Authors
Hart, G; Gregory, M and Taylor, P
Date
2011
Keywords
Sport; participation, community,
development.
Country of research
United Kingdom
Summary of findings
This article explores the relative
effectiveness and efficiency of eight different models of
intervention seeking to increases sports participation in English
coalfield communities which suffered substantial economic and
social decline following mine closures. The article reports
on the evaluation of pilot studies.
The Sports Legacy programme ran for 18 months
with the key objective of increasing participation in athletics and
fitness activity by training local people as volunteers to run free
community sessions for young people, especially 6-10 year
olds. Athletics was chosen because of its limited dependence
on built facilities. The eight models were:
• Athletics Club Outreach. Volunteers
initially delivered taster sessions in schools, with links to
satellite sessions based within these clubs.
• Student Volunteer Led in partnership with a
local college.
• Community Coach to set up satellite club
sessions in five areas.
• Traditional Sports Development with a local
authority’s sports development unit to create three new satellite
athletics clubs.
• Events Led. Outdoor events to provide
‘taster’ opportunities.
• Youth Organizations identified to carry out
programme as part of their existing provision.
• Parental Development. After-school
athletics sessions run by volunteer parents and school staff.
• Coalfields Regeneration Trust (CRT)
directed. Recruited volunteers from a local college to lead
activity sessions at local schools.
The authors provide a brief review of research
and policy documents to indicate the evidence-based rationale for
the local delivery models. They argue that much literature
fails to address the issues of the precise nature of
community-based models offer the greatest chance of success and the
processes involved. The authors provide a review of key
success factors from the evaluation of Sports Actions Zones which
include, partnership working, key professionals, inspirational
individuals, outreach work and a holistic approach. They also
review the Active England programme and conclude that most of the
principles in these two programmes are represented in some way in
the various models that they evaluated.
The evaluation was undertaken via:
• Participant registration/consent forms.
• Participant evaluation forms (only 20%
completion).
• Volunteer registration forms.
• Pilot models’ monitoring reports to CRT.
• CRT data from each activity session, time
spent on the different models and a copy of the Sports Legacy
financial budget for each model.
• 29 individual interviews with key
stakeholders.
• Two focus groups with student
volunteers.
Although the authors say that the time period
was too short to make a judgement about success or failure, there
were clear differences between the models in the inputs they
consumed, in the scale of activity they achieved in terms of
participants/volunteers and community activities and groups and
their value for money.
There was a wide variation in direct costs,
with the traditional Sports Development model and the Community
Coach being the most expensive and the Event approach the
least. However, some were also very demanding of CRT time,
especially the student volunteer-led approach. In terms of
outputs (number of participants, volunteers and activities),
although not all models were operating for the same length of time,
the Athletics Club Outreach had a significantly higher number of
participants than other models and was sustainable with exit
routes. Community Coach Funded (taster sessions) and
Traditional Sports Development (regular participants) also achieved
a high number of participants. In terms of training
volunteers, the most productive were the Student Volunteer Led and
CRT Directed models (although they were both very resource
intensive). However, the conversion rate for the CRT model
was very low. The Traditional Sports Development model
achieved the highest number of community activities and the best
sustainability prospects, as they were integrated into existing
club structures. The authors identified a series of success
factors, which include:
• Committed partners sharing the CRT
vision.
• A formal partnership agreement.
• Effective local coordination of
activity.
• Building on existing
activity/organisations/infrastructure.
• Limited inputs of CRT time/personnel.
• Initial leadership by qualified coaches.
• Training and development of, and eventual
leadership by, volunteers.
Risk factors included:
• Poor weather (if activity scheduled
outdoors).
• Overlong gestation/preparation period.
• Too much CRT time/personnel inputs.
• Timing of sessions inappropriate for
parental volunteers.
• Disagreements between CRT and partners.
• No formal agreement with partner.
• Inadequate local coordination.
• Insufficient recruitment and use of
volunteers.
• Timescale too short to retain interest of
participants or volunteers.
• Poor location of facility in relation to
participants.
The authors conclude that although they have not identified a
blueprint for success, they have identified a range of factors that
if used systematically are likely to increase a project’s chances
of success.
Methodology
Secondary sources, interviews, group discussions.
Source of reference
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 3(1),
65-83
Web reference
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/risp