Background. When England Athletics began operating in
April 2006, Sport England grants were made on condition that agreed targets were
met. (See ABAC article of 16 August 2006). The first year Key Performance
Indicators (KPI’s) against which performance was to be judged included :
Number of clubs attaining Club Mark to increase to 150, Number of coaches
to increase by 1000 (level 1), 500 (level 2), 150 (level3) and 50 (level 4) by
31/03/07, Number of volunteers to increase by 1%, plus medal and points targets
set for the 2006 European Champs and World 2006 U20 Champs.
These targets were never met and many expected a critical
review with subsequent funding reduced. This was not to be the case. Expensive
Regional structures were introduced with the result that bureaucracy grew and
little funding reached grass roots. Athletics continued to decline.
It took approximately two years for these structural failings
to be recognised and replaced. New management executed a quick about turn which
saw the abolition of the Regional structures and the implementation of new plans
which have resulted in the creation of athletic club networks and more money to
grass roots. Along with these changes came a slackening of the criteria to be
used for judging success and in came a subjective target – "The Satisfaction
Index". The target set for England Athletics to obtain funding from Sport
England for a three year period from 2008 was a Satisfaction rating of 70%.
How to measure "Satisfaction" for athletics?
Any reasonable observer
would expect that the NGB of a sport should be judged by how that sport improves
from grass roots to elite levels and also by how efficiently it spends its
monies. For many a major cause for satisfaction would be a reduction in
bureaucracy and an increased support for clubs and volunteers (particularly
coaches and officials). So does the Sport England financed study address these
ideals?
The Sport England Satisfaction Report.
Who were consulted? But before we consider the basic
questions used for the study we should look at who were consulted. In the ABAC
article of 8th April 2009 we noted that Ipsos Mori were about to
undertake a study for Sport England but that details had not been released. We
gave a link to a website where people wishing to be part of the study could
register and await confirmation that they would be consulted. Fearing a biased
selection process we urged ABAC members to apply to participate. We now know
that many did but none was contacted. Instead we learn from the report that
participants were selected as follows:-
From NGB’s. NGB’s provided lists of those in
the talent pool and affiliated club members. In some instances the NGB’s
directly invited people to register.
Through clubs. Where needed the club networks
were used to recruit people. In some cases NGB’s contacted clubs and in
others Ipsos Mori contacted clubs directly.
Active People Survey. People who had taken
part in an earlier survey and who had agreed to further studies were
asked to register.
Ipsos Mori Online Panel. This collection of
over 198,000 households were screened for sports participation and those
who were eligible were invited to take part
List Brokers. A registration email was sent
to those on a variety of email lists which had pre-defined interest in
sport.
Events and venues. People were recruited from
events, sports centres, and town centres.
Social networking sites. Participants were
invited through the online social networking site Facebook.
The study (which ran from March 2009 to May 2009) addressed
all of the 45 sports funded by Sport England. In total 44,390 participants
contributed to the survey. The optimum number of returns for each sport was set
at: 300 general participants, 300 club members and 300 talent pool (elite)
members.
For athletics there were responses from 1322 people aged 16
or over; 707 general, 592 affiliated club members but only 23 talent pool
athletes. Because of the small number of "elite" athletes taking part the
statistical conclusions were weighted to reduce the effect of the first two
categories. The demographic breakdown of athletic contributors was: 45% women,
10% of the total men and women were16-24 yrs, 27% 25-34 yrs, 30% 35-44 yrs, 20%
45-54 yrs, 12% 55-64 yrs and 3% 65+ years.
It will be noted that less than 1% of all affiliated club
athletes participated in the study.
What were the questions? The survey used the same
questions for all participants in all 45 sports. Ten categories were used with
between 2 and 11 questions per category. Satisfaction rankings were measured for
each question and then combined to give a final overall Satisfaction rating for
athletics. The categories, plus some random samples of the sub questions
together with final Satisfaction ratings expressed as a percentage (Our
conversion) are listed below.
Category Satisfaction Level
Performance 77%
Learn, practice and develop skills
Opportunity to compete at right level
Exertion and Fitness 85%
Contribution to overall health
Opportunity to improve fitness
Release and Diversion 86%
Release of stress
Buzz/sense of exhilaration
Social Aspects 79%
Opportunity to socialise
Lack of embarrassment
Respect of cultural and religious beliefs
People and Staff 80%
Competence and commitment of volunteers
Competence of paid professional staff
Ease of participating 80%
Facilities and Playing Environment 77%
The design and look of the buildings
Heating and ventilation performance
Coaching 72%
Coaching received suited my ability
Technical competence of coach(es)
Officials 80%
Availability of qualified officials
Knowledge and application of rules
Value for money 77%.
For coaching
For venue/facilities
It is a well known fact that the way a poll phrases its
questions affects the responses given. Most of the questions in the survey
should receive a positive response because individual respondents would see most
questions referring to desirable aims in appositive light. e.g. "Is sport good
for you?", "Does sport improve your overall health?" If the questions had been
more critical the poll results would have been very different. We note that
NGB’s for the 45 sports were mainly involved in setting the questions.
Many will regard most of the categories used as irrelevant to
the areas of responsibility for sport’s NGB’s. The categories which should be of
most immediate concern are; People and Staff, Coaching and Officials.
There is a lot of detail in the body of the report and
interested readers should access it from the Sport England web site. One of
the more interesting statistics is that athletic club members gave 87% of votes
in the top 8-10 category in support of volunteers but only 36% to paid
professional staff.
Overall the Satisfaction of Quality Sport Experience (SQSE)
for athletics was calculated to be 80.9% compared to the average
of all 45 sports of 80.0%.
ABAC Comment. The statistical analysis of the survey
results complies with Government guidelines and is undertaken with the rigour
and completeness which a multi million pound study deserves. But what we ask is
it all for? Sport England claim that the results will provide the basis for
making investment decisions in the future. Does this mean that athletics with a
satisfaction score of 80.9% against its present target of 70% has the all clear
to carry on as before? We hope not.
Sadly the emphasis on peripheral and non club matters reminds
us of recent Sport England initiatives which seem to be more interested in
social engineering than excellence in sports development, management and
administration. We contend that the main role of our NGB should be to provide a
cost effective base for expanding participation at club level and improvements
in services and athletic standards. This study will not make one iota of
difference and at best may be judged as a crutch to support underperforming
NGB’s. Indeed it may be argued that the study is so generalised it is unfair to
England Athletics as it fails to recognise the areas where actual progress is
being made.
end
