Austerity, policy and sport participation in England

Abstract

This study seeks to understand participation levels in sport across socio-demographic groups, specifically for the period 2008-14, in the context of austerity measures taken by central government resulting in local authority income and expenditure reductions. Participation levels over time were analysed using data from the Active People Survey (APS), which was the preferred method for measuring participation by Sport England until its replacement in 2015. Budgetary constraints in local authorities, have subsequently resulted in an expenditure decrease for non-discretionary services including 'sport development and community recreation'. This area of expenditure forms one component of sport-related services and primarily focuses on raising participation in 'hard-to-reach' groups. The study found policy goals associated with raising and widening participation were not met to any significant degree between 2008 and 2014 as participation levels have changed little for lower-income 'hard-to-reach' groups. It is claimed that this outcome is in part due to austerity measures impacting on local authority expenditure. This study has implications for policy-makers and practitioners as it illustrates both the challenges faced in setting and delivering policy aimed at raising participation levels in 'hard-to-reach' groups, particularly in the context of austerity, and the difficulties associated with measuring participation.

Management strategies of non-profit community sport facilities in an era of austerity

“…Yeager, Zhang and Diana (2015) identify three particularly significant factors in the environment that any organisation operates in: munificence, dynamism, and competition. The first of these, munificence, refers to the availability and accessibility of resources, and as Yeager, Zhang and Diana (2015, p. 691) suggest, 'organizations that operate in less munificent environments have to reduce their dependence on certain resources and find alternative resource supplies'Economic austerity practiced by the UK government since 2010 has certainly resulted in a less munificent environment within which organisations are obliged to find alternative, non-state funding, including within sport contexts (Widdop et al, 2018). Dynamism can be described as related to environmental change or innovation (Dess & Beard, 1984).…”

“…Sport is not immune to such policy implications; indeed sport organisations and opportunities could be impacted directly and indirectly by public policy changes. Given sports role in the policy directions of health, education and community cohesion, sport is a significant contributor to policy targets, changes in sport could also contribute to increased inequality (i.e., sport participation, Widdop et al, 2018).…”

“…A study of the impact of austerity measures on sport participation, between 2008 and 2014 using the Active People Survey (Sport England's flagship survey), suggests that policy goals of widening participation have not been met and that funding cuts may have contributed to this (Widdop et al, 2018). It is reasonable to suggest a reduction in sport provision by local government affects the work of stakeholder organisations and most certainly limit funding, operations and practice (Walker & Hayton, 2018), and has implications for sports participation opportunities.…”

“…Interestingly, whilst customer satisfaction has risen, there has been a diminished focus on social inclusion objectives, which may result in reduced sport participation opportunities (Ramchandani, Shibli, & Kung, 2018;Widdop et al, 2018). Overall, the economic and political climate suggests declining funding for local government sport services until at least 2020 (Collins & Haudenhuyse, 2015;LGA, 2013).…”

Sport development in challenging times: leverage of sport events for legacy in disadvantaged communities

“…This movement has not without criticism however, and the assumed 'power' of sport to transform those in otherwise very challenging social circumstances has been subject to some fierce debate, particularly about the evidence of impacts and measurement of outcomes (Coalter, 2007;Collins, 2014). In the current austerity climate for public investment, with the inherent inequalities across communities under pressure (Widdop et al, 2018) any public investment into major events for their sporting or other impacts into disadvantaged communities needs careful consideration.…”