Partnership working in sport and physical activity promotion: An assessment of processes and outcomes in community sports networks
| Author | Colin Baker,Walid El Ansari,Diane Crone |
| Published date | 01 April 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0952076715625104 |
| Date | 01 April 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public Policy and Administration
2017, Vol. 32(2) 87–109
! The Author(s) 2016
Partnership working in
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
sport and physical activity
DOI: 10.1177/0952076715625104
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
promotion: An
assessment of processes
and outcomes in
community sports
networks
Colin Baker, Walid El Ansari and
Diane Crone
University of Gloucestershire, UK
Abstract
Community sports networks were established in 2007 to coordinate local sport
and physical activity promotion. Partnerships continue to be used to deliver policy.
It is important to understand the relationship between the internal structure of
partnerships and their outcomes. This study assesses associations between pre-
dictor variables relating to partnership structure and process and four intermedi-
ary partnership outcomes: satisfaction, synergy, commitment and effectiveness. A
retrospective analysis of data was conducted on 171 surveys administered
between September 2008 and March 2009 from community sports network mem-
bers in England. The predictor variables explained 67% of the variance in synergy,
75% of the variance in satisfaction, 63% of the variance in commitment and 46% of
the variance in effectiveness. Sustaining a positive benefits-to-costs relationship,
establishing effective communication and partnership strategy, and demonstrating
impact were predictive of the four intermediary partnership outcomes. Further
research is warranted to help establish a detailed understanding of partnership
processes and outcomes.
Corresponding author:
Colin Baker, University of Gloucestershire, Oxstalls Campus, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK.
Email: cmbaker@glos.ac.uk
88
Public Policy and Administration 32(2)
Keywords
Collaboration, networks, partnership, physical activity, service delivery
Introduction
Partnership approaches to the provision of public services at local, regional and
national levels gained significant traction under the New Labour government’s
modernisation agenda which sought greater efficiency and effectiveness. Touted
as a useful response to the limited flexibility of outdated and inflexible govern-
ment departments that adopted ‘silo’ mentalities (Newman, 2001: 106), partner-
ship approaches have been widely adopted to establish a means of addressing
complex and multi-faceted issues such as crime, poverty and social exclusion via
the collective engagement of government, communities and citizens (Miller and
Ahmad, 2000; Newman, 2001; Stoker, 2004). Underpinned by a broader neo-
liberal model of governance, partnership was also championed as a means of
improving transparency in decision making and local autonomy over services
via the involvement of communities and third sector organisations in decision-
making processes (Chapman et al., 2010; Daly and Davis, 2002; Sullivan and
Skelcher, 2002).
The appeal of partnerships is such that there is a danger that they have
become the default approach within many public programmes (Turrini
et al., 2010). While it is difficult to argue against the ‘what works’ approach
offered by multi-agency partnerships (Fenwick et al., 2012), partnership rep-
resents a complex and confusing interplay between processes, activities and
outcomes (Hunter and Perkins, 2012). This can create significant challenges
for those working in partnerships who are often lacking in the skills to col-
laborate effectively (Halliday et al., 2004; Misener and Doherty, 2009), the
results of which can lead to wasted resources and partnership destruction
(Babiak and Thibault, 2009). Hence, research has been critical both of the
likelihood that partnerships can simultaneously achieve efficiency, effectiveness
and community empowerment, and the lack of attention being paid to the
potential drawbacks (Fenwick et al., 2012; Glasby et al., 2006; McLaughlin,
2004). However, given the inherently complex and dynamic process associated
with partnership of present researchers and practitioners (Zakocs and
Edwards, 2006), it is difficult to design methodologies that are capable of
exploring the complex relationship between internal partnership processes
and outcomes. The aim of the present study was to assess associations
between intermediary partnership outcomes and the structural and process
aspects of partnership working. This approach might usefully establish evi-
dence which enhances current debates on what is important in partnership
working and how this might inform practice. To orientate the reader, atten-
tion is now given to defining partnership before contextualising partnership
Baker et al.
89
working for sport and physical activity promotion, with which this study is
concerned.
Defining partnership
Armistead et al. (2007: 212) suggest that partnership represents ‘a cross-sector,
interorganisational group, working together under some form of recognized gov-
ernance, towards common goals which would be extremely difficult, if not impos-
sible to achieve if tackled by any single organisation’. Partnership involves the
formal mobilisation of interests drawn from a number of partners with which to
devise shared strategies for specific concerns (Butterfoss, 2007; Sullivan and
Skelcher, 2002). This emphasises the basic collaborative tenet of partnership work-
ing and developing the social relationships needed to achieve desired goals (Foster-
Fishman et al., 2001). Following Lymbery (2006), Mackintosh (2011) usefully high-
lights that collaboration can refer to both the process of working together to
establish a partnership and the process of achieving partnership outcomes. In
this sense it can be useful to understand collaboration as a process ‘through
which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore
their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of
what is possible’ (Gray, 1989: 5), the need for which is based on ‘intentionality and
openness to envision accomplishments that are beyond the expectations of any
single organisation. . .’ (Butterfoss, 2007: 26).
In order to establish ‘what works’ in partnership, it is important to understand
how collaborative processes and outcomes vary across different forms of collabor-
ation (Granner and Sharpe, 2004). However, the diversity of partnership processes
and outcomes presents researchers and practitioners with the challenge of identify-
ing methodologies that adequately account for this complexity. While examples of
attempts to assess partnership effectiveness in terms of direct impacts do exist
(Andrews and Entwistle, 2010), there has tended to be a bias on assessing partner-
ship processes rather than outcomes (Dowling et al., 2004). This is not surprising
given the deficiency in research methodologies that are able to explain the link
between partnership activity and longer term community level changes (Granner
and Sharpe, 2004; Lachance et al., 2006). Moreover, identifying appropriate, rele-
vant and feasible measures of success is challenging (Hausman et al., 2005).
Consequently, while partnership approaches are justified on their purported ability
to engage a broad variety of community actors to address complex issues such as
health and social care (Roussos and Fawcett, 2000; Rummery, 2003), there is the
paradoxical situation whereby a detailed understanding of the products or impacts
of partnership working remain relatively underdeveloped. Similarly, with respect to
the sport and physical activity partnership context, a greater understanding of
partnership processes has also been called for on the basis that this might reason-
ably lead to evidence that both facilitates and informs collaborative efforts address-
ing sport and physical activity promotion (Carter, 2005). Recognising that limited
90
Public Policy and Administration 32(2)
research has empirically investigated associations between multiple partnership
processes and outcomes within the content of sport and physical activity, this
study seeks to enhance the evidence base and inform current research and practice.
Community sports networks (CSNs): Partnership approaches
for sport and physical activity promotion
Community participation in sport and physical activity is a long-standing govern-
mental concern which gave rise under the Labour government to the establishment
of a single delivery system for sport (Figure 1). The single delivery system was a
comprehensive framework linking national sport strategy to local delivery based on
the principles of integrated management and planning around sporting and phys-
ical activity participation objectives (Sport England, 2004). CSNs were created in
2007 as a means of improving collaboration between local partners overseeing and
managing local sport and physical activity projects in support of national targets
for sport participation and health (Carter, 2005; Houlihan and Green, 2009). CSNs
and local derivatives thereof, including Sport and Physical Activity Alliances
(SPAAs), are non-constituted groups representing a range of organisations includ-
ing local authority departments, third sector organisations, sports clubs, health and
well-being specialists, and education institutions with an interest in promoting and
delivering community sport and physical activity programmes. Members of CSNs
convene to devise and agree action plans, and deliver programmes to support
increased local level participation in sport and physical activity. CSNs provide a
vehicle for collaboration between local partners with shared interests in sport devel-
opment, physical activity...
To continue reading
Request your trial