Implementing the community sport legacy: the limits of partnerships, contracts and performance management

Abstract

ABSTRACTResearch questions: Community sport policy is at the centre of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy plans. Specifically, the policy goal is to achieve year-on-year growth in mass sports participation. The government has committed significant public funding to the policy (£950 million between 2008 and 2017), a specific delivery system has been developed, and a number of techniques have been employed to manage and oversee policy implementation. This paper utilises Marsh and Smith’s [(2000). Understanding policy networks: Towards a dialectical approach. Political studies, 48, 4–21. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00247] dialectical network approach to examine the community sport policy process, drawing particular attention to the effect of contemporary technologies of governing policy implementation [Green, M. (2009). Podium or participation? Analysing policy priorities under changing modes of sport governance in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 1(2), 121–144. doi:10.1080/19406940902950697].Research methods: The study is guided by a critical realist ontology and based on an analysis of qualitative data from 42 semi-structured interviews undertaken within three sub-regional partnerships in England. The interviews were conducted with senior managers and board representatives from National Governing Bodies of Sport (NGBs), local authorities, and County Sport Partnerships (CSPs). The data were recorded, transcribed and analysed through the application of principles from Grounded Theory, namely open and axial coding, in order to identify significant themes as well as relationships between themes.Results and findings: The findings reveal a number of factors that restrict or inhibit the implementation of policy by community sport agents. These include the conflicting beliefs and values of key policy agents, the challenges associated with enforced partnerships, a lack of open discussion regarding policy learning, funding decisions which prioritise new staff for NGBs and CSPs, leaving limited funding for implementation, and NGBs’ insular approach to planning implementation of policy.Implications: Whilst partnerships, contracts, and performance management systems may be considered vital to contemporary governance, the evidence suggests that such tools may have adverse effects on policy implementation and, at least in the case of enforced partnerships, make the process of implementing policy more challenging than it otherwise might be.