Good Practice Case Study

Derbyshire Sport, Bolsover District Counciland Derby City Council

Deployment of Recruits in Community Settings

IntroductionThe 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.

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

April 2010

Bolsover Derby City East Midlands Great Britain

Population

(numbers)

74,300 239,200 4,433,000 59,608,200

All People

Unemployment (%)

6.2 8.1 6.8 6.9

Background

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.

Use of clubs as themain delivery vehicleWithin 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.

Placement of RiC programme within existing strategic prioritiesOne 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’).

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 approachesThere 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

Deployment approachThough 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.

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.

Measured approach to coach developmentBoth 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.

Recommendations and Top Tips:

• RiC should be fully integrated into the

wider strategic planning of local

deliverers – notably volunteer, club

and coach development, and school

sport programmes.

• Sports clubs provide an excellent

vehicle to deliver the programme –

they are close to local demand and

can facilitate development and

deployment opportunities.

• 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

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