1 / 12

Sport Makers - Good practice in volunteer and sports development.

Sport Makers - Good practice in volunteer and sports development. Jonathan Grix. University of Birmingham Geoff Nichols. University of Sheffield g.nichols@sheffield.ac.uk Gemma Ferguson. Richmond upon Thames College. Sport Makers. Sport England’s programme to promote volunteering in sport

salma
Download Presentation

Sport Makers - Good practice in volunteer and sports development.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sport Makers - Good practice in volunteer and sports development. • Jonathan Grix. University of Birmingham • Geoff Nichols. University of Sheffield g.nichols@sheffield.ac.uk • Gemma Ferguson. Richmond upon Thames College

  2. Sport Makers • Sport England’s programme to promote volunteering in sport • delivered through CSPs • Recruits volunteers – inspiration event – deployment to sport volunteering – 10 hours each – continued after 3 months • CSPs work through recruitment and deployment sub brokers

  3. Background • Sport participation very reliant on volunteers • But – have to recruit and retain them • Trend to episodic volunteers • Role models of broker organisations • Trend to informal sports participation • Systems of monitoring and control

  4. Monitoring and control • Via SM web site • Prospective SMs register interest on web • Directed to workshop in local CSP • Register – attendance, 10 hours and 30 hours • CSP targets – reflect % of 40,000

  5. Objectives • 1. has SM developed the work of CSPs such as it has increased both volunteering and volunteering opportunities? •  2. how has the operation of SM been influenced by the monitoring system?

  6. Methods • Case studies of 6 CSPs • Within these – mini case studies of partners, selected to contract size and innovation

  7. SM as a catalyst for new partnerships – examples - SY • Barnsley Best – volunteer broker programme • South West Yorkshire Foundation Trust - work with Mencap members • Doncaster Cheswold Park Hospital – work with sectioned patients • Doncaster deaf college –students set up a volleyball event • Sheffield teaching hospitals – staff table tennis sessions

  8. SM as a catalyst for new partnerships – example • Manchester food processing factory • With work place activity committee + HRM • 4 SM inspiration workshops • ‘sports clinics’ on running and table tennis • TT developed with Ping equipment • Co. buys full size table – in board room

  9. SM as building on existing synergy • SY CSP and regional ETTA • 2 inspiration events – 23 new volunteers • Deployed to Ping tables • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvsom8RbpF8

  10. Impact of monitoring • Partners with easy access to large groups • Eg college sessions and NCS • Easy to register participants – and partner will record the hours • BUT – is there double counting?

  11. Impact of monitoring • ‘tail wags the dog’? • But – stacking up the numbers allows for more effective work • CSPs balance numbers v effectiveness

  12. Conclusions • Volunteering increased – but can’t tell real figures; some over and some under-counting • New and innovative partnerships stimulated • Allows for episodic volunteering and for more informal participation • Does the tail wag the dog too much or is this the best compromise?

More Related