|
This ruff guide concentrates on the governance of sports development in the United Kingdom and the layers of governance particularly in England.
The impact of the 57 recommendations of the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) commissioned report "Sport in the Community" chaired by Sir John Wolfenden in 1957-60, have provided the principal framework for sport development up until 1998 and the Labour Government's crosscutting social inclusion agenda as detailed in their cmnd paper "Bringing Britain Together - A Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal", detailed for sport particularly in PAT 10, A Sporting Future for All and Game Plan.
The Wolfenden Report (as it is commonly known), drove [inter-alia] facility development, shared use of facilities, the financial support for governing bodies of sport, exchequer funding for sport initiatives and indeed shaped the governance of sport development in the UK by proposing a National Council for the development of sport, although not just one.
This council, set up as advisory in 1966 and established by Royal Charter in 1972, along with similar councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (1974) took on the mantle of advisors to governments on matters relating to sport in the UK and home countries.
At state level it was the case that the English version of the "Sports Council" dealt with matters at both a UK and English level, the home country "sports councils" dealt with matters particular to the development of sport in their country.
The reorganisation of these councils in 1997, stripped English dominance, with responsibility for UK performance sport taken over by a newly formed "UK Sport" and the previously dominant "Sports Council [England]" being reconstituted as the English Sports Council - badged now as "Sport England", yet still with responsibility for performance sports specific to England (confusing isn't it?)
Sport England [ remember they are really called the English Sports Council ] are gifted, by Government, as the distributor of Lottery funding to sport and the principal delivery of the government's policies toward sport. These "gifts" are made by government department such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Skills (amongst others)
Given that "Sport England" are [essentially] financed by Whitehall, they are duty bound to comply with government policy. The social inclusion agenda and devolution being cases in point, the former is dealt with in our rough guide to government sports policy, the latter evident in the reorganisation of Sport England and the formation of Regional Sports Boards consistent with New Labours' devolution agendas.
The Regional Sports Boards, serviced by the regional structure of Sport England are the principal gateway for funding at a regional level. The constitution of these boards reflect the widening agenda of social inclusion that government policy dictates with representatives from health, education, sport governing bodies, local authorities, business etc. The regional sports boards, despite their devolved nature remain (almost exclusively) bound to national policies, their frameworks virtually identical to the national structure yet with a little room to manoeuvre given regional priorities and need.
At a County level, arising from the Sport England owned "Active Sports" initiative, are the "County Sports Partnerships", some 45 local authority sports development partnerships designed originally to deliver the Sport England's "Active Sports" initiatives, a programme aimed at developing and enhancing sporting links between schools, local clubs and governing bodies of sport (well certain sports)
The widening of the sports development agenda to health, youth crime, employment and regeneration and indeed the directive from government in Game Plan for Sport England to become more strategic, has necessitated a similar widening of objectives for County Sports Partnerships which has lead to a redefinition of the staffing and operational structures within these organisations. The County Partnerships, for good or bad, appear to remain the preferred bidders for sports development funding, this despite their short-term initiatives, relatively low pay and short term / part-time employment contract arrangements. They do however provide one of the best starts for graduates wishing to enter the profession (as long as graduates remain sceptical and critically evaluative)
We now turn to sports development in Local Government, for many the bedrock of sporting opportunities, social inclusion, health, community development and sporting sustainability.
Students should be cognisant that local authorities, given their leisure centres, links with schools, sport development services and funding for sport, provide more sport development opportunities, sport employment opportunities than all the other sports governance bodies put together! (by a long way)
Hampered by "compulsory competitive tendering" (CCT) in the eighties and nineties and to a lesser extent "Best Value" (2000) each government agendas for organising local government, it remains the case that local government is the heart of British sports development, from swimming lessons to PE in schools, local authorities invest more in sport than any other organisation shaping it often to local need.
Students may like to look away from higher education's concentration on Sport England, Regional Sports Boards and County Partnerships.... for really meaningful research, away from political agendas, look at Local Authorities, their agendas and what sport participation means to their populations.
|
