Evaluating Good Practice in Coaching Delivery between Governing Bodies of Sport and County Sports Partnerships UK

Introduction
Between October 2011 and October 2012, 15.51 million people engaged in sport at least once per week, an increase of just above the targeted 1% rise from the previous year (Sport England, 2012). Additionally, there are more than 1.1 million people delivering coaching in the UK (North, 2010). Despite the considerable number of people impacted by the work which goes on between County Sport Partnerships (CSPs) and National Governing Bodies (NGBs) of sport, to date there have been no formal investigations into the effective functioning of these collaborations. Successful partnership working has long been considered of vital importance in other areas of sport development (Robson, 2008) with factors such as the pooling of expertise and resources being typically cited as potential benefits of such work. In light of this, the present project seeks:

•To establish what impact a successful partnership between CSPs and NGBs should deliver for sports coaching
•To determine the enablers for successful partnership working between CSPs and NGBs
•To determine the key facilitators of successful partnership working between CSPs and NGBs
•To determine the barriers to successful partnership working between CSPs and NGBs
•To investigate the extent to which key stakeholders share a common understanding of the partnership and what is required to make the collaboration successful.

Methods
A standardized online questionnaire targeting nationwide responses from NGBs and CDMs on a range of aspects which have been shown to be critical to partnership working was completed by 36 respondents. In addition, 12 telephone interviews were conducted. Representatives included NGB officers (n = 6) and CDMs (n = 6).

Results
In total, there were 36 responses to the online questionnaire; 32.4%, (n = 12) from NGBs, 62.2% (n = 23) from CDMs with one ‘other’. These quantitative data revealed that respondents were generally happy with decision making processes, although CDMs perceived their influence to be greater than did their NGB counterparts. Examination of partnership characteristics showed consistent, strong, correlations between communication and four measures of effectiveness including satisfaction (Τ = 0.566) and ownership (Τ = 0.534). The quantitative data revealed a complicated relationship between perceived challenges and benefits. For partners to perceive that ‘there are many more benefits than difficulties’ concerning collaboration working, it is evident that respondents needed to perceive approximately four times as many benefits as costs.

The qualitative data revealed that the vast majority of respondents considered the establishment of the ECN as a positive step. In particular, partners perceived the flexibility of the ECN enabled CDMs to provide a needs-led approach to coach development which greatly benefitted the workforce. The interview data also revealed that regular, informal and varied communication strategies are particularly well suited to effective partnership functioning in this area. It is these communication strategies which provide the foundation for the generation of trust and respect between partner agencies.

Conclusions
Findings demonstrate that CSPs and NGBs are committed to developing high quality coaching through a range of formal and non-formal opportunities. The ECN functions well as a flexible rather than a prescriptive template for CDM-NGB interaction allowing partnership arrangements to take place on a ‘needs-led’ localised basis. Respondent opinion indicates that the ECN should retain its focus on appointing key personnel to specific roles. Most notably, the leadership and management of partnerships is considered to be excellent across the respondent cohort. High quality leadership facilitates high levels of enthusiasm amongst partnership staff and allows a considerable degree of flexibility within the construction of partnerships themselves.

As with many partnership-related studies, findings also demonstrate that central to partnership success is good communication. There is a need for CDMs to emphasise the benefits of partnership working in order to build commitment and ownership within NGBs thereby helping to offset the impact of negative barriers and challenges. At times, partner agencies need persuading of the value of partnership working and may be unwilling to invest in such relationships as a consequence of the perceived burdens of collaborative working. Funding remains a core challenge concerning all parties within the partnerships, particularly given the lack of funds available and the short-term nature of related decisions in sport in the UK.

Recommendations
•CDMs should ensure that NGBs understand the role of CSPs in coach development by communicating key aims, objectives and functions. The ECN should be used a vehicle for doing this, whether implicitly or explicitly, depending on the situation.
•It is important that CDMs continue to embrace the flexibility afforded by the ECN and focus on providing bespoke, local and needs-led coaching support.
•It is important that CDMs understand the communication preferences of NGBs so that a range of regular, formal and informal communication strategies can be utilised to maximum effect.
•CDMs should continue to demonstrate high levels of reliability and consistency within the context of partnership working in order to secure the trust, commitment and ownership of NGB partners.
•CSPs should investigate strategies to increase the longevity of the roles of key partnership personnel.
•CDMs should seek to promote and reinforce the benefits of partnership working with NGB officers.
•CDMs and NGBs should consider how to maintain their engagement should strategic directions be altered.
•CDMs should consider whether their coach development strategy could be tailored to better support the needs of a range of NGBs
•Improved communication on behalf of NGBs would assist in the development of emerging collaborative relationships and help maintain clarity of roles and responsibilities for those already established with CDMs.
•CDMs should continue to promote the role of CSPs in coaching development, both formally and informally, in order to underpin their relevance across the sporting landscape.