| Home |
| Consultancy |
| Recent Publications |
| Curriculum Vitae |
| News |
| Links |
OUTSIDE THE COMFORT ZONE
|
|
Figure 1 State
responses to sexual exploitation in sport
|
The development of state intervention in CP in voluntary sport reflects several stages, as depicted in Figure 1, from 'laissez faire' (in the 1980s), to 'autonomous' (during the 1990s), to 'developmental' (early 2000s). In the 1980s the issue of CP had not even been recognised by the Sports Council and almost no NGBs had CP policies or procedures in place. In a survey of exchequer funded NGBs, carried out by the English Sports Council in the summer of 1999, only an estimated half had in place a written CP policy [White, 1999]. By the time of a repeat survey of 58 NGBs, carried out by Sport England in December 2000, only 5 (8 per cent) of the 47 that responded were still without such a policy. This rapid growth in policy provision reflected both a growing awareness and concern about the welfare of young people in sport and also a new requirement, from 1 April 2001, for NGBs to have in place an active CP policy as a criterion of exchequer funding. As part of the increasingly interventionist approach by Government on this issue, minimum operating standards for child protection were also considered, in a similar way to those now established for race equity [Sporting Equals, 2001]. Had these been implemented, the fourth stage of intervention - 'coercive' - would have been reached. In the event, Sport England was persuaded by the Director of the CPSU to use minimum standards as a developmental rather than a punitive tool with NGBs [Boocock, 2001]. Nonetheless, the policy 'lever' exerted by the new funding criterion had a dramatic effect on policy activity at the national level in voluntary sport. It is still unclear, however, whether NGBs' policies have been effectively implemented at the local level. Indeed, in her research into CP policy development and implementation amongst NGBs and their local clubs, Summers [2000] found a policy vacuum between national and club level, with club child protection schemes rarely informed by the work of their NGBs. It will be interesting to observe whether local government follows the trend set by national government of shifting through the different stages of intervention on this issue, from laissez faire, to autonomous to developmental and perhaps, eventually, to coercive.
Very few National Governing Bodies of Sport (NGBs) have undertaken any systematic research into the issue of CP and welfare (swimming and football being notable exceptions). Most have relied on assistance from external agencies, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and the National Coaching Foundation (NCF, now named Sportscoach UK), in order to design CP polices and procedures. If the NGBs themselves have developed policy without prior empirical knowledge then the voluntary sports clubs are even less likely to have developed evidence-based policies. There is an almost complete absence of empirical data, therefore, with which to support or challenge claims about child safety in voluntary sector sports clubs. The research reported below was intended to address this knowledge gap and to provide one local authority with assistance in targeting more effectively its resources for CP work with its voluntary sector partners. The research was conducted in the summer and autumn of 1999, prior to the establishment of the National Task Force for Child Protection in Sport, the CPSU and the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). At the time of the study, it was mooted that a £10 fee might be attached to checks on volunteers carried out by the proposed CRB: respondents were therefore asked to give their views on this. (Despite the later announcement by the CRB that volunteer checks would be free [Home Office, 2001], the precise rules of eligibility for this service remain unclear.) This article reports only the expert interviews, sports development and local government perspectives: data from the clubs are reported elsewhere [Brackenridge, 2002].
THE STUDY
The study was commissioned by Midshire (pseudonym) County Council (MCC), a shire authority with a strong reputation for its proactive work in sports development. Like many similar authorities, Midshire district authorities have with devolved responsibilities for the management of leisure facilities. Since leisure is a non-statutory service, the County-employed sports development officers have very close links with the voluntary sector. In June 1999 the County's Chief Leisure Officers Group received a report from the Midshire Sports Development Officers Forum, Child Protection Sub-Group (SDFCPS) entitled "Child Protection In Sport: Where Are We Now?" This outlined the development of interest in CP in sport after the County had hosted a seminar on CP in Sport in 1997. The MCC Sports Development and Sports Disability Units had run CP Awareness and Procedures courses during the previous two years and several County districts had begun local initiatives on training and/or policies. However, as described above, at the time there was no nationally, or indeed County-wide, co-ordinated approach to the issue of CP in sport. The SDFCPS report concluded:
In summary, Sports Development Officers often find themselves in the crossfire between policy and implementation.
MCC's Leisure Services Department set up an Action Group to develop more effective measures for child protection in its voluntary sector sports clubs. Before the Action Group could suggest improvements and/or new proposals it first needed to understand the existing pattern of provision (see Figure 2). This study of child protection in the County's voluntary sport clubs was thus seen as one more step towards improving the safety of junior sport in MCC. As such, it complemented the other positive measures that the County Council had already undertaken such as the formation of the SDFCPS, which both initiated work on training and also raised awareness of the need for all local authorities in the County to have child protection policies and procedures. It was one of several actions taken by the SDFCPS across a range of areas including: recruitment and employment of coaches, leaders and volunteers; training; policies and procedures; the establishment of district-nominated CP Officers; and CP work with volunteers and voluntary sports clubs. At this time, Midshire was thus clearly operating a developmental approach to intervention (see Figure 1) on the issue of CP in sport.
|
Figure 2 Stakeholders in child protection in county voluntary sport
Bold text = consultees in the study |
The research was designed to explore the extent to which the voluntary sport club sector in the County had made provision for CP and to assess the main issues confronting the County Council in its efforts to enhance CP in the voluntary sport sector.
Aims
The aims of the project were:
1. to define the nature and scope of CP policies and practices in the county's voluntary sports sector;
2. to define what constitutes good practice in CP in the county's voluntary sports sector;
3. to assess the main issues confronting Midshire County Council in their efforts to enhance CP in voluntary sport in the county.
|
Table 1 Main sports provided by responding clubs (n = 130)
|
|
Table 2 Sports
development focus groups invited to be involved  |
|
Table 3 Local government experts invited to participate in the study
|
Aims 1 and 2 were addressed by a postal survey (130 voluntary sector junior sports clubs responded from 396 approached) and group interviews (with representatives of 9 County sports organisations from 19 approached) (see Tables 1 and 2). These results are reported elsewhere. Aim 3 was addressed by 'expert' interviews with selected officers of the MCC: representatives of the Chief Leisure Officers for the County were also approached but declined to participate (see Table 3). Group interviews were also conducted with the SDFCPSG, Coach Education Sub-Group (CESG) and the County Sports Development Forum (SDF). All interviews were recorded: the tapes were transcribed and analysed using hierarchical content analysis [Berg, 1998]. In order to understand the context of CP in Midshire Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) CP guidelines and practices for the voluntary sector were also studied. The rest of this paper focuses on the third aim and reports the views of MCC employees who have responsibilities for delivering child protection in sport, as part of the sport service provision, and for helping the voluntary sector to do likewise. The quotations presented below are not attributed in order to protect confidentiality.
Ethics, consent and confidentiality
All respondents gave voluntary informed consent to be involved in the project and all were guaranteed anonymity. An undertaking was also given that the raw data from the recorded tapes would be destroyed on completion of the project.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
CP awareness: The issue of CP was thought to present difficulties for some people who found it embarrassing, worrying or simply too personal. Professional SDOs thought that they had developed a fairly good awareness of CP and now knew much more about the workings of the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC) than before.
As for the voluntary sector, probably little information and lack of knowledge ... wouldn't have an idea about why the ACPC is there and what it does, why it could help them.
The sports development managers thought that some Chief Leisure Officers were sceptical about CP ~
'very much wanting to sweep it under the carpet' - but that others had come to be advocates of the issue: their support was seen as vital for things to progress:
I don't think that we all fully understand the implications ... but they are at least not burying their heads any more.
The officers perceived that attitudes at district level had changed but that policies and good practice were not yet embedded. Getting the CP message out at local level was seen as much more difficult.
Officers thought that the situation had changed for the better but there was still some reluctance to address CP, and indeed other issues, that took people outside their own experience or tolerance bands. One senior officer said:
there's so much to do that you could always work in your comfort zone ... and you could usually justify [this] to your line manager, and to the public as a whole, but ... what's difficult is the bits that are outside your comfort zone. And for a lot of people this is outside the comfort zone and (they think) "I don't really want to chance it."
MCC was already working in partnership with voluntary clubs and felt that more of this type of arrangement would be useful. In particular, the CESG wanted much more help with promotion and sport-specific materials for CP, aiming to have a poster in every club with special additional information for parents. They felt that the grass roots level clubs might not even know what the term 'child protection' meant and that careful use of language in materials was vital.
The CESG was concerned about very young children (5-7 year olds) and also about disabled young people but felt that CP for disabled people in sport should not be separated.
We're looking at inclusion and equity but always setting up separate things for disability ... We treat disability sport differently to mainstream sport in a lot of cases ... coaches have to do CP awareness training as part of their contract ... none of (them) take up CP work with young disabled people.
One group of SDOs reported using a draft set of procedures as the basis for a training session for coaches with the ACPC. They then re-drafted their procedures to match the ACPC ones, giving a better fit between the two and more ownership of the whole system.
The experts consulted thought that residential settings and opportunities need extra thought and care. Referring young people and vulnerable adults on to voluntary sector settings was thought to require careful preparatory work.
... we are advocates of sports, sports development and encouraging young people to take part in sport. We have a responsibility to ensure that if we're passing children on from our local authority programmes into sports clubs that we do that with more knowledge ... we need to be more careful about how we reference people on ... and that is the biggest reason for starting to do something, even if we don't have a specific duty.
Of the young disabled people addressed by the study, learning disabilities were the most prevalent. Since these young people were in mainstream schools, respondents felt that the staff would not need separate CP training. They suggested, however, that those staff working in special schools might do so. Interestingly, there is a tension in CP provision where sport policies at a higher performance levels attempt to cover the welfare and protection of both children and so-called vulnerable people: this policy confusion has particular consequences for disabled people above the age of 18 (Kerr, in preparation).
Policy coordination and effectiveness: As with many of the group interviews, the experts agreed that there was an urgent need for a consistent and co-ordinated approach to CP in sport. The system was felt to be fragmented, with duplication, overlaps and gaps and a need for common understanding of the issues.
... we need a coherent picture and we're almost in an advantage here in that we're starting with quite a blank page ... although child protection stuff has gone on it's not like we've got a long, long history of this kind of thing. It's really only ... in the last two or three years that people have been raising this as an issue and we ought to be working to get it right now.
Training and information were viewed as priorities but there was also great concern about whether information actually getting down to club level. The CESG felt that there was a lack of communication about how different parts of the CP system fitted together, which led to an informal system of bartering of knowledge. Similarly, because the SDOs tended to have wide contact networks, clubs often expected them to handle CP disclosures instead of applying NGB CP procedures.
The local government Youth and Community Services Departments was noted as having a stronger record in CP and a more defined system than Sports Development but this was not yet built into sport services or SDO training.
We don't have a nominated officer. It goes between Personnel and Leisure and they both say "It's not my role" ... We've tried to get a nominated officer for two years ... if I shout too loud it will be me ... people don't know who to go to at all.
Coach employment was seen to be far too casual in some places. Employment procedures helped but there was still often a 'casual culture', even inside the CC: 'For us to pass comment on the voluntary sector smacks of double standards ... ' The CESG members were in agreement that it was dangerous to start giving out advice to the voluntary sector if the County's own structures were not clear first.
We've done a lot of work with employed coaches but we don't know what to tell voluntary coaches. We need a package for the whole voluntary sector.
Overall, NGB policies and procedures were perceived as not filtering down to club level. CP was felt to be fairly good at SDO level but in the voluntary sector 'it stumbles a bit'. This again reinforced the views expressed in the group interviews and pointed up both a training need and a need to work more effectively in partnerships.
My fears are around how far that message gets down and how much resources we can use to really make an impact on the voluntary sector.
I wouldn't say it's perfect yet but we're sort of getting there if you like. My real concerns come back to the unregulated people ... I shudder to think.
We're probably only just scratching the surface ... clubs need the right tools and the right toolkit ...
I don't think it [child protection] is being implemented particularly well as a statutory obligation let alone out to the volunteers ...
CESG members were especially concerned that many voluntary clubs not only had no CP policies but also failed to see their relevance. One sport had forty clubs in the County, and had had three serious recent cases but none of these clubs had their own local policies. This happened despite them being affiliated to an NGB with a CP policy, receiving money from it and entering its competitions.
The sport focus groups in the county helped with CP permeation in some sports but there was a worry that the message might stop there ~ 'what action is taken after that?' Through the County Council's local community grant fund some improvements in CP had been achieved, for example by holding back some of the money until clubs staff had signed up to CP training. This indirect leverage was thought to be very effective and was described as 'Participation with a purpose'. It reflects a shift from developmental towards coercive intervention by the local authority (see Figure 1).
Handling disclosures: SDOs were often referred back to the local authority by their own NGBs who were unable to cope with CP enquiries. There were also legal issues which prevented SDOs from supporting each other: they felt 'thrown into secrecy' if court cases were pending yet they needed to share their professional concerns confidentially. This reinforces the view that whistle blowing mechanisms are needed in sport.
Training: The language adopted in some training courses was thought to compound the fear some people had about CP. Some trainees even feared being sent to court. Neither CP training for SDOs nor monitoring of its effectiveness were thought to be especially well done.
I think that sports development as an industry should all hold their hands up and say we don't evidence what we do and therefore we shouldn't be that surprised when somebody says 'We might remove the resources because you really can't tell us what you do'
Parents: Parent education was frequently mentioned as very helpful, both to empower parents to challenge poor practice and also to help them with parenting and support skills in sport. Several SDOs used parent guidelines and some schools were conduits for disseminating these, which meant that parents were given written information about the expectations they should have of junior sports clubs. Parent workshops before Champion Coaching sessions, for example, had worked well and there was thought to be scope for more of these types of events. 'There's a major gap for parents ... ': most parents were thought to assume that a coach was qualified and none had ever asked an SDO about a coach in the voluntary sector 'Parents don't ask questions ... they just don't.' This view is supported by previous research on parents' involvement in child protection in sport [Brackenridge, 1998b].
Sports Facilities: The CESG expressed concern that CP policies and procedures in facility-based voluntary sport were not well developed since facilities managers were thought to be more focussed on meeting income targets.
A contracts manager got hauled over the coals for running a car boot sale in a leisure facility ... it was selling dodgy goods. He was asked what checks he'd made. In the management team I said are there dodgy goods being sold in other areas of your operation ~ in your sports hall, in your community hall? What checks have you made? Does it have to be merchandise? Could it be dodgy services?
In Midshire, management of leisure facilities was devolved to local districts. Even so, it was agreed that it would be useful to explore the introduction of CP clauses in booking systems: these are so-called 'letting and vetting' clauses, whereby those booking facilities are required to demonstrate effective CP and/or to subscribe to the County Council's own policies and procedures.
Vetting and the prospect of a £10 fee for the Criminal Records Bureau:
'It's sad [that] you attach a cost to child protection.'
Different police districts in the County were taking different approaches to vetting and this presented problems for the CESG and others. The CESG was much more sceptical about the vetting system, recognising from first hand experience its flaws such as timing, duration and transferability. They also felt that paying £10 might make people immune to CP concerns, policies or procedures since they would feel that they had 'done it' once (been checked) and did not need any more. Their opinion was that coaching is undervalued in this country and that people might be more willing to pay if their involvement in junior sport was more highly valued, structured and rewarding and if they got more comprehensive and better explained CP training.
We've undersold sport ... it's just like babysitting because of the minimal costs ... do people associate value with it because the price is too low?
Several SDOs and managers reiterated this view that coaching is 'sold' too cheaply.
... nobody quibbles about paying £12 for a piano lesson for half an hour because of the value of that ... (but) in many respects coaches are in a far more high risk position of responsibility ... working with groups, working with lots of different emotions ... You get what you aspire to ~ so if it's acceptable to put a few coats down (for goals) on a park and have no structure to the session ... then people judge that that's a sports coaching session ... "Did you have some good fun?" "Yeh, we had good fun." "Did you learn anything?" "Not really."
At the end of the day it's a case of how highly this is valued in a national perspective ... (people) will say "Well why isn't the Lottery paying [for police checks]." Isn't that value of children in this country higher than building a new sports centre or getting a medal?
There were few ideas about how to get from local 'kickabout' level up to the vision of the valued, and therefore valuable, coach. Realistically, the CESG recognised the short-term basis of many requests for coaches and volunteers and that this made the current checking system even more inappropriate. One suggestion that might eventually be realised through the Criminal Records Bureau was for an instant telephone check followed by a written report (as happens with purchasing a car): at the time of the study, however, this was not a practical possibility.
Some respondents suggested that vetting costs should be built into the accreditation system through coaching agencies like Sportscoach UK (SCUK) and that there should be a national database of accredited coaches. This latter idea has been the subject of feasibility work in SCUK for almost a decade but, thus far, has proved a logistical and financial impossibility.
Many of the officers consulted worried that volunteers would perceive requests for police checks as a challenge to their personal integrity. This concern was, indeed, justified by the responses gathered from the clubs themselves. Despite the Home Office announcement [Home Office, 2001], issued after this research was completed, that CRB checks would be free to the voluntary sector, uncertainties remain about eligibility for checks and the possibility that the checking system will prove to be a barrier to volunteer recruitment.
CONCLUSIONS
The voluntary sector is a vital supplement to local government provision [Leach et al., 1994]. The relationship between voluntary and statutory bodies in sport, however, has always been a contested one, with frequent political wrangling about sport-for-all versus excellence objectives. Voluntary sports clubs are the lower end of the sports development continuum. Despite their clear remit to help young people to develop their sporting skills and ambitions they often hold to the traditional values and allegiances of their adult members. Moving outside this 'comfort zone' will prove to be a difficult journey for many club and officials and even for some local authority personnel. Central government is beginning to exert policy pressure on NGBs but they themselves have not yet proved able to disseminate their own CP policies down to grass roots level. It therefore falls to local government sports development services to adopt a mix of developmental and coercive approaches to intervention in order to secure adequate levels of child protection in voluntary sport.
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Lynne Johnston, Alison Woodward, Sue Watkins, Michele Hills and Kath Browne for assistance with the data collection and analysis.
REFERENCES
Berg, B. L., 1998, Qualitative
Research Methods for the Social Sciences, London: Allyn and Bacon.
Boocock, S., 2001, Director of the Child Protection in Sport
Unit, personal communication.
Boocock, S. /Child Protection in Sport Unit, 2001, The Criminal
Records Bureau, Briefing Paper 1/01, Leicester: NSPCC/Sport England.
Brackenridge, C.H., 2002, 'So what" ... so what?" Attitudes
of the voluntary sector towards child protection in sports clubs',
Managing Leisure ~ An International Journal Vol. 7, No.2, pp.
tbc.
Brackenridge, C.H., 2001, Spoilsports: Understanding and Preventing
Sexual Exploitation in Sport, London: Routledge.
Brackenridge, C.H., 2000, Welfare Plan: Advice to Area Games
Organisers and Grand Final Chefs de Mission for the BAA Millennium
Youth Games, London: LEA Sport and Leisure Ltd./Sport England.
Brackenridge, C.H., 1998a, Child Protection in British Sport:
A Position Statement, Cheltenham: C&GCHE.
Brackenridge, C.H., 1998b, 'Healthy sport for healthy girls?
The role of parents in preventing sexual abuse in sport', Sport,
Education and Society, Vol.3, No.2, pp.59-78.
Brackenridge, C.H. (ed.), 1996, Child Protection in Sport: Policies,
Systems and Procedures, Cheltenham: C&GCHE.
Collins, M., 1999, Sport and Social Exclusion: Report to Policy
Action Team 10, London: Department of Media, Culture and Sport.
Dubin, C.L., 1990, Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs
and Banned Substances Intended to Increase Athletic Performance,
Ottawa, ON: Supply and Services Canada.
Gallagher, B., 2000, 'The extent and nature of known cases of
institutional child sexual abuse', British Journal of Social
Work, Vol. 30, pp. 95-817.
Home Office, 2001, CRB, 'Fees for criminal checks announced',
www.crb.org.uk/pr/010402.htm, April 2nd.
Home Office, 2000, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000, London:
Home Office.
Home Office, 1999, Caring for Young People and the Vulnerable
Guidance for Preventing Abuse of Trust, London: Home Office.
Kerr, A., in preparation, The Protection of Disabled Sportspeople
from Sexual Abuse: A Critique of Policy and Practice, MSc by
Research thesis, University of Gloucestershire.
Leach, S., J. Stewart, and K. Walsh, 1994, The Changing Organisation
and the Management of Local Government, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Leat, D., 1995, 'Funding matters' in J. Smith, C. Rochester and
R. Hedley (eds.), An Introduction to the Voluntary Sector, London:
Routledge, pp. 157-189.
Malkin, K., L.H. Johnston, and C.H. Brackenridge, 2000, 'A critical
evaluation of training needs for child protection in UK sport',
Managing Leisure, Vol. 5, pp.151-160.
National Governing Body Services, 2001, Child Protection Audit.
March 31st 2001, London: Sport England.
Rowe, N. and R. Champion, 2000, Young People and Sport: National
Survey ~ Headlines, London: Sport England.
Sport England, 2000, Performance Measurement for Local Authority
Sports Halls and Swimming Pools, London: Sport England.
Sport England/NSPCC, 2000, National Action Plan for Child Protection
in Sport, London: Sport England/NSPCC.
Sporting Equals, 2000, Achieving Racial Equality: A Standard
For Sport, London: Sport England/Commission for Racial Equality.
Summers, D., 2000, Child protection in Voluntary Sector Sport
Organisations, unpublished doctoral, University of Bristol.
White, C.A., 1999, Progress report on child protection policy
development in English National Governing Bodies of Sport, unpublished
document presented to a workshop at the NSPCC National Training
Centre, Leicester, June 14th.
Back to top of page