RiC Case Study 3 - Derbyshire

Good Practice Case Study April 2010

Derbyshire Sport, Bolsover District Council and Derby City Council Deployment of Recruits in Community Settings

Introduction The original aim of this case study was to examine good practice around Recruit into Coaching (RiC) related recruit/candidate deployment, as practised by two local authorities – Bolsover District Council (BDC) and Derby City Council (DCC), under the watchful eye of Derbyshire Sport.

On collecting the data, however, it became clear that BDC and DCC had adopted approaches/models to deliver the RiC programme that were worthy of description beyond this issue.

This case study attempts to capture this good practice by exploring the approaches used by the two authorities.

Background Derbyshire Sport allocated RiC related funding to BDC and DCC to pilot the Recruit into Coaching programme in the financial year 2009/10. BDC and DCC have been encouraged to develop good practice and deliver the programme, with Derbyshire Sport stepping in to facilitate the sharing of good practice, for example around planning approaches and development tools, and to monitor and report on the programme back to Sport England.

BDC and DCC have established sports development units with officers providing services to two relatively deprived communities. BDC is the 55th most deprived local authority in the country and Derby is ranked 69th. The table below provides employment statistics for the local area compared with regional and national figures.

Continued overleaf

Population (numbers)

Bolsover

Derby City

East Midlands Great Britain

74,300

239,200

4,433,000

59,608,200

8.1

6.8

6.9

All People 6.2 Unemployment (%)

Source: Office for National Statistics, mid-year population estimates (2008), annual population survey (2009)

Good Practice Case Study

Continued from previous page

Derbyshire Sport, BDC and DCC engaged in Year 1 (2009/10) of the RiC programme (they were not part of the pilot year). They were given a target of 40 recruits which split roughly pro-rata between BDC and DCC based on population coverage (c15 BDC / c25 DCC in Year 1). Though most of the initial recruitment has come through the ‘community setting’ to date both BDC and DCC work closely with their respective school sport partnerships to deliver the ‘schools’ side of the programme.

Placement of RiC programme within existing strategic priorities One of the key messages to emerge from the Derbyshire case study was how BDC and DCC used the RiC programme priorities and associated funding to augment their existing club, volunteer and coach programmes.

BDC and DCC were very explicit that the achievement of key targets – increasing participation, social inclusion etc – was contingent on a clear and integrated approach to club, volunteer and coach development (a ‘golden thread’).

Use of clubs as the main delivery vehicle Within the strategic context discussed above, both BDC and DCC used their club networks as the main delivery vehicle for RiC. The clubs, and the individuals involved, were well known to the authorities (both BDC and DCC had well established club databases), and subject to club and volunteer development opportunities and standards such as ‘Club Mark’, ‘Stepping Stone’ etc.

The clubs became the main recruiters, developers and deployers for RiC recruits. For example, the club may have identified a gap in local provision, and someone to fill it (typically, a young person who had just undertaken a leadership award, a parent, or a grandparent). These individuals were then signalled to BDC and DCC as being suitable candidates to receive funding. If accepted, the clubs would then take on the development needs analysis (particularly DCC), mentoring provision, and deployment opportunities.

The clubs were seen to provide the most effective place for the programme – since they were close to the demand (the participants), often knew and could easily place the recruits, and would then benefit from this investment.

Therefore, BDC and DCC decided to strategically place the RiC programme and funding within this context. For example, BDC have situated the RiC programme within the context of their volunteer programmes (which has a large club development component); DCC have situated the programme within the context of the club development programme.

RiC, it was argued, was less tenable as a standalone programme, but worked seamlessly to augment other strategically defined programmes while still delivering on the RiC programme priorities. In this regard the programme was viewed very positively.

Other delivery approaches There were other delivery approaches to the clubs being established in Year 1 of the programme – though almost all recruit, development and deployment was in the ‘community setting’.

For example, both BDC and DCC worked with their school sport partnership. BDC, in particular, noted promoting RiC through local colleges with sports students and public service students being encouraged on to the programme. The BDC Partnership Development Manager works closely with five School Sport Coordinators (SSCOs) within the district. The SSCOs select between 2–4 Year 10 students per year who are interested in developing their leadership skills further and are good role models for other students. The majority of these students have either already attended, or are in the process of completing, a Level 1 award in sports leadership course. Some individuals are the sports ambassadors for their school; the students liaise with their SSCO to identify opportunities where they can support activities in their school (ie lunch time sessions, after school clubs etc).

DCC had developed partnership arrangements with a number of groups where RiC related provision was a consideration – Sporting Futures, the Youth Service, a ‘Hard to Reach’ project and a ‘Sportsability’ project (though these projects were only just emerging). It was acknowledged that finding deployment placements would be more difficult outside the traditional club structure, and there would need to be a careful consideration of the ‘marriage’ between recruit and placement for it to be successful (though they have yet to fully engage in this activity). DCC suggested, for example, that the schools settings are “higher risk” in that the recruits are less likely to stay on the programme as they are not directly linked to a club straight away, but they are trying to get some of them into club environments.

2

Good Practice Case Study

Measured approach to coach development Both BDC and DCC had a good understanding of coach development issues which meant they did not position RiC related induction/briefings and Level 1 qualifications as standalone, disconnected development opportunities.

Once they had received notification from a club of a potential RiC recruit, for example, BDC instigated a Training Needs Analysis (TNA) led by a dedicated ‘RiC Coach Development Coordinator’ – a Bolsover and District School Sports Partnership/ Derbyshire County Council funded employee who spends seven hours per week specifically working with RiC coaches (he also works as a coach, coach educator and assessor for various organisations). The Coordinator is responsible for promoting the programme, developing and supporting the recruits.

The recruits were asked to fill out a form asking them for basic details on their background, qualifications and experience, which was then taken on by the RiC Coach Development Coordinator into a more detailed 1:1 and development planning process. In conjunction with the club, the Coordinator would suggest a number of development activities (eg workshops, observation and mentoring) while also discussing Level 1 qualification options. Club volunteers who were providing mentoring opportunities to the recruits were also provided training support from BDC as part of their volunteer development programme.

The TNA process helps to channel candidates most appropriate to the programme, and most likely to make positive contribution once it had finished. The recruits are also asked to sign-up to a ‘contract’ to signal their commitment.

DCC did not use a dedicated RiC Coordinator – but established a programme of induction and workshops (eg first aid, safeguarding children) to give the recruits an early flavour of the programme and coaching. They then relied on mentors within the clubs to take on the recruits’ development – in this regard, they suggested a preference for more resources around TNAs in clubs/mentor training. The recruit and the club then had 12 months to decide on a qualification, find a course and engage in the development experiences, and to complete their deployment.

Both BDC and DCC suggested RiC was just a starting point on the coach development pathway – with successful RiC recruits being given (non RiC funded) coach bursaries and development opportunities if they were keen and performed well.

Deployment approach Though most deployment was integrated into the clubs from the outset of recruitment, BDC and DCC had a slightly different approach to achieving deployment hours. BDC insisted the coaches undertook 30 hours deployment as an assistant prior to being offered a qualification opportunity to test their commitment. DCC left the allocation of deployment hours down to the club with typically 15 hours before qualification, and 15 hours afterwards.

Recommendations and Top Tips:

•

Sports clubs provide an excellent vehicle to deliver the programme – they are close to local demand and can facilitate development and deployment opportunities.

Both BDC and DCC used Derbyshire Sport Leadership Academy’s on-line tool to monitor recruits’ hours – though it was suggested it was more appropriate to younger coaches. Skills Active’s ‘Active Passport’ scheme might be another option.

•

Other delivers should be wary of ‘marriage’ issues between recruits and deployers (ie there needs to be appropriate checks to ensure that recruits who do not have a placement are matched with appropriate

•

RiC should be fully integrated into the wider strategic planning of local deliverers – notably volunteer, club and coach development, and school sport programmes.

deployers in term of their characteristics, personality, coaching provision etc).

•

Recruit development opportunities should be seen as being broader than induction and Level 1 qualifications.

•

A dedicated ‘coach developer’ would appear to be an excellent solution, though well-trained club staff working with established TNA and personal development planning processes are also very useful.

•

Coaches can undertake their coaching deployment hours in a number of different ways – pre, post and pre, and post attendance on qualification courses.

3