Archived decisions
Hampshire County Council
Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 4
23 September 2002
Review of Sports Bursary Schemes
Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage
Contact: Paul Bickerton Ext: 6283
1. Summary
1.1 The following decisions are sought:
i) That the sports section work closely with the Education Department to clarify the links between the bursary schemes and communicate this to potential applicants.
ii) That a brand image is developed for all the schemes to ensure they are immediately recognisable.
iii) That appropriate literature be designed, produced and distributed taking into account the feedback from the various groups.
iv) That access be provided to the 4SM fast-track sports physiotherapy for performers scheme and other relevant performance schemes.
v) That the sports section work in partnership with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Association of Local Sports Councils and Forums to put together a `celebration of sport' evening to raise the profile of the athletes together with the county's sporting achievements.
2. Reasons for the Recommendation
i) To improve the service that Hampshire County Council provides to the sporting community.
ii) To raise awareness of the bursary and partnership funding schemes that are provided to the sporting community.
3. Other options considered and rejected
- To leave the schemes operating as they are currently.
4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker, or a member or officer consulted
5. Dispensation granted by the Standards Committee
Not applicable
6. Reasons for matter being dealt with, if urgent
Not applicable
Approved by: (Signature) Date: (of decision)
Councillor J. Waddington
................................. .........................
Hampshire County Council
Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 4
23 September 2002
Review of Sports Bursary Schemes
Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage
Contact: Paul Bickerton, ext. 6283
1. Summary
1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform members of the results of the review of sports bursary schemes and to recommend a number of actions to improve the service to potential users.
2. Background
2.1 Hampshire County Council has made funds available for Coaching & Officiating and Sports Bursaries for a number of years. The schemes have been very well supported. In the interests of best value, it was felt timely to undertake some research of both users and non users of these schemes in order to establish whether they are still relevant and responsive to individuals' needs.
2.2 In addition to the bursary schemes, it was felt that the low take-up of the European Sporting Exchange Scheme, established in 1994, would also benefit from review. Views amongst sports clubs, governing bodies of sport, voluntary sports associations and local authorities were examined.
3. Method
3.1 The review of users was carried out externally and the review of non users internally.
3.2 In order to investigate the levels of awareness and attitudes towards the various schemes, the following groups were consulted:
· Sports Development Officers (SDOs)
· Specific Sports Officers (SSOs)
· Senior coaches
· Participants from the 2001 Individual Sports Bursary Scheme
· Participants from the 2001 Coaching & Officiating Bursary Scheme
3.3 Face to face interviews took place with the SSOs, SDOs and Senior Coaches. The Sports/Coaching & Officiating participants were interviewed over the telephone.
3.4 This external work was then supplemented by the sports section in a further series of phone interviews to `non-users' (clubs randomly chosen from the Sports Guide). The aim was to learn why some groups were not taking advantage of the various schemes. (See appendix 1 for questions asked).
4. Results of the Review
4.1 Participants in Sports/Coaching & Officiating Bursary Schemes:
· 90% of respondents were unaware of Hampshire County Council Bursary Schemes other than the one they had applied for.
· There was a lack of understanding of the difference between the Junior Sports Bursary Scheme (a separate scheme administered by the Education Department) and the Sports Bursary Scheme operated by the sports section.
· There was a lack of understanding of if and how Hampshire County Council Schemes linked in with District and Unitary Authority Bursary schemes.
· The application forms themselves were described as being easy to obtain and complete, but the images especially were described as very outdated. Consequently, some participants wondered whether the forms were still valid.
· It was noted that whilst the Awards Ceremony was enjoyed and appreciated, it was regarded as rather a low-key event, many feeling that it was too much of a `cheque-giving' session.
· Participants obtained information about the schemes from a variety of sources: National Governing Bodies, their local Sports Development Officer, magazines, mail-shots and the website.
4.2 SSOs and SDOs:
· A lack of detailed knowledge of the schemes was again displayed and especially the European Sporting Exchange Scheme.
· Increased promotion of these schemes was encouraged, and presentations at the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Sports Development Officers Forum, and other relevant meetings were suggested, as a way of increasing knowledge and awareness.
· The application forms were again described as `outdated', and the European Sporting Exchanges form was viewed as too elitist. The examples given on the form seemed to be directed at high level performers and coaches, rather than local clubs and groups.
· It was noted that all Hampshire County Council Schemes should adopt a particular `brand image' to allow them to be instantly recognisable.
· SDOs remarked that it would be useful to receive information on which athletes/coaches/officials had received an award in their District. If they were in need of a coach for tennis for example, it would be useful to know if anyone in their area had recently received a Coaching Bursary for tennis from the County Council.
· SSOs remarked that the awards ceremony did not generate sufficient publicity about the sport, the athletes and the county.
4.3 Senior Coaches and Non-Users:
· Both the coaches and the non-users highlighted the importance of passing knowledge on to SDOs and SSOs, as both groups worked closely with them.
· Clubs regularly received information through National Governing Body magazines and posters, which they advertised on a notice-board. They confessed to knowing very little about the Hampshire County Council Bursary Schemes, and more localised grants.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 There is a cost implication to the design, production and distribution of new leaflets and posters. However, this can be met from within the existing printing and stationary budget.
5.2 Whilst senior sports bursary holders were satisfied with the level of grant they received, it is felt that further value can be added by providing access to the 4SM fast-track sports physiotherapy for performers scheme and other initiatives relevant to performance athletes. At current pries, this will incur a cost of £26 per individual. On an average year's number of awards, this would incur a cost of £1,300 in total. This can be met from within the existing sports development budget.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Overall, the grant and partnership funding schemes are still highly valued by those who are aware that they exist. The main message from all respondents is that greater marketing of the schemes is needed. In addition, the sports section needs to work closely with colleagues in the Education Department to ensure that the respective bursary schemes are marketed in a clear way to potential applicants.
Recommendations
i) That the sports section work closely with the Education Department to clarify the links between the bursary schemes and communicate this to potential applicants.
ii) That a brand image is developed for all the schemes to ensure they are immediately recognisable.
iii) That appropriate literature be designed, produced and distributed taking into account the feedback from the various groups.
iv) That access be provided to the 4SM fast-track sports physiotherapy for performers scheme and other relevant performance schemes. The cost can be met from within the existing budget. At current prices, this will cost £26 per individual and in an average year, £1,300 in total. This can be met from within the existing budget.
v) In response to respondents comments on the low key awards ceremony, that the sports section work in partnership with the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Association of Local Sports Councils and Forums to put together a `celebration of sport' evening to raise the profile of the athletes together with the county's sporting achievements.
Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - Background Documents
The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.
NB the list excludes:
1. Published works
2. Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the act.
TITLE LOCATION
Returned questionnaires and Sports Section
summary of responses Recreation & Heritage Department
Bursary Review Questionnaire to Clubs
Name of Club:
Sport:
Name of Interviewee:
1. Are you aware of the following?
Sports Bursary Scheme Yes _ No _
Coaching / Officiating Bursary Scheme Yes _ No _
European Sporting Exchange Yes _ No _
2. How do you usually access information about your chosen sport?
National Governing Body
Sports Development Officer
Sports Specific Officer
Colleagues
Other - please state:
3. Do you find it easy to access information about your chosen sport
Yes No
Details:
4. What services / information would you find most useful for your club?
5. What would be the most effective way of advertising these services / information to your club (e.g. - a poster in your clubhouse)?
6. Who would be the best person to contact within your club to pass out information (e.g. secretary, head coach, etc)?