An analysis of County Sports Partnerships in England: the fragility, challenges and complexity of partnership working in sports development

Abstract

The management, use and reliance upon multi-agency partnerships in the field of public sector sports development became increasingly important following the election of the 'New' Labour government in 1997. In this study one example of a multi-agency partnership -County Sports Partnership (CSP) -will be examined through a case study analysis of four CSPs in the East Midlands region of England. A review of the theoretical and conceptual literature around partnership working will inform an appraisal of the impact of CSP arrangements in this region. The theoretical framework of partnership dynamics by Shaw and Allen (2006) is utilised to explore the reality of partnership working in sports development in conjunction with the findings of four in-depth interviews that were conducted with Chief Executive Officers and senior managers in each of the CSP regions. In particular, consideration will be given to the potential implications and issues of 'working in partnership' for public sector sports development officers and managers who negotiate the complex and challenging policy environment surrounding multi-agency working in sport. The key findings of the research include the extent to which there appears to be a misunderstanding of the CSP role amongst some CSP partner agencies, the fragility of partnership working; the importance of relationship management; and the complex shifting politics of sports development policy.2

Emerging school sport development policy, practice and governance in England: Big Society, autonomy and decentralisation

“…This study will draw upon data from such evolving partnership structures to examine the case of PE, school and community sport as a case study. Whilst the examination of the management and organisation of partnerships in public sector sport has attracted increasing attention in recent times (Lindsey, 2006;McDonald, 2005;Mackintosh, 2008;Mackintosh, 2011) this article draws the distinction between partnership working and the relationships it involves and the delivery of policy goals and objectives in PE and sport through a networked mode of governance.…”

Personal goals, group performance and ‘social’ networks: participants’ negotiation of virtual and embodied relationships in the ‘Workplace Challenge’ physical activity programme

“…Funded, by Sport England from 2003, CSPs were introduced to deliver National Governing Body and Sport England performance targets at the local level (Mackintosh, 2011). Key amongst CSP work is the pooling of resources, expertise and the creation of 'links' between organizations to develop local and regional networks and to streamline the number of agencies involved in delivering sports programmes , Robson, 2008.…”

“…Consequently network development can facilitate the construction and reproduction of power inequalities (Blackshaw and Long, 2005). Concurrently, power struggles and competing agendas can occur within partnerships (Mackintosh, 2011, Hayhurst and Frisby, 2010, Frisby et al, 2004, leading to a contentious element of partnership work in which service delivery can become dependent upon how effectively power struggles are managed (Anderson andJap, 2005, Coulson, 2005). In some cases the domination of one partner over another can see the subordinate partner's views lost (Rowe, 2006), or a 'them' and 'us' mentality can be adopted (Mackintosh, 2011).…”

“…Concurrently, power struggles and competing agendas can occur within partnerships (Mackintosh, 2011, Hayhurst and Frisby, 2010, Frisby et al, 2004, leading to a contentious element of partnership work in which service delivery can become dependent upon how effectively power struggles are managed (Anderson andJap, 2005, Coulson, 2005). In some cases the domination of one partner over another can see the subordinate partner's views lost (Rowe, 2006), or a 'them' and 'us' mentality can be adopted (Mackintosh, 2011). For example, studies have highlighted how, regardless of local context, sport partnerships can become vehicles through which pre-determined policies are delivered that are tied to government funding, targets, and key performance indicators (Grix, 2010, Mackintosh, 2011.…”

“…In some cases the domination of one partner over another can see the subordinate partner's views lost (Rowe, 2006), or a 'them' and 'us' mentality can be adopted (Mackintosh, 2011). For example, studies have highlighted how, regardless of local context, sport partnerships can become vehicles through which pre-determined policies are delivered that are tied to government funding, targets, and key performance indicators (Grix, 2010, Mackintosh, 2011. At the same time, it has been highlighted how individuals and groups can resist or transform the manner in which sport policies and programmes are implemented and experienced by service users (Bevir and Rhodes, 2008), whilst some networks can extend beyond institutional control.…”