developed by the Labour government. Whilst the limitations of the approach are obvious, they are not completely generalizable, as some SSPs have been able to continue operation in a variety of forms.

Partnership working in sport The Labour Party entered government in 1997, with an agenda for youth sport based on concerns about social inclusion, valuing sport for the potential impact it could have on other social agendas (DCMS 2000; 2002). Sport was espoused as a panacea to help address wider social agendas (Coalter 2011). Initially, £240 million was invested into the SSP program, coordinated by the Youth Sport Trust (YST), creating a network consisting of school sport co-ordinators (SSCos), one in every secondary school, who worked for two days per week on the strategy’s aims, and liaised closely with a family of infant and junior schools (DCMS 2000). Each SSP had a specialist sports college as the hub, supported by a PDM (partnership development manager), responsible for rolling out the programs that formed the Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links (PESSCL) strategy, 2003-08 (DfES/DCMS, 2003). The accompanying public service agreement target of two hours of ‘high quality’ PE for 75% of young people aged 5-16 each week was raised to

106

Chapter Eight

85% by 2008 (Bloyce and Smith, 2010). The emphasis in Labour policy document of ‘Playing to Win’ (DCMS 2008) was on competitive sport. Both the associated Sport England strategy (2008-11) and PESSYP strategy, initially set as 2008-11, augmented the PESSCL strategy, demonstrating a significant shift in focus to delivering competitive opportunities (Sport England 2008, DCMS/DCSF 2008). The infrastructure of SSPs changed to include competition managers, and an increase in the target age group up to 19 years. The government’s claim of SSPs being overly bureaucratic and expensive is not without merit (Bardens et al. 2012), but increases in participation rates were celebrated, as were the wider range of activities for young people. The percentage of young people doing two hours of PE increased to 90% in 2010, with schools offering an average of nineteen different activities, and links with an average of nine clubs (Quick et al. 2010). The coalition government’s view, possibly influenced by Olympic legacy concerns, was that there should be more competition. But despite these considerable concerns (Keech 2013), the media ably illustrated that dancing can also be competitive in response to David Cameron’s remarks about the lack of value in ‘Indian dancing’ (Prince 2012). Funding for PESS structures under the ‘new’ arrangements, offering PE teacher release funding was not initially ring-fenced, allowing schools to spend money how they please (DfE 2010). It’s not surprising that there were already reports of a patchwork of provision across the country and queries as to who will coordinate sporting opportunities in the local area, because the onus for collaboration is now on the local actors involved, rather than through policy intervention. Collaborative working through partnerships is central to social welfare policy in the UK. Lindsey maintains ‘partnership working has become ubiquitous as a modus operandi across all sport development sectors’ (2011 518), and has been established as a structural part of the design and delivery of sport development strategies and initiatives in the country. Collaborative working in sport is considered vital for reducing duplication of service/initiatives, sharing expertise and resources, and is key to acquiring funding. For example, the Sportivate funding initiative, which began in 2010-11, suggests that applications made in partnership will be looked upon more favourably, and organisations are: “Encouraged to work in conjunction with at least one other partner to evidence need and demand. This strengthens the application, demonstrating robust partnership working. For example, this could be a national governing body linking with a leisure provider, a sports club

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 107 linking with a local HE/FE institute, or a local authority linking with a youth organisation and local sports club”. (Active Sussex 2012, 4)

SSPs were central in developing relationships between schools and local clubs to deliver the PESS strategies. Lindsey (2010) queries to what extent national agencies can actually promote effective partnership working in local sports development. Community sports networks (CSNs) were an example of this ‘delivery chain from Whitehall’, developed to ensure a single system of sport, and first identified in the SE plan 2005-08 (Collins 2008, 76). The aim of any CSN was to bring together and align partners’ existing priorities and targets with one joined up local action plan, but with one eye upon achieving national key performance indicators (KPIs). McDonald (2005) noted the difficulty of the government influencing local behaviour from a centralised agenda, suggesting that a centralised system can impinge on effective partnerships at a local level, and that collaboration may be more successful when led by a locally set agenda. Whilst the Coalition Government is keen to ‘empower’ communities to take action on locally important issues, others expressed concern at the lack of central targets and monitoring of sport, and the impact that that would have locally. Lindsey (2011) suggests that the majority of research to date has focused on the process of partnership working and ‘issues affecting the effectiveness of partnerships’ (Lindsey 2011, 528), specifically understanding what makes the relationships between actors and organisations successful (or not). Glasby et al. (2011), researching partnerships within health and social care, observed ‘a tendency to focus on process (how well we are working together), not outcomes (does it make any difference to people who use the services)?’ and it is this that is the difference between a partnership being ‘an end in itself, rather than a means to an end’ (Glasby et al. 2011, 11). The research presented here aimed to explore the impact of collaboration on youth sport outcomes, and what happened when collaboration ceased. In terms of definition it is useful to highlight that there are considered differences between types of collaboration (for example ‘partnership’ and ‘network’), but such terms are used interchangeably in practice (Lindsay 2011; Diamond 2006).

Methodology A stand-alone case study approach provided detail of relationships between different organisations within a specific area. The method is criticised for its inability to draw comparison, but there is scope for

108

Chapter Eight

generalisation between scenarios, with similar socio-cultural and economic histories (King 2009). However, the method was considered practical for this project in terms of relatability (Bell 2010) for developing partnership working for sport. The SSP highlighted in the case study overlapped local authority boundaries, but was geographically centred on a medium-sized town in England. Data and relevant demographic information has been made anonymous. The chapter draws on interviews with experienced and information-rich interviewees, selected through purposive and snowball sampling. Candidates were selected on length of time working in the policy area, combined with their experience in an appropriate role - a minimum of five years. Lindsey (2011) observed that research on collaboration in sport had almost exclusively focused on individuals and agencies involved in specific partnerships, and advocated that organisations at the periphery of sports development networks be included in future research. Information was gathered from fourteen semi-structured interviews, and included one participant was from the local authority (sport and recreation manager), two from the CSP (chief executive, senior partnership manager), seven involved in the former SSP (covering educational organisations from infant school to the FE college), one from the local university (head of sport and recreation services) one from a private leisure provider, one from the local leisure trust, and one from a community based voluntary organisation. Interviews lasted 60-90 minutes and were recorded and transcribed. Data was coded line-by-line, using Microsoft Excel as the software tool to aid examination.

Findings and discussion Data from the interviews developed a rich seam of information, which has been summarised into four main findings: first, distrust and insight, from the physical education profession into the uncertain future of networks and partnerships that were established; second, even more uncertainty about how to develop and evaluate participation by young people; third, the loss of secondary and primary school sport communication, and fourth, the disregard of the physical education and sport policy partnerships developed by the Labour government. Together, these findings highlight an example of what has been lost in areas where SSPs were dissolved.

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 109

An uncertain future (perceived national neglect) distrust and insight into partnership working Overall, there was considerable concern locally at the loss of the SSP structure – no one knew quite what to do, and there was evidence of some distrust of the SSP when it had been in operation, but despite that, overall, a collaborative approach was valued and missed. The PDM interviews indicated that the YST were continually moving the goalposts in terms of monitoring, evaluating, and introducing an ever-expanding number of programs that were not matched by resources to increase delivery capacity, which had an impact on achieving organisational ‘buy-in’ (interview 2). Whilst it was not mandatory to enter into the SSP, there was perhaps more of what Phillpotts et al. (2011, 274) describe as ‘a sense of enforced co-operation’, in order to access funding and resources and which can elicit some hostility on participating organisations and reluctance to engage with broader agendas than their own (Robson 2008). Those working with infant children referred to such frustrations from being expected to conform to a partnership structure, and programs that largely focussed on juniors and above (interview 1, 3 and 9). Rowe (2009) talks of ‘Shopfront’ partnerships, which present the trappings of engaging stakeholders while relinquishing little power, and there is evidence to suggest that, within this SSP, there was little consultation on how the money was spent. Within this example, it seems to be mainly associated with a power imbalance, in favour of those who are in control of the purse strings (Balloch and Taylor 2001; Houlihan and Lindsey 2008; Lindsey 2009). Those at the outer reaches of the structure expressed dissatisfaction with the partnership, citing concerns of money being wasted on structure, staffing, and resources, rather than directly benefiting young people. Both PLTs and the SSCo identified issues with bureaucracy: There was a lot of paperwork and justification on where all the money was going… that’s what I don’t like, the paperwork, because I just think it’s such a waste of time and a waste of money when actually just get in there with the children [sic] (Interview 1)

With the benefit of hindsight, the PDM reflected that they might have had greater success if they had not rolled out the SSP program quite so prescriptively: I mean, if the YST gave a pot of money… [and] said here you go have a million pounds see what you can do for your area. I don’t know if we

110

Chapter Eight would have done exactly what they’d asked of us, what we actually did. Maybe our priorities would have been slightly different. (Interview 2)

In a case study of CSPs, McDonald (2005) reported issues of limited freedom to act within an agenda that is prescribed by the government; similarly it appears that the PDM in this case study felt restricted in being able to respond to local need and demand. That ‘some partnerships are little more than a glorified tick box’ (interview 4), was a sentiment shared by many interviewed, and is an example of how a centralised agenda and ‘forced’ collaboration can possibly impact on organisational buy-in, potential success, and ultimately, sustainability. Nevertheless, there was an almost resigned acceptance that an inevitable part of partnership working was, and still is, about ‘talking shop for sport’ (interview 6). Frustration was evident across a variety of partnership experiences: It doesn’t do a lot… doesn’t really make any decisions about anything. (Interview 4) I can’t bear sitting around talking about things, I just think it sensible to get in and do it, and that’s what it’s all about… for the children. (Interview 1)

Huxham and Vangen (2004) label inaction within partnerships as ‘collaborative inertia’, where the result of collaborative arrangements is negligible, or the output is extremely slow to be realised. It may be that individuals are sublimated into the widely held view that partnership working is positive, perhaps then, negative aspects carry less weight than they would otherwise, and therefore, people persevere with the partnership. One participant was quick to point out that such talking opportunities are important for sharing good practice and building relationships, which can take time, however the strength of feeling towards this issue indicates that, for most, the balance was not quite right. It was interesting that over a decade a partnership focus has clearly had some impact in terms of experience. Those interviewed, who were part of larger, public, or strategic organisations were resolute that they no longer enter into collaborative arrangements that experience tells them are likely to fail, and that people are more shrewd about whom they work with (interviews 4, 6, 7, 12 and 14). Interestingly one practitioner, referring to the issue of ‘talking shops’, suggested that the individuals themselves might be a little responsible:

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 111 We should be bolder I think in sports development. You know, sports development I think is made up of lots of nice people. I think we should say, no I can’t work with you, because I’m not funded to do that, sorry, but here’s how you could get support from elsewhere. I think we do try and take on a bit too much. (Interview 6)

Despite some respondents noting perceived negative impacts of partnership working, one impact of the dissolution of the SSP has been identification amongst many respondents that there is no direction locally for future developments. The dismantling of the SSP infrastructure has left a void which has resulted in less ‘talking shops’, but also a lack of direction previously provided by the SSP. The inertia identified above seems to have taken on a different form with key actors still looking to others to take a lead.

Uncertainty about how to develop and evaluate participation by young people (more perceived national neglect) With the demise of the PESSCL (DfES/DCMS 2003) and PESSYP (DCMS/DCSF 2008) annual surveys, which whilst they provided a comprehensive picture of the data received from schools, were also criticised for their overly statistical approach to the amount, as opposed to the quality of PESS opportunities, many respondents were unsure how to evaluate the success of recent achievements or future initiatives. No one was able to articulate the impact they were having, suggesting that practitioners are uncritically adopting the assumed positive outcomes of their activities and, in doing so, neglect to consider the purpose of what they are doing. Whilst the interviewees were firm in their view of sport’s contribution to a wider social agenda, it transpired that when engaged in collaborative working, outcomes were either not articulated between partners at all, or in the cases where the measurement was limited to recording participation data and anecdotal evidence – as one participant put it, they were ‘data rich but analysis poor’ (interview 14). Using the CMO framework therefore proved difficult, and exploration shifted to understanding why an outcomes approach was not taken within collaborative working. It was highlighted by many interviewed that importance is placed on ‘doing the doing’, and that it is time and resources that prevent deeper thought (interview 14) It was never discussed but you, you just, you sort of take it, read that children really benefit from these tournaments and competitive sport, or coach, you know, being coached. (Interview 1)

112

Chapter Eight We don’t sit around in our management meetings saying what can we do to reduce childhood obesity – we are trying to do that without actually sitting there thinking about it because we are looking at new activities all of the time… but no we don’t give too much consideration to outcomes. (Interview 4)

Theories centred on partnerships suggest that in terms of actually achieving outcomes the partnership should be designed around the desired outcome, and not the other way around (McQuire 2010). It seems likely that the assumption of the outcomes in relation to benefit of sport are widely held as numerous and positive, so professionals do not see the need to state them explicitly, nor do they see a need to measure impact. It was suggested by those interviewed that organisations came together with similar goals, and that shared outcomes were less important. Rowe (2009, 209) describes these as shotgun partnerships, where the focus is on acting without consideration to understanding purpose (outcomes). The underlying barriers to engaging with outcomes were difficult to pinpoint from the interviewee responses. One reason could be a reluctance to engage difficult discussions that were perceived as an extension to the already frustrating ‘talking shops’. Responding quickly to access funding streams and reacting to continual changes in policy can be seen to have an impact on time and enthusiasm, and it seems that it is the focus on the outcomes that gives. Interviewees highlighted this, whereby programs alter frequently and where change may result in them targeting the same people under a different heading, perhaps with a different outcome and a different organisation. Pawson suggests that the impact of continual change and ‘policy renewal’ can be negative on practitioners actually even listening to ‘evidence’ (2006, 13) to consider an outcomes approach. Whilst the reasons given for a lack of an outcome focus (lack of time, staffing resources, the desire to act, and difficulties in measuring outcomes which are qualitative) are valid, it is considered that this presents an incomplete picture, and that the influence of centralised sport policy and government priorities plays a greater part than interviewees realise. It is unrealistic to place blame on those at the delivery end for assuming outcomes when claims of the magical properties of sport have dominated policy and practice to date, which has been backed up with little evidence (Coalter 2011). Notwithstanding documented issues with evaluating impact through the largely quantitative PESSCL and PESSYP surveys (Smith and Leech 2010), it is suggested that the SSP went some way to leading and encouraging an outcomes approach for those involved. Certainly for those within schools, people felt a little lost.

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 113

Loss of secondary and primary school sport communication (local indifference) Mackintosh (2012) highlighted that the redevelopment and transition of the SSP system into the ‘new system’ under the coalition government has created a diversity of local and regional ‘patchwork quilts’ of partnership models. With an awareness of the picture in neighbouring towns, his analogy is apt, and the dissolution of the SSP in this town has left a void. As one participant put it, ‘change is the only constant’ (interview 10), and people were appreciative that the sporting landscape is always shifting. But trying to keep that mapped out, and understanding what individual schools and other sporting organisations are doing was becoming increasingly difficult. A prevalent theme from within this case study indicated the necessity of a strong lead to manage the process of partnership working to maximise action: I think that comes down to who’s leading the partnership and who’s beating the drum and the qualities of the chair of that particular partnership. (Interview 6) So you have got to have somebody who’s quite skilled in mapping and looking forward, someone who’s got the flair… someone who can actually listen and coordinate it all. (Interview 7)

All those involved or connected with the SSP were quick to comment that whilst the partnership was not perfect, its strength lay in how it brought together so many organisations. Historically, the PDM cascaded information from the CSP, NGBs and other parties - but the CSP considered ‘[the town had] gone very quiet in recent years’ (interview 7). The vast majority of the interviewees are looking to other public bodies to fill the gap and be the glue that holds the town together. Here of course is the first hurdle; the removal of the SSP has exposed a lack of strategic direction for youth sport in the town and it is a gap that was not going to be filled by the local authority as ‘all non-statutory services are under ‘scrutiny’ for efficiency savings’ (interview 8). It was observed that: [The local] council seem wholly disinterested at the moment and the key people in the council who I think are more interested in the cultural side of leisure than in the sporting side of leisure - and I’m not being disparaging, that’s just the way it is. (Interview 11)

114

Chapter Eight

Perhaps here is the flaw in the coalition government’s bottom-up approach, as it overestimates the role and capacity of professionals and others and there is no legal requirement for local authorities to take the lead. Perhaps it is also an unrealistic expectation on an organisation that has quietly focused on facility management and culture for many years, to the point where capacity and expertise lies elsewhere, to fill the void left by the SSP. Essentially the CSP is the only coordinating organisation in the area, and now they have a greater remit for improving outcomes within youth sport through a collaborative approach as part of the new national strategy, Creating a Sporting Habit for Life (DCMS 2012). The concern of the CSP is that they consider themselves dependent on a certain level of infrastructure being in place to achieve their goals: If you think about a body such as us, a strategic body that relies on sign posting key information that will benefit the local infrastructure, we have no one to do that on our behalf, so it’s very difficult to get the information on funding or programs or opportunities to volunteers to pursue the [town’s] network. (Interview 6)

The dissolution of the SSP has left a policy vacuum, with lines of communication unclear, and no single organisation or actor wishing to take the lead to redevelop the local infrastructure for youth sport.

Disregard of the physical education and sport policy partnerships A further theme that surfaced was an assumption that partnership working between people, organisations, and schools would slowly cease. With the absence of the SSP, practitioners expected collaboration across policy areas, for example, PE and sport, or PE and health, to stop essentially they were not being told to develop these partnerships any more (or encouraged to). It was evident that people were already starting to become inward looking and protective of their resources, despite previous evidence of effective partnership working (sharing good practice), particularly between primary schools. There was some suggestion that the loss of the SSP structure would signal a return to secondary schools competing with each other, rather than working together without the central cog of the SSP. Finally, despite the unanimous call for a type of CSN, and as suggested here as the vital first step for the town, implementing such a network may be difficult, as one interviewee remarked:

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 115 I just don’t think there’s anybody in the town at the moment with the resolve, or the time, or the inclination to do very much about it. (Interview 11)

In addition, there seemed to a growing fear of investing time and resources into a CSN or similar partnership, and instead fostering an overreliance on individuals who would be at the whim of another change in policy or government that would see a repeat of the dissolution of yet another sport partnership. It will take the commitment of all organisations locally to really make a difference and, as the one participant highlighted, it may be a mistake to take the risk of one organisation being wholly responsible. The primary PE sport premium (£450 million funding from 2013-16), given directly to head teachers to make decisions on how to use it to provide sporting opportunities for young people, was announced as this phase of research concluded (DCMS and DfE 2013). The initial reaction to this new funding approach, which began in 2011 within the town, however was one of indifference, and certainly not one of partnership or outward looking strategy (interviews 2, 4, 5). Additionally, whilst considerable commonality could be recognised between this research and events in other local areas, the research only presents one snapshot of one area.

Conclusion The findings here indicate that first, notwithstanding the complexities that make partnership working as a process difficult, partnerships must be explicitly aware of the outcomes of their activities and the impact of dissolution of any partnership, in this case the SSP, on future sustainability of opportunities for young people. It is suggested here that the lack of evidence based policy making has contributed to the current situation, and this research is in support of Coalter, who advocated an improved approach to understanding the outcomes of sport programs, which he thinks will result in the development of ‘real partnerships’ (2011, 575). Such an approach will be a start towards supporting more effective partnership working and an understanding of what works for whom and in what context (Smith and Leech 2010; Pawson 2006) - which is the root of determining what makes a partnership successful – regardless of dissolution or the perceived lack of local or national leadership. Second, evidence here points to the negative impact of continual change and a need for stability. Continual change at a national level offers little opportunity for individuals and partnerships to consider a long-term view, and is limiting people’s practice in ‘doing the doing’. Finally, the lack of local

116

Chapter Eight

infrastructure hinders the capacity of the town to respond to any potential legacy from the London Olympic Games, and there is a strong likelihood that any potential youth sport legacy has passed the town by. A call for a type of CSN, seen as a solution by all interviewees may be a starting point, but there remains the hurdle of who can, or should, take the lead. It is put forward here that it is now only the CSP that possesses the knowledge and experience to broker a coordinated approach to youth sport in the absence of strong local lead. To achieve that the CSP need to be confident that they have the autonomy (and long-term funding) from SE to respond to what the priority is locally to ensure longevity, and a structure that they can work with seamlessly, in the future. But for the CSP, the question remains whether there is local resource to work with.

References Active Sussex. 2012. Sportivate Sussex Year 3 Guidance Notes. Falmer: Active Sussex. Balloch, Susan. and Marilyn Taylor. 2001. Partnership working: policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press. Bardens, John, Robert Long, and Christine Gillie. 2012. School Sport, London: House of Commons Library. Bell, Judith. 2010. Doing your research project : a guide for first-time researchers in education, health and social science. Open UP study skills, 5th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Open University Press. Bloyce, Daniel. and Andy Smith. 2010. Sport, policy, and development: an introduction. London: Routledge. Coalter, Fred. 2011. 'Sport Development's contribution to social policy objectives: The difficult relationship between politics and evidence'. In Routledge Handbook of Sport Development. edited by Barrie Houlihan and Mick Green, 561-578. Abingdon: Routledge. Collins, Michael F. 2008. 'Public policies on sports development: can mass and elite sport hold together?'. In Management of Sports Development. edited by Vassil Girginov, 59-87. Oxford: Elsevier. Department for Culture Media and Sport. 2000. A Sporting Future for All. London: DCMS. —. 2002. Game plan: A strategy for delivering government’s sport and physical activity objective. London: Cabinet Office. —. 2008. Playing to win: A New Era for Sport. London: HMSO. Department for Culture Media and Sport/Department for Children Schools and Families. 2008. PE and Sport Strategy for Young People. London: DCMS.

Indifference and Neglect after the School Sport Partnership was Dissolved 117

Department for Culture Media and Sport. 2012. Creating a Sporting Habit for Life: a new youth sport strategy. London: DCMS. Department for Culture Media and Sport and Department for Education. 2013. Getting more people playing sport, London: DCMS/DfE. Department for Education. 2010. New approach for school sports: decentralising power, incentivising competition, trusting teachers. London: DfE. Department for Education and Skills and Department for Culture Media and Sport. 2003. Learning through PE and sport. London: DfES/DCMS. Diamond, John. 2006. “Au revoir to partnerships: what's next ?” International Journal of Public Sector Management 19(3):278-286. Glasby, Jon, Helen Dickinson, and Robin Miller. 2011. “Partnership working in England - where we are now and where we've come from”. International Journal of Intergrated Care 11:1-8. Houlihan, Barrie and Iain Lindsey. 2008. “Networks and partnerships in sports development”. In Management of Sports Development edited by Vassil Girginov, 225-242. Oxford: Elsevier. Huxham, Chris and Siv Vangen. 2004. “Realizing the Advantage or succumbing to inertia?” Organizational Dynamics 33(2):190-201. Keech, Marc. 2013. “Sport policy, physical education and participation: inclusive issues for schools”. In Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education and Sport edited by Gary Stidder and Sid Hayes, 176-189. London. Routledge. King, Neil. 2009. Sport policy and governance: local perspectives. Oxford: Elsevier. Lindsey, Iain. 2009. “Collaboration in local sport services in England: issues emerging from case studies of two local authority areas”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1(1):71-88. —. 2010. “Governance of lottery sport programs: national direction of local partnerships in the New Opportunities for PE and Sport program”. Managing Leisure 15(3):198-213. —. 2011. “Partnership working and sports development”. In Routledge Handbook of Sport Development edited by Barrie Houlihan and Mick Green, 517-527. Abingdon: Routledge. Mackintosh, Chris. 2012. “Dismantling the school sport partnership infrastructure: findings from a survey of physical education and school sport practitioners”. Education 3-13: the professional journal for primary education. vol. iFirst:1-18. McDonald, Ian. 2005. “Theorising Partnerships: Governance, Communicative Action and Sport Policy”. Journal of Social Policy 34(4):579-600.

118

Chapter Eight

McQuire, Andrew. 2010. Briefing Paper 6: Achieving outcomes through collaborative gain. Edinburgh: The Improvement Service. Pawson, Ray, 2006. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: SAGE. Phillpots, Lesley., Jonathan Grix and Tom Quarmby. 2011. “Centralized grassroots sport policy and ‘new governance’: a case study of County Sports Partnerships in the UK – unpacking the paradox”. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 46(3):265-281. Prince, Rosa, (2012). “David Cameron: I cut school sports target because pupils were learning Indian dancing”. The Telegraph, via http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/keep-the-flamealive/9466379/David-Cameron-I-cut-school-sports-target-becausepupils-were-learning-Indian-dancing.html: last accessed September 12th 2012. Quick, Susannah, Aline Simon, and Alex Thornton. 2010. PE and Sport Survey. London: Department for Education Research Report DFERR302. Sport England. 2008. Sport England Strategy 2008-11. London: Sport England. Robson, Stephen. 2008. “Partnerships in Sport”. In Sports development: policy, process and practice edited by Kevin Hylton and Peter Bramham, 118-142. Abingdon: Routledge. Rowe, Nicholas. 2009. “The Active People Survey: a catalyst for transforming evidence-based sport policy in England”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1(1):89-98. Smith, Andy. and Richard Leech. 2010. “‘Evidence. What evidence?’: evidence-based policy making and School Sport Partnerships in North West England”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 2(3): 327-345.

CHAPTER NINE SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL? PRE-GAMES TRAINING CAMPS, LEGACY AND SPORT DEVELOPMENT BARBARA BELL

Introduction Lord Coe’s inspirational message, delivered to IOC members in Singapore in 2005, pledged a London games that would inspire youth from all over the world. The support offered to visiting countries, to train and prepare for the games in the UK, was part of efforts to create a lasting legacy from the London games internationally, as well as bringing the London games to communities. This chapter focuses on part of a program of action research in MMU, completed as part of a consortium approach to legacy planning, in the Cheshire East area, which began in 2009. This was supported by MMU Cheshire and the local authority, Cheshire East Council. Visiting athletes from Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands and Kirribas came to Cheshire for their pre-Olympic preparations in pre-games training camps (PGTC) as part of the North West regional agreement with Oceania, supported by London Olympic Organising Committee (LOCOG). Before the bid to host the games had been successful, it was questioned whether a home Olympics could create some impetus to community sport and activity in the UK (Coalter 2004). The academic community raised concerns over a potential gap in terms of capacity and planning for subsequent legacy in sport participation (Coalter, 2004; Girginov and Hills, 2008; Girginov and Hills 2009). Such sentiments had earlier been reinforced by the conclusions of Game Plan in 2002 (DCMS/Strategy Unit, 2002), which had referred to the “feel-good factor” being the main

120

Chapter Nine

benefit from major events, rather than strong economic justification or participation impacts. An extensive debate in the UK about the potential for a sporting legacy developed in the lead up to the 2012 games as expectations of sporting impacts was not clearly evidenced by previous games (Coalter 2004; Girginov and Hills 2009; Hindson et al. 1994; Weed et al. 2009). This chapter provides a case study analysis of the PGTC for London 2012, focusing on the community sport and hosts, relatively neglected in event legacy research (Misener and Mason 2010). The research attempted to identify whether the aspirations and legacy expectations of the MMUC/CE consortium in their PGTC were met. The case considers the methods and approaches used in the MMUC/CE camps for creating opportunities for legacy. This includes the sporting infrastructure in nonhosting communities around major events, and of the particular impacts on human and social capital in the local sporting communities (Misener and Mason 2006). The chapter begins with a short review of selected literature, and develops a theoretical dimension to the concepts of legacy, leverage, and the sport development and sporting capital potential from visiting countries in pre-games training camps. It goes on to explain the methods and approaches in the Cheshire case study research and their justification, as well as examining the pragmatic and other considerations affecting the methods used. Key findings and analysis of impacts or legacy from the camps are then examined in light of the literature, and the discussion outlines the main implications. In the final section, the emphasis is on the lessons learned for sport development practitioners, regarding the PGTC as a tool for community and sporting engagement around major events, specifically as the legacy investigations commenced around the time of the 2014 Commonwealth Games. This research was undertaken as part of a consortium approach between the local authority and the university, referred to as the MMU/CE LEAP program (Legacy Evaluation and Action Plan), to the hosting of pre-games training camps (PGTC) for visiting Oceania teams to the Olympics in 2012. This was part of the regional agreement, co-ordinated by the then NWDA. Burwitz (2011; 2012) presented some pre-Olympic findings in presentations before the games on the camps, which focused on the immediate impacts of the camps on the athletes and those delivering the services to them.

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

121

Thus, this chapter aims to review the particular community sport development (CSD) opportunities provided through hosting training camps, particularly given the limited resources of the visiting countries and athletes from the Pacific Island nations in the Oceania agreement. Based on research at MMU, in collaboration with local authority partners, this chapter looks more closely at the impacts of the London games’ expected legacy in people and communities outside of the hosting city. This uses a ‘soft legacy’ perspective, in terms of people, programs, and processes (Kornblatt 2006), rather than hard, tangible, or economic aspects. The focus on soft legacy is in response to a perceived gap in terms of critical engagement with leverage and legacy processes at local or community level. This contrasts with the emphasis on economic impacts in terms of jobs or visitors found in much of the literature published prior to London 2012 (Girginov and Hills 2009; Smith 2007; Pruess 2007), which has dominated official plans and documents both pre and post London 2012. The camps in Cheshire East prior to the London games included small numbers of athletes from small Oceania teams with very limited experience of international sporting competition or PGTC environments. The ‘small is beautiful’ title to this chapter draws on the phrase coined by Shumaker (1973) to highlight the clear specific context of CE camps compared to previous studies, e.g. related to Australian experiences of major games (Kellet, Hede and Chalip 2008; O’Brian and Gardiner 2006). The subtext of Shumaker’s title, ‘economics as if people really mattered’ can apply to MMUCE camps in that these were clearly perceived as camps where the people really mattered. As made clear in the planning documents of the consortium, such small-scale camps were not really about the economics of major sporting teams in providing services, or technological preparation of future medallists, but about enabling athletes to experience, sometimes for the first time, international travel, competition, and training, with the aspiration of competing at the London games. The development of mutual benefits and exchange from the partnership was a clear and explicit aspiration. The cultural and sporting contrast of the Pacific island athletes’ experience was highlighted by Hargreaves (2013) in the book compiled by young reporters, and also in the films and media content produced both in the UK and in the visiting countries by the Reporters Academy (see North West Steering Group 2012). This chapter examines whether or not the aspirations of the consortium in CE have been achieved, particularly in generating a longerterm legacy and social impacts in local sporting communities from the

122

Chapter Nine

camps. The research also sought to examine the experiences of hosting communities to identify implications for future development or wider application. As this camp was one of over 200 across the country, the lack of detailed analysis of the diverse methods and approaches of the camps in the meta-evaluation reports (DCMS 2013) highlighted gaps in understanding of impacts and mechanisms at work.

Legacy and Leverage around mega events Leverage of benefits from mega events has been examined (Chalip and Leyns 2002; Chalip 2006) relating to sport, tourism, and economics, with some examination of the social benefits and methods used. There is a clear distinction made between leverage as a planned process of increasing the benefits from the events and the concept of legacy, and that which can be planned or unplanned, with positive or negative impacts on the event (Preuss 2007). These impacts can further be hard - tangible, such as infrastructure, in economic benefits - or soft, around people and processes, attitudes and perceptions (Kornblatt 2006). The literature on both legacy and leverage has become more extensive, as attention has been focused on the increased justification of the longer-term and more extensive impacts of mega events, and IOC and host country expectations have come under greater scrutiny (Chalip 2006; Leopkey and Parent 2012). The extension of legacy to more ‘peripheral’ parts of the country has also been subject to some criticism (Smith 2009). While any legacy may be contested, ambiguous or difficult to define, the notion of leverage was clearly being applied by Cheshire in the preparations for the London 2012 training camps for visiting teams and in CE and MMU in Cheshire (Bell and Gallimore 2015). There is however a more limited literature on the notion of using visiting teams and training camps specifically to leverage wider benefits for communities (Kellet, Hede and Chalip 2008; O'Brien and Gardiner 2006). O’Brian and Gardiner (2006) provided evidence from the Australian experience of training camps as part of pre-Commonwealth or Olympic Games preparations, but focused on tourism and business benefits, and customer-relations models based in marketing. Leverage methods were examined to show how different perspectives of the use of camps resulted in different levels of success in benefits to areas hosting visiting country teams. Kellett et al. suggested that only as part of a planned and systematic approach would any specific outcomes regarded as a legacy be achieved, even if the leverage was successfully applied. Their

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

123

focus also tended to be on the business and civic links and partnerships, rather than impacts on hosting communities with regard to sporting infrastructure or benefits from the sporting aspects of the camps. Clearly this represents a gap in terms of understanding how the planned camps in the UK might work to bring the Olympics to communities across the UK. But with over 230 agreements signed, according to the DCMS (DCMS 2013), there had been a clear commitment to maximise these benefits to the whole of the UK. The NW consortium was perhaps unique in that there was a single agreement with Oceania, including many smaller countries in the South Pacific, as well as large developed nations such as Australia. This meant camps were co-ordinated at the regional level in an attempt to be as strategic as possible with accommodating the needs of visiting countries and the aspirations of those offering venues and camp services. The soft aspect of sporting legacy in CE, as with most communities outside of London, was expected to be more significant. As noted by Girginov and Hills (2008; 2009) and Coalter (2004), even before the bid was successful, while some impact on sport was clearly expected, the nature and sustainability of any changes in sport were highly debatable. Weed and colleagues, for example (2009), highlighted the “festival effect” – celebratory and community-based impacts of the games as potentially being very important to the wider community. However, it would be clearly difficult to measure and attribute to particular programs any subsequent change. Also that, rather than any general ‘trickle down’ into mass participation, we might find the elite athletes inspired existing participants, in a “demonstration effect”. The specific focus of this chapter is therefore on the following questions: What were the impacts of the PGTC in CE, particularly on sport and soft legacy? What were the methods of leverage used around the PGTC and how effective were they?

Methods and approaches The overarching methodology is consistent with a ‘realist evaluation’ (Pawson and Tilley 1997), in a multi–method case study (Yin 2009). This has interpretive and qualitative analysis of the perspectives of the hosting communities and a range of data sources, analytical techniques, and has been theory led, using earlier literature to develop a theory of the proposed

124

Chapter Nine

model of leverage. Primary data collection focused on semi-structured interviews with club representatives, students and staff supporting camps undertaken between March and September 2012, and other interviews and records of the camps from 2010 to 2012. This additional material included films and interviews undertaken by the Reporters Academy with visiting athletes at the camps. Other data sources included the qualitative surveys of those engaged in camp activities in 2010-12, reports, and minutes or notes of meetings of the consortium. Some secondary data from NW regional end of games report (NW Nations and Regions 2012), and also the meta-evaluation reports (DCMS 2012; 2013) provided some contextual material for the analysis of outcomes and impacts outside of the camp and interviewees. Follow-up interviews conducted in 2014, in the lead up to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games provided a longitudinal perspective and examined the outcomes achieved on sustainable changes in professionals involved in the camps, the sports clubs, and community sport development. Unfortunately, there were limited resources to carry out more extensive field work once the games had taken place in 2012, and the partnership was effectively dissolved on completion of the camps. The aspiration of the camps in Cheshire was for “mutual benefits”, however, those social impacts of the camps in Oceania are not explored, as it was beyond the scope of this research program1. The case study approach also included observations at clubs and at events and activities undertaken during the camps while athletes were training or contributing to sport development activities. Notes and records of these observations of the interactions and engagement with local children and coaches formed part of the qualitative data analysis and added some more richness to the analysis of the case study (Stake 2005).

Qualitative analysis of the sources Using the software NVIVO (QSR Version 10), the interviews, memos and notes from observations and other data were coded and thematically analysed, initially looking for text and references to themes identified deductively (based on earlier literature review), and also codes or nodes which emerged on reading and re-reading of the transcripts inductively. The raw nodes were merged or grouped where overlapping or interpretive codes provided overarching themes as part of an inductive analysis. Minutes, plans, reports and other documents, as well as some videos or external sources were also coded to themes, as they provided some data triangulation and illustrated potential relationships or areas for additional

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

125

exploration for relationships across the sources and codes. The thematic analysis explored the relationships in the data by different respondents, and compared responses to the timing and their roles in the process of the PGTC. Examining the responses of different participants was part of the approach to qualitative data analysis, inductively analysing for the overarching themes, which were developed into a model or graphical representation of relationships and subthemes. It was not feasible to conduct large scale surveys of local residents in Cheshire or sporting participants in the clubs, on their views of or opinions about the camps or visitors, therefore any conclusions are inferred based on perspectives of the key respondents, which is an obvious limitation. However, the value of this realistic study of the PGTC is in increased understanding of the ‘mechanisms of causality’ of a complex and multilayered phenomenon (Danermark et al. 2002). Thus, a realistic approach can develop a better understanding of not just what was achieved through the camps but how, through the lived experiences of those involved. The core purpose of the realistic evaluation approach is an examination of how programs work, for whom, and in what circumstances (Pawson and Tilley 1997). The sections below provide a narrative account of the training camp methods, and also highlight particular themes or perspectives illustrated later in the model.

The PGTC at MMUC - The design, delivery and planning for camps in Cheshire East There were clear aspirations for wider legacy and exchange between the Oceania visitors and CE, as highlighted in the original agreements and plans, which highlighted mutual benefits for camp athletes and hosts. The partnership approach enabled key stakeholders in the camps – namely the local authority, Cheshire East, and the university, along with other sport bodies, local businesses and civil organisations, education and cultural groups, to come together and pool expertise, resources, and assets in support of the camps (people and places). Given the limited resources of the visiting countries, this was essential and also indicative of a camp aimed at the developing nations and focusing on potential for sustainability – the ‘small is beautiful’, relatively low-tech approach, which seemed to be more appropriate to the needs of the visiting athletes. Professional support services (e.g. physiotherapy) were provided to athletes, and relevant professionals were financially compensated using

126

Chapter Nine

the LOCOG grant, however, some of those delivering the services – campus SDO, training sport scientists, coaches, were unpaid volunteers, who took on their PGTC as part of the job, or for experience and professional development. In some cases, those involved were going significantly beyond their contracted hours or professional role, whereas for some, volunteering was financially compensated (e.g. drivers). Volunteers feature highly in the work of the CE PGTC, but it is a complex picture of professional and voluntary, paid and unpaid, work. However, no full cost-benefit appraisal is attempted here, nor has it been possible to report on the financial arrangements of the consortium. Facilities, both on the MMU campus and in the wider community, including public leisure facilities or private clubs, were used for training and preparation for the athletes, again, supported by a LOCOG grant where necessary. Most were existing facilities, but in the case of beach volleyball, MMU built a temporary and then a permanent court on the MMU Cheshire campus in 2011. This is the only physical legacy of the camp remaining. The camps used other existing training and or testing facilities on campus, including newly built sports science laboratories and fitness facilities. This meant that the athletes were training alongside students and the community, with limited closed sessions. Both as a means to reduce costs and to provide an inspirational boost, international visiting athletes were embedded in local clubs and for coaching, e.g. for the longterm Kiribati boxing camp in 2011/12. Clubs did receive some compensation for this, as it did involve some commitment of coaching resources and training facilities, which at first caused some difficulty or concerns over resource capacity in the clubs concerned. At the same time, other MMUC staff and facilities were hosting regular on-going sport science support (SSS) to GB athletes and paraathletes, providing similar expertise to other teams or individuals preparing for the London games, outside of the official team GB hosting camps. The expertise on campus was largely channelled through the MMU Sport Development Unit, using postgraduate student sport scientists, working towards their accreditation and experience, under the supervision of more experienced staff. In summary however, due to size and limited scope for sport development activities external to the camp, many of the activities had limited wider benefits, or engaged relatively small numbers of local schools.

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

127

Table 5 - Leverage activities for benefits Methods in the camps for leverage of benefits Schools visits to campus to meet athletes Get Set workshop – involved visiting athletes, teachers and lead pupils for legacy workshops Athletes visiting schools – linked work on curriculum (PE and other subjects) Beach volleyball tournaments and festivals (schools and students) Volunteer engagement with activities and events Athletes embedded in local clubs for training and some competitions Coaches sharing knowledge and expertise with athletes and other coaches Sport science support and technical assistance Pastoral and cultural support and advice Public relations and media coverage of visiting athletes and events on campus

Inspiration, sporting and individual impacts and legacy questions in Community clubs: Key themes The interviews established the level of engagement and role in PGTC by the respondents, their motivations and drivers for getting involved with the PGTC and their perceptions of the benefits to them or their organisations. Interviews also explored the views of the leverage methods and tactics, such as embedding in clubs, the use of school visits or open training sessions, to the achievement of legacy aspirations. Furthermore, interviews explored how the concept of legacy was framed and interpreted by the respondents. Inspirational aspects were examined, as was the particular relationship of the Olympics to the club or individual, whether as a professional, a student, or as a member of the club. Also considered relevant, based on the analysis of literature on human and social capital, was the extent of personal or professional development that occurred as part of the experience and the contribution of the experience of the camp to any enhancement of personal social capital, or communal sporting capital, or capacity for career enhancement. This thematic analysis was then used to develop a model of the impacts of the camps seen in figure 1 below. The theme that emerged very strongly was that of the individual and personal level of inspiration felt by some of the respondents, based on their interactions with athletes, and reflected in the follow-up interviews.

128

Chapter Nine

This was seen as significant, particularly if they had had limited involvement with international athletes and Olympic standards of training and preparation previously. This appeared related to their increased awareness of the cultural differences in sport and social circumstances of the visitors, many of whom had not been much outside of their own island culture before. Cultural exchange and awareness being increased was also a strong theme to emerge across both professionals and community sport practitioners. Table 6: Thematic Analysis Main themes in the analysis of PGTC interviews Impacts on volunteers and sporting capital in clubs Problems in any clear impacts as ‘legacy’ Development of skills and experience – professionals and volunteers Psychological/emotional – positive buzz or ‘excitement’ of ‘inspiration’ around Olympics Enhancing engagement with sport through athletes in club Relationships and interpersonal development by participants in camps

The thematic analysis showed clear evidence of building of relationships between visiting and hosting individuals, in clubs and organisations, as well as enhanced perceptions of London Olympic experiences (as spectators at events, or simply seeing the visiting nations on the TV). There were strong perceived relationships, based on mutual respect for fellow athletes and coaches, formed in the lead up to the games in 2012, and as an engagement in an exercise of international collaboration, quite a unique experience for the community sport respondents and volunteers, but also for the professionals. There seemed to be a strong sense of personal development and enhancement of the experience of club members, students, and the local community. However, some problems or difficulties with regard to realising legacy aspirations and a lack of sustained change after the games, when resources and commitment suffered were also identified, across clubs and the campusbased respondents. Those issues identified in the analysis were within the theme of limits and constraints on impacts and legacy. These were linked to external politics and changes - for example, there had been changes in local government, as well as national, politics that had affected the relationships within the partnership, as well as the overall co-ordination for the camps in the NW region. This impacted the professional relationships, resources

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

129

and communications from the camps and the research also. For example, it had not been possible to resource a longitudinal research program across all the NW camps, and the co-ordination of any external CSD work was difficult to maintain for the full-time professionals who had to go well beyond their remit in supporting the camp participants and deliver the core business of the pre-Olympic preparation.

Limits to legacy – capacity and growth in a community sport under pressure There was only a limited evidence of legacy in the sports and clubs, where in Athletics at least, some personal links had continued after the games. Both main sport clubs involved in the research (athletics and boxing) indicated some growth in interest after the games, but also both were reluctant to attribute this to the camps specifically as it was part of the overall Olympic buzz/magic or experience of the London games, or was created around their sport through the London games, or by their own longer-term efforts to promote in the community. Also, both main clubs involved reported constraints in resources in clubs to grow, either due to constraints of facilities or of coaches and volunteers who were already very much up to capacity, even if the visiting athletes had been inspirational to their members. The findings from athletics were echoing those found in volleyball and boxing by student researchers in 2013 (Bowker 2013; Peach 2013). The only community volleyball club in CE had not been engaged in the PGTC (indeed, it had been unaware of it), the impact on them was difficult to see, and they reported very little impact from the London games in 2013 (Peach 2013). The local authority representative noted the increased opportunities for volunteers, as they had to cut back on some of their CSD work. Increasing voluntary activity was a strategic approach by them to meet the needs of the community for sport. However those who represented clubs locally did not appear to see much benefit coming back to their own volunteers directly, as a specific consequence of their involvement in the camps. Students interviewed and student investigations noted above also identified limitations of the efforts to deliver camps on the MMUC campus – many of the visits happened out of term time, and few students had the chance to directly interact with the athletes, even those that did had limited contact. Therefore, even with students who had high levels of

130

Chapter Nine

engagement with the Olympics and their own sport, due to timing of the camp, there was little impact on students by the PGTCs. Media and communications were indicated in several interviews as being relevant to the limits of any wider impacts in the community – not enough perhaps was made of the presence of such small teams, for relatively short visits, despite newspaper or reporters academy efforts (NW for 2012). However, a growing use of social media and virtual communications has made it possible for volunteers and others to remain in contact with or follow the visitors and maintain some relationships over the time and distance involved. This perhaps points to one of the ways in which sporting expertise and knowledge can develop sustainably, as well as the motivational impacts of relationships with elite athletes this enables. However, despite all this successful relationship building, and an effective camp experience for the preparation of athletes, it was impossible to maintain the consortium beyond 2012. As austerity climates continued to bite, and with the closure of the NW Nations and Regions 2012 office, no more camps came to Cheshire in 2014. Individuals from MMU who had been key actors in the regional network were invited to the Glasgow Commonwealth Games in 2014 to help Oceania teams, and the local authority hosted a group of young people from the CE volunteering program to attend the games as spectators. However, for them there was no contact with the Oceania teams or athletes, even by those who had been very much part of the CE sporting community during the camps. Therefore, the leverage of the PGTC in CE was limited by the size and scope of the camp. The specific efforts made by the consortium in collaboration with local schools and clubs to enhance the experience of the visitors and hosts and also the resources devoted to the camps (physical and human) in order to provide the best outcomes had limited impacts that could be described as a lasting legacy. This case is therefore summarised in the model below.

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

Figure 7 - PGTC model for CE

131

132

Chapter Nine

Where to now – implications from this study The limits to this study in terms of its close focus on such small camps clearly makes it difficult to suggest any clear evidence of legacy in sport development. Also given the extensive Olympic-themed leverage activity taking place in Cheshire East and nationally, it is arguably impossible to attribute to the camps alone any changes or impacts highlighted in the interviews and observations. Clearly, these camps need to be seen as part of a much larger Olympic effect. Despite the very positive social and interpersonal relationships and enhanced experiences around the games, there were limited specific community benefits from the camps to the wider community or sub-region over and above positive perceptions and personal development achieved by those directly involved. In terms of a sporting legacy related specifically to leading to CWG2014 and future events, the expected outcomes of the PGTC camps in MMUCE were not fully realised. As over 230 of such camp agreements were in place, it might be that the claimed benefits for hosts in the immediate evaluation (2012) were rather over optimistic, but clearly more research was needed to tease out the full extent of impacts across the various models and styles of camp and agreements. This is, however, very unlikely to take place, now that the London games and CWG have both been delivered, and expensive meta-evaluation processes have concluded. In terms of relationships, despite some enhanced cultural exchanges around 2012, unfortunately not much has been sustained in the specific clubs investigated. Schools and other groups have maintained some contact with their visitors, but no CWG camps, or further visits, have occurred, and there are no plans for anything in relation to other major events coming to the region. This is in contrast to the larger camps held in Manchester, where there have been regular repeat visits of Australian and other teams, including CWG preparations (Bell 2014). The relationships in this small camp approach have been difficult to sustain without LOCOG or IOC or Commonwealth support for teams, and with the limited resources available in smaller countries, their priorities have clearly been elsewhere, for sport and other development. This rather unequal relationship and limited resources of the visiting team has been a key factor in limiting the capacity of the camp to enhance local or international sporting exchange. The methods used in developing sport

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

133

through camp-based activities have been relatively successful, albeit small in scale and impact. The CE case is one of a small, possibly beautiful, but transient relationship; camps where the people mattered. But it is a relationship that doesn’t show, in the hosting communities at least, any long-term impacts in the wider community. Impacts in sport in the islands however may yet emerge over time, as a consequence of their Olympic odyssey in 2012 (Hargreaves 2013). However, this is an area for further research, which carries some ethical and philosophical challenges, as the resources to support such work are much in need for more basic developmental work in the islands. There is a clear need to follow up this development over the longer-term, and to re-establish links to foster exchange or knowledge transfer to future hosts of similar camps. The virtual world, social and digital communications may offer potential to overcome the logistic and distance issues for knowledge and cultural exchange. In conclusion, though the potential for soft legacy impacts has clearly been shown in Cheshire East, the efforts needed to maintain and develop beyond the PGTC into more sustained sport development or social impacts have clearly been problematic.

Acknowledgements The MMU Cheshire Institute of Performance Research and Cheshire East Council supported this research. The paper draws on data collection and reports compiled by Emeritus Professor Les Burwitz, MMU, Reporters Academy for videos and Nations and Regions reports for regional data on camps. I also must acknowledge undergraduate and postgraduate student researchers at MMU for their contribution to data collection and analysis as part of the wider legacy evaluation and action plan (LEAP) program. The author also recognises the co-operation and support of MMU Cheshire, Bill Taylor and other members of IPR and Cheshire East Council in this research, as well as UCLAN and Edge Hill University, and colleagues involved in the other Oceania camps across the region. I have attempted to cite all relevant sources as appropriate; though I am the sole author of the chapter, it would not have been possible without the shared resources and joint working by colleagues across the partnerships, for which I am very grateful.

134

Chapter Nine

Notes 1. A more complete analysis is in development, based on a comparative case study approach, using additional data from camps in Manchester in contrast to those in Cheshire.2 2. All recoverable funding from LOCOG has been subject to some commercial confidentiality, not shared or reported here. I have made no attempt to consider cost and economics in this case study.

References Bell, Barbara. 2014. Legacy, Leverage and Community Sport a case study of PGTC in NW England. EASM Conference Book of Abstracts Social and Commercial Impact of Sport Coventry September 9-12 Bell, Barbara and Kevin Gallimore. 2015. Embracing the Games? Leverage and Legacy of London 2012 Olympics at the sub-regional level by means of strategic partnerships. Leisure Studies:1-22. doi: 10.1080/02614367.2014.994553. Bowker, Joseph. 2013 The effects and impacts from the London2012 Olympic Legacy on boxing clubs in Cheshire East Unpublished Dissertation Crewe: MMU Burwitz, Les. and Barbara Bell. 2011. Pre games training camp legacy evaluation case study. Conference Paper presented at MMU Coaching Futures Conference, Crewe June 22. Burwitz, Les. and Barbara Bell. 2012. 2012 pre games training camps – legacy evaluation case studies. Oral Presentation at ICSEMIS Conference Glasgow, July 15. Chalip, Laurence. 2006. “Towards social leverage of sport events”. Journal of Sport and Tourism 11(2):109-27. Chalip, Laurence. and Anna Leyns. 2002. “Local business leveraging of a sport event: Managing an event for economic benefit”. Journal of Sport Management 16(2):132-58. Coalter, Fred. 2004. Stuck in the blocks? A sustainable sporting legacy. In After the gold rush; a sustainable olympics for london, edited by Anthony Vigor, Melissa Mean and Charlie Tims, 91-108. London: IPPR. —. 2010. “The politics of sport-for-development: Limited focus programs and broad gauge problems?” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 45(3):295-314. Danermark, Berth, Mats Ekstrom, Liselotte Jakobsen and Jan Ch. Karlson. 2002. Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. London: Routledge.

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

135

DCMS/Strategy Unit. 2002. Game plan: A strategy for delivering government's sport and physical activity objectives, Cabinet Office: London DCMS. 2013. Meta Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Report 5 Post Games Evaluation. Grant Thornton, Ecosys, Loughborough University, Oxford Economics, Future Inclusion. London: DCMS —. 2012. Meta Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Report 4 Interim Evaluation. Grant Thornton, Ecosys, Loughborough University, Oxford Economics, Future Inclusion. London: DCMS Girginov, Vassil and Laura Hills. 2008. “A sustainable sports legacy: Creating a link between the London Olympics and sports participation”. The International Journal of the History of Sport 25(14):2091-116. Girginov, Vassil and Laura Hills. 2009. “The political process of constructing a sustainable london olympics sports development legacy”. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 1(2):16181. Grix, Jonathan 2013. “Sport politics and the Olympics”. Political Studies Review 11(1):15-25. Hargreaves, Laura ed. 2013. Oceania: An odyssey to the olympic games. Preston: UCLAN publishing Hindson, Anne, Bob Gidlow and Cath Peebles. 1994. “The "trickle-down" effect of top level sport: Myth or reality? A case study of the olympics”. Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation 4(1):10. Kellett, Pam, Anne-Marie Hede and Laurence Chalip. 2008. “Social policy for sport events: Leveraging (relationships with) teams from other nations for community benefit”. European Sport Management Quarterly 8(2): 101-21. Kornblatt, Tracey 2006. Setting the bar; preparing for London’s olympic legacy. Discussion paper 8. London: Centre For Cities. Leopkey, Becca. and Milena M. Parent. 2012. “Olympic games legacy: From general benefits to sustainable long-term legacy”. International Journal of the History of Sport 29(6):924-43. Misener, Laura and Daniel S. Mason. 2010. “Towards a community centred approach to corporate community involvement in the sporting events agenda”. Journal of Management and Organization 16(4):495514.

136

Chapter Nine

Misener, Laura and Daniel S. Mason. 2006. “Creating community networks: Can sporting events offer meaningful sources of social capital?” Managing Leisure 11(1): 39-56. North West 2012 Steering Group. 2012. North West end of games report Manchester: London 2012 Nations and Regions Group. —. 2012 Steering Group. Vanuatu Beach Volleyball and Cheshire East http://www.nwfor2012.com/news-and-blogs/vanuatu-beach-volleyball accessed 19 June 2012 O'Brien, Daniel. and Sarah Gardiner. 2006. “Creating sustainable mega event impacts: Networking and relationship development through preevent training”. Sport Management Review 9(1): 25-47. Pawson, Ray and Nick Tilley. 1997. Realist evaluation. London: Sage. Peach, Aynsley 2013. The Participation levels of Volleyball within Cheshire East: a possible legacy of the London 2012 Games? Unpublished Dissertation. Crewe: MMU Preuss, Holger. 2007. “The conceptualisation and measurement of mega sport event legacies”. Journal of Sport and Tourism 12(3/4):207-28. Reporters Academy. 2012 Oceania Athletes prepare for London 2012 Playlist online at: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAEF2F9C944A7CC48 Accessed July 2012 Schulenkorf, Nico. 2012. “Sustainable community development through sport and events: A conceptual framework for sport-for-development projects”. Sport Management Review 15(1): 1-12. Ernst F. Schumacher. 1973. Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. London: Blond and Briggs. Smith, Andrew. 2009. “Spreading the positive effects of major events to peripheral areas”. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1(3):231-46. Smith, Andrew and Tim Fox. 2007. “From event-led to event-themed regeneration: The 2002 commonwealth games legacy program”. Urban Studies 44(5):1125-43. Stake, Robert E. 1995. The art of case study research. London: Sage. Weed, Mike, Esther Coren, Jo Fiore, Ian Wellard, Louise Mansfield, Dikaia Chatziefstathiou, and Suzanne Dowse. 2012. “Developing a physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games: A policy-led systematic review”. Perspectives in Public Health 132(2):75-80.

Pre-Games Training Camps, Legacy and Sport Development

137

Weed, Mike and Suzanne Dowse. 2009. “A missed opportunity waiting to happen? The social legacy potential of the London 2012 Paralympic games”. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events 1(2):170 - 74. Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case study research. 4th ed. London: Sage.

CHAPTER TEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH SPORT AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY: A LEGACY OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL GEOFF THOMPSON

Introduction This chapter reflects a thirty-year journey, on both a personal and professional level, whereby ‘sport’ and ‘sports development’ have become ever more recognised as contributory factors to the lives of young people and the communities in which they live. With the advent of ‘Sport for All’ in the seventies, which saw the establishment of the respective sport councils and the social, recreational and wider role of sport, the pathway from socially accessible facilities, whether local authority, sports clubs, or youth facilities, provided a participation diversity of choice that saw social and grass root development opportunities that would lead to performance and excellence that national governing bodies talent ID into their excellence potential. This saw the eighties realise one of the most diverse eras of Olympic, World and European medal winning success this country has ever seen. In that time the social and cultural challenges of race riots and the resulting review of sport in the inner cities provided a series of recommendations that would show the role of sport in the development of young people and communities. With sport housed within the respective departments of education and the environment (where sport would be identified as part of regeneration capital and program policy considerations), the 90s saw the newly founded Department of National Heritage, an opportunity for sport to become part of the renamed Department of Culture, Media, and Sport.

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

139

The late nineties saw a decade of Birmingham and Manchester bid for the right to host the 1992, 1996, and 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Games, an opportunity to see cities not only use the bidding for major events to promote the respective cities to the global community, but also regenerate areas of historical deprivation with a more co-ordinated and integrated sports policy provision in the delivery and legacy of major games. In 1993, during the Manchester 2000 Olympic bid, the social and cultural issues of young people and communities of deprivation came to the public fore, with the shooting of a fourteen year old school boy, Benji Stanley, in Moss Side, Manchester. The race murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, and the murder of James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys, brought a societal wake up call. The Youth Charter was launched at Wembley Conference Centre, with a national multi-agency commitment to the mission aim that “sport provides an opportunity for young people to develop in life”. The sports social impact model and the sports development model realised as part of the “Spirit of Hulme and Moss Side Tour of LA” saw community development through sport realise many initiatives that would inspire (through the regeneration polices of Hulme Regeneration and Central Manchester Development Corporation) a youth cultural and community strategy, that was delivered by the Youth Charter as part of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games bid. The Commonwealth nation of South Africa also contributed to the post-apartheid vision of the late president Nelson Mandela that saw sport play a pivotal role in the nation building policy of the country. This would see the historic ‘Building a Nation through Sport’ conference as part of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Edinburgh in 1997. With a new millennium, the Youth Charter continued working locally, nationally and internationally, seeing UN NGO recognition for its work. The Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games would see the Youth Charter’s ‘Connecting Communities’ initiative invite 100 young people from each of ten communities from the UK to experience the games. The result of ‘Citizenship in Action’ saw a ten-year legacy initiative leading up to and including the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

140

Chapter Ten

The Steve Biko legacy of community empowerment also helped enrich the now developed community campus model. This saw the legacy of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games and the now well-established social inclusion through sport policies, initiatives, and millions of pounds invested in youth and community social needs. However, the challenges and opportunities in delivering an integrated legacy cultural framework that sees a more effective, efficient, and sustainable community-inclusive, and diverse participation right to cultural activity produced a 21st century opportunity to see sports development in the community talent ID pathway, to a more integrated reflection of the most successful team GB medal winning exploits of the historic London 2012 games. This chapter aims to look at the social, cultural, and economic cause, effect, and impact of the 21-year journey that has inspired much through tragedy and opportunity locally, nationally, and internationally.

The Youth Charter - Social and Human Development for All through Sports, Arts and Cultural Activity The Youth Charter is a UK registered charity and UN accredited nongovernmental organisation. Launched in 1993 as part of the Manchester 2000 Olympic bid and the 2002 Commonwealth Games, the Youth Charter has campaigned and promoted the role and value of sport, arts, and cultural activity in the lives of disaffected young people from disadvantaged communities nationally and internationally. The Youth Charter has a proven track record in the creation and delivery of social and human development legacy projects and programs, with the overall aim of providing young people with an opportunity through sport, art, and cultural activity to develop in life. Specifically, the Youth Charter tackles educational non-attainment, health inequality, anti-social behaviour and the negative effects of crime, drugs, gang-related activity and racism by applying the ethics of sporting and artistic excellence. These can then be translated to provide social and economic benefits of citizenship, rights, and responsibilities, with improved education, health, social and civil order, environment and vocation, training, employment, and enterprise. The Youth Charter adopts a multi-faceted approach to achieving its objectives, often by forging partnerships with a wide range of public and private sector agencies - engaging, motivating and inspiring sustainable

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

141

and achievable benefits. The Youth Charter acts as a social broker and cultural interface between public/private sector and donor organisations. The key to the Youth Charter approach is to provide capacity, leadership and self-reliance to hard to reach young people and their communities. This is delivered throughout social coach training and development workshops, programs, and projects. Further assistance, campaigning, advocacy, support and advice is delivered through our ‘online’ distance learning and evaluation tools, which provide a unique impact and assessment of each individual’s and community’s on-going development and progress. Supported by over 250 global sporting ambassadors and high-profile social role models, the Youth Charter is pioneering new approaches to tackling the increasingly serious problem of anti-social behaviour amongst the socially excluded youth. Over the past 20 years, the Youth Charter message has been inspired through teams and sporting ambassadors who have signed the Youth Charter scroll in support of its work. These include: the Rugby Football Union, the England, New Zealand, and South African rugby teams, the England, New Zealand, Bangladeshi, Zimbabwe, South African, and West Indies cricket teams, the England, Ghanaian, and South African football teams, Manchester United FC, Manchester City FC, Liverpool FC, AJAX FC, Sir Bobby Charlton CBE, David Beckham OBE, Sir Stephen Redgrave, Linford Christie OBE, Dame Mary Peters, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Susan Hampshire OBE, and Nelson Mandela. The Youth Charter was born out of the alienation, disaffection, antisocial and gang-related activity that led to the death of 14-year-old schoolboy Benji Stanley in January 1993. Benji’s death sparked a local, regional, and national debate on the social causes, effects and impact of social deprivation and its consequences. What had not been considered was how the then Manchester 2000 Olympic bidding process was going to offset the unwanted publicity of a city likened to ‘L.A. or Beirut!’ in the Sunday Times. With the Olympic rings as the unifying power of sport transcending social and cultural barriers of religion, race, culture, and national boundaries, the Youth Charter scroll represented the ‘royal family of sport’: British Olympic Association, Central Council of Physical Recreation, Sport England, the then GB Sports Council, and Sports Aid Foundation. It was used to provide an all important link with the wider

142

Chapter Ten

social interest groups identified in the education, health, social order, and environmental needs of the young people and communities the Youth Charter was trying to assist. Since that time, the Youth Charter’s philosophy, mission, aims, and objectives have been reflected in a number of ways, with respective governments now beginning to recognise the role of sport in its broadest social and cultural definition as a social vehicle of change. In its 21st anniversary year, the Youth Charter aims to contribute to that effort through its Gameswise programs. The legacy milestones of note that reflect this effort resulted from the 2002 Commonwealth Games legacy initiative, ‘Citizenship in Action’. Ten communities throughout the UK were engaged and motivated to benefit from the social and human development potential for a games to make a positive impact on the young people and communities in which they live. The Youth Charter's contribution to the social and human development legacy of major games in the UK since the 2002 Commonwealth Games has included the following: x 2004 - the ‘Call to Action’ – The Youth Charter brought together public, private, third sector, government, and community organisations to present its 2002 legacy proposals ‘Citizenship in Action’, and presented its proposals to deliver a program of community engagement nationally and within the Commonwealth. x 2005 - Independent Sport Review – The Youth Charter contributed its youth culture and community programs and projects, with policy recommendations on the role of sport as a social vehicle of change in the lives of young people and communities. x 2006 - ‘Olympic Citizenship in Action’ – built on our 2002 Commonwealth Games initiative to provide a London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic legacy of inspiring a generation. We also launched our Youth Charter ’12’ Commonwealth report at the Commonwealth Secretariat, Marlborough House, London. x 2008 - Liverpool City of Culture – saw the Youth Charter host a youth culture and community debate at Hope University as part of the Big Hope Festival and Intercultural Conference. The Youth Charter also presented its Olympic and Paralympic Citizenship in Action proposals as part of the British Council contribution to London 2012. x 2010 - Legacy Summit, Roehampton University – The 2012 Legacy Summit saw a unique gathering of multi-agency stakeholders with

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

x x

x

x

143

a keen interest in the games pledge of inspiring a generation realised. The summit also featured Muhammad Ali scholars from Louisville, Kentucky, who joined the British Council scholars from the North West to produce recommendations that would lead to a better coordinated legacy opportunity for all. 2011 – Legacy 4 All e-petition – followed the 2011 summer riots and called for free access to all sport, recreation and leisure facilities for young people under the age of 18. 2012 - Youth Legacy Debate, Media City, hosted by Mr Speaker, Rt Hon. John Bercow MP – this debate saw a cross section of educational learning abilities from state, private, academy, and higher education discuss the 2012 legacy of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and give their views on the value of sport in their lives, and the communities in which they live. 2013 – The Youth Charter launched its Youth Charter 2012 Games Legacy Executive Summary Report at the House of Commons as one of the most diverse and universally inclusive consultations on how a true and lasting sustainable legacy for all could be realised. 2014 – The Youth Charter launched the Youth Charter 2012 Games Legacy Full Report in Soweto, South Africa at the Future Champions soccer tournament.

Connecting Communities – A Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games Experience As part of the Youth Charter’s on-going social inclusion engagement with disaffected young people from disadvantaged communities throughout the UK, the connecting communities program was an exciting and historic undertaking. The aim was to invite 1,000 young people from communities of social disaffection and deprivation. The Youth Charter attempted to reflect its social and cultural journey to date of projects and programs that have resulted from its inception and development as the social and youth cultural strategy of Manchester’s bidding and hosting of the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The connecting communities program, supported by the 2002 host organising committee and the Guardian Media Group, was an exciting, as well as challenging, culmination of the Youth Charter’s then nine year journey to date. Identified as the youth culture strategy of the successful bidding and securing of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, the challenge was in translating the social, cultural, and cohesive community benefits of

144

Chapter Ten

a major sporting event to disaffected young people from 10 disadvantaged communities in the UK that the Youth Charter had worked with to date.

Bidding, Advocacy and Campaigning As Manchester embarked on their quest to secure their candidacy for the 2002 Commonwealth Games, the Youth Charter was identified as the social and youth culture element of its games bid strategy. As part of the 2002 Commonwealth Games organising council, the Youth Charter contributed to the development of the pre-volunteer program. This provision added an on-going development and growth to the Youth Charter’s local, national and international program of work with existing commonwealth nations, such as: South Africa, Namibia, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland benefiting initially. South Africa was to see a unique parallel realised with the Anglo South African Youth Culture initiative, formally ratified by the governments of the Republic of South Africa and the UK, at the England versus South Africa soccer international at Old Trafford in 1997. The Youth Charter also consulted, advised and presented its plans with multi-agency support secured. This included Sport UK, Royal Commonwealth Society, Commonwealth Secretariat, Raleigh International, VSO, Y Care International, Duke of Edinburgh Award, British Council, and others. Ongoing consultation and dialogue with Commonwealth member countries was realised through major games, events and conferences.

Connecting Communities – A Social, Cultural, and Cohesive Approach With the support of a unique multi-agency and community volunteer effort, the Youth Charter developed a three-day program that would see 100 young people representing each of the ten communities, resulting in 1,000 young citizens visiting Manchester. The communities and projects identified from our national programs of work to date, which reflected the Youth Charter’s philosophy, mission, aims, and objectives, were brought together to experience the spirit of the games. The aim was to provide an opportunity that would hopefully see social and cultural benefits that a once in a lifetime chance like this would provide. Issues: Whilst the Guardian Media Group had kindly provided tickets, there was no transport for the communities to visit Manchester and then

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

145

make their way from our Salford Quays HQ to the games venues. Parking and security had to be secured. Lunch packs had to be provided with a volunteer workforce that would ensure the successful delivery of this unique undertaking. In addition to this, we only had six weeks in which to put this exciting opportunity into place. Delivery: We engaged our existing partnership network and secured the corporate support of AMEC developments, ASDA, Greater Manchester Transport, Alligator Art and Design Studios, Manchester Evening News, Greater Manchester weekly newspapers, the Royal Household, Manchester 2002, and Greater Manchester Police, who all agreed to provide the in-kind and logistical support that would help deliver and meet the challenge. In addition to this, we were able to motivate over 50 volunteers including policy officers, teachers, previous employees, youth-based organisations, and youth ambassadors who all supported and assisted the connecting communities program. The program was delivered as part of a three-day experience, with 300 young people and their chaperones hosted each day to at least one of the major events of their choice within the games program schedule. Lessons Learned: ‘Connecting Communities’ was as challenging as it was rewarding within the overall experience. The personal and collective memories that would motivate and inspire a social and cultural legacy beyond the hearts and minds of those who attended was evidenced by the will that both their experience and relationships established, and should continue beyond the games. More importantly, they wished to see the Moss Side experience take hold and benefit the socially disadvantaged and challenging communities to which they returned. The Youth Charter's contribution to the London 2012 “Inspire a Generation” Legacy The bidding and hosting of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games had its roots in the Manchester 2000 Olympic bid and the hosting of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games - as does the UK’s decade of sport, which includes: Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games; the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England; and the London 2017 Athletics World Championships. The London 2012 games were won on the promise to “Inspire a Generation”. The Youth Charter has contributed towards the successful

Chapter Ten

146

London 2012 bid since its inception in 1993 as a social and human development legacy of the Manchester 2000 Olympic bid, and our subsequent social and human development contribution to the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games. In the year that the bid to host the London 2012 games was won, the Youth Charter contributed to the Independent Sports Review (2005) Raising the Bar report, which provided the following general principles for UK Sports Policy and the London 2012 legacy: x x x x

A modern, streamlined, and efficient framework; Emphasis on youth; Success by system, not by chance; and A reduced bureaucracy;

This was followed by the launch of the Youth Charter’s Olympic Citizenship in Action in 2006 and the launch of the Youth Charter “12” Commonwealth Report, which focused on the social and human development legacy of the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games, and the potential social impact of London 2012. In 2010, the Youth Charter hosted a delegation of Muhammad Ali scholars. The young scholars from Louisville, Kentucky, were given a tour of Manchester, Liverpool, and Bradford, meeting with local youth groups and organisations engaging in debate and discussion on the social issues faced by their respective communities. The tour culminated in the London 2012 Legacy Summit at Roehampton University. The social issues faced by many disaffected young people in the UK came to the fore with the 2011 summer riots that began in London and spread to other English cities, including Manchester and Salford. The Youth Charter responded with the launch of our 2012 Legacy Manifesto and a Legacy 4 All e-petition. Following the successful London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Youth Charter delivered a youth legacy debate at Media City UK. The House of Commons Speaker, Rt Hon. John Bercow MP hosted the debate, which included children and young people from local schools. The Youth Charter launched the executive summary of our 2012 Games Legacy Report as a guest of the Speaker, Rt Hon. John Bercow

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

147

MP, at the House of Commons, in October 2013. In the same year, the Youth Charter submitted four pieces of written evidence to the following government select committees and commission. x House of Lords Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy x Education Select Committee on School Sports Following London 2012 x Youth Select Committee on A Curriculum for Life x Parliamentary Commission on Physical Activity The Youth Charter executive chair, Geoff Thompson MBE FRSA DL, also provided oral evidence to the Youth Select Committee. The full Youth Charter 2012 Games Legacy Report was launched in March 2013 in South Africa, marking the Youth Charter’s 21st Anniversary. This was subsequently followed by the launch of the Youth Charter “21” Soccerwise Report at the Global Soccerex Conference in Manchester.

Muhammad Ali Scholars Tour 2010 Issues: The promotion of social and human development through Olympic international dialogue. Delivery: The Muhammad Ali 2010 scholar’s tour brought together a multi-agency effort of academia, private/public sector and communitybased agencies, with young people from different social and cultural backgrounds and experiences to debate the challenges they face. Debate, learning and interaction with international contemporaries lay at the heart of the itinerary. The youth of today and tomorrow need to understand each other and the wider world to influence their future. Together, young people from all over the world can gain trust, respect, understanding and cooperation. The scholars visited communities and institutions in Salford, Liverpool, Bradford, and London. The tour encompassed a museum, a boxing gym, a community centre, two universities, and a major conference. The scholars debated slavery, race, religion, politics, education and the role of business in society, and the social, human, and cultural issues faced. Impact: The tour culminated in a major conference, hosted by the University of Roehampton, to debate some big questions: what do we want from society, and how can we make it happen? Debate centred around the impact of major sporting events (for example, the 2012

Chapter Ten

148

Olympics and Paralympics), the legacy expectations of the communities where they take place, and the role of the public and private sectors, as well as private citizens, in bringing about that legacy. Lessons Learned: The future steps of the Roehampton Legacy Summit provide as many challenges as they do opportunities. The challenge of a coordinated effort has been equally inspired by the commitment, contribution, and collective will to see recommendations become reality. Within days, a social platform was established for all legacy summit delegates. This would support the call to action agreed by all, and the writing to all MPs, representative of those in attendance. The London Coaching Foundation also confirmed their wish to see a social coach effort complement and meet the needs of the London host games volunteer effort in a coordinated activity that goes beyond the six Olympic boroughs. In the North, the British Council scholars would be visiting Norway and the Nobel Peace Centre, returning with a wish to see a social centre of excellence in Liverpool. Although this failed as part of the legacy of the 2002 Commonwealth Games, it could have been realised as a legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Malbank High School and Sixth Form College will have continued a remarkable legacy road map and journey that has seen an Olympic and Paralympic boulevard at their premises. A 2012 Global Legacy Youth Summit has also been proposed to build on the on-going global need for intergenerational, holistic effort and continued relationships of all things global and local. Working in the how, what, why, and when as the 2015 United Nations millennium development goals provide an opportunity to map, track, and above all, measure, the impact of the UN IOC social and human development sport for peace movement. Soccer working in Partnership – The Youth Charter “21” Soccerwise Report Football is a leading global sport, its appeal cuts across all national identities and social and cultural diaspora. However football does not operate in a sporting vacuum on its own; it is an athletic sport that requires physical literacy skills and competencies of: x x x x

Agility; Balance; Coordination; and Speed.

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

149

Football can benefit from its players having developed physical literacy in other sports, from gymnastics to athletics. Thus, football should work in partnership with other Olympic and Commonwealth Games sports and disciplines to develop all-round athletes. Football also needs to work in partnership with other sports to develop well-rounded citizens that can contribute to society, and maximise the positive impact they can have on their local, national, and global communities. This sporting partnership should include the sharing of: x Financial resources; x Facilities; and x Professional development. The Youth Charter has used the following areas and factors to further categorise each Olympic and Commonwealth Games sport/discipline for their potential social impact on youth and communities, please see table 7. Table 7- Areas and Factors for Potential Social Impact of Sport Area Physical Literacy

Life Skills

Social Skills

Accessibility

Factors Sport and Physical Activity participation is shaped by early childhood experiences and the development of physical literacy. Gymnastics provides the most basic form of developing physical literacy in early childhood. Running, swimming and self defence are all life skills that can help save lives. Cycling is a life skill that can improve personal health and the environment. Basic interaction, communication, team building and conflict resolution skills can all be developed through participation in competitive and team sports. The access to equipment and facilities will ultimately determine opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity.

Please see table 8 for the sports that the Youth Charter categorises as having very high and high potential impact for social impact. These Olympic and Commonwealth sports provide the opportunity for community development through sport, with the emphasis on their social impact.

Chapter Ten

150

Table 8 - Categories of Olympic and Commonwealth Sports with “Very High” and “High” Potential for Social Impact Life Skills – Physical Literacy Gymnastics Swimming Athletics Cycling

Life Skills Self Defence Boxing Judo Taekwondo Wrestling

Team Sports Handball Volleyball Netball Basketball Football Rugby 7s Hockey Cricket Softball

Racquet Sports Table Tennis Badminton Squash

The Youth Charter “21” Soccerwise Report The Youth Charter “21” Soccerwise Report was launched at the recent 2014 Soccerex Global Convention in Manchester with the Class of ’92 (Ryan Giggs, Nicky Butt and Phil Neville). The report marks a 21-year journey of social and human development through football since 1993, of which global football icons Manchester United and Manchester City have played an integral part, and has included England’s 2006 FIFA World Cup bid, and South Africa’s 2006 bid and hosting of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The Soccerwise Report sets out the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the beautiful game, and its ability to inspire a generation of footballers from the favelas, townships and estates that produce the world’s best players; from Pele and Maradona, to Rooney and Ronaldo. Since 1993 - the Premier League’s inaugural season - a social development through football sector has been formed and is now local, national, and global. Football has contributed significantly to the development of the now well-established Sport for Development and Peace movement, which has evolved into a sector and even an industry. What is not clear is how this movement of public, private, third sector, and football club activity was born. The Soccerwise report provides a unique insight in the early beginnings of this now global phenomenon, from the shooting of a 14year-old schoolboy on the streets of Manchester during a bid to bring the

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

151

2000 Olympics to Britain, to a soccer team – Moss Side Amateur Reserves (MSAR) - born out of two rival gangs. The Soccerwise report charts this incredible journey, which has included: Moss Side Amateurs Reserves; under-17 Ghana football visit to Moss Side 1995; SASOL Olympic squad and Bafana Bafana visit to Moss Side 1997; UK and Anglo-South Africa sport initiative; Soccerex World Cup 98; 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup final in Los Angeles; Mandela farewell soccer match 1999; Soccerex 2000 at Old Trafford; three world cup bids (1 England and 2 South Africa); Mali 2002 African Cup of Nations; South Africa 2010 World Cup, and the Future Champions legacy tournament in South Africa. During the past 21 years, the Youth Charter has worked closely with a host of football clubs, governing bodies, and confederations, including: Manchester United; Manchester City; Bolton Wanderers; Tottenham Hotspur; Charlton Athletic; Newcastle United; Aston Villa; Ajax; Kansas Chiefs; Orlando Pirates; the Premier League; the Football League; the Football Association; the PFA; UEFA; CONCACAF; and FIFA. This work has also included leading football icons and legends, such as: Sir Bobby Charlton; Sir Geoff Hurst; Sir Alex Ferguson; Abedi Pele; Michel Platini; Franz Beckenbauer; Roy Hodgson; Arsene Wenger; Roger Millar; Ruud Gullit; Glenn Hoddle; John Barnes; Gary Lineker; Paul Ince; Mark Hughes, David Beckham, Ryan Giggs, Phil Neville, Nicky Butt, and more. It has been an incredible journey with the global football family. The Soccerwise report was launched in 2014 at the Soccerex Global Convention in Manchester and provides 46 inter-related recommendations that will challenge social, economic, and political issues, as well as set out in the recommendations, how soccer can contribute to the issue of terrorism, radicalisation, conflict, and corruption. The foreword of the report has been contributed by Kick it Out chair Lord Ousley, with a message of support provided by FIFA President Sepp Blatter. The Soccerwise report provides the following key recommendations locally for Greater Manchester, nationally across the UK, and globally around the world: x Local Football Strategies for each local authority, and a countywide Greater Manchester football strategy, linked directly to Greater Manchester sport and physical activity strategy; x 10% of TV revenues from professional football to be invested in grassroots football;

152

Chapter Ten

x FIFA to provide a 'model for youth development pathways through football/sport' that includes: community, club and school/college/university from local to global levels of football/sport.

Conclusion - 21st Century Sport for All In order to see a 21st Century sporting opportunity for all in the social and human development of young people and communities, there will need to be a considerable sea-change in the current policy initiatives that govern and influence the resources available to communities locally and globally. With 21st century lifestyle activity choices, and the variety now considered by young people in particular, the social and cultural life-long benefits of an educationally healthy and active global citizen contributing rights and responsibilities in the social and civil order of their communities represent a positive situation that must be underpinned by the vocational training, life-skills and employable entrepreneurship that creates a social, cultural, and economic cycle of wealth. In order to achieve this, there will need to be an integrated cultural policy framework that will allow many governing bodies, private, public, and third sector agencies to establish a multi-agency stakeholder relationship. As a result, a performance and excellence pathway can be identified that can signpost the respective impact of outputs and outcomes that are truly sustainable within the bidding, hosting and legacy of major events.

Dedication and Acknowledgements This chapter is dedicated to the memories of the young lives lost over the 21 years of the Youth Charter journey to date. In its 21st anniversary year, it is also dedicated to members of the Youth Charter family who passed away that played such an important and pivotal role in the Youth Charter’s coming of age. Terry Allen, a long serving creative light, who helped to establish the Youth Charter China desk, Piet Du Plooy, a great competitor, sports administrator, Namibian and African, and Dame Mary Glen Haig, Olympian, IOC Member, Founding Trustee, Chair of Trustees and Life President of the Youth Charter, who travelled the Youth Charter

Community Development through Sport and Sports Development

153

journey from the streets of Moss Side to Los Angeles, and on to the townships of Soweto. The Youth Charter wishes to acknowledge the sportsmen and women who were the originally signed signatories to the Youth Charter scroll, which provided a symbol of inspiration that would lead to the now developed ‘Sport for Development and Peace’ movement. Moreover, the respective founding trustees, presidents, vice-presidents, support agencies, volunteers, local, national, and international agencies, both governmental and non-governmental, volunteers, chairs and above all the lives lost by those who left behind them the legacy of a divine spirit of hope, and which has provided the incredible journey from a Moss Side Manchester bidding and hosting experience into a global opportunity of hope, in the on-going challenges and opportunities faced in the lives of the world’s youth and the communities in which they live.

CONTRIBUTORS

Jobeth Bastable’s role at Sport Structures is a research consultant and analyst. She works with a range of clients to produce research methods that truly meet the needs of the sporting organisation. As well as analysing, organising and reporting on the data these projects produce. Jobeth analyses both quantitative and qualitative data using the most upto-date techniques, and is an experienced user of both SPSS and mapping software. Analysing data and producing outputs in a format that really meets the client’s needs is a key part of her role, and she takes great pride in this. Jobeth has an Msc degree in Applied Sport and Exercise Science from the University of Wolverhampton, and she has worked in both local authority sports development and the community sports setting with a specialism in disadvantaged communities. Barbara Bell is currently a senior lecturer in sport development in the Department of Exercise and Sport Science at Manchester Metropolitan University. Her previous experience includes ten years in community sport management and development, and 20 years in higher education, with a focus on teaching and research into sport and leisure management and the development of sport. Her publications include work on youth sport, sport event impacts and women’s football. Her PhD was on the analysis of policy in youth sport and coaching, focusing on the champion coaching programs in the UK. Kay Biscomb has been at the University of Wolverhampton since 1996 where she is now the Director of the Institute of Sport. Previously a secondary school PE teacher, she has taught in state schools in Botswana and the UK. Her academic discipline is sport sociology, within which she has explored print media analysis, exercise dependency, and various aspects of identity construction. Jane Booth: Having worked in the sports development sector since 1997, Jane now heads up the coaching systems development team for the PGA across Great Britain and Ireland. Previous roles within local authorities, county sports partnerships and national agencies have given her a broad

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

155

understanding of the challenges that exist within the wider sports development sector. The completion of an MBA has enabled her to further develop a ‘business’ approach to sports development, and her continued research focus on change management (through a part-time PhD) has provided a sound background to the drive for a major change program within golf coaching across Great Britain and Ireland under the banner of ‘Right Coach; Right Place; Right Time’. As a keen musician, her guitar playing is better developed than her golf! As a relative newcomer to golf, she has been fortunate to work with some great PGA professionals who are passionate about golf and coaching and have helped her develop her golfing knowledge and playing. They have certainly provided her with the 'right coach in the right place at the right time', and have helped her to learn to play the game and steer her towards her potential (which she hopes she has yet to reach). Her passion for golf has undoubtedly been ignited by the great coach with whom she now works – the vision is most certainly being brought to life! Julie Brunton is head of Sport, Health and Nutrition at Leeds Trinity University. She is currently focusing her research on university students, looking at a range of retention initiatives, as well as having a particular interest in increasing participation in sport and active recreation. Julie is continuing research into the enablers and inhibitors of participation within particular target groups of the student population, as well as working on the design and evaluation of student sport-based interventions. She is supervising PhD students in both these areas. Her projects range from qualitative investigation using ethnography and other qualitative methods to a multi-design intervention and evaluation. Jo Buckley works in partnership with the University of Brighton to deliver higher education provision at the Sussex Downs College. Jo is the course leader for a foundation degree in Sport Coaching and Development (specialising in sport development), and coordinates and delivers on teacher education (PGCE/CERT ED/City and Guilds). Jo taught secondary PE for a number of years. Her previous career was in the leisure industry as the general manager of private health clubs. Barbara Butor graduated from the Hungarian University of Physical Education, where she is currently completing her PhD. She currently teaches Physical Education at Szent István University, GödöllĘ, Hungary. Research interest: Using the Internet and university webpages to improve physical activity engagement of university students.

156

Contributors

Zsuzsa Galloway graduated from the Hungarian University of Physical Education. She is senior lecturer and course leader of the Sports Coaching Practice program at University of Wolverhampton, UK. Research interests: e-Learning and blended learning in sports coach education. Gerald Griggs works in the Faculty of Education, Health, and Wellbeing at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. He is the author of ‘An Introduction to Primary Physical Education’ (2012) and ‘Understanding Primary Physical Education’ (2015), and has published articles on both Physical Education and the Sociology of Sport in a range of academic journals. Jade Jackson is a PhD student at the University of Wolverhampton, exploring the socio-psychological impact and delivery of sport development within areas of high deprivation, such as the Black Country. As a ‘born and bred’ Black Country woman, she is passionate about the emancipatory aspects sport and physical wellbeing can bring to such communities. Her teaching and research interests are primarily within inclusive sport and physical activity, social psychology, sport development and sport policy. She has previously worked in special educational needs and social inclusion, from community coaching to delivering physical education, and has a distinct passion for teaching and lecturing. Marc Keech PhD is principal lecturer at the School of Sport and Service Management, University of Brighton, specialising in sport policy, and is a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Marc’s work examines the history and politics of sport policy, youth sport development, and sport and social division. Simon Kirkland gained a Bachelor of Education specialising in Physical Education before putting that into practice teaching for six years in Birmingham. He then took up the challenge of managing an inner-city dual-use centre in Birmingham, where he developed imaginative club development programs. In 1991 he was appointed as Birmingham City Council’s Sports Development Officer for Young People. Following a two-year period managing sport and leisure in an area of Birmingham, he was appointed, in February 1998, the English Basketball Association’s first national development manager. After a three-month period he was invited to become chief executive officer. After over four years, Simon left England Basketball in 2002 to initiate Sport Structures Limited in July 2002.

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

157

Simon manages the company, its staff, and also seeks new business. He directly leads many of the projects within the company. Simon has responsibility for governance and leadership and has in-depth knowledge of strategic planning, workforce, equality, and coach development. Simon ensures that all of those involved in the organisation are aware of its commitment to high quality services in a framework of striving for equality. Simon volunteers in support of a number of sports and is chair of West Midlands Swimming, chair of the Birmingham Sports Association, and vice-chair of the Black Country Sports Board. He was formally a board member at Baseball-Softball UK, and has been keen to put some of his experience back into sport. Simon led his company’s award-winning coaching communities program, which has made a real, positive and lasting impact on the lives of disadvantaged members of West Midlands communities using sport, coaching and, critically, coach education. Agnes Kokovay graduated from the Hungarian University of Physical Education and worked as a coach and physical education teacher in Debrecen, Hungary, then taught at Nyíregyházi College, where she headed up the centre for e-Learning and completed her PhD in this field. She is currently working at the Hungarian University of Physical Education, where she is PhD director of studies in “Information, communication and sport”. She is also the head of centre for e-learning and digital content development. Jim McKenna is professor of Physical Activity and Health, and head of the Active Lifestyles Research Centre in the Carnegie faculty at Leeds Beckett University (formerly Leeds Metropolitan University). He has been in this role since 2005. His extensive portfolio of peer reviewed publications and grants covers interventions and community evaluations, spanning schools through to workplaces and working with older adults. Jim is currently working with colleagues in the long-term evaluation of a staged recovery intervention targeted on wounded, injured, and sick service personnel, based on inclusive sport and adventure education. As well as teaching both PG supervisors and PhD students, he is director of studies for a range of funded PhD students. His projects range from a qualitative investigation of self-care promotion by doctors and nurses in Syria, to quantitatively evaluating the outcomes of health promotion campaigns delivered through professional football clubs in England.

158

Contributors

Richard Medcalf is a principal lecturer and head of student experience, progression, attainment and employability in the Faculty of Education Health and Wellbeing. Prior to joining Wolverhampton in 2011, Richard had held positions at the University of the West of England (Hartpury) and the University of Worcester, where he completed his PhD in Physical Education. Richard teaches across a range of sport development modules core to the BA (Hons) Sports Studies course at Wolverhampton, which span issues regarding the politics and policies of sport and leisure. His research focuses on the study of how marginalised populations participate in physical activity. He is a trustee and director of Sport4Like UK. Janine Partington is a senior lecturer in Sports Development in the School of Sport at Leeds Beckett University. Prior to this appointment, she worked in sport development for ten years, for both local authorities and voluntary sector organisations. She has managed a range of successful community sports projects and initiatives that were developed by, and built upon, successful partnerships. Her academic interests include the strategic management of sport development, partnerships in sport, and community sports development. She has had an article on community sport and community empowerment published in Managing Leisure, and has co-authored several chapters in textbooks on sport development. Stephen Robson is a former local authority sport development professional who works as a senior lecturer in Sport Development in the School of Sport at Leeds Beckett University. As well as heading up the Sport Development degree, he leads the teaching of strategic management. Stephen has extensive experience of working on national level projects including the development of bespoke national occupational standards for sport development (now the CIMSPA professional framework) and the first professional degree endorsement scheme for the sector. He is a coeditor and author of Strategic Sport Development, the first textbook to focus on the strategic management of sport development services, and contributing author to Sport Development: Policy, Process and Practice. Geoff Thompson is one of the leading youth activists and experts in sports development and politics, with over 25 years’ experience in the bidding, hosting and legacy of major games, and the positive impact of sport and the arts in the social and human development of young people and communities. He is founder and executive chair of the Youth Charter (www.youthcharter.co.uk), a UK registered charity and United Nations accredited non-governmental organisation established in 1993.

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development

159

Geoff has written and contributed to a number of publications, articles and theses on the subject of sport for social and human development for peace. He has also established a reputation within the academic world advising, presenting, and lecturing to educational establishments. Geoff is a former five-time world karate champion, and holder of over 50 national and international titles, and has been inducted into the martial arts hall of fame. Geoff was honoured in 1995 in the Queens New Year’s honours list with an M.B.E. for his services to sport. He is also a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and has been awarded with an honorary doctorate of law by Roehampton University, an honorary fellowship of the University of Lancashire, an honorary doctorate of education by Manchester Metropolitan University and an honorary degree, Doctor of Letters by the University of Wolverhampton. Lisa West works at Sport Structures as a Sport Consultant. She works with a range of clients to understand their needs, produce detailed proposal documents and conduct and analyse research as required for the project. Lisa produces high quality final reports, addressing and challenging the outcomes identified. Maintaining excellent client relationships is a key part of Lisa’s role, and one that she takes great pride in. Lisa leads sport structures impact assessment of the major Sport England London legacy program Sportivate. Lisa has a BSc degree in Sports Science and has worked for two local authority sports development teams and at the Amateur Swimming Association, where she worked extensively with the leisure sector. Mihaly Zsiros is a PhD candidate at the Hungarian University of Physical Education, Budapest, Hungary, specialising in sport science with an emphasis on sports marketing. Research interest: the use of social media of Hungarian first league football clubs.

INDEX Active People Survey, 83, 87 Active Sports, 40 Active Universities Project, 6, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 64, 65 Aerobics, 67, 72, 74 Ajax FC, 141, 151 Alex Ferguson, 151 Alligator Art and Design Studios, 145 Archery, 14, 18 Arsene Wenger, 151 ASDA, 145 Aston Villa FC, 151 Athletics, 14, 65, 129, 145, 149, 150 Australia, 121, 122, 123, 132 Auto-ethnographic, 6 Babysitting, 20 Badminton, 14, 18, 19, 59, 60, 63, 150 Badminton England, 19 Bangladesh, 141 Basketball, 72, 150 Beirut, 141 Benji Stanley, 139, 141 Big Society, 86, 89, 91, 98 Birmingham City Council, 28 Black Country, 27, 28, 34, 83, 84, 87, 91, 95 Black Country Consortium Limited, 84, 91 Black Country in Motion, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97 BMX, 14 Bobby Charlton, 151 Bolton Wanderers FC, 151 Bourdieu, 89 Bowling, 20 Boxing, 126, 129, 147, 150 Bradford, 146, 147 Britain, 86, 151 British Council, 142, 144, 148 British Olympic Association, 141

Building a Nation through Sport, 139 Case study, 7, 25, 26, 39, 40, 105, 107, 108, 110, 113, 120, 123, 124 Central Council of Physical Recreation, 3, 141 Champion Coaching, 40 Change management, 38, 45, 50 Charlton Athletic FC, 151 Cheshire, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 130, 133 Cheshire East, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130, 132, 133 Clubmark, 17 Coaching, 4, 6 Coaching Matters, 40 Commonwealth, 142, 149 Commonwealth Games, 120, 124, 130, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149 Commonwealth Secretariat, 144 Communities, 1, 6, 7, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 66, 83, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 107, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 133, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 152, 153 Community Sport Network, 107, 114, 115, 116 Community sports networks, 107 Consumerism, 5 Contingency theory, 13, 22 County sports partnerships, 6, 7, 27, 38, 40, 61, 84, 104, 108, 110, 113, 116, Creating a Sporting Habit for Life, 16, 85, 86, 104, 114 Cricket, 14, 15, 141, 150 Criminal Records Bureau, 29 Cristiano Ronaldo, 150 CSK Strategies, 32

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development Culture and Sport Evidence program, 87, 90 Cycling, 14, 63, 65, 67, 78, 149, 150 Darwinian, 13 David Beckham, 141, 151 Demographics, 5, 10, 14, 72, 73, 87, 90, 108 Department for Culture Media and Sport, 104, 123, 138 Department of National Heritage, 138 Digital natives, 71, 73 Discontinuities, 10, 12, 16 Diving, 67 Dudley, 83 Duke of Edinburgh Award, 144 Economic, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 21, 26, 28, 35, 76, 85, 86, 87, 88, 97, 108, 120, 121, 122, 140, 151 Edge Hill University, 133 England, 13, 14, 53, 54, 65, 72, 78, 87, 108, 141, 144, 145, 150, 151 England Handball, 19 Environmental scanning, 12 European Social Fund, 29 European Sport Development Network, 2 ESDN, 6 E-V-R congruence model, 12 Families, 3 Field theory, 39, 42, 43, 48, 51 FIFA, 150, 151, 152 Financial crises, 5 Fitness, 67, 71, 78, 126 Focus groups, 55, 65 Football, 10, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 67, 72, 74, 78, 141, 148, 150, 151 Football Association, 151 Football League, 151 Franz Beckenbauer, 151 Friendships, 3 Futsal, 67 Game Plan, 119 Gary Lineker, 151 Geoff Hurst, 151

161

Geoff Thompson, 147 Get Healthy, Get into Sport, 84 Get Set, 127 Ghana, 141, 151 Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games, 145 Glenn Hoddle, 151 Golf, 39, 40, 50, 63, 65 Governing body, 6, 15, 17, 25, 30, 38, 40, 106 Government, 3 Great Britain, 38, 40, 70, 126, 140, 141 Greater Manchester Police, 145 Greater Manchester Transport, 145 Greater Manchester weekly newspapers, 145 Guardian Media Group, 144 Gym, 67 Gymnastics, 14, 149, 150 Handball, 14, 19, 150 Health policy, 84, 85, 90 Health Economic Assessment Tool, 85 Hockey, 14, 150 House of Commons, 143 House of Lords, 147 Hungary, 6, 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80 Institute for Volunteering Research, 88, 89 Institutional theory, 13, 21 International Olympic Committee, 3, 119, 122, 132, 148 Internet, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81 Interviews, 10, 14, 15, 91, 93, 94, 97, 108, 109, 124, 127, 130, 132 Ireland, 38, 39, 40 James Bulger, 139 Job Centre Plus, 27 Jogging, 67 John Barnes, 151 John Bercow, 143, 146 Judo, 150 Kansas Chiefs, 151 Kentucky, 143, 146

162 Kick it Out, 151 Kirribas, 119 Kotter, 45, 46, 48, 51 Kurt Lewin, 6 Labour, 104, 105, 106, 108 Laissez-faire, 3 Learning and Skills Council, 29 Legacy, 9, 16, 29, 86, 104, 105, 106, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152 Leisure services, 5 Leisure trusts, 27, 108 Lewin, 38, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 51 Linford Christie, 141 Lived experience, 3, 125 Liverpool, 146, 147, 148 Liverpool FC, 141 Local authority, 18, 19, 27, 40, 107, 108, 113, 119, 120, 121, 125, 129, 138, 151 London, 29, 116, 119, 121, 123, 126, 128, 129, 132, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148 London 2012, 7, 16, 30, 86, 104, 120, 121, 122, 128, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147 London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games, 119, 126, 132 Lord Ousley, 151 Los Angeles, 141, 151 Loughborough University, 58 Louisville, 143, 146 Mali, 151 Manchester, 143, 144, 146, 150, 151 Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Manchester City FC, 141, 150, 151 Manchester Evening News, 145 Manchester Metropolitan University, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 132, 133

Index Manchester United FC, 141, 150, 151 Maradona, 150 Mark Hughes, 151 Mary Peters, 141 MBA, 41 McKinsey, 48 Membership, 6, 14, 20, 21, 60 Michel Platini, 151 Minister for Sport, 3 Moss Side, 145, 151 Muhammad Ali, 143, 146, 147 Namibia, 144 National Governing Body, 21, 27, 33, 59, 97, 104, 138 Nelson Mandela, 139, 141, 151 Neo-liberalism, 86, 98 Netball, 14, 21, 150 New Labour, 85 New Zealand, 141 Newcastle United FC, 151 Nicky Butt, 150, 151 No Strings and Essentials, 19 Non Governmental Organisation, 139, 140 North of England, 6, 10, 14, 55 North West, 119, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130, 143 North West Development Agency, 120 Northern Ireland, 144 Norway, 148 Oceania, 7, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 130, 133 Old Trafford, 144 Olympic, 7, 29, 42, 86, 106, 116, 119, 120, 122, 127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151 Orlando Pirates, 151 Pacific Island, 121 Paralympic, 29, 139, 142, 145, 148 Paralympic Games, 143, 146 Parliament, 16

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development Partnership Development Manager, 105, 109, 110, 113 PAT 10, 4, 85 Paul Ince, 151 PE and Sport Strategy for Young People, 106, 111 PE teacher, 15, 106, 154 Pele, 150, 151 PESTLE, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22 PhD, 6, 39, 41, 46, 70 Phil Neville, 150, 151 Physical activity, 2, 6, 42, 53, 61, 63, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77, 80, 83, 84, 91, 93, 97, 98, 149, 151 Physical education, 7, 17, 72, 77, 93, 104, 105, 108, 114, 127 Physical Education and School Sport Club Links, 106, 111, 112 Physical Education and School Sport policy, 104, 106, 107, 111 Physical Education, School Sport and Club Links, 105 Playing to Win, 106 Political, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 85, 98, 151 Population ecology, 13, 17, 18 Positive Futures, 4 Pre games training camp, 3, 7, 119, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133 Premier League, 151 Primary Link Teacher, 109 Prince’s Trust, 27 Professional Footballers Association, 151 Questionnaire, 15, 71, 72, 93 Raleigh International, 144 Resource dependencies, 10, 13 15, 19 Roehampton University, 142, 146, 147 Roger Millar, 151 Rowing, 14 Roy Hodgson, 151 Royal Commonwealth Society, 144 Rugby, 59, 141, 145

163

Rugby Football Union, 59, 141 Rugby league, 14, 21 Running, 67, 78, 149 Ruud Gullit, 151 Ryan Giggs, 150, 151 Salford, 146, 147 Salford Quays, 145 Sandwell, 28, 83 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, 26 Save the Children, 43 School sport co-ordinator, 105, 109 School Sport Partnership, 3, 7, 11, 17, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 Scotland, 144 SDO, 6 Semmelweis University, 72 Sepp Blatter, 151 Singapore, 119 Sir Bobby Charlton, 141 Snowball sampling, 108 Soccerwise, 7, 147, 148, 150, 151 Social, 10 Social capital, 22, 35, 84, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 120, 127 Social factor, 10, 20 Social inclusion, 25, 35, 85, 88, 91, 140, 143 Social vacuum, 1 Softball, 150 Solomon Islands, 119 South Africa, 139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 150, 151 Soweto, 143 Sport, 1 barriers, 1 clubs, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 34, 50, 61, 77, 78, 85, 88, 104, 105, 106, 107, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 138, 152 contested term, 2 development, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 18, 27, 34, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 49, 50, 55, 66, 67, 83, 84,

164 85, 86, 89, 92, 94, 95, 96, 98, 106, 107, 108, 111, 119, 120, 121, 124, 126, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140 industry, 5 management, 2 negative experiences, 1 pervasive, 3 plus, 4 policy, 2, 3, 17, 84, 85, 89, 90, 105, 108, 112, 114 power, 1 social good, 1, 4 social objectives, 1 Sport action zones, 85 Sport activators, 55, 57, 58, 64, 66 Sport development officer, 18, 56, 61, 70 Sport England, 3, 29, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 67, 83, 84, 87, 104, 106, 107, 116, 141 Sport for All, 3, 40, 138, 152 Sport Structures, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 Sport UK, 144 Sportivate, 19, 106 Sports Aid Foundation, 141 Sports Coach UK, 29 Sports Council, 3, 4, 141 Sports Leaders UK, 30 Squash, 150 STEEPLE, 12 Stephen Lawrence, 139 Stephen Redgrave, 141 Steve Biko, 140 Streetgames, 29 Strength and conditioning, 72 Susan Hampshire, 141 Swimming, 14, 18, 63, 65, 67, 149, 150 Synchronised swimming, 67 Szent István Egyetem University, 72, 77 Table tennis, 14, 59, 150 Taekwondo, 150 Tanni Grey-Thompson, 141

Index Tennis, 14, 17, 60, 72 The House of Commons, 146 The Institute for Volunteering Research, 88 The Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games, 139 The Professional Golfers’ Association, 40 The Royal Household, 145 The UK Coaching Framework, 40 The Youth Charter, 7, 139, 141, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 Theory of Reasoned Action, 55 Third sector, 85, 86, 88, 142, 150, 152 Tipping points, 10, 12 TOP Play, 40 Tottenham Hotspur FC, 151 Transtheoretical Model, 55 UEFA, 151 UK, 26, 28, 39, 58, 63, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 85, 87, 106, 119, 120, 121, 123, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151 United Nations, 139, 140, 148 University, 3, 6, 53, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80, 108, 120, 125, 152 University of Central Lancashire, 133 University of Wolverhampton, 72, 84, 91 Vanuatu, 119 Vietnam, 43 Volleyball, 72, 126, 127, 129, 150 Volunteer, 13, 15, 26, 27, 31, 34, 36, 55, 60, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 127, 130, 144, 148 Volunteers, 7, 14, 19, 20, 29, 31, 49, 56, 57, 83, 84, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 114, 126, 128, 129, 145, 153

Current Issues in Contemporary Sport Development VSO, 144 Wales, 144 Walsall, 83 Water polo, 67 Wayne Rooney, 150 Weight lifting, 74 Weight training, 67, 78 West Bromwich Albion, 28 West Indies, 141 West Midlands, 6, 7, 27, 29, 83 Whole Sport Plan, 21 Wolfenden Committee, 3 Wolverhampton, 83

165

Wolverhampton College, 29 Wolves Community Trust, 84 Working Neighbourhood Funds, 29 World Health Organisation, 70, 71, 77 World War II, 42 Wrestling, 150 Y Care International, 144 YMCA, 27 Yoga, 72 Youth Sport Trust, 105, 109 Zimbabwe, 141